AdamSmith

Suckrates doing his best impression of King Canute there.

ROFL Exactly why love and prenups go hand in hand.

Just came across this from 2004, when Stewart went on Crossfire & proceeded to disassemble the show & its idiot hosts.

I can see it now...

One more clause for the pre-nuptial agreement, I see.

Night Angels: A Different Breed of Crime-Fighter Responds to Anti-Gay ViolenceBy Sydney Brownstone Wednesday, Jun 19 2013 The Village Voice It's a little past 11 on a balmy June night. Jack Zero stands in a patch of yellow light on the corner of Christopher Street and Seventh Avenue, wearing a Kevlar vest and cradling a skateboard modified with forearm straps for use as a riot shield. C.S. Muncy Meredith, Dark Guardian, and Jack Zero devote their nights to preventing rape and keeping watch over staggering gay men. C.S. Muncy C.S. Muncy When he spots two more people in Kevlar outside the subway station—a martial arts instructor and a young woman packing a foot-long flashlight—he quickly crosses the street, prepared for the night's crime watch. Ever since 32-year-old Mark Carson was shot in the face after leaving a gay bar on May 18, the citizen crime-prevention squad New York Initiative (NYI) has been patrolling the West Village. It wasn't just Carson's murder that caused concern. The city has seen a sharp uptick in anti-gay hate crimes, with five reports in May alone. In the past, NYI has spent nights breaking up fights in Harlem and keeping watch over a Canarsie neighborhood plagued by rape. The martial arts instructor, who goes by the name Dark Guardian, worked three years chasing coke dealers out of Washington Square Park. The group also served as night security during Occupy Wall Street's Zuccotti Park protests. The group used to dress as superheroes, but that changed when they felt the press characterized them as silly thrill-seekers. "We put on the mask to tell the story, to get people engaged," Zero says. "But we saw that the superhero thing was doing us more damage than good." NYI is now composed of security specialists and defense enthusiasts, though the superhero nicknames remain intact. Fifteen minutes into the night's patrol, Zero finds a man wiped out outside Monster Bar, the back of his skull revealing a sticky stamp of blood. Zero applies pressure as the fallen man's friend, Shaun Keappock, kneels beside him. "You hit your head, honey," Keappock tells his dazed friend. "There's somebody taking care of you right now. There's a professional guy here." "I want to sing," the man with the bleeding head mumbles. "I'll sing with you," Zero says. Together they keen a slurred rendition of Whitney Houston's "Greatest Love of All." Zero, who works club security in the meatpacking district, has been doing this sort of thing for roughly a decade. So has Dark Guardian. Meredith, a 23-year-old horse-trainer who carries herself like the girl most likely to foul you during an intramural soccer match, took self-defense lessons for two years before joining NYI. The team routinely responds to incidents requiring first aid; Zero says he once plugged a bullet wound in Bed-Stuy. But the primary goal is to prevent crime before it happens using de-escalation training, the stuff they teach you in the Peace Corps. When the Village was experiencing a string of muggings between Stonewall Inn and the PATH train two years ago, NYI watched drunk singles make their way to the station. If any large groups started following a vulnerable-looking guy, Zero and a man named Shortcut say they would crouch low on their skateboards and pop up by the target at the last second. The would-be muggers turned around. Back on Grove Street, the man who fell has been inspected by medics. Keappock is touched. He feels the new fear encroaching on the city. "There have been times when I go home late and I hear some nasty things," he says. "And when I walk from here to the 6 [train], people try to lure you in. They try to hit on you if you're a staggering gay. A friend of mine has been mugged twice this year alone because of the whole staggering-gay thing." NYI plans to hold free self-defense classes for residents in July. "That was exactly what I was thinking when I first heard all this violence was happening," says Mitch Ferrino, Monster Bar's night manager. He's been called a fag a couple of times in Chelsea by "idiots on vacation with their drinking buddies," but believes the area is generally safe. "I want to take a self-defense class. I go to the gym all the time, but this is for show," Ferrino laughs, shrugging his toned shoulders. As NYI continues down Christopher Street, three cops from the Sixth Precinct stationed outside the Village Smoke Shop perk up. When one, Officer Sullivan, asks what the Initiative is doing, he quickly nods his head. "Just have a safe night," he says. At one point, both Dark Guardian and Zero wanted to be on the force. Dark Guardian even took the test. But after they learned of the NYPD's enforcement quotas, both decided the police department wasn't for them. "A lot of people don't want to deal with police," Dark Guardian says. "We don't believe all police are bad, but we believe the police need to work a little differently with the community. Once, after he helped police chase down a suspect, he says he saw a cop kick the man in the face. He filed a report, but the suspect decided not to press charges. NYI emphasizes maintaining calm and de-escalating confrontation. "Are we somehow intelligent enough to stop the madness instead of making it worse?" Zero asks. "I feel like a lot of other groups run in and escalate the damage." Still, the group has experienced some danger. When Dark Guardian and a member named Spectre once confronted a pimp in Harlem River Park, they say the pimp threatened them instead. They called the cops, who searched the pimp's house, discovering a handgun, an AR-15, two high-capacity magazines, and nearly 900 rounds of ammunition. Another member, Tango, posed as bait during the Park Slope groper scare last summer. When she left Freddy's Bar, pretending to be drunk, other members trailed her, taking down license plate numbers of the men who tried to get her into their cars. But most of the time, all NYI has to do is stand there, Zero says. The team spots a large crowd of teenagers hanging outside a Village flower shop that's experienced a spate of robberies. Zero, Dark Guardian, and Meredith walk up to examine the buckets of sunflowers. "Did you know dandelions are really good for you?" Zero asks his team. "Skateboard cop," one teenager mutters to a friend before the crowd thins and disperses. http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-06-19/news/night-angels/full/

Agence France-Presse ✔ @AFP #BREAKING: Snowden has requested asylum in Ecuador: foreign minister 12:38 PM - 23 Jun 2013

Little bit more from The Guardian on possible destinations: Jonathan Watts, our Latin America correspondent, has been looking at the pros and cons of two possible refuges for Snowden: VenezuelaFOR: Good flight links between Caracas and Havana. Under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela led a growing number of South American nations that distanced themselves politically from the US, while remaining far more democratic than China or Cuba. Chávez's successor, Nicolás Maduro has maintained the anti-US rhetoric so is likely to be willing to embrace Snowden. Beautiful climate and great Caribbean beaches. AGAINST: Although a far lesser threat than China or Russia, Venezuela is seen by many in the US as a hostile nation that is under the influence of Cuba. Yet, it is also possible that – as a democracy – the country could get a pro-US leader at the next presidential election in 2018. Murder rates in Caracas are among the highest in the world so an assassination attempt might be disguised as just another street crime. Very expensive. EcuadorFOR: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted refuge here, though he is currently still holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London. WikiLeaks claimed today that it is helping Snowden to secure asylum in "a democratic nation via a safe route". Although Ecuador is relatively small, it has strong regional allies and economic support from China, which strengthens its ability to resist extradition requests. It has democratic elections and President Rafael Correa is not afraid of standing up to the US and Europe. Quito is a stunning city in the mountains with great food, decent internet, reasonable prices and easy access to Pacific beaches and Amazon forest. AGAINST: In terms of media freedom, this is no Iceland. Correa has been heavily criticised for cracking down on private media groups, though there is still a diverse range of opinion on TV and in newspapers. A new presidential election must be held in four years, which could usher in a leader who is less willing to grant asylum to foreign whistleblowers. The altitude in Quito takes some getting used to. Updated 1h 33m ago 1h 60m ago Birgitta Jónsdóttir, an Icelandic MP and internet freedom activist, has written a handy guide on the obstacles facing Snowden if he opted to head for her country (which was mooted but now seems unlikely). Essentially, she warns, Snowden would not be safe unless the government granted him citizenship, as it did to the chess player Bobby Fischer when he faced US punishment for breaking a sporting embargo on the then-Yugosalvia. Seeking political asylum is a process that can take s long time, and there are no guarantees granted against extradition while the process is ongoing. However, since Snowden faces possible death sentence his case is stronger, for it is illegal to extradite a person who faces a death sentence from Iceland. It is important to note that Iceland has a terrible track record when it comes to granting political asylum to people seeking shelter, as it is hardly ever granted and thus a too dangerous path to be recommended for Snowden... It is important to note that there has not been any formal requests for asylum from Snowden to the Icelandic government and thus impossible for them to respond with affirmative answer until such a request has been received. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live

