question
stringlengths 11
179
| article
stringlengths 522
97.6k
| url
stringlengths 35
310
|
|---|---|---|
How does Harvey measure up to Hurricane Katrina, other US flooding catastrophes? | Even before Harveys initial landfall over Port Aransas and Port O Connor, Texas, on Aug. 25, comparisons to 2001s Tropical Storm Allison and other major United States flooding disasters had begun to emerge. Allison remains the only tropical storm name ever to be retired and is the costliest tropical storm on record, having caused $5 billion in damage and killed 41 people along the Gulf Coast. Much like with Harvey, Houston suffered the worst of Allisons impacts in June of 2001. A rainfall total of 36.99 inches was reported at the Port of Houston, while several other locations reported more than 30 inches of rain, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC). As Harveys impacts worsen, from the mounting death toll to major flooding and record-breaking rainfall totals, the once-Category 4 storm is well on its way to becoming the worst flooding catastrophe the U.S. has ever endured. Think of the significant area thats been affected by devastating rains, and we dont know the extent of it, said Dr. Joel N. Myers, AccuWeather's founder, president and chairman. Its probably much worse than the news media is capturing because they cant get in there, Myers added. The storm has covered a larger area than Allison and killed at least 36 people. Harveys average rainfall totals have already surpassed those of Allison in half of the time. It took Harvey between two and three days to drench southeastern Texas with record-shattering rainfalls, and Allison caused immense flooding over a five-day period. The West Gulf River Forecast Center reported rainfall from Harvey in Cedar Bayou, Texas, at 51.88 inches over five days, and the storms heavy rainfall in Houston led to August 2017 being the citys wettest month on record. [Harvey] got locked into place; it just couldnt move and it was a very strong circulation, which, of course, pulled in tremendous amounts of moisture, said Bill Murray, president and weather historian for The Weather Factory. The development in Houston has been so intense over the last ten years and a lot of it did not follow good zoning practices, Murray said. Harvey and Katrina: Comparing the storms Hurricane Katrina, a Category 3 storm that inundated parts of Louisiana and Mississippi with disastrous flooding and killed more than 1,800 people in 2005, is considered one of the most devastating hurricanes ever to hit the U.S. Though both Harvey and Katrina caused immense flooding, it was Katrinas storm surge of up to 28 feet that breached levees and engulfed parts of the Gulf Coast, including New Orleans. According to the Natonal Weather Service (NWS), Katrina yielded 5 to 10 inches of rainfall in two days. Harvey was stronger at landfall and produced more rain over a wider area than Katrina, said AccuWeather Meteorologist Jesse Ferrell. However, the coastal damage [including wind and storm surge flooding] was much more limited in terms of population. Harvey has dropped at least 50 inches of rainfall in parts of Texas, particularly in Houston, the countrys fourth-largest city. The storms rainfall has been so intense that the NWS had to update color charts on their precipitation graphics in order to map Harvey effectively. Though Katrina is currently the costliest-ever hurricane, it is predicted that Harveys damage will crush that record. There are estimates that Katrina caused $100 billion and Sandy $60 billion [in damage], said Myers. [We] estimate that this storm will be at least $190 billion, which far exceeded those, he said. There are also concerns that the number of fatalities resulting from Harvey will surge as the recovery progress slowly begins. Given the conditions that AccuWeather is analyzing, were fearful that the death toll may go much higher because so many people in towns are still unaccounted for, Myers said. Harveys catastrophic flooding has so far prompted more than 10,000 water rescues, according to FEMA, and its too early to determine whether the number will yet surpass Katrinas 30,000 rescues, Ferrell said. Since the rescues haven't stopped yet and non-governmental groups are rescuing people, we could see Harvey's number approach Katrina's before it's all over, he said. | https://www.foxnews.com/us/how-does-harvey-measure-up-to-hurricane-katrina-other-us-flooding-catastrophes |
Did President Trump find a DACA compromise? | This is a rush transcript from "The Fox News Specialists," September 5, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. EBONI K. WILLIAMS, CO-HOST: Hey, everybody. I'm Eboni K. Williams along with Kat Timpf and Brian Kilmeade. This is "The Fox News Specialists." A very big week for President Trump, kicking off with a controversial bang, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announcing today that the Trump administration is ending the DACA program which protects undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation, the decision is creating a political firestorm in Washington and beyond. For more, we go to Fox News chief White House correspondent John Roberts. JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Eboni, good afternoon. The White House has portrayed this as the president doing the responsible thing because DACA could have been subject to a judicial order, which would have ended it immediately. So instead, the president put in place against the threat of a lawsuit by Texas, South Carolina and eight other states. An orderly process of dismantling DACA and then handing it over to congress during a six month period of a phase out for them to do something about it. This is something the president railed against during the election campaign. And you can hear some protesters behind me on Pennsylvania Avenue expressing their displeasure with what the president did. But upon becoming president, he wrestled with this decision. He said he thought long and hard about it and wanted to do it with what he said, heart. Listen to what the president said just a short time ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The folks we're talking about, a great love for them. And people think in terms of children but they're really young adults. I have a love for these people, and hopefully now, congress will be able to help them and do it properly. I can tell you in speaking to members of congress, they want to be able to do something and do it right. (END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: Now, the president is giving congress six months to try to work all of these out. President Obama, former President Obama, who implemented DACA in December of 2012, was of a different mind over what President Trump announced this afternoon saying, quote, to target these young people is wrong because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love, and it is cruel. Unless and until congress does something about it, here is where -- people who are in the DACA, so called dreamers stand, no new applications for DACA status will be accepted after today. Although, applications that are already in the process will go ahead. Renewals already received will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. Dreamers whose benefits expire by March 5th of next year have until October 5th to file a renewal request. But if you're a dreamer whose benefits expire after that March 5th date and you have not gotten a request for renewal, you are out of luck. No more new requests for renewals will be accepted if the expiration date is after March 5th of 2018. That marks exactly six months. ROBERTS: Well, nobody really wants to tackle that just yet. They've all say we're pretty confident that congress will do something about it. But you would think by the order that has been given if congress doesn't do something about it by March 5th, people who have status will maintain that status. There are renewals that could go all away up until, sometime in 2019, August of 2019, so it's possible that those people who already have those renewals in the process, and there's only eight of them, I should tell you, for the year 2019. There's about 7,500 for the year 2018. They could actually have their status renewed for another two years. So some of the dreamers could stay here until as late as 2021, if congress does nothing and then the program is allowed to expire. But nobody is going that far just yet. They're all saying, oh, we think congress will take care of this. We will see. BRIAN KILMEADE, CO-HOST: Hey, John. I mean, it's hard to not see, Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham together, both critics at different times of President Trump, say, hey, now we've got to work together to get something done. Now it's on us to do this. Constitutionally, we know that Senator Lindsey Graham is a lawyer. So it's really on congress. These protests, and these outrages, and these statements are really missing the point. He didn't kill the program. He told congress to make a decision. ROBERTS: Yeah. And a lot of people say, and some members of congress who support DACA say that the president really had no choice here. It really was executive overreach in the summer of 2012 when President Obama signed this. That at some point, some judge, somewhere, like they did with what's called DAPA, the deferred action for parental arrivals, somebody is going to come along and say DACA has got to go. So, they say that the president really didn't have any choice. The big question here now, Brian, is what does congress come up with, because this dream act that Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin are working on, they did this in consultation with the president, one of the president's senior advisors, Jared Kushner, to talk about that going forward. That's seen by a lot of people in congress on the conservative side as being the, quote, establishment plan, and something that they're not going to sign onto. I was talking with some folks this morning, and they say, look, this is not what the president was elected to do. The president was elected on the promise of getting rid of DACA. There's some conservatives say this is going to ignite a civil war in the Republican Party, one that could end very badly in November of next year with Democrats taking back control of congress. So, a lot of people are very wary about this. So Lindsey Graham kind of alluded to it this afternoon saying the problem is not going to be with the senate, the problem is going to be with the house. ROBERTS: Kat, it's about a lot more than DACA because Sarah Huckabee Sanders lay down the mark of this afternoon saying that the president is looking for responsible immigration reform from congress, not comprehensive immigration reform, which we've heard before with the gang of eight, but responsible immigration reform. So in exchange for doing something about DACA, the president is going to want things on immigration enforcement authority. He's probably going to ask for funding for the wall. He's going to ask for a lot of other things. If they come out with a straight DACA bill that might not pass presidential muster and he might not sign it. So the White House is working closely with Graham and Durbin to the chagrin of some conservatives who think that that plan is a little to moderate. But it's pretty clear that the president is going to be asking for more than just a DACA fix with whatever congress comes up with. ROBERTS: Sunday was pretty boring. I mean, James Mattis came out and talked about annihilating North Korea. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: A slow day in the office for you, John Roberts. Thank you so much for joining us. We'll now meet today's Specialists. He is the CEO of American Majority, a former presidential writer for George W. Bush, and a Trump surrogate, but he specializes in all things politics, Ned Ryun is here. And she's a former speechwriter for senate majority leader Bill Frist, a former anchor for the Blaze TV, and a broadcast political analyst for Rasmussen Reports, she specializes in BBC detective shows -- how fun -- Amy Holmes is here. I'll start with you on this, Ned, and we said this yesterday on the show, how the White House makes this announcement will be very important because they're going to be two very extreme narratives. One is going to be very emotionally based. NED RYUN, AMERICAN MAJORITY CEO: That's right WILLIAMS: . RYUN: Well, my take on this, I think, it was a very responsible move by Trump. Again, as John was mentioning, if this goes to the courts, this thing ends overnight. And what Trump was saying, let's give it a six month runway. And again, we don't want an imperial presidency. This is supposed to be decided by the legislative branch. That's how it's supposed to be done. Legally. RYUN: You know what, first of all, it's their authority, it's their right. I'm not sure I trust them to chew gum and walk at the same time at this point. But at the same time, this is where it rests. It rests with the legislative branch to deal with immigration law. And so, you know, the thing that's funny I was reading -- looking at Obama's quotes, I went back before the show and started looking at quotes from 2010 and 2011. To take executive action on this issue DACA would be unconstitutional. Such an indiscriminate approach would be unwise and unfair. Such an indiscriminate approach could lead to a surge and more illegal immigration. I know there are some who wish I could just bypass congress and just change the law myself, but that's not how democracy works. It's hard, but it's right. WILLIAMS: One second, Brian. That's helpful because it gives us context. Also giving us context, though, President Obama talking about this is cool, and many people say, OK, that's what he would say. But President Trump though, Ned, in 2012, talked about families that have been here, should be able to stay here -- so I'm really just articulating, kind of, the dual side of this from both the political. RYUN: And I think the thing that -- I hope that we'll avoid this. This is not a hard amnesty versus non-amnesty. This is not an easy issue to deal with at the same time. This should not have been made in the executive branch. This is the legislative branch. And Trump did the right thing, instead of the courts ending it overnight, he gave them six months to figure this one right. KILMEADE: A lot of people wondering why President Obama doesn't use twitter mark. Here's why. (LAUGHTER) TIMPF: It will be like 1 out of 1,000. KILMEADE: And the thing is, it's not about these people. They seem like wonderful people. And for the most part, I call -- we're both on the radio, I got a call from one guy who was in 11th grade, he was in 11th grade when DACA passed. His 9th grade brother who was born here, he wasn't. He was 2 when he came here, his brother can say. He's got to go. I get it. But you compared it to the other workers and other people that are here already, and the kids in Kenya or Cuba that want to come here too, that's the people you should be comparing them to. RYUN: Right. And we've had such a messed up immigration system, not only on this front but on a variety of fronts, from not having a secure southern border, to how they're coming in, to how we're dealing with those that are here illegally, now dealing with the dreamers. I look at what Trump is trying to do and hopefully be able to accomplish. We'll see if congress could pull up. It's being able to hit a bit of a reset on our immigration policy moving forward, because it's been messed up. WILLIAMS: It's been messed up a long time, Amy. And again, you're seeing a President Obama, President Trump, everybody, kind of, on all sides of this, your take as to the best solutions for Americans. AMY HOLMES, RASMUSSEN REPORTS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think we do need to find a pathway to citizenship for this specific group of people. But I have to say, I was really disheartened and dispirited by President Obama's statement today injecting politics into this. By his own testimony, this was supposed to be temporary. Look at it. It's built into the title of it, deferred action. These were only two year increments to be able to get these waivers. So, for today to say that these people are being targeted by the Trump administration I thought was very unfair. As we've been discussing, this is really the job of the legislature. When president -- Obama, rather, when he signed, or did his executive order, at the time I thought, you know what, this is not the message that we're supposed to be sending Americans or aspiring Americans that it doesn't matter what the law is. It matters who's in power. This is a constitutional republic. KILMEADE: It becomes arbitrary. HOLMES: . by the people, not by a unilateral executive. WILLIAMS: Kat, I'm going to get you in here, because I hear that argument and I can respect it. The issue, though, is that we do have executive orders in this country, and all presidents use them. Most of them use up to 200 plus. TIMPF: Right. It's bananas. How some of the people who have problems with some of Trump's executive order never did with any of Obama's and vice versa. This should be an easy thing. Congress should have enough support for this specific issue. It's, you know, obviously, a lot of emotional appeal. These people were babies, and a lot of them don't have connections to their home country anymore. And then the numbers, in terms of the benefits, the economy, they're working. They're paying taxes. It should be easy. But again, like we talked about with John Roberts earlier, it's probably not going to be that simple. People are going to tack -- tack on funding for the wall or let's take on -- and then they're going to squabble. We could be looking at a disaster. Six month isn't that long. HOLMES: Eboni, and answer to your question about this specific executive order, the president is not supposed to be able to write law for a whole class of people. His lawyer, for the Obama administration, Eric Columbus, he tweeted and I have it right here in front of me, he said, sad to say, I agree with the Trump administration. That such a challenge to DACA is very likely to succeed. WILLIAMS: I think every lawyer would agree with that. HOLMES: The president has the right and the ability to set priorities in terms of prosecutorial conduct and priorities in terms of who do we deport first. What President Obama did was actually confer privileges and that's where he overstepped. WILLIAMS: So much to talk about. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had this message for congress earlier. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNINDENTIFIED MALE: Getting something on the Republican side is not going to be easy with the divisions that we see between the center and the right in the Republican Party. It will only get deeper. SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: With all due respect, I don't think the American people elected congress to do things that were easy. They elected them to make a government that works, to work properly, and to work for American people. And that's their job. And if they can't do it, then they need to get out of the way and let somebody else who can take on a heavy lift. (END VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAMS: Brian, I believe she's exactly right there. They're not called to do what's easy. They're called to do what's right and what's fair and what's just. Your take, though, on their ability to do this. KILMEADE: Put it this way, there's nobody now. Paul Ryan, not Mark Meadows, not Dick Durbin gets to write the law exactly the way he wants. Why wouldn't we work in series, give-and-take. And you stand up in front of your town hall and say, yeah, I know you want me to get -- I know you want that wall built. So I have to go along with the dream act. If you don't like that, then understand. (CROSSTALK) HOLMES: But that is for both sides. That's for both sides. That's for Congressman Steve King who's on the right on immigration issue, but it's also for the far left in the Democratic Party. Congressman Sherman from California, he gave an interview to the L.A. Times, say he can't do anything that might be seen to be aligning with Trump. WILLIAMS: And that's the problem. Is that the extremes of the politics are so severe that the cost politically when you compromise is really defying. When we come back, Vladimir Putin warning of a global catastrophe over the North Korea crisis with the rogue state reportedly making fresh preparations for another long-range missile test. Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) TIMPF: North Korea has reportedly moved what may be a long-range missile overnight to a position toward its west coast. With warnings today that the north could be planning a new launch, again, with tensions mounting. President Trump announced a new move to counter the threat, tweeting, quote, I'm allowing Japan and South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is telling reporters in China today that Kim Jong-un's regime would, quote, rather eat grass than give up its nuclear program. And that the military hysteria around the crisis could cause a, quote, global catastrophe and an enormous loss of life. I want to start with, you know, President Trump's tweet saying he's allowing Japan and South Korea to substantially increase military from the United States. I have two thoughts when read that. That would get super weird. And my other one was, he's clearly sub-tweeting China with this tweet, Ned, because that's a nightmare for China if they're increasing their military capabilities in those area. That entire area becomes a different situation. RYUN: But think about China's worst nightmares is having a nuclear South Korea. TIMPF: Exactly. RYUN: . and Japan. Which, by the way, lest we forget, South Korea used to have nuclear arms back in -- I believe it was Bush 41. So at some point, China has to play ball with us. And I think that is really the nonmilitary solution is trying to get China to play ball. Everybody says that. With respect to your point, everyone says that. And everybody with rational minds and understanding has come to that very reasonable conclusion. RYUN: So, it could be anything from there's no more business in the United States. You can do business in the United States. You can't buy real estate in the United States. Sanctions on the Bank of China, anything to get us to the point where they start to actually feel pain. Until we can get China's interests to align with our interests, we're not going to be on the same page in regards to North Korea and we're not going to be able to say to them, listen, our interests are that North Korea not have nuclear arms. Therefore, it's in your interest as well. Or you will continue to feel economic pain in regards to how we approach this issue. HOLMES: Well, that's the big question, isn't it. And Gordon Chang, who's on this network all the time, he's been on your show. He said we haven't put the screws on China. RYUN: We haven't. HOLMES: . and one of the things we could do is that we could stop China from being able to trade in dollars. And that would basically grind the Chinese economy to a halt, and that they would have to play ball with us. But I'm also a little bit afraid that maybe Vladimir Putin is right, that North Korea would rather starve their own people then, you know, bend to the will of the west. (CROSSTALK) HOLMES: Hold on, let me finish. Let me finish. I say this in part because of the deal that the Ukraine made with us back in the 90's, if they give up their nuclear program then we would protect them. Well, guess what, Russia rolled in and we did nothing. North Korea saw that as an example, so maybe they're going to hang onto those nukes to the very bitter end. KILMEADE: I think if you want to get China involved, I think you're never going to have -- OK, we'll cut off trade for you because we have, what, $650 billion in annual trade. So, yes, we'll hurt ourselves as much as China and just causes world chaos with the markets. But I would add this, I would add sanctions to their banks directly. I understand that 83 percent of our exports, 85 percent of their imports all come from China. So if you're able to get them to stop the oil, if you're able to get these banks to stop dealing. Sanctions these banks and drill them into the ground. But to go economy to economy and say no more deals. (CROSSTALK) KILMEADE: . sanctions their banks and the Chinese trading companies that convert North Korean currency. RYUN: Right. But again, we're confronting all of these options, either its economic war or military. The thing I'll say, Brian. KILMEADE: Why do move our military closer. (CROSSTALK) KILMEADE: . not too. RYUN: Right, it does. But what I was saying, and I believe I said it last time I was on the show, until China decides that they're going to cut off their oil exports to North Korea which is over 90 percent, I know that China is not serious, because if they cut off the oil into North Korea, literally within months, the North Korean economy will grind to an absolute halt. RYUN: Exactly. TIMPF: But China, of course, isn't going to do that just be nice. They're going to do that because they feel like they absolutely have to. RYUN: That's why they have to align their interests with ours, and that's where we have to bring pressure. HOLMES: Right. But I think it's also important that we focus on the North Korean elites, because what we have seen is that North Korean leaders are very happy to watch their people suffer. TIMPF: Right, absolutely, which is why things like sanctions that might work in other situations don't really, because they have a leader who doesn't care if his people starve. And, yeah, without China, wouldn't be in this situation. But I think we need to exhaust every single other option before we even think. RYUN: But without the oil, forget about the economy, also grinds the nuclear program to a halt as well. Everything comes to a grinding halt within months. Forget about the elites. You shut everything down they'll slow down. KILMEADE: They will keep screwing up all our holidays until we get this together. (CROSSTALK) KILMEADE: They do it on purpose. And they're going to do something on Friday on his grandfather's birthday. And if that rocket gets too close to Guam, we're going to knock it out of the sky, and it's game on after that. WILLIAMS: You can't put that back in the tube, so to speak. KILMEADE: And for Mattis to make those statements from the White House is stunning. It's in the military community and it's a great message for the rest of the world. RYUN: It is. TIMPF: Up next, Hurricane Irma strengthening to a massive category five storm, with Florida now directly in its path. We'll have the latest moments away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KILMEADE: All right, Hurricane Irma is roaring towards the Caribbean at this hour, and now a massive category 5 storm. That's where it's listed as. The National Hurricane Center says that Irma is the strongest hurricane in the Atlantic basin ever recorded outside the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. With that, Adam Klotz, you're the meteorologist, make sense of this. ADAM KLOTZ, FOX NEWS METEOROLOGIST: Brian, it is a massive storm. Those winds, 185 miles an hour, moving at 15 miles an hour. Beginning to make landfall overnight tonight, and to the northern portions of the Lesser Antilles. So that's right on the outer edge of the Caribbean, but it is moving in that direction, going to be running through it. Irma now 185 miles an hour. If you do the entire Atlantic basin, everything including the Gulf of Mexico, including the Caribbean, this is the second highest wind total we've ever seen, a 190 would be the most. We're knocking on the door of that. So very, very big, very powerful storm. No surprise, we're looking at, as a result, hurricane watches and warnings now stretching across the islands over towards Puerto Rico as well. I'll say, moving past the Puerto Rico area Wednesday evening into the Wednesday overnight, that's when things will be the most severe for those folks. That category 5 storm, as it begins to move, you do see it moving past Puerto Rico as a category 5. But you do begin to run over a couple islands. You need that warm water to pick up a lot of heat, pick up energy and stay powerful. So it does begin to fall down a little bit. A Category 4 is still a very large storm, but you're going to see it begin to fall down, and then taking you all the way now to Sunday. That Sunday when we would begin to see this sitting just off the southern edge of Florida. That's a wide area there. It could be anywhere within this cone. So there's still a lot of questions about where exactly this is going to go. Now there are some winds in the upper levels that should be steering this. You see it pretty consistent path, all one direction, and then all of a sudden we get a turn. That's something we're still, kind of, waiting to find out. You see pretty good agreement. And this is a whole bunch of models. Running across the islands, just north. And then suddenly, you get that turn. It makes a big difference where they turn. If you turn early, you're going to be running up the east coast of Florida. If you turn a little bit later, you're going to be running up the west coast of Florida. Guys, that's still something we're going to be paying attention to for the next couple of days to get a better idea of where exactly that turn is going to take place. KILMEADE: So Adam, when do you think, if it's going to hit Florida, or looks like it's going to hit. KLOTZ: Well, we're looking at a situation here where we see this turn probably on Sunday into -- Saturday night into Sunday morning. So that's going to be our best opportunity to see, hey, we're getting close to making that landfall, without pinning it down exactly at this point. It's still difficult. But that's what we're looking at. And then you're running up - - here are some models running up all the way to September 12. So that's Tuesday, but getting to get up. This isn't going to be a Harvey situation, where it sits and spins and drops 40 or 50 inches of rain. Still a big storm, 12 to 18 inches of rain, but this one is going to keep moving once it makes landfall. Because I mean, you can't know for sure yet. KLOTZ: All of Florida is already under a state of emergency. The entire state, because of this. Because we know it's going to get to this point, and then he gets a little bit difficult, it gets a little bit more dicey. So the entire state, and it's the East Coast, could be the Florida Panhandle. We just don't know. But yes, folks are beginning to get ready. WILLIAMS: Yes, and of course, we don't know, and these storms can be very unpredictable. But my home state, North Carolina, I'm going to be a little selfish here and ask on their behalf. Wilmington, specifically, very far east. KLOTZ: Well, I mean, with his forecast track, I don't know specifically in that area, but I do know that the Carolinas, the Georgia coast, these areas are all on alert. Because especially originally, some of our earlier models were pointing in that direction. So they've had a little bit more time to pay attention and see what this thing's doing. KILMEADE: All right. Thanks, Adam Klotz in the Weather Center, following yet another major hurricane. And they don't come small. It's not like it's no big deal. It's a big deal, Amy. HOLMES: It is a big deal. But in the spirit of prioritizing the occasion, I don't know if you can get a hotel discount when you're in the path of one of these storms. Yes. (CROSSTALK) KILMEADE: Absolutely. But the one thing -- one thing you can count on, Florida, they know how to do hurricanes, prepare for them. And they build buildings for this. So they're almost -- that's why you walk around and you see very few second -- two-story houses. HOLMES: Interesting. Like, we've seen them boarding up windows and preparing and stocking up water, which of course, you need to do. KILMEADE: Right. And Governor Rick Scott embraces this type of challenge. Doesn't want it but can handle it. RYUN: Certainly. And I think it's also kind of a reminder to Congress, too. You're going to be dealing with Irma, you better get on Harvey as quickly as possible, to a clean relief bill, get it passed. Irma is coming down the pathway, as well. So, you know, my hope is that Congress will come back and actually get something done. Because they're going to have to deal with some of this -- this situation with Irma. KILMEADE: And they're getting closer and closer to that debt ceiling. RYUN: No, I know. They are getting such a long laundry list of things that have to get done. KILMEADE: Right. RYUN: But they decided they were going to, what, take five weeks of vacation in August. HOLMES: We also know that Congress needs a deadline. They love nothing more than a deadline to try to get these things. KILMEADE: They've got quite a few, and we're going to be talking about that shortly. With your permission, James, I'd like to go to break. Hey, coming up straight ahead, recess is over, Congress getting back to work today. Back in a moment to discuss it, analyze it and think about it. You think about it in the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WILLIAMS: Welcome back to "The Fox News Specialists." Our specialists are Ned Ryun and Amy Holmes. We'll continue the conversation. Like a bad neighbor that just won't go away, Congress has returned. With the fall session kicking off today, the Senate and the House are both facing daunting workloads, everything from funding a bill to keep the government open to, of course, that all-important aid to the Hurricane Harvey victims. This afternoon President Trump met with top congressional leaders at the White House, pushing the need for tax reform. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: It's vital that we reduce the crushing tax burden for our companies and workers. We pay the highest tax of any country in the world, our businesses. And we can't keep doing that. We're going to cut taxes. We're going to reduce taxes for people, for individuals, for middle-income families. We're going to reduce taxes for our companies, and those companies are going to produce jobs. Amy Holmes, you mentioned that deadlines are helpful with Congress. We're going to start with... HOLMES: Notice how they rush at the 11th hour. WILLIAMS: Yes, and magically, some things do seem to be pushed through. Tax reform for me, as a registered independent, feels like a layup. It feels like such an easy buy-in from both sides of the aisle. Americans are feeling a little bit better economically but know that there's still better relief out there, and tax reform could be a way to do it. With the long list of things that need to get done, including DACA, I am a little pessimistic about tax reform. It should be something that's bipartisan, and you have a common-sense caucus in the House. Twenty Democrats, 20 Republicans have come together who said they would like to work on tax reform. But then, of course, we've talked about these obstructionist Democrats. And Congressman Sherman, he gave this interview to The Los Angeles Times where he said very candidly that his constituents will not allow him to cooperate with Donald Trump. It's just not going to happen. And truthfully, they've got Republican-controlled Senate and House... HOLMES: Well, they certainly do in the Senate. And well, you know, it gets a little bit over in the weeds. It depends on how it's done. RYUN: Right. HOLMES: If tax reform is done on reconciliation in the Senate, they don't need Democrats. But I don't think that's what we want to see. We had, you know, a party-line vote on Obamacare, and that didn't work out. RYUN: At this point, I'd be willing for anything with regards -- and I want to -- it makes me nervous when they talk about sweeping comprehensive tax reform. Again, as I alluded to earlier, I'm not sure they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Make it simple. Go and say, "We're going to lower the corporate tax." Aim for 15, settle for 20. Take that money, that foreign revenue that's sitting overseas. Trump estimated it was closer to 4 trillion. I'd been thinking it was 2.6 trillion. WILLIAMS: Personal income tax. People want relief on that. RYUN: They want that, as well, but repatriate that money. Ten percent tax holiday. You put maybe upwards of 400 billion back into the government, put it towards building the wall. Then you go aim the tax cuts at the middle class and small business, call it a day. HOLMES: Listen, I agree with you, but I have... (CROSSTALK) WILLIAMS: Personal income tax, and don't really -- I don't know if I like your idea, Ned, of telling exactly where it's going to go. I think maybe trust hardworking Americans in this country to get some of their money back. Keep it, spend it, reinvest it in small business and otherwise. RYUN: Yes, but my only concern would be when we repatriate that foreign revenue, that somehow it wouldn't be put back into the American workers, the American... WILLIAMS: That's interesting. That's so interesting. RYUN: Put a little bit of a stipulation on it that we're going to juice the economy at the same time we... TIMPF: I think you have to trust people, in the same way that -- hear me out. We expect people to trust business owners, whether they be small or big, that when they get their tax breaks and their savings, that they hire and put that money back into stimulating the economy. KILMEADE: We've got three things to do. We have to raise the debt ceiling. Everyone agrees, probably going to get done. Then you've got to pass the budget. It's going to be tough, but it should get done. A lot of times they just live life without it. And then they've got to do tax reform. They are doing it the right way now. They've been doing it for a while. They got together the big six. Tomorrow, they're going to have the Democratic leaders come in. They are not making it easy for Democrats by saying, "Oh, we're taking the upper -- we're taking the top bracket, and we're dropping it ten points." They're saying Mark Cohn (ph) is doing -- being very coy. He said, "I don't even know if we're going to top the top bracket." RYUN: Right. KILMEADE: "We might leave it at 39. We're not sure yet." RYUN: Right. KILMEADE: Makes it interesting. Then when it comes to corporate tax, they says, "We might do something," I would think, very intriguing that only a Steven Mnuchin, Goldman Sachs guy can come up with. Then you will tax your profits, not necessarily where you made your profits. So if you're an American company, making your profit with your base, evidently, in Ireland. Going to tax you on what you make. You can choose to keep it overseas. We're taxing you for what you made. So then it will start bringing in... WILLIAMS: Kat. TIMPF: I agree with Eboni completely that it needs to be something that the average American will notice. Income tax is where -- but I don't think it's going to be quite as simple as everybody seems to think it is. Another thing that they want to do is simplify the tax code. But all of those complications are there because of special interests, which by the way, everybody knows, there are members of Congress that are very beholden to special interests and tend to not want to do things to upset them. So I think that it's going to be a lot more complicated than we would like. And Republicans haven't decided on that. And of course, you have the other side that says if we are going to cut taxes, meaning we're going to cut home much comes into the government, the Republicans will say we also need to cut spending. And then you get into a big thing. KILMEADE: But you've got to do it on growth. It's not going to be revenue; it's going to be projected growth will equal out. I don't know if that allows them to do the 51 votes. He's going to North Dakota. Heidi Heitkamp, vulnerable Democrat. John Casper, vulnerable Democrat. RYUN: Montana, West Virginia. KILMEADE: Make those Democrats understand the people want tax reform. You vote the way you want. RYUN: You look at the state polls on the tax issue, in some of these states like West Virginia, it's mid-70s of the people in West Virginia that want tax reform. That's a question that we should talk about. I hope he shuts down the government. Reagan did it eight times. Three and a half percent. WILLIAMS: Well, before we get to government shutdown, I want to just go back to tax reform again, because I think you said it really well, Kat. Real Americans in this country want to feel it. They want to feel that impact. And I think to your point, though, the polls -- Dem, blue, red -- everybody wants tax reform. TIMPF: They want money. They want money, more money rather than less. HOLMES: The question is how. So for example, another big debate is around state taxes. New York state, of course, wants it because of the high pass this year, but again, when you're looking at balancing the books, you know, it's much more complicated and heavy lift. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's not easy but it has to be done. KILMEADE: Well, past November, it will be easy. WILLIAMS: Straight ahead, Hillary Clinton picking a brand-new foil this time to blame her election loss on. Stay with us. You're not going to believe who it is this time. KILMEADE: It's Kat. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) TIMPF: We are 10 months removed from the election, but that isn't stopping Hillary Clinton from continuing to place blame on others for her loss. Her new target, Bernie Sanders. In excerpts from her book posted online, Hillary said, quote, "His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign. He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won in the White House; he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party. I'm proud to be a Democrat, and I wish Bernie were, too." A primary. A primary is a normal experience for a candidate. She doesn't seem to understand she was responsible for her own message, even if that's true, because you yourself could not get your message... RYUN: A rigged primary. A rigged primary, by the way. TIMPF: Yes. RYUN: Debbie Wasserman Schultz. TIMPF: It makes me so mad that -- I mean, it must be fun to live a life where you never look at yourself and you think you're perfect. Sometimes I have those nights where I lay awake and I think, "I shouldn't have done that." She's never had to go through that in her life. KILMEADE: Right. HOLMES: Apparently. I just feel like we should sit back and laugh for the rest of the segment. I was talking to Democrats here in New York state. They are ready to move on. RYUN: It's like a theme in the... KILMEADE: "Over-promiser, unrelenting over-promiser. His attacks have had long-lasting damage." If you look at President Trump, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. Who's the most... WILLIAMS: Right. You don't even have to -- you don't have to go that far back. A few things for me at this point. No. 1, girl, bye. OK, literally. Girl, bye. Because 2008, you talked about damaging effects, that we happened to win the election. But some of the attacks that Hillary and her husband, Bill Clinton, launched at then-Senator Barack Obama were ruthless. They were nasty, they were personal, and they absolutely had damaging effects. There were plenty in her base that had a problem getting on board in the general election. A final point. It's a good day, though that her book is coming out, September 12. Everyone should go to the bookstore and get a copy of this right here. (HOLDS UP HER OWN UPCOMING BOOK) TIMPF: Yay! RYUN: There you go. Right there. No, every time I hear Hillary making excuses, in the back of my mind, I hear the poltergeists, "We're back." This won't go away. But it's like, it's not me, it's you, the excuse tour of Hillary Clinton blaming everyone else, despite the fact ran a terrible campaign, terrible message, had every opportunity with a rigged primary, still couldn't pull it off. I'm sorry. Maybe you're a terrible candidate with a terrible message and you lost. TIMPF: And your message is your job. It's not other people job to not do their job. Bernie Sanders, yes, he's also trying to win. That's how an election works, is you compete and you each try to win. That's not how it works. Look, and she -- they kind of rigged it in her favor, and she's still mad. I can't imagine that kind of narcissism. WILLIAMS: Well, he's not a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is an independent from the state of Vermont. What don't you like about a capitalist society?" But she was scared to death of his supporters. HOLMES: If Bernie Sanders had hair, she'd be pulling off his toupee. This is ridiculous to me, watching this fight. And when I hear Hillary Clinton coming out with always these excuses and accusations, I think a lot of Democrats are hearing their poll numbers sinking. All of this is bad for their party, which if she really wanted to serve her party, she would step aside... WILLIAMS: Agreed. HOLMES: ... and let someone new come forward. RYUN: Right. But all this conversation about people going after Trump and dysfunction in Congress, what it is doing is drowning out the fact the Democrat Party is in serious trouble. When you lose almost 1,100 seats at the state and federal level between 2010 and 2016, people are not voting for you because they don't like your ideas; and they're rejecting you as a party. WILLIAMS: Well, they have a message -- they have a dual-pronged problem. They have a message and a messenger problem. And until they fix that, I don't know if the GOP is going to do enough self-inflicted harm to themselves. I don't think they're doing themselves a ton of favors right now. But you're right. The Dems have a larger issue. RYUN: One of the saving graces for Republicans right now, before let's -- right before they went into recess, there was a Quinnipiac poll showing that Congress had a 10 percent approval rating. Only 14 percent of Republicans approved of the Republican-led Congress. One of the only saving graces for the Republican-led Congress right now is the wild dysfunction in the Democrat Party. HOLMES: Hillary Clinton has time (ph). KILMEADE: Yes, there's no next. No one's next. There are a lot of people counting on Senator Harris, first-term senator in California. WILLIAMS: Not that a first-term senator hasn't been successful for the Democrats in the past. I'm just saying. RYUN: And some would argue a disaster. WILLIAMS: ... successful but can get to the White House. TIMPF: Maybe Hillary run again. Maybe she'll keep running. WILLIAMS: Oh, God. Please no. TIMPF: We've got to say goodbye to our Specialists, Ned Ryun and Amy Holmes. Thank you both for joining us. Up next, it's "Wait, What?" Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KILMEADE: All right. Now, if my rundown is correct, this is the last segment of the day. It is time for... (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Wait, What?" (END VIDEO CLIP) KILMEADE: All right. WILLIAMS: It was good. KILMEADE: I'll kick things off. This is from Free-Speech Radio Broadcasting, John Ziegler interviewing legend Franco Harris of the Pittsburgh Steelers, Penn State star prior to that, about Colin Kaepernick and taking a knee, how his Pittsburgh Steelers would've handled it. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN ZIEGLER, FREE-SPEECH RADIO BROADCASTING: Professional, though, Franco. FRANCO HARRIS, PITTSBURGH STEELERS PLAYER: I don't think it would've been -- been Chuck. You know, there are two of the meanest guys in football who I think would've dealt with it that way. And that would've been Joe Greene and Jack Lambert. (END VIDEO CLIP) KILMEADE: And they would've come down and said, "Stand up. Don't bring it here." Much like Jim Brown. Let's go to Eboni. WILLIAMS: OK, so mine is good. So many people just starting back-to- school this week. So there's a school in Utah that has a policy that says they are so serious about people being on time for class, if you're not, you get a fine. They're taking it to the bank. The first time you get a warning. The second time you're late, $3. And third time and any time after that, $5 fee. Talk about getting serious. I like it. KILMEADE: Is that people's intention, my lunch money. WILLIAMS: Exactly right. TIMPF: So I'm going to take this time to wish a happy 80th birthday to a person who's very near and dear to all of our hearts on this channel: William DeVane. And I want to give him the best piece of advice that I've ever heard for my -- for his birthday, which is there's never been a better time to buy silver. KILMEADE: Fantastic. TIMPF: I don't know where I heard it. But it's definitely true. KILMEADE: He does scare me every time he's on television with his bomber jacket. And he goes, "Listen, it's terrible out there. You don't want to watch the news," which is not good news for us. He goes, "Buy gold. Or buy silver." WILLIAMS: Buy silver. TIMPF: There has literally never been a better time than right now. It just changed. It's the best time again right now. KILMEADE: Right. And by the way, according to reports, Bret Baier is almost dressed. KILMEADE: He's almost ready to do his show. WILLIAMS: And ready to join us. KILMEADE: We've got to just fill just a little bit. WILLIAMS: OK. He's finishing his tie. KILMEADE: This could be the first time he hasn't had a clip-on in quite some time. So he's got to do the college knot. WILLIAMS: Awesome. Bret, I just want to go on record. I know that you would never put a clip-on on. WILLIAMS: Yes, absolutely. You know, hopefully, I'll be joining you guys on "Fox & Friends" to talk more about it. WILLIAMS: Out September 12, this Tuesday coming up. It's going to be exciting. WILLIAMS: Absolutely, on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. So you've got lots of stuff from colleagues here. Meghan McCain, just tons of stuff. Monica Crowley. It's great. It's a great book. KILMEADE: Fantastic. If you wrote it, I'm going to get it. Meanwhile, that's all we have for today. Thank you so much for watching and make sure you follow us on social media, @SpecialistsFNC on Twitter and Facebook. Remember, 5 o'clock will never be the same. "Special Report" is next. WILLIAMS: Yes, Bret's ready. KILMEADE: With Bret Baier. Be ready. Please be ready. Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/did-president-trump-find-a-daca-compromise |
Would the UK be better off in or out of the customs union? | Along with ending free movement of people, it was the reddest of Theresa Mays red lines: post-Brexit Britain should be able to strike its own trade deals. The prime minister contended that to respect the 2016 referendum result the UK must have new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world and, for the sake of these future trade deals, she ruled out Labour proposals for a permanent customs union with the EU. But the argument is far from over. A proposal for a permanent customs union with the EU fell just six votes short of a majority last week when MPs voted on their preferred Brexit outcome. For years a niche subject for campaigners, wonks and eurosceptics, trade policy has become a big issue in British political life. One former prime minister told a private audience recently that if he had been asked about the EU customs union during his time in office, he would not have known what they were talking about. The customs union means that EU countries apply the same tariff to imported goods from the rest of the world. Trade deals are negotiated by Brussels on behalf of the (currently) 28 members, although governments agree the mandate and approve the final deal. The EU has trade deals covering 69 countries, including Canada and South Korea, which the UK is struggling to roll over. Proponents of an independent UK trade policy, such as the international trade secretary Liam Fox, say Britain must forge its own trade deals if it is to take advantage of the worlds fast-growing economies. Free to trade with the whole world, was one of the five promises of the Vote Leave manifesto of 2016. Brexit customs union bad for foreign policy and trade, says Truss Read more The governments own forecasts show that a UK-US trade deal would boost the British economy by 0.2% in the long-run, while deals with Asia, the Gulf, China, India Australia and New Zealand, would add up to 0.4%. Supporters of the UK striking its own trade deals have never explained why Germany manages to export more than three times the value in goods to China than Britain while also being in the EU customs union. Meanwhile Japanese trade negotiators have said they will demand better terms from the UK than it currently gets from the larger EU bloc, while Australia poured cold water over the UKs hopes to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, due to its distant location. British scepticism of European trade policy has a long history. Arguments about New Zealand butter raged during the 1975 referendum. Eurosceptics on right and left have blamed the European project for dumping cheap food on developing countries. Daniel Hannan, a long-term advocate for an independent trade policy, says he has not changed his mind. The idea that we cant improve the trade deals that we have through the EU is preposterous, said the long-serving Conservative MEP. The UK will be able to liberalise much further in trade deals with the rest of the world, he said, rejecting suggestions that dropping tariffs could wipe our British manufacturing. There has never been a country that has got poorer as a result of dropping its trade barriers. Polls suggest the public like the idea of an independent trade policy, although few have been done. Almost half those (49%) surveyed by Ipsos Mori in March 2018 thought the British economy would be better off in five to ten years if the UK were to negotiate its own trade deals, even if that meant putting up barriers with Europe. In contrast 36% favoured maintaining trade with the EU, over independent deals. If we ask people, they say theyd like Britain to be able to make its own trade deals, [but] I doubt it is really a driving force its just an example of a wider concern, Anthony Wells, director of political research at YouGov, said. It is the principle of being able to make our own rules and laws that Leave supporters care about. A YouGov survey in July found that independent trade policy was voters joint fourth Brexit priority, behind control over immigration, ending EU rules and budget payments. Trade experts caution deals get more contentious once they become real. It is one of those things that sounds great but when it actually comes down to it trade has always been controversial because people always want something from you, said former trade negotiator David Henig, who was heavily involved in talks on an EU-US trade deal. New Zealand want to sell more lamb and Australia certainly want to sell us more lamb. Thats not going to go down very well in Wales or Scotland. David Martin, a Labour MEP, who is a senior member of the European parliaments trade committee, says EU trade deals already lower tariffs, open up public procurement and ensure protection for speciality food and drink. What is it that the advocates of an independent trade policy think an independent trade policy could deliver that the EU doesnt. He predicts resistance in the House of Commons to a future UK-US trade deal, if that results in a flood of cheap American chicken and beef that undercuts British farmers. I am not sure that our farmers - and I know it is a bit cliched want to throw their doors open to hormone beef from the United States Because the volume of that beef could wipe out many of our farmers. As a country of 66m facing much larger blocs, the UK will also struggle to get its own way in trade talks, he predicts. The truth in trade negotiations is size really does matter. | https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/01/brexit-would-uk-be-better-off-in-or-out-of-the-customs-union |
How Can Doctors Be Sure A Self-Taught Computer Is Making The Right Diagnosis? | Enlarge this image toggle caption Richard Harris/NPR Richard Harris/NPR Some computer scientists are enthralled by programs that can teach themselves how to perform tasks, such as reading X-rays. Many of these programs are called "black box" models because the scientists themselves don't know how they make their decisions. Already these black boxes are moving from the lab toward doctors' offices. The technology has great allure, because computers could take over routine tasks and perform them as well as doctors do, possibly better. But as scientists work to develop these black boxes, they are also mindful of the pitfalls. Pranav Rajpurkar, a computer science graduate student at Stanford University, got hooked on this idea after he discovered how easy it was to create these models. The National Institutes of Health one weekend in 2017 made more than 100,000 chest X-rays publicly available, each tagged with the condition that the person had been diagnosed with. Rajpurkar texted a lab mate and suggested they should build a quick and dirty algorithm that could use the data to teach itself how to diagnose the conditions linked to the X-rays. The algorithm had no guidance about what to look for. Its job was to teach itself by searching for patterns, using a technique called deep learning. "We ran a model overnight and the next morning I woke up and found that the algorithm was already doing really well," Rajpurkar says. "And that got me really excited about the opportunities, and the ease with which AI is able to do these tasks." Fast forward to February of this year, and he and his colleagues have already moved far beyond that point. He leads me to a sun-filled room in the William Gates (yes, that Bill Gates) Computer Science Building. His colleagues are looking at a prototype of a new program to diagnose tuberculosis among HIV-positive patients in South Africa. The scientists hope this program will help fill an urgent medical need. TB is common in South Africa, and doctors are in short supply. The scientists lean into the screen, which displays a chest X-ray and the patient's basic lab results and highlights the part of the X-ray that the algorithm is focusing on. The scientists start scrolling through examples, making guesses of their own and seeing how well the algorithm is performing. Stanford radiologist Matthew Lungren, who is the main medical adviser for this project, joins in. He readily admits he is not great at identifying TB on an X-ray. "We just don't see any TB here" in the heart of Silicon Valley, he explains. True to his warning, he misdiagnoses the first two cases he sees. Rajpurkar says the algorithm itself is far from perfect, too. It gets the diagnosis right 75 percent of the time. But doctors in South Africa are correct 62 percent of the time, he says, so it's an improvement. The usual benchmark for TB diagnosis is a sputum test, which is also prone to error. "The ultimate thought from our group is that if we can combine the best of what humans offer in their diagnostic work and the best of what these models can offer, I think you're going to have a better level of health care for everybody," Lungren says. But he is well aware that it's easy to be fooled by a computer program, so he sees part of his job as a clinician to curb some of the engineering enthusiasm. "The Silicon Valley culture is great for innovation but it's not got a great track record for safety," he says. "And so our job as clinicians is to guard against the possibility of getting ahead of ourselves and allowing these things to be in a place where they could cause harm." For example, a program that has taught itself using data from one group of patients may give erroneous results if used on patients from another region or even from another hospital. One way the Stanford team is trying to avoid pitfalls like that is by sharing their data so other people can critique the work. Some of the most cogent analysis has come from John Zech, a medical resident at the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, who is training to be a radiologist. Zech and his medical school colleagues discovered that the Stanford algorithm to diagnose disease from X-rays sometimes "cheated." Instead of just scoring the image for medically important details, it considered other elements of the scan, including information from around the edge of the image that showed the type of machine that took the X-ray. Enlarge this image toggle caption Richard Harris/NPR Richard Harris/NPR When the algorithm noticed that a portable X-ray machine had been used, it boosted its score toward a finding of TB. Zech realized that portable X-ray machines used in hospital rooms were much more likely to find pneumonia compared with those used in doctors' offices. That's hardly surprising, considering that pneumonia is more common among hospitalized people than among people who are able to visit their doctor's office. "It was being a good machine-learning model and it was aggressively using all available information baked into the image to make its recommendations," Zech says. But that shortcut wasn't actually identifying signs of lung disease, as its inventors intended. Technologists will need to move forward carefully, to make sure they are getting rid of these biases as well as they can. "I'm interested in doing work in the field," Zech says, "but I don't think it's going to be straightforward." Diagnosing disease is far more than an image-recognition exercise, he says. Radiologists dig into a person's medical history and talk to referring doctors at times. "Medical diagnosis is hard," he says. And he predicts it will be a long time before computers will compete with humans. Zech was able to unearth the problems related to the Stanford algorithm because the computer model provides its human handlers with additional hints by highlighting which parts of the X-ray it is emphasizing in its analysis. That's how Zech came to notice that the algorithm was studying information along the edges of the image rather than the picture of the lung itself. That added feature means it is not a pure black-box model, but "maybe like a very shady box," he says. Black-box algorithms are the favored approach to this new combination of medicine and computers, but "it's not clear you really need a black box for any of it," says Cynthia Rudin, a computer scientist at Duke University. "I've worked on many predictive modeling problems," she says, "and I've never seen a high-stakes decision where you couldn't come up with an equally accurate model with something that's transparent, something that's interpretable." Black-box models do have some advantages: A program made with a secret sauce is harder to copy and therefore better for companies developing proprietary products. As the Stanford graduate students' experience shows, black boxes are also much easier to develop. But Rudin says that especially for medical decisions that could have life or death consequences, it is worth putting in the extra time and effort to have a program built from the ground up based on real clinical knowledge, so humans can see how it is reaching its conclusions. toggle caption Richard Harris/NPR She is pushing back against a trend in the field, which is to add an "explanation model" algorithm that runs alongside the black-box algorithm to provide clues about what the black box is doing. "These explanation models can be very dangerous," she says. "They can give you a false sense of security for a model that is not that great." Bad black-box models have already been put to use. One designed to identify criminals likely to offend again turned out to be using racial cues rather than data about human psychology and behavior, she notes. "Clinicians are right to be suspicious of these models, given all the other problems we've had with proprietary models," Rudin says. "The right question to ask is, 'When is a black box OK?' " says Nigam Shah, who specializes in biomedical informatics at Stanford. Shah developed an algorithm that could scan medical records for people who had just been admitted to the hospital, to identify those most likely to die soon. It wasn't very accurate, but it didn't need to be it flagged some of the most severe cases and referred them to doctors to see whether they were candidates for palliative care. He likens it to a Google search, in which you care only about the top results being on target. Shah sees no problem using a black box in this case even an inaccurate one. It performed the task it was intended to. While the algorithm worked technically, Stanford palliative care physician Stephanie Harman says it ended up being more confusing than helpful in selecting patients for her service, because people in most need of this service aren't necessarily those closest to death. "Physicians use things that they don't understand how they work all the time," he says. "For the majority of the drugs, we have no idea how they work." In his view, what really matters is whether an algorithm gets enough testing along the way to assure doctors and federal regulators that it is dependable and suitable for its intended use. And it is equally important to avoid misuse of an algorithm, for example if a health insurer tried to use Shah's death-forecasting algorithm to make decisions about whether to pay for medical care. "I firmly believe that we should be thinking about algorithms differently," Shah says. "We need to worry more about the cost of the action that will be taken, who will take that action" and a host of related questions that determine its value in medical care. He says that matters a lot more than whether the algorithm is a black box. You can contact NPR science correspondent Richard Harris at [email protected]. | https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/04/01/708085617/how-can-doctors-be-sure-a-self-taught-computer-is-making-the-right-diagnosis?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr |
Has Marie Kondo led us astray on decluttering? | I understand the impulse. In 2014, when Marie Kondos book was first published, I took on the task of going through the modest Santa Monica home and garage that I shared with my 14-year-old son. Despite being a minimalist, I still managed to fill 28 black garbage bags with unnecessary stuff. The most daunting task was tackling the papers from four decades. Bills and taxes. Letters and cards. College papers. Early drafts of essays and novels. When taken from closets and drawers, they filled my entire office. I reduced them to one filing cabinet drawer for important family documents and one small box for sentimental keepsakes. It took three weeks. | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-fiordaliso-marie-kondo-clutter-20190401-story.html |
Why would one man read Mark Twain's whole library? | Dr Alan Gribben, cofounder of the Mark Twain Circle of America, has spent the last 45 years doing just that. For more recent authors such as Philip Roth or John Updike, the idea of chronicling their reading isnt unusual: Roth willed his book collection to Newark Public Library in New Jersey; Updikes went to Harvard Universitys Houghton Library. But Roth and Updike were both a different sort of writer. They lived in our era, and on land. As a steamboat captain, Twain real name Samuel Langhorne Clemens lived on the river, his life and work in constant motion as he authored travelogues, time-travel novels and adventure stories about runaway slaves. Whether he would or not, literary scholars do. In the New Historicism school of literary thought, writing is examined in its authorial context. Heaven forbid someone read Twains story The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County and think its just a funny tale. To understand it, New Historicists must know everything frog-related that could have been in Twains mind while writing. Answering the last of these questions has been difficult. In addition to riverboating, Twain held other jobs that required travel: prospector, reporter, lecturer. Logistically, he couldnt keep many books and those he did carry were often lost. A trunks worth disappeared on one transatlantic voyage, and he once recalled leaving a copy of Robinson Crusoe on a train. Twains daughter, Susy, once described him as the loveliest man I ever saw, or ever hope to see, and oh, so absent-minded! In Twains defence, many other famous writers made work hard for scholars by misplacing their books. F Scott Fitzgerald lost his between moves, and Ernest Hemingway left an untold number in Cuba. As a result, between the 1940s and 60s, explains Gribben, meticulous studies [were] initiated to identify the contents of ... major American authors libraries, cataloging what Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, Emily Dickinson and others had read. Yet somehow Twain got left out and, as Gribben notes, those studying him had to check dozens of disparate sources that revealed bits of his literary knowledge. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Twain photographed in 1908 by Alvin Langdon Coburn. Photograph: Royal Photographic Society/SSPL via Getty Images Well, not anymore. In Mark Twains Literary Resources, a three-volume work of literary criticism to be published in May, Gribben outlines the reading that influenced Twain, from Shakespeare to Poe. While scholars will certainly benefit, the book itself is more than academic. Its a labour of love, with Gribben describing how he uncovered Twains tomes in basement boxes, even finding some in sacks by the side of a road. He also had to navigate fakes, books with counterfeit autographs and annotations made by the notorious forger and murderer Mark Hofmann. During his life, Twain could be evasive about his reading, claiming in 1886 that he couldnt name 100 authors. Other times, he willingly shared his habits with the press, telling New York World Sunday Magazine precisely how many hours he read each day, at what time, and where. Perhaps it is some type of karma that this well-travelled writer should have his familys library collection spread out across the land, says Gribben, noting the Twain family owned more than 3,000 books, and the humourist is known to have read nearly 5,000 literary works. This, Gribben states, may make doubting critics see Twain as a great author, not merely a funny man from Missouri. History may not have preserved writers libraries as we now do, but there is one thing about literaria that hasnt changed the false notion that great words only come from those in the right places. Twain was, from the beginning, dismissed by many elite critics, Gribben says. Even today, there are those who look down their noses at Twain as an unrefined upstart, a lucky opportunist who gained fame merely on the basis of his outrageous humour. By proving Twain read the greats, Gribben shows the world he was one. | https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/01/one-man-read-mark-twain-whole-library-alan-gribben |
