It’s high time to jump from film censorship to classification – Times of India (blog)

Posted on by

It is time to revamp the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The problem is not just with its current illustrious chief rather, the problem is with the entire body.

While the name of this statutory body suggests that its job is to certify films, its guidelines mandate it to act a censor. It does not take more than a glance to appreciate the total inanity of the guidelines, drawn up, clearly, by someone who lacks any understanding of cinema or the arts in general.

The current controversy over two films Lipstick Under My Burkha and Ka Bodyscapes, both of which have been denied certification stems from the illiberal and anti-constitutional right of the state to censor films. This should change. What we need is certification, to guide people to avoid wrong choices for juvenile audiences.

The guidelines call upon the CBFC to make sure that a film being cleared for exhibition offers clean and healthy entertainment; artistic freedom and creative expression are not unduly curbed; does not depict abuse of children; does not deprave the morality of the viewer; etc.

Clearly, the author of the guidelines either has no conception of the role of art in society or does not think of cinema as art. Films are just for entertainment, of the clean and healthy variety, a criterion that even a Tom and Jerry cartoon might well fail in these times of politically correct squeamishness over violence.

If the guidelines are to be observed strictly, no film can engage with the harsh reality of life in unequal, hierarchical, misogynist India.

Only vacuous, singsong melodrama would pass muster. The government should follow the recommendations of the Benegal committee, give up the mission of censorship and merely classify films as regards their suitability for particular age groups.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

View original post here:

It's high time to jump from film censorship to classification - Times of India (blog)

Censorship at the arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won’t matter. – Science 2.0

Posted on by

The arXiv.org (said as archive) is one of the oldest websites on the internet and serves as a curated collection of scholarly preprints submitted by recognized scientist. I even have a paper there on massive star formation (arXiv:1311.3983). I tried to publish in another area and they say submit to a journal and get feedback. Then a favorable review isnt enough, so I need to get it published. Then in a subsequent email from them, I must get it published in a mainstream journal with no guarantee that being published in any journal would do the trick.

What is arXiv, why they moderate, and why that can go wrong.

The arXiv has to maintain a certain standard for a reason. The value of arXiv is that it provides a copy of papers that cost money either way. That means it is moderated. This is a reasonable thing to do. There is also an appeals process which is supposed to avoid abuses. However, when moderation devolves into unreasoned censorship and even doing what they tell you to get a paper up there may not sway them someone has to call it what it is.

So, I get endorsements, twice, that is not so unusual.

They ask that I submit to a peer reviewed journal for the requisite feedback. I get back a review from Science/Nature (does not matter which one) a long detailed review stating that the paper is not bad, and would be of interest to a small audience. Just not a big enough audience for Nature/Science.

Then arxiv says they need for it to be published in a mainstream journal. I ask for clarification of just what comprises a mainstream journal which would ensure acceptance on arXiv. Then I get this.

So even if I did what they asked it would probably not be enough. Supposed I submitted to another Nature/Science journal more focused on a specialty . What would the result be. I could never pay an open access fee for such a journal it would be too much. So even if I got it published in Nature/Science or a journal in one of those families that may not be enough. Hypothetically acceptance in Nature/Science wouldn't be enough for them.

Whats the big deal?

In this day and age most papers, in the fields of Physics, and Astronomy, are published open access in some form or fashion.

In this climate being published in a paywalled, traditional, and what I surmise they mean by mainstream, format is little better than not being published at all.

If one is browsing for papers on their Ipad, or phone or other device and has to pay they are not going to read it. If one has to even enter university library credentials that can be a pain in the rump many will simply avoid.

The assumption that serious researchers would be reading on a computer, on a campus, logged into a university or national lab IT system, etc is from the early 2000s or really the 1990s.

Philosophically, I believe in open access and I believe in public, post publication, peer review. The peoples taxes pay my salary, and for my retirement, and whos taxes loaned me money for school and pay for the facilities I rely on. They shouldnt have to pay Springer or Elsevier $30 bucks to read my work. If anything I should pay them to host it.

As for public, peer review, post publication, the attitude of the arXiv moderators shows why thats needed. It is possible to be frank, honest, and negative, without being unreasonable or insulting. Having to be publicly accountable for ones words ensures fairness in the process. Individual researchers are then free to use their own judgement on the pros and cons of a paper and contribute to the flow of ideas that will lead ultimately to greater knowledge accepting or rejecting all or part of a paper individually. The mainstream and traditional process is based on authority and belongs to a past era of paper and ink not hard drives and internet.

The bottom line

Yes, the arXiv does in fact censor ideas that dont fit the taste of the moderators. Even if those ideas have been found acceptable enough to publish, or have at a conference. . Yet they accepted how many papers about faster than light neutrino physics based on a clearly obviously flawed set up? Accepting those and not papers like mine which have a prayer of being right and propose an experiment to prove or disprove them is not scientific moderation. What that is is art criticism based on ones feelings about an idea without reasons and logic. That is the essence of censorship, not moderation.

See the original post here:

Censorship at the arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won't matter. - Science 2.0

State Senate passes bill protecting students’ free speech | KOMO – KOMO News

Posted on by

by ALEXIS MYERS Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A bill protecting high school and college students' rights to publish and speak freely in school-sponsored media passed the state Senate Thursday.

Senate Bill 5064 passed on a 45-4 bipartisan vote and now heads to the House for consideration.

Republican Sen. Joe Fain, the sponsor of the measure, called it an important bill that reasserts the value of journalism by ensuring that student journalists at the high school and college level "have the types of free speech protections that we Americans have always associated with journalism."

Under the measure, student editors would be fully responsible for determining what goes into their publication or broadcast. School administrators would not be allowed to censor or review any content before publishing unless it contains libelous or slanderous material, or is obscene or incites students to commit unlawful acts on school grounds.

"I think it's very important that those young people see the responsibility that they have when they are put in a position as young journalists to responsibly exercise these rights of free speech," Fain said.

In the past, high schools in Washington state have been sued by students because of student newspapers publishing slanderous material.

The bill would exempt school officials from any civil or criminal liability resulting from school-sponsored media. It also ensures a student media adviser cannot be terminated, transferred or otherwise disciplined for not censoring students' speech.

"I think it will continue to install the value of free speech and freedom of expression both for our community at large and particularly for the next generation," Fain said.

View original post here:

State Senate passes bill protecting students' free speech | KOMO - KOMO News

California University Embraces Free Speech After Threatened With Lawsuit – Daily Caller

Posted on by

5513833

A university has updated its free speech policies following a lawsuit filed by a conservative speaker whose event was almost cancelled at the school.

Ben Shapiro, Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire and his partner organization, Young Americas Foundation, sued California State University, Los Angeles, after a virtual riot broke out at his scheduled speaking engagement. Shapiro was met by a mob of violent protesters who had blocked entrances to the event, physically attacked attendees, and blocked entrances to the speech, according to The Daily Wire.

