iftttwall

California’s High-Speed Rail
Authority (CHSRA) can’t even spin this one: A state judge in
Sacramento, in two separate rulings, has taken the business plans
for the state’s bullet train outside, tossed them in a rusty barrel
behind the courthouse, and set them on fire. As Reason has
repeatedly noted across several years, the CHSRA’s runaway rail
plan was wildly different, more expensive, and simply
not in compliance with what was approved by voters in a ballot
initiative in 2008. Today Judge Michael Kenny agreed with opponents
that the state could not push forward with its plans as they are.
From the
Associated Press:

Judge Michael Kenny rejected a request from the California
High-Speed Rail Authority to sell $8 billion of the $10 billion in
bonds approved by voters in 2008, saying there was no evidence it
was “necessary and desirable” to start selling the bonds when a
committee of state officials met last March.

He said the committee was supposed to act as “the ultimate
`keeper of the checkbook'” for taxpayers, but instead relied on a
request from the high-speed rail authority to start selling bonds
as sufficient evidence to proceed.

In a separate lawsuit, Kenny ordered the rail authority to redo
its $68 billion funding plan before continuing construction, a
process that could take months or years. He had previously ruled
that the authority abused its discretion by approving a funding
plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law. The
judge said the state failed to identify “sources of funds that were
more than merely theoretically possible.”

Proposition 1A, which voters approved in 2008, required the rail
authority to specify the source of the funding for the first
operable segment of the high-speed rail line – a 300 mile stretch –
and have all the necessary environmental clearances in place. Kenny
had said the agency did not comply with either mandate in approving
the start of construction from Madera to Fresno, about 30
miles.

Technically and politically, the ruling doesn’t kill the plan,
but the blow is pretty devastating. The state does not have the
money to build a full 300-mile stretch of the $68 billion
boondoggle. Despite blinkered claims by progressive that
California’s economy is recovering, it is
wallowing in huge amounts of debt, unfunded state pension
liabilities, and rapidly expanding health care costs. And there’s

little sign of additional federal subsidies coming unless the
Democrats win the day in 2014 and take back the House.

Nevertheless, CHSRA is trying to act like they expected a judge
to order them to start the process over the whole time:

“Like all transformative projects, we understand that there will
be many challenges that will be addressed as we go forward in
building the nation’s first high-speed rail system,” authority
board Chairman Dan Richard said in a written statement.

Going backward instead is quite the challenge to your efforts to
go forward.

Today,
nearly a year after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults
at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the
state’s attorney managing the investigation of the massacre, Steven
Sedensky, issued a report that
refutes or casts doubt on several theories about Lanza and his
horrifying crimes. A few highlights:

1. Did Lanza have a grudge against the
school?

“The shooter indicated that he loved the school and liked to go
there….As best as can be determined, the shooter had no prior
contact with anyone in the school that day. And, apart from having
attended the school as a child, he appears to have had no
continuing involvement with SHES….The evidence clearly shows that
the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own
life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he
targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

2. Did mental illness make him do it?

“The shooter had significant mental health issues that affected
his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others
[including social awkwardness and a lack of empathy that his mother
described as Asperger syndrome]….What contribution this made to
the shootings, if any, is unknown….The shooter’s mental status is
no defense to his conduct as the evidence shows he knew his conduct
to be against the law. He had the ability to control his behavior
to obtain the results he wanted, including his own death.”

3. Could he have been stopped if only people had paid
attention to warning signs?

“Those mental health professionals who saw him did not see
anything that would have predicted his future
behavior….[Investigators] have not discovered any evidence that
the shooter voiced or gave any indication to others that he
intended to commit such a crime…[In high school,] he was not
known to be a violent kid at all and never spoke of
violence….Despite a fascination with mass shootings and firearms,
he displayed no aggressive or threatening tendencies.”

4. Did obsessive playing of violent video games warp his
mind?”

“He played video games often, both solo at home and online. They
could be described as both violent and non-violent. One person
described the shooter as spending the majority of his time playing
non-violent video games all day, with his favorite at one point
being ‘Super Mario Brothers.’…The shooter liked to play a game
called ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ (DDR)….He regularly went to the
area of a theater that had a commercial version of the DDR game in
the lobby. In 2011 and up until a month before December 14, 2012,
the shooter went to the theater and played the game. He went most
every Friday through Sunday and played the game for four to ten
hours.”