Who should get the credit for AI art? | In partnership with Written by Aaron Hertzmann Aaron Hertzmann is Affiliate Faculty of Computer Science, University of Washington. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. Over the past few years, many artists have started to use what's called "neural network software" to create works of art. Users input existing images into the software, which has been programmed to analyze them, learn a specific aesthetic and spit out new images that artists can curate. By manipulating the inputs and parameters of these models, artists can produce a range of interesting and evocative images. As an academic researcher, developer of artistic technology and amateur artist, seeing artists embrace new technology to create new forms of expression always thrills me. A movement is born The vibrant neural network art world arose in the past few years, in part, from developments in computer science. It began in 2015 with a program called DeepDream , which was developed accidentally by a Google engineer. He wanted to find a way to visualize the workings of a neural network system designed to analyze images. To do this, he gave it an input photograph and asked it to increase the number of object parts detected in the image. The result was a panoply of weird and evocative images. Pierre Fautrel, Co Founder of the team of French entrepreneurs which produces art using artificial intelligence, stands next to a work of art created by an algorithm. Credit: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/AFP/Getty Images He shared his method online, and artists immediately began to experiment with it. The first gallery show of DeepDream art occurred less than a year later. Because this software is all freely shared online, digital artists can experiment with these models, and then share their own results and modifications. There's an active creative community of neural network artists on Twitter who discuss the results of their experiments, along with the latest developments and controversies. And major mainstream artists have also embraced these tools, with major shows and commissions by artists like Trevor Paglen , Refik Anadol and Jason Salavon. Nonetheless, this open sharing challenges the ways we think about art. Christie's sale of the image "Edmond de Belamy, from La Famille de Belamy" in November 2018 for nearly US$500,000 indicated that something was awry. To make this image, the artist group Obvious used the source code and data that another artist, Robbie Barrat, had shared freely on the web. Obvious had every right to use Barrat's code and claim authorship of the work. Nonetheless, many criticized Christie's for elevating the artists who played only a small part in the creation the work. This was generally read as a failure of Christie's, particularly in the misleading way it promoted the work, rather than a need to rethink authorship of AI art. The emergence of Ganbreeder These issues really become unavoidable in Ganbreeder, a beguiling new website for creating images with neural networks. Ganbreeder is an endless source of inspiring, intriguing, weird and fascinating imagery. Unlike the images that emerge from DeepDream, which quickly become repetitive, it seems like no single human mind could ever be capable of producing Ganbreeder's diverse range of original imagery. "Le Comte de Belamy" is one of 10 portraits that comprise Obvious' "La Famille de Belamy" series. Credit: Courtesy Obvious Ganbreeder was launched last November by Joel Simon. Each Ganbreeder image is created with input parameters that you choose by modifying the parameters of other images on the site. The site stores the lineage of each image, so that you can see all who contributed to a final image. If you like an image you've found or created, you can order a custom print on wood from an entrepreneur and artist named Danielle Baskin. She touches up the print with paint, but instead of signing it, labels the back of the work with a QR code that points to image's unique lineage. She does this because each image is the result of many people's contributions, which makes it difficult to attach the name of any one sole artist to each new artwork. Giving credit where credit's due A sole artist, however, has already taken credit. When Alexander Reben exhibited paintings he'd made of Ganbreeder images, Baskin accused him of stealing, since she and others had spent hours on the Ganbreeder site to make the images. To defend himself, Reben pointed out that Ganbreeder works were anonymous when he selected his images; user logins and attribution were only added in February. Existing laws and conventions already address cases in which artwork is created in some form of collaboration or remix. It's generally accepted that an artist can claim authorship simply by selecting a final image, though they should be upfront about the sources, when possible. The accusations of stealing seem to mimic those lobbed against conventional appropriation artists like Andy Warhol and Richard Prince, who famously enlarged and modified Instagram posts made by other users. Courtesy Obvious However these neural network works seem to be a different sort of work. The contributions of the neural network model and the other users of the site are all inseparable from the result. No one contributor seems to be "the artist." One possible way to view these new works of art is to think of them like open source software. Open source is a model for software development in which anyone can contribute to or use open software packages. It has led to the creation of major software tools, like Linux and major neural network software, that could not have been developed otherwise. Likewise, the new neural network artworks could not have been created without open sharing of software and data. Open source projects specify clear rules for how the software may be used and credited: Some software may be extended and sold, while other projects must always be distributed for free. Each programmer's contributions are recorded; how they are credited also depends on the individual project. Like open source software, sites like Ganbreeder could establish clear rules for artistic authorship and credit. The guidelines should establish how to claim credit for a work, who else must be credited, and when a work can be sold or copyrighted. Payment is a tricky issue. For more mundane contributions, Baskin has suggested that payment could be shared among the work's many contributors. This could become profitable; the royalties from a single major advertising campaign could pay for a lot of artists' meals. A 'photography of imaginary things' Then there's the issue of value and intent. Some of an artwork's value simply lies in its intrinsic aesthetic properties, the way a mountain might be beautiful. But we also value work because it emerged out an artist's vision, intention and skill. Software by French art collective Obvious "trained" itself using a set of historical paintings for reference, before producing an image that resembles an 18th-century portrait, though it is itself entirely new. Credit: Courtesy Obvious An open source artwork lies somewhere in the middle. This imagery represents the outcome of many human minds making deliberate artistic selections. Surely, an early contributor had no idea how their work would be used. Previous art technology raised similar questions, notably with the invention of photography. When the medium first emerged, many claimed that photography could not be art at all. After all, they argued, it's the machine that's doing all the work -- a sentiment now echoed in today's misguided claims that "AI creates its own art." It took a while, but photography was eventually recognized as its own artistic medium. Moreover, it catalyzed the modern art movement by forcing artists to stop placing realism on a pedestal. Because they could never match the realism of the camera, they needed to figure out a way to create works that no mere machine could replicate. Neural network art is now a kind of photography of imaginary things. Like photography, neural art can create a seemingly infinite set of images, none of which seem to have much value on their own. The value comes from the unique way in which the artist uses these tools -- how they set parameters, select subjects, adjust image details or curate a set of images that make a larger point. With new neural models being released at a staggering pace, these issues will only become more urgent as more wonderful, weird and inspiring imagery emerges. | https://www.cnn.com/style/article/ai-art-who-should-get-credit-conversation/index.html |
Which Brexit options could tackle border issue? | Image copyright Getty Images Image caption MPs will take part in a second round of votes on alternative Brexit proposals on Monday On Monday, MPs will take part in a second round of votes on alternative Brexit proposals. The intention is to see what outcome, if any, commands a majority. Goods and services are currently traded between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with few restrictions because the UK and Ireland are both in the EU's single market and customs union. That means products do not need to be inspected for customs or checked that they meet EU standards. But after Brexit the two parts of Ireland would be in different customs and regulatory regimes, which could mean products being checked at the border. Image copyright RT Image caption Protesters lined the roadside at the border at Strabane in County Tyrone at the weekend The UK government does not want this to happen. The EU has also said it does not want any hardening of the border. However, the UK's current red lines, which include leaving the customs union and the single market, make that very difficult. There are eight different options, but the ones most relevant to the border concern the customs union and the single market. There is one proposal on the customs union, one on the single market and one which effectively brings the two together in what is referred to as 'Common Market 2.0'. Customs union This option commits the government to negotiating "a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU". That would mean that, just as today, there would be no tariffs on goods being traded across the Irish border. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption There would be no need for the sort of customs posts found on the borders of EU member Sweden and non-EU Norway So no need for the sort of customs posts found on the borders of EU member Sweden and non-EU Norway. However, it would also effectively prevent the UK from striking independent trade deals with other countries. And it would unequivocally not eliminate the potential for border checks in Ireland. Customs are not the only things which could be enforced at the border - product standard checks, particularly for food, are more likely to be a border issue. Which brings us onto another option. Single market This option proposes that the UK remains in the European Economic Area (EEA) and rejoins the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as soon as possible. In effect that would mean the UK would stay in the single market. That would largely eliminate the need for any product standard checks at the Irish border. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has expressed some support for the EEA/EFTA option However, most trade in agricultural products is not included in the EEA Agreement, so the proponents of this option acknowledge that additional protocols would need to negotiated in regard to agri-food and the border. Speaking in Brussels last month, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar expressed some support for the EEA/EFTA option. He said: "There are potential solutions out there should the UK government and UK parliament wish to avail of those options." 'Common market 2.0' This option brings the first two together: It proposes membership of the European Free Trade Association, alongside a temporary "comprehensive customs arrangement" and protocols relating to agri-food trade. It is also explicit in the belief that this would solve the border issue and remove the need for the backstop. The backstop is the arrangement in the prime minister's deal which would apply if the border can't be kept frictionless through a trade deal. It would see Northern Ireland alone staying aligned to some rules of the EU single market, which makes it unacceptable to Northern Ireland unionists. The proponents of this option say it would also involve a legally binding joint statement with the EU that the implementation of 'Common Market 2.0' would lead to the backstop being "superseded in full". In the first round of votes a version of the customs union proposal was just six votes short of a majority. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption BBC News NI's political reporter Jayne McCormack explains why the border is an issue It is attractive to some MPs because it offers the softest possible Brexit without reopening the question of freedom of movement. However, both the single market and 'Common Market 2.0' bring freedom of movement back onto the agenda. EFTA members are generally required to follow EU commitments on free movement. Liechtenstein has an effective opt out because of its tiny population. It seems unlikely that the UK would get the same sort of opt out given the EU's insistence on 'no cherry picking.' None of MPs' eight proposed options secured a majority in the first set of indicative votes on 27 March, but those which received the most were a customs union with the EU and a referendum on any deal. Many of those eight options have returned for round two, but some have been replaced with new alternatives. Voting is expected to begin at 20:00 BST. Here's a breakdown of the options listed on the order paper. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47771495 |
Is Turkish poll shock the beginning of the end for Erdoan? | Recep Tayyip Erdoan turned Turkeys local elections into a referendum on his personal leadership. The results, showing his Justice and Development party (AKP) in retreat nationally and losing control of seven of Turkeys 12 main cities, not counting Istanbul, will thus be viewed as a stinging personal repudiation. The man who has dominated Turkish politics since 2003 is a bad loser, unaccustomed to defeat. He cannot abide criticism in any form and despite his claims to the contrary, the big swing against the AKP, on a 84.5% countrywide turnout, amounts to an unprecedented rebuke. Erdoan certainly deserves blame. As is his wont, he alone ultimately directed the AKPs campaign. Discarding any pretence of impartiality, he exploited his position as president and held almost daily rallies for two months preceding the vote. He said an AKP victory was a matter of national survival and claimed his opponents were in league with terrorists. Even by his unscrupulous standards, he hit an all-time low by screening video footage of last months Christchurch mosque killings at rallies, saying the attacks were part of an organised western campaign against Muslims in general, and Turks in particular. The poll outcome is Turkeys biggest political shock since the failed 2016 coup attempt. Erdoans immediate reaction then was to order mass arrests and blame foreign-based plotters, including the US military. He went on to use the coup as an excuse for launching indiscriminate nationwide purges to strengthen his grip on power. Similar payback can now be anticipated, although probably not on the same scale. As in the past, the AKP will launch legal challenges against winning opponents with the help of a pliant judiciary, seeking to disqualify them before they can take office or contesting the propriety of local electoral procedures. Erdoan will be especially determined to quash celebrations in Kurdish areas of south-east Turkey, where the pro-Kurdish Peoples Democratic party (HDP) made gains. He maintains the HDP is in cahoots with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers party. The HDP adamantly denies this. Several pre-poll arrests of HDP activists on terrorism charges were reported. The fate of the HDPs most charismatic leader, Selahattin Demirta, is instructive. He gave Erdoan a run for his money in national elections in 2014 and was consequently marked down as a threat. Demirta has been held in jail since 2016, accused of disseminating terrorist propaganda among other things. The European court of human rights demand for his release has been ignored. Facebook Twitter Pinterest People walk past by AKP billboards with pictures of Erdoan and mayoral candidate Binali Yildirim in Istanbul. Photograph: Murad Sezer/Reuters Having won sweeping executive powers in a stage-managed referendum last year, Erdoans domination of Turkish institutions, including the government, military, and courts, is already formidable. The ability of independent journalists to scrutinise and investigate has been all but crushed which many link to a perceived increase in corruption. If anything, Erdoan will now further tighten his grip. All of which makes the performance of the main opposition party, the Republican People party (CHP), in winning Ankara and other cities, all the more remarkable. The partys veteran leader, Kemal Kldarolu, has survived endless AKP ridicule and intimidation. He has now gained a measure of revenge. The CHPs successes will boost all the opposition parties and renew hope that democracy in Turkey, almost given up for dead last year, may yet be disinterred. It is too soon to say. He does not face a national election until 2023. He has proved his staying power again and again, and his base support, mainly rural, remains strong at about 44%. But there is one wild card beyond his control: the state of the economy a determining factor in the weekend polls. Erdoans untutored efforts to block interest rate rises, boost prestige infrastructure spending and ignore rising debt levels have helped propel Turkey into recession, exacerbating currency, inflation and unemployment problems. Rocketing food prices, and shortages of household staples, spell trouble for any politician, anywhere even a grand Turkish sultan. The price of onions may yet be Erdoans undoing. | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/01/is-turkish-poll-shock-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-erdogan |
What do Andrew Marrs paintings tell us about his views on Brexit? | The BBC journalist has to remain neutral on the subject, but his views on Brexit may have crept into his artwork Andrew Marr says making art in your leisure time is a source of wellbeing and has written movingly about sketching after his stroke. So theres a poignancy in the way the nightmare of Brexit infects his latest paintings of Highland landscapes and circuses. As an eminent BBC journalist, Marr cant really speak his mind on the issue paralysing and splintering the nation, but there is no rule against artistic expressionism. So Brexit symbols have danced into his pictures. Gold stars on blue in one of them look to me like a sign that his heart lies in Europe. The more you look at this painting, the more unequivocally it celebrates European civilisation. As well as gold stars, a gold figure dances wildly in the big blue EU yonder. Marr has mixed a reference to the EU flag with a homage to Matisses cut-out image Icarus, of a figure against a blue sky studded with gold stars. There is nothing subtle about this. It is a painted love letter to the EU and to the greatness of European art. Look longer still and its clear he is heartbroken. Matisses Icarus depicts a stricken, bloodied airman falling to disaster. Marrs golden dancer has a river of blood spewing from it. The joy is undercut by pain. Brexit is a tragedy. Marr shows all this as a painting within a painting, with his own spattered palettes in the foreground. He is mourning Europe by painting it thinking of Matisse, and war, and the Fall of Icarus. Our national crisis improves Marrs paintings. Sigmund Freud claimed creativity is a sublimation of repressed thoughts. Marr has turned his position to his advantage. Forbidden to declare his view of a topic that dominates his work life, those pent up feelings intensify his art. Still, he paints to get away from all that. Not all his new paintings are tempestuous meditations on the Europe were losing. A lot depict the River Gruinard in Wester Ross, a favourite haunt far from the madding news cycle. He loses himself in speckles of foam and leaves. You cant blame him for seeking reassurance in nature. | https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2019/apr/01/andrew-marr-brexit-art |
What's 'Fortnite' Doing For April Fools' Day 2019? | Credit: Epic Games I recall something like this happening last year. April Fools' Day would seem like a slam dunk for Fortnite: Battle Royale. Here we have a wacky game predicated on constant iteration and weird new items. And here we have a holiday that practically begs the world's corporations to do some sort of relatively harmless weird thing in order to call attention to themselves: Fortnite would seem to fit this mold pretty well. And yet here we are near noon on April Fools' Day, and there's not a peep from Fortnite yet. There are plenty of jokes on the subreddit, but nothing in the game itself. People seem a bit confused. Last year, people expected the developer to go big for April Fools--very big. This was before the "plot" of the game has started in any way, and the biggest hint at what would become the map-shifting, bizarre odyssey that the game went on was a little comet slowly growing larger in the sky. At one point, people assumed that this would be a legitimate, large-scale April Fools' joke, smashing into Tilted Towers and remaking the game's most popular landing zone. That...didn't happen. The comet did totally remake the map and kick off a long strange odyssey of rifts, cubes and floating islands, but April Fools' Day itself was much tamer. The developer made impulse grenades and boogie bombs more powerful, and people made some videos about it. I was expecting something else today, but there doesn't seem to be anything yet. It would be an uncharacteristic meta-joke from the not-typically subtle Epic Games: the joke is that there is no April Fools' joke! We'll see if something pops up in game soon but at this point, I'd be surprised if there was anything all that big. I could still be wrong! I would love to see some sort of superpowered, over-the-top LTM show up at some point. Maybe it's for the best: the community is not happy with Epic Games right now thanks to some unpopular rule changes that have people clamoring for the developer to revert back to some previously popular rules that encouraged aggressive play and constant combat. And when something like this happens, people are usually upset when the developer does basically anything besides the thing that they want. We'll find out more about that soon, I'm sure, but for right now I'll keep an eye on whatever is happening with April Fools. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2019/04/01/whats-fortnite-doing-for-april-fools-day-2019/ |
What Drove BlackBerry's Q4 Results? | 2019 Bloomberg Finance LP BlackBerry published its Q4 and fiscal 2019 results on Friday, with strong results that beat Trefis expectations and drove a more than 13% rally in the stock price in Fridays trading session. Below we outline some of the key takeaways from the companys earnings. BlackBerrys Q4 revenue stood at $255 million, up 9.4% year-over-year. Software And Services revenues of $246 million were up 16% year over year, while Service Access Fees of $9 million were down by 52% year-over-year. Software And Services revenues of $246 million were up 16% year over year, while Service Access Fees of $9 million were down by 52% year-over-year. BlackBerrys improved monetization of patents drove its Licensing business. Growth in the automotive vertical and higher uptake of QNX embedded software drove the Technology Solutions business in the quarter. Revenue declined due to the implementation of the ASC 606 accounting standards. The business recurring revenue mix was up 93% from 88% last quarter The business continued to penetrate highly-regulated verticals. In the Government vertical, the company created a D.C.-based subsidiary Blackberry Government Solutions to further its Federal government reach The business also won 400 contracts from financial services customers. BlackBerrys management has guided for full-year revenue growth of 23% to 27% Management expects double-digit revenue growth in billings from the Enterprise business, while the Technology Solutions business should outgrow the enterprise UEM business Consolidation of full-year revenue from the Cylance acquisition, closed in late February, will also drive growth. Cylance posted revenue of ~$170 million the 12 months ended February 2019, with 25% to 30% growth projected for fiscal 2020 Our interactive dashboard analysis on BlackBerrys potential non-infotainment automotive revenues in 2020 details our forecasts for the companys automotive revenues moving forward, particularly non-infotainment revenues, which we believe will be a key long-term value driver. You can modify our forecasts to arrive at your own estimates. In addition, see all Trefis data for Technology Companies here. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/04/01/what-drove-blackberrys-q4-results/ |
Was Pursuit Of Bryce Harper An Indication That Dodgers Plan To Increase Payroll? | Getty I never thought Dodgers needed Bryce Harper. Im fine with him in Philadelphia. And I couldnt be happier with Cody Bellinger in right field. Bellinger is clearly the better defensive right fielder, the better center fielder, and obviously, the better first baseman. Before its all said and done, Bellinger may be the better hitter too. May be; it could happen. I do not for a second fault the Dodgers for passing on a mega-deal for the former Nationals franchise player. But I do wonder if the Los Angeles contingent visiting Harper in his hometown Las Vegas in late February was a mere flirtation, or the genuine article. Or if they even knew themselves. And more importantly, I'm curious about what, if anything, management plans to do with that $45 million they were prepared to spend for Harper but didn't. I don't know. But I think L.A. is inclined to pass on the big money available free agent, content with the team in the room today, and play the season by ear. If there is a significant injury, and a summer trade makes sense, I think they'll be willing to go over the the collective bargaining threshold ($206 million in 2019) to make a key addition. By getting below the CBT in 2018, Los Angeles reset the repeater tax, remember, so they're free of the escalating fees they'd paid in recent seasons. If the club were to spend more than the $206 million CBT, but remain even a dollar below the second threshold of $226 million, they'd pay a 20 percent tax on whatever that number turns out to be. I can see the Dodgers doing just that, but not a dollar more, regardless of need and available talent. For example, let's say Clayton Kershaw were to be injured during the first half. Injured beyond his current shoulder condition, that is. He's missed time in four straight seasons and the club is rushing him back now -- which is never a good thing, especially after throwing a grand total of zero exhibition game pitches -- so it's within the realm. And let's say the Dodgers stick to their plan to limit Julio Urias to whatever number of innings they have in mind. They need an arm, dig deep into the recesses of their mind (and heart, and soul) and trade for free-agent-to-be Madison Bumgarner. It's an extreme example, I know, and the Dodgers rarely deal with San Francisco, but bear with me. They trade for Bumgarner at the exact midpoint of the season, following game number 81 of 162. The Giants' left-hander and World Series hero, working under a contract extension signed in 2012, will be paid $12 million this year. We don't know what other moves have been made by mid-season or what may come after a Bumgarner, but say for the sake of argument, MadBum's $12 mil puts L.A. at $210 mil in 2019 CBT money. Getty In such a scenario the Dodgers would pay a 20 percent tax on the $4 million overage, which if my arithmetic is correct equals $800,000, which in effect makes Bumgarner a $12.8 million Dodger player. Putting aside what you think of that particular player in Dodger Blue, I believe the powers that be would authorize that expense. And a few others right up to but without going over the $226 million threshold and a 30 percent penalty. I think the Dodgers will go it for this summer. If they have a need, and they might not. They're pretty good as they are now. But if they were willing to blow past the first and second CBT thresholds for Harper at $45 mil, and if they have a need, I think they'll be creative and spend considerably less for one, two or three new men. And remember, glove conquers all. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardcole/2019/04/01/was-pursuit-of-bryce-harper-an-indication-that-dodgers-plan-to-increase-payroll/ |
Will Technology Ever Replace Teachers? | originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. Answer by Katie Fang, Founder & CEO at SchooLinks.com, on Quora: I get this question quite often- I run an AI powered college and career readiness platform, which has lots of automation to make counselors, students, and districts workflows a lot more efficient. However, the word automation has a very negative connotation in education, more so than in other industries. When you mention automation in a school district (it obviously depends on the culture of the community), it is as if you are not only destroying their entire Maslows hierarchy pyramid from the very bottom, but also destroying their students future by taking away all the jobs. I get where the sentiment comes from. My answer is a yes and a no. It depends on what your job really is. Technology should change the way we work in a positive way. We all want our students to be in the lead and learn and use cutting edge technology so that when they are in the workforce they can be effective and current. I think the answer is no. After all, it will be better for our students, if they can derive more value out of each experience they have from a specialized entity. A simple example is that it is way more efficient and error free to have a computer program handle error checking for a graduation plan, as opposed to having an overworked counselor go through a stack of papers late at night after a long day. Now, Id like to talk about the concept of value, and how that is related to the no part of my answer. I dont think any of our partner districts are really paying for our product. I fundamentally believe that people pay for products and services because of the value they can derive from it. The value of being in an education system extends far beyond the content you learn or the report card you receive. I truly believe in the phrase. We are all made of our experiences, and whether these experiences are online or offline, human interaction is what powers it. I would argue that how teachers create, shape and engage students in these experiences is the most important value add. To continue with that course planning example - let the program handle the error checking, while counselors have meaningful discussions with students about why theyre choosing courses and how that will impact their future. That experience is going to be much more beneficial for the counselor and the student than checking for graduation requirements ever could. In short, humans are irreplaceable, but tasks and jobs are automatable. It extends way beyond the education industry, so we all need to learn to adapt and increase and realize our value within this technological evolution. This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions: | https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/04/01/will-technology-ever-replace-teachers/ |
Which ESport Will Be The Most Popular In Five Years? | originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. Answer by Chris Hopper, Head of Esports for North America at Riot Games, on Quora: Ill preface this by saying that its really tough to predict the gaming market in five years - back in March 2014, we hadnt yet heard about Overwatch, much less PUBG, Fortnite, Apex Legends, COD: Black Ops 4, or Magic Arena. Hearthstone had JUST been released, and nobody knew what the esports scene would look like for an online card game. While there are a couple of games that were considered esports in 2014 and are still alive today (Dota 2, CS:GO), League was redefining developer investment in an esport, as well as pro player support, and continues to lead in innovation today. This leads me to two possible answers to your question: it could still be League (our game development philosophy keeps the game fresh for players, pros, and viewers, there is still strong global appeal for both the game and the esport, and there are no intentions to release LoL 2 and confuse players/pros), or it could be a game that we havent yet seen. Keep in mind the new tendency of game developers to shroud titles in secrecy until they are incredibly close to release (the same-day launch success of Apex Legends validating this) paired with large studios like Blizzard and Riot investing heavily in R&D, and Id imagine we currently dont know anything about the top new game of 2024. What has been made clear, however, is that the biggest esport of 2024 will need to feature several key characteristics: strong developer support (both financial and publishing), passionate fans, clear and demonstrable mastery of the game, easy means of observing pro-level play, and global appeal for the game. Im confident in the future of LoL, as the investment that we continue to make in refining gameplay and the user experience couples well with the eco-system expansions that we push for (Marvel Comics collaboration, art book, K/DA music release, Mechs vs. Minions, etc), so Im definitely not going to bet against League, but if I had to pick something else, Im betting we havent seen it yet. This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions: | https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/04/01/which-esport-will-be-the-most-popular-in-five-years/ |
How Long Does Lava Flow Last During A Volcanic Eruption? | originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. Answer by Emily Devenport, studied Geology, on Quora: A volcano may not spew lava (as runny stuff) at all. How it erupts depends on many factors, including the ratio of silica-to-iron in the magma. The runny kind of lava is pahoehoe, and you see that sort of eruption from rift volcanoes (which often form cinder cones) or from shield volcanoes, like the ones that have been creating the Hawaiian Island chain. A shield volcano can erupt for years, as long as the hot spot underneath it keeps feeding magma into its chambers. Another sort of eruption is the pyroclastic flow that erupts from volcanoes like Mt. Saint Helens. In those sorts of eruptions, the pressure of heat and volatile gases causes a failure in the structure of a stratovolcano, allowing the gas to expand. Its a lot like what happens if you shake up a can of soda and then pop the lid the gases create a bubbly mixture and explode out of the can. In a pyroclastic flow, the magma in the volcano mixes with the gases and gets whipped up into ash and cinders they form a column that can collapse under its own weight and flow down the side of the volcano, sometimes at speeds up to 200 km an hour. How long that eruption will last depends on how much pressure the volcano continues to generate (or how much stuff is left to spew, depending on how you want to look at it). Some volcanoes have erupted more than once, as your question implies. They blow off that initial pressure, and then build it up again. How long that takes depends on the initial source of the magma, and whether it continues to rise under the volcano. But eruptions also have phases. A good example of that is Sunset Crater in Arizona. It began as a rift eruption, built a cinder cone as the low-silica lava mixed with hot gases from groundwater, then blew pahoehoe lava from the base of the cone a couple of times. As it expended that runnier stuff, it eventually began to squeeze out lighter lava that was higher in silica, in territory next to the cinder cone instead of inside it (that area is referred to as a volcanic field). This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions: | https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/04/01/how-long-does-lava-flow-last-during-a-volcanic-eruption/ |
Is the FDA Misleading Congress About the Safety of Imported Medicines? | 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 Nations 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 well send you three meaningful actions you can take each week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nations journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign up for Take Action Now and well 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. The one issue that unifies our divided America is the high cost of prescription drugs. Congress has taken the hint, decrying the greed of the pharmaceutical industry at hearings that seem to be held almost weekly, and sounding the alarm for immediate action, which seems to never come. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported that one in four Americans struggle to fill their prescriptions because of cost, which can often lead to illness or even death. We are in the midst of a public-health crisis. Ad Policy One of the solutions currently working its way through Congress would permit patients to obtain lower-cost medication from pharmacies in Canada and other countries, where drug prices are frequently as much as 80 percent lower than those at US pharmacies. Americans havent waited for Congress to act, however: Despite the fact that its federally prohibited under most circumstances, an estimated 19 million Americans have already imported medicines for personal use because of cost. To import, some travel to Canada and Mexico, while others order online or through programs connecting them with international pharmacies. For many, its great savings, but for others its their only option. While individuals are never prosecuted for this technical violation of law, the FDAs non-enforcement policy does not preclude the agency from harassing businesses that facilitate safe personal drug importation. Where serious dangers lurk, the FDA does and should take enforcement actions, including against rogue online pharmacies, opioid imports, and counterfeit drug sales. But that focus and enforcement activity, funded by public moneys, should not be misused to protect the profit margins of drug companies. On February 27, in a hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for FDA funding, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree asked thenFDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb for his thoughts on drug importation from Canada, noting that people from Maine can buy much lower cost medicines across the border [watch from 1:34:23 for this exchange]. Commissioner Gottlieb asserted that people who buy medications while in Canada are safe. The Nation In contrast, Gottlieb voiced his deep concerns with online pharmacies purporting to source their drugs in Canada or other First World markets but are not. We are seeing a lot of counterfeit drugs being sold through those channels, asserted Gottlieb, going on to say that there is a lot of investigative activity and some fairly egregious things [the FDA] are finding when we look at these websitesso we have deep public-health concerns. The commissioners remarks would lead Congress to believe that the FDA is spending taxpayer dollars investigating and taking actions against counterfeit drug sales, rogue online pharmacies, and serious threats to the public health. Yet, a day before that testimony, the FDA issued a warning letter to a company called CanaRx Services, Inc. to stop facilitating imports of medicines. In its press release, the FDA weaves a sinister narrative, using language that is eerily similar to that employed by organizations and experts funded by drug companies: Operations like CanaRx use their names to imply that patients are receiving medicines approved in Canada, when its likely that patients are receiving medicines from other countries, and which may be sub-potent, super-potent or counterfeit. Current Issue View our current issue Which would be all fine and good, if it were even a little bit true. CanaRx is contracted by self-insured cities, schools, companies, and other organizations to fill the prescriptions of municipal retirees and employees at licensed pharmacies in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. No counterfeit drugs have been discovered, and there is no evidence that the medicines are coming from any other country than those mentioned by CanaRx. The company has helped save American taxpayers and patients about $250 million over the past 20 years. Far from being a dangerous fraud, CanaRx is actually a perfect example of how we can make saving money on personal drug importation safe. Theyre also not even an online pharmacy. CanaRx and the websites they work with are available only to participants in the program. In contrast, international online pharmacies are available to the general public. While many online pharmacies are rogue sites, others are very safe, like the ones my company verifies. Just ask Roger Bate, an economist and expert on counterfeit drugs from the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute: His peer-reviewed research and testing over the last 10 years show that properly verified international online pharmacies are just as safe as US pharmacies. This reality foils the FDAs public stance on the issue of online pharmacies, and it should not be used to blemish non-online pharmacy options, like CanaRxs program. The evidence shows that its services are successful at keeping pharmaceutical costs down, safely. In fact, thats probably why the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the pharmaceutical industrys trade group, applauded the FDAs efforts to crack down on CanaRx. The FDA needs to properly informnot misleadCongress about how and why our taxpayer money is being spent on investigations related to prescription-drug importation, especially when these investigations serve mainly to protect one industrys profits at the expense of tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford their medication. Lets be perfectly clear: Programs like CanaRx and safe personal drug importation, generally, whether on- or off-line, are vital for American patients who need access to the much lower prices from pharmacies in other countries. For example, the drug Januvia, which treats type 2 diabetes, costs about $1,700 for a three-month supply at chain pharmacies in the United States. Januvia is manufactured by the drug company Merck in the UK. A three-month supply of the exact same drug can be purchased online from a UK pharmacy for just $275. The reason thats the case is because our system is broken. Instead of trying to stop safe personal-medicine imports, lets reduce the demand for them by substantially lowering drug prices here. My organization, Prescription Justice, supports ending the ban on Medicare drug-price negotiations, stopping patent games that prevent lower-cost generics from coming to market, and removing giveaways to drug companies from trade agreements, like the revised NAFTA fiasco, that seek to extend the pharmaceutical industrys monopoly pricing on expensive biologic drugs. We also support legislation to officially legalize importation of lower-cost prescription drugsbut lowering prices here would mitigate the need for such importation. Until we actually lower prices in the United States, the FDA should not aggravate the crisis of high drug prices in America by trying to shut down CanaRx or other avenues of safe personal-drug importation. That would just be protecting Big Pharmas profits, not patients. | https://www.thenation.com/article/canarx-prescriptions-drug-importation-fda/ |
Is it time to start building more offices in Uptown and downtown Dallas? | Uptown and downtown Dallas' office market may be ready for some new construction. The office tower in Uptown's $350 million Union development is more than 90 percent leased. And the nearby Park District's PwC Tower just hit 85 percent leased to office tenants. The only big block of totally new office space downtown is at the Luminary Building, where about 80,000 square feet is still up for grabs. Researchers at commercial property firm JLL estimate that during the current development cycle, 3.2 million square feet of office buildings have been delivered in Uptown and the central business district. About 2.5 million square feet of that space has been leased. With no new office projects starting up in the last 12 months, it's likely that all of Uptown and downtown's new buildings will be full before another property can be built and put on the market. "Demand is still very strong in the Uptown market," said JLL managing director Greg Biggs. "Developers continue to look for development opportunities. "Owners are optimistic yet cautious about speculative development," he said. "They realize there is demand but want to make sure their investors goals will be met." JLL estimates that eight more Uptown and downtown area office buildings totaling more than 3 million square feet are on the drawing boards, waiting for the builders to pull the trigger and break ground. "The question now is whether the next office project to break ground will choose to go spec to potentially take advantage of market timing or delay breaking ground until a lead tenant is identified," JLL said in the new report. One of the next projects likely to start is developer Hillwood Urban's 12-story office building planned at Victory Park. The high-rise will include about 350,000 square feet of space. And north of Uptown in the Knox Street district developers are planning to start soon on a 12-story tower with 250,000 square feet of offices. One thing all the developers and lenders have to be thinking is that this late in the economic cycle, it's easier for project timing to be off. | https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2019/04/01/newsletter-time-start-building-offices-uptown-downtown-dallas |
How are Oregon State athletics faring this year, the past decade? | With the spring sports season at its mid-point during Oregon States 2018-19 athletics year, we thought it was a good time to see how the school has fared in team sports this season. Its impossible to do an apples-to-apples comparison for all sports for OSU athletics during the past decade, as a handful of sports dont take part in a regular schedule of head-to-head competition. Golf, wrestling, gymnastics, track & field, swimming and rowing compete in tournaments and events, with very few head-to-head competitions. Instead, we based this analysis on Oregon States true team sports, the ones that compete with a Pac-12 schedule in addition to non-conference games/matches. Those sports are football, mens and womens soccer, mens and womens basketball, volleyball, baseball and softball. Eight sports all totaled. It would be unfair to total up the wins and losses to see how each year compares, because certain sports, like baseball and softball, play 60 or more games, while football has 12. Instead, we used the win-loss percentage of each sport. Using the win-loss percentage for each sport, here is the collective year-by-year W-L percentage for OSU athletics: Oregon State's athletics win-loss record of the past decade Year W-L pct. Here is the collective win-loss percentage for Beaver football, volleyball, baseball, softball, mens and womens basketball and mens and womens soccer: Oregon State sport-by-sport win-loss percentage for past decade Sport Record W-L pct. Here are the collective win-loss percentages in football, volleyball, baseball, softball, mens and womens basketball and mens and womens soccer for Pac-12 schools in 2018-19: How Pac-12 teams are faring in 2018-19 School W-L pct. Best Worst Stanford .791 Volleyball .971 Men's bkb .483 Arizona State .644 Baseball .961 Volleyball .438 Oregon .637 Women's bkb .891 Softball .419 UCLA .624 Softball .970 Football .250 Washington .616 Softball .829 Women's bkb .344 Arizona .597 Softball .794 Football .417 Utah .524 Women's bkb .667 Baseball .318 Oregon State .491 Baseball .780 Women's soccer .105 California .472 Women's bkb .606 Women's soccer .316 Note: Washington State, USC and Colorado were excluded because they dont have softball or mens soccer teams, and in Colorados case, also no baseball. --Nick Daschel | [email protected] | @nickdaschel Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox. | https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/2019/04/how-are-oregon-state-athletics-faring-this-year-the-past-decade.html |
Who will be Belmont's next coach? | One of the first names that has come up is Lipscomb coach Casey Alexander, who played at Belmont and was a longtime assistant on Byrd's staff. Other likely candidates include current Belmont assistants Brian Ayers and James Strong along with former South Carolina and Western Kentucky coach Darrin Horn, who is now on the staff at Texas. In his sixth season at Lipscomb, Alexander has the Bisons in the National Invitation Tournament Final Four where they will play Wichita State Tuesday (6 p.m.) in the semifinals. Byrd spent 33 years at Belmont and Alexander was his assistant for nearly half of that time. In Alexander's 16 years, Belmont won four Atlantic Sun Conference Tournament championships and made four trips to the NCAA Tournament and one to the NIT. Alexander, a former Brentwood Academy standout point guard, played at Belmont from 1992-95. He helped lead the Bruins to a 119-25 record during his playing career. Alexander established himself among the career leaders in a number of categories and was inducted into the Belmont Hall of Fame in 2005. Buy Photo Lipscomb Coach Casey Alexander gives instructions to his team as Lipscomb plays Liberty in the championship of the Atlantic Sun Conference Tournament at Allen Arena Sunday, March 10, 2019, in Nashville, Tenn. (Photo: Larry McCormack / The Tennessean) Alexander got his first head coaching job in 2012 at Stetson. He left after one season to become the coach at Lipscomb. Ayers, a Clarksville native, has been on Byrd's staff since 1998. He has been the associate head coach the last nine years. Ayers, who played for legendary Lipscomb coach Don Meyer (1989-93), also was an assistant at Vanderbilt and Austin Peay. He also spent one season on the staff at Lipscomb Academy. Strong, a Huntsville, Ala. native, played at Vanderbilt and began his coaching career on Kevin Stallings' staff in 2001. After five seasons at Vanderbilt, Strong went to Furman where he spent five years before joining Byrd's staff at Belmont in 2011. Horn played at Western Kentucky and began his coaching career there as an assistant in 1995. After being on the staffs at Morehead State and Marquette, Horn became the Hilltoppers' head coach in 2003. He was there through 2008 and posted a 111-49 record including a run to the NCAA Sweet 16. Horn was at South Carolina from 2008-12 and posted a 60-63 record. He worked as an analyst at ESPN and the SEC Network before spending the past four seasons as associate head coach on Shaka Smarts staff at Texas. NEWSLETTERS Get the Sports newsletter delivered to your inbox We're sorry, but something went wrong Top and trending sports headlines you need to know for your busy day. Please try again soon, or contact Customer Service at 1-800-342-8237. Delivery: Daily Invalid email address Thank you! You're almost signed up for Sports Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration. More newsletters Reach Mike Organ at 615-259-8021 or on Twitter @MikeOrganWriter. More: Rick Byrd retiring as Belmont basketball coach More: Rick Byrd ponders retirement for first time after Belmont's milestone season | https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2019/04/01/who-replace-rick-byrd-belmont-lipscomb-casey-alexander-darrin-horn/3332553002/ |
Who Is A "Similarly Situated" Employee In An Employment Discrimination Case? | Getty A recent federal court of appeals case sheds new light on the question of who should be considered a "similarly situated employee" as compared to the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. The context in which "similarly situated employee" analysis arises is that, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found, discrimination is often framed as "the act of 'treating like cases differently.'" The 11th Circuit's Decision In Lewis To answer this question, the appellate court summed up the issue presented as: Faced with a defendants motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff asserting an intentional-discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause, or 42 U.S.C. 1981 must make a sufficient factual showing to permit a reasonable jury to rule in her favor. She can do so in a variety of ways, one of which is by navigating the now-familiar three-part burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under that framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by proving, among other things, that she was treated differently from another similarly situated individualin court-speak, a comparator. Texas Dept of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 25859 (1981) (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804). Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia, et al., No: 15-11362, (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). Courts around the country have defined "similarly situated" in differing ways. Thus, the precise definition of who is a similarly situated employee varies depending on the specific legal claim and in which federal court you file your case. Generally, however, a court will look to whether you have identified another employee who has some or all of these characteristics: shares the same supervisor as you; is subject to the the same employment policies or rules as you; performs very similar job tasks and responsibilities (both the number and weight) as you; has similar job performance evaluations and disciplinary history; and approximately the same experience level (including supervisory experience) as you Most courts do not require an exact match on these criteria, but the more similar you are to the other person, the more likely a court will deem them a similarly situated employee. In the recent Lewis decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that its prior decisions on the definition of "similarly situated" had been confusing, at best . Ultimately, however: the 11th Circuit rejected the idea that the similarly situated employee (also called a comparator) must be "nearly identical" and instead held that a comparator must be "similarly situated in all material respects." The 11th Circuit also decided that the analysis of whether comparators exist should be conducted in the initial (prima facie) stage of the case, rather than at the final (pretext) stage. In the Lewis case, the 11th Circuit determined that the plaintiff's comparators were not "similarly situated in all material respects." Some of the factors in this decision were that: the plaintiff and her comparators were placed on leave years apart and under different personnel policies; plaintiff was placed on leave because she had been on unapproved leave while her comparators were placed on leave because they failed a physical fitness test; the plaintiff had not been cleared to return to duty, whereas her comparators theoretically could have returned to dutyNot always be required to identify a similarly situated employee, but it certainly helps It May Not Always Be Required To Identify A Similarly Situated Employee, But It Certainly Helps Not all federal courts require a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case to identify a similarly situated employee. Although appellant certainly could have offered evidence of similarly situated employees in support of her claim, she was not required to offer such evidence in order to make out a prima facie case. Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151, 156 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Bryant v. Aiken Reg. Med. Ctr., 333 F.3d 536, 546 (4th Cir. 2003) (However helpful a showing of a white comparator may be to proving a discrimination claim, it is not a necessary element of such a claim.). Of course, even though it may not be required to show a similarly situated employee who the company treated better, it is almost always more helpful to your case if you can make and prove this comparison. Identify Similarly Situated Employees As Early As Possible Getty The earlier in your case that you can determine if similarly situated employees exist, the better. Given that you will want to show the court that these other employees were very similar to you (job-wise) in most respects, it is vital to obtain as much evidence as possible that establishes this employment likeness. You may be able to uncover this evidence using interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, depositions, and other discovery methods. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericbachman/2019/04/01/who-is-a-similarly-situated-employee-in-an-employment-discrimination-case/ |
Are Hanes Underwear Shoppers Tossing Away Free $1K+ Michael Jordan Cards Inserted In Packages? | Photo by Hanes Since March 11, more than 800,000 specially marked bonus packages of Hanes mens underwear, including boxer briefs and undershirts, have contained a pack of trading cards celebrating the 30th anniversary of Michael Jordans association with the company. A total of 170 different Fleer trading cards have been produced by The Upper Deck Company, each with a picture of Jordan from one of his Hanes advertisements on the front and vital statistics and fun facts on the back, Hanes explains. Cards are inserted randomly in five-card packs. The biggest news is that ten autographed Jordan cards are waiting to be plucked from the packs. One enterprising eBayer somehow got his hands on 75 sealed packs and sold them for $1,400 on the promotions first day. Photo by Hanes For the benefit of Forbes readers, Rich Mueller, the omniscient editor of Sports Collectors Daily, estimated the value of one of the autographed cards: I think what they will sell for depends on how many are ultimately pulled but based on the sales of other numbered Jordan cards and the publicity these have gotten, my wild guess would be they'll sell for at least $1,000 each. There are so many Jordan collectors, though, that I wouldn't be surprised to see them go much higher, especially if there still aren't many listed for sale a month or so from now. Hanes prides itself on forging its partnershipsurely one of, if not, the longest sports endorsement deals in American corporate history with Jordan in 1989, the year he scored the 10,000th point in his basketball career and hit The Shot one of the most dramatic NBA playoff-series winning buzzer beaters in the history of the sport. The odds of finding an autographed Jordan are 10 out of 4,000,000 or 1 out of 400,000, compared to about 1 in 175 million for the Powerball jackpot, according to HuffPost. Photo by Hanes But, adds Mueller, I'm a little surprised we haven't seen at least one of the autographed cards hit eBay yet. It seems like a lot of packages have been opened and these types of promotions don't typically last that long. Because of the product, I think it's possible some of the packs are just getting tossed in the trash by people who are just buying underwear and couldn't care less about anything else inside the package. (Emphasis mine.) In the hobby world I cover, there are collectors who would sooner toss the underwear than the cards. The beauty of Hanes promotion is that both the product and the premium are worth keeping. That hasnt always been the case with merchandise sold with sports cards. Batteries, razor blades, snack cakes, milk, pizza, cookies, candy bars, cheese, peanut butter, beef jerky, you name it...all since the early 90s, Mueller told me. While batteries and razor blades are basic necessities, candy bars and beef jerky are avoidable, less-than-healthy snack options. I happen to be a fairly loyal Hanes customer. I prefer their V-neck t-shirts to the crew-necks featuring the Jordan cards, but in this case I may make an exception. All product packaged with special-edition cards is already out on shelves and available while supplies last. Good luck! | https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidseideman/2019/04/01/are-hanes-underwear-shoppers-tossing-away-free-1k-michael-jordan-cards-inserted-in-packages/ |
Did Issa Rae Just Address Her Rumored Engagement to Louis Diame? | Issa Rae has yet to confirm her engagement to longtime love Louis Diame, but that's not stopping the world from speculating. Rumors about the Insecure actress' relationship status recently surfaced on Instagram Stories when she showed her support for a "cruelty-free makeup industry" with Covergirl. While posing for a selfie, fans couldn't help but spot a gorgeous diamond ring on that finger. Adding fuel to the engagement rumors, Rae was spotted with a diamond on her ring finger on her new Essence cover. While appearing on Monday's episode of The View, Rae brushed off the speculation surrounding the cover, saying with a laugh, "I've got a lot of rings on my finger. I wear jewelry, you know?" | https://www.eonline.com/ap/news/1028690/did-issa-rae-just-address-her-rumored-engagement-to-louis-diame |
Is Fergie rejoining the royal family via a rekindled romance? | Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson have reportedly rekindled their romance. The Duke and Duchess of York - who have daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie together - have remained close friends since their divorce in 1996, and it seems they've now decided to give their romance another chance as they've gotten back together, ITV reports. Rumours of a reconciliation were ignited last weekend when Sarah - who is also known as Fergie - joined Prince Andrew after he completed a number of official royal visits overseas, and the pair enjoyed a private visit to Bahrain, where they were official guests of the Bahrain Crown Prince. This outing marked the first time the Duchess of York has been on a foreign royal visit with the Duke for 25 years. Advertisement Andrew and Fergie have always attended events involving their daughters together. Photo / Getty Images Sarah later took to social media to express that she was enjoying what she called "family time", as the couple were joined by their daughter Beatrice. The trio attended the Bahrain Grand Prix and Sarah posted about the outing on her Instagram account, where used the hashtag "#familytimes". She wrote: Such a joy to be invited to attend the Bahrain Grand Prix with @hrhthedukeofyork and Beatrice. Excited to meet @frankiedettori_ #familytimes @f1 #luckyme (sic)" Meanwhile, Sarah admitted in November that she and Andrew are "the happiest divorced couple in the world". Fergie recalls her wedding to Prince Andrew as the happiest day of her life. Photo / Getty Images She said: "We're the happiest divorced couple in the world. We're divorced to each other, not from each other. We both say it. We are completely compatible. Our bywords are communication, compromise and compassion. "[Our wedding on] July 23, 1986 was the happiest day of my life. Andrew is the best man I know. What he does for Britain is incredible; no one knows how hard he works for his country." And when asked at the time if they'd consider remarriage, she added: "So many people have asked me that, but we're so happy with the way we are right now. We enjoy each other's company; we allow each other to blossom. I know it sounds like a fairy tale but that's the way we are." | https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12218378&ref=rss |
How did my MP vote on Brexit indicative votes? | MPs have been voting on four different options for the next steps in the Brexit process. Options included another referendum, seeking a customs union, staying in the single market, and potentially cancelling Brexit altogether if no deal could be agreed. None of the proposals earned a majority in the second round of so-called "indicative votes" to test Parliamentary support. To find out how your MP voted on each of the options, use the look-up below. Enter a postcode, or the name or constituency of your MP Seat vacant Tap or click here if you cannot see the lookup. Data from Commons Votes Services The customs union proposal put forward by Ken Clarke came closest to securing a majority, failing by just three votes. Last Wednesday it lost by six votes. The option with the most parliamentary support was Joanna Cherry's proposal to hold another public vote to confirm any option agreed by Parliament. It received 280 votes but had 292 against. Nick Boles resigned the Conservative whip after his Common Market 2.0 proposal failed by 21 votes. Please upgrade your browser Your guide to Brexit jargon Use the list below or select a button By Maryam Ahmed, Daniel Dunford and Clara Guibourg | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47779783 |
Should recycling be free? | by Jessie Blaeser Whether you realize it or not, recycling costs money. Its easy to not give a second thought when you toss a plastic bottle into the recycling bin on the street. Some people feel given its benefits on the environment, recycling should be free of charge for consumers who choose to recycle waste. But given Chinas recent rejection of some recycled materials from the U.S., the cost of recycling is going up. Some say its only logical for recycling to cost the consumerthey should even expect prices to rise. Separating your recyclables from your trash is indeed a public service, but its not free. Thought Co. looked to Michael Shapiro, the director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Office of Solid Waste for insight on the average cost of recycling: A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton" Just in the same way you pay to have your trash picked up, someone has to pay to pick up, process, and turn over recycled materials. That burden falls onto the consumer using said recyclable materials. The Michigan state government puts the reason for the cost in plain terms: Recycling costs money because the material must be hauled and managed before it can be used in new products. A service fee is paid to have your garbage picked up at the curb, transferred, and buried at a landfill. Similar to the costs of waste hauling, it also costs money to pick up, transfer, and process recyclables. Recycling is a choice, and it's one Americans should not have any barriers to making. As HuffPost's Erin Schumaker puts it, recycling is a behavior just like eating healthy and exercising; sometimes what we know is best for us is not what we actually do, particularly when the positive consequences are hard to see on a daily basis. According to Schumaker, the most common reason people dont recycle is a lack of accessibility. Even so, 8 percent of people forgo recycling because of cost, and by making recycling free, the behavior-change becomes that much easier for the average person. Jessica Nolan, an associate psychology professor at the University of Scranton, suggests curbside programs in place of community drop-offs for recycling. Or, if curbside pickups are not possible, drop-offs should be placed at grocery stores or other popular community locations. There are structural ways that you can incentivize recycling. The price to recycle is already increasing. In the wake of China's decision to restrict imports of certain recyclables, small towns are struggling to keep prices for curbside pickup low, as waste management and recycling companies have to pay more to process materials. According to Wireds Oliver Milman, the domestic market for recyclables in the U.S. is not as big as you might think. With Chinas new standards in place for the types of materials they will accept, local authorities are left with a choice: recycle materials that are not worth much more than regular trash, or send these materials to landfills with the rest. Milman reports: It is virtually impossible to meet the stringent contamination standards established in China, said a spokesperson for the city of Philadelphia, who added that the cost of recycling has become a major impact on the citys budget, at around $78 a ton. Making recycling free solves nothing. The entire system needs to be overhauled in order to survive. Some people feel that recycling should at least be free in public spaces, if not free for all manner of large organizationsbusinesses included. It may have taken some time, but many Americans do try to recycle when they can. These days, it almost feels wrong to toss a Coke bottle into the trash. As a result, when businesses don't pay for recycling, some see it as a "stingy" or "wasteful" move. As one person writes on Twitter: I agree that it should be free, I also am not a trash expert and cant speak at all to how our city deals with it or not. I would like to see compost be free and recycling more accessible in public spaces. Often we dont have the option when we arent in private spaces It seems many are in agreement that recycling should be free for all U.S. residents, making the entire process a true public service. @Cardifftweeter @cardiffcouncil @AnnaMcMorrin @cardiffonline secret spy (@michael55073693) February 14, 2019 The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Local Media, LLC property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt, on Instagram @TheTylt or on Facebook, wed love to hear what you have to say. | https://www.cleveland.com/tylt/2019/04/should-recycling-be-free.html |
