BP’s Earnings Keep Showing Progress, Even if the Headline Results Don’t Say So – Motley Fool

BP's (NYSE:BP) fourth quarter results were very similar to its integrated major peers: A slight downturn from the third quarter, but much stronger than the year before. When it comes to BP, though, there are lots of funky accounting things to look through to really understand what is going on at the business. Digging into these numbers, things are looking better by the day. Here's a quick look at the details of BP's quarter as well as what management has its sights on for 2017.

Image source: Getty Images.

*in millions, except per share data. Source: BP earnings release.

At first glance, it would seem as though BP took a step backward this past quarter in terms of profitability. In the prior quarter, the company had a $1.4 billion benefit from an asset impairment reversal that added to the bottom line, whereas the past quarter that reversal gain was $292 million. There were also some tax gains in the third quarter that bumped those profit numbers.

If we were to strip away all of these one time gains and losses and use what BP calls its underlying replacement cost profit, then this past quarter the company pulled in $400 million in net income compared to a $933 million in Q3 2016 and a $196 million loss in Q4 2016. So the step backwards was quite a bit smaller than the headline results.

The promising sign for BP was that the company posted an underlying profit from its upstream production segment for the first time in several quarters. Higher price realizations and the end of some turnaround work in the prior quarter led to a $400 million gain on the upstream side. Again, this is before all of those one time gains and charges. For downstream refining, gains at its lubricants and petrochemicals business were more than offset by weaker fuel refining margins and some turnaround work at a major refinery. The results from its lubricants and petrochemials business are some of the best results it has posted in these segments.

Image source: Getty Images.

From a cash flow perspective, it also looks like BP took a big step backwards compared to the year prior. This is another one of those accounting quirks as the company has a $3 billion gain from a drawdown in working captial in the fourth quarter of 2015. So all things equal, it looks as though cash generation hasn't changed much lately. BP ended the quarter with $34.8 billion in net debt-debt minus cash on hand -- and has a net debt to capital ratio of 27%, which is within management's target range of 20%-30%

CEO Bob Dudley, on what he foresees for the oil market in the coming year:

As we stand today, Brent oil prices have risen by around $10 per barrel since the OPEC deal was announced. We still expect oil demand growth to be strong this year at 1.3 million barrels per day, with modest growth in non-OPEC supply which means the timing and extent of market rebalancing depends heavily on OPEC behaviour.

The physical market has begun to tighten with inventories falling a little faster than seasonal norms. However, OECD inventories at the end of 2016 were still close to 3 billion barrels, significantly higher than their recent historic average. We expect much of the historical inventory overhang to be eroded by the end of 2017 if OPEC and non-OPEC producers deliver on their promised production cuts. Any shortfall could delay this process and does still pose some downside risk to prices in the near term.

So while we remain optimistic about the market continuing to rebalance in 2017, we recognise that this could take some time. In short, the road to a more balanced position still has uncertainties

While most other integrated oil and gas companies are still being reserved with their capital expenditure budgets, BP is actually upping its spending levels for 2017 in large part because it gave the green light for Mad Dog 2 in the Gulf of Mexico and acquired a 10% stake in Eni's massive Zohr gas field in Egypt. These new projects will add a bit to the budget as well as add some significant growth for 2020 and beyond.

The company is still sorting out some issues with the Deepwater Horizon spill, but the combination of better capital allocation and prudent cost management has put the company in a much better place than it has been in a long time. These may not show up in the income statement yet, but they should in coming quarters.

Tyler Crowe has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

View original post here:

BP's Earnings Keep Showing Progress, Even if the Headline Results Don't Say So - Motley Fool

IN OUR VIEW: Work Ready in Progress for Carter – The Independent

If Carter County fails to be approved for the state Work Ready in Progress program, it wont be because of a lack of community support. Twenty-five Carter Countians filled a room at Kentucky Community and Technical College Systems headquarters in Versailles recently to boast about how much progress the county has made in preparing its residents for work.

After the meeting, state Rep. Jill York, R-Grayson, said she spoke with one of the panelists, who said Carter had set the bar for future applications.

The panel unanimously approved Carter County for the Work Ready in Progress program, but final approval must be made by the Kentucky Workforce Innovations Board, which meets in Frankfort on Feb. 16. A Carter County delegation is expected to be at that meeting.

The Versailles meeting gave Carter Countians the opportunity to brag about the progress the county has made. Max Hammond, a career adviser at the Northeast Kentucky Community Action Agency, presented a 10-minute argument at the Versailles meeting about why Carter County is a good fit for the program.

Hammond emphasized the countys long history with working people, including those at brickyards and textile manufacturing facilities.

He pointed out Carter schools are among the best in the state after recently being named a District of Distinction with improving test scores.

He also talked about plans to educate those who are plagued by drugs and those who are otherwise economically disadvantaged, explaining the countys adult education centers can test for General Educational Development certification on site.

The chances seem excellent that Carter County will be approved for the Work Ready in Progress program. While that alone will not convince employers to locate in Carter County, it would be a giant step toward erasing the popular perception that the people of this region, particularly in rural counties like Carter, lack the education and skills companies need for their employers. The perception is a hurdle this region must clear to spur the kind of economic development it needs.

See the rest here:

IN OUR VIEW: Work Ready in Progress for Carter - The Independent

Officials: City is making progress in effort to address opioid crisis – The Union Leader

MANCHESTER The Queen City is making progress in its efforts to address the opioid crisis, but there is much more work to be done.

That sums up the reaction by city officials to the 2016 City of Manchester: Response to the Opioid Crisis Annual Report given by Manchester Public Health Director Tim Soucy and other public health and safety officials Tuesday night before the Board of Mayor and Aldermen at City Hall.

This is a detailed report of many successful programs, working together here in the city to make progress, said Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas. Progress. Collectively, in this battle to end the opioid epidemic what we have achieved is progress. Progress that we can build on and that is something we should all be proud of.

In attendance for the discussion were Judge Ken Brown, who operates the Hillsborough County Drug Court North that started in November, New Hampshire Drug Czar James Vara; Executive Councilor Chris Pappas, Commissioner of Health & Human Services Jeff Meyers, State Sen. Lou DAllesandro of Manchester, and Tim Rourke, Chairman of the Governors Council on Drugs and Alcohol.

Soucys presentation reviewed information detailed in a new 24-page report on actions taken and services offered in Manchester in 2016 in response to the opioid crisis. The report is a comprehensive look at the response to the crisis in the Queen City, covering everything from police and fire statistics to school activities, and the growing number of addiction recovery services available in Manchester.

The report was compiled by staff in the citys health department, along with help from the group Makin It Happen.

The full 24-page report can be viewed below:

In 2016, Manchester Fire Department and American Medical Response (AMR) reported 785 suspected overdose calls for service. Of those, 566 patients were treated with Naloxone and 90 were fatal overdoses related to opioids. Last year Granite United Way invested over $326,250 directly into the citys response to the opioid crisis through donations providing support for several organizations including Hope for NH Recovery/Ambers Place; Helping Hands Outreach Safe Station respite and the citys new drug court.

According to the report, Serenity Place saw significant growth in 2016, serving 2,281 clients in 2016, with 52 percent of these individuals reporting Manchester as their residence or last known address.

This epidemic has permeated every aspect of our daily lives in our homes, in our classrooms, in our hospitals, on our streets it is everywhere, said Gatsas. As a community we have never hid from that fact. Not once have we ever said, this isnt pretty, lets pretend its not happening and not talk about this. Instead we came together and said, lets not wait, lets try to figure this out and lets get working. And we have never been afraid to try. Thats the Manchester way.

The report identifies several gaps officials believe exist in opioid crisis care in the city, including: difficulty filling open positions with qualified applicants in the workforce, developmentally appropriate treatment and recovery support services for youth and young adults, and language barriers.

The report wraps up with a brief look at plans for 2017, including increased collaboration in tracking and sharing data across organizations; Manchester fire officials working with community partners to establish protocol for minors accessing Safe Station program; and increasing gender specific services to break the barriers to treatment for women including transportation and child care.

We will continue to look at minors, and how a minor could access a program, said Soucy. And we really have to look at housing.

I think we need to get all the providers in a room quarterly, and talk about what the next steps are, said Gatsas.

This is a comprehensive report, said Alderman Pat Long of Ward 3. This is a conversation that we need to continue having. I think theres a major need to find treatment for youth. Im glad to see the collaboration here, because thats what its going to take.

This is a good start, but we have a long way to go folks, said Alderman At Large Dan ONeil.

Whats good about this is getting the numbers, said Long. Theres a belief this is a Manchester problem. The numbers show its not just a Manchester problem, but the numbers do show that Manchester is helping a number of people from around the state.

