Thứ Sáu, 29 tháng 3, 2013

The week's best of the internet

The 7 best images, videos, and memes to emerge from the great digital playground — from Japan's superiority at life to the safest seat on an airplane

1. Japan is way cooler than us
As BuzzFeed points out, Americans invented (and subsequently ruined) the Harlem Shake. Meanwhile across the Pacific, Japanese school kids are doing next-level stuff like this:

SEE MORE: Everything you need to know about commercial space travel

It's called Hadoken-ing.

SEE MORE: Is J the sexiest letter?

Dang. Pretty cool, huh?

SEE MORE: 8 bizarre sounds you've probably made without knowing it

I know, Ryan. I'm sad for us, too. (Via BuzzFeed)

2. Koalas are rad
Bet you've never seen a koala running around on the floor before, have you? Huh, you have? Luckyyyyy. Here you go anyway. (Via Imgur)

SEE MORE: My stepson is a porn star. Help!

3. Limp Bizkit debuts a new song with Lil Wayne
The rap/nu-metal/rap collaboration that music aficionados across the globe have been breathlessly awaiting was finally revealed this week. Behold, world: "Ready to Go" by Limp Bizkit featuring Lil Wayne. Strong language ahead.

SEE MORE: Girls on Film: Stephenie Meyer, of The Host and Twilight fame, is not anti-women

Wait. What's that? This column is called best of the internet? Whoops! My bad, ya'll. (Via MTV)

SEE MORE: 14 TV commercials made by famous movie directors

4. The singularity is nigh
Brace yourselves. Cats have learned how to reprogram our robotic vacuums and are using them against us. Send help. (Via Tumblr)

SEE MORE: 7 of the world's most infamous tax havens

5. Click, Print, Gun
Vice debuted a chilling but fascinating documentary about 3D-printed guns. The doc focuses on Cody R. Wilson, a bright, articulate 25-year-old University of Texas law student who's been using 3D printers to piece together AR-15 rifles. His aim? To expose what he sees as "the futility of gun regulation." (Via Motherboard)

SEE MORE: Refresh your memory on Game of Thrones before Sunday's season 3 premiere

6. What's the safest seat on an airplane?
Your chances of dying in a plane crash are slim, just 1 in 4.7 million, says the Telegraph in a new report. But which seat gives you the highest likelihood of survival? Thanks to an analysis of deadly plane crashes with survivors, the answer: Sit in economy class, with your seat belt on, by a window, just a few rows away from the emergency exit. (Via the Telegraph)

7. Cat of the Week
Everyone please give a big, warm hug to Stanley, this week's winner. He's a big fan of hanging out. And eating, I think. (Thanks, Peter!)

SEE MORE: How to get that annoyingly catchy song out of your head

Do you own a dog, cat, or other cuddly animal? Send photos to Gayomali@TheWeek.com for a chance to have your furry pal featured.

SEE MORE: The 65-year battle over the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Hasty embrace for some lawmakers on gay marriage

WASHINGTON (AP) — As the Supreme Court considered two landmark cases on gay marriage this week, the flood of activity across the street in the Capitol was not lost on Chief Justice John Roberts.

"As far as I can tell, political leaders are falling all over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts told lawyers urging the court to rule that married gay couples should receive federal benefits.

Roberts was hardly exaggerating. In the span of two weeks, seven senators have announced support for gay marriage, despite representing moderate or Republican-leaning states where such a move long has been considered a major political risk. One by one they fell like dominos, declaring on Facebook or quietly issuing a statement to say that they, too, now support gay marriage.

Taken together, their proclamations reflected a profound change in the American political calculus: For the first time, elected officials from traditionally conservative states are starting to feel it's safer to back same-sex marriage than to be among the last to join the cause.

For some Democrats, like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill and Montana Sen. Jon Tester, the reversal would have been almost unfathomable just a few months ago as they fought for re-election. The potential risks were even greater for other Democrats like North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan and Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, already top GOP targets when they face voters next year in states that President Barack Obama lost in November. It was less than a year ago that voters in Hagan's state approved a ban on gay marriage.

Those four Democrats and two others — Mark Warner of Virginia and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia — were swept up in a shifting tide that began to take shape last year, when Obama, in the heat of his re-election campaign, became the first sitting president to endorse gay marriage. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential contender in the next presidential election, followed suit in mid-March.

As support among party leaders builds, rank-and-file Democrats appear wary of being perceived as hold-outs in what both parties are increasingly describing as a civil-rights issue.

"They're reflecting what they're seeing in the polls — except the most extreme of the Republican base," former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who supports gay marriage, said in an interview. "From a purely political perspective, if you want to be a leader of the future, you look at the next generation. They are overwhelmingly in favor of this."

Reince Priebus, the national chairman of the Republican Party, cautioned in a USA Today interview that the GOP should not "act like Old Testament heretics."

Among Republicans, whose party platform opposes gay marriage, the shift in position has mostly been limited to former lawmakers and prominent strategists. Still, a distinct change in tone was palpable this month when Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a whom presidential candidate Mitt Romney vetted last year as a potential running mate, declared his support, citing a personal conversion stemming from his son coming out to him as gay.

Rather than blast Portman for flouting party dogma or failing an ideological litmus test, Republican leaders shrugged, indicating that even if Republicans, as a party, aren't prepared to back gay marriage, they won't hold it against those in their ranks who do.

In the Republican-controlled House, where most members come from districts heavily skewed to one party or the other, GOP leaders are not wavering publicly from their staunch opposition. When the Obama administration stopped defending in court the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars legally married gay couples from receiving federal benefits, it was House Republicans who took up the mantle. Democrats said Thursday that Republicans have spent as much as $3 million in taxpayer funds to defend the law, now being challenged at the Supreme Court.

"It's like immigration. The party realizes they are on the losing side of some of these issues," said former Rep. Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican. Kolbe came out as gay in 1996 while in office and will mark another milestone in May when he and his longtime partner marry in Washington.

"They want to make the shift, but you have got to do it in a politic and strategic way," Kolbe said. "It's a matter of how and when you take down one flag and run up the other."

Kolbe and Whitman joined dozens of other prominent Republicans in signing a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down the law barring federal recognition of gay marriages. But with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, still defending the law and social conservative groups vowing payback for those who abandon it, prospects are slim that Congress will move any time soon to repeal it on its own.