5. What about drugs?

“No drugs were found in the shooter’s system….Reportedly the
shooter did not drink alcohol, take drugs, prescription or
otherwise, and hated the thought of doing any of those things.”

6. Could a better background check system for gun buyers
have stopped him?

“All of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s
mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types found had been
purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that
the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the
shooter.”

Today,
nearly a year after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults
at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the
state’s attorney managing the investigation of the massacre, Steven
Sedensky, issued a report that
refutes or casts doubt on several theories about Lanza and his
horrifying crimes. A few highlights:

1. Did Lanza have a grudge against the
school?

“The shooter indicated that he loved the school and liked to go
there….As best as can be determined, the shooter had no prior
contact with anyone in the school that day. And, apart from having
attended the school as a child, he appears to have had no
continuing involvement with SHES….The evidence clearly shows that
the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own
life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he
targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

2. Did mental illness make him do it?

“The shooter had significant mental health issues that affected
his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others
[including social awkwardness and a lack of empathy that his mother
described as Asperger syndrome]….What contribution this made to
the shootings, if any, is unknown….The shooter’s mental status is
no defense to his conduct as the evidence shows he knew his conduct
to be against the law. He had the ability to control his behavior
to obtain the results he wanted, including his own death.”

3. Could he have been stopped if only people had paid
attention to warning signs?

“Those mental health professionals who saw him did not see
anything that would have predicted his future
behavior….[Investigators] have not discovered any evidence that
the shooter voiced or gave any indication to others that he
intended to commit such a crime…[In high school,] he was not
known to be a violent kid at all and never spoke of
violence….Despite a fascination with mass shootings and firearms,
he displayed no aggressive or threatening tendencies.”

4. Did obsessive playing of violent video games warp his
mind?”

“He played video games often, both solo at home and online. They
could be described as both violent and non-violent. One person
described the shooter as spending the majority of his time playing
non-violent video games all day, with his favorite at one point
being ‘Super Mario Brothers.’…The shooter liked to play a game
called ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ (DDR)….He regularly went to the
area of a theater that had a commercial version of the DDR game in
the lobby. In 2011 and up until a month before December 14, 2012,
the shooter went to the theater and played the game. He went most
every Friday through Sunday and played the game for four to ten
hours.”

5. What about drugs?

“No drugs were found in the shooter’s system….Reportedly the
shooter did not drink alcohol, take drugs, prescription or
otherwise, and hated the thought of doing any of those things.”

6. Could a better background check system for gun buyers
have stopped him?

“All of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s
mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types found had been
purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that
the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the
shooter.”

• Enrollment through Colorado’s insurance exchange
  is
  barely half the projected worst case scenario, which officials
  say will make it difficult for the state “to deliver on promises
  made to Colorado citizens” and jeopardize the program’s revenue
  stream. The American Lung Association and the American Cancer
  Society, both supporters of the Affordable Care Act, nevertheless
  
  oppose Obamacare’s tobacco surcharge, arguing it will push
  smokers out of insurance policies and make it even more difficult
  for them to quit.
• National Security Advisor Susan Rice is in
  Afghanistan, where she is
  expected to meet with Hamid Karzai to discuss the post-2014
  security pact between the two countries.
• The U.S. government
  reportedly turned a larger profit on student loans,$41.3
  billion, than all but two companies worldwide, Exxon Mobil and
  Apple.
• State police in New York have
  acquired 32 SUVs so that troopers can more easily peer into
  cars to catch drivers who are texting.
• A Texas man has been in
  prison for more than 30 years despite having his conviction
  overturned and a new trial ordered in 1980.
• A couple in the Florida Keys were
  mistakenly shipped 11 pounds of marijuana to a rental property
  in Louisiana. They turned the marijuana in to local police in
  Florida, who say the couple could’ve been arrested had cops
  discovered the marijuana while the couple was unknowingly driving
  it back to Florida.
• Microsoft
  acknowledged a “very small number” of customers purchased Xbox
  Ones with serious disc reading issues. No blue screens
  reported.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You
can also get the top stories mailed to
you—sign
up here. 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

Peter Orszag was the director of the White House
Office of Management and Budget for the first year and a half of
the Obama administration. Other than President Obama himself, he’s
the person most identified with the argument that health reform was
necessary to save the government money. Ira Stoll wants to know why
Orszag has gone so quiet since the disastrous launch of
Healthcare.gov and Obamacare.

