Thursday, September 12, 2024
Home Blog Page 265

Prominent Guatemalan writer receives Nobel Prize

by Isabel Soto Mayedo

Although the Nobel Prize sparked controversy due to its unmerited award to certain characters, still it is celebrated with satisfaction the one given today to the Guatemalan writer Miguel Ángel Asturias.
In particular, Latin America is still proud of the prize delivered 48 years ago the author of Mr. President (1946), Men of Corn (1949), and the epic trilogy Strong wind, The Green Pope and The Eyes of the Buried, to name a few.
These latter novels marked the literary career as a few who managed to outline the profile of a Latin American dictator, in the form of satire, and denounce in a clear way the excesses of the fruit monopoly US United Fruit Company.
The review of the work of the Nobel Prize for Literature on Oct. 19, 1967, while serving as ambassador of Guatemala in France, confirms the accuracy of the arguments used to announce it.
Asturias (1899-1974) was the third Latin American and Caribbean to receive it -after Gabriela Mistral (Chile, 1945) and Saint-John Perse (Guadalupe, 1960) – and is one of the novelists of this continent that had an impact on the development of world literature.
At the same time, it is considered by specialists as the first to show the way in which Anthropology and Linguistics studies could influence in the narrative.
Despite this, for many years the Swedish Academy denied this recognition due to his alleged Marxist affiliation and the radical nature of his statements regarding the arms race and the lack of commitments of those involved in this artistic demonstration towards their people.
‘I think it is necessary to publicize the problems of our country and the best way is through the novel and literature’ said Guatemalan journalist and diplomat, in the field of tributes around the announcement of the Nobel Prize awarded to him.
At the same time he insisted that the important thing was that the great strength of this prize, amounting to about 62,000 dollars, to go to a writer from a very small country and not one with an arsenal of atomic bombs.
‘What is also important is that the prize was given to a writer who represents committed literature, not the free literature’ he said then, when was about 68 years old.

 

Juan Luis Guerra will perform for the first time in Canada
The singer from the Dominican Republic Juan Luis Guerra, winner of 15 Latin Grammy Awards, will perform for the first time in Canada, where he will offer two concerts in the context of his international tour Todo tiene su Hora, according to the media.
According to the company organizing the show, JEP Concerts, the singer, winner of two Grammy, will perform on February 12 at the L’Olympia of Montreal and on the 14th in the Powerade Centre in Toronto.
Guerra, one of the most internationally recognized Dominican artists, is promoting his latest album Todo tiene su hora, consisting of 10 songs covering several genres such as bachata, merengue, salsa and son.
The phonogram, the twelfth studio album by the singer, has achieved several nominations for the 2015 Latin Grammy Awards in the categories of Album of the Year, Record of the Year, and Best Tropical Song and Best Contemporary Tropical Album.

Venezuelan Rafael Cadenas wins poetry Prize Federico Garcia Lorca
Venezuelan poet Rafael Cadenas today won the International Poetry Prize Federico Garcia Lorca-Granada City in its twelfth edition.
The jury, chaired by the mayor of Granada, José Torres, highlighted the deliberately marginal, very quiet and lucid poetry of Cadenas, poet, essayist, university professor and National Literature Award of Venezuela in 1985.
He was selected among 43 authors of 18 nationalities and joins with this prize the list of winners that includes Rafael Guillen (2014), Eduardo Lizalde (2013), Pablo García Baena (2012), Fina García Marruz (2011) and Maria Victoria Atencio (2010).
José Manuel Caballero Bonald (2009), Tomás Segovia (2008), Francisco Brines (2007), Blanca Varela (2006), Jose Emilio Pacheco (2005) and Angel Gonzalez (2004) are also part of the list.