Whats important to understand is why do people come to Manchester, said Alderman Bill Barry of Ward 10. The reason people do gravitate to Manchester is we have the Hillsborough county jail, suboxone clinics ... Weve got it all here. People come here because they know they are going to get the help they need. We dont turn anyone away.

pfeely@unionleader.com

Slides from a presentation made Tuesday night about the report can be viewed below:

View original post here:

Officials: City is making progress in effort to address opioid crisis - The Union Leader

Cries of ‘dictator’ show Pope Francis is making progress – Crux: Covering all things Catholic

Pope Franciss intervention in the Knights of Malta has allowed his critics a potent new line of attack. Where is your mercy? the posters that appeared in Rome last Saturday sarcastically asked, after listing what Breitbart Newscalled recent misuses of papal power.

The idea of the news organization behind Trump and his constitution-defying executive orders on refugees calling out the pope as an authoritarian is so richthat comment is superfluous. But its the outrageousnessof the new narrativethatmakes it so attractive.

It allows those who, in the Church, would in other circumstancesbe enthusiasticauthoritarians and centralists thosewho cheered St. John Paul IIs hammering of the heretics, his clampdown on dissent, and so on now to frame themselves as advocates of pluralism.

Yet they claim that the real irony here is that thepope popular for being Breitbart again an open-minded, grandfatherly figure with an emphasis on mercy over doctrine turning out to be, after all, a dictator bent on an ideological purge.

Having set up this frame, traditionalists and conservatives can then reach for the narrative of victimhood, which, in the modern West, guarantees righteousness with astonishingly little effort.

Yet literally nothing in this account is true.

First, anyone who ever knew him up close in Argentina could tell you that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a tough leader and radical reformer, who assumes the truth of doctrine but wants the Church to help people live it, rather than use it to throw at rivals. The emphasis on mercy is not a softening or a reducing of doctrine. It is doctrine.

Second, Francis is not imposing his way of thinking a theological school, say on anyone. He is a pluralist, who sees the Church as a place of reconciled diversity in which disagreement can be dynamic and fruitful.

No one could describe Cardinal Robert Sarah, who headsthe Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW), as someone who thinks like Francis, yet the pope appointed him. Equally,Cardinal Gerard Mller, whose tortuous zig-zagging over Amoris Laetitiaoffers at best fitful support to the pope, remains as prefect at the Congregation forDoctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Ifthey are loyal to the pope and his mission, which they are, he does not mind that they take a very different view.

True, he has renewed personnel in both congregations. But does that make him a dictator?The Vatican bureaucracy has no purpose outside, nor justification beyond, enabling the Successor of St. Peter to fulfill his mission. If Franciswishes to replace priests and religious who are under vows, why shouldnt he,especially if theyhave been there a long time?

If those that remain feel intimidatedand anxious as criticsclaim they have an attitude problem rooted in careerism.

As one senior Vatican official put it to me recently in Rome: Surely we exist to serve the Holy Father, and if he sees a better way of achieving his objective by not using us, why should we object? The attitude that he should operate this or that way is making the pope serve the curia, not the other way round.

Yes, the pope is deeply intolerant, but not of those who disagree with him or do not share his outlook, but of obstacles to evangelization. Where Gods name is defaced, he is fierce in restoring it. Yes, he is a purger but of what he identifies as spiritual worldliness, the selling-off of the treasures of the Gospel for what St. Ignatius of Loyola called riches, honor and pride.

In the case of the Knights, Francis is not intervening because he dislikes the medal and epaulette-strewn scarletuniforms or Mass ad orientem, but because of serious problems, brewing over many years, in the governance of the order, especially among its professed members. Theyhave led tocorruption and abuse of its primary purpose, which is evangelization and assisting the poor.

One senior Knight I spoke to this week said there was little doubt of the need for reform, especially in the area of financial transparency and governance. He said there were too many dubious transactions, while appointments to the head of the order often operated according to an old boys network, without proper vetting.

He also said that the system by which the Grand Master is elected only by the professed Knights a small group of 50 requires reform. The professed havenot succeeded in securing many new vocations, yet the order has 13,000 lay members.

My source, speaking on background,alsosaid he knew of one group of Italian knights who had turned out also to be secret Freemasons.

I detect a certain determination by the Holy Father to root this out, and he is absolutely right, he said. This is totally unacceptable.

The Order of Maltais not a charity or NGO; nor is it a club for social and business advancement. Itis a lay religious order, whose leaders are under vows, and which should leadits members to holiness through working closely with the elderly, refugees and other poor. It exists to testify to Gods mercy to the poor, not primarilyto fund-raise through elaborate gala dinners.

If the Knights modus operandi its traditions, its culture, and so on enable the sanctification of its members and the proclamation of Gods mercy, then it is doing what it exists to do. But if they exist predominantly for the interests and enjoyment of its members, with charity as its legitimization, then the order is worldly and needs reform.

Hence Franciss instructionsto his legate, Archbishop Angelo Becciu,that he should work to bring about the moral and spiritual renewal of the order, especially of its professed members, so that it might carry out fully its end of promoting the glory of God through thesanctification of its members, the service of faith and the Holy Father, and assisting neighbors.'

Somecanonists claim that the pope has no right to do this,thatthe Knights status as an entity in international law constrains his potestas. (This was the basis of the former Grand Masters resistance, encouraged by the orders patronus or chaplain, American Cardinal Raymond Burke.)

Yetcanon law itself recognizes no such restriction. It enshrines what the Catechism calls the popes full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. This poweris not merely claimed but divinely instituted.

The law above all laws the lex suprema is the spiritual health of souls, the salus animarum, and popes that make of use this power are not dictators but fulfilling their role as vicar of Christ.

No organization is obliged to belong to the Catholic Church, but those that do accept papal authority, which includes the rightto intervene in any Catholic organization and shake it down when it getssnarled up. Francis has done this already a number of times: with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and more recently with the Sodalitium de Vitae Christianae.

In each case there were serious divisions and dysfunctions that could not be resolved internally, leading the pope to suspend its leaders and impose a temporary governance.

Thisis what a pope is for.Shepherding sheep mostly involves healing, nurturing, teaching and leading by example; but sometimes bleating creatures obdurately headed for the cliff edge need to be forced to get back on the path.

Canonists who argued that the Order of Malta is sovereign and therefore cannot be intervened might have been, on paper, correct the question had never been put to the test before. But if theywere correct, theybegged the question of whether the pope shouldcontinue torecognize a Catholic organization that claimed autonomy from his authority.

This was why the Knights gave up their defiant fight. Had theypressed the sovereignty argument, the Vatican would simply have withdrawn its recognition, implicitly respecting the orders wish to be an aristocratic club or NGO rather than a Catholic organization.

Still, thefurious reaction isto be expected.

There is a line attributed to Don Quixote (although he never actually said it): If the dogs are barking, Sancho, its a sign we are moving ahead. It is a phrase Francis likes to use when people point to the growing noise of opposition.

Reforms hurt, and conversion is painful. Whenpeople are screaming dictator! or putting up anonymous postersin Rome, its a sign, Sancho, that real progress is being made.

See the rest here:

Cries of 'dictator' show Pope Francis is making progress - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

High schoolers create ‘zines for progress’ with WolfsonianFIU – FIU News

A collection of zines produced by high school students during last years Zines for Progress project at the WolfsonianFIU. (Full zines can be found at zines.wolfsonian.org)

Students from eight local high schools are finding their voices on social issues and expressing their creativity through the WolfsonianFIUs Zines for Progress community outreach program.

Zine artists combine creative writing, journalism, photography and art to produce small-circulation, self-published works often dealing with controversial or niche topics that may not make it into mainstream media.

Zines came about during the punk scene in 1970s London when musicians had their friends help design art for their album covers and the information in the sleeves. From there, the trend of self-publishing grew.

The idea was to give voice to marginalized, unconventional and controversial points of view and experiences, and I would say in certain cases there was definitely a tone of anarchy and an attempt to subvert the dominant paradigm, said Zoe Welch, who oversees the Zines for Progress program at the Wolfsonian. While some of those sentiments are still present in zines today, the works can also be fun and are traded among artists.

To start the process, Welch visits visual and language arts classes at the eight participating schools to discuss the Wolfsonian and to help students brainstorm their zines. The students then take a field trip to the museum to view its collection of modern art and start working on their zines under the direction of Miami artist Deming Harriman.

I think art education is extraordinarily important, because you have the emotion and the creativity and the ability to do something that is yours, Harriman said. These kids are smart, and they are bombarded with all these issues that they care about and have opinions about, and the Zines project is an outlet to express that. They get to research topics that theyre upset about and passionate about and educate themselves more.

Miami artist Deming Harriman works with seniors in a creative writing class at G. Holmes Braddock High School to help brainstorm ideas for their zines.

Heather Cook, the head of education at the Wolfsonian, said the project, which is in its second year and is funded by a gift from Wells Fargo, is an important creative outlet to hundreds of kids in our community who are finding their voices on the challenges that face their generation.