"It's sort of a bandwagon effect among the cultural elite," said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, which opposes gay marriage. "Some of these politicians who have changed their position, those who live in more conservative states, may pay for that shift with a defeat in their next election."

If public opinion continues to move in the direction it has been for the past 15 years, what's true for the next election may not be true just a few years down the line — even for Republicans.

When Gallup first asked in polls about gay marriages, in 1996, just 27 percent felt they should be valid. That figure climbed to 44 percent two years ago, and reached a majority by November, when 53 percent said gay marriages should be recognized. Among independents, a key barometer for politicians, support has jumped 23 points to 55 percent, including a six-point gain since 2010.

Even among Republicans, support has grown by 14 percentage points since 1996, although there's been no significant movement among Republicans since 2010, when 28 percent backed legal marriage.

"A lot of Republicans have come to the conclusion we can't live one life in private but advocate another life in public," said Republican strategist Alex Castellanos. "We all know families who are loving parents of the same gender who are raising great kids."

___

AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

___

Follow Josh Lederman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP


View the original article here

Refresh your memory on Game of Thrones before Sunday's season 3 premiere

Has it been awhile since you spent time in Westeros? Let the cast and crew of Game of Thrones fill you in on the story so far

HBO's Game of Thrones begins its third season on Sunday night, riding a familiar (and heretofore unfulfilled) promise that winter is coming. Of course, the changing of seasons is just one of several dozen plot threads left dangling after season two ended last June. As the show resumes, Robb "King in the North" Stark continues chasing the Lannister forces across Westeros, and the awful boy-king Joffrey Baratheon attempts to maintain his tenuous hold on the Iron Throne. Following his defeat in the Battle of Blackwater, black-magic-dabbling wannabe king Stannis Baratheon has returned to Dragonstone to lick his wounds and plan his comeback. Sansa Stark remains a political prisoner, Arya Stark is stuck wandering in the wilderness, Tyrion Lannister recovers from a nasty battle wound… The list goes on and on — and that's not even counting what's happening with Jon Snow and the wildlings in the icy north, or Daenerys and her dragons in the sunny south.

Game of Thrones is one of the densest shows in television, and even the most diehard fans can benefit from a refresher on the world of Westeros. Has it been so long since you've watched Game of Thrones that you don't know Varys from Viserys, or Bran from Bronn? Here, watch the cast and crew of HBO's Game of Thrones summarize the story so far — and come back to TheWeek.com on Sunday night for our take on the show's season three premiere:

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Congressional inaction could cost college students

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional inaction could end up costing college students an extra $5,000 on their new loans.

The rate for subsidized Stafford loans is set to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, just as millions of new college students start signing up for fall courses. The difference between the two rates adds up to $6 billion.

Just a year ago, lawmakers faced a similar deadline and dodged the rate increase amid the heated presidential campaign between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But that was with the White House up for grabs and before Washington was consumed by budget standoffs that now seem routine.

"What is definitely clear, this time around, there doesn't seem to be as much outcry," said Justin Draeger, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "We're advising our members to tell students that the interest rates are going to double on new student loans, to 6.8 percent."

The new rates apply only to those who take new subsidized loans. Students with outstanding subsidized loans are not expected to see their loan rates increase unless they take out a new subsidized Stafford loan. Students' nonsubsidized loans are not expected to change, nor are loans from commercial lenders.

But it translates to real money for incoming college freshmen who could end up paying back $5,000 more for the same maxed-out student loans their older siblings have.

House Education Committee Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., and the committee's senior Democrat, George Miller of California, prefer to keep rates at their current levels but have not outlined how they might accomplish that goal. Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., last week introduced a proposal that would permanently cap the interest rate at 3.4 percent.

Adding another perspective to the debate, Obama will release his budget proposal on April 10.

Neither party's budget proposal in Congress has money specifically set aside to keep student loans at their current rate. The House Republicans' budget would double the interest rates on newly issued subsidized loans to help balance the federal budget in a decade. Senate Democrats say they want to keep the interest rates at their current levels, but the budget they passed last week does not set aside money to keep the rates low.

In any event, neither side is likely to get what it wants. And that could lead to confusion for students as they receive their college admission letters and financial aid packages.

"Two ideas ... have been introduced so far — neither of which is likely to go very far," said Terry Hartle, the top lobbyist for colleges at the American Council on Education.

House Republicans, led by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have outlined a spending plan that would shift the interest rates back to their pre-2008 levels. Congress in 2007 lowered the rate to 6 percent for new loans started during the 2008 academic year, then down to 5.6 percent in 2009, to 4.5 percent in 2010 and then to the current 3.4 percent a year later.

Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., say their budget proposal would permanently keep the student rates low. But their budget document doesn't explicitly cover the $6 billion annual cost. Instead, its committee report included a window for the Senate Health, Education and Pension Committee to pass a student loan-rate fix down the road.

But so far, the money isn't there. And if the committee wants to keep the rates where they are, they will have to find a way to pay for them, either through cuts to programs in the budget or by adding new taxes.

"Spending is measured in numbers, not words," said Jason Delisle, a former Republican staffer on the Senate Budget Committee and now director of the New America Foundation's Federal Budget Project. "The Murray budget does not include funding for any changes to student loans."

Some two-thirds of students are graduating with loans exceeding $25,000; 1 in 10 borrowers owes more than $54,000 in loans. And student-loan debt now tops $1 trillion. For those students, the rates make significant differences in how much they have to pay back each month.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that of the almost $113 billion in new student loans the government made this year, more than $38 billion will be lost to defaults, even after Washington collects what it can through wage garnishments.

The net cost to taxpayers after most students pay back their loans with interest is $5.7 billion. If the rate increases, Washington will be collecting more interest from new students' loans.

For some, though, the interest rates seem arbitrary and have little to do with interest rates available for other purchases such as homes or cars.

"Burdening students with 6.8 percent loans when interest rates in the economy are at historic lows makes no sense," said Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access and Success.


View the original article here

Business, labor close on deal for immigration bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — Big business and major labor unions appeared ready Friday to end a fight over a new low-skilled worker program that had threatened to upend negotiations on a sweeping immigration bill in the Senate providing a pathway to citizenship for 11 million immigrants already in the U.S.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who's been brokering talks between the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement that negotiators are "very close, closer than we have ever been, and we are very optimistic." He said there were still a few issues remaining.

