Thursday, February 13, 2020

Socialist Mayor Sanders: The Hidden History of the Burlington Commune - Mass Executions of Peasant Farmers in the Dead of Night on the Town Common

Burlingtont, VT: Few speak about the times of trouble now, but when Socialist Bernie Sanders was the mayor of Burington in the 1980's it was called "The Red Terror."

In a fluke of electoral democracy the openly socialist left winger was duly in office of Burlington, Vermont when he announced a sweeping set of regulations and codes that upset the traditional and legal way of doing things in the New England city.

On his first day at city hall Sanders set the tone by firing a man for making a joke about being fat.  The city clerk was making a joke about his own weight.  Sanders didn't laugh.

A new set of rules about 'Ecological Gardening' in the city was issued before noontime.  "All work done on plants in the city limits must consider the impact on global warming first," declared the new mayor.

The mayor's new staff and supporters chanted "Too Many People, Not Enough Trees!"

The new rules require recycling and reuse of just about everything used in lawn maintenance, gardening, and farming.  City workers noted that they could not throw out grass clippings.  One quipped, "are we supposed to eat the leaves we rake up?"

Other workers around him laughed but the room quieted as Mayor Sanders looked up, "You're fired."

That sent a chill through city hall and then through the town.  The mayor was strict, and he was driven by a vision.

Soon local farmers were visited by Sanders Youth Squads who inspected the farm for violations of the new recycle rules.  Anyone who dared to question an order, or even raise an eyebrow while being scolded was slapped across the face while being surrounded by a dozen Climate Justice League activists.  All plastic was confiscated from every farm within the city limits.  Gardeners were treated to the same rough global warming justice.  People who were once dancing in the street and simply blocking traffic were now in everyone's face and in everyone's trash can making sure they recycled.  
 When a few farmers rallied in the woods and built a bonfire of the new regulations on the prohibition of the raising or selling of animals for food Sanders and his supporters adopted Stalinist methods of 'liquidation.'  At first isolated farms on the outskirts of town were visited late at night or very early in the morning and the adult males were taken away and any weapons or knives were taken away from the household.

There was a report in the city bulletin of late night fire works to celebrate climate reforms after people heard what sounded like a volley of gunshots on Burlington town common.  Dead bodies began to show up on isolated roads of men with with blindfolds and their hands tied behind their backs.  Sanders socialist revolution was going to save the planet with brutal Stalinist methods while claiming to be 'Saving The Earth.'

Few survived to be able to tell this history of the Burlington gulag.  The pro-socialist media sees Bernie Sanders as a populist darling who will save Wall Street profits and the capitalist system with a few new taxes on gasoline and increased abortions for the lower classes. 

https://outline.com/ZEdTpP

https://archive.is/5N3HE

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Why so many married couples are sleeping in separate beds - by Ryan W. Miller (USA TODAY) 9 Feb 2020



For many married Americans, nighttime means curling up in a bed shared with their spouse. But a growing trend of couples opting for separate beds may help spouses get better sleep and alleviate marital problems, experts say.

According to a 2017 survey from the National Sleep Foundation, almost one in four married couples sleep in separate beds.

Jill Lankler, a New York clinical psychologist and life coach, says while that number seems high given the stigma that may still exist around separate beds, she's seen more couples open to trying it.
"People are losing sleep. They are waking each other up, and there is this resentment that begins to build in a relationship," she said. "If you don't address that, obviously your relationship is going to suffer, your work suffers. It's this cascade."

Why couples fear sleeping in separate beds

From a practical standpoint, separate beds can benefit quality of sleep. Spouses may work different schedules. One may snore or have restless legs syndrome. And sleep is disrupted. 

However, even if the switch to two beds may be the best solution, many couples still fear the nighttime split, Lankler said.

Asking a couple whether they'd consider separate beds can causes a sort of "catch-22" mentality: Sharing a bed might mean disrupted sleep while sleeping in separate beds could kill intimacy, she said.



Lankler has seen couples work through these fears by having open and honest communication. "There's a very healthy way to do it that enhances communication and enhances freedom in the relationship," she said. "I love the fact that snoring, like everything else in life, is an opportunity to go deeper into love."

From Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip to reports that President Donald Trump and Melania Trump sleep separately, the decision to part at bedtime doesn't mean couples are in trouble, especially if they implement strategies to keep the relationship strong. 

