The non-linearity of modern spirituality/the changing language of self-help: a conversation with Gabi Abro – The Stony Brook Press

How spirituality exists in America today

Over time, religious thinking in the United States dissolved and sequestered itself to places of worship, cults and personalized practice. A swelling irreligious attitude has manifested itself since the 1990s, with 18% of the population identifying as not religious or spiritual, 27% not religious but spiritual and 26% completely irreligious.

Today, discussions of spirituality and the immaterial aspects of the mind exist exclusively in academic disciplines, most notably motivational and cognitive-behavioral psychology and philosophy. Weve dug ourselves into an array of assumptions about human behavior, falsely introduced by pop psychology. These assumptions come in the form of self-help books, myths like the learning styles, generalizing personality tests and that smiling in the mirror makes you happier. Pop psychology comes from the replication crisis, where a lot of replicated experiments get different results. Shoddy research methods are pretty common as well the barrier to entry for psychology research is low in comparison to something like medicine.

This research colonized public conjecture surrounding mental wellness, childhood/adolescent psychology, and pedagogy. It also created an ideological disjunct between us and our unlabeled selves a dislocation between knowledge and mysticism.

The language of this kind of thinking uses terms like trauma, manifestation, emotional intelligence, toxicity and mindfulness, and revolves around the notion of an inner child and a higher self. In the U.S., meditation apps and and classes are on the rise, boasting these perspectives on psychology and creating a Western gaze upon Eastern expressions of spirituality.

Psychology has always been on our minds, but it took a while to become the kind of academically rigorous, medicalized, diagnosis-adherent supplement to Western medicine it is today. Weve always questioned our inner labyrinths through literature, poetry, music, theology, philosophy and a range of other disciplines. At the core of all human creation, thinking and organization, there are always invisible motivations.

Every human culture developed alongside the notion of the supernatural and the invisible. While it is difficult to define the development and trajectory of human spiritual practice, its easy to see that spirituality is a cornerstone of human life. But spirituality is simple. Its the notion of immateriality, of a mind separate from body and a lot of people in the postmodern world seem to be missing it.

After the rationalism-high of the European Enlightenment, and the scientific method finished sowing radical skepticism about the Churchs canon, philosophers boasted that God is dead, and made other damning premonitions about the future of human life after dogmatic religion crumbled. During the psychoanalysis boom at the turn of the 20th century, the influence of traditional religion further degraded and the psychiatrist Carl Jung identified a spiritual problem of the Modern Individual widespread feelings of inadequacy and aimlessness that are a product of the spiritual void religion left behind. The death of God was a warning against profound uncertainty.

In this irreligious, anti-spiritual, scientific method-adherent society, were experiencing a resurgence in spiritual thought, one that sometimes feels like a desperate yearning for new spiritualities. Were in a heyday for astrology, reformed religion and personalized spirituality. Through desperation, weve developed a new, customized melting-pot spirituality. Organized religion and personalized spirituality differ in their accountability, sense of community and dogmatic rigor. Gabi Abro, a digital artist and spiritualist, embodies this kind of neo-religion, and how it intersects with meme culture.

Personalized spirituality? Why?

The structure and accountability in organized religion can do wonders for some, yet be restrictive and limiting for others, Gabi said. Organized religion also boasts a shared, definite experience, which can limit the potential for ones abilities and exploration. Personalized spirituality can become too free-form, even lazy for some, yet liberating and ideal for others. I believe in personalized spirituality with structure.

For Gabi, this means borrowing structure from existing, established religions and modifying it to ones circumstances. That is where I believe balance is found, she said. Exploration is key. I think you only find out what you need by trying different forms of spiritual practice out.

New age spirituality can feel pretentious, even mocking of older spiritual traditions. But theres a pleasant rhythm to it it can manifest itself in monthly challenges that easily mobilize people into a single, ritual task. Specifically the No Fap November, challenge, or no- masturbation- November challenge. The challenge is geared towards men and grounded in the incorrect belief that retaining your sperm repurposes its life force back into your spirit. The truth is, sperm doesnt carry life force, and abstinence doesnt send it anywhere else. Examples like these prove that were hard-wired for ritual and yearn towards our former allegiance to self-improvement grounded in faithfulness.

The fact that @sighswoon has 100 thousand followers and 428 subscribers to her paywalled content proves the same. It shows us that spiritual language is compelling and profitable.

My current expression of spirituality is playful, explorative, and aspirational, Gabi said. I believe that following globalization and the internet, we have more knowledge and awareness of spiritual practices from all around the world. There are truths and flaws in every single one. Passed down research.

Gabis Instagram page, @sighswoon, is an expedition into this kind of neo-spirituality, and representative of our creative habit of collaging information from the past to create something new. Gabi believes in the hunt for a new spirituality. A spirituality that compliments the digital the new modes of communication and massive media upheavals. This new spirituality will use all the leftover information from spiritual leaders to create a new model, something possibly not as rigorous or rigid. Something that caters to our current society, in her words.

@sighswoons Instagram acts as a self-help forum, where she creates a positive language with the invisible, and independently monetizes her content through Patreon. She offers advice, her takes on astrology and insight into other spiritual trends. Her spirituality is an eclectic mix, borrowing dictums from East Asian philosophies, Western mysticism and cognitive, maybe even pop psychology.

Exploring Gabi Abrao, @sighswoon and the language of memes

People discover their spirituality in many ways some people use psychedelic drugs, some abide by religious dogma and some just want to achieve ritual stillness, a reprieve from the chaos of the workweek. For Gabi, her spirituality came from a sense of in-betweenness from her Austro-Brazilian heritage and mobility.

I believe being born in Los Angeles to immigrant parents informs many of the themes in my work first, a sense of in-betweenness one feels when she does not fully belong to one culture or country, to have three languages in the house, she said. I believe this informs my interest in all that is shapeshifting, ever-changing, in-between, unknown. Also, my father is a very spiritual man who centers mysticism and spirituality over all else. This informs my desire for the mystical, the invisible my fascination with it.

Creating a language with the invisible is a deeply powerful goal, and her obsession with it manifests itself in various visual and textual projects. In a recent art project called Relationships With The Ether, individuals sent Gabi images of themselves with an ex-lover, the ex cut out and replaced with an image of clouds in the sky. The project emphasizes that the feelings our exes give us are so nuanced and ever-changing, and that their presence turns into this open space up for interpretation, she said. The point is to emphasize invisibility, or all immaterial aspects of relationships and mind.

Her expression of self-help through humorous memes demonstrates her philosophy on comedy itself, and an appreciation for quickness, accessibility and stealthy penetration. Humor is very important to her. Its a great release to me, and so necessary to grow and navigate this wild life, she said. There are so many paradoxes, so many surprises, so many ways we play tricks on ourselves and others. There is a lot of nonsense and confusion to living, I think laughter is one of the main ways to release it.

Beyond the humorous substance of memes, she maintains deep appreciation for their form as well. Theyre accessible, quick, funny, she said. They sneak into your feed and your consciousness effortlessly! They always feel like they are from a friend because they are the inside jokes of the internet. You feel like youre in on something when you understand a meme or enjoy it, like a club. Its nice. Memes push you to simplify an idea with help from a comical, visual aid.

She professed this equation for further understanding: simple text + visual aid = accessible.

The language of self- help and wellness can be airy and presumptuous, but Gabis work democratizes it through the literal accessibility of Instagrams content, and conceptual accessibility of memes and Instagram.

Instagram and memes often get dismissed as cultural tokens. Like film in the 60s, Instagrams newness (and the volume of content it holds) sometimes tricks us into overlooking its cultural value, tTo quote an article in The Outline. But @sighswoon is a performance, a statement towards the dismissal of past spiritual authorities through memes. Self-help through this new format helps simplify difficult thoughts into one-liners, and reassures through brevity. Its almost like the power of journaling negative thoughts. It simplifies nebulous feelings and creates intense relatability between Gabi and her audience.

Like most artists, her process involves obsession and attachment to a simple idea. But unlike most artists, her work manifests itself just as simply as the original idea existed.

After studying conceptual art at Santa Monica University, Gabi is now 25, living in L.A. and learning Portugese to ground her ethereal linguistic toolbox in reality. Shes trying to see where this reconnection to her Brazilian citizenship will take her. Its all been very inspiring and riveting for her.

Advice and recommendations from Gabi

Well close off with art and aphorisms, to extend some self-help and to paint a clearer picture of some of the books and musicians that help lead her creative thinking to fruition.

Gabi defines our relationship with technology with the notion of a cyborg. This is by no means a condemnation she recommends we accept and appreciate our technology. An example she gave is using our GPS to get somewhere and then hugging the loved ones at our destination. The use of navigation services represents our reliance on our technological side, and the emotions we feel once weve expended the technology and gotten there represents our humanity. To reconcile this sort of neophobia against cyborgitude, she said we should understand that all technology, including the internet, was invented by humans and is maintained by humans, she said. It is an extension of humanity, a tool. An alien species didnt arrive on earth and force any of this on us, we created it, collectively, little by little. And thats beautiful. It is human to evolve, to create, to push boundaries. And we are experiencing this every day, in real time.

But we should also be careful of the pitfalls to digital life. The digital age makes things move very quickly trends, attention, influences, calls to action it can be a very emotional and stressful experience, this overload of info, she said. I think it is more important than ever to ground yourself in what and who you love, what you trust, because our generation will give you new things to obsess over every single day if we arent careful. With grounding, with a strong sense of self, all this information can be channeled into wonderful personal projects and opportunities for growth and entertainment.

If you want to know Gabi better an album and two books to check out, in her words:

The Jungle is The Only Way Out by Mereba is an incredible album that came out in 2019 and was an absolute gift to my life. I find this album to access emotions to everything I find interesting about being alive now spirituality, romantic confusion, self-empowerment, a new momentum, the need for freedom in all of it. Even the sound feels digital-meet-earth. I highly recommend the whole album.Plus, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success by Deepak Chopra is my #1 book for lifestyle and mindset.And lastly, Sculptures for the Blind by Lenka Clayton is a wonderful book that discusses pretty much everything I am interested in through the medium of an art sculpture it discusses perceived value, varying perceptions, the invisible stories that exist in objects and transactions.

Originally posted here:

The non-linearity of modern spirituality/the changing language of self-help: a conversation with Gabi Abro - The Stony Brook Press

Protecting Mangar Bani: Theres A Need To Empower Local Community To Save Sacred Grove – Outlook India

So close to Delhi, nothing quite prepares you for the first view of Mangar Bani.

Motoring down the Gurgaon-Faridabad highway with dusty scrub vegetation on both sides of the arid landscape, a sacred grove in the midst of the mining-scarred Northern Aravalli leopard wildlife corridor seems like the most unlikely discovery.

The thought of a local patron saint holding sway over a fragile ecosystem only a few miles away recedes further as you ride past a huge mound of garbage where scavenger birds flap over the putrid dump of city waste.

Turning into an undisturbed patch of forest cover where the pastoral Gujjar community has for centuries worshipped Gudariya Babathe patron saint of Mangar Bania stark whitewashed temple built over a cave stands as a testament to his magical powers.

Local stories abound that the loin-cloth-wearing sage attained enlightenment in this forest cave over five centuries ago. He was so popular among Gujjar herdsmen that they zealously protected the forest as a sacred grove. Not a leaf was touched nor any animal allowed to graze in the forest for they feared it could draw the wrath of their patron saint.

The villagers spoke of how a few nomads from Rajasthan once took their camels to graze on the abundant dhau shrubs only to see them drop dead soon after. Even those who collected wood for construction and firewood or hunted animals, paid a price for their misdeeds.

Driven by the fear of retribution and in reverence of the sacred spirit, the pastoral community agreed to pacify Gudariya Baba by protecting the forest.

The power of the story threaded to the cult of this local saint guarded the Mangar Bani from external forces for centuries. And even though the villagers secured the natural habitat through religious beliefs, the system itself was grounded in secular benefits for the entire ecosystem such as preserving animal life, plant and water resources.

Mangar Bani was part of the legacy of nature conservation since time immemorial when patches of forest called sacred groves were protected by rural communities through deeply-entrenched spiritual values, which nurtured the forest and protected its biodiversity.

But the ancient values of nature conservation are now increasingly being rebuked as primitive superstition in the face of land grabs and commercial interests, as well as neo-liberal conservation efforts rooted in market-oriented policies.

In 2013, local communities rallied against Vedantas mining project in Odisha after the Supreme Court recognised the religious rights of tribals over the Niyamgiri sacred groves. But the state government made little effort to map the sacred groves in the region.

Again, a determined struggle by the indigenous people of Mendha in the Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra led to the passage of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act of 2006. The local communities not only asserted their forest rights but also obtained the right to manage a stone quarry that was threatening a sacred site through remarkable leadership provided by a womens cooperative society.

But whats glossed over is that organised Hinduism has subsumed many of these forests that were dedicated to folk deities represented aniconically. While some of these local gods have been absorbed into the Hindu pantheon, the centre of rituals has also moved from nature-worship to building of temples in honor of pan-Indian nationalist deities.