The talks stalled late last week amid a dispute over wages for workers in the new program, and senators left town for a two-week recess with the issue in limbo. Finger-pointing erupted between the AFL-CIO and the chamber, with each side accusing the other of trying to sink immigration reform, leaving prospects for a resolution unclear.

But talks resumed this week, and now officials from both sides indicate the wage issue has been largely resolved. An agreement would likely clear the way for a bipartisan group of senators to unveil legislation the week of April 8 to dramatically overhaul the U.S. immigration system, strengthening the border and cracking down on employers as well as remaking the legal immigration system while providing a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

"We're feeling very optimistic on immigration: Aspiring Americans will receive the road map to citizenship they deserve and we can modernize 'future flow' without reducing wages for any local workers, regardless of what papers they carry," AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Hauser said in a statement. "Future flow" refers to future arrivals of legal immigrants.

Under the emerging agreement, a new "W'' visa program would bring tens of thousands lower-skilled workers a year to the country. The program would be capped at 200,000 a year, but the number of visas would fluctuate, depending on unemployment rates, job openings, employer demand and data collected by a new federal bureau pushed by the labor movement as an objective monitor of the market.

The workers would be able to change jobs and could seek permanent residency. Under current temporary worker programs, workers can't move from employer to employer and have no path to permanent U.S. residence and citizenship.

The new visas would cover dozens of professions such as long-term care workers and hotel and hospitality employees. Currently there's no good way for employers to bring many such workers to the U.S.; an existing visa program for low-wage nonagricultural workers is capped at 66,000 per year and is supposed to apply only to seasonal or temporary jobs.

The Chamber of Commerce said workers would get paid actual wages paid to American workers or the prevailing wages for the industry they're working in, whichever is higher. The Labor Department determines prevailing wage based on rates prevailing in specific localities, so that it would vary from city to city.

The labor organization had accused the chamber of trying to pay workers in the new program poverty-level wages, something the chamber disputed.

There was also disagreement about how to deal with certain higher-skilled construction jobs, such as electricians and welders, and it appears those will be excluded from the deal, said Geoff Burr, vice president of federal affairs at Associated Builders and Contractors. Burr said his group opposes such an exclusion because, even though unemployment in the construction industry is high right now, at times when it is low there can be labor shortages in high-skilled trades and contractors want to be able to bring in foreign workers. But unions pressed for the exclusion, Burr said.

The low-skilled worker issue had loomed for weeks as perhaps the toughest matter to settle in monthslong closed-door talks on immigration among Schumer and seven other senators, including Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida. The issue helped sink the last major attempt at immigration reform in 2007, when the legislation foundered on the Senate floor after an amendment was added to end a temporary worker program after five years, threatening a key priority of the business community.

The amendment passed by just one vote, 49-48. President Barack Obama, a senator at the time, joined in the narrow majority voting to end the program after five years.

___

Follow Erica Werner on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ericawerner


View the original article here

How to get that annoyingly catchy song out of your head

Has "Call Me Maybe" haunted you since last summer? Read on

We've all been there: One minute, a seemingly innocuous upbeat tune is playing on the radio. The next, that shamefully catchy chorus has lodged itself in your brain, burrowing deeper and deeper, intent on playing endlessly — over and over and over and over — until you feel as if you're about to descend into madness.

Little is understood about what exactly triggers these irritating earworms. But researchers at the University of Western Washington have some tips on how to get that annoyingly catchy song out of your head. The best solution? Keep your short-term memory occupied with brain-teasers like anagrams.

SEE MORE: 8 bizarre sounds you've probably made without knowing it

In the study, researchers induced earworms by playing catchy songs by artists like Lady Gaga and ABBA while they had participants draw their way through mazes. (For whatever reason, doing a maze helped the song "stick.") They then gave participants anagrams, Sudoku puzzles, and novels to occupy themselves with in an attempt to reduce the reoccurrence of the earworms. The researchers found that anagrams were the most successful at getting songs out of participants' heads, while Sudoku and even reading helped to some degree. 

"The key is to find something that will give the right level of challenge," said Dr. Ira Hyman, a researcher Western Washington University. "If you are cognitively engaged, it limits the ability of intrusive songs to enter your head." Since songs often get stuck in our heads when we're doing things like driving or walking that don't require all of our cognitive resources, the best way to banish a tune from your memory is by occupying that extra space with another activity. Just don't overcompensate and break out the Proust or extra-hard Sudokus — tasks that are too difficult can also cause the mind to wander.

SEE MORE: 10 things you need to know today: March 29, 2013

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

40 years on, Laotians tell of US war legacy

WASHINGTON (AP) — Forty years after the secret U.S. bombing that devastated Laos, heirs to the war's deadly legacy of undetonated explosives are touring America to prod the conscience of the world's most powerful nation for more help to clear up the mess.

Two young Laotians — one a bomb disposal technician, the other the victim of an accidental explosion — arrived Friday on the anniversary of the end of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam and its far-less publicized bombing of neighboring Laos. The U.S. dropped 2 million tons of bombs on Laos over a nine-year period up to 1973 — more than on Germany and Japan during World War II.

Manixia Thor, 25, works on an all-female team that clears bombs and other explosives from villages and farm land in her native province of Xieng Khouang, one of the worst-hit areas of the country. Joining her on the speaking tour is Thoummy Silamphan, 26, who lost his left hand to a cluster bomb at age 8 as he dug for bamboo shoots to put in soup. He's from a poor farming family in the same province and counsels victims of ordnance accidents that still maim dozens of Lao each year.

Experts estimate that about 30 percent of the cluster bombs failed to explode after they were dropped from high-flying aircraft, as the U.S. attempted to crush communist forces in Laos and interdict the Vietcong supply line known as the Ho Chi Minh trail. Large swaths of northern Laos and its eastern border with Vietnam remain contaminated.

Manixia, who is ethnic Hmong and has a 2-year-old son, said her grandparents passed down to her stories of how they hid in limestone caves during the bombing that obliterated virtually all of the province's free-standing buildings and left its plains and mountainsides pock-marked by craters.

