Split (1)

train · 1M rows

text stringlengths 316 100k
If New York was Jurassic World, BitLicense would undoubtedly be its Indominus Rex. The highly constrained New York Bitcoin regulatory framework has apparently forced another local company to shutdown its operations. This time, it is Eobot, a Bitcoin cloud miner, which decided to take down its banners within New York, stating that the state’s new license requirements are putting additional cost burdens on them. “We regret that we must cease Eobot business within New York State, however the new BitLicense requirements in this state place compliance and cost burdens upon Eobot that we believe are excessive,” the company notified on its website. It also reminded users to withdraw their funds and cease all mining contracts by the end of July 1, 2015. “We are ceasing all Eobot mining connections from within New York at that time,” Eobot added. The Other Victims Prior to Eobot, another Bitcoin mining company BTC Guild had experienced similar threats from BitLicense. In its final notice, the company had remarked on the unsettling gray areas of the New York Bitcoin regulation, saying that defending BTC Guild, in this case, would be completely irrelevant, since the cost of defending will surely surpass their business revenue. The company eventually decided to shutdown its operations in New York by June 30th this year. But perhaps it is not only the Bitcoin miners that are facing the heat from the new law. Earlier, popular Bitcoin exchange ShapeShift had also taken a revolting stand against the New York Department of Financial Services by deciding to suspend its operations in their state. As CEO Erik Voorhees states, their firm is specifically concerned about Identity Theft, the America’s multi-billion dollar problem, which BitLicense openly promotes by forcefully extracting personal information from the Bitcoin companies. The voices against the BitLicense are undoubtedly growing inside the Bitcoin community, but have no proper coherence with each other as of now. On the other hand, NYDFS seems to be in no mood to make amendments in their concrete digital currency framework, which might isolate New York Bitcoin users from the rest of the US states. “Spared no expense.” Indeed!
A 39-year-old man has been charged with second-degree murder in the death of his common-law wife in Rothesay on Wednesday. Adam Lee Steven Prest is accused of killing Tanya Marie Shand, 33. Adam Prest, 39, of Rothesay, will return to court on June 10. (Facebook) Prest, who is orginally from Dartmouth, N.S., made a brief appearance in Saint John provincial court on Thursday, wearing jeans, a blue windbreaker and sneakers. He frowned at his shackled feet as the charge was read. He has not yet entered a plea. Prest has been remanded in custody at the Saint John Regional Correctional Centre until June 10, when he is expected to have hired a lawyer. He was arrested on Wednesday morning after Rothesay Regional Police were called to 134 Dolan Rd. at about 5 a.m. Det. Sgt. Craig MacDougall described the case as a domestic homicide. Shand's body was removed from the apartment at about 10 p.m. on Wednesday. An autopsy was conducted in Saint John on Thursday. The apartment door remained sealed with police caution tape on Thursday. (Matthew Bingley/CBC) Police are not releasing the cause of death and will not say whether any weapons were involved. Prest and Shand have a seven-year-old daughter together, according to their Facebook profiles. Prest describes her birth as a "life event" on his page and describes her as his "little monster." It's unclear whether the girl was home at the time. MacDougall would not address any questions about a child being involved. A police cruiser was blocking access to the driveway of the Silverwood Apartments building much of the day on Wednesday. Only residents were allowed access to the six-unit building. The apartment door remained sealed with yellow caution tape on Thursday, a small blue and pink bicycle outside. Neighbours approached by CBC News on Thursday said they didn't know the couple, but were shocked such a tragedy could happen in their quiet neighbourhood. Rothesay police were blocking access to Silverwood Apartments on Dolan Road on Wednesday afternoon. (Catherine Harrop/CBC) Carmen Gill, director of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Foundation in Fredericton, says it's almost impossible to determine why domestic violence occurs. But co-operation between victim services could help ensure it doesn't happen, she said. "When I'm hearing about domestic homicide in New Brunswick or even in Canada, I feel that we're failing somewhere in responding to domestic violence," said Gill. "So I think we need to work ahead, before domestic homicide occurs. So we really need to have the right services, we need to work in strong collaboration. People need to work together." The investigation continues.
The oil and gas industry has nearly 7,200 permits to drill on public lands that it has yet to use, according to Bureau of Land Management data obtained by Greenwire. The unused, but still valid, drilling permits paint a starkly different picture from what industry and some in Congress have argued is a concerted effort by the Obama administration to lock up federal lands to energy production, said Dave Alberswerth, senior policy adviser on energy issues for the Wilderness Society and a former Interior Department official in the Clinton administration. "I don't see how the industry and their allies can maintain with a straight face this fiction that somehow the Obama administration is unduly restricting their access to public lands for drilling when they're sitting on literally thousands of unused drilling permits," he said. But the number of unused permits only tells part of a regulatory picture that includes the need to also obtain air and water permits, seasonal restrictions, and economic factors, said an energy attorney and former official with Devon Energy, one of the country's largest onshore oil and gas producers. "The [application for permit to drill] is just one piece of the process," said Todd Ennenga, a partner at the firm EnergyNorthAmerica LLC. Regulatory delays, environmental appeals, seasonal drilling restrictions and the price of mineral commodities can all contribute to the backlog in unused permits, he said. The unused permits, known as "applications for permit to drill," or APDs, numbered 7,196 as of mid-March and could include permits issued as far back as March 2007, BLM said. The APDs cost $6,500 each and are good for an initial term of two years, which can be extended once for an additional two years at an operator's request. While the number of unused permits is in constant flux as more wells are spudded and more APDs are issued, neither BLM nor industry officials could say whether the number appears to be inordinately high. Dave Murphy, BLM's acting division chief for fluid minerals, said that while he can't compare year-to-year figures for unused APDs, the level of activity is primarily driven by oil and gas prices. "We see increases in leasing and permits go up and down with the price of oil and gas," he said. "It appears to be an economic function more than anything else." Natural gas, which makes up the majority of production in the Intermountain West, was selling for $4.18 per million British thermal units this week on the Henry Hub, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. While the price has increased 33 cents over the past week, it is still far below a peak of more than $13 in summer 2008. Murphy cautioned that about 2,400 of the 7,200 unused APDs were for coal-bed natural gas wells in northeast Wyoming's Powder River Basin. The wells are typically drilled into shallower formations than other wells and are spaced much closer together, he said. Operators in the basin have been given a drilling window of as little as a few months as they move westward into critical habitat for sage grouse and big game species, Murphy said. Ennenga said some operators in the West may also be struggling to find available drilling rigs as companies flock to more profitable oil in North Dakota's Bakken or Texas' Eagle Ford Shale formation. There's also a finite number of teams available to hydraulically fracture wells, Ennenga said. The fracturing technology -- which environmentalists and some public health officials fear could threaten drinking water supplies -- is used on an estimated 90 percent of oil and gas wells on BLM lands. "It's a catch-22," Ennenga said. "When things get good, it gets more difficult." But conservation groups say the number of available drilling permits -- in addition to the more than two-thirds of federal leases that are not producing oil or gas -- shows the Obama administration is doing all that it can to enable domestic energy production on public lands. In January, Greenwire reported that although BLM had issued 4,090 drilling permits in fiscal 2010, oil and gas operators drilled 1,480 new wells, using about 36 percent of permits issued (Greenwire, Jan. 13). "This idea that somehow the Obama administration is restricting lands for oil and gas development is just a joke," said Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society. The gap between issued APDs and new wells spudded seems to be growing, Alberswerth noted. In addition, operators in the Rocky Mountain West, in Wyoming in particular, have begun temporarily stopping the flow of natural gas from wells due to unfavorable prices, he said. Last October, ConocoPhillips announced it was "shutting in" a small portion of its wells in the hope that prices will rebound in the coming months and years, according to a Reuters report. Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
The Cubs have designated infielder Mike Olt for assignment, the club announced. His roster spot was needed for the acquisition of Austin Jackson, which Chicago also made official. Olt, 27, has never regained his trajectory after topping out as a prospect that rated as high as 22nd on league-wide rankings. In the midst of a disappointing 2013 season, he was dealt to Chicago as part of a package deal that sent righty Matt Garza to the Rangers. Vision issues were noted as a cause for concern at the time, and Olt has dealt with a right wrist fracture more recently. Last season represented Olt’s first real opportunity at the big league level, in spite of that rough 2013, but he did not make the most of it. Over 258 plate appearances, Olt swatted 12 home runs but slashed just .160/.248/.356 while striking out an even 100 times. He cracked the Opening Day roster as Chicago’s starting third baseman, but that run was short-lived. Olt suffered the aforementioned wrist injury and was ultimately replaced, as had been expected anyway, by Kris Bryant — after the team was assured of keeping another year of future control. Nevertheless, another team will likely be glad to take a shot on Olt’s upside. He’s always been regarded as a potentially solid defender at third base and has shown plenty of pop in his right-handed bat. And despite his struggles in relatively scant action at the big league level, Olt has hit will at Triple-A over the last two years. In 246 turns at bat there this season, he’s slashed .273/.346/.477.
"But suffice to say Space Pirates and Zombies isn't just a grand open-world space action RPG in the tradition of Star Control. It's also a rare expression of zombies that belongs alongside Dead Rising and Atom Zombie Smasher." - Gameshark.com "A great indie plenty of depth, choices and fun: one of the best mix of genres in a long time." - Multiplayer.it Space Pirates and Zombies takes place far enough in the future that Earth has become a toxic backwater planet, so potentially not that far in the future. The galaxy has been colonized by humans, and the only means to travel to new star systems is through highly restricted and well defended warp gates. It is well known that systems closer to the galactic core become richer and richer as well as more scientifically advanced. This has led to theories of a secret system with a cache of treasure or knowledge at the galactic core feeding this growth. As a pirate, you must assemble a fleet and discover what treasure awaits you there. THE GALAXY: There are hundreds of stars to visit in SPAZ, and each game galaxy is uniquely generated. STAR SYSTEMS: Within each star system there is an ecosystem of events that are influenced by your actions or lack of action. These events will expire over time and represent a War between the factions within the star system. Some events you can even stay out of the way and simply observe, such as fleet battles, and then collect the spoils. Yarr. FACTIONS: Each system has two factions you can interact with, but they always dislike one another. The hub of activity in each system for each faction is their Starbase. There you can purchase technology, or trade captured crew for resources and other favours. If a faction is not friendly with you, they wont deal with you, but transferring a few workers to the Starbase can usually grease the wheels just enough. Approaching a hostile Starbase to make the trade is another matter entirely. THE FLEET: As the game progresses, you increase the size of your mothership and thus the size of the fleet which it can maintain. Only your mothership is able to breach the warp gates between systems. The player can fly any of the ships in the fleet real time with AI pilots as wingmen. New ship designs are added to the fleet through combat. Each time a ship is destroyed, some of the knowledge to build that ship becomes available. If you can kill it, eventually you can fly it. SHIP DESIGN: As the player explores star systems, they will come across new technologies to purchase. Upgrading your ships to use the latest tech is always desirable, but can be expensive. Technologies are usually not “better” than one another in SPAZ, instead they have different uses. A shotgun and a rifle both have a use, but neither is better than the other for all situations. As your technology pool increases, your combat options increase. TECH REFINEMENT: As the player destroys ships and completes events, they gain technical knowledge. Once enough technical knowledge has been achieved, they gain a level up and can spend points to refine their technology. Technological refinement is required to use some of the higher end components on ships but also makes all components within that category better. There are far fewer points to spend in SPAZ than there are things to spend them on, so specializing will be key. COMBAT: All of the above boils down to you flying one hell of a powerful customized ship and using it to blow up the enemy (whoever you choose the enemy to be.) Combat in SPAZ is all physics based. This means that if you can avoid a shot, it will not hit you. Ships have inertia and weight plays a major role in maneuverability. Use your thrusters and inertia to strafe as you have seen in Sci-Fi movies. Bullets will ricochet at high angles. Explosions have blast waves that impart impulses and apply damage to nearby ships. ZOMBIES: Zombies are the fourth faction in SPAZ. As the game progresses, zombies become a more prominent force in the galaxy, altering the nature of the previous events and conflicts. In combat, zombie vessels and critters (dead people) behave a lot differently than human space ships. Zombies infect and eat, instead of destroy. They lay eggs and can quickly change from being a minor pest to a disaster.
It's easy to tick off the ways in which California is a leader in clean energy: It harvests more solar energy than any other state, has a program to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the vehicles on its famously long highways, and launched its own cap-and-trade system this year. (See accompanying photo gallery: "Pictures: Oil Potential and Animal Habitat in the Monterey Shale.") And yet, a move is afoot for a quite different type of new energy development in the Golden State, beneath the same valley that beckoned gold seekers and migrant farmers generations ago. That ever alluring land happens to lie atop the Monterey shale formation, a vast rock formation that is believed to hold one of the world's largest onshore reserves of shale oil. Oil companies are seeking to stake their claim to this prize, plunging California into a debate on its energy and economic future. The U.S. trailblazer on renewable energy could well become the latest front in the nation's fracking-driven oil boom. (See related story: "U.S. to Overtake Saudi Arabia, Russia as World's Top Energy Producer.") It's not yet clear whether hydraulic fracturing can unleash the same sort of oil rush in California's Monterey shale as the United States is now seeing in North Dakota and in Texas. The San Joaquin Valley, site of historic tension over river flow, aquifer-pumping, and irrigation, is a dubious location for a business that requires large volumes of water to fracture the underground rock. ( See related story: "Pictures: Bakken Shale Oil Boom Transforms North Dakota.") As for the rock itself, it is deeper and thicker than other shales, formed by tectonic faulting millions of years ago. Today the geology's potential and risks are still not fully understood. But perhaps the biggest obstacles are above ground, as California grapples with questions fundamental to its identity. Should the state move aggressively to seize this new opportunity for jobs and industrial development, or take steps to preserve its remaining havens of undeveloped land and shun a new round of fossil fuel expansion? Large Resources Spanning some 1,750 square miles of central and southern California, the Monterey formation is a jumble of rocks broken, fractured, wrinkled, and folded by tectonic shifts over millions of years. Trapped between and within these rocks are the remnants of ancient marine life: organic matter from the Miocene epoch, rendered into oil through heat and pressure. Uncertain at this point is how much oil remains trapped, where it can be found, and how difficult it will be to extract. (See interactive: "Breaking Fuel From Rock.") According to U.S. government estimates, as much as 15.4 billion barrels of oil could be locked within the Monterey shale. That would be more than double the amount of oil reckoned to lie within the Bakken shale, the booming play that has made North Dakota the nation's number 2 oil-producing state behind Texas. It's more than five times the oil of Texas' thriving Eagle Ford shale. Indeed, Monterey holds more than half of the undeveloped, technically recoverable shale oil resources believed to exist in the continental United States. (See related: "Pictures: The New Oil Landscape.") It is a storehouse that, if developed, could add as many as 2.8 million jobs by 2020 and increase tax revenue for state and local governments by $4.5 billion, according to an analysis by University of Southern California academics. Industry experts believe the possibilities are huge. (See related feature: "America Strikes Oil.") "You have the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Utica, from the Rockies to the East Coast, that are generating a lot of new oil and gas, and it's making huge differences in our domestically produced supplies," says Pete Stark, an analyst with the consulting firm IHS Energy. "Here's this obviously well-known, very rich source rock, and gosh, if we can crack the code on getting into new and unconventional parts of the Monterey, maybe we have a huge new bonanza on hand." If so, it wouldn't be the first oil windfall for California. The motto emblazoned on the state seal, "Eureka," hearkens back to the gold rush that drew the first wave of fortune-seekers here beginning in 1849, but it could as easily refer to the discovery of the state's first big gusher, the Shamrock, nearly 50 years later. Indeed, oil generated more wealth for California over the past 150 years than gold ever did, and the source rock for much of that petroleum was the Monterey formation. And although California's clean-energy bona fides are real, so is its oil business; it is currently the number 4 oil-producing state, behind Texas, North Dakota, and Alaska. But oil production in California fell 50 percent from 1985 to 2011, following the inexorable trend line of the conventional crude business. In 2012, for the first time in years, overall oil production actually ticked up slightly in California, as drillers wrung more petroleum from established fields. The question is whether shale oil and unconventional techniques like fracking can unleash a new California oil boom. Some oil companies, like Occidental and Aera Energy are beginning to place bets that it will, acquiring acreage across the Monterey and ramping up exploration efforts. Another company, Venoco, recently sold off most of the acreage it had accumulated in search of Monterey shale oil since 2006, but it still plans to direct $13 million to Monterey shale development in 2013. For private landowners, there's excitement at the prospect of signing bonuses and royalties. Seismic Implications But the Monterey shale is not a place that gives up its secrets easily, even though great rocky outcroppings of the formation are plainly visible throughout the region. "We do know every square mile of the Monterey is not like the other square miles around it," says Stark. (See Special Report, "The Great Shale Gas Rush.") Unlike North Dakota's Bakken or the other U.S. shale oil plays, the Monterey was deposited at the edge of the North American continent as it broke up, explained geologist Richard Behl, who runs an industry-supported program at California State University, Long Beach. "It was all faulted, and it broke into all these steep basins and islands and bank tops in between," says Behl, whose program is called the MARS Project (Monterey and Related Sedimentary Rocks). The shale of the Monterey formation averages nearly 1,900 feet thick and more than 11,200 feet deep, compared to an average thickness of just 22 feet and depth of 6,000 feet for the Bakken shale. The Bakken, spread over 6,500 square miles of North Dakota and Montana, spans nearly four times as much land area as the Monterey. "All these other shales are in areas that have not been tectonically formed, so the rock itself is not naturally fractured," Behl said. "When they go in and they drill horizontally and they do the artificial hydraulic fractures, they're breaking those rocks open for the first time in a relatively narrow zone, and allowing the oil to come out of where it's been trapped." The Monterey is a different beast. Here, Behl said, "brittle rocks are naturally fractured, and have been for millions of years." Oil has flowed into the cracks, and comes up easily when drilled. "Instead of trying to suck a milkshake through a straw, it's like just dumping it out of a cup," he said. So a key question is this: Did the Monterey's oil already move up into the traps that were discovered (and tapped) over the last hundred years? Perhaps California oil prospectors from the days chronicled in the movie There Will Be Blood long ago drank the milkshake that the shale oil industry now hopes to tap. Or there could be a lot of oil just waiting to be found in these rocks. "That's of course what the optimists are really hoping," says Behl. A Habitat's Last Stand Geology may not be as great an obstacle as citizen and environmental opposition. In a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, a judge ruled this spring that the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had moved too fast to lease federal lands in the Monterey shale for oil exploration and development. U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal said that federal law requires a comprehensive environmental review of the potential impacts of fracking before such leases can be granted. It was unreasonable, the court ruled, for BLM to rely on old analyses predicting limited drilling. Advances in hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and other techniques have dramatically changed the possible development scenarios, and the court held that the agency must "at least consider reasonable projections of drilling in the area that include fracking operations." Grewal was to rule later on whether to invalidate the leases on some 2,500 acres of federal land in Monterey County that the BLM had auctioned off for up to $900 per acre in 2011. Environmental groups have vowed to continue the fight, and shortly after the ruling they filed another suit to block BLM from leasing 17,000 acres in Monterey, San Benito, and Fresno counties. In early May, the agency drew fire from the petroleum industry when it announced that all sales of leases for oil drilling in California will be postponed until October or later. Citing budget problems resulting from the automatic cuts of the federal sequester and a need to focus on existing leases, the agency said it would delay the sale of four parcels on nearly 1,300 acres of the Monterey shale that had been scheduled to take place last week. "Many of the areas proposed for oil development in California are some of our last, best public lands," says Brendan Cummings, attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, which brought the suit together with the Sierra Club. "They were never farmed, they were never turned into subdivisions." These areas include places like the oak woodlands of Monterey County along the western fringe of the Central Valley. Says Cummings, "It's this last remnant area of habitat for species that once inhabited the whole valley floor." New oil development here, the Center warns, could negatively impact endangered species, including the San Joaquin kit fox, the California condor, the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, as well as the threatened South Central Coast steelhead. But the Monterey shale runs beneath more than wildlife habitat. Its irregular twists and folds also underlie the San Joaquin Basin of California's Central Valley, once described by John Muir as a "smooth, flowery, lake-like bed of fertile soil." The agriculture and oil industries have long coexisted at enormous scale here, with Central Valley farmland producing one-quarter of the nation's food and crops worth an estimated $17 billion per year. New, unconventional oil development presents a mixed opportunity for farmers—at once a potential source of income, competition for coveted water allotments, and a possible threat to livelihoods that depend upon clean earth and water. As a result, some growers and vintners have joined environmentalists in calling for greater scrutiny and disclosure of fracking activity. Because of the potential threat to the important agricultural business and to water, many state and local officials are nervous. The Monterey County government protested BLM's leasing program, expressing particular concerns about "the potential to induce seismic activity and the lack of scientific study related to potential impacts to drinking water and groundwater." And at least seven bills to rein in fracking have been introduced in the state legislature. Three bills that advanced in the assembly in recent weeks would place a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing pending study of its environmental and health effects. A state senate bill would allow fracking to continue for now but would clamp down unless a comprehensive review is conducted by the end of next year. That bill would require operators to obtain a permit, provide advance notice to neighbors, and disclose chemicals to regulators before fracking, The oil industry, arguing against new restrictions, says fears about fracking are overblown. The process has been used for decades to stimulate oil flow in California wells, and more than 600 wells were fracked in the state in 2011. Historically, fracturing in California has been used in vertical wells—not in combination with the horizontal drilling techniques that have wrested oil from North Dakota's Bakken and natural gas from the Barnett shale of Texas or Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania. The California Independent Petroleum Association says most fracking occurs in long-established oil country—not wine country or scenic habitats. In western Fresno County, where several parcels in the disputed 2011 lease sale are located, the landscape encompasses golden, desert-like hills and blankets of wildflowers, but also an 800-acre cattle feedlot and Chevron's Coalinga oil field, which has been cranking out oil crude since 1887. The group claims most hydraulic fracturing so far in the state has occurred in Kern County, which pumps out about three-quarters of California's oil production. "These fields have no potable water, no surrounding population and no other significant business interests," says the trade group. In the future, however, sustained high oil prices in combination with declining output from aging onshore wells and advances in sensors, three-dimensional seismic imaging, horizontal drilling, and other technologies could expand the areas where fracking is both effective and economical. For many Californians and their supporters in the environmental movement, the fight over the Monterey shale is much larger than the local impacts. Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, explaining why his group is litigating to stop federal auctioning of more rights for Monterey shale drilling on federal land, says the Obama administration should "double down on clean energy," rather than "leasing land for more dirty fuel drilling." As with fights under way over the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, and plans to build coal export terminals on U.S. coastlines, the new fossil fuel abundance is touching off a backlash among those alarmed by the consequences for climate change. (See related story and map: "Keystone XL Pipeline Path Marks New Battleground in Oklahoma.") Cummings describes the Monterey's shale oil as a "carbon bomb," adding, "People have to start saying, 'Nope, it stays in the ground,' because of climate change, and that line ought to be drawn in California."
The Republican Party of Texas recently adopted their 2012 platform (PDF)… it’s full of all sorts of horrible ideas (faith-based drug rehab, repealing the minimum wage, no gay people in the military), but one portion of it really sticks out if you care about educating children: “We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” That just happened. Seriously. Republicans are against critical thinking because it could challenge what parents teach their kids, even when they’re wrong. But what if the kids want to believe Creationism? Doesn’t matter! We can’t have them challenging their parents’ faith. But what about teaching them to question what pseudo-historians like David Barton say? Nope! Just believe what you’re told. You’re too young to be asking questions. But what about teaching kids to discern truth from fiction? Blasphemy! Whatever Republicans tell you is truth. Why question that? Cenk Uygur summarizes the GOP thought-process perfectly: “Wouldn’t it be great if everybody in Texas was as dumb as we are, and then everybody would be Republicans?” Meanwhile, the word “God” appears 12 times in the GOP Platform. If you’re an atheist, the Republican Party isn’t even trying to reach out to you. Don’t give the satisfaction of your votes. (Thanks to Don for the link!)
Audio: NPR's Daniel Zwerdling reports on Senators' Demand for Army Discharge Probe Audio: CPR's Michael de Yoanna speaks with Ryan Warner U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. (AP Photo) A dozen U.S. senators want to know why the Army has booted out 22,000 troops since 2009, soldiers who got into some kind of trouble after they returned from war. Colorado's Michael Bennet is among the lawmakers who sent a letter to Army brass on Wednesday, concerned the men and women who were pushed out also have brain injuries and other mental problems. The letter came on the heels of an investigative report by NPR and Colorado Public Radio. The senators want an independent probe to see if there are widespread problems with the Army's care system at Colorado’s Fort Carson, home to soldiers who had post-traumatic stress, blast concussions and other problems. When they got back from Iraq and Afghanistan they got into trouble -- caught drinking and driving or being late for duty -- and the Army moved to kick them out. The Evans Army Community Hospital in Fort Carson, Colo. (Courtesy U.S. Army) What that means is that those soldiers might not get lasting medical benefits when they're out, or they might have trouble getting a job or not be eligible for veterans programs. Mental health experts say that troops who face war trauma may have real difficulty adjusting to life when they get home from war, and Congress knows this. In 2009, it passed a law that directs the military to help soldiers who are struggling instead of pushing them out; the military has to consider whether service in the war is a factor in troops' behavior once they are home. The NPR/CPR investigation found that nobody has checked to see if the Army is following this law until now. “Serious allegations have been raised, and an independent investigation is needed,” Bennet said in a statement released Wednesday. “We must ensure that servicemembers suffering from mental health conditions like PTS and from TBIs receive the quality care they need both during and following their service, and a fair evaluation when being considered for discharge.” Bennet couldn't be reached for comment directly, but his spokesman Adam Bozzi said the senator has been watching the Army closely for months now and is concerned by what our investigation found. Beyond concerns about the process, Bennet wants numbers. Last year, the senator led passage of a bill requiring the Government Accountability Office to see if troops being discharged for conduct issues also have PTSD, traumatic brain injuries and other combat-related issues -- the so-called hidden injuries of war. Uniformed Services Justice & Advocacy Group CEO Andrew Pogany, left, and COO Robert Alvarez, both advocates for disabled soldiers, review paperwork at USJAG's offices in Denver. (Michael de Yoanna/CPR News) Andrew Pogany, CEO/investigator with the nonprofit Uniformed Services Justice and Advocacy Group, was curious about the 22,000 troops who were pushed out. He said the government should work to find out what has happened to those troops -- to see if they've become homeless or committed suicide. Pogany added that senators made a mistake by asking the Army to do the investigation. He's documented many, many issues over the last decade or so and he’s discouraged by the Army's past investigations into the treatment of soldiers with PTSD and brain injuries. In short, Pogany doesn't trust the Army to investigate and would like to see a commission that's independent of the military created to investigate. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut is leading the call for the probe. He sent the letter to the Army's Office of the Inspector General Wednesday. Along with Bennet, the letter was also signed by by Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Jon Tester, D-Mont., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Ed Markey, D-Mass., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Gary Peters, D-Mich., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va. "I'm not arguing, nor are my colleagues arguing, that you should keep in the military someone who has committed a [driving under the influence] or someone who has committed another serious crime," Murphy told NPR . "We're arguing that you should medically discharge these individuals if that active misconduct is a manifestation of the disability, so they can continue to get help." Wayne Hall, a spokesman for the Army at the Pentagon, issued a brief reaction by email: "The Army has received the letter and will respond accordingly." The full letter from the senators is below: The Honorable Eric Fanning Acting Under Secretary of the Army 1000 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20305-1000 General Mark A. Milley Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army 1500 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20310-1500 Dear Honorable Fanning and General Milley: We are troubled by recent allegations that the U.S. Army is forcefully separating for misconduct servicemembers diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) or traumatic brain injuries (TBI). We encourage you to conduct a full U.S. Army Inspector General investigation into these recent allegations that the U.S. Army is violating the intent of Section 512 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. Recent media reports indicate that since January 2009, the U.S. Army has separated over 22,000 soldiers for misconduct after they returned from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan and were diagnosed with mental health problems or TBI. As a result, many of the dismissed soldiers have not received crucial retirement benefits, health care benefits, and post-service employment eligibility that soldiers receive with an honorable discharge. Soldiers who deploy are at an increased risk for mental health issues and the forceful separation of servicemembers post-deployment only further denies treatment and support at a critical moment in any soldier’s life. Additionally, fear of dismissal may discourage servicemembers from seeking the medical treatment they require. Section 574 of the FY14 NDAA called for a GAO report to look into these kinds of dismissal cases. That report was delivered to Congress in February of this year recommending that the services develop a method to identify the number of servicemembers separated for non-disability mental conditions and take actions to ensure that servicemembers are appropriately separated for non-disability mental conditions in accordance with DoD’s separation requirements. Serious gaps in DoD policies have been identified and any investigation going forward should take this into consideration. We are concerned that it may be easier to discharge servicemembers for minor misconduct—possibly related to mental health issues—than to evaluate them for conditions that may warrant a medical discharge. We know that the health and safety of our servicemembers and their families is your top priority and we are confident that you will investigate these recent allegations. Thank you again for your service to our country and we look forward to working with you to rectify this grave offense to the men and women that serve in our armed forces. Sincerely, Christopher S. Murphy Barbara Boxer Ron Wyden Jon Tester Tammy Baldwin Ed Markey Richard Blumenthal Gary Peters Sherrod Brown Michael Bennet Amy Klobuchar Tim Kaine The CPR News-NPR Investigative Series:
(Warning – There will be math. And numbers. They bore me too. Well, not really but I’m trying to empathize. Skip the numbers if you don’t like them – dwell on the poor humor instead.) In July 2010, Wizards of the Coast released a Dungeons and Dragons (4e) errata update, specifically to the Dungeon Masters Guide, more specifically the monster damage table. Monsters in the upper tiers were proving to be woefully underpowered – they just weren’t hitting hard enough. Now this table (shown very helpfully to the right) is all well and good – useful even. But the footnotes I found vexing. For brutes, the damage should be 25 percent higher. For limited damage, such as damage from encounter powers or recharge powers, increase the value by 25 to 50 percent. How do I add 25% to 4d8+18? It’s not one of those things I picked up in grade school. I must have been sick that day. I started by investigating – how much damage are we talking about here? 4d8+18 sounds like a lot. On average, 4d8+18 will do 36 points of damage. (Don’t believe me? Wolfram Alpha does dice). Now 36 is a number I can deal with. 25% more is 45. But I don’t think the intent is for monster designers to be doing math on every dice roll. (Other than addition don’t get pedantic on me) I have yet to see a monster block containing the text: “Hit: 2d10+8+25% points of necrotic damage, and DM is dazed (save ends)”. My presumption here is that we need find a dice combination that rolls 25% higher. Now before I go any further let me explain why I care about any of this: I received Orcus for Christmas. (PSA: You know you’ve been bad, very very bad, when you find a demon in your stocking). I’d also been reading Sly Flourish’s article Pimp my Tarrasque, so I had the brilliant idea of updating Orcy’s statistics and maybe even get an article out of it. I even had thought of the perfect title: Pimp my Orcus. I’m good with titles. So, to get an average of 45, there’s one very easy way to do that. 4d8+18 already averages 36. Just make it 4d8+27. And that works in a pinch. But I was worried about the extreme end of the damage scale. What about the critical hit? Now I’d argue to a group of drunken Dungeon Masters and Badger wranglers that the critical hit damage is as important as the average. Especially for brutes and such, and that it deserves the 25% boost too. “Why?!” they’d shout, and I’d answer “Be quiet you sorry lot, drink your Goblin’s Piss Ale, and I’ll tell you.” Monsters do not hit Player Characters on every roll of a d20. Maybe half of the time. For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose a monster misses the PC on any roll 10 or under. 11 or higher, it hits. And on a 20 it gets full damage – a critical hit. This means that 10% of the time (1/10) that the monster hits, it gets full damage. Compare that to rolling a 4d8. The changes of getting full damage (rolling all 8s) is 1 in 512. When rolling multiple dice, it’s hard to deviate from the average roll. You should be familiar with this exercise. Roll an 18 on 3d6. Go ahead. Do it now. Didn’t do it? Really? An 18 appears on 3d6 less than 1% of the time (I don’t want to turn this into a dice and probability lesson, so you’ll have to trust me). A maxed out roll – full damage – gets even more rare the more dice you roll. So having the critical happen 10% of the time is often. And that makes it important to get right. Returning to the 4d8+18, the critical on that is 50, and 25% on top of that is 62.5. The “works in a pinch solution” of 4d8+27, only produces a critical of 59. I’m not going to claim that is a huge difference, but – is there a way to get the best of both worlds? Is there combination of dice and bonus that produces an average roll of 45, and a critical of at least 62.5? There is: 4d10+23 gives us exactly that. An average of 45, and a critical of 63. So, being an altruistic anal retentive fool (lawful good), I set out to find a dice and bonus combo for every entry on the table. And I set myself some limitations. The new combo couldn’t be fundamentally different from the original – I didn’t want to go from 4d8+18 to 1d20+35, or 13d6+3. I wanted the critical damage to be at least 25% higher than the base roll and the average should be within 1 or 2 points of ideal. And thus was created my first masterworks armor damage chart. Only it had a fatal flaw. An Achilles heel that those paying attention will have already caught. Orcus is level 33 – the table in the DMG is a few levels too short. But the trend of the table is easy to spot. Average normal damage is level + 8, with a little wiggle room. I extended it downward to level 35, and calculated the brutes damage. At this point I decided to return to Sly Flourish, to check my work and compare notes. And discovered that Mike Shea is a rat fink time traveler who traveled into my future, read this brilliant classic article, returned to the past and put it on his blog. He even stole my great title – Pimp My Orcus. If you had popped open the hatch on the ISS space station you couldn’t have sucked out my enthusiasm faster. But again, being Lawful Good, I realized that in order not to create a time paradox and destroy the universe, I had to write this article for him to retro-plagiarize. And it gave me something to compare against, and see if I have a legal case he read my thesis carefully. Apparently he has not. The Wand of Orcus attack he has does 4d8+33 damage. Mine is 5d8+29. His average and crit are 51 & 65, respectively, and mine are 51½ & 69. Is it a big deal? Not really. At 25% the difference in critical damage isn’t a game breaker. So either use My Chart, or use the “in a pinch” method. Both’ll work. “But Wait!” you cry, a pleading, desperate tone to your voice, “What about 50% higher damage? What about two or more targets? And minions? You haven’t completed the chart!” Well, yes I have. But you’ll have to wait until next time to get that succulent, juicy morsel. Like John Wick commands, I Play Dirty. [tags]rpgs, dungeons and dragons, 4e, D&D, role playing games, math[/tags]
Story highlights "Well, I think all of us realize that if we fail on taxes, that's the end of the Republican Party's governing majority in 2018," Graham said. "They'd try to impeach him pretty quick and it would be just one constant investigation after another," Graham added. (CNN) South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Friday that if Republicans don't pass tax reform, then Democrats will take back the House of Representatives and attempt to impeach President Donald Trump. "Well, I think all of us realize that if we fail on taxes, that's the end of the Republican Party's governing majority in 2018," Graham said on Fox News Radio's "The Brian Kilmeade Show." "We'll lose the House, probably lose ground in the Senate and President Trump has got a profile different from the party -- there's kinda two or three different Republican Parties now, I guess. But we're all in it together." "I can't imagine how he could be successful with Nancy Pelosi running the House," Graham continued. "They'd try to impeach him pretty quick and it would be just one constant investigation after another. So it's important that we pass tax reform in a meaningful way. If we don't, that's probably the end of the Republican Party as we know it." On Thursday, the House passed a budget resolution that clears the path for Congress to tackle tax reform legislation. House Republicans are expected to unveil their tax reform legislation on November 1, with plans for the bill to move rapidly through both chambers in the following weeks.
Is it the end for Polphail Village? With it being recently reported on the BBC that the popular abandoned site is now up for sale the answer to the question still remains to be answered. Any prospective buyer of the location, you would expect, will be looking at it as a potential investment with it’s close proximity to the Portavadie Marina, a popular attraction for yachting enthusiasts. So looking from the outside it would seem that the village would more than likely be torn down and a new hotel or housing be built in it’s place. This seems relatively straight forward and simple though, so why hasn’t anyone done this before? There’s one outstanding problem that has plagued the current owners from doing just that … bats. Bats have set up home with several roosts here giving a headache and much frustration to the current owner and to the delight of explorers and graffiti artists wanting to see the place or preserve it as a modern ruin. A loft was set up in the hope that the bats would move over to set up home in a heated building just near to the village but it seems that this has had little effect. We contacted CKD Galbraith who are in charge of selling the site about the buildings, they said: “Part of the site had a consent for 5 detached houses and the buildings had consent for demolition and the erection of a new settlement. Both of these consents have expired. There are no current consents for the site, however the planners have indicated that residential use would be acceptable. There are also bats on site, which are a protected species, and future planning applications would require a bat survey to be carried out.” So the current headache remains even for future property developers but is that the end of the story? We were recently told by CKD Galbraith: “Due to the interest in Pollphail Village, we have now received our client’s instructions to draw the marketing of the above property to a close. Accordingly, we are seeking written proposals from interested parties by 12 noon on Wednesday 25th July 2012.” This suggests that they have had a lot of interest or potentially even a firm offer for the land, it may well mean that a potential buyer has had previous dealings with bats or has already got the appropriate licencing to attempt a renovation or demolition of the property. This would still require a bat survey to be done to assess whether development is feasible and whether the alternative shelter is enough for them to stay. So will we see Polphail demolished any time soon? I seriously doubt any development will take place here for at least several months but if you haven’t visited yet I’d suggest you make a visit soon so that you can see the famous ghost village of Portavadie.
Super Bowl LI is still 18 days away, but Madison Avenue’s TV ad controversy game has already started. Fox, which will broadcast this year’s NFL Championship game, has asked for changes to a 90-second commercial from a building supply company because the ad featured a border wall. The spot, from 84 Lumber, a first-time Super Bowl advertiser, was deemed by Fox to be too controversial, a spokesman for ad agency Brunner told The Post. In a statement, agency chief executive Michael Brunner said, “Fox rejected our original commercial because they determined that some of the imagery, including ‘the wall,’ would be too controversial.” The retail chain used the wall image, Brunner said, because it wants to talk about who it is — “a company looking for people with grit, determination and heart, no matter who they are, where they come from, or what they look like.” The spot featured people peeking from behind a wall in a search for jobs, according to a report in Campaign magazine, which first reported the dispute. The chain is vowing to tell its story online as well as in the Super Bowl spot. Fox declined to comment. The two sides are said to be working toward a compromise — a spot without the wall. The commercial, if approved, is scheduled to air before halftime. It is hard to decipher at times whether ads are purposely made to rile networks in order to gain media attention. “The point isn’t to say anything about a political stance one way or another,” said the agency spokesman, adding that the firm was interested in seeing different people’s interpretation of the message. The founder of 84 Lumber, Joseph A. Hardy III, 94, has built the business into the largest privately held construction materials company in the US, with 2015 revenue estimates at $2.5 billion. The company gets its name from the town where it is based: Eighty Four, Pa. Hardy is a colorful character. After his wife of 50 years died, the executive married a 23-year-old manicurist in Las Vegas. He filed for divorce 107 days later. Seven years later, at 92, Hardy walked down the aisle again — marrying a 22-year-old. He retired from the business — now run by his daughter Maggie Hardy Magerko. Companies spent some $2.59 billion on Super Bowl spots during the past 10 years, according to ad measurement firm Kantar Media. The cost of a 30-second spot has doubled in a decade — to around $5 million, Kantar said. Meanwhile, Anheuser-Busch on Wednesday released some details of its Super Bowl plans. One ad will feature an outsider — namely, its German-born founder Adolphus Busch. The spot will be dedicated to its discount Busch brand and is aimed at underlining the American dream and celebrating “ambition and hustle,” the company said. It’s the first time Anheuser-Busch, a regular Super Bowl advertiser, is using its Super Bowl time for Busch beer. Overall, there were 49 minutes and 35 seconds of ads in the 2016 Super Bowl, Kantar said.
With Lorde’s grand return on her second album, many may be wondering how it holds up to her acclaimed 2013 debut. Well, with better songwriting, new sounds, more life experience and the effort towards a complete cohesive project, I feel she exceeds her debut by miles. When Lorde first burst on to the mainstream, I was instantly drawn to her. At the time it felt like she was the only one talking about adolescent experiences and feelings in the grandiose way she did. However, in looking back on her debut, which still holds up as a decent album, from the language she uses and the way she presented herself, she seemed so far removed from the situations she sang of, as if she was a much older mind living through her teenage years for a second time. On Melodrama she seems to have finally caught up with her mind, in age and maturity. Going into this album, the lead singles were a bit of a mixed bag, I was worried she would ditch her songwriting abilities and softer sound for an album full of bangers with the release of ‘Green Light’, but that worry melted away on hearing ‘Liability’, one of the most beautiful and personal songs she has ever written. With it’s patient piano chords and heartbreaking vocals, she sings of being too much for people to handle, being used for company and then tossed to the side, but also realising her own faults of being too demanding and hard to please. The song could also be seen as an objective look over her fame and career, saying that fans will enjoy her music, but will eventually outgrow her and move on, describing herself as “a toy that people enjoy ’til all of the tricks don’t work anymore.” All in all a gorgeous, heart-melting song. Lead single ‘Green Light’ took a while to grow on me, but eventually became one of my favourites on the album, with it’s triumphant lyrics and anthemic chorus that could give anyone shivers. I also love the distorted guitar line (I think that’s what it is) in the last chorus, bringing almost a wall of sound in for the finale. Honestly such a stellar track and an incredible opener to the album. Straight after we are plunged into another single, ‘Sober’. Again, a song that did little to impress me on first listen, but also grew to be an amazing standout. One thing to note on this track is the constant tension, that never seems to be resolved. The stuttering drum beat and dreamy synths almost reach a sort of climax in the pre-chorus, only to go back to the patient, steadily driven beat to lead the chorus, which swells with horns that sound so crisp. This could be mirroring the lyrics, as she depicts an almost-relationship, where they have the best time together when drunk, but she worries about how they will be when they’re sober. The lush horns and blossoming chords show the excitement and fun she’s having, whereas the rigidity of the drums show her anxiety of wondering “what will we do when we’re sober?” A masterful track, again showcasing Lorde’s ability to write out her feelings so vividly, while still making a great pop song. The next two songs, ‘Homemade Dynamite’ and ‘The Louvre’, both document the fleeting feeling of new love and the excitement that comes with it. The first of the two features a very airy beat, with somewhat distorted synths, giving a very flimsy feel, which I love (more than likely a result of the collaboration with experimental producer, Flume). As does almost every song on this album, Lorde comes through with an incredibly catchy chorus, showing her knack of writing good, memorable hooks. The latter of the two songs more so depicts her infatuation with her new lover, and hints at her obsessive nature, as she gives up all her friendships to “sit in hell” with them. She even admits they’re not her type and calls herself a “sucker who let [them] fill her mind.” She alludes to the title by saying that their relationship is so great that it should be hung in the Louvre, a famous art museum in Paris, as well as the largest art museum in the world. On first listen this could seem quite cute, but on further inspection, it’s more so a result of her unhealthy obsession with this person, that she admits in retrospect wasn’t a good time for her. She then says to put a megaphone to her chest to broadcast her heartbeat, possibly again referencing the Louvre statement, as she wants her love to be something people can dance to or can look at in a museum, in other words, she’s so proud of her relationship, she wants the world to witness it. Instrumentally, not one of the most stand-out tracks, however, I adore the instrumental outro to this song. Lorde goes further than just giving us a collection of songs on this album, as she has made a very cohesive album, not only coming through in related song lyrics, but through making two part songs and reprising others. Something you don’t see too much of in most modern pop music. This starts in ‘Hard Feelings/Loveless’ which in the first part, describes the ending of a relationship, while in the second part describes this new generation of young adults being the “loveless generation”, meaning the idea of true love and romance has been replaced by hostile and unhealthy relationships, which she described earlier on the album. In between these two parts there is a lengthy instrumental break filled with screaming synths and distorted hits of noise, while over the patient drum beat and steady chords make for an extremely exciting interlude and one of my favourite moments on the album. ‘Sober II (Melodrama)’ is, not only a continuation of the song, ‘Sober’, but a continuation of the entire story of the album, as her fears in the ‘Sober’ are now more realised than ever, and she uses the end of the party that she has been referencing, as a metaphor for her relationship. The party is over and she is left to clean everything up, it’s horribly depressing, she’s hungover and she wonders was it worth it? Her cleaning up the remnants of the night before mirrors her picking up the pieces and trying to fix herself after the end of a relationship. This song also brings together the whole theme of the album, which is Melodrama, being melodramatic about everything, not thinking that your feelings are justified and that you’re being over the top. The equivalent to regretting something small and self-loathing over letting yourself care about it. Quite a dark theme, but something very relatable, as everyone has felt this way about something or other. ‘Writer in the Dark’ picks up the pieces, and brings a feeling of empowerment. Lorde may not be over her relationship, but she feels she can immortalise her feelings in the only way she knows how, in a song. She says that she may love him until she dies, but she has “stumbled on a secret power” and that she’ll survive without him. It may not be a full recovery, but being able to write out her feelings and getting a (kind of) last laugh on her ex brings her strength. This is the moment in the album where she realises her feelings do matter, and it’s okay to be heartbroken over things, and most importantly, that it’s not melodramatic to be sad over something that’s hurt you. This song is by far my favourite on the album, being heartbreaking, but also so empowering, it also features the best hook on the album. The reprise of ‘Liability’ is the perfect progression, relasising that she is a liability, but “whatcha gonna do?” She realises that she may never change, but this is who she is, and that’s okay. Again furthering the theme of empowerment and self-belief. The album then ends on a very uplifting note, saying that there are no perfect places, and you shouldn’t be partying and getting intoxicated to run away from your problems, but just accept who you are by coming to terms with your feelings. Overall I loved the hell out of this album. It’s fun, catchy and has multiple levels that reveal themselves the more you listen to it. It did have some meandering moments, such as ‘Supercut’ and I think the closer could have been better, but all in all, if you haven’t heard this album, I couldn’t recommend it more. Definitely worth the wait and I can’t wait to see what she does next. Highlights: Green Light, Sober, Homemade Dynamite, Liability, Hard Feelings/Loveless, Sober II (Melodrama), Writer in the Dark. Written by Robert Cleaver. Advertisements
ISIL has successfully expanded in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria and as far as Afghanistan. Has ISIL expanded to other lesser known Muslims countries like Oman, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan or any other? Is that a possibility? Well what is interesting in your question is the countries or location in which IS expended to. Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Nigeria are all examples of “failed states”. IS took advantage of the chaos in these countries to have a foothold and expend. Libya is a good example. The fall of Gaddafi in 2011 and the political chaos lead to the creation of a plethora of militias and terrorist groups that took advantage of the porousness of the borders to smuggle drugs, weapons, humans and so on. Dalia Ghanem Dalia Ghanem is a resident scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, where her work examines political and extremist violence, radicalization, Islamism, and jihadism with an emphasis on Algeria. More > @DaliaGhanemYazb This allowed them to gain money in order to support themselves and to expand their network in the Sahel region. The post-Gaddafi situation helped IS to mushroom and gain foothold in Libya. In countries like Algeria where there is a “strong state” and a merciless security mechanism, IS could not survive. The proof is that its Algerian offshoot, called “jund El Khilafa” that kidnapped French national Hervé Gourdel in the mountains of Kabilya, was eliminated less than three months after the killing. The group that replaced the first one was also eliminated in a few days. That shows that IS cannot survive in such an environment. What we might witness is the creation of small cells that will declare allegiances to IS and will try to perform low scale/high impact attacks. However, an expansion of IS in countries such as Algeria is very hard to see. In addition, the makeup of the population can play a role, in Algeria for instance IS cannot play on the binary polarization Sunni/Shia because 99% of the population is Sunni. In short, I do believe that IS real power is not in its military capacities but in its capacities in the virtual sphere. To discuss its capacities in Eurasia, it is the same situation, IS will try to take advantage of “weak states” and will capitalize on the local frustrations. For instance, in Afghanistan there is a group that called itself IS that is essentially composed of former disaffected Taliban that rebranded themselves to “galvanize” the youth and recruit more. In Tajikistan, a cell was discovered lately that was planning to attack the internal affairs ministry. What worries me more is the foreign fighter who went to Syria and will eventually come back in their motherland. To keep with the Tadjik example, there is today around 700 Tadjik fighters in Syria who are more likely to “import” “jihadism” to their country. This applies also to the Uzbeks who has participated in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and have an extensive warfare knowledge. Therefore, there is a risk for this region for sure. The returnees can affect heavily the security of this region. IS organization will try constantly with these cells to destabilize the central Asia because in its ideology it is its “duty” to target these communist “impious” states and to target Baku, Moscow and Tbilisi. What constitutes also a danger is the porousness of the borders especially for the countries that shares borders with Afghanistan. In addition, one should note that the IS organization is not the only one that is attracting foreign fighter from this part of the world. Jabhat el nusra is also recruiting especially among the Chechen. It is possible that two organizations that are enemies in Syria and Iraq, decide – for the sake of the “cause” – to cooperate in the Caucasus region. Not long after the ISIS massacre in Paris, Al-Qaeda attacked Mali. Are both groups competing for supremacy in the world? There is a competition between the two for the monopoly of jihadism. The biggest competition relies in their capacity to mobilize and galvanize, so recruiting and in their prestige. Al Qaida is not attracting as much people as it used to do and in this regard IS beats it. IS knows that its biggest arsenal is not the military one but the media and it made a very smart use of it. This is the first time in history that we see an organization mastering the media to that extent and that built such a powerful communication strategy. The latest attack in Bamako right after the Beirut and Paris attack shows this logic of rivalry. However, the targets are very important in these attacks because by contrast to IS that attacked civilians and massacred them in both Beirut and Paris; the attack in Bamako was more “targeted” in a way. This is for Al Qaida the only way to show that they disapprove IS and its “takfiri” approach and they are different because they do not practice indiscriminate violence (at least not anymore). Al Qaida even in the Maghreb is trying to focus the fight against non-Muslims and they’ve been criticizing the IS as being “deviant organization and takfiri”. IS is for the moment winning: we can see it only in its ability to mobilize even in territories as far as Europe and the US. IS has territories, army and a very sophisticated communication strategy that made Al Qaida a total “has been” in that regard. IS is a brand that is so well-known and “prestigious” that even groups as far as Boko Haram in Nigeria pledged allegiance to it. Now it is more “fashion” and “appealing” to fight under the banner of IS. However, Al Qaida has still a certain “aura”: it is after all the “mother” of IS and the organization that made the biggest terrorist attack against the West that is 9/11. Therefore, what we might see is the outburst of a deadly competition between the two in specific regions of the world for the monopoly of jihadism, hence more attacks and more victims. Have Al-Shabab and Boko Haram pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda or ISIL? Why have they made that choice? Yes as I said it above, Boko Haram pledged allegiance to IS and a faction of al Shabab declared allegiance to IS also in November 2015. Why? Because IS is a “fashionable brand”, because IS organization is like any other brand (coca cola or MacDonald). Groups that nobody hear of or that are in need of a good publicity, use the IS franchise in order to boost their prestige, reputation, hence recruits and source of funding. It is a stylish brand and organization that has terrorized the West and the Arab world but also has a territory, a flag, an anthem and currency (the golden Dinar), this is appealing for jihadist groups in need of recognition and prestige. Chechen, Bosnian and Kosovo fighters have been recruited to fight with different jihadist groups. Why have Al-Qaeda and ISIS successfully drafted some many eastern European radicals? The recruits are not only from Eastern Europe, they are from central Europe, the Caucasus region, the US and so on. The drivers are multidimensional and entangled. Every life story is unique. However, the main drivers can be: religious motivation, fighters claim to want to “glorify the word of God on earth” or to demonstrate “their love for God and the desire of raising the banner of Islam.” However, it is very hard to understand and authenticate their degree of faith. In my opinion, religion has less to do with their engagement. It more of ideological motivation: IS ideology that is based on binary polarization and a very Manichean vision but also absolutism, threat and hate is very powerful. The different conflicts in the world are presented by IS as an ultimate evidence of the oppression of the Muslim Community. These people want to “make a difference” and to contribute to the glory of the Muslims by performing the “Hidjra” and fighting in the “name of Allah”. There is also philosophical motivations such as self-seeking: many these men and even women (there is approximately 550 Western women in IS-held territories) joined Islamic State-held territories because they were in need of an identity or because their desire for status within their society was hindered or could not be achieved in Western societies. Joining IS, a jihadist group that is feared and respected by many is the means by which they intend to acquire “status”. Joining IS transformed what they perceived as a “purposeless life” to a life of devotion to the establishment of the Caliphate. The jihadist organization gives them a “positive image” of themselves that their families and societies failed to give. Another motives is the desire to live in a “perfect community”: thanks to its powerful communication strategy, IS succeeded in depicting IS-held territories as “pure societies” in which social justice and equity are a reality. Once in IS-held territories, the individual forget about himself, he is a “born-again” and all what matters is the “brothers and sisters of the Caliphate”, it is the birth of the “we-feeling”. Finally, a driver that many researchers has forgotten about is the social connections. Families, friends and mentors as “sponsors’ integrator”. Being related in one way or another to a person engaged in IS or convinced by IS ideology can indeed boost “predispositions” for joining the group. In other words, social connections are key to transforming one’s “predispositions” into action (such as in the cases of the Halane twins or the friends: Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Khadiza Sultana). The family ties also play an important role once in IS-held territories because they are an “antidote” to defections. Indeed, it is harder to leave an organization in which your brother, cousin or friend is. 5. Is there any other terrorist group outside of ISIS and Al-Qaeda that poses a high security threat for the West? Is there a group called Khorasan? Well the name does not really matters because at the end of the day, it is an Al Qaida affiliate. This Khorasan group was created by Al Qaida and composed from top leaders of the group in Syria. The objective of the group is to attack the West and concentrate efforts on the West only. What is their strike force? No one can tell. However, what matters is the fact that it is an al Qaida affiliate and that they are going to focus their attacks on the West, so the security services should pay attention to them and not underestimate them as they did with IS since 2003. After the assassination of Osama Bin laden led by US forces, the shift turned to eliminate Al-Baghdadi making Ayman Al-Zawahiri Al-Qaeda leader get less spotlight. Any recent news on Al-Zawahiri ? Not that I know. However, I think it is a mistake not to pay enough attention to him because he was and remain the ideologue of Al Qaida. The US should focus on him and on the military commander of Al Qaida Khaled El Habib (who was declared dead but is not). Al Qaida is still present and capable to strike at any time. Some US Intelligence sources affirm Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain are secretly supporting ISIS. Is this true? Are they supporting Al-Qaeda? It is very hard to check these claims. Unlike the past, Al-Qaeda and ISIS now control swaths of territory; whereas, before they remained in the shadows fighting in secrecy. They also control petroleum and sell it in the black market, not relying exclusively on foreign fundraisers to build their military infrastructure. Has that changed the outcome of the war against terror? Does Al-Qaeda also have their own way of supporting themselves without fundraisers? Al Qaida has its own way of financing itself. Al Qaida in the Maghreb for instance support itself by the kidnapping, smuggling and trafficking drogue, cigarettes, weapon and people (human traffic). The drogues for instance comes from Latin America to Niger and Mali and then it goes to Europe through Morocco. It is hard to give numbers but it is a very lucrative activity. The fall of Gaddafi in 2011 exacerbate the situation on the borders that are very poorly controlled. Despite Russia’s military strength, can Russia really stop jihadist in Syria considering the Soviet Union lost the war in Afghanistan? I do not think that fighting IS from 30,000 feet is the solution anyway. I believe that as long as the international community (that is only 10 countries) is not capable of finding a realistic political solution to the Syrian problem, IS will remain. In addition, we need to work on the ground, not by sending ground troops but by helping the local population fight IS and by providing an alternative: an alternative for IS idea but also an alternative for IS “governance”. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are currently drafting tens of thousands of children to fight a future jihad against the west. It looks as if the west after decades trying to contain radical Islam, has not just failed, but helped to create a larger menace that will not stop at anything. What holds the future? Again, to contain radical Islamism and salafi-jihadism we need to give people an alternative; we need to have a counter-narrative to convince them because it is a war of ideas. It is a war of propaganda and IS is a 2.0 jihadist group that is mastering and winning this war. IS capacities lies more on the virtual sphere than on the ground. Military solutions are not enough; they can help but are not going to solve the problem. The Arab world is experiencing major changes and military answer will only bring back the country of the Arab spring to the previous situation of dictatorship. Each country has its own complex political landscape and we need to consider that when drafting recommendations and solution. We need to work with the civil society and not against it. Reform the educational system in both the MENA but also in the West in order to offer youth a real perspective so they will not chose a “jihadist career”. The west and countries like France for instance need to review their system of integration toward the emigrant population and include these second and third generation (especially those coming from North African countries) into the political and social life of their countries so they will have a sense of belonging and a “positive identity” thanks to which they will feel like genuine citizens and not second zone ones. Today there is two lost generations: the children who are going to evolve in IS held territories and whose mothers and fathers are IS followers and the entire generation of Syrian who is now in camps around Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and so on and who is a lost generation cause they have no future and are the targets of extremist groups that want to recruit them into jihadist organizations. This interview originally appeared in The Daily Journalist
Story highlights Thai floods have so far killed 283 people; two people remain missing Workers in Bangkok rush to shore up barriers as warnings are posted for northern suburbs Shops in Ayutthaya are mostly flooded and closed, and people unable to leave their homes Thailand's devastating floodwaters are draining southward towards Bangkok Friday, and residents have been told to prepare for the worst when the spring high tide and a huge volume of water flowing down the Chao Phraya River merge over the next couple of days. Workers in the city are rushing to shore up barriers and warnings have been posted for the northern suburbs. "Between seven and eight billion cubic meters of water a day is being released from the Bhumibol Dam in the north of the country, which is heavily affecting provinces like Nahkon Sawan and Ayutthaya," government official Wim Rungwattanajinda told CNN. "From that, about one to 1.2 billion cubic meters of water is reaching Bangkok every day." So far, 283 people have been killed and two people are missing in Thailand, according to the government website Thaiflood.com. Some 61 of the country's 76 provinces have so far been affected, impacting more than eight million people. More than 500,000 square kilometers -- an area the size of Spain -- are affected by the floods in Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, according to CNN meteorologist Jenny Harrison. About 100 kilometers north of Bangkok, the UNESCO-listed historical city of Ayutthaya has now been submerged for 10 days, CNN's Paula Hancocks reports. Shops in Ayutthaya are mostly flooded and closed, and people unable to leave their homes are waiting for help to arrive. Roads have become rivers, with people having to swim or use boats to get food and water. JUST WATCHED Getting aid to Thailand's flood victims Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Getting aid to Thailand's flood victims 02:33 JUST WATCHED Residents evacuate from Thai floodwaters Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Residents evacuate from Thai floodwaters 02:13 JUST WATCHED Stranded elephants in need of food Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Stranded elephants in need of food 01:38 JUST WATCHED Floods bear down on Thailand's capital Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Floods bear down on Thailand's capital 02:53 JUST WATCHED Bangkok braces for more flooding Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Bangkok braces for more flooding 02:23 "Doctors are patrolling the flooded areas in small boats and are making house-calls to residents to those incapable of moving," Hancocks says. "It's one of the worst hit areas in the country. Even if there are no more storms, one government estimate says it'll still take a month for the floodwaters to recede." Temples and monuments are unable to keep the rising waters at bay, and there are fears that the longer the city's treasures are covered by water, the more likely it will be that the damage could be permanent. "This is the worst flood in our historical site in 16 years," said Somsuda Leeyawanich, from the Thai Fine Arts Department. She said the water level in the park is almost three meters, compared to levels of around 80-90 centimeters during the floods of 1995. "We are very concerned that if the site is under water for more than 30 days it may cause serious damage," she added. "The temples are over 400 years old." Along with people and historical sites, animals are also are being severely affected by the floodwaters. Fifteen elephants, including seven mothers with babies and a nine-year-old known for its painting skills, are stranded on top of Ayutthaya's Royal Elephant Kraal. The elephants climbed on top of the building last week and are going hungry now that food can only be brought in small quantities via rowing boats. Elephants can swim but it's feared the babies would drown in the floodwaters if they attempt to escape. Meanwhile, the country's economy may be badly affected from the floods. Manufacturing areas just north of Bangkok have been particularly hard hit hard, including a Honda factory that has been submerged, ruining hundreds of cars. The giant Rojana Industrial Park has also halted operations for the time being, director Amara Charoengitwattanagun told state-run news agency MCOT, and the facility may be further damaged if the flooding worsens. One plant in the park, Single Point Parts, evacuated all workers from the premises and built flood prevention embankments around its building. "The Thai finance ministry says overall damage from the floods could be more than $2 billion, with the worst yet still possibly to come," Hancocks says.
