Stem Cell Therapy for Infections by Resilient Bacteria – Financial Tribune

Posted on by

According to data released by the Food and Waterborne Diseases Office of the Health Ministry, an average of 15% of hospital patients suffer from nosocomial infections. A nosocomial infection is an infection acquired in hospital by a patient who was admitted for a reason other than the infection. The severity of hospital-acquired infections depends on the location and type of infection, said Abbasali Imani Fouladi, the scientific secretary of the 18th International Congress of Microbiology, which will be held on Aug. 29-31 at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, ISNA reported. The use of stem cells and their significant role in treatment of the infectionsin particular, antibiotic-resistant infectionsis a key topic that will be discussed by domestic and foreign specialists at the conference. Sometimes ulcers which are resistant to conventional treatment, respond positively and swiftly to stem cell treatments, he explained, adding that officials from Council for Stem Cell Sciences and Technologies (affiliated to Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology) have been invited to the event that will be attended by scientists from Spain, Italy, UK, and France. Four workshops will be held on the sidelines of the meeting. Stating that with resistance to antibiotics becoming more common, there is greater need for alternative treatments, he said, Currently there are 12 strains of bacteria in need of new antibiotics or alternative treatments. The event is co-sponsored by the Health Ministry, TUMS, Pasteur Institute of Iran, Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, and Ilam University of Medical Sciences, according to the congress website (ismcongress.ir). Nosocomial infections occur worldwide and affect both developed and resource-poor countries. Healthcare-associated infections are among the major causes of death and increased morbidity among hospitalized patients. They are a significant burden both for the patient and public health. According to the World Health Organization, HAIs add to functional disability and emotional stress of the patient and may in some cases, lead to disabling conditions that reduce the quality of life. Nosocomial infections are also one of the leading causes of death. The economic costs are considerable. The increased length of hospital stay for infected patients is the greatest contributor to cost. While the prevalence rate of HAIs is 30% in lower-income countries, the average rate is around 6-11% in developed countries, according to Dr. Hossein Masumi-Asl, head of the Food and Waterborne Diseases Office. The most frequent nosocomial infections are infections of surgical wounds, urinary tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections, he said. According to the official, the highest prevalence of nosocomial infections occurs in intensive care units and in acute surgical and orthopedic wards. Infection rates are higher among patients with increased susceptibility because of old age, underlying disease, or chemotherapy.

Follow this link:

Stem Cell Therapy for Infections by Resilient Bacteria - Financial Tribune

Trial of Lung Disease Stem Cell Therapy Could Come by Year’s End – Lung Disease News

Posted on by

University of North Carolina Health Careresearchers have made strides toward a stem cell treatment for lung diseases such as pulmonary fibrosis, COPD, and cystic fibrosis.

In fact, they are discussing the start of clinical trials with regulatory authorities.

The team discussed its work in two recent studies. One provedthat it is possible to isolate lung stem cells with a relatively non-invasive procedure. The other showed that stem cells reduce fibrosis in rats with pulmonary fibrosis.

The first study, in the journal Respiratory Research, was titledDerivation of therapeutic lung spheroid cells from minimally invasive transbronchial pulmonary biopsies.The second, inStem Cells Translational Medicine, was Safety and Efficacy of Allogeneic Lung Spheroid Cells in a Mismatched Rat Model of Pulmonary Fibrosis.

This is the first time anyone has generated potentially therapeutic lung stem cells from minimally invasive biopsy specimens, Dr. Jason Lobo, director of the universitys lung transplant and interstitial lung disease program,said in a press release. Hewas co-senior author of both studies.

We think the properties of these cells make them potentially therapeutic for a wide range of lung fibrosis diseases, added Dr. Ke Cheng, who led the studies with Lobo. He is anassociate professor in North Carolina State Universitys Department of Molecular Biomedical Sciences.

The research team had previously homed in on stem and support cells they could isolate from a lung tissue sample and grow in a lab. The tissue formed sphere-like structures in a lab dish, prompting the scientists to call them lung spheroid cells.

In 2015, the team showed that these cells had potent regenerative properties in animals with lung diseases. In fact, the stem cells they cultivated outperformed another type called mesenchymal stem cells.

Their latest project involved gathering lung spheroid cells from patients with various lung diseases. They used a procedure calleda transbronchial biopsy thatcan be done in a doctors office.

We snip tiny, seed-sized samples of airway tissue using a bronchoscope, Lobo said. This method involves far less risk to the patient than does a standard, chest-penetrating surgical biopsy of lung tissue.

From this tiny piece of airway, researchers gathered stem cells, then allowed them to multiply because stem cell treatments require infusions of millions of such cells.

When they injected the cells intravenously into mice, the discovered that most found their way into the animals lungs.

These cells are from the lung, and so in a sense theyre happiest, so to speak, living and working in the lung, Cheng said.

The team then tested the treatment in rats exposed to a chemical that triggers lung fibrosis. The lung spheroid cells gave rise to healthy lung cells, reducing both inflammation and fibrosis in the animals lungs.

Also, the treatment was safe and effective whether the lung spheroid cells were derived from the recipients own lungs or from the lungs of an unrelated strain of rats, Lobo said. In other words, even if the donated stem cells were foreign, they did not provoke a harmful immune reaction in the recipient animals, as transplanted tissue normally does.

The researchers said that in humans their goal would be to use patients own stem cells to minimize the risk of immune reactions. But because large quantities of cells are needed, it might be necessary to gather cells from healthy volunteers or organ donation networks as well.

Our vision is that we will eventually set up a universal cell donor bank, Cheng said.

The team is in discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration aimed at starting the first human study by years end. The first trial would include a small group of pulmonary fibrosis patients. The team also hopes their spheroid stem cell therapy will help patients with other lung diseases.

Read the original:

Trial of Lung Disease Stem Cell Therapy Could Come by Year's End - Lung Disease News

Forever Labs preserves young stem cells to prevent your older self … – TechCrunch

Posted on by

Forever Labs, a startup in Y Combinators latest batch, is preserving adult stem cells with the aim to help you live longer and healthier.

Stem cells have the potential to become any type of cell needed in the body. Its very helpful to have younger stem cells from your own body on hand should you ever need some type of medical intervention, like a bone marrow transplant as the risk of rejection is greatly reduced when the cells are yours.

Mark Katakowski spent the last 15 years studying stem cells. What he found is that not only do we have less of them the older we get, but they also lose their function as we age.So, he and his co-founders Edward Cibor and Steve Clausnitzer started looking at how to bank them while they were young.

Clausnitzer banked his cells two years ago at the age of 38. So, while he is biologically now age 40, his cells remain the age in which they were harvested or as he calls it, stem cell time travel.

Steven Clausnitzer with his 38-year-old banked stem cells.

Stem cell banking isnt new. In fact, a lot of parents are now opting to store their babys stem cells through cord blood banking. But thats for newborns. For adults, its not so common, and theres a lot of snake oil out there, Clausnitzer cautions.

There are places offering stem cell therapy and Botox, he said.

Forever Labs is backed by a team of Ivy League-trained scientists with decades of experience between them. Jason Camm, chief medical officer for Thiel Capital, is also one of the companys medical advisors however, the startup is quick to point out it is not associated with Thiel Capital.

The process involves using a patented device to collect the cells. Forever Labs can then grow and bank your cells for $2,500, plus another $250 for storage per year (or a flat fee of $7,000 for life).

The startup is FDA-approved to bank these cells and is offering the service in seven states. What it does not have FDA approval for is the modification of those cells for rejuvenation therapy.

Katakowski refers to what the company is doing as longevity as a service, with the goal being to eventually take your banked cells and modify them to reverse the biological clock.

But that may take a few years. There are hundreds of clinical trials looking at stem cell uses right now. Forever Labs has also proposed its own clinical trial to take your stem cells and give them to your older cells.

Youll essentially young-blood effect yourself, Katakowski joked of course, in this case, youd be using your own blood made from your own stem cells, not the blood of random teens.

More:

Forever Labs preserves young stem cells to prevent your older self ... - TechCrunch

Former Hollywood Stuntman Raising $10000 For His Stem Cell Therapy – DNAinfo

Posted on by

Len Richard (left) and actor Terrance Howard on the set of "Empire" in 2015. View Full Caption

Provided by Len Richard

CHICAGO Len Richard used to fight in movie scenes as a stuntman, but now hes fighting for his life.

Diagnosed with liver disease in 2009, hes been placed on the liver and kidney transplant list to replace his rapidly failing organs. Hes opted to have stem cell replacement therapy in place of the transplant, but his insurance wont cover it, so hes raising $10,000 through YouCaring.

The 44-year-old Englewood native said hes desperate to live a healthy life and doesnt want to risk trying the transplant. Theres the fear that the new organs wont work for long and hell constantly get sick from the anti-rejection medications hell have to take, he said.

Once I understood how stem cell works and how it cures people, it was a no-brainer, Richard said. I rather do that than have someone's organs.

More than 5,000 liver transplants in the United States take place each year, according to the "Stem Cell Therapy for Liver Diseases," a review article published in the Journal of Stem Cell Research and Therapy. About 20,000 people are waiting for a transplant, but only 7,000 procedures are performed each year, and up to 1,500 patients die each year waiting.

