Category Archives: Anatomy

Anatomy

Anatomy of Protest Music in Assam during the time of CAA Protests – A Humming Heart

When Dr Bhupen Hazarika sang the song Biswa Bijoyee Na-Jowan (youngsters who won the world) in the 1939 film Indramalati, he probably would not have thought that the youth of Assam would resonate with the same song as they lead the protest against the Citizen Amendment Act, some 80 years later.

Music has been a very integral part of the Assamese society and even at the most distressing time, songs have been the adjuvant that ensured the mobilisation of the Assamese sentiments.

It is important to go back to the days of Assam Agitation (1979-85) to see the importance of music as a form of protest is the state, to see how Hazarikas work has managed to strike a chord amongst the Assamese nationalists.

Hazarikas songs united a frustrated Assamese diaspora and reflected the helplessness faced by the state since 1947. Assams troubled relationship with New Delhi found a rich and resounding depiction in his lyrics and songs.

The 1983 Assam elections were brutal. At the peak of the agitation, Dr Hazarika wrote a ballad which described a little brother who was killed. The song, Juye Pura Tirasir was dedicated to a young martyr, and its lyrics translated to: My little brother disappeared that year. Do you have any news about him? He wanted to build his country and to secure a happy future for those who live in Assam. He did not want to become a stranger in his own land.

Today, the fight remains the same. The Assamese do not want to become strangers in their own land. So, when 17-year-old Sam Stafford and 20-year-old Dipanjal Das lost their lives due to the brutal open firing by police during the anti-CAA protests in Guwahati; what Dr Bhupen Hazarika wrote about came rushing back.

Protest songs have a very deep-rooted hold within the Assamese society. Even before the current anti-CAA protest intensified, there was a trend which showed the mobilisation of the Assamese youth towards fighting the age-old issue of illegal immigration and the negligence from the Central Government through music. The anti-CAA protests established music as one of the foremost weapons for this generation to show dissent. New-age and independent artists populate the domain of protest music in Assam currently.

Hip-hop has become the voice of the youth and is actively used today as a means to express opinions. In 2018, Guwahati-based rapper Minimi released his composition titled Bangladeshi. The song talks about the Assamese fighting for their rights and how they feel betrayed by the government and its system. The song has the feel of a war cry asking the youth to join this fight and save the land from the infiltration of the illegal immigrants.

The track, however, has garnered criticism for being overtly xenophobic. The lyrics can be considered inflammatory and be interpreted as a catalyst for inciting violence. A part of the song translates to: Foreigners maybe brought and filled up in Assam. If we pick up our hengdang (sword), the Bangladeshi will run lifting their legs, leaving their lungi. Another part translates to, The guest is godlike for us. But beat-up the foreigner repeatedly. We will cut them into half if the question arises of the existence of motherland. Every house has a sword. It is sharp. Whoever dares to die, come out, you brave Asomiyas, Let us make the Luit red.

The shift in tone and themes between the songs Hazarika composed, and what is being rendered today indicates the mindset which has set in within the Assamese society. The current wave of protest in Assam saw the use of the slogan, Aah Aah Ulai Aah. It calls everyone to come out and join the movement. This slogan also originates from a Bhupen Hazarika song with the same name.

While Bhupen Hazarikas songs are a call to sacrifice, Minimis track is a call to arms. Also, notably, Hazarikas song had the phrase, Xogaj Jonota which translates to well-informed public. At a time, when the nation is battling misinformation, an age-old song showcases its timelessness yet again.

Another young singer from the state, Shankuraj Knowar collaborated with a few upcoming musicians to compose a song called Odhikaar. The song was released on December 10, 2019, at the peak of the anti-CAA protests in Assam with a statement which read:

The Assamese speaking population feels they will be outnumbered within their own state by the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019, (CAB), due to the threat and pattern of illegal Bangladeshi immigrantsAt the macro level, the whole of India will not suffer what Assam will suffer in micro-levelsAll protests should be in the spirit of the constitution of India by peaceful means and by respecting everyone elses views. Violence and atrocities of any kind should be avoided. However, we stand here to stand against the implementation of the CAB in its current way. The state has to be protected like you would protect your homes and then welcome guests.

Odhikaar is a beautiful composition which criticizes the state government for sacrificing the interest of their land for those of the central government. The song reminds everyone of the sacrifices made by the martyrs and asks everyone to come out and oppose what is wrong. The themes here are similar to the ones composed by Hazarika. The tone is calm, yet it evokes the spirit of Assamese nationalism. It doesnt call for aggression but requests people to fight for what is right by being well informed.

Rahul Rajkhowa has written an English rap highlighting the atrocities of the government and the impact of the decisions made by those in power. In one of his earlier compositions, Rajkhowa has also sung about the vulnerability of immigrants being perceived as the ones responsible for a spectrum of Assams problems that range from economy to ecology. That song garnered some criticism for it giving impetus to discrimination and marginalisation.

Along with them, there are other upcoming, independent artists composing music who are contributing to the movement. Their composition, delivery and lyrics are indicative of the influence of the underground culture as well as Indian hip-hop scene that has become even more popular since the release of Gully Boy(2019). A perfect example is rapper AS Wonderland. He uploaded a song called Jai Shri Ram (which was originally composed by Gangtok-based rapper UNB). Similar to AS Wonderland, Rapper Im D composed an Assamese song which again invokes sentiments similar to Minmi, We are Assamese, we are ready to die and kill for our motherland.

In Assam, celebrities from the field of art and entertainment are leading the protests against the Citizen Amendment Bill (CAB) and now the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA), although very few commercial singers have sung or composed anti-establishment music. One of the most famous figures leading the anti-CAA protest is Zubeen Garg, who incidentally sang the campaign song of the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) in the 2016 elections. He, however, has apologised, just like Simanta Shekar who sang it in the previous elections. But neither of the two has so far composed or sang anything for the movement.

It is only Manas Robin, popular commercial Assamese singer, who has composed a protest song, Bodone Aanile Maan Oi. The undertone is anti-Bengali and openly asks people to fight the issue of illegal Bangladeshis, be it Hindu or Muslim.

The culture of protest music is vibrant and deep-rooted in Assamese society. The current protest is led by musicians and artists and is based on the songs written by legendary Dr Bhupen Hazarika. One can estimate how big a visionary the singer, writer and composer was, given his songs still hold relevance to the utmost optimum level. Ironically, Hazarika fought the 2004 Lok Sabha elections on a BJP ticket. Today, as the state fights against the BJP majority government, it is his songs which lead the masses.

Assamese protest music witnesses a transition, but overall still embodies the values set by the notable names in the past. There has been a paradigm shift, especially in the aggressive approach, and protest music is an essential indicator of it. However, the Assamese community is known to be a peace-loving one, and Dr Bhupen Hazarikas songs reflected the same ethos that the society holds. The fact that even today, the majority is still using his songs to lead protests and agitations, is proof of those values.

Here is the original post:
Anatomy of Protest Music in Assam during the time of CAA Protests - A Humming Heart

Anatomy

Greys Anatomy Star Caterina Scorsone And Husband Welcomes Third Child. … – Union Journalism

The new year has been extremely good for Greys Anatomy star Caterina Scorsone as she welcomed her third daughter with her husband, Rob Giles. The couple started the new decade on an auspicious note.

Caterina Scorsone and Rob Giles with their first two daughters

The couple announced the birth of their baby girl on Tuesday, 31 December, the last day of 2019.