The case of Mangar Bani is no different.

From behind a rock-face scribbled with Hindu imagery, rises a temple dedicated to Lord Rama and his consort Sita. An idol of Lord Hanuman is located on the rear end of the temple. A cemented Nandi mothering her calf is in the periphery, in what seems to be an expansion project to consolidate pan-Indian Hinduisms footprint in the sacred grove.

(A cemented Nandi near the Ram Sita Temple in Mangar Bani.)

Around the site is also strewn smaller Hindu temples, and Hindu imagery on rock-faces and at the base of large trees. Hindu festivals are celebrated with fanfare, which has prompted some local Gujjars to believe the cult of Gudariya Baba has diminished in importance.

While the indigenous community has not lost faith in the local sage, religious iconography has taken centre stage. Even reverence towards the forest has declined with the march of modernisation and alternation of traditional social systems that protected the sacred grove.

Since the 1980s, real estate firms in Gurgaon have built up large land banks in the Aravallis and are hoping for dilution of environmental safeguards. Nearly 3,800 acres of Aravalli common land in the Mangar village alone has been privatised despite the area being forested.

As market forces gain strength, spiritual beliefs alone arent sufficient to protect the Mangar Bani from assaults by powerful commercial, political and religious interests. Not only is positive policy important to supplement faith, but theres also a need to empower the local community so they can push back against forces that seek to transform or destroy their sacred belief system rooted in the natural habitat.

(Priyadarshini Sen is an Independent Journalist based in India. She writes for India and US-based media)

Read more here:

Protecting Mangar Bani: Theres A Need To Empower Local Community To Save Sacred Grove - Outlook India

Schammasch: Aleister Crowley and the destructive yet divine nature of creation – Louder

The late summer sky above Basel is clear blue and endless. It stretches over elegant, pastel and slate low-rise buildings still steeped in old-world, picture book charm, community gardens nestled within apartment blocks and the Rhine river that slakes underneath arched stone bridges. Gothic cathedrals rise above the skyline, their steeples like insectoid antennae hoping to catch a whiff of celestial static.

Sitting in a spacious, artisan caf in his picturesque hometown, Schammasch frontman and mastermind C.S.R has more than enough reason to be positive. The three full-length releases since the bands formation in 2009 have grown ever more ambitious from 2010s turbulent, black metal-steeped debut, Sic Lvceat Lvx, through to 2014s expansive, double album follow-up, Contradiction, to 2016s triple-album magnum opus, Triangle.

Not only are Schammasch visually striking, adorned in exquisitely embroidered cowls and black-and-metallic facepaint like a devout, mystic sect but, at the behest of C.S.R, theyve charted a personal, if somewhat cryptic odyssey of enlightenment thats marked them out as one of the most sonically arresting, genre-transcending and spiritually elevating bands to have emerged from the underground in recent years.

Theres certainly not very much danger in living here, says the frontman, when asked why Swiss bands from Samael and Triptykon through to post-metallers Abraham, metal-sampling industrialists The Young Gods, spectral black metallers Darkspace and even pop pranksters Yello are so naturally geared towards sonic grandeur.

I felt empty. There was nothing else to say.

The majority of the people live very comfortable lives, and also very predictable ones. Maybe that takes away the rawness within the music, but it makes space for something else, which for other bands wouldnt be within reach.

After the universal acclaim for Triangle, the high-profile tours supporting Batushka and fellow Basel-ites Zeal & Ardor, and the landmark set at 2017s Roadburn festival where Schammasch played all 100 minutes of that album in full, C.S.R ought to have been contemplating his next step with renewed confidence. The reality turned out to be very different.

With a new album, Hearts Of No Light, imminent, this is C.S.Rs sole face-to-face interview, an undertaking approached with a mixture of diligence and trepidation, as if hes trying to tune into and translate an internal frequency whose natural resonance isnt the spoken word.

I just felt very empty after Triangle was done, he says carefully, outlining the Hades-esque path that revealed itself in the albums wake. I had a feeling of, I said everything and theres nothing else to say. I just really didnt have a clue where to go and in which direction to go from there, especially from a thematic point of view. That put a lot of pressure on me, because its a pretty shitty feeling.

As an interim project, Schammasch had released an experimental EP, The Maldoror Chants: Hermaphrodite a lateral step inspired by an 1869 poetic novel, Les Chants de Maldoror, by French proto-surrealist writer Comte de Lautramont.

It offered an opportunity for creative recovery from the understandably intense Triangle sessions, but it was the attempt to chart the next stage for the band that left him asking hard questions of himself.

Once I really looked into this situation and looked into the fact that I felt this way, the frontman recalls, suddenly something evolved out of that feeling. I reached a point where, if youre honest about certain things towards yourself, then you can go on from there, instead of just walking into the same wall again and again.

To find a way forward, C.S.R found a clue in his past. Having abandoned his first band, Totenwinter a black metal band with the Chernobyl disaster as its central theme (I was very fascinated by how it got handled and what it did to people. I saw it as a perfect representation of what of what humanity does to the planet, and to itself as well) he spent a year in a shitty grunge band before reaching an epiphany.

I realised it was never going to go anywhere, and that it didnt do anything valuable for me or [anyone] else, he says. Thats what the starting point for Schammasch was, basically, which was the exact opposite of what I was doing.

That willingness to destroy in order to rebuild was alluded to in the opening title track for Contradiction, its first lines a quote from Aleister Crowley: Worship what youve burned, burn what youve worshipped.

Its a very interesting formula to live by, says C.S.R, because it makes you question the things you do and the things you believe in. Everybody gets stuck at one point. Everybody gets trapped within their own dogmas, so burning them down is destructive, but it can also be the most constructive thing you can do to reinvent yourself every time and start from a new point.

Triangles three discs were representations of separate yet connected states of being: the acceptance of death, the balance between the physical and spiritual worlds, and the ultimate liberation of the soul, free from the demands of the ego. Looming over the next horizon, however, was a reality check.

The overall goal or message of that album was always a very positive one and a very hopeful one, says C.S.R. Everything about Hearts Of No Light is the exact opposite of that. I feel like a lot of what Id been trying to reach with Triangle, Id nowadays look upon as illusions, or dead ends even.

"That might sound quite negative, but its just more honest than negative. There is a much more sober view on the new album. I think Ive just given up on certain things that I was trying to explore or reach within the Triangle cosmos, which kind of led nowhere, or they didnt lead towards the goal I wanted to achieve back then.

So was it a state of enlightenment that he had been aiming for up to that point?

Absolutely. And during the process of making the new album, I came to realise that a state of enlightenment is quite a vague goal. Nowadays, Im discovering a much more earthly, realistic view, ever since I started to really dive into this feeling of emptiness, and really embrace that.

"For a long time I tried to fight that idea. I was pushing it away and not wanting to realise that this emptiness is the starting point for creating a new cosmos within a new work of art. Its the first time I really felt this emotion while working in this band. It was tough to really accept.

Running at a relatively restrained 67 minutes, Hearts Of No Light is recognisably Schammasch, but this time around the surging, exquisitely wrought, Behemoth-pacing will to power and the apocalyptic knife-edge drama that roils throughout the album finds no oases of elevating calm.

The atmospheric way stations A Bridge Ablaze and the closing Innermost, Lowermost Abyss are states of elegant, awe-inspiring purgatory, beautiful to apprehend yet uncertain in their fate. Darker and more fevered than anything they have released before, the albums soul-scourging scope leaves you feeling like more than ever is at stake.

If there is one moment of succour, its the track A Paradigm Of Beauty. Amid reverberating, post-punk-infused riffs, C.S.Rs vocals turn from a gathering-stormcloud bellow to wracked eulogy: In the midst of burning ruins / Your light was never seen before a calling to a divine spark.

Thats absolutely what Im trying to say in that song, he agrees, that there is divinity in creativity. Im telling it to myself as well, because pretty much everything else on the album is putting the process of creation into a negative and destructive light.

"You have to let go of a lot of things, like your picture of what the album should have become and all the expectations you have towards yourself. Something in you dies during that process as well, and at the same time something gets born.

That seeming negativity reaches its apotheosis in the albums haunting final track, which is, as C.S.R puts it, a representation of the endless fall of man. Is there an ultimate benefit to reaching that point?

Well, you certainly let go of something by putting it into expression. It wasnt done because it was a constructive thing to do, it was the necessary point to end the album, which is the absolute lowest point where you could go. Its not necessarily a negative or a depressed state. Its just an honest state and a sober state, where Im not under any illusions.

Hearts Of No Light may not be brimming with PMA, but its a necessary and enthralling step in both Schammaschs and C.S.Rs personal evolution a willingness to give oneself to the cycle of death and rebirth, and submit yourself to all the self-examination that entails.

Honesty is a difficult thing, he concludes. Youve got to destroy a lot of your own self, your own ego, your idea of who you think you are, and its a very painful but very rewarding process as well. Because the more you get rid of these shells, the freer you are in terms of what you can become.

Hearts Of No Light is out now via Prosthetic and available to order on Vinyl, CD or MP3.

See more here:

Schammasch: Aleister Crowley and the destructive yet divine nature of creation - Louder

Roy Exum: AG Barr: What Has Happened To Us? – The Chattanoogan

About 48 hours ago, William Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, delivered the keynote address at the 2020 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville at the Opryland complex. As many of you know, Barr has been the subject of heavy barrage in Washington and from The White House. In the last two weeks, over 2,000 Department of Justice types have, in a written plea, begged him to step down and over 1,000 Federal justices have gathered in an emergency session.

Yet what he said in his speech to the broadcasters group on Wednesday is of such monumental importance to me, and you the reader, that I am going to suggest you stop reading this right now until you can come back, when it is quiet and youve got 10 or 15 minutes to spare, because this should not be a quick read. We are including Barrs complete speech, not selected snippets by some left-leaning news editor because it is too long. You need to read and digest this in its entirety because it explains quite well why so many of us are unhappy in America right now.

We no longer disagree we hate one another. We no longer have those wonderful conversations where we calmly discuss our differences and seek common ground. This is why Congress and our Senate are equally repulsive to liberals and conservatives alike. For instance, I think Republican Senate candidate Bill Hagerty is the most dangerous man on the Nov. 3 ballot and here is why: He is so blindly bidden to President Trump there is no way he can represent a state where a full half loathe the President for his often crass behavior but who deserve to be properly and compassionately represented.

Please, you can name no Democrat Senator or member of Congress who would dare sit and talk to such a one-sided bureaucrat. The truth is President Trump has achieved mighty things but hatred, especially when untethered, is totally blind. The Attorney General tells us precisely what has been encouraged (?) to occur and my hope is that we can recognize our personal faults, find compromise, and understanding, to become a better unified source for our all-inclusive future.

The reason todays story is one of my longest is because it is important, in my view, for me to give you some background to start. First, there is a synopsis taken directly from Wikipedia, which I believe gives the best unbiased view of what has happened in Washington within just the last 26 days leading to Attorney Generals address on Wednesday. In Barrs comments, youll note three factions that have been allowed to collide and cheapen the common good. Finally, there is a postscript you must read, this two days after the President has sued the New York Times, and how the Times editorial page outlandishly blames the president for the horrifying coronavirus that is now threatening the world.

One last thing before we get going. Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat on the presidential ticket, was slandered earlier this week in Chattanooga by the bumbling Hagerty as Mini-Mike, the slur in reference to his 5-foot-8 stature. Every moron knows Bloomberg has had absolutely nothing to do with how tall he became, but the somber truth is at last report he has given Johns Hopkins over a billion (with a b) to better the human condition. I most certainly disagree with Bloombergs election promises, and his extremely liberal stance, but I am intrigued by the fact this son of a dairy farm bookkeeper, whose mom was a bank teller, has ascended to become the ninth-richest person in the world, with a net worth estimated to be well over $60 billion.

Please! This man alone has given away $8.2 billion in philanthropy. What made him endure three terms as Mayor of New York City. He has something to share. The question then is not have you, but would you if given the circumstance? Rather than hate him because of his stripe, lets instead picture and then encourage what he has within him to teach us.

No, Bloomberg will never become president the position never becomes some masterpiece to be bought like some museum painting but unless we embrace his achievements and sit to talk with this all-giving guy though our differences and reach a compromise position as human beings, we lose a national treasure and continue our wandering in the dark. This is Barrs point and we must get our nation and its people to return to our True North.

* * *

NOT FROM MAINSTREAM MEDIA BUT, INSTEAD, FROM WIKIPEDIA

FOR BACKGROUND: Seeking to give you an unbiased version of what has occurred in Washington in just the last four weeks yes, just in this February this account comes from Wikipedia, The Free Dictionary. Those with doubt should go to the William Barr page on Wikipedia, where youll find every fact is attributed. Here is what was written:

- - -

President Trump directly referenced Barr in the Justice Department's intercession in recommending a lighter sentence for Trump's associate and old friend Roger Stone. Trump's tweet stated: "Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought."