3 NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower: We told you so Peter Eisler and Susan Page, USA TODAY 8:01 p.m. EDT June 16, 2013 In a roundtable discussion, a trio of former National Security Agency whistle-blowers tell USA TODAY that Edward Snowden succeeded where they failed. (Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY) Story Highlights Edward Snowden, 29, an NSA contractor, released a trove of classified information He has been hiding in Hong Kong since the secret government spy program was detailed 3 NSA officials -- also whistle-blowers -- tell USA TODAY Snowden's claims vindicate them When a National Security Agency contractor revealed top-secret details this month on the government's collection of Americans' phone and Internet records, one select group of intelligence veterans breathed a sigh of relief. Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way. For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media. To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime. Today, they feel vindicated. They say the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former NSA contractor who worked as a systems administrator, proves their claims of sweeping government surveillance of millions of Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. They say those revelations only hint at the programs' reach. On Friday, USA TODAY brought Drake, Binney and Wiebe together for the first time since the story broke to discuss the NSA revelations. With their lawyer, Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, they weighed their implications and their repercussions. They disputed the administration's claim of the impact of the disclosures on national security — and President Obama's argument that Congress and the courts are providing effective oversight. And they have warnings for Snowden on what he should expect next. Three former NSA whistleblowers discuss what they were able to learn from the leaked document in the Edward Snowden case. Q: Did Edward Snowden do the right thing in going public? William Binney: We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing and openly admit that and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends they were really after. And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or — we couldn't get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general's office didn't pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand. Q: So Snowden did the right thing? Binney: Yes, I think he did. Q: You three wouldn't criticize him for going public from the start? J. Kirk Wiebe: Correct. Binney: In fact, I think he saw and read about what our experience was, and that was part of his decision-making. Wiebe: We failed, yes. Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Tom ended up being prosecuted — and it was for blowing the whistle. NSA whistle-blower William Binney.(Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY) Q: There's a question being debated whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor. Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they're doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that. But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service. So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor. Thomas Drake: He's an American who has been exposed to some incredible information regarding the deepest secrets of the United States government. And we are seeing the initial outlines and contours of a very systemic, very broad, a Leviathan surveillance state and much of it is in violation of the fundamental basis for our own country — in fact, the very reason we even had our own American Revolution. And the Fourth Amendment for all intents and purposes was revoked after 9/11. ... He is by all definitions a classic whistle-blower and by all definitions he exposed information in the public interest. We're now finally having the debate that we've never had since 9/11. Radack: "Hero or traitor?" was the original question. I don't like these labels, and they are putting people into categories of two extremes, villain or saint. ... By law, he fits the legal definition of a whistle-blower. He is someone who exposed broad waste, abuse and in his case illegality. ... And he also said he was making the disclosures for the public good and because he wanted to have a debate. Q: James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said Snowden's disclosures caused "huge, grave damage" to the United States. Do you agree? Wiebe: No, I do not. I do not. You know, I've asked people: Do you generally believe there's government authorities collecting information about you on the Net or your phone? "Oh, of course." No one is surprised. There's very little specificity in the slides that he made available (describing the PRISM surveillance program). There is far more specificity in the FISA court order that is bothersome. Q: Did foreign governments, terrorist organizations, get information they didn't have already? Binney: Ever since ... 1997-1998 ... those terrorists have known that we've been monitoring all of these communications all along. So they have already adjusted to the fact that we are doing that. So the fact that it is published in the U.S. news that we're doing that, has no effect on them whatsoever. They have already adjusted to that. Radack: This comes up every time there's a leak. ... In Tom's case, Tom was accused of literally the blood of soldiers would be on his hands because he created damage. I think the exact words were, "When the NSA goes dark, soldiers die." And that had nothing to do with Tom's disclosure at all, but it was part of the fear mongering that generally goes with why we should keep these things secret. Q: What did you learn from the document — the Verizon warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — that Snowden leaked? Drake: It's an extraordinary order. I mean, it's the first time we've publicly seen an actual, secret, surveillance-court order. I don't really want to call it "foreign intelligence" (court) anymore, because I think it's just become a surveillance court, OK? And we are all foreigners now. By virtue of that order, every single phone record that Verizon has is turned over each and every day to NSA. There is no probable cause. There is no indication of any kind of counterterrorism investigation or operation. It's simply: "Give us the data." ... There's really two other factors here in the order that you could get at. One is that the FBI requesting the data. And two, the order directs Verizon to pass all that data to NSA, not the FBI. Binney: What it is really saying is the NSA becomes a processing service for the FBI to use to interrogate information directly. ... The implications are that everybody's privacy is violated, and it can retroactively analyze the activity of anybody in the country back almost 12 years. Now, the other point that is important about that is the serial number of the order: 13-dash-80. That means it's the 80th order of the court in 2013. ... Those orders are issued every quarter, and this is the second quarter, so you have to divide 80 by two and you get 40. The National Security Agency's data center in Bluffdale, Utah. Former NSA employees interviewed by USA TODAY offered insight on the recent leak of documents by Edward Snowden.(Photo: Rick Bowmer, AP) If you make the assumption that all those orders have to deal with companies and the turnover of material by those companies to the government, then there are at least 40 companies involved in that transfer of information. However, if Verizon, which is Order No. 80, and the first quarter got order No. 1 — then there can be as many as 79 companies involved. So somewhere between 40 and 79 is the number of companies, Internet and telecom companies, that are participating in this data transfer in the NSA. Radack: I consider this to be an unlawful order. While I am glad that we finally have something tangible to look at, this order came from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They have no jurisdiction to authorize domestic-to-domestic surveillance. Binney: Not surprised, but it's documentation that can't be refuted. Wiebe: It's formal proof of our suspicions. Q: Even given the senior positions that you all were in, you had never actually seen one of these? Drake: They're incredibly secret. It's a very close hold. ... It's a secret court with a secret appeals court. They are just not widely distributed, even in the government. Q: What was your first reaction when you saw it? Binney: Mine was that it's documentary evidence of what we have been saying all along, so they couldn't deny it. Drake: For me, it was material evidence of an institutional crime that we now claim is criminal. Binney: Which is still criminal. Wiebe: It's criminal. NSA whistle-blower Thomas Drake.(Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY) Q: Thomas Drake, you worked as a contractor for the NSA for about a decade before you went on staff there. Were you surprised that a 29-year-old contractor based in Hawaii was able to get access to the sort of information that he released? Drake: It has nothing to do with being 29. It's just that we are in the Internet age and this is the digital age. So, so much of what we do both in private and in public goes across the Internet. Whether it's the public Internet or whether it's the dark side of the Internet today, it's all affected the same in terms of technology. ... One of the critical roles in the systems is the system administrator. Someone has to maintain it. Someone has to keep it running. Someone has to maintain the contracts. Binney: Part of his job as the system administrator, he was to maintain the system. Keep the databases running. Keep the communications working. Keep the programs that were interrogating them operating. So that meant he was like a super-user. He could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure — because he would be responsible to get it back up and running if, in fact, it failed. So that meant he had access to go in and put anything. That's why he said, I think, "I can even target the president or a judge." If he knew their phone numbers or attributes, he could insert them into the target list which would be distributed worldwide. And then it would be collected, yeah, that's right. As a super-user, he could do that. Three former whistle-blowers discuss whether Edward Snowden could tap the president's phone and about what it means to be a "super-user" with USA TODAY reporters Susan Page and Peter Eisler. Q: As he said, he could tap the president's phone? Binney: As a super-user and manager of data in the data system, yes, they could go in and change anything. Q: At a Senate hearing in March, Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, if there was mass data collection of Americans. He said "no." Was that a lie? Drake: This is incredible dissembling. We're talking about the oversight committee, unable to get a straight answer because if the straight answer was given it would reveal the perfidy that's actually going on inside the secret side of the government. Q: What should Clapper have said? Binney: He should have said, "I can't comment in an open forum." NSA whistle-blower J. Kirk Wiebe.(Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY) Wiebe:Yeah, that's right. Q: Does Congress provide effective oversight for these programs? Radack: Congress has been a rubber stamp, basically, and the judicial branch has been basically shut down from hearing these lawsuits because every time they do they are told that the people who are challenging these programs either have no standing or (are covered by) the state secrets privilege, and the government says that they can't go forward. So the idea that we have robust checks and balances on this is a myth. Binney: But the way it's set up now, it's a joke. I mean, it can't work the way it is because they have no real way of seeing into what these agencies are doing. They are totally dependent on the agencies briefing them on programs, telling them what they are doing. And as long as the agencies tell them, they will know. If they don't tell them, they don't know. And that's what's been going on here. And the only way they really could correct that is to create billets on these committees and integrate people in these agencies so they can go around every day and watch what is happening and then feed back the truth as to what's going on, instead of the story that they get from the NSA or other agencies. ... Even take the FISA court, for example. The judges signed that order. I mean, I am sure they (the FBI) swore on an affidavit to the judge, "These are the reasons why," but the judge has no foundation to challenge anything that they present to him. What information does the judge have to make a decision against them? I mean, he has absolutely nothing. So that's really not an oversight. Radack: The proof is in the pudding. Last year alone, in 2012, they approved 1,856 applications and they denied none. And that is typical from everything that has happened in previous years. ... I know the government has been asserting that all of this is kosher and legitimate because the FISA court signed off on it. The FISA court is a secret court — operates in secret. There is only one side and has rarely disapproved anything. Three former NSA whistle-blowers discuss whether there is effective oversight on intelligence-gathering with USA TODAY reporters Susan Page and Peter Eisler. Q: Do you think President Obama fully knows and understands what the NSA is doing? Binney: No. I mean, it's obvious. I mean, the Congress doesn't either. I mean, they are all being told what I call techno-babble ... and they (lawmakers) don't really don't understand what the NSA does and how it operates. Even when they get briefings, they still don't understand. Radack: Even for people in the know, I feel like Congress is being misled. Binney: Bamboozled. Radack: I call it perjury. Q: What should Edward Snowden expect now? Binney: Well, first of all, I think he should expect to be treated just like Bradley Manning (an Army private now being court-martialed for leaking documents to WikiLeaks). The U.S. government gets ahold of him, that's exactly the way he will be treated. Q: He'll be prosecuted? Binney: First tortured, then maybe even rendered and tortured and then incarcerated and then tried and incarcerated or even executed. Wiebe: Now there is another possibility, that a few of the good people on Capitol Hill — the ones who say the threat is much greater than what we thought it was — will step forward and say give this man an honest day's hearing. You know what I mean. Let's get him up here. Ask him to verify, because if he is right — and all pointers are that he was — all he did was point to law-breaking. What is the crime of that? Drake: But see, I am Exhibit No. 1. ...You know, I was charged with 10 felony counts. I was facing 35 years in prison. This is how far the state will go to punish you out of retaliation and reprisal and retribution. ... My life has been changed. It's been turned inside, upside down. I lived on the blunt end of the surveillance bubble. ... When you are faced essentially with the rest of your life in prison, you really begin to understand and appreciate more so than I ever have — in terms of four times I took the oath to support the Constitution — what those rights and freedoms really mean. ... Believe me, they are going to put everything they have got to get him. I think there really is a risk. There is a risk he will eventually be pulled off the street. Three former NSA whistle-blowers discuss what Snowden should expect, and what they would say to him with USA TODAY reporters Susan Page and Peter Eisler. Q: What do you mean? Drake: Well, fear of rendition. There is going to be a team sent in. Radack: We have already unleashed the full force of the entire executive branch against him and are now doing a worldwide manhunt to bring him in — something more akin to what we would do for Osama bin Laden. And I know for a fact, if we do get him, he would definitely face Espionage Act charges, as other people have who have exposed information of government wrongdoing. And I heard a number of people in Congress (say) he would also be charged with treason. These are obviously the most serious offenses that can be leveled against an American. And the people who so far have faced them and have never intended to harm the U.S. or benefit the foreign nations have always wanted to go public. And they face severe consequences as a defector. That's why I understand why he is seeking asylum. I think he has a valid fear. Wiebe: We are going to find out what kind of country we are, what have we become, what do we want to be. Q: What would you say to him? Binney: I would tell him to steer away from anything that isn't a public service — like talking about the ability of the U.S. government to hack into other countries or other people is not a public service. So that's kind of compromising capabilities and sources and methods, basically. That's getting away from the public service that he did initially. And those would be the acts that people would charge him with as clearly treason. Drake: Well, I feel extraordinary kinship with him, given what I experienced at the hands of the government. And I would just tell him to ensure that he's got a support network that I hope is there for him and that he's got the lawyers necessary across the world who will defend him to the maximum extent possible and that he has a support-structure network in place. I will tell you, when you exit the surveillance-state system, it's a pretty lonely place — because it had its own form of security and your job and family and your social network. And all of a sudden, you are on the outside now in a significant way, and you have that laser beam of the surveillance state turning itself inside out to find and learn everything they can about you. Wiebe: I think your savior in all of this is being able to honestly relate to the principles embedded in the Constitution that are guiding your behavior. That's where really — rubber meets the road, at that point. Radack: I would thank him for taking such a huge personal risk and giving up so much of his life and possibly facing the loss of his life or spending it in jail. Thank him for doing that to try to help our country save it from itself in terms of exposing dark, illegal, unethical, unconstitutional conduct that is being done against millions and millions of people. Drake: I actually salute him. I will say it right here. I actually salute him, given my experience over many, many years both inside and outside the system. Remember, I saw what he saw. I want to re-emphasize that. What he did was a magnificent act of civil disobedience. He's exposing the inner workings of the surveillance state. And it's in the public interest. It truly is. Wiebe: Well, I don't want anyone to think that he had an alternative. No one should (think that). There is no path for intelligence-community whistle-blowers who know wrong is being done. There is none. It's a toss of the coin, and the odds are you are going to be hammered. Three former NSA whistle-blowers discuss whether there is a better way to gather intelligence with USA TODAY reporters Susan Page and Peter Eisler. Q: Is there a way to collect this data that is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Binney: Two basic principles you have to use. ... One is what I call the two-degree principle. If you have a terrorist talking to somebody in the United States — that's the first degree away from the terrorist. And that could apply to any country in the world. And then the second degree would be who that person in the United States talked to. So that becomes your zone of suspicion. And the other one (principle) is you watch all the jihadi sites on the Web and who's visiting those jihadi sites, who has an interest in the philosophy being expressed there. And then you add those to your zone of suspicion. Everybody else is innocent — I mean, you know, of terrorism, anyway. Wiebe: Until they're somehow connected to this activity. Binney: You pull in all the contents involving (that) zone of suspicion and you throw all the rest of it away. You can keep the attributes of all the communicants in the other parts of the world, the rest of the 7 billion people, right? And you can then encrypt it so that nobody can interrogate that base randomly. That's the way of preventing this kind of random access by a contractor or by the FBI or any other DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or any other department of government. They couldn't go in and find anybody. You couldn't target your next-door neighbor. If you went in with his attributes, they're encrypted. ... So unless they are in the zone of suspicion, you won't see any content on anybody and you won't see any attributes in the clear. ... It's all within our capabilities. Drake: It's been within our capabilities for well over 12 years. Wiebe: Bill and I worked on a government contract for a contractor not too far from here. And when we showed him the concept of how this privacy mechanism that Bill just described to you — the two degrees, the encryption and hiding of identities of innocent people — he said, "Nobody cares about that." I said, "What do you mean?" This man was in a position to know a lot of government people in the contracting and buying of capabilities. He said. "Nobody cares about that." Lawyer Jesselyn Radack, left, with whistle-blowers J. Kirk Wiebe, standing; William Binney, center; and Thomas Drake.(Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY) Drake: This (kind of surveillance) is all unnecessary. It is important to note that the very best of American ingenuity and inventiveness, creativity, had solved the major challenge problem the NSA faced: How do you make sense of vast amounts of data, provide the information you need to protect the nation, while also protecting the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution? The government in secret decided — willfully and deliberately — that that was no longer necessary after 9/11. So they said, you know what, hey, for the sake of security we are going to draw that line way, way over. And if it means eroding the liberties and freedoms of Americans and others, hey, so be it because that's what's most important. But this was done without the knowledge of the American people. Q: Would it make a difference if contractors weren't used? Wiebe: I don't think so. They are human beings. You know, look at what's going on with the IRS and the Tea Party. You know, there (are) human beings involved. We are all human beings — contractors, NSA government employees. We are all human beings. We undergo clearance checks, background investigations that are extensive and we are all colors, ages and religions. I mean this is part of the American fabric. Binney: But when it comes to these data, the massive data information collecting on U.S. citizens and everything in the world they can, I guess the real problem comes with trust. That's really the issue. The government is asking for us to trust them. It's not just the trust that you have to have in the government. It's the trust you have to have in the government employees, (that) they won't go in the database — they can see if their wife is cheating with the neighbor or something like that. You have to have all the trust of all the contractors who are parts of a contracting company who are looking at maybe other competitive bids or other competitors outside their — in their same area of business. And they might want to use that data for industrial intelligence gathering and use that against other companies in other countries even. So they can even go into a base and do some industrial espionage. So there is a lot of trust all around and the government, most importantly, the government has no way to check anything that those people are doing. Q: So Snowden's ability to access information wasn't an exception? Binney: And they didn't know he was doing (it). ... That's the point, right? ...They should be doing that automatically with code, so the instant when anyone goes into that base with a query that they are not supposed to be doing, they should be flagged immediately and denied access. And that could be done with code. But the government is not doing that. So that's the greatest threat in this whole affair. Wiebe: And the polygraph that is typically given to all people, government employees and contractors, never asks about integrity. Did you give an honest day's work for your pay? Do you feel like you are doing important and proper work? Those things never come up. It's always, "Do you have any association with a terrorist?" Well, everybody can pass those kinds of questions. But, unfortunately, we have a society that is quite willing to cheat. Editor's note: Excerpts have been edited for length and clarity. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

