Tag Archives: north

Is Feeding Birds in Winter Good for Them?

During winter, most birds traditionally eat weed seeds and overwintering insects. Their options have dramatically increased in the last few decades. Now almost one-third of adults in North America put out nearly one billion pounds of birdseed each year. Does this help birds, or does it create an unhealthy cycle of dependency?

Research has shown that feeding birds in winter is largely to their advantage.

How does winter feeding benefit birds?

A study by the University of Exeter and Queens University Belfast found that extra food provided at bird feeders during winter leads to more successful breeding in the spring. Birds that received extra food laid eggs earlier and had a higher survival rate of the chicks.

The researchers also concluded that its beneficial to keep feeding until the end of breeding season. Feeders that were left out until late spring continued to have a positive effect on breeding outcomes.

Winter bird feeders have been shown to have the greatest benefit when birds are most challenged, such as during a particularly harsh winter or in poor-quality habitats. This is true for summer and fall feeding as well. Any time when natural food is scarce, supplemental feeding can help.

Feeding birds during winter may improve their immediate survival and breeding success, but what about the dependency issue? Do winter-fed birds lose their ability to forage for natural food sources when the feeders are gone?

It turns out this is also a myth. A University of Wisconsin study removed feeders from a woodland where chickadees had been fed for the previous 25 years. They compared survival rates with chickadees in a nearby woodland that never had feeders. They found that the winter-fed chickadees were able to switch back immediately to natural foraging and they survived the winter as well as the chickadees who had never used feeders.

What should you feed birds?

Its important to provide nutritious options to overwintering birds. Dont ever give them leftover bread or baked goods. This is not their natural diet and will not provide the vitamins and minerals birds need to survive the winter.

Seeds. These are the most common bird food available. Seeds are high in carbohydrates and calories, which provide valuable energy during cold temperatures. Commercial seed mixes often contain a lot of cheap filler seeds and grains, such as oats, wheat and flax. Youve likely seen these seeds thrown on the ground as birds search through the mix looking for their favorites.

Its recommended to buy separate seed varieties. Try putting each type of seed in different feeders so the birds can choose what they like. This will give you a good idea of what your local birds are looking for.

The black oil sunflower seed is well-loved by many birds, and thistle seed is favored by siskins and goldfinches. Millet is often preferred by ground-feeding birds, such as quail, doves and juncos. Specialty seed blends can also be found at higher-quality stores.

Suet. Most suet is beef kidney fat, which has similar fats and proteins to insects. This will attract insect-eating birds, such as woodpeckers, jays and nuthatches.

Prepared suet cakes are often available at stores that carry birdseed. Suet can be mixed with other foods, such as seeds. Either plain or in a mix, you can put suet in wire mesh feeders or smear it into suet logs or pine cones.

Do not put suet out in warm weather. It can become rancid or melt quickly. When melted, the liquid fat can coat birds beaks and cause damage to feathers during preening.

Fruit. Many birds, such as waxwings, thrushes and robins, may only come to your feeder if fruit or berries are offered. Fresh or dried apples, cranberries, blueberries, currants, oranges and raisins are often popular.

Peanut butter. This can be used similarly to suet. Try mixing it with some seeds, cornmeal, and dried fruit for an alternative, high-protein bird snack. Stick to natural peanut butter to avoid any added sugar and salt.

One more reason to plant a tree.

A significant issue birds face today is loss of habitat. The wild spaces they once had for natural foraging are decreasing. Another way you can help birds to successfully overwinter is to revitalize wild areas or plant more food-bearing shrubs and trees in your backyard. Not only will this provide more food, it will also give them nesting sites and protection from predators.

Related
The Pros and Cons of Backyard Bird Feeders
Winter Bird Feeding: 7 Tips and Recipes
10 Reasons to Make Lichen Your New Hobby

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Originally from:

Is Feeding Birds in Winter Good for Them?

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Feeding Birds in Winter Good for Them?

What Donald Trump’s Debate-Rivaling Rally Says About His Candidacy

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When Donald Trump announced, with just two days’ notice, that instead of attending the Republican debate Thursday night he would host a rival event at Drake University in Des Moines, the question was, would his supporters flock to him? Would they come from across the city, the state, even around the country to see him?

Judging from the line outside his event, billed as a fundraiser to support veterans, it seemed that they had. The queue stretched so far back that you couldn’t make out the end of it, and people waited in the cold for hours to get in (and many were ultimately turned away when the venue reached capacity). If Trump could muster this much support at a moment’s notice, you would think he should be well on his way to winning the Iowa caucuses. But on further inspection, the impressive crowd was composed largely of Drake University students, few of whom actually seemed prepared to caucus for Trump—or even to caucus at all.

