text stringlengths 0 100k |
|---|
Malcolm Turnbull says council ‘out of step with Australian values’ after it votes to stop referring to 26 January as Australia Day Yarra city council in Melbourne has been stripped of the power to hold citizenship ceremonies by the federal government because it voted unanimously to stop referring to 26 January as Australia Day and to stop holding a citizenship ceremony on that day. Yarra Council (@YarraCouncil) #Yarra Council has tonight voted unanimously to change the way it marks January 26, from 2018 onwards: https://t.co/6Hw2nyE9U4 Alex Hawke, the assistant immigration minister, announced the decision on Wednesday afternoon, after the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, declared in parliament that the council’s vote was “utterly out of step with Australian values”. “They are seeking to take a day which unites Australia and turn it into one which divides it,” Turnbull said. “To change the date of Australia Day would be to turn our back on Australian values.” In a separate statement Turnbull said: “An attack on Australia Day is a repudiation of the values the day celebrates: freedom, a fair go, mateship and diversity.” Melbourne's Yarra council votes unanimously to move Australia Day citizenship ceremonies Read more Hawke warned the council it could be stripped of its right to hold citizenship ceremonies before Tuesday’s council meeting but the changes nevertheless received unanimous support. He said the decision was taken to “safeguard the integrity of citizenship ceremonies” in the City of Yarra, which covers the inner northern suburbs of Richmond, Collingwood and Fitzroy; the heart of the Aboriginal rights movement in Australia. Hawke said the decision by the council not to hold a citizenship ceremony on 26 January next year, to support the campaign to change Australia Day to a date that is less painful to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and to refer to the Australia Day public holiday as “January 26” in all official council documents, was a “political resolution” and therefore a “significant breach” of the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code. “We are committed to ensuring that citizenship is treated in the ‘non-commercial, apolitical, bipartisan and secular manner’ which the code mandates,” he said. “The instrument I have signed today means there will be no more citizenship ceremonies conducted by the City of Yarra on behalf of the government.” Instead, citizenship ceremonies for residents of the local government area, which has a population of 80,000, will be conducted by neighbouring councils or by the immigration department. The department will hold a ceremony in Yarra council on 26 January. Yarra council held bimonthly citizenship ceremonies and said before its meeting last night that it would continue to do so, just not on 26 January. The council consulted Wurundjeri traditional elders, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and conducted an independent survey of non-Indigenous residents before committing to the change. It was welcomed and applauded by Indigenous people but roundly criticised by both state and federal politicians, who say it is politicising a day that ought to be universally celebrated. Tess Ryan (@IndigenousX) Inner Melbourne council moving citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day? Good work. Tess Ryan (@IndigenousX) Why would u b proud of a day that commemorates genocide, & has been appropriated by drunken yobs with Southern Cross Tatts? Roxy Moore (@RoxyAmnestyOz) Yarra city council has #ChangeTheDate! Canned Australia Day (Invasion Day) celebrations. Deadly! #IndigenousX @amnestyOz Richard Weston (@RichJWeston) Go Melbourne. Now join Freo. https://t.co/Olcjpx866a Colin Hunter, a Wurundjeri man and City of Yarra Aboriginal liaison officer, told Guardian Australia on Tuesday that Indigenous people were happy to join a national celebration “but not on that day”. He said it was entirely appropriate for local governments, which voted at the national general assembly in Canberra in June to lobby the federal government to change the date of Australia Day, to lead the change. “People say local government is about bins and rates but it’s also about the civic participation of your local community,” he said. “To me, it makes sense that this change would start with local government.” Melbourne council plan to move Australia Day citizenship ceremony 'very modest' Read more The campaign to change the date of Australia Day has gained momentum in recent years. About 40,000 people marched in protest of Australia Day at an Invasion Day rally in Melbourne on 26 January this year and thousands more marched in other capital cities. Youth radio station Triple J recently conducted a survey of listeners to see if it should change the date of its annual Hottest 100 poll from 26 January to another, less contentious day. Both Turnbull and the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, who recently gave their public support to the Uluru statement on constitutional reform for Indigenous Australians, said they did not support changing the date of Australia Day. “Our ceremonies and our celebrations on Australia Day begin with an acknowledgement of country, a welcome to country, and conclude with the newest Australians and every one of those Australians, our first Australians and the youngest baby in the newest citizen’s arms are all part of our great multicultural nation,” Turnbull said. He added: “We recognise that the history of European settlement in Australia has been complex and tragic for Indigenous Australians. We recognise the complexities and the challenges of our histories. But on Australia Day we recognise the greatness of our achievement as Australians.” Turnbull is wrong - Australia Day and its history aren’t ‘complex’ for Indigenous people | Paul Daley Read more Shorten said that reconciliation was “more about changing hearts and minds than it is about moving public holidays”. According to the Australia Day National Council, the tradition of having a national holiday on 26 January to mark Australia Day is a “recent one”, dating back to 1994. It marks the day that the first fleet arrived in Sydney Cove in 1788 and is often referred to by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoplesas Invasion Day or Survival Day. The national day of mourning, and first anti-Australia Day march, was held in 1938. |
BURLINGTON, VT—University of Vermont junior Becca Davis failed to do anything for the people of Tibet during her summer vacation, disgruntled fellow activists reported Tuesday. "With class out for the summer, Becca had a valuable window during which she could have pressured the Chinese government to end its tyrannical reign over the Tibetan people," campus activist Sally Coe said. "Instead, she sunbathed in the park and worked part-time at a local bookstore. As a result, the Tibetan freedom cause has been set back months." Conquered by the People's Republic Of China in 1949, Tibet has suffered decades of political and religious oppression, and its leader, the Dalai Lama, has been exiled for 45 years. Tibetans who oppose the Chinese occupation have implored the world to intervene, but Davis has evidently decided to ignore their pleas. Although Davis is a member of the Campus Outreach Network for Tibetan Autonomy, as well as the Campus Anti-War Initiative Coalition and the Campus Crusade Against Rape, her political awareness seems to have dissipated during the summer. According to sources close to Davis, the political science and women's studies double major has neither volunteered for the local chapter of the Free Tibet campaign nor organized a Tibetan-freedom rally in her hometown of Lyme, CT. Davis has not passed out one pamphlet, and she has neglected to sign an online petition that has been sitting in her e-mail inbox for weeks. "Someone should tell Becca that the needs of the disadvantaged do not take a scuba holiday off the coast of Curacao," Coe said, referring to a one-week vacation Davis took with her family in June. "Activism takes time, hard work, and commitment. Posters don't nail themselves to sticks." Advertisement Davis said she was puzzled by Coe's statements, pointing out that she spent her past two summer breaks helping the disadvantaged. "When I was a freshman, I spent the summer collecting donations for an organization that helps exiled Tibetans in Dharamsala," Davis said. "And last summer, I did this rainforest reforestation volunteer program for four weeks. But this last semester was really a killer, and I seriously needed some time off." Added Davis: "I mean, it feels like I just got back from West Virginia [where Davis built Habitat For Humanity houses with the Alternative Spring Break program]." Advertisement In spite of her failure to lift a finger for Tibet in recent weeks, Davis said her feelings about the country have not changed. "I really do think it's important to promote support for the exiled Tibetan government and convince the global community that the nation of Tibet should be free from unwanted foreign rule," Davis said. "But next year, I'll be a senior and, you know, I don't have many summers left where I can just take it easy." Advertisement In this week's issue of The Nation, author and San Francisco-area activist Jay Minty wrote about the tendency of student idealists to shed their political awareness during the summer months, "like so many Peruvian wool sweaters." "Between the months of May and September, only 4 percent of campus activists attempt to end social injustice," Minty wrote. "Why, for example, are 'Take Back The Night'-style anti-sexual-assault rallies only scheduled during the school year? During the summer of 2003, only the night of Aug. 18 came anywhere close to being taken back, at a small vigil in Farmington, ME attended by only six activists." Continued Minty: "When did summer jobs, TV shows, and awkward visits to extended family members become more important than human rights and economic inequality?" Advertisement Thupten Lobsang, a Tibetan seeking an American host family, did not appear insulted by Davis' indifference to his people's cause. "I hope Becca isn't being worked too hard at the bookstore," Lobsang said from Lhasa, Tibet in a phone interview. "I was amused by her choice of summer beach reading: the kitschy Jacqueline Susann classic The Love Machine. Summer does have a way of slipping by you, I agree. And I also hope that Becca had fun in Curacao, even if her annoying younger brother was there. I had an annoying younger brother once, too. He was imprisoned and later shot by the Chinese secret police." |
TO quote a great conservative leader at a time of crisis and change: “It may not be the beginning of the end but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” There is crisis and change for manufacturing, refugees, public servants. The last is a slow burn but potentially far more consequential for Australians, particularly those in need. South Australia will be the next battleground and it’s clear that experience elsewhere is being monitored - particularly Queensland. For the drivers in the smart state, the “end of the beginning” might be considered to be neutralised opposition in the largest and most complex public sector - health. So far it has been a bloody business, with the elimination of thousands of jobs a year ago. The strategy was to go in hard and fast; change laws to eliminate legal recourse and ensure that those refusing to “co-operate” were financially disadvantaged. Most of the casualties were in non-frontline sectors such as population health, and non-clinical positions that were deemed unnecessary and, implicitly, unproductive, if not lazy. Read Next The Newman government was prepared for a short period of disquiet but was confident that it could tough it out - which it did. Since then, services have been restructured and relocated as the chill breeze of austerity and accountability blows relentlessly across the health landscape. Of course, there is unfinished business and what is in progress now is a radical reconfiguring of clinical services. The strategy is again to go in hard and fast and assert absolute control over the clinical workforce so that the reins can be tightened at will. To that end, the first group to be targeted are medical specialists. The logic is obvious: deal with the apex and the rest will follow. Of course, there are dangers and opportunities in that strategy and doubtless they have been weighed up. Medical specialists are, on the one hand, powerful, but on the other poorly organised (for instance, by comparison to nurses). They perform critical functions within Queensland’s public hospital and healthcare system, but are unlikely to abandon patients in need. Doctors generally have potent arguments in support of clinical autonomy to ensure best patient care, but that can be dealt with by shifting the discourse from effectiveness to efficiency. And then there is the esteem in which specialists (and the medical profession in general) are held in the community: they are highly trained, skilled, hard-working and often carry onerous responsibilities. The pre-emptive solution to neutralising these attributes has the additional benefit of inserting a wedge between medical specialists and the rest of the clinical workforce (for whom, of course, the blade will fall later); that is, by framing the issue around remuneration and responsibility: money and morals. So, the packages that have long been in place to attract and retain senior practitioners by Queensland Health can be represented as greed. And a sure winner was the conveniently released report of the Auditor-General into 88 of the state’s 2800 senior medical officers just as this dispute is peaking. Those problems identified in the report have largely been dealt with. But what is being contractually pressed on Queensland’s medical specialists as its after-taste lingers has implications not only for their working conditions (where, when, what and how they do it, and their rights should they object) but for patient care. As perhaps only the most obvious example, specialist services will be controlled through key performance indicators driven by the interests of the system. Doctors’ abilities, then, to put care before cost in clinical decision-making and to engage in collateral but critical activities will be constrained. Rather than being made by a professional with whom a patient has a relationship, those decisions will fall to administrators. And perhaps those administrators’ decisions will be appropriate - but the public should consider with whom they would wish for such decision-making to be vested in relation to their or their families’ care in a time of need. Perhaps the efficiency arguments will be marshalled to address those objections. However, I believe that the most significant consequence will be for the quality and morale of the specialist medical workforce (and subsequently for other health professionals). When I came to work with Queensland Health more than two decades ago my income fell, but I was attracted by the challenge of the job and joining an innovative, energetic team blooming after three decades of inertia. I was proud to work with the Cape York and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority and felt privileged in my role in indigenous health. I know I am part of a (dwindling) cohort of doctors from that time in the north who share those motivations and feelings. Since then, much has changed. Queensland Health introduced inducements to attract and retain doctors (as has occurred across Australia) which have benefited me and for which I am grateful. In 2008 I was designated as a pre-eminent medical specialist, another measure to attract and retain senior specialists. Again, I am grateful. If those measures increased the critical mass of specialists, they should be considered a success; but they were not the attraction for me or the colleagues with whom I work in remote settings. One thing that has unquestionably changed is our identification with and pride in the system in which we work; that resignations en masse are looming is testimony to that disaffection. Even if that does not occur, the relationship between doctors and patients will change. And that will extend beyond specialists as other professional groups are brought into line; already in remote communities the turnover of temporary staff and agency nurses compromises care. As I have written in this paper previously, the greatest negative impact will be for those most disempowered and least visible - for prematurely aged, indigenous residents of remote north Queensland struggling with chronic disease, for the homeless mentally ill in Brisbane or Mount Isa, for young girls at risk of lifetime reproductive damage through unrecognised or inadequately treated sexually transmitted infections, and for many more. For them the public system providing expertise through trusting relationships is critical. That’s what is at risk. Of course, the response to my commentary will be “sour grapes”. Well, there is certainly a sour taste in my mouth, but as I am at the tail-end of my career in indigenous health, it is not for remuneration lost but for opportunity squandered as capacity built up over two decades is deconstructed. Ernest Hunter is a medical practitioner in north Queensland. |
American actor Sheldon Leonard Bershad (February 22, 1907 – January 11, 1997) was an American film and television actor, producer, director, and writer. Biography [ edit ] Sheldon Leonard Bershad was born in Manhattan, New York City, the son of middle class Jewish parents Anna Levit and Frank Bershad.[1] He graduated from Syracuse University in 1929. As an actor, Leonard specialized in playing supporting characters, especially gangsters or "heavies", in films such as It's a Wonderful Life (1946; as bartender Nick), To Have and Have Not (1944), Guys and Dolls (1955), and Open Secret (1948). His trademark was his especially thick New York accent, usually delivered from the side of his mouth. In Decoy (1946), Leonard uses his "heavy" persona to create the hard-boiled police detective Joe Portugal. On radio from 1945 to 1955, Leonard played an eccentric racetrack tout on The Jack Benny Program and later in the TV series of the same name. His role was to salute Benny out of the blue in railroad stations, on street corners, or in department stores ("Hey Bud. C'mere a minute."), ask Benny what he was about to do, and then proceed to try to argue him out of his course of action by resorting to inane and irrelevant racing logic. As "The Tout," he never gave out information on horse racing, unless Jack demanded it. One excuse the tout gave was, "Who knows about horses?" Leonard was part of the cast of voice actors on the Damon Runyon Theatre radio show (1948-1949). He was part of the ensemble cast of the Martin and Lewis radio show.[2] He also appeared frequently on The Adventures of the Saint, often playing gangsters and heavies, but also sometimes in more positive roles. Leonard was also a regular on the radio comedy series The Adventures of Maisie in the 1940s. During the 1950s, Leonard provided the voice of lazy fat cat Dodsworth in two Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies cartoons directed by Robert McKimson. In the adventure movie The Iroquois Trail (1950), Leonard played against type in the significant role of Chief Ogane, a Native American warrior, who pursues and fights the frontiersman Nat "Hawkeye" Cutler (George Montgomery) in a climactic duel to the death with knives. Later in the 1950s and 1960s, he established a reputation as a producer of successful television series, including The Danny Thomas Show (aka Make Room For Daddy) (1953–64), The Andy Griffith Show (1960–68), Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. (1964–69), The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961–66), and I Spy (1965–68). He also directed several TV series episodes, including four of the first eight episodes of the TV series Lassie (Season 1, 1954). Leonard also provided the voice of Linus the Lionhearted in a series of Post Crispy Critters cereal TV commercials in 1963-64, which led to a Linus cartoon series that aired on Saturday (and later, Sunday) mornings on CBS (1964–66) and ABC (1967–69). He also was briefly the star of his own television show Big Eddie (1975), where he played the owner of a large sports arena. The show lasted for only ten episodes. The character of Andy Taylor was introduced in a 1960 episode of The Danny Thomas Show, which led to the series The Andy Griffith Show. Leonard is informally credited with developing the practice of using an episode of a series as a backdoor pilot episode for new series, in which a guest star is introduced as a new character with the intention of using this character as the basis for a new show. He was the executive producer on Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. he even had a cameo as a Hollywood Producer who has to do 34 takes on a movie scene before Sgt Carter does it right! ("A Star is Not Born") Leonard also has the distinction (along with author Mickey Spillane) of being one of the first two Miller Lite spokesmen. Using his trademark accent, he told the audience, "I was at first reluctant to try Miller Lite, but then I was persuaded to do so by my friend, Large Louis." One of his last acting roles was a guest appearance on the TV series Cheers, in which he played Sid Nelson, the proprietor of "The Hungry Heifer," Norm Peterson's favorite eating establishment. Leonard died on January 11, 1997, at the age of 89.[1][3] He was buried at Hillside Memorial Park Cemetery in Culver City, California. Legacy [ edit ] Bill Cosby, whom Leonard cast in I Spy, described Leonard as "my last father" when he dedicated an episode of Cosby to both Leonard and his slain son Ennis Cosby. Bill Cosby also included an impersonation of Sheldon Leonard in one track of his 1966 hit comedy album Wonderfulness. The track, "Niagara Falls", describes Sheldon Leonard's honeymoon at Niagara Falls. In "Monkees Marooned", the eighth episode of the second season of The Monkees, a character named "Leonard Sheldon", and speaking with Leonard's accent, approaches Peter Tork on the street, much like "The Tout" and persuades Tork to trade his guitar for a treasure map. His name served as a namesake for the characters Sheldon Cooper and Leonard Hofstadter in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory, because the writers are fans of his work.[4] Select filmography [ edit ] Actor Producer Director References [ edit ] Further reading [ edit ] |
A PROMINENT Danish writer who heads a controversial group that claims free speech is under threat from Islam has escaped an attempt on his life in Copenhagen. Lars Hedegaard, a well-known historian in Denmark, was able to fend off the attack on Tuesday after the gunman misfired, and was unharmed, police said in a statement. The incident happened when Hedegaard, 70, opened his front door in the capital's Frederiksberg neighbourhood to a man pretending to be delivering a package and wearing a jacket showing the logo of the Danish postal service. The attacker "fired a shot with his gun aimed at the victim's head'' but he missed, the statement read. A struggle then ensued between the two men and the attacker fled the scene, it added. Hedegaard is the president of Denmark's Free Press Society, an organisation that claims free speech is "being threatened, primarily by religious and ideological interests and international pressure groups.'' "I attacked him and hit him on the head,'' Hedegaard told the daily Politiken about the assassination attempt. In an earlier statement, police said the gunmen's weapon jammed as he tried to fire off two more shots. Based on eyewitness descriptions, police said the attacker was a bearded man aged around 25, who was about 1.80 metres tall. The chairman of the Free Press Society's Swedish arm, Ingrid Carlqvist, who spoke to Hedegaard after the attack, told AFP he described the assailant as someone of "Arab appearance''. "It's a miracle that he's alive,'' she said. Carlqvist said she believed the attack was linked to the group's work. "We view Islam as a totalitarian ideology that is a threat to our way of living,'' she said, adding that the Free Press Society "won't be silenced''. The society has in the past defended the authors of the controversial caricatures of the Prophet Mohamed, which were first published in a Danish daily in 2005 and sparked violent protests in the Muslim world. |
A group of Japanese astronomers have recently identified what they consider to be a super-Earth, possessing a water-rich atmosphere, orbiting its host star. The train of thought seems to be, if scientists can determine the atmospheric composition of these exoplanets, their mysterious origins and evolution might be deduced within the future. Super-Earth Exoplanets Super-Earth’s are considered a relatively new type of exoplanet (a planet that orbits a star outside of this Solar System). The term super-Earth actually refers to the mass of the planet, which is typically much greater than that of Earth, but bears little reflection of the atmospheric conditions of the planet. A super-Earth’s mass and radius is typically bigger than Earth, but no larger than that of our Solar System’s sizable ice planets, Neptune and Uranus. The actual atmosphere of this exoplanet has, until now, has remained shrouded in mystery. The very first super-Earths were discovered during 1992 around a rotating neutron star, situated a thousand light years from our Sun, by Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail. The Study During the latest study, researchers attempted to use two cameras of the Subaru Telescope of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, situated in Hawaii. The cameras include the Faint Object Camera and Spectrometer (FOCAS), constituting a spectrograph and visible-light camera, and the Subaru Prime Focus Camera (Suprime-Cam), housing an 80-megapixel visible-light camera device. A blue filter was utilized to demonstrate the transit of the exoplanet, classified as super-Earth GJ 1214 b, as it passed in front of its host star. To establish whether some of these super-Earths had their own hydrogen or water-rich atmospheres, the group decided to turn their attention towards an exoplanet that is 40 million light years away from Earth situated within Ophiuchus, a constellation that is northwest of the Milky Way. Rayleigh Scattering During GJ 1214 b’s transit, the degree of Rayleigh scattering was measured. Rayleigh scattering occurs when wavelengths of light or electromagnetic radiation interface with particles, most typically observed when travelling through particles of either gaseous or liquid form. When the light moves through this medium, whether it be solid, liquid or gas, it does not experience any change in wavelength. When the planet makes this transit, the host star’s transit depth can be measured to determine the exoplanet’s atmospheric constituents, a phenomenon that appears greater in the blue wavelength, as opposed to the red wavelength. According to a press release from the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, one of the greatest complications involved trying to measure this Rayleigh scattering, as the host star was very faint in blue light. The Subaru Telescope’s sheer power helped the group to overcome these technical difficulties, however, and they were able to measure the scattering at very high sensitivity. The above image aptly demonstrates the different forms of scattering that occurs between planets with different atmospheric compositions. Firstly, the top image reveals the typical scenario in a hydrogen-rich atmosphere; blue light scatters, whilst red light remains relatively unaffected. Next, the middle image shows almost the same transit depths for red and blue wavelengths, as the reach of the water-rich atmosphere is small, and relatively close to the planet’s surface; on this basis, Rayleigh scattering is far weaker. Finally, in an extensive, cloudy atmosphere the same transit depths are seen across the board, with the majority of the light not making it through the afore-said clouds. The Water-Rich Atmosphere The authors substantiate their hypothesis with previous research, conducted by a pair of astronomers (Howe and Burrows), who looked at the theoretical spectra for the exoplanet, alongside a number of additional super-Earths, during 2012. Based upon these datasets, and the lack of Rayleigh scattering, the Japanese astronomers have decided that GJ 1214 b is likely to have a water-rich atmosphere; however, the group remain somewhat on the fence, maintaining that they haven’t ruled out the slight possibility that it could still be a hydrogen-rich exoplanet, instead. They also plan to continue their research endeavors to cement their existing knowledge. Meanwhile, the team await the arrival of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), which is due for deployment in 2017 by NASA, and is also being partially funded by Google. TESS will carry out a two year mission to explore the transit of various exoplanets across their host stars, using a series of wide-angle telescopes and has the potential to provide much more research data in the field. Who knows, maybe there are many more super-Earth exoplanets, with water-rich atmospheres, just waiting to be identified. By: James Fenner Subaru Telescope Press Release Super-Earth Journal Link Daily Mail Link |
This study investigated the cognitive processing of true and false political information. Specifically, it examined the impact of source credibility on the assessment of veracity when information comes from a polarizing source (Experiment 1), and effectiveness of explanations when they come from one's own political party or an opposition party (Experiment 2). These experiments were conducted prior to the 2016 Presidential election. Participants rated their belief in factual and incorrect statements that President Trump made on the campaign trail; facts were subsequently affirmed and misinformation retracted. Participants then re-rated their belief immediately or after a delay. Experiment 1 found that (i) if information was attributed to Trump, Republican supporters of Trump believed it more than if it was presented without attribution, whereas the opposite was true for Democrats and (ii) although Trump supporters reduced their belief in misinformation items following a correction, they did not change their voting preferences. Experiment 2 revealed that the explanation's source had relatively little impact, and belief updating was more influenced by perceived credibility of the individual initially purporting the information. These findings suggest that people use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates. 1. Introduction Individuals from opposing sides of the political spectrum often disagree over what is fact and what is fiction. While both conservatives and liberals aim to be well informed, even empirical information that seems straightforward can lead to discord [1]. For example, people perceive unemployment, inflation and crime rates to be lower when their preferred party is in power [2]. Partisanship clearly influences the way people process information, but the exact cognitive mechanisms that underlie these differences are still being debated [3–5]. In this study, we focus on source credibility. Individuals have limited time and cognitive resources to comprehend complex topics such as policy or current affairs, and may therefore use the perceived credibility of political figures as a heuristic to guide their evaluation of what is true or false. For instance, Republicans and Democrats are likely to assess the veracity of a statement differently depending on whether it comes from a favoured politician [6]. To study how individuals evaluate whether political information is true or false, we first examined the impact of source credibility on the initial assessment of information veracity. To this end, we used statements from perhaps the most polarizing political figure of recent times, President Trump. As these experiments were conducted prior to his election and inauguration, we henceforth refer to the him as ‘Donald Trump’, or ‘Trump’. Second, we investigated the impact of source credibility on the corrective effect of retracting misinformation and affirming factual statements. 1.1. The continued influence effect False information continues to influence memory and reasoning even after credible corrections; this has been termed the continued influence effect of misinformation [7–9]. Once information is assumed to be true, this conviction is subsequently difficult to change. The continued influence effect occurs even with non-politicized misinformation and at least in part reflects the inherent difficulty of updating one's mental model of an event or a causality [10,11]. However, ongoing reliance on corrected misinformation becomes an even greater problem when the misinformation conforms to a person's pre-existing belief and supports their ideological worldviews, whereas the correction runs counter [12,13]. Once an individual feels personally connected to information, their ideology and values influence how that information is processed [14,15]; this is known as motivated reasoning or motivated cognition. 1.2. Motivated cognition There is an extensive literature on motivated cognition that suggests individuals are more critical when evaluating information that is counter to their beliefs than belief-congruent information, and conclusions that people reach are likely to be consistent with their prior assumptions about how the world functions [16–18]. For example, a classic study by Lord et al. [19] found that both supporters and opposers of capital punishment rated studies regarding the death penalty as more convincing when the studies confirmed their existing views. In addition, after receiving mixed evidence comprising both supportive and critical findings, participants' attitudes further diverged—those who initially opposed the death penalty reported opposing it even more, and the reverse occurred for those in support of the death penalty. This illustrates how an individual's worldview can dictate how new information is assessed, legitimizing the preservation of the person's ideological belief system [20]. In the real world, information sometimes turns out to be incorrect and therefore may be subject to revision. Once people have decided that they believe some particular information to be true, they may encounter a correction that challenges their conviction. The extent to which people take heed and change their beliefs based on such corrections may depend on motivated cognition. Specifically, if a correction runs counter to a person's beliefs and worldview, they may be more likely to ignore it, and cling to the original misinformation. For example, when incorrect information arising from a Democratic politician's statement is retracted, Democrats—and particularly those who support the politician—may resist the correction more than their Republican counterparts who have a vested interest in the political figure being incorrect. At worst, a potential outcome of the attempt to correct contentious misinformation is a worldview backfire effect. This occurs when an individual feels motivated to defend their belief system, and ironically reports a stronger belief in the original misconception after receiving a retraction. For example, worldview backfire effects have been documented with attempts to promote vaccine safety [21], as well as attempts to correct misconceptions regarding anthropogenic climate change or the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion of 2003 [22,23]. This phenomenon might be especially pronounced among certain individuals. A recent debate in the literature is concerned with the question of whether conservatives are generally more prone to motivated cognition and worldview backfire effects. One school of thought assumes that personality characteristics associated with conservative ideology present a specific susceptibility for motivated cognition. For example, Jost et al. [24] suggested that psychological variables such as dogmatism (that is, intolerance of ambiguity, avoidance of complexity and a need for closure) are predictive of conservatism and increase the likelihood that an individual engages in ‘black-or-white’ assessments of information. This tendency to readily decide on information veracity with subsequent resistance to change could lead to greater rejection of factual information for those on the political right relative to moderate and liberal segments of the population [25]. By contrast, Kahan [4] posits that identity-protective motivated cognition occurs equally at both ends of the political spectrum, arguing that conservatives and liberals perform comparably on a measure of information-processing dispositions associated with cognitive biases. Individuals who scored higher on ‘cognitive reflection’—a disposition to engage in effortful processing [26]—were more likely to demonstrate motivated cognition, regardless of partisanship. While the rejection of scientific evidence seems to be primarily associated with conservative ideology [27], the observed asymmetry may not reflect fundamental differences in cognition; rather, it may just be the case that the contested scientific findings happen to challenge primarily the worldview of conservatives rather than liberals [28]. In support of this, Nisbet et al. [29] found that liberal participants react in a manner equivalent to conservatives if they encounter liberal-dissonant science messages, for example regarding the efficacy of nuclear power. In contrast to these backfire effects, Kahan [30] reported no partisan difference for scientific rejection among issues that do not challenge worldviews, such as cell-phone radiation or exposure to high-voltage powerlines. Additionally, Kuklinski et al. [31] found that while strong partisans held the least accurate beliefs regarding welfare policy (e.g. the proportion of the federal budget that welfare absorbs), and the highest confidence that these beliefs were accurate, they were not more inclined to reject factual information once corrections were presented. It is therefore possible that party-line differences in the willingness to engage in belief revision are not as pervasive as some research has suggested; there is some evidence that if strong partisans receive quality information, they may be able to interpret it in a similar fashion and update their beliefs to the same extent ([32]; see also [33]). 