Is “Jury Nullification” a cause to go to jail for? Yes

I’m getting arrested tomorrow

by NJWeedman

I ask and answer this because I’ll probably be arrested on Monday Oct. 24 in front of the Ocean County Courthouse for passing out JURY NULLIFICATION awareness literature in defiance of an illegal verbal order issued by Lieutenant Green of the Ocean County Sheriff’s Department at the behest of the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office. I feel no remorse for not complying with this unconstitutional order. So I expect to be jailed; the only question is, for how long?
 How this came to be:
Last week libertarian activist and Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) member Jim Babb was ordered to leave the public area in front of the Ocean County Courthouse before being threatened with arrest and told he was being investigated for jury tampering for passing out fija.org—jury rights literature! (Please watch this video: http://fija.org/2015/10/23/juror-rights-educator-threatened-at-ocean-county-courthouse/)
This is bogus—it’s the prosecution that tampers with a jury. They are they ones who make sure the JURORS are uninformed of their rights, to ensure an advantage, to steal true justice from US—we the people.
Most people have no idea what jury nullification is, which is a shame because it was the intended barrier the Founding Fathers put in place in this country’s judicial system to prevent oppression by the government in the form of unjust, unpopular laws. So I will explain.
It’s the reason we have the Sixth and Seventh Amendments right to a JURY TRIAL—and a FAIR TRIAL. The founders of our country empowered juries to reject unpopular or unjust laws!
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “not guilty” even though its members believe the defendant is in fact guilty of the violation with which he or she is charged. The jury effectively nullifies a law that the members believe is either immoral or being wrongly applied to the defendant (whose fate they are charged with deciding).
The New Jersey Constitution actually very clearly gives jurors this right to reject a law (article 1, paragraph 6): “In all prosecutions or indictments…the truth maybe given to the jurors as evidence…the jury may judge the law as well as the facts.” It is an absolute fact that jurors in NJ have the right to judge a law and reject any law. I believe in this and have tried for years to get this information out to potential jurors. I could just as easily be called Jury Nullification Man.
Prosecutors, judges, and even defense attorneys have self-servingly conspired to withhold this information from NJ jurors, as the Ocean County authorities are doing now. They all reap the benefits of an uninformed jury; they get to pretend they are the final arbitrators of the law, when that is Constitutionally false. I’ve been to numerous trials—judges actually lie to jurors by omission. When they give instructions to a jury, NJ judges NEVER inform the jury members that their duties entail the right to judge the very law the defendant is charged with violating, as per NJ Const. art. 1, par. 6.
As a very active marijuana legalization proponent, I know the stats—the marijuana laws are the most violated and unpopular laws on the nation’s books, and most people believe marijuana should be legal. I’ve always thought, even in the most Baptist of churches, members wouldn’t want to send someone to prison for a plant “GOD” created. If they did, plenty of Baptist churchgoers would say “not guilty” in the face of actual “guilt.”
I’ve been a proponent of utilizing jury nullification as a means of ending the WAR on POT for decades. It has been clear to me since the ‘90s that if the American people knew they could simply ignore the prosecutors’ and judges’ explanation of a law and JUDGED it themselves, certain laws like the marijuana laws wouldn’t be enforced by juries. I believe there would constantly be hung juries, which is what occurred during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and with regard to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Juries rejected those laws themselves and refused to convict citizens for violating them. These actions of jurors helped destroy these unpopular laws, and I believe this is one route to ending cannabis prohibition now.
I openly have never complied with the marijuana laws. My signature quote is “F the law, smoke it anyway.” I’ve gone on trial three times for marijuana in the last 15 years. All three times I’ve tried to get my jurors to reject the law and find me not guilty despite my actually being guilty. (2-1)
During the first trial (September 2000), I was confident I could get at least one juror to reject the law and say “not guilty.” But on the third day of the trial I capitulated and accepted a plea deal. Yet, as part of my acceptance of the plea the judge—Judge Thompson—allowed me to poll my jurors after I accepted the deal. Four members of my jury indicated they would have said “not guilty” despite my having admitted to violating the NJ marijuana laws, and my insistence that the law was wrong, not I. I always regretted that plea, and my not standing by my beliefs. It was a rare moment of weakness on my part that cost me a couple years behind bars.
So when I went on trial a second time in May 2012 for possession with intent to distribute, I refused to hear any plea deals from Burlington County Prosecutor M. Luciano. Instead I represented myself and recited art. 1, par. 6 numerous times. Protestors, including Jim Babb, distributed jury nullification literature outside the BurlCo Courthouse, and the newspapers wrote about it.
I again presented a defense that I wasn’t wrong, the law was wrong. Unfortunately for Luciano, he got quite a shock when the jury hung 7-5. I knew seven jurors obviously rejected the law’s claim that I was trying to distribute.
Instead of leaving it at that “hung jury,” Unlucky Luciano decided to re-try me for the same charge in October 2012. I expected another hung jury but to my shock, the jury found me “not guilty” (12-0) despite the fact that I admitted to everything. Factually I was GUILTY of violating the law; I had a pound of marijuana, but obviously the members of my jury rejected that and found me “not guilty.” I tout this as a jury nullification verdict, as Trentonian Column Jeff Edelstein wrote at the time “JURY UPENDS MARIJUANA LAWS, WEEDMAN WALKS.”
I put my life and freedom on the line to prove a point and to bring public awareness to this concept as a means to defeat the Lawyer Associations’ WAR on POT and to support those who reject the lies of government that this most beneficial plant is a Schedule I controlled substance. By law a Schedule 1 substance has no medical value. So it’s clear marijuana is not a Schedule I drug, the government lies about this—especially in court. Hypocritically, NJ even passed its own medical marijuana law in 2010. Just look up the definition of “Schedule I drug” and you’ll see marijuana doesn’t fit, so in my opinion all jurors should acquit. The law is a lie.
I am free to write this column solely because the members of my Oct 2012 jury nullified the law in my case—thank you again. Otherwise I’d be three years into a 10-year sentence.
Which brings me back now to Ocean County. There is a trial going on there—a citizen named John Peditto, a Facebook friend of mine, is facing 10 years in prison for having 17 plants. He followed my case and decided to use the NJWeedman Defense: admit to everything and hope his jury utilizes jury nullification and rejects the law as well. I feel a connection with him, and an obligation to help him. He is attempting to pull his life/freedom out of the tyranny of the Ocean County Prosecutor’s vise like I did with the Burlington County Prosecutors in 2012.
If my getting arrested on Monday for passing out jury nullification literature makes the Tuesday morning papers and one of his jurors sees the explanation of jury nullification and realizes they too could simply say “NOT GUILTY,” I feel it will have been worth it.