Use of stem cells to cure liver diseases has been proved beneficial in most of the conditions, according to the article. Scientific literature reveals the role of stem cells in treatment and cure of various diseases like liver cirrhosis, end stage liver failure, genetic liver disease and also the liver cancer. The stem cells possess the ability to renew and multiply by them or stem cells possess special characteristics of regenerating themselves.

Besides being hospitalized twice in eighth grade for a high fever and an enlarged liver and spleen, Richard has lived a fairly healthy life, he said. He had no major health problems in high school or college.

As an adult, he worked behind the scenes in the control room at Channel 50, before moving to Los Angeles in 1998 for a similar television job. Thats when his life changed.

He was at a gym working out and got invited to train with a group who worked as stuntmen, he said.

A stunt coordinator saw me and said that I looked like Omar and Cuba Gooding, Richard said. He hired me for 'Baby Boy.' Thats how I got into doing stunts.

That job led to other jobs in major films, including "Barbershop" and "Transformers."

Everything was going well for Richard, he said, until 2008 when he tore his rotator cuff during filming for the movie "First Sunday," starring Ice Cube and Katt Williams.

I had surgery, and the person I was seeing at the time noticed that I started losing weight and was going to the bathroom a lot, Richard said.

When he went to the doctor for a routine checkup, he learned that he was diabetic. The doctor reviewed his medical history and asked if he has ever been evaluated for a liver transplant.

In 1987, when he was 13, he mysteriously became ill, he said. He was in the hospital for a high fever and the doctors noticed that his liver and spleen were enlarged, but didnt know why. He was sent home only to return a few days later.

I spent the whole summer in the hospital, Richard said. They did exploratory abdominal surgery and took a sample of all of my organs. They sent it to the CDC and other labs and came back with nothing.

Now that hes on the transplant list, Richard is hoping that hes able to raise enough money to travel to see a doctor in Mexico who was recommended by another patient and have the alternative procedure instead.

I want to avoid the transplant and keep my organs, Richard said.

He said he misses his old life, although he did more recently work on the show "Empire." Hes on disability now, but wants to return to work and the gym.

I was always in the gym, used to go hiking a lot, but now I work out when I feel like it, he said. I have low energy, and its kind of hard right now. I'll ride a bike and try to do air squats, but I was doing crossfit before it became too much for me.

Nobody wants to be sick. Id like to be back in California, moving around. I just get tired of going to doctor, getting poked and having having them tell me I need a transplant. Its mentally draining, and it's scary.

Continued here:

Former Hollywood Stuntman Raising $10000 For His Stem Cell Therapy - DNAinfo

Alabama Attorney General Drops The Hammer On Illegal Gambling – Yellowhammer News

Posted on by

Yesterday Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and Jefferson County District Attorney Pro Tem Danny Carr announced their court victory over an Alabama gambling facility.

Under Alabama law, it is illegal to operate a slot machine in the state, so when Marshall and Carr learned that Redibids (an online gambling site) was soliciting business in Alabama, they went after them.

In a decision by the Jefferson County Circuit Court, they ruled that offering computer systems with software that included illegal sweepstakes games fell under the umbrella of Alabamas anti-gambling laws. The court also held that all the seized machines will be forfeited to the state, and the seized money will be placed in the general fund.

The AG also announced that he has issued a cease and desist letter to the companys website, which Marshall claims is making online gambling accessible in the state of Alabama.

In a statement on the case, AG Marshall said,

It is my duty as Attorney General to uphold Alabama law and protect those who may otherwise unwittingly fall prey to this type of illegal activity. I was pleased to work side-by-side with District Attorney Danny Carr and Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale to ensure that those who willingly seek to take advantage of Alabamians and break our laws are held to account.

Jefferson County District Attorney Pro Tem Carr added,

The Jefferson County District Attorneys Office is determined to protect our citizens from all forms of financial exploitation. Bid City profited by targeting our communities, and misrepresenting their slot-style machines as legal sweepstakes. My office is bound to uphold the law of the State of Alabama, and is dedicated to dismantling all illegal enterprises operating within our jurisdiction. I thank the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office for its tireless investigative work, and the Attorney Generals Office for its assistance in this case.

See the rest here:

Alabama Attorney General Drops The Hammer On Illegal Gambling - Yellowhammer News

Local addiction expert speaks on gambling, Powerball – WFMZ Allentown

Posted on by

Video: Gambling red flags

With all this excitement around the $700 million Powerball jackpot, a local organization is reminding folks that the lottery's not all fun and games for everyone. Playing the lottery is a form of gambling.

Michael Reese is the Gambling Awareness Coordinator with Council on Chemical Abuse (COCA) in Berks County. Reese said gambling addiction is as debilitating alcohol addiction.

"Of all the addictions, gamblers are twice as likely to attempt suicide because if they are a million dollars in debtit's kind of hard to work your way out of that," Reese said.

He said raising awareness about gambling addiction is important because it is widely viewed as a socially acceptable behavior.

"We want to discourage adults from giving lottery tickets or any form of gambling to kids because it does start young and it's socially acceptable and highly addictive," Reese added.

There are some red flags that can signal if someone has developed a gambling problem including constantly thinking about gambling; mood swings; betting more than the budgeted amount; and lying about his or her whereabouts and how much money was spent or loss.

Reese said there are some ways that can help control these impulses. He said the key is remembering that gambling is a form of entertainment -- not a way to earn money.

"Set a budget, stick to your budget. Maybe even use a buddy to keep you honest on the budget. And, this is all entertainment money, and also budget your time," Reese said.

There are also ways to get help including reaching out to COCA or by calling 1-800-GAMBLER.

Read this article:

Local addiction expert speaks on gambling, Powerball - WFMZ Allentown

La Salle limits downtown gambling parlors – MyWebTimes.com

Posted on by

The La Salle City Council is acting to stop the growth of video gambling parlors in the downtown area.

The seven-member council recently voted 5-1 to limit the number of parlors to five, the number currently operating. One council member, who works at one of the parlors, abstained from voting. If any of the five existing establishments close, they cannot be replaced; if all eventually cease operations, there would be no parlors.

Parlors need a liquor license from the city before they can obtain a state video gambling license.

The council member who led the effort, Mark Schneider, said a couple of downtown business owners told him they are troubled by the number of parlors that have popped up because mini-casinos "don't fit" the hoped-for image of the business district. Specifically, business owners said parlors conflict with efforts to draw tourism and additional retail shops.

Three of the five downtown parlors are on one block, two on one side.

The parlor proliferation is dealing the downtown a bad hand, in the view of Amanda Andreoni, who owns Marien Mae Bridal Boutique.

"I'm very thankful the city has taken the necessary actions needed to ensure the integrity of our awesome downtown. We have so many businesses thriving, with momentum in place and vibrant entrepreneurs seeking a space for their business.

"La Salle must protect its investors and businesses that have worked so hard to create a fluent downtown, this was a positive move in the right direction," Andreoni said.

Schneider noted the gambling establishments take up ground that could otherwise be used for prime retail space. Further, Schneider pointed out the city wants to obtain official historic status for the downtown, and if the Kaskaskia Hotel reopens, gambling parlors would be even more out of place.

There are 29 establishments in La Salle with state-authorized video gambling, of which 12 are downtown. Schneider noted that without gambling parlors, there still are seven downtown bars or restaurants with video gambling. La Salle's cut of gambling proceeds is about $160,000 per year.

What are the thoughts of Ottawa Mayor Robert Eschbach?

"I'm not crazy about gambling establishments downtown, but we don't try to regulate their number. Rather, we let the market take care of itself. Our downtown is vibrant, because we have a good mix of retail and restaurants and when you have such vitality, most gambling establishments can't afford the rent," Eschbach observed.

Eschbach added that several years ago, there were tattoo shops in downtown Ottawa, but those closed or moved.

There are no gambling parlors in Ottawa's downtown, but a number of bars in the business district have video gambling. One gambling parlor that operated on the corner of Jefferson and La Salle streets has closed.

In Streator, there are no standalone downtown parlors, but several elsewhere and Mayor Jimmie Lansford said he doesn't want to see more.

"A gambling parlor needs a restaurant-bar liquor license. There are a limited number of these licenses available and the City Council has said that's all there's going to be. I'd rather issue one to someone opening a restaurant," Lansford noted.

The mayor added the market is saturated with gambling parlors and any new ones simply take revenue from existing establishments.

See the original post:

La Salle limits downtown gambling parlors - MyWebTimes.com

Casino gambling remains no dice for lawmakers in Kentucky – Kentucky Today (registration)

Posted on by

By TOM LATEK and MARK MAYNARD, Kentucky Today

FRANKFORT, Ky. (KT) Even with the state facing a projected budget shortfall and an enormous public pension debt, casino gambling remains off the table.

I havent heard any discussion of that issue and no one has talked to me about it, said Senate Minority Leader Ray Jones, D-Pikeville. Ive always opposed gambling, for personal reasons. For me to support any kind of expanded gaming, it would have to be very, very limited and controlled circumstances. Ive not seen any type of proposal that I could support.

