Pleasures: the desert of life – Tulsa World

Posted on by

One of the great gifts we have received from God is the gift of pleasure. Some might think that pleasure is wrong but the truth is it has its rightful place in our lives or God would not have provided it for us nor given us the capacity to experience it.

Pleasurable experiences in life are sort of the desert of life. But sadly what God meant to be a blessing can, when used incorrectly, become a curse. This happens when pleasure becomes a persons primary focus or pursuit.

When seeking after pleasure becomes the emphasis in ones life, love of God becomes totally corrupted. The bible tells us, If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but from the world. 1 John 2:15b-16 (NAS) The desire for worldly pleasure nullifies ones ability to be in a true loving relationship with God. Though a person can maintain their outward form of godliness, in reality their spiritual life is missing the power that comes from godly living. It is the life that is well balanced with prayer, bible reading, church attendance, acts of kindness, giving to God, and other healthy spiritual staples of life that will be a life that has true love for God and can enjoy pleasure as a gift from God.

A careful examination of Christianity today demonstrates the sad fact that it has fallen in line with our culture as more and more Christians simply maintain an outward form of godliness but are actually lovers of self and pleasure rather than lovers of God. The technical term for this is hedonism which simply put is living life to please oneself. The typical evangelical will avoid obvious sins that would identify him/her with the world and yet all the while the lust for the things of the world thrives in his/her heart. I think it is safe to say that this is becoming more and more prevalent with each new generation since each new generation becomes more and more tolerant and accepting of hedonism.

We must realize the only power to break the hold of any sin, including hedonism, comes from true intimacy with God. And until a person makes a resolute decision that obedience to God and submission to His will are going to establish the course of his life, he will never get free from the addiction to pleasure. Paul told us, Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12:2 (NAS) Every true believer must heed this word.

Here is the original post:

Pleasures: the desert of life - Tulsa World

The Magical Rationalism of Elon Musk and the Prophets of AI – New York Magazine

Posted on by

Photo: Justin Chin/Bloomberg via Getty Images

One morning in the summer of 2015, I sat in a featureless office in Berkeley as a young computer programmer walked me through how he intended to save the world. The world needed saving, he insisted, not from climate change or from the rise of the far right, or the treacherous instability of global capitalism but from the advent of artificial superintelligence, which would almost certainly wipe humanity from the face of the earth unless certain preventative measures were put in place by a very small number of dedicated specialists such as himself, who alone understood the scale of the danger and the course of action necessary to protect against it.

This intense and deeply serious young programmer was Nate Soares, the executive director of MIRI (Machine Intelligence Research Institute), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the safe which is to say, non-humanity-obliterating development of artificial intelligence. As I listened to him speak, and as I struggled (and failed) to follow the algebraic abstractions he was scrawling on a whiteboard in illustration of his preferred doomsday scenario, I was suddenly hit by the full force of a paradox: The austere and inflexible rationalism of this mans worldview had led him into a grand and methodically reasoned absurdity.

In researching and reporting my book, To Be a Machine, I had spent much of the previous 18 months among the adherents of the transhumanist movement, a broad church comprising life-extension advocates, cryonicists, would-be cyborgs, Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs, neuroscientists looking to convert the human brain into code, and so forth all of whom were entirely convinced that science and technology would allow us to transcend the human condition. With many of these transhumanists (the vast majority of whom, it bears mentioning, were men), I had experienced some version of this weird cognitive dissonance, this apprehension of a logic-unto-madness. I had come across it so frequently, in fact, that I wound up giving it a name: magical rationalism.

The key thing about magical rationalism is that its approach to a given question always seems, and in most meaningful respects is, perfectly logical. To take our current example, the argument about AI posing an existential risk to our species seems, on one level, quite compelling. The basic gist is this: If and when we develop human-level artificial intelligence, its only a matter of time until this AI, by creating smarter and smarter iterations of itself, gives rise to a machine whose intelligence is as superior to our own as our intelligence currently is to that of other animal species. (Lets leave the cephalopods out of this for the moment, because who knows what the hell is going on with those guys.) Computers being what they are, though, theres a nontrivial risk of this superintelligent AI taking the commands its issued far too literally. You tell it, for instance, to eliminate cancer once and for all, and it takes the shortest and most logical route to that end by wiping out all life-forms in which abnormal cell division might potentially occur. (An example of the cure-worse-than-the-disease scenario so perfect that you would not survive long enough to appreciate its perfection.) As far as I can see, theres nothing about this scenario that is anything but logically sound, and yet here we are, taken to a place that most of us will agree feels deeply and intuitively batshit. (The obvious counterargument to this, of course, is that just because something feels intuitively batshit doesnt mean that its not going to happen. Its worth bearing in mind that the history of science is replete with examples of this principle.)

Magical rationalism arises out of a quasi-religious worldview, in which reason takes the place of the godhead, and whereby all of our human problems are soluble by means of its application. The power of rationalism, manifested in the form of technology the word made silicon has the potential to deliver us from all evils, up to and including death itself. This spiritual dimension is most clearly visible in the techno-millenarianism of the Singularity: the point on the near horizon of our future at which human beings will finally and irrevocably merge with technology, to become uploaded minds, disembodied beings of pure and immutable thought. (Nate Soares, in common with many of those working to eliminate the existential threat posed by AI, viewed this as the best-case scenario for the future, as the kingdom of heaven that would be ours if we could only avoid the annihilation of our species by AI. I myself found it hard to conceive of as anything other than a vision of deepest hell.)

In his book The Singularity is Near, Ray Kurzweil, a futurist and director of engineering at Google, lays out the specifics of this post-human afterlife. The Singularity, he writes, will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains. We will gain power over our fates. Our mortality will be in our hands. We will be able to live as long as we want (a subtly different statement from saying we will live forever). We will fully understand human thinking and will vastly extend and expand its reach. By the end of this century, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will be trillions of times more powerful than unaided human intelligence. This is magical rationalism in its purest form: It arises out of the same human terrors and desires as the major religions the terror of death, the desire to transcend it and proceeds toward the same kinds of visionary mythologizing.

This particular Singularitarian strain of magical rationalism could be glimpsed in Elon Musks widely reported recent comments at a conference in Dubai. Humans, he insisted, would need to merge with machines in order to avoid becoming obsolete. Its mostly about the bandwidth, he explained; computers were capable of processing information at a trillion bits per second, while we humans could input data into our devices at a mere ten bits per second, or thereabouts. From the point of view of narrow rationalism, Musks argument was sort of compelling if computers are going to beat us at our own game, wed better find ways to join them but it only really made sense if you thought of a human being as a kind of computer to begin with. (Were computers; were just rubbish at computing compared to actual computers these days.)

While writing To Be a Machine, I kept finding myself thinking about Flann OBriens surreal comic masterpiece The Third Policeman, in which everyone is unhealthily obsessed with bicycles, and men who spend too much time on their bicycles wind up themselves becoming bicycles via some kind of mysterious process of molecular transfer. Transhumanism a world as overwhelmingly male as OBriens rural Irish hellscape often seemed to me to be guided by a similar kind of overidentification with computers, a strange confusion of the distinct categories of human and machine. Because if computation is the ultimate value, the ultimate end of intelligence, then it makes absolute sense to become better versions of the computers we already are. We must optimize for intelligence, as transhumanists are fond of saying meaning by intelligence, in most cases, the exercise of pure reason. And this is the crux of magical rationalism: It is both an idealization of reason, of beautiful and rigorous abstraction, and a mode of thinking whereby reason is made to serve as the faithful handmaiden of absolute madness. Because reason is, among its other uses, a finely calibrated tool by which the human animal pursues its famously unreasonable ends.

Gender Discrimination at Uber Is a Reminder of How Hard Women Have to Fight to Be Believed

Dylan is in fourth grade and believes communism is the future of the United States.

The controversy-courting figure nets another loss.

Uber with wings.

Ex-employee Susan Fowler documented everything during her time at the company, but management still found ways to deny her claims.

When austere and inflexible rationalism leads into a grand and methodically reasoned absurdity.

Hunting down mechanical dinosaurs with a bow and arrow looks and feels great. So why is it such a chore to finish?

A trippy new video meme shoots across the web.

The company is moving fast following harassment allegations from a former employee.

No more tracking down a mysterious vending machine.

CEO Travis Kalanick promised to conduct an urgent investigation and fire anyone who behaves this way or thinks this is okay.

Several young women, one rat, and an incredible plot twist.

Raccoons day off.

Today marks day one.

No more waiting half a minute to get to your content.

Zuck finally grapples with the power of his creation.

So many white dudes. So little time.

The blob has suddenly become very popular among meme connoisseurs in Russia.

The YouTube star lashed out at The Wall Street Journal.

Social Account

or

Sign up with a social account:

Dont worry. We will never post to your social media account without your permission.

or create an account

Weve sent a registration confirmation email to .

Please follow the instructions in the email within 48 hours to complete your registration.

Forgot Your Password?

Enter your email address or username and well email instructions on how to reset your password.

This username or email is associated with a Facebook account.

Log in with your social account:

Check Your Inbox

Weve sent you an email with instructions on how to reset your password.

Choose a Username

Your username will appear next to your comments.

You already have an account registered under . You can link your Facebook account to your existing account.

Welcome! You are now a registered user of NYMag.com, TheCut.com, Vulture.com, ScienceOfUs.com and GrubStreet.com.

Want more? Subscribe to our daily newsletters.

Constant news updates on politics, business, media, and real estate.

Breaking news and analysis on all the latest TV, movies, music, books, theater, and art.

Get the latest fashion, beauty, and shopping news and recommendations.

