Tag Archives: system

Donald Trump Is Right: The GOP Primary System Is Rigged

Mother Jones

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

I hate to agree with Donald Trump about anything, but he’s got a point: the Republican primary process is really unfair. Just look at New York: Kasich and Cruz won 40 percent of the vote but only 4 percent of the delegates. It’s an outrage.

And it’s been that way all along. In the early contests, Trump’s opponents won 68 percent of the vote but only 38 percent of the delegates. On Super Tuesday they won 66 percent of the vote but only 57 percent of the delegates. In early March they eked out a fair result: 63 percent of the vote and 66 percent of the delegates. But on Super Tuesday II it was back to business as usual: they crushed Trump with 60 percent of the vote but won only 38 percent of the delegates.

I’m glad Trump is helping shine a media spotlight on this gross inequity—and he deserves special credit since he’s the one benefiting from it. It’s a pretty selfless act. Maybe someone will finally start paying attention to the way the Republican establishment is so obviously in the bag for Trump.

See original: 

Donald Trump Is Right: The GOP Primary System Is Rigged

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Is Right: The GOP Primary System Is Rigged

Milan wants to pay people to bicycle to work

Milan wants to pay people to bicycle to work

By on 29 Feb 2016commentsShare

As the Starbucks empire makes humble plans to open its first shop in Italy, the city it’s moving to — Milan — plans to give a different sort of bucks away.

To combat air pollution, Milan officials hope to pay commuters to bike instead of drive to work. The Guardian reports that the system will be based loosely on the French program tested in 2014, which paid employees 25 Euro cents for each kilometer* they biked to work.

Milan’s air needs all the help it can get. Named the “pollution capital of Europe” in 2008, the city continues to struggle with dirty air. In December, Milan instituted a three-day ban on private cars due to heavy smog.

Advertisement

Which raises another point: Who wants to cycle to work on streets clogged with toxic emissions, anyway? Critics of the proposed program point out that a host of factors affect a person’s decision to bicycle to work, like the availability of bike paths, places to park your bike, and showers.

In the French pilot program, 5 percent of 10,000 total commuters ended up switching from driving to biking. This success encouraged copycat initiatives, including one that launched last year in a smaller Italian town, Massarosa. Programs like these are a sign that clean, personal transportation is becoming fashionable. After all, we’re talking about Milan — the world’s renowned arbiter of all things vogue.

Here’s to hoping this program will prompt the penny pinchers among Milan’s 1.25 million residents to step off the gas pedal and onto bike pedals instead.

*Correction: An earlier version of this article used miles instead of kilometers. Grist regrets the error and has sentenced the author to a four hour training session on the metric system.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

View original post here: 

Milan wants to pay people to bicycle to work

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Milan wants to pay people to bicycle to work

Scientists Discover "Most Planet-y" Planet in the Solar System

Mother Jones

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

Oh FFS. We just demoted Pluto because it was too small and didn’t do a real planet’s job of taking out the orbital trash, but now the boffins at Caltech are claiming we have a ninth planet after all. It’s a gazillion miles away, but apparently it’s big enough to “clear the neighborhood” and thus qualify as a real planet.

If it’s real, that is. So far its existence has merely been inferred from gravitational anomalies in Kuiper Belt objects:

The object, which the researchers have nicknamed Planet Nine ed note: clever!, has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun on average than does Neptune….”This would be a real ninth planet,” says Mike Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy….Brown notes that the putative ninth planet—at 5,000 times the mass of Pluto—is sufficiently large that there should be no debate about whether it is a true planet….In fact, it dominates a region larger than any of the other known planets—a fact that Brown says makes it “the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system.

Ooh. The “most planet-y” object in the solar system! And how do they infer its existence? With sciencey stuff like this:

Well, I’ll believe it when I see it. Or, rather, when I see a digitally enhanced CCD image that’s been fed into the maw of a supercomputer, thus allowing scientists to assure me at a 5-sigma level that a certain gray pixel has met rigorous statistical tests and really is Planet Nine. After all, seeing is believing.

