Tribe’s fight with Texas continues, despite progress – San Angelo Standard Times

Posted on by

MARTY SCHLADEN, USA TODAY NETWORK 9:42 p.m. CT March 6, 2017

The Tiguas say the Attorney Generals Office must show that bingo is illegal under Texas law if it wants to stop the games at Speaking Rock Casino.(Photo: USA TODAY NETWORK)

AUSTIN Some progress was made last week in an epic lawsuit between the Texas Attorney Generals Office and El Pasos Tigua tribe, but the legal battle will continue.

The state agreed to file an amended complaint against the Tiguas, while the tribe and the AG agreed on procedures under which the state caninspect the tribes entertainment centers.

At issue is whether the Tiguas can continue to offerbingo gamesafter U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone last year ordered the tribe to stop offering electronic sweepstakes games.

More broadly, the Tiguas and the Alabama-Coushattas in East Texas believe they should be allowed to offerClass II gaming under the regulation of National Indian Gaming Commission.

The states case against the Tiguas was filed in 1999 and technically closed in May. But arguing that the tribe is continuing to violate the law by offering bingo, the attorney general has persisted, asking Cardone to allow its personnel to go into the Tigua entertainment centers to conduct inspections.

The Tiguas have countered that bingo is legal in Texas and that, as a sovereign tribe, it has the right to exclude state law enforcement from its premises.

Dolph Barnhouse, the tribes attorney, on Monday said that the Attorney Generals Office will file an amended complaint against the tribe, and the tribe wont contest the states request to file it in a case thats technically closed.

That doesnt mean (Cardone) has to grant it, Barnhouse said.

The Attorney Generals Office couldnt immediately be reached for comment.

Barnhouse said that progress also was made last week inregard to inspecting the tribes entertainment centers. The Attorney Generals Office has agreed to request an inspection under thefederal rules of civil procedure, Barnhouse said.

Those rules allow the Attorney Generals Office to ask to see records and inspect the entertainment centers, but they also allow the Tiguas to object to those requests.

They cant just say, I have a bad feeling about your place;let me see everything, Barnhouse said.

Barnhouse said its hard to tell how much longer the litigation will last.

The Alabama-Coushattas are embroiled in a separate case with the state over electronic bingo. If the federal courts rule that the tribe is allowed to offer Class II gaming under federal regulation, the litigation with the Tiguas seems likely to end.

Marty Schladen can be reached at 512-479-6606;mschladen@gannett.com; @martyschladen on Twitter.

Read or Share this story: http://www.gosanangelo.com/story/news/local/texas/2017/03/06/tribes-fight-texas-continues-despite-progress/98836416/

Excerpt from:

Tribe's fight with Texas continues, despite progress - San Angelo Standard Times

Ghost Recon: Wildlands Review In Progress – GameSpot

Posted on by

Subscribe for the latest gaming news

At its core, Ghost Recon: Wildlands is about information gathering. The drug dealers and terrorists you kill are just obstacles between your special ops unit and whatever clues you uncover. Hacking an enemy's computer or interrogating a wanted lieutenant can reveal half a dozen more leads and you're given the freedom to decide which lead to pursue next. Wildlands' openness and the flexibility of choice has, so far, been one of its strengths. Moreover, the first 10 hours of my playthrough amply provided a diverse sampling of what the greater game promises. It took little time to knock out the first batch of objectives, sample the local vehicles, and get reacquainted with the series' style of tactical gameplay.

Wildlands marks Ghost Recon's first foray into an open world, where its Bolivian setting is a playground of both destruction and distraction. You can infiltrate a stronghold with the best of stealthy intentions but you have to be prepared to wreck havoc the moment you're spotted. And the path to every main quest destination is littered with potential detours, whether it be an optional piece of intel or a medal that gives you a bonus skill point.

Ghost Recon's wild lands are expansive enough that using a helicopter is a practical method of transportation, given that the rocky region you start at isn't especially off-road friendly. The best part of taking a helicopter is jumping out of it and surprising enemies from above, provided you've unlocked the Parachute skill. Think of Wildlands as a less cartoony take on the Just Cause series with the all-business seriousness one expects from a Tom Clancy game.

Given the pre-launch videos and trailers' emphases on wanton mayhem and nondescript missions with friends, it was pleasing to watch a couple scene-setting cinematics shortly after firing up Wildlands. Even with the open world setting, I'm hopeful that it retains the series' emphasis on narrative and goal-driven missions. The ultimate goal is to take out El Sueo, the leader of the Santa Blanca drug cartel that essentially runs Bolivia. Your CIA contact, Karen Bowman also has a vindictive score to settle as one of her friends in the DEA was kidnapped and tortured to death by Santa Blanca. While revenge is a valid enough reason to upend a narco-state in the Clancyverse, I suspect that Karen might have other motives.

Forming squads has been one of Wildlands' more intriguing features during these initial hours. In keeping with Ghost Recon's history of team foursomes, having a full squad made up of your friends is the ideal experience. So far, a team of four humans with at least a modicum of experience in tactical shooters is a powerhouse in Wildlands even though enemy headcounts adjust to scale with the size of your team. Players who already have a squad in mind might want to consider starting off the game at the highest difficulty. However, playing solo with a squad of three AI companions offers its own unique benefits. When coordinating a synchronized kill of three targets, the AI is reasonably efficient in moving to reach line of sight within seconds. And they're more durable than your friends when taking fire, which is immensely helpful if they're out in the open healing you. What is puzzling is that you can't have a mixed team of humans and AI. If you and a friend are playing a private session, you can't round off your team with two AI operatives. What's all the more amusing is that you can still hear the story-related banter between all four squadmates.

There's comfort in falling into a tactical routine with your buddies as you reach the perimeter of every enemy outpost. This infiltration cycle begins when you use your tiny drone to survey the stronghold and mark all visible enemies. The ability to track marked enemies through multiple walls feels like cheating, though it hasn't diminished the appeal of the many other Tom Clancy games that use this feature. The openness of Wildlands makes this feature all the more essential and helps your team decide on the best strategy. It remains to be seen whether Wildlands retains the same gadget appeal of Ghost Recon: Future Soldier later on in the game, though perhaps a drone is all the advanced tech you need in Bolivia.

In the 10 hours I've spent on the road to liberate Bolivia of El Sueo's rule, I've unlocked 20-percent of the map. As I've slowly made my way through the hit list of underlings, I've been curious about the risks of sticking to the critical path, and whether there's such as thing as being underleveled in Wildlands. That said, it's been easy to take brief detours to earn extra experience and skills, thanks to the added efficiency of my teammates, AI-controlled or otherwise. Whatever path my journey takes, I know it will involve more diversions to earn extra abilities, the takedowns of the boss' lieutenants, and the elimination of El Sueo himself, which I estimate will take an additional 30 to 40 hours. Stay tuned for our full review in the coming days.

Excerpt from:

Ghost Recon: Wildlands Review In Progress - GameSpot

CCHS named ‘High Progress School’ – Moultrie Observer

Posted on by

MOULTRIE, Ga. The Georgia Department of Education recently released its list of Reward Schools.

These schools and districts are working against the odds to provide an excellent education for their students, state School Superintendent Richard Woods said. This is so much more than numbers or data. We are talking about changed lives for thousands of students. I cant overstate how proud I am of every teacher, administrator, and parent who worked to make that happen.

Colquitt County High School has earned the distinction of being named a High Progress school.

A High Progress School is a Title I school among the 10 percent of Title I schools in the state that is making the most progress in improving the performance of the all students group over three years on the statewide assessments, according to a press release from the Colquitt County School System. A school may not be classified as a High Progress School if it has been identified as a Priority or Focus School.

Colquitt County Schools Superintendent of Schools Doug Howell commented, Success does not happen without a concerted effort toward a common goal. Congratulations to the students, teachers, staff, and parents who have invested in the future.