We're sorry. You must confirm your registration within 48 hours of submitting your registration request. Please register again.

You are already registered. Please log in.

Reset Your Password

Enter a new password

Your password has been successfully changed.

Please log in.

Continue reading here:

The Magical Rationalism of Elon Musk and the Prophets of AI - New York Magazine

There is an Is – Patheos (blog)

Posted on by

Ive been listening through the audiobook version of G. K. Chestertons biography/hagiography/general musings on Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas Aquinas (Sheed and Ward, 1923; repr., Dover, 2009). Chesterton really is one of the greatest writers and essayists of the twentieth century. Very few can take something as technical as the life and philosophy of Aquinas and condense it into something that is not only understandable, but actually fun to read (or in this case, listen to). Chesterton is one of those rare masters of prose and poetry who can do such things.

Chesterton also does a surprisingly good job in communicating the advanced theistic metaphysics of Aquinas as well. Aquinass thought on the nature of ontology and God is, in my opinion, basically correct (as well as the opinion of several other key thinkers such as Etienne Gilson, Herbert McCabe, Denys Turner, David Bentley Hart, etc.). Chesterton brings much of this across in his discussion of how a Thomistic understanding of being, or ens (what is), helps to make understandable how we as subjects can actually interact with reality of the external world, without collapsing into the evil-twin errors of either radical objectivism (the error of modernity) or radical subjectivism (the error of postmodernity):

Without pretending to span within such limits the essential Thomist idea, I may be allowed to throw out a sort of rough version of the fundamental question, which I think I have known myself, consciously or unconsciously since my childhood. When a child looks out of the nursery window and sees anything, say the green lawn of the garden, what does he actually know; or does he know anything? There are all sorts of nursery games of negative philosophy played round this question. A brilliant Victorian scientist delighted in declaring that the child does not see any grass at all; but only a sort of green mist reflected in a tiny mirror of the human eve. This piece of rationalism has always struck me as almost insanely irrational. If he is not sure of the existence of the grass, which he sees through the glass of a window, how on earth can he be sure of the existence of the retina, which he sees through the glass of a microscope? If sight deceives, why can it not go on deceiving? Men of another school answer that grass is a mere green impression on the mind; and that he can be sure of nothing except the mind. They declare that he can only be conscious of his own consciousness; which happens to be the one thing that we know the child is not conscious of at all. In that sense, it would be far truer to say that there is grass and no child, than to say that there is a conscious child but no grass. St. Thomas Aquinas, suddenly intervening in this nursery quarrel, says emphatically that the child is aware of Ens. Long before he knows that grass is grass, or self is self, he knows that something is something. Perhaps it would be best to say very emphatically (with a blow on the table), There is an Is. That is as much monkish credulity as St. Thomas asks of us at the start. Very few unbelievers start by asking us to believe so little. And yet, upon this sharp pin-point of reality, he rears by long logical processes that have never really been successfully overthrown, the whole cosmic system of Christendom. Chapter 7, The Permanent Philosophy

Here is the original post:

There is an Is - Patheos (blog)

P. Sridhar – The Hindu – The Hindu

Posted on by

Swayed by superstitious beliefs, almost all the villagers of Maruthinagar, a hamlet of Edulapuram gram panchayat, located barely 4 km from the district headquarters, left the village en masse and spent time in a nearby fruit orchard from dawn to dusk on Tuesday adhering to the advice of a fortune teller to escape the wrath of evil spirits.

Deaths in village

The death of more than five villagers in a short span of less than a fortnight due to different reasons prompted the village elders to approach a fortune-teller a few days ago. The soothsayer reportedly attributed the deaths to evil spirits and asked them to stay away from the village for a day to ward off trouble (keedu).

More than 200 families of the village, who constitute around 90 % of the total households, locked up their houses before dawn on Tuesday and moved to a nearby mango grove along with utensils, grains, vegetables and other essentials. However, a few villagers, considered ardent proponents of rationalism, stayed back.

An overwhelming number of villagers of Marutinagar cutting across age, education, socio and economic status camped in the orchard till late in the evening and returned to their houses only after sunset. A few mothers carried cradles to the orchard for the comfort of their babies. Octogenarians took shelter under the shade of mango trees till dusk.

We voluntarily complied with the decision taken by our village elders to stay away from our houses from dawn to dusk in the interests of our village, said Radha of Marutinagar.

We had Vana Bhojanam in the mango orchard and followed the instructions of the fortune-teller meticulously to avoid keedu, said another woman.

I did not venture out of my house despite the en masse exodus of most of our villagers, said a villager, who did not wish to be identified. It is an irony that superstitious beliefs are still persisting at a time when our space scientists heralded a new era in space exploration by sending a record 104 satellites, he rued, lamenting that the local school remained closed due to the absence of schoolchildren.

Read the original:

P. Sridhar - The Hindu - The Hindu

Refugee resettlement study bill passes ND House, Democrat calls it … – Jamestown Sun

Posted on by

Rep. Pamela Anderson, D-Fargo, said she didn't want to see state resources spent on a "mean-spirited study." Rep. Mary Schneider, D-Fargo, read an email asking her to vote against the legislation because it tries to hide racism and religious discrimination behind a "guise of rationalism and data."

Rep. Christopher Olson, R-West Fargo, the bill's primary sponsor, said the Democrats' comments impugned his motives and he hoped for an apology.

"Bills like this always seem to get emotional," said House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo. "But I think it's always important on the floor of this House that we remember to keep our comments to not be impugning someone else's integrity."

Schneider said after the floor session that she "would never attack the personal motivations of a member of the House," but she argued the bill's language is "inappropriate."

"I didn't say he was mean-spirited; I said the study was mean-spirited," Anderson said after the floor vote.

As introduced, House Bill 1427 would have allowed for a suspension of refugee resettlement if a community lacked sufficient "absorptive capacity," which included the ability of various community and government services to meet residents' needs. Proponents, which included a Fargo city commissioner and the chairman of the Cass County Commission, said they were merely seeking more input on the program.

The House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee heard lengthy opposition testimony earlier this month from new Americans who told stories of finding opportunity in United States.

The study was amended into a study of various aspects of refugee resettlement, which Schneider worries would only seek negative features of the program and scrutinize one group of people.

But Olson said the refugee resettlement program has largely become an unfunded mandate from the federal government on state and local services.

"If this was anything else, we'd ask what the cost was," Carlson said. "It could show a very positive effect instead of a negative effect."

The study bill passed the House 86-5.

Original post:

Refugee resettlement study bill passes ND House, Democrat calls it ... - Jamestown Sun

Interview with Scott Blair – Conatus News

Posted on by

What is your family and personal story culture, education, and geography?

I had a classic American beginning. My father was a General Motors Engineer; my mother was a nurse (until starting a family this was the late fifties). We were a TV-like family of five in an all-white community in southern Michigan.We attended a Presbyterian church. My parents were committed to this volunteering, serving as Deacon, church treasurer, and such, but it was not an oppressively religious household; questions were explored not squashed or averted. I spent eight years in and out of college, working factory and construction jobs, and traveling the continent on an old motorcycle.I eventually graduated from University of Michigan after some fraction of my collection of course credits seemed to form the requirements for BS in Biology. Then I fell into wastewater, that is, I chanced to have entered the wastewater treatment profession, a great place for a science oriented generalist with a desire to be useful to fellow humans and the world we live on. I managed wastewater treatment plants for most of my career and have tried to attend to the human component of an operation along with the technical.

Scott Blair

When did humanism become self-evidently true to you?

I learned the term Humanism somewhere in my education and remember thinking it seemed a completely sensible perspective, but it did not dawn on me to adopt and own the label at the time. I have been a Humanist most of my life but just seized the identity in the last half dozen years. Humanism is simple. If one rejects the idea of a deity that directs earthly affairs, believes that the best way to understand the world is to carefully and dispassionately observe it, and desires to live a meaningful life in a functional society with other humans, then one is a Humanist. My belief in God evaporated by the time I started college. The usefulness of dispassionate inquiry as a tool to understand reality has been apparent to me from early on. And, I am inclined by my nature to care about humankind and to want to build and be part of a society where its members generally can flourish. Humanism is simply where one lands if one cant accept supernatural explanations and cares about others. I have been there since the religion I was taught as child fell away.

What is the importance of humanism in America at the moment?

The increase in recent years in the number of Humanist organisations in this country and elsewhere is a very good thing. For decades, I was a Humanist but without any connection to other Humanists. I learned about and joined the GTH just as it matured out of the founders living rooms and started meeting in public places. I was enjoying a good life before GTH but I came more alive upon becoming part of this group. I now had people, thought-mates! It was a relief and a pleasure to be with friends with whom conversations on deep questions would begin with what is real as best as we can determine it, with no reliance on ancient magical myths. It is energising to be with others like ones self; it engenders a feeling that even while a minority, we are not irrelevant. We can have an impact. I know that the emergence of other Humanist groups across the country gives opportunities for thousands of others to find their people and have the experience I am having. There are other versions of secular communities such as Free Thought groups and Sunday Assemblies; it isnt all found under the name Humanism.

