Magic: The Gathering Ends Relationship With Controversial Artist – We Got This Covered

Wizards of the Coast, best known as the company that publishes the popular fantasy-themed trading card gameMagic: The Gathering,recently announced it would be ending its longtime partnership with artist Terese Nielsen due to the latters affinity with the alt-right.

For reference,Magic: The Gatheringconsists of hundreds of thousands of cards, each of which is fitted with astounding artwork. The company typically does not produce this artwork in-house, but outsources it to a number of independent creators. Nielsen, who had been designing cards for Wizards since the early 1990s, was one of their earliest and most prolific freelancers.

For most of her employment, Nielsen was on good terms with the company. However, in 2018, fans began noticing the artist was following an alarming amount of conspiracy theorists on Twitter, nearly all of whom are affiliated with the alt-right. From white nationalists like Stefan Molyneux and Sandy Hook-deniers such as Alex Jones, Nielsen could be found in their lists of followers.

While the artist could have been following these accounts for strictly educational purposes not unlike how many non-Trump supporters follow the Presidents Twitter account she cemented her unfavorable political beliefs by retweeting a number of racist posts. As soon as the Magiccommunity became aware of her tastes, Nielsen began unfollowing many of the aforementioned accounts.

But her employer had already taken note. Had this controversy come to light a few years ago, Wizards of the Coast may have pardoned the artist and pretended nothing had happened. However, after receiving accusations of pervasive, ongoing racism on the work floor, the companys hands were metaphorically tied.

We havent commissioned new art from Terese Nielsen in quite a while, Doug Beyer, Principal Game Designer for Magic: the Gathering said. The last product that will have any reprint art from her is this Fall with Zendikar Rising.

See the article here:

Magic: The Gathering Ends Relationship With Controversial Artist - We Got This Covered

Wizards Ends Their Relationship with Terese Nielsen – Hipsters of the Coast

Thursday evening on Weekly MTG, Wizards of the Coast revealed that they have apparently ended their relationship with controversial artist Terese Nielsen.

We havent commissioned new art from Terese Nielsen in quite a while, said Doug Beyer, Principal Game Designer on the Worldbuilding team for Magic: the Gathering. The last product that will have any reprint art from her is this Fall with Zendikar Rising.

Beyers statement is Wizards of the Coasts first acknowledgement of the controversy surrounding Nielsen. It came on the same day that it was revealed that Nielsen will have at least three cards in Jumpstart, Magics newest supplemental product, with her art: Deaths Approach, Hunters Insight, and Rhystic Study. Many in the Magic community were upset that Wizards was continuing to use Nielsens work after the information that has surfaced throughout 2018 and 2019.

A sampling of alt-right, conspiracy-driven accounts that Nielsen followed on Twitter.

Nielsen, who lives in Carson City, NV with her wife, was one of Magics most popular artists and began illustrating cards in 1996s Alliances expansion set. But in 2018, people noticed that Nielsen had been following members of the alt-right and conspiracy theorists on Twitter. Those follows ranged from alt-right activists like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec, to InfoWarshome of conspiracy theorist and Sandy Hook denier Alex Jonesand the white nationalist Stefan Molyneux.

She was also found to have liked a number of racist tweets that spouted anti-Semitic theories and made memes about white power.

Some of the racist and conspiracy-laden tweets Nielsen liked on Twitter.

When all of that was brought to light, she unfollowed many of those accounts and unliked the offending tweets. However, the controversy would not die down, and it resurfaced a year later in April 2019, at which time she issued a long statement on Twitter.

Being excommunicated from a community and ostracized by family for following my convictions is not new to me, Nielsen wrote. The Magic community has blessed me and taught me in a myriad of ways in the past 25 yearsI embrace the fact that many different viewpoints can, do, and should co-exist. In these stressful times, it is my intent to navigate in harmony with my core values (beauty, compassion, love) to the best of my ability without any need or desire to stifle, censor or demean another for differently held viewpoints.

Many found her statement vague and underwhelming, especially because it didnt address her alleged trans-exclusionary beliefs. Nielsen later posted a second statement celebrating pride month, saying: Just so nothing I have expressed thus far can possibly be misunderstoodfor the record, I support human rights, trans rights, gay rights, as well as religious freedom and the sacredness of life in all forms.

Just a few months later, Nielsens work ended up on the racist, QAnon and conspiracy-focused YouTube channel Edge of Wonder. The show posted a video on July 12, 2019 in which the co-hosts present art prints that Nielsen had gifted them.

Nielsens gifted work is displayed on an episode of Edge of Wonder.

So, a painter sent us these, Rob Counts says in the video. Terese Nielsen. She sent us all of these paintings and theyre actually incredible.

And signed them! replies co-host Ben Chasteen.

Despite the building body of evidence that Nielsen held fringe views, Wizards didnt make any public statements about the situation while the community grew increasingly uneasy. When Nielsen was given another card in June 2019s Modern Horizons set, Echo of Eons, Wizards still hadnt given any indication that they aware of the communitys concerns.

Then, in November of that year, controversy bubbled over once again at Mythic Championship VI. Autumn Burchett, winner of Mythic Championship I the first non-binary player to win a major tournament, wrote NO TERFS ON GRUUL TURF! on their (very expensive) Guru Forest and Island that feature artwork by Nielsen. (TERF stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist and is often used to describe people who do not believe that trans women are women.) Burchett tweeted that Wizards asked them to remove those lands from their deck, causing an uproar in the Magic community as it appeared that Wizards was trying to stifle a very public criticism of Nielsen and her views.

Burchetts modified guru lands.

Nielsen proceeded to fade into the background as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the entire world. Attention turned the delay of Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths release and the cancellation of Magics entire 2020 in-person schedule, from MagicFests to the Players Tour and Mythic Invitationals. On Memorial Day, George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis, MN, generating waves of protest in the United States that dominated the headlines. The protests forced companies like Wizards to acknowledge how unwelcome many minorities felt in its game, resulting in the banning of seven cards for their racist depictions and an acknowledgement that [t]heres much more work to be done as we continue to make our games, communities, and company more inclusive.

A week later came the beginning of Jumpstarts preview seasonand the revelation that Nielsen would once again have cards with her art appear in a brand new Magic set.

We hear you, Beyer said Thursday. The implication of his wordsthat the last product that will have any reprint art from Nielsen will be in Zendikar Rising, combined with the fact that they havent commissioned any new art from [her] in quite a whileis that Wizards has stopped working with Nielsen and will cease printing cards with her art. When Hipsters reached out to Wizards for confirmation, they declined to comment any further.

Read the original post:

Wizards Ends Their Relationship with Terese Nielsen - Hipsters of the Coast

Philly residents call for Taney Street to be renamed – PhillyVoice.com

A petition has been launched by Philadelphia residents calling for the removal of former Supreme Court chief justice Roger Taneys name from the city street that bears his name.

The campaign, which has been organized by the community association Fitler Square Neighbors, states that the street should be changed to honor someone who has united the country rather than divided it, and who recognizes the contributions of all Americans.

Along with the petition, a rally was held at Markwand Parka part of Schuylkill River Park in Fitler Squareon Saturday to bring attention to the movement. The event was put on by Fitler Square Neighbors, as well as the Rename Taney campaign and the local community organization 5th Square.

The street was named after Taney in 1858. The southern portion of the street runs through Fitler Square, while the northern portion stretches from Fairmount to Brewerytown.

Taney has come under fire for writing the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Courts 1857 decision in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case, which held that African-Americans had no standing in court because they were not and could not be citizenseven if they were free.

There is just no reason for this divisive figure to continue to be celebrated in our city, the petition organizers wrote.

Baltimore and Annapolis, Maryland have removed statues of the former Supreme Court justice, according to the petition organizers.

The movement to take down Taneys name is the latest in a string of actions taken by city residents and officials to reassess statues, monuments, and murals honoring controversial figures across Philadelphia.

A statue paying tribute to former Philly Mayor Frank Rizzo outside of the Municipal Services Building in Center City was taken down earlier this month after it became a focus of the protests that have taken place in the wake of George Floyds death in May.

Additionally, a mural honoring the former mayor and police commissioner in the Italian Market of South Philly was painted over earlier this month too. The blank canvas that replaced the mural will soon be turned into new artwork.

