Who will win the Liberal Democrats leadership race? – The Independent

The voting has opened, and the future of what Roy Jenkins used to call the radical centre is about to be decided. Who will be the next Lib Dem leader? Acting co-leader and former Coalition cabinet minister the Right Honourable Sir Ed Davey, the bookies favourite? Or Layla Moran, the clean skin who only entered parliament in 2017, is the education spokesperson and the first (openly) pansexual member of the Commons? If Liberal Democrats were still deciding their leadership under the system that the old Liberal Party once used, with only MPs choosing, then Sir Ed Davey would by now be the person chosen to rebuild their fortunes. Davey has secured the nominations of five of the partys 11 MPs and, assuming hed vote for himself, would thus already be safely ensconced as the heir to Gladstone, HH Asquith, David Lloyd George, and Tim Farron.

As it happens Sir Ed also enjoys the majority of nominations among the wider party membership (around 60 per cent, or 1,870 if those who did so, from 330 parties) and a solid backing around the partys Establishment, including Jane Ashdown (widow of Paddy), Lord (Ming) Campbell, and Baroness (Sarah) Lunsford. The last two party leaders, Jo Swinson (who lost her own seat last year and prompted the leadership contest), and Sir Vince Cable are keeping schtum about their preferences, and no one mentions Sir Nick Clegg these days, maybe not even visiting his Facebook page.

But though the odds are on Ed, the partys 120,000 or so members are an independent-minded, sometimes cussed bunch capable of springing a surprise, and propelling the 37-year-old Ms Moran into the leadership, as when Chris Huhne (almost) beat Clegg in 2007 (an intriguing what if). Moran isnt as popular at Westminster as Davey, but has a respectable 40 per cent share of the nominations of party members.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Read the original here:

Who will win the Liberal Democrats leadership race? - The Independent

Lighthouse to hobbit hole: 13 unusual and quirky places to holiday in Scotland – Border Telegraph

IF you are looking for a staycation that stokes the imagination, Scotland has no shortage of unusual and quirky gems.

With the nations tourism sector now reopened, weve put together a list of some of our favourite awe-inspiring holiday accommodation.

Places that bring together architectural wizardry and painstaking refurbishment to breathe new life and use into everything from a lighthouse to a modern-day broch and erstwhile modes of transportation, including buses, train carriages and even a helicopter.

Roulotte Retreat, near Melrose, Scottish Borders

There is something wonderfully romantic about this circle of seven colourful roulottes (Romany-style caravans) located in a pretty wildflower meadow below the Eildon Hills.

Each roulotte faces onto a lochan at the centre of the site. Facilities include sunset decks, wood-burning stoves, eco saunas and hot tubs. Its a perfect getaway for nature lovers with owls, deer, foxes, and badgers among the regular visitors.

Prices start from 115 per night. Call 07990 744044 or visit roulotteretreat.com

Helicopter Glamping, Mains Farm Wigwams, Thornhill, Stirling

Stay in a Sea King helicopter complete with mini kitchen, bathroom and a cockpit seating area offering stunning views over the Forth Valley. The helicopter part of Mains Farm Wigwams sleeps two adults or a family of five (two adults and three children). Theres a double bed, a single bed in the tail and seating which converts into a second double bed. The owners are currently renovating a 1959 Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer plane set to open for overnight stays next year.

Prices start from 170 per night. Call 01786 850735 or visit mainsfarmwigwams.com

Sleeperzzz, Rogart, Sutherland

Choose between a vintage railway carriage, a freight wagon or the Waiting Room B&B.

Located beside a functioning train station at Rogart (on the line between Inverness to Thurso and Wick), Sleeperzzz offers budget accommodation for backpackers, families, walkers, cyclists or those who simply fancy spending the night somewhere a bit different such as a 12-ton goods van from the 1950s.

A great base for exploring Dunrobin Castle and the North Coast 500.

Prices from 22pp per night. Call 01408 641343 or visit sleeperzzz.com

Craighead Howfs, Dunblane, Perthshire

Be transported to The Shire which could be Perthshire or JRR Tolkiens fictional Middle-earth in The Lord of the Rings, depending on how you look at it with these magical Hobbit Howfs.

The Burrow and Bagend are built into the hillside with grassy roofs and round doors for an unforgettable glamping experience. Craighead Howfs also offers the chance to stay in a treehouse with panoramic views over the Ochils and a secluded summer house.

Prices start from 105 per night. Call 01786 880321 or visit craigheadhowf.co.uk

The Bus Stop, Gifford, East Lothian

If you have ever wanted to enjoy a Summer Holiday in the vein of the 1963 film, look no further. This fleet of buses in a field belonging to an arable farm in East Lothian have been transformed into holiday accommodation with armchairs, sofas, lanterns, hot flasks, log stoves and beds.

Each bus has a private wood-fired hot tub and barbecue/fire pit. Choose from rustic or luxury the latter have en suite bathrooms and swish mod cons. Oh, and theres gorgeous views of the Lammermuir Hills.

Prices from 180 for a two-night stay. Call 07508 421888 or visit thebusstop.scot

Brockloch Eco Retreat, Kirkpatrick Durham, Castle Douglas

Featured on George Clarkes Amazing Spaces, Brockloch Eco Retreat is small but perfectly formed. Located on a working farm, theres two units: a contemporary, off-grid, micro-timber bothy facing into an open field and an incredible treehouse hideaway within a bluebell wood where the closest neighbours are red squirrels.

The treehouse has a built-in double bed with a skylight to gaze at the treetops and stars as you drift off to sleep. This part of the world is a great place to see red kites.

Prices from 300 for a two-night stay. Call 01556 650249 or visit brockloch.co.uk

Black Isle Yurts, Eathie Hill, Rosemarkie

Set in private woodland, all of the yurts within this eco-sensitive, wild-glamping site are based on designs used by nomadic people in Central Asia for thousands of years.

In keeping with the Scottish climate, the traditional felt outer shell has been replaced with a waterproof canvas and theres a wood-burning stove to stay cosy on cooler nights. The site is a short drive from Chanonry Point which is fantastic for dolphin spotting.

Prices from 180 for a two-night stay. Call 01381 620634 or visit blackisleyurts.co.uk

Rua Reidh Lighthouse, near Gairloch, Wester Ross

Built in 1912 by David Alan Stevenson, a cousin of the writer Robert Louis Stevenson and one of the famous Lighthouse Stevensons, this beautiful, remote location offers B&B and self-catering, the latter in the charmingly named First Officers Quarters.

Endless views, a glorious stretch of coastline, abundant bird and sea life, tranquillity, solitude and the thrill of potentially catching a glimpse of the Aurora Borealis on dark, starry nights awaits.

Prices start from 115 per night. Call 01445 771263 or visit stayatalighthouse.co.uk

Calgary, Mull

Not to be confused with the skyscraper-filled city in Alberta, this little corner of Mull is a delight.

A byre, hayloft and dovecote are among the self-catering properties available at Calgary, each with its own distinctive character. Calgary also has an excellent cafe, art gallery and a woodland sculpture walk.

Theres a beach within strolling distance where Robins Boat sells Isle of Mull ice cream. Sea eagles, otters and basking sharks can all be seen nearby.

Prices start from 400 for a seven-night stay. Call 01688 400256 or visit calgary.co.uk

The Scriptorium Apartments at St Benedicts Abbey, Fort Augustus

The Scriptorium the once secret writing room of the monastery has two one-bedroom apartments with vaulted ceilings, gothic archways and stained-glass windows. Theres plenty to do in the grounds and gardens, be it tennis, badminton, croquet or giant chess. The former Monks Refectory has been converted into a Club Lounge and a chapel refurbished to incorporate a heated pool, sauna and steam room.

Prices start from 500 for a two-night stay. Call 07748 867825 or visit parrandier.com

The Brochs of Coigach, near Achiltibuie, Ullapool

Brochs are an ancient dwelling found only in Scotland, dating back to 500BC. Gille Buidhes Broch and Scals Broch are a bit younger than that (around a decade old) and beautifully enchanting structures.

If you love upcycling, they will impress, built using stones from old, crumbling walls on nearby land and timber recovered from a dilapidated Victorian pier. Oil paintings by John Bellany hang on the walls, alongside display cabinets filled with weird and wonderful objects.

Prices from 140 per night. Call 01854 622368 or visit thebrochs.co.uk

The Four Sisters Boatel, Edinburgh

Tucked away in the heart of the Scottish capital, this houseboat is permanently moored at the Lochrin Basin on the Union Canal the eastern terminus for the 32-mile stretch of water that comes all the way from Falkirk. Sleeping up to six adults and two children, it is an ideal base to explore Edinburgh, with Bruntsfield and the West End, as well as the Old and New Towns, all just a stones throw away.

Prices start from 120 per night. Call 07445 494331 or visit thefoursisters.co.uk

The Sawmill at Glen Dye, Banchory, Aberdeenshire

Talk about enjoying the great outdoors in style. Stay in a sleek, refurbished 1950s Airstream Safari caravan in a small pine wood beside the fast flowing lade of a sawmill.

A rustic, wooden seed store with roots back to the 1800s serves as the kitchen, dining and sitting room. There are games, books, a record player and a memorable barbecue spot. Glen Dye also offers a river cabin, a bothy and two steading cottages, as well as running residential courses in crafts and wild food.

Prices start from 490 for a two-night stay. Call 01330 850689 or visit glendyecabinsandcottages.com

Continued here:

Lighthouse to hobbit hole: 13 unusual and quirky places to holiday in Scotland - Border Telegraph

NASA’s Perseverance rover leaves Earth bound for Mars – Spaceflight Now

NASAs Perseverance rover lifts off Thursday from Cape Canaveral aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket. Credit: Alex Polimeni / Spaceflight Now

Persevering through a global pandemic, a last-minute earthquake, and the trials of a rocket launch, NASAs next Mars rover named Perseverance took off from Cape Canaveral Thursday on a nearly seven-month journey to the Red Planet with sophisticated science instruments, technology to collect samples for to Earth, and the first interplanetary helicopter that could produce a Wright Brothers moment on another world.

The $2.7 billion Mars 2020 billion mission is poised to achieve numerous firsts on the Red Planet, but first it had to leave Earth on top of a powerful rocket to kick off a 300-million-mile (nearly 500-million-kilometer) voyage through the solar system.

An Atlas 5 rocket built by United Launch Alliance a 50-50 joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin gave the Perseverance rover a perfect ride into space Thursday after lifting off from Cape Canaveral at 7:50 a.m. EDT (1150 GMT).

Four solid rocket motors and a Russian-made RD-180 main engine gave the Atlas 5 and the Perseverance rover their initial boost into space. An RL10 engine on the Centaur upper stage, fueled by an efficient mix of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants, fired two times to accelerate the Mars-bound rover to a velocity of nearly 25,000 mph (more than 11 kilometers per second).

That was enough speed to allow the 9,000-pound (4.1-metric ton) spacecraft to break free of the grip of Earths gravity and head into deep space.

The Perseverance rover is the centerpiece of NASAs Mars 2020 mission, which will seek signs of ancient microbial life forms that scientists believe could have populated the Red Planet billions of years ago.

The six-wheeled rover is essentially a robotic geologist, but it also hosts trailblazing technologies that will pave the way for future missions. Those include NASAs Mars Helicopter, named Ingenuity, and an experiment to demonstrate the production of oxygen from carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere.

Were doing transformative science, said Matt Wallace, the Mars 2020 missions deputy project manager at JPL, before the missions launch. Really, for the first time, were looking for signs of life on another planet, and for the first time were going to collect samples that we hope will be part of the first sample return from another planet.

The Atlas 5 launcher performed flawlessly Thursday, deploying the Mars 2020 spacecraft right on its predicted course nearly one hour after liftoff. The Centaur upper stage spun up to about 2 rpm before releasing the spacecraft.

The rocket injected the probe into an orbit between the planets around the sun, setting the stage for a cruise to Mars that will culminate in a high-stakes, one-shot attempt to land on Red Planet on Feb. 18, 2021.

The orbital parameters look dead on, said Omar Baez, NASAs launch director for the Mars 2020 mission. Our velocity is dead on. So were on our way to Mars. Theres no way back.

While the Perseverance rover itself wont come back from Mars, some of the hardware on-board the vehicle is designed to eventually return to Earth. The rover carries 43 tubes, each about the size of a slim cigar, to hold rock and soil samples collected after Perseverances landing. The vehicle will drop the tubes on the surface of Mars for retrieval by another robotic mission in the late 2020s, which will bring the specimens back to Earth.

