text:
Text TXFACTS to 52886
Shaping Our Future
Justice & Safety
Government Performance
About the Formation of Texas 2036 and General Information
What inspired your founder to start Texas 2036?
Tom Luce, Dallas attorney and long-time civic leader, founded Texas 2036 based upon a belief that Texas has growing challenges, but, by acting now, we can adjust course as needed and overcome those challenges.
When thinking about the opportunities he had as a young person living and working in Texas, Tom became concerned that not as many young people in future generations would have those same opportunities.
In an effort to ensure future generations had those same chances to succeed, Tom pulled together a team of experts and policy analysts to review the data, determine the biggest challenges facing the state and begin to generate solutions to address those challenges.
How did Texas 2036 get its name?
Tom wanted to create an organization focused on affecting long-term change over time, so with this time horizon in mind, he named the organization after the state's bicentennial.
In 1836, Texas gained its independence from Mexico and formed the Republic of Texas. In 2036, our state will celebrate its 200-year anniversary.
When did Texas 2036 start?
Texas 2036 hired its first employee on September 19, 2016. Tom and a small staff spent 18 months working to make sure that there was a need and support for a non-partisan, data-driven organization like Texas 2036.
The organization has since accumulated more than 300 public data sets and assembled a team of experts and policy analysts to determine where Texas is today and the direction in which we are headed.
In 2019, former U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings came on board as President and CEO, the Texas 2036 Board of Directors expanded to 34 members and the organization launched publicly at the Texas Tribune's TribFest in September.
How is Texas 2036 structured?
Texas 2036 is a 501(c)(3). We are statewide, data-driven and non-partisan. Our board reflects our diversity. We are funded by individuals, institutions and businesses who care about the future of Texas.
About the Policy Areas and Long-Term Strategy of Texas 2036
How did you select six policy areas?
Texas 2036 has a broad focus on six key policy areas: education and workforce, health, natural resources, infrastructure, justice and safety and government performance.
This comprehensive view was adopted based upon Tom's extensive experience advocating on issues, such as mental health and education, that are usually addressed in silos. Smart, well-intentioned people head to the state Capitol to make their case for big issues. But at the end of the day, when advocacy is done in silos, key connections can be overlooked. Water supply or access to nutritional food has consequences for educational attainment. Or other challenges can impact school performance. What if children can't get to school? What if they haven't had their booster shots? What if they have experienced trauma at home?
Further, the 2020-2021 state budget totals $250 billion. With so many resources at stake, it is critical that taxpayers receive a return on their investment and that state government uses those resources effectively and efficiently.
Why focus on building a long-term strategy and plan?
Most problems that government faces are similar to the problems that businesses face. We're dealing with an enormous amount of disruption and social change, which requires system transformation. That does not occur overnight or in the course of one election cycle. It occurs when you have a long-term plan and you're disciplined about implementing change over time.
For instance, if you look at public education in Texas as a business enterprise, it has 5.5 million customers, 450,000 employees, 6,500 business units or campuses, and spends billions of dollars. You can't transform it overnight.
It takes a long-range vision, incremental change over time, and continuous improvement and focus. Our political system is not geared to those principles today, and political actors are not using data to drive decision-making.
When do you plan on rolling out the long-term strategic framework?
By early summer, Texas 2036 will release a long-term strategic framework that includes a set of aspirational goals related to our six policy areas.
These goals provide the framework for an elevated conversation about what matters the most to Texans. They will be informed by data, analysis and conversations with more than 200 experts and community leaders from across the state, and are intended to help us collectively set priorities in order to ensure future quality of life and shared economic prosperity for all Texans.
Each of these goals will be supported by the performance indicators, datasets, and context so that Texans can further explore the driving forces behind the challenges and opportunities we face now and will continue to face, until 2036 and beyond.
About Texas 2036's Goals and How You Can Help
Will Texas 2036 be advocating for legislative changes?
By the end of 2020, we will have engaged Texans in a data-driven conversation about Texas' growth, priorities, needs and potential. From there, we will be ready to work with state legislators as they meet in 2021 to advance an agenda supporting job creation, economic opportunity, and better outcomes in everything from education to health policy.
How can someone become involved?
We're in the process of developing goals and performance indicators for Texas, and we plan to release them later this year. We will then host a series of events and policy summits around the state. If you haven't already done so, please go to www.texas2036.org to sign up for our newsletter and follow us on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram We need your voice in this important conversation about the future of our state.
Also, please consider adding your name to Texas 2036's list of donors. We will be wise stewards of your generosity and use it to help safeguard Texas' future.
Finally, we're working to introduce Texas 2036 to the state and engage as many people as possible. If you are part of a business or organization and would be interested in sharing information about the bigger challenges facing our state with your fellow employees, members, or others — please let our Texas 2036 team know by sending an email to info@texas2036.org.
3963 Maple Ave, Ste 290,
All Offices >>


PBS has launched a new dashboard that allows stations to monitor their social media impact. According to Victor Acquah, Web analytics consultant at Blue Analytics, who helped develop the dashboard, in a recent Webinar, the dashboard allows stations to use "a common set of metrics to help gauge the effectiveness of their social media efforts."
Acquah noted that successful impact measurements start with the ability for stations to clearly articulate their social media goals. Stations should seek an active dialogue with their audiences, not "a one-way push for advertising content."
Public broadcasters recognize the need for consistent, easy-to-use tools to track online engagement. A November 2008 Center for Media Engagement Study found that public broadcasting stations are not, for the most part, using social media very effectively. However, some public broadcasters have done an incredible job of building effective communities, both online and off primarily through smart use of social media. We've written about many of these examples in the Public Media 2.0 Showcase before, highlighting projects such as Flu Portal, Facing the Mortgage Crisis, and Economy Story. The discrepancy among stations is notable—some public broadcasting stations are still struggling to incorporate social media tools at all. And until now, stations haven't had a way to share their successes and failures through the use of a freely available measurement tool.
PBS's new "engagement dashboard" aims to help stations track not only the size of their audiences, but also the level of engagement with the content. It includes measurements from the big three social media tools: Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, combining metrics from sources including klout.net, Facebook Analytics, and YouTube Insights Report.
Over time, the dashboard will indicate trends, particularly fan base trends and engagement trends, and allow public broadcasting organizations to compare trends with one another. The dashboard does focus only on quantitative data, but stations could certainly find creative ways to supplement the data with qualitative evidence (similar to the WITNESS dashboard that I wrote about previously).
One disadvantage of the dashboard is that it is not web-based, and requires logging into several online systems and inputting data into an Excel spreadsheet. The dashboard unfortunately cannot be dynamic at this point, because not all of the necessary social media outlets have released their application programming interfaces (APIs), which allow developers to custom-build applications that pull data from them.
One participant on the Webinar commented that the amount of data entry in this system "seems like a lot of work." According to Amy Sample, director of analytics at PBS, after users become familiar with the dashboard, the entire data entry process actually only takes about 20 minutes each month. For severely under-resourced stations, however, the even the time it takes to learn the system might be too much.
The PBS dashboard team acknowledged that this dashboard is a work-in-progress that will continue to change over time. As Acquah said, "In the social media space, everything is rapidly evolving, even metrics."


Will Post Houses and DITs Be Extinct by 2017?
The media management and quality control handled by the digital imaging technician and post house is nearly universally vital in modern filmmaking, where each digital camera brings its own varying formats, workflows, and quirks. This need for DITs and post houses, however, may evaporate just as quickly as it has arisen — at least according to the predictions of Michael Cioni.
A while back, I produced a tutorial showing users how to get started creating stop motion videos. In that video, I show how to animate a basic paper crumple effect. The shot consists of a crumpled paper moving onscreen, uncrumpling, recrumpling, and then moving back off screen. To achieve the popular blocky-style look, I shot 50 images to create a 5-second animation at 10 fps. Yeah, all of this work for 10 seconds of video.
In 2014, Chris MacLean explained the work of Mr. X on POMPEII. He then worked on many projects such as CRIMSON PEAK, BEN-HUR, LEGION and THE STRAIN.
Inspired from such Hollywood Films as Drive, Max Max: Fury Road and Moonrise Kingdom after getting your film to a good base correction you can easily apply these film looks to your project to give it a big budget look.
Alessandro Ongaro is a CG Supervisor at Double Negative. With almost 20 years of experience, he is presently considered to be among the CG Industry's top professionals.


text:
Quotes with lions
Al Alboro Jr.
Mentally Strong
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet.
There's a difference between somebody who wants you and somebody who would do anything to keep you. Remember that.
mindfulmft | Moving on after an ending can be so difficult. It's one of the hardest things we go through and no matter how many times we've been there before when we're in it it just doesn't seem much easier than the last. Sometimes closure looks differently than we imagine it. Sometimes we don't get all of the answer we're seeking. Sometimes it's not wrapped in a pretty bow with two people who amicably say "this is for the better." Sure maybe we know that's true on some level but most of t...
Sassy Quotes
Lions and Lionesses are filled with Love & Might and represent everything a true King and Queen should be! Description from pinterest.com. I searched for this on bing.com/images
Quotes Inspirational
Cute Quotes For Life
Lion Quotes
Inspiring Sayings
Osho Quotes
Beautiful Lion
Lion/quote
Brainy Quotes
This is the top vote getter of people liking my pin of this quote on Pinterest
Motivational Quotes For Life
Inspiring Quotes About Life
Inspirational Quotes Motivation
But that's okay.. Nobody has my back, like I got my back. It's just me, myself and I. - H;*
Scar Quotes
Today Quotes
I like this! And in my opinion, it includes any imperfection, or wrinkle, or flap of skin caused by pregnancy or losing weight. Those things represent experience, survival, and life changing moments. Wear them proudly!!!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Wicklow (Irsk: Cill Mhantáin) er en irsk by i County Wicklow i provinsen Leinster, i den centrale del af Republikken Irland med en befolkning (inkl. opland) på 10.070 indb i 2006 (9.355 i 2002)

Den lokale historie har afdækket, at byen Wicklow blev grundlagt af vikinger omkring år 870. Mens første del af bynavnet 'Wick' hidrører fra betydningen 'vikinger', så er betydningen af 'low' mere usikker eller flertydig. Betydningen af 'Vikinglow' el. 'Wykynlow' kan være 'vikingernes enge', eller det kan stamme fra fra 'Wykynlo', der betyder 'Viking Loch' = 'Vikinge-søen'. Uanset bynavnets oprindelse, så er det ikke overraskende med den naturlige havn og de omkringliggende frugtbare landbrugsarealer, at der allerede var etableret faste bosættelser her helt tilbage til 800-tallet og tidligere endnu.

