http://www.audacitymovie.com/

A trailer advertising a scripted movie about homosexuality has been removed by YouTube, with the company claiming that the content violated the platform’s “policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content” — a claim that the filmmaker behind the project is rejecting.

The clip about “Audacity,” which was written and executive produced by evangelist Ray Comfort, was no longer available on YouTube as of Monday morning, with Comfort telling TheBlaze that he suspects that someone at the company “didn’t like what they saw” and removed it.

Comfort, who previously told TheBlaze that the film presents the biblical view of homosexuality, said that someone notified him on Sunday that the trailer — which had already amassed 130,000 views — was no longer available.


“As anyone who makes movies will tell you, the trailer can make or break the film. It creates interest and gets people excited,” Comfort said. “So, we are continually keeping an eye on how many views they get. … we monitor it daily to see how it’s doing.”

He was surprised to see that the clip was no longer available over the weekend.

A message now appears on the defunct trailer that reads, “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content,” but Comfort said that there’s nothing in the clip or the film that comports with that reasoning.

“Watch the two-minute trailer and see if you can find spam, a scam or anything commercially deceptive,” he said, adding that he believes someone at YouTube simply saw the trailer, didn’t agree with its contents and had it removed. “All we want is to be treated fairly.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/06/youtube-removes-movie-trailer-for-evangelists-film-questioning-whether-people-are-born-gay/

[Abdullah, is part of a national network of progressive Muslims, is the keeper of their secrets. He quietly helps gay Muslim couples get married, counseling them beforehand and keeping the ceremonies low-profile.]

WASHINGTON: Supreme Court of the United States (SCOUT) legalized same-sex marriages across US and religious fractions across US are opposing the decision however there is one Muslim cleric who is not openly gay but performs same-sex marriages as well. He is widely criticized for his belief and dissented not only in person but on the social media as well however he continues his practices in D.C.

Abdullah’s first act as an Imam was that he performed funeral rights for a gay Muslim who died because of AIDS after many imams denied this Muslim the ritual rights as per their beliefs however being a gay Muslim himself he decided to take that responsibility upon himself to perform the rituals. Abdullah believes that every person has equal rights no one has a right to judge any one.

Abdullah believes in the message he is spreading with the faith that it would keep resounding: “It is our relationship with God and our relationship with one another that truly builds up our faith.” He was 15 years old when he came out to his parents, long before he converted to Islam or travelled abroad.

 

Born in the state of Detroit, his parents were Baptists. At the young age of 15 he came out of them. Abdullah converted to Islam at the age of 33 when he was studying in China, later he moved to Egypt, Syria and Jordan to study the religion. As a homosexual man in America he witnessed that lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual Muslim are not treated in a good way so he decided to become an Imam to provide community support.


Abdullah, is part of a national network of progressive Muslims, is the keeper of their secrets. He quietly helps gay Muslim couples get married, counseling them beforehand and keeping the ceremonies low-profile.


http://www.thenewstribe.com/2015/06/30/americas-gay-imam-abdullah-the-holy-homo/


-----------------------------------------------------------
Why doing it undercover when it is the law of the land?

[A whole island pretending to be blind to get benefits, 8,500 pensioners who faked being aged over 100 and lawyers who claim to earn just €12,000: New book reveals how Greeks cheated THEMSELVES into ruin]

A whole island pretending to be blind to get benefits, 8,500 pensioners who faked being aged over 100 and lawyers who claim to earn just €12,000: New book reveals how Greeks cheated THEMSELVES into ruin



Greece in teetering on the brink of ruin – and it is hard not to feel sympathy for the pensioners crying in the street and the mothers facing empty supermarket shelves.

Yet those reading a new book may find themselves feeling a little less compassionate towards the Greeks. It reveals an eye-popping catalogue of benefits scams and tax avoidance schemes that have robbed the public purse.

James Angelos’ The Full Catastrophe: Travels among the New Greek Ruins lays bare the corruption which filtered through all levels of society – from the islanders who pretended to be blind, to the families who forgot to register their parents’ death and the doctors who ‘earn’ just €12,000 a year – yet live in Athens’ most exclusive neighbourhood.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148451/A-island-pretending-blind-benefits-8-500-pensioners-faked-aged-100-lawyers-claim-earn-just-12-000-New-book-reveals-Greeks-cheated-ruin.html?ito=social-facebook


-----------------------------------------------
Let us blame the USA and capitalism...
 