Continue Reading »

Visit link: 

What Donald Trump’s Debate-Rivaling Rally Says About His Candidacy

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Donald Trump’s Debate-Rivaling Rally Says About His Candidacy

How America’s Gun Manufacturers Are Quietly Getting Richer Off Taxpayers

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In January 2013, a month after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the state of New York passed gun control legislation that included a ban on the retail sale of assault weapons. Soon after, Remington Outdoor Company, the maker of the Bushmaster assault rifle used in the massacre, announced it would lay off workers at its 200-year-old factory in Ilion and move production to Huntsville, Alabama. Then CEO George Kollitides explained in a letter to New York officials that the move was brought on by “state policies affecting use of our products.”

The gun lobby crowed about political payback: “We hope that sends a very strong message,” remarked then National Rifle Association’s president, Jim Porter, on an NRA radio show. What Porter didn’t mention was what Alabama had done to sweeten the deal: By relocating to Huntsville, Remington, a $1 billion firearms conglomerate owned by the Manhattan private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, would receive state and local grants, tax breaks, and other incentives worth approximately $69 million—the equivalent of getting about $14 from every resident of Alabama.

Since 2003, state and local governments from Alabama to Tennessee have given more than $120 million worth of taxpayer funds to at least seven major firearms companies, according to research by Mother Jones. Most of those subsidies—nearly $100 million—have been pledged just over the past three years by states seeking to lure gun producers from the Northeast, where new firearm regulations have angered industry leaders.

“I’ve had CEOs in New England tell me that the offers from states’ economic development teams are so extraordinary that they could essentially move their factories for free,” Larry Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Federation, told Guns & Ammo. “In some cases they’ve received these offers almost daily over extended periods of time.”

After Maryland passed stringent new gun regulations in 2013, Beretta announced it would shutter its factory there and relocate to a state that has shown “consistent, strong support for Second Amendment rights,” as its attorney, Jeff Reh, put it at the time. But politics wasn’t the only factor in Beretta’s move. The city of Gallatin, Tennessee, eventually won the new factory after it offered Beretta $14.4 million in state and local subsidies. “The level of community support was better,” a Beretta spokesman acknowledged in the Charlotte Business Journal, explaining why that city had lost its bid for the plant.

Southern states have long relied on financial and regulatory incentives to attract manufacturers from more industrialized parts of the country. “I think Remington is doing what Mercedes did for us in the automobile business—it opens the door to opportunity,” Porter told the Birmingham Business Journal. Yet Porter suggested gun companies would enjoy an exceptional welcome: “You will have the support of the administration, you will have the support of the population—everybody in the state is going to be lining up to work for Remington.”

Major politicians have gone the extra mile to attract gun companies. In wooing the Beretta factory, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam flew to Italy and met with the Beretta family in a posh wine country villa. Haslam later invited Franco Gussalli Beretta, the head of the company’s American subsidiary, to the governor’s mansion for dinner. Nobody in Tennessee seemed to object to the deal’s $14.4 million price tag. “We believe that our brand as the state of Tennessee has taken on new luster because Beretta has chosen to locate here,” Haslan said at the groundbreaking ceremony, “and we are forever grateful.”

Another incentive for gun companies to relocate south has been lax labor laws. In an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, a Sturm Ruger spokesman admitted the company built a new plant in North Carolina instead of expanding an existing one in Newport, New Hampshire, because it wanted to set up shop in a right-to-work state. Similarly, Remington’s move from New York to Alabama, another right-to-work state, decimated the New York plant’s trade union.

Some Northeastern states have also funneled tax dollars to the firearms industry. Between 2009 and 2014, New York-based Kimber Manufacturing received nearly $1 million in tax abatements and state and local grants—money meant to ensure the company would keep cranking out upwards of 150,000 handguns a year with its factory in Yonkers. Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts have also offered incentives to attract or retain gun manufacturers. But most such enticements are now in the South.

Here are the seven gun companies that have received state and local subsidies in recent years:

Remington Arms, Madison, North Carolina
Move: Owned by a New York private equity fund, Remington in 2014 laid off more than 100 workers at its 200-year-old unionized factory in Ilion, New York (the site of its original headquarters) and opened a new nonunion factory in Huntsville, Alabama.
Subsidy: $68.9 million in cash, worker training, tax abatements, real estate, and construction work from state and local governments. The company also received nearly $12 million in grants, tax credits, and other benefits from New York, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Oklahoma in exchange for training workers and expanding or retaining factories.

Sturm Ruger, Southport, Connecticut
Move: In 2014, the nation’s largest gun company opened a new factory in Mayodan, North Carolina, instead of expanding an existing factory in New Hampshire.
Subsidy: $15.5 million in state tax breaks, employee training, infrastructure construction, and other incentives. The company has also received $150,288 in training subsidies from New Hampshire.