Lidt vest for byen Wicklow ligger Wicklow Nationalpark i et naturskønt fredet bakkeområde, der er et yndet vandreområde for naturelskere. I nationalparkens centrum ligger den historiske landsby Glendalough ved de to søer i Glendaloughdalen, hvorfra tømmeret til vikingeskibet Skuldelev 2 i sin tid er hentet for næsten 1000 år siden

Det økonomiske boom, som har karakteriseret udviklingen inden for den irske økonomi siden midten af 1990'erne har også påvirket Wicklow, der ligger på den østlige vækstakse, der strækker sig langs hovedvejen fra Belfast i Nordirland til Waterford i Irlands sydøstlige hjørne. Herunder er der etableret nye industri- og servicevirksomheder i bl.a. Wicklow-regionen, ligesom udviklingen har tiltrukket migranter fra landområder og mindre byer.

Se også
 Oversigt over de 100 største byer i Republikken Irland

Eksterne henvisninger

 Wicklow Chamber of Commerce – officiel website

Byer i Irland

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


There is a home Gopher Football game scheduled for Saturday.
Parking and commuting around the tennis center will be difficult. Scheduling matches on Friday night will likely be necessary in order to complete the event on time.
Before you register, please understand the difficulties in getting players to the tennis center, parking around the tennis center etc.
Due to the difficulties surrounding Saturday match play, matches may begin as early as noon on Friday.
Entry to this tournament is open to specified residents only. Entries must be submitted by Sunday, November 04, 2018 9:59:00 PM Central Time. Only USTA members can register online if available.
In the future, you can jump straight to this tournament by entering the tournament identification number: 550003018 from the searchable schedule homepage.


It is rank hypocrisy for Minister Hayes to deem debt forgiveness for householders an 'unrealistic option' when one considers how his and the previous government have done somersaults to relieve banks of their bad loans and make them the responsibility of ordinary people including those struggling to maintain their home.
The opposition of Fianna Fáil finance spokesperson Michael McGrath parroting the same arguments as the government is equally galling.
Whatever the precise cost of providing such forgiveness we can be sure that it is a figure that would be dwarfed by the scale of the bank bailouts. The Socialist Party consistently raised during the housing bubble its opposition to people being enslaved to 30 and 40 year mortgages for overpriced houses in order to obtain a home. We now say that a retrospective revaluation of all houses sold during the bubble during the last decade must take place and future payments worked out based on the true value of the home and people's ability to pay.
The United Left Alliance has already taken initial steps in launching a campaign of active opposition to repossessions and will seek to present a bill this autumn in the Dáil outlawing repossessions.
The fact a debate is taking place at all and that even some pro-capitalist economists support a debt forgiveness scheme is a reflection of the reality that tens of thousands of people simply cannot meet the inflated terms of their mortgage. It is also a reflection that their is a growing climate of opposition to people being repossessed of their homes. The Socialist Party and the United Left Alliance will play its part in giving that opposition an active form in the months ahead.