The rest is here:

CCHS named 'High Progress School' - Moultrie Observer

Technological utopianism – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Technological utopianism (often called techno-utopianism or technoutopianism) is any ideology based on the premise that advances in science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia, or at least help to fulfil one or another utopian ideal. A techno-utopia is therefore a hypothetical ideal society, in which laws, government, and social conditions are solely operating for the benefit and well-being of all its citizens, set in the near- or far-future, when advanced science and technology will allow these ideal living standards to exist; for example, post-scarcity, transformations in human nature, the abolition of suffering and even the end of death. Technological utopianism is often connected with other discourses presenting technologies as agents of social and cultural change, such as technological determinism or media imaginaries.[1]

Douglas Rushkoff, a leading theorist on technology and cyberculture claims that technology gives everyone a chance to voice their own opinions, fosters individualistic thinking, and dilutes hierarchy and power structures by giving the power to the people.[2] He says that the whole world is in the middle of a new Renaissance, one that is centered on technology and self-expression. However, Rushkoff makes it clear that people dont live their lives behind a desk with their hands on a keyboard [3]

A tech-utopia does not disregard any problems that technology may cause,[4] but strongly believes that technology allows mankind to make social, economic, political, and cultural advancements.[5] Overall, Technological Utopianism views technologys impacts as extremely positive.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, several ideologies and movements, such as the cyberdelic counterculture, the Californian Ideology, transhumanism,[6] and singularitarianism, have emerged promoting a form of techno-utopia as a reachable goal. Cultural critic Imre Szeman argues technological utopianism is an irrational social narrative because there is no evidence to support it. He concludes that it shows the extent to which modern societies place faith in narratives of progress and technology overcoming things, despite all evidence to the contrary.[7]

Karl Marx believed that science and democracy were the right and left hands of what he called the move from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. He argued that advances in science helped delegitimize the rule of kings and the power of the Christian Church.[8]

19th-century liberals, socialists, and republicans often embraced techno-utopianism. Radicals like Joseph Priestley pursued scientific investigation while advocating democracy. Robert Owen, Charles Fourier and Henri de Saint-Simon in the early 19th century inspired communalists with their visions of a future scientific and technological evolution of humanity using reason. Radicals seized on Darwinian evolution to validate the idea of social progress. Edward Bellamys socialist utopia in Looking Backward, which inspired hundreds of socialist clubs in the late 19th century United States and a national political party, was as highly technological as Bellamys imagination. For Bellamy and the Fabian Socialists, socialism was to be brought about as a painless corollary of industrial development.[8]

Marx and Engels saw more pain and conflict involved, but agreed about the inevitable end. Marxists argued that the advance of technology laid the groundwork not only for the creation of a new society, with different property relations, but also for the emergence of new human beings reconnected to nature and themselves. At the top of the agenda for empowered proletarians was to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. The 19th and early 20th century Left, from social democrats to communists, were focused on industrialization, economic development and the promotion of reason, science, and the idea of progress.[8]

Some technological utopians promoted eugenics. Holding that in studies of families, such as the Jukes and Kallikaks, science had proven that many traits such as criminality and alcoholism were hereditary, many advocated the sterilization of those displaying negative traits. Forcible sterilization programs were implemented in several states in the United States.[9]

H.G. Wells in works such as The Shape of Things to Come promoted technological utopianism.

The horrors of the 20th century - communist and fascist dictatorships, world wars - caused many to abandon optimism. The Holocaust, as Theodor Adorno underlined, seemed to shatter the ideal of Condorcet and other thinkers of the Enlightenment, which commonly equated scientific progress with social progress.[10]

The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip.

A movement of techno-utopianism began to flourish again in the dot-com culture of the 1990s, particularly in the West Coast of the United States, especially based around Silicon Valley. The Californian Ideology was a set of beliefs combining bohemian and anti-authoritarian attitudes from the counterculture of the 1960s with techno-utopianism and support for libertarian economic policies. It was reflected in, reported on, and even actively promoted in the pages of Wired magazine, which was founded in San Francisco in 1993 and served for a number years as the "bible" of its adherents.[11][12][13]

This form of techno-utopianism reflected a belief that technological change revolutionizes human affairs, and that digital technology in particular - of which the Internet was but a modest harbinger - would increase personal freedom by freeing the individual from the rigid embrace of bureaucratic big government. "Self-empowered knowledge workers" would render traditional hierarchies redundant; digital communications would allow them to escape the modern city, an "obsolete remnant of the industrial age".[11][12][13]

Similar forms of "digital utopianism" has often entered in the political messages of party and social movements that point to the Web or more broadly to new media as harbingers of political and social change.[14] Its adherents claim it transcended conventional "right/left" distinctions in politics by rendering politics obsolete. However, techno-utopianism disproportionately attracted adherents from the libertarian right end of the political spectrum. Therefore, techno-utopians often have a hostility toward government regulation and a belief in the superiority of the free market system. Prominent "oracles" of techno-utopianism included George Gilder and Kevin Kelly, an editor of Wired who also published several books.[11][12][13]

During the late 1990s dot-com boom, when the speculative bubble gave rise to claims that an era of "permanent prosperity" had arrived, techno-utopianism flourished, typically among the small percentage of the population who were employees of Internet startups and/or owned large quantities of high-tech stocks. With the subsequent crash, many of these dot-com techno-utopians had to rein in some of their beliefs in the face of the clear return of traditional economic reality.[12][13]

In the late 1990s and especially during the first decade of the 21st century, technorealism and techno-progressivism are stances that have risen among advocates of technological change as critical alternatives to techno-utopianism.[15][16] However, technological utopianism persists in the 21st century as a result of new technological developments and their impact on society. For example, several technical journalists and social commentators, such as Mark Pesce, have interpreted the WikiLeaks phenomenon and the United States diplomatic cables leak in early December 2010 as a precursor to, or an incentive for, the creation of a techno-utopian transparent society.[17]Cyber-utopianism, first coined by Evgeny Morozov, is another manifestation of this, in particular in relation to the Internet and social networking.

Bernard Gendron, a professor of philosophy at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee, defines the four principles of modern technological utopians in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as follows:[18]

Rushkoff presents us with multiple claims that surround the basic principles of Technological Utopianism:[19]

Critics claim that techno-utopianism's identification of social progress with scientific progress is a form of positivism and scientism. Critics of modern libertarian techno-utopianism point out that it tends to focus on "government interference" while dismissing the positive effects of the regulation of business. They also point out that it has little to say about the environmental impact of technology[22] and that its ideas have little relevance for much of the rest of the world that are still relatively quite poor (see global digital divide).[11][12][13]

In his 2010 study System Failure: Oil, Futurity, and the Anticipation of Disaster, Canada Research Chairholder in cultural studies Imre Szeman argues that technological utopianism is one of the social narratives that prevent people from acting on the knowledge they have concerning the effects of oil on the environment.[7]

In a controversial article "Techno-Utopians are Mugged by Reality", Wall Street Journal explores the concept of the violation of free speech by shutting down social media to stop violence. As a result of British cities being looted consecutively, Prime British Minister David Cameron argued that the government should have the ability to shut down social media during crime sprees so that the situation could be contained. A poll was conducted to see if Twitter users would prefer to let the service be closed temporarily or keep it open so they can chat about the famous television show X-Factor. The end report showed that every Tweet opted for X-Factor. The negative social effects of technological utopia is that society is so addicted to technology that we simply can't be parted even for the greater good. While many Techno-Utopians would like to believe that digital technology is for the greater good, it can also be used negatively to bring harm to the public.[23]

Other critics of a techno-utopia include the worry of the human element. Critics suggest that a techno-utopia may lessen human contact, leading to a distant society. Another concern is the amount of reliance society may place on their technologies in these techno-utopia settings.[24] These criticisms are sometimes referred to as a technological anti-utopian view or a techno-dystopia.

Even today, the negative social effects of a technological utopia can be seen. Mediated communication such as phone calls, instant messaging and text messaging are steps towards a utopian world in which one can easily contact another regardless of time or location. However, mediated communication removes many aspects that are helpful in transferring messages. As it stands today, most text, email, and instant messages offer fewer nonverbal cues about the speakers feelings than do face-to-face encounters.[25] This makes it so that mediated communication can easily be misconstrued and the intended message is not properly conveyed. With the absence of tone, body language, and environmental context, the chance of a misunderstanding is much higher, rendering the communication ineffective. In fact, mediated technology can be seen from a dystopian view because it can be detrimental to effective interpersonal communication. These criticisms would only apply to messages that are prone to misinterpretation as not every text based communication requires contextual cues. The limitations of lacking tone and body language in text based communication are likely to be mitigated by video and augmented reality versions of digital communication technologies.[26]

Read more from the original source:

Technological utopianism - Wikipedia

‘The Walking Dead’ Reminds Us That Rick Is Terrible At What He Does – Glide Magazine

Posted on by

Say Yes

This weeks episode of The Walking Dead once again reliedon the shows evergreen premise scavenging for supplies. The primary focus is Rick (Andrew Lincoln) and Michonne (Danai Gurira) combing the Georgia countryside for weapons so they have a chance at taking down The Saviors.

Its vaguely reminiscent of the season three episode Clear, which was the same basic premise, if you add Carl (Chandler Riggs) and replace The Saviors with Woodbury. The similarity of these two episodes that seems to bring upthe larger issue: Rick is a terrible leader.

For the shows first five seasons, the groups survival depended on the plot device that a group of people had to leave their camp, venture out into the unknown, score some canned goods and a few rounds of ammo, then make it back without getting eaten by a horde (or hordes) of zombies. Aside from the season-and-a-half where the group was occupyingthe abandoned prison, the closest they got to be semi-sustaining was when they attempted to raise pigs for slaughter, which mostly just gave a bunch of people a brain-exploding case of the flu.

That aside, it was the closest Rick and company had come to rebuilding a community before being led to Alexandria by Aaron (Ross Marquand). Of course, Ricks assimilation into what was then an idyllic, suburban normalcy was a rocky one, with his bearded survivalism at odds with the grossly unprepared and inexplicably sheltered residents holed up behind a wall.

Then, after asudden uptick in death by both zombie bite and fellow residents, Rick resumed a leadership position, but one that was still predicated on a hunter/gatherer mentality. All of this led up to the groups clash with The Saviors, who had done far more with their time in the apocalypse than Rick had ever managed.

