Dataset Preview

Duplicate

Split (1)

train

The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.

Job manager crashed while running this job (missing heartbeats).

Error code:   JobManagerCrashedError

Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.

pred_label string	pred_label_prob float64	wiki_prob float64	text string	source string
__label__cc	0.668182	0.331818	SGT Edward D. Peacock SGT Edward D. Peacock was born 9 Sep 1918 in Buffalo, New York. He was the 7th of the 10 children (5 boys and 5 girls) born to Frederick Wells and Dolly L. (Mensch) Peacock. His father was a railroad engineer but he died in 1922. It seems that the family struggled through the depression without Frederick's support. Consequently, all 4 of the 5 boys enlisted in the New York National Guard and served in D Company 174th Infantry. In 1940, Edward was working as a salesman at a department store but only reported a 1939 income of $90. The family of 6 adults as a whole had only brought in $1280 for that year. Edward as well as his brothers was serving in D Company 174th Infantry when the unit was federalized in September 1940. The 174th was assigned to the 44t Division and sent to the west coast for a homeland defense mission. At some point Edward was sent to the European theater. On 11 Aug 1944 PVT Peacock was transferred from the replacement depot to B Company 116th Infantry. He was promoted to PFC on 20 Sep 1944. PFC Peacock was injured on 14 Oct 1944 and sent to hospital. He did not return to the unit, via the replacement depot, until 5 Dec 1944. He was promoted to SGT on 11 Mar 1945. SGT Peacock was wounded on 7 Apr 1945 and sent to hospital. SGT Peacock died of his wound(s) on 19 Apr 1945. SGT Peacock was repatriated and re-interred in the Forest Lawn Cemetery in Buffalo, New York. Edward's father served as a PVT in A Company 65th Infantry for a short time during the Spanish-American War. As previously mentioned, all his brothers had served with him in D Company 174th Infantry and all served during the war. The oldest brother, Frederick George Peacock, made the Army a career and rose to the rank of MAJ. Next oldest, Joseph Peacock, was the only brother who did not serve in the National Guard before the war and he was drafted in 1943 and served until 1945. Edward's younger brothers, William Robert Peacock and Raymond Warren Peacock, were both federalized with the unit in 1940 and seemed to have served the entire war with the 174th Infantry. Posted by Hobie at 10:01 PM Labels: B Company PFC James L. Banchero SSG Walter Boger PFC Donald Albert Morton PFC Vincent F. Mazzaferri PFC Charlie Ralph Gardner PFC James Paul Ewing PFC Everett Eugene Evans PVT Joseph Edward Stricker PVT Attilio Joseph Simone CPT Berthier Botts Hawks III PFC Patsy A. Prozzo PVT Clifford Edgar Patton PFC Ardell Winston Payne PFC C. J. Galloway PFC Reese Philip Black PVT William Elmer Slusher 2LT Oliver Earl Mayo PVT Donald Frank Raasch PVT Albert J. Genova PFC Wilbur Daniel Copeland	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line2
__label__wiki	0.705379	0.705379	cdmusicProduct Review Celtic Woman's Songs from the Heart Songs From The Heart This exciting new CD is from Celtic Woman, a 5 member Irish female ensemble known for putting a modern twist on the Celtic Sound. The Songs from the Heart CD includes contemporary hits like Sting’s “Fields of Gold” and Billy Joel’s “Goodnight My Angel.” Multi-platinum selling group, Celtic Woman, has scored their second Top 10 album debut on the Billboard Top 200 landing at #9 with Songs From The Heart . The album is also the group’s fifth release to debut at #1 on the Billboard World Music Chart. Beautifully capturing the pure essence of Celtic Woman, this new musical experience showcases the celestial sounds of vocalists Lisa Kelly, Chloë Agnew, Lynn Hilary and Alex Sharpe along with the dynamic inventiveness of Celtic Violinist Máiréad Nesbitt. The Songs from the Heart CD and DVD include contemporary hits like Mariah Carey’s “When You Believe” and Billy Joel’s “Goodnight My Angel” as well as the Irish classics “Galway Bay” and “My Lagan Love”. The new CD also features studio recorded versions of songs performed during their 5th PBS TV Special “Songs from the Heart- Live at Powerscourt House & Gardens.” Celtic Woman is all over the Billboard charts, selling more than 3.8 million records in the U.S. alone, and has had 7 sold-out US Tours. They are currently kicking off their tour which includes dates at New York City’s famed Radio City Music Hall. They’ve performed on Dancing With the Stars and will have an upcoming PBS special. Check out the tour dates at: http://www.celticwoman.com/trellis/US-New-map For more information, visit www.celticwoman.com. Tags : cd, music, Product Review	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line4
__label__wiki	0.888002	0.888002	GSD Podcast Roundup Harvard University Graduate School of Design (GSD) presents two podcast series featuring in-depth interviews with leading design practitioners from around the world. “Talking Practice,” produced by the Practice Platform, investigates the ways in which architects, landscape architects, designers, and planners articulate design imagination through practice. “Future of the American City,” from the Office for Urbanization, explores alternative futures and convenes conversations about how we live, where we live. Learn more below about both series and how to listen. Talking Practice Grace La MArch ’95 speaks with Paul Nakazawa. Hosted by Grace La MArch ’95, professor of architecture and chair of the practice platform, each 40-minute episode provides a rare glimpse into the work, experiences, and attitudes of design luminaries, many of whom are GSD alumni. Comprehensive, thought-provoking, and timely, “Talking Practice” tells the story of what designers do, why, and how they do it—exploring the key issues at stake in practice today. Episodes include: Lyndon Neri MArch ’92 and Rossana Hu, partners and co-founders of Neri&Hu Design and Research Office, and the John C. Portman Design Critics in architecture at the GSD. Preston Scott Cohen MArch ’85, founder and principal of Preston Scott Cohen Inc, and Gerald M. McCue Professor in Architecture at the GSD. Gary Hilderbrand MLA ’85, founding principal and partner at Reed Hilderbrand, and Peter Louis Hornbeck Professor in Practice of Landscape Architecture at the GSD. Anna Heringer, founder and principal of Anna Heringer Architects, and honorary professor of the UNESCO Chair of Earthen Architecture, Building Cultures, and Sustainable Development Shohei Shigematsu, partner at Office of Metropolitan Architects (OMA) and head of the New York office. Paul Nakazawa, Associate Professor in Practice of Architecture at the GSD. Jeanne Gang MArch ’93, founder and principal of Studio Gang, Professor in Practice at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and 2011 MacArthur Fellow. Reinier de Graaf, the longest non-founding partner at the Office of Metropolitan Architects and co-founder of AMO, the think tank of OMA. Upcoming episode: Grace La speaks with Kersten Geers about his practice OFFICE Kersten Geers David Van Severen and the meaning of architecture without content. Listen to a sneak peek below. https://alumni.gsd.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Geers_Teaser.mp4 Listen to all available episodes and find program notes on the GSD website, or subscribe to the series via one of these podcast providers: iTunes, Android, Google, Stitcher, and Spotify. Future of the American City Supported by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and generous donors to the American Cities Fund, this series of 10 episodes lanched in May 2019; it investigates Miami and other urban areas considering issues related to urban planning, adaptation to climate change, transit, equity and more. The most recent episode from December 2019 features Associate Professor of Architecture Eric Höweler, an architect and educator whose work deals with building technology and the public realm. He and Alumni Council member Corey Zehngebot MArch ’09 led the fall 2019 option studio “Adapting Miami Housing on the Transect,” which centered on new strategies for urban housing, focusing on the issues of typology, density, transit, and climate adaptability. The other nine episodes include interviews with: Sean Canty MArch ’14 is an architect and educator whose work focuses on building type and geometry. Among other things, he has recently engaged in teaching a course on reimagining housing and public space in Miami’s Overtown neighborhood. Laurinda Spear and Margarita Blanco are architects and landscape architects whose work at ArquitectonicaGEO focuses on creating ecologically performative public spaces. Rodolphe el-Khoury is an architect, historian, and educator whose recent work deals with smart cities and embedded technology. Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk is a pioneering urban planner, architect, and educator. She has been instrumental in developing the City of Miami’s form-based zoning code, Miami 21. Craig Robins is a Miami real estate developer whose projects focus on arts, culture, and historic preservation. Rosetta S. Elkin is a landscape architect who uses design as a means to address risk, injustice, and instability brought on by climate change. Lily Song is an urban planner whose work aims to center the experiences of marginalized groups in the policy and development process. Chris Reed is a landscape architect specializing in dynamic ecologies and generative processes. Toni L. Griffin LF ’98 is an urban planner who employs a value-based approach to urbanism, examining the ways design and planning figure into to questions of equality and inclusion. Griffin’s pursuit of the “Just City” has led her across the country to push for urban design that promotes access, choice, and empowerment. Subscribe to the series via one of these podcast providers: iTunes and Stitcher.	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line9
__label__cc	0.589992	0.410008	for the location independent professional The Complete Guide to Estonian e-Residency 2/5 July 3, 2017\| Residency & Visas\| Views: 5688 This post is Part 2 of our 5 part “Complete Guide to Estonian e-Residency.” We will release a new chapter every 2 weeks. Subscribe to our email list to get updates when we release new posts! Part 2. Banking without Borders: Financial Services as an E-Resident Undoubtedly, one of the most convincing reasons to become an Estonian e-resident is the international banking options, particularly in conjunction with operating a remote Estonian business. The latest changes resulting from the partnership with the Finnish company Holvi make it easier than ever before to “bank without borders.” But what are the advantages, what can you expect, and are you even eligible? Here, we clear up everything you need to know about banking through the Estonian e-residency program. The Advantages of a Digital Bank Account in Estonia Businesses set up through the Estonian e-residency program benefit most from the digital bank account options, although there are still a few advantages for personal accounts. Before we get into the details about the main banks that operate with the e-residency program, let’s talk about some reasons Estonian digital banking is worth it in the first place: Accounts in Multiple Currencies (Especially Euros). International companies (as well as digital nomads) who deal in more than one currency may prefer to open a single account in multiple currencies for the sake of simplicity. Such accounts offer better protection against exchange rate fluctuations and third-party exchange fees. Likewise, digital companies operating in companies with weak or unstable currencies can benefit from using the relatively stable euro — the legal tender of Estonia — as their base currency. Digital Banking Features. With both Estonia, Finland, and Sweden at the forefront of the tech industry, their financial institutions feature state-of-the-art digital banking options, such as paperless bookkeeping and streamlined invoicing, which local banks may not offer. International Diversification. Some companies’s strategies involve diversifying assets across multiple countries and/or accounts, for which Estonian e-residency banks are among the best options due to their remote capabilities. Moreover, for residents of countries with large deficits, diversifying in an overseas digital bank account offers more security. Ties with Estonia. If you spend a lot of time in the country of Estonia, if you have friends and family there, or if you do a lot of business with the nation, an Estonian bank account will remove a lot of obstacles in exchanging money. Of course, many of these advantages are dependent on which bank you chose, to say nothing of which ones you’re eligible for. As of the time of this writing, the Estonian e-residency program relies on three main banks, although more are planning to come aboard. Chief among them is Holvi, the only institution that allows you to sign up and manage your account without actually setting foot in Estonia. The others, LHV and Swedbank, still remain relevant options if you don’t mind the trek. The May 24 announcement of the Estonian e-residency partnership with Holvi changed the game for the world’s first borderless residency program. Founded in 2011, this Finnish financial hub has roots in Helsinki, but is dedicated to servicing the world at large under its banner “accessible from anywhere, to anyone.” Dedicated to facilitating the lives of entrepreneurs and international business people, they cite one of their main motivations as circumventing “the time and effort that money management and business bureaucracy took up.” Holvi holds the honor of being the world’s first financial hub with its own Payment Institution Licence authorized by the Financial Supervisory Authority of Finland (FIN-FSA) for use across Europe. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the greatest advantage of Holvi is that Estonian e-residents can set up and manage their business banking accounts 100% remotely — prior to May 2017, e-residents had to physically travel to Estonia to open accounts. However, all that glitters is not gold; despite how it’s advertised, not everyone is eligible for a Holvi account, including: U.S. Citizens. Following the partnership announcement, the biggest backlash the e-residency program received was that U.S. citizens cannot apply for Holvi accounts, nor can institutions under the FATCA. This means American citizens still need to travel to Estonia to open bank accounts. While the Holvi site claims they “are working on it,” no definitive dates or timelines have even been mentioned. Citizens of Countries Blacklisted by FATF. Countries deemed “high-risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions” by the Financial Action Task Force are also ineligible for Holvi accounts. These include Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Laos, North Korea, Syria, Uganda, Vanuatu, and Yemen. Furthermore, citizens and organizations from countries outside of the European Economic Area are put on a waiting list for review of their application. Companies must be registered in Estonia prior to signing up for Holvi accounts. Through the e-residency program, Holvi accounts cost €35.00 per month to maintain. In addition to traditional banking services — fund security, legitimate transfers, online interfaces — account holders also receive a complimentary Business Mastercard® and an IBAN authorized by the EU for their account. Alternative Banks The biggest complaint to e-residency in the past has been the necessity to travel to Estonia in order to establish a business and account, which the partnership with Holvi negated. However, if traveling to Estonia is not an issue for you, there are a couple of other banking options within the e-residency program. Let’s take a look at the two most popular banks supported by the program since its beginning: Estonia’s own LHV is the largest financial group in the country, and as such played a large role in the early onset of the e-residency program. Founded in 1999 with roots as an investment firm, today’s LHV is as modern as they come. It’s actually the bank used by Holvi rival Transferwise for SEPA transactions in Euros. All of your day-to-day banking can be done remotely with LHV, so you don’t need on-site interactions aside from the initial one to set up the account — and perhaps a second one to pick up a debit card, available a week or so after the account has been processed. LHV has only two branches, one in Tallinn and the other in Tartu, so those cities would be your destination to open an account. The advantage of LHV is the comparatively lower fees. Unlike the Swedbank, LHV does not charge a fee for people outside the EEA/EU. Moreover, their requirements for opening an account are reportedly more relaxed than their Swedish counterpart. Although native to Sweden, Swedbank runs large-scale operations within nearby Estonia, making it a prime contributor to the e-residency program. Swedbank is a world-class bank with 7.2 million private accounts and 574,000 corporate clients — Sweden’s largest bank by customers. Swedbank offers the benefits of large-scale banking for already established companies, but for everyone else may be problematic. For starters, there’s the fee for non-Europeans mentioned above. But more detrimental are the strict application requirements: to open an account, you must prove some ties to Estonia beyond e-residency. These could be along the lines of physical residency, family lineage, employment by an Estonian company, land ownership in Estonia, or some such connection. Other e-residents have reported so much difficulty opening Swedbank accounts, it drove them straight into the arms of LHV. Many e-residents cannot meet these criteria — after all, so many applicants for e-residency have no such relation to Europe, and are applying specifically to receive some EU privileges. Unless you’re operating a large enterprise already, the other banking options are probably better suited for you. As we stated at the beginning, so much of your e-residency banking decisions are linked with opening a business. The benefits of opening only a personal bank account don’t often justify applying for e-residency; however the opening a business account does. In the next chapter, we dive into the hows and whys of starting and managing a business through the e-residency program. What we’ll discuss next greatly relates to the topics of this chapter, so keep in mind your different banking options as we explain running an Estonian business through the e-residency program. What Is Estonian e-Residency… and What Isn’t It? Banking without Borders: Financial Services as an E-Resident The True International Company: Opening a Business as an E-Resident E-Residency and the World of Tomorrow Get the latest posts in your inbox! One email, every Tuesday. Unsubscribe anytime. The Weekly Remote Job Roundup How to Buy a Data SIM Abroad UXA Today The Anywhere Company is a resource for current and future digital nomads and other location independent professionals. This is for people who already have the ability to live and work remotely, and either already do so or are ready to start. This is not some inane “escape the 9-5 cubicle work in a hammock” bullshit. Trust. This site will offer resources to help folks out there doing it already.	