1.3. Source credibility In addition to motivated reasoning, when people are evaluating whether information is fact or fiction, the source of the information matters a great deal. In general, high-credibility sources are more persuasive and promote greater attitude change than low credibility sources [34]. Additionally, given that attitude homophily—i.e. the extent to which a person perceives similarities between the way they think and another person does—is a key determinant of perceived source credibility, candidate support has substantial impact when estimating the credibility of preferred versus non-preferred political candidates [6]. Two key components of source credibility are (i) expertise—the extent to which the source is able to give accurate information—and (ii) trustworthiness—the extent to which the source is willing to provide information that the source itself assumes to be correct [35]. When it comes to the efficacy of correcting inaccurate information, it appears that the latter is more important than the former—it is more important that the source of the correction is perceived to be trustworthy than having expertise (U. K. H. Ecker, L. Antonio 2016, unpublished data) [36,37]. This finding suggests that the most effective way to reduce misconceptions is to attribute the correction to a source that the person finds a trustworthy source of information, such as a member of the political party the individual identifies with. On the other hand, there is contrasting evidence suggesting that an unlikely source—for example, a Republican correcting another Republican—could be more effective at reducing misconceptions than a source that is expected to provide the corrective information. Thus, a Democrat's belief in misinformation originating from a Republican source may be more strongly reduced by a correction that also comes from a Republican source, rather than a Democrat source [3]. Even if people are able to change their beliefs immediately after a correction, belief change may be fleeting (B. Swire, U. K. H. Ecker, S. Lewandowsky 2016, unpublished data). In this case, worldview and an individual's trust in the veracity of the source may influence the rate of forgetting, and could thus lead to ‘motivated forgetting’ [38]. For example, if misinformation arising from a Democratic politician's statement is retracted, Democrats who support the politician may initially update their belief, but conveniently forget the correction at an accelerated pace over time, thus eventually reverting to their pre-existing beliefs. Finally, even if it is possible to correct people's misconceptions, it is unclear whether or not such corrections affect candidate support. If an individual acknowledges that a number of a politician's statements are untrue, they should reduce their support to the extent that truthfulness is a desirable trait of a political figure. However, Redlawsk [39] found that participants increased their support for candidates whom they endorsed when provided with negative information about the candidate. Likewise, Meffert et al. [40] found that participants spent more time reading negative stories about candidates they preferred, yet this led to a more positive outlook of the candidate. This shows that candidate support ratings are also subject to worldview backfire effects, and it is therefore possible that highlighting misinformation that candidates have disseminated may not result in any loss in support, and could ironically lead to increased support. 1.4. The case of Donald Trump It is clear that individuals view the world through a partisan filter; however, the extent to which citizens use partisan cues such as political figures to evaluate the veracity of information and corrections requires further exploration. Donald Trump is an interesting case study for misinformation research, as bipartisan fact-checking media outlets have found that Donald Trump has been particularly prone to inaccuracies [41,42], and for much of the presidential campaign was a divisive figure even among Republicans [43]. While voters are well aware that they encounter politically motivated misinformation during election campaigns, they find it difficult to pinpoint the accuracy of specific messages and are therefore misinformed on a wide array of prominent issues [44]. Donald Trump's popularity, despite the amount of misinformation he distributed, can be explained by either the notion that (i) people believe that his assertions are true (partially because they see Donald Trump as a trustworthy source of information) and they avoid or resist the many corrections available in the public sphere (partially based on motivated cognition), or alternatively (ii) the public is aware that Donald Trump is spreading misinformation, but does not insist on veracity as a prerequisite for their support of a candidate. In this study, we explored these possibilities through several means. First, we tested whether the public believes misinformation spread by a polarizing source, and whether such information can be effectively corrected. We also explored whether a change in belief leads to a shift in voting preferences (i.e. after a credible correction, did people reduce their belief in misinformation yet continued to support Donald Trump?). Specifically, Experiment 1 investigated (i) whether belief in both misinformation and factual information differs depending on whether or not the information is associated with a polarizing source (i.e. Donald Trump); (ii) whether the impact of corrections/affirmations differs when support for the polarizing source of the original information is taken into account; and (iii) whether belief change is sustained over time. Experiment 2 tested whether the impact of corrective/affirmative explanations is moderated by partisanship (i.e. stating that a correction/affirmation stems from a Democratic, Republican or non-partisan source). 2. Experiment 1 Experiment 1 was conducted in November 2015 prior to the Iowa caucus, when 13 other candidates apart from Donald Trump were still viable options (these candidates were Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsay Graham, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum). The experiment featured actual statements made by Donald Trump on the campaign trail in 2015. Some of these statements were inaccurate and others were factual. When these statements were presented to participants, they were either explicitly attributed to Trump or presented without attribution. The objectively false statements were then corrected, and the true statements were affirmed, with a brief explanation. Participants rated their belief in the statements both before and after the corrective/affirmative explanation; the second rating was either immediate or following a one-week delay. To tease apart partisanship from candidate advocacy, we separated Republican participants into those who supported Trump and those who did not. This step is somewhat rare in studies of political cognition, but given the polarizing nature of Trump's candidacy within the Republican party at the time of the study, we felt it was inappropriate to mix these two groups. The study thus used a 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 design—type of item (misinformation versus fact) was a within-subjects factor, and the between-subjects factors were the source of information (Trump versus unattributed), study-test retention interval (immediate versus delayed) and Trump support (Democrat versus Republican non-supporters versus Republican supporters). See figure 1 for a schematic diagram of the experimental design. Our prime dependent variable was participants' belief in the inaccurate and factual statements measured on an 11-point scale, as well as participants' self-reported support for Donald Trump. Figure 1. Design schematic of Experiment 1. We hypothesized that participants would use Donald Trump as a cue to evaluate information veracity: we expected that Republican Trump supporters would increase belief in both misinformation and factual statements if they were attributed to Donald Trump, and Democrats and Republican non-supporters would decrease their belief. We also hypothesized that explanations would have a limited effect and would be less sustained over time when they ran counter to participants' expectations arising from their affiliation (i.e. when Republican supporters encountered corrections of Trump's misinformation or Democrats and Republican non-supporters encountered affirmations of Trump's true statements). Lastly, we hypothesized that voting preferences would increase or not change, even if participants reduced belief in misinformation (or increased belief in facts) attributed to Trump. 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants Participants were 2023 US residents recruited through Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Republican participants who had recently taken part in previous studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Political Experiments Research Laboratory were invited to participate. We adopted this oversampling strategy due to the relative scarcity of Republicans within the Mechanical Turk population. Participants were paid 85 cents and an additional 50 cents in the one-week delayed condition. They were excluded from the analysis if they did not complete all parts of the study (n = 247).1 The final sample included N = 1776 participants, with 884 males and 892 females in the age range of 19–78 years, with a mean age of M = 35.73 (s.d. = 11.41). 2.1.2. Stimuli Four inaccurate statements and four factual statements made by Donald Trump on the campaign trail prior to 1 October 2015 were compiled by the authors. The Trump condition explicitly stated that Donald Trump was the propagator of the information, while the unattributed condition presented the information without specifying its source. Corrections and affirmations of equal length (i.e. two to three sentences) were created; each explanation explicitly referenced a reputable source. Sources were chosen to be non-partisan (e.g. the ‘Danish Epidemiology Science Centre’ or the ‘US Bureau of Labor Statistics’). An example misinformation item with its corresponding correction can be found in table 1 (see appendix A for the complete list of items). Explanations consisted of four segments: (i) the participant was reminded of the initial item; (ii) the veracity was presented; (iii) information was given as to why the statement was true or false and (iv) the participant was given a reminder of their initial belief rating. Table 1.Examples of Trump and unattributed misinformation with corresponding corrections. Collapse misinformation correction Trump Donald Trump said that vaccines cause autism. Donald Trump said that vaccines cause autism. On a scale between 0 and 10, do you believe Trump's statement to be true? This is false. There is strong consensus in the scientific community that vaccines are not linked to autism. For example, one study by the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre tracked all children born in Denmark from 1991 to 1998 and concluded that there was no increase in the rate of autism for vaccinated as opposed to non-vaccinated children. You previously rated this statement x out of 10 (0 = definitely false, 10 = definitely true) unattributed Vaccines cause autism. Vaccines cause autism. On a scale between 0 and 10, do you believe this statement to be true? This is false. There is strong consensus in the scientific community that vaccines are not linked to autism. For example, one study by the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre tracked all children born in Denmark from 1991 to 1998 and concluded that there was no increase in the rate of autism for vaccinated as opposed to non-vaccinated children. You previously rated this statement x out of 10 (0 = definitely false, 10 = definitely true). 2.1.3. Procedure After reviewing a University of Western Australia and Massachusetts Institute of Technology approved consent form, participants took the survey through Qualtrics.com. They were first presented with general demographic and political-ideology questions. Participants who did not identify with a party, but indicated that they leaned towards a particular party were classified as partisans [45]. This was followed by questions regarding the likelihood of voting for candidates in the 2016 Presidential campaign. The candidates were Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who were the front-runners at the time the survey was conducted. Participants' feelings towards the candidates were also measured using the ‘candidate-feelings thermometers’ employed in the American National Elections Study. These entail asking participants to rate how favourably and warm they feel towards the person; ratings between 0 and 50 degrees are taken to indicate they do not feel particularly warm, and ratings between 50 and 100 are taken to indicate they do feel favourably and warm towards the candidate. Participants were presented with the eight statements in a randomized order; participants received either all statements attributed to Donald Trump or alternatively presented without source specification. After rating the extent to which they believed each item on a 0–10 scale, participants received an explanation for each item as to whether it was true or false.2 Participants then moved directly to the test phase if they were in the immediate post-test group. This involved re-rating belief in all eight statements in random order, as well as re-rating candidate support and feelings towards the candidates. In the delayed post-test condition, participants were instead re-contacted after one week and given the opportunity to complete the test phase. 2.2. Results Of the 1776 participants, 1015 identified as Democrats and 535 identified as Republicans. The 226 participants who had no political affiliation were omitted from the following analyses. Of the Republicans, 323 were classified as Trump supporters as they scored 5 or more (out of 10) on the likelihood to vote for Trump measure, and the 212 participants who scored less than 5 were classified Trump non-supporters. There were 99 Democrats who supported Trump—all main effects and interactions of the following analyses were replicated if these participants were omitted from the analyses. First, Trump support groups were compared on demographic measures. A one-way ANOVA indicated that age was different between groups, F 2,1547 = 26.03; p < 0.001; MSE = 128; η p 2 = 0.03 . Democrats are younger than both Republican groups, F 1,1547 = 46.82; p < 0.001; MSE = 128. Next, a one-way ANOVA indicated that education was different between groups, F 2,1547 = 12.29; p < 0.001; MSE = 1.48; η p 2 = 0.01 . Planned comparisons revealed that Republican non-supporters were significantly more educated than Democrats, F 1,1547 = 4.51; p = 0.034; MSE = 1.48, yet Democrats were significantly more educated than Trump supporters, F 1,1547 = 8.82; p = 0.003; MSE = 1.48. Finally, a Pearson χ2 test revealed there were no gender differences between groups, χ2 = (3, N = 1776) = 2.24, p = 0.489. The following analyses remained statistically significant when controlling for education and age using factorial ANCOVAs (unless indicated otherwise). 2.2.1. Pre-explanation belief scores Pre-explanation belief scores partitioned by Trump support are shown in figure 2. Figure 2a shows the misinformation, and b shows the facts. We further split the sample into those respondents who received statements without source attribution and those who received statements attributed to Trump. For both misinformation and factual statements, Trump attribution was associated with lower belief in the statements among Democrats and greater belief among Republican supporters of Trump. Among Republican non-supporters, a Trump attribution did not affect belief in the misinformation, but did reduce belief in factual statements. Figure 2. (a,b) Pre-explanation Democratic and Republican belief in statements associated with Trump or presented unattributed. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. A 2 × 3 factorial ANOVA was performed on the misinformation pre-explanation belief scores. The analysis revealed two significant main effects. The main effect of type of source (unattributed versus Trump), F 1,1544 = 6.12; p = 0.013; MSE = 2.60; η p 2 = 0.004 , indicated that Trump attribution influenced belief. The main effect of Trump support (Democrats versus Republican non-supporters versus Republican supporters), F 2,1544 = 116.94; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.60; η p 2 = 0.13 , indicated that beliefs of the three groups differed. These main effects were qualified by an interaction between source and Trump support, F 2,1544 = 28.84; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.60; η p 2 = 0.04 , reflecting that Trump attribution led to decreased belief for Democrats but increased belief for Trump supporters. Additionally, a planned comparison confirmed that, for Republican non-supporters, misinformation belief was not affected by Trump attribution, p = 0.575. Next, we performed a 2 × 3 factorial ANOVA on the pre-explanation belief scores for the factual statements. The analysis revealed main effects of both type of source, F 1,1544 = 15.96; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.25; η p 2 = 0.01 , and Trump support, F 2,1544 = 34.50; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.25; η p 2 = 0.04 , as well as an interaction of source and Trump support, F 2,1544 = 25.50; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.25; η p 2 = 0.03 . An interaction contrast confirmed that for factual statements, Republican non-supporters believed in the facts less when the information was associated with Trump rather than unattributed, whereas the Republican supporters expressed greater belief in statements made by Trump, F 1,1544 = 8.03; p = 0.005; MSE = 2.25. A planned comparison revealed that Democrats believed the statements less if attributed to Trump, F 1,1544 = 119.61; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.25. Thus, Trump support influenced the perceived truth of the information. 2.2.2. Post-explanation belief scores The general trend and the full trajectory of belief change over time are shown in figure 3. Figure 3a shows the unattributed condition, and b shows the Trump-attributed condition. Immediately after the corrections/affirmations, both Democrats and Republicans showed a substantial amount of belief change, which generally diminished over the course of one week for both misinformation and facts. We found no evidence for backfire effects, as post-explanation belief scores in misinformation remained below pre-explanation levels. Figure 3. (a,b) Belief in Trump and unattributed misinformation and facts over time, across Trump support groups and source conditions. Rep, Republican; misinfo, misinformation. Dotted lines show misinformation items. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. To simplify the data, we computed total accuracy scores by subtracting participants' misinformation scores from their fact scores. On this measure, the higher the score, the more likely participants were to accurately assume misinformation to be false and factual information to be true. These accuracy scores across conditions are shown in figure 4. A 2 × 2 × 3 factorial ANOVA involving the source, retention interval and Trump support factors was performed on the post-correction accuracy scores. The analysis revealed three significant main effects. The main effect of source, F 1,1538 = 15.42; p < 0.001; MSE = 6.93; η p 2 = 0.01 , indicated that Trump attribution was associated with less accurate post-correction beliefs. The main effect of retention interval, F 1,1538 = 183.44; p < 0.001; MSE = 6.93; η p 2 = 0.11 , indicated that belief accuracy dropped over the course of a week, and the main effect of Trump support, F 2,1538 = 9.34; p < 0.001; MSE = 6.93; η p 2 = 0.01 , indicated that belief accuracy differed by Trump support, with Republican Trump supporters showing the lowest scores overall. Figure 4. (a,b) Accuracy scores—misinformation scores subtracted from fact scores—across Trump support and source. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. These main effects were qualified by a significant interaction of source and retention interval, F 1,1538 = 3.94; p = 0.047; MSE = 6.93; η p 2 = 0.003 , indicating that the influence of Trump attribution changed over time.3 From figure 4, we can see that in the immediate condition, Trump attribution does not have a strong influence; over the course of a week, however, participants from all groups seemed to forget the corrective/affirmative explanations at an accelerated rate when the original information was associated with Donald Trump. This was confirmed with a significant planned comparison that focused on the one-week delayed condition that contrasted the Trump-attributed against unattributed condition, and was collapsed over Trump support, F 1,1538 = 15.13; p < 0.001; MSE = 6.93. In other words, if the original information came from Donald Trump, after a one-week delay participants had less accurate beliefs, regardless of their affiliation or initial support for Trump. If the post-explanation misinformation and items are analysed separately, we see similar trends (the full analyses can be found in appendix B). The most prominent differences to the above accuracy score analyses are that (i) misinformation items do not show an interaction of source and retention interval, indicating that unlike the fact scores (where Trump attribution led to less accurate beliefs particularly over time), Trump attribution led to a less accurate belief over both time periods and (ii) fact items additionally show an interaction of Trump support and retention interval, F 2,1538 = 3.44; p = 0.032; MSE = 2.38; η p 2 = 0.004 . While Democrats over both time periods are worse at updating their belief in the facts if information is attributed to Trump, Republicans immediately update their belief equally in the Trump and unattributed conditions, yet after one week their belief in the Trump-attributed information is less than their belief in the unattributed condition, F 1,1538 = 5.08; p = 0.0243; MSE = 2.38. To illustrate why accuracy is reduced after one week due to Trump attribution, figure 5 shows the Trump condition subtracted from the unattributed condition—observations above zero indicate that the attribution of a statement to Trump encourages participants to believe the information; values below zero indicate that the attribution of statements to Trump made participants less likely to believe in the information. Figure 5a shows the misinformation, and b shows the facts. The distance from zero indicates the impact that the Trump attribution is having upon the belief scores. Figure 5 highlights the fact that initially, before they receive the correction, participants use their support for Donald Trump as a heuristic for whether information is true or false (i.e. independent of actual veracity, Republican supporters believe Trump information more, Democrats believe Trump information less, and Republican non-supporters are not affected much). However, after one week—regardless of partisanship and level of Trump support—people tend to assume Trump's facts are incorrect, and Trump's misinformation is accurate. Figure 5. (a,b) Influence of Trump—Trump-attributed scores subtracted from unattributed scores— across Trump support. Misinfo, misinformation; Rep, Republican. Dotted lines show misinformation items. 2.2.3. Likelihood-to-vote and feelings-thermometer ratings Attributing the information to Trump did not influence participants' intention to vote nor their feelings towards the political figure. Figure 6 shows the full trajectory of participants' likelihood to vote for Donald Trump, both prior to and after the corrective/affirmative explanations. To simplify the analysis, the post-explanation scores were subtracted from the pre-explanation scores to create change indices for both the likelihood-to-vote and feelings-thermometer ratings. Figure 6. Likelihood-to-vote ratings over time between Trump support and source. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Rep, Republican; Misinfo, misinformation. A 2 × 2 × 3 factorial ANOVA on the likelihood-to-vote change index revealed two main effects. The main effect of Trump support, F 2,1537 = 13.39; p < 0.001; MSE = 1.35; η p 2 = 0.02 , indicated that Republicans were more likely to change their voting preferences than were Democrats. For example, Republican non-supporters increased their support for Trump by 0.22 on the 10-point scale in the immediate condition and by 0.35 after one week, yet Democrats only increased their support by 0.07 in the immediate condition, and decreased their support by 0.01 after one week. The main effect of retention interval, F 1,1538 = 8.00; p = 0.005; MSE = 1.35; η p 2 = 0.005 , indicated that change was greater after one week than immediately after the explanations. These main effects were qualified by an interaction of retention interval and Trump support, F 2,1537 = 9.06 p < 0.001; MSE = 1.35; η p 2 = 0.01 , indicating that change in voting preferences differed between Trump support groups over time. Republican supporters slightly reduced their likelihood of voting for Trump and Republican non-supporters slightly increased their likelihood. As there was no main effect or interaction of source, it can be assumed that these differences can be attributed to natural fluctuation of voting preferences over time rather than the explicit association of information to Donald Trump. The likelihood-to-vote trend was mimicked by the feelings-thermometer ratings (see appendix C for the figure and analysis). Finally, 48 pairwise correlations were calculated for Democrats, Republican supporters and Republican non-supporters to investigate whether belief change in misinformation or factual statements was associated with (i) a change in likelihood to vote or (ii) feelings towards Trump over time for each retention interval and source. Using a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level of 0.001, two correlations were significant, revealing that the more Democrats reduced their belief in Trump-attributed misinformation, the more they reduced their feelings and likelihood of voting for Trump one week post-explanation (r = 0.36 and r = 0.33, respectively). This could reflect the fact that Democrats who reduce misconceptions attributed to Trump view him less favourably after one week, or alternatively, that those who do not like Trump report that they believe him less after one week. The absence of significant correlations for the remaining Democratic and Republican groups indicated that their intentions to vote and feelings towards Trump were independent of belief change. 2.3. Discussion Experiment 1 revealed several notable findings. First, when initially evaluating the veracity of both misinformation and factual statements, Republican supporters of Trump believed the information more when it was attributed to Trump, whereas the opposite occurred for Democrats. Republicans who did not support Trump also believed less in facts associated with Trump (but not to the same extent as Democrats), while their belief in the misinformation was not affected by information source. Overall, the Trump attribution did indeed colour people's assessment of information veracity, dictating how valid they perceived it to be. Second, there was a large bipartisan shift in belief post-explanation, indicating that all members of the political spectrum are capable of substantial belief change when sound non-partisan explanations are presented. However, after a one-week delay, participants partially ‘re-believed’ in the misinformation and partially forgot that factual information was true. Thus, even if individuals update their beliefs temporarily, explanations regarding both fact and fiction seemingly have an expiration date (cf. B. Swire, U. K. H. Ecker, S. Lewandowsky 2016, unpublished data). People revert to their original assumptions, highlighting that once inaccurate information is in the public sphere, it is difficult to permanently correct, and reservations regarding factual information are likewise challenging to permanently overcome. From the pre-explanation belief scores, we know that Republican Trump supporters were predisposed to assume that information attributed to Trump was correct, regardless of its actual veracity. One week after the explanations, this bias continued for the misinformation items, but for factual items participants became less likely to think that Trump's statements were true. Similarly, Democrats—who are predisposed to assume that information attributed to Trump is incorrect—continued to exhibit bias for factual items, but were more likely to think Trump's misinformation was true. It thus seems as if participants on both sides of the spectrum took into account their Trump-related biases but overcorrected for them: Republican supporters overcorrected by assuming that Trump's facts were false, and Democrats overcorrected by assuming that Trump's misinformation was true. Third, Republican Trump supporters showed the highest level of post-explanation belief in misinformation in both Trump and unattributed conditions. This may reflect that only so much belief revision is possible (as their pre-explanation misinformation belief was also at a higher level), or alternatively that Republican Trump supporters were less inclined to believe our corrections. Fourth, it was noteworthy that if the original information came from Donald Trump, after an explanation participants were less able to accurately label what was fact or fiction in comparison to the unattributed condition, regardless of their support for Trump. This was particularly the case for fact items after a delay, where even the Republican groups were less likely to think that the true information was indeed accurate if attributed to Trump. Finally, while Republican supporters did update their beliefs when presented with corrections of misinformation, they did not change their voting intentions nor feelings towards Trump when the misinformation was attributed to the political figure. The degree that Republican supporters updated their belief that Trump's misinformation was false was not significantly correlated with a change in voting intentions nor feelings towards Trump. This suggests that the public, or at least Trump supporters, are not overly concerned with a candidate disseminating misinformation and seem to be looking to qualities other than veracity. To test how processing of corrective/affirmative explanations is moderated by explanation source, we ran Experiment 2. 3. Experiment 2 Experiment 2 was conducted in July 2016. As in Experiment 1, participants were presented with inaccurate statements and factual statements that Donald Trump mentioned on the campaign trail in 2015, and the objectively false statements were corrected and the true statements affirmed. However, unlike Experiment 1, all statements were attributed to Trump. The other predominant difference between the two experiments was that we varied the nature of the explanations regarding the veracity of the information. In Experiment 2, the same explanations came from different partisan sources. Specifically, we randomized the attribution of the explanation to follow one of three forms: (i) ‘According to Democrats’, (ii) ‘According to Republicans’ or (iii) ‘According to a non-partisan fact-checking website’. Participants rated their belief in the statements both before and immediately after the explanation (though not one week later). The study thus used a 2 × 3 × 3 design, with the within-subjects factors type of item (misinformation versus fact) and explanation source (Democrat versus Republican versus non-partisan), and a between-subjects factor of Trump support (Democrat versus Republican non-supporters versus Republican supporters). See figure 7 for a schematic of this design. Our prime dependent variables were participants' belief in the statements, as well as participants' self-reported support for Donald Trump. Figure 7. Design schematic of Experiment 2. Two potential outcomes were that (i) partisanship-congruent explanations would be more effective than partisanship-incongruent explanations due to greater support and trust in the source (e.g. Democrats being more influenced by a Democratic explanation) (U. K. H. Ecker, L. Antonio 2016, unpublished data) [36,37] or (ii) a Democratic source would be more effective for all participants at affirming Trump's factual statements, and a Republican correction would be more effective at retracting Trump's misinformation, due to the surprise of an unlikely source presenting the explanation [3]. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants Participants were 1019 US residents recruited through Survey Sampling International of Shelton, Connecticut. An over-18 population was recruited, targeting the census population for education, gender, age, geography and income, resulting in a diverse national sample. Participants were excluded from the analysis if they did not complete all parts of the study (n = 59).4 The final sample included N = 960 participants, with 456 males and 504 females. The age range was 19–86 years with a mean age of M = 41.89 (s.d. = 17.96). 3.1.2. Stimuli As stimuli, we used six of the eight statements from Experiment 1: three inaccurate statements and three factual statements. The corrective/affirmative explanations were pseudo-randomly determined. Specifically, each item was attributed to one of the three different explanation sources (Republican, Democrat and non-partisan) in a counterbalanced manner, but we ensured that participants received all explanation sources during the experiment. This resulted in each participant seeing each of the respective explanation sources for one misinformation and one factual statement. 3.1.3. Procedure Participants first rated their likelihood to vote for Donald Trump, and were then presented with all six statements in a randomized order. Participants rated the extent to which they believed each item to be true on a 0–10 scale, prior to receiving an explanation for each item as to whether it was true or false (with explanations coming from the three different sources). The test phase involved re-rating belief in all six statements in random order as well as re-rating Trump support immediately after all explanations were presented. 3.2. Results Of the 960 participants, 514 identified as Democrats. Of the 286 Republicans, 186 were Trump supporters and 100 were Trump non-supporters. The 160 participants who had no political affiliation were omitted from the following analyses. There were 81 Democrats who supported Trump—all main effects and interactions of the following analyses were replicated if they were omitted from the analyses. A one-way ANOVA revealed there was a main effect of age, F 2,797 = 4.88; p = 0.008; MSE = 328.70; η p 2 = 0.01 , reflecting the fact that Republican non-supporters were younger than Republican supporters and Democrats. The following analyses remained statistically significant when controlling for age using repeated measures general linear models. There were no gender differences between groups (p = 0.121), nor education differences (p = 0.346). 3.2.1. Pre-explanation belief scores Pre-explanation belief scores by Trump support are shown in figure 8. In a clear replication of Experiment 1, the Trump attribution led all participants to support the information to the extent that they supported Trump. Figure 8. Pre-explanation Democratic and Republican belief in statements associated with Trump. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. A 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the pre-explanation belief scores. The analysis revealed two significant main effects. The main effect of type of item (misinformation versus fact), F 1,797 = 322.37 p < 0.001; MSE = 2.13; η p 2 = 0.29 , indicated that misinformation was believed less than facts. The main effect of Trump support (Democrats versus Republican non-supporters versus Republican supporters), F 2,797 = 114.49; p < 0.001; MSE = 8.27; η p 2 = 0.22 , indicated that pre-explanation belief scores differed by Trump support. Republican supporters clearly believed Trump statements more than the other two groups; a planned comparison also indicated that Republican non-supporters believed the information more than Democrats, F 1,797 = 6.40; p = 0.012; MSE = 8.27. 3.2.2. Post-explanation belief scores The general trend and the full trajectory of pre- and post-explanation belief change over time are shown in figure 9. Immediately after the corrections/affirmations, both Democrats and Republicans showed a substantial amount of belief change—belief in misinformation reduced and belief in factual information increased. Partisanship and Trump support were far better predictors of the extent of belief updating than the explanation source. Figure 9. (a–c) Belief in Trump misinformation and facts after partisan explanations. Rep, Republican; Misinfo, misinformation. Dotted lines show misinformation items. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. A 3 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA involving explanation source (Democrat versus Republican versus non-partisan) and Trump support (Democrat versus Republican supporter versus Republican non-supporters) was performed on the post-explanation misinformation belief scores. The analysis revealed a main effect of Trump support, F 2,797 = 19.15; p < 0.001; MSE = 20.72; η p 2 = 0.05 , indicating that groups differed in their belief, with Republican supporters believing in the misinformation more than Republican non-supporters and Democrats. There was also a main effect of explanation source, F 2,1594 = 6.01; p = 0.003; MSE = 4.81; η p 2 = 0.007 , showing that a Republican correction reduced belief to a greater extent than the Democratic or non-partisan corrections. However, it must be noted that this is a small effect size and should be interpreted with caution. To explore the observed trend that post-correction misinformation belief seemed to depend on the correction source in Republican non-supporters more so than in Democrats and Republican supporters, we ran an interaction contrast. Contrasting Republican non-supporters against the pooled Democrats and Republican supporters, and the Republican correction against the pooled Democrat and non-partisan corrections, revealed a significant effect, F 1,797 = 4.79; p = 0.029; MSE = 4.68. It appears that misinformation belief was lowest after a Republican correction (versus Democrat/non-partisan correction) in Republican non-supporters, F 1,797 = 9.69; p = 0.002, whereas there were no effects of correction source on post-correction misinformation belief in Democrats or Republican supporters (all F 1,797 < 1.27; p > 0.257). However, as these were post hoc analyses of a marginal effect, they too should be interpreted cautiously. A 3 × 3 mixed ANOVA restricted to the post-affirmation fact belief scores revealed a main effect of Trump support, F 2,797 = 19.96; p < 0.001; MSE = 12.70; η p 2 = 0.05 , indicating that Republican supporters were more accurate for fact belief than Republican non-supporters and Democrats. 3.2.3. Likelihood to vote Figure 10 shows the full trajectory of participants' likelihood to vote for Donald Trump, both prior to and after the corrective/affirmative explanation. Explanations regarding Trump statements did not greatly influence participants' intention to vote. As in Experiment 1, to simplify the analysis, post-explanation scores were subtracted from the pre-explanation scores to create a vote change index. Figure 10. Likelihood of voting for Trump across Trump support groups. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. A one-way ANOVA on the likelihood to vote for Trump change index revealed a main effect of Trump support, F 2,797 = 8.23; p < 0.001; MSE = 1.68; η p 2 = 0.02 , indicating that change differed between groups. Republican non-supporters increased their likelihood to vote for Trump significantly more (by +0.44) than Democrats and Republican supporters (who shifted their rating by +0.05 and −0.21, respectively), F 1,797 = 7.72; p = 0.006; MSE = 1.67. Analogous to Experiment 1, pairwise correlations were calculated for all Trump support groups to investigate whether belief change in misinformation or factual statements was associated with a likelihood to vote for Trump. As in Experiment 1, intentions to vote for Trump were largely independent of belief change. However, using a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level of 0.008, three correlations were significant: Democrats were shown to (i) reduce their likelihood to vote for Trump the more they reduced their belief in Trump-attributed misinformation (r = 0.13), as well as (ii) increase their likelihood to vote for Trump the more they increased their belief in Trump-attributed facts (r = 0.18). Somewhat ironically, (iii) Republican Trump supporters reduced their likelihood to vote for Trump when they increased their belief in the Trump-attributed fact items (r = −0.24). 