By the way, if we ever mount an expedition to Planet Nine, it should be pretty interesting. Here’s what I expect we’ll find:

Taken from: 

Scientists Discover "Most Planet-y" Planet in the Solar System

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scientists Discover "Most Planet-y" Planet in the Solar System

Here’s What Actually Happened in the Great Sanders-Clinton Data Theft

Mother Jones

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

I haven’t yet written anything about the great Clinton vs. Sanders vs. DNC battle over whether the Sanders campaign downloaded a bunch of information from the Clinton campaign during a short glitch that allowed them access they shouldn’t have had. There are a couple of reasons for this:

Everything I’ve read has pretty clearly been written by either Clinton or Sanders loyalists, who have put their own spin on what happened, most of it faintly ridiculous.
To truly understand what happened, you need to know the technical details of how the NGPVAN database and front-end search tools are set up. I don’t know this, and apparently nobody I’ve read knows it either.

Today, however, David Atkins has weighed in see update below, and he does know how the software is set up. I don’t know his loyalties in the presidential race, but he nonetheless seems to have a pretty solid take on the whole thing:

An important piece of information to note is the difference between a “saved search” and a “saved list.”…You really only want to pull a static list if you’re doing something specific like creating a list for a targeted mail piece—or if you want a quick snapshot in time of a raw voter list.

….However, the access logs do show that Sanders staff pulled not one but multiple lists—not searches, but lists—a fact that shows intent to export and use. And the lists were highly sensitive material. News reports have indicated that the data was “sent to personal folders” of the campaign staffers—but those refer to personal folders within NGPVAN, which are near useless without the ability to export the data locally….Even without being to export, however, merely seeing the topline numbers of, say, how many voters the Clinton campaign had managed to bank as “strong yes” votes would be a valuable piece of oppo.

…This doesn’t mean that Wasserman-Schultz hasn’t, in David Axelrod’s words, been putting her thumb on the scale on behalf of the Clinton campaign….Still, the Sanders camp’s reactions have been laughable. It was their team that unethically breached Clinton’s data. It was their comms people who spoke falsely about what happened. The Sanders campaign wasn’t honeypotted into doing it—their people did it of their own accord…. What’s very clear is that the Clinton camp did nothing wrong in any of this. Sanders campaign operatives did, and then Wasserman-Schultz compounded it by overreacting. And in the end, the right thing ended up happening: the lead staffer in question was fired, and the campaign got its data access back.

Read the whole thing for more detail. Overall, though, this gibes with my tentative view of the matter. The DNC may have overreacted, and maybe NGPVAN is incompetent. I’m agnostic on those issues. But there’s not much question that the Sanders campaign acted badly here, and then tried to pretend that they were merely “testing” the system’s security—which is, as Atkins says, laughable. They pulled dozens of lists from the Clinton campaign and, according to news reports, never notified anyone they had done it.

This was stupid, and Sanders has been ill-served by his team. He’s rightfully fired the guy who did it, and probably ought to fire the subordinates who joined in. And that should be the end of it.

UPDATE: I mistook David Atkins for his brother Dante in the original post. Apologies for that. I’ve corrected the post and removed the reference to Atkins’ “boss.”

Link:  

Here’s What Actually Happened in the Great Sanders-Clinton Data Theft

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What Actually Happened in the Great Sanders-Clinton Data Theft

Watch This Navy Admiral Destroy Ted Cruz’s Climate Myths

Mother Jones

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

Ted Cruz is certain that global warming stopped 18 years ago. He said that repeatedly during a Senate hearing he chaired Tuesday afternoon devoted to examining what he described as “the science behind claims of global warming.” Satellite data, insisted Cruz, shows that “there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years.”

Cruz—who is currently one of the GOP front-runners in Iowa—has made this claim before. Back in March, Kevin Trenberth, a leading climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Climate Desk that Cruz’s theory is “a load of claptrap…absolute bunk.” And Ben Santer, a researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, blasted Cruz for “embracing ignorance with open arms.” The scorn of those leading scientists apparently wasn’t enough to get Cruz to change his tune. But perhaps what happened at Tuesday’s hearing will make a difference.

“I would note this chart…which shows for the last 18 years, that there has been no significant warming whatsoever,” said Cruz. He then asked Retired Rear Admiral David Titley—a meteorologist who previously served as the oceanographer of the Navy—about this so-called “pause in global temperatures.”

Titley’s response was fantastic, and you should watch the whole exchange above.