Berretta USA, Accokeek, Maryland
Move: The Italian gun maker last year closed its Maryland plant and moved all US production to a massive factory in Gallatin, Tennessee.
Subsidy: The company will receive $10.41 million in state-funded building improvements and job training grants. The town of Gallatin also kicked in land and tax abatements worth nearly $4 million.

Smith & Wesson, Springfield, Massachusetts.
Move: Publicly traded Smith & Wesson announced in 2010 that it would move its hunting rifle division from New Hampshire to Springfield, Massachusetts.
Subsidy: $6.6 million in state and local tax breaks. The company has also received $158,791 in worker-training subsidies from Massachusetts.

Colt’s Manufacturing, Hartford, Connecticut
Move: In 2011 Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced a deal in which the 180-year-old gun company would open a factory in Kissimmee, saying it showed the state was “a defender of our right to bear arms.” But then Colt walked away from the project for unknown reasons. The company declared bankruptcy last year.
Subsidy: $1.66 million in state and local incentives. Government officials are now trying to claw back the money.

O.F. Mossberg & Sons, North Haven, Connecticut.
Move: The world’s largest manufacturer of pump-action shotguns has gradually shifted manufacturing from Connecticut to a factory in Eagle Pass, Texas. In 2014, it added 116,000 square feet to the factory, which now accounts for 90 percent of its production.
Subsidy: A $300,000 grant in 2014 from the taxpayer-funded Texas Enterprise Fund.

Kimber Manufacturing, Elmsford, New York
Move: America’s largest manufacturer of 1911 pistols hasn’t moved out of New York—at least not yet. In 2012 the company warned that the state’s NY SAFE gun control law might “cause it to reconsider its current expansion.”
Subsidy: In 2009, Kimber received a $700,000 state grant to expand its manufacturing capacity in Yonkers. In 2012 and 2013, it received nearly $300,000 in local tax credits.

Link: 

How America’s Gun Manufacturers Are Quietly Getting Richer Off Taxpayers

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Northeastern, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How America’s Gun Manufacturers Are Quietly Getting Richer Off Taxpayers

Look at These Great Portraits of Doc Watson, Ralph Stanley, Etta James, and Algia Mae Hinton

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I didn’t come up in the rural mountains, but my mother did, and during our vacations we’d find ourselves in the forest-and-meadows paradise of Southern Vermont, where just about any social gathering is an excuse to break out the instruments and play some old-time country tunes.

It’s also a place where just about everyone, it seems, has some kind of side talent, or at least something to barter. Wendy makes winter wreaths. Jerry sells jugs of home-brewed hard cider, milk, butter, and fresh eggs from his chickens. And Pete will carve you a custom mantelpiece when he isn’t building post-and-beam barns. People raised in these mountains don’t have a lot of cash, but they tend to be self sufficient—and they’re that way with music, too. If you can’t play some damned instrument, well, you can at least do the spoons, can’t you? It’s the people’s music.

Roan Mountain Hilltoppers at Fiddler’s Grove, 2003, Iredell County, N.C.

All this is by way of background as to why Hands in Harmony, a collection of portraits of Appalachian craftspeople and musicians by photographer Tim Barnwell, hit a note. It’s a long way from the mountains of Southern Vermont to the mountains of North Carolina, but in the music and lifestyle the distance is not so vast.

There’s a simple honesty, a complete lack of pretension, in Barnwell’s subjects, who consist both of notable artists—such Doc Watson, various Seegers, Earl Scruggs (who cut his teeth playing for Bill Monroe), Etta Baker, Ralph Stanley, and Laura Boosinger—and the unsung artisans and craftspeople who are equally skilled in their way, producing not songs but furniture, baskets, stories, pottery, or musical instruments. (This selection focuses on the music.)

Doc Watson backstage, 1983, Buncombe County, N.C.

The accompanying soundtrack, put together by Barnwell and dulcimerist Don Pedi, is appropriately hillbilly. That’s no put-down. That’s actually Ralph Stanley’s word for the music, since a lot of it came along decades, in some cases centuries, before anyone started calling it bluegrass. (That coinage emerged from the popularity of Kentucky’s late Bill Monroe, also pictured in the book, who named his backing band the Bluegrass Boys.)

Ralph Stanley Sr. with grandson Ralph III, 2007, Wise County, VA.

The producers did well. The CD features a nice gritty selection of songs, kicking off with 87-year-old Clyde Davenport of Kentucky doing “Over the Hill to See Betty Baker”—a lonely fiddle tune to put your mind on location—followed by a raw a cappella version of “William Riley” by Mary Jane Queen of North Carolina, who passed on recently at the age of 93. I already knew a number of these songs, and have even performed a few, but most of the versions were new to me. Old-time musicians borrow and steal bits from one another the way hip-hop producers do.

Algia Mae Hinton, 2007, Nash County, N.C.