"The ones that work out very well are the ones that have done the work," Lankler said.

'Ships in the night': For some, one bed may be better

However, just because sleeping separately can help with restfulness and communication, it's not for everyone, said Sophie Jacobi-Parisi, a New York attorney at Warshaw Burstein who practices matrimonial and family law.

"It's very easy to be ships in the night when you're trying to live and work and raise kids," Jacobi-Parisi said. "If you don't have any point of contact with your spouse ... it's very easy to lose any sort of sense that you are more than just a co-parenting, working team."

For couples that choose to sleep separately but don't have a conversation around why they are making the change, it can be another step in the path toward divorce, she added.


In some cases she sees, a couple may say they're sleeping separately for a specific reason – a child who can't sleep or a snoring problem – but then stay in two beds without ever revisiting why.
Sleeping together when it isn't working can also be a detriment, she said.

In one case she encountered, a couple shared a bed through their entire divorce proceedings in court. This can be challenging for children, who will get mixed signals, but Jacobi-Parisi said parents know their children best and must make a decision that's specific to them and how they'll react. Being honest with children about the decision is just as important as a spouse, she added.

What about intimacy?

A couple's sex life won't be ruined by sleeping apart any more than it would be by a TV in a shared bedroom, Lankler said.

In fact, sleeping in separate beds can create the opportunity to be more intentional about having a healthy sex life, she said. It can alleviate some of the pressure felt to be intimate when a bed is shared, too.

"You actually get to carve out time," Lankler said. "You get to do it in a way that is intended and not sort of expected."

Jacobi-Parisi agreed, saying a concerted effort is needed not only for intimacy but also things like date night.

Contributing: Mary Bowerman

...................

Do many couples sleep in separate beds?

Sleep divorce is a new trend and is more common than you think.

The word ‘divorce’ might sound scary to you, especially if you’re enjoying your honeymoon at the moment. Can sleeping in separate beds be bad for marriage? We will find out!

What percent of married couples sleep in separate beds?

Studies find that nearly 40% of couples sleep apart.

And the same studies say that separate beds only make relationships better.

How come? Why married couples should sleep in separate beds?

Let’s find out. Here are the benefits of sleeping separately from your partner.

1. More room to move

So, let’s begin with the fact that we’re all different. Some couples love spooning and cuddling during sleep, and they may even feel comfortable on a standard Queen bed.

However, if you and your spouse prefer to stretch a lot, then even the biggest mattress size might feel uncomfortable for you.

See for yourself:

The width of a King-sized bed is 76 inches. When you divide this number in two, you get 38 inches, which is how wide a Twin bed is! Twin could be an option in guest rooms or trailers, but it may not work as a regular sleeping place for an average adult.

Even if Twin seems big enough for you, consider that your partner doesn’t remain motionless on their side of the bed throughout the night. They might unintentionally occupy your part, leaving you less room for finding a comfortable position.

With that being said, getting a separate bed will allow you to sleep in whichever pose you like, without worrying about accidentally pushing your partner or kicking them out of bed.
“The modern tradition of co-sleeping isn’t that old: it has begun only after the Industrial Revolution, because of the rapid population growth in big cities. And before that, sleeping separately was quite a common thing.”

2. Goldilocks issue

The next reason that may make you want to consider buying separate beds is the difference in mattress preferences. For example, you love more cushioning, and your partner is a fan of a firm bed.
In fact, some mattress manufacturers allow you to solve this issue:
  1. by buying a split mattress that consists of two separate, customizable halves;
  2. by purchasing a double-sided mattress, where each half has its own firmness and overall feel.
One of these solutions may help you eliminate the difference in preferences; but if your partner is a restless sleeper and you’re a sensitive one, chances are sooner or later you’ll accumulate sleep debt.
Chronic sleep deprivation may pose a lot of threats to your health, such as obesity, hypertension, and even increased risks of a heart attack.

3. Snoring won’t bother you anymore

According to the American Sleep Apnea Association, 90 million Americans suffer from snoring, with half of this number having obstructive sleep apnea.

Both of these conditions require treatment. But the fact is, if you or your partner snore it’s harmful to both.

The measured snoring loudness usually falls in the range between 60 and 90 dB, which is equal to normal talking or the sound of a chainsaw respectively.