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line10
__label__wiki	0.596318	0.596318	Indirect Object (Part Four) by Susan McCarty The tutor does not know how to receive the father. That is to say, he doesn’t mean to make the ambience in his apartment romantic, but there is no other readily available model for how to host, at least not available to the tutor. So when the father knocks on the door, a stick of incense and some candles are flickering in various corners of the room. The tutor’s speakers shed John Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme” into the air around them. The tutor says, “Come in,” and sweeps his arm over the dingy vista of his apartment. He says, “Have a seat,” thinking the father will choose to sit at his small table in the kitchen because that’s where the tutor usually sits, but instead he goes to the couch. Besides the couch—a crumby brown chenille thing he’d picked up at Goodwill—there are only the two kitchen chairs. To get one and plop it down near the couch, while there’s all that perfectly good couch real estate, all those cushions where the father isn’t sitting, seems rude and alienating. But in equal parts, joining him on the couch seems overly familiar, too close. The tutor knows he can’t hesitate too long, or his guest will begin to feel awkward, so he does the easiest thing and perches lightly on the other end of the couch. He sees that Peter’s father has unfolded and is now carefully smoothing his cloth handkerchief onto his lap, as if he is a diner at a reasonably nice restaurant, instead of a stranger in a soupy-smelling one-bedroom apartment. The gesture makes the tutor extremely nervous. “Thanks for penciling me in. I’m sure you’re on a tight schedule.” The father reddens, embarrassed by the obviousness of his platitude. The tutor and his apartment are clearly not on a very tight schedule, at least not one that involves, say, working to make money. “And I’m…I’m very glad that you’ve been able to host this meeting. I want to do you a favor and cut right to the chase. My son.” The man drops his eyes to his lap and swallows. “Were you and my son…involved?” The tutor blinks and feels warm all over. Then he shivers. Then he is warm again. The man will not make eye contact with him. He just sits there in his fuzzy black overcoat with a hanky on his lap like a lunatic. The tutor feels set up. The father, on the voicemail from two days ago, had sounded lost, weak, in need of something that only the tutor could provide. Some strange measure of tutoring solace. Which was why the tutor had called him back—the tutor being moderately uncomfortable with the situation—but also in possession of a modicum of human empathy—and also somewhat bored. When the father speaks again, his voice is low and he seems to be having trouble catching his breath. “I found his notebooks, his school notebooks and his ACT notebooks, from tutoring with you.” The man reaches into a briefcase at his feet and pulls out three spiral-bound college-ruled pads, hands them to the tutor. The one on top is open to a page where Peter has penciled the equation for Newton’s universal law of gravitation. The equation and its labels are orderly, but in the margins of the notebook, in twenty different styles and scribbled at all angles, is the tutor’s full name. Over and over again. Here in cursive, there in block letters filled in with horizontal stripes, shiny with graphite. In the notebook below it, there are some grammar notes from one of their sessions. There is the phrase, “I love you” with its subject and object labeled. Under that, Peter has written a series of sentences under the heading “indirect object:” – I want to give him my love. – I want him to love me. – For him, I would do anything. – Will he give me his heart? Then, further down the page, an impressively veined sketch of a spurting cock. The tutor feels heavy, as if, impossibly, the gravitational constant has increased. “I didn’t. I mean I would never.” There is more stammering, which, the tutor realizes with frustration, makes him sound guilty. He takes a breath. “Listen, I had no idea your son had these feelings. I can’t even—nothing like this even occurred to me, okay? This isn’t me. Maybe someone else?” Is he even making sense? The father regards him silently for a long moment. “I believe you. When we found these, we hired an investigator. He’s done a thorough background check on you. And Peter’s phone and email turned up clean. And the set-up at the center was so out in the open…” “You’ve been investigating me?” “He was my son.” The couch pings and the tutor looks up from the notebooks to see Peter’s father has moved closer to him. The man shakes slightly; the tutor smells his sweat. The first side of the record has ended. “I need to ask you… This is going to sound very odd, but—I didn’t come here to threaten you. I wanted to. Well. My son, he felt love for you, or something like it. And he’s gone now and it is somewhat my fault. Maybe,” here the man’s voice cracks and he begins to cry, “Maybe very much my fault.” The tutor puts a hand on his shoulder because what else can he do. The man takes the hanky off his lap and presses it against his face, puts it down again, turns back toward the tutor and says, “Can I kiss you?” and then they are kissing, the father closing the distance without waiting for an answer, the hard fact of his teeth behind his lips, pressing painfully against the tutor’s mouth, and then the invading tongue. The tutor puts his hand on the man’s wet rough face but does not push it away. The kiss ends and the silence between them seems filled with possibilities, some exciting, some frightening, many a mix. It pulses like a heart or a star or something large in flight. And then the man is rustling through his apartment toward the door and his handkerchief has fallen to the floor like the trifle of a damsel and then he is gone. Mackenzie’s Uggs are purple suede today. He’s seen them before, which seems to indicate that she has cycled through her entire collection, for now. The tutor is feeling off-kilter. He sometimes gets a whiff of Peter’s father, whose scent seems to be lingering in some crease, somewhere, and he is confused by his own reaction to it. He and Mackenzie are supposed to review some basic terms from biology. Mackenzie looks at the list and says, “I don’t remember any of these.” “You don’t really need to know them. You just have to read very carefully. The science test is really just another reading test. Read the passage in the workbook.” She reads the passage. “Now tell me something about what alleles are and why they’re important.” She sighs. “I don’t know.” “Anything.” “They’re for genetics.” She looks at him and he nods. “For the recessive ones? Or like, the dominance?” He puts his pencil down and takes a deep breath. All these children filling the air with their language. He thinks of Peter, of his inscrutability and his low, quiet voice. Peter already disappearing, disappeared. Wittgenstein is suddenly in his mouth. “‘What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence,’” says the tutor. “What does that mean?” asks Mackenzie. “I think it means—” “No, don’t answer. Think about it.” Mackenzie doesn’t say anything more, which he takes as participatory. “Close your eyes,” he says and presses the button on his stopwatch. “This is weird,” she says and he shushes her again and she is quiet again and he sees her eyes really are closed and so he closes his too. Susan McCarty‘s stories and essays have appeared in The Iowa Review, the Utne Reader, The Collagist, Conjunctions, Indiana Review, Willow Springs, and other journals. Once upon a time, she was an assistant editor at Penguin and Avalon Books. More recently, she’s been an administrative fellow for FC2, an artist-in-residence at VCCA, and a Steffensen-Cannon scholar. She has an MFA from Vermont College and a PhD from the University of Utah. She teaches creative writing at Salisbury University. Indirect Object (Part Three) by Susan McCarty Indirect Object (Part One) by Susan McCarty Indirect Object (Part Two) by Susan McCarty [the fifth daughter] by J.A. Tyler	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line11
__label__wiki	0.821036	0.821036	After the war, Rolpa fights neglect "Our party is in power, but they don't care for us." KIYOKO OGURA FROM ISSUE #439 (20 FEB 2009 - 26 FEB 2009) \| TABLE OF CONTENTS PICS: KIYOKO OGURA Back in March 2003 when I first visited Thabang, this cradle of the Maoist revolution embodied Nepal's ethnic diversity in a microcosm. There were not just the local Magars, but Tharus, Bahuns, Chhetris, Dalits. They were Maoist guerrillas from all over Nepal, and they walked around openly with their weapons. Scenes of collective life were everywhere: a Maoist cultural group would sing revolutionary songs early in the morning, the militia would do morning exercises, in the evening young Maoists played volleyball while the girls cooked food for comrades in huge pots. The house in Thawang bajar that had silhousettes of Marx,Stalin and Mao has now been painted. It was clear that Thabang was the centre of the Maoist revolution, protected by its isolation in a remote part of already-remote Rolpa. Major Maoist military campaigns, such as the attack on Beni, were planned in Thabang. Top leaders like Mohan Baidya and Ram Bahadur Thapa were here regularly for meetings and the locals willingly gave the Maoists shelter. Today, nearly three years after the ceasefire, parts of the town demolished in helicopter raids have been rebuilt, many villagers have electricity and there is no load shedding. In Phuntibang where 95 members of Maoist central committee including Pushpa Kamal Dahal assembled in August 2004, electricity poles have gone up. There are neat stone pavements laid with government support. The bajar has a jewellery shop, which always has throngs of women. But shops opened by members of the Maoists commune are closed. A neighbourhood of the town destroyed in the war has been re-vamped with new cobble stones and electric poles. The most dramatic transformation is in the people. There are outsiders, but this time they aren't guerrillas but government health workers, school teachers, NGO activists and even police officers. Access to Thabang is much easier with the half-finished motorable road from Sulichaur. Thabang can now be reached from the nearest road-head within a day of fast walking. Although locals in Thabang are experiencing peace and development after years of conflict, most still carry physical and psychological scars of the war. A 53-year-old woman in Phuntibang whose only son is a Maoist recalls the night in January 2006 when she heard about an army patrol approaching. She took her daughter-in-law and a newly-born baby into the jungle in deep snow. "We spent days in the forest, often I felt we would die," she recalls. Fifty-year-old former teacher Indra Bahadur Buda Magar is one of the oldest party activists in Rolpa since the Panchayat. He helped establish the party in other districts of western Nepal. He was injured during the Beni attack, and still has shrapnel in his body. There are many like him who haven't recieved proper medical treatment. It's not only the government but also their own party that is filig to take care of them. The majority of Maoists here do not openly blame the party for forgetting Rolpa, but there is a growing murmur of discontent against the comrades in faraway Kathmandu. A father of a student who studies in Thabang's model school that the Maoists set up four years ago dared to say: "During the war leaders used to stay in Thabang and we used to look after them. But after the war ended, our party is in power in Kathmandu but they don't care for us. They have never come back." The Maoist model school, where half the students are children of martyrs, has been trying in vain to register as a government school, but has not succeeded. All the seven teachers work voluntarily and the students have no text books. An elderly Maoist supporter in Mijhing VDC has no place to live since both of his houses had been burnt down by the security forces. He expresses his distrust of the party: "Seeing the behaviour of our leaders in power, I just lose hope. I am afraid that we have to suffer again, just like during the conflict." Children of the revolution ISSUE #439	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line12
__label__wiki	0.805029	0.805029	City of Cambridge is the oldest town rowing club on the Cam. Early records show the existence of the ‘Cambridge Boat Racing Club’ in 1844, the largest contingent of which went on to become the ‘Cambridge Town Rowing Club’ in 1863. The Town club was formed by John Harvey in the working men’s club that used to be located on Market Hill; this formed the core of what became City of Cambridge Rowing Club in 1932. The club’s colours are Dark Blue, Claret and Old Gold. Records are patchy for the first part of the twentieth century but it seems that City began to record excellent results in both the Bumps and the Eight’s Head on the Thames from the late ’40’s onwards. In 1953 the first eight finished 53rd on the Thames and held the headship in the Town Bumps (see below for more Bumps detail). In the same year (the club’s official 90th anniversary) the first Town regatta was run on the Cam. The course ran from the Pike and Eel (which became the Penny Ferry and is now housing) all the way up the long reach and round to the Plough. The Cambridge Daily News reported that R. Evans of St Neots was disqualified for knocking M. Clay of Nottingham and Union into the river during their singles race. Clay appeared to collect the trophy ‘soaked to the skin, his hair on end and in bare feet’. The City Sprints are now held in front of the boat houses over a shorter course, and often produce similar drama! At a meeting with City members at the Pitt Club in 1955 H.A. Ives of the ARA reported that due to financial constraints no GB 8 would be sent to the Olympics that year, remarking bitterly that “‘our friends from behind the Iron Curtain are in every event'”. He also controversially commented ‘I think you are all too parochial. You should discover that Bumps are not the be-all and end-all of rowing'”. It was a theme that was revisited by City honorary member Dennis Baker in 1964 when he commented on the ‘insularity of Cambridge town clubs’ and it has been a cause for discussion amongst the Cam rowing community ever since. City took a big step towards financial security in 1959 when the club purchased the freehold to the boathouse and in 1963 celebrated it’s official centenary. More to come… City in the Bumps… University Bumps had been held from the 1820’s onwards but the town bumps only really took shape with the formation of the CRA (Cambridge Rowing Association) in 1868. It seems that City were head of the river in the Town Bumps in 1875 but suffered something of a low-ebb until 1914 when they rowed themselves up to 3rd. In 1949 the 1st boat won their blades and in 1951 they were head of the river for the first time since the headship was lost in the 1870’s. They retained the headship for the next 6 years and in 1958 had the chance to equal Rob Roy’s record of 8 consecutive headships (set from 1904 to 1911). In the build up to the Bumps Robs and City posted identical times in the ‘Timed Race’, on the first night of the Bumps proper Robs caught 99’s to go second and leave themselves three nights to catch City 1. But for all their endeavour Robs could not bump a determined City crew and the record was equalled. A new record of 10 consecutive years as head boat was set by City before they were eventually toppled in 1962 by 99’s. Since then City’s Women have risen to the fore and gained headship in 2008 which they then held for the next 9 years. City have a number of crews racing in all divisions of the Town Bumps and typically around 20 boats in total across the men’s and women’s divisions. City in the 50’s Many thanks to Peter Jennings for writing this… In 1949 Cambridge Town Rowing Club I, as CCRC was then, won their oars bumping four crews who no longer exist ( Beehives I, New Museums I, Scouts I and Pye I ) gaining them third place behind ’99 I and Rob Roy I. 1950 was a year of change, not only in the name of the club as Cambridge became a City. The crew lost several older members who retired and it rowed over on all four nights. The 1951 crew had only two members left from 1949, the cox John Fuller and Peter Jennings who rowed at seven. This crew won the Time Race and was the first CCRC crew to compete at Henley Royal Regatta beating Reading University in the first round of the Thames Cup by three-quarters of a length in 7 minutes 28 seconds. Expectation for the Bumps was high and the crew lived up to this expectation by bumping Rob Roy I and ’99 I on the first two nights, rowing over Head on the second two. The crew was Jaques, Harvey, Court, Ward, Moy, Thulborn, Jennings, Messias and Fuller. This period of success and beyond was achieved under the Club Captaincy of Dennis Baker, who was foremost in developing crews to row outside the confines of the River Cam and CRA bumping races and was encouraged to do so by Dr D G Simpson, the Club President. Not insignificant in this success was that we enjoyed the coaching of David Jennens, the then CUBC Stroke who “finished-off” the crew in ’49,’50 and ’51. In 1952 CCRC I rowed over Head. Four of this crew rowed at Henley beating RAF Benson in the first round of the Wyfold Cup. In the post WW2 period all town crews on the Cam rowed in clinker built boats and thus performance at The Thames Head was judged against other clinker crews. The first sortie to the Tideway was in 1949. The best overall placings during that period were in the low 20s, but results were always among the better clinker crews. In 1952 the crew won the Clinker Division Pennant.	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line15
__label__cc	0.531425	0.468575	Questions to Bernie Sanders Thread: Questions to Bernie Sanders Fort Lee, New Jersey, USA I like Charlie Rose's program very much; I watch it and learn from it, nearly every weekday. On October 26, during an interview with Charlie Rose, Bernie Sanders agitated for tuition-free public universities, for raising minimum wage, etc. How can a moral person disagree with such proposals? But his agitation for social justice via a progressive socialist revolution against the top one percent of American private property owners scared me. It reminded me of Lenin's agitation agains injustice in Russia, and of a Polish revolutionary song "Burzhujow do pracy zagnamy." My father, a Polish communist, also believed that the only way to eliminate social injustice was to destroy capitalism. But he was arrested in Moscow, and sent to a Gulag camp, where he died, two years later, at the age of 36. My questions to Sanders, if I had a chance of interviewing him, would be different from those asked by Charlie. I want to know what Sanders thinks about proletarian dictatorship, and and how he plans to avoid Gulag-like camps in America. Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D, See "Diary of a Former Communist," at: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kow...ife/intro.html and at: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kow...roduction.html ================================================== ======= Ludwik Kowalski, author of a free ON-LINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.” http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA). The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will we experience is. You assume Bernie Sanders DOESN'T want gulag style camps for the 1%. He either does, or he is the most convincing liar in a very adept group of liars. AmericanPride "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr This can be an interesting conversation. Democracy is inherently socialist in construction. Democracy is the public ownership of political power. Democracy and capitalism are not 'natural' cousins - in fact, there are many contradictions between the two; namely that capitalism concentrates wealth and the means of production in private hands. Thus, there exists a tense relationship between public political power and private economic power. In the U.S. we have the added layer of constitutionalism which provides an inflexible and rigid political process. It goes some way in resolving the contradictions between democracy and capitalism - for example, it provides for a lesser form of democracy we call republicanism and it also reserves for the state some central economic activities such as the control of the money supply. This constitutional regulation of public political power and private economic power is always changing because of new laws, social expectations, court rulings, etc. This process is maintained, at least in theory, by the loyalty of the judicial system, the military, and law enforcement to the constitutional regulations and this is supposed to keep us from killing each other. There are a number of dangers here, but the chief one for this conversation is to what extent the constitutional regulations are just. For example, the constitution at one point provided for the slavery (and then segregation) of African-Americans, the disenfranchisement of women, the prohibition of alcohol, etc. These were eventually found to be affronts to the public political power or private economic power, or both. So now enter Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. One represents public political power and the other private economic power. As I said, democracy and capitalism are not natural brothers, so one in the extreme requires the other's subordination. The methods of repression are remarkably similar across the ideological spectrum and is really a question of practicality, not intention. What is at stake is the constitutional weapon (the state, its laws, et al) that can be used to target the interests of the other. Yes, the capture of the state by public political power means the diffusion of private economic power, and in extreme, its total dismantlement. The reverse is also true - private economic power in control of the state means the destruction of democracy. And you can read these very real fears in the narratives of liberals and conservatives. This is fundamentally different from the Russian experience which wiped away the monarchist state and replaced it with a closed network of cadre informed by their upbringing in violent revolution, civil war, and terrorism. In that instance, political power changed hands from one closed network (the aristocracy) to another (the Communist Party). And once in power, the Communists worked diligently to destroy the other power centers: the aristocracy, yes, but also the peasants, the military, the religious, and ethnic minorities. The Communists were not shy about the central importance of violence in their campaign, even before they seized power. But violence is not an acceptable feature of American constitutional process - at least on the surface, and so I doubt that Sanders would endorse a 'proletarian dictatorship' or concentration camps which violently repress class enemies. The Constitution as written today still maintains sufficient credibility among both the Left and Right as to not warrant its violent overthrow. When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot Quick Navigation Politics In the Rear Top Research Questions on Mitigating Religious Discrimination By Bill Moore in forum RFIs & Members' Projects CGSC Questions By Cliff in forum RFIs & Members' Projects Six Questions for Doug Macgregor on Iraq and the Surge By Gian P Gentile in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line20
__label__cc	0.668943	0.331057	