Litecoin Turns Surprisingly Bullish Due to These Five Factors – BeInCrypto

Posted on by

Even as the majority of the cryptocurrency market has started seeing small losses, Litecoin (LTC) has been hitting new milestones to help it make bullish waves lately.

The market has definitely seen an improvement overall in 2019, especially when compared to the situation as it was last year. However, cryptocurrency price charts clearly indicate that the current market sentiment is not as bullish as it was between April and July of this year. The bullish year has been seeing several months of stagnation right now, and many have turned neutral to bearish.

Surprisingly enough, Litecoins overall performance has been seen as bullish, even during this period. This situation is even more interesting considering the fact that LTC went through a reward halving only a little over a month ago. A halving is a rare occurrence and it is difficult to predict how the LTC price might behave afterward.

But, now that the halving is in the past, LTC is finally able to move on, and it did so in a positive way. According to new data, there are five major reasons for Litecoins new bullishness.

As mentioned, there are five aspects and fundamentals that have been improving for LTC lately that could be adding to its value.

The first is the fact that the concentration of large holders is growing. This is always a good sign for a coin, as it shows that a lot of people have faith in it. If LTC holders are willing to accumulate, this seems to be an especially good sign for the project.

Next, the number of large Litecoin transactions has improved as well. Most likely, these transactions are being boosted by large the large amounts of LTC that are being bought and possibly transacted to storage.

Third, is the curious behavior of LTC price. Its not been on a constant rise, but it has been relatively stable when considering the rest of the market. Litecoin traded between $69 and $72 in the past week, meaning that there is only about a 6% difference between its lowest and highest points in the past 7 days.

There are also more people than ever that are in the money (ITM), a term that refers to options that possess intrinsic value. Basically, it means that something has value at a strike price, which is favorable in comparison to the prevailing market price of the underlying asset.

Finally, Litecoins correlation to Bitcoin itself is dropping, which is rare to see in the cryptocurrency space. As the first cryptocurrency, and the coin with the largest price and highest market cap Bitcoin is the most dominant asset in the entire industry. As such, it has been known to dictate the behavior of the market and most coins in it.

So far, there has been a handful of cryptocurrencies that have managed to reduce its influence, with Binance Coin (BNB) often being referred to as the only coin ever to do it successfully. Now, LTC might be on the road to do the same, which is especially difficult, since LTC code was created from Bitcoins template.

If these positive factors continue on their current course, LTC might truly become one of the best performers in the market in Q4 and on it to 2020.

What do you think of Litecoin? Have you, or do you plan to invest in it? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Buy and trade cryptocurrencies with a 100x multiplier on our partner exchange, StormGain.

Buy Cryptocurrency

Back next

You buy :

In dollars :

To email :

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, intotheblock.

Excerpt from:

Litecoin Turns Surprisingly Bullish Due to These Five Factors - BeInCrypto

Litecoin and Bitcoin wallets on iPhones older than and including iPhone X are insecure, says LTC developer – AMBCrypto

Posted on by

Litecoin Foundations full-time developer, Loshan T recently stated on Twitter that Bitcoin and Litecoin wallets were no longer safe on iPhones older than and including iPhone X. This was followed by the developer recommending users to upgrade their iPhone devices, considering that several people use smartphone according to Litecoin Foundations internal data. Additionally, Loshan explicity stated that updating iOS would not solve the problem as it is an unpatchable exploit.

Loshan made the statement in the wake of a Tweet made by Axi0mX. The Twitter handle had stated,

EPIC JAILBREAK: Introducing checkm8 (read checkmate), a permanent unpatchable bootrom exploit for hundreds of millions of iOS devices. Most generations of iPhones and iPads are vulnerable: from iPhone 4S (A5 chip) to iPhone 8 and iPhone X (A11 chip).

Axi0mX stated that this was possibly the biggest news in iOs jailbreak community in years, considering that the previous version of an iOS device to have been suseptible to public bootrom exploit was iPhone 4. The Twitter account also announced release of the exploit for free for the benefit of iOS jailbreak and security research community, adding that the release was not a complete jailbreak with Cydia, a package manager mobile app for iOS, but just an exploit.

In light of this, Litecoin developer added that iPads that were released before 2019 were also insecure, adding that users private keys were at risk. He said,

huh, whilst you might think most crypto people use android, most (from the @LTCFoundations internal data) seem to use iOS. we actually have like 100-150K more installs of loafwallet on iOS

Read the original post:

Litecoin and Bitcoin wallets on iPhones older than and including iPhone X are insecure, says LTC developer - AMBCrypto

Is There Freedom of Speech in Germany? – The New York Times

Posted on by

HAMBURG, Germany Germany doesnt have a problem with free speech. It has two or rather, it is caught between two very different conceptions of free speech, each of which has significant shortcomings and each of which is rooted in our inability to close the chasm that remains between eastern and western Germany, 30 years after reunification.

Simply put, the division pits one part of the country that believes freedom of speech is on the decline against another that believes freedom of speech is going way too far. These arent just different concepts, rooted in two different formative national experiences the Nazi era and the East German Communist regime. They are also at fundamental odds with each other, meaning that the day in, day out debate over what counts as acceptable speech is driving Germans further apart.

Lets start with the Germans who believe that freedom of speech is endangered. Concentrated in eastern Germany, many of them experienced communism and its better say nothing atmosphere firsthand, only to be freed with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

For many eastern Germans, the revolution of 1989 held the promise that in a free country you would be able to utter any opinion, without suffering consequences. Instead, they complain, when they express conservative views on hot topics like immigration or multiculturalism, they are quickly labeled Nazis.

We know what it feels like to live in a society where certain opinions are unacceptable, they say, and increasingly, were feeling that same pressure.

The second group, rooted in western Germany, has a different concern, and a different historical reference point. They believe they see social norms around tolerance and diversity eroding, and fear a replay of the 1930s.

From 1933 onward, the incremental acceptance of hatred, racism and dehumanization paved the way to the Holocaust. This group, which includes high-profile journalists and celebrities, believes that hatred should not be covered by the freedom of speech. That in itself is not a new view in Germany, but recently those who hold it have ceased to draw a distinction between the broad political right and right-wing extremism.

To them, rechts right-wing has become the new collective term for an immensely broad range of people, from conservative critics of Chancellor Angela Merkel to neo-Nazis. We have learned our lesson, this group says, and we will never again allow intolerance and inhumanity to enter legitimate discourse.

Both groups command support from broad sections of German society. And both fundamentally misunderstand what free speech means.

The promise of 1989, to start with, never included a guarantee that speech came without consequences. In fact, most opinions have and will always have a social price. Freedom of speech never meant freedom from ridicule. Part of the messy necessity of democratic civil society is sorting out good ideas from bad ones. Plus, in Communist East Germany, people who criticized the government were often tortured by the Stasi. We are far from this danger today.

What the other side gets wrong is that brute, malign and even hateful speech is, in fact, broadly covered by freedom of speech. Freedom of opinion includes the right to utter opinions against freedom.

The German constitutional court ruled in 2009 that even the dissemination of National Socialist ideas as a radical challenge to the existing order is principally covered by the right of the freedom speech. Why? Because theres no better way to fight nonsense than a good counter argument.

Increasingly lost on the German left is exactly this confidence: that the freewheeling fight of opinions is the best insurance against a victory of inhumane ideologues. In Nazi Germany, this clash of ideas did not exist. Dissidents were shut in concentration camps or killed. We are far from this danger today as well.

The real danger Germany faces today is neither a creeping leftist regime nor a nascent far-right dictatorship. Rather, it is the irrational insinuation that people who hold views different from your own are themselves illegitimate. This suspicion leads to tribalism, and tribalism is what drives societies apart.

What protects us against this drift? A good start might be the realization that complaining about the others who allegedly impair ones freedom of speech is often an excuse for ones own lack of courage to speak out. Right after World War II, the German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, had a good piece of advice for citizens who feared others anger: Its only after having made yourself unpopular that you will be taken seriously.

In the age of Twitter, it is extremely easy to make yourself extremely unpopular. It is also easy as never before to gain a voice. Thats the new deal.

Jochen Bittner is a co-head of the debate section for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Visit link:

Is There Freedom of Speech in Germany? - The New York Times

European Court’s Decision in Right To Be Forgotten Case is a Win for Free Speech – EFF

Posted on by

In a significant victory for free speech rights, the European Unions highest court ruled that the EUs Right to Be Forgotten does not require Google to delist search results globally, thus keeping the results available to be seen by users around the world.

The EU standard, established in 2014, lets individuals in member states demand that search engines not show search results containing old information about them when their privacy rights outweigh the publics interest in having continued access to the information. The question before the court was whether Google had to remove the results from all Google search platforms, including Google.com, or just the ones identified with either the individuals state of residence, in this case Google.fr, or ones identified with the EU as a whole.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decided that the Right to Be Forgotten does not require such global delisting. Thus, by delisting search results from Google.fr and from any search performed through an IP address identified as being located in France, Google was in compliance with the Right to be Forgotten. Frances data protection authority, the Commission Nationale de lInformatique et des Liberties (CNIL), had argued that the Right to be Forgotten required Google to delist search results from all of its sites, since they were all available to users in France.

EFF joined Article 19 and other global free speech groups in urging the Court of Justice to reach this decision and overturn a ruling by CNIL. As the brief explained, a global delisting order would conflict with the rights of users in other nations, including U.S. users protected by First Amendment. U.S. courts have consistently held that the First Amendments protections for expression, petition, and assembly necessarily also protect the rights of individuals to gather information to fuel those expressions, petitions, and assemblies.