Some groups are activist and some focus more on social meet-ups. But to the degree that Humanists meet and organise, we are bound to influence the broader culture. And that is good; Humanism can be a foundation for functionality in our society. People can make better collective decisions when not bound to imagined revelations of a supernatural rule-maker and are free of delusions that exempt them from responsibility for our future on earth. Most Humanists are realistic about the rate at which a clear-eyed human-centric philosophy can displace deeply held supernatural beliefs as a guide for social decisions, but Humanist principles do have influence and I think their impact is increasing. Humanistic thought is on the rise, not just among the nones; it also shows up even within organised religion. There is a strong secular Jewish tradition in the US, the Unitarian Universalists embody many humanist principles, and in many liberal Christian churches, one finds virtual Humanists among clergy as well as parishioners people who advocate for the rights of all, support separation of religion and government, recognise our obligation as stewards of earths natural systems, and even, when questioned directly, do not insist on the magical claims we often associate with the very definition of Christianity. I have met people like this while representing Humanism in local groups such as Pub Theology and Area Council on Religious Diversity (ACORD). So, the growth of Humanist ideas, even among those who do not identify as such, is a counterbalance to the vocal and visible conservatism that unnerves so many of us today.

What is the importance of secularism in America at the moment?

It is very important. We hope that the religious also recognise that that government and public functions must not include or defer to religion or none of us will have freedom of religion, or freedom from the religion of others. We can all tolerate the traditions of others expressed in public, but government must not represent or appear to favour religion. The workplace is a more difficult space; it is appropriate to accommodate some religious requirements of workers, but not to impose religious sensibilities of owners or managers on them. Functions that serve the whole community (such as hospitals) should certainly not apply religious rules.

What social forces might regress the secular humanist movements in the US? The destructive parts of our own human nature. With the worlds population at 7.1 billion and climbing, there is increasing tension between peoples and stresses on resources. With the internet and the availability of customised sources of belief verification, we become more polarised. When societies are stressed, human nature moves them toward feeling and behaving like competing tribes. We feel more suspicious of others and protective of those like us. Ironically, as Humanists, we try to suppress part of our Human nature. We need to wilfully act on the vision of how we can function together rather than drift into the dysfunction that is (somewhat) natural.

Conservative religions and politicians will not hurt us. The unseemly elements of our own nature (imparted on us by our evolutionary past) can hurt us. I see it expressed even among liberals and professed Humanists.

What is the humanist culture like in Michigan? What activities, campaigns, and initiatives take place there through the GTH?

The backbone of our local organisation is our regular monthly meetings. We feature a speaker on topics that include science, philosophy, art, or issues of community interest. Often these bring in people from the community who are interested in the speaker or topic, who have no affiliation with Humanism. Sometimes the monthly lecture is a platform for an organisation that works for something Humanists tend to support. We may in that circumstance help with raising funds and contact sharing. GTH supplies a group of volunteers one evening each month to usher, take tickets, and make popcorn at a local community theatre that shows non-mainstream films. A contingent of GTH volunteers at Safe Harbour, a program for housing our towns homeless on winter nights, and others participate in an annual work bee at Planned Parenthood. We have supported the high school science fair with prize money (and I have served as a judge). We have a get-together called the Hungry Humanist at a different restaurant each month just for socialising. Weve organised member road trips to conferences of the American Humanist Association, Reason Rally, and other out-of-town Humanist or atheist events. Contacts from these have led to some great speakers at our monthly meetings. GTH Book Club reads and discusses nonfiction and occasional novels that give us tools for understanding the world around us (subject matter has included psychology, science, religion, justice and politics). Book Club events sometimes morph into very nice dinner parties. We have regular GTH bike rides, seasonal parties, and occasional campouts or ballgame excursions. What tasks and responsibilities come with being the vice president of the

Our board of seven meets at least monthly. We exchange ideas for GTH programs, seek and secure meeting speakers, and plan our meetings and events. Usually we do these chores with a glass of wine and intersperse them with philosophical side discussions and a few laughs. I and a couple others take turns presiding at monthly meetings. I sometimes represent Humanism and GTH at forums outside the group and to classes and media.

It also falls to us as a board to continuously assess the collective desire of the group regarding what we want to be. To what degree do members want GTH to be an important source of support and community for one another? Do we make it our business to know when members are ill or struggling and send casseroles? Or do we just provide interesting lectures and social events? To what degree do we want to serve a function for each other often fulfilled for the religious through church membership? Some members shudder at anything like mimicking church. Others miss the community and ritual they gave up when they stopped believing and left a church. As it happens, we are in the middle. We stay away from the vibe of a church congregation, but members do deliver a casserole from time to time. Another common decision: shall we be activists for our philosophy, interjecting ourselves into local, regional, or national political issues? How can we know if we can do so on behalf of all our members? Or should we just meet each others needs for like-minded camaraderie?

What is the current size of the GTH?

We have 83 dues-paying members, 176 participants in our closed Facebook group and 239 people who have signed up for GTH emails. Meetings have between 30 and 80 people; the larger events usually include some non-GTH attendees.

For those that dont know, and many simply wont because grassroots work is learned through action, what difficulties arise in the midst of grassroots organisation of a chapter?

We find that the average age of a GTH member is rather high. We would like to have a membership that is a cross section of generations just as we hope Humanism has traction with people in all stages of life across the country and the world. We are not sure why it is this way. To be a group of our size in a community the size of Traverse City is a success, but we often discuss a desire for greater age diversity nonetheless.

We work on selecting our tone. We think some have left the group out of exasperation with those who are inclined to be too tolerant of religion. Others have ceased to attend after perceiving that others in GTH may have been too disrespectful of the religious. Many members were once believers. Some feel kindly toward those they left behind in their former church scene and some are wounded and angry and receive hostility from their former fellow congregants and religious families. Who we select as speakers or the intensity of round-table discussions can affect who we retain and who does not return.

What about the eventual emotional difficulties and rewards?

Humanism is important to me; it is something I am glad to commit effort advancing. Other kinds of organisations I have participated in do not inspire me to get involved at a planning /serving level. GTH does.

GTH people, Humanists, tend to be deeply interesting and caring people; they are pleasant and stimulating company. My wife Suzette and I hosted a GTH Book Club discussion at our house a few weeks ago, soon after the election. The election was not a topic of the night, in fact there were only a few side conversations about it, but there was a sense of support and common feeling. Humans crave that. When all had left, I told Suzette, you know, these are the people I want around me when things get weird.

I am more alive and energised about life because I have these people around me.

What personal experiences tend to inform personal humanist beliefs, as a worldview and ethic, respectively, based on interactions with other humanists? Some might note ecstatic experiences, improvements in personal relationships, and so on. Motivation for Humanist ideals comes ultimately from the better parts of human nature, from the evolved feelings that lead us to care about and support one another. Experiences support this in giving people a foundation for empathy.

For some Humanists who had been involved in religion, a departure from religious belief, a de-conversion if you will, is a powerful experience. It is not the emotional rush of a reported religious experience, rather it is a clearing of illusion, a relief from the tension of defending incoherent positions. It is freedom from trying to discern the will of an intangible capricious being and execute it to his satisfaction. It is the new knowledge that one is not being watched all the time. It has been described to me as finding peace.Some Humanist who came through this experience resent the deep connection formed in peoples minds early in life by religious indoctrination, that the ability to believe fantastic things is inseparable from goodness. That psychologically persistent fusion of ability-to-believe and goodness, is a harm that informs some Humanists regard for religion after they are out of it.

Also, intellectually, what makes humanism seem more right or true than other worldviews to other humanists based on conversations with them arguments and evidence?

Humanism has no revealed doctrine, no myths passed down from ancient times that we contort perceptions to defend. Humanism is interested in understanding what is true, whatever it may be, to the degree that we can. We go where our best dispassionate, evidence based, inquiry takes us and we are comfortable with what we are not yet able to know. Humanism commits to honest careful pursuit of the questions while religion starts with answers.

Humanism recognises humanity as part of, and a product of, nature. This is key to a Humanistic view. We evolved as groups of cooperating primates.Our brains are a product of this evolution. In them resides the basis for our emotions and behaviour. We evolved to have the feelings that cause us to care about and support each other because cooperation within groups had selective utility. Self-serving instincts obviously also had selective utility. Competition with other groups lead to instincts in us that are at the root of suspicion and hostility toward those least like us. The good and bad elements of our nature were conserved in our evolution in balance and tension with each other.

So, Humanists know that good and evil are not forces directed by God and Satan in a supernatural battle in which we are soldiers. Rather, our better angels and our darker motivations are part of being a natural creature.

This view also equips us to understand our limitations. Adopting the dispassionate perspective and viewing humanity from the outside, leads to a fuller understanding of our nature and gives Humanists insight into the fallibility of human thinking and perceptions. The brain, the organ with which we apprehend the world, is an evolved tool. Evidence shows that we are prone to many kinds of thinking and perception errors; understanding this puts a person in a position to better recognise fallacious thinking in others. It also reminds us to be careful and humble about what we assert to know ourselves (Daniel Kahneman, Jonathan Haidt, and E.O. Wilson have been GTH Book Club reads). This dispassionate examination of human nature as an evolved phenomenon gives a Humanist a very usefully lens to better understand human emotions, the culture wars, politics, religion, and interpersonal relationships.

Humanism is more likely to be right and true because we look for our car keys where we are likely to have dropped them rather than looking under the lamp post because the light is better.

For those that want to work together or become involved, what are recommended means of contacting the GTH?

Our website is gthumanists.org. Upcoming events are listed there. An email address that reaches all board members is info@gthumanists.org. We meet at the Traverse Area District Library at 7:00 pm the second Monday of each month. Other events vary in time and location.

Thank you for your time, Scott.

comments

Here is the original post:

Interview with Scott Blair - Conatus News

WikiLeaks’s Assange: Yiannopoulos is facing ‘censorship’ – The Hill

Posted on by

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos is facing "censorship" amid controversy over a video in which the far-right provocateur appeared to defend pedophilia.

"US 'liberals' today celebrate the censorship of right-wing UK provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos over teen sex quote," Assange tweeted Monday night.

