Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Herndon, Virginia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Beaches  Comments Off on Herndon, Virginia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feb 122016
 

Herndon is a town in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties,[3][4]Virginia, in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area of the United States. The population was 23,292 at the 2010 census, which makes it the largest of three towns in the county.[5]

Herndon was named for Commander William Lewis Herndon, American naval explorer and author of Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon. Commander Herndon captained the ill-fated steamer SS Central America, going down with his ship while helping to save over 150 of its passengers and crew. The settlement was named Herndon in 1858. In the 1870s, many Northern soldiers and their families came to settle in the area, taking advantage of moderate climate and low land prices. Herndon also offered a group of friendly and local Native Americans who helped the town to prosper via trade and instruction.[6]

Originally part of the rural surroundings of the Washington, D.C. area, the town of Herndon developed into a hub of dairy farming and vacationing for area residents, aided by its presence along the Alexandria, Loudoun and Hampshire Railroad (later to become the Washington and Old Dominion (W&OD) Railroad).[6] When the railroad was converted into a hike-and-bike trail, Herndon capitalized on history and small-town feel (in a major metropolitan region) by converting its train station into a museum and visitors center by relocating a Norfolk Southern Railway caboose to a nearby site and repainting it in W&OD livery.[7]

Although the caboose itself never traveled through Herndon, it remains an iconic part of the downtown area that both locals and tourists visit daily.[7] The caboose and station offer a glimpse of the original downtown’s historic charm, which residents are passionate about preserving.[7]

On January 14, 2004, the Town of Herndon commemorated its 125th anniversary.[8]

The town of Herndon was part of a nationally reported controversy involving illegal immigration beginning in 2005.[9] The controversy revolved around a day labor center called the Herndon Official Worker Center (HOW Center), operated by Reston Interfaith’s Project Hope and Harmony under a grant from surrounding Fairfax County.[10] The HOW Center was created in response to daily gatherings of Hispanic workers at a local 7-Eleven store.[9][11]

The 2006 election for Mayor and Town Council revolved mainly around the issue, and resulted in unseating the pro-center Mayor and two councilmembers.[12] The center closed after less than two years of operation, in September 2007.

Herndon is located at 385817N 772319W / 38.97139N 77.38861W / 38.97139; -77.38861 (38.971478, 77.388675).[13]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 4.2square miles (10.9km), all of it land.

As of the census[1] of 2010, there were 23,292 people, 7,472 households, and 5,357 families residing in the town. The population density was 5,129.9 people per square mile (1,981.3/km). There were 7,190 housing units at an average density of 1,703.3 per square mile (657.8/km). The racial makeup of the town was 50.7% White, 9.5% Black, 0.7% Native American, 17.9% Asian (8.5% Indian, 1.6% Vietnamese, 1.5% Chinese, 1.2% Filipino, 0.7% Korean, 0.1% Japanese, 4.2% Other Asian), 0.0% Pacific Islander, 16.0% from other races, and 5.2% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 33.6% of the population.

There were 6,962 households, of which 41.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 56.8% were married couples living together, 9.4% had a female householder with no husband present, and 28.6% were non-families. 20.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 2.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.11 and the average family size was 3.54.

In the town the population was spread out with 27.1% under the age of 18, 10.2% from 18 to 24, 38.3% from 25 to 44, 20.5% from 45 to 64, and 3.9% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 32 years. For every 100 females there were 111.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 111.0 males.

The median income for a household in the town was $72,912, and the median income for a family was $79,140 (these figures had risen to $92,947 and $108,446 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[15]). Males had a median income of $44,197 versus $35,548 for females. The per capita income for the town was $26,941. About 4.7% of families and 8.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 9.1% of those under age 18 and 5.5% of those age 65 or over.

Herndon is part of the Dulles Technology Corridor, which Fortune magazine named the “Netplex” because of the presence of the headquarters of such companies as AOL, XO Communications, Verizon Business (formerly MCI, formerly WorldCom, originally UUNET), and Network Solutions, which began as the INTERNIC the registry where every domain name was once administered.

Some of those companies are within Herndon. Others have Herndon mailing addresses, but are located in unincorporated Fairfax or Loudoun counties, e.g., south of the Dulles Toll Road. These include Deltek and K12.

According to the Town’s 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the top employers in the Town are:[16]

The town is organized as an incorporated town by the Commonwealth of Virginia,[17][18] and is governed by an elected Mayor and Town Council[19] who serve on a part-time basis. The current Mayor is Lisa C. Merkel, who was first elected to Council in 2010 and served as Vice Mayor until her election as Mayor in 2012. The Mayor chairs the Council and heads the executive branch of the town government. The Police Department, independent of the county police department, is headed by Colonel Maggie DeBoard. and consists of 56 sworn officers along with the assistance of the Herndon Police Citizen Support Team. The Herndon Police Department achieved national recognition on November 8, 1986 by becoming the 7th police agency in Virginia and the 42nd police agency in the United States to be accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.[20]

Herndon boasts a wide variety of diversions and celebrations year round. Among the community events are:

Herndon contains the Herndon Depot Museum, the site of “Mosby’s Raid on Herndon Station”, which was a Civil War skirmish that took place on St. Patrick’s Day, 1863. Also within the town is The Herndon Centennial Golf Course, the Herndon ArtSpace (a community art gallery), community center with basketball and racquetball courts and multiple baseball fields, and an aquatic center. Adjacent to the community center is Bready Park, with indoor tennis courts. Additionally, every residence within the town borders is within a mile or less of a public park.

Nearby attractions include the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the National Air and Space Museum (which houses the Enola Gay B-29 Superfortress, a Concorde supersonic passenger airplane, an SR-71A Blackbird plane and the Space Shuttle Discovery), Frying Pan Park, Sully Plantation, Reston Town Center, Mount Vernon, Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, Colvin Run Mill, Aldie Mill, Oatlands Plantation, Manassas National Battlefield Park and the Washington and Old Dominion Trail (which runs through the town).

Herndon is within the Fairfax County Public Schools district.

Public schools serving students within the Herndon town limits are:[21][22][23]

Private school options include Nysmith School for the Gifted, Temple Baptist, St Joseph’s Elementary and several Montessori schools.

Fairfax County Public Library operates the Herndon Fortnightly Library in Herndon.[24]

The climate in this area is characterized by hot, humid summers and generally mild to cool winters. According to the Kppen Climate Classification system, Herndon has a humid subtropical climate, abbreviated “Cfa” on climate maps.[25]

Its sister city is Runnymede, Surrey, England, United Kingdom.[26]

Follow this link:
Herndon, Virginia – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 6:41 am  Tagged with:

Phoenix SEO | DIAP Media – PPC Management Agency

 SEO  Comments Off on Phoenix SEO | DIAP Media – PPC Management Agency
Feb 112016
 

DIAP Media one of the best SEO companies in the United States manages SEO Campaigns andPaid Search /PPC Management Company. We have SEO agency coverage and locations in Philadelphia, Beverly Hills, Orange County, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tucson AZthat has been helping companies from local small businesses to national Inc. 5000 brands nationwide optimize their websites, product urls, and digital assets for the search engines since 2006. Our local Phoenix SEO strategies for our clients here in our home base have been working since 2006 when we first started learning Googles Algorithms.

We can help you with SEO & PPC (Pay per click) ads, Marketplace Optimizationand Google Marketing strategies to grow your website traffic and drive more revenue for your business.

In todays day an age if you dont have a digital presence especially on Google or Amazon customers will not know you exist or give you any credibility. Let us help you build trust with Google and trusted marketplaces (GNC, Amazon, Walmart) by getting your website on other websites that have relevant content and link back to your site as a useful resource.

Also, let us help you develop and execute an SEO contentmarketing strategy that will help increase rankings on Google and Amazon to help you get more attention online. With a blog or content marketing strategy and a few on page SEO tweaks you will start seeing your website rank higher of terms relevant for your business and the phone will start to ring.

Since we dont take on every client for SEO or PPC consulting services we have a dedicated SEO consultant and link builder giving your campaigns online attention to make sure you get the best results. We focus on relevancy, authority, and social backlinks that drive traffic, leads, and sales and move your site higher in the Google and/or Amazon search engines.

We also have local seo experts that can build citations for your local lead generating sites and drive more calls to your business every month. We track all the calls so you know how we helped your local marketing every month.

One benefit of working with our Search Engine Marketingagency is we also are certified with Google Adwords platform and understand social media strategies that will also build your brand equity and trust with Google and the search engines including Amazons search engine.

We can simplify this process and take care of everything for you. We make it easy for you to hire us and start getting you results. We work on an exclusive basis so we wont help any other companies or brands that compete with you in the same industry or same cities that you cover.

We offer custom proposals and treat your business as a unique situation based on the competition and ROI. We dont take a cookie cutter package pricing approach you might see where you just are a number or sales goal.

To us your partnership and investment is appreciated. We will make sure your monthly investment is is producing an ROI and we are an asset to your business otherwise we expect you to cancel our services.

We do have a monthly SEO budget minimums, as an example for Local SEO services at least $1000.00 per month is a starting point and that is for very low competitive industries and or areas. We owna local SEO company dedicated to certain local markets as well. As an example our Beverly Hills SEO market, Philadelphia SEO market, and Tucson SEO service area.

If you are ready to get custom quote for your website please call us at 888-863-7421 so we can learn more about your business and SEO or Internet Marketing needs.

See more here:
Phoenix SEO | DIAP Media – PPC Management Agency

 Posted by at 4:43 am  Tagged with:

Atheism: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

 Atheism  Comments Off on Atheism: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News
Feb 072016
 

Future Transhumanist City — Image by Sam Howzit Transhumanism–the international movement that aims to use science and technology to improve the h…

Zoltan Istvan

US Presidential candidate of Transhumanist Party; Creator of Immortality Bus; Author of novel ‘The Transhumanist Wager’

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m done with Richard Dawkins. As a teenager, the brilliant scientist was among the first to break through my bubble of petty fundamentalism and push me to think critically about the superstitions that envelope our cultures. I miss that guy and have no idea where he went.

Chris Sosa

Campaign Manager, Political Commentator

Without absorbing that the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, it is pointless to claim to be an American, except perhaps by coincidence of birth.

It seems it is not only the far right that seizes the opportunity of every calamity that befalls us and every terrorist attack to unleash their exclusionary and hateful rhetoric towards Islam and Muslims. Self-proclaimed enlightened liberals do too.

This article first appeared on the blog of Intentional Insights, a nonprofit organization that empowers people to refine and reach their goals by …

Gleb Tsipursky

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky runs a nonprofit that helps people reach their goals using science, Intentional Insights, authored Find Your Purpose Using Science, and is a tenure-track professor at Ohio State. Get in touch with him at gleb@intentionalinsights.org.

When did this happen? When did I lose faith in the fundamental beliefs of Christianity that I’d been raised to respect? What caused me to lean toward atheism? Did I miss something in confirmation class?

The idea and character of religious freedom has changed over the years, and unfortunately the change has not always been for the better. But celebrations like Religious Freedom Day can remind us of the full nature of religious freedom.

You pass through the long security line at the United States Capitol building in Washington, DC. While the line of tourists streams forward into the Exhibition Hall, you turn right, and head to the Senate appointment desk.

Gleb Tsipursky

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky runs a nonprofit that helps people reach their goals using science, Intentional Insights, authored Find Your Purpose Using Science, and is a tenure-track professor at Ohio State. Get in touch with him at gleb@intentionalinsights.org.

Whether you are a believer or secular, to gain a greater sense of purpose and meaning in life it helps to participate in civic engagement with others from your community.

Gleb Tsipursky

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky runs a nonprofit that helps people reach their goals using science, Intentional Insights, authored Find Your Purpose Using Science, and is a tenure-track professor at Ohio State. Get in touch with him at gleb@intentionalinsights.org.

Atheists are generally good people. They are certainly not the demons that some religious people have made them out to be. So why, then, do atheists tend to receive the cold shoulder from their religious fellow Americans?

My sacred ground is all around us. My only holy site is the one we are all standing on and, if we are not careful, it will be in ruins. It will be the graveyard of all humanity.

Recently, Massachusetts resident Lindsay Miller won the right to wear a colander in her State ID photo on account of her belief in Pastafarianism. There are two ways of interpreting this.

Isaac Fornarola

Journalist, satirist and teacher covering identity politics and LGBTQ issues. Based in New York City. Founder and editor of @FluxWeekly. Twitter: @isaacforn

It’s not enough for individual believers to worship God as they see fit — a right which I and most Americans are happy to acknowledge and protect. According to Scalia, the government must place its thumb on the scale and promote and advance religion over non-religion.

Ronald A. Lindsay

President & CEO, Center for Inquiry; Author of The Necessity of Secularism

I recently read excerpts from a website authored by a person who mocks those who are religious or spiritual. The writer repeated the familiar conde…

Elaine Ambrose

Author, syndicated blogger, featured humor speaker, publisher, and retreat organizer knows that laughter – with wine – is the best medicine.

The world? It’s something to deal with and find a place in and live your life in, possibly to make a better place. Nature? It’s something to study…

Brook Ziporyn

Professor of Chinese Philosophy, Religion and Comparative Thought, University of Chicago

Last year, I wrote that 2014 was a great year for the transhumanism movement. But 2015 was simply incredible — it might end up being called a breakout year.

Zoltan Istvan

US Presidential candidate of Transhumanist Party; Creator of Immortality Bus; Author of novel ‘The Transhumanist Wager’

Read more:

Atheism: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

 Posted by at 1:45 am  Tagged with:

Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment

 Fifth Amendment  Comments Off on Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
Feb 052016
 

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, represents five distinct liberties the that Framers attempted to safeguard from majoritarian impulses: (1) the right to be indicted by an impartial Grand Jury before being tried for a federal criminal offense,(2) the right to be free from multiple prosecutions or punishments for a single criminal offense, (3) the right to remain silent when prosecuted for a criminal offense, (4) the right to have personal liberties protected by Due Process of Law, and (5) the right to receive just compensation when the government takes private property for public use.

The Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its provisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. However, after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment’s protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, all states must provide protection against Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, deprivation of due process, and government taking of private property without just compensation. The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment has not been made applicable to state governments.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits state and federal governments from reprosecuting for the same offense a defendant who has already been acquitted or convicted. It also prevents state and federal governments from imposing more than one punishment for the same offense.

For more than a century, courts have wrestled with the question of what constitutes an acquittal such that a person has already been placed in jeopardy for a particular offense. However, all courts agree that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to legal proceedings brought by state and federal governments in criminal court. It does not apply to legal proceedings instituted by purely private individuals in civil court.

The U.S. legal system has two primary divisions, criminal and civil. Criminal actions are designed to punish individuals for wrongdoing against the public order. Civil actions are designed to compensate victims with money damages for injuries suffered at the hands of another. An individual who has been acquitted in criminal court of murder can, without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, be required in civil court to pay money damages to the family of a victim. Thus, the successive criminal and civil trials of O. J. Simpson, regarding the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, did not constitute double jeopardy.

The Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against double jeopardy is rooted in Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence. Yet, in England, the Crown sometimes ignored the right against double jeopardy. In certain important cases where an acquittal undermined royal interests, the defendant was tried again in a different manner or by a different court. The protection against double jeopardy was also extremely narrow under English Law. It applied only to capital crimes, in which the defendant would be subject to the death penalty if convicted. It did not apply to lesser offenses such as noncapital felonies and misdemeanors.

Massachusetts was the first colony that recognized a right against double jeopardy. Its colonial charter provided, “No man shall be twise [sic] sentenced by Civil Justice for one and the same Crime, offence, or Trespasse” (as quoted in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S. Ct. 1892, 104 L. Ed. 2d 487 [1989]). This charter, which served as a model for several other colonies, expanded the protection against double jeopardy to all crimes and offenses, not just capital felonies. Nonetheless, when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the constitutions of only two states expressly afforded double jeopardy protection. Thus, when James Madison submitted his proposal for the Fifth Amendment to Congress, he wanted to be sure that the right against double jeopardy would not be abused by the government, as it had been in England, or altogether forgotten, as it had been in the constitutions of eleven states.

Although Congress and the state ratifying conventions said very little about the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified several concerns that the Framers were trying to address when they drafted it: (1) preventing the government from employing its superior resources to wear down and erroneously convict innocent persons; (2) protecting individuals from the financial, emotional, and social consequences of successive prosecutions; (3) preserving the finality and integrity of criminal proceedings, which would be compromised were the state allowed to arbitrarily ignore unsatisfactory outcomes; (4) restricting prosecutorial discretion over the charging process; and (5) eliminating judicial discretion to impose cumulative punishments not authorized by the legislature.

The Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination permits an individual to refuse to disclose information that could be used against him or her in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this right is to inhibit the government from compelling a confession through force, coercion, or deception. The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to any state or federal legal proceeding, whether it is civil, criminal, administrative, or judicial in nature. This privilege is frequently invoked during the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under oath and asked questions on the witness stand.

The privilege is also asserted with some frequency during the pretrial phase of legal proceedings. In the pretrial phase of criminal cases, it is usually asserted in response to pointed questions asked by law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and other government officials who are seeking to determine the persons responsible for a particular crime. During the pretrial phase of civil cases, parties may assert the right against self-incrimination when potentially damaging questions are posed in depositions and interrogatories.

The right against self-incrimination largely took hold in English law with the seventeenth-century trial of John Lilburne. Lilburne was a Puritan agitator who opposed British attempts to impose Anglican religious uniformity across England. In 1637, Lilburne was prosecuted for attempting to smuggle several thousand Puritan pamphlets into England. Before the Star Chamber (an English court with jurisdiction to extinguish nonconformity in the realm), Lilburne refused to take an oath requiring him to answer truthfully any question asked of him. He said that he could see that the court was trying to ensnare him, and he claimed that the law of God and the law of the land supported his right against self-accusation. Lilburne was whipped and pilloried for refusing to take the oath. Parliament later declared his punishment illegal, abolished the Star Chamber, and ultimately recognized the right against self-incrimination.

The American colonists, particularly the Puritans in Massachusetts, were familiar with the plight of Lilburne. Nonetheless, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a collection of rules of conduct for the Puritan colonists taken nearly verbatim from the Bible, permitted the use of torture to extract confessions from defendants who were accused of capital crimes. Many other colonies subjected political and religious dissenters to inquisitorial judicial proceedings not unlike those employed in England. In many of these proceedings, the accused persons were not entitled to remain silent but were often asked to provide evidence of their innocence. Even after the Revolution, the constitutions of four states offered no protections against self-incrimination. As Madison drafted the original version of the Fifth Amendment, the lessons of English and colonial history were firmly in his mind.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Self-Incrimination Clause more broadly than many of the Framers probably would have. miranda v. arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), illustrates this point. In Miranda the Court held that any statements made by defendants while in police custody before trial will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have (1) the right to remain silent, (2) the right to consult an attorney before being questioned by the police, (3) the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, (4) the right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, and (5) the right to be informed that any statements they do make can and will be used in their prosecution. Although the Miranda warnings are not provided in the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause, the Court has ruled that they constitute an essential part of a judicially created buffer zone that is necessary to protect rights that are specifically set forth in the Constitution.

