Link to article:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
The intersection of race and justice on the street has loomed in the headlines this past year or two, with racially charged killings—Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice, among others—sparking widespread protests and highlighting stark police biases: A recent Justice Department investigation, for instance, found that blacks in Ferguson, Missouri, accounted for an overwhelming majority of traffic stops, traffic tickets, and arrests over a two-year period—nearly everyone who got a jaywalking ticket was black. When black drivers were pulled over in Ferguson, the DOJ found, they were searched at twice the rate of white drivers.
Link:
By John Lighton 4 Mar 2015 4:01 pmcommentsShare
Oklahoma has been experiencing an earthquake boom in recent years. In 2014, the state had 585 quakes of at least magnitude 3. Up through 2008, it averaged only three quakes of that strength each year. Something odd is happening.
But scientists at the Oklahoma Geological Survey have downplayed a possible connection between increasing fracking in the state and the increasing number of tremors. Even as other states (Ohio, for example) quickly put two and two together and shut down some drilling operations that were to blame, OGS scientists said that more research was needed before their state took similar steps.
Now, though, emails obtained by EnergyWire reporter Mike Soraghan reveal that the University of Oklahoma and its oil industry funders were putting pressure on OGS scientists to downplay the connection between earthquakes and the injection of fracking wastewater underground. In 2013, a preliminary OGS report noted possible correlation between the two, and OGS signed on to a statement by the U.S. Geological Survey that also noted such linkages. Soon after, OGS’s seismologist, Austin Holland, was summoned to meetings with the president of the university, where OGS is housed, and with executives of oil company Continental Resources. Continental CEO Harold Hamm was a major university funder, while the university president David Boren serves on Continental’s board, for which he earned $272,700 in cash and stock in 2013. From EnergyWire:
“I have been asked to have ‘coffee’ with President Boren and Harold Hamm Wednesday,” [Holland] wrote in an Nov. 18, 2013, email to a co-worker.
The significance was not lost on his colleague, OGS Public Information Coordinator Connie Smith.
“Gosh,” Smith responded. “I guess that’s better than having Kool-Aid with them. I guess.”
A meeting with such powerful figures in the state would be intimidating for a state employee such as Holland, said state Rep. Jason Murphey of Guthrie.
“Wow. That’s a lot of pressure,” said Murphey, a Republican whose district has been rattled by numerous quakes. “That just sends chills up your spine if you’re from Oklahoma.”
Oklahoma geologist Bob Jackman, who has tried to get the word out about the connection between fracking and the quakes, recalls Holland saying last year that he couldn’t do the same. According to Jackman, Holland, when pressed, blurted out, “You don’t understand — Harold Hamm and others will not allow me to say certain things.”
Holland says Jackman misremembered the conversation. Holland publicly denies being pressured by the university or industry.
Other scientists at OGS weren’t happy to see the agency downplay the link between one oil and gas project, called the Hunton dewatering, and an earthquake swarm near Oklahoma City. One wrote to a family member, “I am dismayed at our seismic people about this issue and believe they couldn’t track a bunny through fresh snow!”
Even the USGS picked up on something fishy when Holland suggested alternative hypotheses to explain earthquakes instead of linking them to fracking processes. A science adviser with the federal agency wrote to Holland saying one alternative theory was “unlikely” and “could be very distracting from the larger issue of earthquake safety in Oklahoma … and the role that wastewater injection may be playing.”
In July 2014, Holland told Bloomberg that if a link between fracking and the quakes were to be discovered, he’d have to advise the state to shut some drilling operations down. “If my research takes me to the point where we determine the safest thing to do is to shut down injection — and consequently production — in large portions of the state, then that’s what we have to do,” he said. “That’s for the politicians and the regulators to work out.”
The research is there, even if UO President David Boren or Continental CEO Harold Hamm aren’t pleased about it. Let’s see what those politicians and regulators do next.
Source:
Okla. agency linked quakes to oil in 2010, but kept mum amid industry pressure
, EnergyWire.
Please
to view the comments.
Originally from –
Oklahoma scientists pressured to downplay link between earthquakes and fracking
Mother Jones
Following weeks of renewed rape allegations against comedian Bill Cosby, CNN host Don Lemon wanted Joan Tarshis, who has accused Cosby of sexual assault, to know she could have escaped the alleged 1969 attack, if she had used her teeth as a weapon during oral sex.
Lemon, insisting he was not trying to be “crude,” suggested this tactic while interviewing Tarshis on CNN Tonight:
Lemon: You know, there are way not to perform oral sex if you didn’t want to do it.
Tarshis: Oh, I was kind of stoned at the time, and quite honestly, that didn’t even enter my mind. Now I wish it would have.
Lemon: Right. Meaning the using of the teeth, right?