US 'liberals' today celebrate the censorship of right-wing UK provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos over teen sex quote.https://t.co/bz6dH0jyhk

Yiannopoulos has been facing backlash since a video clip gained traction on social media in which he says relationships between older men and young boys can be beneficial. In the clip, he also mentions his own sexual abuse.

Employees from Breitbart News, where Yiannopoulos works, are reportedly prepared to leave if the company doesn't take action.

And Simon & Schuster is canceling the publication of Yiannopoulos's book, "Dangerous."

In a Facebook post Monday, Yiannopoulos denounced the claims that he was advocating for pedophilia.

"I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim, Yiannopoulos wrote.

"I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics."

The government of Ecuador granted Assange asylum in 2012. Since then, he has been living inside the government's embassy in London.

Read more here:

WikiLeaks's Assange: Yiannopoulos is facing 'censorship' - The Hill

Letter: Tele-town hall is form of censorship – Republican Eagle

Posted on by

This is a salad which works fine for Trump's oligarchy. However, these false fears and economics do nothing for the majority of our citizens.

After an hour and a half of waiting for his censorship to end, I hung up and I am sure I wasn't alone in this fiasco.

I wanted to ask questions about two pieces of legislation. The first was House Joint Resolution 40, which would allow "mentally incapable" persons to be omitted from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and enable them to legally buy a firearm.

Question: Congressman, really, haven't you heard of Sandy Hook?

The second was HJR 41, which would remove the requirement for energy companies to report any funds received from foreign countries.

Question: Congressman, do you really think that is an overly burdening regulation for Exxon and others?

You have said that "doing live town halls" doesn't work because it lets in the radical protesters and turns it into a political rally. I am not a radical protester. I simply wanted you to explain why you voted "aye" on both these bills. Because you censored your tele-town hall, I didn't get an answer and I am sure that there are others who didn't get their legitimate questions answered.

By the way Congressman, Michael Flynn's phone was not wire tapped. The truth is that the Russian ambassador's phone was monitored while Flynn was doing Trump's bidding. Nice try, but you can't defend or excuse this guy.

Gary Anderson

Red Wing

Read more here:

Letter: Tele-town hall is form of censorship - Republican Eagle

Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart, proving his free ride on free speech is over – Washington Post

Posted on by

Self-described troll and conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News on Feb. 21, but his far-right speeches and provocative comments aren't going anywhere. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Update: Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News Tuesday. In a statement, he said the decision was "mine alone," though The Washington Post's David Weigel and Robert Costa previously reported that "by late Monday afternoon, there were ongoing discussions at Breitbart about Yiannopouloss future at the company."

Here is Yiannopouloss full statement:

The original post follows.

Milo Yiannopoulos claims to hate political correctness. He is about to feel the pain of livingwithout its benefits.

Despite all of Yiannopoulos'stalk, the reality is that the Breitbart News editor has thrived on political correctness. He built his brand not by saying substantive things but by demanding that he be allowed to say whatever he wants whileexploiting the fear that nothing couldbe seen asmore politically incorrect than appearing to deny his right to free speech.

That fear the worry that shutting up Yiannopoulos will make you look like an enemy of the First Amendment faded over the weekend when the Conservative Political Action Conference canceled a scheduled speech by the professional provocateur after remarks he made last year about sex involving adults and underage teens resurfaced online.

[CPAC rescinds Yiannopoulos invitation amid social media uproar]

In one interview from January 2016, Yiannopoulos shared his viewthat pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature.

The controversyalso prompted Threshold Editions, a Simon & Schuster imprint that publishes conservative authors, to pull the plug on a book by Yiannopoulos that was scheduled for release in June.

Yiannopoulos has never been a sophisticated voice in conservative politics. He has made a career out of being the gay immigrant who tellshis Breitbart audience that it is okay to use gay slurs and discriminate against immigrants. Yet he is remarkably skilled at convincing others that shutting out his kind of intolerance is a kind of intolerance all its own.

[Milo Yiannopouloss Trumpian rise shows how the GOP is stuck in opposition mode]

AsYiannopoulos has promoted the idea that PC police are trying to silence him, college after college has agreed to lethim speak on campus.Even the University of California at Berkeley, a beacon of liberalism, granted a student group's request to host Yiannopoulos earlier this month. A protest that turned violent forced the event's cancellation at the last minute, but the university said in a statement that it felt bound by the Constitution, the law, our values, and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.

Bound is the key word there. Yiannopoulos knows that people and institutions feel bound to let him talk because of their commitment to free speech and, yes, because of political correctness. Free speech and political correctness have long been Yiannopoulos's best weapons in his relentless PR push.

Now, however, no one will feel bound to givea microphone to someone who thinks sex between a grown man and an underage boy can be consensual. No one will feel bound to amplify a voice that even CPAC deemed unworthy of inclusion.

Until this weekend, the politically correct thing to do was to just let Yiannopoulos talk. Not anymore.

Here is the original post:

Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart, proving his free ride on free speech is over - Washington Post

Dave LaRock’s Virginia Campus Free Speech Resolution – National Review

Posted on by

Virginia Delegate Dave LaRock (R-Clarke, Frederick, and Loudoun Counties) has just filed House Resolution 431, The Campus Free Speech Resolution. HR 431 is based on the model legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute.

Since the Virginia House of Delegates is nearingthe end of its current session, Delegate LaRock is offering a resolution conveying the sense of the legislature, to be followed up next session by detailed legislation based on the Goldwater model. As Delegate LaRock put it in a press release, This resolution will put down a marker as a precursor for next session when I will follow up with legislation to assure that universities take this seriously.

Explaining his reason for taking up the Goldwater proposal on campus free speech, Del. LaRock said, Virginia is the cradle of democracy and it is a disgrace that many universities have lost track of the idea that it is their responsibility to uphold free-speech principles By passing this measure we are communicating to universities and the public that students are in school to learn how to think; they are not going to college to be protected from differing opinions.

Virginias HR 431, and Del. LaRocks promise to follow it next session with fuller legislation based on the Goldwater model, means that Virginia is now the third state to move forward with initiatives based on the Goldwater proposal. North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has announced that a bill will soon be filed in that state, and Illinois Representative Peter Breen has introduced HB 2939. And although no bill has yet been filed, I will be testifying at the request of Education Committee Chair Michael Bileca before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House this Thursday on the Goldwater proposal.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Read the rest here:

Dave LaRock's Virginia Campus Free Speech Resolution - National Review

Robesonian | Left frowns on free speech – The Robesonian

Posted on by

Citizens United, or Citizens United v. FEC, is a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court struck down limits to independent political expenditures on First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. The ruling didnt affect lobbying activities and direct contributions to political parties and candidates that continue to be subject to regulation. It allowed individuals, corporations, and labor unions to spend what they wanted to enter the public debate about politics and policy that inevitably surrounds elections and their campaigns. It gave rise to what has become a household term super PAC.

The decision led to a torrent of criticism, mainly from the left. The essence was Citizens United enhanced political inequality by amplifying the voices of corporations and the rich. President Obama said at the time this ruling strikes at the heart of democracy. Indeed, the amount of such independent spending skyrocketed outside group expenditures associated with presidential elections tripled from 2008 to 2012 much of it advocating conservative-type policies and candidates. The presidential election saw an interesting decline, a Trump effect, if you will.

The First Amendment says nothing about equal speech, just that you cant prohibit it. The Constitution surely places a larger burden on the opponents of the decision than its supporters. But lets assume Citizens United poses a challenge to our democracy. Certain people and groups, by dint of their wealth, can make greater contributions to public debate than others. They join what John Adams called a natural aristocracy, a class of people distinguished by their ability to influence others votes a class already populated by educators and media, which are dominated by the left.

But its critical to remember the behavior permitted by Citizens United like other forms of salutary free speech takes the form of persuasion, not coercion. It allows individuals to make a case to large numbers of people. Theres no cost to rejecting the appeal. Surely political action designed to compel others to take a public position on a matter of policy or cast a vote for a particular candidate is considerably more harmful. Democracies should embrace advocacy but reject force.

Yet force is everywhere in politics today, much of it designed to exert economic pressure. Liberals across the country have organized efforts to make North Carolinians who support House Bill 2 change their views or face economic harm. Businesses connected with Trump are threatened if they dont disassociate from his administration. Those who ran Super Bowl ads implicitly critical of his agenda face reprisals from the other side. The aim is to punish and constrain freedom. Economic and political liberties are inextricable. As Milton Friedman noted, free commerce allows humans to enjoy social and financial gains from exchange without letting political differences get in the way. Using economics as a political tool leads us down the road to authoritarianism.

Groups use intimidation in ways other than economic boycotts. The ostensible goal of the new left-wing anti-Trump Indivisible movement is to execute, like the Tea Party before it, a full-court press on members of Congress. But its greatest wish is to embarrass and harass non-conforming citizens who we perhaps might call deplorables into silence.

The target isnt always people with whom they disagree. Such groups also attack their own. Those who reject orthodoxy become pariahs. Pro-life women were barred from the marches immediately following the Trump inauguration because the organizers, as self-proclaimed definers of female identity, believed they werent woman enough.

Alexis de Tocqueville warned Americans of such tyranny nearly 200 years ago. He saw a tendency to evangelize and bully. All of this seems fresh and particularly intense again. We are deeply divided, in a kind of political war. For many who profess to embrace free speech, theres no longer room for broad and reasoned debate, for independence of thought.