art, Blogging, cluefulness, comment-fishing, creativity, experience, folkloristics, fun, grassroots, groupthink, hedonism, hegemony, humanism, Humanities, innovation, journalism, language, linkfest, localization, media, mediascape, memes, mindshare, musings, naïve, naïveté, personal, play, playfulness, pleasure, podcasting, Québec, radio, ramblings, shameless plug, social change, social dynamics, trends, writing, writing style April 13, 2010 dispar Leave a comment Lissajous curve Something which happens to me on a rather regular basis (and about which I blogged before) is that I’ll hear about something right after thinking about it. For instance, if I think about the fact that a given tool should exist, it may be announced right at that moment. Hey, I was just thinking about this! The effect is a bit strange but it’s quite easy to explain. It feels like a “premonition,” but it probably has more to do with “being in phase.” In some cases, it may also be that I heard about that something but hadn’t registered the information. I know it happens a lot and it might not be too hard to trace back. But I prefer thinking about phase. And, yes, I am thinking about phase difference in waves. Not in a very precise sense, but the image still works, for me. Especially with the Lissajous representation, as above. See, I don’t particularly want to be “ahead of the curve” and I don’t particularly mind being “behind the curve.” But when I’m right “in the curve,” something interesting happens. I’m “in the now.” I originally thought about being “in tune” and it could also be about “in sync” or even “matching impedances.” But I still like the waves analogy. Especially since, when two waves are in phase, they reinforce one another. As analogies go, it’s not only a beautiful one, but a powerful one. And, yes, I do think about my sweetheart. One reason I like the concept of phase difference is that I think through sound. My first exposure to the concept comes from courses in musical acoustics, almost twenty years ago. It wasn’t the main thing I’d remember from the course and it’s not something I investigated at any point since. Like I keep telling students, some things hit you long after you’ve heard about it in a course. Lifelong learning and “landminds” are based on such elements, even tiny unimportant ones. Phase difference is one such thing. And it’s no big deal, of course. It’s not like I spent days thinking about these concepts. But I’ve been feeling like writing, lately, and this is as good an opportunity as any. The trigger for this particular thing is rather silly and is probably explained more accurately, come to think of it, by “unconsciously registering” something before consciously registering it. Was having breakfast and started thinking about the importance of being environmentally responsible, the paradox of “consumption as freedom,” the consequences of some lifestyle choices including carfree living, etc. This stream of thought led me, not unexpectedly, to the perspectives on climate change, people’s perception of scientific evidence, and the so-called ClimateGate. I care a lot about critical thinking, regardless of whether or not I agree with a certain idea, so I think the email controversy shows the importance of transparency. So far, nothing unexpected. Within a couple of minutes, I had covered a few of the subjects du jour. And that’s what struck me, because right then, I (over)heard a radio host introduce a guest whose talk is titled: What is the role of climate scientists in the climate change debate? Obviously, Tremblay addressed ClimateGate quite directly. So my thoughts were “in phase” with Tremblay’s. A few minutes prior to (over)hearing this introduction, I (over)heard a comment about topics of social conversations at different points in recent history. According to screenwriter Fabienne Larouche, issues covered in the first seasons of her “flagship” tv series are still at the forefront in Quebec society today, fourteen years later. So I was probably even more “in tune” with the notion of being “in phase.” Especially with my society. I said “(over)heard” because I wasn’t really listening to that radio show. It was just playing in the background and I wasn’t paying much attention. I don’t tend to listen to live radio but I do listen to some radio recordings as podcasts. One reason I like doing so is that I can pay much closer attention to what I hear. Another is that I can listen to what I want when I feel like listen to it, which means that I can prepare myself for a heady topic or choose some tech-fluff to wind down after a course. There’s also the serendipity of listening to very disparate programmes in the same listening session, as if I were “turning the dial” after each show on a worldwide radio (I often switch between French and English and/or between European and North American sources). For a while now, I’ve been listening to podcasts at double-speed, which helps me focus on what’s most significant. (In Jazz, we talk about “top notes,” meaning the ones which are more prominent. It’s easier to focus on them at double-speed than at normal speed so “double-times” have an interesting cognitive effect.) So, I felt “in phase.” As mentioned, it probably has much more to do with having passively heard things without paying attention yet letting it “seep into my brain” to create connections between a few subjects which get me to the same point as what comes later. A large part of this is well-known in psychology, especially in terms of cognition. We start noticing things when they enter into a schema we have in our mind. These things we start noticing were there all along so the “discovery” is only in our mind (in the sense that it wouldn’t be a discovery for others). When we learn a new word, for instance, we start hearing it everywhere. But there are also words which start being used by everyone because they have been diffused largely at a given point in time. An actual neologism can travel quickly and a word in our passive vocabulary can also come to prominence, especially in mainstream media. Clearly, this is an issue of interest to psychologists, folklorists, and media analysts alike. I’m enough of a folklorist and media observer to think about the social processes behind the diffusion of terms regardless of what psychologists think. A few months back, I got the impression that the word “nimble” had suddenly increased in currency after it was used in a speech by the current PotUS. Since I’m a non-native speaker of English, I’m likely to be accused of noticing the word because it’s part my own passive vocabulary. I have examples in French, though some are with words which were new to me, at the time («peoplisation», «battante»…). I probably won’t be able to defend myself from those who say that it’s just a matter of my own exposure to those terms. Though there are ways to analyze the currency of a given term, I’m not sure I trust this type of analysis a lot more than my gut feeling, at least in terms of realtime trends. Which makes me think of “memetics.” Not in the strict sense that Dawkins would like us to use. But in the way popular culture cares about the propagation of “units of thought.” I recently read a fascinating blogpost (in French) about memetics from this perspective, playing Dawkins against himself. As coincidences keep happening (or, more accurately, as I’m accutely tuned to find coincidences everywhere), I’ve been having a discussion about Mahir‘s personal homepage (aka “I kiss you”), who became an “Internet celebrity” through this process which is now called memetic. The reason his page was noticed isn’t that it was so unique. But it had this je ne sais quoi which captured the imagination, at the time (the latter part of the “Dot-Com Bubble”). As some literary critics and many other humanists teach us, it’s not the item itself which counts, it’s how we receive it (yes, I tend to be on the “reception” and “eye of the beholder” side of things). Mahir was striking because he was, indeed, “out of phase” with the times. As I think about phase, I keep hearing the other acoustic analogy: the tuning of sine waves. When a sine wave is very slightly “out of tune” with another, we hear a very slow oscillation (interference beats) until they produce resonance. There’s a direct relationship between beat tones and phase, but I think “in tune” and “in phase” remain separate analogies. One reason I like to think about waves for these analogies is that I tend to perceive temporal change through these concepts. If we think of historical change through cycles, being “in phase” is a matter of matching two change processes until they’re aligned but the cycles may be in harmonic relationships. One can move twice as fast as society and still be “in phase” with it. Sure, I’m overextending the analogies, and there’s something far-fetched about this. But that’s pretty much what I like about analogical thinking. As I’m under the weather, this kind of rambling is almost therapeutic. Sharing/Partage: acousticsartattentionaudiobelaboured analogiesBruno TremblayChristiane CharetteClimateGatecognitioncrazycrazy analogiescreative non-fictioncreative writingdiffusiondraft æstheticsdraftsécriture automatiqueesthesicHumanitiesin phasein tunelinkfestliterary criticsMahir ÇağrımemeticsmemorymetametaphorsMusical acousticsnoticingoverhearingpassive vocabularypremoniitonspropagationpsychologyreception theoryschemassoundstream of consciousnessstream of thoughtword frequencyword usage Previous PostNo Office Export in Keynote/Numbers for iPad?Next PostActively Reading: Organic Ideas for Startups	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line22
__label__cc	0.601034	0.398966	Coming together to change the future of education at Google’s Moonshot Summit If you could change anything in the education system, what would your 'moonshot' be? This was the question asked of 40 educators, edtech innovators and entrepreneurs from around the world who were invited to Google's Moonshot for Education Summit in Amsterdam last week, which I was delighted to be able to attend representing Jisc. For those unfamiliar with the term 'moonshot', when President Kennedy announced the Apollo programme in 1961 space exploration was just beginning, but by 1969 the first people walked on the surface of the moon - a seemingly unthinkable achievement less than a decade before. Examples of modern day moonshots include driverless cars, personal genomics and personalised medicine, and new materials like graphene. Some of the most innovative of these new technologies are being developed by Google, such as Project Loon, which uses high altitude balloons to provide internet service to rural and hard to reach areas (we've just heard that Google will be connecting the whole of Sri Lanka to the internet using Loon). The video below explains Google's own approach to moonshot thinking: As Google chief executive Larry Page stated in a 2013 interview with Wired: "It's not easy coming up with moonshots. Where would I go to school to learn what kind of technological programs I should work on? You'd probably need a pretty broad technical education and some knowledge about organisation and entrepreneurship. There's no degree for that." To which we could add one word: yet. Moonshots in education So what do we mean by a moonshot in education? In an era when all of human knowledge is freely available online, and the nature of work is fundamentally changing, we have to ask ourselves how the education system needs to evolve to reflect our new realities. This is particularly important when we look at the tech skills required for the digital economy. A recent study by Deloitte and the University of Oxford found that "35% of existing jobs in the UK are at high risk from automation over the next two decades, with jobs paying less than £30,000 a year nearly five times more likely to be replaced by automation than jobs paying over £100,000." Meanwhile, the European Commission projects there will be almost a million unfilled tech vacancies across Europe by 2020. Which brings us to the Moonshot Summit. Our hosts for the summit were Esther Wojcicki and the EdTechTeam. Esther is an award-winning teacher from Palo Alto High School in California, vice chair of Creative Commons, and consultant to Google's Education team. Esther has embraced technology in education as a way of liberating and empowering teachers and pupils, as described in her book Moonshots in Education. Esther's approach to moonshot thinking in education is nicely summed up in this video interview, Educating for the Unforeseen Jobs of the New Economy: In a 2013 interview on the TED blog, Jisc Digital Festival keynote speaker Sugata Mitra says: "It's quite fashionable to say the education system is broken. It's not. It's wonderfully constructed - it's just that we don't need it anymore. It's outdated." This was a commonly held view amongst the teachers who attended the Moonshot Summit, and we began the event by exploring the delegates' big ideas for transformative change in education. Here are just a few of the 'what ifs' to come out of those discussions: What will the iPad generation need and expect from college or university? What if children were grouped by ability rather than their date of birth? What if learning was as addictive as Candy Crush or Flappy Bird? What if we eliminated the constant cycle of assessment? What if my (other?) teacher was a robot, or an algorithm? And the big one... What if there were no schools? It was telling for me that educators attending the Moonshot Summit largely felt that whilst a quantum leap was required in education, this was not principally about technology - in many ways the technology we already have is 'good enough', and we are not fully exploiting it. However, there were some examples cited of new technologies that could have a genuinely transformative effect. While we might not see the anthropomorphic robots of 1950s science fiction gliding around the corridors of our schools and colleges any time soon, apps like MathBingo and DuoLingo's free language learning platform - which now has over 100 million users worldwide, with examples of how it can be used for gamification of learning - show how technology can be used to augment and enhance contact hours in the classroom and lecture theatre. Four key trends emerged from our initial discussions: Resources and teacher support Innovative assessment Equity and agency Engagement and agency The first two themes in particular struck a chord (and correlate well with the recommendations of the UK's Education Technology Action Group). Delegates overwhelmingly felt that teachers needed support and encouragement to transform their approach from 'sage on the stage' to more of a mentoring and coaching role. They also felt that education as a whole should move away from a culture of high stakes summative assessment and 'teaching to the test' to a more incremental approach that recognises and credits students' mastery of their study topics. As things stand, learners are often branded as failures simply because they learn at a different pace to their peers or have different aptitudes. Our facilitators from EdTechTeam then formed groups of like-minded individuals to ideate towards projects around these themes that the participants could take away to work after the Moonshot Summit. We used a 'design sprint' approach for this that would be very familiar to anyone who has participated in Jisc's co-design initiative for new R&D projects. You can read a detailed description of the Moonshot Summit design sprint in Yoni Dayan's post for LinkedIn Pulse, but I will pull out the main ideas here: Gamifying the curriculum - real problems are generated by institutions or companies, then transformed into playful learning milestones that once attained grant relevant rewards. Dissolving the wall between schools and community by including young people and outsiders such as artists and companies in curriculum design. Creating a platform where students could develop their own learning content and share it, perhaps like a junior edX. Crowdsourcing potential problems and solutions in conjunction with teachers and schools. A new holistic approach to education and assessment, based on knowledge co-construction by peers working together. Creating a global learning community for teachers, blending aspects of the likes of LinkedIn, and the Khan Academy. Extending Google's 20% time concept into the classroom, in particular with curriculum co-creation including students, teachers and the community. You can also view each of our teams' pitches in the Moonshot Summit 'Space Walk' slide deck. The Moonshot Summit is now over, but as participants we are keen to follow up these discussions and explore which of these ideas can usefully be taken forward. While they were largely conceived of with school age learners and school teachers in mind, there are clear parallels with further and higher education and skills - which I am interested in exploring from a Jisc perspective. You can follow #MoonshotEDU on social media to participate in the global dialogue. I'd also love to hear your own moonshot ideas - do you agree that education needs a reboot, and do the ideas I've outlined above resonate with you? Will your college or university be ready for the iPad generation? To discuss further, please do get in touch with me or leave a comment below.	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line24
__label__cc	0.57367	0.42633	Current time: 17/01/2021, 19:28 Hello There, Guest! (Login — Register) Forum \| Merseyside Dennis Dart Website / Buses / Buses: The Old Days / Greater Manchester Bus Network and Route Maps Greater Manchester Bus Network and Route Maps Mikeonthebuses Marshall Capital I have seen a lot of interest in the past on here about GM Buses and operators after Deregulation in 1986 and I have started a little project looking at all the old routes around Greater Manchester and creating visual maps for each route and network map for all the routes that operated 33 years ago in Greater Manchester. I started to get very invovled in the history of Greater Manchester Bus Network due to increasingly annoyed about the current state of our network which is not fit for purpose and I wanted to create my own version of network I would love to see around Greater Manchester and this project will enable me to do that. I'm just wondering if it allowed to share links to the maps and that I can share them in this new thread, as I'm finding them interesting to look at and I'm sure the members will love looking at the routes that operated in the past but has now been withdrawn. Also the maps are interactive so you can select the routes you want to see or don't want to see. RE: Greater Manchester Bus Network and Route Maps This map 1 of my network maps concepts from the 1986 using modern mapping to showcase the routes, this is just example and if it allowed I will attach the rest of the maps so far you to discuss on this thread https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gIaTVv...sp=sharing Map 7 is now here and it is the final that focusing on the 400 - 499 service batch as Map 8 will start to look at the 300 - 399 batch of services with the 400 and 401 being bolted on to it. Map 7 is a interesting one as it showcases Oldhams more compacted network group than previous batches shown with a nice trans lancs topping to top everything off with epic Warrington - Leeds combined routes 402/403. They will have been 63 routes operating on 26th October 1986 using the Prefix 4** which means 36 numbers was vacant on launch day The Numbers that was not used on launch day was 496, 495, 494, 493, 491, 490, 489, 487, 486, 485, 483, 469, 467, 463, 462, 461, 460, 459, 458, 455, 448, 446, 445, 444, 442, 441, 430, 429, 424, 423, 420, 418, 417, 416, 413, 407, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IypIPr...sp=sharing acocker96 East Lancs Spryte (10/07/2019 06:16)Mikeonthebuses Wrote: Map 7 is now here and it is the final that focusing on the 400 - 499 service batch as Map 8 will start to look at the 300 - 399 batch of services with the 400 and 401 being bolted on to it. I remember the 404 and 405 in their First days, but they used to turn around at Limeside at the former turning circle at St Chads, a car park was built across the old through road. (17/07/2019 14:00)acocker96 Wrote: I remember the 404 and 405 in their First days, but they used to turn around at Limeside at the former turning circle at St Chads, a car park was built across the old through road. Did they because of the information I have got, the terminus was Lime Green Road. The mapping project is temporaly on hold due to a few inaccuriences I'm occuring with the database I'm using Contact Us \| Merseyside Dennis Dart Website \| Return to Top \| Return to Content \| Lite (Archive) Mode \| RSS Syndication Powered By MyBB. Theme by AJ at Pet Forums. All views expressed by members are their own and NOT the views of the owner or administration team of the Merseyside Dennis Dart Website Copyright © Merseyside Dennis Dart Website \| Powered by WordPress Designed by: Web Hosting \| Thanks to company formation uk, Wolfenstein Blog and Forex Blog	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line31
__label__cc	0.714841	0.285159	Water Now, Inc. Announces Indefinite Postponement of Special Shareholder Meeting for Sale of Assets By: NewMediaWire November 24, 2020 at 12:55 PM EST Fort Worth, TX - (NewMediaWire) - November 24, 2020 - Water Now, Inc. (OTC: WTNW) announced today that it has indefinitely postponed the special meeting of its shareholders, which was scheduled for November 25, 2020 (the “Special Meeting”), to, among other things, consider and vote on various proposals necessary to close the previously announced Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated July 31, 2020, with RigMax H2O, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (the “Buyer”), and RigMax, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, pursuant to which the Buyer will acquire substantially all of the Water Now’s assets. The postponement of the Special Meeting is necessary as Water Now has been advised that the Buyer is currently unable to fund the purchase price as contemplated by the Agreement and Water Now has in turn exercised its right to unilaterally terminate the Agreement. Water Now continues to evaluate the matter and will provide additional information as it becomes available. About Water Now, Inc. Water Now, Inc. headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, is engaged in the business of providing water purification solutions. For additional information about Water Now, Inc., please visit our website at http://www.waternowinc.com. Certain statements contained in this press release, including, but not limited to, information regarding the anticipated dates for the closing of the asset sale transaction are forward-looking statements. Generally, the words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “project,” “expect,” “predict” and similar expressions identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and estimates. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees and are made subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual timing of the closing to vary from that stated or implied in this press release. When considering forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the risk factors and other cautionary statements set forth in Water Now’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and the other reports that it files with the Securities and Exchange Commission, from time to time. Except as required under applicable law, Water Now assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements made herein or any other forward-looking statements made by it, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Important Additional Information and Where to Find It In connection with the proposed transaction, the Company will file relevant materials with the SEC, including amended or supplemental proxy information. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC WHEN SUCH DOCUMENTS BECOME AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION. Investors and security holders will be able to obtain the proxy statement and other relevant materials filed by the Company with the SEC free of charge at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. Participants in Solicitation Water Now, Inc. and its sole director and executive officer may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in respect of the proposed transaction. Information concerning Water Now, Inc.’s participants is set forth in the definitive proxy statement filed October 26, 2020 with the SEC on Schedule 14A. Additional information regarding the interests of such participants in the solicitation of proxies in respect of the proposed transaction will be included in the other relevant materials to be filed with the SEC when they become available. David King, Chief Executive Officer Water Now, Inc. Water Now Inc	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line39
__label__cc	0.669795	0.330205	Debate: Abortion Revision as of 16:49, 26 October 2010 (edit) ← Previous diff Revision as of 16:50, 26 October 2010 (edit) '''[[Argument: Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burden\| Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burden]]''' ''Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871).'' - "Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women."[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion] '''[[Argument: Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burden\| Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burden]]''' ''Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871).'' - "Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women."[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion] - '''[[Argument: On abortion, the issue is when love, not life, begins\| On abortion, the issue is when love, not life, begins]]''' ''Robert Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania'' - "When we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins."[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion] The point is, since we should be capable of loving a fetus (a human being in the making), we should subsequently provide that being with rights and protections. It matters not what we call the unborn child (a "baby", "human", "life"); as long as we love it, we should protect it. And, an attitude and life-style of love and acceptance is superior to an attitude and life-style of fear and regret. + '''[[Argument: On abortion the issue is when love not life begins\| On abortion the issue is when love not life begins]]''' ''Robert Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania'' - "When we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins."[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion] The point is, since we should be capable of loving a fetus (a human being in the making), we should subsequently provide that being with rights and protections. It matters not what we call the unborn child (a "baby", "human", "life"); as long as we love it, we should protect it. And, an attitude and life-style of love and acceptance is superior to an attitude and life-style of fear and regret. '''[[Argument: Abortion worsens parenting by devaluing the parent-child relationship\| Abortion worsens parenting by devaluing the parent-child relationship]]''' If an unborn child is seen as expendable, the parent comes to believe that their relationship with the unborn child is conditional and non-binding. During child-rearing, this philosophy can be very damaging for the quality of parenting. '''[[Argument: Abortion worsens parenting by devaluing the parent-child relationship\| Abortion worsens parenting by devaluing the parent-child relationship]]''' If an unborn child is seen as expendable, the parent comes to believe that their relationship with the unborn child is conditional and non-binding. During child-rearing, this philosophy can be very damaging for the quality of parenting. Should abortions of any kind be permitted? The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is whether one should allow the termination of a pregnancy. For some, the question is even more fundamental: at what stage is the embryo or fetus in the uterus to be regarded as a child? At fertilization? At birth? Or, maybe somewhere between. The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life’) arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise the woman’s right to choose as the primary concern. While abortion has been legal in America since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself – as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from Women’s and other lobby-groups. The abortion debate revolves around a number of questions. Does a woman have a right to her body that the fetus cannot take away? Does this right mean that a woman has a right to "unplug" from the fetus? Or, does the fetus have a right to life that is binding on the woman and her body and that outweighs any rights held by the woman, requiring her to give birth? Is a fetus only a fetus or is it a person that deserves rights and protections? Does "human life" begin at conception or at birth? Is destroying a fetus akin to "killing a human" or murder? What about the biological father? What rights does he have over a fetus? If the woman seeks an abortion, can he prevent it? And, what if she wants to give birth to a child, while he does not want it to happen? What say does he have? Is this, therefore, simply a question of the woman's rights, or the man's rights as well? Is a woman responsible for actions and behavior that may lead to an unwanted pregnancy, making her responsible for the fetus even if it is "unwanted"? Are there circumstances in which a woman cannot be said to be responsible for her own impregnation, such as failed contraception or rape? Can this justify an abortion? Is abortion an issue that is subjectively moral/immoral, so should be reserved to individual judgement (not law)? Must opponents simply tolerate the practice? Or, is the scale of abortions world-wide too large to ignore, and does this scale give cause to a ban? Is abortion an important way for young women to ensure that their futures are not destroyed? Is it an important part of ensuring that women can have sex comfortably and without worry? Is child-rearing more fulfilling than many women tend to believe? Is it wrong to consider "quality of life" issues here? Is the "sanctity of life" more important than "quality of life"? Does abortion result in psychological disorders or depression? Does it increase the chances of cancer? What about during emergencies in which the risks of giving birth are very high for a woman? Should she be forced to endure these risks, or can an abortion be appropriate in these circumstances? Does abortion generally empower women with an important choice regarding their bodies? Or, does it demean them, possibly by opening them to sexual exploitation by men. Are there viable alternatives to abortion such as adoption? Does the option of adoption invalidate all concerns regarding raising a child? Are there concerns regarding the safety of child-birth that make the possibility of putting a child up for adoption risky? Is abortion itself risky? How do the risks of abortion compare to the risks of child-birth? Does the illegalization of abortion merely push women to seek "back alley" abortions, which are less safe? Is it impossible to enforce any ban on abortions? Does this matter? Is abortion merely a new form of birth control that is being exploited by women, and which allows them (and their partner) to act recklessly in their sexual behavior? Is it better to abort a child that will be unwanted or neglected by its parent? Is this good for children that would, perhaps, suffer, and possibly good for society that would suffer from their presence (crime)? Or is it wrong to base decisions regarding abortion (life and death) on merely whether a baby is wanted? Are the social problems that will confront a baby irrelevant or inappropriate to consider? Can/should they be addressed by other means than abortion? These and other questions frame the complicated abortion debate, which continues to be highly contentious, with massive support on both sides internationally. Other background resources Wikipedia: Abortion 1. Should abortions of any kind be permitted? \| 3. Woman's rights: Does a woman have a right to her body that includes a right to abortion? \| \| \| \| 4. Fetus rights: Is it wrong to assign rights to the fetus? Is it not a person? \| \| \| \| 5. Dignity of life: Does abortion uphold the "dignity of life"? \| \| \| \| 6. Safety: Are abortions safe? What about legal versus illegal abortions? \| \| \| \| 7. Life-style: Does abortion improve the ability of women to live life how they want? \| \| \| \| 8. Child-hazards: Is abortion a means of avoiding hazards for child? \| \| \| \| 9. Depression: Are women usually content with a past decision to abort? \| \| \| \| 10. Unwanted/adoption: Is abortion OK in dealing with "unwanted" children? Vs. adoption? \| \| \| \| 11. Emergency: Is abortion justified in order to save the life of a mother? \| \| \| \| 12. Rape: Should instances of impregnation through rape justify abortion? \| \| \| \| 13. Exploitation: Does abortion protect or expose women to sexist/sexual exploitation? \| \| \| \| 14. Birth control: Is abortion an important safety net to birth control? Is it an alternative? \| \| \| \| 15. Child disability: Is abortion justified when an unborn child suffers a disability? \| \| \| \| 16. Viability: Is viability a good cut-off point for abortion? \| \| \| \| 17. Enforcement: Would a ban on abortion be unenforceable? \| \| \| \| 18. Doctors: Are the doctors that perform abortions OK with their act? \| \| \| \| 19. And death penalty: How can people be anti-abortion but pro death penalty? \| \| \| \| 20. Eugenics: Is it wrong to equate abortion with Eugenics? \| \| \| \| 21. Crime: Does abortion help reduce crime? \| \| \| \| 22. Racial equality: Is abortion important to maintaining racial equality? \| \| \| \| 23. Activism: What are the arguments for and against certain activist-styles in this debate? \| \| \| \| 24. Social: What are some of the other pro/con social utility/cost arguments? \| \| \| \| 25. Faiths: Where do the various faiths generally stand on the issue? \| \| \| \| 26. US Constitution: Is abortion consistent with the US constitution? \| \| \| \| 27. Historic opinion: Has abortion been supported historically? \| \| \| \| 28. Internationally: Where do country policies stand in this debate? \| \| \| \| 29. Pro/con organizations \| \| \| \| 30. Public opinion: Where do publics stand on this issue? \| \| \| \| 34. External links \| Woman's rights: Does a woman have a right to her body that includes a right to abortion? Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a woman's right Society needs to stop being two-faced over this issue. Either it's a baby or it's not. You can't claim murder if you lose the baby in a car accident on your way to an abortion clinic. You can't expect your mail partner to pay paternity if he has no say in the abortion. Women must control their bodies or risk becoming servants of the fetus Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy subjugates a woman to the fetus. Under no circumstances should a woman's right to control her own body be curtailed in this way. Or, in other words, a fetus cannot be said to have rights to a woman's body that enslave the woman and her body in the relationship. This argument is encapsulated in what is known as the "dialysis analogy", put forward by Judith Jarvis in "A defense of abortion". The argument is that, an individual that hypothetically lives off of another woman's body does not have a right to continue to utilize that woman's body as a kind of "dialysis machine". The woman has a right to "unplug". In the same sense, a woman has the right to "unplug" her body from the fetus, which depends on the woman's body to live, but which does not have rights over the woman's body for its continued existence. Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a woman's right There are many things that are seen as immoral by some people, but which must, nevertheless, be upheld as a right. As is argued above, the fetus has no absolute right to the woman's body, and therefore the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort). This is the case no matter how "wrong" we might believe the act of "unplugging" and killing the fetus to be. Opponents can object to abortions, but must tolerate the choice Opponents of abortion may have a strong moral case and belief against abortion. Yet, their beliefs are not shared by all. They must tolerate a woman's right to have an abortion, even if they believe the act to be morally wrong. The best that opponents can hope for is to convince women that it is immoral, but to ask for the illegalization of abortion would be to wrongly deny that abortion is a right. Denying abortion rights forces maternity on women (state rape) Edward Abbey , an American author - "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."[1] A woman has the sole right to decide to seek an abortion. A woman carries a child during pregnancy and undergoes child-birth. No-one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. Abortion is the woman's choice, not the father's The Father should be told that the woman is having an abortion but until he carries and gives birth to his own baby then it is not his choice to tell the woman that she has to keep and give a painful birth to this fetus. The mother's life is more valuable than the fetus. What makes the mothers life more important is that she is a full-grown adult and has the ability to make more children. Women can reproduce new children with equal value to the aborted. The potential of any given child is unimportant in the context of it being possible, after an abortion, for a mother to reproduce many more children. Who is to say that a particular child has any more potential than the next? This argument is strengthened by the fact that women and couples typically aim to produce a certain number of children. Even if they abort a child (they'll still aim to produce the same number), so the quantity of newborns and potential is not diminished by the existence of abortion. If women can't be trusted with "choice", how can they be trusted with children? It is important that society trust in women and individuals to make the right moral choices. In regard to abortion, if women can't be trusted to make the right choice, how can they be trusted with children? The "dialysis" analogy is invalid; pregnancy is unique One of the most famous arguments against abortion is the "dialysis analogy" put forward by Judith Jarvis in 1971. It compares abortion to a situation in which a healthy woman (the mother by analogy) is attached to a dying patient (the fetus by analogy) in order to keep the dying patient alive. The concept is that the dying person does not have a right to the woman's body, and that the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort) even if it means the death of the other person. The problem with the analogy is many fold: 1. A woman and a fetus have a special relationship that is incomparable to that between a woman and a stranger or even a relative. There is a special biological drive inside the mother to keep the baby alive and a dependency by the baby on the mother. The mother, therefore, has a special responsibility to keep her child alive and not abort; 2. A woman often gives a form of tacit approval to the existence of a fetus in her womb: the act of engaging in sexual behavior; 3. abortion directly kills the embryo and does not merely "unplug" and let it die. These are critical differences that invalidate a classic, central argument for abortion. Parents must "control their bodies" or else risk being a servant of their children? Rights sometimes come with Responsibilities. Let's take the roof off the argument that claims that a person (and their body) has unlimited "rights not to be enslaved" as a consequence of being a parent, which was almost always the result of their of their own action (not "controlling their body," use of contraceptives, etc.) and yet their fetus/child has no rights for care. If the principle of "enslavement" were true would it not extend to the care of a new born or older child? A new-born depends on it's mother's body and breast milk for the same nutrition and similar if not greater nurturing available to him/her in the womb. Can a mother, father or caretaker morally or legally neglect or "unplug" the child from nutrition and care on the "enslavement" argument? No. Does one have greater personal rights by virtue of "their body," or can a parent provide care without "their body?" No. Can we protest that "forcing a parent to continue being a parent subjugates them to the child? Of course not. The child has a right to care from it's parents or legal guardians and they have a responsibility to care for him or her. The right to choice/privacy (abortion) does not override the right to life Jesse Jackson, U.S. civil rights activist, now in favor of legal abortion, in National Right to Life News, (January, 1977) - "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life ... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned." Thus, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother’s right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies. Women should be held responsible for behavior leading to impregnation. If one does not want to have a baby, they should not have sex, or they should take extreme precaution when having sex. Sex is not a game. It is a serious matter of reproduction and life. If a woman plays with it and becomes pregnant, she should be held responsible to carry out the birth of her child. And, it should be noted that the responsibility could end at child-birth, with it being possible to put a child up for adoption. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy need not be major, but they must be born by the mother and father. A woman's rights are not the only rights that need to be respected in abortion: Of course, human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. There are two primary rights that must be considered in addition to the rights of the woman. First, the father has some rights over the fetus. Second, the fetus itself may have some rights. The point is merely that the woman's interests and rights cannot be the only ones under consideration. The scale of abortions makes state intervention compelling Some argue that abortion is an individual moral choice that the state should not get involved with. Yet, when an individual moral choice is practiced on a massive scale, it becomes a concern for broader society and government as well. Under a "veil of ignorance", the unborn would adopt a pro-life social contract The "veil of ignorance" is a notion put forward by liberal philosopher John Rawls. This idea relates to the social contract people would adopt if they were effectively unborn spirits under a "veil of ignorance" regarding where they would "end-up" in life. The conclusion is that everyone would adopt a social contract that hedges against poor outcomes if they get the "short-end of the stick". Abortion could be considered the "shortest stick" (death - no life at all), so it is likely that, under a "veil of ignorance", the unborn would would adopt a pro-life social contract. It is notable that this social contract theory is tenant of liberal thought, and yet liberals are most supportive of abortion. There may be an inconsistency there. Fetus rights: Is it wrong to assign rights to the fetus? Is it not a person? A fetus cannot have a right to a woman's body to sustain its life No individual has rights over another individual. Therefore, a fetus cannot be said to have an inviolable right to a woman's body and sustenance from that body. A woman can, therefore, decide to deprive the fetus of the usage of her body (abortion). A fetus is no more a human than an acorn is a tree Judith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971). - "Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are...A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree." A fetus is not a "person" so can't have rights protecting it from abortion: Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" Some define personhood (qualifying for rights) through a set of criteria. A being need not exhibit every criterion to qualify as a person, but failure to exhibit most is proposed as disqualification. One list includes consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate on many possible topics, and self-awareness. Lists like this are intended to help someone be able to objectively distinguish between a biological human and a person. An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy. These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos. The fetus causes physical pain; the woman has a right to self-defense. The fetus causes sickness, discomfort, and and extreme pain to a woman during her pregnancy and labor. It is, therefore, justifiable for a woman to pursue an abortion in self-defense. Potential of fetus to become a person is not sufficient Ayn Rand - "Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights -— and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable." If a fetus had a right to life, abortionists would be subject to murder charges While abortionists claim that fetuses should have a right to life, they would never go so far as to charge abortionists with murder. Yet, this is what would be required if we gave fetuses a right to life. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position. Human life and a right to life begin at conception; abortion is murder Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan, quoted in the New York Times on September 22,1980 "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." Life is an individual right, not a privilege, for unborn humans Mother Teresa, in her amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Loce v. New Jersey and Krail et al. v. New Jersey in February 1994 - "Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign... you must weep that your own government, at present, seems blind to this truth."[2] A fetus is uniquely capable of becoming a person; deserves rights It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the traits of a full-grown human person. It will also inevitably accumulate all of the rights that you yourself have. If we deprive the unborn of life via abortions, however, they will be deprived of all of this potential and future rights. This is why extending a right to life is of utmost importance; the future of the unborn depends on it. No one argues that an acorn or even an animal fetus has a “sanctity” or rights. No, human beings are in an entirely different class. We are called not to murder human life, not acorns. It's not the stage of development, it's the precious value of humans. Abortionists focus only on the early stage of development and ignore the specialness and reverence we should have for even a tiny (but growing) human life. A living, developing human fetus by definition IS a human life. If these criteria for being a "person" are valid then killing infants is justifiable. Infants also lack self motivation, self-awareness, rationality, autonomy, and the ability to converse on a variety of subjects. Wanted fetuses are beloved "babies"; unwanted ones are "tissue" (inconsistent) Naomi Wolf, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, in "Our Bodies, Our Souls", The New Republic (October 15, 1995) - "Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?"[3] Women can only be "pregnant" with a "child" not merely a "fetus" This is similar to the above argument. The point is that pregnancy can only be called pregnancy and that you can only be pregnant with a "child". Nobody would ever say, "I'm pregnant with a fetus". Therefore, fetuses should be considered "unborn children" with correlating rights. Fetuses, as dependents, do have some rights over their mother's body The mother-fetus relationship is unlike any other relationship between individuals. The fetus is, without choice or by chance, dependent on its mother for sustenance and life. The mother has unique responsibilities toward the fetus in this relationship, and so, yes, a fetus has some unique rights over its mother. Pro-abortionists dehumanize "fetuses" to get away with murder Frederica Matthewes-Green, "Personhood of the Unborn", on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, (January 21, 1998) - "When we question whether someone is a person, it is because we want to kill him. We do this with our enemies in wartime, or with anyone we would like to enslave or exploit. Before we can feel comfortable treating others this way, we have to expel them from the human community. But there's just no logical reason to expel the unborn."[4] Abortion deprives a fetus of an entire human future: Some argue that abortion is wrong because it deprives the embryo of a valuable future. Indeed, killing any human being is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future: any experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that they would have enjoyed. Abortion is particularly egregious because it deprives a fetus of all experiences as a human being. The unborn are voiceless and should be protected against abortion Ronald Reagan. New York Times. September 22nd. 1980 - "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."[5] In other words, the unborn would all be against abortion, but, of course, they can't express their opinion as for/against abortion. It is important to protect such a voiceless minority in society. That the fetus may do harm to the mother cannot justify destroying it. Even when born, a child can inflict much more physical pain on the mother than he can on the womb, his destruction is still illegal. It is wrong to kill fetuses on the basis that they can't think/feel. On "the fetus cant think argument": Animal abuse, suicide and even cutting down a tree are frequently illegal on the basis that these things have some value and should not be destroyed, killed, or treated inhumanely. It has little to do with the degree of consciousness attained by a creature. If the destruction of any species with a significant value is illegal, what makes abortion any different? Fetuses are conscious in the womb and suffer during abortions Unborn babies have a certain level of consciousness in the womb. This is partly why mothers sometimes walk around with earphones on their stomachs. Irrespective of the level of consciousness of unborn babies, their central nervous system certainly affords them the ability to feel pain and suffer. For these reasons, they should not be aborted. Dignity of life: Does abortion uphold the "dignity of life"? Even if abortions "kill life", it can be justified as upholding a woman's life Even if a fetus is considered a "baby" or human life, abortions can still be justified. The "baby" is still not a citizen with rights, while it is in the womb. In this case, the woman's right to choose outweighs considerations of the life of the fetus. The life of the woman takes precedent over the life of the fetus. This is pro-life (pro-the-life-of-the-woman) and so respects the dignity of life. There is no inviolable "right to life" in abortion and other cases. It is clear that the notion of "the right to life" can sometimes be violated for certain ends. This is the case in sending soldiers to war. So as in abortion, it can be justified to kill a fetus under certain circumstances. Hypocritical to protect fetuses, but casually wage war Rick Claro - "George W. Bush will protect your unborn fetus, then send your grown child to die in war."[6] This is a common argument that undermines the notion of "the sanctity of life" and the notion that it is "inviolable". Clearly, in war, humans frequently justify killing other human beings. In a free society, abortion is truly a matter of personal belief. The issue of abortion debates the question of whether or not the unborn child is a human being, or at what point it becomes so. This question cannot be answered for the collective body of society, rather should be answered by the individual based on personal and religious beliefs. If an individual believes that an unborn child is a human being, then the "right to life" term can be justified by that individual for their own personal choice. If an individual believes that the unborn child is not a human being, then there is no justification for laws to prohibiting an abortion. Therefore It should be argued that this is an issue for the individual; that an individual seeking an abortion has their own responsibility to be informed thoroughly about the matter, but should never be forced to agree or disagree. Abortion generally devalues the dignity we assign to life Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984 - "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life."[7] Abortion sets precedent of valuing some humans less than others Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. - "Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value."[8] No one argues that an acorn or even an animal fetus has a “sanctity” or rights. No, human beings are entirely different class. We are called not to murder human life, not acorns. Abortionists focus only on stage development and ignore the specialness and reverence we should have for even a tiny (but growing) human life. Uncertainty over whether fetuses are "life" should halt abortions. There are strong arguments in favor of fetuses being life from conception and some strong arguments against. At a minimum, uncertainty about the "truth" should cause us to place a moratorium on abortions until we figure it out. Human life is continuum; doesn't start/stop at conception George Carlin, comedian - "People say 'life begins at conception.' I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process."[9] Therefore, you can't call a fetus something other than life; it is part of the long continuum of human life and must be fully respected as such. Abortions encourage infanticide Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. - "Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now."[10] Abortion is murder just as infanticide is murder It cannot be said that the abortion of a nine-month-old fetus is much different than the killing of a three day old baby. Neither then can much difference be given to aborting a nine-month-old fetus and a month-old fetus. If infanticide is murder, so too must be abortion. Killing helpless fetus is incomparable to death of willing soldier. How can you compare an unborn baby to the willing beings that fight in wars they have choosen the fate of going to war and the know of the harsh consquenses that may follow. A baby on the other hand is born into the world if permitted not of their own free will but of the mother's decision to abort or have the child. Safety: Are abortions safe? What about legal versus illegal abortions? "Back alley" abortions are more frequent when abortion is illegal. Back-alley abortions are abortions performed illegally on the "black-market" when abortion is generally illegal. Back-alley abortions are less regulated and more likely to result in the death or harming of the mother. Legal abortions safer than black market abortions Mary Calderone, founder of SIECUS and medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "Illegal abortion as a public health problem," American Journal of Public Health, July 1960 - "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; . . . They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is . . . Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."[11] Abortion does not negatively affect a woman's sexual functions A study conducted at University of Copenhagen has shown legal abortion is associated with few adverse effects on sexual function among women in Denmark. Abortion is no more risky or harmful than ordinary birth. While abortion has it's risks, it's important that we compare it against the alternative, which is going through with giving birth. This probably entails just as many risks, if not more, as an abortion. Abortions are very risky and hazardous to the women Warren Hern, abortion practitioner and author of Abortion Practice (1990), the textbook most widely used in the United States to teach abortion to medical personnel - "In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazard as abortion." Preventing "back alley" abortions are no reason to legalize abortion. That the illegality of abortion may lead to back-alley abortions is not a reason to legalize abortion. This argument has nothing to do with the core moral principles underlying the debate (regarding life and rights), so should not be considered. Abortions are emotionally and psychologically unsafe. If by 'safe' you mean that a woman can survive, then the answer is possibly. A woman can have even multiple abortions and live through each. But if by 'safe' you mean that she will experience no physical, emotional, or psychological harm, then the answer is no. She will spend the rest of her life dealing with the myriad of consequences of the abortion by constantly shoving the rattling skeletons back into the closet. And will daily seek expiation, or seek to justify herself. In any case, none of these leaves a woman 'safe'. Life-style: Does abortion improve the ability of women to live life how they want? Abortion allows women to become better people without a child Rachel Kramer Bussel, "I'm Pro-Choice and I Fuck", Village Voice, January 13, 2006 - "I'm pro-choice because I couldn't fully enjoy sex were I consumed with worry about the potential consequences. I'm pro-choice for all my friends who've had abortions and gone on to do great things, who are better women for being childless (for now). I'm pro-choice for the new moms and dads I know who were able to actively choose to become parents. I'm pro-choice for all those babies... born knowing they're 100 percent loved and wanted."[12] Abortion allows women to have sex comfortably without fear of pregnancy Rachel Kramer Bussel, "I'm Pro-Choice and I Fuck", Village Voice, January 13, 2006 - "I'm pro-choice because I couldn't fully enjoy sex were I consumed with worry about the potential consequences."[13] No woman "wants" an abortion; it is only the least bad alternative Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice that they can. Abortion advocates wrongly value "quality of life" over "sanctity of life" Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984 - "As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the 'quality of life' ethic. I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future."[14] Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burden Victoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871). - "Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women."[15] On abortion the issue is when love not life begins Robert Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania - "When we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins."[16] The point is, since we should be capable of loving a fetus (a human being in the making), we should subsequently provide that being with rights and protections. It matters not what we call the unborn child (a "baby", "human", "life"); as long as we love it, we should protect it. And, an attitude and life-style of love and acceptance is superior to an attitude and life-style of fear and regret. Abortion worsens parenting by devaluing the parent-child relationship If an unborn child is seen as expendable, the parent comes to believe that their relationship with the unborn child is conditional and non-binding. During child-rearing, this philosophy can be very damaging for the quality of parenting. Child-hazards: Is abortion a means of avoiding hazards for child? Child protection. Many pregnant women who want to undergo abortion were physically and sexually abused and thus they do not wish a child became a party to such abuses. Most women would like to protect their child or potential child from enduring the suffering to which they themselves are exposed - and if this is not possible, these women would go for an abortion. The child's life is being taken away. His or her life is gone before he or she has gotten a chance to live. That is the ultimate injustice, hazard. Depression: Are women usually content with a past decision to abort? Post-abortion syndrome is not a medically recognized syndrome: The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS. It is better to regret not having a child than regret having one It is clear that abortion is a choice between evils. Therefore, the question is not whether a woman will regret having an abortion; she will. The reason abortion is justified is that a woman will sometimes regret having a child more than she will regret having an abortion. Abortion is sometimes justified as the better choice between evils. Many women are disturbed by their abortions but remain pro-choice Rosemary Candelario, director of Massachusetts Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, September 2001 - "I think the fear in the [abortion rights] movement is if we admit abortion is hard for some women, then we're admitting that it's wrong, which is totally not the case. I've heard from women who are having problems dealing with their abortion who are still ardently pro-choice."[17] Abortion may have a positive or neutral impact on the emotions of the women Multiple studies find a positive or neutral correlation between abortion and mental and emotional health. Risk-taking and disorders lead to abortions; not the opposite This argument is partly a response to studies that claim that there is a correlation between abortion and mental disorders. The point is that this might be true, but the causality of this correlation must be determined. It may be that those with existing mental disorders are more likely to take risks that lead to the need for abortion, and that this is the explanation for the correlation, rather than that abortion leads to mental disorders. Abortion often leads to regret, depression, and even mental illness Carol Everett - “The product, abortion, is skillfully marketed and sold to the woman at the crisis time in her life. She buys the product, finds it defective and wants to return it for a refund. But, it's too late.”[18] These feelings of regret often lead to depression and sometimes to a condition known as "post-abortion syndrome". Alcoholism and drug-use are common after abortions. There are many reports of woman falling into not only depression, but spates of alcoholism and drug-use after having abortions. Fewer women would have abortions if they knew what they were doing Bernard Nathanson, former abortion doctor turned pro-life, in his book Aborting America, 1979 - "Fewer women would have abortions if wombs had windows."[19] After the abortion, women are confronted with a much more profound sense of the reality of what they have done and what they have lost. This often triggers depression. The lives of women have been destroyed by abortion, not enhanced Norma McCorvey, the anonymous litigant known as "Jane Roe" in the landmark abortion case, Roe vs. Wade in her book Won by Love (June 17, 2003) - "One of my most important activities is that I am involved, together with Sandra Cano of Doe vs. Bolton, in the efforts of the Texas Justice Foundation (and other groups) to work for the reversal of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions. The approach we are taking is to show that the lives and rights of women have not been advanced or enhanced, but rather destroyed, by abortion-on-demand. We are collecting affidavits from women who have been harmed by abortion, from women who are convinced that authentic feminism is pro-life, and from professionals who know that Roe has weakened the moral fabric of the legal and medical professions."[20] Unwanted/adoption: Is abortion OK in dealing with "unwanted" children? Vs. adoption? It is better to seek abortion than neglect a born child It is unfair to give birth to a child that will be neglected, underfed, under-educated, and that will likely lead an unfulfilling life. It is also better for society for fetuses to be aborted that are brought up poor and neglected. Not only will the child suffer, but society will suffer when that child develops a higher attraction to crime, welfare, etc. Adoption is too risky making it a poor alternative to abortion Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (1984) - "Having a baby and giving it up for adoption, as pro-life people advocate, is not seen by most pro-choice people as a moral solution to the abortion problem. To transform a fetus into a baby and then send it out into a world where the parents can have no assurance that it will be well-loved and cared for is, for pro-choice people, the height of moral irresponsibility."