According to the most recent data, federal prisons hold nearly 96,000 inmates for drug offenses (about 50% of all federal inmates) and state prisons hold 208,000 (about 16% of all state inmates). Another 184,000 people are in local jails for drug law violations, for about 490,000 Americans total. There were 1.5 million arrests for drug crimes in 2014.

In 2004, about half of drug offenders in federal prisons and one-fifth of those in state prisons were convicted for marijuana-related crimes, 45,000 people total.

Nearly half a million people in prison for drugs is equivalent to the size of some major U.S. cities. It is higher than the populations of Sacramento, Kansas City, Atlanta, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Miami, or Pittsburgh.

The Sentencing Project writes that

the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses has skyrocketed from 41,000 in 1980 to nearly a half million in 2014. Furthermore, harsh sentencing laws such as mandatory minimums keep many people convicted of drug offenses in prison for longer periods of time: in 1986, people released after serving time for a federal drug offense had spent an average of 22 months in prison. By 2004, people convicted on federal drug offenses were expected to serve almost three times that length: 62 months in prison.

Further, although whites and blacks use drugs at equal rates, blacks are much more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for drug use, and serve longer sentences than whites who commit the same crimes.

What is the cost of holding so many nonviolent offenders?

The Vera Institute of Justice found the average cost to keep one person behind bars is $31,000 a year (in some states like New York, it’s closer to $60,000), a cost funded by taxpayers. This means the cost of housing drug offenders alone (using the average cost) is about $9.4 billion each year for state and federal prisoners, $15.1 billion a year when you add in local jails.

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, the U.S. spends $51 billion a year on the War on Drugs.

2.2 million people are in prison, for all crimes — the highest incarceration rate in the world.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in Oregon by a ten-point margin, and the Kentucky contest was a virtual tie, with Hillary winning by a couple thousand votes but the state delegate count being split almost evenly.

The total delegate count stands at 1,767 for Hillary, 1,488 for Bernie. When Hillary officially gets the win in Kentucky she’ll get 1 more delegate, and if results hold in Oregon she’ll get 3 more; Bernie will earn 6 more. Likely totals will soon be 1,768 to 1,494.

This does not include superdelegates, who do not come into play until the national convention; Hillary has 524 superdelegates who plan to vote for her at the convention, Bernie has 40. There are 712 superdelegates in all. Unlike state delegates, which are awarded based on how the people voted, superdelegates can vote for whomever they wish.

There are now two scenarios that would allow Bernie Sanders to make the most epic comeback in American political history.

SCENARIO 1: BERNIE ABSOLUTELY DOMINATES THE FINAL 9 CONTESTS

And I mean dominates. No more virtual ties. No more splitting delegates. There are 781 delegates up for grabs in the remaining 9 contests. The largest prizes are California (475), New Jersey (126), and Puerto Rico (60). Bernie Sanders would need 528 of these 781 delegates to have a 1-point lead over Hillary Clinton.

He needs to win 67% of everything. This is extraordinarily unlikely — it would take nothing short of a miracle.

The superdelegates could still side with Hillary, of course, but this would give Bernie the strongest chance of convincing them not to.

SCENARIO 2: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PANICS OVER DONALD TRUMP

Seth Abramson of The Huffington Post posited last week that even if Bernie does not pass Hillary in the state delegate count, the superdelegates, looking at past and predicted voting patterns, might flock to Bernie.

He writes that Hillary almost refused to concede to Barack Obama in 2008, hoping the superdelegates might overrule the popular vote and delegate count that favored him and instead side with her, but eventually decided she didn’t have much of a case to convince them to: “Obama had kicked the hell out of her in the latter half of the election season, winning 16 of the final 25 states.”

He writes that if Bernie wins the remaining contests, which is actually quite plausible, he would have a case for superdelegate support (keep in mind this was written just before Oregon and Kentucky, so Bernie has already lost one “remaining contest”); by June 7, a sweep would mean

Sanders has won 19 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses (not a typo); Sanders is within a few hundred thousand votes of Clinton in the popular vote; Sanders has won 54 percent of the pledged delegates since Super Tuesday; and Sanders is in a dead heat with Clinton in national polling.