What San Francisco voters need to know about Prop. I

FROM THE EDITOR:

Dear readers: Reacting to the urgency of the existent housing crisis that is displacing our long-term residents – entire families from all ethnic groups – in the San Francisco Mission District and everywhere in San Francisco, El Reportero ran into the following article – written by Keren Moros – that describes point by point what Proposition I is all about and why every San Franciscan must Vote Yes on Prop I.
And we also take the opportunity to endorse for Mayor of San Francisco, a gentleman that has demonstrated his love for our community and housing rights for all San Franciscans: Francisco Herrera.
And in addition we also ask you to also vote for another great human being who is running for re-election and who has demonstrated during his past term, to be the right person for the job of Sheriff of San Francisco: Ross Mirkarimi.  And in the name of the spirit of Liberty, we ask you to Vote no on very proposition that calls for more taxes. More taxes means bigger government. Bigger government means more repression against the people, less wealth and more government dependency. Election Day is November 3.

by Keren Moros

Once known for its up-and-coming artistic community, San Francisco’s Mission District is now a hot topic in the conversation surrounding the city’s growing housing crisis. Gentrification in the Mission has led to rapidly rising rents, forcing long-time residents out of their neighborhood. On Nov. 3, San Franciscans will vote on the controversial Proposition I, which aims to address the issue head-on. But what does this mean for the the neighborhood and what would be the consequences? Here’s what you should know about Proposition I before checking the ballot box on Nov. 3.
What Does Proposition I Say?
Proposition I calls for the suspension of market-rate housing development in the Mission for at least 18 months. Additionally, it proposes the City develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan by Jan. 31, 2017, which would “propose legislation, policies, programs, funding, and zoning controls so that at least 50 percent of all new housing would be affordable to low- and moderate-income households.”
If passed into law, Proposition I would put a hold on not only construction but also the demolition and renovation of market-rate housing developments with five or more units. It would also suspend construction and development of buildings that the law determines are used for production, distribution and repair such as businesses like furniture making and auto repair.
What Proposition I does not propose is to stop those seeking permits to build low- and moderate-income housing. Rather, if passed, it would allow for the suspension on market-rate housing to be extended for another year if the Board of Supervisors approves.
What Led to Proposition I?
Since the tech boom of the late 90s, San Francisco has become increasingly gentrified. As people continue to move into the city’s developing sectors, SF hasn’t produced housing to keep up with demand. The new affluent population has encouraged landlords to increase rents, says Jasper Rubin, associate professor at the Urban Studies and Planning Program at San Francisco State University, and the combination of factors has created a dire living situation for the city’s low- to moderate-income residents.
“It’s wealth, not a huge housing stock and a lot of demand,” Rubin says of the crisis. “Costs for rental units have skyrocketed as well as ownership, and it’s been incredibly disruptive. Even though there is rent control and tenant protections are fairly strong, evictions have increased dramatically.”
While Francisco’s affordable housing policy requires developers to dedicate 12 percent of new units as affordable housing units, tenants in buildings not protected by rent control worry about losing their homes to new market-rate housing or being evicted unfairly.
Gabriel Medina, Policy Manager at the Mission Economic Development Agency, says the area has seen the displacement of 8,000 Latinos in the last 15 years and the Mission has lost more than 3,000 residents between 2000 and 2013. In addition, the neighborhood sees 230 evictions per year.
“We’re not growing as city in the Mission because of the glut of luxury condos that have come and changed the Mission from an immigrant gateway for the Irish, Italians and then Mexicans and Central Americans because it was affordable to essentially a rich person’s playground with tons of bars, tons of high-end restaurants and housing that 85 percent of the city of San Francisco can’t afford,” Medina says.
“[Culture] is what makes us so special and we’re slowly homogenizing that with luxury towers, and as a result, we’re having high income disparity because those middle class, living-wage, blue collar jobs are being displaced for service industry jobs which don’t pay the rent.”
Rubin says the Mission has long been the site of unrest because of the housing market and believes the proposition is a response to several developments in the neighborhood that have pushed local residents to action.
“Folks in the Mission are saying, ‘There’s just not enough affordable housing. We need to stop any development until we can get a better project that will serve the neighborhood and not just introduce another gentrifying building.’”
Rubin calls the proposition symbolic and understands why many in the Mission are behind it.
“I completely understand the frustration, and I understand the desire to say, ‘Okay, we don’t really care if this is effective or not. We just want to do something. You do lose some money for affordable housing, though not much. On the other hand, if you do prevent those buildings from being developed, and if you actually could because of the moratorium, negotiate better terms, then it’s an effective measure.”
What Good Will Proposition I Do?
Supporters for the proposition like Medina say it will give the city an incentive to plan for the community and give the Mission a chance to come up with strategies to stall evictions, stabilize businesses and create affordable housing, all the while preserving the history and culture of the neighborhood. It’s also an opportunity to set a positive precedent for future legislations.
“[Proposition I] shows that people here are not only thinking about our own needs for the neighborhood but we’re thinking about how this can be a model for other neighborhoods that are going to face the same income-inequality crisis,” Medina says.
What Do the Opponents Say?
Those against Proposition I, including U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Mayor Ed Lee, say Proposition I is against state laws and will ultimately cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. They also say passing Proposition I will stop the construction of nearly 1,500 homes, both market-rate and below market-rate, doing nothing to solve the housing crisis.
In addition, the city’s Office of Economic Analysis released a report in September that concluded the temporary moratorium of market-rate housing would not change rent rates, prevent resident displacement or stop upper-income families from moving into the neighborhood. The report, written by office Chief Economist Ted Egan, also states that market-rate housing lowers nearby property values and notes that market-rate housing developers “are required to either dedicate a certain percentage of the project’s units as affordable, build affordable units off-site, or pay an in-lieu fee to the Mayor’s Office of Housing for affordable housing”
To that Medina argues, “It actually delays 85 units for up to 18 months. So it doesn’t stop housing…100 percent affordable housing will still get developed. They’ll just be delayed 18 months. But the process to develop housing is typically three to five years. It’s not significant. And of those 85 units, only 12 percent of those are affordable, and in our analysis, the current approved pipeline for housing is only 7 percent affordable. So really, of those 85 units, you’re looking at like 10 or less of those would even be affordable,” he says. “[After] losing 3,184 people from our neighborhood who now need homes, we know that just building luxury condos does not restrict supply in the sense — it houses more people.