Both the statue and mural have served as symbols of racism and police brutality for many residents. The late Rizzo has been scrutinized for his treatment of the city's black and gay communities during his time as mayor and police commissioner from 1967-1980.

Similar actions are being considered for the Christopher Columbus statue that sits at Marconi Plaza, as well as the Columbus Monument at Penns Landing.

The city ordered the South Philly statue be boarded up until its fate is determined, while the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation has covered the base of the monument at Spruce Street Harbor Park until a final decision is made.

Monuments honoring the Italian explorer have fallen under greater scrutiny in recent weeks.Some cities, including Camden, have removed them, viewing them as symbols of oppression committed against indigenous people. Supporters of the statues claim they are a historic marker and symbol of Italian heritage.

While these are symbolic actions, they strongly demonstrate that our city has the potential to evolve into one where everyone feels they are not only welcome but valued, the petition organizers wrote.

The petition calling for the removal of Taneys name can be viewed here.

Read the original post:

Philly residents call for Taney Street to be renamed - PhillyVoice.com

The Voice Of America Is Not The Voice Of Trump – The Pavlovic Today

On Monday, leadership at VOA changed almost entirely. The Senate confirmation of President Trumps appointed head of USAGM Michael Pack was followed by the resignation of two top executives, Director Amanda Bennett and Deputy Director Sandy Sugawara, both deemed experienced independent journalists.

In her farewell message, Bennett said, "Michael Pack swore before Congress to respect and honor the firewall that guarantees VOA's independence, which in turn plays the single most important role in the stunning trust our audiences around the world have in us."

Pack, a conservative filmmaker who previously ran the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is also an ally of alt-right icon Steve Bannon and under investigation for potentially channeling money from a nonprofit to his film production company. He has already fired four directors across the organizationa purge that does little to ease concerns about editorial meddling. These firings include: Bay Fang of Radio Free Asia; Jamie Fly of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Alberto M. Fernandez of Middle East Broadcasting Networks; Emilio Vazquez of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting; and Libby Liu of the Open Technology Fund.

Though those fired by Pack show no distinction along party linesFernandez and Fly were both Trump appointeesthe replacements of their bipartisan boards are now largely filled by Trump administration appointees. Packs decision has been criticized by congressional officials as an attempt to change the nonpartisan nature of the news outlet.

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement on Wednesday saying, The wholesale firing of the agencys network heads, and disbanding of corporate boards to install President Trumps political allies, is an egregious breach of this organizations history and mission from which it may never recover.

Brett Bruen, director of global engagement on President Barack Obamas National Security Council, said that VOA does notpresent a Republican or Democratic voice to the world, He added that VOA has always put forward an American, a credible voice.

Founded in 1942, VOA is the largest US international broadcaster, delivering news and information to an estimated weekly audience of 280 million people. Its name comes from President Franklin Roosevelts speechwriter and American playwright, Robert Sherwood, who in 1939 prophesied:

"We are living in an age when communication has achieved fabulous importance. There is a new decisive force in the human race, more powerful than all the tyrants. It is the force of massed thought--thought which has been provoked by words, strongly spoken."

The force of mass thought would be represented by VOA, whose charter also states they will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

VOA is not a device of the government; it is, in fact, created to be a tool to amplify and share American voices to people around the world. Key to the purpose of VOA is its firewall, which prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective and independent work the journalists do. The firewall protects VOAs ability to make final decisions on what stories to cover and how to cover it, even if it is government-owned.

VOA is part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media and is government-funded, but its core mission has always been to provide reliable and accuratethis also means unbiasednews.

The USAGM, previously called the Broadcasting Board of Governors, was founded to counter propaganda from countries with repressive regimes, offering its audience independent and reliable sources of news. It currently oversees VOA, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, ensuring that content on these platforms remain independent of political influence.

On the Voices of America website, there is a specific header for Press Freedom. The page monitors news of media repression in foreign countries and states that VOA is committed to press freedom around the world. Looking at this page after the events of the past week, one might suggest VOA start at its home base, the US.

In April, the VOA ran a story about the reopening of Wuhan, China, where the COVID-19 outbreak first emerged. After months of lockdown, the city reopened with a light show, which VOA documented and shared on social media.

This story was condemned by Trump and his social media director Dan Scavino Jr. The White House website ran an article under the headline Amid a Pandemic, Voice of America Spends Your Money to Promote Foreign Propaganda. Scavino chimed in, tweeting, American taxpayers paying for Chinas very own propaganda, via the U.S. government-funded Voice of America! DISGRACE!!

At a news briefing on April 15, Trump only had bad things to say about the broadcaster. "If you heard what's coming out of the Voice of America, it's disgusting. What things they say are disgusting toward our country," Trump said. "And Michael Pack would get in and do a great job."

VOA also received criticism for using widely watched and reputable data from Johns Hopkins University tracking COVID-19 cases and deaths around the world. The White House accused VOA of creating graphics with Communist government statistics to compare Chinas coronavirus death toll to Americas.

These attacks took the VOA executives by surprise. Rarely have they been called out by an administration in this fashion.

Im afraid I cant tell you what prompted it, said Bennett, then Director. I dont actually know. It just came out of the blue.

Though these attacks took Bennett by surprise, the Trump administration had been planning to make significant changes at VOA since 2018. Packs nomination to head the U.S. Agency for Global Media was stalled for two years.

It may be too early to tell what will come of Packs changes, but the direction he is taking VOA and USAGM may undermine their entire purpose. As head of USAGM, Pack is prohibited from interfering in VOA editorial processes. But as he has shown, he can dismiss and hire new members, those who can change the content and stories produced.

The voices of America might now be the voice of the American government. And this change will be noticed around the world.

In 1942, in its first broadcast, announcer William Harlan Hale said, We bring you Voices from America. Today, and daily from now on, we shall speak to you about America and the war. The news may be good for us. The news may be bad. But we shall tell you the truth.

The world was listening then as America fought Nazi Germany and a leaders grasp for tyrannical power; the world is listening now.

Read more:

The Voice Of America Is Not The Voice Of Trump - The Pavlovic Today

What to Cook Right Now – The New York Times

Good morning. I had a dream I was in Dan Tanas in Los Angeles and the place was packed. There was no coronavirus pandemic, just sweating martinis and jovial laughter, and I persuaded my guest, to order the shrimp parmigiana: best thing on the menu, exactly the sort of thing youd never make at home. The shrimp was delicious in my dream, but those words at home brought reality into my consciousness. Things went circular. I woke up in a sweat.

I miss complicated restaurant dishes, the ones a single cook works on for the whole shift: quick-frying the shrimp in batter, napping it in tomato sauce and mozz, running the dish under the salamander broiler so that it goes leopard-spotted at exactly the moment the shrimps perfectly cooked. You can make that 30 times an evening for a couple months and shrug: Its easy to make. Do it once at home, and youll see the lie in the sentiment. Its not.

So Ill wait for my shrimp parmigiana, my double consomm, my Peking duck. Well be able to eat those again, someday, I hope. In the meantime: Simplicity, ease, deliciousness squared.

Its neat. Setting yourself up for a lo-fi night of cooking oven-roasted chicken shawarma, say, with a side dish of charred shallots with labneh can actually hint at some of the joys we experienced in restaurants, when we could go to them. A vegan cheeseburger, courtesy of J. Kenji Lpez-Alt, could remind you of In-N-Out, back when you ate meat, back when you could sit in a booth at the shop on Sepulveda near LAX, first or final meal in Los Angeles. A Screaming Eagle cheesesteak sub might take you back to college dining halls, to how you could eat then, as if for two people or three. Steak au poivre from David Tanis? Is this now Raouls?

There are other recipes Id like to make real soon. Jerrelle Guys any-fruit drop biscuits (above), for instance. And Davids pasta with fresh tomato sauce and ricotta. Not to mention Melissa Clarks pasta with fried lemons and chile flakes. I could do those back to back!

(By the way, none of this is to say a cooking project cant be enjoyable right now. Angela Dimayugas beef empanadas prove that plain. So, too, Marcus Samuelssons quinoa with broccoli, cauliflower and toasted coconut, which is only laborious in the shopping. Try those, as well.)