View this article.

Republicans are not happy about the
deal relating to Iran’s nuclear program that was announced over the
weekend. The deal includes,
among other things, Iran halting uranium enrichment above 5
percent and neutralizing “near-20% enriched uranium”.

House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has expressed concern about the enrichment
allowed in the deal, saying “Loosening sanctions and recognizing
Iran’s enrichment program is a mistake, and will not stop Iran’s
march toward nuclear capability.”

Sen.
Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) has a statement on his website that reads
in part:

By allowing the Iranian regime to retain a sizable nuclear
infrastructure, this agreement makes a nuclear Iran more likely.
There is now an even more urgent need for Congress to increase
sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and
reprocessing capabilities.

Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) says that he agrees with Israeli President Benjamin
Netanyahu, who called the deal “a historic mistake.” A statement
from Sen. Cruz begins:

According to the interim agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear
program that was reached this weekend in Geneva, not one centrifuge
will be destroyed. Not one pound of enriched uranium will leave
Iran.

So, what is all this fuss about uranium enrichment, and why does
it matter?

Less than one percent of natural uranium is uranium-235, the
isotope needed for nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Enriched
uranium is uranium that has had the percentage of uranium-235
increased, which can be done by using centrifuges.

Low-enriched uranium (3.5
percent to 5 percent) can be used for nuclear power. In order
to develop a nuclear weapon highly enriched uranium (about
90 percent) is needed. With this in mind, it initially seems
that the requirements that Iran halt enrichment at 5 percent and
dilute or convert uranium enriched at 20 percent greatly reduces
the risk of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

However, the deal only requires Iran to not install any new
centrifuges, not have them destroyed. This means that Iran could
renege on the deal and work towards a so-called “nuclear breakout.”
According to
David Albright, president of the U.S. Institute for Science and
International Security, once the enrichment conditions of the deal
are met “the breakout time – how long it would take Iran to produce
sufficient highly-enriched uranium for one atomic bomb – would
lengthen from at least 1-1.6 months to at least 1.9-2.2 months if
the Iranians used all their installed centrifuges.”

The New York Times has a good graphic illustrating the
deal and its impact on uranium enrichment, which can be seen

here. 

The fact that Iran could still develop a nuclear weapon through
aggressive uranium enrichment once the new deal is implemented is
what has Republicans, not to mention Israeli officials, concerned.
An unnamed official from Netanyahu’s office summarized the concerns

as follows, “The agreement makes it possible for Iran to
continue enriching uranium, permits Iran to keep centrifuges that
would allow it to create fissile material for nuclear
weapons.” 

Yesterday, Iranian President
Hassan Rouhani said that his country would never seek a nuclear
weapon.

Netanyahu and some Republicans may not be happy with the deal,
which has not eliminated the possibility of Iran developing a
nuclear weapon. That said, the diplomats involved in the deal
deserve some praise for managing to come up with any deal at all
given the far from ideal relationship between Iran and the West,
particularly the U.S. 

It should not be surprising that Netanyahu isn’t a fan of the
recent deal. It is very unlikely that there are any conditions
under which Israel and Iran would realistically be able to meet to
discuss Iran’s nuclear program, especially given that
Netanyahu has said that Israel is willing to “act alone” to
ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon and has called
President Rouhani a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

That Republicans are critics of the deal should not be a
surprise, there is a Democrat in the White House. As
Fred Kaplan has rightly pointed out, “Had George W. Bush
negotiated this deal, Republicans would be hailing his diplomatic
prowess, and rightly so.”