Crews make progress against Lake fire amid spiking heat near Castaic Lake – LA Daily News

CASTAIC >> Crews took advantage of cooler overnight temperatures to beat back a wildfire that broke out near Castaic Lake amid a heat wave Saturday.

Officials said the Lake fire, which began Saturday afternoon as a wind-blown fire in terrain near the 5 Freeway, was holding at 1,000 acres and 10 percent contained Sunday.

Firefighters will be working throughout the day utilizing aircraft and troops on the ground to fight this fire, Angeles National Forest spokesman Nathan Judy said. We have some smoldering spots within the fire perimeter and some brush thats inside the line itself that will catch fire this afternoon so if you see some smoke its just due to those interior islands of fuel that havent burned off yet.

A firefighter suffered a minor injury battling the blaze just after 10 a.m. and was taken to an area hospital, Judy said, adding that the upper northeastern portion of the lake has been closed.

Video: Angeles National Forest spokesman gives Lake fire update Sunday

The fire, which had burned two outbuildings Saturday night, is in dry, difficult terrain and arson units are investigating the fires origin. The location of the fire is the peninsula northwest of the upper Castaic Lake, Judy said.

We have fire crews all around this fire he said. The east side of the perimeter is where well be working this afternoon to make sure we can tie the dozer line, which is up to the north of us, down to the lake itself.

No homes are currently threatened, according to Judy.

Fire crews will be working hard today to put a containment line all the way around this fire, but right now the fire is looking really good, he said.

The fire was first reported around 2 p.m. Saturday and by 9 p.m. had burned 1,000 acres.

Its a largely recreational area, Los Angeles County Fire Department Inspector Richard Licon said Saturday. We are directing those that are in the area just know that the air quality is going to be poor.

There are a total 450 total personnel working to battle the fire including overnight and Sunday firefighters from the ground and aircraft, Judy said. Additionally, there are nine aircraft committed to fighting the fire but are not all used at once, Judy said.

Fire personnel know it will continue to be hot with temperatures in the 100s, Judy said, while humidity will be in the teens but are optimistic.

The winds for the most part are going to remain low, Judy said, with winds ranging from 4 to 8 mph and gusts up to 13 mph as of noon Sunday. The winds arent as big of a concern as the heat. Were just making sure our firefighters are staying hydrated when theyre out on the fire line.

The National Weather Service forecasts the high to be 102 degrees in the area Sunday with a southwest wind around 15 mph, with gusts up to 25 mph.

Advertisement

Judy said the U.S. Forest Service was requested to the scene for a brush fire call at 5:26 p.m. Saturday.

When the forest service arrived, the incident was at 50 acres before it grew exponentially from grasses in the area that fueled the flames.

The fire eventually slowed down as it moved through the terrain which gave firefighters enough time to attack it by boat and from the air, Judy said. Fire crews were initially transported via boat to fight the fire, he added.

Officials were later able to find another road off Templin Highway that took them around to the back side of the west side, which is the flank of the fire, Judy said.

And that allowed us to get engines and hand crews over on the west side where they were able to work off the dirt road that was in the area to slow the progression of the fire using that natural barrier of that road, he said.

Judy expects the containment number to increase and he doesnt expect the acreage to grew unless theres a large wind push or fire spots found outside the line.

The west side of the recreation area with a boat launch is open but the east side, where fire crews are at and is called the main boat launch, is closed.

He asked people who are boating to stay away from the peninsula with the smoldering smoke where fire personnel are working.

If they are out enjoying the holiday, be very safe with fire, Judy said.

The cause of the fire is under investigation with the U.S. Forest Service, the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.

City News Service and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:

Crews make progress against Lake fire amid spiking heat near Castaic Lake - LA Daily News

Advocates of gay adoption see both progress, obstacles – New Haven Register

With tens of thousands of children lingering in foster care across the United States, waiting for adoption, Illinois schoolteachers Kevin Neubert and Jim Gorey did their bit. What began with their offer to briefly care for a newborn foster child evolved within a few years into the adoption of that little boy and all four of his older siblings who also were in foster care.

The story of their two-dad, five-kid family exemplifies the potential for same-sex couples to help ease the perennial shortfall of adoptive homes for foster children. Yet, even as more gays and lesbians are adopting, there are efforts by state and federal politicians to protect faith-based adoption agencies that object to placing children in such families.

Sweeping new measures in Texas and South Dakota allow state-funded agencies to refuse to place children with unmarried or gay prospective parents because of religious objections. A bill passed last month in Alabama applies to agencies using private funds. A newly introduced bill in Congress would extend such provisions nationwide.

For those who support gay adoption, the entire phenomenon is very much a good news/bad news story. Gays and lesbians have ever-expanding opportunities to adopt, and a strong likelihood of finding community support if they do so. Yet bias against prospective gay adoptive parents remains pervasive, whether its overt or subtle, and experts in the field believe that many thousands of gays and lesbians are dissuaded from adopting for fear of encountering such bias.

Advertisement

Some of these agencies are quite clear that they dont work with certain sorts of people, said Currey Cook, who handles adoption and foster care issues for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal.

Some would-be gay adopters seek out other agencies, Cook said. But some people think, Im not going to risk being stigmatized and turned away, so Im not going to step up at all.

Theres no official, up-to-date count of gay and lesbian adoptive parents, but the number is on the rise.

Same-sex couples are nearly three times as likely to adopt as heterosexual couples, says Gary Gates, a specialist in LGBT demography. His latest analysis of Census Bureau data indicates that in 2015, the year that same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, there were 44,000 adopted children being raised by 28,000 same-sex couples. That number of children was double his estimate from 2013.

For some gays and lesbians, particularly those able to afford the $20,000 to $40,000 cost of a typical private adoption, the odds of success are good.

If you have financial means, you can find providers who are welcoming and inclusive and help you through that process, said Ellen Kahn, who oversees youth and family programs for the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights group.

She says problems often arise when gays and lesbians seek the far less costly option of adopting out of foster care, given that many of the placements are handled by faith-based agencies under contract with child-welfare departments.

We wouldnt have kids waiting if we had enough families seeking to adopt, Kahn said. Yet the LGBT community is being pushed aside.

Kim Paglino, program director for the Donaldson Adoption Institute, says gays and lesbians can benefit from networking and careful research as they seek an agency to work with.

It can take a while to find the right place, she said. You have very clear messages from the agencies that are not interested in same-sex couples. Sometimes knowing where you shouldnt go is helpful.

Among the supportive agencies is Vermont-based Friends in Adoption. Its founder and director, Dawn Smith-Pliner, says shes heartened by the overall trends of LGBT adoption in the past decade, but now worries about a resurgence of frantic phone calls if, given recent political developments, more agencies feel emboldened to refuse placements with gays and lesbians.

Do we have to go backward again before we go forward? she asked.

Of the couples currently posting profiles on her agencys web site, expressing their yearning to adopt, about half are same-sex couples. Smith-Pliner says birth mothers are increasingly open to placing babies with such couples, once the agency raises it as an option.

Don Dupont and Brian Hiller, music teachers in New Yorks Westchester County who married in 2011, decided they would try to adopt, and turned to Friends in Adoption at the recommendation of friends. They posted their profile online, stressing their love of music and love for each other, and it struck a chord with a pregnant woman in Californias Napa County who chose them to provide an adoptive home for her child.

Hiller and Dupont were on hand, and welcomed warmly, at a Catholic hospital in Napa County when their son, Brandon, was born in 2015. They have arranged an open adoption thats intended to include annual visits with Brandons mother and her family in California.

As for their home turf in New York, Weve been fully embraced by every person weve met, Dupont said.

In Illinois, Kevin Neubert and Jim Gorey opted to pursue adoption out of foster care after calculating that a private adoption might be too costly.

Following night classes to qualify as foster parents, they agreed in December 2011 to provide a temporary home for a newborn baby. A stay intended to last only for a few days was extended into several months, and Neubert and Gorey learned that the baby had four older siblings who were also in foster care.

Initially, the two men thought about trying to adopt three of the children, and eventually decided to adopt all five, a process finalized in June 2014.

Some people thought we were crazy, but everyone was supportive of keeping the kids together, Neubert said.

The youngest, Derek, is 5; the eldest, Luke, is 12. There are two other brothers, 10 and 7, and a middle sister aged 9.

Neubert and Gorey, who married in 2010 and live in the Chicago suburb of Naperville, said the family has enjoyed strong community support, though shopping trips could be a spectacle. We didnt know if people were looking at us because were two guys with kids, or because we had so many kids in tow, said Gorey.

The dads have coached their children on how to handle potentially awkward situations.

If someone asks, Wheres the mom? Derek knows to say there are all different types of families, and in our family there are two dads, and no mom, Neubert said.

The path to adoption was bumpier for Dr. Christopher Harris, though by some measures he was an ideal candidate when he first pursued that goal 17 years ago in Nashville, Tennessee. He was a pediatrician and faculty member at Vanderbilt University, but he also was single and openly gay.