The mission objectives of our effort are to explore the geology of our landing site, to look for signs of biosignatures from the past, said Adam Steltzner, chief engineer on the Mars 2020 mission at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We are not a life detection mission. We are looking for signs of past life on the surface of mars. Also, signatures that mars was habitable, and to the degree that is still habitable, where it might be habitable. Our third objective is to prepare a returnable cache of samples, and then fourth is to prepare for future human exploration.

While the launch itself was as advertised, ground controllers at JPL initially had trouble establishing a two-way communications link with the Mars 2020 spacecraft after it separated from the Atlas 5 rocket. Right on time, at 9:15 a.m. EDT (1315 GMT), the spacecraft turned on its transmitter and began sending a carrier signal to a NASA ground station in Australia.

But the Deep Space Network station is usually attuned to listening for faint signals from distant regions of the solar system. The high-power signal coming from the Mars 2020 spacecraft saturated the antennas receiver, so operators had to adjust settings at the ground station to begin deciphering telemetry information the probe was sending back to Earth shortly after launch Thursday.

A couple of hours later, NASA officials confirmed they were receiving telemetry data from Mars 2020. Soon after, Wallace said the mission had encountered a separate issue after launch that put the spacecraft into safe mode, a precautionary standby state where the probes computer curtails non-essential functions.

In an interview Thursday afternoon, Wallace said the spacecraft apparently went into safe mode as it passed over the night side of Earth just after launch, a period known as an eclipse.

We think that as we went through eclipse, where the spacecraft is shadowed by the Earth from the sun, the external temperatures changed, Wallace told Spaceflight Now.

NASA later said in a statement that the temperature disparity was in the Mars 2020 spacecrafts liquid freon coolant loop, which dissipates heat from the center of the spacecraft through radiators on the carrier module carrying the rover to Mars.

Temperatures outside the spacecraft may have dipped lower than expected, he said, creating a higher-than-expected temperature differential between the warm radiator inlet and the cooler outlet. As a precaution, programmers set tight limits on key spacecraft parameters before the launch, and the cold conditions may be tripped a preset limit.

Chances are we may have just tightened down on that limit a little too much, and it triggered a safe mode, Wallace told Spaceflight Now.

NASAs Curiosity rover, upon which Perseverance was designed, did not enter the Earths shadow after its launch in 2011. So engineers relied on analytical modeling to predict the temperatures during the eclipse.

We set the limits for the temperature differential conservatively tight for triggering a safe mode, Wallace said. The philosophy is that it is far better to trigger a safe mode event when not required, than miss one that is. Safe mode is a stable and acceptable mode for the spacecraft, and triggering safe mode during this transitional phase is not problematic for Mars 2020.

While its in safe mode, the spacecraft transmits data back to Earth at a slower rate than during normal operations. Ground teams Thursday afternoon were trying to increase the data rate, but the information coming down from the Mars 2020 spacecraft thus far indicated there were no other problems on the probe, and temperatures were back within limits after the craft flew back into sunlight.

We are getting good telemetry, Wallace said. Its indicating the spacecraft is healthy.

Controllers at JPL will complete their assessment of the spacecrafts condition, develop and test commands, then uplink the orders to the Mars 2020 spacecraft to bring it back into its normal operating mode, perhaps as soon as Friday, according to Wallace.

Were in no hurry, he said. Were perfectly happy in safe mode.

One of the first major milestones on the flight to Mars will be a course correction maneuver using the Mars 2020 spacecrafts cruise stage, the element that helps guide the rover during the interplanetary journey to the Red Planet. That burn will adjust the spacecrafts trajectory to aim directly at Mars after the Atlas 5 rocket intentionally put the probe on path that would just miss Mars, ensuring the launchers Centaur upper stage will not crash into the planet.

Wallace said it is not unusual for a newly-launch spacecraft to go into safe mode.

Basically, the spacecraft is transitioning out of one environment into another, Wallace said. So its not uncommon for something to trigger it. Safe mode is called safe mode because its the safest condition for the spacecraft to be in.

But there was a brief bit of drama before the launch. A small earthquake in Southern California gave a jolt to Mars 2020 mission control at JPL, near Los Angeles.

After a quick assessment, officials determined the ground controllers, who were following health protocols to protect against the COVID-19 pandemic, were ready to proceed with the launch of the Mars 2020 spacecraft from Cape Canaveral, on the other side of the country.

The people in California thought they felt an earthquake, but really they were just feeling mighty Atlas crouching down to leap off the Earth, joked Tory Bruno, ULAs president and CEO, in a reference to the Atlas 5 rocket.

NASA is going for its ninth successful landing on Mars with the Perseverance rover.

NASA says it spent more than $2.4 billion to design, build and prepare the Mars 2020 mission for launch. With the money budgeted to operate the rover during the trip to Mars, and for around two Earth years (one Mars year) after landing, the total mission is expected to cost around $2.7 billion.

The 2,260-pound (1,025-kilogram) Perseverance rover is about 10 feet (3 meters) long, 9 feet (2.7 meters wide), and 7 feet (2.2 meters) tall.

The rover is mounted on a rocket-powered descent stage that will lower the robot to the Martian surface. That, in turn, is cocooned inside an aerodynamic shell and heat shield to protect the rover during entry into the atmosphere of Mars, when temperatures outside the spacecraft will reach 2,370 degrees Fahrenheit (about 1,300 degrees Celsius).

The cruise stage attached to the Mars descent vehicle will shepherd the spacecraft from Earth to Mars. The carrier module will jettison before arriving at the Red Planet, and will burn up in the Martian atmosphere.

While any space launch has some risk, landing a spacecraft on Mars is a hazardous proposition. About half of all missions that have attempted to land on Mars have failed, although NASA has succeeded five consecutive Mars landing attempts.

NASAs Perseverance rover is the third mission to Mars to launch this month, following the July 19 takeoff of the Hope orbiter developed by the United Arab Emirates in partnership with scientists at three U.S. universities. On July 23, China launched its Tianwen 1 spacecraft, an all-in-one mission consisting of an orbiter, lander and rover.

The Hope and Tianwen 1 missions are the first probes from the UAE and China to head for Mars.

We welcome more nations taking trips to mars and studying it and delivering the science and sharing the science with the world, said Jim Bridenstine, who became head of NASA in 2018 after his nomination by President Donald Trump. Thats what science is all about, of course, its a very uniting kind of thing.

Bridenstine said he did not see NASA as in a competition with other nations for Mars exploration.

This is our ninth time to go to Mars and land softly, and do robotic experiments and discovery, he said. So I dont see it as a competition, but certainly we welcome more explorers to deliver more science than ever before, and we look forward to seeing what it is that theyre able to discover.

Orbiters from the United States, the European Space Agency, and India are currently flying around Mars and observing the planet from above.

All three missions will arrive at the Red Planet next February, with the UAEs Hope spacecraft and Chinas Tianwen 1 spacecraft swinging into orbit around Mars. Several months later, Tianwen 1 will release its lander in a bid to descend to the Martian surface and deploy its rover.

If successful, China would become the second country to land and operate a mobile robot on Mars, after the United States.

The Perseverance rover will aim for a direct approach to Mars, heading straight into the planets rarefied atmosphere next Feb. 18. Around 10 minutes before reaching the upper edge atmosphere, the spacecraft will shed the cruise stage that will have guided the rover toward Mars since its launch.

The rovers 14.8-foot-diameter (4.5-meter) heat shield will take the brunt of the energy during the crafts plunge into the atmosphere of Mars. While temperatures outside the heat shield reach more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, small thrusters will adjust the angle of the vehicles trajectory, allowing it to control lift and begin navigating toward its landing site.

Around four minutes after entering the atmosphere, the spacecraft will unfurl a 70.5-foot-diameter (21.5-meter) supersonic parachute at an altitude of about 7 miles, or 11 kilometers. Perseverances parachute is stronger than the one used on Curiosity, and the Mars 2020 mission will employ a new technique to deploy the chute based on the crafts position relative to the target landing site, rather than using a timer.

That will result in a more precise landing, NASA says.

Roughly 20 seconds after deploying the parachute, the heat shield at the bottom of the spacecraft will drop away, allowing a downward-facing guidance radar and cameras to start seeing the Martian surface.

The atmosphere of Mars is much thinner than Earths, so a parachute by itself is unable to slow the spacecraft enough for a safe landing. The rovers descent stage will release the backshell and parachute around 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers) above Mars. Eight throttleable thrusters will further slow the rovers descent from about 190 mph (306 kilometers per hour) to a speed of near zero just 66 feet (20 meters) above the surface.

During this time, advanced guidance software loaded into the rovers flight computer will begin searching for a smooth place to set down. The new capability, named terrain relative navigation, was developed since Curiositys landing in 2012 and will be used on Mars for the first time with Perseverance.

It works by comparing imagery taken in real-time during descent with a map of steep slopes, boulders and other hazards pre-loaded into the computer using pictures captured from Mars orbiters. If the rover sees it is heading for dangerous terrain, it will adjust its path to reach a smoother area.

Finally, a bridle will lower the one-ton Perseverance rover to the surface of Mars using a technique called the sky crane, which engineers invented and demonstrated on the Curiosity rovers landing in 2012. Once the rovers six wheels touch Mars, the bridle will be cut and the descent stage will fly away to crash a safe distance away.

That all happens millions of miles from Earth, when it takes minutes for a radio signal to travel between the planets at the speed of light. That leaves no opportunity for human input once the descent begins.

Its basically a controlled disassembly the whole way, Wallace told Spaceflight Now. Its, by far, the highest risk phase of the mission still, and we had the good fortune on Mars 2020 to have leveraged the system that we designed on Curiosity.

So not only we do have the testing behind us on this system that we did before we launched and landed Curiosity, we have the Curiosity flight itself, and all the telemetry that came back, he said. And it performed extremely well during that mission. Then we did a whole lot of additional testing to launch this spacecraft.

Still, no guarantees, Wallace said. Our hearts will still be beating hard when we get to that point in the mission, but I do think its an advantage that we have. This is not a first-time landing system as we had on Curiosity.

The Perseverance rover will target a landing inside the 28-mile-wide (45-kilometer) Jezero Crater on Mars, home to an ancient river delta and a lake the size of Lake Tahoe that scientists believe filled the crater some 3.5 billion to 3.9 billion years ago. Scientists hope to find signatures of ancient life in the rocks and sediments deposited in the dried-up delta.

Perseverance is designed to land as close to the delta deposits as possible.

To get down onto the crater floor right on top of the delta, we need to do better than weve ever done before, Steltzner said.

Once the rover is on Mars and powers up its science instruments, one of its first tasks will be to place NASAs Ingenuity Mars Helicopter onto the surface. Perseverance will release the rotorcraft from a carrier on its bellyonto the ground, then drive away to a distance of at least 330 feet (100 meters) before the helicopter flies for the first time.

That moment will be historic. The tiny 4-pound (1.8-kilogram) robot will try to become the first aircraft to fly through the atmosphere of another planet.

Human beings have never flown a rotorcraft outside of our own Earths atmosphere, so this will be very much a Wright Brothers moment, except at another planet, said MiMi Aung, project manager for the Ingenuity helicopter at JPL.

Ground controllers will program the helicopter to perform a series of test flights during a planned 30-day campaign, beginning with a relatively simple up-and-down flight lasting less than 30 seconds, Aung said. Then the team will attempt bolder and bolder test flights, she told Spaceflight Now.

The helicopter will fly autonomously, without real-time input from ground controllers millions of miles away. The drone carries two cameras, and telemetry from the helicopter will be routed through a base station on the rover. The Perseverance rover also might be able to take pictures of the helicopter in flight.

For the first time ever, were going to fly a helicopter on another planet, Bridenstine said. In the future, it could transform how we do planetary science on other worlds, and eventually it could be a scout so we can figure out where we need to send our robots.

NASA officials approved adding the helicopter to the Mars 2020 mission in 2018. The mission cost around $80 million to design and develop, and will cost another $5 million to operate.

The atmosphere at the Martian surface is about 1 percent the density of Earths, limiting the performance of a rotorcraft like the Ingenuity helicopter.

The helicopters counter-rotating rotors will spin between 2,400 and 2,900 rpm, about 10 times faster than a helicopter flying in Earths atmosphere. Developed at JPL with assistance from a company named AeroVironment Inc., the Ingenuity rotorcraft is tiny compared to the Perseverance rover. The solar-powered drone measures just 1.6 feet (0.49 meters) tall, weighs about 4 pounds (1.8 kilograms), and has blades spanning about 4 feet (1.2 meters) in diameter.

While the Ingenuity helicopter is purely a technology proof-of-concept, future rotorcraft could be dispatched to other planets with more sophisticated scientific instruments.