Several other lawmakers interviewed on Wednesday said theyve heard no serious discussions about casino gambling as a revenue generator to bolster state finances.

Rep. Tim Moore, R-Elizabethtown, didnt see gambling going anywhere.

I havent heard anything that rises to the level of a buzz, just a little noise at this point that hasnt risen in volume, he said. There are always going to be a few that thinks casinos are the right policy for Kentucky, whether we need this money for pensions or the budget.

The reason for justifying it shifts, but the desire to have it never goes away.

Gambling in any form wont get any support from him, said Rep. Dan Bentley, R-Russell.

I havent heard the word gambling spoken of since we voted down the Fantasy Football, said Bentley, referring to ill-fated legislation that was quashed earlier this year. Im sure that Im not privy to everything, because there are cliques and all, but I havent heard anything.

The Fantasy Football proposal would have established a legal footing for paid-entry fantasy sports and regulation of companies offering them, like the biggest Daily Fantasy Sports operators, DraftKings and FanDuel.

The bill garnered a majority vote in the House with a 37-36 margin, but did not reach the 40-vote threshold required to advance it to the Senate (bills must be approved by two-fifths of the 100 members in the House).

The bill went from introduced making it through two committee votes to dead in just two weeks.

Plans announced by Churchill Down in June to build a standalone facility to house 650 historical horse race machines had some thinking it may be part of a larger effort by pro-casino forces for expanded gaming in Kentucky.

The Daily Racing Form reported the historic Louisville track plans to spend $50-60 million at the 85,000- square foot parlor, which received preliminary approval from the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. It would be located near Churchills Trackside training facility and open in about a year.

The proposal marked a change in tactics for Churchill Downs, which has historically lobbied for a full casino and not sought the machines, which use the results of previously run races to determine winners and pay-outs.

Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, said while he heard a few murmurs about addressing expanded gaming after Churchills announcement, it has since quieted.

I spoke with leadership, and they were unaware of anything that was going on. I havent heard those same rumors.

As a legislator, Im vehemently opposed to it, Westerfield said. I think its a regressive tax. Everyone agrees the Commonwealth needs more money, but shouldnt make it from lower or middle-class folks who dont have the money in the first place.

Westerfield, who on Tuesday announced he was a candidate for attorney general in 2019, said it would be a difficult road.

I would want to know if any legislation is constitutional and would pass constitutional muster. I didnt think the [horse] industry was on the same page anymore. I thought they were still in disarray over what they hoped to get, and couldnt find agreement.

Rep. Jill York, R-Grayson, said she hasnt heard anything from her region or in the annex or even the hallways about gambling.

I will say the new majority is being as transparent as they can into looking at everything, she said. There are some very real issues that are going to have to be addressed. I applaud out-of-the-box thinking, but the gambling box is one I havent heard talked of opening.

See original here:

Casino gambling remains no dice for lawmakers in Kentucky - Kentucky Today (registration)

Government Oppression | Prometheism.net – Part 32

Posted on by

Right and Left, Protection, Oppression, and Liberty are all directly interrelated, and are in turn a function of what can be termed Government Intervention, or more simply, How Much Government.

The traditional Right-Wing government allows people the rich and powerful to impose upon others by providing insufficient protection through insufficient Intervention.

Left-Wing government allows government to impose upon people beyond simple protection, thus creating a condition of oppression through excessive Intervention.

The degree of Government Intervention also affects liberty. If protection and government intervention is insufficient, people are able to impose upon one another, so the overall liberty is not maximized. On the other hand, excessive government intervention results in oppression, thus once again, the overall liberty is not maximized.

The amount of government intervention required to maximize liberty and to provide full protection for all citizens from imposition without creating oppression can be defined with the utmost accuracy.

Throughout most of our political history government has pursued a policy of laisser-faire or minimal intervention in the affairs of society, thus permitting those with superior forces of personality, intelligence and wealth to increase their well-being by diminishing that of others.

Insufficient government intervention permits citizens to harm and exploit one another. That is the essence of Right Wing Conservatism. Under this regime freedom is increased for the stronger elements of society but decreased for the weaker members; hence the overall liberty is not maximized.

The Socialist reaction gave government, or the State, considerably greater powers of intervention designed to help the poor by preventing exploitation and readjusting the balance of wealth.

But excessive government initiates exploitation and oppression by the State. That is the essence of Left Wing Socialism. Under this regime liberty is increased by government protection, but it is then decreased as government goes beyond the point of protection and creates interference, leading to oppression. Again, liberty is not maximized.

Liberty is maximized when government offers full protection, but without moving into oppression.

It thus becomes clear that the significant factor in government policy, and the liberty it produces, is the Degree of Government Intervention.

The Government Intervention Scale

The Degree of Government Intervention can be shown as a simple straight-line scale, calibrated from Zero to One Hundred Percent.

Let us first establish the two extremes at each end of the scale.

At one end of the Scale we have Zero Percent Government Intervention, which means that government quite simply does nothing at all. Government is to all intents and purposes non-existent. The result is anarchy in its pure sense of being without leader, (an arkhos in Greek). In this condition everyone is free to do whatever they like; but this also includes the freedom to limit or eliminate the freedom of others. Liberty, in the sense of a disciplined freedom resulting in a safe and ordered society, could not be said to exist under this regime.

At the other end of the Scale we have One Hundred Percent Government Intervention. Here we find total government control over every aspect of life. This is the kind of environment visualized by authors such as Huxley and Orwell, who attempted to highlight the dangers of allowing government to become oppressive. Here we find ourselves in the sinister world of Total Control, of citizens directed in their every move and every thought by an ever-watchful Big Brother. Clearly, liberty does not thrive here either.

Fortunately most of us experience neither anarchy in the sense of zero government, nor the total oppression of one hundred percent government. But these two positions provide clear end-points as reference positions.

While there is little current example of zero government, many of the ex-socialist-bloc countries swung over to the opposite extreme in the confusion following perestroika, with a low degree of practical government resulting in black markets, widespread corruption, and the control of production and commerce in the cities moving from the State into the hands of Mafia-style gangs. It might still appear to the citizens of Russias major cities that Government Intervention is almost at Zero, a condition which to many may seem infinitely worse than the old Communist days, the memory softened now by time.

More familiar to Western countries is the Low Degree of, say, a nominal 25% Government Intervention. This is represented by the term Laisser-faire, meaning literally let people get on with it.

Low Intervention, or Laisser-faire

The first exponent of Laisser-faire was Francis Quesnay, physician to Louis XV, who came to the conclusion that government was a necessary evil which should interfere as little as possible with individual freedom.

The pioneering thought of Quesnay was developed into one of the most powerful doctrines in the history of ideas by Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, whose work The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) became the gospel of the system of national liberty for the next century in western political and economic thought.

Familiar with the works of Quesnay, Smith built a more solid basis for his attack on government, updated now to reflect the shift of emphasis from land to industry which was concurrently unfolding.

Smith held that the source of a nations wealth is labor. The increase in a nations wealth therefore depends on making labor more efficient, which in turn is achieved by enhancing the investment of capital, developing specialization and mass production, and promoting the free flow of goods and materials in international trade.

To give full play to this complicated but natural and vital operation, the whole process must remain free from artificial restrictions of government.

This thesis was undoubtedly proposed as a constructive scientific-economic blueprint for the general growth, welfare and benefit of society as a whole, and in theory at least it is difficult to argue against it.

But in production and commerce, as in all aspects of inter-human relationships, there is always opportunity for infringement of liberty, for some to gain through others loss.

And as the industrial revolution unfolded it would become clear that infringement of liberty in industry could be taken to, and indeed well beyond, levels which were unacceptable to anyone with knowledge and a modicum of social conscience.

Though Adam Smith saw benefit for all, in practice it would be the 19th century owners of capital, production equipment and factory premises who would benefit, to the detriment and impoverishment of those in the weaker position: their employees, the ex-hand-weavers now displaced by machines and clamoring for work at any price to ward off starvation. Women and children were paid a meager wage for long hours of concentrated work tending the machines which were dangerous, unguarded, and caused frequent accidents for which there was neither care nor compensation.

And the law was predictably slow to act in their defense. The bankers, investors and industrialists, being either in power or influential in the formulation of government policy, naturally supported a system which gave them a free rein to take advantage of their superior position. Laisser-faire for them was every bit as rewarding as Adam Smith had promised.

But at the same time it was becoming clear to reformers both in and out of government that while accepting the basic doctrine of liberty, an increase in government intervention was necessary to protect workers and improve their lot.

The movement for reform by legislation in England began with the Factory Acts which between 1833 and 1845 succeeded in limiting the work of children under eleven years of age to nine hours a day and of women to twelve hours. These Acts prohibited the employment of children in mines, and for the first time provided general rules for the health and safety of all workers.

So it was that Government Intervention began steadily to increase, with the justifiable aim of eliminating some of the more blatant opportunities for citizen to infringe the liberties of fellow citizen.