For more than a year, he worked with a church-affiliated adoption agency, taking parenting classes, submitting to home visits. Yet his application never progressed, and he finally deduced that it was because he was gay. He reached a similar dead end with a second agency, which took fees from him, and only later when he pressed for an update said it would not place children with single men.

It was frustrating for me to get passed over, Harris said. As a pediatrician, I look at the science and see there are no data that children raised by gay and lesbian parents dont do well.

He persisted, finally finding an agency that was able to connect him with a woman open to having her soon-to-be-born child adopted by a gay man. The baby, Maria, was born in November 2002, and adopted soon afterward by Harris.

Father and daughter now live in Los Angeles, where Maria has completed her first year of high school. During several summers, the two of them have attended a weeklong gathering of LGBT families on Cape Cod. Its very good for me and my daughter to be around families like ours, Harris said.

Those annual events on Cape Cod are organized by the Family Equality Council, a national group that supports LGBT families.

The councils chief policy officer, Denise Brogan-Kator, went to Texas to testify against the adoption-related bill there and was distressed by its passage. The bill is designed to allow agencies to turn qualified families away, she said.

There are more than 100,000 children in foster care in the U.S. waiting to be adopted, and child welfare officials constantly struggle to find enough qualified adoptive families. Some jurisdictions such as New York City and Los Angeles have stepped up efforts to recruit gays and lesbians to adopt, but agencies that shun gay clients operate in most states.

Buckner International, a large agency based in Texas, specifies on its web site that applicants seeking to adopt should be heterosexual married couples or single adults who are not cohabiting with a partner.

Catholic Charities, which does child-welfare work across the country, says it seeks to ensure that the children it places in adoptive homes enjoy the advantage of having a mother and a father who are married.

In some jurisdictions, authorities have said Catholic Charities must serve same-sex couples. Rather than comply, Catholic Charities shut down adoption services in Massachusetts, Illinois, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

While many faith-based agencies contend that children fare best in the home of a married father and mother, theres a growing body of research contending that children fare just as well in the homes of same-sex couples.

Initially, such research focused on lesbian couples. However, Charlotte Patterson, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, said recent research suggests children adopted by gay male couples also are faring well. Indeed a 2014 study in Britain , led by University of Cambridge researchers, asserted that gay dads did better at parenting than lesbian and straight couples, likely because they faced more challenges en route to parenthood.

It seems that those who successfully complete the adoption process become particularly committed parents, the researchers concluded.

Bethany Christian Services, which provides adoption and foster-care services in more than 30 states, says its religious principles preclude serving same-sex couples directly, but it has established procedures for referring them to LGBT-supportive agencies.

When we meet with them, were very respectful, said Bethanys president, Bill Blacquiere. We want them to have all the rights any citizen has, including the right to be adoptive or foster parents.

Follow David Crary on Twitter.

Link:

Advocates of gay adoption see both progress, obstacles - New Haven Register

Firefighters make progress on North Millsap Fire – Canon City Daily Record

The lightning-caused North Millsap Fire is burning in rugged terrain about 11 miles north of Caon City and 5 miles southwest of Victor, (BLM Royal Gorge Field Office / Courtesy Photo)

Fire crews Saturday made significant progress toward containing the North Millsap Fire burning between Shelf Road and Phantom Canyon.

As of Sunday afternoon, the fire had spread to 22 acres and was considered 20 percent contained.

The fire first was reported Thursday afternoon 11 miles north of Caon City. On Saturday, firefighters from the Royal Gorge Field Office, along with other federal, state and local agencies were working to actively suppress the lightning-caused fire.

"Regardless of the difficult terrain, significant line construction was accomplished," said Gregg Goodland, Public Information Officer for the Royal Gorge Field Office, in a media release Sunday. "Aircraft assisted on the more active portions of the fire."

He said cooler and wetter weather Sunday and Monday is expected to provide excellent opportunities for continued progress.

The fire is burning in mixed conifer, ponderosa pine and Gambel oak fuels.

Resources include 70 total personnel including a Type-3 Incident Commander; a Type-1 hand crew; a Type-2 hand crew; a Type-1 and a Type-3 helicopter; and various overhead and support.

This fire is being managed with a full-suppression strategy because of the proximity of private land.

There have been no road closures, but the Fremont County Sheriff's Office has asked that if motorists must use Shelf Road or Phantom Canyon Road to use caution as there will be heavy truck traffic with fire apparatus responding to the fire.

Updates on the fire are posted on Inciweb at https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/5249.

Carie Canterbury: 719-276-7643, canterburyc@canoncitydailyrecord.com

Read the rest here:

Firefighters make progress on North Millsap Fire - Canon City Daily Record

Pride Fest celebrates progress, remembers Pulse – WBIR-TV

Thousands of supporters showed their support for the LGBT community at Knoxville's Pride Parade and Festival on Saturday.

Grant Robinson, WBIR 10:28 PM. EDT June 17, 2017

KNOXVILLE - Thousands of supporters showed their support for the LGBT community at Knoxville's Pride Parade and Festival on Saturday.

The event comes just before the two year anniversary of the Supreme Court's monumental decision on marriage equality ,and barely one year after the shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando that killed 49 people.

Festival-goers said celebrating and remembering both events made this year's Pride Fest even more meaningful.

"I've never felt so much love and acceptance," Krista Bunch said.

2017 marked Bunch's third Pride Fest and first time participating in the parade.

"I have seen an increase of support among people that, honestly, I would have never thought would show support," Bunch said. "People are becoming more open, more accepting and it honestly makes my heart happy to be able to see so much support, especially in Tennessee."

Yet despite the progress made for LGBT rights in recent years, some say there's still more work to do.

"A lot of people were under the impression that when marriage equality passed that civil rights issues for gays were done, but because we do have the housing discrimination, because there's so much employment discrimination it's important that we have these gatherings and kind of encourage each other," Perry Stevens said.

About half a dozen protestors stood at the end of the parade with signs, speaking through megaphones. Stevens says they just help the LGBT community become even more tightly knit.

"It's not easy to listen to some of the things they say," Stevens said. "They certainly have the right to say them, but we also have a right to drown them out with our cheers, so we've been doing that too."

Mayor Madeline Rogero reaffirmed her support to the LGBT community.

"It just lets everybody relax and have some fun," Mayor Rogero said. "And you know when you're in the midst of a struggle, which we are on this issue, you have to take some time to celebrate."

Several festival-goers wore shirts supporting the victims of last year's Pulse nightclub shooting.

RELATED:Pulse shooting: Remembering the victims one year later

"It made quite an impression," Stevens said. "Last year at this time, it was a very somber mood because of that. This year we're still remembering them and we don't want anybody too forget what happened to them. That's one of the reasons we're out here."

Stevens says events like Saturday's Pride Fest are important because they help move the community forward, even through hard times.

Though Saturday's Pride Parade and Festival is the summer's largest event, Knox Pride will host other events throughout the summer. You can find a list of those HERE.

2017 WBIR.COM

Read more here:

Pride Fest celebrates progress, remembers Pulse - WBIR-TV

Garson Fire reaches 50-75 acres west of Reno; evacuations in progress – KRNV My News 4

by News 4-Fox 11 Digital Staff

A brush fire burns near Garson Road west of Reno on Sunday, June 18, 2017 (Photo: Reno Fire Department)

Crews are responding to a brush fire that sparked near Boomtown west of Reno Sunday, according to fire officials.

Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District reported the fire at Garson Road south of I-80 has burned 50 to 75 acres. The Reno Police Department said an unknown number of nearby residents are being evacuated.

Crews are working on structure protection on Quilici Ranch Road.

Truckee Meadows Fire, Nevada Division of Forestry and the Reno Fire Department are responding, and air resources are on scene.

The Nevada National Guard is providing a water tender to assist as well. Truckee Meadows Fire said target shooting is the suspected cause, though it has not been officially confirmed.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

For a live stream of the fire, click here.

Continue reading here:

Garson Fire reaches 50-75 acres west of Reno; evacuations in progress - KRNV My News 4

Billionaires are stockpiling land that could be used in the apocalypse here’s where they’re going – The Advocate

Melia Robinson, provided by

Kim Kyung Hoon/Reuters

A rising number of Americanbillionaires are channeling their inner Bear Grylls, and some are doing it in preparation for an apocalyptic event be it viral epidemic, nuclear war, or cataclysmic pole shift.

Reid Hoffman, the cofounder of LinkedIn and a notable investor, told The New Yorker earlier this year he estimates more than 50% of Silicon Valley billionaires have bought some level of "apocalypse insurance," like an underground bunker.

A new article in Forbes suggests the super-rich are making serious land grabs in America's heartland, where the climate is mild and the locations are conducive to survivalism, farming, and living on the land. States like Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming are home to a number of fortified shelters and vacation homes where wealthy billionaires could happily live out theirpost-doomsday (or retirement) days.

According to Forbes contributor Jim Dobson, lots of billionaires have private planes "ready to depart at a moment's notice." They also own motorcycles, weaponry, and generators.

None of the billionaires named by Forbes have said publicly that their vast amounts of land will be used for apocalypse preparations though they certainly would make good hide-outs.

