Rabbi admits to stealing millions from special-needs school.

Join us : facebook.com/unitedhumanists.com

Rabbi admits to stealing millions from special-needs school.

A Queens rabbi has pleaded guilty to embezzling $5 million from his taxpayer-funded Queens preschool — money intended for Orthodox Jewish special-needs students ages 3 to 5.

Rabbi Samuel Hiller, the former assistant director of Island Child Development Center in Far Rockaway, is expected to be sentenced to one to three years prison after Thursday’s guilty plea to first-degree grand larceny, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

Under the terms of his plea, Hiller, 59, will forfeit $1 million in seized assets and must pay $1 million more by the time he is sentenced June 15, Brown said. If he fails to make the deadline, he’ll be sentenced instead to two to six years. Hiller will also agree to pay an additional $3 million at a later date, Brown said.

Hiller used the embezzled funds — stolen between 2005 and 2012 — to prop up several for-profit summer camps he ran. He also used $30,000 to revamp the plumbing in his Elvira Avenue home in Far Rockaway, prosecutors said.

“Stealing from the public is bad enough, but exploiting small children to pay your plumber and support your for-profit camps, is reprehensible,” noted state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli in a statement Friday.

It was DiNapoli’s office that uncovered the embezzlement scheme, in which three of the rabbi’s colleagues were also charged.

The comptroller’s office had notified Hiller’s child development center in 2012 that it would be conducting a routine audit. But when auditors arrived that July, they were told that the then-executive director, Ira Kurman, had left his position — and taken all of his books and records with him.

After an initial investigation, the comptroller’s office referred the case the the Queens DA’s Detective and Economic Crimes bureaus.

Kurman has already pleaded guilty to first-degree grand larceny, as has co-defendant Roy Hoffman, who had been hired by the pre-school to serve as its state-mandated independent auditor.

The case against the third co-defendant, Daniel Laniado, 44, of Brooklyn, a self-described “investor” in the school, is still pending.

Prosecutors say Laniado used some of the more than $1 million he pocketed to stock the shelves of his kosher supermarket in Borough Park, and to buy 7.5 carats in uncut diamonds.

Source : https://nyp.st/2lwLuRw

Advertisements

Designing School Restrooms for Increased Comfort, Safety and Gender-Inclusivity.

Join us : facebook.com/unitedhumanists

How to Design School Restrooms for Increased Comfort, Safety and Gender-Inclusivity

“Gang style” bathrooms, in which rows of stalls are installed opposite rows of wash basins and designated only for males or for females, have been de rigueur in educational facilities for the last hundred years. They involve predictable plumbing, mechanical exhaust, and fixture costs. Short doors and divider walls allow for the passive monitoring of behavior.

Relinquishing this traditional bathroom model is daunting, since individual toilet rooms can significantly increase costs through additional plumbing, ductwork, ventilation, partitions, doors and hardware. These designs many times require additional space, trigger further ADA compliance, and invalidate some USGBC LEED points. Moreover, school districts typically have limited budgets, established facilities, and deep-rooted social practices.

Capture1.JPG

Which is why the initiative shown by Grant High School in the Portland Public School District has been so extraordinary. In 2013, the school had 10 students who openly identified as transgender. To help combat the real possibility that they would drop out due to a perceived lack of safety, administrators designated four student bathrooms and two staff bathrooms—each individual rooms with a toilet, sink and mirror—as gender-inclusive. The bathrooms were immediately popular with all students at Grant HS, transgender or not, who enjoyed the privacy afforded by these enclosed facilities.

With a major renovation of the 1920s-era school on the horizon, the District realized that providing equitable toilet facilities for all 1700 students would be essential.

Architecture firm Mahlum’s design solution for Grant HS centered around replacing all existing “gang-style” bathrooms with individual toilet rooms with full doors opening to a shared space for wash basins and drinking fountains. Urinals will not be installed. Two entrance and exit points eliminate the feeling of going into a “dead-end” room, increasing safety and security. Signed with a simple pictorial representation of a toilet, not the ubiquitous “his” (pants), “hers” (skirt), or “their” (both), the toilet room is open for use by all. When the renovation is complete in 2019, Grant HS will become the first in the District—and one of the few in the nation—to house one hundred percent inclusive bathrooms.

