Google’s Free Speech & Diversity But | National Review – National Review

Posted on by

In his post on Googles diversity dust-up, Robert highlighted this quote from the companys VP for Diversity:

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws [bold added in this quote and all the rest].

Notice the but. There is almost always a but or however or some other qualifier in these kinds of statements. The censors start by praising free and open discussion, then clarify that they do not support free and open discussion. The formulation has become so popular that a different Google VP used it in his own statement:

Questioning our assumptions and sharing different perspectives is an important part of our culture, and we want to continue fostering an environment where its safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But...

It rarely matters what comes after the but, since it will just be some form of special pleading but this speech is harmful, but this speech is intimidating, but this speech is wrong, etc. In fact, once you see the qualifier, you can usually complete the rest of the sentence on your own. Remember when Charles Murray faced violent protesters at Middlebury College earlier this year? A letter signed by 450 alumni explained why he never should have been allowed to visit:

We think it is necessary to allow a diverse range of perspectives to be voiced at Middlebury. In college, we learned through thoughtful, compassionate and often difficult discussions inside the classroom and out conversations in which our beliefs were questioned and our assumptions challenged. We fully support the core liberal arts principle that contact with other intellectual viewpoints and life experiences than ones own is integral to a beneficial education. However...

This is how the faculty of the Africana Studies department at Virginia Tech denounced Murrays presence on their campus:

Academic freedom is a crucial value within any university. Indeed, given the critical nature of Africana Studies as a field, we are especially invested in upholding it as a core tenet. However...

During the 2016 election season, the mayor of West Hollywood declared that Donald Trump is not welcome to campaign in his city. When asked for specifics, the mayor responded:

As a city we have historically welcomed campaigns on both sides of the aisle to come to West Hollywood. Again, were not trying to shut down anyones speech. But...

Using chalk to write political messages is common on college campuses, but when people started chalking Trump 2016 around Emory University, the schools president became concerned:

As an academic community, we must value and encourage the expression of ideas, vigorous debate, speech, dissent, and protest. At the same time...

Last year a science conference disinvited Richard Dawkins because he retweeted something critical of feminism. The organizers helpfully explained:

We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However...

At the heart of all of these statements is the Orwellian notion that censors can be free-speech advocates. Thats why Mozilla gave this cryptic justification for firing Brendan Eich over his opposition to same-sex marriage:

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Its also the stated reason that NYUs medical school disinvited James Watson from giving a lecture:

At NYU, we have a strong commitment to equality as well as freedom of speech, and the right balance between these is not always easy to determine. While we may have differences of opinion, we also have tolerance.

It would be more accurate and honest for these organizations to simply declare, We do not believe in free speech, period. So why dont they? Well, they strongly support accuracy and honesty, but...

See the rest here:

Google's Free Speech & Diversity But | National Review - National Review

SMU Student Groups: Moving The 9/11 Memorial Restricts Freedom of Speech – Texas Monthly

Posted on by

By Doyin OyeniyiAugust 8, 2017

On August 1, the Southern Methodist University student group Young Americans for Freedom posted an open letter to their Facebook page. The letter, addressed to the universitys president, Robert Gerald Turner, criticized SMU for its response to the groups request to display a 9/11 memorial on Dallas Hall lawn, the same spot where the campus gathered after the attack in 2001. The memorial, a display of 2,977 American flags to represent the lives lost on 9/11, has been constructed on the lawn for the past two years.

This year, however, the memorial is barred from Dallas Hall lawn. The new location, designated for all lawn displays, is Morrison-McGinnis Park, or MoMac Park, which the YAF describes as far less prominent than the iconic Dallas Hall lawn, adding that thousands of students, faculty and local residents pass by [Dallas Hall lawn] every day and serves as the heart of our campus. But in addition to the location change, the organization particularly had a problem with the language used in the policy, which they received in July as a response to their request. The policy, titled Memorial Lawn Displays, read:

The University respects the right of all members of the SMU community to express their opinions. The University also respects the right of all members of the community to avoid messages that are triggering, harmful, or harassing. It is the policy of the University to protect the exercise of these rights. These rights come with the responsibility not to abuse or violate civil and property rights of others, or to interfere in the conduct of University business.

YAF criticized that language as an attack on freedom of speech and warned that the university was headed in the direction of indoctrination, not education if they continued to limit students right to share and express their beliefs. The open letter is signed by the chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, the president of College Republicans, the co-presidents of College Democrats, the president of Mustangs for Life, and the president of Feminist Equality Movement. The idea that a 9/11 memorial could be triggering, harmful, or harassing has drawn criticism online and even from Governor Greg Abbott.

In response to the backlash, SMU released a statement explaining that YAFs requests for displays have been approved in previous years, and SMU as a community has held 9/11 memorial events every five years since 2001, including a notable event last year in collaboration with area first responders. The university also apologized for the inappropriate wording in the policy sent to the students, explaining that the policy had not gone through the appropriate approval process. The updated policy, now titled Lawn Displays, reads:

The University respects the right of SMU community members to express their opinions as individuals with varying points of view and interests. The university also respects the right of all members of the academic community to be free from coercion and harassment. Reasonable limitations may be placed on the time, place and manner of such expression activities in order to serve the interest of health and safety, prevent interference in the conduct of University business, and protect against the infringement of the rights of others. Because we seek truth, we encourage the expression of ideas, accept challenges to our assumptions, and treat those whom we question as colleagues sharing a common purpose.

Kent Best, a spokesperson for SMU, said that the wording on triggering or harassing lawn displays was only to explain why certain requests might not be approved, but that the restriction would never have applied to the 9/11 memorial.The policy change was made in the July, Best said, just a few days before YAFs request was received.I can assure you 100 percent that their display was going to be approved, Best said.

What didnt change between the two versions of the policy was the new location. Best said that there were no specific incidents that led to no longer allowing displays at Dallas Hall lawn, but rather a need to keep that area available for students use and other university activities. Referencing a map of SMUs campus, Best explained that MoMac Park was more centrally located on campus and that though Dallas Hall lawn was bigger, displays had never been allowed to use the entire space on the lawn.

When asked if there were events that would have conflicted with this years 9/11 memorial, Best explained that a football game tailgate on September 9 would take place on the lawn. Since YAF might need to put up the flags for the memorial the day before 9/11, tents from the tailgate might not be removed in time, Best said, but he added that the decision to move lawn displays to MoMac Park was made before the were aware of any scheduling conflict. On the YAFs Facebook page, the group posted a screenshot of a tweet from SMU in 2015, which includes a picture with the flags from their memorial next to tailgating tents.

SMU cant hide the fact that they celebrated and supported our 9/11 Memorial on Dallas Hall lawn, despite it being surrounded by remnants of tailgating tents from the weekend before, the photo caption reads. This isnt a logistical problem. This is a freedom problem. Our pressure will continue until this policy is changed.

Although the university has not confirmed it, Daniel Rosa, president of Mustangs for Life, and Matthew Lucci, co-president of College Democrats, believe that the policy change was a response to a Mustangs for Life display. Rosa said that for the past four years, during the spring semester, the organization has displayed a Memorial for Innocents to signify the number of abortions that happen per day in America. For the past three years, the display has been about 2,000 crosses spread on the lawn.In recent years, there have been counter-protests and displays by pro-choice organizations such as Feminist Equality Movement and Mustangs for Unity (an organization created in response to Mustangs for Life). Rosa says people have sometimes kicked over crosses in his organizations display, and this year, a student responded to the display by raising money for Planned Parenthood. But the representatives from the groups, who might publicly disagree on many things, both want Dallas Hall lawn available for displays again.