[The organization will accept public comments on the changes through July 7, and a staff report on the policy is due July 21. After that, ICANN’s board will still have to vote on any policies before they go into effect.]

Privacy advocates are sounding the alarm over a potential policy change that would prevent some people from registering website addresses without revealing their personal information.

ICANN, the regulatory body that oversees domain names, has asked for public comment on whether it should prohibit the private registration of domains which are “associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions.”

Domain registration companies, privacy advocates and anti-harassment advocates have decried the proposed changes for putting internet users at risk. On the opposite side of the issue, companies like LegitScript and MarkMonitor have argued that the change is necessary to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesses.

According to ICANN’s rules, any domain registered on the Web needs a publicly-accessible Whois record that lists several contacts along with their physical address, email address and phone number. But privacy services exist that allow users to register a domain and use the privacy provider’s contact information so that they don’t have to reveal their own personal details.

Those providers will usually provide a relay service that lets people contact domain registrants if necessary, and will often turn over a registrant’s contact information in response to a court order. But they still provide a degree of privacy for domain registrants.

According to anti-harassment advocate Randi Harper, Whois privacy services are key to protecting people from abuse online. Harper, the CEO of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, said it was important for users to be able to protect their Whois data because it is the “lowest barrier to entry for finding personal information on a target of harassment.”

“Even someone who isn’t technically inclined is able to go to a website, put in a domain name, and get the address of the person who owns it,” she said in an email. “In many cases, this is the home address of an individual. Once this personal data is made public, targets of harassment can receive phone calls, mail, and often times threats of physical harm.”

Harper’s organization has joined other advocacy organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future, along with domain registrars like GoDaddy, Namecheap, eNom and Tucows in the fight against the changes.

Elisa Cooper, MarkMonitor’s vice president of product marketing, said in an emailed statement that the push to restrict anonymized registrations was designed to protect online consumers from shady businesses.

“Consumers on the Internet should be able to know who they are doing business with,” she said. “By allowing anonymized domain name registrations for sites that are transacting business online, we are creating a safe haven for criminal behavior to flourish.”

ICANN’s own working group is divided on the issue, which is why it’s soliciting public comments.

Libby Baney, a senior director at FaegreBD Consulting who participated in the working group, said that the policy was aimed at providing parity in the digital world for businesses that are already required to provide public registration of their information in the offline world.

But Stephanie Perrin, a Canadian member of ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency who was one of the civil society representatives on the working group, said that the policy would put organizations like political and women’s groups at risk of harassment.

“Many of these groups accept donations, sell paraphernalia (mugs, t-shirts, etc.) or generate advertising revenue,” she said in an email. “Denying them privacy proxy services may put them at risk.”

Cooper, for her part, said that “there is a lot of nuance” to the situation, and that the rules still have to address “corner cases,” but that the policy overall would benefit internet users.

“We believe that the interests of consumers and businesses of all sizes are best served by guarding against fraudulent sites that are attempting conceal their identities,” she said.

As for Harper, she hopes that ICANN will go in the opposite direction from the proposed changes, and make domain privacy standard for all domains not registered to a business entity.

“The idea of publicly listing physical addresses for websites is antiquated and unnecessary,” she said in an email. “While the Internet has evolved, our privacy standards in many areas have not.”

No matter how the issue gets resolved, it will still be a long time before ICANN comes to a decision. The organization will accept public comments on the changes through July 7, and a staff report on the policy is due July 21. After that, ICANN’s board will still have to vote on any policies before they go into effect.


http://www.networkworld.com/article/2940594/internet-of-things/proposal-to-limit-anonymized-domain-registration-ignites-furor.html


---------------------------------------------
I hope whoever is in charge of bitcointalk.org is keeping an eye on this. We should be all concerned about this.

Greek banks are preparing contingency plans for a possible “bail-in” of depositors amid fears the country is heading for financial collapse, bankers and businesspeople with knowledge of the measures said on Friday.

The plans, which call for a “haircut” of at least 30 per cent on deposits above €8,000, sketch out an increasingly likely scenario for at least one bank, the sources said.

A Greek bail-in could resemble the rescue plan agreed by Cyprus in 2013, when customers’ funds were seized to shore up the banks, with a haircut imposed on uninsured deposits over €100,000.

