Rand Paul On Obama's Immigration Executive Action: 'We Should Take Him To Court'

WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that Congress should take legal action against President Barack Obama in response to his planned executive action on immigration.

“We should take him to court,” Paul told reporters on Capitol Hill. “Truman was taken to court in Youngstown Steel, and I think we should take him to court.”

“Our founders were very clear … [in] the constitution that the Congress writes the law,” he added. “The president himself has admitted as many as 15 times, saying he’s not a king, he’s not an emperor and he can’t write the law. So really the media needs to be asking him why he’s changed his mind now.”

Paul appeared to rule out the threat of a government shutdown when asked if Republicans should use funding for the government as a mechanism to stymie Obama’s action.

“We don’t have much power right now … in January we will,” he said.

Paul also argued in favor of a lawsuit during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Tuesday.

“I think with regard to immigration reform he’s doing something that Congress has not instructed him to do, and in fact has instructed him otherwise,” he said. “So I think the Supreme Court would strike it down … that takes a while, but that may be the only recourse short of a new president.”

While Republican leaders in Congress have yet to publicly discuss a potential lawsuit, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said Wednesday that Obama’s executive action is “illegal” and will face legal recourse.

“I think there’ll be lawsuits filed, I believe so,” Portman said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

House Republicans are already in the midst of suing Obama for delaying the implementation of the employer mandate under the Affordable Care Act. A House GOP leadership aide would not say if Boehner is also weighing a challenge to Obama over immigration, but acknowledged that several members have suggested such a response.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told reporters Wednesday that he would support the idea, but doesn’t believe Congress would have standing to do so.

“We don’t have standing,” McCain said. “We have to find somebody with standing to claim suit. But yeah, I’d love to challenge it in the court.”

Obama will to announce his executive action on Thursday, which according to early reports will provide relief and work authorization to the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident children. It is also expected to include changes to high-skilled worker visas and immigration enforcement programs, as well a border security component. To argue that Obama’s action is within the law, the White House has cited prosecutorial discretion — which allows law enforcement to prosecute some and not others due to insufficient resources.

Mental Health Group Releases Guide For Colleges Dealing With Suicides

This week the Higher Education Mental Health Alliance unveiled a first-of-its-kind “Postvention Guide” to help colleges respond to suicides on campus.

The group said its “The Postvention: A Guide for Response to Suicide on College Campuses” is meant less as an instruction manual and more as expert guidance for colleges in the event of a suicide, including guidance on helping the community with the grieving and adjustment process, reducing risks of negative behaviors, and limiting the risk of other suicides through contagion.

Monica Osburn of the American College Counseling Association hopes colleges will use the guide to lay the groundwork in the event of possible tragedy, rather than only consulting it afterwards.

“Instead of being reactive, let’s be intentional about what makes sense for us as a campus community and how do we want to respond when and if this happens on our campus,” said Osburn, who’s also director of the counseling center at North Carolina State University. “[The guide is] empowering the campus to be a bit more mindful, better prepared.”

Suicide, or the death of a student under any circumstances, can happen at any type of campus or school, public or private, commuter or residential. Dozens of college students have died this fall through a variety of causes, including suicide.

“A lot of college students have not experienced the death of a grandparent, much less someone their age,” said Dan Jones, director of the counseling center at Appalachian State University and a member of the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors.

Jones recalled speaking with students on his campus this month after a student there committed suicide. “Some of the students expressed concerns about some of the rumors being put out on social media that were really wrong and out of touch,” Jones said.

While some organizations have provided suggestions about how an institution might best respond in the event of a student’s death, there has been no authoritative guidance for schools until now. A slew of professional groups worked for over a year to develop the guide, including: American College Counseling Association, American College Health Association, American College Personnel Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Association for University and College Counseling Directors, The Jed Foundation and NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

“What this guide did was bring together some of the programming and workshops,” Jones explained. “It’s something of an expert consensus on promising practices.”

The guide is available for free online, and includes information for counselors, deans, faculty and reporters.

Lawmakers Call For Investigation Of Rahm Emanuel Over Possibly Illegal Campaign Donations

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) is under scrutiny for accepting what potentially could be considered illegal campaign cash from financial firms that manage the city’s pension funds.