[21] Adoption does not spare a women the pains/risks of childbirth. One of the main reasons that an abortion makes sense is that it spares women of the pains and risks of child-birth. Adoption does not spare women of these pains and risks, and so fails to address a central rationale underlying abortion. Adoption can be as emotionally damaging as abortion. Giving up a child for adoption can be just as emotionally damaging as having an abortion. It is, therefore, not necessarily easier on the mother. Unborn life should never depend on whether it is "wanted" Graciela Olivarez, Chicana civil rights and anti-poverty activist, 1972 - "The poor cry out for justice and equality, and we respond with legalized abortion. I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual to be dependent on whether that life is ‘wanted’ or not, all its citizens stand in danger...We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."[22] "Unwanted" children can be adopted; abortion is unnecessary Mother Teresa of Calcutta quotes (Albanian born Indian Missionary and Founder of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity. Nobel Prize for Peace in 1979. 1910-1997) - "These concerns (for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world) are very good, but often these same people are not concerned with the millions that are killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today, Abortion...For the pregnant women who don't want their children, give them to me."[23] Support can be provided to women that don't want or can't handle a child. Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. - "As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers."[24] Abortion is not a just response to social problems facing the unborn If a child is likely to face social difficulties, this is absolutely no reason to seek an abortion. The notion that a child will be unhappy due to these conditions or will have no chances of success is ludicrous. It is easy to find examples of poor and neglected children that have grown up to become thriving, successful, and happy adults. In any case, if social problems are the concern, these problems should be addressed; abortion is a terrible band-aid. Saying that a child would encounter social problems during his or her development is not the same as saying that he or she is better off dead. Abortion deprives couples that want to adopt of a potential child. There are many infertile couples around the world or people that would simply like to adopt children. Abortion deprives these people of a child. A woman must bear the pain/risks of birth; the life of the fetus is worth it. If the woman was the only consideration in abortions, than it might make sense for them to avoid the pain of child-birth. But, her interests are not the only ones in play. The life of the fetus is very important as well. Preserving the life of the fetus is worth the risks and pains incurred by the woman in child-birth. Emergency: Is abortion justified in order to save the life of a mother? It is just for a mother to abort a fetus to save herself In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving a women's life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus. To argue otherwise would be to uphold the rights of the unborn over the living, which is wrongheaded and immoral. Legal abortion protects women with serious illnesses that are vulnerable. Tens of thousands of women have heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that are made worse by childbearing. Legal abortion helps women avert these unavoidable risks to their health and lives. If abortion in self-defense is OK, a fetus cannot have a general right to life Opponents of abortion often argue that a fetus has an inviolable right to life. Yet, it is easy to demonstrate that this is not the case. It is always permissible to take a life in self-defense. This principle can be applied to abortion. And, importantly, it also demonstrates that there is no such thing as an "inviolable right to life". There are always conditional exceptions. So, if we can show that the conditions are appropriate (even beyond self-defense), an abortion can be justified, even if it is "killing". A child should not be killed to save a mother: Whilst these are different circumstances, and such medical emergencies are tragic, it is by no means obvious that the abortion is to be performed. The ‘mother vs. child’ dilemma is one which defies solution, and aborting to preserve one of the lives sets a dangerous precedent that it is acceptable to kill a person in order to save another. This is a clear, and unpalatable, case of treating a human-being as a means to an end. Abortions under "trying circumstances" are the exception not the rule Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style" abortions. This is wrong. Letting a woman die is better than directly killing an unborn baby There is a difference between letting a woman die from the presence of a fetus and the process of giving birth and actively killing a fetus. One is "letting die", the other is "killing". The distinction is important, and is a good reason to oppose abortion even during special emergencies. Rape: Should instances of impregnation through rape justify abortion? Abortion must be justified in cases of impregnation by rape Woman, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. Rape is an arbitrary exception; abortion must be available in all pregnancies. Many opponents of abortion allow for abortion in instances of rape. But, this assigns rights arbitrarily to the unborn "bastard child" as compared to an ordinarily-conceived child. It confers lower rights on the unborn "bastard child". This is wrong. The solution, though, cannot be to ban abortions even in cases of rape. Instead, the solution is to legalize all forms of abortion. Abortion prevents victims of rape from becoming unready mothers\| In cases where the rape victims cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favour. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault their underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Moreover pregnancy might even affect the health and growth of the young girls. Besides, babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children". Rape does not qualify abortion; it is not the child's fault; abortion is still murder. Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. A rape victim can put their baby up for adoption. Why can't a rape victim put their child up for adoption? Isn't this an adequate resolution to the problem? The only reason it might not be an adequate resolution are the risks and pains of child-birth and perhaps the difficulty of separating from the child. But, these objections are easily dealt with. First, maintaining the life of a fetus is worth the pains and risks that it might cause the mother. Second, there is no difference in separating from an unborn child (abortion) as compared to a born child (adoption). Having an abortion is just as wrong as the rape itself. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. Her rights were violated by the rapist. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. I certainly feel deeply for anyone in such a position, but that doesn't mean I would sympathize with them enough to believe they have the right to then cause harm to another. A woman's body is required to produce life, therefore an unborn child has no other option then to rely on her, no matter the reason for conception. The rapist made a choice based on his own selfish feelings and beliefs in what he was entitled to, isn't that exactly what happens when we allow abortion as a "choice?" Exploitation: Does abortion protect or expose women to sexist/sexual exploitation? If women (not men) are solely burdened by pregnancy, they must have a choice. Men are dominant in their ability to impregnate a woman, but carry no responsibilities afterward. If woman carry the entire burden of pregnancy, they must have a choice. Opposition to abortion is based largely on sexism toward women Florynce R. Kennedy, 1973 - "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."[25] It is odd to defend the dignity of a fetus over a child-rearer There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child. Abortion fails to liberate women as intended Instead of freeing women, abortion places women in a new prison of regret and torment. Abortion opens the door to the sexual exploitation of women The existence of abortion gives men a little more of a safeguard against unintentionally impregnating a woman. As a result, men will be more aggressive in their sexual exploitation of women. Rejecting abortion and going through with pregnancies empowers women Patricia Heaton, Emmy-winning actress, Washington Times, (April 14, 2005) - "The early feminists found abortion to be the ultimate exploitation of women. [Women had to] become men to compete. We bought into that. We're smarter today. It's more empowering to go through with your pregnancy."[26] Birth control: Is abortion an important safety net to birth control? Is it an alternative? Abortions are mostly sought when birth control fails. Clayton H. McCracken, director of Inter Mountain Planned Parenthood, Fall 2000 - "Most of the patients come to our abortion clinic as a result of failure of a birth control method, or a failure of our system to provide birth control."[27] Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation) If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified. Abortion is wrongly sought as an alternative form of birth control Kristin Luker, Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not to Contracept (1975) - "In short, there are no empirical grounds for assuming that women have an à priori preference for contraception over abortion."[28] In other words, women see abortion as a suitable alternative to birth control. Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control when other forms are readily available. With contraception being so effective, unwanted pregnancies are typically a result of irresponsible sexual behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does not deserve an exit from an unwanted pregnancy through abortion. Child disability: Is abortion justified when an unborn child suffers a disability? Abortion is justified when the fetus is certain to suffer and die from a disability: Finally, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child. What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that they deem that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the water-shed between life and termination? The practise of eugenics is roundly condemned by all civilised countries. The fact that a child is likely to have a short life does not justify further shortening it: When you see someone who has very little, do you take away all he has? The short life expectancy of a disabled child does not justify his deliberate killing! Viability: Is viability a good cut-off point for abortion? Viability is a good cut-off for when abortion is appropriate or not. Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, speaking for the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (joint opinion coauthored with Justices Souter and O’Connor) - "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....[P]eople have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail…. We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy....[T]here is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits....A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices."[29] A line on "viability" is arbitrary; from conception humans are always increasingly "viable" It is faulty to claim that a fetus can achieve "viability", where it becomes an independent creature and worthy of some rights. Humans are always increasing in their independence and ability to survive. In modernity, children cannot survive on their own into their teens. Enforcement: Would a ban on abortion be unenforceable? A ban on abortion presents practical problems of enforcement: Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their foetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The ‘third way’ of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. In addition, the demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk. Difficulties of enforcement should not diminish the principles of the law: Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn’t legislate against it. Doctors: Are the doctors that perform abortions OK with their act? Doctors that have difficulty performing abortions still acknowledge its importance. Many people have trouble with parts of their profession. A general, for instance, has trouble sending his troops to their death, but typically acknowledges the need for this to occur in certain instance. Abortion doctors, similarly, might be challenged by the process of an abortion (and even believe that they are "killing" the fetus), but nevertheless acknowledge the need for abortions and so are comfortable with their profession. The difficulty doctors experience in performing abortions, therefore, is not an argument against abortions. Doctors that perform abortions are often emotionally damaged Anonymous abortion doctor, quoted by Jack Hitt in "Who Will Do Abortions Here?", New York Times Magazine, January 18, 1998 - "[Doing abortions] can make you feel bad ... No matter how pro-choice you are, it makes you feel low."[30] The Hippocratic oath forbids doctors from performing abortions Hippocratic Oath, attributed to the school of Hippocrates, the “Father of Medicine,” circa 400 B.C. - "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."[31] And death penalty: How can people be anti-abortion but pro death penalty? It is contradictory to oppose abortion while supporting capital punishment. Loesje, Dutch Fictional character "Active and International girl", b.1983 - “How can anyone be against abortion but for the death penalty”[32] An abortion kills innocents; capital punishment kills the guilty There is no contradiction between opposing abortions and supporting capital punishment, as many conservatives do. An abortion involves killing an innocent fetus, whereas capital punishment involves killing a guilty, terrible human being. One involves killing an unborn baby with the potential to contribute positively to society, the other kills a human being that has demonstrated themselves unfit to live in society. The real inconsistency is in supporting abortion while opposing capital punishment. Eugenics: Is it wrong to equate abortion with Eugenics? The reproductive rights movement has no genocidal drive: No serious proponents of abortion are out to kill all embryos. Furthermore, it is an insult to the memory of the alive and conscious human beings murdered by the Nazis to equate them with embryos for anti-abortion propaganda. Abortion is a form of eugenics and mass murder Norman Haire, letter to the editor, Birth Control Review, (July, 1930) - "For those who cannot be educated, sterilization or legalized abortion seems to be the only remedy, for we certainly do not want such stupid people to pollute the race with stupid offspring. The defective conditions of life call urgently for improvement."[33] Crime: Does abortion help reduce crime? Abortion is more likely to wipe out the bad than the good. This argument is based on the premise that poverty and conditions conducive to crime often correlate to those that seek abortions. Stephen Levitt of Freakonomics makes this argument. He contends that the 1973 Roe. v. Wade legalization of abortions led to the fall in crime rates in the 80s and 90s across the United States. The period of declining crime, he says, correlated to the period when those that were aborted might have otherwise become criminals in society as a result of their circumstances. It is wrong to consider abortion a tool in crime prevention Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt, from the essay Where Have All the Criminals Gone? Want to understand what made the crime rate drop in the 1990s? Look back to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 - "To discover that abortion was one of the greatest crime-lowering factors in American history is, needless to say, jarring. It feels less Darwinian than Swiftian; it calls to mind a long ago dart attributed to G. K. Chesterton: when there aren’t enough hats to go around, the problem isn’t solved by lopping off some heads. The crime drop was, in the language of economists, an 'unintended benefit' of legalized abortion. But one need not oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds to feel shaken by the notion of a private sadness being converted into a public good."[34] Racial equality: Is abortion important to maintaining racial equality? Poor women are disproportionately deprived choice when abortion is illegal. Poor woman are most susceptible to circumstances in which abortion is necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore, this socio-economic group will be disproportionately affected. Abortion disproportionately affects the African American community Abortion ban may harm poor, but does not change case against it Kristin Luker, Dubious Conceptions (1996) - "..The fact that only poor women are denied reproductive freedom when abortions are illegal is unpersuasive to those who oppose abortion on moral grounds." Activism: What are the arguments for and against certain activist-styles in this debate? Pro-life militant groups act violently in opposition to abortion. Many pro-life activists act violently in opposition to abortion. There are many examples of the bombing of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and the harassment of abortion workers. This is wrong, and undermines the case against abortion. Pro-lifers are justified in showing gruesome images of abortions. These images reflect the reality of what is being done with abortions. They are, therefore, appropriate to show, lest we believe that it is better for women to be ignorant of the reality when they are confronted with the choice of having an abortion. Social: What are some of the other pro/con social utility/cost arguments? Abortion might forestall the potential birth of another Hitler. This is a counter-argument to the notion that abortion could have wiped out some of the greatest social contributors in history; it also could have wiped out some of the worst individuals in history. If a fetus was defined as a "person", the legal shifts would be too dramatic No abortions would be permitted for any reason, including rape or incest. Each miscarriage would have to be investigated. The legal consequences of such an amendment would be massive. Anti-abortion activists love babies but deprive poor children Abortion is important to reducing over-population globally Illegalizing abortion will lead to more children having children. Every child should be a wanted child Abortion forestalls the potential societal contributions of a human being It may even wipe out the life of an individual that could have resolved, for example, the Middle East crisis or cured cancer. Abortions are often chosen by minors or young adults with immature judgment: Abortion undermines the dignity of life, promotes violence Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Missionary and Founder of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity. Nobel Prize for Peace in 1979. - "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."[35] Faiths: Where do the various faiths generally stand on the issue? Judaism holds that life begins at birth and abortion is not murder God exists in the unborn as in the born Christian leaders throughout history have been opposed to abortion Christianity holds that a human life is a human life and taking a human life that does not pose an imminent threat to yours is wrong, outside of legitimate war and capital punishment. Judaism and the Torah uphold life against abortion US Constitution: Is abortion consistent with the US constitution? The right to abort does not depend on its explicit constitutional provision Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued Roe v. Wade, "A Delicate Decision", Westchester County Weekly, (January 22, 1998) - "The word 'privacy' does not appear in the Constitution. Then again, neither does 'travel.' But if you were to ask any American, 'Do you have the right to travel where and when you like?' they'd say 'yes.' And the Supreme Court has upheld this right." The US Constitution does not explicitly confer a right to abortion Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court, one of two dissenters in Roe v. Wade, (January 22, 1973) - "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."