Tuesday, July 14, 2014


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-iran-nuclear-deal-lift-sanctions-enrichment-stockpile-centrifuges/

Iran nuclear deal is done
CBS/AP
July 14, 2015

VIENNA -- After 18 days of intense negotiations, the U.S. and five other world powers have reached a deal to freeze Iran's nuclear program for the next decade in exchange for gradual sanctions relief that rolls out as Iran complies with a multi-step process.

The accord will keep Iran from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites. And it marks a dramatic break from decades of animosity between the United States and Iran, countries that alternatively call each other the "leading state sponsor of terrorism" and the "the Great Satan."

Touting the deal in an early morning news conference from the White House, President Obama said one of the greatest dangers facing the U.S. today was the "risk is that nuclear weapons swill spread to more and more countries, particularly in the Middle East, the most volatile region in our world."

"We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region," declared Mr. Obama, insisting that, in spite of concerns over Iran's trustworthiness, the "international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon... Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off."

President Obama stressed there would be "very real consequences for a violation" of the agreement by Iran, and warned opponents in the U.S. and Israel that without the agreement there "would be no lasting constraints on Iran's nuclear program."

"This is a historic moment," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said as he attended a final session alongside his counterparts from the so-called P5+1; the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, in Vienna on Tuesday morning. "We are reaching an agreement that is not perfect for anybody, but it is what we could accomplish, and it is an important achievement for all of us. Today could have been the end of hope on this issue. But now we are starting a new chapter of hope."

The agreement, confirmed in a tweet from European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini which was promptly retweeted by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, will become binding once it is enshrined in an already-written United Nations Security Council resolution.

CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk reports diplomats at the Security Council and U.S. administration officials expect a draft Iran resolution to be submitted to the council for discussion and a vote as early as next week.

"Despite all the twists and turns in the talks and a number of extensions, hope and determination enabled us to ovdercome [sic] all the difficult moments," said Mogherini, officially announcing the agreement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

She said the deal ensured that Iran's nuclear program would "exclusively be peaceful," and that the agreement marked "a shift" in the Iranians' approach to its atomic work.

"What we are anouncing today is not only a deal, it is a good deal," proclaimed Mogherini, saying that "under no circumstances" would Iran be able to seek or acquire any nuclear weapons under the terms agreed to.

The economic and financial sanctions -- including a U.S. and European Union oil embargo -- will be lifted as Iran complies with the terms of the deal and as U.N. weapons inspectors verify their compliance.

The essentials of the deal, including the removal of two thirds of Iran's uranium enriching centrifuges -- reducing their number from approximately 19,000 to 6,000 -- the destruction of 98 percent of its stockpile of already-enriched uranium, and other elements, remain the same as what was in the previously-announced framework agreed in Lausanne, Switzerland in April.

In a nod to varying interpretations of that framework by Iran and U.S. officials to their respective constitutencies, Zarif said Tuesday alongside Mogherini, as he prepared to read his statement in Farsi, "don't worry, it's the same."

Iran will remain locked out of the U.S. financial system, and an existing U.S. ban on arms sales will continue. A separate U.N. ban on arms sales will be peeled back over time as Iran verifiably complies with the terms of the agreement.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement that he hoped, "and indeed believe - that this agreement will lead to greater mutual understanding and cooperation on the many serious security challenges in the Middle East. As such it could serve as a vital contribution to peace and stability both in the region and beyond."

A senior Iranian official called it an "historic day," and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took to Twitter to laud the deal as the beginning of a new era "with a focus on shared challenges."

In a separate deal, the head of Iran's atomic program signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to take steps to resolve outstanding questions about the country's past research into weapons development and to allow additional inspectors ‎into the country.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told reporters the "roadmap" agreed to with the Iranians would "enable the agency, with the cooperation of Iran, to make an assessment of issues relating to possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme by the end of 2015. It sets out a clear sequence of activities over the coming months including a provision by Iran of explanations regarding outstanding issues."

Prior to the announcement, a senior diplomat told the Associated Press that the deal included a compromise between Washington and Tehran that would allow U.N. inspectors to press for visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties.

But access at will to any site would not necessarily be granted and even if so, could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal are sure to seize on as possibly giving Tehran time to cover any sign of non-compliance with its commitments.

The U.S. Congress will have 60 days to review the terms agreed to in Vienna, after which they will vote on the pact. There has been fierce opposition to the deal, even before the details were known, from many Republicans and some Democrats in Washington, and they may try to block implementation of the measures with their votes. Congress does not have the power, however, to completely obstruct the agreement reached by the executive branch with other nations.

Opposition to the deal has also been fierce from Israel, the most entrenched U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a "bad mistake of historic proportions" on Tuesday, adding that it would enable Iran to "continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region."

Nuclear Iran: Sites and potential targets

In the past, Israel has threatened to carry out a military strike against Iran's nuclear installations. But that option appeared to fade as the U.S.-led group of powers engaged in diplomacy with Iran.

Israel's first course of action looks to be an intense lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to oppose the deal. Netanyahu spoke against the emerging deal before a joint session of Congress in March. Yet despite strong support among Republicans in Congress, there is little that can be done now.

Under the deal, Tehran would have the right to challenge the U.N request and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers that negotiated with it would have to decide on the issue.

Still, such an arrangement would be a notable departure from assertions by top Iranian officials that their country would never allow the U.N's International Atomic Energy Agency into such sites. Iran has argued that such visits by the IAEA would be a cover for spying on its military secrets.

The accord will "grant Tehran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program," the Reuters news agency quotes an Iranian diplomat as saying Tuesday.

"All the hard work has paid off and we sealed a deal. God bless our people," the diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Another Iranian official confirmed the agreement to Reuters.