Initially, four career prosecutors had recommended that Stone serve a jail term of between seven to nine years. A Trump tweet followed: "Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!" - after which the Department recommended an unspecified jail term. The Department claimed that this later decision was made without consulting the White House. The prosecutors resigned from the case as a result, with one choosing to leave the Department.

Barr in turn said Trump had not asked him to step in, but noted that Trump's tweets and public comments make it impossible for the attorney general to do his job. "I think its time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases," Barr said.

Barr's rebuke of Trump's use of Twitter for interference in DOJ matters was seen as a rare departure from his usual unwavering support of the president. Barr's comments followed criticism of the department for its poor handling of the sentencing of Roger Stone after DOJ actions seen as favorable to Trump and his allies. Days later, more than 2,000 former DOJ employees signed a letter calling for Barr's resignation.

The Federal Judges Association of over 1,000 federal jurists called an emergency meeting for February 18 to discuss their concerns about the intervention of Trump and Justice Department officials in politically-sensitive cases. Despite Barr's rebuke of Trump, days later the president resumed denouncing the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury foreperson in the Stone case, while acknowledging that his comments made Barr's job harder. After granting several pardons, Trump also labelled himself as the country's "chief law enforcement officer", a description usually reserved for the attorney general.

* * *

WILLIAM BARRS REMARKS AT THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS CONVENTION IN NASHVILLE, TN.

(NOTE: This is a flash transcript of the Attorney General Barrs remarks on Wednesday, February 26, 2020.)

We live at a time when religion long an essential pillar of our society is being driven from the public square. Thank God we have the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) to counter that effort. Since its creation in 1944, it has reached, and continues to reach, people from all backgrounds on a variety of platforms.

Your members courageously affirm that entertainment and moral education are not mutually exclusive. You have boldly shown that media can serve higher ends: the safeguarding of faith as well as the cultivation of the classical virtues of the mind and heart that maintain our republican experiment in self-governance. As such, NRBs members offer an alternative and essential platform for believers and non-believers alike.

Now, I trust that everyone has noticed the current intensity and pervasiveness of politics in our lives. It has infiltrated and overtaken nearly every aspect of life: sports, entertainment, apparel, technology of course, religion too even our eating habits.

Politics is everywhere. It is omnipresent. Why is that?

It seems to me that the passionate political divisions of today result from a conflict between two fundamentally different visions of the individual and his relationship to the state. One vision undergirds the political system we call liberal democracy, which limits government and gives priority to preserving personal liberty. The other vision propels a form of totalitarian democracy, which seeks to submerge the individual in a collectivist agenda. It subverts individual freedom in favor of elite conceptions about what best serves the collective.

In my view, liberal democracy has reached its fullest expression in the Anglo-American political system. This system is responsible for unprecedented human freedom and progress. We providentially enjoy its blessings today.

The wellsprings of this system are found in Augustinian Christianity. According to St. Augustine, man lives simultaneously in two realms. Each individual is a unique creation of God with a transcendent end and eternal life in the City of God. We are created to love our Creator in this world and become united with him in eternity. As Augustine writes in his Confessions, You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.

At the same time, while we work toward our eternal destiny, we live in the temporal world the City of Man. But this world is a fallen one. Man is stubbornly imperfect and prone to prey upon his fellow man. Unless there is a temporal authority capable of restraining the wicked an authority with power here on earth the wicked men would overwhelm the good ones and there could be no peace.

In the ancient Greek tradition, the state was a positive moral agency whose purpose was to define for men what was good and make them so. Augustinian Christianity sharply departed from that conception. It saw the state as a necessary evil, with the limited function of keeping the peace here on earth.

These foundational ideas gradually evolved into our current conceptions of individual dignity, personal liberty, limited government, and the separation of church and state. This process took hundreds of years and involved the amalgamation of many different influences, including those associated with Anglo-Saxon folkways, the common law, the experiences of the English Civil War, the political thought of the English Whigs, the moderate Enlightenment, the American Revolution, and the foundation of the American Republic in 1789.

What has resulted from these centuries of experience is a system that takes man and society as they actually exist. Precisely because it recognizes that man is imperfect, it does not try to use the coercive power of the state to recreate man or society wholesale. It tends to trust, not in revolutionary designs, but in common virtues, customs, and institutions that were refined over long periods of time. It puts its faith in the accumulated wisdom of the ages over the revolutionary innovations of those who aspire to be, what Edmund Burke called, the physician of the state.

Liberal democracy recognizes that preserving broad personal freedom, including the freedom to pursue ones own spiritual life and destiny, best comports with the true nature and dignity of man. It also recognizes that man is happiest in his voluntary associations, not coerced ones, and must be left free to participate in civil society, by which I mean the range of collective endeavors outside the sphere of politics.

The state is not the same as the voluntary associations that make up civil society. To the contrary, it is the apparatus of coercive power. Under our system of liberal democracy, the role of government is not to forcibly remake man and society. The government has the far more modest purpose of preserving the proper balance of personal freedom and order necessary for a healthy civil society to develop and individual humans to flourish.

But just as our robust vision of liberal democracy came to fruition in 1789, another conflicting vision was taking shape. This has been referred to as totalitarian democracy. Its prophet was Rousseau, and its first fruit was the French Revolution. In the two centuries since, totalitarian democratic movements of both the right and the left have appeared.

Totalitarian democracy is based on the idea that man is naturally good, but has been corrupted by existing societal customs, conventions, and institutions. The path to perfection is to tear down these artifices and restore human society to its natural condition.

This form of democracy is messianic in that it postulates a preordained, perfect scheme of things to which men will be inexorably led. Its goals are earthly and they are urgent. Although totalitarian democracy is democratic in form, it requires an all-knowing elite to guide the masses toward their determined end, and that elite relies on whipping up mass enthusiasm to preserve its power and achieve its goals.

Totalitarian democracy is almost always secular and materialistic, and its adherents tend to treat politics as a substitute for religion. Their sacred mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society according to an abstract ideal of perfection. The virtue of any individual is defined by whether they are aligned with the program. Whatever means used are justified because, by definition, they will quicken the pace of mankinds progress toward perfection.

As one political scientist has noted, while liberal democracy conceives of people relating on many different planes of existence, totalitarian democracy recognizes only one plane of existence, the political. All is subsumed within a single project to use the power of the state to perfect mankind rather than limit the state to protecting our freedom to find our own ends. It is increasingly, as Mussolini memorably said, All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

While many factors have contributed to the polarized politics of today, I think one significant reason our politics has become so intense and so ill-tempered is that some in the so-called progressive movement have broken away from the fold of liberal democracy to pursue a society more in line with the thinking of Rousseau than that of our nations Founders. That has played a major role in our politics becoming less like a disagreement within a family, and more like a blood feud between two different clans.

Over the past few decades, those further to the left have increasingly identified themselves as progressives rather than liberals. And some of these self-proclaimed progressives have become increasingly militant and totalitarian in their style. While they seek power through the democratic process, their policy agenda has become more aggressively collectivist, socialist, and explicitly revolutionary.

The crux of the progressive program is to use the public purse to provide ever-increasing benefits to the public and to, thereby, build a permanent constituency of supporters who are also dependents. They want able-bodied citizens to become more dependent, subject to greater control, and increasingly supportive of dependency. The tacit goal of this project is to convert all of us into 25-year-olds living in the governments basement, focusing our energies on obtaining a larger allowance rather than getting a job and moving out.

Political philosophers since Aristotle have worried that democracies are vulnerable to just this form of corruption. Probably the greatest chronicler of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, foresaw that American democracy would be susceptible to this evolution. As he described it, our society was vulnerable to a soft despotism wherein the majority would gradually let itself be taken care of by the state much like dependent children.

Yet this process would be slow and imperceptible. The tyranny that results, Tocqueville wrote, does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces (the people) to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

It would be totalitarianism beneath a veneer of democratic choice. As Tocqueville summed it up: By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again.

Historically, our country has relied on a number of bulwarks against this slide toward despotism, each of which has been essential in preserving the liberty that has defined our democracy. Today, I would like to discuss three institutions that have served this vital purpose: religion, the decentralization of government power, and the free press.

The sad fact is that all three have eroded in recent decades. At the end of the day, if we are to preserve our liberal democracy from the meretricious appeal of socialism and the strain of progressivism I have described, we must turn our attention to revivifying these vital institutions.

LET ME FIRST ADDRESS RELIGION

As I discussed in a speech I gave last fall at Notre Dame, while the Framers believed that religion and government should be separate spheres, they also firmly believed that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government. As John Adams put it: We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

Tocqueville was especially emphatic on this score. He believed that religion was democracys most powerful antidote to any tendency toward a tyrannical majority hijacking the system for despotic ends.

How does religion protect against majoritarian tyranny? In the first place, it allows us to limit the role of government by cultivating internal moral values in the people that are powerful enough to restrain individual rapacity without resort to the states coercive power.

Experience teaches that, to be strong enough to control willful human beings, moral values must be based on authority independent of mans will. In other words, they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being. Men are far likelier to obey rules that come from God than to abide by the abstract outcome of an ad hoc utilitarian calculus.

These fixed moral limits did not just apply to individuals, but to political majorities as well. According to Tocqueville, in America, religion has instilled a deep sense that there are immovable moral limits on what a majority can impose on the minority. It was due to the influence of religion in America, he explained, that no one dared to advance the maxim that everything is permitted in the interest of society.

Thus, as one scholar observes, Tocqueville concluded that democracy requires citizens who believe that the rules of morality and hence the rights of their fellow citizens are not merely convenient fictions, wholly dependent on the will of men, but are instead rooted in the immutable transcendent truth.

Thus, it is safe to give the people power to rule, but only if they believe there are moral limits on their power. Tocquevilles call to preserve this moral system is not, as scholars have explained, a rejection of pluralism; it is an effort to preserve the moral and religious foundation on which a successful pluralism can exist.

There is another way in which religion tends to temper the passion and intensity of political disputes. Messianic secular movements have a natural tendency to hubris. Their goal is to achieve paradise in the here and now. Those who participate in these movements believe their goals are so noble, they tend to see their opponents as evil and believe that any means necessary to achieve their objectives are justified. That is why the most militant agents for change are entirely comfortable demonizing their opponents and are all too ready to destroy those opponents in any way they can.

This is not to deny that religion can also lead to self-righteousness. Of course it can. But religion usually has a built-in antidote to hubris in the form of sharp warnings against presumption. In the case of Christianity, Christ repeatedly warned against self-righteousness:

First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And so on.

Indeed, the very essence of Christs message counsels for modesty and restraint in secular politics. The mission is not to make new men or transform the world through the coercive power of the state. On the contrary, the central idea is that the right way to transform the world is for each of us to focus on morally transforming ourselves.

Thus, unlike those who see the line between good and evil as running between them and their opponents, the Christian outlook is expressed by Solzhenitsyns observation that the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.

Religion also tempers the acrimony of our politics by making clear that what happens here on earth is only transient not eternal. Remember, Man, that thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return.

Unfortunately, this vital moderating force in our society has declined over the past several decades. In recent years, we have seen the steady erosion of religion and its benevolent influence.

Some of this has been caused by the misinterpretation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of our Constitution by our courts. Instead of recognizing the benefits of religion to a healthy society and seeking to accommodate religion, we seem to have adopted the posture of official hostility to religion. That is directly contrary to the Framers views. As Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote in 1798: The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

While most everyone agrees that we must have separation of Church and State, this does not require that we drive religion from the public square and affirmatively use government power to promote a culture of disbelief. As Tocqueville would have predicted, this weakening of religion is contributing to ill-temper in our political life.

The next essential check on despotism I would like to discuss is

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT POWER

Both Tocqueville and James Madison believed that the first step toward tyranny in a democracy was the formation of a consolidated and galvanized national majority, sufficiently roused by a common idea to ride roughshod over an opposing minority. Both men thought that decentralization of power reflected in the American system of federalism would help prevent the coalescence of such an energized national majority.

As we all know, under our federal system, individuals are subject to two sovereigns: the national government, and their state government.

The Framers believed in the principle of subsidiarity that is, that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest competent authority that was closest to the people. That is the level of government at which the individual was most empowered. It is where he or she could play the largest role and have the most direct involvement. The Framers conceived that the vast majority of collective decision-making by the people about their affairs would be done at the state and local level.

The federal government was supposed to be a government of limited powers. It was primarily supposed to handle two things that had to be achieved at the national level: first, conducting foreign relations and providing for the national defense and, second, integrating economic affairs across the states so we could have a single national economy.

The Framers included the Commerce Clause for this second purpose, but that provision has since ballooned far beyond its original understanding. Nowadays, it is hard to tell whether a particular measure is regulating commerce to promote integration of the nations commerce, or whether it is simply an effort by the national government to regulate a domestic matter within a state.

Sadly, most restrictions on federal power under the Commerce Clause have broken down. Virtually any federal measure can be justified no matter how much it invades the prerogatives of the states. As a result, the federal government is now directly governing the country as one monolithic entity with over 300 million people.

