The Huffington Post: The Millennials Driving a Food Waste Revolution

A recent survey from supermarket giant Sainsbury’s should make us bow our food weary heads in shame. Of the 5,000 adults asked, only 3% felt guilty about throwing food away. Even when it does cost us some £700 per household, per year. [...]

It is of little surprise then that a growing cohort of people is welcoming a backlash against food waste. This is mostly served to us by young, food-savvy, millennials. People who care about where their food comes from and how sustainability it’s produced. However, it’s a slow movement; working against the tide of waste we have already bloated landfills with all throughout the eighties and nineties. Now it’s time for a detox. [...]

Overall, a more lasting plan has to be to change our thinking and to back this with better political will, as in Italy and France. Italy has just introduced a bill where businesses that sell food have to donate anything unsold to charities. In France, similar initiatives might involve fines, yet Italy hopes to give businesses a tax break on rubbish collection. With a little effort all round, we could eliminate so much of the food we waste if only more of us would take responsibility for it.

read the article 

The Guardian: Thousands protest against proposed stricter abortion law in Poland

Thousands gathered outside the national parliament in Warsaw while there were demonstrations in several other Polish cities – and a separate event outside the Polish embassy in London – to oppose a measure that would outlaw terminating pregnancies except where necessary to save a woman’s life.

Poland, Europe’s most devoutly Catholic country, already has some of the continent’s most stringently anti-abortion statutes.

Legislators are expected to start debating on Wednesday even tougher rules drawn up by a rightwing thinktank with the backing of the Catholic church and the Law and Justice (PiS) governing party. A petition supporting the crackdown has gained more than 100,000 signatures.

If passed, the legislation would introduce jail sentences of up to five years for causing “the death of a conceived child”. It would apply both to women seeking abortions and doctors and health professional carrying them out. [...]

Fewer than 1,000 legal abortions are carried out in Poland each year, according to the health ministry. But independent groups have estimated that between 80,000 and 190,000 Polish women undergo terminations annually, either in “backstreet” procedures or by travelling abroad.

read the article 

Vox: The liberal failure of political reform

Yet history does not support this view. Liberals in the 1970s also believed that institutions were holding back the advancement of their favored policies. They sought and achieved reforms in campaign finance, party nominations, government transparency, and congressional organization that were designed to depose moderate and conservative Democratic leaders while bolstering the influence of liberal activists at the expense of "establishment" interest groups. Rather than usher in a period of ambitious liberal achievements, these reforms in fact coincided with the close of an era of left-of-center policy change.

We explore the reasons for this failure in our new book, Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Our analysis finds that the Democratic Party is a coalition of social groups, each with pragmatic policy concerns. This party structure was well adapted to a policymaking process that required brokering compromises among a large set of discrete interests to pass legislation, especially within a system of multiple congressional committees aligned with associated interest organizations and constituencies. [...]

Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, shifted abruptly to the right and never turned back — even as they captured a growing share of seats in both the House and Senate. The post-reform political system has allowed the flourishing of the more ideologically oriented party: the Republicans. [...]

Note that the historical record gives conservatives good reason to be skeptical of legislative productivity: More new laws usually mean a shift to the ideological left.

As a result, Republican officeholders often focus more on blocking Democratic initiatives than on developing their own alternatives, concentrating instead on broader fights over taxation and the federal budget. We find that Congress is more productive under Democratic rule — not only in policymaking but also in committee hearings and in the number of substantive topics considered. In addition, Democratic presidents send far more new policy proposals to Congress and make more administrative changes within the executive branch.

read the article 

The Guardian: Old friends, new way of life – why we bought a house and moved in together

At the age of 70 I, a retired journalist, have gone into this venture with Sally-Mae Joseph, 65, a retired calligrapher and now an artist, whom I have known for five fun years, and Lyn Sands, 66, back from Spain where she lived alone for 12 years, our eco-warrior and vegetable-grower (don’t tell the kids, but I’ve only known her two years).