John Malone, who made his fortune in cable and communications, is the nation's biggest individual landowner. Malone owns 2.2 million acres across six states including huge swaths of Maine and New Hampshire. The cable king told Forbes in 2011 that he made the land grabs as an investment. He said he loves to fish and occasionally bird-hunt on his properties.

Media mogul Ted Turner, the second biggest individual landowner in the US, owns 2 million acres across Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota.

Philip Anschulze, a railroad and oil magnate, locked down 434,000 acres in Wyoming. Amazon's Jeff Bezos has 400,000 acres in Texas. And Stan Kroenke, owner of a massive sports and entertainment holding company, bought 225,000 acres in Montana.

One of the more surprising real estate tycoons is David Hall, a Mormon engineer, who has been snapping up farmland in Vermont. He wants to build sustainable, high-density communities based on the writings of religious figure Joseph Smith.

In the event of the end of the world, the world's financial leaders may be the most prepared.

Join the conversation about this story

NOW WATCH: Look inside the Arctic 'doomsday' seed vault built to protect millions of crops from any disaster

See Also:

SEE ALSO:This 15-story underground doomsday shelter for the 1% has luxury homes, guns, and armored trucks

See the original post here:

Billionaires are stockpiling land that could be used in the apocalypse here's where they're going - The Advocate

Where billionaires are stockpiling land for the apocalypse: Map – The Real Deal Magazine

Where billionaires are stockpiling land for the apocalypse: Map

By Business Insider | June 18, 2017 05:30PM

From TRD New York: When the apocalypse arrives, life goes on. Thats the possibility some are preparing for, at least.

A new article in Forbes suggests the USbillionairesare making significant land grabs in Americas heartland, where the climate is mild and the locations are conducive to survivalism and living on the land. The Midwest ishome to several fortified shelters and vacation homes where the super-richcould happily live out their post-doomsday (or retirement) days.

Reid Hoffman, the cofounder of LinkedIn and a notable investor,told The New Yorker earlier this year he estimated more than 50% of Silicon Valley billionaires had bought some level of apocalypse insurance, like a bunker.

Fortified shelters, built to withstand catastrophic events from viral epidemic to nuclear war, seem to be experiencing a wave of interest in general as hints of a nuclear conflict ramp up.

Real estate developersare capitalizing on the moment with luxuryunderground doomsday shelters that cost as much as$3 million. These post-apocalyptic homes, often built onretired military bases or in missile silos, includeluxury amenities and safety featureslike nuclear blast doors, armored trucks, and massive storesof food and water.

The map below reveals where American billionaires are stockpiling land that could be used in the apocalypse.

More:

Where billionaires are stockpiling land for the apocalypse: Map - The Real Deal Magazine

Welcome to Christian Rationalism

Christian Rationalism being a spiritualistic doctrine can offer you important teachings about your spiritual life as well as solutions for your problems, even those related to psychic conditions like depression, alcoholism, visions, anguish, obsession, compulsions, phobias and other possible spiritual disorders.

Christian Rationalism will teach you that it is within yourself the solution for your problems. This philosophy will show you that there are no miracles as everything in the Universe is subject to common, natural and immutable laws.

If you are tired of the lack of answers to your questions, then please accept our invitation to study Christian Rationalism.

Invite a friend. Print or email a leaflet

If you are interested in letting a friend or a family member know about Christian Rationalism, please download the leaflet What is Christian Rationalism. Then send it to a friend via email or if you prefer you can print it and use the post office or give it in person. Please click HERE to download the leaflet.

If you would like to learn how to practice Psychic Cleansing at home or anywhere, please click HERE to download the leaflet.

At the top of this page, you will find a Menu with all important topics related to Christian Rationalism.

Develop Time Management Skills Humberto Rodrigues We understand the difficulties that many people have to manage time and plan daily activities, having a particular time for each task. The unconfident ones go through live without knowing what to do exactly. They waste precious time thinking in many different subjects without

Continue reading

Take Firm and Decisive Steps Luiz de Mattos The world is full of revelations, but everyone should face them firmly and righteously, thinking high and with courage. The ones that take firm and decisive steps know how to conduct themselves virtuously throughout life, overcoming the difficulties that may arise. Christian

Continue reading

Face and Overcome Setbacks Humberto Rodrigues People must face the difficulties that are natural of earthly life the inevitable setbacks of life with vigor, courage and positive attitudes, without languishing and uprising. Positivity is a spiritual quality that enables the individuals to better face it all within the

Continue reading

Talk Less and do More Antonio Cottas All around the world, we never have before spoken so much; we never heard so many opinions as nowadays. People are talking too much, posing many ideas, and however saying less and of little persuasion. The world needs more constructive actions rather than

Continue reading

Free will means freedom of action Free will is a spiritual gift controlled by conscious choice which, when well used, is guided by reason. The greater the power of reasoning, the easier it becomes to control free will. Free will means complete freedom of action, both for good and evil

Continue reading

Successive reincarnations to acquire more knowledge and experience Comprehension and knowledge about things are an outgrowth of spiritual evolution. Many of those who are now incarnated already look at life from a different angle which becomes closer and closer to truth. Let us not believe that fanatics will admit as

Continue reading

Spiritual evolution and free will Time will come when sectarians will discern their absurdities. Then they will no longer rebuff that which is rational, logic and intuitive because they will find the explanation for all of lifes phenomena in the very remote origins of the evolution of the spirit. It

Continue reading

Under the Laws of the Universe, evolution is inevitable However, one thing is certain: evolution must be accomplished, at all costs. This is an imposition of the natural, immutable laws that rule the Universe. And these laws are not influenced by the foolish pretentiousness of those who believe they can

Continue reading

Evolution is the fundamental principle of life in the Universe Evolution, especially spiritual evolution, is the fundamental principle of life in the Universe. In evolution lies the basis for the understanding of everything that comes to pass within and outside the reach of human perception. Whenever evolution is disregarded, there

Continue reading

Evolution of the spirit: atom to man There is a theory known as molecules-to-man evolution that refers to a large scale evolution of organisms over a long period of time. It explains that small organisms have evolved into more complex organisms through the improvement or addition of new organs and

Continue reading

See the original post here:

Welcome to Christian Rationalism

China’s Edits To ‘Alien: Covenant’ Reportedly Censor Out Most Of The Reasons To See The Movie – UPROXX


Dark Horizons
China's Edits To 'Alien: Covenant' Reportedly Censor Out Most Of The Reasons To See The Movie
UPROXX
The nation has long had a strange relationship with gay content in films, blocking films like Brokeback Mountain but having no issues with Beauty And The Beast's touted gay moment. Both are at very different ends of the film spectrum, but the nation ...
China Censors Cut Alien: Covenant Fass-KissDark Horizons
Gay Kiss Cut From Chinese Version of Alien: CovenantGizmodo

all 12 news articles »

Read more here:

China's Edits To 'Alien: Covenant' Reportedly Censor Out Most Of The Reasons To See The Movie - UPROXX

Internet censorship in India is on the rise – KLAS-TV

Related Content

NEW DELHI (CNNMoney) - India is becoming increasingly trigger-happy when it comes to preventing people accessing the internet.

The nation has shut down the internet in various regions 20 times in the first five months of this year, according to a report from Human Rights Watch. Four of those blackouts have taken place this month, all in states where violent protests took place.

That represents a dramatic uptick from last year, when 31 shutdowns were recorded in total, and an even greater increase since 2012 -- which saw only three shutdowns.

The Indian government did not respond to a request for comment on the report, but has argued in the past that restricting access is sometimes necessary to prevent social media rumors from fueling violence.

The disputed and conflict-ridden region of Kashmir, for example, has seen 33 shutdowns in five years.

"The lack of transparency and failure to explain these shutdowns only furthers the perception that they are meant to suppress nonviolent reporting and criticism of the government," said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director for Human Rights Watch.

While the Indian government doesn't have its own internet-blocking apparatus like China's "Great Firewall," it can order service providers to go offline. That power stems from a law written in 1973, which allows the government to impose various restrictions on the public to prevent everything from riots to "obstruction, annoyance or injury."

India, which is often referred to as the world's largest democracy, has been called out for online censorship before.

A 2016 survey of internet freedom in 65 countries by U.S.-based think tank Freedom House gave India a score of 41. China, with a score of 88, came last. Estonia performed best with a score of 6.

In another report by the Brookings Institution last year, India tied for first place with Iraq for the highest number of internet shutdowns among 19 countries (including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and North Korea).

Facebook also ranks the Indian government among the top countries asking it to censor content. The social media giant said in its latest Government Requests Report that India ordered 719 pieces of content to be restricted, lower only than Brazil, Turkey and Germany.

India topped Facebook's list for two straight years up to June 2015.

View post:

Internet censorship in India is on the rise - KLAS-TV

What Critics of Campus Protest Get Wrong About Free Speech – The … – The Atlantic

Middlebury Colleges decision to discipline 67 students who participated in a raucous and violent demonstration against conservative author Charles Murray brings closure to one of several disturbing incidents that took place on college campuses this semester. But larger disputes about the state of free speech on campusand in public liferemain unresolved.