text:
34justice
Ben's Recs
Darius's Recs
Jon's Recs
by Jon Zaid | April 2, 2020 · 10:47 am
Resident Perspective, cont'd
This is the continuation of a series of journal entries depicting what it's like to be a part of the COVID pandemic from the medicine resident perspective.
Tue March 24th 2020
I couldn't sleep. I knew I would have to get tested in the morning.
I called our occupational health hotline when it opened up and I was instructed to go to the "walk-thru" testing facility that was set up outside in a parking lot adjacent to the hospital. All the staff there were wearing full body suits accompanied by masks, face shields, and bouffants. There were traffic cones strewn about seemingly directing the patients to different locations, various designated lanes for people to register, and about 3 dozen empty folding chairs spaced out to preserve social distancing. There was an ominous large Winnebago covered in sheet metal for some reason, and tents with presumably more staff inside them. Also, there were police officers, about 4 or 5 huddled together but they weren't directing traffic and I couldn't surmise what role they could possibly play in all this. Cars making their way along pothole-riddled Sansom street would now slow down to gawk at the impressive sterile facility not only for the sole intention of protecting the integrity of their tires and suspension. As a patient now, I was sitting in one of the empty 36 folding chairs while I waited for my name to be called. Outnumbered about 15 to one by occupational health employees, I could imagine the public believing this was overkill.
I was told I won't find out the results for three to five days, but there was a rumor about occupational health potentially getting a 24 hour test up and running the following day. I didn't want to risk being in the same boat again tomorrow so I took the swab today. My name was called, I went to the proper lane then was summoned into one of the tents where the very back of my throat was thoroughly wiped with an elongated Q-tip. Per hospital policy, I was now on mandatory leave to be on quarantine in my home until the results returned.
I called my wife and updated her. I would stay in the bedroom by myself for the next several days, leaving only for bathroom breaks, grab food from the kitchen, and to sanitize anything I touched. If I were to leave the room I had a facemask ready. I didn't come close to my 7-month-old son, which was probably the hardest part of all this. On my way home I thought about how it felt like the virus had been preoccupying everyone for months but in reality it was only a couple weeks. I was exhausted by it already but this was only the beginning.
Filed under coronavirus, Pandemic, Residency
Tagged as COVID-19, hospital, Pandemic, Residency
by Jon Zaid | April 1, 2020 · 7:58 am
Resident Perspective
I was encouraged by my wife to keep a journal for thoughts and feelings surrounding the developing coronavirus pandemic because I may be able to offer a unique perspective as a resident in medicine who is also a new parent and attempting to overcome fear of the unknown and what's to come. I will try to update as frequently as I am able.
Monday March 23rd 2020
I found out that the Attending Physician I had been working with all last week and who was coughing during rounds was getting tested for coronavirus last night in the emergency department. I can convince myself I'm having symptoms of fatigue, sore throat and maybe a headache but I've also been working in the hospital for almost four weeks straight and this could just be general exhaustion mixed with a touch of seasonal allergies. I try not to think about it too much.
I haven't been wearing any masks or other personal protective equipment around the hospital yet. At this point I feel like we are still in the nascent stages of the impending unknown so wearing a mask right now seems premature. The practice isn't mandatory but I see more and more random staff in the hallways with facemasks on, many of whom aren't clinicians which is a greater indication that I should probably get on board. Every now and then I'll check a supply closet or outside a patient's room to see what the surgical mask inventory is like. There are constant rumors floating around that, like the N95 facemasks, other equipment will be locked up and parsed out by a charge nurse on an "as needed basis". If a run-on-the-banks situation were to occur, I want to make sure I hit the sweet spot where I don't contribute too much to the hysteria but ensure I've got a mask without having to fight for scraps. I'll continue to assess the situation.
Meanwhile, I observe more PAPRs (Powered Air-Purifying Respirator—special protective equipment) next to rooms on the wards, awaiting their donning by newly trained hands. They'll be used for all COVID patients but since there aren't any confirmed as of yet in our hospital, the purpose is to be used by all COVID "rule-outs" for now–those that are being tested and don't have results back. We have a three to five day turnaround for test results right now, meaning we simply don't know if the virus is already in our presence. The increasing numbers of PAPRs seen daily act as a surrogate for the proximity of the disease to Philadelphia and as a gauge for the level of concern amongst residents.
Over the last several days quite literally every discussion between residents in the hospital is about the coronavirus. Either discussing potential treatments; rumors as to what's going on in China, Italy, or New York; sending memes or chatting about our trepidation and general anxiety that has gripped the entire hospital. Even when seeing my patients, every TV seems to be tuned into the news, all of which are giving up-to-the-minute global figures alternating between death tolls and economic indices. Patients ask questions for which I don't have answers. No families or visitors are allowed in the premises. No students or "non-essential personnel" permitted to the hospital. Residents are instructed to follow social distancing protocols and there are to be no gatherings of more than five.
I went to a stroke alert today at a patient's room for a patient that I wasn't directly taking care of, I just happened to be nearby. The patient was in a designated "rule-out" room meaning all personnel involved need to treat the patient with extreme caution, and to limit those in contact with the patient to only those "essential." Two nurses and a tech were in the cramped room already while the neurology resident was outside the room, not wanting to unnecessarily expose herself, miming the actions for a neurologic exam to one of the nurses. She gave instructions through the patient's door window and into a speakerphone in a patient's room a mere 4 or 5 feet away. The nurse and the tech cautiously proceeded to ask the patient to perform the maneuvers coached by the neurologist. It was an odd scene as clearly the patient could hear the instructions from the hallway through the door as well as the speakerphone but was polite enough to not mention that to the nurse directly in front of him. The nurse dutifully relayed the commands, "can you follow my finger with your eyes and keep your head still?" and the patient dutifully followed them. It would be funny if it weren't so bizarre. Turns out he wasn't having a stroke but it was good to have the opportunity to work out kinks regarding the protocol for patient emergencies. Residents are instructed to make note of instances in which normal protocols can't be followed given the extra necessary precautions we now have to take. No doubt there will be plenty.
The hospital is both quiet but buzzing lately. Most of the services only have a few patients on each team and I walk down the wards and can find four-five-six! rooms in a row without any occupants. I've never seen more than two consecutive empty beds during my years here. The hospital policy is to discharge as many patients as possible with the impending influx of COVID cases to come. No elective surgeries and if you don't absolutely need to be hospitalized you'd be safer at home. The atmosphere was akin to the episode of Game of Thrones just prior to the final battle in the last season. Nervous and anxious, we have no overflowing wine to keep us preoccupied and stumbling about. The morale is low and the silence in the hallways and in the former resident-gathering areas from our lounge to the cafeteria forces it to reverberate. Philadelphia has the temporary advantage of being able to watch from the shore as the tidal wave from China picks up steam as it makes its way across Europe, to New York City and crashing down I-95.
That night at home I continued to mentally scan my body for any possible symptoms. I hardly ever get sick so I don't know if I'm short of breath at the top of the stairs because I'm out of shape or because I have a deadly infection. Best to push it to the back of my mind as there's nothing I can do about it at this moment.
Bedtime routine completed. I get a text message at 10:00pm from a co-worker saying that the Attending I had been working with came back positive for coronavirus.
Image from Getty Images.
Filed under Health Care and Medicine, Pandemic
Tagged as coronavirus, health care, hospital, medicine, Pandemic, public health, Residency
by Guest Authors | March 31, 2020 · 12:01 am
Governor Wolf and the Courts Must Act Now to Mitigate Public Health Threat
On Monday morning, the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed an emergency request to the state Supreme Court to order county courts to release vulnerable populations from city jails. Philadelphia activists amplified the call to action through an organized social distancing caravan targeted at key decisionmakers. These actions follow the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Philadelphia prisons and jails, which were reported last Friday.
For weeks, the ACLU, local activists, community organizations, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia District Attorney's office have been urging the release of vulnerable populations from conditions where social distancing is impossible. The First Judicial District (FJD) courts and Governor Wolf, however, still refuse to step up to inhibit the rapid and fatal spread of COVID-19. Two weeks into the alarm being raised on coronavirus in Philadelphia, the FJD has released minimal numbers of immunocompromised and elderly individuals, far fewer than the hundreds or thousands that have been released in other jurisdictions across the country and world. The courts have also rejected emergency release petitions based on public health concerns for those detained on probation or parole violations, barring many youth and adults who pose no threat to society from returning safely home.
Despite a foreboding history of communicable disease outbreaks inside detention centers, Governor Wolf has also declined to proactively save lives by closing inhumane facilities and exercising his gubernatorial powers of compassionate release. People awaiting immigration cases in York County Prison are on hunger strike to protest insufficient measures for their safety. The Berks County Immigration Detention Facility in Leesport, PA, one of the nation's three immigration detention centers for families seeking asylum, lost its state license to operate in 2016 due to dangerous conditions and ongoing human rights abuses of residents, including infants. Yet Governor Wolf's administration reiterated last week that they would not issue an emergency removal order unless there is a serious threat to public health inside the walls, an irony not lost on advocates and immigrant families currently fearing for their lives at the prospect of COVID-19 entering the unsanitary facility.
Jails and prisons as institutions pose a greater public safety risk than any individual they cage. This was true before the pandemic began and is an even more urgent truth as the virus enters jails, prisons, and detention centers. These overcrowded facilities lack access to soap, sinks, paper towels, and hand sanitizer and put both those who are incarcerated and those who enter these facilities for their work at risk, as recently seen on a large scale in New York City's infamous Rikers Island Jail. The FJD and Governor Wolf could immediately reduce overcrowding and mitigate this risk without any threat to public safety. Governor Wolf could enact massive compassionate release with just the stroke of a pen, which would free any elderly or immunocompromised person at increased risk for contracting and dying from the disease. He could also order the release of community members detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who are held for no crime other than lacking documentation while they otherwise contribute robustly to our communities. The FJD could supplement these efforts by releasing all those charged on low-level offenses from county jails and discontinuing arbitrary bail amounts. There's no good justification for wealth-based detention in general and it is particularly indefensible during a pandemic. The courts and the governor also have the power to extend compassionate release to individuals who are up for parole review, individuals within six months of their release date, pregnant individuals, and youth in county and state detention facilities – many of whom are medically vulnerable and in conditions violating the federal ban on solitary confinement of youth because of facilities' attempts to follow social distancing.
Community members are anxious to welcome children, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, grandparents, partners, and friends home, people they have often traveled thousands of miles and spent thousands of dollars in travel expenses and private prison phone company bills to stay connected to during the months, years, or decades of their incarceration. Precautionary measures for COVID-19 now forbid most visits to jails and prisons. Most facilities have not replaced those visits with video conferencing alternatives or lowered costs per phone call minutes to talk with lawyers and families. This strains already obstacle-ridden bonds between those behind barbed wire and those in the outside world. If and when our loved ones are connected to the basic resources and support systems they need to survive, they are less likely to commit crime and more likely to contribute positively to society when they come home, as so many returning citizens do. In the midst of this deadly pandemic, allowing them to sustain those bonds through early release also grants them access to health-sustaining resources and the ability to social distance, preventative measures mandated by the governor himself to ward off and slow the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Governor Wolf and the FJD must take immediate action before they risk condoning hundreds if not thousands of preventable deaths in the state. Government inaction on continued overcrowding of carceral facilities has already resulted in chaos and deaths in places such as Italy and Colombia. Our city and state have an opportunity to instead follow the example of neighboring states, to embrace humanity and public health common sense in mitigating the disastrous effects mass incarceration will lend to COVID-19's rapid spread.
About the Author: Hannah Prativa Spielberg is currently pursuing a Master of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania. She worked for four years as a social service advocate for the Defender Association of Philadelphia. Hannah is inspired by the leadership and love-based activism of community members and friends who have experienced life from the inside of prisons, jails, and detention facilities, who moved her to write this piece.
Hannah recommends following @YASP2, @aclupa, @powerinterfaith, @DecarceratePA, @Closethecreek, @Phillybailout, @phillybailfund, @mediamobilizing, @BBworkers, @BLMPhilly, @LILACPhilly, @JustLeadersUSA, @AmistadLaw, and/or @reclaimphila for updates and ways to get involved in the fight.
Filed under Health Care and Medicine, Poverty and the Justice System
Tagged as compassionate release, COVID-19, detention centers, First Judicial District, Governor Wolf, jails, Pennsylvania, prisons, public health, public safety
by Ben Spielberg | March 18, 2020 · 4:12 am
Even before the results in Florida, Arizona, and Illinois started rolling in on Tuesday night, pundits renewed their calls for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the Democratic primary. "It's over," the official Slate account tweeted after it became clear that Joe Biden won big victories in Florida and Illinois.
Pundits and Democratic Party operatives typically cite the need to "unite" or focus on "beating Trump" as the reason Sanders should drop out. But these reasons don't make sense. Sanders has consistently said that beating Trump is his top priority and that he will campaign vigorously for Biden if Biden ends up being the nominee. The two major Democratic candidates are already united and focused in their desire to beat Trump.
The real reason the political and media Establishment want Sanders to drop out is that it's not actually over. If Biden had this election all wrapped up and thought it was time to "unite," wouldn't he be asking his Super PACs to stop mailing anti-Sanders hit pieces to Latino voters? And is it really plausible that Democrats expect Biden to weather an onslaught of advertisements and lies from the Republican Party during the general election but don't think he can handle relatively mild, accurate critiques of his record from a guy who repeatedly calls him a "decent guy" and "good friend?"
We're currently in the midst of a worldwide pandemic that has uprooted American life. It highlights the need for the type of fundamental change to American policy that Bernie Sanders has spent his life fighting for, and that large majorities of Democratic voters now support. Joe Biden is also a deeply flawed candidate who is often incoherent and lies all the time. He has spent his career enacting racist, sexist, and classist policy in line with what both Republicans and his donors want. Biden is not quite as bad as Trump, as his campaign likes to remind us, but that's hardly a compelling reason to vote for him. The more the Democratic electorate sees Biden and Sanders side by side and learns about Biden's record, Establishment Democrats fear, the less likely they'll continue to harbor the misconception that Biden is well-equipped to take Trump on and to deal with major crises.
That's not to say that things look good for Sanders; they most certainly do not. After losing Florida, Arizona, and Illinois, Sanders now trails Biden by approximately 300 delegates. He would need to win in the neighborhood of 60% of the remaining delegates to have a legitimate claim to be the Democratic nominee. Given that he's currently polling around 35% nationally, amassing 60% of the remaining delegates looks like a very tall order indeed.
At the same time, many millions of people in 23 states, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia still haven't voted. A whopping 42% of delegates – or 5.5 times the amount by which Biden leads – have yet to be awarded. The next set of primaries isn't scheduled until April 4, 17 days from now. It's hard to believe, but 17 days ago, forecasters still gave Sanders and Biden about equal chances of winning the nomination.
In other words, we're about five minutes into the third quarter of a football game, four games deep in a seven-game series, or halfway through July in a typical Major League Baseball season. Sanders is trailing and Biden is sitting pretty. Yet there's a reason you play out the game, series, or season. The New England Patriots wouldn't have won the 2017 Super Bowl if they had stopped playing when Tevin Coleman put the Atlanta Falcons up 28-3 over 6 minutes after the start of the second half. The Cleveland Cavaliers wouldn't have won the NBA Finals in 2016 if they had thrown in the towel when falling behind Steph Curry and the Golden State Warriors 3 games to 1. And the Atlanta Braves wouldn't have won the NL West in 1993 if they had packed it in when they trailed the San Francisco Giants by 9.5 games on August 7.
The probability that Sanders will win is low and nobody should delude themselves into thinking otherwise. Still, it's probably higher than the probability the Boston Red Sox were going to win the American League Championship Series when they were down 3-0 to the Yankees in 2004. Baseball fans shouldn't have called for the Red Sox to drop out then. Fans of democracy shouldn't call for Sanders to drop out now, either.
Filed under 2020 Election, Sports
Tagged as arizona, Bernie Sanders, comebacks, delegates, Donald Trump, florida, illinois, Joe Biden, LeBron James, math, Patriots, Red Sox