Does my butt look fat? Well, it is. And it's OK to say it, because after decades of agonizing over my weight, I've finally realized that the F-word isn't dirty. A few weeks ago, I went out for dinner in Manhattan with a friend I've known since high school. We went to a typical restaurant in the West Village, which is to say a place with seating for 30 in the approximate square footage of a refrigerator box. Along one wall was a banquette with tables lined up in front of it, close enough to one another that if you ordered anything requiring the use of a knife, elbowing a stranger in the chin would become a real concern. So when the hostess led us to one (which is to say, she took two steps and pointed at a table) smack in the middle, I immediately turned to my tall, thin friend and said, "The squishy seat is all yours. No way my fat ass is getting back there." I watched her eyes flash and her mouth open slightly before she caught herself and chose not to say the words she's said about nine gazillion times to me over the last two decades: You're not fat! Advertisement: We've talked about this. She knows that I blog every day about body acceptance, that I believe fat is a useful adjective that should be no more emotionally loaded than blue-eyed or curly-haired, and that I am indeed significantly wider than she is. And she knows that for all those reasons and many others, the words "You're not fat" drive me up a goddamn wall. But old habits die hard. Since we were teenagers, she's been conditioned to respond to any mention of my weight with "You're not fat!" -- as automatically and mindlessly as I would murmur "And also with you" to a priest. She makes a real effort not to say it anymore, bless her heart, but it's going to take either a couple more decades of practice or a course of electroshock therapy to get her to also stop making the "I want to say it" face. The thing is, at various points during the time we've known each other, it was true: I wasn't fat. During high school, when I'd reached my full adult height of five-two and weighed around 135 pounds, I really wasn't fat by any rational standard -- unfortunately, adolescent girls aren't known for their rational standards regarding weight, so I fully believed I was the Fattest Girl in Recorded History. When I was dieting in my twenties, there were times when I clearly wasn't anything approaching fat, yet I still wasn't satisfied with the amount of weight I'd lost; when I'd gotten myself down to size four jeans and extra-small T-shirts, all I could focus on was getting a pair of size-two jeans past my thighs. People telling me I wasn't fat didn't make a damn bit of difference to my profoundly warped self-image in those days, but at least they weren't lying. At other times, though, they were. For much of my adult life, I've worn plus sizes, struggled to fit into airplane seats and been clinically obese according to the body mass index (BMI) charts that determine everything from the price of my insurance premiums to whether doctors will hand me a Weight Watchers brochure when I see them about an ear infection. I once asked a doctor for help with excruciating knee pain following a spill down some stairs, and the only prescription she offered was "Lose weight." (Oh, OK. But since I'm probably not going to lose enough to reduce pressure on my joints in the next 10 minutes, and my knee hurts RIGHT NOW, do you think maybe you could MAKE WITH THE PAINKILLERS, BITCH?) I was once standing on the street talking to a business contact I hoped to impress, when a homeless man came up and asked us for change. The man I hoped to impress said he didn't have any, and the homeless guy spat, "Oh, fine, you just keep talking to the fat girl, then!" Which meant the business contact spent the next five minutes sputtering about how that guy was crazy and I shouldn't think anything of it, while my face flamed and I stammered, "It's ... OK, really, it's ... please ... it's fine." So much for the awesome professional image I was hoping to project. I may not be as big as some of my friends and family members, and I may not be the size most people mentally associate with the word obese, but I am bloody well fat, and I have been most of the time since college. The homeless man might have been crazy, but he wasn't wrong. The friends who kept insisting "You're not fat!" were the ones out of touch with the truth. But then the truth was never really the point. Thin women don't tell their fat friends "You're not fat" because they're confused about the dictionary definition of the word, or their eyes are broken, or they were raised on planets where size 24 is the average for women. They don't say it because it's the truth. They say it because fat does not mean just fat in this culture. It can also mean any or all of the following: Advertisement: Ugly Unhealthy Smelly Lazy Ignorant Undisciplined Unlovable Burdensome Embarrassing Unfashionable Mean Angry Socially inept Just plain icky So when they say "You're not fat," what they really mean is "You're not a dozen nasty things I associate with the word fat." The size of your body is not what's in question; a tape measure or a mirror could solve that dispute. What's in question is your goodness, your lovability, your intelligence, your kindness, your attractiveness. And your friends, not surprisingly, are inclined to believe you get high marks in all those categories. Ergo, you couldn't possibly be fat. But I am. I am cute and healthy and pleasant-smelling (usually) and ambitious and smart and lovable and fun and stylish and friendly and outgoing and categorically not icky. And I am fat -- just like I'm also short, also American, also blonde (with a little chemical assistance). It is just one fucking word that describes me, out of hundreds that could. Those three little letters do not actually cancel out all of my good qualities. That's what I told my old friend about a year ago, when I finally mustered the nerve to ask her to quit telling me I'm not fat, on the grounds that we both know it's a crock. And like I said, she's stopped. But thin friends aren't the only ones who insist that I really do magically appear skinny everywhere except in doctors' offices, on the street with strangers, on airplanes, in dressing rooms, and in my own mirror. Since my blog about body image and fat politics has developed a strong readership and I've become more visible in the fat-acceptance community, I'm getting it from the other side now, too: According to some people bigger than me, I'm not fat enough. Advertisement: What do you know about size-based discrimination? You're not fat! What do you know about how hard it is to find clothes that fit? You're not fat! What do you know about trying to find a partner in a culture where fat is almost universally considered unattractive? You're not fat! Advertisement: One more time for those who missed it: Yeah, actually, I am fat. Granted, I am not fat enough to have suffered truly vicious discrimination from medical professionals, employers or landlords. I'm not fat enough to have been asked to buy two seats on a plane; I've never had fast-food containers chucked at my head while I was out for a walk; and I don't have any trouble getting around or taking care of myself. I am incredibly grateful for all of that and conscious of my relative privilege, but it still doesn't make me not fat. It only makes me less fat than some, just as I'm fatter than others. It makes me kinda small for a fat person. If I were thinner than the average American woman, I might call myself "kinda big for a thin person" instead. But I'm not. I am, as it turns out, fat. It's OK to say it out loud. It's also OK to point out that I'm not that fat, so I've never personally been the victim of the worst fat hatred our culture has to offer -- that's the plain truth. But telling me I'm not fat is a goddamned lie. In response to a similar ornery outburst on my part, I once had a commenter on my blog say, "I've never seen anyone work so hard to convince people that she is fat." I'm honestly not sure if that was meant as an insult or an amused observation; either way, it cracked me up. But in all seriousness, let me tell you why I'm so bulldoggy about hanging on to that word and refusing to let go. Advertisement: Because I have taken shit for my size -- the kind of shit my thin friends rarely observe and can't quite imagine -- and that's an ineradicable part of my history. Telling me I'm not fat doesn't make those wounds disappear. Because fat should mean only having more adipose tissue than the average person, but it doesn't. And every time you ignore what's in front of your face to tell me I'm not fat because you can't bring yourself to put me in that nasty, ugly category, you're buying in to the idea that real fat people are all sorts of nasty, ugly things I'm not. Horseshit. I am a real fat person, and very few real fat people live up to the worst stereotypes wielded against us. Because whenever you read an article about THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA, you should know that they're talking mostly about people who look like me - -and like your mom, your neighbor, your coworker, your kid's teacher, not like the headless, poorly dressed, extremely fat people inevitably used to illustrate those articles (who are no less deserving of human rights and dignity than any of the rest of us, I hasten to add). Only about 6 percent of the adult population is categorized as severely obese. The vast majority of people classified as obese are about as fat as I am, in the BMI 30-35 range. I am the face of the obesity crisis everyone's so worried about, and yet I constantly have people telling me I'm not fat. There's some, uh, food for thought. But mostly, I want to be called fat because it's the simple truth. I am not overweight, which suggests there's some objectively ideal weight for me that's less than I weigh now, when I exercise regularly and eat as much food as my body needs. That makes no sense at all. I'm definitely not thin, which is what everyone seems to be implying when they tell me I'm not fat; I take up space, I'm curvy as a mountain road, and I've spent more money at Lane Bryant in the last six months than the people who sew their clothes probably make in a year. And although I know some people prefer euphemisms like big beautiful woman or person of size or voluptuous or plump or fluffy, I am really, really not one of those people. (I mean, seriously, fluffy? Are you fucking kidding me?) Advertisement: I'm fat. You wouldn't think that simple fact would be so confusing. And yet. My favorite comment ever, among the thousands I've gotten since I started blogging, is from a woman who wrote: "Back when I first saw pictures of you, in your personal history entry, I felt so cheated and disappointed. 'So that's her? The poster child of fat bloggers? Just another thin girl with body dysmorphia? Big deal for HER to accept her body.' I could just barely restrain myself from writing a righteously enraged comment about that. [Recently], I finally found the courage to step on a scale after several years. I was so scared, sweating and shivering like it was a bloody bungee jump. And I found that I'm almost exactly your size. That makes my initial feelings wrong on so many levels, I don't even want to start on it." That right there might be the number one reason why I stubbornly claim the word fat for myself. Because too many women look at me and think, She can't be fat --she looks fine, then look at themselves and think, I'm so fat -- I can't possibly look (or be) fine. Even ones who are built exactly like me. As long as the horseshit stereotypes persist -- that fat women can never be healthy, smart, driven, disciplined, fashionable, attractive and eminently lovable -- women who are all those things and fat will keep seeing themselves as fundamentally disgusting and unworthy. So every time someone tries to tell me I'm not fat simply because I don't fit those stereotypes, I'm gonna keep telling them I am, too, fat, dammit! Le fat, c'est moi. This is what fat looks like. I am a kindhearted, intelligent, attractive, person, and I am fat. There is no paradox there.
Ana Kasparian is best known as a host and producer of the largest online news show "The Young Turks," (TYT) a show covering politics, pop culture and lifestyle. She is also the main host of the rapidly growing panel show "The Point" on the TYT Network. When Ana's not hosting and producing news content, she teaches upper division journalism at her alma mater California State University Northridge. Kirk Cameron speaks to Fox News (screen grab) Former child star Kirk Cameron has never been shy discussing his religious beliefs and how people should behave in a marriage. In a recent interview with the Christian Post, Cameron urged women to “submit” to their husbands and follow their leadership. “Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband’s lead, not to tell their husband how he ought to be a better husband,” Cameron said. “When each person gets their part right, regardless of how their spouse is treating them, there is hope for real change in their marriage.” I would argue that real change in a marriage is impossible without open and honest communication, but I’ll get to that later. Cameron’s statement exposes a commonly held belief among Evangelists, and it’s certainly not the first time I’ve heard of a devout believer advocating for outdated gender roles within a marriage. It is frustrating that religion in general includes components that treat women as a support system for a man rather than a leader or equal player in the relationship. A one-size-fits-all strategy in making a marriage work doesn’t sound like great advice for someone like me who understands that personalities vary, and that a marital partnership should be about equality as opposed to defined dominant vs. submissive roles. Also, what happens to women who identify as leaders and want to play a pivotal role in decision making within a relationship? The ever-evolving economic opportunities that women can finally take advantage of has allowed those who identify as leaders to be just that, and it’s fantastic. I consider myself a leader, and the thought of being submissive to my soon-to-be-husband doesn’t appeal to me at all unless we’re having fun with role-playing or something. That doesn’t mean I want him to be submissive, or that I want to be some authoritarian dictator in our relationship. But I do want us to be equals who can keep it real with one another. I will honor and respect my husband, but I’ll also call him out when he’s being doofus. I hope he does the same with me. The idea of “not telling him how to be a better husband” is irresponsible advice. Communication is key, and there should be as much openness as possible. More importantly, look at the dynamic in your relationship and do what’s right for you. Cameron’s advice has the faulty underlying idea that women are submissive by nature while men are the dominant ones. Unlike religion, leadership, dominance and submissiveness don’t have a gender preference.
It’s very difficult to kick a star out of the galaxy. In fact, the primary mechanism that astronomers have come up with that can give a star the two-million-plus mile-per-hour kick it takes requires a close encounter with the supermassive black hole at the galaxy’s core. So far astronomers have found 16 of these “hypervelocity” stars. Although they are traveling fast enough to eventually escape the galaxy’s gravitational grasp, they have been discovered while they are still inside the galaxy. Now, Vanderbilt astronomers report in the May issue of the Astronomical Journal that they have identified a group of more than 675 stars on the outskirts of the Milky Way that they argue are hypervelocity stars that have been ejected from the galactic core. They selected these stars based on their location in intergalactic space between the Milky Way and the nearby Andromeda galaxy and by their peculiar red coloration. “These stars really stand out. They are red giant stars with high metallicity which gives them an unusual color,” says Assistant Professor Kelly Holley-Bockelmann, who conducted the study with graduate student Lauren Palladino. In astronomy and cosmology, “metallicity” is a measure of the proportion of chemical elements other than hydrogen and helium that a star contains. In this case, high metallicity is a signature that indicates an inner galactic origin: Older stars and stars from the galactic fringes tend to have lower metallicities. The researchers identified these candidates by analyzing the millions of stars catalogued in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. “We figured that these rogue stars must be there, outside the galaxy, but no one had ever looked for them. So we decided to give it a try,” said Holley-Bockelmann, who is studying the behavior of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Astronomers have now found evidence for giant black holes at the centers of many galaxies. They estimate that the Milky Way’s central black hole has a mass of four million solar masses. They calculate that the gravitational field surrounding such a supermassive black hole is strong enough to accelerate stars to hypervelocities. The typical scenario involves a binary pair of stars that get caught in the black hole’s grip. As one of the stars spirals in towards the black hole, its companion is flung outward at a tremendous velocity. A second scenario takes place during periods when the central black hole is in the process of ingesting a smaller black hole. Any star that ventures too close to the circling pair can also get a hypervelocity kick. Red giant stars are the end stage in the evolution of small, yellow stars like the Sun. So, the stars in Holley-Bockelmann’s rogues’ gallery should have been small stars like the Sun when they tangled with the central black hole. As they traveled outward, they continued to age until they reached the red giant stage. Even traveling at hypervelocities, it would take a star about 10 million years to travel from the central hub to the spiral’s edge, 50,000 light years away. “Studying these rogue stars can provide us with new insights into the history and evolution of our home galaxy,” said Holley-Bockelmann. The researchers’ next step is determine if any of their candidates are unusually red brown dwarfs instead of red giants. Because brown dwarfs produce a lot less light than red giants, they would have to be much closer to appear equally bright. Heather Morrison at Case Western Reserve University, Patrick Durrell and John Feldmeier at Youngstown State University, Robin Ciardullo and Richard Wade at Pennsylvania State University, and J. Davy Kirkpatrick and Patrick Lowrance at the California Institute of California also contributed to the research, which was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education’s Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need fellowship.
Yazoo Brewing Co. made T-shirts to show the correct way to say the brewery's name. (Photo: Instagram) There's a good chance you might be pronouncing the name of one of Nashville's most popular local brews incorrectly. Twelve years after its launch, Yazoo Brewing Co. has taken to T-shirts to correct customers' most-asked question: How do you pronounce the brewery's name? For the official record, it's yeah-zoo, not yah-zoo. It's a name that's close to the heart for owner Linus Hall: He and his wife, Lila, grew up in Vicksburg, Miss., where the Yazoo River joins the Mississippi River. He also had a black Labrador retriever during his childhood named Yazoo. "It was one of those things that we just settled on the name really early on, and never really gave it a second thought. It was a good Southern Delta name, and that's how we wanted the feel of our labels and everything," Hall said. Yazoo Brewing Company opened in 2003. Last year, the company produced 23,500 barrels of beer, which is distributed in Tennessee and Mississippi. As the company grew, Hall quickly realized many customers were saying yah-zoo, not yeah-zoo. He said it became an inside joke with Yazoo Brewing employees, and they thought it would be fun to print T-shirts with the pronunciation. "Once we started the brewery and were selling beer and out promoting it, we realized maybe it was a Mason-Dixon Line kind of thing, but the further north you go, people would pronounce it yah-zoo instead of yeah-zoo," Hall said. But Hall is quick to say he doesn't correct people, noting it's just a different way of saying it. "I will never correct people because people are asking for our beer one way or another, so that's the important thing. …We're definitely not trying to make people feel bad for saying it the other way," he said. The shirts are available at Yazoo's taproom at 910 Division St. Hall said Yazoo-branded items are popular sells after guided brewery tours. "We get a lot of people from out of town and they think it's fun to pick up something," he said. Read or Share this story: http://tnne.ws/1M5xLG8
One little girl from Raleigh sacrificed her birthday party to make a big difference for the Animal Protection Society of Durham. Logan Robinson loves animals. She realized she wanted to be a veterinarian in the first grade after completing a school assignment."My teacher told me I had to do a project on a famous person and I did mine on Dr. Elinor McGrath," Logan explained, speaking of the first prominent woman veterinarian.For the past seven years, Logan has had a typical children's birthday party. That is, until this year - her 8th birthday.With giving on her mind and a willingness in her heart, Logan set out to make a difference for local shelter animals."She is a very very giving, loving spirit," Logan's mom, Autumn, told ABC11.For three weeks, Logan and her friends collected donations. On Saturday, Logan and her friends delivered four shopping carts full of supplies for the Animal Protection Society of Durham."I just thought they would be happy when they got the stuff," Logan shared.Logan's best friend, Lucia, also plans to become a veterinarian."I'm so lucky she invited me to their birthday party," Lucia said. "I don't know when I started to know (Logan), but I'm glad that I do.""I often refer to (Logan) as our dream come true, because she loves and loves to give and she always puts other people before her," Autumn said.The shelter says they are always in need of volunteers, foster families, and donations.
Excerpt: 'Another Day in the Frontal Lobe' The brain is soft. Some of my colleagues compare it to toothpaste, but that's not quite right. It doesn't spread like toothpaste. It doesn't adhere to your fingers the way toothpaste does. Tofu -- the soft variety, if you know tofu—may be a more accurate comparison. If you cut out a sizable cube of brain it retains its shape, more or less, although not quite as well as tofu. Damaged or swollen brain, on the other hand, is softer. Under pressure, it will readily express itself out of a hole in the skull made by a high-speed surgical drill. Perhaps the toothpaste analogy is more appropriate under these circumstances. The issue of brain texture is on my mind all the time. Why? I am a neurosurgeon. The brain is my business. Although I acknowledge that the human brain is a refined, complex, and mysterious system, I often need to regard it as a soft object inhabiting the bony confines of a hard skull. Many of the brains I encounter have been pushed around by tumors, blood clots, infections, or strokes that have swollen out of control. Some have been invaded by bullets, nails, or even maggots. I see brains at their most vulnerable. However, whereas other brain specialists, like neurologists and psychiatrists, examine brain images and pontificate from outside of the cranium, neurosurgeons boast the additional manual relationship with our most complex of organs. We are part scientist, part mechanic. The scientist in me revels in the ethereal manifestations of the brain: the mind, consciousness, memory, language. The mechanic in me is satisfied by the clear fluid that rushes out of the end of a tube I insert into a patient's brain to relieve excessive pressure. In everyday surgical practice, the science may take a backseat to the handiwork, and that's okay. If you have an expanding blood clot in your head, you want a skilled brain mechanic, and preferably a swift one. You don't care if your surgeon published a paper in Science or Nature. I'll give you an example of a most straightforward and manual case. I was paged to the emergency room a few years ago during my training and received the following brief report over the phone: "carpenter coming in with a nail stuck in the left frontal region of his head . . . neurologically intact." What is going through my mind at this point? Do I hark back to my studies of frontal lobe circuitry and mull over the complex neural networks involved in language and memory? No. I'm thinking concrete, surgical thoughts: nails are sharp; the brain is full of blood vessels; the nail may have snagged a vessel on the way in. These thoughts are instantaneous, of course. I spell out the simple logic here purely for effect. What I encountered in the ER was a young man, in his thirties, sitting up on an emergency room gurney. Perfectly awake and alert, arms crossed in repose and still in his construction boots, he smiled nervously when I walked in. Was he the right patient? He looked too good. He was the right one. The carpenter explained that he and his friend were both on ladders along the side of a house. His friend was working a few rungs above. They were driving heavy-duty nails into the siding with automatic nail guns. His friend's hand slipped upon firing in one of the nails, and the nail entered the left frontal region of my patient's head below. For the first few moments after impact, the carpenter doubted what had happened. Although he noticed a stinging sensation within a split second of his friend's slip of the hand, and heard the loud expletive coming from the same direction, there was no trickle of blood and he felt nothing unusual as his fingers frantically searched the top of his head. He wasn't sure if it went in. His friend knew otherwise. Upon close inspection of his scalp, past his short crew cut, I could see the flat silver head of the nail, not quite flush with the scalp, but a bit deeper. Apart from the nail, he looked great. I performed a quick five-minute neurological exam and found nothing wrong. I sent him down the hall for a CT scan. The nail entered his brain perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the skull. It had been driven a good two inches into his left frontal lobe. Luckily, it didn't snag any sizable blood vessels along the way. There was no evidence of bleeding within the brain. Unlike the more common gunshot wounds we see, this was a respectably neat and clean penetrating injury. At this point, my biggest fear—bleeding in the brain from entry of the nail—had been put to rest. Now, do I take a breath and mull over any complex scientific issues at this point? Am I exercising my formidable brainpower as a brain surgeon? When people say, "it doesn't take a brain surgeon," they refer to the assumption that we are the smartest ones around. Have I demonstrated this superior intelligence so far? Again, my thoughts return to the practical and concrete. We need to get the nail out of this guy's head. It didn't cause any bleeding on the way in. We need to avoid bleeding on the way out. I walked out to the waiting room. His wife was there and so was his friend, who was pale and despondent, looking down at the floor. I tried to cheer them up a bit. Yes, the nail entered his brain, but his brain function, as far as we could tell, was normal and the nail caused no bleeding. Without looking up, the friend opened his hand and offered me a large silver nail that had been warming in his palm, the same type embedded in my patient's head. "I don't know . . . it might help you guys to have one of these . . . so you know what you're dealing with." I hadn't been able to tell from the scan that the nail had two copper-colored barbs sticking out from the shaft at acute angles. I'm not a carpenter, but I figured that the purpose of the barbs was to ensure a strong hold. I thanked him and pocketed the nail in my white coat. On my way back to the ER, I ran my fingers over the pointy barbs and thought about the issue of bleeding again. Avoiding and controlling bleeding are elementary and pervasive themes in surgery—not quite the stuff of rocket science, but critical nonetheless. After calling on the appropriate team, including the supervising neurosurgeon and anesthesiologist, I took him to the OR, shaved a small patch of hair around the nail head, and made a short linear incision in his scalp, down to the skull. There are no how-to entries in our textbooks regarding removing nails from heads, so we improvised using common sense. We drilled out a disc of frontal bone from his skull, with the nail head at the center of the disc. Slowly, we lifted this piece of bone up away from the surrounding skull, bringing the firmly embedded barbed nail with it. Although we could see a small jagged tear in the covering of the brain and a puncture wound on the surface of the brain itself, there was no blood oozing from the hole, and we considered ourselves lucky. ("Better lucky than good" is a favorite slogan among surgeons.) Then, using large tools fit more for our patient's line of work, we clipped off the barbs and pounded the nail through the disc of skull, backward. After soaking the bone in an antibiotic solution, we neatly plated it back in place with miniature titanium plates and screws and sewed his scalp back together. Actually, rather than suture, we used surgical staples from a staple gun to close the final layer of his scalp, unaware, at the time, of the subtle irony in that move. Within less than twenty-four hours, the patient was on his way home, joking the entire length of the hall with the friend who nailed him in the head. When I recounted this story to my family and friends after dinner one night, they all nagged me with the same question: "How could he be normal? This went into his brain." Finally, here's where the scientist in me gets to pontificate a bit, settling into a fast-paced question-answer session in the comfort of my own home with a captive audience. I am not just a mechanic, after all, and the brain is not just tofu. How could he be normal? First of all, his brain function was considered normal based on our typical bedside examination, which is, admittedly, a bit coarse. His speech was fluent. He answered simple questions appropriately. I asked him to remember three objects over a five-minute time span, and he did. His pupils reacted when I flashed a light in his eyes and his eyes moved symmetrically. He had no drooping of his face. The strength in his arms and legs was normal and so was his sensation. His reflexes were fine. He was capable of rapid and coordinated hand movements. In other words, his five minute neurological examination was perfectly satisfactory. But the frontal lobes harbor quite sophisticated functions, more sophisticated than the relatively simple ones I tested. The frontal lobes make up the largest section of the brain and are the most recently evolved. Compare the forehead of an ape to the forehead of a human. One slopes, the other bulges. We can thank, or blame, our frontal lobes for much of what we consider to be our personality and intelligence. Damage to the frontal lobes can be subtle, including changes in insight, mood, and higher-level judgment ("executive function," in the professional lingo). I'm not going to detect such changes in the ER during my five-minute exam before he is whisked off to the CT scanner. I'm just the neurosurgeon here. We would need to consult a neuropsychologist to help us evaluate these more complex brain functions. "So why didn't you send this poor guy for more sophisticated testing?" my dinner audience asks in a confused and mildly accusatory tone. Why did I simply proclaim him "fine" and send him on his way? I explain that the foreign object was a nail, not a jackhammer. A relatively minuscule portion of brain was violated. The large frontal lobes, in particular, can be quite forgiving, especially when only one side is involved. It's not unusual to see a frontal lobe tumor, for example, grow to impressive citrus fruit proportions before the patient even detects a problem. In fact, the patient often does not detect a problem at all. It is frequently a spouse or friend who insists on the doctor appointment, explaining: "He's just not right, but I don't know what it is." There is a redundancy and resilience to certain brain functions. What is compromised in one portion can sometimes be compensated for in another. (A remarkable ability referred to as "plasticity.") Even if the brain doesn't compensate directly, the patient often can cope indirectly, without even realizing it. If a person develops minor difficulty with memory, for example, he may start to write more things down, thereby maintaining the otherwise seamless flow of his existence. There are limits, though, to the power of plasticity. Damage to a single frontal lobe is frequently well tolerated (the opposite frontal lobe can compensate to some degree), whereas damage to both sides is often irreversibly devastating. Getting back to our carpenter, we were confident that the very narrow swath of injured brain in only one frontal lobe would be inconsequential. Even if a faint cognitive deficit could be identified with detailed and time-consuming neuropsychological testing, would the patient really care? Would he, or anyone else, even notice the problem? Would his life as carpenter, husband, or friend be affected? Doubtful. On a more cold-blooded and practical note, would the patient or the hospital be willing to pay for these tests? His insurance would certainly balk at the cost and question the necessity. Besides, given my confidence in the resilience of his frontal lobes, my biggest concern was not sluggish thought but sluggish carpentry. What if he gives up the automatic nail gun altogether? And with this final thought, the mechanic in me reclaims the front seat, as the scientist heads again to the back. Copyright 2006 by Katrina Firlik. Reprinted with permission from the publisher.
Late last month, the de Blasio administration held a public meeting in East New York to unveil some of the details of that neighborhood’s rezoning, the first comprehensive plan during the mayor’s term. And now, the Department of City planning has posted documents related to the rezoning, which outline the exact zoning designations, along with projections for how the neighborhood would grow if the proposal is enacted into law. The rezoning would result in a net increase of nearly 7,000 housing units by 2030, bringing the neighborhood closer to its 1960 population peak of 66,000 residents, up from just 48,000 today. It would also allow the construction of nearly a million extra square feet of commercial space, among other uses. The documents also presume passage of a zoning text amendment exempting subsidized housing units from the city’s onerous parking requirements, and potentially allowing builders to opt out of providing parking for their market-rate units as well, if and when they ever pencil out. East New York’s rezoning would apply to two distinct neighborhoods – about a dozen blocks in Ocean Hill west of Broadway Junction, and the main portion of East New York and Cypress Hills to the east, bounded generally by Sheffield Avenue to the west, Lincoln Avenue to the east, Fulton Street to the north and Pitkin Avenue to the south. The move would make room for an undisclosed amount of new development (Vicki Been, when she was at NYU, kept track of the net effects of rezonings during the Bloomberg years, but Amanda Burden’s office did not, and we’re not sure the Department of City Planning under Carl Weisbrod will either), however the Department of City Planning did sketch out what they expect to actually be built as a result. Without the rezoning, the city expects that only 550 new homes would be built between now and 2030, compared with 7,250 with the rezoning – a net increase of around 7 million square feet of housing. Community facility space would grow by 536,000 square feet rather than 157,000, while the total amount of new commercial space (largely retail) would grow by 1.26 million square feet rather than 669,000 square feet under the current zoning. Industrial space would increase by 153,000 square feet, compared to 126,000 without the rezoning. Meanwhile, the rezoning would result in 137,000 fewer square feet of auto-related space, 98,000 square feet less of hotel space, and 73,000 square feet less of warehouse and storage space. The environmental review also assumes that minimum parking requirements, currently in effect for all but the smallest new buildings outside of the Manhattan core and Long Island City (and, to a lesser extent, downtown Brooklyn), would be reformed. The documents don’t go much into detail (there’s also no detail about the inclusionary zoning provisions, other than that it would be mandatory), but they do say that a proposed zoning text amendment “would eliminate off-street parking requirements for low-income housing or Inclusionary Housing within areas that fall within a ‘Transit Zone’,” marked by transit access and low car ownership rates, but without any more specifics. Talk about this project on the YIMBY Forums Subscribe to the YIMBY email newsletter and receive the latest new development news in your inbox. Follow the YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews For any questions, comments, or feedback, email [email protected]
Report to the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann Accepted and Approved by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America February 17, 1972 Statement of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America Excerpt of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America February 16-17th, 1972 The Dean of St. Vladimirs Theological Seminary and professor of liturgical theology, Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann presented a report on Confession and Communion. The report is attached. Resolved: 1) That the report of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann is received with gratitude and approbation. 2) That the idea of a renewal in the Eucharistic life in the Church is not only desirable but indispensable. Therefore, practice of more frequent Communion is encouraged in all parishes of our Church. In this connection, and for the purpose of deepening the spirit of repentance among the laity, in addition to individual Confession, practice of General Confessions is also blessed based on the following principles: As a rule, General Confession takes place in the evening following the evening service. The person wishing to receive Holy Communion must be in Church at least on the eve of Communion. The common practice of Confession just prior to Liturgy is harmful and should be permitted only in very special cases. General Confession begins with the reading of the "Prayers Before Confession" which in current practice are generally omitted but which, nevertheless, form an organic part of the Sacrament of Confession. Following the prayers, the priest invites the penitents to pray for a spirit of repentance in order that they might see their own sins without which the formal Confession cannot produce spiritual benefit. Then follows Confession proper in which the priest enumerates those sins by which in thought and desire we offend God, our neighbor, and ourselves. Since the priest, as all men standing before God, knows sin, and sees his own sinfulness, his enumeration of sins, therefore, is not formal but sincere coming from a humble and contrite spirit. Rather than being a confession of "you" his enumeration of sins comes from "us," everyone realizing the sin as his own and all are able to repent. The more the priest is able to examine his own conscience the more full will be the confession and the spirit of repentance for all participants. The priest invites the penitents to direct their spiritual gaze toward the Lords banquet which awaits us and which is given to us in spite of our unworthiness. The priest then invites those who find need for further expression of their sins to stand aside while the remainder approach for the Prayer of Absolution and adoration of the Crucifix. Finally, after the Prayer of Absolution has been read over each penitent, the prayers in preparation for Holy Communion are read while those wishing to add to their confession approach the Confessional. Practice reveals that those who participate in this type of General Confession learn to make better private confession. The General Confession is not a replacement of private confession, but is rather for those who commune frequently and who regularly make their private confessions, who realize the need in our times for a regular examination and cleansing of conscience and repentance. This decision of the Holy Synod is intended as a norm and regulation for the performance of General Confession and not simply as a suggestion, recommendation, or advice. Those clergy who ignore this norm and regulation are subject to Canonical Sanctions. Resolved: To remind the clergy of the instructions previously prepared by the Liturgical Commission and confirmed by the Holy Synod that serving the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom during Great Lent with the exception of Saturdays and Palm Sunday and the serving of Requiem Liturgies on Holy Thursday and Saturday are forbidden. Resolved: That the report prepared by Fr. Schmemann be reproduced in both Russian and English and be distributed. Confession and Communion Report to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America The questions and the controversies about a more frequent communion, about the link between the sacrament of communion and that of penance, about the essence and form of confession, are, in our Church today, a sign not of weakness or decay, but of life and awakening. That there is among the Orthodox people, among the members of our Church, a growing interest in that which is essential, that there appears a thirst for that which is spiritually genuine can no longer be denied and for this alone we ought to render thanks to God. It would be extremely wrong therefore to try to solve these questions and controversies by merely administrative measures, with decrees and interdicts. For what we face is, indeed, a crucial spiritual question which is related literally to all aspects of our Church life. Only a spiritually blind and insensitive man would deny that in spite of all her relative success, external and material, our Church is threatened with a danger from within: the danger of secularization, of a deep spiritual decay. The tragic symptoms of this decay have appeared long ago. The endless debates and they have been lasting for decades! on the parish statutes, the wide-spread concentration of our parishes on the defense of their "interests," "rights" and "property" from the hierarchy and clergy, the incredible easiness with which even old and renown parishes, for the sake of these famous "rights," simply leave the Church, the centering of virtually all ecclesiastical agencies and councils, national, diocesan, and parochial, on the external, the material and the "legal" all this reveals such a deep secularization of the mind and consciousness that one truly becomes apprehensive about the future of our Church, which does not seem to realize the true scope and depth of this crisis. Yet it is precisely this secularization of the Church herself that forces so many people, especially the young ones, simply to leave the Church, where no one reveals to them what her real essence is, what it means to be her member, where one hardly hears the appeal to deepen the inner life, the spiritual and the religious, and where, in fact, the spiritual is reduced to a minimum at the benefit of banquets, jubilees, financial campaigns and entertainment. And all this appears at a time when we begin a new life, when the possibility, denied to so many of our brothers in the ancient centers of Orthodoxy, is given to us to grow "from strength to strength," to be free not in words alone, but in reality, to fill the Church life with spiritual content, to achieve all that which cannot be achieved by our brothers living in the dreadful conditions of atheistic and totalitarian states. Is it not tragic therefore that so often those who appear as the most active and efficient members of the Church, are at the same time the most "unchurched" ones leaders of all kinds of oppositions and rebellions, that the very structure of our parishes seems to make it virtually impossible to deepen and sustain truly religious life, and that, finally, the clergy themselves instead of aiming all their efforts at the spiritual growth of their flocks are condemned, by these very structures, to a dead formalism, to a status quo, proclaimed to be the very norm of the Church. There exists a tendency to solve all these problems, all the burning and difficult issues, including the one we face here, i.e. the question of lay participation in the Divine Mysteries, by simple references to the past, i.e. to what was done and considered normal in Russia, Greece, Poland, etc. This tendency, however, is not only a wrong one, but, in fact, a dangerous one. For far from everything in that "past," be it Russian, Greek or Polish, was right, Orthodox and correct. To realize this, it is enough to read, for example, the observations made by the entire Russian episcopate in 1905-1912 at the time of preparation by the Russian Church of her long-overdue national Sobor. Virtually without exception, the Russian Bishops, then the best educated in the whole Orthodox Church and unquestionably conservative and tradition-minded, declared the Churchs situation, spiritual, liturgical, educational, etc. to be deeply defective and requiring urgent reforms. Beginning with Khomiakov, all that which was truly alive and creative in Russian theology denounced the surrender of that theology to Western scholasticism and legalism. Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) called for a radical transformation of Russian seminaries and academies. And the saintly Father John of Cronstadt emphatically condemned the lukewarm and formal piety of Russian society which reduced communion to a "once-a-year obligation" and lowered the theandric life of the Church to the level of "customs." In view of all this, mere references and appeals to the past are not acceptable since that past itself needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the genuine Orthodox Tradition. The only criterion is always and everywhere that Tradition itself and the pastoral concern about how to apply it in our own situation which is so radically different from that of the past. This situation is determined above everything else by a deep spiritual crisis of society, culture and man himself. The essence of this crisis secularism is the divorce from God of the whole of human life. And it is this crisis that now begins to affect the Church herself. To think that this process of the Churchs secularization can be stopped by decrees and administrative instructions is nearsighted and dangerous. This applies in the first place to the greatest of all the Churchs treasures, to her "holy of holies" the Divine Mysteries. Secularization and the Sacraments If I began this report on the sacraments with general considerations concerning the situation in the world as well as in the Church, it is because of my deep conviction that the new interest in sacramental practice and discipline stems from this very crisis and is directly related to it. I am convinced that the question of lay participation in the Divine Mysteries is indeed the key question of our entire Church life; it is upon the solution of this question that the future of our Church, her renewal or her decay, ultimately depends. I am convinced indeed that in the parishes where the eucharistic revival has begun, none of that which has recently happened in one of our largest New England parishes could ever happen, that this tragic and hopeless inability simply to hear the voice of the Church, about her unity, her vocation, the place in her of the hierarchy, would have been impossible. I am furthermore convinced that where the Eucharist and communion have once more become "the center of Christian life," the problems of the parishs relation to the Church and to the hierarchy, to the statutes, norms and financial obligations of the Church hardly exist. This, of course, is not accidental. For where the parish life is not founded, above all, on the Lord Jesus Christ and this means, on a living and constant communion with Him and in Him in the sacrament of His presence, the Divine Eucharist there, sooner or later, but unavoidably, something else will emerge and dominate: "property" and its "defense," politics, nationalism, material success, the collective "pride." There it is no longer Christ but something else which shall shape and also disintegrate the life of the parish. Until quite recently, it may have been possible not to realize, not to acknowledge the urgency of this eitheror. Indeed, our parishes for a long time had, in addition to their religious function, a natural foundation: ethnic, national, linguistic. Our parishes were the form and the means of uniting the immigrants, i.e. ethnic minorities in need of corporate identity and survival in American society which was at first alien and even enmical towards them. Now, however, this "immigrant" period in the history of our Church is rapidly moving towards its end. This "natural," i.e. ethnic, foundation is quickly falling apart and disappearing. But then, the question is: what shall replace it? Is it not painfully clear that if it is not replaced with the very idea and experience of the Church: as unity in Christ, then, of necessity, there shall appear an a-religious, if not openly anti-religious, idea of the parish as primarily the owner and manager of its property; then, of necessity, the principle of unity will be the defense of that property and of the owners "rights" against the "enemies" from outside: the hierarchy, the clergy, the national or diocesan "centers." Let us not be mistaken. The leaders who are fomenting all kinds of lay "oppositions" and rebellions know perfectly well that in reality nothing is threatening their parish "property." And if, in spite of this knowledge, they continue actively to propagate this myth, it is because of their need for a unifying principle, for a practical basis of their leadership. For it is indeed an old and well-proven fact that if the people are not united for something, they will unite against something. It is here that we find the tragic depth of our present situation. This is why the question of sacraments has such a key significance. Only in them can we find the positive, and not the negative, principle of unity, not the "against" but the "for" which is obviously lacking in our Church life today. Only in them is rooted the very possibility of a change and renewal in the laymans mind, which has long ago been cut off from the sources and the experience of the Church. If this question has acquired a new urgency today, it is because more and more people are consciously and, more often, unconsciously, seeking such a renewal, seeking that "basis" which would help the parish to recover its religious and ecclesiastical meaning and stop its rapid and sad "secularization." Eucharistic Decay and Renewal It is impossible, and even unnecessary that we present in this short report the question of lay communion in all its dogmatical and historical aspects. What is essential can be summarized as follows. It is a well-known and undisputed fact that in the early Church the communion of all the faithful, of the entire ecclesia at each Liturgy was a self-evident norm. What must be stressed, however, is that this corporate communion was understood not only as an act of personal piety and personal sanctification but, first of all, as an act stemming precisely from ones very membership in the Church, as the fulfillment and actualization of that membership. The Eucharist was both defined and experienced as the "sacrament of the Church," the "sacrament of the assembly," the "sacrament of unity." "He mixed Himself with us," writes St. John Chrysostom, "and dissolved His body in us so that we may constitute a wholeness, be a body united to the Head." The early Church simply knew no other sign or criterion of membership but the participation in the sacrament. The excommunication from the Church was the excommunication from the eucharistic assembly in which the Church fulfilled and manifested herself as the Body of Christ. Communion to the Body and Blood of Christ was a direct consequence of Baptism: the sacrament of entrance into the Church, and there existed no other "condition" for that communion. The member of the Church is the one who is in communion with the Church in and through sacramental communion, and thus one early liturgical formula dismissed from the gathering, together with the catechumens and the penitents, all those who are not to receive communion. This understanding of communion, as fulfilling membership in the Church, can be termed ecclesiological. However obscured or complicated it became later, it has never been discarded; it remains forever the essential norm of Tradition. One must ask therefore not about this norm, but what happened to it. Why did we leave it so far behind us that a mere mention of it appears to some, and especially clergy, an unheard-of novelty and shaking of the foundations? Why is it that for centuries nine out of ten Liturgies are being celebrated without communicants? and this provokes no amazement, no trembling, whereas the desire to communicate more frequently, on the contrary, raises a real fear? How could the doctrine of a once-a-year communion develop within the Church, the Body of Christ, as an accepted norm, a departure from which can be but an exception? How, in other words, did the understanding of communion become so deeply individualistic, so detached from the Church, so alien to the eucharistic prayer itself: "and all of us partaking of the same Bread and Chalice unite one to another for the communion of the one Spirit...."? The reason for all this, however complex historically, is spiritually a simple one: it is the fear of profaning the Mystery, the fear of unworthy communion, of the desacralisation of holy things. It is a fear which is, of course, spiritually justified, for "the one who eats and drinks unworthily drinks and eats his condemnation." This fear appeared early, soon after the victory of the Church over the pagan Empire, a victory which transformed Christianity, in a relatively short time, into a mass religion, a state Church and a popular cult. If during the era of persecution the very belonging to the Church compelled each of her members to follow a "narrow path" and set between him and "this world" a self-evident dividing line, now, with the entrance of the entire "world" into the Church, that line was abolished and there appeared a very real danger of a nominal, superficial, lukewarm and minimalistic understanding of Christian life. If before, the very entrance into the Church was difficult, now, with obligatory inclusion of virtually everyone into the Church, it became necessary to establish internal checks and controls; it was around the sacrament that such controls developed. One must stress, however, that neither the Fathers nor the liturgical texts can supply us with any encouragement for non-partaking of the Mysteries, nor do they even hint at such a practice. Emphasizing the holiness of communion and its "awful" nature, calling to a worthy preparation for it, the Fathers never endorsed nor approved the wide-spread idea of today that since the Mystery is holy and awful, one must not approach it too often. In the Fathers, the view of the Eucharist as the Sacrament of the Church, of her unity, fulfillment and growth, was still self-evident. "We must not," writes St. John Cassian, "avoid communion because we deem ourselves to be sinful. We must approach it more often for the healing of the soul and the purification of the spirit, but with such humility and faith that considering ourselves unworthy . . . we would desire even more the medicine for our wounds. Otherwise it is impossible to receive communion once a year, as certain people do . . . considering the sanctification of heavenly Mysteries as available only to saints. It is better to think that by giving us grace, the sacrament makes us pure and holy. Such people manifest more pride than humility . . . for when they receive, they think of themselves as worthy. It is much better if, in humility of heart, knowing that we are never worthy of the Holy Mysteries we would receive them every Sunday for the healing of our diseases, rather than, blinded by pride, think that after one year we become worthy of receiving them." With regard to an equally wide-spread theory, according to which there is a difference between the clergy and laity in approaching communion, so that the former are to receive it at each Liturgy, whereas the latter are discouraged from doing so, it is fitting to quote St. John Chrysostom, who more than anyone else, insisted on worthy preparation for communion: "There are cases," writes the great pastor, "when a priest does not differ from a layman, notably when one approaches the Holy Mysteries. We are all equally given them, not as in the Old Testament, when one food was for the priests and another for the people and when it was not permitted to the people to partake of that which was for the priest. Now it is not so: but to all is offered the same Body and the same Chalice . . ." Let me repeat once more that it is simply impossible to find in Tradition a basis and justification of our present practice of an extremely infrequent, if not yearly, communion of laity; all those who seriously and responsibly have studied our Tradition, all the best Russian liturgiologists and theologians have seen in this practice a decay in Church life, a deviation from Tradition and the genuine foundations of the Church. And the most dreadful aspect of this decay is that it is justified and explained in terms of respect for the holiness of the sacrament and those of piety and reverence. For if it were so, the non-communicants would experience at least some sadness during the Liturgy, a frustration, a feeling of lacking fullness. In reality, however, this is simply not true. Generation after generation of Orthodox "attend" the Liturgy totally convinced that nothing more is required from them, that communion is simply not for them. And then, once a year, they fulfill their "obligation" and receive communion after a two-minute confession to a tired and exhausted priest. To see in all this a triumph of reverence, a protection of holiness, more than that, a norm, and not a downfall and a tragedy, is indeed incredible. In some of our parishes those who expressed the desire to receive communion more frequently were subjected to a real persecution, were asked not to do it "for the sake of peace," were accused of deviation from Orthodoxy! I could quote parish bulletins explaining that since communion is for penitents, one ought not to receive it at Easter, thus obscuring its joy. And the most tragic thing is that all this provokes no mystical horror, that apparently the Church herself becomes an obstacle on mans path to Christ! Truly "when you shall see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place . . ." (Matthew 24:15) Finally, it would not be difficult to show that whenever and wherever a genuine renewal of the life of the Church has taken place it has always originated with what has been termed "eucharistic hunger." In the twentieth century there began a great crisis of Orthodoxy. There began an unheard of, unprecedented persecution of the Church and apostasy of millions of people. And whenever this crisis was understood and perceived, there was a return to communion as the "focus of Christian life." This happened in communist Russia, as is attested by hundreds of witnesses; this happened in other centers of Orthodoxy and the diaspora. The movements of Orthodox youth in Greece, Lebanon, France have all grown out of a renewal of liturgical life. All that is genuine, living, churchly has been born from a humble and joyful response to the words of the Lord: "he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, dwells in Me and I in him." (John 6:56) Now, by a great mercy of God, this eucharistic revival, this thirst for a more frequent, more regular, communion, and thus, the return to a more genuine life within the Church, has made its appearance in America. I am convinced that nothing would give a greater joy to the pastors and especially Bishops than this renewal, pulling us away from the spiritually dead controversies about "properties" and "rights," from the idea of the Church as a social-ethnic club with picnics and entertainment, from youth organizations in which religious life and interests are kept at a bare minimum. For, as I already said, no other foundation exists for the regeneration of the Church as a whole, and none can exist. The ethnic, national foundation is fading away. All that which is only custom, only form, an addition to life but not life itself is disappearing. People are seeking the genuine, the true and the living. Therefore, if we are to live and grow, it is obviously only on the basis of the very essence of the Church . . . and this essence is the Body of Christ, that mystical unity into which we are integrated through partaking "of the one Bread and Chalice in the communion of the same Spirit . . ." I am confident, therefore, that our Bishops, to whom God has entrusted above all care for the spiritual essence of the Church, will find the words proper to bless and to encourage this spiritual and sacramental renewal, proper to remind the Church of the immeasurably rich and immeasurably joyful content of her teaching about the Divine Mysteries. All this, however, raises with a new acuteness and depth the question of the preparation for holy communion, and, first of all, of the place in that preparation of the Sacrament of Penance. Penance and Holy Communion When the communion of the entire congregation at each Liturgy, as an act expressing their very participation in the Liturgy, ceased to be a self-evident norm and was replaced by the practice of a very infrequent, usually once-a-year communion, it became natural for the latter to be preceded by the Sacrament of Penance i.e. confession and the reconciliation with the Church through the prayer of absolution. This practice, and I repeat once more, a natural and self-evident one in the case of infrequent, once-a-year, communion, led to the appearance in the Church of a theory according to which the communion of laity, different in this from the communion of clergy, is impossible without the sacrament of penance, so that confession is an obligatory condition always and in all cases for communion. I dare to affirm that this theory (which spread mainly in the Russian Church) not only has no foundation in Tradition, but openly contradicts the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, of the Sacrament of Communion and of that of Penance. To be convinced of that, one has to recall, be it very briefly, the essence of the Sacrament of Penance. From the very beginning this sacrament was, in the consciousness and teaching of the Church, the sacrament of reconciliation with the Church of those excommunicated from her and this means of those excluded from the eucharistic assembly. We know, that at first, the very strict ecclesiastical discipline allowed for only one such reconciliation in ones lifetime, but that later, especially after the entrance into the Church of the entire population, this discipline was somewhat relaxed. In its essence, the Sacrament of Penance, as the sacrament of reconciliation with the Church was for those only who were excommunicated from the Church for definite sins and acts clearly defined in the canonical tradition of the Church. This is still clearly stated in the prayer of absolution: "reconcile him with Thy Holy Church in Christ Jesus Our Lord . . ." (This, incidentally, is the prayer of absolution, used universally. As to the second one, unknown to the Eastern Orthodox Churches "I, unworthy priest, by the power given unto me, absolve . . ." is of Latin origin and was adopted in our liturgical books at the time of the domination of Orthodox theology by Western theology.) All this, however, does not mean that the "faithful," i.e. the "non-excommunicated," were considered by the Church to be sinless. In the first place, according to the Churchs teaching, no human being is sinless, with the exception of the Most Holy Mother of God, the Theotokos. In the second place, a prayer for forgiveness and remission of sins is an integral part of the Liturgy itself (cf. the Prayer of the Trisagion and the two prayers "of the faithful"). Finally, the Church always considered Holy Communion itself as given "for the remission of sins." Therefore the issue here is not sinlessness, which no absolution can achieve, but the