Capture.JPG

For the new Northwood Elementary School in the Mercer Island School District, the same architectural team also abandoned gang style bathrooms, instead placing individual toilet rooms in many places on each floor. This solution boosts program flexibility and reduces time lost to toilet transitions. Since the District intends to keep the bathrooms unlocked and available to all students, the solution maximizes restroom equity, which is especially helpful for young students just learning to navigate social customs and keen to fit in with their peers.

Higher education institutions may more easily implement equitable bathroom designs because users are older, more diverse, and tend toward open-mindedness. For a new residence hall currently under construction at University of Oregon, Mahlum held student listening sessions, which revealed a strong desire for gender-inclusive living units with private bathrooms, as well as visibly inclusive public restrooms at the ground level and in common areas. However, residence facilities are still typically grouped by gender per floor or per community, and although suite-style bathrooms serving smaller clusters of students potentially mitigate gender-segregated restrooms, they can cost more. Like school districts, college and university administrators fear that enhanced design solutions will escalate costs, consume space, and drive up room rates.

The desire to create more equitable restroom design can also be stymied by building codes that have not yet caught up to changing opinions. Local jurisdictions have limited legal authority to enact code changes, so they usually have no other recourse but to uphold strict compliance. As society calls for more equitable bathroom design, the design and construction industry must demand large-scale code changes to allow “alternate paths” that comply with the intent of code and, moreover, serve the public good.

While the transgender movement may be currently illuminating the issue, toilet privacy affects a much broader group, including families with young children, adult caregivers, and people that are mobility-challenged or have health issues. Enhancing equity through privacy is a basic human right that primary, secondary and higher education institutions can uphold through thoughtful design solutions. By rethinking bathroom design in retrofits or new facilities, what was once an afterthought for architects can become a way to not just promote self-esteem, health and well-being, but improve safety and security.

As architects struggle with understanding what communities need and how to meet and overcome antiquated code regulations, we must quickly find a design vocabulary, inclusive of iconography and code guidelines, to reflect best practices. And most of all, we must place equity and human dignity at the center of these conversations.

JoAnn Hindmarsh Wilcox AIA LEED AP, Associate Principal is the Design Lead for the education studio at Mahlum. JoAnn crafts nationally recognized buildings that prioritize student learning and support student life, rooted in a multi-platform, collaborative engagement process.

Kurt Haapala AIA LEED AP, Partner, is an industry leader in the planning and design of student life and housing facilities, and has helped build Mahlum’s higher education housing studio into a nationally recognized practice.

Source : https://bit.ly/2ItW4BH

 

Recycling innovator faces prison for trying to extend computers’ lives

Join us : facebook.com/unitedhumanists.com

Electronics-recycling innovator faces prison for trying to extend computers’ lives

Eric Lundgren is obsessed with recycling electronics.

He built an electric car out of recycled parts that far outdistanced a Tesla in a test. He launched what he thinks is the first “electronic hybrid recycling” facility in the United States, which turns discarded cellphones and other electronics into functional devices, slowing the stream of harmful chemicals and metals into landfills and the environment. His Chatsworth company processes more than 41 million pounds of e-waste each year and counts IBM, Motorola and Sprint among its clients.

But an idea Lundgren had to prolong the life of personal computers could land him in prison.

Prosecutors said the 33-year-old ripped off Microsoft Corp. by manufacturing 28,000 counterfeit discs with the company’s Windows operating system on them. He was convicted of conspiracy and copyright infringement, which brought a 15-month prison sentence and a $50,000 fine.

In a rare move though, a federal appeals court has granted an emergency stay of the sentence, giving Lundgren another chance to make his argument that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. Lundgren does not deny that he made the discs or that he hoped to sell them. But he says this was no profit-making scheme. By his account, he just wanted to make it easier to extend the usefulness of secondhand computers — keeping more of them out of the trash.