On Tuesday, three city councilmen (one of whom is challenging Emanuel for re-election next February) called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Emanuel’s campaign dollars. Their letter follows an International Business Times report published Nov. 13 that stated investment firms executives with direct ties to Chicago’s pension funds have “since 2011 poured more than $600,000 in contributions into Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s campaign operation and political action committees.”

Current 2nd Ward Alderman and mayoral challenger Bob Fioretti, along with Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd Ward) and Ald. John Arena (45th Ward), also sent similar letters to the Chicago inspector general and the city comptroller’s office calling for an investigation.

“We believe that the pay to play actions have violated the public trust and are a breach of fiduciary duty,” the aldermen wrote.

According to the IBT, at least 31 executives from firms that draw fees for managing city pension funds have contributed to Emanuel’s personal campaign and pro-Emanuel PACs. Such arrangements might be in violation the spirit — if not the letter — of SEC and other rules, including an executive ethics order Emanuel signed back in 2011 that, as the IBT puts it, prohibits “city contractors and subcontractors from making campaign donations to city officials.”

IBT also reported recently that fees paid to the John Buck Co. — a real estate investment firm among those managing city pension monies — spiked after Emanuel became mayor. John Buck Co. executives are “collectively among Emanuel’s top campaign contributors,” IBT noted.

The mayor’s office deferred to Emanuel’s mayoral campaign for comment.

“The donations are fully compliant with the law and the higher standards the mayor voluntarily imposes on himself per his executive order. In fact, since taking office Mayor Emanuel has strengthened city ethics and campaign finance rules, including mandating unprecedented restrictions on mayoral fundraising,” Steve Mayberry, a spokesman for Emanuel’s re-election campaign, told The Huffington Post via email.

As of Wednesday afternoon the SEC and others had yet to respond to the letters, according to Michael Kolenc, a Democratic strategist with Fioretti’s mayoral campaign. Kolenc was hopeful that the SEC letter in particular would gain traction, given SEC Director of Enforcement Andrew Ceresney’s recent vow to get tough on the very abuses outlined in the IBT article.

Just one day before the IBT’s Nov. 13 report was published, the SEC’s top cop said during a panel that municipal markets can expect tougher crackdowns on pension fund abuses, pay to play violations and undisclosed conflicts of interest, according to trade publication Bond Buyer.

The increased scrutiny comes as Emanuel’s approval ratings have slid from 50 percent in August of 2013 to just 35 percent this past summer, according an August poll by the Chicago Tribune.

Still, what Emanuel lacks in approval ratings, he makes up for in cash: The mayor’s re-election war chest is approaching $10 million, easily making him the most well-funded candidate. And he’s already put some of that money to work, launching a series of new re-election campaign ads on Tuesday night.

Kolenc told The Huffington Post he views the new run of TV ads as the mayor “effectively stepping on the gas” and forcing his competitors to keep up with him on ad spending — something Kolenc acknowledges not all of them will be able to sustain for long.

Nevertheless, says Dick Simpson, a political science professor for the University of Illinois at Chicago, the allegations against the well-funded incumbent have the potential to cast a longer shadow over his campaign.

Simpson told The Huffington Post that Emanuel’s fortunes may shift if his opponents decide to make the campaign cash allegations a bigger issue. First, however, Emanuel’s opponents have to make the problem crystal clear to voters.

“The campaign cash [issue] is still too arcane for most voters,” Simpson said. “But it does have some legs. It has the potential for percolating.”

Letters to SEC Calling for Investigation Into Emanuel Campaign Funds by bellware

Enough Is Enough: The President's Latest Wall Street Nominee

I believe President Obama deserves deference in picking his team, and I’ve generally tried to give him that. But enough is enough.

Last Wednesday, President Obama announced his nomination of Antonio Weiss to serve as Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury Department. This is a position that oversees Dodd-Frank implementation and a wide range of banking and economic policymaking issues, including consumer protection.

So who is Antonio Weiss? He’s the head of global investment banking for the financial giant Lazard. He has spent the last 20 years of his career at Lazard — most of it advising on international mergers and acquisitions.