by Ben Spielberg | March 11, 2020 · 11:12 pm
The Wednesday Morning Speech Bernie Should Have Given
Thank you all very much for being here. Let me begin by acknowledging that last night's results were disappointing. We lost in the largest state up for grabs yesterday, the state of Michigan. We lost in Mississippi, Missouri, and Idaho.
On the other hand, we won in North Dakota and we lead the vote count in the state of Washington, the second-largest state contested yesterday. With 67 percent of the votes having been counted in Washington, we are a few thousand votes on top.
Poll after poll, including exit polls, show that a strong majority of the American people support our progressive agenda. The American people are deeply concerned about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in this country. The American people want the wealthy and large, profitable corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes. And the American people want a single-payer national health care system that eliminates copays, deductibles, and premiums, guaranteeing health care to everyone in America as a human right.
Joe Biden is opposed to guaranteeing health care as a human right – on television just the other day, he said he might veto a single-payer health care bill if he is elected President and Congress sends it to his desk. This position is unacceptable, especially in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic we are currently facing. But many Democrats are voting for Joe Biden anyway. Why, you ask? Because they believe he is the safe choice to take on Donald Trump in November.
We need to correct this misconception now, before it is too late. If you want to beat Donald Trump in November, you should vote for me.
I want you to think back to 2016. The same people who are telling you that Joe Biden is the safe choice to take on Donald Trump today were telling you that Hillary Clinton was the safe choice to take on Donald Trump four years ago. We all know how that turned out. Let us not make the same mistake again.
I am the most electable Democrat for two main reasons. First, our campaign continues to win the vast majority of the votes of younger people. Young people's votes and enthusiasm were a major reason why Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Hillary Clinton's inability to inspire young voters in 2016 was a major reason why she lost that election, and young people also do not trust Joe Biden. You may be committed to voting for either Joe Biden or me in November, but whether we ask them to or not, young progressives – a key constituency we need to beat Trump – can only be expected to knock on doors and vote if I am the nominee.
Why are young progressives uninspired by Joe Biden? It's because he has been on the wrong side of important fights for decades. I have a 100% pro-choice voting record; Joe Biden has voted over and over again to restrict access to abortion and contraception. When I was in college, I organized to desegregate housing and schools; years later, in the Senate, Joe Biden stood with southern racists and opposed desegregating schools. I've fought for free college; Joe Biden helped create the student debt crisis. I opposed the Iraq War; Joe Biden cheered it on. On issue after issue, I've been on the right side and Joe Biden has been on the wrong side.
That brings me to the second reason I am the most electable Democrat: I am the polar opposite of Donald Trump. Trump is a pathological liar who is running a corrupt administration. I am recognized even by Republican voters who disagree with my policies for my honesty and integrity.
The contrast will not be so stark with Joe Biden. When Biden points out that Trump has spent his time as President enriching himself and his friends, Trump will point out that Biden's Wall Street donors got the policies they paid for during Biden's Senate career. When Biden points out that Trump lies repeatedly, Trump will point out that Biden has plagiarized speeches, fabricated stories, and lied about his record of supporting Social Security cuts. When Biden points out that Trump is a racist and sexist, Trump will point out that Biden was an architect of mass incarceration, advanced racist stereotypes about single mothers, and frequently makes women feel uncomfortable. Even when Biden criticizes Trump for putting kids in cages, Trump will point out that the cages were built and kids first put in them when Biden was Vice President.
Let us be clear: Donald Trump is worse than Joe Biden. But let us also be clear: being better than Donald Trump is not enough. It is not enough for the millions of people who need health care and it is not enough to win an election. Democrats tried it already, in 2016, and we lost. We should not try it again.
So if you live in one of the 26 states that hasn't voted yet, please tune in to the first one-on-one debate of this campaign on Sunday night. You will see then what you already know now if you've seen Joe Biden speak recently or watched my Fox News town hall: in addition to being the only candidate who has fought for you for decades, I am also the candidate best-positioned to defeat Donald Trump.
Donald Trump must be defeated, and I will do everything in my power to make that happen. I hope you will, too, by casting your vote for me in your upcoming primary. Thank you all very much.
Filed under 2016 Election, 2020 Election
Tagged as Bernie Sanders, debate, Donald Trump, electability, Joe Biden, millennials
by Ben Spielberg | March 8, 2020 · 7:03 am
Pro-Choice? Bernie Sanders is the Clear Choice.
On reproductive rights, the records of Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are about as different as Democratic candidates' records can be. "Biden over 36 years in Congress staked out a reputation as one of the Democratic Party's most conservative voices on abortion," as Politico summarized last year. According to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's 2016 review, on the other hand, "There's no question: Senator Bernie Sanders has a strong record on reproductive rights."
Here's how Politico elaborates on Joe Biden's record:
For decades, [Joe Biden] opposed late-term and so-called partial birth abortions, lamenting that one ban enacted in the 1990s did not go far enough. He supported Republican presidents' prohibitions on funding for groups that promote abortions overseas, and backed legislation that would have allowed states to overturn Roe v. Wade. He even fought unsuccessfully to widen religious groups' exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's mandate for birth control coverage…
In public statements, interviews and recently resurfaced videos, Biden said he believed that "abortion is wrong from the moment of conception," and said he doesn't "view abortion as a choice and a right" but rather "always a tragedy." He also said he did not believe that "a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body."
Biden voted for the adoption of the Hyde Amendment in the 1970s and later opposed efforts to make exemptions and fund abortions for women who were victims of rape or incest.
He held that position until [the late spring of 2019, after he began his 2020 presidential campaign.]
Here's how the Planned Parenthood Action Fund elaborates on Bernie Sanders's record:
Sanders Has a 100% Voting Record on the Action Fund Scorecard
When the Action Fund started scoring congressional votes in 1995 (a few years after Sanders began his tenure in Congress), one of the first votes we scored was an amendment to allow over $190 million for family planning projects under Title X. Then-Representative Sanders was a key vote in moving that amendment forward. Throughout his career, he has continued to vote to protect access to safe and legal abortion, as well as federal funding for family planning and health care provided at Planned Parenthood health centers.
Sanders Supports Expanded Access to Birth Control
To this day, Sanders also has reliably and consistently voted to ensure women's access to the full range of birth control options. During the fight over the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers to opt out of providing insurance coverage of birth control, Sanders gave a speech on the Senate floor voicing his opposition:
"…there is growing anger that members of Congress, mostly men I should add, are trying to roll back the clock on women's rights… Let me add my strong belief that if the United States Senate had 83 women and 17 men rather than 83 men and 17 women that a bill like this would never even make it to the floor."
What's more, he supports the Affordable Care Act, including its mandated coverage for birth control, and co-sponsored a bill that would protect women from bosses who want to block this coverage from them…
Sanders [also] signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court advocating against the Hobby Lobby's decision to deny insurance coverage for contraception to their employees…
Sanders Supports Access to Abortion
To sum-up Sanders' stance on abortion, just read what he had to say in a 2012 op-ed:
"We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government."
His strong position that we, as a nation, will never go backwards when it comes to access to abortion care is a major reason why Sanders is in our corner.
Sanders has also been a cosponsor of one of the most proactive pieces of legislation that would prevent states from chipping away at abortion access: The Women's Health Protection Act, introduced in 2015 and 2013. This act would prevent politicians from passing laws aimed at shutting down health centers by imposing unnecessary building regulations and medical procedures such as mandatory ultrasounds — which have the sole intent of shaming women and making it harder for them to access safe, legal abortion…
On the campaign trail, Sanders boldly defended abortion access at the Christian institution Liberty University despite the fact that the university is so conservative that Ted Cruz announced his run for president there…
Sanders Has Stood With Planned Parenthood
The PPAF thanks Sanders for being an unwavering ally of Planned Parenthood patients and consistently voting in favor of protecting patients who rely on federal funds to access birth control, cancer screenings, and other basic health care at Planned Parenthood health centers.
If Bernie Sanders is elected, pro-choice women can feel confident he'll have their backs. If Joe Biden is elected, regardless of what he says during campaign season, pro-choice women will have a lot of reasons to worry.
Filed under 2020 Election, Health Care and Medicine
Tagged as abortion, Bernie Sanders, Hyde Amendment, Joe Biden, Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights
by Ben Spielberg | February 28, 2020 · 10:21 am
Progressive Democrats Beat Electoral Expectations in Competitive House Races in 2018
At the Democratic debate in South Carolina on February 25, Pete Buttigieg asserted that "the people who actually turned the House blue, 40 Democrats, …are running away from [Bernie Sanders's] platform as fast as they possibly can." He wasn't wrong – the vast majority of Democrats elected in swing districts in the Democratic wave of 2018, like Buttigieg, oppose Medicare for All, free college for all, and other social justice policies that Sanders supports. Along with anti-Sanders pundits and Republican strategists, they contend that the Sanders agenda is an electoral death sentence, that candidates who embrace social justice policy cannot win in contested House races.
Their argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, however, and not just because corporate Democrats got thrashed by Republicans all over the country in the decade prior to 2018. The evidence from the 2018 elections in the House also fails to support Buttigieg's electoral thesis, as progressive Democrats in swing districts performed about as well relative to expectations as corporate Democrats did.
Beginning a year-and-a-half in advance of every congressional election, The Cook Political Report publishes a running list of "competitive races" in the House of Representatives. These races may "likely" be won by a Democrat or a Republican, "lean" towards one party or the other, or look like a "toss up." They change over the course of an election as new information becomes available. Combining the 58 competitive races that The Cook Political Report originally identified in May of 2017 and the 116 they thought were in play on the day before voters finally went to the polls, a total of 124 districts can be considered to have been "swing" districts at some point leading up to the 2018 election.
Under the assumption that endorsements from Justice Democrats and Our Revolution indicate some degree of alignment with Sanders's social justice agenda, a progressive candidate ran in the Democratic primary in 37 of these districts. Due in no small part to opposition from the Democratic Establishment, which often bankrolled corporate alternatives, only 9 of these progressive candidates advanced to the general election. Every single one of these remaining 9 candidates ran in a district that was projected to be a Republican win. Only 2 of the districts, Nebraska's 2nd and New York's 24th, were even considered in play in The Cook Political Report's original judgment back in May of 2017; the others were all thought to be solidly Republican.
None of these 9 progressive Democrats won the general election. But using the spread between the Republican and Democrat in the district's 2016 House election and the spread between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election as comparison points, 7 of them outperformed expectations. 2 of them – Ammar Campa-Najjar in California's 50th district and JD Scholten in Iowa's 4th district – came extremely close to knocking out incumbent Republicans in overwhelmingly Republican districts (see below). On average, these progressive Democrats outperformed Hillary Clinton by 5 percentage points and the previous Democratic House candidate in their district by 12 percentage points.
The respective numbers for the more corporate Democrats who ran in the remaining swing districts* were slightly higher but statistically indistinguishable: they outperformed Clinton by 7 percentage points and the previous House candidates in their districts by 14 percentage points on average. The subset of corporate Democrats who beat progressive challengers in their primaries fared about the same in the general election, beating Clinton by an average of 5 percentage points and the previous House candidates in their districts by an average of 15 percentage points.
In other words, corporate Democrats didn't outperform progressive Democrats in the November 2018 elections – there were just way more of them running in more winnable races! If there had been 115 progressive Democrats and 9 corporate Democrats squaring off against Republicans in swing districts rather than 115 corporate Democrats and 9 progressive Democrats, the Democratic Party could very easily have picked up the exact same number of seats.
What makes a district competitive and what makes a candidate progressive are up for debate, of course. Should Richard Ojeda, who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and outperformed historical expectations more than any other Democrat running in a swing district, be considered one of the progressives? How about Katie Porter, who supported Medicare for All and is a co-chair of Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign? Is it appropriate to use a more narrow definition of a swing district that excludes areas in which Medicare for All supporters significantly outperformed expectations? Should major gains from the likes of Campa-Najjar be discounted because the Republican incumbent he was running against (Duncan Hunter) was indicted? Should special elections like the one in Montana in 2017 replace 2016 elections as reference points when they've occurred? Given that he literally re-registered as a Republican after he flipped New Jersey's 2nd district blue, can Jeff Van Drew's big win really be considered a victory for the Democratic Party? These are all reasonable questions to ask and underscore the inherent subjectivity of electability analyses.
At the end of the day, as I wrote back in 2017:
A candidate's general election viability is ultimately unknowable. It may depend on her or her opponent's platform, debating skill, fundraising prowess, personality, or field operation. It may hinge on the quirks of the community she's running for office in or how much the media likes her. It may come down to random chance. Electability is also often a self-fulfilling prophecy; people commenting on electability and making decisions based on their perceptions of it can actually influence it and do so all the time.
The only thing we can be certain of in the electability space is political strategists' and pundits' poor track records. Many of the people who claim to know what is and isn't possible in future elections thought Bernie Sanders would barely get 15 percent of the vote in the [2016] Democratic primary. Many of them were sure that Republicans would never nominate Donald Trump, and once that prediction turned out to be wrong, were still absolutely positive that Trump would never become president. It's long past time we viewed their claims with skepticism, especially when there's evidence that points the other way.
Good policy can sell. Voters can be persuaded. Political reality is not something that gets handed to us, but something we help create. Candidates with economic and social justice platforms can win in purple districts, and they'll be even more likely to do so if Democratic pundits stop assuming they can't and start getting behind them.
*Pennsylvania districts had to be excluded from these calculations because the congressional map was redrawn before 2018, making the historical comparison impossible. Texas's 32nd district, Arizona's 8th district, and Wisconsin's 3rd district also had to be excluded from the comparison to the 2016 House election because Democrats did not run a candidate in those districts in 2016 (these three districts were included in the calculated comparison to the 2016 presidential election).
Filed under 2018 Elections, 2020 Election, US Political System
Tagged as 2018 election, Bernie Sanders, Cook Political Report, House of Representatives, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, Pete Buttigieg, swing districts
by Ben Spielberg | January 8, 2020 · 8:28 pm
On Both Politics and Policy, "For All" Beats "For Some"
Medicare for All or Medicare for All Who Want It? Free college for all or free college for just the non-rich? The debate between universal (available to everyone) and means-tested (available only to those who meet certain criteria) programs has defined the Democratic primary. Bernie Sanders, often joined by Elizabeth Warren, argues for universalism, declaring education and health care to be basic human rights. Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Joe Biden argue against, contending that government resources must be targeted only to those in need, rather than wasted on the rich and/or on those who ostensibly don't want them.
On the most commonly cited rationale for each position – sustainability for universalists and resource constraints for means testers – proponents of universalism have the upper hand. Medicare and Social Security, two of the United States's largest, most successful, and most popular programs, are as close to universal as we've got. By giving everyone a stake in these programs, proponents argue, their near-universality has insulated them from attack. Bob Greenstein (the President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where I used to work) points out both that these programs have been cut and that their popularity could conceivably be due to the perception that they're tied to work rather than to their quasi-universal nature, but the Alaska Permanent Fund, a state-level universal program not tied to work, also enjoys overwhelming public support. So do universal programs that aren't tied to work in other countries – other countries' universal health care systems, for instance, are way more popular than our means-tested approach. It's reasonable to expect a universal program to be more sustainable than a means-tested alternative over time.