But the pace of reform was too slow for the newly awakening, increasingly organized and motivated working classes. And the pendulum of Government Intervention was to swing over to the other extreme: to socialism and communism, which represented a much higher degree of Intervention than most reformers would ever have visualized.

High Intervention, or Socialism/Communism

Under Socialism and Communism we enter the higher realms of Government Intervention, say a nominal 75%, where an increase in the power of government and the State is actively pursued.

Place everything in the hands of the State, the Socialists urged, and the State will take good care of us all.

Set against the Victorian backdrop of widespread poverty, ignorance, ill-health and malnutrition, coupled with a concurrently growing sense of conscience and the need for reform, socialism appeared to offer the answer. Only a few there were who could foresee the implications of high and ever-increasing State control.

One such visionary was British author Herbert Spencer, who wrote, back in 1884:

There is an increasing tendency for administrative compulsion and restraints. The increasing power of the State is accompanied by a decreasing power of the rest of society to resist its further growth and control.

The multiplication of careers opened by a developing bureaucracy tempts members of the classes who regulate it to favor its extension, as adding to the chances of safe and respectable employment for their relatives.

The people at large, led to look on benefits received through public agencies as gratis benefits, have their hopes continually excited by the prospects of more.

Thus, influences of various kinds conspire to increase State action, and decrease individual action. The numerous socialistic changes already made by Act of parliament, joined with the numerous others about to be made, will soon be all merged in State-socialism, swallowed in the vast wave which they have little by little raised.

Spencers words have proved prophetically correct in the light, not only of State oppression in the former Soviet Union and its satellite socialist countries, but also in the light of attitudes, demands for social programs, high taxes and budget deficits in the West.

Nations and their governments have thus far succeeded in creating and experiencing two kinds of political environment: enslavement of man by man, and government oppression. Enslavement of man by man, resulting in slavery, feudalism and industrial poverty, gave way at the turn of the 20th century to socialism and communism, which tended to create government oppression a reduction in personal liberties combined with the secrecy, arrogance and lack of financial discipline so familiar today.

The two conditions or policies of laisser-faire and socialism, Right and Left, and their relationship with Government Intervention, may be simply summarized.

Enslavement, exploitation and imposition exercised by citizens over fellow citizens result from a Low Degree of Government Intervention, or Laisser-faire, which permits Imposition by citizens upon one another.

Oppression, government intrusion, State takeover of business, or Socialism-Communism, result from a High Degree of Government Intervention, which creates Imposition by Government.

Where do we find Maximum Liberty?

Liberty is certainly not maximized at Zero Percent Government Intervention. At Zero Percent Intervention there is no government or legal protection of liberty whatsoever. This is anarchy. Many examples of this can be seen at the present time in the countries of central Africa and even, to a lesser extent, in some of the ex-Soviet states.

As we move away from this condition of lawlessness, proceeding up the Intervention Scale, a gradual increase in Government Intervention provides basic law, order and personal safety, followed as we progress farther up the scale by more sophisticated forms of protection such as consumer, employee and environmental protection.

How far should we continue to increase Government Intervention?

The Right-wing definition of Liberty as minimum Government Intervention has always been a powerful argument, enhanced today in the light of both the experience and the demise of Soviet socialism. Just as innocence until proved guilty, or Presumption of Innocence, is a cornerstone of the English judicial tradition, so too does the Anglo-American concept of law recognize what may be called the Presumption of Liberty, the concept that we should all be free unless there is a very good reason for the law to limit that freedom.

And what constitutes a very good reason for the law to limit freedom? Another very old-established precept of English Common Law provides an answer: it is entirely reasonable for the law to limit or to forbid an action if that action is harmful to others.

Bearing this principle in mind, we continue to increase Government Intervention gradually until we reach the point at which there is sufficient Government Intervention to ensure full protection of each and every individuals liberty from infringement by others in any way. We reach the point where Government Intervention is sufficient to ensure that there is no opportunity for any individual to impose upon, exploit, harm or in any way infringe the liberty of any others.

We have in fact reached the halfway mark on the Scale, represented by 50% Government Intervention.

Under a regime of 50% Government Intervention there would be no opportunity whatsoever for one individual or class or group to harm or enslave or to infringe the liberty of any others.

At this point we have achieved one side of liberty. As we make the final move from 49% to the 50% mark, we have succeeded in eliminating all infringement of liberty by defending the citizen against any and all forms of injury or imposition by other citizens.

But now we must guard against going any further, which would lead us into oppression.

We have already defined the 50% mark as being the precise degree of Government Intervention necessary to prevent any and all infringements of liberty between citizens. So if we increase Intervention any further government can only begin producing laws which are not strictly in the protection of liberty, and are therefore intrusive and ultimately oppressive.

As Government Intervention increases beyond 50% a progressive reduction of Liberty immediately begins. Governments are frequently tempted to make laws regulating personal private conduct for our own good. There may be evidence to show that seatbelts save lives; but when government legislates their use for our own personal protection it is taking the first step down the road to oppression.

At 50% Intervention, government must protect employees and consumers from commercial irresponsibility. But when government takes upon itself all commerce and industry it is denying individuals the exercise of their natural enterprise and initiative. Apart from the reduction of commercial liberty, this also has disastrous effects on national prosperity, a fact which became the major cause of the collapse of Soviet socialism in 1990.

The degree of Government Intervention which will produce Maximum Liberty can be clearly and precisely established:

Under a policy of 50% Intervention, government prevents individuals from imposing their will and judgments upon one another, but initiates no further imposition.

50% Government Intervention neither permits nor creates Infringement of Liberty. Government intervenes promptly when, but only when the law is required to protect a clearly identifiable infringement of liberty.

If there is any opportunity for any citizen to infringe the liberty of any other citizen, if any citizen suffers infringement of liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 49% or some lower degree of Intervention.

Government is permitting a degree of injury and exploitation, of self-enhancement at the expense of others.

On the other hand, if Government issues any law, order or directive which is not clearly and solely in defense of an identifiable liberty from imposition by others, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 51% or some higher degree of Intervention.

Government is initiating some degree of State oppression.

The ability to define the seemingly diverse elements and options of Right and Left, Laisser-faire and Socialism-Communism, of Protection and Oppression on the single common scale of Government Intervention allows us also to define the related degrees of Liberty.

Liberty is maximized when the degree of Government Intervention is 50%: no less, and no more.

At 50% Intervention there is no Infringement of Liberty either by citizen, or by the State; there is neither Exploitation nor Oppression; the general Liberty is maximized.

The Degree of Government Intervention necessary to maximize liberty can thus be identified with a precision which any citizen can readily comprehend, and when necessary, defend.

A government basing its day-to-day legislation on such a clearly definable policy would lose the ability, presently enjoyed by governments of any shade of opinion to act arbitrarily. Government would be operating under such a precisely defined policy that it would become an interpreter of policy, rather than an originator of arbitrary law. This would radically alter the legislative process and the relationship between government and citizen. Government functionaries and departments become answerable to a Principle, their actions easily verifiable by any alert citizen. Citizens are governed, neither by dictator nor majority, but by a Principle which guarantees maximum protection, minimal or zero oppression, and maximum overall liberty.

The Principle of Liberty offers a new direction in politics, based on universality not class interest. DOWNLOAD THE BOOK

If any man, any woman, acquires or is granted power over any other or others, this will not may, but most surely and certainly will lead to abuse, misuse and corruption.

The only Power that is competent and can be trusted to regulate the affairs of community and society is the Power of Principle, the Principle that in the pursuit of self-improvement and the exercise of liberty, no-one should injure or exploit others.

This Principle of Liberty is neutral and impersonal. It is a shield, protecting from injury, preventing injury.

Legislators hold no arbitrary or discretionary power. They are simply Interpreters, applying the Principle in terms of everyday events and actions. The process of Interpretation is clearly delineated and circumscribed. If there is Injury, there must be Protection. If there is no Injury, then there is neither cause nor justification for the interference of law.

Follow this link:

Protection, Oppression, and Liberty: How Much Government?

Read more here:

Government Oppression | Prometheism.net - Part 32

Thinking Constitutionally About Charlottesville – HuffPost

Posted on by

Violence: Throwing a bomb through the window of an abortion clinic certainly expresses an opinion, but is not protected by the First Amendment. No brainer.

Imminent violence:A lynch mob marching toward a jail, torches and noose in hand, chanting, to seize a suspect, is certainly expressing an opinion, but the march can be curbed before it reaches the suspect without violating the First Amendment.

Fear of violence:Anti-war protesters marching peacefully, if provocatively, through a city street have a First Amendment right to do so, and cannot be curbed because of a fear that others offended by their speech might attack them or because of a fear that counter-demonstrators will lead to violence between the two groups. That fear cannot constitutionally justify a government ban of the demonstration.

Instead, it is the responsibility of the police to protect the demonstrators against violence, not use the fear of violence to ban the demonstration.

And if there is a likelihood of violence between demonstrators and counterdemonstrators, the police must take reasonable steps toward keeping them apart. As the noted civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel, himself a veteran of many such cases, recently wrote:

To prevent violence, local and state police, and if necessary, the National Guard, need to be trained to separate hostile groups. If need be, you separate them with police officers standing between them or creating First Amendment zones (with wooden or metal barriers if necessary) for each group.

