Select Page ::

‘Fatal,’ by John Lescroart – San Francisco Chronicle

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Fans of John Lescroart know one thing: The master storyteller can step away from his hugely successful Dismas Hardy series and his work still doesnt disappoint. His newest stand-alone novel, Fatal, is no exception.

The story centers on two friends, Kate and Beth, San Francisco women in their 30s whose lives are transformed by a single impulse: Kates sudden desire to seduce Peter, a new friend of her husbands.

Kate has been happily married for years. Her husband, Ron, a wealthy lawyer, is an excellent lover, father and friend. Kate has never cheated on him, and theres no reason she should give in to a foolish moment of temptation now, but she cant seem to stop herself.

Frightened by the obsession, she confesses her desires to Beth, her one friend who is refreshingly outside her husbands lawyer clique in Pacific Heights.

Beth is smart, tough and kindhearted, a homicide cop who has seen too many murders at the tragic end of infidelity. (Conveniently, she is investigating just such a case when Kate reveals her desire.) Alarmed by the confession, Beth warns her to protect her marriage.

Naturally, Kate doesnt listen. She seduces Peter lavishly and quickly regrets it. When Peter wants to continue their affair, she shuts it down. But too late the damage is done, and Peters life begins to unravel horribly. When, six months later, his body washes up near the Cliff House, the case goes to Beth.

Lescroart has always found a fine balance between his two favorite genres: police procedural and legal drama. Fatal succeeds with a new pairing: It is a psychological thriller in bed with a homicide investigation. Given that the author is known for his well-developed characters, it seems natural that he would move into this territory. The characters of Fatal may be lawyers, but their inner lives matter here, not their courtroom dramas.

The books horror comes from its delicate grasp of emotional realities that are inexplicable but painfully real. The mystery of Kates destructive impulse is never fully revealed but beats throughout as the storys dark heart. In Peters psychological collapse, we see the twisted repercussions of infidelity: He realizes that by cheating on his wife, he has made a fool of her and will never respect her again. His disappointment spreads into a dangerous nihilism and rage.

Ron, Kates perfect husband, is too smart to be fooled, but his kind and decent confrontation with Kate runs as cold as ice. Even Beth becomes entangled in an unnerving side story, trying to rescue a grieving woman who struggles with a deadly eating disorder, which only seems to underscore the fact that heroes are sometimes just regular people floating from crisis to crisis in order to avoid having to fix their own broken lives.

The investigation happens slowly, allowing us time to savor the way it crushes everything in its path. There is a horrible feeling of inevitability as these characters wake up to the fact that their lives are unfulfilling, that they dont respect their families, that their spouses are controlling, that the whole system of matrimony and family has innumerable small leashes that can contain even the wildest beasts.

Fatal reminds us that guilt, duty, responsibility, compassion the components of a civilized life stand in brutal opposition to the pure and exalted sexual desire Peter and Kate find in a hotel room. Lescroart wants to pick a side in this battle, but hes too good a writer to moralize. The result is a dark, disturbing, satisfying read.

Zo Ferraris is the author of the novels Finding Nouf, City of Veils and Kingdom of Strangers. Email: books@sfchronicle.com

Fatal

By John Lescroart

(Atria; 352 pages; $26.99)

Go here to see the original:

'Fatal,' by John Lescroart - San Francisco Chronicle

The Chinese Ford Raptor Website Is Profound And Crazy At The Same Time – Jalopnik

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

For every car that exists, theres a shotgun blast of marketing hype to make it sound like the greatest thing since sliced bread. When you try to chuck that nonsense across cultures and languages with an instrument as imprecise as Google Translate, hilarity ensues. Actually, you might call it poetry, and the new Ford Raptor proves it.

Here in the United States, Ford uses phrases like Not just leaner. Meaner, beast, part rocket and nasty outside. Nice inside. Which isnt what Id call inspired but, sure, its fine.

Now as you may have heard, the high-performance Raptor is just about to hit the market in China. So naturally, the company has set up a website in Chinese, too. And from the perspective of me, a person whose only knowledge of the Chinese language is provided by Google Translate, the site for the Peoples Republic seems way better than ours.

Google Translated: Indestructible, also unstoppable.

Get a load of the clackers on this crew! Why mess around with half-measures of hyperbole when you could just come out and call your car indestructible and unstoppable? Whos going to call you out? Some dumb journalist who bends the frame?

Who knows, but this is a hell of a lot stronger than a flaccid clich like Not just leaner. Meaner. I mean, its stronger than anything. Its indestructible.

Google Translated: Heart majestic, in order to unimpeded, self-confidence to conquer every place.

The word majestic is tragically underused in American advertising. Heart majestic is even better. Sounds like the title of a free Netflix movie Id begrudgingly agree to watch with my significant other and then end up loving and casually referencing in my Jalopnik posts. Or maybe a race horse.

Either way, Im inspired.

Google Translated: Born in the journey of the Ford F-150 Raptor, than the road, more love mountain.

Im going to go out on a limb here and say the sentence structure here probably makes a lot more sense in Chinese, but you cant argue with more love mountain.

Our mountains do need love. The kind of love only the tires of my Ford Raptor can provide. Man, is it ski season yet? It is? God, Ive got to leave Los Angeles more often.

Google Translated: Advance with the times, in order to make the footsteps of conquest to nothing.

Ouch, this one gets me right in the guilt-guts. A screw-you with a slap of nihilism at the end to make you feel even worse. Get with the times, geezer, so you can move through the pointless struggle we call life harder and faster and eventually get nothing out of it.

Do you think Im getting a little too reflective?

Google Translated: Enough to accommodate your world, it is enough to accommodate your conquest of the king of the world pride.

I feel like somebody took that excellent Peter Gabriel song Big Time and condensed it into one sentence. The usurping concept is pretty dark for a car ad, too. Bold. I like it.

Maybe I should start feeding my articles through a few more languages before publishing them. Obviously, Google Translate doesnt shy away from hilarious and profound hyperbole.