In Dickerson v. United States 530 U.S. 428, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 147 L. Ed.2d 405 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Miranda decision was based on Fifth Amendment principles and therefore that it could not be over-turned legislatively. Congressional anger at the Miranda decision had led to the passage in 1968 of a law, 18 U.S.C.A. 3501, that had restored voluntariness as the test for admitting confessions in federal court. However, the United States department of justice, under attorneys general of both major political parties, has refused to enforce the provision, believing the law to be unconstitutional. The law lay dormant until the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1999 that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass the law. Chief Justice william rehnquist, a frequent critic of the Miranda decision, joined the majority in rejecting the Fourth Circuit interpretation. Although members of the Court might not agree with the reasoning and the rule of Miranda, Rehnquist acknowledged the essential place that Miranda has in U.S. law and society. He pointed out the importance that the judicial system places on Stare Decisis, a concept that counsels courts to honor judicial precedents to ensure stability and predictability in decision-making. A court should only overrule its case precedents if there is, in Rehnquist’s words, “special justification.” The Court in Dickerson concluded there were no special justifications.

Despite this decision the controversy over Miranda has not abated. In 2002 the Supreme Court took up the matter again when it reviewed Martinez v. Chavez, 270 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court must decide whether the Fifth Amendment conveys a constitutional right to be free of coercive interrogation, or merely a right not to have forced confessions used against them at trial.

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has two aspects: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process is concerned with the process by which legal proceedings are conducted. It requires that all persons who will be materially affected by a legal proceeding receive notice of its time, place, and subject matter so that they will have an adequate opportunity to prepare. It also requires that legal proceedings be conducted in a fair manner by an impartial judge who will allow the interested parties to present fully their complaints, grievances, and defenses. The Due Process Clause governs civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings from the pretrial stage through final appeal, and proceedings that produce Arbitrary or capricious results will be overturned as unconstitutional.

Substantive Due Process is concerned with the content of particular laws that are applied during legal proceedings. Before World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on substantive due process to overturn legislation that infringed on a variety of property interests, including the right of employers to determine the wages their employees would be paid and the number of hours they could work. Since World War II, the Court has relied on substantive due process to protect privacy and autonomy interests of adults, including the right to use contraception and the right to have an Abortion.

The line separating procedure from substance is not always clear. For example, procedural due process guarantees criminal defendants the right to a fair trial, and substantive due process specifies that 12 jurors must return a unanimous guilty verdict before the death penalty can be imposed. The concepts of substantive and procedural due process trace back to English law. The Magna Charta provided, “No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land” (art. 39). According to eminent English jurist Sir Edward Coke, law of the land and due process of law were interchangeable terms that possessed both procedural and substantive meaning.

The American colonists followed the English tradition of attributing substantive and procedural qualities to the concepts of due process and the law of the land. Maryland and Massachusetts, for example, equated the two concepts with colonial Common Law and legislation regardless of their procedural content. On the other hand, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont all passed constitutional provisions identifying the law of the land with specific procedural safeguards, including the right against self-incrimination. Thus, when the Due Process Clause was submitted to the state conventions for ratification, it was popularly understood to place procedural requirements on legal proceedings as well as substantive limitations on the law applied in those proceedings.

When the government takes Personal Property for public use, the law calls it a taking and protects it under the eminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Eminent Domain Clause permits the government to appropriate private property, both real estate and personal belongings, for a public purpose so long as the owner receives just compensation, which is normally equated with the fair market value of the property. The Fifth Amendment attempts to strike a balance between the needs of the public and the property rights of the owner.

The power of eminent domain was first recognized in England in 1215. Article 39 of the Magna Charta read,”no free man shall be disseised [deprived] of his freehold except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” No compensation was awarded to owners whose property was taken by the government for public use. Instead, English law merely required that the government obtain ownership of private property through existing legal channels, such as parliamentary legislation. This principle was followed in England for several centuries, and was later adopted by the American colonies.

Uncompensated takings of private property by colonial governments generally involved unimproved land (i.e., land that had not been built on). Colonial governments often appropriated private land to build roads and bridges in order to develop America’s frontiers. During the American Revolution, the power of eminent domain was used to seize the land of colonists who were loyal to Great Britain, and to obtain various goods for military consumption. Compensation was rarely given to individual owners who were deprived of their property by colonial governments because making personal sacrifices for the common good, including forfeiting personal property, was considered an essential duty of every colonist.

Not everyone in the colonies believed that personal property interests should always be sacrificed for the greater good of society. Many colonists expressed distress over legislatures that were abusing their power of eminent domain. New York, for example, regularly failed to recognize title to real estate in its colony that was held by residents of Vermont. Other colonies also discriminated in favor of their own residents, and against persons whose patriotism was questionable during the Revolution. It was in this context that the Eminent Domain Clause of the Fifth Amendment was drafted.

During the twentieth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has enlarged the protection against uncompensated takings of private property by state and federal governments. The Eminent Domain Clause has been interpreted to protect not only owners whose property is physically taken by the government, but also owners whose property value is diminished as a result of government activity. Thus, compensable takings under the Fifth Amendment result from Zoning ordinances that deny property owners an economically viable use of their land (Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106 [1980]), environmental regulations that require the government to occupy an owner’s land in order to monitor groundwater wells (Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364 [Fed. Cir. 1991], land-use regulations that curtail mining operations (Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. 322[1992]), and government-owned airports that lower property values in adjacent neighborhoods (United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 [1946]).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 150L. Ed.2d 592 (2001), declared that property owners may file lawsuits without filing additional permit applications. Most importantly, the Court overturned a ruling that barred property owners from filing suit if they took possession of the property after the environmental regulations had been enacted. It made no sense to allow a state to avoid suit simply because of a transfer of legal title to the property. Thus, the state “would be allowed, in effect, to put an expiration date on the Takings Clause. This ought not to be the rule. Future generations, too, have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.”

A grand jury is a group of citizens who are summoned to criminal court by the sheriff to consider accusations and complaints leveled against persons who are suspected of engaging in criminal conduct. Grand juries do not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, they determine whether Probable Cause exists to believe that the accused has committed a crime, and they return an indictment (i.e., a formal charge against the accused) if they do find probable cause. In common law, a grand jury consisted of not fewer than 12, and not more than 23, men. Today, grand juries impaneled before a federal district court must consist of not fewer than 16, and not more than 23, men and women.

Potential jurors are usually drawn from lists of qualified residents. Persons who are below the age of majority, who have been convicted of certain crimes, who or are biased toward the accused are ineligible to serve as grand jurors.

The grand jury originated in England during the reign of henry ii (115489). In 1166, a statute called the Assize of Clarendon was enacted. The assize provided that no person could be prosecuted unless four men from each township and 12 men from each hundred appeared before the county court to accuse the individual of a specific crime. This compulsory process, called a presenting jury, foreshadowed the grand jury as an accusatory body that identified individuals for prosecution but made no finding as to guilt or innocence.

As the grand jury system developed in England and colonial America, it protected innocent persons who faced unfounded charges initiated by political, religious, and personal adversaries. The impartiality of grand juries is essential. This is a significant reason why the proceedings are convened in secrecy; otherwise, public scrutiny and similar prejudicial influences could affect their decision-making process. Although grand juries must be impartial, accused persons have no constitutional right to present evidence on their behalf or to cross-examine witnesses, and Hearsay evidence may be introduced against them.

Helmholz, R.H. 1983. “The Early History of the Grand Jury and the Canon Law.” University of Chicago Law Review 50 (spring).

Hickok, Eugene W., Jr., ed. 1991. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Charlottesville: Univ. Press of Virginia.

Mermelstein, Mark, and Joel M. Athey. 2002. “In the Fifth Dimension: Problems Faced by Trial Lawyers When a Witness Invokes the Fifth Amendment.” Los Angeles Lawyer 25 (October).

Roxas, Angela. 2002. “Questions Unanswered: the Fifth Amendment and Innocent Witnesses.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 93 (fall).

Treanor, William M. 1995. “The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process.” Columbia Law Review 95 (May).

Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Custodial Interrogation.

Read the original:
Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment

 Posted by at 5:47 pm  Tagged with:

CA2: Crossing threshold to arrest without warrant violates …

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on CA2: Crossing threshold to arrest without warrant violates …
Feb 032016
 

ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 (2015)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

2003-16, online since Feb. 24, 2003 real non-robot URL hits since 2010; approx. 18k posts since 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit Federal Circuit Foreign Intell.Surv.Ct. FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts, other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General’s site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Curiae (Yale Law) Oyez Project (NWU) “On the Docket”Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com’t’ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf) Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: –Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

“If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn’t, and they don’t.” Me

I still learn something new every day. Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, “The Who Live at Hyde Park” (Showtime 2015)

“I can’t talk about my singing. I’m inside it. How can you describe something you’re inside of?” Janis Joplin

“Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government.” Shemaya, in the Thalmud

“A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one’s attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced.” Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev’d Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

“The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment. Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

“There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.” Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

“The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth.” Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

“A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

“For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. … But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

“You can’t always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need.” Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

“In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up.” Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men! “The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)

View post:
CA2: Crossing threshold to arrest without warrant violates …

Rationalism | Article about rationalism by The Free Dictionary

 Rationalism  Comments Off on Rationalism | Article about rationalism by The Free Dictionary
Feb 022016
 

[Lat.,=belonging to reason], in philosophy, a theory that holds that reason alone, unaided by experience, can arrive at basic truth regarding the world. Associated with rationalism is the doctrine of innate ideas and the method of logically deducing truths about the world from “self-evident” premises. Rationalism is opposed to empiricism on the question of the source of knowledge and the techniques for verification of knowledge. Ren Descartes, G. W. von Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza all represent the rationalist position, and John Locke the empirical. Immanuel Kant in his critical philosophy attempted a synthesis of these two positions. More loosely, rationalism may signify confidence in the intelligible, orderly character of the world and in the mind’s ability to discern such order. It is opposed by irrationalism, a view that either denies meaning and coherence in reality or discredits the ability of reason to discern such coherence. Irrational philosophies accordingly stress the will at the expense of reason, as exemplified in the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre or Karl Jaspers. In religion, rationalism is the view that recognizes as true only that content of faith that can be made to appeal to reason. In the Middle Ages the relationship of faith to reason was a fundamental concern of

).

See E. Heimann, Reason and Faith in Modern Society (1961); T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality (1971); R. L. Arrington, Rationalism, Realism, and Relativism (1989).

e.g. in

, endangered by world events as well as by sceptical movements in philosophy. However, rationalism in the sense of a belief in progress survives in a modified form in many areas of sociology and philosophy (e.g. see

). A further view is that it is a mistake to polarize rationalism and empiricism, since both of these play a role in human knowledge, which always involves both conception (rationalism) and perception (empiricism), e.g. See

. See also

.

a collective designation for the architectural schools of the first half of the 20th century that made use of the achievements of modern science and technology. In the broad sense, rationalism in architecture is sometimes equated with the concept of modern architecture, as represented by the work of L. H. Sullivan in the United States, H. P. Berlage in the Netherlands, A. Loos in Austria, the masters of the Deutscher Werkbund in Germany, and A. Perret in France.

The establishment of rationalism in the early 1920s was largely promoted by the theories propagated by the circle of architects associated with the journal LEsprit nouveau. The movements leaders were Le Corbusier in France and W. Gro-pius of the Bauhaus school of architecture in Germany.

Rationalism flourished essentially from the 1920s through the 1950s. In 1928 its supporters organized the International Congress for Modern Architecture, which met until 1959. Rationalist ideas concerning urban planning were set forth in 1933 in the Athens Charter. In the 1950s the general architectural principles of rationalism led to the creation of the international style, represented by the work of L. Mies van der Rohe and many others. The dogmatic architectural ideas and the social-reformist utopianism of the proponents of rationalism led to a crisis in the movement by the late 1950s.

The Russian architects of Asnova (Association of New Architects), including N. A. Ladovskii and K. S. Melnikov, proclaimed themselves to be rationalists. They emphasized psychological and physiological factors in the appreciation of architectural form and sought rational principles in the visual aspect of architecture.

a philosophical school that considers reason to be the foundation of human understanding and behavior. Rationalism is the opposite of fideism, irrationalism, and sensationalism (empiricism). The term rationalism has been used to designate and characterize philosophical concepts since the 19th century, but historically the rationalist tradition originated in ancient Greek philosophy. For example, Parmenides, who distinguished between the knowledge of truth (obtained through reason) and the knowledge of opinion (obtained through sensory perception), considered reason to be the criterion of truth.

Rationalism took shape in modern times as an integral system of epistemological views, as a result of the development of mathematics and the natural sciences. In contrast to medieval Scholasticism and religious dogmatism, the classical rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries (Descartes, Spinoza, Male-branche, and Leibniz) was based on the idea of natural orderan infinite chain of causality pervading the world. Thus, the principles of rationalism were accepted by both materialists (Spinoza) and idealists (Leibniz), although the character of rationalism differed in the two philosophical trends, depending on how the question of the origin of knowledge was resolved.

The rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries, which asserted the decisive role of reason in both human cognition and human activity, was one of the philosophical sources of the ideology of the Enlightenment. The cult of reason was also characteristic of the 18th-century French materialists, who adopted a philosophical position of materialistic sensationalism and criticized the speculative constructs of rationalism.

Seeking to substantiate the absolute reliability of the principles of science and the tenets of mathematics and the natural sciences, rationalism attempted to explain how knowledge obtained through human cognitive activity could be objective, universal, and necessary. Unlike sensationalism, rationalism maintained that scientific knowledge, which possesses these logical properties, could be attained through reason, which served as the source of knowledge and as the criterion of truth. For example, the rationalist Leibniz modified the basic thesis of sensationalism, as stated by Locke (there is nothing in reason that was not previously present in sensations) by appending to it the phrase other than reason itself. In other words, reason is capable of grasping not only the particular and the accidental, to which sensory perception is limited, but also the universal and the essential.

The concept of reason as the single source of scientific knowledge led rationalists to an idealist conclusion regarding the existence of innate ideas (Descartes) or of predispositions and inclinations in thought that are independent of sensory impressions (Leibniz). The underestimation by rationalists of the role of sensory perception, mans link with the external world, led to the separation of thought from the object of cognition.

Kant, who attempted to reconcile the ideas of rationalism and sensationalism, proposed that all our knowledge begins with the senses, passes to the faculty of understanding, and ends with reason (I. Kant, Sock, vol. 3, Moscow, 1964, p. 340). According to Kant, reason cannot serve as the universal criterion of truth. In order to explain the properties of knowledge, Kant introduced the concept of the apriority (a priori knowledge) of both conceptual forms (as in classical rationalism) and forms of contemplationspace and time. However, Kantian rationalism retains its force only at the price of adopting an agnostic positionthat is, it deals only with the world of phenomena and excludes consideration of things-in-themselves, or objective reality.

In Hegels philosophy the absolute idea, or absolute reason, is the original principle and essence of the world, and the process of cognition is viewed as the self-cognition of reason, which comprehends its own content in the world. In Hegel, therefore, the development of the objective world is represented as a purely logical, rational process, and rationalism assumes the character of panlogism.

Bourgeois philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries (positivism and neopositivism, for example) lost faith in the unlimited power of reason. The prevailing trend in 19th- and 20th- century bourgeois philosophy is a critique of classical rationalism, with its ideals of the power of reason and mans unlimited rational activity. This critique is based either on irrationalism or on a moderate, limited rationalism. For example, Freudianism, which asserts the dominant role of irrational, subconscious elements, criticizes rationalism from the standpoint of irrationalism, as do intuitionism and existentialism. The concepts of M. Weber and K. Mannheim are representative of the critique of rationalism from the standpoint of moderate, limited rationalism, which is associated less with the logical problems of cognition and more with a search for the sociocultural bases and limits of rationalism.

The narrrow, one-sided character of rationalism was overcome in Marxism. It was possible to resolve the contradiction between empiricism and rationalism on the basis of fundamentally new principles developed in the theory of cognition of dialectical materialism. The basic condition for resolving the contradiction between empiricism and rationalism was an analysis of the process of cognition, in integral association with practical activity for transforming reality. V. I. Lenin wrote: From living perception to abstract thought, and from this to practice such is the dialectical path of the cognition of truth and the cognition of objective reality (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 29, pp. 15253).

Originally posted here:

Rationalism | Article about rationalism by The Free Dictionary

Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 312016
 

Eugenics in California is a notable part of eugenics in America.

As an early leading force in the field of eugenics, California became the third state in the United States to enact a sterilization law. By 1921, California had accounted for 80% of the sterilizations nationwide. This continued until World War II, after which the number of sterilizations began to decrease, largely due to the fallout of Hitler’s eugenics movement.[1] There were about 20,000 forced sterilizations in California between 1909 and 1963.[2]

Records of eugenics practices in California are held at the following agencies and institutions. The records are still protected for confidentiality reasons.

In California, [eugenics] was always linked to the use of land: to agriculture and plant hybridization.[3] Many of the powerful social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, and biologists, sought to hurt many of Californias Mexican, Indian, and Asian populations through the exclusionary laws that those scientists propose. In addition to the conquest to hurt the undesirables in the state, the California Eugenics plan also was a way to save the state money so they could eliminate the money the state spends on welfare and other programs that help the less fortunate.[3] Eugenics takes take three forms in California:

Dolores Madrigal entered the University of Southern Californias medical center on October 12, 1973, in order to give birth to her second child. During her time in labor, she was given a consent form and coerced by doctors into having a tubal ligation, effectively sterilizing her. Madrigal insisted that No one at the medical center informed me that a tubal ligation operation was going to performed on me. No one at the medical center informed me of what a tubal ligation operation consists nor of its permanent effects (Enoch, 5). Rebecca M. Kluchin found while researching the case that Physicians preferred to perform cesarean sections and tubal ligations in tandem to minimize risks associated with infection and anesthesia, as well as to reduce medical costs. It appears that at this hospital physicians who performed emergency cesarean sections sometimes used the opportunity to persuade a woman to accept permanent contraception.[10]

In July 1976 Madrigal sued the University of Southern California medical center, accompanied by Guadalupe Acosta, Estela Benavides, Consuelo Hermosillo, Georgina Hernandez, Maria Hurtado, Maria Figueroa, Rebecca Figueroa, Jovita Rivera, and Helena Orozco. Each of the nine other women who joined the class action lawsuit complained of similar proceedings. Together, these 10 chicanas decided to sue the USC medical center, contending that they had never given their informed consent to have the tubal ligation procedure performed. Karen Benker testified that poor minority women in L.A. County were having too many babies; that it was a strain on society; and that it was good that they be sterilized”.[11]

Despite Benkers testimony and other corroborating evidence, Judge Jesse Curtis ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that there had been nothing more than a breakdown in communication between the patients and the doctors (Stern 1135). He went on to say that it was appropriate for an obstetrician to believe that a tubal ligation could help diminish overpopulation as long as they did not attempt to overpower the will of his patients.[11]

In 1909 a eugenics law was passed in California allowing for state institutions to sterilize those deemed unfit or feeble-minded.[12] As one of the leading states in forced sterilization victims, Californias sterilization procedures primarily took place in state mental hospitals. Dr. Leo Stanley was one of the first people to bring the eugenics movement to Californias prisons.