distinction always made by the Church between, on the one hand, the sins excommunicating a man from the Churchs life of grace and, on the other hand, the "sinfulness" which is the inescapable fate of every man "living in the world and wearing flesh." The latter is, so to speak, "dissolved" in the Churchs liturgy and it is this sinfulness that the Church confesses in the "prayers of the faithful" before the offering of the Holy Gifts. Before the Holy Chalice itself, at the moment of receiving the Mysteries, we ask for forgiveness of "sins voluntary and involuntary, those in word and in deed, committed knowingly or unknowingly," and we believe that, in the measure of our repentance, we receive this forgiveness. All this means, of course, and no one really denies it, that the only real condition for partaking of the Divine Mysteries is membership in the Church and conversely, that membership in the Church is fulfilled in the partaking of the sacrament of the Church. Communion is given "for the remission of sins," "for the healing of the soul and body," and it implies, therefore, repentance, the awareness of our total unworthiness, and the understanding of communion as a heavenly gift which never can be "deserved" by an earthly being. The whole meaning of preparation for communion, as established by the Church ("The Rule for Holy Communion") is not, of course, in making man feel "worthy" but, on the contrary, in revealing to him the abyss of Gods mercy and love ("I am not worthy, Master and Lord . . . yet since Thou in Thy love . . . dost wish to dwell in me, in boldness I come. Thou commandest, open the gates . . . and Thou wilt come in love . . . and enlighten my darkened reasoning. I believe that Thou wilt do this . . .). Before the Lords table the only "worthiness" of the communicant is that he has been and realized his bottomless "unworthiness." This, indeed, is the beginning of salvation. It is therefore of paramount importance for us to understand that the transformation of the sacrament of penance into an obligatory condition for communion not only contradicts Tradition, but obviously mutilates it. It mutilates, in the first place, the doctrine of the Church by creating in her two categories of members, one of which is, in fact, excommunicated from the Eucharist, as the very content and fulfillment of membership, as its spiritual source. But then it is no longer surprising that those whom the Apostle called "fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God" (Ephesians 2:19) become again "worldly" (kosmiki, miriane), are "secularized" and their membership in the Church is measured and defined in terms of money ("dues") and "rights." But also mutilated is the doctrine of Communion, which is understood then as the sacrament for a few "worthy ones" and no longer as the sacrament of the Church: of sinners who by the infinite mercy of Christ, are always transformed into His Body. And finally, equally mutilated is the doctrine of Penance. Transformed into a formal condition for communion, it begins more and more obviously to replace the real preparation for communion, that genuine inner repentance, which inspires all the prayers before communion. After a three-minute confession and absolution a man feels "entitled" to communion, "worthy" and even "sinless," feels, in other terms, that which is in fact the very opposite of true repentance. But how then could such a practice have appeared and become a norm, defended today by many as truly Orthodox? To answer this question one must consider three factors. We have already mentioned one of them: that nominal and lukewarm approach to faith and piety of Christian society itself which led, at first, to an infrequent communion and, finally, reduced it to a once-a-year "obligation." It is clear that a person, approaching the Divine Mysteries once a year must be really "reconciled" with the Church by means of an examination of his conscience and life in the Sacrament of Penance. The second factor is the influence on the Church of monasticism, which is, of course, on the whole beneficial. The latter knew from the very beginning the practice of the "opening of thoughts," of the spiritual guidance by an experienced monk of a less-experienced one. But, and this is essential, such a spiritual father or "elder" was not necessarily a priest, for this type of spiritual guidance is connected with spiritual experience and not priesthood. In the Byzantine monastic typika of the XII XIII centuries a monk is forbidden both to approach the Chalice and to abstain from it by himself, of his own will, without the permission of spiritual father, for "to exclude oneself from communion is to follow ones own will." In womens monasteries the same power belongs to the Abbess. Thus we have here a confession of a non-sacramental type, confession based upon spiritual experience and permanent guidance. But this type of confession had a strong impact on sacramental confession. At a time of spiritual decadence (which can be seen in its true scope and meaning in the canons of the so-called Council in Trullo, 6th century A.D.) monasteries remained the centers of spiritual care and guidance for the laity. In Greece, even today, not every priest has the right to hear confessions but only those who are especially authorized by the Bishop. Yet for the laity this spiritual counseling naturally led to sacramental confession. We must stress, however, that not every parish priest is capable of such spiritual counseling, which implies and presupposes a deep spiritual experience, for without that experience "counseling" may lead, and in fact often leads, to genuine spiritual tragedies. What is important here is that the sacrament of penance became somehow connected with the idea of spiritual guidance, solution of "difficulties" and "problems," and that all this in the present conditions of our parish life, of "mass" confessions concentrated during some evenings of Great Lent and reduced to a few minutes is hardly possible and does more harm than good. Spiritual guidance, especially in our time of deep spiritual crisis, is necessary, but to be genuine, deep, useful it must be disconnected from sacramental confession, although the latter is obviously its ultimate goal. The third and decisive factor was, of course, the influence of the Western, Scholastic and juridical understanding of penance. Much has been written about the "western captivity" of Orthodox theology but, it seems to me, that few people realize the depth and real meaning of the distortions to which this Western influence led in the very life of the Church and, above all, in the understanding of Sacraments. This is obvious in the sacrament of penance. The deep distortion consists here in that the whole meaning of the sacrament was shifted from repentance and confession to the moment of "absolution," understood juridically. Western Scholastic theology transposed into juridical categories the very concept of sin and, accordingly, the concept of its absolution. The latter stems here not from the reality, the genuine nature of repentance, but from the power of the priest. If in the initial Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of penance the priest is the witness of repentance and, therefore, the witness of the fulfilled "reconciliation with the Church in Christ Jesus . . . ," the Latin legalism puts the emphasis on the power of the priest to absolve. Hence, the practice, totally alien to Orthodox doctrine, yet quite popular today, of "absolutions" without confession. The initial distinction between sins, excommunication from the Church (thereby requiring a sacramental reconciliation with the Church), and sinfulness, not leading to such excommunicating, was rationalized by Western Scholasticism in the distinction between the so-called mortal sins and the so-called venial sins. The first ones, by depriving man of the "state of grace" require sacramental confession and absolution; the others require only an inner repentance and contrition. In the Orthodox East, however, and especially in Russia (under the influence of the Latinizing theology of Peter Moghila and his followers) this theory resulted in a simple, compulsory and juridical connection between confession and communion. It is ironic indeed that this most obvious of all Latin "infiltrations" is viewed by so many Orthodox as an Orthodox norm while a mere attempt to re-evaluate it in the light of the genuine Orthodox doctrine of Church and sacraments, is denounced as "Roman Catholic." Guidelines for Regular Confession and Communion It remains now to draw some practical conclusions from what has been said. I have tried to explain why the question of sacraments and, first of all, the question of lay participation in the eucharistic life, is, in my opinion, the main question facing our Church, a question on which her spiritual future, her real, and not only external, growth truly depends. My conclusions must, therefore, relate to one another with faithfulness to the genuine Tradition of the Church with pastoral care for its "fulfillment" in our own conditions of life, which are so difficult and so radically different from the past. The question, in my opinion, must be formulated as follows: how can we both encourage a more frequent, more regular participation by the laity in the Eucharistic sacrament, as the "focus of Christian life," as the sacrament of the Church and her unity, and, at the same time, assure a proper preparation for this sacrament, thus preventing communion from becoming as much a "custom" as was, until now, the practice of "non-communion"? The answer to this question can be reduced to three fundamental principles: First of all, if the desire for and the practice of a more frequent and, ultimately, regular communion is to be encouraged, it is nevertheless obvious that it would be spiritually wrong and very harmful to impose it in any way. This practice cannot and must not become either a "fad" or the result of any kind of pressure. Therefore, for those who receive communion seldom (even once a month) and such will no doubt remain for a long time the majority one must keep in all its strictness the obligation for confession before Communion. For communion more often than once a month, one needs the permission of the rector of the parish. This permission will be given only to those persons who are well-known to the rector and after a thorough pastoral examination of the seriousness and rectitude of such persons attitude towards the Church and towards Christian life. In such a case, the relationship between the rhythm of confession and that of communion must be left to the decision of the priest, confession remaining regular, however, and heard not less than once a month. For a deeper understanding of the sacrament of communion as well as that of penance and for a more fruitful spiritual connection between them, the practice of general confession would be permitted. Inasmuch as this practice raises misunderstandings and questions today, I will conclude this report with a few words of explanation about its nature and form. General Confession What is general confession and why should it be recognized as proper and useful in the present conditions of our Church life? To answer this question, one must acknowledge first of all that today an overwhelming majority of the Churchs members do not know either what is confession or how to approach it. It is reduced, and this at best, to a purely formal and general enumeration of usually secondary "defects," to laconic answers to questions, or to a conversation about "problems." We have here the results, on the one hand, of a multi-secular, Western, formal and juridical understanding of confession, and, on the other hand, the "psychologism" proper to our time, which dissolves almost completely the awareness, not of "difficulties," "problems" and "questions," but of sin. Thus, in a large parish where I confessed a few dozens of people, each one began by presenting to me a receipt from the parish treasurer certifying that the man had paid his "dues." Then he silently waited for absolution. In other parishes there exists the practice of simply reading, from a book, a short formula of confession translated from Latin. Finally, I witnessed on many occasions a simple denial by the penitents of any sin, and this because by "sin" they meant "crimes" which indeed they have not committed. The opposite extreme is the concentration in confession on some particular "difficulty," from which it becomes evident, that the responsibility lies with conditions of life of which the penitent is but an innocent victim. In all of these types of confession what one does not find is precisely repentance, the "sadness for God," the despair from being separated from Him, the desire to change ones life, to be renewed and regenerated. How then, in our present condition, is confession itself to be redeemed and restored? How can it be made again an act of genuine repentance and reconciliation with God? To achieve this with our present two-or-three minute confession, with a long line waiting behind the back of the exhausted priest, is simply impossible. Therefore, the general confession is, first of all, a certain school of repentance, the revealing of the very essence of confession. To be spiritually profitable it must consist of the following: As a rule, general confession is to be held in the evening after the evening service. Anyone who desires to receive Holy Communion must come to church at least the evening before. Todays practice of confession taking place a few minutes before Liturgy, in a hurry, is simply harmful and can be justified only in exceptions. It has, unfortunately, become a norm. General confession begins with the priest reading aloud the prayers before confession. These prayers are, in todays practice, simply omitted, yet they are an integral part of the sacrament. After the prayers, the priest calls the penitents to repentance, to pray that God would grant the Spirit on confession, the gift "to see ones own sins," without which a formal enumeration will produce no spiritual fruit. Following this is the confession proper, i.e. the enumeration by the priest of all acts, thoughts and desires with which we offend the holiness of God, the sanctity of our neighbor, and the sanctity of our own soul. And inasmuch as the priest himself as any man standing before God knows all these sins and all that sinfulness to be also in himself, this enumeration will not be a formal one, but sincere, and will be done in a "broken and humble" heart, will be done on behalf of us, rather than aimed at you, and in this enumeration each one will acknowledge himself and truly repent. The more deeply the pastor examines his own conscience, the fuller the general confession, and the spirit of repentance generated by it, will be. In conclusion, the priest will call the penitents to direct their inner vision from their unworthiness to the Lords table awaiting them, to Gods mercy and love; he will call them to desire with their whole being that communion of which we are never worthy which, however is always a gift to us. Then the priest will ask all those who feel the need to add something, because of a special burden on their conscience, to move aside and to wait. The others will approach him, one by one, and the priest will read the prayer of absolution, covering their heads with the epitrahilion and giving them the Cross to kiss. Finally, while all those who have been reconciled listen to the prayers before Communion, the priest will confess individually those who have to complete the general confession and absolve them. Experience shows, that those who take part in such a general confession begin to have a much better individual confession. For the whole point here is precisely that the general confession is under no circumstances meant simply to replace individual confession, is not and must not be a substitute. It is only for those and those alone who, receiving communion often and regularly confessing their sins, realize the self-evident need for purifying their conscience, for repentance, for that spiritual concentration and attention, which is so difficult to achieve in our modern life. I can testify to the fact that where such general confession is practiced, the personal confession not only has not faded away, but has become deeper, has been filled with meaning and reality. Meanwhile this general confession will give the priest the time necessary for a more attentive confession of those who really need personal confession, and will thus become a way to a common growth in the spirit of repentance. Humbly submitting this report to the judgment of my Hierarchs, I wish to confess once more, that all that I write in it has been dictated by an extremely acute awareness of the need for a renewal of the eucharistic life, for here and only here is the source of her growth in Christ. Sunday of the Prodigal Son 1972
You might expect people at the top of the corporate hierarchy to have more stress than those at the bottom, but it’s actually the other way around. Considering the many health risks associated with stress, that’s no small burden. And retirement offers little relief. A new study of British civil servants shows those in high-level positions experienced a drop in the stress hormone cortisol when they stopped working, while retirees who'd had low-level jobs saw little change. We spoke with medical sociologist Tarani Chandola about these findings.We wanted to examine the common perception that people at the top of the occupational hierarchy are the most stressed. We actually found the reverse. Stress, at least in terms of biological stress responses, is higher the lower down the occupational hierarchy you go. What’s more, retirement did not reduce these differences in stress levels, but actually increased them. Retirement was associated with lower stress levels, but only for people at the top of the occupational ladder.We analysed changes in people’s stress levels before and after retirement, in a follow-up study of over 1,000 older workers in the British civil service. We measured stress levels by taking salivary cortisol samples across the day, from awakening until bedtime.The civil service is very hierarchical, so is a perfect set up for looking at occupational differences. Also, civil servants tend to have much better working conditions than workers in general. The fact that we were able to find such an association between stress and occupational status in this relatively privileged group of workers suggests the problem is much greater in other occupations, where working conditions for people in low status jobs are much tougher.Yes, we thought that if poor working conditions were the main driver of higher levels of stress among low status civil servants, once people retired and stopped working in those jobs, their stress levels would improve. The fact that their stress levels did not improve much, at least not as much as those in the top jobs, surprised us. This suggests that the poor working conditions are not the only driver of the increased stress levels for those at the bottom of the occupational hierarchy. Rather, other factors such as financial security and adequate pension arrangements may play an important role in determining stress levels in retirement.From other studies, we also know that wealth, financial security, and adequate pension arrangements are also important determinants of stress levels among older adults. Retirees from low status jobs tend to have poorer levels of such financial arrangements, which may explain some of the differences between occupational groups that we found.Higher levels of cortisol is associated with poor sleep, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and a range of metabolic processes that increase the risk of diabetes and obesity.While most studies on reducing stress focus on individual behavioral changes such as physical activity, diet, and meditation, what this study shows is that wider social determinants such as occupations and pensions are also important. Changing occupational imbalances such as making pension arrangements fairer for all workers may be an important way to correct the imbalance.Featured image courtesy of Søren Astrup Jørgensen
Al Stewart at The Great American Music Hall San Francisco, September 16, 1995 Fans chatting with Al Stewart This is a transcript of the post-show discussion between Al Stewart and the fans after the Great American Music Hall show on September 16, 1995. This is when Dan Farmer and Muffy presented Al with the birthday card many of us had signed and the wine that Dan bought with our contributions. I shot video at the time, and I've transcribed much of the conversation here. It's not perfect: there were parts I can't work out, and I'm sure I've butchered some proper names (especially the French ones). Also, obviously, the light wasn't very good so these pictures came out very dark. I did what I could in Photoshop, but your Web browser will probably undo any good I did. Apologies in advance. Video, pictures, and transcript by Allan Pratt, apratt@bestbits.org. Dramatis Personae: "AS" is Al Stewart, of course. Information at www.alstewart.com. "ASML" is the Al Stewart Mailing List. Information is available here. "Allan" is me, Allan Pratt, your humble correspondent. See www.bestbits.org. "Asya" is Asya Kamsky, another ASML'er. "Bill" is Bill Ward, another ASML'er. "Dave" is Dave Nachmanoff, also known as "Lightning Vlad." In later years Dave played many gigs with Al and toured with him frequently. Information is available at www.davenach.com. "Dan" is Dan Farmer, who runs ASML but rarely posts. "Muffy" is Muffy Barkocy, who is much more active in ASML. Her homepage is www.things.org/~muffy. "Fan" is the name I use for somebody I couldn't identify or whose name I didn't catch. AS: Hey! Black shirts all over the place. I thought this was a nice show tonight. Did anyone else like it? [Dan and Muffy give Al the birthday card. It has people's signatures inside. I also took closeups of the signatures inside the card.] AS [looking at the card and seeing all the signatures]: Oh, my goodness. Look at this. This is wonderful. Dan: You might notice - many of these were ... were generated by computer. AS: My feeling is that these - these are the probably the ones. [He's right. They stand out a little.] Asya: He is so sharp - you can't slip anything past him. Next Page Back to bestbits.org home.
The sound-only service could bring content like podcasts into News Feeds just like Live does for video. As Facebook's announcement post points out, this could be useful for folks in low-connectivity areas to broadcast more data-efficient media. Should their signal get low, hosts could theoretically switch to audio for a seamless stream. Facebook envisions that Live Audio will be used as a semi-professional stage for esteemed events like book readings and interviews with its Live service's viewer interaction bolted-in. Currently, the first organizations cleared to use it are: BBC World Service, talk radio broadcaster Leading Britain's Conversation (LBC), book publisher Harper Collins and authors Adam Grant and Britt Bennett. Currently, Android users can keep listening to a Live Audio broadcast while using other services, while iOS users must stay within Facebook's app to continue hearing it. The social platform plans to open the service up to other publishers and users next year, though it didn't specify the rate it would be expanding broadcasting privileges.
Yesterday 11 senators sent Attorney General Jeff Sessions a letter expressing concern about recent statements suggesting he plans to enforce the federal ban on marijuana against state-licensed businesses that serve recreational cannabis consumers. The senators, all of whom represent states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, urged Sessions to stick with the Obama administration's policy of leaving those businesses alone as long as their activities do not implicate the federal "enforcement priorities" listed in a 2013 memo from James Cole, then the deputy attorney general. "On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump stated that despite his personal views regarding marijuana use, legalization should be left to the states," note Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and nine of their colleagues. "It is essential that states that have implemented any type of practical, effective marijuana policy receive immediate assurance from the DOJ that it will respect the ability of states to enforce thoughtful, sensible drug policies in ways that do not threaten the public's health and safety....We believe that the Cole Memorandum provides a strong framework for effectively utilizing the DOJ's resources and balancing the law enforcement roles of the federal government and the states." Two Republican senators, meanwhile, say Sessions gave them the impression that he would not try to shut down the cannabis industry in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, or the four states where voters approved legalization last November. "He told me he would have some respect for states' rights on these things," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Politico, "so I'll be very unhappy if the federal government decides to go into Colorado and Washington and all of these places." Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said he did not get the sense from administration officials that Sessions plans a big shift in policy. "Nothing at this point has changed," Gardner told Politico. On Meet the Press last Sunday, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said Sessions, prior to his confirmation, told Gardner marijuana enforcement "wasn't worth rising to the top and becoming a priority." According to a Justice Department spokesman contacted by Politico, "the department's current policy is reflected in the 2013 Cole memo." These assurance are not exactly rock solid, especially since the Cole memo leaves a lot of leeway to crack down on state-legal marijuana suppliers, depending on how the federal enforcement priorities are interpreted. Yet both Politico and the New York Post make it seem as if opponents of marijuana prohibition overreacted to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's prediction of "greater enforcement" and Sessions' criticism of legalization, which he coupled with a pointed reminder that "it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not." The headline over the Politico story is "Sessions Reassures Senators: No Pot Crackdown Imminent," which overstates what they say he said. "Some respect for states' rights" does not rule out more enforcement, and neither does the impression that "nothing at this point has changed." Politico's subhead says "worries about a shift in federal enforcement in states that have legalized recreational use may be overblown." Then again, they may not. And here is reporter Burgess Everett's lead: "The Trump administration is causing serious paranoia among marijuana advocates with its hints of a federal crackdown on recreational use." That sentence is doubly dismissive, since paranoia implies that fears of a crackdown are irrational while alluding to one of marijuana's reputed effects. And why "marijuana advocates"? Were opponents of alcohol prohibition "booze boosters"? The Post's headline, "Sessions Hints That Feds Won't Be Cracking Down on Pot Use," more accurately reflects what Paul and Gardner said (although the real issue is production and distribution, not use). But reporter Chris Perez's lead is hyperbolic and contemptuous: "Potheads living in states where marijuana is legal can stop freaking out—the federal government won't be cracking down on recreational use after all, a report says." That is not what the report says, potheads is even more derogatory than marijuana advocates, and "freaking out" is another oh-so-clever pot reference that trivializes the legitimate concerns raised by supporters of legalization. Calling people who think marijuana should be legal "potheads" is like calling people who think alcohol should be legal "drunks." Everett and Perez eventually acknowledge that Sessions' enforcement plans raise important issues regarding the division of powers between the federal government and the states. Both reporters quote Paul and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), who signed the letter to Sessions, demanding that conservatives who claim to support the 10th Amendment be consistent instead of making a marijuana exception to their federalism. "While the issue may seem centered solely around cannabis," Perez writes, "the senators said it's also one of states' rights." No kidding. Some of us also think this story has something to do with individual autonomy and economic freedom. Reporters who cover the subject need not agree, but they should at least stop giggling about those silly potheads.
I would go so far as to suggest that a large portion of the current and last generation of Hindus belong in this category. Let me explain. Most of them are science oriented. They have absolutely no trouble believing in Big Bang theory. They also have no trouble believing that Krishna showed his " vikraal swaroop " (destructive manifestation in terms of appearance) during Mahabharata. " (destructive manifestation in terms of appearance) during Mahabharata. They have no trouble believing in the theory of relativity. They also have no trouble chanting Om Jai Jagdish Hare with full devotion while knowing that the God Satyanarayan, whom this chant is meant to please, and His " katha " (story) is nothing more than a chain letter gone viral among Hindus. " (story) is nothing more than a chain letter gone viral among Hindus. They work during office hours and write answers on Quora as honest science-minded people who truly believe that there is no unchangeable destiny. They also have no trouble spending 10-15 minutes every morning standing hands-joined-eyes-closed in front of an idol of their-moms-favorite-deity, sometimes their own favorite deity. They laugh at Christian creationists and believe in Evolution with a fervor. They also teach their kids that the God Ganesh sits on a Mouse and the Goddess Durga favors a Lion. This is my personal observation and not based on any research. I am an atheist woman, Hindu by birth, born and brought up in a religious family and married into an even more religious family. Most of my professional life, I have been surrounded by smart and industrious engineers. I have arrived at the conclusion that these people do not find their two belief systems as contradictory or even competing. You cannot nail them to a fixed opinion in a conversation because they don't have a fixed opinion and unlike many of us they are OK living with that. There is no way to separate their beliefs on intellectual or emotional levels because in their own minds there are no two beliefs. I mean this as a compliment. So, to answer your question, not just it is possible, in my opinion, a fairly large portion of humanity is atheist and theist simultaneously. Related Answer: Anonymous's answer to Why does Hinduism have 36 crore (360 million) gods but other religions worship a limited number of gods?
On This Day Saturday 4th February 1967 52 years ago The sport of Rallycross was born at Lydden, Kent, UK. Rallycross is a form of sprint style automobile racing, held on a closed mixed-surface racing circuit, with modified production or specially built road cars, similar to the World Rally Cars, although usually with about 200 bhp (150 kW) stronger engines, due to e.g. their 45 mm turbo restrictor plates. The sport started as a TV show (with especially invited rally drivers), produced by Robert Reed of ABC television for ITVs World of Sport programme, at Lydden Circuit (between Dover and Canterbury) in Great Britain on this day. The first ever true rallycross was organised by Bud Smith († 1994) and the Tunbridge Wells Centre of the 750 MC, with the aid of Lydden Circuit owner Bill Chesson († 1999), and was won by later Formula One driver as well as 1968 Rally Monte Carlo winner Vic Elford in a showroom Porsche 911 of the British importer AFN, ahead of Brian Melia in his Ford Lotus Cortina and Tony Fall in a BMC Mini Cooper S. After that inaugural event there were another two test rallycrosses at Lydden, on 11 March and 29 July, before the new World of Sport Rallycross Championship for the ABC TV viewers started with round one on 23 September, to be followed by round two on 7 October. The series was run over a total of six rounds (three at Lydden and three at Croft) and was eventually won by Englishman Tony Chappell (Ford Escort TwinCam), who became the first ever British Rallycross champion after winning the final round of the new series on 6 April 1968 at Lydden. Since 1973, Lydden Circuit has seen rounds of Embassy/ERA European Rallycross Championships and FIA European Championships for Rallycross Drivers, the first 23 (till 1996) all organised by the Thames Estuary Automobile Club (TEAC). To this day, Lydden, as the so-called "Home of Rallycross", still holds British Rallycross Championship racing, especially with its popular Easter Monday meeting. Rallycross is mainly popular in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Great Britain. An inexpensive, entry level type of rallycross is the Swedish folkrace or its Norwegian counterpart, the so-called bilcross. The folkrace is most popular in Finland where it was founded back in late 60's. In Europe, rallycross can also refer to racing 1:8 scale off-road radio-controlled buggies.
Introduction: Politics turned over How Harper got what he’s always wanted, Layton took centre stage, and Ignatieff and Duceppe were done in Chapter 1: The first mistake The seeds of Michael Ignatieff’s troubles were planted last fall, and by the Liberals themselves Chapter 2: Not feeling the love Harper was tightly controlled, Ignatieff loose and freewheeling. Layton? Just a guy most Canadians would rather have a beer with Chapter 3: The velocity of indignation The PM had problems: the auditor general kerfuffle, Bruce Carson, the folks kicked out of rallies. The Liberals railed, but the NDP stepped up. Chapter 4: Turning up the heat The leaders clashed predictably in the TV debates, but the election would soon turn unexpectedly on two key speeches: one by Ignatieff, one by Duceppe Chapter 5: The orange wave rises Years of quiet preparation in Quebec begin paying off for the NDP—Layton’s rivals wake up to a new reality Chapter 6: The morning after, the years ahead What do Harper and Layton have in common? An understanding of what works in Canadian politics in the Twitter age—patience and determination. To read the entire article now, pick up the latest issue of Maclean’s at your favourite newsstand. ***** Introduction: Politics turned over “What a great night! Quelle belle soirée!” By now Stephen Harper is getting used to making these speeches on the floor of the Telus Convention Centre in Calgary. This was his fourth since 2004, his third as Prime Minister-elect since 2006. Canadians have been watching this man for nearly a decade: his cadences, his body language, his preferred topics and the terms he uses to discuss them are familiar. It’s just everything else that has changed. “Friends, I have to say it,” the modern architect of Conservatism as a durable governing force in Canada said. “A strong, stable, national, majority Conservative government.” It was what he had asked for, in those words, on every day of this astonishing campaign. By now it was an inside joke. But it was also a totem of victory, because for the first time Stephen Harper had won clear command of a Parliament within which no coalition could block or replace him. He is the first party leader in the history of the country to fall short of that goal three times and then succeed. By now the victims of his resilience are stacked outside like cordwood, and it may at last be getting hard for them to hang onto their easy dismissive smirks. He thanked the voters of Calgary Southwest for returning him—and “for giving me the honour of following in the footsteps of Preston Manning,” a bit of family detail that has been true since he first represented the riding in 2002, but which he had not mentioned in front of a national audience until this night. He spoke of his love for his children, Ben and Rachel, and for his tearful wife, Laureen. He thanked the voters, who “chose hope, unity of purpose and a strong Canada.” Hang on. Unity of purpose? Six voters in 10 did not vote for his party. Those who voted against him were so desperate for an alternative that more than a million of them abandoned once-sturdy vessels, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada, in favour of a bicyclists’ party led by a former city councillor with a bum hip. Jack Layton is the evening’s second great story, in some ways fresher: a career politician with a Ph.D. whose opponents, and some of his allies, wrote him off for years as a naïf or a citified bumpkin. Harper himself would say in private that he had urged Layton to take a chance from time to time, but then the Conservative leader would always shrug: “You can’t teach an elephant to dance.” That’s okay. Elephants don’t have to dance. They just walk right over things. Every election comes down to a choice between “change” and “more of the same.” But in a parliamentary system we get to have both. Harper set the terms for this election two years ago. His agenda was never secret. He would propose stability and warn against risk. He knew the choice would split the electorate, and hoped only for the larger part. In the end, those Canadians who wanted stability have it. Only seven incumbent Conservatives were defeated on Monday night, compared to 82 incumbents from other parties. The Conservative vote keeps growing, but most of the voters who supported one of Harper’s candidates were doing so for the fourth time. As they head back to the drawing board, Harper’s opponents should start by admitting to themselves the extraordinary buyer satisfaction Harper provides his supporters. He is becoming what he has hoped Conservatism could become in this country: a familiar habit. But even the voters who rejected Harper’s stability proved him right by preferring risk—and taking a big one. A vote for the Bloc Québécois has, for 20 years, been a respectable way to wave the home flag and choose, in other important ways, not to play with others. A vote for the Bloc combined pride and safety, and why would anyone ever give up a blanket like that? Unless they started hoping for more. Quebecers did. Monday’s awesome swing in that province is many things, but among them it is an expression of hope. So Jack Layton became the first anglophone leader of a national party to win in Quebec when a francophone was on offer. Half of his caucus will now come from Quebec, so he will need to put more French into his speeches than he did in accepting the people’s verdict on election night. He’ll adjust. Sixty-four per cent of the NDP vote on Monday came from outside Quebec. Layton has MPs from eight provinces. In Saskatchewan, where a trick of the electoral system locked him out, his party won nearly a third of the vote. He is a truly national Opposition leader, facing a truly national Prime Minister, and that alone is good for the country. So it was not mawkish but accurate of the Prime Minister to say Canadians “chose hope” on Monday, even if they chose such starkly different kinds of hope. Even if the results throw some into despair. But we’ll get to the Liberals in a minute. “Because Canadians chose hope, we can now begin to come together again,” Harper said. “For our part, we are intensely aware that we are, and we must be, the government of all Canadians, including those who did not vote for us.” This will be the test of the next three or four years in this country. Will Canadians judge that Harper has listened to them? Will he take his majority mandate, as his opponents always warned he would, and take such radical action that Canadians feel betrayed? Or do his opponents now have something worse to fear: the possibility that more Harper will mean more support for Harper, as has been the case now for four elections in a row? The Prime Minister offered a few hints. “Friends, hear me on this. All those lessons of the past few years—holding to our principles, but also of listening, of caring, of adapting—those lessons that have come with a minority government, we must continue to practise as a majority government.” So he plans, or says he plans, to stay the course. “Our first job will be to implement what we set out in our budget.” The budget the other parties, including Layton’s, said they would oppose, a budget they cannot now block. The months ahead will show both the extent and the limits of Layton’s new clout. So the Harpers move back to 24 Sussex, but little of what lies ahead is familiar. The story of how we got here is one of the most amazing stories in the annals of Canadian politics. Once again, Maclean’s has deployed all the resources at our disposal to tell that story. A team of Maclean’s reporters, led by myself, John Geddes and Aaron Wherry, travelled the country to cover the 2011 campaign. We interviewed key members of every leader’s campaign staff, often on the understanding that nothing we were told would be revealed until after Canadians had voted. Here is that story. In part it is the tale of an election strategy decided by Harper himself in the days after the 2008 coalition crisis nearly took his job away. He announced his plan as soon as he concocted it—a clear choice between a majority and a reincarnated coalition—in the first week of 2009, in an interview with the publisher of this magazine. Michael Ignatieff had two years to prepare but he never found a persuasive answer. This is also the story of a party, the NDP, that has courted French-speaking voters in Quebec for literally half a century, through good days and bad, and of a leader who has been written off as an also-ran for every one of the four elections in which he improved his party’s standing. But the story has to begin with Michael Ignatieff. To understand anything else in this election, we have to understand how he became the leader of a once-great party, and how Stephen Harper took him apart, piece by piece. Chapter 1: The first mistake Michael Ignatieff’s gaze drifted upward, past the ceiling of the foyer of the House of Commons and, as it seemed, toward heaven. It was Friday, March 25. The House of Commons had just voted, by 165 votes to 145, in support of this Liberal motion: “That the House agrees with the finding of the standing committee on procedure and House affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the government.” Tomorrow, an election campaign would begin. Now, the Liberal leader had come out of the Commons chamber into the grandly decorated foyer, backed by a handful of his most telegenic MPs and faced by a pack of reporters and cameras. The press wanted to know whether he would conspire with the other opposition parties to take power from Stephen Harper after an election, just as Stéphane Dion had tried to do in 2008. Ignatieff was trying to explain that if he had his wish, there wouldn’t even be any other opposition parties. He just wanted a fair fight between his Liberals and Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. His attempts to make this argument were not going well. “Let me make it more clear: if you vote for the NDP, if you vote for the Greens, if you vote for the Bloc, you’ll get more of this,” he said, tilting his head back toward the Commons chamber, where the Harper government had so vexed him for two years now. “And Canadians are saying, ‘Enough.’ I can’t be clearer than that.” Tonda MacCharles, who writes for the Toronto Star and does not like vague answers, cut in. “No, you’re not clear at all. You’re not clear at all, sir, actually. Do you believe that a coalition is a legitimate parliamentary option that you will pursue?” Ignatieff smiled wanly. Go talk to the Governor General if you want to debate “abstract constitutional principles,” he said. His formidable eyebrows arched up, then pressed downward and together, like twin dolphins at yoga class. He rambled on a bit more. There is a 2004 novel by the Toronto journalist and author Patricia Pearson called Playing House. Its main character runs into the dashing Harvard academic and essayist Michael Ignatieff at an Italian restaurant in New York City. She’s briefly smitten. “He was, I mused, everything that I’d ever dreamed suitable,” Pearson’s narrator says. “Accomplished, bold, socially gracious, a touch mischievous, emotionally pent-up in a wonderfully provocative way. One could sense real excitement within that crumpet. I was half in love with him by the time he’d analyzed the Middle East and the tartufo had arrived.” But that was seven years ago, in the pages of a novel. This was right now under TV lights. The leader of the oldest political party in Canada looked as though he might turn to salt. Finally, Terry Milewski from the CBC put Ignatieff out of his misery and into some deeper misery. “Surely this coalition monkey is going to stay on your back every day of the campaign,” the veteran broadcaster scolded him. “Because people will assume that if you don’t rule it out, that’s because you’ve got something to hide.” Ignatieff’s forehead was shiny as he started to perspire. “You’re buying the Conservative line here. There’s nothing to hide. I am saying as clearly as I can to the Canadian people, looking them straight in the eye”—here he focused his gaze into the TV camera directly in front of him, so it would seem to a television viewer that Ignatieff really was looking him in the eye—“if you want to replace the Harper government, you’ve got to vote Liberal. It can’t be clearer than that.” With that, Ignatieff wheeled 90 degrees and fled to the safety of a nearby corridor, his telegenic MPs marching briskly in his wake. The beginning of the election was still a day away. The Liberal leader was already fighting ghosts. He couldn’t get a clear shot at Harper because he had to wrestle with something he might someday do, or not do, depending. It was like struggling in molasses. A week later, with the campaign under way, a senior Liberal campaign strategist sat in a leather chair in a Toronto office tower and looked back on that scrum as the first sign of trouble in the Liberal campaign. “I thought it was a terrible day,” the strategist said. “I thought he didn’t answer the question right on the coalition thing—a total Ottawa issue which I hadn’t heard a single person outside of Ottawa talk about. But anyway, I understand why it is what it is. “But I thought he looked bad; he looked evasive answering the question. He was sweaty. I don’t think he was dressed properly. Other than that, I thought it was a terrific day.” The strategist paused to consider whether he had laid on the sarcasm so thickly that his meaning might be obscured. He decided clarity would be best: “I thought it was just a shitty day.” Oh, well. The campaign hadn’t even started yet. Five weeks of rallies and speeches lay ahead. Ignatieff had trained for this for a year. No opposition party leader could choose, alone, the moment a campaign began. But right now, hard on the heels of a deeply unimpressive Conservative budget, was the moment the Liberals had used for months as the basis of their election planning. Ignatieff had the best staff, the best equipment, the most up-to-date software, the most motivated troops any Liberal leader had brought to a fight in at least a decade. But there was something big he did not know, or maybe he knew it in his heart but still hoped it wasn’t true. The something big was this: this campaign had started long ago. Its central target was Ignatieff himself. He and his party had already taken hits so severe that he could not now recover. Not a politician Most stories about Michael Ignatieff’s return to Canada after many years abroad begin with three Liberal activists—Ian Davey, Alf Apps and Dan Brock—visiting him at Harvard University in early 2005. But the story really begins a little earlier, in December 2004, when Ignatieff was in Toronto to deliver a dinner lecture. Apps invited him to the boardroom at his law firm, Fasken Martineau, with Brock, another Fasken lawyer, and a few other Liberals. Ignatieff showed up with his wife, Zsuzsanna Zsohar. Ignatieff said he felt his roots were with the Liberals. His hosts said the party, after only a year of Paul Martin, needed fresh leadership. The meeting ended with Ignatieff saying he was flattered and he had been thinking about Canadian politics for years—especially since the close call of the 1995 referendum. What was the selling proposition for a guy like this? “Not a politician,” Brock said this spring. “Not part of the internal struggles in the party in the previous decade. In a curious way, a liability of being away, we thought, could be converted to a positive: somebody coming in with a different perspective. Fluently bilingual. Notwithstanding having been away, had a good understanding of the country. And was a risk-taker. Bold and provocative.” His admirers wrangled an invitation for Ignatieff to deliver a keynote speech at the national Liberal convention in early 2005. Peter C. Newman, the patriarch of Canadian political journalism, wrote a week earlier in the National Post to explain what it all meant. Here was a leader born and bred, Newman wrote, for a party that has often preferred to “pluck from obscurity an untried but inspiring outsider.” King! Pearson! Trudeau! All had come from outside to shake up the party. And now this crumpet. “Even those untutored Liberal apparatchiks who think charisma is a brand of French perfume will recognize his magnetism,” Newman wrote. At the convention, Ignatieff fumbled for a bit on the podium after realizing he had lost a page of his prepared text, then delivered a very loose-fitting vision of Liberalism built on national unity, Canadian sovereignty and social justice. Less than a year later, he was a candidate for the party’s leadership after Paul Martin managed to lose to Stephen Harper. The timing wasn’t ideal. “None of us thought it was a good idea for him to be in the leadership race after his first election,” Brock told Maclean’s. But you play the hand you’re dealt. Ignatieff’s CV made him the 2006 leadership campaign’s front-runner. His fondness for freewheeling conversation made him an easy target. He said he wasn’t losing sleep over the war that erupted that summer between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, then overcompensated by calling the Israeli bombing of Qana “a war crime.” “In the high relief of media reporting and then the dynamic of a leadership race, it was incendiary,” Brock said. “So did it need fixing? Listen, you can’t succeed in politics if you have a propensity to light yourself on fire.” Ignatieff set about learning how to douse flames, and then to avoid igniting them. After he lost the December 2006 leadership vote to Stéphane Dion, he worked methodically on rehabilitating his image. He wrote a long article for the New York Times Magazine recanting his support for the Iraq war. He visited Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto to try to correct the impression he was anti-Israel. He muzzled his earlier support for constitutional reform as a remedy to Quebec nationalism. His admirers worried he might become too bland. “So many people in the party said, after the first leadership race, ‘He needs to become a better politician. He needs to be better at politics,’ ” Brock said. “And our sense was, that’s a mistake. The moment he becomes a good politician, he loses the sense of being kind of over politics.” Late in 2008, Dion lost the next federal election badly. Ignatieff announced again for the Liberal leadership. But then, weeks after the election, the Harper government delivered a fall economic update that threatened to end public funding for political parties; the great coalition crisis of 2008 was on. Dion and Jack Layton organized an alternative government with Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe’s support. Ignatieff was a reluctant conscript—the last to sign the letter to the governor general that every opposition MP signed, as if his place on the document made any difference. The coalition effort collapsed. Dion resigned. Ignatieff’s opponents in the leadership race threw in the towel. The dejected Liberals handed him the leadership months before any formal mechanism could ratify the coronation. Still a rookie in federal politics, Ignatieff had become the third Liberal leader, after Bill Graham and Dion, in three years. The party had never known such frequent turnover at the top. Pierre Trudeau led it right through the ’70s, Jean Chrétien for all of the ’90s. You used to be able to build your life and career around that party. Now the whole organization was buffeted and exhausted by wave after wave of defeat and failed renewal. A few hawks around Ignatieff, including Ian Davey, wanted to provoke an election immediately and take the idea for a coalition into an election in early 2009. It would split the country, but Ignatieff and Layton might take the upper hand. Party veterans, including the aging Sen. David Smith, told Ignatieff the party was in no shape for such a fight. Ignatieff, unready for the top job and unsure of himself, decided he needed a pause. He extricated himself from the coalition with Layton by supporting Harper’s January 2009 budget. But he tried to look tough by demanding updates every four months on the budget’s progress. “We’re putting Stephen Harper on probation,” he told the cameras. What he had done was give Harper an excuse to spend millions bragging that he was spending billions. “You make a deal that says every three months they’re going to issue a report on how they’re doing on the recovery plan,” Brock said. “And every three months they do a major media show to talk about all the great things they’re doing. So I don’t know where that idea came from, but it was a colossally stupid one. We had let the PM off the hook.” Stephen Harper on the rebound was a dangerous character. On May 13, 2009, the Conservatives launched a multi-million-dollar ad campaign against the new Liberal leader. The long-time expat bon vivant was “just visiting,” the ads warned. “He didn’t come back for you.” The architect of the campaign was Patrick Muttart, a soft-spoken political consultant whose fastidious market research and flair for communication made much of the difference between Harper’s 2004 defeat and his 2006 victory. Muttart had the party register a website in Montenegro so its URL could be www.ignatieff.me, reinforcing the notion that the Liberal was “just in it for me.” They stuffed it full of embarrassing old quotes. Ads ran for weeks on television and radio. “I don’t think we really understood how effective it would be if done over a sustained period of time between writ periods,” Brock said. “We thought, ‘Canadians are going to reject this, because this is just over the top. Canadians are going to say, “You shouldn’t be doing this.” ’ And that’s exactly wrong. Canadians aren’t going to say that. They’re too busy living their lives. They pay a little bit of attention to [politics], and if that little bit of attention is dominated by a particular message, effectively delivered and repeated over and over again, it’s going to sink in. And it did.” The ad barrage must have felt like a carpet bombing, but in many ways it was more like a surgical strike. Halfway through the 2011 campaign, a Conservative war room operative sat down in an Ottawa pub to discuss the party’s entire strategy against Ignatieff. “They say that we try to portray Ignatieff in our ads and so on as a weak and flailing professor,” the war room staffer said. “No, that’s how we portrayed Dion. Dion was weak, you know, Dion was ‘not a leader.’ We’ve never said Michael Ignatieff isn’t a leader. We’ve never called him weak. And we’ve never called him a flip-flopper. Even when he changes his mind, we don’t say he’s a flip-flopper. Michael Ignatieff, in our narrative, is a political opportunist who is calculating, who will do and say anything to get elected. “He’s a schemer. When he says one thing and then he changes his mind the next week, it’s not because he’s indecisive and a flip-flopper. It’s because he’s an opportunist who will say different things to different people. I don’t think we’ve even used the phrase, even internally, ‘He’s a malicious human being.’ But that’s kind of the sentiment we’re getting at. With Dion, we were trying to portray him as weak. You can’t trust him to lead us out of the economic recovery because he’s a weak man. With Ignatieff, it’s ‘He’s a bad man,’ right? He’s someone you don’t want your daughter to marry, right?” The Conservative staffer’s laudable effort to specify the precise nature of this sustained assault on the character of a national party leader brought to mind a passage from former British prime minister Tony Blair’s 2010 memoir, A Journey. Blair explains how he did away with a succession of Tory opponents. “So I defined [John] Major as weak; [William] Hague as better at jokes than judgment; [Michael] Howard as an opportunist; [David] Cameron as a flip-flop, not knowing where he wanted to go,” Blair writes. “Expressed like that, these attacks seem flat, rather mundane almost, and not exactly inspiring—but that’s their appeal. Any one of those charges, if it comes to be believed, is actually fatal. Yes, it’s not like calling your opponent a liar, or a fraud, or a villain, or a hypocrite, but the middle-ground-floating voter kind of shrugs their shoulders at those claims. They don’t chime. They’re too over the top, too heavy, and they represent an insult, not an argument. Whereas the lesser charge, because it’s more accurate and precisely because it’s more low-key, can stick. And if it does, that’s that. Because in each case, it means they’re not a good leader. So game over.” ‘It was Bob Rae’s idea’ In September 2009, Ignatieff arrived in Sudbury for the annual Liberal end-of-summer caucus retreat. He was in a fix. He had spent the spring demanding changes to Employment Insurance to make it easier for jobless victims of the recession to get benefits. This was worth fighting an election over, he said. Harper sent emissaries to discuss the notion, but negotiations had come to nothing, and now Ignatieff had to decide what to do about it. At this sort of event, the leader always gives an opening speech to his assembled MPs and senators. “In June, we set out four tests for Stephen Harper,” Ignatieff said. “Mr. Harper, you’ve failed all four. After four years of drift, four years of denial, four years of division, four years of discord”—here he stared right into the camera facing him—“Mr. Harper, your time is up.” The caucus applauded. “Give ’im the boot!” a voice from the crowd said. Ignatieff did a nervous little fist-pump thing to demonstrate a simulacrum of enthusiasm. Ignatieff’s staff was quietly appalled. “None of us thought that was a good idea. We didn’t have the tools to bring the government down on our own,” Brock said. Then whose idea was this? “Bob Rae’s.” A couple of days before the speech, Ignatieff convened senior members of caucus to discuss the meeting. “Bob’s exact line was, ‘You can’t be half-pregnant. Either we’re taking these guys on or we’re not. And if we’re taking them on, say so.’ Seems sensible, except it completely ruins your room to manoeuvre.” As a reward for acting bold, Ignatieff failed to defeat Harper in the Commons. Jack Layton and the NDP supported the Conservatives. For trying to force an election, the Liberals sank in the polls while the Conservatives soared. “People were getting disheartened. The poll numbers were discouraging,” Brock said. “And Ignatieff personally just completely lost his confidence. Completely lost his confidence.” Four days before Halloween 2009, minutes before 5 p.m., rumours started flying around Ottawa that Ignatieff had fired his chief of staff, Ian Davey, his communications director, Jill Fairbrother, and Brock, his principal secretary. Peter Donolo, who had served as Jean Chrétien’s spokesman through most of the 1990s, was the new chief of staff. It was a desperation move. According to one rumour, the party of Chrétien and Trudeau had sunk to 18 per cent in internal overnight polls. Patricia Sorbara, a long-time Ontario Liberal organizer, was reading about Donolo’s appointment online when her phone rang. It was Donolo. “Are you calling to talk about how crazy you are?” she asked him. “No,” Donolo said, “to talk about how crazy you’d be to come with me.” The two had dinner at Terroni, an Italian restaurant in downtown Toronto. Neither knew Ignatieff well. Neither had worked hard for the national party for more than a decade. But lifelong partisans hear calls of duty where others might hear only cries of despair. Donolo would be the ideas man. Sorbara would bring discipline and order. Most of the bright young staffers Davey had hired would stay. The party they were going to help Ignatieff run was in lousy shape. It needed fresh policy and a campaign-ready leader, but most of all it needed an organization on the ground. Donolo and Sorbara visited meetings of the party’s provincial wings, where they spotted riding presidents who’d held the same jobs 30 years earlier. They’d stepped back into their old roles because there was nobody else around to do them. It was hardly a sign of strength. A thinkers’ conference in Montreal helped refresh the party’s storehouse of ideas. A summer-long bus tour by Ignatieff was obviously designed to get him used to the rigours of campaigning. The tour’s less obvious purpose was to give Liberals on the ground a reason to pick up their game. “So where we had a candidate, for example, in London West, we would call the candidate and call that person’s team and say: ‘Okay, you’ve got to build us a 400-person summer event,’” a senior Liberal organizer said. “And if they could do it, you could get a sense that they were ready.” For every stop on Ignatieff’s bus tour, teams of local Liberals had to have a venue and a crowd waiting. They were practising for a campaign, along with Ignatieff. The goal: “Get the leader ready, but at the same time get the ground realizing that we’re in a fight,” the organizer said. At one stop on the endless and encouraging Ignatieff bus tour, Sorbara turned to Donolo and said, “The Liberal party is not dead. The Liberal party was just having a little nap, and we’ve managed to wake it up.” When Ignatieff hired them, Donolo and Sorbara had asked for a year to get ready for the next election. By the fall of 2010, the year was up. Liberals started to tell one another it would soon be time for an election, and then, being Liberals, they began to tell reporters. Late last fall, La Presse ran a column by Vincent Marissal in which he quoted senior Liberals who said they didn’t intend to let the next Harper budget pass a confidence vote if they could help it. The Conservatives took Marissal’s column as gospel, and pounced. “If the Conservative party wins again, I think the single biggest strategic mistake the Liberal party made was telegraphing their intentions to bring down the government in the fall of 2010,” a senior Harper strategist said. “This basically gave the Conservative party and the operatives and the people who control the money licence to do two things: one, delay the budget as long as possible; and two, start an attack-ad campaign as early as possible and run it as long as possible.” Jim Flaherty had delivered the 2009 budget on Jan. 27, a not unusual time. This year he waited and waited before finally admitting he would deliver one on March 23. The Conservatives filled the space with by far the longest and heaviest anti-Ignatieff advertising barrage they had ever run. Earlier campaigns had run a few weeks. “This one went on for part of January, all of February and almost all of March,” the Harper strategist said. “And the Grits actually did that to themselves.” Of course, whenever the Conservatives started a new ad barrage, the Liberals debated about how to respond. Bob Richardson, a Toronto lobbyist who would be in charge of campaign advertising, figured the campaign was on as soon as the Conservatives fired a shot, and was eager to fight back. Donolo had the same instinct. Gordon Ashworth was Ignatieff’s campaign manager, a role he had played every time Jean Chrétien ran for prime minister. He was more worried than his younger colleagues about the cost of an ad war before an election. Down in the polls and saddled with a leader still learning the craft, the Liberals were not an effective fundraising organization. Ashworth also insisted the Conservative ads wouldn’t do lasting damage, although that attitude may have been influenced by the cost of a real fight back, even if Ashworth had wanted one. “It was a fight that we simply could not win,” a participant in those debates said, “because [the Conservatives] had more resources than we did.” In the end, the Liberals and NDP finally produced some ads to counter the Conservative barrage. But only the Conservatives had the resources, thanks to effective fundraising, to fund more than a token display. In the weeks before the budget, a Liberal strategist said, the Conservatives bought airtime to run 1,600 ads. “We had 131, and the NDP had, like, 25 or something,” the Liberal said. “It was a massacre.”