Of the three displays that occur every single year, the 9/11 display has never been controversial, whereas the other two have, Lucci said. And the text of the original policy change hints at that.Lucci doesnt believe that SMU had malicious intent toward the 9/11 memorial, but he still considers the restriction of lawn displays to MoMac Park as a limitation. Because the park is mostly surrounded by dorms and receives less foot traffic than Dallas Hall lawn, which he describes as the academic center of the university, relegating them to an area where lawn displays are not likely to receive the attention and response theyve received in the past, Lucci believes the university is in a way restricting their freedom of speech.

Best could not confirm any plans to change the lawn display policy, but students are holding out hope. On Monday, student leaders who signed the open letter met with Kenechukwu Mmeje, SMUs new vice president for student affairs, to discuss the policy changes. Although details of the meeting, which included representatives from SMUs development and legal departments, were scarce, Lucci seemed hopeful. Student and administrative leaders are working together on a solution to the problem at hand, the details of which are still under consideration at this time, he said after the meeting. I am confident that the administration of Southern Methodist University and the students in attendance will be able to reach an agreement in the near future.

Tags: Dallas, Education, Higher Ed, smu, southern methodist university

Visit link:

SMU Student Groups: Moving The 9/11 Memorial Restricts Freedom of Speech - Texas Monthly

The War on Free Speech Turns Further Left – Capital Research Center – Capital Research Center

Posted on by

Anti-free speech demonstrators protesting in the name of social justice could cost The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington$3.8 million in legal payments.

In late May, fifty Evergreen students barragedlong-time biology professor Bret Weinstein for refusing to comply with radical Left-wing activists calls for a Day of Absence for white faculty and students. The leftist protesters, convinced Weinsteinis a white supremacist for daring to show up to work on their own racist segregation day, hurled vitriolic insults and demanded the college terminate the professors employment contract.Videos of Evergreen students verbally assailing the professor and school officials quickly went viral.

After being told by the college chief of police that he was not safe on campus, Weinstein wisely had his family live in hiding. In response, the beleaguered Weinstein has fileda $3.8 million tort claim against the college.

Weinstein himself is no card-carrying conservative, however.Weinstein,a self-professed liberal, has taught biology for fourteen years, is an outspoken Sen. Bernie Sanders supporter, and by all accounts is the kind of teacher that students at one of the most left-wing colleges in the country would admire, as the New York Timesglowingly put it in its June 1 article, When the Left Turns on Its Own.

Shutting down conservatives has become de rigueur. But now anti-free-speech activists are increasingly turning their ire on free-thinking progressives. Liberals shouldnt cede responsibility to defend free speech on college campuses to conservatives. After all, without free speech, whats liberalism about?

Ironically, when Weinstein was a student he penned anOctober 6, 1987 opinion piece to the Daily Pennsylvaniandecrying a fraternity for hiring strippers during a fraternity rush partyas sexist and abhorrent. Weinstein chose to voice his opinions peacefully; his students chose wanton chaos. In an op-ed tothe Wall Street Journal,Weinstein notes that the Evergreen faculty administrationhas donelittle to preserve order, free speech, and diversity of thought as the school has slipped into madness:

Equality of outcome is a discredited concept, failing on both logical and historical grounds, as anyone knows who has studied the misery of the 20th century.

[The college administrationsnew race-based hiring plan would] shift the college from a diversity agenda to an equity agenda by, among other things, requiring an equity justification for every faculty hire.

This presented traditional independent academic minds with a choice: Accept the plan and let the intellectual descendants of Critical Race Theory dictate the bounds of permissible thought to the sciences and the rest of the college, or insist on discussing the plans shortcomings and be branded as racists. Most of my colleagues chose the former, and the protesters are in the process of articulating the terms. I dissented and ended up teaching in the park.

The Day of Absence that led to the incident stems from a tradition at Evergreen in which black students and faculty leave campus to display the importance of their roles at the school, following the theme of Douglas Turner Wards play, Day of Absence.

Butin 2017, Reasonreports, the tradition was altered: a student group asked that their white peers and instructors take a Day of Absence from campus life to explore issues of race, equity, allyship, inclusion and privilege. A powerful tradition has been morphed into a campaign to snuff out free speech, and silence dissent. Unfortunately, Evergreen is not the only campus with such problems.

Freedom of speech on college campuses in America is under widespread attack. CRC has covered muchof the campus anti-free speech epidemicat Claremont McKenna College, where student activists weredisciplinedappropriately.

Read more here:

The War on Free Speech Turns Further Left - Capital Research Center - Capital Research Center

‘Atheism is against Federal Constitution’ – New Straits Times Online

Posted on by

KUALA LUMPUR: Minister in Prime Ministers Department Datuk Seri Dr Shahidan Kassim has urged mufti and state governments to take action against atheists in the country as their practice is against the Federal Constitution.

He suggested that authorities go after atheists and identify them, adding that they had deviated.

This is a country with religion. There are Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism and others.

The Constitution clearly states about Islam being the federal religion while other religions are also allowed to be practised in the country. There is no mention on atheism.

They (atheists) clearly lack knowledge in religion, hence they choose not to be a believer.

To all the mufti and state governments, please pay attention.even though there are not many atheists, he told a press conference at the Dewan Rakyat today.

On Monday, the government reportedly said that it would investigate alleged claims which went viral in social media that Muslims had joined the Kuala Lumpur Atheist Club.

Shahidan said the club might draw the interest of people due to its persuasive ways in spreading atheism.

You know nowadays people tend to glamourise outspoken people in social media. Keyboard warriors are always glorified.

See more here:

'Atheism is against Federal Constitution' - New Straits Times Online

Atheists tend to be seen as immoral even by other atheists: study – The Guardian

Posted on by

Many still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods. Photograph: Fred de Noyelle/Getty Images

Atheists are more easily suspected of evil deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists even by fellow atheists, according to the authors of a new study.

The finding suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many including some atheists still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods.

The results of the study show that across the world, religious belief is intuitively viewed as a necessary safeguard against the temptations of grossly immoral conduct, an international team wrote in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. It revealed that atheists are broadly perceived as potentially morally depraved and dangerous.

The study measured the attitudes of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries on five continents. They ranged from very secular countries such as China and the Netherlands, to those with high numbers of religious believers, such as the United Arab Emirates, the US and India.

The countries had populations that were either predominantly Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or non-religious.

Participants were given a description of a fictional evildoer who tortured animals as a child, then grows up to become a teacher who murders and mutilates five homeless people. Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely he was an atheist. The team found that people were about twice as likely to assume that the serial killer was an atheist.

It is striking that even atheists appear to hold the same intuitive anti-atheist bias, the studys co-author, Will Gervais, a psychology professor at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, said.

I suspect that this stems from the prevalence of deeply entrenched pro-religious norms. Even in places that are currently quite overtly secular, people still seem to intuitively hold on to the believe that religion is a moral safeguard.

Only in Finland and New Zealand, two secular countries, did the experiment not yield conclusive evidence of anti-atheist prejudice, said the team.

Distrust of atheists was very strong in the most highly religious states like the United States, United Arab Emirates and India, said Gervais, and lower in more secular countries.

Such research was about more than stigma alone, he said. In many places, atheism can be dangerous, if not fatal.

In a comment carried by the journal, Adam Cohen and Jordan Moon of the Arizona State Universitys psychology department said the study marked an important advance in explaining the prevalence of anti-atheist attitudes.

Continued here:

Atheists tend to be seen as immoral even by other atheists: study - The Guardian

Perak mufti: Quarrelling Muslim preachers pushed youths away to atheism – Malay Mail Online

Posted on by

Perak mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria said there were arguments among the Muslim community that Islam in its original form no longer fits with the current times. Picture by Choo Choy MayKUALA LUMPUR, Aug 8 Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria has blamed Muslim preachers who disagreed in public today for confusing Muslim youths, claiming they subsequently lead them towards atheism.