Sure, their methods may be brutal, constantly threatening communities with death (or worse) while these smaller communities dutifully turn over supplies at regular intervals, the simple act of scheduling was all but a lost art in Ricks world unless you countDale (Jeffrey DeMunn) regularly winding his watch, a conversation that goes all the way back to a pitifully vulnerable collection of RVs around a campfire.

Now, with Rick preparing to go to war with The Saviors, he and Michonne once again raid the countryside for any available weapons,part of their agreement with the membersof Rhythm Nation to join their fight.

After gleefully grinning their way from one piecemeal acquisition to the next, they run across the apocalypse jackpot: an abandoned amusement park, complete with several undead, but still well-armed, members of the military. While this entire sequence was (I assume) meant to showcase the effortless zombie-killing proficiency of the Richonne the power-couple, it quickly turned into a slapstick-laden fiasco, capped off with the worst CGI deer imaginable.

Seriously, that fucking deer only existed for a momentary fake-out of Ricks death after he fell from his his vantage point on a Ferris wheel. A fake-out where Michonne sees a horde gathered around, tearing away at newly killed flesh, withthe thought of her newfound love rendering her completely helpless to the point she dropped her sword.

Of course, Rick was fine. Everyone watching knew Rick was fine (although I cant begin to explain how much I wouldve lovedhim dyingin such anunceremonious matter), and he leapt out of his hiding place in just enough time to valiantly toss Michonne her sword so the two can finish up the episodes requisite zombie-killing quota.

The scene, just like the episode that surrounded it, was little more than tensionless filler, culminating with his return to the junkyard to further negotiate the terms of the alliance with Rhythm Nation throughtheir leaders use of modified baby-talk (just why?)

It isnt until the shows final moments that has Rosita (Christian Serratos), still spouting off her bad attitude to anyone wholl listen including a scene with Father Gabriel (Seth Gilliam) that made no sense whatsoever who takes off to the Hilltop.

Looking past the fact that every community seems to be a 40-minute walk from the other, Rosita recruits Sasha (Sonequa Martin) for their one-way ticket mission to take out Negan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan).Hopefully they know better than to just try it with one fucking bullet this time. Though given these characters, thats in no way a guarantee.

See the original post here:

'The Walking Dead' Reminds Us That Rick Is Terrible At What He Does - Glide Magazine

Feminist pacifism or passive-ism? – Open Democracy

Posted on by

Rally for #BlackLivesMatter in New York City on February 13, 2017. Credit: Erik McGregor/PA Images

When some white women celebrate the non-violence of womens marches against Trump and then pose for photographs with police officers while police violence specifically targets people of colour, when Nazi-punchers are accused of being no different from fascists, when feminists in relative safety accuse militant women in the Middle East facing sex slavery under ISIS of militarism, we must problematize the liberal notion of non-violence which disregards intersecting power systems and mechanisms of structural violence. By dogmatically clinging onto a pacifism (or passive-ism?) that has a classed and racial character, and demonising violent anti-system rage, feminists exclude themselves from a much needed debate on alternative forms of self-defence whose objective and aesthetic serve liberationist politics. In a global era of femicide, sexual violence and rape culture, who can afford not to think about womens self-defence?

Feminism has played an important role in anti-war movements and achieved political victories in peace-building. The feminist critique of militarism as a patriarchal instrument renders understandable the rejection of womens participation in state-armies as being empowering. But liberal feminists blanket rejection of womens violence, no matter the objective, fails to qualitatively distinguish between statist, colonialist, imperialist, interventionist militarism and necessary, legitimate self-defence.

Police fire riot control munitions to disperse Black Lives Matter protesters on July 9, 2016 in Saint Paul to protest the police murder of Philando Castile. Credit: Annabelle Marcovici/PA Images

The monopoly on violence as a fundamental characteristic of the state protects the latter from accusations of injustice, while criminalising peoples basic attempts at self-preservation. Depending on strategies and politics, non-state actors are labelled as disruptive to public order at best, or terrorists at worst. The tendency to uphold examples like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King to make the case for non-violent resistance often blurs historical facts to the point of sanitising the radical and sometimes violent elements of legitimate anti-colonial or anti-racist resistance.

Simultaneously, the traditional association of violence with masculinity and the systematic exclusion of women from politics, economy, war, and peace, reproduce patriarchy through a sexual division of roles in the realm of power. The feminist critique of violence is based in well-intentioned, yet deeply essentialist, reasoning of a gender-based morality, which can also reproduce portrayals of women as passive, inherently apolitical, and in need of protection. Such gender-reductionism fails to understand that inclination to violence is not inherently gender-specific but determined by interconnected systems of hierarchy and power as the case of white American women torturing Iraqi men in Abu Ghraib prison demonstrates.

Kurdish women have a tradition of resistance; their philosophy of self-defence ranges from autonomous guerrilla womens armies to the development of self-managed womens cooperatives. In recent years, the victories of the Womens Defence Units (YPJ) in Rojava-Northern Syria and the YJA Star Guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) against ISIS have been inspiring. Kurdish women, along with their Arab and Syriac Christian sisters, liberated thousands of square miles from ISIS, creating scenes of beauty of women liberating women. At the same time, they were also building the foundations of a womans revolution inside society. However, some western feminists questioned its legitimacy and dismissed it as militarism or co-optation by political groups. Western media narratives have portrayed this struggle in a de-politicised, exotic way, or by making generalised assumptions about womens natural disinclination to violence. If the media reporting was dominated by a male gaze, it was partly due to feminists refusal to engage with this relevant topic. One cannot help but think that militant women taking matters into their own hands impairs western feminists ability to speak on behalf of women in the Middle East, projected as helpless victims, may be one of the reasons for this hostility. Credit: YPJ Media Team

The Kurdish womens struggle developed a woman-centred philosophy of self-defence and is situated in an intersectional analysis of colonialism, racism, nation-statism, capitalism, and patriarchy. The Rose Theory is a part of the unapologetically women-liberationist political thought of PKK leader Abdullah calan. He suggests that in order to come up with non-statist forms of self-defence, we need to look no further than nature itself. Every living organism, a rose, a bee, has its mechanisms of self-defence in order to protect and express its existence with thorns, stings, teeth, claws, etc. not to dominate, exploit or unnecessarily destroy another creature but to preserve itself and meet its vital needs. Among humans, entire systems of exploitation and domination perpetuate violence beyond necessary physical survival. Against this abuse of power, legitimate self-defence must be based on social justice and communal ethics with particular respect to womens autonomy. If we let go of social Darwinist notions of survivalism and competition which under capitalist modernity have reached deadly dimensions and focus on the interplay of life within ecological systems, we can learn from natures ways of resistance and formulate a self-defence philosophy. In order to fight the system, self-defence must embrace direct action, participatory radical democracy, and self-managed social, political and economic structures.

Alongside Democratic Confederalism led by the Kurdish freedom movement, an autonomous Womens Democratic Confederalist system has been built up through thousands of communes, councils, cooperatives, academies and defence units in Kurdistan and beyond. Through the creation of an autonomous womens commune in a rural village, the identity, existence, and will of its members find their expression in practice and challenge the authority of the patriarchal, capitalist state. Furthermore, economic autonomy and communal economy based on solidarity through the establishment of cooperatives are crucial to societys self-defence as they guarantee self-sustenance through mutualism and shared responsibility, rejecting dependence on states and men. Care for water, lands, forests, historic and natural heritage are vital parts of self-defence against the nation-state and profit-oriented environmental destruction.

Defending oneself also means to be and know oneself. This implies the overcoming of sexist, racist knowledge production that capitalist modernity advocates and which excludes the oppressed from history. Political consciousness constitutes a fight against assimilation, alienation from nature, and genocidal state policies. The answer to positivist, male-centred, colonialist history-writing and social science is thus the establishment of grassroots womens academies promoting liberationist epistemologies.

A fight without ethics cannot protect society. In the eyes of Kurdish women fighters, ISIS cannot be defeated by weapons only but by a social revolution. This is why Yazidi women, after experiencing a traumatic genocide under ISIS, formed an autonomous womens council for the first time in their history with the slogan The organization of Yazidi women will be the answer to all massacres, alongside womens military organisations. In Rojava, alongside the YPJ, even grandmothers learn how to handle AK47s and rotate among themselves the responsibility to protect their communities within the Self-Defence Forces (HPC), while thousands of womens centres, cooperatives, communes, and academies aim to dismantle male domination. Against the Turkish states hyper-masculine war, Kurdish women constitute one of the main challenges to Erdogans one-man rule through their autonomous mobilisation. Crucially, women from different communities have joined them in constructing womens alternatives to male domination in all spheres of life. An alternative self-defence concept which does not reproduce statist militarism must of course be anti-nationalist.

YJ is an all-women militia formed in Iraq in 2015 to protect the Yazidi community in Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan. Credit: Wikicommons

Unlike violence which aims to subjugate the other, self-defence is a complete dedication and responsibility to life. To exist means to resist. And in order to exist meaningfully and freely, one must be politically autonomous. Put bluntly, in an international system of sexual and racial violence, legitimised by capitalist nation-states, the cry for non-violence is a luxury for those in privileged positions of relative safety, believing that they will never end up in a situation where violence will become necessary to survive. While theoretically sound, pacifism does not speak to the reality of masses of women and thus assumes a rather elitist first world character.