That raises the first issue. Weiss has spent most of his career working on international transactions — from 2001 to 2009 he lived and worked in Paris — and now he’s being asked to run domestic finance at Treasury. Neither his background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury. As someone who has spent my career focused on domestic economic issues, including a stint of my own at the Treasury Department, I know how important these issues are and how much the people in Treasury can shape policies. I also know that there are a lot of people who have spent their careers focused on these issues, and Weiss isn’t one of them.

The second issue is corporate inversions. Basically, a bunch of companies have decided that all the regular tax loopholes they get to exploit aren’t enough, so they have begun taking advantage of an even bigger loophole that allows them to maintain their operations in America but claim foreign citizenship and cut their U.S. taxes even more. No one is fooled by the bland words “corporate inversion.” These companies renounce their American citizenship and turn their backs on this country simply to boost their profits.

One of the biggest and most public corporate inversions last summer was the deal cut by Burger King to slash its tax bill by purchasing the Canadian company Tim Hortons and then “inverting” the American company to Canadian ownership. And Weiss was right there, working on Burger King’s tax deal. Weiss’ work wasn’t unusual for Lazard. That firm has helped put together three of the last four major corporate inversions that have been announced in the U.S. And like those old Hair Club commercials used to say, Lazard isn’t just the President of the Corporate Loopholes Club — it’s also a client. Lazard moved its own headquarters from the United States to Bermuda in 2005 to take advantage of a particularly slimy tax loophole that was closed shortly afterwards. Even the Treasury Department under the Bush administration found Lazard’s practices objectionable.

The White House and Treasury have strongly denounced inversions, and rightly so. But they undercut their own position by advancing Mr. Weiss. Already Senator Grassley has denounced the move as hypocritical, and Senator Durbin has expressed his opposition to the nomination over the inversion issue. The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller banks from across the country, has opposed the nomination as well — only the second time in thirty years that they have publicly opposed a presidential nomination.

The response from the White House to these concerns has been two-fold. First, they say that Mr. Weiss was not involved in the tax side of the Burger King deal. But let’s speak plainly: This was a tax deal, plain and simple. It was designed to reduce Burger King’s tax burden, and Weiss was an important and highly-paid part of the team. Second, the White House claims that Mr. Weiss is personally opposed to inversions. Really? Did he work under protest, forced to assist this deal against his will? Did he speak out against tax inversions? Did he call out his company for profiting so handsomely from its tax loophole work? The claim of personal distaste is convenient, but irrelevant.

Third, there’s the larger, more general issue of Wall Street executives dominating the Obama administration, as well as the Democratic Party’s, overall economic policymaking apparatus. I wrote about this problem a couple of months ago on The Huffington Post in more detail.

Here is what I wrote then:

Just look at the influence of one mega-bank — Citigroup — on our government. Starting with former Citigroup CEO Robert Rubin, three of the last four Treasury secretaries under Democratic presidents held high-paying jobs at Citigroup either before or after serving at Treasury — and the fourth was offered, but declined, Citigroup’s CEO position. Directors of the National Economic Council and Office of Management and Budget, the current Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. trade representative, also pulled in millions from Citigroup.

That’s what the revolving door looks like at just one Too Big to Fail Bank. What about others? The influence of Goldman Sachs in Washington has been much documented, including here at The Huffington Post. JPMorgan? Shortly before the [Eric] Cantor episode, another former member of Congress — Democrat Melissa Bean — took the same senior job at JPMorgan Chase previously held by Democrat Bill Daley before his recent service as White House Chief of Staff. Yes — this is just a single position at JPMorgan Chase, evidently reserved for the latest politician ready to cash in on Wall Street.

I could go on — and I will. Soon after they crashed the economy and got tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, the biggest Wall Street banks started lobbying Congress to head off any serious financial regulation. Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics found that in 2009 alone, the financial services sector employed 1,447 former federal employees to carry out their lobbying efforts, swarming all over Congress. And who were their top lobbyists? Members of Congress — in fact, 73 former Members of Congress.

According to a report by the Institute for America’s Future, by the following year, the six biggest banks employed 243 lobbyists who once worked in the federal government, including 33 who had worked as chiefs of staff for members of Congress and 54 who had worked as staffers for the banking oversight committees in the Senate or the House.