The Perak mufti also put the blame on several others, including parents and schools, for the alleged lack of religious knowledge among youths which he said was a cause behind atheism.

The preachers are in a disarray, so many teachings and opinions, until there is confusion among Muslims themselves, he reportedly said in Malay paper Sinar Harian.

He said there were arguments among the Muslim community that Islam in its original form no longer fits with the current times.

So this resulted in those who say previous preachers were wrong. This caused the youths to become confused, he claimed.

Harussani explained that some Muslims turn to atheism since they believe that religions are no longer relevant in this day and age.

Just yesterday, the minister in charge of Islamic affairs said the occasional conflicting interpretations of Islam between mufti from different states should be viewed positively.

Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said during Question Time that the dialectics between some of the Muslim clerics proved that the countrys Shariah system allowed for diversity.

A photo of the gathering by the Kuala Lumpur chapter, or consulate, of Atheist Republic has caused uproar from some in the Muslim community recently after it was highlighted by pro-Islamist blogs, leading to violent and death threats on social media.

Deputy minister in charge of Islamic affairs Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki said yesterday Putrajaya will investigate the local group, even roping in the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, as it allegedly involved the faith of Muslims in the country.

Continue reading here:

Perak mufti: Quarrelling Muslim preachers pushed youths away to atheism - Malay Mail Online

Unbelievable?: Meet the man who puts atheists on Christian radio – ABC Online

Posted on by

Updated August 09, 2017 11:01:52

Justin Brierley knows a thing or two about miracles: each week, he manages to get atheists to listen to Christian radio.

But, as you probably guessed, it's not Christian radio as you'd imagine it. Already this year on his British program Unbelievable? he's given a microphone to a doctor arguing for the complete decriminalisation of abortion, a sexual freedom campaigner defending the use of pornography, and a neuroscientist who says the human quest for meaning can be explained by evolution.

Other past episodes include illusionist Derren Brown questioning the veracity of miracle accounts, given the susceptibility of the mind to be tricked, and perhaps the most famous atheist in the world Richard Dawkins laying into the "capriciously malevolent bully" God of the Old Testament.

There's no catch, either. Unbelievers aren't brought onto the show to be harangued or interrupted. They're given equal time to the Christians they're debating and Brierley acts as an impartial moderator.

If you were flicking through channels in the car, you might not guess you were listening to a station called Premier Christian Radio. So why does Brierley do it?

Well, he says his station does a "great job of talking to Christians about Christian things", but he wanted to burst the bubble.

"I'm confident that Christians have nothing to fear from hearing from sceptical people," he said.

That's why for the past 11 years, Brierley has been inviting people onto the air to hear why they don't believe, putting them into conversations with leading Christian thinkers like philosopher William Lane Craig, New Testament scholar NT Wright and Oxford mathematician John Lennox.

Originally, he had only British Christian listeners in mind, but since his show became a podcast, the audience has expanded to include nonbelievers from all over the world, including Australia.

"One of the most common emails I get is, 'You're the only Christian radio station I would ever think of listening to'," he said.

Brierley says many Christians appreciate having a show which deals with questions they themselves might have had and which helps them navigate their own interactions with nonbelievers.

But he frankly admits that not everyone liked the idea.

"I'll be honest with you, when the show first started, it got pushback from some Christian listeners who were very uncomfortable with having atheists on air," he said.

He could see their point you don't tend to tune into Christian radio to have your cherished beliefs challenged.

But he says it's not like you can avoid scepticism in a digital world.

"We might as well have that kind of a conversation in an environment where we at least know we've got a reasonable Christian on the other side," he said.

Brierley doesn't shy away from the fact that he'd love it if people converted after listening to his program. But he also says simply improving the tone of the faith debate is its own reward.

Unbelievable? was born when "new atheism" was at its peak, with Richard Dawkins and the late journalist Christopher Hitchens leading the charge against faith with their respective books The God Delusion (2006) and God Is Not Great (2007).

Brierley says he thinks the conversation has improved since then, with many atheists he encounters keen to disassociate themselves from the new atheism movement.

"I think it went through a pretty dire patch for a while," he said.

"The tone of the conversation, certainly from the new atheists side, was of a kind of condescending, dismissive attitude towards people who hold a faith."

Brierley says you have a much better chance of changing people's minds when you engage in a friendly, personable way.

He says we live in an age where "we tend to dehumanise people" who disagree with us, but just getting people of different beliefs into the same room for a chat makes them realise they're not talking to the enemy.

"The show I hope will give people who are sceptical an insight into why Christian faith is in my opinion a credible option," he said.

"And I hope it will also give Christians listening an insight into the fact that atheists by and large are nice, reasonable people they're not out to get you."

After more than a decade as the impartial moderator, Brierley decided to put his own cards on the table with his book Unbelievable? Why After 10 Years Of Talking With Atheists I'm Still A Christian.

The first point he makes is that while his show deals primarily with what objective evidence there is for Christianity, it was actually a subjective religious experience that led him to faith when he was a teenager. Simply put, he says he felt the presence and love of God.

But he was aware this subjective experience wasn't going to convince anyone else, which is why he looked towards apologetics basically, a wonky word for the rational defence of Christianity.

"What I discovered was some real, credible intellectual reasons for believing in God."

He points to the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of moral objectivity, the universal search for meaning, and the historical evidence for the life of Jesus as some of the reasons he thinks Christianity has the better case.

"In all of these arguments, I'm not trying to deride atheism. I'm just saying I don't see how that worldview makes sense of the world as I see it," he said.

Atheists have an answer for all of these arguments, of course, which is why his show will never be short of things to debate.

Topics: christianity, religion-and-beliefs, united-kingdom

First posted August 09, 2017 10:48:42

Read the original:

Unbelievable?: Meet the man who puts atheists on Christian radio - ABC Online

In the September Issue of SUCCESS, Learn About Whether Visionary Elon Musk’s Mission to Change the World Has … – Markets Insider

Posted on by

DALLAS, Aug. 8, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Elon Musk, the brilliant mind behind numerous companiesmost notably Teslahad many forces early in life shape him into the ambitious man he is today. Born in South Africa, his mother was a Canadian dietitian and model, and his father an engineer and sailor. He's the oldest of three and was always a cerebral child interested in comic books, video games and Sci Fi. As a teenager his desire to learn continued: He read the entire contents of the local library, then devoured two sets of encyclopedias.

He leveraged his thirst for knowledge and knack for technology as an adult. Just looking at his resume one discovers how his mind works differentlyhow he always thinks of the big picture, and considers ideas that will change the world for decades and centuries to come. He thought up online banking before anyone even considered it with PayPal; mainstreamed electric cars with Tesla; sought to make Mars colonization for the masses possible with SpaceX; and dreamed up high-speed, underground, long-distance transportation with Hyperloop.

In the pursuit of these projects and others, he has had to face work-life balance head on: He now has shared custody of his five sons with his ex-wife. He's a wild business success and visionary, but this article explores whether in Musk's case, that meant paying the price for quality personal relationships.

"One of the really tough things is figuring out what questions to ask. Once you figure out the question, then the answer is relatively easy."

Elon Musk in the September 2017 issue of SUCCESS

Also Inside This Issue

September is the Priorities issue of SUCCESS. From articles on the importance of maintaining authenticity to the secret for maximizing your performance, this issue will give you the tools you need to put the most important things in life first. You'll also learn about the downside of perfectionism, the solution for a dream job that doesn't pay well and the benefit of having an accountability partner.