The news agency also reports that "Iran has accepted a so-called 'snapback' plan that will restore sanctions in 65 days if it violates" the deal.




“After 18 days of intense negotiations, the U.S. and five other world powers have reached a deal to freeze Iran's nuclear program for the next decade in exchange for gradual sanctions relief that rolls out as Iran complies with a multi-step process. The accord will keep Iran from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites. And it marks a dramatic break from decades of animosity between the United States and Iran, countries that alternatively call each other the "leading state sponsor of terrorism" and the "the Great Satan." …. President Obama stressed there would be "very real consequences for a violation" of the agreement by Iran, and warned opponents in the U.S. and Israel that without the agreement there "would be no lasting constraints on Iran's nuclear program." …. . "We are reaching an agreement that is not perfect for anybody, but it is what we could accomplish, and it is an important achievement for all of us. Today could have been the end of hope on this issue. But now we are starting a new chapter of hope." …. She said the deal ensured that Iran's nuclear program would "exclusively be peaceful," and that the agreement marked "a shift" in the Iranians' approach to its atomic work. "What we are anouncing today is not only a deal, it is a good deal," proclaimed Mogherini, saying that "under no circumstances" would Iran be able to seek or acquire any nuclear weapons under the terms agreed to. The economic and financial sanctions -- including a U.S. and European Union oil embargo -- will be lifted as Iran complies with the terms of the deal and as U.N. weapons inspectors verify their compliance. …. Iran will remain locked out of the U.S. financial system, and an existing U.S. ban on arms sales will continue. A separate U.N. ban on arms sales will be peeled back over time as Iran verifiably complies with the terms of the agreement. …. But access at will to any site would not necessarily be granted and even if so, could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal are sure to seize on as possibly giving Tehran time to cover any sign of non-compliance with its commitments. The U.S. Congress will have 60 days to review the terms agreed to in Vienna, after which they will vote on the pact. There has been fierce opposition to the deal, even before the details were known, from many Republicans and some Democrats in Washington, and they may try to block implementation of the measures with their votes. Congress does not have the power, however, to completely obstruct the agreement reached by the executive branch with other nations. …. Israel's first course of action looks to be an intense lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to oppose the deal. Netanyahu spoke against the emerging deal before a joint session of Congress in March.”

“The news agency also reports that "Iran has accepted a so-called 'snapback' plan that will restore sanctions in 65 days if it violates" the deal.” The diplomats have done their work and sanctions will be back in place again if there is a need later for that. For now, only those who could be termed war mongers are really objecting to it. See the article below on Democrats opposing the deal.



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/democrats-prepared-to-buck-white-house-on-iran-nuclear-deal-116088.html

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal
The damage from Tom Cotton’s letter has been contained, lawmakers of both parties say.
By Burgess Everett
3/15/15

Photograph -- North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp is one of a handful of Democrats ready to go against the White House on Iran negotiations. | Getty

Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.

And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.

Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.

That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a press conference at an economic conference, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Saturday, March 14, 2015. Kerry said he hopes Israel elects a government that can address the country's domestic needs and also 'meets the hope for peace.' Kerry said whatever decision Israeli voters make in the election Tuesday, he hopes there will be the chance to move forward on peace efforts afterward. (AP Photo/Thomas Hartwell)

“The letter’s incredibly unfortunate and inappropriate,” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, a centrist Democrat who voted for the sanctions bill in committee and is a sponsor of the congressional approval legislation. “That doesn’t diminish my support for the legislation that we introduced.”

The president’s challenge in Congress on the issue isn’t limited to the 47 Republican senators who signed last week’s missive arguing that a nuclear agreement could be revoked by the next U.S. president. In a letter released Saturday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough implored Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) not to push for a vote on his bill that would give Congress 60 days to reject or approve of any deal.

McDonough argued that Corker’s measure, which has nearly a dozen Democratic supporters, “goes well beyond ensuring that Congress has a role to play in any deal with Iran.” And he asked Corker, who’s sought to maintain a cordial relationship with the White House, to let the administration finish its negotiations with Iran, indicating it may take until the end of June. A framework is expected by the end of this month.

Corker shrugged off the request in response. And in an interview late last week, he said he hasn’t lost the support of any Democrats despite the turbulent atmosphere surrounding Iran politics.

“Let a couple days go by. We think there’s going to be really ignited momentum,” Corker, who did not sign the Cotton letter, said on Thursday. “Nobody’s dropping out. We’ve had reaffirmed commitment” from Democrats.

Indeed, a day after the controversy over Cotton’s letter erupted, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado co-sponsored Corker’s congressional review bill, the 11th Democrat to signal support.

Though the White House has seized on the GOP’s “open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” in an effort to shift the politics of the nuclear negotiations in its favor on Capitol Hill, there’s no evidence it’s working so far. Nearly all of the 54 Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats in the Senate remain at odds with the president on the issue.

Meanwhile, the House will hold hearings this week to grill administration officials on Iran, a potentially troubling sign for the administration, considering the chamber passed a strict Iran sanctions bill in 2013 by a vote of 400-20 — far above the veto override threshold.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. arrives to pose for photographers in his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 11, 2015. The rookie Republican senator leading the effort to torpedo an agreement with Iran is an Army veteran with a Harvard law degree who has a full record of tough rhetoric against President Barack Obama's foreign policy. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

“The letter was simply unacceptable, and it brought hyperpartisanship to an issue that we need to maintain our bipartisanship in,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), a supporter of sanctions that would not take effect unless talks fall apart or Iran backs away from the terms of any deal. “That doesn’t change my support for that bill. … I stay firm.”