3.3. Discussion Experiment 2 primarily investigated whether partisanship-congruent explanations were more effective than partisanship-incongruent explanations, or whether an unexpected explanation source would be more effective. Pre-explanation findings of Experiment 1 were replicated, as Republican supporters believed in the Trump-attributed misinformation and factual information to a greater extent than both the Republican non-supporters and Democrats. Post-explanation, we found that the partisanship congruence of explanations did not have as large an impact as hypothesized, and post-explanation belief was rather dictated by the group membership of the individual (i.e. whether the participant was a Democrat, Republican non-supporter or Republican supporter). However, Republican non-supporters were somewhat more likely to update their misinformed beliefs if a correction was attributed to a Republican source. It is possible that a respected explanation source is particularly helpful when the initial information is from a source that is not respected, although this effect did not extend to true statements. Finally, the increase in the Republican non-supporters' post-explanation likelihood-to-vote ratings could reflect a backfire effect—it is plausible that Republican non-supporters do not wish to be nudged by explanations that could be perceived as liberal, thus leading them to further support the Republican figure. However, as Experiment 2 did not have an unattributed control condition for comparison (as Experiment 1 did), it is uncertain whether or not this shift was due to the Trump attribution of the corrections. 4. General discussion The present research aimed to determine whether belief in misinformation and factual information depended on whether or not it stemmed from a politically polarizing source, and whether it could be successfully corrected or affirmed. To this end, we presented participants with both inaccurate and factual statements made by Donald Trump on the campaign trail. Experiment 1 allowed us to investigate whether people use their support in political figures as a heuristic to guide their assessment of the veracity of this information, and Experiment 2 addressed whether partisanship-congruent explanations were more effective than partisanship-incongruent explanations. By keeping the content of the initial information and explanations stable across conditions, we were able to provide an accurate measure of a source's impact upon information processing. 4.1. Pre-explanation belief scores We found that participants' opinion of Donald Trump influenced their assessment of information, that is, how valid they perceived it to be. The graded nature of information belief when it was attributed to Trump in comparison to the unattributed condition (i.e. Democrats decreasing, Republican supporters increasing, Republican non-supporters not affected as much) fits well with the graded intention to vote for Donald Trump, as revealed in Experiment 1. These findings are consistent with the findings from the literature regarding source credibility [34]. Given that attitude homophily is a crucial component of source credibility [6], coupled with the notion that higher source credibility results in an increased perception of information credibility [46], it is reasonable that political figures such as Donald Trump act as a heuristic when evaluating the veracity of information. Democrats showing lower levels of belief when information is attributed to Trump could reflect rational updating that takes the experienced base rates into account. However, this could also be an occasion where Democrats demonstrate equal biases to those of Republicans. While Republicans increased belief in inaccurate information if it came from a source they regard as trustworthy, Democrats indicated lower fact belief if the information came from a source they did not regard as trustworthy. Some of the true items used in this study are more aligned with traditional liberal ideology (e.g. that the USA spent $2 trillion on the war in Iraq), indicating that this effect holds even when processing factual information that could be considered worldview-congruent. This supports Kahan's [4] stance that biases such as motivated cognition could occur at both ends of the political spectrum, while running counter to the notion that people who hold right-wing ideology are more susceptible to motivated cognition in general. Our paper therefore contributes to mounting literature that all individuals—regardless of partisanship—are biased by their own worldview, rather than there being fundamental differences in cognition between people with differing political values [29,30,33,47–49]. 4.2. Post-explanation Trump attribution Intriguingly, even when Trump statements were followed by credible explanations that ought to induce sustained knowledge revision and belief updating, in all groups there was a greater level of inaccuracy in comparison to the unattributed condition. This was particularly the case with regard to factual statements over the long term. Republicans and Democrats seemed to take into account their Trump-related biases and overcorrected for them one week after the explanations: Republican supporters by assuming that Trump's facts were false and Democrats by assuming that Trump's misinformation was true. There is precedent for such meta-cognitive effects in the political information-processing literature. Overcorrection has been seen to occur for mood-related biases when people assume their feelings are affecting their judgement and attempt to correct for their influence [50]. For example, Isbell & Wyer [51] found that participants rated political figures less favourably when participants were happy than when they were not, in an attempt to adjust for what they perceived to be an irrelevant affective influence. This overcorrection for biases appears to also influence the judgement of veracity when it comes to correcting misinformation and affirming factual information that stems from a polarizing source. It is important to highlight that Trump attribution has a relatively small effect size in comparison with the common effects of the retention interval in the post-explanation analyses. The consistency in belief updating and forgetting over time perhaps reflects that partisan effects are not as consequential as more general cognitive consequences such as the reversion to original assumptions over time. 4.3. Explanation source Different explanation sources did not have as large an impact as hypothesized. It is noteworthy in itself that the explanation source did not have as large an impact as the support of the person purporting the initial information. While Berinsky [3] found that corrections from an unlikely source aided belief updating, this was when the to-be-corrected information was specifically counter to the traditional stances of a political party, for example, when Republicans debunked rumours regarding health care. It is possible that our amalgamation of items was not sufficiently in opposition to the core values of the Republican party to replicate these results. While it seemed that Republican non-supporters reduced their misinformation belief most following a Republican correction, it is necessary to replicate these results due to the post hoc nature of the analysis. 4.4. Worldview backfire effects There was no evidence for a worldview backfire effect in either experiment, as post-explanation misinformation belief scores remained below pre-explanation levels. In 2005, Nyhan & Reifler [23] found a backfire effect in conservatives when trying to correct the belief that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Yet in 2006, this effect was not replicated—the correction led conservatives to appropriately update their belief. The authors argued that, between 2005 and 2006, conservatives came to place less importance on the war, suggesting that backfire effects may only occur when an issue is strongly and currently connected with an individual's political identity. In the present case, perhaps not all four pieces of misinformation resonated strongly enough with Republicans to create a notable backfire effect. The present pattern—obtained using a variety of real-world items rather than relying on only one contentious topic (as previous studies have [21–23])—suggests that worldview backfire effects are not the norm and may only occur under very specific circumstances. 4.5. Voting preferences While it is possible that the observed changes in voting preferences between pre- and post-explanation are due to the presentations of the corrections and affirmations, it appears that the negative political ramifications of disseminating misinformation are limited. Belief change in Trump-attributed misinformation remained uncorrelated with a change in voting intentions and feelings towards Trump. Many individuals, and indeed political scientists, did not predict the success of Donald Trump [52,53]. This study contributes one further piece of the puzzle as to why his success was sustained: spreading misinformation did not hinder his candidacy, and even if misinformation was exposed, this did not reduce voting preferences or positive feelings. This could reflect that, to a certain extent, people expect politicians to make inaccurate statements [54], thus they are not overly concerned when this expectation is met. Moreover, in the context of this study, providing an equal number of misinformation and factual items could have both reduced and boosted candidate support. Although people's opinions of a political candidate should ideally not increase if they hear the candidate made a factual statement—this should be an expectation rather than an added benefit—the equal presentation of misinformation and facts could explain the null effect. An avenue for future research would be to vary the proportion of true and false statements from the political figure that are provided to participants. Understanding Donald Trump's popularity, despite the degree of misinformation he has distributed [41,42], is an interesting case study of American politics. However, it is uncertain to what extent the findings of the current experiments are in fact a ‘Trump phenomenon’. While he is perhaps a good candidate for the study of misinformation, political misinformation is common in the political arena [1]. To test whether the present findings are generalizable beyond Donald Trump, this experiment should be replicated with a Democratic and a different Republican political figure. Another potential barrier to generalizability is that the participants from Experiment 1 were Mechanical Turk workers. However, several studies have found that this population yields high-quality data, comparable to other convenience samples such as university students [55,56], and Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1's data trends in a more diverse sample. There are many possible explanations for why Americans voted for Donald Trump in the primary and the general election: factors such as his perceived business acumen, his economic or immigration policies, or perhaps the fact that he was not a career politician increased his appeal [57,58]. We cannot speak to these possibilities. This study illustrates that something other than veracity accounted for his success, as supporters did not change their voting intentions even if they altered their beliefs about the truth of his statements. If spreading falsehoods does not discredit character, it is perhaps not surprising that many individuals rallied behind him on election day [59,60]. According to Ramsay et al. [44], 91% of voters said that information in campaigns sometimes seemed misleading or false, yet struggled to pinpoint exactly what is fact and what is fiction. The real-world consequences of this study suggest that politicians can seemingly spread misinformation without dramatic negative consequences of losing supporters—the results of the 2016 Presidential election are consistent with this interpretation. It thus appears that it is possible to appeal through the art of rhetoric and demagoguery rather than necessitating cohesive arguments constructed of logic and fact. Ethics All procedures were approved by the Human Research Ethics Office of The University of Western Australia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Committee on The Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects. All participants reviewed a consent form prior to participating. Data accessibility The data are publicly available from the Dryad Digital Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nc571 [61]. Authors' contributions All authors made substantial contributions to this paper. All authors contributed to the design. B.S. and A.J.B. contributed to the acquisition of the data. B.S. and U.K.H.E. contributed to the analyses. All authors contributed to the writing of the paper and its revision, and approved the final version for publication. Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Funding This research was facilitated by a Fulbright Postgraduate Scholarship from the Australian–American Fulbright Commission and a University Postgraduate Award from the University of Western Australia to B.S. S.L. and U.K.H.E. receive funding from the Australian Research Council, and S.L. also receives funding from the Royal Society and the Psychonomic Society. Financial support was also provided by the Political Experiments Research Lab at MIT. The laboratory web addresses are http://www.cogsciwa.com and http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/perl.html. Acknowledgements We thank Krista Loose, Tesalia Rizzo and James Dunham for research assistance. Appendix A See table 2. Table 2.Trump and unattributed items and their corresponding explanations. Collapse item number trump item unattributed item explanation misinformation 1 Donald Trump said that there are 30–34 million illegal immigrants residing in the USA There are 30–34 million illegal immigrants residing in the USA According to the Department of Homeland security's most recent estimate, the number of illegal immigrants currently residing in the USA is 11.4 million people. In 2014, the Pew Research Center placed this number at 11.3 million people, while the Center for Migration Studies estimated approximately 11.0 million individuals misinformation 2 Donald Trump said that the real unemployment rate is between 24 and 48% The real unemployment rate is between 24 and 48% The US Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the official unemployment rate is 5.5%. There are more lenient measures of unemployment that includes people who have part-time jobs but would prefer full-time work, and people who are not looking for work. If these individuals are included, the unemployment rate only rises to 10.8% misinformation 3 Donald Trump said that the gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate has never been below zero The gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate has never been below zero The GDP growth rate indicates how much a country's production has increased in comparison to the previous year, and is an indicator of a country's economic strength. The US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that there were 42 occurrences since 1946 where the US growth rate was below zero misinformation 4 Donald Trump said that vaccines cause autism Vaccines cause autism There is strong consensus in the scientific community that vaccines are not linked to autism. For example, one study by the Danish Epidemiology Science Center tracked all children born in Denmark from 1991 to 1998 and concluded that there was no increase in the rate of autism for vaccinated as opposed to non-vaccinated children fact 1 Donald Trump said that the US debt is $18 trillion The US debt is $18 trillion Each day the US Department of the Treasury releases the exact amount of US debt. The debt currently sits at $18.15 trillion. The public holds $13 trillion, which is debt held by individuals and corporations. A further $5 trillion is intra-governmental debt, which is the government borrowing from federal trust funds fact 2 Donald Trump said that the US spent $2 trillion on the war in Iraq The US spent $2 trillion on the war in Iraq A report by the Watson Institute found that as of 2013, the US spent $1.7 trillion on the war in Iraq. While the appropriations for the war were under $800 billion, the Watson report also included the cost of disability, Defense Department base spending costs and homeland security expenditures attributed to Iraq fact 3 Donald Trump said that the USA is ranked 26th in the world in education The US is ranked 26th in the world in education The Program for International Student Assessment is a test for children 15 years of age. It is administered every three years, and largely focuses on math, reading and science. The most recent test was administered in 2012, when the USA ranked between 24th and 35th on the three measures, scoring below average in each category fact 4 Donald Trump said that Nabisco, the company that manufactures Oreo cookies, is moving jobs to Mexico Nabisco, the company that manufactures Oreo cookies, is moving jobs to Mexico Nabisco is a food snack company that is known for products such as Oreos and Ritz crackers. It announced that it will open a new factory in Mexico, rather than investing the $130 million in their current factory in Chicago. Over the next year, half the workers at the Chicago-based bakery will lose their job, which totals 600 employees Appendix B If the post-explanation items are analysed separately, we see similar trends as to the accuracy score analyses. For the fact items we likewise see the main effects of source, F 1,1538 = 19.79; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.38; η p 2 = 0.01 , retention interval, F 1,1538 = 190.48; p < 0.001; MSE = 2.38; η p 2 = 0.11 , and an interaction of source and retention interval, F 1,1538 = 9.00; p = 0.003; MSE = 2.38; η p 2 = 0.006 . In addition, there is a Trump support and source interaction, F 2,1538 = 3.28; p = 0.038; MSE = 2.38; η p 2 = 0.004 , indicating that Trump support influences the degree to which the Trump attribution influences belief. A planned comparison indicates that Democrats do not update their belief in the factual items to the same extent as the Republican groups if the information is attributed to Trump, F 1,1538 = 5.12; p = 0.024; MSE = 2.37. There is also an interaction of Trump support and retention interval, F 2,1538 = 3.44; p = 0.032; MSE = 2.38; η p 2 = 0.004 . While Democrats over both time periods are worse at updating their belief in the facts if information is attributed to Trump, Republicans immediately update their belief equally in the Trump and unattributed conditions, yet after one week belief in the Trump information reduces below that in the unattributed condition, F 1,1538 = 5.08; p = 0.024; MSE = 2.38. The post-explanation misinformation items reveal three main effects. A marginal main effect of source, F 1,1538 = 3.78; p = 0.052; MSE = 3.20; η p 2 = 0.002 , indicating that the Trump attribution led to less accurate belief, and a main effect of Trump support, F 2,1538 = 33.35; p < 0.001; MSE = 3.20; η p 2 = 0.04 , indicating that Republican supporters had higher belief in the misinformation than Democrats and Republican supporters, F 1,1538 = 53.00; p < 0.001. Finally, a main effect of retention interval, F 2,1538 = 64.50; p < 0.001; MSE = 3.20; η p 2 = 0.04 indicating belief increased over time, all groups forgetting that the misinformation was in fact false. There was no interaction of source and retention interval, indicating that unlike the fact scores (where Trump attribution led to less accurate beliefs particularly over time), the information associated with Trump is considered to be less accurate over both time periods. Appendix C The feelings thermometer scores can be seen in figure 11. A 2 × 2 × 3 factorial ANOVA on the feelings-change index revealed an interaction of retention interval and Trump support, F 2,11530 = 21.67; p < 0.001; MSE = 139.37; η p 2 = 0.03 , indicating that Republican non-supporters and Republican supporters changed their feelings towards Trump more than Democrats. Mimicking voting preferences, over the course of a week Republican supporters indicated feeling ‘cooler’ towards Trump, and Republican non-supporters indicated feeling ‘warmer’. Figure 11. Feelings-thermometer scores over time across partisanship and sources. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Footnotes 1 Of the excluded participants, 94% were in the one-week retention interval. A Pearson χ2-test indicated that neither Trump support, χ2 = (3, N = 2023) = 1.92, p = 0.589, nor source, χ2 = (1, N = 2023) = 0.28, p = 0.592, differed between participants who were included and those who were excluded. 2 As all items were presented within-subjects, it could be a concern that participants receiving multiple pieces of corrective information are more vulnerable to social desirability biases. However, a one-way ANOVA on the pre-explanation belief ratings confirmed that their presentation order did not have a significant influence on belief, F 7,12425 = 1.38; p = 0.210. Post-explanation belief was likewise not affected by presentation order, F 7,12425 = 1.61; p = 0.127. 3 This interaction was only marginally significant when controlling for age, p = 0.060. 4 A Pearson χ2-test indicated that there was no difference in Trump support between participants who were included and those who were excluded, X2 = (3, N = 983) = 5.42, p = 0.144. |
Despite issuing multiple warnings, Netflix’s A Series of Unfortunate Events continues to tell viewers to “look away” from the show, especially with the show set to premiere this Friday. This time, the ominous message comes in the form of the show’s opening credits (seen exclusively above), though what’s slightly unusual about it is that it’s none other than Count Olaf’s portrayer, Neil Patrick Harris, singing the warning. As fans familiar with the books (or even previous trailers) will know, the character — who is the Baudelaire orphans’ third cousin four times removed, or their fourth cousin three times removed — is the series’ main villain as he plots to steal their fortunes, letting nothing stand in his way. More curious still is the “murder board” being constructed in the credits above. Could it be part of Olaf’s scheme to get Violet, Klaus, and Sunny’s money? Or is it part of narrator Lemony Snicket‘s efforts to document the Baudelaire’s increasingly grim lives? Luckily, viewers will only have to wait one more day to find out. A Series of Unfortunate Events will be available for streaming on Friday, Jan. 13 on Netflix. |
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan is wondering what former national security adviser Susan Rice may be hiding after she postponed her testimony on the unmasking of Trump associates. Rice was originally set to testify in front of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday. Jordan said last week that he was looking forward to the testimony because “the American people want to get the truth on all these issues.” (VIDEO: Rep. Jordan: Susan Rice Testimony Is An Opportunity To Get The Truth) After learning of the hearing being postponed, Jordan told The Daily Caller, “It is important that Susan Rice testify before Congress without any further delay.” “I’m beginning to wonder if she has something to hide,” he said. Rice, the national security adviser under Obama, was going to be asked questions about reports that she requested the unmasking of Trump campaign associates. “Some have said that [Rice] was the individual who abdicated her responsibility and unmasked the identities of the President’s campaign staff to the media,” Rep. Jordan said. “If this is the case, she needs to answer our questions as to why she did so.” “We know she wasn’t honest with the American people in the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy, and we need to know whether she’s being honest with us now,” Jordan stated, referring to Rice’s insistence in 2012 that the Benghazi attack was the result of a YouTube video. Follow Amber on Twitter |
Blog authors: Sahdev P. Zala (spzala@us.ibm.com @sp_zala) Eduardo Patrocinio (eduardop@us.ibm.com @patrocinio) The OpenStack Heat Translator is one of the projects under the main OpenStack Heat orchestration project. It facilitates translation of OASIS TOSCA service template to Heat Orchestration Template (HOT) and the deployment of translated template into an OpenStack cloud. To use it, you simply download a stable release through PyPI or by forking the master branch to use the latest source code. Docker containers are now widely used to consume applications and tools, and such usage are just growing. Building a container is fun and using it can be even more fun and highly productive. We have created a container using the latest stable release of the Heat Translator available at the PyPI . This blog post will show where the image is located and how it can be used. Get the image The Heat Translator Docker container image is available on the Docker hub named patrocinio/h-t-container-stable. Use the container You can invoke the Heat Translator at the same time you run the container. The Heat Translator is commonly used to translate TOSCA service template available in the local file system or providing it via an URL. We will walk you through invoking Heat Translator in both ways. Translate TOSCA service template from local file system Let’s say you have TOSCA service template called tosca_helloworld.yaml on your local machine. Assume that the tosca_helloworld.yaml is located in your /tmp/tosca_testfiles . To translate it to HOT, run the container as follow: $ docker run -v /tmp/tosca_testfiles:/tosca patrocinio/h-t-container-stable --template-file /tosca/tosca_helloworld.yaml The patrocinio/h-t-container-stable will pull the image if it is not already available in your environment. Also make a note that, the container requires that you provide /tmp/tosca_testfiles directory as a volume which will be mapped as the /tosca directory inside the container. You can think of /tmp/tosca_testfiles as a host source directory. It can be an arbitrary name but must be provided as an absolute path. The rest is simple: you provide the arguments that are understood by the Heat Translator. In this case, we provided the required –template-file argument with your TOSCA service template as a value to the argument. The service template can be a YAML file as provided above or it can be a TOSCA CSAR file. If you are new to CSAR, learn more about it from Sahdev Zala’s other blog post Package Cloud Workloads with TOSCA Cloud Service Archive. Assuming your tosca_helloworld.yaml looks as below: tosca_definitions_version: tosca_simple_yaml_1_0 description: Template for deploying a single server with predefined properties. topology_template: node_templates: my_server: type: tosca.nodes.Compute capabilities: # Host container properties host: properties: num_cpus: 2 disk_size: 10 GB mem_size: 512 MB # Guest Operating System properties os: properties: # host Operating System image properties architecture: x86_64 type: Linux distribution: RHEL version: 6.5 The output of the above command will produce following HOT template, heat_template_version: 2013-05-23 description: > Template for deploying a single server with predefined properties. parameters: {} resources: my_server: type: OS::Nova::Server properties: flavor: m1.medium image: rhel-6.5-test-image user_data_format: SOFTWARE_CONFIG outputs: {} Translate TOSCA service template via an URL Translating by providing service template or CSAR as URL is very simple. All you need to do is provide a URL as a value to the –template-file argument. For example, tosca_helloworld.yaml located on the TOSCA Parser github project can be translated using the following command, $ docker run patrocinio/h-t-container-stable --template-file https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openstack/tosca-parser/master/toscaparser/tests/data/tosca_helloworld.yaml Heat Translator help You can get to the Heat Translator help by simply running, docker run patrocinio/h-t-container-stable --help Dockerfile Given below is the content of Dockerfile used to build the h-t-container-stable image. The file is also available in the Heat Translator project. FROM ubuntu MAINTAINER Eduardo Patrocinio and Sahdev P. Zala RUN apt-get -y update && apt-get install -y \ python-pip RUN pip install heat-translator COPY heat_translator_logging.conf /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/translator/conf/ # Have some test TOSCA templates in my_tosca directory to copy to the container as an example. # This is an optional step and can be removed. COPY my_tosca /tmp/my_tosca ENTRYPOINT ["heat-translator"] Conclusion |
For 16 days straight, from dawn to dusk, five highly determined Montreal-based artists (who make up the artist run collective A’shop) worked on a graffiti mural of a Mother Nature-esque Madonna or a modern-day version of “Our Lady of Grace.” Inspired by Czech Art Nouveau painter Alphonse Mucha, the crew created this breathtakingly beautiful five story mural using 500 cans of spray paint in over 50 different colors. “We been doing graffiti for a long time but this is our first large project involving the whole team,” Fluke of A’shop told The Montreal Gazette. “We’re always busy with other projects so we’ve never really had time to let [the reactions to] them sink in. But this mural was just so big and also our last of the season. It was challenge, took us out of our comfort zone. We wanted to try something more classic.” The city gave the group complete control of the project and, luckily, the public ended up loving it. “The main thing that struck us was the public’s reaction while we were painting the mural. Some people gave us the cold shoulder at first, thinking we were painting an ad. Then when they realized we were reviving an old wall with a mural, they were came back to see us everyday. That really fueled us. Within days we had the whole community involved. People invited us for lunch and the Jamaicans at the local barber shop were giving us high-fives!” Fluke said that he hopes this project will encourage other city boroughs to consider murals of their own. “Our city has way too much gray. So I hope this [mural] kickstarts a mural campaign.” To really appreciate the time and effort that went into this massive mural, here are some progress shots that were taken over the 16 day period. Update #1: We got in touch with Kris Wilk at A’shop to ask him some more questions. Read that Q&A, below. Update #2: Love huge murals? See 15 massive ones here. What is the idea behind this piece? What does it represent? The idea was to step out of our comfort zone and show the public what graffiti artists can be capable of. There is an amazing amount of quality work being produced within Montreal’s graffiti scene. Unfortunately, bad press and political strategies often only show the “negative” side of it, creating unneeded friction between citizens and our culture. Graffiti as a form of visual language can be hard to comprehend for most. We thought it would be interesting to paint this mural in a more common language, using imagery that anyone can understand, initiating dialogue and building bridges. For this, we chose to inspire ourselves from Alphonse Mucha, father of Art Nouveau (1860-1939), a style of art that most people know or have seen before. Of course, we gave it our own flavor and used N.D.G as the main theme. The end product being our take on “La Notre-Dame-de-Grce” or “Our Lady of Grace.” How did you decide on the “Lady of Grace” subject? “Our Lady of Grace” English for “Notre-Dame-de-Grce” (N.D.G) is the name of a residential neighborhood of Montreal located in the city’s west-end, where the mural was painted. We decided to bring this fictional character to life so that this borough could have an iconic symbol of its own. How much work went into prepping for this mural? We spent a few weeks figuring out the concept, planning the layout , collecting sponsors and gathering references that represent the neighborhood. How did you get permission from the city to do this? Through Help from the City of Montreal and the borough, Prevention N.D.G. – a local not-for-profit that works with the community – the city came up with a budget that was meant to be used in the context of beautifying an area and, though that can be done in many ways, we decided to propose this mural as a means to bringing some color to a gray part of town. After many months of negotiation and preparation, we finally got the ok on our project and got to work. How do you think the mural turned out? Were you all happy with it? We’re all very happy with the end result. The crazy part is that we’re more motivated now than ever and realize that this is only the tip of the iceberg for what we have planned for future projects. Have you participated in any similar projects in Montreal or elsewhere? We have been painting murals for a long time and most of them for free. Nowadays, we generally get commissioned by the commercial and private sectors. We’ve done similar projects in Europe and in different parts of Canada but this is the first time that we’ve had the opportunity to work on a community project in our own city that allowed us full control over our creation. Do you think the city should finance more projects like the one in N.D.G? Why? Absolutely, because it’s a gain for everyone. What better way to regain dead space. Although graffiti communities are close knit and we often share similar values, the reasons why we do graffiti in the first place are not always the same. Some want their name out there and have little need for the artistic side of it. For others, there is a creative process. If we don’t acknowledge it and support it, we are preventing these people form potentially doing great things as artists. A’shop website |
This article is from the archive of our partner . Just in time for the first day of school, we're treated to the talk of grading Obama's first term as president with Obama himself giving himself a harsh-sounding "incomplete" and the Romney camp suggesting that running this country should totally be pass/fail--both of which are both way more lenient than our high school calculus class. "You know I would say incomplete," Obama told Colorado's 11 KKTV news (video below). Wait. As grade school and that really tough college course taught us, "incompletes" aren't something you want on your report card--and usually mean you have to retake the course (insert a second term joke). And "incomplete" sounds a lot worse than the B+ he gave himself back in 2009 after his first 11 months in the White House. Obama explained to KTTV that incomplete in this sense isn't that grade-killing word we've come to know: "I would say is the steps that we have taken in saving the auto industry, in making sure that college is more affordable and investing in clean energy and science and technology and research, those are all the things that we are going to need to grow over the long term." Of course, that isn't good enough for a Mitt Romney advisor Matt McDonald, who gave his (and Romney's?) view of how the president should be graded. Apparently, in his eyes, running this country is more like a summer course or P.E. (with a healthy dose of Republican talking points). I think that for President Obama the question isn't a grade on an A to F scale but it's a pass/fail grade at this point. The question that is on the lips of the people here in Charlotte who are gathering, both the media and the delegates, the people in Colorado and the people across the country is are you better off than you were four years ago and it's a pretty simple answer for alot of people is that they aren't. And here's the full video of Obama grading himself: This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire. |
In a decision fraught with political risk, Mayor Rob Ford is standing by his transit expansion plan even as a majority of council lines up in support of a rival plan pushed by his hand-picked TTC chair. “My plan is ‘do-able’ and can deliver RAPID transit for Toronto in an affordable way,” Ford said in a Thursday statement on his Facebook page. “Scarborough residents voted me in to build subways and I’m building subways,” Rob Ford said Thursday night. ( LUCAS OLENIUK / TORONTO STAR ) “For almost 100 years, Toronto's transit system has been based on a backbone of subways,” he said, though the city’s first subway opened in 1954. “It’s time to get back on track.” Ford’s comments reveal a significant rift with TTC chair Karen Stintz, who said earlier in the week that she thought Ford was open to alternatives. His opposition to her proposal further complicates the delicate transit dance between the city and the provincial government. Councillors who support Stintz’s plan, which includes extensive above-ground transit, believe the plan will be endorsed by council with or without Ford’s backing. But it would be unusual for the province to make major changes to a previous agreement with a big-city mayor, and undertake a massive municipal transit project, over the mayor’s vocal objections. Article Continued Below Ford, Premier Dalton McGuinty, and the provincial agency Metrolinx agreed early last year to a non-binding “memorandum of understanding.” On Wednesday, Metrolinx chair Rob Prichard said the agency would consider changes to the agreement “if city council and the mayor and the TTC all together come forward” with a proposal. Asked Thursday if the agency sees Ford’s support as a prerequisite for changes, a spokesperson said, “Metrolinx has stated our position and we’re now awaiting the city’s single position on this issue.” A spokesperson for provincial Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation Bob Chiarelli responded similarly: “We need to have clarity from the city and we want the City of Toronto to land on a single position.” Councillor Josh Matlow, a centrist supporter of the Stintz plan, said he believes McGuinty would respect the wishes of council regardless of Ford’s views. Councillor John Parker, a TTC board member and one of several right-leaning Ford allies who support the Stintz plan, said he is optimistic the mayor can still be persuaded to change his mind. “I’m still hopeful that we can work ourselves toward a resolution that we can all be comfortable with. But we’re obviously not there yet,” Parker said. Stintz, who is usually highly accessible to the media, was “not available” on Thursday, an assistant said. Ford has consistently extolled the benefits of subways and opposed above-ground transit, which he sees as inefficient. The Stintz plan would move part of the $8.2 billion Eglinton Ave. underground light rail line to the surface, generating an estimated $1.5 billion in savings that could be used to fund both some type of rapid transit on Finch Ave. and part of Ford’s promised extension to the Sheppard subway. Article Continued Below Ford did not explicitly reject the Stintz plan, but he offered a forceful defence of his own. In his statement, he said he is seeking an Eglinton line underground except where it crosses the Don Valley. “More people will use transit when it’s faster. It can only be faster if it’s not on the surface,” he said. It remains unclear how a Sheppard extension will be funded if not with money reallocated from the Eglinton project. Gordon Chong, whose report on financing options Ford is expected to receive this week, says the private sector is likely to cover only 10 to 30 per cent of the cost. Read more about: |