Thousands and thousands more recipes to cook right now are waiting for you on NYT Cooking. Many more than usual are free to use even if you arent yet a subscriber to our site and apps. Please consider subscribing anyway, though. Your subscriptions support our work.

And please get in touch if anything gets squirrelly along the way, in your cooking or our technology. Were at cookingcare@nytimes.com. Someone will get back to you.

Now, its nothing to do with buttermilk or hand pies, and I wont bother you with the back story that led me to the site, but via The New York Public Library I came across this digitized collection of old New York magazines, dating back to the titles birth in 1968, another watershed difficult year for America. There is some really good browsing and reading to be had there.

Speaking of magazines, Essence turned 50 this year, and its editors have put together a marvelous hub that lets you explore its history through the lens of its covers and cover stars.

Finally, in case you missed it, heres A.O. Scott on Wallace Stegner, the first installment in a series hes writing for The Times on American writers, some well known, some forgotten, some overlooked. Its very good. Ill be back on Wednesday.

See the original post here:

What to Cook Right Now - The New York Times

Destroying the Statues of Slavers to Rewrite History – Morocco World News

The globalization of the anti-racist movement inspired the same symbolic and polemical gestures in the United States, England, Belgium, France. Statues and monuments are shot down or tagged, signs of a memory that remains conflictual and of a non-consensual historical narrative.

Anti-racism demonstrations have found an echo outside of the United States; in Europe and the West Indies, in particular, where the memory of slavery and colonization still resonates with todays discrimination. Among the images that circulate, one means of action strikes peoples minds: The unbolting of statues that embody this past.

In several countries, protests are rising against the representation in public spaces of former figures linked to slavery or colonizationin the United States with the Confederate monuments, in England with the statue of a slave merchant thrown into the water in Bristol, in Belgium with the removal of the bust of Leopold II, or in France with the toppling of Colbert and Victor Schoelcher statues.

America: The memory of slavery, pain, and racism

The US South is still very much marked with symbols of the Civil War (1861-1865), 155 years after the end of the conflict that claimed 600,000 livesmore than all American deaths in the First and Second World Wars. Across the Southern states that had left the union to form their own country and maintain slavery, there are still many monuments and statues paying tribute to figures of that era: Generals, political leaders Some schools even continue to bear their names.

The Confederate flag also remains a symbol for some to express pride in their Southern identity, with the pattern pasted on roadsides, as stickers on the back of cars, or even waving alongside the current state flags. By 2015, the Washington Post had counted seven states that continue to use this emblem on their official banners: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

But these symbols are now arousing ever more indignation, especially since they have become rallying signs for the racist extreme right.

Dylann Roof, the perpetrator of the attack on a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015, had taken a photo in front of this flag shortly before murdering nine worshippers.

In 2017, the Unite the Right demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia intended to denounce the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate armies during the Civil War. This rally brought together white supremacists, members of the alt-right and even neo-Nazis.

The weekend was marked by clashes and ended with the death of a counter-demonstrator killed by the battering ram car of a white supremacist.

In 2020, the issue is still sensitive and returns to the forefront with the death of George Floyd. Several statues have been taken down, vandalized, or dismantled in Virginia and Alabama, but the gesture that caught the most attention was the removal of a General Lee statue in Richmond, Virginia, the former capital of the Confederate States.

Democratic Virginia Governor Ralph Northam announced on June 4 the removal of the equestrian statue, welcoming the support of the generals descendants, the Reverend Robert W. Lee, who sees the statue as a symbol of oppression.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, also called for the removal of Confederate statues from Capitol Hill.

The statues which fill the halls of Congress should reflect our highest ideals as Americans. Today, I am once again calling for the removal from the U.S. Capitol of the 11 statues representing Confederate soldiers and officials. These statues pay homage to hate, not heritage, she wrote on Twitter.

Most of these monuments were indeed erected at the end of the 19th century when these American states were implementing a policy of racial segregation. For the governor of Virginia, they also helped to spread a falsified reading of history, according to which the Confederates had fought above all for the right of the states in the face of aggression from the North, a vision that denies or diminishes the importance of slavery in the entry into the war.

In 2020, we can no longer honor a system that was based on the buying and selling of human beings, explained Governor Northam.

The question today is how to build a memory of the South that is meaningful for its inhabitants, but also reconciliatory, around common symbols. Because the majority of black Americans live in the southern states, which were once slavery and segregationist, explains historian Francois Durpaire, a specialist on the United States and professor at the University of Cergy and co-founder of the Bonheururs laboratory.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an association that fights discrimination, 114 Confederate monuments have been removed since 2015 but the racial and political divide remains. The removals take place mainly in places where there are large Black populations with active associations and a majority of Democratic voters.

England: The memory of colonization and dehumanization

Other countries are not spared by this inventory of figures from the past. In England, the video of the unbolting of the statue of Edward Colston made the rounds of social networks on June 7.

This monument was erected in 1895 in Bristol in homage to the Member of Parliament and merchant who financed many of the citys institutionsbut it turned out that he owed his fortune to the slave trade.

The maintenance of this statue had been the subject of debate for years and its toppling was ultimately decided by a crowd of demonstrators. In a statement, Prime Minister Boris Johnson acknowledged that George Floyds death had aroused anger and an undeniable sense of injustice but condemned those who break the law, attack the police and vandalize public monuments.

While regretting the manner in which the statue was demolished, Labour opposition leader Keir Starmer said it should have been removed years ago . You cant have a statue of a slave trader in Britain in the 21st century. According to the mayor of Bristol, it should end up in a museum.

But other statues are in the sights of activists, such as Cecil Rhodes on the Oxford campus. The businessman, born in 1853, was the prime minister of the Cape Colony in South Africa, convinced of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxons, one of the great architects of British imperialism and colonialism.

Much more sensitive, the statue of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was also targeted in front of the Parliament in London with the inscription was a racist added to the base.

The memory of slavery in Europe and Martinique

In Belgium, the equestrian statue of King Leopold II was removed from a square in Antwerp on June 9 after it had been defaced. It is now stored in the reserves of a local museum, the city council announced. Leopold II was the second King of the Belgians from 1865 to 1909, promoter of Belgiums civilizing mission to the Congo, where he established a brutal regime based on forced labor.

Frances figures of Jules Ferry or Colbert were not spared. The former gave his name to countless streets and schools and is immortalized with several statues for having established secular, free, and compulsory education for all. But Jules Ferry was also a convinced supporter of colonialism, especially in Indochina.

As for Colbert, this minister of Louis XIV was the author of the code noir which legislated slavery in the French colonies. On June 6, demonstrators, belonging in particular to the Black African Defence League, called for his statue in front of the National Assembly to be unblocked.

In any case, the historical inventory of public places related to racism is not finished. In 2019, the city of Bordeaux which prospered like Nantes and other cities thanks to the slave trade decided to put up plaques mentioning the slave-owning past of people who gave their names to streets. On June 8, the association Memoire et Partages also wrote an open letter to the President of the Republic calling for further changes in Biarritz, La Rochelle, Le Havre, and Marseille.

However, in overseas French territories, Martinique has indeed long done a job of remembrance, in particular thanks to Aime Cesaire, deputy of the island from 1945 to 1993 and mayor of Fort-de-France from 1945 to 2001. He was a staunch anti-colonialist and he reflected that position in the Martinican public agenda.

A militant group decapitated the statue of Josephine de Beauharnais in the 1970s. She was the wife of Napoleon, who re-established slavery after his first abolition during the Revolution. She was Martiniquean and belonged to the clan of slave settlers. But Cesaire had the great intelligence to leave the headless statue and cover it with red paint, symbolizing the blood of slaves, to offer it as a narrative of the history of Martinique.

Reconciling a painful past with a hopeful future

The events we have seen in recent days are not new. Both ancient and recent history has often witnessed acts of vandalism and even destruction of memorial objects, generally for reasons of denial of their legitimacy by a section of the population. This is even more evident when these objects of a symbolic nature are placed in public view.