I believe that the destruction of federalism is another source of the extreme discontent in our contemporary political life. We have come to believe that we should have one national solution for every problem in society. You have a problem? Let us fix it in Washington, DC. One size fits all.

The Framers would have seen a one-size-fits-all government for hundreds of millions of diverse citizens as being utterly unworkable and a straight road to tyranny. That is because they recognized that not every community is exactly the same. What works in Brooklyn might not be a good fit for Birmingham. The federal system allows for this diversity. It also enables people who do not like a certain system to move to a different one. It is easier to run away from a local tyranny than a national one. If people do not like the rule in a state, they can vote with their feet and move.

But if it is one size fits all if every congressional enactment or Supreme Court decision establishes a single rule for every American then the stakes are very high as to what that rule is. When you take a controversial issue about which there are passionate views on both sides, such as abortion, and say we are going to have one rule nationwide, it is a recipe for bitter conflict over that rule. And when that rule must govern widely-divergent communities, the conflict is between combatants who often do not even comprehend their opponents perspective.

The result is our current acrimonious politics. And because the rules that result from these struggles are then imposed from outside by a remote central government, they further undercut a sense of community and give rise to alienation.

In short, we have lost the idea of diversity in this country real diversity, where communities can coexist and adopt different approaches to things. That, too, erodes an important check on despotism.

Now, finally, let me turn to

THE FREEDOM OF HE PRESS

In addition to religion and the decentralization of government power, the free press was an institution that Tocqueville believed would serve as a check on the despotic tendency of democracy.

This was not because Tocqueville believed that the American press did a particularly good job elevating the publics understanding and discourse. On the contrary, he generally took a dimmer view. As Tocqueville put it: The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of the populace; and he habitually abandons the principles of political science to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life, and disclose all their weaknesses and errors.

Tocquevilles view was that a free press did not so much perform a positive good, as prevent an evil. It achieved this precisely because it was highly fragmented and reflected a wide diversity of voices. In that sense, a free and diverse press provided another form of decentralization of power that, as long as it remained diverse, made it difficult to galvanize a consolidated national majority.

In 19th-century America, the press was so fragmented that the power of any one organ was small. The multiplicity of newspapers, even in one city, cultivated a wide variety of views and localized opinion. Tocqueville contrasted this to the situation he saw in Europe, where news outlets were consolidated in major urban centers, such that a few voices were capable of influencing the opinions of the entire country.

When the diverse organs of the press begin to advance along the same track, wrote Tocqueville, their influence becomes almost irresistible in the long term, and public opinion, struck always from the same side, ends by yielding under their blows.

Today in the United States, the corporate or mainstream press is massively consolidated. And it has become remarkably monolithic in viewpoint, at the same time that an increasing number of journalists see themselves less as objective reporters of the facts, and more as agents of change. These developments have given the press an unprecedented ability to mobilize a broad segment of the public on a national scale and direct that opinion in a particular direction.

When the entire press advances along the same track, as Tocqueville put it, the relationship between the press and the energized majority becomes mutually reinforcing. Not only does it become easier for the press to mobilize a majority, but the mobilized majority becomes more powerful and overweening with the press as its ally.

This is not a positive cycle, and I think it is fair to say that it puts the press role as a breakwater for the tyranny of the majority in jeopardy. The key to restoring the press in that vital role is to cultivate a greater diversity of voices in the media.

That is where you come in. You are one of the last holdouts in the consolidation of organs and viewpoints of the press. It is, therefore, essential that you continue your work and continue to supply the people with diverse, divergent perspectives on the news of the day. And in this secular age, it is especially vital that your religious perspective is voiced.

So where does that leave us? It might not seem like it, but I am actually an optimist, and I believe that identifying the problem is the first step in correcting it. Our nations greatest days lie ahead, but only if we can alter our course and pay heed to the lessons of the past.

This means fostering a culture that is truly pluralistic. It means all viewpoints must be treated fairly not simply the viewpoints favored by our cultural elites. And it especially means giving our respect to religion as a vital pillar of our society. Religion is something we should celebrate, not disparage.

This also means working to devolve democratic choice to the lowest possible level. While the wizards in Washington might think they know best, the reality is that there is no unified best for every community and every person in our vast country. The solution to social ills is not to exhaust ourselves devising the perfect rule for everyone; it is to let our villages, cities, and states set the rules for their communities. That allows people with principled disagreements to peaceably coexist, and prevents politics from becoming zero-sum nationwide.

And finally, this means encouraging diverse voices to speak out whether on television, over the radio, or in print. When Tocqueville visited America, there was scarcely a hamlet which has not its own newspaper. We need to get back to that. We need to support local journalism and local voices, and each of you needs to continue the great work you are doing.

In sum, your voices and your perspectives are essential to reversing the different trends I have discussed today. I look forward to working together to restore the separate spheres that have long sustained our society. It is not too late to stem the tide, but we need to get to work.

Thank you all for the opportunity to talk with you today.

* * *

POSTSCRIPT: THE LEGAL AFFAIRS OF DONALD TRUMP

An analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate. Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150. Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court. Over 150 other cases were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida since 1983. In about 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump. In hundreds more, cases ended with the available public record unclear about the resolution. Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38.

royexum@aol.com

See more here:

Roy Exum: AG Barr: What Has Happened To Us? - The Chattanoogan

From your frequency to another — how do the laws of attraction work? – Free Press Journal

It is this very frequency of vibration that attracts certain things and situations toward you and this is called the Law of Attraction which all of us are very well aware of. The law of attraction exists only because the presence or the power of vibration is strongly felt by everything that has a capacity to perceive things around them.

It is through our senses that we catch the frequency of things and people around us. This also explains why we feel happy and motivated in a place of worship while low and depressed in a graveyard. It is the frequency of vibrations which strongly influences our thoughts and mind and vice versa.

The Power of Attraction exists only because the Law of Vibration is playing around all the time. So technically, the Law of Vibration is important than the Law of Attraction, and rest of the things just follow.

You can very easilytest theLaw of Vibration.As mentioned earlier that the frequency of vibration is induced by feelings. Go ahead and think of something that makes you feel happy and positive. Now go to a party or a bar with this feeling.

When you are happy and positive you smile effortlessly and happy people always attract others around them, especially those who at that time are vibrating with a lower frequency. You will be surprised to see howpeople will surround you in a matter of moments. You can also try to be grumpy and you will stand in the same party/bar- alone in a corner.

Tune in

After knowing what we do now, we can make this law of vibration work for us and take advantage of it. Simply put- lets tune in! If you are not feeling positive or motivated it means that at that moment you are vibrating with a lower frequency, realise the fact and go ahead and tune in with a person or something that has a higher frequency of vibration than yours at that moment in time. You would in no time be filled with positive thoughts and a feel-good feeling.

You could go to a park or amidst nature and stand or sit near a tree. Nature is always vibrating with positivity and has high levels of vibrations. No wonder that the seekers always head towards the nature in its raw form for enlightenment and deeper understanding in spirituality.

Another way to change your frequency of vibration is music. Different kinds of music can get you into different kinds of vibrations. Music has tremendous power to do that. Time and again, it has proven its healing and therapeutic qualities.

Be in the Range

Every vibration has a radius of its existence. Some people who have extremely low vibrations do not radiate at all. Beware of such people as the sullenness might get the better of you. On the other hand, some people radiate very strongly and influence whoever is directly or even indirectly connected with them.

Many leaders, spiritual gurus we know in history have been a source of influence not only in their immediate vicinity but globally. The reason behind their huge followings is that they vibrate with higher vibrations and are full of positive thoughts for everyone. In their proximity, one is bound to feel elevated.

So, if you wonder why your life doesnt change and there always seems to be stagnancy, make the law of vibration work for you and try to change your frequency to higher levels and unveil a new beginning.

The universe doesnt hear what you are saying; it only feels the vibration you are offering

See more here:

From your frequency to another -- how do the laws of attraction work? - Free Press Journal

Have You Accepted the Free Market as Your Personal Savior? – The Bulwark

Hello, friend. Im knocking on your door today to ask whether you have accepted the free market as your personal savior. If you havent, Im here to share the good news.

I am, obviously, riffing on the latest talking point from the nationalist conservatives, who have formed a new think tank based on the complaint that American politics is dominated by free-market fundamentalism. Please try not to laugh.

Its not just that this is a ridiculous straw manadvocates of the free market have spent our entire lives being ignored by politicians. Its the fact that this is a sneering way of implying that confidence in markets is a form of dangerous dogmatism. It is an attempt to portray free-market economics as some kind of fanatical leap of faith, rather than a body of knowledge grounded in observation of the remarkable achievements of capitalism over the centuriesnot to mention the failure of every other system.

Its an attempt to accuse somebody else of dogmatism, while they are the ones closing their minds to the evidence.

The most remarkable fact of the last two centuries is the conquest of poverty. We adopted a system of property rights and largely free, unregulated marketsfirst in the America and Western Europe, later in Asia and elsewhereand instead of a hellscape of poverty and oppression, we got this:

We got a vast increase in wealth and the hitherto unknown phenomenon of mass prosperity, in which the majority of people are able to provide themselves not just with the bare necessities of life, but with things that had previously been considered luxuries.

And not only do we have more and better stuff. We also put in a lot less work for it. A mechanized economy no longer runs on heavy physical labor, working hours have dropped, and there are now more white-collar jobs than blue-collar jobs. I say that, not to run down blue-collar jobs, but to point out that the average person has a lot more options, and if you dont want to work with your hands, you probably dont have to.

I was only half-joking when I described the market as your personal savior. Free markets have saved you, individually, from a life of poverty and drudgery. Capitalism has saved you from the hopelessness of a constant struggle with hunger and the limited opportunities of a world in which the vast majority of people were required to toil long hours in the fields just to survive.

No, economics is not the only source of meaning in life. But it is one important source of meaning; consider how much of our lives we spend on our work and careers. And in providing us with wealth and leisure time, economic progress makes all the other sources of meaning easier to access and pursue. Im going to recommend one more time that everyone read Steven Pinkers book Enlightenment Now. I dont agree with all of his conclusions, but he exhaustively demonstrates the vast improvement in human life over the past two centuries. That improvement is most easily measured in terms of increased wealth, but wealth leads to improvements that have an intellectual, psychological, and spiritual dimension: more education, more leisure time, greater access to art, less violence, even an increase in average IQ.

Your life under capitalism is not just wealthier, its richer in every sense. Or at least the free market has made it possible for you to fill your life with things that are meaningful. If you are not doing so, thats your choice. It is not something imposed on you by market forces, which have actually worked to provide you with more options in life, not fewer.

And did I mention the failure of the other systems? Various utopian schemes have been adopted over the years that were supposed to deliver all of these benefits, but without the nuisances of money, prices, markets, and the freedom to trade. They have all failed. A society that consistently rejects the mechanisms of the marketplace ends up like Venezuela, which crashed from relative prosperity to destitute poverty in a surprisingly short period of time.

The people who sneer about free-market fundamentalism are not Bernie Bros itching to run the camps in the Glorious Peoples Republic. Some of them are conservatives who merely want to chisel away at markets here and there in the hope that just a tiny bit more government regulation will make America great again.

There is a sense in which free-marketers are fundamentalist: we start from fundamental principles learned through centuries of observation and experience. These principles of economics warn us about the limited knowledge of central planners and authoritarians, the unintended consequences of supposedly well-meaning regulations, and the intended consequences of hucksters looking to use political pressure to prop up their pet projects.

Thats what leads us to this latest broadside against free markets, which comes from Oren Cass, who is a conservative advocate of industrial policy, which means, in practice, that he wants the government to put its thumbs on the economic scales only piecemeal, depending on which industries and companies the guy in charge wants to help or punish. What Cass is advocating, in other words, is a form of crony capitalism: Free markets for everybodyexcept politically-connected insiders, who get the markets rigged in their favor.

We have a certain amount of experience to show us how honestly and impartially such favors are doled out.

If we want to talk about the fundamentals of the free market, we should note that free-market economics were born and adopted as part of a system of political freedom and individual rights, and the earliest advocates of laissez-faire were also crusaders against corruption and oppression.

The moral principle behind markets is the idea that free people should be able to make their own choices about how they live and what they buy, rather than having preferences pushed down on them from above by populist politicians or arrogant technocratsor those, like the nationalist conservatives, who manage the trick of being both of these things at the same time.

The fundamentalism behind free markets is the suspicion the alternative requires coercion, rather than free choice, as the organizing principle of human affairs. This is what the nationalists are really after. When they rail against free-market fundamentalism, what they really mean is: Dont raise any moral qualms about my favored form of coercion.

If the point of condemning free-market fundamentalists is that many conservatives arent comfortable rejecting all government controlshow can they imagine that they are in any immediate danger on that score? I would gladly spend time with them in Libertarian Debate Club arguing against every last form of government regulation, making the case for private roads, and showing how we could totally fund the government without any taxes. But those arent the debates were going to be having any time soon.