A group of 10 Democrats wrote to President Barack Obama this month and vowed not to support the bill that would allow Congress to reject a nuclear deal until after March 24. That followed a similar deadline set by 12 Democrats in a January message to Obama regarding the conditional sanctions bill. Aides in both parties put their vote counts for the bills in the mid-60s, but they’re confident that if either comes to the floor, additional Democrats will back them.

The administration now appears to be asking for even more time: McDonough said in his letter to Corker that if a framework is reached this month and a “final deal by the end of June, we expect a robust debate in Congress.” GOP leaders appear determined to move much sooner than that.

For a moment, Cotton’s letter appeared to shake the bipartisan foundation undergirding both of the Iran bills. Democrats warned of a backslide into partisanship on a foreign policy issue that’s united Congress for years. Capitol Hill has long pressed for additional economic penalties on Iran in hopes of forcing it to the negotiating table with global powers.

But Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who backs the sanctions bill, said, “The fundamentals for bipartisan action ought still to be there.”

“This is a sad day in America when people are trying to kill negotiations that are underway,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said of the Cotton letter. But would he back away from Corker’s congressional approval bill?

“No,” he answered, adding with apparent satisfaction: “I’m an original co-sponsor.”

Election Central

The Republican stewards of Iran legislation, who have jockeyed for the support of the party leadership, said several Democrats reiterated their support privately last week after the letter uproar. Corker’s bill that would allow Congress to vote to override Obama’s Iran deal is seen as the one Republican leaders are most likely to schedule for action on the Senate floor, probably sometime in April.

Another bill, proposed by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), could also be an option if Congress begins to doubt Iran’s commitment to finalizing a deal or upholding one. Kirk’s bill would trigger sanctions if Iran walks away from talks or reneges on a deal. He said 68 senators have signaled support for it, a number he predicted would grow “once we actually vote.”

The White House and Obama administration officials are shrugging off Congress’ still-strong bipartisan desire for weighing in on the delicate talks with Iran, and they declined to say whether the president will renew veto threats on either Iran bill after March 24. The view from Obama’s orbit: firmly focus on making sure there’s a deal first, regardless of the speculation on Capitol Hill.

“The administration is focused on achieving a deal that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” a senior administration official said. “If a deal is reached, we will make the case to the Congress and the American people as to why the deal we are negotiating is in the national security interests of the United States and our international partners.”

In sharply divided Washington, it’s possible that the bipartisanship on the bills won’t last. In just the past month, the GOP enraged Democrats by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress about Iran without input from Obama. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) infuriated Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) by trying to vote on Corker’s bill before it had passed committee, causing Democrats to turn on their own legislation.

And the Cotton letter, of course, further ratcheted up foreign policy tensions in Congress. Some are warning that any further divisiveness could cause support for the Iran bills to dissipate.

“I’d like to see them stop politicizing this issue,” said Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, “and start talking about the merits.”





http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/10/persecuted-anti-gay-bakers-lied-forced-to-pay-135000-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-address/

‘Persecuted’ Anti-Gay Bakers Forced To Pay $135,000 After Sharing Lesbian Couple’s Address on Facebook
Author: John Prager
July 10, 2015

For what seems like eternity, we have been hearing the right prattle on about how Oregon bakers were “persecuted” for their religion, because they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. New information, however, tears that narrative to shreds faster than a catnip-covered pillow in a room full of adorable kittens. If you listen to the fine conservative crowd at Breitbart and other right-wing “news” outlets, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, are being railroaded by an evil ‘gaystapo’ hell-bent on punishing them for practicing their faith — by violating a lesbian couple’s civil rights when the Kleins chose to discriminate against them when the pair attempted to obtain a wedding cake from the business.

The Kleins found themselves facing a $135,000 fine as a result of a lawsuit filed by the couple and were ordered not to further discriminate:

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

It’s common in civil rights cases to include such language directed at business owners, said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for BOLI. “That’s what this order says.”

“The Kleins are free to voice their disagreement with the ruling or Oregon’s anti-discrimination laws in general,” he added. “The cease and desist order means that they should refrain from discriminating against future customers.”

In an effort to rile up hateful conservatives, Breitbart and other publications have pushed this narrative:


The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same-sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.

That this kind of fascist oppression was always the endgame in the Left’s push for same-sex marriage, was apparent to anyone familiar with the Left’s tactics.

The push for same-sex marriage was always nothing more the Left’s sheep’s clothing in a crusade to destroy Christians and the Christian Church.

By adhering to the word of God, the Left will label Christians bigots and haters, and use the power of boycotts and the State to punish and silence us.

“This is intimidation and bullying – that’s exactly what it is,” Aaron Klein told Fox News.“ They are trying to strong-arm me into handing over $135,000 to the two girls and if I win on appeal – they will never pay me back. The Kleins complain that they face a lien on their home if they do not pay up — because that’s how these things work.

Gee, that sounds scary! Unfortunately, the “Christian persecution” story is also a gigantic lie. According to the ruling, the Kleins “brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding” the couple against whom they discriminated.

“It was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact (the Bowman-Cryers), making (the Kleins) liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by (them),” the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found. In fact, the “emotional distress” referenced in the decision had nothing at all to do with the actual discrimination at all.

Oregon Live reports that the Kleins shared the couple’s personal contact information on their Facebook page — a common right-wing intimidation tactic — which allowed bigots everywhere to send them death threats. The Bowman-Cryers feared that they would lose custody of their foster children thanks to the steady stream of harassment from right-wing bigots who viewed the Kleins as victims of some sort of fascist, anti-Christian sentiment.

According to Raw Story:


“She filed her complaint by smart phone, which prevented her from seeing a disclaimer notifying her that her full name and address would be sent to the bakery owners – and Aaron Klein shared that information, along with the complaint, on his personal Facebook page.”