Will Trump Really Close the Southern Border? | Hunter DeRensis Immigration, Americas As migrants surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, the president is considering drastic action. It's something that I'm sure we'll be looking into and studying, Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers said on Monday, making the prospect sound more dubious. The it in question is, of course, closing the U.S. border with Mexico. President Donald Trump has been vowing to close Americas southern border should Mexico fail to halt the flow of asylum seekers moving north. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is up in arms at the prospect, but administration officials such as Kellyanne Conway are saying that it isnt a bluff. Commentator Ann Coulter, who has singed Trump for his failure to build the wall, approvingly and irreverently tweeted today: As the worlds leading consumer of margaritas & guacamole, I nevertheless would fully support a shortage of avocados if it also meant a shortage of illegals. The cause of conservative ire is the rapid recent surge in migrants, reaching 100,000 in March, the highest rate since 2008. Migrant encounters for Fiscal Year 2019 are predicted to reach one million, the highest since 2000. Kevin McAleenan, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told an assembled press conference on Wednesday last week that the countrys immigration system had reached its breaking point. CBP is facing an unprecedented humanitarian and border security crisis all along our Southwest border, McAleenan told reporters. The primary example he used was El Paso, Texas, where the border processing center has reached 400 percent capacity. Pictures of migrant families housed under a bridge, surrounded by a chain-linked fence and wire, are provoking indignation on social media. Authorities announced this morning that theyll be closing the holding pen. But this small victory due to domestic outrage will not alleviate the lack of physical structures to house the migrant wave, including 40,000 children in March alone. McAleenan concluded with his fear that it's just a matter of time before a preventable tragedy occurs. The administrations punitive response to the crisis was to cut off financial aid to the Guatemalan, Honduran, and Salvadoran governments who they believe have not done enough to stop the migrants from traveling north, and to threaten the closure of the U.S.-Mexico border. If Mexico doesnt immediately stop ALL illegal immigration coming into the United States throug [sic] our Southern Border, I will be CLOSINGthe Border, or large sections of the Border, next week. This would be so easy for Mexico to do, but they just take our money and talk. Besides, we lose so much money with them, especially when you add in drug trafficking etc. ), that the Border closing would be a good thing! said President Donald Trump in a short sequence of tweets on Friday. Mexico must use its very strong immigration laws to stop the many thousands of people trying to get into the USA. Our detention areas are maxed out & we will take no more illegals. Next step is to close the Border! This will also help us with stopping the Drug flow from Mexico! tweeted the president again on Saturday, with a retweet Monday morning for good effect. Closing the border would the latest in a series of attempts by this administration to stem the human tide. On February 15, President Trump declared a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States, where he ordered the redirection of billions of dollars in the Department of Defenses budget towards the construction of a wall along porous parts of the Mexican border. Congress, having refused to appropriate the necessary funding, voted to terminate the emergency declaration, a vote that included a dozen Republican defections. When the resolution arrived at the Oval Office, President Trump issued the first veto of his presidency. Closing the border would mean shutting down ports of entry and preventing the legal exchange of goods and the legal movement of people. For instance, shipments of vegetables would be stopped at the border, truck drivers blocked, and tourists turned away. According to McAleenan, 40 percent of the Border Patrols manpower is being used up at legal ports of entry transporting and caring for migrant families. At the same time, 90 percent of the migrants who crossed the border in March did so between the ports of entry. This disjuncture, supporters of the presidents plan argue, would be alleviated if more Border Patrol agents were moved away from ports of entry. This would be accomplished by closing them down. | https://news.yahoo.com/trump-really-close-southern-border-165000373.html |
Could banana peel be the next big thing in vegan meat alternatives? | By now you've probably heard of loads of vegan "meat" alternatives, such as soy mince, pea protein meatballs, mushroom burgers, or maybe even jackfruit pulled pork. Well, now there's apparently a hot new "meat" option: banana skin. And it can be used in a variety of vegan dishes. According to food blogger, Melissa Copeland, aka The Stingy Vegan, the skin is completely edible. To prove it she shared a video on her blog last week demonstrating how to use it to make the perfect "pulled pork" sandwich. You may feel a little squeamish at the thought of biting into a bitter banana peel, and the blogger notes she too was a sceptic to begin with: Advertisement "I was super sceptical about it but brave enough to try it. Turns out it works! "You are probably just as sceptical as I was about banana peels so let me put your mind at rest: no, they are not bitter and no it doesn't taste like banana. The trick is to choose bananas that are not quite ripe yet as the peels are firmer and thicker, and scrape out the white skin part from the inside." First, she recommends scraping the inside with a spoon to get rid of all white flesh. Then she demonstrates shredding the skin with a fork before mixing it with olive oil and spices and frying it in water and BBQ sauce. Copeland then serves the creation in a seeded bun with coleslaw on top, to make it look the part. It turns out she isn't the first to try the wacky offering either: Fellow food bloggers note they also use banana peel in fishless fishcakes, faux meatballs and even to make bacon. Although not as rich in potassium as a banana, the peel contains vitamin B6, B12, magnesium and potassium, and is a source of fibre. | https://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=12218461&ref=rss |
Is it Alabama vs. LSU for 4-star D-lineman McKinnley Jackson? | George County (Miss.) defensive lineman McKinnley Jackson has more than a dozen major-college offers, but many recruiting observers see his recruitment as LSU vs. Alabama. "I'm not going to say that," Jackson said. "It's a little bit of everybody vs. everybody. It's something like that." Jackson, a 6-foot-1 1/2, 330-pound defensive tackle stood out during 1-on-1 drills during The Opening regional in Atlanta late last month, was named one of the top five defensive linemen at the recruiting showcase, and earned an invitation to mid-summer The Opening Finals in Frisco, Texas. Jackson is currently ranked as the nations No. 53 overall prospect and the No. 1-ranked player in Mississippi, according to the 247Sports Composite Rankings. Jackson recently visited Auburn, plans to visit Clemson this spring, and said Ole Miss has made him " a real-deal priority." Those are all indications his recruitment is more than LSU vs. Alabama. Alabama and LSU went head-to-head for defensive tackle Ishmael Sopsher, a 6-foot-3 330-pounder from Amite, Louisiana, last year, and Alabama won that head-to-head battle. Jackson said he see bright days ahead for Alabama. Everybody was thunderstruck when they lost, especially the way they lost, he said, referring to the national-title game loss to Clemson. Im sure theyre going to get back to it. Their program aint ever going to fall down, but its going to come back to a national championship team. Alabama currently has 14 commitments for the Class of 2020, including St. Frances (Md.) defensive end Chris Braswell and defensive tackles Jayson Jones of Calera and Pickens Countys Jah-Marien Latham. LSU currently has 10 committed players, including St. Frances (Md.) defensive end Demon Clowney, Shadow Creek (Texas) defensive end Alec Bryant and Haynesville (La.) defensive tackle CamRon Jackson. See Jacksons highlights: | https://www.nola.com/sports/2019/04/is-it-alabama-vs-lsu-for-4-star-d-lineman-mckinnley-jackson.html |
What time, TV channel does Oregon play in Womens Final Four? | EUGENE The game time and television network are set for Oregons game in the Womens Final Four. No. 2 seed Oregon (33-4) will face the winner of No. 1 seed Baylor (35-1) and No. 2 seed Iowa in the first national semifinal at Amalie Arena in Tampa, Fla. at 4 p.m. PT Friday on ESPN2. If Oregon wins, it will face the winner of the No. 2 seed UConn (35-2) and winner of No. 1 seed Notre Dame (34-3) and No. 2 seed Stanford (32-4) in the national championship on Sunday (3 p.m., ESPN). Those teams play at 6:30 p.m. Friday on ESPN2. | https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2019/04/what-time-tv-channel-does-oregon-play-in-womens-final-four.html |
Could conscientious objection defeat Quebec's secularism law? | Constitutional lawyer Julius Grey says Quebecs proposed secularism law could be fought using the tactics of the civil disobedience movement that helped speed the end of the Vietnam War, undo segregation laws in the United States and abolish federal abortion laws in Canada. As municipalities, school boards and teachers federations promise to defy Bill 21, which would ban government employees including police officers and teachers from wearing religious symbols, Grey is suggesting those acts of defiance could contribute to the eventual dissolution of the regulation if it becomes law. Other constitutional lawyers are studying ways to challenge the proposed legislation, including battling the issue in court. Defying the law is a well-established legal activity in certain circumstances, Grey told the Montreal Gazette. It has to be very narrowly circumscribed there has to be a very special conscience-driven concern. I think there may be an issue in this case if you are asked not to hire certain people, or promote certain people. Ive always maintained that disobedience ultimately changes the law. Precedence can be found in the actions of U.S students who refused the draft for the Vietnam War, or blacks who would not sit in segregated areas on buses or in movie theatres in the 1950s. Those who defied were arrested and charged, but gradually the refusal to live by those laws had an effect. The same could be said of Canadian juries who refused to pronounce Montreal abortion clinic doctor Henry Morgentaler guilty, despite clear legal guidelines that showed he was guilty. It was a principled refusal to follow the law, on a narrow issue, Grey said. On Saturday, Montreal West Mayor Beny Masella promised he would not obey any law that bans government employees from wearing religious symbols, following in the paths of the English Montreal and Lester B. Pearson school boards, and the municipality of Cte-St-Luc and Westmount city councils. Masella said all members of the Association of Suburban Municipalities, of which he is the president, oppose any provision of Bill 21 that applies to municipal hiring. In todays relatively conservative society, the concept of defying the law makes many shudder with horror, Grey said. But in the 1950s, 60s and 70s there was considerable debate on the concept of civil disobedience and what famed American philosopher John Rawls called conscientious refusal. So if my conscience says when I interview people I cant look at religion, I cant look at gender, I cant look at sexual orientation, and you are forcing me to look at religion, I must say I cant, Grey said. Because the Legault government has invoked the notwithstanding clause which normally pre-empts court challenges and overrides both Canada and Quebecs charters of rights and freedoms, Grey said the first recourse is to bring Bill 21 before the United Nations Human Rights Committee. If that fails, those who would deny it can do so on the basis of conscience, he said. The Quebec government could theoretically hit institutions who refuse to comply with charges in court, an injunction, or the possibility of withholding funds. The office of Quebec Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette did not respond to questions Monday regarding how defiant institutions would be penalized. Spokesperson Marc-Andr Gosselin said all parties are invited to take part in the parliamentary debates on the issue, and we are confident that at the end of the process, they will apply the law. Catherine McKenzie, the legal counsel for The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the National Council of Canadian Muslims both intend to fight the bill said experts are still investigating legal challenges. They include exploring whether Bill 21 impacts areas of the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms where the notwithstanding clause cannot be used; whether the provincial government is overstepping its jurisdiction and straying into federal territory; and whether the law could be defying international treaties. They will also study whether the bill violates fundamental principles of the rules of law, including whether it is understandable by citizens, because it doesnt define what religious symbols are or set out a process to enforce the law. A first potential step might be to get a stay from having the law go into force, McKenzie said. A case like this could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Despite the government saying over and over again that this will all be settled by June, if there are legal challenges and there already is a legal challenge (one of the provinces largest teachers federations is taking the government to court to block any future head count of teachers who wear religious symbols) this could take years, McKenzie said. [email protected] | https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/could-conscientious-objection-defeat-quebecs-secularism-law |
Can Biden escape 'creepy Uncle Joe'? | Measles. Tons of human feces. An alleged "big slow kiss." It's all in Monday's Short List. But first, a reminder: Pollution is the worst. A pregnant sperm whale found dead in Italy had nearly 50 pounds of plastic in her stomach. Joe Biden and an alleged 'slow kiss' A woman whose photo with Joe Biden has been used to claim the former vice president has a history of inappropriately touching women came to his defense as the claims threatened his anticipated presidential campaign. Photographers captured Biden's face pressed close behind Stephanie Carter's right ear during a Pentagon ceremony in 2015. Critics used that image to depict Biden as "creepy Uncle Joe" on social media and in memes. "The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful," Carter, the wife of ex-Defense Secretary Ash Carter, said Sunday. That same day, Biden released a statement saying he doesn't think he's "acted inappropriately." Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman, alleged Friday that Biden smelled her hair and gave her a "big slow kiss on the back of my head" at a rally in 2014. Stephanie Carter says Joe Biden is "a close friend" who supported her on a big day when her husband, Ash, was sworn in as secretary of defense. (Photo: Alex Wong, Getty Images) 'Staggering' waves of migrants prompt Trump to threaten drastic actions President Donald Trump plans to cut off millions of dollars in aid to Central American nations whose migrants are U.S.-bound, and he threatened to seal off the entire southern border. In Texas, migrants cross in unprecedented numbers, overwhelming federal facilities and leaders. Its staggering, McAllen City Manager Roy Rodriguez said. That's happening as the United States tries to renegotiate its trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. Here's a breakdown of what's happening at the southern border. Migrants held in temporary fencing underneath the Paso Del Norte Bridge await processing on March 28 in El Paso. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has temporarily closed all highway checkpoints along the 268-mile stretch of border. (Photo: Christ Chavez, Getty Images) Real quick Our biggest airlines brought down by a computer bug Planes from airlines including Southwest, American and Delta were temporarily grounded Monday because of a computer outage. If youre traveling Monday, you can expect lingering delays as airlines catch up. The issues were caused by a program that provides weight-and-balance information needed to grant clearance for takeoff, the Federal Aviation Administration said. Passengers complaining about the delays on Twitter said they were told it was a pilot paperwork issue. Measles (yes, measles) is back An entirely preventable disease is closing in on a record number of cases, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention said. Amid an anti-vaccination movement that persists despite debunked threats from the vaccine, the CDC said 387 measles cases were confirmed from Jan. 1 to March 28 across 15 states, an increase of 73 cases last week alone. Its gotten so bad in New York that one county declared a state of emergency, citing more than 150 measles cases. The county barred unvaccinated youths under 18 from public places for 30 days. Human feces 66 tons thaw out in Alaska Theres good news and bad news at Denali, North Americas tallest mountain. The bad news is that the 66 tons of frozen feces left by climbers on the Alaska summit is expected to melt out of the glacier in the coming decades, potentially as soon as this summer, a process thats speeding up in part because of global warming. The good news is that this year, for the first time, the guide companies that lead many of the 1,200 climbers who attempt the summit each year voluntarily decided to start packing out their ... you get it. A group led by RMI Expeditions guides climbs Denali, the tallest peak in North America, in Alaska. (Photo: RMI Expeditions) Kirk Bado chipped in on this compilation of stories from across the USA TODAY Network. Sign up for "The Short List" newsletter here. Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/01/southwest-airlines-joe-biden-donald-trump-measles-mondays-news/3331900002/ | https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/01/southwest-airlines-joe-biden-donald-trump-measles-mondays-news/3331900002/ |
Should Airlines Consider Banning Alcohol On Aircraft? | April Fool! Not exactly. Drunk and out-of-control passengers are becoming a real problem, groping and assaulting flight attendants, fighting other passengers and air marshals, attempting to open the aircraft door mid-flight and attempting to get into the cockpit, among other issues. To paraphrase the late Rick James, like cocaine, alcohol is a hell of a drug. In 2017, a BBC investigation found that drunk air passenger arrests at UK airports rose 50% over the previous year. In an video posted by the BBC, 14-year Virgin Atlantic flight attendant Ally Murphy said one reason she quit flying were drunk, abusive passengers who groped and swore at her. Once, a drunk passenger tried to open the plane door. Serious alcohol-based incidents continue to occur on board. Just last month, an Australian model was convicted for assaulting a flight attendant on a United flight from Melbourne to Los Angeles in January. According to a press release from the US Department of Justice, the woman, Adau Akui Atem Mornyang, 24, of Victoria, Australia, was convicted of offenses relating to a January 21 incident in which she appeared to be intoxicated and was verbally and physically abusive to personnel and other passengers during the flight. Getty According to the evidence presented at trial, several hours into the flight, passengers approached a flight attendant to complain about Mornyangs disruptive behavior, which included flailing her arms and yelling obscenities and racial slurs. When a flight attendant tried to speak to her, she began shouting at him, then slapped him in the face. The flight attendant attempted to restrain Mornyang until federal air marshals on board could restrain her in the rear galley of the plane for the rest of the flight. A jury found Mornyang guilty of a felony charge of interference with a flight crew and misdemeanor assault. She faces a maximum sentence of 21 years in federal prison when sentenced this June. In 2018, a Southwest Airlines flight from Chicago to New Orleans was disrupted by a man who threatened to put a flight attendant into a body bag for refusing to serve him a fourth drink on the two-hour flight. The man, Joel Michael Bane of New Jersey, then refused to take his seat for landin. When the pilot did manage to successfully land, Bain assaulted a pair of police officers who had to use stun guns to get him off the plane. Amazingly, Bane, who pleaded guilty to one count of interference with flight crew, was sentenced only to two years of probation and a $3,000 fine. Also in 2018, a Delta Airlines overnight flight from Salt Lake City to Orlando with 193 people on board had to land in Oklahoma City to meet with police officers, after a passenger headbutted a flight attendant when he too was cut off from booze. Getty And in 2018, a pilot traveling as a passenger on an Emirates flight asked to smoke on the flight, then slapped the chest of a Romanian flight attendant, threw his shoe at her, cursed at other passengers, then grabbed two beers and more booze from the galley. When finally restrained by crew and other passengers in handcuffs, he threatened the flight and slammed his head so hard against the seatback that the video screen broke. Unlikely; on-board alcohol is not only a precious perk of flying First or Business Class, but a profit source from economy passengers. That $7 on-board beer probably cost the airline less than a dollar, certainly a financially compelling proposition. While flyers like myself find drinking a good way to deal with todays flying conditions, in-flight incidents do not seem to be going away. Instead, they seem to be getting more frequent, disturbing and violent. ASSOCIATED PRESS According to the British Civil Aviation Authority, there were 417 reports of serious disruption on flights in 2017, up from 195 in 2015. Travel found that one in ten passengers had experienced a flight blighted by shouting, drunkenness, verbal abuse or other obnoxious behavior. Irish-based low-cost airline Ryanair was apparently the incident leader, with 17% of Ryanair passengers saying they had experienced disruptive behavior in the past year. Recent Ryanair incidents include a flight featuring a fight between two drunks over a womans not wearing shoes to the lavatory, another from Glasgow to Malaga with a drunk man bothering an on-board hen party resulting in a chaotic fist fight and two unruly men dressed as Tinkerbelle and Bob the Builder being thrown off a flight from London Stansted to Krakow, Poland. But even this had its element of menace, as Tinkerbelle threatened to cut everyone up before he was removed. Getty Nobody wants to be on a flight with a couple of drunks on board creating trouble, said Michael OLeary, RyanAir CEO. But he blamed the problem on the airportss, with stag and hen parties (who Americans might call bachelor and bachelorette groups) drinking heavily before a flight and posing a threat to safety. OLeary told the Independent, Drinking on planes is controlled. On our flights, averaging one hour 15 minutes, the most youll be served is one or two drinks. And if a passenger is being disruptive, he or she wont be served with alcohol at all. But Our challenge is: we have passengers, particularly during flight delays, stuck in airport bars drinking six, eight, 10 pints. Ryanair asked that British airport bars should stop serving alcohol before 10am, and limit passengers to two drinks. As of last November, the British government was considering a similar proposal. Dont laugh; it happened to smoking, now little missed by most travelers. And thats no April Fool. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2019/04/01/should-airlines-consider-banning-alcohol-on-aircraft/ |
What is Revolut? | Image copyright SOPA Images British financial technology company Revolut has been in the news frequently in recent months. The firm, which provides mobile app-based current accounts as an alternative to physical banks, has been referred by some as a "tech super star". Revolut offers a range of digital banking services in a mobile app targeted at young tech-savvy users, including: Transferring money abroad in 24 currencies A pre-paid debit card that enables cash machine withdrawals in 120 countries A crypto-currency exchange allowing users to convert currencies into Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash or XRP Vaults for budgeting and saving money Mobile phone and overseas medical insurance With standard accounts, users get a free UK current account and a free euro IBAN account. There are no fees on exchanging in 24 currencies, up to 5,000 a month, and you can withdraw up to 200 a month from cash machines. Revolut also offers monthly subscription plans with higher thresholds for no fees, as well as instant access to crypto-currencies, cash back, travel and concierge service. Revolut's services are currently only available in Europe, but the firm has plans to expand into North America, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong soon. It was not a bank when it started, but Revolut announced in December that it had been granted an EU banking licence by the European Central Bank. It still aims to acquire a full UK banking licence. It has already attained the status of a tech "unicorn" - a term used to describe private start-ups valued at more than $1bn (740m). Image copyright Revolut Image caption Revolut's founders Vlad Yatsenko and Nikolay Storonsky Revolut was founded by Nikolay Storonsky and Vlad Yatsenko. Mr Yatsenko is Russian, while Mr Storonsky is Russian-born, but carries a British passport and has lived in the UK since the age of 20. Mr Yatsenko and Mr Storonsky created start-up Revolut and launched it in July 2015 at the Level39 tech accelerator in Canary Wharf. Prior to setting up Revolut, Mr Storonsky worked for Credit Suisse and Lehman Brothers, while Mr Yatsenko spent 10 years building financial systems for major investment banks. The duo said that they started Revolut because they were frustrated with the fact that traditional banks were taking so long to introduce digital banking services for younger customers, who prefer to access most services through their smartphones. Mr Yatsenko serves as Revolut's chief technology officer, while Mr Storonsky is chief executive of the firm. In November, Revolut announced that it had over three million customers - one million customers are located in the UK alone. Revolut is currently valued at $1.7bn (1.3bn) from its most recent fundraising. The three-year-old firm's growth has been impressive - its customers numbers trebled to 1.2 million in 2017, while revenues increased five fold to 12.8m. In September, Revolut said 7,000 new accounts were being opened a day, and that it was processing $3bn in transactions a month. In February, Revolut launched an advertising campaign featuring an ad that highlighted the number of people who ordered a takeaway meal for one on Valentine's Day in 2018. ", sparked a backlash on Twitter. Revolut was accused of "shaming" single people and being both "intrusive" and "tone-deaf". It then turned out that the ad - which said 12,750 people ordered a single takeaway meal on Valentine's Day - was using fictitious figures. Several people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about the advert, but since it was outside the ASA's scope, it referred the matter to the FCA. In February, the Telegraph said that in the summer of 2018, Revolut disabled a system designed to automatically halt transactions to individuals who matched against sanctions lists. Sanctions lists contain the names of individuals whose assets have been frozen and include those connected with chemical weapons violations as well as members of the Islamic State. The company's lawyers drafted a letter to the FCA about the change, but it was never sent. This draft letter was later leaked to journalists. In the letter, which the BBC has seen, Revolut lawyers stated that the company's head of compliance technology changed systems so that transactions that potentially matched against sanctions lists were not halted. Instead the system flagged the transaction for inspection but still allowed it to go through. Revolut told the BBC that: "At no point did Revolut stop checking transactions for sanctions compliance last year. Nor was there any failure in our sanctions screening procedures." On 28 February, it was reported that Revolut's chief financial officer Peter O'Higgins was stepping down after spending three years with the company. Mr Storonsky wrote in a blog post on 1 March that Mr O'Higgins had decided to step down because he felt that the business would "require someone with global retail banking experience" as Revolut applied to become a licensed bank in multiple jurisdictions. Media reports at the time suggested that the timing of Mr O'Higgins' resignation was to do with the allegations made against it, but the company stoutly denies it. "Any suggestion that Peter's resignation is in any way, shape or form connected to this roll-out is utterly false and damaging," wrote Mr Storonsky in his blog. "Peter has since expressed to me that he has been hurt by this suggestion and sad that his departure has been tainted in this way." A BBC investigation has discovered that a Revolut employee made a complaint to the FCA in 2016, asking it to investigate the compliance of Revolut and the conduct of its chief executive. The whistleblower told the BBC that Revolut's systems for flagging suspect payments were "utterly inadequate". Revolut denied the allegation and told the BBC this was "the first time Revolut has been made aware of any such complaint, which appears to have been made by a former employee who left the company several years ago." The BBC understands that in the past three years, Revolut has seen the departure of two chief risk officers, two money laundering reporting officers, a chief compliance officer and a chief finance officer, amongst other roles. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47768661 |
What's the new weapon against money laundering gangsters? | Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Gangster Al Capone was eventually convicted of tax evasion in 1931 Money laundering accounts for up to 5% of global GDP - or $2tn (1.5tn) - every year, says the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. So banks and law enforcement agencies are turning to artificial intelligence (AI) to help combat the growing problem. Money laundering, so-called after gangster Al Capone's practice of hiding criminal proceeds in cash-only laundromats in the 1920s, is a huge and growing problem. "Dirty" money is "cleaned" by passing it through layers of seemingly legitimate banks and businesses and using it to buy properties, businesses, expensive cars, works of art - anything that can be sold on for new cash. And one of the ways criminals do this is called "smurfing". Specialist software is used to arrange lots of tiny bank deposits that slip below the radar, explains Mark Gazit, chief executive of ThetaRay, a financial crime AI provider headquartered in Israel. "A $0.25 transaction will never be spotted by a human, but transactions of that kind can launder $30m if they are done hundreds of millions of times," he says. And stolen money is often laundered to fund further criminal activity. One recent ATM (cash machine) scam cost banks 1bn (854,000) in total across 40 countries, for example. Image copyright ThetaRay Image caption ThetaRay boss Mark Gazit says AI can spot patterns of criminal behaviour "The gang hacked into thousands of ATMs and programmed them to release up to five notes at a certain time - say 3am - at which point a local criminal or 'money mule' would pick it up," says Mr Gazit. "The money was then converted into Bitcoin and used to fund human trafficking." "Money mules" are often recruited to launder this gang cash through their legitimate bank accounts in return for a fee. "Estimates suggest that not even 1% of criminal funds flowing through the international financial system is confiscated," says Colin Bell, group head of financial crime risk at HSBC. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The dangerous world of teen "money mules" And the problem seems to be getting worse, despite tightening regulations. In the UK alone, financial crime Suspicious Activity Reports increased by 10% in 2018, according to the National Crime Agency. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) told the BBC it was working on "applied technical enhancements" to its armoury of crime-fighting tools to help it keep up with advances in financial tech, but remains understandably tight-lipped on the details. However, other organisations are openly talking about their use of AI to fight the money launderers. More Technology of Business "AI that applies 'machine learning' can sift through vast quantities of transactions quickly and effectively," explains HSBC's Mr Bell. "This could be a vital tool for pinpointing suspicious activity." For this reason, AI is good at spotting smurfing attempts and accounts that are set up remotely by bots rather than humans, for example. And it can also spot suspicious behaviour by corrupt insiders - a key element in many money laundering operations. "Using AI removes much of the risk of people deliberately overlooking suspicious activity," says Adam Williamson, head of professional standards at the UK's Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT) - a professional body tasked with helping accountants avoid money laundering. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Several high-profile banks have been caught up in money laundering scandals recently Many of the world's biggest banks have been embroiled in money laundering scandals in recent years. Earlier this year, Swiss banking giant UBS was hit with a 3.7bn (3.2bn) fine after being found guilty of helping wealthy clients in France hide billions of euros from tax authorities and launder the proceeds. It is appealing against the decision. Last year, Dutch bank ING paid out 775 million for failing to stop criminals laundering money through its accounts. And Danske Bank's boss was forced to quit over a 200bn money laundering scandal involving its Estonian branch. In Latvia, too, the country's third largest bank ABLV Bank AS, was wound up after US authorities accused it of large-scale money laundering that had enabled its clients to violate nuclear weapons sanctions against North Korea. AI can crunch mountains of data in real time - emails, phone calls, expense reports - and spot patterns of behaviour humans might not notice across a global banking group. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin have given gangs another way to launder their cash Once the system has learned legitimate behaviour patterns it can then more easily spot dodgy activity and learn from that. Regulators around the world are encouraging the new technology, perhaps in acknowledgement that they are losing the battle. US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) director Kenneth A. Blanco says: "Financial institutions have been improving their ability to identify customers and monitor transactions by experimenting with artificial intelligence and machine learning. "FinCEN encourages these and other financial services-related innovations." AI tech firms, such as ThetaRay, LexisNexis and Refinitiv, are offering businesses tools to tackle money laundering, but there are concerns that this presents its own problems. "If organisations are buying AI off the shelf, how can they convince regulators they are in control of it?" asks the AAT's Adam Williamson. And as good as AI might be at spotting anomalies when sifting through huge swathes of data, it is only as effective as the data it is fed. So there is a growing recognition of the need for banks, financial institutions, governments, and law enforcement agencies to share more information. "Europol is designed to operate in partnership with law enforcement agencies, governmental departments and other stakeholders," says the agency's deputy executive director Wil van Gemert. "We embrace the idea of collective intelligence." Mark Hayward, a member of the UK's new Economic Crime Strategic Board, set up in January, says: "Data sharing is one of our main priorities". And legislation has to keep up with the latest trends in financial services that criminals can exploit. The terrorists behind the 2016 Nice truck attack, for example, paid for the vehicles by pre-paid card to take advantage of the anonymity these cards afford the user. This is why the European Union's fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive introduced last year includes digital currencies and prepaid cards for the first time. Given that the criminals appear to be winning, any tools that can help tackle the problem must surely be welcome. Follow Technology of Business editor Matthew Wall on Twitter and Facebook | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47772362 |
How could ex-Rep. David Stringer still have supporters in Yavapai County? | Rep. David Stringer (Photo: Associated Press) Just 48 hours after a 35-year-old bombshell police report surfaced, accusing ex-Rep. David Stringer of child rape, Yavapai County Republicans met Sunday to consider who should replace him. The reason for the sudden vacancy was brought up only once during the four-hour meeting. By a guy who defended Stringer. I have to say this: I think we treated Stringer bad out of the box," former Prescott City Councilman Chris Kuknyo told his fellow Republicans. "Im going to leave that up there." Kuknyo later told The Republics Dustin Gardiner he was alluding to Stringers comments about race, adding that he had no idea what was in the police report. The one that was national news over the weekend. "I feel bad for Dave," Kuknyo told Gardiner. Im guessing others must have been feeling sorry for Stringer as well because not so much as a single precinct committeeman or woman brought up the reason for their meeting. Not one person publicly expressed: A. Shock that they had been represented in the Legislature by a man who pleaded guilty to sex-related charges involving children and was ordered to seek entrance into a program for sex offenders. B. Astonishment that the courts would wipe clean the record a case involving child sex charges, then erase the record altogether. C. Disgust at Stringers continued declaration that he did nothing wrong. The fact that the courts allowed a him into a diversion program does doesnt divert from the fact that something wholly unacceptable happened here. D. Sorrow for the victims. What exploded Stringer's political career CLOSE Arizona GOP Chair Kelly Ward didn't find it unusual that no one mentioned David Stringer's alleged victims. Dustin Gardiner, The Republic | azcentral.com According to the 1983 Baltimore police report, Stringer was charged with eight sex-related offenses. A 14-year-old boy told police that Mr. Dave had approached him and another boy in a park the previous year and invited them to his apartment for sex. Afterward, the boy said Stringer paid each of them $10. The boy told police he had gone to Stringers apartment at least 10 times to have sex, the last time in July 1983, and that the two showered together. Stringer was 35. One of the two boys was mentally incapacitated. ROBERTS: Rep. Stringer's dirty little secret is a stunner The police records say Stringer pleaded guilty to some combination of the sex-related charges under the states probation before judgment program meaning the case would be dismissed once he completed his sentence. Stringer was given five years supervised probation and ordered to seek entrance to a program for sex offenders. A private investigator provided the police report to investigators for the House Ethics Committee. NEWSLETTERS Get the Opinions Newsletter newsletter delivered to your inbox We're sorry, but something went wrong Our best and latest in commentary in daily digest form. Please try again soon, or contact Customer Service at 1-800-332-6733. Delivery: Mon-Fri Invalid email address Thank you! You're almost signed up for Opinions Newsletter Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration. More newsletters I want to point out that one of the two victims went on to become a sex offender himself, which often is the case with victims of sexual abuse, wrote Peter Spauding, the private investigator who provided the report. That was on March 25. Two days later, Stringer abruptly resigned at the request of House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa. Stringer blasts House leaders and the media On Friday, the report was released and within hours Stringer was proclaiming his innocence, writing that it was deeply and shamefully offensive that hed been pressured to resign. In a Facebook post written in the wee hours Saturday, Stringer wrote that hed been targeted because of his conservative views. The media, as you might expect, is treating accusations like they are convictions, and they are setting out to destroy my reputation, he wrote. What I will say is that the charges I faced in 1983 are as false today as they were 35 years ago. Fast forward to Sundays GOP meeting, to nominate three potential replacements for Stringer. You would think Yavapai County Republican leaders might have condemned Stringer for acting as if his conservative views are the problem rather than his sexual history. They didnt. You would think that they might have stood behind conservative leaders behind Bowers and House Ethics Chairman T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge who did everything short of loading Stringer onto a rocket, pointing it toward the exit and lighting the fuse. They didnt. They bashed Ocasio-Cortez, not Stringer State GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward said the meeting was about choosing nominees, not Stringer's past. But Gardiner reports that GOP activists in deep-red Yavapai County are divided about Stringer, with several saying he should still be in the Legislature. They praised President Donald Trump," Gardiner wrote. "They spoke about fighting socialists coming out of the Democratic party. Crickets. As one of the eventual nominees, GOP field organizer Steven Sensmeier, told Gardiner, Stringer had quite a few supporters in the room today. Reach Roberts at [email protected]. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2019/04/01/david-stringer-still-has-support-yavapai-county-how/3336920002/ | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2019/04/01/david-stringer-still-has-support-yavapai-county-how/3336920002/ |
What happens if Trump closes the border? | President Donald Trump is threatening to close the US border with Mexico in an extreme bid to cut down on illegal migration and drug-smuggling. He has said there is a "very good likelihood" that he will take the action this week. Mexico is the United States' third-largest trading partner after Canada and China, so the impact would be widespread and immediate. And the anticipated avocado shortages would just be one part of it. Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump Mexico must use its very strong immigration laws to stop the many thousands of people trying to get into the USA. Our detention areas are maxed out & we will take no more illegals. Next step is to close the Border! This will also help us with stopping the Drug flow from Mexico! Yes, says Matthew Dallek, an associate professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management in Washington DC. "The president has wide latitude to control the flow of people and goods coming into the US," he says. Image copyright Reuters However, President Trump has vowed to close the border "for a long time" and this is where he might run into more difficulty, as there are likely to be multiple legal challenges on behalf of people and interests that are affected. Mr Dallek compares it to President Trump's travel ban (often referred to as the Muslim ban), which he issued - via executive order - shortly after taking office. Its purpose was to stop refugees and people from several mainly Muslim countries from entering the US. The move was challenged in court. "There would be far more chaos if the border was shut," says Mr Dallek. "You would have a pile-up of people and goods, and major political pressure. It would be unsustainable. He would be forced to retreat and reopen it, or the courts would step in." "It is a bit like a murder-suicide," says Andrew Selee, the president of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that describes itself as non-partisan. "You can hold a gun to the Mexican government, but it ricochets right back on to the US economy." Paolo Marinaro, a postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Global Workers' Rights at Pennsylvania State University, agrees. "US and Mexico are highly integrated economies," he says. "Closing the border wouldn't affect only the US or Mexican workers, it would rather have massive effects on the global economy." He cites the automobile industry as a prime example. "The sector employs more than one million workers in Mexico. And Mexico is the third largest global exporter of cars, providing cheap labour to global corporations," says Mr Marinaro. Mexico's Foreign Minister, Marcelo Ebrard, tweeted on Friday that the country will "not act on the basis of threats". The Mexican President, Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador, has also urged prudence. "We are not going get confrontational with the government of the United States," he said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'I thought we would be treated differently in US' The vast majority of migrants that President Trump is worried about come from Central American countries, and are just transiting through Mexico. Mr Selee says Mexico has already been deporting more Central Americans than the US. "There are things they could do over time, but not instantly. They don't have greater capacity to do much more right now." Many Mexicans and US citizens live and work across the two countries. Many are enrolled in programmes - such as the Trusted Traveller Programme - that allow them to fast-track immigration lines. "It would throw a huge monkey wrench into people's lives if this were suddenly stopped," says Mr Selee, who is also the author of a book called Vanishing Frontiers, about the countries' deep links. The kneejerk reaction from average US consumers has been to worry about potential avocado shortages, seeing as Mexico is one of the fruit's leading producers. One executive told Reuters news agency that Americans would run out of avocados in three weeks if imports from Mexico were stopped. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption On patrol with Mexico's avocado police Steve Barnard, president and chief executive of Mission Produce, the largest distributor and grower of avocados in the world, said: "You couldn't pick a worse time of year because Mexico supplies virtually 100% of the avocados in the US right now. "California is just starting and they have a very small crop, but they're not relevant right now and won't be for another month or so." Mexico also exports tomatoes, cucumbers, blackberries and raspberries to the US. "We're absolutely going to see higher prices," said Monica Ganley from Quarterra, a consultancy specialising in Latin American agricultural issues and trade. "This is a very real and very relevant concern for American consumers." Despite the inevitable fallout, Mr Dallek thinks President Trump could go ahead with the plan. "He shut down the government for over a month, and then he capitulated. He has also been forced to backtrack on family separations. A border closure would allow him to play to his more fervent supporters, so it looks like he is doing all he can, and then he could place the blame on the Democrats for stopping him," he says. However, he thinks the president's advisers might guide him down a more nuanced route, involving slowing down traffic across the border rather than shutting it down altogether. Mr Marinaro is less convinced that there will be action. "I don't see the threat of closing the border as any more real than the wall prototypes that he built for more than a year between San Diego and Tijuana, just to destroy them a couple of days ago," he says. Meanwhile, Mr Trump's aides have denied that the president is simply posturing. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said only "something dramatic" could convince Mr Trump to abandon his plans, while adviser Kellyanne Conway told Fox News the threat "certainly isn't a bluff". The latest showdown on the US-Mexico border is Donald Trump negotiation at work. He makes a headline-grabbing threat - massive tariffs, "fire and fury" or, in this case, a total shutdown of the border - and uses it as a bludgeon to force his opponents to back down. In reality the action, if there ever is one, often falls short of what was originally described in breathless news reports and feared in dire warnings from political opponents. The end result, whether good or bad, is frequently unclear. Regardless of the outcome, the president claims victory and moves on. Closing the entirety of the southern US border for any significant stretch of time would be a task of absurd complexity, with devastating economic consequences for states like Texas and California. What's more, it would do nothing to stop the flow of refugee-seekers, who claim asylum once they cross the Rio Grande and before they reach any border wall. Mr Trump is making these threats to emphasise a point, leaving aides to figure out the details. It is, without a doubt, a different kind of diplomacy from a different kind of president. The jury is still out on whether he can succeed. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47741926 |
Why Is Pop Culture So Obsessed With the Middle Ages? | Much like Martin in his fantastical Ice and Fire books, Griffith is fond of long descriptions of pastoral Englands ancient oaks and mossy hillsides, not to mention the cheeses, fresh-baked breads, and meads of the hall feasts. The book stretches to nearly 600 pages that contain plenty of battles, allegiances forged and broken, and a few sexual encounters. The illicit streak running through the book is the incestuous romantic tension at the heart of the story. (Incest, for some reason, is a common thread in medieval fiction. Game of Thrones gives us twins and lovers Jamie and Cersei, while much of the drama in The Mists of Avalon streams from another half-brother, half-sister coupling.) There's an air of inevitability around these couplings, a sense of we had to"as though the rigid societal rules of the Middle Ages, in limiting personal choice, also freed us to act as we secretly wished we could. But as faithful as the setting and the plot points feel, the book's accuracy can't redeem its stilted narrative. Griffith provides detailed information on the political maneuvering of warring factions without bringing those factions to life, creating moments of confusing exposition. (It doesnt help that names in early Middle Ages Britain were repetitive and lineal, meaning that Ceadwulf, Ceadfryth, and Ceadwin make up one indistinguishable family, not to mention Oeric and Osric, as well as not one but two Saxfryths.) Griffith avails herself of period vocabulary, a common device, but here it sometimes becomes irritatingly indiscriminate. Then theres the problem of Hild. A seer, a killer, a silent observer with seemingly supernatural powers, she constantly bemoans how unlikeable and frightening most people find her. But to the reader, Hild is likeabletoo much so. She seems never to act rashly, barring a short-lived bout of adolescent sexual angst (quickly alleviated by a curvaceous slave girl). Her flaws, when they appear, include traits such as meting out overly harsh punishments to raping, murdering bandits. We see flashes of the emotions she restrains, but never a flash of true humanity. She is noble, dignified, thoughtful; she doesnt childishly engage her enemies, even though she is a child herself. But despite the saintliness of its protagonist, Hild is not without its pleasures. The Romanshere called redcrestsare gone, influence is up for grabs, and Christian priests are still duking it out with the pagans for control. While not exactly a page-turner, the books narrative momentum chugs pleasantly along. The book is well researched, and Griffith even provides a map, a pronunciation guide, and a glossary to help make sense of the text. But she leans too heavily on historical reality, expecting it to breathe life into the characters that inhabit it. Theres plenty of the unremarkable, day-to-day action that distinguishes modern medieval fiction from epic predecessors such as Sir Walter Scotts Ivanhoe, which stirred up interest in the Middle Ages back in the 19th century. Hild does her share of eating and weaving and daydreaming and watching birds (so much bird watching! ), which gives a sense of the rhythm of daily life. But she also does less agonizing and rebelling and pondering than the modern reader might expect. Fate goes ever as it will, these characters often say, and the defeatism creeps into the book: we know, ultimately, that Hild will found her abbey, and the novel lets her mosey in that direction without any serious doubts about where she will end up. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115572/cara-parks-reviews-nicola-griffiths-hild |
Why Didn't an American Make '12 Years a Slave'? | Some films are like battles. In the shock and horror that is left behind, it is gross to talk of victory, the deft strokes of tactics, or even the radiant courage of the parties. Emerging from 12 Years a Slave, one fears the triteness of saying how convincing the acting is or how beautiful the photography. Its not that those claims would be unjust. But it is more to the point to say that some films, like some battles, were necessary. Nothing was as important at Stalingrad as the Soviet insistence that that battle be fought. Well, historians will reply that some of us have known. His slave journal was published in 1853 and received much attention. Northup traveled and spoke widely about how as a free man and a family man living in Saratoga, he was lured to Washington on a job and then kidnapped and sold into slavery in Louisiana. It was twelve years before his legal rights as a free man could be asserted. His book was re-issued in a scholarly edition in 1968, and it was what prompted this film. Northup was a hero in the abolitionist movement. But no one knows when he died, where, or how. So while this film is necessary, and belated, and made by an Englishman, and while it is good and more than good, and while it exposes a situation of plain evil, I dont see any reason for self-congratulation, or retreat into remorse and self-pity as negotiable forms of guilt. Let us just say that it has taken a hundred years before a halfway American film could show the impact of a whip on a bare back. The director Steve McQueen has been compelled by the necessity of such a scene, done largely in one intricate camera setup in which a once-favored slave named Patsey (Lupita Nyongo) is lashed first by a reluctant Northup and then by their slave-master, Epps (Michael Fassbender), who believes that Northup is going easy on the young woman and determines that his own tortured notion of her demands physical expression. You see, she had been compelled to be his mistress for years, and perhaps he loved her in his hideous way. That is the climax of the film, the savagery we have known was coming. It is a hard scene to witness, and it has been managed with tact and decency. Not long after this sequence, Northup meets a phlegmatic abolitionist, played by Brad Pitt (a producer on the film), who begins the process that will free him. But it is a price of freedom that Solomon must say farewell to Patsey, leaving her in scarred captivity. No one knows what became of her. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115668/12-years-slave-review-steve-mcqueens-film |
Why Do We Care About Malcolm Gladwell's Media Diet? | The very first media diets posted to the Atlantic Wire in 2010 came from Atlantic staffers: Marc Ambinder, Jeffrey Goldberg, Ta-Nehisi Coates. Three years later these posts already feel charmingly quaint. (I just ordered a Kindle, Ambinder announced.) And in the beginning they also had the ring of simple truthfulness, less clouded by the pressures of digital self-presentation. Ill check on updates at the Times and the Post online, Coates said. I generally scan the papers. Compare this to the 2012 report from Vice columnist Kate Carraway: I consistently buy The New Yorker; The Atlantic; Harpers; Vanity Fair; Interview; British and American Vogue; the British, American and Canadian editions of ELLE; Flare; Fashion; Glamour; New York Magazine, Los Angeles magazine, and Toronto Life; BookForum. To read the past few years worth of media diets is to witness the inexorable slide into greater and greater delusion in our virtual self-depictions. I think I said I read The Atlantic, Awl editor Choire Sicha told me about his 2011 media diet. I dont really read The Atlantic. Media diets tend to fall somewhere between two camps: Theres the Brian Stelter school of warp-speed omnivorous robot information ingestion and the Malcolm Gladwell school of eccentric anachronism. (Reached for comment, Stelter said that CNN has asked him to put the kibosh on interviews until he starts his new gig, but on the subject of media diets, he added: I like the topic.) Stelters daily news intake basically involves unhinging his jaw and consuming the entire internet: Between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., I start opening what ends up being dozens of browser tabs, etc etc. Gladwell, meanwhile, makes a virtue of abstaining from the racket: I subscribe to one persons Twitter feed: my friend Jacobs, he wrote in 2011. Reading a Stelter media diet is in equal parts aspirational and stressful, akin to observing a model of perfect efficiency and up-to-the-minute news literacy. Gladwells has the opposite effect: in its confident leisureliness it reassures you that your own metabolism is just fast enough. The feature has done so well, said Atlantic Wire editor Gabriel Snyder, that editors have kicked around the idea of an open source media diet that allows anyone to contribute. Traffic-wise, theyre not cat videos, Snyder explainedAaron Sorkins media diet currently has upwards of 57,500 viewsbut they consistently engage an audience and have become one of the Wires defining franchises. After all, theyre designed to capitalize on exactly the kinds of technomedia insecurities, as Snyder puts it, that leave journalists constantly wondering, in the endless slog of filtering and curating, just how much theyre missing. Interviews are usually conducted over the phone, Snyder said, but he added: I feel a little uncomfortable talking about our strategy, because it has become incredibly imitated. There is perhaps no clearer evidence of the media diets cultural creep than Ad Weeks Information Diet, which targets not newshounds but semi-celebrities with no particular claim to expertise on the subject of reading. Emma Bazilian, who conducts most of the Information Diet interviews, bemoaned the redundancy of her task. Everybody watches Breaking Bad, she told me. There was a joke in the office for awhile that people in the art department were getting sick of putting a picture of The New York Times in very single Information Diet. Then there are actors who throw out lofty names like the Economist and Forbes, and youre like, really? But Bazilian sees a bright side: I think if we were interviewing more media people instead of celebrities, she said, "the info diets would be even more preposterous. It should be said that these things are not always a festival of ego-indulgence. Some are quite charming and self-aware, a kind of anti-media diet for the media dieting set. Grantlands Rembert Browne, whose own Diet for the Atlantic Wire included accounts of stealing the print edition of the Times from his neighbors, was initially wary of the project. Sometimes these things can be such a put-on: oh, I have a million magazines to read by 9am, he told me. So he took the opposite tack. [Sometimes] I wake up at 9:30 a.m, putz around my apartment for an hour, and then consider leaving at 11 a.m., his post proclaimed. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115664/media-diets-our-most-pretentious-obsession |
Does the Gettysburg Address Distract Us from the Real Lincoln? | Lincoln has never lacked for critics, ranging from pro-Confederates on the Right to black nationalists on the Left. Yet he has inspired far more approval and even adoration than animosity among historians--including one admiring line of argument that can accommodate even his unsavory attack on Pierce in 1852. That interpretation runs roughly as follows. For most of his adult life, Lincoln was an enormously ambitious and partisan Whig Party organizer and officeholder who, after a single frustrating term in Congress, retired from politics in 1849 to become a highly successful lawyer in Springfield. Then the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act five years later stirred his moral aversion to slavery and re-awakened his political aspirations. Thereafter--his enormous human sympathy aroused, his conscience pricked by eloquent radicals such as Frederick Douglass, and his hand forced by ordinary slaves who flocked to Union lines during the Civil War--Lincoln the hack politician gradually transformed into a philosopher-statesman and a literary genius. This account appears in many different forms. It is consistent with--or can be made to be consistent with--a particular view of American political history that emerged out of the radicalism of the 1960s and is widely held today. On this view, elected officials, even the most worthy, are at best cautious and unreliable figures who must be forced by unruly events--and by outsiders--into making major reforms. Thus Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement had to compel the southern wheeler-dealer Lyndon B. Johnson to support civil rights and voting rights for blacks. Thus John L. Lewis and the left-wing Congress of Industrial Organizations had to push a reluctant Franklin Delano Roosevelt into making and then enlarging the New Deal. And thus Frederick Douglass and the runaway slaves, not Abraham Lincoln, deserve the real credit for the Emancipation Proclamation. Without question, what Lincoln called public sentiment is and always has been a key battleground; and insofar as agitators such as the abolitionists affect that sentiment, they have a crucial role to play in democratic politics (as Lincoln also recognized). But it is one thing to acknowledge the effects of outsiders and radicals and quite another to vaunt their supposed purity in order to denigrate mainstream politics and politicians. The implication of this anti-political or meta-political narrative is that the outsiders are the truly admirable figures, whereas presidents are merely the outsiders lesser, reluctant instruments. Anyone who points out the obvious fact that, without a politically supple, energetic, and devoted president, change will never come, runs the risk of being branded an elitist or worse. (Hillary Clinton discovered as much during last years presidential primaries, when she spoke admiringly about how Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.) Lincoln may be the only one of these presidents who, having seen the light, went on to earn a kind of secular sainthood; but his redemption from grubby politics and self-interested prudence had to precede his martyrdom and canonization. That redemption came as a result of the dramatic resistance of the lowly slaves, and of the words and the actions of uncompromising abolitionists. The bottom up populism of this line of argument got its start in the ideal of participatory democracy forty years ago, but its incomprehension and belittlement of politics and politicians originated much earlier. Historians, like most intellectuals, have long felt uncomfortable with scheming, self-aggrandizing political professionals, preferring idealists whom they imagine were unblemished by expedience and compromise. One of the exceptions among the historians, Richard N. Current, wrote with a touch of embarrassment in 1958 that, for Americans, politics generally means dirty politics, whether the adjective is used or not. The hostility of some Americans toward partisan competition and political government is as old as the republic, but it gained special force among writers and publicists linked to the patrician, politically moderate, good-government Mugwumps of the late nineteenth century. Todays historians who uphold the radical legacies of the 1960s consider themselves anything but patrician and moderate--their sympathies lie, of course, with the poor and excluded, not with the virtuous, educated, genteel classes whom the Mugwumps championed. But the recent contempt for conventional party politicians shows that Mugwumpery has evolved, paradoxically, into a set of propositions and assumptions congenial to the contemporary American academic Left. Like the Mugwumps, many present-day American historians assume that political calculation, opportunism, careerism, and duplicity negate idealism and political integrity. Like the Mugwumps, they charge that the similarities between the corrupt major political parties overwhelm their differences. Like the Mugwumps, they equate purposefulness with political purity. Consequently, their writings slight how all great American leaders, including many of the outsiders they idealize, have relied on calculation, opportunism, and all the other democratic political arts in order to advance their loftiest and most controversial goals. And they slight how the achievement of Americas greatest advances, including the abolition of slavery, would have been impossible without the strenuous efforts of the calculators and the opportunists in the leadership of American politics. At its most straightforward, caustic, and predictable--as in the balefully influential works of Howard Zinn, who has described Lincoln as at best a kind man who had to be pushed by the antislavery movement into emancipation--this post-1960s populist history writing is just as skewed as the tendentious great white male historiography that it has supposedly discredited. Other populist historians are more generous, allowing Lincoln--and, occasionally, Franklin Roosevelt--to escape relatively unscathed, and even ennobled. But if it is history that we really care about, then we must recognize that the populist storyline of Lincolns redemption and transfiguration, like the other versions, makes a hash of his actual life and times. Lincoln may have had his own purposes, like the Almighty, but those purposes always included gaining or maintaining political advantage, often enough by cagey and unexhilarating means. Although he was often unsuccessful, his political cunning was his strength, and not a corrupting weakness. Pure-hearted radicals did not manipulate him into nobility as much as he manipulated them to suit his own political aims--which, as president, were to save the Union and insure that freedom, and not slavery, would prevail in the struggle of the house divided. Unless we understand this, none of Lincolns philosophizing, and none of his spare, arresting, and moving rhetoric, makes any sense. The announcements in last years publishers catalogues that a flood of new books would accompany Lincolns bicentennial augured an opportunity to evaluate the state of Lincoln scholarship, in part by pointing to the writings of those historians, past and present, who insist on evaluating Lincoln seriously as a political creature. (I confess that I have contributed my own bits to the bicentennial torrent.) The difficulty is that an entirely new fashion in the historiography of Lincoln seems to have arisen, which further diminishes the importance of party politics and government in his career. This new fashion--which is really a retrieval and an expansion of older lines of interpretation--takes for granted that Lincoln rose to a surpassing greatness. In one way or another, the fashion locates Lincolns chief distinction in his literary sophistication and his empathetic powers, making only passing glances at his political astuteness. Indeed, in some quarters, Lincolns political successes, before and during his presidency, now seem to have come almost entirely from his writing and his oratory, in what might be called a literary determinist interpretation of history. Lincolns apotheosis remains undisturbed; the difference is that he is now an archangel of belles lettres--or, as Jacques Barzun described him fifty years ago, a man with a hidden hurt who became an artist-saint. Therein, supposedly, lay the basis, or at least one important basis, for his political greatness. The current fascination with Lincoln as a writer originated with Garry Willss Lincoln at Gettysburg, which was published to a rapturous reception in 1993. Amid erudite and illuminating discussions of classical oratory, American sermonizing, and New England Transcendentalist philosophy, Wills described Lincolns address, in November 1863, as a turning point in the Civil War and, thus, in American history. By proclaiming that the Union was fighting to save a government dedicated from its inception to the idea that all men were created equal, Wills said, Lincoln turned Jeffersons egalitarian Declaration of Independence into the nations foundational text, on which the Constitution was later built. Yet Lincoln also cunningly expanded the slaveholder Jeffersons conception of equality by embracing blacks, slave and free, and promising that the war would finally bring a new birth of freedom. In a span of fewer than three hundred brilliant words--and in a speech that many, at the time, deemed ordinary, even perfunctory--Lincoln supposedly revolutionized the nations highest ideals. Willss account, like numerous later books that dissect one or another of Lincoln better-known orations, over-dramatizes the speechs importance. As Wills himself observes, Lincoln had been publicly testing the hard realities of slavery against the Declarations premises for nearly a decade before he spoke at Gettysburg. And Lincoln was neither alone in his beliefs nor one bit ahead of his time. As early as the debates over the Missouri Compromise in 1819 and 1820, anti-slavery Jeffersonian congressmen pointed to the Declaration--an authority admitted in all parts of the Union [as] a definition of the basis of republican government, one member of the House described it--and asserted that it was fundamentally at odds with what another congressman called the intolerable evil and crying enormity of slavery. (Southern congressmen replied that the Declaration is not part of the Constitution or any other book, and that Jefferson, although venerable, had been wrong to malign slavery in his Notes on the State of Virginia--charges that anticipated by forty years almost identical anti-Jeffersonian claims made by pro-slavery secessionists.) To be sure, even if the ideas contained in the Gettysburg Address were widely held, they never, as Richard Current observed thirty-five years before Wills, had been put so well. Like Jefferson before him, Current wrote, Lincoln, for his own time and for all time, crystallized in superb language the ideals and aspirations of millions of men and women. Willss re-reading of the address, and enrichment of its intellectual context, has its merits; but since Wills is more interested in doctrine and culture than in politics, his book elides the basic fact that the speech had no political purpose greater than commemorating the dead and leaving a good impression, and no immediately discernible political effect whatsoever. Although pro-administration newspapers such as the Springfield Republican in Massachusetts pronounced it a perfect gem, the Democratic press echoed the Chicago Timess ridicule of Lincolns shamefully silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances. Similarly, the more prominent recent studies of Lincolns words and ideas are almost completely unconcerned with politics beyond banal and often illinformed rehearsals of Lincolns opinions on race, slavery, colonization, and democracy. Having already been mythologized, Lincoln is in danger of being aestheticized: now he belongs to the English department. Combined with an abiding post-1960s preference for radicals over politicians, this trend renders Lincoln as the supreme giant of American politics because he was, as Barzun observed, a born writer with the quiet intent of a conscious artist, and because his compassion, as well as the force of circumstances, led him to heed the wisdom of the militants, to champion the downtrodden, and finally, as president, to transcend politics as usual. Modern democratic politics are supposed to be immune to the kind of intense cult of personality common in authoritarian regimes, with their caudillos, patriot kings, and maximum leaders. James Madison and the framers of the Constitution designed a federal government to hinder the emergence of such an individual. But the United States--or, at least, historical writing about the United States--is not immune. We are given a Lincoln whose surviving everyday possessions and scraps--including, according to one recent newspaper report, his pocket watch--are accorded the attention and invested with the properties otherwise associated with sacred relics. The historical Lincoln disappears and a wishful fantasy takes his place, symbolizing a politics that has been cleansed and redeemed, which is to say a politics that is unreal--a politics constructed out of words, just words. II. A few books have appeared during this bicentennial that do take his politics and his political career very seriously. Harold Holzer, a prolific writer on Lincoln and the co-chairman of the Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, admires Lincoln enormously, but also understands that he was a political creature. His book is the closest study ever undertaken of the critical four months between Lincolns election as president and his inauguration on March 4, 1861. It aims to correct what Holzer considers the unjust view--formulated by the young Henry Adams at the time, and supported by later scholars--that Lincoln acted unsteadily in the face of the growing emergency of secession, resorting to platitudes and trivialities in his public statements, and otherwise giving an impression of weakness and indecisiveness. For many pro-Lincoln historians, the transition months of 1860-1861 offer an important baseline for judging his later growth in office--but Holzer, who does not deny that Lincoln grew, insists that Lincoln was a brilliant leader even before the inauguration. If Lincoln appeared to be fumbling, according to Holzer, he intended as much, in order to cloak the momentous decisions that he was making about his administrations policies and personnel. On his long circuitous train journey from Springfield to Washington, Lincoln would show his homely, newly whiskered face to the crowds and say a few innocuous words, so as to connect personally with the voters who had elected him. All the while, behind the scenes, he completed the delicate task of selecting his cabinet while writing the inaugural address that would make his views about the mounting crisis perfectly clear to all. What Adams had criticized as Lincolns masterly inactivity was actually, Holzer writes, the confident silence of a master of maneuver. Holzer rescues Lincoln from some familiar misconceptions, above all the claim that, as of 1861, he cared completely about saving the Union and not at all about slavery. Although cautious not to say so publicly lest he worsen the situation, Lincoln vigorously opposed all congressional efforts to thwart secession by reaching some sort of deal that would allow slavery to expand into the western territories. Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery, he instructed his fellow Illinois Republican, Senator Lyman Trumbull. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again. Given that allowing slaverys extension was the nub of the issue as far as the southern secessionists were concerned, and given that Lincoln himself had long described slaverys restriction as the first step toward putting the institution, as he put it, in the course of ultimate extinction, this was, as Holzer recognizes, an unprecedented show of power and influence by a president-elect. Secession was evil, Lincoln believed--but he was not prepared to concede his partys core anti-slavery conviction, or turn it into a bargaining chip, in order to salvage the Union. Holzer, to be sure, is not the only historian who has elucidated these matters. Kenneth M. Stampps And The War Came, which was published in 1950 (and which Holzer curiously does not cite), offers a similar view of Lincoln, as does Russell McClintocks fine study Lincoln and the Decision for War, which appeared in 2008. And some of Holzers more original revisionist arguments are unpersuasive. Holzer tries, for example, to refute the conventional view that Lincoln minimized the dangers of secession because he overestimated the extent of southern Unionism. Yet Lincoln failed to appreciate how southern Unionism was far more conditional than its northern counterpart, open to the possibility of secession (which became all too evident in the wake of the showdown over Fort Sumter). Lincoln had a shrewd understanding of northern politics, but he knew little of the South outside of his native Kentucky--and hence he failed to understand the complexities and limits of southern Unionism in 1860 and 1861, with terrible results. Holzers intense admiration of Lincoln sometimes leads him to make too much of a good thing. In accord with the argument presented by Doris Kearns Goodwins recent book describing Lincolns cabinet as a team of rivals--an easily exaggerated view cited so often during the Obama transition that it became one of the platitudes of our day--Holzer is persuaded of the brilliance of Lincolns selections. Holzer accurately presents Lincoln the cabinet-maker as a hard-nosed politician, who made good on promises extended during the fight for the Republican nomination (although the book could have said more on this), and who sought to placate every element of his faction-ridden party. Yet Lincolns approach to the task was nothing new. Moreover, the cabinet that he picked was a dysfunctional collection of schemers far more than it was a team of any kind. The practice of a president-elect choosing his chief rival within his party as secretary of state dated back, as James Oakes has pointed out, to John Quincy Adams, who selected Henry Clay in 1825 (and thereby provoked charges that the two had made a backroom deal). During the presidencies of Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan in the 1850s, the practice practically became a ritual, and Lincoln followed suit by naming William H. Seward in 1861--even though doing so provided no assurance of a successful presidency. (Past experience might even have boded the exact opposite.) Lincolns other cabinet choices included Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania, who had helped Lincoln mightily at the Republican nominating convention--and who left his post as secretary of war in January 1862 under a heavy cloud of corruption allegations. (Camerons replacement, the redoubtable Edwin Stanton, did a brilliant job, but as a former Democrat he had been no rival of any kind to Lincoln or any of his fellow cabinet secretaries. And Lincolns vacillation over his initial selection of Cameron, long suspected of peculation, was hardly a profile in steadfast decisiveness.) Secretary of State Seward skipped many cabinet meetings and took advantage of his private access to Lincoln, which infuriated the others. Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, one of those most offended, also took to skipping meetings and tried, unsuccessfully, to wrest the nomination away from Lincoln in 1864, before he resigned. (When Roger Taney, chief justice of the Supreme Court and author of the notorious Dred Scott decision, died later that year, Lincoln eventually named Chase as his successor, choosing to put the politically maladroit Chases skill and ambition to work for the country.) Attorney General Edward Bates, who also resigned in 1864, complained bitterly that the president misused his cabinet and never relied on its collective wisdom. Lincoln may not have been quite as hapless in designing his cabinet as the prevailing accounts of his transition to office suggest, but his decisions hardly proved the brilliant political breakthrough that Holzer describes as the work of a master political puppeteer. All his political acumen did not spare Lincoln from making cabinet selections that were less than inspired, and in some cases disastrous. The two most prominent new biographies of Lincoln, like Holzers book, offer serious accounts of Lincolns political career, but they have their own peculiarities. Michael Burlingame, who has written or edited a dozen books on Lincoln, gained considerable notice in the world of Lincoln scholarship a few years ago with a study, heavily indebted to Jungian psychology, that purported to describe and to analyze Lincolns inner life. It was not the first time that a biographer or a historian has put Lincoln on the couch, if only to puzzle through Lincolns famous chronic bouts of severe depression and to speculate about what some have seen as his burdensome marriage to an unstable woman. But Burlingame is deeply immersed in the sources on Lincoln, primary and secondary, so his judgments carried far more authority than the usual jerry-built psycho-histories. Now Burlingame offers a massive two-volume life study so copiously documented that he and his publisher have decided to make the full footnotes available only on the Internet (where they can be updated as any new documentation or relevant secondary literature becomes available). Burlingame reliably and astutely covers Lincolns political career, and he grasps the subtleties of Lincolns political machinations. Still, reactions to this vast book will depend on how useful one thinks Jungian archetypes are in evaluating long-departed political leaders. To his credit, Burlingame refrains from heavy theorizing; but his psychological method is unmistakable, and it leads him to make some far-fetched assertions on the basis of scanty evidence. The claim did make me stop and think, but then I wondered whether older meanings of the word slave as any kind of coerced dependence or obedience had played tricks on Burlingames imagination. If Burlingames devotion to deep psychological analysis is itself a bit slavish, the documentation that he provides in his book is sometimes unsettling. Most historians would think twice about relying as much as he does on second-and even third-hand testimony, often published decades after the events described. It is as if Burlingame has so steeped himself in Lincolniana that he thinks he can intuit which highly questionable sources are actually truthful--a kind of historical clairvoyance that does not inspire confidence. On other matters--his insistent demonization of Mary Todd Lincoln; his contention that Stephen A. Douglas, a heavy drinker, was practically falling down drunk during his famous debates with Lincoln--Burlingame is labored and unpersuasive. Otherwise Burlingames book fully accords with what might be called the standard two Lincolns approach--the line of argument that posits not simply that Lincolns anti-slavery political convictions hardened over time, but also that Lincoln experienced a sharp and complete transformation in the deepest recesses of his soul. Burlingame naturally presents the shift in psychological terms, as a painful but productive mid-life crisis, in which Lincoln laid aside evanescent ambitions and constraining loyalties, concentrated on the weightier aspects of life, curbed his ego, and become a fully individuated man. It is certainly plausible that Lincoln endured such a psychological trial. But in Burlingames account, a common rite of passage approximates the grandiose mythological sequence in which the hero must pass through some sort of clarifying ordeal before he can be reborn as truly heroic. So heroic, in fact, is Burlingames Lincoln that he becomes quasi-sacred--and maybe not so quasi. Lincolns personality was the Norths secret weapon in the Civil War, Burlingame remarks. His attainment of a level of consciousness unrivaled in the history of American public life made possible the Unions victory. Indeed, Lincoln was not simply a startling exception among petty politicians, with their clamorous egos. He also rose above the limitations of mere humankind. Lincoln achieved a kind of balance and wholeness, Burlingame writes, that led one psychologist to remark that he had more psychological honesty than anyone since Christ. Burlingame finds the comparison apt, if one regards the Christian messiah as a psychological paradigm. There is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion: it is, about Lincoln as about Jesus, a matter of faith. Burlingames final evaluation takes us back beyond the Lincoln Memorial, beyond the populist hero-worship of Carl Sandburg, to a level of unreality and hagiography not seen since the traumatized aftermath of Lincolns Good Friday murder, when an outpouring from grieving ministers, editorialists, politicians, and ordinary citizens affirmed that, as the presidents young personal secretary, John Hay, remarked a few months later, Lincoln, with all his foibles, is the greatest character since Christ. Ronald C. White Jr.s biography of Lincoln is another story of an evolving glorious hero who also was plagued by doubt, including intense self-doubt. White sometimes gives in to the urge to supply his readers with too much information. But his book is much less detailed, less grandiose, and more vivid than Burlingames; and, like Burlingame, White skillfully evaluates most of Lincolns political maneuvering. Still, with all of its strengths, A. Lincoln does not supersede the best modern one-volume biography, David Herbert Donalds Lincoln, which was published in 1995 (and is especially strong on Lincolns political career). Donalds book is flawed by its insistence on seeing Lincoln as a passive man, based partly on a misreading of Lincolns own reflections about his inability to control events. Whites book, by comparison, is oddly superficial and circumspect on various issues, large and small, laying out the basic facts but leaving it up to the reader to supply answers. Whites book discusses such perplexing, sometimes delicate matters, but leaves them unresolved. Instead, White is chiefly interested in examining Lincolns words and rhetoric, about which he is highly informative. White has already written two important shorter books on Lincolns writing, completed long before the current surge of interest in Lincoln among literary scholars. (He also builds on Lincolns Sword, a fine study of Lincolns rhetoric by the historian Douglas L. Wilson, which was published in 2006.) If Burlingames biography explores Lincolns inner emotional life, Whites biography studies his inner intellectual life, as grounded in Lincolns reading of Shakespeare, the Bible, Blackstones Commentaries, and poets such as Burns and Byron. An endless self-improver--at one point he took on the task of teaching himself Euclidean geometry, the better to sharpen his own logic--Lincoln also got into the habit of composing personal memos of varying lengths, on which he would later draw in his public pronouncements. The notes form, according to White, a kind of running journal, which offers essential clues about not simply what Lincoln thought but also how he thought. Whites historical approach to Lincolns reading, writing, and speaking greatly enhances the record of the man and his career. Known by his associates more for intellectual thoroughness than for quickness or brilliance, Lincoln would spend weeks, months, even years taking the measure of a particular issue, jotting down his musings, refining his opinions, and finally honing his prose and its rhetorical structure. The famous House Divided speech of 1858 is a case in point. Most Lincoln scholars, following the memoirs of Lincolns law partner William Herndon, have believed that he composed the speech during the days before he delivered it. But White points to a lengthy memo written seven months earlier, in which Lincoln elaborated his belief (as he wrote in the memo) that the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. Understood this way, Lincolns prose remains arresting, especially after 1854, and most especially in contrast to the prolix billows that passed for fine oratory at the time. (Like several of the other current books on Lincoln, Whites makes much of Lincolns improvements to Sewards suggested peroration to the first inaugural address.) Whites portrayal of Lincolns deliberate approach to his reading and his writing usefully reinforces what historians and biographers have written about his deliberate nature in other realms of life, including politics. White also sheds light on one of the perennial puzzles in Lincoln scholarship: the increasingly religious tone of Lincolns speeches after 1862, culminating in his second inaugural address. Although not the first scholar to examine the connection, White shows how Lincolns reflections on divine attributes outside human control or comprehension may have reflected the preaching of the Reverend Phineas Densmore Gurley of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, where Lincoln sometimes attended services during his presidency. A student of the redoubtable Charles Hodge at the Princeton Theological Seminary, Gurley imparted a faith that joined, somewhat ambiguously, the spiritual fatalism of his own Old School Presbyterians and the free-will effort Calvinism of the evangelical New School. Gurley bundled the two in a mysterious description of man as a rational, accountable moral agent who was nevertheless governed by the traditional American Calvinists unknowable, omnipotent Providence. Man proposes; God disposes, Gurley explained; and that paradox of human agency and divine sovereignty was, he insisted, the best way to begin to understand what he called the probable fruits and consequences of the continuing Civil War. Lincoln, an open skeptic in his youth who never actually joined a church, did not have to have become a believing Christian in order to kindle to these ideas. (In the second inaugural address, he seemed at pains not to identify himself as one of the believers in a living God; and the claims made by some historians that he had developed a personal Christian faith are based more on fancy than on evidence.) But Lincoln and his wife certainly did begin showing up for services more often after he became president, especially after the death of their young son, Willie, in 1862. And Gurleys sermons did offer lessons on human limitation and humility in the face of an inscrutable universe, with a quiet faith that the Union would finally prevail. In sum, White shows that Lincoln was not, as some writers have portrayed him, a redeemer president, the inventor of a national civil religion that he built out of his torments and the nations, and that became symbolized by his lofty words and, finally, by his murder. He was, rather, a Victorian doubter (and self-doubter) who found some comfort--and perhaps ways to question and at least partially to comprehend the incomprehensible--in the preaching of a Presbyterian minister. He then borrowed some clerical language to express what he had found, as well as his continued uncertainties, from his beloved King James Bible, the book most widely read and studied by his countrymen. III. The much grander claims about Lincolns prose--the work of Barzuns artist-saint--rest on a very small body of writing. The historian Don E. Fehrenbacher assembled two lengthy volumes of Lincolns speeches and writings for the Library of America in 1986, but the vast bulk of them consists of letters and minor speeches that are chiefly of historical and biographical interest, not examples of fine finished prose. Several of Lincolns speeches in Illinois during the 1850s (including some of his remarks during his debates with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858) qualify as literature, as does the Cooper Institute address that effectively kicked off his campaign for the Republican nomination in 1860. Thereafter, there are the powerful first and second inaugurals, the Gettysburg Address, and some brief passages in the first and second annual messages to Congress. In his letters, public and private, as well as in his conversation, Lincoln displayed a talent for sly metaphor and figurative language, reflecting his love of Aesops Fables as well as his westerners wit. But thats about it. Apart from Jefferson, no American president has matched Lincolns mastery of prose--but no other American author has enjoyed such a stellar reputation based on such a slender literary output. As small as Lincolns oeuvre was, though, an enormous literature exists, composed mainly by writers, including well-known novelists, poets, journalists, and public figures, whose main interests lay outside the writing of American history. The Lincoln Anthology, edited by Harold Holzer and described as a special publication of the Library of America, fills more than nine hundred pages with more than one hundred entries by great writers from 1860 to 2007. Yet even though Holzers introduction says that his highly diverse array of contributors includes historians, the closest we get to enduring historical scholarship are Barzuns essay on Lincoln the writer, some snippets from Shelby Foote and Garry Wills, and Edmund Wilsons cranky and controversial essay on Lincoln from Patriotic Gore. Carl Sandburg, by contrast, gets five separate entries, the most of any author. Richard Watson Gilder, Bram Stoker, Honore Willsie Morrow, Dale Carnegie, Rosemary Benet, Irving Stone, E.L. Doctorow, and (inevitably) Barack Obama all make the cut. But the distinguished historians James Ford Rhodes, Albert J. Beveridge, James G. Randall, Allan Nevins, Benjamin P. Thomas, Richard Hofstadter, Bruce Catton, David M. Potter, Kenneth M. Stampp, Benjamin Quarles, Richard N. Current, Don E. Fehrenbacher, John Hope Franklin, David Herbert Donald, and James M. McPherson do not. One could conclude that Holzer and his editors at the Library of America do not consider historians great writers, although that would still leave unexplained the inclusion of Carnegie, Benet, and Stone, among others. But Holzers own writings on Lincoln show great respect for other historians. The choices in The Lincoln Anthology seem driven, rather, by a desire to convey Lincolns changing image among famous and influential, and formerly famous or influential, writers and political leaders--Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, and Adlai Stevenson turn up, along with Barack Obama--in order to gauge Lincolns shifting place in the broader national culture, and not among scholars. No doubt novelists, poets, journalists, and politicians carry much more cultural cachet than historians do, especially in the upper echelons of American art and politics. (So do painters: Holzer allots space for an odd geophysical love poem to Lincoln--the only voice worth hearing--by Marsden Hartley, along with a plate of one of Hartleys oil portraits of the president in his stovepipe hat.) It is without question a treat to dip into what Mark Twain and Marianne Moore and James Agee had to say about Lincoln, and to see how impressions of Lincoln have changed over time. (The Lincoln Anthology can most profitably be read as a companion to Merrill D. Petersons excellent historical study, Lincoln in American Memory, which appeared in 1995.) Still, the selection seems skewed. Apart from a brief--and, in this context, refreshing--piece by H.L. Mencken on Lincoln as the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality, Lincolns devotees and occasional critics from the left are over-represented. The omission of Harry V. Jaffa, a follower of Leo Strauss and one of Lincolns more provocative conservative admirers, is noticeable. Holzer does include Lerone Bennett Jr.s polemical attack from the left on Lincoln as a white supremacist, which appeared in Ebony magazine in 1968, but it is odd that Holzer fails to mention that virtually the same points as Bennetts appeared in a celebration of Lincoln decades earlier by the white racist novelist Thomas Dixon, the author of The Clansman (which became the chief source for D.W. Griffiths film The Birth of a Nation). The exclusion of Dixon is further evidence of the anthologys Yankee bias. There do not appear to be more than a half-dozen southern white writers represented, or as many as ten southerners of any color. Neither the ironic view of Lincoln and the Union cause voiced by southerners such as Robert Penn Warren, nor the neoConfederate anti-Lincolnism associated with the likes of the adopted southerner M.E. Bradford, are given a hearing. Finally, though, the exclusion, from a compilation of great writings about Lincoln, of those authors, the historians, who have actually known the most about the man and his times is stunning. It is also strangely fitting, as the practice of writing about Lincoln by non-historians continues, indeed is flourishing in this bicentennial year, inside as well as outside the academy. And it will come as no surprise that English professors are at the head of the line, given the recent trend for literary critics to write about any subject they please, and in a tone of serene authority. Fred Kaplans study of Lincoln as a writer is one of the only books in the current flood to take account of Lincolns marathon mulatto speech in 1852. (Burlingame devotes one long paragraph to the entire 1852 campaign, and dispatches the speechs attack on Pierce over the Fugitive Slave Act in a single sentence; Henry Louis Gates Jr. includes the speech in his collection of Lincolns writings on slavery and race, and explains it well in a headnote.) Kaplan describes the political background and Lincolns practical purposes. But he is chiefly interested in the speechs literary artifice, its blend of burlesque and seriousness, its witty literary allusions to Oliver Goldsmith and Cervantes--and especially its concluding riff on Frederick Marryat and the sea chantey about the bright Mullater called Sally Brown. In a brief and somewhat opaque analysis, Kaplan identifies Marryats travelogue, A Diary in America, as Lincolns exact source for Sally Brown. Fixing on the political uses of the language of race, Kaplan speculates about Lincolns literary entitlements in quoting the song. He then shows how Lincoln bent the songs true meaning, which had to do with eros, not race; and he concludes that, at least in 1852, Lincoln shared in the dominant racialist discourse of his time. So the actual subject of Franklin Pierce and the speechs actual politics have receded into a thicket of words and Lincolns misappropriated metaphors and the discursive practices of the 1850s. It is a small example of the much larger dangers of approaching Lincoln primarily as a writer. Kaplan has actually written two books in one, the first a brief biography that pays special attention to Lincolns omnivorous reading and favorite authors, the second a series of explications de texte from Lincolns writings, ranging from his amateur poetry to the second inaugural address. Historians and biographers have long pointed to Lincolns deep affection for Shakespeare and the King James Bible, for Burns and Byron, for Aesops Fables. Kaplan, who concentrates on Lincolns pre-presidential years, fills out Lincolns debt to Burns and Byron. It is interesting to know more about these specific connections, but they will come as no great surprise to anyone familiar with the historical literature on American culture before the Civil War. Burns was fabulously popular in nineteenth-century America, especially among up-from-under strivers such as Lincoln, who disdained snobbery and affirmed a broad affection for their plebeian democratic roots. As for Byron, also a popular favorite, it is hard to think of a young American idealist who was not touched by the Byronic sartorial style as well as by Byrons poetry (at least until 1869, when Harriet Beecher Stowes expose of Byrons incestuous love life caused a scandal). It would have been far more curious had the bookish Lincoln not enjoyed and memorized Burns and Byron. Kaplans weightier assertion is that Lincolns literary reading is the key to understanding not just his writing but his very identity. More than any other president save Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, Lincoln certainly quoted and alluded to great literature--although this may have reflected, on Lincolns part, a prideful habit common among bookish autodidacts. Still, Lincoln was no mere literary name-dropper. As Kaplan argues, like many others before him, the graceful and condensed prose of Lincolns finest efforts, especially after 1854, reflected his immersion in Shakespeare and the Bible, as well as his training in the law. There is justice in Kaplans description of the Second Inaugural Address as closer to a dramatic soliloquy than to the usual oratory at a presidential swearing-in--although this had as much to do with Lincolns genuine anguish and confusion in 1865 as with any literary design. Weary, tormented, and uncertain, Lincoln was talking to himself as much as he was to the nation. Yet Kaplan goes much too far in making Lincoln a literary man, and in making Lincolns use of words the key to his soul and his greatness. Kaplan hears all sorts of Shakespearean resonance and similar echoings in Lincolns speeches. Some of this is certainly there, but some of it is also an illusion--and some of Lincolns most literary work actually echoes American politicians, not British playwrights and poets. It is this indifference to the political context, and to Lincolns immersion in political writing, that leads Kaplan astray. Consider an example. Analyzing Lincolns powerful closing to his House Divided speech of 1858, Kaplan pauses over its description of a united Republican Party drawn from strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, in contrast to the divided Democrats, who were wavering, dissevered and belligerent. Here is a passage, Kaplan rhapsodizes, that emulated the distinctive intensity of Shakespearean language, and represents the best of literary English from Shakespearean oration to Tennysons Ulysses. In particular, he claims, the speechs distinctively original use of discordant and dissevered make this mission statement the most distinctively powerful by any American president. The trouble is, these words and lines came, in some cases directly, from Daniel Websters famous second reply to Robert Hayne delivered in 1830, one of Lincolns favorite congressional speeches. Lincolns meaning was different, but his original prose was not Shakespearean, it was Websterian--not John, nor even Noah, but Daniel. Lincoln was a politician, and he regularly looked for inspiration, including literary inspiration, from his political predecessors. When composing his First Inaugural Address amid the mounting secession crisis, he asked to be brought copies of three works: public pronouncements by Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster. The heart of Lincolns address*--which was to deny any historical, political, or philosophical justification for secession--was a gloss on Jacksons proclamation denouncing the South Carolina nullification movement at the end of 1832. When Lincoln spoke, later in the First Inaugural address, of American democracy, and asked if there was any better or equal hope in the world, or when he again spoke of American government, in his annual message in 1862, as the last best hope of earth, his words owed nothing to Shakespeare and everything to Jefferson, whose first inaugural address referred to this Government, the worlds best hope. Kaplans vaunting of the literary reflects a deeper problem, which is to present Lincolns words and rhetoric as his chief asset--even, at times, his only asset. Kaplan correctly observes that for Lincoln, words mattered immensely. He has a point when he argues that Lincolns lifelong development as a writer gave him the capacity to express himself and the national concerns more effectively than any president ever had, with the exception of Thomas Jefferson--although how strong that point actually is depends on what one means by effectively. But to say that Lincoln became what his language made him is an English department conceit. Lincoln may have relied on his speaking and writing abilities more than some or even most, but like any self-made man--including stump-speaking politicians--he became who he became because of much more than his language. To say, as Kaplan does, that, as president-elect, the only weapon [Lincoln] had at his command was language ignores the many weapons that Lincoln not only commanded but actually wielded before his inauguration, including his political clout and his ability to shut down efforts at compromise in Washington that conceded too much. Later, as if concerned that his readers might be getting the wrong impression, Kaplan draws back a little, and observes that words could not prevent the war, and by themselves words could of course not fight the war. That such a ridiculous sentence even appears in Kaplans book indicates how much it overvalues rhetoric. Indeed, it was just as well for Lincoln, and the nation, that the Unions fate did not rest on the power of Lincolns prose. If by effective one means effectual or consequential, instead of merely impressive or eloquent, then Lincolns words had a mixed record indeed. His powerful speeches from 1854 through 1860, above all the Cooper Institute address and the House Divided speech, as well as the newspaper accounts of his debates with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, were certainly crucial in making Lincoln a national figure and gaining him his partys presidential nomination. But the First Inaugural Address, even with its moving appeals to the mystic chords of memory and the better angels of our nature, could not forestall the crisis at Fort Sumter--or prevent Virginia and three other southern states from seceding in April and May 1861--thereby, as Kaplan admits, failing in its primary purpose. The Gettysburg Address powerfully summarized what the Union cause had become in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation; and it won praise from various listeners and readers, including the days main orator, Edward Everett; and it certainly accomplished its primary purpose, which was to dedicate a military cemetery--but it did not alleviate northern weariness with the war, or prevent Lincolns political standing from plummeting seven months later owing to the military stalemate and high casualties. (For several months thereafter, until Shermans smashing victory in Atlanta in September 1864, it remained doubtful that Lincoln would win re-election.) The Second Inaugural Address--one of the shortest presidential inauguration speeches ever, composed with victory close at hand--superbly justified the Union effort and described the sin of slavery as somehow the wars cause; and it did so with resounding Shakespearean as well as Biblical overtones. Some critics at the time hailed it as the masterpiece that it was. Lincolns murder six weeks later makes it impossible to know how the speech might have affected future events. Still, with Lincoln dead, the most frequent references to this speech over the decades to come, and even into our own time, skipped over the passages about the bond-mans two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil and about blood drawn with the lash, and moved directly to with malice toward none; with charity for all--which unreconstructed southern whites turned into a plea for lenience and eventually used as a conservative pitch to obstruct racial equality. Strangely, the greatest effect of the Second Inaugural Address, at least through the 1950s, may have been in helping to fabricate the pro-southern Lincoln later inflated and favored by Thomas Dixon and put on the screen by D.W. Griffith. By contrast, President Lincolns most effective document was one of his least literary. Historians have gone back and forth over the years on the significance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Most are now inclined to agree with the late John Hope Franklin that, even with all its limitations, the proclamation set in motion the train of events that led to slaverys abolition under the Thirteenth Amendment. The first step, Frederick Douglass called it, on the part of the nation in its departure from the thralldom of the ages. Kaplan correctly describes the proclamation as perhaps the single most consequential document of Lincolns presidency, but neither he nor anybody else can call it a literary masterpiece or anything close--something that Kaplan tries to explain away as a paradox. As Richard Hofstadter once observed, the proclamation had all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading. And yet words can be more than just words, even if they are dry legalisms--especially when they are backed up by the full force of the federal government, including the army. The point is not that presidential oratory makes no historical difference, especially in swaying or consolidating public opinion. Think of Andrew Jacksons message vetoing the re-charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1832 (which insured his re-election), or his nullification proclamation (though that, too, was backed up with the threat of force). And think of Franklin Roosevelts First Inaugural Address or his fireside chats. All were powerfully convincing in their own ways, although none of them even approached the splendor of Lincolns great addresses. Presidential rhetoric certainly can persuade, placate, or inspire people to action, whether the presidents actually write their own words (as Lincoln did) or rely on speechwriters and cabinet members. But just as presidential language need not be eloquent in any classic literary sense to get things done, so eloquence is no guarantee that the words will be effective, or even right. IV. For many years, the literary scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. has been vigorously expanding and institutionalizing the study of African American literature and history, bringing to light forgotten writings by black authors, and serving as a link between the academy and an American mass audience. His work, in print and on television, blends the worlds of scholarship, antiquarianism, and entertainment. In Lincoln on Race & Slavery, Gates takes another step in this mixed direction by writing on a matter which, he admits, he had not previously studied, but had to work up in order to write, host, and narrate a bicentennial documentary for the Public Broadcasting System. Along with his co-editor, Donald Yacovone, Gates has chosen seventy writings by Lincoln on the subjects of slavery and race, and reprinted either their key passages or the entire document. Thanks to the Internet, this compilation could not have taken up too much time or energy: if you go to the online edition of Lincolns collected works and enter the word slavery into the sites simple search engine, all but a few of the books documents instantly appear, in chronological order, along with a few dozen more, all ready for downloading. Gates and Yacovone do provide headnotes, which the printed and online full editions of the collected works lack--a useful service, even though the information provided is not entirely accurate. Unlike Kaplan, Gates is more interested in the substance than the style of Lincolns writing. He says nothing about Shakespeare; instead, more like a historian, he devotes a long introductory essay to making sense of Lincolns ideas about slavery and race. Gates describes being struck by the discovery that Lincoln developed quite distinct lines of thinking about the two subjects--as well as about a third subject, colonization, or the idea that blacks, once emancipated, ought to be strongly encouraged, and even given funds, to resettle voluntarily in Africa or in some other tropical destination far from the United States. What is truly striking, though, is that Gates is so surprised by what he found in Lincolns writings. Eric Foners study of the ideology of the antebellum Republican Party, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men--which was published nearly forty years ago, and remains required reading in many undergraduate as well as graduate history courses--laid out the important distinctions. College textbooks have presented them for a long time. The basic connections between slavery and racism before the Civil War are straightforward. Essentially, the nation divided into three groups on the issues of slavery and race. Virtually all proslavery Americans believed absolutely in white supremacy, and thought that inferior blacks merited bondage. All Americans who believed in racial equality were adamantly anti-slavery. And most anti-slavery American whites believed, to one degree or another, that blacks were inferior. The first of these three groups, the pro-slavery forces, dominated the white South. The second group, the abolitionist radicals, represented a minority of whites in the North, and believed that slavery should be abolished immediately throughout the entire country. The third, by 1860, represented a majority of the white North, and it included a wide spectrum of views about race. The most conservative of the nonabolitionist anti-slavery northerners were vicious racists who wanted to halt slaverys expansion in order to keep the western territories lily white. At the liberal end were those who believed that blacks, although inferior to whites, were human beings and should be emancipated. Unlike the abolitionists, these anti-slavery northerners, whatever their view of blacks, wanted to end slavery, but in accordance with what most Americans believed were the Constitutions protections for slavery where it already existed. As an important first step toward putting slavery on the defensive, they fought to prohibit slaverys expansion into the territories. Lincoln, after 1854, became a pre-eminent political leader of this broad anti-slavery group, with views on race that were decidedly at the more liberal end. The colonization idea attracted some slaveholders in the upper South and, for a time, a few black activists in the North, as well as some non-abolitionist but anti-slavery white northerners. Again, there was a spectrum of opinion about race among the pro-colonizationists. Racist conservatives wanted to encourage colonization simply to rid the country of hateful sub-human blacks. Other supporters of colonization believed that, given the fierceness of white racial prejudice and the long chain of abuses under slavery, it would be better for whites and freedmen alike if they went their separate ways. (Some of these supporters also saw colonization as a means to prevent interracial sex and marriage, from which most white Americans publicly recoiled.) Lincoln, following his first great political hero, the Kentucky Whig slaveholder Henry Clay, held to the latter view, which as late as 1862 he supported as the best possible solution to the nations racial torment. Anticolonizationists, meanwhile, included slaveholders and their allies, who wanted to keep black bondmen enslaved and in America, as well as white abolitionists who, along with the African Americans, slave and free, wanted to bring racial equality to America. Gates dispenses his lessons respectably. For the most part, he places Lincoln correctly in these different groups and along these different measures, even though it requires conceding that Lincoln fell far short of our own conceptions of justice and humanity. Amid the current bicentennial emoting, it is refreshing to read an evaluation of Lincoln that refuses, as Gates writes, to romanticize him as the first American president completely to transcend race and racism. Yet Gates presents also his own dramatic--and utterly unpersuasive--version of the fanciful two Lincolns script. Several basic facts of political and constitutional history elude him, as do certain nuances of political speech and political strategy. And on some crucial issues his analysis is very poor. According to Gates, Lincolns most radical--and therefore his most admirable--achievement was to overcome Jeffersons limitations and proclaim that blacks as well as whites should be included in the Declarations self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Whatever he may have learned from Sally Hemings, Gates remarks suavely, Jefferson (although in principle anti-slavery) believed that blacks were sub-human, and he did not include them within his definition of men in 1776. Lincoln, by contrast, most certainly and most impressively did; and although this rather radical belief never led Lincoln to embrace full social and political equality between blacks and whites, it did propel him to the point where, at the end of his life, he declared his limited support for black suffrage--the first American president to do so. A correction is immediately required regarding Thomas Jefferson. In 1785, Jefferson did advance in his Notes on the State of Virginia--as a suspicion only, he added--that the blacks ... are inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind, and he proceeded to explain why, in terms that today are hair-raising. There is a strong case to be made, on this account, that he did not have blacks in mind when he wrote the Declaration nine years earlier--although it is by no means as certain as Gates concludes. (Hopeful slaves and angry slaveholders of Lincolns time took Jefferson at his word in the Declaration. So did Lincoln.) But as it happens, later in the Notes, Jefferson observed that slavery removed in the minds of the people that [their] liberties are of the gift of God--that slavery is a human usurpation of mens God-given natural rights to liberty. Gates ignores these significant observations. They suggest that although Jefferson thought blacks inferior to whites, he still considered them human beings. If so, Jeffersons thinking (though not his political action) ran closer to the rather radical Lincoln than Gates allows. In any event, Jefferson, just before he left the presidency in 1809, had second thoughts about his earlier writing about black inferiority, and he hazarded ideas about slavery and race not unlike those that Gates praises in the mature Lincoln. Early in 1809, in a letter to Henri Gregoire, the French radical priest and abolitionist, Jefferson declared that he had offered his earlier views on blacks with great hesitation, and that he had based them only on his limited personal observations, and that he wished to see their complete refutation. Above all, Jefferson asserted, the degree of [the blacks] talent ought never to become a measure of their rights. Just because Isaac Newton was superior to others in intellect and understanding, Jefferson wrote, he was not therefore lord of the person and property of others. Indeed, Jefferson told Gregoire that he hoped that one day blacks would be placed on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. So Gatess claim that Jefferson never stated ... in his writings that blacks were human is simply false. On other points, Gates takes Lincoln to task. He is inclined to endorse Frederick Douglasss assertions that Lincoln hated slavery chiefly as an economic system that degraded all labor and hurt poor whites, and that it was for the good of whites, not blacks, that he fought slavery as he did. Now, it is without question that what Foner has called the free labor argument against slavery did form a part of anti-slaverys principled core (just as it deeply informed the more radical abolitionists arguments); and Lincoln certainly shared this view. But it is unfair to slight Lincolns repeated affirmations that he also considered human bondage a moral abomination, and that blacks, as humans, had the same basic rights as whites to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is especially unfair of Gates to describe these broad rights to individual selfhood strictly as economic rights. The unfairness becomes clearer by broadening the context to include such anti-slavery leaders as Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, the author of the famous Wilmot Proviso in 1846 that tried to restrict slaverys expansion (for which Congressman Lincoln voted and which Frederick Douglass applauded). In fighting slaverys spread, Wilmot said, he harbored no morbid sympathy for the slave, but was trying to keep the West open for free white laborers and a white mans country, and to stop any possibility that northern whites would be ruled by men who had been suckled by some damn Negro wench. Lincoln, the native Kentuckian, occasionally used words such as nigger and Cuffee on the stump and in conversation, even after he was elected president, which would have made him a gross violator of later racial etiquette across the nation. But he did not assert the crude racism of those such as Wilmot, who insisted that they opposed slavery purely and simply in order to benefit the white man. (Wilmot, incidentally, later altered his views about slaverys cruelty to blacks.) By concentrating on Lincolns writings about race and slavery, Gates also misunderstands how much more besides race affected Lincolns political approach to slavery. Apart from the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, Gates does not discuss the Constitution much, even though references to it abound in the Lincoln documents that he has selected, and even though constitutional issues were pivotal in Lincolns thinking about both slavery and the Union. For Lincoln, to destroy slavery while destroying the Constitution would have been no victory at all, as it would demonstrate to the world that the American Revolution and republican government were follies or frauds--impervious to reform. Yet in accord with most anti-slavery men, Lincoln held that, like it or not, the Constitution tolerated and even protected slavery in the states where it already existed. As of 1860, there was absolutely no possibility that Congress would pass, and that the states would ratify, a constitutional amendment banning slavery, which would have been the only peaceable and constitutional way for the federal government to outlaw bondage everywhere. Nor was there any possibility that the cotton states of the Deep South, or even the less slave-dependent states of the upper South, would abolish slavery on their own anytime soon. On that account, a minority of radical abolitionists, most conspicuously William Lloyd Garrison, concluded that the Constitution was morally bankrupt. But most of the anti-slavery forces, Lincoln among them, concluded that they would have to attack slavery where they believed the Constitution gave the federal government the power to do so, chiefly by barring slavery from the territories. These anti-slavery advocates believed that, as an economic system, plantation slavery would have to expand or it would die. Halting its expansion thus amounted to a sentence of gradual death. (On this point, the slaveholders agreed.) Politically, the addition of new free states out of the vast territories added from the Mexican War, as well as the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase lands, would break the hammerlock that the South had long enjoyed in Washington over the slavery issue. This was what Lincoln meant when he spoke of putting slavery in the course of ultimate extinction--by containing it, as opposed to permitting slaverys expansion which, he said, would put the nation on the high-road to a slave empire. Some historians claim that Lincoln conceded that the choking off of slavery that he had in mind would take at least a hundred years to complete--a poor reflection on Lincolns anti-slavery zeal. Gates accepts the claim, and writes, cuttingly, that at that rate, some black people born in my birth year, 1950, would have been born slaves. Lincolns actual remarks, delivered during his debates with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, were far less definitive, and more like throwaway lines than position statements. They hardly endorsed the concept of a gradual emancipation protracted over the century to come. But the important point is that, until the Civil War, and even through the wars opening months, most Americans thought of emancipation in terms of one form or another of gradual emancipation. That was how slavery had come to an end in parts of the Caribbean and Latin America, as well as in the northern United States. (New Jersey passed its emancipation law in 1804, yet in 1860 there were still a few slaves in the state, called apprentices for life.) Any proposal for gradual emancipation, in whatever form, in the United States was generally taken as a serious attack on slavery. And the slaveholders knew as much. To them, the principle of nonextension was a radical threat to slaverys survival. Thus, Lincolns election as president in 1860, along with the election of a Republican majority in the House, was sufficient to convince the Deep South states that they ought immediately to secede from the Union. Secession, which Lincoln called the essence of anarchy, amounted to precisely the strike against the Constitution that was anathema to him and other anti-slavery non-abolitionists. And so Lincoln, during his first two years as president, repeatedly told his abolitionist critics that he was fighting to save the Union and not to put down slavery or upset slavery--that is, to abolish slavery in the rebel states where it already existed. But this did not mean that Lincoln (as Frederick Douglass and other abolitionists suspected) had suddenly abandoned his belief that the work on dismantling slavery ought to begin. It meant that he wanted to restore the Union as it existed in 1861--with a democratically elected federal government that was determined to commence the process of emancipation by banning slaverys expansion. When, by the spring of 1862, it became clear to Lincoln that such a restoration was no longer viable, he began looking into emancipation using his powers as commander-in-chief. So it is impossible to understand the seriousness of Lincolns anti-slavery politics before 1862 without paying close attention to his ideas, and to the ideas of others, about the Constitution. Yet Gates virtually ignores the Constitution, or he dismisses concerns about its integrity as underhanded evasions. This ahistorical judgment leads Gates to complain, a little obtusely, that Lincoln only occasionally and obliquely recognized slavery as the basic cause of the Civil War until he delivered his forceful Second Inaugural Address in 1865. In fact, between 1854 and 1865, virtually every speech Lincoln delivered, and every political letter that he wrote (including those that Gates reprints), made it clear, at some level, that slavery and its expansion lay at the heart of the sectional divide. When Lincoln spoke in 1858 about a house divided against itself not being able to stand, he was not talking about divisions over state rights, or internal improvements, or the tariff. One had only to read the official address that justified South Carolinas secession, which referred directly to an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery. Lincoln did not, to be sure, go on, in his First Inaugural Address, to describe why he thought human bondage was cruel and intolerable, as he would in brief but powerful detail under the vastly different political circumstances of his second inauguration after four years of war. For sound political and constitutional reasons, Lincoln kept the suppression of the secessionist rebellion front and center throughout the fighting; and he framed the struggle in those terms, at least through 1862. But even before the first shot was fired, Lincoln certainly recognized that slavery was, as Gates puts it, the origin of the war. In effect, Gates--and he is not alone--holds that the radical abolitionist view of slavery and its immediate and total eradication is the only one worthy of respect, let alone serious consideration. He denigrates not just Lincoln but the core of the Republican Partys platform of 1860--that the containment of slavery would begin slaverys destruction--when he writes, more than a little contemptuously, that Lincoln could live with slavery if he had to. This may express a noble morality, but it is bad history: it fundamentally distorts what Lincoln and the anti-slavery political movement actually believed, and how Lincoln and that movement--which eventually sparked secession and freed the slaves--actually evolved. Ironically, this neglect of the political and constitutional context leads Gates, the trained literary scholar, to misunderstand how the political leader, Lincoln, used words. Lincolns secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay once observed that to measure right [Lincolns] utterance as a whole the surrounding conditions ... must continually be kept in mind, but Gates does not heed the warning. Consider a conspicuous example. In the late summer of 1862, amid a pressure campaign by the radicals, the eccentric but influential left-wing Republican editor Horace Greeley criticized Lincoln for not pursuing emancipation more aggressively. Lincoln was happy to reply that he was determined to save the Union whether it would mean freeing all the slaves or freeing none of the slaves. Standing up to the importuning left wing of the Republican Party was a surefire way for Lincoln to shore up his support among moderate and conservative northerners--parsing his words carefully in order to sound cautious and responsible without in any way contradicting the constitutionalist anti-slavery views that he had proclaimed when running for president. It was all the better--indeed, it was imperative--to do so because, unbeknownst to Greeley and his allies, Lincoln had begun drafting the Emancipation Proclamation more than a month earlier. He would sign and release to the public the preliminary version of the document only a few weeks later, when he thought the time was ripe--undercutting the radicals completely, while inevitably stirring up trouble among northern moderates and conservatives. Lincolns reply to Greeley was not, as Gates says it was, a white moderates declaration of his cautious and even callous determination to ignore the slavery issue in order to advance the Union cause. It was an example of Lincoln shrewdly and successfully manipulating Greeley to suit his immediate political end, which was to calm conservative fears prior to issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Gatess headnote covering Lincolns reply to Greeley does appreciate better the presidents deeper political strategy--but also sneers at it as a transparent attempt to disarm conservative political rivals which heightened black leaders distrust of Lincoln. Once again, the realities of politics--and the political realities that Lincoln faced--are trumped by an abstract moralism. V. This brings us again to the two Lincolns story. Gatess confusion about words and politics also lies behind his own variation of this myth. Lincoln, he writes, experienced a great sea change in his thinking about the war during the summer of 1862. Until then, supposedly, Lincoln refused to acknowledge that slavery had caused the war, and was adamant about not recruiting blacks into the army. Only after the war went badly for the Union in 1861 and 1862, Gates claims, did Lincoln conclude, in despair, that the emancipation of the slaves in the rebel states and the recruitment of black troops were acute military necessities. Yet even as he prepared to sign the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, Gates observes, Lincoln told a delegation of two anti-slavery ministers from Chicago not only that an edict of emancipation would be useless as we are now situated, but also that he feared black soldiers lacked competence and would be overrun by the rebel forces. Gates, the literary critic and rare-book lover, finds the key to the riddle in a literary text. Specifically, Gates proclaims that Lincoln came to his senses after reading a brief book called An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens and Soldiers, written by one George Livermore--a Cambridge, Massachusetts abolitionist, merchant, bibliophile, and collector of Americana--about the Founding Fathers admiration of black soldiers during the American Revolution. One of the headnotes in Gatess book is more emphatic, stating that Livermores writing had persuaded Lincoln by the late summer of 1862 about the Founding Fathers views--a chronological impossibility at the very least, since Livermores book was not even published until October 1862, and Lincoln did not receive a copy of it until November. Anyway, that book turns out to have been influenced by an earlier volume written by the black abolitionist William C. Nell. It was, Gates writes, quite cleverly presented to President Lincoln--in what Gates calls an important, and little noted, subtle coup--by Senator Charles Sumner, the Massachusetts radical Republican, and a friend of Livermore. In Gatess telling, the scales then fell from the presidents eyes, and Lincoln changed his policies. Thereafter black soldiers fought so valiantly that Lincoln completely repudiated his earlier doubts, and became the black troops greatest champion--a change that eventually pushed the president into contemplating limited black suffrage once the war was over. Gatess account of Lincolns conversion experience makes greater allowance than some historians and critics do for the military exigencies of the war. But it also amounts to a variation of the old populist story: instead of arguing that runaway slaves prompted the Emancipation Proclamation, Gates says that Lincolns opposition to black recruitment changed with Sumners coup of giving the president a book influenced by a black abolitionist writer, and that thereafter the intrepid black troops began changing his mind about blacks in general. The problem is that most of what Gates says about the decision-making behind emancipation and black recruitment is either dubious or inaccurate, and much of it is preposterous, and some of it runs afoul of basic scholarly standards. One weakness of Gatess introduction is its almost complete neglect of Congress (apart from the Sumner-Livermore episode), and Congresss major and continuing impact both on Lincoln and the entire process of emancipation. (Through the spring of 1862, Congress passed several pieces of important emancipation legislation which Lincoln duly approved, including the abolition of slavery in the nations territories and compensated emancipation in the District of Columbia.) Gates also misconstrues the chronology of Lincolns thinking about emancipation and the effects of the changing military situation--matters his own documents could have helped clarify. Although the project failed, Lincoln first proposed a plan for compensated emancipation in the state of Delaware by the end of 1861--well before the military defeats of the spring and summer of 1862. The summer of 1862 had barely begun when Lincoln read his initial draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to Secretary of State Seward and Secretary of the Navy Welles; and less than ten days later he discussed his draft at a meeting of the full cabinet. Certainly the Union reversals in the Seven Days Battles during the last week of June had some bearing on Lincolns decision to move ahead--but not, as Gates suggests, the continuing Union defeats that culminated in the second battle of Bull Run, which was not fought until the end of August. More important, Lincolns thinking had more to do with the Unions securing greater political and military control in Kentucky beginning in the winter of 1861-1862. Lincoln had long feared that any premature move toward emancipation would cause Kentucky and other border states to secede, greatly complicating the Unions titanic military challenge. And even though Kentucky, like Delaware, rejected Lincolns proposal--delivered in March 1862, and included in Gatess documents--for a general and gradual emancipation plan for the border states, a great constraint on Lincoln had been alleviated. Opportunities opened by Union military success, and not simply (as Gates reports) the harsh lessons of failure, affected the politics that led to the Emancipation Proclamation. As for black military service, Gatess neglect of Congress once again hurts his analysis. The Militia Act of 1862, approved by Lincoln in July, was a major advance, as many abolitionists recognized at the time. Lincolns shifts on black recruitment, meanwhile, were part of a prolonged and deeply political process--not some imaginary sea change. As early as September 1861, Lincoln approved Secretary Welless authorization to recruit black sailors--a minor and uncontroversial step at the time, but an indication that Lincoln did not think that blacks were incompetent in combat. Then, in April and May 1862, when Congress began debating the legislation that moved toward enlisting blacks in the army, Secretary of War Stanton (who was quicker than Lincoln to favor recruiting black soldiers, and then more vehement about it) quietly encouraged the Union military in South Carolina to start arming blacks--a move that was inconceivable without Lincolns approval. The general in command in South Carolina was David Hunter (whom Lincoln had long known and liked, dating back to Hunters service in Kansas before the war, which had begun during the Bleeding Kansas struggles of 1856). Hunter raised the black troops and also issued an order, without formal authorization from his civilian superiors, emancipating the slaves on the Sea Islands of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Lincoln may well have tacitly supported or even quietly initiated Hunters emancipation order, as a ploy to see how far emancipation could now be pushed. (Lincoln had curtly ended the freelance emancipation effort by General John C. Fremont in Missouri in 1861, which he thought had reached the point of insubordination and political recklessness.) Hunter apparently did not believe that he was violating the administrations wishes. (I believe he rejoiced in my action, Hunter said of Lincoln, though politics barred the president from openly admitting as much.) But Hunter also seized slaves from captured plantations and dragooned them into military service; and he unnecessarily offended white soldiers, as well as two Kentucky congressmen. One Union officer who later commanded black troops said that Hunters recruiting tactics were valuable as an example of how not to do it. When the northern press reacted with immediate and nearly universal hostility to Hunters emancipation order, Lincoln denied that he had any foreknowledge of it and publicly rescinded it--but he did not rebuke Hunter, privately or publicly, and he did not disband his black troops, let alone relieve him of his command, as he had done with Fremont. Hard at work formulating the Emancipation Proclamation and concerned about its prospects, Lincoln then staged his own tactical--that is to say, political--retreat during the summer of 1862 by refusing to use the full authority granted him by Congresss Second Confiscation Act, which liberated the slaves of rebels, and by stating repeatedly that he would not approve a general order to arm blacks unless some new and more pressing emergency arises. On August 10, after Stanton refused to recognize and to pay his black troops, a disheartened General Hunter reported to the Secretary of War that he was disbanding all but one company of his black volunteers. What happened next required no subtle coup by Charles Sumner, the abolitionists, George Livermore, or anyone else. At the end of August, Stanton authorized Brigadier General Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist in Beaufort, South Carolina, to pick up where Hunter had left off and recruit up to five thousand black volunteers. Lieutenant Charles Francis Adams Jr.