The project encourages students to research social issues present in todays society and find ways to visualize through art the information they learn, helping them engage more deeply with the content.

The creative process is a much more organic way to learn. In class, we talk about congruency between the idea, the image and the message. It really helps promote critical thinking, said G. Holmes Braddock High School teacher Caridad McCormick, whose twelfth grade creative writing class is participating in Zines for Progress this year.

Alicia Lores and Jin Milan, Braddock seniors in McCormicks class, are working on a zine that discusses ageism. They want to find ways to express the prejudice many people of older generations feel toward Millennials through their art.

It comes from our own personal experiences, said Milan. If youre young, you dont know anything about life and youre not entitled to an opinion.

We recognize that a lot of the time theyre not intentionally patronizing their kids, added Lores. For example, the 18-year-olds sit with kids at dinner because they cant talk about adult things. Its not intentional. They just still see us as children. But it is a form of prejudice that needs to be acknowledged, because once you acknowledge it, you can begin to fix the problem.

The two are using photos of adults with their eyes crossed out to symbolize a sense of blindness to the younger generations plight; and they want to include interviews with their parents and family, as well as comments from social media, in articles they intend to write on the subject. The two will also create a playlist of music to accompany their zine to set the tone for the reader.

I am so impressed by the sophistication of kids today, said Welch. I dont remember having such a strong handle on the world, and I dont remember being as interested in my own education when I was a teenager as these kids are.

Lores and Milan were grateful for the opportunity to work on their zine one-on-one with a professional artist while at the Wolfsonian.

Its been very useful to work with Deming, said Milan. Weve gotten lot of ideas just from being here with her and having her look at our work.

At the close of the program, students will have the chance to showcase their work alongside that of professional zine artists at the Miami Zine Fair, which takes place during the O, Miami Poetry Festival in April. Their work will also be digitized and included in the Wolfsonians zine collection.

Said McCormick, Theres so little students can do without worrying about the test or the score or the outcome, and this is just giving them space to be free and be themselves, while making it an academic experience at the same time. Believe it or not, we can still do both.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

Read the original post:

High schoolers create 'zines for progress' with WolfsonianFIU - FIU News

Cavaliers’ pitching rotation a work in progress | Cavalier Insider … – The Daily Progress

Approaching a week until Virginias first baseball game, Brian OConnor is closer to answers for the 16th-ranked Cavaliers biggest questions.

When will UVa decide on its weekend rotation? Soon.

What day will Adam Haseley move from center field to the mound? Sunday.

Who are the other starting options? Daniel Lynch, Evan Sperling, Derek Casey and Noah Murdock.

And, as a bonus, whats the confidence level in this mostly unproven staff? High.

OConnor will officially begin his 14th season as Virginias coach on Feb. 17 against Liberty in Charleston, South Carolina. Unlike past years, theres no certain ace to throw on that afternoon. Such a role will have to develop over the next few months, as is the case with many of the pitching jobs in 2017.

For now, though, the competition has been great, OConnor said Tuesday at Davenport Field. This last weekend in the scrimmages I thought we started to turn the corner a little bit. Theres a lot of guys that are throwing the ball really well, throwing strikes.

Haseley, a junior left-hander with 11 career wins and an ERA of 1.86, is the most polished of the bunch. But hes also an everyday outfielder with a career .275 batting average, seven home runs and 56 RBI.

The plan is for Haseley to play his position twice a weekend and then begin the third game of every series as a pitcher.

As for Haseleys rotation mates, OConnor will likely make that announcement early next week.

The candidate pool is intriguing.

Lynch, a sophomore lefty, is coming off a trying freshman season that included six weekend starts, but also bouts with sickness and injury. He went 1-3 with a 5.49 ERA.

Coming out of the gate last year, he pitched a great ballgame opening week for us, OConnor said, nodding to Lynchs five shutout innings and nine strikeouts against Appalachian State on Feb. 19. And he had a tough time sustaining it for a lot of different reasons. Strength level is one, and then he got sick and things like that. He had some back issues and some different things that made it tough for him.

But I still think he gained some valuable experience. He is way more improved now. Hes stronger, hes more confident. Hes throwing the ball more aggressively. I really like what I see.

Sperling has been with the program for two years, but is still seeking his first pitch in a Cavalier uniform. The 6-foot-6, 215-pounder had Tommy John surgery before touching Grounds and then went through two knee surgeries while redshirting last spring.

He joins Casey, now 21 months removed from Tommy John, as talented options with limited college rsums. Casey, a redshirt sophomore with a career 4-1 record and 3.06 ERA, hasnt pitched in a game since April 2015.

Theyve been around here for a year or two, and theyve learned, OConnor said. So they are a year wiser and things like that.

Derek Casey did pitch half a season for us. So they know whats going on, they know whats expected. Even though they havent been in a whole lot of situations, they have been there and have witnessed it.

But I use the word uncertainty. I think the talent is there, I think the skill level is there. They just havent had to do it yet.

Sperling told reporters last week he feels stronger than before.

It feels great, feels like youre part of the team again, Sperling said. You kind of feel isolated when youre hurt and you cant do much, but I feel good and I can contribute a lot.

Murdock, a 6-8 freshman righty from the Richmond area, was selected by the Washington Nationals in the 38th round of last Junes MLB Draft. Initially, OConnor said, Murdock could be a mid-week starter or come out of the bullpen, can be a swing guy for us.

Inexperience at starter is going to expected to be blended by veterans out of the bullpen. OConnor mentioned senior Alec Bettinger, juniors Jack Roberts, Bennett Sousa and Tommy Doyle (closer) as key pieces to potential mound success in the seasons early months.

I think theres real value in the first part of the season where you have guys coming out of your bullpen who have experience, OConnor said. It gives you a good feeling. Early in the season, these guys [starters] arent going to go out and throw seven or eight innings. So whos going to come in?

OK, youve played five innings, youre tied, youre up a run or youre down a run, whos going to come in to throw the next two or three innings? Thats critical.

Andrew Ramspacher covers UVa football, men's basketball and baseball for The Daily Progress and Cavalier Insider. Contact him at (434) 978-7250, aramspacher@dailyprogress.com or on Twitter @ARamspacher.

Go here to see the original:

Cavaliers' pitching rotation a work in progress | Cavalier Insider ... - The Daily Progress

Sociologist: ‘Capitalism 2.0’ about to slay liberalism’s sacred cow – WND.com

A sociologist in the United Kingdom is citing advances in technology that enablepeople to fulfill their potentialin contrast to a metaphysical assumption shared by liberals, that humans are equal.

Steve Fuller, who holds the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology at the University of Warwick, explained in the business review section of a blog for the London School of Economics that under capitalism,people have been free to exchange goods and services, which he calledan inalienable right.

There were dangers, he noted, from exploitation, and Marxists say the asymmetrical power relations in the marketplace run roughshod over human rights.

Now comes transhumanism, he wrote, challengingboth capitalism and socialism, which had created a sense of humanism with the balance of a right to work and participate in the marketplace, yet a right not to be controlled by another.

Transhumanism is the idea that humans can evolve to physical and mental capacities beyond those that exist now, especially by means of science and technology.

Investigate the growing trend of blending human and machine, called transhumanism, at the WND Superstore.

Computers now mediate both work and non-work aspects of life, and the markers that oncedivided themhave become smaller and smaller, Fuller said.

An obvious case in point is the idea of working from home. People who operate this way typically shift back and forth between performing work and non-work activities on screen in an open-ended and relatively unstructured day. Meanwhile, all the data registered in these activities are gathered by information providers (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon), who then analyze and consolidate them for resale to private and public sector clients, he wrote.

Is this exploitation? The answer is not so clear. The information providers offer a platform that is free at the point of use, enabling users to produce and consume data indefinitely. Of course, such platforms are the source of both intense frustration and endless satisfaction for users, but the phenomenology of these experiences is not necessarily what one might expect of people in a state of exploitation.

On the contrary, there is reason to think that people increasingly locate meaning in their lives in some cyber-projection (avatar) of themselves, notwithstanding the third-party ownership of the platform hosting the cyber-projection, he said.

Ones personhood, he wrote, strongly implicates transhumanism, which can involve a person changing genetically or prosthetically.

On the other hand, in the case of transfer, the person might do more than simply bequeath various assets to already existing individuals and institutions say, in a will which comes into force upon ones death. Rather, the person might in his or her own lifetime invest energy and income in support of virtual agents, second lives. with the effect of turning ones physical self into a platform for launching the more meaningful cyber-selves.

The result, Capitalism 2.0, he called it, is morphological freedom.

It is the freedom not only to do what you want but also to be what you want. It is worth observing that this sense of freedom violates a key metaphysical assumption shared by liberals and socialists, namely, that humans are rough natural equals, not in the sense that everyone is naturally the same but that everyone has roughly the same mix of assets and liabilities, which in turn justifies a harmonious division of labor in society.