About 15 years ago, her uncle lost his left hand as he attempted to salvage ball bearings from inside a cluster bomb. He joined an estimated toll of 20,000 civilians killed or injured by explosives since the war.

Manixia works for the British charity, the Mines Advisory Group. Like Thoummy, it's her first trip to America. Their tour, organized by an American charity, Legacies of War, and funded by the State Department, will also take them to New York, California, Oregon, Washington state and Minnesota as they talk about "UXO," or unexploded ordnance.

"I came here because I want to share with people the continuing dangers of UXO in Laos," Manixia said. "There's still a lot of work to do (to clear UXO) and not enough resources to do it. I don't want people to be injured like my uncle was, or for my son to grow up and also be hurt."

Despite efforts to educate about the dangers of the explosives, about 40 percent of the victims in the past 10 years have been children.

Thoummy said that last month two accidental explosions injured six people in Xieng Khouang, two of them seriously. Three of them were boys foraging for bamboo; the others were caught in a blast while burning stubble in a rice field.

Thoummy, whose prosthetic arm is hard to spot when he wears a tan jacket, works for Quality of Life Association, a Laotian nonprofit that helps victims cope with the kind of depression that he grappled with as a boy after his accident.

"My life had stopped. I wanted to die. I stayed at home and although my family tried to encourage me, I didn't care," he said.

But his outlook changed after a 10-minute conversation he had five months after his accident with a Lao government official — a survivor of a bomb accident who inspired him to get on with his life and complete his education. He later studied business management at a local college.

Thoummy is keen to recount his own experiences and bears no apparent grudge against the U.S. Asked if America is responsible for clearing the unexploded bombs, he squirms a little and concludes: "It would be good if the USA thinks about the problem in Laos and if we have more support."

International help for bomb clearance only began in earnest about 20 years ago, and it will take many decades more to render affected land safe. Since 1997, the U.S. has provided $47 million in assistance, including $9 million in 2012. Last July, Hillary Rodham Clinton became the first U.S. secretary of state to visit the country since 1955. She spoke to a cluster bomb victim and promised more help.

___

Online: http://legaciesofwar.org/


View the original article here

Weekend linkdown: Fukushima, drunken bets and Bruce Willis chuckling maniacally

By Rob Walker

As the work-week winds (or crawls) to an end, we’re all looking for ways to look busy, or kill time. As always, I’m here to help.

Armchair Traveler, Fukushima Edition: As a rule, Google Street View strikes me as a poor substitute for exploring the physical world. But I admit that since physically strolling around an area near a nuclear disaster isn’t a practical idea, the Google Street View tours of Namie-machi, a presently abandoned city in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture, are better than the real thing. The Google Lat Long blog offers several starting points for wandering this now-haunting cityscape from afar, with context in a guest post written by Nami-machi’s mayor. Via Google Sightseeing.

Not a Tree: Wired’s Raw File finds cell phone towers disguised as trees, as documented by photographer Dillon Marsh, “puzzling.” I think they’re kinda cool.

What’s New With Robot Snakes?
According to The Verge, they now have “the ability to hug things.” This brief video from the Carnegie Mellon Biorobotics Lab demonstrates “snake robot perching”: Robot snakes are tossed at lampposts, trees, and goalposts, which they coil about and grasp. Thanks for that, Science.

Dumb, Officially: Next time you make some foolish, drunken boast about how many McRibs you can eat in one sitting or some such, you can define the terms and conditions for your regrettable wager, thanks to SpitShake.com. This helps you “make your ridiculous idea a reality,” a promo video promises. I bet. Via BoingBoing.

Idealized Scenes, From Prison: A fascinating photo project by Alyse Emdur documents painted optimistic backdrops created by prisoners for portraits intended for family and friends. The always surprising Venue project, devoted to exploring overlooked features of the American landscape, interviews Emdur and shares a number of her images.

Bruce Willis: Survivor: Footage from 39 movies gets diced into a 10-minute supercut quasi-narrative video called "Everybody Wants To Kill Bruce Willis." There’s no dialogue but—spoiler alert—Bruce is still chuckling manically at the end.

Non pet Sounds: On a more soothing note, here is a pleasant collection of field recordings of whales and elephants on SoundCloud, courtesy of "On Being." Have a relaxing weekend.


View the original article here

Lawmakers tighten belts amid automatic budget cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Members of Congress are traveling less and worrying more about meeting office salaries. Their aides are contending with long lines to get inside their offices and fewer prospects of a raise. Such are the indignities thrust upon the men and women who brought the country $85 billion in government spending cuts this month.

There probably won't be much sympathy for a senator or congressman making $174,000 a year who is in no danger of being furloughed or laid off, at least until the next election. Still, there has been an effort, especially in the Republican-led House, to show that no one should be exempt from sacrifice.

"As those who are charged with the care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example," Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., who chairs the House Administration Committee, said last week in promoting a bill to slash the budgets of House committees by 11 percent.

Earlier in March — after Congress and the White House failed to come up with an alternative to across-the-board cuts in most federal programs — the House imposed an 8.2 percent reduction in lawmakers' personal office budgets. That came on top of 11 percent cuts to members' office budgets during 2011-2012.

"We've drastically reduced travel both for myself and my staff," said Republican Rep. John Campbell, who must cross the country to visit his southern California district. He said he tends to stay in Washington on two-day weekends rather than return home. "I'm more productive here when I'm not rushing to get home," he added.

Campbell said other "little things" he is doing to economize include reducing the office phone bill, cutting off magazine and newspaper subscriptions, and using email rather than letters to communicate with voters.

Rep. Luke Messer, a freshman Republican from Indiana, said he hired fewer people when he came to Washington because "we essentially began the term knowing there was a high possibility of a sequester"— Washington-speak for the automatic spending cuts.

So far, congressional staffers appear to have escaped the furloughs that are likely to send thousands of public servants home without pay for several workdays over the next six months and disrupt some government services. "I hope to avoid that," said Rep Jared Polis, D-Colo., "but we will take any steps to ensure we don't exceed our budget." Under House rules, a lawmaker must pay for excess spending out of his or her own pocket.

The fiscal pressures are less strong in the Senate, where senators have staff budgets about double the amount of the $1.3 million average in the House and where the office cuts ordered because of the sequester were limited to 5 percent.

