Amerika na ivici propasti?

[Ghoul]

Cop Comped
Pepper sprayer hits the jackpot


In November 2011, Lt. John Pike, a police officer at the University of California, Davis, was caught on video pepper spraying nonviolent protesters in the face. In October 2013, the Division of Workers' Compensation awarded him $38,055 for the suffering he is said to have endured following the incident.

The footage of Pike attacking the protesters, who were sitting on a sidewalk during a demonstration against tuition increases, quickly went viral, serving as fodder for many memes and parodies. Following the incident, Pike reportedly lived at various locations. He received thousands of angry emails and text messages after the hacking group Anonymous leaked his contact information. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Pike was suspended with pay and earned $119,067 in 2011. He left the force in July 2012.

Earlier in 2013, after settling a federal lawsuit, the university paid a total of $1 million to the 36 people who were sprayed. Pike therefore received more compensation than each of the protesters he assaulted.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/26/pepper-sprayer-hits-the-jackpo

[Meho Krljic]

Da ne ispadne da se stavljam na stranu ugnjetavača, ali ako su protestvujući građani blokirali javni prostor koji je trebalo da bude odblokiran, a ovaj policajac dobio nalog da prostor oslobodi, ovo je najnežniji način koji je mogao da odabere. Mislim da bi u manje nežnim varijantama gledali kako policajac sa kolegama pendreči akademce ili, ako ima dovoljno policajaca, kako ih odnose... Dakle, ne znam okolnosti i nisam pročitao mnogo o slučaju, ali ovaj je mogao da bude i mnogo veća životinja, čini mi se, a nije...

[Ghoul]

AKO je dobio takav nalog... AKO je nalog bio da to uradi PO SVAKU CENU... AKO je on jedini bio vredan i poslušan, a ovi drugi pajkani što stoje u pozadini vatali krivinu... AKO je prskanje suzavcem studenata koji mirno sede normalna procedura... i AKO je mnogo strašnije to što je posle ovoga zasluženo postao predmet sprdnje i ruglo policije nego što je ovu decu mogo da oslepi time... pa je zato dobio veću lovu od njih... onda... e, onda ok.

[Ugly MF]

Setih se sad onog vica kad citam Mehu i Ghoula...."moz' tako, a moz' i ovako"

[Meho Krljic]

AKO je dobio takav nalog... AKO je nalog bio da to uradi PO SVAKU CENU... AKO je on jedini bio vredan i poslušan, a ovi drugi pajkani što stoje u pozadini vatali krivinu... AKO je prskanje suzavcem studenata koji mirno sede normalna procedura... i AKO je mnogo strašnije to što je posle ovoga zasluženo postao predmet sprdnje i ruglo policije nego što je ovu decu mogo da oslepi time... pa je zato dobio veću lovu od njih... onda... e, onda ok.

Pa, kažem, ne znam detalje a lijen sam da istražujem, ali čisto deduktivno: svi znamo da je Amerika uvela "free speech zone" koncept da bi se istovremeno građanima obezbedilo pravo na (dostojanstven) protest i iznošenje zahteva, a da se istovremeno ti isti građani uklone sa važnih saobraćajnica, sa kapija i vratnica institucija itd., gde bi mogli da zasmetaju drugim građanima u vršenju dnevnih rutina ili, čak, da onima protiv kojih protestuju poremete dnevni itinerar. Nešto kao što je Dačić LGBT aktivistima nudio da paradiraju na ušću gde ih niko ne vidi, ali ih je mnogo lakše obezbediti.

Kad građani ignorišu zone slobodnog govora i montiraju se na javnu površinu, formalno ometajući javni red i mir - makar i time što samo sede na zemlji - onda sistem reaguje primenom institucionalizovane sile jer je pretpostavka da građani krše ne samo društveni ugovor nego i zakone a sistem je dužan da sprovodi zakone.* Institucionalizovana sila je bolja od nasumične, spontane sile jer, prezjumabli, ima obuku, lanac komande i svest o vršenju javne dužnosti u intreresu svih građana, pa neće prekoračiti neke civilizovane granice.**

U tom smislu, policajci u pozadini fotografije su možda tu, spremni da premlate neposlušnu studentariju jer zakon veli - a njima je nadležni starešina eksplicitno naredio - da studentarija ima da se skloni odatle jer smeta poštenom svetu koji bi da ide na poso itd. U tom smislu možda dotični policajac koji sipa biber-sprej u oči mirnim protestantima zapravo pokušava da izbegne batinanje, govoreći "Ajmo, deco razlaz, ne mož da se sedi ovde" na šta mu oni odgovaraju "Jedi govna, kerino fašistička, ua vlada, dole sistem, živelo bractvo i jedinstvo" a na šta on veli "Deco, autorizovani smo da upotrebimo silu, vite one tamo momke koji jedva čekaju da vas salome? Nemojte da pravimo sranja, ajde brzo, kući!", a oni opet "Puši ga, slugeranjo sistema, kerino jedna, av av av av av!" na šta on, da im pokaže da se ne šali, izvadi biber sprej pa prskaj po balavurdiji.

Da li to znači da je ovaj policajac na slici divan čovek, filozof i humanista, Gandi 21. veka, patrijarh Pavle reinkarnejtid, Sveti Sava zapadne obale i da bih mu ja dao ćerku za ženu kada bih je imao? Ne nužno, ali može da znači da se u datoj situaciji i u sklopu onog što možemo da smatramo za verovatna naređenja koja je dobio i verovatnu atmosferu koja je tamo vladala, on ponašao sa svešću da predstavlja SVE građane, da ne treba da dela impulsivno, primenjujući nerazumnu silu, da je jedan nezahvalan zadatak obavljao sa minimumom agresije i maksimumom empatije koju je situacija diktirala.

Naravno, sve ovo možda nije tako i možda je čovek naprosto sadistički uživao prskajući uoči bespomoćne demonstrante za koje je znao da se neće usuditi da mu uzvrate...

Tragedija Amerike je svakako između ostalog u tome što policajac obavlja jedan suludo nezahvalan i rizičan posao pa onda i u situacijama koje sa strane deluju smešno, apsurdno, bezopasno, oni primenjuju obuku i protokol koji onda deluju kao preterana sila. Na primer, ma koliko sad to zazvučalo suludo, jedan od najpoznatijih slučajeva policijske brutalnosti - premlaćivanje Rodnija Kinga - ako zapravo pogledamo snimak, na njemu se ne vidi upotreba preterane ili nekontrolisane sile. Čovek je bežao od policije autoputem, vozeći suludo, kad je na kraju zaustavljen, ponašao se nekontrolisano i opirao hapšenju i mada ne može da se kaže da li je bio naoružan ili možda mogao da povredi nekog od policajaca koji su ga hapsili, svakako je plauzibilno pomisliti da je i jedno i drugo bila verovatnoća koja se ne sme zanemariti. Policajci su ga savladali sledeći obuku i onda onemogućili da se opire - a opirao se - time što su ga pendrecima udarali po nogama. Dakle, nije dobio pendrek u glavu ili čizmu u zube, kao što bi bilo u slučaju klasične policijske brutalnosti, već niz kontrolisanih udaraca po nogama da bi prestao da se opire, prestao da predstavlja potencijalnu pretnju za policajce na dužnosti, a da sam pretrpi što je manje moguće fizičke povrede. Nesreća je što živimo u svetu gde tu vrstu nasilja čovek može da nazove ikako "pozitivnom" ali, tako mu je to.






*ovde ćemo ignorisati očigledan problem da mnogi građani upravo protestuju jer sistem ne sprovodi zakone jednako za sve i da društvene strukture koje imaju moć, uticaj i novac te iste građane često umeju da oštete bilo kršeći zakon, bilo kreativno ga tumačeći pomoću skupo plaćenih advokata ili potplaćenih sudija, bilo plate lobiste da proguraju zakone koji njima odgovaraju iako u crno zaviju većinu građana. ovo se zna i ne pričamo o tome sad.

** Koje se od epohe do epohe i od geografske širine do geografske širine drugačije percipiraju.

[Meho Krljic]

Is Barack Obama an imperial president?

President Obama's use of executive action to get around congressional gridlock is unparalleled in modern times, some scholars say. But to liberal activists, he's not going far enough.



Ju Hong's voice rang out loud and clear, interrupting the most powerful man in the world.


"You have a power to stop deportation for all undocumented immigrants in this country!" the young South Korean man yelled at President Obama during a speech on immigration reform last November in San Francisco. Waving away security guards, Mr. Obama turned and addressed Mr. Hong, himself undocumented. "Actually, I don't," the president said. "And that's why we're here."




"We've got this Constitution, we've got this whole thing about separation of powers," Obama continued. "So there is no shortcut to politics, and there's no shortcut to democracy."
The reality isn't so simple. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, was once skeptical of the aggressive use of presidential power. During the 2008 campaign, he accused President George W. Bush of regularly circumventing Congress. Yet as president, Obama has grown increasingly bold in his own use of executive action, at times to controversial effect.