As we explained in the brief:

"In the United States, a right to de-reference publicly available information on data protection grounds would be unconstitutional: the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of people to publish information on matters of public interest that they acquire legally, even in the face of significant interests relating to the private life of those involved (Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. 443 US 97 (1979)). This reasoning extends to those situations where there is a significant governmental interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information in question (Oklahoma Pub. Co. v. Distr. Court 430 US 308 (1977), where the information concerns judicial procedures (Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia 435 US 829 (1978) and even where the publisher of the information knows that her or his source obtained the information illegally (Bartnicki v. Vopper 532 US 514 (2001). The First Amendment also guarantees the right to receive information, including by means of a search engine (see e.g. Langdon v. Google 474 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2007)). . . . The incompatibility of broad de-referencing obligations with US law is especially relevant in the present case given that all major search providers are established in the US"

The CJEU agreed. It found that numerous third States do not recognise the right to de-referencing or have a different approach to that right. . . . Furthermore, the balance between the right to privacy and the pf personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world. Thus, there is no obligation under EU law, for a search engine operator . . . to carry out such a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine. . . . [and] a search engine operator cannot be required . . . to carry out a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine.

The CJEU also found that EU state data protection regulators could only order de-listing in domains associated with other EU member states after conferring with their counterparts from other states. The purpose is to ensure that such an order would be consistent with any other states implementation of the Right to be Forgotten.

In a passage that has left commentators scratching their heads, the court emphasized that even though the Right to be Forgotten does not currently require delisting from all versions of Googles search engine, EU law does not prohibit such a practice. The court said an authority in an EU member state may balance an individuals right to privacy and the freedom of information and, where appropriate, order the operator of a search engine to delist search results from all of its versions.

It is unclear how to square this with the courts statement that a search engine operator cannot be required . . . to carry out a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine. Some commentators have suggested that the EU could rewrite the Right to Be Forgotten directives to permit global delisting. Another interpretation is that the court was preserving the ability of individual state authorities to order global delisting as a remedy in extraordinary cases. And yet another interpretation is that the court was simply allowing for the possibility of global delisting orders for violations of other laws, but not the Right to Be Forgotten. So this is unlikely to be the last time the CJEU takes up the issue of global delisting; indeed, another case, presenting a similar issue in the context of a defamation claim, is expected to be decided soon.

The ability of one nation to require a search engine to delist results globally would prevent users around the world from accessing information they have a legal right to receive under their own countrys laws. That would allow the most speech-restrictive laws to be applied globally. The CJEU decision rightly rejected that scenario.

Here is the original post:

European Court's Decision in Right To Be Forgotten Case is a Win for Free Speech - EFF

Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on by

Free speech is under attack by the Big Tech monopolies that dominate the internet. The flogging that Beto ORourke received during his Reddit ask me anything session this month perfectly underscored the distinction between a mainstream media and a genuinely free press. ORourke gave Americans a chance to grill him about his pivot from a centrist Senate candidate to a radical presidential hopeful, and in contrast to the handling he has gotten from the media, they treated him like hamburger meat.

No surprise there. The expression of free speech can be edgy, brutal, irreverent, and sometimes downright offensive. I should know. My father and I have been subjected to some of the most withering attacks and false claims in politics. Participating in democracy, however, is as American as apple pie. There is no substitute for open, honest, unrestricted dialogue and criticism when it comes to holding our leaders accountable.

For all the platitudes offered by liberal journalists about the free press standing as a cornerstone of democracy, they do not actually have a very good grasp of the concept. The free press that the founders envisioned looked a lot more like the Reddit users who roasted ORourke than New York Times writers who misrepresent basic tenets of free speech and demand censorship to protect their friends from online harassment.

In the 18th century, English newspaper editor John Wilkes anonymously published a satirical pamphlet savagely blasting the British prime minister. Wilkes was thrown in jail for writing it, but our founders, whom Wilkes firmly supported, wound up basing their concept of a free press on his example. Common Sense by Thomas Paine, the most important pamphlet championing the patriot cause, was also published anonymously, as were the Federalist Papers that informed the writing of the Constitution.

As I have written many times, the greatest threat to free speech and our democracy today is not the government, but the technology giants that deplatform people at the behest of liberals and then justify the action as combating hate and making the internet somehow safer. I was reminded of this reality when Instagram once again stifled my voice, as well as that of my father, by preventing our accounts from appearing in search results. As with every time this happens, Instagram simply blamed an error.

If social media can do that to the president, then no one is safe. I do not believe that such an error could possibly account for the extent to which conservatives are silenced by Big Tech. The sustained pattern of leftward bias both within the companies themselves and in their conduct around elections has been clearly established. After all, when is the last time you heard a liberal complain about being unfairly stifled on social media?

Technology companies are now openly claiming that they can engage in biased censorship, with Facebook arguing in court that it has the right to censor content because it is a publisher. If it were not for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the admission that it is a publisher would make Facebook liable for every word of defamation and slander on its various platforms. Instead, Facebook escapes liability because it is a provider of interactive computer services protected specifically because it offers a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.

Which sounds more like free speech to you? Google, Facebook, and Twitter wielding their unchecked power to silence conservative voices while avoiding the obligations imposed on normal publishers? Or citizens and political candidates freely expressing their opinions online without fear of suppression? The disdain shown by technology companies for viewpoint neutrality and their refusal to be honest about it shows the threat of the Silicon Valley monopoly over the modern public square.

Thanks in large part to the White House, people are recognizing the gravity of the situation. A majority of Americans support breaking up the technology giants, including a majority of liberals, while 50 state and territory attorneys general have brought the first antitrust investigation of its kind against Google. This comes in addition to antitrust investigations into Google, Facebook, and Amazon that have already been announced by both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

For years, state and local governments allowed Silicon Valley to amass monopoly power over activities that affect significant areas of our lives. In return, the technology companies allowed liberal activists to dominate their corporate culture and abuse their power to restrict free speech. If Big Tech keeps kowtowing to this, it might very well soon regret it.

Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpKamala Harris calls for Twitter to suspend Trump account over whistleblower attacks Clinton jokes she 'never' had to tell Obama not to 'extort foreign countries' John Dean: 'There is enough evidence' to impeach Trump MORE Jr. is executive vice president at the Trump Organization.

See the original post here:

Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech | TheHill - The Hill

Students can protect free speech on campus – UT The Daily Texan

Posted on by

You probably have heard about Senate Bill 18 by now, a law passed by the 86th Texas Legislature allowing anyone to speak on designated public spaces on campus. Before SB 18, organizations unaffiliated with the university could come onto campus, but they had to be invited by a campus organization or affiliate beforehand. Now, any party, excluding those engaging in commercial solicitation, can come onto campus with no prior permission necessary.

This law isnt exactly revolutionary, as it will really only change how outside speakers are treated procedurally. It is up to the student body to react to this new policy in an effective and responsible manner. If students see this law as a threat to our public area, it will cultivate an exclusive mindset that reinforces existing negative stigma surrounding universities and free speech. This procedural change gives students the chance to prove that UT is an institution made of thoughtful students who can listen to opinions, even though they may contradict our own, and respond in a productive way.

As a whole, universities have gained the unfortunate reputation of not accepting free speech, particularly toward more controversial or inflammatory ideas. Students have pushed to shut down certain speakers nationwide, prompting others to accuse those students of not acknowledging opposing views.

Though we should not tolerate hate speech, by responsibly accepting the changes brought by SB 18, we can reject that reputation and build our own based on open-mindedness. Students can demonstrate this by listening to speakers on campus and engaging in thoughtful and constructive debate.

The urge to filter who has a platform on campus is understandable from a students perspective. No one wants to feel like their institution is actively hosting or promoting hateful and outdated ideas. Thats one of the benefits of this change since these speakers are not being invited by the university itself, students wont feel betrayed if someone whose agenda they dont agree with makes their way onto campus. Its a win-win for both the university and the students. Both are relieved of any liability from being associated with such speakers.

Largely, though, students shouldnt expect an increase in these types of speakers. Its not like the university was strictly filtering the types of speakers in the past, as there has always been a healthy diversity in the types of groups brought onto campus.

Youll probably see the same people that youve always seen, without a dramatic change, said JB Bird, director of media relations and newsroom. Except that instead of being invited, they can now come on their own.

There are sure to be exceptions, but for the most part, this policy is simply protecting the presence of those who want to influence students with the best of intentions.

We should appreciate our space in the community as a place of free expression, and allowing this interaction with the community not only fosters open debate, but reforms our image into one of acceptance.

Ruder is a political communications freshman from Frisco.

Read more here:

Students can protect free speech on campus - UT The Daily Texan

Free Speech Alliance Continues to Gain Momentum: 60 Members and Growing – NewsBusters

Posted on by

RESTON, VA The Free Speech Alliance (FSA), a coalition of conservative organizations and conservative leaders committed to protecting free speech online, surpassed 60 members today.

Recent members to the FSA include: PragerU, Susan B. Anthony List, Americas PAC, and Independent Womens Forum. As big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter continue to de-platform conservatives, it is more important than ever for conservatives to band together in the fight to protect free speech online. That is why the FSA was formed.

The FSA fights for transparency and equal footing for conservatives on Twitter, Facebook, Google and other social media platforms. We defend the incredible and revolutionary ideal of free speech in which American democracy is rooted. We actively engage with tech companies to ensure they are protecting conservative speech online and that the radical left does not contaminate the national online dialogue with their bias.

Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell stated:

It is critical for the survival of the conservative movement that we unite in defense of our right to express ourselves online without threat of being censored by the social media giants. Protecting our freedom of speech is something that should not only be important to conservatives, but to all Americans. Facebook, Twitter and Google/Youtube own the most widely used online platforms for speech in the world. Facebook, Twitter, and Google/Youtube have full control over what we say, hear, write, and read. It is immensely important that these platforms remain neutral. How can any movement or ideology survive when the means to share its ideas is stripped away? As the FSA continues to grow, it sends a signal to Silicon Valley that change must happen and must happen quickly.