The violation of this assumption implies that whatever problems of social justice relating to material inequality have emerged over the history of capitalism are potentially amplified by transhumanism, as the prospect of morphological freedom explodes stopgap liberal intuitions about the natural equality of humans, he said.

WND has reported about opposition to the general transhumanism movement, most recently by the Family Research Council.

FRCwas objecting to a plan last year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Barack Obamato have taxpayers fund the mixing of human stem cells with animal embryos to create chimeras, creatures that have part animal and part human elements, in pursuit of better lives.

WND has previously reported on such goals. In one case, a U.S. biotech company was given permission to obtain 20 brain-dead patients to test if parts of their central nervous systems could be regenerated.

The company, Bioquark Inc., plans to use a soup of stem cells and peptides on the brains of the patients over a six-week period to see if it can jump-start their functions.

Philadelphia-based Bioquark asks on its website: What if your body came with a restart button?

WND also reported last winter on the growing promise of anti-aging or gene therapy science, a technology known as CRISPR/Cas9. It purports to deliver immortality to human beings and has attracted support from some of the worlds richest men, including Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal; Ray Kurzwell of Google; Oracle founder Larry Ellison; venture capitalist Paul Glenn; and Russian multi-millionaire Omitry Itskov.

Carl Gallups, a Christian pastor, radio host and author of several books, including Be Thou Prepared and Final Warning, said there are moral and ethical dilemmas.

What entity or governmental power will make the decisions concerning who gets their death reversed and who must die? Gallups asked at the time.

Investigate the growing trend of blending human and machine, called transhumanism, at the WND Superstore.

Read the original here:

Sociologist: 'Capitalism 2.0' about to slay liberalism's sacred cow - WND.com

The Wild Eight is survivalism served extra-cold – Eurogamer.net

A song of ice and fire.

By Edwin Evans-Thirlwell Published 08/02/2017

Eight Point's debut effort isn't a particularly unusual survival game, at least on the strength of a few hours play, but it does handle some well-worn ideas with thrilling starkness. In particular, I really like what it does with fire. If wood-chopping, mining, hunting and crafting are the verbs that carry you through this Alaskan wilderness, campfires are the punctuation points - fleeting reprieves from the chill of nightfall, where you can cook otherwise poisonous food, patch your wounds, hone your character's fledgling ranger skills and maybe craft yourself a pair of wooden clogs without worrying (quite so much) about dying of hypothermia.

Viewed in top-down, it all makes for an arresting tableau. Firelight etches deep, twitching shadows into the surrounding, procedurally generated woodland, warming the flat planes of the game's stylised geometry. The listless piano score fades as darkness sets in, leaving you all alone with the crackle of twigs, the shifting of snow-covered branches, the scuffles and howls of passing animals.

Eight Point's nine members proudly declare themselves to be residents of Yakutia, a wintry expanse the size of India that houses a population smaller than that of Rhode Island, and while I doubt they developed this game while crouched in a makeshift tent, it certainly feels like the work of people who are intimately familiar with the experience of being very, very cold. There's a sense of actual, tangible peril to it that survival games often fail to convey, preferring to bury you in vaguely anxiety-inducing drudgery.

Not that The Wild Eight is without its share of drudgery. The game casts you as one of eight survivors of a mysterious plane crash, and whether you play as tough oil rigger William or frail medical student Mandy, you'll be spending a lot of your playthrough tending to rapidly depleting hunger and temperature gauges while scouring the world for wood, rock and things to kill and/or eat. Die and, assuming there isn't a co-op partner with a defibrillator around to revive you, you'll respawn back at the crash site as a level 0 character without all your precious equipment. You can then, if you choose, visit the site of your death in order to cannibalise your remains. The game's multiplayer, which I've only scratched the surface of, makes cannibalism more of a theme - when you're caught in the grip of a random blizzard with no wild mushrooms to munch on, the thought of dining out on an ally has a worrying appeal.

Central to all this are your tent and workshop, which can be packed up, carried around and deployed at no additional resource cost once assembled. Workshops are for bodging together needful things such as healing ointments, pickaxes and rabbit traps. Tents are for training your character up in the finer arts of survival, such as how to sprint when you're being chased by a hungry wolf, or how to get 5 wood instead of 3 when you punch a tree. You can also, very usefully, stop your bars depleting by seeking refuge within for two minutes (around six or seven in-game hours) given sufficient firewood.

The game's HUD and menus are simple and elegant, with big, clickable icons, though the act of dragging and dropping items (for example, food onto your character) is a little fiddly. The procedurally generated terrain is somewhat blemished by too-obvious repeated elements, such as wolfpacks that always spawn near abandoned buildings, but it succeeds in holding the attention, even as you the mechanics grow familiar.

Partly, that's because you can make your mark on it - resources don't magically respawn when out of view, so exploration becomes a matter of working out which regions you've yet to trawl, and whether there's an old campsite you can avail yourself of along the way. And the deeper your delve, the more you'll become aware that something is rotten at the world's core. There's that old field laboratory I found, for one thing, its caved-in buildings strewn with cryptic journal entries, and there are those weird metallic noises you may hear at night. All of which is reason-enough to keep plugging as the game begins its journey through Early Access, but for me the key draw is still the sight of those fragile blazes flickering amongst the trunks, keeping winter marginally at bay.

Read the rest here:

The Wild Eight is survivalism served extra-cold - Eurogamer.net

The separation of church and state – Helena Independent Record

During his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 2, the President issued a stark forecast that should have every freedom-loving American deeply concerned. There has always been a thinly-veiled assault on the separation of church and state by the religious right, but the Constitution has performed as intended by successfully keeping imaginary deities out of our national governance. The Johnson Amendment is a vital tool against efforts to make our country a theocracy. It rightfully strips away the tax-exempt protections for any religious figure or church that openly endorses or opposes a political candidate or referendum.

President Trump has pledged to eliminate the Johnson Amendment from the U.S. tax code, promoting the unfettered accumulation of tax-free wealth by religious fundamentalists and thereby paving the way to mono-theocratic rule. The Constitution protects each citizens right to individually choose freedom of, or freedom from religion and nobody has the right to impose their particular brand of superstition on anybody else. Despite the fact that reason, rationalism and access to science-based information arecompelling intelligent people to turn away from faith in record numbers, the accelerated accumulation of obscene wealth by organized religion will make the fight for freedom of thought more difficult.

President Trumps misguided pandering to religions power structure should give everybody pause -- at least everybody capable of thinking for themselves. Call your congressional delegates and demand that the Johnson Amendment stand as a vital protection to our democracy.

Read the original:

The separation of church and state - Helena Independent Record

Hypocrisy isn’t the problem. Nihilism is – Los Angeles Times

With every change of administration come charges of hypocrisy. Those who governed by executive order suddenly learn the dangers of unilateral presidential power, and those who thought executive orders were an impeachable violation of the separation of powers start using them without missing a step. Supporters of federalism embrace the benefits of national uniformity. How soon is too soon to start protesting a new administration? When does criticizing a president spill over into disrespecting the presidency? Should we insist on patient bipartisanship, or is it enough to say that elections have consequences and the winner is in charge? Should officials treat a court decision as the last word and the law of the land, or should they stand up for their understanding of the Constitution?

With depressing regularity, partisans and pundits switch sides on political principles depending on who gains and who loses.

At its worst, hypocrisy can be a kind of furious projection of ones sins onto others; think of the official filled with obnoxious self-righteousness about other peoples sexual behavior whose personal life turns out not to bear scrutiny. Or it can turn values into mere talking points, and drain them of any real force. But what the great Harvard political theorist Judith Shklar called anti-hypocrisy is a talking point of its own. It is a lazy substitute for making and defending real value judgments; I dont have to be able to show which principles are good ones if I can just show that you violate your own. That strategy encourages a spiral downward; having higher standards always increases the chance that one wont live up to them. In a culture that cant agree on shared moral judgments but that delights in exposing hypocrites, the easy strategy might be to have no standards at all.

The 17th century French author La Rochefoucauld famously described hypocrisy as the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Ordinary political hypocrisy of the sort that we see when parties trade power typically has that character. The out-party hypocritically recites principles it violated just yesterday important legal changes should be made by congressional lawmaking, not executive order, for example. But in so doing it rearticulates norms and principles that officials, institutions and citizens can use as benchmarks. Without that rearticulation, the norms themselves would lose their force and be forgotten.

In 2017, we should be less worried by hypocrisy than by its absence. Some hypocrites dont feel shame, but at least they formally acknowledge that there are things about which one should be ashamed (the norms the other guy is violating). The Trump administration operates on a different, shameless, plane.

In a recent interview, the Fox News host Bill OReilly asked President Trump about his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying Putins a killer. Trumps reply was astonishing: There are a lot of killers. Weve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our countrys so innocent?