I especially liked Algia Mae Hinton’s “Out of Jail,” and Barnwell’s portrait of her just makes you want to give her a hug, doesn’t it? I also liked the old fiddle tunes, including Byard Ray’s version of “Billy in the Low Ground,” Marcus Martin’s “Wounded Hoosier,” Roger Howell’s “Lafayette,” and Charlie Acuff‘s rendition of the old dance tune, “Two O’Clock.” Etta Baker‘s guitar work on “Carolina Breakdown,” stylistically similar to Doc Watson, is a pleasure, as is Pedi’s “That Pretty Girl Won’t Marry Me.”

Charlie Acuff, 2003, Anderson County, TN.

Now I like some grit in my hillbilly music, but no less alluring are Laura Boosinger’s more polished “Letter from Down the Road” and Sheila Kay Adams’ pairing of the old murder tale “Young Hunting” with “Elzic’s Farewell,” a Civil War-era song out of West Virginia.

It’s a solid collection in all, and just the thing to set the mood as you study Barnwell’s portraits, peruse the accompanying histories, and ponder how it would be to live in the mountains his camera inhabits.

Etta Baker, 2005, Burke County, N.C.

Earl Scruggs and son Gary, 2007, Jackson County, N.C.

Grover Sutton, 1987, Haywood County, N.C.

Laura Boosinger, 2006, Buncombe County, N.C.

Roger Howell, 2002, Madison County, N.C.

Read this article: 

Look at These Great Portraits of Doc Watson, Ralph Stanley, Etta James, and Algia Mae Hinton

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Paradise, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Look at These Great Portraits of Doc Watson, Ralph Stanley, Etta James, and Algia Mae Hinton

This Bee-Killing Pesticide Is Terrible at Protecting Crops

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In 2011, agrichemical giants Monsanto and Bayer CropScience joined forces to sell soybean seeds coated with (among other things) an insecticide of the neonicotinoid family. Neonics are so-called systematic pesticides—when the coated seeds sprout and grow, the resulting plants take up the bug-killing chemical, making them poisonous to crop-chomping pests like aphids. Monsanto rivals Syngenta and DuPont also market neonic-treated soybean seeds.

These products—buoyed by claims that the chemical protects soybean crops from early-season insect pests—have enjoyed great success in the marketplace. Soybeans are the second-most-planted US crop, covering about a quarter of US farmland—and at least a third of US soybean acres are grown with neonic-treated seeds. But two problems haunt this highly lucrative market: 1) The neonic soybean seeds might not do much at all to fight off pests, and 2) they appear to be harming bees and may also hurt other pollinators, birds, butterflies, and water-borne invertebrates.

Doubts about neonic-treated soybean seeds’ effectiveness aren’t new. In 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency released a blunt preliminary report finding that “neonicotinoid seed treatments likely provide $0 in benefits” to soybean growers. But the agrichemical industry likes to portray the EPA as an overzealous regulator that relies on questionable data, and it quickly issued a report vigorously disagreeing with the EPA’s assessment.

Now the seed/agrichemical giants will have to open a new front in their battle to convince farmers to continue paying up for neonic-treated soybean seeds. In a recent publication directed to farmers, a coalition of the nation’s most important Midwestern ag-research universities—Iowa State, Kansas State, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, North Dakota State, Michigan State, the University of Minnesota, the University of Missouri, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, South Dakota State, and the University of Wisconsin—argued plainly that “for typical field situations, independent research demonstrates that neonicotinoid seed treatments for soybeans do not provide a consistent return on investment.”

The reason is that neonic-treated soybeans wield the great bulk of their bug-killing power for the first three weeks after the seeds sprout; the major pest that attacks soybean plants, the aphid, doesn’t arrive until much later, when the soybean plants are full-grown. “In other words,” the report states, aphid populations “increase to threshold levels weeks after the short window that neonicotinoid seed treatments protect plants.”

And not only are neonics useless against soybeans’ major field pest, aphids; they may actually boost the fortunes of another important one, the slug, which is “emerging as a key pest” in the soybean belt, according to the report. Pointing to a 2015 study from Penn State researchers, the report notes that slugs aren’t affected by neonics, so they can gobble neonic-treated soy sprouts at will, accumulating the chemical. But when insects called the ground beetle—which has a taste for slugs but not soybean plants—eat the neonic-containing slugs, they tend to die. So slugs transfer the poison from the crops to their natural predator, the ground beetle, and throw the predator balance out of whack, allowing slugs to proliferate. As a result, the Penn State researchers found, neonic seed treatments actually reduce yields in slug-infested fields.

Of course, the most celebrated “non-target” insect potentially affected by neonics is the honeybee. As I reported last week, the EPA recently released an assessment finding that one particular neonic that’s widely used on soybean seeds, imidacloprid, likely harms individual bees and whole bee colonies at levels commonly found in farm fields. That’s because plants from neonic-treated seeds don’t just carry the poison in their leaves and stalks; they also deliver it in bee-attracting nectar and pollen.

