text stringlengths 0 100k |
|---|
I’m a big fan of white chocolate, but not even the strongest sweets craving couldn’t make me take a bite out of Annabel de Vetten’s creepy baby heads. They’re way too scary for me, but according to the English food artist they’re quite a hit at parties and baby showers. The disturbing white chocolate artworks were originally designed as a private commission, but apparently they came out so good that Annabel decided to make several more. Then, her works were discovered by strange cake curator Miss Cakehead, who also brought the infamous STD Cupcakes to our attention, and now the eerily realistic newborn baby heads are a popular chocolate treat. “I just pictured ‘dead, milky eyes and skin’ and hit the nail on the so to speak. And creased the mold while it was setting to get a soft, ‘damaged’ effect. So, strangely enough, no challenge! I was a little worried some might think this is going a bit too far. But it’s only chocolate and if someone doesn’t like the shape it’s in, they can just go buy a Mars bar,” de Vetten told HuffPost. The life-size baby heads are made with a latex mold the artist used to create candles with, and contain about 5,000 calories (double the daily intake for an average man). 41-year-old Annabel de Vetten says the white chocolate heads are too big for the average person to bite on, so she suggests smashing them with a hammer… She admits not everyone’s crazy about her original dessert, but she’s still swamped with orders from people who want the creepy sweets for parties and even baby showers. |
The Kanger Kbox is a unique variable wattage mod offering plenty of power (up to 40W) in a simple, compact package. It lacks the complex operating system of many of it’s competitors, but offers 7 preset wattage levels (8, 13, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 watts) that correspond to lights on the side of the device. Just click the button until you hit your desired output. It takes a single 18650 battery and is compatible with most (0.4 ohm) sub-ohm tanks. The first round was available in silver, but several vendors are now carrying the Kanger Kbox in BLACK. We’re not sure if there are two different versions, since some show the black Kanger Kbox with red buttons and others with black, but either way it’s a great-looking alternative. You can get one at Fast Tech for $26.40, or Vapor Beast for just $25.16 with coupon “YEAHBABY” → * Expiration of coupon code is unknown. Good while supplies last. Kangertech Kbox Mod features: Variable Wattage: 8 – 40 watts Wattage Settings: 8, 13, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40W Short Circuit Protection Over Current Protection Replaceable Cells (Requires 20A 18650 battery – sold separetely) Battery Capacity Indicator Automatic Wattage Adjustment Can Fire down to 0.4 ohms 510 Connection (spring-loaded center pin) Kanger Kbox Video Review by VTC: |
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt (Reuters) - Princess Fawzia Fuad, a daughter and sister of Egyptian kings and the first wife of the last Shah of Iran, died on Tuesday in Alexandria, a member of the former royal family and a senior local police officer said. Her death at the age of 91 was also reported on a Facebook page associated with her nephew, King Fuad II, Egypt’s deposed and exiled last monarch. Fawzia, the glamorous sister of Fuad’s father King Farouk, married Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1939, before he acceded the throne in Tehran. They divorced nine years later. Fawzia remarried, to an Egyptian army officer, on her return from her failed marriage to the Shah. He went on to marry twice more and died in Cairo in 1980, less than a year after he was deposed in the Islamic revolution. “The royal family of Egypt announces to the nation that it is mourning the passing of Her Royal Highness Princess Fawzia Fuad, daughter of His Majesty King Fuad I and sister of His Majesty King Faruk I and aunt of his Majesty King Fuad II and the former Empress of Iran,” read a statement on the Facebook page. “The funeral procession for Her Royal Highness Princess Fawzia will start after noon prayer on Wednesday,” it added. Relatives Melekper Toussoun and Mohamed Yakin, also confirmed the death to Reuters. Yakin said she would be buried in Cairo. |
To the monks of Mont Saint-Odile, perched high in the Vosges mountains, it seemed like the work of the devil. During nearly two years of doubt and mystification, 1,100 ancient books disappeared from the monastery library without any trace of a break-in. Yesterday, in a court in Saverne, Alsace, the mystery reached its conclusion when the thief, Stanislas Gosse, 33, was given a suspended sentence of 18 months for a burglary that had echoes of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose and a touch of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. The judge was told of a lost map, a secret passage and a hidden entrance through a cupboard, all finally revealed by routine modern technology - CCTV cameras. But the thief, who baffled priests and detectives between August 2000 and May 2002, said he was driven by pure passion for the priceless books, filling his little Strasbourg flat with massive volumes dating back to the XVth century. Some, with wooden covers and weighing several kilos, he had carried off on his bicycle. Gosse, a teacher at a Strasbourg engineering school and a former naval officer, faced a rare charge of "burglary by ruse and escalade", a reference to the tortuous climb in and out of the locked library. He had found the route after discovering a forgotten map in public archives which revealed the secret access from the monastery attic. The map was a key exhibit in the trial. The attic, reached by a daring climb up exterior walls, led to a steep, narrow stairway and then the secret chamber. A hidden mechanism opened up the back of one of five cupboards in the library. The plans suggested that the secret route to the library, once the monastery's common room, served in medieval times to spy on the monks' conversations. Inside the library, Gosse spent hours by candlelight picking out volumes, some of which he stored in the attic. In an atmosphere of general suspicion among the nuns and monks of Mont Saint-Odile, the librarian, Alain Donius, called the police to report that entire shelves had been cleared. But though the locks were changed and the library door reinforced with steel, books continued to disappear at a steady rate during the police inquiry. Gosse was so confident he left a rose on the main entrance door to tease Father Donius after a particularly successful visit. Gosse told the court: "I'm afraid my burning passion overrode my conscience. It may appear selfish, but I felt the books had been abandoned. They were covered with dust and pigeon droppings and I felt no one consulted them any more. There was also the thrill of adventure - I was very scared of being found out." The mystery was finally solved when police installed a hidden video camera while the monks and nuns attended their Pentecost services. As night fell, the police watched Gosse fill three suitcases with books. They arrested him while he was still carrying the rope he needed to climb down the outer walls. In his flat, they discovered he had, on some books, carefully covered up the monastery's bookplates with his own personal labels. Gosse's counsel, Cathy Petit, said her client had taken great care of the books and even restored some of them. She requested he got a community service sentence to help the monks catalogue their treasures, but the judge added fines and damages of 17,000 euros (£11,835) to the suspended prison term. The public prosecutor, Jean Dissler, said the archbishop of Strasbourg and Father Donius had forgiven Gosse and they wanted him to continue as a teacher, a request granted by the court. They have also told him he can come back to the library - but only through the front door. |
Girl's Generation will be making a Korean comeback in January. The girls had been originally scheduled for a comeback in late October. However, these plans were scrapped and they had to push back their comeback date. This will be their first Korean comeback after a long 15 months since "The Boys" was released. The girls had no Korean promotions as a full group in 2012, so fans are looking forward for the January comeback. Girls' Generation has always garnered good results through a January comeback with hits such as "Gee" (2009) and "Oh!" (2010) both being released in January which attributed greatly to their incredible popularity. With the January comeback, they're looking forward to another hit next year as well. What kind of concept would you like to see for their Korean comeback? Source: Sports Donga via Nate |
Last night I utterly trounced three opponents at the slick new Fantasy Flight reissue of a classic interstellar trade and exploration game, Merchants of Venus . My end score was nearly three times that of the runner-up, and I had acquired so many fame points (which each become 10 victory points at game end) that we ran out of fame tokens. One of the other players half-humorously protested that I had gotten incredibly lucky. “Nonsense”, I said, “it was planning”. He sputtered that I had frequently had the victory conditions for lucrative missions apparently drop in my lap. Which was true, and he was right to view those individual occurrences as luck. But it was also true that I planned my way to victory. I made chance work for me. Pay attention, because I am about to reveal why there is a large class of games (notably pick-up-and-carry games like Empire Builder , network-building games like Power Grid , and more generally games with a large variety of paths to the win condition) at which I am extremely difficult to beat. The technique is replicable. I have a rule: when in doubt, play to maximize the breadth of your option tree. Actually, you should often choose option-maximizing moves over moves with a slightly higher immediate payoff, especially early in the game and most especially if the effect of investing in options is cumulative. This rule has many consequences. In pick-up-and-carry games, it means that given any choice in the matter you want to start by deploying or moving your train or spaceship or whatever to the center of the board. You minimize your expected distance over the set of all possible randomly-chosen destinations that way. You give yourself the best possible chance to “get lucky” by finding a fattest possible contract or trade opportunity that you can deliver in minimum time. More generally, in games with multiple paths to victory, open as many of those paths as you can. And heavily favor moves that help you explore the possibilities faster than your opponents. In Empire Builder , buy the faster train as soon as possible. In Merchants of Venus , the first ship upgrade I bought was better engines. In games with an exploration mechanic, like Merchants of Venus or Eclipse , push it hard in the early game. Again, the payoff here is that you’re generating options for yourself. This effect is particularly strong in Merchants of Venus because on a first-contact planetfall you get to do two buys and sells with the natives rather than the normal one – you have that much better a chance of a trade good you previously bought on spec being highly valuable, or of picking up a spec load that will pay off large at your next first contact. (Of course, when this happens, it looks like luck.) Look for other ways to broaden your option tree. In the Merchants of Venus game one of my other early purchases was a second mission-card slot. From early in the game to shortly before the end, this meant I had a choice of two missions to work on rather than just the one other players were pursuing. So of course I fulfilled them more often! It looked like I was getting lucky; what I was actually doing was maximizing the number of possible ways I could get lucky. In network-building games like Power Grid and Empire Builder , bias towards moves that make your network closer to a minimal spanning tree for all destinations of interest – that is, accept somewat lower immediate payoffs and/or higher costs for building such links. This maximizes your chances of being able to reach anywhere quickly in the later game. Power Grid is an instructive example of a game with positional, network-building strategy in which maximizing your option tree can also be done in some ways that aren’t at all positional. One relatively obvious one is to buy hybrid plants, which increase your options for both price-taking in the fuel market and (less obviously) manipulating it. Another one is to be willing to pay what you have to to get a game-ender plant (a 5 or 6) within the first few rounds, even if it means you don’t get to build cities in that turn and your revenue doesn’t go up. The real payoff here is being able to sit out several auction rounds while other players are scrambling for plant capacity to match their city-building. Their options are narrow in each round; yours aren’t – you can pile up money or opportunistically grab only the most efficient plant buys as they go by. I rely particularly heavily on the latter tactic. I made the national Power Grid finals with it this year. If you are in a game where other opponents can directly mess with you, maximizing your option tree also makes it more difficult for them to correctly predict which countermoves will damage you the most. And even if they close off one tactical path, you’ll have others. More generally, you may overwhelm their capacity to model your behavior, so the game looks to them like constant surprises with you coming at them from very direction at once. Weak players often fail a morale check in this situation and become even weaker. (This happened last night – one total morale collapse and one partial out of three opponents. Unsurprisingly to me, the third guy, the one with the most sitzfleisch, came in second.) Afterwards, they think you “got lucky”. This is an illusion they foist on themselves through picking a single path to victory and working it as hard as possible. Because this makes their range of usable lucky breaks smaller and less likely to occur, they overestimate the element of chance in your victory – they judge it by how lucky they would have had to be to win by a similar margin. And why am I OK with telling you this secret? Because ha ha, Grasshopper, I have other secrets. Perhaps I will share some of them in future posts. |
LetaBot Profile Blog Joined June 2014 Netherlands 531 Posts Last Edited: 2017-04-25 14:10:08 #1 Improving mineral gathering rate in Brood War (using BWAPI) As some of you may know, the default behaviour of worker units is not optimal. The most common example is a worker unit that goes to a mineral field far away because the one it originally wanted to go to was occupied (even if it had only 1 millisecond remaining). Techniques to overcome these problems require some APM and multi tasking, so they are only feasible for a human in the early game. But if you are developing a bot (with the For my master thesis I considered the following techniques: - Built-In - Mineral Lock - Queue System - Co-operative Pathfinding - Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue System Built-In: This algorithm/technique describes the default behaviour of worker units. In essence each worker unit gathering minerals works as follows: - If a worker units arrives at a mineral field from which it wants to mine, but the mineral field is occupied. It will go to the nearest unoccupied mineral field (it will only check mineral fields nearby). - If the worker unit has minerals, it will deliver them back to the nearest resource depot. - Once the worker unit has delivered the resources, it will go back to the last mineral field it tried to mine from. The technique/algorithm simply assigns each worker unit to the closest (unoccupied) mineral field and leaves the default technique to manage the worker unit. This is the technique used by most humans. Most BWAPI bots also still use this. Mineral Lock: This technique/algorithm assigns a worker unit to a mineral field and assures that it stays there by continuously giving the worker unit a gather command to the mineral field every time that it tries to go to another mineral field. Used sometimes by humans in the early stages of the game to gain a mineral lead on their opponent. Used more often by several bots because they have the APM and multitasking capabilities to continuously do it for every worker for the entire game. Example of bots that use it: LetaBot. (I have seen other bots that uses it as well, but I cannot remember which ones). Queue System (Christensen et al.): Instead of letting the worker unit return to the last mineral field it gathered from, the queue system calculates for each mineral field how long it will take before the worker unit will return again (with minerals of course). This calculation is based on: 1. how long it takes to travel to the mineral field 2. How long the other worker units assigned to the mineral field will occupy the field 3. How long it takes to travel back to the resource depot For the second calculation ,the queue system maintains a queue for each mineral field. Given the travel time, the queue system can determine for how long the mineral field will still be occupied when the worker unit arrives. Not used by any human that I know of. Christensen et al. originally developed this system and experimented with it, but it hasn't been put in any BWAPI bot that I know of. Co-operative Pathfinding: Another trick that humans use (besides mineral lock) to increase the mineral gathering rate. When a worker unit approaches a mineral field that it wants to gather from, it will start to brake when it comes close to the mineral field. This behaviour can be prevented by telling the worker unit to move to a location beyond the mineral field and switching back to the mineral field when the SCV nearly touches the mineral field. This way the SCV won't slowly break, but go full speed all the way to the mineral field. Two examples are given in the picture above. In the first option, the worker unit want to get to the leftmost mineral field (indicated by a red circle with a square inside). To arrive there faster, it gets an order to mine the mineral field beyond its original target (indicated by a green circle with a triangle inside). When close enough, it switches back to the original intended mineral field. In the second option, the worker unit wants to get to the uppermost mineral field (indicated by a red circle with a filled circle inside). Instead of using another mineral field, it uses a move command that goes beyond the mineral field (indicated by a filled green circle above the mineral field). When close enough, it switches back to the original indented mineral field. When using a move command, the collision detection for the worker unit is turned on again. So co-operative pathfinding is used to avoid collisions (details of this will be in my master thesis). Used sometimes by humans in the early stages of the game to gain a mineral lead on their opponent. Not used by any bot that I know of. It will be put in the next version of LetaBot. Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue system: Combination of the two techniques mentioned above. The Queue System takes the reduced travel time resulting from the Co-operative Pathfinding into account. Not used by any bot that I know of. Is on the TODO list for LetaBot. Experiments: The experimental setup is based on the paper “A Data-Driven Approach for Resource Gathering in Real-Time Strategy Games” written by Christensen et al. In this setup the algorithm is given control of a Command Center with 4 SCV's on the top right starting location of the map "Astral Balance". During the entire experiment, the command center will produce SCV's until the supply limit is reached. The algorithm is in control of scheduling each SCV's. After the supply counter reaches 9/10, 1 SCV is taken away to build a supply depot (which raises the supply limit to 18). Once this SCV finished building, it is given back to the algorithm. So the algorithm eventually ends up with 18 SCV's to control. Each algorithm is scored based on how many minerals it can collect in 8000 frames. Final results at the 8000 frame mark: Built-in: 4098 Mineral lock: 4578 Queue: 4634 Co-operative Pathfinding: 4666 Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue: 4706 A more detailed recording (excel table with data points at every 500 frames) of the experiment can be found A video of the experiments in action (number on the mineral field indicates the default round trip times in #frames): As some of you may know, the default behaviour of worker units is not optimal.The most common example is a worker unit that goes to a mineral field far away because the one it originally wanted to go to was occupied (even if it had only 1 millisecond remaining).Techniques to overcome these problems require some APM and multi tasking, so they are only feasible for a human in the early game. But if you are developing a bot (with the BWAPI ), you can turn some of these techniques into an algorithm such that your bot can gather more minerals per second.For my master thesis I considered the following techniques:- Built-In- Mineral Lock- Queue System- Co-operative Pathfinding- Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue SystemThis algorithm/technique describes the default behaviour of worker units.In essence each worker unit gathering minerals works as follows:- If a worker units arrives at a mineral field from which it wants to mine, but the mineral field is occupied. It will go to the nearest unoccupied mineral field (it will only check mineral fields nearby).- If the worker unit has minerals, it will deliver them back to the nearest resource depot.- Once the worker unit has delivered the resources, it will go back to the last mineral field it tried to mine from.The technique/algorithm simply assigns each worker unit to the closest (unoccupied) mineral field and leaves the default technique to manage the worker unit.This is the technique used by most humans. Most BWAPI bots also still use this.This technique/algorithm assigns a worker unit to a mineral field and assures that it stays there by continuously giving the worker unit a gather command to the mineral field every time that it tries to go to another mineral field.Used sometimes by humans in the early stages of the game to gain a mineral lead on their opponent.Used more often by several bots because they have the APM and multitasking capabilities to continuously do it for every worker for the entire game.Example of bots that use it: LetaBot. (I have seen other bots that uses it as well, but I cannot remember which ones).Instead of letting the worker unit return to the last mineral field it gathered from, the queue system calculates for each mineral field how long it will take before the worker unit will return again (with minerals of course).This calculation is based on:1. how long it takes to travel to the mineral field2. How long the other worker units assigned to the mineral field will occupy the field3. How long it takes to travel back to the resource depotFor the second calculation ,the queue system maintains a queue for each mineral field.Given the travel time, the queue system can determine for how long the mineral field will still be occupied when the worker unit arrives.Not used by any human that I know of.Christensen et al. originally developed this system and experimented with it, but it hasn't been put in any BWAPI bot that I know of.Another trick that humans use (besides mineral lock) to increase the mineral gathering rate.When a worker unit approaches a mineral field that it wants to gather from, it will start to brake when it comes close to the mineral field.This behaviour can be prevented by telling the worker unit to move to a location beyond the mineral field and switching back to the mineral field when the SCV nearly touches the mineral field.This way the SCV won't slowly break, but go full speed all the way to the mineral field.Two examples are given in the picture above. In the first option, the worker unit want to get to the leftmost mineral field (indicated by a red circle with a square inside).To arrive there faster, it gets an order to mine the mineral field beyond its original target (indicated by a green circle with a triangle inside). When close enough, it switches back to the original intended mineral field.In the second option, the worker unit wants to get to the uppermost mineral field (indicated by a red circle with a filled circle inside). Instead of using another mineral field, it uses a move command that goes beyond the mineral field (indicated by a filled green circle above the mineral field).When close enough, it switches back to the original indented mineral field.When using a move command, the collision detection for the worker unit is turned on again. So co-operative pathfinding is used to avoid collisions (details of this will be in my master thesis).Used sometimes by humans in the early stages of the game to gain a mineral lead on their opponent.Not used by any bot that I know of. It will be put in the next version of LetaBot.Combination of the two techniques mentioned above.The Queue System takes the reduced travel time resulting from the Co-operative Pathfinding into account.Not used by any bot that I know of. Is on the TODO list for LetaBot.The experimental setup is based on the paper “A Data-Driven Approach for Resource Gathering in Real-Time Strategy Games” written by Christensen et al.In this setup the algorithm is given control of a Command Center with 4 SCV's on the top right starting location of the map "Astral Balance".During the entire experiment, the command center will produce SCV's until the supply limit is reached.The algorithm is in control of scheduling each SCV's.After the supply counter reaches 9/10, 1 SCV is taken away to build a supply depot (which raises the supply limit to 18). Once this SCV finished building, it is given back to the algorithm.So the algorithm eventually ends up with 18 SCV's to control.Each algorithm is scored based on how many minerals it can collect in 8000 frames.Final results at the 8000 frame mark:Built-in: 4098Mineral lock: 4578Queue: 4634Co-operative Pathfinding: 4666Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue: 4706A more detailed recording (excel table with data points at every 500 frames) of the experiment can be found here A video of the experiments in action (number on the mineral field indicates the default round trip times in #frames): Note that the video shows the mineral count at 8005 frames instead of the 8000 mark above. Future work: - Besides going to the mineral field, it is also possible to go full speed when going back to the resource depot. I haven't figured out how to do that systematically though - The Queue system schedules the worker units with a so called "greedy" algorithm because it doesn't look ahead. The queue system can be enhanced by a (tree) search technique. Source code can be found here: https://github.com/MartinRooijackers/LetaBot/tree/master/Research/MineralGatheringAlgorithm P.S: I was originally going to post this on broodwarai.com, but that site is unfortunately down edit: changed Build-In to Built-In Note that the video shows the mineral count at 8005 frames instead of the 8000 mark above.- Besides going to the mineral field, it is also possible to go full speed when going back to the resource depot. I haven't figured out how to do that systematically though- The Queue system schedules the worker units with a so called "greedy" algorithm because it doesn't look ahead. The queue system can be enhanced by a (tree) search technique.Source code can be found here:I was originally going to post this on broodwarai.com, but that site is unfortunately downedit: changed Build-In to Built-In If you cannot win with 100 apm, win with 100 cpm. Shinrei Profile Joined February 2007 United States 221 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-06 22:46:15 #2 This seems like an interesting way to make AIs more potent. =^.^= art_of_turtle Profile Blog Joined September 2012 United States 831 Posts #3 Would there be a way to calculate it for all 3 races in terms of their standard best economic openings? for example for zerg the 12h, 14cc for terran and 12nex for toss? Out here, am I floating on my tin can. JieXian Profile Blog Joined August 2008 Malaysia 4190 Posts #4 wow hax :D nice work Please send me a PM of any song you like that I most probably never heard of! I am looking for poeple to chat about writing and producing music | http://www.youtube.com/c/JeiShian | kogeT Profile Joined September 2013 Poland 1355 Posts #5 Great work. I'll look into that in details soon. I also as "human" have plenty of mineral mining tricks. wimpwimpwimp Profile Joined May 2012 118 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-07 09:31:38 #6 On May 07 2015 17:28 kogeT wrote: Great work. I'll look into that in details soon. I also as "human" have plenty of mineral mining tricks. Feel free to share By the way, interesting work, OP. Feel free to shareBy the way, interesting work, OP. 2Pacalypse- Profile Joined October 2006 Croatia 8120 Posts #7 Can you just clarify how much time 8,000 frames is? Seems pretty short (a couple of minutes?), which makes it pretty impressive that the Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue algorithm manages to gather ~600 more minerals than the default one. This seems like an awesome topic for master thesisCan you just clarify how much time 8,000 frames is? Seems pretty short (a couple of minutes?), which makes it pretty impressive that the Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue algorithm manages to gather ~600 more minerals than the default one. Moderator "We're a community of geniuses because we've found how to extract 95% of the feeling of doing something amazing without actually doing anything." - Chill quirinus Profile Blog Joined May 2007 Croatia 2466 Posts #8 I'm sure there's people using a variation of the "Queue system". If I understood correctly what you mean, I'm using it (when I'm not lazy) - I cycle 3 workers on 2 minerals. When I'm feeling uber-wannabe, I do it with 6 workers. You can cycle them this way, and there's still a small time when the minerals are unoccupied, until there's more workers to cover it. BW runs in 25 FPS, so 8000 frames is 5:20 min. You might want to edit/change the "Build-In" to "Built-In", if I understood you correctly. Built-in refers to something being already a part of the product from the start, whereas build-in doesn't really have any special meaning as far as I know. Nice.I'm sure there's people using a variation of the "Queue system".If I understood correctly what you mean, I'm using it (when I'm not lazy) - I cycle 3 workers on 2 minerals. When I'm feeling uber-wannabe, I do it with 6 workers. You can cycle them this way, and there's still a small time when the minerals are unoccupied, until there's more workers to cover it.BW runs in 25 FPS, so 8000 frames is 5:20 min.You might want to edit/change the "Build-In" to "Built-In", if I understood you correctly. Built-in refers to something being already a part of the product from the start, whereas build-in doesn't really have any special meaning as far as I know. All candles lit within him, and there was purity. | First auto-promoted BW LP editor. LetaBot Profile Blog Joined June 2014 Netherlands 531 Posts #9 On May 07 2015 10:15 art_of_turtle wrote: Would there be a way to calculate it for all 3 races in terms of their standard best economic openings? for example for zerg the 12h, 14cc for terran and 12nex for toss? Currently the experimental setup is only for one base. Doing it for multiple bases is possible, but that will involve calculating the optimal worker units to maynard from the main to the natural. An interesting project/idea for future work. On May 07 2015 22:06 2Pacalypse- wrote: This seems like an awesome topic for master thesis Can you just clarify how much time 8,000 frames is? Seems pretty short (a couple of minutes?), which makes it pretty impressive that the Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue algorithm manages to gather ~600 more minerals than the default one. This seems like an awesome topic for master thesisCan you just clarify how much time 8,000 frames is? Seems pretty short (a couple of minutes?), which makes it pretty impressive that the Co-operative Pathfinding + Queue algorithm manages to gather ~600 more minerals than the default one. On the fastest game speed setting (the default game speed for most multi-player games) the game runs 24 frames per second. So 8000/24 = +- 333 seconds = +- 5 minutes and 33 seconds Do keep in mind that the SCV production stops at 18/18 in the experiment. In a normal game with constant supply depot and SCV production, there will be less of a difference (but still a significant one). Currently the experimental setup is only for one base. Doing it for multiple bases is possible, but that will involve calculating the optimal worker units to maynard from the main to the natural. An interesting project/idea for future work.On the fastest game speed setting (the default game speed for most multi-player games) the game runs 24 frames per second.So 8000/24 = +- 333 seconds = +- 5 minutes and 33 secondsDo keep in mind that the SCV production stops at 18/18 in the experiment. In a normal game with constant supply depot and SCV production, there will be less of a difference (but still a significant one). If you cannot win with 100 apm, win with 100 cpm. Cascade Profile Blog Joined March 2006 Australia 5405 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-08 09:44:35 #10 Which department is letting you do that? Cool work btw, well done. Btw, suggestion on improvement you could do to the queue system: Sometimes a worker will decide to go to an occupied close-by patch and wait a short while, rather than going to an open patch further away, because it'll still come back faster than going to the slow patch. And this is all good. But if there is another scv arriving to the cc just after (), it'll be better for the first one to go to the far patch, and let the second one take the closer patch with less waiting time. So instead of optimising for each scv, you can optimise for two scvs after each other. I guess you'd do the same calculations (1 to 3) for the next incoming scv, and then optimise based on 1 to 3 of both scvs. In principle you could continue to do 3 or more scvs as well, but not sure how much further that'd improve it. Master on starcraft? :oWhich department is letting you do that?Cool work btw, well done.Btw, suggestion on improvement you could do to the queue system:Sometimes a worker will decide to go to an occupied close-by patch and wait a short while, rather than going to an open patch further away, because it'll still come back faster than going to the slow patch. And this is all good. But if there is another scv arriving to the cc just after (), it'll be better for the first one to go to the far patch, and let the second one take the closer patch with less waiting time. So instead of optimising for each scv, you can optimise for two scvs after each other. I guess you'd do the same calculations (1 to 3) for the next incoming scv, and then optimise based on 1 to 3 of both scvs. In principle you could continue to do 3 or more scvs as well, but not sure how much further that'd improve it. JieXian Profile Blog Joined August 2008 Malaysia 4190 Posts #11 On May 08 2015 18:35 Cascade wrote: Master on starcraft? :o Which department is letting you do that? Cool work btw, well done. :oWhich department is letting you do that?Cool work btw, well done. Artificial intelligence I presume? robots are going to take over the world with BWAPI!! nooo I'm interested in letabot's reply haha Artificial intelligence I presume?robots are going to take over the world with BWAPI!! noooI'm interested in letabot's reply haha Please send me a PM of any song you like that I most probably never heard of! I am looking for poeple to chat about writing and producing music | http://www.youtube.com/c/JeiShian | AleXoundOS Profile Joined January 2011 Russian Federation 429 Posts #12 On May 08 2015 01:50 quirinus wrote: BW runs in 25 FPS, so 8000 frames is 5:20 min. BW (Fastest) runs at BW (Fastest) runs at 23.81 FPS (1000ms/s ÷ 42ms/frame) https://bwapi.github.io - An API for interacting with Starcraft: Broodwar (1.16.1) Freakling Profile Joined October 2012 Germany 1104 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-08 17:20:10 #13 Interesting. I agree that what you mean is definitely "built-in". "Build-In" actually reads as if you'd want to "build it in" yourself, which is exactly the opposite of what you mean. I also agree that (necessarily tuned-down) variations of the "queue" system (i.e. active reassignment of workers to free mineral patches) are probably used by many players in the early game (probably even the most common method of economy mircro). Other things to keep in mind: Can your algorithm actually determine accurately how long a certain worker trip would take? Because minimizing both, average waiting and travelling times, is necessary to really get the optimal outcome. Does your algorithm take different mining rates from different patches into consideration? Are splits always optimal (i.e. can the 6th worker be produced at the earliest feasible time)? These are not necessarily the same, as the four patches with the highest theoretical income rates over prolonged periods are not necessarily the fastest four patches to split to (because they may be further away from the initial position of the workers at game start). More importantly, though, does your algorithm take into account that some mineral patches (and also gas geysers) are actually buggy and workers will sometimes take the weirdest detours on their trips (instead of travelling along the shortest, straight line between resource depot and geyser/mineral patch), and even for non-bugged patches, the pathfinding is often not optimal. If your algorithm is to yield optimal results, fixing these kinds of worker behaviours is pretty much a requirement (I guess cooperative pathfinding may, as a by-product, take care of some of this). Another known issue is terran specific (and therefore very relevant for letabot, I guess): Comsat stations actually screw up worker pathfinding a lot, making mining trips (worker traveling times) a lot longer. Some of it, with correct mineral setup even most of it, can be mitigated with good building placement (supply depot below CC to limit worker paths), but an AI that can actually control all workers individually should be able to avoid this effect almost entirely. LetaBot Profile Blog Joined June 2014 Netherlands 531 Posts #14 On May 08 2015 18:35 Cascade wrote: Master on starcraft? :o Which department is letting you do that? Cool work btw, well done. Btw, suggestion on improvement you could do to the queue system: Sometimes a worker will decide to go to an occupied close-by patch and wait a short while, rather than going to an open patch further away, because it'll still come back faster than going to the slow patch. And this is all good. But if there is another scv arriving to the cc just after (), it'll be better for the first one to go to the far patch, and let the second one take the closer patch with less waiting time. So instead of optimising for each