In recent years, President Obama has repeatedly turned to nominees with close Wall Street ties for high-level economic positions. Jack Lew, who was a top Citigroup official, now serves as Treasury Secretary. The President’s choice for Treasury’s highest international position, Nathan Sheets, also comes from Citi. For the number two spot at the Federal Reserve, the President tapped Stanley Fischer, another former Citigroup executive. A Bank of America executive, Stefan Selig, was put in charge of international trade at the Commerce Department. The President’s two recent picks for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — including his choice for Chairman — are lawyers who have spent their careers representing big financial institutions.

There’s plenty of financial expertise in this country. People with banking experience haven’t all flocked to the biggest banks; community banks and regional banks, along with smaller trading houses and credit unions, have some very talented people. Nor must every government official come from the financial sector; executives from other business areas, lawyers who have practiced in a wide range of fields, academics, financial advisers, non-profit employees, think-tank researchers, and people with experience elsewhere in government have deep wells of knowledge — and perspectives that sometimes differ from those who run Wall Street banks.

The over-representation of Wall Street banks in senior government positions sends a bad message. It tells people that one — and only one — point of view will dominate economic policymaking. It tells people that whatever goes wrong in this economy, the Wall Street banks will be protected first. That’s yet another advantage that Wall Street just doesn’t need.

I have voted against only one of President Obama’s nominees: Michael Froman, a Citigroup alumnus who is currently storming the halls of Congress as U.S. Trade Representative pushing trade deals that threaten to undermine financial regulation, workers’ rights, and environmental protections. Enough is enough.

It’s time for the Obama administration to loosen the hold that Wall Street banks have over economic policy making. Sure, big banks are important, but running this economy for American families is a lot more important.

All The Progress Made On Marijuana Legalization Could Vanish With A New President

The movement to end marijuana prohibition has made significant progress recently, but it could all be undone when the next president takes office in 2017.

Harvard economist Jeff Miron, a vocal supporter of marijuana policy reform, highlighted the precarious nature of state marijuana laws in a Wednesday op-ed for CNN on why Congress needs to act now on federal marijuana policy.

“Despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured,” Miron wrote. “Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law.”

With marijuana legalization supported by a majority of Americans, and with states continuing to pass legalization laws — about a dozen more may do so by 2016 — it seems unlikely that the federal government would push back against the popular movement. But it’s not impossible.

That’s because the regulation of marijuana — as seen in programs currently in place in Colorado and Washington state, as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon, Alaska and Washington, D.C. — remains illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana have only been able to do so because of federal guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations. That guidance could be reversed when a new administration enters the White House.

“Both Miron’s analysis and conclusion are spot on,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post. “The federal government needs to end the failed prohibition of marijuana by rescheduling or removing it from the list of controlled substances. Too many lives are ruined and futures cut short by these outdated and wasteful policies.”

Blumenauer is just one of a number of lawmakers from both parties who have worked toward that end. About a dozen bills were introduced in 2013, several by Blumenauer himself, aimed at limiting the federal government’s ability to interfere with states’ legal marijuana programs. Last year, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, which would direct the U.S. Attorney General to issue an order that removes marijuana in any form from all schedules of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. If passed, Polis’ measure would effectively end the federal government’s prohibition of marijuana.

And while Congress has failed to pass any of those bills, attitudes are still changing rapidly on marijuana policy. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said he remains cautiously optimistic about marijuana legalization being here to stay, despite Congress’ tendency to move slowly on controversial social issues like this.

“It’s all political,” Nadelmann told HuffPost in an email. “Of course it’s possible that the next president could decide to crack down on the states that have legalized marijuana but that prospect becomes ever less likely with every passing day.”

“Diverse sectors of society are developing a stake in marijuana remaining legal,” he continued. “Taxpayers and tax collectors enjoy the revenue. Cost cutters appreciate the savings from no longer arresting so many people for marijuana. Unions welcome the new legal jobs. Businessmen, including many who vote Republican, relish the actual and potential profits.”

In a similar vein, Blumenauer himself has predicted that before the end of the decade, the federal government will legalize weed. Federal authorities have already allowed Colorado’s and Washington’s historic marijuana laws to take effect, and earlier this year, President Barack Obama signed the 2014 farm bill, which legalized industrial hemp production for research purposes in the states that permit it. The first hemp crops in U.S. soil in decades are already growing.