Stanley was San Quentin penitentiarys chief surgeon and was particularly interested in eliminating those deemed unfit for society. His avid eugenic-based surgeries were the first of its kind to been seen in a prison. Taking place between 1930 and 1959, the peak of the eugenics movement, Stanley’s surgeries were driven by the idea of purifying criminals. Through testicular surgeries, he believed he could cultivate socially fit individuals by replacing a prisoners testicles with those of a deceased male previously deemed socially fit. His practices spawned early ideologies of white manhood,” which stemmed from his belief that he could “help a new, ideal man emerge”.[13]

Use of human and even animal testicles made Stanleys procedures highly unsuccessful and all around bizarre. His desire to restore social morality, along with his fascination with the endocrine system, fueled his research. Throughout the time of his procedures, criminals were believed to have something anatomically off that drove them to commit crimes. This belief inspired Stanley to explore the endocrine systems role in the criminology of a person. By persuading inmates that his testicular surgeries would produce favorable results in their sex lives he sterilized more than 600 prisoners by the end of his career.[13] Stanleys prison work concluded upon the start of World War II where he served overseas, only to retire as a eugenic pioneer.

The Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) was established in Pasadena, California in 1928. Led by E.S. Gosney it researched with an aim to foster and aid constructive and educational forces for the protection and betterment of the human family in body, mind, character, and citizenship. In 1929 E.S. Gosney set up the Human Betterment Foundation and gathered twenty-five of the leading scientists, philanthropists, and community leaders to carry out research on the effects of sterilization for thirteen years (Valone). Gosney also used the HBF to distribute the product of his research, Sterilization for Human Betterment which attracted attention from the nearby university, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). Robert A. Millikan, a leading faculty member and proponent of Caltech, was looking for potential donors to the university and shared many of Gosneys views in his work decided to join the HBF board.

Lois Gosney Castle and the board of trustees eventually liquidated the foundation and turned the proceeds over to Caltech. Thirteen years after publishing the 1929 report entitled “Sterilization for Human Betterment, the HBF continued to carry out research on the effects of sterilization and undertook widespread distribution of the report to individuals, public libraries, and schools. After the liquidation files were found in 1968, but since they contained personal medical information, they were legally closed to researchers.[14]

Go here to see the original:
Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 2:44 am  Tagged with:

The International Offshore Banking Guide – 2015 edition

 Offshore Banking  Comments Off on The International Offshore Banking Guide – 2015 edition
Jan 262016
 

Protect Yourself From The Ongoing Banking Crisis

Dont just Survive it … Thrive from it!

Karl Marx once infamously said, that … Religion is the Opium of the People

Today it seems that those who believe the current Banking & Financial system has gone back to normal, are just equally as hooked on a drug.

It is a drug thats now vital to the survival of the system, and hence perhaps even more addictive and persistent than religion itself.

That drug is commonly referred to as … Hope-ium.

The term Hope-ium was first coined in the 1870s, and is probably best defined as:

“The irrational belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, things will turn out for the best”

Its also known in simpler terms as being delusional … and surely fits the put all your eggs in one basket approach that so many people employ with regard to how they bank and arrange their financial affairs.

In the wake of the recent rise in stock markets, a near universal state of psychological denial seems to permeate at least part of the psyche of those who invest in, and benefit most from, the current deeply flawed Banking & Financial system.

The denial is the refusal to see that the recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2008, has been anything other than an artificially contrived one.

Because of such denial then, the recent Hope-ium-fuelled Recovery has become infinitely more fabricated & fragile than most in the past, and hence infinitely more dangerous and misleading.

The wholly contrived economic Recovery has spurred on many savvy investors to diversify and protect themselves.

One of the tools that they have been using comes in the form of a Banking Guide that was first published back in 2007, before the 2008 Crash.

Value $197 Today Only $97

As you will soon see, this Guide is an invaluable route-map that has proven itself to be a cant do without for many of the most switched-on investors in the world.

The chart below amply demonstrates why the Guide is so crucial.

The chart graphically demonstrates the accelerating fragility and volatility, of the recent major crashes in the global economy.

Of course very few outside the core coterie of Central Bankers can predict with any degree of certainty exactly when the next bust will come, but, savvy observers and Central Banking watchers, recognize 2008 for what it was; a true watershed moment in financial history.

What marks the 2008-2015 recovery cycle out as being beyond interesting, is the forces that didnt so much allow it to happen naturally, but that created it extremely unnaturally!

And it is precisely because of the forced and unnatural conditions of the 2008-2015 Recovery, that discerning investors, entrepreneurs, and Central Banking watchers alike, became increasingly suspicious and were driven to action.

The seemingly blind believers in the system, on the other hand, appear completely oblivious to the dangers, despite knowing that their system only survived by the skin of its teeth, due to the injection of massive doses of yet another drug, the life support drug otherwise known as … Quantitative Easing.

That QE drug then, along with their own addiction to the drug of Hope-ium, are what has both inflated and sustained the 2009-2015 (and counting) Recovery Bull Run.

What well-informed group investors realise is that the can of the economic problem, was really only kicked down the road, ready to explode sometime later.

Of course, any success in the markets, however fabricated and short-sighted it may be, always has investors coming back for just one more fix as if nothing extraordinary had happened!

But we all know deep down inside that something extraordinary DID happen back in 2008, that despite mere appearances, the real economy, outside the Ivory Towers of Wall Street, is far from being out of the woods, almost 7 years later.

Despite the all clear being sounded by multiple talking heads on TV, the alarm bells are ringing louder than ever, with an increasing number of veteran investors, like Stanley Druckenmiller, George Soros, Ray Dalio, Jeremy Grantham, and Bill Gross, all warning that the Supercycle Bull Run is in dire jeopardy.

Discerning investors then instinctively know that a fundamental change occurred back in 2008 and ever since, they have been putting their insurance – and their escape plans – firmly in place.

The purpose of what follows then, is to introduce to you the most practical Banking Report that you will find, anywhere. It is a Report that will arm you with all you need to know in order to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your assets from potential harm.

Make no mistake, what happened from 2008 onwards represents possibly the biggest financial paradigm changing event that any of us will ever experience; one that savvy investors ever since then, have been quietly shifting their assets in order to take advantage of, as well as remain protected from.

The nature of the financial paradigm shift that is going on in front of our very eyes then, is perhaps best illustrated by looking at the following flat lining graph.

The graph represents a 7-year phenomenon that is without either parallel or precedent in all of modern financial history.

It is a shift that has truly broken the mould of 20th century economics, one that means we are currently in uncharted and inherently dangerous waters.

What it has meant too, is that the smart money has been preparing accordingly ever since.

We would urge everyone then, to join them, by getting yourself a copy of …

The Practical International Banking Guide

Value $197 Today Only $97

The Guide, now in its 8th Edition, has proven its worth many times over the years and has a core of avid readers who wait for every updated edition, and who truly understand its value.

As the name suggests, the 90+ page Guide is first of all practical, providing an extensive detailed resource list and database of direct contacts to banks and facilitators, who can help you to arrange your financial affairs in such a way as to shield yourself from the worst affects of the next, inevitable, Bust in the economic cycle.

The longer that the flat lining interest Rate trend is forced to continue, the more it becomes obvious that Central Banks are hamstrung and that what has always worked in the past, is simply no longer effective.

Whats worse, is not simply that Interest Rate Cuts may no longer be effective, but that they may no longer even be possible without tipping the entire economy into full blown depression and chaos. Such is the Catch 22 situation that Central Bankers, and by extension, every one of us, undeniably face.

The very Old Rules then, that traditional free market economics have always claimed to operate under, have been fundamentally challenged and changed.

We are now in a full blown financial world of contrived Artificial Reality, one dominated by High Speed Trading algorithms that literally fix and rig the markets, and of course, one of unlimited injections of fabricated money, supplied by increasingly desperate Central Banks.

Even The Don of Central Banking himself, Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, fully reversed what by then was over 40 years of his own understanding of the markets, when, in October 2008, right after the Crash, he made the following astonishing, and all too late, admission :

I had been going for 40 years or more, with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well …

And what Im saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw … … a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure, that defines how the world works, so to speak.”

Now that is well worth reading again…..

What hes talking about here remember, is literally … How The World Works!

Over 40 years of accumulated market wisdom about how the very world itself works, and suddenly Greenspan admits to a flaw in his assumptions; a flaw so critical that he is forced to make an admission like that?

Rest assured then, Greenspans admission ranks as the most astonishing climb downs by any economist, in history, especially coming from one in a position of such unbridled power: power that by his own admission, means that the Federal Reserve Chairman is in a position that is beyond oversight even by the elected President of The United States himself!

About a year before the 2008 Crash, the looming sub-Prime crisis was well understood, although it had not yet exploded into a full blown crisis that it was to become.

In the September of 2007, a full year before that 2008 Crash, a still bullish and not yet chastened & contrite Alan Greenspan, was asked the following question by PBS anchor, Jim Lehrer :

What should be the proper relationship be, between a Chairman of the Fed and a President of the United States?

His reply, was illuminating to say the least. He said the following….

Well first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place … then what the relationships are, don’t frankly matter.

So make no mistake, the Central Banking power of a Chairman of the Federal Reserve knows no bounds, is not even challenged by purportedly most powerful man in the world, The U.S. President. Such is the unheralded power that Central Banking possesses at its finger tips.

Clearly, Alan Greenspan knew even back then, that the interest Rate chart above would develop as it did, and he knew too, that the worn out tool and blunt instrument of mere Interest Rate Cuts, was never ever going to be enough to combat the consequences of his flaw.

And sure enough, even flat lining, near 0% Interest Rates proved to be as good as useless, in reviving the patient.

As Greenspan and other Central Bankers have since readily admitted … … Economics had changed forever.

If such slashed to the bone interest rates (which constituted virtually free money for banks) were still not enough, then what else could be done?

Remember, that on top of those virtually 0% rates, Central Bankers had already secured a TARP bail out that they had originally promised would be limited to an already eye-watering sum of $700 BILLION dollars in relief funding!

But of course, as we now know, that sum rapidly morphed and mutated into an out of control and unimaginable sum of over $25 TRILLION DOLLARS, all being made available to Banks to mop up their toxic bets and gambling debts and not just banks from the U.S.A. either, but from all around the world too.

Such already unprecedented interventions and over-rides of the so-called free market then, made the lack of movement in the real economy (rather than the manufactured micro-bubble of Wall Street) even more inexplicable.

Remember too, that those TRILLIONS of dollars of Bail Out money werent just sitting idly in some Rainy Day Fund in the basement of the Fed!

That money was essentially extorted from (and charged down to) the future earnings capacity of millions of as yet unborn tax payers in the future!

Central Bankers then, were clearly panicked by the total lack of response from this DOUBLE injection of life support drugs … and in desperation, they knew that they had no choice … they simply had to resort to the unthinkable.

And so it was, that the decision was made to once again, fire up the printing presses, and start printing literally tens of billions of dollars … every month!

All in order to keep the charade going for a little longer.

They even coined a new phrase to deflect attention away from such naked printing of money; they dubbed the furious printing that they were suddenly engaging in, Quantitative Easing.

It sounded almost benign, but make no mistake, what they were doing amounted to :

1. Blatant counterfeiting and currency debasement

2. An embarrassing admission of the failure of the old order of Economics

This THIRD overt and sustained injection of artificial QE life support into the Banking system did the trick and the stock exchanges at last had the funding necessary to recover and shoot for the stars.

But it was still a trick nonetheless … and a trick it surely remains.

Dont be fooled by the temporary lull in the U.S. Version of QE either.

QE continues, only in a different guise and through a different source.

Japan and the EU are currently filling the void, with the Mario Draghi of The European Central Bank, as recently as January 2015, announcing that they will pump 1.1 TRILLION EUROS … at a rate of 60bn a month (?!) … into European financial markets, until September 2016!

And whod bet against QE2, QE3, and on and on? Not many!

All of this of course, is an attempt to prevent the fragile Eurozone economy from grinding to a complete halt!

With youth unemployment still languishing at rates in excess of 50% in some Southern European countries, such financial artificial life support drugs are surely needed.

Historic 10-Year Treasury Bond Yields, 1870 – 2010. Notice Black Tuesday 1929, and Black Monday, 1987

The fact that such unprecedented measures have been needed, in order to reanimate the corpse of the global village economy, ought to have awakened everyone by now, to the illusory nature of the so-called safety of Western Banking and financial markets.

According to the Old Rules of free market economics, such unprecedented flat-lining Interest Rates alone ought to have been more than enough to jump start the economy.

But it wasnt enough. Far from it.

But the measures did serve one extremely useful purpose.

They provided savvy Central Bank watchers with all the data they needed to finally know that something was very wrong and uniquely different about the Bust of 2008.

What logically follows then is that the subsequent Post-Crash Boom in the Stock Markets must also be regarded as being equally suspect, fragile and fabricated.

So, while many savvy investors and readers of The Practical International Banking Guide have been happy enough to ride the wave up they are also well informed enough, and switched on enough to never have been fooled by the Smoke & Mirrors and Sleight of Hand that the Money Magicians of Central Banking have doled out.

Readers of the Banking Guide long ago saw the writing on the wall and have been quietly preparing themselves accordingly, ever since.

So we would again urge you to follow their example!

Prepare for and protect yourself against, what increasingly shows all the signs of being a massive shift away from the forced and contrived dominance, enjoyed by Western banking for centuries now.

So, while many savvy investors and readers of The Practical International Banking Guide have been happy enough to ride the wave up they are also well informed enough, and switched on enough to never have been fooled by the Smoke & Mirrors and Sleight of Hand that the Money Magicians of Central Banking have doled out.

It is a case of WHEN, not IF, such a turnaround comes

Dont get caught out

It is a trade that we simply cannot afford to be late getting into

The one common denominator realization that binds this small group of well informed people together then, is that they realise that the incoming financial hurricane is bound to make land fall with the most devastating impact, in the heart of the current Western financial capitals.

That is why, for years now, they have been quietly diversifying and moving their assets out of these seemingly invincible, but ultimately extremely vulnerable, jurisdictions.

They have instead, been moving them into safer, calmer waters of international jurisdictions where privacy and the rule of law still mean something, and where they are still relatively respected.

That is why we are proud to encourage you to access the latest, fully updated, 2015 Edition of

The Practical International Banking Guide – 2015 edition

The rest is here:
The International Offshore Banking Guide – 2015 edition

 Posted by at 11:42 pm  Tagged with:

Spratly Islands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Islands  Comments Off on Spratly Islands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 242016
 

The Spratly Islands (Chinese: ; pinyin: Nnsh Qndo, Malay: Kepulauan Spratly, Tagalog: Kapuluan ng Kalayaan,[8]Vietnamese: Qun o Trng Sa) are a disputed group of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea.[9] The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines, Malaysia, and southern Vietnam. Named after the 19th-century British whaling captain Richard Spratly who sighted Spratly Island in 1843, the islands contain approximately 4km2 (1.5sq mi) of land area spread over a vast area of more than 425,000km2 (164,000sq mi).

The Spratlys are one of the major archipelagos in the South China Sea that comprise more than 30,000 islands and reefs, and which complicate governance and economics in this part of Southeast Asia due to their location in strategic shipping lanes. The islands have no indigenous inhabitants, but offer rich fishing grounds and may contain significant oil and natural gas reserves.[10][11] and as such are important to the claimants in their attempts to establish international boundaries.

The area northeast of the Spratlys is known to mariners as Dangerous Ground and is characterized by its many low islands, sunken reefs, and atolls with coral often rising abruptly from ocean depths greater than 1,000 metres (3,300ft) – all of which makes the area dangerous for navigation.

In addition to various territorial claims, some of the features have civilian settlements, but of the approximately 45 islands, reefs, cays and other features that are occupied all contain structures that are occupied by military forces (from China (PRC), Taiwan (ROC), Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia). Additionally, Brunei has claimed (but does not occupy) an exclusive economic zone in the southeastern part of the Spratlys, which includes the Louisa Reef. These claims and occupations have led to escalating tensions between these countries over the status and “ownership” of the islands.

The Spratly Islands contain almost no significant arable land, have no indigenous inhabitants, and very few of the islands have a permanent drinkable water supply. Natural resources include fish and guano, as well as the possible potential of oil and natural gas reserves.[12]Economic activity has included commercial fishing, shipping, guano mining, and more recently, tourism.

The Spratlys are located near several primary shipping lanes.