For full stories, pick up the September issue, on newsstands August 8. For more information about SUCCESS Magazine and additional personal development content, visit http://www.success.com.

AboutSUCCESSSUCCESSMagazine is a national newsstand publication and your guide to personal and professional development through inspiration, motivation and training.SUCCESSinspires 2 million readers a month, and has a total social reach of 5 million fans. SUCCESSMagazine was founded in 1897 by influential thinker Orison Swett Marden. It is owned byDallas-based SUCCESS Partners founded byStuart Johnson.

Find SUCCESS on: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Pinterest | LinkedIn | Google+

Media Contact: Paige Dungan 479.856.4394 rel="nofollow">pdungan@success.com

View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/in-the-september-issue-of-success-learn-about-whether-visionary-elon-musks-mission-to-change-the-world-has-been-worth-the-sacrifices-300500605.html

SOURCE SUCCESS Magazine

Originally posted here:

In the September Issue of SUCCESS, Learn About Whether Visionary Elon Musk's Mission to Change the World Has ... - Markets Insider

Hubble Telescope Sees Merging ‘David and Goliath’ Galaxy Pair (Photos, Video) – Space.com

Posted on by

The Hubble Space Telescope has taken a close look at the fascinating gravitational effects caused by a diminutive dwarf galaxy as it orbits its massive neighbor. The galactic pair will eventually merge, with the dwarf being eaten but it's not going down without a fight.

The barred spiral galaxy NGC 1512 (left) and the dwarf galaxy NGC 1510 (right) are merging with one another. The duo is 30 million light-years from Earth.

NGC 1512 is a colossal barred spiral galaxy containing billions of stars, plus active regions of star formation. Hubble, a joint project of NASA and the European Space Agency, can easily detect star formation in the galaxy's outer ring. That region is dotted with many blueish HII-emission regions, meaning that blasts of powerful radiation coming from nearby young stars are ionizing the clouds of hydrogen gas. In this observation of NGC 1512, however, the bright blue inner hub of star formation takes center-stage.

Known as a "circumnuclear starburst ring," this intense star-formation region measures 2,400 light-years across. It is fed by a conveyor belt of gas streaming down the two prominent bars from the galaxy's outer rim to the galactic core (hence the "barred spiral galaxy" designation). Astronomers think that the 400-million-year-old gravitational battle between NGC 1512 and its tiny buddy, NGC 1510 (on the right in the image), is driving the massive galaxy's gas supply and starburst ring, researchers said in a statement.

Although NGC 1510 seems to be holding its own against its neighboring gravitational bully, the unfortunate dwarf galaxy faces the beginning of the end. Already, the bigger galaxy's gravity is dragging extended tendrils of gas from the tiny galaxy, and NGC 1510's stars will eventually assimilate with NGC 1512's stellar metropolis. Astronomers know this because 2015 observations of the massive galaxy revealed that the outer regions of NGC 1512's spiral arms once belonged to another galaxy, one that was cannibalized and ingested a grim fate that also awaits NGC 1510. But in the cosmic ecosystem, this is the galactic cycle of life.

NGC 1512 and NGC 1510 (at center) as seen from the ground, in the surrounding sky.

Although the doomed dwarf galaxy is small, it has a big impact on its larger companion, the statement said. Observations of these effects will help astronomers learn more about the dramatic consequences galactic mergers have for star formation in massive galaxies, according to the statement.

Note: Space.com senior producer Steve Spaleta contributed to this report.

Follow Ian O'Neill @astroengine. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook or Google+. Originally published on Space.com.

See more here:

Hubble Telescope Sees Merging 'David and Goliath' Galaxy Pair (Photos, Video) - Space.com

NATO criticizes Putin visit to disputed Georgia territory – POLITICO.eu

Posted on by

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, meets with Raul Khadzhimba, the leader of Georgia's breakaway region of Abkhazia | Alexey Druzhinin/AFP via Getty Images

Russian president visits Abkhazia on anniversary of brief war over the territory.

By David M. Herszenhorn

8/8/17, 6:39 PM CET

NATO rebuked Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday for visiting the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia on the ninth anniversary of a brief war over the territory and another disputed region, South Ossetia.

Russia has all but annexed the two regions, which exist only thanks to Russian economic aid and the protection of the Russian military and security services. Putin signed an agreement effectively integrating South Ossetia in 2015 and a similar treaty with Abkhazia in 2014.

Russia has been accused repeatedly by Georgia and the West of further encroaching on Georgias territorial sovereignty by surreptitiouslymoving the borders.

Putin met Tuesday with the president of Abkhazia, Raul Khadzhimba, in the Black Sea resort town of Pitsunda, and a NATO spokesman in Brussels quickly denounced the Russian leaders move.

President Putins visit to the Abkhazia region of Georgia on the ninth anniversary of the armed conflict is detrimental to international efforts to find a peaceful and negotiated settlement, the spokesman, Dylan White, said in a statement. We regret that this visit was carried out without prior consent of the Georgian authorities.

NATO is united in full support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally-recognized borders, White said. We will not recognize any attempts to change the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as regions of Georgia.

At Putins meeting, the Russian and Abkhazian health ministers signed an agreement to extend Russian government health insurance to Russian citizens living in Abkhazia. Effectively, all residents of Abkhazia can obtain Russian citizenship.

Guests, from wherever they come, including from Russia, should understand and feel that they are under reliable protection, Putin said at the meeting, according to a statement by the Kremlin.

View post:

NATO criticizes Putin visit to disputed Georgia territory - POLITICO.eu

Republic of Macedonia Eyes NATO to Ward Off Russian Interference – Bloomberg

Posted on by

By

August 7, 2017, 7:00 PM EDT August 8, 2017, 8:41 AM EDT

The Republic of Macedonias new government is stepping up its efforts to join NATO, arguing that membership in the military alliance will protect the Balkan nation from Russia interfering in its affairs, the countrys defense minister said.

Influences interfering in this strategic goal arent helpful, and theyre not friendly, Defense Minister Radmila Sekerinska said in an interview in Skopje last week. Weve seen some leaks, even before the government was elected, about Russian attempts for influence in key political and security areas. And we have been concerned about them. We believe Macedonian NATO membership can put an end to these attempts.

After undergoing the first change in leadership in more than a decade in June, the nation of 2 million people is trying to rejuvenate its efforts to join the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

As part of that push,Prime Minister Zoran Zaevs government is trying to rebuild regional ties after accusing the previous administration of deliberately fueling a naming dispute with Greece dating back to 1991, when the nation broke away from Yugoslavia and called itself Republic of Macedonia. Greece, which blocked its neighbors attempts to join NATO because of the dispute, believes that to be a territorial claim on its neighboring northern province of the same name.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

While some countries that gained independence after the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s have joined the EU and NATO, laggards like the Republic of Macedonia are now caught in a power struggle between Russia on one side and Europe and the U.S. on the other. Tensions escalated after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, prompting the biggest standoff with the U.S. since the Cold War. They deepened further after U.S. President Donald Trump raised questions about the future of NATO and relations with Moscow.

Russia remains opposed to NATO expansion in Europe and has been accused of trying to derail the regions western accession efforts. Last year, Montenegros government said the Kremlin led a failed coup during parliamentary elections, allegations that Russia denies.

Sekerinska, the 45-year-old deputy chairwoman of the ruling Social Democratic Union, said the cabinet was seeking to improve ties with Greece and commit to domestic reforms within nine months to be able to join NATO as soon as possible.

The yield on the Republic of Macedonias euro-denominated bonds maturing in July 2023 fell two basis points to an all-time low of 3.87 percent at 2:03 p.m. in Skopje.