But in Charlottesville, he concluded, video footage and reported personal observations reveal that the lesson of separation was not adhered to adequately.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders of this country announced a then-new purpose of government: to protect the rights of citizens. To secure these rights, the Declaration said, is the reason why governments are instituted... In Charlottesville, the government failed to secure those rights.

In Charlottesville, however, there was one more highly volatile circumstance: one side in the dispute was ostentatiously armed, carrying dangerous and intimidating weapons. Should that make a difference in how and whether free speech rights are protected?

In a curious step-back from its traditional defense of free speech rights, the ACLU national office has now announced that it may no longer defend the free speech rights of people who carry guns to a demonstration. This is a curious announcement, in part because there is no pending request for such representation, and in part because the death and injuries in Charlottesville were causednot by a gun being fired but by an automobile driven murderouslyinto the crowd of anti-racist demonstrators. And this murderous act was likely enabled in part by the failure of the police to create barriers. Will the ACLU now not defend the free speech rights of people who drive their cars to demonstrations? Or take steps to require the police to be more protective in volatile situations?

But more importantly, the ACLUs announcement is a serious step-back from theBrandenburgstandard, which for nearly a half-century has delivered precisely the sort of free-speech protection the ACLU has sought for its entire history. Are we now to go back to fear of violence as a legitimate justification for allowing the government to prohibit speech it doesnt like?

Because guns are not the only source of violence, and once fear of guns can justify speech restrictions, what other fears will? Fear of cars? Fear of clubs? Fear of knives? Fear of fists? Has the ACLU Board changed its longstanding policy, or was this an impromptu reaction by the staff unable to resist the hostility its free speech cases often provoke? (And maybe concerned about losing donors.)

Moreover, carrying guns as a show of force, is not unprecedented. The Black Panthers did it in the 60s, without the ACLU as I recall ever issuing a pre-emptive statement saying it would never represent them on First Amendment grounds if they carried guns. Carrying guns is threatening, but carrying guns does not necessarily imply using them. Again, the weapon of death in Charlottesville turned out to be a car, not a gun. And people who did not drive that car, regardless of what they carried, cannot be judged to have been responsible for that death.

What can be, and should be, constitutionally curbed is imminent violence, not the fear of violence that leaves the government free to speculate. Which brings us to the second Supreme Court case worth thinking about in this context, a case calledHeller, decided in 2008.

Until theHellerdecision, the Second Amendment had always been held not to confer anindividualright but rather to protect the right ofstatesto raise and maintain state militias as a protection against federal government oppression. Individuals had constitutional rights to own and possess arms only in that context. That is in my view unquestionably right historically. But in 2008, inHeller, Justice Antonin Scalia, the oracle of original intent, abandoned and twisted it to lead the Court to a 5-4 decision, which held for the first time that the Second Amendment conferred a right to bear arms upon individuals,even if not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.

And although the case only ruled that there was a constitutional right of individuals to keep handguns and other firearms for private usein their own homes,theHellerdecision has encouraged the spread of open carry outside the home.

I believeHellerhas no more validity than theDred Scottdecision, which denied all rights to blacks, did in 1857, or theBradwelldecision, which denied the rights of women to practice law, did in 1873. But we are stuck with it for now as those alive in 1857 and 1873 were for a time stuck with theDred ScottandBradwelldecisions. But that doesnt mean we have to agree withHeller, nor does it necessarily mean that a law reasonably regulating open carry would not be upheld by the Supreme Court, even underHeller.

So to summarize:

1. I do not recall the ACLU, back in the 60s, taking the position that the mere brandishing of guns by Black Panthers, without more, disqualified them from being represented by the ACLU in otherwise legitimate free speech cases. So why now, other than different political sympathies? Whats the content-neutral legal principle here?

2. Violence can obviously be curbed. No-brainer. So can imminent violence under the Supreme CourtsBrandenburgdecision. But just brandishing weapons, without more, is not violence any more than hanging someone in effigy is a real hanging. I believe open carry can and should be legally restrained, and not only in the context of First Amendment activity. But once courts allow thefearof violence, without more, to curb expression, it is a very slippery slope.

In 1969, Quaker students in Iowa were prevented from wearing black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam because school principals believed they would provoke or lead to violence. That was upheld until the Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that fear of violence, without more, was not enough. I know armbands are not guns, but fear of violence is not violence, either.

3. As Norman Siegel wrote, it is always the responsibility of the government, utilizing local police or the national guard, to protect peaceful protesters when they are threatened by thugs, whether the thugs have guns or not. That was what the government should have done when the Freedom Riders protesting segregated busing were assaulted by white mobs in the South in 1961, and when civil rights activists marching across the Selma bridge in 1965

were assaulted instead of protected by law enforcement officials, and when anti-war demonstrators were assaulted by hard-hats in NYC in 1970, while the police stood aside.

To secure these rights, the Declaration of Independence announced, is why governments are instituted. If that is to be taken seriously, then the police must be obligated to protect demonstrators, not repress them, especially in volatile situations.

4. And finally: What happened in Charlottesville was not the fault of protesters who did not engage in violence. It was the fault of those who became violent, and the fault of the government that did not adequately prepare for and protect against that possibility.

Let us not allow constitutional standards we fought to establish for so long, and which protect all of our rights to free speech, become an unintended casualty of what happened in Charlottesville. Because the erosion of free speech rights would be a victory for those who oppose liberty and equality.

See the article here:

Thinking Constitutionally About Charlottesville - HuffPost

Robert E. Lee Was The Richard Spencer Of His Time – HuffPost

Posted on by

I am no different than most Americans. I was taught what most Americans are taught about the Civil War and about its heroes. I was taught to believe that there were heroes on both sides of the Civil War. Chief among those heroes were men like General Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson, who we were taught were great, valiant, and noble men who served honorably in a difficult time. They were honorable gentlemen who just happened to disagree on the issues. Yes, the main issue at question was the nations peculiar institution of slavery, but for men like Lee it was largely an issue of federalism and states rights. They were so venerated in my high school textbooks that I might have almost inferred that if I were in their shoes, I would have similarly fought, and similarly acted as a matter of conscience.

And you know what? Maybe, just maybe, if my grandparents and parents had not been sharecroppers on cotton plantations in Jim Crows South Carolina and Georgia, I would have been tempted to believe this whitewashed and perverted version of history. Or maybe if I didnt witness firsthand the aftermath of Nixons and then Reagans attempt to galvanize and then weaponize the same racial fears of white people into a Southern Strategy and a so-called War on Drugs, I would have been sympathetic to these arguments. Maybe, just maybe if my high school AP History teacher didnt show us how D.W. Griffiths racist propaganda film, Birth of a Nation, gave rise to the KKK throughout the country and was endorsed by President Woodrow Wilson during the exact time frame in which most Confederate monuments were erected, perhaps I would have believed what they wanted me to believe about the Civil War. But I knew better.

Of course, my history books wanted me to believe that Robert E. Lee was a complicated saint of a man who was forced to lead the Confederate army for the sake of his beloved Virginia. Yet what was Virginias stated reason for secession?

In its ordinance of secession, the state of Virginia argued that they seceded because the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States. Thats right. You read that correctly. Virginia and the ten other states who literally kidnapped, sold, bred, and enslaved humans charged that they were being oppressed by the federal government to end their barbarous enterprise. And white folks across America have tried to argue that the dismantling of the idolatry of white supremacy is their oppression ever since. As has been stated eloquently by others, when you have only known a brutal and barbaric power, even equality feels like oppression.

So no. Robert E. Lee was no gentleman. Robert E. Lee was no hero. As far as Im concerned, Robert E Lee was the Richard Spencer of his time. Like Richard Spencer, he was educated at the finest schools, clean cut and polished. Like Richard Spencer, he perceived of himself to be a noble, honorable man. Like Richard Spencer, he bought into a narrative that he was somehow a champion against white oppression and victimization.

How did this gentleman, Robert E. Lee, behave, when the humans he owned tried to pursue their God-given right to freedom? This gentleman had them beat like cattle or whipped them himself, as The Atlantic recently reported. And when faced with the possibility of serving alongside his West Point classmates who sided with the Union or fighting to defend white supremacy, this gentleman led an insurrection against his homeland leading to the death of over 600,000 people, the bloodiest single war ever on our soil. And what did gentlemen like Robert E. Lee lead men into bloody battle to defend? White supremacy, plain and simple.

Yet today we have a president who on a Monday condemns white supremacy while reading scripted remarks, then condemns both sides when a neo-Nazi claims the life of Heather Heyer. By Friday though, he laments the removal of beautiful statues and monuments dedicated to those who died to defend white supremacy. Then of course today he announces that he will send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan,hoping that we will all just forget about it and move on.

Yet moving on, is precisely how we got here. Moving on is how 81 percent of evangelical Christians voted for a man who has brought out the very worst of this countrys demons of racism, sexism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia and protectionism. Moving on is precisely how it is 2017 and we are still living with the very real threat of white supremacist fueled domestic terrorism in America. Moving on is precisely how we have managed to sanitize, normalize, and ritualize the legacy of white supremacy in our city squares and on a college campus in Charlottesville. Each time we tell ourselves to move on we turn a blind eye to the reality not only of our countrys racist past but to its racist and monstrous present. We lie to ourselves to suggest otherwise.