Shapiro and Young Americas Foundation dismissed the lawsuit after the school made some changes to its free speech policies, as noted in The Daily Signal.

California State University, Los Angeles, pledged to not impose any fees, including security fees, based upon the viewpoint of the speech at future events. The school also pledged to not unilaterally refuse to schedule or cancel any scheduled event based upon the viewpoint of the speech that is to take place, adding that it will enforce terms of its Administrative Policy on Time, Place, and Manner of Free Expression P007 in a viewpoint-neutral manner, as reported by Young Americas Foundation.

While CSULA changed its policies to be more conducive to free speech, other universities restrict opinions deemed controversial, sometimes prohibiting various speakers from addressing students on campus. (RELATED: Study: Over 90% Of UK Colleges Censor Speech)

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter

Send tips to [emailprotected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

See more here:

California University Embraces Free Speech After Threatened With Lawsuit - Daily Caller

Congress Should Rein in Free Speech Violations with Budget Cuts – Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

Posted on by

Congress should cut the budget of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Doing so will help the economy and protect civil liberties. As CEI and others have noted, the EEOCs actions have often discouraged hiring and undermined free speech.

Under the Obama administration, the EEOC sued employers for using hiring criteria required by state law, demanding that they violate health and safety codes. It even pressured employers to hire felons as armed guards. The EEOC sued companies that quite reasonably refuse to employ truck drivers with a history of heavy drinking, even though companies that hire them will be sued under state personal-injury laws when they have an accident. The EEOC has also used costly lawsuits to pressure businesses into hiring or rehiring incompetent employees. In 2011, a hotel chain had to pay $132,500 for dismissing an autistic clerk who did not do his job properly, in order to get the EEOC to dismiss its lawsuit. In 2012, a caf owner had to pay thousands of dollars for not selecting a hearing- and speech-impaired employee for a customer-service position that the employee was unqualified for.

The EEOC has also been criticized by free speech advocates and legal scholars. In 2016, the EEOC was criticized for ordering a racial harassment investigation simply because an agency employee repeatedly wore a cap with the Gadsden flag on it.

Since the EEOC is an independent agency (it currently has three Democratic commissioners and only one Republican commissioner), this problem will likely persist even under the new administration. Last month, the EEOC angered free-speech advocates by using an erroneous definition of religious harassment to force an agency to pay over $20,000 to a lawyer and Labor Department employee because a supervisor used the word Hebrew slave to describe himself.

The EEOC sometimes exhibits contempt for the very laws it administers. The EEOC was found guilty of systematic, illegal, reverse discrimination in Jurgens v. Thomas (1982), which it continued to illegally engage in for years, even after being ordered to stop.(See Terry v. Gallegos, 926 F.Supp. 679 (W.D. Tenn. 1996)). EEOC officials have also frequently committed sexual misconduct. (See, e.g., Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439 (3rd Cir.1994)). The Washington Post reported in 2009 that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nations workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees.

Given the EEOCs contempt for the law, and its attacks on free speech, its budget should be cut substantially. Budget cuts would effectively force EEOC staff to focus more on their core area of activityprocessing valid federal employee claimsrather than suing private employers (which costs more and can lead to a loss before a federal court), or stretching the law to overturn agency rulings. There are many overlapping legal remedies for discrimination and federal employee dismissal, so a smaller EEOC budget need not lead to valid harassment and discrimination claims going unaddressed. Most discrimination victims already sue without help from the EEOC.

In the long term, Congress should consider structural reforms to the agency itself, such as those proposed by law school professor and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member Gail Heriot, which would streamline its mandate to focus solely on federal employees.

See the article here:

Congress Should Rein in Free Speech Violations with Budget Cuts - Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

Troubling times for free speech on campus – Times Record News

Posted on by

Wichita 4:11 p.m. CT March 3, 2017

Texas A&M University-Kingsville students walk the up and down the pavilion between classes Thursday, the university has had it highest enrollment ever this year.(Photo: ToddYates/Caller-Times File)

Our nation's institutions of higher learning are supposed to be repositories of knowledge, enriched by the free flow of information and competition of ideas, but they are increasingly failing in this mission. Sadly, college campuses, which tend to embrace liberal ideologies, including tolerance, oftentimes are among the most intolerant of opposing views, as evidenced by the imposition of speech codes and enforcement of "free speech zones," which limit what can be said and where it can be expressed.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes that it "has received an increasing number of reports that colleges and universities are inviting students to anonymously report offensive, yet constitutionally protected, speech to administrators and law enforcement through so-called 'Bias Response Teams.'" More than 230 schools have formed such teams, which oftentimes operate under broad definitions of "bias," and create "a chilling effect on campus expression," FIRE reports. Tensions have reached a boiling point on many campuses, as illustrated by several recent examples in California. Orange Coast College suspended a student for recording a professor's anti-Trump rant, before backing down after a national outcry. At UCLA, conservative communications instructor Keith Fink is accusing his department of political discrimination after suffering reductions in his class size and the rejection of his permission-to-enroll forms, which allow students to enroll in a class with the instructor's permission, under a new department head with reportedly very left-leaning ideals. Only 200 of the 241 students who attempted to enroll in Fink's course were admitted, even though the classroom has a capacity of 293. Ironically, the subject of the argument is Fink's popular "Sex, Politics and Race: Free Speech on Campus" course.

Sometimes, attempts to stifle speech even get violent. A Cal State Fullerton instructor was suspended for allegedly striking a student from the College Republicans, who were staging a counterprotest of students rallying against President Donald Trump's policies. And then there was the violent protest that forced the cancellation of controversial conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos' planned event at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago.

But there is a bit of a silver lining as well. Just about a week prior to the UC Berkeley riot, a rowdy crowd forced the cancellation of another Yiannopoulos talk at UC Davis. In response, interim Chancellor Ralph Hextor announced that he is forming a work group of students, faculty and staff to recommend policies to ensure that even the most polemical speakers can have their voices heard on campus. "When we prevent words from being delivered or heard, we are trampling on the First Amendment," Hextor stated recently. "Even when a speaker's message is deeply offensive to certain groups, the right to convey the message and the right to hear it are protected." Quite so. Moreover, there is no place for speech codes and free speech zones on college campuses - or anywhere else. After all, as FIRE senior program officer Adam Steinbaugh wrote in a recent Washington Examiner column, "How will students be able to defend their rights in the legislature or the courts if debating them in the classroom is to be discouraged?"

The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.)

Read or Share this story: http://wtrne.ws/2lnQSZw

More here:

Troubling times for free speech on campus - Times Record News

State Senate passes bill protecting students’ free speech – The News Tribune

Posted on by
State Senate passes bill protecting students' free speech
The News Tribune
Joe Fain, the sponsor of the measure, called it an important bill that reasserts the value of journalism by ensuring that student journalists at the high school and college level "have the types of free speech protections that we Americans have always ...

and more »

The rest is here:

State Senate passes bill protecting students' free speech - The News Tribune

The Two Biggest Reasons My Generation Hates Free Speech – The Rebel

Posted on by

Im a free speech absolutist. That means, I believe in the freedom of expression, association, and, of course, speech for anyone and any idea.