Arwen is here! the actress, 38, captioned the photos she shared on Instagram. The pictures show newborn Arwen cuddling with each of her elder sisters, Eliza, 7, and Paloma, 3. Our family wishes you a happy new year, a happy new decade, and a happy heart made new by love in every exquisite moment, Scorsone added.

Scorsone, who plays the role of Amelia Shepherd on the ABC medical drama, shared the good news in November 2019 that she was expecting baby No. 3. She did so by posting a Halloween-themed photo of herself, her musician husband, and their two daughters dressed as the Addams Family along with the caption, Our Familys about to get even kookier. #pumpkinintheoven.

Similar to her real-life situation, her on-screen character announced her pregnancy in the season 16 premiere episode earlier in 2019. It could have been done to make shooting easier, drive forward the plot, and avoid any unnecessary complications during the shoot while trying to hide the baby bump.

Earlier in March, Scorsone also opened up about raising their second daughter Paloma, who has Down Syndrome.

My whole concept of what motherhood was had to shift, she said on the Motherly podcast. She shared that even though in the beginning the revelation sent her into a tailspin, Scorsone soon realized that her primary responsibility is to keep her safe and make her feel loved.

Suddenly, my understanding of my job as a mother completely distilled and opened, she continued. This also made her rethink the way she was bringing up her first daughter. Since then, things have changed a lot, and she is thankful for them.

See original here:
Greys Anatomy Star Caterina Scorsone And Husband Welcomes Third Child. ... - Union Journalism

Anatomy

Netanyahu and the Anatomy of a Constitutional Crisis – Lawfare

Amidst a flurry of constant political maneuvering, intense legal debate and multiple Supreme Court cases, Israel has been stuck in political and constitutional deadlock for nearly a year. For the first time in its history, Israel will hold a third parliamentary election in the span of just 12 months after the previous rounds failed to produce a viable government. And also for the first time, the Israeli prime ministers office is occupied by an individual who is facing multiple graft charges involving offenses directly related to his position but refuses to resign.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists on running for reelection, and he still maintains robust support within his political party, the Likud. Israeli politics have thus become inextricably entangled in his legal predicament.

Israels attorney general, Avichai Mandleblit, has found himself in the untenable role of both Netanyahus prosecutor and his advocate: Mandelblit personally authorized Netanyahus indictment after lengthy deliberations, but he has also represented the government at the Supreme Court in multiple cases stemming from that same indictment. Several of these cases have challenged Netanyahus competence to serve as prime minister, while others pertain to Netanyahus effort to secure parliamentary immunity from indictment.

So far, the attorney general has refused to articulate his position on key constitutional issues raised by the current situation, although he has determined that Netanyahu may stay on as caretaker prime minister until the elections. His silence contributes to the stalemate: These are uncharted waters, and there is little legal clarity about what Israels constitutional law requires in this situation.

Many questions need answering. One category relates to Netanyahus current effort to secure parliamentary immunity from indictment. Is Netanyahu eligible for parliamentary immunity from prosecution while he remains in office? Will he be granted parliamentary immunity as a practical and political matter? Would the Supreme Court uphold a decision by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, to grant him immunity?

Another set of questions has to do with Netanyahus substantive competence to serve as prime minister under indictment. Can Netanyahu even run for reelection under indictment? Perhaps most consequentially, if Netanyahu secures the largest number of recommenders for prime minister in the Knesset after the March elections, may Israels president, Reuven Rivlin, assign him the mandate to form a governmentdespite Netanyahus failure to put together a governing coalition in two previous rounds, and notwithstanding the indictment? If Netanyahu succeeds in forming a government, can he be judicially removed?

In what follows I consider recent developments and the stakes involved in addressing some of these legal questions. For additional detailed analysis, in Hebrew, also see this opinion from the Israel Democracy Institute.

The Immunity Standoff

Like any other member of the Knesset, the prime minister is eligible to seek parliamentary immunity from criminal indictment. Despite flatly denying that he would seek immunity if indicted before the April 2019 elections, Netanyahu has unsurprisingly requested immunity to prevent his indictment from proceeding to court. Netanyahu is being charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust for various actions he took as prime minister. I elaborated on the allegations in a previous post.

Under the Knesset Members Immunity, Rights and Duties Law of 1951 (as amended in 2005), Netanyahu may ask the Knesset to grant him functional immunity for the duration of his service on several potential grounds. Those grounds include the degree to which the acts constituting his alleged offenses were necessary for the fulfillment of his official duties; prosecutorial maleficence or discrimination; prior disciplinary action by the Knesset; and the possibility of substantial harm to the functioning of the Knesset, one of its committees, or the representation of the electorate. The last ground requires balancing between the benefits of blocking criminal proceedings and the public interest, meaning that the Knesset must consider the severity and nature of the offense in question.

Notably, the law also grants Knesset members absolute substantive immunity for any action in their capacity as a Knesset member performed while fulfilling [their] duty or in order to fulfill [their] duty. Substantive immunity is designed primarily to protect Knesset members speech and political action, and at least a portion of the graft charges against Netanyahu clearly do not meet the laws requirements. For example, it is hard to see how accepting lavish gifts in the form of champagne and cigars could be necessary for the fulfillment of Netanyahus role as prime minister. The same could be said about providing extensive regulatory benefits in return for favorable media coverage. The Knesset Committee, a subcommittee of the full parliament, has final authority to deny immunity under Article 13(c1) of the law. If the committee decides to grant immunity, however, the Knesset plenum must vote to approve its decision.

This is where things get complicated. Once the Knesset decides to dissolve itself, as it did in December 2019, its activities are restricted until a new Knesset is elected. For this reason, and because the current Knesset was elected in September before dissolving itself only three months later, the Knesset Committee has yet to be convened in its current Knesset. When it became evident that the majority of Knesset members supported convening the committee to consider Netanyahus immunity, Netanyahu launched a campaign to stall the proceedings. He appears to have concluded that he might not have a majority in favor of immunity. Netanyahus party pressured the speaker of the Knesset, Yuli Edelsteina Likud memberto invoke his authority in order to block the Knesset Committee from being convened.

It did not work. The Knessets legal adviser has concluded in a recent legal opinion that the speaker did not have authority to prevent the Knesset Committee from convening. The adviser determined that a majority of Knesset members may convene the Knesset Committee if they see fit and that, once convened, the committee is not barred from considering Netanyahus immunity even during the transitional period before the elections as long as the proceedings begin within a reasonable distance from election day, March 2.

In the meantime, the Likud party petitioned the Supreme Court to disqualify the Knessets legal adviser for conflict of interests (the advisers spouse works at the attorney generals office). The Supreme Court has rejected the Likuds request for an injunction against the publication of the opinion, thus allowing its publication, although the case is still pending. The Knessets Organizing Committee, chaired by a member of Benny Gantzs Blue and White partythe Likuds main contender for control of the governmentthen moved to convene the Knesset Committee. Nevertheless, contrary to the opinion, the Likud party and Netanyahus other supporters have continued to pressure the speaker to prevent the Knesset Committee from convening.

It is unwise to make political predictions in the current climate. But it appears that Netanyahu may not have the votes for immunity in the committee or the Knesset plenum. Reports have indicated that he is considering withdrawing his request for immunity if he concludes that he will lose.