The case centers on “restore discs,” which can be used only on computers that already have the licensed Windows software and can be downloaded free from the computer’s manufacturer, in this case Dell. The discs are routinely provided to buyers of new computers to enable them to reinstall their operating systems if the computers’ hardware fails or must be wiped clean. But they often are lost by the time used computers find their way to a refurbisher.

Lundgren said he thought electronics companies wanted the reuse of computers to be difficult so that people would buy new ones. “I started learning what planned obsolescence was,” he said, “and I realized companies make laptops that only lasted as long as the insurance would last. It infuriated me. That’s not what a healthy society should have.”

He thought that producing and selling restore discs to computer refurbishers — saving them the hassle of downloading the software and burning new discs — would encourage more secondhand sales. In his view, the new owners were entitled to the software, and this just made it easier.

The government, and Microsoft, did not see it that way. Federal prosecutors in Florida obtained a 21-count indictment against Lundgren and his business partner, and Microsoft filed a letter seeking $420,000 in restitution for lost sales. Lundgren claims that the assistant U.S. attorney on the case told him, “Microsoft wants your head on a platter and I’m going to give it to them.”

The U.S. attorney’s office in Miami and Microsoft declined to comment. Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley observed that none of the discs Lundgren made were actually sold and declined to order him to pay restitution. Hurley imposed a 15-month sentence that was less than half of that called for by federal sentencing guidelines, which indicated 36 to 47 months.

In court, the judge made it clear that this was a tough case.

“This case is especially difficult,” Hurley told Lundgren at his sentencing last May, “because of who you are today and in terms of who you have become.” The judge received evidence of Lundgren’s recycling company, IT Asset Partners; his projects to clean up e-waste in Ghana and China; and a 2016 initiative in which Lundgren’s company repaired and donated more than 14,000 cellphones and $100,000 to the Cell Phones for Soldiers organization to benefit U.S. soldiers deployed overseas.

Lundgren grew up in Lynden, Wash., where, as a 16-year-old, he became the town’s computer recycler after the local sheriff’s department heard about his talent for fixing or reusing computer parts. Some parts of a computer — for example, the Apple touch screen — are proprietary and cannot be recycled. But 95% of a computer, Lundgren said — such as the battery or the motor or the circuits — are generic and can be reused or repurposed. He has devoted much time to recovering discarded batteries, whether from cars or computers, and reusing them in wheelchairs, electronics and various vehicles.

At 19, Lundgren moved to Los Angeles and started his first electronics recycling company, and at 20 he landed his first big client: American Airlines, refurbishing and selling about 40,000 computers a year. The computers came with the original license or “certificate of authenticity” stickers and with product key numbers on the sticker, though their hard drives had been erased, so reinstalling Windows was legal, Lundgren said.

“If they brought in a computer without a certificate of authenticity,” Lundgren said of his customers, “then we’d part it out” and not refurbish and resell it. He added clients including Dell, Asus, Lenovo and Coca-Cola, handling their discarded computers.

Lundgren became intrigued with following the world’s e-waste stream and wound up moving to China. “I learned the back end of what happens when things are thrown away,” he said. He became more focused on reducing the ever-growing heaps of discarded plastics and glass that a “use it and toss it” society creates, eliminating the burning of electronic trash that pollutes the air and combating the leakage of computer-based chemicals that filter into the water.

While in China, Lundgren hit upon the idea of selling restore discs to computer refurbishers. The discs work if computers still have their license and product keys available, and the license transfers with the computer, no matter who owns it.

“Microsoft does not sell restore CDs,” Lundgren said. “Microsoft sells licenses” that enable their software to work, from $300 for a new operating system to $25 for a license for a refurbisher who wants to resell a computer that does not already have a licensed copy of Windows.

In 2013, federal authorities intercepted shipments of 28,000 restore discs that Lundgren had manufactured in China and sent to his sales partner in Florida. The discs had labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Windows and Dell logos. “If I had just written ‘Eric’s Restore Disc’ on there, it would have been fine,” Lundgren said.