It would be implemented as part of a recapitalisation of Greek banks that would be agreed with the country’s creditors — the European Commission, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9963b74c-219c-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html

An investigation by the German parliament is raising questions on whether the Obama administration not only spied on journalists in that country, but also interfered in the exercise of the free press under the guise of U.S. national security.

On Thursday, Germany's intelligence coordinator, Günter Heiss, testified before a parliamentary investigative committee of the German parliament, the Bundestag, focused on the activities of the U.S. National Security Agency's spying on Germany and whether the German intelligence agency BND had any knowledge of it.

That the NSA was spying on German officials is not new, though it continues to upset free press advocates and those with memories of repressive governments both Communist and Nazi. In 2013, the German magazine Der Spiegel, using information gleaned from files stolen and leaked by Edward Snowden, first reported that the NSA was intercepting German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone communications.

On Thursday, WikiLeaks released more information, presumably from that surveillance, from a conversation between Merkel and her personal assistant in October 2011, saying the Chancellor "professed to be at a loss" between two courses of action to take in the Greek financial crisis. The WikiLeaks release also suggested that the NSA was spying on German ministers in addition to Merkel. The U.S. ambassador to Germany, John Emerson, was summoned to meet with the Chancellery chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, to discuss the news.

Less observed this week was news that the NSA was eavesdropping not only on Merkel, but also in some capacity on Germany's free press, specifically Der Spiegel.

CNN has learned that in early summer 2011, the CIA station chief in Berlin (also representing the NSA at the U.S. Embassy) met with Heiss and his assistant Guido Müller. The CIA station chief urged the two men to take action against Heiss' deputy, Hans-Josef Vorbeck, who he said was leaking classified information to journalists.


Later that summer, CNN has learned, Heiss went to Washington and discussed this same matter with U.S. government officials. In the meantime, the Chancellery opened a file on U.S. protocols of intercepted communications between Vorbeck and journalists.

By August, Vorbeck had been reassigned to oversee the BND's historical archives -- a move widely seen as a punishment for his cooperating with reporters.

The incident raises many questions. That the U.S. government thought it appropriate to spy on journalists doing their jobs is controversial enough. But why would it be appropriate for U.S. officials to use these tools -- given to save lives and protect U.S. national security -- to notify the German government about officials talking to reporters in the normal exercise of a free press?

Asked about the matter, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price did not deny or confirm the facts obtained by CNN, saying on the record only that "people around the world -- regardless of their nationality -- should know that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security. We also have made clear that we take their privacy concerns into account."

Price would not discuss the specific matter of the Obama administration's spying on Der Spiegel and then telling Merkel's government about an official cooperating with the press.

"While we are not going to discuss specific targets, we have repeatedly made clear that the United States does not collect intelligence for the purpose of suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent, or for disadvantaging persons based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion," Price said. "Signals intelligence is collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support these missions and not for any other purposes."


German journalists have a much different take, not surprisingly.

"It feels bitter to learn that American intelligence agencies spied on reporters in another country and denounced alleged sources to the government," said one reporter involved, who asked not to be identified for fear of repercussions from his government or the U.S. government. "This is something I expected to happen in authoritarian states like Russia or China, but not in a democracy."

Worse, said the German journalist, is the fact that "the German Chancellery is complicit in it." The incident raises questions about what exactly the German Chancellery knew and when it knew it -- specifically that officials were notified by the CIA station chief in 2011, two years before the revelation that the NSA was spying on Merkel's cell phone -- that the U.S. was conducting surveillance that touched on both German journalists and the German government.


"The freedom of the press is constitutional not only in the U.S., but also in Germany, but a press which must fear the surveillance of its research is no longer a free press," the journalist said to CNN. "This case threatens the core of the whole idea of an independent control of a government through the public."

Gregg Leslie, the legal defense director for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, described the spying as "not surprising, but nonetheless disappointing" in a statement Thursday.

"The U.S. government has made it clear in several recent whistleblower cases that it sees unauthorized communications with journalists about national security as tantamount to espionage, basically," Leslie said. "This upsets the traditional methods of newsgathering, where some level of access to sensitive information -- even some unauthorized access to classified information -- is necessary to fully inform the American public of what their government is up to."

Der Spiegel on Friday reported on the event, writing that "it is becoming increasingly clear that representatives of the German government at best looked away as the Americans violated the law, and at worst supported them."