Importantly, the indictment could advance to court even if Netanyahu is granted immunity. The Supreme Court has previously reviewedand annulleddecisions of the Knesset Committee pertaining to the immunity of other Knesset members (see, for example, Bishara v. Attorney General; HCJ 11298/03 Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. Knesset Committee). The court has framed immunity decisions as quasi-judicial decisions that are different from ordinary legislative work. Therefore, it has held, such decisions are reviewable under a lower standard of deference.

What is more, the law has changed since these cases had been decided in a way that further weakens parliamentary immunity: The default under the previous regime was that Knesset members had immunity and the attorney general had to petition the Knesset Committee to remove it. Under current law, the default is that there is no immunity, and the Knesset Committee is allowed to grant immunity upon the request of a Knesset member, with the approval of the Knesset plenum. Only two Knesset members have petitioned the committee for immunity since the law was amended, and both requests were denied. In other words, there is reason to believe that the Supreme Court might intervene should the Knesset decide to grant Netanyahu immunityafter all, there is no presumption of immunity under current law, and this is an area where the court has intervened even when there was a presumption of parliamentary immunity.

Substantive Competence

If Netanyahu does not win immunity, Israel will face a constitutional and political Pandoras box. Under current case law, Netanyahu is not legally barred from running in the upcoming elections. There are therefore two open questions: First, can he stay on as prime minister before the elections if the indictment moves forward? As mentioned previously, the attorney general has concluded that Netanyahu can remain in office as caretaker prime minister until the elections. The second question is a trickier one: What happens if Netanyahu gets the most recommendations from Knesset members in the new Knesset after the elections?

Typically, the president assigns the mandate to form a government to whoever receives the most recommendations from Knesset members, although he has discretion in making this decision under Section 7 of Basic Law: The Government:

Could the president deny Netanyahu the mandate even if he has the greatest support among Knesset members?

The Supreme Court has thus far stayed its hand on this key issue. The court has recently dismissed without prejudice a case challenging Netanyahus competence to receive the mandate to form a government after the next elections. The court ruled that the case was not ripe for adjudication because there was no certainty that Netanyahu would in fact get the mandate to form a government after the elections. The issue, it ruled, was therefore theoretical.

At the same time, the court recognized that Israel faces an unprecedented constitutional crisis and noted that the relevant constitutional questions, in principle, are justiciable. This may signal that, if Netanyahu is assigned the mandate to form a government after the elections, the court will eventually decide whether he can serve as prime minister. The court also underlined that the president, in assigning the mandate to form a government, is allowed to factor Netanyahus criminal indictment into this decisionrejecting Netanyahu's argument that the indictment should play no role. Of course, given the seven-day clock set by the Basic Law, the court has set itself up to have to produce one of the most consequential decisions in its history in less than one week.

The courts avoidance in dismissing the case is understandable given that it is caught between a rock and a hard place. The stakes of disqualifying Netanyahuthe longest serving prime minister in Israels history, who has solidified his control over the state in the course of his 11-year reign and still enjoys substantial popular and political supportare monumental. It could result in massive political blowback against the court, which has been under sustained political attacks notwithstanding the Netanyahu saga. Therefore, the court likely prefers to have Netanyahus fate decided in the political arena. If he loses the election, the court will be spared the potentially devastating consequences of deciding the competence issue. The question is what happens in the very plausible scenario that Netanyahu wins greater support in the Knesset than his main opponent, Gantz. Disqualifying him then would be even more difficult if he secures a majority on the heels of an electoral victory.

On the merits, there are conflicting considerations at play. On the one hand, effective judicial impeachment of a sitting prime minister would be unprecedented, even though Netanyahu would technically only be a caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed. As I explained previously, there is no precedent for judicial removal of a prime minister who faces criminal charges: Previous prime ministers resigned when faced with indictments. The text of the applicable constitutional normBasic Law: The Governmentrequires automatic removal only after the prime minister is convicted and the conviction becomes final, which could take years. This is different from the arrangement that applies to other officials such as ministers and mayors, which courts have previously relied on to require their removal following indictment. As I noted before,

[T]here are ample grounds for questioning the application of [precedents] to the situation of a prime minister facing criminal charges. [Previous cases] were decided based on administrative law principles that apply to the prime minister as chief executive and to city councils as administrative authorities. The question of whether a prime minister can be removed in circumstances other than those explicitly provided for in the Basic Law implicates additional complex constitutional issues. It is one thing to hold that a city councils failure to remove a mayor who is accused of criminal wrongdoing is unreasonable as a matter of administrative law. It is a completely different thing for the Supreme Court to challenge the failure of the national legislature, the Knesset, to act, should it fail to remove the prime minister . The stakes here are particularly high because the removal of the prime minister means the resignation of the entire government.

Furthermore, the provisions of the Basic Law governing the prime ministers removal due to criminal wrongdoing seem to set the bar for removal higher than the constitutional and statutory provisions that address ministers, deputy ministers and mayors. This might serve as an additional basis for distinguishing the existing precedents in the case of the prime minister. Articles 23(b) and 27 of the Basic Law provide that a government minister or deputy minister convicted of an offense with moral turpitude would automatically be removed from office once the verdict is rendered. Unlike the prime minister, they cannot remain in office until the verdict becomes final. Article 20 of the Tenure Statute provides that a mayor would be automatically suspended if convicted with moral turpitude until the verdict becomes final. No such provision exists in the Basic Law with regard to the prime minister, which indicates that the Knesset intended to bestow a more robust constitutional protection from removal upon the prime minister.

Moreover, judicial interference in this unique context creates problems for democratic legitimacy. If the court rules that Netanyahu is incompetent to serve as prime minister due to the criminal charges against him, it would essentially recognize the unelected attorney generals power to remove a prime minister by indictment.

On the other hand, judicial approval of Netanyahus competence would send the message that pervasive corruption can be tolerated, even when it directly involves alleged abuse of the office of prime minister. Such a ruling could lead to a situation in which a prime minister faces a criminal trial while overseeing and working closely with the very institutions that participate in his prosecution. It would uphold a reality that creates a serious conflict between the prime ministers self-interest and the best interests of Israel.

It would also be in tension with previous case law that required the dismissal or resignation of officials who faced serious indictments without waiting for them to be convicted, even though the Basic Law required removal only after conviction. Under existing case law, statutory removal requirements do not exhaust the circumstances in which an elected officials tenure could be terminated due to alleged criminal wrongdoing. In fact, under existing law, Netanyahu was forced to resign from the four ministerial positions he had held in addition to being prime minister. The absurdity should be evident: How can it be that Netanyahu is legally barred from serving as an ordinary minister, but not as prime minister?

Finally, Israels parliamentary system means that barring Netanyahu from receiving the mandate to form a governmentbe it by decision of the president or as a result of a subsequent Supreme Court rulingwould not necessarily abrogate the will of those who voted for the Likud party. The prime minister is not elected directly but is the member of the Knesset who succeeds in building a majority coalition. And even then, the president has discretion in granting the mandate to form a government, so a different Likud member may be able to form a government.

Focusing on the presidents decision would arguably circumvent the problemdiscussed in the excerpt aboveof overriding the Knessets decision not to remove a prime minister already serving with its confidence. The presidents exercise of his discretion in allocating the mandate to form a government could serve as a hook for judicial review. As the Supreme Court just made clear, it would be lawful for the president to consider Netanyahus indictment (and possibly his previous failures to form a government) in assigning the mandate even if Netanyahu pulls together a majority coalition after the elections.