The president (or his administration) has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants; bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work requirements under welfare reform. This month, the Obama administration took the highly unusual step of announcing that it will recognize gay marriages performed in Utah – even though Utah itself says it will not recognize them while the issue is pending in court.
Early in his presidency, Obama also expanded presidential warmaking powers, surveillance of the American public, and extrajudicial drone strikes on alleged terrorists outside the United States, including Americans – going beyond Mr. Bush's own global war on terror following 9/11. But more recently, he has flexed his executive muscle more on domestic policy.
In the process, Obama's claims of executive authority have infuriated opponents, while emboldening supporters to demand more on a range of issues, from immigration and gay rights to the minimum wage and Guantánamo Bay prison camp.
To critics, Obama is the ultimate "imperial president," willfully violating the Constitution to further his goals, having failed to convince Congress of the merits of his arguments. To others, he is exercising legitimate executive authority in the face of an intransigent Congress and in keeping with the practices of past presidents.
The course of Obama's final three years in office, in which he has promised continuing assertive use of executive action, will be shaped by this debate.
The tug of history
On the eve of Obama's fifth State of the Union message, on Jan. 28, the president faces a steep challenge. His job approval has plummeted to the low 40s, following the disastrous rollout of his health-care reform and public outrage over massive data collection by the National Security Agency. Unemployment is falling steadily but remains high, at 6.7 percent.
"We're 4-1/2 years into an alleged recovery, and most Americans still think we're in a recession," says William Galston, a Clinton White House veteran and scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Even though Obama will never face the voters again, he has plenty of incentive to boost his game. Now he's playing for his legacy, and the judgment of the history books. Politically, he's playing for the final national election of his presidency – next November's midterms, in which Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. Reclaiming the House from the Republicans is close to impossible. Divided government is Obama's near-certain reality for the rest of his presidency.
Still, keeping the Senate in Democratic hands remains critical to Obama's legacy: It will allow him to confirm presidential nominees – including most judges, who have lifetime tenure – with a simple majority after Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid engineered a rule change last November.
Restoring public confidence in Obama's trustworthiness and competence as an executive is also critical, as the president tries to move beyond the "Obamacare" fiasco and National Security Agency snooping. Republicans are already firmly lashing the health reform's woes to Democratic candidates' necks. But nothing will impress voters more than a sense that their personal financial situation is improving. Cue Obama's focus on what he calls "the defining challenge of our time," growing inequality and a lack of upward mobility. It will be a central theme in the State of the Union message, including a call for Congress to boost the federal minimum wage.
Early in the new year, White House officials were cautiously optimistic that the December budget deal may signal new momentum toward bipartisan cooperation, at least in future budgetary and fiscal matters. Republicans would rather keep the spotlight on Obamacare woes than risk public blame for another government shutdown or more brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, which the Treasury Department says will be reached in late February.
But one point is certain: It's a new day for Team Obama. John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton and a turnaround artist, has put on his cape and swooped into the West Wing for a one-year tour as a counselor. The president has also brought back the highly regarded Phil Schiliro to oversee the continuing health-care rollout and made deputy communications director (and Capitol Hill insider) Katie Beirne Fallon his legislative affairs director.
But it's the arrival of Mr. Podesta that has Washington buzzing. He ran the Obama transition after his first election and then repaired to his think tank, the Center for American Progress, resisting entreaties to join the administration. Most important, his passion is climate change, and he's a big believer in executive action – by the president himself, as well as via agency rules and regulations.
"I think [White House officials] were naturally preoccupied with legislating at first, and I think it took them a while to make the turn to execution. They are focused on that now," Podesta told Politico last year before agreeing to his new White House gig. "They have to realize that the president has broad authority, that he's not just the prime minister. He can drive a whole range of action. They always grasped that on foreign policy and in the national security area. Now they are doing it on the domestic side."
The (un)limits of executive power
Starting with George Washington, American presidents have used executive orders, proclamations, and other techniques to wield power, usually without controversy. These moves can be as important as the Emancipation Proclamation, and as trivial as an executive order allowing federal workers to leave work early on Christmas Eve.
They carry the force of law, but are ill-defined. Legal scholars disagree even on whether there's a constitutional "bright line" that defines what a president can do on his own and what requires congressional action.
"It gets controversial when a president simply states that he's acting under the power granted to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States," says Phillip J. Cooper, author of the book "By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action."
Bush invited controversy with his aggressive use of "signing statements," written pronouncements during bill signings that explain the president's view of a law – including at times the constitutionality of some aspects of it. In his first presidential campaign, Obama decried Bush's practice, but as president, he has continued it.
In their use of executive orders, Bush and Obama are virtually tied: In his first five years in office, Bush issued 165 orders, versus 167 by Obama. But a bean-counting approach doesn't capture the scope of a president's approach to executive power.
"It's really the character of the actions, and their subject," says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "In my view, Obama has surpassed George W. Bush in the level of circumvention of Congress and the assertion of excessive presidential power. I don't think it's a close question."




Many of Obama's most controversial power plays have come through means other than executive orders. Here are some examples:
•Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This policy, announced by the Department of Homeland Security in 2012, came via a memorandum that directs authorities to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in dealing with some young undocumented immigrants.
If they meet the criteria for eligibility, they are shielded temporarily from deportation and allowed to work. The DACA program enacted many of the goals of the failed DREAM Act legislation, though it does not create a path to citizenship.
Critics say that waiving deportation laws for more than a million people is not "prosecutorial discretion" – it's policymaking by executive fiat, usurping the role of Congress. Simon Lazarus, senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, disagrees, calling DACA "perfectly compatible with the president's discretion in the immigration area."
Ten immigration agents challenged DACA in federal court, saying the policy undermined their duty to enforce the law. Last summer the judge threw out the case on jurisdictional grounds, but suggested DACA was inherently unlawful.
Politics also infused how both sides handled DACA. For Obama, it was an obvious play for the Latino vote ahead of the 2012 election. For congressional Republicans, even if they could have attained "standing" to sue – a major problem in efforts to challenge executive action – acting to undo a policy that helps sympathetic young immigrants would have been bad politics. So they chose not to fight it.
•Obamacare. Last July, when the president delayed the mandate for large employers to provide health coverage for their employees by a year, his critics cried foul.
"Obama's not interpreting the law; he's changing the law," says Mr. Turley. "He's changing deadlines that were the subject of intense legislative debate."
The Obama administration also did an about-face on the requirement that members of Congress and their staff get their health insurance via the government exchanges, without the government subsidy they were receiving under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Under the ACA, they would not have been eligible for subsidies – leading to fears of a brain drain from Capitol Hill.
Last August, the Office of Personnel Management issued a rule allowing Hill employees to keep their federal subsidy for health insurance. The plans offered through the exchanges qualified as "health benefit plans" for the purposes of the subsidy, OPM said.
•Gay marriage. Another bracing move by the Obama administration came in 2011, when the Department of Justice announced it would no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court went on to strike down part of the law last June, but that does not lessen the highly unusual nature of an administration declaring on its own that a law was unconstitutional, before the court had ruled.
•Recess appointments. In yet another aggressive use of executive action – bypassing the Senate in making recess appointments to key executive branch positions when the Senate is technically still in session – Obama may be on the verge of getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. On Jan. 13, the high court heard arguments over Obama's three controversial recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.
Looking across the landscape of Obama's bold record of executive action, Turley of George Washington University doesn't mince words.
"President Obama meets every definition of an imperial presidency," says Turley, who notes that he voted for Obama. "He is the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be."
The Constitution states that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Critics say that in decreeing changes to laws – such as the delay of the employer mandate under the ACA – Obama has repeatedly violated that constitutional command.
Others defend Obama, saying that the president's critics are using the Constitution as a political weapon. Mr. Lazarus says the critics "flout long-established Supreme Court precedent and they contradict the consistent practice of all modern presidencies, Republican and Democratic, to implement complex and consequential regulatory programs."
Indeed, Democrats defend Obama's changes to the ACA with a list of ad hoc changes the Bush administration made to the Medicare prescription drug program when it went into effect in 2006. But when he was asked directly about the delayed employer mandate in a New York Times interview last July, Obama didn't argue for the legality of his moves or raise the precedent of the rollout of Bush's drug plan. Instead, he lashed out at his critics.
"There's not an action that I take you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority," Obama said. "Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency."
Constitutional scholar Lou Fisher is baffled by Obama's personal response. He believes Obama was justified in delaying the employer mandate on constitutional grounds as well as by "the practical need to avoid harming the program through effective and premature implementation," as he put it in a December article in the Boston Review.
"He could have argued that you encounter things you don't anticipate" when implementing a major law, says Mr. Fisher, who spent 40 years at the Congressional Research Service as a specialist on separation of powers. "But no, he keeps digging himself in deeper."
Signature politics
The politics of executive power is risky. Wielding it often, instead of going through Congress, can look like a crutch. And it further poisons the well of already icy relations with Congress. Then there's the issue of an executive order's durability, and the reality of elections that, sooner or later, bring the opposition party into power.
"Executive orders can be undone very easily," says Mr. Galston, the former Clinton aide. "If you want to make enduring change, you have to work through the established institutions and procedures for making such changes."
Obama says he prefers getting congressional buy-in, rather than moving unilaterally. But getting Congress to act has become a Sisyphean task. Last year was one of its least productive on record; its most memorable act may have been failing to fund the government, leading to a shutdown.
Not that there's anything wrong with issuing executive orders as a legitimate function of the presidency, Galston notes.
"Within appropriate limits, the president ought to use them," he says. "You don't have to be a great and subtle reader of the Federalist Papers to know that Alexander Hamilton, the father of the executive, talked about it as the source of energy in the government."
But sometimes that energy can create its own momentum. Obama's frequent use of executive action has only whetted activists' appetite for more, squeezing the president from the left even as his critics scream tyranny and, along the fringe, talk about impeachment.
Remember Ju Hong, the young South Korean man who was invited to stand with the president during an immigration reform speech – and suddenly began heckling him? Obama's DACA move was huge and controversial, but for immigration reform activists, it was only a start. Why not just give every otherwise-law-abiding undocumented immigrant a free pass while Congress sorts out the law? some ask.
Obama clearly believes he can't do that, but what's not clear is whether he might decide he can waive deportation for another group, such as the parents of the young DACA beneficiaries.
On the issue of inequality, Obama is urging Congress to raise the federal minimum wage – a campaign that has boomeranged back on the president: Progressives are lobbying him to use his executive authority to raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers, but he hasn't responded. Some liberals in Congress openly question whether he's more talk than action.
On gay rights, Obama has long faced pressure to sign an executive order banning workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender federal contractors. But he has resisted, saying he would rather Congress pass the broader Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation by most employers, but the legislation is stalled.
On Guantánamo, Obama was outmaneuvered by Congress after he signed an executive order early on ordering the controversial detention center closed. And so it remains open. But in the eyes of some legal experts, Obama is failing to take creative advantage of his power as commander in chief in dealing with the camp.
"Win, lose, or draw, it is time to get around Congress," writes Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman at Bloomberg.com. "And if ordinary politics won't do the trick, going to the courts may be the best option – because it is the only one."
Checks and imbalances?
Obama prefers to pick his fights and the timing of them carefully as he wields executive power. And for members of Congress who want to stop him, the remedies for perceived overreach are limited. Lawmakers who feel the president has flouted the laws they have passed have trouble getting "standing" in court to sue the executive branch.
Some try anyway. On Jan. 6, Sen. Ron Johnson (R) of Wisconsin filed suit to challenge the administration's decision to subsidize the health insurance of members of Congress and their staff, against the letter of the ACA. Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky is filing a class-action lawsuit against the National Security Agency over its bulk phone-record collection.
At the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on presidential power, witnesses presented other options. "The ultimate check on presidential lawlessness is elections and, in extreme cases, impeachment," said Nicholas Rosenkranz, a law professor at Georgetown University.
Another witness suggested that Congress become more assertive. "Congress has lots of power, if it chooses to use it," said Lazarus of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "The power of the purse is an enormous power, and I think that if I were you I would find ways to influence policy in using the Congress's powers, which you're not doing."
In addition, public opinion could dampen the president's enthusiasm for taking matters into his own hands. In a Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll taken Jan. 4-7, Americans said they did not favor a president taking executive action when Congress is gridlocked. In general, 41 percent of Americans approved of executive action in such cases, with 55 percent disapproving.
On expanding gay rights, 43 percent approved of the president acting on his own, while 53 percent disapproved. On the question of shielding new categories of undocumented immigrants from deportation, 33 percent approved of presidential action, and 63 percent disapproved. On raising the minimum wage for federal contractors, 38 percent wanted Obama to act, and 58 percent didn't.
Obama's final mark
Year 6 holds the key to the rest of Obama's presidency. Can he regain the trust of the American people? Will the ACA begin to work? Can Democrats hold onto the Senate?
Obama's three immediate predecessors all endured crises in their second terms. Presidents Reagan and Clinton recovered politically and left office with strong economies. Bush did not. Solid economic performance in the next year would go a long way toward helping Obama recover, though presidents have limited ability to affect the economy on their own.
What can Obama do to overcome the problems of Year 5?
"The only thing in this image-saturated age is a real accomplishment," says Jeremy Mayer, a public policy professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "It has to be something concrete; it can't be oratory. Oratory cannot save him anymore."
If Obama can say that 10 million Americans have health insurance who didn't have it when he was inaugurated, that's something. Ditto a breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or an end to the Syria conflict. Foreign policy is often the refuge of second-term presidents.
Some Republicans see an opportunity to move on immigration reform this spring, though in piecemeal fashion, which is OK with Obama as long as the bills accomplish his broad objectives – including a path to citizenship.
But if that effort fails, 2014 could be the year of executive action. On Jan. 3, Obama announced two executive measures aimed at making it easier to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Podesta's arrival at the White House may foreshadow action on climate change.
"John is a guy who knows how to get things done," says Elgie Holstein of the Environmental Defense Fund and a former colleague of Podesta's in the Clinton White House.