scv, you can optimise for two scvs after each other. I guess you'd do the same calculations (1 to 3) for the next incoming scv, and then optimise based on 1 to 3 of both scvs. In principle you could continue to do 3 or more scvs as well, but not sure how much further that'd improve it. Master on starcraft? :oWhich department is letting you do that?Cool work btw, well done.Btw, suggestion on improvement you could do to the queue system:Sometimes a worker will decide to go to an occupied close-by patch and wait a short while, rather than going to an open patch further away, because it'll still come back faster than going to the slow patch. And this is all good. But if there is another scv arriving to the cc just after (), it'll be better for the first one to go to the far patch, and let the second one take the closer patch with less waiting time. So instead of optimising for each scv, you can optimise for two scvs after each other. I guess you'd do the same calculations (1 to 3) for the next incoming scv, and then optimise based on 1 to 3 of both scvs. In principle you could continue to do 3 or more scvs as well, but not sure how much further that'd improve it. The research is done at the The improvement that you mentioned is exactly what the search technique mentioned in the future work does. Due to the real time constraint it will have a limit in its lookahead capabilities. But it is possible to generate an optimized schedule offline (as in before the game starts). Build-In renamed to Built-InThe research is done at the Games and AI group of Maastricht University.The improvement that you mentioned is exactly what the search technique mentioned in the future work does. Due to the real time constraint it will have a limit in its lookahead capabilities. But it is possible to generate an optimized schedule offline (as in before the game starts). On May 09 2015 02:14 Freakling wrote: Interesting. I agree that what you mean is definitely "built-in". "Build-In" actually reads as if you'd want to "build it in" yourself, which is exactly the opposite of what you mean. I also agree that (necessarily tuned-down) variations of the "queue" system (i.e. active reassignment of workers to free mineral patches) are probably used by many players in the early game (probably even the most common method of economy mircro). Other things to keep in mind: Can your algorithm actually determine accurately how long a certain worker trip would take? Because minimizing both, average waiting and travelling times, is necessary to really get the optimal outcome. Does your algorithm take different mining rates from different patches into consideration? Are splits always optimal (i.e. can the 6th worker be produced at the earliest feasible time)? These are not necessarily the same, as the four patches with the highest theoretical income rates over prolonged periods are not necessarily the fastest four patches to split to (because they may be further away from the initial position of the workers at game start). More importantly, though, does your algorithm take into account that some mineral patches (and also gas geysers) are actually buggy and workers will sometimes take the weirdest detours on their trips (instead of travelling along the shortest, straight line between resource depot and geyser/mineral patch), and even for non-bugged patches, the pathfinding is often not optimal. If your algorithm is to yield optimal results, fixing these kinds of worker behaviours is pretty much a requirement (I guess cooperative pathfinding may, as a by-product, take care of some of this). Another known issue is terran specific (and therefore very relevant for letabot, I guess): Comsat stations actually screw up worker pathfinding a lot, making mining trips (worker traveling times) a lot longer. Some of it, with correct mineral setup even most of it, can be mitigated with good building placement (supply depot below CC to limit worker paths), but an AI that can actually control all workers individually should be able to avoid this effect almost entirely. In the experiment I record for each SCV its starting position and the mineral patch/resource depot it wants to go to. So in the next iteration of the experiment, this data can be loaded to determine the time it takes for a SCV to get to a certain mineral patch given its location. From the initial 4 mineral patches that get assigned, there is usually 1 SCV that will take a different one after the first resource delivery. I mainly build the Co-operative Pathfinding so that worker units go full speed to a mineral patch. Calculating the optimal path requires some more in depth knowledge on how the worker units work when gathering minerals/gas. I haven't looked into Comsat related problems yet. The experiment is more of a general approach that works with the other two races as well. In the experiment I record for each SCV its starting position and the mineral patch/resource depot it wants to go to. So in the next iteration of the experiment, this data can be loaded to determine the time it takes for a SCV to get to a certain mineral patch given its location. From the initial 4 mineral patches that get assigned, there is usually 1 SCV that will take a different one after the first resource delivery.I mainly build the Co-operative Pathfinding so that worker units go full speed to a mineral patch. Calculating the optimal path requires some more in depth knowledge on how the worker units work when gathering minerals/gas.I haven't looked into Comsat related problems yet. The experiment is more of a general approach that works with the other two races as well. If you cannot win with 100 apm, win with 100 cpm. neteX Profile Joined April 2015 Sweden 285 Posts #15 On May 07 2015 17:28 kogeT wrote: Great work. I'll look into that in details soon. I also as "human" have plenty of mineral mining tricks. ya share sum with us if its something we don't know yet ya share sum with us if its something we don't know yet http://www.twitter.com/neteXLoL flw pls nepeta Profile Blog Joined May 2008 1872 Posts #16 in 2099 :p But: Progress! Awesome stuff, LetaBot! If you take this approach to all aspects of your bot, it will win the sonic starleague. + Show Spoiler + But: Progress! Broodwar AI :) http://sscaitournament.com http://www.starcraftai.com/wiki/Main_Page nbaker Profile Joined July 2009 United States 1322 Posts #17 Thanks for sharing this! Really interesting to read from both a scientific and starcraft perspective. Xeofreestyler Profile Blog Joined June 2005 Belgium 6650 Posts #18 Love how bw ai is growing into an interesting field! This is awesomeLove how bw ai is growing into an interesting field! Graphics Im the juggernaut, bitch. [[Starlight]] Profile Joined December 2013 United States 1571 Posts #19 I dunno... for me, it would be kind of disappointing if there were a 'Deep Blue' of BW out there, better than any human player could ever possibly be, even Flash or JD at their peaks. I mean, yah, interesting, but you still gotta root for your home team, i.e. humans. Unless you're a bot reading this. How good is the very best bot/AI in the world compared to human players right now?I dunno... for me, it would be kind of disappointing if there were a 'Deep Blue' of BW out there, better than any human player could ever possibly be, even Flash or JD at their peaks.I mean, yah, interesting, but you still gotta root for your home team, i.e. humans. Unless you're a bot reading this. User was warned for being hilarious nepeta Profile Blog Joined May 2008 1872 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-11 11:52:42 #20 On May 11 2015 14:55 [[Starlight]] wrote: How good is the very best bot/AI in the world compared to human players right now? I dunno... for me, it would be kind of disappointing if there were a 'Deep Blue' of BW out there, better than any human player could ever possibly be, even Flash or JD at their peaks. I mean, yah, interesting, but you still gotta root for your home team, i.e. humans. Unless you're a bot reading this. How good is the very best bot/AI in the world compared to human players right now?I dunno... for me, it would be kind of disappointing if there were a 'Deep Blue' of BW out there, better than any human player could ever possibly be, even Flash or JD at their peaks.I mean, yah, interesting, but you still gotta root for your home team, i.e. humans. Unless you're a bot reading this. just won the Student StarCracft Artificial Intelligence Tournament Check live bot games @ LetaBot just won the Student StarCracft Artificial Intelligence Tournament SSCAIT2014 ) 2014, beating 40-ish other bots. Versus humans I think at the moment tscmoo would be the best pick, as it is better rounded. Other good picks would be the Japanese team effort ICEBot or Florian Richoux' bot.Check live bot games @ http://sscaitournament.com/ Broodwar AI :) http://sscaitournament.com http://www.starcraftai.com/wiki/Main_Page 1 2 Next All |
The New Orleans Pelicans signed Reggie Williams to a 10-day deal to replace injured Omri Casspi, who was waived Saturday to create a roster spot, the team announced. Casspi suffered a broken thumb Thursday night in his Pelicans debut after being acquired in the trade that also brought DeMarcus Cousins to the Pelicans from the Sacramento Kings. Casspi said he was expected to miss at least four weeks, but he had hoped he could return sooner than that. "I think he understands," Pelicans coach Alvin Gentry said Saturday. "We talked about it. It's just kind of an unfortunate situation because I felt like he was going to be a guy that could help us -- the shooting aspect, the size and everything. These kinds of things happen. At this stage, it was really just important for us to have that roster spot." Williams, who has averaged 18.3 points and 5.2 rebounds with the Oklahoma City Blue of the NBA Development League, will be available to play in Saturday's game at Dallas. After Williams completes this second 10-day deal, New Orleans must decide whether to keep him for the rest of the season or sign another player. The Pelicans had Williams on a 10-day contract earlier this season but waived him to make room on the roster for Donatas Motiejunas. "It feels good to be back," Williams said. "Especially already knowing these guys, it feels kind of comfortable." New Orleans also signed Jarrett Jack and Hollis Thompson to 10-day contracts this week. With starting shooting guard E'Twaun Moore out because of personal reasons, the Pelicans will have two guards, Jrue Holiday and Tim Frazier, not on 10-day contacts available for Saturday's game in Dallas. ESPN's Justin Verrier contributed to this report. |
Video games that you can play in a web browser are nothing new. But Mozilla and Epic Games have a vision of a future where browser-based games look more like the kind of games you’d normally install to your hard drive or play on a game console. Epic is showing off a demo of its Unreal Engine 4 running in the Firefox web browser… with no plugins required. The new demo uses the same asm.js technology Mozilla introduced last year to enable web apps to use JavaScript code to run at speeds close to native apps. While you can use any web browser to access web apps that use asm.js, only Firefox is currently optimized for it. Mozilla says web apps using asm.js now run at about two thirds the speed of native apps, which is up from about 40 percent last year. While there’s clearly still some work to be done before web games catch up with native desktop apps, Epic and Mozilla are hoping to make the Unreal Engine 4 game engine available to developers that want to offer their games on the web. The same game engine can continue to power desktop PC games. Eventually Mozilla also hopes to optimize asm.js for use on mobile devices, allowing developers to offer mobile games that run in a browser… or on operating systems such as Firefox OS which are designed to run web apps. via TechCrunch |
Mise En Place is French for "Everything in its place." Traditionally referring to a style of cooking in which all requisite ingredients are neatly measured out and at the ready, it also happens to be the title of Brooklyn-by-way-of-Austin four-piece Alex Napping's sophomore album. Helmed by singer-songwriter Alex Cohen, Mise En Place is certainly an aptly titled record. Tomas Garcia-Olano (lead bass), Adrian Sebastian Haynes (lead guitar), and Andrew Stevens (drums) prove to be the perfect accompaniment to Cohen's detailed brand of songwriting. Each sonic corner feels luxuriously labored over, resulting in a uniformly gorgeous whole. The bands latest single, "Fault" unfurls into layers of melodic pop, anchored by Cohen's snaky vocal phrasing. With the LP release party for Mise En Place approaching Friday, May 5th at Cheer Up Charlies, we spoke with Alex Napping about Stretch Armstrong, creepy compliments, traveling faster than the speed of light and more. Do512: What is the most exciting thing about the release of Mise En Place? Alex: We've been sitting on it for a year now, so I'm ready to have it out in the world. I'm excited to work on new stuff too. Adrian: I think I'm most excited to hear people mispronounce the album title. Well, I guess it doesn't have to be out for people to mispronounce the title. Maybe that was a bad joke. Tomas: My parents really dig the album. They actually really, really like it. It doesn't hurt that the album was featured on NPR. I feel like they saw that and went from "your album is really good" to "Dude that's a sick album by the way. That music thing you do, that's actually pretty good." But really, it was exciting to hear my parents enjoyed it. (Since you've relocated to NY) was there any reason, in particular, you wanted to have your LP release party in Austin at Cheer Ups? Alex: Well, we are doing a New York release show a week from this Saturday. I just feel like Cheer Ups is home turf more than any other venue in Austin. The band is still here, and we recorded the record here so it just feels right. We're also starting the tour from here—Austin is still home. What's your favorite drink at Cheer Ups? Alex: The Banana Hammock. Andrew: The Spicy Cuban. Adrian: The only one I ever remember is The Golden Ticket. I think it's kombucha. It's the healthy booze one. I usually get "the healthy booze one." Tomas: My favorite is the Chipotle Mayo (at Arlo's). That's actually why we play at Cheer Ups. Adrian: I have a $10 gift card. Tomas: No way, you're taking us all out. Adrian: I think it's expired. Alex Napping | Roger Ho What's one thing you flat out refuse to do, ever? Adrian: Kill somebody. I wouldn't kill anybody. I'd just be like, "you know what? I'm not gonna do that. That is not right." My mom taught me well. Alex: I don't like jumping into water from high places. We go hiking and stumble upon watering holes a lot, and they're always like, "I'm gonna jump off this forty-foot cliff" and I'm like, "Nah, I'm not going to do that." Andrew: Not talk shit about The Eagles. Hotel California is top five worst songs of all time. Tomas: I'll never speak in absolutes. Excluding musical equipment, if I handed you $5,000 and you had one hour to spend it, what would you spend it on? Andrew: There's a Chevy Aerostar van on my block for $600, so that's a good start. Alex: I'd blow it on a bunch of clothes, sorry guys! Tomas: I'd spend it on travel. Adrian: I'd probably donate it all. Grassroots is a really good organization. Since the election, I've been rage donating. I did it today actually. What is something you're paranoid about? Andrew: I'm really afraid of driving cross country. I used to be afraid of flying in planes, sharks, and lightning, then I realized that none of those things will happen ever. But the longer you're on the road... I don't know, it's just a funny risk that we as a creative class feel is necessary to take. I have a lot of nightmares while I'm snoozing in the car... while I'm driving. Adrian: I'm paranoid when I come out of the restroom that I remembered to put my pants back on. I've never thought "Oh, I pulled them back up." Those memories are completely void. Everyone has that dream where you go to school naked. I always double check now. Alex: I did that, one time at a pool when I was eight. I took my shorts off and accidently took my bikini bottom off. Tomas: My nightmare is to be on stage and then suddenly none of my equipment is working. I also have dreams about running late to shows, somehow. Alex Napping | Roger Ho What's the nicest compliment you've ever received? Alex: One time in New York I was eating with friends outside at a restaurant and this man walked up to us. He asked us if we spoke Spanish and he was clearly on something or was fucked up in some way. So then he asked us what time it was and we told him it was seven and he just kept asking "At night? At night? At night?" and then he walked away, turned back and looked at my eyes and was like "Oh my God, you have the most beautiful eyes ever." He went on and on asking if they were real, it was such a weird experience. I get that compliment a lot about my eyes, it's really creepy. Andrew: I'm really bad at taking compliments, but I had a drummer I'm a super fan of come and see me play last week and he texted me saying, "I want to reiterate what a joy it is, as usual, to see you play." He's a way more famous drummer than me. Tomas: I opened up for Dead Prez one time, and they told me that my backup vocals were sick. I had to fight the hardest urge to superfan scream right in their face. I don't know what I said. I was so excited I think I just ran away. Adrian: I had this guitar teacher named Chuck who definitely wanted to retire and was one of the best guitar players I've ever seen in my life. Definitely one of those classic, under-appreciated musicians. If someone didn't practice or do well, he'd say "Ruh-roh" first and then be a total dick to you. But, he actually told me, "You and Max Townsley are the two best guitar players I've ever taught." What is your least favorite song off of your favorite album? Adrian: "Hunter" off of Homogenic is... fucking amazing because Bjork is the best musician of all time. That song, though, is not my favorite because I know it so well now. Oh my gosh that song is so good, who am I kidding? Alex: Sometimes I just don't even know the names of the songs of an album I really love because I just listen all the way through. I was going to have a joke answer and say "Yellow" by Coldplay. Tomas: If there's an album I really like and there's a song that goes on and on, like "Is This Thing On?" off of Nothing Feels Good by The Promise Ring I feel like I will enjoy it live, but I don't need to hear it all while I'm riding my bike. Alex Napping | Roger Ho Is there a particular moment you’ve imagined where you’ll know you’ve made it as a band? Tomas: Big Day Out in Sydney, Australia. I watched a video of At The Drive-In playing that when I was a kid, on like punkrockvids.com or something before YouTube. Does that mean we made it? I don't know, but it's always been a dream of mine. Adrian: I'd say being on television. That's always been the pinnacle for some reason. Andrew: Getting a double feature as a featured artist and an interview on Conan O'Brien. It's been a dream of mine since I was like, eleven. Alex: When this fully becomes my day job, that's the moment. When there's no side hustle. If the universe had a suggestion box, what would you put in it? : Immortality, man. Is that too much to ask? Alex: Help us figure out faster than light speed travel. Give us the blueprints to make a device for faster than light speed travel. Tomas: I've got two. Help us get out of the current political situation, and if there is any kind of Stretch Armstrong toy in the future, please help kids not cut it to find out what's inside it. If someone was writing the Alex Napping biography, what would the title of this chapter be? Alex Napping deliberates for several minutes... Alex Napping: "Before it got 2 Weird" . |
This summer, the Doctor will face the most deadly duel with two versions of his oldest enemy. Geoffrey Beevers and Alex Macqueen are The Two Masters! Partners in crime for the very first time, the Doctor Who Main Range's 2016 multi-Doctor trilogy will see Gallifrey's most ingenious criminal mastermind join forces with himself, in a special trilogy of linked adventures starring Peter Davison, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. 'A 'Two Masters' storyline was something I'd been thinking about for a while,' says script editor Alan Barnes, 'ever since Alex Macqueen's 'New' Master arrived in UNIT: Dominion – putting him opposite Geoffrey Beevers' 'Old' Master seemed an irresistible idea. But if Two Masters are better than one, then three Master stories are definitely better than two, heh heh heh. So I came up with a dastardly plan to put together a whole trilogy of adventures.' The trilogy begins with Alan's own Doctor Who: ...And You Will Obey Me, in which the Fifth Doctor (Peter Davison) arrives at a quiet churchyard in the English countryside – the supposed last resting-place of the 'old' Master (Geoffrey Beevers) But alien forces are gathered around, determined to ensure that the Master will not rest in peace... Then, in Justin Richards' Doctor Who: Vampire of the Mind, the Sixth Doctor (Colin Baker) suspects the hand of his oldest enemy behind a spate of mysterious disappearances... but will he even recognise the 'new' Master (Alex MacQueen), when he arrives at the scene of one of their earlier encounters? The saga comes to an epic conclusion with Doctor Who: The Two Masters by John Dorney. The Seventh Doctor (Sylvester McCoy) is drawn into a desperate battle with his arch-enemy – squared! The trilogy has been directed by Jamie Anderson. 'It was a pleasure to be invited to direct this long-awaited team up between two versions of Doctor Who's most iconic villain. Alan and his writers have come up with a 'masterplan' which is sure to surprise fans of this classic character – in his 45th year of terrorising the universe.' 'This is something that our listeners have been asking us to do for absolutely ages,’ confirms executive producer Nicholas Briggs. ‘So we’re very happy to deliver! It’s also something that our boss, Jason Haigh-Ellery was very keen on. The idea has been a long time in the making, because we wanted to get it totally right. As is fitting, it’s slightly crazy, slightly mind-melting and massively exciting with loads of shocks, twists and turns along the way. We’re also very happy to have Jamie Anderson on board as director. He did a fantastic job of directing and producing our audio versions of his father Gerry’s creation, Terrahawks, that we gave him the opportunity to work on our Doctor Who range. He’s very quickly established a great working relationship with our Doctors and we hope he’ll be with us for many years to come.’ The entire Two Masters trilogy is available to pre-order today. The titles will be the first in a number of apperance to celebrating the classic villain for his 45th anniversary - including an appearance in Jago & Litefoot: Series 11. More news coming soon! You can Subscribe to the Doctor Who Main Range today, in either six or twelve month periods, with subscribe exclusive bonus content also available. See here for more information! And remember, when you choose to buy this release on CD directly from Big Finish, you will also unlock instant access to a digital copy for download. |
Mr. Boehner's political world unlikely to get any easier. Mr. Boehner's political world unlikely to get any easier. Their party lost, badly, Mr. Boehner said, and while Republicans would still control the House and would continue to staunchly oppose tax rate increases as Congress grapples with the impending fiscal battle, they had to avoid the nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years. [...] Even so, some Republicans have issued a stern warning to Mr. Boehner that he cannot expect their votes if he makes a deal with Democrats before seeking their consent. “What we’ve seen in the past is the speaker goes, negotiates with the president, and just before we vote, he tells us what the deal is and attempts to persuade us to vote for it,” said Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana. “We’re just not very happy with deals being baked, then we’re asked to stay with the team and support the speaker.” House Speaker John Boehner, we're told , had some sobering words for his crazy caucus in a conference call last week. His caucus doesn't seem to be taking the message to heart.In other words, no compromise no matter what. Given that Boehner continues to insist on no tax hike for the wealthy , this supposed lecture to his troops about no more hostage-taking seems just a little bit hollow. For all his admonitions to his caucus, there's little indication that anything's changed in his position, or really learned what this loss means for Republicans. In contrast, here's the lesson the White House learned from all the fruitless negotiations with Boehner, and from this election: As he prepares to meet with Congressional leaders at the White House on Friday, aides say, Mr. Obama will not simply hunker down there for weeks of closed-door negotiations as he did in mid-2011, when partisan brinkmanship over raising the nation’s debt limitdamaged the economy and his political standing. He will travel beyond the Beltway at times to rally public support for a deficit-cutting accord that mixes tax increases on the wealthy with spending cuts. He'll go to the public that gave him and the Democratic Senate they elected a mandate on raising taxes on the wealthy, and the people will speak, again. With the new Senate, and the popular vote win for House Democrats, that mandate extends to protecting the middle class all around, including by protecting Medicare and Medicaid. |
US President Barack Obama looks down as he speaks on payroll tax extension December 22, 2011 in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House in Washington, DC (AFP Photo/Mandel Ngan) Washington (AFP) - Twelve Nobel Peace Prize laureates are urging President Barack Obama to disclose the CIA's use of torture on terror suspects since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The potential release of a long-delayed Senate report about this "dark period" of American history has brought the country to a "crossroads," the Nobel laureates wrote in an open letter to Obama posted on the website TheCommunity.com. Obama, who won a Peace Prize himself in 2009, recognized in very direct terms in August that the United States had engaged in torture. "We tortured some folks," he said at the time. But the White House is engaged in tough negotiations with lawmakers over how much of the report on CIA torture should be declassified, with the intelligence agency insisting that agents' pseudonyms be blacked out. "The open admission by the president of the United States that the country engaged in torture is a first step in the US coming to terms with a grim chapter in its history," the Nobel laureates wrote in their letter to Obama. "It remains to be seen whether the United States will turn a blind eye to the effects of its actions on its own people and on the rest of the world, or if it will take the necessary steps to recover the standards on which the country was founded, and to once again adhere to the international conventions it helped to bring into being." The laureates noted that many among them had seen the effects of torture in their own countries, or were themselves "torture survivors." After the 2001 attacks, the CIA rounded up dozens of people suspected of having ties to Al-Qaeda and used so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on them, including sleep deprivation, simulated drowning (waterboarding) or shackling detainees in painful "stress" positions for long periods of time while naked. When he recognized use by the CIA of torture earlier this year, Obama also stressed that he had banned the use of the enhanced interrogation methods as soon as he arrived at the White House in January 2009. He acknowledged that there had been "enormous pressure" on law enforcement and national security in the wake of the attacks on New York's Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the crash of a plane in Pennsylvania that targeted Washington. The letter's signatories were: Oscar Arias, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987, Mohamed ElBaradei (2005), Carlos Belo (1996), Leymah Gbowee (2011), John Hume (1998), F.W. De Klerk (1993), Adolfo Perez Esquivel (1980), Jose Ramos-Horta (1996), Desmond Tutu (1984), Muhammad Yunus (2006), Betty Williams (1976) and Jody Williams (1997). |
On October 24, 2012 a Predator drone flying over North Waziristan came upon eight-year-old Nabila Rehman, her siblings, and their grandmother as they worked in a field beside their village home. Her grandmother, Momina Bibi, was teaching the children how to pick okra as the family prepared for the coming Eid holiday. However on this day the terrible event would occur that would forever alter the course of this family's life. In the sky the children suddenly heard the distinctive buzzing sound emitted by the CIA-operated drones - a familiar sound to those in the rural Pakistani villages which are stalked by them 24 hours a day - followed by two loud clicks. The unmanned aircraft released its deadly payload onto the Rehman family, and in an instant the lives of these children were transformed into a nightmare of pain, confusion and terror. Seven children were wounded, and Nabila's grandmother was killed before her eyes, an act for which no apology, explanation or justification has ever been given. This past week Nabila, her schoolteacher father, and her 12-year-old brother travelled to Washington DC to tell their story and to seek answers about the events of that day. However, despite overcoming incredible obstacles in order to travel from their remote village to the United States, Nabila and her family were roundly ignored. At the congressional hearing where they gave testimony, only five out of 430 representatives showed up. In the words of Nabila's father to those few who did attend: "My daughter does not have the face of a terrorist and neither did my mother. It just doesn't make sense to me, why this happened… as a teacher, I wanted to educate Americans and let them know my children have been injured." The translator broke down in tears while recounting their story, but the government made it a point to snub this family and ignore the tragedy it had caused to them. Nabila, a slight girl of nine with striking hazel eyes, asked a simple question in her testimony: "What did my grandmother do wrong?" There was no one to answer this question, and few who cared to even listen. Symbolic of the utter contempt in which the government holds the people it claims to be liberating, while the Rehmans recounted their plight, Barack Obama was spending the same time meeting with the CEO of weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Selective memory It is useful to contrast the American response to Nabila Rehman with that of Malala Yousafzai, a young girl who was nearly assassinated by the Pakistani Taliban. While Malala was feted by Western media figures, politicians and civic leaders for her heroism, Nabila has become simply another one of the millions of nameless, faceless people who have had their lives destroyed over the past decade of American wars. The reason for this glaring discrepancy is obvious. Since Malala was a victim of the Taliban, she, despite her protestations, was seen as a potential tool of political propaganda to be utilised by war advocates. She could be used as the human face of their effort, a symbol of the purported decency of their cause, the type of little girl on behalf of whom the United States and its allies can say they have been unleashing such incredible bloodshed. Tellingly, many of those who took up her name and image as a symbol of the justness of American military action in the Muslim world did not even care enough to listen to her own words or feelings about the subject. As described by the Washington Post's Max Fisher: Western fawning over Malala has become less about her efforts to improve conditions for girls in Pakistan, or certainly about the struggles of millions of girls in Pakistan, and more about our own desire to make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy with a celebrity and an easy message. It's a way of letting ourselves off the hook, convincing ourselves that it's simple matter of good guys vs bad guys, that we're on the right side and that everything is okay. But where does Nabila fit into this picture? If extrajudicial killings, drone strikes and torture are in fact all part of a just-cause associated with the liberation of the people of Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, where is the sympathy or even simple recognition for the devastation this war has caused to countless little girls such as her? The answer is clear: The only people to be recognized for their suffering in this conflict are those who fall victim to the enemy. Malala for her struggles was to be made the face of the American war effort - against her own will if necessary - while innumerable little girls such as Nabila will continue to be terrorized and murdered as part of this war without end. There will be no celebrity appearances or awards ceremonies for Nabila. At her testimony almost no one even bothered to attend. But if they had attended, they would've heard a nine-year-old girl asking the questions which millions of other innocent people who have had their lives thrown into chaos over the past decade have been asking: "When I hear that they are going after people who have done wrong to America, then what have I done wrong to them? What did my grandmother do wrong to them? I didn't do anything wrong." Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics. Follow him on Twitter: @MazMHussain |
Mad Half-Life Fans Attempt to Bring Down Dota 2 Rating There’s nothing worse than disappointed fans in the gaming world, as they are the most likely to lash out in their disappointment at whatever they can. In this case, fans for the hit game Half -Life have hit a wall with their aggression and are lashing out against Valves most successful game, Dota 2. This trend was first spotted by PCGamesN, after which they released that Steam users were review bombing the popular game. The reasoning behind these actions is rather simple, fans are doing this because they believe that Valve’s popular MOBA essentially killed any chances for a new Half-Life game. A belief that seems to stem from the announcement for a new Dota card game called Artifact, as well as Half-Life’s writer Marc Laidlaw publishing what people have come to believe is the proposed plot to Half-Life 2: Episode Three. With these things in hand, Steam users took their negative reviews to Dota 2. Many of which left negative comments, stating that the MOBA has out right “murdered” the Half-Life seris and that Valve is likely more interested in the profits earned from that game than any single-player game they could create. They reviews have largely had no effect due to the fact that the game has over 775,000 reviews currently, many of which are positive. This has allowed Dota 2 to keep a “very positive” user review rating unlike GTA 5 when fan’s decided to review bomb it in recent months. Whether fans are right to be trying to take down a separate games review due to their disappointment isn’t really for me to judge, though I can see how they might feel neglected after years of hoping and waiting. I personally think they should all just invest in a new game, and say goodbye to a dear old friend. Please take a second to give us a follow on our twitter @TheSaveSpot1 or our instagram thesavespot. We’re a little gaming website that is trying to be like the little engine that could, but we can’t without your support. |
Pavel Buchnevich skates for Team Russia during the 2015 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship in Toronto in January 2015. (Photo by Claus Andersen/Getty Images) Twenty-one-year-old Russian prospect Pavel Buchnevich holds the key to the Rangers’ future. The Blueshirts are in need of an influx of youth and speed after the rival Pittsburgh Penguins outskated and outskilled the Rangers to complete a one-sided first-round series victory. At an average age of 28.2, the Rangers are the oldest team in the NHL. They need fresh blood added to both their forward lines and defensive pairings. Buchnevich, a highly skilled 6-foot-1 forward, is exactly the sort of remedy needed to help fix the suddenly slow-footed Blueshirts. MORE: Hartnett: Rangers Need To Retool With Youth In Mind Brady Skjei, Oscar Lindberg, Dylan McIlrath and Marek Hrivik were rookies who broke through and impressed at the NHL level this season. During Tuesday’s break-up day, captain Ryan McDonagh spoke of the importance of youthful players stepping up and grabbing hold of NHL roles. “Guys getting called up throughout the season and making a big impact for us, it has to be a staple with your organizations now,” McDonagh said. “Young guys coming up for injuries and whatnot, that happens — I’m sure you’ll see some more guys from Hartford.” Center Derick Brassard specifically mentioned his excitement at the prospect of “that kid from Russia” joining up with the Rangers in the fall. Buchnevich is expected to sign an entry-level contract and join the Rangers for training camp, which typically begins in mid-September. “I know he’s a great player,” alternate captain Derek Stepan said. “I do see things about him on social media, articles and stuff like that. If he’s part of our future, (it’s important) any time you can make your organization better. If he’s going to be a part of it, we’re glad to have him.” A third-round draft pick by the Rangers in 2013, Buchnevich is regarded as more of a skilled playmaker than a pure goal scorer. His game is brimming with natural creativity, and he has added bulk to his frame, now weighing in at 176 pounds, according the KHL’s official website. “Pavel plays with good effort, desire and attitude,” Rangers European scout Oto Hascak said in 2014. “He has exceptional ability and great vision with the puck. He has the potential to play a key role on an NHL team in the future.” MORE: Hartnett: Rangers Must Focus On Reshaping Underperforming Defense “He’s an intense player,” Rangers European scout Vladimir Lutchenko said in 2015. “He has skated well, has been strong on the puck and possesses good vision. He makes quick, smart decisions with the puck and makes plays with his creative passes. He has great playmaking ability. He has the ability to control the game and to make quick decisions with the puck while in traffic.” Buchnevich split the 2015-16 KHL season between Severstal Cherepovets and SKA St. Petersburg, skating in 58 combined regular season games. He scored 16 goals and recorded 21 assists while averaging 19.5 shifts and 16:10 TOI per game. Keep in mind, the KHL is a breeding ground for promising youngsters hoping to prepare themselves for the NHL by competing against seasoned pros. Vladimir Tarasenko, Evgeny Kuznetsov and Artemi Panarin are just some who went straight from the KHL to the NHL and achieved immediate success. Through 158 career KHL regular season games, Buchnevich has collected 87 points – 0.58 points per game. That measure compares favorably to Tarasenko’s KHL average points/GP of 0.63. There’s a strong chance Buchnevich is the next highly touted Russian to make the leap directly to the NHL and enjoy a meteoric rise to stardom. If that’s the case, the lights are going to shine a little brighter at the Garden next season. Follow Sean on Twitter at @HartnettHockey |