Moreover, in May, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed bipartisan measures aimed at limiting Drug Enforcement Administration crackdowns on state-legal medical marijuana shops, and at preventing the agency from interfering in states’ legal hemp programs.

Even in gridlocked Washington, the Democratic White House and the Republican-heavy Congress have been able to see eye-to-eye over how criminal justice and drug policy reform will be implemented in the next two years.

So what do some of the likely 2016 presidential candidates say about marijuana? On the Republican side, according to HuffPost’s Pollster model, the front-runners are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Paul has been supportive of D.C.’s new recreational marijuana law, and he’s also introduced legislation aimed at protecting state-legal medical marijuana operations from federal intervention.

Huckabee, meanwhile, is opposed to both medical and recreational marijuana, and Bush came out against Florida’s recent medical marijuana bill. At the same time, Bush has made generally supportive comments about keeping the federal government out of state marijuana laws.

On the Democratic side, the current front-runners are former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). While Clinton hasn’t offered a full-throated endorsement of marijuana legalization, she has left the door open, saying she supports medical marijuana “for people who are in extreme medical conditions.” She’s also said she wants to “wait and see” how recreational pot works out in Colorado and Washington state.

Biden has called legalization a “mistake” in the past, but he’s also said that cracking down on marijuana users is a “waste of our resources.” Warren has offered some support for medical marijuana legalization, but is opposed to recreational legalization.

“For 77 years, the United States has outlawed marijuana, with tragic repercussions and unintended consequences,” Miron wrote Wednesday. “The public and their state governments are on track to rectify this terrible policy. Here’s hoping Congress catches up.”

Read Miron’s entire editorial here.

The Transforming Power of Grace

Lately, I have been wondering what would happen if we regularly extended grace-meaning unmerited favor — to each other regardless of whether it is deserved or has been earned. Over the last eight years my children and I have walked through some very tough times. But, whether it was a casserole left on the back porch, gasoline for our car, money for back to school clothing or an extension to pay a bill, friends and strangers alike have freely extended grace to us again and again. One experience that my children and I had early on our journey is indicative of the outpouring of grace that we have received, and I want to share it with you.

In May 2007, I sold the only home that my children had ever known as part of my divorce. The house sold very quickly leaving me only a few days to find a suitable new home for my children and I. Unfortunately, the only housing that I could find turned out to be anything but suitable. In fact, the apartment community is akin to Animal House and totally inappropriate for families with children. By the end of the following school year, I felt that I had no other choice but to move. I used all of my limited resources to secure our new residence and had no money left to pay movers. A friend, also a single mother, asked an associate minister at her church if he knew anyone who could assist me with moving. It just so happened that a missions group composed of college-age young people from all over the United States was coming to work at her church the same weekend that I was scheduled to move. The associate minister arranged for the young men from the group to spend two hours on Saturday morning moving all of our belongings to our new home. I was shocked because I had never even visited her church and knew nothing about the missions group. I did not understand why a group of people who I did not know would assist me with anything especially moving. In fact, during the week preceding the move I asked my friend repeatedly if she was certain that the missions group was actually coming to help.

As promised on Saturday morning at 9:00 a.m. a Penske truck pulled up to the back of my apartment unit accompanied by approximately 25 young men. After brief introductions, the young men started moving stuff out of the apartment and onto the truck I was speechless. They drove the truck to our new home and unloaded it. Before leaving, the young men thanked my children and I for allowing them to serve us. We were incredibly touched and blown away by the entire experience.

Life is tough and can be unforgiving. Grace sustains us on our journey through the inevitable hard places and difficult seasons. Indeed, grace is more than mercy. Grace strengthens and emboldens us. It softens a hard heart. Grace gives us what I call “bounce back” meaning the power to keep getting up no matter how many times we are knocked down.

So I wonder what would happen if we generously extended grace to each other. Would anger be replaced by joy? Could hate yield to love? Would greed be replaced by benevolence? Perhaps violence would yield to kindness and peace. I strongly believe that an outpouring of grace will cultivate gratitude, forgiveness, forbearance, and compassion in each of us. This is what makes the transforming power of grace so amazing. Tell me, have you experienced grace in your own lives? Would love to hear your stories.