The Spratly Islands consist of reefs, banks and shoals that consist of biogenic carbonate. These accumulations of biogenic carbonate lie upon the higher crests of major submarine ridges that are uplifted fault blocks known by geologists as horsts. These horsts are part of a series of parallel and en echelon, half-grabens and rotated fault-blocks. The long axes of the horsts, rotated fault blocks and half-grabens form well-defined linear trends that lie parallel to magnetic anomalies exhibited by the oceanic crust of the adjacent South China Sea. The horsts, rotated fault blocks, and the rock forming the bottoms of associated grabens consist of stretched and subsided continental crust that is composed of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous strata that include calc-alkalic extrusive igneous rocks, intermediate to acid intrusive igneous rocks, sandstones, siltstones, dark-green claystones, and metamorphic rocks that include biotite-muscovite-feldspar-quartz migmatites and garnet-mica schists.[13][14][15]

The dismemberment and subsidence of continental crust into horsts, rotated fault blocks and half-grabens that underlie the Spratly Islands and surrounding sea bottom occurred in 2 distinct periods. They occurred as the result of the tectonic stretching of continental crust along underlying deeply rooted detachment faults. During the Late Cretaceous and Early Oligocene, the earliest period of tectonic stretching of continental crust and formation of horsts, half-grabens, and rotated fault-blocks occurred in association the rifting and later sea-floor spreading that created the South China Sea. During the Late Oligocene-Early Miocene additional stretching and block faulting of continental crust occurred within the Spratly Islands and adjacent Dangerous Ground. During and after this period of tectonic activity, corals and other marine life colonised the crests of the horsts and other ridges that lay in shallow water. The remains of these organisms accumulated over time as biogenic carbonates that comprise the current day reefs, shoals and cays of the Spratly Islands. Starting with their formation in Late Cretaceous, fine-grained organic-rich marine sediments accumulated within the numerous submarine half-grabens that underlie sea bottom within the Dangerous Ground region.[13][14][15]

The geological surveys show localised areas within the Spratly Islands region are favourable for the accumulation of economic oil and gas reserves. They include thick sequences of Cenozoic sediments east of the Spratly Islands. Southeast and west of them, there also exist thick accumulations of sediments that possibly might contain economic oil and gas reserves lie closer to the Spratly Islands.[10][16]

In some cays in the Spratly Islands, the sand and pebble sediments form the beaches and spits around the island. Under the influence of the dominant wind direction, which changes seasonally, these sediments move around the island to change the shape and size of the island. For example, Spratly Island is larger during the northeast monsoon, (about 700 300 meters), and smaller during the southwest monsoon (approximately 650 320 meters).[17]

Some islands may contain fresh groundwater fed by rain. Groundwater levels fluctuate during the day with the rhythm of the tides.[18]

Phosphates from bird faeces (guano) are mainly concentrated in the beach rocks by the way of exchange-endosmosis. The principal minerals bearing phosphate are podolite, lewistonite and dehonite.[19]

Coral reefs are the predominant structures of these islands; the Spratly group contains over 600 coral reefs in total.[9] In April 2015 the New York Times reported that China were using “scores of dredgers” to convert Fiery Cross Reef and several other reefs into military facilities (runways, etc.).[20][21]

Little vegetation grows on these islands, which are subject to intense monsoons. Larger islands are capable of supporting tropical forest, scrub forest, coastal scrub and grasses. It is difficult to determine which species have been introduced or cultivated by humans. Taiping Island (Itu Aba) was reportedly covered with shrubs, coconut, and mangroves in 1938; pineapple was also cultivated there when it was profitable. Other accounts mention papaya, banana, palm, and even white peach trees growing on one island. A few islands that have been developed as small tourist resorts had soil and trees brought in and planted where there was none.[9]

A total of 2,927 marine species have been recorded in the Spratly Sea, including 776 benthic species, 382 species of hard coral, 524 species of marine fish, 262 species of algae and sea grass, 35 species of seabirds, 20 species of marine mammals and sea turtles, etc.[22]

Terrestrial vegetation in the islands includes 103 species of vascular plants of magnolia branches (Magnoliophyta) of 39 families and 79 genera.[22]

The islands that do have vegetation provide important habitats for many seabirds and sea turtles.[9]

Both the green turtle (Chelonia mydas, endangered) and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata, critically endangered) formerly occurred in numbers sufficient to support commercial exploitation. These species reportedly continue to nest even on islands inhabited by military personnel (such as Pratas) to some extent, though it is believed that their numbers have declined.[9]

Seabirds use the islands for resting, breeding, and wintering sites. Species found here include: streaked shearwater (Calonectris leucomelas), brown booby (Sula leucogaster), red-footed booby (S. sula), great crested tern (Sterna bergii), and white tern (Gygis alba). Little information is available regarding the current status of the islands’ seabird populations, though it is likely that birds may divert nesting sites to smaller, less disturbed islands. Bird eggs cover the majority of Song Tu, a small island in the eastern Danger Zone.[9]

This ecoregion is still largely a mystery. Scientists have focused their research on the marine environment, while the ecology of the terrestrial environment remains relatively unknown.[9]

Political instability, tourism and the increasing industrialisation of neighbouring countries has led to serious disruption of native flora and fauna, over-exploitation of natural resources, and environmental pollution. Disruption of nesting areas by human activity and/or by introduced animals, such as dogs, has reduced the number of turtles nesting on the islands. Sea turtles are also slaughtered for food on a significant scale. The sea turtle is a symbol of longevity in Chinese culture and at times the military personnel are given orders to protect the turtles.[9]

Heavy commercial fishing in the region incurs other problems. Although it has been outlawed, fishing methods continue to include the use of bottom trawlers fitted with chain rollers. In addition, during a recent[timeframe?] routine patrols[by whom?], more than 200kg of Potassium cyanide solution was confiscated from fishermen who had been using it for fish poisoning. These activities have a devastating impact on local marine organisms and coral reefs.[9]

Some interest has been taken[by whom?] in regard to conservation of these[which?] island ecosystems. J.W. McManus[who?] has explored the possibilities of designating portions of the Spratly Islands as a marine park. One region of the Spratly Archipelago, named Truong Sa, was proposed by Vietnam’s Ministry of Science, Technology, and the Environment (MOSTE) as a future protected area. The site, with an area of 160km2 (62sq mi), is currently managed by the Khanh Hoa Provincial People’s Committee of Vietnam.[9]

Military groups in the Spratlys have engaged in environmentally damaging activities such as shooting turtles and seabirds, raiding nests and fishing with explosives. The collection of rare medicinal plants, collecting of wood, and hunting for the wildlife trade are common threats to the biodiversity of the entire region, including these islands. Coral habitats are threatened by pollution, over-exploitation of fish and invertebrates, and the use of explosives and poisons as fishing techniques.[9]

Chinese texts of the 12th century record these islands being a part of Chinese territory and that they had earlier (206BC) been used as fishing grounds during the Han dynasty.[23][not in citation given] Further records show the islands as inhabited at various times in history by Chinese and Vietnamese fishermen, and during the second world war by troops from French Indochina and Japan.[24][25][26] However, there were no large settlements on these islands until 1956, when Filipino adventurer Toms Cloma, Sr., decided to “claim” a part of Spratly islands as his own, naming it the “Free Territory of Freedomland”.[27]

Evidence of man’s presence in the region extends back nearly 50,000 years at Tabon Caves on Palawan. Therefore, it is difficult to say when man first came upon this island group. Within historical times, several groups may have passed through or occupied the islands. Between 600BCE to 3BCE there was an East to West migration by members of the seafairing Sa Hunh culture. This may have led them through the Spratly Islands on their way to Vietnam. These migrants were the forebears of the Cham people that founded the Old Champa empire that ruled what was known for centuries as the Champa Sea.[28][29]

In the Song Dynasty work Zhu fan zhi by Zhao Rugua, the name “Thousand Li Stretch of Sands” (Qianli Changsha , ) and the “Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools/Beds” (Wanli Shitang , or Wanli Shichuang ) were given, interpreted by some to refer to Paracel and Spratly respectively.[30]Wanli Shitang is also recorded in the History of Yuan to have been explored by the Chinese during the Yuan dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries.[31][32][33] They are also referenced, sometimes with different names, in the Ming dynasty.[34] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[35] 1755,[36] 1767,[37] 1810,[38] and 1817.[39]

A Vietnamese map from 1834 also combines the Spratly and Paracel Islands into one region known as “Vn L Trng Sa”[citation needed], a feature commonly incorporated into maps of the era () that is, a combination of half of the 2 aforementioned Chinese island names, “Wanli” and “Changsha”.[40] According to Hanoi, Vietnamese maps record Bi Ct Vng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both the Spratly and Paracel Islands), which lay near the coast of the central Vietnam, as early as 1838.[41] In Ph Bin Tp Lc (The Frontier Chronicles) by scholar L Qu n, both Hong Sa and Trng Sa were defined as belonging to the Qung Ngi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the L dynasty, 200years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[41]

Despite the fact that China and Vietnam both made a claim to these territories simultaneously, at the time, neither side was aware that its neighbour had already charted and made claims to the same stretch of islands.[41]

The islands were sporadically visited throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries by mariners from different European powers (including Richard Spratly, after whom the island group derives its most recognisable English name).[42] However, these nations showed little interest in the islands.

In the 1950s, a group of individuals claimed sovereignty over the islands in the name of Morton F. Meads, supposedly an American descendant of a British naval captain who gave his name to Meads Island (Itu Aba) in the 1870s. In an affidavit made in 1971, the group claimed to represent the Kingdom of Humanity/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads,[43] which they asserted was in turn the successor entity for a supposed Kingdom of Humanity established between the two world wars on Meads Island, allegedly by the son of the British captain. This claim to this would-be micronation fell dormant after 1972, when several members of the group drowned in a typhoon.[44][45][46][47]

In 1883, German boats surveyed the Spratly and the Paracel Islands but eventually withdrew the survey, after receiving protests from the Guangdong government representing the Qing dynasty. Many European maps before the 20th century do not even mention this region.[48]

The following are political divisions for the Spratly Islands claimed by various area nations (in alphabetical order):

In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually sojourned on the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys.[51][52]

When the Spratlys and Paracels were being surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests against them. The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.[53][54] China sent naval forces on inspection tours in 1902 and 1907 and placed flags and markers on the islands. The Qing dynasty’s successor state, the Republic of China, claimed the Spratly and Paracel islands under the jurisdiction of Hainan.[54]

In 1933, France asserted its claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands[55] on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam.[56] It occupied a number of the Spratly Islands, including Taiping Island, built weather stations on two of the islands, and administered them as part of French Indochina. This occupation was protested by the Republic of China (ROC) government because France admitted finding Chinese fishermen there when French warships visited nine of the islands.[57] In 1935, the ROC government also announced a sovereignty claim on the Spratly Islands. Japan occupied some of the islands in 1939 during World War II, and it used the islands as a submarine base for the occupation of Southeast Asia. During the Japanese occupation, these islands were called Shinnan Shoto (), literally the New Southern Islands, and together with the Paracel Islands (), they were put under the governance of the Japanese colonial authority in Taiwan.

Japan occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys from February 1939 to August 1945.[58] Japan administered the Spratlys via Taiwan’s jurisdiction and the Paracels via Hainan’s jurisdiction.[51] Parts of the Paracels and Spratlys were occupied by Republic of China after the 1945 surrender of Japan,[59] since the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surrenders in that area,[54] however no successor was named to the islands.[59]

In November 1946, the ROC sent naval ships to take control of the islands after the surrender of Japan.[58] It had chosen the largest and perhaps the only inhabitable island, Taiping Island, as its base, and it renamed the island under the name of the naval vessel as Taiping. Also following the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II, the ROC re-claimed the entirety of the Spratly Islands (including Taiping Island) after accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. The Republic of China then garrisoned Itu Aba (Taiping) island in 1946 and posted Chinese flags and markers on it along with Woody island in the Paracels. France tried, but failed, to make them leave Woody island.[51] The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims.[54][60] The Republic of China drew up the map showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[54] Japan had renounced all claims to the islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty together with the Paracels, Pratas and other islands captured from the Chinese, and upon these declarations, the government of the Republic of China reasserted its claim to the islands. The KMT force of the ROC government withdrew from most of the Spratly and Paracel Islands after they retreated to Taiwan from the opposing Communist Party of China due to their losses in the Chinese Civil War and the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949.[56] The ROC quietly withdrew troops from Taiping Island in 1950, but then reinstated them in 1956 in response to Toms Cloma’s sudden claim to the island as part of Freedomland.[61] As of 2013[update], Taiping Island is administered by the ROC.[62]

After pulling out its garrison in 1950 when the Republic of China evacuated to Taiwan, when the Filipino Tomas Cloma uprooted an ROC flag on Itu Aba laid claim to the Spratlys and, the Republic of China (now Taiwan) again regarrisoned Itu Aba on 1956.[63] In 1946, the Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[51] The Philippines then claimed the Spratlys in 1971 under President Marcos, after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[64]

Taiwan’s garrison from 19461950 and 1956-now on Itu Aba represents an “effective occupation” of the Spratlys.[64][65] China established a coastal defence system against Japanese pirates or smugglers.[66]

North Vietnam recognised China’s claims on the Paracels and Spratlys during the Vietnam War as it was being supported by China. Only after winning the war and conquering South Vietnam did North Vietnam retract its recognition and admitted it recognised them as part of China to receive aid from China in fighting the Americans.[67]

In 1988, the Vietnamese and Chinese navies engaged in a skirmish in the area of Johnson South Reef (also called Yongshu reef in China and Mabini reef in Philippines).[68]

Under President Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan stated that “legally, historically, geographically, or in reality”, all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were Taiwan’s territory and under Taiwanese sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by Malaysia and the Philippines, in a statement on 13 July 1999 released by the foreign ministry of Taiwan.[69] Taiwan and China’s claims “mirror” each other; during international talks involving the Spratly islands, China and Taiwan have cooperated with each other since both have the same claims.[64][70]

It was unclear whether France continued its claim to the islands after WWII, since none of the islands, other than Taiping Island, was habitable. The South Vietnamese government took over the Trng Sa administration after the defeat of the French at the end of the First Indochina War. In 1958, the PRC issued a declaration defining its territorial waters that encompassed the Spratly Islands. North Vietnam’s prime minister, Phm Vn ng, sent a formal note to Zhou Enlai, stating that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) respected the Chinese decision regarding the 12nmi (22km; 14mi) limit of territorial waters.[71] While accepting the 12-nmi principal with respect to territorial waters, the letter did not actually address the issue of defining actual territorial boundaries.

In 1999, a Philippine navy ship (Number 57 – BRP Sierra Madre) was purposely run aground near Second Thomas Shoal to enable establishment of an outpost. As of 2014[update] it had not been removed, and Filipino troops have been stationed aboard since the grounding.[72][73]

Taiwan and China are largely strategically aligned on the Spratly islands issue, since they both claim exactly the same area, so Taiwan’s control of Itu Aba (Taiping) island is viewed as an extension of China’s claim.[53] Taiwan and China both claim the entire island chain, while all the other claimaints only claim portions of them. China has proposed co-operation with Taiwan against all the other countries claiming the islands. Taiwanese lawmakers have demanded that Taiwan fortify Itu Aba (Taiping) island with weapons to defend against the Vietnamese, and both China and Taiwanese NGOs have pressured Taiwan to expand Taiwan’s military capabilities on the island, which played a role in Taiwan expanding the island’s runway in 2012.[74] China has urged Taiwan to co-operate and offered Taiwan a share in oil and gas resources while shutting out all the other rival claimaints. Taiwanese lawmakers have complained about repeated Vietnamese aggression and trespassing on Taiwan’s Itu Aba (Taiping), and Taiwan has started viewing Vietnam as an enemy over the Spratly Islands, not China.[75] Taiwan’s state run oil company CPC Corp’s board director Chiu Yi has called Vietnam as the “greatest threat” to Taiwan.[74] Taiwan’s airstrip on Taiping has irritated Vietnam.[76] China views Taiwan’s expansion of its military and airstrip on Taiping as benefiting China’s position against the other rival claimaints from southeast Asian countries.[65] China’s claims to the Spratlys benefit from legal weight because of Taiwan’s presence on Itu Aba, while America on the other hand has regularly ignored Taiwan’s claims in the South China Sea and does not include Taiwan in any talks on dispute resolution for the area.[77]

Taiwan performed live fire military exercises on Taiping island in September 2012; reports said that Vietnam was explicitly named by the Taiwanese military as the “imaginary enemy” in the drill. Vietnam protested against the exercises as violation of its territory and “voiced anger”, demanding that Taiwan stop the drill. Among the inspectors of the live fire drill were Taiwanese national legislators, adding to the tensions.[78]

On 23 May 2011, the President of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III, warned visiting Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie of a possible arms race in the region if tensions worsened over disputes in the South China Sea. Aquino said he told Liang in their meeting that this could happen if there were more encounters in the disputed and potentially oil-rich Spratly Islands.[79]

In May 2011, Chinese patrol boats attacked 2 Vietnamese oil exploration ships near the Spratly Islands.[80] Also in May 2011, Chinese naval vessels opened fire on Vietnamese fishing vessels operating off East London Reef (Da Dong). The 3 Chinese military vessels were numbered 989, 27 and 28, and they showed up with a small group of Chinese fishing vessels. Another Vietnamese fishing vessel was fired on near Fiery Cross Reef (Chu Thap). The Chief Commander of Border Guards in Phu Yen Province, Vietnam reported that a total of 4 Vietnamese vessels were fired upon by Chinese naval vessels.[verification needed] These incidents involving Chinese forces sparked mass protests in Vietnam, especially in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City,[81] and in various Vietnamese communities in the West (namely in the US state of California and in Paris) over attacks on Vietnamese citizens and the intrusion into what Vietnam claimed was part of its territory.[82]

In June 2011, the Philippines began officially referring to the South China Sea as the “West Philippine Sea” and the Reed Bank as “Recto Bank”.[83][84]

In July 2012, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a law demarcating Vietnamese sea borders to include the Spratly and Paracel Islands.[85][86]

In 2010, it was reported that the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad believed Malaysia could profit from China’s economic growth through co-operation with China,[87] and said that China “was not a threat to anyone and was not worried about aggression from China”, as well accusing the United States of provoking China and trying to turn China’s neighbours against China.[88] Malaysia displayed no concern over China conducting a military exercise at James Shoal in March 2013.[89] Malaysia also suggested that it might work with China with Malaysian Defence Minister Hishamuddin Hussein saying that Malaysia had no problem with China patrolling the South China Sea, and telling ASEAN, America, and Japan that “Just because you have enemies, doesn’t mean your enemies are my enemies”.[90] However, until present Malaysia still maintained a balance relations with the countries involved in this dispute.[91] But since China has start enroaching its territorial waters,[92] Malaysia has become active in condemning China.[93][94]

The editorial of the Taiwanese news website “Want China Times” accused America for being behind the May 2014 flareup in the South China Sea, saying that Vietnam rammed a Chinese vessel on 2 May over an oil rig drilling platform and the Philippines detained 11 Chinese fishermens occurred because of Obama’s visit to the region and that they were incited by America “behind the scenes”. “Want China Times” claimed America ordered Vietnam on 7 May to complain about the drilling platform, and noted that a joint military exercise was happening at this time between the Philippines and America, and also noted that the American “New York Times” newspaper supported Vietnam.[95]

In a series of news stories on 16 April 2015, it was revealed, through photos taken by Airbus Group, that China had been building an airstrip on Fiery Cross Reef, one of the southern islands. The 10,000-foot-long (3,048m) runway covers a significant portion of the island, and is viewed as a possible strategic threat to other countries with claims to the islands, such as Vietnam and the Philippines.