“I’m still learning how to be an actor in this world,” he said. “I just started to realize that there’s a way to do it that you’re not only just an actor playing parts — you’re doing something for yourself, and for other people, that can feel bigger.” He and Ms. Thurber have been friends for nearly a decade. They bonded over their similar upbringings: his in Connecticut, hers in Massachusetts. “Coming from poverty, from a working-class family, with not as much access to education — you don’t find that many of us in the arts in New York City,” Ms. Thurber said. “Where we both come from, people don’t have a lot of options — you have manual labor, the military, dealing drugs. I recognize in Chris somebody who has found that there is a life-or-death quality to theater, an urgency.” She sees him as a perfect complement to her work: “He just, on a cellular level, knows the people I’m writing about. He understands their rhythms, their movements.” When Ms. Thurber and Rattlestick’s artistic director, David Van Asselt, approached Mr. Abbott last year about acting in one of the “Hill Town Plays,” he immediately agreed. And he threw himself into the process. “He comes to rehearsal even when he is not in the scene,” said Jackson Gay, the director. Even before he decided to depart “Girls,” his character on the show was divisive. Charlie is “a soggy pushover,” one viewer wrote on Indiewire. “The thing that most people have seen him in is not the color that is most present in Chris,” said Betty Gilpin, who plays Lilly in “Where We’re Born.” “For him to be written off as the ‘nice guy’ is an injustice in my mind. He’s got that bull in a china shop in him.” No single catalytic moment made him decide to leave “Girls,” Mr. Abbott explained. It was more of a gradual process of realizing that his priorities as an actor had shifted. “The world that Lena wrote was very real, especially in New York,” he said. “But it wasn’t as relatable for me on a personal level. It’s not that I only like to play roles I know to a T, but there’s something satisfying about playing parts where you really relate to the characters.” |
In this article I’ll be providing a brief Fatshark Dominator HD3 review and considering whether the HD3 FPV goggles are a worthwhile upgrade. What you are currently using and how you use your FPV goggles will strongly influence this. I started out with the Quanum V2 screen-based FPV goggles and then moved onto the Fatshark Dominator V3, also trying the Dominator HD2 in the process. Having experienced all three of these popular goggle options, it will be interesting to see what first impression the new offering from Fatshark gives. What I’ll be looking at in this Fatshark Dominator HD3 review, is whether the new goggles are worth upgrading to based on your needs and current equipment. The HD3s are featured in my roundup of the Best FPV Goggles, check it out! Screen-based goggles are great for a big field of view and are especially good if you wear glasses, because you can leave them on. The downside is that these goggles are big and heavy. During long flight sessions I would find myself with an uncomfortable face because of the pressure the goggles put on my face. They were also fairly inconvenient for me, as the majority of my flying involves a reasonable walk before arriving at the flying spot. If you are using large screen-based goggles at the moment and are thinking of swapping to the smaller form-factor of the HD3, I would recommend trying on a pair before committing. It’s a big change and is not for everyone. For me personally, the more compact Fatshark FPV goggles are much better to suited to how and where I fly, but if you aren’t worried about size I would recommend sticking to the screen-based goggles as this will save you a lot of money! You can buy the Fatshark Dominator HD3 now on Amazon, Banggood and HobbyKing. The Dominator V3’s are great goggles and while they have a smaller field of view than the HD2’s, they don’t suffer from the blurry edges. The Dominator V3’s also have a 16:9 aspect ratio, which is great for HD content or video from a 16:9 FPV camera like the Runcam Eagle, but they also work very well with a normal 4:3 feed. This all attracted me to the Dominator V3s initially and is what has made me want to take a closer look at the Dominator HD V3 goggles, so how do the HD3s compare? Fatshark Dominator HD3 Review – Main Features FOV: 42° Resolution: 800×600 (SVGA) Aspect Ratio: 4:3 & 16:9 (switches depending on source) Mini HDMI input Removable foam faceplate 59-69mm adjustable IPD Range Integrated DVR Fan-equipped face plate Fatshark Dominator HD3 Review – First Impressions The Dominator HD3 utilise the familiar Fatshark FPV goggle form factor and from a distance, appear much the same as previous models. The HD3’s aim to combine the best of both worlds from the V3 and HD2 FPV goggles, but are understandably more expensive than either of their predecessors. All the features that we are used to seeing are still there, such as inbuilt DVR plus adjustable IPD and a fan-equipped foam faceplate for comfort. The FOV has been reduced from 50° in the HD2 to 42° in the HD3 in an effort to reduce the amount of blurring at the edges of the screen. Unfortunately this has reduced the effective screen size, but based on some user reports the blurry edges are still present. This is disappointing, as a good image is a reasonable expectation when spending large amounts of money on a specialised product such as these. What is good to see is automatic aspect ratio switching depending on whether you are viewing an analogue or digital feed. This will make the goggles better for plugging into your PC and using with one of the popular FPV Drone racing simulators. Fatshark Dominator HD3 Review – Verdict As an upgrade to screen-based goggles or for someone with money to use the latest tech, the HD3’s are a good buy and they are currently available on Amazon here. Do bear in mind that you will also need to buy a separate receiver and antenna, as is the norm with the majority of Fatshark goggles. This may just be the tipping point for some, as these are already expensive goggles! For those considering their budget a bit more, I personally recommend the Dominator V3. These are great goggles at a much lower cost. The FOV is smaller, but then the screen isn’t blurry and you still get all the benefits of the small form factor, comfort and features that come with the Fatshark goggles. As I said at the beginning, what you are currently using and how you use your goggles will strongly influence your choice. Just like everything else in drone racing, your goggles are a personal choice. If you are considering which camera to use to make the most of your goggles, take a look at my quick Runcam Swift 2 Review. You can buy the Fatshark Dominator HD3 now on Amazon, Banggood and HobbyKing. The HD3s are featured in my roundup of the Best FPV Goggles, check it out! Related posts: |
The Halberstadt CL.II was a German two-seat escort fighter/ground attack aircraft of World War I. It served in large numbers with the German Luftstreitkräfte (Imperial German Army Air Service) in 1917-18. Development and design [ edit ] Early in 1917, Idflieg, the German Army Inspectorate of Flying Troops, developed a requirement for a new type of two-seat aircraft, smaller than the existing C-type aircraft. This type, to be known as CL-type (Light C type) aircraft, were to be used to equip Schutzstaffeln (Protection flights) to escort reconnaissance aircraft.[1] To meet this requirement, Halberstadt developed an aircraft based on its earlier, unsuccessful Halberstadt D.IV single-seat fighter. Originally designated the Halberstadt C.II, it was redesignated the Halberstadt CL.II when the CL designation was applied. The CL.II was a single-engined biplane, with an all-wooden structure. The fuselage was covered with thin plywood panelling and housed the crew of two in a single cockpit, with the observer's 7.92 mm (.312 in) machine gun being mounted on an elevated gun ring, giving a good field of fire, allowing downwards fire at targets on the ground. A tray large enough to hold ten stick grenades was attached to the left side of the fuselage.[2] The single-bay wings were fabric-covered, with a swept upper wing.[3] The aircraft had provisions for a wireless radio. When needed the radio and antenna could be installed in the observer's cockpit and a generator, that would also supply current for heated flight suits, could easily be installed. The generator was directly driven by a pulley on the engine and mounted on the left side with a tear drop shaped fairing covering it. With the generator removed, a flat panel would be fitted instead.[2] Loading up with Wurfgranaten 15 bombs (note ten stick grenades) The CL.II passed its Typenprüfung (type-test) on 7 May 1917, which resulted in production orders being placed. Halberstadt built 700 CL.IIs by the time production shifted to the improved CL.IV in mid-1918. A further 200 CL.II aircraft were built in 1918 by the Bayerische Flugzeug-Werke (BFW).[4] Operational history [ edit ] The CL.II entered service in August 1917, and proved extremely successful, its excellent manoeuvrability, rate of climb and good field of fire for its armament allowing it to match opposing single-seat fighters.[4] It also proved to be well suited to close-support, which became the primary role of the CL-type aircraft, the units operating them being re-designated Schlachtstaffeln (Battle flights).[5] Ground support by the Schlachtstaffeln proved very effective, being used both in support of German attacks and to disrupt enemy attacks. An early example of the successful use of CL type aircraft in the ground attack role was during the German counterattack on 30 November 1917 during the Battle of Cambrai, where they were a major factor in the German performance.[6] The captured German Halberstadt CL.II (serial 15342/17) flown by Gefreiter Kuesler and Vizefeldwebel Mullenbach on 9 June 1918 when they were forced to land at the aerodrome of 3 Squadron Australian Flying Corps at Flesselles, Somme (France). The AFC aircrew were Lieutenant R.J. Armstrong and Lieutenant F.J. Mart flying in Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8 (serial D4689). Frank Luke with a shot down Halberstadt of Flieger Abteilung 36 on September 18, 1918 The success of the German tactics at Cambrai, including the use of close air support, resulted in the Germans assembling large numbers of CL-types in support of the Spring Offensive in March 1918, with 38 Schlachtstaffeln (equipped with the CL.II, CL.IV and the Hannover CL.III) available, of which 27 were deployed against the British forces during the initial attack Operation Michael[7] The CL.II continued in service until the end of the War. Survivors [ edit ] The only existing Halberstadt CL.II is exhibited in the Polish Aviation Museum in Kraków. This unique plane served as the personal aircraft of the Commander of Luftstreitkräfte general Ernst von Hoeppner. CL.II 15459-17 of General von Hoeppner Variants [ edit ] CL.II Main production type, powered by Mercedes D.III engine of 110 kW (150 hp). CL.IIa CL.II fitted with BMW IIIa engine. Few produced for evaluation purposes.[4] Operators [ edit ] Specifications (CL.II) [ edit ] Data from German Aircraft of the First World War [8] General characteristics Crew: 2 2 Length: 7.3 m (23 ft 11 in) 7.3 m (23 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 10.77 m (35 ft 4 in) 10.77 m (35 ft 4 in) Height: 2.75 m (9 ft 0 in) 2.75 m (9 ft 0 in) Wing area: 27.5 m 2 (296 sq ft) 27.5 m (296 sq ft) Empty weight: 773 kg (1,704 lb) 773 kg (1,704 lb) Gross weight: 1,133 kg (2,498 lb) 1,133 kg (2,498 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Mercedes D.III 6-cylinder water-cooled in-line piston engine, 120 kW (160 hp) Performance Maximum speed: 165 km/h (103 mph; 89 kn) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft) 165 km/h (103 mph; 89 kn) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft) Endurance: 3 hours 3 hours Service ceiling: 5,090 m (16,700 ft) [9] 5,090 m (16,700 ft) Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 5 minutes; 5,000 m (16,000 ft) in 39.5 minutes 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 5 minutes; 5,000 m (16,000 ft) in 39.5 minutes Wing loading: 41.2 kg/m 2 (8.4 lb/sq ft) 41.2 kg/m (8.4 lb/sq ft) Power/mass: 0.11 kW/kg (0.06 hp/lb) Armament See also [ edit ] Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era References [ edit ] Notes [ edit ] ^ Gray and Thetford 1961, p.xv. a b c "Halberstadt CL.II/CL.IIa". flyingmachines.ru. Their Flying Machines . ^ Gray and Thetford 1961, p.137. a b c Green and Swanborough 1994, p.274. ^ Gray and Thetford 1961, p.136. ^ Gray and Thetford 1961, p.136-137. ^ Gray and Thetford 1961, p.140-141. ^ Gray and Thetford 1962, p.138-139 ^ Angelucci 1981, p.48 Bibliography [ edit ] |
Date of Birth: April 30, 1997 Position: Power Forward College: UCLA Measurements: 6’10, 220 lbs Strengths: T.J. Leaf is a gifted shooter and scorer. In many of our previous scouting reports for some of the big men in this draft, we have noted that they have showed the potential to become a solid shooter one day. T.J. Leaf, unlike the others, is already a great shooter. Leaf will be a very versatile player in the NBA. Because of his athleticism and ability to spread the floor, he can fit into any system. He also has the ability to put the ball down and create for teammates. In the play below, he shows off some of skills by putting the ball down. faking a Rondo-esque behind the back pass and then gets the bucket and finds his way to the line. T.J. Leaf is the most skilled big man in this draft at this point. He can shoot it from all around the arc. At one point this year, T.J. Leaf was shooting above 60% from the field and 50% from deep. Now, obviously, that kind of shooting is impossible to sustain, but he still had some very impressive shooting numbers. He shot 62% from the field and 47% from deep, unbelievable numbers. Weaknesses: Leaf’s main weakness is his defensive ability. T.J. Leaf showed his offensive capabilities throughout the season, but what he did not show was an elite defensive presence. Leaf wasn’t terrible on defense by any means given that he actually put the effort in, but you could tell that he wouldn’t be able to defend at the next level almost immediately. Leaf looks a bit too lean right now to be able to guard any power forward in the NBA. I’m intrigued to see if he can defend the Danilo Gallinari type at the next level, but we simply do not know that yet since he didn’t get that opportunity at UCLA. Risks: We saw how well T.J. Leaf shot at UCLA this season, but is it a good representation of how he will shoot at the next level? For one, Leaf was surrounded by a fantastic supporting cast in Lonzo Ball, Bryce Alford, and company. Ball is one of the best distributors we have ever seen at the college level and Leaf was awarded some pretty easy shot attempts because of that fact. Leaf also didn’t take as many shots as some of the other top prospects, especially from the three point line. Yes, Leaf shot above 46% from deep, but he only attempted 58 three-pointers all season. The team selecting him may take the risk of choosing him based off his percentages because they are just that good, but as we’ve said they may not be sustainable. Interesting Stat: T.J. Leaf is 1 of 2 players in the last 25 years to shoot above 60% from the field and 45% from deep (Minimum of 300 FGAs and 50 3PAs), Doug McDermott is the other. Comparison: Nikola Mirotic T.J. Leaf isn’t an easy player to make a comparison for. He’s tall, a bit lean, very athletic, and can shoot the lights out. Nikola Mirotic is that type of player. Both 6’10 and 220 lbs. While Mirotic isn’t nearly as athletic as Leaf, he still has shown from time to time that he can supply some of his own poster dunks. Nikola Mirotic can’t really create his own shot and is simply a catch and shoot player on offense for the most part. Leaf is a bit more versatile than Mirotic, but could possibly turn into that same type of player. T.J. Leaf has an enormous potential, but we should feel good knowing that at the very least, he could revert to having a Mirotic type impact for a team. Draft Prediction: Between picks 13 and 20 |
1. “Why are they still bothering with paperbacks?” This came from a coffee-shop acquaintance when he heard my book was soon to come out in paperback, nine months after its hardcover release. “Anyone who wants it half price already bought it on ebook, or Amazon.” Interestingly, his point wasn’t the usual hardcovers-are-dead-long-live-the-hardcover knell. To his mind, what was the use of a second, cheaper paper version anymore, when anyone who wanted it cheaply had already been able to get it in so many different ways? I would have taken issue with his foregone conclusion about the domination of ebooks over paper, but I didn’t want to spend my babysitting time down that rabbit hole. But he did get me thinking about the role of the paperback relaunch these days, and how publishers go about getting attention for this third version of a novel — fourth, if you count audiobooks. I did what I usually do when I’m puzzling through something, which is to go back to my journalism-school days and report on it. Judging by the number of writers who asked me to share what I heard, there are a good number of novelists who don’t quite know what to do with their paperbacks, either. Here’s what I learned, after a month of talking to editors, literary agents, publishers, and other authors: A paperback isn’t just a cheaper version of the book anymore. It’s a makeover. A facelift. And for some, a second shot. 2. About ebooks. How much are they really cutting into print, both paperbacks and hardcovers? Putting aside the hype and the crystal ball, how do the numbers really look? The annual Bookstats Report from the Association of American Publishers (AAP), which collects data from 1,977 publishers, is one of the most reliable measures. In the last full report — which came out July 2012 — ebooks outsold hardcovers for the first time, representing $282.3 million in sales (up 28.1%), compared to adult hardcover ($229.6 million, up 2.7%). But not paperback — which, while down 10.5%, still represented $299.8 million in sales. The next report comes out this July, and it remains to be seen whether ebook sales will exceed paper. Monthly stat-shots put out by the AAP since the last annual report show trade paperbacks up, but the group’s spokesperson cautioned against drawing conclusions from interim reports rather than year-end numbers. Numbers aside, do we need to defend whether the paperback-following-hardcover still has relevance? “I think that as opposed to a re-release being less important, it’s more than ever important because it gives a book a second chance with a new cover and lower cost, plus you can use all the great reviews the hardcover got,” says MJ Rose, owner of the book marketing firm Authorbuzz, as well as a bestselling author of novels including The Book of Lost Fragrances. “So many books sell 2,000 or 3,000 copies in hardcover and high-priced ebooks, but take off when they get a second wind from trade paperback and their e-book prices drop.” What about from readers’ perspectives? Is there something unique about the paperback format that still appeals? I put the question to booksellers, though of course as bricks-and-mortar sellers, it’s natural that they would have a bias toward paper. Yet the question isn’t paper versus digital: it’s whether they are observing interest in a paper book can be renewed after it has already been out for nine months to a year, and already available at the lower price, electronically. “Many people still want the portability of a lighter paper copy,” said Deb Sundin, manager of Wellesley Books in Wellesley, MA. “They come in before vacation and ask, ‘What’s new in paper?’ ” “Not everyone e-reads,” says Nathan Dunbar, a manager at Barnes & Noble in Skokie, IL. “Many customers tell us they’ll wait for the paperback savings. Also, more customers will casually pick up the paperback over hardcover.” Then there’s the issue of what a new cover can do. “For a lot of customers the paperback is like they’re seeing it for the first time,” says Mary Cotton, owner of Newtonville Books in Newtonvillle, MA. “It gives me an excuse to point it out to people again as something fresh and new, especially if it has a new cover.” 3. A look at a paperback’s redesign tells you a thing or two about the publisher’s mindset: namely, whether or not the house believes the book has reached its intended audience, and whether there’s another audience yet to reach. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s Rorschach. Hardcovers with muted illustrations morph into pop art, and vice versa. Geometric-patterned book covers are redesigned with nature imagery; nature imagery in hardcover becomes photography of women and children in the paperback. Meg Wolitzer, on a panel about the positioning of women authors at the recent AWP conference, drew knowing laughter for a reference to the ubiquitous covers with girls in a field or women in water. Whether or not publishers want to scream book club, they at least want to whisper it. “It seems that almost every book these days gets a new cover for the paperback. It’s almost as if they’re doing two different books for two different audiences, with the paperback becoming the ‘book club book,’” says Melanie Benjamin, author of The Aviator’s Wife. Benjamin watched the covers of her previous books, including Mrs. Tom Thumb and Alice I Have Been, change from hardcovers that were “beautiful, and a bit brooding” to versions that were “more colorful, more whimsical.” A mood makeover is no accident, explains Sarah Knight, a senior editor at Simon & Schuster, and can get a paperback ordered in a store that wouldn’t be inclined to carry its hardcover. “New cover art can re-ignite interest from readers who simply passed the book over in hardcover, and can sometimes help get a book displayed in an account that did not previously order the hardcover because the new art is more in line with its customer base.” Some stores, like the big-boxes and airports, also carry far more paperbacks than hardcovers. Getting into those aisles in paperback can have an astronomical effect on sales. An unscientific look at recent relaunches shows a wide range of books that got full makeovers: Olive Kitteridge, A Visit From the Goon Squad, The Newlyweds, The Language of Flowers, The Song Remains the Same, The Age of Miracles, Arcadia, and The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry, as did my own this month (The Unfinished Work of Elizabeth D.) Books that stayed almost completely the same, plus or minus a review quote and accent color, include Wild, Beautiful Ruins, The Snow Child, The Weird Sisters, The Paris Wife, Maine, The Marriage Plot, The Art of Fielding, The Tiger’s Wife, Rules of Civility, and The Orchardist. Most interesting are the books that receive the middle-ground treatment, designers flirting with variations on their iconic themes. The Night Circus, The Invisible Bridge, State of Wonder, The Lifeboat, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, Tell the Wolves I’m Home, Tigers in Red Weather, and The Buddha in the Attic are all so similar to the original in theme or execution that they’re like a wink to those in the know — and pique the memory of those who have a memory of wanting to read it the first time around. Some writers become attached to their hardcovers and resist a new look in paperback. Others know it’s their greatest chance of coming out of the gate a second time — same race, fresh horse. When Jenna Blum’s first novel, Those Who Save Us, came out in hardcover in 2004, Houghton Mifflin put train tracks and barbed wire on the cover. Gorgeous, haunting, and appropriate for a WWII novel, but not exactly “reader-friendly,” Blum recalls being told by one bookseller. The following year, the paperback cover — a girl in a bright red coat in front of a European bakery — telegraphed the novel’s Holocaust-era content without frightening readers away. “The paperback cover helped save the book from the remainder bins, I suspect,” Blum says. Armed with her paperback, Jenna went everywhere she was invited, which ended up tallying more than 800 book clubs. Three years later, her book hit the New York Times bestseller list. “Often the hardcover is the friends-and-family edition, because that’s who buys it, in addition to collectors,” she says. “It’s imperative that a paperback give the novel a second lease on life if the hardcover didn’t reach all its intended audience, and unless you are Gillian Flynn, it probably won’t.” There’s no hard-and-fast rule about when the paperback should ride in for that second lease. A year to paperback used to be standard, but now a paperback can release earlier — to capitalize on a moderately successful book before it’s forgotten — or later, if a hardcover is still turning a strong profit. At issue: the moment to reissue, and the message to send. “Some books slow down at a point, and the paperback is a great opportunity to repromote and reimagine,” says Sheila O’Shea, associate publisher for Broadway and Hogarth paperbacks at the Crown Publishing Group (including, I should add, mine). “The design of a paperback is fascinating, because you have to get it right in a different way than the hardcover. If it’s a book that relates specifically to females you want that accessibility at the table — women drawn in, wondering, Ooh, what’s that about.” The opportunity to alter the message isn’t just for cover design, but the entire repackaging of the book — display text, reviews put on the jacket, synopses used online, and more. In this way, the paperback is not unlike the movie trailer which, when focus-grouped, can be reshaped to spotlight romantic undertones or a happy ending. “Often by the time the paperback rolls around, both the author and publicist will have realized where the missed opportunities were for the hardcover, and have a chance to correct that,” says Simon & Schuster’s Sarah Knight. “Once your book has been focus-grouped on the biggest stage — hardcover publication — you get a sense of the qualities that resonate most with people, and maybe those were not the qualities you originally emphasized in hardcover. So you alter the flap copy, you change the cover art to reflect the best response from the ideal readership, and in many cases, the author can prepare original material to speak to that audience.” Enter programs like P.S. (Harper Collins) and Extra Libris (Crown Trade and Hogarth), with new material in the back such as author interviews, essays, and suggested reading lists. “We started Extra Libris last spring to create more value in the paperback, to give the author another opportunity to speak to readers. We had been doing research with booksellers and our reps and book club aficionados asking, What would you want in paperbacks? And it’s always extra content,” says Crown’s O’Shea. “Readers are accustomed to being close to the content and to the authors. It’s incumbent on us to have this product to continue the conversation.” 4. Most of a paperback discussion centers on the tools at a publisher’s disposal, because frankly, so much of a book’s success is about what a publisher can do — from ads in trade and mainstream publications, print and online, to talking up the book in a way that pumps enthusiasm for the relaunch. But the most important piece is how, and whether, they get that stack in the store. My literary agent Julie Barer swears the key to paperback success is physical placement. “A big piece of that is getting stores (including the increasingly important Costco and Target) to take large orders, and do major co-op. I believe one of the most important things that moves books is that big stack in the front of the store,” she says. “A lot of that piece is paid for and lobbied for by the publisher.” Most publicists’ opportunities for reviews have come and gone with the hardcover, but not all, says Kathleen Zrelak Carter, a partner with the literary PR firm Goldberg McDuffie. “A main factor for us in deciding whether or not to get involved in a paperback relaunch is the off-the-book-page opportunities we can potentially pursue. This ranges from op-ed pieces to essays and guest blog posts,” she says. “It’s important for authors to think about all the angles in their book, their research and inspiration, but also to think about their expertise outside of being a writer, and how that can be utilized to get exposure.” What else can authors do to support the paperback launch? Readings have already been done in the towns where they have most connections, and bookstores don’t typically invite authors to come for a paperback relaunch. But many are, however, more than happy to have relaunching authors join forces with an author visiting for a new release, or participate in a panel of authors whose books touch on a common theme. And just because a bookstore didn’t stock a book in hardcover doesn’t mean it won’t carry the paperback. Having a friend or fellow author bring a paperback to the attention of their local bookseller, talking up its accolades, can make a difference. I asked folks smarter than I about branding, and they said the most useful thing for authors receiving a paperback makeover is to get on board with the new cover. That means fronting the new look everywhere: the author website, Facebook page, and Twitter. Change the stationery and business cards too if, like I did, you made them all about a cover that is no longer on the shelf. “Sometimes a writer can feel, ‘But I liked this cover!’” says Crown’s O’Shea. “It’s important to be flexible about the approach, being open to the idea of reimagining your own work for a broader audience, and using the tools available to digitally promote the book with your publisher.” More bluntly said, You want to sell books? Get in the game. Your hardcover might have come and gone, but in terms of your book’s rollout, it’s not even halftime yet. “The paperback is truly a new release, and a smart author will treat it as such,” says Randy Susan Meyers, author The Murderer’s Daughters, her new novel The Comfort Of Lies, and co-author of the publishing-advice book What To Do Before Your Book Launch with book marketer and novelist M.J. Rose. “Make new bookmarks, spruce up your website, and introduce yourself to as many libraries as possible. Bookstores will welcome you, especially when you plan engaging multi-author events. There are opportunities for paperbacks that barely exist for hardcovers, including placement in stores such as Target, Costco, Walmart, and a host of others. Don’t let your paperback launch slip by. For me, as for many, it was when my book broke out.” |
For other people named William Alexander, see William Alexander (disambiguation) William Alexander (2 April 1915 – 24 January 1997; born Wilhelm Alexander) known as Bill Alexander on his TV show; was a German painter, art instructor, and television host. He was the creator and host of The Magic of Oil Painting (1974–82) television series that ran on PBS in the United States. He wrote The Art of Bill Alexander (1987–95), a series of books on wet-on-wet oil painting. He also taught the television painter Bob Ross the wet-on-wet technique. Biography [ edit ] Bill Alexander was born in East Prussia, but his family fled to Berlin during World War I. Apprenticed as a carriage maker, Alexander was drafted into the Wehrmacht during World War II. Captured by Allied troops, he painted portraits of Allied officers' wives and he soon made his way to the United States.[2] After WWII, he became a refugee, and professional painter, pioneering the modern quick version of the wet-on-wet technique, and moving to North America. Later, he became a TV host on his painting education TV show.[1] Television career [ edit ] Alexander is best known for the television program The Magic of Oil Painting (1974-1982), which ran on PBS in the United States. Beginning with The Art of Bill Alexander and Lowell Speers Alexander teamed with other artists on PBS series' that ran from 1984-1992, included The Art of Bill Alexander & Robert Warren. Alexander also teamed with painters Sharon Perkins and Diane André. Alexander and the second artist would alternate episodes, with both painters using the wet-on-wet method. This series is often erroneously listed either as a series of books or as a single documentary. TV host and prolific painter Bob Ross studied under Alexander, from whom he learned his wet-on-wet technique, a method of painting rapidly using progressively thinner layers of oil paint.[3] Ross dedicated the first episode of the second season of The Joy of Painting to Alexander, explaining that "Years ago, Bill taught me this fantastic technique, and I feel as though he gave me a precious gift, and I'd like to share that gift with you [the viewer]".[4] As Ross's popularity grew, his relationship with Alexander became increasingly strained. "He betrayed me," Alexander told the New York Times in 1991. "I invented 'wet on wet', I trained him, and ... he thinks he can do it better."[5] Art historians have pointed out that the "wet-on-wet" (or alla prima) technique actually originated in Flanders during the 15th century, and was used by Frans Hals, Diego Velázquez, Caravaggio, Paul Cezanne, John Singer Sargent, and Claude Monet, among many others.[6][7] Bibliography [ edit ] W. Alexander (The Magic of Oil Painting Artist) (1983). The Bill Alexander Story: An Autobiography . Kendall Hunt. ISBN 0840329903. W. Alexander (1989). Secrets to the Magic of Oil Painting . Walter Foster. W. Alexander (1990). The Magic of Oil Painting . Walter Foster. ISBN 0929261372. William Alexander (1997). Landscapes: Learn to Paint Step by Step. Walter Foster. ISBN 0929261607. See also [ edit ] |
It looks like an iconic character from Saturday Night Live might make an appearance on RuPaul's Drag Race- or, he would at least like to be. 'RuPaul' Winner To Crown A Queen At Halloween Event On Monday, Pride Source posted an interview with Bill Hader who's known for Stefon, the "Weekend Update" club correspondent on SNL. The actor stars in The Skeleton Twins alongside Kristen Wiig where he lip-syncs to Starship's "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now." When he was interviewed, he was told that his performance would make everyone on RuPaul's Drag Race proud considering that the competition requires a lot of lip-syncing. Hader responded to this by laughing and saying, "You have to get me on that show! That would just be the best." Drag Queen Gives 10 Tips On How To Succeed On 'RuPaul' The actor went on about how he and Wiig didn't have a lot of time to study drag to get through that performance although it managed to come out nicely. "I mean, we had to learn that song, and we had a lot of fun doing that, but we didn't have a lot of time," Hader said. "There wasn't a lot of time in the day to do it. It was definitely a quick 'we gotta go; we have a lot more to shoot today' moment, so it's cool it all came out so well." It was then mentioned that Hader already knew how to 'sissy that walk,' a phrase that RuPaul uses frequently. "I knew... I mean, I've gone out with enough of my gay friends to know," the actor said. RuPaul's Drag Race Season 7 is expected to premiere in February 2015 on Logo TV. See Now: Famous Actors Who Turned Down Iconic Movie Roles |
WASHINGTON — Averting an election-year crisis, Congress late Wednesday sent President Barack Obama a bill to keep the government operating through Dec. 9 and provide $1.1 billion in long-delayed funding to battle the Zika virus. The House cleared the measure by a 342-85 vote just hours after a bipartisan Senate tally. The votes came after top congressional leaders broke through a stalemate over aid to help Flint, Michigan, address its water crisis. Democratic advocates for Flint are now satisfied with renewed guarantees that Flint will get funding later this year to help rid its water system of lead. The hybrid spending measure was Capitol Hill’s last major to-do item before the election and its completion allows lawmakers to jet home to campaign to save their jobs. Congress won’t return to Washington until the week after Election Day for what promises to be a difficult lame-duck session. The bill caps months of wrangling over money to fight the mosquito-borne Zika virus. It also includes $500 million for rebuilding assistance to flood-ravaged Louisiana and other states. The White House said Obama will sign the measure and praised the progress on Flint. The temporary spending bill sped through the House shortly after the chamber passed a water projects bill containing the breakthrough compromise on Flint. The move to add the Flint package to the water projects bill, negotiated by top leaders in both parties and passed Wednesday by a 284-141 vote, was the key to lifting the Democratic blockade on the separate spending bill. The deal averts a potential federal shutdown and comes just three days before deadline. It defuses a lengthy, frustrating battle over Zika spending. Democrats claimed a partial victory on Flint while the GOP-dominated Louisiana delegation won a down payment on Obama’s $2.6 billion request for their state. The politicking and power plays enormously complicated what should have been a routine measure to avoid an election-eve government shutdown. The temporary government-wide spending bill had stalled in the Senate Tuesday over Democrats’ demands that the measure include $220 million in Senate-passed funding to help Flint and other cities deal with lead-tainted water. Democrats were initially unwilling to accept promises that Flint funding would come after the election, but relented after they won stronger assurances from top GOP leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and agreed to address the city’s crisis in the separate water development bill. The Flint issue arose as the final stumbling block after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., added the flood aid for Louisiana to the spending bill. Democrats argued it was unfair that the water crisis in Flint has gone on for more than a year with no assistance, while Louisiana and other states are getting $500 million for floods that occurred just last month. Democrats played a strong hand in the negotiations and had leverage because Republicans controlling the House and Senate were eager to avoid a politically harmful shutdown six weeks before the election. Behind-the-scenes maneuvering and campaign-season gamesmanship between Republicans and Democrats had slowed efforts to pass the temporary spending measure, once among the most routine of Capitol Hill’s annual activities. A longstanding stalemate over Zika funding spilled on to the measure, which many GOP conservatives disliked because it guarantees a lame-duck session that’s likely to feature post-election compromises that they’ll oppose. McConnell has made numerous concessions in weeks of negotiations, agreeing, for instance, to drop contentious provisions tied to Zika funding that led Democrats to block prior Zika measures. A provision to make Planned Parenthood ineligible for new anti-Zika funding for Puerto Rico was dropped, as was a provision to ease pesticide regulations under the Clean Water Act. Democrats relented on a $400 million package of spending cuts. Many House Republicans have opposed helping Flint, arguing that the city’s problems are a local issue and that many cities have problems with aging water systems. Flint’s drinking water became tainted when the city, then under state control, began drawing from the Flint River in 2014 to save money. Regulators failed to ensure the water was treated properly and lead from aging pipes leached into the water supply. As many as 12,000 children have been exposed to lead in water, officials say. Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee, Flint’s congressman, had accused Republicans of ignoring the plight of the predominantly black city after Republicans initially would not permit a vote. But Wednesday morning Kildee issued a statement that called the upcoming vote on the non-binding, $170 million promise for Flint — an amendment in his name that’s less generous than he originally asked for —”a step forward to ensuring that Flint families get the resources they need to recover from this crisis.” There were other winners and losers in the scramble to produce the legislation. Democrats and some Republicans were thwarted in an attempt to allow the Export-Import Bank to approve export deals exceeding $10 million even though it lacks a quorum. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, failed to win a provision to block the U.S. government from transferring the Commerce Department’s role in governing the internet’s domain name addressing systems to a nonprofit consortium known as ICANN. And Democrats failed to use the bill to reverse a ban engineered last year by McConnell on proposals to allow the Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly-traded corporations to disclose political spending permitted under the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing unlimited political spending by businesses. The spending bill also includes full-year funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. That measure permits veterans with war injuries to receive in vitro fertilization treatments. A longtime ban on such treatments — demanded in the early 1990s by anti-abortion lawmakers concerned about destroyed embryos — has been lifted. |