Faced with certain sensitive subjects such as slavery, the political authorities sometimes take the lead in rewriting history. As such, the city of Bordeaux has been encouraged to look into its slave past by installing explanatory plaques in certain streets bearing the names of slavers as well as a sculpture in the gardens of the city hall in order to pursue a work of remembrance.

In this way, historical facts, without intrinsically changing, are made and re-made according to the times, the issues at stake, and the evolution of consciousness. Since it is men who make history, sometimes under conditions that they themselves have chosen, we should read the sequence of real historical events against the yardstick of a reasonable ideal.

You can follow Professor Mohamed Chtatou on Twitter: @Ayurinu

See the original post here:

Destroying the Statues of Slavers to Rewrite History - Morocco World News

New Boss May Test Voice of Americas Credibility – The New York Times

In its evening newsletter then, the White House blasted the service under the headline Amid a Pandemic, Voice of America Spends Your Money to Promote Foreign Propaganda. The crime, as described by Dan Scavino, Mr. Trumps social media director, was positive reports on how China had handled its coronavirus outbreak. Mr. Trump promptly picked up the chorus. If you heard whats coming out of the Voice of America, its disgusting, he told a White House news briefing on April 15. What things they say are disgusting toward our country. And Michael Pack would get in and do a great job.

What evidently rankled the White House was a clip showing people celebrating the lifting of the lockdown in Wuhan, which accompanied a straightforward account by The Associated Press. V.O.A. officials were dumbfounded. It just came out of the blue, said Amanda Bennett, a Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran of Bloomberg News, The Wall Street Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer, who announced her resignation Monday as director of the V.O.A. The deputy director, Sandy Sugawara, formerly of The Washington Post and United Press International, also resigned.

Ms. Bennett and Ms. Sugawara did not link their departures to the long-delayed confirmation of Mr. Pack, who becomes head of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the parent organization of the V.O.A., Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and some regional foreign broadcasters. In her farewell message, Ms. Bennett assured V.O.A. staffers that Michael Pack swore before Congress to respect and honor the firewall that guarantees V.O.A.s independence, which in turn plays the single most important role in the stunning trust our audiences around the world have in us.

It may be that Mr. Pack will respect the firewall he is sworn to maintain. His past is patchy he hired Mr. Bannon, an icon of the alt-right, as a consultant on two documentaries, including one about Adm. Hyman Rickover. He is also under investigation by the District of Columbia attorney general for possibly channeling money from a nonprofit group he oversees to his for-profit film production company. And he was confirmed along party lines. Before that, he had worked at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Council on the Humanities and served as president of the conservative Claremont Institute.

None of that confirms that if left to his own judgment, Mr. Pack would do Mr. Trumps or Mr. Bannons bidding, especially if it meant flouting the V.O.A.s legally mandated independence. What is certain, given Mr. Trumps record and his statements about V.O.A., is that this is what the administration expects and will forcefully demand. Mr. Trump wants a bullhorn, not a diplomatic instrument, and he insists on loyalty.

See the rest here:

New Boss May Test Voice of Americas Credibility - The New York Times

License to Analyze Media – The Dispatch

This was worth the time to listen to, as I have been grappling with this as an intellectual. I also appreciated the (I assume) spontaneous questions Steve asked. I would have to read the book to digest the point of this material more adequately. A couple of things though ...

Gurri is correct, the amount of information out there is just overwhelming and growing geometrically every day. Working in the sciences, it really is impossible to be fully informed on a topic because there is just so much material even in rather narrow disciplines. So to understand any topic, even a Ph.D. level of research would only give you a general perspective on a narrow aspect of a culture, or a particular topic. On the other hand, a Ph.D. does make you more aware of how little you know, so it tends to lead to a little more humility.

On Science:

I think one thing the general public doesn't understand is that people like Fauci are basically saying "this is what I know and these are the best recommendations I have at the moment". At least as a trained scientist, I recognize that models trying to estimate events where we don't have all the information will get things wrong. So what? Do you want nothing, or do you want to get __some__ idea of what is happening with the best models we have? If you don't understand geometric growth, well, SARS-CoV-2 is a good lesson. If you don't understand how frightening it could be, try modeling this kind of stuff for your own self! You are getting the digested information of someone who has been working on this stuff for years, and the inaccuracies, be them as they may, are just a reality. Well digested knowledge is still a lot better than listening to someone snake-oil salesman tell us to drink bleach -- even if drinking bleach ultimately does turn out to be the right answer after much study (which I most certainly doubt).

I think part of the problem is that we have taught science in undergraduate courses as a collection of facts. I do recall that undergraduate physics and chemistry was filled with "we know, we know, we know". The master's degree was "we basically know, we basically know", and the PhD was, "we don't know a darn thing except for a couple of puny islands of knowledge, and even that we don't fully understand". Few people get that far, so they get out with the "we know" nonsense, and they find later than it can be shot full of holes.

On Alternatives:

I grant that we scientists don't always get it right. Evidently, this is where the pseudo-experts have seized the moment (pseudo-experts: people who know some of the language and have read a limited foundation of the literature but do not have the kind of discipline that comes from really having to do science all their life and research a topic at some of the deepest levels). They don't say "I don't know". They have "THEeeeeeeeee answer". ... and since they don't have any reputation to lose, if they fail, they go on to the next answer.

When you do science for a living, you come to appreciate some general consistencies and patterns that occur that are helpful signposts. Any particular solution to any specific problem will details that we can get wrong, but the over-arching features will not be wrong and when the details become available (in a year or two from now with SARS-CoV-2), those facts will become properly refined.

Summary then ...

I see that Steve (and Sarah) are asking some of the right questions. One notable goal of The Dispatch is that there is some effort in the short term (1 week - 2 weeks) to digest information and provide an intelligent summary. That is, I think, an important goal of journalism, is it not? Not merely to whittle out snippets of news, but to contextualize it within a framework and to try to get the different perspectives. Gurri does point out that you need to listen to views left and right and understand them. It does pass through your conservative filters, but that is like passing things through my scientific filters. There are liberal filters, but it is important for liberals to also understand what conservatives think. I don't think I can go all the way to listening to alt-right or communists, but right- or left-leaning is something everyone can do. As more of a liberal than a conservative, I'd say that whereas I don't always agree with Steve, or Jonah, or David, or Sarah, at least I can listen to them. The extremes of the right and the left get a bit intellectually dishonest and I can only listen to it for a short time before I have to turn it off.

At any rate, I think the goal is right, in this time of information overload, to provide some level of digested information that helps people gain some bearing. I do hope that it will finally slow down a little bit because I feel pulled in all different directions without any sense of bearing presently.

Originally posted here:

License to Analyze Media - The Dispatch

Down with symbols – The News International

As protests and uprisings sweep across the nation and world, Americas profane aesthetics face extinction desecrations of Christopher Columbus, Robert E Lee and Frank Rizzo, all symbols of whiteness and white supremacy, force imperialism, racism, and capitalism to see further days of reckoning and perhaps one day, The End of Policing.

In Darkwater, W E B Du Bois wrote the discovery of personal whiteness is a 19th and 20th century matter This assumption that all whiteness alone is inherently and obviously better than browness or tan leads to curious acts Whats the effect on a man or a nation when it comes passionately to believe such an extraordinary dictum as this?

E Frances White compared James Baldwins and Toni Morrisons perspectives on white identity construction: For Baldwin, whiteness was about a false claim on innocence that depended on the demonization of blackness. Both Baldwin and Morrison expose the fragility of whiteness, and in the process disrupt any notion of pure whiteness, distinct from, and in opposition to, blackness.

In regards to white privilege, Toni Morrison remarked, So scary are the consequences of the collapse [of it] that many Americans have flocked to a political platform that supports and translates violence against the defenseless as strength. These people are not so much angry as terrified, with the kind of terror that makes knees tremble.

Statue desecration strikes a nerve and makes the knees tremble for many white supremacists that believe in protecting the permanence of white superiority found in unassailable figures. On May 31, the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument was removed in the city of Birmingham. Just one day later in Fort Myers, Florida, the Sons of Confederate Veterans removed a bust of Robert E Lee. By weeks end, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Arkansas, and North Carolina all implemented speedy plans for monument and statue removal in their respective cities.