California now throwing people in jail for refusing vaccination

The American people, young and old, now face the prospect of being thrown into jail unless they accept vaccinations

Posted by Neon Nettle
Linked In

In case you haven’t noticed, there’s an incremental push right now by the controlling elite to force vaccinations on all Americans, both young and old. And this agenda is gaining considerable traction in California, where legislators are now moving forward with plans to force childhood vaccines on all adults who work in daycare centers, both private and public.
Senate Bill 792, also known as the “Day care facilities: immunizations: exemptions” act, was presented quietly alongside SB 277, which eliminates personal, philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions for children who attend both private and public schools in the Golden State. The bill, as recently heard by the California Assembly Human Services Committee, reads as follows:
This bill, commencing September 1, 2016, would prohibit a day care center or a family day care home from employing any person who has not been immunized against influenza, pertussis, and measles.
If passed, SB 792 would represent the first adult vaccine mandate in the U.S. that disallows exemptions for personal reasons, and that threatens criminal penalties for those who fail or refuse to comply. Here’s how Vaccine Impact describes SB 792:
SB 792, would eliminate an adult’s right to exempt themselves from one, some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure.
This bill would make California the first state to require mandated vaccinations for all childcare workers, including all private and public school early childhood education programs (Headstart, Private preK and preschools), family daycares, and daycare centers.
SB 792 represents medical violence against adults
An affront to both medical and religious liberty, SB 792 appears to be the wave of the future in New America, where the perceived health of the “herd” is now more important than the health of the individual. Never before in the history of the United States have legislators pushed this hard to literally force vaccine injections on the public under duress.
But why do they feel the need to do this if vaccines really work and are truly safe as claimed? The answer is that vaccines aren’t safe and effective, and more people than ever are acknowledging this truth and opting out of the “requirements” of the system through vaccine exemptions, hence the rush to eliminate these exemptions as quickly as possible, starting with California.
“This bill eliminates medical autonomy, crushes religious freedom, undermines personal freedom, and burdens quality providers with a non-optional series of medical interventions in the form of mandated vaccines that are not even 100% effective,” adds Vaccine Impact.
Contact California legislators and say NO to SB 792
As of this writing, SB 792 awaits a hearing by California’s Committee on Appropriations, having recently passed through the Assembly Human Services Committee with a 6-1 vote. The official vote tally reveals that the following members of this committee voted in FAVOR of passing SB 792:
Ian C. Calderon
Kansen Chu
Patty Lopez
Brian Maienschein
Mark Stone
Tony Thurmond
You can contact the above individuals here and let them know how you feel about their betrayal of medical freedom in California.
You can also contact the individual members of the Committee on Appropriations and tell them to vote AGAINST SB 792 by visiting: pro.assembly.ca.gov
If Americans sit idly by while corrupt legislators pass incremental bills like SB 277 and SB 792, it will only be a matter of time before even stricter bills come along mandating vaccinations for additional groups of people, until eventually everyone is forced into being vaccinated by the state for the benefit of “public health.”
“Laws like these are forging a burden of responsibility that is collectively shared by everyone,” writes Joshua Krause for GlobalResearch.ca.
“It won’t be long before they try to force vaccines on every adult and child in California. And if they pull it off there, legislators in other states will try to see if they can use the sheepish tyranny of majority rule to force vaccines on their citizens as well.”