Ready to fight back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. Fight Back! Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week. Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue Travel With The Nation Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits. Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits. Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine? The third and final presidential debate of the 2016 campaign should begin with a simple question for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: Will you accept the results of the election in which both of you are currently competing?1 Ad Policy The candidates should be allowed to answer at length. And they should be prodded to reflect seriously on what they believe to be the basic requirements of a fair election. The Commission on Presidential Debates and moderator Chris Wallace need not fret about the prospect that a discussion of the legitimacy of this election, and future elections, might dominate the final debate. What could be more illustrative, more instructive, more valuable than an extended discussion of democracy itself?2 The beginning point for the discussion must, necessarily, be with Trump.3 “Right now, we’re not aware of any systemic problems in our voting system.” —Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted The Republican nominee for president has aggressively advanced a discredited claim that the November election will be “rigged.” If he sticks to this argument in the debate, he should be:4 1. Encouraged to define the word “rigged.” Is he claiming, as seems to be the case, that there is a looming threat of massive illegal voting? If so, then he should be required to provide credible evidence of his claim.5 2. Confronted with the academic research that has called into question talk of a “rigged election,” especially claims regarding illegal voting. As an example, Trump could be pressed to discuss the long-term research by election-law expert Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who has determined that just 31 credible incidents of alleged voter impersonation occurred in the “general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014…[in which] more than 1 billion ballots were cast.”6 3. Asked to reconcile his “rigged election” talk with statements from Republican secretaries of state who have explained that this is not a legitimate fear.7 If Trump embraces the classic definition of a “rigged election,” in which the machinery of popular democracy (machines, ballots, counting processes, tabulation of totals, and the reconciliation of the numbers) is manipulated to favor a candidate, then he should be asked to explain precisely where the threat is playing out. Is he concerned about particular states? Trump claims “the election is being rigged…at many polling places.” Has he contacted state and local election officials to alert them regarding his concerns? Has he provided those officials with evidence that he has not to this point provided to the media or to his own supporters?8 Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican who plans to vote for Trump, says: “If there is a systemic problem, please identify it. Don’t just make an allegation on Twitter. Tell me. Tell the secretaries of state around the country what the problem is so we can fix it. Right now, we’re not aware of any systemic problems in our voting system.” Is Trump aware of Husted’s comments? Has he spoken with Husted?9 And here are a few more questions: Does Donald Trump worry that making the “rigged election” charge such a major focus of his campaign might lead any of his supporters to engage in voter intimidation on Election Day? Does he worry that any of his supporters might resort to violence if he is defeated? Is he aware that officials are worrying about how to assure that voters feel safe at their polling places and that offices of local election boards are secure? What will Trump say to his supporters to assure that this will be a fair and orderly election, and that the counting of votes will proceed without interruption?10 But this is not just about Trump. Debates are not interviews. Moderator Chris Wallace has to address pointed questions to both candidates. And there are plenty of questions for Hillary Clinton.11 Clinton can argue that restrictive voting laws represent an attempt to rig the election in favor of the GOP. If Clinton says she is confident in the system, she should be asked why. Does she think it is perfect? Or does she recognize flaws and vulnerabilities? Clinton should be reminded that Democrats have, for many years, raised concerns about the actions of election administrators (remember Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris) and nefarious practices (remember the controversies over voter caging and other unfair practices that have been used the removal of eligible voters from voter rolls). And she should be reminded that the Democratic party of onetime Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley and the old big-city machines has itself faced accusations of wrongdoing.12 Clinton can express confidence that the current election is not being rigged (and justify that confidence with references to statements from election officials who are members of Trump’s own party), while at the same time acknowledging the steps that can and should be taken to improve our election processes.13 A serious discussion of voting and elections can have nuance. It can have depth. And it can frame the debate more honestly than has Trump.14 Clinton has every right to assert that restrictive voting laws enacted by Republican legislatures in states across the country represent an attempt to rig the election in favor of the GOP. She can also talk about the need to renew and extend the Voting Rights Act, about best practices in the United States (such as Oregon’s universal-voter-registration law) and about next steps (like establishing a constitutionally defined right to vote and enacting national standards to address uneven and unequal rules for voting and counting votes).15 What if the whole of the final presidential debate was given over not only to an examination of Trump’s bogus claims but to a serious discussion of how to make real the promise of American democracy? Well, then this would be the most worthwhile debate of 2016.16 |
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Movie encoded into the DNA of bacteria An image and short film has been encoded in DNA, using the units of inheritance as a medium for storing information. Using a genome editing tool known as Crispr, US scientists inserted a gif - five frames of a horse galloping - into the DNA of bacteria. Then the team sequenced the bacterial DNA to retrieve the gif and the image, verifying that the microbes had indeed incorporated the data as intended. The results appear in Nature journal. For their experiments, the team from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, used an image of a human hand and five frames of the horse Annie G captured in the late 19th Century by the British photography pioneer Eadweard Muybridge. In order to insert this information into the genomes of bacteria, the researchers transferred the image and the movie onto nucleotides (building blocks of DNA), producing a code that related to the individual pixels of each image. The researchers then employed the Crispr platform, in which two proteins are used to insert genetic code into the DNA of target cells - in this case, those of E.coli bacteria. For the gif, sequences were delivered frame-by-frame over five days to the bacterial cells. The data were spread across the genomes of multiple bacteria, rather than just one, explained co-author Seth Shipman, from Harvard University in Massachusetts. "The information is not contained in a single cell, so each individual cell may only see certain bits or pieces of the movie. So what we had to do was reconstruct the whole movie from the different pieces," Dr Shipman told the BBC. Image copyright Seth Shipman Image caption The researchers encoded an image of a human hand into the bacterial DNA "Maybe a single cell saw a few pixels from frame one and a few pixels from frame four... so we had to look at the relation of all those pieces of information in the genomes of these living cells and say: can we reconstruct the entire movie over time?" To "read" the information back, the researchers sequenced the bacterial DNA and used custom computer code to unscramble the genetic information, which spits out the images. The team was able to achieve 90% accuracy: "We were really happy with how it came out," Seth Shipman told me. Eventually, the team wants to use the technique to create "molecular recorders". Dr Shipman says these are cells that can "encode information about what's going on in the cell and what's going on in the cell environment by writing that information into their own genome". This is why the researchers used images and a movie: images because they represent the kind of complex information the team would like to use in future, and movies because they have a timing component. The timing component is important because it would be useful to track changes in a cell and its environment over time. Follow Paul on Twitter. |
Advertisement Disclaimer: today is April 1. This post is not an April Fool's joke, because we're curmudgeonly old-school journalists who don't go in for those kinds of shenanigans, and robotics news is interesting enough all by itself. Thank you for your attention. Three years ago at ICRA in Shanghai, Disney Research presented a prototype for an artistic robot swarm. The swarm was made up of lots of little wheeled robots with LEDs, each of which acted as an individual mobile pixel in a dynamic image made entirely of robots. Disney and ETH Zurich have been refining this idea, developing both software and hardware and adding more robots to the mix. At the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction earlier this month, the latest version of this Display Swarm, now called Pixelbots, reenacted the story of the Universe. "Pixelbots are two-wheeled robots. They can make robotic images on tabletops or on whiteboards (using magnetic wheels). It's possible to sketch on an iPad and see the Pixelbots move into position to create the drawing, or to direct them by pointing motions. Altogether, it's a whole new way of looking at cartoon images and animations. These are 'Pixels with Personality'!" The robots themselves are neat, but the cleverest bit is the software that controls it all, which takes care of all of the robot positioning. You can have a huge swarm of tiny little robots, and make rapid transitions between complex shapes, but the robots won't get confused or run into each other. You can even deliberately try to mess the bots up by picking them up and moving them, and they'll still do their very best to reposition themselves to keep the shape that you want. And since the bots are perfectly happy managing themselves, any number of different kinds of inputs work equally well: Using robots as pixels opens up a lot of interesting possibilities. Disney is focusing on 2D displays, but there's a huge amount of potential with 3D displays, as well. A few years ago, MIT produced this video (note that it is a concept) for Flyfire, an aerial display made up of thousands of flying robotic pixels: We may not be at Flyfire quite yet, but Kmel robotics is working towards it: It may not be realistic to expect that we'll have swarming robot displays in our living rooms or anything, but it's not entirely unreasonable to think that within the next decade, robots will be cheap enough (and control systems sophisticated enough) that high definition crawling (or flying) displays might form interactive images on walls or in skies. And that might be something that's worth doing to Disneyland to see. [ ACM ] via [ Disney Research ] |
Sega is completing its acquisition of Atlus, which began in 2013. In order to streamline its business operations, Atlus games will now be published by Sega. But before you start to worry, we have some good news. Essentially, nothing from the end-user point of view is changing. The Atlus brand will remain intact and visible. Sega says that it and Atlus will still act independently. However, Sega does discuss how its acquisition of Atlus has positively impacted its own operations. "Since Atlus U.S.A.—renowned for the award-winning Shin Megami Tensei, Persona, and Etrian Odyssey franchises—integrated with SEGA of America, the ATLUS expertise has allowed SEGA to localize and publish popular Japanese titles in the west, including the Yakuza series, Project DIVA series, and more," the company says. Additionally, Sega has named Ivo Gerscovich as the new head of the Sonic brand and its related businesses in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Australia. Gerscovich will serve as the Sonic chief brand officer and senior vice president of Sega of America. Our Take For end users, this is business as usual, but it does have a business impact. Sega has benefitted greatly from Atlus' prowess at localizing games for the Western market. More importantly the Sonic publisher has let Atlus do its thing without change, which is something fans feared wouldn't be the case following the acquisition. |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives approved a bill as expected on Wednesday declaring that a presidential permit was not needed to approve the Canada-to-Nebraska leg of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a move that would take a decision on the project away from the Obama administration. The Republican-controlled House voted 241-175 with support from some Democrats. The bill faces an uphill battle because it would have to pass the Senate with enough votes to overcome a promised veto from President Barack Obama. “We’ve waited 1,700 days for this project,” Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, said as the floor debate wound down, adding that moving oil by pipeline was “safer and more economical” than other methods. A series of amendments, some dealing with pipeline safety and the cost of cleaning up potential pipeline spills, were defeated along party lines. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget said in a memo on Tuesday that the House bill “conflicts with long-standing Executive branch procedures” and that Obama’s advisers would recommend a veto. TransCanada Corp’s (TRP.TO) pipeline would link Alberta’s oil sands production with refineries and ports along the U.S. Gulf Coast. The pipeline would transport about 830,000 barrels per day and cost some $5.3 billion to construct. The Alberta-to-Nebraska leg needs presidential approval because it crosses a national border. It has been pending with the administration since 2008 and is now undergoing a second round of review by the State Department. The House legislation states that the environmental impact studies already completed would be sufficient to approve the project without the need for additional review, and also calls for legal challenges to the pipeline to be filed within 60 days. “What this boils down to is breaking through bureaucratic hurdles and making this project a priority,” said Jeff Denham, a California Republican. The pipeline’s southern leg, for Texas to Oklahoma, is more than halfway built. The project has been hailed by the energy industry as part of the U.S. push toward energy independence. It is also supported by many unions because it would provide thousands of construction jobs. Environmentalists have vociferously opposed the pipeline, saying it would raise greenhouse gas levels and lock the United States into long-term dependence on fossil fuels. The Center for American Progress said the House bill “would short-circuit the evaluation of the health and environmental threats posed by approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.” Oil industry lobbyists at the American Petroleum Institute praised Wednesday’s vote. “This pipeline is clearly in the national interest and most Americans agree,” Jack Gerard, API’s president, said in a statement. “After four comprehensive federal reviews and a Nebraska review, the analysis is unwavering: Keystone XL is environmentally sound.” |
Rikha Sharma Rani is a journalist who writes about public policy and foreign affairs. She formerly served as a director at the Solutions Journalism Network and as editor of The Journal of International Affairs. Follow her on Twitter at @rikrani. On a Saturday evening in October 2016, with the presidential elections less than a month away, Donald Trump addressed a rapt crowd in Edison, New Jersey. New Jersey is not a swing state—it has voted for the Democratic candidate in the past seven presidential elections—so it was an unusual campaign stop. But then, this was not the usual Trump rally. The familiar “Make America Great Again” signs had been replaced by ones more relatable to this particular audience: Trump for Faster Green Cards. Trump Against Terror. Trump for Hindu-Americans. The fundraiser, hosted by the Republican Hindu Coalition, was one of a series of overtures from Trump toward Indian-Americans. “We love Hindus,” Trump proclaimed to the audience. “And if elected, you would have a true friend in the White House.” Story Continued Below True to his word, earlier this month, President Trump hosted a party in the Oval Office to celebrate Diwali, the most important religious holiday for Hindus. Joining him were his daughter and adviser, Ivanka Trump; RHC founder and Trump campaign megadonor Shalabh Kumar; ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley; and several other senior Indian-American administration officials. Trump, notably, did not attend his Jewish staff’s annual Passover Seder, and ended a decadeslong White House tradition by declining to host an Iftar dinner to celebrate the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Hindus make up about three quarters of the nearly 4 million people of Indian origin living in the United States. In November, nearly 80 percent of the Indian-American vote went to Hillary Clinton. Given this, and a campaign and presidency in which engagement with minorities—especially Hispanics, Mexicans, African-Americans and Muslims—has been conspicuously absent, if not overtly hostile, Trump’s overtures toward Indian-Americans are unusual. One explanation is that Trump is simply appeasing an important donor: Kumar, who donated more than a million dollars to the Trump Victory Committee, the big-donor fundraising vehicle his campaign shared with the Republican Party. The Chicago-based businessman—who has expressed support for Trump’s calls for monitoring Muslims and cracking down on Pakistan—claims that the RHC’s efforts swung tens of thousands of votes in key battleground states. It’s possible the president is merely paying back a debt. But if Trump is throwing bones to his benefactor, he hasn’t limited them to campaign appearances and White House parties. The president has appointed Indian-Americans to positions of real power, and not just Haley: Ajit Pai, Seema Verma, Raj Shah, Neomi Rao, Neil Chatterjee and Vishal Amin all hold key administration positions. Indian-Americans have not only become the face of diversity in a White House that is decidedly not, their decisions will influence the lives of millions of Americans. (President Barack Obama’s administration is still the high-water mark for Indian-Americans in a presidential administration, but no White House has had more high-level Indian-American appointees than Trump’s.) But it may be in foreign policy where Trump’s pro-India tilt is most keenly felt. The president’s speech this summer announcing his new Afghanistan policy was tough on Pakistan, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who traveled to India for the first time in his official capacity last week, laid out a new strategy for South Asia with India squarely at the center. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Tillerson said, “In this period of uncertainty and somewhat angst, India needs a reliable partner on the world stage. I want to make clear, with our shared values and vision for global stability, peace and prosperity, the United States is that partner.” In a rebuff to China, he later said, “We’ll never have the same relationship with China, a nondemocratic society, that we can have with a major democracy.” In some ways, Trump’s apparent embrace of Indian-Americans—and specifically, Hindu-Americans—makes perfect sense. Trump, who tends to love those who love him, is popular with India’s sizable Hindu nationalist bloc, many of whom are virulently Islamophobic. Like Trump, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi rode to power on a wave of anti-Muslim, populist fury about government corruption, terrorism and a lackluster economy. Once in office, he launched his “Make in India” campaign to encourage domestic manufacturing more than two years before “Made in America” became Trump’s rallying cry. Kumar, who travels regularly to India and has close ties to the Modi administration, has taken pains to equate Trump with the Indian leader. So far, Trump doesn’t seem to mind. After Modi’s visit to the White House this summer, Trump remarked, “I’m proud to announce to the media, to the American people, and to the Indian people, that Prime Minister Modi and I are world leaders in social media.” (Both men are active on Twitter and each have more than 35 million followers.) Republicans have long believed that Indian-Americans are a natural fit for the GOP, but the party’s outreach ramped up significantly after Obama’s reelection in 2012. The following year, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Preibus, made a push to expand Asian-American outreach, including to Indian-Americans, saying, “It’s no secret that Republicans have ground to make up among Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders. To earn voters’ trust, we must be present in their communities.” Back then, this was a reasonable theory: As a group, Indian-Americans have high rates of business ownership and the highest median household income in the country. That, coupled with India’s history with terrorism, makes Indian-Americans potentially receptive to GOP priorities like tax reform, health care overhaul and border security. Adi Sathi was vice chairman of the Michigan Republican party last November, and believes the party’s aggressive Indian-American engagement helped turn the state red for the first time in nearly three decades. Around 60,000 Indian-Americans live in Michigan, and Trump won the state by fewer than 11,000 votes. “I think it made a tremendous difference,” said Sathi, now national chief of staff for the Young Republican National Federation. “One of the new coalitions we founded during Ronna Romney McDaniel’s chairmanship [in Michigan] was the Indian-American Coalition,” Sathi said. The coalition, led by members of the Michigan business community, convened gatherings between Indian-American voters and local and state Republican leaders throughout the campaign. Sathi, who also serves as an adviser to Ed Gillespie’s gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, points to that state as another example of the GOP’s recruitment and engagement efforts within the Indian-American community and, in particular, Subba Kolla’s campaign for the Virginia House of Delegates’ 87th District, where Kolla is running against Democratic incumbent John Bell. “He has actively been focusing on engagement in his district, which has a very high proportion of Indian-Americans,” said Sathi. “I think [what is happening there] is indicative of the Republican Party and the RNC’s engagement with the Indian-American community and the importance that they’re putting toward that community.” In Dayton, Ohio, Ramesh Mehan was a die-hard Democrat before switching allegiances and supporting Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. He has voted Republican ever since. Mehan, who was on the steering committee for Mitt Romney’s manufacturing coalition in Ohio in 2012 and actively campaigns for Republican candidates, thinks many Indian-Americans have a distorted view of the GOP. “I was under the impression that Republicans were terrible, racist people. But when I got inside the Republican Party, I saw that wasn’t true,” he said, adding that he believes Trump is a “nationalist,” not a racist. Mehan considers himself a moderate—he campaigned hard for Mitt Romney in 2012 and supported Marco Rubio in the Republican primary last November—but he is rooting for the president to succeed. But Republicans may have a tough time finding more Ramesh Mehans, according to Karthick Ramakrishnan, a political scientist at the University of California, Riverside, and director of the National Asian American Survey. “Indian-Americans consistently over time tend to be the most progressive leaning among Asian groups,” he said. A survey of Asian-Americans conducted before the election found that only 18 percent of Indians had a favorable view of the Republican Party, compared with 64 percent who viewed the Democratic Party favorably. And while Trump may be beloved by Hindu nationalists, the diaspora in the U.S. is different in a few crucial ways. For starters, they’re highly educated. Seventy-two percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In the November election, education emerged as one of the biggest predictors of voting behavior, with college graduates backing Clinton by a 9-point margin. That’s a much wider gap than in past elections—Obama had just a 2-point margin over Romney among college graduates in 2012. Still, Democrats have held a consistent advantage among more educated voters for the past three elections. Indian-Americans also tend to be more tolerant of government spending on social services, a vestige of India’s brand of socialism-infused capitalism. But the biggest barrier to the GOP gaining ground in the Indian-American community, according to Ramakrishnan, is the exclusionary policy and rhetoric coming from the White House. Trump famously said that Mexico was sending criminals and rapists over the border. He has advocated building a wall to keep undocumented immigrants out and has repeatedly tried to ban or restrict travel into the U.S. from predominantly Muslim countries. After white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, the president stated, “I think there is blame on both sides.” About three quarters of Indian-Americans are foreign born, making them highly sensitive to racial dog whistles. Since 9/11, there have been several high-profile attacks against Sikh-American men, who wear turbans as a symbol of their faith. Sikhism, which originates in India, is distinct from Islam but its followers are often confused for Muslims, who are among the groups most targeted by hate crime. Most recently, the shooting death in Kansas of 32-year-old Indian immigrant Srinivas Kuchibhotla by a man shouting racial slurs hit home for Indian-Americans who have been at the receiving end of racial discrimination. Trump’s initial silence—he waited six days before publicly condemning the attack in a joint session of Congress—angered many Indian-Americans, and his family members back in India blamed Trump. On the issue of immigration, nearly two-thirds of Indian-Americans agree with the statement, “Undocumented or illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to eventually become U.S. citizens.” And Asian-Americans, including Indian-Americans, strongly oppose a Muslim ban. Last week, Trump tightened restrictions on people working in the U.S. on an H-1B visa, a move that has antagonized Indian-Americans, who have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of that system. Any appeal that the GOP might hold for Indian-Americans is liable to disintegrate against a backdrop of race-baiting and ethnocentrism. Until that perception changes, it’s going to be an uphill climb for Republicans to loosen the Democratic stranglehold on Indian-American voters. “Unless Trump is able to significantly or forcefully deal with the nativist strain within the Republican Party” said Ramakrishnan, “it’s going to be really hard to make inroads with Indian-Americans.” This article tagged under: India Politics Religion Trump |
Update: It appears that Android Lollipop is also hitting the US Cellular Moto X (2014) today as well. According to various reports from Android users around the internet today, the Android 5.0 Lollipop update is finally making its way to some of the most important 2014 flagships on some carriers. Specifically, today marks the day the update seems to be landing on the AT&T LG G3 and T-Mobile has confirmed that the update is also today hitting its HTC One (M8). The update has been very slowly rolling out over the course of the last few months, starting off in December with Google’s own Nexus devices. Most recently, the update started rolling out to the Sprint Galaxy S5, that same device on Verizon, and Google’s own cellular models of the Nexus 7. It looks like the update is going to clock in somewhere in the realm of 400 to 600 MB in download size, depending on which device and carrier you’re using. Be sure to let us know if you have an AT&T LG G3 or a T-Mobile HTC One (M8) and you’re seeing the update. |
As you have probably surmised, there will be a large round of Tea Parties coming up on April 15th. There will be large names, even larger crowds – and honestly, organizers would be unable to stop people from coming if they wanted to at this point. I will be speaking in Atlanta, and the FreedomWorks event in DC has a fantastic line-up including Lord Monckton, Andrew Breitbart, and Ron Paul. I experienced first hand some of the tension at the Capitol last weekend during the health care votes. People are undeniably angry. For the most part, however, lefties have laughed off the Tea Party movement. They’ve called them crazy, racist, homophobic, and sexist. They’ve compared them to neo-nazis and domestic terrorists. They’ve done everything they can to keep them out of the mainstream coverage and paint them as a fringe movement. The problem? The Tea Party movement represents the dead center of American politics, which is the fiscal conservative. The over the top accusations are laughable, and now they’re forced to acknowledge the political power of the movement. And they’re freaking out. Someone sent this to me this morning: The organizers of this nationwide day of protest call it a tea party. This tea party movement that emerged only a year ago is a coalition of conservatives, anti-semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, ron paul supporters, alex jones conspiracy types and american flag wavers. If the tea party movement continues to grow in size and strength there is a big chance they will dominate this country in the near future. If the tea party movement takes over this country they will really hurt poor people by getting rid of social programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, student aid, free health care, etc. The tea party movement will say these programs must be gotten rid of because hard-working taxpayers cannot afford to pay for these things especially when the economy is in a depression. It’s on some site I’ve never heard of, so naturally I Googled it, and apparently it’s on a network of self-proclaimed anarchist sites. It’s linked here, here, here, and naturally, on a slew of conservative sites who have since picked up on it. Let’s start by pointing out the obvious: These are “anarchist” websites that think it’s bad to eliminate government run social programs. I feel like maybe they need a definition of “anarchy”. an·ar·chy [an-er-kee] 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. So. ABSENCE of government control. ABSENCE of all direct government. This isn’t complicated stuff. Let’s look back at the release floating around again: If the tea party movement takes over this country they will really hurt poor people by getting rid of social programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, student aid, free health care, etc. Right. Now that we have cleared that up, we should address the actual issue: the left has FINALLY caught on and started to voice the fact that they believe the tea party movement is a threat to their agenda. It’s easier when they don’t take the movement seriously. Then we do what we want, we win, and they wind up being, well, Marth Coakley… standing there like stunned beasts wondering how they could possibly have lost. It appears, however, that they were able to wrap their brains around the idea that we’re not going away. They’re looking to escalate the attacks. FreedomWorks has been receiving threats. Up until this point, the counter protests and such have been a joke – like when a whopping four Code Pink moonbats showed up at Michele Bachmann’s House Call event in November. Lately, there has been more interest in the movement, and with that comes Lefty blowback… which we’ve seen in full force recently. Gird your loins, kids. This is going to be a rough road. Show up, fight hard, and don’t retaliate. See ya on the 15th! |
Michael Murtaugh, 52, stands staring in the cemetery. He hasn’t been to his hometown of Allentown, Pennsylvania for more than two days in the last 35 years, but his grandfather’s funeral brought him back to his roots from Cave Creek, Arizona. This is not where his grandfather is buried. This was one of his old spots—one of the many spots Murtaugh got high as a kid. After years of avoiding his home, he’s made it his mission to go back to each one of the places where he got in trouble in his youth. In every location, he says, I win. Not every drug addict gets the chance to confront their past. Murtaugh, now seven years sober, knew the return would be both painful, but cathartic. He wanted to let go of his memories—of a childhood where his father was away serving in Vietnam, where food was scarce and dinner was sometimes dog food. And of the times when the he and his siblings were watched by a babysitter who would bring them into a bedroom all together in their own home and engage them in sexual acts. RELATED: Special Report: Could Exercise Be the Key to Substance Abuse Recovery? At 11 years old, Murtaugh started smoking weed in the local cemetery. He was never bothered there. On the weekends he drank. In ninth grade, he scored his first gram of cocaine. Cocaine led to meth. Meth led to a downward spiral that took him to California. And in his never-ending quest for the greatest high to dull the pain, he even tried heroin, but quickly learned it wasn't for him after shooting it twice. At 22, he got busted breaking into a vehicle and found to be in possession of multiple narcotics. But jail and treatment only made him cover up the problem. For the next 20 years, he lived as a functioning alcoholic and successfully held jobs while drinking every night. He married and divorced, twice. “I’d go to church, say my prayers, read my Bible,” he said. “But I was living for the party. I would still do cocaine and I would disappear and get hookers and be gone twice a year until I ended up in rehab. Then I’d go to work and everything was okay again.” Above, more inspiring feats from runners. Through it all, he was racing. Endurance sports had always appealed to him, especially since giving up team sports after high school. When he was 40, he started running and cycling and swimming as a way to start exercising again. Even drinking, he was still able to finish an Ironman and other distance races. He once downed an entire bottled of booze the night before a long-distance swim event. “I was completely hungover, and I was scared,” Murtaugh said. “I prayed with every stroke and made it.” But finally, mercifully, his employer, The Arizona Bitmore, found out about an 11-day drinking escapade. They didn’t fire him. They were concerned, so they helped him up and his family took him to the hospital before rehab. “They took me to the hospital first because my blood alcohol level was five-and-a-half times the legal limit,” Murtaugh said. “I went to Calvary Healing Center for 38 days and got severe counseling. Once I told them my story, they told me why I did these things. Abandonment, sexual assault, things I didn’t understand when I was younger, but now I could start working on my myself from the inside out.” He turned to endurance sports again, but this time sober. Running casually was not going to cut it. He signed up for races every weekend. When that wasn’t enough, he turned to virtual races. “Running is the greatest feeling in the world,” he said. “That runner’s high you get after you break the first wall, it’s like shedding away your skin and gaining strength.” RELATED: How Running Helped Me Manage My Grief Since getting clean, he's dropped 48 pounds. He is about to celebrate his fifth wedding anniversary in November with his third wife, Stacy. During their vacation together, the two plan to run the Monterey Bay Half Marathon. He has a son, Connor who is 22. He still speaks every Tuesday night at Calvary, and is director of purchasing at the Four Seasons Resort Scottsdale at True North. He thinks about this new life he has as he stands in the cemetery in Pennsylvania, and he remembers smoking weed as a kid, robbing houses just to get by. He gets back in the car to drive to other spots that used to haunt him. “When you look at my gravestone, it’s going to be a story that brought hope to the world,” Murtaugh said. “It will say, ‘this is who I was, this is what I did, and this is the result. I’m a good husband. I’m a good father to my son. A good employee. Good to my dogs.” |