For more information about the Free Speech Alliance, visit: https://www.mrc.org/freespeechalliance#about

Read more:

Free Speech Alliance Continues to Gain Momentum: 60 Members and Growing - NewsBusters

Is the Supreme Court using the First Amendment to empower corporations, the right? – Berkeleyside

Posted on by

William Turner. Photo: Michael Erickson

Longtime Berkeley lawyer and educator William Bennett Turner has been increasingly disillusioned by First Amendment decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Turner practiced constitutional law for 45 years, argued cases before the court and has published widely on free-speech issues. He has taught courses on freedom of speech and the press at UC Berkeley for more than three decades. Now, hes written a book charging that the court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has been deploying the First Amendment in ways that serve the interests of corporations and the religious right instead of the individuals who traditionally need the amendments protection to get their voices heard. Turner says the court has taken free speech principles developed decades ago to shield and empower oppressed citizens and applied them to further conservative political interests.

The book, just published by Roaring Forties Press in Berkeley, is Free Speech for Some: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing the First Amendment to Empower Corporations and the Religious Right. I wondered what had convinced him that more people need to know what the Supreme Court is doing these days about free speech.

Free speech has been loudly proclaimed, especially in Berkeley, for decades. Most recently, the First Amendment was tested in the violent protests surrounding the appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos and others on the UC Berkeley campus throughout 2017. Security for the events cost the campus and local law enforcement millions of dollars.

Turner and I talked about his book at the Baker & Commons Caf, a calm venue on College Avenue in the Elmwood, which itself has been in the past the site of more than one bitter community controversy. The conversation has been edited for clarity and concision.

Having taught generations of Berkeley students about these explosive issues, you say, What the First Amendment means is what at least five current justices say it means. So the meaning can change as the composition of the court changes?

It can and does. The text of the amendment doesnt give us any answers, not even clues, to the free speech issues that come before the court. Now that the Roberts Court has a solid majority of political conservatives, they are free to decide cases in ways that favor conservative political and economic interests, and thats what theyve been doingsystematically.

The originalists on the court, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, hold that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was in 1787?

Yes, the Originalists, now also including Neil Gorsuch and to some extent, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, say the Constitution should be interpreted the way the framers would have understood it. But theres precious little information about what the framers had in mind in adopting the First Amendment. Its pretty clear they wanted to protect political speech, but thats about it. How they would think about Facebook, Twitter, violent video games and 21st-century communications is anybodys guess.

Is there historical precedent for the First Amendment being used in favor of business and corporations?

Traditionally, the amendment was used to shield individuals and groups like civil rights demonstrators, antiwar activists, and eccentrics who needed the amendment to get their voices heard. Theres some precedent for corporations having free speech rights, and Citizens United took that precedent and ran with it. Generally, corporations dont have more or better free speech rights than individuals. But the Roberts Court has decided that certain categories of individuals dont have full First Amendment rights: students, prisoners, government employees and military personnel. The court in Citizens United didnt satisfactorily explain why corporations should have greater speech protection than these real human beings.

Could you explain the Lochner ruling, which used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to target social welfare legislation like Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal? How was that similar to what you see happening in the courts free speech decisions today?

Thats complicated but important. Lochner, in 1905, used the Due Process clause to strike down all kinds of laws opposed by business. It said the liberty protected by Due Process included a fictional liberty of contract between, for example, employers and employees, so laws that set minimum wages and hours interfered with that liberty and violated the Constitution. During the Lochner era, the court threw out maybe 200 state and federal laws on this reasoning. Lochner is now viewed as a disgraceful period in the courts history. Even Chief Justice Roberts has denounced it. What he doesnt acknowledge is that his court is accomplishing much the same resultsgetting government off the backs of businessby using a different amendment, the First. In other words, a new Lochner era is afoot, with the majority justices using a broad, unspecific constitutional provision and reading into it their political and economic preferences.

The Roberts Court is the most business-friendly since the Lochner era. It has consistently struck down environmental and consumer protections, limited the rights of injured individuals to receive fair compensation, restricted class actions, hobbled labor unions and made it more difficult for ordinary citizens to get access to the courts to redress their grievances. This pro-business bent has been widely recognized. Whats new is the courts now deploying the First Amendment to further business interests.

The courts Citizens United decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Act, which had limited corporate spending in campaigns. What else did it do?

Citizens United drew an important distinction between contributions to candidates campaigns, which are still limited and were not involved in Citizens United at all, and independent expenditures, which is spending on elections that is not coordinated with any candidate or campaign. The court said independent expenditures for example, spending your own money to take out television ads expressing your candidate or policy preferences are incapable of creating corruption, and therefore beyond governments authority to limit. Theyre speech protected by the First Amendment.

Theres a misconception that the Roberts Court invented the concept of corporate personhood for constitutional purposes. It didnt. Another misconception is that the court blessed Super PACs. It didnt; none existed at the time of the decision. The creation of Super PACs was probably an unintended consequence of the decision. And the court did not rule that corporations could now put dark money into political campaigns. The court, in fact, upheld the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold. A lot of dark money (undisclosed, unlimited) goes through 501(c)(4) social welfare advocacy groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Roves Crossroads GPS and others, but that wasnt involved in Citizens United at all.

Will you discuss the courts decision in the ruling on violent video games?

The court struck down Californias law prohibiting the sale of extremely violent video games to minors. Justice Scalias caustic, cynical, playful opinion is a classic. The court held that video games are speech, as deserving of First Amendment protection as books, movies, etc. The court rejected the states contention that violent games are of so little social value that they dont deserve any constitutional protection. The court found no evidence that playing the games caused actual violence and no credible evidence that gamers own psyches were harmed.

You could say this is just another pro-business effort by the court, this time benefitting the highly profitable video game industry. But it was more. The opinion was an impressive display of how potent an engine, for better or for worse, the modern First Amendment has become.

Where do libertarian principles fit into Free Speech rulings?

The Roberts Court has not abandoned the First Amendments libertarian tradition. It has continued to find protection for unpopular and even disturbing speech, including bigoted funeral protests, racial insults, and hate speech. It has protected the speech rights of congenital liars and registered sex offenders. Some political conservatives including judges are also libertarian, not trusting the government to make the decisions about what speech is valuable and what isnt.

You have practiced law for many years, have argued First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, have seen many changes. Is it possible that the First Amendment can be retooled?

Not likely that the current justices will renounce their background, training, personal philosophy and track record. But not impossible that some justice, perhaps most likely the chief (the court will forever bear his name), will shift position and call a halt to subserviently carrying out the agenda of a particular party. No justice should want to be viewed by history as a political hack whose votes are entirely predictable and congenial to special interests.

Frances Starns recent writings are online at francessmithstarn.in

Berkeleyside relies on reader support so we can remain free to read for everyone in Berkeley. Become a member and be part of the future of independent, local journalism.

BECOME A MEMBER TODAY

Here is the original post:

Is the Supreme Court using the First Amendment to empower corporations, the right? - Berkeleyside

New York City Declares Using the Term ‘Illegal Alien’ Can Result in a $250000 Fine – Reason

Posted on by

Last week, New York City's Commission on Human Rights declared that using the term "illegal alien" pejoratively to describe an undocumented person violates laws designed to protect employees and tenants from discrimination, and could result in fines of up to $250,000. But the city's interpretation of the law is so broad that it may very well be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Perceived immigration status has long been a protected category under the New York City Human Rights Law, and the commission has now issued guidance that "use of the term 'illegal alien,' among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law."

It's important to note that this guidance does not affect all kinds of speech: The law covers workplace harassment, tenants' rights, and public accommodation. Merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, would not be illegal.

The courts have, of course, held that anti-discrimination ordinances can survive scrutiny, even if they appear to limit the free speech rights of employers and landlords. But NYC is going further here. The 30-page guidance notes, for instance, that "the severity or pervasiveness of the harassment is only relevant to damages. Even an employer's single comment made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about one's immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment."

That's a problem, and one that might push the guidance into unconstitutional territory. Government decrees to prohibit free speech in the name of anti-harassment or anti-discrimination must come with certain limiting conditions to survive a First Amendment test.

"The Supreme Court requires that conduct be not just unwelcome, but also severe or pervasive enough to make the work environment both subjectivelyand objectively hostile, before it is legally considered harassment under federal law," wrote Hans Bader, an attorney and former official in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. "Even the 'severe or pervasive' standard found in federal law is not sufficiently protective of speech, so it is alarming that New York City has eliminated that modest limit on liability."

Bader's entire post on the subject is worth reading in full. The government cannot simply prohibit people from making politically incorrect statements about undocumented peopleit must limit the scope of anti-discrimination mandates in order to satisfy the broad free speech guarantees enjoyed by all people.

Go here to see the original:

New York City Declares Using the Term 'Illegal Alien' Can Result in a $250000 Fine - Reason

Woman says vow not to ‘deny Jesus’ was motivation in campus freedom fight – Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Posted on by

GREEN BAY, Wisconsin As long as she can remember, Polly Olsen, 29, said she has handed out heart-shaped cards on Valentines Day.

Basically since I could walk, me and my siblings would distribute them at nursing homes and hospitals, said Olsen. My mom would dress us up fancy and we would go hand them out. The handmade cards included a positive, handwritten message in the center, along with a Bible passage.

Olsen continued the tradition when she enrolled part-time at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in 2009. On Valentines Day 2018, after distributing about 30 cards on the NWTC campus, Olsen was stopped by a campus security officer after someone anonymously called the security office.

She was told that handing out the cards constituted soliciting and was in violation of the colleges public assembly policy. Olsen also was told that some people might find the Bible references on her cards offensive.