Theres often been real hypocrisy in American denunciation of authoritarians, dictators, warmongers and killers. The United States has shed a lot of blood, including innocent and civilian blood. We dont have to go back to the Cold War, with CIA assassinations and support for murderous Latin American dictatorships, to see this. The Obama administrations drone war campaign is more than enough.

But that hypocrisy was itself an acknowledgement that America aimed to do better. The public expected, and elites at least tried to deliver, a government that could claim the moral high ground.

Trumps shrug abandons that striving idealism. Why bother to have standards? Why bother to treat political killings as even worth criticizing? Why bother to acknowledge that, even granting American misbehavior, Putins regime today is accused of doing far worse: murdering critical journalists, assassinating political dissidents, committing war crimes from Chechnya to Syria?

The president wasnt just suggesting that government is a morally gray business thatalways involves some violence and wrongdoing. In his comments, he seemed to give up on the idea that there is such a thing as wrongdoing at all.

More talked about but quite similar is the possibility that Trump either doesnt think truth matters or doesnt think it exists.

Think of the Trump administrations constant, brazen falsehoods about easily checked facts from violent-crime rates to election fraud to inauguration crowds. Theres no real pretense of telling the truth; the virtue of truthfulness isnt getting its normal tribute.

For another example, think of Kellyanne Conways abrupt reversal of the election-season pledge that Trump would release his tax returns once they were audited. Hes not going to release his tax returns. People didnt care. They voted for him.The audit excuse was a bad one, but at least it was an excuse; it paid lip service to the norm of presidential financial transparency. Abandoning the excuse, treating the election victory as a substitute for the norm, is a way of saying that the norm doesnt bind at all.

Compared to that nihilism, hypocrisy is a vice well worth preserving.

Jacob T. Levy is Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory and director of the Lin Centre at McGill University, and a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center. His most recent book is Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionandFacebook

Read more:

Hypocrisy isn't the problem. Nihilism is - Los Angeles Times

Oscar-Nominated Shorts: Unsung but Worth Your Time – New York Times


New York Times
Oscar-Nominated Shorts: Unsung but Worth Your Time
New York Times
Silent Nights confronts similar questions as it traces the relationship between a young Danish woman and a Ghanaian immigrant, whose mutual empathy (and romantic attraction) is tested by the drastically different circumstances they face. The humanism ...

Originally posted here:

Oscar-Nominated Shorts: Unsung but Worth Your Time - New York Times

Thinging the Real: On Bill Brown’s Other Things – lareviewofbooks

FEBRUARY 8, 2017

MATTER SEEMS TO BE a straightforward idea: its the stuff that comprises a rock, a table, a chair. For centuries, some have argued that this stuff is all right there in the world; others have claimed it can be reduced to nothing more than human thought. In recent years, however, dualists those who, traditionally, define matter against mind or spirit have found themselves increasingly under siege, while a wave of scholars have challenged the notion that matter is rudimentarily inert. Among such new materialists, political theorist Jane Bennett and professor of feminist studies Karen Barad have each advocated for matters agency, at least when it combines into assemblages like electrical power grids and apparatuses from scientific experiments to sonograms.

In its efforts to present itself as a genuinely new materialism, however, some of this matter-animating work can overstate its own novelty. While acknowledging predecessors from Henri Bergson to Niels Bohr, new materialism tends to present much recent critical work as insufficiently concerned with the nonhuman, the embodied, or the material. Despite the marked differences between scholars who might identify as new materialists, object-oriented ontologists, immanent naturalists, speculative realists, and post-humanists, these new materialists share a set of general assumptions: they tend to emphasize a contingent ontology or metaphysics over epistemology, reject anthropocentrism (though much of it carves out room for anthropomorphism), and highlight the complexity of matter in all its relational forms and compositions. Much of this work, too, is interested in climate change and the ways contemporary global capitalisms have challenged our understandings of mind/body, nature/society, human/nonhuman, animate/inanimate, and subject/object binaries.

In his latest book Other Things (2015), Bill Brown stakes a claim in just about all of these new materialist concerns. He writes about capitalism, the Anthropocene, and globalization. He describes his work in terms of the ontical and draws heavily from the work of object-oriented ontologists, speculative realists, and the French science studies scholar Bruno Latour (a frequent new materialist interlocutor). He avoids taking the old binaries for granted, especially that particular binary relationship between a thing and an object explored in Heideggers philosophical work, which elaborates the difference between something that exists for us and something that exists for itself. For decades now, Brown has been thinking and writing about thing theory, as he has called it. But in Other Things, he attempts to make clear the connections between his work and the recent surge of critical work involving things, objects, and matter.

Brown starts Other Things by approaching animate matter through the Shield of Achilles, Western literatures most magnificent object, a metal-crafted thing on which two cities, the City of Peace and the City of War, come to life. He writes, The poem repeatedly clarifies that Achilles Shield is at once a static object and a living thing. This combination suggests an ambiguous ontology in which the being of the object world cannot so readily be distinguished from the being of animals, say, or the being we call human being. But in the hands of scholars interested above all in rhetorical analysis and especially in ekphrasis, Brown says, such ontological possibilities have been largely ignored, and the shields apparent animation has been rendered immobile.

Rather than ignore the shields ontology, Brown wants to insert the shield into a history of animate matter, where it would anticipate the later vital materialisms of Rodin, Bergson, Deleuze and Guattari, and Bruno Latour, among others. Brown argues that Homers poem does not acknowledge our more modern convictions about the difference between the animate and inanimate, subject and object, persons and things. In Homers world, he says, gods can appear in Troy. They can intervene explicitly in human life. Why, then, should it come as a surprise that a shield wrought of bronze, tin, gold, and silver might vibrate with its own life?

Browns interpretation of the shield is a good example of the sort of materialism explored throughout Other Things. What is important to Brown is the Shields thingness, as opposed to its sensible (formed and perceived) objecthood. This thingness marks the life proper to the shield, an other thing (marked by a combination of animacy and inanimacy, by a meaning we can glimpse but never fully comprehend) that exceeds and is irreducible to the objects form. And though Browns ultimate aim is not to develop anything like a complete history of animate matter (after he deals with Achilles Shield in his Overture, he shifts directly to examples from 1890 to2010), his analysis of Achilles Shield encourages his readers to imagine a longer history than the one ultimately presented here. More than that, though, the example shows us where Brown is willing to go and where he is not. Unlike many other writers talking about the vitality of matter today, Brown makes an ontological argument drawing on the work of a vast array of other writers, filmmakers, philosophers, and artists, from Heidegger and Lacan to Virginia Woolf and Man Ray, from Brian Jungen to Shawn Wong.

Browns longstanding interest in this other thing (or thingness as distinguished from objecthood) is the books driving force. Brown wants, as he puts it, to explore the force of inanimate objects in human experience by showing what literature and the visual and plastic arts have been trying to teach us about our everyday object world: about the thingness that inheres as a potentiality within any object, about the object-event that precipitates the thing.

His work is a subtle challenge to versions of new materialism that deemphasize or even disparage questions that involve the real being given form by language and representation. For those grouped together as new materialists (for example, many writers in the collection The Speculative Turn), the consensus seems to be that structuralism, deconstruction, theories of the subject, and an emphasis on discourse, social construction, image, and text, are all dead ends whether under the name critique, correlationism, anti-realism, or anything else along the path toward understanding the real. As Levi Bryant, Graham Harman, and Nick Srnicek put it in the context of continental philosophy in their edited collection on speculative realism:

It has long been commonplace within continental philosophy to focus on discourse, text, culture, consciousness, power, or ideas as what constitutes reality. But despite the vaunted anti-humanism of many of the thinkers identified with these trends, [] humanity remains at the centre of these works, and reality appears in philosophy only as the correlate of human thought. In this respect phenomenology, structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism have all been perfect exemplars of the anti-realist trend []. In the face of the looming ecological catastrophe, and the increasing infiltration of technology into the everyday world (including our own bodies), it is not clear that the anti-realist position is equipped to face up to these developments. The danger is that the dominant anti-realist strain of continental philosophy has not only reached a point of decreasing returns, but that it now actively limits the capacities of philosophy in our time.

For his part, trained as a literary scholar, Brown does not try to mount the attacks on language and discourse or even epistemology that are peppered throughout work of thinkers like Bryant and Harman, though he does take brief shots at structuralism and deconstruction. And his close analyses of various objects allow him to provide more nuance and historical specificity when it comes to discussions of modernism, postmodernism, and continental philosophy without succumbing to the anthropocentrism that so worries most new materialists.

Brown is careful to temper, too, recent tendencies to undermine the subject. As part of his consideration of thingness, he considers how we distinguish ourselves from those other things that are not persons, and how personhood depends on and grows to resemble these other things. For him, doing so involves maintaining the subject-object divide. For thingness is at its core a relationship between subject and object, where the two are not only mutually constitutive, but also mutually animating. For instance, in revealing the thingness of a comb, Man Rays photographs explore the relationship between humans and everyday objects; they also help observers imagine a secret life of objects ultimately inaccessible to their understanding. Meanwhile, when Brian Jungen dissects Air Jordans and turns them into authentic-inauthentic Haida masks, he is revealing a certain thingness of both sorts of objects in their relation to various object cultures including primitivism, UScommodity culture, the traditional art of the Haida and other indigenous people of the Northwest Coast.