There are certain limitations Id place, like defamatory speech that leads to individuals suffering severe economic burdens. Those economic burdens would have to be proven in court, of course. But besides that, I think you should have the right to say what you want to say to anyone, at all.

If you want to call me a "nigger," I will defend your right to say that.

If you dont want to serve me food because Im black, I will defend your right to do that in your private business.

Who cares if Im offended? That doesnt mean what youre saying is wrong.

And that doesnt mean I should work to silence you.

But sadly, thats the kind of world we live in.

According to the Pew Research Centre, up to 40 per cent of young people think its ok to limit speech that is offensive to minorities. There are have been polling data that goes all the way up to 50 per cent.

If you still dont believe me, Ill show you a clip of me talking about this to normal young Canadian university students.

Ironically, back in the 1960s, it was young people who lead the free speech movement. Now, they turn their backs on what others fought for.

Why? It was the universities, especially the humanities and social sciences, that taught them to think this way about free speech. Specifically, through the prisms of postmodernism and Marxism. WATCH as I explain.

I used to be proud in my generation. Now, I cant be anymore. Were no longer tolerant. Were no longer an accepting generation.

Instead, were a generation of active nihilists driven mad by good-for-nothing identity politics.

See original here:

The Two Biggest Reasons My Generation Hates Free Speech - The Rebel

Middlebury College students shout down speaker in display against free speech – Watchdog.org

Posted on by

ANTI-FREE SPEECH: Leftist Middlebury College students turned their backs and shouted down political scientist and Bell Curve author Dr. Charles Murray on Thursday.

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. Anti-free speech students fromMiddlebury College disrupted a planned lecture by guest speaker,political scientist andauthor Charles Murray in the McCullough StudentCenter on Thursday.

The event, which included severaldark-masked, bandit-like student protestors, descended quicklyintoarowdyeffortto preventthe Harvard- and MIT-educated speakerfrom discussing his book, Coming Apart. The student protest effort succeeded.

Murrayis affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. He also is the co-authorofthe1994 book The Bell Curve, an study ofrace and intelligence.

On campus, Murrays appearance was being castas adisplay of academic free speech versus shutting down what protesting students called hate speech.

Before Murrayappeared on stage,William Burger, thecolleges vice president of communications, told students about the colleges rules of conduct for First Amendment protests. He noted that failing to follow the rules couldresult in reprimands includingacademic dismissal.

Middlebury College President Laurie Pattonofferedher reasons for allowing thefree and open discussionbya researcher she did not personally agree with. I would regret it terribly if my presence here is read to be something that it is not an endorsement of Mr. Murrays research and writings, she said.

Students booed Patton wholeft the stage visiblyshaken.

Free speech?

The loud,sustainedprotest inside the auditorium included manystudents turning their backs on Murray when hewalked on stage.

With their backs to Murray, students heldup posters with hand-scrawled protest slogans such as White Supremacy is the Enemy and Race is a Construct and F Eugenics.

Many in the Middlebury audience shouted, Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away! in unison. One protestor in the audience shouted Yiannopoulos! referring to former Breitbart Newscommentator Milo Yiannopoulos, andperhaps the violent University of California, Berkeley protest against him in February.

Chanting continued for nearly 30 minutes until Murray wasescorted offstageby Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics at the college. Asecurity guard and student membersof the American Enterprise Institute astudent-runcampus club whicharranged the authors appearance also escorted Murray.

When Stanger returned on stage and took the podium microphone, she said, Well have a great dialog if youd let us continue, but youre not going to let us speak. Brothers and sisters, namaste.

Murraywas usheredto an undisclosed room on campus to deliver hislecture via live stream video. However, whenalarge video projection screen was lowered for audience viewing and the live streaming began,loud protesting continued, making it impossible for audience members to hear Murray and moderator Stanger.

Most people know Murray for The Bell Curve. Butthe speakerwas invited to Middlebury to discuss Coming Apart, a more recent bookabout the moral decline of white America and the growingeconomicdivide.

Many student voices

Saanvi Khambatta,a senior studyingeconomics, came to the event tolearn aboutMurrays intellectual thought process.

I wanted to see a different perspective, she told Watchdog. Charles Murray does not have the credentials,but he does influence a lot of people in our nation. I disagree with his ideas but I feel like I should know about his ideas to challenge me intellectually.

Anna May Walker, a sophomore English major, was appalled by the behavior of fellow students.

Silencing Charles Murray is another example of two wrongs not making a right. Let him speak andengage intellectually, she said.Sure, I would have preferred him not to have been invited to campus,but hes here and now were guilty. Were people unwilling to hear the voices of others despitedemanding our own voices be heard.

Walker said she fearsthat students who stand for free speech at the college will face intimidation and retribution.

I know in saying these words I jeopardize myself in many ways.I will face the wrath of this community that we clearly see here today. It frightens me. This? This was not the answer, she said.

The real world beyond this campus cant be controlled and shut downwith shouted sentences. If Murrays ideas arent legitimate, then we shouldprove it by discussion, not shouting. We are undermining theauthenticity of this institution with this whole process.

Stanger reportedly was violently assaultedduring the event and was treated at nearby Porter Hospital. Fire alarms wereset offandseveral campus electronic devices were disrupted. Burger said some students identified by staff members will be punished for interrupting the event.

Lou Varricchio is the bureau chief for Vermont Watchdog. You can contact him [emailprotected]

Continued here:

Middlebury College students shout down speaker in display against free speech - Watchdog.org

For conservatives at Cornell University, high price for free speech – legal Insurrection (blog)

Posted on by

The other day I came up with a line Im pretty happy with.

During an interview with Bill Whittle on NRA TV, I pointed out that I am The One at Cornell Law School, where I teach.

Heres the excerpt:

Whittle: And were speaking with William Jacobson of the website Legal Insurrection, who we should also point out is also a professor at Cornell Law School, which makes him pretty much as rare as [inaudible] out there, you must be leading a lonely life out there .

WAJ: I am the only open conservative on our entire law faculty of over 50 law professors, so Im not the 1%, Im actually The One.

There was truth in that jest.

I pointed to a report by the student newspaper The Cornell Sun showing that 97% of faculty donations went to Democrats, and a College Fix study that 11 departments at Cornell have zero registered Republicans.

I also could have pointed to the defeat of a resolution at the student assembly asking the faculty Senate to study the issue of faculty diversity of political thought, which was defeated.

The lack of faculty diversity of political opinion is not just a theoretical matter. The increasing role of faculty in joining the resistance against Trump helps feed an increasing hostility towards conservatives among student activists.