[36] The Declaration of Independence states we have a right to Life (Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness). One of the intentions of our founding documents, in describing our inalienable rights in liberty, is that a one person or group of people cannot exercise tyrannical power to take Life away from another person or group of persons. Historic opinion: Has abortion been supported historically? Pro-choice uphold democratic principles of free choice. America was founded upon the principles of freedom of religion. As a fetus cannot exist independently from its mother, it is the woman's extremely personal decision that must remain between herself,and her higher power. Just as churches cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, other citizens cannot determine what is indeed a religious decision on the part of a female. Abortion has been opposed by important figures throughout history Synod of Ancyra canon XXI, circa 314 - "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees."[37] Abortion has a tenuous history of support in the USA Internationally: Where do country policies stand in this debate? Canada allows for abortions on demand. In Nicaragua abortions are always illegal. Pro/con organizations Abortion Access Project California Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League Catholics for a Free Choice List - Pro-Choice Women's PAC National Abortion Federation NARAL: Pro-Choice America National Organization for Women (NOW): Abortion Physicians for Reproductive Choice & Health Population Council Pro-Choice Libertarians Refuse & Resist: Abortion on Demand & Without Apology! Republicans for Choice Republican Pro-Choice Coalition Voters For Choice Catholics United for Life Democrats for Life Feminists for Life Jews for Life Libertarians for Life LifeLinks National Coalition for Life and Peace Operation Save America Pro-Life Alliance of Gays & Lesbians Pro-Life America Republican National Coalition for Life Reformers for Life Assembly Roe v Wade.org Ultimate Pro-Life Resource Page Women and Children First Public opinion: Where do publics stand on this issue? The majority of Americans oppose abortions "Pro Choice". Posted on YouTube December 12th, 2006. What Does It Mean to be "Pro-Choice?". December 18th, 2007.[38] "Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer on abortion rights". Posted on YouTube December 12th, 2007. "Pro-Life / Pro-Choice: you NEED to see this". Posted on YouTube March 31, 2007[39] "Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video - 4D Proof Abortion is Murder"[40] "Abortion -This is a Suction Abortion" Posted on YouTube March 29th, 2008.[41] "Kayla - I found out I was pregnant". Posted on YouTube, May 23rd, 2007.[42] "Barb's ProChoice Testimony - Silent No More". Posted on YouTube on May 18th, 2007 "Choosing Life For Her Baby - A Pro-life, Anti-Abortion Video". Posted on YouTube April 19th, 2007 "Pro-life Anti-Abortion Video: Development of the Unborn Baby". Posted on YouTube July 27th, 2009 Murray, John Courtney. "Contraception, and the 'Liberal Catholic' Justification for Abortion". The Church and the Liberal Tradition. [this article needs to be read and quotes drawn from it] Thomson, Judith Jarvis . "A Defense of Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971). Debate: Parental consent for underage abortions Debate: Abortion for physical deformities Debate: 3-month limit on abortions Debate: Partial-birth abortion Opposing Views: Should Abortion Be Legal? Opposing Views: When Does Life Begin? Retrieved from "http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Abortion" Categories: 2008 US presidential elections \| Politics \| Abortion \| Morality \| Religion \| Individual rights \| Reproduction \| Reproductive rights \| Sex \| Life and death \| US politics \| Law \| Constitutional law \| US Supreme Court \| Family \| Parenting	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line40
__label__cc	0.546636	0.453364	DGVS / ORGANISATION PROFILE Education, Reproductive Child Health, Water and Sanitation, Ravine stabilization, Water Recharging, Road Safety and Drivers Training,Advancement of Agriculture, Community Mobilization, SHGs, Micro-credit and Vocational Training for Youths. DGVS primarilyfocuses on Children Education, Women Empowerment and Socio economic upliftment of the Poor’s in the community Health and environment. We have now started intervening in the Panchayats, as all the developmental plans are now being initiated and implemented by the Gram Panchayats Cross-cutting strategies to improve the health and nutrition status of the poorest and marginalised communities has remained a crucial area of work this year. The spotlight has continued to be on quality healthcare, nutrition, water and sanitation services to reduce maternal and child mortality. Improvement of maternal and child health,elimination of diseases, family planning and up-gradation of health determinants have been prioritized. Through our work, we have seen an enhancement in the participation of rural communities, especially among the women of Self Help Groups, in public health management through the Village Health Sanitation and Nutrition Committees.DGVS is known for its transparency. I think it’s safe to say that the way our programs function, and the way we work as an organization has a lot of clarity and transparency. Nothing is hidden. It’s all out there, in the public domain — for everyone to see,” says Mr. Pradeep K. Misra, Secretary, DGVS. DGVS has always worked to accurately account for and report the financial position of the Society, to promote sound financial management, and to provide quality services to the donors. The centralized finance function is performed from the Head Office and serves the needs of all the offices across the States. It ensures that all transactions adhere to the Society’s policies and procedures, generally accepted accounting principles, and rules established by the statutory bodies. DGVS values a culture of accountability and integrity committed to doing the right thing. PRINCIPLE OF DGVS: We are committed to actively work for the sustainable development of the less Privileged and marginalized sections of the community through appropriate strategies in primary education, community organization, income generation, health, hygiene, rural micro-credit and empowerment activities. We believe in espousing and supporting all such causes that help the marginalized and deprived people	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line42
__label__wiki	0.784833	0.784833	Signing off analog for good & nitelight Thread: Signing off analog for good & nitelight Back in the 80's and 90's when OTA stations were signing off for the night, they usually had a "thanks for watching and goodnight" kinda segment followed by the national anthem, then the test card with the 1kHz tone for a few seconds until the OTA transmitter was turned off, static on TV. WCBS in New York City signed off June 13th in the middle of a daytime soap opera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6twv_kuKfsE WTVS in Detroit signed-off in April and went with a recap, followed by the Canadian and US anthems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vDVK003nRI Some stations used a pre-recorded segment, some others used their newsteam to inform viewers what they should do, and while some others just pulled the plug unceremonial. A few stations (normally one per market) continued analog transmission in "nightlitght" mode, a loop of video from DTV Answers informing viewers what to do to switch to digital: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXvA2IYAyt8 It is expected that Canadian stations will just pull the plug in an unceremonial way, right after the 11pm or 11:30pm news or a few minutes after midnight while showing a rerun or a simulcast of a late-night US show. Since many transmission sites will be re-used and many stations will flash-cut to digital, they'll most likely have to work on the antenna tower(s) overnight... unless they were previously prepared for an easy switch-over. Do you think any station in Canada will sign-off in a good old-fashion way? And what about nightlight service in Canada after analog shutdown? Like any other business, there will always be last-minute people and people who will hurt their nose on the glass window after closing time. Adding to the fact that PSAs will air only during summer, not many people are watching TV during that season so a portion of the population will remain unaware of the transition. The day after the transition, it was interesting that non-english speaking communities were the ones who needed the most help, calling the help line featured in the nightlight tape. Canada has plenty of those communities, which is why the nightlight service will be important. Analog transmitters on channels 2 to 6 are the best picks for a nightlight service since these positions will remain vacant after the transition. On the other hand, Canada never had a plan for digital transition so they won't have a "tape" to put on the air, and the stations will be so happy to pull the plug so they can save on electricity. Last edited by InMontreal; 04-07-2011 at 11:12 AM. pwconsulting Flash Cutting Apparently the A channel in London, will be replacing the big antenna on the top of the tower, and moving the analog transmitter, down in the middle of the tower, although they are flash cutting (vp of operations told me) they will have both transmitters on the tower, at the same time. oggie CBC Mantoba Nightly sign off announcement "This Concludes Our Broadcasting Day.In Winnipeg CBC Manitoba is Channel 6 Cable 2 With An ERP100,000 wattsVideo 20,000 watts Audio.Please call CBC Communcations 788-3125 with any question about our programming Goodnight And thank You For Watching CBC Manitoba" By Bob Bovin;) 2 months left to go before the plug gets pulled ! Sounds like there won't be any nitelight service in Canada, as there was no CRTC requirement about it, and neither on a voluntary basis. Also, many stations will flash-cut on August 31, re-using the antenna on the tower so it'll be most unlikely to run such service. Sounds like CFCF (CTV Montreal) analog will probably shut down in a ceremonial way. For CTV Montreal, which has only one transmitter in Quebec on the huge Mount Royal antenna tower, everything is on schedule. “We’re ready to hit the button,” said general manager Don Bastien. At 12:05 a.m. on Sept. 1, just after the late newscast ends, CFCF-TV, which has been broadcasting in analog on Channel 12 since 1961, goes off the air for good, and a digital transmitter will replace it on the same channel. http://www.montrealgazette.com/enter...310/story.html	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line43
__label__wiki	0.907452	0.907452	Queer History Eleanor Roosevelt Allegedly Had An Intense Lesbian Affair — Here’s The Tea April 1, 2020 Kim Wong-Shing I was in the middle of reading the trendiest lesbian book of 2020, “In The Dream House” by Carmen Maria Machado, when I came across an alleged fact about Eleanor Roosevelt that they definitely did not teach in my U.S. history class. Namely, that she had a long-lasting lesbian affair. Did you know that? I did not. Machado’s passage is about how archives are never neutral; power and politics determine which stories are kept, and which are omitted or even destroyed. “Sometimes the proof is never committed to the archive,” Machado writes. “Sometimes there is a deliberate act of destruction: consider the more explicit letters between Eleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickock, burned by Hickock for their lack of discretion. Almost certainly erotic and gay as hell, especially considering what wasn’t burned. (‘I’m getting so hungry to see you.’)” I immediately put the book down and began investigating Eleanor Roosevelt’s lesbian relationship, and the story was so enthralling that, truth be told, I almost forgot to go back to Machado’s book. (“In The Dream House“ is very good, so that’s saying a lot.) First, a primer for those who don’t remember the stuff they did teach in U.S. history class. Eleanor Roosevelt was the First Lady of the United States from 1933 to 1945. She was the wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, or FDR, who remains one of the most revered presidents in U.S. history. Eleanor Roosevelt, too, made history; she redefined the First Lady role by being far more outspoken and politically active than her predecessors. She did many impressive things in her lifetime, from championing civil rights for African-Americans and Asian-Americans to serving on the UN Commission on Human Rights. Roosevelt was almost certainly queer. Her marriage to FDR was a matter of politics, not love. She had many close friendships with women who were out lesbians, and she exchanged thousands of steamy letters with close “friend” reporter Lorena Hickock. Hickock was an accomplished woman in her own right. She was a boundary-breaking reporter at the top of her field covering news, politics, and sports. Nicknamed “Hick” to Roosevelt and all her friends, Hickock was the first woman to have her byline featured on the front page of The New York Times. She was known to be a lesbian. Hickock and Roosevelt first crossed paths when Hickock was assigned to interview the future First Lady in 1932 during FDR’s first presidential campaign. By the following year, they were spending almost every day together. They became so close that Hickock could no longer cover the Roosevelts objectively; instead, she got a job as a researcher for FDR’s New Deal initiative. She moved into the White House — in a bedroom conjoining Eleanor Roosevelt’s. Ahem. By this time, the two were already very intertwined. But because of their jobs, they spent a lot of time apart, too. In the age before FaceTime and cute selfies, they were forced to write daily letters of longing to each other, and truly — what could be gayer? Roosevelt and Hickock’s letters became available to the public in 1978 as per Hickock’s will. Spanning their entire 30-year relationship, there are over 3,000 letters in total. But as Machado writes, this record isn’t complete; Hickock burned hundreds of the more explicit letters. She told Roosevelt’s daughter, “Your mother wasn’t always so very discreet in her letters to me.” The surviving letters include passages like: “I want to put my arms around you, I ache to hold you close.” —Roosevelt to Hickock on March 7, 1933 “I can’t kiss you so I kiss your picture good night & good morning!” —Roosevelt to Hickock on March 9, 1933 “I love many other people & some often can do things for me probably better than you could, but I’ve never enjoyed being with anyone the way I enjoy being with you.” —Roosevelt to Hickock on March 10, 1933 “Most clearly I remember your eyes with a kind of teasing smile in them, and the feeling of that soft spot just northeast of the corner of your mouth against my lips.” —Hickock to Roosevelt on December 5, 1933 And of course, the excerpt that Machado highlighted in “In The Dream House:” “I’m getting so hungry to see you.” That was from Roosevelt on November 17, 1933, just before the two reunited to spend Christmas together. (All of these passages are sourced from a collection of the letters called “Empty Without You,” edited by Roger Streitmatter.) Even after the romantic relationship faded, Hickock and Roosevelt remained close friends and continued to meet and correspond (also very lesbian). With Hickock basically cohabitating with Roosevelt in the White House for several years, it seems impossible that FDR didn’t know about their relationship, not to mention the general public. FDR must have been cool with the arrangement, possibly because he also had his own affairs; their marriage was more strategic than romantic. Amy Bloom, author of the fiction book “White Houses,” told Australia’s ABC News that there are likely two reasons that Roosevelt’s lesbian affair never became much of a headline. “I think it is one of those peculiar times that homophobia was actually a great friend to them,” Bloom said. “Because it would have been shocking to say that the first lady was a lesbian, because it was at that time shocking to say the word lesbian, to even bring it up would be to put yourself in the category of the perverse.” Moreover, the media was accustomed to being discreet when it came to the Roosevelts’ personal lives. They’d already been ignoring FDR’s own infidelity, partly because he had a disability and used a wheelchair. The press wasn’t exactly interested in skewering the man. Sadly, we’ll never really know just how much gay sex has taken place in the White House. WHO KNEW. Today, Eleanor Roosevelt’s lesbian affair is far from a secret. In a post-LGBTQ+-civil-rights era, you’d think that a former First Lady’s queerness would be common knowledge by this point. But it’s not. Instead, many historians continue to deny that the pair were ever romantically or sexually involved, insisting instead that they were just “really close friends.” (Yeah, okay.) Any queer woman who even glances at those letters will instantly recognize one of her own. But all too many queer women don’t even know about this part of history in the first place. “It’s something that is hiding in plain sight,” says playwright-actress Terry Baum, who plays Hickock in the one-woman play “Hick: A Love Story” (via Haaretz). Baum attributes this to the fact that homophobia is, sadly, still alive and well in the 21st century. And that’s a shame, really. Queer visibility is important. But also, if more people knew about this aspect of Roosevelt’s life, they’d see that she “had such guts to do this thing, to follow her passion, and to live a life that was not just politically forceful and exciting, but also a personal life that really gave her a lot of happiness and pleasure – that she just went for it,” Baum says. Like most real-life love stories, this one didn’t have a simple happy ending. After Hickock and Roosevelt transitioned from romance to friendship, life went on: Hickock started seeing another woman, and later, FDR passed away. Hickock suffered from health problems, and she often struggled financially. Eventually, she moved into Roosevelt’s cottage in Val-Kill, New York. The two women continued to support each other until Roosevelt’s death in 1962. Hickock passed in 1968. In her will, Hickock left her and Roosevelt’s letters to the U.S. National Archive to be released 10 years after her death. Now that LGBTQ+ history is being mandated in some public schools, one can only hope that Eleanor Roosevelt and Lorena Hickock’s love story will finally reach its rightful place as an important part of queer U.S. history. eleanor rooseveltLesbian Historylgbtq historylorena hickockqueer history Interviews with Queer Women The Lesbian Herstory Archives Create A Legacy For Fierce Dykes Everywhere June 11, 2020 Delphine Douglas Honoring the Mother of Modern Dance: Bisexual, Indelible, Revolutionary March 12, 2020 Megan Lane	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line47
__label__wiki	0.799926	0.799926	Disney’s ‘Tower of Terror’ Checking in to Theatres Latest, Movies, News, Opinion, Previews Advanced reservations for a terrifying stay at The Hollywood Tower Hotel begin now. One does not generally put Disney and horror together, but information has been released about a new film that seems pretty cool. The House of Mouse has just announced plans to create a big screen adaptation of one of their most popular theme park rides, The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror. The ride is based off the early ’60s TV series The Twilight Zone. Disney has famously adapted rides to films in the past in order to promote and boost theme park attendance. They’ve had some hits, most notably the Pirates of the Caribbean series starring Johnny Depp and Kiera Knightley, and some dour misses (including Eddie Murphy’s Haunted Mansion and, most recently, George Clooney’s Tomorrowland). It looks like they’re back at it again with Tower of Terror — the ride is an elevator free fall into the fifth dimension in a haunted hotel. There is no release date yet, but so far on deck is producer Jim Whitaker, while Sam Dickerman will oversee for Disney. The script will be outlined by Tim Burton-collaborator John August, who has worked with Burton on Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Dark Shadows, and Frankenweenie, so hopefully the film will be Burton-esque. This will be the second film adaptation of Tower of Terror, the first was a mostly-forgotten TV movie starring Steve Guttenberg and Kirsten Dunst in 1997. That was the first time Disney based a movie on one of its rides, and they have gone on to try it several more times. They also have plans to move forward with adaptations of Magic Kingdom, It’s a Small World After All and Jungle Cruise. The ride exists in four Disney parks: Disney’s Hollywood Studios, Disney California Adventure, Tokyo DisneySea and Walt Disney Studios Park in Paris. All but the Tokyo version are based on The Twilight Zone. I think this has potential to be a fun and edgier move for Disney — if done right, the story could be really great. I attempted to go on the ride once and my mom had imprints from my fingernails dug into her arms for the rest of the vacation so I now pass and grab a Churro instead, but the movie has a lot of room for innovative storytelling and visuals. What do you think, — will you check into the Tower of Terror when it’s released? disneyjohnny deppkiera knightleykirsten dunstpirates of the caribbeansteve guttenbergthe twilight zonetower of terror Indie Spotlight: ‘Black Eyed Children: Let Me In’ Dives into Mysterious Kids Madchen Amick Checks In To ‘American Horror Story: Hotel’ My cousin forced me to watch Child’s Play when I was around five years old, and I’ve loved horror movies ever since. I’ll watch anything (the gorier the better) but faint at the sight of blood in real life. Let’s be internet friends -- follow me on Twitter @mrstschinkel. Stars Who Got Their Start in Horror Films