The arts in general, and literature in particular, play a crucial and welcome role in Other Things, shaping what we perceive as animate and inanimate, mattering and not mattering, like and unlike us. The arts are also key to the politics of Browns book, which argues that understanding things differently perceiving them and acknowledging the extent to which they animate us as we animate them could have political effects. As Brown writes, the arts:

disclose the complications, equivocations, mediations, and possible destinations of any [] democracy, present, past, and future. Literature may indeed be the place where, in Latours wordsthe freedom of agency that is, the distribution of agency beyond the human can be regained, but it is also the place where such freedom can be lost or, most precisely, the place where the dynamics of gaining and losing are especially legible. In other words, literature also portrays the resistances to that freedom and the ramifications of it, be they phenomenological or ontological, psychological or cultural.

Brown makes what is likely the most sophisticated and strongest case for literary and historical study within a new materialist framework by suggesting that thingness can best be explained in the cultural field, rather than through, say, metaphysics.

In particular, Brown makes a persistent case for real imaginative and political possibility in objects, or object possibility: the chance that some thing about an object might mediate persons differently, that difference might glimmer within the object world as though in a crystal ball. His most favored terms misuse value (the value that comes from using objects in an unexpected way) and redemptive reification (a kind of reification that reveals an objects thingness) are predicated on this possibility.

Other Things is most lucid when applying such ideas to particular art objects and literary texts: when Brown examines the redemptive reification associated with pottery and handcrafted jewelry in Philip K. Dicks novels, the object possibility in the black collectibles found in Spike Lees Bamboozled, the misuse value of a piece of glass in Virginia Woolfs short story Solid Objects, or the ability of postmodern artworks to help us imagine an unhuman history that may include humans but is not anthropocentric.

In these moments, Brown reveals nuance and historical specificity that bolster a kind of new materialism that can sometimes play too fast and loose with its predecessors. Even if I admire this generosity and rigor of thought, however, it is up to us to decide whether we believe as Brown says he does in the power of thingness (or, more specifically, the power of our recognizing thingness) to transform life as we know it.

Jeanette Samyn is an Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow at Wesleyan University.

See the article here:

Thinging the Real: On Bill Brown's Other Things - lareviewofbooks

Australian Scientists Who Faced Censorship Have Advice for Dealing With Trump – Seeker

Australian scientists are rallying behind their counterparts in the United States amid fears that President Donald Trump could ram through a damaging anti-science agenda over the next four years.

Trump's moves to censor federal government scientific departments and undermine the integrity of climate research have triggered sympathy and anger in Australia, where many scientists believe the country's conservative government has conducted a similar assault on science over the past few years.

"My sense is that morale among the science fraternity in the U.S. is extremely low at the moment," said Associate Professor Stuart Khan, a water researcher at the University of New South Wales and one of the organizers of the Australian March for Science. "We want to show that we understand what is going on and we stand in solidarity."

The United States is an important research partner for Australia and a bilateral science and technology relationship has existed in some form for 48 years.

However, Trump's recent directives, particularly his administration's instructions that any data from the EPA must undergo review by political appointees, have many Australian scientists concerned.

"It's reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political officers in the old Soviet Union," Dr. Alan Finkel, the chief science advisor to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, told a roundtable discussion in the capital Canberra on Monday. "Every military commander there had a political officer second-guessing his decisions."

Gag orders aren't the only sign of Trump's apparent anti-science stance. His pick to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has made a career of challenging the agencies environmental regulations. Trump has also reportedly tapped vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr., who has erroneously linked vaccines with autism, to lead a commission into immunization safety.

RELATED: Will Trump Go After Vaccine Science?

Australian scientists have not faced directives limiting interaction with the media and public like those imposed by Trump, but several said political interference has taken different forms.

"It's primarily lack of funding, pulling out government support, and public campaigns that undermine and belittle scientific achievements," Khan said.

After taking office in 2013, former prime minister Tony Abbott slashed science funding, abolished climate science programs and chose not to appoint a science minister for the first time since 1931.

Funding for Australia's main research grants body, the Australian Research Council, was cut by $74.9 million; the national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, had its funding slashed by $111 million.

As a result, severe job losses including up to 110 roles in the organization's Oceans and Atmosphere division were announced by CSIRO in February 2016. The decision was reversed and extra resources allocated to climate change research only after a public outcry and widespread international criticism.

"It was a brutal act to try and force compliance and control because they didn't regard the organisation to be sufficiently beholden to government directives," Dr. Michael Borgas, a climate scientist and former president of the CSIRO staff association, said.

RELATED: Cities Are Tackling Climate Change by Freeing Their Data

Abbott, who once declared that climate change was "absolute crap," was ousted by Malcolm Turnbull in a party coup in September 2015, but key science policies have remained intact.

In fact, the Turnbull government has proven it's not above scrubbing science from the record.

In May 2016, it was revealed the Australian government intervened to have all mentions of the country removed from a UNESCO report on climate change impacts at world heritage areas.

One of three Australian case studies, the Great Barrier Reef, experienced its worst coral bleaching ever in 2015-2016, an event scientists said was 175 times more likely because of human-caused climate change.

More than 93 percent of the smaller reefs that make up the wider ecosystem were affected by bleaching and preliminary surveys have shown widespread reef mortality.

"I was confidentially told by the editor of the report that the Australian government asked that the Great Barrier Reef case study and two others that referred to Australia were taken out of the report," said Professor Will Steffen, a climate science expert at the Australia National University, who reviewed the Great Barrier Reef chapter.

The Australian government later admitted the request was made because the reef's inclusion may have impacted tourism.

Borgas, who spent 15 years advocating for employees at CSIRO, said there were lessons from the Australian experience that could be useful to scientists in the U.S.

Participating in a trade union or scientific society that advocated for the rights of scientists was a good start, he said. But he also urged U.S. scientists to keep speaking out about threats to science integrity.

"Scientists sometimes don't like to be politically engaged," said Borgas. "But it's something you have to do. You have to learn to do it."

WATCH: The Difference Between Global Warming and Climate Change

Read the original here:

Australian Scientists Who Faced Censorship Have Advice for Dealing With Trump - Seeker

Will Facebook’s Fake-News Detection System Lead to Censorship? – Truthdig

Facebooks application for Patent 0350675 is either a smart method to use artificial intelligence to root out fake news or a potentially dangerous way of imposing censorship on muckraking media and political satire.

The threat of censorship is especially worrisome now that the search for fake news is becoming automated, with computers guided by artificial intelligence aiding human censors.

Facebook is a leader. It has applied for a patent for a computer device that would have the capability of sweeping through Facebook posts, searching for keywords, sentences, paragraphs or even the way a story is framed. The computer would spot content that includes objectionable material. This vague phrase seems to leave the door open for Facebook to censor opinion or unconventional posts that are out of the mainstream, although the company denies it has that intent.

I heard about such automated searching last year when I was working on a story for Truthdig about an organization called PropOrNot. It had compiled a blacklist of more than 200 news outlets that it said were running pro-Kremlin propaganda, and Truthdig was on the list. In the course of finding out how PropOrNot compiled the list and how Truthdig was added to it, I interviewed a well-known communications scholar, professor Jonathan Albright of Elon University in North Carolina.

Albright told me the information was collected basically through an algorithm, or set of instructions to a computer for sweeping or scraping websites or other material on the internetsimilar to what intelligence agents do in examining emails.

The computer would be instructed to tag words, sentences, paragraphs or even how the story is framed. I theorized that was how PropOrNot works, scraping sites in search of material that would fit its description of purveyors of Russian propaganda. Apparently, Truthdig and some other publications were incorrectly caught up in a PropOrNot sweep. PropOrNot, which operates in anonymity, told me my description of its methodology was generally correct.

In the course of our conversation, professor Albright told me Facebook was trying to develop a patent for a fake-news detection system.

His fear is that it is turning into a form of censorship or could be developed as censorship. He said he was concerned that Facebook, Google or the government could develop filters to determine what is [supposedly] fake and make decisions about that. They could hunt for particular words, sentences and ways the news is framed. Dissent could be filtered out, as could articles with unusual, non-mainstream slants. There are going to be keywords and language that will not be standard, and alternative voices will be buried, Albright said.

That concerned me. I dont, of course, like fake news of the kind that proliferated during the last election and afterward. Facebook, with its millions of users, is a target for people posting false news. Aware of that, Facebook has partnered with well-known news and fact-checking organizations to root out such news. They are ABC, FactCheck.org, The Associated Press, Snopes and PolitiFact.