While cotton is the imidacloprid-treated crop most likely to hit bees hard, soybeans, too, may pose a threat, the EPA found. The agency couldn’t say for sure, because data on how much of the pesticide shows up in soybeans’ pollen and nectar are “unavailable,” both from Bayer and from independent researchers.

That information gap may be cold comfort for beekeepers, but the agrichemical industry will no doubt seize upon it to argue that its blockbuster chemical is harmless to bees. The rest of us can savor the bitter irony that this widely used pesticide may be more effective at slaying beneficial pollinators than it is at halting crop-chomping pests.

Visit site: 

This Bee-Killing Pesticide Is Terrible at Protecting Crops

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, Green Light, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Sprout, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Bee-Killing Pesticide Is Terrible at Protecting Crops

Quote of the Day: Ted Cruz Angling For Some of That Trump Magic

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Ted Cruz, apparently feeling gloomy today over Donald Trump’s ability to get attention with outrageous statements:

The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. The media doesn’t report that.

Huh. Could be, I suppose. Most convicted felons are pretty poor, and poor people tend not to vote for Republicans. Why would they? Of course, they tend The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. not to vote for Democrats, either. They just don’t vote.

Presumably, Cruz got his data from this study, which estimates that 73 percent of “hypothetical felon voters” would vote for Democrats. However, a more recent study that looks at how many actual felons register as Democrats puts the number at 62 percent for New York, 52 percent for New Mexico, and 55 percent for North Carolina. That’s still not bad, Democrats! You have the felon vote cornered. Except for one thing: only about a third of them registered at all, only about a fifth have active registration records, and only about 10 percent or so actually voted for president recently. Liberals may generally be in favor of allowing released felons to vote, but it sure isn’t because they think it will help them at the polls. Working for felon voting rights is about the most inefficient and futile way imaginable of getting out the vote.

In any case, anyone can play this game. Just find some demographic group that tends to vote for Party X, and then find some bad thing also associated with that group. In this case, poor people tend to vote for Democrats, and felons tend to be poor. Bingo. Most felons are Democrats.

Or this: rich people tend to vote for Republicans, and income-tax cheats tend to be rich. So most income-tax cheats are Republicans.

Or this: Middle-aged men tend to vote for Republicans, and embezzlers tend to be middle-aged men. So most embezzlers are Republicans.

We could do this all day long, but what’s the point? The whole exercise is kind of silly. If Ted Cruz wants some attention, he’s going to have to do better than this.

Link – 

Quote of the Day: Ted Cruz Angling For Some of That Trump Magic

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Ted Cruz Angling For Some of That Trump Magic

Trump, Carson Duel For Title of Least Prepared Commander-in-Chief

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

One of the highlights of last night was watching the outsiders talk about foreign policy. Gerard Baker asked Ben Carson if he approved of President Obama’s decision to send special ops teams into Syria. Here’s his answer, in all its glory:

Well, putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there, because they — that’s why they’re called special ops, they’re actually able to guide some of the other things that we’re doing there. And what we have to recognize is that Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East. This is going to be his base. And we have to oppose him there in an effective way.

We also must recognize that it’s a very complex place. You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. What we’ve been doing so far is very ineffective, but we can’t give up ground right there. But we have to look at this on a much more global scale. We’re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? Because that’s the way that they’re able to gather a lot of influence.

And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. And if — outside of Anbar in Iraq, there’s a big energy field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there.

Translation: I have no idea what to do in the Middle East. And even though I’ve been running for president for a year, I’m too lazy to learn even the first thing about it.

Then there was Donald Trump’s even more gloriously ADD response to a question about how he’d handle Russia:

Well, first of all, it’s not only Russia. We have problems with North Korea where they actually have nuclear weapons. You know, nobody talks about it, we talk about Iran, and that’s one of the worst deals ever made. One of the worst contracts ever signed, ever, in anything, and it’s a disgrace. But, we have somebody over there, a madman, who already has nuclear weapons we don’t talk about that. That’s a problem.

China is a problem, both economically in what they’re doing in the South China Sea, I mean, they are becoming a very, very major force. So, we have more than just Russia. But, as far as the Ukraine is concerned, and you could Syria — as far as Syria, I like — if Putin wants to go in, and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night. But, you know that.

But, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can’t understand how anybody would be against it….They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He’s going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany — tremendous economic behemoth — why are we always doing the work?

I’m all for protecting Ukraine and working — but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren’t doing anything. They say, “Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us…” And we have to get smart. We can’t continue to be the policeman of the world. We are $19 trillion dollars, we have a country that’s going to hell, we have an infrastructure that’s falling apart. Our roads, our bridges, our schools, our airports, and we have to start investing money in our country.