[Meho Krljic]

Čisto da se vidi da je Velja Ilić sa svojom vendetom protiv fascikli sitna riba, evo američkog kongresmena koji televizijskom reporteru, pred kamerom preti da će da ga polomi na pola.



Rep. Michael Grimm Accosts NY1 Reporter

[scallop]

Ako ne možete da dobijete uput za specijalistu, tražite za neki aerodrom.

FULL BODY SCANS AT AMERICAN AIRPORTS:
TSA disclosed the following Airport Screening Results
YTD 2013 Statistics On Airport Full Body Screening From TSA :
Terrorists Discovered
0
Transvestites
133
Hernias
1,485
Hemorrhoid Cases
3,172
Enlarged Prostates
8,249
Breast Implants
59,350
Natural Blondes
3


It was also discovered that 308 politicians had no balls.....
Just thought you'd like to know!

[Meho Krljic]

Frakovanje je možda medžik bulit u stalnom ratu za (jeftinije) gorivo, ali istovremeno radikalno havariše okoliš do te mere da su oblasti u Americi gde se to radi a gde je i inače nestašica vode, sad već kao u problemu. Tvrdi se ovde:

Fracking is draining water from US areas suffering major shortages - report

Some of the most drought-ravaged areas of the US are also heavily targeted for oil and gas development using hydraulic fracturing - a practice that exacerbates water shortages - according to a new report.

Three-quarters of the nearly 40,000 oil and gas wells drilled in the US since 2011 were located in areas of the country facing water scarcity, according to research by the Ceres investor network. Over half of those new wells were in areas experiencing drought conditions.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in those wells required the use of 97 billion gallons of water, Ceres found.
"Hydraulic fracturing is increasing competitive pressures for water in some of the country's most water-stressed and drought-ridden regions," said Mindy Lubber, president of the Ceres green investors' network.
Lubber warned that the fracking boom across the US puts the industry on a "collision course" with other water users.
Fracking is the highly controversial process of injecting water, sand, and various chemicals into layers of rock, in hopes of releasing oil and gas deep underground. Fracking in a single well can take millions of gallons of freshwater. Much of the drilling has occurred in areas mired in multi-year droughts.
Half of the 97 billion gallons of water used since 2011 for fracking have gone to wells in Texas, a state in the midst of a severe, years-long drought. Meanwhile, oil and gas production through fracking is on track to double in the state over the next five years, the Guardian reported.
The report also found that rural communities in the Lone Star State are being hit hard by the fracking bonanza occurring especially in the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas.
"Shale producers are having significant impacts at the county level, especially in smaller rural counties with limited water infrastructure capacity," the report said. "With water use requirements for shale producers in the Eagle Ford already high and expected to double in the coming 10 years, these rural counties can expect severe water stress challenges in the years ahead."
Levels of vital aquifers that serve local communities near Eagle Ford have dropped by up to 300 feet in the last few years.
Many small communities in areas of heavy fracking in Texas are in dire need of water, as supplies have run out in some places or will dry up soon in others. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality says 29 communities across the state could run out of water in 90 days, and that many reservoirs in west Texas are at around 25 percent capacity.
In December, the San Antonio Express-News found that fracking was using more water than previously thought. The newspaper reported that in 2012, the industry used around 43,770 acre-feet of water in 3,522 Eagle Ford fracking wells - about the same usage of 153,000 San Antonio households.
"The oil and gas boom is requiring more water than we have," Hugh Fitzsimons, a Dimmit County rancher and a director of the Wintergarden Groundwater Conservation District, told the Express-News. "Period."
A separate study published this week found that the industry does a very poor job recycling fracking water in Texas. Researchers at the University of Texas' Bureau of Economic Geology found that 92 percent of water used in 2011 to frack Barnett Shale in north central Texas was "consumed," and not recycled. Only about five percent of all water used for fracking in that area has been reused or recycled in the "past few years."
Other states do not fare well in the Ceres report, either. In Colorado, 97 percent of wells were in areas strapped for water, as demand for fracking water in the state is expected to double to six billion gallons – twice the annual use of the city of Boulder - by 2015.
In California, 96 percent of new wells were located in areas where competition for water is high. A drought emergency for the entire state - which has traditionally dealt with water-sharing and access problems - was declared last month.
The report found similar high percentages of wells built in other states – such as New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – where water shortages exist.
"It's a wake-up call," said Prof. James Famiglietti, a hydrologist at the University of California, Irvine, according to the Guardian. "We understand as a country that we need more energy but it is time to have a conversation about what impacts there are, and do our best to try to minimize any damage."

[varvarin]

Ajmo malo sporta, pa Olimpijada je!
http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/uvodnik/Igre-oko-igara2.sr.html

Бојан Билбија
Игре око игара


"Био сам мали када је, пре тачно 30 година, 8. фебруара 1984, клизачица Санда Дубравчић упалила олимпијску ватру на стадиону Кошево у Сарајеву. Ја сам био мали, али су олимпијске игре биле велике и чиниле нас поносним да пред целим светом покажемо своја достигнућа, гостопримство и лепоту наше земље. Сигуран сам да су и Руси данас с разлогом поносни на спектакуларну зимску олимпијаду у Сочију, али изгледа да увек нешто срећу квари.

Западни медији открили су нову ,,спортску" дисциплину – пљување из даљине по Владимиру Путину, за кога се оправдано сумња да је инспиратор и налогодавац историјског догађаја у Сочију. Откривене су ,,пчеле у меду" и ,,дупли тоалети", као да је реч о светској сензацији, али су покренуте и знатно озбиљније оптужбе.

Тако је велики публицитет дат члану МОК-а Швајцарцу Жан-Франку Касперу, који је устврдио да је ,,украдена" чак трећина од 50 милијарди евра, колико је Русија уложила у игре. Каспер, међутим, није пружио никакве доказе за то, рекавши тек да је ,,корупција свакодневна појава у Русији" и да о томе сви причају у овој земљи. Исто тако, Швајцарцу је засметало и присуство 50.000 полицајаца и других припадника обезбеђења, јер се због тога ,,не може осећати слободно".
...
Али, сада управо британски медији предњаче у негативној кампањи према Сочију. Тако Би-Би-Си тврди да су олимпијске игре Путинов ,,омиљени пројекат: да би показао да је Русија велика сила а он велики лидер". Британски јавни сервис описује Сочи речима ,,спирала трошкова и скандала". И забринути су колико је пара потрошено за игре, јер је то наводно откинуто од уста јадних Руса који немају шта да једу. Али, пре бих рекао да њихова ,,забринутост" потиче из зависти што Русија има могућност да уложи 50 милијарди. И при томе имају шта да једу."

Бојан Билбија
објављено: 08.02.2014.