NASA has selected a robotic mission named Dragonfly to explore Saturns largest moon Titan. But Titan has a much thicker atmosphere than Mars, which eases the difficulty of rotor-driven flight.

Debuting a wide array of new capabilities, the Mars 2020 mission is packed with firsts.

Were making oxygen on the surface of Mars for the first time, Wallace said. For the first time we have an opportunity to use autonomous systems to avoid hazards as we land in Jezero Crater, and thats technology that will feed forward into future robotic systems and human exploration systems.

Were also carrying microphones for the first time, he said. Were going to hear the sounds of the spacecraft landing on another planet and the rover drilling into rocks and rolling over the surface of Mars. Thats pretty exciting.

For the first time, were going to have an opportunity to see our spacecraft land another planet, Wallace continued. Weve got commercial ruggedized cameras that weve distributed essentially all over the spacecraft, and they will get high-definition video that well bring back after we land on the surface from the entire landing activity from the inflation of the parachute to the touchdown of the rover.

The Mars 2020 missions development cost swelled nearly $360 million over NASAs original prediction, according to the Government Accountability Office. That was caused primarily challenges with perfecting the devices that will collect, seal and store rock specimens, along with difficulties with instruments.

Along the way, we had plenty of challenges, Wallace said. We had to qualify a new planetary parachute. Thats another first the first time weve done that as an agency in 40 or 50 years.

Kind of late in the game, we were asked to accommodate this little thing called Mars Helicopter, he said. It was well after most of the payloads were assigned to the project, so we had to do a little bit of magic trick to get that onto the rover.

Around the time of Curiositys landing on Mars in 2012, engineers at JPL started assessing options for NASAs next major Mars rover. NASA leadership announced plans for the Mars 2020 mission in late 2012, seeking to recycle designs proven with the Curiosity mission also known as Mars Science Laboratory with a different set of scientific instruments, and the new ability to drill core samples, seal them inside ultra-clean tubes, and drop them onto the Red Planet to be picked up years in the future.

We need to make the sample tubes that we take to Mars cleaner than anything that weve ever done before in space, and cleaner than almost everything we do here on Earth, Steltzner said.Part of the effort to do that involves us hyper-cleaning the sample tubes in which the samples that we take on Mars will be placed, and then placing them into the rover at last possible minute.

Read more about the sampling system in our earlier story.

The sample tubes were installed into the Perseverance rover in May, just before it was closed up inside its aeroshell and mounted on top of the Atlas 5 rocket.

Each tube is sheathed in a gold-colored cylindrical enclosure, providing an extra layer of contamination protection. The tubes will ride to Mars inside the housing, and they will be returned to the sheath once filled with Martian rock samples.

The Perseverance rover will carry 43 sample tubes to Mars, including witness tubes or blanks, which will allow scientists to cross-check rock and sediment specimens returned to Earth for contamination.

The tubes are about the size and shape of a slim cigar, and the Perseverance rover will collect core samples on Mars that measure around a half-inch (13 millimeters) wide and 2.4 inches (60 millimeters) long.

Those samples tubes are part of a Sample and Caching System, which is one of our biggest engineering developments for this mission, Steltzner said. We get to Mars largely like the Curiosity rover got to Mars, but we need to do something very different once were on Mars. We must take these core samples, seal them hermetically and sterilely, and then produce a cache of samples for eventual return to Earth.

The Sample Caching System is a complicated piece of equipment, with 17 separate motors, a rotating wheel containing nine drill bits, and 43 tubes to hermetically seal core samples drilled from Martian rocks.

The rover has a 7-foot-long (2-meter) robotic arm with a coring drill fixed on a 99-pound (45-kilogram) turret on the end. The longer robotic arm will work in concert with a smaller 1.6-foot-long (0.5-meter) robotic manipulator inside the belly of the rover, which will pick up sample tubes for transfer to the main arm for drilling.

Steltzner said the rovers sampling system actually consists of three different robots.

Out at the end of our robotic arm thats the first robot is a coring drill that uses rotary percussive action like we have used similarly and previously on Mars with the Curiosity mission, except rather just generating powder, this creates an annular groove in the rock and breaks off a core sample, Steltzner said.

During each sample collection, the core sample will go directly into the tube attached to the drill.

That bit and the sample tube are brought back by the robotic arm our first robot into the second robot, our bit carousel, which receives the filled sample tube and delivers it to a very fine and detailed robot, the sample handling arm inside the belly of the beast, in which the sample is then assessed, its volume is measured, images are taken, and it is sealed and placed back into storage for eventually being placed in a cache on the surface.

The portion of the caching system inside the rover is called the Adaptive Caching Assembly, which consists of more than 3,000 parts alone.

The design of the drill and sample tubes is intended to preserve the distribution minerals cored from Martian rocks. The system is also intended to collect samples directly from softer soils.

NASA selected seven scientific payloads to ride to Mars on the Perseverance rover in 2014.

Two of the instruments, named PIXL and SHERLOC, are located alongside the coring drill on the robotic arms turret. Theywill scan Martian rocks to determine their chemical composition and search for organic materials, providing key inputs into decisions by ground teams on which rocks to drill.

Read the original:

NASA's Perseverance rover leaves Earth bound for Mars - Spaceflight Now

Lost in space: From ‘Spaceballs’ and ‘Apollo 13’ to ‘Alien,’ these six films are ready for liftoff – The Spokesman-Review

In honor of Project Apollo and all of NASAs Apollo space missions, here are six space-themed movies that captured the imagination of the public each in their own way.

From utterly ridiculous comedies (Spaceballs) to outright horror films (Alien), this list should get you through a brief space-movie obsession with tons of variety to (space) boot.

Spaceballs (1987): Mel Brooks Star Wars parody Spaceballs is a cornerstone piece of the genre. Taking the world-building cinematic work of George Lucas and turning it on its head comes naturally to Brooks as his cast of sort-of-heroes save the planet Druidia from having all of its fresh air sucked away by the evil Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis), who has managed to kidnap Druidias Princess Vespa (Daphne Zuniga). Naturally, the princesss only hope is space-RV-inhabitant Lone Starr and his dog-ish companion, Barf. This movie is not to be taken seriously at any moment.

Apollo 13 (1995): Detailing perhaps the most intense space mission in U.S. history, Apollo 13 follows the disastrous flight of Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) and Jim Swigert (Kevin Bacon) as they attempt to survive a moon-landing attempt gone wrong. In an era just after the successful moon landing of Apollo 11, this mission captivated the American people as they watched in horrid suspense three of their own battle life threat after life threat, all in space. The movie which was nominated for nine Academy Awards and won two does its best to follow these events, even consulting NASA and running the actors through simulations.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968): Stanley Kubricks classic and immensely influential film 2001: A Space Odyssey has been around for more than 50 years. A tale of epic proportion, it loosely follows the evolution of mankind in the presence of other higher beings. A black monolith appears and kickstarts human evolution. A second one is uncovered thousands of years later on the moon, which releases a signal of some kind. An earthen space mission is sent in search of that signals destination with the assistance of AI computer HAL 9000. The film which was nominated for four Academy Awards and won one is a directorial masterpiece, a composition itself of visual and sonic aspects to form one of the most atmospheric movies ever made. It is a cult classic and revered for its influence.

Interstellar (2014): In a future where Earth is rapidly becoming uninhabitable, mankind struggles against dust storms and other natural disasters to source food. A NASA scientist pulls a former scientist, engineer and extraordinary pilot out of his rural lifestyle for a dangerous mission upon which the future of mankind would seem to rest: traveling through a wormhole in search of a replacement planet. This race against the clock is among the most visually stunning movies ever made, and it was well-received, garnering five Oscar nominations and one win (for Best Visual Effects). A truly epic tale of love, space and survival, Interstellar does not disappoint.

Galaxy Quest (1999):The washed-up cast of a TV space show are tracked down by a group of aliens in need of leadership. Having watched the space show, which was apparently broadcast across the universe, the aliens believe Alan Rickman, Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver and their co-stars are their only hope for survival. The group is abducted and made captain of a real spaceship with no experience and are soon facing the frightening (and hilarious) realities of battling through a space full of hostile alien lifeforms. Can the onscreen heroes make the cut in real life?

Alien (1979): Ridley Scott is a master of manipulating light, and in his 1979 film Alien which won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects he makes ample use of that talent and others to create the greatest sci-fi horror film ever made, and one of the best films outright. A crew aboard a commercial spacecraft receives a distress signal from a nearby moon and sets off to check it out. They find an alien spacecraft and a room full of mysterious eggs, one of which when touched by a crew member leaps into life. Thus ensues a tense and frightening survival attempt by the crew as they seek to kill the bloodthirsty alien stowing away on their ship before it kills them.

Read more here:

Lost in space: From 'Spaceballs' and 'Apollo 13' to 'Alien,' these six films are ready for liftoff - The Spokesman-Review

What weeds are growing in your spiritual garden? – The Daily Advance

I passed by the field of the sluggard and by the vineyard of the man lacking sense, and behold, it was completely overgrown with thistles; its surface was covered with nettles, and its stone wall was broken down. Proverbs 24:30-31

When we were preparing to move to Elizabeth City the Realtor asked what we were looking for in a house.

My first response was a large property for a garden. My absolutely favorite hobby is gardening. And while we have enjoyed much fruit and produce from our garden so far this year we are now at the time that I dislike the most about gardening. Weeds! Weeds everywhere. They seem to come out of the ground fully grown overnight. So every morning now the ritual is to spend an hour or more in the garden weeding.

It is so rewarding to see the rows of vegetables free of weeds that I almost forget how hot and sweaty Ive become and how much the knees ache from bending. But anyone that stops over now usually leaves with some fresh produce from the garden. It may be tomatoes, beans, squash, peppers, eggplant or even a cantaloupe.

In Matthew, chapter 13, Jesus teaches in parables. He spoke of a farmer sowing seed in his field. Some of it fell beside the road and the birds ate it. Some of it fell on rocky ground without much good soil. It sprouted and came up but without the depth of soil the sun caused it to wilt and die. Some seed fell among weeds and thorns and was choked out by them. Only the seed that fell on good soil prospered and yielded a good harvest.

In this parable Jesus was talking about different types of people. Some hear Gods Word but it does not take root. Others hear the Word but the cares and temptations of the world choke it out. Weeds do that. Weeds take the valuable nutrients from the soil that the good seed needs. Weeds, left unchecked, will choke out the valuable plants to the point that there is no harvest.

Dorothea Dix wrote, Your mind may be likened to a garden which will, if neglected, yield only weeds and thistles; but, if cultivated, will produce the most beautiful flowers and the most delicious fruits.

I decided that I needed to check on the weeds in my garden recently. No, not the nut sedge or wild onion or dandelions growing in the vegetable garden. I needed to check on the weeds in my spiritual garden.

Why was it necessary to get upset because a man was only driving 15 mph in a 25 mph zone recently? In just two minutes there would be four lanes and I could pass him.

Did it help to get angry at what I was seeing on the news?

Why was I short with my wife when she was only trying to explain something to me?

Anger. Insensitive. Unkind thoughts about someones motives recently.

Weeds. Weeds that choke out pleasant thoughts, kind words and good deeds. Weeds that cause others to be hurt. The seed that fell on the good soil brought forth fruit, sometimes in an overwhelming way.

How is your garden doing? Dont have a garden? But you do. You have a mind, a heart, and a personality. Are you growing beautiful things? Bearing fruit that is delicious? Or allowing weeds to sprout and take over?

Lets consider Pauls challenge, So walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. Colossians 1:10.

Emmett Murphy is a retired Christian minister.