Although they constitute a naked effort to compel subjects to behave in a particular way, these kinds of politics are surely protected under the Constitution. Besides, in practice, how would effective regulation work? The left therefore turns gleefully to advocacy and the ability of its opponents to make their case something conservatives must do directly because the media, education establishment, and other privileged citizens with state-funded or protected megaphones wont. Citizens United facilitates broad public discussion of parties, candidates, and policies. But in the logic of the new lefts morality, its more harmful than efforts to force Americans how to think and act.

http://robesonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_andy-taylor-1.jpg

Andy Taylor is a professor of political science at the School of International and Public Affairs at N.C. State University. He doesnt speak for the university.

.

Read more from the original source:

Robesonian | Left frowns on free speech - The Robesonian

As atheism rises, nonbelievers find one another – MyAJC

Posted on by

Jeff Newport can cite the Bible chapter and verse.

He went to Christian schools, attended church every Sunday and delivered his first sermon at 13.

In 1996, he was called to pastor a small Baptist church in Jesup with a congregation of about 30 for Sunday morning services.

Everything revolved around church, Newport said. We would not have even thought of missing a service unless we were ill. Family Bible reading and prayer were normal activities we never had a meal, even in public, for which we didnt say a blessing.

Today, though, the 46-year-old Savannah man considers himself a nonbeliever.

He lost faith in faith.

Its not easy being a nonbeliever or a skeptic in the Bible Belt South.

Move to a new city. Start a new job. Or meet a potential romantic interest.

One of the first things youre asked is: Where do you go to church?

RELATED:7 churches, 1 building: A Clarkston church that offers a reflection of Atlantas religious diversity

RELATED:Liberal or conservative? Religious outlook can blur the answer

RELATED:Faith in Atlanta photo essay

Religion is big in these parts. It can be the social center of a persons life. Often friendships are built within the walls of a sanctuary. Families worship together. Faith and where you worship not only give people a sense of believing but belonging.

Still, atheism (or at least the acknowledgment of it) appears to be on the rise though slightly.

Pews 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that 3.1 percent of American adults say they are atheists, up from 1.6 percent in a similarly large survey in 2007. An additional 4 percent of Americans call themselves agnostics, up from 2.4 percent in 2007.

The Washington, D.C.-basedSecular Coalition for America, for instance, boasts 29,000 people on its mailing list and more than 130,000 followers on its various social media accounts. Its followers include atheists, agnostics, humanists and other nonbelievers or those who arent sure of the presence of a higher spirit.

Thats an increase in 2016 of more than 5,000 new subscribers on their email list, more than 7,000 new Twitter followers and more than 10,000 Facebook likes.

Turning away

For Newport, it was a gradual change. For most of his early life, he never doubted the existence of God or the doctrines of Christianity.

The more he attempted to learn and weigh evidence pro and con, the more that faith began to unravel.

He left the Baptist ministry in 1999 and converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church. During his 12 years in this tradition, he gradually laid aside some of the dogmas of Christianity the reality of a literal hell, the inerrancy of the Bible, the exclusivity of Christianity as the only way to God, among others.

At the same time, he developed a love of science and the reliability of an evidence-based approach to find truth.

In 2012, he took a job that required work on Sundays. It gave him time and space to re-evaluate his faith. My faith couldnt stand up to this scrutiny. By the middle of 2014, I had quietly, but firmly, decided I no longer believed in God or the supernatural.

He has never approached the topic with his parents, who are dyed-in-the-wool Christians.

I think they would be disappointed, and would certainly worry about my soul if they knew I no longer believed, Newport said.

Newport is a member ofthe Clergy Project, which was formed in 2011 to create a safe and secure online community for former and current religious leaders who no longer believed in God. Many of the former pastors and church leaders prefer to remain anonymous, in part because of fear of being ostracized by family and friends. For pastors, stepping away from the pulpit can also mean loss of income.

The organization has more than 750 members in 34 countries.

Initially, all were from Christian backgrounds, but its members now include Muslims and Buddhists.

About a third of its members still serve in religious leadership positions, although they no longer believe in a higher power. It runs the gamut from more scientific stuff to more theological questions, said Drew Bekius, president of the Clergy Project. They see tragedy in the world, yet you see people claiming God just got them a parking space. So God will answer the prayer for a parking space while millions of people are in poverty?

For others, its more personal. Perhaps there was a personal heartbreak or death of a loved one. Perhaps they saw immense suffering and wondered how could God allow people to suffer?

A large part of it is that people are dissatisfied with the moral teachings of some of the religions they belong to, said Casey Brescia, a spokesman forSecular Coalition for America. For instance, a lot of people are turned off by their churchs position on LGBTQ equality. But also people are beginning to find community elsewhere. Churches dont play the same role in the community they used to. Its just a wide variety of factors.

He sees a growing number of younger Americans who eschew any religions, and that, he said, is a tectonic shift. That means that people are walking away from church and walking away from institutions that used to play such an important role.

In what has become an annual holiday tradition,American Atheistslaunches billboards nationwide urging viewers to celebrate an atheist Christmas by skipping church. Several of the locations in Southern states will be up later this year to promote the solar eclipse convention the atheists will host in Charleston, S.C., in August 2017.

It is important for people to know religion has nothing to do with being a good person, and that being open and honest about what you believe and dont believe is the best gift you can give during the holiday season, David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said in a release about the holiday billboard campaign.

Doubts and discomfort

Its hard to say how many atheists there are in the United States. Even the Pew Research Center has trouble giving an exact number. Why?

Its complicated.Some people who describe themselves as atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit, according to Pew. Conversely, some people who identify as Catholic, Protestant or Jewish also say they dont believe in God.

According to a survey by theAtheist Alliance International, most people who identify as atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, nonreligious or secularists are male, college-educated and more than a third are between the ages of 25 and 34.

Mandisa Thomas, the founder and president of theBlack Nonbelievers, a 3,000-member organization based in Atlanta, grew up in a black nationalist household.

In this age of information, she said, a lot of traditional notions are not holding up anymore. We are beginning to see the world is not right. Were told to just have faith or pray on it. Thats just not enough for people anymore.

Its especially hard for African-Americans, she said.

Religion is still so ingrained in the black identity that to openly state that one is atheist means that youre rejecting your race and culture.

Nonbelievers often talk about how uncomfortable it can be to navigate a world that can be largely faith-based.

You get a lot of unnecessary attention, and most of it is negative, said Deric McNealy, 28, a machine operator who lives in Jonesboro. People always try to come up and save you. They try to speak to you about God all the time or badger you, and that makes work very uncomfortable.

McNealy grew up in a Christian family that included church leaders.

He began to question things in the Bible at an early age.

As McNealy became older, he began to apply critical thought to all aspects of my life, and religion just happened to be one of the main things.

His family wasnt too happy.

I think its a lot easier today than in the past because of the internet, he said. In the past, there was no community, no communications for people who questioned their beliefs. Now we go online and link with like-minded individuals.

Atlantan Ross Llewallyn, who identifies as atheist, grew up in a Methodist household in Atlanta. I had a good time going to Sunday school and the service, said the 28-year-old software engineer. Over time, he began to think more about the presence of God.

I was always someone of science and reason and tried to be true and accurate in my understanding of the world, he said.

Take prayer, for instance. He was always told that before going to bed, he should get on his knees by the side of his bed and pray. He prayed for good things to happen to family, friends and himself. Soon he questioned whether he really needed to be on his knees. Why not just in bed? And why did he have to say his prayers aloud? Couldnt God just hear his thoughts? I started thinking more critically about things like that, he said.

EVERY DAY IS SUNDAY

Sunday may be the prominent day of worship in Atlanta, but thats changing as a growing number of other religions establish congregations in our global city. This is an occasional series that examines how religion impacts life in Atlanta. You can read the earlier entries in the series onmyajc.com.

Originally posted here:

As atheism rises, nonbelievers find one another - MyAJC

Atheists Online: -How Atheists Grew An Active Internet Community … – Conatus News

Posted on by

The Pew Research Center

A

There are a multitude of websites aimed at an atheist audience.Many tend to follow the same lines, talking about problems of religion in society as well as attacking religious apologetics.These sites are tremendously popular, as many atheists were brought up in a religion and have some amount of animosity towards what they see as a repressive ideology that did them harm in the past.Atheists are by no means limited to religious talk, however.A number of sites are devoted to atheist political action, most of which promulgate a highly progressive political agenda.

Many atheists seek to do more online than read someone elses arguments, advice, or calls to action though.As with almost all media endeavors in the modern world, consumers want lots of content and lots of interaction.One of the most popular places on the internet for users to interact is Reddit.While there are numerous subreddits for atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and the like, the top dog is the /r/atheism subreddit. Currently with about 2 million subscribers, it is in the top 100 subreddits (

Some, who are willing to broadcast their atheism to the world, are able to reach hundreds of thousands.There are over 1,000 religious radio stations in the U.S. but I was able to find no atheist stations, and a very small number of broadcast atheist themed shows.That does not mean, of course, that there are no atheists in radio, but rather that a new niche has been created and populated very well, in online atheist radio and podcasts.Some of the most prominent atheists in the world, including Sam Harris, have a weekly podcast, but there are hundreds of others done on different aspects of atheism.Examples include

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Thomas Smith about his take on the online atheist community.Thomas told me that through his podcasting and online activity he has been able to develop meaningful relationships with others.He believes that the internet has provided a place where atheists can congregate without needing to physically go to any location, allowing the scattered atheist community to support each other. The internet is certainly a boon to any minority group, and atheist demographics, which skew young, white, and male, are also some of the biggest internet users.Thomas recently changed the name of his main podcast from Atheistically Speaking to Serious Inquiries Only, a step he said came in part from losing guests because of the societal stigma attached to the word atheist.He says that after the name change he had numerous people tell him they loved it, because now they could share the podcast with friends and family without outing themselves as atheists.