One-third of people don’t use soap when washing their hands, researchers say National Monitor, Rina Shah | June 23, 2013 According to a new study by Carl Borchgrevink, associate professor at Michigan State University, only 5 percent of people wash their hands well enough to kill germs that cause infections and illnesses. The researchers working on the study visited bathrooms all over East Lansing, Michigan, which is considered to be a college town. They observed the hand-washing efforts of 3,700 people that went to the bathroom. Each observed individual was categorized as either “college-age” or “non-college-age” and their hand-washing habits were watched without being intrusive. They found that 33 percent did not use soap and 10 percent did not wash their hands at all. The study also documented a number of other trends. Better hand-washing was reported earlier in day than in the late afternoon. Older generations, or the “non-college-age” group, washed their hands for longer periods of time and washed their hands more often. Unsurprisingly, men had poorer habits, putting less effort into washing their hands correctly. Professor Borchgrevink argues that men may have a misconception about not needing to wash their hands if they do not use the stalls. According to the Mayo Clinic, proper hand-washing requires soap and water. The individual should wet their hands first and then apply soap. After working up a good lather, the person should rub the hands together vigorously for at least 20 seconds. During this time, it is important to scrub all over the hand, including between the fingers, under the fingernails, and on the wrists and backs of the hands. Educational resources for children emphasize the same information that people did not seem to be applying in this study. Namely, it is important to wash hands to kill germs that people regularly come in contact with that can cause infections. Washing hands is important after using the bathroom, eating or touching food, touching pets or other animals, coughing or blowing one’s nose, and before and after visiting someone that is sick. There are other healthy hygiene habits that help reduce the spread of diseases. In addition to washing hands, one can use hand sanitizers to kill germs. Avoiding touching any sort of bodily fluid from another person will reduce spread of infections. It is also important to use clean towels and tissues and then promptly throwing them away after they have been used. Finally, sharing personal grooming items like combs and toothbrushes will also spread germs. Educational resources are available, but this study shows they are not always being applied. http://natmonitor.com/2013/06/23/one-third-of-people-dont-use-soap-when-washing-their-hands-researchers-say/