And no one wants to sleep next to the working chainsaw.

Thus, sleeping apart can be best if you or your partner is a loud snorer. But note that it should be a temporary solution combined with the treatment of this condition.
“The National Sleep Foundation survey showed that about 26% of respondents lose some sleep due to their partner’s sleeping problems. If your spouse is a loud snorer, you may lose about 49 minutes of sleep per night.”

4. Your sex life might become better

Your sex life might become better
Separate sleeping scares away many young couples who believe that it would adversely affect their intimacy.

But things are quite interesting here:
  1. If you’re sleep-deprived, the last thing you want to do is to have sex. Sleep deprivation decreases libido in both men and women and may be the reason why couples might lose interest in each other over time.
  2. Proper rest, on the other hand, gives you more energy to turn on the love connection.
  3. The last but not the least, you might even become more creative in your romantic fantasies. Sleeping apart may eliminate the feeling of annoyance — which many couples get during the years of sleeping in one bed — and can become the magic potion that recharges your sex life.
After all, kings and queens have done this for ages, so why shouldn’t you?


5. Different chronotype: Problem solved

Marriage changes a lot of things in your daily life, but not your circadian rhythms.
There are two main chronotypes:
  1. early birds, or larks — people who tend to wake up early (often at sunrise) and go to bed in early hours (before 10-11 pm);
  2. night owls — these individuals usually go to bed at 0 – 1 am and tend to wake up late.
Typically, women are more likely to be larks than men; however, researchers consider that everyone can become a lark in a month, given proper conditions.

Anyway, if your sleeping patterns collide, this can ruin the day for both of you. Even if you try to be quiet and not to wake up your loved one.

In this case, sleeping in separate beds — or even rooms — can be the right solution for the impending sleep crisis.

6. Cooler sleep is better sleep

One more thing to make you consider sleeping apart is your partner’s body temperature. While this can come in handy during colder seasons, you will hardly be excited about cuddling on hot summer nights.



Hot sleeping is more common in women, as some studies report that their core body temperature is slightly higher.

So, what exactly is the problem here?

Well, hot sleeping can lead to sleep disruptions because our body temperature usually drops during the night to allow melatonin production. If it doesn’t happen, you may experience more prolonged sleep onset and even insomnia.

So, if your partner is a hot sleeper and a big hugger, then it may be challenging for both of you. That’s where sleeping separately comes in.

Final word

With all of that being said, it may look like separate sleeping is a universal solution.

Well, not exactly.

Although it can polish some edges in your relationship, sharing a bed remains one of the best ways to get intimate and enjoy the company of each other, especially if you have kids or different working schedules.

Overall, it’s all about what makes you feel happy and comfortable. If you and your loved one don’t have issues with sleeping in one bed, it isn’t necessary to erase this out of your daily life.


Thursday, February 6, 2020

California man killed a trophy deer on his rural property. Now he’s facing a huge penalty By Ryan Sabalow February 06, 2020

In California, it’s illegal for a hunter to lure deer and other game animals using bait in feeders, so Moskat kept an eye on the property — and on Vaden’s online hunting records, LaFave said.


A 70-year-old Sacramento County man will pay a $20,000 fine after pleading no contest this week to shooting a trophy buck out of season on property he owns in rural El Dorado County.

The hefty fine is one of the first under a law passed in 2017 that allowed judges to slap poachers with bigger penalties if they’re convicted of illegally killing deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep and wild turkey with certain characteristics such as big antlers that classify them as trophy animals.

The case began in 2017 when state game warden Dave Moskat drove by property William Vaden of Elverta owns southeast of Placerville near the community of Somerset, said Lt. Stacey LaFave of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/outdoors/hunting-fishing/article240017673.html#storylink=cpy

California deer hunters are required to carry a hunting permit known as a “deer tag” issued by the wildlife agency. After making a kill, they must bring the animal to a state, federal or local official to sign the tag. Then, they’re required to make a formal report to the state describing the buck’s antlers and the location where it was killed. Game wardens have access to those online tag report records.
In 2018, after the state’s deer-hunting season had closed, Moskat noticed that Vaden had reported killing a large four-point buck at the end of the season. Suspecting Vaden had killed the buck as it stood at the feeder, he took a fellow warden, Erick Elliott, to question him, LaFave said.