Heiss, Der Spiegel reported, confirmed that the CIA station chief had given him information about an alleged leaker in the Chancellery, but claimed the information had not been "concrete enough" to take any action. The Chancellery representative present soon said further information could only be shared behind closed doors.

A senior intelligence official told CNN that the "intelligence community, like all Americans, supports a free and robust press. U.S. intelligence activities are only for discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign-intelligence targets to help defend the nation, not for intimidating or inhibiting journalists."

The U.S. intelligence official referred to President Barack Obama's January 17, 2014, Presidential Policy Directive 28 that surveillance "shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence purpose -- or a counterintelligence purpose -- to support national and departmental missions, and not for any other purposes."

The directive "affirms that all persons -- regardless of nationality -- have legitimate privacy interests in the handling of their personal information, and that privacy and civil liberties shall be integral considerations in the planning of U.S. signals intelligence activities."

None of those statements suggest that the Obama administration necessarily sees anything wrong in spying on the free press of another country, and then using that information to inform the government of that country about officials who might be cooperating with the press. Indeed, all of the statements suggest that the NSA can do whatever it wants if it believes national security to be at stake, a loose and amorphous principle that apparently includes interfering with a free press exercising its right to obtain information.

Without question, Der Spiegel has broken many stories that have frustrated the U.S. intelligence community, including the "extraordinary rendition" of Mohammed Haydar Zammar to Syria, where he was allegedly tortured; the WikiLeaks files, and the Snowden information.

It is clear that regardless of the national security principle, the Obama administration has been embarrassed before the world and seen its diplomatic efforts weighed down by the drip-drip-drip of these revelations. Last week, the French government summoned the U.S. ambassador after WikiLeaks released information suggesting the NSA had spied on French President Francois Hollande and his two predecessors.

The White House issued a readout of Obama's subsequent phone call with Hollande saying that the U.S. has "abided by the commitment we made to our French counterparts in late 2013 that we are not targeting and will not target the communications of the French President."


http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration/index.html

Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.

The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.

The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?

As it turns out, Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. As CNS News reports, more schools are fitting young girls — as young as 6th grade — with the devices and doing so without their parents knowing.

Middle and high school students can’t get a Coca-Cola or a candy bar at 13 Seattle public schools, but they can get a taxpayer-funded intrauterine device (IUD) implanted without their parents’ consent.



http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/02/schools-implant-iuds-in-girls-as-young-as-6th-grade-without-their-parents-knowing/

[The Windy City is enacting a 9 percent tax on streaming services.]

The Windy City is enacting a 9 percent tax on streaming services.



People in the Windy City soon will be paying a little more to stream their favorite movies, TV shows and music.

Chicago has enacted a "cloud tax," which will tack on 9 percent to streaming services like Netflix and Spotify, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

It's an expansion of the city's amusement tax, which taxes things like movies and tickets to sporting events. The streaming provision of the amusement tax takes effect in September, and the city estimates it will bring in $12 million annually.

The Sun-Times reported that Chicago is the first major city to enact a tax on digital services. Other cities, such as New York, already tax entertainment and information services.

“In an environment in which technologies and emerging industries evolve quickly, the city periodically issues rulings that clarify the application of existing laws to these technologies and industries,” said mayoral spokeswoman Elizabeth Langsdorf in a statement.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chicago-netflix-subscribers-pay-more-806622

[Syrian Jihadist Group Turns Tables On ISIS Fighters, Releases Video Of Them Dressed In Orange Jumpsuits Executing Black-Clad ISIS Jihadis…]

Syrian Jihadist Group Turns Tables On ISIS Fighters, Releases Video Of Them Dressed In Orange Jumpsuits Executing Black-Clad ISIS Jihadis…

A terror group battling ISIS in Syria has turned the tables on its enemies by capturing and slaughtering dozens of Islamic State soldiers on camera.

Dressed in orange jumpsuits – attire usually worn by ISIS’s victims – the Jaysh Al-Islam soldiers lead 13 shackled jihadis to their deaths.

Jaysh Al-Islam calls itself the ‘Army of Islam’ and reportedly commands as many as 25,000 loyal fighters following the merger of around 60 rebel factions inside Syria.

Islamic State’s captured soldiers are forced to kneel as a commander announces: ‘Allah did not make a disease without appointing a remedy to it.’