For these reasons, while the courts wait-and-see approach may be prudent, it is also problematic. There is an argument to be made that if the court is to disqualify Netanyahu at some point, it is better to do so before the elections. First, the public has a right to know whether the head of the party they might be voting for, who personifies and tightly controls that party, is even eligible to continue as prime minister. Another round of elections that ends in deadlock because of questions and litigation about the eligibility of Netanyahu to serve as prime minister would further undermine an already fragile and nearly dysfunctional Israeli democracy.

Second, Netanyahu is currently a caretaker prime ministerthat is, prime minister by default due to the political deadlock. He does not enjoy the confidence of the Knesset, having twice tried and failed to assemble a coalition capable of receiving that confidence. From a constitutional perspective, disqualifying a prime minister in the current situation is different from disqualifying a prime minister who heads a coalition that has the support of the majority of the Knesset and thus enjoys political and public legitimacy. It would not abrogate the will of the voters, expressed through their elected officials, to the same degree as disqualifying a prime minister who enjoys the confidence of the Knesset.

But the courts decision to stay away from the matter for now means that this ship has sailed. If Netanyahu manages to secure a majority after the March elections, his political fate will come down to the outcome of the immunity vote and the presidents decisionand the likely review of these decisions by the Supreme Court. There is no telling what the political repercussions of such a constitutional showdown would be.

Follow this link:
Netanyahu and the Anatomy of a Constitutional Crisis - Lawfare

Anatomy

Anatomy of the GAO Trump Smear – Newsmax

The anti-Trump chorus is breathlessly declaring that the January 16 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report asserts Trump broke the law regarding Ukraine aid.

That is not what the report states and that is not what happened.

The GAO serves a vital oversight function for the Federal Government. Annually, GAO reports on waste, fraud, and mismanagement identify billions of dollars in potential savings. The Agency studiously avoids politics by outlining procedural and legal compliance issues.

GAO Report B-331564 is different, as it is incomplete on facts while overstating the Trump Administrations noncompliance with a controversial law.

The report never admits that the Ukraine Aid in question was, in fact, released on September 11, prior to the deadline of September 30, 2019.

This omission is fundamental to the entire Ukraine matter and undermines GAOs credibility.

The GAO report centers on the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). This was passed as part of Congress reining-in President Richard Nixon. Nixon had impounded funds for many programs and agencies to counter Congressional spending sprees. His actions continued a long-standing practice, going back to Thomas Jefferson, of presidents exercising fiscal discipline to thwart Congressional overspending.

The Congress took advantage of Nixons ebbing power by pushing through the ICA and other legislation to open the spending flood gates. Discretionary spending has ballooned out of control ever since.

Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have attempted to restore the balance in budgeting and spending policy. The GAOs Ukraine report cites numerous court cases where Clinton and other presidents have sought court assistance to set limits and clarify processes.

All funds were released prior to the Congressional deadline. The delay in releasing Ukraine funds never crossed these legal lines.

In fact, the delays fully complied with the law authorizing the funds (PL 115-232), as it explicitly stated that, In order to obligate more than fifty percent of the amount appropriated, DOD was also required to certify to Congress that Ukraine had taken substantial actions on defense institutional reforms.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued numerous apportionment schedules with footnotes explaining the delay in releasing the funds was to allow for an interagency process to determine best use of such funds. Each memo consistently stated that, this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DODs timely execution of the final policy direction.

One part of the foreign military financing (FMF) earmarked for Ukraine was delayed only six days.

The GAO Ukraine report, clearly states that:

The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligationbut not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special messageby proposing a deferral. 2 U.S.C. 684

At no point in the Ukraine Report does the GAO find that OMB or the president triggered a deferral or impoundment. Therefore, there was no violation of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

However, the GAO pours through countless memos from the OMB, as well as OMB responses to GAO questions. Unfortunately, OMBs responses dug avoidable holes into which the Trump Administration fell by raising needless challenges to the ICA.

OMB engaged in a battle it did not need to fight. This triggered GAO having to recount the ICA battles from other Administrations and pointing out the flaws in OMBs arguments. OMB responded by not responding. As the GAO-OMB dialogue dissipated, political rhetoric seeped-in.

The GAO stepped over their line by asserting there may be potential impoundments where none exist. You either impound or you dont. There is no potential. The GAO ascribes policy reasons for the delay of funds without providing any evidence.

Finally, to carve out its own place in the Impeachment, the GAO violated decades of its own professional code of conduct by declaring, We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a dedicated Never-Trumper, requested the GAO Ukraine report on October 30, 2019. He kept demanding GAO provide a report sooner versus later in a letter dated December 23, 2019. The GAO admits that its report is a work in progress and states it is waiting on additional information from the State Department and OMB.

Unfortunately, Thomas Armstrong, GAO General Counsel, was willing to risk the agencys reputation as the gold standard of oversight, by prematurely releasing an incomplete and flawed report, immediately relegating it to just another politically charged smear.

Scot Faulkner is the best-selling author of: "Naked Emperors: The Failure of the Republican Revolution." He also served as the first chief administrative officer of the U.S. House, and was director of personnel for the Reagan campaign and went on to serve in the presidential transition team and on the White House staff. During the Reagan administration, he held executive positions at the FAA, the GSA, and the Peace Corps. Read more of Scot Faulker, Go Here Now.

2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Follow this link:
Anatomy of the GAO Trump Smear - Newsmax

Anatomy

Greys Anatomy Time Jump Twist: The Season 16 Premiere Will Choose Up – Sunriseread

Grays Anatomy will likely be doing the time warp once more when it returns for Season 16 later this month, however theres a catch.

Showrunner Krista Vernoff tells TVLine that the Thursday, Sept. 26, opener will decide up moments from the place we left off within the Season 15 finale, and the entire lingering cliffhangers i.e. Meredith, Richard and Alex receiving pink slips, DeLuca sporting jail orange and Jackson vanishing into skinny air thick fog will likely be addressed fairly instantly.

However shortly thereafter, the clock will start to tick however rapidly. Well then span just a little little bit of time over the course of the hour, reveals Vernoff by the use of describing the weird time-jump situation. How a lot time will lapse by the top of the premiere? I might slightly not reveal that, she says, holding her playing cards near her vest.

Whatever the leap aheads precise size (be it weeks or months or years?), Vernoff guarantees that there will likely be fallout from the varied conflicts significantly the place Meredith and DeLuca are involved.

Theyve acquired to navigate the complexities of a brand new relationship within the wake of Meredith having been fired and having damaged the regulation, previews the EP. There are stressors on their very new relationship coming from the ramifications of these choices final season.

For extra intel on Grays Anatomys 16th season, try TVLines densely-packed, just-published Fall Preview Scoop Spectacular.