--the grandson of John Quincy Adams and the son of the anti-slavery stalwart Charles Francis Adams--reflected on the affair: Why could not fanatics be silent and let Providence work for awhile? That is, Adams believed that had Hunter displayed more political sense, he might not have lost the confidence of Stanton and Lincoln. But whether Hunter had truly lost the administrations confidence or was simply a pawn in a game that Lincoln was playing soon became a moot point. On September 13, 1862, Lincoln met the black ministers from Chicago and, in line with the public impression he had been giving since the summer, remarked that he had grave doubts about enlisting black soldiers as well as about ordering emancipation. Yet, before the month was over, blacks were being recruited into the Union Army, albeit on a limited basis, under General Saxton--by direct order of the War Department, and with no objection from President Lincoln. In Louisiana and in Kansas, other Union generals began enlisting black troops in August--efforts that Lincoln did not explicitly authorize, but also did nothing to stop. The esteemed historian Benjamin Quarles called them trial balloons. In late October, Lincoln met with Colonel Daniel Ullmann, an erstwhile New York lawyer and politician, who proposed that Lincoln enlist black troops. Lincoln asked Ullmann whether he was willing to command black soldiers. The New Yorker replied that he was, and he went on to gain authorization to organize a brigade of black soldiers; and he led two black regiments which fought in the Unions initial defeat at Port Hudson. But by then Ullmann was acting under the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation which, in its final version, included (almost in passing) a stipulation about black recruitment omitted in the preliminary draft. Various pressures, not least Stantons insistence and the successes, in South Carolina and elsewhere, in raising credible black units, made possible the adoption of a policy that Lincoln had been gently experimenting with well before he issued his preliminary edict of emancipation. Gates simply fails to understand what historians have long known was transpiring beneath Lincolns political artifice. He takes Lincolns words at face value when it suits his own arguments--such as his remarks to the Chicago ministers in September 1862 about black military incompetence--but he is unable to see Lincoln for what his finest biographers have shown he was: a shrewd leader who could give misleading and even false impressions when he wanted to do so, and made no public commitments until the moment was ripe. So it was with the Emancipation Proclamation, which (on the advice of Seward) Lincoln delayed releasing until after the outcome of the battle of Antietam on September 17, which gave the Union cause more credibility. And so it was with recruitment of blacks, a policy that Congress advanced and that Lincoln encouraged with stealth and indirection as early as the spring of 1862--always keeping himself immune from political blame in case of failure, waiting until the trial balloons had proved successful and public opinion had matured before enunciating the policy in public. He then announced the change in the least conspicuous way imaginable, stating near the close of the legalistic Emancipation Proclamation that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places.... This is how politics actually works in Washington, and always has worked. Gates does not comprehend it. This failure yields even stranger results when Gates offers his own account of why Lincoln reversed course on black recruitment--results so strange, and even potentially damaging, that they demand closer examination. VI. Gatess story of the great Abraham Lincoln and the unknown George Livermore--a story that, in Gatess telling, has been long neglected by an indifferent posterity--is interesting for several reasons. If true, it is a striking revisionist explanation of one of Lincolns most fateful wartime decisions. It is one of the bolder claims ever made on behalf of the dubious two Lincolns conversion story. It feeds the deep yearning of scholars (and not just scholars) to establish at every turn the agency of ordinary, neglected Americans in shaping momentous events--influence from the bottom up that decades and even centuries of elite, great-man history have supposedly suppressed. And this particular story, or rather the continuing story about the story, also shows how a prominent professors outlandish claims may quickly attain the semblance of truth. In an admiring notice of Lincoln on Race & Slavery in The New York Review of Books, Garry Wills relates the most fallacious version of the story, which he picked up in part from the books headnotes, as if it were commonly accepted knowledge among American historians. Lincoln changed his mind on the usefulness of blacks in the army, Wills writes confidently, when he was given [in August 1862] a book by George Livermore that established that Washington had usefully employed black troops during the Revolution. Since Wills has been authorized as a distinguished expert on Abraham Lincoln, and since his remarks appear in an authoritative place, a bogus account of crucial historical events thus gains authority of its own. It may only be a matter of time before popular histories start telling the stirring tale of how an abolitionists little book, inspired by a black writer, changed Lincolns mind about recruiting black soldiers, which in turn transformed Lincolns views about blacks in general. George Livermore may become one of American historys unjustly unsung heroes. The only trouble, of course, is that the story is a counterfeit. Gates does not disclose what sources he has consulted about Livermore, but as near as I can tell the story originated in some passing remarks that appeared in Livermores obituary, written by Sumner, in the Boston Daily Advertiser on September 2, 1865. None of the major modern scholarly biographers of Lincoln, from Benjamin Thomas to David Herbert Donald, relate the story, or even mention Livermore. (Burlingames massive biography makes one trivial reference to Livermore and his book.) A version of the story does appear in a study of Lincoln, published in 2004, by Geoffrey Perrett, a prolific writer of historical biography. Like Gates, Perrett offers no supporting evidence. And yet one of the headnotes in Gatess book reports categorically that Livermores writing persuaded Lincoln by the late summer of 1862 about the views of the all-important Founding Fathers concerning black troops--again an impossibility, given that Charles Sumner only sent Livermores recently published book to Lincoln on November 8. (This misdated account is the one that Garry Wills repeats.) Sumner did, to be sure, write to his friend and constituent Livermore, in late December 1862, to assure him that his study interested President Lincoln much, and he added the claim that Lincoln had consulted it while composing the final Emancipation Proclamation. Sumner also claimed that he had sent Lincoln a second gift of the book on Christmas morning after the president told him he had mislaid his copy. (The letters may be viewed online in the Library of Congresss collection of Lincolns manuscript correspondence.) But there is nothing whatever in these letters to show that Livermores writing had any decisive effect on Lincolns thinking. Lincolns thoughts turned quietly to the possibility of black recruitment long before Sumner sent Livermores book to the White House; and by the time Lincoln received the book, the Union had been enlisting black soldiers on a limited basis for months. Nor have I ever read of a single instance when Sumner--whom Lincoln liked, probably best among the radical Republicans, but whom he also regarded as an ally who required careful handling--outfoxed the president on anything. The idea that Sumner pulled off a clever coup on so grave and sensitive matter as black enlistment in the Union Army, and that he did so without the knowledge, let alone the involvement, of Secretary of War Stanton, with whom Lincoln was in constant contact, is something between implausible and ludicrous. In any event, there is no evidence for it either in the Sumner-Livermore correspondence that appears in the Lincoln papers at the Library of Congress, or in any of the other Lincoln primary sources on the subject. I seriously doubt that convincing sources are buried away elsewhere. If they are, Gates needs to bring them forward, as he should have in his book. Another part of the story that Gates tells does appear to be true, or at least half-true. Lincoln supposedly even gave Livermore the pen that he used to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, Gates records in support of his story, as if Lincoln made a special effort to recognize Livermores contribution--though Gates then concedes that the list of claimants to that singular honor is no doubt a long one. (Once more, the later headnote, curiously, is more emphatic, stating flatly that Lincoln felt so indebted to Livermore that he gave him the pen he had used to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.) In fact, the journalist Benjamin Perley Poore (who was present at the event and reported on it for the Boston Evening Journal) wrote that Lincoln carefully put away the pen--a steel pen with a wooden handle, the end of which had been gnawed by Mr. Lincoln--a habit that he had when composing anything that required thought--so that Lincoln could give it to Sumner, who had promised it to his friend George Livermore, of Cambridge, the author of an interesting work on slavery. Benjamin Quarles, in his classic work, Lincoln and the Negro, which was published in 1962 and which Gates does not cite, confirmed that Livermore actually did end up with the pen (which now resides across the Charles River from Harvard in the collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society). But Quarless account about how it all happened demolishes what is left of the little known story that Gates thinks is so important, as well as the claim in Gatess book that Lincoln felt indebted to Livermore and acknowledged that debt. Quarles recreates the scene immediately after the proclamations signing: Seward reached for the document to take it to the State Department for the great seal. Lincoln let nobody take the pen; he had promised to save it for George Livermore of Boston, a friend of Charles Sumner. For several weeks Sumner had plagued Lincoln about the pen. Sumner had been bedeviled in turn by Livermore: I do so much desire to have that freeing instrument come to Massachusetts, he wrote on Christmas Day, that I would do almost anything to get it. Sumner hardly needed vigorous prodding. He remembered, as he informed Livermore two days later, that shortly after the District of Columbia Emancipation Act had been signed, he had gone to the White House and asked for the pen Lincoln had used. Lincoln had reached to his desk and taken up a handful of pens, saying, It was one of these. You are welcome to all. This time Sumner was not to be denied. Lincoln signed the Proclamation on a Thursday afternoon; that Saturdays newspapers announced that Sumner had the pen. Two days later, on Monday, January 5, Livermore received it in the mails. Wrote he to Sumner before the sun had set: No trophy from a battlefield, no sword red with blood, no service of plate with an inscription ... would ever have been to me half as acceptable as this instrument. Quarles did not tell quite the whole story, for Livermore wanted as many mementos as he could lay his hands on. Is that preserved? he wrote to Sumner. That would be still better than the pen--if it could be had after the printer had published it.) And when Sumner forwarded Livermores request for the pen to Lincoln, he did mention that Livermore was the author of the Historic Research on slavery in the early days of our Government. But Quarless account conforms with everything else that we know about Lincoln and Sumner, about their personal as well as political relations. It is entirely possible that Lincoln found Livermores book appealing, and even useful. But there is nothing in the historical record to show that what Perley Poore called Livermores interesting work on slavery in any way persuaded Lincoln about black enlistment. And, until and unless Gates provides solid documentation overturning Quarless account, there is nothing at all behind the claim that Lincoln felt indebted to Livermore. There is instead, by Quarless telling, the faintly comical story of an enthusiastic abolitionist souvenir-hunter, a proud son of the Bay State, bedeviling his friend Senator Sumner; and of Sumner continuing the constituent service that he had begun with the gift to the president of a copy of Livermores pamphlet, by plaguing Lincoln about the pen. Finally the president, who appears to have been indifferent about which pen signed what, handed over the prize. Gatess credulity about historical sources also mars his treatment of Lincoln and colonization. The Emancipation Proclamation in effect stated that a Union victory would mean the immediate end of slavery nationwide--although only the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment by Congress (for which Lincoln pushed before his murder) and its ratification by the states extirpated the Constitutions toleration of slavery once and for all. Almost instinctively, he clung to the idea of voluntary colonization as ineluctable. In the same message to Congress on December 1, 1862, in which he announced the Emancipation Proclamation, he reasserted his firm support for colonization, and called for a constitutional amendment that, among other things, would permit Congress to fund directly the voluntary colonization of free blacks. Never again would Lincoln publicly advocate colonization. He did, as Gates writes, approve a contract with a private citizen, at the very end of 1862, to transport a few hundred blacks to an island off the coast of Haiti. (The only colonization project actually undertaken by the Lincoln administration, the venture proved a fiasco.) Lincoln also met with some pro-colonizationists in the spring of 1863. But by the end of 1863, at the very latest, colonization was off the administrations agenda. Indeed, even in his message to Congress in 1862, as Gatess headnotes observe, he began to back off from the scheme, assuring white wage-earners that even if blacks did not emigrate their own wages would not fall, and chastising those who favored colonization out of racial hatred. And yet there have always been writers as well as historians among those who dislike Lincoln--including that great Civil War expert Gore Vidal--who insist that Lincoln never really abandoned his desire for colonization. Since Lincoln never explicitly renounced colonization, these critics say, there is no justification for believing that he ever really did so. Gates is mindful of Frederick Douglasss excoriating comments, delivered in 1876, that, owing in part to his pro-colonization views, Lincoln was preeminently the white mans President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. (Following Lincolns assassination in 1865, Douglass had called Lincoln emphatically the black mans president: the first to show any respect for their rights as men, but Gates, who quotes the speech as one of his epigraphs, elides this contradiction.) Gates thus gives Lincolns critics their due, batting back and forth two primary sources that, he claims, might lend their case credence. In 1886 and again in 1892, General Benjamin Butler asserted that, in two meetings with Lincoln in 1865, he received a commission from the president to investigate the practicality of colonization. Earlier, beginning in 1868, Gideon Welles published a series of articles that stated Lincoln always linked emancipation and colonization. Ominously calling the sources deeply troubling if problematic, Gates runs at length through the pro and cons. Gatess inquiry quickly begins to look like a wild goose chase. Butlers claims are flawed by inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies. Almost any scholar in the field could have told Gates (as, he reports, David Herbert Donald actually did try to tell him) that Butler was, in Donalds words, a thoroughly untrustworthy witness. More important, Butlers own account states that it was he, Butler, who initially raised the possibility of a colonization scheme in Panama. As usual, Lincoln said nothing too committal either way. He listened politely, and his visitor went away convinced that the president agreed with him. Finally Gates himself is forced to conclude that Butler either misremembered events or purposely tried to press Lincoln into service for [his] own personal and political cause. As for Welles, Gates merely infers his claim that Lincoln held fast to his pro-colonization views after 1862. Welless actual articles are at best ambiguous about the concluding years of the war. Yet none of this rattles | https://newrepublic.com/article/115633/gettysburg-address-150th-anniversary-sean-wilentz-abraham-lincoln |
Was the Obama Campaign Less Brilliant Than We Thought? | Plouffes head was still firmly attached to his neck but he wanted Bidens neck on a platter. was his reaction when he took a look at the transcript. We were going to do this in the next two weeks. As a fucking surprise. ! [Italics, ALL CAPS, punctuation are the authors] This reaction proceeds for several pages, and includes some strange analysis (discussed prior to Bidens remarks), laid out by Halperin and Heilemann, that in coming out for gay marriage at all, There was also a broader risk: that undecided voters across the board would say, Why in the world is Obama focusing on this when the economy is still so shaky? If this analysis had any merit, which I dont think it did, then skipping a big surprise announcement meant to grab huge media headlines, as Plouffe clearly wanted, was in fact a godsend. But the contradiction is never even mentioned. Its just another FREAK OUT over something that didnt end up costing Obama the election. (The authors make clear that Bidens comment undoubtedly helped Obama with fundraisers, but it doesnt seem to lead either the authors or Obamas aides to question the importance of gaffes.) The other good example of this mindset, well reported by the authors, occurred when Cory Booker defended private equity on "Meet the Press," undercutting Obamas anti-Bain message. The response, predictably, was that Patrick Gaspard, Obamas political director, went into a fit of rage, screaming You dont fucking get it! at Booker. You gotta fix this now! Obamaworld is described as apoplectic. The whole section ends after Bill Clinton says something similar about private equity, enraging Team Obama again. After noting that Obama himself wasnt pleased, the authors write, But more troubling were the monthly employment numbers to him the next say by Gene Sperling. And thats about all we hear about unemployment. I wasnt sure if Heilemann and Halperin really did think the obvious truth: that these numbers were more troubling than a silly comment by Cory Booker. And I dont blame them for not writing about economic statistics. But after the employment report, there is no reaction from Obamas campaign. There is no screaming from David Plouffe that Republican austerity policies are slowing the economy down. There is no sense that any political capital that Obama could put into something (anything!) that could possibly affect the economy is important to the campaign, or at least as important as what Hilary Rosen might say on a given day. Maybe all this proves is that campaigns operate in somewhat of a bubble, but it is still compelling stuff. Heilemann and Halperin had incredible access to the major players, which initially made me wonder why their account of the elections decisive moments was so thin. Its possible, however, that their sources have a somewhat similar analysis. If so, the book, which is otherwise pretty empty but nonetheless enormously enjoyable, does indeed tell us something. P.S. I have been enjoying Peter Bakers intelligent and informative new book on the Bush administration, the coverage of which has focused too much on the Bush-Cheney relationship, and too little on the interesting portrait of the 43rd president and assorted world leaders. So I was slightly surprised to see Bakers piece in Politico Magazine explaining why the little details of personal interactions among major political figures actually matters. Baker is certainly right that its worth knowing the specifics of internal debates about warrantless wiretapping, or whether Cheney had permission (from Bush) to shoot down planes that had been hijacked on 9/11. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115727/obama-campaign-revealed-halperin-and-heilemann-book-double-down |
Do American Jews Live in a Cocoon? | Beinarts discussion of suicide bombings is a good place as any to acquaint ourselves with the second theme of his writing. Any outcome or effect or result, however small or large, of the Israeli-Arab conflict is always and forever portrayed as an Israeli policy or the action of an Israeli subject on its Palestinian object. Where such a portrayal cant credibly be made, Beinart will trace back an Israeli original cause. He correctly notes both that Palestinian anger doesnt justify suicide attacks and that stopping Palestinian terrorism requires understanding it. But as the next paragraph shows, hes not actually keen to understand it, just to trace its causes to Israel. Selectively quoting from three sources, including a ten-year old NYRB article by Avishai Margalit, he notes that a database of suicide killers shows that they all had personal grievances and sought spectacular revenge. This surely can be a helpful bit of information in determining how suicide bombers are recruited by organized political movements once they have made the strategic decision to send such terrorists into crowded buses and cafes with the aim of murdering as many civilians as possible. But it doesnt explain how a society becomes mobilized behind such a strategyand suicide bombings were, according to contemporary polling data supported by over 70 percent of the Palestinians at the time and by similar numbers throughout the Arab Worldand especially not when such a strategy, like the method itself, is clearly suicidal. It doesnt explain why the first suicide bombing in Israel happened in 1994, immediately after the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the Oslo Accords, or why they have disappeared (for now) since the construction of Israels security barrier. A more curious or critical social scientistone who is less trapped in his own cocoonmight wonder why, if a desire for revenge for a personal grievance is all that is needed for a man to strap a bomb to his waist and blow up twenty children, there have been no Israeli relatives of terror victims who have carried out suicide bombings on Arab buses. There is a third theme to Beinarts work on Israel and American Jews, and in many ways, it is the one I find most interesting, even though it is probably the least unique to Beinart himself. No amount of self-criticism on the part of Israelis or Jews or their supporters is ever enough is for Beinart, while at the same time there is absolutely no expectation for any self-criticism or reflection by Palestinians or Arabs or their supporters. American Jews must have the only ethnic lobby in the United States where a politician speaking cant be taken seriously unless he also makes some critical remark. It is only about Israel that people always feel the need to point out that supporting it doesnt mean agreeing with all of its policies etc. This is all true, of course, but nobody needs to say this speaking to diaspora leaders in the Indian or Irish or Armenian communitiesand nobody dares say this at a pro-Palestinian gathering. In this, American Jews emulate (I dare not say take their lead because I have no idea who is inspiring who and I doubt there is a clear direction anyway) the Israelis quite well. Commissions of inquiry have investigated military failures, most famously after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and after Israels Christian allies carried out a massacre in Lebanon in 1982, resulting in the resignations of very senior figures in both the civilian and military echelons. Academics, particularly but not exclusively in the last three decades, have assiduously worked to revise and reassess Israels history and to challenge heroic myths of elites and public opinion. Filmmakers, playwrights, and artists shine a harsh a light on all of Israels social ills, and especially problems arising from the conflict, the wars, and the occupation. The first literary attempt by an Israeli author to deal with the Palestinian experience of catastrophe in 1948 was by S. Yizharin 1949! Its an open question whether or not all this self-criticism has actually had a positive effect on Israeli policies, whether by making them more effective or moral or both, or whether it has only served to make us feel better about ourselves, but that is not the subject of Beinarts charge or of this essay. What is not an open question at all is that nothing like this occurs on the other side of the conflict, and that, to my mind, has had disastrous consequences, both for the cause of peace and for the interests of the Palestinian people. Beinart is indignant, for example, that Birthright trips dont venture into Palestinian towns in the West Bank, without bothering to note that safety might be a concern or that Birthright trips dont venture into Israeli settlements either. Hes outraged that trips to Israel organized by pro-Israel organizations spend only one day in Ramallah talking to Palestinian officials. Beinart dismisses such journeys as replicating the cocoon, but I wonder what his standard would be for an appropriate amount of time. He never tells us, never compares to the amount of time pro-Palestinian delegations spend with Zionists (hint: it rhymes with hero), and never provides a standard from any other conflict or any other PR or lobbying campaign for any cause. Id venture that the diversity of opinions on these trips and the effort to bring in voices not just from some opposition but from actual enemies is entirely unique to Jewish organizations. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that for the last year I have been working as a senior research associate with Bicom, a British pro-Israel organization that also takes delegations of journalists and politicians on tours of Israel, though I have nothing to do with the delegations or the trips. They too make a point of taking their guests to the West Bank and organizing meetings with leading Palestinian figures as well.) Beinart is not ignorant of the amount of self-criticism among Israelis and their supporters in and out of the Jewish community in the U.S. He doesnt pretend it doesnt exist; he points right at it, and claims its not enough. He praises the Israeli film The Gatekeepers (it is, by the way, an excellent film and required watching for anyone who wants to understand the tragic dilemmas of Israels hopeless misadventure in the territories it conquered in 1967), but seems uninterested in asking why a similar film couldnt be made about the other side. I think its a legitimate question. I dont expect partisans in any conflict to be overtaken by self-criticism or genuinely be able to see the others point of view. But I am struck by the total absence in the pro-Palestinian discourse of even a minority view that diverges from the tale of pure victimhood. I wonder not why anyone hasnt answered difficult questions about very popular decisions made by leaders both inside the Palestinian camp and by its supporters in the Arab states which turned out to be disastrous, but why no one seems to care to ask. Perhaps it is a reasonable time, now that 65 years have passed, to assess the war aims of the Arab states who invaded Israel the day after the Jewish state (but not the Arab one envisioned by the partition) was declared. At that point, roughly half of those Palestinian Arabs who would become refugees from that conflict were still in their homes. The Arab states argued at the UN that the Jews werent a nation and held as proof the large Jewish minorities living so happily in Arab countries (for some reason, very few of these Jews remember it as fondly). Fine. While every aspect of Israels decision making and behavior in the 1948 war, as well as in every other stage of the conflict, has been held to the searing light of scrutiny, critique, reassessment, and self-doubt, nothing of the sort occurs on the Arab side. And to bring us closer to Beinarts topic, nothing of the sort occurs in the west among partisans of the anti-Israel cause. Which is a shame, since it could have really been helpful before the same poor decision-making brought a new catastrophe upon the Palestinians in the last decade. I dont refer to all the new settlement housing built during this time, which would not have and could not have been built had a Palestinian state been established on the West Bank in 2000, but rather to the pointless bloodletting and loss that was the second intifadah. Again, I dont have any expectation to read a Palestinian take on those events that sounds like it could be Ehud Baraks memoirs. But I wonder why it is so hard to find any critical voice to ask the tough questions. I should say that, uniquely on this last set of questions, I have actually encountered Palestinian voices willing to ask them, and to do so not out of any sympathy for Israel but purely as a kind of tactical self-criticism of the kind one can often hear from Israelis. But I have only heard it from actual Palestinians, never from any activist or journalist or intellectual of the vast pro-Palestinian community in the West. We are all familiar with the critiques of the anguished, conscientious friends of Israel. They frequently appear as letters in the NYRB with dozens of signatures or op-eds in the Times. They dont attempt to justify the hostility or violence of the Arabs towards to Israel; they take it as a given. But they will criticize, say, Israeli targeted killings as only provoking more violence, or Israeli settlement construction as empowering radicals on the other side, or Israeli stubbornness in negotiations as short-sightedly precluding a deal or irresponsibly ignoring possibly undesirable but unavoidable changes in the region. I have never encountered similar rhetoric from partisans of the Palestinians. No one writes that jihadist rhetoric only empowers Israeli radicals, that tolerance of terror organizations makes doing a deal harder. A typical partisan of the Palestinians will look at the growth in settlement populations and not conclude that his side better hurry up and do a deal before time runs out but will insteadsurprise!have only more condemnation of Israel. Condemnation which may well be deserved, I hasten to add. Whats notable to me here is that there is no discourse that views the Palestinian as agents too, acting in an environment that is not always favorable. Learned opinion is quick to ascribe the rise of Islamist Hamas to the occupation (as though Islamist politics have not been on the rise throughout the Arab world despite not being occupied), but never excuses the strengthening of the Israeli right to the suicide bombings and rocket attacks that have followed each Israeli withdrawal of the last two decades. And this brings me to the fourth theme. Close readers of Beinarts work know that he has undergone a significant ideological transformation in recent years, especially on issues connected with the Middle East. There is nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, he is to be applauded for emerging from his youthful hawkishness. I generally find myself agreeing both with his defense of Israels existence and his critique of the Israeli settlement project in the West Bank. But Beinart has a real problem separating the personal from the political, and doesnt only seek to blame a nefarious establishment for previous views which he now abjures, but seeks to deny the older pedigree of things he has only now discovered. Thus every time he encounters something for the first time, it is always a new trend rather than something which has been there all along. The Arab Boycottboth as a way of avoiding any contact with Israel, and as an aspiration to isolate Israel and the Israelis from anyone else in the world, as a first step to rejecting the very presence of Jews in the Middle Eastis the most glaring example of this tendency. Beinart seems genuine about his belief that a boycott of Israeli organizations is a recent phenomenon of the past few years, fueled by interactions with Israel in the territories. He says the same thing about anti-normalization campaigns. But this is to miss both the depth of the hostility to Israel and its much older roots. The Arab Boycott began in 1945 (before the occupation, before the "nakba") and was explicitly directed at Jewish rather than Israeli interests, as there was yet no State of Israel. Anti-normalization has been the rallying cry ever since the first peace overtures were made in the 1970s. The resistance to having any contact or cultural exchange with Israel or Israelis is why so many Palestinians (all the Palestinians Beinart has ever met, according to his own writing) can credibly believe that Zionism is a colonialist movement. Beinart is repeatedly struck by his conversations with Palestinians only because they are new to him; nothing there is new at all. This becomes apparent near the end of the article when he describes efforts to bring pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian partisans together for dialogueand the refusal of pro-Palestinian groups to participate. Beinart very gently condemns this refusal, but writes compassionately that one can understand the reluctance of such groups to take part as they feel it is somehow consenting to the occupation. With this he has unwittingly knocked out two legs from his own rickety stool. First, the reluctance of Palestinians to participate is somehow understandable, but American Jews reluctance to be subjected to accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide or their perfectly reasonable desire to see Israel (or for their children to see Israel) for its beaches and holy sites and not only its conflicts is not. Second, its only at this very late point in the article that we ever actually encounter someone, somewhere, anywhere, refusing to hear the other side or speak to itand its not an Israeli or a Jew at all! Maybe other readers are sharper than I am, but it was only there that it dawned on me that for a whole article about Jews refusal to breach their closed intellectual space, one that he tweets he spent an entire summer working on, Beinart was unable to find a single actual exampleas opposed to fanciful hypothetical scenarios he himself inventedof anyone from the American Jewish establishment refusing to hear someone or speak with someone from the other side. His only examples come at the end of the article; he very gently criticizes them; and they are actually all in the direction opposite to his thesis. One can understand the reluctance actually manifests all four themes at once. Between the lamentable phenomenon he observes of a lack of dialogue and the conclusion that it is because American Jews live in an intellectual cocoon, there are several steps which need to be logically filled. If a Jewish organization had cancelled the appearance of a Palestinian speaker, if Jewish groups heckled Arab artists at cultural events or threatened to boycott joint events, he might have a case. If Israeli leaders or other Zionists were being invited to speak at pro-Palestinian events, he might have a case. If he could, despite a furiously overheated search engine, find one example of Jews actively mocking the suffering of the Palestinians, he might have a case. If he could find partisans of any other conflict in American political life who have a more open, more self-critical internal discourse, then at least we could have a baseline for discussion. Beinart has found none of these things. He simply observes a regrettable state of affairs between the American partisans of a distant, but emotionally resonant conflict and assumes it must all be the fault of the Jewish side. Its an apposite metaphor for his analysis of the larger conflict too. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115611/peter-beinart-do-american-jews-live-cocoon-answer-no |
Did Becoming the Favorite Change Mayor-Elect Bill de Blasio? | New York City Mayor-elect (and still Public Advocate) Bill de Blasio had a victory party Tuesday night that, like his victory party nearly two months ago at the end of the Democratic primary, fit its campaign. Back in September, de Blasio had risen from fourth to first in the polls in scarcely a month, and duly the party was held in a small, dark night club packed largely with people in on the joke. De Blasio made a boisterous appearance outside, on an uncrowded Gowanus street with food carts. These days, de Blasio, the massive frontrunner during the entire general election campaign (it looks like he will defeat Republican nominee Joe Lhota by close to 50 points, a record for a non-incumbent in the modern era), has been increasingly unavailable to the media and has been a capital-T Thing. His party let in probably close to a thousand people, at the expense of intimacy: It was held in the hangar-like Park Slope YMCA, formerly an armory; all the lights were on, and the scene was made even brighter for televisions sake. When, at 9pm, the invaluable local channel NY1 announced that New Yorkers had elected a new mayor, the hoi polloi had not yet been let in the venue, and the vast quantities of media members, pols, and other connecteds largely ignored the foreordained news. De Blasio spoke at the tail-end of primetime, giving his standard stump speech without too much oomph (although yes, at the end the family did do their patented Smackdown dance, and yes, Dantes Afro remains sublime as ever). The eventsterile-seeming, with politicians in suits and lapel-pins, and decked-out police officers, and celebrity endorsers (Steve Buscemi, Susan Sarandon), and union volunteerswas over not long after 11. This is the question. Over the past two months, as de Blasio has ruthlessly played the frontrunner, raising lots of money and making few ripples, we were reminded of the operative he indeed is (among other things, he managed Hillary Clintons 2000 Senate campaign). Yet, with a few minor adjustments, the message has stayed pretty resolutely left-wing. And that is not even counting the prominent New York Times article reporting that de Blasio made pro-Sandinista trips to Nicaragua in his younger and more vulnerable years, which provoked Lhota to call him a Marxist and the New York Post really to take it to the next level. Check out #deblasiosnewyork, which responds to the left-wing rep once most prominently stoked by Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson. Even bodega prices become regulated. Ritual billionaire floggings begin at dawn.) But make no mistake, de Blasio declared, at once conjuring and superseding his famous tale of two cities creed. The people of this city have chosen a progressive path. And tonight we set forth on it together as one city. As de Blasio puts together his cabinet (and, in a fraught decision, selects a new police chief, having ruled out Mayor Michael Bloombergs man, Ray Kelly) and prepares to be sworn in on New Years Day, the fun begins. Because de Blasio was not the only victor yesterday: the organized New York City left and its other candidates were, too. A source from the left-wing, labor-backed Working Families Party said it was a big night: First ever Working Families mayor (the party was unable to endorse in the primary due to conflicting union endorsements). Top threee office holders are all Working Families Democrats, the source said. Beyond that, a dozen new Working Families Democrats on the City Council, meaning a bigger and more muscular caucus than ever before. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115487/bill-de-blasio-new-yorks-next-mayor-was-elected-favorite |
Would Repealing D.C.s Height Limit Help Republicans Win Back Virginia? | According to Christopher Leinberger, a Brookings Institute fellow and author of The Option of Urbanism, the height limits persistence could cause D.C. to lose market share to the nearby suburbs in Maryland and Virginia, something which has not happened for nearly a decade as improved schools, safer streets, and the desirability of walkable urban neighborhoods have made D.C. a more attractive place to live. The District has not felt the impact of height limits on supply yet, Leinberger argued. However, he added, we will be feeling that impact in the future. In greater downtown D.C., we probably have 15 or 20 years of supply left as far as potential build-out. From a real estate perspective, 15 to 20 years begins to influence prices now. The height limit, he predicted, will begin to impact [suburban population growth] if in fact D.C. is stupid enough to lose their ability to gain market share. From here it is not much of a leap to guess that the height limit, which may already have driven some poorer residents out of D.C., will eventually drive precisely the sort of people who otherwise would want to live in the most obvious urban, walkable neighborhoodswhich are in and on the periphery of LEnfants original cityto the suburbs, particularly in Virginia, where there are already several urban-type neighborhoods. And such moderate young professionals are the very people who have contributed to one of the most striking stories in national politics today: The slow but sure turn of Virginia, with its two Senate seats and 13 electoral votes, from a red to a blue state. The commonwealth that once housed the capital of the Confederacy and that, before Barack Obama, had not gone for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1964 is now solidly trending blue. Obama won it in the last two elections. The Democrat won the last three Senate elections. And last week, Terry McAuliffea onetime Democratic Party chairwas elected to the Executive Mansion in Richmond. There are a number of important and big reasons for this, including the black and women votes. But perhaps most importantly, northern Virginias booming, knowledge-based economydriven by a mini Silicon Valley originally anchored around AOLs former headquarters in Dulles, Virginia; biomedical research; and, of course, two big warshas led to disproportionate population growth peopled by disproportionately upwardly mobile, highly educated, racially diverse, blue-leaning people. Theyre educated, said George Mason University professor Toni-Michelle C. Travis. And because theyre younger and maybe grew up in a more diverse world, theyre more for equality, trying to close some of these horrendous gaps between the haves and the have-nots. They tend to be Democraticat least until they own the business! | https://newrepublic.com/article/115591/dcs-height-limit-act-would-repeal-help-virginia-gop |
Is Doctor Who a Lefty? | The preceding Patrick Troughton years (1966-69) had a fair crack at the evil businessman meme, too. The villain Tobias Vaughn, a sort of 1960s Alan Sugar, was a one-man fifth column for the Cyberman invasion of 1968. In The Enemy of the World, a recently rediscovered story from the same year, Troughton played the Doctors double, a sinister agribusiness oligarch with an admittedly unfortunate comedy Mexican accent. Decades later, during the shows late-1980s Indian summer, a new, left-leaning script team including Ben Aaronovitch brother of the newspaper columnist David smuggled a few anti-Thatcherite themes into the dwindling series. These included an overbearingly upbeat leader called Helen A, who demanded continual happiness from her subjects on pain of death. Looking back on Who for the Telegraph, Damian Thompson decried the cringemaking . . . left-liberal subtext of many of the storylines, in which benevolent internationalism was pitted against the rancid jingoism of the British establishment . . . Doctor Who in the early 1970s reached the height of absurdist fantasy, he noted. Well, it is a fantasy programme and, as scientific adviser to the United Nations Intelligence Task Force (and best chums with the Brigadier), the Doctor was a paid-up member of the military- industrial complex, anyway. However, if you look hard enough, you can find the ghost of other political traditions in the original Who. Though born in the Wilsonian white heat of technology, the Cybermen were a warning about depersonalisation. They were faceless new men, Leninist monsters to mirror the fascist Daleks, the iron men from behind the Iron Curtain. (When they were revived in 2006, the Cybermen were the product of another deranged businessman.) Beset by tax worries in the pip-squeezing Jim Callaghan years, Doctor Whosgreatest scriptwriter, Robert Holmes, produced a story called The Sun Makers (1977), about an overtaxed and oppressed population on Pluto. It featured a villain with Dennis Healey eyebrows, a security force called the Inner Retinue and a corridor called P45. This was Doctor Whos equivalent of the Beatles Taxman. In 1968, as the shows patrician mission to explain history to youngsters was slowly replaced by a parade of increasingly rapacious monsters, Troughtons Doctor even made a short but impassioned case for what we would now call liberal interventionism. There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things, he tells the crew of a moon base menaced by Cybermen, things which act against everything that we believe in. They must be fought. Everyone who saw it remembers it it was Doctor Whos Agincourt speech, delivered by an actor were now reappraising as possibly the best Doctor ever. This was the point at which Doctor Who ceased to be a random wander through time and space and became the story of humanoid good against alien evil that continues, with tweaks, today. In its revived form, Doctor Who is more personal, less didactic but alive to the notion that the personal is political. The bisexual Captain Jack Harkness who was so much more likeable when he was a roving-eyed space rascal and not the angst-ridden bore of Torchwood and the human-Silurian lesbian couple Jenny and Madame Vastra have done their small bit for equality. Christopher Ecclestons working-class Doctor was a melancholy war survivor brought back to life by an ordinary shop girl, Rose (moral: we want to live like common people). David Tennants incarnation only made things worse with his interventions in time and space, ending up alone and learning that sometimes the solution is worse than the problem a very Noughties fate. With its fairy-tale tropes and the polydimensional affair between the Doctor and River Song, Matt Smiths world is harder to parse politically, although we have learned that there is a Dalek parliament. Tough on humans, tough on the causes of humans?) Perhaps clarity will come with his finale at Christmas. The only safe prediction is that the Doctor will remain the last great Enlightenment figure: egalitarian, ever curious and dedicated to reason and the principle that the sonic screwdriver is mightier than the sword. These are embattled qualities. We may need them even more in 2063 than we do now. Andrew Harrison is a writer and magazine editor. This piece originally appeared on newstatesman.com. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115766/doctor-whos-politics-sci-fi-show-britains-liberal-conscience |
Did Lindsey Graham Sponsor the Abortion Ban Because Marco Rubio Wouldn't? | On Thursday, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill that would outlaw abortion at 20 weeks, a companion to a measure that passed the House of Representatives this June and an echo of laws that have already passed in more than a dozen conservative states. Anti-abortion activists have been looking for a sponsor the legislation since it passed the lower chamber, and Graham has pro-life bona fides tracing back to his introduction of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 1999. And though President Barack Obama has vowed to veto the bill if, by some fluke, it passes the Senate, its appearance in the capital still seems a natural way for the national party to channel the rabid vitality of its state-level cousins. Flash back to the Fourth of July weekend this summer, when conservative newspaper The Weekly Standard reported that Rubio had agreed to be the lead sponsor of the 20-week ban (which, as Ive written before, is based on bogus science and expressly designed to appeal to moderate voters and the self-professed moderate swing vote of the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy). Rubios office quickly backtracked: The pro-life groups have asked him to introduce the bill in the Senate, an aide told The Washington Post. He had not made a final decision before leaving on a family vacation this week. I expect an announcement when he gets back to D.C. next week. I, and others, hypothesized that Rubio was in a tough spot, between a hard-right base that would punish him for backing away from the bill and, perhaps, presidential ambitions that could be damaged by it. For over a week, he waffled, his spokespeople saying he was very supportive of the abortion restriction but refusing to clarify whether he would be its lead sponsorbut then Rubio seemed to succumb to the wishes of his Tea Party fans. In late July, the New York Times reported that he was leading backroom meetings with Senators Ted Cruz and Rob Portman where they strategized about how to bring the bill to the floor. The Times wrote that the cohort was eager to bring to the floor of the Senate the same impassioned debate over abortion that has been taking place in state legislatures around the country, a.k.a. to fire up the base, and that Rubio in particular seemed to be using it to raise his national profile after the hits he took for supporting immigration reform. And then, suddenly, the project stalled. As Politico reported on July 24, Rubio and 27 other Republican senators signed onto a bill from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) in 2011 that would require lawmakers to point to which piece of the Constitution allows government expansionand he said adherence to that idea is causing the slowdown, not cold feet. Right, of course, not cold feet at all. And then all was quiet on the Senate abortion ban front for over two monthsuntil Graham introduced the bill on Thursday. Now, anti-abortion groups that had courted Rubio, such as the Susan B. Anthony List, are calling Graham the ideal guy for the job. When a reporter for the pro-abortion rights site RH Reality Check asked the National Right to Life Committees Carol Tobias why it was Graham instead of Rubio, she answered: There were several senators that were considering introducing this bill, and they were looking at a lot of different options and they all came together and Lindsey Graham stepped forward and said, Id be happy to co-sponsor this, and the others said, Great. Were with you. So, it was Senate deliberations. He was one of several that was considering it." | https://newrepublic.com/article/115524/did-lindsey-graham-sponsor-abortion-ban-because-marco-rubio-didnt |
Do Readers Give Infographics a Free Pass? | Eventually, what happened is people realized that you could use that same idea but in a more abstract way. In other words, you could make maps, but the maps didnt necessarily have to represent geographic space, they could represent economic space or pop cultural space. When that happened, it was this thing that really took off because it allowed us to make sense of lots of different realms of experience, and to make sense of it quickly. Thats why I sort of see infographics as an outgrowth of mapmaking. Its sort of abstracting the idea of mapmakingyoure making maps, but not necessarily of geographic space. GC: There are so much more data out there now. There are so many more ways of creating data about the world - there are satellites, theres Twitter, you dont need the whole litany from me. But theres a lot of different sources of information. What this does is this creates this strong need to make sense of the information. Its very easy for a person to be overwhelmed. Were very hungry for ways of making sense of all of this information out there. So I would say theres an information arms race, and what I mean by that, is that on the one hand theres technologies out there that create information in vast amounts. But as thats happening, on the other side, there are people trying to figure out ways of taming this information, of making sense of it. This sort of push-pull, this sort of arms race if you will, is something that actually goes back a long time. If you look back to when the printing press was invented, all of a sudden people were able to make books in vast quantities, and their price came down. Anyone could write a book about anything, and there was this panic as people realized that it would be impossible to read all the books. So people invented ways of making sense of that, and one of the big inventions that we take for granted is a thing called the index. The same thing happened with encyclopedias. Someone invented the idea of encyclopedias, when you could just sort of summarize the key information that you needed without having to go to the primary sources. Thats sort of this arms race thats always been there, because as people feel overwhelmed and feel a need to make sense of it, they invent things that allow them to do that. And someone invents Google. So, I think what were seeing is that infographics are a powerful tool for making sense of data, so theyve exploded. Theyre being expanded, theyre being used in new and creative ways. Thats why were in a golden age of infographics, and why its a part of this historical arms race. Another point I would make, is that were in a golden age of good infographics, but were also in a golden age of bad infographics. What I mean by that, is anyone can make an infographic now, so there are people who dont really know what theyre doing, but they have the power, the ability to make infographics. Because you no longer need access to specialized equipment - anyone with a computer can do this, anyone with a computer connected to the Internet can publish it. So while we are seeing all this incredible innovation, and all these great examples of infographics, were also seeing garbage in vast quantities. Its somewhat analogous to what has happened with blogs, where anyone can do it, and what thats meant, is that there are people who otherwise would not have been a writer, and whose writing other people would not have read, but who are really talented at it and so they are able to get a large audience and share their thoughts and insights with a large number of people. But there are also people, who really shouldnt be writing. I mean its fine for them to write, theyre not hurting anyone, but what they write is not really of great public use, lets put it that way. Gun ownership rates in the United States, by Max Fisher. Excerpted from Best American Infographics 2013. GC: Ill tell you one thing that makes me flinch. I dont know why people do this, but theres this style of infographic, thats really long, like a long column. Typically what it is, is someone that just writes text, and then does illustrations with them, or maybe theres a pie chart. But its hardly an infographic. In other words, infographics have the ability to do things that text cannot. And so, when youre deciding whether to write a story or make an infographic, you want to think about what is it youre really trying to achieve, and what are these two different media good at, and then you decide what to do. It doesnt make sense to have an infographic that is basically illustrated text. Thats just not accomplishing anything. That said, there are examples of infographics in this book that were made by people who are not highly trained makers of infographics. There are examples in this book that some people would say arent infographics. I tried to be very inclusive, and I tried to give a sense for sort of the rich diversity of work that people are doing. I dont think the collection is snobby, I certainly tried to make it not snobby. I tried to pick things that I thought were effective at doing something. A bad infographic to me is just something thats not artistically effective, tts not achieving what it means to achieve. GC: For example, theres one infographic in here which is about gun deaths. Basically its a bar chart, that infographic to me was very effective because it was clear and made its point. It clearly achieved what it wanted to, and the starkness of it I think made it more effective. I saw a lot of different gun violence infographics, but I really liked this one, because it was so stark and so effective. One of the things that makes an effective story, whether its a visual story or a written story, is figuring out what to leave out, and he left out a lot of things that needed to be left out, and just made this one point. It also was part of the story of that year. There are other things in here that you can sort of ask yourself, Is it really an infographic? So for example, theres a flowchart, Is Life Good? Thats not something the New York Times would run. Its not something Edward Tufte would be approving of, I imagine. But it makes me smile. "How to Be Happy," by Gustavo Vieira Dias. Excerpted from Best American Infographics 2013. LK: The Multi-Touch paintings by Evan Roth would also seem to fit in that category. GC: I kind of included it there as a question Im posing. I feel like its an interesting question to ask. I dont think when he was working on it, I dont think he was thinking of it as an infographic. To me, its a visual display of data, and to me what makes it so interesting is that the data is swipes, and its kind of weird to think of that as data. But that very fact is whats so interesting to me, because we live in a time when swipes are data. Thats what iPhones have done, theyve turned hand gestures into data. To me, this is a piece that says your hand gestures are data, and look at these things that you now just completely take for granted, but ten years ago, we didnt do that. Thats what I find powerful about it and interesting about it. "User Name and Password" multi-touch painting by Evan Roth excerpted from Best American Infographics 2013. GC: I do think that infographics are becoming more interactive, and I think its just a natural result of the fact that we spend more time consuming digital media. I think that what makes them special and unique is these are infographics that need the tool of interactivity, that couldnt function without the tool of interactivity. What makes a good infographic is when the story takes advantage of the tools that you have. So for interactive infographics, the good ones are ones that take advantage of those tools, and the bad ones are ones that didnt need to be interactive and that dont work well. You sort of see it go both ways. Clearly, there are things that have to be interactive, and what makes them so great is the fact that theyre interactiveeither you need to see them in motion for it to work, or you need to be able to explore them. But its also the case that you see an infographic in print, and then you go to the website and see the interactive version, and it just doesnt work as well. Print and digital have their own strengths and weaknesses, and I think its a mistake to think that a digital infographic is always going to be better than the print. The same way that its a mistake to think that an infographic that is going to be better than a story - each medium has its own rules and its own abilities. GC: So youre going to make me choose among my children. Let me mention a few that I really like. Among the interactive ones, I thought that the wind map was really beautiful. Its actually an unusual one in that it works very well interactive and also works very well in print. Some of the others that just really stuck with me, are the Which Birth Dates Are Most Common? I like it for its simplicity, I like it because you see this dark band in the fall and you ask yourself, well, why are so many babies being born then, and then you realize that nine months before, its the coldest winter months and you look more closely and you see there are holidays there. So its immediately interesting, but you can also sort of go deeper into it and explore. "WInd Map," by Fernanda Vigas and Martin Wattenberg. Excerpted from Best American Infographics 2013. (Click for the full interactive version) Another one that I liked is feelings that cant be expressed in English. Its just kind of mind-bending and fascinating to think about that. The Four Kinds of Dog, is also really neat. I could basically go through and tell you why I like all of these. Let me mention one other - the Paths Through New York Cityit looks like this circulatory system, its just beautiful, but it also says something about the times were living in. LK: You call the infographic of Napoleons retreat from Moscow "the finest ever rendered." Charles Joseph Minard's infographic published by Edward Tufte on Visually . (Click to enlarge) GC: Whats so interesting about that, is that it was very innovative, in that he found ways to display a lot of different information, all in print. So it has multiple layers to it. You can see the size of the army, you can see the dropping temperature. he was able to display a lot of variables all at once. Thats an idea that had to be invented, someone had to come up with doing that. Someone had to invent, for example, the pie chart; his name was William Playfair. Before William Playfair there was no pie chart. Even more amazing, he also invented the line graph. We completely take for granted that there are all these visual ways of displaying information, but these were invented by peoplethese were real intellectual leaps, they are real contributions that we are still benefiting from. LK: The majority of the infographics in the collections are from media organizations. GC: Part of whats interesting about this, is that there are all these powerful tools out there that are available to just about anyone. Thats part of what makes this such a rich and exciting field, is that anyone can do it, and that if youre good, and if people like what youre doing, you can share it with just about anyone. One example of that is the infographic of the death toll in Breaking Badhow every single person in Breaking Bad died. I thought that was really interesting. Another really interesting example is this piece "Ten Artists, Ten Years," that looks at the different color palettes that different impressionist artists used. His interest is not infographics, his interest is color. He wanted to find a way of representing what colors different artists were using, so he figured out the five colors that each artist used in one year. Thats not something that a professional designer would necessarily come up with, its just a product of this guys personal interest. GC: Well, I feel like I see them everywhere - I mean, there was a show at the Museum of Modern Art a few years agoit was a show of visualizations as art. I think theyre everywhere. Just about any American would be very hard pressed to go a day without seeing any kind of infographic. Maybe if youre hiking the Appalachain trail and dont look at the tent instructions. Images excerpted from The Best American Infographics 2013, edited by Gareth Cook, Copyright 2013 by Gareth Cook. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Linda Kinstler is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic. Follow her on Twitter at @lindakinstler. | https://newrepublic.com/article/115644/best-infographics-2013-interview |
What does air pollution do to our bodies? | Image copyright Getty Images The countdown has begun to the launch of one of the world's boldest attempts to tackle air pollution. From next Monday, thousands of drivers face paying a new charge to enter central London. The aim is to deter the dirtiest vehicles in an effort to reduce diseases and premature deaths. The initiative comes as scientists say the impacts of air pollution are more serious than previously thought. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, told the BBC that the threat of air pollution, which is mostly invisible to the naked eye, is "a public health emergency". He added: "One of the things that has troubled me is that because we can't see the particulate matter, the nitrogen dioxide, the poison, you don't take it seriously." But over the last few decades, research has revealed how gases like nitrogen dioxide and tiny particles, known as particulate matter or PM, can reach deep into the body with the danger of causing lasting damage. Asthma attack The most obvious effects are on our breathing - anyone suffering from asthma, for example, is more likely to be at risk, because dirty air can cause chronic problems and also trigger an attack. "I had to stay up one night because my chest was really bad because [of] all the polluted air," 10-year-old Alfie told me. "I couldn't go to sleep and my mum had to stay awake." "All that polluted air can hurt your lungs, it can even damage you brain, it can damage nearly everything in your body," he said A pupil at Haimo Primary School in Eltham, close to London's busy South Circular Road, Alfie is one of 300 children across the capital taking part in unique research. Image caption A hot exhaust stands out in this thermal camera image The project involves each child wearing a special air-monitoring backpack, specially built by Dyson and fitted with instruments to measure nitrogen dioxide and the smallest particles, called PM2.5. One motivation for the work is that breathing in dirty air at an early age can have implications that last a lifetime. Research has shown that children growing up in heavily polluted streets have smaller lung capacity than those in cleaner areas - on average by 5% according to a study in London - a limitation that cannot be reversed. Greater challenges And air pollution can exacerbate other respiratory conditions too, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and lung cancer is thought to be linked as well. Dr Ben Barrett of King's College London, who is running the backpack research, says that children born in a more polluted environment face greater challenges in life. "It's not necessarily that there's a particular disease that they develop but their body is less able to cope with those challenges as they go into adolescence and into old age." Another pathway to harm is opened up when the smallest particles find their way into the depths of the lungs, to the alveoli, from where oxygen is transferred into the bloodstream. It's been established that PM2.5 particles are small enough to make that transition as well, entering the cardiovascular system and circulating throughout the body. The risks of this include the potential for blocking the arteries, increasing the danger of stroke, along with heart disease and heart attacks. Beyond that, there's evidence that the particles can reach the brain so researchers are investigating the potential effects on conditions such as dementia. Body of evidence A major Chinese study last year proposed a connection between pollution and lowered cognitive performance while a British study published last week suggested a link to psychotic episodes in teenagers. According to Prof Jonathan Grigg of Queen Mary University London, a leading figure in research into the effects of air pollution on children, the evidence for wide-ranging impacts is growing. "We're absolutely certain that air pollution is associated with respiratory disease such as asthma and with cardiovascular disease with heart attacks and strokes, and in five years we'll be more certain about other conditions like dementia and obesity." One new area of research is the hunt for an explanation for why babies in the most polluted areas tend to be born more prematurely and underweight compared to those born elsewhere. A small study, still under way, is investigating placentas and has found black dots that look similar to pollution particles spotted in lung cells. One of the researchers involved in the work, Norrice Liu, also at Queen Mary University, said the placenta would be expected to provide a sterile environment so the sight of black dots was a surprise. "We know what pollution particles look like when they're in the cells elsewhere in the body particularly in the lungs, and the black bits that we're seeing in the placenta are a very similar shape and colour to those what making us think they could be pollution particles." Their presence does not prove a link with premature birth or lower birthweight but it does suggest a possible mechanism. Fifteen young mothers have so far agreed to donate their placentas to the study, and one of them, Rachel Buswell, told me that of all her concerns while pregnant, air pollution was not one of them. "It's pretty scary," she said, "you protect yourself when you find out you're pregnant in as many ways as you can and that's going to be something people can't protect themselves as easily, living in London especially, it is quite frightening." | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47777103 |
How Important Is North America To Toyota Motors? | North America is very important to Toyota Motor Corporation (NYSE: TM) as the company sells in excess of 30% of its Total volume in the region and it contributes 28% to the current Trefis Price. Here we devise a scenario to understand the importance of North America while valuing Toyotas remaining regions. We will also show the effect of the scenario through our interactive dashboard, Importance of North America Business to Toyota. In addition, here is more Consumer Discretionary data. Trefis Effect on Revenue: The other regions except North America will combine to give automotive revenue of approximately $182 billion in FY 2019, 30% less than the expected revenue from all regions. In Financing segment we estimate that North America will contribute approximately 28% of Total revenue of $18.3 billion. Overall, we expect North America to contribute 30% of Total revenue in FY 2019. Effect on Earnings: Gross Profits would decrease by $19 billion for automotive segment and $1.7 billion for financing segments when considering all the regions except North America. The Indirect expenses would be approximately $35 billion in this scenario. Overall, we estimate that Net Income in this scenario would be $15.5 billion, down by 28% from estimated Net Income. Effect on Valuation: The Valuation of Toyotas regions when excluding North America is $105, 28% less than the current Trefis estimate of $147. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/04/01/how-important-is-north-america-to-toyota-motors/ |
Should we stop using the word cyclist? | As the repair man rummaged around in my gas oven, I tried to explain something to him about cyclists. We cyclists are no more a homogenous group than you vannists, I said. I had accepted the role of personal myth-buster, including the falsehood that cycle lanes cause congestion and pollution (thanks Robert Winston, Unblock the Embankment and the London assembly member David Kurten among others for repeating those canards). To his credit, the repair man eventually saw my point. Admittedly, I am often asked to defend the name of all cyclists, simply because I happen to get around by bike. Never mind that on my daily bike route are a range of humans, from parents with child seats on their bicycles to wobbly hire bike riders, fashionably attired creatives, elderly chaps with heels on pedals and knees out and yes, men and women in Lycra. Stopping using the term cyclist has been up for debate since an Australian study last week found 31% of respondents viewed cyclists as less than human. The research also found that the dehumanisation of people who cycle is linked to self-reported aggression towards them: if you see a person as less than fully human, you are more likely to deliberately drive at them, block them with your vehicle or throw something at them, the study found. It is easy to dehumanise people who cycle, the authors say, because they often dress differently and move in a mechanical way, and drivers cannot see their faces. Id add that thanks to decades of car-centric planning, drivers can whizz through a neighbourhood and turn into wide-mouthed junctions at speed while rarely having to face another human being, in or out of a car. The outcome of this problem is all too real. UK cyclists experience deliberate harassment, on average, every month. The study authors note that public references to violence against cyclists are not uncommon, and rarely given the same condemnation as, for example, violence towards women or bullying. Too often, comment pieces on cycling play this role online, in papers and on TV; clickbait by misguided news and views outlets with real-world consequences. Just read the comments on articles about those injured and killed cycling, blaming the victim and even implying they deserved their fate somehow. Dehumanising people is a dangerous business. Those who saw people on bikes as less than 90% human were found to display 1.87 times more direct aggression towards them than those above that mark. Meanwhile, news articles often remove the driver from the equation, referring to vans crushing cyclists and cars mounting pavements and running over children as though human agency played no part. It is perhaps no mental leap to conclude the only person such pieces mention, the cyclist, is to blame. We are all human, using the roads to go somewhere, trying to live our lives. Even as a competent and confident cyclist, the everyday aggression and carelessness of some drivers hurts over time. Ive been reduced to tears, numb shock, terror, and occasional crossed fingers that someone driving dangerously doesnt hit me. The authors say experiences like this can start a vicious cycle of behaviour. If cyclists feel dehumanised by other road users, they may be more likely to act out against motorists, feeding into a self-fulfilling prophecy that further fuels dehumanisation against them, they say. Perhaps one small step could be to think carefully about the language we use. We could do as Sarah Storey suggests in her new role as Sheffields cycling and walking commissioner: have one word for people who cycle for transport, another for people who cycle for sport and remember that we are all people, no matter how we use the roads. | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/apr/02/should-we-stop-using-the-word-cyclist |