As a result of violating the copyright of Windows and Dell, Lundgren pleaded guilty to two of the 21 counts against him. But he believed that because the discs had no retail value and were seized before they were sold, he would not receive any prison time. His sentence was based on the financial loss involved.

Microsoft attorney Bonnie MacNaughton wrote to Hurley, the judge, describing the case as one of “software piracy,” costing the computer industry billions of dollars annually, and saying that prosecution was important “to deter others from engaging in the illicit global trade in decoupled product activation keys” — meaning the sale or trade of the license stickers applied to the originally licensed computer. Microsoft calculated that Lundgren’s 28,000 restore discs could have been sold to refurbishers for $20 each, and that 75% of that total was Microsoft’s average profit, so it demanded restitution of $420,000.

As their expert witness at the sentencing, prosecutors called a Microsoft program manager from Ireland to explain to the judge how the discs worked and their value. Jonathan McGloin testified that Microsoft licensed Windows to computer manufacturers such as Dell and also licensed them to make restore or recovery discs to be included with the new computers. McGloin also testified that Microsoft charges computer refurbishers about $25 for a new license and copy of the software but didn’t differentiate that from what was done by Lundgren, who was not making a new copy of the software and intended his restore discs only for computers that were already licensed.

“In essence, I got in the way of Microsoft’s profits, so they pushed this into federal court on false pretense,” Lundgren said. He said McGloin “testified that a free restore CD was worth the same price as a new Windows operating system with a license. … This was false and inaccurate testimony provided by Microsoft in an attempt to set a precedent that will scare away future recyclers and refurbishers from reusing computers without first paying Microsoft again for another license. … Anyone successfully extending the life cycle of computers or diverting these computers from landfills for reuse in society is essentially standing in the way of Microsoft’s profits.”

Lundgren called his own expert witness, Glenn Weadock, an author of numerous software books who testified for the government in a major antitrust case against Microsoft that was resolved in 2001. Weadock was asked, “In your opinion, without a code, either product key or COA [certificate of authenticity], what is the value of these reinstallation discs?”

“Zero or near zero,” Weadock said.

Why would anybody pay for one? Lundgren’s lawyer asked.

“There is a convenience factor associated with them,” Weadock said.

Still, Hurley decided that Lundgren’s 28,000 restore discs had a value of $700,000, and that qualified Lundgren for a 15-month term along with a $50,000 fine. He denied Lundgren’s request to remain free pending his appeal, but the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the request as Lundgren was about to surrender for imprisonment.

“I thought it was freeware,” Lundgren said of the restore discs. “If it’s free, then I’m just going to duplicate the free repair tool and give it away, and that’ll be fine,” he thought. “The value’s in the license. They didn’t understand that.”

His appeal is pending before the 11th Circuit.

Source : https://lat.ms/2oaZ4et

U.N. Elects Saudi Arabia to Women’s Rights Commission

Join us : facebook.com/unitedhumanists

U.N. Elects Saudi Arabia to Women’s Rights Commission

The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch condemned the U.N.’s election of Saudi Arabia, “the world’s most misogynistic regime,” to a 2018-2022 term on its Commission on the Status of Women, the U.N. agency “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

“Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “It’s absurd — and morally reprehensible.”

“This is a black day for women’s rights, and for all human rights,” said Neuer. Interview: Why Saudis Joined Women’s Rights Body

“Saudi discrimination against women is gross and systematic in law and in practice. Every Saudi woman,” said Neuer, “must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman’s life from her birth until death. Saudi Arabia bans women from driving cars. Why did the U.N. choose the world’s leading oppressor of women to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women?”

Saudi women feel betrayed by the UN. “I wish I could find the words to express how I feel right know. I’m ‘saudi’ and this feels like betrayal,” tweeted a self-described Saudi woman pursuing a doctorate in international human rights law in Australia.

“Today the UN sent a message that women’s rights can be sold out for petro-dollars and politics,” said Neuer, “and it let down millions of female victims worldwide who look to the world body for protection.”