Canada’s newly elected Liberals may legalize marijuana

Could impact US drug policy

by Germán López

With the Liberal Party’s electoral victory in Canada, the US’s northern neighbors could soon undertake an enormous change in drug policy: marijuana legalization.
The policy was a big part of the Liberals’ campaign: “We will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.”
If marijuana were legalized in Canada, it would be a first among developed nations. In the US, four states and Washington, DC, have legalized pot, but it’s still illegal at the federal level. The only other country to fully legalize marijuana is the tiny developing nation of Uruguay. And although some countries — the Netherlands and Spain, in particular — have relaxed enforcement of their marijuana laws, none in the developed world have outright legalized it.
But this wouldn’t just be an important milestone for Canada and the world; it could also send ripples across the international system of drug policy. That’s because drug policy is tied not just to each country’s individual laws, but to a network of treaties that effectively make the war on drugs a global effort. Marijuana legalization in Canada would act as the most high-profile rejection of these treaties, sending an important signal of the changing times as the international agreements come under a critical review in a special 2016 session of the United Nations.
From the 1960s through the 1980s, much of the world, including the US, signed on to three major international drug policy treaties: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Drugs of 1971, and the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. Combined, the treaties require participants to limit and even prohibit the possession, use, trade, and distribution of drugs outside of medical and scientific purposes, and work together to stop international drug trafficking.
There is some debate about whether these treaties stop marijuana decriminalization — when criminal penalties are repealed but civil ones remain in place — and medical marijuana legalization. But one thing the treaties are absolutely clear on is that illicit drugs aren’t to be allowed for recreational use, and certainly not for recreational sales. Yet that’s exactly what the Liberal Party has promised to allow.
(For those curious, the US has remained in accordance of these treaties despite four states’ move to legalize with a clever argument: It’s true four states have legalized pot, but the federal government still considers marijuana illegal, so the nation is still technically in obedience even if a few states are not).
So Canada’s decision to legalize pot — if it comes, and that’s still unsure — would be the most high-profile rebuke of the international treaties since they were signed. Not only is Canada an internationally active, developed nation, but it’s a relatively large country — larger than all the states to have legalized so far and Uruguay combined.
In theory, Canada could face diplomatic backlash if it legalizes pot. But who would lead that effort? The US has been the de facto enforcer of these treaties over the years. But it likely wouldn’t tempt an important ally, and trying to criticize Canada for legalization would only expose America’s hypocrisy for allowing four states and DC to legalize.
Chances are, then, that Canada will be able to legalize marijuana, and potentially do so without any global repercussion. That will send a big signal to other countries — that, at least when it comes to marijuana, these treaties no longer hold the weight they once held. It could, then, expose a huge hole in the treaties, making more nations comfortable with the idea of legalization.
Such a move would come at a very crucial time in international drug policy: In 2016, the UN will hold a special session on the global drug problem. Drug policy reformers have long planned to use the special 2016 session to call on world leaders to change the international drug treaties to clearly allow decriminalization and legalization. Canadian legalization would give these reformers an opening by showing that if the treaties aren’t changed, they will soon be effectively meaningless as countries move ahead with their own reforms, treaties be damned. And such treaty changes could open other countries, including the US, to their own reforms.
Now, it’s possible Canada will ultimately decide not to legalize — the treaties, for instance, could cause the new Liberal government to fear an international backlash and back off. But if Canada does move forward, it will not just change Canadian drug policy, but potentially force a big shift in the international stage.

Marijuana has been legalized in four states and Washington, DC
In 2012, Colorado and Washington state became the first states to vote to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. Since then, two more states have followed, and Washington, DC, voted to allow possession, growing, and gifting, although sales for recreational use remain banned.
Marijuana legalization is a response to the failures of the war on drugs
The debate over marijuana legalization is just one of the many ways the political landscape is changing as the US comes to terms with drug and criminal justice policies that many experts and Americans consider to have failed at a great cost to the nation’s liberty and finances.
The war on marijuana in particular has cost the US billions of dollars over decades, led to a black market for pot that criminal organizations use to fund violent operations, and contributed to the explosive growth of America’s incarcerated population, which is now the largest in the world. And despite those costs, millions of people still use marijuana — a drug that most Americans view as relatively safe.
A majority of Americans now support legal marijuana
In recent years, support for marijuana legalization reached a tipping point, and a majority of Americans now favor legalization.
According to surveys from Gallup, support for legalization rose from 12 percent in 1970 to 31 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in 2014. A Civic Science poll and the General Social Survey found similar levels of support in 2014.
15 states have decriminalized — but not legalized — marijuana
Fifteen states have moved toward decriminalizing marijuana but not legalizing it — so possession of small amounts of pot no longer carries criminal penalties like prison time, but possession of larger amounts and trafficking remain criminally illegal.
Decriminalization laws vary from state to state. Some states attach fines to small amounts of marijuana, while others attach brief jail time. And whether a small amount of pot means 10 or 100 grams depends on the state’s laws. (In comparison, a marijuana joint weighs about half a gram).
Marijuana is legal for medical purposes in 23 states
Twenty-three states and Washington, DC, allow marijuana for medical purposes, although their approaches can significantly differ.
Some, like California, allow medical marijuana dispensaries and home cultivation. Others, such as Alaska, only allow home cultivation. And a few, such as Delaware, allow dispensaries but not home cultivation.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law even in states that legalize it
Even as several states and Washington, DC, allow marijuana, the federal government still strictly prohibits pot — although the Obama administration has told federal agencies to not intervene with states’ legalization laws.
Marijuana is a relatively safe drug — with some risks
There are no documented examples of deaths from marijuana overdose, but that doesn’t mean it’s harmless.
“The main risk of cannabis is losing control of your cannabis intake,” Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at New York University’s Marron Institute, said. “That’s going to have consequences in terms of the amount of time you spend not fully functional. When that’s hours per day times years, that’s bad”.