If our claims to social justice are genuine, in a world system of intersecting forms of violence, we have to fight back.

Here is the original post:

Feminist pacifism or passive-ism? - Open Democracy

The Gooch Palms are a handful of hedonism – Mandurah Mail

Posted on by

On a quick jaunt away from tearing up American stages, Australia's favourite "s**t-pop" band, the Gooch Palms, arrive in Mandurah on March 10 to blow away Hooch punters.

Heres an idea: think about how many bands there are. The ones you know, the ones youve heard about. Now think about how many of those bands do something different. Really different. Possibly get-naked-on-stage different.

The Gooch Palms are one of those bands, and their weird and wacky take on musical performance built largely on on-stage stunts, bright colours and the aforementioned nudity. At this point, its only done them favours.

I dont remember the last time we stopped, Gooch Palms frontman Leroy Macqueen said.

At this point, its felt like two years since weve had any meaningful break. Weve probably clocked up close to 400 shows in the last two years.

Thats a pretty crazy number for any band, but for the Gooch Palms, its par for the course. The two piece partners Macqueen and Kat Friend, the symbioticparing somehow manifesting more energy than most full-size bands have a very definite, and much-loved, aesthetic.

Describing themselves as Australias pre-eminent s**t-pop band, Gooch Palms stage sets, video clips and all-around appearance drips novelty.

But this is only, really, the facade on what is a well-oiled machine; Macqueen and Friend live the Gooch Palms, the entire ship being steered by their ever-creative minds.

The release of their second LP, the revealingly-titledIntroverted Extroverts, also saw the formation of their own label imprint, as well as their shot at the stages of the US.

The first album we did, we made in nine hours in our front room, Maqueen said.

I dont wanna say it was half-arsed, but it was definitelypretty off the cuff. So going into a studio, with an actual engineer, was a huge change for us.

We had started building a bit of a base by that point, so we wanted to make something that reflected who we are, and what it is we do at our shows, which is basically have fun above anything else. It was definitely everything we wanted from the second album.

The jump to American audiences seems like a given for Australian bands these days, but it arguably makes more sense for the Gooch Palms: their raucous sets basically built around Friends pounding drum beats, Maqueens riffs from a crotch-covering guitar, and both of their anthemic calls to action, or to party, or to sit around in the living room seem tailor made for US audiences.

They love it, they eat it up, Maqueen said.

I mean, if you show initiative and passion in what youre doing, audiences will respond anywhere. You cant be lazy about it; youve gotta show the fans that youre as into being there as they are.

The rest is here:

The Gooch Palms are a handful of hedonism - Mandurah Mail

Is Democracy Dying Before Our Eyes In America? OpEd – Eurasia Review

Posted on by

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.*

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Freedom Thomas Jefferson

And at the end they go crazy Giambattista Vico

John Adams, the second president of the United States, did a study on the life of Republics from their inception all the way to the 18th century. To his great surprise, he discovered that they all died, sooner or later. In other words, they were mortal. The ones who lasted longer were what he calls republics of virtue.

By republic of virtue Adams meant a polity based on the rule of law, concern for the common good of the whole polity, rationality, justice, personal virtues such as courage, honesty, sobriety, wisdom, harmony, enterprise, magnanimity. These were the virtues as enunciated by the ancient Greeks ethical treatises, considered essential components of personal as well as collective well-being.

Rome could also function as an example of that stance toward republicanism, at least at the beginning. That may explain why it lasted so long, some 500 years as a Republic based on democratic principles of peoples representation via the Senate. It was built on a solid political foundation.

But as that other great observer of republicanism in Roman history, Giambattista Vico, well observed, it too eventually succumbed to the process of an historical law wherein republican polities begin with a basis in necessity and a need to survive (the poetical era of the gods), continue with a basis in utility based on prosperity (the era of the heroes), and finally, as he puts it, they become corrupt with abundance and luxury and they go mad (the era of men) The process of madness comes in the third and final cycle. Then the process repeats itself and from extreme rationalism there is a gradual return to the poetical.

That is to say, at the end republics manage to destroy themselves. The destruction happens interiorly, with the corruption of the essential moral core of the republic based on virtue. And this was the second great surprise to Adams: they did not succumb to external invasions by fierce enemies; they committed suicide.

The best example of that sad situation is to be found in Roman history in the reign of Caligula which was the culmination of imperial corruption. Prominent on stage, at that time, there was a deranged emperor sitting on top of a pyramid of power which had lost even the memory of its virtuous republican heritage.

He was a vindictive sort of fellow and thought of himself as a magnificent god before whom his subjects had to kneel in adoration, even when he presented himself naked in every respect, especially the moral sense. Few dared shout that the emperor is naked. In effect, the Romans had become sychophantic narcissistic idolaters worshipping themselves. Caligula was the supreme representation of that narcissistic idolatry. Rome worshipped itself as a goddess. It was nothing less than the beginning of the end.

Enter Thomas Jefferson: he agreed with Adams that virtue was essential but added that it was also important to keep up ones guard and not sleep on ones laurels, so to speak, and not take the democratic system, as brilliant as it might be, too much for granted. That too can be corrupted. Hence he coined the famous dictum: Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

When Jefferson counseled eternal vigilance he did not mean the installment of a powerful invincible army buttressed by state-of-the-arts weapons that would keep the peace world-wide (the pax Americana, similar to the pax Romana), but the preservation of the virtues on which the republic had been built: its democracy, its checks and balances, its freedom of speech, its Constitutional guarantees, its bill of rights, its freedom of religion. Unless those were preserved, Democracy would eventually turn into a shamble of sorts. Democracy can be powerful in a military sense, but to remain a democracy, its foundations cannot be based on sheer power, in a Machiavellian mode, so familiar to European nationalism, but on virtue as the Greeks and early Romans understood it.

Lets now briefly look at the present situation. The parallels between Trump and Caligula are uncanny. Undoubtedly we still have all the trappings of democracy in America: three branches of government, elections, congress, executive, judicial, constitutional guarantees of human and political rights, free unfettered debates.

All this in theory. In practice we have an electorate of which 50% and more does not bother to vote; of the other 50% approximately 25% have opted to vote for a madman who has somehow managed to become a president by the subversion of democracy even if never won the popular vote (which he lost by 3 million votes). He won mostly by electoral college count and, most importantly, by harnessing the help of an undemocratic foreign power run by authoritarian oligarchs, Putin at the forefront. That remains to be investigated.

To be perfectly truthful and frank, the whole process was rigged and fraudulent. Had Congress insisted on the revelation of Trumps tax returns, as all other modern presidents had done, his financial connections with Russia, going back 30 years, would have come to the surface and would have revealed malfeasance and corruption. He has no intention of doing so, and the Republican controlled Congress has no intention, so far, to demand the disclosure; which in effect means that they are in on the malfeasance.

This illegitimate president reigning like Caligula and demanding constant adulation, has so far fooled some 40% of the electorate by making it look like populism: he feigns to be for the people and by the people. In reality he has surrounded himself with fat cats who are beginning to show their bias for tax cuts for the rich and diminishment of social benefits for the poor and middle class, not excluding their health insurance. This is in process as we speak.

Behind the scene, pulling the strings, there is his strategist Steve Bannon, who is in possessions an historical theory of clash of civilizations and white supremacy. His allies are those who believe that there is an alternate government at work (consisting mostly of Intelligence agencies) which they call deep alternate government.

It stand to reason that the enemy would be perceived to be intelligence agencies, globalization in any shape or form, the liberal media, and, by default, genuine democracy itself. And that is exactly what we have been witnessing for the last few weeks. Few pundits and media experts have shouted the Emperor is naked.

The allies, on the other hand, are perceived to be white supremacist authoritarian fascist-leaning nations like Russia or Hungary who have little use for democracy and social justice. Its all grab what you can for yourself, at the personal and collective level and to hell with democracy.

We have now reached the sorry stage when some 30% of Americans have more sympathy for Russia than for our traditional allies in the European Union. The same people continue deluding themselves that they live in a thriving democracy. I suppose derangement is like a disease: it spreads exponentially.

So the urgent question resurfaces: are we witnessing the beginning of the end of American and Western democracy as we know it? Will Jeffersons dictum come back to haunt us when America and the EU will have destroyed themselves by destroying their own principles and ideals? Indeed, Jefferson had in on target: eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Let me end with a modest proposal. The Romans had in place a system of emergency in case of a political disaster. It was the equivalent of desperate measures to confront desperate situations, like a Hannibal, for example. We should install such a measure, democratically installed and approved, of course: when the republic is in mortal danger, and it is discovered that a national election was rigged and fraudulent, it should be declare null and void and the citizens be invited to return to the urns and vote again, this time in a legal and fair mode. Any takers? Let those who have ears, let them hear.

About the author: *Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of the neo-immigrant exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Source: This article was published at Modern Diplomacy.

The Modern Diplomacy is a leading European opinion maker - not a pure news-switchboard. Todays world does not need yet another avalanche of (disheartened and decontextualized) information, it needs shared experience and honestly told opinion. Determined to voice and empower, to argue but not to impose, the MD does not rigidly guard its narrative. Contrary to the majority of media-houses and news platforms, the MD is open to everyone coming with the firm and fair, constructive and foresighted argumentation.

