Hasta La Gadget!

THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES is one of the most unique natural resources in the world, with an abundance of wildlife found nowhere else. It also soaks up carbon dioxide from the air better than major rainforests around the world, researchers say.

But it is slowly disappearing, and has been for more than a century. Today, the Everglades is about the size of New Jersey — half the size it once was.

Much of the damage has been caused by humans through water diversion, population pressures, and agricultural run-off. But there are more subtle forces at work, including the growing effects of climate change.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the constitutionality of bans on same-sex marriage. Oral argument in the Supreme Court can be opaque, especially for those who aren’t well versed in the legal issues at stake or the precedents likely to be considered. During oral argument, the justices aren’t interested in educating the citizenry. They are trying to gain a better understanding of the case or subtly influencing the votes of their colleagues, so the questions and comments fly quickly–and usually right over most people’s heads. To help out, here are five things to look for in tomorrow’s oral argument.

1. Justice Kennedy

The first and most obvious thing to pay careful attention to is the questioning by Justice Anthony Kennedy. With four justices who lean liberal and four who lean conservative, the Supreme Court has long been the Kennedy Court. Because Kennedy has written all the major pro-gay rights decisions of the Supreme Court in recent years, many people assume he’ll vote in favor of marriage equality. If I were a betting person, that’s where I’d put my money too. Yet it’s worth remembering that Kennedy’s opinions in those cases have always been compromises. In Romer v. Evans, he declined to say that sexual orientation was a suspect classification. In Lawrence v. Texas, he didn’t say gay intimacy was a fundamental right that triggered strict scrutiny. In US v. Windsor, half his opinion rested on states rights. If Kennedy was serious in Windsor’s ode to the traditional autonomy of states over marriage, it could spell trouble. That’s why it’s worth playing close attention to what Kennedy says at oral argument. Is he skeptical of the state’s arguments? Does he express concern about the implications of overturning the marriage bans? Or does he emphasize the harms that come from denying LGBT couples marriage? Kennedy, in this as in most other cases, is the vote that counts.

2. Baker v. Nelson

Often lost in the current debate over marriage is that the Supreme Court has already held there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Or at least that’s one way to read Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case that raised the issue. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that state’s restriction of marriage to one man and one woman, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The justices summarily affirmed the lower court decision “for want of a substantial federal question.” In other words, the challenge to the marriage ban didn’t even raise a colorable constitutional claim. Will the justices treat Baker as binding precedent warranting their deference under the principle of stare decisis? There are good reasons to believe they won’t. The law and society has changed immensely since 1972. Back then, laws discriminating against women didn’t even trigger any form of heightened review. Today, there are numerous other precedents helpful to the LGBT challengers.

3. The Standard of Review

One of the continuing challenges for LGBT rights has been the Supreme Court’s–read Justice Kennedy’s–failure to declare sexual orientation a suspect classification. As a result, laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians are often treated to the most lenient form of judicial scrutiny, rational basis review. This makes it hard to combat discriminatory laws such as state bans on gay adoption. The time has come for the justices to declare that LGBT discrimination is suspect, not just when it comes to marriage but in all cases. Will they? Look for justices asking questions about what are known as the “Frontiero Factors,” named after an important sex discrimination case. Do the justices ask about the relative political power of the LGBT community? Do they ask if sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic? Do they show concern for other forms of discrimination against LGBT people? These are all key considerations for the justices in deciding whether heightened scrutiny is appropriate.

4. The Second Question

If the justices are certain to declare a constitutional right to marriage equality, one mystery is why they also agreed to hear arguments on a second question: whether states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. This is an important question–if there’s no constitutional right to marriage equality. For states that refuse to allow LGBT couples to marry, out-of-state marriages could threaten their prohibitions. Yet if states must allow LGBT couples to marry within their own states because there’s a constitutional right to marry, then this second question becomes more or less irrelevant. Out-of-state same-sex marriages can’t undermine the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage if the state doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriage. So why did the Court agree to hear argument on this second question if, as many assume, a constitutional right to marriage equality is a fait accompli? One possibility is that the state recognition issue offers a compromise, a half-step for a justice like Kennedy. He could say there is no constitutional right to marry but states can’t refuse to recognize lawful marriages conducted in other states. This would allow a lot of LGBT couples to marry, though not all. And would allow states some measure of autonomy over who can marry in their own states. Listen to see how seriously Kennedy and perhaps the Chief Justice, who might find such a compromise attractive, take the state recognition issue.