Many critics have used the incident at Middlebury, as well as violent protests at the University of California Berkeley, to argue that free speech is under assault. To these critics, liberal activists who respond aggressively to ideas they dislike are hypocrites who care little about the liberal values of tolerance and free speech.

The left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down, Milo Yiannopoulos posted on Facebook after protesters stormed a building at Berkeley where he was scheduled to speak in February.

Such criticism has not come solely from the right. Nor is it new. Over the past few years, a steady stream of commentary has deplored the state of free speech and intellectual inquiry on campus. The Atlantic has published a series of articles with titles such as The New Intolerance of Student Activism and The Glaring Evidence that Free Speech is Threatened on Campus. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has argued that free speech in academia is at greater risk now than at any time in recent history. And the eminent First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams went so far as to claim (prior to the election of Donald Trump) that the single greatest threat facing free speech today comes from a minority of students, who strenuously, and I think it is fair to say, contemptuously, disapprove of the views of speakers whose view of the world is different from theirs and who seek to prevent those views from being heard.

The violence at Middlebury and Berkeley was troubling and should be condemned by both liberals and conservatives. But the truth is that violent demonstrations on campus are rare, and are not what the critics have primarily been railing against. Instead, they have been complaining about an atmosphere of intense pushback and protest that has made some speakers hesitant to express their views and has subjected others to a range of social pressure and backlash, from shaming and ostracism to boycotts and economic reprisal.

Are these forms of social pressure inconsistent with the values of free speech?

That is a more complicated question than many observers seem willing to acknowledge.

A simplistic answer would be that such pressure does not conflict with free speech because the First Amendment applies only to government censorship, not to restrictions imposed by individuals. But most of us care about free speech not just as a matter of constitutional law but as a matter of principle, so the absence of government sanction hardly offers much comfort.

Many of the reasons why Americans object to official censorship also apply to the suppression of speech by private means. If we conceive of free speech as promoting the search for truthas the metaphor of the marketplace of ideas suggestswe should be troubled whether that search is hindered by public officials or private citizens. The same is true of democratic justifications for free speech. If the point of free speech is to facilitate the open debate that is essential for self-rule, any measure that impairs that debate should give us pause, regardless of its source.

But although social restraints on speech raise many of the same concerns as government censorship, they differ in important ways.

First, much of the social pressure that critics complain about is itself speech. When activists denounce Yiannopoulos as a racist or Murray as a white nationalist, they are exercising their own right to free expression. Likewise when students hold protests or marches, launch social media campaigns, circulate petitions, boycott lectures, demand the resignation of professors and administrators, or object to the invitation of controversial speakers. Even heckling, though rude and annoying, is a form of expression.

More crucially, the existence of such social pushback helps protects Americans from the even more frightening prospect of official censorship. Heres why. Speech is a powerful weapon that can cause grave harms, and the First Amendment does not entirely prohibit the government from suppressing speech to prevent those harms. But one of the central tenets of modern First Amendment law is that the government cannot suppress speech if those harms can be thwarted by alternative means. And the alternative that judges and scholars invoke most frequently is the mechanism of counter-speech.

As Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in his celebrated 1927 opinion in Whitney v. California, If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Counter-speech can take many forms. It can be an assertion of fact designed to rebut a speakers claim. It can be an expression of opinion that the speakers view is misguided, ignorant, offensive, or insulting. It can even be an accusation that the speaker is racist or sexist, or that the speakers expression constitutes an act of harassment, discrimination, or aggression.

In other words, much of the social pushback that critics complain about on campus and in public lifeindeed, the entire phenomenon of political correctnesscan plausibly be described as counter-speech. And because counter-speech is one of the mechanisms Americans rely on as an alternative to government censorship, such pushback is not only a legitimate part of our free speech system; it is indispensable.

Yet many people continue to believe that pressuring speakers to change their views or modify their language constitutes a threat to free speech.

Kirsten Powers makes this argument in her 2015 book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Discussing the case of author Wendy Kaminer, who elicited angry responses from students when she used the n-word as part of a campus forum on free speech, Powers writes that rather than arguing with her on the merits, her opponents set about the process of delegitimizing her by tarring her as a racist. Powers also complains that many liberals instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, work to delegitimize the person making the argument through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics. These efforts, she concludes, are a chilling attempt to silence free speech.

Its worth asking, though, why expression that shames or demonizes a speaker is not a legitimate form of counter-speech.

One possibility, as Powers implies, is that such tactics do not address the merits of the debate. But that reflects a rather narrow view of what counts as the merits. To argue that a speakers position is racist or sexist is to say something about the merits of her position, given that most people think racism and sexism are bad. Even arguing that the speaker herself is racist goes to the merits, since it gives the public context for judging her motives and the consequences of her position.

Besides, what principle of free speech limits discussion to the merits? Political discourse often strays from the merits of issues to personal or tangential matters. But the courts have never suggested that such discourse is outside the realm of free speech.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that speech is valued both for the contribution it makes to rational discourse and for its emotional impact. As Justice John M. Harlan wrote in the 1971 case of Cohen v. California, We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.

Fine, the critics might say. But much of the social pressure on campus does not just demonize; it is designed to, and often does, chill unpopular speech. And given that courts frequently invoke the potential chilling effect of government action to invalidate it under the First Amendment, social pressure that has a potential chilling effect is also inconsistent with free speech.

The problem with this argument is that all counter-speech has a potential chilling effect. Any time people refute an assertion of fact by pointing to evidence that contradicts it, speakers may be hesitant to repeat that assertion. Whenever opponents challenge an opinion by showing that it is poorly reasoned, leads to undesirable results, or is motivated by bigotry or ignorance, speakers may feel less comfortable expressing that opinion in the future.

Put bluntly, the implicit goal of all argument is, ultimately, to quash the opposing view. We dont dispute a proposition in the hope that others will continue to hold and express that belief. Unless we are playing devils advocate, we dispute it to establish that we are right and the other side is wrong. If we are successful enough, the opposing view will become so discredited that it is effectively, although not officially, silenced.

Such has been the fate of many ideas over the centuries, from claims that the earth is flat to declarations that slavery is Gods will to assertions that women should not be allowed to vote or own property. Each of these positions can still be asserted without fear of government punishment. But those who make them in earnest are deemed so discreditable that the claims themselves have mostly been removed from public debate.

This highlights a paradox of free speech, and of our relationship to it. On the one hand, Americans are encouraged to be tolerant of opposing ideas in the belief that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in his landmark 1919 opinion in Abrams v. United States.

On the other hand, unlike the government, Americans are not expected to remain neutral observers of that market. Instead, we are participants in it; the market works only if we take that participation seriously, if we exercise our own right of expression to combat ideas we disagree with, to refute false claims, to discredit dangerous beliefs. This does not mean we are required to be vicious or uncivil. But viciousness and incivility are legitimate features of Americas free speech tradition. Life is not a debating exercise or a seminar room, and it would be nave to insist that individuals adhere to some prim, idealized vision of public discourse.

This, one suspects, is what bothers many critics of political correctness: the fact that so much of the social pressure and pushback takes on a nasty, vindictive tone that is painful to observe. But free speech often is painful. It was painful to envision neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, home to thousands of holocaust survivors, in 1977. It was painful to watch the Westboro Baptist Church picket a military funeral in 2006 with signs reading Fag troops and Thank God for Dead Soldiers. In both cases, the speech was deeply offensive to our sense of decorum, decency, and tolerance. But the courts rightly concluded that this offense was irrelevant to whether the speech was worthy of protection.

Many critics, particularly on the left, seem to forget this. Although they claim to be promoting an expansive view of free speech, they are doing something quite different. They are promoting a vision of liberalism, of respect, courtesy, and broadmindedness. That is a worthy vision to promote, but it should not be confused with the dictates of free speech, which allows for a messier, more ill-mannered form of public discourse. Free speech is not the same as liberalism. Equating the two reflects a narrow, rather than expansive, view of the former.

Does this mean any form of social pressure targeted at speakers is acceptable? Not at all. One of the reasons government censorship is prohibited is that the coercive power of the state is nearly impossible to resist. Social pressure that crosses the line from persuasion to coercion is also inconsistent with the values of free speech.

This explains why violence and threats of violence are not legitimate mechanisms for countering ideas one disagrees with. Physical assaultin addition to not traditionally being regarded as a form of expression too closely resembles the use of force by the government.

What about other forms of social pressure? If Americans are concerned about the risk of coercion, the question is whether the pressures are such that it is reasonable to expect speakers to endure them. Framed this way, we should accept the legitimacy of insults, shaming, demonizing, and even social ostracism, since it is not unreasonable for speakers to bear these consequences. This is not to minimize the distress such tactics can cause. But a system that relies on counter-speech as the primary alternative to government censorship should not unduly restrict the forms counter-speech can take.

Heckling raises trickier questions. Occasional boos or interruptions are acceptable since they dont prevent speakers from communicating their ideas. But heckling that is so loud and continuous a speaker literally cannot be heard is little different from putting a hand over a speakers mouth and should be viewed as antithetical to the values free speech.

