U.S. Navy alarmed at Beijing’s ‘Great Wall of sand’ in South China Sea →

China is building a “Great Wall of sand” through an unparalleled program of land reclamation in the South China Sea, raising concerns about the possibility of military confrontation in the disputed waters, according to the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
...
“But what’s really drawing a lot of concern in the here and now is the unprecedented land reclamation currently being conducted by China,” he added.
Satellite images show rapid construction on various coral reefs and rocks controlled by China within the disputed Spratly Islands, including harbors, piers, helipads, buildings and potentially at least one airstrip, experts say. Last month, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki expressed concerns that the program was an attempt to “militarize outposts on disputed land features.”
Harris said that China has created 1.5 square miles of artificial landmass in recent months.

The Iran nuclear talks: a very simple guide →

It becomes much easier to understand the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program when you see that each of the issues falls into one (or more) of three overlapping categories: things that are crucial for stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, things that are less important but are just really hard to resolve, and things that mostly matter for appeasing domestic politics in Washington and Tehran.
Those distinctions also help explain why it's been so hard to reach a deal, even though theoretically everyone agrees on the broad concept: that Iran will get relief from international economic sanctions in exchange for accepting limits on its nuclear program meant to keep it from ever developing a nuclear weapon.
Here, then, is a super-simple guide to the eight most fundamental issues under discussion, where the negotiating teams stand on each, and why it matters...

And for those interested in something closer to the original document: Fact sheet from State Department: Parameters of plan on Iran nuclear program

In Nigeria’s Election, Muhammadu Buhari Defeats Goodluck Jonathan →

With anger swelling over corruption, inequality and a devastating Islamist insurgency in the nation’s north, Nigerians by a wide margin chose an austere former general who once ruled with an iron handto be their next president, according to election results on Tuesday.

The election was the most competitive presidential race ever in Nigeria, one of the largest democracies in the world. Now, if power is handed over peacefully, it will be a major shift for the nation — the first transfer between civilians of different parties in a country that has spent much of its post-colonial history shaken by military coups.

Thai junta lifts martial law, but retains broad powers →

Thailand's ruling junta said on Wednesday it had lifted martial law imposed just before a coup 10 months ago, but it invoked a security clause in the country's interim constitution that will mean the military will retain broad powers.
The martial law order banned all political gatherings and gave the military other wide-ranging powers. 
In a televised announcement, the junta said it would be replaced with a special security measure, known as Article 44, which allows security forces to continue to make arrests without a court warrant and to detain people without charge.

Wall Street’s new student loan scheme: Subprime loans are coming to financial aid →

This whole article is alarming. A number of new (ish) "investment vehicles" have been created around the education industry, including one similar to those which were used to hide the amount and (low) quality of loans during the housing bubble. Unlike then, however:

The income stream is nearly guaranteed to pay off because the loans are next to impossible to discharge in bankruptcy.

New Indiana Law: Truth is somewhere in the middle

As mentioned yesterday, there's a controversial new law in Indiana, which has prompted quite the backlash, including from businesses within the state.

Except it's not that new...

But it is different.

It's hard to make sense of the yelling from both sides, but I've found a few articles to be particularly illuminating (and well worth reading in full):

PolitiFact dives in and tries to answer the question that's been raised from the right, Did Barack Obama vote for Religious Freedom Restoration Act with 'very same' wording as Indiana's?

Under Indiana’s post-Hobby Lobby law, a "person" is extended to mean "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association" or another entity driven by religious belief that can sue and be sued.
...
The American Civil Liberties Union, meanwhile, is concerned about another difference in the wording of the two laws. Indiana’s law includes language that allows people to claim a religious freedom exemption "regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."
That language is absent from the Illinois law.

Reason answers "why now?"

...Now that gay marriage is increasingly popular, this RFRA has become a signals contest in the culture war. Obviously nobody is obligated to engage in any form of discrimination in Indiana, and I would wager that 99.9 percent of Indiana's businesses will not turn away a single person for being gay. But it's all about positioning yourself within this moment we're having. Pence has to pretend the law doesn't protect bigotry against gays because that doesn't poll so well anymore, but can't seem to argue that protecting civil liberties often requires defending bigots or it's not really a civil liberty. The CEO of Apple has to write a big commentary about how discrimination is wrong and bad, and how you should also know that Apple, the company that he works for that sells many, many expensive things to customers, would never do such a thing... 

And the IndyStar asks the real questions at issue (and includes a useful overview of the debate so far):

Which really matters most: What the religious freedom law will actually legally enable; what people think it means; or what the intent is behind the law?

... Will the political maneuvering on both sides continue to obscure people's understanding of the practical effects of the law?

Because then it begins to matter less what the law actually does, than what people "think" it allows them to do — whether that is to openly discriminate against gay people or unfairly cast all Christians as intolerant.

For my money, the truth is likely in the middle of the debate: considering only the law as written, it isn't likely to lead to religious abuse (since there's ample precedent from other states' similar laws), though it may incentivize such behavior for those few who see it as allowing discrimination.