Two recent speakers had their appearances disrupted by left-wing student activists who have worked themselves into a frenzy over Trumps election.(Yes, Cornell was the location of the notorious student Cry In after the election.)

Last November, Rick Santorum was heckled throughout his speech, and the leader of the Cornell Republicans was physically assaulted by someone screaming about having brought Santorum to campus.

I examined the Santorum disruption in the context of a more recent disruption of an appearance by Michael Johns, one of the early Tea Party organizers and a Trump supporter,Conservative speaker event forced into hiding at Cornell:

The Johns appearance, however, came under Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) scrutiny when there were threats of disruption on social media. The CPU was given the choice of cancelling the event, turning it private so that only CPU members could attend, or paying the university a security fee of up to $2,000. Because CPU could not afford the $2,000 fee, it decided to turn the event private.

The event took place, but only after it was turned private and the location moved to a secret location not announced publicly.

Nonetheless, student protesters tracked down the location and protested outside, while demanding entry into the room.

I spoke with Johns about it, and he said the protesters were chanting, among other things, Let us in, Let us in. They were kept outside the room, but Johns said the chants were loud enough to make it hard for Johns to be heard. The chanting started a few minutes into his 20 minute speech and went on for the remainder. Johns believes that the event would have had hundreds in attendance had the threat of disruption not caused it to be closed to the public and moved.

Incredibly, the student protesters who forced the event to be made private under direction of CUPD then complained that the event was private.

But what bothered me the most was the universitys demand for up to a $2,000 fee to provide security after the threats were discovered. This seemed to me to be uniquely dangerous to conservatives on campus since only conservatives are likely to be targeted in this manner.

As detailed in that post, I wrote to the Interim President of Cornell expressing my concerns about the security fee being a form of hecklers veto since only conservatives were likely to be the targets of disruption:

As someone who openly expresses views that are unpopular on this campus, it concerns me greatly that the onus of security protection was put onto the organizers of the event through a security fee. This obviously has a very chilling effect on campus speech since it amounts to a hecklers veto over public discourse through the imposition of security fees.

Since this is a scenario which almost certainly will only suppress conservative speech on this campus, it is a matter of great importance to whether Cornell will be a welcoming place for conservatives.

Although I received a response from the communications office about the details of the event (see prior post), I did not receive a response as to my point on the security fee serving as a form of hecklers veto over conservatives.

The Cornell Sun has an article today on the issue of security fees uniquely affecting conservative speech,The Cost of Conservatism at Cornell: Groups Claim Hosting Conservative Speakers Comes With Added Expenses:

The right to speak on Cornells campus is a paramount value, one upon which the University has an essential dependence, according to the Campus Code of Conduct. In fact, the administration is so committed to free speech that even finding a speakers cause to be evil would not justify suppressing that speaker doing so, the University writes, would be inconsistent with a universitys purpose.

But some groups that have hosted conservative speakers on campus are not buying the administrations rhetoric, citing the thousands of dollars they have been asked to pay the University for security at their events.

And they say it is a cost that hosts of conservative speakers disproportionately have to bear.

The University, through its current policy intentional or not imposes additional financial and administrative costs on groups wishing to host conservative speakers, said Troy LeCaire 17, president of the Cornell Political Union. [CPU]

The Cornell Sun goes on to note that of the many speakers brought to campus by the non-partisan CPU, Johns was the only right-of-center speaker, and the only one requiring a security fee for protection, something common for Republican speakers:

Of the nearly 20 speakers CPU has brought to campus, all of these speakers including those who, like Johns, are not Cornell professors have been liberal, LeCaire said.

We have hosted someone who worked in the Obama administration, a former U.S. General under President Obama, and quite specifically, two Democratic politicians from the New York State Assembly, including the Speaker, arguably the most powerful Democratic state official, LeCaire said. I think Michael Johns was our first speaker who could be considered right of center.

Johns was also the first speaker in CPUs history that came with a security fee, according to LeCaire.

The Cornell Republicans are no stranger to these fees either. Last semester, the group was charged $5,000 an entire semesters worth of funding to secure the infamous Rick Santorum event, where protesters repeatedly shouted down the former United States Senator during his speech, according to Olivia Corn 19, the groups president.

The Cornell Republicans also payed security fees in the hundreds of dollars for its fall 2015 and spring 2016 speakers political activist Ward Connerly ($228) and FOX News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle ($472.50), respectively, according to the groups former president, Mark LaPointe 16.

The student Democrats have no such security fee problem:

Meanwhile, the Cornell Democrats have not payed anything in security fees to the University within the past few years, according to Kevin Kowalewski 17, the groups president.

During my time at Cornell, no, the Cornell Democrats have not had to pay the [U]niversity for security at any event where we brought a speaker. We have never been informed that this was necessary, Kowalewski said.

The Cornell Sun article sheds an important light on the structural bias of the Cornell security procedures.

Only conservative speakers are likely to be disrupted. Liberal, and even communist, speakers are safe on campus. So while on its faced the security fee policy is content neutral, in reality it targets conservatives, as the two student leaders told the Sun:

Corn said that the Universitys security fees foste[r] the shutting down of free speech, and added that making student groups pay for security is irresponsible on the Universitys part.

Its not my job to make sure the students of this University are safe. Its the Universitys job, Corn said.

LeCaire said that the Universitys policy precludes CPU from inviting the full range of speakers it would like to.

I think we want to invite more conservative speakers. Whether or not well have the capacity to is uncertain, LeCaire said. If Rick Santorum cost $5,000 [in security fees], there is no way we can afford to invite Rick Santorum or anyone of similar stature. So basically were limited to low-profile conservative people.

Im not hopeful that the Cornell administration will recognize much less properly address the hostile campus environment towards conservatives, and how the security fee acts as an enforcement mechanism against conservative speech.

But maybe they will surprise me.

[Featured Image:Michael Johns at Cornell, image via Cornell Political Union Facebook]

See the article here:

For conservatives at Cornell University, high price for free speech - legal Insurrection (blog)

4 books tell stories of Ky. drug world – Glasgow Daily Times

Posted on by

Being laid up with the crude for over a week has given me a chance to do some in-depth reading and calculating. Im just not wired to sit, but I have not felt like doing anything but whining. Mostly to the walls! While in bed, I saw books on shelves that needed to be wiped off, one by one. Curtains that should be shaken out to throw off the dust, blinds holding a buildup of dust from last spring, and the overhead light fixture dimmed by grime. I calculated how much dust was on the TV screen, gathered from the sunlight, and streaks on the mirror over the dresser that needed some Windex. I never noticed when I was well.