[Meho Krljic]

Ima u istom broju Politike još zanimljiviji tekst na sličnu temu, samo prenesen iz Vašington Posta, pa ga ja odatle sada i kopiram:

The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia's anti-gay laws

Ian Ayres and William Eskridge are law professors at Yale University. Controversy over a Russian law that prohibits advocacy of homosexuality threatens to overshadow athletic competition at the upcoming Sochi Olympics. Thoughtful world  leaders, including President Obama, have criticized Russia for  stigmatizing gay identity.
Many of these critics find it hard to believe that in 2014 a  modern industrial government would have this kind of medieval language  in its statutory code:  ●"Materials adopted by a local school board . . . shall . . . comply with state law and state board rules . . . prohibiting instruction . . . in the advocacy of homosexuality."
●"Propaganda of homosexualism among minors is punishable by an administrative fine."
●"No district shall include in its course of study instruction which: 1. Promotes a homosexual life-style. 2. Portrays homosexuality as a  positive alternative life-style. 3. Suggests that some methods of sex  are safe methods of homosexual sex."
●"Instruction relating to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include . . . emphasis, provided in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense."
Amid the rush to condemn Russia's legislation, however, it is useful to recognize that only the second quoted provision comes from the Russian statute.
The other three come from statutes in the United States. It is Utah that  prohibits "the advocacy of homosexuality." Arizona prohibits portrayals  of homosexuality as a "positive alternative life-style" and has  legislatively determined that it is inappropriate to even suggest to  children that there are "safe methods of homosexual sex." Alabama and Texas mandate that sex-education classes emphasize that  homosexuality is "not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public." Moreover, the Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that "homosexual conduct is a criminal offense" even though  criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct has been unconstitutional since 2003.
Eight U.S. states, and several cities and counties, have some version of what we call "no promo homo" provisions. Before the United States condemns the Russian statute's infringement of free speech and academic freedom, it should recognize that our own  republican forms of government have repeatedly given rise to analogous  restrictions.
It is no coincidence that these examples focus on what must and must not be said to children. An explanatory note accompanying the 2013 Russian legislation makes  clear that the statute seeks to protect children "from the factors that  negatively affect their physical, intellectual, mental, spiritual, and  moral development." Proponents of the U.S. statutes have offered similar justification. And, like Russian President Vladimir Putin this month,  the U.S. laws warn gay people and sympathizers to "leave kids alone, please."The underlying ideology of these statutes is the same: Everybody should be  heterosexual, and homosexuality is per se bad. This ideology has never  rested on any kind of evidence that homosexuality is a bad "choice" that the state ought to discourage. The ideology is a prejudice-laden legacy of a fading era. (In fact, the strategy is daffy: Even if homosexuality were a bad lifestyle choice, state laws are not an effective way to  head off such a choice.)
Putin has assured the International Olympic Committee that the law is merely symbolic. But in the United States, officially sanctioned anti-gay prejudice has contributed to classroom bullying and to the high level of suicides among gay teens.
The actor and playwright Harvey Fierstein has called on the United States to boycott the Sochi Games because Russia prohibits "propaganda of homosexuality." But recall that in 2002 the United States proudly, and without comment, sent its  Olympic athletes to a state — Utah — that prohibits the "advocacy of  homosexuality." Maybe Obama ought to send Olympic delegates Billie Jean  King and Brian Boitano to Alabama and Texas.
We offer that  suggestion somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is an important lesson  here. Sometimes the moral failings of others can help us see moral  failings in ourselves. It was revulsion toward Nazi Germany's eugenics  policy that, in part, caused U.S. legislatures and courts to renounce  state sterilization programs. Opposition to South African apartheid and  the Soviet Union's totalitarian regime generated greater national  pressure for the Eisenhower administration and the Warren court to  renounce apartheid in the American South.
Putin's inability to  justify this law puts a spotlight on the inability of Utah, Texas,  Arizona and other states to justify their gay-stigmatizing statutes.  They should be repealed or challenged in court. Just as judges led the  way against compulsory sterilization and racial-segregation laws, so  they should subject anti-gay laws to critical scrutiny.
As things stand, one could imagine Putin responding to U.S. criticism by saying: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye."

[varvarin]

 
Primetite bodljikavu žicu.


http://static.politika.co.rs/uploads/rubrike/283867/i/1/zoi-soci.gif

[scallop]

Gebels je bio mala beba.

[Father Jape]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-how-to-ruin-an-economy-in-three-simple-steps/

[Meho Krljic]

Američki studenti i diplomci duguju više od jednog trilijuna dolara, što je oko četiri puta više od onoga što su dugovali pre desetak godina.

Student Loans Are Ruining Your Life. Now They're Ruining the Economy Too

Chris Rong did everything right. A 23-year-old dentistry student in New York City, Rong excelled at one of the country's top high schools, breezed through college and is now studying dentistry at one of the best dental schools in the nation.
But it may be a long time before he sees any rewards. He's moved back home with his parents in Bayside, Queens — an hour-and-a-half commute each way to class at New York University's College of Dentistry — and by the time he graduates in 2016, he'll face $400,000 in student loans. "If the money weren't a problem I would live on my own," says Rong. "My debt is hanging over my mind. I'm taking that all on myself."
Rong isn't alone. Across the U.S., students are taking on increasingly large amounts of debt to pay for heftier education tuitions. Figures released last week by the Federal Reserve of New York show that aggregate student loans nationwide have continued to rise. At the end of 2003, American students and graduates owed just $253 billion in aggregate debt; by the end of 2013, American students' debt had ballooned to a total of $1.08 trillion, an increase of over 300%. In the past year alone, aggregate student debt grew 10%. By comparison, overall debt grew just 43% in the past decade and 1.6% over the past year.
According to a December study by the Institute for College Access & Success, 7 out of 10 students in the class of 2012 graduated with student loans, and the average amount of debt among students who owed was $29,400. There's no clear end in sight. "The total amount of student debt is growing basically at a constant rate," Wilbert van der Klaauw, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York tells TIME. "The inflow is much higher than the outflow, which is likely to continue in the future as reliance on student loans for college is expected to remain high."
Debt is painful for many students, and an increasing number of graduates are unable to pay back their loans on time. Delinquencies on student loans have risen dramatically over the past decade: 11.5% of graduates were at least 90 days late on paying back their loans at the end of 2013, compared with 6.2% delinquencies on student loans in 2003. Moreover, the Fed's figures on delinquencies hide more stark data: nearly half of all students with debt aren't currently in repayment thanks to deferments and forbearances and the fact that students are not expected to pay while they're in school, according to van der Klaauw. What that means is that for the graduates who are actually expected to pay their loans now, the delinquency rate is roughly double the 11.5% figure.


Why are student debts and delinquencies continuing to rise? One answer is that the cost of higher educations is increasing. Between the 2000–01 academic year and the 2010–11 academic year, the annual cost of a degree at public and private two- and four-year institutions rose 70%, from an average of $10,820 to $18,497, according to data provided by the federal government's Institute of Education Sciences. Families' incomes aren't rising at the same rate, so students are forced to take out more loans.
On the plus side, more students than ever before are attending college, which is a certainly a good thing, as van der Klaauw points out, even if it is a contributing factor to overall debt increasing. A degree is usually worth the cost of college, even if the price tag is increasingly tough to bear. "It is always important to keep in mind that the average returns to a college degree remain high," van der Klaauw says.
But a more pernicious explanation of rising debts is that outstanding student loans tend to linger for years, as interest rates accumulate debt and students decide to pay off other loans first. Student debt piles on because it takes years to pay off loans, and many can't afford to pay back such hefty loans until later in their careers. For example, some dentistry-school graduates intentionally choose to default on their student loans in order to pay the staggeringly high costs of opening their own dental practice, Rong says.
For Rong, avoiding default on his $400,000 student loans may involve some clever thinking once he graduates. Rong says he's entertained the idea of joining the military, or moving to a state with no income tax, like Texas, so he can pay off his debts more quickly. "I was just going to stay in New York after graduating, but now I realize there's so much on my plate," he says. "When you take out loans, you're taking years off of what you want to do and where you really want to be."
Students across the country are trapped by their debts and often unable to take advantage of the freedom that a college degree should theoretically afford them. Julia Handel is the marketing manager for celebrity New York chef David Burke. The 2012 Ithaca College graduate is making over $40,000 a year, which is better than many of her friends. But she had $75,000 in loans, and it'll take her at least 15 years to pay off her debts. For now, Handel is officially on her parents' lease but crashing with her boyfriend, pinching pennies and paying back $700 every month. She may have to give up her dream of going to culinary school, and at this point, she can definitely cross off the idea of renting her own apartment.
By the time Handel pays off her loans, she may be nearly 40. "Whenever I do anything, loans are always in the back of my mind," she says. "It controls what I do every day and what I spend my money on."
Student debt doesn't just weigh heavily on graduates. Evidence is growing that student loans may be dragging down the overall economy, not just individuals. Think about it this way: if students have significant debt, it means they're less likely to spend money on other goods and services, and it also means they're less likely to take out a mortgage on a house. Consumer purchasing is the primary driver of the U.S. economy, and mortgages and auto loans play a huge role as well. There aren't any comprehensive, hard numbers yet on how much of a drag student debt may be on the economy, but "the associations definitely suggest that growing student debt is a drag on consumption," says van der Klaauw. "This is still something we're discussing. There are a range of views on this. My personal view is that the increasing reliance on student loans for financing college education is going to be a drag on consumption for some time."
Knowing the kind of debt he'll face once he graduates, Rong says he rarely goes to happy hours, and Handel says she's much less likely to get regular haircuts, schedule prompt doctors' appointments, or buy the small things that add up — and, in aggregate, eventually prop up the economy and drive GDP growth. "It's the little things," she says. "Putting off a haircut for a long time, getting more makeup, prescriptions, or doctors appointments, the things that I don't even think cost money but end up adding up a lot."
It's also become harder and harder to qualify for a mortgage if you have student loans, says Andrew Haughwout, another economist with the New York Federal Reserve. Banks tightened their underwriting standards after the recession and are now much less willing to grant house and auto loans at low-interest rates, particularly for graduates with more debt than ever before. That's slowing down the housing recovery and the construction markets.
In 2005, before the Great Recession, having student loans was a good indicator that a graduate also had a mortgage. Student loans usually indicated a higher level of education, a higher salary, and better credit-worthiness. Better-educated, higher-earning people were more likely to have the capital and the wherewithal to take out a mortgage; but now that dynamic has changed. Bigger debts mean college graduates are less likely to take out mortgages than they used to be, dampening economic growth. "Now that's kind of gone away, that relationship," Haughwout says. "Knowing that someone has student debt doesn't tell you very much at all about whether they're going to have a mortgage in spite of the fact that it probably still signals higher level of education."
Is college still worth it? Yes, without a doubt. But you're going to need a lot of patience and a lot of luck, class of 2014.

[scallop]

Svi će jednog dana biti dužnički robovi.

[Meho Krljic]

Mislim da ovaj tekst sugeriše da već jesu.

[Meho Krljic]

A sad - preokret?

