Several riders injured as major crash stalled first stage of annual Tour of the Gila
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/1jk96BU
via IFTTT
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/1jk96BU
via IFTTT
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Major crash stalls first stage of NM race
At least a dozen riders injured as major crash stalled first stage of annual Tour of the Gila
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/1iFbnTB
via IFTTT
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/1iFbnTB
via IFTTT
Major crash stalls first stage of NM race
At least a dozen riders injured as major crash stalled first stage of annual Tour of the Gila
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/1iFblLr
via IFTTT
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/1iFblLr
via IFTTT
Historic Mansion Is Shockingly Cheap -- But There's A Big Catch
An elegant suburban Chicago mini-mansion has hit the market at an almost shockingly low price. But, of course, there's something of a catch.
The Hiram B. Scutt Museum in Joliet, Illinois was built in 1882 and designed by architect James Weese for Scutt, who held a number of early patents for barbed wire. The three-story, 4,960-square-foot red-brick mansion is on the National Register of Historic Places and has been listed at $159,000 after the property was foreclosed on.
The Hiram B. Scutt Museum in Joliet. (Anna Aaron)
The home has something of a dark history, however, and some say it is haunted. In 2004, a 19-year-old man named Steven Jenkins was fatally shot during a party in the home. A few years later, a John Wilkes Booth impersonator named Seth Magosky bought the home and died suddenly there in 2007, just six months after he began work on turning the mansion into a Victorian museum, Patch's Joseph Hosey reports.
Real estate agent Marcia C. Cronin told Patch an energy reader she had come to the home said it was not haunted, but paranormal investigators who have flocked to the mansion over the years would likely disagree. One paranormal group claims the spirits of children, as well as the home's two original owners, can be encountered there.
Inside a parlor room of the home in 2012, when the mansion was still decked out in a Victorian style. (Anna Aaron)
Spiritual observer and psychic reader Edward Shanahan also wrote in 2010 on his Chicago Paranormal and Spiritual blog that the mansion, which also came to be known as "Barb Villa," is very haunted and pointed to compelling videos from multiple paranormal groups as alleged proof.
The home's third floor "doll room" has allegedly been a particular hotspot of paranormal activity.
Inside the mansion's infamous "doll room" in 2012. (Anna Aaron)
Another look inside the "doll room" in 2012. (Anna Aaron)
Whether there's any truth to the haunted rumors, we're thankful all those dolls are out of there today, as evidenced by the listing's photos -- even if we still can't get their creepy little faces out of our heads.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1fucYRT
via IFTTT
The Hiram B. Scutt Museum in Joliet, Illinois was built in 1882 and designed by architect James Weese for Scutt, who held a number of early patents for barbed wire. The three-story, 4,960-square-foot red-brick mansion is on the National Register of Historic Places and has been listed at $159,000 after the property was foreclosed on.
The home has something of a dark history, however, and some say it is haunted. In 2004, a 19-year-old man named Steven Jenkins was fatally shot during a party in the home. A few years later, a John Wilkes Booth impersonator named Seth Magosky bought the home and died suddenly there in 2007, just six months after he began work on turning the mansion into a Victorian museum, Patch's Joseph Hosey reports.
Real estate agent Marcia C. Cronin told Patch an energy reader she had come to the home said it was not haunted, but paranormal investigators who have flocked to the mansion over the years would likely disagree. One paranormal group claims the spirits of children, as well as the home's two original owners, can be encountered there.
Spiritual observer and psychic reader Edward Shanahan also wrote in 2010 on his Chicago Paranormal and Spiritual blog that the mansion, which also came to be known as "Barb Villa," is very haunted and pointed to compelling videos from multiple paranormal groups as alleged proof.
The home's third floor "doll room" has allegedly been a particular hotspot of paranormal activity.
Whether there's any truth to the haunted rumors, we're thankful all those dolls are out of there today, as evidenced by the listing's photos -- even if we still can't get their creepy little faces out of our heads.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1fucYRT
via IFTTT
Is It Time for Term Limits in Illinois?
A proposal from Illinois' top two GOP lawmakers to have a constitutional amendment instituting term limits for the executive branch on the November ballot failed to make it out of the Illinois Senate this week. But while that was going on, a citizen-led and Bruce Rauner-backed initiative to institute legislative term limits was approved by the Illinois State Board of Elections and placed on the November ballot.
All of this raises the question, should Illinois have term limits for our politicians? We have a survey where you can make your view on the topic heard.
CLICK HERE FOR THE SURVEY
And if you're curious about this week's stories, we have a roundup on them plus a look at the shelving of a progressive income tax amendment by the measure's sponsor.
READ ABOUT THOSE HERE
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1o4ygoI
via IFTTT
The Most Racist Part Of Donald Sterling's Legacy Can't Be Solved With A Lifetime Ban
LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling was banned from the NBA for life on Tuesday after he was caught on tape saying he didn't want his girlfriend bringing black people to games.
But as ESPN host Bomani Jones eloquently pointed out, this is hardly the worst act of racism that has been attributed to Sterling -- that title goes to his alleged acts of housing discrimination, for which he was sued twice, in 2003 and 2006, the second time by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The first suit, brought by 19 tenants with the help of the nonprofit Housing Rights Center, accused Sterling of forcing blacks and Latinos out of his rental properties, and ended in a confidential settlement in 2005. The second accused him of refusing to rent to African-Americans in Beverly Hills and to non-Koreans in LA's Koreatown. It ended in a record $2.725 million payout to the Justice Department. Sterling denied wrongdoing in both cases.
The charges made against Sterling were stomach-turning. In response to the 2003 suit, one of his property supervisors testified that Sterling said all blacks "smell" and are "not clean," that he wanted to "get them out" of his properties to preserve his image, and that he harassed tenants and refused to make repairs until they were forced to leave, according to depositions obtained by ESPN The Magazine.
But as alarming as the claims against Sterling are, housing discrimination as a practice is alive and well in America, and can't be solved with something as simple as a lifetime ban.
"For individuals and families, it limits their housing choices, it dictates where you can and cannot live, and that means limited access to other opportunities: educational opportunities, employment opportunities, health care services, other amenities," Fred Freiberg, director of the nonprofit Fair Housing Justice Center, told HuffPost. "It sustains and enforces patterns of racial segregation and poverty concentration, and it creates a whole host of inequalities that we could, frankly, do without."
A 2012 study by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that overall, minority home-seekers are still told about and shown fewer units than white applicants. In a series of paired tests in 28 metropolitan areas across the country, HUD compared the treatment of a non-white person and of a white person of the same gender and qualifications when each applied for an apartment. The study found that, compared to whites, Blacks were told about 11.4 percent fewer rental units and shown 4.2 percent fewer; Hispanics were told about 12.5 percent fewer and shown 7.5 percent fewer; and Asians were told about 9.8 percent fewer and shown 6.6 percent fewer.
The authors of the study cautioned that their findings have probably understated the problem -- and Freiberg pointed out a number of the study's blind spots in a 2013 response. For one thing, the study only focused on publicly advertised housing. These days, Freiberg says, housing providers looking to discriminate might just rely on word of mouth, or advertise only on websites or in newspapers that target certain ethnic or religious groups. Another issue is that the study only looked at who was shown more units -- in some cases, the minority home-seeker might be shown a greater number of apartments, but only those located in minority neighborhoods.
The government did make an effort to ban housing discrimination with the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act (the law that Sterling was sued for violating). But as ProPublica's Nikole Hannah Jones found in a 2012 investigation, the government has repeatedly failed to punish communities that violate the law.
And even though it's been nearly 50 years since the Fair Housing Act was adopted, segregation is still a reality in American cities. A 2010 analysis of census data by Brown University found:
Bottom line: Donald Sterling's racism has been roundly rejected by everyone from Snoop Dogg to the president -- but when it comes to everyday acts of insidious, life-ruining racism, there are many more like him out there.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1kq0N5v
via IFTTT
But as ESPN host Bomani Jones eloquently pointed out, this is hardly the worst act of racism that has been attributed to Sterling -- that title goes to his alleged acts of housing discrimination, for which he was sued twice, in 2003 and 2006, the second time by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The first suit, brought by 19 tenants with the help of the nonprofit Housing Rights Center, accused Sterling of forcing blacks and Latinos out of his rental properties, and ended in a confidential settlement in 2005. The second accused him of refusing to rent to African-Americans in Beverly Hills and to non-Koreans in LA's Koreatown. It ended in a record $2.725 million payout to the Justice Department. Sterling denied wrongdoing in both cases.
The charges made against Sterling were stomach-turning. In response to the 2003 suit, one of his property supervisors testified that Sterling said all blacks "smell" and are "not clean," that he wanted to "get them out" of his properties to preserve his image, and that he harassed tenants and refused to make repairs until they were forced to leave, according to depositions obtained by ESPN The Magazine.
But as alarming as the claims against Sterling are, housing discrimination as a practice is alive and well in America, and can't be solved with something as simple as a lifetime ban.
"For individuals and families, it limits their housing choices, it dictates where you can and cannot live, and that means limited access to other opportunities: educational opportunities, employment opportunities, health care services, other amenities," Fred Freiberg, director of the nonprofit Fair Housing Justice Center, told HuffPost. "It sustains and enforces patterns of racial segregation and poverty concentration, and it creates a whole host of inequalities that we could, frankly, do without."
A 2012 study by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that overall, minority home-seekers are still told about and shown fewer units than white applicants. In a series of paired tests in 28 metropolitan areas across the country, HUD compared the treatment of a non-white person and of a white person of the same gender and qualifications when each applied for an apartment. The study found that, compared to whites, Blacks were told about 11.4 percent fewer rental units and shown 4.2 percent fewer; Hispanics were told about 12.5 percent fewer and shown 7.5 percent fewer; and Asians were told about 9.8 percent fewer and shown 6.6 percent fewer.
The authors of the study cautioned that their findings have probably understated the problem -- and Freiberg pointed out a number of the study's blind spots in a 2013 response. For one thing, the study only focused on publicly advertised housing. These days, Freiberg says, housing providers looking to discriminate might just rely on word of mouth, or advertise only on websites or in newspapers that target certain ethnic or religious groups. Another issue is that the study only looked at who was shown more units -- in some cases, the minority home-seeker might be shown a greater number of apartments, but only those located in minority neighborhoods.
The government did make an effort to ban housing discrimination with the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act (the law that Sterling was sued for violating). But as ProPublica's Nikole Hannah Jones found in a 2012 investigation, the government has repeatedly failed to punish communities that violate the law.
And even though it's been nearly 50 years since the Fair Housing Act was adopted, segregation is still a reality in American cities. A 2010 analysis of census data by Brown University found:
With only one exception (the most affluent Asians), minorities at every income level live in poorer neighborhoods than do whites with comparable incomes. Disparities are greatest for the lowest income minorities, and they are much sharper for blacks and Hispanics than for Asians. Affluent blacks and Hispanics live in poorer neighborhoods than whites with working class incomes. There is considerable variation in these patterns across metropolitan regions. But in the 50 metros with the largest black populations, there is none where average black exposure to neighborhood poverty is less than 20 percent higher than that of whites, and only two metros where affluent blacks live in neighborhoods that are less poor than those of the average white.