The country needs to address issues regarding the rule of law and judicial independence that are now seen as a problem for Macedonias NATO entry, Sekerinska said.

Well stay committed to making these reforms a reality, but well keep asking NATO member states to appreciate these efforts, take into account the results and make decisions as soon as possible, she said.

As it strives to follow the example of Montenegro, which joined the alliance in June, the country will start boosting defense spending in 2018 from below 1 percent of gross domestic product, she said.

The governments efforts may not be rewarded soon, said Dimitar Bechev, a senior non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Councils Eurasia Center.

Greece has given no indication that it will step back on the name dispute any time soon, he said by phone.

Sekerinska, who also serves as a deputy premier, hailed last weeks visit of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence to Montenegro, which she said delivered a key message that removed all doubts from earlier this year about whether the U.S. remains committed to NATO and the region.

Those doubts have disappeared, she said.

Read the rest here:

Republic of Macedonia Eyes NATO to Ward Off Russian Interference - Bloomberg

Turkey grants German lawmakers access to soldiers as part of NATO trip – POLITICO.eu

Posted on by

A German Tornado jet is pictured on the ground at the air base in Incirlik, Turkey | Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images

Members of the German parliament will visit troops stationed at an air base near Konya in September.

By Connor Murphy

8/8/17, 2:16 PM CET

The Turkish government will allow German lawmakers to visit soldiers stationed at an airbase in Turkey as part of a NATO delegation next month, local media reported Tuesday.

In a letter to the head of Germanys parliamentary defense committee, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the Turkish government agreed to a NATO proposal which allows German members of parliament to visit troops stationed at an air base near Konya on September 8.

Gabriel said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlt avuolu agreed to the proposal.

Germany withdrew its troops from Incirlik air base in southern Turkey in July after Ankara repeatedly refused to grant German lawmakers access to the base. Turkey also blocked a delegation of MPs from visiting the air base near Konya in mid-July.

Under the proposal, NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller can take up to seven members of the German parliamentary defense committee with her on a trip to Konya.

This is in our interest, said Wolfgang Hellmich, chairman of the parliamentary defense committee. This is an important step in making it clear to NATO that the right to visit is indispensable.

Hellmich added that visiting as part of a NATO delegation does not replace a Bundestag visit, but is an important step to defuse a conflict that was not at all useful to NATO.

The move comes as the diplomatic rift between Ankara and Berlin continues to worsen. On Monday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan accused Germany of abetting terrorists. EU Budget Commissioner Gnther Oettinger told Bild on Monday it was very unlikely the EU would hand over the remainder of a promised 4.3 billion of pre-accession aid to Turkey because of the countrys recent autocratic turn.

Originally posted here:

Turkey grants German lawmakers access to soldiers as part of NATO trip - POLITICO.eu

Georgia Shouldn’t (and Won’t) Be a NATO Member – The American Conservative

Posted on by

Will Ruger noticed that Pence repeated the pledge to bring Georgia into NATO during his visit there last week:

Pence stated, President Trump and the United States stand firmly behind the 2008 NATO Bucharest statement which made it clear that Georgia will, someday, become a member.

Since this week marks the ninth anniversary of the August 2008 war, it is worth remembering that the commitment made at the Bucharest summit earlier that year significantly added to the tensions between Russia and Georgia. If it had been up to George W. Bush, Georgia and Ukraine would have both received Membership Action Plans, but even the promise of future membership was dangerously provocative. Promising that Georgia would one day become a member of the alliance alarmed Moscow and gave false encouragement to the Georgian government.

Combined with other expressions of U.S. support for Georgia during the Bush years, this commitment by the alliance led then-President Saakashvili to believe that the U.S. and other Western powers would come to Georgias aid in the event of a conflict. He recklessly escalated the low-level conflict in South Ossetia and triggered a war with Russia by shelling Tskhinvali, where Russian troops were stationed in a supposed peacekeeping role. That attack provided Russia with the pretext to invade. The rhetorical support for Georgia proved to be meaningless, and the war drove home how big of a liability Georgia would be as an ally.

As a result of the war, Russia recognized the independence of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, thus making their reintegration into Georgia much less likely than it was before the war. If Georgias NATO aspirations were fanciful before the 2008 war, they became preposterous after it. Reviving talk of Georgias future NATO membership today is irresponsible and dangerous. It is also cruel to keep giving Georgia more false encouragement that it will be able to join the alliance at some point. It isnt going to happen, and it does no one any good to keep pretending otherwise.

Visit link:

Georgia Shouldn't (and Won't) Be a NATO Member - The American Conservative

I FOIA’d the NSA’s Recycling Mascot, and Now I Have More Questions Than Answers – New York Magazine

Posted on by

Move over, Pixar theres a new CGI creature in town, and he comes from the most unlikely of places, the National Security Agency. Of the federal government agencies that youd expect to have an anthropomorphic mascot dedicated to reducing environmental waste, the NSA is probably near the bottom of the list.

The mascot, Dunk, became public knowledge in 2015, thanks to a menacing NSA tweet the agency sent to publicize its green efforts.

That effort included a school initiative teaching children how to conduct awaste audit, categorize trash, and figure out how effective they were at properly disposing of trash. Yes, the NSA wanted children to go snooping through trash, which seems almost too on the nose to be true. So youre asking me, hey Dunk, what is a waste audit? Well, youre going to dig through all of the trash in your school and then youre going to analyze it, the blue beastintonedin his nasal voice. Youll need to identify the types of trash making up the waste stream of your school and the amounts of each type of trash, by weight and volume.

Upon learning of Dunk, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for any communication and documents related to the development of Dunk. More than two years later, the NSA came through with a handful of unclassified documents.

On August 22, 2008, a graphic-design coordinator sent an email with the subject line, (U) Quick Idea. Attached was a file called recycle idea.pdf, which contained preliminary sketches for two waste-disposal bins with faces and arms. One is a round, green recycling bin, for soda cans and such; the other is an orange dumpster labeled WOOD ONLY thats disposing of a pallet. The slogan: Think Before You Throw.

The initiative was put on hold until the graphic-design coordinator returned from leave in early September. The next email exchange that the NSA included begins on October 1, when a waste-and-recycling manager inquires about the Dunk program. Just wanted to know if weve made any further progress Let me know

Two days later, the Dunk we all know and love appears in a file simply titled dunk.pdf, courtesy of the same graphic-design coordinator. Hes now a blue, rectangular recycling bin, who throws trash through a hole in the top of his head, rather than eating it via his mouth. Does the trash give him energy? What happened to his dumpster friend? Why is he called Dunk when hes clearly lobbing the trash?

The final page included in the NSAs response is the final Dunk, now with fancy purple shorts. The picture is not dated, but its presumably the type of office posting that is placed right over the trash bins. Years before Dunk was telling kids to dig through the trash, he was telling NSA workers to be mindful of their waste habits.

Think before you throw! the NSA warns. I mean, thatd be crazy, right? Imagine if your stuff ended up in the wrong place, and someone you didnt intend got ahold of it and used it improperly. Thatd be so embarrassing!

Commonly held best practices for password safety are going out the window.

Nothing (rose) gold can stay.

Including sweatproof, noise-canceling, and foldable versions several under $50.

How an actual person became a bot overnight.

Weve got your John Tucker Must Die sequel right here, folks.

Think before you throw.

We finally know who wrote the infamous document.

Because what the world needs right now is obviously another way to leave your friends on read.

The one about the media wanting him in a noose is really something.

A leaked internal document called the wage gap a myth and laid out all the reasons men are treated unfairly.

Weve heard this argument before.

How to eke a few more minutes out of your battery before everything goes dark.

Its called Stamp.

Including one for $250.

We might be getting a frowning poop emoji to go with the smiling one.