Obamacare Just Made Americans Richer Without Anyone Noticing

Glenn Beck once said Obamacare would mean "the end of prosperity in America forever." But so far, it turns out President Obama's 2010 health law is actually putting money in Americans' wallets.
To be exact, President Obama's 2010 health law was responsible for about three-quarters of a surprising January rise in U.S. consumer spending and American income growth, according to calculations by the Wall Street Journal.
While not exceptional, the gains were significant: a 0.4 percent rise in consumer spending ($45.2 billion) and a 0.3 percent rise in personal incomes (up $43.9 billion), according to new figures released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The growth came in spite of the expiration of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and all that horrible winter weather.
So what exactly did the Obamacare rollout do to cause such a rise? For one, it expanded the Medicaid program, a critical and highly controversial aspect of the law, by adding up to a $19 billion in benefits in January. On top of that, health care enrollees additionally received another near $15 billion in the form of tax credits as a result of the rollout, according to the BEA.
Together the two changes have freed up many Americans to spend money that would have gone towards health care premiums on goods and services instead.
The benefits of the Obamacare rollout thus far also appear to throw cold water on the idea that the law will hamper the economy -- especially when considering last January. Back then, both consumer spending and personal incomes had their worst month in years and fell by several percentage points after the battle in Congress over the so-called "fiscal cliff" ended with payroll taxes shooting up across the board.
Overall, that tax hike resulted in an $700 per worker tax increase on average, according to the Tax Policy Center. Who's killing the economy again?

[Meho Krljic]

Biglouova se sigurno prevrće u svom, hm, krevetu:

Senate panel says torture didn't help U.S. in hunt for Osama bin Laden: AP

WASHINGTON -- A hotly disputed Senate report on torture concludes that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to congressional aides and outside experts familiar with the investigation.
The CIA still disputes that conclusion.
From the moment of bin Laden's death almost three years ago in what was America's biggest counterterrorism success, former Bush administration and some senior CIA officials have cited the evidence trail leading to the al-Qaeda mastermind's compound in Pakistan as vindicating the "enhanced interrogation techniques" they authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
But Democratic and some Republican senators have disputed that account. They described simulated drownings, sleep deprivation and other such practices as cruel and ineffective. With the release edging closer for the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on interrogations, renditions and detentions, they hope to make a persuasive case.
The report, congressional aides and outside experts said, examines the treatment of several high-level terror detainees and the information they provided on bin Laden. The aides and people briefed on the report spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the confidential document.
The most high-profile detainee linked to the bin Laden investigation was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the CIA waterboarded 183 times. Mohammed, intelligence officials have noted, confirmed after his 2003 capture that he knew an important al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.
But the report concludes that such information wasn't critical, according to the aides. Mohammed only discussed al-Kuwaiti months after being waterboarded, while he was under standard interrogation, they said. And Mohammed neither acknowledged al-Kuwaiti's significance nor provided interrogators with the courier's real name.
The debate over how investigators put the pieces together is significant because years later, the courier led U.S. intelligence to the sleepy Pakistani military town of Abbottabad. There, Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in a secret mission.
The CIA also has pointed to the value of information provided by senior al-Qaeda operative Abu Faraj al-Libi, who was captured in 2005 and held at a secret prison.
U.S. officials have described how al-Libi made up a name for a trusted courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti. Al-Libi, they said, was so adamant and unbelievable in his denial that the CIA took it as confirmation he and Mohammed were protecting the courier.
But the report concludes evidence gathered from al-Libi wasn't significant either, the aides said.
Essentially, they argued, Mohammed, al-Libi and others subjected to harsh treatment confirmed only what investigators already knew about the courier. And when they denied the courier's significance or provided misleading information, investigators would only have considered that significant if they already presumed the courier's importance.
The aides did not address information provided by yet another al-Qaeda operative, Hassan Ghul, captured in Iraq in 2004. Intelligence officials have described Ghul as the true linchpin of the bin Laden investigation after he identified al-Kuwaiti as a critical courier.
In a 2012 news release, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., acknowledged an unidentified "third detainee" had provided relevant information on the courier. But they said he did so the day before he was subjected to harsh CIA interrogation. "This information will be detailed in the Intelligence committee's report," the senators said at the time.
In any case, it still took the CIA years to learn al-Kuwaiti's real identity: Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait. How the U.S. learned of Ahmed's name is still unclear.
Without providing full details, aides said the Senate report illustrates the importance of the National Security Agency's efforts overseas. Intelligence officials have previously described how in the years, when the CIA couldn't find where bin Laden's courier was, NSA eavesdroppers came up with nothing until 2010 - when Ahmed had a telephone conversation with someone monitored by U.S. intelligence.
At that point, U.S. intelligence was able to follow Ahmed to bin Laden's hideout.
Feinstein and other senators have spoken only vaguely of the contents of the classified review.
But they have made references to the divergence between their understanding of how the bin Laden operation came together and assertions of former CIA and Bush administration officials who have defended harsh interrogations.
Responding to former CIA deputy director Jose Rodriguez's argument that Mohammed and al-Libi provided the "lead information" on the bin Laden operation, Feinstein and Levin said, "The original lead information had no connection to CIA detainees."
They rejected former CIA Director Michael Hayden's claim that evidence on the couriers began with interrogations at black sites and Attorney General Michael Mukasey's declaration that intelligence leading to bin Laden began with Mohammed.
The facts, they said, show that the CIA learned of the courier, his true name and location "through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program." They have cited a "wide variety of intelligence sources and methods."
Terror suspects who were waterboarded "provided no new information about the courier" and offered no indication of where bin Laden was hiding, the senators said.
Feinstein will push to release a summary of the intelligence committee's review later this week, starting a declassification process that could take several months before any documents are made public.
Senate investigators and CIA officials already are locked in a simmering dispute over competing claims of wrongdoing in the congressional investigation. Feinstein accuses the agency of improperly monitoring the computer use of Senate staffers and deleting files, undermining the Constitution's separation of powers. The CIA says the intelligence panel illegally accessed certain documents. The Justice Department is reviewing criminal complaints against both sides.
Aides said Levin and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who himself was tortured as a prisoner war in Vietnam more than four decades ago, are among those pushing hard to ensure the investigation's findings related to the bin Laden pursuit and CIA interrogations are made public.
They and Feinstein were among Congress' critics of how the hunt was portrayed in the film "Zero Dark Thirty," which they said was fictional.
   AP 

[Meho Krljic]

Kako CIA muči ljude pri ispitivanju:


CIA misled on interrogation program, Senate report says

A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA misled the government and the public about aspects of its brutal interrogation program for years — concealing details about the severity of its methods, overstating the significance of plots and prisoners, and taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to harsh techniques.
The report, built around detailed chronologies of dozens of CIA detainees, documents a long-standing pattern of unsubstantiated claims as agency officials sought permission to use — and later tried to defend — excruciating interrogation methods that yielded little, if any, significant intelligence, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed the document.



"The CIA described [its program] repeatedly both to the Department of Justice and eventually to Congress as getting unique, otherwise unobtainable intelligence that helped disrupt terrorist plots and save thousands of lives," said one U.S. official briefed on the report. "Was that actually true? The answer is no."
Current and former U.S. officials who described the report spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue and because the document remains classified. The 6,300-page report includes what officials described as damning new disclosures about a sprawling network of secret detention facilities, or "black sites," that was dismantled by President Obama in 2009.
Classified files reviewed by committee investigators reveal internal divisions over the interrogation program, officials said, including one case in which CIA employees left the agency's secret prison in Thailand after becoming disturbed by the brutal measures being employed there. The report also cites cases in which officials at CIA headquarters demanded the continued use of harsh interrogation techniques even after analysts were convinced that prisoners had no more information to give.
The report describes previously undisclosed cases of abuse, including the alleged repeated dunking of a terrorism suspect in tanks of ice water at a detention site in Afghanistan — a method that bore similarities to waterboarding but never appeared on any Justice Department-
approved list of techniques.
U.S. officials said the committee refrained from assigning motives to CIA officials whose actions or statements were scrutinized. The report also does not recommend new administrative punishment or further criminal inquiry into a program that the Justice Department has investigated repeatedly. Still, the document is almost certain to reignite an unresolved public debate over a period that many regard as the most controversial in CIA history.
A spokesman for the CIA said the agency had not yet seen a final version of the report and was, therefore, unable to comment.
Current and former agency officials, however, have privately described the study as marred by factual errors and misguided conclusions. Last month, in an indication of the level of tension between the CIA and the committee, each side accused the other of possible criminal violations in accessing each other's computer systems during the course of the probe.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to vote Thursday to send an executive summary of the report to Obama for declassification. U.S. officials said it could be months before that section, which contains roughly 20 conclusions and spans about 400 pages, is released to the public.
The report's release also could resurrect a long-standing feud between the CIA and the FBI, where many officials were dismayed by the agency's use of methods that Obama and others later labeled torture.
CIA veterans have expressed concern that the report reflects FBI biases. One of its principal authors is a former FBI analyst, and the panel relied in part on bureau documents as well as notes from former FBI agent Ali Soufan. Soufan was the first to interrogate Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, the suspected al-Qaeda operative better known as Abu Zubaida, after his capture in Pakistan in 2002 and has condemned the CIA for water­boarding a prisoner he considered cooperative.
The Senate report is by far the most comprehensive account to date of a highly classified program that was established within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a time of widespread concern that an additional wave of terrorist plots had already been set in motion.
'Damaging' misstatements
Several officials who have read the document said some of its most troubling sections deal not with detainee abuse but with discrepancies between the statements of senior CIA officials in Washington and the details revealed in the written communications of lower-level employees directly involved.
Officials said millions of records make clear that the CIA's ability to obtain the most valuable intelligence against al-Qaeda — including tips that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 — had little, if anything, to do with "enhanced interrogation techniques."
The report is divided into three volumes — one that traces the chronology of interrogation operations, another that assesses intelligence officials' claims and a third that contains case studies on virtually every prisoner held in CIA custody since the program began in 2001. Officials said the report was stripped of certain details, including the locations of CIA prisons and the names of agency employees who did not hold ­supervisor-level positions.
One official said that almost all of the critical threat-related information from Abu Zubaida was obtained during the period when he was questioned by Soufan at a hospital in Pakistan, well before he was interrogated by the CIA and waterboarded 83 times.
Information obtained by Soufan, however, was passed up through the ranks of the U.S. intelligence community, the Justice Department and Congress as though it were part of what CIA interrogators had obtained, according to the committee report.
"The CIA conflated what was gotten when, which led them to misrepresent the effectiveness of the program," said a second U.S. official who has reviewed the report. The official described the persistence of such misstatements as among "the most damaging" of the committee's conclusions.
Detainees' credentials also were exaggerated, officials said. Agency officials described Abu Zubaida as a senior al-Qaeda operative — and, therefore, someone who warranted coercive techniques — although experts later determined that he was essentially a facilitator who helped guide recruits to al-Qaeda training camps.
The CIA also oversold the role of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 U.S. sailors. CIA officials claimed he was the "mastermind."
The committee described a similar sequence in the interrogation of Hassan Ghul, an al-Qaeda operative who provided a critical lead in the search for bin Laden: the fact that the al-Qaeda leader's most trusted courier used the moniker "al-Kuwaiti."
But Ghul disclosed that detail while being interrogated by Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq who posed questions scripted by CIA analysts. The information from that period was subsequently conflated with lesser intelligence gathered from Ghul at a secret CIA prison in Romania, officials said. Ghul was later turned over to authorities in Pakistan, where he was subsequently released. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in 2012.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-
Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has previously indicated that harsh CIA interrogation measures were of little value in the bin Laden hunt.
"The CIA detainee who provided the most significant information about the courier provided the information prior to being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques," Feinstein said in a 2013 statement, responding in part to scenes in the movie "Zero Dark Thirty" that depict a detainee's slip under duress as a breakthrough moment.
Harsh detainee treatment
If declassified, the report could reveal new information on the treatment of a high-value detainee named Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Pakistan captured Ali, known more commonly as Ammar al-Baluchi, on April, 30, 2003, in Karachi and turned him over to the CIA about a week later. He was taken to a CIA black site called "Salt Pit" near Kabul.
At the secret prison, Baluchi endured a regime that included being dunked in a tub filled with ice water. CIA interrogators forcibly kept his head under the water while he struggled to breathe and beat him repeatedly, hitting him with a truncheon-like object and smashing his head against a wall, officials said.
As with Abu Zubaida and even Nashiri, officials said, CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating. On Sept. 22, 2003, he was flown from Kabul to a CIA black site in Romania. In 2006, he was taken to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His attorneys contend that he suffered head trauma while in CIA custody.
Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Baluchi's attorneys for information about his medical condition, but military prosecutors opposed the request. A U.S. official said the request was not based solely on the committee's investigation of the CIA program.
Two other terrorism suspects, from Libya — Mohammed al-Shoroeiya and Khalid al-Sharif — endured similar treatment at Salt Pit, according to Human Rights Watch. One of the men said CIA interrogators "would pour buckets of very cold water over his nose and mouth to the point that he felt he would suffocate. Icy cold water was also poured over his body. He said it happened over and over again," the report says. CIA doctors monitored the prisoners' body temperatures so they wouldn't suffer hypothermia.
The CIA denies waterboarding them and says it used the technique on only three prisoners.
The two men were held at Salt Pit at the same time as Baluchi, according to former U.S. intelligence officials.
Officials said a former CIA interrogator named Charlie Wise was forced to retire in 2003 after being suspected of abusing Abu Zubaida using a broomstick as a ballast while he was forced to kneel in a stress position. Wise was also implicated in the abuse at Salt Pit. He died of a heart attack shortly after retiring from the CIA, former U.S. intelligence officials said.