Read more:
Greys Anatomy Time Jump Twist: The Season 16 Premiere Will Choose Up - Sunriseread

Anatomy

‘Uncut Gems’ | Anatomy of a Scene – The New York Times

Hello, this is Josh Safdie. And this is Benny Safdie. Were the directors of Uncut Gems. Were jumping in here after a good stretch of Howards life. But he was just abandoned and ditched at a practice facility, so hes a little concerned about his gem. And hes here back with his family, his domicile, basically, his pack. And were meeting him in the middle of a status exchange with another Long Island family. What greater setting to be than in a school play, a mandatory attendance thing. And youre here with people who I think identify setting more than anything. O.K. What are you going to do for Passover? Is your sister coming? Uh, yeah. What are doing? Who do you got? Watching for LeBron. I got six different people playing six different games. Hey, were all making salt. Hey! Who tapped me? Who was that? I call this the head turning scene because theres so many head turns back and forth, back and forth, between each person, like perspective switches. Whats going on in Howards life. And this here, the narrative here, these two gentlemen are a reminder of the bigger threat in Howards life, the money that he owes, and figuring out a way to get into it. Overt narrative plotting is always something we feel so self-conscious about, so having it come through a Where you going? Daddys got to game in jest with his kid. The way he bonds with everybody is through jest, and the classic tap shoulder gag actually leads him to the reminder of the things that are lurking behind him. And it was on this scene, I remember the AD was trying to have everybody be quiet, and we got very upset, because we wanted everybody to be talking. In this scenario, everybody needed to be loud, because it needed to reflect a real auditorium. And of course, it causes problems later on with editing, but the whole point is to get the performances to be real. This action sequence, as well call it, we shot at the end of a 14, 15-hour day. And I kind of like that pressure, because I believe that violence is sloppy. It is unchoreographed. It is matter-of-fact. And that little sequence in the hallway we just saw was that. And here This too. This as well. One take, remember? And his daughter thats probably one of the most embarrassing things that can happen to you. Your psychotic, maniacal, loving weird dad is running through I actually love watching certain parts of the movie when you know it was the last thing you filmed on a day. Something that always that scene in the hallway is one of those. This sequence, this exterior sequence here, Darius spent a day or two lighting, I think a day of pre-lighting. And Eric Bogosian, who plays Arno, his brother-in-law, this is his introduction to his character, and to meet him in slow motion where you cant hear him, I find it to be even more menacing. And Eric actually said because he had done that drive a bunch of times. The first time he pulled up, and he saw Sandler run out of that school wearing loafers, running on that grass, getting tackled by these guys, he says, O.K., this is a different kind of movie. I remember when we did that scene, it was a very complicated choreography with a big cart, and a camera. And you kind of feel the pressure of everybody saying, oh, I wonder how theyre going to do this with non-actors, all this stuff. And on the first take, everybody just nailed it. It was very exciting.

Read the original post:
'Uncut Gems' | Anatomy of a Scene - The New York Times

Anatomy

Anatomy of a DUI: What happens when you get pulled over in Colorado? – Vail Daily News

A traveler being pulled over for driving under the influence is common in Summit County.

The Fifth Judicial District composed of Summit, Lake, Eagle and Clear Creek counties and nestled among a number of other trouble areas in northwest Colorado reports the second highest rate of DUIs per capita in the state.

The underlying causes of the areas problem are varied and inflated by tourists flocking to the county during high seasons in winter and summer along with a culture of heavy substance use among visitors and residents.

Punishments for getting behind the wheel while impaired can also be wide-ranging, including losing your drivers license, hefty fines and even significant jail time in more serious cases. But according to officials, many community members dont fully understand the potential consequences of a DUI offense or what to expect when they first see the flashing lights in their rearview mirror.

The idea of getting pulled over is never a fun prospect, and while sober drivers are more likely to leave the interaction with an officers business card than a ticket, anyone exhibiting clear signs of intoxication could be in for a long night.

The biggest thing is that we consider a totality of the circumstances, said Summit County Sheriffs Office Sgt. Mark Gafari, who allowed the Summit Daily News to participate in a ride-along earlier this month to get a first-hand look at how law enforcement agents patrol the area and what theyre looking for in regard to impaired drivers.

Alcohol can affect people very differently, Gafari said. It depends on if they ate, how much, are they used to drinking and a number of other factors. For us, it comes down to the driving actions and our personal observations. But we also have to remember that someone could be driving poorly because theyre lost, or they could be having a medical episode or something else. Our job is to go and have a polite conversation and check whats going on.

Getting pulled over

Gafari said impaired driving arrests are largely based around three factors. The first is called vehicle in motion observations, or the reason a traffic stop was initiated in the first place, such as a driver weaving on the roadway, driving at unusually slow or fast speeds, or exhibiting delayed or strange reactions like stopping at a green light, among other possible reasons.

The second factor is observations during the personal contact phase, in which an officer will try to determine if the abnormal driving behavior may be related to substance use, such as a strong smell of alcohol, slurred speech, trouble understanding an officers questions, slow reactions when handing over paperwork and more.

If an officer feels inebriation might be a contributor to the strange driving behavior, the driver will be asked to complete a standard field sobriety test three roadside maneuvers that have been scientifically validated to obtain indicators of impairment based on International Association of Chiefs of Police and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards.

The tests include looking for a horizontal gaze nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes), a walk and turn, and one-leg stand.

We try to do all we can to consider everything that might be going on and give them a chance and have a conversation with them, Gafari said. Because there may be things I dont know, and its important for us to be human about it and explain the reason for the stop and why were doing what were doing.

But if I think you may be unsafe to operate a motor vehicle, I may want to check, and the voluntary roadside maneuver is the best way to do that. That totality including the driving behavior and our interaction will come together to determine if youre placed into custody for suspicion of DUI or not.

After an arrest

If the driver is taken into custody, theyll be asked to submit to their choice of a chemical blood or breath test under the states express consent law. In Colorado, and the rest of the nation, drivers give consent to be tested when theyre applying for their drivers license. If substances other than alcohol are suspected, the test has to be a blood test. Blood tests are performed by medical professionals, who typically take two samples to be sent to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and an independent lab of the suspects choosing for analysis.

When you sign on the dotted line on the application for a drivers license, youre consenting, when reasonably requested, to give a blood or breath test, Fifth Judicial District Attorney Bruce Brown said. They cant just pull you over for speeding and ask for a test. They have to have a reasonable suspicion that you were driving under the influence.

Drivers can refuse to submit to a test, though that triggers an automatic yearlong suspension of their driving privileges by the Colorado Department of Revenue.

Beyond criminal charges, driving under the influence cases also can include a substantial administrative process at the Department of Revenues Division of Motor Vehicles. For example, if a breath or blood test returns a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or above the national threshold for DUI offenses the DMV automatically will revoke that individuals right to drive for nine to 24 months, depending on whether theyre a repeat offender.

A driver can have their driving privileges reinstated earlier in most cases, even as soon as one month or two months if they refused a blood or breath test though that typically involves agreeing to install an interlock device in their car, essentially a blow-and-go breathalyzer that prevents the car from starting if any alcohol is detected.

Its understandable people get lost in that quagmire because it seems like the court is the place to address this, said Summit County Judge Edward Casias, who handles a majority of the countys DUI cases. Thats purely an administrative process, and the court has nothing to do with it. I cant order the DMV to let someone drive.

After an arrest, offenders will typically be booked into the jail, fingerprinted, photographed, released on bond usually about $1,000 on a first offense and are either issued a summons to return to court or appear before a judge. After the first advisement, theres usually a period between hearings so the alleged offender can review their police reports, properly understand their charges, consult with an attorney and determine what path to take whether its pleading guilty, preparing a defense or providing new information to the District Attorneys Office.

Going to court

According to Brown, first-time DUI offenders frequently negotiate a settlement to a less severe charge of driving while ability impaired (DWAI), and a huge majority of offenders end up pleading guilty.

Over 90% of people who are charged with driving under the influence end up pleading guilty, Brown said. About 5% of those cases are dismissed or reduced to a charge less than a DWAI, and 5% or less would go to trial. Thats based on a nationwide statistical analysis, and weve done them here, and we are pretty consistent.

According to the 2019 Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol report prepared by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, suspects were found guilty in more than 81% of DUI cases in 2017 statewide, and cases were dismissed in 9.7% of cases.