Tarshis: Yes, that’s what I’m thinking you’re….
Lemon: As a weapon.
Tarshis: I didn’t even think of it.
Lemon: Biting.
Tarshis: Ouch.
Lemon: Yes. I had to ask. I mean, it is, yeah.
The awkward exchange followed an interview Tarshis gave to Lemon the day before, in which she claimed she had lied to Cosby about having an STD in order to convince him not to rape her. She alleged that Cosby then forced her perform oral sex on him. In the first interview, Lemon asked, “Why didn’t you tell police?”
Originally posted here:
CNN’s Don Lemon Tells Woman Accusing Bill Cosby of Rape She Could Have Bitten Her Way to Safety
Mother Jones
Elizabeth Warren is off to a running start in her new leadership role with the Senate Democratic caucus. She called out Walmart for its terrible labor practices. She wrote an op-ed this week warning the president against appointing Wall Street insiders to the Federal Reserve. And Tuesday morning, she called on financial institutions to prove that they can protect customer data from cybercriminals.
Over the past year, cyber attackers have stolen roughly 500 million records from financial institutions, according to federal law enforcement officials. In a joint letter also signed by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Warren asked 16 firms—including Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley—for detailed information about cyber attacks they experienced over the past year and how they plan to prevent future breaches.
“The increasing number of cyberattacks and data breaches is unprecedented and poses a clear and present danger to our nation’s economic security,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter. “Each successive cyberattack and data breach not only results in hefty costs and liabilities for businesses, but exposes consumers to identity theft and other fraud, as well as a host of other cyber-crimes.”
Warren and Cummings requested the firms provide information on the number of customers that may have been affected by breaches, data security measures the companies have taken in response, the value of the fraudulent transactions connected with the cyber attacks, and who is suspected to have carried them out. The letters also request that IT security officers at each firm brief the lawmakers on how they are protecting their data from cybervillains.
The lawmakers hope to use the information the firms provide to inform new federal cybersecurity legislation. Current cybersecurity law is unclear about when companies are required to notify the government about a data hack. Warren has previously called on Congress to give the Federal Trade Commission more power to regulate data breaches.
The American financial sector is one of the most targeted in the world, according to the FBI and Secret Service officials. The hackers who stole data from JPMorgan Chase earlier this year—compromising information from 76 million households—also targeted 13 other financial institutions, Bloomberg reported last month.
See original article –
Elizabeth Warren to Banks: Prove You Can Protect Customer Data From Hackers
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
ISIS, the radical Islamist group that has seized large chunks of Iraq and Syria, has established a significant presence in the Twittersphere, using the microblogging platform to recruit, inspire, and terrorize. So has Twitter, the San Francisco-based tech company that collects large amounts of location and personal data on its users, teamed up with international governments to stop ISIS? Not really. Apparently, ISIS’s tweeters are not all violating Twitter’s rules.
This summer, media reports noted that Twitter was suspending user accounts affiliated with ISIS. The Guardian reported that Twitter was “in duel” with ISIS and “closer than ever” with law enforcement agencies, mostly focusing on radical content coming from Syria and Iraq. Slate noted that Twitter practices a “systematic removal of terrorist content.” And Marie Harf, the spokesperson for the State Department, hinted in September on CNN that the government was collaborating with Twitter to keep an eye on ISIS: “We’ve talked to Twitter and YouTube and others about their own terms of service and making sure that ISIS’s videos or photos don’t violate those, because some of them, as you know, are quite gruesome.”
Some ISIS accounts were suspended, including accounts that issued death threats against Twitter employees. But Twitter has not launched an all-out crusade to eradicate ISIS from the Twitterverse.
Waging a (virtual) war against ISIS is not on Twitter’s agenda. According to one Twitter company official, who asked not to be identified, the tech firm isn’t interested in defining terrorism or silencing political speech. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” this Twitter official says, pointing out that Twitter has long been a home for political dissidents and unpopular and extreme views. ISIS, however radical and violent, isn’t an exception. Twitter, this official insists, takes terrorism and violence seriously, but does not compromise on its terms.
See the original article here:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
As early as this week, President Barack Obama is expected to announce an executive order that would give some 5 million undocumented immigrants a respite from deportation. Part of the order, according to early reports, will involve reforms to Secure Communities, a program that requires police to share arrestees’ fingerprints with federal immigration officials, who can turn around and use the information to deport suspects who are here illegally. Change would a good thing, here, because while the program—which began in 2008 under President George W. Bush and was expanded under Obama—has deported some serious criminals, it has screwed over a lot of other people. From the start, immigrant rights organizations slammed “S-Comm” as a costly, ineffective program that tramples on people’s civil liberties. Even Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson has suggested that it may need an overhaul. Here’s a rundown of what the program does—and why so many people hate it.