The Kleins’ lawyers attempted to point the finger for the harassment and death threats at the Borman-Cryers — because they filed the discrimination complaint. “Isn’t the real reason you felt stress after the media firestorm was that the state threatened to take away your kids,” attorney Tyler Smith asked during cross-examination.

“That was part of the reason for our stress,” Rachel Bowman-Cryer replied. “They told us it was our responsibility to protect them and keep them out of the public eye.”

The Oregon Bureau of Labor found the Kleins liable for the threats and anguish caused by their callous decision to use right-wing media to further harass their victims, ordering the Christian couple to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.” In addition, the Kleins violated Oregon’s public accommodations law.

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the commissioner ruled. “The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

While earlier reports suggested that the Kleins were specifically ordered to pay for the sharing of the personal information, Raw Story notes that [Obviously, we have amended this article to reflect that]:

An earlier version of this article contained a significant error that resulted from failure to distinguish the difference between the agency’s recommendation and the commissioner’s final ruling. The bakers were not, as previously reported, punished for threats by others against the couple, as the agency had recommended. They were ordered by the commissioner to pay damages to the couple for emotional harm caused by their unlawful discrimination. We regret the error, and we would like to thank Eugene Volokh for clarifying the distinction.

Congratulations, Conservatives: you terrorized a couple who has done absolutely nothing wrong simply for expecting a business to follow the law…Happy?




“If you listen to the fine conservative crowd at Breitbart and other right-wing “news” outlets, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, are being railroaded by an evil ‘gaystapo’ hell-bent on punishing them for practicing their faith — by violating a lesbian couple’s civil rights when the Kleins chose to discriminate against them when the pair attempted to obtain a wedding cake from the business. The Kleins found themselves facing a $135,000 fine as a result of a lawsuit filed by the couple and were ordered not to further discriminate: “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote. …. “The Kleins are free to voice their disagreement with the ruling or Oregon’s anti-discrimination laws in general,” he added. “The cease and desist order means that they should refrain from discriminating against future customers.” …. The push for same-sex marriage was always nothing more the Left’s sheep’s clothing in a crusade to destroy Christians and the Christian Church. By adhering to the word of God, the Left will label Christians bigots and haters, and use the power of boycotts and the State to punish and silence us. “This is intimidation and bullying – that’s exactly what it is,” Aaron Klein told Fox News.“ They are trying to strong-arm me into handing over $135,000 to the two girls and if I win on appeal – they will never pay me back. The Kleins complain that they face a lien on their home if they do not pay up — because that’s how these things work. …. Oregon Live reports that the Kleins shared the couple’s personal contact information on their Facebook page — a common right-wing intimidation tactic — which allowed bigots everywhere to send them death threats. The Bowman-Cryers feared that they would lose custody of their foster children thanks to the steady stream of harassment from right-wing bigots who viewed the Kleins as victims of some sort of fascist, anti-Christian sentiment.”

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the commissioner ruled. “The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.” This law prevents individuals or businesses from denying anyone their personal rights as citizens. It’s the same situation as the fact that in the South blacks were not allowed to sit down in most or all restaurants and be served their food under the prevalent Jim Crow Laws in effect during my younger years. They could go in and buy food, but they had to take it outside to eat it. It’s just viciousness written into law by states. It’s similar also to the requirement that black voters must pass a literacy test, which often consisted of reading aloud a legal document, which in fact many whites were also unable to do, but they would be allowed to vote anyway. It’s just one more sneaking cowardly trick.





POPE FRANCIS – TWO ARTICLES



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
Adam Withnall
Tuesday 28 October 2014

Photograph -- Francis goes against Benedict XVI’s apparent support for 'intelligent design' - but does hail his predecessor’s 'great contribution to theology'

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

• Sir Elton John Labels Pope Francis 'My Hero'

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.”




Independent -- “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.” The Pope is saying what I have always believed -- that the God of my understanding or the Higher Power if you prefer -- does not mean for our holiest document to be interpreted literally and that if he hadn’t wanted humans to think for themselves at the highest level they can achieve, he wouldn’t have given them a brain that is ceaselessly exploratory and able to make distinctions that show them what is true. Choosing between callous, greedy, vicious behavior and gentleness and helpfulness is our duty. I further believe that the goal of a good religion is to improve man’s nature rather than achieve social or political dominance within a class-structured society. Buddhist meditation may, for any given individual, do that better than a radically oriented form of Christianity. That’s why I’m a Unitarian Universalist. I believe that all humans will be “saved” and that there is one God, not three.





http://www.wsvn.com/story/29507143/pope-asks-pardon-for-churchs-crimes-against-indigenous#.VaFwct4i3Nk.google_plusone_share

Pope asks pardon for church's 'crimes' against indigenous
By NICOLE WINFIELD and FRANK BAJAK
Associated Press
July 11, 2015

Photograph -- (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia). Pope Francis is framed by a feather headdress worn by one of the indigenous people and children wearing traditional costumes greeting him upon his arrival at the El Alto airport, Bolivia, Wednesday, July 8, 2015.

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia (AP) - Pope Francis apologized Thursday for the sins, offenses and crimes committed by the Catholic Church against indigenous peoples during the colonial-era conquest of the Americas, delivering a powerful mea culpa on the part of the church in the climactic highlight of his South American pilgrimage.

History's first Latin American pope "humbly" begged forgiveness during an encounter in Bolivia with indigenous groups and other activists and in the presence of Bolivia's first-ever indigenous president, Evo Morales.

Francis noted that Latin American church leaders in the past had acknowledged that "grave sins were committed against the native peoples of America in the name of God." St. John Paul II, for his part, apologized to the continent's indigenous for the "pain and suffering" caused during the 500 years of the church's presence in the Americas during a 1992 visit to the Dominican Republic.

But Francis went farther, and said he was doing so with "regret."

