How technology can shape and modify the future of Language – The Sunday Guardian

Posted on by

Human language has over the years witnessed massive transformation in terms of its chosen medium of expression. As technology evolves rapidly, older platforms make way for newer applications, and the same holds true for language input as well.

When it comes to the influence of technology on language, from messengers prior to 2015 to chatbots in 2016,the landscape is still evolving. 2017 has however opened up myriad possibilities to extend this beyond chatbots. AI, NLP driven language technology that seamlessly understands and integrates with underlying conversations be it bots or chats seems to show high potential.

There are close to 117 actively used languages in the world, and all these languages have taken different modern mobile communication flavors amongst the younger generation over the years.

Language technology is changing course from a mere chat and stay-in-touch perspective, to a more decisive one. It is opening up a stream of opportunities for developers to leverage language input by unlocking intent, context, named entities, interest areas, to improve consumer experience.

You ask how exactly? Lets have a look at a recent studythat points out the growth opportunity of chatbots:

As per the study, 49.9% of customers said they prefer contacting a business through messaging than a phone.

This has got to do more with the habitual context in user perspective. Most users today are multi-tasking on their phones and prefer language input to voice for contacting a business.

When asked, 51% of people said that business need to be available 24/7, replying answers to their queries round-the-clock.

Consider this: chat is one platformwhere all human expressionfinds an outlet in the online space.Theneed to stay connected basically drives language input towards this technology. And to that end, chat apps hasalready emerged asthe new national obsession among mobile users in India.

It is exactly this trend that is invigorating many new ideaswhich are expected to play a key role in deciding the future of language use on mobile.

Considering the foreseeable future, mining of user intent and context of conversations, post, tweet, comments,etc., will pretty much shape the way users find delightful experiences when communicating. Language occupies a unique position in our online journey as it comes imbibed in every command we give on the smartphone. However, what broadens the scope of language on mobile is the possibility of taking it beyond the usual i.e. connecting users.

This once again brings us face to face with our innate need to plan, discuss, collaborate, find solutions, and seek advice, using our smartphones.It is this very habit that has got mobile users hooked on to social networks and messaging apps, a place where mosthuman language now exists.

It is therefore safe to say that the mobile isused a lot less for talking, and more for language input through the keyboard.

All mobile users are inadvertently guilty of doing self-indulgent browsing in their free time. These are the moments that carry no specific agenda among users. Technologies that intelligently understand what is expressed by users in their language therefore hold immense promise in leading mobile users from one thought to another in these precise moments.

The keyboard, with its language layer opens an interesting field for satisfying the consumer appetite for delightful experiences in their own native language hyper contextually serving with relevance and immediacy.

In the future, language will increasingly guide users to live their dreams, make their wish lists, find their passion, and do a lot more on the mobile. It is language input that is expected to play a stellar role in giving meaning to our deeper thoughts and intentions using advanced technologies such as machine learning and natural language processing. Wont it be great if we can make our phones understand the deeper meanings and contexts behind the expressed language. What if we were to feel hungry and the phone could actually sense that we would like to have a pizza, and respond accordingly. With advances in natural language processing, the capability to trigger an apt response through language input brings tons of such possibilities alive on our smartphones.

In this regard, the latest thats brewing in the technology front is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the mobile keyboard. No matter what users demand be it the need to shop, to check on updates and notifications, to share, post, text or to chat, the keyboard almost never leaves their sight.

However, currently most keyboards do not perform anything apart from predicting the next word or doing auto corrections.

By intelligently making use of language input, the keyboard has the potential to align itself with the mobile users thought process to deliver meaningful suggestion. Emergence of such a thinking keyboard holds the promise to unlock user context through language, in a never before imagined manner. Sometimes turning the keyboard into a cross-app tool, and at times making it handy when users require help. The scope is simply enormous to deliver the goods through the omnipresent keyboard.With ground-breaking experiments in this realm, contextual understanding of language will hold the key to many such amazing applications in the future.

The keyboard, with its language layer opens an interesting field for satisfying the consumer appetite for delightful experiences in their own native language hyper contextually serving with relevance and immediacy.

The author is COO, KeyPoint Technologies

Follow this link:

How technology can shape and modify the future of Language - The Sunday Guardian

Technology could redefine the doctor-patient relationship – The Guardian

Posted on by

Artificial intelligence may not merely augment the pool of medical talent, but could begin to replace it. Photograph: Luca DiCecco/Alamy

Advances in clinical uses of artificial intelligence (AI) could have two profound effects on the global medical workforce.

AI, which mimics cognitive functions such as learning and problem-solving, is already making inroads into the NHS. In north London it is piloting use of an app aimed at users of the non-emergency 111 service, while the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust has teamed up with Googles DeepMind AI arm to develop an app aimed at patients with signs of acute kidney injury. The hospital claims the project, which uses information from more than 1.6 million patients a year, could free up more than half a million hours annually spent on paperwork.

AI raises the prospect of making affordable healthcare accessible to all. According to the World Health Organisation, 400 million people do not have access to even the most basic medical services. Hundreds of millions more, including many in the worlds most advanced countries, cannot afford it. A key factor driving this is the worldwide shortage of clinical staff, which is getting worse as populations grow.

At last months DigitalHealth.London summit, Ali Parsa, founder of digital healthcare company Babylon, argued that mobile technology coupled with AI makes universal access a realistic goal, while replacing doctors with intelligent systems will slash costs.

There is no solution which can fundamentally cut the costs of healthcare as long as we are reliant on humans, he said.

So the second impact of artificial intelligence could be not merely augmenting the pool of medical talent but beginning to replace it. Big claims are being made for the clinical power of AI. Last year IBMs Watson supercomputer was credited with diagnosing in minutes the precise condition affecting a leukaemia patient in Japan that had been baffling doctors for months, after cross-referencing her information with 20m oncology records.

However, the same system has just consumed five years and $62m (51m) in an unsuccessful attempt to transform care at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, showing how difficult it is to connect these digital behemoths to everyday hospital work. With the NHS still struggling to introduce electronic patient records, the idea of plugging the UK healthcare system into an all-knowing digital brain any time soon is fantasy.

While there is no doubt that AI will enable faster and more accurate diagnoses, a more realistic prospect than replacing doctors is to redefine their role.

That will be to put machine-generated information into the context of the unique life and needs of the individual patient, which cannot yet be reduced to an algorithm. As Dr Ameet Bakhai, consultant cardiologist at the Royal Free trust, told the summit, machines making clinical decisions on their own without that human context could fail to meet Isaac Asimovs first law for robots of do no harm.

Digital evangelists argue that intelligent machines will be able to incorporate the latest data and research immediately, but that is both questionable and a potential weakness. Clinical trials vary in scale and quality, and indiscriminate inclusion would inevitably lead to mistakes. Digital hardliners would argue that machines should judge the quality of the research, but for the foreseeable future the expertise of doctors will be essential to deciding the validity of new approaches.

So perhaps one of the most powerful effects of artificial intelligence will be, perversely, to make healthcare more human and personal. It will remove the dependency on doctors fallible memory and incomplete knowledge, and free them to use machine-generated information to work with patients to shape their specific treatment.

This has profound implications for medical training and what defines a leading clinician. It will be those who can harness AI to their own medical knowledge and their human skills of context and empathy who will be the leaders of their profession. In the new world there will still be a great deal for highly-trained humans to do.

Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to read more on issues like this. And follow us on Twitter (@GdnHealthcare) to keep up with the latest healthcare news and views.