Robbie Tripp is getting owned on Twitter after posting a gushing Instagram about how much he loves his wifes curvy body.

The CMS wasnt cutting it.

It was only after a drivers dashboard went up in spontaneous flames that the company decided to do something.

Read the original here:

I FOIA'd the NSA's Recycling Mascot, and Now I Have More Questions Than Answers - New York Magazine

Posted in NSA

Update on Fingerprints, Phones, and the Fifth Amendment …

Posted on by

Can a court order a suspect to use the suspects fingerprint to unlock his or her smartphone? Or would that violate the suspects Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? I wrote about that issue here. This post updates the previous one with two new cases and some additional discussion.

Background. The Fifth Amendment provides in part that no person may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This privilege against self-incrimination applies during the investigative phase of a case as well as at trial. And it applies to the disclosure of information that may lead to incriminating evidence even if the information is not itself directly indicative of guilt. However, it applies only to testimonial activity, not to nontestimonial actions like providing fingerprints, blood samples, or voice exemplars. The act of producing evidence that is not itself testimonial may have a compelled testimonial aspect, as when the act of producing the evidence constitutes an admission that the evidence was in the suspects possession or control. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000) (ruling that tax fraud charges must be dismissed because the charges were based on documents the defendant produced in response to a grand jury subpoena; the defendants act of producing the documents was testimonial because the collection and production of the materials demanded was tantamount to answering a series of interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of any incriminating documents; [t]he assembly of those documents was like telling an inquisitor the combination to a wall safe, not like being forced to surrender the key to a strongbox).

Smartphones are often secured by passcodes or fingerprint sensors. Ive written about computer passwords, which present the same Fifth Amendment issues as passcodes, here and here. In brief, some courts view compelling a suspect to provide a passcode as requiring a testimonial act because the passcode is contained in the suspects mind, and because providing the passcode may constitute an admission that the phone belongs to the suspect or is under the suspects control. That doesnt necessarily mean that a court can never order a suspect to provide a passcode. If the court concludes that it is obvious that the phone in question belongs to the suspect so that the act of providing the passcode wouldnt further incriminate the suspect, the court may rule that the suspects knowledge of the passcode is a foregone conclusion, rendering the Fifth Amendment inapplicable. Or the court might rule that the suspect may be required to provide the passcode if given immunity for the act of providing it. Both those possibilities involve complex legal questions that I hope to explore in a future post.

Although passcodes present thorny Fifth Amendment issues, the early authority on point regarding fingerprint sensors suggests that compelling a suspect to use his or her finger to unlock a phone is not testimonial. The suspect is required only to do a physical act placing his or her finger on a sensor and need not admit anything in his or her mind. My earlier post cited the authority available at that time, but we have some new case law now and it points in the same direction.

New cases. The most significant new case is State v. Diamond, __ N.W.2d __, 2017 WL 163710 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2017). The court ruled that a court order compelling a criminal defendant to provide a fingerprint to unlock the defendants cellphone does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

In brief, the police arrested a burglary suspect and found that he was in possession of a cell phone. They obtained a search warrant for the phone and a court order requiring the suspect to provide a fingerprint to unlock the phone. On appeal, the defendant argued that this violated his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The reviewing court disagreed because the order did not require the defendant to do anything that was testimonial. The court observed that the order did not require him to disclose any knowledge he might have and reasoned that it was no different than an order to provide a voice exemplar or a blood sample.

Less important but also worth noting is State v. Stahl, __ So. 3d __, 2016 WL 7118574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2016). Stahl is a case about a courts authority to order a suspect to provide the passcode to a phone, not a fingerprint. But in the course of discussing the passcode issue, the court stated: Compelling an individual to place his finger on [an] iPhone would not be a protected act; it would be an exhibition of a physical characteristic, the forced production of physical evidence, not unlike being compelled to provide a blood sample or provide a handwriting exemplar.

Caveat. Although requiring a suspect to press the suspects finger to a phone may not require any testimonial activity, orders on this point must be crafted carefully to avoid infringing on a suspects constitutional rights. An order requiring a suspect to unlock a phone, or to provide officers with an impression from the finger that unlocks a phone, might implicate the Fifth Amendment because such an order would require the suspect to decide which finger to use and so to share the suspects knowledge of which finger operates the sensor. Unless the foregone conclusion doctrine applies or the Fifth Amendment issue can be removed through the provision of appropriate immunity, such an order might be improper.

Worthwhile secondary sources. I cited a couple of secondary sources in my previous post. Id like to add to the list two blog posts by Professor Orin Kerr, a leading scholar in this area. His principal post on the topic is here, and a shorter one discussing the Diamond case is here.

Read more here:

Update on Fingerprints, Phones, and the Fifth Amendment ...

Topeka lawyer for elderly women takes Fifth, disbarred amid ethics questions – Topeka Capital Journal

Posted on by

Topeka lawyer Margo E. Burson faced a formal complaint based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The family of one woman said she violated their trust. A nursing home had asked her repeatedly to fill out required paperwork for the other woman.

But when Burson appeared at a disciplinary hearing before the Kansas Supreme Court and was asked what authority she had to remove money from a clients account without a judges approval, she paused.

At this time, I decline to answer, Burson said.

Im sorry. What? Justice Dan Biles asked.

I decline to answer, Burson said.

Are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Biles asked.

Yes, Burson said.

With that, questioning about the status of the money ended. That hearing was June 15.

The Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from testifying to something that might be self-incriminating. A witness may sometimes plead the Fifth in district court cases.

But disciplinary administrator Stan Hazlett said he couldnt recall the protection being used in an attorney disciplinary hearing.

In a letter dated July 18, Burson voluntarily surrendered her Kansas law license, and the Kansas Supreme Court disbarred her a day later.

Burson was facing two complaints filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, which polices the conduct of Kansas lawyers, based on the losses of more than $183,000 by two Topeka women.

The estate of Dorothy May Harvey, an 89-year-old woman who died in September 2011, and a 96-year-old woman living in a senior care facility reported the losses. The name of the older woman hasnt been disclosed in public documents.

Betrayed

Family members were grateful for Bursons help during Harveys final illness, and Burson got initial accounting to family within days of Harveys death.

We trusted her implicitly, said Don Peters, a brother-in-law of Harvey who is married to her sister, June Peters.

Peters, who lives outside of Kansas, said Harveys obituary even reflected respect for the attorney.

The family expresses their deep appreciation to Margo Burson, who lovingly managed her health care affairs, the obituary said.

But the closing of the estate is still ongoing, Peters said. The Peterses became a little suspicious about a year after Harveys death, and by September 2016, they registered a complaint with the disciplinary administrators office.

In essence, she violated our trust, very seriously, Peters said. We feel betrayed, not so much for the money lost but for the time (lost).

Ten internet transfers totaling $66,000 were made from the Harvey estate account, then were deposited into Bursons operating account, according to disciplinary administrators records.

The transfers started on Aug. 19, 2016, and ended on Jan. 30, 2017, and ranged from $1,000 to $19,000 for each transfer, the records show.

We did trust her for years, unfortunately, until we learned she didnt merit our trust, Peters said. She is now our ex-lawyer.

In the other complaint against Burson, more than $117,249 wasnt paid to the account of a 96-year-old woman living at Brewster Place, officials said.

The disciplinary administrator received a complaint from an individual reviewing accounts on behalf of Brewster Place, where Burson had power of attorney for a resident beginning in 2005.

Records show Brewster Place sent letters and emails to Burson on numerous occasions asking her to fill out and file a Medicaid application, a request that began in March 2014.

By February 2017, the residents balance due to Brewster Place was more than $99,000, and on May 24, the balance was $117,249.