In the early 1960’s Godtfred was building a new house and, naturally, he tried to model the structure with Lego bricks. The problem was that the Lego brick, with an aspect ratio of 6:5, was different than standard European construction modules of 1:1. Rather than contend with the problems of using regular Lego bricks he simply had new, special bricks molded for him. Bricks that would allow him to more closely copy his architectural plans. These new bricks were based on a 5mm cube (1:1) and were about 5/8 the size of a standard Lego brick. After he finished his house model, Godtfred began to investigate the possibility of marketing these elements to architects and planners. In 1963 he created a new company, Modulex A/S. The M20 System The M20 system, their first product, was intended for architectural modelling and consisted of a range of bricks, slopes, tiles, baseplates, windows and letter tiles based on the 5mm cube and intended for 1:20 scale building (hence the name M20). The system also included several unusual items, such as baseplate foil, a foil comb and cutter, even solvent-based glue. The early elements were molded by Lego and had the familiar “LEGO” logo on the studs. Later elements had a simple “M” (for Modulex) on the studs. The system never caught on with architects1 1. With at least one notable execption: The Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen, designer of the TWA Terminal at JFK and St.Louis Gateway Arch, liked to prototype structures with Modulex and Lego bricks. but it did with industrial planners who found the system to be useful in process layout and prototyping. So in 1966 Modulex released the Modulex Planning System. The planning system extended the product line to include various plates, tiles and blocks with letters, number and symbols. It became widely used and was the first commercial success for the company. Architectural Signage During the next eight years more planning products were released and in 1974, after several years of development, Modulex introduced Interior 10, an architectural sign system based on many of the planning-system components. The product was a success and even won the Danish ID Design Prize. Their first exterior sign system, Exterior 500, was introduced in 1979. The success with architectural signage resulted in a new focus for the company. In 1993 Modulex merged with ASI Sign Systems and today ASI-Modulex is the largest signage and wayfinding company in the world with subsidiaries in more than 35 countries. The planning system was not completely forgotten however; a new system, Plancopy, was introduced in 1982 and updated in 1994. This system is still available to this day. Interlego AG In order to protect his expanding business and, at least in part, to avoid Danish tax and corporate law, such as board representation, Godftred established Interlego AG in Zug, Switzerland. So the Lego Group now consisted of two parts: Lego A/S in Denmark and Interlego AG in Switzerland. The intellectual property of Lego, including the trademarks and patents were assigned to Interlego, while the production and marketing were still carried out by Lego A/S. It was the beginning of what would become a very complex corporate structure. The Architectural Sets While Godtfred was establishing Modulex, Lego released their own series of architectural sets marketed primarily to adults. The sets included graph paper and a ruler with instructions on designing scale models. The series consisted of three large sets, 750, 751 and 752 as well as several supplementary sets. The sets consisted of just bricks and plates, and included none of the specialized roof, window or door elements. Perhaps this limited assortment seemed suitable for the international-style buildings pictured in the idea book, but it fell far short of the architectural possibilities of the entire system. The series was not successful and was discontinued in 1965. |
These quirks are bound to have implications for the human predicament. Morality is not just any old topic in psychology but close to our conception of the meaning of life. Moral goodness is what gives each of us the sense that we are worthy human beings. We seek it in our friends and mates, nurture it in our children, advance it in our politics and justify it with our religions. A disrespect for morality is blamed for everyday sins and history’s worst atrocities. To carry this weight, the concept of morality would have to be bigger than any of us and outside all of us. So dissecting moral intuitions is no small matter. If morality is a mere trick of the brain, some may fear, our very grounds for being moral could be eroded. Yet as we shall see, the science of the moral sense can instead be seen as a way to strengthen those grounds, by clarifying what morality is and how it should steer our actions. The Moralization Switch The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave. Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”). The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.” The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished. Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other people they deem immoral. Bertrand Russell wrote, “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell.” We all know what it feels like when the moralization switch flips inside us — the righteous glow, the burning dudgeon, the drive to recruit others to the cause. The psychologist Paul Rozin has studied the toggle switch by comparing two kinds of people who engage in the same behavior but with different switch settings. Health vegetarians avoid meat for practical reasons, like lowering cholesterol and avoiding toxins. Moral vegetarians avoid meat for ethical reasons: to avoid complicity in the suffering of animals. By investigating their feelings about meat-eating, Rozin showed that the moral motive sets off a cascade of opinions. Moral vegetarians are more likely to treat meat as a contaminant — they refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup into which a drop of beef broth has fallen. They are more likely to think that other people ought to be vegetarians, and are more likely to imbue their dietary habits with other virtues, like believing that meat avoidance makes people less aggressive and bestial. Much of our recent social history, including the culture wars between liberals and conservatives, consists of the moralization or amoralization of particular kinds of behavior. Even when people agree that an outcome is desirable, they may disagree on whether it should be treated as a matter of preference and prudence or as a matter of sin and virtue. Rozin notes, for example, that smoking has lately been moralized. Until recently, it was understood that some people didn’t enjoy smoking or avoided it because it was hazardous to their health. But with the discovery of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, smoking is now treated as immoral. Smokers are ostracized; images of people smoking are censored; and entities touched by smoke are felt to be contaminated (so hotels have not only nonsmoking rooms but nonsmoking floors). The desire for retribution has been visited on tobacco companies, who have been slapped with staggering “punitive damages.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story At the same time, many behaviors have been amoralized, switched from moral failings to lifestyle choices. They include divorce, illegitimacy, being a working mother, marijuana use and homosexuality. Many afflictions have been reassigned from payback for bad choices to unlucky misfortunes. There used to be people called “bums” and “tramps”; today they are “homeless.” Drug addiction is a “disease”; syphilis was rebranded from the price of wanton behavior to a “sexually transmitted disease” and more recently a “sexually transmitted infection.” This wave of amoralization has led the cultural right to lament that morality itself is under assault, as we see in the group that anointed itself the Moral Majority. In fact there seems to be a Law of Conservation of Moralization, so that as old behaviors are taken out of the moralized column, new ones are added to it. Dozens of things that past generations treated as practical matters are now ethical battlegrounds, including disposable diapers, I.Q. tests, poultry farms, Barbie dolls and research on breast cancer. Food alone has become a minefield, with critics sermonizing about the size of sodas, the chemistry of fat, the freedom of chickens, the price of coffee beans, the species of fish and now the distance the food has traveled from farm to plate. Many of these moralizations, like the assault on smoking, may be understood as practical tactics to reduce some recently identified harm. But whether an activity flips our mental switches to the “moral” setting isn’t just a matter of how much harm it does. We don’t show contempt to the man who fails to change the batteries in his smoke alarms or takes his family on a driving vacation, both of which multiply the risk they will die in an accident. Driving a gas-guzzling Hummer is reprehensible, but driving a gas-guzzling old Volvo is not; eating a Big Mac is unconscionable, but not imported cheese or crème brûlée. The reason for these double standards is obvious: people tend to align their moralization with their own lifestyles. Reasoning and Rationalizing It’s not just the content of our moral judgments that is often questionable, but the way we arrive at them. We like to think that when we have a conviction, there are good reasons that drove us to adopt it. That is why an older approach to moral psychology, led by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, tried to document the lines of reasoning that guided people to moral conclusions. But consider these situations, originally devised by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt: Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love? A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom. A family’s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cook it and eat it for dinner. Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It’s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren’t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s wrong.” People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification. The gap between people’s convictions and their justifications is also on display in the favorite new sandbox for moral psychologists, a thought experiment devised by the philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson called the Trolley Problem. On your morning walk, you see a trolley car hurtling down the track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track, oblivious to the danger. You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley onto a spur, saving the five men. Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five? Almost everyone says “yes.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Consider now a different scene. You are on a bridge overlooking the tracks and have spotted the runaway trolley bearing down on the five workers. Now the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in its path. And the only heavy object within reach is a fat man standing next to you. Should you throw the man off the bridge? Both dilemmas present you with the option of sacrificing one life to save five, and so, by the utilitarian standard of what would result in the greatest good for the greatest number, the two dilemmas are morally equivalent. But most people don’t see it that way: though they would pull the switch in the first dilemma, they would not heave the fat man in the second. When pressed for a reason, they can’t come up with anything coherent, though moral philosophers haven’t had an easy time coming up with a relevant difference, either. When psychologists say “most people” they usually mean “most of the two dozen sophomores who filled out a questionnaire for beer money.” But in this case it means most of the 200,000 people from a hundred countries who shared their intuitions on a Web-based experiment conducted by the psychologists Fiery Cushman and Liane Young and the biologist Marc Hauser. A difference between the acceptability of switch-pulling and man-heaving, and an inability to justify the choice, was found in respondents from Europe, Asia and North and South America; among men and women, blacks and whites, teenagers and octogenarians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and atheists; people with elementary-school educations and people with Ph.D.’s. Joshua Greene, a philosopher and cognitive neuroscientist, suggests that evolution equipped people with a revulsion to manhandling an innocent person. This instinct, he suggests, tends to overwhelm any utilitarian calculus that would tot up the lives saved and lost. The impulse against roughing up a fellow human would explain other examples in which people abjure killing one to save many, like euthanizing a hospital patient to harvest his organs and save five dying patients in need of transplants, or throwing someone out of a crowded lifeboat to keep it afloat. By itself this would be no more than a plausible story, but Greene teamed up with the cognitive neuroscientist Jonathan Cohen and several Princeton colleagues to peer into people’s brains using functional M.R.I. They sought to find signs of a conflict between brain areas associated with emotion (the ones that recoil from harming someone) and areas dedicated to rational analysis (the ones that calculate lives lost and saved). When people pondered the dilemmas that required killing someone with their bare hands, several networks in their brains lighted up. One, which included the medial (inward-facing) parts of the frontal lobes, has been implicated in emotions about other people. A second, the dorsolateral (upper and outer-facing) surface of the frontal lobes, has been implicated in ongoing mental computation (including nonmoral reasoning, like deciding whether to get somewhere by plane or train). And a third region, the anterior cingulate cortex (an evolutionarily ancient strip lying at the base of the inner surface of each cerebral hemisphere), registers a conflict between an urge coming from one part of the brain and an advisory coming from another. But when the people were pondering a hands-off dilemma, like switching the trolley onto the spur with the single worker, the brain reacted differently: only the area involved in rational calculation stood out. Other studies have shown that neurological patients who have blunted emotions because of damage to the frontal lobes become utilitarians: they think it makes perfect sense to throw the fat man off the bridge. Together, the findings corroborate Greene’s theory that our nonutilitarian intuitions come from the victory of an emotional impulse over a cost-benefit analysis. A Universal Morality? The findings of trolleyology — complex, instinctive and worldwide moral intuitions — led Hauser and John Mikhail (a legal scholar) to revive an analogy from the philosopher John Rawls between the moral sense and language. According to Noam Chomsky, we are born with a “universal grammar” that forces us to analyze speech in terms of its grammatical structure, with no conscious awareness of the rules in play. By analogy, we are born with a universal moral grammar that forces us to analyze human action in terms of its moral structure, with just as little awareness. The idea that the moral sense is an innate part of human nature is not far-fetched. A list of human universals collected by the anthropologist Donald E. Brown includes many moral concepts and emotions, including a distinction between right and wrong; empathy; fairness; admiration of generosity; rights and obligations; proscription of murder, rape and other forms of violence; redress of wrongs; sanctions for wrongs against the community; shame; and taboos. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The stirrings of morality emerge early in childhood. Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others and try to comfort people they see in distress. And according to the psychologists Elliot Turiel and Judith Smetana, preschoolers have an inkling of the difference between societal conventions and moral principles. Four-year-olds say that it is not O.K. to wear pajamas to school (a convention) and also not O.K. to hit a little girl for no reason (a moral principle). But when asked whether these actions would be O.K. if the teacher allowed them, most of the children said that wearing pajamas would now be fine but that hitting a little girl would still not be. Though no one has identified genes for morality, there is circumstantial evidence they exist. The character traits called “conscientiousness” and “agreeableness” are far more correlated in identical twins separated at birth (who share their genes but not their environment) than in adoptive siblings raised together (who share their environment but not their genes). People given diagnoses of “antisocial personality disorder” or “psychopathy” show signs of morality blindness from the time they are children. They bully younger children, torture animals, habitually lie and seem incapable of empathy or remorse, often despite normal family backgrounds. Some of these children grow up into the monsters who bilk elderly people out of their savings, rape a succession of women or shoot convenience-store clerks lying on the floor during a robbery. Though psychopathy probably comes from a genetic predisposition, a milder version can be caused by damage to frontal regions of the brain (including the areas that inhibit intact people from throwing the hypothetical fat man off the bridge). The neuroscientists Hanna and Antonio Damasio and their colleagues found that some children who sustain severe injuries to their frontal lobes can grow up into callous and irresponsible adults, despite normal intelligence. They lie, steal, ignore punishment, endanger their own children and can’t think through even the simplest moral dilemmas, like what two people should do if they disagreed on which TV channel to watch or whether a man ought to steal a drug to save his dying wife. The moral sense, then, may be rooted in the design of the normal human brain. Yet for all the awe that may fill our minds when we reflect on an innate moral law within, the idea is at best incomplete. Consider this moral dilemma: A runaway trolley is about to kill a schoolteacher. You can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack, but the trolley would trip a switch sending a signal to a class of 6-year-olds, giving them permission to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Is it permissible to pull the lever? This is no joke. Last month a British woman teaching in a private school in Sudan allowed her class to name a teddy bear after the most popular boy in the class, who bore the name of the founder of Islam. She was jailed for blasphemy and threatened with a public flogging, while a mob outside the prison demanded her death. To the protesters, the woman’s life clearly had less value than maximizing the dignity of their religion, and their judgment on whether it is right to divert the hypothetical trolley would have differed from ours. Whatever grammar guides people’s moral judgments can’t be all that universal. Anyone who stayed awake through Anthropology 101 can offer many other examples. Of course, languages vary, too. In Chomsky’s theory, languages conform to an abstract blueprint, like having phrases built out of verbs and objects, while the details vary, like whether the verb or the object comes first. Could we be wired with an abstract spec sheet that embraces all the strange ideas that people in different cultures moralize? The Varieties of Moral Experience When anthropologists like Richard Shweder and Alan Fiske survey moral concerns across the globe, they find that a few themes keep popping up from amid the diversity. People everywhere, at least in some circumstances and with certain other folks in mind, think it’s bad to harm others and good to help them. They have a sense of fairness: that one should reciprocate favors, reward benefactors and punish cheaters. They value loyalty to a group, sharing and solidarity among its members and conformity to its norms. They believe that it is right to defer to legitimate authorities and to respect people with high status. And they exalt purity, cleanliness and sanctity while loathing defilement, contamination and carnality. Photo The exact number of themes depends on whether you’re a lumper or a splitter, but Haidt counts five — harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity — and suggests that they are the primary colors of our moral sense. Not only do they keep reappearing in cross-cultural surveys, but each one tugs on the moral intuitions of people in our own culture. Haidt asks us to consider how much money someone would have to pay us to do hypothetical acts like the following: Stick a pin into your palm. Stick a pin into the palm of a child you don’t know. (Harm.) Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it at no charge because of a computer error. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it from a thief who had stolen it from a wealthy family. (Fairness.) 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. Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in your nation. Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in a foreign nation. (Community.) Slap a friend in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit. Slap your minister in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit. (Authority.) Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like idiots for 30 minutes, including flubbing simple problems and falling down on stage. Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like animals for 30 minutes, including crawling around naked and urinating on stage. (Purity.) In each pair, the second action feels far more repugnant. Most of the moral illusions we have visited come from an unwarranted intrusion of one of the moral spheres into our judgments. A violation of community led people to frown on using an old flag to clean a bathroom. Violations of purity repelled the people who judged the morality of consensual incest and prevented the moral vegetarians and nonsmokers from tolerating the slightest trace of a vile contaminant. At the other end of the scale, displays of extreme purity lead people to venerate religious leaders who dress in white and affect an aura of chastity and asceticism. The Genealogy of Morals The five spheres are good candidates for a periodic table of the moral sense not only because they are ubiquitous but also because they appear to have deep evolutionary roots. The impulse to avoid harm, which gives trolley ponderers the willies when they consider throwing a man off a bridge, can also be found in rhesus monkeys, who go hungry rather than pull a chain that delivers food to them and a shock to another monkey. Respect for authority is clearly related to the pecking orders of dominance and appeasement that are widespread in the animal kingdom. The purity-defilement contrast taps the emotion of disgust that is triggered by potential disease vectors like bodily effluvia, decaying flesh and unconventional forms of meat, and by risky sexual practices like incest. The other two moralized spheres match up with the classic examples of how altruism can evolve that were worked out by sociobiologists in the 1960s and 1970s and made famous by Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene.” Fairness is very close to what scientists call reciprocal altruism, where a willingness to be nice to others can evolve as long as the favor helps the recipient more than it costs the giver and the recipient returns the favor when fortunes reverse. The analysis makes it sound as if reciprocal altruism comes out of a robotlike calculation, but in fact Robert Trivers, the biologist who devised the theory, argued that it is implemented in the brain as a suite of moral emotions. Sympathy prompts a person to offer the first favor, particularly to someone in need for whom it would go the furthest. Anger protects a person against cheaters who accept a favor without reciprocating, by impelling him to punish the ingrate or sever the relationship. Gratitude impels a beneficiary to reward those who helped him in the past. Guilt prompts a cheater in danger of being found out to repair the relationship by redressing the misdeed and advertising that he will behave better in the future (consistent with Mencken’s definition of conscience as “the inner voice which warns us that someone might be looking”). Many experiments on who helps whom, who likes whom, who punishes whom and who feels guilty about what have confirmed these predictions. Community, the very different emotion that prompts people to share and sacrifice without an expectation of payback, may be rooted in nepotistic altruism, the empathy and solidarity we feel toward our relatives (and which evolved because any gene that pushed an organism to aid a relative would have helped copies of itself sitting inside that relative). In humans, of course, communal feelings can be lavished on nonrelatives as well. Sometimes it pays people (in an evolutionary sense) to love their companions because their interests are yoked, like spouses with common children, in-laws with common relatives, friends with common tastes or allies with common enemies. And sometimes it doesn’t pay them at all, but their kinship-detectors have been tricked into treating their groupmates as if they were relatives by tactics like kinship metaphors (blood brothers, fraternities, thefatherland), origin myths, communal meals and other bonding rituals. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Juggling the Spheres All this brings us to a theory of how the moral sense can be universal and variable at the same time. The five moral spheres are universal, a legacy of evolution. But how they are ranked in importance, and which is brought in to moralize which area of social life — sex, government, commerce, religion, diet and so on — depends on the culture. Many of the flabbergasting practices in faraway places become more intelligible when you recognize that the same moralizing impulse that Western elites channel toward violations of harm and fairness (our moral obsessions) is channeled elsewhere to violations in the other spheres. Think of the Japanese fear of nonconformity (community), the holy ablutions and dietary restrictions of Hindus and Orthodox Jews (purity), the outrage at insulting the Prophet among Muslims (authority). In the West, we believe that in business and government, fairness should trump community and try to root out nepotism and cronyism. In other parts of the world this is incomprehensible — what heartless creep would favor a perfect stranger over his own brother? The ranking and placement of moral spheres also divides the cultures of liberals and conservatives in the United States. Many bones of contention, like homosexuality, atheism and one-parent families from the right, or racial imbalances, sweatshops and executive pay from the left, reflect different weightings of the spheres. In a large Web survey, Haidt found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high weight on all five. It’s not surprising that each side thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled. Reassigning an activity to a different sphere, or taking it out of the moral spheres altogether, isn’t easy. People think that a behavior belongs in its sphere as a matter of sacred necessity and that the very act of questioning an assignment is a moral outrage. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has shown that the mentality of taboo — a conviction that some thoughts are sinful to think — is not just a superstition of Polynesians but a mind-set that can easily be triggered in college-educated Americans. Just ask them to think about applying the sphere of reciprocity to relationships customarily governed by community or authority. When Tetlock asked subjects for their opinions on whether adoption agencies should place children with the couples willing to pay the most, whether people should have the right to sell their organs and whether they should be able to buy their way out of jury duty, the subjects not only disagreed but felt personally insulted and were outraged that anyone would raise the question. The institutions of modernity often question and experiment with the way activities are assigned to moral spheres. Market economies tend to put everything up for sale. Science amoralizes the world by seeking to understand phenomena rather than pass judgment on them. Secular philosophy is in the business of scrutinizing all beliefs, including those entrenched by authority and tradition. It’s not surprising that these institutions are often seen to be morally corrosive. Is Nothing Sacred? And “morally corrosive” is exactly the term that some critics would apply to the new science of the moral sense. The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them. Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested — to show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry. In reality, none of these fears are warranted, and it’s important to see why not. The first misunderstanding involves the logic of evolutionary explanations. Evolutionary biologists sometimes anthropomorphize DNA for the same reason that science teachers find it useful to have their students imagine the world from the viewpoint of a molecule or a beam of light. One shortcut to understanding the theory of selection without working through the math is to imagine that the genes are little agents that try to make copies of themselves. Unfortunately, the meme of the selfish gene escaped from popular biology books and mutated into the idea that organisms (including people) are ruthlessly self-serving. And this doesn’t follow. Genes are not a reservoir of our dark unconscious wishes. “Selfish” genes are perfectly compatible with selfless organisms, because a gene’s metaphorical goal of selfishly replicating itself can be implemented by wiring up the brain of the organism to do unselfish things, like being nice to relatives or doing good deeds for needy strangers. When a mother stays up all night comforting a sick child, the genes that endowed her with that tenderness were “selfish” in a metaphorical sense, but by no stretch of the imagination is she being selfish. Nor does reciprocal altruism — the evolutionary rationale behind fairness — imply that people do good deeds in the cynical expectation of repayment down the line. We all know of unrequited good deeds, like tipping a waitress in a city you will never visit again and falling on a grenade to save platoonmates. These bursts of goodness are not as anomalous to a biologist as they might appear. Advertisement Continue reading the main story In his classic 1971 article, Trivers, the biologist, showed how natural selection could push in the direction of true selflessness. The emergence of tit-for-tat reciprocity, which lets organisms trade favors without being cheated, is just a first step. A favor-giver not only has to avoid blatant cheaters (those who would accept a favor but not return it) but also prefer generous reciprocators (those who return the biggest favor they can afford) over stingy ones (those who return the smallest favor they can get away with). Since it’s good to be chosen as a recipient of favors, a competition arises to be the most generous partner around. More accurately, a competition arises to appear to be the most generous partner around, since the favor-giver can’t literally read minds or see into the future. A reputation for fairness and generosity becomes an asset. Now this just sets up a competition for potential beneficiaries to inflate their reputations without making the sacrifices to back them up. But it also pressures the favor-giver to develop ever-more-sensitive radar to distinguish the genuinely generous partners from the hypocrites. This arms race will eventually reach a logical conclusion. The most effective way to seem generous and fair, under harsh scrutiny, is to be generous and fair. In the long run, then, reputation can be secured only by commitment. At least some agents evolve to be genuinely high-minded and self-sacrificing — they are moral not because of what it brings them but because that’s the kind of people they are. Of course, a theory that predicted that everyone always sacrificed themselves for another’s good would be as preposterous as a theory that predicted that no one ever did. Alongside the niches for saints there are niches for more grudging reciprocators, who attract fewer and poorer partners but don’t make the sacrifices necessary for a sterling reputation. And both may coexist with outright cheaters, who exploit the unwary in one-shot encounters. An ecosystem of niches, each with a distinct strategy, can evolve when the payoff of each strategy depends on how many players are playing the other strategies. The human social environment does have its share of generous, grudging and crooked characters, and the genetic variation in personality seems to bear the fingerprints of this evolutionary process. Is Morality a Figment? So a biological understanding of the moral sense does not entail that people are calculating maximizers of their genes or self-interest. But where does it leave the concept of morality itself? Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us? Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? If not — if his dictates are divine whims — why should we take them seriously? Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist? And if, on the other hand, God was forced by moral reasons to issue some dictates and not others — if a command to torture a child was never an option — then why not appeal to those reasons directly? This throws us back to wondering where those reasons could come from, if they are more than just figments of our brains. They certainly aren’t in the physical world like wavelength or mass. The only other option is that moral truths exist in some abstract Platonic realm, there for us to discover, perhaps in the same way that mathematical truths (according to most mathematicians) are there for us to discover. On this analogy, we are born with a rudimentary concept of number, but as soon as we build on it with formal mathematical reasoning, the nature of mathematical reality forces us to discover some truths and not others. (No one who understands the concept of two, the concept of four and the concept of addition can come to any conclusion but that 2 + 2 = 4.) Perhaps we are born with a rudimentary moral sense, and as soon as we build on it with moral reasoning, the nature of moral reality forces us to some conclusions but not others. Moral realism, as this idea is called, is too rich for many philosophers’ blood. Yet a diluted version of the idea — if not a list of cosmically inscribed Thou-Shalts, then at least a few If-Thens — is not crazy. Two features of reality point any rational, self-preserving social agent in a moral direction. And they could provide a benchmark for determining when the judgments of our moral sense are aligned with morality itself. Advertisement Continue reading the main story One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things. The other external support for morality is a feature of rationality itself: that it cannot depend on the egocentric vantage point of the reasoner. If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me — to get off my foot, or tell me the time or not run me over with your car — then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. Unless I am Galactic Overlord, I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it. Not coincidentally, the core of this idea — the interchangeability of perspectives — keeps reappearing in history’s best-thought-through moral philosophies, including the Golden Rule (itself discovered many times); Spinoza’s Viewpoint of Eternity; the Social Contract of Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke; Kant’s Categorical Imperative; and Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance. It also underlies Peter Singer’s theory of the Expanding Circle — the optimistic proposal that our moral sense, though shaped by evolution to overvalue self, kin and clan, can propel us on a path of moral progress, as our reasoning forces us to generalize it to larger and larger circles of sentient beings. Doing Better by Knowing Ourselves Morality, then, is still something larger than our inherited moral sense, and the new science of the moral sense does not make moral reasoning and conviction obsolete. At the same time, its implications for our moral universe are profound. At the very least, the science tells us that even when our adversaries’ agenda is most baffling, they may not be amoral psychopaths but in the throes of a moral mind-set that appears to them to be every bit as mandatory and universal as ours does to us. Of course, some adversaries really are psychopaths, and others are so poisoned by a punitive moralization that they are beyond the pale of reason. (The actor Will Smith had many historians on his side when he recently speculated to the press that Hitler thought he was acting morally.) But in any conflict in which a meeting of the minds is not completely hopeless, a recognition that the other guy is acting from moral rather than venal reasons can be a first patch of common ground. One side can acknowledge the other’s concern for community or stability or fairness or dignity, even while arguing that some other value should trump it in that instance. With affirmative action, for example, the opponents can be seen as arguing from a sense of fairness, not racism, and the defenders can be seen as acting from a concern with community, not bureaucratic power. Liberals can ratify conservatives’ concern with families while noting that gay marriage is perfectly consistent with that concern. The science of the moral sense also alerts us to ways in which our psychological makeup can get in the way of our arriving at the most defensible moral conclusions. The moral sense, we are learning, is as vulnerable to illusions as the other senses. It is apt to confuse morality per se with purity, status and conformity. It tends to reframe practical problems as moral crusades and thus see their solution in punitive aggression. It imposes taboos that make certain ideas indiscussible. And it has the nasty habit of always putting the self on the side of the angels. Though wise people have long reflected on how we can be blinded by our own sanctimony, our public discourse still fails to discount it appropriately. In the worst cases, the thoughtlessness of our brute intuitions can be celebrated as a virtue. In his influential essay “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” Leon Kass, former chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics, argued that we should disregard reason when it comes to cloning and other biomedical technologies and go with our gut: “We are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings . . . because we intuit and feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear. . . . In this age in which everything is held to be permissible so long as it is freely done . . . repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.” There are, of course, good reasons to regulate human cloning, but the shudder test is not one of them. People have shuddered at all kinds of morally irrelevant violations of purity in their culture: touching an untouchable, drinking from the same water fountain as a Negro, allowing Jewish blood to mix with Aryan blood, tolerating sodomy between consenting men. And if our ancestors’ repugnance had carried the day, we never would have had autopsies, vaccinations, blood transfusions, artificial insemination, organ transplants and in vitro fertilization, all of which were denounced as immoral when they were new. Advertisement Continue reading the main story There are many other issues for which we are too quick to hit the moralization button and look for villains rather than bug fixes. What should we do when a hospital patient is killed by a nurse who administers the wrong drug in a patient’s intravenous line? Should we make it easier to sue the hospital for damages? Or should we redesign the IV fittings so that it’s physically impossible to connect the wrong bottle to the line? And nowhere is moralization more of a hazard than in our greatest global challenge. The threat of human-induced climate change has become the occasion for a moralistic revival meeting. In many discussions, the cause of climate change is overindulgence (too many S.U.V.’s) and defilement (sullying the atmosphere), and the solution is temperance (conservation) and expiation (buying carbon offset coupons). Yet the experts agree that these numbers don’t add up: even if every last American became conscientious about his or her carbon emissions, the effects on climate change would be trifling, if for no other reason than that two billion Indians and Chinese are unlikely to copy our born-again abstemiousness. Though voluntary conservation may be one wedge in an effective carbon-reduction pie, the other wedges will have to be morally boring, like a carbon tax and new energy technologies, or even taboo, like nuclear power and deliberate manipulation of the ocean and atmosphere. Our habit of moralizing problems, merging them with intuitions of purity and contamination, and resting content when we feel the right feelings, can get in the way of doing the right thing. Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.” |