Read more:

Is Democracy Dying Before Our Eyes In America? OpEd - Eurasia Review

Interview with Deo Ssekitooleko Representative of Center for Inquiry International Uganda – Conatus News

Posted on by

Interview with Deo Ssekitooleko Representative of Center for Inquiry International Uganda

In brief, what is your family story?

I was born in a poor African family. I firstsaw my biological father when I was ten years old. I am the heir of my late father, Fulgensio Ssekitooleko. He was a very committed catholic, very social, and a committed humanitarian. I grew up with my mother Noelina Nalwada which was typically asingle-parent household (but atother times I had step-fathers). I am the only child. My fathers children, apart from one, died after getting infected with HIV/AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s. My mother is an atheist, agnostic or skeptic. When I tried to enter a catholic seminary, she abused me and challenged me whether I hadever seen somebody who has ever seen God or returned from death.

However, one of my last stepfathers who was both a devout catholic and a believer in African traditional religion influenced me to be a very religious person (Catholic) in my early youth. My mother knew how to fight for my (and her) rights, so I never understood issues concerning human rights violations during my youth except when seeing teachersapply corporal punishment to my fellow students. As I was growing up, I was not aware of the massive human rights abuse by the governments of the day, but, once in a while, I could hear whispers about somebody who has disappeared or killed by the government. Those were regimes of president Iddi Amin Dada, and the second regime of Apollo Milton Obote as he was fighting guerrillas lead by Yoweri Museveni the current president of Uganda

I am married to Elizabeth, and we have been togetherfor 17 years. We have four children: Sylvia (16 years), Diana (12), Julius (11), and Nicholas (3).

Are there any others things about your personal story you would like to share? I grew up striving to succeed in education so that I could escape poverty, ignorance, and unfairness in society. My mothers relatives were always exploited by witchdoctors who claimed to have healing-powers and thus could curediseases including HIV/AIDS. My uncles and aunts gave away their land to witchdoctors in order to get cured from HIV/AIDS, but they later died leaving no property to their offsprings.

In the years to come, the Pentecostal movements emergedpromising prosperity on earth, good health and many other opportunities. The two groups, i.e. the traditional religions and the Pentecostals, were undermining the struggle against HIV/AIDS, exploiting poor people. Yet, nobody could talk about them or challenge them.

This was a traumatising experience. I never knew whether this was a human rights issue or mere belief, or ignorance. As the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights defends the right to belief, all governments have gone on to include that article in their constitutions.

This means that ignorant people can be exploited in the name of belief as it is their human right to be exploited as long as they believe. This has been one of my most traumatising struggles in life. I have lost so manyrelatives out of their ignorance of science concerninghealth issues. Yet, governments cannot do anything about this because the politicians are also superstitious and the laws protect the charlatans.

In Uganda, almost 80 per cent of FM radio stations spend most of their time promoting the work of faith healers and witchdoctors. Rationalists do not have resources to own a radio station or to buy time on radio and television.

In my struggleto promote rationalism, I founded the Uganda Humanist Association. I became the East African Representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (2007-2012). Now, I am the Ugandan Representative of the Center for Inquiry International.

As advocacy campaigns are difficult, we now engage with local communities to talk about science and superstition in health and community development. Our work is now to invite whoever happens to be involved to discuss these issues openly and inform communities of the dangers of superstition in health and community development.

As of now, I have personally suspended armchair conference-hall humanism. I am in the trenches of community practical humanism. Whatever little I do, I feel proud that at least I am part of the struggle to rationaliseAfrican communities.

What are your religious/irreligious, ethical and political beliefs? I grew up as a staunch Catholic, and then at university I became a radical secular humanist. Now, having interacted with various so-called humanists and observed their limitations (especially in building harmony, inclusive communities, practical approaches to society problems, and a general lack of openness)I have reviewed my humanism.

I am now a free thinking, liberal, practical humanist. I do not mind other peoples beliefs on the condition thatthey do not infringe on the rights, happiness, and welfare of other human beings. I can work with Catholics on a health project, but I tell them point blank that the use of condoms should not be underminedand that family planning is essential in our families.

I tell Pentecostals that by preaching miracles such as faith-healing they are committing homicide. However, I enjoy my intellectual philosophical humanism as we debate Darwinism, the Big Bang theory, the environment, and the future of humanity among others. Politically, I am a social welfare democrat. Democracy should not be only about elections, but on how society shares opportunities and resources and how it promotes harmony.

I do not support the winner takes it all type of democracy. I prefer proportional representation in government as a form of democracy,as is the case in many countries which suffered the madness of the second world war.

How did you become an activist and a sceptic? When I enrolled inhigh school, I was still a very confused young man. I had experienced a lot in my childhood. My Biology teacher, the late Mathias Katende, made an explosion in my brain and changed my ideological worldview. He introduced evolutionary biology to us.

The more he taught, the more we became confused. All along, I had prepared myself to go to heaven and meetMary, the mother of Jesus, and escape worldly problems. However, by the time I entered University to study Botany, Zoology, and Psychology, I had become completely healed from this ideological and philosophical trauma.

At University, we got more lessons on evolution, but the lecturers were not as committed to evolution as my high school teacher. In fact, most students never took evolution seriously. They just wrote their examinations and moved on with life.

At university, by luck, a friend gave me a book on discovering religions. I read about most religions, worldviews, and philosophies. I found Humanism to be more related to my new worldview. I wrote to the British Humanist Association and got a positive response from Matt Cherry who encouraged me to form a humanist organisation. That was the birth of the Uganda Humanist Association.

He connected me to the center for Inquiry International through Norm Allen who was the Director of African Americans for Humanism (AAH). The Free Inquiry Magazines that Norm sent us opened our eyes wider on how humanity sees itself. Later, we were to work with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) on many secular projects.

Do you consider yourself a progressive?

I am very progressive. I have always been evolving in my ideological, philosophical, cultural, and political views. I used to be a staunch believer in American democracy, but now I am more rotated towards European Social Parliamentary Democracy. I used to hate Chinas politics, but now I see it relevant in order to maintain orderliness and social welfare to a country (that has over one billion people) under one authority. I am a progressive because I am ever open to new challenges, new ideas, and new world views for the good of humanity and the environment at large.

Does progressivism logically imply other beliefs, or tend to or even not all?

I dont look at progressivism as a confined ideology or philosophy. If so, then I need more education about it. In my view, progressivism should be open to all aspects of human life including but not limited to culture, beliefs, politics, philosophy, and views about the environment among others.

How did you come to adopt socially progressive worldview?

As I explained earlier, it is a combination of my childhood experience, my culture, my environment, and possibly my inherited biological genes. I am lucky to have been introduced to evolutionary theory by my high school biology teacher and through reading various related literature including Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. The works of Philosophers such as Thomas Paines The Age of Reason taught me critical reasoning skills. Studying the American revolution was equally important in my political thought development. I was humbled by the sacrifices of Nelson Mandela and his colleagues to liberate South Africa from apartheid. Julius Nyereres trials with community socialism in order to liberate Tanzanians from poverty and to unite them into one nation was a positive human commitment. I can not forget reading the life of Bill Clinton in his voluminous autobiography. It is a story of moving from no where to the top of the mountains of his country.

Thank you for your time,Deo Ssekitooleko Contacts: Email: [emailprotected] The website is being worked on.

See original here:

Interview with Deo Ssekitooleko Representative of Center for Inquiry International Uganda - Conatus News

The Newfound Lionization Of George W. Bush Shows How Far We’ve Fallen – Huffington Post

Posted on by

When it comes to presidents, the populous loves to retrospectively idolize. When it comes to presidents, the populous loves to retrospectively idolize.

Remember way back in season one of Game of Thrones (or book one of A Song of Ice and Fire) when we all thought Jaime Lannister was evil incarnate? In the very first episode, he commits passionate incest and then cavalierly kicks an inquisitive child (Brandon Stark) out of a window. The fall paralyzes the 7-year-old from the waist down.

(What a bastard! How could he! Well, hes going to be the villain in this story.)

But then we met his nephew/son Joffrey and flay-enthusiast Ramsey Bolton and suddenly Jaimes transgressions seemed, well, forgivable. Its not a perfect parallel, as Jaimes eponymous king-slaying was rather heroic and saved the people of Kings Landing from being burned alive by wildfire. Theres a poetic tragedy to the arc of ol one hand. But, Im veeringon a surface level, Jaime Lannister and George W. Bush are enjoying the same glossy rebirth; they are both direct beneficiaries of a comparative softening. We are gazing through a new lens. The calamity of Trump has made all other modern presidents (including the aforementioned disastrous one: GWB) seem more successful and presidential and coherent, and even, dare I say, eloquent.

After staying away from the spotlight for much of the Obama presidency, W is back with a book of portraits and stories about veterans. The book itself seems like a noble venture, and hes certainly not the worst painter in the world. But accompanying the book release has been a publicity tour which has seen the former president being treated by Jimmy Kimmel, Ellen Degeneres, and others as if hes just this sweet guy who did his best. While I see where this type of thinking comes from, as W. never struck me as a particularly evil man, just an impressionable, and incompetent oneif that was his best, it wasnt enough. His best cost a lot of people their lives.