The Buttigieges of the world counter that universal programs are too expensive; in December, for instance, Buttigieg said they would require "the kind of taxation that economists tell us could hurt the economy." But even if you reject the notion that government spending can be substantially increased without raising taxes, concerns about higher taxes are entirely without merit. Research has consistently (and predictably) failed to support such concerns, the United States has significantly lower taxes than the rest of the developed world, and scores of reputable economists support tax proposals, like those Sanders and Warren have released, that can fund the universal programs on offer. When Buttigieg says he'd prefer to "save those dollars [that would otherwise be spent on free college] for something else," he is presenting a false choice. It is only his and others' political preferences, not actual resource constraints, that stand between us and full funding of all the priorities he listed: education, infrastructure, child care, housing, and health care.
Still, the most compelling case for universal programs isn't political. It is, ironically, that they're better at achieving two of means testing's major goals: helping people in need and doing so efficiently. They reduce stigma, arbitrariness, usage barriers, and administrative costs.
Universal programs help people in need by reducing stigma
Most low-income people work incredibly hard to put roofs over their heads and food on their tables. Yet they're constantly accused of being unskilled, lazy, good-for-nothing loafers in search of government handouts. Afraid of being perceived that way and/or ashamed of their economic situation, many people who are struggling to get by decide not to access the means-tested benefits to which they're entitled. They'd rather go hungry than risk someone catching them using food stamps in the checkout line.
Correcting false stereotypes is a top priority, with universal programs a useful complement for improving the experience of people in need. If everyone received SNAP benefits (SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is the contemporary name for the food stamp program), for example, using them would no longer identify someone as low-income. We would thus expect higher rates of SNAP usage among low-income people.
That's exactly what we've seen with the school meals program following the introduction of a program called "community eligibility," which enables schools and school districts with a certain percentage of low-income students to offer free school meals to all students – regardless of their income levels – free of charge. Research suggests that reduced stigma is at least part of the reason students at schools that have adopted this program are more likely to take advantage of school breakfast and lunch programs.
Universal programs help people in need by eliminating arbitrary cutoffs
For SNAP, the income eligibility threshold is 130% of the poverty line, or about $27,700 annually for a family of three. People who make less than that amount (provided they meet other requirements – SNAP also has an asset test and restrictive eligibility rules for various groups of people including immigrants, individuals aged 18 to 49 who don't have children, and students) can access benefits; people who make more than that amount cannot. Under Buttigieg's higher education plan, college is free only for families making less than $100,000 a year (and discounted for families making between $100,000 and $150,000).
Means-tested benefits typically phase out slowly – that is, benefits get gradually smaller as beneficiary income gets higher – to ensure that the sum of pay plus benefits continues to increase when people pass eligibility thresholds. But why shouldn't a family of three making $30,000 a year get food assistance? Why should $100,001 be the level at which a family starts having to pay for college? Eligibility thresholds in means-tested programs are arbitrary and inevitably create strange, difficult-to-justify divides between people right above and right below them. Universal programs avoid this problem completely by providing the same benefit to everyone.
Universal programs help people in need by reducing usage barriers
Means testing requires some form of testing, as the name implies, to determine whether or not someone is eligible for benefits. Depending on the complexity of a program's eligibility rules, that testing might require a form of identification, proof of residence, proof of income, or any number of other things. Eligible beneficiaries may need to mail, hand-deliver, or electronically submit one or more forms, which, as Sanders accurately observed during the December debate, "people are sick and tired of filling out.
Filling out forms and proving eligibility is much more than an annoyance for many eligible people in need. Some may not know how to read or write. Some may move and/or change jobs frequently. Some may lack an official ID. The more hoops people have to jump through to access benefits, the fewer eligible people will actually end up receiving benefits.
Government agencies can mitigate this problem with outreach efforts and assistance programs, of course. But even well-administered means-tested programs like SNAP that continue to improve in these areas don't catch everyone they should, in part because of the access barriers means testing inherently creates – in 2016, the most recent year for which we have data, about 15% of people eligible for SNAP did not participate in the program.
Universal programs improve efficiency by reducing administrative costs
In addition to creating an obstacle for eligible beneficiaries, the complexity introduced by means testing presents a challenge for efficient government. Every form that needs to be filled out has to be processed. Eligibility has to be verified. Complex rules have to be actively managed. Means-tested programs spend a larger share of their money on administrative overhead than universal programs do.
Administrative costs for Social Security, for example, are only 0.7% of total expenses. For SNAP, one of the most efficient and effective means-tested government programs, administrative spending comprises 7.7% of its total budget. Over three-quarters of those administrative costs are "certification-related," meaning they're "associated with determining household eligibility."
To be clear, the overall cost of SNAP and other means-tested programs would be many times higher, even with substantially reduced overhead costs, if they were more universal. Increased overall cost is the only real potential downside of universality. And if one were forced to choose between increasing benefits for people in need and extending benefits to higher-income people who don't currently receive them, increasing benefits for people in need would be the clearly correct choice.
But as noted above, that choice is a false one. There is no question that the US government has the money to offer increased benefits through universal programs. The only question is whether we will choose to spend it on the worthy goals of helping people in need and improving government efficiency for everyone.
Filed under 2020 Election, Education, Health Care and Medicine, Poverty and the Justice System, US Political System
Tagged as Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, efficiency, eligibility, Elizabeth Warren, free college, Joe Biden, means testing, Medicare For All, Pete Buttigieg, stigma, universal programs
by Ben Spielberg | July 24, 2019 · 12:26 am
SCOOP: Bernie Sanders Raises the Bar for Campaign Employment Practices
"Labor fight roils the Bernie Sanders campaign" began a headline in The Washington Post on Thursday, July 18. In a tweet promoting the story, Post editor Matea Gold wrote: "SCOOP: For years, Bernie Sanders has traveled the country advocating for a $15 per hour minimum wage. His campaign organizers say they aren't making that much, and they're using his words to protest for higher wages."
Refusing to pay your workers less than the $15-an-hour minimum wage you've been championing for years would be an unacceptable practice, and anti-Sanders commentators delighted in the Vermont Senator's alleged hypocrisy. Fortunately for Sanders supporters, however, the headlines were misleading. In fact, both the body of the Post's original story and subsequent events strongly suggest that the Sanders campaign has the best workplace policies of any presidential campaign in history.
Campaign workers are notoriously underpaid and overworked. Meager salaries, few benefits, long hours, and 7-day work weeks are the norm. Campaign workers also typically have little to no job security. These conditions were the impetus behind the recent formation of the Campaign Workers Guild, which ratified its first-ever contract with Randy Bryce's congressional campaign in February of 2018. Since then, many other campaigns around the country, both local and national, have unionized as well.
In May of 2019, the Bernie Sanders campaign became the first-ever presidential campaign to sign a union contract. UFCW Local 400, which represents Sanders's staff, lauded the campaign's approach to the unionization effort, saying that "Senator Sanders walked the talk on unions," that the campaign "engaged in good faith bargaining," and that the overall process "was a model experience in every respect." According to UFCW Local 400, workplace policies the campaign and union agreed on include:
a $15 minimum wage for all campaign staff, including interns
fully paid health care benefits for all full-time employees making $36,000 a year or less, with 85% of health care benefits paid for employees making more than that amount
four days per month when employees will not need to be on call with "breaks throughout the day, including meal breaks, as well as mandatory time off between particularly long shifts"
20 days of paid vacation for both hourly and salaried employees
transparency for both management and consultant compensation with a rule capping management pay at 3 times the amount of the highest salary class in the bargaining unit
"robust anti-discrimination provisions as well as comprehensive protections for immigrant and transgender workers," plus a process for employees to review pay equity
"employee-led Labor Committees to address ongoing working conditions and other issues with management"
Soon after negotiations concluded, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir proposed raising field organizer salaries from $36,000 annually to $42,000 annually while extending the expected work week from five days to six days. The union rejected this offer. On July 11, some field organizers raised concerns internally about their hours and their ability to make ends meet. Shakir responded promptly and said changes would need to be negotiated through the union. The union was preparing a proposal and had not yet sent it to the campaign when the Post's original story broke a week later. A few days after that, on July 22, the campaign and union agreed to the salary and work week Shakir originally proposed while raising the salary threshold for which the campaign would cover the full costs of employee health care premiums (the Post reported that the union rejected the initial offer over concerns about higher-salaried workers paying a portion of their own health care costs).
That's the entire story. Reporters and pundits gleefully blasting Sanders's integrity are seizing on how employees made their appeal for higher wages – by saying their salaries come out to less than $15 an hour if you factor in the extra hours they've been working and appealing to Sanders's pro-worker rhetoric – rather than what the union says actually happened: the campaign negotiated a historically labor-friendly contract in partnership with workers and then agreed, per that contract, to renegotiate provisions in response to worker concerns. When originally contacted about the Post's story, UFCW Local 400 said "the Bernie 2020 campaign staff have access to myriad protections and benefits secured by their one-of-a-kind union contract, including many internal avenues to democratically address any number of ongoing workplace issues, including changes to pay, benefits, and other working conditions." After the deal, worker representatives reiterated that "the campaign staff and management have engaged in this process in good faith and to achieve a mutually agreed upon outcome…This is what democracy in the workplace looks like."
The new agreement deserves praise. $42,000 a year is still not that much money, but that salary for a 50-hour work week – when combined with 4 "blackout" days per month, 20 days of paid vacation, and fully paid health care – blows the typical campaign compensation package out of the water. Factor in the contract's robust anti-discrimination, pay transparency, and pay equity provisions and it's easy to see why UFCW Local 400 believes Sanders "walk[s] the talk."
The headline writers and Twitter commentariat, on the other hand, deserve rebuke. As Daniel Marans reported, union members reacted with "a mix of anger and bewilderment" both about the leaked details of negotiations and the way those details were framed. Staff were involved in "seemingly amicable negotiations with management," not the "labor fight" trumpeted by the Post's headline.
Perhaps, if there's one potential positive to it, the misleading reporting on this issue will build on Sanders's leadership by pressuring other presidential campaigns to be more pro-worker. Besides Sanders, only Julián Castro and Elizabeth Warren have unionized staffs and neither campaign has a contract yet. The Post reports that Warren and Pete Buttigieg pay their field organizers the same amount as Sanders and that Beto O'Rourke and Joe Biden pay more, but while the Post contends these campaigns "have revealed their compensation structure for field organizers," the paper did not try or was unable to ascertain at least some key relevant details about hours worked, health care premiums, days off, and/or management-employee pay equity from every single one of these campaigns. What the Post did find out – Biden's non-union field organizers, for example, pay 20% of their health care premiums and typically work 60-hour weeks – appears to confirm that the Sanders campaign's compensation package is most generous. Sanders is also the only candidate who currently lists compensation for all job openings on his website, and the Post neglected to report that at least two candidates, Biden and Warren, run what are essentially unpaid internship programs.
To the extent that people are now more aware of and outraged about the conditions campaign workers typically face, that's also a plus. Unpaid internships need to be a thing of the past, as do 7-day work weeks. Personally, I think you should be excommunicated from the party if you try to run as a Democrat and refuse to recognize a campaign workers union.
But if you've read an anti-Sanders headline or tweet and wondered if Sanders is a hypocrite, wonder no more: he's not. Sanders, who for years was one of the only congresspeople to pay his interns, is every bit the champion of economic justice he purports to be.
Filed under 2020 Election, Labor, Media
Tagged as Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, campaign work, Elizabeth Warren, interns, Joe Biden, pay equity, Pete Buttigieg
by Ben Spielberg | May 19, 2019 · 12:11 am
Feel the Bern and Vote for These Philly Judges on Tuesday, May 21
Last Sunday, Bernie Sanders published an op-ed decrying America's system of criminal punishment for "effectively criminalizing communities of color." Noting efforts already underway to end cash bail in Philadelphia under the leadership of community organizers and District Attorney Larry Krasner, Sanders urged "the citizens of Philadelphia [to continue this progress and] cast their votes for progressive judicial candidates in this month's primary election."
Voters can choose up to 6 of the 28 Democrats running to be a judge in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Knowing that Philly residents compelled by Bernie's op-ed may be wondering who deserves their vote on May 21, I asked my sister Hannah, who closely follows criminal justice issues and is my moral role model, to provide specific recommendations. Hannah is currently getting her Master's in Social Work from the University of Pennsylvania. She has extensive knowledge of the Philadelphia court system through both her past job in the public defender's office and the activism she engages in with a variety of social justice organizations around the city.
Because Philadelphia's Democratic judge pool leans conservative, there aren't any candidates Hannah enthusiastically supports. There are, however, three judges she finds good enough to bullet vote for: Anthony Kyriakakis (#19 on the ballot), Tiffany Palmer (#23), and Kay Yu (#27). I have provided brief descriptions of those three candidates below.
Voting recommendations for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia
#19, Anthony Kyriakakis (5th Ward): A lecturer at Temple Law and Penn Law, Kyriakakis is a private defense attorney and former prosecutor who says incarceration rates are too high, sentences are too long, and defendants are treated unequally along racial, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and class lines. He has been interested in representing low-income defendants since his time with the Harvard Defenders at Harvard Law and volunteers as a pro bono Child Advocate in family court. Campaign website: https://anthonyforjudge.com/
#23, Tiffany Palmer (9th Ward): A daughter of public school teachers, Palmer began her career in 1998 as a public interest lawyer at the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights and soon became the organization's legal director. She co-founded the private family law firm she currently works at in 2003 and has won numerous awards, including being named one of the nation's "40 Best LGBT Lawyers Under 40" in 2011. She says her "own experience with having her long-term partner treated as a legal stranger has shaped her commitment to fairness, inclusion, and equal treatment under the law." Campaign website: https://palmerforjudge.com/
#27, Kay Yu (15th Ward): Yu's own experience as an undocumented immigrant has informed her advocacy for increased ballot access and voting rights. While she is an employer-side lawyer in private practice, she has also chaired the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations for four years and worked to update Philadelphia's civil rights policy. She won several awards in 2018, including being named Attorney of the Year by the Asian Pacific American Bar Association. Campaign website: https://www.kayforjudge.com/
Filed under 2020 Election, Poverty and the Justice System, Race and Religion, US Political System
Tagged as Bernie Sanders, Democratic primary, elections, judges, May 21, Philadelphia, Philly
Listen to Run It Black
Episode 01: The Road to Factville
Episode 02: Why We Need to Block Block Grants
Episode 03: Assessing the Labor Market and Getting to Full Employment
Episode 04: What Does the Labor Department Do, Anyway?
Episode 05: Health Care, the Economy, and Republicans' Terrible Obamacare Replacement Plan
Episode 06: Trade and Trump
Episode 07: The Many Cases for Inclusive Immigration Policy
Episode 08: The Raise the Wage Act of 2017
Episode 09: Productivity Merry-Go-Round
Episode 10: Unpacking the Trump Budget
Episode 11: What's the Fed Up To?
Episode 12: Reducing Inequality at the Top
Episode 13: The Long-Run Benefits of Income Support
Episode 14: Walking and Chewing (Sugarless) Gum on Health Care
Episode 15: Guaranteeing Everyone a Job
Episode 16: We Demand Real Tax Reform!
Episode 17: Ben's Exit Interview
Subscribe to 34justice
Health Care and Medicine
Poverty and the Justice System
Race and Religion
US Political System
How Accusations of "Negativity" and "Divisiveness" Stifle Debate
Dear Councilman Grosso: Please Be Our Ally and Support 77
Ramming Morality Into Our Economic System the John Ruskin Way
How Christianity Got Co-Opted and We Got Trump
Ben Spielberg
Justice Representatives Have Power and We Need Them to Use It
Anyone but Trump? Weighing Three Approaches for Social Justice Advocates in 2020
Darius Liddell
Black Death as Spectacle and Ritual
How much is a (black) life worth?
Feb 17 – Mar 1: Azienda Agricola Mauro Iob, Vetralla
Feb. 8-17, Castagneto Carducci, Le Catre
Jan 9-25, Monteleone Sabino at Ozu farm
Jon Zaid
Resident Perspective: Volunteering at a Testing Site
Resident Perspective: My Biggest Fear
Resident Perspective: Ready or not, time for telehealth
Resident Perspective: waiting for test results
Resident Perspective: Who is "Essential"?
Run It Black Podcast
Remembering John Lewis and Black Politics
Making Sense of the Moment We're In
We Miss the Old Kanye…
The Nation of Islam Problem
The World of Wakanda
Ben's Tweets
34justice Archives
34justice · Three Guys' Analytical Glance into the Political and Cultural Conundrum