He started out by explaining that Cruz’s dataset begins just before the exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998. Out of context, this makes recent warming appear less dramatic. As the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points out PDF, the warming trend looks much bigger if you pick 1995 or 1996 as the beginning of your dataset.

Titley, who is now a meteorology professor at Penn State, then pointed to his own chart—more than a century’s worth of temperature data that shows an unmistakable warming trend. “I’m just a simple sailor,” said Titley, “but it’s hard for me to see the pause on that chart. So I think the pause has kind of come and gone.”

Cruz then noted that his own chart focused on data from satellites (whereas Titley’s uses data from thermometers on the Earth’s surface). But Titley shot back that the satellite measurements—which are frequently touted by climate change deniers—have a number of significant problems. Indeed, as my colleague Tim McDonnell explained in March:

There are a couple important caveats with satellite temperature data that Cruz would do well to make note of. One, Santer said, is that it has a “huge” degree of uncertainty (compared to land-based thermometers), so it should be approached with caution. That’s because satellites don’t make direct measurements of temperature but instead pick up microwaves from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere that vary with temperature.

Fluctuations in a satellite’s orbit and altitude and calibrations to its microwave-sensing equipment can all drastically affect its temperature readings. More importantly, satellites measure temperatures in the atmosphere, high above the surface. The chart above shows the lower troposphere, about six miles above the surface. This data is an important piece of the climate and weather system, but it’s only one piece. There are plenty of other signs that are far less equivocal, and perhaps even more relevant to those of us who live on the Earth’s surface: Land and ocean surface temperatures are increasing, sea ice is declining, glaciers are shrinking, oceans are rising, the list goes on.

This article is from: 

Watch This Navy Admiral Destroy Ted Cruz’s Climate Myths

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch This Navy Admiral Destroy Ted Cruz’s Climate Myths

Too bad NASA’s plan for space-based solar never happened

Too bad NASA’s plan for space-based solar never happened

By on 21 Sep 2015 4:20 pmcommentsShare

It’s always irksome when tech companies talk about their latest “moonshot.” The actual moonshot was one of the most incredible accomplishments of humankind. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy challenged NASA to put someone on the moon by the end of the decade, and NASA, which hadn’t even put someone in orbit yet, was like, “On it, boss,” and then had three people on the moon eight years later. So sorry, Google, even if Google Glass hadn’t flopped, it wouldn’t have been a moonshot, and neither will anything else that comes out of the “moonshot factory.”

So it’s a real bummer to find out that the agency that today’s most powerful engineers and entrepreneurs so desperately want to emulate had a mind-blowingly awesome plan for a space-based solar factory back in the ’70s that never came to fruition. Here’s the scoop from Motherboard:

At the height of the oil crisis in the 1970s, the US government considered building a network of 60 orbiting solar power stations that would beam energy down to Earth. Each geosynchronous satellite, according to this 1981 NASA memo, was to weigh around 35,000 to 50,000 metric tons. The Satellite Power System (SPS) project envisaged building two satellites a year for 30 years.

To get said power stations into orbit, the once-powerful aerospace manufacturing company Rockwell International designed something called a Star-Raker, which, in addition to sounding like something from a sci-fi movie, also would have acted like one:

The proposed Star-Raker would load its cargo at a regular airport, fly to a spaceport near the equator, fuel up on liquid oxygen and hydrogen, and take off horizontally using its ten supersonic ramjet engines. A 1979 technical paper lays out its potential flight plan: At a cruising altitude of 45,000 feet, the craft would then dive to 37,000 feet to break the sound barrier. At speeds of up to Mach 6, the Star-Raker would jet to an altitude of 29km before the rockets kicked in, propelling it into orbit.

Just to recap: The Star-Raker would have broken the speed of sound by diving seven miles. And the spacecraft would have been making so many regular trips to orbit that it would have essentially been a 747 for space, Motherboard reports.

In terms of feasibility, here’s how one scientist put it at the time:

“The SPS is an attractive, challenging, worthy project, which the aerospace community is well prepared and able to address,” physicist Robert G. Jahn wrote in the foreword to a 1980 SPS feasibility report. “The mature confidence and authority of [the working groups] left the clear impression that if some persuasive constellation of purposes … should assign this particular energy strategy a high priority, it could be accomplished.”