Olsen, through the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, filed a complaint against the college Sept. 4, 2018, claiming that the college was violating her First Amendment rights of free speech. On Sept. 13, 2019, a federal judge in Green Bay ruled that NWTC did infringe on Olsens right to free speech.

In his 14-page summary judgment, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Griesbach stated that NWTC had no more right to prevent (Olsen) from handing out individual Valentines than it did to stop her from wishing each individual to have a good morning and a blessed day.'

In a statement, Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said he was thankful for Olsen stepping up to defend not only her own rights, but the rights of all students.

This case was very simple, said Esenberg. NWTC, through their public assembly policy, sought to restrain and contain the First Amendment rights of students. That is, and always has been, unconstitutional.

The colleges president, H. Jeffrey Rafn said in a statement: We fully support freedom of speech and we promote the respectful exchange of ideas. We also have a responsibility to protect the privacy of students and the integrity of the learning environment. The college will continue to ensure that it meets its legal obligations.

In an email to The Compass, Green Bays diocesan newspaper, Rafn said the colleges decision to prevent Olsen from distributing cards wasnt an attempt to obstruct her freedom of speech but said it came in response to her entering private areas of the campus to hand out her cards.

We did not have a concern until Polly went into back offices where, among other things, confidential information is handled, said Rafn. I am unaware of other circumstances where students freely went into back offices. It is commonly assumed in any business that customers would not freely walk around into back offices. Our students abide by this common courtesy, although we have since added this admonition in the student handbook.

In his summary decision, Griesbach said there was no evidence Olsen trespassed in restricted areas.

Although NWTC makes much of the fact that Olsen went into the General Studies office to give a Valentine to her friend Casandra, there is no evidence that this was a restricted area and it is undisputed that Olsen had a practice of visiting employees at NWTC who were friends for both personal and school-related reasons, the judge wrote.

In an interview, Olsen, who graduated from NWTC last May with a paralegal degree and law office administration certificate, told The Compass that she was first prohibited from distributing Valentine cards in 2014, the year she and another student formed an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship chapter on campus.

When they stopped me and a couple of my friends from handing them out, they decided to go after my club, saying that we had disruptive members on campus, she said. They asked me to apologize for my Jesus loves you Valentines. I told them I would not do that.

Olsen calls the Valentine tradition my personal thing that I do every year. It became more personal on July 16, 2013, the day her mother, Debra, died from pancreatic cancer.

She said she makes 500 to 600 cards and distributes them with friends.

This spring Olsens case made national headlines when she was invited to the White House by President Donald Trump to attend a March 21 ceremony where he signed an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses.

What motivated me the most to not give up and not cower to the schools bullying was the fact that they wanted me to apologize for Jesus name, Olsen, who attends Jacobs Well Presbyterian Church in Green Bay, told The Compass.

I will not deny Jesus in any way, she said, so I guess, stand up for Jesus no matter what, would be what I would tell people. He uses little things to do big things, like change a law in our country with a Valentine.

Lucero is news and information manager for The Compass, newspaper of the Diocese of Green Bay.

Crux is dedicated to smart, wired and independent reporting on the Vatican and worldwide Catholic Church. That kind of reporting doesnt come cheap, and we need your support. You can help Crux by giving a small amount monthly, or with a onetime gift. Please remember, Crux is a for-profit organization, so contributions are not tax-deductible.

Go here to read the rest:

Woman says vow not to 'deny Jesus' was motivation in campus freedom fight - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Watch Elon Musk unveil his latest plan for conquering Mars – Business Insider

Posted on by

Following is a transcript of the video.

Narrator: Elon Musk has a giant new addition to his plans for colonizing Mars. The Starship Rocket. For years, this rocket was merely a concept on paper.But not anymore.On Saturday, September 28 Musk stood in front of a fully-assembled prototype of the rocket as he unveiled SpaceX's future plans.

Elon Musk: Which future do you want? Do you want the future where we become a space-ranked civilization and are in many worlds and out there among the stars? Or one where we are forever confined to Earth. And I say it is the first.

Narrator: If all goes according to plan, when Starship is complete it will tower 387 feet tall, measure 30 feet in diameter, and be capable of transporting people to Mars. For comparison, it will be about 5.5 times taller than SpaceX's first successful rocket, the Falcon 1. Starship is the rocket that Musk has aspired to build ever since he founded SpaceX in 2002. And after years of modeling, multiple changes to the rocket's design, and a substantial investment from Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa it has come out looking unlike anything SpaceX has ever built before.For example, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets are covered by an aluminum-lithium alloy.But as you can see, Starship is covered with something different, which Musk called the best design decision of the entire project.

Musk: The best design decision on this whole thing, is 301 stainless steel. Because at cryogenic temperatures, 301 stainless actually has about the same effective strength as an advanced composite or aluminum-lithium. Unlike most steels which get brittle at low temperature, 301 stainless gets much stronger.

Narrator: And unlike the nine engines on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets, Starship will fly on six, more powerful, Raptor engines.

Musk: The ship will have a total of six engines. Three of the sea level variety of Raptor. Those are actually on the rocket right now. So we've got the three sea level Raptor engines and they gimbal, which means that the whole engine moves. So the way a rocket steers is by moving the entire engine. So whereas an aircraft engine is static and you move by moving the control surfaces like the ailerons and rudder and elevator and flaps, this rocket when the engines are powered you move the entire engine to steer it. The Starship will have three sea level engines that will move up to 15 degrees angle and three vacuum engines that will optimize for efficiency that will not move, they will be fixed in place.

Narrator: Musk said that within the next one to two months, SpaceX will launch this Starship prototype, called Mk 1 (pronounced Mark), to 12.5 miles in the air and then land it back home in Boca Chica, Texas.After that ...

Musk: Our next flight after that might actually just be all the way to orbit with a booster and the ship.

Narrator: The prototype shown here will probably never reach orbit.That mission will go to an upgraded version of the rocket, called Mk 3, which SpaceX could start constructing as soon as next month, according to Musk. And by next year? Musk says SpaceX could be launching people to space on this thing.Whether that's actually the case, we'll just have to wait and see.In the meantime, Musk remains optimistic.

Musk: To Mars!

View original post here:

Watch Elon Musk unveil his latest plan for conquering Mars - Business Insider

Elon Musk Just Unveiled Wild Starship Plans For "The Moon, Mars, And Beyond" – ScienceAlert

Posted on by

Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of SpaceX, addressed planet Earth on Saturday night about his latest plans to "extend consciousness beyond Earth" using a towering steel spaceship.

Standing between two rockets that represented both the future of SpaceX and its nail-biting past, Musk delivered his talk to more than 100 people from the company's fast-developing launch site in Boca Chica, southeast Texas.

Behind Musk was a shorter rocket called Falcon 1, which after three catastrophic failures in 2006, 2007, and 2008 finally delivered a small payload into space for the first time. That mission's success also prevented Musk and SpaceX from going broke.

"Eleven years ago today SpaceX made orbit for the first time," Musk said of that first successful Falcon 1 launch, on September 28, 2008. "If that fourth launch had not succeeded, there would have been curtains. But fate smiled upon us that day."

Yet as he spoke, all eyes were fixed on the 164-foot-tall (50-metre-tall), stainless-steel rocket ship behind Musk that SpaceX had finished assembling only hours before his speech.

"I think this is the most inspiring thing I've ever seen," Musk said of the vehicle, called Starship Mark 1: a critical prototype for a planned system called Starship.

A complete Starship may stand 40 stories tall at a launch pad, ferry dozens of people into orbit at a time, and eventually send crews to the Moon and Mars.

"There are many troubles in the world, of course, and these are important, and we need to solve them. But we also need things that make us excited to be alive," Musk said.

"Becoming a space-faring civilisation being out there among the stars this is one of the things that I know makes me be glad to be alive."

"Do you want the future where we become a space-faring civilisation and are on many worlds, and are out there among the stars? Or one where we're forever confined to Earth?" he said.

"I say it is the first."

But Musk's audacious vision needs a vehicle to carry it out, and to him that vessel is Starship.

In September 2018, Musk presented a carbon-fibre version of a Mars vehicle called Big Falcon Rocket. He also introduced Yusaku Maezawa, a Japanese fashion billionaire, as a major funder of the system's development and the person who will fly around the Moon in a SpaceX rocket in 2023.

A couple of months later, though, SpaceX abandoned the carbon-fibre design and switched to a stainless-steel variant. Musk announced the reimagined spacecraft as Starship that December.

Since then, SpaceX built and launched a crude prototype called Starhopper and finished Starship Mk 1 (which Musk said may fly in a month or so). Those prototypes are work toward a Starship system that's fully reusable that way, no multi-million-dollar rocket parts are wasted, and the only major cost to launch is fuel.

"The critical breakthrough that is required for us to become a space-faring civilisation is to make space travel like air travel," Musk said. "This is basically the holy grail of space travel."

SpaceX posted a video to Twitter (below) on Saturday that imagines how Starship would work.

In the animation, a Starship vessel is stacked on top of a giant rocket booster, called Super Heavy, that's equipped with up to several dozen car-size Raptor rocket engines. The booster hauls Starship much of the way toward orbit, detaches, and falls back to Earth.

Once refueled, the booster then launches another Starship to meet the first one in orbit, refuel it with methane and oxygen liquids Musk says can be mass-manufactured on Earth as well as Mars using carbon dioxide, water, and solar energy and send it on its way.

The biggest changes to Starship's design include a refinement of its lower wings, flipper-like upper canards, and the addition of hexagon-shaped heat shield tiles lining the spacecraft's belly.

SpaceX got rid of three wings that also functioned as landing legs. Instead, Starship as currently envisioned now has six pop-out landing legs and two canard-like wings.

The wings and tiles are crucial to safeguarding Starship as it returns to Earth at 25 times the speed of sound and plows through the planet's atmosphere. This phase, called reentry, generates a searing-hot plasma that can destroy an unprotected spacecraft.