Bottom line: Donald Sterling's racism has been roundly rejected by everyone from Snoop Dogg to the president -- but when it comes to everyday acts of insidious, life-ruining racism, there are many more like him out there.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1kq0N5v
via IFTTT
Disaster Capitalism Takes On Chicago
Whether it is union organizing, the mafia, gang violence, riots, police brutality or race relations, Chicago has a long history when it comes to violent behavior.
Despite what most media outlets worldwide have been saying, violence in the Windy City isn't exactly breaking news.
Over the Easter holiday weekend, 45 people were shot. The count includes six children. One of those kids, Tymisha Washington, begged for her life, according to DNAinfo Chicago.
"Please don't let me die. I'm only 11 years old. Don't let me die," she told a neighbor.
Predictably, the mayor and the police, along with the people in the communities where the violence is happening, are asking themselves what can be done to stop the violence.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel questioned the values of the people who are hurting their communities with violence.
"It's whether you have values. Values do not matter only in warm weather," the mayor told reporters. "They matter every day."
The mayor is correct in questioning the values of gangbangers, drug dealers and such. However, some of his own "values" can be questioned as well.
Last week, the mayor called a press conference announcing plans to build a college prep high school named after President Obama. The proposed site, which is near where the Cabrini Green Housing Projects once stood, is less than one mile from Walter Payton College Prep.
One can ask why yet another college prep high school is being built north of Roosevelt Road.
The placement of the school is yet another slap in the face to the city's African-American community.
Why can't a school named after the nation's first African-American president reside in the neighborhoods he represented in the state senate? Or nearby where he was a community organizer?
The moves the mayor is making can get people thinking about a term called disaster capitalism.
Disaster capitalism occurs when profits are generated based on the occurrence of a disaster.
Some might say that public housing, along with public education, has been an abject failure in our city. A colleague of mine went as far as to say that "The North Side gets college preps while the South Side gets charters."
Are all options exhausted when the mayor makes these decisions regarding the city?
"Boots on the ground" might be a term that most Chicagoans will have to get familiar with.
Some say the National Guard should get involved to quell the violence. That won't work. Just like the Shiites and Sunnis in the Middle East, the people here won't stop the violence because the military says so. How is a kid from downstate going to know the difference between a gangbanger and a law-abiding citizen? All the mistakes that the military made during Operation Iraqi Freedom will most likely be repeated if the National Guard is brought to Chicago.
After all, we've already seen how that turned out.
The problems the city is having are systemic in nature. These problems will not go away overnight.
Some say the lack of jobs is at the root of the violence. That is a plausible argument. For instance, look no further than the east side of the city where the steel mills once were. When an industry goes down, so does the neighborhood.
For that reason alone, Chicagoans should lay off the Detroit jokes. That might be us if we don't get our s--t together.
Substandard education, the lack of political power and minimal resources are other reasons people like to use when getting to the bottom of the city's problems. However, these conversations are starting to get redundant.
Remember, the city's citizens have had this conversation in the past when things were worst.
According to a 1998 article written in the Chicago Tribune:
Even though there were more murders way back when, the shootings these days get more attention because of the amount of children shot.
Especially ones from African-American communities.
According to a study done by the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago Research Center, during the years of 2000 to 2010, over 29,000 children and adolescents between the ages of 0 and 19, were killed by a firearm in the United States. The study goes on to say:
Mayor Emanuel may have had all the best intentions when he participated in the docuseries Chicagoland . He knows what certain images can do. The show has scenes of African-Americans, from the teachers' union to community activists, yelling at him. The next scene shows the mayor hugging or a patting a kid on the head. One episode showed the mayor attending a basketball tournament in Auburn-Gresham. What the show left out was that the mayor was roundly booed.
The cherry-picking of images can lead someone to believe that a "white savior" complex is taking place on the show.
Although the CNN show does a good job of showing the effects of institutional racism, some still believe that isn't the problem.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, and several of his colleagues, seem to believe that racism no longer exists.
Chief Justice Roberts once said this about school segregation: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor used Chief Justice Roberts' words when she wrote her dissent expressing her disappointment in the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision last week: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination."
Justice Sotomayor's comments can be applied to what is going on in Chicago.
Racial discrimination is at the root of most of the city's problems. Detractors of that premise often say, "Why can't they get over it?"
In most cases, people haven't been allowed to do so.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1rPUUU0
via IFTTT
Despite what most media outlets worldwide have been saying, violence in the Windy City isn't exactly breaking news.
Over the Easter holiday weekend, 45 people were shot. The count includes six children. One of those kids, Tymisha Washington, begged for her life, according to DNAinfo Chicago.
"Please don't let me die. I'm only 11 years old. Don't let me die," she told a neighbor.
Predictably, the mayor and the police, along with the people in the communities where the violence is happening, are asking themselves what can be done to stop the violence.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel questioned the values of the people who are hurting their communities with violence.
"It's whether you have values. Values do not matter only in warm weather," the mayor told reporters. "They matter every day."
The mayor is correct in questioning the values of gangbangers, drug dealers and such. However, some of his own "values" can be questioned as well.
Last week, the mayor called a press conference announcing plans to build a college prep high school named after President Obama. The proposed site, which is near where the Cabrini Green Housing Projects once stood, is less than one mile from Walter Payton College Prep.
One can ask why yet another college prep high school is being built north of Roosevelt Road.
The placement of the school is yet another slap in the face to the city's African-American community.
Why can't a school named after the nation's first African-American president reside in the neighborhoods he represented in the state senate? Or nearby where he was a community organizer?
The moves the mayor is making can get people thinking about a term called disaster capitalism.
Disaster capitalism occurs when profits are generated based on the occurrence of a disaster.
Some might say that public housing, along with public education, has been an abject failure in our city. A colleague of mine went as far as to say that "The North Side gets college preps while the South Side gets charters."
Are all options exhausted when the mayor makes these decisions regarding the city?
"Boots on the ground" might be a term that most Chicagoans will have to get familiar with.
Some say the National Guard should get involved to quell the violence. That won't work. Just like the Shiites and Sunnis in the Middle East, the people here won't stop the violence because the military says so. How is a kid from downstate going to know the difference between a gangbanger and a law-abiding citizen? All the mistakes that the military made during Operation Iraqi Freedom will most likely be repeated if the National Guard is brought to Chicago.
After all, we've already seen how that turned out.
The problems the city is having are systemic in nature. These problems will not go away overnight.
Some say the lack of jobs is at the root of the violence. That is a plausible argument. For instance, look no further than the east side of the city where the steel mills once were. When an industry goes down, so does the neighborhood.
For that reason alone, Chicagoans should lay off the Detroit jokes. That might be us if we don't get our s--t together.
Substandard education, the lack of political power and minimal resources are other reasons people like to use when getting to the bottom of the city's problems. However, these conversations are starting to get redundant.
Remember, the city's citizens have had this conversation in the past when things were worst.
According to a 1998 article written in the Chicago Tribune:
"Since 1965, Chicago averaged 768 murders each year. In 1988, the number dropped to 660, but then rose steadily until it reached 940 in 1992, second only to the total in 1974, when 970 were slain. That 1992 figure was even more distressing because, in 1974, the population of the city was significantly larger."
Even though there were more murders way back when, the shootings these days get more attention because of the amount of children shot.
Especially ones from African-American communities.
According to a study done by the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago Research Center, during the years of 2000 to 2010, over 29,000 children and adolescents between the ages of 0 and 19, were killed by a firearm in the United States. The study goes on to say:
"For intentional non-fatal firearm injuries due to assault, black children and adolescents in Chicago are 21 times more likely than whites to be hospitalized and 15 times more likely to visit the ED. For unintentional non-fatal firearm injuries, black children and adolescents in Chicago are 23 times more likely than whites to be hospitalized and 19 times more likely to visit the ED."
Mayor Emanuel may have had all the best intentions when he participated in the docuseries Chicagoland . He knows what certain images can do. The show has scenes of African-Americans, from the teachers' union to community activists, yelling at him. The next scene shows the mayor hugging or a patting a kid on the head. One episode showed the mayor attending a basketball tournament in Auburn-Gresham. What the show left out was that the mayor was roundly booed.
The cherry-picking of images can lead someone to believe that a "white savior" complex is taking place on the show.
Although the CNN show does a good job of showing the effects of institutional racism, some still believe that isn't the problem.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, and several of his colleagues, seem to believe that racism no longer exists.
Chief Justice Roberts once said this about school segregation: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor used Chief Justice Roberts' words when she wrote her dissent expressing her disappointment in the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision last week: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination."
Justice Sotomayor's comments can be applied to what is going on in Chicago.
Racial discrimination is at the root of most of the city's problems. Detractors of that premise often say, "Why can't they get over it?"
In most cases, people haven't been allowed to do so.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1rPUUU0
via IFTTT
Former Illinois State Rep. Arrested On Child Porn Charges Is Released On House Arrest
A former Illinois state representative who allegedly bragged about sexually abusing a 6-year-old girl has been released from jail on home confinement, two days after he was charged with possessing child pornography.
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Keith Farnham to pay a $4,500 bond and remain on house arrest with an electronic monitoring bracelet, WGN reports.
He has not yet entered a plea, according to to ABC Chicago.
The former Democratic state representative from Elgin, Ill. is also prohibited from using the Internet or having any contact with anyone under the age of 18. The Tribune reports that Farnham's wife, who did not appear in court Wednesday, is responsible for alerting the court if he violates his bond restrictions.
The 66-year-old abruptly resigned his seat on March 19 due to what he claimed were serious health issues; Farnham's attorney told WGN his client needs a lung transplant and is being treated for Hepatitis C.
Farnham's resignation came less than a week after federal agents removed several computers and electronic storage devices from his home and office while acting on a search warrant.
The FBI said the devices were later found to have "hundreds of [pornographic] images" on them, and a federal complaint alleges the former state representative used a phony email account to send and receive videos and images of children as young as six months old being sexually abused.
Federal prosecutors say Farnham was ultimately brought down when he emailed videos of young children being abused to an undercover Homeland Security investigator posing as a pedophile, the Sun-Times reports.
While Farnham has not been charged in relation to the alleged molestation of the 6-year-old girl he reportedly bragged about online, he faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of possessing child pornography.
Incidentally, two pieces of legislation Farnham co-sponsored last year were aimed at strengthening penalties for people convicted of possessing child pornography.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1nJtPSK
via IFTTT
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Keith Farnham to pay a $4,500 bond and remain on house arrest with an electronic monitoring bracelet, WGN reports.
He has not yet entered a plea, according to to ABC Chicago.
The former Democratic state representative from Elgin, Ill. is also prohibited from using the Internet or having any contact with anyone under the age of 18. The Tribune reports that Farnham's wife, who did not appear in court Wednesday, is responsible for alerting the court if he violates his bond restrictions.