George W. Bushs approval rating was 22% (the lowest number on record)before he left office for a reason. Following 9/11 he thrust us into two warsone of which was the terribly misguided result of stovepiping intelligence and was started without the approval of the U.N. security council and thus, was/is considered by many to be illegal. We lost nearly 7,000 troops in these wars, while over 200,000 civilianswere killed.

Moreover, lets not forget that he was against gay marriage, he banned federal funding for stem cell research, he gave tax cuts to the richest among us which bolstered income inequality, he pulled us out of the Kyoto Protocol which would have limited Greenhouse has emissions, he gutted the Clean Water Act, he scaled-back the Endangered Species Act, he ramped up the war on drugs, he, and more specifically his vice president, were war profiteers: Cheneys Halliburton made an estimated $39.5 billion in contracts during the Iraq War, he inherited a strong economy and steered us into the Great Recession and those are just some lowlights.

When it comes to presidents, the populous loves to retrospectively idolize. Prior faults become less pronouncedlogic and reason get washed away by a wave of misguided humanism. Bill Clinton enjoyedand enjoysa similar reception. There comes a point when, as a collective, we stop seeing the President and start seeing the person. We divorce the person from the office as it were and begin to treat them like run-of-the-mill, super celebrities. It didnt seem like that was going to happen for W. however. Over the last eight years, opinions of the former president were, by all accounts, stagnant and negative.

But after only a month and a half of Trump, Bush has been reinvented as some sort of folksy, yet comparatively intellectual and empathetic conservative. Just because things seem worse now, and our leader is a boorish buffoon, it doesntor rather, shouldnterase Bushs legacy of war, inequality, and environmental regression.

Originally published on The Overgrown.

The rest is here:

The Newfound Lionization Of George W. Bush Shows How Far We've Fallen - Huffington Post

Students journalists gain protection against censorship – Arizona Daily Sun

Posted on by

PHOENIX A House panel voted 10-1 Monday to protect student journalists despite objections by one lawmaker who feared giving too much power to children.

SB 1384 would limit the ability of administrators to censor university, community college and public school papers. About the only time they could block publication would be in cases of libel, unwarranted invasions of privacy, violations of law of where there is imminent danger of inciting students or disruption of operations.

And that prior restraint would be allowed only for public school papers.

Members of the House Education Committee heard from a parade of high school journalists who cited their own experiences having stories edited or quashed by administrators. That included Henry Gorton at Sunnyslope High School who said he was barred from reporting the views of Trump supporters about issues of illegal immigration amid concerns that undocumented students would feel threatened.

Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, told Gorton that story might actually gain him support at the Republican-controlled legislature.

But Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, called the legislation well intentioned but also flawed.

Stringer indicated he had no real problem with providing protections for college journalists. But this bill, he said, goes too far.

I think it's a big mistake to include high schools and student newspapers in high schools with colleges and universities, he said. There's a very, very fundamental difference between high schools which are full of children, which are full of minors, and colleges and universities where we're dealing with adults.

And Stringer specifically objected to a provision to protect faculty advisers from administrative retaliation solely for either protecting student journalists from exercising their rights in the legislation or refusing to infringe on conduct that is constitutionally protected.

I can see the need to protect students, to allow students to have freedom of speech, he told Sen. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the legislation.

But I think it's pretty common knowledge that in many of our schools there's a strong liberal bias, Stringer continued. And I can foresee the unintended consequence of protecting faculty members who are influencing the students, or perhaps expressing their own views and biases, using public resources to propagandize their own liberal views through what purport to be student publications.

Stringer was not dissuaded by Lori Hart, a faculty adviser at Cactus Shadows High School in Cave Creek, who argued such protections are necessary.

Advisers do get fired from teaching at the school if they go ahead and publish something that is not approved by the school, she said.

Hart said it's possible that if students get additional legal protections it might not be necessary to extend some sort of employment immunity to their advisers. But she told Stringer that's not the case now.

I just know that right now teachers need that protection, Hart said.

This is actually the second time Yee has advanced such legislation. The first time was in 1992 as a high school student journalist who came to the Capitol to seek protections after she said her own work at Greenway High School was being censored.

She got the bill through the Senate only to have it die in the House. Yee told colleagues she did not realize that until last year.

Yee, like Hart, defended the protection for faculty members.

They, too, receive intimidation from their school district administrators who tell them, 'Don't print the story, she said.

And they fight against that because they're protecting the student, Yee said. They're saying, 'The story is a valid story, it's got both sides of the issue, it's black and white, it's appropriate to go to print.

Stringer warned Gorton there's a potential downside in getting the freedom he and other students seek: Administration simply shutters the paper.

You do see the risk that if we statutorily guarantee you, to high school students, adolescents, this blanket kind of immunity and free speech protection that it could be totally self-defeating and have very unintended consequences that you basically lose your forum for expressing any opinions or journalistic ideas, Stringer said.

Gorton, however, was undeterred. He said if administration controls the content, the paper is no longer a forum for students.

Under censorship, it's not a forum but an echo chamber that's more propaganda and more a newsletter rather than a newspaper, something that only advances the interests of our administrators, he said.

Rep. Michelle Udall, R-Mesa, said she was concerned that the legislation did not specifically allow administrators to keep profanity and nudity out of papers. But David Cullier, dean of the journalism school at the University of Arizona, said there are court cases which already give public school administrators the right to prevent publication of such items.

The measure, which already has gained unanimous Senate approval, now needs a vote of the full House.

Originally posted here:

Students journalists gain protection against censorship - Arizona Daily Sun

Violence on Facebook Live presents censorship dilemma – CNET – CNET

Posted on by

Video live-streamed on Facebook in June showed the action that precedes a shooting, as well as the aftermath.

Facebook Live gives people an easy way to broadcast live video, but it has also reportedly given Facebook a real live headache: how to decide when to censor video depicting violent acts.

In the year since its launch, the feature has been used to broadcast at least 50 acts of violence, according to the Wall Street Journal, including murder, suicides and a beating of a special-needs teenager in Chicago earlier this year. One of the problems is that Facebook "didn't grasp the gravity of the medium" during the planning process for the feature, an unidentified source told the newspaper.

Facebook Live, which lets anyone with a phone and internet connection live-stream video directly to Facebook's 1.8 billion users, has become a centerpiece feature for the social network. In the past few months, everyone from Hamilton cast members to the Donald Trump campaign has turned to Facebook to broadcast in real time.

"Soon, we believe a camera will be the main way to share," instead of the traditional text box, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an earnings conference call last November. "We think its pretty clear video is only going to become more important."

But the focus on video has prompted some tough philosophical questions, like what Facebook should and shouldn't show.

In July, a Minnesota woman named Diamond Reynolds used the service to live-stream her fiance Philando Castile after he was shot by police. The next day, Facebook Live captured the scene as five Dallas police officers were gunned down during a peaceful demonstration.

Both the Castile and Dallas videos were initially streamed unedited and uncensored. The Castile video temporarily disappeared from the social network because of a "technical glitch," according to Facebook. It was restored later with a warning about its graphic nature.

Zuckerberg addressed this issue last month in an open letter to the Facebook community, conceding that errors in judgment were made.

"In the last year, the complexity of the issues we've seen has outstripped our existing processes for governing the community," he wrote, referencing how some newsworthy videos were handled.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Solving for XX: The industry seeks to overcome outdated ideas about "women in tech."

Virtual reality 101: CNET tells you everything you need to know about what VR is and how it'll affect your life.

Visit link:

Violence on Facebook Live presents censorship dilemma - CNET - CNET

Facebook launches tool to fight fake news but is it censorship? – New York’s PIX11 / WPIX-TV

Posted on by

New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
Facebook launches tool to fight fake news but is it censorship?
New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
Facebook logos pictured on the screens of a smartphone and a laptop computer. (JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images). By Ese Olumhense. A 'careful approach' to fake news. As part of its ongoing effort to curb the spread of misleading or completely fabricated ...
Facebook Finally Rolls Out 'Disputed News' Tag Everyone Will Dispute - GizmodoGizmodo
How is news marked as disputed on Facebook? | Facebook Help Center | FacebookFacebook
International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers' code of principles PoynterPoynter
Facebook Newsroom -Recode
all 90 news articles »

Read the original:

Facebook launches tool to fight fake news but is it censorship? - New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

Music, censorship and the industry – Quad (subscription)

Posted on by

Musicwe all love it, in various forms and degrees. Some just enjoy a casual radio buzz in the background, while others need to listen to albums in their entirety to get any pleasure. This broad spectrum has led to a wide variety of music, from introspective concept albums to simple, catchy, so-called radio tunes, crafted to set an upbeat mood and stick in ones head.

Its very easy for these paths to cross. I mean, radios second purpose is to introduce the listener to new, interesting songs and bands that the station thinks they will enjoy, as fans of the stations repertoire.

So its natural that you find, every so often, an unconventional piece of music garnering radio time. No one would say that this is a problem; radio is good for the artist, good for potential fans and good for the already present fans, glad to see their favorite band getting the recognition that they deserve.