The video was shot on April 7 as part of a two-part event series between Boiler Room x Cubanisto. Hailing from Ann Arbor, Sam Baker's (a.k.a Samiyam) career has followed a slowly unfolding path, marked by consistency, a patient evolution, and a talent for always delivering the goods. An integral member of the Stones Throw/Leaving Records and Brainfeeder family, Baker's knack for crafting fragmented, lead-footed, neck-snapping hip-hop beats straight from the SP-404 has consistently drawn in crowds wherever he may wander. On April 7, Boiler Room and Cubanisto joined forces for a two-part event series, spotlighting Belgium's most vital performing artists, curated by Belgium star Lefto. You can watch Samiyam's performance in the video below. Samiyam Boiler Room Brussels x Cubanisto Live Setby brtvofficial Hit the XLR8R archives and grab a bundle of downloads from Samiyam. Download: Samiyam "Track 20" Download: Samiyam "Cushion" Download: Samiyam "Moon Shoes" Download: Samiyam "Fishsticks" |
After 3 quarters, the Eagles were up 24-0 and on top of the world. The 4th quarter was ugly, but in the end it didn’t impact the outcome. A blowout became a close win. “Win” being the key word. Last year the Eagles lost every way imaginable. I’m not going to apologize for ugly wins. That victory improved the Eagles to 6-5 and put them alone atop the NFC East. You can argue the merits of that distinction. It would be similar to being the Detmer with the strongest arm. The problem with this game is that the offense and defense both got cold at the same time. The offense was great for 2 1/2 quarters and then got sloppy. They could not score, nor sustain drives to work the clock. The Eagles defense played brilliantly for 3 quarters, allowing just 193 yards and no points. They flew around the field and played with great energy. They gave up some rushing yards, but kept the Skins under control. The 4th quarter was a very different story. The Eagles gave up 234 yards and 16 points. Ugh. While the results weren’t pretty, the Eagles did find a way to win. There is something to be said for that. When we see the Eagles win ugly, we tend to pick apart what happened. If we see the Patriots or Packers win an ugly game, our response is generally something more like “Good teams do that. They just find a way to win.” There really is a lot to be encouraged by in this game. If you stopped the game in the middle of the 3rd quarter, people would be raving about the Eagles and how well they played. The problem is finishing games off. The Eagles just don’t have much speed on defense and that leaves them vulnerable to the passing game. Opposing teams should throw the ball a lot when facing the Eagles. Running the ball actually plays into the Eagles hands. It takes long, sustained drives. It works the clock, which shortens the game. And it allows the defense to be led by the DL and not the secondary. I’d much rather you test Cox-Logan-Thornton than Williams-Allen-Chung-Carmichael. That looks better when Bradley Fletcher is in there, but it still isn’t a compelling group. How frustrated must Skins fans be? They have Mike Shanahan, a 2-time Super Bowl winner and NFL offensive guru, as coach. They have Jim Haslett, a proven NFL defensive coach. They have a franchise QB in RG3. They have a good RB in Alfred Morris. They have Orakpo and Kerrigan, a good OLB duo. And yet that team is still a mess. Chip Kelly is cleaning up the mess of 2012 and has the Eagles moving in the right direction immediately. Shanny delivered some fool’s gold in 2012 and that raised hopes for this year that aren’t close to being met. Will he stick around for the future? I sure hope so. COACHING There are a few items to discuss. Chip Kelly called a timeout and then draw late in the half. Why? The Eagles were at their own 38-yd line. There were 17 seconds left and it was 3rd/15. Kelly ran a draw. It gained 2 yards. Had Bryce Brown broken loose for 25 yards, you would have been in FG range. It was worth it to stop the clock and give yourself an outside shot. If you drop back to pass, you have more things that can go wrong (holding call, sack, strip-sack, INT, pass deflection, hit on the QB). Run the draw. Safe play that might break for a long gain. If it doesn’t, you punt and the Skins won’t have time to do anything. The Eagles got into the shotgun on 4th/inches. This is not my favorite move. I prefer the I-formation or a QB sneak. Lining up in the shotgun and running a dive play is awkward to me. Brown got the 1st down. He ran hard and straight ahead. He did exactly what Kelly wanted. This was another week with controversial non-challenges. Chip didn’t challenge a 1st half run where Alfred Morris was clearly out of bounds. He also didn’t challenge a play where Riley Cooper looked to have scored a TD. This really becomes a philosophical discussion. The Morris run netted an extra 7 yards or something like that. The ball was at the WAS 20 and it was a 1st down. Is that worth challenging? There is no right/wrong answer, only opinions. The Cooper play got the ball to the 1-foot line. The Eagles scored on the next play. No harm, no foul. This time. Having seen the Eagles commit way too many Red Zone turnovers in recent years, I think you can argue more strongly that this was a play Kelly should have challenged. I do think the ball broke the plane. I can’t say with absolute conviction that the refs would have ruled for a TD, but I think they would have. Some questioned Kelly’s decision to go for it on 4th/1 in the 4th quarter. The Eagles weren’t in FG range. I’d rather go for it than punt and risk only getting 18 additional yards. I liked the call. Just didn’t work. OFFENSE The Eagles were a passing team in the 1st half, having almost a 2-to-1 pass to run ratio. And that was smart. From the first snap you could see the Skins would sell out to stop Shady. They paid no attention to Foles on the read-option. The Eagles played mostly in 3 WR spread sets, but the Skins still focused on the run. They kept 7 in the box and only 1 deep Safety against that look. They did a good job vs Shady, but could not stop Foles and the passing game. Foles threw a couple of deep balls, but that wasn’t working. The Eagles were able to throw short and create big plays. Celek and Brown turned screens into big gains. DeSean caught intermediate passes and got downfield. There were a lot of RAC yards in the game and that’s great. Those are safer plays. 9 of Foles completions went to RBs or TEs. Only 8 went to WRs. The big criticism of the offense is that it was too conservative in the 2nd half. I don’t fully agree with this. The focus went on the run game, as it should have. You want to work the clock. The Eagles still mixed in passes. It seemed to me that the Skins just did a much better job of covering than in the 1st half. You watch plays and don’t see players running open as much. And Foles didn’t want to force things. That’s smart. Play to the situation. With a lead, you don’t need to take chances. I’m frustrated with Shady. He was too aggressive in the 2nd half. If you re-watch the game, you’ll see holes that he passed up. He kept trying to get outside for big plays. That had worked in the 1st half. He needed to show better situational awareness. In the 2nd half, you want to move the chains more than you want big plays. Shady wasn’t passing up huge holes, but he had room to run. If Alex Gibbs studied, the film, he’d have a heart attack. He taught RBs to make one-cut and then get upfield. Shady kept swinging for the fences. Just wasn’t the right thing to do. We do have to give the Skins some credit. S Reed Doughty played very well in the 2nd half. He came down in the box a lot and either made the tackle or boxed Shady in. That was good defense by him. I do wonder if Kelly should have mixed in Brown or even Chris Polk some. Force the Skins to face a different RB style. It was smart of the coaches to get the ball to the RBs in the passing game. The Skins have LBs that are big and tough, but not speedy. Kelly probably knew that the Skins would aggressively play the run so one way to get Shady going is to throw him the ball in space. Worked well. Plays 1st/10. 12 personnel. Both WRs are to the left. TEs are stacked to the right. Skins have Nickel D in there, but an 8 man front. Really more like a 10-man front. Both TEs release to the inside. They take DBs to the inside with them. Shady runs a semi-wheel route. Really just has an angled release, then goes downfield. He’s 1-on-1 with Kerrigan. Total mismatch. Foles hits him in stride and Shady gets 49 on the play. 1st/GL. From the 1. Skins were inexplicably in a Nickel D. Had 2 DTs, 2 OLBs, 2 ILBs, and 5 DBs. Mathis blew open a huge hole and Shady walked into the end zone. ILB Perry Riley watched Foles and didn’t go for Shady. That made the TD easy. MISC * Skins had some success with ILB blitzes, especially on delays. * Went under C late in the 1st Qtr on 3rd/1. This is a recent wrinkle that Derek Sarley has written about in his film reviews for the Daily News. * 4-13 on 3rd downs. * 3-4 in the Red Zone. 3 for 3 on Goal to Go situations. That was critical in this game. Players QB FOLES – Good game. 17-26-298. Didn’t have a TD or any turnovers. Came close to a TD with 2 passes. One was ruled a score and then reversed. The other probably should have been but didn’t get challenged. Looked good from the start. Erased any doubts that the Nick from the Dallas game would be involved. That guy seems to be long gone. Good mechanics. Could sell his play-action fakes a bit better. Like many young QBs, Foles doesn’t want his back to the defense for long so he’s quick with his fakes. Does a good job of turning his shoulders so he is perpindicular to the LOS before setting to throw. Sets his feet and throws. Not slow, but not in a rush either. Be quick, but not in a hurry. Seeing Foles in the pocket made me feel confident. The guy from the Dallas game was very awkward. Foles was comfortable on Sunday. Had another good game as a runner. Made the Skins pay for not taking him seriously. Ran 9 times for 47 yards and a TD. By comparison, RG3 ran 10 times for 44 yards and no TDs. How many people thought Nick would be the more productive runner? You probably could have won a ton of money in Vegas with a prop bet on this. *Plays* Early deep ball to Riley was a pretty good throw. Just missed connecting for a 90-yd TD. Hit DJax on 3rd/11. Sat in the pocket and made a good throw. Ball was thrown to good spot, away from the DB. Was that intentional? Had to run for his life on early 3rd down. Pressure came from left side. Nick went right and held the ball a bit, but then wisely threw it away. Good throw to Shady down the sideline for a gain of 49. Put some air under it so Shady could adjust, but threw it flat enough that no defender would be able to make a play. Tough balancing act. Nothing pretty about his TD run except the result. Got near the GL and then used his size to fight his way into the end zone. Got great protection to open the 3rd series. Had no one open so took off running for a gain of 15. Good job on screen to Celek. Looked right. Gave quick pump fake. Looked back left at last second and made quick, soft throw. Hit Riley on dig route with good throw. Riley was able to add RAC yds since he caught the ball on the move. Hit DeSean on a drag route on the next play. Short throw that turned into a gain of 26 due to RAC yds. Pass to Riley was perfect spiral with good velocity. Pass to DJax was a soft, touch throw. Both guys were able to pluck the ball on the move and get upfield. Ran screen to Brown in the mid-2nd. Smith lined up in the backfield and went in motion to the left. Decoy. Foles looked his way and pump-faked, then turned and dumped the ball to Brown. Lots of room. Gain of 24. Took a big hit from Fletcher on delay blitz. Got sacked. Ball came loose, but they ruled Nick down. I was nervous that replay might show this was a fumble, but nothing came of it. Tried to run on 3rd/3 inside the 10. Looked like he should have given the ball to Polk. The OLB went for Polk, but team only needed 3 yds and Polk is a good downhill runner. Foles got 2 of the 3 yds. SS focused on Foles and went hard after him the second he saw it was a keeper. Took a sack late in the half that basically killed that drive. Scrambled on opening drive of the 2nd half and got a 1st down, then slid. Scrambled for 10 yards in the early 4th. Made one very bad decision in the 4th. On 3rd/long, tried to force a ball to Cooper. CB undercut the route and almost picked it off. Foles was greedy there and got away with it. Scrambled on 3rd down late in the game. Looked like he got the 1st, but Shanny challenged and replay overturned the call. RB SHADY – 20-77 on the ground. 4-73 as a receiver. Ran for a pair of TDs. That was good to see. Shady hadn’t had a rushing TD since the first Giants game. Got the team going with big catch/run down the right sideline. Thought he had a TD, but got tackled at the 4 for only a gain of 49 yards. Slow. Lazy. Missed a blitz pickup on 1st/GL. Riley did a delay blitz and Shady didn’t see him til the last minute. Forced Nick to move in the pocket and throw the ball away. First good run came late in the 1st Qtr. We used a spread set so there were 5 blockers for 5 defenders with one DB for Shady to beat. He got by that guy, but someone else grabbed him down by the jersey. Got 9 yds on the play. Had a great run in the mid-2nd. S fired into the backfield and Shady unleashed one of his Barry Sanders cuts on the guy and went around him. Shady got up the field for 10 yds. Meriweather tackled him and Shady started jawing right in his face. Got called for taunting, which moved the Eagles half the distance to the goal. Had another incredible run when that drive got down to the Red Zone. Was running outside zone. Fletcher shot a gap to get him and Shady hopped away from that and kept going wide. Turned upfield. Eluded Meriweather and Kerrigan, then cut to the inside. Got inside the 10 and had a chance for a TD, but went to the ground and grabbed his hammy. Scary moment. Shady was in pain. Was out for the rest of the half. Came right back in the 3rd Qtr. Caught a couple of passes on that drive. Short stuff, but kept the chains moving. Drew a flag on one when the LB horse-collared him. Would have been a TD without that so the guy had to. Ran for 1-yd TD up the middle to finish that drive. Had a couple of great runs in the 2nd half. Made defenders miss in the backfield. Just wicked moves. Unfortunately, started looking for too many big plays and trying to get outside. Made poor choice on 4th Qtr run. Didn’t have room up the middle, but could have gotten a yard or so. Decided to cutback. That was closed off. Tried to run around that guy and was tackled for a loss. Did this on a few plays. On one drive, had runs of -5 and -6 yards. Clearly the Skins were loading the box and selling out to stop the run. Shady just needed to focus on getting a yard or two and not trying to get into space. B BROWN – 4 carries for just 2 yards. A couple of those runs came on 4th/short. Did go 2-28 as a receiver. Caught screen in the mid-2nd and got upfield for gain of 24. Play had a chance to be huge, but got tripped up and couldn’t keep his balance. Caught screen before the half. Didn’t get many yards, but did manage to get out of bounds. Best run came on 4th/inches. No hesitation. Hit it hard. Got a yard. Was stuffed on 4th/short in the 2nd half. POLK – Only used for 1 snap at RB. Got in the game late in the half. Didn’t get the ball on option play. TE CELEK – Didn’t really have a clean block on Foles TD run, but did get in the way of a defender. No style points, but effective. Caught screen pass to open the 2nd Qtr and went flying down the field. Tackled as he got into the end zone. Originally ruled a TD, but replay showed he was down at the 1-yd line. Slow. Lazy. Good block on 4th/inches. Got into his defender, turned him sideways and made sure the guy didn’t get penetration. That gave Brown space to attack. The screen was the only pass that came his way. ERTZ – Caught pass in the late 1st Qtr. Crossing route. Got a gain of 15. Was given a clean release on that play and just ran away from the DB. Had a bad drop on easy pass over the middle in the early 3rd. Came right back to him on the next play. Made this catch in traffic, took a big hit, bounced off that and got 5 extra yards. Finished 2-31. CASEY – Had a good block on 3rd Qtr play-action pass. WR D JACKSON – 4-82. First catch came on 3rd down on the opening drive. Caught the ball near the sideline and then took a huge hit. Drew a flag. DB hit him in the helmet. Best catch came in the mid-2nd. Caught pass on drag route. Had Wilson trailing him and got the ball on the move. Added almost 25 RAC yards. Able to turn on the jets and get wide and then down the sideline. Caught pass along the sideline late in the half. Caught pass on deep crossing route in the early 3rd and got 22 yards on that play. Easy. Wide open and running in space. AVANT – Quiet game. Had pass come his way in the late 1st Qtr. Was open on crossing route. Jason reached for the ball with one hand, but couldn’t hang on. Looked like pass was too far out front of him. Caught short pass in the early 3rd. Came over the middle on 3rd/5. Came up just short of the sticks. Bobbled the catch or might have gotten the 1st. Had a DB right there so it wasn’t an easy catch. COOPER – 3-37. Sounds like a quiet game, but was more impactful than that. Targeted 7 times, the most of any Eagles receiver. Foles went his way with a deep ball on the opening drive. Looked like there should have been a penalty called on the Skins for PI. CB grabbed Cooper downfield. Cooper wasn’t able to adjust to the pass and make the catch. Hard to say if the contact was the reason, but it didn’t help. Best play was catch in the mid-2nd. Eagles were backed up inside the 10. Riley ran a dig route, which is a deep cross. Used a push-off on Amerson to create separation. No flag. Got the ball over the middle and added RAC yards for a gain of 23. Had a pass come his way in the end zone in the mid-2nd. CB held Coop or it probably would have been a TD. Drew the flag. Had a nice catch along the sideline wiped out by OL penalty in the early 3rd. Caught a slant pass inside the 5. Short, quick throw. Should have been a TD, but Riley’s back was to the GL and they ruled him short. Chip decided not to challenge. Cost him a TD. My take…Cooper was slow, lazy. D JOHNSON – Inactive MAEHL – Only played 5 snaps. SMITH – First game as an Eagle. Had one snap on offense. Came in the mid-2nd. Lined up in the backfield and then went in motion to the left. Decoy. Play was RB screen to the right. OL PETERS – Started. I didn’t think he had much of a chance to play, but got out there and had a solid showing. Orakpo tried running around Peters early on, but Jason just rode him deep, wide. Good block of Orakpo on Shady’s first TD run. Got under his pads and moved him off the ball. Called for illegal hands to the face when pass blocking Jackson in the early 3rd. Jason got his hand up by the bottom of Jackson’s facemask. Could have also called him for holding. Whiffed on block of OLB in the mid-4th and Shady was tackled for a loss. Good game overall. MATHIS – Good game. May have kept Foles from getting killed on opening drive. Perry Riley looped around on blitz and got by the OL. Mathis saw him at the last minute. Got a hand on Riley to slow him just a bit. Still hit Foles hard. Had to hold Orakpo on the next play. Skins had a blitz that confused Evan and Peters. Orakpo slanted inside and had an open path to Foles. Smart to hold. Loved what Evan did on Celek’s screen. Didn’t run down the field like a cheerleader. Saw guys chasing so he slowed and basically took out 2 guys, Cofield and Doughty. Great block on Shady’s first TD run. Downblocked on DT and caved the guy in. Moved him a couple of yards to the inside. Good job on screen to Brown. Blocked DL downfield and got a bit of a shove on LB chasing the play. Gave up a sack in the 3rd Qtr, but really wasn’t his fault. Coverage sack. Foles held the ball waiting for someone to come open, but didn’t happen. Good down block on 3rd Qtr run play. Really moved the DT down the LOS. KELCE – Very good block late in the 1st Qtr. Was able to get into the NT and move down the line. That created a hole for Shady right up the middle. Good block on Brent’s screen. Got upfield and dove at DB. Didn’t hit him, but kept the guy from getting to Celek. That’s fine on a play like that out in space. Held Cofield on pass in the 2nd Qtr and drew a flag. Good call. Put a nasty cut block on Fletcher on screen to Brown. London could see him coming so it wasn’t dirty. Hit Fletcher low and hard. Got him off balance and forced an awkward fall. Actually stayed there and helped Fletcher up. Gotta be nice to senior citizens. Kelce had some issues with Barry Cofield in the season opener, but not on Sunday. HERREMANS – Did a good job on Foles TD run. He and Johnson moved DT off the ball. Todd stuck with the block. Very good block of Fletcher on 3rd/1. Totally kept him out of the play. Great block on Celek’s screen. Hit DL as the guy was turning and put him on the ground. Didn’t try to kill the guy, but hit him hard. Kerrigan lined up at DT and rushed up the middle in the early 3rd. Got some penetration, but Todd kept control and gave Foles room to work with. Got beat by inside move of OLB on 4th Qtr pass play. Might have held on the play. Gave Foles time to get rid of the ball. JOHNSON – Good game. Wasn’t overly aggressive with his pass sets. Got moved back by Kerrigan at times, but was able to re-set and anchor. Good block on Foles TD run. Helped with DL at the snap, then got on Fletcher. Failed to read a stunt late in the half and Orakpo looped around him and sacked Foles. Those plays are tough on veterans, let alone rookies. Good block of Orakpo on 3rd Qtr pass. Stuck with him as he tried to round the corner. Lane eventually got him off balance and pushed him to the ground. Excellent block on Shady run to his side. Helped move DT off the ball and then completely drove Fletcher out of the play. Good down block on 4th/inches. Caved that guy in. Kerrigan was offside or close on 3rd Qtr pass play (guessed the snap count), but Lane kept him blocked. Beaten by Kerrigan in the early 4th Qtr. Foles got hit and the pass fell incomplete because of that. BARBRE – DNP TOBIN – DNP VANDERVELDE – DNP KELLY – DNP ============================================================= DEFENSE Dealing with the speed and elusiveness of RG3 and the power of Alfred Morris is not fair. That really is a deadly combo. Bill Davis focused on stopping the run and even when the Eagles did the right thing, the Skins were able to get positive yards. They ran for 191 yards. It still felt like the Eagles didn’t play bad run defense. I thought Davis did a good job of calling this game. He took some chances with blitzes, vs the run and pass. He mixed in stunts and slants. He was trying to create negative plays without being too risky. The Eagles did come up with 4 TFLs and would have had more if Morris wasn’t so hard to bring down. Even on the final drive, Davis stayed creative. He rushed 3 guys on one play and then 4 or 5 right after that. He blitzed up the middle and off the edge. He used different combinations and different looks. Davis wasn’t going to play a standard prevent defense. My one complaint is with so much off coverage. I do understand Davis didn’t want receivers getting behind the defense, but they did a couple of times. I would have played more press, with the Safeties staying back. In the 1st half, WAS ran 28 times for 160 yards. They didn’t score a point. In the 2nd half, WAS ran 10 times for 31 yards and scored 16 points. PLAYS * 1st/10. Play-action pass to Paulsen. Someone blew coverage and left Paulsen wide open. Nate Allen was the underneath cover guy. He didn’t seem to think Paulsen was his guy. Cary Williams ran downfield with a WR, but it was hard to tell if the D was in man or zone. Luckily RG3 threw the pass 5 yards too far. * 2nd/5. From PHI 5. Skins decided to throw the ball. RG3 dropped back. Coverage was tight so he held the ball. The Skins tried to block Barwin with a RB. Connor beat the back and hit RG3, knocking the ball up into the air. Fletcher Cox caught it and took off upfield. He then got the ball to a teammate, but that was a forward pass so the extra yards didn’t count. Trent Cole got a hard rush from his side. That gave RG3 nowhere to run. Cole saw the ball in the air. It was hilarious to watch him try to catch it. He looked so awkward, squatting and waiting for the ball. Don’t think Trent will ever get snaps at TE. * 1st/10. Thornton at LDE. Cox, Logan inside. Cole at RDE. Thornton stands up as a rusher. Comes off the edge and gets into the backfield. Logan drives the C back to RG3. Those guys force RG3 to move from the pocket, where Cole gets him for a sack. Great rush with no blitzing. Cole made sure to jam the TE at the release so Trent then had a strange rush angle. Made it easier for him to get to RG3. * 2-pt Conv. The Skins ran a simple pick play and Nick Williams was wide open. PLAYERS DL COX – Cox was darn near invisible in the first meeting between these teams. That wasn’t the case on Sunday. He was all over the field. He chased Griffin play after play. Cox recovered a fumble and almost had an interception. He made the tackle on a screen pass that he read perfectly on 3rd/long. Hustled out wide to get to the RB. Called for roughing on the first play. Great hustle to get out wide, but should have pulled up instead of hitting RG3. Had a wild time on 2nd Qtr run. Got off the block of the LT and grabbed Morris. Had him solidly, but wasn’t able to make the tackle. Gave up another 5 yards. Morris is very strong. Good play vs the run in the late 2nd. Got into the LG and moved him back a step. Then flowed to the outside, where the play was going. Shed the block and tackled Morris. Only gave up a yard on that. Drove the RG back into RG3’s face on 3rd Qtr pass play and forced the throw to be high and off target. Made a terrific play on a screen in the late 3rd. Read the play and stayed near the RB. Actually got the ball. Originally ruled an INT, but replay showed that the ball hit the ground. Good job vs the run in the late 3rd. Got off the block of the LT and grabbed Morris as he started upfield. On the next play he moved over to LDE. Fought off the RT and limited Morris to just a yard on 3rd/2. Collapsed the pocket on pass play on the final drive. RG3 scrambled. Cox chased him and made the stop, limiting the gain to 1 yd. Great speed, hustle. Got pressure on the game-saving INT, but also got help. Lined up at LDE. Started rushing. Was battling the RT. The RG shoved Fletch in the side, which helped him to get around the RT and into RG3’s face. That’s when the gift, aka lob pass, went up. Credited with 5 total tackles, a pass deflection and a fumble recovery. LOGAN – Another good game. Looped out wide on opening play. Had a chance to get to RG3, but took too inside of an angle and let RG3 outside. Can’t let him get wide. Hustled down the LOS to tackle Morris on 1st Qtr run play. Drove the RG into the backfield and flushed RG3. Tried to sack him, but couldn’t get close enough. Hustled out wide on Morris run and should have had a TFL when Morris stepped out of bounds, but the official missed the call since he got hit by a player. Ran a stunt in the early 2nd Qtr where Logan looped wide. RB was right there to be hit and Logan tackled him. Helped collapse the pocket on 2nd Qtr pass and flushed RG3 out. Got some pressure on 4th/1 pass play in the early 4th Qtr. Looped outside and got up the field. Saw RG3 going to pass so Logan jumped to try and affect the throw. Pass was off target, but not sure if it was due to Logan or just a sloppy throw. Drove the LG back toward RG3 on the final drive. 3 solo stops and a TFL. THORNTON – Had 5 solo tackles and 2 TFLs. Great play on the opening drive. Controlled the RT and pushed him back. Guy hit the RB in the backfield and the RB fell down. Showed great hustle on the play where Morris wasn’t called out of bounds. It was Thornton who ran from LDE to the far sideline and made the tackle. Next play was a run to his side. Ced pushed the RG backward and blew up the play, getting a TFL. Showed good speed in the 2nd Qtr when he chased RG3 on scramble play. Impressive play vs run in the late 2nd. Slanted to the inside from LDE. Saw ball going to the outside. Shifted back that way and got Morris as he got to the LOS. No gain. Had perfect 2-gap play to open the 3rd Qtr. Fired into the RG and moved him back. Shed the block and grabbed Morris for short gain. Offside in the mid-4th. Played NT and DE on the final drive. Got one hit on RG3. CURRY – Another good showing. Used hard inside move to get a bit of pressure on 3rd down pass play late in the 1st Qtr. Did terrific job vs the run on early 2nd Qtr run play. Got past the LG and into the backfield, but the RB cut inside of him. Curry turned around and was able to get in on the tackle of the RB. Made a great 2-gap play in the early 2nd Qtr. Skins were in the RZ. Curry fired into the LG and then looked for the ball. RG3 kept it on an option run. Curry shed the block and grabbed RG3. Limited him to a short gain. Crucial play since next up was Barwin’s strip sack. Used hard inside move in the 3rd Qtr to force RG3 to move and throw to checkdown receiver. Got some pressure on 3rd Qtr pass play. Flushed RG3 out of the pocket and forced him to throw the ball away. Helped blow up run play in the late 3rd. Drove OL into backfield, forcing RB to stay deep. Stood up on that play. Lined up at LDE on 3rd/long and drove the RT right back into RG3’s area. Shed the RT on late pass play and jumped at RG3, which affected the accuracy of a downfield pass. Only credited with 1 tackle, but was active and disruptive. GEATHERS – Quiet game. Got some pressure on 3rd Qtr pass play. Was generally stout vs the run, but didn’t have standout moments. SQUARE – Solid showing. Developing nicely as a backup NT. Uses his hands really well. Able to fight off blocks. Got some penetration on 2nd Qtr pass play, then hustled out wide after the pass was thrown. Very good motor. Works to get off blocks. Showed great hustle in the early 2nd Qtr. TE Reed caught a pass along the sideline and got downfield about 10 yds. Square was there with a DB and LB to knock him out of bounds. Got hit on RG3 on final drive. Was due to effort and good downfield coverage that forced him to hold the ball. OLB COLE – Bit of a breakout game. Had 2 sacks and a TFL. Has been generating pressure all year, but finally got the payoff. Got blocked by TE Paulsen on outside run by Morris early in the game. Can’t give up the edge like that. Used hard inside move to flush RG3 on pass play from his own end zone. Helped Goode come free for a sack. Slanted hard inside on pass play and occupied the OL so Goode could sneak around behind him. Good job on outside run in the late 1st. Fought off block of LT and stayed wide. Got to Morris in the backfield, but couldn’t quite make the tackle. Forced him to stay deep which should have led to TFL, but refs blew out of bounds call. Got first sack late in the half. Beat LT Williams cleanly. Trent used his hands to knock away Williams hands and then turned the corner. Williams held him as Trent got away, but Trent was still able to drag RG3 to the ground. Got good pressure on 3rd Qtr pass play. Helped that Curry was driving RG3 Cole’s way. Got TFL in the late 3rd. Morris ran to Trent’s side. Trent fired off the ball and pushed back 2 TEs, then made the tackle. That was great run defense. One huge error. Failed to cover the FB on the pass play that turned into a long TD. Was okay initially, but then got caught watching RG3 and Young went further down the field. Wide open. Trent hustled in pursuit, but got tangled up with Chung and took a big hit to the head. Lost contain a few times in the 4th Qtr. Trent has to know he can’t do that vs RG3. Got the initial pressure on the final play. Drove the LT into the backfield and that pushed RG3 over toward Cox’s area. Only had 3 tackles in the game, but all were impact plays (sack or TFL). BARWIN – Good game. Had 5 solo tackles, a sack, FF and pass deflection. Also did a very good job of setting the edge on run plays. Batted down pass on the opening drive. Set the edge on a run play to the outside and helped create a TFL. Made a form tackle of Hankerson on pass play in the early 2nd Qtr. Hustled down the LOS on run away from his side. Curry forced cutback and Barwin was there to make the stop. Tackled Morris on 2nd Qtr run that came at him. Chased Morris to the other side of the field on a 3rd Qtr run and helped tackle him. Lined up over RG on 3rd Qtr pass play. Faked blitzing and dropped back. Helped stuff Morris on 3rd/2 to open the 4th Qtr. Unblocked on the play. Helped to break up a 4th Qtr pass to the TE. Bit on run fake on bootleg play where RG3 got wide and threw a long TD pass. Pressure from Barwin could have made a big difference on that play. Rushed off the edge on late pass play. Got by the RT and forced RG3 to scramble and throw on the move. GRAHAM – Made a great defensive play in the 1st Qtr. Fired into the backfield and knocked the crap out of Morris for a TFL. Friggin beautiful play. Played ROLB in the 4th. Totally bit on a run fake and let RG3 get outside too easily. Fired into the backfield on 3rd/2. FB went by him. I think Graham was designed to go hard inside on this play. Used a hard inside move on the next play and got inside the LT and pressured RG3. Beat Williams again to the inside on the next play, but RG3 got rid of the ball quickly. Drove the LT back to RG3 on pass play on the final drive. ILB KENDRICKS – DNP RYANS – Led the team with 7 total tackles. Didn’t have any impact plays. Good stop of Morris on run when WAS was backed up near their own end zone. Squared up and made a strong tackle. Did a good job on screen pass in the 1st Qtr. Read the play and flowed out wide. Fought through block to help Cox push the RB out of bounds. Hustled out wide to tackle RG3 on 4th Qtr run play. Moved to his right and got the FB on 3rd/2 run, but couldn’t stop him short of the sticks. Tackled Garcon after short catch over the middle in the mid-4th. Got him down smoothly. Garcon has great RAC skills so it isn’t always easy to do that. Missed tackle of Helu on cutback run in the 4th. GOODE – Interesting player. Had 5 total tackles, a sack and a PD. Pretty good play vs option. Scraped to the outside by design. Took on the TE, who acted as a blocker for RG3. That was good. Couldn’t get off the block to tackle RG3 for a loss, though. Flew up the field on Morris run. Got into the backfield, but couldn’t make the tackle. Got hold of FB on 3rd/1 run, but could not stuff him for a loss. Gave up the yard. Hustled out wide in pursuit of RG3 on scramble and got him out of bounds. Got a sack in the 1st Qtr. Lined up tight to the line. Cole slanted inside and Goode scraped off his backside. Blockers never saw him and he was able to get a hand on RG3, then drag him to the ground. Failed to knock Reed out of bounds after catch near the sideline. Gave up another 5 RAC yards. Used a delay blitz in the 3rd Qtr to get pressure and force an off-target throw. Blitzed up the middle in the late 3rd and forced rushed throw by RG3. Cox almost picked it off. Blitzed on 3rd Qtr run. Hit the OL, but didn’t go so well. Got thrown to the ground. Came on a delay blitz on the final drive and deflected a pass. Fell incomplete. Had good coverage of TE on 4th Qtr pass play. Ball went elsewhere. Blitzed up the middle on final drive. RB tried to stop him, but Goode knocked him back a step. That helped to flush RG3. Called for holding on 3rd/10 on final drive. Crucial mistake. Forced Helu out of bounds on pass play on final drive. MATTHEWS – Played OLB. Got in on a couple of tackles. KNOTT – Inactive. S ALLEN – Quiet game. Was only in on a couple of tackles. Made good tackle of Garcon on end around on opening drive. Took good angle and made form tackle. Came up and made a big hit on Garcon after catch along the sideline in the early 2nd Qtr. Tough shot. Blitzed off the edge in the early 2nd Qtr and forced RG3 to make a tough throw over him. Nate jumped to try and get the ball but couldn’t quite reach it. Couldn’t get off block by Paulsen on run play in the late 2nd Qtr and Morris ran through that area for a good gain. CHUNG – Active game, but not always good. Got burned on opening drive. Bit on fake and didn’t contain backside on end around. Had a chance to tackle RG3 on scramble near his own end zone, but was a step slow in getting there. Tackled Morris downfield on several runs. Was around the ball a lot. Made a horrible play in the early 4th. The FB caught a pass down the sideline. Chung hustled over to make the tackle, but took a poor angle at the end and missed. Even worse, he hit Cole (in the head) and forced him to miss some plays. Had good coverage of Garcon on play on final drive. Undercut the route and forced RG3 to throw the ball wide. Had pretty good coverage of Garcon on deep ball. Chung stuck with him and didn’t let Garcon have the freedom to adjust to the ball easily. Pass was off target by a couple of feet. WOLFF – DNP COLEMAN – Came into the game when Chung got banged up. Helped tackle RG3 on early option play. CB FLETCHER – DNP WILLIAMS – Not a strong showing. Lost track of Garcon on 3rd down play and gave up completion for 8 yds, 1st down. Failed to do anything good on 3rd/short. Covered his WR, but never noticed the RB had the ball. Cary could have made the play or at least kept Helu boxed in. Did neither. Beaten for good catch and run in the mid-3rd Qtr. Just looked a step slow on the play. Did make the tackle. Gave up 13-yd completion to Moss on 3rd/10. Was in off coverage. Slow break on the ball. Did make the tackle. Beaten by out ‘n up route on final drive, but the pass was off target. Drew a penalty while battling with Garcon in the 4th. Garcon was called for facemask. Shocking to get that called. Covered Garcon on 4th Qtr pass play, then let him go free down the field. Chung picked him up. I don’t know why Williams let him go. Didn’t see anyone else in that area. Gave up catch to Garcon on the final drive. Played off and was slow to break on the ball. Was in on 5 tackles and credited with a PD. BOYKIN – Didn’t play a ton of snaps. WAS used 2 TE sets more than 3 WRs. When Boykin was in the game, he was pretty good. Was slow out of his break in the early 3rd and left Nick Williams wide open for easy catch on 3rd down. Moved the chains. Hit a RB after short catch in the early 3rd and knocked the ball loose. WAS got it back. Had tight coverage of Garcon on the final drive. Pass was thrown too wide and fell incomplete. Broke up 4th Qtr pass near the sideline. Had a chance for a pick-six, but wasn’t able to get both hands to the ball. Hustled downfield to push Garcon out of bounds after catch/run in the late 4th. Had good coverage of Robinson on pass play at the end of the game. Tried several moves, but Boykin stuck with him. Pass went into the end zone, but was incomplete. Was in zone coverage on the final play. Didn’t have anyone in his area, but kept his eyes active. Saw the lob throw and headed for the end zone. Jumped up and picked it off. Made sure his feet were down inbounds. Clutch play. Credited with 3 solo tackles, INT, FF and a PD. That’s excellent production. CARMICHAEL – Mixed game. Too good to be bad, but still gave up catches, yards and a TD. Made terrific play on 3rd down in the late 1st Qtr. Skins used bunch formation. Eagles DBs lined up correctly and each took the right guy. RG3 tried to hit Roc’s guy over the middle, but Roc managed to get his hand in there and knock the ball away. Showed good anticipation in reading the play well and expecting the pass. Showed good body control in being able to reach and break it up without drawing a flag. Got in on tackle of Morris on run play to his side in the 3rd. Not bashful about contact. Threw Morris to the ground. Beaten to the inside by Moss on 3rd/long, but the pass was off target. Should have been a 1st down. Helped tackle RG3 on 4th Qtr run. Roc went low while Ryans went high. Gave up catch and run to Robinson in the 4th. Played off and got caught turning the wrong way. Gave up long TD to Robinson. Actually had good coverage on the play, but failed to make a play on the ball in the end zone. The WR located the ball and turned for it. Carmichael never saw it. Tackled Helu on run to his side in the late 4th. Beaten for 28 yds on 3rd/25. Moss went upfield and then cut hard to the inside. Carmichael just didn’t have the quickness to make that break and stay right on him. Excellent play design and execution by the Skins. Had good coverage of WR on final drive. Inside route. The WR tripped on Roc’s feet and the pass went flying by. Made a break on the ball on pass play late in the game. Missed the ball by inches. Led to a gain of 17 for Garcon. High risk. I have mixed feelings on that. Want players to be aggressive, but those 17 yards were almost very costly. Credited with 5 solo tackles. ============================================================= ST’s JONES – Great game. Averaged 50.7 yards per punt. 4 of them were downed inside the 20. Had a 70-yd boomer late in the game that really backed up the Skins and helped the Eagles seal the win. NFC STs player of the week. HENERY – 1 of 1 on FGs. 4 of his 5 KOs were touchbacks. KOR – Boykin got the call as KOR. Had one go for 18 yards. Was hoping for better against such a poor STs unit. PR – Damaris was inactive so DeSean was the PR. Made one odd catch, late in the 1st Qtr. Ball hopped and DJax caught it near a defender. Made me nervous. Why risk that? Honestly, DeSean made me nervous on a few punts. Doesn’t look smooth with some catches. Returned one punt for 6 yds. – MISC – * Chris Polk had good tackle on opening KO. * Brandon Boykin downed a punt at the 2 in the 1st Qtr. Great hustle. * Graham got pressure up the middle on punt late in the 1st Qtr. * Nick Williams muffed a punt, but was able to recover. 3rd Qtr play. GAMEBOOK _ |