In other words, Bernie could look like just as strong a candidate as Clinton, regardless of her lead in the delegates. Then add to that the ample data suggesting Bernie could best defeat Donald Trump in the general election:

Sanders has dramatically higher favorable ratings than Clinton, despite months of attacks from his Democratic opponent and Trump and GOP super-PACs generally laying off both Sanders and Clinton; Sanders beats Donald Trump nationally by much more than does Clinton (12 points, as opposed to 6 for Clinton, in an average of all national polls); Sanders beats Donald Trump in every battleground state by more than does Clinton; and Sanders beats Trump by 22 points among independents, while Clinton loses independents to Trump by 2 points…

The idea that Clinton is in a dead heat with Trump in the three most important battleground states at a time when Trump is the most unpopular major-party candidate in American history is horrifying to Democrats. How horrifying it is cannot be overstated; along with recent polling showing Clinton tied nationally with Trump, and the fact that Hillary’s unfavorables are already rising while Trump’s are already falling, and the fact that the Republican Party is uniting dramatically behind Trump precisely because Clinton looks to be the likely Democratic nominee, the fact that Hillary is already struggling in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania against an absolute buffoon of an opponent is causing Democrats to worry that she actually can’t win.

This could be adequately described as a nightmare for democracy.

Hillary receiving the most state delegates but the superdelegates handing Bernie the nomination would thrill Bernie supporters, but it would be the precise thing, the very assault on democracy, that they (and Sanders) have ranted against this entire election season (calls for the abolition of the superdelegate system are already having a positive effect). Should (or would) Bernie Sanders take advantage of an undemocratic system, one of many obstacles erected by the Democratic Party to stop him and grassroots candidates like him?

Regardless, this scenario seems unlikely. One might argue Hillary has such strong allies in the DNC and among the superdelegates (her husband is one of them) that they would stick with her regardless of any poll. Further, superdelegates, since their creation in 1984, have never decided the outcome of the Democratic nomination process, and doing so would tear the Democratic Party apart.

Then again, deciding the outcome is precisely what superdelegates were designed to do. Abramson writes:

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Monday, the Associated Press got the ball rolling on Hillary Clinton’s coronation, declaring:

Striding into history, Hillary Clinton will become the first woman to top the presidential ticket of a major U.S. political party, capturing commitments Monday from the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

Other news outlets quickly followed suit. The New York Times declared, “Hillary Clinton Clinches the Nomination. Will Bernie Sanders Fight On?” Had Clinton actually clinched the nomination, one might wonder what Sanders had to fight for.

Clinton allegedly reached the 2,383 delegates (a combination of both superdelegates and delegates awarded according to the will of ordinary voters) after a “decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates.” Clinton won 16 more delegates than Bernie Sanders in the Puerto Rico primary. Superdelegates only offer endorsements until they actually vote on July 25 — and between then and now they can change their minds, as Sanders is banking on.

Sanders hopes to convince the superdelegates to swing his way with the argument that he is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump in the presidential election, as polls consistently support. His mission is an immense challenge, as Clinton has 571 superdelegates currently backing her and Sanders has only 48 (93 more are undecided). In the regular delegate count — those awarded based on the results of the primaries and caucuses — Clinton has 1,812 and Sanders has 1,521.

On Tuesday, six states vote for the Democratic nominee, and hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Many Sanders supporters are angry the media would already announce, in the words of the AP, “Clinton’s victory,” before the remaining six states (and later D.C.) have voted. California, the largest prize on Tuesday, has popped up in a Twitter hashtag: #CAVotesCount. The band Foster the People called all this “irresponsible journalism” and “voter suppression,” echoing common sentiment.

Of course, there is also worry that declaring Clinton the winner early may affect the results on Tuesday — discouraging Sanders voters from making their voice heard — called “misleading” by some and “voter suppression” by others. This is on top of the feeling among Sanders supporters and critics of the media that calling superdelegate support “unequivocal” (AP) or set in stone is also misleading, when in fact superdelegates can change their mind at any time and do not vote until the end of next month.

As unlikely as it may be that Sanders could convince the majority of superdelegates to switch support, and the questions such a thing would raise for longtime critics of the superdelegate system, how it is designed to overrule the will of ordinary voters, declaring something like “Clinton Clinches Democratic Presidential Nomination” (CNN) is a bit premature.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, a 2-year-old boy was seized and dragged underwater by an alligator outside a Walt Disney Resort hotel in Orlando, Florida, disappearing for many hours. The toddler was later found dead.

The boy and his family were attending an outdoor movie at the resort when he wandered into a nearby lagoon and was attacked. His parents jumped in and tried to open the gator’s jaws, but it escaped.

This is clearly an horrific tragedy, and we pray for the parents of the deceased, but make no mistake: Disney, the city, the county, the state, and the nation must resist any calls by those on the left for a change in policy.

So-called “sensible safety measures” are anything but. Suggestions to move the outdoor movie night elsewhere, away from the lagoon? Misguided notions of building fences to protect movie night? Nonsense.