Excerpt from:

What weeds are growing in your spiritual garden? - The Daily Advance

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

Article of amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as part of the Bill of Rights, enumerating the right to bear arms

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.[1][2][a] It was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.[3][4][5] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[6][7][8][9] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".[10][11] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.[12]

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[13] Any labels of rights as auxiliary must be viewed in the context of the inherent purpose of a Bill of Rights, which is to empower a group with the ability to achieve a mutually desired outcome, and not to necessarily enumerate or rank the importance of rights. Thus all rights enumerated in a Constitution are thus auxiliary in the eyes of Sir William Blackstone because all rights are only as good as the extent they are exercised in fact. While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[14][15]

By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to the Bill of Rights to assure ratification. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[16] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[17][18]

In the 21st century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[18] In Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.[19][20] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun.[21][22][20] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[23] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare". The debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[24]

Contents

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.[33][34]

One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified.[b][35][36][37][38] As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original handwritten copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:[39]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson authenticated that the states had ratified the amendment as:[40]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right for Protestants to bear arms in English history is regarded in English law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property. According to Sir William Blackstone, "The... last auxiliary right of the subject... is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is... declared by... statute, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[c]

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament, and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic JamesII was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants WilliamIII and MaryII, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm his subjects, after King Charles II and JamesII had disarmed many Protestants that were "suspected or knowne" of disliking the government,[41] and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[d] The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by JamesII, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[42] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[43]

The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown, stating: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."[44] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[45]

The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evil Councillors Judges and Ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom (list of grievances including)... by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and employed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch)... thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Consideration the best means for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including)... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[44]

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[e][f]

The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law". This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.[46]

There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 168889 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did "little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed [sic]."[47] Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[48] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a subordinate auxiliary right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights.[49][50]

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[51]

Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided in Heller). Some in the United States have preferred the "rights" argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right. The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state.[52] Without a regular army and police force (which in England was not established until 1829), it had been the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[53]

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[g][h][55][56][57][58][59][60]

Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state."[67]

During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo of firearms, parts and ammunition against the American colonies.[68] King George III also began disarming individuals who were in the most rebellious areas in the 1760s and 1770s.[69]

British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[70] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[70] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars' interpretation of Blackstone.[71]

The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 objecting to the British army's suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:

Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[70][72]

The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with regular French army and naval forces and various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[73] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown on an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.[74] Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Constitutional Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[75][76] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[77]

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[78] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[79]

One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[80] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[81] as Alexander Hamilton explained in his Concerning the Militia essay published in 1788:

...it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.[81][82]

Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[83][84] Other writers, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. They cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to... institute new Government") and the Constitution of New Hampshire (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind").[85]

There was an ongoing debate beginning in 1789 about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the increasingly violent French Revolution.[86] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[i] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[70] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by ArticleI, Section8 of the Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.[87][88]

Note: On May 10, 1776, Congress passed a resolution recommending that any colony with a government that was not inclined toward independence should form one that was.[89]

Virginia's Constitution lists the reasons for dissolving its ties with the King in the formation of its own independent state government. Including the following:

* These same reasons would later be outlined within the Declaration of Independence.

A Declaration of Rights. Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[90]

Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[91]

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is the first instance in relationship to U.S. Constitutional Law of the phrase "right to bear arms".

It is of relevance that Pennsylvania was a Quaker Colony traditionally opposed to bearing arms. "In settling Pennsylvania, William Penn had a great experiment in view, a 'holy experiment', as he term[ed] it. This was no less than to test, on a scale of considerable magnitude, the practicability of founding and governing a State on the sure principles of the Christian religion; where the executive should be sustained without arms; where justice should be administered without oaths; and where real religion might flourish without the incubus of a hierarchical system."[92] The Non-Quaker residents, many from the Western Counties, complained often and loudly of being denied the right to a common defense. By the time of the American Revolution, through what could be described as a revolution within a revolution, the pro-militia factions had gained ascendancy in the state's government. And by a manipulation through the use of oaths, disqualifying Quaker members, they made up a vast majority of the convention forming the new state constitution; it was only natural that they would assert their efforts to form a compulsory State Militia in the context of a "right" to defend themselves and the state.[93]

Articles XXV-XXVII. 25. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government. 26. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up, without consent of the Legislature. 27. That in all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to and control of the civil power.[94]

A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[95]

Article XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.[96]

Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[97]

A Declaration of Rights. Chapter 1. Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.[98]

In March 1785, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference to fashion a remedy to the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[102][103]

It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal Congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[104] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States by doing the following:[105]

Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[106] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[107][108] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption. This compromise persuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[109] The Constitution was declared ratified on June21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[110] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June8, 1789, and was adopted on December15, 1791.

The debate surrounding the Constitution's ratification is of practical importance, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[111]

The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[112] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[113] though Whitehill's language was never debated.[114]

There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[115][116]

In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[117]

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concerned about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved... Is it possible... that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? Or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[118] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[14][119]

George Mason also argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[14][120]

Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[121]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[122]

According to political commentator Thom Hartmann, the Virginians James Madison, Patrick Henry, and George Mason were concerned that "slave patrols", organized groups of white men who enforced discipline upon enslaved blacks, needed to remain armed and, therefore, the Constitution needed to clarify that states have the right to organize white men in such militias.[123] Also, Patrick Henry argued against the ratification of both the Constitution and the Second Amendment.[66] Most Southern white men aged1845 were required to serve on such patrols.

Legal historian Paul Finkelman disputes Hartmann's claim that the Second Amendment was adopted to protect slave patrols, arguing that Hartmann's claim is "factually incorrect and misleading" and that there is no historical evidence for this assertion.[66]

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[124]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[125] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[126] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[127]

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[128]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States".[129] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[130]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. A motion passed to replace the words "the best", and insert in lieu thereof "necessary to the" .[131] The Senate then slightly modified the language to read as the fourth article and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version by the Senate was amended to read as:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate.

The enrolled original Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, on permanent display in the Rotunda, reads as:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[132]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, having been ratified as a group by all the fourteen states then in existence except Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Georgia which added ratifications in 1939.[133]

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[68] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using billy clubs as their sole defensive weapons.[68] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[68]

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia... [and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[134]

The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."[134] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65percent.[135] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. Though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[136] None is mentioned in the legislation.[134]

The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[137] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[68] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[68] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[68] Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[138] Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.[136]

In May of 1788, Richard Henry Lee wrote in Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169 or Letter XVIII regarding the definition of a "militia":

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

In June of 1788, George Mason addressed the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding a "militia:"

A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.

In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[139]

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[140][141]

The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[142][143] Tucker wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[144]

In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" and "whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p.412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."[142] Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker's annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.[j]

Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."[142]

Tucker's commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England's "arbitrary code for the preservation of game", portraying that country as one that "boasts so much of its freedom", yet provides a right to "protestant subjects only" that it "cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence" and reserves for "[a] very small proportion of the people[.]"[145] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[146]

Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:[k]

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[k][147]

Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. He did warn, however, that "this right [to bear arms] ought not... be abused to the disturbance of the public peace" and, paraphrasing Coke, observed: "An assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace."[145]

Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution[148] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[l][149]

See the original post:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information …

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision inMcDonald v. City of Chicago(08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonaldchallenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through theincorporation doctrine.However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, andwhat level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment. As a general note, when analyzing statutes and ordinances, courts use three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:

Recent lower-court case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold

More recently, the Supreme Court reinforced its Hellerruling in itsCaetano v. Massachusetts(2016) decision. The Court found that the lower "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was wrong in the three reasons it offered for why the state could ban personal possession or use of a stun gun without violating the Second Amendment." The Supreme Court, however, remanded the case without further instructions, so this per curiam ruling did not do much to further clarify the Supreme Court's stance on the Second Amendment.

See constitutional amendment.

See the original post:

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information ...

Hurricane Warning Issued For The Central And Southeastern Bahamas – WSLS 10

Location 45 miles SE of Great Inagua Island Wind 80 mph Heading NW at 18 mph Pressure 29.29 Coordinates 72.7W, 20.6N Discussion

At 200 a.m. EDT (0600 UTC), the center of Hurricane Isaias was located near latitude 20.6 north, longitude 72.7 west. Isaias is moving toward the northwest near 18 mph (30 km/h), and a generally northwestward motion with some decrease in forward speed is expected for the next couple of days followed by turn toward the north-northwest. On the forecast track, the center of Isaias will move near or over the southeastern Bahamas overnight. Isaias is forecast to be near the central Bahamas Friday night and move near or over the northwestern Bahamas and near south Florida on Saturday.

Maximum sustained winds remain near 80 mph (130 km/h) with higher gusts. Some strengthening is possible today, and Isaias is expected to remain a hurricane for the next few days.

Hurricane-force winds extend outward up to 30 miles (45 km) from the center and tropical-storm-force winds extend outward up to 240 miles (390 km).

The estimated minimum central pressure based on air force reserve hurricane hunter data is 992 mb (29.29 inches).

Changes with this advisory:

None

Summary of watches and warnings in effect:

A hurricane warning is in effect for, * northwestern Bahamas including andros island, new providence, eleuthera, abacos islands, berry islands, grand Bahamas island, and bimini * southeastern Bahamas including the acklins, crooked island, long cay, the inaguas, mayaguana, and the ragged islands * central Bahamas, including cat island, the exumas, long island, rum cay, and san salvador

A tropical storm warning is in effect for, * Dominican Republic entire southern and northern coastlines * north coast of Haiti from le mole st Nicholas eastward to the northern border with the Dominican Republic * Turks and Caicos Islands

A tropical storm watch is in effect for, * east coast of Florida from ocean reef to sebastian inlet * lake okeechobee

Interests elsewhere along the southeast coast of the United States should monitor the progress of this system. Additional watches or warnings may be required for a portion of the Florida peninsula on Friday.

A hurricane warning means that hurricane conditions are of the Leeward Islands, the Virgin Islands, expected somewhere within the warning area. A warning is typically issued 36 hours before the anticipated first occurrence of tropical-storm-force winds, conditions that make outside preparations difficult or dangerous. Preparations to protect life and property should be rushed to completion.

A tropical storm warning means that tropical storm conditions are expected somewhere within the warning area within 36 hours.

A tropical storm watch means that tropical storm conditions are possible within the watch area, generally within 48 hours.

For storm information specific to your area in the United States, including possible inland watches and warnings, please monitor products issued by your local National Weather Service forecast office. For storm information specific to your area outside of the United States, please monitor products issued by your national meteorological service.

Key messages for Isaias can be found in the tropical cyclone discussion under awips header miatcdat4, wmo header wtnt44 kNHC, and on the web atwww.hurricanes.gov/text/MIATCDAT4.shtml.

Storm surge: a dangerous storm surge will raise water levels by as much as 3 to 5 feet above normal tide levels in areas of onshore winds in the central and northwestern Bahamas. Storm surge will raise water level by as much as 1 to 3 ft above normal tide levels in the southeastern Bahamas.

Wind: tropical storm conditions will continue to spread across portions of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, the southeastern Bahamas and Turks and Caicos tonight and early Friday. Hurricane conditions are expected to begin in the central Bahamas Friday morning and spread into the northwestern Bahamas beginning late Friday. Hurricane conditions are expected within portions of the the northwestern Bahamas Friday night and Saturday.

Tropical storm conditions are possible in the watch area in Florida beginning Saturday.

Rainfall: Isaias is expected to produce the following rain accumulations through Friday night:

Dominican Republic and northern haiti: 4 to 8 inches, with isolated maximum totals of 12 inches.

Bahamas, Turks and caicos: 4 to 8 inches.

Cuba: 1 to 2 inches, with isolated maximum totals of 4 inches.

These rainfall amounts will lead to life-threatening flash flooding and mudslides, as well as river flooding. Urban and small stream flooding is expected for the U.S. Virgin Islands and Hispaniola.

From Friday night through monday:

South Florida into east-central florida: 2 to 4 inches, with isolated maximum totals of 6 inches.

These rainfall amounts could result in isolated flash and urban flooding, especially in low-lying and poorly drained areas.

Surf: swells generated by Isaias are affecting portions of Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the southeastern Bahamas. These swells will spread along the coast of Cuba and into the central and northwestern Bahamas later today and across the east coast of Florida on Saturday. These swells are likely to cause life-threatening surf and rip current conditions. Please consult products from your local weather office.

Read more:

Hurricane Warning Issued For The Central And Southeastern Bahamas - WSLS 10

Seychelles Is Welcoming Commercial Flights In August, And Here’s What You Need To Know – TheTravel

While Seychelle's tourism industry is finally opening the welcome gates again, there are some things travelers need to become approved beforehand.

Seychelles has always been a popular tourist destination and not that travel restrictions are slowly beginning to lift, vacations are back in question. While many have postponed or canceled their travel plans in lieu of local weekends away, hometown beach trips, or even virtual "travel" options, Seychelles is finally offering commercial flights once again.

By August 2020, it's the hope of the flight industry that the guidelines in place will be enough to maintain adequate safety and ensure the protection of all passengers and crew. Thailand has begun offering "Fantasy Flights" as a means to prepare travelers for the reopening of commercial travel, and thus far, they remain the only country to prepare travelers in such a hands-on way. So what do travelers need to know before looking up flights to Seychelles?

Flights to Seychelles are only flying from approved countries which can be found on the tourism documents that detail new flying procedures. For approved countries, the guidelines become even more specific, requiring legal documents and proof of things such as testing and social distancing. While it is extensive, all measures are in place to reassure travelers and ensure the safety of employees, since the alternative is to not allow commercial travel at all. These approved countries along with other guidelines can be found on the Seychelles tourism website.