By Andy Worthington In disturbing reports from the US, it appears that Private First Class Bradley Manning, the former intelligence analyst accused of leaking the Afghan and Iraqi war logs, the US diplomatic cables and the “Collateral Damage” video, which have dominated headlines globally since WikiLeaks began making them available in April this year, is being held in conditions that bear a marked and chilling resemblance to the conditions in which a handful of US citizens and residents were held as “enemy combatants” under the Bush administration. Manning, whose 23rd birthday was on Friday, has been held in solitary confinement for seven months since he was seized in Kuwait, where he was held for the first two months prior to his transfer to a military prison in Quantico, Virginia. According to David House, a computer researcher from Boston who visits him twice a month, his “prolonged confinement in a solitary holding cell … is unquestionably taking its toll on his intellect.” House explained how Manning “was no longer the characteristically brilliant man he had been, despite efforts to keep him intellectually engaged.” However, what was particularly revealing about House’s comments was his denial of the authorities’ statement that Manning “was being kept in solitary for his own good,” based on a claim that he was initially held on suicide watch. As he explained, “I initially believed that his time in solitary confinement was a decision made in the interests of his safety. As time passed and his suicide watch was lifted, to no effect, it became clear that his time in solitary — and his lack of a pillow, sheets, the freedom to exercise, or the ability to view televised current events — were enacted as a means of punishment rather than a means of safety.” The key elements here are the elements of profound isolation and suffering identified by House — not just the solitary confinement, with no other human being for company, but also the refusal to allow Manning to have a pillow, sheets, or any access to the outside world through the reporting of current affairs. It is these factors that mark out his conditions of detention as sharing some key elements with the conditions endured by the three “enemy combatants” held on the US mainland under the Bush administration — the US citizens Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, and the US legal resident Ali al-Marri. Hamdi, initally held at Guantanamo, was kept in isolation from May 2002 until he won a case before the Supreme Court on June 28, 2004, leading to his release in Saudi Arabia three months later. Padilla, held from May 2002 until he was transferred into federal custody on January 3, 2006 (and subsequently tried and convicted in August 2007, and given a sentence of 17 years and four months in January 2008 for conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism), was held for 21 months in total isolation. Al-Marri, who was initially arrested in December 2001, was held alone for five years and eight months (including 16 months in total solitary confinement) before President Obama moved him into the federal court system in February 2009, leading to a trial and an eight-year sentence after a plea deal eight months later. As I explained in an article two years ago: As was recently revealed through the disclosure of military documents following a Freedom of Information request (PDF), al-Marri, along with two American citizens also held as “enemy combatants” — Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla — was subjected to the same “Standard Operating Procedure” that was applied to prisoners at Guantánamo during its most brutal phase, from mid-2002 to mid-2004. This involved the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including prolonged isolation, painful stress positions, exposure to extreme temperature, sleep deprivation, extreme sensory deprivation, and threats of violence and death. Although the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo was disturbingly harsh, it can be argued — with some confidence, I believe — that the treatment of al-Marri, Hamdi and Padilla was worse than that endured by the majority of the Guantánamo prisoners, as all three suffered in total isolation … Held alone in cellblocks that were otherwise unoccupied, al-Marri, Hamdi and Padilla had to survive without even the small comforts available to most of the Guantánamo prisoners, who, when not held in isolation as a punishment or as a prelude to interrogation, could at least communicate with the prisoners in the cells adjacent to them, and could take advantage of what lawyer Clive Stafford Smith has called the “incredible prisoner bush telegraph,” through which information is conveyed around the prison. In the case of Hamdi (who was picked up in Afghanistan in November 2001 and initially held in Guantánamo until it was discovered that, although he had lived in Saudi Arabia since he was a child, he was born in Baton Rouge and was an American citizen), the effects of this near-total isolation were already apparent in June 2002, just a month after his transfer from Guantánamo. As one of the officers responsible for him explained in an email to his superiors, “with no potential end in sight and no encouraging news and isolated from his countrymen, I can understand how he feels … I will continue to do what I can to help this individual maintain his sanity, but in my opinion we’re working with borrowed time.” In the case of Jose Padilla, who was held in strict solitary confinement for 21 months, the effects of his isolation were so intense that it has been reported that he literally lost his mind (his warders described him as “so docile and inactive that he could be mistaken for ‘a piece of furniture’”) [Further details of Padilla's harrowing mental collapse can be found here]. Al-Marri’s experience was similar. As his lawyers explained in May [2008], in court documents protesting his treatment (PDF), for the 16 months that he was held incommunicado, “He was denied any contact with the world outside, including his family, his lawyers, and the Red Cross. All requests to see, speak to, or communicate with Mr. al-Marri were ignored or refused. Mr. al-Marri’s only regular human contact during that period was with government officials during interrogation sessions, or with guards when they delivered trays of food through a slot in his cell door, escorted him to the shower, or took him to a concrete cage for ‘recreation.’ The guards had duct tape over their name badges and did not speak to Mr. al-Marri except to give him orders.” There is, at present, no suggestion that Bradley Manning has been subjected to a wide range of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but prolonged isolation is confirmed, and depriving him of a pillow, sheets, or any access to the outside world through the reporting of current affairs are all elements of discomfort and further isolation that were key to the program of belittling and punishing “enemy combatants,” and, crucially, “softening them up” or “breaking” them for interrogation. It is, sadly, all too easy to imagine that other techniques designed to disorientate Manning and to further erode his will — involving elements of sleep deprivation, threats and sensory deprivation — could also be applied, or are, perhaps, already being apllied, especially if, as has been suggested by the Independent, the authorities are hoping to cut a plea deal with him, reducing a 52-year sentence in exchange for a confession that Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, whom the US is seeking to extradite to the US, was not just a passive recipient of the information leaked by Manning, but was instead a conspirator. Assange, who was released on bail in the UK on Thursday, after being imprisoned for nine days following an extradition request from Sweden relating to rape charges, denies knowing Manning at all. After his release from Wandsworth prison, he said, “I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press. WikiLeaks technology [was] designed from the very beginning to make sure that we never know the identities or names of people submitting us material.” In contrast, however, as the Independent explained, “Adrian Lamo, a former hacker who had been in contact with Pte. Manning and eventually turned him in to the government, has told the FBI that Mr. Assange had given the young soldier an encrypted internet conferencing service as he was downloading government files and a dedicated server for uploading them to WikiLeaks. Mr. Lamo claims that Pte. Manning had ‘bragged’ about this to him. In one email, now in the possession of the Justice Department, the soldier allegedly wrote: ‘I can’t believe what I’m confessing to you … I’m a source, not quite a volunteer, I mean, I’m a high-profile source … and I’ve developed a relationship with Assange.’” As this story continues to develop, further clues about the kinds of pressure exerted on Manning can be gleaned from David House’s description of the lengths to which the authorities are going to harass those who know Manning. House told the Guardian that “many people were reluctant to talk about Manning’s condition because of government harassment, including surveillance, warrantless computer seizures, and even bribes,” stating, “This has had such an intimidating effect that many are afraid to speak out on his behalf” The Guardian added, “Some friends report being followed extensively. Another computer expert said the army offered him cash to — in his words — ‘infiltrate’ the WikiLeaks website.” He said, “I turned them down. I don’t want anything to do with this cloak and dagger stuff.” House also explained how, on November 3, he “found customs agents waiting for him when he and his girlfriend returned to the US after a short holiday in Mexico. His bags were searched and two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials said they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight. The men seized all his electronic items and he was told to hand over all passwords and encryption keys — which he refused. The items have yet to be returned.” In conclusion, then, anyone concerned with justice needs to keep a close eye on Bradley Manning’s case, not just because any pressure exerted on Manning to implicate Julian Assange in his decision to leak classified US documents would have a disastrous impact on freedom of speech, and would, possibly, pave the way for an unprecedented assault on the freedom of the Internet, where alternative voices to the mainstream are needed more than ever, but also because of the suspicion that, in exerting pressure on Manning, the Obama administration has crossed a line and is drawing inspiration from the discredited — if not thoroughly repudiated — practices of the Bush administration. Note: Anyone interested in supporting Bradley Manning — and contributing to his legal fund — should visit the website of the Bradley Manning Support Network. Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon.
On The Appalachian Trail, Combat Veterans Learn To Let Things Go Enlarge this image Courtesy of Appalachian Trail Conservancy Courtesy of Appalachian Trail Conservancy World War II veteran Earl Shaffer is believed to be the first American to walk the Appalachian Trail in one season, and his diary details the 124-day south-to-north trek. Back in 1948 Shaffer said he wanted to "walk the Army out of his system." Some newer war veterans have the same idea, and NPR tagged along as they finished the 2,100-mile trek. Enlarge this image Quil Lawrence/NPR Quil Lawrence/NPR Marine Corps veteran Sean Gobin stands at the edge of the plateau on Mount Katahdin in Maine. After three combat deployments he decided to hike the 2,100-mile Appalachian Trail as a way to transition to civilian life. The healing effects of the six-month journey inspired him to start a nonprofit, Warrior Expeditions, which sends vets on long distance wilderness trips across the country. Enlarge this image Quil Lawrence/NPR Quil Lawrence/NPR A few of the hikers sleep-in past dawn at the base of Mount Katahdin, where the trail ends. "My deployments were tough, but this is tough on so many other levels," says Marine Corps veteran Daniel Dean, shown here curled up in his blue sleeping bag. "Especially in you don't have to do it. If you walked away at any point, there's gonna be no repercussion except for on yourself." Enlarge this image Quil Lawrence/NPR Quil Lawrence/NPR Dean climbs over a pink granite boulder on his way up Mount Katahdin. The trail stretches from Georgia to Maine, and usually takes about six months to complete. Enlarge this image Quil Lawerence/NPR Quil Lawerence/NPR (Left) Cody Yates did 20 years in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Before he was even formally retired this spring he started hiking the Appalachian Trail, and he says the trip has made a gradual re-entry to civilian life. "I've had a few friends who've died over in Afghanistan. You'll never completely get over that," Yates says. "You'll be hiking along and all of a sudden your mind just goes off ... whether you want to or not, your mind says, OK, we're going to work through that issue." (Right) Joshua Bridger deployed twice to Iraq and wants the outdoors to be a big part of his life going forward. "My body's tired, but my mind is already thinking about the next adventure," he says. Enlarge this image Quil Lawrence/NPR Quil Lawrence/NPR Dean (left) and Gobin hike up the last few miles of the trail on Mount Katahdin in Maine. The Warrior Hikers are supported by veterans organizations. "Meeting all of these other veterans and communities along the way that opened up their homes to us during the hike, that framed my thinking that not all people are bad, and I don't have to isolate myself," Gobin says. Enlarge this image Quil Lawrence/NPR Quil Lawrence/NPR (From left) Combat veterans Cody Yates, Joshua Bridger, Diana Brown and Daniel Dean at the end of the Appalachian trail, six months after they set out from Springer Mountain in Georgia. Brown, who did four combat deployments with the Air National Guard, says the trail helped her realize what was important and what heavy things she should just stop carrying around. "I just had to let them go," she says. "You know there's no fixing it. You don't have to carry 'em. Let 'em go."
Watch Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump make jokes at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York, Oct. 20. (The Washington Post) NEW YORK — It was supposed to be his opening joke, but it landed with such heavy bitterness that it prompted scattered, uncomfortable laughter. “A special hello to all of you in this room who have known and loved me for many, many years. It's true,” Trump said as he took command of the dais at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner on Thursday evening, wearing a white tie and a black tuxedo coat that he kept tugging at. “The politicians,” he continued. “They've had me to their homes, they've introduced me to their children, I've become their best friends in many instances. They've asked for my endorsement, and they always wanted my money. And even called me really a dear, dear friend. But then suddenly, decided when I ran for president as a Republican, that I've always been a no-good, rotten, disgusting scoundrel. And they totally forgot about me.” Over the next 15 minutes, Trump gave a speech that might as well have been a eulogy for his presidential campaign. He joked about the size of his hands and the size of his rival Hillary Clinton's rally crowds, then compared himself to Jesus. He noted that the debate the night before — which ended with him angrily ripping his notes — has been called “the most vicious debate in the history of politics,” prompting him to reflect: “Are we supposed to be proud of that?” He joked about prosecuting Clinton if he ever gets elected president, accused the media of working for her and brought up the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state. [An awkward night of jeers and barbs as Clinton and Trump share yet another stage] “Hillary is so corrupt, she got kicked off the Watergate Commission,” Trump said, citing a false Internet rumor as the crowd turned on him and started to boo, something that simply doesn't happen at lavish charity dinners at the Waldorf Astoria hotel. The face of one of the guests sitting on the stage behind him was suddenly struck with horror. “Hillary believes that it's vital to deceive the people by having one public policy and a totally different policy in private,” Trump said, as the booing intensified. Trump would go on to accuse Clinton of “pretending not to hate Catholics” and mock the Clinton Foundation's work in Haiti. At one point, he wondered aloud if the crowd was booing him or Clinton, to which someone in the crowd answered: “You!” Watch Donald Trump's full remarks at the 71st Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post) Campaigning used to be fun for Trump. He used to bound onto rally stages bursting with energy and a bright-eyed sense of excitement that intensified as the crowd chanted his name and cheered his every word. He used to regularly schedule news conferences, call into news shows and chat with reporters, eager to spar with them. He used to say politically incorrect things and then watch his polling numbers increase. He used to be the winner. One year ago, Trump had nothing to lose. Back then, as the political ruling class realized that Trump was not just a summer fad and had actually sparked a political movement, he found himself being taken seriously. Pundits marveled at his instincts, and he confidently mocked his opponents for lacking his brilliance. He was surrounded by an inexperienced but devoted staff, and he was beholden to no one. But as Trump became his party's presumptive nominee this spring and then its nominee this summer, he suddenly had a lot to lose. He was expected to ask rich people for money, play nice with party leaders and actually win the election. There was greater scrutiny of everything he said and of his colorful past. His exuberance on the campaign trail faded, although it would occasionally reappear when he addressed a particularly rowdy rally or had a particularly good week. His campaign leadership repeatedly changed, filling with operatives who often disagreed with his instincts. In recent days, Trump has tried to explain away his low standing in the polls as a conspiracy carried out by the media, Democrats and Republicans — not a backlash against comments that he made in 2005 about forcing himself on women sexually or the series of women who have since accused him of doing just that. If Trump loses, it will be because he was cheated, Trump has repeatedly told his supporters, urging them to go to polling places in neighborhoods other than their own on Election Day and “watch.” The third presidential debate on Wednesday night in Las Vegas did not help Trump's situation, especially as he called Clinton a “nasty woman” and declined to agree to accept the results of the election. As his staff members tried to explain his comments, Trump flew to Ohio. Ahead of a Thursday afternoon rally north of Columbus, Trump tweeted a vague accusation that Clinton “was inappropriately given the debate questions.” He then did two interviews with local television stations and abruptly walked away from both. A reporter from WCMH, the local NBC affiliate, asked Trump: “Nineteen days out from the election, you’ve been labeled a racist, you’ve been called a sexist, how …” Trump turned and started to walk away, saying: “Thank you very much.” She asked him to respond, and Trump said: “I am the least racist person you’ve ever met.” Trump then continued walking away, ending the interview. During a separate interview with WBNS, a CBS affiliate, Trump was asked to respond to accusations from Karena Virginia, who said at a news conference on Thursday that Trump groped her in 1998. Trump's spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, then jumped in to end the interview, which had already gone on longer than expected. Trump started to walk away and was again asked about the accusation. “I know nothing about that,” Trump said. “No, I know nothing.” Trump then gave a 33-minute speech before about 1,500 people in a county fairgrounds facility, a shorter than usual speech in front of a smaller than usual crowd. “Seriously, the debate last night was amazing — and everybody said I won, including every single online poll, and some had it at 90 and close to 90 percent, so that's pretty cool,” Trump said rather halfheartedly, providing stats that simply are not accurate. Soon after, he was back at the Columbus airport, slowly climbing the steps to his personal jet. He was alone, holding a black umbrella as a light rain fell. There was a heaviness to his ascent. Hours after that, Trump sat on the lavish dais, decorated with pale roses and white orchids, with his arms tightly folded as the glittering elite of New York repeatedly laughed at him. The dinner's chairman, Alfred E. Smith IV, lashed out at Trump in a series of cutting jokes. Clinton went even further, hitting all of the topics that she knows get under Trump's skin. Watch Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton make jokes at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York, Oct. 20. (The Washington Post) “Donald looks at the Statue of Liberty and sees a 'four.' Maybe a 'five' if she loses the torch and tablet and changes her hair,” Clinton said, as the crowd laughed and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani mouthed, “What?” Trump, his arms folded, cocked his head to the side and smirked, as his wife looked elegantly pained. A few minutes later, Clinton said: “Maybe you saw Donald dismantle his prompter the other day, and I get that. They're hard to keep up with, and I'm sure it's even harder when you're translating from the original Russian.” Trump smiled and rocked in his seat, his face looking just slightly redder than usual. Clinton recognized former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, saying it was a shame he didn't speak because “I'm curious to hear what a billionaire has to say,” taking a swipe at Trump's likely exaggerated net worth. And she gave a shout-out to Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, saying: “She's working day and night for Donald and because she's a contractor, he's probably not even going to pay her.” Conway, who has become subtly critical of her boss, quoted Clinton in a tweet and wrote: “A shout out from @HillaryClinton at #AlSmithDinner.” 1 of 18 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Clinton shares stage with Trump at Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner View Photos Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump attend the 71st annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. Caption Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump attend the 71st annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. Oct. 20, 2016 Hillary Clinton, left, attends the 71st annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner, along with Donald Trump, center, and Archbishop of New York His Eminence Cardinal Timothy Dolan, second from left, at the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan, New York. Melina Mara/The Washington Post Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. As Clinton finished speaking, she received a standing ovation from many in the crowd. Trump clapped, then briefly stood, then sat down again, as if unsure what to do. Lip-readers caught him telling her that she did a good job. As the dinner ended, Trump shook hands with some of the others on the stage, while a line of people wanting to talk with Clinton grew. After a few minutes, Trump and his wife made their way toward the exit. Before ducking out, Trump flashed the crowd a thumbs up. Read more: The very bad jokes Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump told at the Al Smith dinner Donald Trump says he will accept results of election — ‘if I win’ Donald Trump says the election is ‘rigged.’ Here’s what his supporters think that means.
By his own account, Bob Parsons, the billionaire founder of GoDaddy, used to spend upwards of a quarter of a million dollars a year on golf clubs. Then he started getting serious about the game. As a sign of his commitment, consider Parsons Xtreme Golf, the high-end equipment company he launched in late 2014. With a free-spending approach reflective of his bankroll, Parsons hired two of Ping’s former top product designers and gave the pair carte blanche. His one commandment: make the best equipment possible, cost be damned. The first PXG sticks hit the market this past summer, fetching $5,000 for a 14-club set. The only high-profile player using them was Ryan Moore, who put a prototype set of PXG O3x irons in his bag before the 2015 Hyundai Tournament of Champions. He’s not alone anymore. The New Year’s ball had barely dropped on 2016 when more PXG news broke: eight more A-list players had signed on to play the clubs, including Zach Johnson, Billy Horschel, Chris Kirk, Rocco Mediate and Charles Howell III. In the wake of that announcement, with the Tour’s West Coast swing kicking into gear, GOLF.com caught up with the frank-talking Parsons to ask about his plunge into the crowded equipment market, what he thinks about the competition, and whether there are other marquee Tour names he’s looking to lure into his camp. NEWSLETTERS: Sign up for latest golf news, tips, insider analysis GOLF.com: What’s this we hear about $250,000 a year on golf clubs? Parsons: Yeah, I’ve been quoted as spending that much, but the year before I started the company it was probably closer to $350,000. People say, how is that possible? Well, if you buy every club and you buy all sorts of different shafts and have the clubs re-shafted in every combination … it adds up. I can tell you what’s good, what isn’t, what is not a gimmick. GOLF.com: Do tell. Parsons: Very little of it is not gimmicky. GOLF.com: So, was there one particular club you were hitting, or one eureka moment when you thought, ‘I can do better than this?’ Parsons: There has never been a eureka moment in my entire life. But I did start to develop ideas about what could be done. I thought, ‘What if you had an unlimited budget and the best minds working for you.’ I’m the type of guy when I have something that makes sense, I go with it. You have two ways of thinking in life. A lot of people think, What if it doesn’t work? I always think, What if it works? GOLF.com: But did you have any particular image of what the clubs would look like? Parsons: When I got together with (former Ping senior product designer) Mike Nicolette, he asked for some parameters. The deal was, we weren’t going to sell anything unless I wanted to hit it. I told him, I want a club that looks like a blade but plays like a cavity-back. I want it to be forgiving. I want it to feel absolutely wonderful. And I want it to go farther. And he said, ‘Is that it?’ GOLF.com: Great feel. Great look. Longer shots. Isn’t that what every club manufacturer tells us? What’s so different about that? Parsons: What’s different is that our clubs actually do what we say they do. Have you talked to anyone who has hit them? GOLF.com: Not yet. Parsons: You haven’t? How is that possible? Brother, you need to get out more. GOLF.com: Well, you’ve hit them. What are they like? Parsons: They do everything I just said. GOLF.com: Give me an example. What sort of shots can you can hit now that you couldn’t hit before? Parsons: One of the differences with me compared to many guys who have much lower indexes (Parsons plays off a 10) is that they will practice in order to hit a particular shot. I go out to see how a club feels. And the feel of these clubs is unbelievable. But you don’t have to believe me. You could talk to Ryan Moore. We shipped him a set with no expectations. We knew at the time they were pretty good. He called us two days later and he said, ‘I just put them in my bag, and they’re not coming out.’ GOLF.com: What did you have to pay him for that? Parsons: We didn’t have to pay him. He played the first couple of tournaments with them without us paying him or any promise to pay him. I decided to sign him after that. GOLF.com: We hear so much about how cutthroat the equipment market it is. What made you think you could compete in it? Parsons: It has all happened much more quickly than I thought it would. All the big companies out there, like the Callaways and Mizunos and TaylorMades and Pings, they’re all really good companies, and they have their market share. For us to go head to head with them would be suicide. The only way we were going to get traction, the only reason that we’re having the success that we’re having, is that we’re doing something that they clearly are not doing. Even if we are wildly successful, they’re not going to miss the sales. We won’t make a difference in their market. GOLF.com: What about the gloomy talk we hear about the industry as a whole? Does that give you any pause? Parsons: I don’t see that side of it because I’m not in that edge of the market. To call us part of the golf market would be like calling Ferrari an automobile company. To give you an example, take the PGA Show (in Orlando this month). We will not be there. Nor will we be represented. Nor will we be visiting. That is not our market. GOLF.com: So, who is the person you see playing your clubs, aside from being someone with deep pockets? Parsons: Deep pockets is a very relative thing. A set of our clubs is $5,000. It used to be that’s what you paid for an IBM personal computer. You’d pay way more than that for a car or a motorcycle. So even though the number sounds pretty high, if the game is that important to someone, they’ll be able to swing a set. And that’s the language we use. To find out if you can ‘swing a set,’ give us a call. GOLF.com: You don’t list the price? Parsons: I just tell people they’re expensive. Unless you expect to be spending some long green, these clubs aren’t for you. GOLF.com: With GoDaddy, you got a lot of attention for some pretty racy advertisements. Can we expect the same for your golf clubs? Parsons: In some ways, maybe, but not quite. With GoDaddy, my marketing was like that because I was selling a low-price commodity. I had to make us different. In this case, we’re already different. One thing you’ll see on our clubs that you won’t see on any others is a warning: our clubs are amazing but expensive. The guys I sell to mostly belong to private clubs, they’re businessmen, they’re a little bit older, and anything they can do to help their game, they’ll do it. Often, the guys we sell to don’t even ask what they cost. GOLF.com: Coming from a company like GoDaddy, do you ever feel like the golf industry takes itself too seriously? Parsons: It’s hard for me to answer that because I never competed in that part of the market. I don’t know what those other companies are up against when they’re trying to sell against each other in the big box stores and rush stuff to market. I would say, though, that it does strike me as a very stressful way to make a living. GOLF.com: You can’t be making a living off your clubs, are you? Parsons: I’ve seen some comments from people saying, ‘This guy doesn’t care if he ever makes money on this.’ Obviously, they don’t know me very well. But I am willing to be patient to let the money come. The first order of business is to do the job right. Are we making money now? No. We just got our inventory in June and started selling, and our sales have been growing by 50 to 60 percent a month. I expect we’ll turn the corner next year. But I’ve never done anything in my life that turned the corner in six months. GOLF.com: Now that you’ve added Zach Johnson, Billy Horschel and some others to your stable, any others you’re looking to sign? Tiger? Rory? Parsons: No. Because they never came to me. I’ll tell you something my dad used to tell me and I repeat it all the time because it’s true. When I started dating, he told me the number one thing to look for in a girlfriend is to find one who likes you. That’s what we had with Ryan Moore. Someone who liked us. And with all the guys we’ve signed it’s the same way. We didn’t go to them. They came to us. Everyone I signed came to me. And everybody I signed I would say I’m paying them less than they would have gotten if they’d stayed with who they were with. GOLF.com: What about golf equipment? How much are you spending on that these days? Parsons: Nowadays, I only hit my own equipment. I can’t stand the other stuff.
Kickstarter was put to excellent use this week when husband/wife producing duo Mickey and Nicole Blaine launched a campaign to fund an hourlong standup special for 32-year-old comedian Quincy Jones, an LA-based standup who was diagnosed with stage 4 mesothelioma in July 2015 and told he would only live for one year. Jones, who moved to Los Angeles from Seattle to pursue a standup career four years ago, wanted to fulfill the dream that most artists hope to achieve before they die: “My biggest fear used to be – before cancer – it’s the same one I have now: Dying without leaving anything. Dying before I have the chance to do the shit I wanna do,” Jones explains in the Kickstarter video (above). “So this would be my opus. This would be my legacy I’m leaving here. That’s it, you know? You just want to feel like you’re giving something to the universe – you wanna feel like you’re leaving something.” Mickey and Nicole launched the Kickstarter campaign on Sunday with a modest goal of $4,985, and just two days later it’s far exceeded its goal, currently at over $18,000 with 24 days left to go. In an update on Facebook, Nicole said that the rest of the donations will go toward making the special, as well as Jones’s final months of life, as high-quality as possible: My hands have been shaking for hours and I can’t stop bursting into tears. How can I thank you all? I’m moved and speechless. Today, while my 32 year old friend, Quincy Jones, was getting chemotherapy at a county hospital in Los Angeles, hundreds of people came together at the exact same time to make his dying wish come true. He was half-conscious when it was happening. In 2 hours of launching the Kickstarter campaign our little goal was met. When Quincy opened his eyes he discovered the love and support. His dream to film a stand-up comedy special just became a reality. Because of you ALL. It’s amazing what can happen when people come together. The comedy community has come together in a way that has made me cry. I don’t know what to say. Thank you is an understatement. We reached $15,000 in 10 hours. Any money that we collect past our goal will go to making the quality of the special more incredible and completed in the fastest time frame so that Quincy can see it. But more importantly, the extra money made then goes to helping Quincy live comfortably now. The laughter that Quincy creates will now be able to live on past his short time here. Here is our Kickstarter page. Please share and spread the love. Head over to Quincy’s Kickstarter page to donate.
Could The Lions Fire Caldwell And Turn The Season Around? For the second year in a row under Martha Ford’s direction, the Lions franchise finds itself in dire straits just a few games into the season. Detroit dropped to 1-3 this past Sunday after falling to a dismal and injury-riddled Bears squad, 17-14. This loss stung in a lot of ways. It broke a six-game winning streak the Lions held over their divisional rival and marked the first time they lost to Chicago in the Jim Caldwell era, which can now safely be qualified as ‘ill-fated.’ It was the third loss of what has been a frustrating and disappointing 2016 campaign and it was a thoroughly embarrassing effort. It came at the hands of a team that was previously winless on the year; a team that had dropped seven of its last eight games, dating back to Week 13 of the 2015 season. Caldwell’s Apathy On The Sidelines Elsewhere in the league, Patriots owner Robert Kraft issued a snide remark about Bills coach Rex Ryan. Kraft was asked about a pregame scuffle involving Buffalo and New England, which Buffalo players allegedly instigated, and said, “I think if you are less-than-disciplined in your personal approach, your team will take on the attitude of the coach.” Kraft was obviously talking about Ryan’s flair for the obnoxious, but he just as easily could have been talking about Caldwell’s apathy. Long known as a stoic sideline personality, Caldwell’s listlessness has spread like cancer among his players. Matthew Stafford (and God bless Matthew Stafford, by the way) seems to be the only one who cares whether the team wins or loses. The evidence was all over the field Sunday afternoon, but it was perhaps best epitomized by the valiant effort of Eric Ebron on a 2nd & 10 run in the third quarter. Ebron halfheartedly tried to block a Bears defender on a Theo Riddick run, before turning his back to the play. Holding his hands akimbo and hanging his head he stood in the middle of the field while his teammate desperately tried to evade a second wave of defenders. This pitiful effort, coupled with the pouting shortly thereafter, has been symbolic of the Lions’ season thus far. Not only have they been ill-prepared and lethargic, but they quickly wilt as soon as something goes wrong. They have been penalized (occasionally incorrectly, but largely appropriately) frequently. Receiver Marvin Jones was quoted after the game as saying that the team was too talented to be playing this poorly. Golden Tate, veteran Pro Bowler whose effort on Sunday was marginal at best, said the team was tired of being ‘the same old Lions.’ This is a narrative the team’s fans are all too familiar with, and it starts with the culture. A culture that Bob Quinn was brought in to replace. Quinn emphasized building a championship culture in Detroit and he took several steps towards achieving that goal during the off-season. Unfortunately, Quinn left intact the biggest contributor to last year’s losing culture – Jim Caldwell. Caldwell’s poor game management, conservative decision-making, inability to adapt, and general lack of emotion have been a recipe for disaster in Detroit the past year and a half. It’s beginning to take a toll on the players. Hell, it’s even bled into the coaching staff, as Teryl Austin has gone from a head coaching candidate and a defensive wunderkind to a stubborn, blathering idiot in a very short amount of time. If The Lions Fire Caldwell, It Will Help The Team Often coaches are fired to preserve a GM’s job, or to satisfy the bloodlust of angry fans, but Caldwell is no sacrificial lamb. He’s proven now, twice, that he is incapable of leading a football team. A coach is somebody a team can rally around, and he is anything but. An emotional and strategic amoeba, Caldwell’s continued employment is a disservice to the players who play for him. At 1-3, the Lions only have a 15% chance of making the playoffs now and that’s before taking into consideration the fact that they face a 3-0 Eagles team coming off a bye week. In all likelihood, the Lions 2016 campaign is over before it even started. It is time to fire Caldwell. There is no point in allowing him to coach another game in Detroit, lest the cancer that is his philosophy spread any further. Last season, the team responded well following the ouster of former offensive coordinator Joe Lombardi by finishing the year 6-2 after the bye week. If Caldwell has to be burned at the stake to light a fire under the team, so be it. Clearly, the Caldwell experiment hasn’t worked in Detroit, so there’s no point in drawing it out any further. Promote a coordinator to interim, and see if they have the chops to lead the team. That way, we can at least see if we need to go outside the team to hire in 2017 (spoiler alert: we do). What’s the worst that can happen if they fire Caldwell? We field yet another abysmal team and log a losing season, securing a high draft pick? Best case scenario, Caldwell’s demise springboards the team into a decent season in a manner reminiscent of the Lombardi firing, and we make a playoff push. Firing Caldwell is not only a win-win, but it’s a no-brainer. The writing on the wall is there; it’s not a matter of if, but when. And, for the Detroit Lions, it can’t come soon enough. Follow @btrossler on Twitter and join the discussion in our Reddit community!
50 Cent is on the cover of this month's Muscle & Fitness and inside, the rapper talks about his work-out regimen, the success of his Starz series Power and more. The subject of 50's music releases was mentioned as well, specifically his album Street King Immortal , which, as of Nov. 2012 was reportedly slated for a February 26, 2013 release. 50 has pursued other ventures, even other albums, since then, but tells M&F that when he finished SKI , he wants it to be his last release. "I want to finish with that project," he tells the magazine . "I don’t want to write another record after that. You know how some artists got to have confirmation that they’re right. I have that confirmation in fucking 35, 40 million [albums] that I already sold." In December of 2015, 50 released The Kanan Tape , and has saw his Chris Brown-assisted single "I'm the Man" go gold this past October. The news of 50's planned retirement comes a week after he alluded to quitting Power over the show's Golden Globe snubs. “I’m off the POWER train, champ is gonna do the show. Go to him for more info, I gotta do something different,” 50 wrote in a since-deleted Instagram post. It would seem his frustrations got the best of him, though the post reading, "I accept my series POWER was not intended to be a signature show for the network but it is the highest rated show. I know my audience very well, I’m done promoting this out side of contractual obligations,” remains up.
Double-Spend Protection: Double-spend protection is the main reason blockchains exist in the first place. In technical terms this means that two valid transactions which spend the same transaction output (UTXO) will conflict and only one can be confirmed in the network. Account based languages (for example Ethereum) that allow for spending the same amount from the same address multiple times, usually have other means to prevent double spending. Multisig: Multisig is a very old concept and can be compared to a shared checkbook with multiple required signers. A multisig transaction allows to enforce arbitrary joint signature rules. COMIT uses 2 out of 2 multisig transactions for which both signers have to sign a transaction to become valid and accepted by the network. Multi-signature transactions are a requirement for Payment Channels. Time-Locks: A timelock is a simple requirement for funds to be locked up until a future date. Blockchains are found to have 2 different kind of time-locks: relative and absolute time-locks. Absolute time-locks will lock a transaction output until a fixed time in the future. Relative time-locks will lock a transaction output relative to the time the transaction was confirmed. Time-locks are a requirement for trustless Payment Channels and relative time-locks are recommended as they allow for indefinitely open Payment Channels. Hash function: To be able to route across multiple blockchains, we need the same hash function to be able available in the smart contracting language of each blockchain. A standard hash function like the SHA256 hash function is usually available and is perfectly suitable for this purpose.
Rabat - The Polisario Front is hoping to drag Morocco into an atmosphere of chaos and crisis through urging separatist students to escalate their struggles against the Moroccan government as well as increase their mobilization across universities in the country. Aziz Allilou is a student at the Higher Institute of Media and Communications (ISIC) and Morocco World News correspondent in Rabat. Rabat – The Polisario Front is hoping to drag Morocco into an atmosphere of chaos and crisis through urging separatist students to escalate their struggles against the Moroccan government as well as increase their mobilization across universities in the country. Along with the Human Rights card it uses against Morocco in the Western Sahara conflicts, the Polisario Front strives to use separatist students to incite chaos in Morocco. According to Hespress, during a recent assembly of the Saharawi Students Union, attended by Polisario leader, Mohamed Abdelaziz, separatist students expressed their intention to “escalate their struggles against the Moroccan government,” in order to defend what they described “their national identity’’ after the Polisario leader urged them to do so. The Saharawi Students Union expressed its loyalty to the Polisario leader, Mohamed Abdelaziz, stressing that it is moving forward to promote the Polisario’s agenda and increase its propaganda against the Moroccan Autonomy Plan. Far from it, the Saharawi Students Union goes as far as to call upon all the separatist students to join the Polisario’s “Popular Army. “The final press statement on the assembly said that the Saharawi graduate students’ call to join the Popular Army has become necessary, in the current context,” the same source noted. As for the undergraduate Saharawi students, the Polisario Front urged them to specialize in the scientific and technical sectors so that they can develop the Polisario Front’s military later after graduating. The document also urged the separatist students to take into consideration violating the ceasefire agreement with Morocco in 1991, and resume the Polisario’s “armed resistance.”
You don’t have to rely on the whims of the I-70 herd. In my six years of living in Colorado, I’ve learned some Colorado truths. Among them: Fall is only barely a season, and one in which you can’t hope to be properly dressed; Bluegrass is not dead; Blinkers are optional; Some people see the I-70 bison herd all the time while others almost never see it. But here’s the thing I discovered just three years ago: You don’t have to rely on the whims of the I-70 herd. You can drive 20 minutes out to Commerce City and for an all-but-guaranteed bison sighting. But first, let’s get this out of the way: The animals we’re talking about — the brown, very large, sort of fluffy creatures that roam North American — are bison, not buffalo. We all say buffalo and it’s really not hurting anyone except Actually Dudes and, maybe, biologists. Nonetheless, they are bison. So, anyway, you can see bison at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. I’d never heard of the place until my last job at the Denver Post familiarized me with Commerce City, and I’ve found that a lot of Denverites don’t know about it either. Here’s the deal. The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge is a 15,988-acre piece of land sandwiched in between Denver and Commerce City. (It’s not technically part of either.) If you’ve ever been to Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, where the Colorado Rapids and Phish play, or the Commerce City Civic Center, you’ve been right there. You drive past both to enter the park. When I say it only takes 20 minutes to get there, I’m not exaggerating. From where I sit now, writing this at 3:30 p.m. in the Golden Triangle neighborhood, it would take me exactly 20 minutes to get there, Google Maps tells me. Obviously, if you’re coming from further south or west, it would take longer, but you get the idea. It would take me almost twice as long to get to Genessee, where the I-70 bison herd is occasionally in view. I say “occasionally” because I am one of those people who never sees the herd. Some people tell me they see it all the time, but in six years of frequent trips west on I-70, I’ve only seen it four times. At Rocky Mountain Arsenal, you will see the bison. I’ve been out there five or six times now and I’ve seen them every time. Sometimes they’re off in the distance, but sometimes they’re really, really close. And because you’re allowed to drive through their enclosure, the closeness feels somewhat wild. When I went with a friend in 2015, one walked right up to the car. And, as a delightful bonus, it started rolling around in the dirt. Fluffalo Ruffalo A post shared by Ashley Dean (@ashleyjilldean) on Nov 15, 2015 at 3:53pm PST There are also trails you can walk around the park — outside the bison enclosure — and you can see them from at least one of those trails, too. And the other trails are worth exploring. On those trails, I’ve gotten up close to deer, a variety of birds I can’t identify, a rather large snake and a ton of prairie dogs. You can fish off at least one of trails that wraps around and bridges a pond. If guided fun is what you’re looking for, Rocky Mountain Arsenal has it. The refuge offers birding walks, guided tours, nature programs and educational programs — all of which you can learn more about here. The refuge is open from sunrise to sunset daily and closed only for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Day. The visitor center is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Wednesdays through Sundays and closed on federal holidays. You can learn more about Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge at fws.gov/refuge/Rocky_Mountain_Arsenal or by calling the visitor center at 303-289-0930.
“And a lot of guys take him for granted,” Sellers said he was told. “You know, you’re not used to seeing — no disrespect — you’re not used to seeing Asian guys that good, that athletic.” Connecticut’s best lockdown defender, the athletic senior Jerome Dyson, was assigned to pressure Lin and deny him the ball. But Dyson underestimated him. By the end of the game, Lin had 30 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assists and 3 steals, and helped keep Harvard close during a 79-73 loss to the 13th-ranked Huskies. Lin drove. He dished. He even dunked — twice. “Get up on him close, because he’s got a great jump shot, but then, if you get up on him too close, he’s going to go by you,” Stanley Robinson, a forward for that UConn team, said he remembered about defending Lin. He added, “He just couldn’t be contained, that’s all.” Photo Lin’s instincts and seasoned patience were best suited for the pick-and-roll. With 10 seconds left on the shot clock, Lin would routinely call for a screen. He would then pace himself while evaluating the situation, and rarely would he choose the wrong napping defender to pick on. “He just somehow sneaks in between the two defenders, splits it, and it’s a four-on-three game,” said Pat Magnarelli, a reserve forward who lived with Lin for three years at Harvard and who often set those screens for Lin. He added, “Once he gets past the screener and he has a step, it’s basically over.” Sellers said: “He lets the defense make their mistake, then he can figure out in a split second what to do. That’s what Jeremy’s great at.” Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. In the lane, Lin took advantage of UConn’s young and often out-of-position big men. “We really try to funnel things to our shot blockers,” Sellers said. “And he’s so scrappy and he’s so savvy, he can get in there and he can jump up and take the contact and float the ball over them, or he could stop and pull up before he got to the shot blocker.” In what Magnarelli called a rare occurrence, Lin started finishing layups on the opposite side of the rim — now a familiar sight for Knicks fans — to avoid UConn’s lengthy extra defenders “looking for the highlight block.” Lin scored all of Harvard’s 11 points in the final 1 minute 39 seconds to provide drama, but UConn’s talent proved to be too much; Dyson, Walker and Robinson combined for 62 points. Advertisement Continue reading the main story But with less than 20 seconds left, Lin dribbled the length of the court, outran Dyson and dunked with both hands. Robinson, 6 feet 9 inches and athletic, was under the basket when it happened. “I moved,” Robinson said sheepishly. “I had to.” After the season, UConn opted not to renew Sellers’s contract after his name was linked to possible recruiting violations. So he went to China. This season, Sellers returned to the United States as an assistant at Hofstra. Last week, Sellers watched Lin come off a high screen with the Knicks and stop. His defender bumped into him, and Lin accelerated for an easy layup. Soon after, Sellers was teaching the pick-and-roll to his Hofstra players. “Come off the screen and slow down, like Jeremy Lin,” he told them. “Jeremy Lin comes in, and he’s always at his own pace. He never gets rushed.” Sellers had found the words they would all understand.
(CNN) The preliminary outline for President Donald Trump's 2018 budget could slash some funding for a program that provides meals for older, impoverished Americans. Almost half of those savings will come by eliminating the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which provides money for a variety of community development and anti-poverty programs, including Meals on Wheels. "The federal government has spent over $150 billion on this block grant since its inception in 1974, but the program is not well-targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results," the budget blueprint says. In addition to painting the program as ineffective, the blueprint says the 2018 budget seeks to "devolve community and economic development activities to the state and local level." Though the blueprint doesn't contain enough detail to know for certain how local Meals on Wheels programs will be affected, spokeswoman Jenny Bertolette said, "It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which they will not be significantly and negatively impacted if the President's budget were enacted." Programs across the country are already serving 23 million fewer meals than they did in 2005, and waiting lists to join Meals on Wheels are growing, she said. About 3% of the budget for Meals on Wheels' national office comes from government grants ( 84% comes from individual contributions and grants from corporations and foundations), but the national association provides support and representation for a larger network of 5,000 independently operated local groups, Bertolette said. The local agencies provide the actual meals and services, she said. The Older Americans Act, as a function of the US Department of Health and Human Services, which is facing the specter of cuts itself, covers 35% of the costs for the visits, safety checks and meals that the local agencies dole out to 2.4 million senior citizens, Bertolette said. Local agencies rely on Community Development Block Grant funds as well as money from the state-administered Community Services Block Grant to fill in the gaps. "Each state allocates this funding differently, so it's difficult to summarize the total impact on the nationwide network," Bertolette said. "We know for certain that there are Meals on Wheels programs that would lose vital funding if this proposal went through." of As an example of how it works, the city governmentof San Jose, California, applies for federal Community Development Block Grant funds for homeless outreach, resolving "slum and blight" and other community development needs. In a statement issued before the release of Trump's budget blueprint, the city said it expected to receive more than $2.5 million in funding for the 2016-2017 fiscal year. It planned to spend $100,650 of that on Meals on Wheels. According to Meals on Wheels, roughly one in six senior citizens in the country struggles with hunger, and the organization served 219.4 million meals in 2015. About 63% of those meals are delivered to homes of the elderly. Those who are more ambulatory are fed at local community and senior centers. In addition to providing food, Meals on Wheels offers much-needed human contact for home-bound senior citizens. One of the ancillary benefits of the in-person delivery is that it has decreased the rate of falls in the home, saving the nation about $34 billion a year in that respect alone, Meals on Wheels says. The national association will have a better idea how its network of programs will be affected when the full budget proposal is released in coming months.
Is the ICC Investigating Crimes by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan? Last spring, U.S. officials got a rude surprise from the Netherlands. It came in the form of a letter from Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The subject was Afghanistan, and the letter described evidence that U.S. personnel had abused more than two dozen detainees held in that country, mostly between 2003 and 2006. The prosecutor invited the U.S. government to provide information to the court about those cases and its broader detention practices in Afghanistan. The correspondence from The Hague set off alarm bells in Washington. With thousands of troops deployed in Afghanistan, neither Washington nor its leading NATO allies have had any desire to see the court involved there. A few diplomats from NATO states discouraged the prosecutor from pursuing a full investigation, but most simply hoped that the court inquiry wouldn’t move forward. U.S. officials had good reason for confidence that it would not. One former U.S. official who spoke about Afghanistan with the then-prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, in 2009 and 2010 got the impression that the court’s inquiry was a "box-checking exercise" — designed in part to show that an institution often criticized for its exclusive focus on Africa was at least interested in situations outside the continent. The 2013 letter represented the first concrete indication the court was scrutinizing possible American transgressions on Afghan soil. State Department, Defense Department, and White House officials hurriedly conferred about how to respond. Within weeks, three U.S. officials were on a plane to The Hague. At ICC headquarters, they met with the deputy prosecutor, veteran Canadian prosecutor James Stewart, and several of his senior staff. Individuals familiar with the meeting recall that the U.S. delegation urged the court not to publish the allegations, even in preliminary form. They warned that the world would see any ICC mention of possible American war crimes as evidence of guilt, even if the court never brought a formal case. (ICC officials would not comment on the meeting other than to note that they routinely have confidential meetings with states about potential investigations.) Several months after that meeting, the prosecutor’s office released a public update on its preliminary investigation in Afghanistan. It focused heavily on crimes by anti-government forces in Afghanistan. All the specific cases that the court had spoken about with U.S. officials were absent, and the report did not even mention the United States by name. But the prosecutor’s spare language makes clear that her office remains quite interested in U.S. conduct in Afghanistan and whether it has done enough to ensure accountability for abuses. For their part, U.S. officials have been eager to keep the ongoing dialogue with the court quiet. (National Security Council spokesperson Laura Lucas Magnuson wrote in an email: "We are aware that the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor is conducting a preliminary examination of the situation in Afghanistan and that they have reported on it publicly. We have no further comment on those activities." State Department officials did not respond to requests for comment.) It’s not surprising that the United States is being tight-lipped. The prosecutor’s probe in Afghanistan is awkward for the Obama administration, which has steadily improved relations with a court that conservatives have long warned is a threat to American interests. In 2011, the United States voted for a Security Council referral of the conflict in Libya to the ICC, the first time Washington had done so (in 2005, the Bush administration abstained on a Security Council referral of Sudan to the court). Last year, the United States helped facilitate the transfer to The Hague of a Congolese warlord who had sought shelter in a U.S. embassy. And just last week, FP‘s Colum Lynch reported that the United States is now prepared to vote for a referral of Syrian crimes to the ICC. The good public vibrations between Washington and The Hague have been the product of court activity that has mostly (although certainly not always) aligned with the administration’s larger goals, without unnerving the superpower. I argued in a recent book that the court’s first decade has featured an accommodation between the court and the powerful countries, including the United States, that have been most anxious about its powers. Since the court began operating in July 2002, it has mostly steered clear of investigations that would entangle it directly with the most powerful states. It hasn’t touched the Russia-Georgia conflict or the situation in Palestine. Until recently, Afghanistan appeared to be in the same category of politically sensitive cases the court would prefer to leave alone. The prosecutor’s office appears to be most interested in whether the abuses that U.S. forces committed in Iraq and at other detention facilities occurred in Afghanistan as well. (Because Afghanistan is already an ICC member, the court has broad juridiction to investigate crimes committed on Afghan territory — even those by foreign nationals.) Prominent human rights organizations have argued that a pattern of abusive practices — and impunity for abuses that did occur — migrated from Guantanamo and Iraq to Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch senior researcher Patricia Grossman told me that there are a "large number of cases of U.S. involvement in detainee abuse and homicide [in Afghanistan] — many of which went uninvestigated, unprosecuted, or unpunished." The ICC does not appear to be satisfied yet with what it has heard from Washington. In her November 2013 report, the prosecutor suggested that she continues to explore whether a U.S. policy of detainee abuse existed. She wrote that her office continues to pursue "information to determine whether there is any reasonable basis to believe any such alleged acts, which could amount to torture or humiliating and degrading treatment, may have been committed as part of a policy." That question is extraordinarily sensitive for the United States. A finding that there was a U.S. government "policy" of facilitating or condoning abuse could implicate not just commanders who were on the ground but, in theory, more senior officials. For all the heartburn the ICC probe is causing in Washington, the chances that the court will ever prosecute U.S. soldiers or officials remain slim. If the United States can show that it has genuinely investigated the relevant cases on its own, it can argue that the ICC’s "complementarity" doctrine — which says that national courts should prosecute relevant crimes whenever possible — precludes court action. Even if the United States can’t demonstrate that it has investigated the specific cases the ICC is interested in, there’s another important barrier to ICC action. The court is designed to consider the most serious crimes, and its charter encourages the prosecutor to investigate and prosecute war crimes when they’ve been committed on a large scale. Even if the allegations against the United States are well founded, it’s debatable whether they cross that threshold. It could be that the prosecutor’s office is hoping to replicate the experience it had with the British government over allegations against its forces in Iraq. Because Britain j oined the ICC in 2002, the court could examine allegations against its forces even while U.S. behavior in Iraq was beyond its reach. (The United States signed the Rome Statute establishing the court at the tail end of the Clinton administration, but the Bush administration "unsigned" it soon after taking office.) Between 2004 and early 2006, the prosecutor examined several instances of alleged detainee abuse by British troops in southern Iraq but ultimately decided not to launch a full investigation. In a letter closing that inquiry, the prosecutor noted that the number of possible crimes by British forces was tiny compared to many other situations around the world. The prosecutor’s decision was a deft compromise: it signaled a willingness to look at the behavior of even powerful states without creating a direct confrontation. But the relatively painless British experience of ICC scrutiny is less comforting to the United States than it might have been just a few days ago. Activists have recently urged the court to consider new evidence about British abuses in Iraq, and the prosecutor’s office this week announced that it would reopen its preliminary inquiry. While flatly rejecting the allegations, Britain’s attorney general reiterated his country’s strong support for the ICC and pledged cooperation. Britain’s stiff upper lip in the face of ICC scrutiny is unlikely to prevail in Washington, particularly among the committed court skeptics on Capitol Hill. Unlike the British, most U.S. politicians have not digested the theoretical possibility that an international court could prosecute troops and officials. In 2002, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation that forbade several forms of U.S. support to the court and empowered the president to use "all means necessary" to free any Americans held by the court (Hillary Clinton joined most Democrats in supporting the measure). The recent thaw in U.S.-ICC relations has been possible in large part because the possibility of a direct clash between The Hague and Washington seemed remote. But the tense recent exchanges over Afghanistan are a reminder that the court and the sovereignty-conscious superpower may not always get along as well as they have recently.
I'm getting this out of the way now: Tyranny was created by Julian Casablancas, who was in The Strokes, who emerged from the posh New York teenage prep world to bless us with one of the few perfect albums of the 2000s. This context is unavoidable, and instead will strengthen the argument at hand: Tyranny is the second-best album of 2014, and quite possibly the one that, in retrospect, becomes its most dissected Tyranny sounds like nothing else, but its context is all too familiar. When artists enter their "experimental" phase, it is only after achieving perfection that they seek to toy with conventions and curate a never-before-heard product. Kanye West's Yeezus, a vortex of sound, only comes into existence when a creator knows all of the rules - how else can they be broken so well? While Mr. West samples his artistic credo early on, Jules's takeaway is that it's more powerful when done in your own voice - This isn't for everybody, this is for nobody, he says, and the rest of the album is spent in Jules-nation, population one Whenever the album entered the vicinity of approachability, the music warped its course with no time for listeners to adjust. It truly is an "album" in every sense of the word; each part exists in its own world under the cohesive tent of experimentation. Which leads us to the album's crowning achievement: "Human Sadness" Spanning eleven minutes in length, "Human Sadness" renders all other long-form songs released in 2014 completely irrelevant (here's looking to you, Swans). Even more than the "world music" of fellow indie darlings Vampire Weekend, "Human Sadness" and Tyranny as a whole is globalization music. Mass-consumption, ambiguity, many small parts adding up to a distorted whole, how do you accurately encapsulate escapist music? - Brian Duricy stopped the review here because if you read it, you'll get it Make sure you catch up on the entire list of 2014's best albums before we reveal which one snagged the top spot tomorrow!
WASHINGTON — Janet L. Yellen, chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, said on Sunday that the American economy was in good health in an upbeat assessment that reinforced expectations the Fed is planning to raise its benchmark interest rate later this year. Job growth is strong, companies are increasing investment, and the United States is benefiting from the improved health of the global economy, Ms. Yellen said in remarks to the Group of 30, which hosts gatherings of international policy makers and private-sector bankers. Referring to the Fed’s benchmark rate, Ms. Yellen said, “We continue to expect that the ongoing strength of the economy will warrant gradual increases in that rate to sustain a healthy labor market and stabilize inflation around our 2 percent longer-run objective.” The Fed has raised its benchmark interest rate twice this year, in March and in June, to a range between 1 percent and 1.25 percent. Investors expect a third 0.25 percentage point increase at the Fed’s final policy-making meeting of the year, in mid-December.
A hardline religious scholar from Pakistan has said that the Afghan Taliban would support Pakistan against any kind of foreign aggression, Pakistani media reported on Thursday. Maulana Samiul Haq, known as 'Father of Taliban', chief of his own faction of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, said the Taliban has pledged to stand by the government of Pakistan in case of any aggressive design pursued by the United States against the country. Different groups of Afghan Taliban after holding consultations sent a written statement to Maulana Haq, extending full support to Pakistan in case of an attack by the US or any other country, the reports said. The Taliban factions have said they would fight for Pakistan like they had rendered sacrifices for their own country [Afghanistan]. The militant group has asked Pakistani political and religious parties to put aside their differences and forge unity among their ranks. Maulana Samiul Haq, who has for decades been known to wield influence over the Taliban, but has lost some influence in recent years. He has asked Pakistan’s Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal to appreciate the Afghan Taliban's announcement.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump removed his chief strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council on Wednesday, reversing his controversial decision early this year to give a political adviser an unprecedented role in security discussions. Trump’s overhaul of the NSC, confirmed by a White House official, also elevated General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence who heads all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. The official said the change moves the NSC “back to its core function of what it’s supposed to do.” It also appears to mark a victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who had told some national security experts he felt he was in a “battle to the death” with Bannon and others on the White House staff. Vice President Mike Pence said Bannon would continue to play an important role in policy and played down the shake-up as routine. “This is just a natural evolution to ensure the National Security Council is organized in a way that best serves the president in resolving and making those difficult decisions,” Pence said on Fox News. Bannon said in a statement he had succeeded in returning the NSC back to its traditional role of coordinating foreign policy rather than running it. He cited President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, for why he advocated a change. “Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration so I was put on NSC to ensure it was ‘de-operationalized.’ General McMaster has NSC back to its proper function,” he said. Trump’s White House team has grappled with infighting and intrigue that has hobbled his young presidency. In recent days, several other senior U.S. foreign policy and national security officials have said the mechanisms for shaping the Trump administration’s response to pressing challenges such as Syria, North Korea and Iran still were not in place. Critics of Bannon’s role on the NSC said it gave too much weight in decision-making to someone who lacked foreign policy expertise. Bannon, who was chief executive of Trump’s presidential campaign in the months leading to his election in November, in some respects represents Trump’s “America First” nationalistic voice, helping fuel his anti-Washington fervor and pushing for the president to part ways at times with mainstream Republicans. Before joining the Trump administration, Bannon headed Breitbart News, a right-wing website. U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, called the shift in the NSC a positive step that will help McMaster “gain control over a body that was being politicized by Bannon’s involvement.” “As the administration’s policy over North Korea, China, Russia and Syria continues to drift, we can only hope this shake-up brings some level of strategic vision to the body,” he said. SOURCE: STILL INFLUENTIAL Bannon’s removal from the NSC was a potential setback for his sphere of influence in the Trump White House, where he has a voice in most major decisions. But a Trump confidant said Bannon remained as influential as ever. “He is still involved in everything and still has the full confidence of the president but to be fair he can only do so much stuff,” the confidant said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The White House official said Bannon was no longer needed on the NSC after the departure of Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Flynn was forced to resign on Feb. 13 over his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, prior to Trump taking office on Jan. 20. The official said Bannon had been placed on the NSC originally as a check on Flynn and had only attended one of the NSC’s regular meetings. The official dismissed questions about a power struggle between Bannon and McMaster, saying they shared the same world view. However, two current national security officials rejected the White House explanation, noting that two months have passed since Flynn’s departure. White House Senior Advisor Steve Bannon. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst McMaster, they said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also has dueled with Bannon and others over direct access to Trump; the future of deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland, a former Fox News commentator; intelligence director Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a Flynn appointee; and other staffing decisions. Trump is preparing for his first face-to-face meeting on Thursday and Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping with the threat of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs a key component of their talks. Bannon’s seat on the NSC’s “principals’ committee,” a group that includes the secretaries of state, defense and other ranking aides, was taken by Rick Perry, who as energy secretary is charged with overseeing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.