To rid myself of those thoughts, I ambled to the den. Given ample time, I could have calculated problems there but picked up a book instead. My first reading was a new work by local attorney Jim Howard entitled the Miracle of Man, a fascinating account of mans relationship with God and various beliefs of today. He will be a guest on Susan and Carol-Unscripted Tuesday, March 7 and have a book signing that same week. As I was reading, I was taken back to my college American Literature classes where varying beliefs from Pantheism to Puritanism existed. This is not a fluff book.

When I finished Jims work, I downloaded, The Cornbread Mafia A Memoir of Sorts (2016) by Joe Keith Bickett, released from federal prison in 2011 for his marijuana involvement in Marion County and surrounding counties. In this book, he tells of the Raywick of his youth and fascinating stories of raising acres of pot, out-running (or outsmarting as he might say) the law, but finally getting caught.

James Higdon actually wrote the first book about the group in Marion County, The Cornbread Mafia (2013). (Higdon has worked for the Louisville Courier-Journal, the New York Times and other publications.) This book focuses on the most notable member of the Mafia, Johnny Boone, called by some the ringleader. He fled after being arrested twice and facing a life sentence if caught. He lived in Canada until he was recently detained. The famous slogan, Run, Johnny, Run was the source of T-shirts and recordings and was a subject of Americas Most Wanted.

Sally Bentons The Bluegrass Conspiracy first (to me) exposed drug rings in Kentucky. Remember hearing about the guy who parachuted to his death carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and 150 pounds of cocaine? All of these are available on Amazon or in bookstores.

Back in the '80s, I had a homeroom with just a few students until the trade school buses arrived. During this time, students often engaged me in their conversations. One time a boy said, Miss Perkins, I can take you to a marijuana farm that has an iron, padlocked gate and guard dogs. I stopped him. At the time, I thought he was exaggerating, but he actually could have probably taken me there.

Somewhere in the middle of a corn patch or a tobacco crop may be rows of marijuana right under our noses. Every time I hear a helicopter overhead, I think of the Cornbread Mafia. Put these four books on your reading list, and you wont be sorry.

Read more:

4 books tell stories of Ky. drug world - Glasgow Daily Times

Pope’s comments about atheism are true – The Daily Cougar

Posted on by

In a recent interview, Pope Francis talked about being truthful to the teachings and practices of Christianity.

If youre a Christian who exploits people, leads a double life or manages a dirty business, perhaps its better not to call yourself a believer, Francis said.This comes as a sharp contrast between much of Christian theology, as his statement implies that works do not determine salvation, but rather belief alone.

Religion should be followed and acted upon if it is to be a force for good in the world. However, it is often used as justification for reprehensible actions that harm others. This is not to say that only Christians must have the mindset of putting into practice the teachings of religion, but that to be a practitioner of a religion, one must be pious not only in words, but in deeds.

Pope Francis also said many Christians scandalize others with their double-life practices, including fraudulent business leaders, teachers who perturb students and manipulators who discourage others from following righteous principles.

To call yourself a believer, you must live the life of a believer. This is not to say that you must be perfect, but it is to say that you must try earnestly to better others and yourself. We must not allow injustice to be perpetuated in the name of higher powers.

It is dangerous for individuals to twist the meaning of religion to correspond to their worldviews. Religion should not be used to stifle science, education or opportunity. This perversion of religion only serves to give ammunition to people who blame religion for the atrocities in the world, when the true culprit is greed. We must use religion as a tool to advance ourselves spiritually.

Religion is a well, and it spiritually brings us the water that feeds our moral and loving nature.

To be a Christian means to do: to do the will of God and on the last day because all of us we will have one that day what shall the Lord ask us? Will He say: What you have said about me? No. He shall ask us about the things we did, Francis said.

This concept can be applied not just to Christians, but to every practitioner of any belief system. We must actively fight against injustice, prejudice and inequity.

Let deeds not words be our adorning, Francis said.

Opinion columnistAdib Shafipour is a biochemistry sophomoreand can be reached [emailprotected]

Tags: atheism, Catholicism, Pope Francis

Which presidential ticket are you voting for in the Student Government Association election?

Total Voters: 81

See the original post here:

Pope's comments about atheism are true - The Daily Cougar

Dan Hannan on Communism, Ostalgie, first loves and enforced atheism – EurActiv

Posted on by

Fresh from his Brexit victory over Brussels, Conservative MEP and thinker Daniel Hannan now has Communism in his sights organising an ACRE conference next month in Tirana, Albaniaon the legacy of state socialism for Europe.

EURACTIV.coms Matt Tempest met him for a discussion ranging across the 1968s Prague Spring, first loves, enforced secularism, Che Guevara and the Dunblane handgun ban.

Mr Hannan, youre organising a conference on the legacy of communism and its to coincide with the centenary of the Bolshevik revolution. But it seems to me that anybody who can remember a communist government in Europe must be at least 40 years old and no communist party is in government or even poised to take power anywhere across Europe. So it has to be asked: why now?

Its exactly the centenary year. So 100 years since the beginning of what has to be reckoned, mathematically, the most murderous ideology ever devised by human intelligence. But I think this is an argument that we have to have in every generation. Youre right, there is not a communist regime still standing in Europe and most communist parties have transformed themselves into something else. But the argument has to be held again in every generation.

I read a poll last month that a third of American millennials think that more people were murdered by George W. Bush than by Stalin. When you see those idiotic Che Guevara t-shirts when people unconsciously adopt Marxist language about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, very few people realise that theyre indirectly quoting him. You realise that this is something that goes very deep and you need to show that this is not some respectable alternative among many. The ethic of coercion which was intrinsic to communist rule, leading, sooner or later, to the secret police and the gulags. You can have it in a mild version or you can have it in a brutal version, but in the end, it always ends in autocracy.

I lived in Berlin for six years and had several East German friends. None of them was nostalgic at all for the Stasi, or the Berlin wall, or for the fact that they couldnt leave the country. But there was a certain sense, youve heard of the term Ostalgie they were nostalgic for that sense of free education, full employment, effectively rent-free accommodation. Obviously, none of it was very nice but it removed that worry you have in a capitalist rat race society of How do I pay the bills every month? Is there anything in you, even from the right end of the spectrum, that can see those lures or attractions of communism?

I think something else is going on there. I think people are nostalgic for having been 17-years-old. Which is a very natural and human thing. Were all the centre of our own universes. When we think back to the bright primary colours of our teenage years; the intensity of your first adolescent crush on someone, then the Stasi and the shortages and the drabness fade into the background. Thats not really what youre thinking about. But youre right, it has created this bizarre nostalgia in every communist country from people who forget what it was really like. Theyll say things like we had time to talk.

Well, living one week like that again, without even the most basic necessities being available would be a pretty strong cure if you actually had to go back and do it. But again, this exactly illustrates why we need to keep explaining to people where it leads. This wasnt a system that just meant a bit more state control and a bit less individual liberty. It was a complete hollowing out of civil society; the destruction of everything between the individual and the state. And then, ultimately, the NKVD, the knock in the night, and the torture chambers.