Other guidelines are in place from weeks prior to flights all the way up to accommodations upon landing in Seychelles. The tourism industry is taking no chances and every detail must be filled in in order for travelers to be approved. For starters, proof of a negative COVID-19 test prior to flying is absolutely necessary. Even more specific, those who are coming from countries that are at a medium threat level are required to have a PCR test and return results with 72 hours of their flight. Travelers coming from a country that is low risk are required to submit an antigen test no more than 72 hours prior to travel.

Related:Marriott Is Now Requiring Guests To Wear Masks, And Here Are Some Other Ways To Practice Hotel Safety

Travelers who show any signs or symptoms of being sick, such as a cough or fever, are not permitted to board the plane and the crew has the right to deny passage to high-risk travelers. If a passenger manages to get on the flight without any of this proof of well-being, they will immediately be sent back to their home airport ASAP after landing. Passengers who do not follow guidelines will not be permitted entry into Seychelles.

One in Seychelles, further screening will be conducted - including temperature readings, symptom check, and some passengers might even be prompted to have a rapid antigen test. Passengers are also heavily encouraged to acquire travel insurance as well.

Related:Sweden's Oddbird Winery Wins At Social Distance Dining

It's highly encouraged for travelers to book their stay - including all accommodations and activities - through services that have been approved by the Public Health Authority. Passengers without proof of their accommodations, includingbooking vouchers, will not be permitted to stay in Seychelles. The tourism industry will also have Health and Safety officers assigned to hotels and resorts in order to observe travelers for a full two weeks after a guest's check-in. By doing this, Health and Safety officials will be able to keep an active and accurate log of every traveler who enters the country.

Next:Is Dining Out Actually Safe? Helpful Tips For The New Restaurant Experience

Beautiful Under The Radar State Parks To Explore In The US

Originally from New York, Katie is used to a fast-paced lifestyle. She got her personal start with writing in the second grade, and carried that passion with her until she won a spot in her high school's published poetry book - but not before becoming the News Editor and columnist for the high school newspaper. In college, she majored in English Literature with an emphasis in Political Science, soaking up most creativity and method from one of the last professors to study under famed beat poet Allen Ginsberg. The more she wrote, the more she learned about the world and, more importantly, herself. She has been writing professionally and has been published since the age of 19, and for nearly a decade has covered topics in entertainment, lifestyle, music news, video game reviews, food culture, and now has the privilege of writing and editing for TheTravel. Katie has a firm belief that every word penned is a journey into yourself and your own thoughts, and through understanding this, people can begin to understand each other. Through her voice, she brings personality, research, and a bit of friendly sarcasm to every piece she writes and edits.

See the original post here:

Seychelles Is Welcoming Commercial Flights In August, And Here's What You Need To Know - TheTravel

Covid-19 Hits Spanish Fishing Fleet in the Seychelles – Euro Weekly News

SPAINS fishing fleets dont just operate in the Mediterranean as there are a number of vessels all over the world, including Seychelles, where they search for big catches of tuna.

One company uses West African crew but at the latest change over, 97 out of 207 new crew were tested positive for Covid-19 and their vessels were impounded and used to quarantine the active cases.

This has resulted in lower catches and increased medical, travel and transport costs according to a company spokesperson.

Married to Ophelia in Gibraltar in 1978, John has spent much of his life travelling on security print and minting business and visited every continent except Antarctica.

Having retired several years ago, the couple moved to their house in Estepona and John became a regular news writer for the EWN Media Group taking particular interest in Finance, Gibraltar and Costa del Sol Social Scene.

Share your story with us by emailing newsdesk@euroweeklynews.com, by calling +34 951 38 61 61 or by messaging our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/EuroWeeklyNews

Here is the original post:

Covid-19 Hits Spanish Fishing Fleet in the Seychelles - Euro Weekly News

Preparing for Tisha B’Av During a World Pandemic – A 25-hour period of fasting and reflection begins on Wednesday night, July 29 – Chabad.org

Every year, Jews around the world don non-leather shoes, and make their way to synagogues and Chabad centers for evening services, followed by the mournful reading of Eichah (the book of Lamentations), the slim volume in which the prophet Jeremiah mourns the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple. This year, as the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread throughout the world, many will be attending services wearing masks with social-distancing measures in placea stark reminder of the unprecedented reality the world is now facing. And many others will be observing the day at home, reading the prayers in English or Hebrew, some with the help of audio recordings.

Tisha BAv (the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av) commemorates, among other things, the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, and the subsequent dispersion of the Jewish people throughout the world. It is observed this year as the sun sets on Wednesday, July 29, and ends the following night. The day of mourning includes a 25-hour fast that lasts throughout the night and day.

While most Jews will fast as usual, those with specific health concerns, including vulnerabilities due to COVID-19, are advised to consult a rabbi and a medical professional before deciding how to proceed.

Unique among the days observances is the ban on most Torah study since the commands of Gd ... gladden the heart. To that end, many watch educational or inspirational films that focus on the struggles and triumphs of the Jewish people throughout the last 2,000 years of exile (often Holocaust-related). Others will attend online classes and study sessions on the sad parts of the Torah that may be studied, including Eichah, andportions of the Talmud and Midrash that tell of the destruction of Jerusalem and the hardships of exile.

In addition to the dim lighting in many synagogues, the atmosphere everywhere is further darkened by the fact that many people sit on upturned benches or crates since mourners are not to sit upright on chairs of ordinary height.

But within the despondency lies a kernel of joy. The Talmud teaches that the long-awaited messiah was born on the Ninth of Av. In the afternoon, when the mourning restrictions are somewhat lifted, many follow the custom of sweeping the floors in anticipation of his imminent arrival.

Once night falls, the mourners will recite evening prayers, wash their hands and troop outside to joyously say the Kiddush Levanah, recognizing the regrowth of the moon, traditionally seen as a symbol of the Jewish people.

And before the week is out, the full moon will figure prominently in the celebration of the 15th of Av (Tu BAv). Among many other causes for celebration, this minor holiday (described in the Talmud as one of the happiest of the year) marks a complete rebound from the sadness of Tisha BAv.

For Tisha BAv services and programs near you, visit the Chabad center locator page here.

Articles and videos on Chabad.org for study before and on the day of Tisha BAv can be found here.

The rest is here:

Preparing for Tisha B'Av During a World Pandemic - A 25-hour period of fasting and reflection begins on Wednesday night, July 29 - Chabad.org

The indomitable spirit of the Jewish people – The story of Yavne – The Jerusalem Post

Do all roads lead to Yavne?Among the most well-known Talmudic stories is the tale of R. Yohanan ben Zakkais daring escape from Jerusalem at the height of the siege by the Romans in 70 CE, found in the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56a-b. According to that account, R. Yohanan had himself smuggled out of the city in a coffin so that he could negotiate with Vespasian, the commander of the Roman forces and soon to be declared Emperor. He requested that the emperor give him Yavne and its sages. In doing so, R. Yohanan b. Zakkai ensured the spiritual continuity of the Jewish people despite the impending destruction of the Temple and the eternal capital. Yavne would become the center of the nascent rabbinic movement which was responsible for the reestablishment of Judaism in the post-Destruction world.Though this story is most closely associated with the fast of Tisha BeAv, the saddest day in the Jewish calendar, marking the destruction of the First and Second Temples, its enduring appeal no doubt lies in its profound optimism. It is a story of the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people. Even after suffering a devastating defeat and the loss of their spiritual center, the rabbis immediately rebuilt, ensuring the continuity of Judaism. The rabbis of Yavne would teach that through the continued study and practice of Torah, the people could maintain their relationship with God and continue their historic mission in the world, even in the absence of the Temple.But there is another, less well-known version of R. Yohahan ben Zakkais escape that lacks this message of hope. Lamentations Rabbah, a midrash compiled in the Land of Israel probably about 100 years before the editing of the Babylonian Talmud, tells a much darker tale. This version makes no mention of Yavne. After repeatedly failing to save the city from destruction, all that R. Yohanan ben Zakkai requests is that prior to his final assault, Vespasian leave the western gate [of Jerusalem] which goes out to Lod open until the third hour, so that those who wish can escape and avoid being killed. This story offers no vision for life in the post-Destruction era. It does not look forward to the ultimate triumph of the rabbis in maintaining the continuity of Jewish tradition. It focuses on the bare physical survival of remnant of the Jewish people. This story reminds us that through much of Jewish history, heroism was defined simply by the will to live until the next day. Gods promise to Israel was manifest by the simple fact that some Jews were not killed. Most of the time, we prefer to dwell on the more optimistic vision of the Babylonian Talmud. But perhaps on Tisha Beav, it is the starker focus of the midrash which is most appropriate.The writer is a senior lecturer in Bar-Ilan Universitys Berman Department of Literature of the Jewish People. This article is based on his recent piece The Road to Lydda A Survivors Story: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkais Flight from Jerusalem According to Eicha Rabba 1:5 that appeared in Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 31 (2020) 27-64.

Read more:

The indomitable spirit of the Jewish people - The story of Yavne - The Jerusalem Post

One for Israel exposes abusive teachings of rabbis, explains that Jesus loves and esteems women [videos] – Patheos

One For Israel, an evangelical Christian organization promoting the gospel to Jews and Muslims in Israel, has exposed Rabbinical teachings that oppose scripture and put women in darkness and shame. The groups hope by exposing the abusive teachings of some rabbis is to shine the light of truth to show that Yeshua loves and esteems women.

While the Bible presents women as heroes, the oral Torah (Talmud) invented by the rabbis, often presents women in a completely different way, One for Israel argues.

In the groups series that answers Rabbinic objections, one video made national headlines and caused a firestorm in Israel, which resulted in one religious lawmaker resigning from the Knesset.

Some of the language the rabbis use is offensive and is NSFW. Some of the quotes the group exposes in the video are:

often rude, nauseating and humiliating and some even encourage violence against women! THANK GOD not all Rabbis are like this! And thankfully not all rabbis take the oral law seriously. Also its true that in some sections of the Talmud you can even find a few positive statements about the women but here we would like to present the overwhelming weight and the heart of the rabbinic theory regarding the status of women and the exclusion of women.

Some of the quotes from Rabbis and the Talmud are explicit and disturbing, and the episode below is not intended for children.

The group published statements of rabbis who spit on women, push them to the back of the bus, and make the following claims:

Rabbi Maimonides position on men having sex with baby girls is not that different from Irans former supreme leader, Ayatollah RuhollahKhomeini: Its considered less despicable if the girl is under three-years-old.

A three year old plus one day is sanctified for intercourse (in marriage) because the girls body heals. Intercourse with a girl younger than three isnt considered intercourse, according to Rabbi Avrahim Stavi. If she is younger than three, both are exempt from punishment for intercourse did not occur, according to the Talmud.

When accused of lying about these quotes, the group posted videos of the rabbis making the statements. The rabbis claims are described and translated into English:

Heres an explanation of what happened, and more information about the organization:

View original post here:

One for Israel exposes abusive teachings of rabbis, explains that Jesus loves and esteems women [videos] - Patheos

Redeeming Relevance: When Moshe Threw a Book Across the Classroom – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Asher Schwartz

At the end of Moshes introductory oration in Devarim, something very strange happens. He performs the commandment of designating the three cities of refuge for manslaughterers on the eastern side of the Jordan.

This is strange for a number of reasons. First in spite of the truly nice teaching of doing something good even if you cant finish it the designation of these cities was only tentative, until the other three could be designated on the western side. Secondly, why now? Moshe received the commandment before he started his speech and presumably even before his discussion with Menashes tribal leaders about inheritance at the end of the Book of Bemidbar. If he was really so eager to grab up the commandment as soon as possible, why did he wait until now? Moreover, by giving such an honor to the eastern side of the Jordan which was not on par with the land God had chosen to give the Jews was he not perpetrating a slight to the full-fledged Land of Israel?

Using my experience as a teacher and lecturer, I have a suggestion as to what happened: Though I generally have a good rapport with my listeners, there have been a few times that even though I was saying something of extreme importance, my listeners did not seem overly impressed. At such times, I have to admit the temptation to throw a book across the room, to shake the group out of its stupor. Perhaps this is essentially what happened to Moshe here.

Let me explain. Most of Devarim is Moshes series of parting lectures to the Jewish people. Two things about them are clearly felt the first is that they are long, often abstract and sometimes even appear repetitive; and the second is that Moshe accordingly uses diverse tactics to keep the Jews listening. But in this case, it was not enough to just tell a story or give an illustration. Apparently, the situation required something more drastic like throwing a book across the room! Not out of anger, but because he felt he had to do something to get the Jews to truly focus on what he was saying.