Alligators will always be able to attack movie night. That is alligator nature. When you really think about it, alligators need to change, not human social policy. This is an alligator problem — meaning, the problem is alligators and the choices they make. Alligators may need access to better mental health care, but they still have Constitutional rights. And besides, more people die from other causes than alligator attacks, so why bother trying to reduce this particular death toll?

Don’t believe the liberal media when they tell you about other movie nights that are “safe” from alligators because they “changed course.” Sure, alligators have immense difficulty ripping toddlers to bloody shreds when movie night is protected with a fence or at a location far from the lagoons, and there are therefore far fewer toddlers devoured by alligators at those places, but some alligators — the most vicious and determined alligators — will always find a way. They will scale that fence. They will march across that golf course, as recently captured on video. They will find movie night, and they will unleash terror.

Any thinking person knows that if you can only reduce alligator movie night attacks, rather than eliminate them entirely, there is no justification for meaningful action. Regulations, because they do not work perfectly, do not work at all. There is simply nothing Disney or the government could do to actually stop alligator attacks on movie night. Putting obstacles in alligators’ paths will only reduce casualties. Nothing should be done, because nothing can be done.

One cannot stress this enough: NO POLICY CHANGE.

Well, perhaps one. In reality, as counterintuitive as this may sound to thoughtless liberals, the solution to movie night attacks is more alligators. Not irresponsible alligators, obviously, but responsible citizen-alligators. No laws will keep our children safe from the irresponsible, criminal alligators, so our only choice is trained, domesticated alligators to fight off the bad alligators.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Archbishop Christian Lépine of Montréal, Canada, declared in June 2016 that Catholic priests, workers, and volunteers in his diocese are no longer allowed to be alone with children.

Lépine wrote that the Church had “an obligation to ensure the safety and integrity of the people to whom we bring the Gospel message and offer our pastoral care” and that “any form of abuse committed by persons exercising a pastoral duty not only constitutes a counter-witness to the Gospel but also a cause of serious injury.” He further condemned the “horrific reality of abuse of minors” that has “shocked and shaken” the Church.

The Guardian reports that “in February, the church agreed a $30m settlement after around 150 people claimed they had been abused by the Clerics of St Viateur, who ran a school for deaf children in Montréal between 1940 and 1982.”

But critics say the measure is not nearly enough. “The single most effective step would be to publicly disclose and discipline every cleric who committed or concealed child sex crimes. That immediately protects children,” David Clohessy of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) told The Guardian. “We’ve literally seen hundreds of policies, procedures, protocols and pledges like this that sound good on paper but are virtually never enforced. So we are extremely skeptical.”

Catholic priests and workers have a long history of committing and covering up child molestation, in nations across the world.

Father Thomas Doyle writes in “A Very Short History of Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church”:

In spite of claims to the contrary, the canonical history of the Catholic Church clearly reflects a consistent pattern of awareness that celibate clergy regularly violated their obligations in a variety of ways. The fact of clergy abuse with members of the same sex, with young people and with women is fully documented. At certain periods of church history clergy sexual abuse was publicly known and publicly acknowledged by church leaders. From the late 19th century into the early 21st century the church’s leadership has adopted a position of secrecy and silence. They have denied the predictability of clergy sexual abuse in one form or another and have claimed that this is a phenomenon new to the post-Vatican II era. The recently published reports of the Bishops’ National Review Board and John Jay College Survey have confirmed the fact of known clergy sexual abuse since the 1950s and the church leadership’s consistent mishandling of individual cases.

The bishops have, at various times, claimed that they were unaware of the serious nature of clergy sexual abuse and unaware of the impact on victims. This claim is easily offset by the historical evidence. Through the centuries the church has repeatedly condemned clergy sexual abuse, particularly same-sex abuse. The very texts of many of the laws and official statements show that this form of sexual activity was considered harmful to the victims, to society and to the Catholic community. Church leaders may not have been aware of the scientific nature of the different sexual disorders nor the clinical descriptions of the emotional and psychological impact on victims, but they cannot claim ignorance of the fact that such behavior was destructive in effect and criminal in nature.

The John Jay College Survey estimated that from 1950 to 2002 hundreds of thousands of children were raped by Catholic leaders in the United States alone.

The high rates of pedophilia are thought to be attributed to the sexual repression of priests, who often enter seminary in early teen years and never experience sexual contact. Lack of sexual maturity and strict rules of celibacy in the Church may drive priests to eye and rape the most vulnerable in their community. It may also have much to do with a cycle of abuse — priests being raped when they were children and taking out the accompanying shame and post-traumatic stress on the next generation.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.