Four out of five people believe that media coverage of ethnic minority Britons promotes racism. A poll found that 78 per cent of respondents of all ethnic backgrounds believe that media portrayal of minorities encourages discrimination. Among people of Pakistani descent the figure rises to 94 per cent. Even among white respondents there was deep concern about the impact of media coverage of ethnic minorities, with 76 per cent saying it was fuelling racism. White people had the same level of concern as Black Caribbeans and more than Indians (68 per cent) and Black Africans (67 per cent). We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view. From 15p €0.18 $0.18 $0.27 a day, more exclusives, analysis and extras. The findings coincide with intense media coverage of the arrival in Britain of new immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria following the lifting of working restrictions on 1 January. Among Eastern Europeans responding to the poll, 89 per cent thought media reporting was contributing to racism, the highest number after Pakistanis. The findings, in a poll for the Runnymede Trust given to The Independent, prompted calls for media regulators to be more vigilant in addressing coverage of combustible subjects such as immigration and race. On Monday night the controversial Channel 4 series Benefits Street, which has led to hundreds of complaints to the broadcaster and the media watchdog Ofcom, will switch its focus to the presence of Eastern European immigrants on James Turner Street in Birmingham, where 90 per cent of residents are said to be claiming social subsidies. Helen Goodman, the shadow culture minister, said: “The responsibility of Ofcom is to ensure that broadcasters present news and information in a balanced way and clearly where racism intrudes this isn’t happening. I’m concerned by what I’ve heard of the Channel 4 programme Benefits Street, which follows on from their controversial coverage of the gypsy and traveller community.” Rob Berkeley, director of the Runnymede Trust, a race equality think tank, said the media should consider the potential consequences of its reporting. “Four out of five British people believe that the media’s portrayal of ethnic minorities promotes racism. This is true whether you’re Black, Asian or White. The vast majority of the British public questions the ability of the media to portray ethnic minorities in a fair and reasonable light,” he said. “Nearly all of the British Pakistanis surveyed believed media portrayals of ethnic minorities promote racism. Runnymede is particularly concerned about the challenge this poses for improving relations between people of different ethnic groups. Our media must do more to respond to the real views and concerns of readers rather than promote stereotypes about Black and Asian people or immigrants.” The Runnymede Trust poll was carried out by independent research organisation Ethnic Focus and based on responses from 750 adults. The next episode of Benefits Street shows racial tensions running high on James Turner Street as Romanian immigrants move in, followed by a group of travellers in caravans. One of the show’s characters, Fungi, is seen shouting “You can’t even speak English!” at the Romanians. Later he is filmed walking past the caravans muttering: “I’m going to petrol bomb the lot of you, you fucking idiots.” The Romanians, who attempt to build a scrap metal business, are presented as being harder working than many of the established residents. They are accused by another main character in the series, Black Dee, of stealing children’s bicycles and scooters. Another character, Becky, says: “The Romanians think they own our street these days.” Others accuse the immigrants of creating rubbish problems. “Fucking tramps! Fuck off!” says one. A Polish woman gets married to an Algerian man. But neighbours are filmed expressing the view that the arrangement is a sham. The Romanians find life in Britain harder than they expected. “In Romania life was better. We had water, gas and electricity,” complains one. A large Romanian family of 12, in which a 12 year-old boy is the only one able to speak English, leaves the street after landlord problems. A group of 14 Romanian field workers move in. They too become disillusioned and one complains of his boss: “He’s keeping me in a field for 16 hours, am I a slave?” Unable to survive on £10 a day, some leave to live in a park in central London. “It’s better here than in Birmingham,” says one. We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view. At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads. Subscribe now |
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- An explosive offensive performance and a gritty effort in the circle from Rainey Gaffin boosted No. 19 Tennessee to a thrilling 8-7 victory over No. 10 Texas A&M in the series opener between the two teams on Friday night at Sherri Parker Lee Stadium. Gaffin got the start and struck out five Aggies in 6.1 innings of work to earn her seventh win while the bats provided excitement throughout, recording 13 hits on the night, the most for UT in any SEC game this season. Eight players had hits and five drove in runs for the Volunteers in the win, led by a three-hit, two-RBI performance from Gaffin. Meghan Gregg, Aubrey Leach and Gretchen Aucoin also had multiple hits for the game. Despite the strong offensive performance from Tennessee, it was Texas A&M (31-7, 5-5 SEC) who struck first, scoring two runs in the top of the third inning on a single through the left side by Ashley Walters. Keeli Milligan and Kaitlyn Alderink both scored on the play after reaching on back-to-back, one-out singles earlier in the inning. The Vols (29-10, 8-5 SEC) got the bats going in the bottom of the fourth, plating two runs on three hits to tie the game. Lexi Overstreet led off the inning with a walk and Gregg followed with a double to put runners on second and third with no outs. One batter later, Gaffin delivered with a single through the right side of the infield to score both runners and tie the game at two. UT had a chance to take the lead later in the inning but Brooke Vines grounded out to shortstop to leave the bases loaded. Tennessee continued its hot hitting in the fifth inning, exploding for five runs on seven hits to take its first lead of the game. Overstreet added to her team-leading home run total with a two-run blast and Shaliyah Geathers ended her five-game hitless streak with a two-run single up the middle to make it 6-2 Vols. Vines drove in Geathers to cap off the scoring in the inning and give Gaffin a five-run cushion heading into the sixth inning. The Aggies trimmed the lead to 7-3 with an RBI single from Riley Sartain in the top of the sixth after Walters and Kristen Cuyos led off the inning with back-to-back singles. Gaffin was able to limit the damage, however, getting Alderink to fly out to center field with the bases loaded to end the inning and keep the lead at four. The Big Orange added another insurance run, which would turn out to be the game-winner, in the home half of the sixth thanks to a sacrifice fly by Aucoin, bumping the UT lead to five heading into the seventh. Despite trailing by five entering the final inning, Texas A&M put together a late rally to cut the lead to just one. Tori Vidales doubled down the line to lead off the inning and the Aggies went on to load the bases with only one out after a single and an error. April Ryan cleared the bases with a triple to left field to cut the lead to 8-6 before the Vols brought in Erin Gabriel to close the game. Gabriel struck out the first batter she faced, but gave up an RBI single to Samantha Show one batter later, allowing another run to score. Fortunately for Tennessee, CJ McClain made a great play in center field to throw out Show for the final out as she was attempting to reach second base on the play. Gaffin earned the win for UT, improving her record to 8-3 while Gabriel picked up her first save of the year. Kayla Ober was the losing pitcher for the Aggies, picking up her first loss of the season after giving up five runs in relief. With the win, the Vols remained perfect at home, running their record to 14-0 at Lee Stadium. They also won their fifth game in the last seven tries against a ranked opponent after starting the year 0-7 against ranked teams. |
The Citadel has concluded that cadets photographed wearing pillowcases in a manner reminiscent of Ku Klux Klan hoods did not mean to offend anyone, according to a Monday statement. “However,” said Lt. Gen. John Rosa, president of the public military college in South Carolina, “I am disappointed some recognized how it could be construed as such but didn’t stop it.” Fourteen cadets were punished as a result of the investigation. The discipline ranges from “on-campus punishments” to two-semester dismissals from campus, The Citadel’s statement said. A photo of cadets in white pants and shirts wearing white pillowcases with eyeholes cut out sparked social media outrage on December 9. In the photo, which an upperclassman posted, the cadets are seen reading from sheets of paper, which The Citadel said Monday were lyrics sheets for Christmas songs. Several cadets reported to their leaders they had witnessed the event, and the cadet leaders reported the incident to a company tactical officer, who informed school administrators, The Citadel said. Rosa launched an investigation the following morning, and eight cadets temporarily were suspended. After initial interviews, seven more cadets were investigated, the school said. The investigation shows that several freshmen were told to report to an upperclassman’s room on numerous occasions after Thanksgiving break, where they were directed to sing Christmas carols in costume, the school said. It was the week before finals. “The freshmen used what they had close at hand, including pillowcases and other uniform items, in an attempt to dress as ‘Ghosts of Christmas Past,’ ” The Citadel statement said. “At the outset, not all of the freshmen understood that the costumes could be construed by some as offensive in nature. Those who did thought they could easily explain that they were only dressed as ghosts, and said they just needed to complete the skit so they could resume studying.” The investigation’s findings mirror the results of a preliminary investigation. Rosa initially called the photo “disturbing” and said it wasn’t consistent with The Citadel’s values. In Monday’s statement, he said, “While the skit had no ill intent, it did show poor judgment. It demonstrates that we must integrate an even higher level of diversity education into cadets’ daily activities, and into the already extensive leadership and ethics curriculum. We are working on that now.” The cadets involved, he said, “now understand that the costumes could be considered offensive and hurtful to many.” Rosa is creating a diversity task force, and cadets are already required to complete four years of leadership and ethics training, which includes lessons on racial sensitivity and ethical decision making, the school said. The Citadel, founded in 1842, has about 2,300 undergraduates making up the Corps of Cadets, the school website says. |
Three years ago, Lee Spievack sliced off the tip of his finger in the propeller of a hobby shop airplane. What happened next, Andrews reports, propelled him into the future of medicine. Spievack's brother, Alan, a medical research scientist, sent him a special powder and told him to sprinkle it on the wound. "I powdered it on until it was covered," Spievack recalled. To his astonishment, every bit of his fingertip grew back. "Your finger grew back," Andrews asked Spievack, "flesh, blood, vessels and nail?" "Four weeks," he answered. Andrews spoke to Dr. Steven Badylak of the University of Pittsburgh's McGowan Institute of Regenerative Medicine and asked if that powder was the reason behind Spievack's new finger tip. "Yes, it is," Badylak explained. "We took this and turned it into a powdered form." That powder is a substance made from pig bladders called extracellular matrix. It is a mix of protein and connective tissue surgeons often use to repair tendons and it holds some of the secrets behind the emerging new science of regenerative medicine. "It tells the body, start that process of tissue regrowth," said Badylak. Badlayk is one of the many scientists who now believe every tissue in the body has cells which are capable of regeneration. All scientists have to do is find enough of those cells and "direct" them to grow. "Somehow the matrix summons the cells and tell them what to do," Badylak explained. "It helps instruct them in terms of where they need to go, how they need to differentiate - should I become a blood vessel, a nerve, a muscle cell or whatever." If this helped Spievack's finger regrow, Badylak says, at least in theory, you should be able to grow a whole limb. Advances That Go Beyond Theory In his lab at Wake Forest University, a lab he calls a medical factory, Dr. Anthony Atala is growing body parts. Atala and his team have built, from the cell level up, 18 different types of tissue so far, including muscle tissue, whole organs and the pulsing heart valve of a sheep. "And is it growing?" Andrews asked. "Absolutely," Atala said, showing him, "All this white material is new tissue." "When people ask me 'what do you do,' we grow tissues and organs," he said. "We are making body parts that we can implant right back into patients." Dr. Atala, one of the pioneers of regeneration, believes every type of tissue already has cells ready to regenerate if only researchers can prod them into action. Sometimes that prodding can look like science fiction. Emerging from an everyday ink jet printer is the heart of a mouse. Mouse heart cells go into the ink cartridge and are then sprayed down in a heart shaped pattern layer by layer. Dr. Atala believes it's a matter of time before someone grows a human heart. "The cells have all the genetic information necessary to make new tissue," Atala explained. "That's what they are programmed to do. So your heart cells are programmed to make more heart tissue, your bladder cells are programmed to make more bladder cells." Atala's work with human bladder cells has pushed regenerative medicine to a transformational breakthrough. In this clinical trial at Thomas Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, Dr. Patrick Shenot is performing a bladder transplant with an organ built with this patient's own cells. In a process developed by Dr. Atala, the patient's cells were grown in a lab, and then seeded on a biodegradable bladder-shaped scaffold. Eight weeks later, with the scaffold now infused with millions of regrown cells, it is transplanted into the patient. When the scaffold dissolves, Dr. Shenot says what's left will be a new, functioning organ. "The cells will differentiate into the two major cells in the bladder wall, the muscle cells and the lining cells," he explained. "It's very much the future, but it's today. We are doing this today." Repairing The Wounded Today, one of the biggest believers in regeneration is the United States military, which is especially interested in the matrix that regrew Lee Spievack's finger. The Army, working in conjunction with the University of Pittsburgh, is about to use that matrix on the amputated fingers of soldiers home from the war. Dr. Steven Wolf, at the Army Institute of Surgical Research, says the military has invested millions of dollars in regenerative research, hoping to re-grow limbs, lost muscle, even burned skin. "And it's hard to ignore this guys missing half his skin, this guy's missing his leg," Wolf said. "You start asking the question, is there somebody out there with the technology that can do this for us?" "You mean regrow the tissue?" Andrews asked. "The answer," Wolf said, "is maybe." At the burn unit at the Brooke Army Medical center, the very idea of regeneration brings a glimmer of hope. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Henline was the only survivor of an IED attack on his Humvee north of Baghdad. "It's a great idea," Henline said, talking with Andrews about the military's investment into the new technology. "If they can come up with something that's less painful and can heal it with natural growth, without all this scarring, it's definitely something to check into." Regeneration Race Goes Global Several different technologies for harnessing regeneration are now in clinical trials around the world. One machine, being tested in Germany, sprays a burn patient's own cells onto a burn, signaling the skin to re-grow. Badylak is about to implant matrix material - shaped like an esophagus - into patients with throat cancer. "We fully expect that this material will cause the body to re-form normal esophageal tissue," Badylak said. And in a clinical trial at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, patient Mary Beth Babo is getting her own adult stem cells injected into her heart, in hopes of growing new arteries. Her surgeon is Dr. Joon Lee. "It's what we consider the Holy Grail of our field for coronary heart disease," Lee said. The Holy Grail, because if stem cells can re-grow arteries, there's less need for surgery. "It's a big difference from open heart surgery to this," said Babo. "If people don't have to go through that, this would be the way to go ... if it works." The Business Of Regeneration Corporate America, meanwhile, already believes regeneration will work. Investment capital has been pouring in to commercialize and mass produce custom-made body parts. The Tengion Company has bought the license, built the factory, and is already making those bladders developed at Wake Forest that we told you about earlier. "We're actually building a very real business around a very real and compelling patient need," said Dr. Steven Nichtberger, Tengion's CEO. Tengion believes regeneration will soon revolutionize transplant medicine. Transplant patients, instead of waiting years for a donated organ, will ship cells off to a lab and wait a few weeks to have their own re-grown. "I look at the patients who are on the waitlist for transplant," said Nichtberger. "I look at the opportunity we have to build bladders, to build vessels, to build kidneys. In regenerative medicine, I think it is similar to the semi-conductor industry of the 1980s, you don't know where it's going to go, but you know it's big." For more on regenerative medicine and organ transplants, check out: |
Lewis Hamilton says he is not concerned about the fact team mate Nico Rosberg has secured pole position for a fifth time in a row Lewis Hamilton says he is not concerned about the fact team mate Nico Rosberg has secured pole position for a fifth time in a row World champion Lewis Hamilton has shrugged off his latest pole position defeat at the hands of arch-rival Nico Rosberg - even if his body language told a rather different tale after qualifying for the Brazilian GP. Hamilton failed to appear for the post-session photo call immediately after Rosberg pipped him to pole at Interlagos by less than a tenth of a second. In a terse and tense press conference, Hamilton was repeatedly pressed about his downturn in qualifying form but maintained that Rosberg's fifth consecutive Saturday triumph was of no consequence. "My main job this year is done now," Hamilton responded. "I've won most poles this year and the World Championship, so there's nothing really to read into it." But after winning his third World Championship title last month, Hamilton has subsequently lost three successive battles to Rosberg - the German led his team-mate on both Saturday and Sunday in Mexico - and his latest defeat capped a troubled few days for the world champion after his unsuccessful early-morning drive around the streets of Monte Carlo on Tuesday. But even though overtaking is notoriously difficult at Interlagos, this Sunday's battle may yet find Hamilton triumphant - four of the last six winners of the Brazilian GP have started from second on the grid. Hamilton and Rosberg in the post-qualifying press conference "That's definitely comforting," Hamilton, who has never previously won in Brazil, told Sky Sports F1. "The last race here I had a good shot at trying to win but I lost it with a mistake that I made. So the goal tomorrow is to avoid that and try to get ahead. "It's a very short track. It's very hard to follow round here so it's not actually a great track to race at. It's hard to follow through Turn 11 which means you're far behind into Turn 12, and by the time you've got the DRS it's very hard to get up close. It's not the easiest place to overtake, but it's not impossible. "When me and Nico are within a tenth of a second of each other the most likely option [to overtake] is going to be at the start, and then at pit stops, because on track it's very unlikely, if at all, it will happen." Hamilton was conspicuous by his absence for the post-qualifying photo call For the time being, however, Rosberg, a subdued and shrunken figure all the while Hamilton was building up a 12-1 advantage in qualifying, is standing tall again. "I don't know whether he's been riled by being humiliated in some sense by Lewis by being beaten and he's now actually more motivated than ever before," reflected Sky F1 pundit Damon Hill. "There's certainly some signs in Nico that he's not going to go down without leaving his marker. He may be ramping up for 2016 now - he certainly looks strong." Hamilton's successful retention of the World Championship remains a trenchantly powerful rebuttal against any notion that Rosberg, if he can continue his recent form in Sunday's race and then at Abu Dhabi, will start 2016 with momentum on his side. But the impression that Rosberg has his mojo back is founded on rather firmer ground with the German's recent Saturday transformation quashing any doubts about his qualifying pace after Hamilton's mid-season run of seven consecutive poles proved decisive in their title fight. "It does look like I've built up more single-lap pace now," reflected Rosberg. "It was my big weakness this year in the fight against Lewis because he was always starting in front of me and then you start on the backfoot. "It was an area I had to work on so I've worked on it. But I don't have a precise explanation." But nor did Hamilton have a consoling explanation of his own as the world champion made no attempt to suggest his latest defeat was a consequence of honing his race set-up. "I'm always trying to set up the car for both but I was trying to get the car as perfect as l could for a single lap," the Englishman admitted to Sky Sports News HQ. The battle at Mercedes has got interesting again. Watch the Brazilian GP live on Sky Sports F1. Race-show coverage begins at 2.30pm on Sunday with lights out at 4pm. Watch the Brazilian GP for £6.99 on NOW TV. No contract. |
DCS director questioning 'Baby Box' safety Copyright by WANE - All rights reserved This baby box is in the Woodburn fire station. [ + - ] Video Copyright by WANE - All rights reserved Baby box in Woodburn Copyright by WANE - All rights reserved Baby box in Woodburn WOODBURN, Ind. (WANE) The director of the Indiana Department of Child Services is calling for the two baby boxes in Indiana to be shut down and for no more from being installed. In letters obtained by 15 Finds Out, Mary Beth Bonaventura said baby boxes are "not an authorized way to protect abandoned infants under current Indiana law." But in a response letter, Safe Haven Baby Boxes's attorney, Jim Bopp, Jr., said the Safe Haven law does not require closing baby boxes. The intention of the baby boxes is to provide a place to for mothers to leave their unwanted newborn anonymously, but Bonaventura said her agency would investigate use of the box as a case of abandonment. "Some desperate woman are just not willing to hand their baby over to someone. They need to do this anonymously and the baby box serves that need," Bopp told NewsChannel 15. Indiana's Safe Haven law allows someone to leave an unharmed, unwanted newborn up 30 days old with an emergency medical services provider without fear of prosecution. The Department of Child Services said baby boxes don't fall under that law because the baby has to be physically given to an emergency repsonder. Baby Safe Haven's attorney disagrees, saying the law just says the provider will "take custody of the child." Bopp argued the baby is left in a baby box and the emergency personnel then take custody of the child from the box. Copyright by WANE - All rights reserved Baby box in Woodburn Copyright by WANE - All rights reserved Baby box in Woodburn "This is an option to save a baby," Bopp told 15 Finds Out. "Whether the woman is charged or not, the baby is saved versus having the baby thrown in a dumpster or in the woods." Monica Kelsey developed the baby boxes and one was installed in the Woodburn fire station in April. Another baby box is also in a fire station in Michigan City. Kelsey said some women don't want the face-to-face interaction that the state says is required under the Safe Haven law and the boxes provide a place for them to leave their child instead of dumping the baby in the woods or a dumpster. While Bonaventura's letter requested stopping the use of baby boxes and the installation of more, Bopp's response letter said they have no intention of doing either, calling the request "an arbitrary demand of a government agency without any legal authority." Two more baby boxes are online and ready to be installed in urban areas in Indiana. There are also plans in the works to install one in Ohio. Bopp said the goal is to install 30 more within the next year. Friday State Sen. Travis Holdman told 15 Finds Out he's in favor of baby boxes, but said there needs to be more discussion and guidelines to ensure their safety. He plans to work to bring new legislation in the next legislative session. "There's a gap in the code we need to fill and take a look at," he said. "I'd like [the baby boxes representatives] to help us draft some language to relieve the DSC angst by putting enough safe guards in place." Last session a committee was asked to review the Safe Haven law and baby boxes to come up with guidelines. The committee determined baby boxes were not proven to be effective or safe and should be regulated by a federal agency. "Rather than do what the legislature asked them do, which was provide safety protocols, they just said they don't think they ought to be legal," Bopp said. "We still hope they'll do their job and help us make them as safe as can be." In lieu of state-directed policies and procedures, Kelsey said she and her attorneys drafted their own guidelines. In May, when 15 Finds Out asked for a copy, Kelsey said "I can ask my attorney if that's something we can do." Kelsey told us she had asked her attorney and not heard back. Then Friday when 15 Finds Out asked Bopp for a copy of the safety guidelines they created, he said Kelsey would have to give permission. In an email, the request was denied saying, "our client does not approve, so we will not provide." Kelsey and Bopp said the baby box parts are safety tested by the manufacturer and an independent lab is doing safety testing. But, more questions about that testing still aren't being answered, other than it's not the Food & Drug Administration or the Consumer Products Safety Commission doing the testing. "No government agency is involved because there's no federal or state law that regulates baby boxes. The vast majority of things in the United States are not regulated by the government," he said. Since the Safe Haven law was put in place in 2001, 31 babies have been surrendered according to the state. But, in Bopps letter to the governor's office, he said 34 more babies have been illegally abandoned and almost all have died. "Since the baby boxes opened, we've had more than 700 calls to our hotline and have saved four babies," Bopp said. "If it wasn't for opening the baby boxes, those four babies would be dead and that's unacceptable to us." Those four babies were not actually put in baby boxes, but the hotline assisted the mothers in a safe surrender, Bopp said. DCS declined an interview Friday and have not responded to Bopps letter yet. There are multiple phone hotlines in place to help mothers who are considering abandonment: 1-877-796-HOPE (4673) 1-800-510-BABY 1-866-99BABY1 |
In an extraordinary Commons debate last year Jeremy Corbyn argued that we should not “make value judgments” about British citizens who join ISIS and appeared to compare people travelling to fight in Syria with Nelson Mandela. Speaking about British-born terrorists in Syria, Corbyn claimed: “There are an awful lot of contradictions surrounding how we decide who is a good fighter and who is a terrorist; who is struggling for liberation and who is a terrorist. There was a time when people involved in Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa were known as terrorists; they were later welcomed to this country as freedom fighters. Things can turn full circle.” On whether we should allow ISIS fighters to return to this country, Corbyn said: “None of what I am saying is intended to give any succour, comfort or support to ISIS, but I feel that we should think about this rather more carefully and avoid the knee-jerk reaction of saying, “These are bad fighters and those are good fighters, so we will ban these and allow those in.” Corbyn then admitted meeting Britons who were sympathetic with ISIS and said they had a legitimate point about the Iraq War. Corbyn blames ISIS on “the consequences of the war on terror” and extraordinarily claims we should not make “value judgements” about people joining ISIS: “I have encountered young people who have been attracted to what ISIS is doing. They say that what the West did in Iraq and Afghanistan was appalling, and was questionably legal in the case of Afghanistan and definitely illegal in the case of Iraq. We are living with the consequences of the war on terror of 2001, and if we continue to try to create legal obstacles and make value judgments about people without considering the overall policy we are following, we will return to legislation such as this again and again, year after year.” Corbyn also defended people who support ISIS as having a “political view” which is “important in a democracy“: “I have no support for ISIS whatsoever, and obviously that should apply to someone who has committed crimes, but we should bear in mind that expressing a political point of view is not in itself an offence. The commission of a criminal act is clearly a different matter, but expressing a point of view, even an unpalatable one, is sometimes quite important in a democracy.” For full context, read the debate in full here. Voting has now closed, wonder if this would have changed anyone’s mind if it had emerged earlier in the summer… |
Story highlights He calls for electors to unify behind another candidate He slams Trump for his actions during his campaign Go inside the election that changed everything: Order your copy of CNN's book "Unprecedented," and explore CNN's coverage of "A race like no other." Washington (CNN) A Texas elector said Monday that enough is enough -- he will not cast his vote for President-elect Donald Trump as part of the Electoral College process on December 19. Christopher Suprun, a paramedic from Texas who served as a firefighter during the Sept. 11 attacks, wrote in an editorial published in The New York Times that even though he is a Republican elector, he will not vote for Trump. JUST WATCHED What is the Electoral College? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What is the Electoral College? 02:05 Suprun will cast his vote along with the other electors (538 in total) from every state and the District of Columbia on December 19 as part of the Electoral College process. "Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he wrote. "On Dec. 19, I will do it again." Suprun ends the editorial by saying that the electors still have a chance to unify behind a Republican alternative such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Read More |