What's next for Brexit? | Getty Images MPs met in the House of Commons for a whole day of debate and voting on Brexit - but weren't able to agree a way forward. Politicians were again discussing how the UK should leave the European Union. After rejecting the plan agreed by Prime Minister Theresa May rejected three times already, on Monday 2nd April MPs voted on four other options. But once again - none of them got enough support. 29 March 2019 - is the date the UK was originally due to leave the European Union (EU), but that didn't happen because members of Parliament (MPs) again refused to agree to the Brexit deal Theresa May had approved with EU leaders. The prime minister had to go to European leaders and ask for a delay. So far no-one can agree things like how the UK should leave and what the UK's relationship with the EU should be like once it has left the group. And there is a lot of disagreement about what should happen next. UK Parliament In a series of what are called indicative votes on 27 March, MPs also disagreed about what should be done. Last night, one politician from the Conservative party, Nick Boles was so angry at the House of Commons' failure to agree anything that he resigned from the party. Theresa May will meet her top team of ministers later to try work out what to do. After MPs failed to agree with Theresa May's deal, the UK was given a new date to leave the EU of 12 April. That could still happen but it would mean leaving without deal - something MPs have already voted against. There could be a fourth vote on the Prime Minister's deal but that's not a popular idea as her plan hasn't changed and has already been rejected three times. So the Prime Minister could ask for another extension. But all 27 countries in the UK would have to agree to that. If the UK gets an extension, it's thought they then have five options. 1. They could have ANOTHER vote on Theresa May's deal. 2. They could try to renegotiate another deal. 3. The government could hold a second referendum. 4. A general election could be called. 5. Brexit could be cancelled. We'll keep you posted here at Newsround so you know exactly where Brexit is up to. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47783165 |
How does the NBA Draft Lottery work in 2019? | CLEVELAND, Ohio Tanking is no longer as attractive. The NBA approved a change to its draft lottery system nearly two years ago, and it goes into effect now. The worst team in the league no longer has the best odds of winning the No. 1 pick May 14 in Chicago. Now, the three worst teams will have an equal shot and the lottery will be for the top four picks. Here is how it works: The teams with the three worst records will each have a 14 percent chance of winning the No. 1 overall pick. The fourth-worst team will not be too far behind with a 12.5 percent chance. The fifth-worst record will have a 10.5 percent chance, and so on. Again, it is important to note the lottery will now be for the first four picks. Traditionally, the drawing decided the top three picks. The rest of the draft order will be determined by record, starting with the worst teams that didn't receive one of those top picks. That part does not change. Under these rules, the team with the worst record will receive no worse than the fifth pick. This is the first change to the lottery system in 25 years. The last change came in November 1993 after the Orlando Magic won the lottery for a second straight year, despite finishing 41-41 after drafting Shaquille O'Neal and missing the playoffs on a tiebreaker. Here is a full list of lottery chances: Team 1: 14.0 percent for No. 1 overall; 52.1 percent for the top four 14.0 percent for No. Subscribe to our Cavs YouTube channel for interviews, analysis and more. Also, get Cavs news and perspective in your inbox at lunch time every weekday by signing up for our Cavs newsletter. Get Cavs Insider texts in your phone from Chris Fedor: Cut through the clutter of social media and communicate directly with one of the NBAs best beat reporters -- just like you would with your friends. Its just $3.99 a month, which works out to about 13 cents a day. Learn more and sign up here. | https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/2019/04/how-does-the-nba-draft-lottery-work-in-2019.html |
Can Tottenham Hotspur's New Stadium Deliver Success? | Getty After nearly two years in exile at Wembley stadium, Tottenham Hotspur will finally move in to their brand new stadium on Wednesday evening when they face Crystal Palace in a Premier League fixture. Built on the site of the old White Hart Lane, their spectacular new home, known for now as The Tottenham Hotspur stadium, has a capacity of 62,062, which makes it the second largest club stadium in English football. The stadium cost an estimated 850 million, boasts a retractable pitch, and has a sunken artificial pitch so it can host 2 NFL games each season. It also has the biggest single tier stand in the country with a capacity of 17,500, which Tottenham hope will generate a wall of noise to rival that of Borussia Dortmunds famous yellow wall at Signal Iduna Park. The hope is that this new stadium, with it's ability to generate greater funds for the club will in time help them compete for the Premier League title. Getty These stadiums are going to not only pay for the investment in that stadium, but produce excess cash flow which is going to go back in to buying players, Greg Carey from Goldman Sachs, who worked with Tottenham to finance the new stadium, has said. This is exactly what the Tottenham manager Mauricio Pochettino would want to hear after not being able to add to his squad for more than a year, as he did not purchase a single new player in both the last two transfer windows. Since Pochettino arrived at Tottenham in 2014, ahead of the last transfer window the club had a net spend of just 29 million compared to Manchester City (518m), Manchester United (466m), Arsenal (225m), Chelsea (200m) and Liverpool (183m). It is a testament to Pochettino that he has achieved so much on such a tiny budget when compared to his rivals in the big six. On Sunday the Tottenham manager could only cast an envious eye at the array of expensive talent sitting on the Liverpool bench at Anfield. Getty We were laughing a bit because [they had] more than 100million in two midfielders, Keita and Fabinho, on the bench and you go and play and you are better, he said. I think our players deserve massive credit. We are dealing and fighting against everything to be competitive. Tottenham have finished in the top three in each of the last three seasons, and earlier this season even briefly flirted with a title challenge. Each of these seasons have shown that while Tottenham have a potentially title-winning starting eleven, they dont have the squad to see it through. Tottenhams hope is that their new stadium will soon provide them with the funds to assemble a squad that can challenge for the title. But first they hope their new stadium with inspire their current set of players, but as other clubs have learned to their cost it can have the opposite effect. In the last two decades when Arsenal, Manchester City, West Ham and Southampton have moved in to their new stadiums they have all earned less points in their first season there compared to the previous season. Getty Tottenham know from the experience of their North London neighbours Arsenal that moving in to a new stadium does not guarantee success. Arsenal moved in to the Emirates in the summer of 2006, but while they won three Premier League titles in the eight years before that, they are still waiting to parade the Premier League trophy there. A new stadium provides a team with the chance to increase profits, but what matters most is what happens on the pitch. In the short term this season, Tottenham are at risk of falling out of the top four, which would be a disaster as they move in to their new home. It is now nearly two months since they last won in the Premier League against Leicester City on February 10th, since when they have been on a run of four defeats in five games. Tottenham need to buck the recent trend of clubs and see that their move in to their new stadium inspires them in their final seven games, and they cling on to a place in the top four. To become the club they aspire to, Tottenham need to be hosting Champions League football in their new stadium next season. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/sampilger/2019/04/02/can-tottenham-hotspurs-new-stadium-deliver-success/ |
Are the Democrats Too Boring? | This flood of policy work is the direct result of the 2016 election. That years Democratic primary proved that voters were hungry for new ideas, and were more open to issues like universal health care than they had previously been. Trumps surprise victory over Hillary Clinton provoked an existential crisisand a desire for approaches that broke from the neoliberal approach that Democrats had taken for the previous three decades. A galvanized left-wing began pushing more vocally for Medicare for All, decarbonizing the economy, reparations, and new ways to undercut the economic hegemony of corporations and the ultra-wealthy. While Democrats bickered about what kind of candidate could beat Donald Trump, nearly everyone in the party coalesced around a more ambitious policy agenda. It always helps, of course, to have a foil. And Trump, who barely seems to grasp anything about policy or governance, and the Republican Party, which has largely abandoned policymaking, are perfect contrasts for a party brimming with ideas. The ideas being formulated by Democratic presidential candidates, and others in the party like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are, at their root, about articulating differences with both Trumpism and more conventional conservatism. While the political right embraces bigotry, crony capitalism, and white identity politics, Democrats are creating policies for a multi-ethnic America thats committed to economic fairness and social and environmental justice. While the Republican Party ignores longstanding and complex problems like health care access and affordability and climate change, the Democratic Party has made them into centerpieces of a broader agenda that would fundamentally transform the economy. But enacting this agenda will not be easy. It will require not only winning back the White House, but winning a majority in the Senate and holding the House as well. Thus, the exact details of a plan to break up big tech, for instance, are largely immaterial at the moment. Its even possible that delving into such detail at this stage in the election is a political mistake. In campaigns ... more can sometimes be less, The American Prospects Paul Starr recently wrote. [Hillary] Clintons many rational and sensible policies could not compete successfully for the voters attention with the few simple things that Donald Trump used to stir outrage and appeal to raw emotion. Clinton, he added, was unable to convey a clear and strong message about what she would change as president and how she would do it. Trumps campaign was all about the big picture. His campaign was built on the idea of returning America to a mythical golden age, dialing back the clock to an era before free trade and automation. His criticisms were similarly broad, directed at a corrupt and bipartisan political elite that had enriched itself while the rest of the country suffered. His few policies were laughably undercooked. He would build a beautiful wall to keep immigrants out of the countryand Mexico would pay for it. Thats as detailed as he got. This was true, to a lesser extent, with Sanderss campaign. While there were myriad reasons for his surprising success, including Clintons unpopularity and an anti-establishment wave, his support for Medicare for All and free college proved so popular that they became mainstream Democratic policies. But these ideas werent just bold. They were simple to understand, and fit clearly into a broader critique of a broken system. There is widespread agreement that higher education and health care are far too expensive, and most everyone immediately understands what free college and Medicare for All mean. Sanders didnt have to explain themnot that he would have anyway. He studiously avoids granular detail in speeches and interviews. | https://newrepublic.com/article/153432/2020-democrat-candidates-president-boring |
Did a censored female writer inspire Hemingway's famous style? | (The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Cynthia Wachtell, Yeshiva University (THE CONVERSATION) Virtually everyone has heard of Ernest Hemingway. But youd be hard-pressed to find someone who knows of Ellen N. La Motte. People should. She is the extraordinary World War I nurse who wrote like Hemingway before Hemingway. She was arguably the originator of his famous style the first to write about World War I using spare, understated, declarative prose. Long before Hemingway published A Farewell to Arms in 1929 long before he even graduated high school and left home to volunteer as an ambulance driver in Italy La Motte wrote a collection of interrelated stories titled The Backwash of War. Published in the fall of 1916, as the war advanced into its third year, the book is based upon La Mottes experience working at a French field hospital on the Western Front. There are many people to write you of the noble side, the heroic side, the exalted side of war, she wrote. I must write you of what I have seen, the other side, the backwash. The Backwash of War was immediately banned in England and France for its criticism of the ongoing war. Two years and multiple printings later after being hailed as immortal and Americas greatest work of war writing it was deemed damaging to morale and also censored in wartime America. For nearly a century, it languished in obscurity. But now, an expanded version of this lost classic that Ive edited has just been published. Featuring the first biography of La Motte, it will hopefully give La Motte the attention she deserves. Horrors, not heroes In its time, The Backwash of War was, simply put, incendiary. As one admiring reader explained in July 1918, There is a corner of my book-shelves which I call my T N T library. Here are all the literary high explosives I can lay my hands on. So far there are only five of them. The Backwash of War was the only one by a woman and also the only one by an American. In most of the eras wartime works, men willingly fought and died for their cause. The characters were brave, the combat romanticized. Not so in La Mottes stories. Rather than focus on World War Is heroes, she emphasized its horrors. And the wounded soldiers and civilians she presents in The Backwash of War are fearful of death and fretful in life. Filling the beds of the field hospital, they are at once grotesque and pathetic. There is a soldier slowly dying from gas gangrene. Another suffers from syphilis, while one patient sobs and sobs because he does not want to die. A 10-year-old Belgian boy is fatally shot through the abdomen by a fragment of German artillery shell and bawls for his mother. War, to La Motte, is repugnant, repulsive and nonsensical. The volumes first story immediately sets the tone: When he could stand it no longer, it begins, he fired a revolver up through the roof of his mouth, but he made a mess of it. The soldier is transported, cursing and screaming, to the field hospital. There, through surgery, his life is saved but only so that he can later be court-martialed for his suicide attempt and killed by a firing squad. After The Backwash of War was published, readers quickly recognized that La Motte had invented a bold new way of writing about war and its horrors. The New York Times reported that her stories were told in sharp, quick sentences that bore no resemblance to conventional literary style and delivered a stern, strong preachment against war. The Detroit Journal noted she was the first to draw the real portrait of the ravaging beast. And the Los Angeles Times gushed, Nothing like [it] has been written: it is the first realistic glimpse behind the battle lines Miss La Motte has described war not merely war in France but war itself. La Motte and Gertrude Stein Together with the famous avant-garde writer Gertrude Stein, La Motte seems to have influenced what we now think of as Hemingways signature style his spare, masculine prose. La Motte and Stein both middle-aged American women, writers and lesbians were already friends at the start of the war. Their friendship deepened during the first winter of the conflict, when they were both living in Paris. Despite the fact that they each had a romantic partner, Stein seems to have fallen for La Motte. She even wrote a little novelette in early 1915 about La Motte, titled How Could They Marry Her?. It repeatedly mentions La Mottes plan to be a war nurse, possibly in Serbia, and includes revealing lines such as Seeing her makes passion plain. Without a doubt Stein read her beloved friends book; in fact, her personal copy of The Backwash of War is presently archived at Yale University. Hemingway writes war Ernest Hemingway wouldnt meet Stein until after the war. But he, like La Motte, found a way to make it to the front lines. In 1918, Hemingway volunteered as an ambulance driver and shortly before his 19th birthday was seriously injured by a mortar explosion. He spent five days in a field hospital and then many months in a Red Cross hospital, where he fell in love with an American nurse. After the war, Hemingway worked as a journalist in Canada and America. Then, determined to become a serious writer, he moved to Paris in late 1921. In the early 1920s Gertrude Steins literary salon attracted many of the emerging postwar writers, whom she famously labeled the Lost Generation. Among those who most eagerly sought Steins advice was Hemingway, whose style she significantly influenced. Gertrude Stein was always right, Hemingway once told a friend. She served as his mentor and became godmother to his son. Much of Hemingways early writing focused on the recent war. Cut out words. Cut everything out, Stein counseled him, except what you saw, what happened. Very likely, Stein showed Hemingway her copy of The Backwash of War as an example of admirable war writing. At the very least, she passed along what she had learned from reading La Mottes work. Whatever the case, the similarity between La Mottes and Hemingways styles is plainly evident. Consider the following passage from the story Alone, in which La Motte strings together declarative sentences, neutral in tone, and lets the underlying horror speak for itself. " They could not operate on Rochard and amputate his leg, as they wanted to do. The infection was so high, into the hip, it could not be done. Moreover, Rochard had a fractured skull as well. Another piece of shell had pierced his ear, and broken into his brain, and lodged there. Either wound would have been fatal, but it was the gas gangrene in his torn-out thigh that would kill him first. The wound stank. It was foul. Now consider these opening lines from a chapter of Hemingways 1925 collection In Our Time: " Nick sat against the wall of the church where they had dragged him to be clear of machine-gun fire in the street. Both legs stuck out awkwardly. He had been hit in the spine. His face was sweaty and dirty. The sun shone on his face. The day was very hot. Rinaldi, big backed, his equipment sprawling, lay face downward against the wall. Nick looked straight ahead brilliantly. Two Austrian dead lay in the rubble in the shade of the house. Up the street were other dead. Hemingways declarative sentences and emotionally uninflected style strikingly resemble La Mottes. Whether due to censorship, sexism or a toxic combination of the two, La Motte was silenced and forgotten. Its time to return The Backwash of War to its proper perch as a seminal example of war writing. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: http://theconversation.com/did-a-censored-female-writer-inspire-hemingways-famous-style-113722. | https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Did-a-censored-female-writer-inspire-Hemingway-s-13734398.php |
Can marijuana help my acne, my eczema, my rosacea? | CBD products include tinctures, creams, oils, bottled water, dog biscuits and human edibles such as taffy, suckers and caramels. Cannabis (marijuana) and its components such as cannabidiol (CBD) have been shown to help skin conditions such as acne, eczema and rosacea. Belleville Cannabis (marijuana) and its components such as cannabidiol (CBD) have been a hot topic lately in the health and wellness space. I get asked about it every day by my patients, so I have decided to review the most up-to-date information we have on cannabis for skin disease in my next two columns. Spoiler alert cannabis can help skin disease! The issue is that research was illegal until recently and there are still many things that we do not know. For example, we dont know which delivery method is best (oral, topical, sublingual). Unlimited Digital Access: Only $0.99 For Your First Month Get full access to Miami Herald content across all your devices. SAVE NOW #ReadLocal Here is what we do know about the link between cannabis and common inflammatory skin diseases: Cannabidiol (CBD) CBD is a component of marijuana but it is also derived directly from the hemp plant, which is a cousin of the marijuana plant. It does not cross the blood brain barrier and does not cause a high. It exerts strong anti-inflammatory effects, and many forms are sold online without a prescription. Dr. Leslie Baumann Miami The sale of CBD is legal since the 2018 Farm Bill legalized the cultivation and sale of hemp at the federal level. This has resulted in many forms of CBD on the market. The problem is, there is no way to know which forms are most effective to treat skin disease right now. Cannabis and acne A 2018 paper published in Skin Therapy Letter explains that CBD oil possesses strong anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant qualities, making it a beneficial ingredient for a number of inflammatory skin problems, including acne. Not only does CBD help to reduce erythema (redness) associated with acne due to its anti-inflammatory properties, but it has also been shown to decrease the skins production of sebum, or oil. One study found that a 3 percent cannabis seed extract cream effectively reduced both redness and sebum production in acne patients. There are many skin care products coming out that contain CBD. Cannabis and eczema Researchers have found that a different endocannabinoid called palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) has therapeutic qualities that relieve skin itching and dryness. One study involving 25 children and 18 adults with atopic dermatitis (eczema) treated the skin with a combination of a palmitoylethanolamide cream and a topical corticosteroid. Participants who were treated with the PEA/corticosteroid combination saw a faster reduction of itching, dryness and redness, as well as a longer period of time before their next flare-up, compared with a control group treated with a regular moisturizer and corticosteroids. Cannabis and rosacea Few studies investigate the effects of CBD on rosacea, but we do know that CBD can effectively reduce redness caused by inflammation. Based on current research, there is promising evidence that cannabis, in combination with the latest prescription treatments, could help to reduce rosacea flare-ups, similar to its positive effects on eczema flares. Bottom line We do know that cannabis, marijuana, and CBD oil possess anti-inflammatory properties and other beneficial qualities that could treat certain skin diseases. However, more research is needed to determine which delivery method and formulations are best. Stay tuned for the next column for more information. If youd like to join in on the discussion, come talk to us on Facebook or Instagram @BaumannCosmetic. | https://www.miamiherald.com/living/health-fitness/skin-deep/article228711614.html |
Did The U.S. Just Concede Defeat In Its War With Huawei? | Getty Two weeks ago, I suggested that Huawei had won its battle with Washington, and now that seems to have been confirmed by U.S. officials. We are going to have to figure out a way in a 5G world that were able to manage the risks in a diverse network that includes technology that we cant trust, conceded Sue Gordon, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, at a conference in Texas last week. The U.S. official was clearly referring to Huawei. And the message was equally clear. The U.S. has failed to spark a global prohibition on the Chinese manufacturer's 5G equipment, which they claim carries a major security risk given alleged company links to the government in Beijing. Were just going to have to figure that out," Gordon said. As reported in the Washington Post, the U.S. is now having to plan for a world where Huawei maintains its dominant position in networking equipment as countries shift to 5G. And, consequently, you have to presume a dirty network, Gordon explained. Thats what were going to have to presume about the world. East versus West "America doesn't represent the world," Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei had told the BBC in February. Back then, it looked as though the U.S. could prevail in its campaign against the company. But since then the EU has essentially refused to go along with any outright bans, and other countries including Thailand, the UAE and the Philippines have done the same. At the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, where Huawei ran a masterful PR campaign to turn the spying tables on the U.S. themselves, the company claimed that it had signed new 5G deals with operators around the world. Since then, the company has published a record set of annual results for 2018, with revue growth of 19.5% to catapult them into the Microsoft and Google bracket with revenue above $100 billion. Although their carrier revenues were flat, with growth now more reliant on glitzy new smartphones, the company claimed afterward that network equipment would return to double-digit growth again for 2019. Last week, all had not yet seemed lost. On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that he remained "hopeful" that Washington could convince the EU to take a harder line on Huawei. I think weve made progress," he said, "and I know that we are going to continue to push... When you have telecommunications that are deeply connected to state-owned enterprises connected to China, we dont see there is a technical mitigation risk that is possible. That "hope" was boosted when the U.K. came out publicly to slam Huawei as "bringing significantly increased risk to U.K. operators," with the country's spy agency offering only "limited assurance that all risks to U.K. national security from Huaweis involvement in the UKs critical networks can be sufficiently mitigated long-term." This seemed to directly contradict the consensus forming across the EU to take a broader view, weighing up the potential risks to the very real economic damage of delays to their 5G programs. Two days before the U.K. report was released, the European Union confirmed that their advice would be for countries to 'proceed with caution', to conduct their own risk assessments, and then to decide what actions to take. The information would be shared, but countries would decide for themselves. But it was welcome news in Washington. The U.K. viewpoint is taken seriously, given the country's cyber expertise and deep understanding of Huawei, which has established a strong presence in the country over many years. I cant understand how German telecom providers are so naive about Huawei," one senior but unnamed German security official was quoted as saying in the Washington Post. Huawei has been taunting the U.S. as it makes headway in its battle against them. The U.S. government has a losers attitude. It wants to smear Huawei because it cannot compete against Huawei, rotating chairman Guo Ping told reporters on Friday, after the company's results were released. I hope the U.S. can adjust its attitude. Written before the U.K. news hit, Huawei's Annual Report claimed that the company has "made cybersecurity and privacy protection our top priorities since 2018. Over the past three decades, we have worked closely with our carrier customers to build over 1,500 networks in more than 170 countries and regions. Together, we have connected more than three billion people around the world, and we have maintained a solid track record in security throughout." The U.K. did not agree. Its dedicated Huawei oversight body had raised issues last year, and last week claimed that "no material progress has been made on the issues raised in the previous 2018 report." This despite Huawei claiming to have made fixing its security holes a management priority and pledging $2 billion to make sure that happens. The BBC reporter who interviewed Ren in February reported that "where I saw [Ren's] confidence slip, was when I asked him about his links to the Chinese military and the government. He refused to be drawn into a conversation, only to say that these were not facts, simply allegations. Still, some signs of close links between Ren and the government were revealed during the course of our interview. He also confirmed that there is a Communist Party committee in Huawei, but he said this is what all companies - foreign or domestic - operating in China must have in order to abide by the law." And so the U.S. will continue to "push" other countries to take a harder line with Huawei, but it has essentially conceded that there will be Huawei equipment deployed in countries where it shares intelligence. Security measures will become the focus instead. Despite the campaigning, Washington has failed to produce tangible evidence of Huawei's spying at the behest of Beijing. "Weve not seen any evidence of backdoors into the network, said Vodafones most senior lawyer in the U.K. If the Americans have evidence, please put it out on the table. For countries weighing up the realities of 5G investments and deployment schedules, the lack of evidence has ultimately proved fatal to the U.S. campaign. Intelligence officials are pragmatists and they manage risk in the real world, far from political rhetoric. "Huawei is on the front foot," I had suggested earlier in March. "But whether it has fully won its war with Washington will be known in the coming weeks." If they're not quite there just yet, they're certainly now within touching distance. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/02/did-the-u-s-just-concede-defeat-in-their-war-with-huawei/ |
Where do cabinet ministers stand on soft Brexit v no deal? | It seems that a majority of cabinet ministers could now back a no-deal Brexit over a long delay and a customs union, with former remainers such as the Treasury chief secretary, Liz Truss, and the home secretary, Sajid Javid, now among the voices calling on Theresa May to seek this option. Ten cabinet ministers have signed a letter coordinated by Brexit minister Chris Heaton-Harris, the minister in charge of no-deal planning, to urge the prime minister to leave without a deal. Heres how the cabinet splits in favour of no deal versus a softer Brexit compromise and those who could go either way. There is a glimmer of hope on this dark Brexit day. Your move, Tories | Gaby Hinsliff Read more Ministers marked with an asterisk are those believed to be seeking to succeed May, a factor to consider in their positioning. Could favour no deal Sajid Javid* As a born-again leaver (not to mention an eager would-be successor to May), the home secretary this week came out firmly against a customs union, tweeting that while it might seem a comfort blanket it was in fact more of a straitjacket. Yet it remains unclear whether he would, instead, openly support no deal, despite reports he is now in this camp. Jeremy Hunt* Up to 20 Tories could vote against May in confidence vote - Davis Read more The foreign secretary has been bullish in public about Britains ability to withstand a no-deal exit but has stopped short of fully endorsing such an outcome, though he is known to be deeply opposed to the UK joining a customs union. Stephen Barclay* Yet another vehement leaver brought in to run the Brexit department, Barclay has been a loyal advocate of Mays plan, and told MPs on Monday night that with parliament set against no deal it was the only viable option. But worth remembering that he voted against extending the Brexit deadline even after making the government case for doing this in the Commons. Gavin Williamson* Another minister whose views are perhaps best viewed through the prism of his political ambitions. The defence secretary is reported as being among cabinet members who would choose no deal over a customs union, and again he voted against extending article 50. Liam Fox A Brexiter before the term was invented, Fox is, as you would expect, in the cabinet camp which favours no deal over a softer departure. That said, he is something of a pragmatist among cabinet leavers, having stayed to argue his case while others resigned. Penny Mordaunt* An enthusiastic Brexiter, Mordaunt has said publicly that voters would prefer a no-deal Brexit, and said that a customs union, wouldnt fly with the public. And she has previously advocated a managed no-deal, which would see the UK leave without an agreement in place. Chris Grayling A long-time Brexiter, the transport secretary would be expected to favour no deal over a softer option. But he is very loyal to May, not least as she has stuck by him amid a series of departmental disasters, and that cannot be discounted as a factor. Liz Truss* (attends cabinet) A contributor to the bible for small-state Tories, Britannia Unchained, Truss has long been more relaxed about a no-deal Brexit than many of her cabinet colleagues, believing it could usher in radical reforms she believes would kick-start the economy. Andrea Leadsom* (attends cabinet) Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is robustly opposed to a softer Brexit deal, and would prefer the government go for a no-deal Brexit. In the Commons in recent days she has been stressing the importance of abiding by the Tories 2017 general election manifesto, which ruled out customs union membership. Could favour a customs union David Lidington A senior cabinet remainer who does not like no deal last week he told business leaders this was not government policy and would cause disruption, and threaten the integrity of the UK. But Lidington is also a pragmatist, and loyal to the prime minister. Philip Hammond The cabinet minister the leavers love to hate. As chancellor, his primary cabinet concern is the welfare of the economy, and he has repeatedly warned against the consequences of no deal. He might not be central to plotting for a softer Brexit, but dont be surprised if he happily accepted one. David Gauke Gauke, a key member of the Gauke-ward squad of ministers who would prefer to see a soft Brexit compromise has suggested he could resign if May decides to pursue a no-deal Brexit. Matt Hancock* A minister who has somewhat kept his head down amid the current Brexit debate, Hancock is seen as more on the remain side of the cabinet. As health secretary, he is at the centre of emergency planning for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, and has said he does not believe it will happen. Greg Clark Another central member of the supposed customs union squad, the business secretary was among the trio of ministers who openly said they would deft Theresa May to seek a delay to Brexit rather than risk no deal. Amber Rudd* Another leading remain-minded minister, the work and pensions secretary was among the cabinet members who publicly urged May to extend the departure deadline, and would be expect to resign rather than take part in an open policy of no deal. Damian Hinds The education secretary has also suggested he is wary of a no-deal exit, telling the BBC on Tuesday it was not an optimal outcome. David Mundell One of the most remain-minded members of the cabinet, the Scotland secretary is a paid-up member of the anti-no-deal camp, and would be among those expected to quit of no deal became the desired option. Waverers Michael Gove* A leading figure in the Vote Leave campaign, Gove is known to have considerable doubts about Mays deal turning down the job of Brexit secretary last year when she refused to reconsider the backstop but he has reportedly told Tory MPs he would now be willing to consider a softer deal, rather than risk losing Brexit altogether. James Brokenshire The position of the communities secretary remains unclear. He has not been at the centre of any public debates on Brexit, even while his role involves pushing local authorities to prepare for a no-deal departure. Has been named as in the camp favouring this option over a customs union. Karen Bradley Officially a remainer, Bradley has stayed relatively under the radar in terms of Brexit arguments. As Northern Ireland secretary she would be expected to be more mindful than most of the risks of no deal, but time will tell. | https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/02/where-do-cabinet-ministers-stand-on-soft-brexit-v-no-deal |
Is Tom Hiddlestons new Chinese commercial selling Centrum or home invasion? | You never want to wake up and find Tom Hiddleston in your kitchen. If hes not weeping and muttering into a mug of gin Blimey, I miss Taylor! then he may be doing something even more terrifying: making breakfast. Tom Hiddleston released a commercial for Centrum on his weibo channel This is the plot of a now viral Centrum commercial that airs in China where, presumably, Hiddlestons celebrity is powerful enough to withstand the suggestion he may be a serial killer with a fetish for daily supplements. But we begin with the sound of an old-timey alarm clock and sunshine pouring into a bedroom where a woman stretches her arms and throws off the duvet. The soundtrack is the kind of repetitive, upbeat, soul-destroying instrumental racket you are forced to hear when tech support puts you on hold for 45 minutes. Article Continued Below Since the ad is shot from the POV of this woman, we get glimpses of her arms and feet, but never of her face. We just see what she sees. And what she sees after walking downstairs is Hiddleston in her kitchen. Hes tapping his left brogue and holding a knife. He is wearing a crisp white shirt and black apron. He is dicing vegetables. He seems a little out of it: Loki look loco. Heeeyyyy, he says, turning his head with the creepy smarm of a predator who just watched the cop car speed away in the wrong direction. A new Centrum ad in China starring Taylor Swift's ex, Tom Hiddleston, is confusing viewers in North America. ( YouTube/JustTomHiddleston ) Its not entirely clear. Does it loosely translate into, Im not eating that! All I can say for sure is that under no circumstance should Hiddleston ever be allowed to own a restaurant in the free world. He should be banned from getting within 20 feet of a serving spoon. Because after he finished early and popped back to terrorize this poor woman with culinary skills that would trigger a prompt ass-beating from Gordon Ramsay, he shows off a plate in which rainbow rows of raw fruits and veggies that normally dont belong together blackberries, carrots, onions, corn, red pepper, cucumbers, cranberries are topped with a plastic-looking fried egg. Pepper on top, right? he says, after twisting the mill with two robotic bursts. Even Hiddleston must realize this breakfast is likely to trigger projectile vomiting. There is no plate in front of him. No, much like a captor with a frightened hostage, the plan is to blurt out weird things and just watch her eat. Oh, and remind her to take her vitamins, a bottle of which he sets down. You look great, he says, nervously rubbing his knuckles. Woman, get the hell out of there! But before shes had time to even swallow two bites, this man of nutritional mystery is throwing on his blazer and dashing back into town, presumably to force-feed a grass sandwich to the next woman he stumbles upon. Ill probably be a bit busy for the next few weeks, he says, which at least gives the first woman time to get her stomach pumped. You know, celebrities have made a killing with foreign endorsement deals for decades. Its a brilliant side hustle: you pocket big dough and are free to make a fool of yourself in a faraway market with limited PR consequences. Tommy Lee Jones, Keanu Reeves, Julia Roberts, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Arnold Schwarzenegger some of Hollywoods biggest names have hawked products weve never heard of in places we will never visit to consumers who dont speak a lick of English. We may never know why Tom Hiddleston is so beloved in China. But if this Centrum spot captures even 5 per cent of his real essence, at least we know why his relationship with Taylor Swift fizzled like a Vitamin D in vinegar. She was scared to eat breakfast. Vinay Menon is the Stars pop culture columnist based in Toronto. Follow him on Twitter: @vinaymenon Read more about: | https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/opinion/2019/04/02/is-tom-hiddlestons-new-chinese-commercial-selling-centrum-or-home-invasion.html |
Is autism being missed among women and girls? | Image copyright Getty Images "Lots of autistic girls and women come across as very quiet, shy and introverted," says Alis Rowe, a UK author and entrepreneur who was diagnosed with autism a few years ago. "These quiet girls - and their problems - can be 'invisible' to other people." Alis says she herself was not diagnosed until she was 22. Autism spectrum disorder or ASD is a condition that affects how people communicate and interact with the world. It is estimated that 1 in 160 children worldwide has an ASD, according to data from the World Health Organization, but there is a huge disparity in diagnoses by gender. In the UK, official figures indicate there are about 700,000 people on the autism spectrum. Males are currently diagnosed at a higher rate than girls - up to a 16:1 ratio in certain studies. There are around 700,000 people on the autism spectrum in the UK Autism is a hidden disability - you can't always tell if someone is autistic The term 'autism' is used to describe different conditions including Asperger syndrome and Pathological Demand Avoidance Information from The National Autistic Society But Carol Povey, director of the Centre for Autism within the British National Autistic Society [NAS], says there is a growing recognition that current medical tests might result in autistic girls going un-diagnosed. Recent scientific research in the UK - specifically designed to pick up autistic characteristics in women - suggests the real ratio could be closer to 3:1. Autistic girls and women may go undiagnosed because doctors, teachers and even parents often think of the condition as primarily affecting boys, NAS says. Also, the signs of autism in girls and women - particularly in cases of high-functioning autism - are not the same as those in boys and men: girls may have fewer restricted interests and repetitive behaviours than boys do and they may have more socially acceptable types of interests. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Quiet, well-behaved, hard-working girls are not likely to attract the attention of teachers and doctors Another reported trait by is that females might also be more likely than boys to 'mask' their autism features by mimicking their non-autistic peers. As a result, autism may be more difficult to detect in girls even when doctors are looking for it. "I spent all of my life [up until my diagnosis] wondering why I was 'different', feeling absolutely terrified because I was different, and trying to fit in and stop being so different," says Alis. But having a diagnosis transformed her life, she says. "Now I have a name and a reason for why I am different. It is terribly frightening being different and having no idea why - thinking you are completely alone. "I am [now] able to explain to friends and colleagues that I have difficulties and that my thinking and behaviour can be a bit 'unusual.' "All of this has ultimately led to massively improved mental health and more meaningful, more enjoyable relationships." Diagnosing autism is also important because many of those affected are at risk of secondary mental health issues such as anxiety, depression and the tendency to self-harm. A small study carried out in the UK found that 23% of women hospitalised for anorexia met the diagnostic criteria for autism. Marilu, the mother of a 10-year-old girl in London, says she struggled for years to get doctors and teachers to investigate what was affecting her daughter, Sophia. She describes it as a "battle to understand what was behind the extreme sadness of my little girl". Image copyright Getty Images "My daughter Sophia is very shy in a peculiar way. She's 'serious' and 'very creative' - that's how her teacher used to describe her," says Marilu. "I knew from very early on that she found it hard to make friends her own age." But Marilu says she didn't want to 'make a fuss'. "It didn't worry me that she was perceived as 'different' - until I saw her suffering at school. At bedtime, she would say 'I don't have friends mummy, no-one likes me'." "I kept telling her that we all have good and bad days. But I was getting concerned and I often asked the teachers if they noticed anything going on at school," says Marilu. "The answer was always the same: 'Nothing's going on.'" But the situation deteriorated, and Marilu went back to the teachers. "I was very upset. I asked them if Sophia was being bullied. I knew something was wrong. But I was told I was 'too emotional' and 'hyper-sensitive'. I was even accused of 'spoiling' her. "Over the months, I saw my girl get angry and frustrated - pretending to be fine outside the house, only to melt down when she was at home with me." "I think I also made it worse at home," says Marilu. "I did not understand why everything had to be so hard. I told her off when she cried because she insisted on brushing her teeth before putting on her pyjamas. I just couldn't see what difference it made." "I knew Sophia was suffering and I couldn't help. I tried and I failed. Unfortunately, my emotions got the better of me. Perhaps if I had explained what was going on with facts, rather than feelings, we could have had a diagnosis sooner," says Marilu. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption "Having the right diagnosis can be life-changing. It can help you to move forward with your life" "If you want some advice on how you can help ASD sufferers," Alis says, "read and learn about autism. Even if you never receive a diagnosis, knowing a lot about it and being able to relate to other people helps - it means you are equipped with the strategies that other autistic people use. It can be literally life-changing. "If you are an autistic individual who has spent her whole life trying to fit in, start to believe that it's OK not to fit in." "In fact, you have lots of unique skills and strengths to impart on the world. If you can, do what I did and make your differences a part of your livelihood," says Alis, who runs The Curly Hair Project, a social enterprise which supports those on the autistic spectrum and the people around them." Sophia is happy she finally has a diagnosis: "I am relieved, but also a bit worried. I don't want my classmates to know because I don't want to be different, and I don't want anyone to make fun of me." "Oh no, I want to know. It makes things less heavy in my heart." Marilu and Sophia's names have been changed to preserve their privacy | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-47784849 |
Is John Roberts Moderate? | The news coverage of Biskupics book has focused on her insiders account of Robertss behind-the-scene maneuvers in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the 2012 case that affirmed most of the Affordable Care Act. Robertss vote determined all elements of that case. He joined the four conservatives to hold that the acts individual mandate (which required taxpayers to maintain health insurance on all members of their households) was an unconstitutional extension of the commerce power. At the same time, he joined the four liberals to hold that the same mandate was permissible as an exercise of Congresss taxing power (households that did not maintain insurance had to pay an additional tax, and suffered no other consequence). He also forged a surprising alliance with Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to invalidate the ACAs Medicaid expansion. The resulting opinion has the appearance of a brokered deal. As Biskupic writes, Robertss moves were not consistent and his legal arguments were not entirely coherent. But he brought people and their different interests together. He acted, in short, more like a politician than like a judge. But Biskupics account does notas many conservative commentators do, without much evidenceattribute the mandate-as-tax argument to bad faith. The tax-power issue was fully briefed and argued, and a number of scholarly commentators had written that the mandate was a rock-solid use of the taxing power; I see no evidence in The Chief that Roberts himself did not believe it. Robertss management of the health-care litigation will spark controversy for generations; Biskupics answers are the best picture we are likely to have until some posthumous papers are opened. But to me, the most illuminating detail of Biskupics biography is her reproduction of an essay by the 13-year-old Roberts seeking admission to an elite all-male Catholic prep school near his home in Indiana. Ive always wanted to stay ahead of the crowd, Roberts wrote. I wont be content to get a good job by getting a good education, I want to get the best job by getting the best education Im sure that by attending and doing my best at La Lumiere I will assure myself of a fine future. By the age of 13, most upper-middle-class Baby Boomers had learned the art of asking for social advantage only in terms of human progress. Roberts, refreshingly, eschewed any such cant; instead, he quite unself-consciously explained that the only question that mattered to John G. Roberts was doing the best job possible for the advantage of John G. Roberts. Roberts excelled as promisedat La Lumiere, he was a star athlete and graduated first in his class. It doesnt deprecate his intelligence to note that this sort of class stardom, even for the gifted, is often in large part a result of a students family, wealth, and health. Roberts, however, seems to credit his success as a reflection of his personal excellences. In a speech to his sons ninth-grade graduating class in 2013, he explained: Unlike many other keys to successintellect, talents, physical ability, health, looks, where you were born, into what sort of family, luckpersistence is entirely, entirely within your control. The story is still about him. | https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/john-roberts-isnt-really-moderate/586273/?utm_source=feed |
Will Bitcoin Reach $50,000 Because Of The 'Great Wealth Transfer'? | Getty Bitcoin could skyrocket in the coming years, climbing more than 1,000% to $50,000 as Millennials inherit the wealth of Baby Boomers, according to Ryan Selkis, founder & CEO of cryptocurrency research firm Messari. Over the next few decades, Millennials stand to receive trillions of dollars through the "Great Wealth Transfer," he noted in a tweet. Many expect this demographic to receive $30 trillion, he stated, and if only 1% of this sum ($300 billion) goes into digital currencies, "crypto will be a multi-trillion dollar asset class." "That's the conservative case for $50k+ bitcoin," Selkis stated in the tweet. This prediction could certainly materialize, stated Mati Greenspan, senior market analyst for social trading platform eToro. "The current market cap of bitcoin is around $73 billion," he emphasized. "If an additional $300 billion were to flow into bitcoin than it could easily increase the total market cap by 10 to 20 times the incoming capital." Analyst Skepticism However, several analysts voiced their doubts about the Messari founder's prediction. "The wealth transfer effect has been discussed for almost two decades now," emphasized Jeff Dorman, chief investment officer of asset manager Arca Funds. "The only thing we know for certain is that many Baby Boomers achieved great wealth and will leave money to their relatives when they pass away," he stated. "How the inheritance is spent and invested is completely uncertain." Joe DiPasquale, CEO of cryptocurrency fund of hedge funds BitBull Capital, pointed to another potential problem in Selkis' forecast. "I understand this anticipated transfer of wealth (over the next 25 years) is estimated to be north of $65 trillion," he stated, pointing to figures included in a CNBC article published earlier this year. "If 1% of this, $650B moves into crypto, the asset class as a whole is likely to be in trillions, but that does not necessarily mean Bitcoin will be $50k," emphasized DiPasquale. "Given how this wealth transfer is going to take place over the next two and a half decades, a lot also depends on how the crypto space develops, and more importantly, how Bitcoin scales and adoption grows," he stated. "If Bitcoin manages to stay at the forefront by then, I would not be surprised if it goes well over $50k in price in the next 25 years," DiPasquale concluded. Disclosure: I own some Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird/2019/04/02/will-bitcoin-reach-50000-because-of-the-great-wealth-transfer/ |
How funny is the comedian who may be Ukraines next president? | Its a gag worthy of an Armando Iannucci screenplay. And yet it is real. In this weeks presidential run-off in Ukraine, 41-year-old actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a political unknown, leads the pack of candidates. His 30% share of the vote eclipsed that of his nearest rival, the incumbent Petro Poroshenko (17%). With the final vote due on 21 April, Zelenskiys reputation as one of Ukraines most popular comedians has sparked bemused excitement worldwide. In the Ukrainian television series Servant of the People, Zelenskiys character a teacher called Vasiliy Petrovych Goloborodko accidentally becomes president when a video of him ranting about politics goes viral. And just like the character in the series, in real life Zelenskiy comes across as affable, charismatic and easy-going. Servant of the People is like a cross between The Thick of It and Johnny English. It even has a slight hint of House of Cards (the original, British version) with lots of Ukrainian oligarchs vying to be the post-Soviet version of Sir Humphrey Appleby. There are car chases, drunk politicians falling face-first into their food at state banquets and numerous opportunities for the actors to dress up in national costume and disguise themselves as Ukrainian Eurovision entries. (Check out the trailer for the feature-length version, with English subtitles.) Facebook Twitter Pinterest Zelenskiy on a film set in Kiev, Ukraine. Photograph: Efrem Lukatsky/AP Russian-language YouTube is packed with clips of Zelenskiy, who has been a fixture on Ukrainian TV since 2003, largely because of his work as a founding member of Studio Kvartal 95, a production company with its own ensemble sketch group. Their humour is best described as halfway between irreverent and old-school. Zelenskiy recently told BBC News of his fondness for Monty Python. A typical Kvartal 95 Christmas special with 2.8m YouTube views features a scene in which Romeo and Juliet discuss the fate of Ukraine in rhyming couplets while Juliet decides whether or not to poison herself. Drop your trousers. In another, Yulia Tymoshenko, the presidential candidate currently in third place, is portrayed as a malfunctioning robot who spills water over herself. Studio Kvartal 95s website mentions Zelenskiys unique sexy voice that makes women go crazy. (It adds that he dubbed the voice of Paddington in the Russian language version of the movie, played by Ben Whishaw in the original, as if to prove this fact.) Filmed this week for At Home with the Zelenskiys (1.5m YouTube views), he talks earnestly about his love for his family and how he treasures every moment with his wife. At the press conference following the latest vote, he seemed to have dropped the punchlines completely. All I care about is the people. Not politics. Not ambition. The people are what matter. | https://www.theguardian.com/stage/shortcuts/2019/apr/02/volodymyr-zelenskiy-how-funny-comedian-ukraine-president |
Should women's football games be held at big clubs' stadiums? | Getty Images Big football clubs should "throw open" their stadiums for women's games. That's what the manager of the England women's team wants. Phil Neville thinks clubs such as Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal should host women's matches at their stadiums. When the Lionesses play Canada on Friday for a World Cup warm-up, that will be at Manchester City's Academy Stadium rather than the Etihad stadium. Getty Images The comments come after the number of people going to women's games across Europe has gone up, including a recent record breaking attendance in Spain. Phil said: "Looking at the attendances in our league [on Sunday], I actually think that's better than the one-off games in Spain or Italy. "What I would say is that some of the big teams in England now have got to open their big stadiums and fill it. I think our game in this country is at a far better place than what it is in Spain and Italy. "I think now, if (second-tier leaders) Man United win the league, or [top-flight leaders] Arsenal - throw open your stadium, open it up. Get 30 or 40,000." Let us know in the comments below. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47789244 |
What Is The New Wi-Fi 6 And How Is It An Improvement On Standard Wi-Fi? | Getty All around us, cellular and wireless data delivery systems are being upgraded. Mobile technology is being boosted by the much-hyped 5G and wireless technology is moving into its less talked about sixth generation Wi-Fi 6. "Along with 5G, Wi-Fi 6 is the massive shift in connectivity happening worldwide. 5G is the new industry standard for cellular networks, and Wi-Fi 6 is the new standard for those Wi-Fi networks found in businesses and hotspots around the world," explains Greg Dorai, Cisco's vice president of wireless product management for enterprise networking. "Both of these new standards represent a quantum leap forward by delivering dramatically higher speeds, lower latency, and greater density. This will allow businesses and consumers to do things unimaginable on previous Wi-Fi iterations." As 4K and even 8K video, high definition augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) gaming and IoT devices become increasingly mainstream, Wi-Fi 6 working in conjunction with 5G, will be what makes all of this work rapidly and without interruption. "The new Wi-Fi technology can support latencies of less than one millisecond, bandwidth of up to 10 Gbps and low-power IoT devices reliably connected at scale. This means Wi-Fi 6 can enable the proliferation of medical IoT devices, AR/VR-based immersive training and automatic guided vehicles in warehouses," reveals Dorai. "While supporting the trend of increasing workloads moving to the cloud with higher data rates, Wi-Fi 6 can unlock possibilities for improved operations and intelligent solutions in every vertical." Wi-Fi 6 will also come into its own in high-density areas where a huge amount of demand is being put on the wireless network, adds Dorai. "A crowded baseball stadium is filled with internet-connected devices, which leads to slow speeds and connection for fans, inhibiting their ability to share photos, videos, and content. Wi-Fi 6 will significantly improve our connections and will preserve our phones battery life because they wont need to struggle to remain connected," he says. Crucially, 5G and Wi-Fi 6 can't be seen as competitors, they are complementary technologies. 5G will largely be used outdoors and its focus will be on mobile devices where there is no Wi-Fi connectivity and Wi-Fi 6 will be primarily for indoor use. "Today, mobile and Wi-Fi networks have become pervasive. These technologies can also work in tandem by making the hand-off between the two," concludes Dorai. "Today, when you go into a Starbucks, you need to manually log onto that wireless network. We believe theres an opportunity to make the handoff between mobile and Wi-Fi networks seamless and secure." | https://www.forbes.com/sites/annatobin/2019/04/02/what-is-the-new-wi-fi-6-and-how-is-it-an-improvement-on-standard-wi-fi/ |
Where Is Destiny 2s Arbalest, The Other Season Of The Drifter Exotic Weapon? | Destiny 2 Bungie Season of the Drifter is winding down, as we have made it through pretty much all of its major releases at this point, from all Gambit Prime maps to three tiers of The Reckoning, and yet one thing remains conspicuously absent. That would be the Arbalest, the games first kinetic fusion rifle, and an exotic that heavily damages enemy elemental shields despite being kinetic. We know what the gun is and what it looks like, but as of yet, we have no idea how to get it. I see a few options here: It Will Probably Go Live Randomly, Possibly Even Today The roadmap for todays reset marks the launch of private Gambit matches, and thats pretty much it. And it also has a photo of someone holding the Arbalest on the calendar listing, so I would not rule out the possibility that the quest may be about to go live at reset this week. If not, there is still a long time between now and when Penumbra drops in June, so its possible that this quest might be planned for some time off the current calendar roadmap. Destiny 2 Bungie Arc Week No one really has any idea what Arc Week is and what it will bring to the game. Obvious guesses are that arc damage will just be massively increased during that week to uh, just see what happens, I guess. Im not sure if this would have anything to do with the Arbalest as its not an arc weapon, but it could be a quest to kick off the week all the same. The Revelry This is a new event that Destiny has never done before that we currently know almost nothing about other than what its new armor sets look like (bad, they look bad). I think its possible. On the original roadmap for all three annual pass releases, theres one exotic quest listed as Annual Pass only, and one thats for everyone. The Thorn quest is Annual Pass only, so it stands to reason that anyone will be able to get the Arbalest if thats the second exotic. And everyone can participate in the Revelry sothere you go. Potentially. Destiny 2 Bungie In theory, you would have imagined that the Arbalest would have quest steps that involve Gambit Prime and The Reckoning given that its clearly a Drifter-based exotic. And yet if this is a quest for all players, regardless of Annual Pass ownership, that cant be the case since you need the pass to access those activities. Im hoping for you know, actual story missions to complete as a part of this quest, and yet I have a feeling its just be like, get 100 linear fusion kills in strikes/Gambit/Crucible or something. But well see. Again, it could go live as soon as today, but I have a feeling that Bungie might be saving this for when we truly arrive at dead time in the next two months or so when theres practically nothing scheduled. It could tie into the Revelry or even arrive after that, but well have to wait and see. Follow me on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Read my new sci-fi thriller novel Herokiller, available now in print and online. I also wrote The Earthborn Trilogy. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2019/04/02/where-is-destiny-2s-arbalest-the-other-season-of-the-drifter-exotic-weapon/ |
Why did the Phoenix Public Library start a Seed Library? | Near the entrance of Phoenix's Burton Barr Library and many other branches in the city's library system is a display adorned with fruits, vegetables and gardening tools. The informational arrangement is stocked with an unconventional resource available through the library seeds. Seasonal fruit, vegetable and herb seeds are organized in bins on the display for "checkout" without a due date or overdue fees by any patron with a library card. Geraldine Hills, community engagement liaison for the Phoenix Public Library, said it is one of the library's most popular programs. "We try to tailor our services to the community and the Seed Library has been a great fit in the community," Hills said. Sprouting roots across the Valley The Phoenix Library system did not pioneer the concept of a seed library. When Phoenix Library opened its first seed library at the beginning of 2015 at the Harmon location, multiple cities across the nation had already grown roots with similar programming. Hills said the seed library fit in well with the two core purposes of the library lifelong learning and improving quality of life. Whether one uses the seeds to pick up gardening as a family hobby or for growing food to supplement grocery-bought produce, Hills said the program can have a positive impact on a person's social, emotional and physical health. "The program meets a lot of the needs we try to provide for our customers," Hills said. Subscribe to azcentral.com. Since its initial implementation, Hills said the Seed Library has expanded across the Valley due to popular demand. Fourteen Phoenix libraries participate in the program and the remaining three are charted to join in by the end of the year. Hills said the program is structured so people anywhere can grow fresh food and herbs with the seeds. The Seed Library provides patrons the tools, information and programming to start a garden wherever they are able no matter if it is in their backyard, a container in their apartment or a space in a community garden. "We can match anyone with the information they need to grow the seeds they want to," Hills said, adding that the goal is to make the program as accessible to the community as possible. The Seed Library featuring an array of relevant reading material at Phoenix's Agave Library in March 2019. (Photo: Courtesy of Lee Franklin) How it works The Seed Library is made possible through partnerships with Native Seed/SEARCH, Phoenix Public Works and Water departments and the Friends of the Phoenix Public Library, an organization committed to enhancing Phoenix Public Libraries through supplemental programming and services. Hills said the library rotates seeds available at each location depending on the season and only includes seeds that will grow in a desert climate. Patrons can "check out" three packets of seeds at a time. After three weeks, the seeds are automatically removed from the account and the patron can return for more seeds. There are no late fees or overage charges. Unlike some other seed libraries, participants are not expected to bring the seeds back after each harvest. NEWSLETTERS Get the AZ Memo newsletter delivered to your inbox We're sorry, but something went wrong Get the pulse of Arizona -- Local news, in-depth state coverage and what it all means for you Please try again soon, or contact Customer Service at 1-800-332-6733. Delivery: Mon-Fri Invalid email address Thank you! You're almost signed up for AZ Memo Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration. More newsletters Additional resources are offered through online growing tips and workshops on topics such as container gardening and desert landscapes. Barbara Ruhs holds artichokes in her garden at her north Phoenix home in June 2016. She regularly checks out seeds for her garden from the Phoenix Library Seed Library. (Photo: Courtesy of Barbara Ruhs) From library to table Barbara Ruhs, a self-described library power user and registered dietitian, harvested a full garden in the backyard of her north Phoenix home with seeds she checked out from the Seed Library. Ruhs has grown a variety of herbs, leafy greens and vegetables ranging from rainbow chard to acorn squash. "When you grow your food, you have a whole new appreciation for eating it," she said. Ruhs said she's expanded her love for gardening and passion for healthy eating through the resources at the Seed Library. "The cool thing about Arizona is that we have so much sunshine it's fairly easy to grow stuff," she said. There are a lot of great resources for people interested in vegetable gardening, but Ruhs said the best place to start is the public library. Investigating your questions about metro Phoenix The Arizona Republic/azcentral's Valley 101, formerly Clay Thompson's two-decade series of columns, evolved into a podcast in February. Led by a new team on a new medium, the show seeks to celebrate what we love and answer what we want to know about the Valley of the Sun. To do so, we asked for your questions. And the questions poured in so many that reporters decided to answer some in story form as well. To submit questions, go to valley101podcast.azcentral.com or tag us on Twitter at @Valley101pod. How to download and subscribe to Valley 101: Using your favorite podcast app, type "Valley 101" in the search bar. Click "Valley 101," by azcentral podcasts. Click "Subscribe" or "Follow." DON'T FORGET: If you love the show, rate us 5 stars and leave a review. That helps other people find the show. Reach the reporter at [email protected]. Follow the reporter on Twitter @graceoldham123 and subscribe to azcentral.com to support local journalism. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/02/phoenix-library-start-seed-library-programs-free/3291561002/ | https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/02/phoenix-library-start-seed-library-programs-free/3291561002/ |