The jihadis – dressed entirely in black – are then given something to drink before each of their faces are clearly shown in the 19 minute-long propaganda video. They are then shot in the back of the head at point blank range with shotguns.

Before they are killed, a Jaysh Al-Islam says: ‘The most serious calamity for our jihad today is a group of people who grow at a time of division among Muslims.

‘This group claimed to be the mother state and made Takfir [accused of apostasy] on other Muslims, shed their blood and looted their properties and dignities.

‘They worsened… the ordeal of Muslims by corrupting their religion and livelihood and killing the jihadi leaders who did their best to help our stricken nation.

‘They wreaked havoc on our people in liberated areas and cut the supply route of jihadis. They left… Tehran intact and instead they attacked our mosques.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145562/Rival-Syrian-terror-group-turns-tables-ISIS-fighters-releasing-slick-execution-video-executing-jihadis-dressed-orange-jumpsuits.html

[to use their “common law powers”]

LONDON – The British government is urging school leaders to use their “common law powers” to search student lunches and potentially confiscate any items they deem “unhealthy or inappropriate.”

Education minister Lord Nash tells Express, “Schools have common law powers to search pupils, with their consent, for items.

“There is nothing to prevent schools from having a policy of inspecting lunch boxes for food items that are prohibited under their school food policies.

“A member of staff may confiscate, keep or destroy such items found as a result of the search if it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances.”

The government’s foray into lunch inspections began when Cherry Tree Primary School in Colchester banned a Peperami sausage snack and scotch eggs from a six-year-old girl’s lunch.

Manchester’s Manley Park Primary School seized cereal bars from lunches, according to the Huffington Post.

“Government should get out of people’s lunchboxes and focus on trying to fix the big things like immigration and the deficit,” Ukip member Douglas Carswell says.

Iain Austin, a Labour MP, adds: “With Britain tumbling down the international league tables and with a generation entering the work force with less literacy and numeracy than the generation retiring, you would have thought that teachers might have better things to do than rummaging through children’s crisps and fruit.”

There have been glimpses of such policies in the U.S.

A teacher at an Aurora, Colorado school blocked a preschool girl from eating Oreo cookies in her home-packed lunch.

They were accompanied by a ham and cheese sandwich and string cheese.

When the girl returned home from school, the cookies were still in her lunchbox, along with a note:

“Dear Parents, it is very important that all students have a nutritious lunch. This is a public school setting and all children are required to have a fruit, a vegetable and a heavy snack from home, along with a milk. If they have potatoes, the child will also need bread to go along with it. Lunchables, chips, fruit snacks, and peanut butter are not considered to be a healthy snack. This is a very important part of our program and we need everyone’s participation.”

Pearson’s daughter says her teacher didn’t allow her to eat the cookies during lunch, because “they don’t have enough nutritional value,” according to 9 News.

“What the school thinks is healthy for her is not what I think is healthy for her,” the mother says. “That’s between me and her and our doctor – not the school.”

And now, apparently, to progressives in power.



http://eagnews.org/teachers-granted-power-to-confiscate-and-destroy-unhealthy-school-lunches/

Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, “Sister Wives.”

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

“We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” said Nathan.

As the two filled out their marriage application they were met with questions.

“There’s a spot on there where you put the dissolution date of your previous marriage and we put ‘not applicable,'” said Christine.

In fact, the couple was met with varied reaction from employees, who were caught off guard.

“So, are you legally married, you didn’t get divorced?” asked one clerk.

“We’ll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I’m aware you can’t be married to two people at the same time,” said another clerk.

The Colliers were initially denied the license, and the clerk later returned to tell the couple that they would have to check with the Montana Attorney General’s office.



http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

[The Shocking Proportion of Americans Who Believe That ‘Religious Institutions or Clergy’ Should Be Forced to Perform Gay Weddings]

The Shocking Proportion of Americans Who Believe That ‘Religious Institutions or Clergy’ Should Be Forced to Perform Gay Weddings



A new survey conducted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage last Friday found that 19 percent — or one in five Americans — believe that “religious institutions or clergy should be required to perform same-sex marriages.”

More specifically, 26 percent of Americans under the age of 40 believe that churches and clergy should be forced to preside over gay nuptials.

