Log in
In Germany, the 50+1 rule protects professional football clubs from complete control by investors – a unique feature in the sport. It has many supporters internationally, but also attracts criticism.
All 17 experts ousted from the federal vaccine advisory committee have spoken out about the drastic changes that anti-vaccine advocate and current US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made since taking office. Those changes include unilaterally restricting access to COVID-19 vaccines and summarily firing the entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which had guided federal vaccine policies for more than 60 years.
"We are deeply concerned that these destabilizing decisions, made without clear rationale, may roll back the achievements of US immunization policy, impact people’s access to lifesaving vaccines, and ultimately put US families at risk of dangerous and preventable illnesses," the fired experts write in an editorial published in JAMA.
Kennedy dismissed the entire committee on June 9, accusing the former members of lacking public trust and being "plagued with persistent conflicts of interest," despite the committee's transparent disclosure and conflict of interest policies.
Cybersecurity practitioners are voicing concerns over a recent executive order issued by the White House that guts requirements for: securing software the government uses, punishing people who compromise sensitive networks, preparing new encryption schemes that will withstand attacks from quantum computers, and other existing controls.
The executive order (EO), issued on June 6, reverses several key cybersecurity orders put in place by President Joe Biden, some as recently as a few days before his term ended in January. A statement that accompanied Donald Trump's EO said the Biden directives "attempted to sneak problematic and distracting issues into cybersecurity policy" and amounted to "political football."
Pro-business, anti-regulation
Specific orders Trump dropped or relaxed included ones mandating (1) federal agencies and contractors adopt products with quantum-safe encryption as they become available in the marketplace, (2) a stringent Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) for software and services used by federal agencies and contractors, (3) the adoption of phishing-resistant regimens such as the WebAuthn standard for logging into networks used by contractors and agencies, (4) the implementation new tools for securing Internet routing through the Border Gateway Protocol, and (5) the encouragement of digital forms of identity.
Madness
Despite touting ambitious goals of making America healthier, the Trump administration on Monday revealed in court documents that it is backpedaling on a ban on cancer-causing asbestos.
Last year, under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency took a long-awaited step to ban the last type of asbestos still used in the US—chrysotile asbestos, aka "white asbestos." While use of chrysotile asbestos was on the decline, the dangerous mineral has lingered in various gaskets, brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings, other vehicle friction products, and some diaphragms used to make sodium hydroxide and chlorine.
With the ban, the US joined over 50 other countries around the world that had already banned its use due to health risks. Generally, asbestos is known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and laryngeal cancer. Asbestos exposure is linked to more than 40,000 deaths in the US alone each year, the EPA noted at the time.
So headlines are often more difficult than you might think.
They must summarize the facts of the article that follows, and must do so more-or-less accurately. (Accuracy of course is measured on a sliding scale that depends on how comical the result is likely to be while still avoiding defamation.) But they must do so using a limited number of words. Hyphenated adjectives can help, but using them can risk confusing subject and object, which can be problematic. Prepositions help clarify this, but prepositional phrases are wordy and usually not that funny (unless you think “of” is hilarious). There are a lot of factors to consider.
So this one went through a number of drafts before being approved.
According to this report, a man in Murray, Kentucky, was arrested on June 6 after police got a call that he had “intentionally released a raccoon into an open business.” The man then fled the scene, but police stopped him “soon after” and arrested him on multiple charges. It turns out—and frankly I found this a little surprising—that “intentionally releasing a raccoon into an open business” is not specifically a crime under Kentucky law. But trespassing can be, and the business owner had previously told the man he was not welcome on the premises. So that counts. He was also charged with resisting arrest and failure to maintain insurance on the vehicle he was arrested in, and the reported facts would qualify there too.
But the man—who I’m going to call “Mason,” because that’s his last name—was also charged with assault in the second degree, and here we must part ways with the Kentucky authorities.
Under Kentucky law, a person is guilty of assault in the second degree when the person:
(1)”intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person”;
(2)”intentionally causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument”; or
(3) “wantonly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.”
Although Mason was charged with resisting arrest, nothing in the reports suggests an officer was injured, something that surely would have been mentioned. But we are told that the raccoon bit a person after Mason released it. It therefore seems safe to assume that the assault charge is based on the raccoon bite. That is certainly an “injury,” and there’s probably enough here for intent, even though he couldn’t be sure the raccoon would bite someone. He intentionally released it, at least. (I guess he might have tripped and dropped a raccoon he happened to be carrying while trespassing, but I’ll defer to his defense lawyer on that one.) But unless the raccoon had rabies or something, and there’s no suggestion it did, I don’t see this as a serious physical injury.
So we are left with No. 2: assault with a deadly raccoon.
That won’t work, because the Kentucky Penal Code has a pretty specific list of “deadly weapons” and “raccoon” is not among them, nor is any other living thing. If the animal had a disease, the state could try to argue it is “a weapon of mass destruction,” which is on the list and that includes “any weapon involving a disease organism.” I’d like to see the state do that just for personal reasons, but realistically I don’t think this fits.
But is a raccoon a “dangerous instrument”? No. The Code defines that as any “instrument” that under the circumstances “is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury,” and again I do not think our raccoon fits the bill. So in my view, this assault charge should not stick.
Can a living thing be a “deadly weapon”? It depends. See, e.g., “Are Honeybees ‘Dangerous Weapons’?” (Oct. 21, 2022) (concluding a jury could reach that conclusion under Massachusetts law but seriously questioning deputies’ claims that they were all allergic to bee stings); “Is an Alligator a ‘Deadly Weapon’?” (Feb. 12, 2016) (concluding that an alligator flung into a Wendy’s drive-thru window might qualify under Florida law, depending on the alligator); cf. “Ninth Circuit Grapples With Whether Bare Hands Are ‘Weapons’” (Mar. 23, 2010) (noting that it took 14 pages for the court to answer “no” under California law). But not here.
Oh, I almost forgot about the mule incident.
It turns out that the alleged raccoon assault raccoon-involved incident came “just months after the same man was arrested for attempting to evade police officers on a mule.” Police were called after Mason refused to leave a bar when asked to do so. They found him outside, intoxicated in a public place, which again surprisingly is illegal in Kentucky. But he refused to stop when ordered, instead leaping onto the mule he had ridden to the establishment (emphasis unnecessary to add) and attempting to flee.
Though he did not try to take the mule into a body of water (see this entire category), his plan had the same basic comparative-mobility problem. He also was not charged with driving a mule under the influence (see this entire category), which is good because I’m at 859 words already. But he was charged with criminal trespassing, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and resisting arrest (probably committed in that order), and also cruelty to animals. (Witnesses claimed they saw Mason whip the mule an “unnecessary amount of times” in addition to “mistreating the animal in other ways” that were happily not explained.)
Not only that, “two days after the mule incident,” Mason was arrested again “for attempting to flee police while riding the mule down the roadway intoxicated.” Well, two days after the first mule incident, that is.
Mason drove himself and the raccoon to the business on June 6, so maybe he has learned that lesson, at least. Not that driving is better, but at least he left the mule out of it.
The Environment Agency warns England needs a 'continued and sustained effort' to cut water demand.
Months late...
Next Page of Stories