Where does Zion Williamson rank among top 10 one-and-dones of all time? | Had he finished his college career by climbing a ladder in Minneapolis next Monday night, Dukes Zion Williamson might have cemented himself as college basketballs greatest all-time one-and-done. The top-seeded Blue Devils instead fell to second-seeded Michigan State in the Elite Eight on Sunday night, likely ending Williamsons college career and leaving his legacy up for debate. Below is our attempt to rank college basketballs all-time best one-and-dones based on what they accomplished in their lone seasons at their respective schools. T-10. Trae Young, Oklahoma, 2017-18 T-10. Derrick Rose, Memphis, 2007-08 We couldnt separate Young and Rose, largely because they occupy opposite and equally compelling sides of the debate that underlies this entire list: Individual exploits and numbers vs. team success. Rose led John Caliparis best Memphis team to 38 wins, and to within one magical Mario Chalmers three of a national title. His talent was undeniable. Yet he averaged 14.9 points per game, the fewest of anybody in our top 10. Young, on the other hand, poured in 27.4 per game, plus 8.7 assists (Rose dished out 4.7 per game). For portions of the season, he was a must-watch one-man show. But he sputtered late, won just one game in February, and bowed out in the first round of the tourney. Neither is fair. Which is why we left this as a dead heat. Henry Bushnell 9. Check. Check. Thats Okafor. Now, he was far from a force throughout that NCAA tourney run, held to 10 or fewer points in three of Dukes last four games. And his 17.3 points and 8.5 rebounds per game dont jump off the page. But he was the second-best player in the country and won a title. You cant leave him out of the top 10. Henry Bushnell 8. Greg Oden, Ohio State, 2006-07 Its easy to forget how good Oden was before injuries derailed his NBA career. Oden displayed so much promise in high school and in his lone season at Ohio State that it wasnt even all that controversial when Portland selected him ahead of Kevin Durant. At Ohio State, Oden was the national defensive player of the year, a chiseled 7-foot, 260-pound center who altered shots at the rim, dominated the glass and possessed the agility to guard in space. He averaged 15.7 points, 9.6 rebounds and 3.3 blocks in his lone season with the Buckeyes, teaming with Mike Conley to take his team to the 2007 national title game. Ohio State lost to Florida that night, but Oden was nothing short of spectacular. He hung 25 points, 12 rebounds and 4 blocks on a Gators frontcourt that featured Joakim Noah and Al Horford. Jeff Eisenberg 7. John Wall, Kentucky, 2009-10 If Anthony Davis is the most revered of John Caliparis many one-and-dones, then Wall is not far behind. He announced his arrival in college basketball with a signature dance move at Big Blue Madness in October 2009, sending 24,000 fans into a frenzy just by flexing his arm and twisting his wrist. He then validated the hype, averaging 16.6 points and 6.5 assists, earning consensus first-team All-American honors and becoming Kentuckys first-ever No. 1 draft pick. The only blemish on Walls otherwise terrific college rsum is that he did not lead Kentucky to the Final Four. A 35-win Wildcats team that also featured future NBA standouts DeMarcus Cousins and Eric Bledsoe fell to West Virginia in the 2010 Elite Eight amid a hail of missed jump shots. Jeff Eisenberg 6. Kevin Love, UCLA, 2007-08 Heres a partial list of the future NBA standouts in the Pac-10 during Kevin Loves lone season at UCLA: James Harden, Russell Westbrook, OJ Mayo, Ryan Anderson, Taj Gibson, Brook and Robin Lopez, Darren Collison and Jerryd Bayless. That gives you an idea how good Love was in outplaying all of them to earn league player of the year honors. A bit doughier in college than as an NBA player, Love was a force on the low block at UCLA, averaging 17.5 points and 10.6 rebounds. He teamed with Collison and Westbrook to lead the best UCLA team of the Ben Howland era to a 35-4 record, a Pac-10 title and a berth in a third consecutive Final Four. Maybe his most underrated skill at UCLA was his outlet passing. He was the rare big man who could launch a fast break with one flick of his wrists. Jeff Eisenberg 5. Michael Beasley, Kansas State, 2007-08 Beasleys numbers were absurd. He arrived at a program that hadnt made the NCAA tournament in over a decade, immediately took its reins, and put up 26.2 points and 12.1 rebounds per game. He took 35.7 of his teams shots while on the floor and still posted a 119.8 offensive rating. With fellow frosh Bill Walker and Jacob Pullen by his side, he made K-State relevant again. He told boosters were going to beat Kansas, and did just that on a memorable night at the Octagon of Doom. Beasley only got one tournament win over Mayos USC but that was one more than the program had over the previous 19 years combined. He compiled 28 double-doubles and 13 30-point games. He smashed Kansas State records. His body of work over four-plus months was remarkable. Henry Bushnell 4. Kevin Durant, Texas, 2006-07 Durant doesnt get credit for his glittering NBA career here. But he ranks in our top five anyway because his college numbers as a skin-and-bones, ridiculously fluid 19-year-old were eye-popping: 25.8 points per game, 11.1 rebounds, 1.9 blocks, 1.9 steals we could go on. They made him a clear-cut national player of the year, the first freshman to earn consensus first-team All-America honors since 1989. Durant also played on a team comprising almost entirely underclassmen before such roster construction was in vogue. He nearly led it to a Big 12 tournament title. He couldnt lead it to the NCAA tournaments second weekend, but did set the record for most points by a freshman on the tournaments opening weekend with 57 a number matched only in subsequent years by a certain superhuman Dukie. Henry Bushnell Duke guard Tre Jones, center, covers his face as he walks off the court with teammates Zion Williamson (1) and Cam Reddish (2) after losing to Michigan State in the NCAA men's East Regional final college basketball game in Washington, Sunday, March 31, 2019. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) 3. Zion Williamson, Duke, 2018-19 Zion doesnt have the counting stats of Durant or Beasley. Nor did he get to a Final Four like Love and Oden. He was, however, A) phenomenally efficient and B) transcendent. He averaged 22.6 points on just 13 shots per game. He had effective field goal and true shooting percentages in the 70s, plus an offensive rating pushing 130. More importantly, he was the first college player in a while who made you stare agape at a television screen every time he took the floor. Whether it was the effortless dunks or the ferocious blocks or, heck, the soaring rebounds, he was a never-ending human highlight reel. Hell win every end-of-year award hes eligible for. That he blew through a shoe and watched as his supposedly talented teammates lost three of six games without him only accentuates his case for the top spot on this list. Yet he didnt always grab games by the neck and exert his power like he so clearly could. R.J. Barrett did. Zion didnt even have the highest scoring average or usage rate on his own team, and didnt get that team to the Final Four. When there are others who have done all three of those things, somebody who did none cant be considered the greatest one-and-done ever. Henry Bushnell 2. Anthony Davis, Kentucky, 2011-12 At the beginning of Davis' junior year of high school, he was a 6-foot-3 guard with a solitary scholarship offer from Cleveland State. By the time he signed with Kentucky a year later, he had grown eight inches, evolved into an elite shot blocker and rebounder and attracted interest from just about every major program in the country. Davis wasnt Kentuckys leading scorer during the 2011-12 college season, but he was easily the best player on a 38-2 team that captured coach John Caliparis lone national championship. The willowy 6-foot-11 center won national player of the year honors after averaging 14.2 points, 10.4 rebounds and 4.7 blocks. In his most memorable NCAA tournament game, he led Kentucky past rival Louisville, missing only one of his eight shots and finishing with 18 points, 14 rebounds and 5 blocks. Jeff Eisenberg 1. Carmelo Anthony, Syracuse, 2002-03 In his lone season at Syracuse, Anthony set the standard for future one-and-dones. The 6-foot-8 forward averaged 22.3 points and 10.0 rebounds, unanimously captured national freshman of the year honors and led the Orange to Jim Boeheims lone championship. There was little doubt Anthony would be named the 2003 Final Fours Most Outstanding Player after he tallied a total of 53 points in Syracuses two games. He shredded Texas in the national semifinals for 33 points and 14 rebounds, then came three assists shy of a triple-double against Kansas in the title game. Anthonys season at Syracuse was so memorable that his first name soon became a verb. When Malik Hairston committed to Oregon in 2004, he declared that he wanted to Carmelo-ize the Ducks, meaning lead them to a championship as a one-and-done freshman. Jeff Eisenberg Honorable mentions: Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Stephon Marbury, Ben Simmons, OJ Mayo, D'Angelo Russell, R.J. Barrett | https://sports.yahoo.com/one-and-dones-greatest-zion-williamson-carmelo-anthony-davis-college-045452614.html?src=rss |
Why did the Cantrell administration change school zone cameras without notice? | Mayor LaToya Cantrell owes New Orleanians an explanation. After criticizing automated traffic cameras as a money grab during her campaign, her administration lowered the threshold for issuing a ticket in a school zone without telling residents. The change only came to light when drivers started expressing their frustration on social media in the past week. The city had long said the traffic cameras around school zones were set to issue tickets at 6 mph over the 20 mph speed limit. But dozens of drivers said this week they had gotten nabbed for driving four miles over. Cantrell secretly turns school zones into speed traps An unannounced change in the traffic camera program shakes down motorists for minor lapeses. A Police Department official acknowledged that a change had been made but directed questions to the Department of Public Works. It took three days to get a response from the city. And it essentially said nothing. We are tightening enforcement efforts in our school zones to help encourage safer driving," a City Hall spokesperson said in an email Monday evening. "Going two miles over, or ten miles over the limit: youre in violation either way. We want people to pay attention and to be safe around our schools. Every driver knows that anything over the speed limit can be considered a violation. And, of course, it is important to make sure children are safe crossing streets. But the citys practice since at least 2012 had been to set traffic cameras to ticket drivers at 6 mph or more over the school zone limit. If the city was going to change that, Mayor Cantrell and her administration should have warned residents. People get into a routine driving around the city. When the city changes traffic enforcement without letting anyone know, drivers are going to get caught. And some drivers are getting several tickets at once because of the lag time between the moment the camera snaps the photo and when the ticket is sent out. At $75 a pop, four tickets would be $300. That is a nasty surprise. Of course, catching drivers off guard was probably exactly the point. This will give the city a boost in revenue, at least in the short term. But residents shouldnt be treated as cash machines. If the city has data showing a difference of 2 mph is safer in school zones, Mayor Cantrell should have shared that with New Orleanians before the switch. There also should have been a transition period to allow drivers to get used to the new threshold. The Landrieu administration did that when it added traffic cameras to school zones in 2017, issuing warnings for the first month. The statement from Mayor Cantrells office is infuriating. Residents deserve a detailed explanation of this change. The anecdotal evidence suggests its 4 mph over the school zone limit. But the citys statement mentions 2 mph. That seems obvious. The city turned off 20 red light cameras in January and restricted school zone cameras to operating when school is in session. So, revenue has to have dropped. It sure seems like it. But setting a speed trap for New Orleanians is a cynical way to build a budget. | https://www.nola.com/opinions/2019/04/why-did-the-cantrell-administration-change-school-zone-cameras-without-notice.html |
Is construction activity on track to slow in metro Denver? | Year after year this decade, construction cranes and work crews in metro Denver have gotten only busier. But activity may finally take a breather, according to a forecast from a leading cost estimation firm. Denver has been one the hottest markets across the country since 2013 and 2014, said Dan Pomfrett, a regional director with Cumming. We expect this (slowdown) to be more of a market catching up with itself than a recession. Cumming predicts that construction spending in metro Denver will drop about 8 percent this year, led by an 11.5 percent decline in residential construction activity. In dollar terms, construction spending in metro Denver will drop from a high of $20.6 billion last year to $18.95 billion this year. Residential construction, which includes apartments and single-family homes, will drop from $13.1 billion to $11.6 billion, making it the largest contributor to this years decline. Spending on schools and health care facilities will continue to rise this year, while spending on commercial buildings and manufacturing plant construction will flatten out. Infrastructure spending will drop 3 percent. The predicted decline isnt huge, but the reversal will be noticeable. For the past four years, construction spending has risen an average of 12.7 percent a year in metro Denver, while home and apartment construction has risen an impressive 17.6 percent a year on average, including a 28.8 percent gain in 2016, according to Cumming. After construction spending drops this year, Cumming forecasts it will rebound a meager 2.5 percent in 2020 and remain below 2018 levels at least through 2021 and likely longer. Thats because the companys model, which relies on 15 to 20 criteria, predicts a U.S. recession in 2022 or 2023 that will slow building activity nationwide. I dont believe that it in the least, countered Michael Gifford, president and CEO of the Associated General Contractors of Colorado. We arent seeing a slowdown. We arent seeing a decrease in construction employment. A forecast in December from the Associated General Contractors of America called for another increase in the volume of work in Colorado in 2019, despite labor shortages. Regarding residential, Gifford said the metro region should have added 215,000 rooftops the past decade, but only added 157,000. The deficit is a big one that will take years to backfill. Pomfrett said rising living costs are making the region less attractive, adding that the most expensive markets like San Francisco and Los Angeles are seeing even sharper decreases in construction activity this year. The more expensive states and locations are where we are seeing the labor force leave the market, he said. Less migration translates into less construction activity. | https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/02/construction-activity-slow-metro-denver/ |
Did Mark Zuckerberg's Plan For Government Internet Regulation Just Get Crushed? | 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP On Saturday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called for "a more active role for governments and regulators, by updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve whats best about it the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things while also protecting society from broader harms." But then on Monday, the Singaporean government announced plans to introduce new laws that would require sites such as Facebook to show warnings or corrections for content deemed by the government to be false or misleading. Where an account is deemed to be fake or damaging to the public interest, the government can direct it to be taken down - albeit with an appeals process in place. Kind of like, erm, government regulation. Facebook bases its Asia operations in Singapore, as do other leading technology companies. A spokesperson for Facebook in Asia responded by expressing concerns with aspects of the law that grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false and proactively push a government notification to users. Giving people a place to express themselves freely and safely is important to us and we have a responsibility to handle any government request to remove alleged misinformation carefully and thoughtfully. The world is never simple, and it might be 'make your mind up' or 'be careful what you wish for' time for Facebook. No simple answers Facebook has been under increasing pressure for just over a year. The Cambridge Analytica scandal opened up a data and privacy-related Pandora's Box for the company, culminating in widespread condemnation for Facebook Live's streaming of the attack in Christchurch and for allowing far-right hatred to be widely shared, both before and afterward. The company has since made two major policy changes, banning white extremism for the first time and announcing plans to limit who can stream live. Policy announcements that led into Zuckerberg's op-ed. One of the main early drivers for Facebook was democratizing the internet. Providing a voice for the oppressed and the disenfranchised. But the challenge was that this was not the company's mission. The mission was to build the worlds largest user group to collect and sell on their data. And this contradiction has caught them out. The oppressed in Syria and Yemen became white separatists in Australia and Eastern Europe and the U.S. Political action became terrorism. Innocent people were killed. There are no easy answers on internet regulation. "Technology is a major part of our lives, and companies such as Facebook have immense responsibilities," Zuckerberg said in his op-ed. He isn't wrong. But they also have a responsibility to generate profits for their shareholders, and thus far this responsibility has come first. More thought required Not all governments are democracies. No easy answers. Internet regulation is inevitable, and lawmakers are starting to act. The process will require consultation and will need to deal with everything from the protection of user privacy to the integrity of elections. And it will need to include responsibility for the publication of content that would be banned on mainstream media platforms - such as violence, hatred and self-harm - with the end to the post-office defense, where social media platforms escape responsibility for the content they enable users to share. Some of this is obvious. Removing racial hatred, limiting live streaming, acting quickly when notified of breaches. Last week Australia threatened to jail social media execs if the problems are not fixed and if the internet continues to be "weaponized" by terrorists. Unfortunately, this will take more than an op-ed and some bright ideas to fix. The challenge for Facebook is that most of their problem is caused by the data-trading and content-sharing imperatives of their core business model. Whether Zuckerberg was seeking to help shape internet regulation, or to abdicate responsibility for deciding what can and cannot be shared, has been the subject of some debate. Either way, the first pass at ideas has fallen at the first hurdle. What is needed now is the application of common sense backed up by the rule of law to deal with most of the problem. Limiting genuine free speech and providing a voice for the oppressed can be defended whilst still prohibiting incitement to violence or algorithms that share imagery of self-harm. Facebook can neither limit nor shape regulation, seeking to fully protect those elements of its business model that have left it exposed. Nor can it abdicate responsibility for what is published in its name. Social media will not escape its current issues unchanged. There remain some calls which go as far as to call for the companies to be broken up - an option that might well find itself taken more seriously if the current newsflow continues. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/02/did-mark-zuckerbergs-plan-for-government-internet-regulation-just-get-crushed/ |
Was James Comeys April Fools joke funny or truly the worst? | by Cait Bladt James Comey, former director of the FBI and string bean goofball who played a hefty role in Donald Trumps election, made what he thought was a funny funny joke on Twitter. In what is fast becoming his signature social media brand, Comey tweeted a picture of himself facing away from camera in the middle of a country road with a vague sentence and #2020. The post came on April Fools Day, the day everyone gets to feel morally superior to their gullible coworkers. Comey quickly backtracked and said it was a prank. Comey sent the fateful Tweet at 2:25 pm Eastern Time. That's very late in the day for an April Fools' Joke. The Tylt's much more clearly labeled April Fools' Jokes started at 12:01 the morning of April 1 and will end promptly at 11:59 pm. It seems a waste to post an April Fools' Joke this far into the day. But he still committed to the bit. The picture, vagueness and almost unbearable earnestness fits Comeys social media brand to a T. The day William Barrs report on Robert Muellers report was released, Comey tweeted a picture of himself in a forest with the cryptic statement, So many statements. Hes certainly honed his personal style in the last few months. Im in. We need someone in the middle. #2020 pic.twitter.com/IGt69bEQz1 James Comey (@Comey) April 1, 2019 Wow what a fun funny joke that didn't scare any of us! Happy #AprilFools. #VoteDem2020 James Comey (@Comey) April 1, 2019 Lots of brands and celebrities get in on the fun and games of April Fools Day. The Washington Post, however, reports: Microsoft marketing chief Chris Capossela sent out a note to employees last week announcing that the company had decided against doing any public-facing stunts because data tells us these stunts have limited positive impact and can actually result in unwanted news cycles. The former FBI director probably wanted to have a little fun on his social media and maybe cause a few smiles but this maybe wasnt the way to do it. Some, including the fine people at Vogue.com, did not appreciate Comeys joke at all. Maybe it was some guerrilla April Fools-related marketing for Comey's forthcoming memoir, A Higher Loyalty. Of course, no one was thinking about that, because everyone was too busy reliving the PTSD of 2016, when Comey pulled a fun "prank" then too by reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails two weeks before the presidential election. Comey did give us another installment in his ongoing exhibit of photos of him staring out at nature, which is fun in its own way. Just realized that every photo James Comey posts has the exact same energy as this cow staring out at the ocean. I need to log off. pic.twitter.com/X6tgWHxbRC Ryan Brooks (@ByRyanBrooks) April 1, 2019 More than a few Twitter users came in very hot with their takes on Comeys potential candidacy/funny joke. lol it's funny because you installed Donald Trump by doing your job improperly Zack Bornstein (@ZackBornstein) April 1, 2019 Overall though, most people werent into it. Maybe James Comey shouldnt do this ever again! Just a suggestion. you're exhausting. marisa kabas (@MarisaKabas) April 1, 2019 The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Local Media, LLC property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt, on Instagram @TheTylt or on Facebook, wed love to hear what you have to say. | https://www.cleveland.com/tylt/2019/04/was-james-comeys-april-fools-joke-funny-or-truly-the-worst.html |
What does a no-deal Brexit actually mean? | Depending on whether your answer is "an anonymous phone call offering me money" or "one of the options MPs are being asked to consider to determine how the UK leaves the EU" will probably show how devoted you are to Brexit. Similar to any big game show (we're talking politics now, sorry Deal or No Deal fans), Brexit has had its fair share of twists and turns and dramatic moments since the referendum vote in June 2016. Whether it's last night's "Nick, don't go!" EastEnders-style moment... Or Theresa May's car door being an analogy for the whole process... Or Brexit making a celebrity out of the grown man that has to shout "order" at MPs in a very dramatic way... It's been FULL. OF. BANTS. Well stitch up your sides and buckle up because there's another Brexit staple that's popping up more and more now (which you might want to add to your Brexit vocabulary): No-deal Brexit. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption No deal is becoming "more likely" according to the EU's chief negotiator No deal means the UK leaving the European Union with no agreement in place on their future relationship. The EU has previously said a no-deal Brexit would mean border checks would have to be brought in - which would affect things like exports and travel between the UK and EU. Things like how the UK trades with the EU and the rights of UK citizens living in the EU and visa-versa would also be up in the air. The government says it's made initial plans for a no-deal Brexit and has told businesses to do the same. Image copyright UK PARLIAMENTARY RECORDING UNIT Image caption Heads up, this is what Theresa May means if she ever invites you to a lock-in The UK was due to leave the UK on 29 March but so-called Brexit day sailed by after politicians repeatedly voted against the proposal Theresa May hammered out with the EU (aka the withdrawal deal). The EU has given the UK until 12 April to see if Parliament can agree on what should happen next - with the general understanding that yet another extension would only be on the table if the UK knows what it wants to do. At the moment, that's not happening. MPs have been voting on various other options but none have been agreed. It's now at a point where Theresa May has joined her top Conservative MPs in a Brexit-escape-room-type-nightmare for eight hours of talks to try to sort things out. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Thankfully, for everyone involved, this guy has nothing to do with this type of deadlock If things carry on until 12 April without MPs agreeing another option - as it stands - the UK would leave the EU with no deal. And if (yes, another if) that happens the UK would have to follow rules set out by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It would mean UK exports would be put under the same checks and tariffs that the EU puts on other countries which are not members. Some Brexiteers support a no-deal Brexit and say it would mean the UK would be fully independent and able make trade deals around the world. But no-deal critics say it could cause chaos at the borders, push up food prices and damage businesses and the economy. With Brexit Day 2.0 still 10 days away, there's still time for Theresa May to ask MPs to vote on her deal for a fourth time, an emergency summit of EU leaders to consider another Brexit extension to be held, and a load more no deal memes to spread around WhatsApp. Follow Newsbeat on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 every weekday on BBC Radio 1 and 1Xtra - if you miss us you can listen back here. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47786788 |
Is (hashtag)MeToo casting a shadow on sexual pleasure? | This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site. Bodies and sexual pleasures have always been entangled in public, moralizing discourses. (hashtag)MeToo, in its articulation of the very real sexual harassment and violence that too often accompanies the pleasure of some at the expense of others, takes shape in and through an intensified and hypermediatized morality that reconfigures bodies and pleasures as matters of contract and law, appearing in the contemporary media landscape in language that speaks nothing of desire. Mass media discourse speaks of sexual contracts and personal responsibility; we read about denunciations (or cancellations) on social media platforms such as Twitter, threats of prosecution and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Just over a year ago, more than 100 French women, including actress Catherine Deneuve, signed an open letter condemning the (hashtag)MeToo movement for its hatred of men and of sexuality and to defend mens liberte dimportuner mens freedom to importune, to press or to make advances toward women. Their letter characterizes (hashtag)MeToo as a vague purificatoire a purifactory wave and as a liberation of speech that unfairly targets men and sexuality, if not pleasure itself. For these women, free speech had gone too far with (hashtag)MeToo because its speech impinges on mens freedom to make advances toward women, which they suggest is a mans primordial right. In their defence of men and in the name of womens pleasure, it was time, they claimed, for women to liberate another speech (une autre parole). In the wake of the (hashtag)MeToo movement, our interdisciplinary team of researchers is interested in contemporary discourses on sex, its pleasures and their ethical dimensions. The rhetorics of risk and moral panic The prevailing social context is marked by an increased social awareness of sexual abuse and violence, high-profile court cases, burgeoning institutional and educational programs around sexual consent, victimization and the use of broad definitions of sexual violence. In contemporary culture, we tend to treat desire as if it were something that must be expressed in and through law, without understanding how desiring bodies and pleasures frustrate legal discourse and can be expressed in other ways. Meanwhile and by contrast popular mass media, including social media and pornography, incite pleasure and convey countless practical tips to optimize sexual performance and satisfaction. We are bombarded with many statements about sex that are often contradictory or incommensurable. One side emphasizes the diverse risks and dangers that lie in wait; it gestures to the powers both formal and informal that should oversee and regulate the expression of sexuality. The other would revel in and celebrate sexual pleasure as such. In the contemporary context, then, cultural anxiety surrounds sexuality as a new form of moral panic. Sex is politicized anew, the subject of increasing media surveillance and suspicion. The invocation of free speech notwithstanding, bodies and their pleasures seem to be shrouded by a certain silence; desires and pleasures seem almost deviant and unspeakable. Research on sexuality is not much interested in sex Most research on sex and sexuality tends to have a medical or psychiatric focus and is studied exclusively on pathological terms. Ironically, research on sexuality tends to ignore sex and very little is devoted to the study of pleasure, desire and excitement in a manner that is realistic, concrete and anchored in peoples experiences. Research by sociologist Angela Jones demonstrates, for example, that most published articles medicalize sex and presume a deficiency or a failure; others tend to focus on risks and sexual victimization. And an essay on sexuality and embodiment published by psychologist Deborah Tolman and her colleagues in 2014 reports that, in fact, little is known about the embodied aspects of sexual pleasure: Ironically, research on sexuality has little interest in sex, which is what people do, think and feel when they express a sexual feeling or use their bodies in a sexual way. So this raises the question of how we determine the conditions of possibility for experiencing great sex, described by University of Ottawa psychologist Peggy Kleinplatz as a type of sexuality that goes beyond the functional, the good and the satisfying a sexuality that provides a deep sense of pleasure and accomplishment that is lived and experienced as profound, memorable and extraordinary. To be clear, we are neither for nor against the (hashtag)MeToo movement or other social movements. Nor do we question the value of free speech, despite its many faces. Rather, we suggest that these phenomena represent an occasion, or a rhetorical situation, that calls for further study. Our research focuses on the ways in which individuals create a sense of agency in their relations, and how they interpret and navigate social norms and injunctions in order to express, to live and to share their bodies and pleasures. Between the aversion to moralizing discourses and the injunction to optimize sexual pleasure and performance, our research opens onto another speech that recognizes the ways that sexuality is both ethical and embodied. This other speech is not quite the one imagined by Catherine Deneuve and the other French feminists who signed the open letter. Rather, this speech is productive and takes place in bed (or on the sofa or elsewhere); it speaks about bodies and their pleasures between intimates that invite, rather than importune or take liberties. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Disclosure information is available on the original site. Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/is-metoo-casting-a-shadow-on-sexual-plea https://the | https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/is-hashtagmetoo-casting-a-shadow-on-sexual-pleasure |
What Happens If the Affordable Care Act Is Struck Down? | The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has existed largely on the edge of a cliff since President Donald Trump entered the White House. While Trump has thus far failed to fulfill his campaign promise of repealing and replacing former President Barack Obamas signature health care plan, he appeared to get a second wind last week. The Justice Department sided with a federal judge in Texas, who ruled in December that the laws individual mandate was unconstitutional and that the rest of the law was therefore invaliddespite the Supreme Court previously upholding the law in 2012. The Texas ruling calls into question one of the key components of the ACA: protection for those with pre-existing conditions. But Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney sought to assuage the concerns of those with such pre-existing conditions over the weekend, while speaking on ABCs This Week. Mulvaney told ABC News White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl that he could guarantee that those with pre-existing conditions would not lose their coverage, claiming that every single plan that this White House has ever put forward since Donald Trump was elected, covered pre-existing conditions. But Mulvaney failed to provide additional details and did not address how the millions of others who get their coverage through healthcare.gov and state exchanges would continue to do so. The short answer is we dont really know yet, because we havent seen an alternative plan. Trump said last week that if the law is struck down we will have a plan that is far better than Obamacare, but didnt elaborate on such a plan. The Urban Institutes Health Policy Center estimated in a study released last month that 19.9 million Americans could lose their coverage, increasing the number of uninsured by 65%. And its not just those who get their insurance from the exchanges or through ACAs Medicaid expansion who could be affected. The Affordable Care Act also includes provisions that decrease costs of Medicare coverage and prescription drugs for senior citizens, another that allows children to stay on their parents health insurance plans until they turn 26 years old, and lets many Americans get birth control, mammograms, and cholesterol tests for free. Even the Trump administrations policy priority to lower prescription drug prices relies on ACA. President Trump had reportedly asked three Republican senators to take on the challenge of developing a new Republican healthcare bill, but these senators, John Barrasso, Bill Cassidy, and Rick Scott dont appear to know whether an alternative plan will be forthcoming. The Washington Post reported over the weekend that Republicans have no intention of heeding President Trumps urgent demands for a new health-care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, adding that not only is there no such health-care overhaul in the works on Capitol Hillthere are no plans to make such a plan. The lukewarm response from members of the Republican Partyand the sharp criticism from Democratsappears to have delayed Trumps plans, for now. Late Monday, Trump indicated that Republicans in Congress would wait until after the 2020 election to vote on an ACA replacement. In a series of tweets, Trump wrote that everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesnt work and that Republicans are therefore developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare. He went on to add, Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win back the House. It will be truly great HealthCare that will work for America. Also, Republicans will always support Pre-Existing Conditions. The Republican Party will be known as the Party of Great HealtCare [sic]. Meantime, the USA is doing better than ever & is respected again! | http://fortune.com/2019/04/02/aca-affordable-care-act-obamacare/ |
How's Ericsson's Digital Services Business Faring? | The segment has been underperforming due to significant underperformance of BSS operations Lower sales of legacy products have also contributed to this underperformance, in addition to a focus on margin improvement rather than top line growth Past BSS strategy focused on large transformation projects, pre-integrated solutions, and full-stack revenue management. Ericsson has shifted its strategy from full-stack revenue management to fulfilling existing customer commitments The company will also invest further in the established Ericsson Digital BSS platform, which has an existing base of 350+ customers It is also exiting or renegotiating low-performing customer contracts, with 23 of 45 contracts addressed as of December 2018. You can modify key drivers to arrive at your own estimates for the companys EPS and valuation. In addition, you can also see all of our data for Information Technology Companies here. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/04/02/hows-ericssons-digital-services-business-faring/ |
Is Sergio Garcia or Matt Kuchar at fault for rules controversy over concession? | Hope you're sitting down: there was a rules controversy at a golf event this weekend. But for once the much-maligned rule book isn't so much as fault as are the infamous "vagaries" of match play. To catch you up to speed: Garcia and Kuchar were locked in a quarterfinal duel when things went awry at the par-3 seventh at Austin C.C. Trailing Kuchar by one, Garcia missed a seven-footer for par to win the hole, his ball coming to rest an inch or two away from the cup. A distance Suzann Pettersen would concede as good. However, Garcianever a model of equanimitywent after his putt and gave it a quick love-tap, and the ball lipped out. Due to the Spaniard's swiftness, Kuchar did not have a chance to concede the putt. Scroll to continue with content Ad As such, Garcia lost the hole, which clearly did not sit well. On the next green, the 2017 Masters champ took an angry full swing at a missed putt. Cameras then caught a tense back and forth between Kuchar and Garcia at the 10th hole. Tensions (relatively) returned to normal for the rest of the match, which Kuchar won, 2 up. But after the round, Kuchar gaslit the situation by stating Garcia had asked Kuchar to concede a hole to make things fair. Even against the backdrop of this unfortunate circumstance, a bizarre request at this level of competition. In the moment, manyled by NBC Sports' Paul Azingerwere quick to blame the Spaniard. Upon further review, more voices, including those of fellow players, came to Garcia's defense. Two of Golf Digest's own, digital editor Sam Weinman and staff writer Joel Beall, speak for each side of the debate. It's Sergio's Fault Story continues Consider for a moment this alternate-world scenario: You are stopped at a traffic light when a car hits you from behind. Both cars are damaged, and when you emerge from your vehicle, the other driver explains that he was temporarily blinded by the sun, and he didnt mean to hit you. Thats a tough break, you say. I know, right? he says. Maybe because of my bad luck, we should split the cost of the repairs. To which you reply, Nice try. In case you couldnt tell, the car wreck in question here is the Garcia-Kucar debacle. And the driver looking to share the blame is Garcia. Even if we can all agree that Garcia fell victim to an arcane golf rule when he hockey-pucked his way around the seventh green on Saturdayor that his opponent bungled the concession and its aftermath it was still a misfortune that began and ended with him. It might not have been fair, but even less fair would have been to expect Kuchar to shoulder some of the blame by asking him to concede an ensuing hole. A golfer has enough to deal with in the heat of battle. To be forced to atone for another players haste shouldnt have to be one of them -- Sam Weinman It's Kuchar's Fault Easy to blame Sergio. This, after all, is the same cat who went ballistic in a Saudi beach two months ago. But while Garcia wasn't right, it's Kuchar that's in the wrong. This was a non-issue until Kuchar called over an official. That Kuchar played dumbhe told official Robby Ware,"Listen, I don't know how to handle this, but I didn't concede the putt, Sergio missed the putt" made matters worse. Kuchar's been on tour for two decades; he knew what he was doing. His "Gee Golly" act doesn't play anymore. As personalities like James Hahn, Lee Westwood, caddie Ian Finnis and former player/SkySports commentator Tony Johnstone pointed out, the 40-year-old could have walked to the next tee and made nothing of it. If an official would have stepped in, Kuchar could have diffused the situation with, "I said it was good." As this season has shown, sometimes common sense needs to overrule the letter of the law. Instead, Kuchar jumped at the chance to use the rules to his advantage. The gamesmanship worked; he won the hole, and Sergio was never the same for the rest of the match. Another shot to a suddenly-suspect reputation. -- Joel Beall Explore Golf Digest All Access, with more than 30 video series to improve your game WATCH: GOLF DIGEST VIDEOS | https://sports.yahoo.com/sergio-garcia-matt-kuchar-fault-143714758.html?src=rss |
What Are The Biggest Cybersecurity Threats In 2019? | originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. Answer by Alex Rebert, Co-Founder at ForAllSecure, Inc., on Quora: Our increased reliance on software, for seemingly all aspect of our lives and our society, is the biggest threat we are facing today. Just think what systems are relying on software, and how disruptive an attack could be on those systems. Power grids, hospitals, financial institutions, voting machines, and military systems are all relying on software. I'd bet most of those systems are vulnerable in some way or another. When you think of exploits against such systems as an extra capability in the context of a larger military operations, you start to see how crippling our reliance on software could become. Increased awareness of that issue led the Naval Academy to go back to teaching celestial navigation in 2016 in order to avoid being overly dependent on GPS. This is a hard question, but I'll touch on that in another answer below since thats very relevant to ForAllSecures technology. Bugs are unavoidable and they will be found by attackers. Vendors need to ship security patches and ensure that the patch is widely deployed. These questions get even harder to answer at scale, and when you take the economic incentives into account. For instance, many connected devices are designed without software updates in mind: it's expensive and complicated to build a secure remote upgrade functionality. That cost is taken right out of profits if customers are not willing to pay more for it. In addition, that feature is essentially enabling remote code execution and might decrease security if not done properly! The result is that we have a large number of unpatchable devices on the internet. Those devices are time bombs. They will get exploited and become an additional resource for an attacker. Even when devices get security patches, it's challenging to make sure all the devices get the update in time. Software companies stop shipping security updates after a few years to limit support costs. They do so even when potentially millions of devices are still be running that old version of their software. The result: expensive attacks like Wannacry and NotPetya. They both relied on the same exploit that was leaked by Shadow Broker in April 2017. Microsoft released a patch before the exploit was released, in mid-March. However, months after a patch was available, the exploit was used very successfully by those two pieces of malware, simply because so many devices did not get the update. Most of the spread was from organizations that had not applied the patches, or were using older Windows systems that were past their end-of-life and did not initially receive updates. Today, WannaCry is still out there in our networks, knocking on IPs in an attempt to spread further. This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions: | https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/04/02/what-are-the-biggest-cybersecurity-threats-in-2019/ |
What Is Urban Outfitters' Revenue Breakdown? | 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP Urban Outfitters delivered a strong financial performance in fiscal 2018. The apparel retailers revenue surged by 9.3% year-over-year to reach approximately $4 billion. Trefis model for the company breaks it down into two key components of this revenue figure: Retail Segment (91% of total revenues) Wholesale Segment (9% of total revenues) As we summarize below, we expect total revenues for Urban Outfitters to grow at 3.5% to reach $4.1 billion in 2019. We currently have a price estimate of $37 per share for URBN, which is ahead of the current market price. We have summarized our revenue expectations for URBN, based on the companys guidance and our own estimates, on our interactive dashboard Summarizing Urban Outfitters Revenue Breakdown. You can modify any of our key drivers to gauge the impact changes would have on its valuation, and see all Trefis Consumer Discretionary Services company data here. Total Revenue: Urban Outfitters saw a total revenue increase of more than $400 million from 2016 to 2018 (CAGR of 5.6%) while recording $3.9 billion in revenue in FY 2018. Revenue growth was driven by sustained comps growth for all three brands (Free People, Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie) and continued growth in the digital channel. Trefis forecasts the Retail segment to grow at 3% to $3.7 billion, while the Wholesale segment is expected to grow at 5% in 2019. Trefis Retail Segment: Urbans Retail Segment consistently contributes a majority of its revenues, with an average revenue share of more than 90% in the last 3 years. The segment grew by 9.2% year-over-year in fiscal 2018, contributing $305 million of total incremental revenues. The growth in the Retail segment was primarily achieved due to growth in Retail segment comparable net sales. Retail segment comparable net sales increased 11.4% at Free People, 8.0% at Urban Outfitters and 7.5% at Anthropologie. We expect the segment to continue its growth trajectory and record $3.7 billion in revenues in FY 2019, with revenue per square foot increasing to $846. The segments percentage contribution to total revenue has marginally declined over the years due to the faster growth in the Wholesale segment. Trefis Wholesale Segment This segment has grown steadily over recent years, adding approximately $70 million of revenue over 2015-2018 (CAGR of 8.2%). The growth has been achieved due to growth in domestic sales to department stores, specialty stores and digital businesses due to growth in several categories, including womens apparels and intimates. We expect similar trends going forward, with 2019 revenues of $365 million, growing at an average rate of 5% in next 3 years. The segments contribution to total revenues has marginally increased over the years, which is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Although the company doesnt report its digital channel revenues separately, it is worth looking at separately as the channel has been a major driver of growth for the company in the past few years. Digital Channel The digital channel posted double-digit sales growth across brands in Q4. This growth was driven by increases in average order value, sessions and conversion rate, while units per transaction was flat. Digital penetration of total retail segment sales increased to around 40% in FY 2018, while digital penetration for Free People and Anthropologie has increased to well over 50%. Digital contribution to respective segment revenues has significantly increased over the years, which should continue in the foreseeable future. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/04/02/what-is-urban-outfitters-revenue-breakdown/ |
Why is a casserole called hot dish in Minnesota? | As any Minnesotan knows, if you layer meat, veggies and noodles, mix in a can of condensed soup and throw it in the oven youll get hot dish. What started as a staple of church basement potlucks and family gatherings has evolved into more than a recipe, becoming a hallmark of you-betcha Minnesota culture. Everywhere else its just casserole. Thats the latest reader question for Curious Minnesota, the newspapers community-driven reporting project that invites readers to join the newsroom and ask questions they want answered. This question came in anonymously from a reader who had never heard the term until living in here. Long before Jimmy Fallon flew to the Twin Cities to try it on The Tonight Show during last years Super Bowl hot dish was simply a descriptive phrase. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, a hot dish was literally a serving dish that was heated to keep food warm. Later, food writers and homemakers used the term to refer to a meals warm entree, said food historian Rae Katherine Eighmey. Ann Burckhardt's cookbook about hot dish recipes, including the classic tater tot variety, called Hot Dish Heaven. [The term] comes from the need to be clear that youre serving a hot dish vs. a cold dish, Eighmey said. The concept of the hot dish gained popularity during World War I when the federal government encouraged Americans to re-evaluate their meals. When you get to World War I, people were called upon by the government as a patriotic effort to conserve food, in particular meat and wheat, Eighmey said. The Federal Food Administration released cookbooks with practical and food-saving recipes. Several included recipes for hot pots mixtures of meat, vegetables and sauce cooked on the stove, Eighmey said. Although historians believe the term was used earlier, the first recipe titled hot dish was found in a 1930 cookbook compiled by Grace Lutheran Ladies Aid in Mankato. The recipe included two pounds of hamburger, tomato soup, Creamettes and a can of peas, among other ingredients. Popularity of the one-dish meal returned after World War II when President Harry S. Truman asked Americans to conserve food for European countries recovering from the war. Even when food restrictions ended, Americans continued making hot dish because the baby boom forced them to again stretch their resources, Eighmey said. By then, hot dish had also become a Minnesota fixture. Hot dish heats up In terms of early hot dish milestones, two stick out: Campbells released its condensed cream soups in 1934, and in 1953, Ore-Idas founders developed the Tater Tot. These companies helped fuel hot dishs popularity by including hot dish recipes on product packaging. Campbells Soups really promoted that whole style of cooking, said Beatrice Ojakangas, a Minnesota cook and author. Decades later, the dishs ingredients have gotten more daring (well, sort of). Hot Dish Heaven, a cookbook written by former Star Tribune Taste editor Ann Burckhardt, includes classics like Tater Tot and tuna noodle hot dish along with a mixture that calls for zucchini, shredded carrots and croutons. Its just something that evolved and something that caught on because it worked, Burckhardt said about hot dish. In recent years, hot dish has made a splash outside the confines of church basements and the kitchen. Apart from cookbooks, it has been featured in songs, mystery novels, haikus and at the Minnesota State Fair (Ole and Lenas hot dish on a stick). Hot dish competitions are held throughout Minnesota each year. In Washington, Minnesotas congressional representatives compete in an annual Hotdish-Off. And it was recently announced that the group behind the famous international hot-dog eating contest will host a hot-dish eating showdown this summer. That Tater Tot hot dish, of course. We tend to be culinary snobs, but ... the truth is deep down, we like hot dish, said Jeanne Cooney, the author of the Hot Dish Heaven mystery series. In truth, nothing tastes as good on a cold Saturday evening, as a plate of hot dish. Despite its lasting popularity and nostalgia, the precise origins of hot dish and the reason the name caught on exclusively in Minnesota is largely undocumented. Its the great Minnesota mystery, Eighmey said. Emma Dill is a University of Minnesota student on assignment for the Star Tribune. --- If you'd like to submit a Curious Minnesota question, fill out the form below: | http://www.startribune.com/why-is-a-casserole-called-hot-dish-in-minnesota/507683671/ |
What is Theresa May's new plan for Brexit? | After a marathon seven-hour cabinet meeting at Downing Street, and 10 days before the UK is scheduled to crash out of the EU without a deal, Theresa May has unveiled an updated Brexit plan. Here is what we know so far. She has called for talks with Jeremy Corbyn to try to work out a compromise Brexit plan that both the government and Labour could agree to. If this happens, the plan would be swiftly put to the EU. If not, parliament would be asked to vote on what plan MPs would like to see, with the government agreeing to abide by the results. This would, May said, involve another brief extension to the departure deadline. If it happens and the EU agrees both remain to be seen a compromise deal would be put to next weeks European council summit, paving the way for departure on 22 May, rather than 12 April, as currently scheduled. Show Hide May and Corbyn meet After Theresa May's statement on Tuesday, she is expected on Wednesday to meet with Jeremy Corbyn to try and agree a way forward that they could both support in the House of Commons. She spelled out that her withdrawal agreement had to be part of the agreement. The agreed plan will then be put to parliament later in the week, and taken to next weeks European Council meeting. If they could not, she said, agree a way forward, parliament may be offered a chance to choose between a series of options for the future relationship. She said the government would be bound by what the house decides but only if Labour was too. If the UK parliament or government have significantly changed position, then a lengthy Article 50 extension may be required. EU leaders would decide how long at a summit on this date. Negotiator Michel Barnier has suggested there might be three reasons for the EU to grant a long extension: for a second referendum, a general election, or because parliament wants to again examine the political declaration. But there's no guarantee the EU27 would unanimously agree to this. If Theresa May's deal is not passed by parliament, then, with no other significant developments, this would be the date by international law that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. However she appears to have ruled out allowing this to happen. If Theresa May's new proposal does pass parliament, this would be the scheduled date of the UK's departure from the EU. European parliamentary elections Unless there is a further longer extension of article 50, the EU27 will vote for a new set of MEPs without the UK participating. However, if Brexit has been further delayed, the UK would hold European elections on the Thursday. If Theresa May's deal passes parliament, she is expected to stand down after the UK leaves the EU on 22 May, triggering a contest for the leadership of the Conservative party. There has been some suggestion though that she might hold out through the summer so that the contest takes place after the next Tory conference in October. It is hard to see how it would not. Any compromise with Labour would involve May dropping some of her red lines, and at the very least Corbyn will seek a permanent customs union with the EU. If May refuses to budge at all, then under the terms of her proposal the issue would move to MPs, who would be expected to back a softer form of departure. This seems very possible, but depends a lot on how far May is willing to bend. The PM has been shown three times that the Commons clearly does not support her Brexit deal. She has now made the move to compromise, but it seems perfectly realistic that she and Corbyn will be unable to hit upon a plan that works for both of them and, just as crucially, their parties. It seems possible. Corbyn will be under intense pressure from his MPs to make support for a deal conditional on it being endorsed in a public vote, and Labour has whipped its MPs to back this option in the recent indicative Commons votes. This could be the undoing of a compromise plan, as May has repeatedly made it plain that she cannot countenance a second referendum. A sheer lack of other options. There had been talk of Mays Brexit plan being put to the Commons for a fourth time, but No 10 stressed repeatedly this would only happen if there was a realistic chance of it passing, and with both the Democratic Unionist party and her hard-Brexiter MPs still vehemently opposed, this appeared impossible. Two sets of indicative votes by MPs also failed to see a majority for any alternative plan. The default option, leaving without a deal on 12 April, was opposed by a majority of MPs and a number of cabinet ministers. Only time will tell. The softening of her stance has enraged the European Research Group of hard-Brexit Tory MPs, but they disliked May anyway and this will have been factored in. The big question is whether the PM can keep her Brexiter cabinet ministers on board. | https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/02/what-is-theresa-mays-new-plan-for-brexit |
Can an actor sway Hollywood to boycott hotels over Bruneis antigay laws? | LOS ANGELES The Beverly Hills Hotel has long been a refuge where Hollywood could both hide and show its true self. Where actors could retreat from scandal, divorce, a botched plastic surgery. From Elizabeth Taylor celebrating six of her eight honeymoons there to Donald Trump holing up with Stormy Daniels in one of its famous curbside bungalows, the Pink Palace on Sunset Boulevard has remained at the heart of Hollywood since the beginning. No one much noticed when the Sultan of Brunei bought the hotel in 1996. Even fewer would have connected that meal at the Polo Lounge with the tiny, oil-rich autocracy halfway around the world. In a recent announcement, Brunei says it will stone to death anyone charged with adultery or homosexuality, in accordance with Shariah law, beginning Wednesday. In a column for Deadline on Thursday, George Clooney called for a boycott of the hotel, the Bel Air Hotel and seven others in Europe owned by the sultan, who holds supreme power in Brunei. Theyre nice hotels, Clooney wrote. The people who work there are kind and helpful and have no part in the ownership of these properties. But lets be clear, every single time we stay at or take meetings at or dine at any of these nine hotels we are putting money directly into the pockets of men who choose to stone and whip to death their own citizens for being gay or accused of adultery. Along with other outspoken stars such as Meryl Streep, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Clooney holds to the view that he should use his high profile to advocate for dis-empowered people around the world. He has fought for gay rights, organized a telethon to help earthquake victims in Haiti and spent over a decade trying to stop genocide and famine in Sudan. A tropical nation roughly half the size of Los Angeles County, Brunei is wedged between two Malaysian states on the Southeast Asian island of Borneo. The former British colony got rich exporting oil and gas starting nearly a century ago, and its royal family invested much of the proceeds overseas, including in iconic hotels. The income has allowed Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, the ruler of Brunei, to provide a high standard of living for his people, including free education and health care, minimal taxes, and government jobs and pensions for almost everyone. Some see the Shariah law push as an attempt to quiet dissent while shoring up the support of a largely conservative citizenry. Joe Mozingo, Shashank Bengali and Ben Poston are Los Angeles Times writers. | https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Can-an-actor-sway-Hollywood-to-boycott-hotels-13735770.php |
What Does The New Mansion Tax Mean For New York? | For the past several decades, buyers of residential property in New York City have had to pay a surcharge of 1% on all sales for over $1 million; that surcharge is known as the Mansion Tax. At the time it was imposed, the name wasnt as ridiculous as it is today, when in many parts of the city $1 million barely buys you a one bedroom condominium. But this past week-end, the State Senate completely altered the structure of the surcharge, perhaps giving meaning to its name once again. The idea of increasing the Mansion Tax on the sale of higher priced units has been discussed in both local and state government for some time. Then, earlier this year, a perfect storm of need and opportunity arose. First, the hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin bought a 28,000 square foot pied-a-terre on Central Park South for $240 million; this, not surprisingly in our low-income-housing starved city, created a similar reaction to Marie Antoinettes suggestion that the starving peasants outside her walls eat cake. Concurrently, the state was casting around for new revenue sources to fund the overhaul of the citys increasingly unreliable mass transit system. The governors original plan, to raise money through a tax on marijuana sales, proved untenable as the state has not yet embraced the legalization of cannabis which was to be taxed. Outrage over the Griffin purchase led to an idea that the cannabis tax money could be replaced with a pied-a-terre tax on guys like Griffin who spend a lot of money in New York but dont live here. Real estate interests (of which I am one) argued that the severity of the proposed tax, especially if implemented on an annual basis, could easily have a highly inhibiting effect on the high-end real estate market in New York City, thus effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, the implementation of such a tax would almost certainly have slowed the already sluggish sales market for higher priced condos to non-resident buyers. This in turn would reduce the base of people on whom the tax would be imposed. So the very fact of applying the tax would reduce the number of out-of-state buyers, thus diminishing the very revenue stream on which the tax was created to capitalize. The states solution, approved yesterday less than 24 hours before the April 1 deadline, reverts to increasing surcharges and taxes which already exist. The new Mansion Tax, while it will continue to charge buyers of those $1 million one bedroom mansions described above at 1%, will charge significantly more as the prices go up. A $3 million deal will pay 1.5%; a $6 million deal will pay 2.25%; a $12 million deal will pay $3.25%; and anything above $25 million will pay 3.9%. In addition, the state transfer tax for city dwellers will increase from .4% to .65%. That effectively means that the future Ken Griffins will pay over 3% more in taxes after July 1 of this year, when the changes go into effect. For Mr. Griffin, that would have meant over $7.2 million in additional taxes on his purchase. With that being said, I dont believe the new tax will negatively impact New Yorks luxury marketplace all that much over the long term. Like all changes, this will take a little time to get assimilated. The New York market bounces back quickly. Even if this brings pressure on the higher end market to the tune of a few percentage points, it will simply become another factor in the negotiation between buyers and sellers. And if it makes the subways run on time, it will be cheap at the price! | https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredpeters/2019/04/02/what-does-the-new-mansion-tax-mean-for-new-york/ |
Should Nike start making Oregon Ducks womens basketball team jerseys available for fans to purchase? | The Oregon Ducks womens basketball team has made the Final Four at the NCAA Tournament for the first time in program history and the teams brand has never been stronger - both locally and nationally - with their blend of exciting play and star-caliber players. With versatile Sabrina Ionescu tearing up the record books and becoming a household name as well as the national recognition that comes with having a super fan in basketball scribe and social media darling Shea Serrano, the Ducks have seen their stock sore in recent years as their popularity grows with young and old basketball fans alike. Thats why University of Oregon student and Ducks basketball fan Henry Ammann started a Change.org petition to convince the decision-makers at Nike to begin making replica jerseys that fans can have the chance to purchase, much like the apparel giant already does for the Universitys football and mens basketball teams. For a company that has created a whole campaign around Equality, why cant we purchase a jersey with the number of any players on the incredibly talented Oregon Womens Basketball team, but we can buy ones that recognize players from the Mens team?" Amman writes. "By signing this petition, together we will empower Nike to recognize that the Oregon Womens Basketball team has a fan base that would appreciate the ability to purchase a jersey as a continuation of showing their support for the team and the individual players. After surpassing the petitions original target of 2,500 signatures, the bar has been raised to 5,000. As of Tuesday afternoon, the petition has reached 2,560 signatures. Vote in our poll and tell us why you voted the way you did in the comments: | https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2019/04/should-nike-start-making-oregon-ducks-womens-basketball-team-jerseys-available-for-fans-to-purchase.html |
What is the scariest retirement healthcare number? | NEW YORK (Reuters) - A typical couple could potentially spend $285,000 on out-of-pocket healthcare costs in retirement. FILE PHOTO: A nurse walks along the hallways of the East Arkansas Family Health Center in Lepanto, Arkansas, U.S., May 2, 2018. Picture taken May 2, 2018. REUTERS/Karen Pulfer Focht But that is hardly the scariest number you need to consider when it comes to medical costs as you age. This estimate, released on Tuesday by Fidelity Workplace Consulting, is based on Medicare premiums for Americans 65 and older, plus the deductibles and co-pays required for medical care and prescription drugs. It also accounts for inflation and investment growth. If you have $1 million in retirement savings and plan to spend a healthy 4 percent of that per year plus Social Security, your monthly healthcare budget would need to account for about $5,000 per year per person. These bulk figures sound large, yet what is not included may be even more worrisome: - Long-term care Since Medicare, the government health plan for those over 65, does not cover long-term care costs, Fidelitys average spend does not include it either. But this is where you find the big price tag. The average cost of nursing care is more than $80,000 per year according to the Administration on Aging, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Home healthcare can be even more expensive at $20 an hour. While Medicaid is a government safety net for low-income individuals of any age, it does not work for all nursing homes, nor for home care. The only way to insure against running out of money for private-pay nursing homes or home care is to get long-term care insurance. It is so expensive that even the companies selling long-term care policies are getting out of the business. Genworth, the biggest provider, just announced that it is not going to sell traditional individual policies and hybrid ones with annuities through brokers. While group policies and direct-sales will still be available, it is just one more contraction in an already shrinking market. There are still ways to protect yourself. Jesse Slome, executive director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance, favors a some-is-better-than-none approach. Limited long-term care policies, which have lower premiums and lower benefits, sold by companies such as New York Life and Mutual of Omaha, will at least pay some of your costs, he said. - Dental and vision Medicare does not cover dental and vision costs. Those are things most people can anticipate and afford, said Hope Manion, senior vice president, Fidelity Workplace Consulting As 66-year-old Slome learned in a year on Medicare, it is hard to let go of savings you worked so hard to accumulate. Slome noted this as he was about to head out to the optometrist for a long-avoided update to his eyewear. I was moving something in the garage and a hedge clipper scratched the glasses. I have distance glasses and computer glasses and reading glasses. All three pairs will be redone this is a thousand-dollar visit, Slome lamented. A smart way to leverage retirement savings for ad hoc medical costs is through health savings accounts, which allow triple-tax-free savings for healthcare costs, Manion said. You will need a high-deductible health plan to qualify, however. - Pre-Medicare healthcare costs Americans between the ages of 50 and 64 are the ones who need to worry most about healthcare costs, because some people cannot keep working even if they want to. Fifty-four percent of people in this age group are worried about covering healthcare costs before Medicare kicks in, according to a recent survey from AARP. That age band is really scary, Manion said. Thats when premiums skyrocket. This is also typically the time when chronic health conditions worsen and doctors pile on prescriptions as well as procedures. Medicare does a better job managing these costs than private-pay insurance, Manion said. Last year Slome went into the hospital just a few weeks before he became eligible for Medicare. In three days, he blew through $6,500, all out-of-pocket costs because he had a high-deductible plan. Three weeks later, it would have been zero! Slome said. | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-money-retirement-healthcare/what-is-the-scariest-retirement-healthcare-number-idUSKCN1RE2JZ |