"For a reusable ship, you're coming in like a meteor. You don't want something that melts at a high temperature," Musk said, emphasising the need for steel (most rockets use aluminium or carbon-fibre). He also noted that stainless steel is about 50 times cheaper by weight than carbon-fibre composites.

Starship's redesigned wings should help the vehicle maintain lift, slow down more gradually, and spread out the heat of reentry, while the thermal tiles absorb that energy.

Once the ship reaches denser atmosphere, Musk said the wings will help steer Starship as it falls toward a landing pad.

"It just falls like a skydiver, and controls itself, and then it turns and just lands," Musk said. "It will be totally nuts to see that thing land."

Kimi Talvitie a spaceflight enthusiast, software engineer, and artist built an impressive 3D model of a "skydiving" Starship (below) using details Musk shared ahead of his presentation.

Though Starship may be years away from being fully realised, Musk shared some shocking notions about how it may stack up against all other rockets even SpaceX's own partly reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launchers.

Musk calculated that, in an ideal scenario, one Starship system could launch to space and return three times per day, or about 1,000 times a year. Assuming each launch can fly about 150 tons of payload into orbit, that works out to about 150,000 tons per year.

That's more than 333 times the mass of the football field-size International Space Station.

Meanwhile, he said, all of Earth's rockets launching today might together deliver no more than 300 tons into space.

"We're talking about something that is, with a fleet of Starships, 1,000 times more than all Earth capacity combined. All other rockets combined would be 0.1 percent, including ours," Musk said.

"But you kind of need that if you're going to build a city on Mars. It's gotta be done."

The rapid reusability of the system, when Musk emphasised is essential, could also move Starship into an operational state much faster.

"I think we could potentially see people fly next year," Musk said. "We can do many flights to prove out the reliability very quickly."

Musk said SpaceX hasn't yet figured out how it plans to keep people alive inside its Starships, in terms of oxygen, food, water, and waste, let alone on the surface of Mars. But he added there's a definite need for "regenerative" life support systems, which recycle and conserve all the supplies humans need.

"I think for sure you'd want to have a regenerative life support system," Musk said. "Regenerative is kind of a necessity. I actually don't think its super hard to do that, relative to the spacecraft itself."

Despite Musk's optimism, though, fully functional regenerative life support systems have yet to be achieved in elaborate facilities on Earth, let alone in spacecraft.

Musk's drive in creating Starship is not just about feeling good about the future, but also, in his mind, rescuing humanity from certain doom.

"As far as we know, this is the only place in this part of the galaxy, the Milky Way, where there is consciousness," Musk said of planet Earth.

He explained that it took about 4.5 billion years for that "consciousness" we humans to evolve, but that we have maybe a few hundred millions years left before our ageing Sun begins to expand, heat up Earth, and make our home planet uninhabitable.

Musk referred to this as a window of time for consciousness.

"That's all we've got, OK? Several hundred million years," Musk said. "If it took life an extra 10 percent longer for conscious life to evolve, it wouldn't have evolved at all, because it'd be incinerated by the Sun."

Though this or other humanity-destroying calamities are a long way off, Musk doesn't want to waste any time while our window to spread among the stars, as is evidenced by the frenetic pace of SpaceX's Starship rocket development program.

"I'm optimistic by nature, but there's some chance that window will not be open for long," Musk said. "I think we should become a multi-planet civilisation while that window is open.

"And if we do, I think the probable outcome for Earth is even better because then Mars could help Earth one day. I think we should really do our very best to become a multi-planet species, and we should extend consciousness beyond Earth, and we should do it now."

This article was originally published by Business Insider.

More from Business Insider:

Original post:

Elon Musk Just Unveiled Wild Starship Plans For "The Moon, Mars, And Beyond" - ScienceAlert

50 US corporations have CEO-worker pay gaps of more than 1,000 to 1 – Fast Company

Posted on by

Walmarts CEO makes 1,076 times what some of the companys workers make in a year. The discount giant is not alone. Workers at 50 U.S.-based corporations would have to work at least 1,000 years to make what their CEOs did in just one year in 2018.

The biggest culprit is Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who earned more than $2.28 billion from Tesla in 2018, including his salary, stock options, stock appreciation, and other perks. With a median Tesla worker salary of $56,163, Musk takes home 40,668 times a median workers income per year.

Musk is an outlier. The second biggest CEO to median worker pay gap takes place at Abercrombie & Fitch, where CEO Fran Horowitz-Bonadies makes 3,660 times the salary of the median worker. Gap, Mattel, and Align Technology (the makers of Invisalign) come next, all with salary disparities greater than 3,100 to one.

Its really a systemic problem, says Sara Anderson, the lead author of the Institute for Policy Studies new report, Executive Excess 2019: Making Corporations Pay for Big Pay Gaps, which published these statistics today. Anderson has been the lead author of these reports for the past 26 years and directs the IPS Global Economy Project. Now, she says, policymakers are finally acting on an issue she sees as one of the key drivers of inequality. Thats true not just in the U.S. but also in other countries, where major U.S. corporations often employ people in order to get away with cheaper wages.

Beginning with their 2018 proxy statements, public companies in the U.S. have been required to disclose the difference between what their CEOs make in a year and what median workers earn, a change called for in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In 2016, policymakers in Portland, Oregon, passed a tax on corporations with CEOs who make at least 100 times more than the median worker pay. Its exciting to see this taking off at state and local levels, says Anderson, who was quite involved in passing Portlands tax. The tax applies to companies doing business in Portland and penalizes them according to the size of their CEO-worker pay gaps. For instance, companies where CEOs make 250 times that of the median worker have to pay 25% in taxes.

The general income gap in the U.S. has been increasing over the past several decades. Between 1978 and 2017, the earnings of the top 0.1% of Americans went up by about 340%but thats still nothing compared to how much CEOs have been making. In that same time period, CEO pay grew at three times that rate, with the average CEO of a major corporation making 5.4 times as much as an average member of the top 0.1%. Unsurprisingly, the pay gap is broadly unpopular among voters. I am from a rural, pretty red community in the Midwest, and for a long, long time, ordinary people have been totally outraged about the gap between CEO and worker pay across the political spectrum, Anderson says.

Anderson was surprised by the diversity in the top 50 U.S. corporations with the widest pay gaps. While low-wage retailers, like Walmart, predictably made the list, there were also plenty of big tech firms and even auto parts businesses. It shows the breadth of this problem, she says. We cant just think that its a few bad apples like Walmart and McDonalds.

Walmart, with its 1,076:1 pay gap, has the 46th highest CEO to worker pay gap on the list. McDonalds is number 16, with a gap of 2,124:1.

In March 2020, San Francisco will have a tax similar to Portlands on the ballot, and bills have been introduced in at least six other state legislatures. Taxes and fees relating to CEO versus worker pay disparities have been proposed in Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

Its taken a while for policymakers to catch up on this, says Anderson. The disclosure rule is really a first step toward tougher policies to crack down on this issue . . . Now we can see how much specific companies are contributing to our countrys inequality problem and use that data to narrow these gaps.

Read the original post:

50 US corporations have CEO-worker pay gaps of more than 1,000 to 1 - Fast Company

WeWork’s CEO drama has one industry insider calling it an ‘Elon Musk situation’ – Business Insider

Posted on by

WeWork's CEO Adam Neumann is stepping down from the startup amid its delayed initial public offering.

However, the controversial executive will remain executive chairman of the company that he's built over the past five years, putting him in a position to provide advice and vision while absent from day-to-day decisions.

That has one venture capital expert comparing him to Tesla's polarizing chief executive, Elon Musk.

"Startups deserve to have the visionary on board," Santosh Rao, head of research at Manhattan Venture Partners, told Business Insider on Tuesday. "But this is a weird situation. He will be there but he's not going to run the company."

"It's almost like an Elon Musk situation," he continued. "The company runs on his charisma and vision, so I think this is a good middle ground."

Earlier this month, Manhattan Venture Partners, an investment firm and research shop that focuses on later stage, Pre-IPO companies, initiated coverage on WeWork shortly before its IPO documents were filed with US regulators. In its report, Rao said WeWork was worth about $28 billion, about half of the company's originally targeted value.

That valuation target was said to fallen drastically in recent weeks, as low as $10 billion, amid skepticism of Neumann'sweb of loans, real-estate deals, and family involvement with the company.

"Maybe if WeWork had come out before Lyft and Uber, they would have got a pass," Rao told Business Insider earlier this month. "But now, seeing how the appetite for companies without a path to profitability has gone down, I don't think they will get the benefit of the doubt."

Both Uber and Lyft have stumbled out of the gate following their public-market debuts earlier this year. Many investors from later private rounds are now in the red, as the stocks have fallen 20% and 43%, respectively, in the months since.

Two WeWork executives, Artie Minson and Sebastian Gunningham, will be filling Neumann's shoes as co-CEO's, the company said.

Read more:WeWork will replace Adam Neumann with two new CEOs. Here's everything we know about Sebastian Gunningham and Artie Minson.

"As co-founder of WeWork, I am so proud of this team and the incredible company that we have built over the last decade," Neumann said in a statement.

"Our global platform now spans 111 cities in 29 countries, serving more than 527,000 members each day. While our business has never been stronger, in recent weeks, the scrutiny directed toward me has become a significant distraction, and I have decided that it is in the best interest of the company to step down as chief executive. Thank you to my colleagues, our members, our landlord partners, and our investors for continuing to believe in this great business."

An earlier version of this post misstated when MVP launched coverage of WeWork, it was before the company's S-1 was filed.

Are you a WeWork employee? Have a story to share? Get in touch with this reporter at grapier@businessinsider.com. For sensitive tips, secure contact methods can be found here.