After a lengthy interrogation, Vaden admitted to the wardens he had killed the buck at the bait site after the season had ended and had forged an official‘s signature on his deer tag, LaFave said.
Vaden and his Sacramento attorney, James Granucci, couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.
Vaden pleaded no contest Tuesday in El Dorado County Superior Court to misdemeanor charges related to baiting the deer and killing it out of season. Under his plea agreement, he’s prohibited from hunting for the three years he’s on probation. He’ll serve 90 days of “alternative sentencing” and the state took the rifle he used to kill the buck.

The trophy enhancement penalty of $20,000 represents a substantial increase in what a typical poaching case normally would garner. Because they’re infractions and misdemeanors, most hunting violations carry maximum cash penalties of no more than $1,000.

Wildlife officers, animal rights groups and hunting associations across the country have lobbied for larger fines in poaching cases, both to act as deterrents and to encourage prosecutors to aggressively pursue them.

LaFave said he’s been thrilled to see El Dorado County’s District Attorney prosecute a number of similar cases aggressively the last few years.

“To hammer poachers and get the kinds of fines and dispositions and some of the (property) forfeitures, we’re getting,” LaFave said, “it’s just a win-win for everybody.”

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Legal nudity at nude beaches gets the go ahead in Florida Senate committee - By James Call, (Tallahassee Democrat) 5 Feb 2020

Many areas in Florida permit “clothing optional” beaches.
A Florida lawmaker wants to make clear that it’s OK to be naked at a nude beach.
While it is illegal to expose one’s sexual organs in public, many areas permit “clothing optional” beaches and the state has at least 34 nude resorts.
But there are cases where people have been arrested and charged for being nude at a nude beach.
Sen. Jason Pizzo, D-Miami, wants to make sure folks who enjoy Florida beaches au naturel aren’t arrested and charged under the same set of laws as, say, child molestation.
Related: Florida nudists: What to cook when clothing is off the menu
“That’s ‘no bueno,’ as we say in Miami,” said Pizzo, about something “that is already legal and allowed by numerous communities across Florida.”
His bill (SB 850) would expressly allow being “naked in public ... including, but not limited to, clothing-optional beaches.”

“A mother breastfeeding her baby does not, under any circumstances, violate” the law, it adds.
When he addressed the state’s Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee Tuesday, Pizzo had a staff analysis that detailed how nude tourism holds a billion-dollar potential for the economy.

The state’s nude resort industry already attracts more than 2.2 million tourists a year, according to reports, and nude beaches generate an economic impact of as much as $7 billion.

For instance, Haulover Beach — the No. 2 nude beach in the world, according to Cosmopolitan magazine — is in Pizzo’s district. It produces more than $980,000 in parking fees annually for Miami and attracts as many as 7,000 tourists a day, he said.

But Pizzo has heard from people who said they were arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious conduct simply for being nude at a nude beach.

Communities along the state’s east coast have voted to make clothes optional at places like Apollo Beach near New Smyrna, Playalinda Beach near the Cape Canaveral Seashore, and along some Panhandle beaches west of Panama City.

It’s hard to undo a lewd and lascivious charge in the eyes of a public unfamiliar with the legal system, said Pizzo, a former prosecutor.

“It could be something completely innocuous, like being in the parking lot, but you get arrested and I do a background check, and see a lewd and lascivious charge,” Pizzo said. “I’m not going to hire you.”
Pizzo now has presented the bill to two committees without opposition from lawmakers or any members of the public.
It has one more committee to clear before being available for the Senate floor. There is no House companion.

.........
https://www.starfl.com/news/20200205/legal-nudity-at-nude-beaches-gets-go-ahead-in-florida-senate-committee
.......
Writer James Call can be contacted at jcall@tallahassee.com. Follow on Twitter @CallTallahassee.
This story originally published to tallahassee.com, and was shared to other Florida newspapers in the new Gannett Media network.

Monday, February 3, 2020

It's Lenny

Home Prank Calls It's Lenny!

itslenny
It's Lenny!
"Lenny" is a collection of recorded messages, designed to fool telemarketers into thinking they are talking to a real person.