The problem, I feel, is when the song is viewed as unpalatable by either the FCC, the radio station or even the record label. With the rise of rap in popular culturea genre founded on the plight of the disenfranchisedas well as a push for artistic integrity and free speech, vulgar language is at its peak in music.

However, radio still finds the need to censor this music. This censorship ranges from the changing of lyrics (Cee Lo Greens claim to fame, Forget You, comes to mind) to the outright removal of words deemed inappropriate (as in the chorus of Starboy, by The Weeknd). This is done for one reason: to sell the song to radio, and to people who feel that foul language is a legitimate sign of immorality.

Those who deem vulgarity to be a negative aspect of music do it for a multitude of reasons, but the two most common appear to be:

While both of these points come from a place of real worry, I do not feel that they are effective arguments for the censorship of music. Lets address each point individually, and then answer the question of censorship as a whole.

Children are the pride of American culture. We view children as fragile tokens of youth and innocence, unable to understand the nuance of humanitys interactions with itself. Thus, we must shelter them from anything that could corrupt that innocence.

In protecting from that corruption, we do things like censor media. However, in the digital age, this censorship does not work as we want it to. Most children have access to the internet, and the idea that they will be able to avoid the uncensored media is laughable.

Censoring radio merely piques the interest of these children, who will then search for the naughty words, sidestepping their parents attempt at protecting them and avoiding any positive dialogue on the use of adult language.

The second issue is a more complex one. Class issues throughout the centuries have led to a demonization of bad language, and is why we as a culture do not feel that it is a proper thing to do.

The problem with this stance, especially in media, is that media defies culture. Rock, punk and rapthese movements started as counterculture, before evolving into fully fleshed out genres that became adopted by the mainstream.

These movements were born out of cultural defiance, taboo behavior and the freedom of expression. Censorship kills this freedom of expression, as well as defanging any relevant criticism that the movement has against the mainstream.

But then, keep the vulgarity out of the mainstream and separate the counterculture from the popular movements, you say. The issue with this is twofold:

There is nothing to gain from separating the subversive elements of a musical movement from its appealing ones, and any attempt to do so should be viewed exclusively as a controlling form of censorship.

Music has become a product. Art for arts sake, while existent, is hard to come by in the mainstream these days. The industry, in fear of losses, allows for the perverted censorship of an art form to be maintained.

Filler does not exist in art. Artists pick lyrics with purpose, to convey emotion, make a point or satirize an establishment. The censorship of these artists takes the power that they have over their own creation away, and reduces them to nothing more than a vessel for public appeal, the antithesis of art as a whole.

Dean Cahill is a first-year student majoring in English literature. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

More:

Music, censorship and the industry - Quad (subscription)

Reddit BTC Mod Resigns, Cites Censorship in Both Subreddits – CryptoCoinsNews

Posted on by

Reddit BTC moderator Jratcliff63367 officially resigned from the subreddit due to its dysfunctional operations and limited discussions. In his official statement, Jratcliff stated emphasized the censorship on both the Bitcoin subreddit and BTC subreddit, expressing his concerns over two of the largest bitcoin discussion communities.

For a long period of time, the Bitcoin subreddit operated by main moderator Theymos has been the most successful and popular bitcoin community. It still faciliates some of the most important and collaborative discussions with developers, users, businesses and enthusiasts.

However, as Jratcliff notes, the Bitcoin subreddit began to receive harsh criticisms from non-Bitcoin Core supporters for being censorship-heavy. Theymos along with his other moderators of the Bitcoin subreddit was accused of eliminating any pertinent discussions in regards to Bitcoin Unlimited or alternative solutions other than the technologies being developed by Bitcoin Core.

Logically, the reasoning of Theymos and the rest of the Bitcoin subreddit moderators in censoring non-Bitcoin Core discussions can be justified, as the current Bitcoin network is overseen by the Bitcoin Core development team and with the codes the team has written over the past few years.

However, for bitcoin to evolve, bitcoin investors including Ver believes a group of developers or experts need to receive baton to continue the development of bitcoin, the same way bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto passed on his vision to his successors.

Bitcoin Unlimited supporters, as well as many miners,firmly believe that the censorship of Bitcoin Unlimited and non-Bitcoin Core solutions doesnt necessarily benefit the long-term health and development of bitcoin. In fact, they seem to believe that granting one development team the monopoly over a bitcoin network is stalling the development of bitcoin.

Evidently, if Bitcoin Unlimited developers and supporters want to force a hard fork in order to place Bitcoin Unlimited on top of the bitcoin protocol, they can simply initiate a hard fork. No organization or individual can stop Bitcoin Unlimited supports from executing a hard fork. Currently, they simply dont have the support from miners to do so and that is what the Bitcoin subreddit moderators are emphasizing.

Jratcliff specifically mentioned in his statement that the BTC subreddit, despite what it was structured to be, is no longer a platform wherein users freely discuss various solutions, events and activties within the bitcoin industry. As Coinbase Director of Engineering and Litecoin creator Charlie Lee states:

Sadly, /r/btc is becoming a cesspool. Its basically a Core/Blockstream/SegWit-bashing, BU-praising echo chamber. /r/bitcoin is much better.

Former /r/btc moderator Jratcliff offered a similar insight to Lee, stating Today, I find the /r/btc community to be highly dysfunctional. It is not operating as an open and engaging discussion for all things bitcoin. It has become something else. He adds that users including himself cant share off-chain scaling solutions on /r/btc due to the communitys ignorance to off-chain scaling.

I no longer think that increasing the on-chain blocksize by any amount will accomplish much of anything. I have a lot of views on this topic. And I have tried to share them both here as well as /r/bitcoin and other forums such as Lets Talk Bitcoin. I can no longer share them on /r/btc because any post or comment I make immediately receives dozens of downvotes and is hidden from view. explained Jratcliff.

To summarize, both subreddits are censoring discussions and promoting Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited respectively. Thus, it is dishonest and unfair for any of the moderators of the two subreddits to claim censorship and attempt to appeal themselves to the community as victims.

Image from Shutterstock.

Originally posted here:

Reddit BTC Mod Resigns, Cites Censorship in Both Subreddits - CryptoCoinsNews

Chinese Official Dares to Challenge Repressive Government Internet Censorship – Heat Street

Posted on by

A senior Chinese official has spoken out against his countrys repressive internet censorship measures in a rare show of defiance.

Luo Fuhe, a technology adviser to Chinas parliament, said that Communist officials should un-ban some of the thousands of websites currently blocked by the so-called Great Firewall.

Web censorship has become more severe in the years since Xi Jinping became president, with hundreds of news sites blocked, as well as most social networks.

But Luo spoke out against Chinas determination to control its peoples internet access over the weekend, saying that academic sites should be removed from the filter.

He said continued censorship will have a grave impact on our countrys socio-economic development and scientific research, theSouth China Morning Postreported.

He cited examples of state filtering software slowing the internet down to an unusable pace.

Pages hosted by the UN could take 20 seconds to load, while sites hosted by foreign universities are so heavily vetted they can take more than half an hour, he warned.

Luo belongs to one of Chinas non-Communist political parties, and works for theChinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, which advises their parliament.

His criticism is exceptionally outspoken given the commitment of the Communist party, which dominates Chinas political culture, to the policy.

Notably, Luo stuck to uncontroversial academic examples and the economic costs of web censorship, rather than focusing on personal freedom.

He left out the social penalty suffered by the Chinese people, unable to access huge chunks of the internet which are freely available in the West.

The repressive outlook earned China the worst score in the world in a recent ranking of government internet policies by the Freedom House watchdog organization.

But is unlikely to be taken on board by leading figures of the Chinese politburo, who are headed in the opposite direction.

Read more here:

Chinese Official Dares to Challenge Repressive Government Internet Censorship - Heat Street

A New Low For Indian Censors: Banning Lady Oriented Films – Birth.Movies.Death. (blog)

Posted on by

One step back, two steps back.

Here we go again.

If youve been keeping up with stories pertaining to Indian censorship, youll know how arbitrarily regressive some of the decisions tend to be. Words aretaken out of contextor even misheard by the Central Board of Film Certification, leaving producers little choice beyond bowing to their whims. You can catch up on all my articles on the history and progress (or lack thereof) when it comes to censorship here(including my frustrating interview with the head of the CBFC), though something I havent yet touched on in detail is the boards outright refusal tocertify, as has recently been the case with Alankrita Shrivastavas Lipstick Under My Burkha.

Its a somewhat loaded title for a sexually conservative nation so divided by religious conflict, though only a tad more inflammatory than its Hindi original (Lipstick Ke Sapne, meaning dreams of lipstick), because the issue the board seems to have isnt strictly religious. But dont take my word for, lets hear what the CBFC hasto say:

"Reasons for Certificate Refused to the film:

The story is lady oriented, their fantasy above life. There are containious sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography, and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society. Hence film refused under guidelines 1(a), 2(vii), 2(ix), 2(x), 2(xi), 2(xxi) and 3(i)."

Oh boy.