S-Comm sweeps up serious criminals… When local police book someone, that person’s fingerprints are transmitted to the FBI to determine whether the arrestee is a fugitive or a former convict. Under Secure Communities, those prints go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which checks to see whether the suspect is undocumented. If so, it orders the local cops to detain him or her for potential deportation. More than 3,000 American counties now participate. Of the more than 2 million immigrants deported on Obama’s watch, more than 306,000 came to the feds’ attention through Secure Communities, which has led to the deportation of more than 288,000 convicted criminals.
And immigrants just trying to live and work… Local police share fingerprints with ICE when a suspect is arrested—not convicted. Which means that even though the purported aim is to deport criminals, people who are never charged or convicted often get the boot. “Federal officials have held people whose worst alleged violation was selling tamales without a permit or having a barking dog,” California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano said last year. “Even crime victims have been deported.” More from Elise Foley of the Huffington Post:
The program has ensnared parents driving without a license because they need to work and can’t get authorization to drive in their state. It has caught young people arrested for small levels of drug possession. Many of those caught are people who have previously been deported but came back to the US to work or be with their families—immigrants who could be aided by a policy that put less emphasis on deporting repeat immigration law violators.
Of the people deported through S-Comm between 2008 and 2013, 21 percent were never convicted of a crime.
And American citizens… According to a 2011 study by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley, thousands of United States citizens have been swept up by S-Comm—something the study’s authors hadn’t anticipated. “What we’re finding is that ICE is arresting and then investigating,” one of the authors informed a reporter. If you’re brown, you’d better watch your back. The same study found that 93 percent of the arrestees ordered to be detained by ICE were Latino, even though Latinos make up about 77 percent of undocumented immigrants in the United States. “There is a concern that police officers working in areas that have Secure Communities in their local jails may have an incentive…to make pretextual arrests of persons they suspect to be in violation of immigration laws,” notes the Immigration Policy Center. Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have urged the White House to scrap the program entirely.
But it doesn’t reduce crime: The program has had “no observable effect on the overall crime rate,” according to a study released in early September.
In fact, it may actually make your community less safe… Research has shown that undocumented immigrants living in counties that participate in Secure Communities are afraid to report crimes or come forward as witnesses for fear of deportation.
And it’s costing you money: The program requires local authorities to hold arrestees longer than they otherwise would, meaning a higher bill for taxpayers. For example, Secure Communities cost Los Angeles County law enforcement an extra $26 million per year, according to a 2012 report. Washington state’s King County determined that it cost county taxpayers $3 million annually.
By the way, S-Comm was supposed to be optional: The Department of Homeland Security—ICE’s parent agency—originally touted S-Comm as voluntary—states and localities could opt out. But in late 2010, after numerous jurisdictions chose to do just that, ICE made it clear that was virtually impossible. Because the FBI already gets the fingerprints for arrestees, ICE can access them regardless. In 2011, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) demanded an investigation into whether DHS intentionally misled the public. “I believe some of these false and misleading statements…were made recklessly, knowing that the statements were ambiguous and likely to create confusion,” she wrote in a letter to DHS. Some localities have devised other ways to limit their cooperation with ICE. A total of 59 jurisdictions have said they will no longer comply with ICE requests to hold detainees so that the feds can come pick them up. Two states—California and Connecticut—have enacted measures prohibiting law enforcement from honoring ICE requests to hold immigrants unless those people have committed serious crimes.
So how might the administration fix this thing? We won’t know the details until Obama makes his executive order, but Vox‘s Dara Lind reported in May that one option being considered was to limit the program to so-called Level 1 criminals—those who have committed one “aggravated felony” or two felonies. However, Lind notes, “independent data shows that immigrants can be labeled Level 1 criminals for everything from disturbing the peace to cashing a check with insufficient funds.” In any case, such a change could mean 20,000 to 50,000 fewer deportations per year.
Read this article –
Obama May Overhaul the Immigration Program That Detains Americans and Turns Cops Into Federal Agents
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
We’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well.
On Friday, ABC News published a story about a email listserv maintained by two Democratic operatives: Robby Mook, a former Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton campaign aide, and Marlon Marshall, an Obama White House staffer. The story’s title—”EXCLUSIVE: Read the Secret Emails of the Men Who May Run Hillary Clinton’s Campaign”—promised a juicy exposé. In reality, the substance of what members posted on this 150-member “secret” listserv, dubbed the “Mook Mafia,” was far from explosive. The phrases “smite Republicans mafia-style” and “punish those voters” read badly out of context. But then, who hasn’t dashed off a snarky email to friends that you wished you could take back and touch up a little?
The real news isn’t that Mook and Marshall had a listserv for fellow Democratic operatives. It’s that someone on the listserv leaked its contents in an effort to hurt Mook’s chances of becoming the manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. In other words, the Clinton ’16 effort has yet to officially launch and already the backstabbing and infighting has begun.