After protesters toppled an eight-foot statue of Jefferson Davis, he was hauled onto a tow truck like a heavy piece of trash. This and more removals created a backlash of alt-right counter-protesters prepared to defend remaining statues around the country. More moderate citizens defended their right to comfort through expressing their own pride of heritage and history as seen in the defense of Davis monuments elsewhere.

Excerpted from: 'In Praise of the FloydRebellion and Statue Desecration'.

Counterpunch.org

Read more:

Down with symbols - The News International

Neil Gorsuch Stuns the Nation, Does the Right Thing – The Nation

Gay pride flag. (Marcio Jose Sanchez / AP Photo)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The LGBTQ community has officially and emphatically been included in the protection offered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In three consolidated cases called Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Civil Right Acts Title VII prohibition of discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex includes a prohibition against discriminating against gays, lesbians, and transgendered people.Ad Policy

Archconservative Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as the four liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Often, when you have one of these opinions signed by both liberal and conservative justices, the decision is very narrow. In such situations, its not unusual for one side or the other to write whats called concurring opinions, in which they will agree with the outcome but offer their own, usually more expansive, reasons for arriving at the conclusion.

Not this time. Gorsuch wrote a civil rights opinion whose main substance could have been written by Sotomayoror Thurgood Marshall or Harvey Milk. Here are two sentences from the opinion that I never expected to hear from a conservative justice appointed by Donald Trump and approved by Mike Pence: The statutes message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individuals homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. Thats because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

That is no half measure. Those sentences are a complete victory for the activists and advocates and lawyers and allies who have long said that discrimination against the LGBTQ community is illegal. It is also, by far, the biggest legal win for the transgender community, ever.

It is not a perfect ruling. While any of the liberal justices could have written the same opinion in substance, the chief justices decision to let Gorsuch write it gave Gorsuch a chance to lay intellectual cover for future bad decisions he will make. Gorsuch is doing whats called a textualist reading: Hes saying that when the text is clear, he doesnt have to go back to the original intent of the lawmakers. Which sounds good, until you remember that Gorsuch claims special powers to know when the text is clear and when it is unclear.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In this case, Gorsuchs interpretation of the text comports with a modern understanding of the law. In another case, however, Gorsuch might decide that an archaic definition is clear, while in still another he might decide the text is unclear and look at what Thomas Jefferson would have wanted. Gorsuchs interpretation of the text is going to work against a robust protection of rights more often than it works to promote them.

But that can be a problem for another day. Today, Gorsuch divined that the text of Title VII clearly protects gay and trans people, which is a happy conclusion and the right conclusion. It is also, it must be said, the same conclusion a mere mortal could have come to by simply looking at the last 30 years of legal precedent.

Despite the seismic nature of the ruling, no new rights were granted in this case. Thats because many lower federal courts have deemed that the LGBTQ community is functionally protected by Title VII since the 1989 case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the court ruled that employers could not discriminate against people who didnt conform to the sexual stereotype preferred by their employer. Its basically the no, she doesnt need to smile more case.

The Bostock case came about all these years later not as part of a progressive effort to make those Title VII protections apply explicitly to the LGBTQ community, but as the result of decades of conservative activism, led by groups like the Federalist Society and the judges they support, to get the LGBTQ community excluded from the protections many judges and scholars think they already enjoy. The conservative goal has been to force Congress to rewrite Title VII to explicitly include LGBTQ people, thus giving conservative political candidates another culture-war issue to fight about, while trusting total gridlock in Washington to prevent any such rewrite from ever happening.

The majority opinion shifts the burden away from the courts and puts it squarely on anti-LGBTQ politicians to continue this fight. If conservatives want to change the law, they are now free to organize and elect congresspeople and senators who oppose LGBTQ rights and want to run on a platform rewriting the Civil Rights Act to exclude them.

One way to know that this was a major victory for the LGBTQ community is that alt-right forces are having a meltdown over the decision. (Ben Shapiros tears taste particularly delicious right now.) While Gorsuchs majority opinion was just 33 pages, Justice Samuel Alitos dissent was 54 pages, and included 172 pages of appendices that he offered as evidence, clear as I can tell, of the importance of genitalia over time. Trying to include all of this supposed evidence briefly crashed the Supreme Court website when the opinion was initially released. Anything that makes Alito this mad is, almost by definition, very good.

Still, the more important dissent might have been written by alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh. Yes, the justice that Susan Collins vouched for dissented from an LGBTQ rights opinion, something that Collins herself pretended not to notice when she tweeted out support for the courts decision in Bostock. Kavanaugh argued that whether or not he thinks the LGBTQ community should be included in Title VII protections is irrelevant, since we are judges, not Members of Congress. Under the Constitutions separation of powers, our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written, regardless of whether we like the result. He, like the conservative lawyers who argued this case, pretends that Title VII does not already include the LGBTQ community, and argues that it is not the role of the court to extend the scope of that law.

This is significant, because it is exactly the same argument John Roberts made in his dissent from the marriage-equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. In that case, Roberts wrote: Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.More from Mystal

I dont know if Roberts has changed his mind on marriage equality. But I do know that when Kavanaugh effectively read Robertss own argument against marriage equality back to him, Roberts declined to go in for another round.

Robertss decision to switch sides is an important sign. Given the polarization of American politics, its unlikely that new LGBTQ rights laws are going to be written any time soon. Conservative politicians are very good at stoking MAGA fears over which bathroom people use, while many purple-state Democrats would rather hope for gay and trans rights than fight for them. If were not going to get new, robust laws about equality, then were going to need courts to continue including the LGBTQ community in what equal rights laws already exist.

Bostock is a significant civil rights victory and, with Gorsuch and Roberts on board, it feels durable as well. But make no mistake: Anti-LGBTQ discrimination has not been defeated. To risk a war analogy: This case is like surviving the Battle of Britaininvading Normandy and kicking the fascists off the continent is still a long way off.

Republicans will try to use this judicial defeat to motivate their base to show up to vote on November 3. Liberals have to be equally motivated to turn out in November and defend this victory.

Originally posted here:

Neil Gorsuch Stuns the Nation, Does the Right Thing - The Nation

The Voice of America Will Sound Like Trump – The Atlantic

Eventually, some of the same principles also came to apply to the Voice of America. VOA is a U.S.-based radio station that was originally created in 1942 to rally the troops. Long perceived as an arm of the U.S. government, it was less successful as a news operation than RFE/RL and the BBC World Service, which maintained reputations for impartiality. To better compete, in the 1970s it was given more independence. But from the beginning it was always intended, as its mission statement still clearly says, to represent America, not any single segment of American society. VOA was never meant to be the tool of one political party, but rather to present America from a broad, nonpartisan perspective. Its most successful programs by far had no politics at all: VOAs Jazz Hour at one point had 30 million listeners and a cult following inside the Soviet Union.

Compared with the cost of a nuclear arsenal, these tactics were dirt cheapand yet they probably did more to undermine communist ideology than all of the U.S. military put together. Over time, the American-backed broadcasters in Europe and Russia built up the trust that helped break the spell of communism and bring down the regimes.

When the Cold War ended, many forgot about these tools. But through the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s, VOA and RFE/RL kept working; Radio Free Asia, along with sister stations broadcasting into Cuba and the Middle East, were added to the group. They kept doing the same job, using the same principles, only in more countries than before. On relatively small budgets, sometimes in difficult conditions, they have kept operating as surrogates in countries that dont have a free press, where journalism is dangerous and governments are not transparent, putting out hundreds of reports in dozens of languages. Through them, and thanks to them, some parts of the world learn about America, and sometimes about their own countries, too.

All of these institutions gathered under the U.S. Agency for Global Media umbrella have had their ups and downs. They have had better and worse leaders; there have been arguments about how much popular programming to do on the native-language stations, and how much serious news. There have been periods of low morale, staff problems, oversight issues. Last year, Radio Mart, which broadcasts into Cuba, put out some conspiratorial, anti-Semitic material about George Soros, after which eight people were fired. Successive White Houses tried to shape the broadcasters in various ways, and sometimes became annoyed by the output of one network or another. Until this week, however, no U.S. administration had actually set out to destroy Americas international broadcasters or remove their independence. But now, finally, one has.