I wanted to know how Facebook and these organizations determine what exactly constituted fake news. Thinking of how PropOrNot wrongly portrayed Truthdig and other news media as purveyors of Kremlin propaganda, I feared that Facebook and its news collaborators could end up wrongly censoring posts, particularly those of opinion-oriented publications and websites like ours.

I found the Facebook patent application (a Facebook representative told me the company often applies for patents and that shouldnt be taken as an indicator of future plans). I also discovered an article last November by Casey Newton on The Verge website explaining the application, which was most helpful to me, a non-technical person.

The application envisions using artificial intelligence to scan material that is scored by the computer and given a value. Based on that, it can be determined whether the content items include objectionable material.

Determining what passes Facebook tests are the social networks community standards. The standards, in brief, ban some nudity, hate speech, images glorifying sadism or violence, bullying and promotion of suicide, terrorism and organized crime. Violation of these standards could mean removal of a post from the Facebook site or its relegation to the bottom of the newsfeed, severely limiting readership.

I asked Facebook how this worked. A representative said that once a post is flagged, either by a person or the computer, it is turned over to teams of multilingual employees who are trained in maintaining community standards.

What about opinions that many consider outrageous or wrong? In December 2015, I wrote a column comparing Donald Trump with Hitler, and people told me I was wrong or at least way off the mark. Would comparing Trump to such an evil mass murderer constitute hate speech and be a violation of the standards? The Facebook representative said the company was not seeking to censor opinion or limit freedom of expression.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebooks founder and CEO, has acknowledged that dealing with an opinion piece requires caution. In a Facebook post, he wrote that many stories express an opinion that many will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when factual. I am confident we can find ways for our community to tell us what content is most meaningful, but I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.

Others are not sure how this would work out. I asked USC professor Mike Ananny, another respected internet communications scholar, if Facebooks automated data search, combined with its community standards, could be used to censor Truthdig or similar opinion journals.

Its a good question, he replied in an email. I dont believe Facebook would intentionally try to bury opinion sites like Truthdig, but ultimately, we have to take them at their word because we dont have the access required to interrogate and audit their systems. Even if it has intentions that we think align with our editorial values, we just dont know how these intentions play out when they are translated into opaque algorithmic systems.

Kalev Leetaru, a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security, wrote in Forbes last December, Remarkably, there has been no mention of how Facebook will arbitrate cases where journalists object to one of their articles being labeled as fake news and no documented appeals process for how to overturn such rulings. Indeed, this is in keeping with Facebooks opaque black box approach to editorial control on its platform. We simply have no insight into the level and intensity of research that went into a particular label, the identities of the fact checkers and the source material they used to confirm or deny an article the result is the same form of trust us, we know best that the Chinese government uses in its censorship efforts.

Leetarus mention of China brings to mind a new law that initiates an American government effort to identify and counter what officials consider propaganda from foreign nations.

In December, President Barack Obama signed legislation authored by Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut that greatly increases the federal governments power to find and counter what officials consider government propaganda from Russia, China and other nations and provides a two-year, $160 million appropriation. It would create a web of government fake-news hunters.

Portmans office said the legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques.

Its bad enough that Facebook and its media colleagues will be scrubbing and scraping for fake news, deciding whether investigative or opinion articles fit into that category. Creating a government fake-news search complexespecially with this Trump administrationis much worse.

Journalisms job is to cover government deeds and to shed light on actions that reporters, editors, publishers and the public consider wrong. It is journalisms obligation to investigate and explain government on behalf of the public.

This is muckraking, the word I used at the beginning of this column.

Merriam-Webster says the word dates back to the 17th century and means to search out and publicly expose real or apparent misconduct of a prominent individual or business. The Cambridge Dictionary says muckraking is trying to find out unpleasant information about people or organizations in order to make it public.

President Theodore Roosevelt used the term as an insult to reporters. They, being contrarians, wore the term as a badge of honor, as they still do.

Theres a difference between muckraking and fake news. Determining the difference is too difficult for a computer, even one with the smartest kind of artificial intelligence.

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

See more here:

Will Facebook's Fake-News Detection System Lead to Censorship? - Truthdig

Free speech should not be zoned – The Denver Post

We are experiencing a new era in our nation, one characterized by polarity, equally unpopular opinions, and designated free speech zones. A recent poll found 77 percent of Americans perceive the nation as divided, I suspect that number is climbing. Nowhere are the tensions as pointed as on college campuses.

In this time of a great lack of mutual understanding, we can choose our communities, our news, our schools, and all too often we find ourselves living in a bubble of our own creation. While I am an ardent proponent of all the choices a free-market society allows us, we cannot permit our choices to permanently shield us from anything we do not like.

In times like these, I recall my own experiences growing up in an uncertain world. Often, my opinions were unpopular, but it was the resulting debates and friendly challenges that helped me learn, grow, and determine my core values. It is with those counterbalances in mind that I bring Senate Bill 62 to protect Colorado students constitutionally granted First Amendment right to free speech. I want todays youth to find the folks who challenge them and cherish those differences instead of shrinking from them.

Traditionally, universities are bastions of free speech and the open exchange of ideas. College students and faculty across the nation catalyzed countless movements, pushing back against the status quo and demanding change at times when change was unthinkable. Few people voiced their opinions louder than students, championing diversity of thought and wide array of backgrounds, beliefs, and visions for our future. Recently, however universities struggle with thoughtful debate, and instead put forth a litany of criteria for students to exercise their rights to speech, the most egregious of which requires students to limit their opinions to free speech zones. These zones are contrary to the very missions of universities.

Once we limit free speech to a zone, we indicate to our students that free speech does not exist anywhere beyond that zone. Is that the message we want to send to future generations about our nations core values?

It is possible to promote safety, high standards for education, and free speech rights simultaneously. I understand that maintaining the integrity and sanctity of education and keeping every student safe will always be a chief concern for universities. To that end, my bill allows these institutions the right to reasonable restrictions. Demonstrations which disrupt the primary mission of an undisturbed education or pose a threat to the safety of others may be curtailed when appropriate. Instead of shutting down debate, it is imperative that institutions offer ample alternative channels for communications of the students messages so that views and expressions dissimilar to the universities are given the opportunity free speech deserves.

Elected officials have a duty to citizens, an obligation to ensure that their liberties remain intact. The state legislature has a responsibility to strengthen our constitutional rights whenever possible, regardless of its political expediency. Indeed, how much we value the right to free speech is put to the test when we disagree with the speaker the most. When one of us is denied our First Amendment rights we are all denied, and free expression of all ideas, popular or not, must be safeguarded without interpretation or subjectivity. If we can have this strong dialogue and exchange in the public square, it bodes well for our nations future.

We send our kids to colleges and universities with the hope that they learn to challenge themselves, to grow and develop those skills that will see them through as tomorrows leaders who will continue to champion the core principles of our nation. We have to continue to teach our children that in order to be free, they must also be brave.

Please follow SB 62 as it progresses from the Senate to the House and share your support with your Representatives.

State Sen. Tim Neville is a Republican legislator from Jefferson County, representing Senate District 16.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

See the original post here:

Free speech should not be zoned - The Denver Post

4 US States Consider Free Speech Laws To Fight Censorship and ‘Safe Spaces’ On Campus – Heat Street

Four US states are considering legislation that would ensure free speech on college campuses and prohibit universities fromshielding people from offensive and controversial ideas.

Most states were put on alert after the eruption of violence at the University of California, Berkeley, whereMilo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech.His event was cancelled over safety fears.

President Trump has put the issue of free speech on campus in the spotlight after hethreatened to withdraw federal funds from universities that dont honor the First Amendment rights.

Virginia

Earlier this week, the Virginias House of Delegates passed bill HB1301aimed at protecting freedom of speech on campus. The bill reaffirms that public colleges and universities in the state are covered by the First Amendment.

The full text of the law reads: Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus.

House Democratic leader David Toscano celebrated the bill, saying:Any time we have the chance to support the First Amendment we should do that.

Its a good idea to celebrate the First Amendment. We want our campuses to be noisy, we want people to debate things, he added.

Colorado

In Colorado,the Senate Education Committee approved abill defending the constitutionally granted rights of Colorado students. The bill would prohibit governmentfunded colleges from restricting students First Amendment rights to free speech in any way. According to the draft of the bill, free speech includes speaking, distributing materials, or holding a sign.

The bill also requires convertingexisting so-called free speech zonesa campus phenomena where only at certain places students are able to exercise free speechinto monuments or memorials.

Free speech zones are counterintuitive to our core values, we should never falter in our defense of our constitutional rights or confine a free exchange of ideas, explained Senator Tim Neville, who introduced the bill.

Students on Colorado campuses are growing into the leaders of tomorrow, and restricting their fundamental rights as they seek out truth and knowledge is contrary to the American spirit as well as the mission of universities, he added.

North Dakota

North Dakota is also considering a bill to fight the onslaught of safe spaces and ensure the Constitution that guarantees free speech is protected in the states public universities.