Because social restraints on speech do not violate the Constitution, Americans cannot rely on courts to develop a comprehensive framework for deciding which types of pressure are too coercive. Instead, Americans must determine what degree of pressure we think is acceptable.

In that respect, the critics are well within their right to push for a more elevated, civil form of public discourse. They are perfectly justified in arguing that a college campus, of all places, should be a model of rational debate. But they are not justified in claiming the free speech high ground. For under our free speech tradition, the crudest and least reasonable forms of expression are just as legitimate as the most eloquent and thoughtful.

This article was written for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

Original post:

What Critics of Campus Protest Get Wrong About Free Speech - The ... - The Atlantic

Free Speech Is Always Under Attack. Here’s How To Fight For It. – Reason (blog)

On Friday, Todd Krainin and I posted a video rebutting popular cliches that are used to attack free speech. The video is based on a powerful piece in The Los Angeles Times by lawyer and blogger Ken White of Popehat.

In the short time the video went live, other stories have emerged that underscore how free speech is always under attack and in need of defending. Check out Matt Welch's post about a recent Vice documentary about the situation at Evergreen State College, where a progressive professor came under attack for criticizing a "Day of Absence" during which whites would not be welcome campus. From Welch's post:

This piece came out concurrently with a big Commentarysymposium (to which I contributed) on whether free speech is under threat in the United States. My bottom line: "But in this very strength [of recent Supreme Court protections] lies what might be the First Amendment's most worrying vulnerability. Barry Friedman, in his 2009 book The Will of the People, made the persuasive argument that the Supreme Court typically ratifies, post facto, where public opinion has already shifted. Today's culture of free speech could be tomorrow's legal framework. If so, we're in trouble."

Threats to speech often come from strange quarters. Consider the sentence given to Michelle Carter, a Massachussetts teen found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after texting her suicidal boyfriend, Conrad Roy, that he should kill himself. As Sarah Siskind wrote at Reason:

Carter's punishment does not fit the crime. Involuntary manslaughter is a conviction for a negligent surgeon, for an abusive husband who unintentionally kills his spouse, for a drunk driver who accidentally runs someone down. A reckless text is not a reckless, swerving car. Words are not literal weapons, and the moral turpitude of Carter's comments does not change that.

Writing about the same case in The New York Times, Reason's Robby Soave argues:

For decades, efforts have been underway to criminalize every obnoxious or problematic social interaction between K-12 kids in American schools. Hardly a week passes without a national news story about teenagers who were arrested on child pornography charges and face unfathomably long prison sentences because they had inappropriate pictures of classmates (or even themselves) on their phones. In Iowa, in June 2016, authorities tried to brand a 14-year-old girl as a sex offender for Snapchatting while wearing a sports bra and boy shorts. The following month, Minnesota police officers busted a 17-year-old for swapping consensual sexts with his 16-year-old girlfriend. Such matters should be handled by parents and teachers, not the cops. The same is true for the various issues that plagued Ms. Carter and Mr. Roy.

Free speech is at the center of a free society. Without it, virtually all other freedom is strictly curtailed, if not literally unimaginable. Pick any three days to follow and you will likely find multiple attacks on the concept of free and open expression. Even on Sunday, there's no rest for those of us who want to live in libertarian world.

See original here:

Free Speech Is Always Under Attack. Here's How To Fight For It. - Reason (blog)

Antifa Slashes Tires, Bloodies Free Speech Rally Organizer at Evergreen State College – Heat Street

An organizer of a free-speech rally against radical social justice activism at Evergreen State College this week was pepper-sprayed and left bloodied by Antifa activists. After the event, attendees of the free-speech march found several of their cars vandalized.

Joey Gibson, founder of the Vancouver, Washington-based Patriot Prayer group, organized the event in protest of the colleges treatment of biology professor Bret Weinstein. Last month, Weinstein launched the small liberal arts college into the national spotlight after it emerged that he was berated, threatened and driven off campus by students and faculty because he took issue with an event that asked white people to stay off campus for a day.

Gibsons free speech-themed, pro-Donald Trump rallies in the Pacific Northwest have attracted significant controversy. In May, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler asked the federal government to revoke the permit for Gibsons rally on June 4 after a fatal knife attack in Portland left two men dead. The request was denied and Wheelers request was denounced by the ACLU of Oregon.

In the week before Gibsons planned Evergreen State protest, local self-identified anti-fascist groups mobilized over social media, accusing Patriot Prayer of supporting white supremacy and fascism.

Gibson dismissed the accusations and called them baseless. We have several people of color, including myself, he said. Antifa is just a bunch of white people.

Gibson and around 50 othersmostly conservatives and libertarians from the Washington and Oregon areacongregated at a small plaza near the Evergreen State campus in Olympia, Washington. After a few short speeches, the group walked to the center of campus, where they were promptly confronted by at least a hundred masked protesters dressed in black. The Antifa black bloc, as they are commonly known, hurled projectiles at Gibsons group and sprayed them with silly string.

Dozens of heavily armored police officers moved in to keep the two groups separated, but Gibson was later hit in the face with a spray candrawing blood. He was also pepper sprayed when he attempted to speak to some of the protesters.

Separately, a group of men quickly tackled a masked protester, accusing him of brandishing a knife. After restraining him, he was turned over to police officers.

Coltan Campion, who traveled from Seattle to protest Evergreen State, called the black bloc activists dangerous ideologues and racists.

Social justice is racist, he said. Racism is when you believe that people of different ethnicities are inherently different from one another and therefore should be treated differently.

The heavy police presence prevented further serious altercations although there was one arrest. At one point, some Antifa protesters used whatever they could gather as projectiles. A small group picked pine cones and twigs off a tree and hurled them at a black man standing on the Patriot Prayer side. Earlier in the protest, I was hit by a banana.

Although most attendees at the event were politically polarized, a dozen people observed from the sideline.

Alex Pearson, at junior at Evergreen State, said he supports racial justice but doesnt agree with all of the tactics coming from the far-left. If youre not to the level of where they are, you have the risk of being put with the complete opposite people, he said.

On the colleges planned Day of Absence, where white people were asked to leave the campus for a day,Pearson, who is white, said he accidentally attended class. I was not aware that I wasnt supposed to be on campus, he said. There was an aura of you werent supposed to be here. He added that outside of a few odd looks, he was not harassed or accosted, however.

I attempted to interview Antifa protesters, but most declined to speak. One masked female, who declined to give her name, explained the groups skepticism towards media. People frame Antifa very poorly and call them terrorists, she said. Theoretically, I havent heard of Antifa beating up any minorities ever.

After the rally, Gibson and his group discovered that several of their cars tires had been slashed once they returned to the parking lot. Thats all they got in their lives, Gibson said. Just running around and slashing tires like little children. Someday theyll grow up and learn how to have a conversation.

Before the rally began, I witnessed a small group of masked people standing at a distance and monitoring Gibsons group as they arrived. They declined to comment beyond stating that they were there to document the event.

A young male dressed in black was later seen taking photographs of license plates belonging to the cars of people with Gibsons group as they were driving away.

Follow Andy on Twitter @MrAndyNgo.

View post:

Antifa Slashes Tires, Bloodies Free Speech Rally Organizer at Evergreen State College - Heat Street

Ellenberg: A ‘free speech’ act that’s really bad for free speech – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Jordan Ellenberg 10:00 a.m. CT June 16, 2017

Daryl Tempesta tapes a sign over his mouth in protest during a demonstration in April in Berkeley, Calif. Demonstrators gathered near the University of California, Berkeley campus amid a strong police presence and rallied to show support for free speech and condemn the views of Ann Coulter.(Photo: Associated Press)

Youd think Id be in favor of the campus free speech bills the Wisconsin Legislature is considering. Im a strong proponent of free speech on campus, and I believe that our students benefit from being exposed to all kinds of views, even those that mock or directly attack the values they were raised with by their families.

The group answers a viewers question on if free speech is disappearing from college campuses.

But these bills are bad law. Theyll suppress free speech at the University of Wisconsin, not protect it.

AB299, the Assemblys bill, requires that the university suspend any student found to have twice interfered with free expression on campus and expel a student after a third offense. There is no other university infraction for which the state Legislature determines the penalty. Beat up a fellow student, vandalize a campus building, steal the final exam and sell copies, cheer for Ohio State in public no matter the crime, the university determines the punishment based on the merits of the individual case. The Wisconsin Institute on Law and Liberty, a right-leaning organization that strongly supports free speech on campus, has called for this provision to be removed, saying the specific punishment in any given incident should be left to the educational institution.

The bill forbids violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others. What counts as disorderly? How much disruption is substantial? Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who wrote the bill together with Rep. Jesse Kremer, has insisted that no student would be disciplined for reasonable protesting. I hope hes right. But weve already seen dozens of people charged with felony rioting in Washington, D.C., who were present at a violent protest but who havent been associated with any act of vandalism or disruption. Students who want to exercise their First Amendment right to protest will have no way of being sure they wont be thrown out of school for doing so. Thats no way to protect our constitutional rights.