Read this article:

WeWork's CEO drama has one industry insider calling it an 'Elon Musk situation' - Business Insider

Workplace and spirituality: Meeting of opposites – The Manila Times

Posted on by

CHITRA KHARI

I am sure that you will all agree with me, that despite the Philippines being a Christian nation, there is a possibility of having room for different perspectives of spirituality. Yet, we would nod to the fact that spirituality is a universal human experience and forms the core of our fundamental nature. Since ages, human beings have walked the path of spirituality to search for the meaning of their existence.

Spirituality relates with finding a connection with some higher power. The literary definition of spirituality relates with finding meaning, purpose and connectedness (with all entities). Now the big question comes: Can spirituality be experienced only in meditation halls, temples, churches, mosques or can it be experienced even within the organizational context? And, if yes, then how is this experience made possible within organizations, and what benefit can organizations and individuals derive out of it. This is a broader question which I am trying to answer here.

You might be wondering why there is there a need of spirituality at workplaces. The answer lies in todays complex, ambiguous, uncertain and highly volatile business environment. Things are interrelated like never before (yet we feel disconnected). The recession at one part of the globe has a ripple effect on the other sides of the planet. Downsizing, layoffs, constant pressure from jobs, use of temporary workforce, long working hours and changes in social structures (downfall of joint families and rising nuclear families) have generated the feeling of alienation in individuals. People feel that despite being connected through the Internet of things, they are isolated, empty and find their life meaningless. All this outer turmoil has triggered an inner journey towards finding meaning and purpose in life.

As people spend most of their substantial time in the office, organizations can take charge of filling this inner void in individuals through providing them meaning, purpose and a sense of strong connectedness with the larger society. Organizations can provide purpose and meaning to employees by integrating and practicing universal spiritual values such as benevolence, integrity, compassion, mutuality and respect. Such organizations are kind, careful and affectionate towards all the stakeholders (internal and external); mindful of their actions towards others and show congruence between their words and actions.

For example, these organizations focus on serving the larger community (or society) by producing earth-friendly products and avoid actions that harm other entities. Workplace spirituality make people realize how ones organization is fitting in the larger picture, with respect to meeting the economic and social goals in a balancing manner. This would generate social value along with the economic value that in turn, would make organizations meaningful for employees as they will feel that they are part of a larger cause.

Employees engaged in such organizations would sense the contribution towards organizational vision through their work that marks a difference in others lives which in turn, instills a sense of self-worth in them. Employees feel their life has meaning, feel more connected with the larger community and develop deep emotional bonding with their respective organizations. The notion of making a difference in others lives enhances positive feelings and well-being of the individuals (doing the kind act). Positive feelings act as antidote to stress, and we know that happy employees are the most productive employees. Organizations with a spiritual element enjoy good public reputation which further reinforces employees reputation in society, making employees glued to the organization for a longer time.

Thus, integrating spirituality in the workplace is a win-win approach due to its benefits for employees, organizations and of course, the larger society. I hope to have set a favorable tone for a spiritual element in organizations. I leave it to you readers to decide.

Dr. Chitra Khari is an assistant professor at the Institute of Management at Nirma University in India, where she teaches organizational behavior and emotional intelligence. She is a member of the Management, Spirituality and Religion Interest Group of the Academy of Management where De La Salle University is a part. Email: chitrakhari045@gmail.com

View post:

Workplace and spirituality: Meeting of opposites - The Manila Times

The spiritual meaning of St. Michaels name reminds us how we should live our lives – Aleteia EN

Posted on by

St. Michael is widely known as the archangel who fought back Satan and cast him from Heaven. It is believed that his name, Michael, is closely associated with this spiritual battle and reminds us all how we should live our lives.

According to theSt. Andrew Daily Missal, The name Michael means, in Hebrew, who is like God? and recalls the battle in heaven between the prince of the heavenly host and the devil, a battle which began with Lucifers rebellion and continues down the ages.

It is believed that Michaels battle cry was exactly that Who is like God? enacting judgement on Satans desire to be like God. Many images of St. Michael contain this phrase in Latin on his shield, Quis ut Deus?

This is in fact the definition of Michael in the Hebrew language and further recalls the temptation in the Garden, when Satan tried to lure Adam and Eve into taking the fruit by saying, you will be like God.

The meaning of St. Michaels name reminds us that we should not try to be like God. This may seem like an obvious statement, but how often do we play God in our lives?

We tend to want to be in complete charge, and often get upset when things dont go our way. At a subconscious level we somehow think that we rule the world and should control every aspect of it.

In other words, the more prideful we become, the more like God we think we are.

The true heart of a Christian is to be close to the ground, humble, in every sense of the word. This does not mean we need to let others trample over us like a used carpet, but that we need to recognize our place in the world as created beings, entirely dependent on God.

When we truly realize that and let it sink into our heart, our lives will radically change. The next time something goes wrong in our lives, instead of getting angry and doing something even worse, we will be able to accept it from God.

Humility is the key to holiness, and even St. Michaels name reminds us of that simple fact.

Excerpt from:

The spiritual meaning of St. Michaels name reminds us how we should live our lives - Aleteia EN

This Spiritual Fitness Experience Is Coming to Philly for the First Time Ever – phillymag.com

Posted on by

Fitness

The Class by Taryn Toomey, the New York City-based yoga and boot camp fusion, willswing throughPhiladelphia on October 19th.

The Class by Taryn Toomey has been described as a spiritual experience. Find out for yourself when the NYC-based yoga and boot camp fusion visits Philly on October 19th. / Photograph courtesy of the Class by Taryn Toomey

Its no secret that maintaining an active lifestyle can benefit not just your body but your mind, too. Aside from boosting heart health and overall longevity, exercise can improve your mental and emotional health, partly because working out helps your brain release endorphins and, in our best Elle Woods voice: endorphins make you happy.

But sometimes, fitness can feel transformative for that intangible part of ourselves: the soul. In fact, many fitness enthusiasts consider their beloved boutique gyms and studios a kind of church due to the emphasis on community, ritual, and self-reflection. While some chains have received backlash for commodifying their quasi-spiritual, self-care experiences, its tough to deny that working out, whether solo or with others, can help us feel fulfilled and more in tune with ourselves and our surroundings.

This October, youll get another opportunity to experience fitness as a potential spiritual practice. The Class by Taryn Toomey, the ber popular movement-based workout, just announced an East Coast metro tour, including a one-day stopover in Philadelphia.

The Class will pop up in Philly for the very first time on October 19th with two 60-minute sessions. Even better: Both classes will be taught by Taryn Toomey herself, founder and owner of the Class. The tour will also feature live music from guitarist and vocalist Conner Youngblood and drummer Caleb Spaulding.

Based in New York City, the Class by Taryn Toomey consists of simple, repetitive cardio and strength-based exercises that results in an energetic fusion of yoga and plyometrics. The Class works one muscle group at a time, repeating that one movement the entire length of a single song. As a result, students often claim they undergo a physical, mental, emotional, and even partial transcendent journey that usually involves the releasing of unexpressed emotions and physical discomfort. As Toomey put it, the Class is a a wringing out, literally and figuratively, of the body, mind, and soul.

Toomey officially founded the Class in 2013, after teaching step aerobics and yoga for a number of years, but felt herself longing for something more. Through my own research and discovery, using myself as a case study, I started using my self-prescribed medicine of music and movement coupled with community and strength to work out certain life experiences and emotions, Toomey says. I began sharing my medicine [which later became the Class] with friends and community in the basement of my apartment building, donating all proceeds to a charity in Peru. The music- and movement-driven practice blew up, becoming popular among celeb devotees like Drew Barrymore and Naomi Watts.

The idea of an East Coast metro tour came directly from the Class enthusiasts who arent based in New York City but wanted to experienceToomeys workout anyway. Toomey decided to bring the Class to cities where it has never been (but heard a lot from) in order to expand the empowering workout to more people. The tour will kick off in its hometown of NYC and include additional stopovers in Boston, D.C., Chicago, Nashville, and Atlanta.

Tickets for the Philly classes, which will be held at 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., cost $65. Buy themhere. Both classes will be held at City Winery in Center City (990 Filbert Street). Make sure to BYO mat!

Continued here:

This Spiritual Fitness Experience Is Coming to Philly for the First Time Ever - phillymag.com

4 Misconceptions That Keep You From Growing Spiritually – Patheos

Posted on by

Vittore Buzzi

Every Christian should want to grow spiritually, but spiritual growth is not automatic. Just like malnutrition can stunt physical growth and a traumatic event can stunt emotional growth, these four misconceptions can hinder your spiritual growth.

1. Spiritual age does not equal spiritual maturity.If youve been a Christian for 40 years, that doesnt automatically mean that you are more mature than someone whos been a Christian for only a few years. We see this in everyday life. Sometimes youll find a 16-year-old that is more mature than a 40-year-old. Age doesnt automatically equal maturity.Spiritual growth isnt automatic. Its something you have to be intentional about.

2. Spiritual growth is not simply you trying harder to be holy, but allowing God to work in you and transform you.This is the whole point of the book of Galatians. Spiritual growth is not a checklist of things you have to do to earn Gods approval.The Apostle Paul talked about the difference between living by the flesh and walking in the Spirit. Living by the flesh is you trying on your own to be a more holy person. That will absolutely wear you out.

Living by the Spirit is like having a navigation app tell you where to go when you drive somewhere new. Living by the Spirit is not one of those self-driven cars that does all the work for you. Living by the Spirit doesnt mean you dont take responsibility. Living by the Spirit is like having a navigation map point out where to go and where to turn. The Holy Spirit is guiding you. Butnot only is the Holy Spirit your guide through life, Hes your power. Hes the engine in the car of your life, propelling you forward. Its still up to you to turn the steering wheel where the Spirit tells you to go. Its still up to you to push the little pedal on the bottom of the floorboard, but when you push the pedal its the engine that makes it go. The Holy Spirit will guide you and the Spirit will empower you to grow, but you still have a part to play.