5. Originalism

When the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution guaranteed an individual right to bear arms, many people called the Court’s decision a “triumph of originalism.” The Court’s extensive historical discussion of the original meaning of the Second Amendment was perceived as a sign that Justice Antonin Scalia had finally won his tireless battle against “living constitutionalism”–the idea that the Constitution’s protections evolve over time. In the same-sex marriage controversy, however, originalism seems to be on the ropes. How often have you heard someone say that there is no right to same-sex marriage simply because the people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t intend for that provision to have such an effect? Or who argue the opposite? There are amicus briefs making originalist arguments to the Court but it was telling that the states directly involved in the case barely even mentioned the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do any of the justices (other than Scalia) say anything about originalism? If not, that’s a good sign that, no matter how much Scalia protests, we really do have a dynamic Constitution whose grand generalities must keep up with the times, which bodes well for the LGBT challengers to the marriage bans.

A note of caution is in order. Oral argument is a notoriously hard way to predict how the justices will ultimately rule on a case. In one of the famous school desegregation cases, the lawyer defending “separate but equal” was asked almost no questions at all and yet lost 9-0. So perhaps there’s a sixth thing to watch for during oral argument: which justices remain silent? That could be a sign that, for that justice at least, the case has already been decided. Which way, however, is anyone’s guess.

The Court’s decision in the same-sex marriage case is expected in late June.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

San Francisco is on track to reach a major milestone in its fight against homelessness, according to its mayor.

During a stop at the city’s veterans memorial on Wednesday, Ed Lee announced the Golden Gate City would house all of its chronically homeless veterans this year “by committing the resources necessary,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

According to the news outlet, the city — through partnerships with federal agencies and nonprofits — has placed about 500 chronically homeless veterans into stable housing since 2013.

San Francisco has used both city and federal funding to put roofs over vets’ heads, like renovating the former Stanford Hotel to accommodate 130 homeless people.

Lee’s announcement comes amidst a nationwide prioritization among cities to find housing for every veteran who’s struggled to find stable shelter.

On Monday, first lady Michelle Obama praised New Orleans for becoming the country’s first major city to achieve the feat last December, and — despite experiencing record-highs of overall homelessness in recent months — the Big Apple could end the crisis among veterans in 2015, too, according to Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“Those who fight abroad to protect our freedom should never be left without a home here in the country they defended,” De Blasio said in February, the Gotham Gazette reported. “It makes no sense, and we won’t let it happen.”

The U.S. has made considerable progress on the issue under President Obama, according to the White House. Between 2009 and January 2014, veteran homelessness dropped 33 percent, including a 42 percent reduction in veterans who were living unsheltered (as opposed to staying in impermanent housing conditions, such as shelters).

Although San Francisco is expecting to win its war against veteran homelessness, the city counted 6,436 homeless people in total in its latest survey — a figure that has remained relatively unchanged since at least 2005.

Gary Kamiya, executive editor of San Francisco magazine, wrote about the city’s longstanding struggle to curb homelessness in a recent article for San Francisco magazine.

“Even as the city undergoes another of its seismic transformations, with new skyscrapers piercing the horizon, gleaming apartment buildings popping up every month, and startup companies sprouting from every crack and corner like sour grass,” he wrote in the magazine’s March issue. “One thing has not changed about its landscape: The homeless.”

To help fight homelessness, support PATH (People Assisting The Homeless) by using the Crowdrise widget below.

Fundraising Websites – Crowdrise

<a href="https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostImp
act”> Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The number of articles written about the death of the romantic comedy is neither romantic nor comedic. In fact, it’s downright depressing. But it’s time to direct our attention to the cartel of women attempting to revive the genre. Among them are Leslye Headland, whose “Sleeping with Other People” premiered at the Sundance Film Festival; Amy Schumer, who wrote and stars in this summer’s “Trainwreck“; and Lake Bell, who stars opposite Simon Pegg in “Man Up.” Bell’s film premiered last week at the Tribeca Film Festival, immediately snagging distribution, which we’re going to presume happened in part because there are no damn rom-coms anywhere.