June 25, 2018, marked the beginning of this year's two-week workshop series within the ISEPEI project's framework. This week decision-makers and experts working in the field of climate change and disaster risk reduction for the fourth time gathered at Central European University (CEU) for the joint ISEPEI and UNDP "Innovations in Disaster Risk Management" workshop.
ISEPEI took part in the 4th International Conference on the Use of Space Technology for Water Management, held in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 26 February to 2 March 2018. This event was hosted by the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO) on behalf of the Government of Pakistan, co-sponsored by the Inter-Islamic Network on Space Science and Technology (ISNET).
In the beginning of February Dr. Douglas Cripe, the Work Programme Coordinator from the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Secretariat, visited CEU to give two lectures on the application of Earth Observations in support of SDGs and Disaster Resilience.
ISEPEI took part in the United Nations/Russian Federation Workshop on Human Capacity-Building in Space Science and Technology for Sustainable Social and Economic Development, held in Samara, Russian Federation, between October 30 and November 2, 2017. This workshop was co-organized by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs and Samara National Research University.


Let's talk about Hollywood's infatuation with 'normal life' movies. I understand that the life of a movie star is so different from our own that it's actually unfathomable (as evidence by those idiotic "stars - they'e just like us!" segments in People or US Weekly or whatever), but just showing regular life events is not, in it of itself, a triumph. To me, this movie was The Kids are All Right all over again (ugh, don't get me started on my feelings about that movie). The plot does touch on a range of emotions, as promised, but it doesn't go deeply enough into them and I found the movie rather predictable.
Is the movie terrible? No. Is it worth all the Oscar buzz it got? Not by any means. Even in a lean year (and 2012 was), I can't believe anyone would consider this to be "best picture" worthy. It solicited a big, fat ehhhhhhhhh from me after watching it.
Final word: If you don't buy into the hype, you might not be as disappointed.