Google and Youtube now engaging in wholesale censorship of content they don’t want to public to see

by L.J. Devon

“Take your pills and don’t ask questions. Drink the sweet wine of entertainment we have given you. Don’t think for yourself: just believe. The truth will no longer be published unless we allow it to be.”
Google, and its popular video sharing platform YouTube, are quickly becoming purveyors of propaganda, censoring material that could expose and question the status quo. These popular internet platforms are following in the footsteps of oppressive government regimes that punish whistle blowers and go after anyone who asks questions, seeks answers and reports on the most atrocious abuses of the day.
Recent “changes” at YouTube now allow their technocratic management to remove monetization from videos they don’t want people to hear or see. Independent media source, All News Pipeline, has had to appeal eight videos that were stripped of monetization for censorship reasons.
We are Change also revealed how they were being censored in March 2015. “In the last few days we noticed our YouTube numbers take a massive down turn while the majority of our new videos and top videos have been demonetized with no explanation at all. We looked at our website and social media numbers and they were better than ever but for some reason — our YouTube channel took a massive hit.”
YouTube censoring controversial content they don’t want people to see or hear
Tom Lupshu of the Bunker Report has published a video commentary explaining how YouTube first started removing monetization from his videos. His truthful, down-to-earth videos, which are great learning tools, have even been deleted by YouTube.
Upon further investigation, YouTube’s policy change openly admits that videos will be taken down if they contain “controversial or sensitive subjects and events including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters, and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.”
This means that videos will be taken down if they expose human rights violations, democide or any other government and corporate abuses. In other words, Google and YouTube are quickly becoming propaganda arms for those in power. These platforms will not allow people to question and speak out against atrocities like organ harvesting and trafficking, how governments have historically used gun control to make the population compliant and defenseless, or how children have been used and killed in medical experiments.
This kind of suppression will also control what people are allowed to write and communicate about on the Internet. People who fundamentally believe that marriage is defined by the union of one man and one woman may be flagged for committing hate speech, since they are not being “tolerant” of various sexual lifestyles.
TPP deal takes censorship to a whole new level
Many avid truth tellers are becoming increasingly concerned that this kind of censorship might become international law under the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
OpenMedia’s digital rights specialist Meghan Sali reports, “Internet users around the world should be very concerned about this ultra-secret pact. What we’re talking about here is global Internet censorship. It will criminalize our online activities, censor the Web, and cost everyday users money. This deal would never pass with the whole world watching — that’s why they’ve negotiated it in total secrecy.”
Leaked TPP documents reveal that “Internet Service Providers could be required to ‘police’ user activity, take down Internet content, and cut people off from Internet access for common user-generated content.”
Despite all efforts to suppress freedom of information, the independent media is rising
As Google and YouTube turn into oppressive propaganda arms to benefit those in power, truth tellers are not backing down.
As the TPP deal threatens to destroy freedom of speech and freedom of the press around the world, solutions are rising up.
For instance, GoodGopher.com has become the search engine of choice for the independent media, prioritizing freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
AlternativeNews.com, on the other hand, makes it easier for people to access the independent media, highlighting the stories that the mainstream media twists, ignores and censors. Natural News.

PARLACEN begins new era under the leadership of Nicaragua

by the El Reportero’s wire services

The Central American Parliament (Parlacen), with its central headquarters in Guatemala, will have since today a new owner for the period 2015-2016: the Deputy of the opposition Liberal Constitutionalist Party of Nicaragua, José Antonio Alvarado.
The investiture of the new president of the integration mechanism, formally installed on October 28, 1991 will take place in a solemn ceremony in the capital’s National Palace of Culture, former governmental seat of this country.
According to the spokesman of the Parlacen, Fernando Calvillo, Alvarado was the winner after two rounds of voting carried out yesterday, and he will replace Honduran Armando Bardales in office.
The determination of carrying out a second round of elections responded to the fact that none of the candidates received more than 50 percent to their favor in the initial phase of the process, in which should participate the 120 members of the regional instrument.
Nicaragua should assume the direction of the agency, after Honduras, according to the annual rotation stipulated by the constitutive treaty of the organization, of which El Salvador, Honduras, Panama and Dominican Republic are also members.
Each of these countries has around 20 representatives in the group, who are chosen in correspondence with the electoral rules in their home territories.
Parlacen membership is also comprised of former presidents and vice presidents of participating nations, including Mexico as an observer.