Putting solar plants in space would’ve been hard, sure, but this proposal came just 10 years after NASA landed Apollo 11 on the moon, so doing seemingly impossible things was kind of their thing. Even if SPS hadn’t happened as planned (and for more details on what exactly that plan was, check out this in-depth look from Wired), there’s no doubt that with the right amount of support and funding, NASA could’ve done something incredible in the cleantech arena.

Today, NASA remains an indispensable source of climate change research. Unfortunately, politicians aren’t as eager to throw money at the agency now that we’re no longer trying to show up the Soviet Union (in fact, the U.S. government is now relying on Russia to take U.S. astronauts up to the International Space Station). And some members of Congress (lookin’ at you, Ted Cruz) have it in their heads that NASA shouldn’t even be doing Earth sciences research in the first place.

We know from the landing of the Curiosity Rover on Mars back in 2012 that NASA still has the ability to inspire and astonish. People geeked out hard over those “seven minutes of terror” and for good reason. Getting that same kind of support behind something that addresses climate change would be exactly what this world needs. If only the one organization proven capable of doing moonshots wasn’t beholden to a bunch of science-hating idiots.

Source:

The Space Plane NASA Wanted to Use to Build Solar Power Plants in Orbit

, Motherboard.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Taken from: 

Too bad NASA’s plan for space-based solar never happened

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Down To Earth, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Oster, oven, PUR, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Too bad NASA’s plan for space-based solar never happened

Nuclear Weapons Complex That Couldn’t Keep Out 82-Year-Old Nun Is Still Unsafe

Mother Jones

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

A good security system would seem essential for the federal repository holding virtually all of the nation’s highly enriched uranium, a key ingredient of nuclear weapons, just outside Knoxville,Tenn.

But the high-tech system installed at a cost of roughly $50 million over the past decade at the Department of Energy’s Y-12 complex is still riddled with flaws that impede its operation, according to a newly released report by the department’s top auditor. Moreover, no one knows how much the government will have to spend to fix it or when that task might be accomplished, the report says.

Flaws in the site’s security system first came into national view in July 2012, when an 82-year-old nun and two other anti-nuclear activists cut through fences and walked through a field of motion detectors to deface the exterior of Y-12’s Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, which holds enough explosives to make 10,000 nuclear bombs. Subsequent investigations concluded that those monitoring the few critical sensors that were operating that day had been trained to ignore them by persistent false alarms, including many triggered by wildlife.

But not much has changed since that break-in, according to the report by Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman, even though the department spent more than a million dollars in 2012 to get a consultant’s advice about how to make the system work better, and then millions more completing the installation of high-tech sensors in 2013. The report says that the so-called Argus security system, which was developed by DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and named optimistically after the fabled 100-eyed monster of Greek mythology, “did not fully meet the site’s security needs” and was not installed the way it was designed to be used. It’s still prone to frequent false alarms and falls short of the Energy Department’s requirements.

Friedman blames the flaws on inadequate spending and poor management. In particular, those installing the system tried to do so on the cheap. Instead of undertaking a top-to-bottom modernization, they tried to integrate new equipment with older alarm wiring and cabinets. Those operating it said this effort was not successful, and that it caused false alarms to jump by 25 percent.

As a result, the report states, the operators were “not able to efficiently perform their duties.” A 27-month study of alarm data that concluded in July 2014 showed that false alarms accounted for more than 35 percent of all alerts.

Budget records suggest that the task of safeguarding nuclear weapons has not been as high a priority at the Energy Department as developing them. The security program that supports the Argus project and others like it across the nation’s nuclear sites received $79.8 million for the current fiscal year. For 2016, the Energy Department has asked Congress for 5.8 percent less, or $75.2 million. Meanwhile, spending on weapons programs stands at $8.1 billion, and the Energy Department’s request to Congress for next year seeks 10.5 percent more weapons funding, boosting the total to $8.8 billion.

Argus’s troubles are not unique to Y-12. A report by the Government Accountability Office in May said similar problems erupted at the Energy Department’s Nevada National Security Site when Argus was installed there. “We determined that the Argus project experienced schedule delays and cost increases as a result of inadequate project management and funding issues,” the GAO wrote.