3. Agreement is not the same as obedience.This is the flip side of #2. Its important to understand that there is a huge difference between agreement and obedience. Let me illustrate it this way: I think we would all agree that eating healthy is good for you.If you struggle with your weight or perhaps your health, I would bet that you would agree that you need to make healthier choices when you eat. Agreement is not the issue. Its following through with what you agree with that makes all the difference.To grow, we actually have to do something.

4. Spiritual disciplines dont exist to punish you, but to free you.Anytime you hear the word discipline, we automatically associate negative thoughts to it. No one likes to be disciplined. No one likes discipline. But we need it. Spiritual disciplines dont exist to punish you and steal your joy.And spiritual growth is definitely not a checklist of things you have to do to keep God happy. Again, go back to the book of Galatians.

God doesnt give us spiritual disciplines as a way to punish us or keep us in chains, but as a way to free us.Think of it like diet and exercise. Diet and exercise are both disciplines. And we can look as diet and exercise as a way to punish you and make you miserable, which will pretty much guarantee that you wont stick with diet and exercise.In reality, diet and exercise dont exist to punish you, but to free you. To free you with more energy, with a better outlook on life, to free you with better health and to free you from the complications of obesity and bad health.

In the moment, no one is saying diet and exercise are amazing! But once you seeand feel the results, arent you glad that you diet and exercise?Spiritual disciplines operate in the same way. They dont exist to punish you, but to free you.

If youd like to connect with me online, you can find me on:

FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTube

[For meaningful conversations on my online content, join my Facebook group: Josh Daffern Digital]

View post:

4 Misconceptions That Keep You From Growing Spiritually - Patheos

‘My Year of Living Spiritually’ is a book for the spiritual but not religious – rabble.ca

Posted on by

My Year of Living Spiritually by Anne Bokma(Douglas and McIntyre, 2019, 24.95)

I'll admit, it's been a very long time since I have been able to sit down and read a book. Don't get me wrong, I love reading. In fact, I read at least one newspaper a day -- sometimes more, seemingly endless articles and reports, and information to make me a better teacher. Still I wasn't able to sit down and read a book from beginning to end. That is, until I started devouring Anne Bokma's new release, My Year of Living Spiritually.

The Hamilton-based award-winning freelance journalist and creator of the fantastically popular 6-Minute Memoir which tasks locals with creating themed short stories about their lived experiences, has outdone herself one more time.

We meet Bokma in mid-life. She is not in crisis, but she is looking for something more. That lays the groundwork for her year of living spiritually, chronicling each month's journey to find greater depth of meaning, connection, simplicity and ultimately, inner peace.

This book is for those who think for themselves and want to have a spiritual life without the baggage associated with organized religion. Bokma, who left the Dutch-Calvinist Canadian Reformed Church at 20, joined the growing group of individuals who may or may not believe in God, but who share a deep connection to nature and the Earth. Known collectively as spiritual but not religious (SBNR), Bokma tells us it's the fastest -growing faith group in the Western world.

Making use of her eagerness to find answers to life's questions yet relying on her reporter's skepticism to remain objective, Bokma invites readers to vicariously experience her 12-month sampling of spirituality.

January, the month of hope and fresh starts. A chance to try out new morning routines and to once and for all, put an end to that obsession women have with busyness. By the end of the year, only the most essential practices remain.

February finds Bokma creating sacred space on a budget while trying to avoid spiritual appropriation. Ultimately, Bokma morphs her alter into a collection of meaningful keepsakes and personal items that show she is charting her own spiritual path.

In celebration of a secular Lent, Bokma gives up her beloved wine for 40 days beginning in March. Fortunately, Bokma's husband let her in on a well-kept secret: Catholics have a fallback plan that allows them to "break the fast" on each of the six Sabbaths of Lent. This makes getting through the ritual much more manageable and agreeable for everyone concerned.

In April, Bokma explores improving her inner dialogue with the help of a "soul coach." She also spends quiet time in a sensory-deprivation chamber better known as a float tank.

When that quest for quiet goes well, Bokma opts to spend 48 hours alone in a secluded luxury tree-house retreat where she rediscovers the wonders of spending time disconnecting from technology and reconnecting with nature.

May finds Bokma "forest bathing" -- walking in the woods and talking with the trees to find out how to make life matter. During this existential experience Bokma observes, "How like a dew drop we are, I think, so often trembling and hanging on for dear life." Ain't that the truth.

Her spiritual journey takes her on a pilgrimage to Concord, Massachusetts, where Henry David Thoreau spent two years living, walking, playing his flute and writing about the local plants and animals.

Thoreau was also a founding member of transcendentalism, which is based on the belief that people and nature are inherently good. Transcendentalism established the distinction between religion and spirituality.

It's in Thoreau's beloved Walden Pond that Bokma conducts her own spiritual baptism.

June brings the antithesis of May when Bokma actively searches for her voice. She starts the chapter with a quote from the French singer Edith Piaf: "Singing is a way of escaping. It's another world. I'm no longer on Earth."

Many of us are unable to relate to Piaf's adoration of singing. Possibly someone told us when we were young that we couldn't carry a tune, or perhaps, like Bokma, our first solo performance in front of a sizable crowd didn't sound quite the way we thought it would.

Joining a weekly neighbourhood drop-in group that sing together at a local pub gives Bokma the confidence and freedom to toss aside her self-consciousness, "like a bouquet thrown by a drunken bride," and find her true voice.

Then a private music lesson goes well and Bokma is encouraged to keep singing, "for the joy of it." Her next stop is the Hamilton-based choir, Singin' Women, made up of homeless and precariously housed women and their allies. Yet, all cares evaporate when the singing begins.

After a couple of revelationary singing retreats as well as some time spent with a choir singing for chronically ill and dying patients, Bokma realizes singing in a group is not only good for body and soul, it also increases social connectedness, a sense of belonging and all of that is good.

This is a powerful chapter that can trigger tear-filled moments. It's a good place to stop reading for the day in order to process Bokma's spiritual journey through the first half of 2017 as well as the intense feelings that readers may experience.

July is certainly a great month to take a trip, but it's a psychedelic trip with therapeutic overtones that Bokma embarks on with the help of an ayahuasca ceremony, holotropic breathwork, and some magic mushrooms. Her guided experiences take Bokma through the process of letting go of children and motherhood and realizing the everlasting bond between mothers and daughters, but it also gives the reader a brutally honest account of her relationships with her own two daughters and especially her husband, Jeff.

August is a busy month dealing with religious trauma syndrome (RTS) that encapsulates pretty much the entire dogma of organized religion and leaves individuals suffering from anxiety, depression, shame, guilt, perfectionism, and a sense of being unlovable.

It's also the chapter that asks you to think of Jesus as a protector and a radical who challenged the authorities of his time.

This is also the time that Bokma explores her local Unitarian church whose welcoming philosophy includes believing in inherent worth and dignity, a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and respect for the interdependent web of all existence.

Bokma also explores a very long list of secular gatherings including drumming circles, secular alcoholics anonymous meetings, storytelling events, death cafes, and the Women's March on Washington, in order "to nurture that shared ethical basis."

September brought an exploration of supernatural states like chakras, reiki, tarot card readings, past-life regression therapy and mediums.

October is spent meeting Tim, the brother Bokma never knew she had. It was also spent exploring all aspects of death and coming to terms with it over dinner with a group of women friends.

November ushers in the ultimate spiritual practice -- gratitude as well as rebuilding relationships.

December becomes the month Bokma lets go of exhausting Christmas traditions (two years ago I also decided to give money, chocolate, and a few trinkets, go out for Chinese food, and then see a movie), and decluttered and organized not only her house but her personal life.

Being the same age as Bokma, I often found myself thinking, I tried reiki or tarot readings, "OMG that same thing happened to me at that age," or I remember feeling the exact same way when I encountered that situation. There's a familiarity, unity, perceived sisterhood, and natural comfortableness that comes with these shared experiences.

Interspersed throughout Bokma's spiritual journey are interesting, often heart-wrenching stories of her life. It was a privilege to share in Bokma's year of self-discovery and learning to love herself. I can hardly wait for the next chapter.

Doreen Nicoll is a freelance writer, teacher, social activistand member of several community organizations working diligently to end poverty, hunger and gendered violence.

Image: My Year of Living Spiritually/Facebook

Read the original:

'My Year of Living Spiritually' is a book for the spiritual but not religious - rabble.ca

Religion and Spirituality Books Preview: October 2019 – Publishers Weekly

Posted on by

Nonfiction

Oct. 1

Jesus in Me: Experiencing the Holy Spirit as a Constant Companion by Anne Graham Lotz (Multnomah, $23.99, ISBN 978-0525651048). The Bible teacher and daughter of Billy Graham unpacks key biblical lessons alongside personal insights to explore how she sees the Holy Spirit shaping her everyday life.

The Preachers Wife: The Precarious Power of Evangelical Women Celebrities by Kate Bowler (Princeton Univ., $29.95, ISBN 978-0691179612) Historian Bowler examines the rise of Christian women celebrities (in particular, those in what she calls a celebrity preachers wife role, like Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore, and Victoria Osteen) to explore how they balance the demands of celebrity culture and a conservative, male-dominated faith.

7 Days of Christmas by Jen Hatmaker (Abingdon, $21.99, ISBN 978-1-5018-8827-4) addresses seven key areasfood, clothes, spending, media, possessions, waste, stresswhose practices Christian readers can consider during Christmas for reducing consumption to bring more joy into ones life.