The 66-year-old abruptly resigned his seat on March 19 due to what he claimed were serious health issues; Farnham's attorney told WGN his client needs a lung transplant and is being treated for Hepatitis C.
Farnham's resignation came less than a week after federal agents removed several computers and electronic storage devices from his home and office while acting on a search warrant.
The FBI said the devices were later found to have "hundreds of [pornographic] images" on them, and a federal complaint alleges the former state representative used a phony email account to send and receive videos and images of children as young as six months old being sexually abused.
Federal prosecutors say Farnham was ultimately brought down when he emailed videos of young children being abused to an undercover Homeland Security investigator posing as a pedophile, the Sun-Times reports.
While Farnham has not been charged in relation to the alleged molestation of the 6-year-old girl he reportedly bragged about online, he faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of possessing child pornography.
Incidentally, two pieces of legislation Farnham co-sponsored last year were aimed at strengthening penalties for people convicted of possessing child pornography.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1nJtPSK
via IFTTT
Chicago Approves Ban On Plastic Shopping Bags
Chicago has become the latest U.S. city to approve a ban on plastic shopping bags.
The City Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of a partial plastic bag ban in Chicago on Wednesday, the Chicago Tribune reports. The proposal was backed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and passed with a vote of 36-10.
The new ordinance will first go into effect in August 2015, when retailers occupying stores that are more than 10,000 square foot will no longer be allowed to offer plastic bags. The ban will be extended to smaller chain stores and franchises in August 2016, while small independent or non-franchise stores and restaurants will not be affected by the legislation.
Fines run between $300 and $500 each time the ordinance is violated.
Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno (1st), the ordinance's lead sponsor, said a yes vote for the bill was in the best interests of both the environment and the economy, DNAinfo Chicago reports.
Other aldermen didn't see it that way.
Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) opposed and voted against the ordinance because she was concerned about how the additional costs associated with providing paper bags -- which cost three times the amount of plastic -- may impact her efforts to attract a new grocery store tenant for an empty space in her South Side district, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
"Grocers are already reluctant to come to my community, and we’re gonna give them more reason by banning plastic bags," Hairston said Wednesday, the Sun-Times reports. "I’m tired of focusing on things that hurt people instead of helping people."
Some retail groups also fear the ban will impact the economy negatively.
"The city council has approved an ordinance that will raise the cost of doing business in Chicago and nothing for the environment," Tanya Triche, vice president and general counsel of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said in a statement reported by ABC Chicago. "Driving up expenses for retailers and forcing customers to pay more at the store while not helping the environment flies in the face of the city's goal to make Chicago one of the nation's greenest cities and support companies that have invested significantly in Chicago's neighborhoods."
Supporters of the ordinance estimate that 3.7 million plastic bags are used citywide daily and that between 3 and 5 percent of them become litter, getting stuck in drains and causing flooding, clogging landfills and jamming recycling machinery.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n3Oq1C
via IFTTT
The City Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of a partial plastic bag ban in Chicago on Wednesday, the Chicago Tribune reports. The proposal was backed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and passed with a vote of 36-10.
The new ordinance will first go into effect in August 2015, when retailers occupying stores that are more than 10,000 square foot will no longer be allowed to offer plastic bags. The ban will be extended to smaller chain stores and franchises in August 2016, while small independent or non-franchise stores and restaurants will not be affected by the legislation.
Fines run between $300 and $500 each time the ordinance is violated.
Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno (1st), the ordinance's lead sponsor, said a yes vote for the bill was in the best interests of both the environment and the economy, DNAinfo Chicago reports.
Other aldermen didn't see it that way.
Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) opposed and voted against the ordinance because she was concerned about how the additional costs associated with providing paper bags -- which cost three times the amount of plastic -- may impact her efforts to attract a new grocery store tenant for an empty space in her South Side district, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
"Grocers are already reluctant to come to my community, and we’re gonna give them more reason by banning plastic bags," Hairston said Wednesday, the Sun-Times reports. "I’m tired of focusing on things that hurt people instead of helping people."
Some retail groups also fear the ban will impact the economy negatively.
"The city council has approved an ordinance that will raise the cost of doing business in Chicago and nothing for the environment," Tanya Triche, vice president and general counsel of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said in a statement reported by ABC Chicago. "Driving up expenses for retailers and forcing customers to pay more at the store while not helping the environment flies in the face of the city's goal to make Chicago one of the nation's greenest cities and support companies that have invested significantly in Chicago's neighborhoods."
Supporters of the ordinance estimate that 3.7 million plastic bags are used citywide daily and that between 3 and 5 percent of them become litter, getting stuck in drains and causing flooding, clogging landfills and jamming recycling machinery.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n3Oq1C
via IFTTT
Chicago, NYC, LA and San Francisco Implementing New E-Cigarette Laws
Residents in Chicago can breathe a little easier. Effective April 29, 2014, E-cigarettes have been added to the Chicago Clean Indoor Air Act. Smoking an e-cigarette is no longer allowed in areas where smoking is banned.
Under the leadership of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago was the first of the 20 largest U.S. cities to propose legislation to include e-cigarettes in their clean indoor air law. Following Chicago's lead, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco also introduced and subsequently passed, legislation to add e-cigarettes to their smoke-free laws. All of these cities implemented their laws together -- in April 2014.
It is unprecedented for the three largest cities in the U.S. -- New York, Los Angeles and Chicago -- to implement an important new health law at the same time. Substantial support and technical assistance was also provided by Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the Big Cities Health Coalition, the National Association of City and County Health Officials and of course, our colleagues in other cities.
As of April 2014, a total of 172 jurisdictions have now passed similar laws. Across the country, that number represents more than 38 million residents and hundreds of millions of tourists and visitors being protected by these laws. These numbers continue to increase each week as more cities and towns take action.
Not allowing e-cigarettes to be used indoors is a smart move for cities and towns that want to preserve the health of their community. Laboratory tests have found that the so-called "water vapor" from some e-cigarettes can contain nicotine, benzene, toluene, nickel arsenic, carbon, formaldehyde, acrolein and carcinogens that are only derived from tobacco. Until more is known about these products, limiting their use in indoor areas is just good common sense.
Adding e-cigarettes to smoke-free laws is also practical. People who want to smoke e-cigarettes can continue to do so in the same places where regular cigarettes are smoked, while everyone else can continue to breathe clean air wherever they work, learn and play.
In addition to ensuring everyone has the right to breathe clean indoor air, smoke-free laws create an environment that encourages smokers to quit and discourages kids from ever picking up a nicotine addiction. Legislation to include e-cigarettes in Chicago's smoke-free law will preserve these benefits at a time that e-cigarettes are exploding in popularity among kids.
Use of e-cigarettes among youth has doubled between 2011 and 2012. A rapidly growing body of evidence suggests these new devices could be acting as a "starter kit" for youth -- leading a new generation into a lifetime of nicotine addiction and increased use of traditional cigarettes, which would reverse decades of progress. As the New York Times reported last week, the e-liquids behind e-cigarettes are "powerful neurotoxins... [that] can cause vomiting and seizures and even be lethal."
Even with this new evidence, manufacturers are allowed to market these products directly to youth. While traditional cigarette manufacturers can no longer sponsor auto racing or other events, e-cigarette makers can. Even worse, e-cigarettes come in dozens of flavors that are attractive for our children, like cotton candy, bubble gum, gummy bear and Atomic Fireball.
Last week, the FDA finally proposed new rules regulating e-cigarettes for the first time. This is a step in the right direction, but the proposals will likely be tied up in reviews and possible litigation for months or longer before they will be enacted. And they don't go as far as they should. There are no restrictions on advertisements to youth and no restrictions on the flavors they peddle. Fifty years ago, the Surgeon General issued a landmark report connecting traditional cigarettes to lung cancer -- but it still took decades until Washington passed the necessary laws to protect our children from these products.
We all know it takes a long time to get things done in Washington, D.C. and here in Chicago we aren't waiting. That is why we have been proactive and taken every measure we can to protect our children from the grips of big tobacco and their more modern companion, e-cigarettes.
Under Mayor Emanuel's leadership, Chicago acted, creating innovative policies to protect kids from e-cigarettes. For example, in addition to added e-cigarettes to our smoke-free law, Chicago has moved e-cigarettes behind store counters, out of the reach of kids. Retailers will be required to have a tobacco license. If a retailer in Chicago is caught selling e-cigarettes to children, they will be fined and can have their license revoked. And, uniquely, Chicago is currently the only jurisdiction in the U.S. that has passed legislation to restrict the sale of flavored e-cigarettes within 500 feet of schools.
Chicago is using every possible strategy to help keep our young people tobacco free -- and that effort is paying off. After several years of stagnation in the fight against tobacco, we're starting to see progress again here in Chicago. In 2013, only 10.7 percent of Chicago high school students reported smoking within 30 days -- a historic low, down from 13.6 percent just two years ago. But local jurisdictions can only do so much. The FDA must also do its part, not only by prohibiting sales to kids nationwide but also restricting advertising to youth. This is why Mayor Emanuel has called on the FDA to act with a sense of urgency. The health of our children depends on it.
But in Chicago we don't wait for others to act. We lead. In 2000, one-quarter of all CPS high school students smoked. Today, that number is just above 10 percent. That's leadership. That's Chicago. Today is no exception.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n3OnmE
via IFTTT
Under the leadership of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago was the first of the 20 largest U.S. cities to propose legislation to include e-cigarettes in their clean indoor air law. Following Chicago's lead, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco also introduced and subsequently passed, legislation to add e-cigarettes to their smoke-free laws. All of these cities implemented their laws together -- in April 2014.
It is unprecedented for the three largest cities in the U.S. -- New York, Los Angeles and Chicago -- to implement an important new health law at the same time. Substantial support and technical assistance was also provided by Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the Big Cities Health Coalition, the National Association of City and County Health Officials and of course, our colleagues in other cities.
As of April 2014, a total of 172 jurisdictions have now passed similar laws. Across the country, that number represents more than 38 million residents and hundreds of millions of tourists and visitors being protected by these laws. These numbers continue to increase each week as more cities and towns take action.
Not allowing e-cigarettes to be used indoors is a smart move for cities and towns that want to preserve the health of their community. Laboratory tests have found that the so-called "water vapor" from some e-cigarettes can contain nicotine, benzene, toluene, nickel arsenic, carbon, formaldehyde, acrolein and carcinogens that are only derived from tobacco. Until more is known about these products, limiting their use in indoor areas is just good common sense.
Adding e-cigarettes to smoke-free laws is also practical. People who want to smoke e-cigarettes can continue to do so in the same places where regular cigarettes are smoked, while everyone else can continue to breathe clean air wherever they work, learn and play.
In addition to ensuring everyone has the right to breathe clean indoor air, smoke-free laws create an environment that encourages smokers to quit and discourages kids from ever picking up a nicotine addiction. Legislation to include e-cigarettes in Chicago's smoke-free law will preserve these benefits at a time that e-cigarettes are exploding in popularity among kids.