See more here:

The Chinese Ford Raptor Website Is Profound And Crazy At The Same Time - Jalopnik

Don’t become a pawn in the NHL’s Olympic Games – Fear the Fin

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Were now 363 days until the opening ceremonies of the Pyeongchang Olympics and the National Hockey League and International Olympic Committee are as far apart today as they were a year ago. The writing has been on the wall since Sochi: the NHL doesnt want to go to the Olympics, much the same way it didnt want to go to Russia.

If youll allow me to put on my speculation hat, the only reason the negotiations have lasted this long is because the NHL desperately wants to go to Beijing, a market it covets. The IOC knows this as well as the rest of the world and if the NHL wants to keep its players home next year, the committee is comfortable allowing the league to do it for years to come.

Okay, Ill take my speculation hat off now. Heres the deal: the NHL doesnt want to send its players to the Olympics for one very simple reason ($ $ $ $ $ $ $). Taking weeks off the season hurts the NHL financially, or so they claim, and the owners dont feel taking the show on the road helps grow the sport.

The league could very well take some blame for the sport not growing further than the Etobicoke city limits, but Gary Bettman isnt likely to see it that way. Heres what we do know: the players want to go, the league executives dont want the players to go and the fans (generally) want the players to go. Sound familiar? It should. This is just about the same position we find ourselves in when rumblings of a work stoppage roll around, albeit with far less serious consequences.

Your personal feelings on the importance of NHL players taking part in the 2018 Olympic games aside, Bettman and the owners are nearly always the enemy of fans and the players. They will speak in grandiose terms about the growth of the game, the league and the respect of hockey on the national stage while caring about one thing only: the expanse of their wallets.

So lets call this article a preemptive strike on Bettmans particularly odious brand of rationalism. NHL players going to the Olympics wont hurt anyone but the NHL, and even then, does anyone believe three weeks off in February every four years actually hurts the on-ice product? Perhaps the better question is: Does anyone else believe the NHL actually gives a shit? The league introduced the World Cup of Hockey this season and as a result introduced the exact same problems while ostensibly pocketing the profits.

Its all about the money, baby. Dont let anyone tell you differently. If you dont mind NHL players skipping the Olympics (frankly, I dont) fair enough. But dont accept the NHLs arguments for doing so. The only thing the league cares about is its bottom line it doesnt care about the quality of its product, the disruption to the season or the respect it receives on the world stage. Frankly, it should be so lucky to be recognized on any stage at all.

Don't become a pawn in the NHL's Olympic Games - Fear the Fin

The Sanders-Cruz Debate Humane Health Care Or Free Market Fundamentalism? – Huffington Post

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Sen. Bernie Sanders' CNN health care debate with Sen. Ted Cruz Tuesday night was a case study of the competing visions of social justice and free market fundamentalism.

The ostensible frame of the debate was on the expected repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

But the presence of Sanders on the stage changed the discourse to a broader contrast of compassion or a ruthless you're on your own society.

What Sanders articulated so well is the vision of humanism and hope that animated his Presidential campaign.

That healthcare must be a fundamental human right. That we are "in this together," and not just in words, or as he said in a South Carolina town hall during his campaign, "that when you hurt, when your children hurt, I hurt."

That we live in a country over stuffed with legislators, the corporate donors who fund them, and the far right policy wonks, who arm them with Ayn Rand-style ideas that elevate privilege and greed to a moral imperative.

Or in health care, a system of money over care, of profiting off human suffering and pain, that is a death sentence for so many.

Speaking on behalf of the repeal and replace crowd, Cruz hammered away at the central Tea Party theme, "freedom" from "government" mandates (unless it is dictating the rules of women's health choices, of course).

Accompanied by the misleading mythology of the market, that with private insurance you have the "freedom" to choose your doctor, to design the health plan you want, and to pay what you want.

Truth at this stage seems to be of marginal value in a country divided in so many ways.

The backdrop is a long campaign, carefully orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and others to convince working people across the country that government, not Wall Street, not corporations, is to blame for a country that fails them.

Thus the false narrative that government programs, including safety net measures that are essential to maintaining a civil society, and regulations, public protections, such as clean air and water and food safety, are an impediment to jobs and economic security.

It's especially a fraud in health care, which remains in the iron grip of corporations, which accumulate massive profits by denying care or setting prices so high, with virtually no limits on what they can charge, that have created a cruel system based on ability to pay.

Thus, a highlight of the debate, Bernie calling out Cruz on whether health care is a right. Cruz' response, "access to care" is the right. To which Bernie aptly responded, as he had earlier to Rep. Tom Price, the rightwing ideologue tapped as Health and Human Services Secretary: "access" is not care if you can't afford it.

The sad irony of the ACA is that it was a convoluted attempt to straddle both worlds - public mandates, including the expansion of Medicaid, curbs on many insurance abuses, and a number of required benefits for ACA plans, with multiple handouts to entrench and enrich healthcare corporations, from insurers to hospitals to drug companies.

The result - the Republicans are right, the ACA out-of-pocket costs are out of control and the insurance networks are limited. But that's because the ACA was modeled on a Republican-Mitt Romney plan in Massachusetts with mechanisms set in place to protect the healthcare industry.

And, all the replacement schemes envisioned by Cruz and his cohorts would make it even worse. Their rhetoric and crocodile tears over costs under the ACA are a convenient stalking horse for "replacement" plans that would not guarantee lower costs, but even greater license for corporations to charge all that they can get.

They would shut even more people out, letting them die if they cannot afford the inflated costs or trapped in a byzantine scheme of health savings accounts, high risk pools, or bare bones insurance plans, all premised on how much you can pay.

Only one replacement plan would actually fix the real holes in the ACA, and the far greater pre-ACA disaster that saw the U.S. plummet to 37th in world rankings on access, cost, and quality early in this century. That is, of course, as Sanders emphasized in his campaign, and in the debate, an improved Medicare for all.

Here's a table, comparing and contrasting health care before the ACA, with the ACA fixes and limitations, what the Republicans propose today, and what an actual humane system would look like.