Bit more on Russia's possible role, from The Christian Science Monitor: ...Russian security expert Andrei Soldatov, who edits Agentura.ru, an online journal that focuses on the secret services, says that in addition to granting Snowden safe passage to Cuba on an Aeroflot jetliner, Russia may have played a deeper role in helping to arrange his flight. He suggests that the Kremlin's English-language satellite news network, RT, which enjoys very close relations with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, could have used its offices to help Wikileaks hook up with Snowden in Hong Kong, "There are reports that Assange's assistant, Sarah Harrison, is flying on the same plane with Snowden," says Mr. Soldatov. "Involvement of RT would make sense, since RT has close cooperation with Assange, and he did a series of programs for them last year [Russia gives WikiLeaks' Julian Assange a TV platform]. The involvement of WikiLeaks requires no explanation. It wants to maintain itself as the key center for all disclosures of the kind that Snowden brought to the world," he adds. Soldatov says Russian assistance is also logical, for wider reasons than just an opportunity to stick it to Uncle Sam. "Russia and China have been involved in a so-far unsuccessful struggle to change the rules of the Internet, by taking control of it away from the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and giving its functions to a wider, non-US-based entity," he says. "The Russians and Chinese have been posing, for these purposes, as big defenders of Internet freedom. This political context helps to explain RT's close relations with WikiLeaks as well.... So, it makes sense for them to help Snowden too. Russian authorities see an opportunity to present themselves as the new center of refuge for whistleblowers against US dominance in Cyberspace. It's a coup for them," he adds. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2013/0623/Snowden-s-stealthy-exit-How-WikiLeaks-and-maybe-Russia-helped