The fundamentalist monarchy is now one of 45 countries that, according to the U.N., will play an instrumental role in “promoting women’s rights, documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world, and shaping global standards on gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

Saudi Arabia was elected by a secret ballot last week of the U.N.’s 54-nation Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Usually ECOSOC rubber-stamps nominations arranged behind closed doors by regional groups, however this time the U.S. forced an election, to China’s chagrin.

Source : https://bit.ly/2pq5Pfm

‘Corporations Are People’ Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie

Join us : facebook.com/unitedhumanists.com

Corporations Are People’ Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie

Somewhat unintuitively, American corporations today enjoy many of the same rights as American citizens. Both, for instance, are entitled to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.

That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.

The head lawyer representing Southern Pacific was a man named Roscoe Conkling. A leader of the Republican Party for more than a decade, Conkling had even been nominated to the Supreme Court twice. He begged off both times, the second time after the Senate had confirmed him. (He remains the last person to turn down a Supreme Court seat after winning confirmation). More than most lawyers, Conkling was seen by the justices as a peer.

It was a trust Conkling would betray. As he spoke before the Court on Southern Pacific’s behalf, Conkling recounted an astonishing tale. In the 1860s, when he was a young congressman, Conkling had served on the drafting committee that was responsible for writing the Fourteenth Amendment. Then the last member of the committee still living, Conkling told the justices that the drafters had changed the wording of the amendment, replacing “citizens” with “persons” in order to cover corporations too. Laws referring to “persons,” he said, have “by long and constant acceptance … been held to embrace artificial persons as well as natural persons.” Conkling buttressed his account with a surprising piece of evidence: a musty old journal he claimed was a previously unpublished record of the deliberations of the drafting committee.

Years later, historians would discover that Conkling’s journal was real but his story was a fraud. The journal was in fact a record of the congressional committee’s deliberations but, upon close examination, it offered no evidence that the drafters intended to protect corporations. It showed, in fact, that the language of the equal-protection clause was never changed from “citizen” to “person.” So far as anyone can tell, the rights of corporations were not raised in the public debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment or in any of the states’ ratifying conventions. And, prior to Conkling’s appearance on behalf of Southern Pacific, no member of the drafting committee had ever suggested that corporations were covered.

There’s reason to suspect Conkling’s deception was uncovered back in his time too. The justices held onto the case for three years without ever issuing a decision, until Southern Pacific unexpectedly settled the case. Then, shortly after, another case from Southern Pacific reached the Supreme Court, raising the exact same legal question. The company had the same team of lawyers, with the exception of Conkling. Tellingly, Southern Pacific’s lawyers omitted any mention of Conkling’s drafting history or his journal. Had those lawyers believed Conkling, it would have been malpractice to leave out his story.

When the Court issued its decision on this second case, the justices expressly declined to decide if corporations were people. The dispute could be, and was, resolved on other grounds, prompting an angry rebuke from one justice, Stephen J. Field, who castigated his colleagues for failing to address “the important constitutional questions involved.” “At the present day, nearly all great enterprises are conducted by corporations,” he wrote, and they deserved to know if they had equal rights too.

Rumored to carry a gun with him at all times, the colorful Field was the only sitting justice ever arrested—and the charge was murder. He was innocent, but nonetheless guilty of serious ethical violations in the Southern Pacific cases, at least by modern standards: A confidant of Leland Stanford, Field had advised the company on which lawyers to hire for this very series of cases and thus should have recused himself from them. He refused to—and, even worse, while the first case was pending, covertly shared internal memoranda of the justices with Southern Pacific’s legal team.

The rules of judicial ethics were not well developed in the Gilded Age, however, and the self-assured Field, who feared the forces of socialism, did not hesitate to weigh in. Taxing the property of railroads differently, he said, was like allowing deductions for property “owned by white men or by old men, and not deducted if owned by black men or young men.”