View post:

The Sanders-Cruz Debate Humane Health Care Or Free Market Fundamentalism? - Huffington Post

Internet Censorship in China – The New York Times

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Artists Faced Sharp Rise in Attacks and Censorship in 2016, Report Says – artnet News

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

A new report on artistic freedom by the Danish free speech advocacy group Freemuse has recorded a sharp rise in attacks and censorship.

In its annual report, titled Art Under Threat, Freemuse documented 1,028 violations of artistic freedom throughout 78 countries in 2016. According to the group, the increase in registered cases between 2015 and 2016 amounts to a spike of 119 percent, rising from 469 violations.

The non-profit dividesits findings into categories, includingserious violations, for killings, attacks, abductions, imprisonments, and threats; and acts of censorship. In 2016 the organization counted 840 incidents of censorship and 188 serious violations.

Categorized amongst the serious violations are three killings, two abductions, 16 attacks, 84 imprisonments and detentions, 43 prosecutions, and 40 persecutions and threats.

Violations of artistic freedom in 2016. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

Musicians were targeted most frequently, accounting for 86 cases of serious violations, followed by theatre with 32 serious violations, and visual arts with 27 serious violations. Meanwhile film was the most censored art form, amounting to 79 percent of censorship cases.

Iran, responsible for 30 cases, was once again the worst offender for serious violations of artistic freedom, making it the worst violator of artistic expression since Freemuse began recording data in 2012. Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, China, Malaysia, Syria, Tanzania, and Uzbekistan also recorded dismal artistic freedom records, collectively making up 67 percent of globally recorded serious violations.

Top 10 serious violators of artistic freedom. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

The worst practitioner of censorship in 2016 was Ukraine, responsible for a staggering 577 registered acts of censorship. Freemuse attributes this to a blacklist of 544 Russian films banned in the wake of the ongoing conflict between the two countries.

Other offenders making up the top 10 for recorded cases of censorship were Kuwait,China, Egypt, India, Russia, Turkey, USA, Pakistan, and Iran. Together these countries accounted for 88 percent of global censorship cases.

Top 10 practitioners of censorship. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

Summarizing its findings, Freemuse explained that the drastic increase may be a consequence of rising global populism and nationalistic political views, resulting in a greater number of reported cases of artists being censored or persecuted. The organization also said that improvements in its own data collection and documentation methodologies, as well as its expanding network, resulted in a greater number of incidents being accounted for.

However the advocacy group stressed that the actual frequency and number of artistic freedom violations is almost certainly far higher. Factors including lack of public awareness, ability, political will, intimidation, cultural or social pressure, and the threat of punishment often prevent people from reporting serious violations and censorship.

Artists Faced Sharp Rise in Attacks and Censorship in 2016, Report Says - artnet News

Ooniprobe app helps people track internet censorship – Feb. 8, 2017 – CNNMoney

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

The Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), which monitors networks for censorship and surveillance, is launching Ooniprobe, a mobile app to test network connectivity and let you know when a website is censored in your area.

The app tests over 1,200 websites, including Facebook (FB, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30) and WhatsApp. You can decide how long to run the test, but the default is 90 seconds and would test between 10 and 20 websites depending on bandwidth. Links to blocked websites are listed in red, while available sites are green.

Service providers, sometimes controlled by the government, don't always shutdown the internet entirely -- for instance, Facebook.com might be inaccessible while CNN.com still works.

"Not only we will be able to gather more data and more evidence, but we will be able to engage and bring the issue of censorship to the attention of more people," Arturo Filast, chief developer for the Ooniprobe app, told CNNTech.

To test connectivity, Ooniprobe mimics what a browser does when you connect to a website. It tries to establish a connection to a site's IP address and download the webpage. OONI compares the activity to the same test on an uncensored network. If it doesn't match, the site is likely being censored.

Created in 2012 under the Tor Project, OONI monitors networks in more than 90 countries through its desktop and hardware trackers, which are available to anyone. It publishes censorship data on its site. The organization has confirmed censorship cases in a number of countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ethiopia and Sudan.

By introducing a mobile app, OONI can reach more people potentially affected by internet outages, especially in emerging markets where smartphones are more common than computers.

Related: This African country is taking an unprecedented step in internet censorship

In just the last week, at least two countries have experienced outages. Iraq shut down the internet while students took exams to prevent cheating, and in Cameroon, protests and unrest have led to ongoing outages in the country's English-speaking regions.

Ooniprobe tests web connectivity to not only figure out whether sites are blocked, but how they are being censored. For instance, an internet service provider can initiate a DNS-based block, so when you try to connect to a specific website, the page will say the domain is unknown or blocked. Ooniprobe can also check whether IP addresses are blocked, and looks for "middleboxes" or network devices that manipulate web traffic.

If the app detects a site is censored, it will list ways of getting around it. For instance, Ooniprobe might tell you to visit "HTTPS" versions of sites to circumvent "HTTP" blocking, or to download the Tor browser or the Orbot Android app. (Ooniprobe is used to find specific instances of censorship -- if the entire internet was blacked out, you would know.)

Ooniprobe is rolling out this week for iOS and Android.

Filast says Ooniprobe can help people see how censorship and surveillance impact them.

"They can better understand that this is something that isn't so abstract and so distant from them, but it's something they can actually understand how it's working," Filast said. "And maybe be less scared about it."

Ooniprobe app helps people track internet censorship - Feb. 8, 2017 - CNNMoney

Editorial: Censorship in the Senate – Albany Times Union

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Photo illustration by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Editorial: Censorship in the Senate

THE ISSUE:

The Senate majority leader shuts down criticism of a Cabinet nominee.

THE STAKES:

Where do such heavy-handed tactics end at a time of one-party rule?

---

An extraordinary moment came Tuesday in the U.S. Senate when Sen. Elizabeth Warren was told to sit down. She'd gone too far, it seems, in criticizing a Cabinet nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell shut down Ms. Warren on the grounds that Jeff Sessions of Alabama, President Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, is a senator himself, and as such should not be "impugned."

Whatever your political loyalty, this censoring of an elected representative marks a dangerous development for our democracy.