Review of what the Court may do... Supreme Court has range of options on gay marriageBy MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 1 hr 37 mins ago WASHINGTON (AP) — The waiting is almost over. Sometime in the next week or so, the Supreme Court will announce the outcomes in cases on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The federal law, known by the shorthand DOMA, defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and therefore keeps legally married gay Americans from collecting a range of federal benefits that generally are available to married people. The justices have a lengthy menu of options from which to choose. They might come out with rulings that are simple, clear and dramatic. Or they might opt for something narrow and legalistic. The court could strike down dozens of state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, but it also could uphold gay marriage bans or say nothing meaningful about the issue at all. A look at potential outcomes for the Proposition 8 case and then for the case about DOMA: ___ Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8? A. This would leave gay Californians without the right to marry in the state and would tell the roughly three dozen states that do not allow same-sex marriages that there is no constitutional problem in limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Such an outcome probably would trigger a political campaign in California to repeal Proposition 8 through a ballot measure, which opinion polls suggest would succeed, and could give impetus to similar voter or legislative efforts in other states. Proposition 8 itself was adopted by voters in 2008, but there has been a marked shift in Americans' attitudes about same-sex marriage in the past five years. ___ Q. What if the court strikes down Proposition 8? A. A ruling in favor of the two same-sex couples who sued to invalidate the gay marriage ban could produce one of three possibilities. The broadest would apply across the country, in effect invalidating constitutional provisions or statutes against gay marriage everywhere. Or a majority of the justices could agree on a middle option that applies only to California as well as Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey and Oregon. Those states already treat gay and straight couples the same in almost every respect through civil unions or domestic partnerships. The only difference is that gay couples there are not allowed to marry. This so-called seven-state solution would say that the Constitution forbids states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples while giving them all the basic rights of married people. But this ruling would not implicate marriage bans in other states and would leave open the question of whether states could deprive gay couples of any rights at all. The narrowest of these potential outcomes would apply to California only. The justices essentially would adopt the rationale of the federal appeals court that found that California could not take away the right to marry that had been granted by the state Supreme Court in 2008, before Proposition 8 passed. In addition, if the Supreme Court were to rule that gays and lesbians deserve special protection from discriminatory laws, it is unlikely that any state ban on same-sex marriage could survive long, even if the justices don't issue an especially broad ruling in this case. ___ Q. Are there other potential outcomes? A. Yes, the court has a technical way out of the case without deciding anything about same-sex marriage. The Proposition 8 challengers argue that the private parties defending the provision — members of the group that helped put the ban on the ballot — did not have the right to appeal the trial judge's initial decision striking it down, or that of the federal appeals court. The justices sometimes attach great importance to this concept, known as "standing". If they find Proposition 8's proponents lack standing, the justices also would find the Supreme Court has no basis on which to decide the case. The most likely outcome of such a ruling also would throw out the appeals court decision that struck down the ban but would leave in place the trial court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. At the very least, the two same-sex couples almost certainly would be granted a marriage license, and Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., who opposes Proposition 8, probably would give county clerks the go-ahead to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. ___ Q. Are the possibilities for the DOMA case as complicated? A. No, although there are some technical issues that could get in the way of a significant ruling. ___ Q. What happens if the court upholds Section 3 of DOMA, defining marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman? A. Upholding DOMA would not affect state laws regarding marriage but would keep in place federal statutes and rules that prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving a range of benefits that are otherwise available to married people. These benefits include breaks on estate taxes, health insurance for spouses of federal workers and Social Security survivor benefits. ___ Q. What if the court strikes down the DOMA provision? A. A ruling against DOMA would allow legally married gay couples or, in some cases, a surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage, to receive benefits and tax breaks resulting from more than 1,000 federal statutes in which marital status is relevant. For 83-year-old Edith Windsor, a New York widow whose case is before the court, such a ruling would give her a refund of $363,000 in estate taxes that were paid after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. The situation could become complicated for people who get married where same-sex unions are legal, but who live or move where they are not. ___ Q. What procedural problems could prevent the court from reaching a decision about DOMA? A. As in the Proposition 8 case, there are questions about whether the House Republican leadership has standing to bring a court case to defend the law because the Obama administration decided not to. House Republicans argue that the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts, but there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court and it would remain on the books. It is possible the court could leave in place appeals court rulings covering seven states with same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. ___ Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/shermancourt http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-range-options-gay-marriage-071707199.html

Looks as if Venezuela is Snowden's choice... Jon Williams ✔ @WilliamsJon #Russia's Interfax news agency reports Venezuelan diplomat picked Snowden up in a car on tarmac at Moscow airport. Whisked him away #NSA ... and it must tickle Putin for Russia to be helping to irritate the US by facilitating Snowden's passage.

I had always suspected as much, but this guy's research and analysis is pretty impressive.

Yes: the mortgage and the good china.