"Glad to be a part of the first 1000. I bet we will get to 2000 in half the time.....…"
"Are the whites of Tigers eyes EVER white?? Check any interview, picture, tournament…"
"Seven is right about the shower. I do have a glass shower. I recommend anybody try t…"
"Sevan, I talked to my old professor of Advanced Trig. at U.C.L.A. He told me that th…"
"I posted this on Monday.......... I am a bit discouraged. My few, dearest, lifelong…"
"I think I remember in my Advanced Trigonometry classes a branch called "Wave Theory"…"
"Definitely brother. Actually the last couple days I have been a little "off" my game…"
"My bed is aligned North and South. My head North and feet South."


Benjamin Von Wong is notorious for documenting his intrepid adventures and epic photography. His hyper-realistic art style captures the hearts and minds of viewers in a fusion of special effects and innovative concepts specifically designed to go viral and drive conversation. Benjamin's background in engineering gives him a unique edge for creative problem solving, where technical challenges become friendly competition. Fueled by his passion to connect with people, he has an affinity for sharing engaging stories in novel ways. He is currently focused on conservation and social impact projects.


I was drafted into the Army in 1969. God saw fit not to send me to Vietnam. Upon returning to Ft Bragg, NC from a two week leave, I learned that my entire battalion received orders for Vietnam except me and a few other soldiers. Why? I do not know.
My buddy, Gerry Millholen did serve in Vietnam. Afterwards, Gerry suffered with flashbacks and night terrors for several years. Gerry paid a huge price (which included his marriage) for answering the call of duty. Gerry told me how painful it was for him and his Vietnam brothers to return home to be spat upon and called baby killers.
I recorded a musical tribute to Vietnam veterans featuring Gerry Millholen in his own words. My song is titled, "Welcome Home Brother." bit.ly/2zBGkKk Please enjoy.