Ms. Warren, D-Mass., was speaking against Mr. Sessions' nomination Tuesday when the chair interrupted to remind her of Senate Rule 19, which states "no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." Ms. Warren had been voicing a host of concerns about Mr. Sessions' record on civil rights, abortion, women and immigration. She quoted harsh criticism he had drawn in 1986, when Mr. Sessions was being considered for a federal judgeship, from then-Sen. Edward Kennedy and civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. She continued until Mr. McConnell and his GOP colleagues cut her off, a ruling sustained by a party-line vote.

Put aside that it's absurd to argue Mr. Sessions merits more tender treatment than any other nominee. Let's call this for what it is: The majority leader of what's called the world's most deliberative body stifling deliberation he disagrees with.

Mr. McConnell has employed this sort of partisan heavy-handedness in various ways before, notably in snubbing the Constitution by refusing to even consider former President Barack Obama's nominee for Supreme Court last year. That capped a long campaign of partisan obstructionism.

What we are witnessing what should matter to all Americans is nothing less than a breakdown of the norms of democratic government. Republican stonewalling of Mr. Obama's lower-level judicial appointments led Democrats to eliminate filibusters for those posts when they ran the Senate. Now Republicans may do the same on Supreme Court nominations. So much for a long-standing check on unbridled majority rule.

And now Mr. McConnell has introduced a new prospect: shut down whatever speech the majority doesn't like. What's next?

It's all the more alarming at a time of one-party rule in Congress and the presidency, and with Mr. Trump promising to pack the Supreme Court with ideologues. A top adviser to the president tells the free press to "keep its mouth shut" even as the Senate's leader says as much to one of the foremost women in the opposition party.

If they care nothing for the legacy this behavior is leaving our republic, Mr. McConnell and Republicans should at least weigh their own self-interest. Every bad precedent they enjoy setting today they will surely regret tomorrow.

Read the rest here:

Editorial: Censorship in the Senate - Albany Times Union

EDITORIAL: Don’t become an enemy of free speech, no matter how hateful it is – StateHornet.com

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Rioters in Berkeley, Calif. forced the University of California, Berkeley to shut down a planned speech by so-called "alt-right" provocateur and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2017. (Photo courtesy of Pietro Piupparco / Flickr / CC-BY 3.0)

The president of the Sacramento State College Republicans demanded that school president Robert Nelsen and ASI President Patrick Dorsey if they did not denounce a riot that broke out at UC Berkeley on Feb. 1 in response to a visit by right-wing blogger Milo Yiannopoulos.

The demand came shortly after College Republicans President Mason Daniels and several others attempted to obstruct the path of an anti-Trump march on campus. Several anti-Trump demonstrators responded by telling them your hate speech isnt protected here.

Of course and to the chagrin of many on the left the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does protect hateful speech.

This is not to say that the rhetoric of the self-described alt-right is anything but repugnant to the very concept of morality.

But attempts to censor Yiannopoulos and white nationalist leader Richard Spencer have the potential to backfire for everyone opposed to the Trump administration.

Those protesters who prevented Yiannopoulos from speaking at UC Berkeley last week, and the two people who punched Spencer in the face last month, must have been emotionally satisfied at going the extra mile to oppose the alt-right a loosely-connected network of people opposed to multiculturalism and modernity.

But if the alt-right has shown anything in its quick rise from online harassment of female video game developers in 2014 to one of its own working in the White House, its that what doesnt kill it makes it stronger.

The riots sparked at Berkeley have only helped Yiannopoulos a blogger for Breitbart, the former home of Trump confidant and the aforementioned White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon go from an internet curiosity to a household name.

Yiannopolous YouTube response to the Berkeley riots has garnered 1.2 million views in just four days, as of press time. Being cast in the role of a victim, Yiannopoulos has become something of a folk hero even for those who do not share his repulsive philosophy.

This has made nobody happier than Yiannopoulos himself, with the possible exception of President Donald Trump, who tweeted that the federal government should consider defunding UC Berkeley.

Trump did not cause the divisions in our country, but he exacerbates them for his political gain. He hopes that by painting all people opposed to his policies as violent anarchists, he can get most Americans to pick him as a lesser of two evils.

Such a strategy worked in the past. According to an August 1968 poll, 53 percent of Americans thought that the U.S. should never have entered the Vietnam War.

Just several months later, however, Republican Richard Nixon and segregationist third party candidate George Wallace won 57 percent of the combined vote not because they were particularly pacifistic, but because they galvanized images of riots, urban crime and political assassinations to scare people into voting for them.

That may be why former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said that Trumps Republican National Convention speech was specifically modeled on Nixons in 1968.

Again, this isnt to argue against a massive mobilization of Americans from the far left to principled conservatives to oppose Trump and the alt-right, even by taking to the streets in protest.

It is to argue that using violent tactics, smashing windows and burning limousines may be a cathartic release but do nothing to convince a Trump voter to change their mind.

And the violence deals another, more dangerous card to the president.

During the campaign, Trump showed very public disdain for religious liberty, freedom of the press, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Is this really the time to demand that government institutions give up neutrality regarding the content of political speech?

As president, Trump is a far larger threat to the Constitution than a small number of rioters in Berkeley which is precisely the problem.

Criticism of the First Amendments religious and political neutrality is nothing new. It has been charged with fostering indifferentism treating all ideas as equally valid.

All ideas are not equally valid, but censorship only gives the power of deciding what is and is not allowed to be talked about to whoever the most powerful person is And as the election upset should make clear, that can change very quickly.

No matter how grievous Yianopoulos or Spencer get, it is government neutrality in political speech that protects everyones right to speak freely.

Do we really want to set a precedent that offensive speech should be banned at a time when the president of the United States has praised dictators for murdering their opponents?

By all means protest, organize and vote. But dont play a character in Bannons dystopian play.

Take off your black bloc outfits, be brave enough to go face-to-face with the other side, and let it be said of us to quote a great leader of a different time that this was their finest hour.

EDITORIAL: Don't become an enemy of free speech, no matter how hateful it is - StateHornet.com

Conversation Cafe covers book censorship – Daily Illini

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Womens Resource Center creates an event to talk about reasoning behind book censorship and the affect of the community on the flow of information. The event will be held Friday at noon.