This societal stigma is certainly part of the reason atheists seem so drawn to internet interactions.Anonymity, or at least the safety of separation from those around you, provides the ability to truly speak ones mind.For atheists that means declaring their atheism.For atheists in some parts of the world that anonymity could literally be a matter of life and death, as there are

comments

Original post:

Atheists Online: -How Atheists Grew An Active Internet Community ... - Conatus News

Atheist teacher under fire for saying ‘little cretins’ have ‘bullied’ her in … – TheBlaze.com

Posted on by

An atheist middle school teacher is under investigation by her Florida school district after she posted a complaint about her students calling them little cretins whove bullied and harassed her over her beliefs on a private Facebook page that was screen-grabbed and made public.

Susan Creamer, a teacher at Merritt Brown Middle School in Panama City, had sought advice from the Atheists of Bay County, writing that a bevy of boys in one of my classes are taking turns either inviting me to church or leaving (anonymously) flyers inviting me to church events.

She added in the post: Every time any child sneezes, they loudly say God Bless You! and look in my direction. I have complained twice to the principal once last month and once today. She has spoken privately to one or two of the little cretins, but it seems to do NO GOOD. I am feeling bullied and harassed. It has become intolerable. I dont feel like talking with the parents will stop the inappropriate behaviors because, for all I know, the parents are encouraging them.

Creamer on Monday did not immediately respond to TheBlazes request for comment.

Karen Tucker of Bay District Schools told the Northwest Florida Daily News its against school policy to criticize students either in person or online and that Human Resources is investigating and examining the Facebook post in question, as well as other comments from Creamer on the Atheists of Bay County page.

Tucker added to the paper that writing disparaging remarks about students even on a closed Facebook page is a violation of school policy.

I dont think it matters [if the page is closed], because eventually someone else is going to see it posted, which is what happened, she told the Daily News. People were re-posting. If you said things on there, which she did, about students, no, I dont think it matters.

Tucker also noted relevant Bay District Schools policy to the paper: Teachers are encouraged and trained to keep clear boundaries between their personal and professional lives to ensure that the classroom remains a neutral and supportive environment. This training and related School Board policy includes guidelines for interactions on all social media platforms including, but not limited to, Facebook. We do not condone the use of disparaging comments about our students in any form, on any social media platform or in any school.

If the investigation concludes that Creamer violated the policy, Tucker told the Daily News she could be disciplined.

Nick Fish, national program director of American Atheists, told TheBlaze that if Creamer discussed principles of atheism in class, that could potentially be an issue. For example, saying in class that all religions are wrong or insulting believers would be impermissible. But that doesnt appear to be what has happened here. Simply indicating that she is an atheist isnt inappropriate.

Fish added that its frustrating that the administration hasnt handled this or given support to the teacher and that Creamer instead is being investigated: It certainly speaks to the stigma faced by atheists that a teacher can be harassed by students over her religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Jeromy Henderson, a member of the Atheists of Bay County page, told the Daily News the districts investigation has turned into a modern-day witch hunt. He acknowledged that Creamers comments were off-putting, but she was just looking for advice about how to deal with them. Shed already been to her principal and was not getting results.

Henderson added to the paper that Creamers comments were made public by a group member who took a screen shot of her comments and then left the group.

Crystal Moseley wrote a letter to school superintendent Bill Husfelt, the Daily News reported, noting that Creamer should not be discussing her religious preferences (or lack thereof) with any of these students. Had she not been proudly boasting of her atheism these children would not know of her personal beliefs and I would not be addressing this situation. Secondly, as an adult in a professional occupation her choice of words to describe her students is completely unprofessional and completely out of line. Third, for her to seek out suggestions from a group on social media of how to handle her students (my children) has me outraged

Rebecca Warfield told TheBlaze that Creamer taught her during 7th grade almost a decade ago, but she doesnt remember Creamer ever speaking of her atheism in class.

Other commenters on Creamers Facebook page noted that she very well may have never mentioned her atheism to students but then again, her beliefs are already quite public in her Facebook bio, which indicates shes a wife, mom, teacher, actor, gardener, baseball lover, atheist, loyal friend, and proud nerd.

And while theres a huge mixed bag of comments on her page, both supporting and criticizing Creamer, several of her allies wrote that if her students have been invoking God in class just to get under her skin, they havent been acting like Christians.

Susan, as a Christian, I beg your forgiveness for my fellow believers for not seeing this for what it is: out of control students. And for judging you using the rules that we are supposed to apply to OUR OWN LIVES. Not yours, one commenter noted. I love you, my friend. I am praying for these hypocrites to find other fun.

Warfield has a different take.

I do not see inviting her to church as harassment she told TheBlaze. As for if they were doing it out of spite from her lack of religion, she should have kept it professional and knew the consequences of opening up her personal life to children who know they have freedom of speech.

(H/T: EAGNews)

Excerpt from:

Atheist teacher under fire for saying 'little cretins' have 'bullied' her in ... - TheBlaze.com

Are We Mature Enough to Deal with Climate Change? – Yahoo News

Posted on by

The world is getting hotter, as the scientists predicted. Not a week seems to go by without some new temperature record being set or some new sign emerging that the climate and other natural systems are changing more rapidly than they should be. The strong correlation between our excessive burning of fossil fuels and global warming is becoming a more compelling argument every day. Despite this, however, arguments over anthropogenic climate change and what to do about it continue with seemingly little progress being made in some countries.

The current national governments in the USA and Australia, for example, are making the case for increasing fossil fuel consumption and creating and developing new sources. They are at the same time actively obstructing action to address climate change. They are doing this on several fronts; the science is un-proven, it is not politically expedient, any action will retard economic growth and the latest, lack of base-load power will compromise energy security.

I argue, however, that the argument is not primarily about science, politics, the economy or energy security, but whether we are mature enough to deal with it. This is a deep philosophical argument, thousands of years old, over what we understand to be the best trajectory of development for human beings.

One side of the argument sees our best trajectory to be transcendence of nature. This has long been a position of several religious traditions but is now also represented by the secular philosophy of transhumanism. The other sees our best trajectory to be an eventual re-connection with nature. This is also a position held by some religious traditions and is also represented by several secular, holistic philosophies. Which side prevails in this age old debate will largely determine our future.

The fact that we have an anthropogenic warming problem at all indicates that it is the transhumanist position which is currently prevailing and has been for some time. In its current manifestation, this position represents the dream of what philosopher Isiah Berlin called negative freedom; freedom from all constraints as opposed to positive freedom, or freedom to, which recognizes constraints as the condition for freedom.

Transhumanism is generally regarded as a fringe philosophy promoted by extremists such as Max More and Ray Kurzweil. They predict and welcome a future technological singularity in which our machines will become self-conscious and in doing so, exceed our own intelligence. This will necessitate us fusing with our machines in order to survive, becoming omnipotent, immortal cyborgs in the process (if the machines let us).

It is this wet dream which inspired the controversial novel, The Transhumanist Wager, written by self-declared transhumanist, Zoltan Istvan. In this story, the protagonist, transhumanist philosopher, Jethro Knights, goes about creating his own omnipotence at the expense of anyone who chooses to obstruct him. The novel has been described as a modern version of Atlas Shrugged, the infamous novel written by the philosopher of selfishness, Ayn Rand.

For Jethro Knights, the height of human development is total self-interest and the ability to use any means which will ensure ones own autonomy and immortality. Any concern for others, including other species and future generations, is considered irrational. Knights, a scientific materialist and crude utilitarian sees nature, purely as a resource to be utilized to provide for his needs. In this, he and transhumanism in general, continues the destructive utilitarian tradition of 16th Century philosopher, Francis Bacon.

To regard transhumanists as a lunatic fringe would be a serious mistake. Thinkers such as Katherine Hayles, Philip Mirowski and Australian philosopher, Arran Gare, reveal transhumanism to be the dominant philosophy of our time with links to computer science, scientific management, neo-liberalism, supply-side economics and anti-democratic corporatocracies. It is transhumanist philosophy which is driving the human quest for omnipotence, through for example, the generation of high energy demanding abstract electronic virtual worlds created at the expense of natural systems, such as climate systems.

The problem with transhumanisms ideal development goal, however, is that it is a form of retarded development. It aspires to the ego-centric cognitive level of a three or four year old child and remains there (what psychologists term the pre-operational stage). Rather than a new utopia, it is creating an all too familiar dystopia run by self-centered and self-deluded brats. This has been revealed by a long history of developmental psychology examining stages of moral and consciousness development.

Read More

Perhaps the best synopsis and synthesis of this history is provided by the enigmatic philosopher and psychologist, Ken Wilber. He links the perennial philosophies associated with the axial period to the more modern theories of those such as Kohlberg, Loevinger, Maslow, Piaget, Gilligan and Habermas, as well as modern neuroscience. What emerges is a convergent story of what constitutes a good human development process. This is one which involves the integration and transcendence of ego-centrism and the continual de-centering of the self. It involves an expansion of consciousness over time to include larger wholes, from understanding your immediate primary relationships to understanding yourself as one with the universe.

A key component of this story is our relationship with technologies, particularly information technologies. At an early age human beings enter the semiotic realm of information technologies augmenting our abilities to think abstractly and synchronically. This is a condition for the development of our self-consciousness, but one which also has an alienating effect separating us from our worlds and each other. Much of our lives are then spent trying to understand this alienation and the nature of our relationships with everything.