In the final hours of the last Congress, the Senate approved action against an intolerable failure of criminal justice — the backlog of scores of thousands of rape test kits allowed to sit untested for years in police custody. Victims are denied justice while the perpetrators remain free to rape again. “We have these monsters allowed to walk the streets,” said Lavinia Masters, a rape victim at the age of 13 who had to wait two decades before the kit of physical evidence from the assault in Texas was tested and led to a serial predator who had been free for years. The Senate bill would reduce the rape-kit backlog by redirecting financing toward this problem. It authorizes a national audit for DNA matching that could involve as many as 400,000 untested kits, according to Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who sponsored the measure. Congress enacted a law to deal with the problem in 2004, but the $151 million in annual financing became diverted to other purposes even as police and laboratory officials complained that they lacked sufficient resources to deal with the kits, which can cost $1,000 each to process. The level of justice denied was shockingly documented in recent years when the Fort Worth, Tex., police submitted 960 kits for testing to the Center for Human Identification, a DNA science project at the University of North Texas. The kits turned up 102 suspects, leading to 47 arrests and 36 felony convictions, according to the police. These numbers suggest that many rapists still roam free and show the need for Congress to revive and enact the rape-kit bill. This is a law-and-order measure requiring no ideological fight over additional financing. The Senate vote in December was unanimous. The House should be no less emphatic in repairing this scandalous injustice to rape victims. |
Scott Walker is interviewed after speaking at a training workshop for the New Hampshire state Republican Party on Saturday. He’s in South Carolina on Thursday. Credit: Associated Press By of the Greenville, S.C. — Gov. Scott Walker brought his Wisconsin story to South Carolina on Thursday, telling voters how he overcame protests and a recall effort, and suggesting the departure of a campaign aide this week was rooted in the need to respect voters. In a speech to about 200 people at the TD Convention Center in Greenville, Walker indirectly addressed the departure of social media aide Liz Mair after news spread about tweets she posted before she was hired that disparaged Iowa and its caucuses, the first in the nation. "One of my clear rules is, if you're going to be on our team, whether on the paid staff or a volunteer, what I always say is you need to respect the voters," he said. "Because really if you think about campaigns, it's not about the candidate or the staff. It's about the voter. It's about how to help people's lives be better. "One of the things I've stressed ... in the last few days as I've looked at the possibility of running is you have my firm commitment that I'm going to focus on making sure that the people on my team, should we go forward, are people who respect voters." Mair stepped down Tuesday just hours after her hiring had been announced — and shortly after the head of the Iowa Republican Party said Walker should fire her. The incident was a distraction for the Republican governor as he made his first foray into South Carolina since he began seriously considering a run for the presidency. The state holds the third nominating contest in the country, after Iowa and New Hampshire — two other states Walker has recently visited. How Walker fares is considered especially critical because the Republican Party is so strong in the South, and most of the likely candidates for the nomination come from southern states. The votes of the religious and the deeply conservative hold great sway here. The son of a Baptist preacher who has built his reputation as someone who has stood up for conservative causes in a purple state, Walker hopes to appeal to those sets of overlapping voters. In speeches Thursday in Greenville and Columbia, Walker spoke of his efforts to curtail collective bargaining for public workers and the response those efforts elicited. Walker in 2012 became the first governor in the country's history to survive a recall effort. "Throughout all of that, instead of intimidating us, what it reminded me was that I was elected for a purpose," Walker said to a crowd of about 150 in a Marriott meeting room in Columbia. "It was worth it because if I had just run for the title or position, a hundred thousand protesters might have scared me off. But because I was running for (sons) Matt and for Alex and for all the other sons and daughters like them, or all the other grandsons and granddaughters like them, I knew I could not back down. I knew it was worth it for them." Walker wore a dark suit coat, light blue shirt and red tie in Columbia, and shed his coat for the Greenville event. It was a typical look for Walker and a departure from the one he adopted last week in New Hampshire, where he wore a sweater he said he had picked up on discount for $1 and — after a supporter handed it to him — a ball cap for a gun rights group. In both speeches, he ran through what has developed into his standard stump speech and cataloged his achievements — lower taxes, a concealed-weapons law, cuts to funding for Planned Parenthood — and said he saw a need to revive America. "In America you can be and do anything you want," he said in Columbia. "The opportunity is equal for all, but the outcome is still up to each and every one of us." As he has in other recent speeches, he stressed the need for an aggressive stance in the Middle East and signaled the possibility of needing to send troops there. "In America, we need a commander in chief who understands that it's not a matter of if but when, and I'm going to take — and we need a leader who will take — the fight to them and not wait until it comes to us on American soil, to do whatever it takes to protect your children and your grandchildren from another attack on American soil," he said in Greenville. He also revived a story he's told for years in Wisconsin about raking leaves in his front yard with a friend of his son's when someone pulled up in front of his house and raised a middle finger. Walker said he reacted calmly and minutes later, another car pulled up and gave him a thumbs up. "It was a great reminder that if you do good, good will come back to you," he told the crowd. Playing to the crowd, the Republican governor also talked up local cuisine. Barbecue — in these parts it's a noun, not a verb — was served at the Greenville event, and Walker said he met his wife, Tonette, at a barbecue place and took her out for barbecue the night he proposed to her and on their wedding night. Between the fundraisers for the South Carolina Republican Party that Walker hosted, he met with GOP South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and other lawmakers, and stopped by a Harley-Davidson dealership to buy a T-shirt. On Friday, he will host events for the party in Rock Hill and Charleston, and one for the National Rifle Association in Charleston. 'I'm already sold' Thursday's crowds received Walker warmly. "He wouldn't be afraid to step on toes, especially with unions," said Marty Jewell of Prosperity, S.C. Jewell contributed to Walker's cause during his recall race. "I thought he was doing a great job and when they started to persecute him, I knew he was doing a good job," he said. Rod Benfield of Rock Hill made up his mind to support Walker even before he heard him speak. Benfield came to Columbia for his speech and will also be at the one he is holding Friday in Rock Hill, a suburb of Charlotte, N.C. "I'm already sold on him," Benfield said. "I told someone I want to volunteer, I want to go door to door, I want to work call centers, I want to put up signs." The reason: Benfield sees Walker as someone who is personable, exhibits common sense and is "genuine, which we don't have anymore in politics." Walker has been positioning himself as someone who can appeal to his party's conservative and moderate wings. He pointed to his success in Wisconsin, where he has won election three times in four years even though the state — as he noted in both speeches — hasn't voted for a Republican for president since 1984. "To win the center, you don't have to go to the center, you have to lead," Walker told conservatives Monday in a "tele-town hall" sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots. Walker's campaign took off in January after he wowed an Iowa audience and captured the attention of the national media. Since then, he has traveled the country to beef up his donor base, greatly expanded his political apparatus and gone on a hiring spree. He returned to Iowa earlier this month and spent last weekend in New Hampshire. Voters in South Carolina will like that Walker is pragmatic, has executive experience and is a "proven election winner," said Matt Moore, chairman of the state's Republican Party. They're mostly interested in finding jobs for the middle class, national security and stopping federal overreach, he said. As governor of South Carolina, Haley has drawn headlines for her stands against unions and is popular with voters here, Moore said. "It certainly doesn't hurt (Walker) to be seen with Gov. Haley," Moore said. "Gov. Haley and Gov. Walker have dealt with the same issues as governor, whether it's union busting or state budgets." Walker stands at second place among Republicans in South Carolina, according to an average of three polls conducted in that state compiled by RealClearPolitics.com. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had 17.7% and Walker had 15.7%. Lindsey Graham, a U.S. senator from South Carolina, placed third with 14%. Two others had double digits — retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (11.5%) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (10.7%) — and six other potential candidates picked up the remaining votes. More Scott Walker coverage For more coverage of Gov. Scott Walker and the 2016 presidential race, from news stories to videos and interactive features, go to jsonline.com/scottwalker. |
Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press TORONTO -- Survivors of Canada's notorious residential school system have the right to see their stories archived if they wish, but their accounts must otherwise be destroyed in 15 years, Ontario's top court ruled in a split decision Monday. At issue are documents related to compensation claims made by as many as 30,000 survivors of Indian residential schools -- many heart-rending accounts of sexual, physical and psychological abuse. Compensation claimants never surrendered control of their stories, the Appeal Court said. "Residential school survivors are free to disclose their own experiences, despite any claims that others may make with respect to confidentiality and privacy," the court said. The decision came in response to various appeals and cross-appeals of a ruling by Superior Court Justice Paul Perell in 2014 related to claims made under the confidential independent assessment process -- or IAP -- set up as part of an agreement that settled a class action against the government. The federal government and Truth and Reconciliation Commission fought destruction of the documents, saying they should be kept -- with appropriate safeguards -- to preserve the historical record of residential schools. Catholic parties argued for their destruction. "This is a once-and-for-all determination of the rights of all parties relating to these issues," the court said. "There will be no future cases like this one." Writing for the Appeal Court majority, Chief Justice George Strathy decided Perell was reasonable to order the records kept for 15 years and then destroyed, unless claimants chose to have their own accounts archived. Survivors who opted for confidentiality should not face a risk that their stories would be stored against their will in a government archive and possibly disclosed at some time, even far into the future, the Appeal Court said. The court rejected the idea the documents were "government records" but said the material fell under the court's control. "It is critical to understand that the (independent assessment process) was not a federal government program," the Appeal Court said. "Although Canada's administrative infrastructure was required to carry out the settlement, it was vital to ensure that the court, not Canada, was in control of the process." The Appeal Court did part ways with Perell on who should be responsible for a notice program that would allow claimants time to decide whether they wanted their records archived or destroyed. Perell had given the task to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. Strathy called that unreasonable. Instead, the court ruled, the notice program should fall to the chief adjudicator of the claims process. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Robert Sharpe said the claims documents Canada has in its possession are indeed "government records" that should not be destroyed but turned over to Library and Archives Canada subject to normal privacy safeguards and rules. The process was an "important moment in Canadian history when all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, confronted the shocking treatment of generations of aboriginal children in the residential school system and searched for ways to repair the damage," Sharpe said. "If the IAP documents are destroyed, we obliterate an important part of our effort to deal with a very dark moment in our history." About 150,000 First Nations, Inuit and Metis children were forced to attend the church-run residential schools over much of the last century as part of government efforts to "take the Indian out of the child." Many suffered horrific abuse. Material collected by the truth commission, which also heard from thousands of survivors, are being housed at the National Research Centre at the University of Manitoba. |
NEW DELHI: The Cabinet on Wednesday cleared changes in the GST Constitutional Amendment Bill, dropping 1 per cent manufacturing tax and providing guarantee to compensate states for any revenue loss in the first five years of rollout of the proposed indirect tax regime.The Cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, decided to include in the Constitutional Amendment Bill that any dispute between states and the Centre will be adjudicated by the GST Council, which will have representation from both the Centre and states.With states on board and the Cabinet approving the amendments, the government is hopeful of passage of the long-pending Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill in the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament, which ends on August 12.The GST Bill , with the changes approved by the Cabinet, could come up in the Rajya Sabha as early as this week, but certainly by next week.The changes approved by the Cabinet are to the Constitutional Amendment Bill that was approved by the Lok Sabha in May last year. Once the Rajya Sabha approves the legislation, the amended Bill will have to go back to the Lok Sabha again for approval."The amendments to the GST Constitutional Amendment Bill have been cleared," a top official said after the meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Modi.The amendments were taken up by the Cabinet after Finance Minister Arun Jaitley 's assurance to state finance ministers to include in the Bill the mechanism of compensating states for all the loss of revenue for five years.The Bill, in its present form, provides that the Centre will give 100 per cent compensation to states for first three years, 75 per cent and 50 per cent for the next two years.However, the Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha had in its report recommended 100 per cent compensation for probable loss of revenue for five years.As per the amendments, the Centre will now constitutionally guarantee states any loss of revenue from the GST subsuming all indirect taxes, including VAT, in the first five years of introduction.By doing away with the 1 per cent inter-state tax over and above the GST rate, the government has met one of the three key demands over which Opposition Congress has been blocking the Bill in the Upper House.The other demands of including GST rate in the statute and a Supreme Court judge-headed dispute resolution body has not been accepted. It remains to be seen if meeting of its demands halfway will persuade the Congress to support the legislation.There is a talk of mentioning the GST rate in one of the two supporting legislations that need to be passed after the Constitution is amended, a move that may pacify the Congress.The government plans to roll out GST by April 1, 2017, and is working overtime to build consensus to get the Bill passed in the ongoing session.With the Congress demand of getting GST rate capped in the Bill delaying its passage, the Centre on Tuesday built a broad consensus with the states that the rate should not be mentioned in the Constitution and instead could figure in GST law.It was also assured that the tax rate in the new regime, which is to be decided by the GST Council, will be less than what it is at present."The amendments will pave the way for political consensus and early passage of the Bill in the monsoon session," EY National Leader (indirect tax) Harishanker Subramaniam said.In the new regime, there will be one Central GST or C-GST and State GST or S-GST. States levy sales tax or VAT on goods sold within their jurisdiction and get a Central Sales Tax (CST) on sales made outside their territories.This CST will no longer be available in the new regime and a 1 per cent additional tax was proposed to make up for that.GST being a constitutional amendment requires to be passed by Parliament with two-thirds majority and after that, 50 per cent of state assemblies will have to pass the legislation.Thereafter, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha will have to pass the central GST Bill and the states have to pass their own GST Bills.After the legislative procedure gets over, the GST Council, which will be the decision-making body on all issues, including rates of the new tax, will come into play.The Council will be chaired by Union Finance Minister, but Centre's voting share will be one-third and all decisions of the council would be taken by 75 per cent majority.Terming compensation guarantee as a very big development, Chairman of the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers Amit Mitra had on Tuesday said appropriate wordings on compensation would give confidence to the states regarding the Centre's intention."I cannot go into details of the wordings, I can only give you spirit of it. States are satisfied that in the constitutional amendment, the wording (will be provided) by which states will be guaranteed five years of compensation if there is any loss of revenue," Mitra said.The GST Bill, which intends to convert 29 states into a single market through a new indirect tax regime, was earlier planned to be introduced from April 1 this year, but the deadline was missed as the legislation to roll it out remains in limbo in the Opposition-dominated Rajya Sabha. |
It’s not too late to take one final look back at 2015—because this time, we’re remembering some of the flat-out most exciting moments on the field, period. Teams punctuated this past season with some seriously heart-stopping game finishes, so grab a cup of tea and breathe deeply. Let’s take a look at three of the best from the regular season, as voted by MLSsoccer.com staff. MLSsoccer.com's Most Fantastic Game Finishes of 2015 Finish of the Year: Kansas City manage three goals against Vancouver after the 80th minute, August 15 On Sat., Aug. 15 at Sporting Park, things looked bleak for Sporting Kansas City. Facing off against the Vancouver Whitecaps, SKC trailed the visiting team 3-1 with just 15 minutes to go in the game. It looked like they would, in fact, notch their first home loss of the season. But then, all the late-game magic happened. So much magic. SKC managed to pull out three goals after the 80th minute, with the final stoppage-time winning goal coming courtesy of Paulo Nagamura. The final score? 4-3, Kansas City. Honorable Mention: Feilhaber ties it up 4-4 for Kansas City against Houston, Apr. 25 Things didn’t look great for Kansas City in this game, either, this time at Houston. But Benny Feilhaber came through in the clutch, again in the game’s dying moments. As Houston led 3-2, he managed to convert an 80th-minute PK to tie things up 3-3. Yet just four minutes later it looked bleak once again for SKC as Houston newcomer Raul Rodriguez headed home a Brad Davis free kick. Feilhaber managed to make sure his team still came away with a point, though, managing one last far-away blast for a tying fourth goal as the game ticked away. Honorable Mention: Borchers makes sure Timbers beat RSL 1-0 in stoppage time, Aug. 15 Real Salt Lake did their best to batter the Portland Timbers in this Saturday-night home game, outworking and out-shooting their visitors for most of the match. Unfortunately, Portland wouldn’t fold easily, and despite some impressive chances by RSL, things stood at a stale 0-0 at the end of the 90 minutes. But then, some drama came courtesy of a former RSL player himself—Nat Borchers. In stoppage time, he managed to blast home a header to make it a 1-0 victory for his new team. But ever the gentleman, he refused to celebrate out of respect to his former one. |
Whatever happened to... With very little in the way of monuments or structures remaining at the former Expo 86 site, did you ever wonder what happened to it all? Some of the stuff was shipped away -- most of which was sold to companies and government institutions. However, there are still a few reminders of Expo 86 around Vancouver if you know where to look. The China Gate -- was donated to the city of Vancouver from the People's Republic of China and was moved to the Chinese Cultural Centre on Pender Street. Million Dollar Gold Coin -- It is rumoured that Donald Trump wanted to buy the coin at first but security issues got in the way. The coin was eventually given back to the company that designed it and it was melted down. You can view the story by clicking HERE Inukshuk -- the Inukshuk that stood outside the Norrthwest Territories Pavilion is now sitting on a grassy point on the south side of English Bay. Friendship 500/Mcdonalds -- Nicknamed the McBarge, it was one of the busiest in the McDonalds chain during the summer of 1986. The busiest on record for the year was actually the McDonalds located by the Main Gate due to the fact that it was open early to serve breakfast. Today the McBarge is abandoned and forgotten. It can be seen anchored in the waters of Burrard Inlet just north of Capitol Hill, Burnaby. Main Gate Circular Portals -- are now situated by the Agradome at Hastings Park. France Pavilion -- Sveral of the Human statue ornaments from the France Pavilion were relocated to the Seven Oaks Shopping center in Abbotsford. (They were flat silhouettes with star fields painted on them) They remained in the food court there until about 2003 when the food court was then demolished and relocated. The statues are nowhere to be found now. Locomotive #374 -- stood for years rusting away at Kitsilano beach until it was restored for Expo 86. It sat in front of the Roundhouse during the fair and now sits inside the building. The pavilion itself was turned into a community centre. Office Furniture -- much of which came from pavilion offices and the administration centre was either auctioned off or moved to other government institutions. The Mapleridge library (now closed) was furnished ala Expo 86. Japanese Restaurant (waterfall building) -- was dismantled and taken to Bowen Island where it has been a personal construction project at 1547 Eaglecliff Road for twenty years. The Monorail -- is now shuttling passengers to and from the parking lot at Alton Towers Amusement Park, England. World's Largest Canada Flag -- is still flying overhead a car dealership in Surrey. Park Benches and Garden Planters -- have been moved to various parks. Hastings Park, site of the Pacific National Exhibition, has many fixtures. Benches from the Yellow Zone can be found along the boardwalk at White Rock. Cultus Lake has some benches from the blue zone. continue to page 2... |
Tom Brady leaving federal court in New York after contesting his four game suspension with the NFL on Aug. 31, 2015. (Spencer Platt) As Deflategate wore on, the lawyers representing Tom Brady forgot to do something essential. They forgot to argue their client’s innocence. Instead Jeffrey Kessler and the NFL Players Association got so lost in pushing their interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and trying to trim the powers of Commissioner Roger Goodell that they failed to drive home the essential point: How can a player be suspended for “conduct detrimental” when there was no conduct to begin with? To date, we are still looking for a single shred of credible evidence that any human hand deflated the footballs in that AFC championship game. Where is the conduct? Much less the conduct detrimental? Somehow this point was missed in the many briefs and oral arguments. Consequently, three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit missed it, too, ruling 2-1 in favor of the NFL and reinstating Brady’s four-game suspension. Even chief judge Robert A. Katzmann, whose water-clear dissent left Brady some faint hope, missed it. Katzmann believes Goodell indeed invented “his own brand of industrial justice,” and if the chief justice thinks so, then perhaps a full 2nd Circuit panel will too, should Brady seek a stay and appeal. If he does, this time around his lawyers should emphasize the only truly salient point of the entire case. As New York Law School professor Robert Blecker put it, “What happened to the deflate part of Deflategate?” [U.S. Court of Appeals rules in favor of Goodell in Brady case] Regardless of whether Brady appeals, he and every other NFL player should now be on notice that their personal interests don’t necessarily overlap with the NFLPA and its lawyers. Arbitration is rough justice. The players must submit to it, via their collective bargaining agreement with the owners, but their individual rights become a bargaining chip for other concessions. 1 of 10 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Key moments in the Deflategate scandal, in photos View Photos The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned last year’s ruling. Caption The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned last year’s ruling. A 45-7 thrashing of the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game served as the origin of a scandal that would become known as DeflateGate. At the urging of the Colts, NFL officials examined the game balls of the New England Patriots at halftime, noting that nearly all were inflated below the league's permissible limit. The balls were properly inflated for the second half, and Patriots QB Tom Brady proceeded to throw two more touchdown passes, helping turn a 17-7 halftime lead into a rout. Jim Rogash/Getty Images Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. That’s fine, as long as they have a fair and honest commissioner. But the CBA gives the commissioner disconcertingly vague power to discipline them for “conduct detrimental,” and it’s a power Goodell has consistently abused like a third world tyrant. You can’t blame Kessler and the union for trying to make up for this in the courtroom, or for thinking that in Brady they had the ideal client to knock Goodell back for overreaching. But somewhere along the line their strategy became, in the words of Judge Barrington Parker, “hyper-technical” as they sought to parse Goodell’s powers under the CBA. This simply left two of the three judges unpersuaded, to the point of irritability. Time after time in their written opinion, Parker and Denny Chin chided the NFLPA for making a bad deal, with sentences like these: “There is simply no fundamental unfairness in affording the parties precisely what they agreed on.” “If it is seriously believed that these procedures were deficient or prejudicial, the remedy was to address them during collective bargaining.” “Arbitration is a matter of contract, and consequently the parties to an arbitration can ask for no more impartiality than inheres in the method they have chosen.” In other words, the CBA is written so lousily that when it comes to Goodell’s powers, it effectively ties the hands of judges and prevents them from intervening even if they wanted to. Arbitration is supposed to be extremely binding: The whole idea is to keep small complaints like this from cluttering the courts. Therefore when you bring a case before federal judges, you better have a damn good reason — and you better be prepared to demonstrate that reason. But these judges seem to be telling Kessler and the NFLPA that instead of demonstrating that reason, they did the one thing the court had no patience with: They tried to revise and rewrite the CBA through a court ruling. The remedy for a dissatisfied party, they wrote, “is not judicial intervention, but for the parties to draft their agreement to reflect the scope of power they would like their arbitrator to exercise.” Washington Post sports editor Mike Hume discusses the never-ending Deflategate saga, which took another turn Monday when a federal appeals court reinstated the NFL’s four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post) [Archives: How Roger Goodell became the most powerful man in sports] According to the judges, there is only one very narrow ground for overturning arbitration: if the arbitrator is “guilty of misconduct” and “violates fundamental fairness.” Goodell was guilty of misconduct: This was the point to be hammered. Yet Kessler seemed reluctant to reargue any points of the case against Brady. He even tried to tell the judges that they weren’t supposed to reconsider the facts, only to consider the process and whether it was reasonable. Yet facts and process are to a certain extent inextricable. As Katzmann’s dissent recognized, Goodell employed “a shifting rationale for Brady’s discipline.” Goodell strayed far from common sense and from any previous penalty for ball tampering, such as receivers using stickum. There was “a lack of any meaningful explanation in the Commissioner’s final written decision.” The punishment was “unprecedented and virtually unexplained.” Goodell’s powers are broad, but they shouldn’t be “limitless.” [Sally Jenkins’s past columns on Brady, Goodell and Deflategate] Yet even Katzmann stopped short of acknowledging what really happened here: Goodell simply made things up as he went along. There is evidence that the Wells Report manufactured or twisted facts to make Brady seem guilty. And lately we have evidence that the NFL has suppressed information that might exonerate him. This season, the NFL spot-checked inflation levels of footballs, and then refused to make the data public. There is only one conceivable rationale for not releasing it, and that’s because it makes the specious Wells Report look even more specious, and supports the account of the Patriots and consensus of mainstream scientists: The deflation level of the footballs was because of cold, wet weather and the effects of the Ideal Gas Law. There was no conduct. Much less detrimental conduct. If Brady appeals, this is the point of the case, not the vague language in a bad deal. For more by Sally Jenkins, visit washingtonpost.com/jenkins. |
Former President Obama sat down with Britain’s Prince Harry for a BBC Radio program broadcast Wednesday and discussed a wide range of topics, including what he felt during President Trump’s inauguration. While Obama told Prince Harry he had mixed feelings, overall, he felt “serenity.” "The sense that there was a completion, and that we had done the work in a way that preserved our integrity and left us whole and that we hadn't fundamentally changed, I think was a satisfying feeling," he said. "That was mixed with all the work that was still undone and concerns about how the country moves forward. But overall there was a serenity there, more than I would have expected." Obama also commented on the use of social media in office, although didn't single Trump out by name. "All of us in leadership have to find ways in which we can recreate a common space on the internet," Obama said. "One of the dangers of the internet is that people can have entirely different realities. They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases." He continued: "The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn't lead to a Balkanization of society and allows ways of finding common ground." The former president also stressed the importance of interacting with people "because the truth is that on the internet everything is simplified and when you meet people face to face it turns out they are complicated." |