Use of e-cigarettes among youth has doubled between 2011 and 2012. A rapidly growing body of evidence suggests these new devices could be acting as a "starter kit" for youth -- leading a new generation into a lifetime of nicotine addiction and increased use of traditional cigarettes, which would reverse decades of progress. As the New York Times reported last week, the e-liquids behind e-cigarettes are "powerful neurotoxins... [that] can cause vomiting and seizures and even be lethal."
Even with this new evidence, manufacturers are allowed to market these products directly to youth. While traditional cigarette manufacturers can no longer sponsor auto racing or other events, e-cigarette makers can. Even worse, e-cigarettes come in dozens of flavors that are attractive for our children, like cotton candy, bubble gum, gummy bear and Atomic Fireball.
Last week, the FDA finally proposed new rules regulating e-cigarettes for the first time. This is a step in the right direction, but the proposals will likely be tied up in reviews and possible litigation for months or longer before they will be enacted. And they don't go as far as they should. There are no restrictions on advertisements to youth and no restrictions on the flavors they peddle. Fifty years ago, the Surgeon General issued a landmark report connecting traditional cigarettes to lung cancer -- but it still took decades until Washington passed the necessary laws to protect our children from these products.
We all know it takes a long time to get things done in Washington, D.C. and here in Chicago we aren't waiting. That is why we have been proactive and taken every measure we can to protect our children from the grips of big tobacco and their more modern companion, e-cigarettes.
Under Mayor Emanuel's leadership, Chicago acted, creating innovative policies to protect kids from e-cigarettes. For example, in addition to added e-cigarettes to our smoke-free law, Chicago has moved e-cigarettes behind store counters, out of the reach of kids. Retailers will be required to have a tobacco license. If a retailer in Chicago is caught selling e-cigarettes to children, they will be fined and can have their license revoked. And, uniquely, Chicago is currently the only jurisdiction in the U.S. that has passed legislation to restrict the sale of flavored e-cigarettes within 500 feet of schools.
Chicago is using every possible strategy to help keep our young people tobacco free -- and that effort is paying off. After several years of stagnation in the fight against tobacco, we're starting to see progress again here in Chicago. In 2013, only 10.7 percent of Chicago high school students reported smoking within 30 days -- a historic low, down from 13.6 percent just two years ago. But local jurisdictions can only do so much. The FDA must also do its part, not only by prohibiting sales to kids nationwide but also restricting advertising to youth. This is why Mayor Emanuel has called on the FDA to act with a sense of urgency. The health of our children depends on it.
But in Chicago we don't wait for others to act. We lead. In 2000, one-quarter of all CPS high school students smoked. Today, that number is just above 10 percent. That's leadership. That's Chicago. Today is no exception.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n3OnmE
via IFTTT
Let The Men Of Online Dating Show You How To Really Woo A Woman
Courtship in cyberspace demands more than compelling emojis and a self-proclaimed "passion for gourmet cooking." Internet dating is a delicate art of seduction that requires strategy, timing, and not being a "creep."
How does a Nice Guy expect to navigate these choppy waters and stand out among the sea of Internet weirdos, anyway? Don't worry -- we've got some tips.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1hXgVJ1
via IFTTT
How does a Nice Guy expect to navigate these choppy waters and stand out among the sea of Internet weirdos, anyway? Don't worry -- we've got some tips.
First, if you want a quality lady, know you have to put in some effort.
You can't be scared to tell her that you think she's special.
And that you'd like to spend time getting to know her.
Wishy-washy gents finish last, so let her know exactly what you're looking for.
Even if your needs are a bit... unusual.
Never hesitate to assert yourself.
Because every woman likes a straight shooter.
After all, confidence is key.
But remember -- a good relationship is rooted in common interests.
So make sure to ask her about herself, too.
Even a simple question can give you amazing insight into her personality.
Or just start off with something more open-ended.
When in doubt, compliment her best assets.
And learn how to showcase your own.
Open up, and tell her what makes you special.
Let your sense of humor shine through!
Don't worry about trying to write the "perfect" message -- just be yourself.
Vulnerability can be a turn-on.
Describing precisely why she caught your eye can show off your romantic side, too.
If you're after a brainy girl, show her you value her intellect.
Or cater to her '90s nostalgia.
In a pinch, just appeal to her most basic animal instincts.
Don't keep your passion a secret, let her know you’d go to the ends of the Earth for her.
Like, literally the ends of the Earth.
Or forgo the drama, and just ask her out already!
Remember, rejection is inevitable in the online dating game. Learn to handle it with grace.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1hXgVJ1
via IFTTT
The Onion Is Tired Of Click Bait, And What They're Doing Next Will Explain Everything
For those tired of skewering the annoyingly successful formulas of listicles and feel-good cliffhanger headlines -- perfected by Buzzfeed and Upworthy, respectively -- it's okay. The Onion plans to take over the heavy lifting with a new site designed to intentionally satirize viral "clickbait."
On Tuesday, The Onion announced the upcoming launch of "Clickhole", a website "putting content and sponsored posts side by side, with barely any distinction between them," the New York Business Journal reports. The site is scheduled to launch in June.
"People will climb into this click hole and find content so interesting they won't be able to keep it to themselves," said "Jim Haggerty," the Onion News Network host played by journalist-actor Brad Holbrook, according to the Journal. "Every post is engineered to be as shareable as possible, so it spreads like a deadly wildfire on social media."
With readers unable to resist stories that will melt your heart (much of it stuff that they'll never believe, but definitely stories only people interested in life-changing news will understand), Gawker notes Clickhole posts will include:
All joking aside, The Onion's move to encroach on the turf of successful viral content creators comes just months after the comedy site ended its print run nationwide.
(And yes, we fully expect Clickhole to come after us too, particularly for headlines like this).
Though Clickhole won't go live until June, the preview site has a feature to help readers prime their trigger finger. Ready. Set. Click!
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1fyXj3j
via IFTTT
On Tuesday, The Onion announced the upcoming launch of "Clickhole", a website "putting content and sponsored posts side by side, with barely any distinction between them," the New York Business Journal reports. The site is scheduled to launch in June.
"People will climb into this click hole and find content so interesting they won't be able to keep it to themselves," said "Jim Haggerty," the Onion News Network host played by journalist-actor Brad Holbrook, according to the Journal. "Every post is engineered to be as shareable as possible, so it spreads like a deadly wildfire on social media."
With readers unable to resist stories that will melt your heart (much of it stuff that they'll never believe, but definitely stories only people interested in life-changing news will understand), Gawker notes Clickhole posts will include:
- Quizzes like "Which pizza should I have for dinner tonight? (presented by Pizza Hut)"
- Uplifting personal tales in list forms: "Seven pricks that defied the odds and didn't go into finance."
- The aww factor: A video titled "What this adorable little girl says will melt your heart." (It's actually a cogent explanation of how brands monetize adorable little kids, as spoken by an adorable little kid.)
- And finally, photo slide shows with no words: "Six kinds of hay."
All joking aside, The Onion's move to encroach on the turf of successful viral content creators comes just months after the comedy site ended its print run nationwide.
(And yes, we fully expect Clickhole to come after us too, particularly for headlines like this).
Though Clickhole won't go live until June, the preview site has a feature to help readers prime their trigger finger. Ready. Set. Click!
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1fyXj3j
via IFTTT
Chicago Bulls Face Important Offseason Decisions
It wasn't long ago that the Chicago Bulls were poised to be the challengers to the big, bad Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference. It was a natural rivalry full of star power. The Bulls had one of the game's most devastating young players in homegrown MVP Derrick Rose, flanked by a terrific two-way wing in Luol Deng and rising stud at center in Joakim Noah. They had a mastermind head coach in Tom Thibodeau, a defensive guru who played a key role in Boston's championship run under Doc Rivers. But that was three years ago -- before Rose had two catastrophic knee operations and sat out the entire 2013 playoffs, and before Deng was traded.
There comes a time in the NBA when you need to move on. Start over. Cut your losses. And for the Bulls, that time has come. After its second premature postseason defeat in a row (last year's team beat Brooklyn in the first round), the payroll remains bloated with Carlos Boozer's albatross of a deal (he will make $16.8 million next season), and with Rose, who will make more than $60 million over the next three years. While Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf still has his amnesty clause available, he has appeared hesitant to invoke it and send Boozer somewhere else.
Very few coaches, if any, could have kept a team afloat as Thibodeau has without Rose. But there's still a strong chance he will not be retained. While Thibodeau has another two years on his deal, both he and the players may be in need of a change. And plenty of other franchises would be interested in Thibodeau, who remains one of the most respected coaches in the league.
Perhaps the most challenging question for Chicago's front office is whether or not to keep Rose. Are his health concerns too serious? Coming back from a torn ACL is certainly doable, but for a player like Rose -- who relies so greatly on his explosion, torque and powerful leaping ability -- there's good reason to think he will never again be the dynamic talent he once was. Is this roster good enough to survive if Rose proves to be a different kind of player once he returns?
Here's one way to think about it: There are two immovable players. One of them is Noah. The other is third-year man Jimmy Butler, who will likely get a contract extension this summer. Both are superb defensive weapons -- Noah is an elite big man passer, and was just named the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year -- and both have yet to play their best basketball, since Butler is just 24 and Noah is 29. Chicago can even trade Rose for young assets or draft picks. Both of the next two drafts appear loaded with star talent. Rose will be 26 when the 2014-15 season begins, and even if he doesn't come back playing at the height of his powers, he should still command a high pick.
Another viable option is to pursue New York Knicks free agent Carmelo Anthony. While it would take some creative financial moves -- perhaps shedding Boozer's contract -- it is certainly possible, especially with Rose as a selling point to be Melo's point guard of the future. The salary cap is expected to increase by $5 million next season, bringing it to a total $63 million (and the luxury tax to $77 million), which will provide more flexibility. Anthony's presence would instantly change Chicago's long-term fate. It's extremely difficult to acquire a superstar in his prime, and to have two, along with Noah and sound ancillary components Butler and Taj Gibson, would be lethal.
The NBA is not a league that rewards teams for being stuck in the middle. It's best to be either a front-runner or in total rebuilding mode. Since the former isn't an option right now and we don't know whether signing Anthony is actually feasible, rebuilding might be the best way to go. It worked for once-lowly Washington (drafted John Wall and Bradley Beal), Golden State (drafted Stephen Curry) and even Portland (drafted Damian Lillard). Chicago has two first-round picks currently projected at Nos. 16 and 19. The Bulls have been able to remain afloat despite Rose's injuries, but now is the time to decide where this franchise is going to go in the next several years.
Email me at jordan.schultz@huffingtonpost.com or ask me questions about anything sports-related at @Schultz_Report and follow me on Instagram @Schultz_Report. Also, be sure and catch my NBC Sports Radio show "Kup and Schultz," which airs Sunday mornings from 9 to 12 EST, right here.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1o41gNa
via IFTTT
There comes a time in the NBA when you need to move on. Start over. Cut your losses. And for the Bulls, that time has come. After its second premature postseason defeat in a row (last year's team beat Brooklyn in the first round), the payroll remains bloated with Carlos Boozer's albatross of a deal (he will make $16.8 million next season), and with Rose, who will make more than $60 million over the next three years. While Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf still has his amnesty clause available, he has appeared hesitant to invoke it and send Boozer somewhere else.