BOSTON (Reuters) - The massive manhunt for the perpetrators of last year’s Boston Marathon bomb attack exposed some “fault lines” in coordinating law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels, according to a study released on Thursday. Runners continue to run towards the finish line of the Boston Marathon as an explosion erupts near the finish line of the race in this photo exclusively licensed to Reuters by photographer Dan Lampariello after he took the photo in Boston, Massachusetts, April 15, 2013. REUTERS/Dan Lampariello Emergency responders racing to a crime scene without waiting for orders might save lives by tending to the wounded, but during the chaotic chase to catch the suspects a few days later, they also risked being shot by police, the Harvard University report found. The hairiest events after the bombing, which killed three people and injured 264, began three days later when the two ethnic Chechen brothers accused of planting the pressure-cooker bombs at the finish line, shot and killed a university police officer in a failed attempt to steal his gun and flee the city. The shooting prompted hundreds of local police, as well as law enforcement officials who had traveled from other towns to help with the investigation, to race to Watertown, Massachusetts, where the suspects traded shots with police. Officers surrounded the suspects, placing police at a high risk of shooting one another, the report found. “They were incredibly lucky that there weren’t a lot of friendly fire casualties,” said lead author Herman “Dutch” Leonard, a professor of public management at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The study was based on interviews with some 100 law enforcement and other public officials who took part in the response. One officer, Richard Donohue of the transit police, was badly wounded in that gun battle and witnesses told local media that he may have been accidentally shot by a fellow officer. No official report on the shooting has been released. That incident was not the only case in which possibly overtired officers ran the risk of shooting one another, the report said. The gunbattle ended in the death of one suspect, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, while his younger brother Dzhokhar, now 20, managed to elude police. When the younger brother was found hiding in a drydocked boat the next evening, dozens of police raced to the scene. One officer on a rooftop fired at Tsarnaev, prompting “a substantial volume of contagious fire” by other police at the scene, the report found. It noted that contagious gunfire, in which the sound of shots prompts others to fire their weapons, poses a high risk in densely populated areas such as the Watertown suburb of Boston where the younger Tsarnaev was apprehended. The suspect is now awaiting trial on charges that carry the threat of execution if he is convicted. Despite problems during the manhunt, the report found that law enforcement officials worked together smoothly on the day of the bomb blasts, evidenced by the fact that most of the casualties, many of whom lost legs, survived despite substantial loss of blood. That coordinated effort was a result of years of planning and coordination around the marathon, Boston’s best-attended sporting event. The Harvard report suggests that law enforcement officials responding to major security threats take more aggressive steps to establish tactical command, including planning rest shifts so that they are not relying on overtired officers. The lessons of the response to the Boston bombing could easily apply to future security scares, Leonard said. “Any significant terrorist activity on the homeland is going to generate a similar ramping up and presence of many different law enforcement agencies,” Leonard said. “This event illustrates how much progress we’ve made since 9/11 and Katrina in being able to form rapid command structures that are effective,” he said. “But we have a lot of work to do in projecting the same philosophy down to operating on the street.”
If you live in the city, you may think it's hard to compost. Compost is rich soil created by naturally recycling organic material. But there's one man who is trying to make it easy. He's helping residents, restaurants and caterers compost–all by the seat of his bicycle. Learn about a small business called Healthy Soil Compost, and it's use of pedal power to expand composting in the city. TRANSCRIPT Jonathan Scheffel, owner of Healthy Soil Compost: I just try to stay very cautious and keep looking around me all of the time. Luckily my big butt trailer gives me a lot of room, I think. Phil Ponce: Jonathan Scheffel is on a mission to expand composting in the city. And he’s doing it in an environmentally friendly way. By bike. Scheffel: It’s kinda slow between Monday and Wednesday for the restaurants. So, it might add up to 500 pounds. I think the trailer weighs about 200 pounds just empty. Yeah, it's really good exercise for me. Ponce: Despite the difficulty navigating through busy Chicago traffic and dragging 600 pounds, Jonathan loves providing his service via pedal power. In fact, he says his bicycle has attracted more customers. Ariel Fang, Healthy Soil Compost customer: I love biking and it makes a lot of sense in terms of the full mission in what he's trying to achieve. He was at the South Loop market and I was walking by, happened to see this and I've actually been looking for a place to throw my compost for the past year so it actually was perfect how that worked out. Scheffel: Each one of our members is actually so excited about doing this that they tell their friends. We’re all word of mouth, really. I haven't done much advertisement besides just riding around with the trailer. Ponce: Jonathan’s Healthy Soil Compost organic recycling also helps restaurants divert food waste from landfills and offset waste-hauling costs. Scheffel: So, just like any waste-hauling company, you pay them a service fee to take your waste, and then they take it usually to a landfill and they pay the landfill to put it in the hole–a plastic hole. This company is actually able to negotiate their trash costs to be less because this is their most heavy trash. So they pay less now for trash. So, it's a good economical offset. Ponce: Currently there are no city incentives to compost. But if certain environmental benchmarks are hit, hotels can be green seal certified. So how does Jonathan make money? Scheffel: I pick up your bucket–we give you buckets for containers–and you pay me the fee to take your waste. I pick up monthly, a little over 7,000 pounds. In the whole year of being a company, over 60,000 pounds so far. Just on a bicycle. And one person. Ponce: Today, he’s taking the compost to a staging area. At this particular drop-off, the earthworm farm Nature’s Little Recyclers has a summer worm run to process the material. Scheffel: Especially with a bicycling company, it works to have these localized hubs that we can … not go too far to drop off materials. Nature's Little Recyclers inoculate this area full of earthworms and material. Earthworms can eat the burlap and the chaff and the food waste, and then after about three to six months they can come in and harvest compost from this and earthworms. Ponce: Because the waste has seeds, new vegetables are growing in the compost. Scheffel: You'll never get to go to a landfill and see food growing out of it. So that just shows how healthy this is. Ponce: Jonathan’s business grew out of a hobby he started when he was gardening for a restaurant. Scheffel: I asked neighbors if they wanted to pay me to pick up their waste and a lot of them said yes so I just started doing it for them as a hobby. From there it just kept kinda growing, and the season ended for my gardening job and I felt like I would just make this a company. Ponce: Now some of the same restaurants he hauls food waste for are buying the compost for their urban garden, like this chef. He says his garden grows faster and is flourishing using the worm compost. Everything he grows on the roof is integrated into his menu. Scheffel: Here at the restaurant, it’s a lot of fresh food that they’re–this is all back-of-house prep waste. So it's food that would normally go in the trash that they can't sell on their plate. But instead of throwing it away they're putting it in my bins. Here's a little mushroom stalks, bunch of lettuce. We have a bunch of bread rolls and from these restaurants, four of them, I'm doing almost 1,500 pounds a week of waste that would normally end up in the trash can. It takes about a hundred pounds of food waste to make about one pound of compost. Ponce: You may have noticed that Jonathan doesn’t lock up his rig. Surprisingly, it’s only been an issue once. Scheffel: Only one person so far has tried to take the trailer off of the hitch. It had over 300 pounds on it and they were struggling when I came out to them and surprised them. Ponce: Despite hauling all year long, Jonathan has had only six relatively minor mechanical problems–flat tires. But, one of his employees was hit by a car. Scheffel: Their trailer already got hit by a car. A hit and run. I'm surprised it hasn't happened more, but, we just try to stay cautious. Any bicyclist is going through this daily. Ponce: On this day, Jonathan picked up at four restaurants, two homes and two caterers. He has enough business now that he’s hired four part-time bikers who work about two days a week. He hopes they will stick around in the winter. Scheffel: Right now, I can't sustain their financial life, but hopefully they'll stick around, being a small business as it grows. Because they're doing pretty much everything I use to do on my own and now I can delegate to them and now we can grow together. Ponce: As with most startups, Jonathan is putting most of what he makes back into the business. Scheffel: I'm living under the poverty level, but it's, I'm kind of always afraid to pull money out of the business because I think it’s such a living thing that I need to keep as much money in the business as possible. But I am paying myself now after six months which is good. Right now I'm being able to pay four other people and myself so that's pretty good. And it's very fun, so it fulfills me in other ways. More on this story For residential service, Jonathan and his team can pick up compost monthly, weekly or whenever you need him on-demand. By the way, those green garbage bags he uses are compostable, too. For more information, visit Healthy Soil Compost's website. Related stories: Chicago-Area Scientists Convert Greenhouse Gas into Fuel Source Aug. 5: Using a process similar to photosynthesis, scientists from Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Chicago have converted carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas, which can produce methanol and diesel fuels. EPA: Widely Used Herbicide is Harmful to Wildlife June 8: Some farm groups are criticizing a new report about the hazards of atrazine, a herbicide that was banned by the European Union more than 10 years ago. Turning Wastewater into Fertilizer, MWRD Plant Battles Nutrient Pollution May 24: A brand new water treatment facility that takes wastewater and creates high-grade fertilizer comes online for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District in Stickney.
Johannesburg – IBO super-middleweight champion Tommy Oosthuizen appeared in danger of losing his title on Friday even before getting into the ring against Argentinian Ezequiel Maderna at Emperors Palace on Saturday night. Drama reigned at the final Golden Gloves' tournament weigh-in after Oosthuizen arrived almost an hour late and then battled to make the super-middleweight limit at the first attempt. Much to the relief of all concerned, a drawn and seemingly anxious Oosthuizen finally made the mandatory 168lb super-middleweight limit. Had Oosthuizen failed to make the limit, he would automatically have been stripped of his title. Once hailed as the budding “Golden Boy” of South African boxing, Oosthuizen's stocks have taken a downward slide, with the unbeaten IBO champion gaining what was widely regarded a lucky and largely listless draw against Mexican-American Brandon Gonzales in his last fight. The boxer, who earned the nickname of “Tommy Gun” during his early fights because of the lethal manner in which he disposed of his opponents with power punching, has now not secured a knock-out win in almost two years. Saturday's fight against Maderna finds Oosthuizen at the crossroads of his career – even before the weight issue further clouded his future. Meanwhile, Maderna's manager Alberto Zacharius predicted that there would be an unlikely third round knockout. “Promoter Rodney Berman is my friend,” said the Spanish-speaking Zacharius. “He is my good friend. So is Harold Volbrecht, who is training Oosthuizen, and Tommy as well – and I love South Africa. But Saturday night is no time for love and friends. “We are here to do business and the business at hand is to beat Oosthuizen with what I predict will be a third-round knockout so that we can take the IBO title back to Argentina.” Oosthuizen believed he had what could prove a crucial advantage over his Argentinian opponent because he had been at the ringside in Monte Carlo earlier in the year when Maderna had lost for the only time in a 21-bout career against rugged Edwin Rodriquez. “I know exactly what to expect from Maderna,” said the South African IBO champion. “I'll be a closed book as far as he is concerned and he is going to be in for a few unpleasant surprises.” Meanwhile, IBO strawweight champion Hekkie Budler, who is seeking one of boxing's more prestigious titles, will meet relatively untried Argentinian Hugo Verchelli in the second title bout on the Golden Gloves Promotion. While the 24-year-old Verchelli is rated ninth by the IBF, 10th by the WBC and 11th by the WBA, he is relatively untried in the lightest weight division in boxing's firmament, having fought eight of his 12 fights against three little known fellow Argentinians. Verchelli's only defeat was against Elias David Coronet, whom he has beaten three times, while also securing two victories against both Fabian Hernan Claro and Fernando David Alaniz. His only victory against a fighter ranked among the top 50 strawweights by the IBO was against another Argentinian, Daniel Mendoza.
Jerry 'The King' Lawler Technically I'm a Zombie Now Jerry 'The King' Lawler -- Technically I'm a Zombie Now [Video] EXCLUSIVE says he clinically died on live TV ... only to be brought back to life ... which now makes him A BONA FIDE ZOMBIE!!!Jerry was out in NYC Friday (looking very much alive) when our photog asked him all about his recovery. You'll recall, Lawler suffered a near-fatal heart attack last year, while taping an episode of "."Jerry says he's "good as new" and even wants to get back in the ring at some point.But more importantly, he's thinking of changing his name to Jerry "The Walking Dead" Lawler ... considering he "actually died on live TV" and then came back to life. Just like a zombie would.If they were real (which they totally are).
The threats are increasing, says Taslima Nasrin, whose controversial novel Lajja is being re-released more than 20 years after it was written. The Bangladeshi-origin author talks to Yogesh Pawar about her decades in exile, the ISIS and a life in the shadow of fatwas When Lajja came out 20 years ago, many panned it for being badly written and/or translated? Is the retranslation from the Bengali version by Anchita Ghatak an attempt to redress that? Lajja is a first-hand account of the tragic incidents I witnessed in Bangladesh where the majority Muslims attacked minority Hindus and tortured them inhumanly, post-the Babri Masjid demolition (1992). It is a blend of fact and fiction. Violence unleashed in the name of religion has always made me uncomfortable. It is a shame. I was terrified and moved. That is Lajja. Readers should remember Lajja is not pure fiction. Its based on facts. This could be boring for average fiction readers... Docu-novels aren’t always very interesting. Yes, the retranslation was done because the first translation was not that good. Why shouldn’t one try to make things better? Do you feel you’d write Lajja differently if you were writing now? I’d have elaborated the story and made it much more complex if I wrote Lajja now. And also I would’ve edited and worked with fewer incidents and facts, making it tighter. It is, of course, unpleasant to read such a long list of killings and rape. Though Lajja is a docu-novel, I have now come to the realisation that there should be a limit of how much non-fiction will go into fiction. Do you feel Lajja became your defining book just because of the fatwa by fundamentalists who demanded your arrest and execution?You can say that. Lajja was published in February 1993. It was banned by the Bangladesh government in July 1993. Fundamentalists were already angry with my criticism of Islam in my other books on women's rights. Surprisingly, Lajja has no criticism of Islam. Did your awareness of neglect and abuse women face in traditional Islamic society come from practising gynaecology in rural Bangladesh? Long before I worked in hospitals, I’d witnessed oppression of women. Since childhood, I’ve seen women cope with patriarchy that forces them to suffer hundreds of unfair traditions. Is that what originally prompted you to become so outspoken in your opposition to Islam? The misogynistic Muslim society considers women as inferior, as slaves, as child-bearing machines and sex objects. Women who object or challenge this are stoned to death. As I grew up, I became aware of women’s rights. I read the Quran and the Hadith, which say man was the original creation and woman was created secondarily for his pleasure. Islam doesn’t consider woman as distinct human beings as they are treated as intellectually, morally and physically inferior.Even in marriage, the Quran gives freedom to men: 'Your women are like your field, go and do unto them as you will (2.223).' Also the two kinds of prayers that never reach heaven, the Hadith says are: those of runaway slaves and those of reluctant women who frustrate their husbands at night. Under Shariat a woman's testimony isn’t allowed in case of marriage, divorce. Even if she’s raped, she has to produce four male witnesses. If she can’t, the rapist can’t be charged. The testimony of two women is worth a man’s. If he suspects his wife of adultery, or denies that it’s his offspring, his word holds. A woman doesn’t have similar rights to charge her husband. Women aren’t allowed to inherit property on parity with brothers. In the case of inheritance, the Quran say a man inherits twice that of a female (4.11-12). After all these privileges, sexual and otherwise, men have more rewards coming their way in paradise too with wine, food, and 72 virgins apart from their wives on earth (52.19-20). And comparatively what is the reward for pious women? She has to suffer the same man who caused suffering here on earth. I felt responsible to tell people about this. I wanted women to fight for rights and freedom. Can you talk about the fundamentalist reaction to your work? Did it get directly life threatening? Fundamentalists set a price on my head both in Bangladesh and in India. In Bangladesh, thousands of fundamentalists wanted me hung to death. They took to the streets in India too. Even on social media, I’ve been threatened by the Al Qaeda, and other terror organisations for my views. Do you feel, over the years, that the threat to you has abated or do you still live in fear? One can’t live in fear for 25 years. This became part of my harsh reality. I try my best not to live in fear. Threats against me are increasing. It’s shocking to see some really young Muslims being misguided on the path to hate and intolerance. How has living with security affected you individually?I have lived in many different European countries and also in North America for over 20 years. I know it can be very limiting, but what can one do but get used to the round-the-clock security? Do you feel pressurised into not speaking up since you’re at the mercy of those who can hold back your visa to stay in India?I will never sell my freedom of expression for anything. You had issues with the Left government (in West Bengal) using you to deflect attention from human rights excesses in Nandigram. Now you criticise and take on Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee too?Both parties appease Muslims by harassing me. The Left government banned my book and threw me out of the state to get Muslim votes. The current government banned my book release at the Kolkata book fair and prevented my TV mega serial from being telecast. Your take on the Sudipto Sen-led chit fund company Saradha Group routing money through Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Ahmad Hassan Imran to Bangladesh-based terror outfit Jamaat-e-Islami.Imran was a founder-member of the terror organisation SIMI. That should have been enough to not let him become a member of any political party. But he was made a Rajya Sabha MP by Mamata Banerjee. He helped terrorism to grow in neighbouring Bangladesh by using Saradha’s crores. Also remember that Bangladesh’s Islamic terror organisation, which was helped by Imran, is very anti-India. You've, in the past, criticised India’s secular forces for being selective in their support of causes?I’ve never criticised secular forces but fake secularists. True secularists never support religious fanatics. Indian fake secularists criticise Hindu fanatics but defend Muslim ones. I am against all religious fanatics. Doesn’t the far right camp too pick up causes like yours only when it suits them?Yes they do. They kick me out when it doesn't suit them. Politicians around the world do everything for political interests but I’ve never compromised with any political parties. What is your take on the ISIS crisis unfolding over the Persian Gulf? Many call it a clash between the East and the West?I don’t think it is a clash between the East and the West. Actually it is a clash between barbarism and humanism, between irrational blind faith and rationality, between tradition and innovation, between the past and future, between anti-modernism and modernism, between people who value freedom and people who don’t. Are you working on anything autobiographical on the lines of Salman Rushdie’s Joseph Anton?I have already written seven autobiographical books, which have got both popular and critical acclaim. The first one was conferred the Bengali literary award 'Ananda Purashkar' in 2000. The third one was banned by the CPM in West Bengal in 2003. After two years, the Kolkata High Court lifted the ban. These books have been translated into English, French, German, Hindi, Malayalam and Marathi. Book: LajjaPublisher: Penguin Books IndiaPages: 336Price: Rs. 299/-
Jon Lester #34 of the Chicago Cubs throws a pitch during the second inning of a game against the Cincinnati Reds at Wrigley Field on September 20, 2016 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Stacy Revere/Getty Images) The Chicago Cubs have already wrapped up the Central Division title and home-field advantage through at least one round of the playoffs, but they still have some goals to achieve before the season ends next week. To help keep up with what they’ve still got to play for, and to see who they could potentially play in the next round, we’re proud to present the Cubs Playoff Update. Home-Field Advantage Magic Number: 3 The Cubs moved two steps closer to wrapping up home-field advantage throughout the National League playoffs (World Series home-field will go to the American League by virtue of the All-Star Game), finishing off a 6-1 win over the Cincinnati Reds on Tuesday night. Jon Lester pitched a dominant game for the Cubs, giving up just one run in seven innings of work as he continued to bolster his Cy Young Award credentials. Anthony Rizzo also had a big night at the plate, driving in three runs to help the Cubs to their 96th win of the season. Meanwhile, the Washington Nationals fell in a 1-0 heartbreaker to the Miami Marlins. Jose Fernandez gave up just three hits and struck out 12 batters in eight innings of work, and Tanner Roark was a tough-luck loser as he gave up one run in seven innings for the Nationals. The Cubs’ magic number to guarantee a better record than the Nationals is technically four, but since the Cubs hold a 5-2 advantage in the season series with Washington, they only have to tie the Nationals to guarantee home-field advantage in both rounds of the National League playoffs. National League Wild Card Race If the Cubs are able to clinch home-field advantage, it would give them the best record in the National League and would guarantee them a first round series against the winner of the National League wild card game. That race tightened up considerably on Tuesday, as there is now a three-way tie for the top spot in the standings. The New York Mets lost 5-4 to the Atlanta Braves on Tuesday night at Citi Field, and the San Francisco Giants and St. Louis Cardinals both picked up victories, thus causing all three teams to hold identical 80-71 records on the year. In the unlikely scenario that all three teams would end up tied at the end of the regular season, there would have to be two playoff games to determine the participants in the National League wild card game. The first game would take place on the Monday following the regular season, and the loser of that game would then play the third team in a game Tuesday to determine who would advance to the actual wild card game on Wednesday. Cubs’ Quest for 100 Wins: Four Wins Away The Cubs have not won 100 games in a single season since the 1935 campaign, and their win on Tuesday put them within just four wins of reaching that goal. The Cubs currently have 11 games remaining in the regular season, and they would have to go just 4-7 over that span to reach the century mark in victories.
At least 154 Dutch nationals were on board the Malaysian Airlines plane thought to have been brought down by a rocket over Ukraine. Malaysian Airways spokesman Huib Gorter told a press conference at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport on Thursday evening that 154 Dutch nationals, 27 Australians, 23 Malaysian, 11 Indonesians, six British nationals, four Germans, four Belgians, three Filipinos and one Canadian were on board. The nationality of 47 other passengers has not yet been determined. The Malaysian Airways plane left Schiphol airport on Thursday afternoon with 295 people on board and crashed in Ukraine shortly after 14.15 hours. The Boeing 777, with 280 passengers and 15 crew, was en route for Kuala Lumpur. The Ukraine authorities say the plane was brought down by pro-Russian separatists but this has been denied by the groups themselves, broadcaster Nos said. According to American media reports, the plane was brought down by some form of rocket. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has described it as ‘an act of terrorism’. According to website nu.nl, airspace over Ukraine has been closed. Other media reports say some airlines are now avoiding Ukraine. King Dutch king Willem-Alexander issued a statement saying he was ‘deeply shocked’ by the news. ‘We offer our deepest sympathy to the families, friends and colleagues of the victims and to those who are still uncertain if their loved ones were on board the plane,’ the short statement said. The Dutch foreign ministry has opened a phone line for relatives to ring for further information: 00 31 70 348 77 70. Independent inquiry Journalist Noah Sneider said on Twitter: ‘At crash site of #MH17. Bodies everywhere, organs splayed out. Too gruesome to post photographs. This is an absolute disaster. #ukraine.’ Dutch foreign minister Frans Timmermans said investigators must have ‘unhindered access’ to the crash site. There must be an independent investigation into the disaster, he said. The foreign ministry is sending extra officials to Kiev to help out at the Dutch embassy. BBC news reports New York Times journalist at the scene Kyiv Post report of transcript featuring pro Russian rebels discussing downing of plane.
Don’t be fooled by a telephone scam using the Delaware Justice of Peace Court to take advantage of people. According to Delaware officials there appears to be a new scam using a phone number registered to the Justice of Peace Court. On the line, there’s also a caller demanding bail money on behalf of an imprisoned relative. Investigators are calling the technique, “spoofing.” That’s when scammers use a legit number to convince people the call is real. “It is important for people to know the Justice of the Peace Court WILL NOT call individuals and request payment of a loved one’s bail,” said Mark Hitch of the Justice of Peace Court in a statement. “Any calls of that nature would come from the loved one themselves and not a court employee. Justice of the Peace Court employees will NEVER call the relatives of someone being held on bail and demand payment over the phone.” The Justice of Peace learned of the scam after a number of complaints to the office. Officials said the fraudulent calls came from people asking for $500 to secure the release of a relative. Those who have been contacted said the call would be immediately disconnected if the recipient attempted to get details. “In recent years this type of phone scam has become common, most recently with callers claiming to be with the Internal Revenue Service and demanding immediate payment over the phone,” Hitch said. The general rule is to never give out personal information over the telephone unless you can verify the call officials said. The phony calls are now under investigation. Anyone who has been victimized by this scam is urged to contact Mark Hitch with the Justice of the Peace Court at 302-323-6333.
The route crosses public and private lands, and scientists say it is extraordinary, given its length, that a relatively clear path still exists for the deer. But conservationists have recognized that protecting it will require unusual cooperation among public and private groups and a new level of scientific understanding to guide changes in regulation. The good news, said Steve Kilpatrick, head of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, is that conservation groups are joining forces to help the mule deer in ways he had not seen. “I think it’s unique,” said Mr. Kilpatrick, whose group has hired a coordinator for the informal coalition. “I don’t know of any other situation in the nation that it’s happened.” Helicopter Wranglers The effort to track the Red Desert-to-Hoback migration of mule deer began in 2011. Dr. Sawyer had been hired by the Bureau of Land Management to track wildlife, and he put GPS collars on 40 mule deer in the Red Desert, one of the most open, stark landscapes in a state full of them. No one really knew what the Red Desert deer did in the spring and summer, although some had been seen there year-round. Most mule deer migrate, but some stay put for reasons that are not well understood. And “unless you collar a herd, it is really difficult to have a sense of whether they migrate or not,” said Matthew Kauffman, a biologist for the United States Geological Survey and a professor at the University of Wyoming who leads the Wyoming Migration Initiative.
Witnesses said the driver thought the car was in reverse when she drove through the building. NBC 7's Artie Ojeda reports. Customers and employees at a discount store in Chula Vista were rattled Wednesday when a driver plowed through the front entrance of the business, mowing down merchandise displays before coming to a stop in the middle of the store. The crash happened just before 10 a.m. at a Dollar Tree store located at 941 Otay Lakes Rd. As the car rammed through the building, shoppers managed to jump away from its path. The driver traveled about 30 feet into the store before stopping. Breaking Construction Noise May Have Caused Southwestern Scare One shopper told NBC 7 she was buying chocolate at the store and had her back turned away from the entrance when, in a matter of seconds, she heard something that sounded like an explosion. "I thought it was an explosion – a small bomb or something," the witness recounted. "When I turned around, I saw the glass door was lying on the step they have there when you go in – and the car was in there." The shopper told NBC 7 the few employees and customers inside the store all quickly rushed to the car to try to help the driver. One man looked under the car to make sure nobody was pinned underneath. In a video shot by another witness, Jeff Dunlap, the car can be seen halted in the middle of the store, sitting on top of Halloween decorations and other goods while shoppers look on in disbelief. Displays are overturned, shopping baskets are scattered, glass is shattered and the crowd is in utter shock. Some bystanders can be seen running to the car to check on the driver. Others are calling 911. One woman yells, “Is anybody injured? Is anybody hurt? 911 needs to know.” At the end of the 35-second video, the driver’s side door is being opened. In another witness video shot by Nick Bergwitz and obtained by NBC 7, a woman can be seen walking over to the driver and saying, "Is she awake?" "Okay, they're trying to remove her from the vehicle now," the woman says, as she speaks to a 911 dispatcher on the phone. "There's a big, strong gentleman; he's bringing her out." Witnesses Rush to Help Driver in Dollar Tree Crash This video captured by Nick Bergwitz shows bystanders rushing to try to help a woman who drove her car through a Dollar Tree discount store in Chula Vista on Wednesday. Incredibly, no one inside the store was hit. (Published Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2017) The Chula Vista Fire Department said the elderly driver suffered minor injuries. Police said she was alone in the car at the time of the accident. The witness who said the incident sounded like an explosion told NBC 7 that she saw the driver walk outside after the crash, and heard police had called the woman's granddaughter to meet her at the store. She said the incident was frightening, but she's grateful no one was harmed. At the time of the crash, the witness told NBC 7 that there was a cashier working close to where the car crashed, as well as an employee stocking an aisle near the Halloween decorations. "I was scared. I’m still kind of shaking," the witness added. "Thank God nobody was hurt." The Chula Vista Police Department confirmed that no one inside the store was hit by the car. About a half-hour after the accident, a tow truck pulled the car out of the store. A green, mangled shopping basket and purple and orange Halloween decorations were still lodged between the car's bumper and its front tire. Since the car slammed through the front door of the business, glass was strewn about the sidewalk at the entrance. A handwritten sign was posted on a window that read, "STORE CLOSED." The cause of the accident is under investigation.
“Stingray” is secret surveillance technology capable of pinpointing your exact location. NBC 7 uncovered evidence the San Diego Police Department has it. Now, SDPD is being sued to disclose information about its reported use of the equipment. NBC 7's Candice Nguyen has details. (Published Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2014) The First Amendment Coalition (FAC) has filed a lawsuit against the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department to obtain records about policies, rules and procedures they use for Stingray surveillance. NBC 7 first reported evidence that local law enforcement use the technology in April. The Stingray is manufactured by Harris Corporation and is described as a device “capable of tracking the signal of cellular telephones even if the person has disabled GPS capabilities.” “We believe the SDPD has an obligation to tell San Diego citizens that it is using this invasive technology and to describe the steps it is taking, if any, to protect citizens’ privacy rights,” said Peter Scheer, FAC’s executive director. Earlier this year, NBC 7 obtained a 2009 federal grant application that shows the City of San Diego was interested in purchasing the cell phone tracking equipment. Court documents revealed, in September of that year, the U.S. Department of Justice made the grand funding available. Local Law Enforcement Silent on Stingray Technology NBC 7 has learned that a federal grant application was approved for the purchase of technology to help law enforcement officers track mobile phone users. NBC 7's Candice Nguyen reports. (Published Thursday, April 3, 2014) FAC, which is represented by Los Angeles attorney Kelly Aviles, filed the suit to force the San Diego Police Department to disclose the records. NBC 7 spoke to Aviles Tuesday who said, in response to the coalition’s request for information, SDPD turned over only a single, heavily-redacted invoice for the agency’s apparent purchase of the Stingray in December 2012 for $33,000. NBC 7 reached out police Tuesday evening and was told all comment had to come for the City Attorney. Gerry Braun, spokesman for the San Diego City Attorney's Office, issued this statement: “The City of San Diego is aware of the U.S. Department of Justice’s direction that information regarding the equipment must not be disclosed because to do so would potentially endanger the lives and physical safety of law enforcement officers and adversely impact criminal and national security investigations. The City is obligated to follow that direction and will do so absent further direction from the Department of Justice or a Court Order.”
How to be an expert in anything NEIL deGRASSE TYSON Host of StarTalk, director of the Hayden Planetarium To be an expert means you are on the frontier, making discoveries, thinking thoughts never before dreamed of. I’m an expert in astrophysics. I don’t generally share opinions. It may not feel that way because I speak passionately about what I know, but if you look at my tweets and books, I hardly ever express opinions—because I don’t care if you have them. I don’t care a rat’s ass. As an educator and as a scientist, I care only that you are scientifically literate. The more informed you are, the more empowered you are to think for yourself, and the more representative our democracy will be. Don’t come to me to debate whether climate change exists. If you’re coming to me in that fashion, you do not understand how and why science works. You’re expressing an opinion, and I’m expressing a fact. Successful people are driven without regard to their social life, love life, or the opinions of others. Every one of them has a story saying, “Here’s a list of people who said I should do something safe.” To be genius is to be misunderstood, but to be misunderstood is not necessarily to be genius. I am the consequence of my life experience. Everything that has happened to me has summed to be what I am. If I jumped back in time, I would derail that learning curve, so I don’t have any urge to go to my younger self and say, “Do this, not that.” What would that mean? Making mistakes contributes to your wisdom. It’s not that we fear technology, it’s that we occasionally take it for granted, and when we do, we discount the brilliance and work that went into it. You’ll say, “Oh, we don’t need to increase the funding on science; I’ve got my smartphone. We don’t need to go into space; I’ve got weather.com.” Well, where the hell do you think you got the image of the hurricane that just tore up Galveston, Texas? If you want a career in science and technology, well, you better hang out with some geeks. Go ahead. They are a friendly people. They’re not talking about the clothing you are wearing. They’re not talking about your waistline. It’s just, “Who are you, and do you have interesting things to say?” One of my favorite lines comes from poet Rainer Maria Rilke: “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves.” No matter what you do, you need to be able to fail and know how to recover from it in order to one day succeed. There is no successful person who has never failed. Think of the lessons you learn every time you fail. It’s the people who ignore those lessons who basically check out of that contest permanently. The fastest way to end a career in science and technology is if you’re guilty of fraud. No one will listen to anything you publish thereafter. The greatest statement you can make to a scientist is to pay no attention to his or her science. When you are first in the world to know something, there’s nothing like it. There is no salary, there’s no car you can drive to substitute for that feeling.
Snapshots in History: February 25: Remembering John Graves Simcoe and York (Credit: Government of Ontario Art Collection, 694156 - Portrait of Colonel John Graves Simcoe, [ca. 1881] - Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, 1791-96 - George Theodore Berthon (1806-1892) - Oil on canvas - 109.2 x 83.8 cm (43" x 33") - This image is in the public domain.) On February 25 and beyond, take a moment to remember the life of John Graves Simcoe (born: February 25, 1752 in Cotterstock, England; died: October 26, 1806 in Exeter, England) who served as the first Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada from 1791-1796. Simcoe served with British forces during the American War of Independence, being invalided home to England before the surrender of Yorktown in 1781. During the war, Simcoe had been promoted from lieutenant to lieutenant-colonel and became one of the more successful regimental commanders. He demonstrated his penchant for tactics with the publication of his Journal of the Operations of the Queen’s Rangers. During his convalescence, Simcoe resided at the home of his godfather Admiral Samuel Graves in Exeter, England. There, Simcoe met and married Admiral Graves’ ward Elizabeth Posthuma Gwillim (“Mrs. Simcoe”) who was an heiress in her own right, owning a 5,000-acre estate in Devon, England. Simcoe briefly served as a Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons in 1790 before being promised and appointed to the position of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada in September 1791. Upper Canada, as it was then known, was comprised of southern Ontario and the watersheds of Lake Superior and Georgian Bay. Under Simcoe’s stewardship, Upper Canada’s bicameral legislature founded York in 1793 (previously Fort Toronto (French) and afterwards Toronto as of 1834) which became the capital on February 1, 1796 (as Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) was too prone to American attack) and introduced elements of the British legal system into Upper Canadian society, including English common law, trial by jury, and freehold land tenure. Upper Canada also abolished slavery with the passage of the Act Against Slavery on July 9, 1793, resulting in no slaves present by 1810 which predated the rest of the British Empire by 23 years. Ill-health cut short Simcoe’s time in service in Upper Canada as he left in 1796 and resigned as Lieutenant-Governor in 1798 after a brief stint serving as British force commander in 1797. Simcoe also commanded the Western District in Britain subsequently but died in 1806 before taking up his new post as commander-in-chief in India to succeed Charles Cornwallis who had also died after shortly assuming the post himself. To learn more about Simcoe, consider the following titles for borrowing from Toronto Public Library collections: Elizabeth Simcoe’s diary offers those interested in Canadian history a primary source snapshot of the 1791-1796 time period. She met aboriginal Mohawk Chief Joseph Brant and explorer Alexander Mackenzie. She was interested in the First Nations peoples as well as the fauna and flora and the developing social customs of the British settlers in Upper Canada. Follow Elizabeth Simcoe’s journey (and that of her husband) from September 17, 1791 to October 16, 1796. See also: copies of the 1965 edition. Or, consider the following version: The diary of Mrs. John Graves Simcoe: wife of the first lieutenant-governor of the province of Upper Canada, 1792-6 / Elizabeth Simcoe; with notes and a biography by J. Ross Robertson, and 237 illustrations, including 90 reproductions of interesting sketches made by Mrs. Simcoe, 1973, [c1911]. Consider this edition of Elizabeth Simcoe’s diary edited in 1911 by journalist and publisher John Ross Robertson. Also available in eBook format. Follow the military career of John Graves Simcoe from his time as commander of the Queen’s Rangers during the American Revolution through to his appointment as the first Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada and founder of York (now present-day Toronto), followed by his ill health, additional military appointments and eventual death. John Graves Simcoe wanted present-day London, Ontario to be the capital of Upper Canada in 1793 but was overruled by Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester, who agreed to Simcoe’s second-place choice of York. However, this historical development did not stop London from becoming the largest municipality in southwestern Ontario and a centre of higher learning with the University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College. For additional resources, please consider the following items: Infant Toronto as Simcoe’s folly / John Andre, 1971. Read about the role of German artist and settler William Berczy (founder of Markham, Ontario) in the founding of York (predecessor to Toronto) in co-operation with John Graves Simcoe. Click here for more copies. Governor Simcoe and his lady / Marcus Van Steen,1968. This biography of the Simcoes recounts the death of John and Elizabeth Simcoe’s infant daughter Katherine (January 16, 1793 to April 19, 1794) and her burial in the old military burial ground at Victoria Memorial Park (now Square) at Portland and Niagara Streets, several blocks northeast of Fort York. Toronto stories from the life of a city, Part 1: York / Lynx Images Inc., 1994. VHS. Documentary. Learn about the early history of York (Toronto) from 1793 to 1834 through quotations attributed to early inhabitants and through the narration of a facsimile of “Mrs. John Graves Simcoe”. Click here to view digitized images associated with John Graves Simcoe (including pictures and photographs and posters and printed ephemera) in Toronto Public Library collections.
Tinder has been criticized for not accepting trans people on the dating app, but now it's making a big change. Tinder previously offered two options when selecting gender -- man or woman -- but now users can fill in any term to describe their identity. "The tone of the elections forced us to look at what we are doing to help define what is acceptable for our community," cofounder and CEO Sean Rad told CNNMoney. The company worked with LGBT advocacy organization GLAAD to reassess its policies. The group helped Tinder reach nearly 40 auto-fill gender options for the app, such as "trans man," "trans woman" or "transgender." If none of those labels fit, a user can type in a customized label to display on their profile. More gender options will roll out to app users in the U.S., U.K. and Canada, starting on Tuesday. Related: No more swiping: Hinge dumps feature popularized by Tinder Nick Adams, GLAAD's transgender media program director who worked closely with Tinder on the changes, emphasized that listing gender is only an option -- not a requirement. "Some trans people will only want to go on a date with someone who knows they are trans," Adams said. "But trans people have different strategies for dating and some would prefer to go on a date first and then disclose." In addition, users can now select who can search for them. For example, a transgender male can choose to show up in Tinder's network to male users or female users, depending on their sexuality. Tinder said it was aware transgender individuals were harassed on the app or often "reported" for being trans. As a result, the company adjusted its algorithm to ensure it bans users only for their actions, not their gender identity. Related: What dating app is right for you? While Tinder could potentially lose users who might be uncomfortable with transgender people on the platform, Rad said he's not concerned. "We are a business, but we are in the business of making sure everyone can meet someone special," Rad said. "Letting our users be who they are is the right thing. If anyone has a problem with that, then they are welcome to not use Tinder."
We may never enjoy waiting on line and going through security checkpoints when traveling by air. But if the searches keep us safer, it’s probably worth the hassle … and the folks from the Transportation Security Administration definitely seem to be on the ball lately. On Friday, the TSA reported that in the week leading up to Memorial Day, agents confiscated a record 65 guns from passengers at security checkpoints — 54 of which were loaded. This beat their previous record of 50 fire arms (45 loaded) discovered the week before May 10th. Bizarrely, one of these weapons was found strapped to a passenger’s prosthetic leg: “A passenger at Salt Lake City (SLC) received a pat-down after an anomaly was detected during advanced imaging technology screening. During the pat-down, officers discovered a fully loaded .22 caliber firearm inside his boot and strapped to the prosthetic leg. The passenger was arrested by Salt Lake City Airport Police on a state charge of ‘Carrying a Concealed Weapon in a Secure Area.’” But why do people bring firearms onto planes anyway? In 2012, Joe Sharkey from The New York Times wrote that the number of guns found by TSA agents had been rising since 2010: “Security experts attribute the increase to two factors: a rise in gun sales and the sharp growth of so-called right-to-carry laws across the country that significantly relax regulations on carrying guns in many areas of public life, from colleges to hospitals.” Does this mean the TSA really IS coming after freedom-lovin’ Americans’ guns, as some pro-gun advocates would like us to believe? Not at all. According to the TSA: You can travel with your firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be declared to the airline. So, on top all the other annoyances and discomforts of air travel, we can add “worrying about our fellow passengers packing heat” to the list. You might want to think twice before reclining your seat. David Castelveter from the TSA also told Sharkey that the gun-toting passengers aren’t trying to break the law, they just forget they have their guns: “It’s almost always inadvertent rather than intentional.” Oops. TSA officials also found the following items: Three hand grenades: Luckily they were “inert,” meaning they won’t actually explode. Perhaps the travelers were carrying them along as novelty gifts for their loved ones. Luckily they were “inert,” meaning they won’t actually explode. Perhaps the travelers were carrying them along as novelty gifts for their loved ones. 12 stun guns: TSA security personnel found 12 stun guns at airports in Las Vegas, NV; Sacramento, CA; Albuquerque, NM; Baltimore, MD; Detroit, MI; Washington, DC; Phoenix, AZ; San Francisco, CA; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and St. Louis, MO. Were these passengers unsure of the welcomes they would receive at their destinations? TSA security personnel found 12 stun guns at airports in Las Vegas, NV; Sacramento, CA; Albuquerque, NM; Baltimore, MD; Detroit, MI; Washington, DC; Phoenix, AZ; San Francisco, CA; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and St. Louis, MO. Were these passengers unsure of the welcomes they would receive at their destinations? Two razor blades: One was found hidden in a shoe at Dayton International Airport in Ohio. The other was discovered in a passenger’s undergarments at Tampa International Airport in Florida. One was found hidden in a shoe at Dayton International Airport in Ohio. The other was discovered in a passenger’s undergarments at Tampa International Airport in Florida. Two joke-bombs: Two idiots joked about having bombs in their luggage, and will probably never, ever do that again. Two idiots joked about having bombs in their luggage, and will probably never, ever do that again. One “multi-tool”: I do not know what a “multi-tool” is, nor do I want to. But one was apprehended in Guam. I do not know what a “multi-tool” is, nor do I want to. But one was apprehended in Guam. Miscellaneous weird and scary-looking sh*t: The TSA also reported finding “firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, Airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons, and a lot of sharp pointy things.” In 2012, the TSA screened 637,582,122 passengers, discovered 1,543 fire arms (78% or 1,215 of which were loaded). For this, and other highlights of all the “dangerous, scary, and downright unusual objects” found in 2012, visit the TSA’s January 9th blog post. While it’s fun to share information about the crazy stuff TSA agents find on passengers’ persons and in their carry-on bags, the TSA blog claims they also want to keep people informed: Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the throughput is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. For the latest update on questionable items, check the TSA’s Prohibited Items page.
In the first part, Dr. Jasser Auda raised the question about where women prayer area should be located within the mosque and whether segregating women from men in mosques is acceptable. He listed 5 disadvantages of this practice and showed how the design of the Prophet’s Mosque was open for both males and females. In this article, an important advantage of such an open design is discussed. Women Learnt from Imam directly As women had their share in the Prophet’s Mosque, they were able to see him as he preached. That is scientifically proven to help in maintaining attentiveness and proper communication. Some women used to directly learn the Quran from the recitation of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Um Hisham Bint al-Harith ibn Al-Nu`man said: I memorized Surat Qaf only from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); he would recite it in his speech every Friday.[1] Abdullah ibn `Abbas narrated, Umu-l-Fadl heard me reciting “Wal Mursalati `Urfa” (Quran, Chapter 77). She commented, “O my son! By Allah, your recitation made me remember that it was the last Surah I heard from Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). He recited it in the Maghrib prayer. “[2] Um Salamah, the wife of Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, I used to hear people making a mention of the Cistern (hawdh), but I did not hear about it from Allah’s Messenger. One day while a girl was combing me I heard Allah’s Messenger say: “O people.” I said to that girl: Keep away from me. She said: He (the Prophet) has addressed men only; he did not call women. I said: I am amongst the people (called by him). Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: I shall be your harbinger on the Cistern; therefore, be cautious lest one of you should come (to me) and may be driven away like a stray camel. I would ask the reasons, and it would be said to me: You don’t know what innovations they made after you. So I would also say: Be away.[3] Narrated Abu `Uthman: I was informed that Gabriel came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) while Um Salamah was with him. He started talking (to the Prophet). Then the Prophet asked Um Salamah, “Who is this?” She replied, “He is Dihya (Al-Kalbi).” When Gabriel had left, Um Salama said, “By Allah, I did not take him for anybody other than him (i.e. Dihyah) till I heard the sermon of the Prophet wherein he informed about the news of Gabriel.”[4] It was narrated from Asma’ bint Abu Bakr that she said: The sun eclipsed during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) … then, I came and entered the Mosque, and saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) standing up (in prayer). I joined him in prayer, and he kept standing up so long that I felt I needed to sit down. Yet, I would notice a weak woman standing next to me, so I would say, “She is weaker than me” and I would keep standing. Then he (peace and blessings be upon him) bowed down for ruku` and kept bowing for long, and then he raised his head from ruku` and kept standing up for so long that had a man approached then, he would have thought that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had not yet offered the ruku`.[5] Hence, there is no need to isolate women within walls or curtains or to prevent them from sighting the Imam. It is proven that women used to see the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Mosque, and that it had a positive impact on their acquisition of knowledge. They also benefited from, and were even quite careful to observe, attendance at the Mosque. Drawing lines on the ground or using low barriers may be sufficient for organizing the areas of prayer for men and women to avoid any undesired dispute or crowding. References: [1] Muslim’s Sahih, the chapter on Friday, 3/13. [2] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, the chapter on Adhan 2/388, Muslim’s Sahih, The Prayer Chapter 2/40. [3] Muslim’s Sahih, The Virtues Chapter 4/1795 . [4] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, The Merits 7/244. Muslim’s Sahih, Companions’ Merits, 7/144 [5] Muslim’s Sahih, chapter on eclipse, 3/32.
James Comey Told Congress He Didn't Make a Decision on Hillary Clinton Until After all Interviews, Despite Having Drawn Up Draft Exoneration Statement Months and Months Before Straight-shooter. Wears a sheriff's star of pure gold alloyed with Resolute Integrity. Also, Also, a genuine Democrat Tool. The new revelation that James Comey circulated a draft of a statement he wrote as FBI director exonerating Hillary Clinton in last year’s email investigation appears to be at odds with what he told a House panel last September. “If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this,” Comey said during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, 2016. “All I can do is tell you again, the decision was made after that because I didn’t know what was going to happen in that interview,” he added. That statement, which Politico flagged on Thursday, appears to conflict with the revelation on Thursday that two of Comey’s top aides at the FBI said in transcribed interviews last year that Comey circulated drafts clearing Clinton as early as last April, months before he actually publicly cleared the former secretary of state, who had been under investigation for mishandling classified information on her private email server. Sean M. Davis had a good point yesterday on Twitter: If Comey had drafted his girl's Get Out of Jail Free pass in April, what the hell was he doing issuing immunity to all of Hillary's cronies before Fake-Interviewing them? Having fixed the outcome, was he now just making sure there were no witnesses left unimmunized who could disturb the fix? Sean M. Davis had a good point yesterday on Twitter: If Comey had drafted his girl's Get Out of Jail Free pass in April, what the hell was he doing issuing immunity to all of Hillary's cronies before Fake-Interviewing them? Having fixed the outcome, was he now just making sure there were no witnesses left unimmunized who could disturb the fix? Posted by: Ace at 05:55 PM MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat
Obama edges Trump as 'most admired' man in America President Obama meets with President-elect Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Nov. 10, 2016. (Photo11: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP) President Obama has retained his status as the most admired man in America for the ninth year in a row, edging out successor Donald Trump, according to Gallup's annual survey. Among women, Hillary Clinton remains the most admired woman in the country. Since Gallup started asking the question in 1946, incumbent presidents have dominated the list, winning 58 of the 70 times that Gallup has asked the question. The last exception was Obama himself, who received the honor as president-elect in 2009. Obama's ninth consecutive year at the top of the list puts him in second place all time, behind president Dwight Eisenhower, who won the distinction 12 years. Gallup asked 1,028 people an open-ended question: "What man that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most?" Of the respondents, 22% picked Obama and 15% chose Trump. It's the second year in a row that Trump reached the No. 2 spot. Gallup said Obama's strong showing was propelled by his popularity within his own party: 50% of Democrats named Obama as most admired, compared with 34% of Republicans choosing Trump. Following Obama and Trump on the top 10 list were Pope Francis (4%), Sen. Bernie Sanders (2%), the Rev. Billy Graham (1%), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (1%), the Dalai Lama (1%), former president Bill Clinton (1%), Microsoft founder Bill Gates (1%) and Vice President-elect Mike Pence (1%). After Clinton, the most admired women were first lady Michelle Obama (8%), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (3%), television mogul Oprah Winfrey (3%), television host Ellen DeGeneres (2%), Queen Elizabeth (2%), women's rights activist Malala Yousafzai (2%), former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (2%), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (2%) and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (1%). Clinton was the most admired woman for the 15th consecutive year, and the 21st year overall — the most years at the top of the list of any woman in the poll's history. Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt was most admired for 13 years. The telephone survey was conducted Dec. 7-11 and had a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Stay with USA TODAY for full coverage of the 2017 inauguration. Read more: Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2iEl9NW
HOUSTON – Houston Rockets guard James Harden was named to the 2012-13 All-NBA Third Team, which was announced today by the NBA as part of the All-NBA Teams announcement. This marks the first All-NBA Team selection for Harden, as well as the first for a Rockets player since Yao Ming earned All-NBA Second Team back in 2008-09. Overall, Harden is just the seventh player in Rockets history to earn All-NBA recognition. Harden (6-5, 220, Arizona State), who averaged 26.3 points, 6.7 rebounds, 4.5 assists, 2.00 steals and 1.00 blocks in six starts with the Rockets in their opening-round playoff series with the Oklahoma City Thunder, had one of the greatest statistical seasons in team history. Harden ranked fifth in the NBA in points per game (25.9), second in free throws made (674) and first in free throw attempts (792) in 2012-13. He became just the fifth member of the Rockets “2,000-point Club” this past season, joining Elvin Hayes, Moses Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon and Tracy McGrady as the only players in club annals to reach 2,000 points in one campaign. In addition to netting a career single-season best 23 30-point performances (Rockets record: 16-7), Harden surpassed Malone’s team mark for free throws made in a season (630 in 1981-82). He actually joined Gilbert Arenas (2005-06 and 2006-07), Kobe Bryant (2005-06 and 2007-08) and Jerry Stackhouse (2000-01) as the only four players in NBA history to record at least 600 free throws made and hit 150 or more 3-pointers in one season. Harden, who also ranked seventh in the NBA in steals per game (1.82) in 2012-13, had a team-high 21 games with at least three steals. Harden was named the Western Conference Player of the Week three times, joining McGrady (four times in 2004-05) and Olajuwon (three times in 1992-93) as the only Rockets to ever capture Player of the Week honors three or more times in one season. Harden launched his Rockets career with 82 combined points over his first two outings with Houston. It marked the most scored by any player in his first two games with a team in NBA history (37 points on 10/31/12 at Detroit and 45 points on 11/2/12 at Atlanta). The previous mark was held by Wilt Chamberlain, who scored 79 points in his first two career games with the Philadelphia Warriors in 1959. Below is a look at the all-time list of Rockets to earn All-NBA Team selection: All-NBA First Team
With each passing day, more and more Americans are finding a way that may help them in Donald Trump’s impeachment. There are many celebrities who has already signed several petitions showing their disdain for the 45th president of the United States of America. Apart from the celebrated personalities, there are a number of professional doctors who have predicted the four long years of Donald Trump as the president. According to a daily column by Stu Bykofsky for Philly.com, there are two possible ways that will short Donald Trump’s term as the president of the United States. According to the aforementioned column, Mr. Trump’s administration appealed the judge’s temporary restraining order. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down the ruling administration and for this, Trump tweeted, “see you in court.” Demonstrate Against President Trump In Super Bowl [Image by Tim Warner/Getty Images] Another possibility of Donald Trump leaving the office is when he will realize that he cannot do everything he wishes for and Bykofsky says, “where’s the fun in running the entire circus if someone takes away your top hat and whip?” In his research, the columnist talked with John K. Wilson, the author of President Trump Unveiled: Exposing the Bigoted Billionaire. According to the famous author, “The statistics say that a 70-and-a-half-year-old man has about an 11 percent chance of dying in the next four years.” If this was not enough, then Bart Rossi, the famous political psychologist predicted that Donald Trump will collapse within a year. “His extreme narcissistic personality — which is now being challenged daily, will be crushed,” Rossi added. “A narcissist doesn’t resign,” Rossi told the columnist. “He will keep on doing the same behavior, but to a greater extreme.” Over the last two months, there are many people from around the globe who are not pleased with Donald Trump and intend to remove him from the office as early as possible. As reported earlier, there is an ongoing online petition, which was started by RootsAction and Free Speech for People and to this date, there is a total of 857,811 signatures asking for Trump’s removal. Attorney Ron Fein, the legal director of the mentioned non-profit organization stated their motive behind starting the campaign. “No modern president has displayed the casual indifference to the Constitution and the rule of law that President Trump shows. The violations, the corruption, and the threat to our republic are here now, but they will only get worse the longer he stays in office. “Americans deserve a president who is not beholden to foreign governments to keep his businesses afloat, and whose decisions about bread-and-butter, not to mention life-and-death matters, will not be used to prop up Trump Towers around the world.” Activists Rally At Goldman Sachs To Protest Dodd-Frank Rollback [Image by Drew Angerer/Getty Images] Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) also talked about impeaching Donald Trump. During her recent interview, Waters stated that whoever wants to remove the president has to dig deeper to find the right motives. “I do believe that there is a connection between the Ukraine and Donald Trump and of course Russia. I think that he colluded with Putin during the election and that hacking and everything that took place. I think that it’s there, we just have to dig deeper, do the investigation and find it.” Whenever a new president-elect takes the oath of running the country, it is very common that he will bring certain changes. Surviving a population of more than 325 million is not an easy task and so far Donald Trump is doing all those things what he earlier promised during his presidential campaign. Do you think impeaching a sitting president is the only way out for those who are not accepting Donald Trump’s policies? Tell us what you think in the comments below. [Featured Image by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]
The world's best traffic cop? Meet the officer who hasn't had a single complaint from drivers in TWENTY YEARS Having people hate you comes with the territory of being a traffic cop. Telling disobedient drivers off and dishing out tickets every day is unlikely to make you the most popular of people. Having been a traffic cop for 20 years, L.A. Sheriff's Deputy Elton Simmons is no doubt well aware of all the downsides and stereotypes of his job. Scroll down for video Mr Nice Guy: L.A. Sheriff's Deputy Elton Simmons has been issuing drivers with tickets for two decades but in all that time not one person has complained about him How does he do it? Simmons modestly acknowledged that he must be doing something right and said, 'It's just how I do it every day¿ He knows that disgruntled drivers – often just irritated about getting a ticket - put in complaints constantly about traffic cops, which then get placed in the officer’s personal file. Simmons' own personal file is full. But incredibly, it is packed with commendations and over two decades he has not got one single complaint , reported CBS. Of the last 25,000 traffic stops he has made, not one person has complained about him. His boss, Capt. Pat Maxwell, couldn’t believe it when he first discovered that Simmons had a zero record. 'I mean, Vegas or M.I.T could not give you the odds of the statistical probability of that,' Maxwell told CBS. Still smiling: Despite having just been issued with tickets by Simmons, these drivers still like him Happy customer: Clutching her ticket in her hand, this woman says she's never been so happy to get a citation in her life Simmons modestly acknowledged that he must be doing something right but told the station, 'It's just how I do it every day.’ Determined to discover how he’s got his incredible record, CBS trailed the cop on the road for a day and witnessed how, even af ter Simmons slammed them with a ticket, drivers were left smiling not scowling. While still asserting authority, Simmons ensures that he treats people on his level and doesn’t act superior to anyone. ‘One thing I hate is to be looked down on - I can't stand it - so I'm not going to look down at you,’ he explains. One woman stopped by Simmons told CBS that she had never been so happy to get a ticket in her life. While another man cited by Simmons, Mike Viera, pinpointed his smile: ‘He's got a great smile. He's a nice guy. How could you be mad at that guy?' Watch video here
Image copyright AP Image caption India and Pakistan have often accused each other of unprovoked firing along the disputed border At least five civilians were killed as India and Pakistan exchanged fire in the disputed Kashmir region, days after a meeting between leaders of the two countries in Russia. Pakistan accused India of unprovoked firing in which four civilians died and five others were injured. India said one woman was killed and three other civilians wounded in firing by Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan's army also said it shot down an Indian spy drone in Kashmir. Pakistan summoned the Indian ambassador on Thursday to hear a "strong protest over airspace violation", the AFP news agency quoting a statement issued by the Pakistani foreign ministry said. The incidents come days after Mr Modi accepted an invitation from Mr Sharif to attend a regional summit in Islamabad next year, signalling a new thaw in a strained relationship. This will be Mr Modi's first visit to Pakistan after he took power last year. India and Pakistan have often accused each other of unprovoked firing along the disputed border. A ceasefire agreed in 2003 remains in place, but the neighbours often accuse each other of violating it. Pakistan's military said four civilians, including a 18-year-old girl, had died and five others were wounded when Indian troops fired across the de facto border in Sialkot region on Wednesday morning. Across the border, Indian border guards said one woman had been killed and three other civilians injured when Pakistani soldiers fired shells which exploded near a border village in Pargwal area on Wednesday. Image copyright PAkistan military Image caption The Pakistani military claimed that the drone was being used for aerial photography "It was a blatant, unprovoked cease-fire violation by Pakistan," D Parekh of India's Border Security Force told the Associated Press news agency. Meanwhile, India's army and air force have denied that any of their drones had been shot down or crashed in Pakistan, reports said. "An Indian spy drone was shot down by Pakistani troops which intruded into Pakistan along [the de facto border that divides the region] near Bhimber today. The spy drone is used for aerial photography," a statement from the Pakistani military said on Wednesday. But a spokesperson of the Indian army denied the report. "Some reports of a drone crash in PoK [Pakistan-controlled Kashmir] are being referred to. No drone or UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] crash of the Indian Army has taken place," the spokesperson told the Press Trust of India news agency. An air force spokesperson also denied that any of their drones had been brought down. Kashmir, claimed by both countries in its entirety, has been a flashpoint for more than 60 years.