“Man Up” harks back to the genre’s classic mistaken-identity schemes, with Nancy (Bell) going along with it when a stranger (Pegg) thinks she is his blind date. That, friends, sounds like a good, old-fashioned rom-com. Bell bemoans such films’ deterioration just as much as the next “Notting Hill” obsessive, and that doesn’t end with “Man Up” — the actress, who won Sundance’s screenwriting prize for 2013’s “In a World,” is currently writing another romantically tinged film called “What’s the Point.” In other words, there was much to discuss when The Huffington Post sat down with Bell a few days after “Man Up” premiered. If her work is any indication, prepare for the Rom-Com Renaissance.

This is a conventional romantic comedy, and I mean that with the highest praise.
Yeah, I’m a fan of the rom-com. I will not hate on it. I grew up watching them and clearly when you see “Man Up,” Tess Morris has written a script at the hand of someone who has watched all of the greats and with love and care. She has sort of written an homage to them in a generous way. The movie is very much a modern take on a classic form, and it’s very sweet-spirited, which I think is very unique in this day and age of romantic comedies, which tend to be a little winky-winky or the anti-romantic comedy — a little mean, a little edgy. This is not that. It’s very sweet, it’s a little dorky, and that’s my favorite kind of laughing.

What has happened to traditional rom-coms?
I think people often try to reinvent the wheel a little bit, and what often ends up happening is you don’t go anywhere. The wheel is pretty good; it’s been functioning for a while. So I think with this, at the end of the day, a funny love story is a funny love story. Especially in thinking about “In a World,” I tend to lean towards projects that have a kind spirit because I think it’s even more provocative than being mean or cheeky. I think it’s more interesting. And frankly, in this world, not to be all “peace, love and happiness,” but when you go to the cinema, that’s refreshing. It’s like, “Why not just have a good time?”

Do you think part of the decline has to do with these movies’ unrealistic dating standards, particularly for women?
I mean, look. I sort of feel like classic romantic comedies always have these great male characters and these great female characters. That’s what makes them great. When you think about “Annie Hall” and “When Harry Met Sally” — those are two I pull out of the air — they’re classic romantic comedies, and the female characters are great. They’re flawed, hilarious, active, very on the front foot about their actions and feelings and emotions. Both the man and the woman are wonderful trainwrecks and you’re rooting for both of then. In that sense, there are just not a lot of them out there because I think people try to fix what’s not broken. That’s all.

Have you been offered romantic roles like this before?
First of all, never this vast. I’ve never been given the opportunity to fully realize a British character, and never really had the opportunity to be the girl in something. In a way, I feel like because of “In a World,” I sort of provided an opportunity for myself to be the lead person, despite saying, “Hey, the main girl doesn’t have to be perfect.” And there are similarities in the messy, earnest nature of the “In a World” character and Nancy. I’m quite organized myself, but I like playing these messy women. They’re not fully misanthropic and not functioning in society, but they’re having trouble with something in their life, whether it’s achieving their career goals or achieving love. I have two younger sisters that I love very much, and the conversations we have — just the female condition — that is something I relate to. Both of those characters, I think, exist in a very truthful place within the world.

I think somewhere a misguided notion took hold that female rom-com characters were incapable of independence.
Right, that’s what I was saying. It’s just, like, they’re pretty, they’ve got a job, they could tie their shoes properly and do their laundry, but for whatever reason, because of X, Y or Z relationship, it’s grayer. You and I aren’t completely a mess, but we both probably go to therapy. I don’t know if you do, but I do, and I enjoy it. And it’s more realistic and it’s more interesting and I think it’s more relatable. And especially because I think poor romantic comedies often get criticized for having an astonishingly attractive model-looking person being like “wah wah wah” and they can’t figure it out, whilst I have good features, too. [Laughs]

You’ve talked in the past about being resistant to marriage, but obviously you’ve changed your mind on that.
[Laughs and shows off wedding ring] I had a baby, too!

Were you hesitant on that, too?
No, I was just like, “Oh, eventually I’ll have a baby” — I just never thought I’d get married.

Would you have been resistant to rom-com leads before getting married yourself?
That’s a good point, but no, I’ve always loved romantic comedies. You go to the movies and you do want to be transported a little bit. I’m definitely an actual cinema preservationist; I hope that doesn’t go away because movies are about experience. If you go to see a great romantic comedy, you get to envelop in that feeling and the texture of what it is to be in love or to be misled and then come back around again with the emotional underdogs that are your protagonists. I believe in that.

And now you’re writing a rom-com of your own with “What’s the Point.”
It’s an unromantic romance.