Mexico: Corruption is destructive
Mexican entrepreneurs and authorities coincided in the Business Summit of Guadalajara Tuesday, that corruption in the country is highly destructive.
“Corruption destroys”, assured Julio A. Milian Bojalil, president of the Corporacion Azteca Group (CORAZA), who stated that each year, corruption costs the Mexican government the equivalent to four percentual points of the National Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is 740 billion Mexican pesos (49 billion dollars).

Guatemalan president-elect approves action against corruption
President-elect Jimmy Morales expressed today his approval fo the dismantling of the corruption ring that operated in the Social Welfare Institute of Guatemala (ISSG) and reiterated that he will fight influence peddling.
“Every crime must be punished, must be tried, in case due process shows the crime was committed. No one is above the law and, from the presidency, we will fully allow all cases to be investigated,” he stated.
Regarding the permanence of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (cicig), a UN body that, along with the Attorney General’s Office, have dismantled this and other criminal groups in the country since 2007, Morales shared his determination to keep it.

Honduras received more than 7000 deported children in 2015
This year, Honduras has received at least seven thousand children deported from Mexico, where they arrive with the hope of crossing the U.S. border, an official source confirmed today.
Francisco Adalid, Head of the International Abduction and Migration at the Children, Adolescents and Family Directorate, told the press that half of that number are minors between 12 and 17 years old and the rest are even younger.
“The reasons why these children keep migrating are the same: firstly we have economic reasons, secondly family reunification and finally because of the widespread violence”, the official said.
According to Adalid, new repatriations are expected before the end of the year since Mexico has strengthened the security measures at the border.
He added that the Government plans to remodel a foster institution to properly receive the children, after several complaints about the violation of fundamental rights like access to food and health care.

Mexico: State of Guerrero keeps the highest murder rate
The Mexican state of Guerrero had 3,000 murdered people in the year 2014 and this year so far, with the highest rate of intentional murder in the nation, press media reported here Thursday.
These facts, are linked to insecurity, violence and organized crime.
Acapulco is considered one of the most violent municipalities in Mexico, since it reported a total of 591 homicides in 2014.

Alcatraz Island is home to a special exhibit, Prisoners of Age

Photo caption: 29th Annual Day of the Death Exhibition at the Mission Cultural Center. Gallery hours: Tuesday-Saturday 10 a.m.-5 p.m. $2. Exhibit: through Nov.  20, 2015

Compiled by the El Reportero’s staff

The National Park Service is pleased to announce the return of the award-winning “PRISONERS OF AGE” exhibition from photographer Ron Levine and designers Michael Wou and Russel Volckmann to Alcatraz Island now through December 2015. This exhibit marks the next in a series on Alcatraz that focuses on aspects of crime and punishment, incarceration, freedom and social justice.
“PRISONERS OF AGE” is an evocative series of photographs and chronicles of elderly men and women, taken over a period of 18 years, at prisons and prison-wards for geriatric offenders in the United States and Canada. Prisoners of age comprise the fastest growing age group in the United States. One-in-ten inmates is 55 or older.
A decade ago, that was one-in-twenty. Existing prison space is in serious decline and medical costs are soaring. Incarcerating geriatric men and women in prison is becoming prohibitively expensive- up to 9 times the cost of a younger inmate.
As Federal and State prisons begin to look more like high security nursing homes, the people who manage North America’s prison system worry about how to handle the imminent explosion in the geriatric population. Through photography and interviews, “PRISONERS OF AGE” offers a microcosmic glimpse of what lies ahead in this new millennium.
The exhibition features 60 larger than life photographs and revealing narratives from conversations with the inmates, guards and prison officials. The exhibition is designed by Michael Wou and Russell Volckmann.
The exhibit is displayed in the New Industries Building through December 2015 and will be open to the public visiting Alcatraz Island during daytime hours for no extra charge.  Exhibit hours are 10:00am to 2:00 p.m.  For additional information, please call NPS Alcatraz at 415-561-4900.

StudioSoad present its fall SF Open Studios 2015
Lots art for sale. Don’t let your wall be empty or with crap. We have the finest art by the finest artist in the city. Friday, Oct. 30, 6-9 p.m., Saturday, Oct. 31, Sunday, Nov. 1, at 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. At Arc Studios & Gallery, Beyond the Gallery Wall,  StudioSoad Arc Studio #101, at 1246 Folsom Street, San Francisco, between 8th & 9th Streets SOMA.