Im not one to judge the English skills of somebody who doesnt speak it natively, but even looking beyond the apparent errors, theres a fair amount to unpack right from the opening statement: The story is lady oriented. No matter what language you speak, that right there sends a very clear message about why a film has been outright banned from cinemas. To give you a clearer picture of what kind of movie it is, heres a look at the trailer:

If that video doesn't work for you, try this one:

Doesnt that look delightful? Lipstick Under My Burkha is a tale of the little victories that make up everyday rebellion in a society like Indias, where notions of culture and values are tied to the suppression and control of female sexuality. With that in mind, the censorship situation takes on an even more sinister connotation.

After Shrivastavas film was sent to a revising committee to determine its rating, she was called into the darkened theatre and told outright by CBFC head Pahlaj Nihalani that there had been a unanimous decision to stop it from being seen theatrically. Despite the films success at festivals in Mumbai, Tokyo, Glasgow, andthis past week in Miami, a regressive, bigoted government body and the short tempered yes-man at its apex stopped her from sharing her art with the public. Even better, Lipstick won the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival, mere miles from where Nihalani sits. Thats what the CBFC is inadvertently opposing. Gender equality.

The Central Board of Film Certification is colloquially referred to as the censor board, though they insist what they do isnt censorship. In terms of the process, they inform artists of what they do or dont deem permissible for public viewing (even for films with an A or Adult certificate goodbye Moonlights beach scene), and if producers have a problem with this, they can go through the arduous process of appeal after appeal until the decision is made by the courts, often leading to the hemorrhaging of legal fees and a wrench being tossed into the theatrical rollout.

Theres a strange hypocrisy to the boards censorship that you've probably picked up on by now and make no mistake, it iscensorship no matter how many times Nihalani defaults to the just doing our job excuse. Their concern for the protection of women leads them to demand words like bitch and whore be muted regardless of context, but when it comes to women expressing their own stories, fantasies and struggles, they bring down their fascist gavel and ban a movie before insisting it isnt a ban. I dont think I need to tell our American readers that when a court needs to reverse a decision like this, its a ban no matter how much you deny it.

The problem isnt limited to the laws, of course. In the year since I wrote about the cultural roots of Indian censorship, the conversation has gotten louder, but it hasnt really changed. Hell, it wasnt until I sat down with Nihalani that I learned the laws hadnt changed either (despite being brought up in Parliament!) because information on the proceedings is harder to come by than it should be. But were the rules to change, it would still only be a first step towards changing how the culture approaches disagreement on art.

Take for instance the set of the upcoming Padmavati, which a local Rajput group trashed before attacking director Sanjay Leela Bhansali over the depiction of the eponymous queen. Not only was this over an anachronism in a film they hadnt seen (apparently, an intimate scene with ruler Alauddin Khilji, whose obsession with Padmavati is the films main focus), but the ahistorical sequence that had them so riled up seems to itself have been a fabrication. According to the director, there is no such scene in the film.

Physical attacks on artists are far from the norm in India, but the react first, be informed later mindset that leads to this violence is still the status quo. The idea that all art needs to be agreeable, inoffensive and in line with the abstract notions of culture creates an intellectual vacuum, one that exists symbiotically with the CBFC and the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Both of these things are in need of radical revamp, as is the hypocrisy surrounding the protection of women from subjects concerning their experience, especially when its their voices being suppressed in the process. If thats the case, women arent the ones these laws protect. The only things being protected are the fragile egos of men who cant deal with female autonomy, and a culture that refuses to be challenged by a more inclusive society.

In the directors own words:

"Shouldnt the voices of women be encouraged and given more space? Instead we have a situation where a small film that dares to tell a story from a female point of view is being silenced. We are being told that our voices do not matter. We are being told it is better to shut up and comply.

As a woman, and as a filmmaker, I have decided that I will not shut up. I refuse to be silenced. I will not be discouraged. I will fight to ensure that Lipstick Under My Burkha is released in cinemas in India. And I will continue to make lady-oriented films as long as I can."

Now that we're here, let's keep the discussion "lady oriented." What are your favourite films by and/or about women? What experiences or perspectives do they articulate? Sound off below, completely uncensored. We'll let you know if and when Lipstick Under My Burkha makes it to Indian cinemas.

Go here to see the original:

A New Low For Indian Censors: Banning Lady Oriented Films - Birth.Movies.Death. (blog)

Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech – New York Times

Posted on by

New York Times
Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech
New York Times
Mr. Erdogan's opponents in Germany, both Turkish and German, say the president wants to use the freedoms of Western democracy to further consolidate his anti-democratic powers at home, and they accuse him and his men of using their right to free speech ...
The Latest: Opposition: Turkish govt limits free speech too - Spokane, North Idaho News & Weather KHQ.comKHQ Right Now
How Germany accidentally gave Erdogan a boost ahead of key voteAl-Monitor

all 704 news articles »

Link:

Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech - New York Times

Does American have a free speech problem? Readers answer our … – San Bernardino County Sun

Posted on by

We asked readers, Does America have a free speech problem?

In the United States, free speech is in big trouble

Free speech in America is in big trouble. Take the recent case of Orange Coast College student Caleb ONeil, who would have been punished by administration were it not for the exemplary defense mounted by Freedom X attorney Bill Becker and others who rallied at his side.

This mindset that declares that Trump supporters are racist white supremacists is ludicrous. Many on the left are blinded by their own hysteria and this shuts down any chance of reasonable discourse on issues.

Read the free speech column by John Phillips, Its a college campus run by bullies. You will be shocked. If not, you may have blind hysteria syndrome.

Tressy Capps, Fontana

Limited speech is not free speech

I do not believe that America has a free speech problem. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted society freedom of speech and we are grateful for it.

Some people dont want to hear what others have to say, but do we not wish for freedom of speech? Some may argue we should have freedom of speech but only to a certain extent. What is the point if we are restricted from expressing ourselves?

Itd be ironic to be a country that has freedom of speech but only to a certain point. We should be allowed to voice our thoughts and feelings regardless of the topic. That is freedom of speech.

Karla Davalos, Ontario

Respect First Amendment

When the U.S. Constitution was written, it included individual freedom of speech; therefore there is not too little or too much freedom of speech.

With freedom of speech comes disagreements, and when a person expresses their political views it becomes a sensitive subject, especially regarding hatred of Donald Trump.

Therefore, many Trump supporters feel they cannot fully express their opinion and that is not right. People allow their emotions to take over and cannot separate political views from other issues and that is why many feel they are not able to speak and write freely.

And California Democratic leaders need to respect that everyone has the right to the First Amendment instead of removing people from the floor.

Lesle Chicas, Rancho Cucamonga

Advertisement

Read the original here:

Does American have a free speech problem? Readers answer our ... - San Bernardino County Sun

Milo and the Limits of Free Speech – The Arkanas Traveller

Posted on by

Its been an OK news week for us smug snowflakes and libtards who are so high-minded about things like facts, peer review, government accountability, intelligence briefings and so on. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned, Senator Tom Cotton got grilled at a town hall, and some come around finally went around and caught an alt-right leading spokesman in a comment praising priest pedophilia.

This spokesman, Milo Yiannopoulos, isnt new to controversy. Hes made his career on it. Yiannopoulos is the token minority of the alt-right: a gay British immigrant who calls himself a Dangerous Faggot and dresses like a living debunker of the stereotype about fashionable gays. As a Breitbart editor, he wrote articles like 10 Things Milo Hates About Islam, Heres Why There Ought to be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths and other posts denying the existence of racism, sexism and social injustice. He got banned from tweeting for targeting actress Leslie Jones with a series of tweets steeped in racial tropes about black women.

So at the beginning of February, students at University of California Berkeley who were offended by his views, took to the streets where Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak. They protested and rioted, and the speech was canceled. Yiannopoulos and other conservatives claimed that this was an infringement on his free speech. Yiannopoulos and his allies claimed that his speech could not be limited, even by the expressions of others who were offended.

Until this week that is. A video surfaced showing Yiannopoulos clearly appearing to support sex between 13-year-old boys and grown men, including Yiannopoulos saying that he wouldnt give nearly such good head if it wasnt for him (Father Michael). Suddenly, all of those free-speech advocates willing to defend him for offensive comments disappeared like the Arctic ice shelf.

The unwillingness of these advocates to speak sooner is a little hypocritical, but I think that it shows that there is a line where free speech becomes something else. There are limits on speech in the law already; you cant falsely yell fire in a crowded room. Its a hard line to draw, but when someone is harmed by speech or the acts it implies, that speech isnt warranted.

With comments about pedophilia, its really clear why its harmful. With other statements about race, gender and so on, its less obvious but statements like those made by Yiannopoulos which target minorities question the value of minority participation in society. Those statements downplay some peoples desires to make choices or speak which is inherently harmful and dehumanizing.

Its okay to speak out against a speaker is repeatedly irrational and resistant to facts it is a hasty generalization to draw conclusions from someones gender, race, sex and religion since these things individually tell very little about a person.

Just because someone has a right to speech doesnt mean they have a right to a venue, so its justified to protest a speech by someone whos unduly offensive. And if the speech is harmful, like Yiannopoulos pedophile comments, and repeatedly false or inaccurate, like his other comments, it is fine to limit it. Its a shame it took Yiannopoulos free-speech allies so long to realize that the line had been crossed.

Original post:

Milo and the Limits of Free Speech - The Arkanas Traveller