The Argus project in Nevada began in November 2010 with a targeted completion date of October 2011 and an estimated cost of $8.4 million. By June of 2012, it still wasn’t done, and the estimated cost had more than doubled, to $17.8 million. It’s been on hold since May 2014, and the Nevada site “has continued to rely on an outdated security system,” according to the GAO.

At Y-12, the system’s operation has been undermined as well by the use of error-filled and cumbersome maps of the complex, which obscure the views of the operators. “Even within the confines of…funding limitations, we found that management weaknesses contributed, at least in part, to the issues identified,” Friedman’s report states.

The inspector general recommends installing the necessary components to have a fully operational version of Argus, and replacing parts of the security system that are driving the high rate of false alarms. Although the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the production and handling of nuclear weapons, has analyzed the security needs at Y-12 and identified the work that needs to be done to improve it, no detailed plan, schedule for making the upgrades, or cost estimate for the full project has been developed by the Energy Department, according to Friedman. One estimate suggested the Y-12 improvements could cost $300 million.

In a letter responding to Friedman, NNSA chief Frank Klotz wrote that NNSA agreed with the audit’s conclusions and recommendations. Klotz said efforts have begun to address the lingering security needs at Y-12 “within programmatic constraints,” in part by developing a plan by the end of September 2016 for replacement and maintenance of security systems across the nation’s nuclear labs.

“The secure operation of our facilities is a top priority,” Klotz wrote.

Originally posted here – 

Nuclear Weapons Complex That Couldn’t Keep Out 82-Year-Old Nun Is Still Unsafe

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nuclear Weapons Complex That Couldn’t Keep Out 82-Year-Old Nun Is Still Unsafe

Donald Trump Just Made the Case for Campaign Finance Reform

Mother Jones

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

Donald Trump tore up the stage at the first GOP debate, and he threw his fellow candidates into a frenzy when Fox News moderator tried to challenge him on his extensive donations to Hillary Clinton and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

“Most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, a lot of money,” Trump responded.

Several of his opponents were quick to deny that they had taken money from Trump, but apparently not all of them could stand the idea of leaving money on the table.

“You’re welcome to give me a check, Donald, if you’d like,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pitched.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich said, “I hope you will give to me.”

“Good, sounds good to me Governor,” Trump said.

But he wasn’t done.

“I will tell you that our system is broken. I give to many people,” he said. “I give to everybody, when they call I give, and you know what? When I need something from them, two years, three years later, I call, they are there for me.”

Asked what he got from Hillary Clinton for his donations to her 2007 Senate campaign, Trump bragged, “Well, I’ll tell you, with Hillary Clinton, I said come to my wedding and she came to my wedding, she had no choice, because I gave.”

Read more:

Donald Trump Just Made the Case for Campaign Finance Reform

Posted in Anchor, Bragg, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Just Made the Case for Campaign Finance Reform

California is figuring out the whole drought thing for the rest of us

Looking on the Blight Side of Things

California is figuring out the whole drought thing for the rest of us

By on 22 Jun 2015 2:48 pmcommentsShare

California drought,yadda yadda yadda. You’ve probably heard it all by now — water rights debates, evil almonds, lawn hate — but that overexposure could be a boon for the rest of the world, where drought is forecast to be a serious and growing problem as the climate warms. Here’s the gist, from Wired:

[B]eyond the lack of rain and decades of terrible, horrible, no good, very bad water policies, California has some of the best resources for setting things right. Resources like its $2.2 trillion GDP, its water-hawk governor, or the brains at Cal Tech’s Resnick Institute in Pasadena. (The institute, it should be noted, was funded with money from megafarmer Stewart Resnick, who has been the center of other water controversies.) . The institute, which focuses on scientific and technological fixes for energy, water, and other sustainability issues, is crafting a three-part plan to alleviate the drought. The goal, says director Neil Fromer, isn’t to solve the drought. “But if we can develop a system that is much more resilient to these kinds of weather systems, that can be valuable to people all over the world.”

Broadly, the Resnick group will explore three areas:
1. Technology to catch and recover water that is currently lost.
2. Sensors to gather better intelligence on how much water is available.
3. Models to put this intelligence to use for water management.

Basically, 1) a lot of the rain that falls on California runs straight off into the sea. The infrastructure and tech for capturing this rain and routing it into the watersupply should be fairly straightforward — but so far doesn’t really exist.