The author of this action is Michael Pack: colleague of Steve Bannon, producer of a documentary film on Clarence Thomas, and a person so indifferent to the subject of international broadcasting that several people who have met him told me they thought he didnt really want the job. (Because they still work with him, they asked to remain anonymous.) The Trump administration nominated him as the CEO of the Agency for Global Media two years ago, but his nomination languished in the Senate, not least because Republican senators were unenthusiastic; one congressional staffer who met Pack told me that he seemed to know nothing, had not bothered to read a 101 on the agency. Asked about his priorities for the complex broadcasting services, he would respond, according to another interlocutor, with vague phrases like Give me some time and I need to think about it. Pack is also under criminal investigation for allegedly misdirecting money from a nonprofit to his private company, normally the kind of thing that gives the Senate pause. But for reasons that are still unclear, President Trump finally got interested in his nomination this spring, started making calls, and leaned hard on the supine Republican Senate leadership to vote him in.

View original post here:

The Voice of America Will Sound Like Trump - The Atlantic

Why human beings are so irrational, and never learn podcasts of the week – The Guardian

Picks of the week

Cautionary TalesWhat is the value of a life? How much can scientists learn from the search for a smallpox vaccine? And why dont humans listen to warnings until its too late? The new season of Tim Harfords podcast about lifes big mistakes asks some timely questions in six mini-episodes. There are lessons to be learned along the way, with tales of people sitting in a packed cabaret bar while a fire spread through a hotel and the danger of relying on other people to guide you to safety. Hannah Verdier

Rabbit HoleIf youve not yet fallen down the rabbit hole that is the Rabbit Hole podcast from the New York Times, prepare to be enlightened and a little freaked out. Alongside producer Andy Mills (Caliphate), the tech columnist Kevin Roose examines whether the internet is doing something to us that is profoundly changing who we are, from radicalisation via YouTube to all-knowing algorithms and PewDiePies rise from online celebrity to hero of the alt-right. Perfect for fans of the similarly brain-wobbling Reply All. Hannah J Davies

Chosen by Max Sanderson

During the past couple of months, as horror stories emerged from Italy of doctors forced to choose which patients receive ventilation, and politicians debate whether to prioritise the health of their citizens or the economy, Ive often asked myself the same question. Who defines how much a life is worth?

Its a question that is explored immaculately in one of my favourite pieces of audio; the aptly titled Playing God from Radiolab. With the journalist Sheri Fink as our guide, the story focuses on a single hospital in New Orleans ravaged by Hurricane Katrina (which is also the focus of Finks book Five Days at Memorial). What follows is a masterclass in how audio can be used to recreate a moment in time.

As usual, the Radiolab team bring the unfolding narrative to life with simple scripting and subtle sound design to create a sense of tension that, at times, verges on unbearable. Added to this is their use of space something Ive written about before which leaves you alone to writhe in contemplation, much like I imagine the healthcare workers in that hospital had to.

Its definitely not an easy listen and is one some may find distressing but its an incredibly important story, to try to give us a sense of what happens, what should happen, when humans are forced to play God?

The Guardians new podcast, Innermost, begins on Tuesday. Hosted by Leah Green it will journey into the secret lives of listeners around the world, as they tell their stories in their own words.

Why not try: In Weird Cities | The Rewatchables | 27 Club

Read the rest here:

Why human beings are so irrational, and never learn podcasts of the week - The Guardian

Canceling Joe Rogan Would be the Left’s Worst Nightmare – Here’s Why – CCN.com

Twitter is turning up the heat on podcast superstar and the Bro sen One, Joe Rogan. His buddy Joey Diaz is also facing the music.

Rogan has long drawn the ire of far-leftists. He uses his massive podcast following to promote, among others, left and right-leaning speakers.

He describes himself as a mostly liberal. Yet liberals see him as a toxic man whos giving a platform to dangerous, alt-right ideas.

But now that several of his comedian friends are facing sexual misconduct allegations, liberals on Twitter are taking their shot.

They should pray they dont succeed.

Joe Rogans friends keep getting caught with their pants down.

First, it was Louis CK.

Last week, Chris DElia was accused of predatory sexual misconduct involving multiple underage girls.

Allegations now surround roastmaster Jeff Ross.

Rogans good friend Joey Diaz is also facing the music after this misogynistic rant, which Joe Rogan, sadly, indulges:

It is nothing short of awful, and Rogan should have to answer for this enabling behavior (and Joey Diaz? Youre on your own). But to call for the mans job would be akin to firing every person whos ever laughed at a racist joke.

But theres more.

This clip of comedian Bill Burr clapping back at Rogan for not wanting to wear a mask just went viral:

These examples give liberals every reason to see Rogan as a problematic meathead. But hell be the first person to tell you hes stupid.

Joe Rogan is not easy to peg down. He fits multiple conflicting archetypes. Hes an MMA fighter and commentator who has a jujitsu grip on the minds of bros all across the country.

But the comedian is also a loud proponent of psychedelics, and he has a curious mind that enrages people who want him to choose a side. He doesnt like Donald Trump. He doesnt like Joe Biden.

Hes interviewed alt-right demigods like Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens. But hes also publicly endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Liberal publications like Slate call his podcast:

a rambling, profane interview program in which the host is often high, loves to talk about cage fighting.

Within the same article, author Justin Peters quotes Rogan as saying, I go left on everything. Basically except guns.

But he pushes back on key ideas of the left, like the illusion of gender, the reality of the wage gap, and what he deems as outrage culture. That already put progressives in a frenzy. And then, the clips above pushed them over the top.

But, as bad as those clips are, they should realize he serves a bigger purpose in the ecosystem.

While some would argue that Joe Rogan is a gateway to the alt-right, I would argue that hes an even larger gateway away from the alt-right.

The idea that hes converting out-loud male-feminist types over to the Darkside is laughable. But he does appeal to the silent majority who are witnessing the battle between sides and trying to decide. In that way, his left-leaning sentiments nudge many in the liberal direction.

Essentially, hes like progressive training wheels. Hes the one guy who might be able to reach someone in a red state whos supporting Trump by default and get them to understand the progressive ideas touted by Bernie Sanders or Andrew Yang.

If liberals someday actually managed to cancel him, these undecided people could go full-MAGA. And there could be a lot of them, considering hehas the most popular podcast in the world.

And as crazy as both extremes can be at times, whats so wrong with swaying to the middle?

Try to cancel him if you want, but theres another option: encourage him to have guests that you want to see. Like him or hate him, Joe Rogan is open to new ideas as long as your outrage doesnt end up radicalizing him, too.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.

More:

Canceling Joe Rogan Would be the Left's Worst Nightmare - Here's Why - CCN.com

Neighborly discord in the Galwan Valley – Observer Research Foundation

'); mywindow.document.close(); // necessary for IE >= 10 mywindow.focus(); // necessary for IE >= 10 mywindow.print(); mywindow.close();newWindow.resizeTo(screen.width, screen.height);setTimeout(function() {newWindow.print();newWindow.close();}, 250) return true; }*/ $(document).ready(function(e) { $(".morecommernties").on('click', function(){$(".morecommernties").html("");var strdata = {};if ( $('#chkBackButton').val() == 1) {$("#currentpage").val(2);$('#chkBackButton').val(0);}strdata['post_id'] = "68158";strdata['paged'] = $("#currentpage").val();strdata['action'] = 'get_more_commentaries_sidebar'; $.post('https://www.orfonline.org/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php',$.param(strdata), function(data){ var values = parseInt($("#currentpage").val()); if(data == 0){ $(".morecommernties").html(""); $("#liappend").append("No More data"); } else { $("#currentpage").val(values+1); $(".strsidebar").css("display","none"); $("#liappend").append(data); $(".morecommernties").html("See More"); } }); }); $(".morecommerntiesAuth").on('click', function(){ if ( $('#chkBackButton').val() == 1) {$("#currentpages").val(2);$('#chkBackButton').val(0);}$(".morecommerntiesAuth").html("");var strdata = {};strdata['post_id'] = "68158";strdata['paged'] = $("#currentpages").val();strdata['action'] = 'get_more_commentaries_author_sidebar'; $.post('https://www.orfonline.org/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php',$.param(strdata), function(data){ var values = parseInt($("#currentpages").val()); if(data==0){$(".morecommerntiesAuth").html("");$("#liappends").append("No More data"); } else {$("#currentpages").val(values+1);$(".strsidebars").css("display","none");$("#liappends").append(data);$(".morecommerntiesAuth").html("See More"); } }); }); });

Alt-Right strategic opinion is convinced that the assertion of incremental claims over the upper reaches of the Galwan river valley in Ladakh reflects the habitual greediness of China which nibbles away at borders in a near continuous expansion of territory.