Story highlights Dennis Rodman leads a "Happy Birthday" singalong with crowds at a Pyongyang stadium His "basketball diplomacy" team loses to North Korean squad, state media reports "It was, as you might imagine, a bizarre and unusual occasion," a tour leader says Rodman angered many Tuesday by implying that a U.S. man held in North Korea is guilty Courting yet more controversy, Dennis Rodman on Wednesday led a singalong of "Happy Birthday" to the leader of North Korea, a man he calls a friend and a "very good guy," but considered by many a brutal dictator who recently lauded the execution of his own uncle. Images released by The Associated Press also show Rodman appearing to bow to Kim Jong Un at Pyongyang Indoor Stadium, the site of a basketball exhibition Wednesday -- Kim's birthday -- between a North Korean team and Rodman's squad of former NBA players and others. "It was, as you might imagine, a bizarre and unusual occasion that won't easily be forgotten," Simon Cokerell, general manager of Koryo Tours, said in a YouTube video posted after he accompanied tourists to watch the match. Even before Wednesday's spectacle -- in which his team lost to a North Korean squad 47-39, according to North Korean state media -- Rodman's visit to North Korea had already generated enormous controversy. The colorful former NBA star known as "The Worm" elicited widespread condemnation Tuesday when he suggested in an exclusive interview with Chris Cuomo of CNN's "New Day" that American Kenneth Bae had done something to deserve his 15-year sentence. Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Dennis Rodman sings "Happy Birthday" to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un before an exhibition basketball game in Pyongyang, North Korea, on Wednesday, January 8. In his latest round of "basketball diplomacy," Rodman made his fourth visit to North Korea, one of the world's most totalitarian states, to participate in a basketball game between a team of North Koreans and a team of former NBA players Hide Caption 1 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Rodman bows to Kim, seated above in the stands, before the basketball game on January 8. Hide Caption 2 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Former NBA star Doug Christie drives to the basket against North Korean players during the exhibition game. Hide Caption 3 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Former NBA star Eric "Sleepy" Floyd, center, sits with fellow American basketball players. Hide Caption 4 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Rodman and Jerry Dupree react to a play during the game. Hide Caption 5 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – North Koreans applaud at the start of the game. Hide Caption 6 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Rodman, right, walks with Dupree, center, and Charles D. Smith during the exhibition game. Hide Caption 7 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Rodman tips his hat as U.S. and North Korean basketball players applaud at the end of the game. Hide Caption 8 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – Christie is handed a trophy as North Korean players applaud at the end of the game. Hide Caption 9 of 10 Photos: Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea Rodman, ex-NBAers play North Korea – U.S. and North Korean basketball players raise their hands to the crowd after the game. Hide Caption 10 of 10 JUST WATCHED North Korean media: Rodman's team lost Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH North Korean media: Rodman's team lost 02:00 JUST WATCHED Kenneth Bae's sister 'shocked' by Rodman Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Kenneth Bae's sister 'shocked' by Rodman 01:25 JUST WATCHED Rodman fiery on Kenneth Bae question Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Rodman fiery on Kenneth Bae question 02:27 JUST WATCHED Cuomo: Rodman isn't on cultural exchange Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Cuomo: Rodman isn't on cultural exchange 03:40 On Wednesday, Bae's family accused Rodman of "playing games" with Bae's life. Relatives and U.S. officials have insisted Bae committed no crime. "There is no diplomacy, only games, and at my brother's expense," Bae's sister, Terri Chung, said Wednesday in a prepared statement. Bae, described by family members as a devout Christian who ran a legal tour operation in North Korea, was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2012 on charges that he planned an operation to topple North Korea's government through religious activities. The regime also accused Bae of urging people to carry out "hostile acts" against the state. Bae's relatives say Rodman, who once urged Kim in a tweet to "do me a solid and cut Kenneth Bae loose," could have helped put pressure on the North Korean government to release him. Instead, she said he made the situation worse in his Tuesday CNN interview by intimating that Bae was guilty. "Do you understand what he did in this country?" Rodman asked Cuomo. "No, no, no, you tell me, you tell me. Why is he held captive here in this country, why?" Chung said Wednesday she was shocked by his statements. "Dennis Rodman could do a lot of good by advocating for Kenneth to Kim Jong Un, but instead he has decided to hurl outrageous accusations at my brother, insinuating that Kenneth has done something sinister," Chung said. 'A lot of showboating' Rodman's trip to North Korea is his fourth in the past year. Wednesday's match took place at Pyongyang Indoor Stadium, according to Cokerell, whose company stages tours for Western visitors to North Korea. After Kim emerged to cheering crowds that for several minutes wished him long life -- ending only when the leader hushed them -- Rodman gave an impromptu speech, then he led the crowd in singing "Happy Birthday" to Kim. JUST WATCHED Rodman to CNN: I don't give a s*** Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Rodman to CNN: I don't give a s*** 08:25 JUST WATCHED Rodman defiant in odd N. Korea defense Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Rodman defiant in odd N. Korea defense 08:11 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – During his Hall of Fame basketball career, Dennis Rodman was known for his flashy looks on and off the court. Here, Rodman sports the logo of the Chicago Bulls, who he won the NBA title with in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Hide Caption 1 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman stretches before a game in Seattle in 1996. Hide Caption 2 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman signs his first autobiography, "Bad As I Wanna Be," in a Chicago bookstore in 1996. Hide Caption 3 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman dives for a loose ball during a game in 1997. Rodman is one of the NBA's all-time greatest rebounders, leading the league in that category from 1992 to 1998. Hide Caption 4 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman arrives at the Academy Awards ceremony in 1997. Hide Caption 5 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman appears on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" in 1998. Hide Caption 6 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman is hit with a trash can by Curt Hennig during a pro wrestling match in Sydney in 2000. Hide Caption 7 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman rocks gold pants in 2004. Hide Caption 8 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman took part in the 2006 Lingerie Bowl. Hide Caption 9 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman appears in costume for a book signing of his second autobiography, "I Should be Dead by Now," in 2005. Hide Caption 10 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman wears makeup similar to the rock band Kiss in 2006. Hide Caption 11 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman arrives at the Basketball Hall of Fame for his enshrinement in 2011. Hide Caption 12 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman wears face paint in 2011 while playing a basketball game with other NBA greats in Macau. Hide Caption 13 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman puckers his lips and holds the face of writer/director Alex Forstenhausler at the "So You Think You Can Roast?" event at the New York Friars Club in 2013. Hide Caption 14 of 15 Photos: Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos Dennis Rodman: Hoops, hair and tattoos – Rodman attends the finale of the television show "All-Star Celebrity Apprentice" in 2013. Rodman has appeared on several reality TV shows, even winning "Celebrity Mole" in 2004. Hide Caption 15 of 15 Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Former NBA stars in North Korea – Former basketball star Dennis Rodman plays one-on-one with a North Korean player during a practice session in Pyongyang, North Korea, on December 20, 2013. Rodman and several other former NBA players have arrived in North Korea to take part in a basketball game on Wednesday, January 8, the birthday of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Hide Caption 1 of 7 Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Former NBA stars in North Korea – Vin Baker shoots the basketball during a 1998 playoff game in Los Angeles. Baker is one of seven former NBA players taking part in the game in North Korea, according to Rodman's agent, Darren Prince. Baker was a four-time NBA All-Star who averaged 15 points a game during a 13-year career that ended in 2006. Hide Caption 2 of 7 Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Former NBA stars in North Korea – Power forward Charles Smith, dribbling the ball in this photo, played nine NBA seasons after being drafted third overall by the Los Angeles Clippers in 1988. He averaged 14.4 points and 5.8 rebounds during his career. Hide Caption 3 of 7 Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Former NBA stars in North Korea – Craig Hodges played in the NBA for 10 seasons and is most known for winning the league's Three-Point Shootout competition in 1990, 1991 and 1992. Hide Caption 4 of 7 Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Former NBA stars in North Korea – Point guard Kenny Anderson was the second overall pick by the New Jersey Nets in 1991, and he would play on seven more teams before his 15-year career ended in 2005. Anderson, a former All-American at Georgia Tech, averaged 12.6 points and 6.1 assists during his NBA career. Hide Caption 5 of 7 Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Former NBA stars in North Korea – Shooting guard Doug Christie played in the NBA for 15 seasons before retiring in 2007. He averaged 11.2 points per game during his career, and he made the NBA's All-Defensive Team on four occasions. Hide Caption 6 of 7 Photos: Photos: Former NBA stars in North Korea Former NBA stars in North Korea – Clifford Robinson scored nearly 20,000 points during an NBA career that spanned 18 seasons. Robinson was the NBA's Sixth Man of the Year in 1993, when he played with the Portland Trail Blazers. Hide Caption 7 of 7 JUST WATCHED Rodman's North Korea basketball party Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Rodman's North Korea basketball party 02:43 Rodman's squad and a North Korean team played two games, Cokerell said. The first featured his team in a 20-minute match in a loss against the North Korean squad. The second game pitted squads with Western and North Korean players on each team, he said. "That game was actually much better; there was a lot of showboating, showing off, alley-oops, slam-dunks and that sort of thing," he said. Controversial friendship Rodman struck up a friendship with Kim in February, when he first traveled to North Korea with a team of Harlem Globetrotters for an exhibition game. He has since described Kim as a "very good guy" and his friend. "I love my friend," Rodman said Tuesday in a reference to Kim. "This is my friend." Rodman has described his series of trips to North Korea as a "basketball diplomacy" project and defended the latest trip in his interview with Cuomo, saying it was a "great idea for the world." Much of the rest of the world, however, has been less enthusiastic. Western governments and human rights groups have accused North Korea of human rights abuses, including arbitrary detentions and operating a network of labor camps -- including one to which Bae was reportedly sentenced before his health deteriorated. Kim is also believed to have led a purge that culminated in the execution of his uncle, who had been instrumental in leading the current leader to power after the death of his father. U.S. officials have taken pains to note that Rodman is on a private visit. On Tuesday, Bill Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, also criticized Rodman's comments. Richardson, a former New Mexico governor who has visited North Korea multiple times, said Rodman "drank a little bit too much of the Kool-Aid from the North Koreans." Charles D. Smith, a basketball player who accompanied Rodman on the trip, apologized for "the storm that has been created by our presence." But, he added, "We're not apologizing for doing what we do ... we're connecting people to basketball and people to people." NBA unimpressed The NBA also has distanced itself from Rodman's trip. "Dennis will be Dennis, but I think there is a lot at stake here in terms of a ... a very dangerous country," outgoing NBA Commissioner David Stern said Tuesday on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." The NBA has had preliminary discussions with Pyongyang about a cultural exchange, Stern said. But he said he wouldn't send any players to North Korea without White House approval. "Sports diplomacy is a wonderful thing," he said. "But they should be done in a far more dignified fashion than this particular trip is being carried out." |
On Sunday, members of the East Ramapo community again picketed the residence of Dr. Joel M. Klein, superintendent of the East Ramapo Central School District. Their message July 12: "Klein must resign." The protest follows in the wake of the board's dismissal of Albert D'Agostino, its controversial lawyer, as well as two negative reports issued about the administration and school board of the ERCSD, in which the State Education Department criticized, among many issues, Dr. Klein's "lack of cultural competency." "We're waiting for one of three outcomes. The school board may follow up their dismissal of D'Agostino with Klein's. The state may take action. Or, Klein may do the honorable thing and simply resign," said Eric Grossfeld, organizer of the protest and a member of the advocacy group East Ramapo Padres Unidos. Fiscal monitor Hank Greenberg told the New York Education Department in November 2014 that he believed some form of state intervention was needed to repair school system and reverse bad decisions by the East Ramapo Board of Education. "The district's finances teeter on the edge of disaster," he wrote in his report, East Ramapo: A School District in Crisis. RELATED: |
Today the British Academy Film Awards long list of contenders was revealed, and Harry Potter was included in 11 categories. You can see the complete lists below. Nominations (the final five) in each category will be revealed this Tuesday, January 17th. Does Harry Potter have a shot at winning any of these? Perhaps the British film community is more interested in recognizing the films considering they’re shot in their country. Sadly, Potter did not make the Best Film category. (Pictured above: David Heyman, Emma Watson, J.K. Rowling, Rupert Grint at last year’s BAFTAs receiving a special award for Outstanding Contribution to Cinema) Best Film The Artist The Descendants Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo The Help Hugo The Ides of March The Iron Lady Midnight in Paris Moneyball My Week with Marilyn Senna Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Film Not in the English Language Abel As If I Am Not There The Boy Mir – Ten Years in Afghanistan Calvet Dhobi Ghat (Mumbai Diaries) Incendies Little White Lies Pina Post Mortem Potiche Le Quattro Volte A Separation The Skin I Live In Tomboy The Troll Hunter Article Continues Below Outstanding British Film Arthur Christmas Attack the Block Coriolanus The Guard Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 The Iron Lady Jane Eyre My Week with Marilyn Senna Shame Submarine Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Tyrannosaur War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Director The Artist The Descendants Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo The Help Hugo The Ides of March The Iron Lady J Edgar Midnight in Paris Moneyball My Week with Marilyn Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Original Screenplay 50/50 Anonymous Arthur Christmas The Artist Beginners Bridesmaids The Guard The Iron Lady J Edgar Midnight in Paris Senna Shame Super 8 Tyrannosaur Young Adult Adapted Screenplay The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn Coriolanus The Descendants Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 The Help Hugo The Ides of March Jane Eyre Moneyball* My Week with Marilyn Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Cinematography The Artist The Descendants Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Hugo The Ides of March J Edgar Jane Eyre Midnight in Paris My Week with Marilyn Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy The Tree of Life War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Editing The Artist The Descendants Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Hugo* The Ides of March The Iron Lady Midnight in Paris Moneyball My Week with Marilyn Senna Tinker Tailor Solider Spy War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Production Design Anonymous The Artist Coriolanus Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 The Help Hugo The Iron Lady J Edgar Jane Eyre Midnight in Paris My Week with Marilyn Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse* Make Up & Hair Anonymous The Artist Bridesmaids Coriolanus The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 The Help Hugo The Iron Lady J Edgar Jane Eyre Midnight in Paris My Week with Marilyn Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse Costume Design Anonymous The Artist Coriolanus A Dangerous Method The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 The Help Hugo The Iron Lady J Edgar Jane Eyre Midnight in Paris My Week with Marilyn Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse Special Visual Effects The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn The Artist Captain America: The First Avenger The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Hugo Midnight in Paris Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Rise of the Planet of the Apes Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Super 8 Transformers: Dark of the Moon War Horse X-Men: First Class Documentary George Harrison: Living in the Material World Life in a Day Pina Project Nim Senna Sound The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn The Artist Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Hugo The Iron Lady Midnight in Paris Moneyball My Week with Marilyn Senna Super 8 Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Original Music The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn The Artist Drive The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 The Help Hugo The Ides of March The Iron Lady Jane Eyre Moneyball My Week with Marilyn Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy War Horse We Need to Talk About Kevin Animated Film The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn Arthur Christmas Gnomeo and Juliet Puss in Boots Rango Leading Actor Antonio Banderas (Robert Ledgard) – The Skin I Live In Brad Pitt (Billy Beane) – Moneyball Brendan Gleeson (Gerry Boyle) – The Guard Daniel Craig (Mikael Blomkvist) – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Eddie Redmayne (Colin Clark) – My Week with Marilyn Gary Oldman (George Smiley) – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy George Clooney (Matt King) – The Descendants Jean Dujardin (George Valentin) – The Artist Leonardo DiCaprio (J. Edgar Hoover) – J Edgar Michael Fassbender (Brandon) – Shame Owen Wilson (Gil) – Midnight in Paris Peter Mullan (Joseph) – Tyrannosaur Ralph Fiennes (Caius Martius Coriolanus) – Coriolanus Ryan Gosling (Driver) – Drive Ryan Gosling (Stephen Meyers) – The Ides of March Leading Actress Bérénice Bejo (Peppy Miller) – The Artist Carey Mulligan (Sissy) – Shame Charlize Theron (Mavis Gary) – Young Adult Emma Stone (Skeeter Phelan) – The Help Helen Mirren (Rachel Singer) – The Debt Jodie Foster (Penelope Longstreet) – Carnage Kate Winslet (Nancy Cowan) – Carnage Kristen Wiig (Annie) – Bridesmaids Meryl Streep (Margaret Thatcher) – The Iron Lady Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre) – Jane Eyre Michelle Williams (Marilyn Monroe) – My Week with Marilyn Olivia Colman (Hannah) – Tyrannosaur Rooney Mara (Lisbeth Salander) – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Tilda Swinton (Eva) – We Need to Talk About Kevin Viola Davis (Aibileen Clark) – The Help* Supporting Actor Alan Rickman (Prof. Severus Snape) – Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 Albert Brooks (Bernie Rose) – Drive Ben Kingsley (George Méliès) – Hugo Benedict Cumberbatch (Peter Guillam) – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Christopher Plummer (Hal) – Beginners Colin Firth (Bill Haydon) – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Eddie Marsan (James) – Tyrannosaur Ezra Miller (Kevin – Teenager) – We Need to Talk About Kevin George Clooney (Mike Morris) – The Ides of March Jim Broadbent (Denis Thatcher) – The Iron Lady John Hurt (Control) – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Jonah Hill (Peter Brand) – Moneyball Kenneth Branagh (Sir Laurence Olivier) – My Week with Marilyn Paul Giamatti (Tom Duffy) – The Ides of March Philip Seymour Hoffman (Paul Zara) – The Ides of March Supporting Actress Alexandra Roach (Young Margaret Thatcher) – The Iron Lady Bryce Dallas Howard (Hilly Holbrook) – The Help Carey Mulligan (Irene) – Drive Emily Watson (Rosie Narracott) – War Horse Evan Rachel Wood (Molly Steams) – The Ides of March Jessica Chastain (Celia Foote) – The Help Judi Dench (Dame Sybil Thorndike) – My Week with Marilyn Kathy Bates (Gertrude Stein) – Midnight in Paris Kathy Burke (Connie Sachs) – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Marion Cotillard (Adriana) – Midnight in Paris Melissa McCarthy (Megan) – Bridesmaids Octavia Spencer (Minny Jackson) – The Help Olivia Colman (Carol Thatcher) – The Iron Lady Shailene Woodley (Alexandra King) – The Descendants Zoe Wanamaker (Paula Strasberg) – My Week with Marilyn |
HOUSTON - A 10-year veteran of the Houston Police Department was in court Monday after being fired last month following allegations he lied obtain warrants. Officer Kenneth Dale Troost was charged June 23 by a Harris County grand jury with two counts of tampering with a government record. Tuesday was Troost's first time in court. In court, his bond was set at $10,000, and his next court date is scheduled for Aug. 30. The charges stem from two separate DWI documents that Troost wrote. He is accused of lying to obtain a warrant for blood samples from people whom he believed were driving drunk. In one incident, Troost is accused of knowingly making a false entry in trying to defraud and harm a person whom he saw traveling west on Fairview at Montrose on Nov. 19, 2015. He claimed that the woman didn't use her blinker while turning from Fairview to Montrose or while changing lanes at 2200 Montrose. Troost said he pulled over the woman and smelled alcohol on her breath. He said she had red, glassy eyes, slurred speech and told him that she had had one vodka before he asked any questions. Troost said he performed sobriety tests that he had previously used to determine whether a driver was under the influence of alcohol. He claimed that the woman showed several signs of being drunk during the tests. The woman refused to provide a blood or breath sample. Troost said he arrested her and took her to the police station. The department is trying to determine how the charges will affect Troost's other cases. Troost had been with HPD since 2006. HDP said he resigned effective Friday. He was last assigned to the traffic enforcement division. He posted a $10,000 bond and was released from custody. His arraignment is scheduled for July 8. 2016 Click2Houston/KPRC2 |
The growing use and slurping of biometric data is to be probed by MPs sitting on the UK's science and technology committee this autumn. An inquiry has been opened following the failure of the Home Office's Iris Recognition Immigration System, which was axed by the Tory-led coalition government in 2012. Politicos on the panel are seeking written evidence from interested parties to help them delve into future plans for biometric data, which includes fingerprints and other ID info fed into computer systems. The panel is particularly interested in how government and the private sector might implement and regulate new tech that heavily relies on biometric data. MPs will, among other things, mull over whether existing laws on the collection and storage of such sensitive information are effective enough. The committee said: Commercial organisations ... are starting to play a greater role in both developing and using biometric data and technologies. It is anticipated that this trend will continue over the next decade, particularly as the financial costs, and computational resources required, decrease. Some commercial uses are already mainstream. Social media sites offer facial recognition software to assist users tagging uploaded photos, while accessing some mobile phones depends on fingerprint recognition rather than entering a passcode. Supporters contend that technologies relying on biometric data have transformed identity authentication. However, concerns continue to be raised about data protection, loss of privacy and identity theft. Those interested in the inquiry have until 26 September to submit their views to the committee, which will examine the evidence later this year. Last year, the Home Office revealed plans to spend up to £16m on facial recognition technology for the Identity and Passport Service (IPS). A tender notice in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) in March 2013 showed that Theresa May's department was on the hunt for providers of a Facial Recognition Engine and a Facial Recognition Workflow for the IPS. The government said at the time that suppliers who successfully bid for the contracts - worth between £1m to £4m, and £6m to £15m respectively - would be required to develop tech that can also be reused by other public sector bodies. ® |
On 4 February 1976, Michel Foucault, the eminent French social theorist, stepped gingerly down to the podium in a packed lecture at the Collège de France in the Latin Quarter on Paris’s South Bank. Delivering the fifth in a series of 11 lectures under the title ‘Il faut défendre la société’ (‘Society must be defended’), for once Foucault focused his attention on the relationships between western societies and those elsewhere in the world. Moving beyond his legendary re-theorisations of how knowledge, power, technology and geographical space were combined to underpin the development of modern social orders within western societies, Foucault made a rare foray into discussions of colonialism. Rather than merely highlighting the history through which European powers had colonised the world, however, Foucault’s approach was more novel. Instead, he explored how the formation of the colonies had involved a series of political, social, legal and geographical experiments which were then actually often bought back to the West in what Foucault – drawing possibly on Hannah Arendt’s famous work on totalitarianism – called ‘boomerang effects’. ‘It should never be forgotten,’ Foucault said: “that while colonization, with its techniques and its political and juridical weapons, obviously transported European models to other continents, it also had a considerable boomerang effect on the mechanisms of power in the West, and on the apparatuses, institutions, and techniques of power. A whole series of colonial models was brought back to the West, and the result was that the West could practice something resembling colonization, or an internal colonialism, on itself” Such ‘boomerang effects’ centred on ordering the life of populations at home and abroad – what Foucault called ‘biopower’ and ‘biopolitics’ – rather than on protecting sovereign territory per se. Foucault did little to elucidate these in detail, and rarely touched on colonialism or postcolonialism again. However, his notion of colonial boomerang effects is powerful because it points beyond traditional ideas of colonisation toward a two-way process in the flow of ideas, techniques and practices of power between metropolitan heartlands of colonial powers and the spaces of colonised peripheries. Such a perspective reveals, for example, that Europe’s imperial cities were much more than the beneficiaries and control points organising explicitly ‘colonial’ economic techniques of plunder and dispossession through shipping, plantations, mining, oil extraction or slavery. They were also much more than a product of the economic booms that came with the processing and manufacturing of resources extracted from the colonies. A Panopticon Prison. Craig Sefton. From the famous Panopticon prison, through Baron Haussmann’s radical restructuring of Paris through easily-surveilled boulevards, to the adoption of fingerprinting: many of the great transformations in 19th century European cities had already been tried in colonial cities and peripheries. Colonised cities and spaces also provided the zones of experimentation through which western powers were able to try out and hone techniques of aerial bombing, mass incarceration within concentration camps and genocidal extermination that laid the key foundations for totalitarian rule and total war in Europe in the 20th century. Protesters clash with riot police on the streets of Athens.Demotix/Nikolas Georgiou. All rights reserved. Cities under siege As our planet urbanizes more rapidly than ever before, a new and insidious set of boomerang effects are permeating the fabric of cities and urban life. Fuelled by, and perpetuating, the extreme inequalities that have mushroomed as neoliberal globalisation has extended across the world, this new military urbanism is a constellation of ideas, techniques and norms of security and military doctrine. As I demonstrate in my recent book, Cities Under Siege, these are linked intimately into the militarized and neocolonial predation of distant resources necessary to sustain richer and western cities and urban lifestyles. They fuse seamlessly with popular cultural worlds centred on militarized electronic entertainment, automobility, and urban lifestyles organised through new technologies that have military origins. And they relate closely to a proliferation of non-state insurgencies which appropriate the very architectures and circulations of cities as the means to launch their violence. Thus, Israeli drones designed to vertically subjugate and target Palestinians are now routinely deployed by police forces in North America, Europe and East Asia. Private operators of US ‘supermax’ prisons are heavily involved in running the global archipelago organizing incarceration and torture that has burgeoned since the start of the ‘war on terror.’ Private military corporations heavily colonise ‘reconstruction’ contracts in both Iraq and New Orleans. Israeli expertise in population control is regularly sought by those planning security operations for major summits and sporting events. Guided missiles and private armies work to securitise key events, from Olympics or world Cups, to g20 summits and political summits. Even the ‘shoot to kill’ policies developed to confront risks of suicide bombing in Tel Aviv and Haifa have been adopted by police forces in Western cities (a process which directly led to the state killing of Jean Charles De Menezes by London anti-terrorist police on 22nd July 2005). Meanwhile, aggressive and militarized policing against public demonstrations and social mobilisations in London, Toronto, Paris or New York now utilize the same ‘non-lethal weapons’ as Israel’s army in Gaza or Jenin. Constructions of ‘security zones’ around the strategic financial cores of London and New York echo the techniques used in Baghdad’s Green zone. And many of the techniques used to fortify enclaves in Baghdad or the West Bank are being sold around the world as leading-edge and ‘combat-proven’ ‘security solutions’ by corporate coalitions linking Israeli, US and other companies and states. Crucially, such boomerang effects linking security and military doctrine in the cities of the west with those on colonial peripheries are backed up by the cultural geographies which underpin the political right and far-right, along with hawkish commentators within western militaries themselves. These tend to deem cities per se to be intrinsically problematic spaces – the main sites concentrating acts of subversion, resistance, mobilization, dissent and protest challenging national security states. In rendering all mixed-up cities as problematic spaces beyond the rural or exurban heartlands of authentic national communities, telling movements in representations of cities occur between colonial peripheries and capitalist heartlands. The construction of sectarian enclaves modeled on Israeli practice by US forces in Baghdad from 2003, for example, was widely described by US security personnel as the development of US-style ‘gated communities’ in the country. In the aftermath of the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina in late 2005, meanwhile, US Army Officers talked of the need to “take back” the City from Iraqi-style “insurgents.” Inner city orientalism As ever, then, the imaginations of urban life in colonized zones interacts powerfully with that in the cities of the colonisers. Indeed, the projection of colonial tropes and security exemplars into postcolonial metropoles in capitalist heartlands is fuelled by a new ‘inner city Orientalism’. This relies on the widespread depiction amongst rightist security or military commentators of immigrant districts within the west’s cities as ‘backward’ zones threatening the body politic of the western city and nation. In France, for example, postwar state planning worked to conceptualized the mass, peripheral housing projects of the banlieues as ‘near peripheral’ reservations attached to, but distant from, the country’s metropolitan centres. Bitter memories of the Algerian and other anti-colonial wars saturate the French far-right’s discourse about waning ‘white’ power and the ‘insecurity’ caused by the banlieues – a process that has led to a dramatic mobilization of state security forces in and around the main immigrant housing complexes. The 2005 riots were only the latest in a long line of reactions towards the increasing militarization and securitisation of this form of internal colonization and enforced peripherality within what Royal Holloway Geographer, Mustafa Dikeç, has called the ‘badlands’ of the contemporary French Republic.. Indeed, such is the contemporary right’s conflation of terrorism and migration that simple acts of migration are now often being deemed to be little more than acts of warfare. This discursive shift has been termed the ‘weaponization’ of migration (Cato, 2008) – the shift away from emphases on moral obligations to offer hospitality to refugees toward criminalizing or dehumanizing migrants’ bodies as weapons against purportedly homogenous and ethno-nationalist bases of national power. Here the latest debates about ‘assymetric,’ ‘irregular’ or ‘low intensity war,’ where nothing can be defined outside of boundless and never-ending definitions of political violence, blur uncomfortably into the growing clamour of demonisation by right and far-right commentators of the west’s diasporic and increasingly cosmopolitan cities. Samuel Huntington, taking his ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis further, now argues that the very fabric of US power and national identity is under threat not just because of global Islamist terrorism but because non-white and especially Latino groups are colonizing, and dominating, US metropolitan areas (Huntington, 2005). The new security economy Given the two-way movement of the exemplars of the new military urbanism between western cities and those on colonial frontiers, fuelled by the instinctive anti-urbanism of national security states, it is no surprise that cities in both domains are starting to display startling similarities as well as their more obvious differences. In both, hard, military-style borders, fences and checkpoints around defended enclaves and ‘security zones,’ superimposed on the wider and more open city, are proliferating. Jersey-barrier blast walls, identity checkpoints, computerized CCTV, biometric surveillance and military-styles of access control protect archipelagos of fortified enclaves from an outside deemed unruly, impoverished, or dangerous. In the former case, these encompass green zones, war prisons, ethnic and sectarian neighbourhoods and military bases; in the latter they are growing around strategic financial districts, embassy zones, tourist spaces, airport and port complexes, sport event spaces, gated communities and export processing zones. Crucially, the new military urbanism is sustained by a rapidly growing new security economy. This encompasses sprawling, transnational industrial complexes fusing military and security companies with technology, surveillance and entertainment ones; a wide range of consultants and industries who sell ‘security’ solutions as silver bullets to complex social problems; and a complex mass of security and military thinkers who now argue that war and political violence centres overwhelmingly on the everyday spaces and circuits of urban life. As vague and all-encompassing ideas about ‘security’ creep in to infect virtually all aspects of public policy and social life, so these emerging industrial-security complexes work together on the highly lucrative challenges of perpetually targeting everyday activities, spaces and behaviours in cities and the circulations which link them together. The proliferation of wars sustaining permanent mobilization and preemptive, ubiquitous surveillance within and beyond territorial borders means that, as Georgio Agamben has put it, the imperative of ‘security’ now “imposes itself on the basic principle of state activity.” Amidst the global economic crash, so-called ‘homeland security’ industries – sometimes more accurately labeled by critical commentators the ‘pacification industry’ – are in bonanza mode. As the post 9/11 US paradigm of ‘Homeland security’ is being diffused around the world, the industry – worth $142 billion in 2009 – is expected to be worth a staggering $2.7 trillion globally between 2010 and 2012. Growth rates are between 5 and 12% per year. Importantly, the same constellations of ‘security’ companies are often involved in selling, establishing and operating the techniques and practices of the new military urbanism in both war-zone and ‘homeland’ cities. The main security contractor for the London Olympics– G4S, more familiar under its old Group 4 moniker – the world’s largest security company, is an excellent example here. Beyond its £130m Olympic security contracts, it operates the world’s largest private security force – 630,000 people - taking up a myriad of outsourced contracts. It secures prisons, asylum detention centres, and oil and gas installations, VIPs, embassies, airports (including those in Doncaster and Baghdad) and infrastructure and operates in 125 countries. According to its web site, G4S specialises in particular in what they term “executive style life-support in hazardous environments.” (Presumably this refers to Baghdad and not East London). After buying up the ArmorGroup mercenary company in 2008, it also now runs a large number of Blackwater-style security operations in Iraq. The new military urbanism is stealthy and insidious. Its circuits and boomerang effects operate beyond democratic scrutiny to in turn undermine democratic rights of dissent. Above all, its various elements work together to stealthily constitute a new notion of ‘normal’ urban life. This is based on preemptive surveillance, the criminalisation of dissent, the evisceration of civil rights, and the obsessive securitisation of everyday life to support increasingly unequal societies. The first challenge for those struggling against such trends, therefore, is to demonstrate that they are not an inevitable given in the nature of things. Rather, they are elements of a wider project of market-fundamentalist neoliberalism which, whilst utterly failed and wholly illegimate, rumbles on without (yet) a fully fledged competitor. For more articles on the series, go to the Cities in Conflict main page. |
Wales scrum-half Rhys Webb acknowledges that Saturday's RBS 6 Nations clash against title holders England is 'a massive fixture.' But Webb also underlined how Wales are for more concentrated on themselves in 'a very positive environment,' rather than be swept along on a tide of fervour - and sometimes hysteria - that can accompany England visits to Cardiff. While neither side were wildly impressive in recording opening weekend wins - Wales left it late before flooring Italy, while England edged home against France - the 130th meeting between two of world rugby's fiercest rivals is unlikely to disappoint. Rhys Webb acknowledges that Saturday's RBS 6 Nations clash against title holders England is 'a massive fixture' And the outcome could also have a major bearing on how this season's Six Nations title race shapes up, with England seeking back-to-back silverware and Wales chasing a first championship success since 2013. 'The boys are pretty excited - it has been a great start to the campaign,' Webb said. 'It is a very positive environment to be in. 'It is a massive fixture (against England). But we are not going to get too carried away. 'We are just going to concentrate on ourselves and put a big focus on ourselves. 'We watched the England game (against France) live. We didn't go into much detail. We are going to concentrate on ourselves - that's where the main focus is. 'There has been a lot of talk about England and Ireland, and they played some good rugby over the autumn. 'We will just go about our job and take each game as it comes.' The Wales players reconvene on Tuesday, with fitness updates likely to be the most pressing concern for interim head coach Rob Howley. Fly-half Dan Biggar suffered a blow to his ribs in Rome and was forced off at half-time, while try-scoring wing George North took a heavy early knock to his thigh before playing on and claiming Wales' final touchdown during a one-sided second period. Number eight Taulupe Faletau, meanwhile, has not played since Christmas Eve due to a knee problem, and his Bath team-mate Luke Charteris also missed out on Rome because of a fracture in his hand. Both players, though, could be back in the selection mix for England, while Sam Davies - an impressive replacement for Biggar at Stadio Olimpico - could expect to wear the number 10 shirt if his Ospreys colleague does not recover in time. Reflecting on a successful Italian job, Webb added: 'We are pretty happy with the result. We knew how difficult it would be in the first 40 minutes, but we backed our confidence and ability and finished off pretty well. 'The main thing is to get the win first. There was an opportunity to look for an extra try (and bonus point), but the main focus was all about winning. 'There are going to be a lot of tough games in this tournament.' And Wales centre Scott Williams said: 'We were going for the bonus point at the end, but it is all about building momentum now. We've got a big one this weekend. 'They (England) have shown over the past 12 months or so that they are one of the best teams in the world, so it's going to be tough. We need a big week.' |