Wine-tasting: it's junk scienceExperiments have shown that people can't tell plonk from grand cru. Now one US winemaker claims that even experts can't judge wine accurately. What's the science behind the taste? David Derbyshire The Observer, Saturday 22 June 2013 Some academics have cast doubt on the ability of professional tasters to judge wines consistently. Photograph: A G Holesch/Getty Images/Imagebroker RF Every year Robert Hodgson selects the finest wines from his small California winery and puts them into competitions around the state. And in most years, the results are surprisingly inconsistent: some whites rated as gold medallists in one contest do badly in another. Reds adored by some panels are dismissed by others. Over the decades Hodgson, a softly spoken retired oceanographer, became curious. Judging wines is by its nature subjective, but the awards appeared to be handed out at random. So drawing on his background in statistics, Hodgson approached the organisers of the California State Fair wine competition, the oldest contest of its kind in North America, and proposed an experiment for their annual June tasting sessions. Each panel of four judges would be presented with their usual "flight" of samples to sniff, sip and slurp. But some wines would be presented to the panel three times, poured from the same bottle each time. The results would be compiled and analysed to see whether wine testing really is scientific. The first experiment took place in 2005. The last was in Sacramento earlier this month. Hodgson's findings have stunned the wine industry. Over the years he has shown again and again that even trained, professional palates are terrible at judging wine. "The results are disturbing," says Hodgson from the Fieldbrook Winery in Humboldt County, described by its owner as a rural paradise. "Only about 10% of judges are consistent and those judges who were consistent one year were ordinary the next year. "Chance has a great deal to do with the awards that wines win." These judges are not amateurs either. They read like a who's who of the American wine industry from winemakers, sommeliers, critics and buyers to wine consultants and academics. In Hodgson's tests, judges rated wines on a scale running from 50 to 100. In practice, most wines scored in the 70s, 80s and low 90s. Results from the first four years of the experiment, published in the Journal of Wine Economics, showed a typical judge's scores varied by plus or minus four points over the three blind tastings. A wine deemed to be a good 90 would be rated as an acceptable 86 by the same judge minutes later and then an excellent 94. Some of the judges were far worse, others better – with around one in 10 varying their scores by just plus or minus two. A few points may not sound much but it is enough to swing a contest – and gold medals are worth a significant amount in extra sales for wineries. Hodgson went on to analyse the results of wine competitions across California, and found that their medals were distributed at random. "I think there are individual expert tasters with exceptional abilities sitting alone who have a good sense, but when you sit 100 wines in front of them the task is beyond human ability," he says. "We have won our fair share of gold medals but now I have to say we were lucky." Robert Parker, above is the world's leading wine critic and his score is key to determining the price of a new vintage. But Orley Ashenfelter, a Princeton economist, invented a simple mathematical formula based on weather data to predict the price of vintages, which mimicked the predictions of Parker’s system. Photograph: Shahar Azran/WireImage His studies have irritated many figures in the industry. "They say I'm full of bullshit but that's OK. I'm proud of what I do. It's part of my academic background to find the truth.'' Hodgson isn't alone in questioning the science of wine-tasting. French academic Frédéric Brochet tested the effect of labels in 2001. He presented the same Bordeaux superior wine to 57 volunteers a week apart and in two different bottles – one for a table wine, the other for a grand cru. The tasters were fooled. When tasting a supposedly superior wine, their language was more positive – describing it as complex, balanced, long and woody. When the same wine was presented as plonk, the critics were more likely to use negatives such as weak, light and flat. In 2008 a study of 6,000 blind tastings by Robin Goldstein in the Journal of Wine Economics found a positive link between the price of wine and the amount people enjoyed it. But the link only existed for people trained to detect the elements of wine that make them expensive. In 2011 Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist (and former professional magician) at Hertfordshire University invited 578 people to comment on a range of red and white wines, varying from £3.49 for a claret to £30 for champagne, and tasted blind. People could tell the difference between wines under £5 and those above £10 only 53% of the time for whites and only 47% of the time for reds. Overall they would have been just as a successful flipping a coin to guess. So why are ordinary drinkers and the experts so poor at tasting blind? Part of the answer lies in the sheer complexity of wine. For a drink made by fermenting fruit juice, wine is a remarkably sophisticated chemical cocktail. Dr Bryce Rankine, an Australian wine scientist, identified 27 distinct organic acids in wine, 23 varieties of alcohol in addition to the common ethanol, more than 80 esters and aldehydes, 16 sugars, plus a long list of assorted vitamins and minerals that wouldn't look out of place on the ingredients list of a cereal pack. There are even harmless traces of lead and arsenic that come from the soil. Three of wine's most basic qualities – sweetness, sourness and bitterness – are picked up by the tongue's taste buds. A good wine has the perfect balance of sweet from the sugar in grapes, sourness from the acids, particularly tartaric and malic acid, and bitterness from alcohol and polyphenols, including tannins. Many wines are more acidic than lemon juice and are only palatable because that acidity is balanced by sweetness and bitterness. "It's the holy trinity of the palate – sugar, acid and alcohol," says Dr James Hutchinson, a wine expert at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Professionals distinguish between the balance of these three basic elements and a wine's flavour. And here the chemistry gets more complicated. The flavour of wine – its aroma or bouquet – is detected not by the taste buds, but by millions of receptors in the olfactory bulb, a blob of nervous tissue where the brain meets the nasal passage. Chemists have identified at least 400 aroma compounds that work on their own and with others to create complex flavours – some appearing immediately on first sniffing, others emerging only as an aftertaste. Most of these are volatiles – aromatic compounds that tend to have a low boiling point and waft away from glasses and tongues towards the olfactory bulb. Some of these, the primary volatiles, are present in the grape. Others, the secondaries, are generated by yeast activity during fermentation. The rest, the tertiary volatiles, are formed as wine matures in barrels or bottles. More evidence that wine-tasting is influenced by context was provided by a 2008 study from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. The team found that different music could boost tasters’ wine scores by 60%. Researchers discovered that a blast of Jimi Hendrix enhanced cabernet sauvignon while Kylie Minogue went well with chardonnay. Over the last few decades, wine scientists have begun to identify the compounds responsible for some of the distinctive aromas in wine. The grassy, gooseberry quality of sauvignon blanc, for instance, comes from a class of chemicals called methoxypyrazines. These contain nitrogen and are byproducts of the metabolism of amino acids in the grape. Concentrations are higher in cooler climates, which is why New Zealand sauvignon blancs are often more herbaceous than Australian ones. The flowery aroma of muscat and gewürztraminer comes from a class of alcohol compounds called monoterpenes. These include linalool – a substance also used in perfumes and insecticide – and geraniol, a pale yellow liquid that doubles up as an effective mosquito repellent and gives geranium its distinctive smell. The spicy notes of chardonnay have been attributed to compounds called megastigmatrienones, also found in grapefruit juice. "People underestimate how clever the olfactory system is at detecting aromas and our brain is at interpreting them," says Hutchinson. "The olfactory system has the complexity in terms of its protein receptors to detect all the different aromas, but the brain response isn't always up to it. But I'm a believer that everyone has the same equipment and it comes down to learning how to interpret it." Within eight tastings, most people can learn to detect and name a reasonable range of aromas in wine, Hutchinson says. Detecting and finding the right vocabulary may be within everyone's grasp. But when it comes to ranking wines, Hutchinson shares Robert Hodgson's concerns. "There's a lot of nonsense and emperor's new clothes in the wine world," Hutchinson says. "I have had a number of wines costing hundreds of pounds that have disappointed me – and a number costing between £5 and £10 which have been absolutely surprising." People struggle with assessing wine because the brain's interpretation of aroma and bouquet is based on far more than the chemicals found in the drink. Temperature plays a big part. Volatiles in wine are more active when wine is warmer. Serve a New World chardonnay too cold and you'll only taste the overpowering oak. Serve a red too warm and the heady boozy qualities will be overpowering. Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit. The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye. Other environmental factors play a role. A judge's palate is affected by what she or he had earlier, the time of day, their tiredness, their health – even the weather. For Hutchinson and Hodgson the unpredictability means that human scores of wines are of limited value. "It's very subjective and there's a lot of politics marring it," says Hutchinson. "People should use it as one indicator and not as an end-all. It would be a great sadness if people were only driven by what critics say." Is there a scientific basis for the belief that red wine does not go with seafood? Researchers from Japanese drinks firm Mercian tested 64 varieties of wine with scallops, and concluded that the iron content of red wine speeded up the decay of fish, resulting in an overly ‘fishy’ taste. Photograph: Alamy So if people cannot be relied on to judge wine, how about machines? "In terms of replicating what a human can do we are a long way off," Hutchinson says. "The one thing we can do well, though, is a lot of amazing analytical chemistry that allows us to detect a huge range of different compounds in a glass of wine. ''We can start to have an indication of how the acidity balances with the sweetness and different levels of flavour compounds. "But the step we haven't got to is how that raw chemical information can be crunched together and converted into something that reflects someone's emotional response. That might be something we can never achieve." Meanwhile the blind tasting contests go on. Robert Hodgson is determined to improve the quality of judging. He has developed a test that will determine whether a judge's assessment of a blind-tasted glass in a medal competition is better than chance. The research will be presented at a conference in Cape Town this year. But the early findings are not promising. "So far I've yet to find someone who passes," he says. PUNGENT OVERTONESIn 2007, Richard E Quandt, a Princeton economics professor, published a paper entitled "On Wine Bullshit: Some New Software?" The study sought to describe the "unholy union" of "bullshit and bullshit artists who are impelled to comment on it", in this case wine and wine critics. Quandt compiled a "vocabulary of wine descriptors" containing 123 terms from "angular" to "violets" via other nonsense descriptions such as "fireplace" and "tannins, fine-grained". Then, with the help of colleagues, he built an algorithm that generated wine reviews of hypothetical wines using his "vocabulary of bullshit". For instance: "Château L'Ordure Pomerol, 2004. Fine minerality, dried apricots and cedar characterise this sage-laden wine bursting with black fruit and toasty oak." He concluded that whether his reviews were "any more bullshit" than real ones was a "judgment call". Sadly, he didn't explore how long it would take a monkey to type a wine review. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