Very few coaches, if any, could have kept a team afloat as Thibodeau has without Rose. But there's still a strong chance he will not be retained. While Thibodeau has another two years on his deal, both he and the players may be in need of a change. And plenty of other franchises would be interested in Thibodeau, who remains one of the most respected coaches in the league.
Perhaps the most challenging question for Chicago's front office is whether or not to keep Rose. Are his health concerns too serious? Coming back from a torn ACL is certainly doable, but for a player like Rose -- who relies so greatly on his explosion, torque and powerful leaping ability -- there's good reason to think he will never again be the dynamic talent he once was. Is this roster good enough to survive if Rose proves to be a different kind of player once he returns?
Here's one way to think about it: There are two immovable players. One of them is Noah. The other is third-year man Jimmy Butler, who will likely get a contract extension this summer. Both are superb defensive weapons -- Noah is an elite big man passer, and was just named the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year -- and both have yet to play their best basketball, since Butler is just 24 and Noah is 29. Chicago can even trade Rose for young assets or draft picks. Both of the next two drafts appear loaded with star talent. Rose will be 26 when the 2014-15 season begins, and even if he doesn't come back playing at the height of his powers, he should still command a high pick.
Another viable option is to pursue New York Knicks free agent Carmelo Anthony. While it would take some creative financial moves -- perhaps shedding Boozer's contract -- it is certainly possible, especially with Rose as a selling point to be Melo's point guard of the future. The salary cap is expected to increase by $5 million next season, bringing it to a total $63 million (and the luxury tax to $77 million), which will provide more flexibility. Anthony's presence would instantly change Chicago's long-term fate. It's extremely difficult to acquire a superstar in his prime, and to have two, along with Noah and sound ancillary components Butler and Taj Gibson, would be lethal.
The NBA is not a league that rewards teams for being stuck in the middle. It's best to be either a front-runner or in total rebuilding mode. Since the former isn't an option right now and we don't know whether signing Anthony is actually feasible, rebuilding might be the best way to go. It worked for once-lowly Washington (drafted John Wall and Bradley Beal), Golden State (drafted Stephen Curry) and even Portland (drafted Damian Lillard). Chicago has two first-round picks currently projected at Nos. 16 and 19. The Bulls have been able to remain afloat despite Rose's injuries, but now is the time to decide where this franchise is going to go in the next several years.
Email me at jordan.schultz@huffingtonpost.com or ask me questions about anything sports-related at @Schultz_Report and follow me on Instagram @Schultz_Report. Also, be sure and catch my NBC Sports Radio show "Kup and Schultz," which airs Sunday mornings from 9 to 12 EST, right here.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1o41gNa
via IFTTT
Half Of The Residents In These 2 States Wish They Lived Somewhere Else
Would you relocate if you had the choice?
A new Gallup report shows that residents in some states are more apt to leave than others, with the most residents in Illinois and California saying that they would move if they could.
Meanwhile, Montana, Hawaii and Maine had the fewest residents who said they would leave their states if they could. Not surprisingly, residents in Montana were also the most likely to say that their state is the "best or one of the best possible states to live" in another recent Gallup survey.
Overall, about one in three people in the Gallup survey said they would want to move out of their state.
The findings are based on interviews with at least 600 adults in each of the 50 states. The participants were asked, "Regardless of whether you will move, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move to another state, or would you rather remain in your current state?"
As for whether people were actually planning to move, the most people in Nevada -- 20 percent -- said that they were extremely, very or somewhat likely to move within 12 months, followed by 19 percent of people in Illinois and Arizona each, and 17 percent of people in Maryland, Louisiana, Idaho and South Carolina, each.
Meanwhile, the fewest residents in Maine, Iowa and Vermont -- 8 percent -- said that they were extremely, very, or somewhat likely to move within 12 months.
Overall, the biggest reasons people gave for wanting to move were work or business (31 percent), family/social reasons (19 percent), weather/location (11 percent), and seeking improved quality of life or a change (9 percent).
So which residents are happiest with where they're living now, and who would leave if they only had the chance? Check out the findings from Gallup below:
The states with the most residents who said they would move if they could:
1. Illinois - 50 percent
2. Connecticut - 49 percent
3. Maryland - 47 percent
4. Nevada - 43 percent
5. Rhode Island - 42 percent
6. New Jersey - 41 percent
6. New York - 41 percent
6. Massachusetts - 41 percent
9. Louisiana - 40 percent
10. Mississippi - 39 percent
The states with the fewest residents who said they would move if they could:
1. Montana - 23 percent
1. Hawaii - 23 percent
1. Maine - 23 percent
4. Oregon - 24 percent
4. New Hampshire - 24 percent
4. Texas - 24 percent
7. Colorado - 25 percent
7. Minnesota - 25 percent
9. South Dakota - 26 percent
10. Wyoming - 27 percent
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n30UXv
via IFTTT
A new Gallup report shows that residents in some states are more apt to leave than others, with the most residents in Illinois and California saying that they would move if they could.
Meanwhile, Montana, Hawaii and Maine had the fewest residents who said they would leave their states if they could. Not surprisingly, residents in Montana were also the most likely to say that their state is the "best or one of the best possible states to live" in another recent Gallup survey.
Overall, about one in three people in the Gallup survey said they would want to move out of their state.
The findings are based on interviews with at least 600 adults in each of the 50 states. The participants were asked, "Regardless of whether you will move, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move to another state, or would you rather remain in your current state?"
As for whether people were actually planning to move, the most people in Nevada -- 20 percent -- said that they were extremely, very or somewhat likely to move within 12 months, followed by 19 percent of people in Illinois and Arizona each, and 17 percent of people in Maryland, Louisiana, Idaho and South Carolina, each.
Meanwhile, the fewest residents in Maine, Iowa and Vermont -- 8 percent -- said that they were extremely, very, or somewhat likely to move within 12 months.
Overall, the biggest reasons people gave for wanting to move were work or business (31 percent), family/social reasons (19 percent), weather/location (11 percent), and seeking improved quality of life or a change (9 percent).
So which residents are happiest with where they're living now, and who would leave if they only had the chance? Check out the findings from Gallup below:
The states with the most residents who said they would move if they could:
1. Illinois - 50 percent
2. Connecticut - 49 percent
3. Maryland - 47 percent
4. Nevada - 43 percent
5. Rhode Island - 42 percent
6. New Jersey - 41 percent
6. New York - 41 percent
6. Massachusetts - 41 percent
9. Louisiana - 40 percent
10. Mississippi - 39 percent
The states with the fewest residents who said they would move if they could:
1. Montana - 23 percent
1. Hawaii - 23 percent
1. Maine - 23 percent
4. Oregon - 24 percent
4. New Hampshire - 24 percent
4. Texas - 24 percent
7. Colorado - 25 percent
7. Minnesota - 25 percent
9. South Dakota - 26 percent
10. Wyoming - 27 percent
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n30UXv
via IFTTT
Chicago Bulls Mascot Holds Up Sign Mocking Donald Sterling
Benny the Bull, the mascot of the Chicago Bulls, took a shot at Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling during Game 5 against the Washington Wizards at the United Center on Tuesday. Hours after NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced a lifetime ban for the Los Angeles Clippers owner for his racist comments heard in recordings released by TMZ and Deadspin, Benny held up a sign that let the crowd know he feels color-blind love from Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1meerP0
via IFTTT
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1meerP0
via IFTTT
7 Reasons Your Body Wants You To Plan A Beach Trip Right Now
Ah, the beach. Is there anything better? There's just no place quite as relaxing, beautiful or pleasant, and no place that combines the simple pleasures of unplugging and enjoying nature in our otherwise tech-heavy and work-driven realities. The beach helps us recharge -- and we need to be making A LOT more use of it.
We know most jobs already offer vacation time, but considering these specific health benefits of the beach, maybe it's time they carved out days for their employees to spend in the sun and sand.
Sunshine is a great source of vitamin D.
Sure, that milk your drinking is fortified with vitamin D, but the truth is most people get 80 to 90 percent of their daily dose from sun exposure. According to information provided by the Harvard Medical School, the most natural and substantial source of the vitamin depends on how much UVB light gets through to you. That light reacts with a cholesterol-related compound and metabolizes into vitamin D, which is essential for bone health, creates healthy skin and may even help improve mental health.
The sun's role in both health-promoting vitamin D and in the sun damage that can lead to skin cancer makes things confusing. Since sunscreens block the vital UVB rays needed for Vitamin D production within the body, most doctors advocate "responsible sun exposure" to get what you need. About 10 to 15 minutes of unprotected sun exposure does the trick for most people, after which protection in the form of a sunblock with 30 SPF or higher (along with additional preemptive measures) is essential for the skin's longterm health. That said, everyone's needs are different and it's best to talk to your doctor about a sun plan that best benefits you.
Sand is a natural exfoliant.
Do you ever wonder why it feels so good to walk on sand? It's because there are somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 nerve endings in each foot that awaken when you walk across those tiny grains. Wet sand acts as a natural exfoliant and peels off dead skin cells from your feet (and really, anywhere else on your body), leaving them renewed and much softer.
To take full advantage of sand's rejuvenating qualities, take a walk near the water where the sand is "looser" and can wash over your feet. If you're thinking exfoliation is a luxury and not a health essential, think again. Your skin sheds about 50,000 skin cells every minute and sometimes they stay attached to your body, which can cause your pores to clog and lead to blackhead and acne. Exfoliation keeps the skin clean, healthy and rejuvenated.
So, what are you waiting for? Take a walk on the beach, if only to get rid of all those dead skin cells. Actually, you'll probably want to just start rolling around in wet sand at this point.
It could help rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better.
The minerals in the ocean could help reduce symptoms for those with rheumatoid arthritis. According to a study, patients who used bath salts made from Dead Sea minerals also experienced fewer symptoms, like morning stiffness and trouble with hand gripping. You know what else can help relieve symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis? Getting enough vitamin D, that's right.
Also, sunlight has been shown to decrease depression.
Common sense would tell us that people tend to be happier in the warmer months and less so in the gloomier months, but it's been scientifically proven that sunshine can make us happier. A study conducted by the Baker Heart Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia found that the amount of sunlight participants' received directly affected their mood. The team also noticed that with increased sunlight exposure, their levels of serotonin increased, having a positive effect on factors such as stress, sleep and appetite.
Now, we're not claiming that a lack of beach outings in your life will lead to symptoms of depression. However, as with the previous points, the beach has got a lot of what your body needs, all in one beautiful place.
In the study's own words: "More sunlight meant better moods; less sunlight lead to symptoms of depression."
Seawater preserves elasticity of skin.
The ocean is full of anti-aging minerals that can counter the decline of your skin's elasticity among other things... this is great, great news!