Instead, our debates are going to be about how to pay for massive entitlement programs when they go bankrupt and how to deal with the (allegedly) unintended consequences of the latest poorly thought-out scheme to shut down trade or take over an industry. Our current problems arise from far too little regard for the fundamentals of the free market.

Advocates of the free market know that it will take a long time to get to our Promised Land, and weve given up expecting the laissez-faire utopia in our lifetimes. We would be happy just to see more humility on the part of would-be planners about the brilliance of their schemes. We would like them to recognize that their plan to raise the wages of Uber drivers might just end up putting a whole bunch of free-lancers out of work, or that their plot to use tariffs to revive factory jobs might actually result in a manufacturing recession.

All we ask is that you make a little room in your hearts for the good news about markets and capitalism. Economic policy should start, not with a sneering dismissal of the free market, but with a recognition that capitalism has brought us to a very high level of freedom and prosperity, one unprecedented in all of human history.

It has raised us up out of bondage and made us great among the nations of the earth. And we should not be too eager to sin against it.

Here endeth the lesson.

Read the original post:

Have You Accepted the Free Market as Your Personal Savior? - The Bulwark

Involve the kids in euthanasia, advises Canadian doctor – BioEdge

Bedside gatherings at a Canadian euthanasia are normally an adults-only affair. But one doctor suggests that young children would benefit from becoming involved.

In a blog entry at a University of British Columbia site, Dr Susan Woolhouse, who has been involved in some 70 assisted deaths, says My past experiences during my palliative care rotations reassured me that children could benefit from bearing witness to a loved ones death. Why would MAID be any different?

She gives some tips about how to explain the process of dying to young children:

Assuming that children are given honest, compassionate and non-judgmental information about MAID, there is no reason to think that witnessing a medically assisted death cannot be integrate as a normal part of the end of life journey for their loved one. If the adults surrounding them normalize MAID, so will the children.

These conversations can easily be had with children as young as 4, she says.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Follow this link:

Involve the kids in euthanasia, advises Canadian doctor - BioEdge

Trudeau moves to make Canada most permissive euthanasia regime in the world – Lifesite

OTTAWA, February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) The Trudeau Liberal governments euthanasia bill tabled earlier this week will give Canada the most permissive euthanasia law in the world, its critics are unanimously warning.

Introduced February 24 by Justice Minister David Lametti, Bill C-7 is the Liberal response to the Quebec court decision last September striking down the requirement that a persons natural death be reasonably foreseeable to qualify for death by lethal injection.

But the federal bill expands euthanasia legal in Canada since June 2016 far beyond dispensing with the terminal illness criterion the Quebec Truchon-Gladu ruling declared unconstitutional.

Any way you look at it, its a minefield, said Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The language of the bill is just simply, absolutely confusing and ridiculous. If they do pass Bill C-7, we will become the most wide-open euthanasia regime in the world.

Schadenberg is joined by Campaign Life Coalition, Canadian Physicians for Life, Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia, Living With Dignity, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, among others, in fiercely denouncing the bill.

Notably, Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto issued a strongly worded statement the day after the bill was tabled urging Canadians to oppose it.

This is a new chapter of death on demand, he wrote.

Canada has cast aside restrictions at a far quicker pace than any other jurisdiction in the world that has legalized euthanasia. (See Cardinal Collins full statement below.)

Bill C-7 will allow lethal injection of individuals who are no longer competent to consent, such as persons with dementia, if they have issued an advance directive asking to be euthanized at a future date, Schadenberg noted in an analysis of the legislation.

This amendment to the law contravenes the Carter decision which required that a person be capable of consenting to die, he said, referring to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Canadas prohibition of euthanasia as unconstitutional.

The Trudeau government appears to be working closely with the euthanasia lobby which has the goal of amending the law to allow advanced consent for euthanasia, he observed.

Allowing euthanasia by prior consent can lead to such horrific scenarios as an elderly Dutch woman being lethally injected forcibly in 2016 as family members held her down.

In that case, the doctor was ultimately exonerated when a court ruled in September 2019 that not euthanizing the patient would have undermined the wishes she expressed four years earlier when first diagnosed with Alzheimers.

Bill C-7 specifies individuals must not be euthanized if they show they dont want to be by words, sounds or gestures, but states they can be killed if these signals are deemed involuntary.

The bill allows the medical practitioner who is killing the patient to be one of the two required witnesses which is an insane conflict of interest, noted Schadenberg.

Bill C-7 waives the current 10-day waiting period for individuals deemed terminally ill so they can be lethally injected the same day they request euthanasia.

It implements a 90-day waiting period for individuals seeking euthanasia for a non-terminal condition, creatng a two-tier law that Schadenberg predicts is open invitation for a Charter challenge.

A future court decision will likely strike down the 90-day waiting period for people who are not terminally ill because this provision represents an inequality within the law, he says.

As for the bills purported ban on euthanasia for mental illness, its a smokescreen, at best, to say that mental illness is not allowed because, in fact, it is, Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

When Liberals legalized euthanasia four years ago, its Bill C-14 allowed euthanasia for persons at least 18 years of age who were capable of giving consent and who suffered from a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

The 2016 bill defined the latter as a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability resulting in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability and causing enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable (emphasis added).

Bill C-7 is explicit that for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability.

But this does not prevent euthanasia for psychological reasons, since the law specifically allows it, Schadenberg pointed out.

Moreover, with Bill C-7, the Liberals havent defined mental illness and they havent amended psychological suffering to exclude mental illness, he said.

Schadenberg argues that the Liberals should set aside Bill C-7 and concentrate on the planned June 2020 review of the current law.

David Cooke of Campaign Life Coalition also excoriated the bill as a how-to manual on killing Canadians in a detailed analysis here.

Among actions opposing the bill, Campaign Life has launched a petition to MPs against Bill C-7 here. The EPC has a petition to Justice Minister Lametti and Health Minister Patty Hadju asking the Liberals to nix the bill here.

The CCCB joined Cardinal Collins in asking Canadians to oppose the bill. To find who your MP is, go here.

***

Cardinal Collins full statement:

The federal government has introduced new legislation expanding the eligibility criteria for euthanasia. The inaccurate term, medical assistance in dying (MAiD), is currently used to describe what this law would allow, but this process is more accurately called euthanasia or assisted suicide. Pain medication and other resources and procedures can be used effectively to medically assist people who are dying, but that is not what MAiD means. It means giving a lethal injection to people who are not dying, so that they will die.

Those who oppose euthanasia expressed concern in 2016, when it was first legalized, that once the state legally provided death for some, it would only be a matter of time before the criteria for that would be expanded. This was dismissed as a slippery slope argument; we were told that safeguards would protect the most vulnerable. Now, less than four years later, we are far down the slope, and the criteria for euthanasia have been radically expanded.

There is no longer a requirement that the person receiving euthanasia be terminally ill. Under this legislation, any serious incurable illness, disease, or disability would render one eligible for euthanasia. Additionally, without any further study or direction from the courts, the new legislation would legalize euthanasia where consent is obtained by an advance directive. This is a new chapter of death on demand. Canada has cast aside restrictions at a far quicker pace than any other jurisdiction in the world that has legalized euthanasia.

As our legislators and country consider the legislation presented this week in Parliament, we should be mindful of the following:

In 2016, the government indicated that before any new legislation would be introduced, there would be a thorough five-year review of the impact of euthanasia in Canada no such review has taken place. Yet the government moves forward without such critical analysis, even though it is reported that since 2016 at least 13,000 people have died from lethal injection.

Where is the political will to push forward on palliative care for all Canadians? Only 30 per cent of Canadians have access to quality palliative care even though we know that pain and loneliness are among the biggest fears of those who are suffering. Palliative care can address these issues. If all Canadians had access to quality palliative care, fewer would seek lethal injection. Instead of developing an overall culture of care, we are rushing towards death on demand. The same doctors who are trying to care for their patients will now be called on to endorse euthanasia for them.

Under the proposed legislation, disabled Canadians with no terminal illness will now be eligible for lethal injection. People with disabilities already face substantial challenges relating to employment, housing, appropriate medical care and support. Their lives matter. They should never be seen as a burden to our society. We should be alarmed that those who have struggled for decades to be treated with equality may well be pressured, whether from family, friends or even their own health care professionals, to ease their burden and end their lives. These people need assisted living, not assisted death.

I invite all Canadians concerned about this legislation to contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns. We should also take time to be truly present to those who may feel that they are on the margins in our community. Those who feel that their life no longer has value must be assured by all of us that this is absolutely not the case there is dignity within each human life, not just when we are young, healthy and able, but even more so, when we are fragile and vulnerable.

It is up to every Canadian to foster a culture of care and love for one another. The answer is not assisted death in its many forms; it is accompanying our family, our friends and even strangers to assist them in life, recognizing the inherent dignity of every person.

Cardinal Thomas CollinsArchbishop of TorontoFebruary 25, 2020

Link:

Trudeau moves to make Canada most permissive euthanasia regime in the world - Lifesite

Comment Yesterdaze: An unexpected policy announcement The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when – Newsroom

FEBRUARY 28, 2020 Updated February 28, 2020

Comment

The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when Vision NZ, the political party associated with the Destiny Church, made an unexpected policy announcement. It appeared that Vision NZ supported voluntary euthanasia, but just for one person, co-host of TV3s The Project, Kanoa Lloyd.

The now former campaign manager of Vision NZ, Jevan Goulter, posted an ugly Facebook rant directed at Kanoa, including references to pigs and blood and a direction that she should show us what voluntary euthanasia looks like. This was in response to Kanoas objection to the rumoured inclusion of Vision NZs leader, Hannah Tamaki, as a contestant in the next series of Dancing With The Stars.

Apparently Goulter was triggered to assault his keyboard by herdescribing Hannah Tamakis xenophobic and homophobic views as properly dangerous. In fact, Goulter was so triggered he went straight for the pigs, blood and euthanasia without denying that Hannah Tamaki has xenophobic and homophobic views.

When Goulters social media rant went viral, drawing criticism from all quarters, Vision NZ acted quickly. Goulter was terminated, and given the context of euthanasia I should clarify that Im fairly confident it wasnt Devan himself, but rather his role as campaign manager for Vision NZ, that was terminated.

By the time it was all over, Jevan Goulter had lost his campaign manager role, Hannah Tamaki had lost the opportunity to show the nation what Kanoa Lloyd predicted would be a xenophobic cha cha and Brian Tamaki had lost his ability to punctuate a tweet properly.

Vision NZ and Hannah Tamaki made it very clear that it was unacceptable for Goulter to engage in such unhinged social media ranting, presumably because unhinged social media ranting is Brian Tamakis role. And its a role that (open air quotes) Bishop (close air quotes) Brian takes very seriously, as evidenced by his contribution to the issue in a since-deleted tweet decrying venomous, dirty liberal left, sexually confused, effeminate, booze drenched, antichrist, false wannabes, relationally messed up insecure people. According to Brian, the media and entertainment industries are full of them, which is patently untrue as to at least four of those characteristics.

By the time it was all over, Jevan Goulter had lost his campaign manager role, Hannah Tamaki had lost the opportunity to show the nation what Kanoa Lloyd predicted would be a xenophobic cha cha and Brian Tamaki had lost his ability to punctuate a tweet properly. All of which was entirely avoidable if only TV execs had done the logical thing and invited Hannah Tamaki to host her own TV show Donation, Donation, Donation.

If nothing else, the whole unsavoury episode was a reminder that Vision NZ is a political party that will be contesting this years election, provided it can find a new campaign manager who can spell, punctuate and cut out references to pigs blood.

And for a party that has 'Vision'in its title, its noteworthy that, this weeks debacle aside, Vision NZ is not particularly visible in the New Zealand political landscape. If Vision NZ does, as it claims, represent the silent majority, then its going about it in a fairly silent way.

Vision NZ says its objective is for Kiwis to have access to opportunity to succeed and prosper, which shouldnt be confused with Destiny Churchs objective, which is to have the opportunity to access Kiwis in order to succeed and prosper.

For starters, Vision NZ doesnt have a website. Visionnz.co.nz belongs to an AV company that is the largest Sky and aerial installation provider in Otago and Southland, and whose corporate values are listen and understand, make it easy and Im not making this up, its right there on the website guarantee happy endings. And now you know why Sky TV has marketed itself as your happy place.Youre welcome.

If you want to find out more about Vision NZ the political party, youll have to go its Facebook page.Im assuming you probably dont want to know more about Vision NZ the political party, particularly if you live in the Deep South and have just decided to get Sky TV installed, so Ive been to Vision NZs Facebook page for you. Vision NZ says its objective is for Kiwis to have access to opportunity to succeed and prosper, which shouldnt be confused with Destiny Churchs objective, which is to have the opportunity to access Kiwis in order to succeed and prosper.