….I don’t like Assad. Who’s going to like Assad? But, we have no idea who these people, and what they’re going to be, and what they’re going to represent. They may be far worse than Assad. Look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Look at the mess we have after spending $2 trillion dollars, thousands of lives, wounded warriors all over the place — who I love, OK? All over.

We have nothing. And, I said, keep the oil. And we should have kept the oil, believe me. We should have kept the oil.

Translation: Russia! North Korea! Iran! Ukraine! Syria! ISIS! Germany! Ukraine again! Assad! Libya! Iraq! Oil! Keep the oil! But we should let other people handle all this because our roads are falling apart.

Republicans can’t seriously be thinking about nominating either of these guys, can they?

Continue reading:

Trump, Carson Duel For Title of Least Prepared Commander-in-Chief

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump, Carson Duel For Title of Least Prepared Commander-in-Chief

This Is How Prosecutors (Still) Keep Black People Off Juries

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The exclusion of black people from juries is a hot topic this week, as the United States Supreme Court considers the case of Timothy Foster, a black man charged with murdering an elderly white woman in Georgia some three decades ago. Foster was convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white jury after prosecution lawyers used their so-called peremptory strikes to disqualify the blacks in the pool, citing “race-neutral” reasons.

Up until this point in the case, the courts had accepted those alternative rationales. But the prosecutors’ notes from jury selection, which were finally revealed thanks to a Public Records Act request, suggest a deliberate exclusion strategy. On the list of prospective jurors, the black names were circled, highlighted in green, and marked with a “B.” They were also ranked, an investigator for the prosecution noted in an affidavit, in case “it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors.” Ouch. (Yesterday, Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer tracked down one of those rejected jurors, who recalled prosecutors the treating her “like I was a criminal.”)

“We have an arsenal of smoking guns,” Foster’s lawyer, the famed capital defender Stephen Bright, told the high court during Monday’s oral arguments. Several justices seemed to agree. “Isn’t this as clear a Batson violation as this court is likely to see?” asked Justice Elena Kagan.

She was referring to the 1986 case of Batson vs. Kentucky, in which the Supreme Court explicitly prohibited the striking of jurors based on ethnicity. But the legal profession has long looked the other way as prosecutors come to court armed with what, in the Foster case, was described as a “laundry list” of alternative explanations for a juror’s removal. Things like, “Oh, this juror is about the defendant’s age,” or “They grew up in the same part of the city.”

Among other things, Foster’s lead prosecutor noted that several of the prospective black jurors he dismissed hadn’t made sufficient eye contact when he questioned them. In any case, it’s not hard to invent reasonable-sounding explanations for striking a juror, and therein lies the problem. Only when you run the numbers does the racist intent comes into sharp focus.

For a little context, it’s helpful to look at portions of Marc Bookman’s recent essay about Kenneth Fults, another Georgia death row inmate. One of the jurors in that case, a white man, later made the following statement under oath: “That nigger got just what should have happened. Once he pled guilty, I knew I would vote for the death penalty because that’s what that nigger deserved.” The white lawyer assigned to defend Fults also used the N-word with abandon. But none of this was enough to convince skeptical courts to grant Fults a resentencing. In his essay, Bookman explains how the legal system is rigged against black defendants, and why, without an arsenal of smoking guns, arguing racial discrimination is usually a losing game:

Consider one of the most famous examples, the 1987 Supreme Court case of McCleskey v. Kemp, in which lawyers for Warren McCleskey, a black man sentenced to death for killing a white police officer, presented statistics from more than 2,000 Georgia murder cases. The data demonstrated a clear bias against black defendants whose victims were white: When both killer and victim were black, only 1 percent of the cases resulted in a death sentence. When the killer was black and the victim white, 22 percent were sentenced to death—more than seven times the rate for when the races were reversed.

It wasn’t just jurors who were biased. Prosecutors sought the death penalty for black defendants in 70 percent of murder cases when the victim was white, but only 15 percent when the victim was black.

The Supreme Court was less than impressed with all of this. Justice Lewis Powell, in a 5-4 majority opinion he would later call his greatest regret on the bench, wrote that McCleskey could not prove that “the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose.” In short, evidence of systemic racial bias had no relevance in individual cases…

Georgia executed McCleskey in 1991, but the McCleskey rationale—which the New York Times labeled the “impossible burden” of proving that racial animus motivated any particular prosecutor, judge, or jury—has been used by dozens of courts to reject statistical claims of discrimination in capital cases, even though today’s numbers are not much better.

Bookman goes on to detail the sordid history of jury stacking:

The phrase “legal lynching” first appeared in the New York Times during the infamous 1931 Scottsboro Boys trials, in which nine black youths were charged with raping two white women in Alabama. Their lack of counsel, coupled with the explicit exclusion of black jurors, led the Supreme Court to intercede twice and reverse convictions.