The survey, conducted by the Barna Group, a polling firm that studies religion, also found that 94 percent of evangelicals oppose legalization of same-sex marriage, with only 2 percent expressing support for the measure. Meanwhile, 86 percent believe that the decision will have a negative impact on American society, with just 10 percent saying that they believe offering marriage rights is morally acceptable.

Sixty-six percent of practicing Christians overall believe that the Supreme Court erred in its decision. More broadly, 49 percent of Americans agree with the decision, with 43 percent expressing disagreement.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/01/the-shocking-proportion-of-americans-who-believe-that-religious-institutions-or-clergy-should-be-forced-to-perform-gay-weddings/

Quick, what’s your aunt’s cellphone number? Or your best friend’s from college?

Better yet, tell us what you did on Monday? You may have a tough time remembering because the Internet is wrecking your memory. That’s according to a new study from Kaspersky Lab, which finds Americans can’t commit data to memory because the answers are just a click away.

The term, according to the lab, is called “Digital Amnesia” — the experience of forgetting information that you trust a digital device to store and remember for you.

“The results reveal that the ‘Google Effect’ likely extends beyond online facts to include important personal information,” researchers wrote in the report. “Many consumers are happy to forget, or risk forgetting information they can easily find — or find again online.”

For instance, people 45 and old are more likely to get answers from the web, then write the fact down or choose to forget it once they’ve used it, the survey found.

Ninety-one percent of those surveyed said they use the Internet as an online extension of their brain. Forty-four percent said their smartphone serves as their memory; everything they need to remember is right there in their pocket.

“In many societies, having access to the Internet feels as stable as having access to electricity or running water,” says Dr. Kathryn Mills, with the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London.

“It would be interesting to explore further whether individuals in places where the Internet is unreliable feel greater need to remember contact details or facts, or have a different perspective on information access.”



http://wtop.com/health/2015/07/study-most-americans-suffer-from-digital-amnesia/

The United States is now the world’s second largest Spanish-speaking country after Mexico, according to a new study published by the prestigious Instituto Cervantes.

The report says there are 41 million native Spanish speakers in the US plus a further 11.6 million who are bilingual, mainly the children of Spanish-speaking immigrants. This puts the US ahead of Colombia (48 million) and Spain (46 million) and second only to Mexico (121 million).

Among the sources cited in the report is the US Census Office which estimates that the US will have 138 million Spanish speakers by 2050, making it the biggest Spanish-speaking nation on Earth, with Spanish the mother tongue of almost a third of its citizens.

By state the highest concentration is in the former Spanish colonies of the south and south-west, with New Mexico top at 47%, followed by California and Texas (both 38%) and Arizona (30%). Some 18% of New Yorkers speak Spanish while only 1.3% of West Virginians do. Perhaps surprisingly, more than 6% of Alaskans are Spanish speakers.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/us-second-biggest-spanish-speaking-country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg

The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn't be subsidizing religion and non-profits.

Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses.

Defenders of tax exemptions and deductions argues that if we got rid of them charitable giving would drop. It surely would, although how much, we can’t say. But of course government revenue would go up, and that money could be used to, say, house the homeless and feed the hungry. We’d have fewer church soup kitchens — but countries that truly care about poverty don’t rely on churches to run soup kitchens.

So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions (although, as long as the IRS is afraid of challenging Scientology’s exemption, everyone else is probably safe). But when that day comes, it will be long overdue. I can see keeping some exemptions; hospitals, in particular, are an indispensable, and noncontroversial, public good. And localities could always carve out sensible property-tax exceptions for nonprofits their communities need. But it’s time for most nonprofits, like those of us who faithfully cut checks to them, to pay their fair share.


http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/


----------------------------------------------------
That. Was. Fast... But it was the plan all along.

Polygamy is next.

On 06/25/15 I attempted to get an Edible image cake printed with the confederate flag image on it at Walmart. It was denied. The next day I had them do the same for the ISIS battle flag image I brought to them. They cheerfully did it. and sold me my ISIS cake. WTF Walmart! ISIS is beheading Christians, selling little girls into slavery, and is currently a terrorist org at war with the United States……..but you can’t buy the General Lee toy car at Walmart? It’s a damn shame.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ePFollQQE

Most dispiriting, and least convincing, are those arguments that simply reconstitute the slippery slope arguments that have been used for so long against same sex marriage. “If we allow group marriage,” the thinking seems to go, “why wouldn’t marriage with animals or children come next?” The difference is, of course, consent. In recent years, a progressive and enlightened movement has worked to insist that consent is the measure of all things in sexual and romantic practice: as long as all involved in any particular sexual or romantic relationship are consenting adults, everything is permissible; if any individual does not give free and informed consent, no sexual or romantic engagement can be condoned.