If you dig a little deeper youll find that Vision NZ has announced a few policies and indeed this week wasnt the only time the party has referenced euthanasia.Last November, Hannah Tamaki did an interview at Magic Talk, which is a radio station and also a handy description of Brians sermons. In the interview, Hannah Tamaki said that Vision NZ wascommitted to get a mandate from voters in 2020 and follow it through, achieving what NZ First bark about every election, before rolling on their back with their legs in the air like they have just been euthanised.

I think shes confusing euthanasia with tummy tickling, but theres no confusion about the fact that Vision NZ is going to target disaffected NZ First voters. Im not sure thats a sound strategy given NZ First voters tend to be fairly disaffected to start with.

In other news this week, Jacinda Ardern was in Fiji, Winston Peters was in India and youre not going to win Lottos $50m jackpot tomorrow night.

Have a peaceful weekend.

See more here:

Comment Yesterdaze: An unexpected policy announcement The euthanasia debate took an unusual turn this week when - Newsroom

The eugenics debate isn’t over but we should be wary of people who claim it can fix social problems – The Conversation UK

Andrew Sabisky, a UK government adviser, recently resigned over comments supporting eugenics. Around the same time, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins best known for his book The Selfish Gene provoked controversy when tweeting that, while eugenics is morally deplorable, it would work.

Eugenics can be described as the science and practice of improving the human race through the selection of good hereditary traits. Eugenics inevitably brings to mind the atrocities committed by the Nazis, who used eugenic ideology as the rationale for large-scale forced sterilisation, involuntary euthanasia and the Holocaust. Given this sinister history, its bound to be alarming when government officials endorse eugenic ideas.

The eugenics movement of the past has been thoroughly discredited on both moral and scientific grounds. But questions about the ethics of genetically improving humans remain relevant.

The emergence of new genetic technologies often prompts renewed debate. Can eugenic ideas about improving the human race be divorced from the evils of the past and pursued through benign means? Or is there something inherently morally problematic about the idea of genetically improving humans?

A new, morally responsible eugenics may well be defensible, and new genetic technologies must be assessed on their own terms. But we also need to consider the broader political context. If the betterment of individual traits were to be presented as a key strategy to improve human welfare, this would look very much like the individualisation of social problems that was such a central feature of the old eugenics.

The father of the eugenics movement was the English explorer and scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911). Influenced by his cousin Charles Darwins work The Origin of Species, Galton was interested in ideas about the heritability of different traits. He was particularly interested in the heritability of intelligence and how to increase societys diminished stock of talent and character. He also believed that social problems such as poverty, vagrancy and crime were ultimately caused by the inheritance of degenerate traits from parent to child.

Galton embarked on an ambitious research programme with the explicit goal to improve human stock through selective human breeding. In 1883 he named this research programme eugenics, meaning good in birth.

Galtons ideas quickly became influential and were widely embraced, first in Britain but subsequently in many other countries, including the US, Germany, Brazil and Scandinavia. At a time coloured by widespread concerns about the state of the nation, lack of social progress and the degeneration of the population, Galtons ideas inspired a popular movement for social reform through selective human reproduction.

The first half of the 20th century saw the enactment of a variety of eugenic policies. Positive eugenics focused on encouraging those of good stock to reproduce, such as through the fitter family contests put on across the US. Negative eugenics involved discouraging or preventing reproduction among those deemed unfit, such as the poor, criminals or the feeble-minded, predominantly by coercive means.

Eugenics is often equated with Nazi atrocities, but many other brutal acts were committed in its name, usually targeting disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, such as the poor, disabled and ill. As part of the negative eugenic effort, forced sterilisation was conducted on a large scale, not only in Nazi Germany but also in the Scandinavian countries (in Sweden, this practice continued until the 1970s) and in the US (where it was revealed that involuntary sterilisation of female prisoners occurred as late as 2010). The US combined eugenic ideology with ideas about racial hierarchy and applied eugenic thinking to immigration. This led to the passing of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act in order to curb the entry of inferior ethnic groups.

After the second world war and the exposure of the Nazi regimes atrocities, eugenics fell out of favour. But worries about eugenics often resurface with the introduction of new genetic technologies that allow us to improve humans in some way, most notably gene editing, such as CRISPR-Cas9, and reproductive technologies, such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive technologies mainly help prospective parents to have children free from genetically based disabilities and disorders, but as our knowledge of the human genome advances, the range of traits we may be able to select away or select for will probably increase, prompting fears of designer babies.

Such technologies are sometimes labelled eugenic by sceptics as a means to discredit them. Arguments then ensue about whether these technologies represent a form of old eugenics and are therefore unethical, or whether they represent a new, benign form of eugenics. Questions about the ethics of genetic technologies and the new eugenics are far from settled.

But even if our ethical analysis should deem such new genetic technologies permissible, it would be disingenuous to present these technological advances as solutions to complex problems such as poverty, unemployment, or poor physical or mental health. We should be wary of biological determinist narratives that blame various forms of disadvantage on individual traits, without acknowledging the importance of social and political factors. This kind of thinking is very much in line with the old eugenics.

We are right to be worried when government officials endorse eugenic ideas. It is reassuring that Sabiskys comments provoked such outrage and that he was forced to resign. But in some respects, in the current age of austerity policies, the individualisation of social problems is an all too familiar theme.

Read the original here:

The eugenics debate isn't over but we should be wary of people who claim it can fix social problems - The Conversation UK

If you’re a fan, the Iditarod is coming. If you’re a racer, the Iditarod is here. – Anchorage Daily News

Sled dog fans have a few more days to wait until the official start of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. However, for Iditarod competitors, the race has already begun.

The food drops are done and gone. The majority of the teams have their ECG and bloodwork appointments completed. Some have done the prerace vet checks and the remainder will finish that step on Wednesday.

The race banquet and draw for the start order is Thursday. Nail-biting day is Friday. Saturday brings the ceremonial beginning of the Iditarod in downtown Anchorage. Come Sunday? The teams are on the trail.

For each team that leaves the starting line, the race is the culmination of at least seven months of intense training for both musher and dogs. Endless hours and considerable funding have been spent on readying 14 special animals for 1,000-mile trek.

Which dogs have made the cut? Races are won and lost by the fully-trained dog that is left at home.

There is the occasional dog that is cut from the team by ECG results or blood abnormalities that are only detectable by the Iditarods prerace checkup. Vet checks done by a private vet or by Iditarod veterinarians may also detect another issue. Normally, nothing serious is discovered, but once in awhile the vets may spot something the musher overlooked. Most teams, but not all, have talented extras who can jump into the team without a ripple.

Thursdays banquet and draw is something few mushers look forward to. It is a necessary encumbrance. The Iditarod, like every other sporting event, is entertainment that others participate in vicariously. Without funding from fans, the race could not survive.

There are some who wish to see the Iditarod and sled dog racing in general eliminated. Every Iditarod competitor hears from those who cry dog abuse! These folks are sadly misinformed.

PETA, aka People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, is the loudest of the dog racing detractors. In 2018, PETAs animal shelter in Norfolk, Virginia, euthanized 72% of the animals they took in. Thats 1,798 animals euthanized out of the 2,512 taken in. The numbers for the rest of Virginia shelters show a euthanasia rate of 12%, according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. During the course of one season, the folks who cry that dogs are abused in the Iditarod destroy more dogs than will ever die in all the dog races combined over the next hundred years.

Animal-rights activists would have you turn all dogs into couch potatoes, which is the fate of many retired sled dogs. Sled dogs are born to run. Many older dogs, no longer able to stay with the team, pace restlessly, barking and whining with frustration as younger animals leave the yard without them.

The fact that dogs do best when they have a purpose is discounted by those who have only dealt with a single pet. Those of us who run dogs will never convince those who already have their minds made up, but occasionally we can have our say.

Meanwhile, Friday is not far away. This is supposed to be a day for racers to tie up loose ends. Some of that is already done, so mostly Friday is a day to say goodbyes and answer questions from friends and family. One year, I spent the day before the ceremonial start rebuilding my wifes sled, which was stomped by a moose while doing a last-minute exercise run on the Tozier Track in midtown Anchorage.

Saturdays ceremonial start is a valuable part of the Iditarod. It gives the public an opportunity to mingle with mushers in a fairly relaxed setting. The mushers can also work out some prerace butterflies. The 12-mile run from downtown Anchorage to Campbell Airstrip is a great shakedown cruise that carries no pressure.

Most drivers will actually be able to eat something that evening. Sunday morning the day of the real start in Willow will find many competitors skipping breakfast with uneasy stomachs.

But once the hook is pulled and the team exits Willow Lake, the butterflies are gone. The trail ahead is eagerly anticipated. The challenges are met with avidity. The teams of Alaskan huskies soon settle into a steady trot and surge forward with expectancy into the primeval wilderness ahead.

Read more:

If you're a fan, the Iditarod is coming. If you're a racer, the Iditarod is here. - Anchorage Daily News

Two dogs who are best friends for life will soon need a home in Spokane – KREM.com

SPOKANE, Wash. If one thing is clear from the relationship between Bear and Bones, its that dogs have best friends, too.

The dogs were surrendered to an animal shelter in central Texas by their owner to find a new home.

Now, Bear and Bones are waiting for a new fur-ever home at the Spokane Humane Society.

The dogs were surrendered to a kill shelter, meaning they would be euthanized if they were not adopted. Nonprofit Hot-Paws pays to transport the dogs on euthanasia lists to partner shelters like the Spokane Humane Society.

On Saturday, a Hot-Paws transport of 30 dogs stopped for a bathroom break in Layton, Utah. During the stop, Bear broke free from a handler and was later hit by a car.

The Spokane Humane Society said Layton police and citizens rushed him into the clinic while the transport staff were searching for him. Staff later found out that Bear had a small bleed in his abdomen, a pin-sized hole in his lung and two teeth that were broken off.

Bear also suffered severe road rash but no broken bones. He was kept in the ICU for at least two days, the Humane Society said.

RELATED: Spokane Humane Society finds home for Dutch the dog

Transport staff later brought Bones to Bear while he was still unresponsive in the clinic. They said Bones began to cry and whine for Bear.

Bear heard Bones and slowly started to wake up.

It was obvious to everyone that they were best friends and so happy to be reunited, the Humane Society said, adding that the dogs made the remainder of their trip to Spokane together.

The Humane Society said everyone knew Bear and Bones sleep right next to each other at the Humane Society, with Bones sometimes resting his head on Bear.

As soon as Bear is healed, they will be moved to the adoption center as a bonded pair and will need a good home together.

A fundraiser for Bear's treatment has raised nearly $500 out of a $3,500 goal at last check.

The Humane Society accepts approximately 70 dogs a month from kill shelters in the southern United States from about five different transport agencies. The shelter accepted 886 dogs in 2019 alone.

RELATED: Man's best friend may also be an actual lifesaver, study suggests

Read more:

Two dogs who are best friends for life will soon need a home in Spokane - KREM.com

Provincial govt to withhold $1.5M from Canadian hospice for refusing to kill sick patients – Lifesite

LADNER, British Columbia, February 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) British Columbias NDP government is pulling $1.5 million in public funding from a palliative care hospice and threatening to seize the facility because it refuses to allow doctors to kill sick patients by lethal injection onsite through medically-assisted death, or euthanasia.

Health Minister Adrian Dix said in a press conference Tuesday hes instructed Fraser Health Authority to stop funding the Delta Hospice Society by February 2021.

That allows for the required 365-days notice to end the service agreement between Fraser Health and the non-profit society without cause, and thus avoid the dispute ending up in court, he said, as reported in the Vancouver Sun.

Dix also said that at the end of the year the government may seize the 10-bed Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner that is now run by the Delta Hospice Society.

We may take over the existing site, which is on Fraser Health Authority land and rented for $1 a year to the society, said Dix, according to the Sun.

We may find another site. These beds will not move out of Delta.

But the government seizing the hospice building would be a scandalous appropriation of private assets, fired back Delta Hospice Society board chair Angelina Ireland.

The society built the Irene Thomas Hospice without taxpayer funds, at the cost of approximately $9,000,000, she said in a press release.

Moreover, it has operated the hospice for 10 years, providing more than 700,000 hours of volunteer labour and $30 million to the public health care system, she added.

You know, we havent been a bad partner. But for some reason, were being treated with absolute disdain, Ireland told LifeSiteNews.

Dixs decision is the latest blow to the society in a bitter long-running battle over its refusal to allow patients to be lethally injected onsite in the wake of Canadas legalization of euthanasia, or Medical assistance in dying, (MAiD), in June 2016.

The hospice society is arguing that allowing euthanasia violates its constitution, which promises not to hasten a patients death, and that palliative care and euthanasia are not compatible.

Both the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) are backing the society.

But Dix claimed Tuesday that the hospice is violating federal law and B.C. government policy that non-denominational health care institutions that receive more than half their funding from the province must provide euthanasia, the Vancouver Sun reported.

However, the minister and the health authority have completely ignored the societys January offer to forego $750,000 in public funding in order to fall below the benchmark of 50 percent of public funding for its beds, which are now funded 94 percent by the government, Ireland said.

Indeed, Dix was dismissive when the Delta Optimist asked him if hed considered Irelands proposal.