It’s hard to read those opinions today without feeling a sense of horror. Within two weeks of the alleged crime, eight of the nine young men had been sentenced to death in three separate trials by the same jury. Although there was no shortage of black men in Scottsboro County who were legally eligible to serve on juries, there was no record of any of them ever serving on one. Perhaps most remarkably, none of the defendants had a lawyer appointed to represent him until the morning of trial. In 2013, more than 80 years after the arrests, the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles posthumously pardoned the three Scottsboro Boys whose convictions still stood.

We have not come nearly as far from these outrages as you might think. People of color are still dramatically underrepresented (PDF) on juries and grand juries, even though excluding people based on race is illegal and undermines “public confidence in our system of justice,” as the Supreme Court put it in 1986. Prospective black jurors are routinely dismissed at higher rates than whites. The law simply requires some rationale other than skin color.

“Question them at length,” a prominent Philadelphia prosecutor suggested to his protégés after the Supreme Court banned race as a reason for striking jurors. “Mark something down that you can articulate at a later time.” For instance, a lawyer might say, “Well, the woman had a kid about the same age as the defendant, and I thought she’d be sympathetic to him.”

In 2005, a former prosecutor in Texas revealed that her superiors had instructed her that if she wanted to strike a black juror, she should falsely claim she’d seen the person sleeping. This was just a dressed-up version of the Dallas prosecution training manual from 1963, which directed assistant district attorneys to “not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans, or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated.”

The 1969 edition of the manual, used into the 1980s, promoted a more subtle brand of stereotyping, noting that it was “not advisable to select potential jurors with multiple gold chains around their necks.” But it hardly mattered: Overt, covert, or in between—the result was the same.

Virtually every state with a death penalty has dealt with accusations that black jurors have been improperly kept off juries. During the 1992 death penalty trial of a defendant named George Williams, for example, a California prosecutor dismissed the first five black women in the jury box. “Sometimes you get a feel for a person,” he explained, “that you just know that they can’t impose it based upon the nature of the way that they say something.” The judge went even further, noting that “black women are very reluctant to impose the death penalty; they find it very difficult.” In 2013, the California Supreme Court ruled that these jury strikes were not race-based, and deemed the judge’s statement “isolated.” Williams remains on death row.

After North Carolina passed its Racial Justice Act, a 2009 law that let inmates challenge death sentences based on racial bias, a state court determined that prosecutors were dismissing black jurors at twice the rate of other jurors. The probability of this being a race-neutral fluke, according to two professors from Michigan State University, was less than 1 in 10 trillion; even the state’s expert agreed that the disparity was statistically significant. Based on these numbers, the court vacated the death sentences of three inmates and resentenced each to life without parole. Six months later, the state legislature repealed the Racial Justice Act.

Finally, in an earlier essay on the case of Andre Thomas, a death row inmate with a long and bizarre history of mental illness, Bookman described yet another ploy to keep black people off Texas juries:

It’s called the “shuffle.” The pool of potential jurors, known as a venire, are seated in a room, and with no information other than what the jurors look like, either side can request that they be shuffled—reseated in a different order.

The order of the venire, it turns out, is crucial to the jury’s final makeup. That’s because each juror is questioned in turn, and if lawyers from either side want to exercise their right to disqualify someone, they have to do it then and there. If it looks like one side is striking a juror based on race—which is not allowed—the other side can mount a challenge. Hence the shuffle: At Andre’s trial, there were initially six African Americans seated in the first two rows. After the shuffle—which proceeded without any objection by the defense—there were no blacks in the first five rows. Ultimately, two black jurors were questioned and dismissed. When all was said and done, the entire jury—not to mention the judge and all of the lawyers—was white.

Smoking guns, people. Smoking guns.

Read More: 

This Is How Prosecutors (Still) Keep Black People Off Juries

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Scotts, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Is How Prosecutors (Still) Keep Black People Off Juries

Behold the Craziest Ad of the 2016 Elections—So Far

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ah, fall. When the leaves turn, decorative gourds grace supermarket shelves, and fringe candidates film themselves firing shotguns at things they don’t like.

When Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) defeated an incumbent Democrat five years ago by accusing him of supporting a 9/11 “victory mosque” in Lower Manhattan, she probably didn’t expect to find herself in the crosshairs of tea party activists anytime soon. But since coming to Washington after an upset victory in the 2010 Republican landslide, she’s dabbled in moderation. In just the last year, Ellmers voted against a bill that would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks, and she opposed repealing President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. In 2014, she won a tough primary but cruised to victory against Democratic nominee (and American Idol contestant) Clay Aiken. In an act of heresy for a former tea party star, she’s gone on record defending so-called RINOs—short for “Republican in Name Only.”