In the holistic process tradition I represent, which has similarities to Buddhist views such as Wilbers, maturity comes through the ability to re-connect. It is the ability to create a coherent narrative out of the fragments of a life and create a sense of wholeness. It is coming to understand that the feelings of separateness we suffer are abstract and that we always were, and are, connected with everything and everyone. One does not transcend nature; one transcends the abstractions which alienate us from it.

Human-generated climate change, therefore, is not the product of super beings but of under-developed ones, also known as transhumanists. The obstructions to effectively dealing with it are being produced by ego-centric three-year-olds living small and fragmented lives and throwing tantrums whenever adults try to impose constraints on their bad behavior. As I said, it is the dream of negative freedom; freedom from constraints such as responsibility for anything other than yourself. But as some of our more mature philosophers have understood as well as any responsible parent, there can be no freedom without suitable constraints, such as a narrow global temperature range suitable for life.

Humanity, therefore, has a choice: do we end our lives as we live them, alienated and dissatisfied, using the resentment this creates to destroy all life in our self-interest, or, do we seek to re-connect to feel at home in our world and universe? Those few mature people left in our society have come to understand their co-dependent nature and the natural limits to human progress. They have learned that what gives life meaning does not generate much greenhouse gas. Our experiment with giving power to children is failing. In order to avoid the worst of climate change, we must put our trust again in the wisdom that only comes with maturity and re-connection.

Featured image by Karlostachys Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Read the original here:

Are We Mature Enough to Deal with Climate Change? - Yahoo News

The Truth About Europe Paying Its ‘Fair Share’ For NATO – Jalopnik

Posted on by

U.S. Army vehicles cross the Polish border in Olszyna, Poland, Thursday, Jan. 12, 2017 heading for their new base in Zagan. First U.S. troops arrive in Zagan in western Poland as part of deterrence force of some 1,000 troops to be based here and reassure Poland that is worried about Russias activity. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski)

At a time when Russia is launching cyberattacks against Europe, exploiting the chaos that is President Donald Trumps first month in office and not backing down in Ukraine, NATO seems to be needed more than it has since the end of the Cold War. Though the tone from the White House suggests Europe is a deadbeat partner not paying its fair share of the rent, the reality of the situation is a lot more nuanced.

In short: Europe may be paying its fair share in ways Washington doesnt appreciate. That may need to change as we contemplate the defense needs of the region in 2017 and beyond.

Trump has lamented that NATO is obsolete and that our European allies need to pay their fair share financially. His newly appointed Defense Secretary James Mattis said last week that alliance members must pay at least two percent of their GDPs on defense or face moderated military support from Washington. So far, only five of the 28 alliance members spend two percent or more of their GDP on defense. To be fair, the two percent benchmark was agreed upon by NATO countries themselves in 2006.

First, a few facts on spending. As The Washington Post noted last year, America pays 22 percent to cover NATO directly as an organization, with Europe covering the rest of the costs. That is far less than the lions share Trump talks about. Though when he mentions indirect contributions, he has a point, as The Post reported:

The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole, NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.

Now, I agree that Europe could do a much better job in supporting NATO operations. For example, Belgium sent just six fighter jets and 155 people to Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. Many other NATO members have similar contributions that could be improved upon the military front.

That said, national defense doesnt always amount to the number of guns, tanks, fighter jets and troops a nation is ready to deploy. Another reality we have to consider is that America is the overwhelming contributor to NATOs coffers because its military objectives are far larger than, say, Estonia or Slovakia or even France. Context matters.

Heres a few points to consider when we ask Europe to pay its fair share, and what that can and does look like.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees have migrated to Europe over the past five years, most of them coming from Syria since the beginning of its civil war in 2011. In 2015 alone, Germany took in more than one million refugees. Other European countries have taken on the challenge of welcoming refugees that enter Europe by the thousands each day.

America, by comparison, has admitted more than 10,000. While plenty of research exists that shows refugees have not negatively affected the economies of the countries that host them, it still costs substantial sums to integrate this population. Helping refugees find employment, learn the host country language, and making them feel they are part of their adoptive nations society should all count as national security. Trump has complained that Syrian refugees pose a major national security risk to America. Why, then, can we not consider that Europe integrating them into society is one way to counter terrorist organizations propaganda toward them?

Also, what would the consequence be of having thousands of people in Berlin or Paris without a good-paying job? For example, a report in 2016 found that migrants committed or tried to commit more than 69,000 crimes in Germany during the first quarter of last year; most of the crimes were theft or forgery related. Making sure that people who enter Europe have jobs so that they do not resort to a life of crime is a form of security and could be argued as an anti-terrorism measure.

Most Americans cant imagine the challenges Europe has with the influx of refugees. Because of the oceans that insulate the U.S. from most of the world, the migrant crisis has little impact on us so far. Europe is picking up the heavy lifting of hosting refugees, and the continent must constantly fight any propaganda suggesting that ISIS or Al-Qaeda care more about them than their new hosts.

One reason why most of Europe may not pay two percent of its GDP for defense is because its global objectives arent as robust and far-reaching. America has more than 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, making it the most global military on the planet. In comparison, France, Britain and Russia have 30 foreign bases combined.

NATO is primarily financed by the U.S., but Americans almost never go into combat alone. Americas operations in Afghanistan, for example, includes some 13,000 personnel from partner countries. A middle ground could be European nations sending more of its troops to combat missions that help U.S. objectives. This may not be as much a question of military spending as it is of deployment.

We also have to consider how Europe supports its soldiers. As Peter Layton explains in The National Interest, Europe pays for defense in ways we may not have considered:

Americas defense budget also allows for spending on unrelated items. For instance, medical spending consumes nearly 10 percent of the Department of Defense budget. Other nations pay for family and ex-service personnel medical care as part of national health systemsit is not a defense impost.

Additionally, the items within various defense budgets varies considerably. Perhaps 10 percent should be added to allies defense totals to compensate for this difference? Varying accounting approaches allow many ways to game a 2 percent benchmark, and it has already started.

The bottom line is that Europe could certainly be more proactive in contributing to NATOs finances and military missions, but it is not nearly the freeloader the Trump administration suggests it is. A new way of looking at what European NATO members contribute, how it supports its military and how they can help Washingtons long term objectives may fill the economic gap Trumpand prior administrationscomplain about.

Follow this link:

The Truth About Europe Paying Its 'Fair Share' For NATO - Jalopnik

Tragedy of the Public Good: Why the US Shouldn’t Quit NATO – Bloomberg

Posted on by

It has been a nervous year, Tom Lehrer once remarked, and people have begun to feel like aChristian Scientist with appendicitis. That was 1965, and he was speaking of the escalation in Vietnam and the Dominican Civil War. With President Donald Trump steering foreign policy, Americans surely know how he felt.

The latest news is that Defense Secretary James Mattis has told NATO allies that if they dont start carrying their weight, the U.S. is going to moderate its commitment to the region. Now, as an abstract matter of principle, Im firmly behind this. Only five NATO countries actually hit their targets, and three of them are a lot poorer than the sponging grifters that have cut their militaries back while enjoying the safety of the U.S. security umbrella.

The freeloading countries dont even send a fruit basket to Washington to say thanks. In fact, as a rightish American whos spent a bit of time abroad, I can personally attest that many of those NATO members citizens feel free to disparage our massive military budget, as if their smaller budgets were some sort of moral sacrifice rather than an unearned benefit paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

There, I got that off my chest. I hope we all feel better.

Nonetheless, even for me, Mattiss statement is a sort of gulp moment. The Europeans arent the only people who benefit from the American security umbrella. The fact that the worlds biggest rich economy is willing to spend so much of its GDP on the military doesnt just mean that other countries dont have to; it also means that other countries dont bother, because they cant possibly catch up.

There are downsides to this. Countries with a big hammer will inevitably end up using it in ways that turn out to be stupid. (See: Iraq.) It also, inevitably means that the security umbrella of the world will be used in ways that the country that owns it likes. (See complaints by every country except the U.S., many of them justified.) But for all that, you can certainly imagine a country with an America-sized military advantage doing much worse things with it. Many worse things. In fact, when you think about alternative histories, were pretty far into the happy zone of the spectrum. Not all the way to utopia, mind you. But a lot better than youd imagine, if youd never heard of the United States of America and you were plotting out your science fiction novel with a dominant, heavily armed nation.

A more evenly multi-polar world would look like -- well, perhaps youre acquainted with a little tiff known to historians as World War I. You may even have read about the exciting sequel they made when the first production turned out to be so great. That was terrifying enough when the nastiest stuff in the worlds arsenal was toxic gas. It gets even more terrifying when you have bombs that can flatten a city or worse.

Unfortunately military spending is the ur-example of what economists call a public good. These provide a benefit to everyone, and once the benefit has been created, it cannot be taken away from anyone.

Imagine a public health campaign that eliminates HIV, wiping it off the face of the planet. Thats an enormous benefit to the world. But if I pay to get rid of HIV, I have no way to charge you for the benefit I provided. Once Ive gotten rid of HIV, you benefit from my investment, whether you pay me back or not.

Public health, defense, crime control -- these are classic public goods because for some people to get the benefit, everyone has to. Unfortunately, the optimal self-interested strategy is therefore to let other people pay for the stuff, while you free ride. If everyone practices the optimal strategy, no one gets the benefit. Enter government, which has to secure these things, if were going to have them, and force everyone to pay the bill.