We all regard this as a forever move but accept that, as in a marriage, things we haven’t anticipated may go wrong. We were all agreed that probate for our children had to be paramount, and that no one would be made homeless because a share of the equity had been inherited. As a couple of our daughters touchingly and independently observed in a role-reversal of parent to stroppy teen: “We don’t know these people. Will your friends love you like we do?” [...]

We had no idea of moving in together until we went on a jaunt to look at a tired and emotional, seven-bedroom Edwardian pile. Could we – should we – move in and do it up? Perhaps not, but what if there were a perfect house, with a bathroom for each of us and a kitchen big enough to seat at least 10, with a large garden for Lyn’s veg, chickens for me and a studio for Sally-Mae? That very day we found it. Four large bedrooms, all en suite, so there’s room for our collective eight children and 12 grandchildren to stay. Maybe not all at once, or not yet, but when they have all got to know each other, who knows …

read the article 

Quartz: Reality only means what you think it means

Donald Hoffman, cognitive science professor at University of California, argues that evolution favors an organism who sees the environment exclusively in terms of its “fitness function” (how well-suited it is to that organism’s survival), rather than objective reality. As NPR explains, this would mean that our perception has deviated further from a more fact-based reality as we’ve evolved.

In his TED talk last year, Hoffman cited as an example the species of jewel beetle that is glossy, dimpled, and brown. When this beetle comes across beer bottles that are glossy, dimpled, and brown, it attempts to mate with the bottles. The beetle has never truly been able to properly identify female members of the species, Hoffman argues, but instead has a hack for spotting them by identifying glossy, dimpled, and brown things. And so the male beetle cannot recognize that a beer bottle isn’t actually a proper mating partner: It’s just glossy, dimpled, and brown. [...]

But even if our perception of what’s going on around us isn’t as radically inaccurate as Hoffman suggests, it’s certainly the case that we’re not wholly correct. “We never have direct access to reality, it’s always mediated by what our senses make available to our brain,” says Cleeremans. [...]

Our actual perception, then, is a combination of what we expect to be the case and what’s actually the case. We’re constructing the world around us, just as much as we’re perceiving it.

read the article 

Jacobin Magazine: Why the US Backs Israel

This past week, despite a reported personal rift between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the US and Israel signed a pact that contains the largest pledge of military assistance to a single country in US history. The ten-year agreement will provide $3.8 billion of aid yearly to Israel — up from the $3.1 billion awarded to Israel in the countries’ previous decade-long deal.

In justifying the largesse, commentators and officials have pointed to the threat of a resurgent Iran and ISIS. The deal, National Security Advisor Susan Rice said at a press conference, “will ensure that Israel has the support it needs to defend itself.”

Yet the diplomatic platitudes are less illuminating than a statement Netanyahu made a year ago at the Knesset: “I am asked if we will forever live by the sword,” the prime minister said, then gave his answer: “Yes.”

Israel is in a constant state of military action, largely enabled by the US. In one twenty-four-hour period during negotiations over the new aid package, Israel bombed Gaza, announced new settlements in the West Bank city of Hebron, and attacked Syrian rebels from their position in the occupied Syrian Golan heights. Each of these acts was at once a show of strength and an outgrowth of US support. [...]

The US dispenses its aid in the form of vouchers for American defense companies’ weapons — an effective transfer of public money to Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the like. This enrichment of US weapons companies will only increase with the new deal: the package gradually removes a stipulation under which the Israeli government was allowed to convert 26 percent of the aid to shekels and subsidize its own defense industries. [...]