Sen. Leah Vukmirs bill arguably is an even graver threat to freedom. Her bill requires that University and college campus administrators shall remain neutral on public policy controversies. That doesnt square with the universitys very real need to argue for scientific research and humanistic scholarship, and for support for our students and employees. Vos, who co-authored AB299 with Rep. Jesse Kremer, rightly praises strong statements in favor of free speech by administrators at Chicago and Yale; under this bill, our own chancellor would be barred from standing up for freedom of speech in the same way. How does that help?

The Vukmir bill also says no person. may threaten to organize protests with the purpose to dissuade an invited speaker from attending a campus event. To disrupt a lecture is one thing, to dissuade is another. If speakers come here to argue that Israel has no right to exist, or that white people are genetically superior to lesser races, or just to display unflattering photos of our students and make fun of them in public, they have every right to do so. But theyd better expect some kids to be clamoring outside the hall. If thats enough to dissuade them from coming, too bad for their tender selves. Peaceful protest is a right.

A roundup of commentary written by our opinion editors hits your inbox every Tuesday covering local topics of interest from the right, center and left.

Sign up for the newsletter

A roundup of commentary written by our opinion editors hits your inbox every Tuesday covering local topics of interest from the right, center and left.

Sign up for the newsletter

Lets be honest. What Vos and Vukmir are worried about isnt free speech in general; theyre worried that conservative views are forbidden by thought police on campus. Good news: thats just not true. And Im proud its not true. Gov. Scott Walker has spoken here. Sen. Ron Johnson has spoken here. Dinesh DSouza has spoken here.

Conservative firebrand Ben Shapiro was here in November: protestors hollered and made a ruckus but then cleared the hall and the man had his say. This spring we hosted Steve Forbes and Wisconsins brilliant solicitor general, Misha Tseytlin. Forbes, too, drew a small group of protesters. They protested outside the building not the building where Forbes was speaking, but the one next door. Wisconsin kids are nice.

Harry Brighouse, a philosophy professor at UW-Madison, told graduating students this year:

You might be pro-choice or pro-life about abortion. You might support or oppose charter schools which aim to serve low-income kids in urban areas. You might support or oppose increasing redistributive taxation. Whatever your stance, you know for sure that there are morally decent, and reasonable, people who disagree with you.

If you dont know that, by the way, you should get out more.

Hes right, and he represents a commitment to hearing all views that the University of Wisconsin always has been proud to uphold.

Vos pointed out in his testimony that Colorado recently passed a campus free speech law, with bipartisan support, which he described as substantially similar to his bill. It isnt. The Colorado bill establishes a legal principle that free speech is sacrosanct on campus without suppressing the right of students to express their views. If our state legislators really want to stand up for our constitutional rights, theyll follow Colorados lead and do the same.

Jordan Ellenberg is the John D. MacArthur and Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of How Not to Be Wrong.

Read or Share this story: http://jsonl.in/2tuZXQ0

Read this article:

Ellenberg: A 'free speech' act that's really bad for free speech - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Even After Trump’s Victory, Why I Still Fight for Freedom of Speech – Townhall

|

Posted: Jun 18, 2017 12:01 AM

LA County for Trump is not hiding their love for our President. Sure, our votes didnt swing the election in his favor last year, but his electoral win has turned into political, moral, and cultural victories which even conservative refugees in blue states can relish and celebrate.

We have not rested since Election 2016, when the real estate/media mogul took the political establishment by storm. This past weekend, we celebrated President Trump and his successes in Palisades Park, right along the Santa Monica coastline. The Peoples Republic of Santa Monica is one of the most elite yet entrenched hubs for the anti-Trump resistance in California. FYI, Santa Monica used to be reliably red, including such conservative firebrands as Robert B-1 Bob Dornan as Congressman.

Yet even along the deep Blue coast (where students married the ocean in creepy yet benign ceremonies), there are Trump supporters, and they gathered to us right there along the coastline of a beautiful, breezy, if slightly warm, weekend afternoon.

What makes us want to come out for freedom of speech, especially when we could have taken a nice swim or walk along the Santa Monica pier? Why do LA County Trump supporters make their case for the President in a deep blue area? Isnt freedom of speech well-protected already?

Sure, we love free speech, but we want to celebrate and exercise our right to speak our minds without fear, and engage others who do not agree with us to share their thoughts too. After all, the restoration of this sacred right is one of the reasons I love our President. He freed this countrys citizenry from the PC chokehold which had shamed and silenced conservatives for nearly 30 years. This deafening incapacity to punch back hamstrung Republican activists from making gains. Why? Much of the time Republican lawmakers, whether in Washington or among the 50 states, were obsessed with how the media would portray them. They didnt know how to play the media, and even individual Americans and conservative interest groups played cautious and limited their own First Amendment capacities.

This kabuki theater of fawning moderation from the grassroots and the conservative political class came to end with street fighter Donald Trump. He thrived on the media attention, for better or for worse. The media had to cover him, especially because they wanted to smear him, and he in turn thrived off the negative coverage as it prospered his profile.

For the longest time, Americans had been tired of and frustrated with a lying, fawning media telling them what to think and which facts to pay attention to. Shouldnt the media simply report the facts, paying attention to the evidence rather their bias and ideological bent? Americans were particularly furious with the political correctness cult that suppressed sensitive yet necessary information, like the murder of American citizens by illegal aliens or the destructive nature of trangenderism. Beyond that, 95 million Americans out of work were not just tired, but irritated by the chronic reports of a strong economy, when they couldnt scratch two dimes together or find a stable, full-time job.

The culture wars agitated Americans even more. Do I want transgender bathrooms in a local restaurant, when everyone with two eyes in their head knows that there are two genders, two parentsand very likely two terms for Trump? If they were so angry, why werent Americans speaking out? Shame and the fear of widespread smears. The Democratic Party, with Barack Obama at the helm, worked hard to impose this cultural Marxist sentiment of silencing dissentwithout force of law or violence. Shame is an effective tool for demolishing ones opponents. Alinksy understood the power of condemnation all too well. With this psychological warfare in the hands of our leftist opponents, freedom of speech posed no threat to their powerful, tyrannical ambitions. Furthermore, they could rely on the complicit media, a corrupted education system, and the funding of liberal corporations to induce average Americans to shut up and say nothing.

But illegal immigration carried a cost which exceeds the potential shame that follows from speaking out. More importantly, Candidate Trump was not afraid to speak his mind, as vulgar as it may have sounded to others. He touched the latent anger of Middle America, and he gave them a voice which they had been shamed into not using. He understood the Art of the Deal, but recognized that negotiation with the totalitarian left would end in failure. Playing along had already failed. Being nice simply does not work. Trump understood that, and he knew that all of us had known that for a long time, but didnt want to say it. What his successful campaign has done for this country is incalculable. But one tangible feature is the resurgence of free speech as an essential aspect for our culture.

For the greater part of my life, I never gave a second thought to my First Amendment rights, whether they would be in danger or not. After seeing bakers losing their businesses and civil servants losing their liberties over their First Amendment rights, I finally how endangered the First Amendment was becoming. Donald Trumps victory showed that the assault on our freedom of speech would not end in inevitable tyranny.

But the battle has only begun. The Democratic caucus in Washington attempted to gut the First Amendment. They still want to cut the funding from free speech exercise, i.e. repeal the Citizens United decision with a constitutional amendment. Since those efforts have failed, now the Left resorts to violence. From the Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists to the Antifa thugs shutting down free speech ralliesto the attempted massacre of House Republicans on a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Virginiathe Left and their Democratic Party puppets are determined to stop freedom of speech from flourishing in the heart of every American.

And that is why I will continue to stump for Trump and attend free speech rallies in the most liberal sections of Los Angeles County.

UN Mission Official Says Terror Attack Underway in Mali Resort Area Popular With Foreigners

Read this article:

Even After Trump's Victory, Why I Still Fight for Freedom of Speech - Townhall

Michael Savage thinks there’s too much freedom of speech going on … – Salon

In the wake of Wednesdays shooting of a Republican congressman, conservative talk-radio host Michael Savage on Wednesday suggested something he wouldnt have dreamed of doing a few months ago. He saidthe government should take control of the media.

In between references to Rachel Maddow (whom he mockingly referred to as Rachel Madcow), Savage wondered ifthe haters [should] be removed from the airwaves by the federal government for their constant drumbeat of hatred against [Donald] Trump and Republicans. Turns out, he thought, Yes, they should be, because of their constant drumbeat of hatred against Trump and Republicans, calling for, amongst other things resistance, with theirsneers every night.

Savages theory came at the end of a long monologue in which he sprinkled in his hatred of liberals while coming to the conclusion that angry liberals are going to kill everyone. Watch the segment viaMedia Matters:

We know that the coming civil war that Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Eric Holder I would even say Rachel Maddow have been screaming for. You know the words like resist.You know resist means something. It means kill, it means shoot, doesnt it?

Am I allowed to ask the question: Who do you blame for this? We know that the baseball gunman was a Trump-hating, white, male Bernie supporter.

And communism has consequences. Socialism has consequences. Screaming about hatred, hatred, hatred and hate and hate and hate, like that sneering, creature on MSNBC does every night, with that filthy sneer on her face. Every night hating Trump. Every night calling for resistance.