So, with Field on the Court, still more twists were yet to come. The Supreme Court’s opinions are officially published in volumes edited by an administrator called the reporter of decisions. By tradition, the reporter writes up a summary of the Court’s opinion and includes it at the beginning of the opinion. The reporter in the 1880s was J.C. Bancroft Davis, whose wildly inaccurate summary of the Southern Pacific case said that the Court had ruled that “corporations are persons within … the Fourteenth Amendment.” Whether his summary was an error or something more nefarious—Davis had once been the president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company—will likely never be known.

Field nonetheless saw Davis’s erroneous summary as an opportunity. A few years later, in an opinion in an unrelated case, Field wrote that “corporations are persons within the meaning” of the Fourteenth Amendment. “It was so held in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,” explained Field, who knew very well that the Court had done no such thing.

His gambit worked. In the following years, the case would be cited over and over by courts across the nation, including the Supreme Court, for deciding that corporations had rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Indeed, the faux precedent in the Southern Pacific case would go on to be used by a Supreme Court that in the early 20th century became famous for striking down numerous economic regulations, including federal child-labor laws, zoning laws, and wage-and-hour laws. Meanwhile, in cases like the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), those same justices refused to read the Constitution as protecting the rights of African Americans, the real intended beneficiaries of the Fourteenth Amendment. Between 1868, when the amendment was ratified, and 1912, the Supreme Court would rule on 28 cases involving the rights of African Americans and an astonishing 312 cases on the rights of corporations.

The day back in 1882 when the Supreme Court first heard Roscoe Conkling’s argument, the New-York Daily Tribune featured a story on the case with a headline that would turn out to be prophetic: “Civil Rights of Corporations.” Indeed, in a feat of deceitful legal alchemy, Southern Pacific and its wily legal team had, with the help of an audacious Supreme Court justice, set up the Fourteenth Amendment to be more of a bulwark for the rights of businesses than the rights of minorities.

Source : https://bit.ly/2tw0XWw

Tuberculosis Vaccine Could Reverse Type 1 Diabetes.

Join us: facebook.com/unitedhumanists

Tuberculosis Vaccine Could Reverse Type 1 Diabetes, Study Shows.

The causes of Type 1 diabetes can be significantly reversed over several years with just two injections of a common tuberculosis vaccine injected a few weeks apart, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) announced Thursday in a paper published in the journal Nature.

Researchers found a substantial reduction in the blood-sugar marker HbA1c that is used to diagnose diabetes. All subjects with diabetes who received the vaccine had a 10% reduction after three years and 18% after four years, bringing them below the cutoff point for a clinical diagnosis. Those subjects followed for a full eight years retained most of the reduction.

Participants who received a placebo or were in a reference group that followed normal diabetic management saw their blood sugar measurement rise by a few percentage points during the same periods followed. Subjects of the study receiving the vaccine or placebo continued to use insulin during the study period.

The study’s principal director, Dr. Denise Faustman, director of the MGH Immunobiology Laboratory, told FierceBiotech and other news outlets, “Nobody thought you could intervene with an immunotherapy in people 10, 20 years out. To have data showing durability for 8 years, without revaccination, is remarkable.”

A 10% reduction in Hb1Ac reduces the risk of death as a result of diabetes by 21%, and drops by 37% other complications, like blindness and loss of feeling in hands and feet, according to a 2000 study.

The study followed a relatively small number of people: 52 total with Type 1 diabetes, only 12 of whom received injections. Of the 12, nine received the vaccine and three the placebo. All 52 had follow-up measurements through five years. And three of those who received the vaccine were followed for eight years.

Medical researchers not involved in the study expressed a range of high to very mild skepticism about the validity of the study due almost entirely to its small size. “This could be something that happened by chance because people were a bit more diligent or leaner or more compliant with diet,” Dr. Adrian Vella, an endocrinologist at the Mayo Clinic, said in an interview with NBC News. However, Dr. Joseph Bellanti, a professor of pediatrics and microbiology-immunology at Georgetown Medical Center, said in an interview with WBUR that was “cautiously optimistic” because of the quality of the study’s design.