Obviously, all communist governments and regimes were officially atheist and secular. Isnt there something now, when were living in a period of, supposedly, a clash of civilisations Islam versus the West or Islam versus Christianity wasnt there something progressive in this idea of secular states?

I think theres a very respectable argument for secularism on the American model, where the state is effectively holding the ring and allowing each religion to proselytise. Or even secularism on the French model, where you say all of this is a private business. But enforcing atheism, which is effectively what ends up happening because everything is enforced, is every bit as tyrannical as enforcing Taliban-style sharia law, or enforcing fundamentalist Christianity, or any other belief system. The reason that this still matters is its very difficult, even a generation on, to rebuild where civil society has been systematically hollowed out and destroyed.

In 1948, when the Communists took power in Hungary, Jnos Kdr, who went on to become the Hungarian leader, was given the job of destroying independent associations. He systematically went through and closed down every church, every charity, every chess club, every village band, every boy scouts troupe; everything that fills the space normally between the individual and the government. 5,000 organisations, he boasted, that hed liquidated. Thats what we mean by a totalitarian society. And it bizarrely leaves people both atomised and controlled because people are denied the wherewithal to relate one to the other in a voluntary way as individuals. Everything is channelled through the party and the state.

I think of you as the libertarian, free market, property rights end of the right-wing spectrum, but not really the evangelical Christian, who are more obsessed with issues around handguns, banning abortion. Am I right in thinking that those arent your pet issues?

Handguns are not a big issue in the UK. Actually, I do regret the handgun ban. I think it was disproportionate and I dont think it was anything to do with what had just happened the abomination that wed seen. Nobody serious tried to argue that it would have made a difference. But, you know, we are where we are. Its not a campaign of mine to try and reverse the ban. But I do believe in freedom. I believe, very much, in people perusing their own happiness by making their own decisions and finding virtue by not having it coerced. And the defining ethic of communism was not equality, it was coercion.

Sort of a Brexit question, the only Brexit question, and its not a totally facetious analogy; but having defeated the EU with Brexit, and looking at communist regimes, can you see something of that in the EU? Not with the violence or the oppression or the authoritarianism, but as a supranational institution; pan-states and sucking sovereignty inwards.

Not in my worst nightmares have I ever thought that the European Union is going to take away our passports, throw us into gulags or torture us. I suppose that the parallel, and its a very minor and limited one, but its an interesting one in so far as it goes, would be this. By the end of the communist era, you really struggled to find anyone who believed in it. I remember travelling in what we still called Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and I remember thinking this cant carry on because nobody believes in it. None of the people running these countries still believed, if ever they did believe, in the principles of Marxism or Leninism.

But on the other hand, how was it going to end? Because so many people had a vested interest in the status quo. So many people had learned to rise through that power structure. And in that limited sense, I think you can draw a parallel, in that there are very few true believers left in Brussels. But there are an awful lot of people who have learned how to make a good living out of it. And I dont just mean Eurocrats. I mean the armies of consultants and contractors, the big landowners getting money from the CAP, the lobbyists, the professional associations; all sorts of parastatal actors who have learned how to make a handy living out of the EU, one way or another. And just like the nomenklatura in the 1980s, they will fight very hard to maintain their position, not on dogmatical grounds, but out of sheer self-interest.

Certainly, we saw that in the UK referendum a lot of the opposition came from organisations that were directly or indirectly funded by the EU. This wasnt, in other words, about sovereignty or federalism or democracy; it was about mortgages and school fees. And that is a very difficult thing to end. But Ill end on a cheerful note. I think the communist system had been basically delegitimised after the Prague Spring. Up until 1968, you could find idealistic Marxists in central and eastern Europe, who believed that they would eventually get to the stage where they could reintroduce democracy. That once the system had been shown to work, shown to be more economically productive than capitalism, then they could have free elections again. After 1968, nobody really believed that and there were just people clinging on to their position.

I think the French and Dutch referendums in 2004 were a similar moment in Brussels. I think after that, people stopped believing that European federalism would win mass support. But they were determined to cling on to their positions. What was it in the end that brought the communist system down? Again, I can remember in the 80s, very few people saw the end coming. People would say maybe over twenty or thirty years there will be a gradual move to a more reformed kind of Marxism. And a few isolated dreamers would say, no, maybe there will be an exogenous shock; a kind of Chernobyl type massive event that will bring it all down. What was the event that brought down the Marxist system in the end? It was the smallest thing. It was the decision of the Hungarian interior ministry to stop requiring exit visas from East Germans who wanted to travel to Austria. Within two weeks, the whole rotten system had unravelled. And that, I think, does give me hope. Permanence is the illusion of every age.

So why Tirana, Albania?

Tirana is, if you like, the most vivid physical place where you can see the legacy of a communist regime. It was the ultimate autocratic system and the ultimate paranoid system. Enver Hoxha spent an immense amount of money fortifying the country. It was rather like North Korea is today. And a hungry and immiserated population, to use a Marxist word, was paying the cost of what had become a leadership cult, because thats where it ends.

Excerpt from:

Dan Hannan on Communism, Ostalgie, first loves and enforced atheism - EurActiv

Church presents seminar to address challenges of atheism, science – Morganton News Herald

Posted on by

Burke Community Bible Church will present a case for Christianity in an apologetics-type seminar aimed at discussing challenges made to religious views from atheists and scientists.

The church invites the community to join them for the free seminar called, Reason, Evidence and Christianity, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Foothills Higher Education Center. Doors will open at 8:30 a.m.

Napoleon once asserted, Men do not rule, ideas rule, said church pastor the Rev. David Doster. A survey of human history (which includes) Martin Luthers idea of grace, Rousseaus idea of the state and Gandhis idea of nonviolent resistance, validates this claim. There are good ideas and bad ideas. Consequently, it is reasonable to point out that ideas or concepts cannot be of equal value, especially when they contradict one another. The intent this Saturday is to provide an intelligent, cogent and well-reasoned case for Christianity that specifically addresses challenges from atheism, (including) their attempt to position science as necessarily adversarial toward religion and people of faith.

The church has invited Dr. Neil Shenvi and Patrick Sawyer to speak about the various objections atheists have to Christianity. They will give presentations on the following three topics:

Atheisms Ideological Noose

Science and Religion: Is it Either/Or or Both/And?

Why Believe? The Case for Christianity

A question and answer session will follow the presentations to facilitate discussion of the issues.

Shenvi earned a PhD in theoretical chemistry from UC Berkeley and is a former research chemist with Duke University. He has published more than 30 peer-reviewed articles on topics such as electronic structure theory, non-adiabatic dynamics, electron transfer, quantum computing and high model representation. He is a Christian with a particular interest in apologetics and the intersection of science and religion, which he has been speaking about publicly for the past decade.