Brian Bauer

Womens Resource Center creates an event to talk about reasoning behind book censorship and the affect of the community on the flow of information. The event will be held Friday at noon.

Megan Bradley, Contributing Writer February 9, 2017

The removal and restriction of certain books is no new phenomenon. Despite a more historical and dystopian portrayal, book censorship is still a current issue.

To address and inform about this issue, the office for Diversity and Social Justice Education is holding a Conversation Cafe titled Burn Before Reading: Book Censorship at noon on Feb. 10 at the Womens Resource Center. The Conversation Cafe will be hosted by Emily Knox, a specialist on intellectual freedom and censorship.

Conversation Cafe is a lunchtime series focused on current questions or issues that might be emerging around social justice issues. They are often facilitated by current or former students or faculty. We really draw upon the talent and questions that people are asking here on campus, said Ross Wantland, the director of diversity and social justice education.

Wantland said the issue of book censorship is an emerging question for students and faculty alike. Knox, the speaker for the Burn Before Reading discussion, clarified that sometimes books are challenged for the right reasons, such as being in the wrong place for its genre or reading level. However, a lot of the time books are censored because of disagreements or a thirst for power.

A lot of it is about control: of the flow of information, how children develop or what the community should believe, Knox said.

Her goal is to show that the power of reading is stronger than the power of censorship and there is no way to formally stop the flow of information in society.

Knoxs discussion of book banning will center on how an open flow of knowledge in society is important for social justice. She emphasized the importance of understanding the different people and places that reading can foster, and said students need to be exposed to ideas that are different from their own in order to grow and cultivate their own opinions.

The Conversation Cafe, which is typically on the second and fourth Friday of each month, has a different topic to focus on each week. Anyone is welcome to walk in and enjoy lunch while engaging with the different speakers that the program brings in.

The Lunch on Us programs provide a unique opportunity for people to dip their toes into the waters of these types of conversations, even if theyre studying areas that dont allow these conversations daily, Wantland said.

The lessons these programs can give students, Wantland said, are invaluable and can provide a strong basis for an understanding of different problems that affect campus life.

One of the students who is interested in this kind of discussion is Skylar Lipman, senior in ACES. Lipman found the event on Facebook and was intrigued by the title and topic as well as by the location of the event, the Womens Resource Center.

Censorship is an interesting topic to me, largely because it has to do with issues of choice and the power that comes along with this. Im also hoping to build some connections through the Womens Resource Center, as there is some very interesting work being done through there, Lipman wrote in an email.

Wantland said the importance of attending events such as the Conversation Cafes is that through the programs, his office is able to give a discussion space to issues that may otherwise not have homes around campus. Book censorship is one of these issues that Wantland is proud to be able to host.

Both Wantland and Knox emphasized the importance of students being able to use their years at college as a way to grow and develop views of the world. To Knox, this is largely facilitated through reading, which is why she believes in social justice and the flow of information working hand-in-hand.

Being in college is about being exposed to ideas you have not been exposed to before, and sometimes that might be uncomfortable. Part of the experience of higher education is being exposed and learning to work through them, you dont have to agree with all of them, Knox said.

features@dailyillini.com

Link:

Conversation Cafe covers book censorship - Daily Illini

Shopify Won’t Remove Breitbart’s Online Shop, Claiming Free Speech – Fortune

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart News and senior counsel to President TrumpEvan Vucci AP

In recent days, Silicon Valley executives have been among the most vocal opponents of Trump administration policies, including its travel ban. At the same time, stores including Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom have backed away from selling Ivanka Trump merchandise, despite presidential protest .

But ecommerce company Shopify is heading in the opposite direction. Company co-founder Tobias Lutke is offering support to far-right website Breitbart News, and says it will continue to sell the sites political merchandise on its platform as a matter of free speech. Breitbarts merchandise includes politically themed t-shirts, mugs and doormats that support Trumps proposal for a border wall, and the Second Amendment right to own guns, among other things.

Steve Bannon, a senior counselor to President Trump, co-founded Breitbart in 2007. The site is known for its inflammatory views on women, racial and sexual minorities, immigrants, and Muslims.

In a blog post from Wednesday, Lutke said that despite more than 10,000 emails, tweets and messages urging him to terminate the relationship, Shopify's stance is about protecting free speech.

Related: How These 3 Bills Could Make It Much Harder to Hire Foreign Workers

We dont like Breitbart, but products are speech and we are pro free speech, Lutke writes. This means protecting the right of organizations to use our platform even if they are unpopular or if we disagree with their premise, as long as they are within the law. That being said, if Breitbart calls us tomorrow and tells us that they are going to switch to another platform, we would be delighted.

Reached by email, a Shopify representative referred Fortune to Lutkes blog post and a corporate statement , which says the company is politically neutral.

Lutke, himself an immigrant, moved to Canada from Germany in 2002, and launched Shopify in 2006 with business partner Daniel Weinand. The platform hosts 325,000 merchants, and has sales volume of $24 billion.

Shopifys decision runs counter to the activity of groups that want to use commerce for political leverage. In recent months, protest group Grab Your Wallet has urged a boycott of companies either owned by the Trumps, that carry Trump-branded clothing and accessories, or that have offered financial support to President Trumps political campaign. In addition to Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom, Grab Your Wallet has urged Amazon and Zappos to stop selling Trump family products.

Social media campaign Sleeping Giants has similarly targeted hundreds of companies, attempting to get them to stop advertising on Breitbart and fake news sites. We are trying to stop racist websites by stopping their ad dollars, the campaigns Twitter account says. In recent months, Sleeping Giants has gotten AT&T , Kellogg , BMW and Visa to remove ads from Breitbart.

Shopify went public in 2015, raising $131 million. Its stock was up 2.4% in early morning trading to $54.66.