"I would also say, and here I wish to be quite clear, as was St. John Paul II: I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offenses of the church herself, but also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America," he said to applause from the crowd.

Then deviating from his prepared script, he added: "I also want for us to remember the thousands and thousands of priests who strongly opposed the logic of the sword with the power of the cross. There was sin, and it was plentiful. But we never apologized, so I now ask for forgiveness. But where there was sin, and there was plenty of sin, there was also an abundant grace increased by the men who defended indigenous peoples."

Francis' apology was met with wild applause from the indigenous and other grass-roots groups gathered for a world summit of popular movements whose fight against injustice and social inequality has been championed by the pope.

"We accept the apologies. What more can we expect from a man like Pope Francis?" said Adolfo Chavez, a leader of a lowlands indigenous group. "It's time to turn the page and pitch in to start anew. We indigenous were never lesser beings."

The apology was significant given the controversy that has erupted in the United States over Francis' planned canonization of the 18th century Spanish priest Junipero Serra, who set up missions across California. Native Americans contend Serra brutally converted indigenous people to Christianity, wiping out villages in the process, and have opposed his canonization. The Vatican insists Serra defended natives from colonial abuses.

Francis' apology was also significant given the controversy that blew up the last time a pope visited the continent. Benedict XVI drew heated criticism when, during a 2007 visit to Brazil, he defended the church's campaign to Christianize indigenous peoples. He said the Indians of Latin America had been "silently longing" to become Christians when Spanish and Portuguese conquerors violently took over their lands.

"In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture," Benedict told the continent's bishops.

Amid an outcry from indigenous groups, Benedict subsequently acknowledged that "shadows accompanied the work of evangelizing" the continent and said European colonizers inflicted "sufferings and injustices" on indigenous populations. He didn't apologize, however.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said that Francis wrote the speech on his own and that the apology for the sins, offenses and crimes of the church was a "particularly important declaration."

Church officials have long insisted Catholic missionaries protected indigenous peoples from the abuses of military colonizers and were often punished by European colonial powers as a result. Francis' own Jesuit order developed missions across the continent, educating the indigenous and turning their communities into organized Christian-Indian societies. The Jesuits were expelled in the 17th century.

Mexican Bishop Raul Vera, who attended the summit where Francis made the apology, said the church was essentially a passive participant in allowing natives to become enslaved under the Spanish "encomienda" system, by which the Spanish king granted land in conquered territories to those who settled there. Indians were allowed to live on the haciendas as long as they worked them.

"It's evident that the church did not defend against it with all its efforts. It allowed it to be imposed," Vera told The Associated Press earlier Thursday.

He acknowledged that John Paul had previously asked forgiveness for the church's sins against indigenous. But he said Francis' apology was particularly poignant given the setting.

Campesino leader Amandina Quispe, of Anta, Peru, who attended the grass-roots summit, said the church still holds lands it should give back to Andean natives. The former seat of the Inca empire, conquered by Spaniards in the 16th century, is an example.

"The church stole our land and tore down our temples in Cuzco and then it built its own churches - and now it charges admission to visit them," she said.

Francis' apology was not the first. After his 1992 apology, John Paul II issued a sweeping but vague apology for the Catholic Church's sins of the past during the church's 2000 Jubilee. A year later, he apologized specifically for missionary abuses against aborigines in Oceania. He did so in the first ever papal email.

During the speech, the longest and most important of Francis' week-long, three-nation South American trip, the pope touched on some of the key priorities of his pontificate: the need to change an unjust global economic system that excludes the poor and replace it with a "communitarian economy" involving the "fitting distribution" of the Earth's resources.

"Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the Earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy. It's a moral obligation," he said.

He ended the speech with a fierce condemnation of the world's governments for what he called "cowardice" in defending the Earth. Echoing his environmental encyclical of last month, the pope said the Earth "is being pillaged, laid waste and harmed with impunity" while "one international summit after another takes place without any significant result."

He urged the activists present to "keep up your struggle."

It was a message he articulated earlier in the day when he denounced the "throwaway" culture of today's society that discards anyone who is unproductive. He made the comments as he celebrated his first public Mass in Bolivia, South America's poorest country.

The government declared a national holiday so workers and students could attend the Mass, which featured prayers in Guarani and Aimara, two of Bolivia's indigenous languages, and an altar carved from wood by artisans of the Chiquitano people.

In a blending of the native and new, the famously unpretentious pope changed into his vestments for the Mass in a nearby Burger King.

Associated Press writers Paola Flores, Jacobo Garcia and Carlos Valdez contributed to this report.




“Pope Francis apologized Thursday for the sins, offenses and crimes committed by the Catholic Church against indigenous peoples during the colonial-era conquest of the Americas, delivering a powerful mea culpa on the part of the church in the climactic highlight of his South American pilgrimage.” One of the most interesting, powerful and emotionally stimulating courses I ever took in college was called “Latin American History,” in which that early colonization and “conversion” by force was one of the topics. Not only did we white Christians kill with guns and with microbes, we in the Northern Hemisphere forced most of the American Indian tribes in the US away from their home territories so we could put our cattle, farmers and oil wells onto their land and then, the final insult, put them onto reservations where they were forced to go to schools for English literacy, religious conversion, overall indoctrination and the decimation of their cultural identity including their languages. It’s a way of killing people while keeping their bodies alive.

As a tactic, I understand it, because they would have remained a permanent enemy if it hadn’t been done. Of course they are our enemies anyway partly because of that cruelty, but when living on the reservation they are more subject to our control than if they had been allowed to roam at will and go anywhere. What bothers me most about the Indians is that so many of them don’t go to college, get a higher paid job and blend in with “white society.” The same problem exists with the freed black slaves. They became sharecroppers in the South or went to the North for factory jobs. Most ended up in ghettoes. The impulse of almost any individual human is to go to the highest concentration of people of their own cultural and racial group. That movement of the blacks north started in the Civil War and before by the aid of the Underground Railroad. As one black man in a recent news article said in answer to the question of why he chose to live in the ghetto, “I love black people.” Probably the same is true with the Indians, plus they have their old religions which are practiced on the reservations, and in an ordinary city they would tend to give that up.