[Meho Krljic]

Ko o čemu, Amerikanci o tome da ih NSA prisluškuje. Ni neautorizovani ratovi na drugim stranama sveta, ni ubijanje ljudi dronovima bez suda i presude, ni tajni zatvori u kojima se ljudi muče, ni Gvantanamo nisu toliko potresli američku javnost koliko pomisao da troslovna agencija ima pristup metapodacima pružalaca komunikacionih usluga. Tako da su se setili da bi Obama to mogao da zaustavi da hoće, bez kongresa, bez baktanja sa ičijim mišljenjem, jednostavno potpisujući izvršno naređenje predsednika. Al neće, očigledno.


If President Obama wanted the NSA to quit storing phone metadata, he'd act now

President Barack Obama says he wants Congress to adopt legislation that would end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata, a surveillance initiative exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. As it currently operates, the NSA's collection program gathers and stores the metadata of every call made to and from the United States.
President Obama's plan, proposed by a presidential panel he commissioned, would prevent the government from tapping into the trillions of records for political or other purposes. Under the plan, the NSA would be required to get authorization from a secret court before demanding that telecoms hand over calling metadata of specified terror targets and their associated contacts.
"I have decided that the best path forward is that the government should not collect or hold this data in bulk," Obama said. "Instead, the data should remain at the telephone companies for the length of time it currently does today."
Rights groups are applauding the move. But they say it's virtually a meaningless gesture in its current form. As chief executive, Obama has the power to reform the NSA on his own with the stroke of a pen. By not putting this initiative into an executive order, he punted to Congress on an issue that affects the civil liberties of most anybody who picks up a phone. Every day Congress waits on the issue is another day Americans' calling records are being collected by the government without suspicion that any crime was committed.
"He does not need congressional approval for this," said Mark Jaycox, an Electronic Frontier Foundation legislative analyst.
Currently, the government contends it doesn't peek into the data unless it has "reasonable articulable suspicion" against a terror target. But until Congress acts, Obama's proposal leaves the phone metadata in the hands of the nation's spooks without any laws against how the database may be accessed. And who knows what other types of metadata are now treated similarly.
That means Americans have to accept, at face value, a promise from Uncle Sam that the government won't abuse a database that includes the phone numbers of all calls, the international mobile subscriber identity number of mobile callers, the calling card numbers used in calls, and the time and duration of those calls to and from the United States.


Ultimately, congressional action will be necessary even if the president signs an executive order on the issue. Future presidents are not bound by former presidential decrees, which means the 44th president does not have to adhere to any Obama promises of ethical and limited metadata use.
"There is real value to get Congress to be the one to write this into stone," said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's a cop-out that he isn't taking executive action now."
The president has taken some actions to rein in the bulk telephone metadata program. He ordered the nation's spies to get approval from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to search the metadata database under the "reasonable articulable standard" that a target is associated with terrorism. (A probable-cause standard continues to be lacking, however.) Obama also dramatically reduced the number of associated calling records connected to the original target that the NSA may analyze—from three hops to two.
The president won't scrap the phone metadata surveillance altogether; it's unrealistic in today's climate of paranoia. But Obama could turn his words into immediate reality with a stroke of his pen. An executive order would promptly end the suspicionless collection of telephone metadata, and it would finally put a treasure trove of data—detailing intimate factors about our everyday lives—at arms' length.

[Meho Krljic]

Amerika voli da podučava druge demokratiji ali evo studije koja pokazuje da je po dovoljnom broju relevantnih parametara moguće zaključiti da same Sjedinjene Američke Države nisu demokratsko društvo, već oligarhija:

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[Meho Krljic]

Ne znam koliko koga zanima trenutna urbanistička i populaciona situacija u San Francisku (a zanimljiva je, kao nešto što bi napisaoWilliam Gibson, sa sve grupama koje protestuju na ulici i gađaju kamenjem Guglove autobuse koji prevoze zaposlene na posao), ali evo izvanredno istraženogi jako dugačkog teksta koji sve to objašnjava:
How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF's Housing Crisis Explained)

[Tex Murphy]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/woman-films-her-own-abortion-to-show-world-how-cool-it-is/

А ево и поменутог видеа, ако кога занима:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxPUKV-WlKw

[Meho Krljic]

Ja sam ovde već kačio odlična pisanja C. Covillea o američkom zdravstvu, ali ovaj tekst mu je IZVANREDAN. U sklopu naših širih rasprava o neoliberalizmu i upravljanju esencijalnim službama u društvu, mislim da je ovaj tekst o zdravstvu koje je privatizovano više valjda nego igde u svetu veoma ilustrativan:


http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-us-medical-billing-way-more-f2340ked-than-you-think/

[Son of Man]

Evo šta biva kad prosečan Amerikanac prevede tvoj engleski na američki engleski, dakle prvo ide moj post pa njegov "prevod" krv ti jebem   

http://abraxas365dokumentarci.blogspot.com/2014/05/sta-biva-kad-ti-ga-prosecan-amer-prevede.html

[scallop]

Srpski američki je prilično nepodoban za prevođenje kao slovački američki. Tada se osamdesete lako transribuju kao devedeset pete, to je bar jasno. Još nekoliko prevoda prevoda i izjava će dostići zenit.

[angel011]

Još kad bi taj Amerikanac naučio maternji jezik...

[scallop]

Za Zombije imamo plan.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/politics/pentagon-zombie-apocalypse/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Son of Man]

http://abraxas365dokumentarci.blogspot.com/2014/05/california-drive-by-gunman-kills-six-in.html



"A gunman has killed six people in drive-by shootings near the Californian city of Santa Barbara, US police say. The shootings took place late on Friday in Isla Vista near the University of California-Santa Barbara campus. The suspected gunman was found dead in his car with a bullet wound. It is unclear whether it was self-inflicted. Police are looking into a possible link with a Youtube video in which a young man complains of repeated rejection by women and threatens to take revenge. Seven other people are in hospital, and being treated for bullet wounds. The shootings occurred at several sites in the town of Isla Vista, and there were nine crime scenes, police said."

[Ghoul]

ups, zajebasmo se!

White House Mistakenly Outs CIA Afghanistan Chief

http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-house-mistakenly-outs-cia-afghanistan-chief/

[Truman]

http://abraxas365dokumentarci.blogspot.com/2014/05/california-drive-by-gunman-kills-six-in.html



"A gunman has killed six people in drive-by shootings near the Californian city of Santa Barbara, US police say. The shootings took place late on Friday in Isla Vista near the University of California-Santa Barbara campus. The suspected gunman was found dead in his car with a bullet wound. It is unclear whether it was self-inflicted. Police are looking into a possible link with a Youtube video in which a young man complains of repeated rejection by women and threatens to take revenge. Seven other people are in hospital, and being treated for bullet wounds. The shootings occurred at several sites in the town of Isla Vista, and there were nine crime scenes, police said."

Ne znam što se žalio, uopšte nije ružan...možda nije bio dovoljni uporan. Liči na Elajdžu Vuda.