Excerpt from:

Shopify Won't Remove Breitbart's Online Shop, Claiming Free Speech - Fortune

Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos inspires Tennessee ‘free speech’ bill – The Tennessean

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

After a violent protest forces UC Berkeley to cancel a speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, students wonder what has become of an institution known as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement. (Feb. 2) AP

Milo Yiannopoulos holds a sign as he speaks at the University of Colorado in 2017.(Photo: Jeremy Papasso/file/AP)

Inspired by a Breitbart News editor whose speeches have spurred protests at colleges across the country, state lawmakers on Thursday touted abill that they said would protect free speechon Tennessee campuses.

While discussing the bill in a news conference, sponsors Rep. Martin Daniel and Sen. Joey Hensley referenced the protests against controversial conservativeMilo Yiannopoulos, who is a senior editor at Breitbart. Violence erupted at a protest against a plannedYiannopoulos speech at the University of California, Berkeley, prompting officials there to cancel the speech.The lawmakers indicated that the violence had hampered the expression of conservative ideas at Berkeley. Similar issues have cropped up in Tennessee, they said.

Daniel, R-Knoxville, called his legislation "the Milo bill," and said it was "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."

Hensley, R-Hohenwald, said the bill was specifically tailored to defend students with conservative views that he said had been silenced in the past.

"We've heard stories from many students that are honestly on the conservative side that have those issues stifled in the classroom,"Hensley said."We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech."

The bill said public universities"have abdicated their responsibility to uphold free speech principles, and these failures make it appropriate for all state institutions of higher education to restate and confirm their commitment in this regard."

Daniel and Hensley sponsored similar legislation last year which sought to make it easier for students to advocate for various causes on campus.He notably said ISIS, the terrorist organization,should be allowed to recruit on college campuses in Tennessee.

The lawmakers referenced the University of Tennessee's flagship campus in Knoxville while promoting the bill. UT said in a statement that free speech is encouraged and protected on campus.

"The constitutional right of free speech is a fundamental principle that underlies the mission of the University of Tennessee," Gina Stafford, spokeswoman for the UT system, said in an email."The University has a long and established record of vigorously defending and upholdingall students right to free speech.

To pass, the bill would likely needto win approval from lawmakers who regularly take issue with socially liberal speech on campus, from events during UT's annual Sex Week to posts on the UT website about gender-neutral pronouns and holiday parties.

Reach Adam Tamburin at atamburin@tennessean.com and 615-726-5986 or on Twitter @tamburintweets.

Read or Share this story: http://tnne.ws/2k90EJq

View post:

Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos inspires Tennessee 'free speech' bill - The Tennessean

JPost Editorial: Free speech – Jerusalem Post Israel News

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

A woman reads testimonies during a gathering in Tel Aviv to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Israeli NGO "Breaking the Silence". (photo credit:AFP PHOTO)

Are there limits to free speech? If so, who decides what they are? Should venues owned by the state or a municipality be used to stage events that bash Zionism or the State of Israel? These are tough questions. So tough, in fact, that Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat might have chosen to cite zoning violations as the reason for issuing an eviction notice against the managers of the Barbur Gallery in the capital instead of admitting he was curtailing freedom of speech.

It just so happens that Barkats eviction notice on Wednesday came after calls from right-wing activists to prevent representatives of an NGO critical of Israeli policy in the West Bank from appearing at the gallery.

Breaking the Silence, an NGO that presents anonymous testimony accusing the IDF of war crimes, had planned on holding an event at the gallery, which is purportedly municipal property. The eviction notice might now block that event.

On Tuesday, Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev and Matan Peleg, CEO of Im Tirzu, called on Barkat to cancel the planned lecture by Yuli Novak, the executive director of Breaking the Silence.

Both Peleg and Regev claimed that because the gallery was municipal property, it was not right that Breaking the Silence be allowed to appear there.

The Barbur Gallery, which is funded from public money, will not constitute a home for Breaking the Silence, an anti-Israel propaganda organization that spreads lies against the State of Israel and IDF fighters, Regev wrote on her Facebook page.

Whatever the reason for Barkats eviction notice, attempts to silence or intimidate left-wing NGOs such as Breaking the Silence must be stopped. Freedom of speech is much about the right of an audience to hear unpopular opinions as it is about the right to voice them.

Allowing organizations such as Breaking the Silence to use venues owned by the municipality should, therefore, be seen as a service provided by the city of Jerusalem to its residents. It does not mean that the municipality is advocating the opinions held by Breaking the Silence or any other organization.

Regev and Peleg might argue that the municipality is indirectly supporting Breaking the Silence by permitting the Barbur Gallery to be used. But the alternative banning Breaking the Silence raises much graver problems.

To whom do we wish to give the responsibility for deciding which organizations are permitted to use municipal venues and which are not? We can think of no one we can trust to perform the role of censor, certainly not Regev or Peleg. Self-appointed censors should be suspect. They often have their own political agendas to advance.

The danger inherent in appointing a censor is much greater than the dangers from which Regev and Peleg wish to protect the citizens of Jerusalem. Permitting the voicing of outrageous or appalling views (it is precisely for the airing of the most fringe opinions that freedom of speech exists at all) is essential for intellectual growth and development. Baseless claims that the world is flat or that the Holocaust did not happen or that the IDF is immoral challenge us to question how we know what we know.

How do we prove all of these claims are false? Perhaps a grain of truth exists in some of them? Moves to curtail freedoms tend to be a slippery slope.

When certain opinions are deemed to be illegitimate, the people who hold these opinions or facilitate their publication run the risk of being treated as less than equal.

This might explain the appalling treatment of Jennifer Gorovitz, the vice president for finance, operations and administrations at the New Israel Fund, which provides Breaking the Silence with funding. Gorovitz, who came to Israel to attend a NIF board meeting, was detained at Ben-Gurion Airport for 90 minutes on Wednesday. Gorovitz said she was grilled by immigration official on the activities of NIF.

It was humiliating and emotionally scarring to find that, although I am a Jew and a Zionist, I might not be allowed into the country because I do not adhere to the governments ultra-right-wing ideology, said Gorovitz in a statement. I was truly shocked that this place I love so much would turn me away at its gates.