Tell me more.
It’s an investigation of different relationships within the construct and the unionship of marriage. And it’s a comedy.

It must be a relief to promote a movie that doesn’t require the same energy that writing and directing does.
The thing that draws me to give X amount of years of my life to something — because that’s ostensibly what making a movie is — is getting married to a team of people and then going and making it. Especially when you’re writing and directing it, or directing and rewriting, I just look for content that is challenging in a new way because to do the same thing is not creative. True creativity is the hunger for new and for different. That is what I crave. [“The Emperor’s Children,” which Bell is directing] is a drama, I’m not in it. It’s a completely different cocktail of creativity, and that is highly intoxicating to me. That’s what you look for, right? It’s what turns you on. I don’t want to do a diluted version of “In a World” because I did “In a World.” So when people are saying, “Oh, would you be interested in X, Y or Z and taking on this project,” I say, “Well, I’d much rather take on directing a war picture than something I’ve already done.”

So you have a war movie coming next then?
I know, I’m like, “Why did I say that?” Now people will say, “Well, Lake, we’ve got this great war picture.”

Watch the “Man Up’ trailer:

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

By Gopal Sharma, Rupam Jain Nair and Ross Adkin

KATHMANDU, Nepal, April 27 (Reuters) – Nepalese officials scrambled on Monday to get aid from the main airport to people left homeless and hungry by a devastating earthquake two days earlier, while thousands tired of waiting fled the capital Kathmandu for the surrounding plains.

By afternoon, the death toll from Saturday’s 7.9 magnitude earthquake had climbed to more than 3,700, and reports trickling in from remote areas suggested it would rise significantly.

A senior interior ministry official said it could rise to as high as 5,000, in the worse such disaster in Nepal since 1934, when 8,500 people were killed.

Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport was hobbled by many employees not showing up for work, people trying to get out, and a series of aftershocks which forced it to close several times since the quake.

Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam was supervising aid delivery and arranging for passengers to leave the country.

Government officials said they needed more supplies of food, medicines, specialized rescue services and body bags.

“The morgues are getting totally full,” said Shankar Koirala, an official in the Prime Minister’s Office who is dealing with the disposal of bodies.

Families lit funeral pyres for the dead in towns and across the countryside.

Volunteers clear debris of a collapsed temple at Basantapur Durbar Square on April 27, 2015 in Kathmandu, Nepal. (Photo by Omar Havana/Getty Images)

FLIGHT FROM KATHMANDU

Many of Kathmandu’s one million residents have slept in the open since Saturday, either because their homes were flattened or they were terrified that aftershocks would bring them crashing down.

On Monday, thousands streamed out of the city. Roads leading from Kathmandu were jammed with people, some carrying babies, trying to climb onto buses or hitch rides aboard cars and trucks to the plains. Huge queues had formed at the airport.

“We are escaping,” said Krishna Muktari, who runs a small grocery store in Kathmandu, standing at a road intersection.

Meanwhile, the extent of Nepal’s disaster was only just emerging as reports of devastation began to come in from other parts of the country.

High in the Himalayas, hundreds of climbers were staying put at Mount Everest base camp, where a huge avalanche after the earthquake killed 17 people in the single worst disaster to hit the world’s highest mountain.

Rescue teams, helped by clear weather, used helicopters to airlift scores of people stranded at higher altitudes, two at a time.

In Sindhupalchowk, about a three-hour drive northeast of Kathmandu, the death toll had reached 875 people and was expected to rise. In Dhading, close to the quake’s epicenter west of Kathmandu, 241 people were killed.

Survivors spoke of trying to stay flat on the ground while the tremors shook the forested mountains. Some were stuck for hours afterwards, unable to move because of injuries.

“There is nobody helping people in the villages. People are dying where they are,” said A. B. Gurung, a Nepali soldier who was waiting in Dhading district for an Indian helicopter that had gone to his village Darkha.

Volunteers and emergency workers search for bodies buried under the debris of one of the temples at Basantapur Durbar Square on April 27, 2015 in Kathmandu, Nepal. (Photo by Omar Havana/Getty Images)

AID TRICKLES IN

In Kathmandu, sick and wounded people were lying out in the open, unable to find beds in the devastated city’s hospitals. Surgeons set up an operating theater inside a tent in the grounds of Kathmandu Medical College.