I am glad to see the Pope apologizing for this form of colonization. It was devastating to the Native Americans, as it destroyed their personal identities. It isn’t surprising that they remain poor and dejected in so many cases. I would rather see a racially highly mixed society in which if there is a ghetto it would be based on the individual resident’s lack of education and will to compete in American society rather than on their skin color or religious persuasion The Jews have been treated that way across the world also, and to a lesser degree all Asian groups. Now it’s happening to the Islamic refugees who have come here. They aren’t all jihadists, after all.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eric-garner-family-says-5-9-million-settlement-isnt-a-victory/

Eric Garner family says $5.9 million settlement isn't a victory
CBS/AP
July 14, 2015

Photograph -- Eric Garner's mother, Gwen Carr, and the Rev. Al Sharpton at Sharpton's National Action Network House of Justice in New York Dec. 6, 2014. REUTERS/ANDREW KELLY

The relatives of an unarmed black man who was killed after being put in a white police officer's chokehold say they don't see a $5.9 million settlement with New York City as a victory.

Eric Garner's mother, Gwen Carr, said Tuesday that "the victory will come when we get justice."

The family is pressing for federal civil rights charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo after a state grand jury declined to indict him. Federal authorities are investigating.

One of Garner's children, Emerald Snipes, says, "Justice is when somebody is held accountable for what they do."

The settlement was announced Monday, almost a year after the 43-year-old Garner's death.

Earlier, the Rev. Al Sharpton said the settlement recognized the relatives' loss, but he said "money is not justice."

Sharpton said the financial settlement "does not deal with the criminal and other wrongs done to this family and other families."

Garner's death and police killings of other unarmed black men fueled widespread protests. Sharpton says Garner's videotaped gasps of "I can't breathe!" 11 times helped spur a national movement that won't end "until we change how policing goes."

The announcement of the settlement came after a report that Garner's family had rejected an earlier officer of $5 million, according to CBS New York.




“The family is pressing for federal civil rights charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo after a state grand jury declined to indict him. Federal authorities are investigating. One of Garner's children, Emerald Snipes, says, "Justice is when somebody is held accountable for what they do." …. The family is pressing for federal civil rights charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo after a state grand jury declined to indict him. Federal authorities are investigating. One of Garner's children, Emerald Snipes, says, "Justice is when somebody is held accountable for what they do."

I think further justice will be when the federal and state governments step in to make these outrageous police activities so punishing to the officers who are caught doing them, that it will begin to be a true deterrent. As one police officer on a police website said, though, if the local police chiefs and the courts would simply start enforcing laws that are already on the books, most of these pointless and vicious things that have occurred would stop, simply because cops are intelligent enough to refrain from what is very painful to them. Being put on unpaid leave for three months would be pretty effective, if the police unions are not allowed to step in and pay their rents for them, as they often do now when an officer gets a stiff fine levied against him. And of course, if they are fired outright and maybe even tried for murder, egregious assault, etc. it would be a genuine disincentive to rogue officers. Then, of course, the court or grand juries have to actually convict them of the crime, and laws like RICO and USA Patriot should stop giving them the freedom to do whatever they want to while on the street. They are given “the benefit of the doubt” most commonly. The whole system is disgusting to me. We need police, of course, but not the kind that we so often have. We need to amend our federal and constitutional protection of pointless police aggression.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-gop-congress-share-a-moment-in-sync-on-criminal-justice-reform/

Obama, GOP Congress share a moment in sync on criminal justice reform
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
July 14, 2015

Photograph -- President Obama holds a joint news conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in the East Room at the White House June 30, 2015 in Washington, DC. During the press conference, Mr. Obama said he hopes to take up criminal justice reform in his final months in office. CHIP SOMODEVILLA, GETTY IMAGES

Play VIDEO -- Is it time to end the war on crime?

In a rare moment of unity this week, both President Obama and GOP leaders in Congress will be highlighting the need to overhaul the nation's overworked, bloated criminal justice system.

A day after commuting the prison sentences of 46 nonviolent drug offenders, President Obama on Tuesday will talk about criminal justice reform at the NAACP convention in Philadelphia. He'll continue the conversation into Thursday, when he makes history as the first sitting president to visit a federal prison.

Meanwhile, in the House, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will spend two days discussing criminal justice reforms that have already worked at the state level and could have an impact nationally. The committee will hear from conservatives like Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, as well as liberals like Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia -- all of whom have added their names to bills that would help end the decades-long war on crime.

"We've seen some really interesting leadership from some unlikely Republican legislators very sincerely concerned about making progress there," Mr. Obama said in a June 30 press conference, listing criminal justice reform as one of the few big issues he wants to tackle in the remaining months of his presidency.


The bipartisan push for criminal justice reform has been years in the making, but it still faces some real hurdles. The first is Congress' inclination to do nothing -- or at best, to move at the speed of molasses. "Inertia rules in Washington," Matt Kibbe, president of the libertarian group FreedomWorks, told CBS News earlier this year.

The effort could also be hampered by the heightened partisan atmosphere in Washington as the 2016 elections ramp up. That's why Rep. Scott told CBS News he wants to see a set of reforms passed this year.

"Hopefully we'll get a lot of support before the beginning of next year, so we don't have to take a chance of getting into politics," he said. "That's exactly what we've been trying to avoid."