Whether at the airport or in Jerusalem, the right to state views that differ from government policy is the gold standard for a thriving democracy. We need to insure that its a right that isnt infringed upon.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Netanyahu looks to MFA for damage control following international disdain over Settlements Law

Letters to the Editor: IDI bias

The rest is here:

JPost Editorial: Free speech - Jerusalem Post Israel News

Shock Study: 45 Percent Of High School Teachers OK With Public Ban On ‘Offensive’ Speech – Daily Caller

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

5470885

The majority of the nations high school students and almost half of all high school teachers say freedom of speech does not apply to speech that is offensive to others, according to a new study on the future of the First Amendment.

The study, released by the Knight Foundation on Wednesday, found that 51 percent of high school students and 45 percent of high school teachers disagree with the statement that People should be allowed to say whatever they want in public, even if what they say is offensive to others.

Students hold a free-speech rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington March 19, 2007. REUTERS/Molly Riley

High school teachers are even more hostile to public speech that could be seen as bullying others. The study found that 66 percent of teachers disagree with the statement that People should be allowed to say whatever they want in public, even if what they say could be seen as bullying others.

High school students are, like their teachers, hostile to speech considered offensive or bullying: 51 percent of students disagreed that offensive speech should be allowed in public and 60 percent disagreed that public speech that could be seen as bullying others should be protected.

Teachers and students are similarly hostile to freespeech on social media: 53 percent of students and 48 percent of teachers disagree that offensive speech should be allowed on social media.

For example, while most agreed that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions, a significant percentage disagreed that people should be allowed to say what they want in public even if what they say could be offensive, or considered bullying to others. And 66% of student respondents believe that students should be allowed to report on controversial issues in student newspapers without approval from school authorities.

I think that this points to a failure in educating students on the philosophical and practical bases for freedom of speech. One of the essential understandings inherent in our system of free expression is that speech on controversial issues is bound to offend someone, somewhere, and that restricting expression based on whether it could offend or hurt someone is fraught with peril. Educators should strive to explain and demonstrate the necessity of being allowed to offend others in our democratic society. If students had a better grasp on the history of offensive ideas that later gained broad acceptance, we might have fewer calls for censorship when those students matriculate to higher education, Cohn said.

The study did show that high school students and teachers overwhelmingly agree that People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions just as long as those unpopular opinions arent offensive and couldnt be seen as bullying others.

Follow Hasson on Twitter

Letter: Free speech is reality | The Daily Lobo – UNM Daily Lobo

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Editor,

A Lobo reader quoted a professor, "We need to use standards of universality and logic, otherwise, freedom of speech masks reality."

I disagree! Free speech is reality. Everyone has the right to express opinions without interference or censorship. To seek, receive, impart information and ideas through any media they choose. With that being said, freedom of speech is not without its limitations. With this freedom comes consequences which relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, incitement etc.

Attacking someone or destroying property because of what someone said, is not free speech, that's vandalism and battery. I'm a vet, regardless of what someone says, I fought for the right of all Americans to speak freely. We the people have a responsibility to the one speaking, listen and agree/disagree or dont listen.

Deciding to alter or replace a persons words is censorship. Censorship isnt reality, it couldnt be further from reality. We learn so much about a personthrough their use of words. Silencing any person because we dont agree with their words is a step towards censoring other freedoms.

The best censorship that we as humans possess is our conscience. Its not perfect, but thats what makes us human, thats what makes this country so great! So choose your words wisely, because when that bell is rung the responsibility will rest clearly on your shoulders, you can't take it back.

John Travis Daily Lobo reader

Go here to see the original:

Letter: Free speech is reality | The Daily Lobo - UNM Daily Lobo

Letter: Only dictators suppress freedom of speech, press – Buffalo News

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Only dictators suppress freedom of speech, press

In the present tweet-dominated political chaos, it is again worth recalling freedom of speech and the press in the First Amendment. Experts debate its precise application, but one thing is certain: totalitarian dictators of the 20th century Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo suppressed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. An estimated 200 million people were killed in the century of war. Vladimir Putin came to power from Russias KGB. Recently he has revived the KGB-styled secret police in Russia. He has also been censoring Russias press. In the wake of Ukraine and Crimea, our president admires Putins aggressive, nationalistic style of leadership.

So how should Americans respond to the presidents claim to have a running war with the media, or that journalists are among the most dishonest people on earth? Or the advice of his close counselor, a former alt-right publisher of white nationalistic views, recently promoted to the National Security Council, who says that the media should keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while? Or a nervous press secretary sent out to admonish journalists and interpret the administrations alternative facts?

It is time to emphasize George Santayanas famous warning, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Dennis Duling

Youngstown

Continued here:

Letter: Only dictators suppress freedom of speech, press - Buffalo News

Stephen Colbert Worst argument for God ever – ChicagoNow (blog)

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Ricky Gervais was on with Stephen Colbert and was challenged on his non-belief in God. An atheist is someone who rejects the notion that certain men claiming to speak for God somehow had more authority to do so than the millions of other men making the same claim.

Why is there something instead of nothing? is the first challenge from Colbert. In other words, somehow the atheist is in the position of providing proof. The truth is that we dont know how the universe came to be.

Somehow the truth of not knowing validates simply making things up. Since we dont know, it means a singular all powerful male being, whos jealous and doesnt want us to eat shrimp, sent himself to be sacrificed to himself, in order to save us from himself (but only if you believe it), because of the talking snake incident, pushed the Big Bang button. Obviously!

Why didnt the end of the world happen in 2012? If you cant explain, then you must accept the fact that Macho Man Randy Savage put an elbow drop on Jesus to stop the Rapture. If you cant prove that this didnt happen, thats proof that it did.

Gervais puts the ownership on Colbert explaining that atheism is a rejection of a God claim, and unless he can provide proof, he doesnt believe the claim. Ricky also points out that Colbert is an atheist regarding the thousands of other Gods in other religions, and that he simply takes it one God further.

Then we get the worst argument for God Ive ever heard. I have a strong desire to direct my gratitude. You need an ancient book that condones slavery and murder in order to express your gratitude? You cant direct your gratitude towards your parents, towards human advancements in civilization, towards your evolutionary heritage? You cant direct your gratitude towards science which explains your biological connection to every living thing and how you're atomically connected to the universe itself?