Across the capital and beyond, exhausted families laid mattresses out on streets and erected tents to shelter from rain. People queued for water dispensed from trucks, while the few stores still open had next to nothing on their shelves.

Some relief supplies began to trickle into the capital, a Reuters witness said. Some portable toilets had been set up and food was being provided by local aid agencies.

A few United Nations vehicles were seen with medical equipment and first aid kits.

The United Nations Children’s Fund said nearly one million children in Nepal were severely affected by the quake, and warned of waterborne and infectious diseases.

In the ancient temple town of Bhaktapur, east of Kathmandu, many residents were living in tents in a school compound after centuries old buildings collapsed or developed huge cracks.

“We have become refugees,” said Sarga Dhaoubadel, a management student whose ancestors had built her Bhaktapur family home over 400 years ago.

They were subsisting on instant noodles and fruit, she said.

“No one from the government has come to offer us even a glass of water,” she said. “Nobody has come to even check our health. We are totally on our own here. All we can hope is that the aftershocks stop and we can try and get back home.”

A total of 3,726 people were confirmed killed in the quake, the government said on Monday. More than 6,500 were injured.

Another 66 were killed across the border in India and at least another 20 in Tibet, China’s state news agency said.

Several countries rushed to send aid and personnel.

India sent helicopters, medical supplies and members of its National Disaster Response Force. China sent a 60-strong emergency team. Pakistan’s army said it was sending four C-130 aircraft with a 30-bed hospital, search and rescue teams and relief supplies.

A Pentagon spokesman said a U.S. military aircraft with 70 personnel left the United States on Sunday and was due in Kathmandu on Monday. Australia, Britain and New Zealand said they were sending specialist urban search-and-rescue teams to Kathmandu at Nepal’s request.

Britain, which believes several hundred of its nationals are in Nepal, was also delivering supplies and medics.

The disaster has underlined the woeful state of Nepal’s medical facilities.

Nepal has only 2.1 physicians and 50 hospital beds for every 10,000 people, according to a 2011 World Health Organization report.

(Additional reporting by Sanjeev Miglani and Gopal Sharma in Kathmandu, Frank Jack Daniel, Mayank Bhardwaj, Krista Mahr, Amit Ganguly and Nidhi Verma in New Delhi; Neha Dasgupta and Clara Ferreira-Marques in Mumbai and Norihiko Shirouzo in Beijing; Writing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Paritosh Bansal; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

#custom_crowdrise_widget div.crDonateWidget {
width: 298px !important;
margin-left: 0 !important;
margin-right: 0 !important;
padding: 0 !important;
height:78px;
}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crDonateWidget h4 { display: none; }
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crDonateTriangle { display: none !important;}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crImageAndTitleOuter { display: none !important;}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .CRShadowImage { display: none !important;}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crDonateWidgetOuter {
border:0 !important;
box-shadow: none !important;
-webkit-box-shadow: none !important;
margin-top: 0 !important;
margin-right: 0 !important;
margin-bottom: 0 !important;
margin-left: 0 !important;
background: url(“https://www.crowdrise.com/media/cdncustom/huffpost_donate_widget.png”) 0 0 no-repeat !important;
}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crDonateWidget {
margin:0 !important;
box-shadow: none !important;
-webkit-box-shadow: none !important;
background-color: inherit !important;
padding: 0 10px !important;
}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .startFundraiser { display: none !important;}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .gradientButton {
width: inherit !important;
margin-bottom: 0 !important;
}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crDonated {
margin: 0 !important;
font: bold 14px/16px Arial,”Helvetica Neue”,Helvetica,sans-serif !important;
width: 185px;
padding-top: 9px !important;
}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crLogo img { display: none !important;}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .crDonatedLabel { display: none !important; }
#custom_crowdrise_widget .gradientButton {
background: none !important;
-ms-filter:”progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=0)” !important;
filter: alpha(opacity=0) !important;
opacity: 0 !important;
border: 0 !important;
width: inherit !important;
height: 21px !important;
margin-top:15px !important;
}
#custom_crowdrise_widget .donateNow {
font: normal 9px Arial,”Helvetica Neue”,Helvetica,sans-serif !important;
-ms-filter:”progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=0)”;
filter: alpha(opacity=0);
opacity: 0;
border: 0 !important;
width: inherit !important;
height: 36px !important;
margin-top:0 !important;
padding-top: 0 !important;
}

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.