[Father Jape]

http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2014/05/3-months-since-legalizing-marijuana-heres-colorado-looks-like.html

[Meho Krljic]

Why Brainteasers Don't Belong in Job Interviews

Imagine that you are the captain of a pirate ship. You've captured some booty, and you need to divide it among your crew. But first the crew will vote on your plan. If you have the support of fewer than half of them, you will die. How do you propose to divide the gold, so that you still have some for yourself—but live to tell the tale?
There is a correct answer: divide it among the top fifty-one per cent of the crew. If you knew that, you've passed what used to be one of Google's infamous, mind-scrambling job-interview questions, which would have placed you one step closer to a career at the technology giant. (Google reportedly banned the practice a couple of years ago.) In a surprising June 19th interview with the New York Times, Laszlo Bock, Google's senior V.P. of "people operations," explained why: the company discovered these brainteasers are "a complete waste of time," and "don't predict anything" when it comes to job success. Google shouldn't be shocked. A psychologist would have known at the outset that tests of this nature hardly ever work, and that there are much better predictors of who will get hired and how they will perform.
Researchers have always tried to use psychology for predictive ends: Can what we already know about a person tell us how she will behave in a given situation? The results of these endeavors have been mixed. While there is some evidence for links between certain personality traits and later outcomes, the correlations tend to be limited, and the predictions that can be made are broad at best. For instance, we can tell when a given person will generally succeed at academic pursuits, but not if she'll excel in a particular seminar on ancient hieroglyphics.
The major problem with most attempts to predict a specific outcome, such as interviews, is decontextualization: the attempt takes place in a generalized environment, as opposed to the context in which a behavior or trait naturally occurs. Google's brainteasers measure how good people are at quickly coming up with a clever, plausible-seeming solution to an abstract problem under pressure. But employees don't experience this particular type of pressure on the job. What the interviewee faces, instead, is the objective of a stressful, artificial interview setting: to make an impression that speaks to her qualifications in a limited time, within the narrow parameters set by the interviewer. What's more, the candidate is asked to handle an abstracted "gotcha" situation, where thinking quickly is often more important than thinking well. Instead of determining how someone will perform on relevant tasks, the interviewer measures how the candidate will handle a brainteaser during an interview, and not much more.
Interviews in general pose a particular challenge when it comes to predictive validity—that is, the ability to determine someone's future performance based on limited data. Not only are they relatively brief but also, over the past twenty years, psychologists have repeatedly found that few of a candidate's responses matter. What is significant is the personal impression that the interviewer forms within the first minute (and sometimes less) of meeting the prospective hire. In one study, students were recorded as they took part in mock on-campus recruiting interviews that lasted from eight to thirty minutes. The interviewers evaluated them based on eleven factors, such as over-all employability, professional competency, and interpersonal skills. The experimenters then showed the first twenty or so seconds of each interview to untrained observers—the initial meet-and-greet, starting with the interviewee's knock on the door and ending ten seconds after he was seated, before any questions—and asked them to rate the candidates on the same dimensions. What the researchers found was a high correlation between judgments made by the untrained eye in a matter of seconds and those made by trained interviewers after going through the whole process. On nine of the eleven factors, there was a resounding agreement between the two groups.
This phenomenon is broadly known as "thin-slice" judgment. As early as 1937, Gordon Allport, a pioneer of personality psychology, argued that we constantly form sweeping opinions of others based on incredibly limited information and exposure. Since then, multiple studies have shown the truth of that observation: first impressions are paramount. Once formed, they reliably color the rest of our impression formation. The exact same interview response given by two different candidates, one of whom the interviewer preferred, would be rated differently.
Given the failure of typical interviews to predict job performance consistently, what should companies do instead? Two things have been shown to make the interview process more successful. One is using a highly standardized interview process—for instance, asking each candidate the same questions in the same order. This produces a more objective measure of how each candidate fares, and it can reduce the influence of thin-slice judgment, which can alter the way each interview is conducted.
The other solution is to focus on relevant behavioral measures, both in the past and in the future. The ubiquitous interview question "Describe a situation where you did well on X or failed on Y" is an example of a past behavioral measure; asking a programmer to describe how she would solve a particular programming task would be a future measure. Google and many other tech companies may also ask some candidates to write code on the spot, a task that solves the problem of decontextualization by closely approximating what they would do on the job.
To Google's credit, the company admitted its failure, and moved its interviews in a different direction. Finding the one right candidate in a group is hard, and companies don't have much time to figure out exactly which questions can help them tell similar-seeming candidates apart. Or, to quote from another of the banned Google questions, "You have eight balls of the same size. Seven of them weigh the same, and one of them weighs slightly more. How can you find the ball that is heavier by using a balance and only two weighings?"

[Meho Krljic]

Kalifornija uber ales:



Buses with migrant families rerouted amid protest

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Homeland Security buses carrying migrant children and families were rerouted Tuesday to a facility in San Diego after American flag-waving protesters blocked the group from reaching a suburban processing center.


The standoff in Murrieta came after Mayor Alan Long urged residents to complain to elected officials about the plan to transfer the Central American migrants to California to ease overcrowding of facilities along the Texas-Mexico border.
Many protesters held U.S. flags, while others held signs reading "stop illegal immigration," and "illegals out!"
"We can't start taking care of others if we can't take care of our own," protester Nancy Greyson, 60, of Murrieta, told the Desert Sun newspaper.
Many of the immigrants were detained while fleeing violence and extortion from gangs in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.
After the buses were blocked, federal authorities rerouted the vehicles to a freeway and then to a customs and border facility in San Diego within view of the Mexico border.


The three buses were trailed by a half-dozen news crews during the two-hour trip. People near the San Diego facility were surprised by the caravan.
Juan Silva, 27, a welder in Chula Vista, said he thought officials were transporting drug traffickers. Then he heard the buses were carrying migrant families.
"I don't think people in that town should be against little kids," he said about the protesters in Murrieta. "We're not talking about rapists. We're talking about human beings. How would they feel if it was their kids?"
After the migrants are processed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will decide who can be released while awaiting deportation proceedings.
Earlier in the day, a chartered plane landed in San Diego with 136 migrants on board, according to a federal Department of Homeland Security official who was not authorized to be named when speaking on the issue.


It was the first flight planned for California under the federal government's effort to ease the crunch in the Rio Grande Valley and deal with the flood of Central American children and families fleeing to the United States.
The government is also planning to fly migrants to Texas cities and another site in California, and it has already taken some migrants to Arizona.
More than 52,000 unaccompanied children have been detained after crossing the Texas-Mexico border since October in what President Barack Obama has called a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants are under the impression that they will receive leniency from U.S. authorities.
Another flight was expected to take 140 migrants to a facility in El Centro, California, on Wednesday, said Lombardo Amaya, president of the El Centro chapter of the Border Patrol union. The Border Patrol would not confirm that arrival date.
_____
Associated Press writer Amy Taxin in Santa Ana contributed to this report.

[scallop]

Ko kaže da bez rada nema ekonomskog rasta? U zemlji mogućnosti može i to. Ima i o tome da se mladi zapošljavaju ispod svoje stručne spreme, o krpežu od radnog vremena, ali to je samo za radoznale.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/opinion/growth-without-jobs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

[Father Jape]

Dejvid Sajmon, tvorac Homicidea i The Wirea, u otvorenom pismu šefu policije Fergusona:

http://davidsimon.com/the-end-game-for-american-civic-responsibility-pt-iii/

[Meho Krljic]

Aj em gaverner Džeri Braun 

Mislim, kad je Kalifornija spremna da se popiša po sopstvenim zakonima kako bi Elon Mask zaposlio šes i po hiljada građana, šta onda od Vučića & kompanije uopšte da očekujemo?



                                                                        California may waive environmental rules for Tesla battery factory                     

The state would exempt Tesla Motors Inc. from some of its toughest environmental regulations as part of an incentive package being discussed with the automaker to build a massive battery factory in California, a key state senator said.
"It would help them speed the process," Sen. Ted Gaines said after a Friday meeting with Tesla officials at the company's Palo Alto headquarters and assembly line in Fremont, east of San Francisco.
The plan being negotiated in the office of Gov. Jerry Brown could grant the automaker waivers for significant portions of the nearly half-century-old California Environmental Quality Act, Gaines said. The proposal is alarming some environmentalists.


The governor's pitch also includes a number of tax breaks for Tesla that could be worth as much as $500 million, or about 10% of the project's total cost, said Gaines, a Republican representing the Sacramento suburb of Rocklin. He and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), are the coauthors of a proposed Tesla incentive bill that would put the package of incentives into law.
The Brown administration is hustling to compete with four other states — Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — for what Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk calls his "gigafactory." Musk has described California as a "long shot" for snagging the proposed plant.


Tesla says the plant, which will make batteries for a new, moderately priced model, is expected to cost $5 billion and employ 6,500 workers.
Gaines, who said he was briefed by the governor's economic development experts last week, said the administration and lawmakers are hurrying to complete the package before the legislative session closes at the end of August.
"We are waiting for the finalization of the details," he said. "We know we have to move quickly."
A representative of the governor's economic staff did not respond to requests for comment on the negotiations with Tesla.


Musk has said that a quick environmental review was essential to getting the plant up and running by 2017 to meet growing demand for planned moderately priced Tesla cars.
"Timing for the gigafactory is very important," Tesla spokesman Simon Sproule said Monday. "So all five states in the running for the gigafactory need to demonstrate, among other factors, that they can help us deliver the factory on time."
California's landmark environmental statute, widely known by its acronym CEQA, was signed into law by former Gov. Ronald Reagan. It requires state and local government agencies to review development projects to identify potential threats to the environment and recommend ways to reduce or eliminate any potential damage.


Among the incentives under discussion have been provisions to limit prior environmental review of plans for the California battery plant location — if Tesla chooses to locate here.
"I think that's a possibility," Gaines said.
According to state officials who said they were familiar with discussions but not authorized to speak about them, Tesla also might be allowed to start construction and mitigate any potential damage later. Also being discussed is whether to limit lawsuits that could slow the project.
Environmental activists were critical of any attempt to waive CEQA regulations, especially for such a notably "green" company as Tesla, whose all-electric cars emit no greenhouse gases or other air pollution.


"I think it's a terrible idea," said David Pettit, a lawyer specializing in environmental review laws for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "For one thing, it does indicate that we have two systems of law in California — one for the super rich, and one for the developer doing multifamily housing."
The idea of essentially waiving CEQA is "unacceptable," said Kathryn Phillips, director of the Sierra Club in California. "It sounds like you're taking away environmental review and taking away citizen enforcement ... for a single project."
A suspension of strict pre-construction reviews — if it ends up in the package of incentives — would go far beyond the Legislature's past efforts to boost favored projects by speeding up environmental studies and limiting opponents' abilities to delay projects with time-consuming lawsuits.
In recent years, lawmakers gave such special treatment to developers interested in building pro football stadiums in Irwindale and downtown Los Angeles, as well as a National Basketball Assn. arena under construction for the Sacramento Kings.
Tesla has not made any final announcements about where its battery plant or plants might be.
But last month, the automaker confirmed that it already began site preparation work near Reno for what could be the first of several lithium-ion battery plants.

