[unable to retrieve full-text content]
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Another week, another tale of tumult online. Be it Fox News host Laura Ingraham having to apologize after mocking one of many Parkland pupils or the growing pushback against FOSTA/SESTA, everything a week ago felt fraught. And people are simply two associated with the stories that had individuals speaking on social media marketing. Need to know more? Right here you go.
Pardon Me Personally?
Just what occurred: After months of this matter humming within the back ground, last week had been another big one in ongoing Special research into Potential Russian Collusion.
Exactly what actually Happened: Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe got another added twist the other day, therefore had beenn’t that Joe diGenova wouldn’t be joining President Trump’s legal group after being announced as an addition. (their state of Trump’s appropriate team was much talked about throughout the last few days, though.) Nope, the latest curveball came courtesy of the most recent court filing from Mueller.
It in fact was a filing that received a lot of attention through the news, it is this actually an issue?
…So that will evidently be described as a yes, then. It turned out, but that wasn’t the sole Mueller investigation news to come away during the last seven days, because this dropped pretty much each and every day after the Rick Gates story:
Yes, now-departed lawyer John Dowd apparently suggested Trump give consideration to pardoning two people in the centre associated with Mueller investigation.
Naturally, the White House is denying the reports, because why would anyone think in a different way? But, before anyone got too caught up because of the pardons from it all, the week finished where it began, with the revelation that Mueller wanted Gates because he views him as a link between Trump and Russia. That one, friends, will run and run.
The Takeaway: This is like a substantial understatement…
The Stormy Daniels Front Continues to Roll In
Just what took place: Meanwhile, President Trump’s other controversy—you understand, the Stormy Daniels one—continued unabated.
Exactly what Really occurred: Speaking of stories which can be set to run and run, Stormy Daniels has received a significant week previously a week. It began early a week ago with her much-anticipated 60 Minutes meeting—
—which, it turns out, numerous people (and far associated with the media, for instance) saw.
But which was simply the beginning! While individuals wondered why Trump had beenn’t responding publicly toward story—although he’s apparently telling individuals privately that she’s not his type, an undeniable fact disproven by looking at almost everyone he’s ever had a relationship with—the next stage of the Stormy plan moved into action. Therefore ended up being surprise one.
That definitely doesn’t seem advantageous to Michael Cohen. But at the least all focus is on Cohen these times, and never on his employer, the President of United States. Wait, what’s that?
OK, certain; this appears even worse than it did at first. Fortunately, there’s no opportunity your appropriate teams for either Trump or Cohen would do anything to harm themselves.
It was the move that prompted the headline “Michael Cohen’s Attorney can be a Worse Lawyer Than he could be,” which appeared like an understatement, as others pointed out. But clearly he learned his tutorial and wouldn’t duplicate the blunder the very following day…
The Takeaway: If absolutely nothing else, this lawsuit might be going to be really entertaining to view.
Julian Assange Unplugged
Exactly what occurred: What happens each time a guy who has develop into a creature of the internet instantly has no internet access? What’s the sound of 1 hand clapping?
Just what Really occurred: It’s been awhile since we’ve heard from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but there’s grounds for that. Or, at least, there is a week ago.
As reported far and wide, Assange no longer has internet access after the Ecuadorian authorities got bored of his Twitter tirades. Well, maybe it was a bit more severe than that.
As may be anticipated, not everybody thought it was reasonable.
In the course of time a hashtag popped up supporting Assange’s directly to the online world: #ReconnectJulian.
Obviously, some one must come up with a plan to ensure that Assange can still … do whatever he really does on the web.
Perhaps not that plan, though.
The Takeaway: We think this treats the complete subject with all the seriousness it deserves…
Like The Apprentice, But on Twitter
What Happened: President Trump fired someone on Twitter. Once Again.
Just what actually occurred: Remember all of the hassle as soon as the president replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson via Twitter? It in fact was a move that received so much comment and disapproval there was almost certainly no chance that he’d do it—oh, wait. Never ever mind.
On one hand, it had beenn’t the greatest surprise that Shulkin was ousted, great deal of thought had been revealed simply final month he (and their staff) misled ethics officials over travel costs, claimed which he had been pushed from his work before saying he wouldn’t keep, after which declared that he had White home backing to purge the department of Veterans Affairs. Those aren’t precisely signs that he would stay static in the career for extended. Nevertheless, his ousting—and the option of replacement—raised a few eyebrows on the web. If nothing else, everyone was quick to answer Ronny Jackson’s nomination whilst the brand new guy in control of the VA.
Still, certainly Trump had his reasons as he opted for Jackson.
Yeah, that appears about right. With the individuals amazed by the nomination, it should be noted that Jackson had been one of these, in line with the Washington Post, which stated that he had been “taken aback by their nomination” and “hesitated to just take such a big task.” The interview procedure, which people suspect didn’t even happen, ended up being described by the Post as “informal,” which seems a great option to place it. Meanwhile, as Jackson was taking into consideration the future, so ended up being their predecessor; it ended up, David Shulkin had been working on his or her own going away present.
Unsurprisingly, this made headlines across the media, and likely made Jackson even more stressed about using the job. There’s probably nevertheless time and energy to say no, Ronny.
The Takeaway: Nevertheless, let’s take into account the future, shall we?
Adnan Syed’s Brand New Trial
Exactly what Happened: For longtime fans of popular podcasts, recently supplied an unexpected piece of very good news.
What Really Happened: Fans of the first season of podcast phenomenon Serial got a surprise enhance towards story of Adnan Syed on Thursday.