Its time for us to finally face the truth in our country. Only through confronting difficult truths can we hear the cries of our neighbors for justice, truly repent, and chart a way forward to redress the iniquities of our past and present. Richard Spencer and his clean cut, khaki band of white supremacists impersonating real gentlemen may be the tiki torch bearers of racial hatred today. However, the truth is that they carry a torch that was passed on to them by the clean cut gentlemen of a stubbornly persistent era of our nations gruesome past. They gathered at that monument of Robert E. Lee to remind us all that Robert E. Lee was the Richard Spencer of his time.

Link:

Robert E. Lee Was The Richard Spencer Of His Time - HuffPost

Why ESPN and Robert Lee are right – Lincoln Journal Star

Posted on by

In the testosterone-laced world of sports, sometimes your name means everything. Think not? I've seen men beaten by mobs just for having the gall to scream out "let's go Cowboys" at an Eagles game. Think of all the racial epithets we've heard, of how one football player, Colin Kaepernick, silently taking a knee during the national anthem in personal protest of injustice in America has divided the nation.

We want to pretend that sports are a safe sanctuary from the world's ugly problems, but that has always been a farce. Truth is, not even the glorious game of football can keep America's toxic culture of bigotry, hate and violence at bay. It's just too heavy a burden.

So imagine if you're scheduled to be the announcer for ESPN's livestream of the University of Virginia's season-opener football game against William and Mary in a few weeks and your name is Robert Lee. But you have watched, along with the world, as thousands of torch-wielding, white supremacists screaming hate-filled chants marched around the UVA campus and rallied all their hate at the foot of a statue bearing your name: Robert Lee. A monument the city had voted to remove under state objections. Well, it's not unreasonable, even though you are Asian-American, that you and your employer may have some concerns.

"This wasn't about offending anyone. It was about the reasonable possibility that because of his name he would be subjected to memes and jokes and who knows what else. Think about it. Robert Lee comes to town to do a game in Charlottesville," ESPN said in a statement that was tweeted late Tuesday night. "No politically correct efforts. No race issues. Just trying to be supportive of a young guy who felt it best to avoid the potential zoo." It was a mutual decision, the network says, to switch Lee to the Youngstown State versus Pittsburgh game that same day.

Nope, not unreasonable at all. Not in today's America. Not when we just witnessed heavily armed, swastika-wearing protesters who believe in white supremacy clashing in the streets with counterprotesters, who believed just as passionately that all people are created equal. Not when one woman is dead and dozens more injured because they had the audacity to stand up to the failed notion of white supremacy. Not when a statue, or a team name, or a presidential tweet can incite racial tensions and violence.

No matter that Robert Lee is Asian-American and his name has nothing to do with the Confederacy or slavery. It seems unreasonable, ignorant and downright ridiculous to associate his name in any way with the Confederate general. Still, nothing we've witnessed in Charlottesville, or since, has been reasonable or intelligent.

Nothing we've seen in Charlottesville or other cities and towns where these types of protests and counterprotests have sprung up could be called reasonable. It's disgusting. Killing one another, fighting, chanting Nazi slogans and counterslogans. Still, it continues. We continue.

As racial tensions over police brutality, immigration and other issues have flared over the past several years in our nation, these statues have become lightning rods symbolizing oppression, hate and the whitewashing of history for many of us, myself included. Others insist these monuments, of which there are dozens across the nation, are a symbol of Southern pride, an important part of American history.

The top headlines from JournalStar.com. Delivered at 11 a.m. Monday-Friday.

Right. If that were the case, wouldn't we also have numerous statues of Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey or Harriet Tubman and countless others who fought for freedom and equality standing proudly outside government buildings, dotting college campuses? Just getting a national monument to Martin Luther King Jr. took decades.

Long before the Charlottesville riots, municipalities had begun to remove these Confederate monuments on public property, citing safety issues. And those efforts have increased since Charlottesville. From Baltimore to Brooklyn to Texas, these statues are toppling amid protest.

While this national conversation continues, ESPN decided to avoid evoking the chaos during a live broadcast. Robert Lee decided he just wanted to do his job, which is to broadcast a livestream of a college football game. As one ESPN executive told me Wednesday:

"Let's not go to the zoo if we don't have to go to the zoo."

Good call. Life is crazy enough already.

Continue reading here:

Why ESPN and Robert Lee are right - Lincoln Journal Star

COLUMN: We need to learn from the past – Cody Enterprise

Posted on by

I recently heard a young man, who by coincidence has an incredible amount of influence and power in our government, say we dont need to read books or look at history.

The topic he was discussing when he uttered this statement was Mideast peace. His influence and power is not the result of education or experience; it was granted by virtue of who he married.

Sadly, this statement wasnt a surprise. But, it did get me thinking about history, books and critical thinking, among other things.

I recently attended a high school reunion. During that visit down memory lane I contacted a professor I had during junior college. His specialty was history. He is still living, in relatively good health, and had a wonderful memory and agile intellect at 87 years young.

He told me he remembered me, and proceeded to tell a few tales that I had forgotten but he had remembered. We had a wonderful time catching up and I got the long overdue opportunity to let him know that he had a positive impact on a young student. He opened the door for me to history, how it impacts the present and the future. He influenced where I went to college. He was excellent at imparting the necessity and skills of how and why critical thinking is so important. It really is becoming a lost art.

We continue to face the same issues many civilizations before have navigated, some with success, some with success yet to come. We are privileged to have a plethora of historical experts and data available to show us what happens with dictatorial regimes, nuclear fallout, the oppression of a minority culture, slavery, greed, monarchical governments, oppression, famine, deadly disease outbreaks, prejudice, apathy, fear, military might. We see the many social, economic, religious, military, cultural influences that merge to create a watershed event that upends existing structure. We can study them to understand why and how events and situations coalesce to bring a world to near catastrophe or elevate a world to reach for the moon and the stars.

Caesar, Napolean, the Pharaohs, the houses of the Plantagenents to the Tudors to the Windsors, rise of Nazism and Leninism, end of slavery, Teddy and Franklin D, Lincoln, and other vast historical people and events shaped where we are today. Were living with the social influences of Socrates, Plato, More, Bacon, Hobbes.

We can enjoy the beauty created by Monet , Da Vinci, Bosch, Raphael. Were recipients of the mathematical and exploratory discoveries of Columbus, Cabot, Galilei. Shakespeare can still stir the imagination.

We can try and understand history, but it doesnt mean well learn from it. We know that religious battles, segregation, one group oppressing or discriminating against another rarely ends well in the long run. Yet, these traits and behaviors are alive and well, and unfortunately thriving. We cant help ourselves. Human frailty seems to keep the inherent battles going, even when we know better. We cant seem to get out of our own way.

Some may think history isnt relevant, but isnt amazing how often we repeat it.

Originally posted here:

COLUMN: We need to learn from the past - Cody Enterprise

Reject attempts to restore oppression – Daily Nation

Posted on by

Sunday August 20 2017 In Summary

Attacks on independent voices, intimidation and intolerance are clear signs of a country steadily and systematically sliding towards authoritarianism and dictatorship.

Events of the past week have thrown us back to the dark days of the oppressive Kanu regime and are a notice to Kenyans to keep vigil and guard against a relapse to that era.

The government launched a crackdown on human rights organisations as it sought to deregister the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Africa Centre for Open Governance (Africog).

The two groups have been vocal against governmental excesses and were reportedly keen to file a petition against President Uhuru Kenyattas re-election.

But the States move was met with public outrage, forcing acting Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiangi to intervene and suspend the clampdown.

On Sunday, human rights activist and lawyer Maina Kiai was detained at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, Nairobi, en route to the Czech Republic in an apparent continuation of the onslaught on the independent voices.

He had to call Immigration Director Gordon Kihalangwa to intercede to enable him to travel.

Notably, this was just few days after Electoral and Boundaries Commission official Roselyn Akombe was also detained and stopped from travelling to the US and had to seek the assistance of the American embassy before she could be allowed to proceed.

The pattern is worrying and Kenyans have to be alarmed. It is particularly disconcerting that this is happening in this day and age; when the country is operating under a progressive Constitution with an elaborate Bill of Rights.

It took blood and sweat to remove the despotic regime. Many lives were lost, limbs battered and property destroyed.

Those sacrifices were not in vain, and anyone seeking to return us there must be resisted.

Those in authority must live to the reality that times have changed. We abhor and condemn this emerging trend of intolerance and suppression. Attempts to intimidate independent voices to acquiescence are doomed and unacceptable.

Both the National Assembly and the Senate to sit next Thursday.

Electoral commission waiting for National Assembly speaker to declare the seat vacant.