The conversation moves on to Ricky explaining the difference between blind faith and science. We get the results of science through experimentation, so if all of science was destroyed, it would all come back identical as the same experiments would show the same results over time. Religious stories, if completely destroyed, would never come back exactly as they were as they dont have the discipline of reality checks. People would make up different things which would cause different stories.

Even in the same books there are numerous religious sects and interpretations of scripture which itself is commonly filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.

Throughout this discussion, Colbert jokes about hell. Why not? Nothing is more funny than an all-loving God that burns people forever if they pick the wrong religion or demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Wait till Colbert finds out that only the Mormons go to heaven. Thats going to be a riot!

-James Kirk Wall

Please like my Facebook page at: Secular Philosophy Trumps Theocracy And my YouTube page at: Secular Philosophy Trumps Theocracy

To subscribe to this author, type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. This list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-29068020-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);

(function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();

Read the original:

Stephen Colbert Worst argument for God ever - ChicagoNow (blog)

NATO backs stable, secure and neutral Moldova – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller welcomed the Moldovan President Igor Dodon to NATO headquarters on Tuesday (7 February 2017) for talks on the partnership between the Alliance and the Republic of Moldova. Ms Gottemoeller thanked Moldova for its contribution to NATOs KFOR peacekeeping mission, which also gives Moldovan troops valuable practical experience. She explained how the partnership between NATO and the Republic of Moldova helps improve peoples lives, for instance with training for almost 2,000 Moldovans in areas such as fighting corruption in the defence sector, border security and civil emergency planning.

The Alliance has spent 4.5 million euros on destroying pesticides, anti-personnel mines, surplus munitions and rocket fuel. The Deputy Secretary General said that NATO will open a new civilian Liaison Office in Chisinau this year to facilitate NATO support for the countrys reforms, as requested by the Moldovan government. She stressed that NATO fully respects Moldovas constitutional neutrality, as recognised in the Individual Partnership Action Plan.

See the rest here:

NATO backs stable, secure and neutral Moldova - NATO HQ (press release)

Top commander: Russia ‘legitimizing’ Taliban to undermine US, NATO – The Hill

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

Russia is trying to legitimize the Taliban in order to undermine the United States and NATO, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan said Thursday.

The Russian involvement this year has become more difficult, Gen. John Nicholson told the Senate Armed Services Committee. First, they have begun to publicly legitimize the Taliban. This narrative that they promote is that the Taliban are fighting Islamic State and the Afghan government is not fighting Islamic State and that, therefore, there could be spillover of this group into the region. This is a false narrative.

I believe its intent is to undermine the United States and NATO, he later added.

Nicholson was testifying about the current situation in Afghanistan, which he called a stalemate that he needs a few thousand more troops to break.

Among the challenges in the country are the actions of external actors such as Pakistan, Iran and Russia, Nicholson said.

He said Russia's meddling in Afghanistan started in 2016 and continues to increase.

In addition to spreading a narrative that the Taliban is fighting the Afghan branch of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Russia has also organized a series of meetings to discuss the future of Afghanistan without inviting the Afghan government, Nicholson said.

Afghanistan is trying to work with all of its neighbors and all of the stakeholders, he said. They've reached out to the Russians about this. And we believe, that a peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led.

Nicholson also alluded to reports about Russia supporting the Taliban more directly.

Nicholsons comments on the difficulty Russia poses in Afghanistan come as President Trump has talked about wanting to mend relations between Moscow and Washington.

Senators from both parties have been critical of Trumps position on Russia, and Nicholsons testimony could add fuel to their arguments against improving relations with Moscow.

After hearing Nicholsons testimony, Sen. Bill NelsonBill NelsonSenate to hold FCC oversight hearing Top commander: Russia 'legitimizing' Taliban to undermine US, NATO Overnight Tech: Trump, Intel tout B investment | GOP chairwoman wants FCC to take first swing at net neutrality | AT&T beefs up its lobbying MORE (D-Fla.) said Trump should know that Russia has been cozying up to the Taliban.

I think we better let President Trump know that, he said.

Nicholson replied: Yes, sir.

Top commander: Russia 'legitimizing' Taliban to undermine US, NATO - The Hill

US Navy kicks of military drills with NATO on Russia’s doorstep – NavyTimes.com

Posted on February 9, 2017 by Danzig

The destroyer Porter and a P8-A Poseidon sub hunter on Wednesday kicked off the at-sea portion of a Romanian-hosted exercise with NATO forceson Russia's doorstep.

Exercise Sea Shield is an annual maritime drill designed to get the countries used to working together in the event of a conflict, according to a Navy release.

We've already strengthened our interoperability through the in-port planning phase of Sea Shield 2017, and Porter in particular is looking forward to the operational phase at sea, said Cmdr. Andria Slough, the Porters skipper. Advanced exercises like Sea Shield provide us with an opportunity to work across all warfare areas, ultimately improving our combined readiness and naval capability with our Black Sea allies and partners.

Porter is based in Rota, Spain, and the P-8A is from Patrol Squadron 45 based in Jacksonville, Florida.

The U.S. forces are joining NATO Standing Maritime Group 2. Countries involved in the exercise include Bulgaria, Romania, Canada, Greece, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine.

The Russian defense minister released a statement last week calling on NATO to keep the exercises contained and to not challenge the Russian Federation.

We hope that the drills will be conducted in the safest possible environment without challenges towards the Russian Federation, said Segey Shoigu, according to the state-funded news agency Russia Today. In any case, we are ready for such challenges.

The annexation of Crimea was a wake-up call for NATO, which has shifted its focus to confronting the high-end threat posed by Russia after years of low-end counter-piracy and counter-terror missions.

"It used to come naturally 25 years ago," Hudson said. "We used to do big, complex NATO exercises in all environments, but the world has changed. We haven't been doing as many of those in the last 10, 15 years. But I think Ukraine has told us we need to up our game and I think that's the plan in the near future."

See the original post:

US Navy kicks of military drills with NATO on Russia's doorstep - NavyTimes.com

Select Page ::