Its not her deal to cut, he said.

Ireland said she only heard Dixs decision when the media started calling her.

She responded in a press release the next day that the society is shocked and outraged this week by the Fraser Health Authoritys blatant move to cut off all discussions.

The hospice is willing to transfer patients out for euthanasia, which is readily available in the lower mainland, while palliative care beds are becoming scarce, she told Canadian Press.

Three people at the hospice in the last three years requested euthanasia, Ireland said.

"All I can say is they were transferred out to their preferred location two went home and one went next door to the Delta Hospital, one minute away," she said.

All this makes Dixs decision not only baffling, but clearly agenda-driven, Ireland said.

He is imposing his view by fiat on B.C. taxpayers, 90 percent of whom want access to palliative care, and only two percent of whom want access to euthanasia, she told LifeSiteNews.

Euthanasia is a separate public health care stream, distinct and apart from palliative care, she stressed.

If the government wants to open MAiD facilities thats their option, but they must not be allowed to download it onto the backs of private palliative care facilities, added Ireland.

And its all about dollars. It is easier and cheaper for the government to provide euthanasia rather than continue with palliative care. Basically, they are saying that no palliative care facility in B.C. has a right to exist unless it also provides euthanasia.

The hospice received support from Delta South Liberal MLA Ian Paton, who criticized the NDP for being heavy-handed, reported the CBC.

What I see is government literally stealing assets of the people of Delta that worked so hard for so many years to raise $8.5 million for this facility, said Paton, who did not say where he stood on euthanasia.

Ireland, who was elected chair in a turbulent meeting in December during which the new board reversed the former boards week-old decision to allow euthanasia at the hospice, told LifeSite she is looking at legal and other options.

Dix pulling $1.5 million would be essentially closing down the society, because thats not the kind of budget you could possibly fundraise, she said.

However, the battle is far from over, added Ireland, who began volunteering with the society after using its programs when diagnosed with cancer several years ago.

I'm a cancer survivor. Ive fought the war, she told LifeSiteNews.

And Im not afraid of Minister Dix because Ive already been against the biggest threat that I could have faced in my lifetime I will be there to challenge him every step of the way.

A noon rally on April 4 at the Victoria legislature to support the hospice will feature Margaret Cottle, Dr. Will Johnston, MP Tamara Jansen and Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition as speakers.

Contact information:

Adrian Dix, BC Minister of HealthRoom 337 Parliament BuildingsVictoria, BC V8V 1X4Email: [emailprotected]Phone: (250) 953-3547

Ian Paton, MLA[emailprotected]Phone: (604) 940-7930

Contact BC MLAs here.

Sign the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition petition to Minister Dix and Fraser Health Authority CEO Dr. Victoria Lee here.

Go here to see the original:

Provincial govt to withhold $1.5M from Canadian hospice for refusing to kill sick patients - Lifesite

ASUC fails students when it comes to free speech – Daily Californian

The freedom of speech of our fellow UC Berkeley students is seemingly being threatened by the actions of the ASUC.

I am Jewish. Like many other American Jews, I was raised in a household that practiced reform Judaism. I had my bar mitzvah at 13; I participated in cultural exchanges with Jewish teenagers from Israel and Mexico; and I plan on taking my birthright trip to Israel sometime before I turn 25.

Growing up Jewish in Southern California, I dealt with my fair share of immature individuals who thought it would be appropriate to berate me for being Jewish, make Holocaust jokes at my expense and occasionally throw a penny or two at me. This is anti-Semitism. Students protesting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory are expressing a political viewpoint not being anti-Semitic.

While I would be the first to admit that there are some instances of anti-Israel propaganda containing anti-Semitic references, for example, such as when Jews are portrayed in a derogatory sense or taunted with references to money. Here on campus, that is not the case. Sadly, some of our elected officials in the ASUC seek to use the idea of UC Berkeley being anti-Semitic to take away the freedom of speech from other students on campus.

In early December, ASUC Senator Milton Zerman sponsored a senate resolution titled Condemning Bears for Palestine for Their Display in Eshleman Hall Glorifying Violent Terrorists. In this resolution, Zerman calls upon campus student group Bears for Palestine to take down its Eshleman Hall cubicle display of photos of Palestinian leaders. The ASUC Senates University and External Affairs Committee meeting voted on this bill Feb. 10 and ended with ASUC Senator Shelby Weiss being the only member on the committee to vote in favor of the bill. The fact that a morally askew bill such as this was able to make it this far in the ASUC shows that UC Berkeley does not have an anti-Semitism problem like Zerman might claim, but rather a First Amendment one.

Sadly, with President Donald Trumps December executive order, Zerman might have a case to push forward a similar bill in the future. In this executive order, Trump now puts anti-Zionism under the umbrella of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, race, ethnicity and other factors, as they relate to organizations receiving federal assistance. For a public university such as UC Berkeley, this applies to any school-funded club or organization as well.

The rationale behind this executive order is to equate being anti-Israel with being anti-Semitic,categorizing Judaism as a race or ethnicity. The issue with this particular executive order is that groups on campus that vocally support Palestine or are vocally anti-Israel are now in danger of having funding pulled these clubs could even be kicked off campus entirely simply for using their First Amendment rights.

In theory, all speech is free in the United States. The Supreme Court over time, however, has defined a few exceptions to the rule, consisting of acts such as inciting violence, burning draft cards or advocating illegal drug use at school-sponsored events. Students who are advocating their opinions on a geopolitical issue, such as Israel-Palestine, do not fall under any of these exceptions, thus making their speech free and protected by law. UC Berkeley is regarded by many as the home of free speech. We were the epicenter of the Free Speech Movement in 1964-65, and even have a caf named after these events. Fifty-five years later, it seems as though UC Berkeleys definition of free speech has been skewed.

One of UC Berkeleys best attributes is the amount of diversity it has. When one thinks of diversity, they may think of race, religion, ethnicity, culture or socioeconomic background.Something that seems to always be left out, however, is having diverse viewpoints, that is seeing the world as it is rather than with tunnel vision.

From my experience, it seems to be the louder voices on campus who have the thought process that if someone says something they do not agree with, then it should not be said at all. In our student government, many of our elected officials have a similar stance to Trumps, equating being anti-Israel to being anti-Semitic when in fact they should be protecting the speech of all students, regardless of viewpoints.

It is abysmal that UC Berkeley and the ASUC have failed to address this executive order orZerman and Weiss seeming attacks on free speech. By not speaking up to protect the speech ofour fellow students, the other ASUC senators and UC Berkeley are seemingly complicit in the systematic repression of students First Amendment rights.

Kelvin Ervais is a sophomore at UC Berkeley majoring in political economy and minoring in data science.

Original post:

ASUC fails students when it comes to free speech - Daily Californian

Baranyai: Defending free speech requires we condemn offensive ideas – The London Free Press

A float is paraded during the "Zondagsstoet" on the opening day of the Aalst carnival on February 23, 2020, in Aalst. - The Aalst carnival was removed from the UNESCO list of intangible heritage at the end of 2019 over persistent charges of anti-Semitism. (Photo by Juliette Bruynseels / AFP) (Photo by JULIETTE BRUYNSEELS/AFP via Getty Images)

The story of a Nazi-obsessed boy and his imaginary friend, Adolph, might seem unlikely fodder for comedy. Indeed, when Jojo Rabbit was released, some critics balked at the premise, which reduced the Third Reich to buffoonery. Yet laughing at intolerance, in this age of division, offers hope.

In the struggle to diminish hate, satire is clearly writer-director Taika Waititis weapon of choice. You think were at the height of human civilization and advancement, and it could never happen again, he told audiences at the Toronto premiere, adding that was exactly what they said in 1933.

The enduring relevance of that message is underscored by two recent events: the discovery of Nazi childrens propaganda for sale on Amazon, and a bizarre carnival parade in the city of Aalst, Belgium.

Last Sunday, Aalst residents paraded in costumes of elaborately poor taste. Several parodied Orthodox Jews in massive fur hats. A few dressed in Nazi SS uniforms, paired with Raggedy Ann-style red cheeks and braids. Others dressed as ants, invoking, for some critics, Nazi propaganda depicting Jews as vermin. Marchers posed before a fake Wailing Wall, twisting the Dutch name for Jerusalems holy site (klaagmuur) into de klaugmier, or the wailing ant.

Participants also lampooned Boris Johnson, Greta Thunberg and UNESCO, which delisted Aalst as a cultural heritage site after controversy over last years parade.

Its our parade, our humour, a spokesperson for the mayor told the BBC, denying anti-Semitism was at play. Its a weekend of freedom of speech.

Free speech and anti-Semitism already were hot-button topics heading into the weekend. Two days earlier, the Holocaust Educational Trust and Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum publicly called on Amazon and Amazon U.K to stop selling books by Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher.

Biographer Randall Bytwerk has described Streicher, the founder of Der Sturmer, as one of the most unpleasant of the Nazis. His illustrated childrens book, The Poisonous Mushroom, published in 1938, was presented as evidence at the Nuremberg trials. Streicher was tried and executed for crimes against humanity.

According to U.K. tabloid The Sun, English translations of Streichers works were printed in 2017 using the Amazon self-publishing platform CreateSpace. Their presence on Amazon was discovered by producers for Auschwitz Untold, a documentary commemorating the 75th anniversary of the camps liberation.

Its not the first Holocaust merch discovered on digital shelves. In December, Amazon pulled listings for a bottle opener and holiday ornaments bearing images of Auschwitz, following complaints on social media. Company policy prohibits the sale of products related to human tragedies. But enforcement in the vast digital marketplace can be sluggish and reactive.

Sensibly enough, Amazons policy does not apply to books, music, videos and DVDs. Books related to human tragedies would encompass authors from Anne Frank to Alice Walker.

Amazons initial response to the criticism heralded a thoughtful approach.

As a bookseller, we are mindful of book censorship throughout history, and we do not take this lightly, read a representatives statement. We believe that providing access to written speech is important, including books that some may find objectionable, though we take concerns from the Holocaust Educational Trust seriously and are listening to its feedback.

Censorship, in a Nazi context, inevitably conjures images of book burning. But the Trust has been clear its goal is not to destroy Streichers books. Preservation is, in fact, essential to its core mission of historical education. That doesnt mean retailers should start selling the audiobook. Education requires context.

Protecting freedom of expression requires constant vigilance. We must condemn offensive ideas as rigorously as we preserve the right to blurt them out, and suffer the consequences.

write.robin@baranyai.ca

Read this article:

Baranyai: Defending free speech requires we condemn offensive ideas - The London Free Press

Toby Young’s ‘Free Speech Union’ is illogical – and more to the point, it won’t work – inews

OpinionIn a mature, civilised, multi-ethnic society, no one has the right to say exactly what they want

Tuesday, 25th February 2020, 5:15 pm

A friend of mine, a successful man of the world, once gave me some very good advice. Organisations are very often precisely the opposite of what their name suggests. So always be careful if an establishment with professional in its title (only amateurs would say such a thing), or a company calls itself international (you may find, for example, that its coverage extends only to the wider Stevenage area.

As a result, I have always been suspicious of anybody using the word freedom to describe itself witness the Freedom Party. I had a similar reaction to the advent of the Free Speech Union, the journalist Toby Youngs latest venture.

Exactly whose freedoms are Young and his friends seeking to protect? Is it principally those who demand the freedom to say things that offend others? As Trevor Phillips put it so well on the radio the other morning, when Young is involved, it is tempting to think that this is an opportunity to defend right-wing nut jobs, but that would be to diminish a largely well-intentioned enterprise, which has identified an increasingly problematic aspect of civil society.

i's opinion newsletter: talking points from today

'Consider an oratorical free-for-all, where all manner of crackpot rhetoric or hateful speech could be defended on the grounds of an inalienable human right'

Toby Young has a formidable gift for self-promotion, and has a vested interest in the subject he has been defenestrated from public positions because of statements that were deemed beyond the pale. However, this shouldnt be an impediment to our taking his position seriously. What all his activity brings to the fore is a hugely important question, one that has never been properly answered. Is freedom of speech an indivisible human right, without limits? In other words, is Youngs right to say what he likes about Claudia Winklemans breasts (which he has done) the same as Tommy Robinsons right to say that Muslims should f*** off out of the UK?

And this is where the fault lines lie in Youngs argument. In a mature, civilised, multi-ethnic society, with huge disparities of opportunity and power, no one has the right to say exactly what they want. This is not about freedom, its about respect, something that social media, and Twitter in particular, has done much to erode. We do need people to police public discourse in order to protect minorities and the disadvantaged, and, actually, I would rather they were academics, professionals and public officials than Toby Young and David Starkey (one of his named supporters, who even Piers Morgan once called a racist idiot).