In 2016, she faces stiffer competition. Her top primary challenger, a former county GOP chair named Jim Duncan, is neck and neck with her in fundraising. And another challenger, former North Carolina GOP spokeswoman Kay Daly, just aired an ad in which she blows Ellmers away with a shotgun. Metaphorically, of course.

But really, get a load of this:

What! Let’s go scene by scene.

0:01:

The first words of the ad are, “This feminist…”

0:08:

“…Ellmers voted to let homosexuals pretend they’re married!”

0:11:

“She’s a RINO who voted to fund Obamacare and raise the debt ceiling.”

0:19:

The ad then accuses Ellmers of offering special protections to immigrant child molesters.

0:23:

A clip of Ellmers using air quotes as she says the word “RINO,” looped three times.

0:27

Daly announces that she is “hunting RINOs,” fires a shotgun, and invites others to do the same. And…scene.

In an email touting the ad on Thursday, Daly warned that Ellmers “Hispanders” to undocumented immigrants, whom the candidate refers to variously as “interlopers” and “deportables.” She also took aim at Ellmers’ support for gender equality, referring to the Ellmers-backed Equal Rights Amendment as “the one lesbians used to burn their bras over” and touting the congresswoman’s support of “Hillary Clinton’s Feminist Museum bill” (otherwise known as the National Women’s History Museum).

Daly has her work cut out for her before she can take down the incumbent congresswoman. But she does have the backing of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, and her ad picked up steam after it was aired in the Raleigh market during last week’s GOP debate. If nothing else, we’ll always have this crazy ad.

View post:  

Behold the Craziest Ad of the 2016 Elections—So Far

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Behold the Craziest Ad of the 2016 Elections—So Far

New York’s natural gas pipelines are leakier than your grandpa

New York’s natural gas pipelines are leakier than your grandpa

By on 10 Sep 2015commentsShare

Just like us, natural gas pipelines get a little farty with old age. Unlike us, they fart loads of climate change-inducing methane all over our city streets like silent Earth assassins. (Technically, we also fart methane, but according to this scientist and self-proclaimed “connoisseur of fart articles,” we don’t fart enough of it to do much damage.)

In a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, researchers report that — surprise! — old pipes get leaky. And when those pipes are carrying natural gas, that means trouble. Here’s the scoop from Buzzfeed:

The new survey found 1,050 methane leaks in Manhattan, or about four leaks per mile. Two cities selected for comparison — Cincinnati, Ohio, and Durham, North Carolina — had about 90% fewer leaks per mile, the study found. Over the last decade, Cincinnati and Durham have replaced most of their old gas mains with new ones.

“Older iron pipes are corroded, they leak from the joints, they crack and they buckle,” Stanford University’s Robert Jackson, who led the street survey, told BuzzFeed News. “The good news is that some cities are already doing something and showing we can do something about these leaks.”

Fortunately, the New York utility company Con Edison has a $6.5 billion plan to replace 60 percent of its natural gas pipes by 2020, Buzzfeed reports, and is now doing 13 annual leak patrols, rather than one. Unfortunately, this problem isn’t unique to Manhattan. The researchers found that Boston and Washington, D.C., were also quite leaky. Twelve leaks in D.C. were so concentrated, in fact, that they posed explosion risks, according to Buzzfeed. Most of the other leaks just smelled like rotten eggs, which I guess is pretty good in comparison.

But if you don’t care about the smells, the mortal danger, or the fact that methane traps WAY more heat than CO2, then maybe this will get your attention:

“Everyone pays for these leaks. The utilities just jack up their rates to cover the losses so there is no incentive to fix them,” study co-author Robert Ackley of Gas Safety Inc. in Southborough, Massachusetts told BuzzFeed News. “They get away with a lot, in my opinion.”

Ackley, a libertarian, community-college drop-out from Boston, was the star of this 2013 article in Matter about the leaky pipe epidemic. It’s a fascinating read about a fascinating guy. Here’s a teaser:

Few people understand the streets of America’s cities the way Ackley does. He’s spent almost three decades documenting leaky gas pipelines and alerting utility companies to potential danger. Now he can read the street like a hunter reads animal tracks; some academics call him the “urban naturalist.”

As John Oliver pointed out so well earlier this year, infrastructure might be boring, but it’s insanely important to the health and wellbeing of this country. So perhaps we should treat it with the same care and respect that we treat our corroded and leaky elders — if not out of the goodness of our hearts, then because it’s the right thing to do, and if not because it’s the right thing to do, then because people will judge us if we don’t.

Source:

Experts Have Just Found Gas Leaking Out Of 1,000 Spots In New York City

, Buzzfeed.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Credit: 

New York’s natural gas pipelines are leakier than your grandpa

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New York’s natural gas pipelines are leakier than your grandpa