text:
Free Speech On Campus: Does 'No-Platforming' Chill Freedom Of Expression?
By Saxon Norgard, Associate Editor 7 Aug 2019
'No-platforming' has become a bit of a buzzword in recent years, but what actually is it and does it have anything to do with human rights?
No-Platforming And The National Union of Students
The term "no-platforming" is typically used to describe the practice of refusing groups or individuals, considered to hold hateful or otherwise unacceptable views, from contributing to a public debate or meeting.
In the UK, no-platforming can be traced at least as far back as 1974 when the National Union of Students (NUS) introduced its No Platform Policy. Its objective was to prevent individuals or groups with racist or fascist views from speaking at NUS events. It describes its policy as "very narrow" and today only applies to six designated organisations including the Muslim Public Affairs Committee and the English Defence League.
The practice appears to have since become more widespread, with numerous reports of universities across the UK cancelling speakers – often accused of harbouring far-right views – following protests from students. Many cases of no-platforming have been highly publicised, creating a broader cultural debate about free speech.
So, What's It Got To Do With Free Speech?
The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention, which protects, among other things, our "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority". This is a defensive right, which prohibits the government from interfering with our ability to express ourselves freely.
Article 10 does not give us a positive right to have a platform. We cannot demand that we be allowed to speak in Parliament, nor can we demand that the Number 10 Twitter account retweet something we have posted. The right is defensive, meaning that it protects us from attempts by the government to suppress or control our speech.
However, Article 10 is also a qualified right. This means that authorities may be legally permitted to take proportionate measures to restrict the right to freedom of expression if it can be deemed necessary to prevent crime and disorder and protect health and morals.
The Convention also cites protecting the rights and reputations of other people; preventing the disclosure of confidential information; guaranteeing the impartiality of the judicial process and national security as reasons for which government may restrict freedom of expression. But they must prove any action taken is lawful, necessary and proportionate
For example, an authority may be permitted to restrict the right to expression of those encouraging hatred against people on protected characteristics such as their race, religion or sexual orientation. This type of speech would likely undermine a number of the rights of people it is aimed at and could also constitute a criminal offence.
A number of speech acts in the UK are criminalised under a patchwork legislation.
Human rights charity Liberty has called for the efficacy and impact of this legislation to be reviewed, expressing concerns that its "ad hoc" and "piecemeal" nature could have a chilling effect on legitimate debate and peaceful protest.
It is important to note that the duty to uphold the right to freedom of expression falls on 'public authorities'. The NUS and all universities in the UK are private institutions. Therefore, they are under no legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech. In a strict legal sense, therefore, no-platforming is not covered by the Human Rights Convention.
What About The Education Act?
Universities and Higher Education Premises are also subject to what is known as a section 43 duty under the Education Act 1986. This means they must take "reasonably practicable" steps to ensure freedom of speech within the law for their members, students, employees and visiting speakers.
The Act includes making sure, as far as possible, that no individual or group is stopped from using the premises for any reason connected with an individual's beliefs or views, or the policy or objectives of the group.
Again, this does not mean that speakers have the right to be invited to speak. But anyone who is invited should not be prevented from doing so unless they are unlikely to express unlawful speech or their attendance would mean the organisation will breach other legal obligations.
According to Equalities and Human Rights Commission guidance, student unions, such as the National Union of Students, are exempt from this duty, but it can apply to their premises.
Free Speech Is More Than Just A Legal Concept
The debate on no-platforming is a heated one which goes beyond the legal realm and into the arena of culture.
Those who criticise no-platforming on university campuses point out that universities are supposed to be forums of education, where ideas are challenged and debated rather than silenced.
Whereas, those who advocate for no-platforming argue that it protects the vulnerable from being radicalised by hateful ideas.
Free speech is something which all of us, including private institutions, should endeavour to uphold in a democratic society.
Featured image: Unsplash.com
Saxon Norgard Associate Editor
Saxon is one of RightsInfo's volunteer Site Editors and a future trainee solicitor in London. Originally hailing from Australia, his interests lie in family law, international affairs and human rights.
Disability / 21 Jan 2022 Are We Excluding Disabled People In The Struggle Against Climate Change?
Health / 20 Jan 2022 Should We All Have The Right To Die On Our Own Terms?
Justice / 19 Jan 2022 'Reclaim These Streets' Are In Court To Reclaim The Right To Assemble
Housing / 17 Jan 2022 Plans To Protect People From Costs Of Removing Unsafe Cladding Revealed


The idea to open VON mathús could be attributed to the enthusiasm and passion of Einar Hjaltason and Kristjana Þura Berþórsdóttir but location and the demand for diverse and local food culture, also played a huge part in their decision to make their dream come true and begin working towards it.
VON mathús emphasises seasonal Icelandic cuisine combined with ingredients that complement each dish perfectly.
When the twosome knew that they were expecting their first child in 2013, it was as if Hafnafjörður called out to the young family and shortly before the arrival of their young daughter in early 2014 they'd already settled in the heart of Hafnafjörður. VON actually means hope and the family now wants to make their mark on the food culture and restaurant flora of the "town in the lava". They felt that VON was especially appropriate for the mood that is ever present in the port area. As such they place a heavy emphasis on seafood- and sea-based ingredients and strive to only ever use the freshest ingredients in their dishes.
The fundamental concept of VON mathús is that there is always a homey atmosphere where personal comfort and professional service are interwoven at all times. Their hope is that this combination of atmosphere and service will make every customer feel comfortable whenever they dine at their establishment.


Catherine has been babysitting since the age of 12. She graduated from New York University (NYU) with a degree in Theater Education. As part of her requirements for obtaining her teacher certification for drama at NYU, she taught for five months in an NYC Public Elementary School where she focused on theater education. She also worked as the Managing Director of a Huntington Learning Center, directly affecting students of every age in building up basic skills. She considers herself equally mature and responsible, as well as fun and full of energy!
Catherine is a true Project Playdate veteran, having worked with our team since 2013! And since the very first event, she has been nothing short of an absolute pleasure to work with. Catherine will go above and beyond to make sure that she is doing the best possible job she can. She is always willing to help out and always with a smile. The kids love her because of her happy and fun nature. Catherine is one of the sweetest people I know and for this reason is a great role model and even better caregiver for children. She is a quick learner, attentive communicator, and will always bring her most professional self to the job. We are so happy to still have her with us!


Try a truly exhilarating adventure driving across the dunes in your own fully automatic, latest, four-seater, off-road private dune buggy. Join up to three other buggies on the trail, led by your experienced safari guide in the lead fourth buggy.
Decide who will drive and take turns with your friends in your own exclusive buggy.
Hotel pickup and drop off (shared). Contact us to upgrade to a private transfer.


text:
Q: What is the difference between the terms "memory", "main memory", "RAM", "Memory bank" and "Memory Module" What is the difference in the followoing words? They seem to all be interchangable.
Memory, Main memory, RAM, Memory bank, Memory Module.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is memory is a very general term, for example anywhere data can be stored can be considered memory (except registers). Main memory refers to the memory that typically sits between HDD and CPU and is RAM. RAM is a technology for main memory, in the sense that it allows for random reads and writes. Memory bank is the physical location on the motherboard where the main memory goes. Memory module is a physical piece of main memory (such as those strips you can buy from the store). Is this right?

A: Memory - a broad term including all type of memory.  This includes RAM, ROM, flash, etc.
RAM - Random Access Memory.   A random-access device allows stored data to be accessed directly in any random order.  Today, random-access memory takes the form of integrated circuits. Strictly speaking, modern types of DRAM are not random access, as data is read in bursts, although the name DRAM / RAM has stuck. However, many types of SRAM, ROM, OTP, and NOR flash are still random access even in a strict sense. RAM is normally associated with volatile types of memory (such as DRAM memory modules), where its stored information is lost if the power is removed. Many other types of non-volatile memory are RAM as well, including most types of ROM and a type of flash memory called NOR-Flash. The first RAM modules to come into the market were created in 1951 and were sold until the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Memory Bank - A memory bank is a logical unit of storage in electronics, which is hardware dependent. In a computer the memory bank may be determined by the memory access controller along with physical organization of the hardware memory slots.
Memory Module - A broad term used to refer to a series of dynamic random access memory integrated circuits modules mounted on a printed circuit board and designed for use in personal computers, workstations and servers.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: OpenGL eye position to texture space
I'm following this tutorial by nVidia for implementing a fluid simulation, however i'm confused about this part in the the ray marching algorithm section.

The ray direction is given by the vector from the eye to the entry point (both in texture space).

I already have the coordinates for the ray entry points so that's not an issue, but i don't understand how can i get the eye position in texture space.


What makes it home -people, place, time.
1) What does it feel like?
It's a place where I can be the truest form of myself.
2) How do you recognize it?
You know it in your heart. Your senses know it. Touch, sight, sound, taste and smell are engaged and aware of it. For example, it could be the loving touch from a parent or the smell and taste of a food cooked from a family recipe that brings about that feeling of home.
3) What makes it home --people, place, time.
For me, home is about the people I am with. Home is where my husband is. It is a place where I am greeted by warm snuggles and giggles from my children. It is also any time or space I can share with my parents and brother. They are my connection to my childhood. They are my bridge from then to now. I feel at home when I am laughing and hanging out with my best friend. Lastly, there is that far away place called home that houses all the memories of people who have passed away. I miss them. I miss them all. My grandparents, aunts, uncles, and a few cousins are there. The music playing in the background is from the late 1970's. The aromas in the kitchen are calling my name. There are loud grown up voices telling stories about things that I don't fully understand yet mixed in with lots of laughter. High tech means having rabbit ears for your television set. Somewhere in that house there is a rotary phone. There's no internet, iphone, or ipad. There's just I or me rather and all those memories that I wish sometimes weren't just memories. That they were a place that I could go to. Then I remember that their home is in me. All I have to do is remember.
That was nice Andrea. I have some of the same feelings. Nice post as always.


The Balcones are currently under development plan review at the City of Round Rock, a very popular northern suburb of Austin, Texas. The project is located in the "Avery Town Centre" and is directly adjacent to the new Austin Community College campus and the new Texas A&M Health Science Center campus.
Avery Centre is a master-planned development located on 1,200 acres in north Round Rock just east of Interstate 35 on University Boulevard and FM 1460 (AW Grimes). According to the latest U.S. Census data, the City of Round Rock is the second fastest growing city in the United States.
The Avery Centre masterplan calls for a blending of uses in a pedestrian oriented, walkable, live/work/play/study community. The community will be comprised of a mix of residential types including single family and multifamily units and will include a network of open spaces and parks, civic spaces, and trail corridors.
GroundFloor Development's planned 238-unit wood-frame complex located on approximately 10 acres of land will be the first multifamily project at Avery Centre and will service the present and expanding needs of the surrounding core institutions of higher learning and health care services.


General thoughts: Another surprising day, in that I was pleasantly surprised by the amount I read. I didn't finish In Darkness by Nick Lake, which I was really hoping to, but writing this almost at midnight I've got thirty or so pages left and plan to read it and hopefully finish it before I fall asleep! Lake's writing style is stunning, and the book is definitely on track to get a high rating from me, but I just can't shake the feeling that his dual narrative just doesn't quite work all the time.
Given that I should definitely have finished In Darkness in the next hour or so I plan to move on to The Sky is Everywhere by Jandy Nelson tomorrow and hopefully make good progress with that. I think a YA is called for as my last two reads have been historical and non-fiction! I may also pick up Howl, Kaddish and Other Poems by Allen Ginsberg, but you'll have to wait and see on that. I know, the suspense is real.
As always, let me know how you're getting on so far if you're taking part in the BookTubeAThon, or if you aren't, whether you'd consider getting involved next time! Are you on target to achieve your goal, or is there a challenge that you think might prove difficult to achieve?