Driving under the influence charges are typically misdemeanor offenses, but can rise to the level of a felony for individuals with three prior convictions. By Colorado statute, the possible penalties for a DUI offense typically include five days to a year in jail (not mandatory), a $600 to $1,000 fine, 48-96 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, DUI classes and treatment, and the likely suspension of the drivers license along with court fees. Penalties for a DWAI are somewhat less severe, including a potential two to 180 days in jail, a $200 to $500 fine, 24-48 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, classes, court costs and eight points off the drivers license.

Casias said individuals with aggravating factors in their cases, such as a high blood alcohol content, also could get supervised probation as part of their sentence, which requires an additional $600 supervision fee per year. Casias also noted that hell almost always include at least a small jail sentence for anyone who comes in with a blood alcoholcontent higher than 0.159.

Its more than twice the legal limit and over three times the limit for a DWAI, Casias said. That indicates the person definitely should have felt it and should have known they were too drunk to get behind the wheel. So theyre going to do a weekend in jail.

But offenders typically end up paying more than just fines, and the costs can add up. With court costs and required treatment classes alone not factoring in potential costs of an interlock device, attorney fees, rising insurance costs or any loss of wages a first-time DWAI offender will end up paying about $1,971, according to Casias. For a first-time DUI offender, the price tag goes up to about $2,560. These numbers assume the lowest level education and treatment course, which requires 21 weeks of treatment and 12 weeks of education courses at $35 a session.

Brown said drivers can receive some form of DUI charge even if their blood alcohol content doesnt reach the presumptive limits for a DUI (0.08) or DWAI (0.05), but said its fairly rare.

The punishments get more severe for reoffenders, though Brown said sentences for first-time offenders are designed to send a message and hopefully push that individual into making better decisions in the future or seeking out substance use treatment, if necessary.

If you go out and talk to your friends or co-workers, many people have suffered a DUI, Brown said. So the fact that someone is convicted doesnt become a moral judgment but an indicator that they might have a substance abuse problem. The primary purpose is to make sure that they get an opportunity to recognize the danger involved, to understand their relationship with alcohol and that they may have behavior that needs to be changed.

Attending classes

To that end, every offender is asked to complete an alcohol and drug education course or, in more severe cases, months of education courses and treatment programs.

For individuals in treatment, sessions are largely based around removing the shame around the offense, increasing awareness and responsibility, and better understanding the circumstances behind the offense.

I think its really important that people understand that this can happen to anybody, said Andrea Brown, a substance use counselor at Alpine Springs Counseling, who teaches courses out of Breckenridge. Ive had first responders, attorneys and everyone else. But this treatment is absolutely, though frustrating, essential. It can help people make better decisions and take the shame out of the equation. Its also important that people know theyll be treated respectfully when they come into one of our groups.

While the education groups are fairly structured, with an actual curriculum mandated by the state, Andrea Brown said counseling sessions are much more flexible allowing participants to push the conversation in the direction most useful to them, whether that means discussions around what is contributing to the areas problems, overcoming triggers or other topics.

According to Andrea Brown, the classes often pay dividends for participants.

Ive only seen a couple of instances where people have come back into the system, she said. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean the average person has learned something, even if its just that they can download Uber. I think what were seeing is that its not just teaching them about sobriety. Were not here to make you feel bad about drinking but rather looking at where your drinking leads to poor decision making that resulted in getting in a car. Were looking at how we can have a more healthy awareness of how to care for ourselves and other people. I do think these groups help dramatically.

See original here:
Anatomy of a DUI: What happens when you get pulled over in Colorado? - Vail Daily News

Anatomy

Mapped: The Anatomy of Land Use in the United States – Visual Capitalist

The United States is not just an economic and political giant on the global stagethe country also has one of the largest land masses at its disposal.

Altogether, the country spans 3.8 million square miles (9.8 million km)making it the third largest country in the world. Even without factoring Alaska and Hawaii into the calculations, the contiguous U.S. land mass can fit up to 30 European countries within it.

With this much ground to work with, it raises the natural question of how land actually gets used by Americas economy. For example, what percentage of land is taken up by urban areas, and how much farmland and forests exist in comparison?

Todays maps from the McHarg Center put Americas wide variety of land uses into perspective.

As the U.S. prepares to add 100 million more people this century, the 2100 Project: An Atlas for the Green New Deal provides a snapshot of U.S. land use (as of 2017), aimed at managing resources to support this future.

According to this data, here is a snapshot of land use in the Lower 48 States:

Lets dive into the specifics of three types of land: urban areas, forests, and agriculture.

Editors note: click on any map below to see a large, high-resolution version, which will open in a new window.

Its clear that even a little space goes a long way. Although urban areas take up only 2% of land, an overwhelming majority of Americans call cities their home. As of 2018, urbanites made up over 82% of the U.S. population.

Where people go, productivity often follows. In 2018, its estimated that 31 county economies made up a whopping 32% of national GDP. Most of these counties were located in and around major cities, such as Los Angeles or New York.

Although urban areas are a small part of the overall land theyre built on, theyre integral to the nations continued growth. According to research by the McKinsey Global Institute, its estimated that by 2030, 60% of job growth could come from just 25 hubs.

On the flipside, forests account for over a quarter of land in the U.S., divided almost evenly between deciduous and evergreen trees. Many protected national and state parks can also be found in and around forests.

On the mainland, California and Oregon are the states with the most forested landunfortunately, they have also been plagued by wildfires in recent, dry summer months.

Wetlands are also included in the map above, particularly around the southern tip of Florida, where Everglades National Park is located. Over the years, many wetlands were drained to make way for agriculture, particularly in the Great Lakes megaregion. As a result, its estimated that their area today is only half of what they once used to be.

Last but not least, the final set of maps show where America grows its food. Agricultural, food, and related industries contributed $1.05 trillion (5.4%) to U.S. GDP in 2017.

Wheat, corn, and soybeans are the major crops grown in the U.S.and cotton also makes the cut as a profitable non-food crop. Much of these crops feed not only Americans, but other parts of the world too. Soybeans, corn, and wheat are exported across the Pacific mainly to China and Japan.

Corn, in particular, is a unique crop with a myriad of uses, from food to fuels. Up to 40% of U.S. corn is turned into livestock feed, with cows consuming over half (56%) of this amount.

At present, the U.S. is the worlds largest beef producer, followed by Brazil. In fact, beef production takes up 40% of total livestock-related land use domestically.

Although fewer American consumers are opting for meat in their diets, production has remained at high rates. Further, as incomes continues to increase worldwide, the global appetite for meat is set to rise along with it.

The U.S. population is set to grow by 100 million more people over the coming decades, raising the pressure on limited U.S. land and natural resources. This pressure will be felt everywhere, from dense urban land to agricultural farmland.

How the land gets utilized will shape the countrys future for years to come.

Thank you!

Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!

Please provide a valid email address.

Please complete the CAPTCHA.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Read the original here:
Mapped: The Anatomy of Land Use in the United States - Visual Capitalist

Anatomy

Its So Hard to Say Good-bye to Alex Karev – Vulture

Alex is without a doubt the Greys character who has grown the most, making Justin Chamberss unceremonious exit from the series a particularly devastating blow. Photo: Kelsey McNeal/ABC

When Greys Anatomy premiered in late March of 2005, George W. Bush was president, Taylor Swift had not yet crawled from the primordial goo of Big Machine Records, and Hitch was in theaters. The series is still on the air in 2020, and remains an unparalleled viewing experience precisely because of how extensively viewers have sat with its characters. Devotions grow stronger with time. So, too, do devastations, in particular the shows most recent: longtime cast member Justin Chamberss unceremonious exit as Alex Karev.