When the complaint was filed in June, Burson hadnt completed the Medicaid application process, and the resident remained at the facility.

Brewster Place does not wish to evict the woman, the complaint said.

Worn out

In an interview last week, Burson said she couldnt talk at length about the disciplinary case.

I am not in a position to discuss it at this time, Burson said.

The disciplinary action coincides with Bursons planned retirement, she said. Burson said she had planned to retire at the end of the fiscal year, which was June 30.

The timing on the other matter happened to coincide with her retirement, she said.

It was a surrender of the license, Burson said, rather than a knock down, drag out (disciplinary hearing). Some of us are worn out and ready to do something else.

A full evidentiary hearing was scheduled for Aug. 17 before a three-member panel of lawyers, but that was canceled after Burson surrendered her license.

During her June 15 appearance before the Kansas Supreme Court, Burson asked for time to complete documents for several other clients. She cited her health as a reason for retiring, saying she developed arthritis in the mid-1980s.

Lawyers facing serious allegations in disciplinary cases appear before the supreme court justices, and hearings are recorded on video. Serious cases include alleged acts of dishonesty, misappropriation of money and extreme misconduct.

The day Burson appeared before justices, they temporarily suspended her law license.

Hazlett, the disciplinary administrator, said she was disbarred a month later as a result of the allegations against her and her decision to surrender her license.

Hazlett said he would turn over the investigative materials to a law enforcement agency, and they can decide on how to proceed.

Contact reporter Steve Fry at (785) 295-1206 or @TCJCourtsNCrime on Twitter.

Read the original here:

Topeka lawyer for elderly women takes Fifth, disbarred amid ethics questions - Topeka Capital Journal

Gun Control: How To Solve The Second Amendment – Mintpress News (blog)

Posted on by

The Second Amendment is not limited to a simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

A Colt M4 rifle and a button that reads I Vote Proud Washington Gun Owner.

OPINION In my lifetime gun control has become as explosive as any political issue in this country can be. To my mind, all we need to do to settle that issue once and for all is to read the Second Amendment and do what it says.

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

One possible interpretation of that wording is that the whole rationale for a militia has been eliminated. The idea of a standing army was the single thing that struck the most fear into the hearts of those who authored the Constitution. Since they would brook no standing army, having a militia would be necessary to the security of the Union. Since we now have a standing army, plus a National Guard that has been called out in more than one time of crisis, a militia really is unnecessary. Since a militia is unnecessary, the rationalein the Amendmentfor a right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

On the other hand, there is nothing particularly wrong with having a militia. So, why not have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia) in each state? If one wanted to keep and bear arms, one would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

People who want an utterly unfettered right to keep and bear arms dont like that idea. As I understand it, they offer four main arguments to support their point of view. Those are: the original language argument; the subordinate clause argument; the protection against tyranny argument; and the self-defense argument. All of those arguments are offered in support of their contention thatthe Second Amendment asserts an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

My understanding of those arguments leans heavily onThe Second Amendment Primer, by Les Adams, though I have also participated in discussions on this topic, including face-to-face and via the internet. In the Introduction of his book Mr. Adams informs us that he is a lawyer who had studied constitutional law in law school who was gradually led to investigate the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment. I have also readThe Bill of Rights Primer,co-authored by that same Esq. Adams and Akhill Reed Amar. In both books scholarship is on impressive display.

Related |Marijuana, Gun Control, Minimum Wage Hikes Win At The Polls

In this critique of the argument concerning original language Ill focus on three terms, militia, well regulated, and security. Esq. Adams also talked about bear arms, but I wont bother with that. I suppose any term in the Amendment could be subject to debate, but Ill limit myself to three.

Mr.s Adams and Amar make the case that originally the right to keep and bear arms was a political right accruing to the people as a whole. According to them, it was widely thought at that time that the militia referred to all arms-bearing citizens, which in turn could be all adult malesthough some states would pass laws prohibiting people of (relatively recent) African heritage, even freemen, to own guns. The Constitution makes it very clear, however, that a/the militia was a specific organization (a point Ill revisit below).

As for well regulated, despite any talk of originalism, its meaning doesnt appear to have actually evolved. Esq. Adams says that then and there it meant well functioning and leaves it at that, but when it comes to organizations that is still what well regulated means. The U.S. Army, for example, has a whole book of Regulations for the sole purpose of ensuring that it will function well as an army.

There is another word in the amendment that I think bears some examination, even though it is one Mr. Adams and others, in my experience, ignore. That word is security. When I remembered the amendment, having read it some time ago, I remembered that word as defense, but the word in the amendment is definitely security.

It sounds too contemporary to be in that document. Why did they use that word instead of defense? As noted, the idea of a militia was prompted by the fear of a standing army. With no standing army, if the nation was attacked by a foreign power, an armed, well-regulated militia would be necessary for its defense. So why did they use security instead?

I submit that the answer lies in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, as in Congress shall have the power to. It then lists quite a few Tos. In one of them the militia is indisputably referred to as an organization: organizing it, funding it, etc.

That the Constitution addresses the militia in its original text, before the Bill of Rights was added to it, is not something people who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms emphasize. Altogether, in the two books authored by Mr. Adams that point of interest is mentioned oncein the one he co-authored with Mr. Amar.

One of the powers explicitly given to Congress is To provide for calling forth the militia tosuppress Insurrections. Im saying that is why security is in the Second Amendment, not defense. Security includes defending democratic government against armed insurrection by people who, unable to prevail to their satisfaction politically, would use arms to impose their point of view on everyone else.

That brings us to the protection against tyranny argument. Some people would have us believe that the people who wrote the Constitution to institute a new government put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that there would be people with guns available to perpetrate at their discretion in an armed insurrection against the government.

Related |The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control

That never made much sense to me. For sure, then as now, there were people who thought such protection against tyranny is a good thing, but the Constitution makes it clear that facilitating armed insurrection is not the purpose for having the militia. Tyranny has made an entrance more than once in human history through an armed insurrection.

Most fundamentally, this nation was founded on the proposition that power is the enemy of justice. No person, group, or organization is to be trusted with unfettered power.

Justice is all about containing power, keeping it on a leash, regulating it. That is why distrust of governmental power is completely validand a concern that I, a rationalist who is neither a conservative nor a liberal nor an adherent of any other ideology, share. [On my Web site,www.ajustsolution.com, I have a proposal for separating the power of printing money from government (andthe banking system)which would allow us to end all taxation and public debt, among other good things it would accomplish.]

Gun advocate Luke Crawford displays his rifle across his chest in protest at a gun control rally at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta. (Jaime Henry-White/AP)

Governmental power is not the only kind of power that exists, however. Having money is a form of power, too, which is one reason why many other people and I distrust Big Business. Having a gun in your hand is also a form of power. That is why many other people and I want to regulate in some way the ownership of guns.

Actually, for many who argue for an unfettered right to keep and bear arms any discussion of a/the militia is beside the point, anyway. Thats because all of that is contained, they say, in a subordinate clause. It is their contention that a subordinate clause, being subordinate, is of little or no importance compared to the main clause.

I am genuinely embarrassed for lawyers who would say such a thing and mean it. In the first place, I challenge anyone to show me any document ever written by any lawyer that didnt contain at least one subordinate clause in every sentence. Would they call those clauses meaningless verbiage? They would not.

In the English language subordinate clauses have always mattered, including the place and time of the writing of the Constitution. Those who suggest otherwise are confusing one of the words we use to describe the parts of a sentence with the more common meaning of the word subordinate.

In grammar, a clause is designated as being subordinate because it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence unto itself. It would make no sense to write, A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

On the other hand, consider writing, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That can stand alone as a sentence and make perfectly good sense. Grammatically, that is why that part of the Second Amendment is called a main clause.