I agree. Face it: Monogamy is unnatural By Meghan Laslocky, Special to CNN updated 11:02 AM EDT, Fri June 21, 2013 STORY HIGHLIGHTS Meghan Laslocky: History and biology tell us that monogamy is not for everyone Laslocky: In our time, sexual fidelity is seen as sign of a successful marriage But if we look to the animal kingdom, true monogamy among mammals is a rarity Laslocky: With people living longer now, sexual fidelity seems like a doomed aspiration Editor's note: Meghan Laslocky is the author of "The Little Book of Heartbreak: Love Gone Wrong Through the Ages" (Plume/Penguin 2013). (CNN) -- Kristen Stewart, Ryan Phillippe, LeAnn Rimes, Jude Law, Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton. What do they have in common? Many are quick to label a person who strays from his or her marriage or relationship as a "cheater," but it's really not that simple. It's time for our culture to wake up and smell the sex pheromones: monogamy is not natural for many, or probably even most, humans. With people living longer than ever before, a greater tolerance toward the human impulse to experience sexual variety is needed. Whether a person succeeds at being sexually monogamous depends as much on biology as environment. History and biology suggest that strict monogamy, which has social advantages, is not a "one size" fits all proposition. The rise of the love marriage Marrying for love is a relatively new concept. Beginning with Enlightenment -- the cultural movement of the 18th and 19th centuries -- when the pursuit of happiness became a legitimate human pursuit, marrying for love slowly but surely became an aspiration in the Western world. But for most of human history, marriage was primarily a socioeconomic transaction. Spending the rest of your life with someone was more about the protection of property and the sharing of labor than it was about romance. The side effect of the rise of marriage as a romantic proposition was that sexual jealousy became a more prevalent ingredient in marriage than it had been previously. Over time, sexual fidelity has come to be regarded as the barometer of a successful marriage -- regardless of what science tells us about natural human inclinations. Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic? Lovebirds cheat Biologically, we humans are animals. So it makes sense to look to the animal kingdom for clues as to what we are built for. Let's start with birds. For some time, bird species such as lovebirds and penguins were celebrated among humans for their seemingly monogamous ways. About 90% of birds were thought to be strictly monogamous. But DNA fingerprinting knocked birds off the monogamy perch. Analysis of avian DNA indicates that many nestlings' fathers are not their biological fathers. This led experts to distinguish between unions that are sexually exclusive and those that are socially monogamous -- meaning a pair that raises a family together but indulges in what are called "extra pair copulations." "Faithless pairing" is the norm The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species on Earth "practice any form of monogamy." In fact, no mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous. One species, the prairie vole was subjected to scrutiny by biologists because it appeared to be truly monogamous. But it turns out that as a species, it just has a very high rate of sexual monogamy. Not every prairie vole resists straying. Studies of prairie voles helped scientists understand that from a chemical and biological standpoint, sexual monogamy depends not just on particular hormones that are released in the brain, but on receptors for these hormones. Among humans, here's the rub: we have the chemicals and the receptors, but it varies from person to person how much we have. Based on brain wiring alone, inclination toward fidelity can vary dramatically from one individual to another. In other words, "once a cheater, always a cheater," might have as much to do with brain wiring as with a person's moral compass, upbringing or culture. The bottom line is that flings are far from folly, at least in the animal kingdom. Even swans -- symbols of fidelity -- are not immune. One partner for 50 years? It's also important to look at human longevity with respect to cultural expectations of monogamy. As recent as over 100 years ago, it was far more likely that an individual would lose his or her spouse at a young age. Remarriage by widows and widowers -- also known as serial monogamy -- was one way for humans to fulfill the need for sexual variety. Today, the median age for first marriages is 28 for men and 26 for women. Disease is far less likely to kill someone in their prime and life expectancy hovers in the late 70s. Because fidelity is considered the barometer of a successful marriage, this means that a person is theoretically expected to have one sexual partner for about 50 years. This seems like a lot to expect of any human being -- even the most honorable, ethical and moral. Those who are able to stay with one partner for a long haul are sometimes looked upon with awe. Certainly, a lasting and happy marriage tends to be far better for the children. It has long been assumed that men struggle more with monogamy than women. Some experts have started to question this theory. With the development of a drug that promises to boost female libido, one can argue that sexual boredom and the temptation to stray is as big of an issue for women as it is for men, if not more so. Human monogamy is influenced by many factors. Instead of pointing fingers or acting morally superior toward those who stray from marriages, we should recognize that strict sexual fidelity is a lofty but perhaps fundamentally doomed aspiration. No two individuals, and no two couples are alike, and we should respect that. Moreover, one's perspective on monogamy is not necessarily an indicator of one's personal practices. Many people have incorrectly assumed that because I've read, thought, and written about the problems with human monogamy that I am myself promiscuous. For the record, nothing could be further from the truth. Nor am I, as many commenters on this Yahoo post suggested, a Satanist or a whore. I am just a woman with a healthy respect for science. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/laslocky-monogamy-marriage/?iref=obnetwork

As noted above, hard to know what to make of such lists, bereft as they are of context. (Back to today's earlier theme: thank you SO much, reporters, for helping us understand what the news means. ) For example, would be useful to know the crime rates for the safest cities, so we could see if there is that much difference and, if so, maybe why.

