The Catholic press has picked it up, too:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/california-bishops-scramble-tend-catholics-feeling-hunted-ice-agents
There are hints that the current government's actions are widening a cultural rift in the church. Considering how large the Catholic church is, I'm really interested to see how this plays out.
To add all the other good comments here...
As a recording artist, it's nearly impossible to stand out unless you have a marketing machine behind you. That means a record label that can promote your work, get your songs placed on radio stations and streaming platforms, and (in the old days) manufacture and sell physical media through many different retailers.
As a touring performer, you also need a large crew of people working for you: booking venues, marketing your shows, ticketing, managing the logistics of set-up/tear-down/transportation, operating lights and sound during the show, etc.
In both of these scenarios, the musician is only one small cog in a large machine. And there are enough good musicians in the world that they are treated as largely interchangeable.
There is a significant group of conservative Catholics who view any change as a departure from the One True Faith™. You can still find churches that do not follow the modernizations from the Second Vatican Council, which happened back in the 1950s. Pope Francis was seen as a radical by many of these people.
Are you going to tell us the screenname?
Yeah, those numbers are US-centric. It isn't surprising since the post is targeting a US audience.
The numbers seem a bit off, but not by a huge amount. A little Googling suggests that California produces 80-85% of American wine, and about 75% of American fruits and nuts.
Yugoslavia
I'll bet the lane is there purely to satisfy some requirement for including non-car infrastructure, regardless of whether it makes sense in this particular location. It's the same way we get fun bike lanes like these:
I wish the chart included more countries. I found the source data at Pew Research, and they only include 24 countries, unfortunately.
Also coho, chinook, steelhead, and others.
Good point. I will add that to the long list of reforms we need in the US criminal system.
Mandatory minimums are a problem. Judges lose discretion to tailor the punishment to the specifics of the case. Minimums may be pushed unreasonably high so politicians can claim to be "tough on crime." (This happened big time in the US, starting with the War on Drugs in the 1970s and continuing through the 1990s.) Both of those lead to more people in prison longer than they should be.
Also, at least in the US, not all crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences. This gives prosecutors a new source of leverage:
The use of mandatory minimums effectively vests prosecutors with powerful sentencing discretion. The prosecutor controls the decision to charge a person with a mandatory-eligible crime and, in some states, the decision to apply the mandatory minimum to an eligible charge. Rather than eliminate discretion in sentencing, mandatory minimums therefore moved this power from judges to prosecutors. The threat of mandatory minimums also encourages defendants to plead to a different crime to avoid a stiff, mandatory sentence.
Mandatory minimums can also lead to significant racial disparities. The linked article cites an example of very different minimum sentences for different drug offenses, leading to a sharp rise in incarceration rates for blacks but much less so for whites.
Somerville, Mass. represent!