Continued here:

Reject attempts to restore oppression - Daily Nation

Seychelles – Lonely Planet

Posted on by

Dive Courses in the Seychelles

Learn to dive or expand your diving knowledge with Blue Sea Divers. Chose from a range of certification courses from Open Water diving through becoming a Professional Diver. For absolute beginners, do not worry if you have no experience of diving, these courses will help you enjoy this new experience. Book an Intro Dive and discover the magnificent underwater world for the first time!If you are not able to stop diving after the first experience then you can become certified in the Seychelles.If you have little time? No problem! Choose the PADI Scuba Diver. In two days you will have completed half of the course Open Water and you will receive a certification that will allow you to dive with a PADI instructor all over the world. You can complete the other half of the PADI Open Water Diver at any PADI dive school in the world, at any time.Want go of the Full Diving Course ? Choose PADI OPEN WATER DIVER COURSE ; Once trained and certified, you will be able to plan and conduct dives on your own.Are you already a Diver but you wish to build confidence and expand your scuba skills through different Adventure Dives, book the Advanced Open Water Course and try out different specialities while gaining experience under the supervision of your PADI Instructor.Diving in Seychelles with Blue Sea Divers, we are here for your unforgettable experience.

Day 1:Boarding in Mah late morning. Anchorage for the night at Saint Anne Marine Park.Day 2:Visit of the Saint Anne Marine Park islands, a beautiful spot to do snorkelling. After lunch cruise to Cocos Island which is made of large rocks with strange regular stripes carved by the sea. Cocos Island forms a beautiful sight with a great harmony of shapes and colours. Under the sea, the vision is equally attractive with thousands of fishes. Unforgettable snorkelling.Anchorage in front of the picturesque harbour of La Digue. Day 3:Rent a bike at La Digue and visit this quiet and beautiful island. With its tracks winding under tall palm trees, houses with roofs of palm leaves, small coprah factories, fine white sandy beaches and large polished rocks, La Digue might be the most beautiful island in the Seychelles. No cars, only bicycles or carts drawn by oxen. Horse rides are also possible. Anchorage in La Digue harbour.Day 4: Visit of Cousin Island. Since 1968, the island has been a nature reserve and bird sanctuary with rare species and some giant tortoises. Lunch onboard. Afternoon in Praslin. Visit the Valle de Mai, a valley under UNESCO protection. A walk in the Valle is enchanting. The path wanders in the near obscurity created by the enormous palm leaves of Cocos de mer. The trunks are 40 m high and sway gently in the breeze, making a strange rustling sound as they rub against each other. Anchorage in Baie St. Anne.Day 5:Grande Soeur. Barbeque on the beach, one of the most beautiful in Seychelles. A 40 mBarbequeto discover the island, water sports, and relaxation. Anchorage in Curieuse or Anse Petite Cour for the night.Day 6:Curieuse. This island is part of the Marine National Park, more than a hundred tortoises live here. After lunch, Saint Pierre islet, a mass of rounded rocks crowned with a clump of tall palms swaying gently in the wind: typical and superb scenery of Seychelles photographed on countless occasions and printed a million times in tourism magazines! Excellent spot for snorkelling with magnificent underwater scenery. Anchorage for the night in Anse Volbert or Anse Lazio, Praslin. Day 7:Snorkelling, swimming and water sport activities on the beautiful beaches of Praslin. Return to Mah in the afternoon.Day 8: Disembarkation in Mah early morning.

This tour starts with a transfer to Baie Ste Anne jetty for the 2km crossing at 9amto the Special Nature Reserve of Cousin island. Your cruiser moors offshore and you are taken to the island on a reserve boat to prevent accidental introduction of pests to the island. It is highly recommended that youcome prepared to wrap your belongings in waterproof bags.A warden leads you on a tour of the island, with its abundance of species and habitats, from the coast with its protective mangroves, to the wetlands which attract dragonflies, moorhens, caecilans & Seychelles terrapins; on to the rejuvenated forest on the hill plateau which provides ideal nesting sites for large populations of shearwaters and bridled terns amongst its endemic trees - mapou, Indian mulberry and bwa sousouri. Endemic birds found on Cousin Island are the Magpie Robin, Sunbird , Fody, Blue Pigeon and the Warbler. The tour continues with a 30-minute boat ride to Curieuse Island, where a splendid BBQ lunch is served on the Catamaran. Curieuse island has a large population of giant tortoises, some can be seen next to the natural pond on the coast, whilst the majority range across the island freely and can sometimes be tracked by their vociferate calls of intimate congress. The tour ends with an hour's snorkelling off the tiny island of St. Pierre. For the uninitiated, the crew is on hand with lightweight snorkelling vests to ensure that no-one misses the chance to view the abundant marine life.General Pick-up Times from Hotels:Grand Anse: 08h00-08h20 // Baie Ste Anne: 08h00-08h30

Praslin, the second largest island in Seychelles, lies approximately 1 hour by boat from Mahe. Visitors will be able to visitthe Vallee-de-Mai, the only place on earth where the giant Coco-de-Mer nut grows in its natural state - a walk along thetended paths of this primeval forest, listening to the trill of the rare Black Parrot, transports one to the beginning of time;giving credence to the legends of this World Heritage Site being the original Garden of Eden. The tour includes a visit to thefamous Anse Lazio beach, before the 30-minute crossing to La Digue. Visitors to La Digue island will marvel at the timelessatmosphere, with the comforts of the 21st century blending smoothly with the tranquility of yesteryear, where life is livedmainly at the pace of the oxen. Transfer from the jetty is by pick-up truck to L'Union Estate for a tour of the copra sheds, thegiant land tortoises and the recently refurbished colonial plantation house, location of the film Goodbye Emmanuelle. Thetour of La Digue resumes by 'camion', an open-sided truck with canopy, stopping at Anse Source dArgent, one of the mostspectacular beaches in the world, allowing you ample time to photograph the impressive granite rock formations. This 11-hour tour, which sometimes starts on La Digue, is an attractive opportunity to visit the highlights of both islands in one-day.Full Day Praslin & La Digue Tour: Includes two-way transfer between Mahe/Praslin by Boat.

This is a fairly shady walk through the forest of the Morne Seychellois National Park. After dropping down into a valley there is a relatively steady climb of some 140 m (450 ft) up onto a huge expanse of granite rock.Copolia is 500 m above sea level and spectacular views of the east coast of Mahe and other granitic islands.Plants and animals unique to the Seychelles, including the insectivorous Pitcher Plants can be found in the higher sections of this trail. Return is by the same trail, as there is, as yet, no alternative route.The trail is graded as MEDIUM. Approximately 4 hours is required for the total walk (ie up and down). Allow extra time for picnicking and exploring at the top. Because most of the trail is through forest, this walk can be tackled at any time of the day, although the summit is very exposed to sun, wind and mist.

The diving centre is ideally located in the very heart of the action on the famous and beautiful sand stretched beach of Beau Vallon on Mah Island, Seychelles. A comfortable 10 minute ride from the stunning Bay Ternay Marine Reserve, and close access to the most beautiful dive sites around the island, our location, will leave you breathless.Book two dives in Beau Vallon to see the underwater world.

More:

Seychelles - Lonely Planet

Seychelles national football team – Wikipedia

Posted on by

The Seychelles national football team is controlled by the Seychelles Football Federation (SFF). SFF is a member of the Confederation of African Football (CAF). The home turf of the team is the 10,000 capacity stadium, Stade Linit situated at Roche Caiman in the outskirts of Victoria, the capital of Seychelles.

Seychelles have never qualified for the finals of the African Nations Cup or the World Cup but they made their debut in qualifiers for the Africa Cup of Nations in 1986, losing to Mauritius.

Under Yugoslav coach Vojo Gardasevic, the Seychelles team made their debut in the World Cup qualifiers in 2001. Philip Zialor got the equaliser for Seychelles in a 11 draw against Namibia at Stade Linit. In the preliminary round return leg match, Seychelles lost 03.

In their second attempt to qualify, for the 2006 World Cup, Seychelles lost 04 at home to Zambia but played a 11 draw in the away match. Robert Suzette was the scorer of Seychelles goal in Lusaka. Seychelles biggest competitive win came against Zimbabwe in the African Nations Cup 2004 qualifiers. Goals by strikers Alpha Bald and Philip Zialor gave Seychelles a 21 win at Stade Linit against Zimbabwe captained by professional striker Peter Ndlovu. German coach Michael Nees was at the helm of the team at that time. Under Frenchman Dominique Bathenay, Seychelles also beat Eritrea 10 at Stade Linit by a goal by veteran Roddy Victor in the same qualifiers.

In 2011, Seychelles hosted the 2011 Indian Ocean Island Games and beat Mauritius in the finals, on penalties.

Read the original:

Seychelles national football team - Wikipedia

5 facts about Seychelles you probably did not know – Independent Online

Posted on by

Seychelles, an archipelago of 115 islands in the Indian Ocean, off East Africa is paradise. It's home to numerous beaches, coral reefs and nature reserves, as well as rare animals such as giant Aldabra tortoises. Here are some facts you probably did not know about the country. 1: Bird Island houses the heaviest land tortoise named Esmeralda, weighing 303 kilograms.