Various factions of the Muslim Moro people are waging a war for independence against the Philippines. The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) of Nur Misuari declared its support for China against the Philippines in the South China Sea dispute, calling both China and the Moro people as victims of Philippine colonialism, and noting China’s history of friendly relations with the Sultanate of Sulu in the region.[96] The MNLF also denounced America’s assistance to the Philippines in their colonization of the Moro people in addition to denouncing the Philippines claims to the islands disputed with China, and denouncing America for siding with the Philippines in the dispute, noting that in 1988 China “punished” Vietnam for attempting to set up a military presence on the disputed islands, and noting that the Moros and China maintained peaceful relations, while on the other hand the Moros had to resist other colonial powers, having to fight the Spanish, fight the Americans, and fight the Japanese, in addition to fighting the Philippines.[97]

While the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed a peace deal with the Philippines, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) did not and renewed armed resistance against Philippine rule in Zamboanga; on September 15, 2013, in response to the MNLF’s fighting against the Philippine Army, the New York Times published an article crediting every Philippine government for having struggled to bring peace to the Muslims of Mindanao since 1946 when it became independent and claimed that it is the belief of the Muslims that they are being subjected to oppression and exploitation by the Christians that is the problem which is causing the conflict and the newspaper also claimed that the conflict stretched back to 1899 when Moro insurrectionists were quelled by the American army.[98] On January 26, 2014 the New York Times published another article claiming that “every Philippine government” has “struggled to bring peace to Mindanao” and claimed that reports of exploitation and oppression by the Filipino Christians originated from what Muslims “say” and the newspaper also praised President Benigno S. Aquino III’s “landmark peace deal” with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).[99] The New York Times labelled Moro fighters as “Muslim-led groups” and as “violent”.[100] The New York Times blamed “Islamic extremist groups” for carrying out attacks in the Philippines.[101] The New York Times editorial board endorsed Philippine President Benigno Aquino’s planned peace deal and the passage of “Bangsamoro Basic Law”, blaming the “Muslim insurgency” for causing trouble to the “largely Catholic country”.[102] The New York Times claimed that “Islamic militants” were fighting the Philippine military.[103]

The New York Times claimed the peace deal between the Philippines and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) “seeks to bring prosperity to the restive south and weaken the appeal of the extremist groups”, and linked the winding down of an American military counterterrorism operation to increased American military cooperation with the Philippines against China.[104] The New York Times hailed Mr Aquino’s “peace agreement” as an “accomplishment” as it reported on Aquino raising the “alarm” on China in the South China Sea.[105] The New York Times editorial board published an article siding with the Philippines against China in the South China Sea dispute and supporting the Philippines actions against China.[106][107] The New York Times editorial board endorsed aggressive American military action against China in the South China Sea.[108][109]

American and Filipino forces launched a joint operation against the Moros in the Mamasapano clash, in which Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) fighters manage to kill 44 Filipino police commandos and caused massive blow back for the botched raid, putting a decisive halt to American plans for its Asia military “pivot” in the Philippines.[110] Moros have reported that 4 caucasian-looking (American) soldiers were killed in the Mamasapano clash along with the 44 Filipinos.[111]

The Moro National Liberation Front published an open letter to the United States President Barack Hussein Obama and demanded to know why America is supporting Philippine colonialism against the Moro Muslim people and the Filipino “war of genocide” and atrocities against Moros, reminding Obama that the Moro people have resisted and fought against the atrocities of Filipino, Japanese, American, and Spanish invaders, and reminding Obama of past war crimes also committed by American troops against Moro women and children like the Moro Crater massacre at Bud Dajo.[112]

The Moro National Liberation Front accused the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain of conspiring against the Moros and recounted their invasions, imperialism, and atrocities against the Moros and demanded that they end the current colonization against the Moro people, the MNLF recounted that the Spanish were greedy colonizers, that the Americans committed massacres of Moro children and women at Mount Bagsak and Bud Dajo, and that the Japanese “exhibited tyranny, cruelty and inhumanity at its lowest level”, and “had to suffer their worst defeat and highest death mortality at the hands of the Bangsamoro freedom fighters”, demanding an apology from Japan for crimes committed against the Moros.[113]

The Moro National Liberation Front questioned the humanity and morality of the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain, noting that they have done nothing to end the colonialism and war inflicted upon the Moros and reminded them that they have resisted and fought against Japanese, American, and Spanish atrocities and war crimes while the Filipinos bent over, capitulated and submitted to the invaders, the MNLF brought up the massacre committed by American troops at Bud Dajo against Moro women and children and boasted that compared to the Japanese casualty rate in the Visayas and Luzon, the amount of Japanese imperialists slaughtered by the Moro freedom fighters was greater by the thousands and that there was no capitulation like the “Fall of Bataan” to the Japanese by the Moros while the Luzon Filipinos submitted.[114] The MNLF said that the Japanese, American, and Spanish cruelty has been continued by Filipino rule.[115]

Japanese scholar Taoka Shunji criticized Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for trying to falsely portray China as a threat to Japan and that it was invading its neighbors like the Philippines, and pointed out that the Spratly islands were not part of the Philippines when the US acquired the Philippines from Spain in the Treaty of Paris in 1898, and the Japanese ruled Taiwan itself had annexed the Spratly islands in 1938 and the US ruled Philippines did not challenge the move and never asserted that it was their territory, he also pointed out that other countries did not need to do full land reclamation since they already control islands and that the reason China engaged in extensive land reclamation is because they needed it to build airfields since China only has control over reefs.[116]

Champa historically had a large presence in the South China Sea. The Vietnamese broke Champa’s power in an invasion of Champa in 1471, and then finally conquered the last remnants of the Cham people in an invasion in 1832. A Cham named Katip Suma who received Islamic education in Kelantan declared a Jihad against the Vietnamese, and fighting continued until the Vietnamese crushed the remnants of the resistance in 1835. The Cham organisation Front de Libration du Champa was part of the United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races, which waged war against the Vietnamese for independence in the Vietnam War along with the Montagnard and Khmer Krom minorities. The last remaining FULRO insurgents surrendered to the United Nations in 1992. Vietnam has settled over a million ethnic Vietnamese on Montagnard lands in the Central Highlands. The Montagnard staged a massive protest against the Vietnamese in 2001, which led to the Vietnamese to forcefully crush the uprising and seal the entire area off to foreigners.

The Vietnamese government fears that evidence of Champa’s influence over the disputed area in the South China Sea would bring attention to human rights violations and killings of ethnic minorities in Vietnam such as in the 2001 and 2004 uprisings, and lead to the issue of Cham autonomy being brought into the dispute, since the Vietnamese conquered the Hindu and Muslim Cham people in a war in 1832, and the Vietnamese continue to destroy evidence of Cham culture and artefacts left behind, plundering or building on top of Cham temples, building farms over them, banning Cham religious practices, and omitting references to the destroyed Cham capital of Song Luy in the 1832 invasion in history books and tourist guides. The situation of Cham compared to ethnic Vietnamese is substandard, lacking water and electricity and living in houses made out of mud.[117]

The Cham in Vietnam are only recognised as a minority, and not as an indigenous people by the Vietnamese government despite being indigenous to the region. Both Hindu and Muslim Chams have experienced religious and ethnic persecution and restrictions on their faith under the current Vietnamese government, with the Vietnamese state confisticating Cham property and forbidding Cham from observing their religious beliefs. Hindu temples were turned into tourist sites against the wishes of the Cham Hindus. In 2010 and 2013 several incidents occurred in Thnh Tn and Phc Nhn villages where Cham were murdered by Vietnamese. In 2012, Vietnamese police in Chau Giang village stormed into a Cham Mosque, stole the electric generator, and also raped Cham girls.[118] Cham Muslims in the Mekong Delta have also been economically marginalised and pushed into poverty by Vietnamese policies, with ethnic Vietnamese Kinh settling on majority Cham land with state support, and religious practices of minorities have been targeted for elimination by the Vietnamese government.[119]

In 2005, a cellular phone base station was erected by the Philippines’ Smart Communications on Pag-asa Island.[122]

On 18 May 2011, China Mobile announced that its mobile phone coverage has expanded to the Spratly Islands. The extended coverage would allow soldiers stationed on the islands, fishermen, and merchant vessels within the area to use mobile services, and can also provide assistance during storms and sea rescues. The service network deployment over the islands took nearly one year.[123]

Links to related articles

More here:
Spratly Islands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 7:44 pm  Tagged with:

Crestview, FL – Crestview, Florida Map & Directions – MapQuest

 Beaches  Comments Off on Crestview, FL – Crestview, Florida Map & Directions – MapQuest
Jan 222016
 

Crestview is a city in Okaloosa County, Florida, United States. Crestviews name was chosen because of its location on the peak of a long woodland range between the Yellow and Shoal rivers which flow almost parallel on the east and west side of the City. It is the county seat of Okaloosa County. With an elevation of 235 feet (72m) above sea level, it is one of the highest points in the state; it receives 65 inches (1,700mm) of rainfall annually, the second-most of any city in the state of Florida, next to Fort Walton Beach with 69inches. The town was once known as “the icebox of Florida”, due to it having the coldest winters in the state. Today it goes by a more popular nickname as the “Hub City” of Northwest Florida. According to the U.S Census estimates of 2010, the city had a population of 18,987. Crestview is one of Florida’s fastest growing cities, residential developments, shopping, and land area to grow. It has, as of July 2007, become the largest city in Okaloosa County. In 2007, George Whitehurst, who had been mayor for nearly 20 years, resigned, leading to the election of David Cadle. Cadle had recently retired as the long-time director of the Crestview High School band, The Big Red Machine. As part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round, Crestview will experience further population growth as the U.S. Army’s 7th Special Forces Group relocates from Fort Bragg, North Carolina to a newly built cantonment facility on the northern end of the Eglin Air Force Base reservation, approximately six miles south of the city.

Link:
Crestview, FL – Crestview, Florida Map & Directions – MapQuest

 Posted by at 10:41 am  Tagged with:

Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution …

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution …
Jan 192016
 

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.

When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 63 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.

Poll tax

Cumulative poll tax (missed poll taxes from prior years must also be paid to vote)

No poll tax

Southern states adopted the poll tax as a requirement for voting as part of a series of laws intended to marginalize black Americans from politics so far as practicable without violating the Fifteenth Amendment. This required that voting not be limited by “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” All voters were required to pay the poll tax, but in practice it most affected the poor. Notably this impacted both African Americans and poor white voters, some of whom had voted with Populist and Fusionist candidates in the late 19th century, temporarily disturbing Democratic rule. Proponents of the poll tax downplayed this aspect and assured white voters they would not be affected. Passage of poll taxes began in earnest in the 1890s, as Democrats wanted to prevent another Populist-Republican coalition. Despite election violence and fraud, African Americans were still winning numerous local seats. By 1902, all eleven states of the former Confederacy had enacted a poll tax, many within new constitutions that contained other provisions to reduce voter lists, such as literacy or comprehension tests. The poll tax was used together with grandfather clauses and the “white primary”, and threats of violence. For example, potential voters had to be “assessed” in Arkansas, and blacks were utterly ignored in the assessment.[2]

From 19001937, such use of the poll tax was nearly ignored by the federal government. Some state-level initiatives repealed it. The poll tax survived a legal challenge in the 1937 Supreme Court case Breedlove v. Suttles, which ruled that “[The] privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the state and, save as restrained by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the state may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate.”[3]

The issue remained prominent, as most African Americans in the South were disenfranchised. President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke out against the tax. He publicly called it “a remnant of the Revolutionary period” that the country had moved past. However, Roosevelt’s favored liberal Democrats lost in the 1938 primaries to the reigning conservative Southern Democrats, and he backed off the issue. He felt that he needed Southern Democratic votes to pass New Deal programs and did not want to further antagonize them.[4] Still, efforts at the Congressional level to abolish the poll tax continued. A 1939 bill to abolish the poll tax in federal elections was tied up by the Southern Block, lawmakers whose long tenure in office from a one-party region gave them seniority and command of numerous important committee chairmanships. A discharge petition was able to force the bill to be considered, and the House passed the bill 25484.[5] However, the bill was unable to defeat a filibuster in the Senate by Southern senators and a few Northern allies who valued the support of the powerful and senior Southern seats. This bill would be re-proposed in the next several Congresses. It came closest to passage during World War II, when opponents framed abolition as a means to help overseas soldiers vote. However, after learning that the US Supreme Court decision Smith v. Allwright (1944) banned use of the “white primary,” the Southern block refused to approve abolition of the poll tax.[6]

In 1946, the Senate came close to passing the bill. 24 Democrats and 15 Republicans approved an end to debate, while 7 non-southern Democrats and 7 Republicans joined with the 19 Southern Democrats in opposition. The result was a 39-33 vote in favor of the bill, but the filibuster required a two-thirds supermajority to break at the time; a 48-24 vote was required to pass the bill.[clarification needed] Those in favor of abolition of the poll tax considered a constitutional amendment after the 1946 defeat, but that idea did not advance either.[7]

The tenor of the debate changed in the 1940s. Southern politicians tried to shift the debate to Constitutional issue, but private correspondence indicates that black disenfranchisement was still the true concern. For instance, Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo declared, “If the poll tax bill passes, the next step will be an effort to remove the registration qualification, the educational qualification of Negroes. If that is done we will have no way of preventing the Negroes from voting.”[8] This fear explains why even Southern Senators from states that had abolished the poll tax still opposed the bill; they did not want to set a precedent that the federal government could interfere in state elections.

President Harry S. Truman established the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, which among other issues investigated the poll tax. Considering that opposition to federal poll tax regulation in 1948 was claimed as based on the Constitution, the Committee noted that a constitutional amendment might be the best way to proceed. Still, little occurred during the 1950s. Members of the anti-poll tax movement laid low during the anti-Communist frenzy of the period; some of the main proponents of poll tax abolition, such as Joseph Gelders and Vito Marcantonio, had been committed Marxists.[9]

President John F. Kennedy returned to this issue. His administration urged Congress to adopt and send such an amendment to the states for ratification. He considered the constitutional amendment the best way to avoid a filibuster, as the claim that federal abolition of the poll tax was unconstitutional would be moot. Still, some liberals opposed Kennedy’s action, feeling that an amendment would be too slow compared to legislation.[10]Spessard Holland, a conservative Democrat from Florida, introduced the amendment to the Senate. Holland opposed most civil rights legislation during his career,[11] and Kennedy’s gaining of his support helped splinter monolithic Southern opposition to the Amendment. Ratification of the amendment was relatively quick, taking slightly more than a year; it was rapidly ratified by state legislatures across the country from August 1962 to January 1964.

President Lyndon B. Johnson called the amendment a “triumph of liberty over restriction” and “a verification of people’s rights.”[12] States that maintained the poll tax were more reserved. Mississippi’s Attorney General, Joe Patterson, complained about the complexity of two sets of voters – those who paid their poll tax and could vote in all elections, and those who had not and could only vote in federal elections.[12] Additionally, non-payers of the poll tax could still be deterred by requirements that they register far in advance of the election and retain records of such registration.[13] States such as Alabama also exercised discrimination in the application of literacy tests.

Ratified amendment, 196264

Ratified amendment post-enactment, 1977, 1989, 2002, 2009

Rejected amendment

Didn’t ratify amendment

Congress proposed the Twenty-fourth Amendment on August 27, 1962.[14][15] The amendment was submitted to the states on September 24, 1962, after it passed with the requisite two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.[12] The following states ratified the amendment:

Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. The Georgia legislature did make a last-second attempt to be the 38th state to ratify. This was a surprise as “no Southern help could be expected”[13] for the amendment. The Georgia Senate quickly and unanimously passed it, but the House did not act in time.[12] Georgia’s ratification was apparently dropped after South Dakota’s ratification.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

The amendment was specifically rejected by the following state:

The following states have not ratified the amendment:

Arkansas effectively repealed its poll tax for all elections with Amendment 51 to the Arkansas Constitution at the November 1964 general election, several months after this amendment was ratified. The poll-tax language was not completely stricken from its Constitution until Amendment 85 in 2008.[16] Of the five states originally affected by this amendment, Arkansas was the only one to repeal its poll tax; the other four retained their taxes until they were struck down in 1966 by the US Supreme Court decision in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), which ruled poll taxes unconstitutional even for state elections. Federal district courts in Alabama and Texas, respectively, struck down their poll taxes less than two months before the Harper ruling was issued.

The state of Virginia accommodated the amendment by providing an “escape clause” to the poll tax. In lieu of paying the poll tax, a prospective voter could file paperwork to gain a certificate establishing a place of residence in Virginia. The papers would have to be filed six months in advance of voting and the voter had to provide a copy of certificate at the time of voting. This measure was expected to decrease the number of legal voters.[17] In the 1965 Supreme Court decision Harman v. Forssenius, the Court unanimously found such measures unconstitutional. It declared that for federal elections, “the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed.”[18]

While not directly related to the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) ruled that the poll tax was unconstitutional at every level, not just for federal elections. The Harper decision relied upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. As such, issues related to whether burdens on voting are equivalent to poll taxes in discriminatory effect have usually been litigated on Equal Protection grounds since.

More here:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution …

Natasha Vita-More | Transhuman Art

 Transhuman  Comments Off on Natasha Vita-More | Transhuman Art
Jan 182016
 

Natashas research concerns the aesthetics of human enhancement and radical life extension, with a focus on sciences and technologies of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive and neuro sciences (NBIC). Her conceptual future human design Primo Posthuman has been featured in Wired, Harpers Bazaar, Marie Claire, The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Net Business, Teleopolis, and Village Voice. She has appeared in over twenty-four televised documentaries on the future and culture, and has exhibited media artworks at National Centre for Contemporary Arts, Brooks Memorial Museum, Institute of Contemporary Art, Women In Video, Telluride Film Festival, and United States Film Festival and recently Evolution Haute Couture: Art and Science in the Post-Biological Age. Natasha has been the recipient of several awards: First Place Award at Brooks Memorial Museum, Special Recognition at Women in Video, and Best Graduate Student Project of 2005 for her Futures Podcast Series: at the University of Houston, Future Studies program.

Natasha is a proponent human rights and ethical means for human enhancement, and is published in Artifact, Technoetic Arts, Nanotechnology Perceptions, Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology, Death And Anti- Death. She has a bi-monthly column in Nanotechnology Now, is a Guest Editor of The Global Spiral academic journal and on the Editorial Board of International Journal of Green Nanotechnology. Natasha authored Create / Recreate: the 3rd Millennial Culture on the emerging cybernetic culture and the future of humanism and the arts and sciences. She co-authored One on One Fitness, a guide to nutrition and aerobic and anaerobic exercise for women. Her new book The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Look at Philosophy and Technology is scheduled for publishing in 2012 through Wiley-Blackwell.

Natasha is Chair of Humanity+, international non-profit 501c3 organization and was the former president of Extropy Institute, networking organization Natasha continues to work with academic institutions, non-profit organizations and business about human futures. She is a track advisor at the Singularity University, on the Scientific Board of Lifeboat Foundation, a Fellow of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Visiting Scholar at 21st Century Medicine, and advises non-profit organizations including Adaptive A.I. and Alcor Life Extension Foundation. She has been a consultant to IBM on the future of human performance.

See the original post here:
Natasha Vita-More | Transhuman Art

 Posted by at 6:40 am  Tagged with:

Eugenics – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 162016
 

Eugenics is a social and political philosophy. It tries to influence the way people choose to mate and raise children, with the aim of improving the human species.