You may wonder what is so dramatic about Moshes act here. While it may not be immediately obvious to us, I think it was obvious to Moshes listeners just as it would be to the rabbis many hundreds of years later: I believe that the Jews of the time all understood what is pointed out in the Talmud (Makkot 9b-10a), that since the three cities Moshe separated were to serve about 20 percent of the tribes, they were completely out of proportion (as the other 80 percent would also only have three such cities). The Talmud explains that this is because violence was much more common on the eastern side of the Jordan.

Of course, the Talmuds rabbis could look at the historical record to make its observation, whereas the Jews in front of Moshe could only surmise that this would be the case. But it was an easy surmise aimed at a target with which Moshe apparently had some unfinished business. When the tribes of Reuven and Gad had requested to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan, Moshe goes into one of his most powerful rebukes. And even when they give him all sorts of assurances that they would help the other tribes conquer the original Land of Israel, Moshe expresses continued doubts.

As the rabbis also point out, Moshes concerns about these tribes were borne out. While they did help in the conquest, their relatively lackluster moral behavior after that gave them the dubious honor of being the first tribes sent into exile. Moshe foresaw this, because he knew that it could only have been a tepid level of commitment to God and His Torah that could have brought so great a concern about their property as to seek out better land for their livestock. If they may have been too far gone on such a trajectory, it did not stop Moshe from holding them up as an example of what would happen to the rest of the Jews if they did not start paying more attention. That is to say, listen or end up like these two tribes which Moshe had already compared to the nefarious spies. Right now!

When Moshe was giving his speech, we do not read how the Jews responded. Still, here was an old leader making a long speech to a new generation impatient to get to the other side of the Jordan. In other words, the deck was stacked against him. And yet Moshe had some pretty important things to say, the bottom line of which was, Dont be tepid about the Torah!

If the class is falling asleep, the teacher needs to take drastic action. When Moshe divided the cities, that is apparently exactly what he did.

And dont forget to listen to my related podcast, Janis Joplin, Bari Weiss and Moshe Rabbenu?

Originally posted here:

Redeeming Relevance: When Moshe Threw a Book Across the Classroom - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Muppets, murderers and a new ‘Star Trek’ are among 10 things to watch on TV – Salt Lake Tribune

From Muppets to murderers, sharks to catfish, a new Star Trek to a new-to-America comedy game show, there are a number of things headed to a TV near you in the next couple of weeks.

Here are 10 things worth checking out:

Helter Skelter: An American Myth (premieres Sunday, July 26, at 11 p.m.on Epix) Its been almost three years since Charles Manson died at the age of 83 and 51 years since his followers murdered nine people but the fascination with the man and his crimes continues. This six-episode docu-series tells the story of Mansons life and the murders, and features interviews with former members of the so-called Manson family.

Epix promises that it will will upend what people think they know about Manson and the murders, and cast an entirely new light on this crime of the century. Thats not altogether true. If youve read any of the books or seen any of the umpteen TV productions (both documentaries and dramas) about Manson, this will all be familiar.

If you dont know a lot about the man, his followers and their crimes and plenty of Americans werent born when actress Sharon Tate and eight others were killed Helter Skelter: An American Myth is more than enough to fill you in.

The title isnt great, however. Yes, Manson has been mythologized over the years. But his crimes were real they werent a myth.

Wynonna Earp (returns Sunday, 11 p.m., Syfy) This weird Western/horror/supernatural series and cult favorite in which the great-great-granddaughter of Wyatt Earp fights reincarnated bad guys returns for its fourth season sort of. The series was in production when the coronavirus pandemic broke out, forcing an end to filming. And that came after a long delay as the result of financial trouble at the production company. (The last new episode aired 22 months ago.)

Apparently, half of 12 planned episodes were completed; the rest will air maybe next year sometime?

Maxxx (starts streaming Wednesday on Hulu) This import from the U.K. stars O. T. Fagbenle (The Handmaids Tale) as a former member of a boy band trying to launch a solo career a number of years after falling into obscurity.

Maxxx is a thoroughly terrible person a foul-mouthed narcissist with no redeeming qualities and the laughs come at his expense. Along with a lot of cringing. It is, in a way, reminiscent of Absolutely Fabulous.

Christopher Meloni who will return to his SVU role as Elliott Stabler in the spinoff Law & Order: Organized Crime plays Maxxxs manager.

In My Skin (starts streaming Thursday, July 30, on Hulu) It took a while, but this acclaimed 2018 British drama has finally made it to America. Its a coming-of-age story centering on a Welsh teenager, 16-year-old Bethan (Gabrielle Creevy), whos trying to navigate life and keep her troubled home life her mother is bipolar hidden from her classmates.

Its not exactly a happy story, but it will definitely tug at your heart.

In My Skin won the 2019 BAFTA (the British Oscar/Emmy) as best drama, and Creevy won as best actress.

Muppets Now (starts streaming Friday, July 31, on Disney+) This new six-episode series is, believe or not, unscripted. Well, dont believe that. Its clearly scripted, albeit with, perhaps, some improvisation from time to time.

It casts the Muppets in several genres, some of which recur from episode to episode. The first installment features Lifesty with Miss Piggy. (Get it?) Theres a profile of Kermit the Frog in Muppet Masters. (Turns out hes a photobomber.) The Swedish Chef stars in a you guessed it! cooking show titled Okey Dokey Kookin. (And wait till you see him face off with Danny Trejo in Episode 2.) And in Mup Close and Personal, Kermit interviews RuPaul. (That goes off the rails when Gonzo, Miss Piggy and others join in.)

Episode 2 introduces viewers to Pepes Unbelievable Game Show headlined by Pepe the King Prawn. (Its insane.) And Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker host Muppet Labs Field Test. (Also insane.)

Reviews of Muppets Now are embargoed until July 27, but I dont think Disney will mind if I tell you that I was amused and I occasionally laughed out loud.

Taskmaster (debuts Sunday, Aug. 2, at 8 p.m. on The CW/Ch. 30) This totally bizarre, utterly hilarious British series is new to America, but its been airing in the U.K. since 2015. And its sort of hard to describe.

A group of British comedians perform a series of strange tasks assigned by Greg Davies (the Taskmaster) and administered by his assistant, Alex Horne. The first episode involves powerful smells, a search for a baby monitor, homemade ventriloquist dummies, sneaking up on Horne, and peeling a banana with your feet. And its way funnier than that sounds.

Davies assigns points for various tasks, and theres a winner in each episode but that doesnt really matter. Its all about the comedy.

The CW bought the rights to Seasons 8 and 9, a total of 20 episodes. Once you tune in and get addicted, heres a bonus the first 52 episodes are available on YouTube.

Elizabeth Smart: Finding Justice (Sunday, Aug. 2, at 8 p.m. on Lifetime) In this hourlong special, Smart interviews Candra Torres who, as a teenage bride in the 1970s, was kidnapped and brainwashed by the man who murdered her husband. She was a victim of Stockholm syndrome when few people had even heard that term.

Smart who was also kidnapped as a teenager does a great job in the interview, relating to Torres in a way that not much of anybody else could.

The hourlong Finding Justice airs after the premiere of the TV movie A Murder to Remember (6 p.m., Lifetime), which is based on Ann Rules recounting of Torres story in her book Empty Promises.

Star Trek: Lower Decks (starts streaming Thursday, Aug. 6, on CBS All Access) The second animated Trek series is a lot different from the first. Not only is TV animation light years beyond what it was in 1974, but this is a comedy about junior officers on the U.S.S. Cerritos, one of the least important vessels in Starfleet.

Its coming to us from executive producer Mike McMahan, who was a writer/producer on Rick and Morty.

I can make one prediction with 100% confidence: A good-sized contingent of Trekkers are going to hate Lower Decks, because they dont have a sense of humor about the franchise.

Is it actually funny? I have no comment yet reviews are embargoed until Aug. 6, the day the show premieres.

Catfish: The TV Show (returns Wednesday, Aug. 5, at 9 p.m. on MTV) This addictive reality show features investigations into online relationships that may be what they seem but mostly are not, because one person is catfishing the other. In other words, pretending to be someone he/she is not.

Its amazing that, after 146 episodes, there are still so many catfish out there. And Season 9 will be different from all that have gone before, because hosts Nev Schulman and Kamie Crawford will be doing all their investigating and confronting of catfish virtually, what with the pandemic.

If it seems crazy that the catfish would agree to go online and be identified, remember that theyve been doing it in person since 2012.

Shark Week (Sunday, Aug. 9 through Sunday, Aug. 16, Discovery) This has been an annual event since 1988, featuring a mix of science, entertainment and lets be honest here dopey, dubious fun. The full schedule isnt out yet, but we do know that this years lineup will include Tyson vs. Jaws: Rumble on the Beach.

Yes, were being told that former boxing champion Mike Tyson will try to score a TKO over the massive shark when the two heavyweights square off underwater. And were assured that no sharks were harmed (or bitten) in the making of this episode.

Is Tyson really going to box a massive shark? I doubt it. There will be some kind of a twist. There always is.

Will it be fun? It just might be.

Read more:

Muppets, murderers and a new 'Star Trek' are among 10 things to watch on TV - Salt Lake Tribune

OPINION: PCB Council did the right thing – The News Herald

As I read the Friday, July 24, 2020 headline, "PC Beach Passes Mask Mandate," I was momentarily heartened that finally, the light of science was burning through the dark clouds of preconceived notions of the anti-mask crowd with their Luddite world outlook and faux-freedom rhetoric. At least until I got to Councilman Geoff McConnell's bizarre deconstruction of his vote FOR the temporary mandatory mask ordinance.

McConnell's "deep reservations on the enforcement" side of the mask ordinance, which simply calls for the wearing of a facemask inside all business within the PCB city limits, is rife with political connotations of a politician attempting to appease all sides and failing to do so, excuse himself from what is the correct decision by couching his assent in the vanilla fish wrap of the anti-masking crowd.

Is this McConnell related to Moscow Mitch McConnell? Talk about the character of one's convictions! McConnell's, Geoff McConnell's, that is, comments show part of the deconstruction that has occurred in this country among public officials whose "grave doubts" for voting on controversial proposals seemingly does not extend beyond their own thoughts of Panhandle political correctness.

Why not be satisfied that the Council did the right thing to assist in preventing a further spiraling out of control of a virus already rampant in our State because of the very reticence of public officials, yes that is spelled DeSantis, to do the right thing and heed the advice of the public health officials?

Is there no end to the political grave-robbing of those that wish to highlight their vote by weaseling "Yes, but..."?

It's time for public officials to stop the side commentary in an attempt to appease a segment of the electorate that might get their noses out of joint next election, that is if they survive until then.

They should stand on their conviction that they have voted with the best evidence at hand and work to mitigate the inconveniences caused by having to tell people to do something that costs them nothing and gets the economy back on a more normal footing and saves lives, rather than publicly second-guessing your vote for political expediency.

You ran for office because you wanted to lead. So do so, with conviction.

Gordon Gral, Panama City Beach

Original post:

OPINION: PCB Council did the right thing - The News Herald

You are the company you keep – Jewish Community Voice

KIRK WISEMAYER

DR. HARVEY WOLBRANSKY

There have, of late, been disturbing statements made by high profile individuals on air and in social media that reflect not ignorance, as many claim, but pure, unadulterated bigotry and hate. We are, of course, referring to the anti- Semitic comments made by Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson and Viacom- CBS personality Nick Cannon.

Most of us have experienced anti- Semitism in some form, both veiled in political correctness and overt, which means we can never be surprised when people share views or invoke tropes that are anti-Semitic. It does not, however, mean we will ever be immune to them, or worse, that we should ever overlook them.

What is surprising, and what should trouble us all, is that it appears to be open season on publicly and unashamedly expressing anti-Semitic views. The comments made by Jackson and Cannon certainly reflect this trend, as does Mel Gibsons reference to Jews as oven dodgers and comments made by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. This trend signals a deeper, more problematic issue, one that compelled New York Times opinion writer and editor Bari Weiss to resign due to bullying in what she called a toxic environment, one in which coworkers felt safe calling her a Nazi. The more problematic issue that needs to be addressed is whether anti- Semitism is becoming socially acceptable, or worse, institutionalized. Do the hateful comments in every public forum stem from this trend?

Such statements are never acceptable, but it is virtually impossible to ensure this when high profile athletes, celebrities, politicians, and others utter them in the public arena. Worse still is the impact of empty apologies and flaccid responses. While both Jackson and Cannon have offered apologies (of sorts) to the Jewish community, neither has taken responsibility for their statements. Neither has demonstrated any willingness to examine their views or to question their wellspring. What good is an apology if you do not commit to seeking truth, if you do not commit to educating yourself, if you continue your association and support of hate groups and hate mongers such as the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan? Such apologies are no apology at all; they are lip service. It tells us that in their hearts they believe what they said, and that their only regret is the bad publicity being generated. No visit to Auschwitz will change such hearts.