A failure to produce enough insulin, Type 1 diabetes affects an estimated 20 to 40 million people globally. The more common form Type 2, resulting from obesity and lack of exercise, affects at least 400 million people. Diabetes incidence has more than quadrupled in the last 40 years.

The study relied on the bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, which has been used in humans since 1921. Its use is limited in the United States, because the form of bacteria it protects against, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, is rare in this country. The CDC generally recommends against its use as it creates false positives from a TB test that’s routine in the U.S. However, it’s been administered to an estimated 4 billion people.

Based on initial mice tests, researchers expected the vaccine would prompt regeneration of the pancreas, which produces insulin. Instead, they write in their paper, a form of white blood cells starts to metabolize sugar more aggressively—10 to 20 times as much as they normally consume.

However, the long delay in a measurable effect wasn’t a surprise. A number of studies using BCG that have produced outcomes such as slowing the progress of multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases show a long onset.

Source: https://for.tn/2Mmrmx5

A Jury May Have Sentenced a Man to Death Because He’s Gay. And the Justices Don’t Care.

Join us : facebook.com/unitedhumanists

A Jury May Have Sentenced a Man to Death Because He’s Gay. And the Justices Don’t Care.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would not stop South Dakota from killing a man who may have been sentenced to death because he is gay.

Some of the jurors who imposed the death penalty on Charles Rhines, who was convicted of murder, have said they thought the alternative — a life sentence served in a men’s prison — was something he would enjoy as a gay man.

During deliberations, the jury had often discussed the fact that Mr. Rhines was gay and there was “a lot of disgust” about it, one juror recalled in an interview, according to the court petition. Another said that jurors knew he was gay and “thought that he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” A third recounted hearing that if the jury did not sentence Mr. Rhines to death, “if he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go.”

The justices rejected Mr. Rhines’s plea to hear his bias claim, allowing his death sentence to stand despite disturbing evidence that it may have been the result of anti-L.G.B.T. animus. As usual, the court gave no explanation for its decision not to review the case. But its silence sent a deeply troubling message about the value placed on the lives of L.G.B.T. people.

In court papers opposing Mr. Rhines’s request for a fair sentence, South Dakota attempts to brush off this last remark as a “stab at humor” that didn’t land well. But a note from the jury to the sentencing judge leaves little doubt that this extraordinary assumption infected the jury’s decision-making process: “We know what the death penalty means. But we have no clue as to the reality of life without parole.”

In that note, the jurors went on to ask a series of questions aimed at whether Mr. Rhines would be in proximity to other men in prison. Would he “be allowed to mix with the general inmate population?” Would he be permitted “to discuss, describe or brag about his crime to other inmates?” Would he “have a cellmate?”

In other words, some members of the jury thought life in prison without parole would be fun for Mr. Rhines. So they decided to sentence him to death.

Juror deliberations are considered sacrosanct, but last year the Supreme Court carved out an important exception for cases of racial bias in the jury room. In a race discrimination case, there was evidence that the jury decided to convict an accused man of unlawful sexual contact and harassment because “he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” in the words of one juror. The Supreme Court rightly found that such racial animus interfered with an accused’s person right to a fair and impartial trial.

The same rule should apply when anti-L.G.B.T. prejudice taints juror decision-making. To be sure, the history of racism in America is unique and demands unique safeguards. But that does not make anti-L.G.B.T. discrimination any less objectionable, particularly when it may have made the difference between life and death.

It’s difficult to square allowing the state to execute Mr. Rhines because of his sexual orientation with the Supreme Court’s observation this month that states should prevent the harms of discrimination against L.G.B.T. people. And while bias in the criminal justice system is not always explicit, it was in Mr. Rhines’s case. That makes the court’s decision not to step in even more alarming.

Sadly, the court will almost certainly be presented with more requests to review convictions or sentences poisoned by anti-L.G.B.T. bias. It should take the next opportunity to correct this mistake and recognize that prejudice against people who are L.G.B.T. should play no role in America’s criminal justice system.

However, that will probably come too late for Mr. Rhines.

Source : https://nyti.ms/2M6sSDc