Read the original:

Technology could redefine the doctor-patient relationship - The Guardian

3 ways technology is helping the construction industry – Las Vegas Sun

Posted on by

Sam Morris/Las Vegas News Bureau

Dave Bullard examines a 3-D printed stick, part of an excavator, during the first day of the 2017 CONEXPO-CON/AGG convention Tuesday, March 7, 2017, at the Las Vegas ConventionCenter.

By Mick Akers (contact)

Saturday, March 11, 2017 | 2 a.m.

The massive construction vehicles garner immediate attention at CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2017 concluding today at the Las Vegas Convention Center, but it's whats tucked behind those monstrosities that could have the biggest impact.

With advances in autonomous vehicles, drones and 3-D-printer-created machinery, the construction industry is taking notice, as evident by the tagline of this years show, Imagine Whats Next.

The Tech Experience displayed the technology in a 75,000-square-foot area filled with sleek futuristic structures, housing various companies and their technologies.

Autonomous attenuators

Attenuator trucks, also known as crash trucks, serve as a protection barrier between traffic and work trucks in roadside construction areas.

The trucks are fitted with a scorpion attenuator, which is a fold-up cushion that takes the shock of the impact, designed to protect the driver in the truck and the work crews ahead.

If someone isnt paying attention to the road, falls asleep at the wheel or is drunk and they go into the work zone, they are going to slam into the back of our attenuator truck. That has a big cushion on the back and absorbs the crash, said Samantha Schwartz, autonomous TMA truck marketing manager at Royal Truck & Equipment.

There are about 2,500 attenuator trucks on the road in the U.S., but operators are increasingly difficult to find because of the danger that is involved, Schwartz said.

Despite the safety cushion, attenuator truck drivers are still in harm's way and many crashes result in injury, Schwartz said.

The driver of the crash truck gets up every day and says, OK, honey, Im going to go drive the crash truck today, and hes just praying he doesnt get hit by a semi truck, she said.

Royal Truck & Equipment has started work on a driverless attenuator truck, in partnership with Micro Systems Inc.

We launched this technology in August 2015, and its taken about a year to advance this technology, Schwartz said. Were getting ready to work with our first department of transportation (DOT) to launch our first test program on a highway at the end of this month.

Schwartz said the truck will launch on a billion dollar project in London. She said the goal is to have U.S. regulations in place by the end of this year to permit completely autonomous attenuator systems.

Once that occurs Royal Truck can start rolling out its autonomous attenuator program with a short list of transportation departments in the U.S. waiting to get in on the new technology, including Nevada, Schwartz said.

Schwartz was hesitant to talk about pricing of an autonomous attenuator truck, but she said it wouldnt cost much more than a current attenuator truck, which varies in cost by state.

Royal Truck had a virtual reality simulator, created by Virtual 3D Solutions, to show what it feels like to be in the attenuator truck in a work zone, including when it gets hit.

3-D-printed excavator

When people hear about 3-D printed technology, what usually comes to mind are smaller objects that one can produce from their home.

Bucking that trend at the CONAGG-CONEXPO show is the AME (Additive Manufactured Excavator) Project.

The boom (or stick) and the cab of the excavator were 3-D printed, while the other components were manufactured.

The stick was done with steel, and the cab was made with an ABS carbon fiber composite, said Clayton Greer, a graduate student at Georgia Tech who worked on the stick of the excavator.

The two features took different amounts of time to print, as the steel-made stick took longer than the carbon-fiber composite cab.

The stick took about five days, 24 hours operation, with 13 miles of weld wire, Greer said. The cab took about seven hours or so for the whole thing.

The stick was created with a welding torch on a robot arm in a process that is similar to multipass welding, which had more than 900 passes, Greer said.

Pricing the 3-D-printed excavator is tough, according to Greer, as the project was a one off.

Attendees were taken back by the excavator because they werent aware such technology existed.

There is technology here that I didnt even think was out or even commercially ready. Its awesome, said Luke Meyer, an exhibitor working closely with Project AME.

The ultimate goal of the AME project was to show what can be done with 3-D printer technology.

For one it's a demonstration that we can make structural components with additive manufacturing, he said. Also, at this scale to show that we can make something this big.

Drone Zone

With drones being more routinely used in a variety of applications, it was a matter of time before the construction industry jumped in the mix.

The netted Drone Zone at the convention features an obstacle course to give attendees an opportunity to see how drones operated. Attendees were invited to wear a first-person viewer headpiece, similar to a virtual reality headpiece.

Adam Negron, president of Las Vegas-based Drone Reviewer LLC, said he set up the Drone Zone for entertainment and education purposes, to give those who attended a chance to fly a drone.

Mick Akers

The Drone Zone at CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2017 features an obstacle course to give attendees an opportunity to see how drones operate. Attendees were invited to wear a first-person viewer headpiece, similar to a virtual reality headpiece.

Were pushing first-person view (FPV). The idea is to show that you can use drones in first-person view to get a better angle of a site. People who are good at it can go through small spaces to address an issue through the live video, Negron said.

All hopeful drone operators must first give a simulator a try first. Once they display they can keep the correct altitude and maneuver through various zones correctly, they get to operate an actual drone in the Drone Zone.

Negron said lot of the attendees said they want to or already use drones for surveying for real-time results.

For example, a man said he has a concrete company, and he wanted to be able to get a better view of a site faster. He can send a drone up and look, he said. So this shows what drones can do, and not just in the first-person view, but just in general.

Negron said most people werent very coordinated in the simulator, but a certain segment of participants were noticeably better at it.

Gamers are naturally good at it because of their hand-eye coordination, he said. Some people just shoot them straight in the air, because they keep on throttling up and theyre not just spatially aware.

Original post:

3 ways technology is helping the construction industry - Las Vegas Sun

Waymo seeks court order against Uber over self-driving car technology – USA TODAY

Posted on by

SAN FRANCISCO Waymo, the self-driving car division of Google-parent Alphabet, is seeking a court orderto stop Uber from using trade secrets, includingthousands ofconfidential files it alleges werestolen by a former Waymo employee.

Waymo is seeking a preliminary injunction against Uber.(Photo: Paul Sancya, Associated Press)

Waymo says a preliminary injunction will "prevent defendants from misappropriating Waymos own technology to cheat and distort competition in this nascent market."

That technology, which Waymo says was developed over thousands of hours by researchers, engineers and designers, includes light detection and rangingtechnology known as LiDARthat helps self-driving cars sense their surroundings.

Uber said it was reviewing the matter and referred USA TODAY to its previous statement on the lawsuit.

"We have reviewed Waymo's claims and determined them to be a baseless attempt to slow down a competitor and we look forward to vigorously defending against them in court," the company said.

At stake for Uber: A preliminary injunction could slow or even temporarily halt development of its self-driving car technology.

Waymo sued Uber last month, alleging that former Waymo employeeAnthony Levandowski secretlydownloaded more than 14,000 confidentialfiles shortly before he resignedin January 2016.

Levandowskifounded self-driving-truck startup Otto, which was acquired by Uber in August 2016 for $680 million. Levandowski now leads Ubers self-driving-car division.

Related: It's a 50,000 pound semi. And now it's self driving

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2mvh2bD

View post:

Waymo seeks court order against Uber over self-driving car technology - USA TODAY

There’s Still Time to Nominate For Marketing Technology Trailblazers – AdAge.com

Posted on by

Ad Age is seeking the digital transformers, data scientists and stack stars that fuel the world of marketing technology. Our new Marketing Tech Trailblazers list, publishing April 17, will recognize industry movers who are creating, collecting and harnessing data to create smart marketing. And we are seeking your help for nominations for this influential list.