More insulting than Jacksons comments are the toothless responses of the Eagles and NFL organizations. If there are no consequences and requirement for remediation attached to the statements issued by these organizations, and no elaboration as to how Jackson was penalized, then at best they are no more than pro-forma public relations statements. At their worst, they condone the beliefs expressed and held by Jackson. Ending their official statement with, We must continue to fight against anti- Semitism and all forms of discrimination, while not losing sight of the important battle against systemic racism, the Eagles organization is essentially telling their fans that anti- Semitism takes a back seat to racism.

In contrast, the response from Viacom-CBS was clear and strong. In their statement, they did not share having constructive conversations with Cannon, or that they were ready to take the next steps. They fired Cannon. In further contrast to the Eagles statement, Viacom-CBS concluded its statement by declaring they are committed to doing better in our response to incidents of anti- Semitism, racism, and bigotry.

Those who quote Hitler, who espouse conspiracy theories, who claim that Jews seek to oppress others, who invoke stereotypes of Jews, who deny the Holocaust, who claim Israel is committing genocide, or who claim that Jews are not a Semitic people are not ignorant of history and truth; they are anti-Semites. Those who are associated with and who support individuals such as Louis Farrakhan and organizations such as Nation of Islam are not misinformed; they are anti-Semites. Similarly, the corporations, employers, fans, media outlets, organizations, universities, voters, and others that condone or overlook anti- Semitism in any form and who fail to extinguish it are part of the problem. They are proof that you are the company you keep.s

See the rest here:

You are the company you keep - Jewish Community Voice

The Kids Are All Right Turns 10: The Untold History of the Queer Family Classic – Variety

Its been 10 years since The Kids Are All Right, a queer family dramedy that was the darling of that years Sundance Film Festival, charted an unlikely ride to the Oscars and helped shift popular opinion about gay marriage.

Written by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg, and directed by Cholodenko, the movie arrived as attitudes about gay rights were shifting dramatically. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore starred as a couple whose long marriage had grown stale, further strained by an emptying nest. As their eldest child prepares to leave for college, she hatches a plan with her teen brother to meet their biological father, an Echo Park-dwelling free spirit played by Mark Ruffalo. Tensions escalate as Moore and Ruffalo embark on a secret affair, the kids launch into full rebellion, and Bening unravels with boozy abandon.

While controversial in the LGBTQ community upon release for depicting a lesbian having an affair with a straight man, the movie has now been embraced universally, even by GLAAD. The project has earned lasting cinematic admiration as a portrait of queer people that does not exploit the communitys struggles, but elevates their averageness. Its also widely seen as a valentine to Los Angeles, given Cholodenkos flair for exposing the richness of a town known for palm trees and billion-dollar zip codes.

Variety has unearthed the untold history behind the film, which earned four Academy Award nominations including best picture. Ruffalo had fired his agents and was ready to retire from acting before the film revived his career. Jodie Foster (who wasnt out at the time) passed on the lead role that eventually went to Bening. Quentin Tarantino called the movies climax one of the scariest scenes hed ever seen on screen.

The cast and filmmakers reflect on the decade since we first saw The Kids Are All Right:

Cholodenko was living in Los Angeles in 2004, and had just finished shooting Laurel Canyon, a very different look at California families, starring Frances McDormand as a wild rock star and Christian Bale as her strait-laced son.

Choldenko: I was getting settled in a new place after living in New York for 10 years. My girlfriend said, Get your butt downstairs and start writing your own thing. Youre not going to keep taking jobs for hire. So she shoved me in the apartment downstairs and I started writing The Kids are All Right. I got to about page 20, and I could tell that it was a bit rarefied. I could tell that I was getting into something that I didnt want to get into. I wanted to take this subject and make it a comedy, and make it broader, and play with it in a way that I hadnt with the other stuff that I had done.

Bening and Moore in The Kids Are All RightSuzanne Tenner

Blumberg, the writer-director of Ruffalo and Gwyneth Paltrows Thanks For Sharing, saw his acquaintance Cholodenko at the 101 Cafe, the legendary diner at the base of L.A.s Beachwood Canyon.

Blumberg: Lisa told me that she and her then-partner were trying to have a kid with a sperm donor, and she was thinking that would be a cool idea for a movie. I said, Wow, thats weird. In college I was a sperm donor, and I always wondered if I have kids and what would happen if they tried to find me. Then the lightbulb just went off.

A lot of guys I knew donated sperm to pay for their spring breaks or to get money for pizza. Honestly, the way I rationalized it for myself was there are people out there who want kids and cant have kids. If they say my stuff is good, then why not me as opposed to somebody else? I did it my junior year of college. They tested me out, said I had good motility, and I donated. I dont know if I have kids. I might have zero, I might have 10.

Anyway, I told Lisa I always thought she was so amazing, and she should try to write something more commercial. She told me, Oh, fuck you! You should try to write something more independent. And then she asked if I wanted to start work dating, and it became this multi-year process.

Their script attracted interest from major studios like Disney and the indie kingpin Miramax, which was still under the control of Harvey and Bob Weinstein. But life was about to imitate art.

Cholodenko: I brought it to Nina Jacobson, who was running Disneys Buena Vista Group. She had just worked with Wes Anderson, so she seemed interesting. We had a nice conversation, but it wasnt for them. There was other interest, but it was not robust. The most interest, weirdly enough, was from Miramax. At the time, I was also trying to get pregnant, and it happened. I had to sit with that. I had a cast, which was different originally, and then the Weinsteins wanted to do this. I said, Time out. Im not ready.

Moore: I met Lisa at a Women in Film event, and I said, How come I never saw the script for [her first film] High Art? She told me, I think you were working. I said, I know I wasnt.

Then she sent me the Kids Are All Right out of the blue. I remember our initial conversations, it took a really long time to get set up. At the time, she said I could choose either part. I wanted to play Jules, because it was something I had never played before. We were finally ready to get going, and then Lisa got pregnant with her son.

Blumberg: We probably rewrote that script fully about eight to 10 times. We had independent financiers going, Why would I make this movie about two 50-something lesbians?

Cholodenko: I worried about that. Plus all of these A-list, very well respected actors were interested. I couldnt understand, when I was taking it around, and people said, Im not sure, and, Is it interesting enough? I was proud that we went to the mat to take the political correctness out of it.

The film landed financing for a tight 24-day shoot in 2009. Moores character Jules, a wispy organic Angeleno who drifted from career to career, would be partnered with Nic a doctor whose nightly wine intake eased the pressure of breadwinning. Their offspring were the academic golden child Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and her adolescent brother Laser (Josh Hutcherson, before The Hunger Games had made him a household name).

Bening: I had met Lisa socially, because we live in the same neighborhood. She asked me to do it. I think Julianne and I maybe had a couple of rehearsals over two days. One of the privileges, as an actor, is that you have an immediate intimacy with each other. Thats what were used to doing. Julianne is very experienced, and Ive made a few movies, and thats the job. The writing was very good, and everything starts and ends there. Lisas process is very straightforward, and shes very observant. Shes watching and listening, not interfering, and she knows where to put the camera. Mia and Josh were so good, and so ready, and real.

Josh Hutcherson: I didnt read the script before I went in. My audition for Laser happened three weeks before production started. It was very quick. Lisa is the shit, and so talented, and such a fantastic director and writer. There was a sense of truthfulness and honesty in the family dynamic. We had one day of rehearsal, we didnt even read the script, we just went to a park and hung out. We all gelled.

Mia Wasikowska: They were the best moms. It was one of those things where everyone was immediately warm, and that helps when youre a slightly awkward teenager like I was at the time. Playing Joni, she sort of mirrors what the family is going through itself. I remember, I was probably quite shy anyway, but I think people might have been a bit nervous about me yelling at Annette and Julianne in some of our scenes. I had quite a bit of anxiety about it, but it was fun to let loose at a couple of amazing actors I grew up watching.

The films third lead was Paul, the sperm donor, a role that had previously attached actors Ewan McGregor and Peter Skarsgaard in various stages of development. With weeks to go, Moore turned to her friend Sunrise Coigney, to see if her husband Ruffalo might be interested.

Ruffalo in The Kids Are All RightSuzanne Tenner

Ruffalo: I was ready to hang it up as an actor and look towards directing. I pretty much had disbanded my team, I didnt have an agent or manager anymore. The things that were getting me down was the business, and what the priorities were. I had good people, but I had lost my joy for it. Then this happened. I got nominated for an Oscar, and I started getting calls. It sort of rejuvenated my career and my feelings about acting. It was a different kind of role for me, and people started to see me in a different kind of way.

Cholodenko: The timing is such that I think it helped. He got an Oscar nomination, and that almost didnt happen. I didnt even work with him before day one. We had a hug, went into the trailer and looked at some leather jackets, and then he walked on the set. That was it.

Ruffalo: Filming this movie, I was very aware that it would be what I thought was my swan song. I came to it with this kind of openness and fearlessness that I hadnt felt since I was a young actor. Working with a gay director, in this particularly important moment, and having it be led by a story about a gay couple I knew that it would have the appeal that it ended up having. I fucking fooled everyone! You wouldnt have Bruce Banner without this queer Focus Features indie. I love that.

The script did not shy away from frank explorations of sexuality, both straight and queer. In one scene, Laser discovers that his mothers enjoy watching gay male porn.

Blumberg: We were at this deli called Victors near Beachwood Canyon, and we were talking and she threw that out. Because I am a white cisgender male, I can see things that she couldnt.

Cholodenko: We were younger, we would have these saucy conversations when we were writing, kind of picking into each others lives. I mentioned that a lot of gay women do that. He said we should put it in the film, and I was like, Theres no way Stuart. Im not putting that in here. It was too intimate, or something. He was like, Its funny. Who cares?

Ruffalo, who had broken out 10 years earlier with an acclaimed performance in the indie You Can Count On Me, had never been cast as a playboy let alone one of Pauls sexual prowess. Ruffalo shot his sex scenes with both Julianne Moore and Yaya DaCosta, the gorgeous Tanya, an employee at Pauls farm-to-table restaurant (shot in Cypress Park).

Yaya DaCosta and Ruffalo in The Kids Are All RightSuzanne Tenner

Ruffalo: Paul was so far from me. Honestly, it was at that time that my brother had passed away, and my brother had these easy vibes, an easy sexuality, a real sense of fun and joie de vivre. He also had alternative points of view, so a lot of that character was [my brother] Scotty.

My feeling was, maybe no one wants to see me do a sex scene anymore, and my wifes like, Youre right. I did have her OK it, and because she said its Julianne and I trust her, youre allowed to do this. My first day at work, first scene, was with Yaya DaCosta and I threw out my back.

Lisa says, Stand in the middle of the room naked. And I want to see your ass, and youre just out there doing it like two animals. So I told Yaya It was nice to meet her, and I apologized in advance.

DaCosta: Tanya was dope, and he was lucky to be hanging out with her! While it wasnt about her being Black, the choice in me to play that role definitely gave some information to the audience about what kind of a dude he was, you know? She was sort of a huge living adjective serving his character.

Among the films pivotal moments was a 12-page dinner scene, where Benings character discovers her wife is having an affair with their sperm donor. The realization comes with an other-worldy tracking shot around Benings face, which many argued landed her the Best Actress Oscar nomination.

Cholodenko: The end of that scene, it was the end of the night. We had to get that shot, and I remember my DP saying, Im going to put the camera on a slider and were going to over crank it so its slow motion. I certainly could relate to that feeling of learning something and being in shock, and having to handle it.

Blumberg: Shes in her own private hell. That was deliberate on the page and Lisa brought it home. I remember Lisa saying she talked to Quentin Tarantino about the film, and he said, Lisa, man, that was one of the scariest scenes Ive ever seen in movies.

Bening in The Kids Are All RightSuzanne Tenner

Bening: Lisa and Stuart somehow knew that the way the movie goes along you dont think about the camera, it never calls attention to itself. But she did that deliberately, because she doesnt do that in any other moment. She draws out and dramatizes that moment in a way that is like handing you a gift as an actor.

The finished film headed to Sundance in 2010 with a great deal of buzz. For Focus Features chairman Peter Kujawski, who at the time handled international sales, it was the only movie he cared to see.