It’s shades of Hillary ’08 all over again.
Internal battles notoriously plagued Clinton’s first presidential run. A Washington Post story in March 2008 described the “combustible environment within the Clinton campaign, an operation where internal strife and warring camps have undercut a candidate once seemingly destined for the Democratic nomination.”
The story went on:
Many of her advisers are waging a two-front war, one against Sen. Barack Obama and the second against one another, but their most pressing challenge is figuring out why Clinton won in Ohio and Texas and trying to duplicate it. While chief strategist Mark Penn sees his strategy as a reason for the victories that have kept her candidacy alive, other advisers attribute the wins to her perseverance, favorable demographics, and a new campaign manager. Clinton won “despite us, not because of us,” one said.
The Post published this story after Clinton had won the crucial Ohio and Texas primaries. That is, even in victory, the Clinton camp was divided, its top aides in conflict with one another.
In response to the Post story, Clinton adviser Bob Barnett wrote an email that was later published by The Atlantic:
STOP IT!!!! I have held my tongue for weeks. After this morning’s WP story, no longer. This makes me sick. This circular firing squad that is occurring is unattractive, unprofessional, unconscionable, and unacceptable…It must stop.
Neither Mark Penn nor Clinton’s first choice of campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, lasted the entire campaign. Penn left the campaign after the Wall Street Journal reported that he had lobbied in support of a trade deal with Colombia that Clinton opposed. Solis Doyle was once so close to Clinton that she liked to say, “When I speak, Hillary is speaking.” But by the time of her firing, Solis Doyle and Clinton were on such bad terms that Clinton let her go by email.
Even after Penn’s departure, as the Atlantic story illustrated, the acrimony continued:
Geoff Garin, the new leader, soon encountered the old problems. Obama remained the front-runner, and Clinton’s communications staff disagreed on how to turn back the tide of tough stories. Garin was appalled at the open feuding and leaking. “I don’t mean to be an asshole,” he wrote in an e-mail to the senior staff. “But…Senator Clinton has given Howard Wolfson both the responsibility and the authority to make final decisions about how this campaign delivers its message.” On the strategic front, Garin sided with the coalition opposed to Penn’s call to confront Obama, and he had numbers to support his reasoning. Polls showed that a majority of voters now distrusted Clinton.
The strategic leaking of Mook’s and Marshall’s listserv emails wouldn’t have been at all out of place during Clinton’s ’08 campaign, as her aides bickered and backstabbed their way to defeat against a more cohesive—or at least functional—Obama campaign.
Over the past few years, I have interviewed a number of folks who have worked on various campaigns with Mook, dating back to Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid. I heard nothing but admiration and respect for someone routinely described to me as a smart and honest operative who kept his head down and disliked publicity. He and Obama organizing guru Jeremy Bird helped create Dean’s pioneering volunteer-powered ground game in New Hampshire—a model Mook took with him to Clinton’s ’08 bid and Bird applied to Obama’s first presidential run. And in 2013, Mook, using part of the Obama playbook, helped longtime Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe win a tough fight for governor in Virginia. This victory, which impressed the Democratic political class, got people talking about Mook helming a Clinton campaign. But obviously not everyone is keen on that.
It’s not known who was behind the Mook email dump. But for Democrats this prankish move raises a troubling question: Is it possible to avoid conflict within Hillaryland? In 2008, Clinton demonstrated she could not head a cohesive, effective, and drama-free operation. Democrats who yearn for her to do better this time might be forgiven for looking at this episode and wondering, here we go again?
Link:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Light armored vehicles fire on targets during a training mission. (US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Jonathan R. Waldman)
Source article:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Love
Black Beauty
High Moon
Fans have been waiting a long, long time for this one. The LA ensemble Love, best known for the 1967 folk-pop classic Forever Changes, assumed a variety of guises during its turbulent and intriguing history. On the band’s 1966 debut, frontman Arthur Lee and company displayed a heavy debt to the Byrds, though his songwriting was too original to qualify the band as imitators. By the time Love recorded Black Beauty in 1973, Lee was the only remaining original member, and the sound echoed the psychedelic hard rock of his friend Jimi Hendrix.
While this previously unreleased album isn’t a lost masterpiece, it’s well worth hearing. The quartet is brawny and nimble at once, while songs like “Young & Able (Good & Evil)” and “Lonely Pigs” range from romance to meditations on social justice and race. (Like Hendrix, Lee was a black man navigating the predominantly white rock-and-roll world.) Lee subsequently experienced extreme ups and downs, including jail time in the ’90s and an overdue celebratory comeback after his 2001 release from prison, before passing away in 2006. Black Beauty fills in a significant gap in his story.
Source:
Libros