Nicaraguan artistic painting in El Salvador

by the El Reportero’s news services

A sample of works of Nicaraguan artists linked to “Inter-Acción Art” is exhibiting at the headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador.
Among the artists who exhibited are: Raúl Barrios, Fran León, countryman Pablo, Reynaldo Bósquez and Mario Fulvio Espinosa, all with extensive experience in the arts. The exhibition is open Monday through Friday at the Foreign Ministry of El Salvador, Antiguo Cuscatlán, from Oct. 22 to Nov. 23 hours of 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., explained Jorge Espinoza Maltez, giving the opening words on behalf of the artists.
“Inter-accion Art” is an artistic initiative which has existed as “Inti, Nicaraguan Art Workshop” for 15 years. Now with this collective exhibition makes its formal release with new a artistic concept: expand horizons and promote different creative expressions, beyond the paint. Its cultural management encourages the exchange of art with the public and seeks to go beyond the borders.
Inter-Action spectator-artist
“We seek to promote a direct experience of personal creativity between the public and the artistic proposals. Inter-Accion where the expectant eyes can rediscover his artistic soul through exercise or get into the discipline that most appeals to you,” said Morena Guadalupe Espinoza, founder of”Inter-Acción Art.”
The event is in the framework of which El Salvador assumes the Presidency pro tempore of the Central American Integration System (SICA). “The exhibition is a showing of brotherhood between our peoples,” said Carlos Castañeda, Deputy Foreign Minister of El Salvador, at the inauguration of the Expo-sale.
Jorge Masís, Minister Counselor of the Embassy of Nicaragua, also presided over the opening of the exhibition and said their own efforts that the art collective is conducting the event.
You can meet more of the project in www.interaccionarte.com

Placed stone for replica of Casa Maya in Mexico
The milestone of a replica of the Casa Maya was placed today in the framework of the 4th International Festival of the Mayan culture taking place in Merida, capital of the Mexican state of Yucatán.
This facility will house miniatures and visual information of the Mayan civilization and will be located in the so-called Garden of the Vestiges of the Museum of the Mayan World in Merida.
This project provides accessible spaces for visitors, the exhibition of traditional elements, explanation of the cosmogony of the ancient Mayan house and miniatures.
The public will also be able to observe the activities performed and still maintain the descendants of that civilization.

Saint Lucia to host Latin American and Caribbean Film Festival
Saint Lucia announced that its first ever Latin American and Caribbean Film Festival will be hosted next month with the screening of various films from this country and from five nations of the continent.
The event will be hosted from November 9th to 13th and it is organized by the Ministry of Tourism, Heritage and Creative Industries in collaboration with two institutions of the island and the embassies of Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico and Brazil.
The program includes films from Saint Lucia, as well as ten foreign films, like Libertador (Liberator) from Venezuela, Esther en alguna parte (Esther in some part) from Cuba and Vinicius de Moraes from Brazil.

San Francisco for all: Community activist Herrera is ready for the SF city’s highest office

by Fernando A. Torres

Despite the poor job at structuring the event by The League of Women Voter, LWV, the five candidates; Amy Weiss, Stuart Schuffman, Reed Martin, Francisco Herrera and Kent Graham, were able, for the first time, to direct their grievances directly to the Mayor.
But what could have been a rich exchange of ideas and a serious debate about the city’s greatest issues, became a primary-school like bunch of questions and one-minute answers by the candidates. The rumor on the streets is a question: how much City Hall “helped” to plan for the forum? Which, no doubt, it served Lee to dodged all the arguments in a no-controversy safety net. As a result, Lee was the only loser in the forum who, sadly, had to leave through the “kitchen door” rushed out by his two body guard – familiar faces to reporters by now – right after the forum ended.
Several comments by Weiss, Schuffman, and Martin clearly directed to the mayor were simply ignored by Lee and Maxine Anderson, the moderator. In more than one occasion Weiss, and Schuffman reminded Mayor Lee that one of the consequences of “his” economic boom are the thousands of homeless. “Homelessness starts at the moment people cannot pay their rent. It has to do with the lack of a vision and better planning,” said Herrera.
Herrera, who is fast-emerging as a leader in neighborhoods beyond The Mission, said that the consequences of the city’s “economic boom” also resulted in the loss of homes, and loss of local jobs because many small business had to close, leaving people without local job sources.
In a sharp, calm, yet discerning way, Herrera stayed focus on the most pressing San Francisco issues most of them covered by Herrera’s eight-point political platform.
“The level of corruption that people feels at City Hall right now, only nourishes the experiences of people saying there is no respect for the law and adds to the criminalization of the homeless, the criminalization of youth, the criminalization of folks who don’t have the money to pay, is part of a bigger problem we are seeing here and it comes right back to the lack of political will at City Hall…and the crisis people are experiencing right now. The level of anxiety is going throughout the city, no just folks on the street but actually city workers who can’t afford to live here,” said Herrera who at moments looked directly at Mayor Lee seating at his left.
Weiss, who spelled out a specific plan for the homeless she called transitional ecological villages, made a call which has become a slogan for the opposition: “Use rent-choice voting in order to vote 1, 2, 3 to replace the current administration with a people-power candidate. I liked to joke that at least Gavin Newsom broke the law for gay people and for love but what’s being happening lately is that the law is being broken for corporations and we need someone to come in with a level head,” she said.
Definitely, the end of the forum left everybody wanting more. For this rare occasion and maybe the last time we see them all-together, The League of Women Voter missed a one-in-a-life-time opportunity to set some records straight and help the city in the process.
At the exit doors of the Genentech Hall on the UCSF Mission Bay Campus someone commented that the best part of the Oct. 8 mayoral debate that it-was-not, was the comments made by rapper Equipto to Mayor Lee on Oct. 6, and recorded on a short viral video: “The people who built this city … you’re getting them all kicked out.”