But the defense industry giveaways only sweeten the deal. Fundamentally, the glue that binds the US and Israel together is their shared commitment to maintaining the current balance of power in the Middle East.

read the article 

Al Jazeera: Iraq's regional decentralisation debate is heating up

The decentralisation of security, spending and administrative power is regularly cited as a means of reducing tension in a post-Islamic State Iraq. The logic is commendable: If Sunnis and Kurds are freer to manage their own affairs, then they will have more stake in cooperation with Baghdad, and there will be less room for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) to operate along the tense, dividing lines between central Iraq and the northern and western peripheries.

Easy to say, harder to do. In decentralisation, the devil is in the detail. How much input should Baghdad versus local actors have in the recruitment of local security forces? Which spending should ministries versus provincial councils control? How much money will be sent to the local level? And who controls the oil?

These issues are being actively debated across Iraq, and strong emotions are the result. In disputed Kirkuk - claimed by Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs - the province's dynamic governor, Najmaldin Karim, has welcomed an open debate on the issue of how the province should be governed in future. [...]

As advocates of devolution say: There is probably never a "right time" to start this touchy process. But today is arguably one of the least promising moments due to the extraordinary fragility of the country and the political discord in Baghdad and the KRI.

Most international partners are unlikely to back regional formation efforts in Mosul or Kirkuk now because of their potential to derail Baghdad-KRI cooperation or exacerbate local-level tensions in liberated areas.

read the article 

The Guardian: ‘They’ve brought evil out’: Hungary’s poll on migration divides a nation

The Hungarian government’s map of Europe is dotted with stark warnings of “no-go zones” it claims are patrolled by violent immigrants, six in the UK clustered around London alone.

The poisonous graphic, in a leaflet handed out to voters ahead of a controversial referendum on refugees, pays no heed to facts or geography but its message is clear. It forms part of an expensive and expansive campaign by authorities in Budapest that is whipping up xenophobic sentiment at home, and sowing tension far beyond Hungarian borders. [...]

“One has the suspicion that this referendum is not about the refugees, that it is rather about the manipulation of the voters, and some kind of strengthening of positions within the EU,” said pastor Gábor Iványi, a one-time ally in the anti-Communist movement who baptised two of Orbán’s children. “Hungary is not a target country in this refugee crisis.” [...]

The language has been so violent that it fuelled demands from one European leader that Hungary be expelled from the union for stirring up hatred.

Even stalwart supporters of Orbán’s initiative often admit they have had no interaction, much less trouble, with outsiders. “I’ve only met foreigners who are tourists and not had any problems,” said cheery retiree László Czeto, 87, firmly committed to supporting the government. “I just don’t want a lot of people to come to Hungary. I think they are not real refugees.”

Yet there are clear political advantages to focusing on refugees – a target largely absent and unable to respond – at a time when Hungary is grappling with concerns from rampant graft to failing public services, critics say.

read the article 

The Washington Post: Bernie Sanders: ‘This is not the time for a protest vote’

At the rally itself, Sanders continued making the pitch he's been honing since he returned to the campaign trail: This isn't a year to vote third party. Mentioning Clinton's name sparingly, Sanders told several hundred voters — many still wearing gear from the Democratic primary — that their votes could stop the election of a Republican "who thinks climate change is a hoax." [....]

"This is not the time for a protest vote, in terms of a presidential campaign," Sanders said. "I ran as a third-party candidate. I'm the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I know more about third-party politics than anyone else in the Congress, okay? And if people want to run as third-party candidates, God bless them! Run for Congress. Run for governor. Run for state legislature. When we're talking about president of the United States, in my own personal view, this is not time for a protest vote. This is time to elect Hillary Clinton and then work after the election to mobilize millions of people to make sure she can be the most progressive president she can be."

The journey from Clinton primary foe to Clinton surrogate has been awkward for Sanders. At high-profile moments during the Democratic National Convention, including an address to his delegates, he mentioned his endorsement near the top of his remarks and was blown back by jeers and boos. Since then, Sanders has tucked his endorsement later in his speeches, after rundowns of exactly what concessions his campaign got from the Democratic Party, and what a Trump presidency would undo.

read the article