Sign up for the Today's Talking Points newsletter, the best opinion from i and elsewhere here

I wouldnt disagree with Young that serious institutions are now on a hair-trigger when it comes to sanctioning anything that is perceived to be offensive. The banning of mainstream speakers on university campuses because of their unorthodox views is clearly a nonsense. But consider an oratorical free-for-all, where all manner of crackpot rhetoric or hateful speech could be defended on the grounds of an inalienable human right. If you want to see what that looks like, log on to Twitter at any time.

I would suggest that the Free Speech Union will not be much of a union, either. Free speech means very different things to different people, and Young will have difficulty protecting his noble vision from the ideological outcasts, trolls and, yes, the nutjobs of the right and the left.

More here:

Toby Young's 'Free Speech Union' is illogical - and more to the point, it won't work - inews

An Instagram Account That Accused Subodh Gupta of Sexual Harassment Has Agreed to Apologize in Exchange for the Artist Dropping His Lawsuit – artnet…

As the #MeToo movement gains global steam,an Instagram account called HerdSceneAnd has taken a prominent and controversial stand against sexual harassment in the Indian art world.In 2018, the account began publishing anonymous accusations that the artist Subodh Gupta, known asDelhis Damien Hirst, and several other prominent men in the south Asian art scene had sexually harassed women.

Gupta issued a denialand, 10 months later, sued the anonymous Instagram account in a Delhi court for defamation and financial loss amounting to nearly $700,000. Then,just as swiftly as hed taken legal action, he backed down from his demands.

After a few court hearings, lawyers for Gupta as well as for the Instagram account told the court in February that they would resolve the matter privately. Now, the terms of their settlement have come to light: The Instagram account holders will remove the two offending posts concerning Guptas alleged sexual harassment and would express regret. In return, Gupta said he would drop his defamation case and his demands for financial recompense, and wouldnt push for the account holders to publicly testify.

The novel case has captured the medias attention with all the questions it raises: How could an anonymous social media account be sued? Would the court demand that the whistleblowers behind it reveal their identities? Would the alleged victims then have to reveal themselves too? Why did Gupta wait so long to sue? Would other powerful men who were outed by HerdSceneAnd also begin to sue?

Although the account had posted allegations against several influential menincluding former Sothebys managing director Gaurav Bhatia (who resigned following an inquiry), artist Riyaz Komu, and painter Jatin Dasso far Gupta is the only one who has sued.

Guptas lawsuit also raises broader concerns about a possible chilling effect on free speech.Early on, the Indian court indicated that the whistleblowers who run the Instagram account would have to reveal their identities. It also directed Google to remove a number of journalistic articles which had reported on the allegations against Gupta. The media outlets did not have a chance to defend their reporting.

Essentially, Guptas defamation case not only risked deterring women from speaking out about sexual harassment in the art world, it also asked for a judicial clampdown on whistleblowing and the free press.

As part of his case, Gupta demanded that Google globally de-index articles about him from its search results and asked Facebook, which owns Instagram, to take down the posts on HerdSceneAnd.

Google and Facebook hit back at Gupta, telling the Indian court that his demands would restrict free speech. Google said that granting Guptas request would put an unreasonable restraint on the freedom of speech and expression on the internet as well as the freedom of the press. Facebook went further to speak out in support of women outing alleged sexual predators, telling the court that Guptas demands could dissuade potential victims of sexual harassment who share their experiences and compromise their privacy.

The Indian Journalists Union also approached the court and asked to be made a party to the case on the grounds that journalists cannot be stopped from reporting on public figures even when the source is anonymous.

The newly established Culture Workers Forum asked the court to be made part of the case as well, explaining that the Indian art industry lacked the means to address sexual harassment: when young artists choose to enter the industry, mechanisms such as imposing terms of service or establishing rules of conduct, are scarcely considered.

Gupta, who makes massive sculptures out of stainless steel kitchen utensils, continues to show and sell his work internationally at galleries including Galleria Continua, Hauser and Wirth, and Nature Morte. Last June, a few months before he went to court, Gupta was invited to a fundraiser by the UKs Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla, for which he made a giant brass elephant as a centerpiece of the event. After the allegations broke his art continued to be auctioned, raking in at least $530,000 in sales in the months before he sued.

As for the anonymous Instagram users who took on powerful men in the Indian art world, they are sticking it out. The Indian court allowed HerdSceneAnd to maintain its status as an unnamed whistleblower and the account is still active. Its most recent post, in August 2019, said: We are still listening. It might seem quiet but do not for a second think our work is done and that weve moved on. We continue to be threatened and intimidated in subtle and not so subtle ways. Not all work can be in the public eye and many in the Indian Art World are hoping everyone will forget, and many have, but rest assured we all still remember.

See more here:

An Instagram Account That Accused Subodh Gupta of Sexual Harassment Has Agreed to Apologize in Exchange for the Artist Dropping His Lawsuit - artnet...

Girls are reaching new heights in basketball, but huge pay gaps await them as professionals – Yahoo Sports

Women have made great strides in the world of sports over the past 50 years.

Especially in some individual sports, female champion athletes today earn far more money and command a much bigger audience than their predecessors thanks to breakthroughs by tennis champions like Billie Jean King and Venus and Serena Williams and top golfers such as Kathy Whitworth, Nancy Lopez and Michele Wie.

We are fans of womens basketball and scholars who study the role that gender plays in sports and the changing status of female athletes. Despite massive changes in attitudes toward women who excel at sports overall, with few exceptions weve observed that the disparity between what adolescent boys and girls can aspire to accomplish in professional basketball today remains enormous.

This gap has become more visible due to the deaths of retired basketball legend Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna and two of the other girls on the basketball team he coached in January.

Known as Gigi, the 13-year-old by all accounts inherited not only her former NBA player fathers love of the game, but silky smooth moves as well. She aspired to attend the University of Connecticut where she would play on its highly ranked womens basketball team. Mourners spoke reverently about Gigis intentions to play professionally and carry on her fathers legacy during a star-studded memorial service for both of them held on Feb. 24.

Women began playing basketball in 1892, one year after the sports emergence.

Womens basketball started as a passing game with its own peculiar rules. The court was divided into three sections and each team fielded nine players, versus the five who play on the court today. Players could not move out of their assigned area, were restricted to three dribbles, and could only hold the ball for three seconds. Players were also generally advised against engaging in strenuous activity as the medical experts at the time were convinced that overexertion would damage womens fertility.

In 1896 teams from Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley competed in the first womens intercollegiate basketball game. Women kept playing basketball despite the perceived health risks.

One of the most famous womens amateur basketball teams of the 1930s was the Golden Cyclones of the Employers Casualty Company of Dallas, which was led by track and field Olympic gold medalist and champion golfer Mildred Babe Didrikson Zaharias. The first professional womens basketball team was created in 1936. The All-American Red Heads barnstormed the country for more than 50 years.

Although the players were required to wear makeup and either dye their hair red or wear red wigs, the team played by mens basketball rules against mens teams. Despite the popularity of individual teams like the All-American Red Heads, womens professional basketball struggled to gain a firm footing for decades.

Likewise, basketball did not become an Olympic sport for women until the 1976 Montreal Summer Olympic Games, four decades after mens basketball made its debut at the 1936 Berlin Summer Olympic Games.

By that time, rules for women had become about the same as for men.

The advent of a new federal civil rights policy enacted in 1972 changed the world of womens sports. What became known as Title IX was originally intended to provide equal opportunities and access for women in fields such as science, medicine and law.

Story continues

In practice, Title IX forced high schools and colleges to open up more opportunities for female athletes and to spend more money and attention on girls and womens sports teams.

But it would take more than 20 years for the emergence of a womens professional basketball league.

Sports fans dubbed the 1996 Summer Olympic Games the Summer of the Women because U.S. womens teams won gold medals in softball, soccer, basketball and gymnastics.

The womens Olympic basketball teams success powered by star players Sheryl Swoopes, Rebecca Lobo and Lisa Leslie led to the creation of two womens professional leagues.

The American Basketball League proved short-lived, ceasing operations in 1998 after only three years. The Womens National Basketball Association, known as the WNBA, is entering its 23rd season this summer.

Despite the WNBAs staying power, its players until now have only earned an average salary of US$71,000, little more than 1% of the $6.4 million their typical male counterparts on NBA teams take home.

Average pay for WNBA players, however, will soon nearly double to about $130,000 a year, and some of the leagues star players will be making $500,000, following a collective bargaining agreement. Players will now be eligible for maternity leave at their full salary, and can become unrestricted free agents after five full seasons.

Attendance at WNBA games now averages about 7,000 per game, compared to 18,000 at NBA games. The disparity in terms of the sports finances through TV deals and licensing agreements is much larger than that. The womens league generates about $60 million in revenue, just a tiny fraction of 1% of the NBAs $7.4 billion revenue.

What will it take to bridge the huge gender gap in professional basketballs popularity and pay?

We think that it could take a player like dunking sensation Stanford freshman Fran Belibi who has captured significant media attention. Sabrina Ionescu, senior point guard for the Oregon Ducks, is another potential gamechanger.

Ionescu was named national player of the year in 2019 as a junior. She has broken the National Collegiate Athletic Associations triple-double record for college women and men. Ionescu had trained with her close friend and mentor, Kobe Bryant. And Golden State Warriors star player Stephen Curry has brought his daughters along to watch her play.

Or maybe it will take parents like Kobe Bryant and Curry, born after Title IX changed so much about athletics, to instill in their daughters an understanding that a sports career is not only feasible for women, but within reach.

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

See the rest here:

Girls are reaching new heights in basketball, but huge pay gaps await them as professionals - Yahoo Sports

Pigeons with ‘Make America Great Again’ hats glued to their heads released in Las Vegas – NBC News

LAS VEGAS Pigeons with tiny Make American Great Again hats glued to their heads were released in downtown Las Vegas this week in what appears to be a sarcastic statement of loyalty to President Donald Trump and a mock protest of Nevada's coming Democratic presidential caucuses.

A group calling itself P.U.T.I.N., Pigeons United To Interfere Now, claimed responsibility for the stunt. The pigeons were set loose Tuesday, according to the group.

NBC affiliate KSNV spotted at least one of the pigeons still in a hat on a downtown street Wednesday afternoon.

"P.U.T.I.N. have used their pigeons to launch a one of a kind aerial protest piece in response to the arrival of the 2020 Democratic Presidential hopefuls," according to a group statement. "The release date was also coordinated to serve as a gesture of support and loyalty to President Trump."

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Twenty-five pigeons were released, 24 of them wearing hats and one donning a Trump-style wig, the group said Thursday in an email to NBC News.

"Most have returned. We expect to see the rest tonight or tomorrow," the group said.

While the stunt has drawn some laughs, Mariah Hillman, who runs Lofty Hopes, a Las Vegas pigeon rescue organization, called the MAGA stunt "animal cruelty."

In December, videos of three pigeons wearing miniature red cowboy hats went viral after they were seen on Las Vegas streets.

"It started here with the press making fun of it, the police didn't do anything about it, and now it's grown into this, so when is it going to stop, and who's going to do something about it?" Hillman said Thursday.

Hillman and her volunteers are setting traps in hope of removing the pigeons' hats before rehabilitating and releasing the birds.

The pigeons are wearing the hats with the help of eyelash glue.

"It doesn't matter what kind of glue it is. It is still, in fact, cruelty, because you are impairing their vision," Hillman said, adding that her organization rescues many birds, such as wedding-release pigeons and racing pigeons, that are trained to return to their flocks.

"There's not always a guarantee that they'll return, because they can get injured or killed before that happens."

Anita Hassan reported from Las Vegas and David K. Li from New York.

Anita Hassan is a national investigativereporter for NBC News, based in Las Vegas.

David K. Li is a breaking news reporter for NBC News.

View post:

Pigeons with 'Make America Great Again' hats glued to their heads released in Las Vegas - NBC News

11 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Were Redheads & 9 Who Actually Aren’t – OK!

Do blondes have more fun? Not judging by these redhead celebs! Some of Hollywoods biggest names from Emma Stone to Jessica Chastain are known for their scarlet locks. Want a reality check? One of those two is a natural blonde!

MORE: Sharon Osbourne reveals white hair after 18 years of dying it red!

Whos a naturally born redhead, and who turns to dye to make them ravenous in red? Discover the answers here!

MORE: Everything you need to know about celebrity beauty and hair!

OK! shows 11 celebrities you didnt know were real redheads and 9 redhead celebs who are just dyed. Who will land in which column? Were looking at you, Nicole Kidman?

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

The Oscar winner has been blonde, brunette and has even sported black hair, but Nicole is a natural redhead. Check out the movie Dead Calm for a look at her real locks. Nicole has been blonde for so long that its hard to think of her as a redhead.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: LucileBall.com

Photo credit: LucileBall.com

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Clairol

Photo credit: Clairol

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Alyson Hannigan dyed her hair red for a role that many know her for no, not the American Pie movies. It was for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She is naturally a brunette, but for the sake of her art, she had no issues being radiant in red for the Sarah Michelle Gellar-starring smash hit. In fact, she has mostly kept her hair that color ever since.

View post:

11 Celebrities You Didn't Know Were Redheads & 9 Who Actually Aren't - OK!