Dylann Roof Is Not a “Terrorist” — But Animal Rights Activists Who Free Minks From Slaughter Are →

Defining "terrorism" down. Justice has and always will be applied unequally. But the word "terrorism" is so politically charged, that, as a legal term, it loses all meaning:

The FBI on Friday announced the arrests in Oakland of two animal rights activists, Joseph Buddenberg and Nicole Kissane, and accused the pair of engaging in “domestic terrorism.” This comes less than a month after the FBI director said he does not consider Charleston Church murderer Dylann Roof a “terrorist.” The activists’ alleged crimes: “They released thousands of minks from farms around the country and vandalized various properties.” That’s it. Now they’re being prosecuted and explicitly vilified as “terrorists,” facing 10-year prison terms.

Christian Republicans Can't Agree on Who Deserves Our Government's Compassion →

As someone who came from radical fundamentalist, ultra-"conservative" evangelicalism, this is a regular topic of interest for me (and not meant to bash religion or Christians). Evangelicals have been the king-maker faction in "right"-wing politics for a few decades, so which themes of the faith resonate with this subsection of U.S. Christianity is worth noting.

All in all, the distinctions between Huckabee and Kasich are relatively subtle: They were among the few Republican contenders defending government welfare services whatsoever. But their difference in focus animates a fissure in Christian politics that will likely grow more prominent as the 2016 campaign advances, especially after Pope Francis’ September visit to the United States. And that fissure reflects a growing divide in Republican thought: Is the world made up of makers and takers, with the immoral takers always out to swindle the honest, hard-working makers out of their earnings? Or is the world rather made up of all sorts of broken people, some suffering and damaging to greater degrees than others, but each with an equal claim to their portion of the world's bounty? The latter seems to me more defensibly Christian, but less reliably woven into Republican politics. Whether or not Kasich's brand of Christian conservatism gains widespread purchase will likely depend on whether or not traditional "47 percent" rhetoric appeals as much in this election as it has in elections prior. It's early yet, but Thursday's debates gave little reason for hope.

Shooting Down Drones →

A Kentucky man shot down a drone that was hovering in his backyard:
...
He was arrested, but what's the law?
In the view of drone lawyer Brendan Schulman and robotics law professor Ryan Calo, home owners can't just start shooting when they see a drone over their house. The reason is because the law frowns on self-help when a person can just call the police instead. This means that Meredith may not have been defending his house, but instead engaging in criminal acts and property damage for which he could have to pay.
But a different and bolder argument, put forward by law professor Michael Froomkin, could provide Meredith some cover. In a paper, Froomkin argues that it's reasonable to assume robotic intrusions are not harmless, and that people may have a right to "employ violent self-help."

News Coverage After Debates Matters More Than You Might Think →

Can debates like the one tonight move poll results? Yes, but not in the way you might think.
In 2004, Kim Fridkin and a team of scholars at Arizona State University ran an experiment. They showed some people an entire presidential debate as it was happening, while others saw the debate plus 20 minutes of post-debate media coverage by different news organizations. Some news outlets covered John Kerry more favorably than George W. Bush, and some did the opposite.
People’s assessments of who won the debate — and their evaluations of the candidates more generally — were affected by which media outlet they were assigned to watch after the debate. The favorability of the coverage changed voters’ minds about the debate they had just seen only moments before.

The Neuroscience of Meditation, and the Virtues of Shutting Up →

Meditation and mindfulness practices have and continue to change my life for the better. Frankly, I consider this the most important skill we can teach people.  Yet, we don't. Yet.

In the last few years, the human quest for self-optimization has collided with improving mobile technology to birth more than 100,000 health apps for smartphones. The mobile market research firm Research2Guidance estimates that mHealth apps, as they’re called, will be a $26 billion industry by 2017.
...
In theory, having more real-time data about our bodies means we can better mold them according to our will. But in practice, it may not be working out that way. Dr. Des Spence, a general practitioner in Glasgow, Scotland, argued in the British Medical Journal last year that constant self-tracking turns healthy people into “neurotics.”
...
But all these interventions are temporary and rely on devices and paid services. They are also relatively unproven. What if the ultimate neuroenhancing biohack is 2,500 years old, requires no equipment and costs nothing?
...
A few years ago, a computer scientist and a neuroscientist at the University of Arizona enrolled 45 human-resource managers in a trial: One-third of them took eight weeks of mindfulness-based meditation training, one-third took eight weeks of body relaxation training and one-third had no training at all. All three groups were given “stressful multitasking” tests before and after the eight-week period; those in the mindful-meditation group were able to sustain their focus longer than both other groups and reported feeling less stressed during the test.
The brain changes functionally and structurally all the time, taking in lessons from and responding to the stimulus of daily life. Neuroscientists call this neuroplasticity. But what if you could determine the way your brain changes?