Scientists have fresh hopes for an Alzheimer’s treatment after experiments to reduce inflammation in diseased mouse brains prevented memory and behavioural problems in the animals. Alzheimer’s disease has long been linked to disruption in the brain’s immune system, but the latest research adds to evidence that inflammation in the brain is not so much caused by the disease, but is a driver of the disorder. Researchers at Southampton University studied tissues from healthy human brains and others affected by Alzheimer’s disease. They found that Alzheimer’s brains had more immune cells, known as microglia, than healthy brains. Taurine-like chemical restores cognitive function in mice with Alzheimer's Read more The scientists next looked at microglia in mice that had been bred to develop a condition that resembles Alzheimer’s disease. In a series of experiments reported in the journal Brain, the team injected mice with a chemical that stops microglia numbers from growing too high. In untreated mice, the disease caused brain cells steadily to lose their connections with one another. But treated mice kept their nerve cell connections and had fewer memory and behavioural problems. Crucially, the treatment maintained the normal levels of microglia needed for a healthy brain immune system. The treatment did not, however, stop the build up of characteristic amyloid plaques in the animals’ brains. Diego Gomez-Nicola, who led the study, said the experiments were “as close to evidence as we can get” that inflammation and microglia were important for the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. The team now intends to work with the pharmaceutical industry to find a suitable drug that can be tested in humans. The chemical given to the mice acts on a receptor found on the surface of microglia called CSFR1. Scientists find first drug that appears to slow Alzheimer's disease Read more “This is a very exciting and robust paper from a highly respected group of scientists,” said Paul Morgan, director of Cardiff University’s Systems Immunity University Research Institute. “The findings raise the realistic prospect of targeting CSFR1 activation to inhibit the development of dementia in those with the earliest signs of Alzheimer’s disease. Because drugs that inhibit CSFR1 activation are already in the clinic for other applications, this might be achievable much more quickly than starting from scratch with a new drug.” Mark Dallas, a neuroscientist at Reading University, said the discovery could explain why drugs designed to treat Alzheimer’s have so far been unsuccessful. “While this basic science research provides strong evidence, the challenge will now be to develop medicines for people with dementia. Too often, this has been the stumbling block in turning observations in the laboratory into a workable therapy. “Excitingly, it does however highlight new avenues for researchers to exploit and strengthens the case for targeting other cell types within the brain in the fight against Alzheimer’s,” he added. Simon Ridley, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, which co-funded the study, said: “Research like this is vital as there are currently no treatments that can stop or slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain.”
In response to Bristol 24/7 and Thomas Oxley: ‘Gentrification by Instagram’ First of all I should say to those that do not know me; I was part of the @igersBristol team for two years, so this article really was aimed at a lot of my friends and peers. The reason this article will not be impartial isn’t because of my ties to those involved, but because it is a grossly unfair opinion piece with unfounded accusations, and it’s seemingly based on fuck all else but a desire to be controversial. I really do love Bristol and the diversity of its people, their passions and their beliefs. What I’ll never stand for is someone telling anybody what they should, or should not create, capture, or share. Bristol is a city that built a reputation on its creativity, and a community that supports each other. There is no room here for crab mentality, or negativity towards any other person’s craft. I understand that most people don’t live in the pretty, colourful Bristol we see on Instagram and in the wider press. It’s not all ‘Sunday Times Best Place to Live’ shite, where you walk your kids to school without swearing at them, past colourful houses, through the park or along the river. I understand this because I grew up on a council estate in East Bristol. I believe most of us had tough upbringings in a city that is rife with drug use, poverty, inequality and racial tension. The mixed views of Bristol held by many, shouldn’t be grounds to curse those that choose to focus on either the good or the bad. If you want to “Make Bristol Shit Again”, crack on. If you want to campaign and protest the injustices people in this city face, from the homeless, the refugees, the poor, the ethnic minorities. Please, please do. Or if you’d prefer to shine a bright light onto the things that make Bristol such a fantastic city to live in, as many people do extremely well, then have a fucking field day as there’s lots to shout about. @IGersBristol is a community of people that do the latter out of pure passion, immense pride and an unwavering attachment to Bristol. Building friendships, educating, and broadening minds along the way. To question the integrity of people you’ve never met is a lamentable act, for which you are being rightfully admonished. I’m focusing on @IGersBristol, I’ll reiterate not because of personal bias, because in my opinion, they are the inspiration for a large amount of feature accounts in Bristol. The foundation of the account, community and hashtag is to shout about what you love, to share your Bristol. A lot of folk’s favourite part of Bristol is indeed the floating harbour, not Withywood nor Knowle. Although, if you look a little deeper you’ll see there are plenty of other Instagrammers who strive to document the “real Bristol” that is claimed to be missing from social media. You’d also have seen the meets and events arranged across BS1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 and beyond. Events that took us way beyond “the square mile from the Suspension Bridge to the Arnolfini and from the Create Centre to the top of Park Street.” I respect opinion pieces, and the conversations we have every day on social media and in the press, but myself and my peers cannot stand by in light of such vitriol. Bristol’s “gentrifying” Instagram community have made it clear that no amount of hatred will stop us doing what we do, because we love it, and we love our home. Why don’t you join in sometime, Thomas? Everyone is welcome. Comments comments
If you boot up your PS4 today, the v3.15 update will be awaiting you. Clocking in at 260MB in size, it's an incremental update that, you guessed it, improves stability of the system. The official PlayStation Twitter described the update as the following: PS4 system software update 3.15 is coming tonight – it’s a minor update designed to improve system performance. Unhappy with the lack of added features on the PlayStation operating system? You can head to PlayStation Blog Share to submit ideas and rate those posted by other gamers. Among the most requested features for the PS4 is the ability to fully purchase PS NOW games, change User ID, support the G25 racing wheel, DualShock 4 compatibility for PS Vita Remote Play, and PS4 notifications for friends sign-on/off. Another major addition that many gamers have requested is the ability to organize the icons on the main menu, or at least create folders to store them.
In the midst of a busy week launching his debut, the short story collection Debris, Kevin Hardcastle found the time to put together this crackerjack list of books about endurance, each title a great complement to his own book, whose stories Tamas Dobozy describes as "like the fighters he writes about: balanced, precise, knowing exactly when and where to hit you." ***** In recently discussing the stories in my book, Debris, the idea of what the characters in the stories were fighting and struggling for kept coming up. In the end, I figured the fight itself, and enduring the hard things that happen in their lives, is what drives the stories. The characters endure and sometimes that is enough. Here are some other Canadian books that might share a kinship to mine in that regard, or that I simply look up to as a reader and writer. Lost Salt Gift of Blood, by Alistair MacLeod This is one I always mention, and for good reason. MacLeod always managed to write stories and characters that carried real hope no matter what they endured or how long. But none of it would have been so indelible without some of the finest writing ever put to paper. No Great Mischief, by Alistair MacLeod An incredible sense of family loyalty and clannishness and the ability to carry weight ended up in the pages of MacLeod’s only novel as well. A Maritime epic made near-perfect by its small moments. Siege 13, by Tamas Dobozy If you can read a story like "The Animals of The Budapest Zoo, 1944-1945" without feeling like you’ve gone through the wars with those embattled zookeepers, without knowing a little bit about how it is to live under siege and keep going, you probably should see a doctor. This collection expertly chronicles how people move through pain and suffering over the generations and what they keep and what they leave behind. There are entire histories told here, and there is an undeniable permanence to them. All the Broken Things, by Kathryn Kuitenbrouwer Another excellent Canadian book about being wounded and living with it, and the culpability of those people responsible (some closer to home than you’d like). It has fantastical elements that elevate our journey with Bo, the Vietnamese boy at the heart of the story, and a sense of longing and hope that haunts you throughout. The Lesser Blessed, by Richard Van Camp I read this book some years ago, at the recommendation of a friend, and it left a dent. For a writer concerned with rural settings and the lives of the marginalized and isolated, this is an essential Canadian book. It is a damn hard read at times, but so are many of the most important novels and collections. This was a community I felt in my bones, even though the things endured therein were on another level compared with the material I’ve written from. If anyone missed this book, they’ve missed a lot. Inside, by Kenneth J. Harvey Lately released from prison, after his wrongful conviction was overturned, Mr. Myrden heads back to his old stomping grounds in St. Johns. He tries to get clear of the damage done by all his time inside and does his best to hold it together in the day to day, to break destructive cycles in his life outside. The language really drives this novel, and, while those short declarative sentences might be too much for some readers, I am big on deliberate style and craft and would rather see short, hard sentences with a purpose than a billion pointless commas. Lullabies for Little Criminals, Heather O’Neill Often people unnecessarily divide rural and urban fiction into two sets, when the true measure they should be looking at is the way environment plays on a person, and, in much of the best work, how it informs the lives of a specific class of people. The city here, in more wearied parts of Montreal, is a wilderness that Baby travels and survives. She is intelligent and resourceful beyond her years, but she carries a lot of weight and can’t stop the world from tearing a strip out of her time and time again. Yet she keeps moving. The writing and the dialogue are pitch perfect also. Rust and Bone, by Craig Davidson Davidson is one of the few Canadian writers that I look to when I think of fiction that truly matters in its guts. Some of these stories are hard to look at squarely, but they are written with such confidence and skill and heart that you have to absorb them. Through all the blood and sweat and suffering in this collection, there is humour and hope, and a sense of honest sentiment that is very difficult to achieve. When people try to pigeonhole “tough guy” writing, this is a good place to send them to turn that idea on its head. The Desperate People, by Farley Mowat I know that there are more famous books by Mowat, many of which have had their place in fiction or, perhaps, creative non-fiction, championed or questioned. But this book struck me as entirely unsentimental, especially when compared to The People of the Deer, his initial account of the Ihalmuit people and the destruction of their way of life at the hands of various Canadian authorities.The Desperate People gives up Mowat’s interjections in favour of a bare, grim chronicle of the forces that forever changed the lands of the inland Inuit, and the resulting death and decline of the people there. This was the entry point for me into one the many historical events that shows the dark, underside of Canada and the world’s lack of attention to it. Part of the reason there are so many great Canadian writers go unheralded is because they are exploring that darkness, delivering these kinds of stories to us. Or at least they are trying. It is still a steep uphill climb, but that makes it matter all the more. Light Lifting, by Alexander MacLeod It seems right to start with MacLeod short stories, and end with MacLeod short stories, even if they aren’t by the same MacLeod. No matter. Alexander MacLeod’s short fiction collection is written with skill and has truths in there that come out subtly and with great effect. MacLeod writes the home and family life as well as anyone in this country, as in "Wonder About Parents". There is always a looming sense that all of it can be lost, and when things are lost, they linger even as they are lived through. The run through the cross-border rail tunnel, in "Miracle Mile", is thick with tension and ambition. It’s probably a good one to end with, those two boys running the dark and possibly for their lives. That stands in for a lot of what we do in life, and a lot of what good writing is and what is worth writing about. Kevin Hardcastle is a fiction writer from Simcoe County, Ontario. He studied writing at the University of Toronto and at Cardiff University. Hardcastle was a finalist for the 24th annual Journey Prize in 2012, and his short stories have been published in Word Riot, subTerrain, Noir Nation, The Malahat Review, The Fiddlehead, Little Fiction, The Puritan, The New Quarterly, PRISM international, EVENT, Joyland, Shenandoah, The Walrus, and The Journey Prize Stories 24 & 26. He also has short fiction forthcoming in This Magazine, and Best Canadian Stories 15. Hardcastle’s debut short story collection, Debris, is published by Biblioasis and is in stores and available for order now. His novel, In the Cage, will also be published by Biblioasis in fall 2016.
Table of Contents Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma Jump to Subtopic: Question: Did Joseph hide his plural marriages from Emma, his first wife? Joseph did not always tell Emma immediately about some of his plural relationships Joseph and Emma were in a complex and unique situation with regard to plural marriage—Emma had been warned by Joseph's revelation that if she refused to allow Joseph to obey the commandment he had received, he might proceed without her permission. We also know relatively little about what Emma knew, and when she knew it. We should be cautious in assuming that the critical or anti-Mormon narrative of Joseph constantly sneaking around behind Emma's back is accurate. Emma had periods where she accepted plural marriage, and then later rejected it One critic of the Church claims, "Joseph Smith publicly lied about his practice of polygamy, and lied to his own wife (Emma) about the practice." [1] It is certainly true that Joseph did not disclose all of his plural marriages precisely when they happened. For example, he had been sealed to Emily and Eliza Partridge already, and Emma later had one of her periods of acceptance of plural marriage, on condition that she get to choose the wives. [2] She chose Emily and Eliza, and so they were resealed to Joseph without disclosing that they were already sealed. Emma's change of heart didn't last long, and she soon had Joseph break off contact with the girls, and expected them to renounce the covenants they had made. [3] Ultimately, Joseph had to choose between obeying Emma and obeying God There are also other examples. It's difficult to know exactly what Emma knew, and when she knew it, because she would later insist that Joseph never practiced plural marriage. So, we have to kind of piece together the evidence from fairly fragmentary sources. Was Joseph justified in this? Well, that's a difficult question to answer. If one doesn't believe that Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage, then the whole enterprise was probably a bad idea. If Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage (as he repeatedly testified that he had been), then ultimately he had to choose between obeying Emma and obeying God. And, Joseph seems to have been determined to obey God. The best way to contextualize this is to now look at the evidence against lustful desires motivating Joseph and coercion of women he approached into marrying him. Question: Was Emma aware of the possibility that Joseph could take additional wives even without her consent? Emma was warned about the possibility that Joseph could take wives even without her consent Emma was warned about the possibility that Joseph could take wives even without her consent. [4] The D&C 132 revelation was Joseph's written instructions on the matter, put into writing at the request of his brother Hyrum, who felt he could use it to persuade Emma that plural marriage was a true principle. [5] However, there's an important line in there that speaks to the circumstance in which Joseph found himself with regard to Emma: Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife (DC 132:65). The Law of Sarah: Wives were to be first taught the revelation to see if they would accept it In short, the Lord brings up something called "the Law of Sarah"--this refers to Sarah, wife of Abraham, who in order to fulfill the covenants made to Abraham, was willing to seek out another wife (Hagar) for her husband. So, the principle seems to be that wives were to be first taught the revelation, and see if they would obey. The previous verse reads: And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law (DC 132:64 If Emma rejected the teaching, then Joseph was exempt from the Law of Sarah Thus, Joseph (who held the keys--and the only one who did so at the time, see DC 132:7) was to teach Emma--which he did. But, ultimately, if she refused to accept the revelation, then "he is exempt from the law of Sarah"---i.e., he no longer requires her approval or acceptance. This is a stern doctrine, and we can all probably sympathize with Emma's situation. But, it is not clear that the alternative is any better, if one believes Joseph was acting by revelation--ultimately, either a mortal's will has to trump, or God's does. So, Joseph was to teach Emma, but if she ultimately refused, then Joseph was to obey, even in the face of her disobedience. She could not choose for him. It may be that this clause did not apply to any other situation--the scripture says that it applies to a "man...who holds the keys of this power," and only the President of the Church did or does. So, this was likely not much of a model for others; it was very much an issue just between Joseph and Emma. One can see that throughout--the whole revelation is really targeted at helping solve their problems. (Joseph F. Smith would later say that if the revelation had not been written in that context, it would have been different, and perhaps more useful in a sense.) [6] We can and should have considerable sympathy for Emma, since she was in a very difficult situation She may ultimately have taken a harder road (leaving the Church, marrying outside the Church, lying about Joseph's teaching of plural marriage, raising an illegitimate child of her second husband's as her own child, etc.) to learning the same sorts of things that plural marriage would have taught her. As Brian Hales has pointed out, she had the hardest job (in a way) because she was the only woman who was faced with a revelation from her husband commanding it: Emma may have also confronted the fear that perhaps she was inadequate to bind Joseph's affections, leading him to desire other companions and thus introducing the possibility that he could have been deceived by those desires. None of the first wives of other polygamists would have experienced this trial, because none of the other first wives were married to the man who received the polygamy revelation. All other pluralists could hold the Prophet and his teachings responsible....unlike Emma, they could more easily dismiss the question of whether their husband's adoption of plurality was related to their own contributions to the marriage or that they were somehow deficient. [7] Emma believed in Joseph as a prophet but could not bear plural marriage On the other hand, though, we must remember that Emma had many experiences that others did not have. (When asked by some women in the midst of the plural marriage at Nauvoo if she still believed Joseph was a prophet, she replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." [8]) She accompanied Joseph to retrieve the golden plates. She wrote for him during the initial translation of the Book of Mormon. She participated in sacred ordinances, and knew Joseph and his calling in an intimate way that few if any others did, and continued to insist to her death that he had been a prophet. [9] So, perhaps it is not surprising that she was tested in ways that few others were. And, Joseph may well have not handled it perfectly. He likely did did his best, but it was an agonizing situation without ideal options. As Richard Bushman noted: I see their [Joseph and Emma's] relationship as tragic. She believed in him but could not bear plural marriage. He loved her but could not resist his own revelation. They were both heroic actors on a large stage trapped in terrible moral dilemmas. [10] Question: What possible modern lessons can we learn from Emma and Joseph's struggle with plural marriage? Joseph Smith: "it is quite as necessary for you to be tried [even] as Abraham and other men of God" These observations provide perhaps the most useful lesson for the modern members, since Joseph Smith told the Twelve, soon before his death: "'You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried [even] as Abraham and other men of God, God will feel after you, and He will take hold of and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.' ." (Cited by John Taylor, JD 24:197). Harold B. Lee said of this statement: Now I want to bear testimony to you that every one of us [the Twelve] has had that kind of testing. Some of us have been tried and have been tested until our very heart strings would seem to break. I have heard of persons dying with a broken heart, and I thought that was just a sort of a poetic expression, but I learned that it could be a very real experience. I came near to that thing; but when I began to think of my own troubles, I thought of what the Apostle Paul said of the Master, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:8-9). Don't be afraid of the testing and trials of life. Sometimes when you are going through the most severe tests, you will be nearer to God than you have any idea, for like the experience of the Master Himself in the temptation on the mount, in the Garden of Gethsemane, and on the cross at Calvary, the scriptures record, "And, behold, angels came and ministered unto him" (Matthew 4:11). Sometimes that may happen to you in the midst of your trials. [11] We should not, then, judge Joseph or Emma too harshly. Who says but what we would face similar trials with as much grace as they did? And, hopefully we won't face ours in a fishbowl, like they did. To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here
Esten Ciboro (Facebook) An Ohio man and his son are using the Bible to defend themselves in court against multiple charges of rape, kidnapping, and endangering children. Via the Washington Post, the Toledo Blade reports that 53-year-old Timothy Ciboro and his son, 28-year-old Esten Ciboro, have been allowed to use the Bible as their main piece of evidence to defend themselves against accusations that they kidnapped and raped underage girls at their home in Toledo, Ohio over the span of several years. “There’s a great deal of strategy in Scripture and I use those strategies in everything I do,” Esten Ciboro told the court last week when explaining why he and his father should be allowed to use the Bible in court as part of their defense. Ciboro, who is acting as his own attorney in conjunction with his father, also called the Bible “the only law book that truly matters.” Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Linda Jennings said that she would allow the two men to use the Bible during their trial, so long as they didn’t use it question witnesses. “It’s the court’s opinion that while the Bible is very important, it is not a law book in a court of law,” she told the men. The two Ciboros were arrested last May after Esten Cibro’s 13-year-old stepsister escaped from their basement and told police that she had been kidnapped and repeatedly raped by both men for more than a year.
‘He was a slob. Did you ever see him eat? Starving children could fill their bellies on the food that ended up on his beard and clothes. Dogs would gather to watch him eat. I never understood gluttony, but I hated it…I hated that about you. He enjoyed disgusting people—being disgusting—that thrill of offending people and making them uncomfortable. He was despicable. He will not be missed.’ The Razor’s Edge is Bill Murray’s pet project. He starred in the smash comedy Ghostbusters so that Columbia Pictures would allow him to take his first serious role in the film version of W. Somerset Maugham’s 1944 novel about a disillusioned World War I vet, Larry Darrell, who travels the globe to find the meaning of life. The critics were less than pleased with the $13 million result, but many were moved by a scene that Murray, as co-screenwriter, wove into the story as a way of saying goodbye to his friend and Saturday Night Live colleague John Belushi, who died of a drug overdose a year before the movie was made. In the film Darrell cradles the dead body of his gruff but beloved ambulance corps chief, played by the star’s brother Brian Doyle-Murray, and curses him for dying. “That scene is all about John,” says Murray. “It comes from this old Persian thing where if somebody dies you tell horrible stories about him. That’s what I did when John died.” And that is what Darrell does as he berates the dead man. “What it does is remind you not to get sentimental. You say, ‘That guy was a rat,’ and I’m a rat too, and I’d better do something about it rather than weep my life away.”
Police have arrested a popular Indian spiritual guru for an alleged sexual assault on a 16-year-old schoolgirl at a religious retreat, a local official says. Asaram Bapu, one of many self-styled Hindu "godmen" who attract large numbers of followers, was arrested shortly after midnight on Sunday in the central town of Indore. Asaram Bapu: Spiritual guru accused of sexual assault on a 16-year-old schoolgirl at a religious retreat in central India. Credit:AFP The 72-year-old was then flown to the western city of Jodhpur where the alleged assault on the girl - whose parents were members of his congregation - took place, local deputy police commissioner Ajay Pal Lamba said. The guru had earlier failed to report to a police station voluntarily, despite being given a deadline that ended last Friday.
Are you ready for another monthly DIY challenge? This month, our challenge item is a clear ornament. We decided to pair ours with a mason jar to create a fun DIY snowman! We started with a clear plastic ornament and pint size mason jar from Michael’s. We filled both the ornament and the mason jar approximately 1/4 full with fake snow, then glued the ornament onto the mouth of the jar using E6000. Once that was dry, I used Americana acrylic paint to hand paint his face. If you don’t get his face right the first time, you can use a wet rag to scrub the paint off and start over. Just make sure you package him carefully at the end of the season to protect his painted face or seal it. I have a shaky hand and couldn’t get his carrot nose straight, but I actually think I like it a little crooked and uneven. I used a foam brush that looks similar to an eyeshadow brush to dot the circles on for his eyes and mouth. I don’t have a picture of this next step, but you’ll want to cut a small circle of plastic or cardboard and glue it over the hole at the top of the ornament before gluing his hat on. This way if the snowman is tipped upside down, the fake snow won’t dump out of the ornament and into his hat. We added ribbon and a sprig of greenery to a plain black felt doll hat, glued a couple buttons to the jar and tied a ribbon scarf around his neck. And that’s it! What do you think of your little snowman? Right now he’s hanging out in our kitchen and he makes me happy every time I look at him :). Are you ready to see the rest of the clear ornament projects? Check them out below! Wanna hang out more? We do too! Join the fun on our Facebook and Google+ pages. Get behind the scenes scoop on our latest projects on Instagram, or check out the best pins on Pinterest with us! We link up at these fun parties!
When a masked man came to the counter demanding money the dairy worker thought it was a joke. Moments later he was hiding behind a door in the back of the dairy after being threatened with a knife. The Discount Dairy Woolston, on Ferry Rd, was robbed about 8pm on Saturday. SUPPLIED A masked man demands money from a dairy worker. Employee Meghamesh Patel said his colleague thought the man, who was wearing a halloween mask, was "playing around" at first. READ MORE: * Editorial: Violent burglaries - where's the backup? * Community on edge as dairy robbed twice in three days * Woolston Night 'n Day 24-hour dairy robbed again "But after a couple of seconds he showed the knife and realised it was a robbery." CCTV footage shows the employee run to a room at the back of the dairy, while the robber empties the till and runs off with about $800. The robbery is the latest in a spate to hit the area in recent months. The Night 'n Day, which is less than 200m up the road, has been robbed eight times since August. Patel said working at night was "scary". "I don't know what's going on in Woolston. It's happening more and more often." Staff had placed a baseball bat under the counter in response to the robberies. "The manager told the employees if something goes wrong don't try and fight them, just let them go. "We've still got the baseball bat there but we don't have time. We panic when they come with a weapon, we don't want to fight them." Patel said the staff member was uninjured in the robbery. "He's good, that's the big thing. We don't care about money."
UPDATE, 1:06 PM: Hours after having the plug seemingly pulled by a state judge, DraftKings and FanDuel are back in business in New York state — at least for now. An Appeals Court has granted the fantasy sports sites a temporary stay of the injunctions ruling from Judge Manuel Mendez this morning. Awaiting a formal appeal from the sites, this latest ruling will halt efforts by NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to shut down the daily fantasy sports sites for what his office term illegal gambling. The appeals hearing is expected sometime in January so you could say FanDuel and DraftKings got an early Christmas today or at the very least so holiday season sports action. Whether the appeal is successful or not in the long run is another matter, but at least one lawyer is willing to bet things could work out for the sites. “We look forward to a full and fair hearing and are confident we will demonstrate clearly to the Court why we should be able to continue to offer our DFS games in New York permanently,” DraftKings lawyer David Boies said Friday after the immediate stay was granted. “We are encouraged by our dialogue this week with New York state legislators. We look forward to continuing that conversation.” PREVIOUS, 7:24 AM: (updated with statements) A New York state judge this morning sided with the Empire State’s Attorney General and has shut down the daily fantasy sports sites. The preliminary injunction granted by Judge Manuel Mendez says that FanDuel and DraftKings likely are illegal under the state’s gambling laws. “We are disappointed with the Court’s decision, and will immediately file an emergency notice of appeal in order to preserve the status quo,” DraftKings lawyer David Boies said Friday morning. The powerhouse counsel from Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP had made it clear last month that the site would make such a move if the court ruled against it. “Daily Fantasy Sports contests have been played legally by New Yorkers for the past seven years, and we believe this status quo should be maintained while the litigation plays out.” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has a different response, as he made clear online: Statement on today’s court decision: pic.twitter.com/wFqy1aptsV — Eric Schneiderman (@AGSchneiderman) December 11, 2015 Friday’s ruling (read it here) comes after the NY AG early last month gave notice he would seek to shutter the hugely popular daily fantasy sports sites for essentially conducting gambling. Both FanDuel and DraftKings disagreed with that, insisting that what they offer is games of skill to their players, not chance — though of course money is always at play. Several other states including Nevada already have cast FanDuel and DraftKings out of their jurisdictions based on similar premises as those articulated by Schneiderman, but none is as large or as lucrative to FanDuel and DraftKings as New York. Both sites are well known to any sports fan in America from their ubiquitous ads and sponsorship banners for the NFL, NBA and other leagues’ games. Major media companies and the likes of Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones have a stake or interest in FanDuel and DraftKings — an interest that might be reconsidered with today’s ruling. Friday’s ruling is a big loss for both of the sites, which also have sought the path of the courts to keep their businesses running in New York. Having said that, FanDuel actually stopped taking new customers in the state soon after Schneiderman sent cease-and-desist letters to both sites’ CEOs on November 10. In addition, both companies saw payment and transaction vendors contacted by the NY AG’s office, a move they claim put their business in the state in peril. And that biz is big: DraftKings is estimated to have 113,000 active players in New York and has made more than $100 million in entry fees alone in 2015. So, with appeals being filed now, place your bets.
PM sold stake in Blairmore investment fund, which featured in Panama Papers, for £31,500 four months before entering No 10 David Cameron has finally admitted he benefited from a Panama-based offshore trust set up by his late father. What David Cameron did and didn't say about his father's offshore trust Read more After three days of stalling and four partial statements issued by Downing Street he confessed that he owned shares in the tax haven fund, which he sold for £31,500 just before becoming prime minister in 2010. In a specially arranged interview with ITV News’ Robert Peston he confirmed a direct link to his father’s UK-tax avoiding fund, details of which were exposed in the Panama Papers revelations in the Guardian this week. Admitting it had been “a difficult few days”, the prime minister said he held the shares together with his wife, Samantha, from 1997 and during his time as leader of the opposition. They were sold in January 2010 for a profit of £19,000. He paid income tax on the dividends but there was no capital gains tax payable and he said he sold up before entering Downing Street “because I didn’t want anyone to say you have other agendas or vested interests”. But the interview appeared unlikely to end scrutiny of Cameron’s tax affairs. The Labour MP John Mann, a member of the Treasury select committee, said the prime minister should resign, claiming that Cameron had “covered up and misled”. Cameron also admitted he did not know whether the £300,000 he inherited from his father had benefited from tax haven status due to part of his estate being based in a unit trust in Jersey. “I obviously can’t point to the source of every bit of money and dad’s not around for me to ask the questions now,” Cameron said. David Cameron's father sought legal advice on best tax havens Read more It was the fifth explanation in four days from Cameron and his aides about the benefits he and his family had enjoyed from the offshore fund. Downing Street initially insisted it was a private matter, but Cameron then said he had “no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds”. His spokesman later clarified: “The prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds.” Downing Street then said there were no offshore funds or trusts the family would benefit from in future, leaving questions about the past. In his first interview on the topic after days of stonewalling, Cameron was questioned on whether there was a conflict of interest between his father setting up the Panama-based Blairmore Investment Trust, which did not have to pay UK tax on its profits, and his professed policy to crack down on aggressive tax avoidance. “Rules have changed, culture has changed,” he said. “And I welcome that. I want to be as clear as I can about the past, about the present, about the future, because frankly, I don’t have anything to hide.” Earlier Cameron had refused to take questions from the press while campaigning in Exeter for Britain to stay in the EU. A student managed to address him, saying: “I am very interested in what the collective EU states could do to combat tax avoidance – something you have personal experience of.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest A student questions David Cameron on tax avoidance Speaking about his personal wealth, Cameron told Peston: “In all of this I’ve never hidden the fact that I’m a very lucky person who had wealthy parents, who gave me a great upbringing, who paid for me to go to an amazing school. I have never tried to pretend to be anything I am not. But I was keen in 2010 to sell everything – shares, all the rest of it – so I can be very transparent. I don’t own any part of any company or any investment trust or anything else like that.” He also said it was a misconception that Blairmore had been set up to avoid tax. “It wasn’t,” he said. “It was set up after exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in dollar denominated shares and companies could do so.” David Cameron avoids question on benefiting from father’s tax affairs Read more Richard Burgon, the shadow Treasury minister, said Cameron’s admission showed a “crisis of morals” at the heart of the Conservative government. He said: “After four days of refusing to answer this question David Cameron has now finally been forced to admit he directly benefited from Blairmore, a company which paid no tax in 30 years. He must now further clarify whether or not he or his family were benefiting directly or indirectly in 2013 when he was lobbying to prevent EU measures to better regulate trusts as a way to clamp down on tax avoidance. “David Cameron needs to properly put the record straight in full on this matter and issue a statement to parliament on Monday. We can’t let this crisis of morals at the heart of the Conservative government further undermine public trust in the office of prime minister or the principle that those who govern us should pay their tax like the rest of us.” The Panama Papers were leaked to the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, which shared them with the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the Guardian, BBC and other media organisations. Four days into the torrent of revelations, regulators stepped up their response. Twenty banks and financial firms in London have been told to disclose their dealings with Mossack Fonseca to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority by Friday next week in a first step that could potentially see wrongdoing punished with heavy fines. It cited the need for financial institutions “to mitigate the risk that they might be used to commit financial crime”. In Geneva, the Swiss chief prosecutor, Olivier Jornot, said he had launched an undisclosed number of investigations and said his office was paying very close attention to new information as it emerged. In Brussels, the EU tax commissioner, Pierre Moscovici, threatened “to hit [tax havens] with appropriate sanctions if they refuse to change”. He added: “The amounts of money, the jurisdictions and the names associated with this affair are frankly shocking. If these leaks reveal that any EU laws have been broken the commission will not hesitate to act.” The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, dismissed revelations about a network of offshore deals worth $2bn involving members of his close circle, as a conspiracy to undermine Russia. Responding for the first time on Thursday, he claimed the reports were “one more attempt to destabilise the internal situation [and] make us more accommodating”. He said in St Petersburg: “Your humble servant was not there [named in the files], but they don’t talk about that. So what did they do? They make an information product – they found acquaintances and friends.” China, meanwhile, stepped up its efforts to stop its population reading revelations that showed that relatives of three of the seven members of the Communist party’s elite ruling council, including relatives of the president, Xi Jinping, had companies that were clients of Mossack Fonseca. The Guardian’s coverage of the Panama papers was blocked to internet users not on a special secure network. The Communist party reportedly told news organisations to “self-inspect and delete all content related to the ‘Panama Papers’ leak”. It was announced that the Argentinian president, Mauricio Macri, was facing an investigation into his financial dealings via two offshore firms that appeared in the files. The federal prosecutor, Federico Delgado, opened an investigation to find out if Macri, who denies wrongdoing, failed to declare assets as required by public officials.
Litecoin miners, pools and exchanges have been informed to prepare for the pending CSV and SegWit activation. The date has been confirmed in a note issued by Bitcoin Core contributor, Johnson Lau for around May 11 at block 1,201,536. It could also happen earlier depending on hashrate. The network reached the required number of signaling blocks and locked into its final phase to activate the long-awaited SegWit on Wednesday April 26. The Lightning Network would also be ready for implementation on Litecoin at the same time according to its founder, Charlie Lee. He has also confirmed that Bitcoin Core developers have been working with Litecoin on Confidential Transactions CT and Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees MAST. According to Lau, MAST which will is aimed at improving flexibility and increasing privacy “…will make LTC script language 2 generations ahead of BTC.” Between LTC and BTC The litmus test for Litecoin would come after the next two weeks. SegWit activation is expected to fix a transaction malleability bug and reduce the size of transactions stored on the blockchain to accommodate more in a block. Afterwards, wallet providers and other major users are expected to deploy SegWit-enabled apps. The idea is to help Litecoin gain wider adoption not only in China where it is highly recognised as a viable digital currency but in other parts of the world. The Lightning Network, on its part, is to enable the Litecoin blockchain connect and share specific information with Bitcoin’s to create a seamless movement of value between the two networks. If achieved, the scalable instant payment network built on the chain would enable cheaper transactions and faster transaction times. The view that Bitcoin is stuck right now with little or no innovation happening on its network has been playing out for a while. The stand-off over the scalability and non-availability of a layer like LN could force users to another chain. It makes sense then, especially with the rising price of Bitcoin, that Litecoin could be handy for basic day-to-day transactions while Bitcoin takes the grand position as a settlement currency and for larger transactions as the most secure chain. Though it has the capacity – already four times that of Bitcoin and expected to double once SegWit activates – and a reasonable choice to handle such transactions for now, Litecoin has to make a very good impact on the market to be taken seriously. Its use for smaller transactions is not expected to take form until the next couple years. For now, it has to convince the world that it can deliver. As a decentralized system that is defined by the software the users run, Litecoin has been described as neither being a democracy nor subject to control by any one person or group. It is designed to produce 84 million currency units. According to a French startup, ACINQ, which has ran its LN solution known as Eclair as a testnet on Litecoin even without changing the code, it is very possible that the first LN payment carrying real value will be made on Litecoin. An individual developer, Jack Mallers‏, has also published the mobile and desktop application he has been working on for the Lightning Network.
Longtime Mexican international midfielder and former Sounders FC stalwart Gonzalo Pineda announced his retirement from professional soccer on Thursday, ending a 13-year career that spanned seven teams and two countries. Pineda, 33, spent two seasons with the Sounders from 2014-15, appearing in 56 regular-season games for the club and three more during the team’s postseason push to the Western Conference Championship in 2014. A veteran presence in the central midfield who played with Mexico in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Pineda combined with longtime Sounders defensive midfielder Osvaldo Alonso to form one of the strongest midfield parings in MLS over the past two seasons, serving as the engine room for the team’s surge to its first-ever Supporters’ Shield in 2014. The Sounders opted last month to decline the option on Pineda’s contract as he considered retirement. Pineda wasn't clear on his next career steps, but he alluded to a new job within soccer. The Sounders signed Pineda in March 2014 after a preseason trial with the club, the first contract he signed outside of his native Mexico. Pineda started his career in 2002 with Liga MX side Pumas and won a pair of titles with the club in 2004, but eventually made his name with legendary Mexican club C.D. Chivas, where he appeared in more than 120 matches over seven years with the club. Pineda also suited up on loan stints for San Luis, Cruz Azul, Puebla and Querétaro during his time in Mexico. A veteran with the Mexican national teams for five years, Pineda earned 44 caps with El Tri between 2004-08. He appeared in five games during the 2005 Confederations Cup before later starting three games for Mexico during the 2006 World Cup in Germany, when Mexico reached the Round of 32.
If you’ve never stopped to think about how often your fingers touch your keyboard every day, do it now. Did you think about it? Good! Were you surprised by how often you touch those keys? Yeah, it’s pretty crazy. Now imagine how much time you lose when you aren’t typing quickly enough. Time is a precious commodity for many people, and if typing slow is a problem that you know wastes your valuable time, you need to learn to improve your speed. Here are a few key ways you can train your brain and fingers to type faster and become the master of your keyboard. Pay Attention to Physical Setup The first step in learning how to type faster is understanding your body and how it relates to your work space. The fancy term for this idea is ergonomics, and it’s becoming more of a priority for people who want to maximize their computer skills while also keeping their bodies properly cared for. So what’s the big deal with making sure you sit up straight, keep your shoulders back, and pay attention to your wrist posture? These things all effect your ability to type faster and effortlessly. Slumping and hunching screw up your back and shoulders, and letting your wrists fall over the edge of a desk will make them ache. You’ll be focusing more on how your body hurts than on your typing, and you’ll be more likely to make mistakes and lose productive time. Make sure you’re following all proper ergonomic practices when you type. Purchase a comfortable chair that fits your body and a desk that lets your forearms rest at a comfortable 90-degree angle from your body when your fingers are on your keyboard. And of course, make sure you get a quality keyboard (that one’s a given). You want one with keys that feel easy to press so you’re able to focus on your typing instead of the stickiness of the keys. Learn Your Way Around the Keys Once you’ve got your setup configured, start paying attention to the keys themselves. This is because one of the most common issues with people who type slowly is that they’re not used to where the keys are or keep looking at the symbols instead of the screen. It’s like when you’re trying to learn a second language, and you can’t speak or read a sentence without having to reference a bilingual dictionary. In the same sense, the sooner you can type without resorting to looking down, the better your typing speed will be. This is known as touch typing. If you have problems looking at your keyboard while typing, try saying the names of the keys as you push them, which will help you memorize their location. Continue this practice as long as you need to before you’re typing without any vocalization at all. You can also… Practice Your Butt Off Honestly, practice is what will eventually help you start feeling more confident around the keyboard (just like practicing a second language more will make you less uncomfortable trying to speak it fluently). You should set speed goals for yourself by the end of a few months or a year of practice. Pull up a blank word document every day and simply write for 5-10 minutes without stopping. Don’t worry about errors – they’ll become fewer and farther apart the more you practice. You can also look into typing tests and programs that are offered online (Metadot has a great typing app for you, especially if you like racing competitions!). Typing faster can be achieved in any number of ways, and these are of course just a few suggestions to get you started. Have you found other tactics that have helped you type faster?
× Seattle-area driver charged with sexual assaults for incidents with both Lyft and Uber SEATTLE – Seattle police on Tuesday said another ride-share driver in the city has been charged with sexual assault. Sayfudin Ahmed is accused of trying to rape one passenger and trying to kiss another in a pair of incidents about three weeks apart last April. Police said the alleged victims in both cases were drunk women who were upset about recent breakups. Ahmed was driving for Lyft during one of the incidents and Uber during the other. Senior deputy prosecutor Carla Carlstrom said Uber was first warned of unusual behavior by Ahmed in January. “The defendant is a predator who has used his position as a ride share driver to take advantage of, and sexually assault, vulnerable females who are intoxicated,” Carlstrom said in charging papers. “This is especially concerning when customers are urged to use ride share services in exactly the same situation as these two women found themselves: intoxicated and not safe to drive.” The first incident happened April 8, 2015. Prosecutors say a 42-year-old woman was drunk, crying and upset because her divorce had been finalized, so she ordered an Uber to pick her up at a Ballard bar. She said that after telling Ahmed about her problems, he parked the car at her destination and pulled her in for a kiss. She said the door was locked, but she “freaked out” and he unlocked the car and she ran away. The second incident was April 30, 2015. A woman told police she had been out with a man who ended up breaking up with her, so she headed to a tavern to drink. She eventually ended up drunk at a fast food restaurant, so she ordered a ride from Lyft. She said most of the conversation with Ahmed consisted of her crying about her breakup, and him telling her how beautiful she was. She said he patted her on the knee, which eventually led to him digitally penetrating her. She told police she woke up the next day remembering little, but feeling like she had been punched in the groin. She went to the hospital for a sexual assault examination. Police eventually tracked down Ahmed. They said his story gradually shifted from saying nothing had happened to him admitting –after officers implied DNA evidence might prove something happened – the woman performed oral sex on him. Prosecutors allege that Ahmed forced her to perform oral sex on him. He’s charged with second-degree assault in that case because he’s believed to have been attempting to rape the woman. He’s charged with fourth-degree assault in the other case. Ahmed has been suspended by Uber. Police said once they got a court order for his records, they found another complaint from a woman who said she’d received a string of “unprofessional” texts from him after a ride one day.
Pumpkin toadlet frogs are only known case of an animal that continues to make a communication signal even after the target audience has lost the ability to hear it Humans trying to chat each other up in a noisy nightclub may find verbal communication futile. But it appears even more pointless for pumpkin toadlets after scientists discovered that females have lost the ability to hear the sound of male mating calls. An international team from Brazil, Denmark and the UK has discovered that the males of two species of tiny orange frogs continue to make high-pitched calls despite neither females nor males being able to hear them. It is believed to be the first case in the animal kingdom of a communication signal enduring even after its target audience has lost the ability to detect it. Field studies began in Brazil’s Atlantic forest by playing frog calls to determine how these species, which possess a middle ear, could hear their own calls. Lead researcher Dr Sandra Goutte at the Universidade Estadual de Campinas, São Paulo, was surprised to find the frogs refused to respond to her playback communication, didn’t change their calling behaviour and didn’t even orient themselves towards the sounds. “I thought I would find the sound transmission pathway from the outside to the middle ear,” she said. “We didn’t think it would be possible that they would not be able to hear their own calls.” Laboratory tests of the frogs’ hearing abilities were then undertaken by Associate Professor Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard at University of Southern Denmark. Tiny electrodes were attached to the frog’s nostril and under skin by its ear to measure its hearing sensitivity, in much the same way as human hearing is tested. Christensen-Dalsgaard’s findings were confirmed by anatomical studies at Cambridge University, which revealed that the part of the ear responsible for high-frequency hearing is vestigial in these species. Scientists would expect that if a communication signal is not perceived then it would rapidly be lost through evolution. Goutte, who is now based in Paris and studies the evolution of communication systems in frogs, said: “I guess they have lost the ability to hear the calls quite recently. The call is quite soft so maybe it has already decreased in function.” Such calls to attract the opposite sex could not only be pointless but costly if they attracted predators or parasites. According to Goutte, though, the brightly-coloured pumpkin toadlets are highly toxic and have no known predators. But although their futile calling poses no apparent predation risk, it still uses energy and time. Goutte believes that the calling continues because it may actually be a visual signal. “The predation risk is low but they are expending energy so we think maybe the behaviour is kept because of a visual signal, with the movement of the throat.” The frogs are diurnal and are known to use other visual signals: when threatened, they wave their arms and gape with their mouths. If the movement of the throat is a mating signal then the call itself might represent a byproduct of the true signalling behaviour.
The Detroit Lions will host an LGBT pride night at a game this October against the Minnesota Vikings, the event's organizer told the Detroit Free Press. The event is believed to be the first of its kind in the NFL. James Felton Keith, CEO of the Detroit Regional LGBT Chamber of Commerce, has already helped organize similar events with the city's MLB, NBA and NHL teams. He said he is excited to partner with the Lions. “It means a lot, in particular the support and rapid response from (the organization),” Keith told the Free Press. “It means the world, actually. I think, as the Chamber of Commerce we're usually the boring LGBT group. We're the suits in the back of the room just trying to make sure that things are moving along. But these large sporting events play into our InDetroit campaign (and) our Inclusive Detroit campaign, which primarily affects the large corporations in the area. But these sports franchises are some of the largest corporations in the area and they affect the overall social sentiment.” • Harvard freshman said to be NCAA's first openly transgender swimmer The Lions have reserved a block of seats in the upper deck for Keith's group and will acknowledge the event during the game, Keith said. After 1,400 fans turned out for the LGBT pride night at a Tigers game earlier this month, Keith hopes to have a similar turnout at Ford Field in October. In addition to the Tigers, Pistons and Red Wings, the Oakland Athletics also hosted an LGBT pride event this season. - Dan Gartland
The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether the free speech rights of people living with HIV were violated by a law requiring they disclose their status to potential sexual partners. In July 2014, Orlando Batista was indicted in Hamilton County for felonious assault for having sex with his girlfriend without telling her he’s HIV positive. He admitted in court that he had also infected at least two other women, one of whom passed the virus on to their child. Batista was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison. Does Disclosing HIV Status Violate Equal Protection and Free Speech? He appealed the conviction on the grounds that the law requiring him to disclose his HIV status violates his equal protection and free speech rights. Josh Thompson represented Batista before the Ohio Supreme Court. “There’s no doubt that Mr. Batista’s behavior in this case was reprehensible. But this case is bigger than him,” Thompson said. “This case is about all HIV positive people in Ohio. It’s about the burden that is passed on his victims that requires them, for the rest of their life, to disclose their HIV status to potential sexual partners.” But on the other side was Samuel Peterson with the Attorney General’s office. He said the law is fair because it was very narrowly drawn – to ensure that only one other person would know the other’s HIV status. “The General Assembly was very clearly concerned with informing potential sexual partners. That is an informed consent aspect. And it is necessary in order to promote personal autonomy and personal agency,” Peterson said. “It is a recognition that when you have sexual conduct, there are two parties to that conduct, and the other person has a right to know and has a right to be party to the decision to engage in the sexual conduct.” But also arguing for Batista was Avram Frey with the national Center for HIV Law and Policy. He said there’s a stigma associated with HIV which prevents people from getting tested and seeking treatment. He said the law perpetuates that by unfairly discriminating against people with HIV with draconian punishment – but not people with other diseases like HPV, which is much more prevalent. “There’s no rational basis for that distinction, for that singling out of people with HIV and AIDS. And accordingly, we respectfully submit that this Court should find that the true purpose underlying the statute is unconstitutional animus,” Frey said. But Peterson told Justice Judy French that the law was written regarding HIV and not other diseases not to discriminate against people with the virus, but because it’s different. “HIV is unlike, for example, hepatitis C, because there is a cure for hepatitis C. There is no cure for HIV.” Peterson admitted he didn’t know if hepatitis C was curable when the law was written, but he added, “What is true at the time the statute was drawn is the second point, which is – the primary transmission vector of HIV and hepatitis C is different.” The state says 22,355 Ohioans were living with HIV as of 2015. As of that year, Ohio reported the fourth-highest rate of HIV-related prosecutions for the previous decade, with 59 people convicted. Source: Radio.wosu. We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.
We went to a mountain location one night of november to shot some timelapses with ZenSlider under full-moon. Although the windy weather, ZenSlider performed well and the weight of the Canon CN-E Cinema Prime Lens was no problem for ZenSlider load capacity. Canon CN-E Cinema Prime Lens with ZenFocus To test ZenFocus with this lenses we choose the crowded christmas weekend Madrid streets. Due to the huge diameter of these lenses, we used a module 0.8 gear instead of the standard and universal closed belt. The gear wheel performed really well because the Canon CN-E Cinema Prime has a tremendous focus throw, of almost 300º. We engaged ZenFocus to the focus ring of Canon CN-E 14mm Cinema Prime lens and programmed a 7 minutes movement from the minimum distance of 0.2m to infinity.
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela’s second massive power outage of the year plunged much of the nation into darkness on Monday night, prompting renewed talk of sabotage from President Nicolas Maduro’s government and cries of incompetence from its foes. People walk on a street during a blackout in Caracas December 2, 2013. A power blackout plunged the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, and other cities around the nation into darkness on Monday night, residents said. Venezuela has been suffering periodic electricity cuts around the country for several years, although the capital has been spared the worst problems. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins Power went off in Caracas and other cities around the country soon after 8 p.m. local time (0030 GMT), to the intense annoyance of residents and commuters. “I feel so frustrated, angry and impotent,” said sales adviser Aneudys Acosta, 29, trudging through the rain along a street in the capital after having to leave the disrupted underground transport system. “I live far away and here I am stuck under the rain. Something’s going wrong that they’re not sorting out. The government needs a Plan B. This is just not normal.” Monday’s outage appeared similar to a massive September 5 blackout that was one of the worst in the South American OPEC member’s history. Maduro, a 50-year-old former bus driver who narrowly won a presidential election this year after the death of his mentor and former leader Hugo Chavez, accused the opposition then of deliberately sabotaging the power grid to discredit him. His powerful ally and National Assembly president, Diosdado Cabello, repeated the same accusation after Monday’s blackout that affected more than half of Venezuela. “I have no doubt that today’s electricity sabotage is part of the right-wing’s plan,” Cabello said on Twitter. PROTESTS In some wealthier parts of Caracas, where opposition to the socialist government is strongest, people began banging pots and pans out of their windows in a traditional form of protest. Some shouted, “Maduro, resign!” Venezuela has been suffering periodic electricity cuts around the country since 2009, although the capital has been spared the worst outages. Critics say the power problems symbolize the failure of the government and its 15 years of socialist policies in resource-rich Venezuela. The country has the world’s largest crude oil reserves and big rivers that feed hydroelectric facilities generating two-thirds of its power. The blackouts, some due to planned power rationing and at other times to utility failures, have not affected the oil refineries, which are powered by separate generator plants. State oil company PDVSA said its installations were all working normally on Monday night, with fuel supplies guaranteed. Electricity Minister Jesse Chacon said the same major transmission line that went down in September - and carries about 60 percent of national supply - had again been affected. Power began returning to most parts of Caracas within an hour or two, though remoter parts of the nation of 29 million people were still in the dark late into the evening. “We ask Venezuelans for patience,” Chacon said. PRESIDENT CUT OFF LIVE ON TV Maduro was giving a live address on state TV when he was abruptly cut off. He later Tweeted that he was continuing to work in the presidential palace despite the “strange” blackout, and appeared live on state TV surrounded by school children. “Be strong against this electrical war that yesterday’s fascists have declared against our people,” Maduro said in another address to the nation at about 11 p.m. local time. Security services were on alert, while the oil industry had been “put on emergency”, the president said. Since winning office in April, Maduro has accused political opponents of conniving with wealthy businessmen and their allies in the United States to undermine his government. As well as accusing them of sabotaging the power grid, he has alleged plots to assassinate him and to destroy the economy through price-gouging and the hoarding of products. Venezuelans are suffering from a 54 percent annual inflation rate, as well as scarcities of basic products from flour to toilet paper. Nationwide local municipal elections on Sunday are seen as a major test of Maduro’s standing. Opposition leader Henrique Capriles said government officials’ bellicose statements were “pathetic” at a time of national disquiet. “For once in your lives, be responsible,” he Tweeted. Slideshow (2 Images) Capriles and others say the reasons for the power failures are obvious and simple: lack of investment, incompetence and corruption within the state-run power company Corpoelec since Chavez’s 2007 nationalization of the sector. Venezuela has a maximum generation capacity of about 28,000 megawatts and normal demand of about 18,000. The government constantly chides Venezuelans, however, for wasteful habits in a nation where the average household consumes an average of 5,878 kilowatt hours per year, about double the average in Latin America.