Get the biggest Arsenal FC stories by email Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email Arsene Wenger is playing a dangerous game of poker with his Arsenal career. The club's transfer strategy is really quite simple: wait until the last minute, wait for all the pieces of the jigsaw to land and then pounce. Yup, nearly three months after chief executive Ivan Gazidis's now infamous declaration of Arsenal's "escalation of financial firepower", they have made one signing. A free transfer. It's now down to a roll of the dice, see who is still on the market on Monday - and then go for it. Basically, it's a last minute supermarket sweep for everyone else's cast-offs. It is like Arsenal are on a desperate last minute prowl in a nightclub just before the lights get turned on. At this rate, they could end up with a costly fondle in the corner with Yohan Cabaye. Yaya Sanogo was snapped up during Happy Hour. They're hoping to return to an old flame with Mathieu Flamini. But even Flamini once cheated on them in the past. It is an absolute shambles. But it could work out brilliantly. If Real Madrid suddenly have a clearance sale to help pay for Gareth Bale, then Arsenal could come up trumps. Whether they like it or not, Karim Benzema, Mesut Ozil and Angel Di Maria, could all be pushed out of the door. Especially if Real Madrid make a last minute move for Luis Suarez as well as Gareth Bale. Yes, I know they all have reservations about leaving Madrid. But sometimes a player doesn't have a choice. They are forced out of the door - whether they like it or not. (Image: Getty) So, basically, Arsenal are pinning their hopes on that. And if you don't believe it is a possibility, then just remember Rafael van der Vaart joining Spurs at the 11th hour from Real Madrid on transfer deadline day. But perhaps I shouldn't mention the T word, let alone the S word in an Arsenal column. Fact is Tottenham - oops, sorry - have put Arsenal to shame, breaking their transfer record three times. They have gone for it. Their newly appointed Franco Baldini has gone out and done deals and highlighted the breakdown and failure in Arsenal's transfer system. I have been guilty in the past before North London derbies of saying how many Arsenal players would get into the Spurs - oops, again - team and vice versa. The fact is Arsenal have a better squad than Spurs because they finish above them each and every year. We can argue all day about who has better players in each position, but Arsenal have a better squad. The Premier League table says so. But, in my opinion, if Arsenal don't strengthen dramatically this will be the year that changes and Spurs eclipse Arsenal. Mind you, I did tip Spurs to finish fourth last year. Wenger has a remarkable knack of defying the odds. But Spurs look stronger even with the impending departure of Bale. Arsenal, in my view, need a keeper, versatile defender, dynamic midfielder who can make pretty patterns as well as put his foot in. Plus a wide man and a striker. That's five players. And they'd have to be good ones for Arsenal to bridge the gap between also-rans and genuine contenders. Otherwise, it's going to be another year of failure. Even Wenger conceded on Tuesday that just qualifying for the Champions League is not good enough anymore. They need some silverware. And the difficult part to understand is they have the resources to make it happen. (Image: Charlie Crowhurst) That's why Arsenal fans are annoyed. That's why the atmosphere will be testy on Sunday. And it will get ugly if Tottenham win. Arsenal are in grave danger of blowing it. They have a terrific first XI but the lack of depth in the squad is frightening. They can barely fill a bench, let alone an academy team. Yes, they have injuries. Arteta, Vermaelen, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Podolski. But a title-winning team should be able to cope with four missing players. It's rank bad management. So who is to blame? Ultimately it has to be Wenger. Wenger has the final say on transfers. To the point, it drives many to distraction. Final say on targets, transfer fees and wages. The board want to do deals, they would happily sanction a £50m deal but Wenger has yet to get anywhere close to doing one this summer. Wenger's reputation for dithering is legendary. It isn't just him. Gazidis will be judged on this window. Dick Law, Arsenal's transfer fixer, has a reputation among agents of being difficult to deal with. Agree one thing, then it all changes anyway. People who know Law will argue that every decision has to be checked with Wenger anyway so it's the manager to blame. It's not unusual for Law to break off from meetings to ring the manager to check. Law had one big world class deal done, agreed and rang Wenger only to be told he'd had a change of heart. That's the way it works. That's what makes me think it will be difficult for Arsenal to pull off last minute deals even if players are being offered around at the final moment to help clubs balance the books. Too much dallying. They are still in the market for a keeper. I don't think they'll go much higher for Cabaye but if Newcastle do have a change of heart and decide to sell a player who has gone on strike then it may yet happen. Other than that, Arsenal are reliant on Real Madrid's cast-offs. Di Maria seems the most likely. Ignore what he says now. More stubborn statements have been made publicly - and deals have still happened. The same goes for Benzema. Ozil was a player that Wenger wanted before he joined Real Madrid. But it could still happen if the Spanish giants need to balance the books. Again, his statement may mean little if Real Madrid want him out. Flamini will surely get done. He has turned down other clubs to re-sign for Arsenal. Ignore the reports in Italian press that he wants £75,000-a-week. He doesn't want anywhere near that. But it has been a struggle to get done. He'll be a useful squad player. But if Arsenal don't end up with more than just Sanogo and Flamini then this season, I predict, will be a disaster. A disaster because the fans will get upset as Arsenal's wafer thin squad - therefore putting pressure on a smaller pool of players to train and play when not fully fit - cracks mid-season. Disaster because the fans were promised big signings by Gazidis's statement. Not the press. We can't promise players. We can write about their targets but it's up to the club to deliver them. And if Arsenal don't buy big it will be a disaster for Wenger because the fans will not wear another contract extension for the manager. They won't stand for it. It will get really ugly if an injury-hit Arsenal don't have players to lift the team and the squad into the top four. The finances are there but they've not been spent. It's unforgivable. Arsenal could beat Spurs, look to the improvement of Aaron Ramsey, even the development of Olivier Giroud. But I don't think it will be enough over the course of a season. So Arsenal and Wenger better get busy before the transfer window shuts. Otherwise they're are heading for disaster. |
Jimmy Gomez, right, introduces himself to Steven Small, center, while canvassing with his wife, Mary Hodge, left, in the Eagle Rock neighborhood of Los Angeles. Gomez is a candidate for Congress in California’s 34th District. (Dania Maxwell/For The Washington Post) On Saturday afternoon, Jimmy Gomez, the California legislator who wants to represent the northeastern part of this city in Congress, picked up his wife, Mary, and drove their electric car to a street not far from their home. They knocked on doors together, cramming literature into mailboxes full of fliers for his 21 rivals. It took 15 minutes for the couple to run into an actual voter, a video editor named Dave Rogers who greeted them from his porch. “Another candidate!” said Rogers with a laugh. For five minutes, Gomez and Rogers small-talked about the growing trendiness of the neighborhood — the comedian and podcaster Marc Maron is a neighbor — and Gomez subtly pitched himself as the successor to Xavier Becerra, who left Congress to become California’s attorney general and opened up a safe Democratic seat. “He never endorses,” Gomez said. “All of a sudden, I get a call, and I hear: The attorney general’s gonna endorse you. Wow!” “That made my decision a lot easier, with 22 candidates,” Rogers said. Wendy Carrillo takes a photograph with a crowd of supporters during a rally for her campaign in Los Angeles on April 1, 2017. Carrillo is a candidate for Congress in California’s 34th district. (Dania Maxwell/FTWP) Gomez, the Harvard-educated son of Mexican immigrants, is the front-runner in the first congressional race of the Trump era. It’s happening in a part of America where Republicans are becoming scarce. In 2000, the last year that a Republican presidential candidate campaigned in California, George W. Bush won 29.5 percent of the vote in what’s now the 34th Congressional District. In 2016, Donald Trump won just 10.7 percent. California’s unique primary system means that the top two candidates from the April 4 primary, regardless of party, will advance to the June 6 general election. The overwhelming partisan nature of the district means that two Democrats — one of whom is expected to be Gomez — are likely to advance. Gomez is not exactly on the vanguard of the new progressive resistance movement that is sweeping the country in protest of Trump. He’s been endorsed by a slew of elected officials — and the California Democratic Party itself. But his background — and liberal politics — has not turned off progressives. Gomez supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race, but a surge of new voters won the district for Bernie Sanders. “I like him a lot, and I’ve known him a long time,” Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said of Gomez. “You have a lot of progressives in that race, but Jimmy’s progressive, too. Credential-wise, it’s a win-win for us.” It’s the district’s very blueness that’s made it a proving ground for liberal politics. To win back the House in the 2018 midterms, the Democrats would have to flip districts in California, as well as the increasingly competitive states of Arizona and Texas, where the Latino and Asian populations are growing quickly. At the same time, the Trump victory has been driving Latino politics to the left — a movement that outside groups encourage. Even though Becerra endorsed Clinton for president last year, two of Gomez’s rivals, Wendy Carrillo and Arturo Carmona, worked for Sanders in California and are touting that connection. In 1992, the last time the area elected a new congressman, just nine Democrats ran. This year, the field had doubled. The district, meanwhile, is 65 percent Hispanic, and every leading candidate but one is Latino. “What we see are Latinos joining other groups to push back on the Trump administration’s attacks on women’s access to health services, health care, environmental protections, and other key social issues,” said Latino Victory Project President Cristóbal Alex. “We are witnessing a wave of qualified Latinos who see it as their duty to run for office at all levels to defend their communities and fight back against Trump and this hostile administration.” That’s played out in the 34th, which starts in downtown Los Angeles and stretches west to Koreatown and north to Pasadena. Gomez rose through the Latino political network, serving as a congressional staffer, then moving to L.A. and winning a safe Assembly seat. He’s raised $245,000 for the House race — much of it from political action committees and political allies. His campaign literature rattles off endorsements from Becerra, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), the leaders of the state legislature and the California Democratic Party. Carmona, the deputy political director of the Sanders campaign in California, has tried to flip Gomez’s endorsements against him. In a negative mailer, he warns voters that the assemblyman has taken $13,000 from “de escuelas charter,” or charter schools, and $73,700 from “compañías farmacéuticas,” or pharmaceutical companies. In an interview near Mariachi Plaza, Carmona declined to attack Gomez personally, but bemoaned candidates who “are taking or have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from interests that are hurting immigrants, that are hurting consumers.” The outside arbiters of progressive politics have declined to enter the race — in part, because Gomez has ceded so little room to his left. He reminds voters that he expanded paid family leave in California, that he supports single-payer health care and a $15 minimum wage. On Saturday, when volunteers arrived at Gomez headquarters to walk precincts, they were signed in by Yolanda Nogueira, a local business owner who’d housed “Northeast L.A. for Bernie” in her building. “To me, ‘the establishment’ means people who are out of touch with the people they’re elected to represent,” Gomez said. “Someone like Bernie Sanders can be in office for 30 years, but he’s not the establishment.” Neither Sanders nor his group Our Revolution has endorsed a candidate. Cenk Uygur, whose Young Turks network and Justice Democrats PAC are based just outside of the district, said several candidates had reached out to him. Gomez’s only apparent strike was that he backed Clinton for president. The risk progressives see in deep-blue seats is not that Democrats will lose, but that opposition to Trump will allow the candidates opposed by progressives to blur the lines. In the 34th, every leading candidate puts the president near their message’s center. Gomez’s mail features the warning that “the first congressional election in the U.S. since Trump won will be held . . . in OUR community.” Former journalist Alejandra Campoverdi, also a candidate, tells voters she’s “the proven fighter we need to stand up to Donald Trump.” Sara Hernandez, a teacher-turned-political aide, is running TV ads promising to take Trump “to school” and fight deportations. Another problem for a progressive candidate emerged in the form of social-media posts from women in the Sanders campaign who worked with Carmona, accusing him of incompetence and sexism. Several progressive groups had already bet on Carmona as the best “Bernie” candidate. Democracy for America, which had endorsed Sanders, condemned Carmona. In an interview, Carmona insisted that he was being smeared. “There were definitely some entrenched issues around sexism in the broader campaign,” Carmona said. “There’s no question that sexism exists in our society. I have worked to be an ally all my life, and all my career. But when it comes to these specific three or four attacks, they’re not only unsubstantiated, they’re false.” Read more at PowerPost |
CA officials move to vaporize e-cigs With public opinion in flux and anti-tobacco activists on edge, the California Department of Public Health has rolled out “Wake Up,” a slick new ad campaign to discourage the use of e-cigarettes, or “vapes.” Recently, CDPH pronounced e-cigs a threat to public health. In a statement explaining the campaign, CDPH described two new TV ads emphasizing “the e-cigarette industry’s use of candy flavored ‘e-juice'” and “exposing the fact that big tobacco companies are in the e-cigarette business.” The move bolstered momentum for broad crackdowns on vapes, which have been targeted by policymakers and activists who see them as just as bad as tobacco cigarettes — if not worse. Playing politics Political considerations have played into CDPH’s adverse judgment against vapes. New data recently showed that, last year, the use of e-cigs outpaced the use of tobacco cigarettes among teenagers and young adults. Defenders of the freedom to vape argued this is good news. Vaping companies have claimed e-cigs help smokers abandon far more dangerous tobacco products, especially those, like traditional cigarettes, that emit high numbers of carcinogens. But for prohibitionists, e-cigs presented a special hazard because of their accessibility and appeal to children. As the Los Angeles Daily News detailed, those drawbacks appeared to be the product of unregulated marketing, a more pleasurable use experience and apparent carelessness among adult consumers with children: “Most startling to health officials was the spike in calls to California Poison Control centers related to exposures to accidental e-cigarette poisonings, including drinking the liquid inside. There were seven calls in 2012 to poison control. In 2014, those calls jumped to 243. More than 60 percent of all those e-cigarette related calls involved children 5 years and under.” As NBC News reported, “bottles and cartridges that contain the liquid for e-cigs have been known to leak and tend not to be equipped with child-resistant caps, creating a potential source of poisoning through ingestion or just through skin contact.” Although legislation and regulation could be tailored narrowly to focus on the threat of poisoning, public health officials issued a broad warning that comports with the prevailing view among prohibitionists. Dr. Ron Chapman, State Health Officer and director of the California Department of Public Health, said that “many people do not know that they pose many of the same health risks as traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products.” In January, he called for a “bold public education campaign” to roll back e-cig gains in market share. Anti-smoking advocates working in the policy arena have been all but unanimous in treating e-cigs like an integral part of the same problem as tobacco products. Safety over freedom Despite the unfolding research concerning the differences between e-cig effects and those of tobacco cigarettes, prohibitionists in the political arena have used heightened rhetoric of their own to advance vape bans. Earlier this year, state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, underscored how far many officials have been willing to go in departing from the scientific record. In January, he introduced Senate Bill 140, a bill that would ban e-cigs at hospitals, restaurants, schools and workplaces. “No tobacco product should be exempt from California’s smoke-free laws simply because it’s sold in a modern or trendy disguise,” he warned. Yet, as Reason’s Jacob Sullum observed, e-cigs neither emit smoke nor burn tobacco. Instead, they heat a device which allows the user to exhale a vapor. SB140 will go into committee hearings this spring, behind a full-steam-ahead approach to cracking down on vapes. As CalWatchdog.com reported previously, the so-called “precautionary principle” — better safe than sorry — has inspired a spate of municipal regulations that treat e-cigs the same way as tobacco cigarettes, despite widespread ignorance and uncertainty as to how the products differ. |
I’ve been reading self-improvement and life-mastery books for quite a while, and I’ve noticed a similar trend in a lot of the material that’s out there: It’s bullshit. It seems like nobody out there has the balls to tell you and I how to really achieve success in life, rather than the latest ‘5 tips to get 1 extra hour out of your day’ best-seller. The truth is people just don’t want it bad enough. If this was easy, everybody would be doing it – but in any endeavor you’ve got to be a go-getter and you’ve got to fucking hustle your ass off to get to where you want to get to. It may seem easy to say that for the guy sitting behind his computer screen writing this blog, but I’ve been working on this material for the past 12 hours straight – so I’m putting this blog to work to inspire you to do the same. Obviously if you’re still reading, something inside you wants to come out. You know your life could be so much more. I’ve been there, I’ve felt the same. What I’ve discovered from researching success and putting in effort every single day to create the opportunities for myself is that you have to take action. When you wake up, it’s time for action. Value your time. You can’t just expect things to happen. Let’s take an example. When you’re out at a nightclub, you can’t just expect a girl to just jump on your dick. Just because you ‘look cool’ or you’re having fun isn’t enough – you have to actually take action to get the girl. It’s the same thing with life. Even if you are taking action, there’s a difference between taking action to ‘not lose’ and taking action to fucking win. When you take action to ‘not lose’; you take action within your comfort zone, rather than stepping out and doing something which feels awkward to you. You can’t play-to-win and be comfortable at the same time – you have to be clear in your intention of playing to win and eliminate the intention for comfort. You’re either playing to win, or you’re playing to ‘not lose’. Returning to our nightclub scenario, if you’re maintaining your comfort zone whilst approaching girls, you are less likely to make your intentions direct and physical – doing what’s necessary to cause her to become attracted to you. When you’re playing to ‘not lose’ you’ll be taking action which coincides with your intent and just trying to hold the interaction – acting like a chump. Don’t look for permission to take what’s yours, to take what you desire – have the balls to say ‘fuck you’ to social conditioning and do whatever is necessary to become the person you want to be and live the life you want to lead. Without clarity of intent, we all end up becoming wishy-washy in our mindset and therefore in our actions also. The problem with wishy-washyness is that it conveys that you don’t know what you want. It conveys that you’re not the kind of person who can just know what they want and take it. You can’t just wait for every opportunity to be handed to you and everything to be in place before you take action – take whatever action you can right now. Nobody gives a shit if you ‘don’t have time’, make the time. 20 minutes of play-to-win action every day is a beneficial replacement for your usual set-aside comfort time on PornHub. You have to hustle your ass off to be #1, Numero Uno. There is no #2. Either you go all the way or you’re done. The guy who passes on the opportunity because the ‘time isn’t right’ will 99.99% of the time end up as that overweight 45-year-old who is sat at home, watching the guy who took that opportunity on his television telling his story to the world. Being clear in your intention of playing to win will result in a clear energy in your life. You’ll be able to focus clearly on your actions and goals. In your life, think about what your intent is. Consider how it causes the manifestation of your behaviour. The best way to get clarity in your intent is to just start gaining momentum in whatever you are doing. Once you repeatedly take action on a daily basis in a certain aspect of your life and increase the momentum with which you do what you’re doing, over time that intent of taking action will start to dominate the forefront of your mind and the wishy-washy parts of your mind will fade away. Let go of all those thoughts of what could go wrong and focus on playing to win. Once you get rid of these thoughts, you can achieve this clear energy in your life and maintain an inner congruency to take beneficial action on a daily basis. Returning to our nightclub scenario once again; if you’re approaching a girl with the intention of getting laid, but in your mind you’re also maintaining thoughts of what could go wrong or thinking of plan B, C and D – then you won’t be clear in your intent and therefore will give off a wishy-washy vibe instead of taking play-to-win action. In this scenario, most guys want the girl’s approval, they want the girl to validate them, they want to look cool in front of their friend’s – but they also want to fuck the girl. Their intent is divided; therefore they’ve created an inner-state completely opposite to inner congruency and will more than likely pussy out or scare away the girl. When your intention in life is playing to win, your entire body language will be different; your head held high, a look of purpose in your eyes. Your mentality will be entirely different; you’ll end up seeing every circumstance as an opportunity to take more and more action, instead of sitting in your room mentally masturbating about what your life would be like if you were to take action. With clear intent, your thoughts, words and actions will be aligned – one of the most important factors in pursuing any goal. If you want this – GO. ALL. OUT. Advertisements |
Let’s just say they went gaga. Students cheered and clapped when a personal video from Lady Gaga was shown at an anti-bullying assembly at Etobicoke School of the Arts on Friday. Up until then, students had no idea she had recorded a message and thank you to them. Lady Gaga has a special video message on anti-bullying for students at Etobicoke School of the Arts. Student council president Jacques St. Pierre had to keep a poker face since October, after receiving an email from Lady Gaga’s staff with a link to the video. He decided to keep it a surprise until the assembly. “I’ve seen it over 300 times,” gushed St. Pierre, a huge fan of the mega pop star, in an interview before the Friday event. In August, the Grade 12 student wrote to several celebrities — including talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, singer Katy Perry and Tim Gunn from Project Runway — hoping a message from one of them would have a big impact on students as the school launched an anti-bullying campaign. Article Continued Below “Sometimes schools talk about bullying but never make changes,” he said. “I thought if I could get someone as influential as Lady Gaga to speak to students, that would make a change.” Lady Gaga has been an outspoken anti-bullying crusader in the U.S., outraged over the recent suicide of a gay Buffalo teen who had been targeted. She has been lobbying U.S. politicians — including President Barack Obama — to have bullying made illegal. Etobicoke School of the Arts students are trying to combat homophobia, racism, sexism and body image issues through performance and plan to take their message to other schools in the Toronto District School Board, said St. Pierre. On Friday, students took a pledge to “make it better” — an extension of the “it gets better” campaign. St. Pierre, 17, was bullied in elementary school by students who called him a fag for being interested in theatre and drama. However, he said his high school has been “amazing and accepting.” But there’s still work to be done; comments like “don’t be a fag” or “that’s so gay” are still common among teens. And, earlier this year, a private webpage was set up where fellow students posted anonymous comments about one another. Article Continued Below In his letter to Lady Gaga, St. Pierre told her who he is and about the school’s campaign. “And then I talked about why it would be amazing to hear from her.” In the video, Lady Gaga says hello to St. Pierre, the school and “talks about how proud she is” of their efforts. She also implores students to “treat each other with kindness, love, and to accept everyone . . . and that she’s doing her best to make bullying a hate crime.” She then sends her love and tells them to have a “wonderful day at school and to love each other.” The video, which runs about one minute, 15 seconds, was the edge of glory for St. Pierre. “When I showed it to the student council, they all cheered and screamed and freaked out . . . she’s talking directly to (students).” Read more about: |
With phones like Nokia’s Lumia 610 and ZTE’s Orbit being announced today, the era of Windows Phone Tango and its reduced-spec hardware is upon us. We already got a bit of a look into the changes that Tango will deliver, including how it might handle hardware limitations. Microsoft recently addressed this change, talking about how it will affect developers, as well as touching on additional changes to the scope of the Windows Phone community. The good news is that Microsoft expects the vast majority of existing apps to play nicely with 256MB RAM handsets. Software tricks like memory paging, swapping portions in-and-out of active memory as needed, will help apps make the most of limited space. Developers can now download a new version of the Windows Phone emulator, simulating a Tango handset with 256MB. Microsoft says that something like 95% of apps should run on these phones without issue, while the remaining 5% will have to try making do with less memory if they want to be able to reach all users. We already heard that live tiles wouldn’t work, and now it’s apparent just why: background processes in general will be very limited, with most types restricted from running at all. Beyond the new software platform, Microsoft’s other big Windows Phone news of the day also has to do with introducing the OS to new markets around the world. The Windows Phone Marketplace will be adding support for an additional 23 nations around the world. Microsoft estimates that the effects of opening these new markets, combined with lower-priced Tango hardware, will position the company to address 60% more potential customers than it previously had been with Windows Phone. Source: Microsoft 1, 2, 3 Via: WPCentral 1, 2 |
<div class="cs-body"> <p>Summoners!</p><p>The player behavior team has been working hard to redefine our vision of what punishments and rewards mean in League of Legends; we have been working hard towards a day where we don't have to utilize time bans. Although they have shown success in helping players improve their behaviors, we believe we can do even better by using account restrictions that teach and spread what sportsmanlike behavior looks like while still allowing players to play League of Legends on their main account. For the past three months, we have been testing our new Restricted Chat Mode, and the results have been interesting.</p><p>When we combine chat restrictions with timebans, we see a 15% decrease in the number of players who return to the Tribunal within the month. Players that complete their chat restrictions see up to a 20% decrease in the number of reports that they receive from fellow players.</p><p>When we first thought about account restrictions, we noticed that a lot of game studios opted to completely mute players and disable their ability to chat in games at all; however, we were inspired by the psychology of feedback and wanted to try something different. In Restricted Chat Mode, we wanted to put players into a situation where they had limited chat resources that would accrue over time; these players must think carefully about whether to use their chat messages for sportsmanlike behaviors, or for toxicity. If players chose to still use the chat messages for toxicity, they quickly hit a message cap and are effectively muted, which acts as immediate feedback to the player that their behavior is not cool. This experiment serves a dual purpose: it gives players an opportunity to learn what sportsmanlike behavior is, but if the player remains toxic, the feature shields other players from this behavior.</p><p>We've gotten some great feedback from players about Restricted Chat Mode Many players have noted how Restricted Chat Mode has taught them about sportsmanlike language, and how the mode has been helping them manage their behaviors and win more games. Many players have also asked whether they can opt-in to Restricted Chat Mode permanently. We're not quite sure how we want to handle this yet, but we wanted to share some initial results of this experiment.</p><p>We look forward to talking more about iterations to Restricted Chat Mode, and new player behavior features in the future!</p> <style type="text/css">.cs-body p { margin:1em 0;}.cs-body img { border: 2px solid #cd8e2f;padding: 1px;margin: 0;max-width: 100%;height:auto;}.cs-body img.borderless {border: 0 none;padding: 0;}.cs-body a {font-weight: bold;}</style></div> |
Dubai: A rare public dispute over oil policy in Saudi Arabia emerged on Tuesday as the kingdom’s oil minister and a senior member of its royal family disagreed over long-term production targets for the world’s largest crude exporter. The Middle Eastern kingdom, which produces around 10 per cent of the world’s oil, needs to increase its crude production capacity by a fifth to 15 million barrels a day by 2020 in order to meet rising domestic consumption and maintain its current export capacity, said Prince Turki Al Faisal, a former intelligence chief and ambassador for the kingdom. The comments from the prince, who has no formal government position but is a prominent member of the kingdom’s royal family, were contradicted by Saudi Oil Minister, Ali Al Naimi. There is currently no need to increase crude production capacity beyond 12.5 million barrels a day, Naimi said. Saudi Arabia currently produces around 9 million barrels a day of oil, leaving 3.5 million barrels a day as spare capacity. The level of Saudi Arabia’s spare capacity is closely watched by oil markets. Two of the strongest periods of oil price increases-from 2003 to 2005 and 2007 to 2008-coincided with Opec spare production capacity, most of which is in Saudi Arabia, falling to historic lows. “Saudi Arabia’s national production management scheme is set to increase total capacity to 15 million barrels per day and have an export potential of 10 [million] barrels per day by 2020,” Prince Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the US and UK said in a speech at the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs of Harvard University. The speech was delivered last week and posted on the centre’s website late Monday. The prince clarified his position in an email on Tuesday. “Saudi consumption may reach five million barrels of oil by then [2020], hence the production capacity of fifteen million barrels,” is required to maintain country’s export potential, he said. Saudi Arabia would be lucky to go past production of 9 million barrels a day by 2020 and, “we don’t see anything like 15 million barrels a day before 2030, 2040,” said Naimi in an appearance at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC Tuesday. Any decision to increase capacity would be taken by Saudi Arabia’s oil ministry, which directs Aramco, or the kingdom’s Supreme Petroleum Council, which is chaired by the king. Prince Faisal’s comments also run counter to the official position of the state-controlled Saudi Arabian Oil Co., also known as Aramco. Aramco declined to comment Tuesday, but its top executive has previously ruled out increasing capacity to 15 million barrels a day despite acknowledging that domestic use of crude would rise and thus limit exports. Aramco’s Chief Executive Khalid Al Falih ruled out increasing Saudi production capacity to 15 million barrels a day in 2011, despite acknowledging that domestic use of crude would rise and thus limit exports, because he said expansion plans in other producing countries such as Iraq and Brazil should be enough to satisfy world markets. Before 2011 Saudi Arabia had planned to increase oil production capacity to 15 million barrels a day. Some economists predict that if Saudi Arabia’s current energy-consumption growth rate of 7 per cent a year continues unabated, within 20 years the kingdom will burn more than eight million barrels a day domestically, or around two-thirds of its current production capacity of 12.5 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia last year consumed around 3 million barrels per day of oil, according to the US Energy Information Administration, almost double its 2000 level and putting it on track to use more than 5 million barrels a day if a 7 per cent annual growth rate were to continue. Aramco’s Al Falih acknowledged in 2011 that, if left unchecked, domestic energy consumption would rise to 8.2 million barrels of oil a day by 2030. If Saudi Arabia were to raise its oil production capacity to 15 million barrels a day, it would have enough of a supply buffer to instantly replace all of the production of Iraq, the second-largest member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Prince Faisal said. Iraq’s oil exports should rise to 3.4 million barrels a day in 2014, said the country’s oil minister Abdul Kareem Luaiby on Tuesday. Investment of over $100 billion in oil infrastructure will enable to kingdom to remain for many more decades the major supplier of energy to the world, Prince Faisal said. Saudi Arabia, which is currently producing about 9 million barrels a day of oil, is the only exporter in the world that can offset major supply disruptions at short notice. It did so in 2011 after the civil war in Libya took more than 1.5 million barrels a day of oil off the market, and in 1990 after the suspension of Kuwaiti output during the Iraqi invasion. |
The Washington Post's Matea Gold explains why Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has no plans to hold any more high-dollar fundraisers before Election Day. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post) In the wake of the news that Donald Trump had stopped doing formal, major donor fundraising events for the Republican Party as of, well, now, I reached out to Lisa Spies, a prominent Republican fundraiser, to gauge the impact of that decision. (How hardcore is Lisa about fundraising? Her email signature included a quote from 19th-century Republican boss Mark Hanna: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.”) Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow, is below. Editor's note: The Trump campaign sent this statement along after publication: “All fundraising, large and small including our Victory effort, will continue through the end of the election." FIX: The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Donald Trump was done doing fundraisers for the party (or himself). Hillary Clinton’s surrogates still have 41 fundraisers on the books between now and Election Day. How big a deal is that? And, just as important, why? Lisa Spies: This is a huge deal and it has both practical and symbolic impacts, both of which are bad. Practically, he is already overwhelmed by Hillary [Clinton] and her allies running way more TV ads, having a better data operation and having far more offices and organization on the ground. In fact, it sounds like she is doing so well that she’s shifting money away from her campaign to now help Democratic Senate and House candidates. Also, symbolically, it is incredibly demoralizing for Trump’s supporters to hear that he’s no longer out trying to win support. The only reason you admit that you are no longer asking for money is because either you are so well-funded that you don’t need money anymore, or because you don’t see any pathway to win. I don’t want responsibility for explaining Trump’s motivations (they make no sense to me), but if I was on his finance team, I wouldn’t know [how] to spin this to his supporters. It is important to note that Hillary has a well-developed finance team and specifically surrogates that are doing events for her. Similar to Hillary’s traditional campaign, and in contrast to Trump, in 2012 around this time I could use Ambassador John Bolton to do targeted Jewish and pro-Israel fundraising events, and one of our big-league assets was Ann Romney, who we used to raise over $20 million through the “Women for Romney” effort. So while it isn’t unusual for the candidate to shift from fundraising events to political rallies in the closing weeks of a presidential campaign, the reason the Trump abandonment of fundraising events is such a big deal is because he doesn’t have an organization or surrogates to pick up the slack for him. FIX: Assess Donald Trump’s fundraising. Has it been better, worse or about the same as you expected? Spies: I thought fundraising wouldn’t be a big deal for him, because he promised to self-fund his race, which is one of the reasons he won the primary. Early on, when Trump did his all-caps “I’m worth $10 billion” press release, it was realistic to think he would personally fund the $500 million that it would likely cost to run a competitive campaign. So it was a shock to me, and most Republicans, when he became the presumptive nominee and played games about whether he was going to use donor funds to pay himself back the around-$40 million that he loaned his campaign for the primary. Since the primary he has only put about $20 million more in, which has resulted in his getting overwhelmed with advertising. A lot of high-profile traditional Republican bundlers and donors have let him use their names on Trump Victory (joint fundraising committee with Republican National Committee) invitations, but those people haven’t been actually giving, bundling, and certainly not maxing out, to the effort. Once Trump decided that he wasn’t going to keep his promise to self-fund, it’s shocking to me that he didn’t reach out to traditional Republican donors and make a serious effort to raise money. The road map for how to do it was created by Bush 43 and then Romney in 2012, so even though Trump was a year behind in building a network, he could have followed an established path, but instead he spent his time attacking Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, the Bush family and donors in general. That’s not the way to get those people’s networks to support you! [Editor's note: Trump told ABC News on Wednesday he would spend more of his own money.] FIX: Is there anything a professional fundraiser like you can learn from Trump and his fundraising approach? If so, what? Spies: The most important thing to learn is that if you’re working for a candidate [who] says they will self-finance, make sure they are wealthy enough to spend what is necessary to win. Of course, money doesn’t guarantee victory, but businessmen, and now governors, Rick Scott (Fla.), Rick Snyder (Mich.) and Pete Ricketts (Neb.), all figured out what they needed to spend and how to win. Trump obviously hasn’t. In terms of fundraising tactics, where Trump has been good is that he’s the most successful hat salesman in history! Beyond that, when they finally ramped up low-dollar fundraising, that has been very good, but I hesitate to give him any credit here because usually you do that prospecting early on so then you can burn the house file (and net more money) close to the election. In this case, they didn’t do any low-dollar pieces during the primary or for a month after he became the nominee, so now while they are raising good low-dollar numbers, the cost of fundraising is astronomically high. FIX: Finish this sentence: “Donald Trump will raise a total of $_________ in this campaign.” Now, show your math and explain why. Spies: Donald Trump will raise a total of $270 million for his campaign. As should have been clear from my previous answers, I’m not part of his fundraising efforts, so I’m just guessing here. But my starting assumption is that the Trump campaign has raised $218 million through September. Mitt Romney raised $104 million in October 2012, and I will give Trump 50 percent of that amount, which would be another $52 million in October, for a total of $270 million. That is compared to what I expect will be Hillary raising $550 million (which assumes another $105 million on top of the $445 million she has already raised), and about 50 percent less than the 2012 campaign effort. The key problem here has been Trump’s unwillingness to put his own money into the campaign. If anyone thinks he’s winning where he needs to, then they won’t want more resources, but I believe that an extra $100 million or more from the candidate could have been the difference-maker in some target states. |