“Los Angeles, for instance, gets a decent amount of rainfall and most of that goes into the ocean,” Fromer says. Building stormwater capture and treatment facilities isn’t hard, but there’s no way to plug them into the system.

2) Our water system is incredibly old, while sensor technology has gotten good and cheap enough to help plug leaks and track usage — neither of which the state does at the moment.

Last summer a pipe burst under L.A.’s Sunset Boulevard and spilled at least 20 million gallons of water … to the best of anyone’s knowledge. City officials have no clue how long the pipe had been leaking before it burst. Municipal sensors could track flow in real time, along with water quality

And for No. 3), cities could get proactive with all that sensor data:

With the right data, engineers can write algorithms that predict use and plug up waste. For example, a model could track L.A.’s water usage by the minute, and by measuring those rates against averages could detect spikes indicating underground leaks. And because the sensors would be distributed, engineers could quickly pinpoint the leak’s location.

If that all sounds somewhat basic to you, it’s because our water infrastructure — not unlike the electrical grid — is pretty outdated to begin with. But we’re all about silver linings here at Grist. If the disaster that is California’s ongoing drought can show the rest of us a little light, let’s do ourselves a favor and pay attention now … including what NOT to do.

Source:
DEAR WORLD: HERE ARE SOME DROUGHT FIXES. LOVE, CALIFORNIA

, Wired.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read more:  

California is figuring out the whole drought thing for the rest of us

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California is figuring out the whole drought thing for the rest of us

The "Umbrella Revolution" Just Scored a Major Victory in Hong Kong

Mother Jones

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

Last fall, the streets of Hong Kong filled with protestors demonstrating for greater autonomy after China proposed an election system that would undermine their right to vote for the city’s highest official. Students and concerned citizens camped outside of government buildings and blocked major thoroughfares for weeks on end wielding umbrellas to protect against police tear gas (leading to the name “Umbrella Revolution”). Eventually the demonstrations lost steam and protestors acquiesced to government demands to evacuate the streets. Many feared that the end of the protests meant a win for China and a blow to democracy in Hong Kong.

However early Thursday, Hong Kong’s legislature voted down the Chinese proposal that instigated the massive demonstrations. Pro-democracy supporters are calling it a major legislative victory. In order to understand why, we have to back up a bit.

Hong Kong becomes part of China…sort of: In 1997, the United Kingdom handed over control of Hong Kong to China. Under an agreement known as “one country, two systems,” however, China promised that Hong Kong would maintain political autonomy and many civil liberties that are not afforded to mainland Chinese (Vox does a good job laying out this confusing transition). One right citizens of Hong Kong did not get was the ability to directly vote for the city’s executive chancellor. Instead, a mostly pro-Beijing 1,200-member election committee has chosen the leader through simple majority every 5 years. In 2007, though, China told Hong Kong it would be allowed to elect its leader by popular vote in 2017.

Fall 2014, protests begin: But then, in August of 2014, the Chinese Communist Party released a proposed election plan outlining their version of a popular vote. In it, a special committee controlled by the Chinese Communist Party would choose up to three candidates for whom Hong Kong’s 5 million eligible voters could cast a ballot. Hong Kong’s current chief executive, Leung Chun-Ying, supported the proposal but thousands of Hong Kong citizens viewed this system as a “sham democracy” that would allow China to continue exercising control over Hong Kong. They took to the streets flooding the area surrounding Hong’s Kong’s government buildings for weeks before finally going home.

Okay, so what just happened: Hong Kong’s Legislative Council voted today on whether or not it would enact the the election system proposed by China. It was struck down with only 8 lawmakers out of 70 voting for the proposal, a big hit to the Chinese Communist Party and victory for the pro-democracy camp.

What‘s next: Pro-democracy activists are praising the legislature’s move, but also point out there is a long way to go before real democracy is achieved. Because China’s election plan was voted down, the current system will stay in place until at least 2022. Some believe a more productive short-term approach to reforming Hong Kong’s election system would be pushing the current election committee to better represent the people of Hong Kong instead of Chinese interests.

Continue at source:  

The "Umbrella Revolution" Just Scored a Major Victory in Hong Kong

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, Free Press, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The "Umbrella Revolution" Just Scored a Major Victory in Hong Kong