When President-elect Abraham Lincoln slipped into Washington’s Baltimore & Ohio station at dawn on February 23, 1861, he looked up at the first bare bones of the new Capitol dome. It was an apt illustration of the nation’s capital at that historic moment—a city of grand ambitions, more than of finished stone and mortar. Many months of bureaucratic infighting and wartime shortages would pass before the magnificent dome rose complete above the city. Far down the Mall, past the brick castle of the Smithsonian Institution, the Washington Monument was a 156-foot stub, its construction halted by politics and scandal. Employees of the Treasury and the Patent Office worked in quarters still being built. State, War and Navy departments closely flanked the president’s mansion. Between the executive and legislative poles of government, cattle and pigs roamed streets that were dusty in summer and muddy in winter. Only Pennsylvania Avenue itself and the nearby stretch of Seventh Street were paved, with broken cobblestones. Urban sophisticates from farther north made jokes about Washington as a rustic backwater. In a nation of 33 states and some 32 million Americans, only 75,000 lived within the District of Columbia, only 61,000 of these in Washington City proper. Nearly 9,000 were in Georgetown, still a separate town within the District, and more than 5,000 in the rural reaches beyond Boundary Street, which ran along today’s Florida Avenue. The Virginia portion of the original 10-mile-square District was ceded back to the state in 1847, but by breeding and culture, the city was still deeply southern. In 1860, 77 percent of the District’s population had roots in Maryland or Virginia; in Georgetown, less than ten percent originated north of the Mason-Dixon line. And to better understand the monumental dynamics of this city in transistion, a new exhibition, "How the Civil War Changed Washington," at the Smithsonian's Anacostia Community Museum, examines the burgeoning capital's infrastructure, social imperatives and daily life. The show delves into the lives of such prominent individuals as Clarina Howard Nichols, a feminist and advocate for African American women and friend to Mary Todd Lincoln, and Solomon Brown, an African American poet, scientific lecturer and a Smithsonian employee, among others. The exhibition also explores the city's legacy with a fascinating array of artifacts of the era. When Lincoln first arrived in 1847 as a freshman congressman, human beings were bought and sold at markets within blocks of the Capitol. Although the slave trade was outlawed in the District in 1850, possession of slaves remained legal, and across the Potomac in Alexandria, business continued as before. About a fifth of the District’s population was African-American. Some 3,000 were slaves, mostly household servants, and about 11,000 free, many of them skilled artisans, some respected entrepreneurs like James T. Wormley, who was General in Chief Winfield Scott’s landlord. Slave or free, they were still governed by the Maryland “black code” left over from creation of the District in 1791. That meant strict punishment if they assembled without permission, walked the streets after 10 p.m. or violated other arbitrary rules that limited their daily lives. Free blacks risked sale back into slavery if caught without their residence permits. Whatever their status, they were essential in building the city and making it work. At loftier levels of society, in business and politics, in the tiny diplomatic colony and among senior military and naval families, crinolined hostesses strived to match the style of Charleston or Philadelphia. Social life was busiest when Congress was in session, which in those pre-air conditioning days was in winter and spring; business picked up then in hotels and saloons along Pennsylvania Avenue. But in early 1861, visitors from afar could agree with the British journalist who said the capital of the young nation was still “In the District of Columbia and the State of the Future.” In April, the nation plunged into that future. After the first cannon fired at Fort Sumter, Virginia joined the Confederacy and blockaded the Potomac downriver. In Baltimore, street mobs attacked Union troops headed to Washington, and Maryland burned railway bridges to block more troops from passing, leaving Lincoln pleading, “Why don’t they come?” Fear of invasion rose to near panic in some quarters. Detectives arrested citizens on mere suspicion of disloyalty. General Scott fortified the Treasury, the Capitol and City Hall to be last strongholds. Then when reinforcements did come, by the many thousands, they sprawled into every corner, including the very Capitol, where they defiled halls and chambers as if camping outdoors. Washington became an occupied city. Hundreds of families fled north, as more had already headed south, among them ranking army officers and officeholders. As fast as they left, swarms of profiteers descended, seeking government contracts for the logistical needs of war. Vast deals would be consummated amid cigars and bourbon at Willard’s Hotel. Plain and fancy prostitutes preyed on ignorant soldiers. Everyone had to sleep somewhere, and strangers commonly shared beds in hotels and boarding houses. After the Union army was rudely turned back at Bull Run that summer, the first wounded soldiers jammed the city’s only hospital. Thousands more would follow, overflowing into homes and government buildings across the city. Working men and women came from cities and farms to construct hospitals, shuffle government papers, and produce munitions at the arsenal at Greenleaf Point, site of modern Fort McNair. Laboring beside slaves and soldiers, they started building a ring of forts to defend the city, Debate over the root cause of the war was overwhelmed in those early months by the hubbub of secession and mobilization, but neither Lincoln nor the antislavery crusaders of the North could ignore it. Slavery still existed within the Union, in the border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, and in the national capital. Although the president opposed it, he had gone to war to save the Union itself, and resisted any diversion from that cause. But under pressure from abolitionists in Congress, in 1862 he proposed to liberate slaves in Washington, and to make it more politically acceptable by compensating owners for each person freed. On April 16, 1862, Lincoln signed the bill that forever ended slavery in the nation’s capital and set off jubilant celebration in the city’s black neighborhoods. But carrying out the new law took weeks. Sitting at City Hall on Judiciary Square, a three-man commission had first to assure the loyalty of owners seeking compensation, then to set a dollar figure for each man, woman or child being freed. By midsummer, a total of 2,989 slaves were liberated at an average of $300 each, thus staying within the $1 million allotted by Congress. This success energized abolitionists who pressed for broader action against slavery, but Lincoln held back, hoping for good news from the front. When it came from Antietam, he announced the Emancipation Proclamation, to take effect on January, 1863. With that stroke, the Union took the moral high ground, strengthening its position in the war and in world opinion. Yet every high point seemed followed by a lower point, month after month. After Antietam came defeat at Fredericksburg, and then Chancellorsville. The dead and wounded arrived by road, rail and boat, packing makeshift hospitals like that in the Patent Office building, where patients lay surrounded by gadgets sent in by ambitious inventors. On nights when the president stayed at the Soldiers Home to escape heat and annoying visitors at the White House, he was painfully conscious that the national cemetery nearby was rapidly filling with fallen soldiers. The great Union victory at Gettysburg meant still more thousands of casualties. But somehow this time it also signaled a shift of momentum, a feeling that the Union would survive. On December 2, 1863, the shining symbol of that hope rose atop the Capitol as the statue of Freedom was lifted onto the completed dome with Old Glory flying above, visible across the city and in the outlying camps. Cheers rose from all directions and cannon boomed in the surrounding forts. But the worst was yet to come. The next twelve months were the costliest of the war. Under U.S. Grant, the army ground its way toward Richmond in one fierce battle after another—the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, Cold Harbor. So many casualties flooded into Washington that a vast new cemetery was started on what had been Robert E. Lee’s plantation at Arlington. Lincoln told a gathering in Philadelphia that “the heavens are hung in black”—and returned to find the gloom deepened by news that an explosion had killed 23 young women making cartridges at the Washington arsenal. He admitted that he was unsure whether to run for re-election. The capital seemed secure behind the 37-mile circle of defenses built on both sides of the Potomac—miles of trees and houses were cleared to build 68 forts with places for 1,500 cannon, linked by trenches, outposts and 32 miles of military roads. That July, Confederate general Jubal Early swung 15,000 troops through western Maryland to give those defenses their only serious test. Thrusting through Silver Spring into the District, Early halted in front of Fort Stevens, less than five miles north of the White House. Thousands of defenders swarmed into the works from the Navy yard, the Marine Barracks and offices all over the capital. As the Confederates organized to attack, Lincoln himself rode out and witnessed a sharp exchange of gunfire. But the next morning, when Early saw the first reinforcements rushed from Grant’s army filing into the defensive works, he withdrew his army back across the Potomac. UPDATE 2/26/2015: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified Clarina Howard Nichols as an African American. Boosted by the Union army’s capture of Atlanta in September, Lincoln not only ran for re-election, but won convncingly, and from there it was downhill to Appomattox. When news of Lee’s surrender arrived, a 500-gun salute rattled the windows of Washington. Young and old rushed into the rainy streets singing and shouting, surrounding the White House and calling for the president to speak. For five days there was euphoria, and then on April 14, at Ford’s Theatre on Tenth Street, a flashy actor named Booth assassinated the great man who had led the nation through mortal trauma. More than five weeks passed before the soldiers who had won the war lifted the capital out of mourning. For two days in late May, the victorious armies of the Union paraded along the Avenue with battle-stained flags flying. Above them gleamed the Capitol dome, holding aloft the statue that signified Freedom, looking out upon a city that was no longer rustic backwater, but capital of a powerful and unified nation, respected throughout the world. "How the Civil War Changed Washington" is on view February 2, 2015 through November 15, 2015 at the Smithsonian's Anacostia Community Museum, 1901 Fort Place, SE. Organized into nine sections covering before, during and after the war and featuring 18 artifacts, the exhibition examines the social and spatial impact of the Civil War, which resulted in dramatic changes in the city. |
Three years ago, a small pharmaceutical company with a big agenda created a fake feminist group so that they could get a bad drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The story of how this happened is a case study in how industry affects medical discourse, the subject of a PharmedOut conference that will be held this week. Sprout Pharmaceuticals, run by Cindy and Robert Whitehead, was determined to obtain regulatory approval for flibanserin (Addyi), an antidepressant-turned-aphrodisiac that had already twice failed to gain approval by the FDA. To create this fake feminist campaign, Sprout hired Blue Engine Media, a PR firm that created a sham organization called Even the Score. The campaign hired two feminists: a former director of the FDA Office of Women’s Health, and the former president of the Women’s Research and Education Institute – both well-known to women’s groups. Even the Score recruited and paid consumer advocacy groups to pressure the FDA into approving flibanserin for Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder – a condition previously created by industry to sell another drug. Describing itself as “[a] campaign for women’s sexual health equity” created “to serve as a voice for American women who believe that it’s time to level the playing field when it comes to the treatment of women’s sexual dysfunction,” Even the Score claimed that flibanserin approval would begin to rectify gender drug inequity since there were 26 drugs for male sexual dysfunction and none for women. Consumer groups that were part of Even the Score included the National Organization for Women, National Consumers League, Black Women’s Health Imperative, Jewish Women International, and The National Council of Women’s Organizations. Supporters sent letters to the FDA advocating for approval of the drug, and many groups testified at the FDA in favor of Addyi’s approval. Members of Even the Score were effective shills for the drug. Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, cited possible “unconscious gender bias at the FDA” and called Addyi “the biggest breakthrough for women’s sexual health since the pill.” At an advisory panel at the FDA hearing for Addyi, Lori Weinstein, of Jewish Women International spoke, “on behalf of the 75,000 members . . . who share our belief that FSD [female sexual dysfunction] has been overlooked for far too long . . . We believe the science is there for the approval of the drug.” On August 18, 2015, the FDA approved Addyi. Susan Scanlan, chairwoman of Even the Score, told the New York Times, “Today, we write a new chapter in the fight for equity in sexual health.” Two days later, Sprout sold the drug to Valeant Pharmaceutical for one billion dollars. (Talk about equity!) And that was it for Even the Score. The day-after-approval victory video, which trumpeted that the score was now “26 to 1!” was the last posting on the Even the Score site. The last time @eventhescore tweeted was over a year ago. The site, completely dormant for many months, disappeared entirely several months ago. So much for Even the Score’s promise that “. . . there is still a long way to go before we achieve true gender equity in sexual health – and Even the Score will be there every step of the way.” Where did this purportedly grassroots feminist movement go? The last word heard from NOW was a press release the day after Addyi’s approval that stated that “Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) is a serious condition experienced by about ten percent of pre-menopausal women, yet it has taken seven years for this drug, Flibanserin (Addyi), to get the green-light.” Leaving aside the fact that there were never 26 sex drugs for men and none for women (the real score was about 8 to 3, and no drug has ever been approved to boost libido in men), did the women’s groups that believed Sprout’s hype also believe that the approval of one drug constituted gender equity? Although Terry O’Neill of NOW had stated, “Clearly we need more than just one medication — women need to have an array of choices that meets their specific medical needs,” NOW’s interest in pharmaceutical gender equity seems to have disappeared with its funding. It’s sad to see advocacy groups become mouthpieces for pharma. It is even sadder when those mouthpieces are feminist groups that should be protecting the interest of women but instead are protecting a company’s bottom line. Every single one of the advocacy groups that don’t take money from pharmaceutical companies opposed Addyi’s approval and use. For example, the National Women’s Health Network, the Jacobs Institute for Women’s Health, the National Center for Health Research, the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, and the New View campaign all publicly opposed the drug before and after approval. “This decision to approve flibanserin is a triumph of marketing over science,” said Cindy Pearson, head of the National Women’s Health Network. Before Addyi’s approval, most media reported the differing perspectives as a catfight among women’s groups, but identifying funding would have made the distinction simple. Had the FDA required the women testifying at the advisory committee meeting on Addyi to disclose their connections to Sprout, it would have been clear that the few women who testified against the drug had no connections to the company, and that the dozens of women who provided emotional appeals to approve the drug had been ferried to the meeting by Sprout. Addyi was never a true symbol for gender equity. The drug doesn’t work well and was never safe; because of its dangers, health care providers and pharmacists must be certified to prescribe or dispense the drug. In trials, flibanserin increased “sexually satisfying events” by less than one event a month (an event, by the way, that need include neither an orgasm nor a partner). Its predominant effect may be sedation – each dose is as sedating as four shots of liquor. It interacts dangerously with alcohol and many common drugs, and even on its own can cause precipitous drops in blood pressure and sudden prolonged unconsciousness. Feminists shouldn’t be championing a dangerous, ineffective drug aimed at women. The epidemic of low libido that Sprout and its shills positioned as a major women’s health issue in need of drugging never existed. That’s evident from Addyi’s flaccid launch; prescriptions for Addyi have numbered by the thousands, rather than the millions. Valeant claims that more than 35,000 doctors and 17,000 pharmacies are certified to prescribe or dispense Addyi, but by May of 2016, after a year on the market, Addyi was selling only 1,000 prescriptions per month. In November 2016, Sprout investors sued Valeant for failing to commercialize the drug. Perhaps the lawsuit explains Valeant’s not-so valiant effort to save its loser drug. A barebones website dubbed Find My Spark (the apparent daughter of Even the Score), has been created by Valeant in partnership with the American Sexual Health Association, apparently to spark up Addyi’s paltry sales. Score and Spark (cue Joni Mitchell) share many of the same hired experts: Drs. Sheryl Kingsberg and Michael Krychman, both consultants to Sprout and advocates for the approval of Addyi, provided video testimonials on the website. In an op-ed, Kingsberg said, “Flibanserin will transform how many practice medicine and benefit the lives and sexual relationships of millions of women and their partners.” Kingsberg’s vision of Addyi has yet to pan out. The drug has done so poorly in the marketplace that it wouldn’t be surprising if Valeant dumps its billion-dollar lemon of a purchase. Where are the crowds of women with low libido clamoring for Addyi? They never existed, except in a PR firm’s fantasy. Several lessons can be learned from the story of Even the Score. First, don’t trust, support, or listen to purported consumer advocacy groups that take money from pharmaceutical companies. Their opinions, or silence, are up for sale, and they don’t truly represent the best interest of the constituencies they claim to stand for. The FDA, especially, should not let industry-funded groups suggest topics for or run so-called “patient-focused drug development” meetings. The FDA should require all speakers at FDA meetings, including patients, to disclose all conflicts of interest with industry, including travel funding. And anyone paid by, funded by, or representing industry, including representatives of consumer or professional groups paid by industry, should be barred from testifying at public meetings or advisory committee meetings. Industry-funded groups should not be allowed to suggest topics for or run so-called “patient-focused drug development” meetings. Second, the media, the FDA, and patients should listen to independent advocacy groups. Only the groups that don’t take industry money truly represent consumers. Reporters, regulators and policymakers who want a consumer perspective must make a distinction between consumer groups that are bought off and those that aren’t. The failure of flibanserin is due in large part to the actions of the truly independent advocacy groups, which got the word out about the lack of efficacy and the dangerous side effects of Addyi. If there was a score to be evened, the potential customers and payers for this drug settled it by shuttering their wallets. The market of women desperate for aphrodisiacs never existed. We hope this message gets out before the next dangerous ineffective drug is shoved through the FDA because of bullying from consumer groups paid to pander to industry. Alycia Hogenmiller is the project manager at PharmedOut, a Georgetown University Medical Center project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates health care professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices and is holding its annual conference this week.. Alessandra Hirsch, MS, is a medical student at the University of Illinois at Chicago and project consultant to PharmedOut. Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, is a professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University Medical Center and director of Pharmed Out. Published on: June 14, 2017 Published in: Hastings Bioethics Forum, Health and Health Care, Medicine & Business Receive Forum Updates |
Landmines are a bad day waiting to happen. The classic explosives, used in war for centuries, hide in plain sight, waiting for someone unfortunate enough to set them off. Sea mines are a similar peril, only threatening whole boats at a time. And while there are plenty of robots that can find the bombs on land, there aren’t that many which can do the trick in water, especially close to shore. The Sea WASP stands for “Waterborne Anti-IED Security Platform.” Made by Sweden defense and auto giant Saab, the Sea WASP is an underwater drone made to find Improvised Explosive Devices under the water’s surface. It takes two people to operate the Sea Wasp. The robot is tethered, with 500 feet of cord to let it explore depths of up to 200 feet. On land, the whole 5.5-foot long machine weighs about 200 pounds. It has forward-looking sonar, several sensors for depth and navigation, and two cameras: a big one on the front of the vehicle, and another one on the grabber arm. From Saab: |
13 JUL 3302 Following a recent statement from Senator Zemina Torval in which the seasoned politician criticised the deployment of Federal battlecruisers in the Merope system, Admiral Denton Patreus has entered the debate. At a hastily organised press conference on Capitol, Admiral Patreus addressed the Federal intervention: "Like Senator Torval, I believe that the Federal presence in Merope represents an attempt to lay claim to the system's non-human structures. This will not stand. An Imperial deputation will therefore be mobilised and despatched to the Merope system. I will take personal command of the fleet, which will depart within the month." Patreus did not clarify whether the Imperial ships would engage the Federal fleet, or simply establish a counter-blockade. But one thing is for sure: this development can only serve to heighten tensions between the Federation and the Empire. |
Technological utopianism (often called techno-utopianism or technoutopianism) is any ideology based on the premise that advances in science and technology could and should bring about a utopia, or at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal. A techno-utopia is therefore an ideal society, in which laws, government, and social conditions are solely operating for the benefit and well-being of all its citizens, set in the near- or far-future, as advanced science and technology will allow these ideal living standards to exist; for example, post-scarcity, transformations in human nature, the avoidance or prevention of suffering and even the end of death. Technological utopianism is often connected with other discourses presenting technologies as agents of social and cultural change, such as technological determinism or media imaginaries.[1] Douglas Rushkoff, a leading theorist on technology and cyberculture claims that technology gives everyone a chance to voice their own opinions, fosters individualistic thinking, and dilutes hierarchy and power structures by giving the power to the people.[2] He says that the whole world is in the middle of a new Renaissance, one that is centered on technology and self-expression. However, Rushkoff makes it clear that “people don’t live their lives behind a desk with their hands on a keyboard” [3] A tech-utopia does not disregard any problems that technology may cause,[4] but strongly believes that technology allows mankind to make social, economic, political, and cultural advancements.[5] Overall, Technological Utopianism views technology’s impacts as extremely positive. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, several ideologies and movements, such as the cyberdelic counterculture, the Californian Ideology, transhumanism,[6] and singularitarianism, have emerged promoting a form of techno-utopia as a reachable goal. Cultural critic Imre Szeman argues technological utopianism is an irrational social narrative because there is no evidence to support it. He concludes that it shows the extent to which modern societies place faith in narratives of progress and technology overcoming things, despite all evidence to the contrary.[7] History [ edit ] From the 19th to mid-20th centuries [ edit ] Karl Marx believed that science and democracy were the right and left hands of what he called the move from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. He argued that advances in science helped delegitimize the rule of kings and the power of the Christian Church.[8] 19th-century liberals, socialists, and republicans often embraced techno-utopianism. Radicals like Joseph Priestley pursued scientific investigation while advocating democracy. Robert Owen, Charles Fourier and Henri de Saint-Simon in the early 19th century inspired communalists with their visions of a future scientific and technological evolution of humanity using reason. Radicals seized on Darwinian evolution to validate the idea of social progress. Edward Bellamy’s socialist utopia in Looking Backward, which inspired hundreds of socialist clubs in the late 19th century United States and a national political party, was as highly technological as Bellamy’s imagination. For Bellamy and the Fabian Socialists, socialism was to be brought about as a painless corollary of industrial development.[8] Marx and Engels saw more pain and conflict involved, but agreed about the inevitable end. Marxists argued that the advance of technology laid the groundwork not only for the creation of a new society, with different property relations, but also for the emergence of new human beings reconnected to nature and themselves. At the top of the agenda for empowered proletarians was "to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible". The 19th and early 20th century Left, from social democrats to communists, were focused on industrialization, economic development and the promotion of reason, science, and the idea of progress.[8] Some technological utopians promoted eugenics. Holding that in studies of families, such as the Jukes and Kallikaks, science had proven that many traits such as criminality and alcoholism were hereditary, many advocated the sterilization of those displaying negative traits. Forcible sterilization programs were implemented in several states in the United States.[9] H.G. Wells in works such as The Shape of Things to Come promoted technological utopianism. The horrors of the 20th century – namely fascist dictatorships and the world wars – caused many to abandon optimism. The Holocaust, as Theodor Adorno underlined, seemed to shatter the ideal of Condorcet and other thinkers of the Enlightenment, which commonly equated scientific progress with social progress.[10] From late 20th and early 21st centuries [ edit ] The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip. Ronald Reagan, The Guardian, 14 June 1989 A movement of techno-utopianism began to flourish again in the dot-com culture of the 1990s, particularly in the West Coast of the United States, especially based around Silicon Valley. The Californian Ideology was a set of beliefs combining bohemian and anti-authoritarian attitudes from the counterculture of the 1960s with techno-utopianism and support for libertarian economic policies. It was reflected in, reported on, and even actively promoted in the pages of Wired magazine, which was founded in San Francisco in 1993 and served for a number years as the "bible" of its adherents.[11][12][13] This form of techno-utopianism reflected a belief that technological change revolutionizes human affairs, and that digital technology in particular – of which the Internet was but a modest harbinger – would increase personal freedom by freeing the individual from the rigid embrace of bureaucratic big government. "Self-empowered knowledge workers" would render traditional hierarchies redundant; digital communications would allow them to escape the modern city, an "obsolete remnant of the industrial age".[11][12][13] Similar forms of "digital utopianism" has often entered in the political messages of party and social movements that point to the Web or more broadly to new media as harbingers of political and social change.[14] Its adherents claim it transcended conventional "right/left" distinctions in politics by rendering politics obsolete. However, techno-utopianism disproportionately attracted adherents from the libertarian right end of the political spectrum. Therefore, techno-utopians often have a hostility toward government regulation and a belief in the superiority of the free market system. Prominent "oracles" of techno-utopianism included George Gilder and Kevin Kelly, an editor of Wired who also published several books.[11][12][13] During the late 1990s dot-com boom, when the speculative bubble gave rise to claims that an era of "permanent prosperity" had arrived, techno-utopianism flourished, typically among the small percentage of the population who were employees of Internet startups and/or owned large quantities of high-tech stocks. With the subsequent crash, many of these dot-com techno-utopians had to rein in some of their beliefs in the face of the clear return of traditional economic reality.[12][13] In the late 1990s and especially during the first decade of the 21st century, technorealism and techno-progressivism are stances that have risen among advocates of technological change as critical alternatives to techno-utopianism.[15][16] However, technological utopianism persists in the 21st century as a result of new technological developments and their impact on society. For example, several technical journalists and social commentators, such as Mark Pesce, have interpreted the WikiLeaks phenomenon and the United States diplomatic cables leak in early December 2010 as a precursor to, or an incentive for, the creation of a techno-utopian transparent society.[17] Cyber-utopianism, first coined by Evgeny Morozov, is another manifestation of this, in particular in relation to the Internet and social networking. Principles [ edit ] Bernard Gendron, a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, defines the four principles of modern technological utopians in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as follows:[18] We are presently undergoing a (post-industrial) revolution in technology; In the post-industrial age, technological growth will be sustained (at least); In the post-industrial age, technological growth will lead to the end of economic scarcity; The elimination of economic scarcity will lead to the elimination of every major social evil. Rushkoff presents us with multiple claims that surround the basic principles of Technological Utopianism:[19] Technology reflects and encourages the best aspects of human nature, fostering “communication, collaboration, sharing, helpfulness, and community.”[20] Technology improves our interpersonal communication, relationships, and communities. Early Internet users shared their knowledge of the Internet with others around them. Technology democratizes society. The expansion of access to knowledge and skills led to the connection of people and information. The broadening of freedom of expression created “the online world...in which we are allowed to voice our own opinions.”[21] The reduction of the inequalities of power and wealth meant that everyone has an equal status on the internet and is allowed to do as much as the next person. Technology inevitably progresses. The interactivity that came from the inventions of the TV remote control, video game joystick, computer mouse and computer keyboard allowed for much more progress. Unforeseen impacts of technology are positive. As more people discovered the Internet, they took advantage of being linked to millions of people, and turned the Internet into a social revolution. The government released it to the public, and its “social side effect… [became] its main feature.”[20] Technology increases efficiency and consumer choice. The creation of the TV remote, video game joystick, and computer mouse liberated these technologies and allowed users to manipulate and control them, giving them many more choices. New technology can solve the problems created by old technology. Social networks and blogs were created out of the collapse of dot.com bubble businesses’ attempts to run pyramid schemes on users. Criticisms [ edit ] Critics claim that techno-utopianism's identification of social progress with scientific progress is a form of positivism and scientism. Critics of modern libertarian techno-utopianism point out that it tends to focus on "government interference" while dismissing the positive effects of the regulation of business. They also point out that it has little to say about the environmental impact of technology[22] and that its ideas have little relevance for much of the rest of the world that are still relatively quite poor (see global digital divide).[11][12][13] In his 2010 study System Failure: Oil, Futurity, and the Anticipation of Disaster, Canada Research Chairholder in cultural studies Imre Szeman argues that technological utopianism is one of the social narratives that prevent people from acting on the knowledge they have concerning the effects of oil on the environment.[7] In a controversial article "Techno-Utopians are Mugged by Reality", The Wall Street Journal explores the concept of the violation of free speech by shutting down social media to stop violence. As a result of British cities being looted consecutively, Prime British Minister David Cameron argued that the government should have the ability to shut down social media during crime sprees so that the situation could be contained. A poll was conducted to see if Twitter users would prefer to let the service be closed temporarily or keep it open so they can chat about the famous television show X-Factor. The end report showed that every Tweet opted for X-Factor. The negative social effects of technological utopia is that society is so addicted to technology that we simply can't be parted even for the greater good. While many Techno-Utopians would like to believe that digital technology is for the greater good, it can also be used negatively to bring harm to the public.[23] Other critics of a techno-utopia include the worry of the human element. Critics suggest that a techno-utopia may lessen human contact, leading to a distant society. Another concern is the amount of reliance society may place on their technologies in these techno-utopia settings.[24] These criticisms are sometimes referred to as a technological anti-utopian view or a techno-dystopia. Even today, the negative social effects of a technological utopia can be seen. Mediated communication such as phone calls, instant messaging and text messaging are steps towards a utopian world in which one can easily contact another regardless of time or location. However, mediated communication removes many aspects that are helpful in transferring messages. As it stands today, most text, email, and instant messages offer fewer nonverbal cues about the speaker’s feelings than do face-to-face encounters.[25] This makes it so that mediated communication can easily be misconstrued and the intended message is not properly conveyed. With the absence of tone, body language, and environmental context, the chance of a misunderstanding is much higher, rendering the communication ineffective. In fact, mediated technology can be seen from a dystopian view because it can be detrimental to effective interpersonal communication. These criticisms would only apply to messages that are prone to misinterpretation as not every text based communication requires contextual cues. The limitations of lacking tone and body language in text based communication are likely to be mitigated by video and augmented reality versions of digital communication technologies.[26] See also [ edit ] References [ edit ] |