News of Chamberss exit came on January 10 and sent viewers into a tailspin. Aside from Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo) herself, Alex is the only remaining member of the shows original intern class. The last time we saw him was in the shows 350th episode, supporting Meredith by reading aloud letters written by characters who left the show in years past. The scene was a tearjerker when it aired, but now it plays with a painfully irony. In the following episode, when Alexs wife, Jo (Camilla Luddington), brought home a baby from a fire station, Alexs reaction was left as a cliffhanger. Now, troublingly, Deadline and TVLine report that the 350th episode will likely be Chamberss last, meaning it looks like whatever resolution we get to that cliffhanger will happen offscreen when the show returns on January 23.

As it stands, Chamberss exit serves as a reminder: Attachments to characters can get awfully tricky when theyre intrinsically tied to opaque, behind-the-scenes drama. And for Greys, which has never been a show without mess, onscreen or off, its one more blow for a show thats become known for its sloppy good-byes.

It can be hard to emotionally invest in a show when it has the same turnover rate as the average media company. Viewers mourn every loss most involving viscerally realized characters who were in their lives more continually than most art ever is. Most series with similar longevity to Greys are procedurals or daytime soaps, but while Greys has heaping elements of both, it is at its core a character drama. And when youre watching for the characters, what happens to them at the end of the day really matters.

When Alex was introduced in the Greys pilot, he was a trashy nightmare of a man: sexist, cocky, and sneering, a foil to the more earnest surgical interns who took center stage. Over 15 years, though, Alex became an empathetic best friend and husband, a tried and true leader, and a literal savior of babies. He is without a doubt the Greys character who has grown the most. Redemption of the asshole is a classic arc, seen on everything from The O.C. to Game of Thrones, but most shows attempting the trope do so in one season, maybe five. But that sort of character development takes on a different weight over 15 years, allowing a character to grow more like people actually do in real life:with baby steps forward and massive slides back. When you spend that kind of time with a character, no amount of healthy perspective on their fictionality can keep them from seeming like an old friend.

But the revolving door of the shows cast repeatedly and often clunkily reminds us that these characters are not friends. Theyre cogs within an industry, their fates dictated by the unknown whims of the producers, studios, and actors who bring them to life by real people with real needs and wants and conflicts that can, and should, take precedence over those of fictional characters. The average viewer, though, cant expect to be privy to every goings-on in a workplace far separated from their own lives. For them, these Hollywood dramas create a disjointed viewing experience especially in a show that immerses you so fully and so emotionally in the long haul.

It doesnt help that the cast turnover on Greys is storied, to say the least. Preston Burke (Isaiah Washington) was the first major character to leave the show, following an incident where Washington used a homophobic slur against co-star T.R. Knight, who played George OMalley. In June 2007, ABC announced it wouldnt renew Washingtons contract; at the end of the season Burke left fiance Cristina Yang (Sandra Oh) at the altar. Knight himself departed soon after. George all but disappeared from season five, even before throwing himself in front of a bus offscreen and dying at the end of it. His was the first major character death in the show, establishing the kind of fictional wounds Greys would inflict, heal, and reopen for years to come.

At the beginning of season six the show introduced six new characters, only to kill off two of them in a mass shooting in the finale, a brutal layoff if there ever was one. That season also saw the hasty exit of Katherine Heigl, whose feud with the show is the stuff of legend. Somehow her character didnt die, despite having an aggressive form of cancer, but more onscreen killings were to come in later seasons via Mark Sloan (Eric Dane), Lexie Grey (Chyler Leigh), and Derek McDreamy Shepherd (Patrick Dempsey). The latter was most shocking Derek was the male lead, and the show continuing without him felt like an impossibility, especially to longtime fans. And yet the series saw a ratings resurgence after his death. The reason is simple: Audiences had already put in over a decade with Meredith. They cared about her, and now she was a widow. Just as they had to adjust to his absence, they had to know how she would, too.

The exits werent over, though: Callie Torres (Sara Ramirez) flew into the sunset with a milquetoast love interest in season 12. In season 14, producers let go Jessica Capshaw and Sarah Drew, who played Arizona Robbins and April Kepner, respectively. They cited creative reasons, and fans signed petitions.

The shows most artful exit was Ohs. When she decided to leave behind Cristina Yang in season ten, the show gave her a whole farewell arc full of bittersweet tears and a shiny new hospital in Zurich. It was a good-bye that honored what the character had meant to the show for a decade. With Cristina gone, though, there was a void. Meredith didnt have a best friend anymore. Into that void stepped Alex Karev. He became Merediths person the moniker Greys gives to the kind of best friend who is truly ride or die. As he and Meredith struggled together and leaned on each other, Alex became as integral to the soul of the show as Cristina was before him. Now it seems audiences might not get a good-bye for Alex Karev. He might just disappear, the reasons behind his exit still unclear to the general public. For the writers, it presents an unenviable creative task. For audiences, its a painful dive into the uncanny valley a character who felt so real now just gone.

At its best, Greys is a remarkable viewing experience. Its narrative maximalism, able to tell challenging stories about heartbreak and revival through the sheer volume of what its characters have been through. Theyve been beaten, drowned, had brain tumors and C-sections in the woods, and everyone they love has left or died. Seeing them come back from these things is a reminder that we all can. That approach has an edge to it, though. Tip a narrative about survival too far in one direction and it becomes one about nihilism.

Greys has always risen from its own ashes, and it may just well surprise us again. At this point it will probably outlive us all. But the disappearance of Alex Karev is more than just another casualty for the pile. His departure is one more nail in the coffin of the found family that made this shows heart beat in the first place.

Here is the original post:
Its So Hard to Say Good-bye to Alex Karev - Vulture

Anatomy

Anatomy of a DUI: What happens when you get pulled over? – Summit Daily News

FRISCO A traveler being pulled over for driving under the influence is common in Summit County.

The Fifth Judicial District composed of Summit, Lake, Eagle and Clear Creek counties and nestled among a number of other trouble areas in northwest Colorado reports the second highest rate of DUIs per capita in the state.

The underlying causes of the areas problem are varied and inflated by tourists flocking to the county during high seasons in winter and summer along with a culture of heavy substance use among visitors and residents.

Punishments for getting behind the wheel while impaired can also be wide-ranging, including losing your drivers license, hefty fines and even significant jail time in more serious cases. But according to officials, many community members dont fully understand the potential consequences of a DUI offense or what to expect when they first see the flashing lights in their rearview mirror.

The idea of getting pulled over is never a fun prospect, and while sober drivers are more likely to leave the interaction with an officers business card than a ticket, anyone exhibiting clear signs of intoxication could be in for a long night.

The biggest thing is that we consider a totality of the circumstances, said Summit County Sheriffs Office Sgt. Mark Gafari, who allowed the Summit Daily News to participate in a ride-along earlier this month to get a first-hand look at how law enforcement agents patrol the area and what theyre looking for in regard to impaired drivers.

Alcohol can affect people very differently, Gafari said. It depends on if they ate, how much, are they used to drinking and a number of other factors. For us, it comes down to the driving actions and our personal observations. But we also have to remember that someone could be driving poorly because theyre lost, or they could be having a medical episode or something else. Our job is to go and have a polite conversation and check whats going on.