[Anomander Rejk]

A u Fergusonu suzavcem i palicama na demonstrante, policajci prete novinarima, stigla i Nacionalna garda.
Gde se sad dede ,,pravo na okupljanje'', ,,pravo na izražavanje volje građana'' i sl, što su tako gorljivo
zastupali u Ukrajini?

[scallop]

Što ja volim pozorište, ali ne u svojoj kući.

[Ghoul]

Ubijen još jedan Afroamerikanac

IZVOR: RTS

Sent Luis -- Policija u Sent Luisu je ubila dvadesetrogodišnjeg Afroamerikanca. Incident se dogodio na oko šest kilometara od mesta gde se održavaju protesti u Fergusonu.


Ubijeni muškarac je mahao nožem ka policajcima, tvrde svedoci.

"Rekao je da su policajci zahtevali od njega da baci nož. Policajci su pucali u njega kada je odbio to da učini", naveo je jedan svedok.

Svedoci kažu da je ubijeni muškarac govorio ":Pucajte u mene, ubijte me!".

Istražitelji će pogledati snimke incidenta na sigurnosnim kamerama. Osumnjičeni je identifikovan kao dvadesetrogodišnji afroamerikanac.

Pre nekoliko dana je u gradu Fergusonu u istoj državi beli policajac usmrtio crnog tinejdžera Majkla Brauna.

Zbog toga se u gradu ne smiruju demonstracije.

[Meho Krljic]

Treba se setiti da je američka sadašnjost naša budućnost u jednoj zabrinjavajućoj meri. Odgledati do kraja jer je skit sa Sarom Silverman izvrstan:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Predatory Lending (HBO)

[Ghoul]

Cell Phone Video Emerges That Refutes St. Louis Cops Version of Shooting

By Jay Syrmopoulos on August 20, 2014


St. Louis- On Tuesday, while tensions continued to simmer in Ferguson, just a few miles away 25-year-old Kajieme Powell was gunned down by St. Louis cops.

Officers claimed that they were in fear of their lives as Powell charged at them with a knife. They claim he had the knife in an "overhand grip" and came within three feet of the officers, at which time they opened fire, killing Powell.

The incident stemmed from a call by a Six Star Market owner after Powell allegedly stole two energy drinks, according to KSDK.

Reports from witnesses claim that Powell was acting erratically, pacing back and forth on the street and talking to himself, while carrying a knife.

St. Louis Metro Police Chief Sam Dotson responding to a question of whether the shooting was justified said his officers "have a right to go home at night" going on to say that all officers have a right to defend themselves.

He went on to defend his officers actions saying that they used deadly force due to the suspect with a knife coming within three of four feet of the officers, which would be considered within lethal range.

New cell phone video has emerged that calls into question officer's version of events, and Dotson's defense of his officers, leading up to the shooting.

http://youtu.be/j-P54MZVxMU

In the video two cops arrive together, exit the vehicle, and demand Powell drop the knife. Powell begins yelling "shoot me, shoot me, shoot me now," as walks onto a ledge then steps off as if to approach.

Powell, who had his hands at his sides, never came within more than 10-15 feet of the officers before they opened fire killing him.



As the man recording the incident stated,

"They could have tazed that man."
Surely the officers could have utilized non-lethal force in this situation.

It seems that these officers, and Police Chief Dotson, think they are the only ones that "have a right to go home at night."

The police turned a call about two stolen energy drinks into a murder, of course they will say it was justified, so they could go home at night... sadly, Kajieme Powell will never be able to go home again.

It's this us or them mentality that has created the conditions we see in Ferguson and around the country, as the warrior cop has no sense how to diffuse a situation, but rather only how to use force and brutality on those they are sworn to protect and serve.



Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cell-phone-video-emerges-refutes-st-louis-cops-version-shooting/#ws8QC7cYDYZh6Zf8.99

[Meho Krljic]

Da se ne kaže da samo kod nas narod pljuje po precedniku:


EX-CIA employee admits President Obama is a radical Islamic enemy of America

t's an explosive charge, one that practically accuses the president of treason.
If you want to receive further articles, please click on SUBSCRIBE.
Today, a  former CIA agent bluntly told the newspaper, World Net Daily, that  America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.  Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record.
Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute. Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.
Lopez said the global war on terror had been an effort to "stay free of Shariah," or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.   Lopez believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.  One of the most outrageous of those appointments is Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, Elibiary supports brokering a U.S. partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group.  Two months ago, a firestorm erupted online after Elibiary tweeted that a "Caliphate" is inevitable and compared it to the European Union.
Ms. Lopez also believes  Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: "to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands."  The former CIA operative's perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.
While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.
Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan,  who is believed to be a Muslim convert, "consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading," adding, they "take pains to assure the world they don't think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?"
"In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror," she said.
I wonder if those who don't want to go 'on the record' will finally speak out.
   Suggested by the author    This week, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West calls President Obama an Islamist          

[Meho Krljic]

Džon Oliver o edukativnom sistemu u SAD, prevashodno o studentskim dugovima za koje smo već ovde pisali da se mere astronomskim ciframa:



Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Student Debt (HBO)

[Meho Krljic]

Cela Pensilvanija traži ubicu u SRPSKOJ UNIFORMI koji je pucao na policajce

Cela policija u Pensilvaniji je danima u poteri za Erikom Frejnom (31) koji je ubio pripadnika Nacionalne policije Briona Diksona (38) i ranio Aleksa Daglasa (31). Frejn je opsednut bitkama iz Drugog svetskog rata i istočnoevropskom vojskom, a posebno četničkim uniformama.


Smatra se da je veoma opasan, možda naoružan puškom i kalašnjikovom. Škole u okolini mesta zločina danas ne rade zbog potrage.

Potpukovnik Džordž Bivens saopštio je danas da Frejn "pripada jedinici za rekonstrukciju vojnih događaja", koja je fokusirana na istočnoevropske vojske.   
 
"Obrijao je glavu sa strane, a ostavio dugačku kosu na temenu", dodao je on.

Policija opisuje Frejna kao dobrog strelca i umetnika preživljavanja, koji je kivan na policiju i vlasti.
   
"Uglavnom se sam obučavao za preživljavanje", rekao je Bivens.
 
Jedinica za vojnu simulaciju kojoj Frejn pripada "Istočni vuk" ima ulogu čete vojnika istočne Evrope. Frej zvani "Vuk" je ljubav prema srpskoj uniformi pokazao i na fotografijama koje je postavio na svoj Fejsbuk profil, a da voli i srpsku tradiciju dokazao je poziranjem ispred Hrama Svetog Save u Beogradu.

Prema njegovim rečima, Frejn je često menjao posao i nikada se nije duže zadržao na jednom položaju. Pripadao je grupi ljudi koji su simulirali vojnu istoriju i bili opsednuti Istočnom Evropom u vreme hladnog rata.
 
"Mnogi od tih ljudi bi bili spremni da odu toliko daleko", objašnjava on. "Oni šiju ili nabavljaju uniforme i proučavaju istoriju datog perioda i uporedio bih to gotovo sa rekonstrukcijom vojnih događaja".

On je takođe rekao da je Frejn u proteklih nekoliko godina odlazio u Evropu.
Policija je upozorila stanovništvo da bude oprezno tokom potrage za Frejnom. Biven im je preporučio da zaključaju vrata i ne gase svetla. Više od 150 policajaca učestvuje u potrazi.
   
Umetnički direktor Džeremaja Hornbejker, koji je poznavao Frejna skoro deset godina, ispričao je za Ej-bi-si njuz da su Frejna često angažovali prilikom snimanja filmova kao stručnjaka za vojsku i oružju. U kratkom filmu iz 2007. godine "Lustig" igrao je nemačkog vojnika.

Cop Killer is preparing to kill again. (Eric Frein)

[Meho Krljic]

Šteta što nas je Boris napustio jer bismo sad sigurno bar tri dana polemisali o ovome... A ovako nećemo.


http://youtu.be/_8m8cQI4DgM

[Ugly MF]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)

VRH VRHOVA!
Sve je za neverovati, ali Pandur na 7 minutu je Iznad toga!

[Meho Krljic]

Cela Pensilvanija traži ubicu u SRPSKOJ UNIFORMI koji je pucao na policajce

Uvatiše ovoga:


Uhapšen američki "četnik", jedan od najtraženijih begunaca

Erik Frejn, noćna mora Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, koji se više od šest nedelja vešto krio u Pensilvaniji nakon što je ubio policajca, konačno je uhapšen, javljaju američki mediji.
Frejn koga je FBI stavio na listu deset najtraženijih ljudi u SAD je uhapšen živ, potvrdila je policija. Zvaničnici su potvrdili da su ga uhapsili nakon informacije da se krije u magacinu na aerodromu pored Bak Hila.
"Pozvali su ga da izađe napolje i onda su ga opkolili", rekao je jedan od nadležnih za "Foks njuz" i dodao da nije bilo nikakvog incidenta tokom hapšenja.
Više stotina policajaca tragalo je 48 dana po celoj Pensilvaniji za ovim umišljenim četnikom koji je ubio jednog rendžera, a drugog ranio.
Frejn se vešto skrivao od policije i bio neuhvatljiv, pa su pojedini počeli da ga porede sa filmskim junakom Rambom. Za sobom je navodno ostavljao neobične tragove, među kojima i paklicu sarajevske "Drine" uvezene iz Srbije, kalašnjikov, ručne bombe, kao i pelene...
Policija je morala da pretraži šume Pensilvanije tokom mesečne potrage, a nedavno su postavili i balone sa kamerama kako bi ga lakše locirali.
Pretpostavlja se da Frejn, koji koristi srpsko ime "Vučko", ima neraščišćene račune sa državom, pošto je protiv vlasti redovno pisao još od 2006. godine.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Да, сад прочитах вест и тедох да је окачим. Баш сам синоћ размишљао о њему, како га сад ту блате и провлаче по поганим медијима, а заправо је потпуно онај филмски american outlaw. Пуца на дротове па бежи по неким вукојебинама. Само није страдао у обрачуну са шерифом, јбг.

Држи се, Фрејне!