Well, he (James Hodgkinson) went off like a rocket, as I feared would happen. James T. Hodgkinson from Belleville, Illinois, went on a rampage. Staunch Democrat threatened to destroy Trump and company on social media before the shooting, coinciding with President Trumps 71stBirthday. He campaigned of course for the communist Bernie Sanders who says he is not a communist but he is a communist. Communism is violence and death. Well he opened fired on a group of guys playing baseball.

I predicted this would happen, but its not about me; its about you.

This message would come as a shock to none other than conservative radio host Michael Savage, who, in the late 1990s, created a manifesto of sorts called Beware the government-media complex, which is pretty popular in right-wing circles. Savage said at thattime the relationship between the government and media wastoo cozy,adding thatin order to keep the government relatively honest, you need a media thats constantly poking at them.

Until Wednesday Savage has been consistent inadhering to the idea that free speech should be protected.

In 2009 he criticized British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who banned Savage from entering the U.K. because he was fomenting hatred.

Savage fired back at Smith, saying, She wanted communications gathered by the government. She wanted emails and phone calls guarded by the government. . . including those from social networking sites such as Facebook. He added thatany liberal listening to the show should be quite alarmed by this movement in England because perhaps you will be next.

In Savages book, Trumps War,publishedin March, he declared, The First Amendment will be safe under Trump. No matter what else he does or does not do.

But theres one pointSavage made on Wednesday that may not be completely off base:

Should Trump take control of Twitter for not monitoring haters?You heard me. Is it time for the government to take control of the out of control pirates on social media like Facebook and Twitter.

That would be quite a feat, assuming the government would be able to silence the biggest Twitter troll of them all.

See the original post here:

Michael Savage thinks there's too much freedom of speech going on ... - Salon

Atheism UK – Challenging Religious Faith

Featuring UK events etc announced by members & supporters of Atheism UK.

Chris Street (President) invites paid-up members of Atheism UK to join us in Central London at 1.30pm for our quarterly Council meeting. Contact: president@atheismuk.com for an invite.

Continue reading Whats On?

Update 9th April 2017: The on camera interview with Ahlulbayt TV lasted 90 minutes. I spoke about many of the points raised by the twenty supporters/members of Atheism UK who emailed me or left comments on this post. Thanks all, for your comments. If any ex-Muslimswould like to give their views about the failures of organised religion, let me know and Ill put you in contact withAhlulbayt.The documentary will be aired on Sky 831 channel during Ramadan (27th May 25th June 2017) Ill add the precise date when known.

**********

Atheism UK will be interviewed by the Islamic channel Ahlulbayt TV (Sky 831 channel) this Wednesday morning (22nd March 2017).

Id be interested in any comments (today or tomorrow, 20-21st March) from Atheism UK members and supporters about What are the failures of organised religion?

Continue reading Atheism UK to appear in Islamic documentary. What are the failures of organised religion?

Norman Bacrac (1) has been a member of the Council of Atheism UK since 2011 and is a former editor of the Ethical Record (2).

This edited article, first published in the Ethical Record (3), refutes the first of William Lane Craigs eight reasons for God. In further articles, published at Atheism UK during 2017, Bacrac will refute Craigs seven other reasons for God.

In the Philosophy Nowmagazine, William Lane Craig (4) wrote in The God Issue, Does God Exist? (5). In this article, Craig argues there has been a resurgence of interest in natural theology.

Continue reading William Lane Craigs First Reason for God Refuted by Norman Bacrac

The first time I set eyes upon the glorious House of Lords chamber, in the summer of 2013, I was an ignorant tourist in the UK. With blissful awe I gazed on the golden decorations, the wooden benches, the leather seats, the red armrests. The red armrests which only seemed to be added to one bench. But the question why did not race through my fifteen-year old mind. Only much, much later did I find out the Bishops were granted those seats. The Bishops? Yes, the Bishops.

To a Dutchman, the notion of an unelected body of Parliament was a strange one although after moving here, I have grown used to it but the right of senior clergymen to help decide laws that apply to everyone, including non-Anglicans, is one I still cannot get behind. And I know Im not alone. This tradition is but one of the examples that show faith, not just the Church of England, but faith in general, is still paid extraordinary deference in twenty-first century Britain, and beyond.

Moreover, in a type of Americanisation and a bad type at that we seem to be stuck with leaders who claim to feel inspiration from God; although, if the recent past is anything to go by, it could be argued Gods sense of direction is about as bad as the average tourists in Birmingham. Especially to relative newcomers like myself the strange and worrying excess of respect paid to bringing ones religion into public life is an inexplicable concept.

The twenty-six Lords Spiritual, as the aging Bishops given the privilege of attending Parliament are called, have been in the House of Lords since its early days. One of them opens the House with prayers every day perhaps an interesting, objectionable notion for another piece of writing and their role in the Lords is, thank God, non-partisan. Although, perhaps the party of God is more limiting than any political grouping we know.

Interestingly, the Church of England website states the bishops represent all people of faith. Im positive most Muslims would disagree. As a matter of fact, when Henry VIII founded the Church of England and allowed Bishops to remain in Parliament, he inevitably set the precedent for an inherently divisive Parliament. Putting representatives of the cult that burned multiple people alive on unprovable claims in your legislative is in itself a rather extraordinary move, but there we are.

Moreover, the Bishops intelligence, and their ability to govern us, is questionable. I would not want to insult any fellow primate, but when the Archbishop of Carlisle claimed the 2007 floods were Gods punishment for the moral decadence of our country, I cant but doubt his judgement. Gods aim must have been slightly off, though; why else would these floods have hit largely rural areas, and not major cities, the centres of arrogance and greed? I dont think Worcestershire is a hot-bed of explicit homosexuality, after all. But the Archbishop can dream. As can anyone. But dreamers should not decide matters of national importance.

When Parliament came to represent not just the English and Welsh, but also the Scottish and Irish, the Anglican bishops were already stuck in the limbo of having to represent a multi-denominational country. With the influx of migrants with other beliefs in modern times, no one can seriously argue the Bishops are in Parliament to make the case for people of faith. Religion is divisive, as we have seen countless times again. In Northern Ireland, people killed each other and each others children for what kind of Christian they were for decades. Do you think any Irish Catholic would be happy to have an Anglican bishop speak on behalf of them? What about our fellow Muslim citizens? And, more to the point, what about the most important minority in British society today: those of us who do not believe? Are we even a minority anymore?

I think it is more than evident these Bishops, however well-intended they may be, do not deserve to have a special say in how our laws are made. Not a bigger say than the rest of us, anyway. The refusal of successive governments to reform this antiquated arm of our legislative is worrying, and is yet another example of how religion still very much has its own way in this country.

The annual ceremony held at the Cenotaph in honour of military dead is, to any benevolent human being, a worthwhile cause and something we must continue to adhere value to. Unfortunately, this occasion, too, has been poisoned by Gods meddling finger. In remembrance ceremonies around the world, the dead are remembered and their names passed on to posterity in a secular way. But not here.

The Cenotaph ceremony is enriched by the presence of a squadron of patriarchs, priests, bishops, imams, rabbis, and other religious prelates who seem to convey a general aura of look at us, were so co-operative. Lets not mention the fact that presumably each one of them believes servicemen belonging to any of the other representatives religions are now in their imaginary hells, but oh well. Moreover, the service is partially led by the Bishop of London, surprise surprise.

The main issue with this, of course, is one of inclusivity. Not only are not all religious denominations represented at the Cenotaph I bet Scientologists would love to commemorate the dead but far more importantly, there is no secular presence attending. When the Cenotaph was built in 1920, King George V intentionally refused to add religious symbols to the statue. It was designed to be an irreligious monument, commemorating servicemen and women of all faiths and, importantly, none. Why have our leaders forsaken the intended sentiment of this national monument?

Here, too, Gods breath seems to infect our national ceremonies without anyone except the religious themselves having any say in it. I would ask him to eat a mint or spray some mouth freshener and allow us to conduct our memorial services, and our state politics, taking everyones views into account. Not just those of a limited amount of religious people. War dead commemoration is too much of an important issue to be left to religious men.

A rare interview opportunity by the Sunday Times exposed Prime Minister Theresa May as a theist stateswoman. I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth, that lies behind what I do, the woman in charge of Britain during one of its most turbulent times in recent history claimed. Whatever one might think of Brexit the beauty of atheism is that it rises above politics as far as issues like this are concerned I dont think God is going to have a positive influence on the exit process.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister then went on to say about decisions she makes with help of her God Hotline: Ill think it through, have a gut instinct, look at the evidence, work through the arguments. The evidence? I dont want to claim Mrs May is unintelligent, but stressing the importance of evidence whilst being a practising Church of England member is one of the most self-imploding and self-refuting positions I have ever heard.

The idea of having a Church of England-inspired government is in itself a rather scary one. The church founded on the family values of Henry VIII, as Christopher Hitchens aptly put it, isnt one I would base my morals off. God sending himself as his son down to earth to be hideously maimed doesnt provide a decent example to our politicians. Nor, more to the point, does the man who was prepared to viciously murder his own child to show devotion to a deity (Genesis 22:2-13). Will the divine injunctions to murder entire peoples guide our negotiations with the EU? (Genesis 19:24-5; Exodus 14:28; Numbers 11:1-2-33; 16:35; 49; 1:7; 25:8-9; Joshua 10:10-11; I Samuel 6:19; I could go on, and on, and on)

Many heads will roll before Article 50, it seems, if Gods example is anything to go by.

In short, the obviously fake guidance from God some politicians seem to enjoy, and the privileges they demand from it, should be met with strong opposition. Are there any reasons that prevent politicians from saying theyre not religious? From saying they derive their decision-making from factual evidence, from experience, from learned instinct? I cannot think of any. Religion, therefore, seems to still enjoy this special status in the minds of most people. Extraordinary deference is paid to those who claim to be inspired by blood myths and masochistic worship. By slaughter, murder, torture, and belief without evidence. This is the twenty-first century. It is high time to stop this medieval chain of thought and focus on the material world, which is the only world we have.

Should faith schools be able to select up to 100% of pupils based on their faith?TheCatholic Education Service (CES) has proposed that the current 50% cap be scrapped.

In September, TheresaMay announceda consultative Department for Education (DfE) Green PaperSchools that workfor everyone.For Faith Schools, the DfE say they intend to deliver more good school places, while meeting strengthenedsafeguards on inclusivity.

The Green PaperconsultationCLOSES 12th December 2016. Please send your comments (see below) before that date.

Chris Street, President of Atheism UK commented:

It seems to me that the Green Paper gives some spurious arguments for changing the 50% cap on selection in faith schools. If you are concerned about social integration and inclusive childrens education, I urge you to complete the Department for Education feedback form before 12th December.

Continue reading Catholics lobby for state funded faith schools to select 100% pupils on faith

Here is the original post:

Atheism UK - Challenging Religious Faith

‘Hibernating’ Astronauts May Be Key to Mars Colonization

Artist's illustration of a "Mars Transfer Habitat" that could carry 100 colonists 96 of them in a hibernation-like torpor state to Mars.

Colonizing Mars may require humanity to tap into its inner bear.

Researchers are working on ways to induce a hibernation-like torpor state in astronauts a breakthrough they say would slash costs and make the long journey to the Red Planet safer and far less taxing for crewmembers.

Such benefits could help lay the foundation for the first footsteps on Mars, and they're essential to the establishment of a long-term human outpost there, project team members said.[Red Planet orBust: 5 Crewed MarsMission Ideas]

"We're not going to colonize Mars, or really settle it, sending four or six or eight people at a time every two years; we're going to have to send larger numbers," principal investigator John Bradford, president and chief operating officer of SpaceWorks Enterprises in Atlanta, said last week at the 2016 NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) symposium in Raleigh, North Carolina. "I don't know any other way that you're going to send hundreds of people to Mars."

With current rocket technology, a one-way trip to Mars takes six to nine months. That's a long time to keep astronauts alive, healthy and happy, Bradford said.

He and his team think there's a way to ease this journey lowering astronauts' body temperatures by about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius). This would induce a "hypothermic stasis" that cuts crewmembers' metabolic rates by 50 to 70 percent, Bradford said.

"That reduces the need for consumables in both nutrition and hydration, [and] oxygen demand," he said during the NIAC talk. "That translates to mass, and mass is a critical item trying to support these Mars missions."

Allowing astronauts to more or less sleep through the long trek would also minimize the psychological and social challenges of a crewed Mars mission, Bradford said.

"You kind of get mad at somebody; there's really no place to go," he said. "These are real issues associated with extended-duration spaceflight. If we can cut out the transit phases, we think they'll be much happier when they get to Mars, [and] much more productive." [Buzz Aldrin: How To Get Your Ass To Mars (Video)]

Bradford and his team have received two rounds of funding through NIAC, a NASA program that seeks to encourage the development of potentially revolutionary space exploration technologies.

The researchers don't think any huge leaps should be required to make their vision a reality. They're not shooting for a sci-fi-like "suspended animation" state; rather, they seek to leverage the "therapeutic hypothermia" that's already common practice in hospitals around the world, often as a way to help people recover from traumatic injuries, Bradford said.

"We're trying to pull on this technology that's already in use," he said.

Therapeutic-hypothermia patients generally endure the treatment for just a few days, but there's no reason to think it couldn't be applied to astronauts for much longer durations, Bradford added. (He said he'd like to be able to put Mars crewmembers in stasis for the entire journey but that cycling periods of two weeks or so would have significant benefits as well.)

Stasis could be induced in astronauts via evaporative cooling systems already in use for therapeutic hypothermia for example, two small tubes inserted into the nose that pump in inert gas, cooling the brain. (Sedatives would also be administered to dampen the body's instinctual shivering response.)

Crewmembers would be fed intravenously and catheterized; they would also be "lightly restrained" within the habitat to prevent them from floating around, Bradford said.

Extended exposure to microgravity conditions has a variety of negative health effects, from muscle atrophy and bone weakening to vision problems. But torpid astronauts wouldn't have to worry about such issues, because their habitat would be rotated, generating artificial gravity on board, Bradford said.

There are some inherent challenges in the torpor approach, of course. For example, while the process of going into hypothermic stasis is relatively rapid, waking up from such a state appears to be quite slow; research suggests that body temperature can be safely raised by only about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius) every hour, Bradford said.

And it's unclear just how long the recovery process would take, or what the long-term mental effects of prolonged hypothermic stasis would be, he added. In addition, significantly cooling the body suppresses immune function, so torpid astronauts would likely be more susceptible to infections.

But Bradford and his team are attempting to address such issues via their NIAC-funded work, and they haven't found any deal breakers yet.

"It's all manageable," Bradford said. "We think this is a very promising approach."

Bradford and his colleagues think such torpor tech could not only help get astronauts to Mars (which NASA aims to do by the end of the 2030s), but also allow humanity to establish a permanent colony on the Red Planet.

Settling Mars would probably require sending about 100 people there at once, the researchers wrote last year in a study outlining their approach.

"The first settlements at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, for example, started with 102 and 104 settlers, respectively," they wrote.

Launching that many Mars pioneers in the standard fashion would require 17 six-person habitats, with a total weight of about 700 tons. But that could be reduced to 200 tons by putting the settlers into hypothermic stasis, the researchers argued.

Their plan calls for building a "Mars Transfer Habitat" employing three habitat modules, two of which would hold 48 dormant colonists apiece. The third (much smaller) module would house four fully alert settlers, who would act as "caretakers" and keep everything running smoothly.

"The reduced metabolic rates that are achieved through torpor relax the mission requirements on consumable food and water, and positively impact the design of the habitat environmental control and life support systems," they wrote in the study, which was presented at the 66th International Astronautical Congress in Jerusalem last year.

"Overall, the application of long-duration torpor for humans to space exploration missions appears to be both medically and technically feasible, and shows great promise as a means to enable settlement of the solar system," the researchers added.

Follow Mike Wall on Twitter@michaeldwallandGoogle+.Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebookor Google+. Originally published onSpace.com.

Read the original here:

'Hibernating' Astronauts May Be Key to Mars Colonization

Meet NASA’s Mars robot – Digital Trends

Get today's popular DigitalTrends articles in your inbox:

Why it matters to you

These Valkyrie R5 robots will help pave the way for future Mars colonization.

NASAs Space Robotics Challenge awarded Northeastern University with a $2-million Valkyrie Robonaut 5 (R5) robot, which is now undergoing tests in a Massachusetts warehouse to prepare for the finalist round this June in a virtual simulation of a red-planet landing.

The robot arrivedat Northeastern in 2015 as part of a proposal that Engineering Professor Taskin Padir sent to NASA for the Space Robotics Challenge software testing, reports Tech Crunch.

Theyve done all of the hardware and were developing these high-level capabilities so Valkyrie does more than just move limbs, Northeastern PhD student, Murphy Wonsick told Tech Crunch. She can autonomously make decisions, move around, and accomplish tasks.

Researchers moved the R5 toNERVE (New England Robotics Validation and Experimentation) Center, a large warehouse space operated by UMass Lowell that houses large obstacle courses designed to put test robots and drones through their paces, just outside of Boston.

On-board vision systems, bipedal locomotion, and navigation in tight spaces are some the criteria being tested at the NERVE research site, according to the same report.

NASA reportedly produced three other R5 models. One was held in-house, and NASA awarded two as research loans to Northeastern University and nearby MIT, while a fourth was acquired by Scotlands University of Edinburgh.

According to NASA, in the finalist round, each teams R5 will be challenged with resolving the aftermath of a dust storm that has damaged a Martian habitat. This involves three objectives: aligning a communications dish, repairing a solar array, and fixing a habitat leak.

The Space Robotics Challenge is part of NASAs Centennial Challenges program set to award $1 million to the team that can developcapabilities of humanoid robot dexterity to better enable them to work alongside and independent of astronauts in preparation for future space exploration.

NASA announced the 20 finalists in February.

Excerpt from:

Meet NASA's Mars robot - Digital Trends