What can bees teach economists about how markets work? | Image copyright Getty Images It's a little known fact that economists love bees - or at least, the idea of bees. The Royal Economic Society's logo is a honeybee. The Fable Of The Bees, published in 1732, uses honeybees as a metaphor for the economy - and anticipates modern economic concepts such as the division of labour and the "invisible hand" that means "greed is good". And when a future winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, James Meade, was looking for an example of a tricky idea in economic theory, he turned to the honeybee for inspiration. The tricky idea was what economists call a "positive externality" - something good that a free market won't produce enough of, meaning that the government might want to subsidise it. For James Meade, the perfect example of a positive externality was the relationship between apples and bees. Imagine, wrote Meade in 1952, a region containing some orchards and some bee-keeping. If the apple farmers planted more apple trees, the bee-keepers would benefit, because that would mean more honey. But the apple farmers wouldn't enjoy that benefit, that positive externality, and so they wouldn't plant as many apple trees as would be best for everyone. This was, according to Meade, "due simply and solely to the fact that the apple farmer cannot charge the bee-keeper for the bees' food". But there's a problem with his thesis. Apple blossom produces almost no honey. And that's only the first thing James Meade didn't know about bees. Find out more: 50 Things That Made the Modern Economy highlights the inventions, ideas and innovations that helped create the economic world. It is broadcast on the BBC World Service. You can find more information about the programme's sources and listen to all the episodes online or subscribe to the programme podcast. To understand Meade's more fundamental error, we need a brief history of humans and honeybees. Once upon a time, there was no bee-keeping - only honey hunting, trying to steal honeycombs from wild bees. We see this depicted in cave paintings. Then, at least 5,000 years ago, the practice was formalised. The Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Romans were all partial to domesticated honey. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Ancient Egyptians attached great religious and spiritual significance to the honeybee By the Middle Ages, bee-keepers were using skep hives - they're the classic woven beehives that look like a tapering stack of straw tyres. But the trouble with skep hives is that if you want the honey, you need to get rid of the bees - and bee-keepers would generally poison them with sulphurous smoke, shake them off, scoop out the honey, and worry about building another bee colony in due course. In time, though, people started to worry about this waste and disdain for a creature that not only gives us honey but also pollinates our plants. In the 1830s, a bee-rights movement emerged in the US, with the motto: "Never kill a bee." And, in 1852, the US Patent Office awarded patent number 9300A to clergyman Lorenzo Langstroth for a moveable-frame beehive. Image copyright Science Photo Library The Langstroth hive is a wooden box with an opening at the top and frames that hang down, carefully separated from each other by the magic gap of 8mm (0.3in) "bee space" - any smaller, or larger, and the bees start adding their own inconvenient structures. The queen is at the bottom, confined by a "queen excluder" - a mesh that prevents her entry but permits worker bees through. This keeps her bee larvae out of the honeycombs. The honeycombs are easily pulled out and harvested by a spinning centrifuge that flings out, filters and collects the honey. A marvel of design and efficiency, this new hive allowed the industrialisation of the bee. And it's this industrialisation that James Meade hadn't quite grasped. The honeybee is a thoroughly domesticated animal. Image copyright Alamy Image caption Writer Sylvia Plath, whose father was a bee expert, wrote a series of vivid poems about the physicality of bee-keeping and extracting honey With Langstroth hives, bees are portable. Nothing stops farmers coming to some financial arrangement with bee-keepers to locate hives amid their crops. A couple of decades after James Meade's famous example, another economist, Steven Cheung, became curious about it - and he did something we economists perhaps don't do often enough: he called up some real people and asked them what actually happens. More things that made the modern economy: He discovered that apple farmers routinely paid bee-keepers for the service of pollinating their crops. For some other crops, the bee-keepers do indeed pay farmers for the right to harvest their nectar, the market Meade said should exist but could not. One example is mint, which doesn't need any help from bees but which produces good honey. So apples and bees aren't a good example of a positive externality, because the interaction does take place in a marketplace. And that marketplace is huge. These days, its centre of gravity is the California almond industry. Almonds occupy almost a million acres (4,000 sq km) of California - and farmers sell about $5bn (3.9bn) worth per year. Almonds need honeybees - five colonies per hectare (10,000 sq m), rented for about $185 (144) a colony. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Bees play a crucial role in California's almond industry Langstroth hives are duly strapped together, loaded on to the back of articulated lorries, 400 hives per truck, and driven to the Californian almond groves each spring, travelling by night while the bees are asleep. The numbers are astonishing: 85% of the two million commercial hives in the US are moved, containing tens of billions of bees. As Bee Wilson describes in The Hive: The Story of the Honeybee and Us, the big US bee-keepers manage 10,000 hives each and from California they may travel up to Washington state's cherry orchards, then east to the sunflowers of North and South Dakota and then on to the pumpkin fields of Pennsylvania or the blueberries of Maine. Meade was quite wrong to imagine beekeeping as some kind of rural idyll. Bees have been almost fully industrialised, and pollination thoroughly commercialised. And that presents a conundrum. Ecologists are worried about wild bee populations, which are in sharp decline in many parts of the world. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The fall in global bee number has been linked to the use of neonicotinoid insecticides Nobody quite knows why. Candidates for blame include parasites, pesticides and the mysterious "colony collapse disorder", where bees simply disappear, leaving a lone queen behind. Domesticated bees face the same pressures, so you might expect to see some simple economics at work - a reduction in the supply of bees increasing the price of pollination services. But that's not what economists see at all. Colony collapse disorder appears to have had minimal effect on any practical metric in the bee market. Farmers are paying much the same for pollination, and the price of new queens - which are specially bred - has hardly budged. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Queen bees are vital to the wellbeing of their hive and there is a large market for specially bred ones It appears that industrial bee-keepers have managed to develop strategies for maintaining the populations on which they rely: breeding and trading queens, splitting colonies and buying booster packs of bees. That is why there is no shortage of honey - or almonds, or apples, or blueberries - not yet, anyway. Well, maybe. Another perspective is that it's precisely the modern economy's longstanding drive to control and monetise the natural world that caused the problem in the first place. Before monocrop agriculture changed ecosystems, there was no need to lug Langstroth hives around the countryside to pollinate crops - local populations of wild insects did the job free of charge. So if we want an example of a positive externality - something the free market won't provide as much of as society would like - perhaps we should look to land uses that help wild bees and other insects. Wildflower meadows, perhaps - and some governments are indeed subsidising these, just as James Meade would have advised. 50 Things That Made the Modern Economy is broadcast on the BBC World Service. You can find more information about the programme's sources and listen to all the episodes online or subscribe to the programme podcast. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47057769 |
Could a no-deal Brexit affect my holiday plans? | Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ellis Horne: "What will happen to our burgundy passports after Brexit - whether it be a deal or no deal?" The questions surrounding Brexit are short and sharp, but the answers are long and complicated. Here, BBC Scotland's Ellis Horne quizzes travel journalist David Byrne on what might happen to our holiday plans if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. David: "The plan is for them to change and to be blue. "These are still valid so you don't need to get rid of it, but make sure you have six months on your passport from when you arrive." UK travel documents will no longer be required to have the standard EU burgundy colour, and the government has said all new passports will be issued with a blue cover. Image copyright Getty Images David: "At the moment we can work in any EU country - we've got right of residence and so it's pretty easy to do. "In a no deal Brexit that will change, and I think it will be a situation like working in the US. It will be more difficult, we just don't know how difficult." At the moment, the travel industry can hire workers on a temporary basis but pay their taxes at home, under the EU "posted worker" directive. Seasonal Businesses in Travel (SBIT) says this seamless transition of staff is crucial to the industry. If there was a no deal, the posted worker directive would fall away. If the UK leaves with a deal there will be an implementation period, and during this time UK nationals will have the same rights to work in an EU Member State as at present. Under this scenario, future arrangements would be determined by the negotiations on the UK-EU future partnership. Image copyright Getty Images David: "The EU, in the last few years, has worked on this legislation to make... your bill like you're still at home." "That's probably very likely to change." Roaming charges ended in the European Union in June 2017. If there's no deal, that wouldn't be guaranteed any more - so it is possible that roaming charges could return. The UK government has said it would introduce a law to cap charges at 45 a month. If there is a deal, that would be on hold until the start of 2021 and it would then be up to the networks to decide what to do next. Image copyright Getty Images David: "There will be duty free between the UK and the EU countries - I think that's pretty likely especially with a no deal situation." Duty-free shopping within the EU came to an end in 1999, but it could make a comeback if there is a no deal. There will be no immediate return of duty-free sales if the UK leaves with a deal because, under the arrangement, customs rules will continue to apply during the transition period. After that period, duty-free sales could return as part of a future trade deal with the EU. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47773892 |
Can MPs force laws on the Crown dependencies? | Image caption Guernsey Chief Minister Gavin St Pier has written open letters to national newspapers arguing against the MPs' move Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not represented in the House of Commons, yet MPs are being asked to change laws in the islands. Some have warned the move could spark a constitutional crisis, and even calls for independence. Ask Guernsey's chief minister and the answer is emphatically "no". Gavin St Pier has led efforts to convince MPs not to back an amendment to the Financial Services Bill, forcing greater transparency on the islands' financial services sectors. "We have no ambiguity in our view that the UK - that the Westminster Parliament - cannot legislate for us on domestic matters without our consent," Deputy St Pier says. The move by Tory MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour's Margaret Hodge has been backed by more than 80 MPs, including 24 Conservatives. The pair have already succeeded in getting Britain's overseas territories such as Bermuda, Anguilla and the Cayman Islands to establish public registers of ultimate business owners. Now, they have gathered cross-party support in calling for the UK's tax havens closer to home to follow suit - demanding Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man also have registers in place by the end of 2020. They argue greater transparency over company ownership is an important tool in tackling money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Image caption Dame Margaret Hodge (left) and Andrew Mitchell (right) are behind the transparency push MPs are yet to vote on their amendment, after the government pulled the debate and votes on the Financial Services Bill - underlining the weakness of its position in the Commons. Since then the campaigning MPs have set out their argument for forcing the law change in a strongly-worded letter to island ministers. In it, they cite a 1973 report which suggested Parliament could intervene to ensure good government in the islands. The MPs also suggested money laundering in the islands threatened Britain's national security and therefore the UK was compelled to act. Crown dependencies' history The Channel Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy, so when its leader William conquered England in 1066 Jersey and Guernsey were technically on the winning side at the Battle of Hastings. In 1204, when King John lost Normandy to the French, the islands decided to remain loyal to the English Crown, and in return were allowed to continue to be governed by their own laws. That agreement has been affirmed in the centuries since, with both Jersey and Guernsey developing their own democratically-elected parliaments, but with their laws effectively rubberstamped by the Queen, as head of state. Image caption Guernsey's economy is heavily reliant on its financial services sector The islands therefore have a different relationship with the UK to its former colonies and overseas territories, such as Gibraltar. The Isle of Man's parliament, the Tynwald, is one of the oldest parliaments in the world. It too was granted full autonomy, and since 1866 has steadily advanced to full democracy. The dependencies are not directly represented by MPs, but the British government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the islands. It is the Crown, however, acting through the Privy Council, that is ultimately responsible for good government. The argument for intervention Despite the islands' history of autonomy, Jolyon Maugham QC, a barrister who has advised both the Labour Party and Conservative government, says the UK does have the right to intervene. "If you approach it as a lawyer, I don't think there is any real doubt that the United Kingdom can, if it wants to, legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent," he says. Mr Maugham describes the relationship as one shaped by parliament, citing the recent Supreme Court ruling on Article 50, which said there was no legally-binding obligation on London to consult the devolved administrations before passing laws which affect them. "What the Supreme Court said was 'well there might be a convention, but it's not something we can control. If government decides it wants to ignore the convention, it can ignore the convention'. And that is undoubtedly true," he says. Mr Maugham also sits on the advisory board of Tax Justice UK, and believes tax havens damage the functioning of what he describes as "proper" countries - economies not dependent on undermining the tax bases of others. The campaigning MPs' transparency efforts should not come as a surprise to the island governments, he adds, pointing to efforts led by former Prime Minister David Cameron to introduce public registers in 2015. The argument against intervention The argument for intervening by MPs hinges, in part, on the 1973 Kilbrandon report which states the UK can only legislate without consent to ensure good government. The low-tax dependencies argue their systems for combating money laundering do represent good government, despite accusations of not doing enough to combat financial crime. Such an intervention by MPs citing Kilbrandon would be "controversial" and open to challenge, Guernsey lawyer Gordon Dawes says. "It seems to me that we are well within the scope of what a responsible, autonomous government can and should do, in terms of keeping track of beneficial ownership of companies, and making that information available to other agencies. "To me that is unarguable," Mr Dawes adds. Others have also argued the relationship between the islands and the UK has evolved in the 40 years since Kilbrandon was published, while Guernsey's government has pointed to a 2008 agreement it signed with the UK government. It recognised the island's interests may differ from the UK's and would be a relationship of "support not interference". MPs will debate the Hodge-Mitchell amendment when a piece of Brexit-related legislation, the Financial Services Bill, returns to parliament. Despite accusations of constitutional meddling, Speaker John Bercow told MPs the amendment was "perfectly proper" and would be debated and voted on by parliament. And with cross-party support, including 24 Conservatives, it is likely the government will be defeated on the matter. The amended bill calls for a draft Order in Council - requiring the government of any British overseas territory and Crown dependency to implement public registers by the end of 2020. That will not be the end of the story, however. Image copyright Reuters Image caption The Queen is the head of state of each of the Crown dependencies Such an order would have to go through the Privy Council, something lawyer Gordon Dawes says could be challenged. "Even it cleared the hurdles in London - of a challenge there - there's a question of whether it would be respected and enforced in the islands. "So, there's a lot of hurdles for any such legislation to clear. And obviously the hope is that we don't find ourselves in that position," he adds. The order would have to be registered in the islands' respective courts - something Guernsey's chief minister said would be ineffective, forcing an "unhelpful" shift in the relationship with the UK. The island has taken steps to resist such a move, with politicians approving an emergency measure giving them the final say on whether UK laws are registered locally, similar to a procedure already in place in Jersey. Such is the seriousness of the situation, some have suggested the islands could petition the Queen, as head of State, to intervene, or seek independence, something Mr Dawes said remained a possibility. "In principle it's possible to have a look at independence - and I can see the value of it as a political statement in the present context. "And yes, as a matter of law it is possible. I don't think there's any great desire for it, but it remains a possibility," he adds. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-47525455 |
Will talks with the Taliban bring peace or chaos? | Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption The Taliban now control more territory in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001 For the first time in 18 years, the US government seems serious about withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan and winding up the longest war in its history. Since October, US officials and representatives of the Taliban have held five rounds of direct talks and are about to embark on a sixth - aimed at ensuring a safe exit for the US in return for the insurgents guaranteeing that Afghan territory is not used by foreign militants and wouldn't pose a security threat to the rest of the world. A US-led military coalition overthrew the Taliban in 2001 for sheltering al-Qaeda, the militant group that Washington blamed for the 9/11 attacks. A rare consensus about resolving the conflict peacefully, both inside and outside Afghanistan, means peace has never been so close. But the US-Taliban talks in Qatar's capital, Doha, are only the first phase of a complicated process with an uncertain outcome - and there are many hurdles to overcome. Intense fighting is still going on all over the country, and while the Taliban negotiate they now control and influence more territory than at any point since 2001. Given the continued stalemate with the insurgents, US President Donald Trump is keen to end the war, which, according to US officials, costs about $45bn (34bn) annually. His recent indication to withdraw most or all of his 14,000 forces in the near future caught everyone by surprise, including the Taliban. There are also nearly 1,000 British troops in Afghanistan as part of Nato's mission to train and assist the Afghan security forces. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption President Trump is considering withdrawing many of the US troops still in Afghanistan But even if the US and the Taliban resolve their major issues, the Afghans themselves will need to sort out a number of key internal issues - including a ceasefire, dialogue between the Taliban and the government, and most importantly, the formation of a new government and political system. Ideally, a ceasefire would precede fresh elections later this year and the Taliban would take part - but the latter seems unlikely. Without a full or even partial ceasefire, there are fears that poll irregularities and a possible protracted political turmoil over the results could undermine any peace process and may increase political instability. There are a number of options and scenarios. First of all, a decision will need to be taken by all major players on whether presidential elections, already postponed to late September, take place as planned. If they do, a new government in Kabul could negotiate terms with the Taliban, unless a peace deal had been reached before the vote. Whether that government served a full term or on an interim basis while intra-Afghan power-sharing options are discussed is unclear. But elections could also be further delayed or suspended - and the current government's term extended - while a mutually agreed mechanism to establish a new government, acceptable to all sides including the Taliban, is sought. Creating a temporary neutral government or a governing coalition, that could even include the Taliban, is another option being looked at in this scenario. A loya jirga - or grand assembly - of Afghans could also be called to choose an interim government which would hold elections once US troops have left and the Taliban has been reintegrated. An international conference similar to the one in Bonn, Germany, in 2001 is another suggestion to help chart a future course for the country. It would include Afghan players, major powers and neighbouring states - but this time also with the participation of the Taliban. Several Taliban leaders have told me they need time to enter mainstream Afghan society and prepare for elections. There will be very difficult issues to surmount after a conflict that has left hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides, including government forces, insurgents and civilians. For example, the Taliban do not accept the current constitution and see the Afghan government as "a US-imposed puppet regime". So far the elected government of President Ashraf Ghani has not been involved in direct talks with the insurgents who refuse to talk to a government they don't recognise. Image copyright Reuters Image caption The Taliban have dismissed the government of Ashraf Ghani as a puppet of the US A number of Afghans fear that sharing power with the Taliban could see a return to the group's obscurantist interpretation of Islamic justice. They are concerned that various freedoms, notably certain women's rights, could be lost. The Taliban banned women from public life when they were in power in the 1990s, and their punishments included public stoning and amputations. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, there has been a long list of unfulfilled agreements and failed attempts aimed at ending the war in the country. Several scenarios from the past could be repeated this time round. A US pullout, with or without a peace deal, might not automatically result in the sudden collapse of the government in Kabul. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The Taliban are still openly active in about 70% of Afghanistan The war could continue and the government's survival would largely depend on financial and military assistance from foreign allies, especially the US, and the unity and commitment of the country's political elite. When Soviet forces withdrew in 1989, the Moscow-backed government in Kabul lasted for three years. But its collapse in 1992 ushered in a bloody civil war, involving various Afghan factions supported by different regional powers. If issues are not handled with care now, there is a risk of a re-run of these two scenarios. The Taliban, who emerged out of the chaos of the civil war, captured Kabul in 1996 and ruled most of Afghanistan until the US-led invasion removed them from power in 2001. They could try to capture the state again if a deal is not reached this time round, or one fails. The current peace efforts could see the Taliban participating in a new set-up in Afghanistan. This would mean the end of fighting and the formation of an inclusive Afghan government - a win-win for Afghans, the US and regional players. But the alternative is dire - a probable intensification of conflict and instability in a country strategically located in a region with a cluster of major powers including China, Russia, India, Iran and Pakistan. Another round of chaos could well result in the emergence of new violent extremist groups. Afghans and the rest of the world would have to deal with a possible security vacuum in which militant groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State found fertile ground. Increased production of drugs and the overflow of refugees would pose serious challenges not only to Afghanistan but also to the whole region and the rest of the world. History shows that starting negotiations and signing deals does not guarantee that conflicts will be peacefully resolved. These steps are only the beginning of a complicated and challenging process - implementation of what's on paper is even more important. The biggest challenge for Afghanistan would be the creation of verifiable enforcement mechanisms in any post-deal scenario. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The Taliban have had a political office in Doha since 2013 Given the history of conflict in the country, the current opportunity could be easily squandered if the process is taken in the wrong direction by one or more of the local or foreign actors. Therefore, a framework involving the region and the key international players is needed to co-ordinate efforts for peace and deter and prevent spoilers from sabotaging the process. There's a rare opportunity to resolve four decades of war - handle it with care, or risk facing the consequences. Image copyright US Defense Department Image caption The "Guantanamo Five" were released by the US without being charged with any terror-related crime The Taliban delegation features the "Guantanamo Five" - former high-ranking officials captured after the fall of the regime and held for nearly 13 years in the controversial US detention camp. They were sent to Qatar in a 2014 prisoner exchange involving Bowe Bergdahl, the US soldier captured by insurgents in 2009. They are (clockwise from top left in photo above): Mohammad Fazl - the Taliban's deputy defence minister during the US military campaign in 2001 - the Taliban's deputy defence minister during the US military campaign in 2001 Mohammad Nabi Omari - said to have close links to the Haqqani militant network - said to have close links to the Haqqani militant network Mullah Norullah Noori - a senior Taliban military commander and a former provincial governor - a senior Taliban military commander and a former provincial governor Khairullah Khairkhwa - served as a Taliban interior minister and governor of Herat, Afghanistan's third largest city - served as a Taliban interior minister and governor of Herat, Afghanistan's third largest city Abdul Haq Wasiq - the Taliban's deputy head of intelligence Leading the delegation will be Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, a senior Taliban figure who was until recently the head of the group's political office in Qatar. In an interview with the BBC in February, he said a ceasefire would not be agreed until all foreign forces were withdrawn from Afghanistan. Also present in Qatar will be Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban's deputy head and one of the groups' co-founders, who was released from prison in Pakistan last October after spending nearly nine years in captivity. Meanwhile, US special representative for Afghanistan's reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, is touring the region for consultations ahead of the next session of peace talks in Qatar. In January, he said "significant progress" had been made. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47733079 |
What will happen at Christchurch terror accused's first High Court appearance? | Everything you need to know about the first High Court appearance of the man accused of the Christchurch mosque attacks. Media have been barred from filming and photographing the alleged Christchurch terrorist at his next court appearance. Brenton Harrison Tarrant's case is due to be called in the High Court at Christchurch on Friday after his first appearance in the District Court on March 16. A day earlier, on March 15, 50 people were killed at the city's Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre. Dozens more were wounded. Advertisement The High Court received 12 applications from both New Zealand media and foreign organisations to film, take photographs, or make audio recordings at Friday's hearing. But Justice Cameron Mander declined the applications. In a minute issued to the media this week, he said factors in making his decision to refuse the requests were to preserve the integrity of the trial process and ensure a fair trial. Journalists will, however, be permitted to remain in the courtroom and take notes, while newspapers and broadcasters are still able to use images of the accused which were taken at the District Court hearing. But those images will remain pixelated after an order by Judge Paul Kellar for the defendant's face to be blurred in any published images. The order will remain in force until further ruling by a judge. No. The 28-year-old accused terrorist was remanded in custody at his first appearance and has since been held at New Zealand's only maximum security prison in Paremoremo, Auckland. Justice Mander ruled the accused will appear in court on Friday via audio-visual link from prison instead. This is not an uncommon practice - people appear in courts all across New Zealand everyday by way of a television screen. The accused is not be required to enter pleas either to the single murder charge he currently faces or to any other charges which are expected to be laid by the Crown. It is anticipated he will be charged with 49 more counts of murder and dozens of attempted murder charges. There is also the possibility the Crown will seek to try him under the seldom-used Terrorism Suppression Act, which was introduced after the September 11 US terrorist attacks. The alleged gunman first appeared in the Christchurch District Court on March 16. Photo / Mark Mitchell Section five of the legislation defines what a terrorist act is. It states that it must be intended to cause death or destruction in one or more countries, be carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political or religious cause, and intended to induce terror in a civilian population or compel a government to act. Prosecutors would require the consent of the Solicitor-General to lay terror charges against the accused. The purpose of the hearing on Friday will be to determine the alleged killer's legal representation status and to receive information from the Crown. The Herald earlier reported the Australian man will represent himself in court. Friday's hearing will also be largely procedural, with timetabling and future dates allocated by the judge. Justice Mander has ruled that because the hearing will be primarily procedural and administrative, much of it will take place with the court sitting in chambers. This will mean members of the public will not be allowed into the courtroom. Under the Criminal Procedure Act any New Zealand judge has the power to clear their court. This most often occurs in cases when a complainant gives evidence in trials of a sexual nature. The judge also has the ability to exclude people when it is necessary to avoid undue disruption to the proceedings. Other reasons to close the court include; a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial, endangering the safety of any person, prejudicing the maintenance of the law - including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences - and when a suppression order is not sufficient to avoid that risk. A judge can also clear the court if they believe it will avoid prejudicing the security or defence of New Zealand. This is the only type of order which also forces members of the media to leave. Those allowed to remain in court regardless of any of order are a jury, prosecutor, the defendant, any lawyer engaged in the proceedings, an officer of the court, and the police officer in charge of the case. The alleged terrorist's first appearance in the District Court was also closed to the public. | https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12218842&ref=rss |
Can Oregon Ducks three-point shooting neutralize Baylors size in Womens Final Four? | EUGENE Oregon will be at a vertical disadvantage against Baylor, and the Ducks hope to neutralize the rebounding and shot-blocking ability of Bears bigs Kalani Brown and Lauren Cox by shooting over them. The Ducks (33-4) enter Fridays Womens Final Four matchup leading the country in three-point shooting percentage (41.7) and have four players shooting over 41 percent from behind the arc. Erin Boleys 43.5 percent leads the way, with Sabrina Ionescu (43.3 percent) not far behind and Satou Sabally and Maite Cazorla each also effective from long range. No Big 12 team has the volume of three-point shooters of Oregon, and few of Baylors competitive nonconference opponents ranked in the top 50 in three-point percentage. One of the few teams to make the Bears pay from long range was Stanford, the only team to beat Baylor this season, by making 13 threes compared to 10 two-pointers in a 68-63 win. Oregon coach Kelly Graves said his team is going to stick to its identity in its first Final Four. It was clearly effective in Sundays Elite Eight win over Mississippi State, during which UO shot 13 of 26 from three. But few teams have the tandem of bigs of Brown and Cox, who combined to averaged 16.4 rebounds and 4.2 blocks per game, not to mention their scoring. They can do a little bit of everything, Graves said. Thats, again, what makes them so tough. Were trying to figure this out. Weve only had one day, not even a full day, to scout them and to really dive into what they do. Ive got an amazing staff. Theyve come up with pretty good game plans all year long. I anticipate theyre going to do the same thing. Well have our kids ready and have them scouted as well as we possibly can. What to know about Baylor, Oregon's opponent in Women's Final Four An early look at the Baylor Bears Baylor hasnt faced many teams that shoot the three with the regularity of Oregon, particularly in Big 12 play. The Ducks shot at least 25 three-pointers in 14 of 37 games this season compared to 15 of 36 games by Bears opponents, though only four have done so in the last 20 games. We actually have seen teams that shoot the three a lot; we see it in our league, Baylor coach Kim Mulkey said. We also have seen it because of our height advantage inside. Weve seen teams change their approach when they play us that they do shoot more threes than they normally would. Its not going to be uncommon or uncomfortable for us to expect that and to see that. The Bears (35-1) have the best field goal defense in the country but rank just 77th at three-point field goal defense (29.6). If Oregon can find success from long range and force Baylor to have to score that many more two-pointers on offense, its chances of pulling off the upset will go up. Certainly we will defend like we always do with the understanding that you got to defend the three ball," Mulkey said. "We know what we face and how good they are from the three and how hard it is to defend them out there. | https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2019/04/can-oregons-three-point-shooting-neutralize-baylors-size-in-womens-final-four.html |
What did Kevin Durant say to get himself ejected against the Nuggets? | Kevin Durant (35) reacts after dunking late In the first half as the Golden State Warriors played the Denver Nuggets at Oracle Arena in Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday, April 2, 2019. Kevin Durant (35) reacts after dunking late In the first half as the Golden State Warriors played the Denver Nuggets at Oracle Arena in Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday, April 2, 2019. 1 / 13 Back to Gallery With eight minutes left in the third quarter of the Warriors' Tuesday night game against the Denver Nuggets, Kevin Durant was ejected after arguing with an official. With the Warriors leading 70-49, Durant thought he was fouled on a contested three-point attempt, but no call was made. The former MVP then confronted an official and was given a technical foul for something he said, and was ejected shortly afterwards. KD wasn't happy about the non-call and got ejected pic.twitter.com/YKynWzO0SO Warriors on NBCS (@NBCSWarriors) April 3, 2019 Warriors vs. The Refs continues Zarba launches KD out the gym but not before a Bitch ass m***** f*****! pic.twitter.com/sC0zGbuJAG Grand Moff Wobkin (@WorldWideWob) April 3, 2019 The lip readers of Twitter were unable to determine what exactly Durant said to the official prior to the ejection, but were probably able to deduce which expletive-laden insult Durant hurled at the official after learning his night was over. RELATED: Fines come down for 3 Warriors players over comments about NBA officials Durant had 21 points prior to his ejection, and threw down a monster and-one dunk in the final minutes of the second quarter. The Warriors led the Nuggets 59-43 at halftime. Eric Ting is an SFGATE staff writer. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter Start receiving breaking news emails on floods, wildfires, civil emergencies, riots, national breaking news, Amber Alerts, weather emergencies, and other critical events with the SFGATE breaking news email. Click here to make sure you get the news. | https://www.sfgate.com/warriors/article/Kevin-Durant-ejected-Nuggets-refs-Warriors-Oracle-13737168.php |
Has Theresa May's Brexit strategy left the DUP in the lurch? | It certainly looks that way. Up to now, the prime minister had been trying to win the votes of the 10 DUP MPs, by seeking changes to her deal. It seems she has now decided that path has reached a dead end. Mrs May has side-stepped her confidence-and-supply partners, and turned to the official opposition benches to reach consensus. Yet again, the DUP has criticised her overall handling of the negotiations, this time as "lamentable". It's warned that allowing Jeremy Corbyn to "sub-contract" the future of Brexit is unlikely to end well. But Number 10 has likely listened to the repeated opposition coming from DUP quarters and figured that it's time to pursue a more flexible route. As recently as Sunday, Sammy Wilson said the DUP would vote against the deal "1,000 times", if it stayed the same. Well, there's no re-negotiation on the backstop forthcoming from the EU. Theresa May has accepted that avenue isn't open to her - despite the DUP's repeated calls for it. It's not clear if talks with Labour will lead to much, or if the EU will be willing to grant another extension, without enforcing certain conditions like the UK taking part in next month's European elections. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Jeremy Corbyn: "I recognise that she has made a move... I recognise my responsibility" If something can emerge from the May-Corbyn talks, the government has said that won't change the withdrawal agreement - but rather shape the UK's future relationship with the EU (the political declaration). That means getting Labour to accept the backstop, which will prove a big task unless the prime minister is willing to show flexibility on some of Labour's demands. Other parties in Northern Ireland, who are pro-remain and support the backstop, will hope Theresa May has now left behind the Brexiteer wing of her party and the DUP. The repeated criticism being that the DUP does not represent the majority in Northern Ireland who voted remain in 2016's referendum. The DUP, meanwhile, has not indicated that it is preparing to withdraw its support for the government. It's always said it would only take drastic action, if the government got the withdrawal agreement (including the backstop) through Parliament. That's still a big if: Mrs May's change of direction, however, shows she is determined - one way or another - to get the votes she needs from somewhere, to avoid no deal. Pulling the plug The DUP could yet pull the plug - but given the influence it wields at Westminster, that's not a decision it will take easily. On Tuesday night, Environment Secretary Michael Gove said the government still wanted to secure the support of the DUP - but it's hard to see how this could happen, when it is now pursuing options the DUP is so against. Image copyright PAcemaker Image caption Boris Johnson was a guest speaker at the DUP party conference in 2018 Labour's call for a permanent customs union with the EU would breach the version of Brexit that the DUP wants, and also would not eliminate the potential for border checks in Ireland. For its part, the DUP says it will judge all outcomes in the coming days against its "clear unionist principles". However much resistance it puts up, for now Mrs May is taking her chances with Labour - and leaving her Northern Ireland allies in the margins. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47798748 |
Do animals hold the key to the global organ shortage? | Scientist Wenning Qin holds up a Petri dish, carefully sloshes around the pink liquid inside, and slides it under a microscope. Some identical tiny slashes come into focus. These cells, she explains, are derived from the ear of a pig. And they may contain the future of animal to human organ transplantation. Researchers in South Korea are expected to transplant pig corneas into humans within a year. A handful of groups across the US are also working toward pig organ clinical trials in the next few years, including a group at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston that is starting a six-person clinical trial using blankets of pig skin to temporarily protect the skin of burn victims. At the University of Alabama at Birminghams (UAB) medical school, researchers are planning to transplant pig kidneys into adults and hearts into struggling newborns. Gene editing in human embryos takes step closer to reality Read more And in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at a startup called eGenesis, scientists like Qin, the companys director of genome engineering, are gene editing pig cells in preparation. Their goal shared by a handful of other biotech companies in the US and Europe working on genetic engineering is to create pigs whose organs can be safely transplanted into people. I think this is a magical point in the field of [animal transplants], says William Westlin, eGenesis executive vice-president for research and development. Its no longer a question of if. Its just a question of when. Facebook Twitter Pinterest I think this is a magical point in the field of [animal transplants], says William Westlin, eGenesis executive vice-president for research and development. Photograph: Tony Luong/The Guardian Futuristic science Scientists have long pursued the idea of keeping people alive by using parts from animals a process referred to as xenotransplantation. But it was long believed to be impossible; early experiments showed that the body takes about five minutes to reject an organ from another species. Nobody would dare speak about running clinical trials for xenotransplantation, says Leo Bhler, president of the International Xenotransplantation Association. For a pig kidney, heart or lung to keep a person alive, the human immune system has to be tricked into not recognising that it comes from a different species. Thats where Crispr gene-editing technology comes in, enabling researchers to make targeted changes to a complete set of genes in many places simultaneously. Crispr short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats has been used by eGenesis to eliminate from the pig genome a group of viruses that some worry could jump to humans after a transplant. Now theyre also working to remove markers that identify cells as foreign so the human immune system wont reject them Facebook Twitter Pinterest Wenning Qin in her lab at eGenesis. Photograph: Tony Luong/The Guardian Trial phase In unrelated research, other scientists have tested bioengineered pig organs in non-human primates, a crucial step toward a clinical trial in humans. In a recent Nature study, baboons lived for six months with hearts transplanted from pigs that had been gene-edited in a few spots to reduce rejection the longest any animal has depended on an organ from another species. In another advance published in late 2017, researchers at the National Institutes of Health showed that baboons could live up to three years with a pig heart beating alongside their own. Improvements in immune suppression drugs have also made rejection less likely, says Jay Fishman, an infectious disease and immunology specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Animal rights activists are opposed to all research with primates, and such research can be done only under very limited circumstances, and at very few facilities. It would be too risky, researchers say, to try such transplants in humans without first testing them in primates. Primates have different immune systems to people, but testing in baboons is nevertheless challenging. There are no major remaining scientific hurdles to xenotransplantation, and pig organs will eventually be able to keep people alive and healthy, believes Bruno Reichart, a heart surgeon who led the Nature study. Reichart, chief of the xenotransplantation collaborative research centre at the hospital of the University of Munich, says he now needs to extend his baboon experiments with the aim of consistently keeping 60% or more alive with a pig heart, and for longer periods of time. Hed like to try to sustain some for a year. But it isnt simple to convince a baboon to take immunosuppressive medication every day. And it isnt reasonable to keep an animal tethered to an IV for that long, he says. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Plates of immunohistochemistry from a pig kidney in the molecular biology lab at eGenesis. Photograph: Tony Luong/The Guardian Endless supply The potential for such technology is vast. Right now, 75,000 people in the US are awaiting an organ transplant, and about 20 die every day because they couldnt get one. Another 6,000 are awaiting organs in the UK. Unlike human organs, where patients have to wait for someone else to die, the supply of pig organs and cells would be virtually unlimited. Devin Eckhoff, a liver transplant surgeon at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical School, says if he got the green light today, he could be producing 50 pigs for transplant within nine months. (Animals that are gene-edited for transplantation would not be allowed to enter the food supply, so they pose no risk to the public, Eckhoff noted.) He says its frustrating to watch his patients get critically ill and then die for want of replacement organs. Ive devoted my life to transplants, he says. With organs available from pigs, think of how many more lives we could save. Nessa Carey: The most worrying thing about gene editing is that its really easy Read more Transplant-ready pigs could do far more than just provide organs. Eventually, they could be used to produce the islet cells clusters of hormone-producing pancreatic cells needed by people with diabetes. Pig blood could be used to give transfusions to trauma patients and people with chronic diseases like sickle cell anemia, who often develop antibodies against human blood cells because they have had so many transfusions. Even dopamine-producing cells could be made by pigs, and transplanted into patients with Parkinsons disease, says David Cooper, who co-directs the xenotransplantation programme at UAB. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Plates of immunohistochemistry from a pig kidney in the molecular biology lab at eGenesis. Photograph: Tony Luong/The Guardian Itll revolutionise medicine when it comes in, Cooper says. Youd have these organs available whenever you want them If somebodys had a heart attack, you could take their heart out and put a pig heart in on the spot. There is huge potential here. Even if a pig organ cant last forever in a person, it should be able to buy someone time. At the moment, newborns can wait on the organ transplant list for more than three months for a new heart, often facing a mortality rate above 50%, says David Cleveland, a heart surgeon at UAB. Cleveland wants to use xenotransplantation to save babies born with congenital heart defects. Theres such a great need, he says. Artificial hearts can keep adults alive while awaiting a transplant, but no such device exists for infants. There are clearly difficulties in using a pig heart permanently for a baby, but at least the pig heart could be used as a bridge, Cleveland says, keeping the baby healthy until a human heart becomes available. Hes also hopeful that infants immature immune systems would make it easier for them to accept pig hearts. Pig skin could also help burn patients, says Jeremy Goverman, the principal investigator of Massachusetts generals skin trial. Now, he often cant find swatches of human skin big enough to cover large wounds. He believes a patch of skin from a pig would be more cost-effective than one from a cadaver. For countries that cant maintain human tissue banks, pig skin might be a life-saving alternative, he says. Facebook Twitter Pinterest eGenesis, a biotech that genetically engineers pigs so that their organs can be used for human transplant using Crispr in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photograph: Tony Luong/The Guardian The road ahead Researchers at UAB are aiming to scale up breeding at their sterile facility this year. They plan to raise enough 150lb animals for a pilot trial and small clinical trial in people. But money is, as always, a problem. Researchers are also anxious about how the public will perceive xenotransplantation, although early polling suggests people are open to the concept. Of course, some will balk at the idea of sacrificing animals for experiments and organs, even if they are used to save human lives. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Engineered pig cells under the microscope at eGenesis. Photograph: Tony Luong/The Guardian Researchers wont identify the locations of their animal research labs for fear of animal welfare activists. But Americans already eat about 120m pigs a year and no one has to accept a pig organ, Cooper notes, with human organ donation continuing for the foreseeable future. He thinks his desperately ill patients would be happy to get a pig organ as long as it works, just as he has seen peoples ideas about becoming an organ donor evolve when they need one themselves. When it hits you personally and you are going to die, I think your attitude changes, Cooper says. The final hurdle the only way to really know whether xenotransplantation will work will be testing with people, says Fishman. I think all of us are waiting for the first clinical trial. | https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/03/animal-global-organ-shortage-gene-editing-technology-transplant |
What Else Could Robert Mueller's Report Reveal About Trump And Russia? | Enlarge this image toggle caption Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images The headline findings by special counsel Robert Mueller delivered a political shot in the arm for President Trump and Republicans, they say how long it lasts may depend on the full document. Attorney General William Barr told Congress that Mueller's office didn't establish a conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the Russian interference in the 2016 election, nor did it establish per Barr that Trump obstructed justice. That's based on Barr's four-page letter about the report to Congress. The full document is nearly 400 pages, he wrote, and likely contains a great deal more detail about the findings and assessments made by Mueller and his office. Barr's office is working now to redact grand jury testimony, foreign intelligence and other material from the full Mueller report before releasing it sometime this month. Here are some of the big questions it may answer. Trump's campaign and business had many contacts with Russians from 2015 through the 2016 election these are not in dispute and they were among the reasons for the investigation in the first place. Mueller, in fact according to Barr confirmed that "Russian-affiliated individuals" made "multiple offers" to "assist the Trump campaign," which comports with the versions of events given in court documents and according to other official sources that already are public. Micromanagement People who worked for Trump have said nothing happened in his business or campaign without his involvement. Enlarge this image toggle caption Theo Wargo/Getty Images for NYFW: The Shows Theo Wargo/Getty Images for NYFW: The Shows That's why, for example, former Trump aides have said they thought it likely he was at least aware that Donald Trump Jr. convened a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 at which a Russian delegation delivered a tip on Democrats. Trump Jr. said it wasn't what he expected and he didn't pursue it any further, and authorities evidently did not conclude it broke the law. No one faced criminal charges in connection with that meeting and the Justice Department says Mueller hasn't recommended any more indictments beyond the ones that already have been unsealed. And Trump has denied he was aware in 2016 of the Russian interference in the election and of the Trump Tower meeting specifically. Democratic opponents said they thought phone records might undermine that denial, but they didn't. If Mueller's full report further bolsters the Trumps' defenses, that will mean more good political news for the president and his family. If Mueller's report established that Trump did know what was happening and, while he didn't conspire with Russia's efforts, he also didn't report them to authorities, that may take away some of the political momentum Trump and the GOP have built up so far from the Barr account of Mueller's findings. The unverified Russia dossier was not the origin of the Russia investigation, but it may be the most infamous piece of information about it. NPR has not detailed its claims because they are unverified. The degree to which Mueller's full report specifically addresses the material in the dossier could be one of its most important developments for the politics of the post-Mueller era. If the full report torpedoes the dossier altogether, that will strengthen efforts like those by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who wants an investigation into how the FBI and Justice Department used it in the Russia investigation. If Mueller substantiates some of the dossier's contents, that could create problems for the White House short of the worst-case "collusion" allegation that evidently now is off the table. Kompromat Enlarge this image toggle caption Chris McGrath/Getty Images Chris McGrath/Getty Images For example, one claim of the dossier was that powerful Russians may possess compromising material or so-called kompromat about Trump and that may have been why he took such sympathetic tone toward Moscow for fear of it being revealed. Trump himself has dismissed that idea and said for example, at his summit in Finland with Russian President Vladimir Putin that if any such material about him existed, it would have become public by now. Democrats on the House intelligence committee wrote last year that certain aspects of the dossier have been corroborated although the details about which aspects were redacted. Democrats also continue to ask whether Trump may be beholden to Russia or compromised by people in it and whether that might be true even if, per Barr's letter, Trump's 2016 campaign didn't collude with the election interference. Mueller's findings about this could change the understanding of the Russia imbroglio yet again. Alleged obstruction of justice was a potent threat to Trump because frustrating an investigation is illegal even when there was no underlying crime. That was another reason why Trump and Republicans welcomed Barr's letter about Mueller's findings so warmly. And it's one reason why Democrats reacted so strongly to Barr's characterization of Mueller's findings, of which the attorney general wrote: " 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.' " In short, Barr made it sound as though this came down to a judgment call. Barr and Rosenstein, according to the attorney general, were the ones who concluded that Mueller's findings were insufficient to establish that Trump had committed a crime. A number of press reports suggested Trump asked people intelligence agency leaders, Justice Department or law enforcement officials and White House officials to take actions that critics called obstruction of justice. Trump's alleged actions included requests for investigators to ease up on him or friends, for people to be fired or removed or for safe loyalists to placed onto cases and for people to give inaccurate information to Congress. Former FBI Director James Comey, for example, told the Senate intelligence committee that Trump said "I hope you can let this go," when alluding to the case of former national security adviser Mike Flynn. Trump, in this telling, did not say: I hereby order you to discontinue your investigation of Flynn. Trump, as his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen told the House oversight committee, often speaks in a "code." Mueller's report may reveal how much the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute on obstruction depended on the substance of his actions and how much on his use of that "code." Two of the ways Russia interfered in the 2016 election have gotten most of the attention: First, the social media agitation wrought by an office of trolls who sought to amplify divisions among Americans. Second, the use of cyberattacks to steal and release information embarrassing to political targets within the United States. But there was more to the Russian attack on the 2016 election. Intelligence officers, for example, also launched cyberattacks against state election systems that sought to study them and, in at least one case, extracted information about voters. Mueller's answers about the tools Russia used to interfere in the last presidential election will help Americans prepare to safeguard future elections. The U.S. intelligence community assessed early on that Putin had ordered the influence campaign "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." "Active measures" are as old as statecraft, but the 2016 campaign represented an unusual spike, one that caught American officials off guard. Americans have learned a great deal from Mueller's prosecutions about the operational workings of the Kremlin's active measures effort the movement of the troops in what amounted to a war of information. What's less clear, for now, were the actions of their generals. | https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/708793177/what-else-could-robert-muellers-report-reveal-about-trump-and-russia?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr |
Is the Haslams new ownership style working for the Browns? | CLEVELAND, Ohio Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam werent part of the press conference announcing the hiring of Freddie Kitchens as head coach. This has some observers believing that the Haslams have decided to stay in the background as GM John Dorsey makes most of the franchises big decisions. Mary Kay Cabot, Dan Labbe and Scott Patsko discuss the Haslams current role with the team. Check out their thoughts in the video at the top of this post. Get Browns Insider texts in your phone from Mary Kay Cabot: Cut through the clutter of social media and communicate directly with the award-winning Browns reporter, just like you would with your friends. Its just $3.99 a month, which works out to about 13 cents a day. Learn more and sign up here. | https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2019/04/is-the-haslams-new-ownership-style-working-for-the-browns.html |
Should Sacramento toughen the rules on who may run for president? | Releasing ones tax returns has been a tradition of modern presidential candidates, and President Trumps stubborn refusal to share his during the 2016 presidential race rightly prompted an outcry from those who believe voters deserve a full picture of a candidates finances before the election. It also prompted the California Legislature to pass a bill requiring presidential candidates to release five years of tax records or be excluded from the states ballot but then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it. He was right to do so then, and Gov. Gavin Newsom should do the same if the Legislature passes a new version of the bill this year. That goes for governors in Washington, New Jersey and other states considering mandatory tax return legislation as well. | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-presidential-primary-ballot-restrictions-20190403-story.html |
What causes greed and how can we deal with it? | (The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Laura E. Alexander, University of Nebraska Omaha (THE CONVERSATION) Recent news stories have highlighted unethical and even lawless actions taken by people and corporations that were motivated primarily by greed. Federal prosecutors, for example, charged 33 wealthy parents, some of whom were celebrities, with paying bribes to get their children into top colleges. In another case, lawyer Michael Avenatti was accused of trying to extort millions from Nike, the sports company. Allegations of greed are listed in the lawsuit filed against members of Sackler family, the owners of Purdue Pharma, accused of pushing powerful painkillers as well as the treatment for addiction. In all of these cases, individuals or companies seemingly had wealth and status to spare, yet they allegedly took actions to gain even further advantage. As a scholar of comparative religious ethics, I frequently teach basic principles of moral thought in diverse religious traditions. Religious thought can help us understand human nature and provide ethical guidance, including in cases of greed like the ones mentioned here. Anxiety and injustice The work of the 20th-century theologian Reinhold Niebuhr on human anxiety offers one possible explanation for what might drive people to seek more than they already have or need. Niebuhr was arguably the most famous theologian of his time. He was a mentor to several public figures. These included Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a historian who served in the Kennedy White House, and George F. Kennan, a diplomat and an adviser on Soviet affairs. Niebuhr also came to have a deep influence on former President Barack Obama. Niebuhr said the human tendency to perpetuate injustice is the result of a deep sense of existential anxiety, which is part of the human condition. In his work The Nature and Destiny of Man, Niebuhr described human beings as creatures of both spirit and nature. As spirit, human beings have consciousness, which allows them to rise above the sensory experiences they have in any given moment. Yet, at the same time, he said, human beings do have physical bodies, senses and instincts, like any other animal. They are part of the natural world and are subject to the risks and vulnerabilities of mortality, including death. Together, these traits mean that human beings are not just mortal, but also conscious of that mortality. This juxtaposition leads to a deeply felt anxiety, which, according to Niebuhr, is the inevitable spiritual state of man. To deal with the anxiety of knowing they will die, Niebuhr says, human beings are tempted to and often do grasp at whatever means of security seem within their reach, such as knowledge, material goods or prestige. In other words, people seek certainty in things that are inherently uncertain. Hurting others This is a fruitless task by definition, but the bigger problem is that the quest for certainty in ones own life almost always harms others. As Niebuhr writes: " Man is, like the animals, involved in the necessities and contingencies of nature; but unlike the animals he sees this situation and anticipates its perils. He seeks to protect himself against natures contingencies; but he cannot do so without transgressing the limits which have been set for his life. Therefore all human life is involved in the sin of seeking security at the expense of other life. The case of parents who may have committed fraud to gain coveted spots for their children at prestigious colleges offers an example of trying to find some of this certainty. That comes at the expense of others, who cannot gain admission to a college because another child has gotten in via illegitimate means. As other research has shown, such anxiety may be more acute in those with higher social status. The fear of loss, among other things, could well drive such actions. What we can learn from the Buddha While Niebuhrs analysis can help many of us understand the motivations behind greed, other religious traditions might offer further suggestions on how to deal with it. Several centuries ago, the Buddha said that human beings have a tendency to attach themselves to things sometimes material objects, sometimes possessions like prestige or reputation. Scholar Damien Keown explains in his book on Buddhist ethics that in Buddhist thought, the whole universe is interconnected and ever-changing. People perceive material things as stable and permanent, and we desire and try to hold onto them. But since loss is inevitable, our desire for things causes us to suffer. Our response to that suffering is often to grasp at things more and more tightly. But we end up harming others in our quest to make ourselves feel better. Taken together, these thinkers provide insight into acts of greed committed by those who already have so much. At the same time, the teachings of the Buddha suggest that our most strenuous efforts to keep things for ourselves cannot overcome their impermanence. In the end, we will always lose what we are trying to grasp. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: http://theconversation.com/what-causes-greed-and-how-can-we-deal-with-it-113616. | https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/What-causes-greed-and-how-can-we-deal-with-it-13737578.php |
How does a retail space stay empty in San Francisco for 16 years? | A prime location in San Franciscos Noe Valley neighborhood that has stood vacant for 16 years is set to open as a skincare clinic this month. Locals call the story of 3939 24th St. a great saga, combining an absentee owner, memories of a bitter labor dispute, retrofit requirements and squabbles over building or not building housing. Its coming to an end with the opening of SkinSpirit, a medical spa, at the site on April 15. The last tenant was the Real Food Co., a health food market that abruptly closed in September 2003 after a year of ownership under Nutraceutical Corp., a health supplement company in Park City, Utah. For SkinSpirit, a move into Noe Valleys commercial district is welcome at a time where the corridor counts at least 14 vacancies, said Rachel Swann, president of Noe Valley Merchants. Thats a large number of empty storefronts for a commercial strip that is home to about 100 stores. I think there are pressures businesses face in retail, but if you have the right product and store, people will come in, Swann said. A lot of the business owners Ive spoken to are excited about a spa moving in. But before the excitement, came 16 years of despair. In 2002, Nutraceutical bought the three-store chain, which included stores in Cole Valley and the Outer Richmond. The company shut down the Noe Valley location, saying it needed renovation. Workers insisted it was a move to block a unionization effort. Usually when a property sits vacant for that long, its because of drama between the owners, said Delvin Washington, a manager at the citys Planning Department. The last thing we want is for a building to not be in active use. The store never reopened, with the space left hostage to disputes between Real Foods former owners, Nutraceutical, former employees and neighbors over what would become of the site, city records and court documents show. Nutraceutical did not respond to requests for comment. In 2002, Nutraceutical bought the Real Food business, leasing the building from Kimball and Jane Allen, who started the grocer in 1970. (Kimball Allen died in 2011.) A lawsuit ensued between the Allens and Nutraceutical over extensive repairs needed at the 1920s building. City records show it was once three storefronts, combined over time without proper permits. Nutraceutical ended up buying the property in 2005 for a reduced price. Amid that battle raged another one. Nutraceutical shut down the health food market without notice on a Thursday before Labor Day weekend in 2003, laying off 30 employees. Furious, the employees said it was because of their unionization efforts and took their case to the National Labor Relations Board. In 2005, the board ruled in favor of the workers, though appeals dragged on through 2009. The workers received more than $371,219 in back pay, but waived their right to reinstatement should the store reopen. All the while, the store remained closed. In 2007, Nutraceutical submitted a project proposal to the city to build a three-story, mixed-use building in the location, city records show. That went nowhere, with the company expressing exasperation with the citys complex development process, attendees at community meetings convened by Nutraceutical recall. A Nutraceutical executive vowed to reopen the store at a 2009 town hall meeting, according to the Noe Valley Voice, even as a Whole Foods opened up across the street. It was frustrating and inexplicable that nothing happened with that site for such a long time, said state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who formerly represented Noe Valley as a city supervisor. Ideally, I would have loved to see the site developed with housing, but you cant get everything you want. Wiener and several members of Noe Valleys business community, including Carol Yenne, then president of the merchants association, flew to Park City in 2013 in hopes of persuading Nutraceutical to lease or redevelop the property. Their entreaties went nowhere. I think they (Nutraceutical) got frustrated with the layers of city processes involved, said David Eiland, co-owner of Just for Fun & Scribbledoodles, an art and gift store in Noe Valley. It sat empty for years, and every time they brought a plan to the city, it wouldnt work. The city established a commercial property registry in 2014 requiring business owners and landlords to report empty storefronts. City records show Nutraceutical registered the property as vacant for the years 2013 and 2014, paying the $765-a-year fee. It would be three more years before plans to do something with the location re-emerged. HGGC, a Palo Alto private equity firm co-founded by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Steve Young, bought Nutraceutical in 2017. The two other former Real Food markets closed in January 2018. The new owners sold the Noe Valley building to Aralon Properties, a San Francisco real estate developer, which decided to renovate the existing space instead of building new housing. Aralon applied for a permit to remove the existing grocery store and construct new retail in July. Construction began in November. Aralons first tenant is SkinSpirit, founded in 2003 by Lynn Heublein and plastic surgeon M. Dean Vistnes in Los Gatos. Having recently raised $25 million in funding, SkinSpirit is expanding, with plans under way to open spas in Oaklands Montclair Village and Burlingame this year. The company has 200 employees and could employ up to 40 at the Noe Valley location, Heublein said in an email. We are excited to be joining this vibrant community, she said. Shwanika Narayan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @shwanika | https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/How-does-a-retail-space-stay-empty-in-San-13736595.php |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.