Eugenics rests on some basic ideas. The first is that, in genetics, what is true of animals is also true of man. The characteristics of animals are passed on from one generation to the next in heredity, including mental characteristics. For example, the behaviour and mental characteristics of different breeds of dog differ, and all modern breeds are greatly changed from wolves.[1] The breeding and genetics of farm animals show that if the parents of the next generation are chosen, then that affects what offspring are born.

Negative eugenics aims to cut out traits that lead to suffering, by limiting people with the traits from reproducing. Positive eugenics aims to produce more healthy and intelligent humans, by persuading people with those traits to have more children.[2]p85 In the past, many ways were proposed for doing this, and even today eugenics means different things to different people. The idea of eugenics is controversial, because in the past it was sometimes used to justify discrimination and injustice against people who were thought to be genetically unhealthy or inferior.

Modern eugenics was first invented in 1865 by Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist who was the cousin of Charles Darwin.[3] Galton believed that intelligence and talent were hereditary and were passed from parent to their children. Based on this, he thought that people could be bred to be smarter, just like animals were bred to be larger or smaller. Galton thought the best way to do this was to learn more about heredity, and also to tell people that they should only marry people who were smart and strong. Galton chose the name “Eugenics” because it was very similar to the Greek for “well born”.

Galton developed the idea of eugenics throughout his life. He understood the two types of eugenics, positive and negative eugenics. One problem, which critics brought up, is the difficulty of agreeing on who is a healthy person, genetically speaking, and who is an inferior person. Obviously, opinions might differ.

The rediscovery of the scientific work of Gregor Mendel in 1900 led to modern genetics, and an understanding of how heredity worked. Mendel himself experimented on peas, and found that many characteristics of the pea plants, such as their colour or their height, could be turned on and off through heredity like a switch. For example, his peas could be either yellow or green, one or the other.

When applied to humans, people thought this meant that human characteristics, like being smart or not, could be influenced by heredity.

Another line of thought goes like this. During their evolution, humans were subject to natural selection like any other form of life. On average, healthy and intelligent people had a better chance of reproducing. In modern civilisation, however, it often seems that this process does not apply. Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin had discussed this very point, with concern.[2]p70 In countries where statistics were collected, those statistics showed that in many cases the poor had more children than the rich. Also, statistics showed that the total population of some great nations was declining.[2]p73 One startling piece of information was produced by research directed by Karl Pearson, the Galton Professor of Eugenics at University College London, and the founder of the Department of Applied Statistics. The finding was that half of each succeeding generation was produced by no more than a quarter of the previous generation, and that quarter was “disproportionately located amongst the dregs of society”.[2]p74

The evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley was also a supporter of eugenics. He used this argument several times:

The American historian of science Garland Allen commented: “The agricultural analogy appears over and over again as it did in the writings of many American eugenicists”.[4]

Similarly, the American geneticist Charles Davenport was a lifelong promoter of eugenics, and wrote one of its first textbooks.[2][5][6]Chapter 3 There is no doubt of the support given to eugenics by professional scientists of undoubted repute.

In the United States, eugenics became a very popular idea in the early 20th century. People thought it would cure society of all of its problems at the time, like crime and poverty, because they thought that all aspects of human behavior were probably hereditary. Very important scientists and politicians supported eugenics, and most thought it was a very progressive and scientific philosophy.

But some of those who led the eugenics movement used it to justify racism and prejudice. They used eugenics as an excuse to pass laws which to restrict immigration from countries that they did not like, saying that the people in them were genetically “unfit”. They also passed laws which said that people of different races could not get married to one another. Most importantly, they passed laws which said that people who were thought to have mental illness or mental disability could be sterilised against their will. Under these laws over 60,000 people were sterilised in the United States between 1907 and the 1970s.

Today we know that interpreting statistics of this type is a complex business, and that many of the studies published early in the 20th century have serious flaws. Nevertheless, what stopped the eugenics movement was not better science. It was the realization, after World War II, of the effects of Nazi policies on race in Germany and other countries occupied during the war.[7] Such war crimes were not, of course, advocated by any eugenicist. All the same, there was a common theme. This theme was the growing interest in the rights of individuals as against the rights of the state.

With the end of the Second World War, forced sterilisation ended in Germany. It was continued in the United States until 1974. The main targets were at first those that were ill or that had some physical or mental disabilities. Later on, the focus shifted towards convicted criminals, as well as black people.

Only in 1985 was a law of the Swiss canton of Vaud abolished. This law allowed for the forced sterilisation of a certain group of people. It was replaced by a law on the national level, that tells under which circumstances people who are unable to consent, may be sterilised.

Though there are few people who openly advocate eugenics today, many people wonder what improvements in genetic technologies will mean in the future.

Genetic counselling exists, where parents can get information about their heredity and even prevent the birth of a child if it has a risk of hereditary illness. Some people do not think the issue is so clear, though, and wonder if genetic screening, genetic counselling, and birth control, are all just another type of eugenics. Some people wonder if it is bad because it infringes human dignity. Some people oppose eugenics and genetic counselling for religious reasons. The idea of eugenics is controversial today for these reasons.

Much of this concern is misplaced. Genetic counselling is not going to change the genetic composition of the human population to any noticeable extent. More relevant is the developing power to identify, and then to change directly, elements of the human genome (genetic engineering). This does have the potential to change the genetic structure of human populations.

See the article here:
Eugenics – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waldorf, Maryland – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Beaches  Comments Off on Waldorf, Maryland – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jan 142016
 

Waldorf is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Charles County, Maryland, United States. It is 23 miles (37km) south-southeast of Washington, D.C. The population of the census-designated area (now including the large planned community of St. Charles) was 67,752 at the 2010 census.[1] Waldorf was settled before 1900 as a rural crossroads with a train station and was called “Beantown” after a local family.

Waldorf’s original name was Beantown. During his post assassination flight, John Wilkes Booth told a road sentry he was headed to his home in Charles County near Beantown and was allowed to proceed.[2] In 1880, the General Assembly of Maryland by an act changed the name to “Waldorf” in honor of William Waldorf Astor (18481919), the great-grandson of John Jacob Astor (17631848), who was born in Walldorf, Palatinate, Germany.[3] On July 29, 1908, the city of Plumb Valley in Waseca County, Minnesota, changed its name to Waldorf after Waldorf, Maryland.[4]

Once a tobacco market village, Waldorf came to prominence in the 1950s as a gambling destination after slot machines were legalized in Charles County in 1949. The boom lasted until 1968 when gambling was once again outlawed.[5] Its subsequent substantial growth as a residential community began with a 1970 loan package from the Department of Housing and Urban Development which fueled the giant planned community of St. Charles, south of Waldorf.

St. Catharine, or the Dr. Samuel A. Mudd House, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974.[6]

Waldorf is predominantly a bedroom community for many residents who commute to work at other points in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, especially personnel at Andrews Air Force Base. Waldorf’s local jobs are primarily in the service and sales industry. Nearby St. Charles Towne Center, a 2-story shopping mall, opened in 1988[7] and was remodeled in 2007. St. Charles Towne Center draws shoppers and diners from several Maryland counties, Washington, and parts of Virginia, causing Charles County to be promoted as the “shopping capital of Southern Maryland.”[citation needed]U.S. Route 301, the main highway through the town, boasts the “Waldorf Motor Mile,”[citation needed] with car dealerships located primarily along the northbound side. In 2005, Waldorf opened its third public high school (North Point High School),[8] which has advanced science/technology programs; the Capital Clubhouse 24-hour indoor sports complex and ice rink also opened that year.[9] A fourth public high school opened in 2014 called St. Charles High School.[10] Thomas Stone and Westlake High Schools are also located in Waldorf. Waldorf has a branch of the College of Southern Maryland. In 2006, plans were announced to build two more shopping centers, including one with high-end stores and an attractive “lifestyle” town center design layout.[citation needed] Ground was also broken to build an office park with mid-rise office buildings at the intersection of Western Parkway and Route 228 (Berry Road); the Residence Inn opened there in 2010, and another new hotel has opened across the road.[citation needed] The Southern Maryland Blue Crabs baseball team is also in Waldorf.

Waldorf is located at 383846N 765354W / 38.64611N 76.89833W / 38.64611; -76.89833 (38.646173, -76.898217).[11]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the CDP has a total area of 36.5 square miles (94.5km2), of which 36.2 square miles (93.8km2) is land and 0.27 square miles (0.7km2), or 0.72%, is water.[12]

Most of Waldorf is flat, particularly the eastern part of the city. There are small hills to the west, and much of the southern and eastern parts of the city are wetlands, featuring very diverse wildlife in ponds and streams. Waldorf is forested, mostly with oak and pine trees.

Even though Waldorf is a rapidly developing urbanized area, the community is surrounded by farms. These farms include:

Tobacco, once a dominant crop in Southern Maryland, has nearly disappeared as a crop grown by farmers, since most area farmers accepted buy-outs during the 1990s from the Maryland state government.

Waldorf’s neighbors are as follows: Prince George’s County (north), Bennsville (west), La Plata (south). On the east, from north to south there are Cedarville State Forest, Malcolm and Bryantown.

The climate in this area is characterized by hot, humid summers and generally mild to cool winters. According to the Kppen Climate Classification system, Waldorf has a humid subtropical climate, abbreviated “Cfa” on climate maps.[18]

As of the census[20] of 2000, there were 22,312 people, 7,603 households, and 5,991 families residing in the CDP. In the CDP, the population density was 1,746.0 people per square mile (674.1/km). There were 7,827 housing units at an average density of 612.5 per square mile (236.5/km). The racial makeup of the CDP was 61.11% White, 31.98% African American, 0.54% Native American, 2.59% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.88% from other races, and 2.88% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.91% of the population.

There were 7,603 households out of which 45.5% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 58.6% were married couples living together, 15.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 21.2% were non-families. 14.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 2.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.93 and the average family size was 3.24.

In the CDP the population was spread out with 30.6% under the age of 18, 7.5% from 18 to 24, 36.4% from 25 to 44, 20.7% from 45 to 64, and 4.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33 years. For every 100 females there were 94.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.8 males.

The median income for a household in the CDP was $68,869, and the median income for a family was $71,439 (these figures had risen to $86,901 and $94,432 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[21]). Males had a median income of $45,293 versus $35,386 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $24,728. About 2.7% of families and 4.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.4% of those under age 18 and 2.2% of those age 65 or over.

The major routes in Waldorf are:

The Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge on Route 301 provides a road connection from Waldorf to Virginia. Although the bridge is outmoded and narrow (2-lane), it is nevertheless used by some long-distance East Coast through-motorists as a travel alternative to Interstate 95/495 which often has major traffic backups (see Woodrow Wilson Bridge). In the years to come, due to traffic concerns, a bypass may be built through either western or eastern Waldorf, or the highway may continue on the same route through Waldorf with overpasses.[citation needed] This will give an interstate feel to the Waldorf area and ultimately take away traffic congestion to the north-south routes in Waldorf.

Public transportation is provided by Van-Go, a bus system administered by Charles County for most of the county, including Waldorf, and interconnecting to nearby St.Mary’s County Transit System buses.[22]MTA Maryland has four commuter routes (901, 903, 905, and 907, all operated by Dillons Transportation except the 903 which is serviced by Keller Transportation) that takes commuters to and from downtown Washington, D.C., and ridership is rapidly growing.[citation needed] Waldorf has seven park & ride lots served by MTA Maryland routes: two at St. Charles Towne Center, one at St. Charles Towne Plaza, one at Smallwood Drive and US 301, one on Mattawoman Beantown Road, one at Smallwood Village Center, and one at Regency Furniture Stadium.

Vehicular traffic in Waldorf is usually congested, and the state is still evaluating options for a U.S. Route 301 bypass around western Waldorf. Through Virginia and Maryland, US 301 along with U.S. Route 17 are used as alternate routes from I-95, due to I-95 vehicular traffic congestion.[citation needed] Due to Waldorf’s bedroom community nature and lack of any significant hometown industry, its highways can become very congested in the morning commutes north to Washington, and also on Friday through Sunday in every direction due to shoppers, many of them visiting from other counties. Much of the congestion is seen at the intersection of Route 228 and 301 and Community Drive, on Berry Road going westward to Western Parkway, near St. Patrick’s Drive, on Mall Circle surrounding St. Charles Towne Center, and on Smallwood Drive near the neighborhood of Carrington. Most vehicular traffic is in the southern areas of Waldorf.

Read more:
Waldorf, Maryland – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 10:44 pm  Tagged with:

U.S. National Security Agency News – The New York Times

 NSA  Comments Off on U.S. National Security Agency News – The New York Times
Jan 142016
 

National Security Agency has found way to replace program that collected Americans’ emails in bulk; it continues to analyze social links revealed by American’s email patterns, but without collecting Internet metadata within United States, and with less oversight by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. MORE

Judge Richard J Leon of United States District Court for District of Columbia orders National Security Agency to stop collecting records for an individual Verizon customer, just weeks before program is scheduled to be shut down and replaced; says program is most likely unconstitutional. MORE

European Parliament issues strongest support yet for Edward J Snowden, recognizing him as ‘whistle-blower and international human rights defender’; designation is non-binding and while former National Security Agency contractor is currently in Russia, no countries in Europe have offered Snowden permanent asylum to date. MORE

Federal appeals court allows National Security Agency bulk phone records program to continue until it will end as decreed by bill passed by Congress, thereby avoiding definitive ruling on whether program is violation of Fourth Amendment’s constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. MORE

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward J Snowden opens Twitter account, garnering more than 160,000 followers in single hour; opening Tweet contains joke about NSA phone surveillance. MORE

Newly declassified report on NSA surveillance program under Pres George W Bush contextualizes clash in 2004 between Bush and his attorney general, who was hospitalized at time, over program’s scope and legality; bedside debate led to president retroactively authorizing collection of domestic phone records, which have since been deemed illegal. MORE

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rules NSA may continue collecting phone records of millions of Americans until new law set to ban practice goes into effect in late November 2015. MORE

Documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward J Snowden reveal that AT&T’s collaboration with agency on Internet spying operations was far more extensive than that of other telecommunications companies; unique and especially productive partnership provided NSA with billions of emails as well as assistance in wiretapping of all Internet communications at United Nations headquarters. MORE

Release of 350 page document from 2010 sheds light on surveillance program established by Bush administration to counteract terrorism after September 11; call records of millions of Americans obtained by National Security Agency under secret interpretation of provision in Patriot Act was deemed illegal by appeals court ruling in early May. MORE

Obama administration announces that National Security Agency will no longer be permitted to keep old phone records used to analyze links between callers in search of terrorism suspects after Nov 29, 2015. MORE

National Security Agency sponsors dozens of free overnight and day camps around country that aim at introducing middle- and high-school-age students to cyber-security tools and techniques; camps are part of effort to reach out to potential recruits for next generation’s cybersecurity workforce. MORE

American Civil Liberties Union asks federal appeals court to shut down part of National Security Agency program that collects American phone records in bulk, move that may set up conflict between regular court system and secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. MORE

WikiLeaks releases American intelligence document containing telephone numbers of high-ranking German government officials, including Chancellor Angela Merkels top aides and senior figures from previous administrations; document, dating back to 1990s, adds to controversy surrounding United States intelligence service practices. MORE

Newly leaked material by Wikileaks revisits question of when and how much spying National Security Agency did on German government and Chancellor Angela Merkel; files also cover discussions about Germany’s position on Greek debt crisis. MORE

Embattled Brazilian Pres Dilma Rousseff plays down concerns about 2013 spying scandal during White House visit, saying she has accepted Pres Obama’s pledge that National Security Agency’s wiretapping has ended; Rousseff’s visit seems focused on courting American investment as she grapples with tanking economy at home. MORE

American Civil Liberties Union says it will ask United States Court of Appeals for Second Circuit to issue injunction to halt once-secret National Security Agency program in which records of domestic phone calls were collected in bulk; NSA was given go-ahead to resume program by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and ACLU request may pit two courts against one another. MORE

Mattathias Schwartz First Words column contends word ‘relevant,’ when used by National Security Agency, expands to include all information gathered in bulk collection of phone records; says use of word allows spying on citizens with impunity, since no information is irrelevant. MORE

French government reacts with modulated response to information published by WikiLeaks and media groups that United States’ National Security Agency spied on French presidents and other senior officials from 2016 to 2012. MORE

British intelligence documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward J Snowden to The Guardian news media describe American drone strikes that killed Khadim Usamah, along with other such airstrikes and counter-terrorism efforts; documents raise possibility British intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters aided American targeted strikes. MORE

WikiLeaks releases documents saying United States National Security Agency eavesdropped on last three French presidents, Francoise Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac. MORE

Harald Range, Germany’s federal prosecutor, announces that he has dropped formal investigation of accusations that National Security Agency eavesdropped on cellphone owned by Chancellor Angela Merkel, citing lack of evidence. MORE

Classifed National Security Agency documents provided by Edward J Snowden indicate Obama administration, sans public notice, has expanded agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international internet traffic to hunt for evidence of malicious computer hacking; disclosures come at time of pernicious cyberattacks, but also of increased scrutiny of legal rights for more government surveillance. MORE

Op-Ed article by Edward J Snowden expresses satisfaction that two years after he revealed extent of National Security Agency’s surveillance of American citizens, there is now wide consensus that such activities were illegal and many of them have been stopped; warns that while progress has made, right to privacy is still under threat. MORE

News Analysis; Pres Obama’s revision of National Security Agency’s phone record collection program seeks to tailor program to his own competing aims of addressing privacy concerns while preserving means of monitoring terrorist activity; in so doing, Obama has solidified his ownership of controversial program begun by predecessor George W Bush. MORE

Senate passes bill scaling back federal government’s extensive surveillance of American phone records, and Pres Obama signs it; legislation signifies significant overhaul of national security policy formed after 9-11 terrorist attacks, and is rebuke to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who fought forcefully against lessening government surveillance powers. MORE

Sen Rand Paul’s libertarian stance on national security issues, including his rather lonely fight against National Security Agency’s surveillance of American citizens, has endeared him to supporters of his father Ron Paul during former congressman’s past presidential bids; many of the elder Paul’s backers have been slow to warm to Sen Rand Paul, questioning his commitment to his father’s ultra libertarian ideals. MORE

Obama administration is pressing Senate not to substantially alter House-passed USA Freedom Act, given that authorizations for National Security Agency have lapsed and any changes to bill’s provisions would necessarily entail lengthy negotiations that could delay agency’s reinstatement. MORE

Congressional Memo; Sen Mitch McConnell, after losing battle to extend National Security Agency programs, is being forced to embrace a House-passed NSA overhaul that he fears will weaken national security. MORE

News Analysis; interviews with intelligence experts suggest that there are several available workarounds as National Security Agency grapples with temporary expiration of Patriot Act provisions that allowed it to gather phone records en masse; key aspect is ‘grandfather clause’ that maintains powers for any investigation that was begun before June 1, 2015; records can also be obtained by grand jury subpoena if necessary. MORE