The Science Museum of London has thousands of objects covering more than 3,000 years of medical history. They include sex toys from years past. This hand-held electric vibrator is from 1909. All the items shown here are part of the museum's medical collections. The "Veedee" vibratory massager had two attachments. It is German and dates to between 1901 and 1930. Massage was considered an effective treatment for combating almost any ailment in the late 1800s, according to the museum's History of Medicine website. According to the museum website, the "Veedee" vibratory massager claimed to cure colds, digestive complaints and flatulence. It is believed that the name is a pun on the Latin phrase "veni vidi vici" (I came, I saw, I conquered). A Shelton vibrator, dating to the 1910s, and some of its attachments. The "Rampant Rabbit," shown here, was popular during the 1990s. http://us.cnn.com/2013/05/31/health/lifeswork-sex-history/?iref=obnetwork

Rhymes with "in your ear."

ROFL TV Tropes: It Came from the Fridge This, boys and girls, is why you clean the blasted fridge. Image by Jessica Lanan.Used with permission. There's something gross in the fridge today, It's green and growing hair.It's been there since July! If you can name the object in that baggie over there, Then mister, you're a better man than I... — "Weird Al" Yankovic, "Livin' In The Fridge" Something hideous is lurking in the dark, eldritch depths of... your crisper drawer. Interesting things breed in the depth of the refrigerator. Anyone who has ever had to clean one out can attest to that: foul-smelling, congealed mac 'n' cheese, shrivelled carrots and "furry" meat. The TV fridge, however, is another beast entirely. On TV, when life grows on your food, it is more than just life: it is sentient, multicellular, intelligent life. The back of your average comedy fridge is a breeding ground for all kinds of biological horrors — from oozing green slime to entire sapient races of leftover lasagna people to pasta-tentacled Eldritch Abominations. Creatures bred in the depths of an old Tupperware container make excellent Monster of the Week fodder. Some shows may extend this trope to other flagrant displays of bad housekeeping, creating life from unwashed underwear and the dust under the bed. We honor them here as well. They obey the spirit of It Came from the Fridge, if not the letter. When the filth has conquered entire rooms or even the house itself, you have Trash of the Titans. Subtrope of Creating Life Is Unforeseen. Not to be confused with Fridge Horror. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItCameFromTheFridge

On the Espionage Act charges against Edward SnowdenWho is actually bringing 'injury to America': those who are secretly building a massive surveillance system or those who inform citizens that it's being done? Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk, Saturday 22 June 2013 07.18 EDT A new NSA data centre sits beyond a residential area in Bluffdale, Utah. It will be the largest of several interconnected data centres spread throughout the US. Photograph: George Frey/Getty Images The US government has charged Edward Snowden with three felonies, including two under the Espionage Act, the 1917 statute enacted to criminalize dissent against World War I. My priority at the moment is working on our next set of stories, so I just want to briefly note a few points about this. Prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, there were a grand total of three prosecutions of leakers under the Espionage Act (including the prosecution of Dan Ellsberg by the Nixon DOJ). That's because the statute is so broad that even the US government has largely refrained from using it. But during the Obama presidency, there are now seven such prosecutions: more than double the number under all prior US presidents combined. How can anyone justify that? For a politician who tried to convince Americans to elect him based on repeated pledges of unprecedented transparency and specific vows to protect "noble" and "patriotic" whistleblowers, is this unparalleled assault on those who enable investigative journalism remotely defensible? Recall that the New Yorker's Jane Mayer said recently that this oppressive climate created by the Obama presidency has brought investigative journalism to a "standstill", while James Goodale, the General Counsel for the New York Times during its battles with the Nixon administration, wrote last month in that paper that "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom." Read what Mayer and Goodale wrote and ask yourself: is the Obama administration's threat to the news-gathering process not a serious crisis at this point? Few people - likely including Snowden himself - would contest that his actions constitute some sort of breach of the law. He made his choice based on basic theories of civil disobedience: that those who control the law have become corrupt, that the law in this case (by concealing the actions of government officials in building this massive spying apparatus in secret) is a tool of injustice, and that he felt compelled to act in violation of it in order to expose these official bad acts and enable debate and reform. But that's a far cry from charging Snowden, who just turned 30 yesterday, with multiple felonies under the Espionage Act that will send him to prison for decades if not life upon conviction. In what conceivable sense are Snowden's actions "espionage"? He could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He did none of those things. What he did instead was give up his life of career stability and economic prosperity, living with his long-time girlfriend in Hawaii, in order to inform his fellow citizens (both in America and around the world) of what the US government and its allies are doing to them and their privacy. He did that by very carefully selecting which documents he thought should be disclosed and concealed, then gave them to a newspaper with a team of editors and journalists and repeatedly insisted that journalistic judgments be exercised about which of those documents should be published in the public interest and which should be withheld. That's what every single whistleblower and source for investigative journalism, in every case, does - by definition. In what conceivable sense does that merit felony charges under the Espionage Act? The essence of that extremely broad, century-old law is that one is guilty if one discloses classified information "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation". Please read this rather good summary in this morning's New York Times of the worldwide debate Snowden has enabled - how these disclosures have "set off a national debate over the proper limits of government surveillance" and "opened an unprecedented window on the details of surveillance by the NSA, including its compilation of logs of virtually all telephone calls in the United States and its collection of e-mails of foreigners from the major American Internet companies, including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple and Skype" - and ask yourself: has Snowden actually does anything to bring "injury to the United States", or has he performed an immense public service? The irony is obvious: the same people who are building a ubiquitous surveillance system to spy on everyone in the world, including their own citizens, are now accusing the person who exposed it of "espionage". It seems clear that the people who are actually bringing "injury to the United States" are those who are waging war on basic tenets of transparency and secretly constructing a mass and often illegal and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus aimed at American citizens - and those who are lying to the American people and its Congress about what they're doing - rather than those who are devoted to informing the American people that this is being done. The Obama administration leaks classified information continuously. They do it to glorify the President, or manipulate public opinion, or even to help produce a pre-election propaganda film about the Osama bin Laden raid. The Obama administration does not hate unauthorized leaks of classified information. They are more responsible for such leaks than anyone. What they hate are leaks that embarrass them or expose their wrongdoing. Those are the only kinds of leaks that are prosecuted. It's a completely one-sided and manipulative abuse of secrecy laws. It's all designed to ensure that the only information we as citizens can learn is what they want us to learn because it makes them look good. The only leaks they're interested in severely punishing are those that undermine them politically. The "enemy" they're seeking to keep ignorant with selective and excessive leak prosecutions are not The Terrorists or The Chinese Communists. It's the American people. The Terrorists already knew, and have long known, that the US government is doing everything possible to surveil their telephonic and internet communications. The Chinese have long known, and have repeatedly said, that the US is hacking into both their governmental and civilian systems (just as the Chinese are doing to the US). The Russians have long known that the US and UK try to intercept the conversations of their leaders just as the Russians do to the US and the UK. They haven't learned anything from these disclosures that they didn't already well know. The people who have learned things they didn't already know are American citizens who have no connection to terrorism or foreign intelligence, as well as hundreds of millions of citizens around the world about whom the same is true. What they have learned is that the vast bulk of this surveillance apparatus is directed not at the Chinese or Russian governments or the Terrorists, but at them. And that is precisely why the US government is so furious and will bring its full weight to bear against these disclosures. What has been "harmed" is not the national security of the US but the ability of its political leaders to work against their own citizens and citizens around the world in the dark, with zero transparency or real accountability. If anything is a crime, it's that secret, unaccountable and deceitful behavior: not the shining of light on it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden-espionage-charges