Yet, the Second Amendment is not limited to that simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

The authors of the Second Amendment wanted to say something more. They wanted to relate that right to something else. That is why they added a subordinate clause that did not have to be there in order for the Second Amendment to be grammatically and logically correct. If anything, that enhances the importance of that subordinate clause. It obviously refers to the militia of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

That does not quite exhaust the arguments of those who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms, however. Finally, we have the self-defense argument.

Plain and simply, that is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Shame on the strict constructionists, much less the originalists among us who bring that topic into the discussion.

Related | Gun Control After Sandy Hook: Is There A Middle Ground?

Mr. Adams does include quite a few quotes from people who have supported a right to keep and bear arms on that ground. Many people may have voted for it on that ground. For one thing, there was no such thing as a police department in that place (or anywhere in Europe) at that time.

That does not make self-defense part of the Second Amendment as it was written. Just as the authors of that amendment could have left out the subordinate clause they included in it, they could have included a clause about self-defense, but did not.

In support of his point of view Mr. Adams does quote eight (but only eight) state constitutions that include a right to keep and bear arms. Only one of the eight includes any mention of self-defense.

In the primer on the Bill of Rights Esq. Adams co-authored, they discuss how the Fourteenth Amendment extended the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the individual states and suggest that it changed the focus of the intent of the right in question to self-defense. They argue that much of that change in focus had to do with allowing people of (relatively recent) African heritage to defend themselves against racists. What gun-hating Liberal could argue with that?

Whatever anyone else may say, and for whatever reason, I say the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the wording of the Second Amendment or explicitly introduce wording into the Constitution to change the intent of the Second Amendment. It still has all the same wordsand no morewith that pesky subordinate clause that did not have to be there still there.

So, let each state have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia). While, again, Article I of the Constitution grants explicit powers to Congress regarding any militia, surely there is room in there for each state to specify what kind(s) of guns the members of the militia in that state may keep and bear, and whether a gun can be kept at homeor on ones personor not. To own a gun of any kind, however, a person would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

Stephen isa lifetime student of history, philosophy, and economics (with an M.A. in the last of those subjects) who has published essays and articles in various media, print and on-line (to include an academic journal,Contemporary Philosophy), and a book,A Just Solution.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

See the rest here:

Gun Control: How To Solve The Second Amendment - Mintpress News (blog)

Shock: Gun Control Icon Defends Second Amendment Rights of Grandparents Targeted in Michigan – Breitbart News

Posted on by

The case is unfolding in Michigan and revolves aroundWilliam and Jill Johnsons efforts to care for their grandson.

On July 18 Breitbart News reported that theSecond Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed suit against the head of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services over alleged violations of the Johnsons gun rights. William Johnson claims the case worker said, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Breitbart News that this sacrifice of Second Amendment rights would include having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person.

Now the New York Times is covering the case, which they summarize by reporting, Mr. Johnson and his wife, Jill, are suing their home state, Michigan, which bars foster parents from carrying concealed weapons. At issue is whether the states rules amount to a functional ban on owning a firearm, in violation of the Constitutions Second Amendment.

They indicate that William Johnson says he had to forfeit his carry gun under duress in order to satisfy the requirements for foster care.

UCLAs Adam Winkler spoke about the Johnsons suit, saying, This is not a case thats outlandish or off the wall. Foster parents do have constitutional rights, and they dont forsake those rights just because they become foster parents.

William Johnson is a disabled military veteran and his wife owns a fishing tackle shop. Guns have been part of their lives, both for sport and personnel protection, and hesays the area in which they live is full of bear and other predators that could easily attack him, his wife, or his grandson. Having a handgun on his person is a way to be sensibly and constitutionally prepared.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original here:

Shock: Gun Control Icon Defends Second Amendment Rights of Grandparents Targeted in Michigan - Breitbart News

2nd Amendment Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun … – Breitbart News

Posted on by

The gun rights group is warning law-abiding armed citizens that their civil rights could be in jeopardy due to that states restrictive gun control laws.

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb observed:

The California Legislature has been out of control for years when it comes to placing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens. Right now, I wouldnt suggest to any gun owner that they even travel through the state, much less to it as their final destination.

Lawmakers in Sacramento either ignored or have forgotten that in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in SAFs landmark case ofMcDonald v. City of Chicago. The Second Amendments protection of the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments, but they seem rather oblivious to that fact in the halls of Californias Legislature.

He added:

If you are licensed to carry in your home state, that license is not recognized in California. It doesnt matter how many background checks youve gone through or whether you took a gun safety course. Your license is no good in the Golden State, which suggests that your safety and the safety of your family are of no concern to state lawmakers or city administrators. You could be prosecuted for having a gun for personal protection, or you might get killed because you didnt.

Gottlieb is spot on. California refuses to recognize any concealed carry permit other the one they issue. This is an expression of Democratic hegemony whereby they have made concealed carry licenses extremely difficult for Californians to acquire fewer than 100,000 Californians have a license and they do not want to provide a means for additional law-abiding citizens to be armed via reciprocity.

What does this mean? It means that when a visitor from another state drives into California, he is not supposed to be armed, regardless of the number of out-of-state concealed permits he possesses or the risks associated with being defenseless. None of these things matter because the Democrats have spoken.

Gottliebs verdict: By not going to California, the life you save may be your own.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read this article:

2nd Amendment Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun ... - Breitbart News

The First Amendment won’t protect you from saying something your company doesn’t like – Marketplace.org

Posted on by

ByDavid Brancaccio

August 08, 2017 | 8:58 AM

Google has fired the engineer who circulated an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity initiatives. The former employee, James Damore, argued that biological differences between men and women are responsible for tech's gender gap.

Google said he violated company policy about promoting gender stereotypes. The company did not publicly name him, but Damore later revealed his identity to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. Damore claims he has a legal right to express his views and that he's going to fight the dismissal.

Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, joined us to talk about the role the First Amendment has in cases like these and when companies can fire you.

David Brancaccio:I know you tend to focus on public employee free speech rights. But if someone works for the private sector, help us understand what the law says about our ability to say what we want in the workplace.

Lee Rowland:Well, the law doesn't say a lot about it. The First Amendment really only acts as a restraint on government. In fact, the first few words of the First Amendment are: Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech or of the press or religion. So when you work for the private sector and your employer is not the government, the Constitution gives you zero protection in terms of keeping your job based on what you say. So while it is possible that states and localities could pass laws protecting speech and a very, very tiny number of cities and localities have done so 99.9 percent of the time, there is no legal barrier to a private employer firing an employee because of their speech at or outside of the workplace.

Brancaccio: Soif you're signing up at a private employer and they hand you the code of conduct or the employee handbook with rules, you ought to take those seriously.

Rowland:That's exactly right, because they have every right to fire you should you run afoul of them. Now there is an important asterisk on this, which is employers may not use firing you because of your speech as a pretext to violate other laws that prevent discrimination. So, for example, federal laws that prevent employers from firing employees because of their religion or because of their pregnancy or their sex or their race. But, if it is solely because of their speech, there are no federal laws and no laws at the state level that I know of that give employees that kind of protection based on their speech rather than who they are.

Brancaccio:Now there is some talk in this case of the Google employee that somehow National Labor Relations Board rules might somehow apply. It's not a unionized position as far as I'm aware. Does that inform this discussion at all?

Rowland: Ishould be the first to admit I'm not a labor lawyer, so there may be some obscure contractual provision that he can take refuge in, but it certainly doesn't come from the Constitution.

Read the original here:

The First Amendment won't protect you from saying something your company doesn't like - Marketplace.org