Kujawski: It felt naturally like the kind of story we wanted to bring into the world. I drew the straw to see the other things that night, because the majority of international territories had been sold. I remember sitting in another movie, and I dont remember what it was, and I was texting the whole team when I knew they got out. My phone exploded, people absolutely loved it.

Wasikowska: I was so new to all of that, and I dont think I knew at the time how amazing that was. But it was a dreamy experience, the screening and the buzz afterwards. Lisa and her managers and a few people around the dinner table after the screening, they were already in negotiations to sell it and I didnt even know what they meant. Someone said, It got sold! and I said, Great! I didnt know it wasnt sold!

Hutcherson: We were in the Eccles Theater, and I hadnt seen it yet. Were sitting there and watching, and everyone was laughing a lot, and I was very confused. I had read the script and thought it was a family drama. And I thought, shit! This is a dark family comedy. That went right over my little naive head.

Focus landed the film for $4 million, and released it on July 30, 2010. This came two months after the Season 1 finale of Modern Family, and in the thick of preliminary hearings and national discourse about gay marriage. The producers and studio were shocked to see that many lesbians were offended by the film, particularly over the fact that Moores character slept with a man.

Cholodenko: The only people that really, I think, took umbrage with the film were lesbians, who were like, Oh, the trope. And shes with the man. And I was like, Im not having it. Im not saying anything about anything. Im just saying its all on the table and its all fine.

Moore: I can see why people took issue with a lesbian character having an affair with her sperm donor. On the other hand, I think that Jules character was someone described as being very fluid, sexually and personally. She was floating, in the sense of her entire identity as a woman, as a person, in her career.

There was also criticism, at the time, in the queer press about how Bening and Moore were both straight actors playing gay roles.

Moore: Ive thought about that a lot. Here we were, in this movie about a queer family, and all of the principal actors were straight. I look back and go, Ouch. Wow. I dont know that we would do that today, I dont know that we would be comfortable. We need to give real representation to people, but Im grateful for all of the experiences that Ive had as an actor because my job is to communicate a universality of experience to the world. The idea that, rather than othering people, were saying were all the same. Our humanity is shared.

Cholodenko: Super interesting argument. It really is. I tend to err on the side of, Its make believe, and its of the discretion of the director whos the most compelling for that job. So, I dont think its mutually exclusive. While I want to promote gay people representing gay people, trans people, all the rest, queer people its also a commercial prospect. Its all those things.

When I cast Julianne and Annette, I really felt like, on the continuum of gayness, I could feel their gayness. It didnt feel phony to me. I didnt feel like I was putting somebody in an outfit and asking them to parade as something that was false. There was a conversation about going out to Jodie Foster. I think somebody even asked her. So there was a gay person who wasnt interested in portraying a gay person.

Jodie Foster (over email):I honestly dont remember it being offered to me. I really like Lisa Cholodenko. Weve met socially a few times since the film came out. Funny she never mentioned this anecdote to me. FYI, I dont like it when journalists mention parts that were passed on by other actors. It diminishes the actors who DID play the role beautifully. I have NEVER commented on films that I passed on. I find it disrespectful to the artists by creating a gratuitous public competition. Im pretty sure all of my peers would agree. It has been an issue of discussion with some of the actresses I have worked with.

Foster, again, hours later: I was just looking at the dates for the Kids Are All Right release. I was prepping and then shooting The Beaver at the same time as they were doing their film. (our release got pushed into 2011 although was slated for Fall of 2010. We missed the Cannes lock picture date for that Spring of 2010 because the edit wasnt ready. Went onto do reshoots in the summer 2010. Remember?) I acted in and directed that film. I wasnt available in the time period of Kids Are All Right shoot.

Five years after The Kids Are All Right released, gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. The cast and filmmakers feel that legacy today.

Bening: One of the most incredible things that happened was, after the film came out, I was on a trip to Cuba with the Academy [of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences]. We were part of this international outreach committee, so we got to go to the major film festival there. Sadly in Cuba, theyre so forward thinking in many ways but in the revolution, one of the things they really got wrong was gay people, and they were very repressive to gay people. When I landed and walked through the airport, a young guy came up to me and grabbed my arm, and had seen the film. He said that he was able to show it to his family. He said that because they had all watched it together, it made a huge difference in their understanding and acceptance of him being gay.

Ruffalo: What made that movie so powerful is that it wasnt a polemic. It was people watching themselves their own relationships, whether they were straight or gay, thats why it had such a cultural impact. Folks saw these people are really no different than them.

Cholodenko: Recently, I was doing something at the American Film Institute, and a woman from somewhere in China, came up to me and said, I just want you to know that part of why I wanted to become a filmmaker, and actually something that really changed my life was getting a bootleg of Kids Are All Right. It was banned in China, and it changed everything in my life for me. I could see myself, finally.

And things like that, where youre just like, Fuck! That should be so easy to see. You forget that youre doing something that could really touch people, because they dont get to see themselves.

Read the original here:

The Kids Are All Right Turns 10: The Untold History of the Queer Family Classic - Variety

Everywhere and nowhere: The many layers of ‘cancel culture’ – Gloucester Daily Times

NEW YORK So you've probably read a lot about cancel culture. Or know about a new poll that shows a plurality of Americans disapproving of it. Or you may have heard about a letter in Harper's Magazine condemning censorship and intolerance.

But can you say exactly what cancel culture is? Some takes:

It seems like a buzzword that creates more confusion than clarity, says the author and journalist George Packer, who went on to call it a mechanism where a chorus of voices, amplified on social media, tries to silence a point of view that they find offensive by trying to damage or destroy the reputation of the person who has given offense.

I dont think its real. But there are reasonable people who believe in it, says the author, educator and sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom. From my perspective, accountability has always existed. But some people are being held accountable in ways that are new to them. We didnt talk about cancel culture when someone was charged with a crime and had to stay in jail because they couldnt afford the bail.

"'Cancel culture' tacitly attempts to disable the ability of a person with whom you disagree to ever again be taken seriously as a writer/editor/speaker/activist/intellectual, or in the extreme, to be hired or employed in their field of work," says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, the author, activist and founding editor of Ms. magazine.

It means different things to different people, says Ben Wizner, director of the ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In tweets, online letters, opinion pieces and books, conservatives, centrists and liberals continue to denounce what they call growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints and the needless ruining of lives and careers. A Politico/Morning Consult poll released last week shows 44% of Americans disapprove of it, 32% approve and the remaining 24% had no opinion or didn't know what it was.

Confusing debates

For some, cancel culture is the coming of the thought police. For others, it contains important chances to be heard that didn't exist before.

Recent examples of unpopular cancellations include the owner of a chain of food stores in Minneapolis whose business faced eviction and calls for boycotts because of racist social media posts by his then-teenage daughter, and a data analyst fired by the progressive firm Civis Analytics after he tweeted a study finding that nonviolent protests increase support for Democratic candidates and violent protests decrease it. Civis Analytics has denied he was fired for the tweet.

These incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose, Yascha Mounk wrote in The Atlantic last month. Mounk himself has been criticized for alleging that an astonishing number of academics and journalists proudly proclaim that it is time to abandon values like due process and free speech."

Debates can be circular and confusing, with those objecting to intolerance sometimes openly uncomfortable with those who don't share their views. A few weeks ago, more than 100 artists and thinkers endorsed a letter co-written by Packer and published by Harper's. It warned against a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity."

The letter drew signatories from many backgrounds and political points of view, ranging from the far-left Noam Chomsky to the conservative David Frum, and was a starting point for contradiction.

The writer and trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan, who signed the letter, quickly disowned it because she did not know who else" had attached their names. Although endorsers included Salman Rushdie, who in 1989 was forced into hiding over death threats from Iranian Islamic leaders because of his novel The Satanic Verses, numerous online critics dismissed the letter as a product of elitists who knew nothing about censorship.

One of the organizers of the letter, the writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, later announced on Twitter that he had thrown a guest out of his home over criticisms of letter-supporter Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist who recently quit over what she called a Twitter-driven culture of political correctness. Another endorser, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, threatened legal action against a British news site that suggested she was transphobic after referring to controversial tweets that she has written in recent months.

The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own," the author and feminist Jessica Valenti wrote in response to the Harper's letter. ('Cancel culture' ) is certainly not about free speech: After all, an arrested journalist is never referred to as canceled, nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment. Canceled is a label we all understand to mean a powerful person whos been held to account."

'Boomerrang effect'

Cancel culture is hard to define, in part because there is nothing confined about it no single cause, no single ideology, no single fate for those allegedly canceled.

Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, convicted sex offenders, are in prison. Former television personality Charlie Rose has been unemployable since allegations of sexual abuse and harassment were published in 2017-18. Oscar winner Kevin Spacey has made no films since he faced allegations of harassment and assault and saw his performance in All the Money in the World replaced by Christopher Plummer's.

Others are only partially canceled. Woody Allen, accused by daughter Dylan Farrow of molesting her when she was 7, was dropped by Amazon, his U.S. film distributor, but continues to release movies overseas. His memoir was canceled by Hachette Book Group, but soon acquired by Skyhorse Publishing, which also has a deal with the previously canceled Garrison Keillor. Sirius XM announced last week that the late Michael Jackson, who seemed to face posthumous cancellation after the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland presented extensive allegations that he sexually abused boys, would have a channel dedicated to his music.

Cancellation in one subculture can lead to elevation in others. Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has not played an NFL game since 2016 and has been condemned by President Donald Trump and many others on the right after he began kneeling during the national anthem to protest a country that oppresses black people and people of color." But he has appeared in Nike advertisements, been honored by the ACLU and Amnesty International and reached an agreement with the Walt Disney Co. for a series about his life.

You can say the NFL canceled Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback and that he was resurrected as a cultural hero, says Julius Bailey, an associate professor of philosophy at Wittenberg University who writes about Kaepernick in his book Racism, Hypocrisy and Bad Faith.

In politics, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, remains in his job 1 1/2 years after acknowledging he appeared in a racist yearbook picture while in college. Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, resigned after multiple women alleged he had sexually harassed them, but Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of Virginia defied orders to quit after two women accused him of sexual assault.

Sometimes even multiple allegations of sexual assault, countless racist remarks and the disparagement of wounded military veterans aren't enough to induce cancellation. Trump, a Republican, has labeled cancel culture far-left fascism and the very definition of totalitarianism while so far proving immune to it.

Politicians can ride this out because they were hired by the public. And if the public is willing to go along, then they can sometimes survive things perhaps they shouldn't survive, Packer says.

I think you can say that Trump's rhetoric has had a boomerang effect on the rest of our society, says PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, who addresses free expression in her book Dare to Speak, which comes out next week. People on the left feel that he can get away with anything, so they do all they can to contain it elsewhere.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continue reading here:

Everywhere and nowhere: The many layers of 'cancel culture' - Gloucester Daily Times

NASA Blasts Off Most Sophisticated Mars Mission in Human History

At exactly 7:50 am EDT this morning, NASA successfully launched its Perseverance rover mission to Mars from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Blast Off

At exactly 7:50 am EDT this morning, NASA successfully launched its Perseverance rover mission to Mars. The rover, with its Ingenuity Mars Helicopter in tow, blasted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket.

A small earthquake prior to launch luckily didn’t cause any delays, as CNN reports.

“This is the first time in history where we’re going to Mars with an explicit mission to find life on another world — ancient life on Mars,” noted NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine during a press briefing at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.

Red Rover

Perseverance, NASA’s fifth Mars rover, will spend the next seven months speeding hundreds of millions of miles toward Mars. Landing at the Jezero Crater, a suspected ancient dried up lake, is scheduled for February 18, 2021. The rover will then, if everything goes according to plan, deploy its experimental helicopter roughly two months later.

The launch follows two other successful launches intended to explore the Red Planet. China launched its Tianwen-1 rover mission last week. And the United Arab Emirates also launched a spacecraft to study Martian weather from orbit.

Science Squared

Perseverance is stuffed to the gills with scientific instruments, ranging from a device called MOXIE meant to test whether future visitors could produce oxygen from the Martian atmosphere, to SuperCam, a powerful laser capable of identifying organic compounds in rocks and soils.

The rover will also be the first robot to be able to “hear” its surroundings on the Red Planet thanks to a pair of microphones.

Additionally, Perseverance will collect rock samples and put them into a small glass tube — with the goal of another mission retrieving them at a later date.

READ MORE: NASA launches Mars rover to look for signs of ancient life [AP]

More on Perseverance: On Tomorrow’s Launch, NASA Is Sending Spacesuit Chunks to Mars

The post NASA Blasts Off Most Sophisticated Mars Mission in Human History appeared first on Futurism.

View post:
NASA Blasts Off Most Sophisticated Mars Mission in Human History