Provisions of Patriot Act allowing government to amass phone records temporarily expires following caustic Senate session in which Sen Rand Paul blocked extension; revised edition of law, which will curtail some bulk data collection by National Security Agency, is likely to pass in coming week; developments reflect profound shift in American attitudes toward data collection since days following Sept 11 attacks. MORE

Republican Sen Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has been shunned and mocked by colleagues in his party, succeeds in temporarily blocking vote on renewal of section of Patriot Act that gives broad surveillance authority to National Security Agency. MORE

Battle in Congress over National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records is being waged among different Republican factions, with defense hawks squaring off against libertarians and new members clashing with old; Senate has been tasked with creating passable compromise bill, feat likely to prove challenging. MORE

Pres Obama presses Senate to pass legislation known as USA Freedom Act, warning that allowing National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance programs to lapse will make country more vulnerable to terrorist attack. MORE

Editorial welcomes fact that provisions within Patriot Act giving federal authorities broad surveillance powers, which led to National Security Agency’s collection of bulk phone data, are set to expire; calls for thorough debate regarding such surveillance powers and underscores necessity of balancing such powers with meaningful judicial oversight. MORE

Obama administration urges Congress to reach deal on legislation governing National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records before June 1 deadline, warning that failure to do so will leave United States vulnerable to terrorist attacks. MORE

Pres Obama issues warning to Senate about risks attendant upon lawmakers failing to renew surveillance programs authorized by USA Patriot Act; it is unlikely that lawmakers will pass extension before scheduled expiration date, which means Obama administration and National Security Agency will lack legal authority to carry out such programs for some time. MORE

Congressional leaders, with deadline looming, take unusual step of working during recess to reach agreement on changes to USA Freedom Act that would rein in National Security Agency’s phone data collection authority. MORE

Obama administration is examining how expiration of three counterterrorism laws allowing government to collect telephone and other data will affect future of effort, even as bulk collection of phone records winds down; at issue is treatment of phone records already collected by government and investigations already under way; Senate remains divided on whether to continue or replace National Security Agency’s phone records program. MORE

Senate’s failure to advance legislation on National Security Agency reform highlights discord among Republican leaders; after failing to get extension of federal government’s bulk collection of phone records program, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has found promises he made about Senates operation hard to keep. MORE

Senate rejects legislation that would revise Patriot Act to limit federal government’s bulk collection of phone records; vote, and subsequent failure of short-term measure to extend program beyond June 1 expiration date, raises likelihood that government will lose access to phone records after deadline, creating security vulnerability. MORE

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward J Snowden, facing espionage charges in United States and living in exile in Russia, is speaking by video to audiences worldwide and gaining victories both in Congress and federal court; has no apparent prospect of leaving Russia soon, as prosecutors show no inclination to offer him acceptable plea bargain. MORE

News Analysis; House vote to end and replace National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records is striking because open debate about cost of national security has been rare in 14 years since Sept 11 attacks; highlights question of where to draw line between advantages of secrecy and demands for openness in shadow of war on terror that shows no sign of abating. MORE

House of Representatives approves, 338 to 88, bill to halt National Security Agency’s collection of data related to Americans’ phone records under Patriot Act; vote places high pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring Senate, which is more divided on issue, into line with House ahead of June 1 deadline. MORE

Brian McFadden The Strip comic offers up variety of real-life conspiracies that American voters should be concerned about, such as current campaign financing laws, police brutality and National Security Agency spying on Americans. MORE

Federal appeals court’s decision that National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records is illegal complicates bipartisan effort in Congress to overhaul program. MORE

United States Court of Appeals rules National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ bulk phone records is illegal; three judges say Patriot Act does not cover domestic calling records; provision is set expire June 1, and ruling is liable to ratchet up Congressional tension. MORE

Editorial applauds ruling by three-judge federal appeals panel, which determined National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ phone records is illegal; holds decision is just in time as Congress is now in debate over reauthorizing section of Patriot Act that allows government to sweep records of those suspected of involvement in terrorist acts. MORE

German Chancellor Angela Merkel finds herself in midst of domestic controversy over depth and extent of country’s role in European spying; 2002 agreement on intelligence sharing between Germany and United States is under duress after reports that German intelligence agency BND indulged in spying on corporations and individuals at behest of National Security Agency. MORE

Germany’s foreign intelligence service, knows as BND, is being accused of spying on European companies, and possibly individuals; reports say monitoring was done at request of National Security Agency, which BND denies. MORE

News Analysis; proposal to limit bulk collection of domestic telephone data, centerpiece of legislation advancing in Congress, is meeting little opposition from National Security Agency itself; lack of pushback from the agency underscores just how dubious insiders were about the program from the start. MORE

There are no additional abstracts to display.

Continued here:
U.S. National Security Agency News – The New York Times

History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University

 Eugenics  Comments Off on History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University
Jan 112016
 

In the same era, the idea of Social Darwinism became popular and was used to explain these social inequalities. Social Darwinism utilizes the concept of natural selection from Charles Darwin and applies it to society. Social Darwinism explains survival of the fittest in terms of the capability of an individual to survive within a competitive environment. This explains social inequalities by explaining that the wealthy are better individuals and therefore better suited to survive in the uncertain economy. In terms of survival of the fittest the wealthy are more likely to survive and produce more offspring than the poor.

Early Eugenicists

Eugenicists believed genetics were the cause of problems for the human gene pool. Eugenics stated that society already had paid enough to support these degenerates and the use of sterilization would save money. The eugenicists used quantitative facts to produce scientific evidence. They believed that charity and welfare only treated the symptoms, eugenic sought to eliminate the disease. The following traits were seen as degenerative to the human gene pool to which the eugenicists were determined to eliminate: poverty, feeble-mindedness-including manic depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, rebelliousness, criminality, nomadness, prostitution.

Before eugenics became internationally recognized in WWII, it was a very popular movement in the United States. In fact the American Eugenics Society set up pavilions and “Fitter Families Contest” to popularize eugenics at state fairs. The average family advocated for the utilization of eugenics while educational systems embraced eugenics, which was presented as science fact by the majority biology texts. In fact, eugenics became so popular that eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported study in 1911, to report the best practical means for eliminating defective genes in the Human Population. Although the eighth of the 18 solutions was euthanasia, the researchers believed it was too early to implement this solution. The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a lethal chamber, or gas chamber. Instead, the main solution was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as increased marriage restrictions. However, not everybody was in favor of eugenics, Punnett at the first international congress for Eugenics in 1911 stated, Except in very few cases, our knowledge of heredity in man at present is far to slight and far too uncertain to base legislation upon.

Sterilization and Marriage Laws

Although in 1942 the Supreme Court made a law allowing the involuntary sterilization of criminals, it never reversed the general concept of eugenic sterilization. In 2001, the Virginia General Assembly acknowledged that the sterilization law was based on faulty science and expressed its “profound regret over the Commonwealth’s role in the eugenics movement in this country and over the damage done in the name of eugenics. On May 2, 2002 a marker was erected to honor Carrie Buck in her hometown of Charlottesville.

This information was taken from http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/

This information was taken from http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a371ea64170ce.html and http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp

Visit link:
History of Eugenics – People at Creighton University

 Posted by at 7:46 am  Tagged with:

Eugenics – Rotten.com

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Eugenics – Rotten.com
Jan 112016
 

rotten > Library > Medicine > Eugenics Eugenics means selective breeding — not in the sense that you are individually selective regarding persons with whom you breed, but rather that someone else is pulling the strings in order to get a specific result. Eugenics techniques are used all over the world, every day, for all manner of God’s creatures, but if you try using them on humans, people get very upset.

The theory behind eugenics is simple: When good people bone good people, good babies with good genes result. The trouble comes when trying to apply eugenics in an organized way to society, with the biggest problem being that someone has to decide who the “good people” are. Anyone who concludes that he or she is qualified to make this determination is generally the last person in the world who should have such power.

Early human civilizations had no special qualms about killing children who were sick or deformed, although they were not likely thinking about the genetic repercussions of doing so. The concept of selective breeding to enhance certain traits reaches back to prehistoric times, about 10,000 years ago, at least as far as animals are concerned. “Eugenics” is the word for a social mandate to impose selective breeding on a human population for the presumed good of all mankind, with the operative word being “presumed.”

The idea appears to have first been extended to humans by Plato, of all people, who recommended in his Republic that the ruling class should be carefully maintained by a secret program of selective breeding in which seemingly random orgies would be staged in order to breed desirable qualities. Strangely, this program tends to be left out of high school history books.

The actual word “eugenics” was invented by Francis Galton, a British scientist who was distantly related to Charles Darwin. In addition to studying the weather and analyzing fingerprints, Galton was deeply interested in how intelligence and talent passed from generation to generation. He invented the word “eugenics” to describe how he believed his insights should be employed — a social program designed to engineer racial superiority through coerced optimized breeding.

Galton believed people should be bred for success just like cattle. That is not a rhetorical flourish — Galton literally argued that people should be bred in the same manner as cattle, racehorses and dogs.

Darwin himself did not endorse his cousin’s views, although he conceded that there was a certain logic in the view that natural selection was no longer working to improve the human species:

Although some of Galton’s observations on social mating and inheritance were scientifically inspired, the overall thrust of his musings on genetics tended toward an aggressive defense of colonial-style racism, with much discussion of Britons — and especially upper-crust British nobility — as the master race, best suited to govern the “lower races,” especially people of (any) color. (The fallacy of this view is painfully obvious.)

Building on Galton’s ideas, a small group of intellectuals seized on the idea of eugenics and began working to promote the idea to governments and other cultural institutions. They succeeded in winning support from such luminaries as a young Winston Churchill who served as vice president of the First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912, and the Catholic Church. The esteemed elders of the Church had no beef with using eugenics to stamp out “undesirable” traits and prevent race-mixing, although they did object to the use of contraception. The 1914 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia explained their position:

In the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, Western civilization conveniently edited the history books to obscure the fact that the eugenics movement had been quite popular all around the world. Although the modern mind would love to lump the responsibility for the horrors of eugenics onto the Third Reich, the movement originally garnered substantial momentum in the United States in the early 20th century.

America had already had its fair share of racial troubles, from the genocide of the continent’s original inhabitants to longstanding laws against interracial marriage to the “single drop” rule. A number of factors fed racial discontent in the U.S. as the 20th century began — the emancipation of blacks, a flood of immigration, the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan and an economic depression.

The American eugenics movement took on steam with the discovery of genetic coding and the rise of such revolutionary figures as Margaret Sanger, a nurse who has been lionized by history and the abortion rights movement as an early advocate of contraception education.

Sanger was a screaming racist and a founding member of the Eugenics Society of America. Among other things, she advocated the sterilization of the mentally and physically disabled and endorsed the use of birth control to suppress what she saw as the tendency of the lower classes and “inferior races” to breed like rabbits. Later, she apparently reformed her views (although a substantial amount of controversy endures on this topic).

Sanger was hardly alone in her views. During the first 40 years of the 20th century, Americans embarked on a eugenics program that was in many ways as ambitious in scope as any of Adolf Hitler’s wet dream. In 1921, then-vice president and future president Calvin Coolidge wrote an anti-immigration rant for Good Housekeeping Magazine in which he bemoaned the mix of good Nordic (i.e., white) stock with “inferior” races:

Later, as president, Coolidge signed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 — which targeted dirty Italians and those dirty, dirty Jews — declaring that “America must remain American!” The law clamped lid on the good old “melting pot”, but then that was mostly a myth to begin with.

Other prominent American supporters of eugenics included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, biologist Charles Davenport, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and coprologist Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. Several U.S. states instituted a variety of eugenics-inspired laws — including bans on mixed-race marriage and the first laws in history to compel the sterilization of the “unfit” or disabled.

Many of these laws remained on the books for decades. Virginia’s forced sterilization law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in an opinion written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., now remembered by history as one of the greatest legal minds of the 20th century. Holmes not only upheld the compulsory sterilization law; he complained that it was not broad enough.

But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside.

At least 60,000 people were involuntarily sterilized for the greater good of eugenics in the United States, and that number is almost certainly a whitewash of a substantially more depressing reality. The figure also fails to include the effects of a wide array of secretive medical experiments conducted under the auspices of the U.S. government, such as feeding radioactive mush to the mentally disabled.

The man perhaps most responsible for the success and influence of the American eugenics movement was also unintentionally responsible for its eventual fall from grace. Oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller financed hundreds of thousands of dollars of research through his “philanthropic” foundations, and the inflation-adjusted equivalent of millions of dollars given directly to Germany’s budding Nazi pursuit of a master race, including funds that indirectly helped underwrite the playscape of Josef Mengele.

Although America had incubated the eugenics movement, Germany mechanized it to levels of efficiency never seen before (and hopefully never to be seen again). The Germans decided that their nation had to restore its pure blonde, blue-eyed Aryan heritage by purging foreign bloodlines, particularly Jews.

Putting aside the ensuing carnage for the moment, this concept is hilariously, ludicrously wrong. The mythopoetic blue-eyed ideal human race that dominated the Nazi imagination was itself a bastardization of the genuine Aryan stock, brought about by race-mixing. The original Aryans were Semites from Iran, more closely related to Jews than to Scandanavians.

After absorbing the rhetoric of American eugenicists and the money of American “philanthropists,” the Germans began an institutionalized eugenics program after Hitler took power in 1933. Initially, the program was directly based on U.S. eugenics laws. First, they mandated sterilization for anyone with an inherited condition such as congenital blindness or deafness, most forms of mental illness and alcoholism. This program prompted the New England Medical Journal to gush: “Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit.”

American eugenicists were proud of inspiring Germany’s program, while American government officials eyed Hitler’s progress with envy. Many wrote that Germany’s efforts would be the seed of a worldwide movement and looked forward to the day when America’s leaders would follow the Nazi example.

Although the earlier efforts had largely concerned themselves with overt “unfitness”, the subtext of Jewish inferiority and other racial hate had continued to play out at every level of German society. It didn’t take long for this aspect of the Nazi agenda became clearer.

In 1935, the Nazis passed a law requiring couples to receive “racial hygiene” counseling before marriage, including answering questions about whether they had any Jewish blood. The government cranked out propaganda films intended to discourage race mixing. Jews and Gypsies were the biggest targets, and blacks, Slavs and gays were all designated “unfit” by the Reich.

As we all know (well, most of us), the Germans quickly determined that sterilization was a slow process, and that genocide went much faster. Although the Holocaust was arguably carried out in the name of eugenics, the scope of what happened next far exceeded anything Galton probably envisioned and is best discussed elsewhere. By the end of World War II, suffice it to say, the excesses of the Nazi regime had crushed most of the momentum that the eugenicists had built during the preceding 40 years.

Amazingly, the world’s shock and horror at the depravities of the Nazi extermination machine failed to completely derail the eugenics movement. It lingered through the late 1960s and even into the ’70s, but in a much quieter mode. By the early 1980s, forced sterilizations and anti-miscegenation laws had become a thing of the past.

In part, the disenchantment with eugenics came about due to the fatal flaw with the concept, that of the self-appointed arbiter of what is a desirable trait and what is not. As civil rights and racial equality rose in prominence, the eugenicists began to slink off into the woodwork.

The word is still bandied about, often by religious conservatives who believe that abortion rights and family planning programs are camouflaged eugenics programs. However, nearly everyone advancing this argument is anti-abortion first, and anti-eugenics second.

As genetic science became more sophisticated in the 1990s, some scientists also began to tiptoe around the notion of controlled breeding again, although no one is suggesting such a plan be imposed by the government any more. Instead, researchers cautiously note that certain conditions — such as Autism and specifically Asperger’s Syndrome — are extremely heritable among certain types of parents, with the gentle hint that maybe engineers shouldn’t marry other engineers. (The fact that Asperger’s may be part of a forward step in human evolution is quietly underplayed in such discussions.)

Fortunately, perhaps, there is little foreseeable use for the concept of controlled breeding, sterilization of “undesirables” and anti-miscegenation laws. The idea of manipulating the human animal through selective breeding is obsolete.

Future zealots who wish to “improve” the human race according to their own master plan will use the tools of genetic engineering to accomplish their goals. Why mess around with people’s sex lives when you can just inject them with an RNA retrovirus and magically remove all the undesirable qualities from their DNA? No muss, no fuss, no Nuremberg Tribunal!

Continued here:
Eugenics – Rotten.com

 Posted by at 7:46 am  Tagged with:

History of Genetics – Eugenics

 Eugenics  Comments Off on History of Genetics – Eugenics
Jan 112016
 

History of Genetics

EUGENICS

Eugenics Archive http://www.eugenicsarchive.org This site is an Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement sponsored by the Dolan DNA Learning Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. With contributions from eleven different archives, this site offers hundreds of sources on various aspects of the eugenics movement in the United States during the twentieth century. The site is organized by virtual exhibits ranging from Social Origins to Immigration Restriction. Within each exhibit, explanatory text is presented with thumbnail images of primary source documents. The entire collection is also searchable by keyword or object identification number. The 2,500 objects can also be browsed by topic, type, or time period. Without question this is the best site on the history of American eugenics available today.

State Eugenics Sites Recent scholarship on the eugenics movement in the United States have revealed the details of eugenic enactments in different states. Recent efforts to seek reparations for eugenic sterilization are documented at North Carolinas Eugenic Past (http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/institutions/nc/eugenics.htm), a site sponsored by the International Disability Rights News Service. Eugenic in Indiana (http://kobescent.com/eugenics/) presents a history of eugenics in Indiana in a series of webpages that include biographies, a timeline, bibliography, and text of the 1907 Indiana Sterilization statute. The most extensive collection of documents on a state eugenics program is offered by Vermont. The Vermont Eugenics: A Documentary History Collection (http://cit.uvm.edu:6336/dynaweb/eugenics/@Generic__CollectionView;cs=default;ts=default;pt=eugenics) presents a set of primary sources from the 1890s to the 1990s. Many of these documents concern Vermonts sterilization program, but this site also includes letters to national eugenics leaders, such as Charles Davenport. Because the Vermont Country Life Commission played a significant role in the Vermont eugenics movement in the 1930s, this site contains a large number of documents concerning the efforts of the Country Life Commission.

History of Eugenics Bibliography http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/bio-ethics/bibliographylombardo.cfm This site offers an extensive bibliography of both primary and secondary sources on the history of eugenics. Assembled by Paul A. Lombardo and Gregory M. Dorr, the bibliography is preceeded by a short bibliographic essay.

RaceSci http://www.racesci.org/ This site is dedicated to the history of race in science, medicine, and technology. History of the Concept of “Race” in Science. This very rich site has interpretive and historical essays, syllabi, bibliographies, and links. Of special interest are its bibliography of genetics (http://www.racesci.org/bibliographies/current_scholarship/genetics_new.htm) and its bibliography of eugenics (http://www.racesci.org/bibliographies/current_scholarship/eugenicsnew.htm), which can be searched by time period or nation.