In doing so they also constantly test the limits to which they can push the adversary and give no reprieve to those inadequately resolved to fight back. China cares not a whit about legalities or diplomatic niceties. Chinas expansionist claims in the South China Sea clearly evidence such opinions as being well founded (Vijay Gokhale Speech Pune).

Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -a South Asian Strategic affairs analyst of repute says India like all other countries which share a border with China have only three choices. First, retaliate against expansionism by copy-cat capture of poorly defined territory held by China. Second, resist expansionary claims actively on the ground and diplomatically. Third lie back and accept the rapeAshley Tellis on Chinas Galwan adventurism

Indias hyperactive media and its hotly contested politics does not permit our leadership to even consider the third option. Leadership must appear competent and strong if it is not to suffer in one or the other of the many elections which are always happening at the center, in the states or at the local level.

The first option of copy-cat incursions into the neutral, ill-defined territory has some salience. The only problem is that this active strategy will require a constant stream of additional resources to continually outwit the adversary in a low intensity conflict along a 3500 km long border at high altitudes. A daunting and resource intensive option.

In effect, the default option is what we have done thus far- remain watchful, anticipate adversary intentions, take counter measures and in the event of an unstoppable ingress seek to contain it and double up on diplomatic channels to flag it for eventual resolution.

This is a long game in which consistency of strategy and theatre command tactics is key. India lacks the persistence for either. Resource allocation is always a problem. Playing a war game, in which, the best outcome is just to maintain the status quo, does not galvanize citizen support either. Peaceniks will always want to convert the border into a zone of tranquility as if beggars can be choosers.

Bharat Karnad, a seasoned, security analyst who has long sounded the alarm against expansionary China, advocates we take a leaf from the Pakistani war book to contain a much bigger adversary- in their case India- via the induction of first use tactical nuclear weapons.

The advisability of deploying such lethal weapons along a poorly defined border between India and China is debatable. The doctrine of first use requires a finely honed set of compulsory triggers for initiating action. Is this possible, with line of control infractions happening often, sometimes inadvertently. Factoring in restraint to avoid an overkill reaction for small or temporary infractions, risks undermining the first use resolve itself.

Luckily for us, the Indian security and diplomatic establishments are highly professional institutions with sophisticated protocols, honed over decades, including diplomatic and trade incentives/sanctions, to deal with overseas friends and foes.

It remains unclear however whether we are as well versed to deal with those in between- like China. China feels, somewhat mistakenly, that it has become big enough not to need a friend and can buy whatever support it needs to legitimize its overseas ambitions of pushing the US to second place.

India can in no way either stymie this objective nor can it hope to collaborate to do so. That is a game for the big boys, not us. Consider that Indias GDP only equals the combined GDP of the five bigger ASEAN economies Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and Philippines. There are lessons to be learnt in the wily, circumspect manner they manage China to their advantage.

Consider also, that over the last two decades (2000-2018) the ASEAN big five grew at a respectable 8.5% per year (nominal terms) versus 10.5% for India. To us it appears that we are pulling well ahead of ASEAN. But to the big five, it is China, which continues to be the lodestar of prosperity with a 14.3% nominal growth over this period (WB data).

Using nominal growth data here is more appropriate because business is more concerned with current money values unlike economists who measure and compare in constant terms to get to the bottom of what policies work and why. For business what matters is whether the customer has the US$ required to buy their products and service their investments.

In terms of near-term business prospects, the ASEAN big five do better than us. Their combined trade (import plus export), in current US$, was 3X of ours in 2019 (Trade Map International Trade Statistics) though we have closed the differential since 2001 when the it was 6.5X. Versus China we remain a minnow with their trade being 5X of ours in 2019, with only a marginal improvement since 2001

What does all this have to do with the China-India relationship? The sheer dominance of China in the region deserves respect- much like we demand respect from our smaller neighbors. After the diplomatize and polite chatter is done, economic size matters, as does an evidenced history of exercising economic muscle.

Tellis points out that the big difference between the US and China is that the former has a century old, recent history of asserting power across the global, the continuing physical capacity to do so and institutions to match. Similarly, we must recognize, the vast differentials in the path dependencies between China and India.

Over the past three decades, China has persistently pulled away from parity with India. Its manner, of asserting itself globally, is unseemly an example India would do well not to emulate, once the time is ripe. But, did not the United States also go through The Ugly American phase in the 1960s and 1970s?

Also, Emperor Xi at 67, might have hastened Chinas global muscularity to a fault. Has he fallen into the classic strong man trap of trying to achieve superstardom in his working life? If so, then he will have stretched Chinas resources beyond sustainable levels and the fiscal strain should start showing up soon.

It is in this context, that Indias tepid response to the latest Chinese adventurism should be viewed. China is tiring slowly. India is just getting started hopefully, this time around we will shed the mantle of being the perennial high potential economy and become one. India must play the long game and tire out an ageing adversary not by engage aggressively by boxing above its weight as Alt-Right nationalists would want.

This commentary originally appeared in The Times of India.

See the original post here:

Neighborly discord in the Galwan Valley - Observer Research Foundation

Brexit victory: Richard Tice reveals the ‘huge opportunity’ ahead for fishing and farming – Express

Former Brexit Party MEP and current chairman Richard Tice insisted the Government should introduce a buy-British campaign. During an interview with Express.co.uk, Mr Tice argued the UK would benefit from national loyalty to the food we produce and the products we make. He insisted the farming and fishing industry could benefit greatly from this as more UK citizens opt for food produced in Britain.

Mr Tice said: "The key benefit is we can focus on our nation's own requirements and needs.

"With fishing, I have talked about the importance of having control of our fishing waters.

"We can even boost tourism within fishing and likewise with farming.

"We only produced just under 60 percent of the food that we consume, in the 1980s that figure was 80 percent.

DON'T MISS:Ann Widdecombe snaps at Brussels over Brexit trade deal deadlock

"We have reduced the number of our products and there is a huge opportunity to grow that again, especially with improvements to technology."

Mr Tice also explained that post-Brexit citizens could contribute to the major shift in both the farming and fishing industry.

He insisted there is already an appetite for more British grown products and the Government should use this as an incentive to support UK farmers and fishers.

Mr Tice continued: "I think there is an appetite by British consumers to buy British.

"The Government really needs to be pushing that, in everything we do, from all works of our economy.

"Let's push a buy-British campaign, whether that is British wine, British made cars or food.

"Let's have some patriotism in the way we buy and consume food."

Mr Tice admitted he admired this trait in the French and claimed the country benefited from its citizens being loyal to French grown food and made products.

READ MORE:

Ann Widdecombe snaps at Brussels over Brexit trade deal deadlock[VIDEO]Britain's secret plot to scrap pound and join euro exposed[REVEALED]Real reason Jeremy Corbyn did NOT retire revealed[ANALYSIS]

He closed by saying: "It was one thing I really admire about the French, their consumer patriotism

"Their patriotism in all French goods is absolutely fantastic and we need a piece of that for our farmers.

"I think it is really important we label our food loudly and clearly so people can see we are going to buy British strawberries and raspberries."

More:

Brexit victory: Richard Tice reveals the 'huge opportunity' ahead for fishing and farming - Express

Brexit: Why hopes are rising that EU and UK could find compromise – Financial Times

  1. Brexit: Why hopes are rising that EU and UK could find compromise  Financial Times
  2. 'Knighthood for Frost!' Brexit chief praised as EU member states finally get the message  Express
  3. German banks press EU for action on Brexit equivalence  City A.M.
  4. Boris Johnson told to come clean on food and medicine shortage risks from no-deal Brexit  The Independent
  5. EU-UK talks: No time for games as Brexit deadline nears  Arab News
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Go here to read the rest:

Brexit: Why hopes are rising that EU and UK could find compromise - Financial Times

Boris to take on EU’s Galileo with BETTER system US could join ‘we have an opportunity’ – Express

Boris Johnson is expected to scale back plans for a sovereign satellite system to allow the UK to compete with the EU Galileo system once Brexit is completed. Lord Willets, a board member of the Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, suggested the Prime Minister could take the opportunity to invest in a "better" system that could win over international investors. Speaking to the Today programme, the Conservative peer said: "It looks as if what the Government is now considering doing something different, and I think better.