Sunday, February 2, 2020

Activists Occupy German Coal Plant in Protest, Police Say By Sarah Syed February 2, 2020


Activists on the site of Datteln 4, Feb. 2.
Activists on the site of Datteln 4, Feb. 2. Photographer: Caroline Seidel/picture alliance via Getty Images
A large group of protesters broke through a gate at the Datteln-4 power station and gained access to the site, local police said Sunday in a tweet.

More than 120 people illegally entered the premises, Polizei NRW RE said. The operator of the power plant outside Dortmund in western Germany’s industrial heartland has filed criminal charges against the protesters, the police said in another tweet Sunday.

“The police in coordination with the public prosecutor’s office will initiate criminal proceedings against all persons,” authorities said.

German utility Uniper aims to close most of its coal plants by 2025, but intends to keep the Datteln-4 plant operating until 2038, Reuters reported in January, citing two people familiar with the matter. Last year anti-coal protesters in east Germany forced one of the country’s biggest plants to reduce output to the minimum.

“We cannot allow, in light of the climate crisis, for another coal power station to join the power grid,” Kathrin Henneberger of the protest movement Ende Gelaende said in a interview with Reuters Sunday. Henneberger called Datteln “a nail in the coffin for our future,” according to Reuters.

Looming paper bag shortage shows you can't save the planet by banning plastic ones - By Martyn Andrews (RT) 2 Feb 2020

Time to juggle the groceries:

Time to juggle the groceries: Looming paper bag shortage shows you can't save the planet by banning plastic ones
The plastic bag has become anathema to the effort of saving Mother Nature from humans’ toxic ways. But humans are now being blindsided by a shortage of paper bags – which have proven to be an even worse alternative.
With the old-fashioned single-use plastic bags sent to an extinction rebellion fiery hell, we are being told that the only way forward is recycling, and using environmentally-friendly alternatives made of paper, cotton, polyester or other suitable materials.

Seventy-four countries have banned single-use plastic bags made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic with varying degrees of enforcement, and 37 countries now impose a charge per bag. New York State will also join the full ban from March 1 this year, but as the need for paper bags increases, the retail industry is facing a volume crisis.
Also on rt.com Too flight-shamed to take a plane and can't afford a yacht like Greta? Hitch a week-long ride on a cargo ship Sal Bonavita owns Key Food stores in the Bronx, he told the New York Post that because of the upcoming ban there is now a paper bag shortage, and that customers should bring reusable bags to his stores or face waddling home with groceries under their arms; “In the future I'm hoping to get some paper bags before March but I know I won't have enough.”

According to the Earth Policy Institute approximately 2 million plastic bags are used every minute, but as the demand for paper bags soars, in return, this means that manufacturers are now worrying that there will not be enough available for up to five years.

But as retailers adopt all kinds of seemingly sustainable and reusable alternatives, research has shown that some of these options might not be so green after all. Ocean campaigner Juliet Philips says the whole industry and media is swamped with misinformation. She says one example is the UK's ‘10 pence bag for life’ idea that was brought in 2015, which she believes has actually increased plastic consumption; “UK households are getting through 54 ‘bags for life’ now each year – suggesting that they are simply being used in the same guise as plastic bags. It's not working.”

With numbers not adding up, the Northern Assembly in Ireland published a report titled ‘The Comparison of Environmental Impact of Plastic, Paper and Cloth Bags’. They found that it takes four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to make a plastic one. Apart from having to cut down forests, the process uses chemical solutions and produces greenhouse gases, contributing to both air and water pollution. In short, it confirms that new paper bags generate 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.

 
So what's the alternative for the Greta-loving eco folk of the world? With the idea of bags for life down the drain and paper bags in short supply and seemingly as bad or worse than plastic carriers – you can always go with the latest green trends and get an edible bag – like the one Marc-Henry De Jong of United Biopolymers has been working on for years, made from potato starch. The idea isn't really catching on, though, he says: “ I believe the true answer comes from the natural world; banana leaves wrapping fruit, potato starch bags, edible packaging etc, but those politicians and decision makers high up must support the start ups otherwise larger recycling manufacturers will keep winning large scale supermarket contracts.”

If your head hurts from trying to decide which way is the greenest, perhaps it's just easier to walk to the shops, use an old fashioned wicker basket like Mrs Doutbfire – or simply cradle your groceries in your hands, like a wobbly octopus.

https://www.rt.com/news/479790-paper-bags-worse-environment/