While staffers still have their jobs, they may have a harder time getting to them. Security officials have cut costs by closing 10 entrances and several side streets around the Capitol complex, creating long lines to get through screening stations. People "have started to adjust to those changes at the entrances," although it is still a challenge on busy days, said U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer.

Gainer, who oversees nearly 1,000 security and administrative employees, said he hopes to abide by the 5 percent sequester cut without layoffs by enlisting 70 or 80 people for a voluntary retirement program.

Some House members also are feeling the pinch during the two-week Easter break, a prime time for foreign "fact-finding" tours. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced last month that members must book commercial flights rather than make use of more convenient but more expensive military aircraft.

Some Democrats have complained the GOP enthusiasm for frugality has come at too high a cost.

"At a time when most members of this body are representing newly formed congressional districts with a need to open new offices or move to new locations, we find ourselves with an 8.2 percent decrease in the very operating budgets that support constituent services," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

Wasserman Schultz, who also is the Democratic Party's chairwoman, criticized House Republicans for cutting budgets while spending some $3 million for the legal defense of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

"We are past the point of cutting what we want, and we are now into cutting what we need — our ability to attract and retain expert staff," said Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House Administration Committee.

Brad Fitch, president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to improve congressional operations, said it's still possible that House members will have to resort to furloughs or layoffs. So far, he said, they have been able to cope with the cuts of the past three years with less-drastic steps, such as reducing the size of their staffs through attrition, making more use of interns and using email rather than mass mailings.

At the end of 2011, Fitch's group recommended 46 possible ways for members to cut $90,000 from their 2012 budgets, ranging from pay freezes, holding more town hall meetings by telephone, delaying purchases of new computers, eliminating Washington staffers' visits to district offices, closing district offices, eliminating bottled water from offices and reviewing spending on food and beverages for constituents.


View the original article here

Mimicry Games’ latest makes a humdrum airport a hard place to leave

By Rob Walker

What’s the most boring place in the world? Any given airport seems like a good guess. Maybe that makes an airport a good setting for playing smartphone or tablet games. It also makes an airport just about the most perverse setting imaginable for a game, one that is basically about…catching a flight.

Such a game exists: It’s called “Leaving,” and it is, to put it mildly, not a traditional game. I found it boring—fascinatingly boring.

Let me explain. In an interview recently with the Creator’s Project, “Leaving” creator Thomas J. Papa, lead developer of Mimicry Games, makes it pretty clear that his agenda is partly to challenge gaming conventions, which he argues tend to be repetitive and predictable (all that action and those motivating rewards—feh!). Indeed the official description doesn’t even call “Leaving” a game, but rather “a short-form interactive drama for the iPad.”

So, here’s what happens: You show up at an airport with four companions; figure out where your departure gate is; say goodbye; and head for your flight. The end.

This “won't be for everyone,” one reviewer, who practically apologizes for praising “Leaving,” warns (twice) in the course of a seven-paragraph write-up. And it’s certainly true that this will not be the next “Angry Birds.” Frankly I was initially irritated with “Leaving.” Plopped into an alienating setting with a group of undefined characters, I had no idea how to proceed. Finally, I just started poking the screen until I more or less figured it out. What choice did I have? And I was surprised to find that when I eventually reached the anti-climactic ending, I was compelled to play again, immediately.

Why? Partly because the distinct lack of action had made me, gradually, examine the uncanny world I found myself in. The graphic treatment is really engaging and the headphone-friendly sound design is superb. I wondered: Why is the airport so empty? Why do certain employees ignore me—and no one smiles? Why do my companions seem so serious, even when I hug them goodbye? What’s their relationship to each other, and to me? What’s the reason for my “leaving,” anyway?

If you think you might try “Leaving,” skip this paragraph, because here’s the closest thing I can offer to a spoiler alert: At exactly the moment that “Leaving” forces the player to use an annoying degree of precision to navigate a rope-line maze to the boarding gate, the game’s finale involves, of all things, the poetry of Antonio Machado, addressing the vagaries of life’s journeys (and, one might consider, the journeys most games send us on). It’s quite clever.

If in the end it doesn’t feel like you’ve played a game, that’s the point. “Leaving” is more like an evocative short story, or a kind of lyric essay on the idea of the traveler. Obviously other games have played with interactive narrative, and for that matter literary creators for years have experimented with all sorts of digital twists on storytelling strategies. I’m not sure “Leaving” fits either category. But it gave me the most interesting trip to the airport I can recall.


View the original article here

In SC House race, Bostic calls Sanford compromised

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — The man running against former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford in a GOP runoff for an open congressional seat says Sanford is a compromised candidate who would offer Democrats a chance to win the May 7 special election.

Former Charleston County Council member Curtis Bostic said during a televised debate Thursday night that "a compromised candidate is not what we need" in the race against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Bush, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert.

The runoff is Tuesday.

Sanford disappeared from the state in 2009, telling his staff he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, only to return to reveal he was having an extramarital affair with an Argentine woman to whom he is now engaged.

Sanford acknowledged he "failed very publically" but said he has done a lot of soul searching since then. He added, "Not since Jesus Christ was here has there been a perfect man or woman."


View the original article here

Two congressmen urge USTR designate China for trade secret theft

By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two senior Democrats in the House of Representatives on Thursday urged the Obama administration to formally target China for the theft of U.S. trade secrets, a move they said could lead to duties on Chinese goods if U.S. concerns are not addressed.

"As evidence mounts that the Government of China actively engages in the cyber theft of the trade secrets of American businesses, we write to request that you consider designating China as a Priority Foreign Country under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974," the lawmakers said.

The letter from Representatives Sander Levin and Charles Rangel urged the Trade Representative's office to take the action when it issues the annual report on intellectual property protection on April 30.

Their recommendation is the latest sign of congressional frustration with alleged widespread theft of U.S. company trade secrets by competitors in China through both cyber attacks and more conventional means of economic espionage.

"It looks very much as though the Chinese government is stealing our companies' trade secrets and passing them along to their SOEs (state-owned enterprises), and possibly other Chinese companies," Levin and Rangel, the top two Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a letter to acting Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis.

"It is difficult enough for our companies to compete with the endless massive subsidies and other industrial policies of the Chinese government, but add trade secret theft into the mix and it is miraculous that our companies are able to compete at all," they added.