Just a few weeks ago, Scott and Sensenbrenner teamed up to unveil the Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Effective (SAFE) Justice Act. The Democrat and Republican spent two years reviewing problems with the criminal justice system as the leaders of the Over-Criminalization Task Force. As a result of their research, the lawmakers drafted a bill that, among other things, attempts to curtail over-criminalization, to increase the use of evidence-based sentencing alternatives like probation, and to reform mandatory minimum sentencing. Scott told CBS News the bill is "a compilation of the issues on which there was a consensus."

"If you get away from the slogans and soundbites, you're left with a long list of initiatives that will reduce crime and save money -- on that basis, there is a lot of common ground," he said.

The SAFE Justice Act has a chance of passing if lawmakers can round up co-sponsors quickly enough, Scott said -- something he feels optimistic about.

"I wouldn't be surprised if on a bipartisan basis we got close to a majority of the House" to support the bill, he said. "At the rate we're going, I think that's a real possibility."

Already, the bill has 15 Republican co-sponsors and 15 Democratic co-sponsors. The lawmakers behind the bill are deliberately keeping an even balance between Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.

Enough supporters would merit serious consideration in the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction to approve or reject the bill for a full House floor vote. So far, the committee hasn't taken up the bill, but Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, has promised to address the issue of criminal justice reform in the coming months. Goodlatte and Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, said last month that they plan to take a step-by-step approach, parsing out various issues like over-criminalization, sentencing reform, prison and re-entry reform and improved policing strategies.

In the meantime, Scott and Sensenbrenner plan to talk about the SAFE Justice Act in the Oversight Committee hearing Tuesday, even though the committee doesn't have direct jurisdiction over the bill. The hearing could build support for that legislation, or any of the other criminal justice reform bills Democrats and Republicans have drafted. For instance, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced the Recidivism Risk Reduction Act.

The Oversight Committee will also hear from Sen. Cornyn, who paired up with Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island to introduce the Corrections Act, which aims to shorten sentences for low-risk federal inmates while also reducing their chances of returning to prison. The Committee will also hear from Sen. Booker, who worked with a group of bipartisan lawmakers to introduce the Smarter Sentencing Act, which would give judges more discretion in sentencing those convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.

Even with multiple bills in the works, the issue is on the back burner in the Senate for the time being -- first, the upper chamber plans to take up a host of major issues including cybersecurity, highway funding, education reform and chemical safety.




“In a rare moment of unity this week, both President Obama and GOP leaders in Congress will be highlighting the need to overhaul the nation's overworked, bloated criminal justice system. A day after commuting the prison sentences of 46 nonviolent drug offenders, President Obama on Tuesday will talk about criminal justice reform at the NAACP convention in Philadelphia. He'll continue the conversation into Thursday, when he makes history as the first sitting president to visit a federal prison. …. "We've seen some really interesting leadership from some unlikely Republican legislators very sincerely concerned about making progress there," Mr. Obama said in a June 30 press conference, listing criminal justice reform as one of the few big issues he wants to tackle in the remaining months of his presidency. The bipartisan push for criminal justice reform has been years in the making, but it still faces some real hurdles. The first is Congress' inclination to do nothing -- or at best, to move at the speed of molasses. "Inertia rules in Washington," Matt Kibbe, president of the libertarian group FreedomWorks, told CBS News earlier this year. …. Just a few weeks ago, Scott and Sensenbrenner teamed up to unveil the Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Effective (SAFE) Justice Act. The Democrat and Republican spent two years reviewing problems with the criminal justice system as the leaders of the Over-Criminalization Task Force. …. . Scott told CBS News the bill is "a compilation of the issues on which there was a consensus." "If you get away from the slogans and soundbites, you're left with a long list of initiatives that will reduce crime and save money -- on that basis, there is a lot of common ground," he said. …. For instance, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced the Recidivism Risk Reduction Act. The Oversight Committee will also hear from Sen. Cornyn, who paired up with Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island to introduce the Corrections Act, which aims to shorten sentences for low-risk federal inmates while also reducing their chances of returning to prison.”

“Goodlatte and Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, said last month that they plan to take a step-by-step approach, parsing out various issues like over-criminalization, sentencing reform, prison and re-entry reform and improved policing strategies.” I am relieved to see that “policing strategies” has been including on the issues to reform, because the reason the violence is so common is because “anything goes” has been the rule of thumb. In looking at these articles since Ferguson there have been several cities that are much better than others in type of policing and levels of violence – Los Angeles for instance – while those like Ferguson are less professional and given to racial bias. New York also was praised in one article, but the pointless strangling of a man whose only crime was trying to make a few dollars selling cigarettes on the street did happen there.

I will try to follow this proposed bill for progress. It is much more exciting and important to me than highway funding, although I have heard that some major highways have potholes etc., and there are numerous bridges here in Jacksonville that are considered to be in trouble. Several chunks of concrete fell off the Main Street Bridge a couple of months ago, but the roadbed is still considered to be sound. The highways are an ongoing problem which we just need to raise some taxes for -- another gasoline tax for instance. On the upcoming justice reform law, read the article below. It has some things in it that would make a real difference on the local level, I think, and cut down on the number of Fergusons that exist around the country.



https://bobbyscott.house.gov/sites/bobbyscott.house.gov/files/SAFE%20Justice%20Act%202%20Page%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf

The Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Effective (SAFE) Justice Act
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and Rep. Bobby Scott

States Lead the Way in Corrections Reform

Since 1980, Congress has steadily increased the size and scope of the federal criminal code and with it the federal prison population. In that period, the federal government has added an estimated 2,000 new crimes to the books, while the federal imprisonment rate has grown by an astounding 518 percent. During the same period, annual spending on the federal prison system rose 595 percent, from $970 million to more than $6.7 billion, after adjusting for inflation.