You may nominate someone at a technology vendor who is offering cool new products and showing the industry how to use it in new ways; the digital technologist at a marketer who is doing outstanding work applying digital tools of the trade to smartly manage and grow the company's business; the data and insights strategist at an ad or marketing agency who is applying those learnings to business and winning.

Successful candidates will not be limited to those categories; however, people on our list will be actively working in and helping to advance marketing technology.

Please be as specific as you can as to what accomplishments this person has achieved in the subject area within the past year. Nominate here. Submissions end Monday March 27.

See the original post here:

There's Still Time to Nominate For Marketing Technology Trailblazers - AdAge.com

Vandermeer’s View: Changes in progress – HoustonTexans.com

Posted on by

A year ago the team made the bold move to get a starting QB, but creatively moved on after it was clear they needed more production from the position. The Texans now have a great deal of freedom to pursue other options.

Despite needing to utilize eight different starting quarterbacks in the last three years, the club has had a franchise-record three-consecutive winning seasons and back-to-back playoff appearances for only the second time. Bill OBrien and Rick Smith know that once they stabilize and solidify the position the franchise will have its best shot to pursue a championship.

Tom Savage is gearing up for his fourth season and looked promising in limited action in 2016. A healthy Savage could be a huge boost to the position. And Brandon Weeden, who came off the bench in the first-ever win at Indy in 15, and won his only start at Tennessee, is still here. But you know there will be more added to the mix.

If no other QBs are acquired before draft weekend, well be on pins and needles as the picks unfold. Even with another QB on the roster its hardly out of the question that the Texans look for a signal caller in the draft to help take them into the future. And considering some of the luck theyve had its entirely possible that a rookie could see the field.

I hate bringing up luck, but its hard to avoid the concept for the Texans when it comes to the most important position on the field. Whether its Matt Schaubs injury in 11, Savage and Ryan Fitzpatrick suffering season-ending injuries in the same game in 14, Brian Hoyer suffering two concussions in 15 and Savage getting a concussion in the 16 finale in the eve-game of the playoffs, its hardly been a leprechaun party.

Thats why, until Houston goes on a healthy multi-year run at the position, youll understand if they get as ocean-deep as possible with options at QB.z

The next few weeks, maybe the next few minutes, are crucial in determining the immediate and long term future of the team. The unscripted entertainment aspect of pro football is alive and well in the offseason and well be here to follow every bit of it.

Stay tuned.

See the rest here:

Vandermeer's View: Changes in progress - HoustonTexans.com

Public should defend progress on climate change – Richmond Free Press

Posted on by

The current state of the environment is a pressing concern for Richmond. In 2015, we were No. 1 in ragweed, pollen and ozone pollution, and currently are No. 2 in the country for asthma count.

With the current administrations stance on climate change and environmental policy, there is little hope for any of these situations to get better. As asthma affects our community at a more frequent rate than most of the U.S population, this should be an area of concern.

With our nation more divided than ever, we will have to fight for our beliefs at every turn. We cannot do this if we are not informed.

With the administrations attacks on the press, it is more important than ever that the media covers the ongoing attacks on our environment and that our elected officials fight tooth and nail to defend the progress we have made in reducing pollution, protecting our open spaces and combating climate change.

MALIK HALL

Richmond

Continued here:

Public should defend progress on climate change - Richmond Free Press

Survey, cultural planning for Somerset County in progress – Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

Posted on by

SKOWHEGAN Whats the first thing that comes to mind when you hear someone say Somerset County?

A burgeoning farm-to-table economy? The Kennebec River? The Skowhegan State Fair? Bernard Langlais sculptures? Lakewood Theater? The Margaret Chase Smith Library?

The Wesserunsett Arts Council and Main Street Skowhegan are gathering information about existing and future cultural resources in Somerset County with a downloadable public opinion survey asking people what they like and what they would like to see in the future for recreation, agriculture, the arts, history and the community in general.

There are three surveys in all, as the groups move to develop a Somerset Cultural Plan.

Kristina Cannon, executive director at Main Street Skowhegan, said part of the plan is to attract visitors to the area, be it for the historic buildings and parks, the grist mill in the former county jail, whitewater rafting in The Forks, Somerset Abbey in Madison or the planned Run of River whitewater park through Skowhegan.

The importance of the surveys goes back to positioning Somerset County as a tourist destination, Cannon said. By gathering information and figuring out what our cultural assets are, well be able to enhance them and use them to our advantage when it comes to attracting tourists.

Cannon said the Maine Office of Tourism has offered to send the surveys out to their partners to gather information not just from local people, but also from outside of the area to see whats attractive to visitors. She said cultural assets and attractions run the gamut from the recent brew fest in Skowhegan this past summer to the South Solon Meeting House.

The definition of culture is a pretty big and vast description, she said. We want to make sure we are capitalizing on the assets that we already have and using them for economic development in the form of tourism.

The Somerset Cultural Plan got started with public meetings in November at Good Will-Hinckley and later at Northern Outdoors, at Lakewood golf course and another in Pittsfield.

Along with the public opinion survey, there is a artist and performer survey and a business and cultural organization survey to identify goals to connect arts, culture and historic assets with the communities. All three of the surveys are available in hard copy to pick up and fill out from various town offices in the county and public libraries.

Surveys can be filled out and dropped off at the location where they are picked up.

The idea behind the three surveys is to collect thoughts and ideas from local community members, artists, cultural organizations and business owners, said Serena Sanborn, a member of the arts council board of directors and the Somerset Cultural Planning Committee.

The whole idea behind the cultural plan is to make life better for us in Somerset, Sanborn said in an interview. Its really asking the question, what do you love to do? What makes life great for you? And thats an important question for a county, which has great recreational stuff, a lot of great food all of those things but what else can we add to make it even better?

Sanborn said cultural events add to the quality of life, and thats important to the overall health of the region.

Survey questions, according to Saskia Reinholt, a consultant working with the cultural planning group, include some about how community leaders across all sectors value culture, whether arts and cultural offerings are accessible and are relevant, and what Somerset County wants to be known for.

The survey also asks what ideas have been successful elsewhere and what are the most realistic, valuable and effective strategies to support Somerset County cultural development.

Were measuring supply and demand, Reinholt said, supply being the artists in the county and the cultural providers the museums, libraries, cultural organizations to see what their needs are, if there are any gaps. And we measure demand, being public opinion and what people are interested in as far as arts and culture and what types of development that (theyd) like to see.

She said the study also looks at the barriers and the participation in local events to explore the reach, the value and the relevance of arts and cultural resources in Somerset County and beyond. Reinholt said people living in neighboring counties also are important to the surveys as well, if county institutions want to attract newcomers to the local art and food scene, and to see what visitors think about the cultural opportunities in Somerset County.

The goal of the Somerset Cultural Plan is to find new methods to increase participation in cultural activities, enhance innovative economic development and strengthen the arts and cultural network, Reinholt said.

Reinholt said organizers hope at least 1 percent of the countys population, or about 500 people, will respond to the public opinion survey, which is the standard for such surveys. On the business survey, people are asked if their business is farm-related, an art-, historic- or recreation-based endeavor or a service, such as web design and graphics. The artist survey asks where respondents create their art and what sort of facility or space the person would like to have available in Somerset County that are not available now.

Each survey takes five to 10 minutes to complete.