As we grow older, our skin, as well as other things, tends to lose its tightness and suppleness. And while some people will do almost anything to look young, what we're recommending is far less invasive and expensive. Treating your body to a little bit of saltwater every now and again will obviously not have the same dramatic effect as cosmetic intervention, but it can aid in the process of keeping everything a little bit tighter.
A day at the beach gets you moving without even trying.
We're chalking this one up to probability more than scientific fact, simply because going to the beach usually involves some sort of physical activity, right? Whether you're swimming, jogging, surfing, playing soccer or beach volleyball or simply walking through the sand to find a nice spot to lay out, rare is the day when you go to the beach and do absolutely no exercise. Walking on the beach is already a better workout than walking on concrete, "walking on sand requires 1.6-2.5 times more mechanical work than does walking on a hard surface at the same speed."
Plus, it's not like you're just sitting pretty when engaging in some of these activities -- you're burning major calories by just going for a swim, for example. A leisurely swim can burn about 200 calories. Surfing? Just over 100. Frisbee? About the same. And beach volleyball is nearly 300. So ditch the gym -- the beach is your new fitness friend.
And with a much, much prettier view.
And perhaps most importantly, the beach decreases your stress level by helping you unplug.
Unplugging is good for the mind, body and soul. According to a study from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, staying constantly plugged in has been associated with stress, loss of sleep and depression.. Let go of the tablets and smartphones and allow yourself a technology-free escape to this oasis every once in a while to help you re-center. Seriously, don't even try to bring your devices to the beach -- as everyone knows, sand gets everywhere.
A study conducted by the University of Exeter took it a step further and found that simply living near the beach can also be beneficial to your health and well-being. They took into account people's proximity to the beach and their self-reported health to conclude that living seaside may actually result in better health.
A short walk (on the beach, or anywhere else) is also known to decrease stress and help you reset. So, if you'd really like to feel at ease, unplug AND go for a leisurely walk on the beach -- you've just treated yourself to the ultimate de-stressing combination.
The beach is a magical place that can recharge you and help you stay fit physically, mentally and spiritually. For those reasons, we conclude that beach visits are seriously healthy, not to mention pretty pleasant. Just remember to wear your sunscreen.
All images Getty
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1meerOM
via IFTTT
We know most jobs already offer vacation time, but considering these specific health benefits of the beach, maybe it's time they carved out days for their employees to spend in the sun and sand.
Sunshine is a great source of vitamin D.
Sure, that milk your drinking is fortified with vitamin D, but the truth is most people get 80 to 90 percent of their daily dose from sun exposure. According to information provided by the Harvard Medical School, the most natural and substantial source of the vitamin depends on how much UVB light gets through to you. That light reacts with a cholesterol-related compound and metabolizes into vitamin D, which is essential for bone health, creates healthy skin and may even help improve mental health.
The sun's role in both health-promoting vitamin D and in the sun damage that can lead to skin cancer makes things confusing. Since sunscreens block the vital UVB rays needed for Vitamin D production within the body, most doctors advocate "responsible sun exposure" to get what you need. About 10 to 15 minutes of unprotected sun exposure does the trick for most people, after which protection in the form of a sunblock with 30 SPF or higher (along with additional preemptive measures) is essential for the skin's longterm health. That said, everyone's needs are different and it's best to talk to your doctor about a sun plan that best benefits you.
Sand is a natural exfoliant.
Do you ever wonder why it feels so good to walk on sand? It's because there are somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 nerve endings in each foot that awaken when you walk across those tiny grains. Wet sand acts as a natural exfoliant and peels off dead skin cells from your feet (and really, anywhere else on your body), leaving them renewed and much softer.
To take full advantage of sand's rejuvenating qualities, take a walk near the water where the sand is "looser" and can wash over your feet. If you're thinking exfoliation is a luxury and not a health essential, think again. Your skin sheds about 50,000 skin cells every minute and sometimes they stay attached to your body, which can cause your pores to clog and lead to blackhead and acne. Exfoliation keeps the skin clean, healthy and rejuvenated.
So, what are you waiting for? Take a walk on the beach, if only to get rid of all those dead skin cells. Actually, you'll probably want to just start rolling around in wet sand at this point.
It could help rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better.
The minerals in the ocean could help reduce symptoms for those with rheumatoid arthritis. According to a study, patients who used bath salts made from Dead Sea minerals also experienced fewer symptoms, like morning stiffness and trouble with hand gripping. You know what else can help relieve symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis? Getting enough vitamin D, that's right.
Also, sunlight has been shown to decrease depression.
Common sense would tell us that people tend to be happier in the warmer months and less so in the gloomier months, but it's been scientifically proven that sunshine can make us happier. A study conducted by the Baker Heart Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia found that the amount of sunlight participants' received directly affected their mood. The team also noticed that with increased sunlight exposure, their levels of serotonin increased, having a positive effect on factors such as stress, sleep and appetite.
Now, we're not claiming that a lack of beach outings in your life will lead to symptoms of depression. However, as with the previous points, the beach has got a lot of what your body needs, all in one beautiful place.
In the study's own words: "More sunlight meant better moods; less sunlight lead to symptoms of depression."
Seawater preserves elasticity of skin.
The ocean is full of anti-aging minerals that can counter the decline of your skin's elasticity among other things... this is great, great news!
As we grow older, our skin, as well as other things, tends to lose its tightness and suppleness. And while some people will do almost anything to look young, what we're recommending is far less invasive and expensive. Treating your body to a little bit of saltwater every now and again will obviously not have the same dramatic effect as cosmetic intervention, but it can aid in the process of keeping everything a little bit tighter.
A day at the beach gets you moving without even trying.
We're chalking this one up to probability more than scientific fact, simply because going to the beach usually involves some sort of physical activity, right? Whether you're swimming, jogging, surfing, playing soccer or beach volleyball or simply walking through the sand to find a nice spot to lay out, rare is the day when you go to the beach and do absolutely no exercise. Walking on the beach is already a better workout than walking on concrete, "walking on sand requires 1.6-2.5 times more mechanical work than does walking on a hard surface at the same speed."
Plus, it's not like you're just sitting pretty when engaging in some of these activities -- you're burning major calories by just going for a swim, for example. A leisurely swim can burn about 200 calories. Surfing? Just over 100. Frisbee? About the same. And beach volleyball is nearly 300. So ditch the gym -- the beach is your new fitness friend.
And with a much, much prettier view.
And perhaps most importantly, the beach decreases your stress level by helping you unplug.
Unplugging is good for the mind, body and soul. According to a study from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, staying constantly plugged in has been associated with stress, loss of sleep and depression.. Let go of the tablets and smartphones and allow yourself a technology-free escape to this oasis every once in a while to help you re-center. Seriously, don't even try to bring your devices to the beach -- as everyone knows, sand gets everywhere.
A study conducted by the University of Exeter took it a step further and found that simply living near the beach can also be beneficial to your health and well-being. They took into account people's proximity to the beach and their self-reported health to conclude that living seaside may actually result in better health.
A short walk (on the beach, or anywhere else) is also known to decrease stress and help you reset. So, if you'd really like to feel at ease, unplug AND go for a leisurely walk on the beach -- you've just treated yourself to the ultimate de-stressing combination.
The beach is a magical place that can recharge you and help you stay fit physically, mentally and spiritually. For those reasons, we conclude that beach visits are seriously healthy, not to mention pretty pleasant. Just remember to wear your sunscreen.
All images Getty
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1meerOM
via IFTTT
Albasini wins snow-affected Tour of Romandie stage
Albasini wins snow-affected Tour of Romandie stage; Kwiatkowski retains overall lead
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/R0jgNB
via IFTTT
from USATODAY.com Feed http://ift.tt/R0jgNB
via IFTTT
Wizards Twitter Account Trolls ESPN 'Experts' In The Best Way Possible (PHOTO)
After the Washington Wizards defeated the Chicago Bulls Tuesday night 75-69 to advance to the Eastern Conference semifinals, the team's twitter account slammed ESPN's "experts" with an ultimate burn.
The Wizards tweeted out a picture that shows 17 of 18 ESPN analysts who chose the Bulls to win. Well played.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1o3IJRn
via IFTTT
The Wizards tweeted out a picture that shows 17 of 18 ESPN analysts who chose the Bulls to win. Well played.
"experts" #dcRising http://ift.tt/R0YNIn
— Washington Wizards (@WashWizards) April 30, 2014 from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1o3IJRn
via IFTTT
Clayton Lockett's Botched Execution Is Sick And Depressing, But Not Surprising. Here's Why.
The execution of Clayton Lockett, a convicted murderer in Oklahoma, ended in distressing fashion Tuesday, when he was declared dead from a fatal heart attack a full 43 minutes after being administered the first injection in what was supposed to be a lethal three-drug cocktail.
Witnesses reported seeing Lockett breathing heavily, writhing on the gurney, clenching his teeth and struggling to lift his head and even speak during the ordeal. Officials with Oklahoma's Department of Corrections say the execution was complicated when Lockett's vein "exploded," which some have said suggests an improper injection -- not necessarily the drugs themselves -- was to blame for the botched process.
Reviewing a detailed account of someone's killing is never likely to be comfortable, but the sordid details of Lockett's execution are particularly difficult to read. While the cruel manner in which Lockett died is upsetting, it's sadly not surprising. As the New Republic reports, if the difficulty with the execution was caused by an improper injection, that wouldn't have been the first time.
During a 2006 execution in Ohio, an inmate took 86 minutes to die after attending medical staff had difficulty finding a vein. In a 2009 incident in Ohio, an EMT tried and failed 18 times to make a successful injection to administer the drugs. The inmate's execution was eventually postponed, and he is still alive today.
And those incidents took place when prisons had access to effective drugs. The companies that sell those compounds are now increasingly cutting off the supply of traditional lethal injection drugs over their opposition to capital punishment. Without them, states have been forced to innovate, sometimes to disastrous effect.
In January, Ohio executed convicted rapist and murderer Dennis McGuire by lethal injection, using a combination of untested drugs that took 25 minutes to kill him. The case led to backlash and concern among inmates and criminal justice proponents alike, both of whom fought for information into the source of the drugs, as well as their efficacy. But with states still showing a willingness to proceed with executions even when the process hasn't been thoroughly vetted or perfected, there was always a possibility that it could go horribly wrong again. The infographic below, which first appeared earlier this month before Lockett's execution, explains some of the reasons why:
Infographic by Jan Diehm for The Huffington Post.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1rOKVOS
via IFTTT
Witnesses reported seeing Lockett breathing heavily, writhing on the gurney, clenching his teeth and struggling to lift his head and even speak during the ordeal. Officials with Oklahoma's Department of Corrections say the execution was complicated when Lockett's vein "exploded," which some have said suggests an improper injection -- not necessarily the drugs themselves -- was to blame for the botched process.
Reviewing a detailed account of someone's killing is never likely to be comfortable, but the sordid details of Lockett's execution are particularly difficult to read. While the cruel manner in which Lockett died is upsetting, it's sadly not surprising. As the New Republic reports, if the difficulty with the execution was caused by an improper injection, that wouldn't have been the first time.