Like the federal government, states also recorded sharp increases in imprisonment and associated costs over the past 30 years. During the past decade, however, the states have responded by reducing their imprisonment rate by 4 percent while the federal imprisonment rate jumped 15 percent. The state drop was driven in large part by comprehensive reform efforts in more than two dozen states designed to protect public safety while containing costs and preventing further growth in government programs.

These state reforms have returned dividends to taxpayers many times over: from Texas and Wisconsin to Rhode Island, from Georgia and South Carolina to New York, 32 states have reduced both their crime and imprisonment rates over the past five years. Cumulative cost savings in a subset of these states exceed $4.6 billion, and millions have been reinvested in prison alternatives better at breaking the cycle of recidivism.

The Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Effective (SAFE) Justice Act

The SAFE Justice Act is bipartisan legislation that puts lessons learned in the states to work at the federal level. The legislation protects public safety and reins in escalating corrections costs by:

 Curtailing overcriminalization – requires public disclosure of regulatory criminal offenses; allows victims of regulatory over-criminalization to contact the inspector general; restores discretion to judges to determine to what extent manipulated conduct that results from fictitious law enforcement “stings” may be considered in court; protects against wrongful convictions; creates procedures to simplify charging and safely reduce pre-trial detention; and eliminates federal criminal penalties for simple drug possession in state jurisdictions.

 Increasing use of evidence-based sentencing alternatives – expands eligibility for pre-judgment probation; promotes greater use of probation for lower-level offenders; and encourages judicial districts to open drug, veteran, mental health and other problem solving courts.

 Concentrating prison space on violent and career criminals – clarifies original Congressional intent by examining the role an offender plays in a drug offense and targeting higher-level traffickers for mandatory minimums and recidivist enhancements; applies life sentences for drug trafficking only in the most egregious cases; allows eligible offenders to petition for resentencing under new trafficking laws; modestly expands the drug trafficking safety valve; clarifies that mandatory minimum gun sentences can only run consecutively when the offender is a true recidivist; and expands compassionate release for lower-risk geriatric and terminally-ill offenders.

 Reducing recidivism – expands earned time to encourage more inmates to participate in individualized case plans designed to reduce their likelihood of reoffending; seeks to boost success rates of offenders on probation and post-prison supervision by mandating swift, certain and graduated sanctions for violations and offering credits for those who are compliant; creates a performance-incentive funding program; creates mental health and de-escalation training programs for prison personnel; and mandates the use of performance-based contracting for half-way houses.

 Increasing government transparency and accountability – requires fiscal impact statements for sentencing and corrections bills; requires sentencing cost analyses to be disclosed in pre-sentencing reports; adds a non-voting federal defender rep. on the U.S. Sentencing Commission; requires the calculation of good time as Congress intended; requires federal agencies to report on corrections populations and recidivism rates, among other indicators; reauthorizes the Innocence Protection Act and directs the Attorney General to develop best practices to reduce wrongful convictions; and encourages prison savings to be invested in strengthening safety measures for law enforcement.

The Research Foundation for the SAFE Justice Act

The SAFE Justice Act, like the comprehensive corrections reforms enacted in many states, draws from the large and growing body of research about what works to reduce recidivism, including the following principles:

 To deter offending, use swift and certain responses – Research demonstrates that delayed, unpredictable, and severe responses are less effective than swift, certain, and fair sanctions. Swift and certain responses—both punishments and rewards—are more effective because they help offenders see the response as a direct consequence of their behavior and because offenders heavily discount uncertain and distant responses.

States that have implemented swift and certain responses include Washington, Georgia, and West Virginia.

 Earned time policies can reduce recidivism – Research demonstrates that rewards and incentives can work to change offending behavior and reduce recidivism. The benefits of earned time policies for inmates and earned compliance credits for offenders under probation or post-release supervision include lower costs (through accelerated release) and lower recidivism (by shifting correctional resources to those offenders who continue to violate rules and break laws).

States that have built earned time into their prison systems include Kentucky, Maryland, and Louisiana. States that have built earned time into their supervision systems include South Dakota, Mississippi, and Arkansas.

 For drug offenders, sentence strategically – The most vicious, predatory and high-level drug offenders warrant prison cells to avert the harm they cause to individuals and communities, but research shows that long terms of incarceration for the vast majority of mid-level couriers, distributors and dealers has little impact on public safety. While imprisonment may temporarily disrupt a drug market, the “replacement effect”—whereby new recruits quickly replace those imprisoned for mid-level roles—negates the impact of incarceration on drug price, availability, or related crime. Instead, prison time should be focused on violent or kingpin drug traffickers who are controlling the marketplace.

States that have recalibrated their drug sentencing systems to differentiate higher-level from lower-level offenders include South Dakota, Georgia, and South Carolina.

 Focus on high-risk offenders – For many lower-level offenders, especially those whose criminal conduct is driven largely by substance abuse, alternatives like drug and mental health courts, treatment programs, and intensive supervision both hold offenders accountable and work better to reduce recidivism. In fact, research suggests that for many lower-risk and less serious offenders a prison sentence may actually be responsible for an increase in recidivism by encouraging anti-social ties and breaking bonds at home.

States that have encouraged diversion of lower-level offenders to prison alternatives include Mississippi, California, and Illinois.

 Age matters – Research has long shown that age is one of the most significant predictors of criminality, with criminal or delinquent activity peaking in late adolescence and decreasing significantly with time. As a result, imprisonment of offenders into their 50s, 60s and 70s provides diminishing and often negligible public safety returns. Implementing smart, targeted geriatric release programs can ensure heinous offenders remain behind bars while cutting down on costs and maintaining public safety.

States that have implemented geriatric or compassionate release programs include Alabama, Colorado, and Montana.