Bible Prophecy and You: Predictions, Fulfillments, and What to Watch for Next by Len Woods and Christopher D. Hudson (Barbour, $14.99 paper, ISBN 978-1-64352-097-1) describes predictions about Israel, other biblical kingdoms, and Jesus, before detailing predictions about Israel and the end-times found in scripture.

Reclaiming Judaism from Zionism: Stories of Personal Transformation, edited by Carolyn L. Karcher (Interlink, $20 paper, ISBN 978-1-62371-914-2). Forty Jewish activists and scholars share autobiographical essays describing how they, as devout American Jews, disentangled themselves from Zionism.

52 Promises from God: Reflections to Soothe Your Soul by Jessie Seneca (Momosa, $15 paper, ISBN 978-0-9844804-3-2) asks readers to jump-start their faith and assures them that God fulfills promises to those who follow his word.

How to Pray: A Simple Guide for Normal People by Pete Greig (NavPress, $15.99 paper, ISBN 978-1-64158-188-2). Greig, cofounder of the 24-7 Prayer movement, urges readers to pray with passion, explaining to Christians how prayer is conversation with God.

Strong, Brave, Loved: Empowering Reminders of Who You Really Are by Holley Gerth (Revell, $18.99, ISBN 978-0-8007-2955-4). Blogger and life coach Gerth offers 60 short devotions geared toward empowering women, as well as prompts for journaling and personal reflection.

Everything You Need by David Jeremiah (W, $26.99, ISBN 978-0-7852-2393-1). Jeremiah, founder of the international ministry Turning Point, explores 2 Peter 1:510 to highlight seven critical tools: virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, kindness, and love.

Rhythms of Renewal: Trading Stress and Anxiety for a Life of Peace and Purpose by Rebekah Lyons (Zondervan, $24.99, ISBN 978-0-310-35614-1) details the four rhythms that she believes lead to a vibrant life: rest, renew, connect, and create.

Prosperity Magick: Spells for Wealth by Cassandra Eason (Sterling, $16.95, ISBN 978-1-4549-3678-7). Druid magical practitioner Eason describes spells intended to help readers get promotions, win the lottery, overcome debt, and avoid costly scams, among others.

Oct. 4

The Godman and the Sea: The Empty Tomb, the Trauma of the Jews, and the Gospel of Mark by Michael J. Thate (Univ. of Pennsylvania, $79.95, ISBN 978-0-8122-5151-7). An associate research scholar at Princeton closely examines the Gospel of Mark, judging it an exemplary text that responds to and makes meaning of the trauma arising from the crucified and missing body of Jesus.

Oct. 8

Unfollow: A Memoir of Loving and Leaving the Westboro Baptist Church by Megan Phelps-Roper (Farrar, Straus and Giroux). Phelps-Roper, a granddaughter of Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps, provides a vivid account of her upbringing and explains her reasons for leaving the controversial church.

Bitchcraft: Simple Spells for Sweet Revenge and Everyday Annoyances by Kerry Colburn (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, $15.99, ISBN 978-0-358-19698-3) provides spells to empower the modern woman to exact revenge and take charge.

Breathing as Spiritual Practice: Experiencing the Presence of God by Will Johnson (Inner Traditions, $14.99 paper, ISBN 978-1-62055-687-0). Buddhist retreat leader Johnson offers a close look at the importance of breath in each major religion, including within the Jewish teachings of ruach and the Islamic poetry of Rumi.

The Ancient Magick of Trees: Identify and Use Trees in Your Spiritual and Magickal Practice by Gregory Michael Brewer (Llewellyn, $24.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-7387-6162-6). Part field guide and part magical resource, this compendium seeks to help readers identify more than 100 common trees across North America and Europe, as well as discover their medicinal and magical properties.

Modern Tantric Buddhism: Embodiment and Authenticity in Dharma Practice by Justin Von Bujdoss (North Atlantic, $19.95 paper, ISBN 978-1-62317-395-1) is a guide for practitioners, dharma teachers, chaplains, and clergy who want to understand and apply Vajrayana (tantric) Buddhism in the context of contemporary life.

Domestic Monastery by Ronald Rolheiser (Paraclete, $16, ISBN 978-1-64060-372-1). Friar Rolheiser examines how the life of the monastery can apply to those who dont live inside the walls of the cloister.

A Theory of Everything (That Matters): A Brief Guide to Einstein, Relativity, and His Surprising Thoughts on God by Alister McGrath (Tyndale Momentum, $22.99, ISBN 978-1-4964-3807-2) examines the life and work of Einstein.

Welcoming the Unwelcome: Wholehearted Living in a Brokenhearted World by Pema Chdrn (Shambhala, $24.95, ISBN 978-1611805659). Chdrn, a Buddhist nun and internationally bestselling author and poet, asks readers to embrace suffering to cultivate courage, love, and connection in this collection of essays and meditations.

Oct. 11

The Flowing Grace of Now: Encountering Wisdom Through the Weeks of the Year by Macrina Wiederkehr (Sorin, $15.95 paper, ISBN 978-1-932057-18-8). Benedictine Wiederkehr offers weekly reflections in order to reveal the spirituality of everyday life, inviting readers to take in the quotes of renowned teachers and learn from their wisdom.

Oct. 15

Mary Magdalene Never Wore Blue Eye Shadow: How to Trust the Bible When Truth and Tradition Collide by Amanda Hope Haley (Harvest House, $15.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-7369-7512-4) connects scripture to popular literature, providing Christian readers a reference point for its interpretations.

The Will of God: Understanding and Pursuing His Ultimate Plan for Your Life by Charles F. Stanley (Howard, $26, ISBN 978-1-982104-79-5). Pastor Stanley seeks to help readers discover Gods purpose in this guide to discovering how scripture addresses everyday decisions and challenges.

Start with Jesus: How Everyday Disciples Will Renew the Church by Julianne Stanz (Loyola, $17.95 paper, ISBN 978-0-8294-4884-9) aims to help Christians grows in relationship with Jesus through individual journaling and group exercises.

Hexing the Patriarchy: 26 Potions, Spells, and Magical Elixirs to Embolden the Resistance by Ariel Gore (Seal, $22, ISBN 978-1-58005-874-2) offers a blueprint for the feminist uprising, offering incantations, enchantments, rituals, and wisdom designed to protect women and bring down the patriarchy.

Be the Bridge by Latasha Morrison (WaterBrook, $17.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-525-65288-5). A community organizer and advocate for racial reconciliation offers a call for Christians to move toward deeper bonds of friendship and more empathetic understanding of others as a response to the current divisive culture.

Oct. 16

Qigong and the Tai Chi Axis: Nourishing Practices for Body, Mind, and Spirit by Mimi Kuo-Deemer (Ixia, $16.95 paper, ISBN 978-0-486-83737-6). This introduction to qigong and the yin-yang balance of tai chi, the ancient Chinese art of movement meditation, offers insights into these practices benefits.

Oct. 22

Ash and Starlight: Prayers for the Chaos and Grace of Daily Life by Arianne Braithwaite Lehn (Chalice, $18.99, ISBN 978-0-8272-0080-7). Pastor Braithwaite Lehn provides prayers for confession, transition, waiting, and struggle.

Oct. 29

Speaking of God: An Essential Guide to Christian Thought by Anthony G. Siegrist (Herald, $18.99 paper, ISBN 978-1-5138-0606-8). Pastor and theologian Siegrist aims to help readers recover a basic language around Christian theology, explaining concepts such as creation, sin, redemption, the church, and discipleship.

The Karma of Cats: Spiritual Wisdom from Our Feline Friends (Sounds True, 17.95 paper, ISBN 978-1-68364-253-4). Spiritual teachers, writers, and animal experts share stories and reflections on lessons learned from their feline friends, exploring the unique ways cats embody core spiritual values.

Fiction

Oct. 1

What Comes My Way by Tracie Peterson (Bethany House, $15.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-7642-1904-7). Ella Fleming, a member of the Brookstone Wild West Extravaganza, a wild west show comprising all-female performers, is on the run in the third installment of the Brookstone Brides series.

The More the Merrier: An Amish Christmas Romance by Linda Byler (Good Books, $14.99 paper, ISBN 978-1-68099-470-4). Set during the Great Depression, this romance centers on the Miller family and the death of patriarch Eli Miller, an event that rallies their Amish community around Elis wife and eight children, but only for a brief period.

Stitches in Time by Suzanne Woods Fisher (Revell, $15.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-8007-2752-9). Horse trainer Sam Schrock feels a new lease on life when schoolteacher Mollie Graber moves to the Amish community of Stoney Ridge.

Oct. 8

Synapse by Steven James (Thomas Nelson, $16.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-7852-2525-6). Thirty years in the future, when Kestrel Hathaway, a pastor in Cincinnati, witnesses a terror attack, shes drawn into a world of conspiracies and lies that she and Jordan, her cognizant robot, have to untangle before its too late.

The Last Man at the Inn: A Novel of One Mans Quest to Believe by R. William Bennett (Shadow Mountain, $17.99, ISBN 978-1-62972-603-8) imagines how a contemporary of JesusSimon, an ordinary spice merchantintersects with the Christian messiah at the major milestones of his life and ministry.

Oct. 14

A Cross to Kill by Andrew Huff (Kregel, $15.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-8254-2274-4). John Cross, a mild-mannered small-town pastor, used to be an assassin for the CIAand his old life is coming back to haunt him in this first book of Huffs Shepherd Suspense series.

Oct. 22

The Bright Unknown by Elizabeth Byler Younts (Thomas Nelson, $16.99 paper, ISBN 978-0-7180-7568-2). Brighton and her friend escape a rural Pennsylvania asylum, which has been the only home shes ever known. With no real name or money, they embark upon a journey across 1940s Middle America in search of a new home.

Read more:

Religion and Spirituality Books Preview: October 2019 - Publishers Weekly