Doug Harlow 612-2367

[emailprotected]

Twitter:@Doug_Harlow

See the original post here:

Survey, cultural planning for Somerset County in progress - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

Transhumanism: The World’s Most Dangerous Idea?

Posted on by

What idea, if embraced, would pose the greatest threat to the welfare of humanity? This was the question posed by the editors of Foreign Policy in the September/October issue to eight prominent policy intellectuals, among them Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and member of the Presidents Council on Bioethics.

And Fukuyamas answer? Transhumanism, a strange liberation movement whose crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates. This movement, he says, wants nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints.

More precisely, transhumanists advocate increased funding for research to radically extend healthy lifespan and favor the development of medical and technological means to improve memory, concentration, and other human capacities. Transhumanists propose that everybody should have the option to use such means to enhance various dimensions of their cognitive, emotional, and physical well-being. Not only is this a natural extension of the traditional aims of medicine and technology, but it is also a great humanitarian opportunity to genuinely improve the human condition.

According to transhumanists, however, the choice whether to avail oneself of such enhancement options should generally reside with the individual. Transhumanists are concerned that the prestige of the Presidents Council on Bioethics is being used to push a limiting bioconservative agenda that is directly hostile to the goal of allowing people to improve their lives by enhancing their biological capacities.

So why does Fukuyama nominate this transhumanist ideal, of working towards making enhancement options universally available, as the most dangerous idea in the world? His animus against the transhumanist position is so strong that he even wishes for the death of his adversaries: transhumanists, he writes, are just about the last group that Id like to see live forever. Why exactly is it so disturbing for Fukuyama to contemplate the suggestion that people might use technology to become smarter, or to live longer and healthier lives?

Fierce resistance has often accompanied technological or medical breakthroughs that force us to reconsider some aspects of our worldview. Just as anesthesia, antibiotics, and global communication networks transformed our sense of the human condition in fundamental ways, so too we can anticipate that our capacities, hopes, and problems will change if the more speculative technologies that transhumanists discuss come to fruition. But apart from vague feelings of disquiet, which we may all share to varying degrees, what specific argument does Fukuyama advance that would justify foregoing the many benefits of allowing people to improve their basic capacities?

Fukuyamas objection is that the defense of equal legal and political rights is incompatible with embracing human enhancement: Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project.

His argument thus depends on three assumptions: (1) there is a unique human essence; (2) only those individuals who have this mysterious essence can have intrinsic value and deserve equal rights; and (3) the enhancements that transhumanists advocate would eliminate this essence. From this, he infers that the transhumanist project would destroy the basis of equal rights.

The concept of such a human essence is, of course, deeply problematic. Evolutionary biologists note that the human gene pool is in constant flux and talk of our genes as giving rise to an extended phenotype that includes not only our bodies but also our artifacts and institutions. Ethologists have over the past couple of decades revealed just how similar we are to our great primate relatives. A thick concept of human essence has arguably become an anachronism. But we can set these difficulties aside and focus on the other two premises of Fukuyamas argument.

The claim that only individuals who possess the human essence could have intrinsic value is mistaken. Only the most callous would deny that the welfare of some non-human animals matters at least to some degree. If a visitor from outer space arrived on our doorstep, and she had consciousness and moral agency just like we humans do, surely we would not deny her moral status or intrinsic value just because she lacked some undefined human essence. Similarly, if some persons were to modify their own biology in a way that alters whatever Fukuyama judges to be their essence, would we really want to deprive them of their moral standing and legal rights? Excluding people from the moral circle merely because they have a different essence from the rest of us is akin to excluding people on basis of their gender or the color of their skin.

Moral progress in the last two millennia has consisted largely in our gradually learning to overcome our tendency to make moral discriminations on such fundamentally irrelevant grounds. We should bear this hard-earned lesson in mind when we approach the prospect of technologically modified people. Liberal democracies speak to human equality not in the literal sense that all humans are equal in their various capacities, but that they are equal under the law. There is no reason why humans with altered or augmented capacities should not likewise be equal under the law, nor is there any ground for assuming that the existence of such people must undermine centuries of legal, political, and moral refinement.

The only defensible way of basing moral status on human essence is by giving essence a very broad definition; say as possessing the capacity for moral agency. But if we use such an interpretation, then Fukuyamas third premise fails. The enhancements that transhumanists advocate longer healthy lifespan, better memory, more control over emotions, etc. would not deprive people of the capacity for moral agency. If anything, these enhancements would safeguard and expand the reach of moral agency.

Fukuyamas argument against transhumanism is therefore flawed. Nevertheless, he is right to draw attention to the social and political implications of the increasing use of technology to transform human capacities. We will indeed need to worry about the possibility of stigmatization and discrimination, either against or on behalf of technologically enhanced individuals. Social justice is also at stake and we need to ensure that enhancement options are made available as widely and as affordably as possible. This is a primary reason why transhumanist movements have emerged. On a grassroots level, transhumanists are already working to promote the ideas of morphological, cognitive, and procreative freedoms with wide access to enhancement options. Despite the occasional rhetorical overreaches by some of its supporters, transhumanism has a positive and inclusive vision for how we can ethically embrace new technological possibilities to lead lives that are better than well.

The only real danger posed by transhumanism, it seems, is that people on both the left and the right may find it much more attractive than the reactionary bioconservatism proffered by Fukuyama and some of the other members of the Presidents Council.

[For a more developed response, see In Defense of Posthuman Dignity, Bioethics, 2005, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 202-214.]

Go here to see the original:

Transhumanism: The World's Most Dangerous Idea?

The bewildered present-day world – The New Indian Express

Posted on by

Some years ago, a precocious writer arrived on the Indian literary scene. His book Butter Chicken in Ludhiana was charming, fresh and funny, a little like Kingsley Amis Lucky Jim. Butter Chicken in Ludhiana announced the advent of a new, major talent, at least for this reviewer.

Strangely, however, its author Pankaj Mishra later dismissed his own work, virtually disowning it, and was seemingly embarrassed by it. One suspects that he did not think it serious enough and did not want to be branded essentially as a comic writer, like Amis (who after that never reached the heights of Lucky Jim). But in Mishras case a series of well-received serious books followed, and Age of Anger is the latest.

Its main theme, outlined in a 35-page Prologue, is an interesting one: With the break-up of the Soviet Union and the virtual demise of communism in 1989, along with the formation of the European Union (EU) and the promise of a globalised free-market economy, how come that everything has unravelled in the past two or three decades?

Why did Brexit take place and why is the EU failing, even threatening to break up altogether? How could Donald Trump, with no political experience, triumph over Hilary Clinton, and why have Hindu supremacists come to power in India? What explains the rise of the Islamic State (IS), and its attraction for educated youngsters in Western democracies? How have the forces of globalisation given way to protectionism and xenophobia?

These are the leading questions of the day. They have been perplexing most thinking people. It is to the credit of Mishra that he attempts to answer them by looking back into history, to the main thinkers and philosophers of the 18th and 19th century. He feels that a deep study of the past is necessary to make sense of the present and that a thread links those thinkers and philosophers with what is now happening around us.

In the late 20th century, the old dream of economic internationalism was revived on a much grander scale after Communism, the illegitimate child of Enlightenment rationalism, suffered a shattering loss of state power and legitimacy in Russia and Eastern Europe, writes Mishra.

The financialisation of capitalism seemed to realise Voltaires dream of the stock exchange as the embodiment of humanityand the universalist religion of human rights seemed to be replacing the old language of justice and equality within sovereign nation states.

The magic of the market seemed to be bringing about the homogenisation of all human societies. As Louis Vuitton opened in Borneo, and the Chinese turned into the biggest consumers of French wines, it seemed only a matter of time before the love of luxury was followed by the rule of law, the enhanced use of critical reason, and the expansion of individual freedom. Thats well and eloquently put.

Almost 25 pages of bibliographies at the end is an indication of how much research has gone into the book. Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Bakunin, Tocqueville, Spencer, Hegel, Wagner, of course, Marx and Engels, are a few writers who are extensively quoted.

However, this reviewer found the profound influence that the Italian Mazzini exerted on not just the Indian independence movement but the Arabs and Jews as well.

Both Mahatma Gandhi and Veer Savarkar imbibed the works of the Italian (he was also the main architect of Italian unity) but to different purposes, one for non-violence and the other for the very opposite of ahimsa. Mishra also shows that Savarkar not only offered to abjectly collaborate with the British after he was sent to jail in the Andamans, but was also part of the conspiracy to assassinate the Mahatma.

Though learning seems to sit heavily on the shoulders of Mishra, rather than lightly, this is essential reading for anybody who wants to make sense of the bewildering and confusing present-day world.

See original here:

The bewildered present-day world - The New Indian Express

Censorship at Middlebury College – Canada Free Press

Posted on by

Having witnessed how the Yugoslav tragedy was essentially driven (vis a vis "wag the dog" 20) by pseudo-intellectual thug "academics" and "journalists" who pimp themselves out to the highest bidder

The recent embarrassing censorship of Dr. Charles Murray at the hands of a student mob at Middlebury College1 gave me horrible flashbacks of my numerous unforgettable experiences with academic censorship as a Serbian-American activist in the Boston area when I was a graduate student at Harvard in the 1990s 2.

During this time, the Yugoslav civil wars were raging and the media and Western politicians were blaming the Serbs for everything bad that happened in the Balkans and beyond 3. Many conferences and lectures were suddenly and spontaneously organized at local colleges and universities. But just like the corporate-controlled mainstream media discussion of the facts surrounding tragic civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, I found that they were consistently presenting only 1/2 (or less) of the real story4,5.

Serbian experts were not being invited to present their side. Self-described pseudo-intellectual experts on the Balkans who werent even from Yugoslavia (and in many cases had not even visited the region) were instead regurgitating US State Department agitprop to demonize the Serbian people. And there were so many of them: dermatologist (!) Philip Cohen MD, NYT columnist Anthony Lewis, journalist (later US ambassador to the UN) Samantha Power, historian and journalist Noel Malcolm, columnist Georgie Anne Geyer etc. etc. etc., who were giving biased/distorted presentations at esteemed academic institutions against the Serbs and advocating military action against them with little or no counterpoint. We tried in vain to challenge their distorted arguments only to find hostile conference organizers who would allow maybe a two minute response - and it had to be in the form of a question (for an hour long talk) - if we were lucky - and then shut us down once they saw that we were disrupting their carefully constructed web of distorted information.

At one memorable conference at Wellesley College, Croatian nationalist professor Ivo Banac at Yale angrily, publicly and loudly called my friend who had civilly and diplomatically questioned his Yugoslav communist sources a Serbian propagandist. I made the point there publicly that there were no Serbian perspectives/voices who were invited. Afterward, an anthropology professor at Wellesley took my group out for a late dinner to apologize because he told me that he was asked to present a Serbian viewpoint but admitted that he knew nothing about the war or the region and felt that Wellesley had done a disservice to the Serbs. When my wife who was a Wellesley alumna wrote a letter to the president of the college explaining this horribly anti-intellectual situation, the president explained in written response that Srdja Popovic was invited. This is the same Mr. Popovic who openly called for bombing of his own people as a traitor while the majority of his family was safely in America courtesy of the US State Department. I wouldnt consider his views representative of the majority of Serbs.

Another American anthropologist at Boston University whom I knew and who actually did field work in Yugoslavia was viciously threatened by Croatian scholars when she presented her pro-Serbian (really just balanced but to be balanced in those days was to be pro-Serb) perspectives at another scholarly academic conference. She was rarely invited to present papers due to the anti-Serbian McCarthyesque hysteria that swept up academia in the 1990s despite the gravity of her important work in Yugoslavia in the 1970s. A Canadian sociology professor at McMaster University received death threats from Croatians in Hamilton Ontario when she wrote about the savage genocide of Serbian Orthodox Christians in WWII at the hands of the Croatian Catholic Ustashe 6-8.

A Japanese-American professor who was a friend of mine and fellow activist wrote a letter to Elie Wiesel to query him why he was so anti-Serbian given that he should have had some understanding of why Serbs were so terrified to live in a Croatia that sought to resurrect the symbolism and rhetoric of its shameful Nazi Ustasha era when hundreds of thousands of Serbs (my relatives included) perished. Prof. Wiesel wrote him back a bizarre, strangely worded and unintelligible response which was also sent to the president of his university demonstrating the McCarthyesque means that some scholars utilized to scare and possibly get fired those who disagreed with them.

Even MIT had a biased anti-Serbian panel which included a Bosnian Muslim warlord commander (who had likely committed war crimes against Serbian civilians) but with no Serbian side to challenge the information presented. When I pointed this out, I was threatened by some members of the largely Muslim student audience and had to make a hasty exit for fear of my life - at MIT of all places!

More recently historian and columnist Dr. Srdja Trifkovic was banned from entering Canada in 2011 due to an angry Bosnian Muslim organization/mob that prevented him from giving an invited talk on the future of the Balkans at the University of British Columbia just because he was Serbian and had written pieces and books critical of Muslim extremism in the past 9-12.

And so it went for many years and continues to go on to this very day. I write the Canada Free Press this piece because there are few (if any) American news outlets who would dare to publish this essay because to publish it would be to admit decades of censorship and information control in the American free and fair media 2. There was no real debate on the Balkans at our nations finest academic institutions because the intention was never to inform American students and scholars about the reality of the civil wars in Yugoslavia but to demonize the Serbs to build support for illegal military action against them and breakup Yugoslavia at Serbian expense. These actions culminated in the illegal and vicious bombing of Serbia in 1999 to enable an Islamic terrorist safe haven of Kosovo (from which we continue to receive blowback) by stealing it from Serbia and to create Camp Bondsteel for protecting the AMBO pipeline and act against Russia someday13-15.

Though many of the allegations against the Serbs have been proven to be grossly exaggerated and many of the atrocities against them have reluctantly and finally been exposed, the damage has been done. Yugoslavia, which was an anchor of stability in the Balkans, has been torn asunder and the Balkans has returned to its pre WWI status as an unstable and divided powder keg that could go off any moment thanks to NATOs desperate need find a new purpose and new enemies to justify its senseless existence after the fall of the Berlin Wall 16. And so this costly Quixotic quest for imaginary enemies, betrayal of century-old allies (e,g. WWI and WWII ally Serbia), and divide-and-conquer modus operandi continues to this very day in Libya, Syria, the Ukraine and elsewhere and now in my own country - America.

I will never forget the racism, ignorance, censorship that Serbians and Serbian-Americans endured at the hands of ignorant academics such as Samantha Power who were nothing more than pseudo-intellectual propagandists doing the bidding of their Bilderberger/CFR masters: globalists and master strategists such as Zbieniew Brzezinski and George Soros in their fanatical and sinister effort to force an unelected new world order which will enslave much of humanity 17-19.

Fast forward to the censorship of Dr. Charles Murray at Middlebury College and I see exactly the same McCarthyesque/fascist pattern of ignorant, immature, and misguided students (led by their mentors and other sponsors) most of whom Ill bet have not even read Dr. Murrays book but nevertheless feel self-righteous in their anger and censorship of this scholar.

The point of this essay is not to defend Dr. Murrays work. It is not even to say who was right and who was wrong in the Yugoslav civil wars where no side was innocent. The point of this essay is to explain that many so-called scholars and their students dont know how to debate and are destroying respect for and the purpose of academia. They are afraid of information that may not fit their carefully crafted and generously funded paradigms and so, to prevent the truth or at least different ways of thinking from emerging, they censor it. The Middlebury students betrayed the constitutional right of free speech by preventing Dr. Murray from presenting his ideas. As Americans, we have the right to hear and should hear ALL sides of any story (regardless of what is right and what is wrong) - particularly in an academic setting and to debate these ideas. They key to being a good scholar is precisely the willingness to examine different directions of thought that may be controversial but nevertheless, may yield tremendous insight and will at the very least instill caution where fools dare to tread. When we become afraid of ideas, we become slaves to that fear and lose our ability to think freely and thus be creative which is what made America great.

The essence of democracy and intellectual freedom is the free exchange and expression of ideas. Democracies require educated citizens to flourish and that requires exposure to differing points of view even if some citizens disagree with them. Civilized debate is the proper means for flushing out bad ideas so that we can agree on and adopt good ideas and move positively forward. Without debate, we encourage polarization, ignorance and confusion around controversial ideas which is extremely dangerous.

I was deeply disappointed in the students at Middlebury college who prevented different ideas from being presented. The immature students who disrupted the event should be severely reprimanded by college authorities and those who assaulted the professor should face criminal charges and be expelled from the college. If students are unwilling to even listen to opposing ideas (regardless of their political correctness) and civilly participate in the debate/discussion, they will never learn anything and have no business being in college.

Having witnessed how the Yugoslav tragedy was essentially driven (vis a vis wag the dog 20) by pseudo-intellectual thug academics and journalists who pimp themselves out to the highest bidder and encouraged mob/NATO violence against the Serbs culminating in the destruction of international law, and seeing how Nazi Germany got its way by similarly encouraging mob violence, bullying and burning books, I shudder for the future of academia and for my country. We should all be deeply concerned by what transpired at Middlebury College.

References:

Continue reading here:

Censorship at Middlebury College - Canada Free Press

World Day Against Cyber-Censorship – The Media Express

Posted on by

The Internet has been key to providing a voice for those who have been ignored by the traditional media streams. While those groups have been able to enjoy free expression and an exchange of ideas. Yet around the world, governments are trying to limit individuals access to the web.

As part of the World Day Against Cyber-Censorship, the reminders are focused on how the web remains a battleground for free speech, as well as a way to rally users in fighting repression of online speech. Reporters Without Borders created this day to also celebrate the work of brave individuals who are promoting free speech and expression on the Internet.

While there are a variety of reasons offered for censorship, in Iran, the web has become a way to track potential opposition and those who are arguing for change. Bloggers have been imprisoned, websites are blocked and access to the global internet is limited to non-existent. The argument has been to block obscene content, since the Iranian government promotes Sharia law, which includes more intense controls over content.

But this work has also had a cooling effect on free speech, as social media sites are blocked or heavily monitored and individuals are arrested based on questionable charges of insulting government officials. State-mandated blocking and filtering programs have become a standard part of the web in Iran.

Irans nationwide Halal Internet is meant to cut off a majority of citizens from the global web and they are attempting to block all foreign sites. As part of this day, Reporters Without Borders updates its Enemies of the Internet and Countries Under Surveillance lists. Countries on the Enemies of the Internet list include all of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online, but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users. Iran has been on that list since 2006.

There has also been an increase in the number of countries that have used the Internet for surveillance, in addition to censorship. Iran has also employed programs to track the usage of their citizens. Censorship and monitoring programs are being sold to multiple dictatorships, including Syria and Iran, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation. Yet, these capabilities would not be possible without the help of American and EU companies that sell the state-of-the-art programs being used to spy on their citizens.

Like Loading...

View original post here:

World Day Against Cyber-Censorship - The Media Express

Free speech is under threat: After gagging Jenni Murray, will the … – Telegraph.co.uk

Posted on by

Dame Jenni Murray, who is scarcely a hyena of the fascist Right, has received an impartiality warning from the BBC for expressing her legitimate opinion that a man whose sex is changed to a woman isnt really a woman at all.

It is abominable that the BBC should reprimand her for this. Dame Jenni has been a woman all her life; she knows very well what being a woman is; in a free country, she is entitled to voice her view. It is up to the rest of us whether we agree with her. As our public service broadcaster, the BBCs duty is to encourage discussion on such subjects, not close it down.

We already live in a society in which devout Christians are regarded as engaging in hate speech if they voice their scepticism about applying the institution of marriage to same-sex couples; where anyone who denies man-made climate change is regarded as mentally defective; and, of course, where one is branded...

See the rest here:

Free speech is under threat: After gagging Jenni Murray, will the ... - Telegraph.co.uk

Bill would chill free speech on college campuses – The State

Posted on by
Bill would chill free speech on college campuses
The State
As an educator and a Jew, I am troubled by the support in our Legislature for H.3643, which purports to protect Jewish students and faculty but in practice would harm free speech at educational institutions, where robust political debate on important ...

More here:

Bill would chill free speech on college campuses - The State

How the surveillance state threatens free speech | TheHill – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

What is old is new again. Government surveillance is in the news, again. The cycle started with President Trump alleging former President Obama wire tapped Trump Towers. The cycle continued when Wikileaks released a trove of documents relating to the Central Intelligence Agencys hacking tools.

Whether President Trumps allegations have merit, or whether they are baseless should not matter. Whether the CIA spied on United States citizens or whether it did not should not matter. What should concern citizens is the governments ability to spy on them.

Consumers place confidence in the ability of a manufacturer, whether Apple, Google, or others, to secure electronic devices from prying eyes. Gone are the days when secure storage meant purchasing safes, lockboxes, or lockable file cabinets. Now, secrets are hidden within complex strings of ones and zeros. The most secure electronic systems cannot offer perfect privacy, but operate to obscure meaningful data better than the competition.

Technology can help obscure meaningful information. Technology also provides government increased access to a citizens private life, habits, and private thoughts. Instead of serving warrants and physically searching houses, computers, and other tangible items, government officials can remotely install malware, access electronic devices and seize photographs, document files, and contact lists. The Vault 7 revelations, along with Edward Snowdens prior leaks, demonstrate the government can remotely activate microphones and cameras embedded in electronic devices, including televisions. The government can turn all types of devices, including televisions, into spying tools.

Assuming the government follows proper procedures, it has a number of options minimally to comply with Fourth Amendment warrant requirements if it invokes national security as an excuse for surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides the executive branch broad leeway when conducting surveillance for national security purposes. The first option permits the President to authorize warrantless surveillance in certain circumstances. The second options allows the Attorney General to authorize warrant applications in other circumstances.

Both warrantless and warranted surveillance are classified. FISA requires the Attorney General to submit semi-annual reports to Congress. Those reports, though, do not need to contain detailed information. The reports need only list the total number of applications, the number of applications approved, and the criminal cases where information gathered is used.

Technology does not just provide governments increased access to a citizens private information; it also provides the government the ability to conceal any unauthorized access. The government can spy on citizens without even the most savvy technology expert knowing. And if the government believes it can completely avoid detection, or make it look like a foreign government was behind a hack, why should it apply for warrants? After all, the government could attribute the information gleaned to other sources, just as it has with cell site simulators.

Government surveillance relating to national security poses a unique threat compared to other criminal investigations. The president possesses significant authority to investigate foreign threats. The exercise of that authority, though, threatens U.S. citizens First Amendment freedom of speech rights. When conducting surveillance for national security purposes, it is likely the government will both record protected speech and will use its authority to monitor groups with politically incorrect viewpoints.

Well before technology permitted widespread surveillance, Supreme Court Justice Powell wrote,

History abundantly documents the tendency of governmenthowever benevolent and benign its motiveto view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect domestic security.

Government surveillance, of political right or political left groups, makes people think twice before speaking contrary to the political establishment. State surveillance of Black Lives Matter allegedly chilled members desire to engage in political discourse about the issues of our time. Similarly, surveillance of Trump officials was used to impeach the credibility of Lt. Gen. Flynn, attack Attorney General Sessions, and generally to delegitimize President Trump. Progressive groups, right leaning groups, and individuals in the government who threaten its power are equally subject to government surveillance and potential that surveillance will be used to silence their dissent.

Government may use technological advances to operate on the edges of Constitutional permissibility. The threats government surveillance pose to First Amendment freedom of speech rights should overshadow any discussion on the propriety of the surveillance state, just as they did before the proliferation of modern technologies, such as the computer and smartphone.

The Fourth and First Amendments are inexorably linked. Ignoring one will threaten the other. In the words of Justice Powell, The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.

Jonathon Paul Hauenschild, J.D., is a technology policy analyst. He is the founder and principal of Franklin Adams & Co., LLC.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:

How the surveillance state threatens free speech | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

The Challenge of Defending Free Speech in the Age of Trump – AlterNet

Posted on by

Two recent incidents demonstrate the appeal of intolerance on college campuses.

At Middlebury College in Vermont a noisy crowd of students disrupted a debate between Charles Murray, a conservative sociologist whose work has racist overtones, and Allison Stanger, a liberal professor. The Middlebury incident came just a few days after University of North Carolina Students for Justice in Palestine withdrew an invitationto journalist Rania Khalek because of her support for the Syrian government.

In both cases, the exercise of First Amendment rights was illiberally restricted in the name of liberal politics. In both cases, students chose to eliminate an unpopular point of view, not engage and refute it. In both cases it was a bad bargain, both for free speech and progressive causes.

This is not another attack on campus political correctness, which is hardly the oppressive force depicted by self-pitying conservative victimologists. Nor is it an apologia for Murray or Khalek, who can defend themselves. I want to defend people who seek to learn from robust political debate, only to find themselves thwarted by others.

As Brian Sonenstein of Shadowproof reported Monday, dozens of journalists, academics, writers, and activists signeda statement criticizing the actions of UNC Students for Justice in Palestine. The statement, "Against the Blacklisting of Activists and Writers," signed by Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky,Col. Ann Wright, Medea Benjamin and others, says the cancellation of Khaleks lecture at UNC raises important issues of tactics and strategy within movements for social change.

So does the shouting down of Murray and Stanger. And it's not an easy issue. With intolerant bigots controlling the White House, how does one foster the tolerance necessary in a multicultural democracy?

Some people dont want to talk about the First Amendment in this discussion.

"This is not an issue of freedom of speech, countered an open lettersigned by hundreds of Middlebury alumni. We think it is necessary to allow a diverse range of perspectives to be voiced at Middlebury. ... However, in this case we find the principle does not apply, due to not only the nature, but also the quality, of Dr. Murrays scholarship. He paints arguments for the biological and intellectual superiority of white men with a thin veneer of quantitative rhetoric and academic authority.

They go on:

His work, including 1984sLosing Groundand 1994sThe Bell Curve misinterprets selective, uncorrected statistics and other faulty data to argue for the genetic inferiority of people of color, women, people with disabilities and the poor. This is the same thinking that motivates eugenics and the genocidal white supremacist ideologies which are enjoying a popular resurgence under the new presidential administration."

This is a fair summary, though mistaken on one point. Murrays thinking, while racist in the two cited works, is not the "same" as genocidal white supremacist ideologies. He is not a neo-Nazi or a fascist, as any reading of his books will show. And those who shouted him down ignored the fact that he was invited by Middlebury students who wanted to hear his point of view. The protesters not only silenced a man with racist views; they silenced their fellow students who wanted to learn about Murrays views for themselves.

Stangers account of the meeting on Facebook makes for a sad read.

Middlebury is now engaged in soul-searching after a spate of negative publicity, saysInside Higher Ed, but for Khalek the damage has been done. She reported that another student group, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR)at Concordia University, rescinded her invitation to appear on a panel about Palestinian rights on March 9, supposedly for unrelated financial reasons.

And that is always the danger. Silencing an unpopular point of view once makes it more likely it will be silenced a second time. The persistent attacks on the free speech rights of the campus movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel have encouraged more of the same, and for the same reason: Because it's easier to silence a point of view you don't like than it is to refute it.

But maintaining the widest possible zone of free speech isnt a favor we do for the enemies of liberalism; it is a favor we do ourselves. It is a strategy for maximizing the range of debate, strengthening democratic norms and protecting minority opinions. That is more, not less, necessary every day.

Watch:

See more here:

The Challenge of Defending Free Speech in the Age of Trump - AlterNet

NATO, US concerned over Kosovo plan to create regular army

Posted on by

NATO and the US have warned Kosovo against its plans to transform its security force into a regular army. The alliance and Washington have promised to thwart cooperation with Kosovo if it sets up the army without a constitutional change.

NATOs chief, Jen Stoltenberg, said on Wednesday that he spoke to Kosovo leaders to convey the serious concerns of NATO Allies about recent proposals by the Kosovo authorities to transform the Kosovo Security Force (KSF) into an armed force, without a constitutional change.

He warned that in case Kosovo goes ahead with the transformation, NATO will have to review its level of commitment, particularly in terms of capacity-building.

The US embassy in Kosovo, issued a similar statement, saying that adoption of the current proposed law would force us to re-evaluate our bilateral cooperation with and longstanding assistance to Kosovos security forces.

Read more

"We support the gradual, transparent transformation of the Kosovo Security Force into a multiethnic force in line with NATO standards. However, this transformation should be done in accordance with the Kosovo Constitution and through an inclusive and representative political process that reflects Kosovos multiethnic democracy, the US embassy added.

NATO attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 to aid the ethnic Albanian insurgency in Kosovo. The breakaway province unilaterally declared independence in 2008, with the backing of the US and other Western powers.

Kosovo President Hashim Thaci, who led the 1999 insurgency, said he was determined to go on with the army creation plan, adding there is no turning back.

READ MORE:Albanias diaspora plans to seize Serbian mission in US or Europe Serbias foreign minister

The KSF will be transformed into a Kosovo army," Thaci told US government-funded Radio Free Europe. Western Balkans is endangered from the Russian military bases in Serbia, from Russia's MIG jets in Serbia and from the Russian military exercises in Serbia.''

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has thanked NATO for its stance on the matter in a phone conversation with Stoltenberg, Radio-Television of Serbia (RTS) reported. Vucic added that he expected help and support from the EU, the US and Russia over Kosovos move, which would violate the breakaway provinces UN-written constitution and UNSC resolution 1244.

READ MORE:Serbia to get 6 Russian MiG-29 fighter jets soon Defense Ministry

Any constitutional amendment can only be made in Kosovo if ethnic minorities in its parliament vote in its favor. Thaci believes that ethnic Serbs will never vote for establishing an army.

Kosovos lightly armed security force, formed in 2009, has now around 4,000 regular and 2,500 reserve forces, trained and supervised by NATO. KSF possesses no heavy weapons, like tanks or heavy artillery.

Thacis plan implies increasing regular forces up to 5,000 and reservists to 3,000. There are no plans for departure of some 4,500 NATO-led international troops, part of a mission deployed in Kosovo since 1999.

Read the original post:

NATO, US concerned over Kosovo plan to create regular army

Trump and Merkel to talk NATO, Ukraine and climate change – Deutsche Welle

Posted on by

After accusing German Chancellor Angela Merkel, on the campaign trail, of "ruining Germany" by welcoming refugees, US President Donald Trump will have his first face-to-face meeting with the German leader at the White House on Tuesday.

The two are expected to discuss strengthening the NATO alliance, collaborating in the fight against terrorism and taking steps to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, White House officials said Friday.

More broadly, Trump's first encounter will be aimed at building a personal rapport with a European partner who was among former President Barack Obama's strongest allies and international confidantes, according to the officials, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity despite the president's recent criticism of anonymous sources.

They are expected to discuss Germany's level of defense spending for the NATO alliance, the Ukraine conflict, Syrian refugees, the European Union and a host of other issues, said three senior administration officials who briefed reporters.

"My expectation is that they'll have a very positive, cordial meeting," said one of the officials.

Trump has long expressed a desire for warmer US relations with Russia but some of his top Cabinet officials are skeptical.

"The president will be very interested in hearing the chancellor's views on her experience interacting with Putin," said another official. "He's going to be very interested in hearing her insights on what it's like to deal with the Russians."

NATO and defense spending

White House officials said Trump would also discuss the need for NATO members to increase their defense spending.

"We are heartened by the German government's determination to reach NATO's benchmark of committing 2 percent of GDP to defense by 2024," the official said. "The president believes that all allies must shoulder their share of the defense burden."

In 2014 NATO's 28-member countries committed to reaching the spending target within a decade but only the US and four other members of the post-World War II military alliance are in compliance.

Trump referred to NATO as "obsolete" prior to his inauguration. Buthe has since told European leaders he agrees on the "fundamental importance" of the alliance.

Last month US Vice President Mike Pence reassured European leaders on the US commitment to NATO. German MEP David McAllister told DW that Pence's words were reassuring.

Many European allies have been rattled by Trump's positive statements about Putin and next week's meeting will come amid questions about Trump associates' connections to Russia.

Climate change

The White House said Trump and Merkel might also discuss the Paris accord on climate change. Trump vowed during his campaign to withdraw from the climate agreement, suggesting that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese.

But the administration is still formulating its policy on the issue ahead of the G7 meeting in Italy in May.

bik/se(AP, Reuters)

Read the original here:

Trump and Merkel to talk NATO, Ukraine and climate change - Deutsche Welle

New Petition Claims Italian NATO Deployment to Russian Border Unconstitutional – Sputnik International

Posted on by

World

18:04 11.03.2017(updated 18:08 11.03.2017) Get short URL

"Since sending Italian soldiers [to Latvia] could be considered a provocation againstRussia, this move should be banned ina country that rejects war inits constitution," the petition said.

Speaking to Sputnik Italy, prominent Italian blogger Tommaso Longobardi, one ofthose who initiated the petition, said that "we created this document so that those Italians who consider this decision dangerous and unjust could express their opinion."

Longobardi recalled that the Italian Constitution clearly states that "Italy rejects war asa means ofencroaching onthe freedom ofother peoples and asa means ofresolving international conflicts."

AFP 2017/ JANEK SKARZYNSKI

An Italian soldier displays his country's new army weapon during an Army Equipment exhibition on the sideline of the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia. File photo

"Nevertheless, our government is resorting tospeculation about 'strengthening the protection ofthe eastern and central countries ofthe alliance,' using the magic word 'defense' tomask a clear provocation againstRussia," he said.

He lamented the fact that "this petition does not have legal force", butsaid that "it has a huge symbolic meaning because: people who signed the petition belong todifferent political parties."

"By signing it, they expressed their indignation overthis government initiative," Longobardi said.

"Although the Italian media did not react tothe petition, a whole array offoreign newspapers contacted me, and I must thank them forgiving me the opportunity toshare the views ofthousands ofItalians withother countries," he relayed.

"This is why I believe that the petition has justified its goal forit proved that many Italians do not agree withthe government's decision," he pointed out.

He also said that he does not share the viewpoint ofBeppe Grillo, leader ofItaly's Five Star Movement party, that the country's government allegedly seeks to "drag Italy intowar."

"I do not think that our government wants tounleash a war, rather, it simply does not have any authority outsideItaly, which is why and it has toblindly stick toNATO's policy," Longobardi added.

He also said that even though the petition will be sent toItalian President Sergio Mattarella, he is unlikely toheed the opinion ofthe Italians.

Last year, Tancredi Turco, a member ofthe Italian national parliament, told Sputnik that an announcement that Italy is set tosend its troops tojoin a NATO mission inLatvia is "an alarming sign" because the alliance continues its approach towardsRussia's border.

Never miss a story again sign upto our Telegram channel and we'll keep you upto speed!

View original post here:

New Petition Claims Italian NATO Deployment to Russian Border Unconstitutional - Sputnik International

‘We Must Have Control of the Sea’: Ex-NATO Chiefs Urge North Atlantic Build-Up – Sputnik International

Posted on by

Europe

21:32 11.03.2017(updated 21:43 11.03.2017) Get short URL

The report, which contains chapters written byformer NATO commanders James Stavridis and Philip Breedlove, recommends that NATO extend its naval presence inthe North Atlantic too.

Breedlove expressed concern that Russia has developed "offensive long-range, high-precision capabilities and is building high-end maritime capabilities that could deny NATO members freedom ofmaneuver atsea," Stars and Stripes reported.

"As we look tothe future we need tothink more broadly and tore-emphasize the maritime domain. NATO must put the North Atlantic Ocean back onits agenda. We must have command ofthe sea," Breedlove wrote.

Breedlove, a four-star United States Air Force General who retired asSupreme Allied Commander ofNATO forces inEurope last year, is a known war hawk. He has previously called forNATO toincrease its military presence inEurope and forthe US to supply lethal weapons toKiev touse ineastern Ukraine.

Nikolai Topornin, an associate professor ofEuropean Law atthe Russian Foreign Ministry's Moscow State Institute ofInternational Relations, told Radio Sputnik that the latest report is another attempt towhip upanti-Russian hysteria withthe aim ofincreasing NATO's naval presence.

"The man has simply set himself the task oftelling everyone that Russia was violating some kind ofstrategic standards, is strengthening its military presence, including naval and may constitute some kind ofthreat," Topornin told Radio Sputnik.

An increased naval presence inthe North Atlantic Ocean would add toNATO's increased land presence atRussia's western borders.

In January, the US transferred its largest contingent oftroops and military equipment toEastern Europe sincethe end ofthe Cold War.

In addition, onFebruary 16 NATO defense chiefs approved the intensification oftraining exercises and drills inthe Black Sea and greater co-ordination betweennational navies and the permanent NATO task force inthe region.

More here:

'We Must Have Control of the Sea': Ex-NATO Chiefs Urge North Atlantic Build-Up - Sputnik International