"It would move ahead into the new technology of small satellites in lower constellations instead of a few bigger satellites locked further up.

"And, at that point, because its a contrast with the existing systems, you find the Americans and others might well like to join in because it adds resilience.

"Its a much stronger signal, its not subject to jamming like the old technology."

The UK had hoped to maintain access to the European Galileo system despite Brexit but Brussels struck down the suggestion citing security concerns after Britain's departure from the bloc.

JUST IN: No chance! Brexit talks in danger of DERAILING as EU makes outrageous demand

Asked about the need for an independent satellite system for the UK, Lord Willetts said: "We happen to have an opportunity.

"It does look as if the world is heading to these new constellations, many more smaller satellites in low-Earth orbit and it so happens one of the worlds main companies in this one web is headquartered in Shepherd's Bush, west London."

According to reports in the FT last week, ministers are seeking to scale down the 5 billion satellite project and have been airing the possibility of using UK satellite operator OneWeb.

The operator pledged to relocate its activities from its current headquarters in Florida to the UK if management secures the support of the British Government.

READ MORE: Piers Morgan's Tory 'vendetta' enrages GMB viewers 'there's been a TERROR attack'

The plans for an independent satellite system had previously attracted the criticism of several MPs, with Tory MP Tobias Ellwood branding the plan as madness.

Mr Ellwood told Express.co.uk earlier this month: With respect to the spheres of influence, the power bases the world is moving towards, you've got the United States, clearly, you've got Europe as a force for good, then you've got east Asia led by China, and Russia fitting in under that umbrella.

"The idea that Europe then fragments into two separate capabilities, going against the grain of NATO, is just madness.

"It's got caught up with the politics of the EU."

DON'T MISS

How Nicola Sturgeon 'descended into chaos' with Scotland-EU claim [INSIGHT]EU fisheries: Dutch fishermen's desperate plea amid Brexit trade talks [ANALYSIS]Brexit outrage: Emmanuel Macron's demand to 'overhaul deal' exposed [INSIGHT]

Mr Ellwood added: "Galileo was an EU project but it was essentially a British project, it was Surrey Satellites and Airbus and now because of the silliness of the Brexit fallout, we are now building a rival system, at huge cost, which we simply can't afford.

"Ultimately security should be above the politics of Europe.

"If you put France and Britain together, we have the military might of the rest of Europe combined."

Mr Ellwood, asked whether he believed a UK system would amount to a vanity project, agreed, adding: "The trouble is with all this, to make these things stand, they need to be commercially viable and the market we are in is already very congested.

"I've asked for it to be reviewed and I've asked for defence to be taken out of the Brexit discussions for this exact reason.

Original post:

Boris to take on EU's Galileo with BETTER system US could join 'we have an opportunity' - Express

France does not rule out a post Brexit no deal with UK, but those who need it most are the British – MercoPress

A senior French official said she could not rule out the European Union's trade talks with departed ex-member Britain ending without a deal though it was in the British interest to reach one.

I am not ruling out anything, Junior European Affairs Minister Amelie de Montchalin told Europe 1 radio, when asked if she could rule out a no-deal Brexit.

Those who need a deal the most are the British. They cannot withstand a second shock after the epidemic. They wouldn't have access to the security net that is Europe, they wouldn't have access to the stimulus fund, she added, alluding to the economic hit to European states caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told visiting French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday that talks on a post-Brexit deal cannot drag on into the autumn.

Montchalin said: We will not yield to this deadline pressure, this final sprint that Britain want to impose on us in the hope we will cave in. We do not want a deal for the sake of having a deal but we want a balanced deal.

Britain left the European Union on Jan 31 but talks on a future relations have so far made little progress. Johnson and EU leaders say a deal is achievable, but both sides say time is running out and the prospect of no-deal remains.

Original post:

France does not rule out a post Brexit no deal with UK, but those who need it most are the British - MercoPress

Boris Johnson news live: PM given fresh no-deal Brexit warnings, as No 10 puts full confidence in under-pressure minister – The Independent

PM urged deliver fresh package for tourist industry

Boris Johnson is coming under pressure to deliver a fresh multi-million pound package of support for the tourismindustry with the PM warned the sector is set to suffer three winters in a row because of the pandemic.

A cross-party group of MPs are joining with industry bodies in calling for an extension of chancellor Rishi Sunaks support schemes such as grants, loans and furlough payments for as much as six months to the spring of 2021, when they can expect revenues from bookings to start flowing again.

The tourism industry has specific problems because it operates on a feast and famine basis, with businesses making enough during the spring and summer to see them through the winter, said Lib Dem MP Tim Farron.

Covid-19 came just at the end of the famine, and it closed everything down just as the feast should have been beginning when we get to November when the support schemes have all run out, they are knackered, because the usual summer feast has just been a picnic and you are really in a three-winters-in-a-row scenario.

Read the original post:

Boris Johnson news live: PM given fresh no-deal Brexit warnings, as No 10 puts full confidence in under-pressure minister - The Independent

Brexit revives unionist and nationalist divide in Northern Ireland – The Guardian

Brexit has squeezed the political middle ground in Northern Ireland and pushed more people into their unionist and nationalist trenches.

A post-Brexit opinion poll has found that those in the region deeming themselves neither unionist or nationalist has fallen to 39%. The Northern Ireland Life and Times (NILT) survey revealed that this figure was the lowest in 15 years. As late as 2017, 50% surveyed said they were neither.

The poll of 1,200 people taken from September 2019 to February this year also reveals that more Catholics now describe themselves as nationalist since Brexit. Just under 60% of Catholics in Northern Ireland now categorise themselves as nationalist compared with 50% two years ago.

At the same time, the researchers from Queens University Belfasts Ark project found 67% of Protestants now classified themselves as unionist compared with 55% in 2018.

The Brexit effect however has not created any real sense of existential threat to the union among unionists, according to the NILT.

Among unionists, 62% think a united Ireland is unlikely within the next 20 years. Significantly, 37% of nationalists also think there will not be Irish unity within the next two decades.

The report concludes: we are seeing a retrenchment of identity positions in relation to traditional political allegiances.

Brexit has not dramatically affected unionists thinking, even among those who were pro-EU in the 2016 referendum. While there was a slight increase of 7% among unionists who said dont know to the prospect of a united Ireland, Brexit made no difference to the overwhelming majority of those in favour of remaining British.

Yet all three political categories unionist, nationalist and neither appear to continue to support the devolved institutions at Stormont.

Just under 70% of the population still support the Good Friday agreement and power-sharing government. The poll showed that 35% were happy with the agreement and did not want it changed; 33% were positive about the peace accord but wanted minor changes.

The authors of the report found this robust backing for devolution surprising given that for three years the local assembly was deadlocked with the main parties, Sinn Fin and the Democratic Unionists, unable to form a government.

Despite widespread cross-community anger over the three years of deadlock at Stormont, only 10% of those surveyed said they would like to see the UK parliament in London make all the decisions for Northern Ireland.

Among the overall population, only 30% said a united Ireland was likely within the next 20 years, while 46% said Irish unity was unlikely in the same time frame.

Dr Paula Devine, the co-director of Ark from the school of social sciences, education and social work at Queens, said: From this data, we can see that support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the devolved institutions has been maintained among people of all backgrounds.

However, it is striking that 2019 also saw a strengthening of unionist and nationalist identities and growing pressure on the so-called middle ground.

The Ark NILT survey has been running since 1998 and provides an important source of data on how opinions in Northern Ireland have changed over the past 21 years.

Go here to read the rest:

Brexit revives unionist and nationalist divide in Northern Ireland - The Guardian