Those who haven’t been following Rabia Chaudry’s Twitter feed—and that have perhaps not held with Syed’s tries to overturn a murder conviction that relied upon evidence that has been not entirely convincing—that tweet could be some vague, but fortunately, other people were and details soon enough.
This is, never to put it moderately, a problem, as news coveragesuggested. Chaudry, an attorney and writer whom advocated for Syed’s case years before Serial (and whom continued to work about it after ward, not least included in the Undisclosed podcast group), was understandably elated.
Chaudry’s Undisclosed co-hosts also stepped directly into comment.
Of course, this won’t suggest Syed will soon be found innocent this time around around—but Chaudry is confident about this outcome.
Although that may need your assistance, because it works out…
The Takeaway: as well as for all those feeling as though Serial didn’t execute a adequate work of presenting Syed’s innocence, here’s a special message:
Keri Hogan was about to become a police officer when she submitted a sample of her hair to the city of Boston for testing. The city, in turn, gave it to a company called Psychemedics, which washed the hair, dissolved it, and used gas chromatography and mass spectrometry—chemical analysis techniques—to check it twice over for evidence of cocaine. Hogan’s hair tested positive.
Boston police officers whose hair tests positive for drugs usually have two options: admit their substance abuse problems and agree to a stint in rehabilitation, or relinquish their position. But Hogan, who finished her police training prior to 2005, says that she has never used cocaine; when she sent her hair to a private company for more testing, it came back negative. Now, she and nine other black police officers are suing the city of Boston, saying that the practice of testing hair for drugs is discriminatory. Because of the chemistry behind the test, they say, it unfairly targets dark hair. The bench trial for the case began on March 12, and may have long-lasting consequences for the future of drug testing.
The hair test was developed in the late ‘60s, when an Austrian chemist named Werner Baumgartner decided to piggyback on the work of his wife. Annette Baumgartner was working at the Aerospace Corporation, trying to figure out what toxins might be ingested by onlookers during a shuttle launch, and Werner realized that he could look for drug exposure with the strategies she developed. Substances floating around the blood eventually get incorporated into the hair as it grows—either through tiny blood vessels or the oil and sweat glands that surround the hair follicle—and drugs found inside the hair itself, he realized, would be harder to cheat on than urine or saliva tests. They’d linger longer in the sample, too.
Baumgartner demonstrated the full force of the procedure when he used it to identify opiate painkillers in the poet John Keats’ hair, which the lab received from a rare book collection at the University of Texas at Austin. After a Time Magazine story about the Keats test, several businessmen approached Baumgartner with the intent to start a company, and Psychemedics was born.
In 1985, a navy chemist named David Kidwell was tasked with studying the test’s effectiveness—and soon, he began to have reservations. In 1993, he published the results of an experiment in which he soaked the hair in a mix of cocaine derivative and water, then washed it repeatedly before performing the drug test. Despite his attempts to remove the external contamination, the tests came back positive.
Baumgartner argued that Kidwell had used the wrong wash procedure; the test was still reliable. But Kidwell and his research partner lashed back: “At the current level of understanding, the presence of drugs in an individual’s hair indicates exposure to that compound,” they wrote. “Attempting to expand this observation into the suggestion of use or long-term abuse of a drug would seem unwarranted at this time.”
Thus began a scientific back-and-forth that has continued to this day. Scientists like Kidwell argue that both external and ingested cocaine binds to melanin in the hair. People with black hair have more melanin in general, but especially more of the subtype eumelanin, which studies have shown binds particularly well with cocaine and amphetamines. (Gray hair doesn’t have much of any type of melanin, so if you want to get away with using cocaine, aging may be your best bet.) And researchers disagree over whether hair can ever be washed clean of any and all drugs it could have come into contact with from the outside.
Despite those questions, both the Boston and New York police departments, 10 to 15 percent of Fortune 500 companies, court systems, federal reserve banks, and numerous high schools still use the hair test. The FBI phased it out in 2009, then re-implemented it in 2014. About 200,000 drug tests are run on hair in the US every year.
Meanwhile, research from Kidwell and other scientists has shown that both the amount of melanin in the hair and some chemical treatment involved in styling makes a difference in how much contamination the hair can absorb. Kidwell has appeared as an expert witness in many lawsuits about the validity of the tests over the last 20 years.
“I am not sure there will ever be absolute settlement,” says Bruce Goldberger, the chief of forensic medicine and a professor of toxicology at University of Florida Health. He was the first person to find a way to identify the difference between heroin and morphine in a drug hair test.
The law has generally sided with Pyschemedics. But in 2012, the state of Massachusetts ruled that the hair test alone is not enough to terminate employment. Six police officers were reinstated in their jobs, and Hogan finally graduated from the police academy. She and the other plaintiffs are now in a federal court, asserting that the test is specifically discriminatory.
The stakes are high. Everyone wants police officers and other public servants to be as alert as possible, especially in dangerous situations. The FDA has approved Psychemedic’s hair tests for eight drugs, not just cocaine. Raymond C. Kubacki, now CEO of Psychemedics, says that scientific accuracy is the company’s top priority. “Psychemedics is a pioneer in the washing technique,” he says. “It’s important that we don’t have anyone falsely accused because of outside contamination.”
But the hair test puts an undue burden on African Americans, and especially African American women. Common hair styles mean that simply cutting a chunk of hair for the test can be harder for these women. And adding extra hurdles for this group to join and stay in law enforcement could cost the city: Male police officers cost the government between two to five times more in legal fees than female police officers—and only about 13 percent of policy officers identify as women.
Though Hogan has already been reinstated, the risk of future false positives still looms over her peers, both in and out of law enforcement. The result of her discrimination case, which is still ongoing, should inform the use of a potentially flawed test—and hopefully spur the development of others.