Originally published on MariaShriver.com

Tolkein's Future Vision of Lucid Dreaming

Dreams play a significant role in The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkein’s multi-part fantasy story written in the first half of the 20th century. The dream elements become muted in Peter Jackson’s film adaptation, but in the novels they serve as an important source of insight for the characters. According to Curt Hoffman in Wings over Numenor: Lucid Dreaming in the Writing of J.R.R. Tolkein, the dreams in the stories were modeled in many cases after Tolkein’s own dream experiences. For instance, the Middle Earth legend of Numenor, a western land that was destroyed by a vast ocean wave, apparently derives from Tolkein’s personal “Atlantis Complex” and his recurrent dreams of huge, all-consuming waves.

Hoffman’s chapter appears in Lucid Dreaming: New Perspectives on Consciousness in Sleep, which Ryan Hurd and I edited for ABC-Clio. Hoffman explains that the most remarkable story Tolkein ever wrote about dreams was also the only story he ever wrote set in the future, not in the past. Titled “The Notion Club Papers,” Tolkein started it in 1946 but never finished the manuscript. Hoffman says,

“The work purports to be the minutes of the fortnightly meetings of an Oxford literary society, the Notion Club (obviously a gloss for the Inklings [Tolkein’s actual literary club], although there is little one-for-one correspondence to its members), between 1980 and 1990. The manuscript’s conceit is that the papers “were found after the Summer Examinations of 2012, on the top of one of a number of sacks of waste paper in the basement of the Examinations Schools at Oxford by the present editor,” and it is represented to have been published in 2014.”

Tolkein creates a strangely forward-telescoping, prospectively recursive way of framing the story — he writes about events that happen 40 years in the future, which are then discovered 20+ years after that, and are then published two years after that (at a time that happens to be our present).

In the story the club members engage in lengthy discussions of dreaming as a means of space and time travel, along with various accounts of strange adventures in thought and consciousness. Without warning the discussion turns rather apocalyptic, as several club members describe visions that portend the coming of cataclysmic storms. The manuscript breaks off there, and Tolkein never went back to it. After careful study of this work, Hoffman concludes,

“It is entirely unclear what purpose Tolkien had in producing the Notion Club Papers, but his publishers were pressuring him at the time to get back to the writing of The Lord of the Rings, for obvious economic reasons, and this may explain why he did not finish the work. He never returned to it, and its status remains mysterious to this day. However, it is the clearest indication we have in all his writing of his interest in a variety of dream states and their relationship to waking physical reality. In particular, even though there is no evidence that he was aware of the writings of van Eeden on lucidity, it seems that Tolkien had a strong interest in lucid dreaming, based upon his own personal experience, and that he was attempting to put this into some kind of formulation in words that would make his experience more understandable, at least to his fellow Inklings.”

North Korea May Be Restarting Nuclear Plant With Bomb Making Capabilities

WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time in nearly six years North Korea may be restarting a plant that can reprocess nuclear fuel into weapons-grade plutonium, a U.S. research institute said Wednesday.

The finding is based on analysis of recent commercial satellite imagery at the North’s main Nyongbyon nuclear facility.

The plant is used to reprocess spent fuel from a 5 megawatt reactor that has produced plutonium used for past nuclear test explosions. Last year, to international alarm, North Korea restarted the reactor that had been shuttered under a 2007 disarmament agreement.

The U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies says the reactor appears to have been shut down for about 10 weeks, longer than normal maintenance would require. It is unclear why but the institute’s best guess is that the North is replacing a small number of spent fuel rods, which may have been defective, and is about to start reprocessing them. That involves separating plutonium from waste products.

Steam coming from buildings associated with the reprocessing plant suggests it is preparing to commence operations, according to the analysis by Nick Hansen, a satellite imagery specialist who closely monitors developments in the North’s weapons programs.

There are also signs of chemical waste outside a fuel fabrication facility, suggesting new fuel rods are being produced to replace the spent ones, he writes.

Joel Wit, a former State Department official who edits the institute’s website, 38 North, which published the findings, said the reprocessing plant last operated in 2009. He said the amount of plutonium that would be harvested from a few spent rods would be small but this could be a harbinger of a bigger reprocessing effort when more fuel rods inside the reactor are spent.