2. The capital of Seychelles, Victoria, is the is the smallest in the world. Tourists can explore it within a day.

3: The native Coco de mer produces the heaviest (about 15kg) and largest seed in the world. The locals love it so much that there is literally one everywhere you look.

4: Breadfruit is very popular in Seychelles. It can be made into savoury or sweet dishes. Rumour has it that whoever eats it will return to Seychelles one day.

5: The Seychelles has some of the rarest endemic birds, including the bare-legged Scops-owl and greater painted-snipe.

View original post here:

5 facts about Seychelles you probably did not know - Independent Online

NATO funding: How it works and who pays what

Posted on by

"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should," Trump told heads of NATO states assembled Thursday in Brussels. "Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."

It's not the first time Trump has suggested other NATO members have a debt to pay.

But NATO does not keep a running tab of what its members spend on defense. Treaty members target spending 2% of economic output on defense -- but that is merely a guideline.

NATO members spend money on their own defense. The funds they send to NATO directly account for less than 1% of overall defense spending by members of the alliance.

Here's how it works:

National budgets

NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or more members is considered an attack against all. So far that has only been invoked once -- in response to the September 11 attacks.

To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.

It is up to each country to decide how much to spend and how to use the money.

Related: Trump criticized NATO spending. Here's what's really going on

Related: Germany's defense minister to Trump: No, we don't owe NATO money

The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth 1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017.

The alliance also has a civilian budget of 234.4 million ($252 million), used mainly to fund the NATO headquarters in Belgium, and its administration.

Spending is rising

Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target.

The rest lag behind. Germany is set to spend 1.2% of GDP on defense this year, France 1.79%. Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.

NATO has long been pushing for higher spending. At a summit in 2014, all members who were falling short promised to move toward the official target within a decade.

That pledge appears to be holding: The alliance as a whole increased defense spending for the first time in two decades in 2015.

And last year, 22 of 28 NATO members increased their defense budgets. If the U.S. is removed from the equation, the group increased its spending by 3.8% in 2016. Including the U.S., overall spending rose by 2.9%.

Fear of Russian aggression is driving some of the recent splurge. Latvia, which shares a border with Russia, increased its defense budget by 42% in 2016. Its neighbor Lithuania boosted its outlays by 34%.

The 2% problem

So why don't more countries spend 2% of GDP? Many experts point out that the target is problematic.

NATO has warned against a rush to spend for the sake of spending, emphasizing that budget decisions must be based on strategic planning. For example, it wants countries to spend 20% of their defense budgets on equipment.

Related: Lockheed Martin CEO promises Trump she'll cut F-35 costs

There's also pressure for more coordination of spending among European countries.

Some member countries simply don't have armies big enough to be able to absorb a huge increase in funding quickly -- that's why the 2014 summit pledge gave laggards until 2024 to do more.

NATO member Iceland, for example, doesn't have its own army and spends just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

And the 2% target doesn't just cover spending on defense to meet NATO commitments. The money can be used to fund other activities such as European peace missions in the Central African Republic and Mali, as well as national missions that are not part of NATO operations, for example the fight against ISIS.

CNNMoney (London) First published May 25, 2017: 11:55 AM ET

See more here:

NATO funding: How it works and who pays what

NATO CCD COE Considering ‘Petya’ Malware a Potential Act of War

Posted on by

On Saturday, Kevin Scheid, a Department of Defense veteran, was placed in charge of NATOs cyber operations. The appointment wouldnt be big news if it werent for the fact that hes joining the organization at a hair-raising point in history. The vicious malware triggered the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (NATO CCD COE) to announce on Friday that the attack is believed to be the work of a state actor and is a potential act of war.

The 90s cyberpunk thriller Hackers is used too often to illustrate the fearful future of cyber

There was a lot of ruckus back in May when Donald Trump met with the leaders of NATO and failed to confirm that the US is committed to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Thats the clause of the agreement that pledges the members of NATO to mutual defense. Legally speaking, if Article 5 is triggered by an attack on one member, the other members are required to join in retaliation. NATOs Secretary General confirmed this week that a cyber operation with consequences comparable to an armed attack can trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and responses might be with military means. But Fridays press release emphasizes that we dont know enough about the origin of NotPetya or the intentions behind its release at this time.

NATO CCD COE is part of the NATO Allied Command Transformations Centers of Excellence and is classified as an International Military Organisation. It functions in an advisory capacity and helps member nations cooperate in the realm of cyber security. CCD COE researchers have concluded that the malware can most likely be attributed to a state actor, and if a nation is determined to be responsible, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures. What sort of countermeasures? Well, pretty much anything. Independently, the UKs defense secretary announced this week that his country was prepared to respond to cyber attacks from any domain - air, land, sea or cyber.

If our unhinged president in the US wants to start a war for the hell of it, he pretty much has the power to do that. But NATO functions on strict rules. Tom Minrik, a researcher at NATO CCD COE writes:

If the operation could be linked to an ongoing international armed conflict, then law of armed conflict would apply, at least to the extent that injury or physical damage was caused by it, and with respect to possible direct participation in hostilities by civilian hackers, but so far there are reports of neither.

Minrik is outlining what would justify full on IRL military conflict. That doesnt, necessarily, mean that NATO couldnt respond in the cyber-realm if it determined that a government was responsible for NotPetya. He continues:

As important government systems have been targeted, then in case the operation is attributed to a state this could count as a violation of sovereignty. Consequently, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures.

NATO doesnt know whos responsible for NotPetya, and no experts have attributed the attack to one actor with certainty.

Its one of the most fascinating pieces of malware to ever wreak havoc on a large scale. At first, people thought it was ransomware, then it was more likely to be a wiper with some ransomware code. Its become clear that it uses the EternalBlue and EternalRomance exploits that were pilfered from the NSA and released by the hacking group the Shadow Brokers in April. But intriguingly, it appears that whoever created NotPetya had access to those exploits two weeks before they were given to the public.

Another puzzling factor is the motive for releasing this malware that doesnt seem to benefit anyone. No one is getting paid. Its just a really destructive worm that locks up systems. It was first released in Ukraine, and that countrys security services are blaming Russia. But Russians were victims of the attack as well. Its such a pointless and nasty worm that the crime group behind the original Petya actually jumped in and volunteered to help victims. Lauri Lindstrm, a researcher at NATO says, it seems likely that the more sophisticated and expensive NotPetya campaign is a declaration of power - a demonstration of the acquired disruptive capability and readiness to use it.

According to Bloomberg, attacks on NATOs electronic infrastructure increased by 60 percent last year. If its true that a state actor is responsible for NotPetya, its possible that NATO taking notice and talking up Article 5 could make the perpetrator think twice. Then again, if the responsible party gets away without a trace, theyll know that theyre untouchable.

Correction: This post has been updated to clarify that NATOs CCD COE is accredited by the Alliance and serves to give advice, conduct research, and facilitate cooperation among the nations on issues of cyber security.

[CCDCOE via Security Affairs, Bloomberg]

Read the original:

NATO CCD COE Considering 'Petya' Malware a Potential Act of War

NATO – France 24

Posted on by

With your existing account from... {* loginWidget *} With a traditional account... {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *} {* /signInForm *} Welcome back, {* welcomeName *} {* loginWidget *} Welcome back! {* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *}

Sign In

Your account has been deactivated.

You must verify your email address before signing in. Check your email for your verification email, or enter your email address in the form below to resend the email.

Please confirm the information below before signing in. Sign In

We have sent a confirmation email to {* emailAddressData *}. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{| foundExistingAccountText |} {| current_emailAddress |}.

{| existing_displayName |} {| existing_provider_emailAddress |}

Created {| existing_createdDate |} at {| existing_siteName |}

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Check your email for a link to reset your password.

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Password has been successfully updated.

We didn't recognize that password reset code. Enter your email address to get a new one.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{* photoManager *}

{* loginWidget *}

{* publicPrivate *} {* journalistContact *} {* aboutMe *} {* usernameTwPublic *} {* preferedContactLanguages *} {* arabicUsername *} {* persianUsername *} {* skypeId *} {* usernameTw *} {* journalistContact *} {* publicPrivate *} {* profession *}

{* newsMenu *} {* optinalert *} {* optinBestofWeek *} {* optinBestofWEnd *} {* optinBestofObs *}

{* newsMenuEn *} {* optinalertEn *} {* optinBestofWeekEn *} {* optinBestofWEndEn *} {* optinBestofObsEn *}

{* newsMenuAr *} {* optinalertAr *} {* optinBestofWeekAr *} {* optinBestofWEndAr *} {* optinBestofObsAr *}

{* newsMenuEs *} {* optinalertEs *} {* optinbestofweekEs *} {* optinbestofwendEs *}

{* optinQuotidienne *} {* optinBreaking *}

{* optinAutopromo *} {* optinPartenaires *}

{* optinActuMonde *} {* optinActuAfrique *} {* optinAlert *} {* optinRfiAfriqueFootFr *} {* optinMfi *} {* optinActuMusique *} {* optinOffreRfi *} {* optinOffrePartenaire *}

{* savedProfileMessage *}

Are you sure you want to deactivate your account? You will no longer have access to your profile.

See the original post:

NATO - France 24