Writers of ‘Friday The 13th’ Are Captured By Disney? James Spiro	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line58
__label__wiki	0.980964	0.980964	MLB.com Voices Drug Policy in Baseball 11/14/2007 6:24 PM ET 'Take Me Out' turns 100 MLB to commence 2008 season with celebration of song By Mark Newman / MLB.com In 2007, Dustin Eglseder became the first fan to lead the crowd at Wrigley Field in tradition of singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game." (Cubs) MLB Headlines • Bucs win Jones case, make deal with McGehee • Justice: Trade market could heat up with weather • Robinson powerful force as player-manager • Dodgers bidders to meet with MLB committee • Spencer: Giants busting with joy to have Posey back • Hamilton 'trying to do the right thing' • MLB.TV ready to play ball for 10th season • Fantasy preview \| Spring Training report dates • More MLB Headlines • History of the game "Baseball Today -- Polo Grounds." Jack Norworth, a songwriter and Vaudeville performer, saw that sign while riding a New York subway in 1908. Although not a baseball fan himself at the time, he saw the meaning in a single game for New York Giants fans and for so many others. It inspired him to pen the lyrics to a song that would be called "Take Me Out To The Ball Game," and now an institution within the national pastime is about to be celebrated in fitting style. Major League Baseball and Baby Ruth, the Official Candy Bar of Major League Baseball, today announced the 2008 season will be ushered in with a nationwide celebration in honor of the 100th anniversary of one of America's most well-known and well-loved songs. Beginning Opening Day and continuing throughout Opening Week, Major League Baseball, along with many Major League clubs, will host in-park searches for the most talented performers of the unofficial anthem of baseball fans everywhere. Starting on Opening Day and continuing through June, fans will also be able to enter by submitting audio or video clips of their performance to Major League Baseball at MLB.com. Club winners will also be featured on MLB.com. The winner of the nationwide search will lead the crowd in the singing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" during the seventh-inning stretch of the 2008 All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium. "Singing 'Take Me Out to the Ball Game' is a quintessential part of every ballpark experience and giving our fans a fun and interactive way to honor its 100th anniversary is a perfect way to start the 2008 season," said Bob DuPuy, president and chief operating officer of Major League Baseball. "Baby Ruth knows how to help our fans take time to savor the baseball experience and we are delighted to partner with them to celebrate one of the great American traditions -- Opening Day -- and this timeless song." Many notable recordings of the song include those by Nora Bayes, wife of Norworth; The Haydn Quartet, with popular tenor Harry MacDonough, who recorded a popular hit rendition of the song in 1908 for Victor Records; and Harry Caray, the late Hall of Fame broadcaster who first sang the song during a game in 1971. Since Caray's passing, it has been a wonderful tradition for a different guest to perform the song during each seventh-inning stretch at Wrigley Field -- typical of the music's eternal allure. But this song is everyone's. In fact, it is generally acknowledged to be the third most-performed song in America in a typical year, behind only "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "Happy Birthday to You." Baseball fans also made a big deal of the song's 50th anniversary back in 1958, but there was no such technological capacity for this kind of widespread search for the best renditions. Here are some of the comments then, showing the true timeliness of this song: "Of the several hundred songs written for or about the National Game, 'Take Me Out To The Ball Game' looms above them all -- like a Stan Musial coming to bat in the ninth inning," Harold Rosenthal wrote in the March 16, 1958, issue of The Sporting News. "It was so good that the song is probably familiar to 999 out of every 1,000 persons in the United States." "Although more than 300 other baseball songs have been composed in the last 50 years, 'Take Me Out To The Ball Game' has withstood all the challenges and remains the musical classic of our national sport," Clyde Snyder wrote that year in the Los Angeles Times. That kind of history will be captured in a forthcoming book called "Baseball's Greatest Hit: 100 years of Take Me Out to the Ball Game." It is being published on Opening Day by Hal Leonard, the world's largest music publisher, and the other two authors are Andy Strasberg and Bob Thompson. The 46-chapter book will include: a bio on Norworth as well as Albert Von Tilzer, who co-wrote the song; the more than 500 artists who have recorded the song; the more than 1,500 times it has been used in movies or TV; and how the song became linked to the seventh-inning stretch. Tim Wiles, a foremost authority on the subject at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, contributed to that book and said, "One of the things we argue in the book is that the song reached new heights of popularity during its second 50 years, largely due to Bill Veeck and Caray." A Jan. 20, 1981, Chicago Tribune article by Bob Verdi (headline: "Unsigned Caray Bit Itchy in Eden") speculated whether new owners of the White Sox would rehire Caray. The legendary broadcaster went on a rant against his critics, and against team management that had generally fielded a poor product: "When the talent isn't there," Caray said in the article, "that's when you start singing 'Take Me Out To The Ball Game." The song also was made popular in the 1949 MGM musical film, "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," with Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra, and Harpo Marx played it on his harp in an episode of "I Love Lucy." It is known by the oldest and youngest fans alike, and singing it for the first time is part of the initiation into this tradition. The original lyrics penned by Norworth in 1908 are part of the collections at the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The average person has no idea what any of the lyrics are other than the chorus. Here is the 1908 versions written by Norworth, who went to his first Major League game in 1940: Katie Casey was baseball mad, Had the fever and had it bad. Just to root for the home town crew, Ev'ry sou* Katie blew. On a Saturday her young beau Called to see if she'd like to go To see a show, but Miss Kate said "No, I'll tell you what you can do:" Take me out to the ball game, Take me out with the crowd; Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack, I don't care if I never get back. Let me root, root, root for the home team, If they don't win, it's a shame. For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out, At the old ball game. Katie Casey saw all the games, Knew the players by their first names. Told the umpire he was wrong, All along, Good and strong. When the score was just two to two, Katie Casey knew what to do, Just to cheer up the boys she knew, She made the gang sing this song: (Repeat chorus.) * A "sou" was common slang at the time for a low-denomination coin. There is a 1927 version as well. But again, it is only the chorus that the average fan knows and cares about. That is what you will hear constantly in 2008, more than in any baseball season before. Baby Ruth will undertake a fan-oriented multi-platform campaign to support the promotion, and details will be announced in early 2008. In commemoration of this major anniversary, Baby Ruth also will release a special seven-inch long "stretched" version of the popular candy bar. This limited edition "Seventh Inning Stretch" Baby Ruth bar will be available during the 2008 season at retailers nationwide. "'Take Me Out to the Ball Game' is a song that belongs to baseball fans everywhere," said Hyder Raheem, marketing manager for Baby Ruth. "No matter what team you root for, the song has been a part of our collective baseball experience throughout the years. Baby Ruth is thrilled to be able to give fans the opportunity to have some fun and really express their unique style and passion for their teams while also savoring one of the truly great moments in life: the seventh-inning stretch." Mark Newman is enterprise editor for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line71
__label__cc	0.552019	0.447981	Local Writing OmahaTV Home » Omaha hold ‘em Poker Omaha hold ‘em Poker Playing Omaha Poker: Omaha High vs Hi-Lo Differences with Texas hold ‘em Hand rankings How can we have a website about all things Omaha that doesn't include a page about Omaha poker? And more importantly, where in Omaha can you get in on a game of Omaha poker? Well that's an article for another day but read on to learn all about how to play Omaha hold 'em. How to play Omaha hold ‘em Although Texas hold ‘em has emerged as the most popular form of poker, Omaha hold ‘em still enjoy a strong following. This kind of poker is getting more and more popular among the professional gamblers and there are many venues where you can play Omaha poker online. “Omaha” is actually two games: Omaha High and Omaha Hi-Lo. The games share many similarities, but the differences are important for players wishing to be successful. Both games begin in similar fashion. Each player receives one card to determine the dealer. The dealer receives the “button,” a unique object which rotates clockwise, used to keep track of the dealer. The player to the left of the dealer is the “small blind” and the player two from the left of the dealer is the “big blind.” The blinds are forced to give an amount of chips to the “pot” before play begins. This amount usually escalates as play continues, but the small blind is almost always half of the big blind. The dealer deals cards to each player, starting with the small blind, and continuing until he has dealt himself the fourth and final card. These four cards comprise the players “hole” or “pocket” cards. Now the first round of betting begins with the player to the left of the big blind. This player can choose to “call” the big blind (bet an equal amount), “raise” (bet a larger amount, at least twice the big blind), or “fold” (bet no money and give up his hand). After all players have had a chance to call or bet (including the big blind), the dealer puts out the “flop.” The flop is the first of three community cards that will be shared by all players. Another round of betting ensues, led by the player closest to the dealer’s left who has not folded. Following this round of betting, the dealer adds another community card, called the “turn” or “fourth street.” A round of betting ensues, again led by the player closet to the dealer’s left. Next, the dealer adds the final community card, called the “river” or “fifth street,” thus completing the “board.” There is then a final round of betting. If at any time a player bets and no other players call his bet, he wins the pot and is not forced to show his hand. Otherwise, all remaining players must show their cards to determine the winner(s), and this is where the Omaha variants differ. Omaha High vs. Omaha Hi-Lo Omaha High is played very similarly to Texas hold ‘em, except that the object of Omaha High is to make the best five card hand using exactly two pocket cards and exactly three of the community cards. Even if the community cards yield a better hand, the player must use two of their own cards. The player with the best hand according to the Hand rankings wins the entire pot. The button moves to the left, changing the dealer, and play begins again. Omaha Hi-Lo, also known as “high-low split,” is slightly more complicated. Omaha Hi-Lo splits the pot between the best high hand and the best low hand. The high hands play as normal, but to play a low hand, the player must be able to play 8-7-6-5-3 or lower. This leads to additional names for the game such as “eight-or-better” or “Omaha/8.” The best high and low hands split the pot, with any additional chips that cannot be split going to the high hand. Because low hands usually ignore straights and flushes (see: Hand rankings), it is possible for the same player to win both the high and low hand. For example, a hand of Ace-2-3-4-5 would be counted for the high hand as a straight, a very strong hand, and for the low hand as a 5-high, which is the best possible low hand. Low hands tie much more often than high hands, causing the low players to split their half of the pot. If a player wins a quarter of the pot, which is quite common, it is said that he is “getting quartered.” Note: it is impossible to have a low hand unless the community cards have at least three cards ranking 8 or lower. This is because players will always need to use three community cards, and if they cannot use three cards 8 or lower, the low hand will be negated. A low hand is possible roughly 60% of the time. Players should also note that starting the game with three or four cards of the same rank is a very weak position. The worst possible hand, 2-2-2-2, is such because the paired 2’s eliminate the player from the low hand, but also yield a weak high hand: no additional 2’s remain, meaning any player who can match a card to the board beats their Pair of 2’s. Similarly, starting with four suited cards means the player is actually less likely to obtain a flush, because there are less remaining suited cards for the board. In general, players should avoid hands that contain a lot of middle ranked cards, as they will make neither good high or low hands. Players should also be wary of weak flushes and low, but not lowest, straights. A Note on Betting Players should also be aware that there are two different types of betting: Pot Limit Omaha (also called PLO) and No Limit Omaha. In a pot limit game, players’ bets are limited to an amount equal to the chips in the pot before their bet. In a no limit game, players may raise up to and including their entire remaining chip stack. Various games, both at homes and in casinos, treat the blinds and the initial pot limit raises differently, so players should apprise themselves of the prevailing rules before playing. For players familiar with Texas hold ‘em, the most popular poker variant in North America and Europe, the transition to Omaha hold ‘em will be relatively easy. Instead of being dealt two “pocket” cards at the beginning of the hand, players are dealt four. From there, the betting and community cards are identical to Texas hold ‘em, with a “flop” of three cards, followed by a “turn” of one card (“fourth street”), and finally a final “river” card (“fifth street”). Like Texas hold ‘em there is betting after each round, but unlike the more popular game, the object of Omaha hold ‘em is to make the best five card hand using exactly two pocket cards and exactly three of the community cards. Even if the community cards yield a better hand, the player must use two of their own cards. Note: Players familiar with Texax hold ‘em should pay special attention to Omaha hold ‘em hands involving potential flushes and full houses. Because a player must use exactly two of their four pocket cards, even a community card group of five of a suit (i.e. five Clubs) will not necessarily yield a flush for the player. The player must have two suited cards to pair with three suited community cards to make a flush. Similarly, if the community cards are two pair plus a “kicker” (an additional card), a player will not necessarily have a full house with a matching card. That player could only use his matched card to make Three of a Kind, and would have to use another card from his four as a kicker. If the community cards have Three of a Kind, a player must have a pair in his pocket cards to make a Full House. In most forms of poker, a “hand” is the best possible grouping of five cards. Cards have both a number, a “rank” (i.e. 5 or Jack), and a “suit” (i.e. Diamond). Almost all forms of poker use the same “ranking of hands.” That is, almost all forms of poker agree on the order of the hands from weakest to strongest. The only difference is games that have a “low” or “lowball” hand. In these games, the rankings are the same, but they are judged in reverse order. Some games, such as Omaha Hi-Lo, use both rankings at the same time. The traditional rankings are as follows: High Card – the weakest hand, available to every player. If a player can make no other hand, they may use the highest card in their hand, with ties broken by the next highest card. The cards are usually ordered Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, all the way down to the lowest card, a 2. Surprisingly, roughly 50% of five-card hands will have only a high card and nothing of better rank. One Pair – the player has two cards with the same rank, such as two 4’s or two Jacks. If two players have equal pairs, the next highest card, the “kicker,” is used as a tie-breaker. About 42% of five-card hands contain One Pair. Two Pair – the player has two sets of two cards with the same rank, such as two 5’s and two Kings. If two players both have Two Pair, the higher ranking pair is compared first to break ties, followed by the lower ranking pair, and finally the remaining highest card, the kicker. About 4.75% of five-card hands will contain Two Pair. Three of a Kind – the player has three cards with the same rank, such as three 6’s. This hand is also called a “set” or “trips.” If two players both have Three of a Kind, the higher ranking set breaks the tie. If both players have the same Three of a Kind, the higher kicker is used to break the tie. About 2% of five-card hands contain Three of a Kind. Straight – the player has five cards whose ranks are in order, such as 8-9-10-Jack-Queen. In a straight, the suit of the card (i.e. Clubs or Hearts) does not matter. If two players have a Straight, the Straight with the higher card breaks the tie. An Ace may be used as a high card or a low card in a Straight (i.e. 10-Jack-Queen-King-Ace or Ace-2-3-4-5) but not both (i.e. Queen-King-Ace-2-3 is not a Straight). About .39% of five-card hands contain a Straight. Flush – the player has five cards whose suits are the same, such as five Clubs or Diamonds. In a Flush, the rank of the cards does not matter (i.e. 3-4-5-6-7 or 2-5-9-10-Queen). If two players have a Flush, the Flush with the highest rank breaks the tie, followed by the second highest, and so on. About .20% of five-card hands contain a Flush. Full House – the player has three cards of one rank, such as 4-4-4, and two cards of another rank, such as Ace-Ace. This hand is also called a “full boat.” If two players both have a Full House, the higher ranking set of three breaks the tie. If two players’ set of three is equal, the pair of two breaks the tie. About .14% of five-card hands contain a Full house. Four of a Kind – the player has four cards of one rank, such as King-King-King-King. If two players have Four of a Kind, the higher ranking group of four breaks the tie. About .02% of five-card hands have Four of a Kind. Straight Flush – the player has five cards whose ranks are in order (i.e. 4-5-6-7-8, a Straight) which are also all of the same suit (i.e. five Hearts, a Flush). If two players have a Straight Flush, the higher rank breaks the tie. A Straight flush composed of Ace-King-Queen-Jack-10 is the highest hand in poker and is known as a Royal flush. About .0015% of five-card hands have a Straight Flush. The low rankings are slightly more confusing because there are different ways to determine the hand rankings. The most common, and the method used for almost every Hi-Lo game, is called Ace-to-5 low. In Ace-to-5 low, Straights and Flushes are not used and the Ace is considered low only. The lowest hand, called a “wheel,” is Ace-2-3-4-5, which is really just “5 high” (i.e. there are no Pairs or other scoring hands, so 5 is used as the High card). A hand of Ace-2-3-4-5 would beat Ace-2-3-4-6 because its High card, a 5, is lower than the other hands High card, a 6. A Place in Omaha Hefflinger Dog Park Re: It Takes a Village: The Beginning \| By: Connie (not verified) Re: It Takes a Village: The Beginning \| By: Dan (not verified) Re: It Takes a Village: The Beginning \| By: Rick Horn (not verified) visit our complete archive © 2010 Omaha.net - All rights reserved. Privacy Policy \| Disclaimer \| Copyright Info · Advertise \| Contact Us	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line72
__label__cc	0.719378	0.280622	‘Third parties’ not to blame for ASX halt The technical issues that shut down the Australian Securities Exchange can’t be blamed on third parties, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed. He was speaking in New York a day after the stock market lost a potential $3.5 billion in turnover due to three major outages that curtailed trading for three hours. “It was not a third party,” he told reporters. “It was a failure of their own systems, they’re rectifying it and they have apologised to their customers and to the market for the failure.” The exchange is due to reopen for trading at 10am on Tuesday. ASX chief executive Dominic Stevens has blamed a hardware failure that sparked a chain of other problems. The ASX on Monday had to delay the start of trade until about 11.40am. There was another stoppage after lunch before the exchange shut for the day at 3.37pm, about 25 minutes ahead of the official close. Categories: Finance, Technology	cc/2021-04/en_head_0049.json.gz/line77

End of preview.

No dataset card yet

Downloads last month: 4