Sawyer holds a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from UNC Chapel Hill and a Master of Arts in Communication Studies from UNC Greensboro. He is currently a faculty member and a PhD candidate in Education and Cultural Studies with a concentration in Philosophy at UNC-G. His work has been peer-reviewed and published and presented at a number of academic conferences in related fields. He has been involved in apologetics ministry for the past 25 years.

Doster encouraged people to attend the seminar, no matter what views they hold.

We welcome Christians and skeptics of all flavors to a civil, responsible and engaging discussion that will provide an objective analysis and evaluation of these issues using critical thinking, Doster said.

Those interested in attending should RSVP by contacting 828-448-2819 or dldbcbc@gmail.com.

Original post:

Church presents seminar to address challenges of atheism, science - Morganton News Herald

Reagan Sons at War Over Atheist TV ad – Newsmax

Posted on by

Michael Reagan has come out swinging at his brother Ron Reagan, CNN and MSNBC for a controversial TV ad that promotes atheism.

The conservative commentator took to Twitter on Friday to proclaim he was boycotting both cable news networks for running a 30-second spot that features his liberal brother plugging the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

He also said their father, the late Ronald Reagan, was "crying in heaven" over Ron's TV endorsement of the organization whose members do not believe in God.

The ad is appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and the "Rachel Maddow Show," and on CNN's "CNN Newsroom," "The Lead with Jake Tapper" and "The Situation Room."

In the ad, Ron looks into the camera and explains he is "an unabashed atheist, and I'm alarmed by the intrusion of religion into our secular government.

"That's why I'm asking you to support the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's largest and most effective association of atheists and agnostics, working to keep state and church separate, just like our Founding Fathers intended."

Ron identifies himself as a "lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell."

The ad had previously been refused by CBS, NBC, ABC and Discovery Science.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation describes itself as "the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), with more than 27,000 members. It works as a state/church separation watchdog."

This week, the foundation condemned a proposed West Virginia bill to name the Bible as the "official state book," calling it unconstitutional.

And last month, its co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Energy and Natural Resources to question President Donald Trump's nomination of Dan Coats to be director of national intelligence.

According to the FFRF, "throughout Coats' career, his religion has played an important role. He helped author Don't Ask, Don't Tell, has opposed gay marriage, and has vowed to 'defend the sanctity of life from the moment of conception' all because of his religious beliefs."

Ron has not yet responded to his brother's fiery remarks.

The political beliefs of Michael and Ron have been like night and day for years, with Michael being an unabashed conservative like their father, the late President Ronald Reagan, and Ron being a card-carrying liberal and longtime atheist.

Michael, 71, a Newsmax contributor, is the half-brother of Ron, 58. Michael was adopted as an infant by Ronald Reagan and his first wife, Oscar-winning star Jane Wyman. Ron is the only son of Ronald Reagan and his second wife, actress Nancy Davis.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Go here to read the rest:

Reagan Sons at War Over Atheist TV ad - Newsmax

Modi supports yoga at Lord Shiva bust unveiling – Easterneye (press release) (subscription)

Posted on by

Indias prime minister Narendra Modi urged people to embrace the age-old practice of yoga, saying that rejecting an idea because it is ancient could be potentially harmful.

Yoga is constantly evolving, the prime minister said as he unveiled a 112-foot statue of Adiyogi, Lord Shiva, on the occasion of Mahashivratri at the Isha foundation in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu last Friday (24).

As a tribute to Adiyogi, Modi lit the sacred fire to commence the Maha Yoga Yagna across the world. He urged one million people to take an oath to teach a simple form of yoga to at least 100 other people each over the course of the following 12 months, so that 100 million additional people practised yoga by Mahashivratri next year.

Yoga is ancient yet modern, constant yet evolving, but the essence of yoga has not changed. It is important to preserve this essence, Modi said.

A brainchild of spiritual leader Jaggi Vasudev Sadhguru, the statue showcases Shivas contribution as Adiyogi.

It is essential that the next generations of people on this planet are seekers, not believers. As philosophies, ideology, belief systems that dont stand the test of logic and the scientific verification will naturally collapse in coming decades, you will see the longing for liberation will rise. When that longing rises, Adiyogi and the science of yoga will become very important, Sadhguru said.

During his visit to the Isha Foundation ashram, Modi took part in the Pancha Bhuta Aradhana, a yogic process of cleansing. He also visited the shrines of Dhyanalinga and the Linga Bhairavi.

The tallest bust of its kind, the height of Adiyogis face is symbolic of the 112 possibilities he explored for human beings to reach their ultimate potential, besides scientifically representing the 112 chakras of the human system.

Sadhguru said: For the first time in the history of humanity, Adiyogi introduced the idea that the simple laws of nature are not permanent restrictions. If one is willing to strive, one can go beyond all limitations and attain liberation, moving humanity from assumed stagnation to conscious evolution.

But, it also has a scientific significance there are 112 chakras in the human system, with which you can work, to explore 112 dimensions of life. In pursuit of the divine, you dont have to look up because it is not somewhere else. Each of the 112 possibilities is a method to experience the divine within you. You just have to pick one.

The statue was designed by Sadhguru over a period of two and a half years, and built over the next eight months by the foundations in-house team. Sadhguru also expressed a desire to place similar statues of Adiyogi in the other three corners of the country.

Excerpts from Modis speech

Maha-Shivratri symbolises a union of divinity with a purpose, of overcoming darkness and injustice.

It inspires us to be courageous and fight for good. It marks the shift of seasons, from the cold to the lively spring and brightness.

From Somnath to Vishwanath, from Kedarnath to Rameshwaram and from Kashi to Coimbatore where we have gathered, Lord Shiva is everywhere.

Standing here before this 112-feet face of Adiyogi and the Yogeshwar Linga, we are experiencing a colossal presence enveloping everyone in this space.

In the times to come, the place where we have gathered is going to be a source of inspiration for all, a place to immerse ones self and discover truth.

Today, yoga has come a long way. This is the beauty of yoga it is ancient, yet modern, it is constant, yet evolving. The essence of yoga has not changed.

Yoga is the catalytic agent, ushering the transformation from Jiva to Shiva.

By practising yoga, a spirit of oneness is created oneness of the mind, body and the intellect. Oneness with our families, with the society we live in, with fellow humans, with all the birds, animals and trees with whom we share our beautiful planet this is yoga.

Yoga is the journey from me to we. Today, the whole world wants peace, not just peace from wars and conflict but peace of the mind. The burden of stress takes a heavy toll and one of the sharpest weapons to overcome stress is yoga.

There is ample evidence practising yoga helps combat stress and chronic conditions. If the body is a temple of the mind, yoga creates a beautiful temple.

That is why I call yoga a passport to health assurance. More than being a cure to ailments, it is a means to wellness.

Yoga is about Rog Mukti (freedom from diseases) as well as Bhog Mukti (desisting from worldly greed). Yoga makes the individual a better person in thought, action, knowledge and devotion.