“This may be a sign of things to come, perhaps a year from now, when the North Koreans unload all of the fuel from their reactor and produce a few additional bombs worth of plutonium,” he said.

A Congressional Research Service paper in April 2013 said North Korea is estimated to have enough separated plutonium for at least a half-dozen nuclear weapons. The reactor can produce about one bomb’s worth of plutonium per year, it said.

North Korea also has a uranium enrichment facility at Nyongbyon, likely giving it a second method to produce fissile material for bombs.

The North has conducted three underground nuclear tests, the latest in February 2013.

A North Korean envoy on Tuesday threatened further nuclear tests in response to moves at the U.N. for the country’s harsh human rights situation to be referred to the International Criminal Court.

The One Thing We Should Consider Before Using Tinder

The smartphone dating app Tinder has been catching fire faster than Katniss Everdeen can wield a bow and arrow. Currently, Tinder boasts over 50 million global active users, who check their accounts 11 times per day or spend an average of 1.5 hours daily on the app. From its start, however, Tinder has been clouded with allegations and accusations of bias against women. It recently came under fire again when its founder, Sean Rad, was charged and demoted for sexual harassment. The company’s exponential growth and connections with harassment are the perfect example of what can happen in a culture that blurs the lines between sexual objectification and empowerment.

Sexual objectification is the process of representing or treating a person like an object, one that serves another’s sexual pleasure. Tinder’s success demonstrates how casual the public has become about sexual objectification, which is understandable. Objectification is pervasive and deserves exploration in two arenas, advertising and gender expectations. Within the advertising industry, for example, women’s bodies are frequently turned into beer bottles, cars, or posed provocatively on the sides of buildings. On average, people see 5,000 advertisements per day and many of them objectify women.

Although we have all heard the adage, “sex sells,” the reality is that men and women are sold ideas through advertising. Throughout history, men understood their roles as being protectors, providers and procreators. In modern society, however, there is less need for protectors and providers. There are no longer competing cavemen threatening to drag a lady friend back to their own cave by the hair, or roaring wild animals on the prowl for a meal of small children. As a result, a heavy emphasis is placed on men to demonstrate their procreative capacities and sexual prowess. Diminishing the roles of protector and provider has led men to overemphasize their sexual value; the result is a hypersexualized, harmful climate. For example, a recent nationwide survey of over 300 men found that 73% agreed that their own attitudes towards women played a significant role in sexual exploitation.

Even women buy into these casual attitudes about objectification. In the most recent issue of Vanity Fair, Jennifer Lawrence was the first person to speak out about the now-famous celebrity nude photo leak. In her words, “I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he’s going to look at you.” Women have bought the lie that consenting to be sexually objectified is what empowered women do.

The fundamental premise of Tinder involves a level of objectification as well. One’s success depends on how well the user can sell himself or herself through an initial physically attractive photo. In this case, the billboard advertising is our own mini-photo on a smartphone. It has to capture someone’s attention for a microsecond, because it is the only ticket to sell yourself to someone else, probably for sexual pleasure. With 50 million users globally, no one seems to bat an eye that objectification is happening here and is potentially problematic. We are so accustomed to sexually objectifying ourselves and others, whether on a smartphone, catcalling on the street, or elsewhere. In a climate with these deep-seated expectations about men and women as subject vs, object, harassment, assault and exploitation become easier.

It is not just a male or female problem, but a collective one. We’ve all fallen into objectification habits blurred by desensitization. Men and women need proper education and better awareness about the prevalence of objectification and its deleterious effects upon us individually as men and women, then society as a whole. This problem can only be alleviated with all hands on deck, men and women alike. So, when it comes to using Tinder and perpetuating the problem, for now I will swipe left.

This is the Lexus LF-C2, and it’s kinda stunning

Lexus LF-C2 ConceptLexus has brought along an eye-catching new concept to the LA Auto Show 2014, the Lexus LF-C2, though while the droptop 2+2 might be described as a design study, it looks almost ready for the road. A clear descendent of both the IS and the IS C convertible, the LF-C2 envisages a life on the open road where the many … Continue reading