A young artist keeps an old art form alive in Charleston. Let’s play a quick game of word association. Picture, in your mind, a “printer.” More than likely you imagined something about the size of a microwave oven, probably in beige or matte black, that feeds on bright white copy paper and expensive plastic cartridges filled with ink. That’s a perfectly acceptable answer here in the 21st century. But not too long ago, your mental image would have been vastly different. Not too long ago a “printer” was not a machine, but a person—an expert in a process involving hundreds of pounds of heavy machinery, serious technical skill, and an artist’s touch. Although that process has largely gone the way of the buggy whip, a few dedicated artists are keeping it alive. That includes Emily Sokolosky, founder of the newly opened Base Camp Printing Company on Charleston’s West Side. The shop looks straight from the Industrial Age, except for the Mac computer Sokolosky uses to run her online shop and the iPad that serves as a cash register. Drawers contain rows and rows of antique wood blocks, each featuring a different character in a host of typefaces. When she’s designing a new print, Sokolosky lays out and locks these blocks into wooden frames known as chases, with the negative space filled in by blank pieces of wood called furniture. “It’s like a puzzle,” she says. With the design all laid out, Sokolsky next loads her chase into her printing press, a coal-black Chandler & Price model from the 1930s that serves as the centerpiece of her shop. She pries open a can of thick, goopy ink on a nearby table, scoops out a thin line with a palette knife, and smears it across the silver metal disk at the top of the press. She switches on the electric motor, which is connected to a thick leather belt that drives the press, and spins a big cast iron flywheel to set the machine in motion. A set of rollers begins to move back and forth across the rotating ink wheel and down onto the chase, spreading a little more ink onto the blocks with each pass. Because she is working with antique equipment, Sokolosky often must do a little tweaking before she can get a good print. Sometimes a piece of Scotch tape on the backside of a block is enough to raise it to the proper height. Other times, she builds up pressure by stuffing torn shards of scrap paper behind the paper she plans to print. “It’s a good balance between problem-solving and physical labor,” Sokolosky says. “You’re hands-on, the entire process.” Her favorite part of the process, however, is the end. “I really like the moment when you put in the paper. You’re like, ‘All right, what’s it going to be?’” Sokolosky first became interested in the antique process of letterpress printing as a junior at West Virginia University after she attended a professor’s presentation on the university’s collection of wood blocks used to print feed sacks. “I had no idea WVU even had a press and blocks,” she says. Soon after, Sokolosky and the professor crafted an independent study program, setting up a print shop in an empty classroom. She built a nice portfolio of letterpress work and, when she graduated in December 2014, submitted that work to Hatch Show Print in Nashville, Tennessee, the largest and oldest letterpress shop in the country. Hatch offered Sokolosky an internship and she spent three months in Music City learning to organize type, run the presses, and design posters in Hatch’s house style. When she returned to West Virginia, she got a job with Kin Ship Goods, a screen printing business that moved its operations to Charleston and opened its first brick-and-mortar store in 2014. She spent a year working in the store and helping print T-shirts, while continuing to develop her letterpress skills. She sold some prints and cards through Kin Ship and put together a pop-up shop for Charleston’s monthly Art Walk event. When Kin Ship relocated to a larger, newly refurbished building on Charleston’s West Side, co-owners Dan Davis and Hillary Harrison encouraged Sokolosky to open her own space in an adjoining space. Base Camp Printing Company opened Memorial Day weekend 2016 and has since attracted a steady stream of customers happy to snatch up Sokolosky’s custom prints and greeting cards and hire her to make business cards, wedding invitations, and personalized stationery. Her shop has also attracted the attention of retired printers. Sometimes they want to talk shop or offer advice. One dropped by recently to use Base Camp’s equipment to print a birthday card for a friend. The same old-timer often shows up with drawers of his old type to help build up Base Camp’s collection. Sokolosky, of course, is more than happy to accept those donations. It’s just one more way she’s keeping an old profession pressing on. Base Camp Printing Company is open Wednesday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. 613 Tennessee Avenue, Charleston; 304.546.9379; basecampprinting.com Like this: Like Loading...
As Facebook Stock Plummets, Mark Zuckerberg Asks Jesse Eisenberg For a Loan 0 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 0 user reviews. In the wake of Facebook’s stock price plunging by more than 50% since the company’s IPO in May, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reached out to actor Jesse Eisenberg, who portrayed him in 2010’s “The Social Network,” asking for a loan. “It’s the least he can do,” Zuckberg told Hollywood & Swine. “My life got him an Academy Award nomination.” Zuckerberg first realized the severity of his cash flow problems when he attempted to order a pair of Nike’s new Lebron James sneakers, which cost $315, but was told by his business manager he couldn’t afford him. After reaching out to most of his friends, family, and co-workers for money, Zuckerberg was refused by all, since most of them also have seen their net worth cut in half after taking Zuckerberg’s advice to buy Facebook stock. According to Eisenberg, he was forced to delete his Facebook account after he received hundreds of “pokes” from Zuckerberg demanding to know when his loan would arrive. “I haven’t seen someone this desperate since Woody Harrelson ran out of weed on the set of ‘Zombieland,’ ” Eisenberg said. Before going to Eisenberg, Zuckerberg called “Social Network” producer Scott Rudin, offering his acting his services to play himself in the sequel. But Rudin turned down Zuckerberg’s offer, saying he was too unlikeable in real life, which is why he needed Eisenberg to play him. “I’m a college dropout in a horrible job market,” said Zuckerberg. “I even offered to be his stand-in on his next movie.”
June 2, 2014 7 min read Editor's Note: In this series, we take you inside the mind of Nicolas Cary, CEO of the popular Bitcoin wallet service Blockchain.info, for his expert insights on the latest Bitcoin news and trends. Nicolas Cary is convinced Bitcoin is as monumental a game changer as the Internet itself. He believes in it so much that he’s perfectly fine with getting paid 100 percent in the world’s first digital cash by his employer, Blockchain.info, the popular Bitcoin wallet and block explorer he leads as CEO (and chief bacon officer). Actually, everyone at the York, England-based startup gets paid in Bitcoin only. The company doesn’t even have a single traditional bank account. Related: This Company Is Now the Largest in the World to Accept Bitcoin Nic, as most people know and call him, is a fast-talking, upbeat Bitcoin die-hard. The avid runner and fly fisherman travels the world pretty much constantly, preaching the benefits of what he seriously sees as the “future of money.” In the past six months alone, Nic has talked up Bitcoin in some 40 countries throughout Asia, Europe, North Africa and South America. Last April, the Denver, Colo., native returned stateside to keynote at MediaBistro’s Inside Bitcoins conference in New York City. Earlier this month he crowed on Twitter that Blockchain.info was on the brink of sailing past the 1.6 million user mark, which it promptly did. Not too shabby for a small Bitcoin business born in 2011, back when the cybercurrency peaked at a skimpy $32. Today, at 3:46 p.m. E.T., a single Bitcoin was worth 20 times that, hovering near $640. Related: How Bitcoin Is Fueling a New Payments Battlefield We spoke to Nic about Bitcoin’s recent ups and downs and why he believes the controversial currency will inevitably impact you, me and everyone else in the world. The following includes portions of our interview, edited for clarity and brevity. Entrepreneur: On May 27, the price of Bitcoin shot above $590, up 64 percent from April 10, when it sank to $360. Why such swings? Cary: Right out of the gate this year, in early January and February, you had a pretty strong negative news cycle. There were a bunch of stories that came out week over week that probably put some downward pressure onto the price of Bitcoin. First of all, you had a lot of curiosity around what’s going on with Mt. Gox, which was one of the earlier exchanges, even though they weren’t playing a pivotal role in the Bitcoin economy, really, in comparison to larger exchanges since taking its lead. Mt. Gox was a name that a lot of people recognized and any time there is a booming industry where people drive themselves and others off the road, it certainly makes for a good story. Another big story was the removal of Blockchain.info’s app from iTunes store. It was the last wallet service that Apple had decided to ban. Also, the Silk Road 2 got hacked. Transaction malleability was impacting some of the services in the Bitcoin economy. You also had tax season and a lot of people had gains in Bitcoin last year because the price went up by several orders of magnitude, so people who had to pay and deal with their taxes were most likely selling a good deal of Bitcoin off before April 15, just to cover their gains. So you had a negative news cycle combined with tax season, which I think created a good deal of pressure on the market to cause the price to go down, all on top of some unusual uncertainty in China with regards to how Bitcoin would be treated there. You set that landscape up and you can expect that the price would’ve probably been a little bit depressed. Related: More Major Retailers Are Getting Ready to Accept Bitcoin In the background, though, there’s an unbelievable amount of investment happening into Bitcoin. Even though all of those things were going on in the first quarter of this year, more venture capital has moved into Bitcoin in the first couple months of this year than in all of last year combined. Then you have big [venture capital] raises in the industry contributing to the increase [in the price of Bitcoin]. Circle [a Boston-based Bitcoin banking platform] raised a lot more money. BitPay raised $30 million dollars, out of a potential $150 million dollar valuation for that team, and there’s a lot of capital that’s coming off the sidelines moving into digital currency and Bitcoin-related projects. Another contributing factor in the value increase right now is that Bitcoin is gaining more and more legitimacy. Not only has Overstock started to accept Bitcoin, but Richard Branson has blessed it. You can now travel to space on Bitcoin. Related: 3 Big Misconceptions About Bitcoin Going into summer now, I think that the transaction velocity is increasing, so people are spending more and more of their bitcoins and that’s because it’s a more frictionless payment system and it’s saving people money. As more people learn about Bitcoin, it’s inevitable that the price will continue to grow and rise. There’s a ton of opportunity and I think that’s starting to be realized. People who have spent their careers in other industries -- whether it be insurance or software or gaming or finance or remittances or non-profits -- there’s something for everyone in Bitcoin. And, as more and more human capital matches the financial capital that’s coming into the space, it’s going to accelerate. So, yeah, I expect the price to continue to go up to match the optimism and the real potential for the whole industry. Entrepreneur: Do you think we’re headed for another Bitcoin bubble? Cary: I’m very bullish on Bitcoin. My company is a 100 percent Bitcoin-based business. We don’t even have a corporate bank account. All of our employees are paid in Bitcoin and we do everything we can to maintain a Bitcoin economy. From my perspective, the venture capital scene in the U.S. is just starting to rev up and that’s because they’re so much stake when you’re talking about the disruption that Bitcoin represents. It’s a digital property rights system and the first experiment with that is with currency. But there are a lot of other things that can happen, too. With programmable money you can do some really amazing things, like binding contracts that automatically execute if certain conditions aren’t met. People are starting to devote a lot of R&D [research and design] into these ideas. It’s really inspiring what is effectively the most important expression of human potential in finance of the last 50 years. Related: How the World's Richest Nations Are Regulating Bitcoin I think there’s going to be a lot more money that moves into Bitcoin. The first couple of months this year are going to be a drop in the bucket in comparison to what’s coming down the pipeline. Without sounding too ridiculous I do believe that in some ways digital currency is going to make the first dot-com bubble look actually like a blip because you’re talking about the future of finance. It’s an industry that hasn’t really adapted to digitization and there’s so much that can be improved and so much at stake. While I’m not too worried about revolutionizing the shopping experience in North America, it can really change an awful lot around the world. There are 2.5 billion people on Earth that have no access to financial services whatsoever. If you can put a bank inside of a smartphone for them, that they have custody of, then you allow them to enter the marketplace anywhere in the world and instantly exchange value with anyone else, and that’s never existed in the history of time before. Related: BitPay Raises Record $30 Million in Series A Funding, Biggest in Bitcoin Industry Yet
by BBG “Providence should be nuked. The music scene there is a disgrace. ” – Pilgrim Check the IDs of the members of Pilgrim and you might be surprised. Though Pilgrim is well-versed in the classic doom sounds of the 70s and 80s, the young band (both as a unit and individually) plays songs well-beyond their years on Misery Wizard, the band’s debut LP due on February 14th via Poison Tongue/Metal Blade. Misery Wizard‘s strength’s lies in its ability to reinterpret the greats like Black Sabbath, Saint Vitus, and Reverend Bizarre into something familiar yet wholly new, expanding upon influences instead of rehashing them. Check out three new songs from the album the title track, “Astaroth”, and “Quest” (which makes its debut here), below. Pilgrim will play a handful of dates in the coming weeks, including March 1st at Public Assembly with Natur, Windhand and Magic Circle. Look for them on the road (dates below) and check out a discussion I had with The Wizard (guitar/vocals) where we discuss inspiration or lack thereof, how they hooked up with a member of Primordial, and their hometown of Providence. Our interview (which includes the quote above), tour dates and all streams are below. ================== Pilgrim – “Quest” Misery Wizard by PILGRIM What is the short history of Pilgrim? I met Krolg and Soothsayer in highschool. Krolg and I played in many different bands and many different projects over the years together. We started listening to a lot of Sleep and Electric Wizard, and it wasn’t long before we discovered bands like Reverend Bizarre and Saint Vitus. They changed our lives. We were totally inspired to make doom metal music. It was the form of metal that made the most sense to us. A year later I made some demos of the new music we’d been working on and eventually asked Soothsayer to join us on bass. He humbly accepted. Your Forsaken Man demo was well-received (download it for free), do you have any plans to re-release that on a hard format? Not currently. I’m surprised people liked it so much. I didn’t think it was all that great. Maybe in the future. — Visage of Astaroth by PILGRIM Forsaken Man (demo) by PILGRIM Between the 10″ and the demo, you have released three of the six songs that are on Misery Wizard. How many songs have you written that havent seen the light of day thus far? Not many, maybe 5 or so, but we probably have over 20 riffs that we’re working on. It takes us a really long time to write a song. If it’s not just perfect or if a riff is weak, we have to throw it out or think of something new. We hate when something we write just sounds too much like another band. We’ll never use riffs like that. We’re working on a new project right now, we should have a lot more material soon! You guys signed with Poison Tongue, a Metal Blade imprint of Alan Nemtheanga of Primordial. How did you connect with him? Long ago, in times historic, Alan found us while wandered the MySpace Music wasteland. He asked us if we wanted to do a record and we said “Yes, please.” A year later, we were signed and releasing this record. It was as simple as that. — Pilgrim last year at Public Assembly, a BrooklynVegan event (more by BBG) Its clear that your music is rooted in doom in a “classical” sense… tipping the hat to bands like Black Sabbath, St Vitus, Pentagram, Sleep, etc. Do you take any influences from doom bands that dabble in death metal, funeral doom, or any of the styles that branched off of doom? No, that stuff doesn’t really interest us. We like “true doom metal”, the classics! Funeral doom is so washy and bland to us. We like it a bit more straightforward and a little less… hopeless. There is fire in our hearts that burns wildly! We don’t have time to sit around sulking, we are always ready for whatever quest lies before us. — Misery Wizard album art Underneath your music is a definite melodic sensibility, what are some pop music groups that you enjoy (past or present) that may have made its way into your music, subconsciously or otherwise? The Beatles were a huge influence on me when I was younger. They taught me a lot about how to structure a song. When I was REALLY young, I owned an Eiffel 65 CD that I used to jam to, hahaha. As young children, we were all subject to sitting in the back seat of our parent’s cars listening to their terrible music. I suppose no matter what you do, the melodies from the radio stick with you forever. — Pilgrim last year at Public Assembly, a BrooklynVegan event (more by BBG) You guys definitely play NYC a lot, mostly due to personal ties. What are your thoughts on the Rhode Island/Providence music scenes, and do you think its a friendly environment for heavy music? How so? Providence should be nuked. The music scene there is a disgrace. Its clubs are dominated by greedy promoters. Everyone there is trying to make a buck. It is obvious that there is something terribly, terribly wrong there. Even hidden away in the warehouse districts, where there is a “small, secret scene”, it’s little more than pretentious hipster music. The scene is dominated by singer/songwriter bubblegum shit and screamo/emo garbage, with a few noise rock bands in between. I have complete respect for the noise bands that were making music in Providence during the late 90’s, early 00’s, bands like Lightning Bolt and White Mice, but their time has passed and their glorious empire has fallen. Providence is a mere shadow of its former self. ================== PILGRIM – 2012 TOUR DATES 03/01 Brooklyn, NY Public Assembly 03/02 Philadelphia, PA JR’s Bar 03/03 Washington DC St. Stephen’s Church 03/04 Richmond, VA Strange Matter 05/03 Copenhagen, Denmark Heavy Days in Doom Town festival
Pax Britannica was the term applied to the century of “peace” in European history from the defeat of Napoleon I at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 and the beginning of the First World War in 1914. It was essentially a policy imposed on the continent by Great Britain, a nation whose power was firmly re-established by their capturing and exiling the French Emperor, Napoleon I who had dominated the continent since 1800. The main aim of the policy was to establish a balance of power in Europe which would mean that no one state could again become strong and pre-eminent and attempt to dominate the others as Napoleon had done. A key factor in this strategy was the hegemony of the United Kingdom as the controller of world trade routes by having the Royal Navy deployed in all of the far flung corners of the world. This absolute superiority in the sphere of maritime power was able to project British rule around the globe and helped to rapidly expand the size of the British Empire. It would be wrong to suggest that were no major wars on the continent at all during this 100 year period. At the end of the day British sea power was unable to project itself any further inland than the cannons onboard the ships were able to fire their ammunition. Major powers still found reasons to pick a fight, the Crimean War between Russia and a Franco-British Alliance, The Second Italian War of Independence in 1859, the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71, it was after this that the continent did settle down into a much more war free existence until 1914, and this period is known as the La Belle Époque (Beautiful Era) in Europe, similar to the Gilded Age in America. Whilst the success of the British Empire was resented by some European states which envied the wealth flowing into British coffers it was reassuring to them also that Britain had no interest in power in Europe and seemed set to look to the wider world for its interplay. For all of Britain’s global outlook, there was still one area of policy (and it was policy back then) which they had to look to Europe to satisfy, and that was the royal marriage market. Marrying into European dynasties had long been considered as the best way to seal the deal as it were when it came to a new diplomatic alliance, and that had still not changed by the 19th century. Queen Victoria grabbed the chance to create dynastic marriages and in doing so, in her mind she would be guaranteeing a perpetual peace, because she thought that her children and grandchildren would never fight each other in war. She never took much notice of the fact that history was littered with examples of these unions which had done nothing to prevent conflict between rival relatives. Instead of helping to stop the commencement of hostilities it was sometimes more likely to exacerbate them, if you add family jealousy and competition into the affairs of nations then is a fight not increasingly likely to happen since there are more antagonistic factors to deal with. The Queen, as ever guided by her husband Prince Albert, did not seem to have any of those concerns about their children’s fate and assured themselves that they were playing a very personal part, a very central part in Pax Britannica by arranging these marriages for their children to the various royal courts of Europe. Victoria was not bereft of European connections to begin with, so it was not starting the job from scratch but instead consolidating and expanding the strength of the links which her family tree already afforded her. Through her mother’s siblings, Queen Victoria had an uncle who reigned as King Leopold I of the Belgians until 1865, he was succeeded by his son Leopold II who was first cousins to Queen Victoria. Albert himself was a continental cousin of the Queen, his father was Ernst I, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha who was another brother of Victoria’s mother. With 9 children of their own Albert and Victoria started to plan out which useful alliances could be made by the marriage of one of their offspring into the right royal house. Sadly for Victoria, Albert died in 1861 from typhoid fever, a death for which she never stopped mourning until her own passing in 1901. Prince Albert only lived to see one of his children married off, and that was their eldest, and by far his favourite, Princess Victoria (Vicky), Princess Royal. Since 1714 with the accession of the House of Hanover, Germany had been a very popular place to go searching for a royal spouse for the British royal family. Why? First and foremost they were the right religion, most of them were Protestant. Secondly, because prior to 1871 there was no such country as Germany, there were instead twenty-five individual sovereign states which unified to form one country. In all, there were 4 Kingdoms, 6 Grand Duchies, 5 Duchies, 7 Principalities and 3 Hanseatic cities which came together to form Germany. So on this basis there was a plethora of royal and ducal families ruling these entities and they provided heirs who needed wives, and daughters who needed husbands, so the supply of potential royal brides was never in short supply from Germany. In fact so comfortable was the British monarchy with marrying Germans that almost every royal marriage in Britain between 1714 and the reign of Queen Victoria were between a British Prince or Princess to a German royal, occasional exceptions were Danish and Dutch matches. This is not surprising when you understand that from George I to George IV, these Kings of Britain were also the rulers of Hanover, one of the sovereign German states, so they had a vested interest in maintaining strong connections to the German ruling families. And so it was to Germany that Victoria and Albert turned naturally, to make their first power pairing for the wedding of the Princess Royal. The cream of the extensive German crop of regal houses had to be the family of the King of Prussia. In the 18th century Frederick the Great had established the country as a great power in Europe with a very effective army. In the 19th century the influence of Prussia over the rest of the German states continued to grow and so it was being taken seriously as an emerging presence in the wider politics of the continent. Victoria had already cultivated some family niceties with the Prussians; King Frederick William IV had been made godfather of Victoria and Albert’s eldest son Albert Edward (Bertie, the future King Edward VII). Frederick William IV had no children of his own; he was to be succeeded by his brother Prince Wilhelm, and then Wilhelm’s son Prince Frederick William (Fritz) who had been named after his uncle the King. In 1851 the great Exhibition was taking place at the purpose built Crystal Palace in London, an event which showcased art, industry and manufacture from all over the world, there was everything on show from the Koh-i-Noor diamond to kitchen appliances. Prince Albert was quite rightly proud of the exhibition as he had been one of the key organisers of the whole event. A proud wife and a shrewd match maker Victoria invited Prince Wilhelm of Prussia and his son Fritz (who happened to be of marriageable age) over to London for the opening of the exhibition. It was on this occasion that the young Princess Royal first met Fritz, her future husband. Marriage was not quite on the cards yet though, Vicky was only 10. Queen Victoria would have been more interested in meeting and judging the young prince for herself at this stage, but it does illustrate the level of pre-planning that went into these dynastic unions. In 1855 the Queen invited Frederick William who was by now 24 to visit the royal family at their new Highland home, Balmoral Castle. This was the encounter where Frederick William dutifully asked the young Vicky, at only 14 if she would marry him. The Princess readily agreed, and by sheer luck she did grow to love her husband but that would have been of little consequence in the grand scheme of things, plenty marriages were made amongst the upper class where there was no love at all and that was almost expected. One only had to look at King George IV’s disastrous marriage to Caroline of Brunswick to serve as a stark reminder of that fact, but few people would have used it as an excuse to stop a marriage from going ahead under similar circumstances to that one. Luckily for Princess Victoria, she had the more unusual example of her own parents the Queen and Prince Consort, who despite the arranged nature of their own nuptials grew to love each other deeply, and their eldest daughter was to grow in time to enjoy the same sort of close and loving relationship with her own husband. The marriage itself was not an entirely smooth ride to begin with however. Once the engagement was agreed to, the Prussian royal house demanded that the Princess would travel to their capital Berlin to get married. It was recognised that the current King was unlikely to produce heirs by his own wife and that in turn Fritz’s father then he would follow onto the throne, as an heir presumptive the Prussians felt strongly that he should marry in his own country. Queen Victoria is quoted as saying, “It’s not every day that one gets to marry the eldest daughter of the Queen of England.” Meaning that in no uncertain terms was the Princess going to marry in Berlin, the Queen felt that it was impertinent of so small a nation as Prussia to think that it had sufficient rank to demand where her daughter was to marry, Victoria did after all see herself as the head of a growing worldwide Empire, whilst Prussia was ranked as only the fifth power in Europe and was entirely bereft of any colonies around the globe. Queen Victoria won, she rarely lost. The marriage took place in the Chapel Royal at St. James Palace in London on the 25th of January 1858. The marriage itself was met with much jubilation throughout the country and was popular amongst the British public. The real reason probably being that they thought that Britain would have a stronger influence in the destiny of Germany moving forward, as German national unification was on the horizon if not yet entirely worked out. And most importantly it was imagined that this influence would create a clearly friendly disposition from Prussia towards Britain. As the royal couple departed London at the end of January during a heavy snowfall, the populace of that city still turned out onto the streets to cheer and chant, “God save the Prince and Bride! God keep their lands allied!” This auspicious start to the union must have given Princess Victoria some comfort and confidence about starting a new life in a foreign country of which she knew she would one day be Queen. Her arrival was met with jubilation amongst the common people through their progress from Brussels to Berlin and Victoria was often reported as looking well and happy. But her arrival in Berlin was greeted with far from jubilation from the political classes; many at the royal court and in the government were very conservative and were suspicious of Victoria’s liberal views which had been instilled in her by her father Prince Albert. Fritz supported his wife in her liberal political outlook and they quickly left themselves isolated from the establishment who were in charge in Berlin. In 1861 the stakes were raised further still as King Frederick William IV died that year to be succeeded by his brother as King Wilhelm I. This meant now that Fritz and Vicky were now the Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia and their politics started to be taken more seriously, those who disagreed became enemies. Wilhelm I appointed the ultra-conservative Otto von Bismarck to be his prime minister and refused to part with him even when there was a majority of liberal politicians in the parliament. The new Crown Prince was openly critical of some of Bismark’s more totalitarian policies such as curbing the freedom of the press; this gained both Fritz and Vicky the enmity of this powerful maneuverer. Bismarck blamed the Princess in particular for corrupting her husband’s politics with British style liberalism and making him forget true Prussian values and the two really became lifelong enemies. None the less this was Queen Victoria and Prince Albert’s first piece of the jigsaw in terms of building a royal network of family ties in every court in Europe. With the birth of a son, Prince Wilhelm in January 1859 almost a year after the royal wedding the Prussian Crown Prince and Princess were playing their part and Queen Victoria could tick the throne of Prussia off of her list, her eldest grandson would one day be King. The Queen and Prince Albert moved on with their project and began to think about the marriages of their next couple of children. She had professed a belief that her children should be able to marry for love; however there was no doubt in her mind that the opportunities for finding that love match were to go no further the royal houses of Europe. Why waste an opportunity for a useful alliance? And to raise a British subject to the royal family was seen as politically delicate, so was best avoided. The Queens next child after Victoria had been Bertie, but boys were to be educated for longer than girls and so he was not quite ready to marry yet. Victoria wasted no time at all in moving on to the next daughter, Princess Alice, and she asked her eldest daughter in Berlin to prepare a list of all of the most eligible Princes in Europe. Perhaps there was a genuine lack, or perhaps her efforts were lacklustre but Vicky only managed to come up with two potential suitors for her sister’s hand in marriage. Princess Vicky’s candidates were William, Prince of Orange and Prince Albert of Prussia, a cousin of Vicky’s husband Fritz. The Prince of Orange was invited to Windsor to be inspected by Queen Victoria, but it all transpired that he was besotted with a young Countess and that he was therefore no good for Princess Alice, in the end the Prince of Orange never married and lived most of his days in a disreputable state in Paris. Alice was in no way attracted to either candidate and so she spurned them both. This meant that the Queen had to rethink the plan and look again, this time her eldest daughter made the suggestion of either Prince Louis or Prince Henry of Hesse, whom she had met when travelling to Hesse a minor German state to inspect their sister Princess Anna as a potential bride for her brother Bertie. She informed the Queen that Anna was no good for Bertie but that she was impressed by her brothers Louis and Henry. So, Queen Victoria invited the two Hessian Princes over to Britain, with the cover story that they were invited to watch the Ascot races in the royal families company, Victoria obviously wanted to take a look at them herself. She was impressed by both, but she noted how close Louis and Alice looked when together and there was a clear attraction. This was enough for the Queen to act; she had found another love match for one of her children and gave her consent in April 1861 for Alice and Louis to wed. The Queen managed to persuade the British parliament to vote a £30,000 (£2.1 million in 2012 using real price calculations) dowry to Alice, which her father scoffed that she would be able to do little with in Hesse compared to the wealth her elder sister would come into as Queen of Prussia. Also, the Grand Ducal palace in Hesse was not considered to be suitable and Queen Victoria insisted that a new one was to be built for the comfort of her daughter, which was agreed to, but the people of Hesse were not keen to shoulder the expense and so Alice was unpopular before she even arrived in the state. Before the wedding could take place, Queen Victoria’s beloved husband the Prince Consort died of typhoid fever, a passing which sent the monarch into a spiral of grief from which she never recovered in the rest of her long life. Despite this unhappiness the Queen ordered the wedding to take place as planned, but it took place privately in the dining room of Osborne House on the Isle of Wight in what the Queen later described as, “more of a funeral than a wedding.” Despite the rather demure beginning to the nuptials it did seem as though another love match had been formed and the couple went on to have 7 children together. The happiness shared by the couple did not please Queen Victoria who became annoyed and jealous that her daughter had that which she had lost forever. When Prince Albert died in 1861 he had only two weeks previously been down to Cambridge to issue a reprimand to his eldest son Bertie, the Prince of Wales who was there attending the university. Bertie had been making a name for himself as something of a playboy Prince after taking up with an actress whilst he had been on military manoeuvres in Ireland. Albert was ill when he went down to Cambridge and should never have travelled, it became clear over the coming days that he was sick with typhoid, when he died the Queen blamed Bertie for having made his father so ill and she almost never wanted to see him again. Prior to the Prince Consorts death he had sent his son to Germany to look at military manoeuvres, but Albert and the Queen had shortlisted a wife for him, Princess Alexandra of Denmark (Alix) the daughter of Prince Christian, heir to the Danish throne. They had arranged for the Danish royals to ‘bump into’ Bertie in Speyer. The two were not opposed to one another and the marriage plans began to advance. Before he died Albert had told Victoria that it should be so for definite, and after his death the Queen treated these words a sacrosanct. Victoria wanted Bertie out of the way, so shortly after the Prince Consort’s funeral she packed her son and heir off on an extensive tour of the Middle East and when he returned to England the Queen practically had all of the arrangements in place for the wedding. He was married to Alix in St Georges Chapel, Windsor Castle on the 10th of March 1863, bringing another protestant European royal house into the family. A further useful connection was made when 1866 Alix’s sister Dagmar married the future Tsar Alexander III of Russia. Meaning that one day when Alix and Bertie’s child was on the throne he would be the counterpart of a first cousin on the Russian throne in the child of Dagmar and Alexander. Twenty days after Bertie and Alix were married, her brother George was nominated by the superpowers and the Greek parliament as the new King of the Hellenes (Greece). So through just this one marriage Queen Victoria had secured future blood relations to the British monarch would be occupying three thrones; Russia, Denmark and Greece. Victoria and Albert’s plan was already going well after marrying off only three of nine. Next to marry was another daughter, this time it was the turn of Princess Helena, a middle daughter, and the Queen began to find that her remaining daughters were not quite as highly prized as the elder two had been on the royal marriage market. She did not help her chances of landing a good match by her own behaviour either, between 1859 and 1863 she was romantically linked to her father’s librarian, Carl Ruland, a German native who was also German tutor to Helena’s brother Bertie. When Queen Victoria found this out, Ruland was packed off to Germany before he could say as much as goodbye and Helena’s marriage became a priority for the Queen. The Queen obviously wanted to keep an eye on this wayward daughter, and she was starting to feel lonely as she kept sending her children overseas, so she decreed that Helena’s husband would have to be prepared to live near the Queen. In some ways it seemed as though Victoria was losing sight of the long term goal of a grand European union of royal families by setting these stipulations. The choice of husband which the Queen made for Helena was even more confusing and it sent something of a wrecking ball through the carefully constructed, Europe wide family harmony which she and her late husband had planned. For Helena was to be married in July 1866 to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, this was a severely politically sensitive choice. The Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were claimed by Denmark but Prussia and Austria had ganged up on Denmark in previous wars to invade and take control of these territories. Then in the Austro-Prussian War the Duchies had gone to Prussia. Prince Christian’s family were close friends with the Prussian royal house and were seen as being mired by their acceptance of the Prussian conquest of the Duchies. Bertie’s wife Alix was distraught by this marriage and was mortally offended at what she regarded as an affront to Danish sovereignty. She was supported by her husband Bertie and her sister-in-law Alice of Hesse, Alice went as far as to openly claim that her mother was sacrificing Helena for her own convenience. The Queen took this comment from Alice badly, and she was very unforgiving towards Alix too for her part. The Prince of Wales refused to attend the wedding at first, but in the name of family harmony Alice prevailed upon her brother Bertie to be present. The Queen allowed the ceremony to be held in the private chapel at Windsor, rather than St George’s due to the political controversies she had caused by agreeing to the wedding. Due to the fact the Christian had no responsibilities to which he needed to attend to he was happy to stay on in Britain as had been the condition of his marriage to Helena. The couple settled into a quiet life in Cumberland Lodge in Windsor Great Park and they were happy together for the rest of their lives. Victoria had found another love match, but it had brought no prestige at all on the international stage, only confusion from some quarters and despair from others. Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh was older than Helena, but as he was a serving in the Royal Navy which took him to the far side of the world and so any plans for a marriage for him were put on hold. So it was another of his younger sisters who was to be wed next. Queen Victoria’s most beautiful daughter according to contemporaries was Princess Louise, Victoria and Albert’s sixth child. Her good looks led some of the less respectful press to suggest without any proof that she must be involved in romantic liaisons. Reading this in the papers and knowing of Louise’s feminist tendencies the Queen decided that the time had come for her daughter to marry. Princess Alix proposed her own brother the Crown Prince of Denmark as a husband for Louise, had Victoria accepted this then it may have healed some of the pain still felt by Alix over the marriage of Helena. The Queen was having none of it though; she put it bluntly and said that a Danish match was out of the question as that may antagonise Prussia, this only furthered Alix’s annoyance. Crown Princess Victoria of Prussia had ideas for her younger sister too; she proposed an old and rich Prussian, Prince Albert. The Queen blocked this move too however by stating that no further Prussian matches would be stomached by the British populace at this time. Also Prince Albert refused to be domiciled in Britain as the Queen now seemed determined to demand for her remaining children, so that was Albert firmly off the list of suitors. Even the Prince of Orange idea was trotted out again but the Queen vetoed that as his life had become dissolute in the aftermath of his being jilted by Princess Alice. Instead Louise had fallen in love with a Scottish aristocrat, the Marquess of Lorne who was heir to the Duke of Argyll. It must have been with some trepidation that Louise brought the suggestion to her family, as the grand plan had been to create family alliances across the continent through royal marriages. Bertie was wholly opposed to the idea, the Argyll’s were a political family and he feared the monarchy being dragged into party political squabbles, not to mention the fact that although he was to be a Duke when his father died, Bertie regarded him as a commoner. Victoria revealed to her eldest son just how much her opinions had shifted with regard to her children’s marriage in a letter which she wrote to him: That which you object to [that Louise should marry a subject] I feel certain will be for Louise’s happiness and for the peace and quiet of the family … Times have changed; great foreign alliances are looked on as causes of trouble and anxiety, and are of no good. What could be more painful than the position in which our family were placed during the wars with Denmark, and between Prussia and Austria? … You may not be aware, as I am, with what dislike the marriages of Princesses of the Royal Family with small German Princes (German beggars as they most insultingly were called) … As to position, I see no difficulty whatever; Louise remains what she is, and her husband keeps his rank … only being treated in the family as a relation when we are together She told the Queen Augusta of Prussia (Fritz’s mother) in another letter that she was keen to bring in new blood, as she felt that it would be for the greater benefit of the royal family as all of Europe is now closely related. The monarch felt that foreign princes were not as worthy in the eyes of the British public as they once were, they were often too poor to keep the royal bride in suitable style and she felt as though they were getting more out of these matches than she was. She went on by telling the Queen Augusta that a Duke in Britain with a private fortune was not really of any lower rank than a minor German royal with a fancy title but no money to support it. Little did she know that the Duke of Argyll was heading for financial troubles over the next few decades. So Louise married Lord Lorne at Windsor Castle in 1871 and the two lived happily for many years. Lorne was appointed by Queen Victoria as Governor-General of Canada and the couple lived over there for the duration of his tenure and were based at Rideau Hall. Louise’s full name was Louise Caroline Alberta, and the province of Alberta in Canada is named in her honour because she became very popular throughout the country and maintained an interest in the nation even after her husband had been recalled by the British Government. Whilst in Canada her favourite sister, Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse died, which made Louise melancholy and homesick for a time. In the 1880’s the couple moved back to Britain and took up residence in Kensington Palace in a suite of rooms which had been granted to them by the Queen. Louise was politically mined on and had opinions on a wide variety of policies, a trait which was considered undesirable in a Princess, indeed it still is. Louise’s husband was a Liberal, but not liberal enough for her, she was disappointed when he became a Unionist Liberal as she was very much in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. The two started to drift apart in politics and in their private lives. Rumours of affairs began to attach themselves to Louise again, but none of these were ever substantiated, it was most likely just gossip mongers spreading their own imaginings based on the tiniest acknowledgement given by Louise to just about any man. In 1900 Louise’s father in law died and she became Duchess of Argyll upon her husband inheriting the dukedom. Then in 1901 her mother the Queen passed away, Victoria left to Louise a house on the Isle of Wight so she would have a retreat. Louise was very fond of her brother Bertie and was close to him during his reign as King Edward VII. In 1911 the Duke of Argyll began a long illness which persisted until his death in 1914, it was during this time that the couple became close again and Louise dutifully nursed him as best she could. After his death she was genuinely distraught and felt very alone, but she refused to be so encumbered by her grief as her mother had been in her mourning. Louise lived on until 1939 and is fondly remembered by her great great niece Queen Elizabeth II who had met her several times in her childhood. Having had no children with the Duke, Louise left nothing in the way of a bloodline legacy as her sisters had done on the continent so perhaps it was for the best that she was never sent to play her part in Victoria and Albert’s dynasty building game, as to have had no children in one of those marriages she would have been seen as a failure. In 1874 Prince Alfred (Affie) was finally able to get married, but before we talk about that we should look at the outcomes of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Bismarck had managed to provoke France into declaring war on Prussia, this made France the aggressor and most of the German states rallied round to help Prussia against the French Emperor, Napoleon III. The war was a huge success for Prussia, and throughout the closing stages of the war Bismarck had negotiated with the lesser German states to bring about national unification under the hegemony of Prussia. The talks worked and in January 1871 at the palace of Versailles, the King Wilhelm I of Prussia was declared Kaiser (Emperor) of the German Empire. This meant that the Fritz and Vicky as Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia were now also the heirs to the Imperial throne of Germany. The potential for more family rifts here grew, Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse was torn. She was proud to see German’s unified, but she disliked that her husband was fighting for the Prussian’s at their command. Alix, Princess of Wales was not terribly enamoured by a strong Germany on the border with her beloved and native Denmark. In 1874, a German marriage was cleverly avoided for Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh. He was ready to settle down after a long and full military career and the chosen bride this time reflected a return to the dynastic matches of his eldest siblings. This was to be first direct marriage between the royal house of Great Britain and the imperial house of Russia, the Duke of Edinburgh was married in St. Petersburg in January 1874 to Grand Duchess Maria, the only surviving daughter of Tsar Alexander II. As Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh the couple returned to London in March 1874. The marriage was not a very happy one, Maria was thought of as haughty by London society, which in itself says something, because London society were hardly a self-effacing and humble bunch themselves. She also demanded to be ranked as higher than the Princess of Wales because as a member of the Russian royal family she felt that she was far superior to a Danish Princess. Queen Victoria did not allow her precedence over Alix, but did grant her precedence over everybody else behind Alix. Despite this the couple did have several children together and in 1893 he inherited the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha from his paternal uncle, Ernest II. The Duchy was now in reality a part of Germany, but still retained a degree of autonomy, Alfred and Maria now moved to Coburg where they lived out the rest of their days performing their various royal duties. The couple’s only surviving son died in 1899 to be followed in 1900 by Alfred himself, so the succession to the Duchy went to Alfred’s nephew, the son of his youngest brother Prince Leopold. The next to marry was Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught. Arthur was the 7th child of Victoria and Albert and he like his elder brother Alfred enjoyed a career in the military before he settled down to married life. He was allowed by his mother to marry a Prussian Princess, Louise Margaret in 1879 and together they had three children. This Princess was only a grand-niece of the Kaiser Wilhelm I, so it had practically no political impact in terms of alliance building. As such it was purely made out of the affection the couple had for each other. The marriage continued to go well, even though over the years Arthur was romantically linked with Sir Winston Churchill’s mother and her sister. In later years after his brother the King died in 1910 he was appointed by his nephew King George V as Governor General of Canada, somewhat emulating the life of his sister Princess Louise and her husband the Duke of Argyll. After his years in Canada he settled down to a more quite life, still maintaining his interest in the military and continued to perform minor royal duties. He died in the middle of World War Two at his country home, Bagshot Park. Prince Leopold was the second last child born to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert; he was the only one who suffered from the hereditary disease of haemophilia which is normally carried by mothers and passed to their children. Haemophilia was almost the curse that went with Victoria’s bloodline as the Queen had become a carrier of the disease and through her children was potentially spreading it into different European Royal families. Due to his delicate condition the Prince was totally cosseted by his mother and she did not want him to leave home or do anything that may even put him at slight risk. Leopold felt as though his only way to gain freedom was to find a wife, but there was to be no question of him finding an important dynastic alliance due to his haemophilia, no foreign monarch wanted that sort of blight getting anywhere near their bloodline. He was rejected by several heiresses and royal cousins and second cousins, and so possibly to stave off any further embarrassment to her beloved youngest son Queen Victoria stepped in. She declared that the children of the British monarch should be marrying into other ruling Protestant families. The Queen found Princess Helene a daughter of the reigning Prince of Waldeck-Pyrmont and she was basically given her instructions to marry him. The wedding took place in St Georges Chapel, Windsor Castle in April 1882 and the next year they had a child together, Alice. The following year Leopold’s Prussian wife was again pregnant. In the winter time Leopold usually went abroad as the cold climate was bad for him. His wife stayed behind as she was pregnant, but he went on to his villa in Cannes. Whilst there he slipped and hurt himself, there was a cerebral haemorrhage and nothing could be done to stop the bleeding and he died not long afterwards. His son Prince Charles Edward was born four months later, and it was he who inherited the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg Gotha from his uncle Affie after his death in 1900. Last but not least was Queen Victoria’s youngest child, Princess Beatrice. Like many noble families of the time a younger daughter was often held back from marriage so that she could keep the mother company in her dotage and do the sort of personal things for her that a servant could not do. Victoria intended this to be the fate of Princess Beatrice; she was to hang on in a sort of unpaid companion and secretary’s role at her mother’s side as a spinster. But this proved not to be the destiny which Beatrice ended up by following, and she was subjected to the suits of several men. After 1871, the Bonaparte monarchy in France came to an end and the Emperor Napoleon III and his wife Empress Eugenie had come to live in Britain in their exile. Also with them was their son and heir, Louis Napoleon, the Prince Imperial, would be heir to the Imperial throne of France. Despite the undoubted Roman Catholicism of these French royals Queen Victoria made a very close friendship with the ex-Empress and thought highly of her son. Beatrice and Louis Napoleon grew close to one another, and the press was full of stories of their imminent engagement, one has to assume that the French prince had agreed to convert to Anglicanism for Victoria to have even allowed talk of such a match to go ahead at all. Tragedy struck however when the Prince Imperial, serving in the British Army was killed in action against the Zulu in June 1879. Beatrice was distraught and the Queen confided to her diary that she was too. After his death Beatrice’s eldest brother Bertie decided that he would weigh in with his suggestion, he advised their late sister Alice’s widower, Louis of Hesse. The Queen saw the advantage of this in terms of providing the right sort of step-mother for her Hessian grandchildren as they approached marriageable age. The House of Lords however blocked the move by confirming that it was illegal to marry ones sister’s widower. By this stage Beatrice must have begun to think that she was indeed going to end up a spinster by her mother’s side. Two further German Princes were suggested, Alexander or his brother Louis of Battenberg. Alexander never pursued his suit, but his brother Louis did. Queen Victoria decided to invite Louis to dinner and she sat herself between him and Beatrice. Beatrice had been instructed before going into dinner not to even speak to Louis and to discourage his suit. Louis was somewhat perplexed by this and in the end he married Beatrice’s niece, Princess Victoria of Hesse, the eldest daughter of Louis and Alice. Victoria thought that she had won, but when Beatrice attended the wedding of Louis of Battenberg to her niece Victoria there she fell in love with another Battenberg Prince, Prince Henry and he loved her in return. Upon her return to Windsor Beatrice informed Queen Victoria of her desire to marry Prince Henry. The monarch just said nothing, absolutely nothing and received the news with utter silence. Victoria did not speak a single word to her youngest and in her eyes most innocent child for seven months. She was finally coaxed out of this attitude by her eldest daughter the Crown Princess of Germany and by the solicitations of the Princess of Wales, until that point she had communicated with Beatrice by notes sent to and fro. Eventually the Queen relented and agreed to the marriage on the condition that Prince Henry renounced all of his commitments in Germany and agreed to live permanently with Beatrice with the Queen. He agreed to do so and in July 1885 they were married at St Mildred’s Church on the Isle of Wight. This union brought to an end the weddings of Queen Victoria’s children, and although she had given up on her husband’s master plan of having all of their children married into foreign royal houses, she had none the less created an impressive network of family connections. These connections allowed the aged monarch to rest in the knowledge that Europe would evermore be at peace with itself and that consequently the vast British Empire over which she presided was secure also. Victoria died in 1901 as the longest ever serving sovereign in the history of the British Isles at a time when it was heading towards the zenith of its power in the world. Victoria survived long enough to play her part the arrangements for some of her grandchildren’s marriages too. For example Bertie’s eldest son Prince Albert Victor was known as a bit of a rake and rumours of alleged homosexuality surrounded him. In light of this talk both his grandmother and his father thought that it was high time the heir presumptive to the British throne should be married off. A number of possible candidates were lined up. His cousin Princess Alix of Hesse, one of Alice and Louis’s daughters, she was not interested however and she preferred to marry the young Tsarevich Nicholas of Russia. As young Alix was another grandchild of Victoria’s she felt she had the right to be involved in her choice too, but in the end she told Alix that she was proud of her for standing up to her which many people were too afraid to do. Alix had met the Tsarevich on several occasions and they had fallen in love with each other. Tsar Alexander III was unimpressed by his son’s choice as he was aiming for a more prominent match than a German Princess, he especially despised Germany. And as for Queen Victoria she had grave concerns about her granddaughter climbing onto “that tottering throne” which was how she regarded the security of the Russian monarchy in light of Alexander II’s assassination in 1881 after several previous attempts had failed. None the less the young Alix went ahead and married Nicholas and in 1894 the couple became the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia, their fate is a tragic one and is worth of a blog entry all of its own and it is surely famous enough for me not to have to repeat it here. Going back to Prince Albert Victor, he found a love match for himself in Helene, daughter of the Count of Paris who was a claimant to the French throne. She was Roman Catholic and so the Queen was dead set against it, but she later came round to the idea and on condition that Helene converted to the Anglican faith, then she was able to marry Albert Victor. Her father however disbarred her from converting and Pope Leo XII stood by that decision, the affair had to end with that. Princess Mary of Teck was the daughter of the Queen’s first cousin and she decided that this was a good match for her grandson, the wedding was set for February 1892 and he was to be appointed as Viceroy of Ireland to give him something serious to focus on and practice at being monarch, which is more than the Queen ever allowed for Bertie. As the day of the wedding approached Albert Victor contracted a serious flu and then pneumonia from which he died in January 1892. In monarchy however sad the circumstances, that was never a good enough reason to abandon an advanced plan. Albert Victor was replaced by his younger brother George as heir to the throne, and Mary was set to marry George instead so that her future would not be altered. Heartless as it seems, George and Mary grew to love each other and were probably better suited to one another than Mary and Albert Victor would have been. So Queen Victoria was playing her private part in the great game of nations and empires right up to the last decade of her life. In the end though politics, pride and jealousy of some of her family members led to the ultimate failure of the perpetual peace she and Albert had dreamed of in the early years of their marriage. In 1914 when the peace broke, war erupted on the continent and around the world; this was the death knell for Pax Britannica. Victoria’s eldest grandchild by this point had become the Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm II son of Vicky and Fritz. He was fighting against his own cousins, Nicholas and Alix as Tsar and Tsarina of Russia and against Britain which had Wilhelm’s 1st cousin as its King, George V. King George V dropped all associations with Germany and in 1917 he even ventured as far as to change the name of the royal dynasty to Windsor so as to downplay any connections to Germany. His cousins who were living in Britain were also given new names, for example Princess Beatrice’s children the Battenberg’s became the Mountbatten’s. These renames although almost trivial and populist looking today were considered by the upper classes at the time to be an extreme move by the King. Even his cousin the Kaiser was surprised that George would turn his back on such a carefully plotted out pedigree and its prestige. It was a sign of very changing times; the Kaiser noted sneeringly that he was going to attend a performance of the Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Goth. By 1918 the Allies had won the war and the European political landscape was altered forever. The Russian Empire although on the victorious side underwent a revolution which swept the Tsar off the throne. The Kaiser was next to go, but he was spared execution and merely sent into exile in the Netherlands. Over the next few decades many more royal houses connected by blood to the British throne were toppled and the almost medieval idea that family dynasties at the top of nations were able to actually keep peace was washed away forever. This was an early version of European Union, constructed upon the marriages of Princes it was left existing only in the memories a few survivors. Over the next century for better or worse the rules for royal marriage relaxed and alliances with foreign powers are now much less simple to construct. Advertisements
Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao, billed as the Fight of the Century, or the Battle for Greatness,[1] was a professional boxing match between undefeated five-division world champion Floyd Mayweather Jr. and eight-division world champion Manny Pacquiao. It took place on May 2, 2015, at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada. Mayweather Jr. won the contest by unanimous decision,[2] with two judges scoring it 116–112 and the other 118–110.[3] Although the fight was considered to be one of the most anticipated sporting events in history, it was largely considered a letdown by critics and audiences alike upon its broadcast. Despite predictions that Mayweather–Pacquiao would be the highest-grossing fight in history as early as 2009, disagreements between the two professional boxers' camps on terms for the fight prevented the bout from coming to fruition until 2015.[4][5] The failure to arrange the Mayweather–Pacquiao fight was named the 2010 Event of the Year by The Ring.[6] Serious negotiations were kickstarted in 2014 by an unlikely source: a Hollywood waiter and part-time actor, Gabriel Salvador,[7] made a key introduction between Pacquiao's trainer and confidant Freddie Roach and CBS President Les Moonves, who both worked to facilitate the match.[8][9][10] By 2015, negotiations for the fight had been finalized, with all of the major issues that prevented the fight from happening in the past resolved, including purse split, drug testing, and location.[11][12] The fight was televised through a pay-per-view (PPV) jointly produced by HBO and Showtime, the respective rightsholders of Pacquiao and Mayweather. In the Philippines, the fight was also broadcast in simulcast across three of the country's major broadcast television networks. The fight was expected to be the most lucrative in the history of professional boxing: with an initial estimate of 4.4 million purchases, the PPV alone broke revenue records in the U.S. with $410 million in revenue, making it the highest-grossing PPV in history, surpassing Mayweather–Álvarez in 2013. By September 2015, the figure had been amended to 4.6 million.[13][14][15][16] The broadcast of the fight in the Philippines was watched by nearly half the country's households. Due to the record high price of the PPV, the fight was also widely broadcast through unauthorized online streams on services such as Periscope. Despite the large amount of hype that surrounded it, critics felt that the bout itself was disappointing, primarily citing Mayweather's defense-oriented strategy in the ring and Pacquiao's difficulty in landing punches on Mayweather. This had led to some critics re-labelling the fight 'Better Never Than Late' rather than 'Fight of the Century'.[17] It was later revealed following the event that Pacquiao had sustained an undisclosed injury to his right shoulder while training, and that while it had healed in time for the fight, he re-injured it during the 4th round. Further controversy emerged when it was alleged that prior to the fight, Mayweather had been administered IV fluids cleared by the United States Anti-Doping Agency through a retroactive "therapeutic use exemption"—an exemption, however, not authorized by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. Background [ edit ] When the fight was announced, Mayweather was 38 years old and still undefeated, with a perfect professional record of 47 wins and 0 losses. On June 6, 2008, six months after defeating Ricky Hatton by a tenth-round TKO, Mayweather announced his retirement from boxing. At the time, plans were in motion for a rematch with Oscar De La Hoya, which was going to take place September 20, 2008. "This decision was not an easy one for me to make as boxing is all I have done since I was a child," Mayweather said. "However, these past few years have been extremely difficult for me to find the desire and joy to continue in the sport."[18] At the time, 31-year-old Mayweather registered 39 wins and no losses in his historic career. At the time of his retirement, The Ring magazine had Mayweather ranked as the number 1 pound-for-pound fighter in the world, with Manny Pacquiao at number 2. During Mayweather's brief retirement, Pacquiao earned superstar status in much of the Western world with his eighth-round TKO victory over Óscar de la Hoya, for which he moved up from lightweight to welterweight (135 pounds to 147 pounds). On May 2, 2009, the day of Pacquiao's fight against Ricky Hatton, Mayweather announced that he was coming out of retirement and would fight Juan Manuel Márquez, The Ring lightweight champion and number 2 pound-for-pound fighter, on July 18, 2009, in a welterweight non-title fight.[19] Marquez had previously fought Pacquiao in two controversial outings: they fought to a twelve-round draw on May 8, 2004, and Pacquiao was awarded a twelve-round split decision win on March 15, 2008.[19] Mayweather played down Pacquiao's newfound stardom at his press conference, stating: "If he wins tonight, don't be all shocked ... Cause guess what? I beat (Hatton) when he was undefeated. Pacquiao beat Oscar, it don't matter. Going down to 147 pounds was too much for (De La Hoya), he was dead after the first round. ... When you talk boxing, you talk Floyd Mayweather."[20] Pacquiao would go on to defeat Hatton by a second-round knockout to win The Ring junior welterweight title. The win made him the second boxer in history to win titles in six weight divisions, the first being Oscar De La Hoya.[20] Mayweather vs. Marquez was postponed until September 19, 2009, due to a rib injury suffered by Mayweather. Despite being out of the ring for 21 months, Mayweather looked as sharp as ever and dominated the fight, winning by a lopsided twelve-round unanimous decision. After the bout, Mayweather Promotions CEO Leonard Ellerbe stated that a fight with Pacquiao was the "next obvious choice from a marketing standpoint."[21] On November 14, 2009, Pacquiao stopped Puerto Rican star Miguel Cotto in round twelve to win the WBO welterweight title. Pacquiao's victory sparked a media frenzy and fans were quick to demand a fight between the two of them,[22] despite the fact that the actual fight itself had not officially been made yet, and would not take place until 2015. First negotiations [ edit ] On December 5, 2009, ESPN reported that Pacquiao signed a contract to fight Mayweather on March 13, 2010. Shortly afterward, Pacquiao denied ever signing a contract to fight Mayweather, telling FanHouse, "There are still some things that need to be negotiated."[23] On December 11, Golden Boy Promotions sent an eight-page contract to Top Rank, proposing a 50–50 financial split for a fight to take place on March 13, 2010.[24] The contract was very detailed, including such matters as who would weigh-in first (Pacquiao), who would enter the ring first (Pacquiao), and who would be introduced first (Mayweather). The contract included an HBO Pay-Per-View showing at a cost of $59.95. Billing was to be "Mayweather vs. Pacquiao, presented by Top Rank, Golden Boy Promotions, Mayweather Promotions and M-P Promotions in association with [approved sponsors and the site]." Also included in the contract was Olympic-style drug testing.[25] Venues for the fight being discussed were Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, TX, the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas and the Superdome in New Orleans.[26] In a video titled "Boxing Legend Freddie Roach Updates Us On Pacquiao" uploaded to YouTube on December 11, 2009, Pacquiao's trainer, Freddie Roach, revealed the first hint about Mayweather's request for Olympic-style drug testing, telling roving reporter Elie Seckbach, "I hear negotiations are a little shady. (Richard) Schaefer and them are unhappy about something. They want Olympic-style drug testing. I said, 'Yeah, no problem.' I said, 'Whatever you want.' Since we accepted that, now they're running scared again."[24] On December 13, 2009, Pacquiao's adviser, Michael Koncz, said Mayweather's request for Olympic-style drug testing was a laughing matter and they had no concerns whatsoever about it. "Our reaction is, 'So what?' We know Manny doesn't take any illegal drugs or anything. And none of this is getting under Manny's skin or anything. I'm here with Manny, and to him, it's like a joke. It's a laughing matter," said Koncz.[24] After reports had surfaced that both parties had agreed to all terms, Golden Boy Promotions released a press release on December 22, 2009, revealing that Pacquiao was unwilling to comply with the Olympic-style drug testing requested by Team Mayweather. The following day, Bob Arum, Top Rank founder and CEO, declared the fight was off and Pacquiao would be facing a different opponent. "We appeased Mayweather by agreeing to a urine analysis at any time, and blood testing before the press conference and after the fight. Mayweather pressed for blood testing even up to the weigh-in. He knew that Manny gets freaked out when his blood gets taken and feels that it weakens him. This is just harassment and, to me, just signaled that he didn't want the fight," Arum told David Mayo of the Grand Rapids Press.[27] Not long after declaring that the fight was off, Arum had a change of heart and offered Mayweather a 24-hour take-it-or-leave-it deadline to accept Team Pacquiao's terms for drug testing. Top Rank sent out a press release explaining their position on Mayweather's request for random Olympic-style drug testing. In it, Arum said Pacquiao was willing to submit to as many random urine tests requested, but as far as random blood tests were concerned, he was only willing to subject himself to 3 tests: one in January, one 30 days from the bout (no later than February 13) and immediately after the fight. "Let's be very clear on the real issues we differ on. It's not about being tested ... It's about who does the testing and the scheduling of the procedures ... The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) cannot do it because they will not amend its procedures to accommodate the blood testing schedule we have outlined. USADA, under its guidelines, would have the right to administer random blood tests as many times as they want up to weigh-in day and that is ludicrous," Arum explained.[28] Freddie Roach told Lance Pugmire of the Los Angeles Times on December 22, 2009, that he would prefer for Pacquiao to give his final blood sample a week before the bout and no later than 72 hours before. On December 28, 2009, video from an episode of HBO's Pacquiao-Hatton: 24/7 surfaced on the internet showing Pacquiao giving blood in the weeks leading up to his May 2, 2009, bout with Ricky Hatton. Documents confirmed that the video was recorded on April 8, 2009, 24 days prior to the fight and past the 30-day cut-off date that Pacquiao had demanded for a Mayweather fight.[23] Pacquiao filed suit in U.S. District Court in Nevada on December 30, 2009, against Floyd Mayweather Jr., Floyd Mayweather Sr., Roger Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions and Golden Boy Promotions executives Oscar De La Hoya and Richard Schaefer, alleging that they made false and defamatory statements accusing him of taking performance-enhancing drugs.[29] Both sides agreed to enter into mediation on January 7, 2010, in hopes of coming to an agreement on the blood testing issue. Retired federal judge Daniel Weinstein, who successfully resolved a prior dispute between Top Rank and Golden Boy Promotions, would again act as mediator. Two days later, after hours of negotiating during mediation, Arum declared that the fight was officially off after Mayweather refused to agree to a 24-day cut-off date. Mayweather revealed that he offered a 14-day cut-off date to Team Pacquiao, but it was rejected. Leonard Ellerbe declared on January 18, that random blood and urine testing will be implemented in all of Mayweather's future fights, regardless of the opponent. On February 13, in an exclusive interview with David Mayo of The Grand Rapids Press, Mayweather said, "I gave him [Pacquiao] a chance, up to 14 days out. But my new terms are all the way up to the fight. They can come get us whenever, all the way up to the fight, random drug test. That's what it is."[23] After the failed negotiations, both boxers moved on to other fights. On March 13, 2010, Pacquiao defeated Joshua Clottey via unanimous decision, and on May 1, 2010, Mayweather beat Shane Mosley by a unanimous decision.[24] Reported second negotiations [ edit ] On May 13, 2010, Bob Arum announced that he had penciled in November 13, 2010, as the date of Pacquiao's next fight, possibly against Mayweather.[30] Pacquiao was quoted by the Manila Bulletin on May 20, as saying, "As long as they're not getting a large amount of blood, I am willing to give out blood as close to two weeks before the fight."[31] On the same day, Mayweather revealed that he would be taking the rest of 2010, and possibly 2011, off. Arum declared on June 30, 2010, that there were no longer any issues and the decision was up to Mayweather. "That's all been resolved," Arum stated to Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports regarding the dispute over random blood and urine drug testing.[32] Arum would also tell the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "There's no longer any issues....The question is whether Mayweather is willing to fight this year." He would reiterate that comment to the Manila Bulletin, stating, "It's now up to Mayweather if he wants to fight."[33] On July 13, Arum issued a July 16 midnight deadline for Mayweather. "Mayweather has until the end of the week. He could wait until the last minute. If it's Friday [July 16] and it's 11 p.m., and he says we have a deal, we have a deal," Arum would explain to Dan Rafael of ESPN. On July 15, Top Rank's website unveiled an official countdown to the deadline entitled "Money" Time: Mayweather's Decision.[34] Denial of second negotiations [ edit ] As soon as the deadline for Mayweather's response expired, Arum held a conference call. Arum revealed to the media that the negotiations he had been referring to consisted of a series of conversations with HBO Sports President Ross Greenburg. He also revealed that there was no actual direct communication with any representative from Team Mayweather or Golden Boy Promotions. "I had a couple of conversations with Ross [Greenburg] and I laid out all the terms that would be acceptable to our side and I also informed him about the concession that Manny had made regarding drug testing. He got back to me in a couple of weeks and told me that he had had discussions with Al Haymon, representing Floyd Mayweather, and that everything looked good and we were nearing a resolution," Arum explained.[35] During a Q & A session following his opening statement, Arum further explained, "We have never talked to anybody on the Mayweather side and all conversations on our part were through Ross Greenburg and he reported on all conversations on the Mayweather side from Al Haymon."[35] On July 19, 2010, Ellerbe denied that negotiations ever took place and said nothing was ever agreed on. "Here are the facts: Al Haymon, Richard Schaefer and myself speak to each other on a regular basis and the truth is no negotiations have ever taken place nor was there ever a deal agreed upon by Team Mayweather or Floyd Mayweather to fight Manny Pacquiao on November 13. Either Ross Greenburg or Bob Arum is not telling the truth, but history tells us who is lying," stated Ellerbe.[36] Three days later, Schaefer backed Ellerbe's statement that negotiations never took place. Regarding comments he made suggesting that contracts for the mega-fight were close to being finalized, De La Hoya told BoxingScene.com on July 26, "I think I said it because I get the question asked so many times that, obviously, I was fed up and tired of it and I just said like, yeah, yeah, it's gonna get made. So it was a quick answer that I should have obviously thought about. But, obviously, negotiations weren't going on. Nothing was going on."[37] Also on July 26, Greenburg released a statement saying he had been negotiating with a representative from each side since May 2,"I had been negotiating with a representative from each side since May 2, carefully trying to put the fight together. Hopefully, someday this fight will happen. Sports fans deserve it," Greenburg revealed in a prepared statement sent out to select members of the media.[38] Schaefer again supported Ellerbe's denial of negotiations, and challenged both Greenburg and Arum to take lie detector tests. "I think it's unfortunate that Ross made that statement. I fully stand behind the statement I made. I have not negotiated with Ross and I am not aware of any negotiations that have taken place," Schaefer told ESPN.[34] Continued disputes [ edit ] On September 2, 2010, Mayweather unleashed a profanity-filled racist internet rant against Pacquiao via Ustream. He was misquoted as referring to Pacquiao as "a yellow chump" but he actually called him a "little young chump" and said, "Once I stomp the midget, I’ll make that queer make me a sushi roll and cook me some rice." In addition, he said, "I'm going to cook that [expletive] with cats and dogs. Have some rice with a little barbecue dog."[39] The following day Mayweather apologized. "I want to apologize to everybody. ... I don't have a racist bone in my body, you know. I love everybody," Mayweather said. "I was just having fun. I didn't really mean it, nothing in a bad way."[39] On July 8, 2011, ESPN reported that Pacquiao was willing to agree to random drug testing—but not by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). "We have agreed in the Pacquiao camp to unlimited random testing done by a responsible, neutral organization," Arum told Yahoo. "We don't believe USADA is a neutral organization. I don't think anybody's test is as vigorous as the test administered by the Olympic Organization. And we can arrange for the Olympic Organization to handle the test under the supervision of the Athletic commission respective of the state where the fight is going to be held."[40] However, the following day, Pacquiao's top adviser, Michael Koncz, stated that Pacquiao had never agreed to testing all the way up to fight day. "Will we give blood five days, seven days before the fight? You know, that's something I have to talk to Manny about, but we have nothing to hide," Koncz said.[41] On January 20, 2012, Mayweather spoke directly to Pacquiao via telephone. "He ask about a 50/50 split," Mayweather said. "I told him no that can't happen, but what can happen is you can make more money fighting me then [sic] you have made in your career."[42] Mayweather offered to pay a flat fee of US$40 million for a proposed fight but would not allow Pacquiao to share in the revenue. Pacquiao said, "I spoke to Floyd ...and he offered me an amount. He didn't talk about the pay-per-views here and that's it. I can't agree with that. I told him I agree with 55 and 45 (split)."[43] Pacquiao appeared on the ESPN program First Take on September 20, 2012, and said he had no problem with the drug-testing issue. "Whatever he wants to do," Pacquiao said. He said he was willing to be tested even on the night of the fight.[44] On September 25, Mayweather and Pacquiao reached a confidential settlement in their federal defamation case. In a statement released through the mediator in the case, the Mayweathers said they "wish to make it clear that they never intended to claim that Manny Pacquiao has used or is using any performance-enhancing drugs, nor are they aware of any evidence that Manny Pacquiao has used performance-enhancing drugs."[45] The Telegraph reported on December 20, that Mayweather said Pacquiao’s association with promoter Bob Arum is the reason why the bout will not happen. "We all know the Pacquiao fight, at this particular time, will never happen, and the reason why the fight won't happen is because I will never do business with Bob Arum again in life, and Pacquiao is Bob Arum's fighter," Mayweather said.[46] On January 7, 2014, Fighthype.com published an interview with Mayweather in which he called Pacquiao a "desperate dog" who is chasing a megabout due to his tax problems.[47] In response, Pacquiao challenged Mayweather to a fight for charity. "I challenge him to include in our fight contract that both of us will not receive anything out of this fight," Pacquiao said. "We will donate all the proceeds from the fight—guaranteed prize, should there be any, gate receipts, pay-per-view and endorsements—to charities around the world." He added, "Floyd, if you’re a real man, fight me. Let’s do it for the love of boxing and for the fans. Let’s do it not for the sake of money. Let’s make the boxing fans happy."[48] Successful negotiations [ edit ] As reported by at least 5 major media outlets (USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Hollywood Reporter, Wall Street Journal and the New York Post), serious negotiations leading to success were kickstarted in May 2014 by a very unlikely source: A Hollywood waiter/actor named Gabriel Salvador (Bones, Bluebloods, Rizzoli & Isles, CSI).[8][9][10][49][50] Salvador forged a friendship with CBS Network President Leslie Moonves when Moonves became a regular at Craig's restaurant in West Hollywood, where Salvador worked part-time as a waiter. Salvador and Moonves bonded over their mutual love of boxing.[8][10] CBS is the parent company of Showtime Network, which had invested heavily in boxing and spent top-dollar on a multi-year deal with Mayweather.[8] Salvador told Moonves that he believed he could make the fight happen if he could get Moonves together with Pacquiao confidant and trainer Freddie Roach.[8] Salvador believed he could do so based on his connection to both men and his "unshakeable feeling" that together they could cut through the politicking and power struggles that seem to have stymied prior negotiations.[8] Salvador's son Elijah worked out at Freddy Roach's gym. Moonves agreed that Salvador should approach Roach to make an introduction with a view to making the fight a reality.[49] Eventually, Salvador approached Roach and asked him if he would be willing to meet with Moonves to get the wheels in motion. Roach agreed and asked Salvador to set up a meeting.[9] The first meeting between Moonves and Roach took place on May 28, 2014, at the Scarpetta restaurant in the Montage Hotel in Beverly Hills, which Salvador attended.[10] Both Roach and Moonves agreed the long-awaited bout had to happen and Roach gave Moonves the green-light to start making things happen. Roach later helped Moonves make peace with Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum.[10] Moonves then brought the warring elements from both boxers' camps together and, with Salvador's help, even arranged meetings at his home.[9] After difficult negotiations, it was not long after that both camps agreed to fight on the night of May 2, 2015. The consensus is that but for Salvador's key introduction, the fight would not have happened.[8] Both Moonves and Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum have confirmed Salvador's pivotal role. For his role, Salvador maintains that he is a "finder" entitled to a finder's fee.[9] But Salvador has yet to be paid that fee by either CBS or Roach/Pacquiao.[50] The fight grossed more than $600 million, with the television networks taking in more than $400 million and Pacquiao grossing more than $160 million.[51] On December 12, 2014, Mayweather proposed a May 2, 2015, fight with Pacquiao, citing his indirect frustration at not being able to make the fight happen in the past by stating that Pacquiao had lost to both Marquez and Bradley, and that he (Pacquiao) was "not on his level". He then went on to close his comments with, "Let's make this fight happen for the people and for the fans."[52] On January 13, Pacquiao agreed to terms for the fight. Bob Arum claimed that now only Mayweather's camp was holding up an official agreement.[53][54] On January 27, Mayweather and Pacquiao finally met each other face to face for the first time during an NBA game between the Miami Heat and Milwaukee Bucks in Miami.[55] Pacquiao said they exchanged phone numbers and would communicate with each other.[55] Pacquiao's advisor, Michael Koncz, said that the two future Hall of Famers later met at Pacquiao's hotel for about an hour to discuss the pending superfight and work out the remaining issues. Top Rank promoter Bob Arum expressed optimism that the fight could be finalized by Super Bowl Sunday at the soonest and that there would be no further deadlines for the fight, stating that the negotiations are nearly complete.[56] On January 30, TMZ reported that the fight had been agreed upon by both sides and that a formal announcement would be made in the "next couple of days." However, members from both sides, including Bob Arum and Stephen Espinoza, refuted the report, saying that the deal had not been finalized yet and that negotiations on what would be a joint pay-per-view (Showtime-HBO) telecast of the fight were still clearing out the last significant issues before the deal could be finalized.[57] On February 20, Mayweather announced that the fight was official and a contract had been signed for a fight to take place on May 2, 2015, at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.[58] The fight was expected to shatter PPV buy records and gross millions of dollars with the ticket prices ranging from $3,500 to $250,000 and the PPV was expected to cost US$89.95 for SD and US$99.95 for HD. Boxing experts predicted the match would be the richest fight in boxing history and would generate $300 million.[59] Fight card [ edit ] ^Note 1 For WBA (Super), WBC, WBO and The Ring Welterweight titles. ^Note 2 For WBO Featherweight title. ^Note 3 For vacant USBA Super Middleweight title. Fight details [ edit ] Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao was held at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada. Tickets for the fight went on sale on April 23 after an agreement had been reached over ticket allocation. Only 500 tickets went on sale to the public, priced at $1,500, $2,500, $3,500, $5,000 and $7,500 for the 16,800 capacity MGM Grand.[60][61][62] The tickets that went on sale sold out within a minute.[63][64][65] As per the contract, the first $160 million of revenue, and the revenue above $180 million, from the fight was split 60/40 between the fighters, with Mayweather receiving the larger 60% share. Revenue between $160 million and $180 million was to be split 51/49, with the 51% share going to the winner. Both fighters were expected to earn at least $100 million in revenue from their participation.[66] Although the event was jointly promoted by Mayweather Promotions and Top Rank, the contract named Mayweather Promotions as the lead promoter of the fight.[67] Both fighters agreed to undergo drug testing by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, including random blood and urine testing prior to the fight, a test following the fight, and a ban from professional boxing for four years if they test positive.[68] Neither fighter has failed a drug test during their professional career.[69] Kenny Bayless served as the in-ring referee, as chosen by the Nevada Athletic Commission. Bayless has previously officiated five of Mayweather's past bouts and seven of Pacquiao's, and he earned a record $25,000 for officiating this fight. Burt Clements, Dave Moretti, and Glenn Feldman served as judges.[70] The U.S. national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner", was performed by Jamie Foxx.[71] The Philippine national anthem, "Lupang Hinirang", was performed by Filipino-American singer Gail Banawis, joined by The Word Chorale—a choir of Filipino pastors.[72] A large number of celebrities were in attendance; singer Justin Bieber was among Mayweather's entourage, while Pacquiao was joined by comedian Jimmy Kimmel—who had discussed the possibility of entering with him when Pacquiao appeared on his talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live. Kimmel wore an outfit parodying Bieber's wardrobe from a pre-fight press conference, and photobombed a pre-fight photo taken by Pacquiao. Other figures in attendance included Andre Agassi, Beyoncé and Jay-Z, Charles Barkley, Mike Tyson, Clint Eastwood, Robert De Niro, Denzel Washington, Michael J. Fox, Donald Trump, Jake Gyllenhall, Amir Khan, Drew Barrymore, Jesse Jackson, Russell Westbrook, Mark Wahlberg, Lewis Hamilton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Don Cheadle, Michael Jordan, Steffi Graf, Sugar Ray Leonard, Paris Hilton, Nicki Minaj, Meek Mill, Ben Affleck, The Jonas Brothers, Michael Keaton, Tom Brady, Magic Johnson, Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Evander Holyfield, Mariah Carey, Sting, 50 Cent and others.[73][74] Broadcasting [ edit ] As both Pacquiao and Mayweather had exclusive relationships with the broadcasters at the time of the fight, the telecast of the fight was a joint production between HBO and Showtime. This marked the first collaboration between the two American premium television services since Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson in 2002. It was executive produced and directed by Showtime's David Dinkins Jr. and Bob Dunphy, and featured a mix of Showtime and HBO personalities.[75][76] The ringside announcers for the fight included Roy Jones Jr. (HBO), Al Bernstein (Showtime), and Jim Lampley (HBO) provided analysis. Max Kellerman (HBO) and Jim Gray (Showtime) covered the locker rooms of Pacquiao and Mayweather, respectively. James Brown and Paulie Malignaggi of Showtime hosted the pre-fight show.[77] The broadcast was, in most regions, distributed as a pay-per-view event. In the United States, the PPV cost was US$89.95 (with an additional $10 charge for high definition), a 40% increase over the PPV cost of Mayweather's 2013 fight against Saúl Álvarez.[66][76] Rights to screen the fight in commercial venues such as bars and restaurants were administered by G&G Sports, with costs based upon venue size and other factors, reaching as high as $5,000 for a 257-seat establishment. Due to concerns that they may not have been able to recoup the cost of the PPV through cover charges and drink sales, some bars decided against screening the fight at all.[78] Both HBO and Showtime aired encores of the fight the following Saturday, May 9, 2015.[79] Both Showtime and HBO broadcast documentary specials focusing on the two fighters as part of the lead-up to the fight; Showtime produced the Mayweather-focused Inside Mayweather vs. Pacquiao—with three episodes focusing on Mayweather's preparations for the event and an epilogue which aired the week following the fight, while HBO aired a one-hour Pacquiao-focused Mayweather/Pacquiao: At Last, as well as encores of past Pacquiao fights. Showtime's sister outlet CBS Sports Network also aired supplemental programming, including encores of Inside Mayweather vs. Pacquiao and past Mayweather fights, live coverage of the weigh-in, special broadcasts of The Doug Gottlieb Show and Boomer and Carton from Las Vegas, and coverage of the post-fight press conference.[80][81][82] International broadcasting [ edit ] In Pacquiao's native country of the Philippines, Solar Entertainment held broadcast rights to the fight, reportedly paying $10 million (PHP 440 million). The telecast was made available via commercial free pay-per-view on the television providers Cignal and SkyCable, and at the locations of theatre chain SM Cinema and the Mall of Asia Arena. Unlike previous Pacquiao fights, whose free-to-air rights were held by GMA Network as part of a sub-licensing arrangement, a "slightly-delayed" telecast of the fight was simulcast by Solar Sports, GMA, and the rival commercial networks ABS-CBN and TV5.[83] Solar Sports president Wilson Tieng said that Pacquiao personally requested the joint broadcast due to its historic nature, and that "everybody agreed to set aside all their differences to make sure that this will become the biggest event ever in Philippine television history." GMA held exclusive radio rights to the fight.[84][85] In Europe, generally, the fight was broadcast via PPV (Austria, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain). Only a few TV holders in Europe decided otherwise – TVP (Poland), Sport 1 (Czech Republic and Hungary) and Discovery Italy (Deejay TV and DMAX). Sky Sports Box Office won exclusive television rights in the UK to the bout, and produced a four episode broadcast leading up to the event titled Mayweather vs. Pacquiao: Countdown.[86] Sportsmax TV and Cleeng offered the fight via PPV in 19 Caribbean countries, including Barbados, Jamaica, Surinam and Trinidad & Tobago.[87] Piracy and streaming [ edit ] Due to the high profile of the event and the high price of the PPV, there were significant concerns surrounding piracy of the fight's telecast by either bars (which were required to purchase a higher-priced commercial license to televise the event, and were not legally allowed to purchase it through their television provider) or by online streaming services, with TorrentFreak going on to report that Mayweather vs. Pacquiao was "destined to become the most pirated live sports event in history".[91][92][93] Organizers were especially concerned about the mobile broadcasting apps Meerkat and Periscope due to their relative ease of use and accessibility, as viewers could simply film their television screen with their phones to make a stream available.[92][93][91] Alongside monitoring activities during the event, actions were also preemptively taken against several sites that advertised plans to illegally stream the fight. In the Philippines, the Philippine National Police's Anti-Cybercrime Group arrested the operator of a streaming service after a complaint by ABS-CBN, and was granted a temporary restraining order in a Florida court for its infringements of copyrights and trademarks. HBO and Showtime filed a similar lawsuit against two other streaming services that advertised an intent to offer the fight under 17 U.S.C. § 411 (which allows for preemptive claims of copyright infringement against those conspiring to infringe the copyrights of a broadcast), and a court issued a restraining order against the sites and all parties in "active concert or participation with any of them, including any and all service providers who receive notice of this Order". The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the wide reach of the order, arguing that the clause of "any and all service providers who receive notice of this order" was comparable to the provisions of the previously proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, theorizing that other parties not originally named could become subject to the injunction by merely receiving notice of the order.[92][94][95] A large number of Periscope streams were used to broadcast the fight, either indirectly with a focus on reactions from viewing parties, or simply rebroadcasting television feeds of the fight. One stream reportedly peaked at around 10,000 viewers, although these streams had inconsistent uptime due either to connection issues or to being reported and taken down by the service. Representatives of both Meerkat and Periscope reported that they acted upon takedown notices received throughout the evening.[96] ESPN's Ryan McGee dubbed Periscope the "winner" of the fight due to the prominence it received through this manner.[93][97][98] Dick Costolo, CEO of microblogging service and Periscope parent company Twitter, made a similar remark; although it was initially assumed to be in reference to the illegal streams, he clarified that it was actually in reference to HBO's usage of the service to stream behind-the-scenes from the fighters' locker rooms.[96] Belt [ edit ] The winner of the fight received a newly created belt by the WBC. The belt, valued at $1 million, is an exact replica of the current belt, except it has thousands of emeralds in place of the gold plating for the center logo.[99] The belt also contains the faces of both Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao, along with the faces of the former WBC president, José Sulaimán, and boxing legend, Muhammad Ali.[99] Two belts were initially made for the fight. The green emerald belt won the public fan vote over the black onyx belt with a vote of 53% to 47%.[100] Gloves [ edit ] Both fighters wore 8-ounce (230 g) gloves with brands of their choosing. Mayweather wore custom Grant gloves with a multicolored paisley pattern, red & purple trim, and the letters TBE on the cuff. Pacquiao wore standard red Cleto Reyes gloves with black & white trim.[101] In Pacquiao's third professional loss, he was forced to use Winning brand gloves during his first bout versus Érik Morales. Pacquiao's complaints were that the gloves felt like "pillows," and they did not give him the same power as his Reyes "puncher's gloves."[102] More recently, Mayweather had glove issues in his first bout with Marcos Maidana, stating that Maidana's Everlast MX gloves did not provide sufficient padding for the knuckles. The issue was later resolved with Maidana resorting to using Everlast Powerlock type gloves, leaving Maidana's trainer, Robert Garcia, unhappy with the negotiation.[103] Fighters' gear [ edit ] Mayweather's trunks were designed by Dapper Dan, a Harlem-based hip-hop fashion designer. At least five possible outfits were created for the fight. FanDuel, a daily fantasy sports website, acquired sponsorship rights to have their logo appear on his waistband.[104][105] Pacquiao's gear was provided by Nike.[104][105][106] Mayweather commissioned specially-designed mouthguards for the fight by Dr. Lee Gause, owner of Iceberg Guards, costing $25,000. Along with "subtle" clear pairs, some of them contained gold leaf, diamond dust, and an embedded $100 bill. Iceberg Guards also released a limited-edition TMT-branded mouthguard to tie in with the fight.[107] Pacquiao's mouthguard was designed by Dr. Ed Dela Vega of Canoga Park, Los Angeles, who has custom-fit mouthguards for Pacquiao and other Philippine boxers. It featured a multi-colored design with a blend of the colors from the flag of the Philippines, meant to represent the different ethnic groups that support him. Unlike Mayweather's, this mouthguard was supplied as a gift to Pacquiao; Vega argued that Mayweather's high-cost mouthguard was simply "hype" meant to "rub it in the face of boxers who can't afford it".[108][109] A bidding war ensued between Corona and Tecate—which had respectively served as prominent sponsors of previous Mayweather and Pacquiao fights —for lead sponsorship rights to the fight. Tecate won the sponsorship deal with a bid of $5.6 million, beating a bid of $5.2 million by Corona. As part of the deal, Tecate's logo was visible on all promotional material for the fight.[110] Pacquiao was expected to feature a number of major sponsorships on his gear, providing an estimated $2.25 million in additional revenue. Among them were long-time sponsors, such as Air Asia, Cafe Puro, and Motolite.[105][106] Daily fantasy sports service FanDuel acquired sponsorship rights for Mayweather, including waistband branding, and a block of tickets that were given away through an on-site sweepstakes.[104][105] The King, a mascot of fast food chain Burger King, was among Mayweather's entourage entering the arena.[73] Merchandise [ edit ] Prior to the fight, Nike launched a line of Pacquiao-oriented merchandise carrying his logo and the slogans "Do What They Say You Can't" and "#MannyDoes".[111] Demand for Mayweather merchandise was also heavy, including apparel branded under the Mayweather Promotions and The Money Team (TMT) labels amongst others.[112] From April 24, 2015, through the day of the fight, a MayPac pop-up store operated on the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Fremont Street. It sold merchandise for both fighters, and featured interactive displays and fan-oriented events. Recap [ edit ] In round one, both boxers were aggressive, Mayweather unusually so.[114] Pacquiao attempted to score early points from body shots. However, Mayweather escaped his attack and landed a solid counter strike under Pacquiao's right side.[115] All three judges gave the round to Mayweather.[116] In the second round, Pacquiao repeatedly forced Mayweather toward the ropes, but Mayweather was able to escape or wrap Pacquiao up each time. Pacquiao's jabs mostly missed, but he landed a solid left hand hit late in the round. Mayweather increased his aggression late. Although Harold Lederman of HBO scored this round for Pacquiao, all three judges scored the round in favor of Mayweather.[116] Early in round three, Mayweather hit Pacquiao low. Pacquiao reacted angrily to the hit, perceiving it as illegal. The fighters exchanged big hits late in the round, energizing the crowd.[115] For the third consecutive round, all three judges scored it in favor of Mayweather.[116] In the fourth round, Pacquiao chased Mayweather around the ring, throwing punches at a rapid pace.[114] Pacquiao scored a big left handed hit, causing Mayweather to put his high guard up against the ropes.[115] Pacquiao took the round on all three score cards.[116] Having recovered from Pacquiao's big hit in the previous round, Mayweather won the early exchanges of the fifth round. Pacquiao remained on the offensive, but was unable to land any big punches.[115] Mayweather upped his activity and won the round in the eyes of the three judges. Pacquiao came out aggressive in the sixth, forcing Mayweather to the ropes. Pacquiao successfully landed a couple of combinations, but Mayweather appeared to be unfazed.[115] All the judges gave the round to Pacquiao, making the overall score Mayweather 58–56 (4–2 by rounds) on all cards.[116] Mayweather changed tactics at the start of the seventh round, becoming the aggressor for a second and forcing Pacquiao on to the ropes. He threw a double jab, then a right-handed punch, landing none, before Pacquiao counterattacked with an unsuccessful combo.[115] Mayweather stayed aggressive in the eighth round, landing jabs that kept Pacquiao off balance. Pacquiao went on the attack, opening up and landing some bigger punches.[114][115] The round went to Mayweather on the official scorecards.[116] In the ninth round, Pacquiao was again on the offensive. He effectively landed several punches, but Mayweather also landed on his counters.[115] Both parties landed a number of hits in a late flurry of action that excited the crowd.[114][115] Pacquiao was active, while Floyd picked his counters. Two of the three judges gave the round to Pacquiao, while the other saw it for Mayweather.[116] The tenth round saw Pacquiao on the attack.[117] Again, two judges saw it for Pacquiao and one for Mayweather. Mayweather led 96–94 (6–4) on two cards and 98–92 (8–2) on the other with two rounds remaining.[116] Mayweather came out swinging in the eleventh round, landing just below his highest volume of the fight. The action then stalled as Pacquiao struggled to land much on a defensive-minded Mayweather, who ducked the attacks. Pacquiao forced Mayweather to the corner, but Mayweather landed a clean hit on Pacquiao's chin. However, Pacquiao still managed to hit solid punches in a fast pace.[115] The judges unanimously scored the round in favor of Mayweather.[116] In the final round, Pacquiao attempted to attack with Mayweather mostly looking to avoid his punches by running across the ring.[115] Mayweather kept the fight in the center of the ring, but Pacquiao did land some inside counters. All three judges gave the round to Mayweather.[116] Floyd Mayweather defeated Manny Pacquiao in 12 rounds by unanimous decision, 118–110, 116–112, 116–112, to remain undefeated in his career. According to CompuBox, Mayweather landed 67 more punches throughout the match. Only three times did Pacquiao land double figure punches in a round.[114] Pacquiao himself thought he won the fight, and continues to maintain that he deserved the decision.[118] Scorecard [ edit ] Judge Fighter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total[116] Burt Clements Mayweather 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 10 9 9 10 10 116 Pacquiao 9 9 9 10 9 10 9 9 10 10 9 9 112 Glenn Feldman Mayweather 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 10 9 9 10 10 116 Pacquiao 9 9 9 10 9 10 9 9 10 10 9 9 112 Dave Moretti Mayweather 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 118 Pacquiao 9 9 9 10 9 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 110 Aftermath [ edit ] Revenue and viewership [ edit ] The fight lived up to revenue expectations, generating somewhere between $300 million and $400 million in gross revenue according to early estimates (including announced ticket sales totalling $72,198,500), which would surpass Super Bowl XLIX.[119][120] Due to the possibility of high demand, viewers were encouraged to pre-order the PPV: a HBO representative reported that the fight had attracted more pre-orders than any other PPV event in the broadcaster's history. Despite the guidance, a high volume of last-minute orders overwhelmed the systems of several major U.S. television providers and resulted in various technical issues, such as difficulties ordering or viewing the PPV, and outages that affected unrelated channels as well for some viewers.[121][122] To address these issues, the main event was pushed back 45 minutes from its originally projected start time of 8:15 p.m. PT (11:15 p.m. ET), to 9:00 p.m PT (12:00 a.m. ET).[123][124][125] The fight broke PPV viewership records in the United States, with 4.6 million buys and over $410 million in revenue, surpassing the previous $150 million revenue record set by Floyd Mayweather vs. Saúl Álvarez, the 2.48 million buy record set by 2007's Oscar De La Hoya vs. Floyd Mayweather Jr., and a pre-fight estimate of $270 million from 3 million households.[66][76][126] In the Philippines, Kantar ratings estimated that the fight was watched across the three-network consortium by 46.9% of Filipino households; of the three networks simulcasting the fight, ABS-CBN had the largest number of viewers, with a rating share of 24%.[83] Due to hundreds of business jets filling up the stands, McCarran International Airport was closed for non-airline flights during the event days.[127][128] By contrast, the typically bustling streets of the Philippine capital Manila were nearly empty during the fight.[129] Post-fight remarks [ edit ] After the fight, Mayweather remarked "[Pacquiao] definitely had his moments in the fight. As long as I moved on the outside, I was able to stay away from those. He’s a really smart fighter ... My dad wanted me to do more, but I had to take my time. Because Manny Pacquiao is a competitor, and he’s extremely dangerous."[114] Mayweather said he would retire after his next fight, the opponent of which is not yet decided.[130] Pacquiao said "I thought I won the fight. He’s moving around. It’s not easy to throw punches when he’s moving around so much ... I thought I caught him many more times than he caught me."[114] Citing the stats that showed he possibly should have won the fight, Pacquiao has continued to maintain he should have been awarded the decision.[2][117][118] On the possibility of a re-match, Mayweather stated on May 9, 2015, that he had no plans to fight Pacquiao again "at this particular time", referring to him as being a "sore loser" and a "coward".[131][132] Pacquiao shoulder injury [ edit ] Hours after the fight, Pacquiao's team disclosed that he had injured his right shoulder in April during a training exercise. The injury was partially healed, but Pacquiao requested and was denied an injection of legal painkillers before the fight. Pacquiao said he re-injured the shoulder in the fourth round of the fight and was ineffective after that.[133] On May 4, a representative of the Nevada Athletic Commission said that it was looking into why Pacquiao had stated he had no shoulder injuries on pre-fight questionnaire and was considering fining or suspending him for the deception. Pacquiao's team responded with a statement saying the USADA had been informed of the injury, but USADA head Travis Tygart said Pacquiao's team had only asked about the legality of certain substances for use on an unspecified shoulder injury and had provided "no medical information, no MRIs, no documents". Mayweather initially stated that he would be open to the possibility of a rematch with Pacquiao once he had recovered from his shoulder injury, but he changed his mind before talks of a rematch were in the works.[134] Pacquiao later underwent surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff and was out of action for nine months to one year.[134] Mayweather's IV injection [ edit ] After weighing in for the fight on May 1, Mayweather received an intravenous injection for the stated purpose of pre-bout re-hydration. The two IV infusions were administered at his home, amounted to 16% of the total average male blood quantity, and contained saline, multivitamins and vitamin C. The World Anti-Doping Agency forbids such a large amount of fluids entering the body before competition as a preventive step against the possible masking of performance-enhancing drug use. Bob Bennett, the executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC), stated that unless the IV was administered at a hospital, it needs to be cleared by filing a therapeutic-use exemption, and supporting documents through the Nevada commission and authorized by the commission’s medical expert. The Pacquiao camp had requested an injection of the anti-inflammatory Toradol for Pacquiao's injured shoulder before the fight, but was denied authorization by NSAC. USADA authorized both injections, but NSAC was not informed of Mayweather's IV until after the fight.[135] Reception [ edit ] The fight itself left many fans disappointed. Forbes.com contributor Brian Goff called it "arguably, the least entertaining 'mega fight' in memory", attributing the disappointment to Mayweather's defense-oriented strategy, which is atypical of top boxers.[120] The New York Times felt that the bout was "far from electrifying and had some fans grumbling about Mayweather’s methodical defensive style".[136] Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Dwyre felt that the fight was "as compelling as the 405 freeway at 8 a.m.". Regarding Pacquiao's undisclosed shoulder injury, he called the entire situation very damaging to boxing, accusing the fight's promoters of allowing the fight to go on for monetary reasons, and potentially alienating fans. Dwyre went on to say that "This was billed the Fight of the Century. As the Wall Street Journal so aptly put it, it's good that we have 85 years left to top it."[133] Former heavyweight champ Evander Holyfield, who thought that Pacquiao should have been awarded the decision, questioned the judging of not just this fight but recent prize fights in general in an essay in The Players Tribune.[137] Lawsuits [ edit ] On May 5, 2015, two Las Vegas residents filed a class-action lawsuit against Pacquiao, his manager, and Top Rank, for failing to disclose Pacquiao's injury before the fight. The plaintiffs felt that their actions deceived those who bought tickets or the PPV or bet on the fight, and violated the rules of the Nevada Athletic Commission.[138] The complaints will be heard by a Los Angeles judge, who will determine whether they may go to trial.[139] In May 2016, Showtime Networks also sued Top Rank over the injury, claiming that the promoter violated an indemnification agreement.[140] Rematch [ edit ] On September 15, 2018, both Mayweather and Pacquiao posted videos on Instagram depicting an encounter between the two at Ultra Japan, speculating the possibility of a rematch. Mayweather's stated in his posting of the video stated that the fight would happen "this year", and described it as "another 9 figure pay day on the way", and was heard remarking to Pacquiao that he was going to "take [the belt] from you like I did before". In Pacquiao's video (posted with the comment "50-1 #NoExcuses"), Mayweather was heard mentioning the "2nd of December". It is unknown if any formal negotiations have actually occurred.[141][142][143][144][145] On September 19, 2018, Mayweather clarified his calls for a rematch, stating that he planned to hold a fight in Japan first before any possible rematch.[146] On November 4, 2018, it was announced that Mayweather would fight undefeated Japanese kickboxer Tenshin Nasukawa on New Year's Eve[147] that Mayweather cancelled 2 days after the announcement via his social media accounts.[148] See also [ edit ] Fight of the Century – other fights considered "Fight of the Century"
At Halloween, images of witches flying across the night sky astride broomsticks are everywhere. The myth that witches could fly with the help of their broomsticks has been around for centuries, but could its origins be traced to a chemical in over-the-counter medicines found in most of our homes? In the heyday of witch-hunting hysteria, talk of a mysterious "flying ointment" began to gather momentum among those investigating witchcraft. This herbal unguent, rubbed into the skin, was purported to confer the power of flight, transporting witches to their Sabbat gatherings. The Spanish court physician Andrés de Laguna, writing in the 16th century, claimed to have taken from the home of a couple accused of witchcraft "a pot full of a certain green ointment … composed of herbs such as hemlock, nightshade, henbane, and mandrake." That would have been a potent mixture. Nightshade, henbane and mandrake are some of the most toxic plants in the family Solanaceae. Nightshade (Atropa belladonna) is immediately recognisable for its deep purple fruit and was said to be tended by the Devil himself. Like its close relatives henbane (Hyoscymaus niger) and mandrake (Mandragora officinarum), its leaves and berries are packed with chemicals called tropane alkaloids. One of these, scopolamine (also known as hyoscine), is the active ingredient of travel-sickness medications such as Boot's Travel Calms and the skin patch Scopoderm. Tropane alkaloids are unremarkable additions to a modern medicine cabinet, but if you took the raw plant material and pounded it in molten fat, you'd extract an uncontrolled mixture of the alkaloids in their pure, base form. You will have created the green ointment of de Laguna's alleged witch. Scopolamine and its close cousin atropine are "muscarinic antagonists" – they bind to receptors in the nervous system that would, ordinarily, bind to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Low doses of these chemicals will induce a dry mouth and dilated pupils – and relieve the nausea of travel sickness. But high doses can lead to antimuscarinic syndrome: a state of altered consciousness often characterised by delirium and intense hallucinations. If contemporary accounts are to be believed, "witches" applied this hallucinogenic ointment with the handle of a broom, smearing the ointment onto the length of the broom and then rubbing the handle against their genitals and even inserting it into the vagina. As the drugs took effect, delusions of flight may have ensued while astride the broomstick's handle. It has been argued that this drug-induced delusion lies at the the root of the myth of witches' flight. The pharmacology is sound. "Ointment would have been very effective as a delivery method for scopolamine," says Dr Randolph Arroo, head of research at Leicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University. "Alkaloids go through your skin into the bloodstream – consider nicotine patches." Tropane alkaloids easily cross the blood-brain barrier, acting on the central nervous system. "Mucous membranes are particularly good at transporting drugs - that's why cocaine is snorted," he adds. "Vaginal application would be pretty efficient, and the effects of the drugs would be noticeable quite rapidly." So the ointment may well have been capable of delivering powerful delusions of flight. But the image of hallucinating women astride brooms is so highly sexualised as to seem comic. Did some of those accused of witchcraft really apply flying ointment in this way? Dr Andrew Sneddon, a historian at the University of Ulster, is sceptical. "Even among those few who did confess to witchcraft, there's not much evidence that they made potions for flight, or for other nefarious purposes," he says. Rather the opposite, in fact: "As far as I'm aware, the material culture of witchcraft, in terms of surviving artefacts, relates mainly to anti-bewitchment measures – amulets and such like – made by cunning folk." Did the ointment even exist? It's hard to be sure. "Many writers of demonological tracts were convinced that witches flew with the aid of ointments. It's there in the Malleus Maleficarum [a 15th century treatise on the prosecution of witches], with witches using the fat of murdered children as the basic ingredient," says University of York historian Professor Jim Sharpe. Significantly, though, any such admission by a "witch" would have been made under torture. According to Sharpe, twilight flight has been a remarkably persistent cultural reference, going back as far as the cult of the Roman goddess Diana. Moreover, Aztec shamans in 15th century Mexico used another tropane alkaloid-containing plant – Datura stramonium or thorn apple – to transport their souls on "a magical flight to mythic time and space", reports Bernard Ortiz de Montellano in Aztec Medicine, Health, and Nutrition. We may never know for sure how the myth of the flying broomstick arose. But the pharmacological actions of scopolamine and atropine, extracted from local herbs, might well be at the heart of this iconic image. If so, the flight to the Sabbat would have been a delirious, drug-induced hallucination – a dream of the deadly nightshade, given contemporary, corporeal form in our ghoulish Halloween costumes.
NEW DELHI: Pakistani fighter jets flew near the Siachen Glacier on Wednesday, according to Pakistani media reports, but Indian Air Force sources said there was no violation of India's air space. Pakistan Air Force (PAF) fighter jets made flights near Siachen Glacier this morning, Pakistan-based Samaa TV reported.Quoting sources, the report said all of PAF's forward operating bases have been made fully operational.Mirage jets of PAF are part of exercises since the forward base was made operational.Pakistan's Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman visited the forward airbase in Skardu today and flew a Mirage jet, the report said.According to PAF, Aman met the pilots and technical staff of the fighting force. A fighter squadron carried out higher and lower altitude flights.The Siachen glacier is the highest battleground on earth. It is located in the eastern Karakoram range in the Himalayan mountains where the Line of Control between India and Pakistan ends.In New Delhi, IAF sources said there was no violation of India's air space.The report of Pakistani jets flying near Siachen came a day after the Indian Army announced that it had launched "punitive fire assaults" on Pakistani positions across the Line of Control earlier this month, inflicting some damage.The Army said on Tuesday that the targeted fire assaults, with light field guns, anti-tank guided missiles, heavy mortars, rocket launchers and "infantry tanks", are being conducted to "pro-actively dominate" the Line of Control and "destroy locations aiding infiltration of terrorists" as part of the overall counter-terrorism strategy.A short video clip of one such assault with weapons being used in "a direct firing mode" at the Naushera sector on May 9, which ostensibly shows some forward observation posts of the Pakistan Army being blown up across the LoC, was also released by the Army's additional director-general of public information Major General A K Narula Defence minister Arun Jaitley, on his part, said the government fully supported the Army's "actions across the LoC" for ensuring peace in J&K. "Indian Army is taking pre-emptive and measured actions to counter terrorism in the Valley and disengage Pakistan posts across the LoC which support infiltration," he added.(with agencies input)
“Gorongosa, which was a jewel of Southern Africa…had great populations of lions, elephants, hippos, buffalo, etcetera. Absolutely decimated. So if you went there in the early part of the last decade, in the early 2000s, you might drive for five or six hours and see one warthog, one baboon, maybe.” Biologist Sean B. Carroll, of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He spoke March 15th in the Great Hall of the Cooper Union here in New York City about his latest book The Serengeti Rules: The Quest to Discovery How Life Works, and Why It Matters. Gorongosa National Park was ravaged during the Mozambique war for independence from Portugal and then the civil war that followed. “And a philanthropist, Greg Carr…was looking for a project to really sink his teeth into and to work on human development, became also really interested in conservation, learned about Mozambique…and in 2004 committed a sizeable fortune to helping to restore Gorongosa in partnership with the Mozambique government. And in 2004 surveys showed there were fewer than one thousand large animals in the entire park, and this is a massive place. So that’s all antelope and elephants, all combined, fewer than a thousand of all types combined. “And I was there last summer as the new survey came in. A decade later: 72,000 large animals. Dramatic change. I’m looking at elephant herds with lots of youngsters. I’m looking at hippos, groups of hippos…. “So the point is this: the habitat was all there. The large animals had been shot, poached, used for food, whatever, but the habitat was still there and still productive. And once these very small remnant populations had that pressure taken off them, they’ve just been booming. And so a place that, I think it’s the one place on Earth I know that’s been the most decimated and has seen the greatest recovery… “So there’s a lot of stories of good management and of recovery, and recovery on that really rapid time frame. And I think that’s where I find hope. And when I said that Greg Carr committed a sizeable amount of money, I’m just gonna tell you exactly what that is, he spent about the same amount of money inside the park as outside the park, on human development, health care, education, etcetera, for Mozambicans, economic development. But in the park it’s about a $3-million-a-year budget. Three million bucks a year to bring back a vast African wilderness. In the time of my explanation alone, how much did we just blow on like the worst ideas that possibly came out of Washington? “My optimism is that it can be cheaper than you think, it’s faster than you think—and it’s not a luxury. I’m not just talking about making pretty places prettier. It’s making everything functional. And this, I think, is why I took certain examples in the book about from agriculture and fisheries and things like that, because we need our systems to be productive. There’s 7.4 billion of us, and if we’re not managing them in a productive way, that’s gonna show up in some pretty horrible ways.” —Steve Mirsky [The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
In 2014, the Denver Broncos hosted the Houston Texans for a couple of days of practice during training camp. At one point during the sessions, Texans coach Bill O’Brien sidled up to the Denver quarterback group to speak with Peyton Manning and got to meet his backup, Brock Osweiler, briefly. Just a quick hello. Until Osweiler signed with the Texans on March 9, that 10-second niblet of time was the extent of the personal interaction between the quarterback and the three men most important to his success in Houston. The owner, Bob McNair, agreed to guarantee $37 million to Osweiler without ever meeting him. The head coach, O’Brien, never got to speak to Osweiler during the free-agency period, to look him in the eye and find out if he was the man O’Brien wanted to build his offense around. The hands-on offensive coordinator, George Godsey, never got to drill Osweiler on his strengths, weaknesses and how he might fit into the Houston scheme. But it’s not as if the Texans brass were being reckless with such a critical decision. It’s that league rules forbid any direct contact between a player and a prospective team before the official opening of free agency. That Houston signed Osweiler to a $72 million contract without actually interviewing him and getting a feel for the kind of person he is … well, it’s insane. It’s like Warren Buffett hiring a CFO for Berkshire Hathaway by watching a couple of appearances of the candidate on “Squawk Box” and “Mad Money,” then committing $15 million a year to the hire. • CLEVELAND’S RG3 PLANS: Peter King’s MMQB column on the Browns’ QB situation, latest NFL news I was going over all the various shirt-pocket notes (an old expression by the former Steelers radio voice, Myron Cope) from the league meetings just ended, and my conversation with O’Brien on this subject really stuck out. Here’s a third-year coach of a rising franchise, a bright guy with quarterbacks, a branch of the Bill Belichick coaching tree, and he just made a decision with far-reaching and quite stark consequences. If he’s right on Osweiler, and the Peyton Manning protégé turns into a pretty good player, Houston should be a contender for the AFC South crown for several years to come. If O’Brien is wrong on Osweiler, the decision could cost O’Brien, his staff and other Texans scouts and front-office people their jobs. It’s inconceivable to me that the NFL would think this impersonal disconnect is a smart way for teams to do business. Should there be a visiting period before the official start of free agency, to allow players like Osweiler to meet with interested teams? Steve Nehf/The Denver Post via Getty Images “There really should be a period where, say a week before free agency, a guy can make some trips,” O’Brien said. “Without that, you have to find a way to research guys, but without seeing him and talking to him face-to-face, there’s always going to be something missing.” Would owners hire coaches without meeting them? Would Roger Goodell hire a league vice president without meeting him or her? In either case it would be football malpractice. Contrast the free agency rules to the draft process. Each NFL team can host 30 players at its facility and put those prospects through a battery of non-field tests and interviews. This was one way in which then-Bucs offensive coordinator Dirk Koetter got comfortable with Jameis Winston a year ago; during Winston’s visit, Koetter challenged him, saw that Winston responded well to it, and reported to GM Jason Licht that he liked what he heard and saw out of the quarterback. Tampa Bay was probably going to take Winston anyway with the first pick, but the interaction between Winston and the man who would coach him daily was a piece to the puzzle that was vital for Licht. • THE NFL’S MOST POWERFUL WOMAN NO ONE KNOWS: Jenny Vrentas talks to Bengals EVP Katie Blackburn A free-agency visit system would not be difficult to organize. Four or five days before the start of free agency, the NFL would set up a legal tampering period for agents, teams and players. No player would be allowed to sign a contract before the opening of free agency, though agents and teams could discuss terms. Currently, there is a 52-hour window—two days and four hours—in which agents and teams can talk about a free-agent player’s services. But the player himself can have no contact with anyone from a team other than the one he just played for, until the free-agent market opens. There’s a reason for this—it’s to give a player’s most recent team every chance to re-sign him. Laudable, to a point. But does a team need nine full weeks to try to re-sign its own player? That’s the length of time between the end of the 2015 regular season and the beginning of the legal tampering period, when agents and other teams can legally communicate but players can’t. There’s no need to take all that time. Why not shorten that period to eight weeks? It would hurt nothing, and would allow a few days for players to visit prospective teams and meet the head coaches and position coaches they would have to work with. When I mentioned this idea to one assistant GM, he told me a story of buyer’s remorse between a team and a free agent whom the coaches hadn’t met before he was signed. The remorse began during training camp, then continued during the season. “I have no way of knowing if the same situation would have happened had they met the guy before signing him,” the assistant GM said, “but they certainly would have been able to feel him out and get to know him a little before committing to sign him.” It’s not going to be a perfect system. But what if a player like Osweiler has some little idiosyncracies that turn a prospective new coach off, and may turn off some of the teammates he’s being asked to lead? You might not be able to find out everything about a guy in a visit of a few hours, but you’ve at least got a fighting chance to test him. I defy you to find one coach or owner who likes a system that has them doling out millions of dollars to people they know less than a practice-squad tackle signed in Week 16. Players would also get a better idea whether a particular team and its staff is the right fit for them. • COACHES DISH ON TOP QB PROSPECTS: Insider’s view of Goff, Wentz, Lynch O’Brien did as much fact-finding as he could on Osweiler. He watched tape of every game Osweiler played in Denver. He grilled Osweiler’s college coordinator, Noah Mazzone, who loved Osweiler. He paid attention to the impressive game Osweiler played against New England on a Sunday night in crunch time. He was sold, and told owner Bob McNair and GM Rick Smith he really wanted Osweiler. Smith did the deal, and three hours before the market opened, Osweiler sent word to agent Jimmy Sexton that he was picking Houston. Sexton then called the Texans. Even at the moment Osweiler committed to the Texans, he couldn’t talk with them. There’s one more roadblock to the Texans staff and Osweiler getting to know each other quickly. Upon signing, Osweiler was allowed to have a press conference in Houston, meet his new bosses and have short non-football sessions with them, but under the terms of the 2011 collective bargaining agreement, there can be no football classroom sessions until the start of the Texans’ offseason workout program, on April 18. The first two weeks of the program are limited to four hours per day, mostly strength and conditioning work. On May 2 Osweiler will start three weeks of on-field and classroom teaching sessions. Then, beginning May 23, the Texans have four weeks of non-contact practices and classroom sessions. After that, the players are dismissed for five weeks, before training camp starts in the last week of July. “So we’ll have nine weeks [plus camp] to get him ready,” O’Brien said. O’Brien was allowed to give Osweiler the team’s playbook (on a team-issued tablet) to study, but the coach can’t have any contact with his new quarterback until the offseason program begins. So for five full weeks after signing, Osweiler can’t call Godsey or O’Brien with questions about nomenclature or offensive philosophy. • CAN A CFL WIDEOUT SPARK CHIP KELLY’S REVOLUTION: Robert Klemko on Eric Rogers’ long road to the NFL It all seems pointlessly hard, particularly for the player who will have more to do with the success or failure of the 2016 and 2017 Texans (and, they hope, far beyond) than any other. The least the NFL can do is give teams a chance, before they hand the future of the franchise a $37 million guarantee, to ask simple questions like this: “Uh, are we going to be able to get along?” • QUESTIONS OR COMMENT? Email us at talkback@themmqb.com.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.