Institute for the Study of Academic Racism (ISAR) http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/homepage.htm Created by Dr. Barry Mehler at Ferris State University, the ISAR website contains articles and bibliographies that offer a critical perspective on academic racism, biological determinism, and eugenics. This site offers a number of valuable document collections and profiles of individuals and institutions.

H-Eugenics

Originally posted here:
History of Genetics – Eugenics

Problems Associated with Cryonics – Cryonics: Alcor Life …

 Cryonics  Comments Off on Problems Associated with Cryonics – Cryonics: Alcor Life …
Dec 272015
 

(and some possible solutions)

When you buy a house, the seller is legally obliged to disclose any known defects. When you review a company’s annual report, it tells you every problem that could affect the corporate share value. Since arrangements for cryopreservation may have a much greater impact on your life than home ownership or stock investments, we feel an ethical obligation to disclose problems that affect cryonics in general and Alcor specifically. We also believe that an organization which admits its problems is more likely to address them than an organization which pretends it has none. Thus full disclosure should encourage, rather than discourage, consumer confidence.

As of 2011, Alcor is nearly 40 years old. Our Patient Care Trust Fund is endowed with more than 7 million dollars and is responsible for the long-term care of over 100 cryopatients. In almost every year since its inception Alcor has enjoyed positive membership growth. We are the largest cryonics organization in the world yet in many respects we are still a startup company. We have fewer than a dozen employees in Scottsdale, Arizona and approximately 20 part-time independent contractors in various locations around the USA, mostly dedicated to emergency standby and rescue efforts. We serve fewer than 1,000 members and the protocols that aid our pursuit of the goal of reversible suspended animation continue to be developed. At the present time the technology required for the realization of our goal far exceeds current technical capabilities. Cryonics will not be comparable with mainstream medicine until our patients can be revived using contemporary technology, and we expect to wait for decades to see this vision fulfilled. Nevertheless, we have made important progress by introducing brain vitrification to improve patient tissue structure preservation.

Alcor shares some of the characteristics of startup companies. The organization is understaffed in some important areas and lacks as much capitalization as would be desired to support maximum growth. Limited resources prevent the organization from hiring as many highly qualified and experienced personnel as desired, and sometimes we have to postpone enhancements to equipment and procedures.

Because Alcor must react quickly to circumstances, it cannot always handle multiple tasks simultaneously. We feel a significant impact if, for example, several members experience legal death in quick succession. A heavy caseload generally means that administrative and even technical development work is postponed while member emergencies take precedence.

On the other hand, Alcor staff believe very strongly in the mission of the organization and are extremely dedicated. Alcor transport team members feel that they are saving lives, and behave accordingly. Most of all, everyone at Alcor is concerned with insuring the security of the patients who have been cryopreserved for the indefinite future. The organization’s powerful sense of purpose is reinforced by the fact that all Alcor directors and most staff members have made arrangements to be cryopreserved themselves in the future.

Unlike most startups, Alcor is unlikely to fail for financial reasons. Due to the legally independent status of the Patient Care Trust from Alcor, patients can be maintained indefinitely through its portfolio of cash, investments, real estate, and capital equipment. Some wealthy Alcor members have contributed gifts and endowments to help the organization to advance, and in the event of a financial crisis, many of the people who hope ultimately to be cryopreserved would probably provide assistance. In this sense Alcor benefits from its small size, since it maintains an intimate relationship with many members which would be more problematic if our membership was ten times as large.

Inability to Verify Results

When a conventional surgical procedure is successful, usually the patient recovers and is cured. If the same surgical procedure is unsuccessful or a surgeon makes a serious error, the patient may die. These clear outcomes provide prompt feedback for the people involved. A physician may feel deeply satisfied if a life is saved, or may be deeply troubled (and may be sued for malpractice) if errors cause a death that should have been avoidable.

Clear feedback of this type does not exist in cryonics, because the outcome of our procedures will not be known definitively until decades or even a century from now. We have good reason to expect future technologies capable of repairing cellular damage in cryonics patients, but we feel equally certain that if a patient experiences very severe brain damage prior to cryopreservation, repairs may be delayed, may be incomplete, or may be impossible. The dividing line between these positive and negative outcomes cannot be established clearly at this time.

Suppose a patient experiences 30 minutes of warm ischemia (lack of blood flow at near-normal body temperature) after legal death occurs. Will this downtime create damage that is irreversible by any imaginable technology? Probably not. But what if the ischemic interval lasts for an hour or two hours, or a day? We simply don’t know where to draw the line between one patient who is potentially viable, and another who is not.

Of course we can refer to experimental work that has evaluated the injury which occurs when cells are deprived of essential nutrients. These studies provide some guidance regarding the likely damage that a patient may experience, but they still cannot tell us with certainty if future science will be able to reverse that damage.

Another problem afflicting cryonics cases is that many uncontrolled variables prevent us from developing objective criteria to compare one case with another. Consider these two examples:

In the first case, will the long transport time negate the advantage of a rapid initial response and replacement of blood with a chilled preservation solution? In the second case, will the initial hours of warm ischemia outweigh the advantage of the rapid transport to Alcor? We can make educated guesses, but we cannot answer these questions definitively. We have no certain way of knowing which case will work out better, because we have no evidence no outcome.

We do have some simple ways to determine if a patient’s circulatory system allows good perfusion with cryoprotectant. Personnel in the operating room will notice if blood clots emerge when perfusion begins. The surface of the brain, visible through burr holes which are created to enable observation, should be pearly white in color. The brain should shrink slightly as water is replaced with cryoprotectant. When perfusion is complete the patient’s features should have acquired a sallow color indicating that cryoprotectant has diffused through the tissues.

These simple observations are helpful, but still the people who work hard to minimize transport time and maximize the rate of cooling can never enjoy the satisfying payoff that a physician receives when one of his patients recovers and returns to a normal, active life. This lack of positive outcome can cause feelings of frustration and futility, sometimes leading to disillusionment and burnout.

Conversely, if a case goes badly, team members will be protected from negative feedback. A team leader can never say to one of the personnel, “Because of your error, the patient has no chance of recovery.”

The lack of a clear outcome also prevents us from refuting people who claim that future science will be able to undo almost any degree of damage. The danger of this extreme positive thinking is that it can lead to laziness. Why bother to make heroic efforts to minimize injury, if nanotechnology will fix everything?

Alcor’s stated policy firmly rejects this attitude. Team members are very highly motivated to minimize injury because we believe that our members should not bet their lives on unknown capabilities of future science. Alcor generally hosts a debriefing after each case, encouraging all participants to share complaints, frustrations, and suggestions for improvement. Ideally, each case should be a learning experience, and participants should welcome criticism as an opportunity to identify weaknesses and overcome them in the future.

Still the lack of a clear outcome remains one of the biggest weaknesses in cryonics, since it encourages complacency and prevents accountability. The antidote to this problem is a better set of objective criteria to evaluate cases, and Alcor is working in consultation with brain ischemia experts to develop such criteria.

Volunteer Help

During the 1960s the first cryonics organizations were run entirely by volunteers. The field was not sufficiently reputable to attract qualified medical staff, and no one could have paid for professional help anyway.

Today cryonics is making a transition to professionalism, but financial limitations are prolonging the process. Some paramedics are associated with Alcor, and we hope for more in the future. We have an MD medical director, access to three contract surgeons, access to a hospice nurse, and assistance from an ischemia research laboratory in California where staff has extensive experience in relevant procedures such as vascular cannulation and perfusion. Alcor also communicates with a cryobiology laboratory that has made the most important advances in organ preservation during the past decade. Still, most transport team members who work remotely from the facility are volunteers who receive a week or two of training and modest payment for their work.

In the future, as Alcor becomes more financially secure and is able to offer higher salaries, the organization will attract more medical professionals. At this time, the transition is incomplete.

Limited Support from Mainstream Science

In the 1960s scientists in mainstream laboratories investigated techniques to cryopreserve whole organs. By the end of the 1970s most of this work had ended, and the field of cryobiology separated itself very emphatically from cryonics. The Society for Cryobiology has discouraged scientists from doing work that could advance cryonics, and has adopted a bylaw that threatens to expel any member who practices or promotes cryonics. Consequently the few scientists who are willing to do cryonics-related research live in fear of being excluded from the scientific specialty that is most relevant to their work.

The rift between cryonics and cryobiology may have been caused initially by fears among mainstream scientists that cryonics had a “tabloid journalism” flavor incompatible with science. In addition many scientists have been dissatisfied with the idea of applying procedures without a complete and full understanding of their outcome. Generally, in medicine, first a technique is studied, validated, and perfected, and then it is applied clinically. Cryonics has, of necessity, done an end-run around this formal approach by rushing to apply a technique based on theoretical arguments rather than validated clinical effectiveness.

During the past decade our knowledge and procedures have advanced far beyond the crude freezing methods imagined by most cryobiologists, and experts in molecular nanotechnology have voiced strong support. As more papers are published describing technical advances, we expect that cryobiologists and other scientists will revise their negative assessment of cryonics. In the future we believe that the arbitrary barrier between cryonics and cryobiology will gradually dissolve, and cryonics research will be recognized as a legitimate specialty of the field. However, for the time being the dim view taken of cryonics by most cryobiologists remains problematic, impairing Alcor’s ability to achieve respectable status among other relevant groups such as prospective members, regulatory officials, and legislators.

Limited Legal and Government Support

Cryonics is not explicitly recognized in the laws of any state in the United States (see The Legal Status of Cryonics Patients). This does not mean that cryonics is illegal or unregulated. In fact, Alcor must comply with state laws controlling the transport and disposition of human remains, and we make arrangements with licensed morticians to insure that these requirements are met. Alcor also complies with federal regulations established by agencies such as OSHA and EPA.

Still, the lack of specific enabling legislation for cryonics can cause problems. In the late 1980s the California Department of Health Services (DHS) asserted that because there was no statutory procedure for becoming a cryonics organization, human remains could not be conveyed to a cryonics organization via the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), and therefore cryonics was illegal. Fortunately, the courts were unimpressed by this argument. In 1992 the legality of cryonics, and the legality of using the UAGA for cryonics, were upheld at the appellate level.

In 1990 the Canadian province of British Columbia enacted a law that specifically banned the sale of cryonics services in that province. In 2002 the Solicitor General (Canadian equivalent of a state Attorney General) issued a written clarification stating that the law only prohibited funeral homes from selling cryonics arrangements. Cryonics could still be performed in the province, even with the paid assistance of funeral homes, provided they were not involved in the direct sale of cryonics. This position is affirmed by the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority of British Columbia. Despite these assurances, anxiety about the law remains.

In 2004 a bill was passed by the Arizona House of Representatives to place cryonics and cryonics procedures under the regulation of the state funeral board. In its original form this law would have prevented our use of the UAGA. The bill was ultimately withdrawn, but may be revived at a later date. Very hostile comments were made about cryonics during the floor debate of this bill. We cannot guarantee that any future legislation will be friendly to cryonics or will permit cryonics to continue in Arizona.

Despite these uncertainties, the United States enjoys a strong cultural tradition to honor the wishes of terminal patients. We believe that the freedom to choose cryonics is constitutionally protected, and so far courts have agreed. We are hopeful that we will be able to continue performing cryonics without technical compromise, under state supervision where necessary, for the indefinite future.

Limited Mainstream Medical Support

Cryonics is not an accepted or recognized “therapy” in the general medical community. To the average medical professional, cryonics is at best an unusual anatomical donation. At worst it can be viewed by some physicians as fraud upon their patient. Hospitals have sometimes deliberately delayed pronouncement of legal death, delayed release of patients to Alcor, or forbade the use of cryonics life support equipment or medications within their facilities. On one occasion in 1988 Alcor had to obtain a court order to compel a hospital to release a patient to Alcor promptly at legal death and permit our stabilization procedures on their premises.

Relations with hospitals and their staff are not always difficult. Usually when nurses and physicians learn that cryonics is a sincere practice that is overseen by other medical professionals, they will be willing to accommodate a patient’s wishes, or at least will not interfere with them. Sometimes medical staff will even assist with cryonics procedures such as administering medications and performing chest compressions if Alcor personnel are not present when legal death occurs.

The lack of formal medical recognition or support for cryonics generally means that cryonics patients remote from Alcor must be moved to a mortuary for blood replacement before transport to Alcor. Ideally these preparatory procedures should be performed within hospitals, not mortuaries. Hospitals presently allow organ procurement personnel to harvest organs from deceased patients (a fairly elaborate procedure) within their walls. We are hopeful that similar privileges will be extended to cryonics more often as the process becomes better understood and accepted, but we cannot predict how quickly this change will occur.

High Incidence of Poor Cases

In more than 50 percent of cryonics cases legal death occurs before Alcor standby personnel can be deployed, and is often followed by hours of warm ischemia. This downtime may cause severe cellular damage.

The threat of autopsy, in which the brain is routinely dissected, is an even greater danger. Any person who suffers legal death under unexpected circumstances, especially involving accidents or foul play, is liable to be autopsied. Alcor strongly urges members living in California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio to sign Religious Objection to Autopsy forms.

Sometimes cryonicists perish under circumstances resulting in complete destruction or disappearance of their remains. Cryonicists have been lost at sea, suffered misadventures abroad, or even disappeared without a trace. Two members of cryonics organizations were lost in the 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center towers. One was a policeman performing rescue operations.

Cryonics is not a panacea or a “cure” for death. The cryonics ideal of immediate cooling and cardiopulmonary support following cardiac arrest cannot be achieved in the majority of cases. We have good reasons to believe that molecular records of memory persist in the brain even after hours of clinical death, but only future physicians using medical technology which we do not yet possess will be able to determine, finally, whether such a person is really still “there.”

What can be done?

If you are:

…then please contact us at .

…or check out our volunteer opportunities.

Read the rest here:
Problems Associated with Cryonics – Cryonics: Alcor Life …

 Posted by at 9:44 pm  Tagged with:

University of Illinois Repeals the First Amendment for Its …

 Misc  Comments Off on University of Illinois Repeals the First Amendment for Its …
Dec 182015
 

Late Friday afternoon (August 22), the University of Illinois broke its three-week long silence on the controversy regarding the Chancellor’s revocation of a tenured offer to Steven Salaita, who had accepted a faculty position in the American Indian Studies Program at the flagship campus at Urbana-Champaign. Chancellor Phyllis Wise and Board of Trustees Chairman Christopher Kennedy both issued statements explaining the revocation, but in terms far more alarming than the original decision itself. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees have now declared that the First Amendment does not apply to any tenured faculty at the University of Illinois.

A bit of background to Friday’s bombshell statements. Last October, Professor Salaita, then teaching at Virginia Tech, accepted a tenured offer from the Urbana-Champaign campus. He went through the regular appointments process at the University of Illinois, and received approval by the relevant departments and deans after a review of his scholarship and teaching. The offer, which he accepted, was conditional on approval by the Board of Trustees. Such approval clauses are typical in all teaching contracts and had, previously, been pro forma at Illinois, as they are at all serious universities: it is not the job of the Board of Trustees of a research institution to second-guess the judgment of academics and scholars. Well before the Board took the matter up, even University officials were describing Salaita as a faculty member, and he moved to Illinois and was scheduled to teach two classes this fall.

Salaita also has a Twitter account. “Tweets” are limited to 140 characters, so the medium is conducive primarily to spontaneous and superficial commentary. As a Palestinian-American and scholar of colonialism, Salaita tweeted extensively about the Israeli attack on Gaza. Contrary to the initial misrepresentations put into circulation by far right websites, none of the tweets were either anti-semitic or incitements to violence. Some were vulgar, some juvenile, some insulting, some banal. The First Amendment unequivocally protects Salaita’s right to express every one of those opinions on a matter of public concern, and to do so, if he wants, with vulgarity and insults. As a matter of American constitutional law, this is not a close case.

Part of the First Amendment’s protection of such speech is that government, including a state university, is prohibited from punishing the speaker for his expression or viewpoint. Revoking a job offer because of such speech would, again, be clearly unconstitutional. Salaita’s constitutional and contractual claims will no doubt be adjudicated in court, and the University should lose.

That now brings us to Friday’s shocking statements. Chancellor Wise declared that “we cannot… tolerate… personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them.” Yet as a matter of well-settled American constitutional law, the University of Illinois must tolerate “words… that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them.” The University has no choice, both as a matter of constitutional law and as a matter of its contractual commitment with its faculty to academic freedom. Scathing critiques of both viewpoints and authors abound in almost all scholarly fields; it would be the end of serious scholarly inquiry and debate were administrators to become the arbiters of “good manners.” More simply, it would be illegal for the University to start punishing its faculty for failure to live up to the Chancellor’s expectations for “civil” speech and disagreement.

The university, of course, need not and should not tolerate the mistreatment of students in the classroom, but there is no evidence of any such pedagogical misconduct in this case; indeed, the public evidence is that Salaita is a successful and popular teacher. No serious university evaluates pedagogical fitness based on speculative inferences from twitter accounts, yet the Chancellor’s statement implies that this is what Illinois has done in this instance. Faculty have pedagogical and professional obligations to their students, but that does not include the obligation to refrain from expressing views, whether about matters of public concern or matters within the purview of a faculty member’s scholarship, that some student somewhere might find upsetting, leading that student to conclude that that faculty member might not “value[] that student as a human being.” A student’s entitlement is to be treated seriously and professionally in the classroom; students have no entitlement to never find the views of their professors offensive or upsetting.

Chairman Kennedy’s statement is even worse than the Chancellor’s. While endorsing the Chancellor’s abrogation of the constitutional and contractual rights of the faculty, he goes even further, declaring that “there can be no place” for “disrespectful and demeaning speech” “in our democracy, and therefore, there will be no place for it in our university.” We may certainly hope for more civility in public life, but “disrespectful and demeaning speech” not only has an extensive presence in our democracy (as everyone knows), it has a constitutionally protected place as well, as the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed. Yet Chairman Kennedy says he believes only in “free speech tempered in respect for human rights.” But there is no doctrine of “free speech tempered in respect for human rights” in American constitutional law. It is a national embarrassment that a public official, the Chairman of the University of Illinois’s Board of Trustees, apparently does not know even the basic facts about the American constitutional system.

At moments like this, one wonders: Where are the lawyers? Chancellor Wise and Chairman Kennedy have made statements that commit the University of Illinois to illegal because unconstitutional courses of action. They should resign, or be removed from office, before doing further damage to one of the nation’s great research universities. Their public statements make clear they are unfit to lead academic institutions in which both freedom of speech and freedom of research and inquiry are upheld.

Read the original post:
University of Illinois Repeals the First Amendment for Its …

 Posted by at 2:42 pm  Tagged with:



Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism