Ties with islands important, says Amhaouch of CDA – The Daily Herald (press release)

By Suzanne Koelega

THE HAGUE--Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament Mustafa Amhaouch of the Christian Democratic Party CDA is relatively new to the Kingdom Relations portfolio, but he is committed to the Kingdom, as is his party. The connection with the islands is important.

Amhaouch (46) was installed as a Member of the Second Chamber in January 2016. He runs as number 15 on the CDA slate for the elections coming Wednesday. Amhaouch, born in the Netherlands of Moroccan descent, filled the void in the Second Chambers Permanent Committee for Kingdom Relations left by Madeleine van Toorenburg (CDA) due to other commitments in Parliament.

A visit to the Dutch Caribbean in January this year as part of the Dutch delegation for the Inter-Parliamentary Consultation for the Kingdom IPKO, Amhaouch was able to obtain first-hand experience on the islands, in this case Curaao and Bonaire, and to get a more in-depth view on the issues affecting the Kingdom.

He noticed the challenges in the relations between the Dutch Caribbean part and the Netherlands part of the Kingdom. He took note of the struggles of the islands, such as poverty and the lack of economic development, but he also saw opportunities; room for improvement.

The islands can function as a hub between Europe and Latin-America, which creates a win-win situation for all countries of the Kingdom. According to Amhaouch, the Dutch Government often perceives the relations with the islands too much in abstracts. More interaction and open-mindedness would positively contribute to these relations.

As for the frequent tensions in the relations within the Kingdom, Amhaouch said there are two sides to the medal. The Dutch Caribbean countries claim their autonomous position, while at the same time they lean on the Kingdom.

Amhaouch made reference to CDAs election programme, which dedicates ample attention to the islands. The Netherlands has been tied to the Kingdom parts in the Caribbean through many centuries of shared history. He said these were no hollow words for his party. We have a responsibility to make something of this together.

Aruba, Curaao and St. Maarten carry their own weight as autonomous countries, but for the Dutch public entities Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba the situation is different. We have a special responsibility for these islands, said Amhaouch.

Aside from stimulating the infrastructural and economic development, there is a task for the Netherlands to assist with the eradication of poverty on the three smaller islands. Amhaouch, who studied measurement science and control engineering at Fontys Hogeschool in Venlo, and worked 20 years in a management function at the highly successful Dutch technical company ASML, sees possibilities for (more) agriculture.

Stimulating agriculture on the islands would reduce the need to import expensive food items and would at the same time make the islands more self-reliant. He recently submitted written questions to the Dutch Government to get more attention for this matter.

Amhaouch also sees a responsibility and a role for the public entities to take initiative and come up with their own plans and wishes for The Hague. The Second Chamber is also your Parliament. The municipality in Limburg, where I live, drafts its own plans if it wants to get something done. The islands should do the same. In that way we as Parliament can address and support these plans.

Democracy and the level of government are vital issues and they are related. Democracy starts with an agile, integer government. The stronger that basis is, the better it is for the trust between the countries within the Kingdom. Unfortunately, these factors have been lacking in Curaao, St. Maarten and St. Eustatius, said Amhaouch. Aruba, Bonaire and Saba were doing a lot better.

Integrity is the basis of the public administration, and an issue that is highly important to the CDA party. The criminal undermining teams that have been active on the islands, with the support of the Netherlands, are bearing fruit and should be maintained. This remains necessary for the future, said Amhaouch.

Integrity is specifically mentioned in CDAs election programme: As part of the Kingdom, the countries have a serious responsibility to guarantee integrity in government and for an effective law enforcement and border control.

Good governance is also part of that programme. There is a joint responsibility for good governance. The islands where this is going well can execute more tasks, closer to the citizens. Where this is not going well, the Netherlands will take its responsibility seriously in the interest of the citizens.

Amhaouch will very likely remain in the Second Chamber after the March 15 elections, as his party is expected to secure around 20 seats. Though this is a decision of his party, Amhaouch said he would like to stay on as spokesperson for Kingdom Relations. Continuity is important.

The Member of Parliament (MP) urged people to go out and vote on March 15. The Second Chamber is there for the entire Netherlands, and that includes the public entities. The votes from the islands are important, as they very well could be game changers for some parties.

Amhaouch said it is important for voters to give their mandate to a party that is involved with the islands, and which has local participation. The CDA has its own candidate in electoral district number 20, the Caribbean Netherlands, in the person of Koos Sneek of St. Eustatius.

As a former Member of the Municipal Council of Helden (Limburg) from 1997 to 2006, and as Chairman of the CDA department Peel and Maas for six years until 2016, Amhaouch knows how important it is to allow people to participate and to listen to them. We should not talk about the people, but with the people.

View original post here:

Ties with islands important, says Amhaouch of CDA - The Daily Herald (press release)

GOP-sponsored bill may help companies obtain your genetic information – Fox News

House Democrats and a number of privacy advocacy groups came out against a House GOP-sponsored bill that would reportedly make it easier for employers to gain access to genetic information about their employees and their families.

The New York Times reported Friday that the bill-- called the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act-- may also significantly increase the costs if someone chooses not to participate in a company wellness program that requires the genetic information.

Fortune magazine summed up the bill: it would essentially allow companies with workplace wellness programs to demand your genetic information (or force you to pay a big penalty.)

The bill was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The bill reportedly passed its first test in a committee vote that went straight down party line. The bill is still under review by other House committees.

A spokeswoman for the House committee told The Times that "the legislation will reaffirm existing law and provide regulatory clarity so that employers can have the certainty they need to help lower health care costs for their employees.

There is debate on the effectiveness of workplace wellness programs in general.

"We urge the Committee not to move forward with consideration of this bill," Nancy J. Cox, PhD, the president of the American Society of Human Genetics, said in a statement. As longtime advocates of genetic privacy, we instead encourage the Committee to pursue ways to foster workplace wellness and employee health without infringing upon the civil rights afforded by ADA and GINA."

She said if enacted, the bill would "fundamentally undermine" the Genetic information Nondiscrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

Read more here:

GOP-sponsored bill may help companies obtain your genetic information - Fox News

Genetics organization opposes Stefanik-backed workplace wellness … – Glens Falls Post-Star (blog)

A national society of genetics researchers, counselors, nurses and college professors is opposing legislation U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Willsboro, co-sponsored to clarify nondiscrimination rules for employee health insurance programs that provide incentives, rebates, surcharges or penalties based on lifestyle choices such as being over weight or smoking.

The proposed legislation would allow employers to ask invasive questions of employees and penalize employees who choose not to disclose the information, the American Society of Human Genetics said in a press release issued on Wednesday.

While ASHG applauds efforts to improve employee wellness, employee protections against genetic discrimination must not be sacrificed, said Nancy Cox, president of the society. Americans must be able to continue to volunteer for research and benefit from genetic-based-clinical advances without fear of workplace discrimination based on its findings.

Stefanik on Tuesday co-sponsored the legislation, dubbed the Preserving Employee Wellness Act, which Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., introduced March 2, according to the Library of Congress government information web site.

The legislation HR 1313 had three co-sponsors, as of Thursday all Republicans.

Congress has a strong tradition of protecting and preserving employee workplace programs, including programs that utilize a health risk assessment, biometric screening, or other resources to inform and empower employees in making healthier lifestyle choices, the legislation reads. Health promotion and prevention programs are a means to reduce the burden of chronic illness, improve health and limit the growth of health care costs.

The legislation includes language to protect privacy.

Congress has struck an appropriate balance among employees, health care providers, and wellness plan sponsors to protect individual privacy and confidentiality in a wellness program which is designed to improve health outcomes, the legislation reads.

Follow staff writer Maury Thompson at All Politics is Local blog, at PS_Politics on Twitter and at Maury Thompson Post-Star on Facebook.

Here is the original post:

Genetics organization opposes Stefanik-backed workplace wellness ... - Glens Falls Post-Star (blog)

Pence applies subtle pressure to conservatives considering bucking Trump on health care – CNN

Pence cast the current debate over health care as the best chance Republicans have to repeal and replace Obamacare, President Barack Obama's sweeping 2010 health care law, and said the administration needs all Republicans to be with them in this effort.

"For us to seize this opportunity to repeal and replace Obamacare once and for all, we need every Republican in Congress, and we are counting on Kentucky," Pence said. "President Trump and I know, at the end of the day, after a good a vigorous debate, we know Kentucky will be there, and we will repeal and replace Obamacare once and for all."

The comment was a not-so-subtle reminder to Republicans such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has been openly critical of the proposed bill. Pence, speaking at Trane Parts and Distribution Center in northern Kentucky, specifically called out Republican lawmakers who stood with the administration, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also of Kentucky. Pence did not mention Paul.

When asked whether the event was meant as a challenge to Paul, a Pence aide demurred, saying it was no different than the vice president's other events.

"(Pence) will talk about the efforts that are underway to bring people together," the aide said about the vice president's work to win over conservatives. "I think he uses his relationships, and he obviously has longstanding relationships with folks. He understands the legislative process, so he views that as an opportunity to help work on the President's agenda and ushering it through Congress."

Kelsey Cooper, state communications director for Paul, said Paul "is glad to have Vice President Pence in Kentucky today to address healthcare reform, and looks forward to continuing to work with the administration and Congress for a real repeal of Obamacare and replace it with conservative market-based solutions that will bring down prices and give families more choices."

Trump, Pence and their administration have stood fully behind the Republican health care plan despite concerns raised by conservative lawmakers. The GOP proposal has not enjoyed a smooth rollout, but White House aides hope Pence will be able to argue confidently why repealing and replacing Obamacare is best done with this proposal.

The event is a continuation of Pence's health care road show, which has included Missouri, Wisconsin and Ohio. But unlike past events, this time the vice president came armed with a health care plan to sell.

Before addressing a small audience the Trane Parts and Distribution Center in Northern Kentucky, Pence headlined a roundtable discussion with business leaders from the area, where he fielded questions about how the health care law could impact their businesses.

"Most importantly of all, the top priority the President gave us: to work with members of Congress and make sure that the Obamacare nightmare is about to end," Pence said before laying out the issues he said he believes Obamacare caused, including rising premium costs and counties where only one insurer is left offering coverage.

"Folks, this can't continue," he said. "And I promise you, it won't."

Not all Republican are fully on board, though, including Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, who attended Saturday's event with Pence.

Speaking with reporters on Friday, Bevin aligned himself with Paul in a subtle knock on the administration's plan.

"Sen. Paul has ideas of things he thinks need to be a lot stronger," Bevin said. "He's not as impressed with what has currently been offered as some who have currently offered it. Truth be told, I'm not either, so I'm with him. I think there are things that need to be done."

Bevin later said he was looking forward to the conversation, but the symbolism was already clear: The Trump administration's health care proposal is controversial enough among some conservatives that even the people appearing with the vice president to sell the bill are expressing skepticism about it.

"Of course there is disagreement as to what we should do with it," Bevin said Saturday. "This is America. Americans have opinions. There is a catastrophe that has been hoisted upon the American people, known as the Affordable Care Act. It has been anything but."

Conservatives were not the only critics following Pence to the Bluegrass State.

Several Democratic groups, including Save My Care, Indivisible and Black Lives Matter, protested Pence's visit, saying they would "stand against Republicans' bill to take away health care from millions."

The protest is part of the Save My Care Bus Tour, a two-month trip aimed at galvanizing support against the Republican health care plan.

Read more here:

Pence applies subtle pressure to conservatives considering bucking Trump on health care - CNN

Trump’s health care bill is the first true test of his powers as salesman-in-chief – Quartz

US president Donald Trump is in sell mode, and plans to throw his full deal-making prowess behind the new healthcare bill designed to replace Obamacare in coming weeks, the White House said this week.

The president is very proud of the product we have produced, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told a packed press briefing on March 7.

Since then, Trump has hosted Tea Party and traditional Republicans at the White House, dined with Ted Cruz and Cruzs wife, and offered a dark message about Obamacare to Americans in his weekly address, warning The law is collapsing around us. Bowling appears to be a key part of the charm offensive, with House Republicans hitting the lanes under the White House this week, and Tea Party ones scheduled to bowl next week.

But opposition is unrelenting. Retirees, doctors, hospitals, right-wing talking heads, conservatives Republicans, Tea Party Republicans, and even Trump campaign booster Breitbart have come out against the bill. They all want changes, but sometimes diametrically opposed ones.

Sure, other White House-backed bills introduced in Congress have faced stiff bi-partisan opposition in recent history, and still passed. The TARP bill, for example, which bailed out the USs big banks at the end of George W. Bushs term, was ultimately backed by an unexpected number of Republicans. But they made it plain at the time that decision was to avoid an absolute calamityan economic slump the likes of which we have never seen, as Republican leader John Boehner said after the vote.

Thats not the case here. Despite the Trump teams insistence that Obamacare is failing, the uninsured rate in the US is at an all time low of 10.9%, and a majority of Americans would like to see the health insurance system remain as it is. The new healthcare bill will need 218 votes to pass the 435 seat House and the vote is expected to be a nailbiter. Then it goes to the Senate, where if it loses more than three of the 52 Republicans in the Senate it will not pass. And before it goes to Trumps desk to be signed, it needs to go back to the House, which needs to approve changes in the Senate.

Heres why so many people are against it.

While it is no surprise that Democrats dont like a bill that tears down former Democratic president Barack Obamas legacy, their disgust with its replacement, which will cut $600 billion in taxes on the wealthy while potentially increasing the cost of health insurance for many Americans, has sparked new levels of condemnation of the Trump administration.

Joe Kennedy III, a representative from Massachusetts, berated Paul Ryan in the House just after midnight on March 8 for suggesting the plan was an act of mercy and calling it an act of malice instead. Nearly 8 million people have viewed Kennedys remarks on Facebook so far.

There is no mercy in a systems which makes healthcare a luxury, Kennedy said.

The American Medical Association, a group of nearly 225,000 physicians, issued a letter to Congressional leaders on March 8, saying it cannot support the bill as drafted because of the expected decline in health insurance coverage and the potential harm it would cause to vulnerable patient populations. The letter went on:

As drafted, the AHCA would result in millions of Americans losing coverage and benefits. By replacing income-based premium subsidies with age-based tax credits, the AHCA will also make coverage more expensiveif not out of reachfor poor and sick Americans.

The group spent $19 million lobbying in 2016, and is a key donor to many regional political campaigns.

Both the American Hospitals Association and The Federation of American Hospitals, which collectively represent over 6,000 hospitals, are concerned about the plans effect on Medicaid. It would reduce enhanced funding levels to Medicaid that 31 states rely on to extend health coverage to the poorest Americans, by banning new enrollments after December 2019, and by capping the amount states can spend on individual Medicaid recipients.

The effort to restructure the Medicaid program will have the effect of making significant reductions in a program that provides services to our most vulnerable populations, the AHA said in a letter to Congress.

We want to make sure that whatever comes out of this change really supports particularly those low-income Americans, who frankly dont have the resources to afford coverage, said Chip Kahn, CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals.

Four Republican Senators have already vowed not to support the bill as written. They, too, are worried about the Medicaid reductions.

We are concerned that the February 10th draft proposal from the House of Representatives does not provide stability and certainty for individuals and families in Medicaid expansion programs or the necessary flexibility for states, they wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The American Association of Retired Persons, the USs largest nonprofit with about 38 million members, quickly dubbed the provisions in the bill that give tax credits based on age and not income an age tax.

In a letter to Congress, the nonprofit estimated premiums for current coverage could increase by up to $3,200 for a 64 year old. The AARP spent over $8 million lobbying in 2016.

The white nationalist website Breitbart has dubbed the new healthcare plan Obamacare 2.0 and slammed it for failing to fully repeal Obamacare, while Coulter, the anti-immigrant talk show circuit regular, asked on Twitter What are names of the brain trust that wrote this piece of crap? Coulter did not explain why she thought the bill was so bad, but has espoused free market health care in the past, which seems to mean no government involvement at all.

Tea Party politicians, which hold 48 House seats (and four in the Senate), want exactly the opposite of traditional Republicans: theyre say the plan doesnt get rid of the Medicaid expansion that made Obamacare work fast enough, and they do not support the tax credits included for lower-income Americans.

After a meeting at the White House, at least one Tea Party group sounded an optimistic note, though. We believe we can get to yes on the bill and throw Obamacare into the dustbin of history, said Adam Brandon, president of FreedomWorks, a DC-based libertarian advocacy group.

Despite the opposition, Trump remains upbeat. We have some great results. We have tremendous spirit, Trump said on Friday. And I think its something that is just going to happen very shortly.

Read the rest here:

Trump's health care bill is the first true test of his powers as salesman-in-chief - Quartz

GOP acts fast on health care, aims to avoid ire Dems faced – ABC News

It took former President Barack Obama and his Democrats more than a year to pass the Affordable Care Act, a slow and painstaking process that allowed plenty of time for a fierce backlash to ignite, undermining the law from the very start.

Republicans are trying to avoid that pitfall as they attempt to fulfill years' worth of promises to repeal and replace Obama's law.

After going public with their long-sought bill on Monday, House Republicans swiftly pushed it through two key committees. They hope to pass the legislation in the full House during the week of March 20 before sending it to the Senate and then, they hope, to President Donald Trump all before Congress can take a recess that could allow town hall fury to erupt.

Democrats are crying foul, accusing Republicans of rushing the bill through before the public can figure out what it does. Republicans dispute the criticism, arguing that their legislation enshrines elements of a plan House Republicans worked on for months last year and campaigned on under House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

"We offered it up in June. We ran on it all through the election. And now we've translated it into legislation," Ryan said.

Yet after seven years of Republican promises to undo Obama's signature health law and without ever uniting behind a plan to achieve that, the fact that they produced a bill at all came as something of a surprise.

And now, after months of confident predictions that Republicans would not be able to get their act together on health care, Democrats find themselves wondering anxiously whether the GOP could actually succeed in wiping away those arduous months of work from the dawn of the Obama administration.

"Nobody believed Republicans had a bill," said the No. 2 House Democrat, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, "until Monday night."

It's a far cry from eight years ago, when Democrats held countless hearings and debated at length, in public and private, how to enact the most significant changes to the nation's health care system in a generation.

While Republicans are not trying for bipartisan support on their repeal bill, Democrats spent arduous months in the Senate with a bipartisan working group of three Republican and three Democratic senators, known as the Gang of Six, trying to agree on a bipartisan bill. That effort ultimately failed.

The GOP legislation is 123 pages long. The Affordable Care Act rang in at more than 900 pages.

"We held hearings and we just spent seemingly endless hours working it over very different from what the Republicans are doing," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich.

To be sure, creating an enormous federal program requires more time and effort than jettisoning some pieces of an existing one while replacing others with new, or in some cases retooled, conservative-friendly solutions.

The GOP legislation would eliminate the current mandate that nearly all people in the United States carry insurance or face fines. It would use tax credits to allow consumers to buy health coverage, expand health savings accounts, phase out an expansion of Medicaid and cap that program for the future, end some requirements for health plans under Obama's law, and scrap a number of taxes.

Republicans have proceeded thus far without official estimates on how much the bill will cost or how many people will be covered, though it's expected to be millions fewer than under Obama's law. The Congressional Budget Office estimates are expected Monday, and that could affect Republicans' chances.

Despite the momentum claimed by GOP leaders and the White House, deep divisions remain in their party. Conservatives argue that the legislation doesn't do enough to uproot the law. Other Republicans express qualms about the impact on Medicaid recipients in their states. Some Republicans accuse Ryan and House GOP leaders of moving too quickly.

"We should have an open process, we should allow all of the members to amend legislation, within reason," said GOP Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a perennial leadership foe.

But Democrats paid a price for their lengthy process, and there was second-guessing even then over the length of time Obama allowed the Senate's Gang of Six group to spend in its ultimately fruitless quest. As the months dragged on, public opposition grew. Over Congress' August recess in 2009, that rage overflowed at town halls that spawned the tea party movement, which would take back GOP control of the House the next year.

There's little question that if the GOP process were to drag out for months, especially over a long congressional recess, a similar dynamic could emerge, especially given the consumer and senior groups that have lined up against the legislation and the energized Democratic base already on display at marches and town halls this year.

If Republicans succeed in shoving the bill through this month, such opposition will have less time to make itself known.

Instead, even some congressional Republicans are expressing some amazement at finding themselves, eight years later, undoing the law Democrats forged through those many months of turmoil and debate.

"I'm pleasantly surprised," said GOP Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who gained notoriety for yelling "You lie!" at Obama during a health care speech to Congress in 2009.

See the original post:

GOP acts fast on health care, aims to avoid ire Dems faced - ABC News

Yet Another Assault On Freedom Of Contract And Property Rights – Forbes

Yet Another Assault On Freedom Of Contract And Property Rights
Forbes
Once cornerstones of America, freedom of contract and property rights are being reduced to rubble by federal, state, and local officials. A case arising out of an ordinance passed in Seattle is illustrative of the trend. On January 1, a new law took ...

The rest is here:

Yet Another Assault On Freedom Of Contract And Property Rights - Forbes

Will Obamacare repeal break the Freedom Caucus? It depends on Trump. – Washington Post

The internal Republican battle over replacing the Affordable Care Act has become the GOPs first chance to break the House Freedom Caucus, the bloc of more than two dozen conservative lawmakers who have frustrated leadership for two years.

And President Trump is likely to play a leading role.

Trumps intervention in the debate over an unpopular ACA revision put forth by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has left both the partys leadership and its rebels convinced that they have an ally in the White House. The president has told conservatives he is open to negotiating changes to the bill, but after Trump met with GOP leaders Friday, his press secretary, Sean Spicer, said the opposite.

Doctors, hospitals, insurers and seniors have all weighed in against the Ryan plan, framing the broader debate over Obamacares fate primarily on how many Americans could lose coverage. Republicans, however, are selling their revisions as phase one in a three-phase repeal, so they are less focused on whether the bill could work. For them, the question is whether the GOP can govern without a right-wing litmus test blocking the way.

In news conferences, interviews and PowerPoint presentations, Ryans sales pitch has been directed not at industry opponents, but at the Freedom Caucus. Nor has he focused much on the substance of the proposal. On Thursday, he offered his conservative colleagues a binary choice between partial repeal of the ACA or total failure. On Friday, he suggested that some were simply being obstinate.

This reflects a Republican consensus, and thats the point. Its a consensus bill, Ryan told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. Were going through the growing pains of being an opposition party with Barack Obama to actually being a governing party with a Republican President Donald Trump. And that means we have to reach consensus on Republican priorities and principles. This reflects that.

[Trump stands with House GOP on proposal to revise Obamacare, spokesman says]

Members of the caucus, which has never revealed who belongs but includes at least 30 Republicans, have relished the attention the most theyve received since playing a key role in forcing out former speaker John A. Boehner in 2015.

Theyve won praise from conservative media. Theyve gotten face time with the president and vice president of the United States.

Theyve surmised that the American Health Care Act, as Ryans proposal to revise the ACA is called, cannot pass without their votes. And they say they think that the White House is working around Ryan to meet at least some of their demands. The result, as they see it, is a speaker talking tough while committee chairs listen to the caucus.

At the same time, there are few signs that the conservatives demands will actually be met. Ryan has made clear that revisions to please the Freedom Caucus would make the proposal less palatable to moderates and probably doom it in the Senate. At least some members of the Freedom Caucus appear to be considering supporting the proposal anyway.

What we hear from the White House is, this is a work in progress, said Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), the sponsor of Freedom Caucus-backed alternative legislation. [Office of Management and Budget Director] Mick Mulvaney came here and talked to the Freedom Caucus two nights ago and he said this is a work in progress and were going to be open to amendments that you have to offer. Then we hear from leadership take it or leave it.

The question is whether the caucus is being given a seat at the table or being snowed.

There hasnt been the old days of lets do a rah-rah and try to run everyone over, said Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), a Freedom Caucus member who voted to advance the American Health Care Act in committee. Remember, one of the reasons we became a group was because we wanted to be able to have a voice. We wanted to be able to have amendments. We wanted to have this.

[Is that not correct? Male GOP lawmaker asks why men should pay for prenatal coverage]

Conservatives see the elevation of former caucus member Mulvaney to the Office of Management and Budget as an advantage for them. Others see it as a way to fracture the group by giving the new president a broker they trust.

Similarly, conservatives say they see the past weeks huddles with Trump and his aides more, including a get-together at the White House bowling alley, are coming as evidence that the administration is working with them. Others see it as a classic instance of good cop salesmanship.

President Trump is fully in the game, but hes doing velvet glove, Hewitt said in his interview with Ryan. Its pizza and bowling.

Trump is an X factor hovering over all of it. His popularity in virtually all of the Freedom Caucus members districts gives him enormous influence over the deliberations. If Trump tells the country that the Ryan plan is the way to go, conservative House members could think twice about saying otherwise.

Will the iron fist come out? Hewitt asked. And will he put people up to run in primaries if they obstruct what is, I think, a moment-killing obstruction at this point? Weve got to get this, or the rest doesnt follow.

Its worth noting that the 2016 elections did not go as well for the Freedom Caucus as its members had hoped. Their public membership was reduced after several lost primaries or simply retired. And overall, the GOPs six-seat loss was less than many caucus members expected, causing the counterintuitive result of limiting the caucuss influence and ability to block bills. Republicans who say they think that the caucus will fracture on the AHCA point out that only eight or nine of them need to come over to pass the bill, assuming no other defections.

The president endorsed the AHCA, giving many the impression he favored it as is. Then, he concluded meetings with a group of grass-roots conservatives seemingly offering a concession, by suggesting that he is open to moving up the end of the ACAs Medicaid expansion from 2020 to 2018. Then, on Friday, Spicer said negotiations are off the table.

All of it preserves uncertainty about what actually will happen and who will get what they want.

When he gets information from everybody, before the final decision is made, somebody might say, Well, I had a great conversation with him, said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Freedom Caucus. Then hell go and go in another direction and have another great conversation. Thats how business people make decisions.

In many ways, the debate resembles one that has bedeviled Democrats since the passage of the ACA, and especially since its implementation began in 2013. Progressives favored several plans that would have essentially expanded Medicaid and Medicare, bringing tens of millions of Americans into a single-payer system.

That idea largely lost out to a combination of insurance exchanges and tax subsidies, which provided Republicans with years of horror stories about costly premiums and disrupted care. On the left, especially among those who supported the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), its taken for granted that Democrats would have been in a stronger position had they endorsed the bolder plan.

The more resolute Freedom Caucus members, who largely represent safe seats, argue that voters will punish them if the ACA is not obliterated.

The AHCA keeps the cuts to Medicare spending that Republicans made infamous in campaign ads. It introduces new, refundable tax credits, promises lower premiums, extends a Medicaid expansion and cuts taxes for wealthier Americans with no pretense of paying for any of it.

On Tuesday morning, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) told reporters that the ACA had been written in the dark of night and rushed through Congress. Days later, his committee voted out the AHCA at 4:30 a.m. With each development, Freedom Caucus members see evidence that they, and not the party leadership, are doing what voters had asked of them.

I might be the last person trying to prevent the Republican Party from being responsible for the largest welfare program in our history, said Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.). The people in my district get it. They understand the risk of a debilitating insolvency. They understand that were looking at a $600billion deficit this year. They understand that were blowing through the $20trillion debt mark. They understand that within six years, were going to embark on a trillion dollar a year deficits indefinitely until such time as we collapse.

That may change. The American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) thats already spent $8million on ads supporting the Republican majority in the health-care fight, went on the air this week with commercials urging Freedom Caucus members to support President Trump and back the AHCA.

Some conservatives appear to understand the potential power of such messaging.

My sense is that the president doesnt care about the particular policy, said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.). He cares about fulfilling a campaign promise to repeal and replace. Anything thats presented as repeal and replace, and makes it through Congress, hell be happy to sign.

Read more at PowerPost

Read more from the original source:

Will Obamacare repeal break the Freedom Caucus? It depends on Trump. - Washington Post

No, Professors’ Academic Freedom Should Not Be Virtually Unlimited – The Federalist

Last December, I wrote an article for The Federalist entitled Oberlin College Did the Right Thing by Firing Joy Karega. There, I argued that the American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (hereafter, Statement) and 1970 Interpretative Comments (hereafter, Comments) contain contradictions that lead, in part, to confusion about the limits of academic freedom.

My article advocated for a measured approach to academic freedom that balances rights and privileges with duties. The Statement declares that when professors speak as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship; however, their position as professors requires special obligations, including accuracy at all times, exercising appropriate restraint, showing respect for the opinions of others, and making every effort to indicate they are not speaking for the institution. These obligations are sometimes referred to as the responsibility standard.

Later in 1940, the AAUP adopted clarifying statements to the original statement. This clarification added that only when a college thinks a professor has not observed the admonitions on extramural utterances and that the expression has raised grave doubts about the teachers fitness can the administration act against the professor.

The 1970 Comments, adopted after a controversial faculty firing at the University of Illinois and a revised interpretation of extramural utterances by the AAUPs Committee A, assert that a faculty members expression cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty members unfitness for his or her position. The Comments also argue that extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty members fitness for his or her position.

In my view, the two statements create conflicting standards that leads to confusion for faculty, administrators, and practitioners, who use the AAUPs precedents and documents to determine what protected speech is and what it is not. I wrote in my article that the Comments created an additional, hard-to-satisfy standard for judging whether such speech affects a faculty members fitness for employment and that the newer standard gobbled up the special obligations in the Statement. The result of this contradiction has been a murky definition, at best, of academic freedom and the inconsistent application of academic freedom standards.

Within a few weeks, the AAUPs Academe blog published an article criticizing my conclusions entitled, On Extramural Expression: A Response to Jonathan Helwink. In his reply, Hank Reichman, AAUPs first vice president and a former history professor at California State University-East Bay, wrote that no contradiction exists between the Statement and the Comments.

While persuasive in parts, Reichmans argument overlooks two key points. First, he ignores the dramatic departure from previous AAUP precedent embodied in the Comments, examined well by the AAUPs John K. Wilson, whom Reichman relied upon for the historical context of his response. In Wilsons history, he argues the Comments were a radical new principle that rejected the notion of a common academic ethic that binds the behavior of professors, on and off campus.

Second, Reichman does not start his analysis at the beginning of the AAUPs precedent. It is important to view the Statement in light of the complete precedent that created it, the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure (hereafter, Declaration). In light of the Declarations approach to professors speech as citizens outside the classroom, the Statement tracks much more closely to the Declaration than the Comments do, including the insistence on standards of behavior regarding extramural utterances. When viewed in this larger historical context, the sweeping changes the Comments embody are indeed, as Wilson says, radical, and do, in fact, contradict prior AAUP precedent.

To begin his argument, Reichman points to the 1940 clarifying statement adopted in November 1940 after the Statement. Reichman affirms that in it the AAUP called attention to the special obligations of the Statement, but added an important caveat: the fundamental issue was not the special obligations, but instead fitness for position and that teachers are citizens with the freedom of citizens. (I will address this freedom of citizens issue in a future article.) If Reichman is correct when he asserts that the special obligations in the Statement were already being limited in the year of its adoption, then his interpretation should appear in subsequent applications of the Statement, including the case of Leo Koch, on which he relies. Unfortunately, the history does not bear out Reichmans conclusion.

In 1963, Thomas Emerson, a famous First Amendment scholar from Yale Law School, would lead AAUPs ad hoc investigative committee on the Koch case. Emerson concluded that when making extramural utterances, the Statements standard of academic responsibility was not a valid basis for discipline. In For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom (Yale University Press, 2012), Robert Post points out that Emersons conclusion was consistent with a recent AAUP investigation.

In 1956, an AAUP report entitled Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security concluded that removal of a faculty member could be justified only on the grounds, established by evidence, of unfitness to teach. The report seemed to imply that unless a professors extramural utterance evidenced an unfitness for research, teaching, or institutional citizenship, the faculty member could not be disciplined.

Despite Emersons efforts, however, Committee A did not agree. Instead, faithful to the language in the Statement, the committee agreed with the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, which concluded that a professor has the obligation to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraints, and to show respect for the opinions of others. The Senate Committee added that academic freedom did not mean unlimited license in speech.

AAUPs Committee A also wrote that they disagreed with Emersons conclusion that the notion of academic responsibility, when the faculty member is speaking as a citizen, is intended to be an admonition rather than a standard for the application of discipline. In short, Committee A refused to give up the responsibility standard in the Statement, even though they found Kochs firing appalling.

The language Committee A and the UIUC Senate employed tracks closely to the language of the 1940 Statement, not the later clarifying statement. The conclusions regarding the facultys special obligations to be accurate, exercise restraint, and show respect for others is directly out of the Statement. The behavior of Committee A in this case shows that, despite what Reichman concludes about the clarifying statement, Committee A and the UIUC Senate enforced the understanding of extramural utterances as contained in the four corners of the Statement.

The Koch case was deeply controversial and had a profound effect on the AAUP, spurring major changes in AAUP policy. This history brings us to the 1964 Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances. Reichman offers, and I agree, that the 1964 Statement is the foundation of the organizations current position on extramural utterances. However, where we disagree is whether current AAUP approach to extramural utterances conflicts with the 1940 Statement.

The 1964 Statement declared: The controlling principle is that a faculty members expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty members unfitness to serve. Adding: Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty members fitness. The question remains whether this 1964 Statement is an evolution of the 1940 Statement, thereby creating no contradiction, or whether the 1964 Statement marks a radical break with precedent that culminates in the 1970 Comments.

John K. Wilsons article on the Koch case and its aftermath contains telling remarks on this issue. Wilson argues, correctly, that the Koch case forced the AAUP to review its guiding philosophies and precedents. As a result of this, Wilson states that the AAUP moved forward with a new approach to extramural utterances.

Furthermore, Wilson argues that, by 1964, the AAUP accepted a radical new principle on extramural utterances. (Emphasis added.) He continues that through the 1964 Statement, the AAUP unilaterally changed the meaning of the 1940 Statement in a dramatic way that had never been intended by the original drafters a quarter-century earlierand which Committee A had itself rejected only a year earlier in the Koch case.

Wilson continues that to get around potential enforcement of the Statement, Committee A simply redefined the terms of the Statement and added a new requirement and a new standard, which Wilson states was a nearly impossible standard to meet considering that Committee A had just declared that extramural utterances rarely have any connection to a professors fitness to serve.

Wilson and I agree that by the mid-1960s the AAUP had broken in a radical direction away from the Statement. By redefining terms and creating a nearly impossible standard to discipline faculty, the AAUP had decided against the measured approach of balancing the protection of extramural utterances with the special obligations of the Statement. The result was to create a brand new standard that, indeed, gobbled up the obligations in the 1940 Statement.

Wilson writes that from the Statement to the Comments was the most important turn in the AAUPs history with regard to academic freedom.

This brings me to the Comments. Wilson states that the AAUP, as a result of the Koch case and through a general desire to update the Statement, adopted an interpretation of it to allow the AAUP to update the languages meaning without the burden of getting a consensus for a new statement and its adoption. This decision was reached, in part, because the leading college and university associations were not interested in expanding academic freedom by addressing the responsibility standards contained in the Statement.

Wilson writes that the AAUP was sensitive to the danger of having the Statement abandoned or potentially replaced by something worse. In fact, the AAUPs success in getting the Statement into so many campus codes was now a barrier, Wilson writes, to the AAUP wanting to alter its fundamental model of academic freedom.

Wilson writes that from the Statement to the Comments was the most important turn in the AAUPs history with regard to academic freedom. Wilson concludes that the Comments were amendments to the Statement which nevertheless often transform all previous interpretations of the words or effectively nullify them altogether and, at times, are directly countering the 1940 Statement.

In light of Wilsons well-documented history, I fail to understand how Reichman could conclude that no contradiction could exist between the Statement and the Comments. It is unclear to me how this redefining of terms and radical new principle does not constitute a contradiction. In fact, I would go further than my previous work for The Federalist. Not only do I continue to find a contradiction between the 1940 Statement and Comments, but I view the 1964 Statement and the Comments, like Wilson, as radical departures from previous AAUP policy including the Statement and the venerated 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure.

It is the principles enshrined in the 1915 Declaration that make it revered, not its age.

Interestingly, Wilson, whom I have extensively quoted above, identifies a worrying trend. He states, in another article for the Journal of Academic Freedom, AAUPs 1915 Declaration of Principles: Conservative and Radical, Visionary and Myopic, that while the Declaration is one of the most influential definitions of academic freedom that forms the foundation of AAUPs doctrines, the Declaration is largely forgotten within the AAUP. Wilson states that the Declaration remains beloved by conservatives, stating that for conservatives, its greatest virtue is, perhaps, its oldness.

As a historian, I can appreciate oldness. However, it is the principles enshrined in the 1915 Declaration that make it revered, not its age. Quoted in relevant part, the Declaration states: Since there are no rights without corresponding duties, the considerations heretofore set down with respect to the freedom of the academic teacher entail certain correlative obligations. This language provides the precedent for the special obligations of the Statement.

Regarding extramural utterances directly, the document states that teachers are under a peculiar obligation to avoid hasty, unverified, or exaggerated statements and to abstain from intemperate or sensational modes of expression. J. Peter Byrne, of Georgetown Law, wrote the committee that drafted the Declaration rejected any view that academic freedom implied an absolute right of free utterance for the individual faculty member. The Declaration continues:

It isin no sense the contention of this committee that academic freedom implies that individual teachers should be exempt from all restraints as to the matter or manner of their utterances, either within or without the universityIt is, in short, not the absolute freedom of utterance of the individual scholar, but the absolute freedom of thought, of inquiry, of discussion, and of teaching, of the academic profession, that is asserted by this declaration of principles.

In sum, the Declaration created the foundational precedent that academic freedom is a consideration with an accompanying duty. Even while he is critical of an individual academic freedom and of the nexus between rights and duties the Declaration seems to create above, Harvard professor Frederick Schauer concludes that it is no error to believe that special legal rights, like academic freedom, may impose on the right-holder special non-legal responsibilities.

Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego School of Law, writes that academic freedom is a privilege of academics that carries with it a responsibility, namely, to act as academics, following truth wherever it leads, within the guidelines of the professors academic discipline.

The Declarations language can be tracked directly into the Statements special obligations of accuracy, restraint, and respect. The Declaration makes no mention of only pursuing discipline against a professor if grave doubts about the professors fitness is raised, nor does it contain the controlling principle of the 1964 Statement, nor does it state that extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty members fitness.

When viewed in the totality of their historical context, it is in fact the 1964 Statement and the 1970 Comments that are outside the AAUPs precedents.

When viewed in the totality of their historical context, it is in fact the 1964 Statement and the 1970 Comments that are outside the AAUPs precedents. The Declaration and the Statement advocate for a similar approach of measured academic freedom that balance the privileges of additional speech protections with accompanying duties. I think this is the preferred approach.

So, in conclusion, after evaluating the AAUPs precedents and Reichmans article, I still believe a contradiction exists between the Statement and the Comments. As a practitioner, I see the value of trying to rectify the difficult issues between the documents. I understand the desire, on the part of an administrator or legal counsel, to try to glue common ground between the two competing conceptions of academic freedom to enforce any standards to hold faculty accountable.

With that being said, there is still a disconnect in AAUP precedents that needs to be addressed. Nearly unlimited academic freedom, as advocated by Reichman, Wilson, and the current AAUP, damages the credibility of the institution and, in the words of Mark G. Yudof of Berkeley Law: If academic freedom is thought to include all that is desirable for academicians, it may come to mean quite little to policy makers and courts. Until the contradictions are resolved, academic freedom will remain, as Byrne wrote, a doctrine [that] floats in the law, picking up decisions as a hull does barnacles.

Jonathan Helwink is a history professor at a college in Chicago. He is also an attorney licensed to practice law in Illinois. His academic interests include the intersection of law, history, tradition, and contemporary politics in American higher education. Reach him at jhelwink@gmail.com.

More here:

No, Professors' Academic Freedom Should Not Be Virtually Unlimited - The Federalist

Trumpcare will see some Americans lose health coverage because… ‘freedom’: Neil Macdonald – CBC.ca

Years ago, when Republicans tried to weaponize the term "Obamacare," Barack Obama smiled that big toothy, socialist smile of his and neutralized it with a few words.

"I like it," the socialist-in-chief proclaimed. "I don't mind it being called Obamacare because it's true. I do care."

In that spirit, and as a tribute to President Donald Trump, who is after all a pretty darned caring fellow himself, his new plan should, without question, be known as "Trumpcare."

Trumpcare is the "beautiful, beautiful plan" that Trump promised will bring not only greatly improved coverage, but much lower premiums.

Anyone who understands the basics of health care economics should be able to understand that. Trump will convince America's insurance companies a bunch of ferociously aggressive profit-generators whose business model is to maximize revenue and minimize spending, and who find any excuse to turn down or slow a claim to provide much more expensive care for far less money.

Oh, and also freedom. That's actually a talking point.

Trumpcare will deliver freedom to miserable Americans chained up by Obama's statist squid of a system, which, in the words of Ben Carson, one of Trump's cabinet secretaries, was the "worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery."

Obamacare to be repealed and replaced1:14

The thing about Obamacare that enslaved so many Americans, in the eyes of rightist Republicans, was what's known as "the individual mandate," which is a bureaucratic way of saying "the government trying to force everyone to obtain health insurance."

The individual mandate idea was rooted in the basic concept of insurance: when more people buy insurance, the risk is spread more thinly, and everyone's premium drops as a result.

Trouble is, young people hate buying medical insurance, because they know they don't get sick much. They prefer to wait till they're old to buy insurance, at which point they get very angry if the premiums are too high, and then start demanding that young people buy insurance, too, because if all young people buy insurance.well, you get the idea.

So Obamacare imposed a tax penalty on anyone who decided to remain uninsured. Just like slavery.

Even so, many young people preferred to pay the penalty, buying their way out of slavery and screwing the older people, whose premiums pretty soon began rising drastically, which Republicans then held up as Obama's socialist failure.

Under Trumpcare, which is all about freedom, people will be free to buy no insurance. They will also be free not to be able to afford insurance. Because, well, liberty.

But anyone who has insurance and lets his or her coverage lapse, for any reason (even losing a job) shall face a 30 per cent premium increase if that person tries to renew.

Trumpcare actually directs insurance companies to tack on the big surcharge, not that they need convincing.

This way, the government shifts the job of penalizing from the IRS to the insurance companies, thereby replacing slavery with liberty. If it's government screwing you, like Obama did, that's socialism. If it's a corporation screwing you, and profiting in the process, well, that's the American way. Freedom.

Which is why it's so strange that some of the loudest opposition to Trumpcare is coming from his own party; congressional Republicans who call themselves the Freedom Caucus, joined by right-wing activist groups like Heritage Action and the Club for Growth.

These insolent, disloyal buggers are running around proclaiming that Trumpcare is just "Obamacare Lite" or "Obamacare 2.0,"and there are easily enough of them to kill Trumpcare before it ever reaches the president's signing desk.

Mark Sanford, a deeply religious Freedom Caucus member the fellow who was forced to resign the governorship of South Carolina after admitting he'd lied about going hiking and had instead flown to South America to hook up with his mistress says the bill is just another form of entitlement, which is a poison word to Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul flatly says the slavery-like individual mandate is still in the new law.

The Freedom Caucus has other issues with Trumpcare, too. Like Obamacare, it socialistically prevents insurance companies from doing the things they used to do: dumping a sick patient whose costs get too high, or refusing to insure someone who has a "pre-existing condition."

Some Republicans also aren't too keen on Trumpcare's rollback of Medicaid, the program that provides care to the indigent and poor. Obamacare expanded Medicaid, paying states to extend the program to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Trumpcare would cut that money off.

The trouble is, a majority of Medicaid beneficiaries in the Republican states that expanded Medicaid voted for Trump, meaning they probably voted for the Freedom Caucus types, too. And Trumpcare would also cut tax credits most heavily for older and lower-income Americans, especially in rural areas. Guess who most of them voted for?

If Trumpcare becomes reality, those people will quickly discover that freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose, to quote Kris Kristofferson. And then they won't like Trumpcare very much.

Jason Chaffetz suggests not buying an iPhone and spending the money on insurance instead. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

Anyway, Jason Chaffetz, another conservative congressional Republican, says Americans need to understand that under Trumpcare, it'll be time for people to take some personal responsibility for their medical care; he suggests not buying an iPhone and spending the money on insurance instead.

You can imagine how that went down in iPhone-loving middle America.

Rep. Roger Marshall, another House Republican, chimed in that poor people "just don't want health care and aren't going to take care of themselves."

What has the president said about all this? Not much. He just wants the damn thing passed without too much discussion. Next week would be good.

It's also a safe bet that this beautiful, beautiful new plan is one of the few things on this earth Donald Trump doesn't want to see his name on.

This column is part of CBC'sOpinion section.For more information about this section, please read thiseditor'sblogandourFAQ.

Continued here:

Trumpcare will see some Americans lose health coverage because... 'freedom': Neil Macdonald - CBC.ca

UNAM’s Female Freedom Exhibition Celebrates International Women’s Day – Rivard Report

Arts & Culture By Andrea Kurth | 14 hours ago

Andrea Kurth for the Rivard Report

The exhibition celebrates feminity in many ways, from a portrait of artist Frida Kahlo in "Pasional y soadora (Mi Frida)" to many representations of the female form.

A new exhibition celebrating International Womens Dayopened on Thursday at the San Antonio campus of Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico(UNAM) in Hemisfair Park. The exhibition,Female Freedom,features the works of 18 women artists17 Mexicans and one Cubanand celebrates the artistry of women and their freedom in creativity.

After the success last yearof a similar exhibition featuring many of the same artistsat UNAMs Chicago campus, the university asked curator Alejandro Dorantes to exhibit at the San Antonio campus in 2017. Female Freedom is part of a rotating crop of exhibitions at UNAM, which showcases different works of visual and performing arts featuring Mexican and local artists each month.

The artists inFemale Freedom expressedthe equality and capacity of the female gender, Dorantes said. The 18 works, mostly oil and mixed media on canvas, depict the theme of woman as creator of children, nature, and artistic expression. Although the artists were constrained by the size of the canvas, they had freedom in expressing femininity through their artwork in their own particular way, Dorantes said.

The colorful canvases measuring 3 ft. x 2 ft.line the walls of the schools foyer, each expressing a different take on femininity. Although the subject matter of each painting varies, the female form from shadowy silhouettes to feminine faces presents itself in many of the works. The paintings also pay tribute towomens many relationshipsas mothers to their children, as keepers of the natural world, and as those who commune with the spiritual world.

Weve taken this opportunity to show what the women of Mexico have to offer in the world of art, said Jake Pacheco, who coordinates the art events at UNAM every month.

The university serves as an educational and social diffusion center for Mexican culture, and Dorantes envisioned using the exhibit as an outlet to present the work from Mexico City artists whodont have the resources to exhibit in big galleries in the United States, Pacheco said.

We have the feeling of crossing the wall that sometimes people want to put between us, Dorantes said about transmitting Mexican culture to Texas.

In addition to the curator, five of the exhibitors traveled from Mexico for the event and spoke about their works and their participation in the show.

Where women get the strength to make art is an enigma, said Pilar Maza, who exhibited her work entitled Enigma.Many times we are strong against adversity, and I think now is the right time to be strongespecially for women.

My position here is very important, said Marisol Gonzalez Valenzuela, the only Cuban artist exhibitor at the show. She said that although she is Cuban by heritage, she feels Mexican in many ways. Gonzalezcreated her work Symbiosis to represent the cooperation needed between women in order to improve the world, she said.

I wanted to demonstrate that Mexican women are valiant, she said. And the women of the whole worldwe are important. We can say beautiful things. We can transmit beautiful sentiments. My work Symbiosis signifies that we all need each other. One country to another, one person to another, we all cooperate to make a better life.

Female Freedom will be on display at UNAM until April 1. Other exhibitions planned at the school for this spring include a show featuring portraits of women from each Mexican state, as well as an exhibition for UNAMs childrens festival that features San Antonio artists Momo and Pompa, whose colorful sculptures are a mainstay ofthe citys art scene.

Andrea Kurth moved to San Antonio as a young child, and spent most of her life exploring the suburbs of the city. She graduated from UT in 2014 with degrees in journalism and economics. Since then, she devoted her life to exploring Asia and Australia until returning to Texas in 2017. These days, you can find her exploring the art scene in San Antonio or doing acro yoga at the Pearl.

Go here to see the original:

UNAM's Female Freedom Exhibition Celebrates International Women's Day - Rivard Report

Will: Eugenics was a progressive cause | Columns | pantagraph.com – Bloomington Pantagraph

The progressive mob that disrupted Charles Murrays appearance last week at Middlebury College was protesting a 1994 book read by few if any of the protesters. Some of them denounced eugenics, thereby demonstrating an interesting ignorance: Eugenics controlled breeding to improve the heritable traits of human beings was a progressive cause.

In The Bell Curve, Murray, a social scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, and his co-author, Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein, found worrisome evidence that American society was becoming cognitively stratified, with an increasingly affluent cognitive elite and a deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive ability distribution.

They examined the consensus that, controlling for socioeconomic status and possible IQ test bias, cognitive ability is somewhat heritable, that the black/white differential had narrowed, and that millions of blacks have higher IQs than millions of whites. The authors were resolutely agnostic concerning the roles of genes and the social environment. They said that even if there developed unequivocal evidence that genetics are part of the story, there would be no reason to treat individuals differently or to permit government regulation of procreation.

Middleburys mob was probably as ignorant of this as of the following: Between 1875 and 1925, when eugenics had many advocates, not all advocates were progressives but advocates were disproportionately progressives because eugenics coincided with progressivisms premises and agenda.

Progressives rejected the Founders natural rights doctrine and conception of freedom. Progressives said freedom is not the natural capacity of individuals whose rights pre-exist government. Rather, freedom is something achieved, at different rates and to different degrees, by different races. Racialism was then seeking scientific validation, and Darwinian science had given rise to social Darwinism belief in the ascendance of the fittest in the ranking of races. The progressive theologian Walter Rauschenbusch argued that with modern science we can intelligently mold and guide the evolution in which we take part.

Progressivisms concept of freedom as something merely latent, and not equally latent, in human beings dictated rethinking the purpose and scope of government. Princeton University scholar Thomas C. Leonard, in his 2016 book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era, says progressives believed that scientific experts should be in societys saddle, determining the human hierarchy and appropriate social policies, including eugenics.

Economist Richard T. Ely, a founder of the American Economic Association and whose students at Johns Hopkins included Woodrow Wilson, said God works through the state, which must be stern and not squeamish. Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin, epicenter of intellectual progressivism, said: We know enough about eugenics so that if that knowledge were applied, the defective classes would disappear within a generation. Progress, said Ely, then at Wisconsin, depended on recognizing that there are certain human beings who are absolutely unfit, and who should be prevented from a continuation of their kind. The mentally and physically disabled were deemed defectives.

In 1902, when Wilson became Princetons president, the final volume of his A History of the American People contrasted the sturdy stocks of the north of Europe with southern and eastern Europeans who had neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence. In 1907, Indiana became the first of more than 30 states to enact forcible sterilization laws. In 1911, now-Gov. Wilson signed New Jerseys, which applied to the hopelessly defective and criminal classes. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Virginias law, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes saying that in affirming the law requiring the sterilization of imbeciles he was getting near to the first principle of real reform.

At the urging of Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association, during World War I the Army did intelligence testing of conscripts so that the nation could inventory its human stock as it does livestock. The Armys findings influenced Congress postwar immigration restrictions and national quotas. Carl Brigham, a Princeton psychologist, said the Armys data demonstrated the intellectual superiority of our Nordic group over the Mediterranean, Alpine and Negro groups.

Progressives derided the founders as unscientific for deriving natural rights from what progressives considered the fiction of a fixed human nature. But they asserted that races had fixed and importantly different natures calling for different social policies. Progressives resolved this contradiction when, like most Americans, they eschewed racialism the belief that the races are tidily distinct, each created independent of all others, each with fixed traits and capacities. Middleburys turbulent progressives should read Leonards book. After they have read Murrays.

Read more from the original source:

Will: Eugenics was a progressive cause | Columns | pantagraph.com - Bloomington Pantagraph

Eugenics was a progressive cause – MyDaytonDailyNews

WASHINGTON The progressive mob that disrupted Charles Murrays appearance last week at Middlebury College was protesting a 1994 book read by few if any of the protesters. Some of them denounced eugenics, thereby demonstrating an interesting ignorance: Eugenics controlled breeding to improve the heritable traits of human beings was a progressive cause.

In The Bell Curve, Murray, a social scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, and his co-author, Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein, found worrisome evidence that American society was becoming cognitively stratified, with an increasingly affluent cognitive elite and a deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive ability distribution. They examined the consensus that, controlling for socioeconomic status and possible IQ test bias, cognitive ability is somewhat heritable, that the black/white differential had narrowed, and that millions of blacks have higher IQs than millions of whites. The authors were resolutely agnostic concerning the roles of genes and the social environment. They said that even if there developed unequivocal evidence that genetics are part of the story, there would be no reason to treat individuals differently or to permit government regulation of procreation.

Middleburys mob was probably as ignorant of this as of the following: Between 1875 and 1925, when eugenics had many advocates, not all advocates were progressives but advocates were disproportionately progressives because eugenics coincided with progressivisms premises and agenda.

Progressives rejected the Founders natural rights doctrine and conception of freedom. Progressives said freedom is not the natural capacity of individuals whose rights pre-exist government. Rather, freedom is something achieved, at different rates and to different degrees, by different races. Racialism was then seeking scientific validation, and Darwinian science had given rise to social Darwinism belief in the ascendance of the fittest in the ranking of races.

Progressivisms concept of freedom as something merely latent, and not equally latent, in human beings dictated rethinking the purpose and scope of government.

Economist Richard T. Ely, a founder of the American Economic Association and whose students at Johns Hopkins included Woodrow Wilson, said God works through the state, which must be stern and not squeamish. Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin, epicenter of intellectual progressivism, said: We know enough about eugenics so that if that knowledge were applied, the defective classes would disappear within a generation.

In 1907, Indiana became the first of more than 30 states to enact forcible sterilization laws. In 1911, now-Gov. Wilson signed New Jerseys, which applied to the hopelessly defective and criminal classes. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Virginias law, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes saying that in affirming the law requiring the sterilization of imbeciles he was getting near to the first principle of real reform.

Progressives derided the Founders as unscientific for deriving natural rights from what progressives considered the fiction of a fixed human nature. But they asserted that races had fixed and importantly different natures calling for different social policies. Progressives resolved this contradiction when, like most Americans, they eschewed racialism the belief that the races are tidily distinct, each created independent of all others, each with fixed traits and capacities. Middleburys turbulent progressives should read Leonards book. After they have read Murrays.

Read more from the original source:

Eugenics was a progressive cause - MyDaytonDailyNews

George Will: Eugenics was a progressive cause – The Saratogian

The progressive mob that disrupted Charles Murrays appearance last week at Middlebury College was protesting a 1994 book read by few if any of the protesters. Some of them denounced eugenics, thereby demonstrating an interesting ignorance: Eugenics -- controlled breeding to improve the heritable traits of human beings -- was a progressive cause.

In The Bell Curve, Murray, a social scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, and his co-author, Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein, found worrisome evidence that American society was becoming cognitively stratified, with an increasingly affluent cognitive elite and a deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive ability distribution. They examined the consensus that, controlling for socioeconomic status and possible IQ test bias, cognitive ability is somewhat heritable, that the black/white differential had narrowed, and that millions of blacks have higher IQs than millions of whites. The authors were resolutely agnostic concerning the roles of genes and the social environment. They said that even if there developed unequivocal evidence that genetics are part of the story, there would be no reason to treat individuals differently or to permit government regulation of procreation.

Middleburys mob was probably as ignorant of this as of the following: Between 1875 and 1925, when eugenics had many advocates, not all advocates were progressives but advocates were disproportionately progressives because eugenics coincided with progressivisms premises and agenda.

Progressives rejected the Founders natural rights doctrine and conception of freedom. Progressives said freedom is not the natural capacity of individuals whose rights pre-exist government. Rather, freedom is something achieved, at different rates and to different degrees, by different races. Racialism was then seeking scientific validation, and Darwinian science had given rise to social Darwinism -- belief in the ascendance of the fittest in the ranking of races. The progressive theologian Walter Rauschenbusch argued that with modern science we can intelligently mold and guide the evolution in which we take part.

Advertisement

Progressivisms concept of freedom as something merely latent, and not equally latent, in human beings dictated rethinking the purpose and scope of government. Princeton University scholar Thomas C. Leonard, in his 2016 book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era, says progressives believed that scientific experts should be in societys saddle, determining the human hierarchy and appropriate social policies, including eugenics.

Economist Richard T. Ely, a founder of the American Economic Association and whose students at Johns Hopkins included Woodrow Wilson, said God works through the state, which must be stern and not squeamish. Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin, epicenter of intellectual progressivism, said: We know enough about eugenics so that if that knowledge were applied, the defective classes would disappear within a generation. Progress, said Ely, then at Wisconsin, depended on recognizing that there are certain human beings who are absolutely unfit, and who should be prevented from a continuation of their kind. The mentally and physically disabled were deemed defectives.

In 1902, when Wilson became Princetons president, the final volume of his A History of the American People contrasted the sturdy stocks of the north of Europe with southern and eastern Europeans who had neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence. In 1907, Indiana became the first of more than 30 states to enact forcible sterilization laws. In 1911, now-Gov. Wilson signed New Jerseys, which applied to the hopelessly defective and criminal classes. In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Virginias law, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes saying that in affirming the law requiring the sterilization of imbeciles he was getting near to the first principle of real reform.

At the urging of Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association, during World War I the Army did intelligence testing of conscripts so that the nation could inventory its human stock as it does livestock. The Armys findings influenced Congress postwar immigration restrictions and national quotas. Carl Brigham, a Princeton psychologist, said the Armys data demonstrated the intellectual superiority of our Nordic group over the Mediterranean, Alpine and Negro groups.

Progressives derided the Founders as unscientific for deriving natural rights from what progressives considered the fiction of a fixed human nature. But they asserted that races had fixed and importantly different natures calling for different social policies. Progressives resolved this contradiction when, like most Americans, they eschewed racialism -- the belief that the races are tidily distinct, each created independent of all others, each with fixed traits and capacities.Middleburys turbulent progressives should read Leonards book. After they have read Murrays.

George Wills email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

Read more from the original source:

George Will: Eugenics was a progressive cause - The Saratogian

Vive Tracker could lead to an ecosystem of ‘hundreds’ of accessories – VentureBeat

During UploadVRsinterview with HTCs president of Vive in China Alvin Graylin last week, I asked if the company had any more plans for add-on peripherals for its VR headset like its upcoming Vive Tracker in 2017 and beyond. In response, he pointed out that there could be hundreds of accessories for the HTC Vive this year because of that Tracker.

I think the Tracker is already creating new peripherals that we dont have to design, Graylin said. He explained that the feedback hed heard from developers that have used the device so far was that it enabled them to create experiences they previously wanted to make but couldnt because they werent hardware guys.

Thats a story that could apply to a lot of Vive developers. The base kits position-tracked controllers do a great job of representing your hands in VR, but when it comes to actually picking things up youll notice the disparity between the virtual and real world. The Vive Tracker closes that gap.

Were going to enable a lot of people who arent hardware developers to make stuffwho if they just had a baseball bat now boom theyve got something like Trinity, Graylin continued. Thats the kind of stuff that will happen and theyre going to be more creative than we are because they know what they want to sell.

I would think by the middle of this yearwe could havehundreds of hardware accessories for the Vive, he added.

That sounds ambitious but I can already count four different accessories Ive tried with the Tracker, and its not even in the hands of most developers yet. At CES this year I saw it paired with TrinityVR, as well as a fire hose and a smartphone. Then at MWC last week I used three Trackers for full-body tracking, and saw a spray paint demo that will one day use the kit too.

Those ideas came from just a handful of developers, and it sounds like plenty more are coming. Around 2,300 teams applied to get a Tracker dev kit from HTC last month, and the development community will be the first to get access to the device this year before a full launch later on.

View original post here:

Vive Tracker could lead to an ecosystem of 'hundreds' of accessories - VentureBeat

Cyborg cockroaches called biobots are the latest search and rescue technology – The Plaid Zebra (blog)

Cyborg cockroaches called biobots are the latest search and rescue technology

BY: DUSTIN BATTY

Rescuing survivors from a collapsed structure is an extremely dangerous endeavour. Because of the uncertain stability of the disaster area, rescue efforts are risky for everyone involved. The rescuers are in danger of falling through an unstable section of the structure, and the survivors are in danger of the structure further collapsing on top of them. For this reason, it is crucial that survivors be located as precisely as possible before the rubble is moved, to minimize the chance of further collapses or accidents.

Rescue teams are already equipped with some tools that help them locate survivors. According to the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures, these tools include search canines (if available), and specialty search equipment such as search cameras and acoustic listening devices. An IRIS article adds a thermal image camera system, which shows areas of body heat, and a carbon dioxide analyzer, which helps [them] detect people who might be unconscious but still breathing to the list of currently available tech.

Despite all of these techniques, locating survivors with precision can still be difficult. To help solve this problem, researchers in North Carolina have been developing biobots, a fancy term for cyborg cockroaches. The cockroaches have been augmented with a wireless computer system that inputs directional signals into the insects brain, making it turn left or right, or go forward. The cybernetic component also uses very precise locating technology that keeps track of exactly where the biobot is at any given time.

These remote control cockroaches are able to safely get into small or unstable spaces and explore the area. The major hurdle that researchers are currently attempting to overcome is the fact that the people in control of the biobots will not know the layout of the collapsed structure. This means that the biobots will have to explore the structure without precise input. As a Science Daily article explains, researchers have found that, when left to wander on their own, the cockroaches prefer to stay near the walls rather than exploring the open space. In attempting to overcome this difficulty, the researchers discovered that the insects were much more likely to explore the open space if they were given frequent random directional commands. This technique shows promise for practical application in collapsed structures.

Using these directional commands and their precise locator technology, a swarm of these biobots could quickly create a map of the interior of a collapsed structure, providing invaluable information that could help rescue efforts become much safer. Edgar Lobaton, one of the co-authors of the research papers, said that the map provided by a swarm of biobots would be of practical use for helping to locate survivors after a disaster, finding a safe way to reach survivors, or for helping responders determine how structurally safe a building may be.

As crazy as it might sound, it looks like cyborg cockroaches may become a staple of future disaster area rescue efforts.

Tagged: biobots, collapsed structures, cybernetics, cyborg cockroaches, disaster areas, search and rescue, technology

More here:

Cyborg cockroaches called biobots are the latest search and rescue technology - The Plaid Zebra (blog)

Vancouver’s West End Offers Proximity to Green Spaces, Beaches – Mansion Global

Views of soaring mountain peaks, pristine sandy beaches and proximity to the natural beauty of Stanley Park undoubtedly make the West End one of Vancouvers most desirable neighborhoods. Densely populated with low-rise buildings, it has a traditional character and is home to a culturally diverse community.

The boundaries

Situated on an ocean-fronted peninsular, in downtown Vancouver, the district is bordered by English Bay to the west, West Georgia Street to the east, Stanley Park to the north and Burrard Street to the south.

Price range

One-bedroom apartments start from around C$550,000 (US$412,770) and two-bedroom homes start from C$700,000 (US$522,000), according to real estate agent Nicolas Blachette of Condo in Vancouver.

Expect to pay more for renovated properties one-bedroom condominiums cost about C$600,000 (US$444,000) and those with two bedrooms cost between C$850,000 and C$1 million (US$629,000-$740,000), according to Gregg Baker of Engel & Volkers in Vancouver.

Mr. Blacette added: The average price per square foot for an older home costs C$800 (US$597). Newer homes, unsurprisingly, are more expensive. "The average price per square foot for newer buildings range from C$1,000 to C$1,500 (US$746-US$1,120), he said.

Homes in premier buildings, with uninterrupted views of the city or water or both, cost approximately between C$1,800 and C$2,000 (US$1,332-$1,480) per square foot, Mr. Baker added.

The West End has traditionally had a huge supply of rental properties. In fact, around 80% of the homes are privately rented, according to Mr. Blachette.

More:Residential Sales in Greater Vancouver Dropped 40% in January

Housing stock

The neighborhood is apartments-only. The oldest homes are two-stories, from the turn of the-20th century and have been converted into multi-unit dwellings.

The area also has many low-rise apartment blocks, which were mainly constructed during the mid-20th century. Typically of wood-frame construction, they come with parking, outside space and elevators.

However, the appearance of the district is likely to change over the next few years. The Jervis, a 19-story, 58-condominium building by Intracorp and Inform Interiors, is the first major large residential project for decades.

Launched to the market in 2015, the development sold out off plan and broke price records for the area. Prices range between C$1 million and C$4.3 million (US$740,000-US$3.2 million) and sizes range from just under 1,000 square feet to about 2,500 square feet, according to Mr. Baker.

Prices at The Jervis have increased quite considerably since the pre-sale marketing in 2015, he added. It shows there is a real demand for boutique, high-end developments. People want contemporary, high-spec homes with good amenities.

Mr. Blachette continued: Developers are purchasing existing buildings, demolishing them and constructing high-rise blocks on the land.

Every home that is demolished has to be replaced with a home of the same tenure, so developers are building taller blocks so they can deliver a larger number of homes on the same size plot, he said.

More:Some Foreign Buyers in Vancouver Might Be Getting Tax Refunds

What makes it unique?

The combination of being right in downtown Vancouver and having access to beaches and the green spaces of Stanley Park is unique. The views are impressive, too. You can see the mountains and sea, which is quintessential Vancouver, Mr. Baker said.

The downtown peninsula has a similar feel to Manhattan, Mr. Blachette said. It feels like an island because youve got water on three sides.

Its got old-world charm, too. The streets are quiet and lined with trees, some of which are more than 100 years old.

Extending to 1,000 acres and featuring dense forest and beautiful beaches, Stanley Park is almost completely surrounded by the waters of Vancouver Harbour and English Bay and is larger than New York Citys Central Park.

The West End is also home to Davie Village, a hub for the city'sgay community, which centers around Davie Street and DenmanStreet.

More:A $38M Vancouver Mansion That Originally Sold for $9.5M in 2014

Luxe amenities

Robson Street is the West Ends main thoroughfare and the citys most famous shopping street. A wide street with a European vibe, it is home to many international, mid-priced shops such as Zara and Banana Republic.

Close to Robson Street are department stores Nordstrom, Hudsons Bay and Holt Renfrew. Alberni Street, located one block north of Robson Street, has high-end luxury brands such as Gucci and Christian Dior.

Denman Street, just off the northern end of Robson Street, has lots of eateries and boutique shops, including Fast Frames, an art gallery and framing shop and True Confections, a dessert shop.

The neighborhood is also home to the Vancouver Art Gallery. Located in the former main courthouse for Vancouver, a neo-classical building, it features the works of Marc Chagall and many more.

The Cactus Club Caf, a casual-dining restaurant chain, has an outpost on Beach Avenue. Located on the beach overlooking English Bay, it serves contemporary global-inspired cuisine.

More:Vancouvers Foreign-Buyer Tax Bruises Luxury Home Sales

Who lives there?

Families, young professionals, older people, international buyersreally everyone. Because the area has a good range of high-end and affordable private and rental homes, the area attracts a socially diverse community.

Mr. Blachette said: Young people can afford to live here because there are affordable rental studio apartments. It also attracts people who have moved to the city from overseas for work.

Notable residents

Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson reportedly owns a penthouse apartment south of Davie Street, near Alexandra Park, a small green space with an original 1910s bandstand and big views of English Bay.

It has been reported that Dwayne Johnson, a.k.a. The Rock, rented a three-bedroom penthouse apartment on Beach Avenue while he was in the city filming The Tooth Fairy Jeff Bridges also made the apartment his home while he was filming Tron: Legacy.

The English poet and novelist Malcolm Lowry lived in several locations in the neighborhood in the early part of the 20th century.

More:Hong Kong, Sydney and Vancouver Lead Worlds Least Affordable Markets

Outlook

Demand will continue to rise because Vancouver is receiving an influx of people from overseas, Mr. Blachette said. Prices look set to increase over the coming year as demand is outstripping supply.

As mentioned before, bigger buildings are on their way, which could help at least in terms of inventory.

Up next: 1550 Alberni, a 40-story curved glass tower with 180 condos, set to become a landmark of the Vancouver skyline. Designed by the Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, the building is expected to complete in 2020.

High-rise development will transform the district, but it is going to happen over the long term, Mr. Baker said.

Follow Mansion Global:

Stay up to date with Mansion Global newsletters

Sign Up

Follow this link:

Vancouver's West End Offers Proximity to Green Spaces, Beaches - Mansion Global

Chinese astronomy – Wikipedia

Astronomy in China has a very long history, with historians indicating that the Chinese were the most persistent and accurate observers of celestial phenomena anywhere in the world before the Arabs.[1] Star names later categorized in the twenty-eight mansions have been found on oracle bones unearthed at Anyang, dating back to the middle Shang Dynasty (Chinese Bronze Age), and the mansion (xi:) system's nucleus seems to have taken shape by the time of the ruler Wu Ding (1339-1281 BC).[2]

Detailed records of astronomical observations began during the Warring States period (fourth century BC) and flourished from the Han period onward. Chinese astronomy was equatorial, centered as it was on close observation of circumpolar stars, and was based on different principles from those prevailing in traditional Western astronomy, where heliacal risings and settings of zodiac constellations formed the basic ecliptic framework.[3]

Some elements of Indian astronomy reached China with the expansion of Buddhism after the Eastern Han Dynasty (25220 AD), but the most detailed incorporation of Indian astronomical thought occurred during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), when numerous Indian astronomers took up residence in the Chinese capital, and Chinese scholars, such as the great Tantric Buddhist monk and mathematician Yi Xing, mastered its system. Islamic astronomers collaborated closely with their Chinese colleagues during the Yuan Dynasty, and, after a period of relative decline during the Ming Dynasty, astronomy was revitalized under the stimulus of Western cosmology and technology after the Jesuits established their missions. The telescope was introduced in the seventeenth century. In 1669, the Peking observatory was completely redesigned and refitted under the direction of Ferdinand Verbiest. Today, China continues to be active in astronomy, with many observatories and its own space program.

One of the main functions was for the purpose of timekeeping. The Chinese used a lunisolar calendar, but, because the cycles of the sun and the moon are different, intercalation had to be done.

The Chinese calendar was considered to be a symbol of a dynasty. As dynasties would rise and fall, astronomers and astrologers of each period would often prepare a new calendar to be made, with observations for that purpose.

Astrological divination was also an important part of astronomy. Astronomers took careful note of "guest stars", which suddenly appeared among the fixed stars. The supernova that created the Crab Nebula observed in 1054, now known as the SN 1054, is an example of a guest star observed by Chinese astronomers, recorded also by the Arab astronomers, although it was not recorded by their European contemporaries. Ancient astronomical records of phenomena like comets and supernovae are sometimes used in modern astronomical studies.

The Chinese developed three different cosmological models. The Gai Tian, or hemispherical dome, model conceived the heavens as a hemisphere lying over a dome-shaped earth. The second cosmological model, associated with the Hun Tian school, saw the heavens as a celestial sphere not unlike the spherical models developed in the Greek and Hellenistic traditions. The third cosmology, associated with the Xuan Ye school, viewed the heavens as infinite in extent and the celestial bodies as floating about at rare intervals, and "the speed of the luminaries depends on their individual natures, which shows they are not attached to anything."[5]

The divisions of the sky began with the Northern Dipper and the 28 mansions.

In 1977, a lacquer box was excavated from the tomb of Yi, the marquis of Zeng, in Suixian, Hubei Province. Names of the 28 lunar mansions were found on the cover of the box, proving that the use of this classification system was made before 433 BC.

As lunar mansions have such an ancient origin, the meanings of most of their names have become obscure. Even worse, the name of each lunar mansion consists of only one Chinese word, the meaning of which could vary at different times in history. The meanings of the names are still under discussion.

Besides the 28 lunar mansions, most constellations are based on the works of Shi Shen-fu and Gan De, who were astrologists during the period of Warring States (481 BC - 221 BC) in China.

In the late period of the Ming Dynasty, the agricultural scientist and mathematician Xu Guangqi (1562 - 1633 AD) introduced 23 additional constellations near to the Celestial South Pole, which are based on star catalogues from the West (see Matteo Ricci).

In the fourth century BC, the two Chinese astronomers responsible for the earliest information going into the star catalogues were Shi Shen and Gan De of the Warring States period.[6]

These books appeared to have lasted until the sixth century, but were lost after that.[6] A number of books share similar names, often quoted and named after them. These texts should not be confused with the original catalogues written by them. Notable works that helped preserve the contents include:

Wu Xian () has been one of the astronomers in debate. He is often represented as one of the "Three Schools Astronomical tradition" along with Gan and Shi.[11] The Chinese classic text Star Manual of Master Wu Xian () and its authorship is still in dispute, because it mentioned names of twelve countries that did not exist in the Shang Dynasty, the era of which it was supposed to have been written. Moreover, it was customary in the past for the Chinese to forge works of notable scholars, as this could lead to a possible explanation for the inconsistencies found. Wu Xian is generally mentioned as the astronomer who lived many years before Gan and Shi.

The Han Dynasty astronomer and inventor Zhang Heng (78-139AD) not only catalogued some 2500 different stars, but also recognized more than 100 different constellations. Zhang Heng also published his work Ling Xian, a summary of different astronomical theories in China at the time. In the subsequent period of the Three Kingdoms (220-280AD), Chen Zhuo () combined the work of his predecessors, forming another star catalogue. This time, 283 constellations and 1464 stars were listed. The astronomer Guo Shoujin of the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368AD) created a new catalogue, which was believed to contain thousands of stars. Unfortunately, many of the documents of that period were destroyed, including that of Shoujin. Imperial Astronomical Instruments () was published in 1757 and contains 3083 stars exactly.

The Chinese drew many maps of stars in the past centuries. It is debatable as to which counts as the oldest star maps, since pottery and old artifacts can also be considered star maps. One of the oldest existent star maps in printed form is from Su Song's (1020-1101AD) celestial atlas of 1092AD, which was included in the horological treatise on his clocktower. The most famous one is perhaps the Dunhuang map found in Dunhuang, Gansu. Uncovered by the British archaeologist Marc Aurel Stein in 1907, the star map was brought to the British Museum in London. The map was drawn on paper and represents the complete sky, with more than 1,350 stars. Although ancient Babylonians and Greeks also observed the sky and catalogued stars, no such complete record of the stars may exist or survive. Hence, this is the oldest chart of the skies at present.

According to recent studies, the map may date the manuscript to as early as the seventh century AD (Tang Dynasty). Scholars believe the star map dating from 705 to 710AD, which is the reign of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang. There are some texts (Monthly Ordinances, ) describing the movement of the sun among the sky each month, which was not based on the observation at that time.

Chinese astronomers recorded 1,600 observations of solar and lunar eclipses from 750 BC.[12] The ancient Chinese astronomer Shi Shen (fl. fourth century BC) was aware of the relation of the moon in a solar eclipse, as he provided instructions in his writing to predict them by using the relative positions of the moon and the sun.[13] The radiating-influence theory, where the moon's light was nothing but a reflection of the sun's, was supported by the mathematician and music theorist Jing Fang (7837BC), yet opposed by the Chinese philosopher Wang Chong (2797AD), who made clear in his writing that this theory was nothing new.[14] Jing Fang wrote:

The moon and the planets are Yin; they have shape but no light. This they receive only when the sun illuminates them. The former masters regarded the sun as round like a crossbow bullet, and they thought the moon had the nature of a mirror. Some of them recognized the moon as a ball too. Those parts of the moon which the sun illuminates look bright, those parts which it does not, remain dark.[15]

The ancient Greeks had known this as well, since Parmenides and Aristotle supported the theory of the moon shining because of reflected light.[15] The Chinese astronomer and inventor Zhang Heng (78139AD) wrote of both solar eclipse and lunar eclipse in the publication of Ling Xian (), 120AD:

The sun is like fire and the moon like water. The fire gives out light and the water reflects it. Thus the moon's brightness is produced from the radiance of the sun, and the moon's darkness (pho) is due to (the light of) the sun being obstructed (pi). The side which faces the sun is fully lit, and the side which is away from it is dark. The planets (as well as the moon) have the nature of water and reflect light. The light pouring forth from the sun (tang jih chih chhung kuang) does not always reach the moon owing to the obstruction (pi) of the earth itselfthis is called 'an-hs', a lunar eclipse. When (a similar effect) happens with a planet (we call it) an occulation (hsing wei); when the moon passes across (kuo) (the sun's path) then there is a solar eclipse (shih).[16]

The later Song Dynasty scientist Shen Kuo (10311095) used the models of lunar eclipse and solar eclipse in order to prove that the celestial bodies were round, not flat. This was an extension of the reasoning of Jing Fang and other theorists as early as the Han Dynasty. In his Dream Pool Essays of 1088AD, Shen related a conversation he had with the director of the Astronomical Observatory, who had asked Shen if the shapes of the sun and the moon were round like balls or flat like fans. Shen Kuo explained his reasoning for the former:

If they were like balls they would surely obstruct each other when they met. I replied that these celestial bodies were certainly like balls. How do we know this? By the waxing and waning of the moon. The moon itself gives forth no light, but is like a ball of silver; the light is the light of the sun (reflected). When the brightness is first seen, the sun (-light passes almost) alongside, so the side only is illuminated and looks like a crescent. When the sun gradually gets further away, the light shines slanting, and the moon is full, round like a bullet. If half of a sphere is covered with (white) powder and looked at from the side, the covered part will look like a crescent; if looked at from the front, it will appear round. Thus we know that the celestial bodies are spherical.[17]

When he asked Shen Kuo why eclipses occurred only on an occasional basis while in conjunction and opposition once a day, Shen Kuo wrote:

I answered that the ecliptic and the moon's path are like two rings, lying one over the other, but distant by a small amount. (If this obliquity did not exist), the sun would be eclipsed whenever the two bodies were in conjunction, and the moon would be eclipsed whenever they were exactly in position. But (in fact) though they may occupy the same degree, the two paths are not (always) near (each other), and so naturally the bodies do not (intrude) upon one another.[17]

The earliest development of the armillary sphere in China goes back to the 1st century BCE.,[18] as they were equipped with a primitive single-ring armillary instrument.This would have allowed them to measure the north polar distance (, the Chinese form of declination) and measurement that gave the position in a hsiu (, the Chinese form of right ascension).[19]

During the Western Han Dynasty (202BC-9AD), additional developments made by the astronomers Luo Xiahong (), Xiangyu Wangren, and Geng Shouchang () advanced the use of the armillary in its early stage of evolution. In 52BC, it was the astronomer Geng Shou-chang who introduced the fixed equatorial ring to the armillary sphere.[19] In the subsequent Eastern Han Dynasty (23-220 AD) period, the astronomers Fu An and Jia Kui added the elliptical ring by 84AD.[19] With the famous statesman, astronomer, and inventor Zhang Heng (78-139AD), the sphere was totally completed in 125AD, with horizon and meridian rings.[19] It is of great importance to note that the world's first hydraulic (i.e., water-powered) armillary sphere was created by Zhang Heng, who operated his by use of an inflow clepsydra clock (see Zhang's article for more detail).

Designed by famous astronomer Guo Shoujing in 1276AD, it solved most problems found in armillary spheres at that time.

The primary structure of abridged armilla contains two large rings that are perpendicular to each other, of which one is parallel with the equatorial plane and is accordingly called "equatorial ring", and the other is a double ring that is perpendicular to the center of the equatorial ring, revolving around a metallic shaft, and is called "right ascension double ring".

The double ring holds within itself a sighting tube with crosshairs. When observing, astronomers would aim at the star with the sighting tube, whereupon the star's position could be deciphered by observing the dials of the equatorial ring and the right ascension double ring.

A foreign missionary melted the instrument in 1715AD. The surviving one was built in 1437AD and was taken to what is now Germany. It was then stored in a French Embassy in 1900, during the Eight-Nation Alliance. Under the pressure of international public discontent, Germany returned the instrument to China. In 1933, it was placed in Purple Mountain Observatory, which prevented it from being destroyed in the Japanese invasion. In the 1980s, it had become seriously eroded and rusted down and was nearly destroyed. In order to restore the device, the Nanjing government spent 11 months to repair it.

Besides star maps, the Chinese also made celestial globes, which show stars' positions like a star map and can present the sky at a specific time. Because of its Chinese name, it is often confused with the armillary sphere, which is just one word different in Chinese ( vs. ).

According to records, the first celestial globe was made by Geng Shou-chang () between 70BC and 50BC. In the Ming Dynasty, the celestial globe at that time was a huge globe, showing the 28 mansions, celestial equator and ecliptic. None of them have survived.

Celestial globes were named ("Miriam celestial bodies") in the Qing Dynasty. The one in Beijing Ancient Observatory was made by Belgian missionary Ferdinand Verbiest () in 1673AD. Unlike other Chinese celestial globes, it employs 360 degrees rather than the 365.24 degrees (which is a standard in ancient China). It is also the first Chinese globe that shows constellations near to the Celestial South Pole.

The inventor of the hydraulic-powered armillary sphere was Zhang Heng (78-139AD) of the Han Dynasty. Zhang was well known for his brilliant applications of mechanical gears, as this was one of his most impressive inventions (alongside his seismograph to detect the cardinal direction of earthquakes that struck hundreds of miles away).

Started by Su Song () and his colleagues in 1086AD and finished in 1092AD, his large astronomical clock tower featured an armillary sphere (), a celestial globe () and a mechanical chronograph. It was operated by an escapement mechanism and the earliest known chain drive. However, 35 years later, the invading Jurchen army dismantled the tower in 1127AD upon taking the capital of Kaifeng. The armillary sphere part was brought to Beijing, yet the tower was never successfully reinstated, not even by Su Song's son.

Fortunately, two versions of Su Song's treatise written on his clock tower have survived the ages, so that studying his astronomical clock tower is made possible through medieval texts.

The polymath Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (10311095) was not only the first in history to describe the magnetic-needle compass, but also made a more accurate measurement of the distance between the pole star and true north that could be used for navigation. Shen achieved this by making nightly astronomical observations along with his colleague Wei Pu, using Shen's improved design of a wider sighting tube that could be fixed to observe the pole star indefinitely. Along with the pole star, Shen Kuo and Wei Pu also established a project of nightly astronomical observation over a period of five successive years, an intensive work that even would rival the later work of Tycho Brahe in Europe. Shen Kuo and Wei Pu charted the exact coordinates of the planets on a star map for this project and created theories of planetary motion, including retrograde motion.

Buddhism first reached China during the Eastern Han Dynasty, and translation of Indian works on astronomy came to China by the Three Kingdoms era (220265CE). However, the most detailed incorporation of Indian astronomy occurred only during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), when a number of Chinese scholarssuch as Yi Xingwere versed both in Indian and Chinese astronomy. A system of Indian astronomy was recorded in China as Jiuzhi-li (718CE), the author of which was an Indian by the name of Qutan Xidaa translation of Devanagari Gotama Siddhathe director of the Tang dynasty's national astronomical observatory.[20]

The astronomical table of sines by the Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhatan was translated into the Chinese astronomical and mathematical book Treatise on Astrology of the Kaiyuan Era (Kaiyuan Zhanjing), compiled in 718AD during the Tang Dynasty.[10] The Kaiyuan Zhanjing was compiled by Gautama Siddha, an astronomer and astrologer born in Chang'an, and whose family was originally from India. He was also notable for his translation of the Navagraha calendar into Chinese.

Islamic influence on Chinese astronomy was first recorded during the Song dynasty when a Hui Muslim astronomer named Ma Yize introduced the concept of 7 days in a week and made other contributions.[21]

Islamic astronomers were brought to China in order to work on calendar making and astronomy during the Mongol Empire and the succeeding Yuan Dynasty.[22][23] The Chinese scholar Yel Chucai accompanied Genghis Khan to Persia in 1210 and studied their calendar for use in the Mongol Empire.[23]Kublai Khan brought Iranians to Beijing to construct an observatory and an institution for astronomical studies.[22]

Several Chinese astronomers worked at the Maragheh observatory, founded by Nasir al-Din al-Tusi in 1259 under the patronage of Hulagu Khan in Persia.[24] One of these Chinese astronomers was Fu Mengchi, or Fu Mezhai.[25]

In 1267, the Persian astronomer Jamal ad-Din, who previously worked at Maragha observatory, presented Kublai Khan with seven Persian astronomical instruments, including a terrestrial globe and an armillary sphere,[26] as well as an astronomical almanac, which was later known in China as the Wannian Li ("Ten Thousand Year Calendar" or "Eternal Calendar"). He was known as "Zhama Luding" in China, where, in 1271,[25] he was appointed by Khan as the first director of the Islamic observatory in Beijing,[24] known as the Islamic Astronomical Bureau, which operated alongside the Chinese Astronomical Bureau for four centuries. Islamic astronomy gained a good reputation in China for its theory of planetary latitudes, which did not exist in Chinese astronomy at the time, and for its accurate prediction of eclipses.[25]

Some of the astronomical instruments constructed by the famous Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing shortly afterwards resemble the style of instrumentation built at Maragheh.[24] In particular, the "simplified instrument" (jianyi) and the large gnomon at the Gaocheng Astronomical Observatory show traces of Islamic influence.[27] While formulating the Shoushili calendar in 1281, Shoujing's work in spherical trigonometry may have also been partially influenced by Islamic mathematics, which was largely accepted at Kublai's court.[28] These possible influences include a pseudo-geometrical method for converting between equatorial and ecliptic coordinates, the systematic use of decimals in the underlying parameters, and the application of cubic interpolation in the calculation of the irregularity in the planetary motions.[27]

Emperor Taizu (r. 1368-1398) of the Ming Dynasty (13281398), in the first year of his reign (1368), conscripted Han and non-Han astrology specialists from the astronomical institutions in Beijing of the former Mongolian Yuan to Nanjing to become officials of the newly established national observatory.

That year, the Ming government summoned for the first time the astronomical officials to come south from the upper capital of Yuan. There were fourteen of them. In order to enhance accuracy in methods of observation and computation, Emperor Taizu reinforced the adoption of parallel calendar systems, the Han and the Hui. In the following years, the Ming Court appointed several Hui astrologers to hold high positions in the Imperial Observatory. They wrote many books on Islamic astronomy and also manufactured astronomical equipment based on the Islamic system.

The translation of two important works into Chinese was completed in 1383: Zij (1366) and al-Madkhal fi Sina'at Ahkam al-Nujum, Introduction to Astrology (1004).

In 1384, a Chinese astrolabe was made for observing stars based on the instructions for making multi-purposed Islamic equipment. In 1385, the apparatus was installed on a hill in northern Nanjing.

Around 1384, during the Ming Dynasty, Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang ordered the Chinese translation and compilation of Islamic astronomical tables, a task that was carried out by the scholars Mashayihei, a Muslim astronomer, and Wu Bozong, a Chinese scholar-official. These tables came to be known as the Huihui Lifa (Muslim System of Calendrical Astronomy), which was published in China a number of times until the early 18th century,[29] though the Qing Dynasty had officially abandoned the tradition of Chinese-Islamic astronomy in 1659.[30] The Muslim astronomer Yang Guangxian was known for his attacks on the Jesuit's astronomical sciences.

The introduction of Western science to China by Jesuit priest astronomers was a mixed blessing during the late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century.

The telescope was introduced to China in the early seventeenth century. The telescope was first mentioned in Chinese writing by Emanuel Diaz (Yang MaNuo), who wrote his Tian Wen Le in 1615.[31] In 1626, Johann Adam Schall von Bell (Tang Ruowang) published the Chinese treatise on the telescope known as the Yuan Jing Shuo (The Far-Seeing Optic Glass).[32] The Chongzhen Emperor (, r. 16271644) of the Ming dynasty acquired the telescope of Johannes Terrentius (or Johann Schreck; Deng Yu-han) in 1634, ten years before the collapse of the Ming Dynasty.[31] However, the impact on Chinese astronomy was limited.

The Jesuit China missions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought Western astronomy, then undergoing its own revolution, to China. After the Galileo affair early in the seventeenth century, the Roman Catholic Jesuit order was required to adhere to geocentrism and ignore the heliocentric teachings of Copernicus and his followers, even though they were becoming standard in European astronomy.[33] Thus, the Jesuits initially shared an Earth-centered and largely pre-Copernican astronomy with their Chinese hosts (i.e., the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian views from Hellenistic times).[33] The Jesuits (such as Giacomo Rho) later introduced Tycho's geoheliocentric model as the standard cosmological model.[34] The Chinese often were fundamentally opposed to this as well, since the Chinese had long believed (from the ancient doctrine of Xuan Ye) that the celestial bodies floated in a void of infinite space.[33] This contradicted the Aristotelian view of solid concentric crystalline spheres, where there was not a void, but a mass of air between the heavenly bodies.[33]

Of course, the views of Copernicus, Galileo, and Tycho Brahe would eventually triumph in European science, and these ideas slowly leaked into China despite Jesuit efforts to curb them in the beginning. In 1627, the Polish Jesuit Michael Boym (Bu Mige) introduced Johannes Kepler's Copernican Rudolphine Tables with much enthusiasm to the Ming court at Beijing.[31] In Adam Schall von Bell's Chinese-written treatise of Western astronomy in 1640, the names of Copernicus (Ge-Bai-Ni), Galileo (Jia-li-le), and Tycho Brahe (Di-gu) were formally introduced to China.[35] There were also Jesuits in China who were in favor of the Copernican theory, such as Nicholas Smogulecki and Wenceslaus Kirwitzer.[31] However, Copernican views were not widespread or wholly accepted in China during this time.

Ferdinand Augustin Hallerstein (Liu Songling) created the first spherical astrolabe as the Head of the Imperial Astronomical Bureau from 1739 until 1774. The former Beijing Astronomical observatory, now a museum, still hosts the armillary sphere with rotating rings, which was made under Hallersteins leadership and is considered the most prominent astronomical instrument.

While in Japan, the Dutch aided the Japanese with the first modern observatory of Japan in 1725, headed by Nakane Genkei, whose observatory of astronomers wholly accepted the Copernican view.[36] In contrast, the Copernican view was not accepted in mainstream China until the early nineteenth century, with the Protestant missionaries such as Joseph Edkins, Alex Wylie, and John Fryer.[36]

Read more:

Chinese astronomy - Wikipedia

Rosliston Astronomy Group hit observatory fund-raising target of 20000 – Burton Mail

Comments(0)

A new community-use observatory will be built this summer after a South Derbyshire astronomy group hit their fund-raising target. Rosliston Astronomy Group have been working tirelessly to raise the 20,000 needed to build the new observatory that will allow people young and old to discover the wonders of the universe.

Already boosted by a 10,000 grant from the South Derbyshire Community Partnership Fund, the amateur astronomers just needed to raise the other half and have now achieved their goal.

All this means that work can begin in earnest within the grounds of Rosliston Forestry Centre as early as this summer. Astronomy group treasurer Heather Lomas said she was "thrilled" that they had hit their target.

Members plan to invite schools, groups and individuals to visit the new centre to learn about and explore the universe.

The new observatory will make the stars and the universe accessible to the community

Mrs Lomas said: "It's a huge relief to get to the target and we're hugely grateful for all the support that we've received.

"Gaining the last few thousand pounds was tough but Derbyshire County Council helped us out with the last bit and now it's all systems go. We're hoping that building can begin in either June or July and it will be a great facility for us to share with the community, the elderly, local schools and other community groups."

Events like an astronomical talk hosted by Professor Ian Morison at the Pirelli Stadium were key in helping the group to reach their fund-raising total.

The site for the new observatory is in a 'dark sky' part of Rosliston Forestry Centre meaning it should provide a great view of the stars and beyond. Mrs Lomas believes the venue will be a "huge asset" to the area and will allow the group to inspire and educate people from South Derbyshire and beyond.

She added: "We are still looking to raise more funds the money we have will pay for the building, but now we're looking towards getting new equipment for inside. "We want to be able to share what we have with the community and really inspire people and help them to enjoy the night sky."

Anyone who would like to support the project further can contact Mrs Lomas by email at hlbluelilac@googlemail.com

*Read more of today's top news stories here.

Follow the Burton Mail on Facebook and Twitter

Read the rest here:

Rosliston Astronomy Group hit observatory fund-raising target of 20000 - Burton Mail

The tortoise: Blue Origins sees small steps as key to space business – Christian Science Monitor

March 8, 2017 A week after SpaceX founder Elon Musk stole headlines with his proposal to send two paying customers on a flight around the moon next year, another private space company came out with more modest news.

Blue Origin, founded by Amazon chief executive officer Jeff Bezos, has contracted with French telecom firm Eutelsat to send a communications satellite into orbit on its New Glenn rocket, scheduled for completion in 2020.

Since its founding in 2009, SpaceX has already carved out a niche in the satellite-launch market and resupplied the International Space Station. Meanwhile, Mr. Bezoss 16-year-old firm has only flown its New Shepard capsule and booster rocket to the edge of space.

But Blue Origin sports a tortoise on its coat of arms, and Mr. Bezos appears content to play that role to Mr. Musks hare. He says he's confident that small, incremental progress will help Blue Origin prosper in the long run.

I like to do things incrementally, Bezos remarked during Tuesdays Satellite 2017 Conference in Washington, The New York Times reports. His companys motto, gradatim ferociter, means Step by step, ferociously.

Eutelsat rewarded this approach in its decision to grant Blue Origin the contract. While the company has launched satellites with SpaceX in the past, Eutelsat's chief executive, Rodolphe Belmer, suggested that Blue Origin's slow and steady approach better aligns with that of his company.

Blue Origin has been forthcoming with Eutelsat on its strategy and convinced us they have the right mindset to compete in the launch service industry," Mr. Belmer said in a press release. "Their solid engineering approach ... corresponds to what we expect from our industrial partners.

While some have praised SpaceX's ambition, concerns are growing that, under Musks accelerated timelines, people working for the company might be run ragged by the demands, leading to human errors, as The Christian Science Monitor reported last week.

SpaceXhas repeatedly pushed back its target date for flying a crewed mission, raising eyebrows about its ability to make good on its promise to carry customers around the moon by next year.

"SpaceX has a great record of doing exactly what they say they're going to do but always several years later than they said they were going to do it, astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell told the Monitor last week.

Dr. McDowell, who teaches at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, made clear that he had full confidence that SpaceX would succeed in sending space tourists around the moon, but suggested 2020 might be a more likely deadline.

That would give Blue Origin more time to hone its technology and broaden its activities. In addition to satellite launches, the company plans to send deep-pocketed tourists into space aboard New Shepard, an activity that Bezos says will help the company further refine its technology and create a profitable business model for more ambitious space ventures.

"The tourism mission is very important, he said on Tuesday, CNBC reports. There are many historical cases where entertainment drives technologies that then become very practical for other things."

And while low-Earth orbit may not seem as exciting as the moon, Bezoss goals are no less ambitious than Musks.

The long-term vision is millions of people living and working in space, he said Tuesday, according to The New York Times.

See more here:

The tortoise: Blue Origins sees small steps as key to space business - Christian Science Monitor