It would be very unfair to see Yoga only as a set of exercises that keeps the body fit. You may see people twist and turn their bodies but they are not all yogis.

Yoga is far beyond physical exercises. Through Yoga, we will create a new yuga a yuga of togetherness and harmony.

The coming together of so many nations to mark the International Day of Yoga illustrates the real essence of yogatogetherness. Yoga has the potential to herald in a new yuga (a new era) a yuga of peace, compassion, brotherhood and allround progress of the human race.

See the original post here:

Modi supports yoga at Lord Shiva bust unveiling - Easterneye (press release) (subscription)

The Hubble Space Telescope has photographed a stunning hybrid … – BreakingNews.ie

Posted on by

The Hubble telescope has taken an amazing picture of a hybrid galaxy, which is part spiral, like our own, and part lenticular, so lacks many new stars.

The galaxys tremendous size also makes it stand out, with a mass four times that of our own Milky Way.

Its called UGC 12591 and lies 400 million light-years away in the Pisces-Perseus Supercluster, which is a chain of galaxy clusters hundreds of light-years long.

The galaxy is part of a chain of them hundreds of light-years long (ESA/Hubble & NASA)

It also spins much faster than the Milky Way a neck-breaking 1.8 million km/h compared with our own leisurely 828,000 km/h.

Scientists think its massive size could be because it either collided with another galaxy or just keeps growing, but more pictures from Hubble should help them work it out.

The telescope was launched into space in 1990 and has been taking fantastic pictures unobstructed by the Earths light pollution, atmosphere or weather ever since.

See the original post:

The Hubble Space Telescope has photographed a stunning hybrid ... - BreakingNews.ie

NATO countries are spending more on defense but Trump can’t …

Posted on by

Speaking to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said NATO members must meet their financial obligations to the alliance. "And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that," he said.

"In fact, I can tell you, the money is pouring in," Trump added. "Very nice."

It's true that NATO countries are increasing their defense spending, but it has little to do with Trump. In fact, the changes have been in the works for years.

The big commitment was made in 2014, when all members that were spending less than 2% of GDP on defense promised to move toward the official target.

"All allies made a pledge ... to stop the cuts in defense spending, and to gradually increase spending towards the goal of 2% of GDP within a decade," a NATO official said Wednesday.

Related: The U.S. already spends more on defense than any other country

It's working: The alliance increased overall defense spending for the first time in two decades in 2015.

Last year, 22 of 28 NATO members increased their defense budgets. When the U.S. is removed from the equation, the group increased its spending by 3.8% in real terms in 2016.

Still, the alliance has a long way to go. Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% of GDP spending target.

The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%. Canada, Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.

Trump vs. Trump: Who to believe on the global economy?

Fear of Russian aggression is driving some of the recent spending splurge. Latvia, which shares a border with Russia, increased its defense budget by 42% in 2016. Its neighbor Lithuania boosted its outlays by 34%. Both, however, are still below the 2% threshold.

-- James Masters and Nadine Schmidt contributed reporting.

CNNMoney (London) First published March 1, 2017: 7:49 AM ET

Original post:

NATO countries are spending more on defense but Trump can't ...

Montenegro pro-Russian leaders seek Bannon help against NATO – Minneapolis Star Tribune

Posted on by

PODGORICA, Montenegro Pro-Russian opposition leaders in Montenegro have asked the White House chief strategist to help block the Balkan country's NATO bid, saying the Obama administration has presented false facts about its readiness to join the Western military alliance.

Two opposition officials, Andrija Mandic and Milan Knezevic, wrote in a letter to Steve Bannon, a senior adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, that the U.S. Senate should vote against the accession. The vote has been stalled because of objections by two senators.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter on Friday.

So far, 25 of 28 NATO members have approved Montenegro's membership bid, but the U.S. endorsement is considered crucial.

Trump's stand on NATO, which he once described an "obsolete" organization, and his positive remarks about Russian President Vladimir Putin have caused worries in Montenegro that the small country could be left without U.S. support amid the Kremlin's expanding influence in the Balkan region.

The Montenegrin opposition has boycotted parliament since the October election, when the country's pro-Western government accused it of attempting a pro-Russian coup that allegedly included plans to take over power and kill the then-prime minister, Milo Djukanovic, because of his NATO bid.

The letter, written on behalf of a coalition of opposition parties called the Democratic Front, warned that the security situation in Montenegro is "very complex" and that "the matter of relations to NATO demands exceptional caution." It added that Bannon should gain a "clear picture" of the situation before the final approval.

Mandic and Knezevic alleged that the U.S. has been presented with "false facts and superficial information" about Montenegro by the Obama administration.

They said Montenegro has been deeply split between those who seek NATO membership and those who reject it.

"Montenegrin society does not have a unique attitude regarding the admission to NATO as falsely alleged by the former administration in Washington," the letter stated. "In reality, Montenegro does not meet the criteria for admission to the Euro-Atlantic alliance because it cannot ensure its own internal stability and democratic system."

Russia has strongly opposed NATO expansion in Europe, especially if it brings countries like Montenegro that were considered close allies of Moscow into the military alliance.

Originally posted here:

Montenegro pro-Russian leaders seek Bannon help against NATO - Minneapolis Star Tribune

The Real Problems With NATO – Foreign Affairs (subscription)

Posted on by

On February 1719, NATO leaders gathered at the annual Munich Security Conference to reassert their commitments to mutual defense. For the Europeans, the conference provided the first up-close glimpse at the defense policies of U.S. President Donald Trump, who had previously dismissed NATO as obsolete and had expressed doubt that the future of the EU matters much for the United States. The conference also came shortly after U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis told European leaders that Americans cannot care more for your childrens security than you do.

Despite a tense atmosphere, both the Americans and the Europeans were on their best behavior in Munich: both U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed their continued commitment to the alliance. Yet the truth is that, renewal of vows notwithstanding, transatlantic relations are facing their greatest challenge in decades, with a resurgent Russia in the east, a European Union undergoing its biggest domestic crisis in decades, and a U.S. administration that is evidently impatient with its allies free-riding.

NATO needs reform. Washingtons recipe for what needs to be done, however, which largely consists of getting the Europeans to adhere to rigid defense spending targets, is similar to the obsessions of old Soviet economic plannersconcerned with inputs rather than outputs. As a result, the Trump administrations focus on burden-sharing obscures how NATO might really be made more effective, while inhibiting the development of a healthier U.S.-European defense relationship.

NOT SO FAST

The United States has long attempted toshame Europe into spending more on defense. In 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that NATO faced a dismal future of collective military irrelevance unless its European members increased their financial contributions. The Trump administrations complaints are thus largely accuratethe Europeans can and must do more to support the transatlantic alliance. In 2014, for instance, NATO member states pledged to increase their defense spending to two percent of GDP by 2024, but

Read this article:

The Real Problems With NATO - Foreign Affairs (subscription)