The White House last month rolled out a new strategy to tackle to trade-secret theft included greater use of existing U.S. trade tools, like the U.S. Trade Representative's annual report on countries with the worst records of protecting U.S. intellectual property rights.

USTR rarely designates any "priority foreign country" in that report. The category is reserved for those nations with the most onerous and egregious acts, policies or practices that threaten U.S. intellectual property and which have the greatest adverse impact on the United States.

Under the statute, USTR generally must initiate what is known as a "Special 301" investigation within 30 days of designating a priority foreign country, which could lead to the White House imposing import duties if U.S. concerns are not satisfactorily addressed, the lawmakers said.

"We have received the letter and are reviewing it," USTR spokeswoman Carol Guthrie said.

USTR also could file a case at the World Trade Organization if it determines that the priority foreign country is violating international trade rules.

(Reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by Vicki Allen)


View the original article here

How the Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage: A prediction

One opinion from John Roberts. One opinion from Anthony Kennedy. And crucial questions left unanswered

It's always a dangerous task predicting the outcome of a Supreme Court case. But in the spirit of March Madness — why not? Below, find out how the Supreme Court will decide its gay marriage cases, before the justices even write the opinions:

Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case): 
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four liberal members of the court, will dismiss the case. Specifically, the Chief Justice will rule that the proponents of Proposition 8 do not have standing to challenge the District Court's ruling, because the decision allowing gay marriage did not cause them an "injury in fact."

SEE MORE: Bully pulpit: Can Obama save gun legislation?

Indeed, throughout Tuesday's oral arguments, the Chief Justice appeared almost uninterested in what the lawyers had to say about the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a popular referendum that banned gay marriage in California. Not only did the Chief Justice force the lawyers from both sides to begin with the standing issue, he also forced the government to give it's view of standing despite the fact that, well, it didn't have one. But not even that was enough to divert the Chief's focus, and sure enough, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli did as he was instructed and more or less made up the government's position on the fly.

Virtually everyone else, including the Chief Justice's fellow conservatives, appeared uninterested in Roberts' desire to toss the case on procedural grounds. Both Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito openly expressed concerns that refusing to grant standing would create a state of affairs whereby a state executive branch could override ballot initiatives they disagree with by refusing to defend them in court. The other justices, both liberal and conservative, appeared eager to tackle the merits (mind you, Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak, but history suggests he is not one to dodge tough questions on procedural grounds).

SEE MORE: WATCH: The 16 funniest Game of Thrones parodies [Updated]

Which brings us, inevitably, to Justice Kennedy. As the author of Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down state laws banning sodomy), and a lover of the spotlight, would he not be primed to join the liberal justices and vindicate the rights of gay Americans once more? No, probably not. Contrary to popular belief, Justice Kennedy is not a "moderate." Rather, as Jeff Toobin once put it, Kennedy is better described as an "extremist of varied enthusiasms." One of his enthusiasms is federalism, or the right of the states to govern. While Kennedy did author Lawrence, his comments at Wednesday's oral arguments make clear that he believes that federalism concerns are very much wrapped up in the marriage equality debate. As such, he is unlikely to side with the liberals and strike down Prop 8 as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

With Kennedy on team federalism (read: team conservative), that leaves the court divided on the merits, with one vote, Roberts, in the middle. Roberts probably is inclined to agree with the federalists, but he is too shrewd a practitioner of the art of the law to thrust the court into a political thicket like gay marriage, particularly when he can steer the court clear of the thicket altogether. As such, expect him to write the majority opinion joined by four very unenthusiastic liberals, who will write concurring opinions decrying the fact that the court did not strike down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

SEE MORE: Why is everyone shocked Victoria's Secret markets to teenagers?

In response, expect a feisty Scalia dissent and a short Thomas dissent.

United States v. Windsor (the Defense of Marriage Act case):
The Defense of Marriage Act is going down.

SEE MORE: The daily gossip: Kirsten Dunst says kissing Brad Pitt was 'disgusting,' and more

The case before the court also involves standing issues, but the Chief Justice, once again, is the only one who appears to really care about them. This will not matter though, since this time Kennedy will be joining the four liberals to author the opinion. As previously mentioned, Kennedy is a federalism fanatic, and, true to form, he devoted most of his questions at oral arguments to quibbling with the idea that the federal government has any authority to legislate on the issue of marriage at all.

Basically, Kennedy believes that marriage is a state concern. As such, his "majority" will strike down DOMA on federalism grounds. This will please no one, however, because it will mean that the court will not answer the question that almost everyone else on the bench, liberal and conservative, appear to wish to answer (albeit in different ways): Does DOMA violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection?

SEE MORE: Puff, puff, tax: Why some state budgets are banking on weed

But the liberals will take what they can get: They will concur in judgment, agreeing that DOMA should be struck down. But they will write their own opinions expressing their belief that the law is unconstitutional.

And in my "upset" prediction, I believe Chief Justice Roberts will join Justice Kennedy's majority — with the caveat that he believes the case lacks standing.

SEE MORE: 5 new revelations about Adam Lanza and the Sandy Hook massacre

What it means for marriage equality:
DOMA will fall, which is good for gay rights. But it will fall for reasons wholly separate from the core question of whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution protect a right for gay couples to marry. In other words, we will be right back where we started.

However, it should be said that these cases focused a great deal of attention on the issue of gay rights and marriage equality. That focus has lead to a surge in support from people on the left who have remained quiet. It has also demonstrated that attitudes towards marriage equality are changing on the right. That spotlight will serve the equality movement well going forward, demonstrating to people on the fence that supporting equality is very much a mainstream thing to do these days.

SEE MORE: What to expect from Mark Zuckerberg's new nonprofit

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is 'Inevitable'

gty rush limbaugh mi 130328 wblog Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is InevitableLimbaugh

In his radio show today, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said defenders of traditional marriage have lost the battle, even though the Supreme Court won't hand down its decisions for another few months.

"I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable," Limbaugh said, "and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Limbaugh took issue with the idea that the word marriage was already applied to gay couples. Therefore, he asserted, modifiers like "hetero" or "opposite-sex" are now at times added to denote a union between a man and a woman.

"I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it - because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything," the radio host said. "Marriage is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way."