Thats fine for crime, because its effects are local and the cost of management relatively moderate. If the Topeka City Council figures out a way to wipe out crime, theres probably very little spillover effect in San Luis Obispo, and zero cost to San Luis Obispoans. But in the case of plagues and national defense, we can run into a problem, which is that the effects are very large, and the investment required can be huge. Imagine that we didnt treat national defense as a federal responsibility, and handed it to the states. Maine and Texas would have gigantic militaries; places like Connecticut and Oregon might have sizeable Coast Guards. But the rational military budget for a place like Nebraska would be pretty close to zero. Because border states are of limited size and financial capacity, the militaries of those places would probably be smaller than everyone would like, even as the proud people of Montana labored under gruesome taxes to protect Coloradans from the fearsome Canadian horde.

In fact, you see this problem with NATO. Of the five countries that are actually pulling their weight, only two can be said to be doing so for reasons that arent strictly rational self-interest (the U.S. and Britain). The other three -- Greece, Poland and Estonia -- border non-NATO countries and are pretty worried about future conflict with a military power that meets or exceeds their own. The problem is that neither Poland nor Estonia could ever even remotely hope to repel a Russian invasion. If the U.S. gets fed up with its NATO partners and withdraws, Germany would be depending on the Poles to fend off any Russian aggression -- or hoping that Russia got sick of all the winning after they took Poland and stopped there. (See: World War II.)

Military capacity takes time to build up; even the famous mobilizations of the 20th century were built around a core of officers who had spent their lives thinking about little things like the best tactics to repel invasions, and how to transport large numbers of troops and supporting items to the front while keeping them in condition to fight, and how to get people to overcome their self-interest to pick up a gun and run into harms way.

Only the U.S. has consistently invested so much in this buildup. Because the U.S. has decided to provide this public good of military protection to much of the world, other countries have let those skills atrophy. If the U.S. actually decided to become isolationist, other countries might quickly become willing to assume its military roles, but would not immediately be able to. Pouring money into the defense budget now will not create the majors and lieutenant colonels and generals you need; those arise only if you invested in lieutenants years back.

All of humanity now benefits from this public good: a world in which major wars are pointless. No government except the U.S. can possibly provide that. (Even if you think youd fancy a world policed by China better, its economy does not yet throw off enough surplus to play lone superpower, and neither does Russias.) Multilateral institutions can step into the breach somewhat, but multilateral institutions dont have the same taxing power that a territorial state does, and it shows. All NATO can really do is complain that members arent meeting their targets. The U.S., as the member picking up the tab, can threaten to pull out if other states don't contribute more. But following through on that threat would hurt us as well as them.

Given those two choices, Ill grit my teeth and pay the taxes and practice my frozen smile for my next trip to Europe. But if Trump makes the other choice, then I, like everyone else in the world, will have to live with the result.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Megan McArdle at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

Read the original post:

Tragedy of the Public Good: Why the US Shouldn't Quit NATO - Bloomberg

Trump’s envoy at UN warns Russia US stands firm on NATO, EU – Yahoo News

Posted on by

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, speaks at a Security Council meeting on February 21, 2017 at the UN Headquarters in New York City (AFP Photo/KENA BETANCUR)

United Nations (United States) (AFP) - US Ambassador Nikki Haley on Tuesday said the United States is ready to improve ties with Russia but will not compromise on its support for NATO and the European Union.

Haley told a Security Council debate on conflicts in Europe that "Russia's attempts to destabilize Ukraine" were among the most serious challenges facing the continent.

"The United States thinks it's possible to have a better relationship with Russia - after all, we confront many of the same threats," Haley said.

"But greater cooperation with Russia cannot come at the expense of the security of our European friends and allies."

The remarks came as European governments are seeking reassurance after US President Donald Trump applauded Britain's decision to leave the European Union, criticized NATO members over burden-sharing and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Haley said the United States was committed to "the institutions that keep Europe safe" and that it "will not waver" in its support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The United States wants to deepen cooperation within NATO while "keeping the door open to new allies," she said.

Enlarging NATO has been a major bone of contention with Russia, which sees any expansion of the military alliance in eastern Europe as a policy of containment directed against Moscow.

Haley described US ties with the European Union as "deep and enduring" and said differences with European governments should not be seen as a shift in US support.

"No one should misinterpret occasional policy differences and debates as a signal of anything less than total commitment to our alliances in Europe. That commitment is strong," she said.

The ambassador stressed that the US and the EU were united in the view that sanctions against Russia would remain in place until Russia returns Crimea to Ukrainian rule.

A recent flareup of fighting in east Ukraine "show the consequences of Russia's ongoing interference in Ukraine," said the US ambassador.

Haley said Russia's decision to recognize passports issued by separatists in Ukraine's Lugansk and Donetsk regions was "another direct challenge in the efforts to bring peace to eastern Ukraine."

Originally posted here:

Trump's envoy at UN warns Russia US stands firm on NATO, EU - Yahoo News

Brit soldiers warned of Russian honeytraps during Estonia Nato deployment – The Sun

Posted on by

Mikk Marran, head of Estonias intelligence agency, warnsUKtroops of Russia's 'huge tool box' of tricks

BRIT soldiers deployed to Estonia with Nato face the threat of Russian honeytraps, the Baltic states top spy has warned.

Nato troops are currently massing in the tiny country, which shares a border with Russia, in a show of strength against its aggressive neighbour.

Getty Images

Some 800 UK servicemen are among those preparing to travel to the tiny country over the coming weeks.

But Mikk Marran, the head of Estonias intelligence agency, has warned them to be on their guard at all times.

The Estonian spymaster said the Kremlin will look to deploy a huge tool box of tricks in order to attack and discredit its Nato adversaries.

These Cold War-style tactics could include cyber-attacks to hack into the soldiers personal accounts and discover embarrassing information with which to blackmail them, he warned.

And he said they could extend to the use of the classic honeytrap the likes of which an unsubstantiated dossier claimed Donald Trump was caught in during a trip to Russia something he strongly denies.

Marran, the director-general of the Estonian Information Board (EIB), told the Times: We are seeing some of it already.

Some degree of noise along the lines of; These troops are not welcome by the local population.

There will be 800 young British soldiers. People will be travelling from their bases to the cities. Probably they [will] do some pub hopping.

We cannot exclude some fights that might be triggered by the opposite team, as we call it in Estonia. For example traditional honeytraps and so forth.

Last year the Army probed claims Vladimir Putin was behind a brawl involving two British troops in neighbouring Latvia.

The fracas with a group of locals was filmed by a crew linked to a pro-Russian media outlet.

Marran said of the incident: Certainly it had some Russian background to it.

Troops from 5th Battalion, The Rifles, will head the British mission, which will kick off in late March.

They will be joined by cyber warfare experts and GCHQ specialists trained to counter cyber attacks from Moscow.

Marran added: Cyber espionage might be used, disinformation campaigns might be used blackmailing on the basis of stolen data for example.

They have a huge tool box.

British servicemen will be working closely with 300 of their French counterparts, and will be joined by some 4,000 Nato troops spread across Poland and the Baltic states.

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368.

See more here:

Brit soldiers warned of Russian honeytraps during Estonia Nato deployment - The Sun

Welcome to NSA 2017! | 2017 Annual Conference & Exhibition

Posted on by

Join us in Reno, NV on June 23-28, 2017 for the Annual Education and Technology Expo!

The NSA Annual Conference and Exhibition is one of the largest of its kind and displays products and equipment relevant to every facet of police work, jails, prisoner transport, and courtroom security. Exhibitors, therefore, contribute in large measure to the overall success of the conference. There are also over 60 seminars and workshops covering all aspects of the duties and responsibilities for sheriffs offices, including, but not limited to law enforcement, jail operations, service of process, transportation of prisoners, and court & judicial security.

NSA 2017 News

Call for Submissions: Seminars We invite you to submit a seminar proposal for the 2017 Annual Conference in Reno. The deadline for submissions is October 31. If you have any questions about presenting a seminar, feel free to contact Hilary Burgess at hburgess@sheriffs.orgor 703-838-5320.

Call for Submissions: Award Nominations[CLOSED] We are now accepting nominations for the prestigious NSA Awards for Ferris E. Lucas Sheriff of the Year, Charles "Bud" Meeks Award for Deputy Sheriff of the Year, Chaplain of the Year, Law Enforcement Explorer Post Advisor Award, Corrections/Jail Innovation of the Year Award, the NEW Reserve Deputy of the Year Award, as well as several other awards.

Exhibit at NSA 2017 Bring your products and services to the NSA Exhibit Hall. Sheriffs, their appointed purchasing agents, and other qualified buyers will gather in Reno to see thecurrent products for law enforcement, criminal justice, and corrections personnel that you have to offer.

Sponsor NSA 2017 Take advantage of this once-a-year marketing opportunity and become a sponsor. There are many exclusive sponsorship opportunities available to you at our annual conference. Increase your exposure be a sponsor.

We understand that our exhibitors and sponsors have been inundated with phone calls and emails from fraudulent companies claiming to represent the National Sheriffs Association. We are making changes to the way we publish our exhibiting companies information to help reduce those unwanted contacts. Please be assured that the following are the only currently approved vendors with regard to our annual conferences. If you are contacted by any other company claiming to represent the National Sheriffs Association, please check with us before doing business with them.

Tradeshow Logic Exhibit Sales The YGS Group Advertising, Sponsorship & Corporate Partnership Voice Hive Registration Contractor Orchid Event Solutions Housing Contractor Brede Exposition Service General Service Contractor Convention Strategy Group Lead Retrieval Contractor Liberty CFS NV, Inc. Official Freight Carrier Projection Video Services, Inc. Official Audio Visual Contractor Convention Plant Designs Official Plant-Flower Contractor

More here:

Welcome to NSA 2017! | 2017 Annual Conference & Exhibition

Posted in NSA