During a 2006 execution in Ohio, an inmate took 86 minutes to die after attending medical staff had difficulty finding a vein. In a 2009 incident in Ohio, an EMT tried and failed 18 times to make a successful injection to administer the drugs. The inmate's execution was eventually postponed, and he is still alive today.
And those incidents took place when prisons had access to effective drugs. The companies that sell those compounds are now increasingly cutting off the supply of traditional lethal injection drugs over their opposition to capital punishment. Without them, states have been forced to innovate, sometimes to disastrous effect.
In January, Ohio executed convicted rapist and murderer Dennis McGuire by lethal injection, using a combination of untested drugs that took 25 minutes to kill him. The case led to backlash and concern among inmates and criminal justice proponents alike, both of whom fought for information into the source of the drugs, as well as their efficacy. But with states still showing a willingness to proceed with executions even when the process hasn't been thoroughly vetted or perfected, there was always a possibility that it could go horribly wrong again. The infographic below, which first appeared earlier this month before Lockett's execution, explains some of the reasons why:
Infographic by Jan Diehm for The Huffington Post.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1rOKVOS
via IFTTT
5 Cops Busted Lying on the Stand: Just Another Day on the Front Lines
Recently in Chicago, a young man was charged and tried for felony possession with intent to deliver marijuana. During a suppression hearing, it became evident that the five officers had conducted an illegal search of the defendant's vehicle. All five officers systematically lied on the witness stand, claiming the defendant consented to the search. A video proved otherwise. The judge, a former prosecutor, admonished the officers and threw out the evidence against the defendant. The prosecutor dropped all charges against the defendant.
Let's face it -- as humans, we are imperfect. Some of us lie and cheat to make our personal or professional lives easier. Like anyone else, some police officers may also lie and cheat for similar reasons. The difference between a police officer and the rest of us is that we must answer to them while the police have authoritative power to act with impunity, under the color of the law.
When we discover that a police officer has lied, it raises serious questions and concerns. For every falsehood uncovered, how often does one go unnoticed? How often do a police officer's lies end up becoming damning evidence against a defendant? When the police lie, the integrity of our entire system of government comes into question.
I read about the case out of Chicago, and wondered what the reaction of an average person might be. Shock? Anger? Eye-rolling annoyance? In my work as a criminal defense attorney, I leave nearly every courtroom experience feeling that the police have lied or at least exaggerated the facts. My experience is not unique. This happens every single day in every single courtroom throughout the country. To make a case against a defendant, some police officers feel the need to stretch the truth to fit within the confines of the charging crime. The war on drugs, families and our constitution is compromised when police officers lie.
Lawyers challenge the integrity or truth of police officer testimony, as it relates to searches of persons and homes, before the judge and not the jury. The issue of illegal searches is a legal issue and not a factual issue. This means that at no time on behalf of my client can I argue in a jury trial that the police violated my client's constitutional right to be free from illegal searches, and therefore you should find him or her not guilty. That argument is going to be in front of a judge, if at all.
Despite the solemn judicial duty to be the final arbiters of constitutional protections, it could be political suicide to appear to be soft on crime or make rulings that the police officers lied or violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Almost every case that arises from an executed search warrant will ultimately be challenged in court, yet very few result in the finding of any violation or the exclusion or suppression of illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
This brings us to the case in Chicago. Five officers testified on the witness stand and lied under oath, concocting a story to avoid a finding that they had in fact violated the defendant's constitutional rights. But for a sole dash cam video these officers were unaware of, this would have been an average day in the criminal justice system.
The defendant's story would have been the typical story told in the war on drugs: The bad guy doper wants the judge to believe the police are lying. The doper must be the obvious liar because he was the one caught with drugs. He's found guilty of his felony charges.
Had it not been for the dash cam the officers meant to disable, the lies fabricated by all five police officers would have been accepted as the truth, and the defendant would likely be a felon, and another victim of the war on drugs, added to the growing and senseless list of American citizens.
Some readers may think: the defendant had the marijuana, so even if the officers lied about how they got it, he is still guilty of a crime. Those readers are missing a very important point. We entrust our police officers with great power and a shield of governmental immunity. While they have the power to search, seize, detain, arrest and use deadly force if necessary, they must do so under the strictest of guidelines.
With that in mind, consider the following: can a police officer pull you over and arrest you simply based on a hunch? No, not unless the officer observed a traffic violation or has reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed. What if an officer decided they didn't care about the law, pulled you over anyhow, handcuffed you, and then discovered you had a small bag of marijuana hidden in your right shoe? If the officer lied and said they effected the search and arrest within the confines of the law, you may very well end up with a criminal charge and conviction.
When the police abuse their authority by lying, it can lead to innocent people being charged with crimes they did not commit, or simply people being illegally searched and seized, resulting in charges they would not otherwise have.
For years the war on drugs has been waged based upon the truth, veracity and integrity of the law enforcement community. If a police officer doesn't have probable cause to search, they must obtain a search warrant. In order to get a search warrant, an affidavit must be presented to a neutral and detached magistrate. The magistrate is supposed to examine and read the affidavit, and determine if probable cause exists that a crime is occurring at that moment in time. If such a finding is made, the magistrate will sign the search warrant authorizing the government to execute a search warrant.
This finding of probable cause and the authorization to execute the search warrant is the tool used by the government to vitiate and circumvent the protections set forth in the Constitution of both the State of Michigan and the United States.
When officers lie, as in the Chicago case, the problems with the system of justice and the war on drugs is exponentially highlighted. How many times had the officers done this before? In order to have such a coordinated, if dishonest, performance, presumably this had not been the first time. How many other defendants, who also claimed the violation of their constitutional rights, challenged the officers' version of events before a judge but without a video, and were denied the relief they requested?
Without the video, how can one person prove that five seasoned and experienced officers of the law were lying? What judge would ever hear the testimony of five police officers repeating the same story five times over again, yet make a finding that the defendant with drugs in his car was more honest or credible than the officers? Without hard evidence to the contrary, like the miraculous dash cam in the Chicago case, it simply does not happen, ever.
What about the officers who do in fact get caught lying? One would think that for the integrity of the system, each jurisdiction would maintain a list of officers who behaved as such so that these constitutional atrocities cannot ever happen again. Yet no such list exists.
In the rare situations when an officer is found to have violated a defendant's constitutional rights, similar findings often seem to appear on the same day. It's not uncommon to learn later in the day of a similar ruling, with the same officer with an affidavit for a search warrant before the same magistrate who issued the previous search warrant erroneously. Notably missing is any note of the previous transgressions, leaving a fundamental lack of accountability.
The officers in the Chicago case were sent to desk duty. As far as we can tell, there has been no review of the officers' past cases. After some time passes, business will likely continue as usual.
Like many other people, some police officers lie on the job. The difference is that their lies have a resounding ripple effect with devastating consequences. When an individual's reputation, years of their life or life itself hang in the balance and their entire case comes down to their word against that of a lying police officer, the odds are most assuredly not in their favor.
Unfortunately, without hard evidence like a video to document your story, an officer's testimony will be very difficult to overcome. Something like a dash cam video, like the lifesaving evidence from the Chicago case, can be the difference between prison and having your charges dropped. Unfortunately, this evidence can only be collected and provided by the very people who have violated your rights -- the police.
We entrust our police officers with our personal safety, protection and upholding the law. They are burdened with great responsibilities under the law to follow protocol, policies and procedures because they have tremendous power. There cannot be any blurred lines between their duties and authority as law enforcement officers, heavily limited and regulated by state law and various policies and procedures, and their powers of enforcement.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1u4DW6n
via IFTTT
Let's face it -- as humans, we are imperfect. Some of us lie and cheat to make our personal or professional lives easier. Like anyone else, some police officers may also lie and cheat for similar reasons. The difference between a police officer and the rest of us is that we must answer to them while the police have authoritative power to act with impunity, under the color of the law.
When we discover that a police officer has lied, it raises serious questions and concerns. For every falsehood uncovered, how often does one go unnoticed? How often do a police officer's lies end up becoming damning evidence against a defendant? When the police lie, the integrity of our entire system of government comes into question.
I read about the case out of Chicago, and wondered what the reaction of an average person might be. Shock? Anger? Eye-rolling annoyance? In my work as a criminal defense attorney, I leave nearly every courtroom experience feeling that the police have lied or at least exaggerated the facts. My experience is not unique. This happens every single day in every single courtroom throughout the country. To make a case against a defendant, some police officers feel the need to stretch the truth to fit within the confines of the charging crime. The war on drugs, families and our constitution is compromised when police officers lie.
Lawyers challenge the integrity or truth of police officer testimony, as it relates to searches of persons and homes, before the judge and not the jury. The issue of illegal searches is a legal issue and not a factual issue. This means that at no time on behalf of my client can I argue in a jury trial that the police violated my client's constitutional right to be free from illegal searches, and therefore you should find him or her not guilty. That argument is going to be in front of a judge, if at all.
Despite the solemn judicial duty to be the final arbiters of constitutional protections, it could be political suicide to appear to be soft on crime or make rulings that the police officers lied or violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Almost every case that arises from an executed search warrant will ultimately be challenged in court, yet very few result in the finding of any violation or the exclusion or suppression of illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
This brings us to the case in Chicago. Five officers testified on the witness stand and lied under oath, concocting a story to avoid a finding that they had in fact violated the defendant's constitutional rights. But for a sole dash cam video these officers were unaware of, this would have been an average day in the criminal justice system.
The defendant's story would have been the typical story told in the war on drugs: The bad guy doper wants the judge to believe the police are lying. The doper must be the obvious liar because he was the one caught with drugs. He's found guilty of his felony charges.
Had it not been for the dash cam the officers meant to disable, the lies fabricated by all five police officers would have been accepted as the truth, and the defendant would likely be a felon, and another victim of the war on drugs, added to the growing and senseless list of American citizens.
Some readers may think: the defendant had the marijuana, so even if the officers lied about how they got it, he is still guilty of a crime. Those readers are missing a very important point. We entrust our police officers with great power and a shield of governmental immunity. While they have the power to search, seize, detain, arrest and use deadly force if necessary, they must do so under the strictest of guidelines.
With that in mind, consider the following: can a police officer pull you over and arrest you simply based on a hunch? No, not unless the officer observed a traffic violation or has reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed. What if an officer decided they didn't care about the law, pulled you over anyhow, handcuffed you, and then discovered you had a small bag of marijuana hidden in your right shoe? If the officer lied and said they effected the search and arrest within the confines of the law, you may very well end up with a criminal charge and conviction.
When the police abuse their authority by lying, it can lead to innocent people being charged with crimes they did not commit, or simply people being illegally searched and seized, resulting in charges they would not otherwise have.
For years the war on drugs has been waged based upon the truth, veracity and integrity of the law enforcement community. If a police officer doesn't have probable cause to search, they must obtain a search warrant. In order to get a search warrant, an affidavit must be presented to a neutral and detached magistrate. The magistrate is supposed to examine and read the affidavit, and determine if probable cause exists that a crime is occurring at that moment in time. If such a finding is made, the magistrate will sign the search warrant authorizing the government to execute a search warrant.