On Wednesday, he made a similar prediction, saying that gay marriage would soon become legal "

Earlier this year, Limbaugh compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

Today, he claimed discrimination against gay couples "is not an issue."

"No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits. There's nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition. By definition - solely, by definition - same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been."

Also Read

View the original article here

Laura and John Arnold Foundation Announces Release of 50-State Survey of Laws Affecting Pretrial Justice

NEW YORK, March 28, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) today announced the release of a new resource that provides information on laws in all 50 states that affect pretrial release, detention, and the issuance of citations in lieu of arrest. This resource is the second phase of a yearlong project that LJAF developed to enhance access to information about state laws and legislation regarding pretrial justice. The research, which was carried out by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and funded by LJAF, provides the first comprehensive, state-by-state summaries of existing statutes related to these critical criminal justice issues. It is available on the NCSL website, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research.aspx?tabs=951,62,1219.

"The decisions made at the front end of the criminal justice system, taking place between arrest and sentencing, are critically important to public safety, local budgets, and the fair administration of justice," said Anne Milgram, LJAF's Vice President of Criminal Justice. "This research fills a tremendous gap in the national understanding of how states and localities are addressing these issues, and we believe it will be an invaluable resource for jurisdictions to learn from one another as they seek to improve their criminal justice systems."

LJAF and NCSL also released today a brief report supplementing their November 2012 50-state survey of pretrial legislation with information on bills introduced since that date. Both resources released today will be part of an interactive web-based database of pending legislation and existing laws that will go live on NCSL's site in mid-2013.

"LJAF's interest in these issues is based on our belief that there is tremendous opportunity for transformation of the criminal justice system by focusing on front-end reform. Our work with NCSL is an important part of our goal of producing substantial and widespread improvement in the criminal justice system," said Milgram.

The resource developed through this grant will enable lawmakers, criminal justice practitioners, researchers, and the public to easily and quickly find comprehensive information on the laws governing pretrial release eligibility, guidance for setting conditions of release, and standards for issuing citations in every state. 

The research reveals a number of important trends:

  • Most states have a presumption in favor of releasing all defendants before trial, except those who are charged with certain types of serious crimes. Forty states have such a provision in their state constitution, and in instances where the constitution is silent on this, eight states have created a statutory presumption. 
  • Nineteen states have a presumption in favor of permitting pretrial release either without requiring the defendant to post a monetary bond, or through an unsecured bond. 
  • About half of the states have enacted statutes that provide guidance to courts in setting conditions of pretrial release. In fifteen states, courts are required to impose the least restrictive condition, or combination of conditions, that will reasonably ensure court appearance and public safety. 
  • States have recently begun to require the use of risk assessments in pretrial release decision making. Currently, nine states instruct courts to consider the results of a risk assessment when making pretrial release decisions.
  • In all but seven states, statutes provide that law enforcement officers may in certain instances issue a citation in lieu of arrest. Most states only allow citations to be used for low-level misdemeanor offenses, and they statutorily prohibit issuing a citation if there is reason to believe that the individual will not appear in court, poses a danger to the community or himself, or has any outstanding warrants.

Additional research in this area was funded by the Public Welfare Foundation.

About the Laura and John Arnold Foundation
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is private foundation that currently focuses its strategic investments on criminal justice, education, public accountability, and research integrity.  LJAF has offices in Houston and New York City.  www.arnoldfoundation.org.

Contact: Erica Gersowitz
(212) 590-0107

SOURCE Laura and John Arnold Foundation


View the original article here

Obama 'Deeply Concerned' For Mandela

President Obama today expressed concern for Nelson Mandela's health, but said the anti-apartheid leader is "as strong physically as he's been in character and in leadership over so many decades."

"Obviously we're all deeply concerned with Nelson Mandela's health. He's a hero, I think, to all of us," Obama told reporters. "We will be keeping him in our thoughts and prayers and his entire family."

The former South African president has been hospitalized for a recurring lung infection but is "responding positively" to treatment, according to the South African president's office.

"Hopefully he will come out of this latest challenge," Obama said.

"We all recognize that he has given everything to his people, the people of South Africa, to the people of the continent, and he's ended up being an inspiration to all of us," Obama said. "When you think of a single individual that embodies the kind of leadership qualities that I think we all aspire to, the first name that comes up is Nelson Mandela. And so we wish him all the very best."

The president's comments came as he met with the leaders of Sierra Leone, Senegal, Malawi and Cape Verde at the White House.

Also Read

View the original article here

USW Members at Firestone Polymers in Orange, Texas, Return to Work Monday

ORANGE, Texas, March 28, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- United Steelworkers (USW) members from Local 13-836 are returning to work Monday, April 1 after Firestone Polymers accepted this afternoon their March 25 unconditional offer to return to work.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20080131/DC12982LOGO )

Negotiations will continue and Local 13-836 members will work under a contract extension of their 2008 agreement. The company or the union would have to give a written 7-day notice to terminate the extension agreement before any lockout or strike.

"We are confident we will be successful in obtaining a fair agreement that will benefit both our members and the company," said USW Sub-District 1 Director Ben Lilienfeld, who is leading the union's negotiating team. "Both sides' have plenty of room to move in their proposals to address the workers' health care and wage concerns."

Local 13-836 members went on strike against Firestone Polymers on March 18 over health care proposals and wages they felt would not benefit them or their families. They also opposed the company's desire that they give up their right to bargain over health care issues in the future.

The members will return to work on April 1 starting with the 6 a.m. shift. Local 13-836 represents 130 hourly employees at the specialty rubber plant.

The USW is the largest industrial union in North America and has 850,000 members in the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean. The union represents workers employed in metals, rubber, chemicals, paper, oil refining, atomic energy and the service sector.

Contact : Lynne Hancock, USW, 615-828-6169, lhancock@usw.org

SOURCE United Steelworkers (USW)


View the original article here

Community, Environmental And Labor Coalition Applaud Missouri Attorney General For Legal Action Against Republic Services

Residents' and Workers' Health and Safety Must Be Protected; Cost of Dealing with Effects of Bridgeton Landfill Fire, Radioactive Wastes and Remediation Should Not Fall on Missouri Taxpayers

ST. LOUIS, Mo., March 28, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Teamsters Joint Council 13 in St. Louis, Missouri Jobs with Justice and Missouri Coalition for the Environment, applauded Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster for taking legal action against Republic Services [NYSE: RSG] yesterday for the ongoing environmental health and safety crisis at the Bridgeton/Westlake landfill.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100127/IBTLOGO)

Republic's Bridgeton landfill has been in the news recently due to citizen complaints about persistent stench, the expanding underground fire, a recent explosion, and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) investigation of radiation levels and groundwater contamination. The landfill is part of the West Lake Landfill Superfund Site where radioactive nuclear weapons wastes are buried.