Rebel army enters Havana, January 1, 1959. By Fidel Castro January 3, 2010 -- As the Cuban Revolution celebrated its 51st anniversary two days ago, memories of that January 1, 1959, came to mind. The outlandish idea that, after half a century — which flew by — we would remember it as if it were yesterday, never occurred to any of us. During the meeting at the Oriente sugar mill on December 28, 1958, with the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, whose elite units were surrounded without any way out whatsoever, the commander admitted defeat and appealed to our generosity to find a dignified way out for the rest of his forces. He knew of our humane treatment of prisoners and the injured without any exception. He accepted the agreement that I proposed, although I warned him that operations under way would continue. But he travelled to the capital, and, incited by the United States embassy, instigated a coup d’état. We were preparing for combat on that January 1 when, in the early hours of the morning, the news came in of the dictator’s flight. The Rebel Army was ordered not to permit a ceasefire and to continue battling on all fronts. Radio Rebelde called on workers to launch a revolutionary general strike, immediately followed by the entire nation. The coup attempt was defeated, and that same afternoon, our victorious troops entered Santiago de Cuba. Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos received instructions to advance rapidly by road in motor vehicles with their battle-hardened forces toward La Cabaña and the Columbia military camp. The enemy army, hit hard on all fronts, was unable to resist. The people in arms themselves took over the centres of repression and police stations. In the afternoon of January 2 at a stadium in Bayamo, and accompanied by a small escort, I met with more than 2000 soldiers from the tank, artillery and motorised infantry units, against whom we had been fighting until the day before. They were still carrying their weapons. We had won the enemy’s respect with our audacious but humanitarian methods of irregular warfare. This was how, in just four days — after 25 months of war that we reinitiated with a few guns — some 100,000 air, sea and ground weapons and the entire power of the state remained in the hands of the Cuban Revolution. In just a few lines, I am recounting everything that happened during those days 51 years ago. Battle to save our species Then the main battle began: to preserve Cuba’s independence against the most powerful empire that has ever existed, a battle which our people waged with great dignity. I am happy today to observe those who, in the face of incredible obstacles, sacrifices and risks, were able to defend our homeland, and who today, together with their children, parents and loved ones, are enjoying the happiness and glories of each new year. Today, however, is nothing like yesterday. We experience a new era unlike any other in history. Before, the people fought and are fighting still, with honour, for a better and more just world, but now they are also having to fight, without any alternative whatsoever, for the very survival of our species. If we ignore this, we know absolutely nothing. Cuba is, without question, one of the most politically educated countries on the planet; it started out from the most shameful illiteracy, and what is worse, our yankee masters and the bourgeoisie associated with the foreign owners of land, sugar mills, production plants for consumer goods, warehouses, businesses, electricity, telephones, banks, mines, insurance, docks, bars, hotels, offices, houses, theatres, printshops, magazines, newspapers, radio, the emerging television, and everything of important value. After the ardent flames of our battles for freedom had been quenched, the yankees had taken upon themselves the task of thinking for a people that struggled so hard to be the masters of their independence, resources and destiny. Absolutely nothing, not even the task of thinking politically, belonged to us. How many of us knew how to read and write? How many of us even made it to sixth grade? I recall that especially on a day like today, because that was the country that was supposed to belong to the Cuban people. I will not list anything more, because I would have to include much more, including the best schools, the best hospitals, the best houses, the best doctors, the best lawyers. How many of us had a right to that? Which of us possessed, with some exceptions, the natural and divine right to be administrators and leaders? Every millionaire and rich individual, without exception, was a political party leader, senator, representative or important official. That was the "representative and pure democracy" that prevailed in our country, except that the yankees imposed, at their whim, merciless and cruel petty dictators whenever it was more convenient for them to better defend their properties against landless campesinos and workers with or without jobs. Given that nobody even talks about that anymore, I am venturing to remember it. Climate change and the battle in Copenhagen Our country is one of more than 150 that constitute the Third World, which would be the first but not the only nations destined to suffer incredible consequences if humanity does not become aware, clearly, certainly and a lot more quickly than we thought, of the reality and consequences of the climate change caused by human beings if it is not prevented in time. Our mass media has dedicated space to describing the effects of climate change. Increasingly violent hurricanes, droughts and other natural disasters have likewise contributed to the education of our people on this subject. One singular event, the battle over the climate issue that took place at the Copenhagen summit, has contributed to knowledge of the imminent danger. It is not a matter of a distant threat for the 22nd century, but for the 21st; nor is it just for the latter half of this century, but for the coming decades, in which we will begin to suffer its terrible consequences. It is also not just a question of simple action against the empire and its henchmen, which in this issue, like in everything else, are trying to impose their own stupid and egotistic interests, but a battle of world opinion that that cannot be left to spontaneity or the whims of the majority of their mass media. It is a situation with which, fortunately, millions of honourable and brave people in the world are familiar, a battle to wage with the masses and within social organisations and scientific, cultural, humanitarian and other international institutions, most especially in the heart of the United Nations, where the United States government, its NATO allies and the richest countries tried to effect a fraudulent and anti-democratic coup in Denmark against the rest of the emerging and poor countries of the Third World. Rich states attempted to load climate burden on poor In Copenhagen, the Cuban delegation, which attended together with others from the ALBA and the Third World, was forced into a fight to the finish in the face of the incredible events that began with the speech of the US president, Barack Obama, and of the group of the richest states on the planet, resolved to dismantle the binding commitments of Kyoto — where the thorny problem was discussed more than 12 years ago — and to load the burden of sacrifice onto the emerging and underdeveloped countries, which are the poorest and at the same time the principal suppliers of the planet’s raw materials and non-renewable resources to the most developed and opulent countries. In Copenhagen, Obama appeared on the last day of the conference, which began on December 7, 2009. The worst aspect of his conduct was that, after he had decided to dispatch 30,000 soldiers to the slaughter of Afghanistan — a country with a strong tradition of independence, which not even the English in their better and cruellest times could dominate — he went to Oslo to receive no less than a Nobel Peace Prize. He arrived in the Norwegian capital on December 10 and gave an empty, demagogic and justifying speech. On the 18th, the date of the summit’s last session, he appeared in Copenhagen, where he planned to remain for just eight hours. His secretary of state and a select group of his best strategists had arrived the previous day. The first thing that Obama did was to select a group of guests who were given the honour of accompanying him as he gave a speech at the summit. The complacent and fawning Danish prime minister, who was presiding over the summit, gave the podium over to a group that numbered just 15. The imperial chief deserved special honours. His speech was a was a combination of sweetened words seasoned with theatrical gestures, already boring for those of us, like me, assigned themselves the task of listening to him in order to try and be objective in an appreciation of his characteristics and political intentions. Obama imposed on his docile Danish host, so that only his guests could speak, although as soon as he had made his own comments, he "made himself scarce" through the back door, like an imp escaping from an audience which had done him the honour of listening with interest. Once the authorised list of speakers was finished, an Indigenous man, Aymara through and through, Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, who had just been reelected with 65% of the vote, demanded the right to speak, which was granted, to the resounding applause of those present. In just nine minutes, he expressed profound and dignified concepts in response to the words of the absent US president. Immediately afterward, Hugo Chávez got up to ask to speak on behalf of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; the person presiding over the session had no choice but to also give him the right to speak, and he used that to improvise one of the most brilliant speeches that I’ve ever heard. When he finished, a strike of the gavel ended the unusual session. The extremely busy Obama and his entourage, however, did not have a minute to lose. His group had put together a draft statement, full of vagueness, which was the negation of the Kyoto Protocol. After he dashed out of the plenary session, Obama met with other groups of guests numbering no more than 30, negotiated in private and in groups; insisted; mentioned figures to the tune of millions of green bills without gold backing and which are constantly being devaluated, and even threatened to leave the meeting if his demands were not met. Worst of all, it was a meeting of super-rich countries, to which several of the most important emerging nations were invited and two or three poor ones, to which he submitted the document as if proposing, "take it or leave it!". The Danish prime minister tried to present that confusing, ambiguous and contradictory statement – in the discussion of which the UN did not participate in any way – as the summit agreement. The summit sessions had already concluded, almost all of the heads of state and government and foreign ministers had left for their respective countries and, at three in the morning, the distinguished Danish prime minister presented it to the plenary session, where hundreds of long-suffering officials who hadn’t slept for three days, received the thorny document, and were given only one hour to discuss and approve it. Poor countries resist That is when the meeting became fiery; the delegates hadn’t even had time to read it. A number of them asked to speak. The first was the delegate from Tuvalu, whose islands would be inundated if what was proposed there was approved; those of Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua followed him. The dialectical confrontation at 3 am on that December 19 is worthy of going down in history, if history should continue after climate change. As a large part of what happened is known in Cuba, or is on internet web pages, I will confine myself to partially expounding on the two responses of Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, worthy of being recorded in order to know the last episodes of the Copenhagen soap opera, and aspects of the final chapter, which are still to be published in our country. Mr. President (Prime Minister of Denmark)… The document that you affirmed on various occasions did not exist, has now appeared. We have all seen versions circulating surreptitiously and being discussed in small and secret meetings outside the conference halls in which the international community, via its representatives, is negotiating in a transparent manner. I add my voice to those of the representatives of Tuvalu, Venezuela and Bolivia. Cuba considers the text of this apocryphal draft as extremely insufficient and inadmissible … The document which you are presenting, lamentably, does not contain any commitment whatsoever to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I am aware of prior versions which, in questionable and clandestine procedures, were also being negotiated behind closed doors and which talked of a reduction of at least 50% by the year 2050 … The document that you have presented now, precisely omits the already meager and insufficient key phrases that that version contained. This document does not guarantee, in any way, the adoption of minimal measures that would make it possible to avert an extremely grave disaster for the planet and the human species. This shameful document that you have brought is likewise omissive and ambiguous in relation to the specific commitment to emission reductions on the part of the developed countries, those responsible for global warming given the historic and current level of their emissions, and on whom it falls to implement substantial reductions immediately. This paper does not contain one single word of commitment on the part of the developed countries. …Your role, Mr. President, is the death certificate of the Kyoto Protocol, which my delegation does not accept. The Cuban delegation wishes to emphasize the preeminence of the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities’ as the central concept of the future negotiation process. Your paper does not say one word about that. The Cuban delegation reiterates its protest at the grave violations of procedure that have been produced in the anti-democratic management of the process of this conference, via the utilization of arbitrary, exclusive and discriminatory forms of debate and negotiation … Mr. President, I am formally asking for this statement to be placed in the final report on the workings of this lamentable and shameful 15th Conference of the Parties. What nobody could have imagined is that, after another lengthy recess and when everybody thought that only the formalities remained before the conclusion of the summit, the prime minister of the host country, at the instigation of the yankees, would make another attempt to pass off the document as a consensus of the summit, when not even foreign ministers were left in the plenary. The delegates from Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba, who remained vigilant and unsleeping until the last minute, frustrated the latter maneuver in Copenhagen. However, the problem was not concluded. The powerful are not accustomed to brooking resistance. On December 30, the Danish Permanent Mission to the United Nations, in New York, courteously informed our mission in that city that it had taken note of the "Copenhagen Agreement" of December 18, 2009, and attached an advance copy of that decision. It affirmed textually: … the government of Denmark, in its capacity of president of COP15, invites the Parties to the Convention to inform the secretariat of the UNFCCC in writing, and as soon as possible, of your willingness to commit to the Copenhagen Agreement. This surprise communication motivated a response from the Cuban Permanent Mission to the United Nations, in which it "… flatly rejects the intention to gain indirect approval of a text that was the object of repudiation by various delegations, not only on account of its insufficiency in the face of the grave effects of climate change, but also for exclusively responding to the interests of a reduced group of states." At the same time it prompted a letter from Dr. Fernando González Bermúdez, first deputy minister of the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment of the Republic of Cuba to Mr. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, some of whose paragraphs are transcribed below: We have received with surprise and concern the note that the government of Denmark is circulating to the Permanent Missions of the member states of the United Nations in New York. Of which you are surely aware, via which the party states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to inform the executive secretary, in writing, of you wish to be associated with the so-called Copenhagen Agreement." We have observed, with additional concern, that the government of Denmark communicates that the executive secretary of the Convention is to include in the report of the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen, a list of the party states which have stated their will to commit to the quoted agreement. In the judgment of the Republic of Cuba, this form of acting constitutes a crude and reprehensible violation of what was decided in Copenhagen, where the party states, faced with an evident lack of consensus, confined themselves to taking note of the existence of the said document. Nothing that was agreed in COP15 authorizes the government of Denmark to adopt this action and, far less, the executive secretary to include a list of party states in the final report, for which he has no mandate. I must inform you that the government of the Republic of Cuba most firmly rejects this new attempt to indirectly legitimate a spurious document and to reiterate to you that this way of acting compromises the result of future negotiations, sets a dangerous precedent for the Convention’s work and, in particular, is injurious to the spirit of goodwill in which delegations must continue the negotiation process next year. Many know, especially the social movements and better informed people in humanitarian, cultural and scientific movements, that the document promoted by the United States constitutes a regression of the positions achieved by those who are making efforts to avert a colossal disaster for our species. There is no point in repeating here facts and figures that are mathematically demonstrated. The data is confirmed on internet web pages and are within the reach of a growing number of people who are interested in the issue. The theory defending adherence to the document is feeble and implies a setback. The deceptive idea that the rich countries will contribute the miserable sum of US$30 billion over three years to the poor countries in order to offset the costs implied by confronting climate change, costs which could rise to $100 billion by 2020, which in the context of this exceedingly grave problem, is like waiting for the Greek calendars. Specialists know that those figures are ridiculous and unacceptable given the volume of investments required. The origin of such sums is vague and confused, in a way that they do not commit anybody. What is the value of one dollar? What is the significance of $30 billion? We all know that, from Bretton Woods in 1944 to Nixon’s presidential order in 1971 – imparted in order to offload the cost of the genocidal war on Vietnam onto the world economy – that the value of one dollar, measured in gold, has gradually been reduced to the point of today, when it is approximately 32 times less than then; $30 billion thus signifies less than one billion, and one billion divided by 32 is equivalent to $3.125 million, which would not even stretch to building one middle-capacity oil refinery at the present time. If, at some point, the industrialised countries were to meet their promise to contribute 0.7% of their GDP to the developing countries – something that, barring a few exceptions, they never have – the figure would be in excess of $250 billion every year. The US government spent $800 billion on saving the banks. How much would it be prepared to pay to save the nine billion people who will inhabit the planet in 2050, if large-scale drought and sea flooding provoked by the melting of glaciers and great masses of frozen water from Greenland and Antarctica? Divide and rule Let us not deceive ourselves. What the United States has attempted with its maneuvres in Copenhagen is to divide the Third World, to separate more than 150 underdeveloped countries from China, India, Brazil, South Africa and others with which we must fight united to defend – in Bonn, Mexico or any other international conference, along with the social, scientific and humanitarian organisations – genuine agreements that will benefit all countries and preserve humanity from a disaster that could lead to the extinction of our species. The world is in possession of constantly more information, but politicians have constantly less time for thinking. The rich nations and their leaders, including the US Congress, would seem to be arguing which will be the last to disappear. When Obama has completed the 28 parties with which he proposed to celebrate this Christmas, if Epiphany is included among them, perhaps Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar will advise him on what he should do. El mundo medio siglo después Por Fidel Castro Ruz Enero 3 de 2010 -- Al cumplirse hace dos días el 51 aniversario del triunfo de la Revolución, acudieron a mi mente los recuerdos de aquel 1º de Enero de 1959. Ninguno de nosotros imaginó nunca la peregrina idea de que transcurrido medio siglo, que pasó volando, lo estaríamos recordando como si fuera ayer. Durante la reunión en el central Oriente, el 28 de diciembre de 1958, con el Comandante en Jefe de las fuerzas enemigas, cuyas unidades élites estaban cercadas y sin escape alguno, este reconoció su derrota y apeló a nuestra generosidad para buscar una salida decorosa al resto de sus fuerzas. Conocía de nuestro trato humano a los prisioneros y heridos sin excepción alguna. Aceptó el acuerdo que le propuse, aunque le advertí que las operaciones en curso proseguirían. Pero viajó a la capital e instigado por la embajada de Estados Unidos promovió un golpe de Estado. Nos preparábamos para los combates de ese día 1º de Enero, cuando en la madrugada llegó la noticia de la fuga del tirano. Se impartieron órdenes al Ejército Rebelde de no admitir el alto al fuego y continuar los combates en todos los frentes. A través de Radio Rebelde se convocó a los trabajadores a una Huelga General Revolucionaria, secundada de inmediato por toda la nación. El intento golpista fue derrotado, y en horas de la tarde de ese mismo día nuestras tropas victoriosas penetraron en Santiago de Cuba. El Che y Camilo recibieron instrucciones de avanzar rápidamente por la carretera, en vehículos motorizados con sus aguerridas fuerzas, hacia La Cabaña y el Campamento Militar de Columbia. El ejército adversario, golpeado en todos los frentes, no tendría capacidad de resistir. El propio pueblo sublevado, ocupó los centros de represión y las estaciones de policía. El día 2, en horas de la tarde, acompañado por una pequeña escolta, me reuní en un estadio de Bayamo con más de dos mil soldados de los tanques, artillería e infantería motorizada, contra los cuales habíamos estado combatiendo hasta el día anterior. Portaban todavía su armamento. Nos habíamos ganado el respeto del adversario con nuestros audaces, pero humanitarios métodos de guerra irregular. De este modo, en solo cuatro días —después de 25 meses de guerra que reiniciamos con unos pocos fusiles—, alrededor de cien mil armas de aire, mar y tierra y todo el poder del Estado quedaron en manos de la Revolución. En solo pocas líneas relato lo ocurrido aquellos días hace 51 años. Comenzó entonces la principal batalla: preservar la independencia de Cuba frente al imperio más poderoso que ha existido, y que nuestro pueblo libró con gran dignidad. Me complace hoy observar a aquellos que por encima de increíbles obstáculos, sacrificios y riesgos, supieron defender a nuestra Patria, y en estos días, junto a sus hijos, sus padres y sus seres más queridos, disfrutan la alegría y las glorias de cada nuevo año. En nada se parecen, sin embargo, los días de hoy a los de ayer. Vivimos una época nueva que no tiene parecido con ninguna otra de la historia. Antes los pueblos luchaban y luchan todavía con honor por un mundo mejor y más justo, pero hoy tienen que luchar, además, y sin alternativa posible, por la propia supervivencia de la especie. No sabemos absolutamente nada si ignoramos esto. Cuba es, sin duda, uno de los países políticamente más instruido del planeta; había partido del más bochornoso analfabetismo, y lo que es peor: nuestros amos yankis y la burguesía asociada a los dueños extranjeros eran los propietarios de las tierras, los centrales azucareros, las plantas de productos de bienes de consumo, los almacenes, los comercios, la electricidad, los teléfonos, los bancos, las minas, los seguros, los muelles, los bares, los hoteles, las oficinas, las casas de vivienda, los cines, las imprentas, las revistas, los periódicos, la radio, la naciente televisión y todo cuanto tuviera un valor importante. Los yankis, apagadas las ardientes llamas de nuestras batallas por la libertad, se habían arrogado la tarea de pensar por un pueblo que tanto luchó por ser dueño de su independencia, sus riquezas y su destino. Nada en absoluto, ni siquiera la tarea de pensar políticamente, nos pertenecía. ¿Cuántos sabíamos leer y escribir? ¿Cuántos llegábamos siquiera al sexto grado? Lo recuerdo especialmente un día como hoy, porque ese era el país que se suponía pertenecía a los cubanos. No cito más cosas, porque tendría que incluir muchas más, entre ellas las mejores escuelas, los mejores hospitales, las mejores casas, los mejores médicos, los mejores abogados. ¿Cuántos éramos los que teníamos derecho a ello? ¿Quiénes poseíamos, salvo excepciones, el derecho natural y divino de ser administradores y jefes? Ningún millonario o sujeto rico, sin excepción, dejaba de ser jefe de Partido, Senador, Representante o funcionario importante. Esa era la democracia representativa y pura que imperaba en nuestra Patria, excepto que los yankis impusieran a su antojo tiranuelos despiadados y crueles, cuando convenía más a sus intereses para defender mejor sus propiedades frente a campesinos sin tierra y obreros con o sin trabajo. Como ya nadie habla siquiera de eso, me aventuro a recordarlo. Nuestro país forma parte de los más de 150 que constituyen el Tercer Mundo, que serán los primeros aunque no los únicos destinados a sufrir las increíbles consecuencias si la humanidad no toma conciencia clara, cierta y bastante más rápida de lo que imaginamos de la realidad y consecuencias del cambio climático ocasionado por el hombre, si no se logra impedirlo a tiempo. Nuestros medios de comunicación masiva han dedicado espacios a describir los efectos de los cambios climáticos. Los huracanes de creciente violencia, las sequías y otras calamidades naturales, han contribuido igualmente a la educación de nuestro pueblo sobre el tema. Un hecho singular, la batalla en torno al problema climático que tuvo lugar en la Cumbre de Copenhague, ha contribuido al conocimiento del inminente peligro. No se trata de un riesgo lejano para el siglo XXII, sino para el XXI, ni lo es tampoco solo para la segunda mitad de este, sino para las próximas décadas, en las que ya comenzaríamos a sufrir sus penosas consecuencias. Tampoco se trata de una simple acción contra el imperio y sus secuaces, que en esto, como en todo, tratan de imponer sus estúpidos y egoístas intereses, sino de una batalla de opinión mundial que no se puede dejar a la espontaneidad ni al capricho de la mayoría de sus medios de comunicación. Es una situación que por fortuna conocen millones de personas honradas y valientes en el mundo, una batalla a librar con las masas y en el seno de las organizaciones sociales e instituciones científicas, culturales, humanitarias, y otras de carácter internacional, muy especialmente en el seno de las Naciones Unidas, donde el Gobierno de Estados Unidos, sus aliados de la OTAN y los países más ricos trataron de asestar, en Dinamarca, un golpe fraudulento y antidemocrático contra el resto de los países emergentes y pobres del Tercer Mundo. En Copenhague, la delegación cubana, que asistió junto a otras del ALBA y el Tercer Mundo, se vio obligada a una lucha a fondo ante los increíbles acontecimientos que se originaron con el discurso del presidente yanki, Barack Obama, y del grupo de Estados más ricos del planeta, decididos a desmantelar los compromisos vinculantes de Kyoto —donde hace más de 12 años se discutió el peliagudo problema— y a hacer caer el peso de los sacrificios sobre los países emergentes y los subdesarrollados, que son los más pobres y a la vez los principales suministradores de materias primas y recursos no renovables del planeta a los más desarrollados y opulentos. En Copenhague, Obama se presentó el último día de la Conferencia, iniciada el 7 de diciembre. Lo peor de su conducta fue que, cuando tenía ya decidido enviar 30 mil soldados a la carnicería de Afganistán —un país de fuerte tradición independentista, al que ni siquiera los ingleses en sus mejores y más crueles tiempos pudieron someter— asistió a Oslo para recibir nada menos que el Premio Nobel de la Paz. A la capital noruega llegó el 10 de diciembre, donde pronunció un discurso hueco, demagógico y justificativo. El 18, que era la fecha de la última sesión de la Cumbre, se apareció en Copenhague, donde pensaba permanecer inicialmente solo 8 horas. El día anterior habían llegado la Secretaria de Estado y un grupo selecto de sus mejores estrategas. Lo primero que hizo Obama fue seleccionar a un grupo de invitados que recibieron el honor de acompañarlo a pronunciar un discurso en la Cumbre. El Primer Ministro danés, que presidía la Cumbre, complaciente y adulón, le cedió la palabra al grupo que apenas rebasaba 15 personas. El jefe imperial merecía honores especiales. Su discurso fue una mezcla de edulcoradas palabras aliñadas con gestos teatrales, que ya aburren a quienes, como yo, se asignaron la tarea de escucharlo para tratar de ser objetivos en la apreciación de sus características e intenciones políticas. Obama impuso a su dócil anfitrión dinamarqués que solo sus invitados podían hacer uso de la palabra, aunque él, tan pronto pronunció las suyas, hizo "mutis por el foro" por una puerta trasera, como duende que escapa de un auditorio que le había hecho el honor de escuchar con interés. Concluida la lista autorizada de oradores, un indígena aymara de pura cepa, Evo Morales, presidente de Bolivia, que acababa de ser reelecto con el 65% de los votos, exigió el derecho a usar la palabra, que le fue concedida ante el aplauso abrumador de los presentes. En solo nueve minutos expresó profundos y dignos conceptos que respondían a las palabras del ausente Presidente de Estados Unidos. Acto seguido se levantó Hugo Chávez para solicitar hablar en nombre de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela; a quien presidía la sesión no le quedó otra alternativa que concederle también el uso de la palabra, que utilizó para improvisar uno de los más brillantes discursos que le he escuchado. Al concluir, un martillazo puso fin a la insólita sesión. El ocupadísimo Obama y su séquito no tenían, sin embargo, un minuto que perder. Su grupo había elaborado un Proyecto de Declaración, repleto de vaguedades, que era la negación del Protocolo de Kyoto. Después que salió precipitadamente de la plenaria, se reunió con otros grupos de invitados que no llegaban a 30, negoció en privado y en grupo; insistió, mencionó cifras millonarias de billetes verdes sin respaldo en oro, que constantemente se devalúan y hasta amenazó con marcharse de la reunión si no se accedía a sus demandas. Lo peor fue que se trató de una reunión de países superricos a la que invitaron a varias de las más importantes naciones emergentes y a dos o tres pobres, a las cuales sometió el documento, como quien propone: ¡Lo tomas o lo dejas! Tal declaración confusa, ambigua y contradictoria —en cuya discusión no participó para nada la Organización de Naciones Unidas—, el Primer Ministro danés trató de presentarla como Acuerdo de la Cumbre. Ya esta había concluido su período de sesiones, casi todos los Jefes de Estado, de Gobierno y Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores se habían marchado a sus respectivos países, y a las tres de la madrugada, el distinguido Primer Ministro danés lo presentó al plenario, donde cientos de sufridos funcionarios que desde hacía tres días no dormían, recibieron el engorroso documento ofreciéndoles solo una hora para analizarlo y decidir su aprobación. Allí se incendió la reunión. Los delegados no habían tenido siquiera tiempo de leerlo. Varios solicitaron la palabra. El primero fue el de Tuvalu, cuyas islas quedarán bajo las aguas si se aprobaba lo que allí se proponía; lo siguieron los de Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba y Nicaragua. El enfrentamiento dialéctico a las 3 de aquella madrugada del 19 de diciembre es digno de pasar a la historia, si la historia durara mucho tiempo después del cambio climático. Como gran parte de lo ocurrido se conoce en Cuba, o está en las páginas Web de Internet, me limitaré sólo a exponer en parte las dos réplicas del canciller cubano, Bruno Rodríguez, dignas de ser consignadas para conocer los episodios finales de la telenovela de Copenhague, y los elementos del último capítulo que todavía no han sido publicados en nuestro país. "Señor Presidente (Primer Ministro de Dinamarca)¼ El documento que usted varias veces afirmó que no existía, aparece ahora. Todos hemos visto versiones que circulan de manera subrepticia y que se discuten en pequeños conciliábulos secretos, fuera de las salas en que la comunidad internacional, a través de sus representantes, negocia de una manera transparente." "Sumo mi voz a la de los representantes de Tuvalu, Venezuela y Bolivia. Cuba considera extremadamente insuficiente e inadmisible el texto de este proyecto apócrifo¼ " "El documento que usted, lamentablemente, presenta no contiene compromiso alguno de reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. "Conozco las versiones anteriores que también, a través de procedimientos cuestionables y clandestinos, se estuvieron negociando en corrillos cerrados que hablaban, al menos, de una reducción del 50% para el año 2050¼ " "El documento que usted presenta ahora, omite, precisamente, las ya magras e insuficientes frases clave que aquella versión contenía. Este documento no garantiza, en modo alguno, la adopción de medidas mínimas que permitan evitar una gravísima catástrofe para el planeta y la especie humana." "Este vergonzoso documento que usted trae es también omiso y ambiguo en relación con el compromiso específico de reducción de emisiones por parte de los países desarrollados, responsables del calentamiento global por el nivel histórico y actual de sus emisiones, y a quienes corresponde aplicar reducciones sustanciales de manera inmediata. Este papel no contiene una sola palabra de compromiso de parte de los países desarrollados." "¼ Su papel, señor Presidente, es el acta de defunción del Protocolo de Kyoto, que mi delegación no acepta." "La delegación cubana desea hacer énfasis en la preeminencia del principio de ‘responsabilidades comunes, pero diferenciadas’, como concepto central del futuro proceso de negociaciones. Su papel no dice una palabra de eso." "La delegación de Cuba reitera su protesta por las graves violaciones de procedimiento que se han producido en la conducción antidemocrática del proceso de esta conferencia, especialmente, mediante la utilización de formatos de debate y de negociación, arbitrarios, excluyentes y discriminatorios¼ " "Señor Presidente, le solicito formalmente que esta declaración sea recogida en el informe final sobre los trabajos de esta lamentable y bochornosa 15 Conferencia de las Partes." Lo que nadie podría imaginar es que, después de otro largo receso y cuando ya todos pensaban que solo faltaban los trámites formales para dar por concluida la Cumbre, el Primer Ministro del país sede, instigado por los yankis, haría otro intento de hacer pasar el documento como consenso de la Cumbre, cuando no quedaban ni siquiera Cancilleres en el plenario. Delegados de Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua y Cuba, que permanecieron vigilantes e insomnes hasta el último minuto, frustraron la postrera maniobra en Copenhague. No concluiría, sin embargo, el problema. Los poderosos no están habituados, ni admiten resistencia. El 30 de diciembre la Misión Permanente de Dinamarca ante Naciones Unidas, en Nueva York, informó cortésmente a nuestra Misión en esa ciudad que había tomado nota del Acuerdo de Copenhague del 18 de diciembre de 2009, y adjuntaba copia avanzada de esa decisión. Textualmente afirmó: "¼ el Gobierno de Dinamarca, en su calidad de Presidente de la COP15, invita a las Partes de la Convención a informar por escrito a la Secretaría de la UNFCCC, lo antes posible, su voluntad de asociarse al Acuerdo de Copenhague." Esta sorpresiva comunicación motivó la respuesta de la Misión Permanente de Cuba ante Naciones Unidas, en la que "¼ rechaza de plano la intención de hacer aprobar, por vía indirecta, un texto que fue objeto de repudio de varias delegaciones, no sólo por su insuficiencia ante los graves efectos del cambio climático, sino también por responder exclusivamente a los intereses de un reducido grupo de Estados." A su vez, originó una carta del Viceministro Primero del Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente de la República de Cuba, Doctor Fernando González Bermúdez, al Sr. Yvo de Boer, Secretario Ejecutivo de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático, algunos de cuyos párrafos transcribimos: "Hemos recibido con sorpresa y preocupación la Nota que el Gobierno de Dinamarca circulara a las Misiones Permanentes de los Estados miembros de las Naciones Unidas en Nueva York, que usted seguramente conoce, mediante la cual se invita a los Estados Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático a informar a la Secretaría Ejecutiva, por escrito, y a su más pronta conveniencia, su deseo de asociarse al denominado Acuerdo de Copenhague." "Hemos observado, con preocupación adicional, que el Gobierno de Dinamarca comunica que la Secretaría Ejecutiva de la Convención incluirá, en el informe de la Conferencia de las Partes efectuada en Copenhague, un listado de los Estados Partes que hubieran manifestado su voluntad de asociarse con el citado Acuerdo." "A juicio de la República de Cuba, esta forma de actuar constituye una burda y reprobable violación de lo decidido en Copenhague, donde los Estados Partes, ante la evidente falta de consenso, se limitaron a tomar nota de la existencia de dicho documento." "Nada de lo acordado en la 15 COP autoriza al Gobierno de Dinamarca a adoptar esta acción y, mucho menos, a la Secretaría Ejecutiva a incluir en el informe final un listado de Estados Partes, para lo cual no tiene mandato." "Debo indicarle que el Gobierno de la República de Cuba rechaza de la manera más firme este nuevo intento de legitimar por vía indirecta un documento espurio y reiterarle que esta forma de actuar compromete el resultado de las futuras negociaciones, sienta un peligroso precedente para los trabajos de la Convención y lesiona en particular el espíritu de buena fe con que las delegaciones deberán continuar el proceso de negociaciones el próximo año", concluyó el Viceministro Primero de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente de Cuba. Muchos conocen, especialmente los movimientos sociales y las personas mejor informadas de las instituciones humanitarias, culturales y científicas, que el documento promovido por Estados Unidos constituye un retroceso de las posiciones alcanzadas por los que se esfuerzan en evitar una colosal catástrofe para nuestra especie. Sería ocioso repetir aquí cifras y hechos que lo demuestran matemáticamente. Los datos constan en las páginas Web de Internet y están al alcance del número creciente de personas que se interesan por el tema. La teoría con que se defiende la adhesión al documento es endeble e implica un retroceso. Se invoca la idea engañosa de que los países ricos aportarían una mísera suma de 30 mil millones de dólares en tres años a los países pobres para sufragar los gastos que implique enfrentar el cambio climático, cifra que podría elevarse a 100 mil por año en el 2020, lo que en este gravísimo problema, equivale a esperar por las calendas griegas. Los especialistas conocen que, esas cifras son ridículas e inaceptables por el volumen de las inversiones que se requieren. El origen de tales sumas es vago y confuso, de modo que no comprometen a nadie. ¿Cuál es el valor de un dólar? ¿Qué significan 30 mil millones? Todos sabemos que desde Bretton Woods, en 1944, hasta la orden presidencial de Nixon en 1971 —impartida para echar sobre la economía mundial el gasto de la guerra genocida contra Viet Nam—, el valor de un dólar, medido en oro, se fue reduciendo hasta ser hoy aproximadamente 32 veces menor que entonces; 30 mil millones significan menos de mil millones, y 100 mil divididos por 32, equivalen a 3 125, que no alcanzan en la actualidad ni para construir una refinería de petróleo de mediana capacidad. Si los países industrializados cumplieran alguna vez la promesa de aportar a los que están por desarrollarse el 0,7 por ciento del PIB —algo que salvo contadas excepciones nunca hicieron—, la cifra excedería los 250 mil millones de dólares cada año. Para salvar los bancos el gobierno de Estados Unidos gastó 800 mil millones. ¿Cuánto estaría dispuesto a gastar para salvar a los 9 mil millones de personas que habitarán el planeta en el 2050, si antes no se producen grandes sequías e inundaciones provocadas por el mar debido al deshielo de glaciares y grandes masas de aguas congeladas de Groenlandia y la Antártida? No nos dejemos engañar. Lo que Estados Unidos ha pretendido con sus maniobras en Copenhague es dividir al Tercer Mundo, separar a más de 150 países subdesarrollados de China, India, Brasil, Sudáfrica y otros con los cuales debemos luchar unidos para defender, en Bonn, en México o en cualquier otra conferencia internacional, junto a las organizaciones sociales, científicas y humanitarias, verdaderos Acuerdos que beneficien a todos los países y preserven a la humanidad de una catástrofe que puede conducir a la extinción de nuestra especie. El mundo posee cada vez más información, pero los políticos tienen cada vez menos tiempo para pensar. Las naciones ricas y sus líderes, incluido el Congreso de Estados Unidos, parecen estar discutiendo cuál será el último en desaparecer. Cuando Obama haya concluido las 28 fiestas con que se propuso celebrar estas Navidades, si entre ellas está incluida la de los Reyes Magos, quizás Gaspar, Melchor y Baltasar le aconsejen lo que debe hacer. Ruego me excusen la extensión. No quise dividir en dos partes esta Reflexión. Pido perdón a los pacientes lectores. |
Seres Therapeutics has initiated a phase 1b clinical trial of SER-262 in patients with primary Clostridium difficile infection. This is the first synthetic microbiome therapeutic to reach clinical-stage development, according to a press release. “Advancing SER-262 to the clinic is a landmark event for Seres and the microbiome field in general. The SER-262 program has demonstrated our ability to rapidly develop a new class of synthetic microbiome therapeutics comprised of rationally designed bacterial compositions,” Roger Pomerantz, MD, president, CEO and Chairman of Seres, said in the press release. SER-262 is an oral capsule containing spores of twelve bacterial strains, which were selected based on human microbiome data, efficacy in animal models and bacterial strain level characterization. These data were presented in a poster at ASM Microbiome 2016. Its composition was selected from more than 14,000 well-characterized bacterial strains. The company expects about 60 patients with primary C. difficile infection to be enrolled in the 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled, dose escalation study, in which the rate of recurrence at up to 8 weeks will serve as the primary endpoint. “We intend to continue to utilize our platform technology and unique knowledge of bioinformatics, microbiology, manufacturing and regulatory requirements to develop additional rationally designed microbiome therapeutics for serious diseases in each of our three therapeutic franchises: infectious disease, immunology and metabolic disease,” Pomerantz said in the release. The company also reported that initial results from its ongoing phase 2 trial of SER-109 in multiple recurrent C. difficile infection are expected in mid-2016. Disclosures: Pomerantz is employed by Seres Therapeutics. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.