This finding of probable cause and the authorization to execute the search warrant is the tool used by the government to vitiate and circumvent the protections set forth in the Constitution of both the State of Michigan and the United States.
When officers lie, as in the Chicago case, the problems with the system of justice and the war on drugs is exponentially highlighted. How many times had the officers done this before? In order to have such a coordinated, if dishonest, performance, presumably this had not been the first time. How many other defendants, who also claimed the violation of their constitutional rights, challenged the officers' version of events before a judge but without a video, and were denied the relief they requested?
Without the video, how can one person prove that five seasoned and experienced officers of the law were lying? What judge would ever hear the testimony of five police officers repeating the same story five times over again, yet make a finding that the defendant with drugs in his car was more honest or credible than the officers? Without hard evidence to the contrary, like the miraculous dash cam in the Chicago case, it simply does not happen, ever.
What about the officers who do in fact get caught lying? One would think that for the integrity of the system, each jurisdiction would maintain a list of officers who behaved as such so that these constitutional atrocities cannot ever happen again. Yet no such list exists.
In the rare situations when an officer is found to have violated a defendant's constitutional rights, similar findings often seem to appear on the same day. It's not uncommon to learn later in the day of a similar ruling, with the same officer with an affidavit for a search warrant before the same magistrate who issued the previous search warrant erroneously. Notably missing is any note of the previous transgressions, leaving a fundamental lack of accountability.
The officers in the Chicago case were sent to desk duty. As far as we can tell, there has been no review of the officers' past cases. After some time passes, business will likely continue as usual.
Like many other people, some police officers lie on the job. The difference is that their lies have a resounding ripple effect with devastating consequences. When an individual's reputation, years of their life or life itself hang in the balance and their entire case comes down to their word against that of a lying police officer, the odds are most assuredly not in their favor.
Unfortunately, without hard evidence like a video to document your story, an officer's testimony will be very difficult to overcome. Something like a dash cam video, like the lifesaving evidence from the Chicago case, can be the difference between prison and having your charges dropped. Unfortunately, this evidence can only be collected and provided by the very people who have violated your rights -- the police.
We entrust our police officers with our personal safety, protection and upholding the law. They are burdened with great responsibilities under the law to follow protocol, policies and procedures because they have tremendous power. There cannot be any blurred lines between their duties and authority as law enforcement officers, heavily limited and regulated by state law and various policies and procedures, and their powers of enforcement.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1u4DW6n
via IFTTT
What Makes 'Mean Girls' Grool
"You know the rules. You can't sit with us."
I remember the first time I ever watched Mean Girls.
I was 13 (I know, I made it THAT LONG without ever seeing it) and I was hooked from the opening sequence. This was stuff I knew, but I had never seen it played out so accurately on screen. The perception people have of being homeschooled, the inner-mechanisms of girl cliques and how weird it is when your one friends mum tries to be part of the group (Amy Poehler can totally be part of my clique though.). How sometimes you suppress your actual skills in order to fit in, and how you can sometimes trample your real friends in the process.
In an hour and a half, Tina Fey blew the lid on teenage girls. She also created the most quotable film on the planet. I don't think a single day goes by where I DON'T drop a Mean Girls line. (My hair is definitely full of secrets. Don't tell anyone.) Not to mention, it's become a huge pop culture thing, whether you're looking at Stella & Bow's recent Mean Girls collection, or that infamous Brandy Melville shirt. Mean Girls is a staple and symbol of teenagerhood.
I think part of the genius of Mean Girls is that it doesn't flinch. Nothing is sugarcoated. Regina rules with an iron fist and a sharp tongue, Gretchen desperately needs attention, and Karen is just along for the ride. Janice has a well-earned grudge, and Damien is The Keeper of The Pink Shirt. Kady just wants to survive the jungle. The sheer cruelty that girls especially can inflict on each other is shown in all it's glory, from the opening moments to the great Burn Book Goes Kaboom scene (Honestly, I would leave the south side for that). But it also shows the confrontation, and that, I think, is what makes this film so great. It's not wrapped up with a bow. How many times do you wish there was a gym scene for your life? "Raise your hand if you've ever felt personally victimized by Regina George." Or maybe a trust drop where you can just tell it like it is, minus the cake baking? There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Tina Fey wrote a film that resonates in a way most adults couldn't grasp. Most adults don't, as a matter of fact. My mum likes the movie, but she doesn't really understand my need to wear pink every Wednesday, or why I laugh and say "Stop trying to make it happen. It's not going to happen." any time some new thing comes out that's just ridiculous. It's funny to her, but it's not canon. She's also not a teenage girl. (Surprise.)
Today is Mean Girls' 10th birthday. And it's a Wednesday, which is incredibly cosmic. So I'm going to wear pink, watch my favorite movie and call my girl friends just to tell them I think they're grool and that they definitely don't need to lose three pounds.
And you? You can totally sit with me.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1hStCcC
via IFTTT
I remember the first time I ever watched Mean Girls.
I was 13 (I know, I made it THAT LONG without ever seeing it) and I was hooked from the opening sequence. This was stuff I knew, but I had never seen it played out so accurately on screen. The perception people have of being homeschooled, the inner-mechanisms of girl cliques and how weird it is when your one friends mum tries to be part of the group (Amy Poehler can totally be part of my clique though.). How sometimes you suppress your actual skills in order to fit in, and how you can sometimes trample your real friends in the process.
In an hour and a half, Tina Fey blew the lid on teenage girls. She also created the most quotable film on the planet. I don't think a single day goes by where I DON'T drop a Mean Girls line. (My hair is definitely full of secrets. Don't tell anyone.) Not to mention, it's become a huge pop culture thing, whether you're looking at Stella & Bow's recent Mean Girls collection, or that infamous Brandy Melville shirt. Mean Girls is a staple and symbol of teenagerhood.
I think part of the genius of Mean Girls is that it doesn't flinch. Nothing is sugarcoated. Regina rules with an iron fist and a sharp tongue, Gretchen desperately needs attention, and Karen is just along for the ride. Janice has a well-earned grudge, and Damien is The Keeper of The Pink Shirt. Kady just wants to survive the jungle. The sheer cruelty that girls especially can inflict on each other is shown in all it's glory, from the opening moments to the great Burn Book Goes Kaboom scene (Honestly, I would leave the south side for that). But it also shows the confrontation, and that, I think, is what makes this film so great. It's not wrapped up with a bow. How many times do you wish there was a gym scene for your life? "Raise your hand if you've ever felt personally victimized by Regina George." Or maybe a trust drop where you can just tell it like it is, minus the cake baking? There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Tina Fey wrote a film that resonates in a way most adults couldn't grasp. Most adults don't, as a matter of fact. My mum likes the movie, but she doesn't really understand my need to wear pink every Wednesday, or why I laugh and say "Stop trying to make it happen. It's not going to happen." any time some new thing comes out that's just ridiculous. It's funny to her, but it's not canon. She's also not a teenage girl. (Surprise.)
Today is Mean Girls' 10th birthday. And it's a Wednesday, which is incredibly cosmic. So I'm going to wear pink, watch my favorite movie and call my girl friends just to tell them I think they're grool and that they definitely don't need to lose three pounds.
And you? You can totally sit with me.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1hStCcC
via IFTTT
25 Reasons Why No One Is Liking Your Instagram Photos
Thanks to Instagram, the modern-day maxim, "Pics or it didn't happen," is one that people have started to take way too literally. Now, every little thing that someone does and every event that happens, major or minuscule (and far too often the latter) must be posted on the social media platform to confirm its existence. But in our quest to document every bit of our lives and get all the "likes" we can get, we've noticed that our Instagram feeds are becoming cluttered with photos that really just don't need to be there. Therefore, it may be time to face the truth and admit if you are...
1. The person who has apparently never been outside before.
2. Or the person who wants to tell you what it's like outside -- by posting a screenshot of a weather app.
3. The person who is just so motivated. Do you know how motivated they are? Because they're really motivated.
4. Or the person who understands life as a series of memes.
5. The person who really wants everyone to know they're at the gym. Taking selfies.
6. The person who is in the middle of a super-healthy diet. (Hint: Healthy food usually isn't very fun to look at.)
7. The person who posts way too many videos. Usually of weird stuff.
8. The hashtag fanatic (whose hashtags rarely make any sense).
9. Or the person who tags #foodporn on a selfie, for some reason.
10. The person who posts (really bad) pictures of food, then has the audacity to claim it's #foodporn.
11. The person who takes a selfie with their food. Points for knowing the power of the Crunchwrap and dog in the background.
12. The person who posts a picture of their food after they ate it. At least this person is self-aware with the #badfoodporn hashtag.
13. The person who posts a picture that isn't quite worth a thousand words, so they use a bunch of words to get there.
14. The one person who posts a picture of dirty dishes.
15. The serial selfie narcissist.
16. The person who posts a picture of their airplane wing (we have all been this person).
17. Or the airplane window (but hopefully not this one).
18. The person who always posts a picture of a skyline.
19. The person who makes it very apparent that all they ever do is hang out with their dog.
20. The person who shows their "OOTD" three times in one picture...
21. The person who doesn't quite understand the purpose of PicStitch.
22. The person who posts what they are listening to.
23. The person who really wants everyone to know they're at work right now.
24. The person who posts a really boring text message.
25. The person whose "duckface" has gotten out of control.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n2iPxe
via IFTTT
1. The person who has apparently never been outside before.
2. Or the person who wants to tell you what it's like outside -- by posting a screenshot of a weather app.
3. The person who is just so motivated. Do you know how motivated they are? Because they're really motivated.
4. Or the person who understands life as a series of memes.
5. The person who really wants everyone to know they're at the gym. Taking selfies.
6. The person who is in the middle of a super-healthy diet. (Hint: Healthy food usually isn't very fun to look at.)
7. The person who posts way too many videos. Usually of weird stuff.
8. The hashtag fanatic (whose hashtags rarely make any sense).
9. Or the person who tags #foodporn on a selfie, for some reason.
10. The person who posts (really bad) pictures of food, then has the audacity to claim it's #foodporn.
11. The person who takes a selfie with their food. Points for knowing the power of the Crunchwrap and dog in the background.
12. The person who posts a picture of their food after they ate it. At least this person is self-aware with the #badfoodporn hashtag.
13. The person who posts a picture that isn't quite worth a thousand words, so they use a bunch of words to get there.
14. The one person who posts a picture of dirty dishes.
15. The serial selfie narcissist.
16. The person who posts a picture of their airplane wing (we have all been this person).
17. Or the airplane window (but hopefully not this one).
18. The person who always posts a picture of a skyline.
19. The person who makes it very apparent that all they ever do is hang out with their dog.
20. The person who shows their "OOTD" three times in one picture...
21. The person who doesn't quite understand the purpose of PicStitch.
22. The person who posts what they are listening to.
23. The person who really wants everyone to know they're at work right now.
24. The person who posts a really boring text message.
25. The person whose "duckface" has gotten out of control.
from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1n2iPxe
via IFTTT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)