Getting pulled over

Gafari said impaired driving arrests are largely based around three factors. The first is called vehicle in motion observations, or the reason a traffic stop was initiated in the first place, such as a driver weaving on the roadway, driving at unusually slow or fast speeds, or exhibiting delayed or strange reactions like stopping at a green light, among other possible reasons.

The second factor is observations during the personal contact phase, in which an officer will try to determine if the abnormal driving behavior may be related to substance use, such as a strong smell of alcohol, slurred speech, trouble understanding an officers questions, slow reactions when handing over paperwork and more.

If an officer feels inebriation might be a contributor to the strange driving behavior, the driver will be asked to complete a standard field sobriety test three roadside maneuvers that have been scientifically validated to obtain indicators of impairment based on International Association of Chiefs of Police and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards.

The tests include looking for a horizontal gaze nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes), a walk and turn, and one-leg stand.

We try to do all we can to consider everything that might be going on and give them a chance and have a conversation with them, Gafari said. Because there may be things I dont know, and its important for us to be human about it and explain the reason for the stop and why were doing what were doing.

But if I think you may be unsafe to operate a motor vehicle, I may want to check, and the voluntary roadside maneuver is the best way to do that. That totality including the driving behavior and our interaction will come together to determine if youre placed into custody for suspicion of DUI or not.

After an arrest

If the driver is taken into custody, theyll be asked to submit to their choice of a chemical blood or breath test under the states express consent law. In Colorado, and the rest of the nation, drivers give consent to be tested when theyre applying for their drivers license. If substances other than alcohol are suspected, the test has to be a blood test. Blood tests are performed by medical professionals, who typically take two samples to be sent to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and an independent lab of the suspects choosing for analysis.

When you sign on the dotted line on the application for a drivers license, youre consenting, when reasonably requested, to give a blood or breath test, Fifth Judicial District Attorney Bruce Brown said. They cant just pull you over for speeding and ask for a test. They have to have a reasonable suspicion that you were driving under the influence.

Drivers can refuse to submit to a test, though that triggers an automatic yearlong suspension of their driving privileges by the Colorado Department of Revenue.

Beyond criminal charges, driving under the influence cases also can include a substantial administrative process at the Department of Revenues Division of Motor Vehicles. For example, if a breath or blood test returns a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or above the national threshold for DUI offenses the DMV automatically will revoke that individuals right to drive for nine to 24 months, depending on whether theyre a repeat offender.

A driver can have their driving privileges reinstated earlier in most cases, even as soon as one month or two months if they refused a blood or breath test though that typically involves agreeing to install an interlock device in their car, essentially a blow-and-go breathalyzer that prevents the car from starting if any alcohol is detected.

Its understandable people get lost in that quagmire because it seems like the court is the place to address this, said Summit County Judge Edward Casias, who handles a majority of the countys DUI cases. Thats purely an administrative process, and the court has nothing to do with it. I cant order the DMV to let someone drive.

After an arrest, offenders will typically be booked into the jail, fingerprinted, photographed, released on bond usually about $1,000 on a first offense and are either issued a summons to return to court or appear before a judge. After the first advisement, theres usually a period between hearings so the alleged offender can review their police reports, properly understand their charges, consult with an attorney and determine what path to take whether its pleading guilty, preparing a defense or providing new information to the District Attorneys Office.

Going to court

According to Brown, first-time DUI offenders frequently negotiate a settlement to a less severe charge of driving while ability impaired (DWAI), and a huge majority of offenders end up pleading guilty.

Over 90% of people who are charged with driving under the influence end up pleading guilty, Brown said. About 5% of those cases are dismissed or reduced to a charge less than a DWAI, and 5% or less would go to trial. Thats based on a nationwide statistical analysis, and weve done them here, and we are pretty consistent.

According to the 2019 Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol report prepared by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, suspects were found guilty in more than 81% of DUI cases in 2017 statewide, and cases were dismissed in 9.7% of cases.

Driving under the influence charges are typically misdemeanor offenses, but can rise to the level of a felony for individuals with three prior convictions. By Colorado statute, the possible penalties for a DUI offense typically include five days to a year in jail (not mandatory), a $600 to $1,000 fine, 48-96 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, DUI classes and treatment, and the likely suspension of the drivers license along with court fees. Penalties for a DWAI are somewhat less severe, including a potential two to 180 days in jail, a $200 to $500 fine, 24-48 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, classes, court costs and eight points off the drivers license.

Casias said individuals with aggravating factors in their cases, such as a high blood alcohol content, also could get supervised probation as part of their sentence, which requires an additional $600 supervision fee per year. Casias also noted that hell almost always include at least a small jail sentence for anyone who comes in with a blood alcoholcontent higher than 0.159.

Its more than twice the legal limit and over three times the limit for a DWAI, Casias said. That indicates the person definitely should have felt it and should have known they were too drunk to get behind the wheel. So theyre going to do a weekend in jail.

But offenders typically end up paying more than just fines, and the costs can add up. With court costs and required treatment classes alone not factoring in potential costs of an interlock device, attorney fees, rising insurance costs or any loss of wages a first-time DWAI offender will end up paying about $1,971, according to Casias. For a first-time DUI offender, the price tag goes up to about $2,560. These numbers assume the lowest level education and treatment course, which requires 21 weeks of treatment and 12 weeks of education courses at $35 a session.

Brown said drivers can receive some form of DUI charge even if their blood alcohol content doesnt reach the presumptive limits for a DUI (0.08) or DWAI (0.05), but said its fairly rare.

The punishments get more severe for reoffenders, though Brown said sentences for first-time offenders are designed to send a message and hopefully push that individual into making better decisions in the future or seeking out substance use treatment, if necessary.

If you go out and talk to your friends or co-workers, many people have suffered a DUI, Brown said. So the fact that someone is convicted doesnt become a moral judgment but an indicator that they might have a substance abuse problem. The primary purpose is to make sure that they get an opportunity to recognize the danger involved, to understand their relationship with alcohol and that they may have behavior that needs to be changed.

Attending classes

To that end, every offender is asked to complete an alcohol and drug education course or, in more severe cases, months of education courses and treatment programs.

For individuals in treatment, sessions are largely based around removing the shame around the offense, increasing awareness and responsibility, and better understanding the circumstances behind the offense.

I think its really important that people understand that this can happen to anybody, said Andrea Brown, a substance use counselor at Alpine Springs Counseling, who teaches courses out of Breckenridge. Ive had first responders, attorneys and everyone else. But this treatment is absolutely, though frustrating, essential. It can help people make better decisions and take the shame out of the equation. Its also important that people know theyll be treated respectfully when they come into one of our groups.

While the education groups are fairly structured, with an actual curriculum mandated by the state, Andrea Brown said counseling sessions are much more flexible allowing participants to push the conversation in the direction most useful to them, whether that means discussions around what is contributing to the areas problems, overcoming triggers or other topics.

According to Andrea Brown, the classes often pay dividends for participants.

Ive only seen a couple of instances where people have come back into the system, she said. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean the average person has learned something, even if its just that they can download Uber. I think what were seeing is that its not just teaching them about sobriety. Were not here to make you feel bad about drinking but rather looking at where your drinking leads to poor decision making that resulted in getting in a car. Were looking at how we can have a more healthy awareness of how to care for ourselves and other people. I do think these groups help dramatically.

Visit link:
Anatomy of a DUI: What happens when you get pulled over? - Summit Daily News