According to the Missouri Office of the Attorney General, the lawsuit (docket number: 13SL-CC01088) seeks to force Republic to address the odor problems and correct the environmental violations, as well as to provide remedies to help local residents and businesses deal with the ongoing effects of the burning waste. The lawsuit also seeks to ensure that Republic, rather than taxpayers, pays for the costs of experts hired by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to perform ongoing, intensive environmental testing.

The DNR had officially requested the attorney general bring legal action against Republic Services just last Thursday.

"We commend the Attorney General for taking on Republic Services," said Marvin Kropp, President of Teamsters Joint Council 13. "We also commend the Department of Natural Resources for referring Republic to the AG's office due to its egregious failures.

"Less than two weeks ago our coalition sponsored a briefing, during which independent experts talked with public officials about their assessment of the risks posed by the fire and the nuclear weapons wastes at the site. We have already contacted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in this regard. Should the landfill fire reach the radioactive wastes it would be catastrophic.

"The families who live, and work around this landfill should not be exposed to these risks for one minute longer. The attorney general's office should also see to it that the full present and future cost of dealing with the Bridgeton landfill fire and its remediation fall squarely on Republic, and not on Missouri taxpayers, local businesses or residents," Kropp said.

"Workers and residents in North Saint Louis County and St. Charles must be protected from Republic's negligence. This is not the first environmental disaster at a Republic-owned landfill - for the past nine years a major uncontrolled underground fire has been raging at Republic's Countywide Landfill in Ohio," said Joan Suarez of Missouri Jobs with Justice. "The company just settled an 800-plaintiff lawsuit there, but the site is still a disaster. We encourage the Office of the Attorney General to do everything in its power to force Republic Services to clean up this site for good."

"Communities around the landfill have long smelled the stench coming from Republic's landfill, but the problem could be much bigger than that," said Ed Smith of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. "The EPA detected radioactivity in the air when it flew its anti-terrorism ASPECT plane over the landfill, we want EPA to disclose its data and infrared readings, and fully characterize the wastes and the site.  Assurances that the landfill fire and radioactive wastes will not become one big problem have not been adequately backed up by data being made available to the public.  Full disclosure is needed."

SOURCE International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Missouri Jobs with Justice, and Missouri Coalition for the Environment


View the original article here

Streak snapped: What's next for the Miami Heat?

They won't set a new winning-streak record, but they're still playoff bound

The Miami Heat are not infallible.

On Wednesday, the Heat lost their first game in two months. They strung together 27 straight wins in that span, the second-longest winning streak in the history of major American sports, and only six victories shy of the all-time mark.

SEE MORE: Why is everyone shocked Victoria's Secret markets to teenagers?

With the streak dead and the regular season entering its final month, where do the Heat go from here?

For one thing, the loss was virtually inevitable. The Heat won several close games, squeaking by on enormous talent, but also a bit of luck that was eventually bound to turn against them.

SEE MORE: Even a majority of Republicans support legalizing undocumented workers

From Yahoo Sports' Kelly Dwyer:

There have been plenty of dominant NBA teams over the last 40 years, and yet only two of them have strung nearly two months’ worth of consecutive wins together. At some point, the on-paper advantage doesn’t matter, which is why you see teams winning 13 of 16 at their best, instead of 27 of 27. [Yahoo! Sports]

That the Heat came so close yet failed would seem to be a huge letdown. But after the game, players said they were pleased to be moving on.

SEE MORE: How the Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage: A prediction

"Nope, 27-1 in our last 28 ain't bad," guard Dwyane Wade said. "Now that it's over, I'm glad that it's over. See you all in the playoffs."

Though he and other players would obviously have preferred a win, the loss allows them to focus squarely on the postseason and on defending their title. With every win in that streak, the Heat — and specifically their highly scrutinized stars — were held up for closer inspection. The Heat were inevitably compared to all-time greats, like Michael Jordan's Bulls and the 1971-72 Lakers team that won 33 straight. Losing, and ending those comparisons, "brought closure to another senseless debate," says ESPN's Michael Wallace.

SEE MORE: What to expect from Mark Zuckerberg's new nonprofit

The Heat already have the Eastern Conference's top playoff seed all but locked up — they need one more win or a New York loss to make it official — so their remaining games are largely meaningless. Starters who played more minutes to keep the streak alive can finally take a much-needed rest to recharge for the playoffs.

Here's Sports Illustrated's Rob Mahoney:

"So much is asked of [Lebron James and Wade], and the Heat will only be more demanding during the playoffs. For that reason, it should shock no one to see [head coach Erik] Spoelstra rest his stars more now in preparation for 45-minute postseason outings. The playoffs’ commencement will tag a regular-season marathon with a dead-sprint coda, and these last few weeks of marginally meaningful games offer the best chance at scoring James and a dinged-up Wade some precious time off." [Sports Illustrated]

That the streak ended long before the playoffs might be a blessing in disguise, too. Last year, the San Antonio Spurs entered the playoffs with a 10-game winning streak that soon stretched to 20 games. Then they lost four straight to end the streak and their season, leading coach Gregg Popovich to remark that he never again wanted to endure such a long winning streak because it was "too much of a grind." He even said he briefly considered throwing a game just to end his team's run.

SEE MORE: The daily gossip: Kirsten Dunst says kissing Brad Pitt was 'disgusting,' and more

The Heat have no such concerns now. They can finally go back to being a normal playoff-bound team, and rest up to pursue what's always been their main goal: Another championship.

"[T]he focus for this team is on June, and the streak was merely a sideshow," says Sporting News' Sean Deveney. "No matter how many games in a row they cobbled together, none of it would matter much if they failed to win the championship."

SEE MORE: WATCH: The 16 funniest Game of Thrones parodies [Updated]

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here