This bedrock principle of mutually-informed consent explains exactly why we must permit polygamy and must oppose bestiality and child marriage. Animals are incapable of voicing consent; children are incapable of understanding what it means to consent. In contrast, consenting adults who all knowingly and willfully decide to enter into a joint marriage contract, free of coercion, should be permitted to do so, according to basic principles of personal liberty. The preeminence of the principle of consent is a just and pragmatic way to approach adult relationships in a world of multivariate and complex human desires.

Progressives have always flattered themselves that time is on their side, that their preferences are in keeping with the arc of history. In the fight for marriage equality, this claim has made again and again. Many have challenged our politicians and our people to ask themselves whether they can imagine a future in which opposition to marriage equality is seen as a principled stance. I think it’s time to turn the question back on them: given what you know about the advancement of human rights, are you sure your opposition to group marriage won’t sound as anachronistic as opposition to gay marriage sounds to you now? And since we have insisted that there is no legitimate way to oppose gay marriage and respect gay love, how can you oppose group marriage and respect group love?

I suspect that many progressives would recognize, would pushed in this way, that the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice. What we’re left with is an unsatisfying patchwork of unconvincing arguments and bad ideas, ones embraced for short-term convenience at long-term cost. We must insist that rights cannot be dismissed out of short-term interests of logistics and political pragmatism. The course then, is clear: to look beyond political convenience and conservative intransigence, and begin to make the case for extending legal marriage rights to more loving and committed adults. It’s time.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3eBgtvUuQ

In France, Tunisia and Kuwait, dozens have been killed amid a Ramadan battle cry from Islamic State. Here's what we know so far.

A day of terror in France, Tunisia and Kuwait has left dozens dead. Here is what we know so far.


http://news.sky.com/story/1508964/triple-terror-attacks-what-you-need-to-know

Apple's Tim Cook has recently spoke against displaying the Confederate flag, so I suppose this development was to be expected. However, censoring historical games (if that is indeed the reason why the game's have been pulled) is always very tricky because those games don't glorify or promote a cause but, rather, represent historical events using the symbols and insignia of the period. However, I can also see the political and social pressure mounting at the moment, which makes pulling the games the "safest" action for Apple. What do you think? If Apple has indeed pulled the games for displaying the Confederate flag, is Apple's action justified, or was there another way to eradicate racism and remove the symbols and words that feed it, as Tim Cook put it?

Update: It's looking like Apple has pulled everything from the App Store that features a Confederate flag, regardless of context. The reasoning Apple is sending developers is "...because it includes images of the confederate flag used in offensive and mean-spirited ways." We just spoke with Andrew from HexWar Games, who have released many historical strategy games. He insists, "We're in no way sympathetic to the use of the flag in an offensive way, we used it purely because historically that was the flag that was used at the time."

HexWar Games plans on attempting to re-submit their games using the lesser-known 1861 version of the Confederate flag. But, who knows if that will even be approved. No one is sure yet if Apple is banning all mention of the Confederacy, or just the specific image of the flag which has since become such a hot button issue in the USA.

Update 2: We just received a statement from Maxim Zasov of Game Labs, the developers of Ultimate General: Gettysburg. It is as follows:

We accept Apple's decision and understand that this is a sensitive issue for the American Nation. We wanted our game to be the most accurate, historical, playable reference of the Battle of Gettysburg. All historical commanders, unit composition and weaponry, key geographical locations to the smallest streams or farms are recreated in our game's battlefield.
We receive a lot of letters of gratitude from American teachers who use our game in history curriculum to let kids experience one of the most important battles in American history from the Commander's perspective.
Spielberg’s "Schindler's List" did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical "Gettysburg" movie (1993) is still on iTunes. We believe that all historical art forms: books, movies, or games such as ours, help to learn and understand history, depicting events as they were. True stories are more important to us than money.
Therefore we are not going to amend the game's content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore. We really hope that Apple’s decision will achieve the desired results. We can’t change history, but we can change the future.


http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/


-------------------------------------------------
Apple is not alone doing this. We live in a strange world right now.