Hines Ward's well-documented rain-making visit to Dallas Gentlemen's Club has seemingly filled him full of wisdom. From GQ, here are his thoughts on the league's hit-porny safety video, TBI-preventing helmets, league veterans being left battered and under-supported and how the Eagles' handling of Brian Westbrook shows you everything you need to know about how much the league really cares. It's spot-on, but probably too heavy for the giggling fanboys from James Harrison's laugh riot. Man, nobody paid attention to that video. We don't know what they want. They're so hypocritical sometimes. They came out with these new helmets that are supposed to stop concussions. If they care so much about our safety, why don't they mandate that we wear the new ones? If they're so worried about what concussions will do to us after our careers, then guarantee our insurance for life. And if you're going to fine me for a hit, let the money go to veteran guys to help with their medical issues. To say the league really cares? They don't give a f*ck about concussions. And now they want to add on two extra games? Are you kidding? Come on, let's be real. Now that these new guidelines are in place, you'll see more and more guys lying to doctors to stay on the field. Contracts aren't guaranteed. If a guy's contract is coming up and he gets his bell rung-and if he has a concussion, he'll have to leave the game and maybe miss another one-trust me, he ain't tellin' nobody. Look at [49ers running back] Brian Westbrook. He was an elite player who had concussion issues, and he struggled to find work after the Eagles cut him. Guys saw that. I'm telling you, if you're a guy on the bubble or playing for your next contract, you're going out there and jeopardizing your life to get that payday. |
The UFC's Reebok deal has everyone taking a side. Two weeks ago, Brendan Schaub tweeted that he made six figures per fight from sponsors after finding out that he'd only garner $10,000 through the Reebok deal. UFC president Dana White responded in mocking fashion last week on TSN's Off the Record with Michael Landsberg. White read a list of company names, some of them silly, that he said were Schaub's sponsors. White added sarcastically: "I'm sure this guy is making over $100,000 a fight." I've made six figures in sponsorship in each of my last 6 fights https://t.co/gotToaSDJh — Brendan Schaub (@BrendanSchaub) May 6, 2015 Schaub appeared on Joe Rogan's fight companion podcast Saturday morning and said he stood by his numbers, but didn't want to get into a back-and-forth with White. Rogan, the UFC's lead color commentator, said what White did "doesn't make sense." "If somebody called me a liar, I would release the papers," Rogan told Schaub. "If I knew that I had everything on paper that would show that I wasn't a liar. It doesn't make sense to call you a liar. It makes sense to ask you what you were getting paid and then, 'Well, can you send me that?' That's like a rational conversation. It gets irrational when someone calls you a liar when you know you're not a liar and you do have the tax returns. The rational response to that is to just show." Schaub, 32, said he wasn't interested in making his tax returns public to prove how much he was making through sponsors, because he didn't think it benefited him with the UFC. "I'm not lying," he said. "But it does nothing for me to prove this and do all this stuff, because first things first, I'm Team UFC, man. I wouldn't have this platform, I wouldn't have this fame, I wouldn't be able to make money that I'm doing now if it wasn't for Dana White and the UFC. I'm not anti-UFC in the least bit." Schaub did say that White's list of sponsors was incorrect. He said that most of the names he read were off his banner -- not his actual sponsors. And one of them was just outright wrong. "I just think he was misinformed," Schaub said. "Someone misinformed him. I've never even heard of that. That's not my sponsor. It's not even a sponsor I work with." Rogan said it was "too late" for Schaub to not get into a "pissing contest," because it's already happening. "You're in a pissing contest," Rogan said. "He pissed on you. I saw him on that Landsberg show. He basically pulled his d*ck out and peed all over you." Schaub said he didn't want to be "the Tito Ortiz" of the UFC's Reebok deal. White has had a long-standing feud with Ortiz, the former UFC light heavyweight champion. He said if the Reebok uniform partnership benefits the organization in the long run, he's all for it. "The UFC is no different than a Microsoft or an Apple," Schaub said. "You've gotta crack some eggs to make an omelet. There's gonna be some guys upset. But in the grand scheme of things, it might be better for the overall concept of all the UFC fighters. I don't know. Maybe I'm the exception." Rogan disagreed. He said Schaub is not the exception at all. "That's not true, though," Rogan said. "A lot of people don't like this deal. This is a deal that a lot of people have criticized. "I don't know if he actually knew how much money guys like you who are very clever with your marketing and really good at promoting yourself how much they were making. He obviously didn't talk to you about it, so how could he know?" Many managers of UFC fighters have come out against the UFC's Reebok deal, in which sponsorship money will be doled out based on amount of fights under the Zuffa banner. Fighters will not be able to wear any other sponsor besides Reebok in the Octagon, during fight week or during any other UFC related event. Rogan said the rift between Schaub and White "drives me nuts." "Dana called you a liar," Rogan said. "I know you're not a liar. I love Dana. He's been my friend for a long f*cking time. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't even be working for the UFC. If he quit or the UFC got sold to someone else, I'd probably stop doing it. I really would." |
Pdf Files of Applied Analysis by John Hunter and Bruno Nachtergaele Updated July 21, 2005. We welcome your comments on the text. Please send them to jkhunter@ucdavis.edu or bxn@math.ucdavis.edu . Chapter 1: Metric and Normed Spaces (134) Chapter 2: Continuous Functions (3560) Chapter 3: The Contraction Mapping Theorem (6179) Chapter 4: Topological Spaces (8189) Chapter 5: Banach Spaces (91123) Chapter 6: Hilbert Spaces (125147) Chapter 7: Fourier Series (149186) Chapter 8: Bounded Linear Operators on a Hilbert Space (187214) Chapter 9: The Spectrum of Bounded Linear Operators (215243) Chapter 10: Linear Differential Operators and Green's Functions (245286) Chapter 11: Distributions and the Fourier Transform (287333) Chapter 12: Measure Theory and Function Spaces (335377) Chapter 13: Differential Calculus and Variational Methods (379426) References (427429) Index Errata for First Printing Errata for Second Printing back to homepage |
Health officials across Europe must improve their disease screening in light of the unprecedented influx of refugees, experts have warned. Migrants are at risk of carrying superbugs such as MRSA and antibiotic-resistant salmonella, which can cause havoc if they are introduced into European hospitals, according to research. Infectious diseases which were thought to be on the decline are now re-emerging as refugees carry bugs and viruses across borders, according to data presented at a major microbiology conference yesterday. Squalor: Europe's governments must introduce screening for HIV, TB and scabies because of the massive influx of migrants, experts have warned. Refugees are pictured wading through puddles at the Idomeni migrant camp in Greece Doctors told a conference in the Netherlands that more money and a coordinated approach to disease screening and treatment was needed with health systems across the continent becoming overburdened Migrants have an increased chance of carrying HIV, tuberculosis, shigella, scabies and other parasitic infections, experts said. A series of papers presented at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease conference in Amsterdam outlined the new risk of infectious diseases. Refugees have flooded into Europe in unprecedented numbers over the past two years, many fleeing war, persecution and humanitarian disaster in Syria, Iraq and Libya. A record 1.25million asylum seekers arrived in the EU last year – more than double the 564,000 who arrived in 2014 – and these figures are likely to be the tip of the iceberg because they cover only official claims. In the UK, 38,878 asylum seekers lodged claims last year – up 20 per cent on 2014 and the highest number since 2004. Refugees are likely to pick up an array of diseases and viruses as they move across the world, doctors said. Living in squalid conditions in refugee camps in Africa and the Middle East, and on their journeys across Europe, they have poor access to sanitation and often live cheek by jowl – the ideal condition for infections to multiply and spread. Perhaps more startling, however, is the number of superbugs seen among refugees, picked up either in their country of origin or along their route to Europe. Many of these superbugs – such as MRSA, salmonella and certain strains of ecoli – are rapidly becoming untreatable with antibiotics. Europe has struggled to deal with the influx of refugees from countries in Africa and the Middle East ravaged by war and poverty. Migrants are pictured at the border of Greece and Macedonia Academics from University Hospital Basel yesterday reported that patients in a Swiss refugee centre were ten times as likely to be carrying MRSA bugs as the general population. A Norwegian study, conducted over ten years between 2006 and 2015, found that 26 per cent of cases of MRSA were acquired abroad, either as a result of migration or tourism. And a German study, conducted at refugee reception centres in the state of Thuringia, found two strains of the shigella bug which were resistant to common antibiotics. Refugees may carry both resistant pathogens and microbes, causing the emergence or re-emergence of infectious diseases that have become less prevalent in host countries Professor of Medicine Winfried Kern Other studies presented yesterday found that refugees were more likely to have HIV, TB, salmonella, Chagas disease and scabies. A study of 700 people in Denmark found that refugees were more than five times as likely to have HIV as Danish-born citizens. The researchers said that refugees were also more likely to seek medical help at a late stage, increasing the risk of transmission. Winfried Kern, programme director at the conference, said: ‘Healthcare services across the world are facing a number of new challenges as a result of recent mass migration. ‘Refugees may carry both resistant pathogens and microbes, causing the emergence or re-emergence of infectious diseases that have become less prevalent in host countries. ‘We recommend that public health facilities maintain and step up screening programmes and put the appropriate precautions and procedures in place to most effectively protect migrants and domestic populations in host countries.’ According to refugee agencies, more than a million migrants arrived in the EU last year, and almost 180,000 so far this year - many risking their lives to cross the sea in crowded boats. Most spend extended periods in camps ill-equipped to deal with the unprecedented influx Professor Harkan Leblebicioglu, head of the society’s group for infections in travellers and migrants, said most people have little to worry about, because transmission usually requires close contact. But he said hospitals should be wary of the risk, because if a refugee is admitted to hospital carrying a superbug the chance of it spreading is high. Dr Nick Beeching, of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said that NHS hospitals have well-established systems in place to spot the risk, with patients likely to be isolated if there is a chance of a disease spreading. |
Former UFC champion Anderson Silva and Nick Diaz both banked six-figure purses for their heavily-anticipated middleweight meeting in the main event of UFC 183, according to figures released by the Nevada Athletic Commission to MMAFighting.com on Monday. Fighting for the first time since suffering a grisly broken leg in Dec. 2013, Silva earned $800,000 for his emotional and occasionally bizarre unanimous decision victory over Diaz, who himself was fighting for the first time in nearly two years. Unbelievably, the win was only Silva's first since Oct. 2012, while Diaz pulled in $500,000 for his third consecutive defeat. Aside from the two headliners, only one other fighter hit the six-figure mark in reported earnings. Top-ranked welterweight Tyron Woodley earned $139,000 for his co-main event win over Kelvin Gastelum, although $9,000 of that number was forfeited from Gastelum's purse as the result of a badly botched weight cut. In the aftermath of Saturday night's event, Woodley revealed that he would donate the fined money back to Gastelum. UFC 183 took place Jan. 31 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, NV. Additionally, undercard fighter Thales Leites scored a rarely awarded $100,000 double bonus for his work, while Tim Boetsch and Thiago Alves both scored extra $50,000 fight night checks for their efforts. As always, the entire UFC 183 payroll can be seen below, although these figures do not represent a fighter's total earnings, as sponsorship money and discretionary post-fight bonuses are not publicly disclosed. Main Card (Pay-per-view) Anderson Silva ($600,000 + $200,000 = $800,000) def. Nick Diaz ($500,000) Tyron Woodley ($65,000 + $65,000 + $9,000* = $139,000) def. Kelvin Gastelum ($30,000 - $9,000* = $21,000) Al Iaquinta ($18,000 + $18,000 = $36,000) def. Joe Lauzon ($36,000) Thales Leites ($24,000 + $24,000 = $48,000) def. Tim Boetsch ($52,000) Thiago Alves ($42,000 + $42,000 = $84,000) def. Jordan Mein ($22,000) Preliminary Card (FOX Sports 1) Miesha Tate ($38,000 + $38,000 = $76,000) def. Sara McMann ($25,000) Derek Brunson ($25,000 + $25,000 = $50,000) def. Ed Herman ($47,000) John Lineker ($21,000 + $21,000 - *$6,300 = $35,700) def. Ian McCall ($16,000 + *$6,300 = $22,300) Rafael Natal ($29,000 + $29,000 = $58,000) def. Tom Watson ($16,000) Preliminary Card (UFC Fight Pass) Jimy Hettes ($16,000) vs. Diego Brandao ($24,000) cancelled Ildemar Alcantara ($16,000 + $16,000 = $32,000) def. Richardson Moreira ($8,000) Thiago Santos ($13,000 + $13,000 = $26,000) def. Andy Enz ($8,000) * Gastelum and Lineker forfeited 30-percent of their purses for missing weight |
Mirrodin Besieged : la carte EXCLU MV écrit par JMB En ce début d'année 2011, magic-ville revient à la charge avec une carte exclu de l'édition MIRRODIN BESIEGED. La carte que vous allez découvrir est une créature, plus particulièrement un myr, et pour ceux qui ont une âme de curieux, et qui ne font pas partie des fainéants qui se contentent de l'info brute, vous pouvez essayer de deviner le texte de la carte en sachant que parmi les trois dessins ci-dessous, le choix final a été difficile, même si l'un d'entre eux se trouve plus représentatif de l'univers heroic fantasy de Magic. Et donc sans plus attendre, cliquez ici pour découvrir la carte exclu de MV. Sur ce, je vous souhaite à tous une bonne année 2011. @+ JMB PS : Merci à Damien Guillemard pour cette exclusivité. En ce début d'année 2011, magic-ville revient à la charge avec une carte exclu de l'édition MIRRODIN BESIEGED.La carte que vous allez découvrir est une créature, plus particulièrement un myr, et pour ceux qui ont une âme de curieux, et qui ne font pas partie des fainéants qui se contentent de l'info brute, vous pouvez essayer de deviner le texte de la carte en sachant que parmi les trois dessins ci-dessous, le choix final a été difficile, même si l'un d'entre eux se trouve plus représentatif de l'univers heroic fantasy de Magic.Sur ce, je vous souhaite à tous une bonne année 2011.@+JMBPS : Merci à Damien Guillemard pour cette exclusivité. Réagissez à cet article sur le forum |
The provincial government slashed funding for five urban parks and is reconsidering funding for two others: Regina’s Wascana Centre Authority and Saskatoon’s Meewasin Valley Authority. Wednesday’s provincial budget eliminated $540,000 for five parks: Wakamow Valley in Moose Jaw, Chinook Parkway in Swift Current, the Pehonan Parkway in Prince Albert, River Valley in Battlefords and Tatagwa View in Weyburn. Finance Minister Kevin Doherty said the provincial government believes funding for municipal parks is best left for municipalities to prioritize. Doherty said the province’s contribution to Wascana and Meewasin will “be on the table” in the future. “There are seven total urban parks that we fund and today we are announcing that we are no longer funding five of them,” Parks, Culture and Sport Minister Mark Docherty said in an interview. Both Wascana and Meewasin are funded by their respective cities, the province and their city’s universities. Wascana and Meewasin each received funding in Wednesday’s budget equal to what they received in the 2015-2016 budget: $3,618,000 for Wascana and $740,000 for Meewasin. Some of the funding, such as that for Wascana, Meewasin and Wakamow, is statutory, so a change in legislation is needed to cut the province’s contribution. Meewasin has been asking for more money from its partners for several years to keep up with repairing its crumbling trail system. In December, Meewasin made an urgent plea for $2.7 million from its partners to fix trails and its leaky interpretative centre. Meewasin operates with a budget of $2.5 million a year to tend to about 80 kilometres of trail. The Meewasin Valley Authority has estimated it needs about $15.7 million to upgrade trail infrastructure by 2023. It’s also seeking $14 million to implement its plan to protect the ecologically sensitive Northeast Swale as development encroaches on the area. — with Leader-Post files from Alexandra Johnson ptank@postmedia.com twitter.com/thinktankSK |
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe and join the tribe. Thanks for visiting! Some moms are Pinterest moms. This post is not for them. This post is for moms who I like to call survival mode moms. Moms who barely get by day to day with a high-intensity child and a busy schedule. Moms who work all day then take care of a child all night, because let’s face it, those kids don’t leave us alone at night. Especially those of us solo-parenting, or parenting a dragon child (on in my case – both). This is for those of us who are struggling each day. We’re in survival mode, and we need to support one another. Moms have a vital and heavy role – we take care of a tiny human who relies on us for everything, and this is outside our other obligations like work, taking care of the home, and our spouse. The number of hats we wear may fill a shop, but sometimes we’re the only ones who notice. I’m writing this post as my toddler is screaming, fighting bedtime. I have gone into his room four times already to escort him back to bed and explain that mommy isn’t putting up with this screaming anymore and refuses to lay with him until he falls asleep. Mommy has things to do too, and this kid needs to learn to sleep, dangit! That’s one thing survival mode does, it makes you soft, then hard. First I would lay with my toddler in his bed until he would fall asleep. All that would do is cause him to freak out each time he woke in the night alone, requiring me to run back to his room and take him to my bed so we (or at least I) could get some sleep at night before having to get up to go to work. That was me being soft. It worked, at first. Then he started taking advantage. Several nights this past week he would wake and have an hour-long tantrum in the middle of the freaking night! I know he misses Daddy, I know it is hard for him to adjust to him being away when he got to come home over the holidays on leave. But that doesn’t mean he can take it out on mommy. One night this past week got especially bad after the second such tantrum, that mommy lost it and started crying and sobbing as well. Interestingly, that stopped his tantrum and then we held each other sobbing until we fell back asleep. Then I would go to work with eye bags that have their own suitcases, have to survive a long commute, brain all day, and then deal with him for another night. That’s when survival mode makes you hard. It reminds you that it is time for a little tough love and the only way to get a child off your back and literally out of your hair is to teach him this behavior is no longer acceptable. My mom wasn’t this soft with me, and she constantly reminds me to be tougher and teach him what is appropriate. The pediatrician said the same at our two-year appointment as she saw how he was behaving with me. But I’m a softie. Motherhood has turned me into a softie. So hearing him cry and complain breaks my heart and gives me all the mom guilt, but tantrums must be dealt with, and comforting him through them just makes it worse. I stay close, but out of reach, so when the screaming and bucking stops, I can comfort and show him the calmer behavior is rewarded. But nights need to be different, and he needs to learn that two-year-olds don’t wake mommy up in the middle of the night to have a scream fest. So what are survival mode moms to do? Well, we do whatever it takes to get through the day and night. We find shortcuts, hacks, tips – things that make our tasks easier. And most importantly, we remember to take care of ourselves. The phrase self-care has been making the rounds on the internet, especially with new year’s resolutions being touted by many. Personally, I have been awful at taking care of myself. My immune system is down; a simple cold takes me out for weeks (though I still have to work and parent, while zombie-ing around). So this needs to change. I need to focus on me, at least sometimes. How I Practice Self-Care when I remember to do so I drink a strong, warm cup of tea. Emphasis on the warm, because, you know. If it means the tantruming toddler is put in his old pack-n-play for a timeout while I reheat my cup, so be it. That cup of tea is a balm to my soul. I blog. Like I’m doing right now. Instead of going to bed early. But getting this out is therapeutic, and I know that other moms feel this way too. I call my mom. Or talk to a friend or neighbor. Getting support from other moms is so important. I snuggle with my cat. Cats are excellent at soothing, with their cuddling and the purring. I read though I haven’t done that at home in a long time. I place an herbal heating pad on my shoulders. I just heat it up in the microwave and place it on my shoulders, and let the warmth and lavender scents take me away. It may not be a perfect Pinterest life, but we moms got this! Sometimes we forget, but we do wear invisible capes. When we support each other and take care of ourselves, our duties become that much less daunting. And now, with my toddler softly snoring away in his bed, I shall go do the same in mine. What do you do to help get through those survival mode days? |
Yet complaints from Afghans persist about the raids, which are almost invariably carried out under a veil of secrecy by Special Operations forces, often accompanied by Afghan commandos. The raids remain one of the greatest sources of contention with President Hamid Karzai, who has shown growing signs of distress over their use and has repeatedly called for them to end. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, has defended the raids in sometimes heated exchanges with Mr. Karzai. In May, apparently in recognition of the anger the raids had provoked, General Petraeus ordered reviews of all tactical guidance for coalition troops and the causes of civilian casualties, and later of the conduct of night operations. But neither General Petraeus, who has overseen a steep increase in the use of the raids since taking command about a year ago, nor his successor is unlikely to slow the pace of the raids. If anything, the military’s dependence on the night raids, which use relatively small teams of Special Forces, may only increase as the United States reduces its troops over the next three years. Accounts of the raids from the military and Afghan civilians often differ widely. In one example, family members and an Afghan investigator said that two clerics were among eight civilians killed in a raid last November by American Special Operations forces in Mian, a village in a remote district of the southern province of Kandahar. Muhammad Younus, 60, said in an interview that he was so badly beaten by American soldiers that he could not walk for 20 days. Villagers carried him out in a wheelbarrow and took him the next morning to see the bodies of his two brothers, the clerics: Maulavi Abdul Kabir, 72, and Maulavi Abdul Rauf, 65. They had been burned so badly, they were barely recognizable, and they bore bullet wounds, he said. Lt. Cmdr. Ron Flesvig, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, confirmed the raid and that eight people had been killed. He forwarded comments from the Special Operations public affairs office, dismissing the allegations as “unfounded and without merit.” An investigation “was unable to locate anyone who could or would provide a name of any civilian alleged to have been wounded or killed during the operation,” the public affairs office statement said. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The American forces’ actions in Mian over a 24-hour period nonetheless incensed the wider community and raised questions about the veracity of the military’s reporting. Military officials say that they get their target 80 percent of the time, and that less than 1 percent of the raids lead to civilian casualties. Yet there is no way to independently verify those figures, since the raids are conducted in great secrecy and are underreported. Any investigations by the military into the raids are not made public. The United Nations examined a number of night raids from 2010 in four districts in Kandahar, where the insurgency was intense. Elders and local Afghans said the raids were generally precise and caused fewer civilian casualties than before, according to Georgette Gagnon, director of the human rights unit of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan. But the mission also noted in its 2010 annual report that “excessive use of force, ill treatment, death and injury to civilians and damage to property has occurred in some cases involving Special Forces.” 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. The method of the raids, especially the forced entry of houses and invasion of women’s quarters, let alone killing of women, is deeply offensive culturally to Afghans. Although coalition forces say most raids are conducted using a “soft knock” — calling by loudspeaker for people to come out — there are still numerous accounts of forced entry and cases of men being shot in their beds next to their wives. The raids and attendant sweeping arrests have become the primary complaint of rural communities, human rights officials say. When Lt. Col. Aziz Ahmad took up a new job as police chief of Shah Joy District in the southeastern province of Zabul, townspeople asked immediately what he could do to stop the night raids. Just two weeks earlier American forces had raided the house of a Taliban member at night and killed him and his wife, leaving four small children alone. “We are trying to find relatives to take care of them,” the police chief said. “It turns people against the government and the foreign forces,” he said. Erica Gaston of the Open Society Institute, who is compiling a new report on night raids, said that while in general night raids had become more accurate, and that the conduct of forces had improved, she still encountered cases of unarmed people being shot in the head, or being shot when doing things like picking up a cellphone, running away or rushing to help a wounded relative. “People in the villages are more scared of the Americans than of the Taliban because of these raids,” said Gul Badshah Majidi, a legislator from the eastern province of Paktia. In Zabul Province, to the south, the Afghan Army commander, Gen. Jamaluddin Sayed, said that one of the reasons villagers were joining the local police program was not just to keep the Taliban out, but also to prevent raids on their houses. Advertisement Continue reading the main story NATO officials have dismissed many of the allegations from Afghans as Taliban propaganda. They cite cases of Taliban members ordering local elders to call officials and even President Karzai with fictitious reports of civilian casualties. But the military is intent on mitigating political fallout and training Afghans to take over leadership of the raids. The task of reviewing the raids and civilian casualties was given to Maj. Gen. John W. Nicholson, deputy chief of staff for operations in Afghanistan, who said that coalition forces were already revising procedures and retraining troops. On night operations they are now using Afghan soldiers to call people out of their homes, and female soldiers to safeguard women and children, he said. There was no sign of such practices during the raid by Special Operations forces and Afghan forces in late November in Mian. The American and Afghan forces arrived by helicopters at 11 p.m. and stayed for 24 hours, detaining all the men in one house and interrogating and beating a number of them, people in the village said. “Before they asked me a question, they started kicking and beating me,” Mr. Younus, the 60-year-old, said, adding that Americans did the beating and interrogation. Mr. Younus, a diabetic who walks with a cane, said he was beaten on and off through the night and fainted four times. “Don’t tell us about your sickness, we are going to kill you and your brothers and destroy your houses,” he recalls being told through a translator. An adviser minister to President Karzai on tribal affairs, Muhammad Siddique Aziz, who headed the Afghan investigation into the episode, said that none of those killed had been Taliban and that he had had bitter discussions with an American Special Forces general over his findings. “We told him that the activities you are doing are not in the interest of you nor of the Karzai government,” he said. “Whoever did this raid, why do they have to kill people? Why did they not just arrest them?” |
In Protest, German Activists Light Up U.S. Embassy Enlarge this image toggle caption YouTube YouTube In the wee hours of Sunday, the U.S. Embassy in Berlin became the unwitting host of a light show expressing opposition the U.S. surveillance programs. "The United Stasi of America," was splashed on a wall at the embassy around 1 a.m., the work of German guerrilla artists. The Europeans in general have been extremely critical of the surveillance programs. And the Germans have been particularly vocal given the history of the Nazis and the Stasi, the secret police during the communist era in East Germany. The light projection also included the likeness of Kim Dotcom, also known as Kim Schmitz, the Internet entrepreneur who founded Megaupload and its successor, Mega. However, the actual projection was carried out by Oliver Bienkowski, and is captured here in this YouTube video. Bienkowski received permission from Kim Dotcom to use the image. Dotcom, a German who is currently living in New Zealand, then tweeted his approval from afar: YouTube "I defaced the U.S. Embassy in Berlin with a truth-projection last night. 0wned!" According to the German paper Bild, Bienkowski used a five-person team for the projection, and they spent three days setting up outside the embassy. Agence France-Presse quoted a U.S. embassy spokesperson as saying, "Very funny. But anyone making such a comparison knows neither the Stasi nor the United States." |
In a story that dropped late Friday night, the Wall Street Journal reports that a Playboy model who says she had an affair with Donald Trump got a $150,000 paycheck from the National Enquirer, which curiously sat on the story after buying it. The Journal, citing documents and “people familiar with the matter,” reports that in August, the tabloid paid $150,000 to Karen McDougal, the 1998 Playmate of the Year who said she enjoyed a consensual relationship with Trump in 2006—a year after his wedding to his third and current wife, Melania. Advertisement The Journal categorizes the exchange as a “catch and kill,” where the tabloid bought her story to silence her. A source tells the Journal that despite paying out six figures for the story, the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media, “didn’t intend to run it.” The company confirmed in a statement to the Journal that the money was for the “exclusive life rights to any relationship she has had with a then-married man,” but it declined to identify the man and denied killing the story. The Journal filled in the blanks, identifying Trump as her partner. In a written statement, the company said it wasn’t buying Ms. McDougal’s story for $150,000, but rather two years’ worth of her fitness columns and magazine covers as well as exclusive life rights to any relationship she has had with a then-married man. “AMI has not paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump,” the statement said. Advertisement McDougal has not, since the August deal, done any fitness columns or magazine covers. The Journal also reports McDougal’s contract with the agent who represented her in the American Media deal specified that their business concerned “claims against Donald Trump and or assisting client in negotiating a confidentiality agreement and/or life rights related to interactions with Donald Trump and/or negotiating assignment of exclusive press opportunities regarding same.” So why would the Enquirer not run the story when it bought it in August, or after the pussy-grabbing allegations, or now, when the election is less than a week away? A few motivations come to mind. For one thing, Trump and the Enquirer have long enjoyed a cozy relationship that may or may not have influenced the tabloid’s coverage of Ted Cruz’s alleged affairs, hard evidence of which was never reported. It’s also a nice way to curry favor with a potential president of the United States. And, not to be too cynical, it’s possible no one would care about allegations of Trump’s consensual adultery—12 women have accused him of sexual assault and he’s still in the race. If that were the case, though, it’s hard to see why the Enquirer would have paid $150,000 to lock up the rights to it, with a contract that, according to the Journal, requires McDougal to pay “damages of at least $150,000 if she discloses her story elsewhere on social media or gives interviews about it.” The company, the Journal reports, has no obligation to publish her story. Still, the Journal got some details about the alleged affair: Ms. McDougal, who continued modeling after appearing in Playboy, told several of her friends she had a relationship for about 10 months with Mr. Trump, beginning in 2006 and lasting into 2007, according to people familiar with her account. Another friend told the Journal that Ms. McDougal’s relationship with Mr. Trump lasted about a year. A friend of Ms. McDougal’s recalled attending the Miss Universe pageant at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles as a guest of Mr. Trump in 2006. Mr. Trump’s limousine picked up Ms. McDougal and her at Ms. McDougal’s Beverly Hills home, and the two women sat in the front row with Mr. Trump and music producers Quincy Jone sand David Foster. Mr. Trump escorted them home, the friend said. Advertisement The Journal’s conclusion that the Enquirer bought the story solely to silence the woman is more than just an allegation of an incestuous relationship between the nation’s most notorious tabloid and the presidential candidate who says he hates the media. It’s also a potential campaign law violation. Spending $150,000 to protect a presidential candidate from an embarrassing story could be construed to be an unreported in-kind campaign donation. At least, that’s the reasoning prosecutors used when they went after John Edwards for using money from his political supporters to pay off his then-pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter—a story the Enquirer broke. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.