Republican State Rep. Rick Becker sponsor of House Bill 1329, said the proposed legislation is aresponse to an attitude that free speech is not free speech at universities, where free expression is stifledby university policy.

There is an atmosphere of political correctness and social justice that will lead to safe spaces and this whole concept on every campus, hesaid. We have to put a stop to it now.

The bill would confirm free speech as a fundamental right and demand the governing body of the North Dakota University System to a ratify a policy of free speech.

The policy would require acommitment to free and open inquiry by students in all matters and outlaw any restrictions on speech, unless it violates other laws or disrupts the universitys functions.

It would also require tocontain a bill of student rights that would prohibitcolleges in North Dakota from subjecting students to any nonacademic punishment, discipline or censorship for exercising their free speech.

Becker cited the violence last week at the University of California, Berkeley during the protests againstMilo Yiannopoulos, claiming theres a growth of anti-speech rhetoric on college campuses.

North Carolina

The States Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has announced his intention to work with the General Assembly to pass the Restore Campus Free Speech act, a law closely based onthe model campus free speech legislationthat would guarantee free speech at universities.

North Carolina will be the first state to use the model law by the Goldwater Institute think tank and turn it into an actual legislative proposal. AsHeat Streethas reported, the model proposalincludes a toughlegal regime to ensure free speech.

The law would prohibit colleges in North Carolina from banning speakers, creating safe spaces with the intention of shielding students from certain ideas and opinions, harsh sanctions for those limiting free speech including expulsion, and even a $1,000 fine if university violates free speech rights.

Follow this link:

4 US States Consider Free Speech Laws To Fight Censorship and 'Safe Spaces' On Campus - Heat Street

One bill aims to protect free speech on college campuses – WHSV

HARRISONBURG, Va (WHSV) -- A bill in the General Assembly looks to make sure speech, and other freedoms on college campuses, remain protected.

The bill was introduced by local delegate Steve Landes, and has passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 76 to 19.

The bill prevents colleges and universities from "abridging the freedom of any individual" including students, faculty, staff and guests.

This is timely after the incidents at U.C. Berkeley last week, when the campus was damaged by riots after a right wing speaker was scheduled to speak on campus.

"When there is dialogue, when there is respect for differing opinions, that is when the university is a better place, it comes together as a community. We respect differing opinions, so hopefully nothing like that will ever happen here at James Madison," said Bill Wyatt, the James Madison University spokesperson.

Landes said in a statement, "The legislation is an expansion of existing code to protect those who otherwise were not included."

He also mentioned instances nationwide, where free speech has been infringed.

Here is Del. Steve Landes' full statement on the bill:

House Bill 1401 prohibits public institutions of higher education from abridging the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus, except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I introduced this bill to ensure our institutions of higher education encourage healthy debate and prevent censorship of contrary viewpoints or perceived controversial speech. The legislation is an expansion of existing code to protect those who otherwise were not included. There have been instances nationwide where free speech has been infringed. While free speech on college campuses is theoretically protected by the First Amendment, there have been instances where it has been suppressed. This legislation will safeguard speech on our campuses and guarantee that our students are exposed to a wide variety of ideas and opinions and afforded the opportunity to express themselves as well. -Del. R. Steven Landes

You can read the summary of and track the bill here.

See original here:

One bill aims to protect free speech on college campuses - WHSV

Milo Yiannopoulous: Free Speech or Hate Speech? | villanovan – Villanovan (subscription)

On Feb. 1, the University of California Berkley canceled the appearance of right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulous about one hour after protests began on campus. Students set fires and threw objects. A lockdown was in place for six hours following the start of the protests. Violence also occurred at Yiannopoulous last public appearance, at the University of Washington, where one of Yiannopoulous supporters shot a protester in the stomach. Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher reportedly had credible sources stating that Yiannopoulous would out undocumented students at Berkeley during his speech.

Yiannopoulous and Donald Trump both agree that Berkeley students reactions indicate that they do not tolerate free speech. Many argue that Yiannopoulous represents a point of view that liberals disagree with, but that he should be allowed to speak, lest college students allow their intellectual skills to atrophy, as they remained coddled in liberal bubbles.

The University temporarily faced a similar situation. A group of students circulated an electronic invitation to generate interest for Yiannopoulous to appear on campus. Its worth noting and remembering the reason that Student Life and other university officials denied Yiannopoulous from being approved as a speaker. He was not allowed to speak on campus, not because of what he said, but rather how he said it.

To me, how an institution deals with the prospect of Yiannopoulous appearing on campus is a litmus test of its character. Im proud that Villanova chose to hold up the values of dialogue and genuine engagement rather than entertain a hateful agitator who seeks to rile others with incendiary remarks rather than have conversations that revolve around genuine issues.

Yiannopoulous is banned from Twitter for targeting abuse and inciting abuse against actress Leslie Jones. He popularized the Gamergate scandal, encouraged supporters to catcall women, referred to both Islam and feminism as cancer and called transgendered people mentally ill. Many college students who are protesting are frustrated by the very notion that he should even be entertained or legitimized as a public figurethis deep seeded frustration at the most basic levels creates divides in terms of what one considers civil or within the realm of acceptability.

An individual who presented thoughtful arguments rather than fundamental disrespect for marginalized identities decoratively re-packaged in the form of his personal brand would far better serve the liberal bubble of college campuses.

Visit link:

Milo Yiannopoulous: Free Speech or Hate Speech? | villanovan - Villanovan (subscription)

Freedom of SpeechLet’s Stop The BS – Huffington Post

Tom Lowery Entrepreneur, author, financial controller, corporate training specialist This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

To be ignorant of ones ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

Amos Bronson Alcott

The populist viewpoint, that we can say whatever we want to, appears to reign supremely on the topic of Freedom of Speech (and Freedom of Expression). A well-considered perspective about it, one that questions itself constantly, is rarely the case.

And yet, the Western mentalityand those who claim to have Enlightenment values of evidentiary thinking, rationality, objectivity, and independent thoughtconsistently displays an astounding lack of sophistication and depth when it comes to understanding the world and how it really works, as opposed to how they assume it works, or even how they might like it to work.

Many hold the view that we live in a society that protects all forms of speech. Thats a pretense upon which no facts are in evidence. Perhaps if we compare our Western societies with those of many in the East, it might appear to be so. But that position rests on very soft ground.

Theres nothing "free" about free speech. The very nature of speech is that it carries a price-tagprivilege.

In truth, freedom of speech is a sometime thing. When we do enjoy freedom of speech we do so while exercising our privilegesnot rights. Otherwise, why would our Founding Fathers have gone to such great lengths to enshrine those very privileges within our Constitution?

In his well conceived article for The Federalist Blog, Original MeaningFreedom of Speech and of the Press, P.A. Madison expounded on many factual assessments, including these two:

A blanket acceptance that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, regardless of how hateful, is insulting to anyone who has thought long and hard about all sides of the concept. Do we really have the right (i.e. privilege) to be racists and bigots and to insult and to cause harm with impunity? Or is there a price to pay when we overstep those rights (i.e. privileges)? The latter is more often true than not.

The problem with a lack of critical thought versus blas acceptance is that its enshrined in a dishonest claim: we in West stand for a universal "right" to offend and freedom of expression. Do we really?

Anyone who is considering the concepts of FOS/FOE might like to set aside their unfettered positions and reflect more carefully before digging their feet too firmly into their own soft ground.

In todays world, we do not accept racist depictions of American Indians or Blacks or Hispanics, negative stereotypes of gays or anti-Semitic cartoons. Our Western society has shifted greatly when it comes to drawing a line between hate speech and acceptable speech. In fact, for hundreds of years in the West, speaking out against things like religion or politics was also unacceptable, and could land you in what the English refer to as Queer Street. Thats hardly the makings of free and unfettered speechis it?

The topic of FOS/FOE, became a hot button one around the time of the Charlie Hebdo shooting (prompted by Islamic cartoons). Some argued that we should ban these kinds of cartoons because they cause upset and insult to others. The French people rose up in unison about their rights to FOS/FOE.

Despite the fact that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (adopted during the French Revolution in 1789) set forth freedom of speech as an inalienable right, Article 11 goes on to say that:

This clearly suggests a fine line when it comes to FOS. But as with our Founding Fathers, many of us dislike bans of any kind. We dont trust the state when it comes to censorship, largely because of how the state often protects the freedom of the privileged and suppresses the freedom of the disenfranchised. A glance at our current POTUS and the Betsy DeVos debacle are fine examples.

A friend of mine suggested that Article 11 in Frances Declaration put those rights back into the hands of the legislature. But this very legislative process allows for the privilege of FOS/FOE. To put it crassly, the chicken is the legislationthe egg is the privilege. And the chickenat least in this casecame first.

Rather than debate to ban or not to ban, perhaps a better idea would be to consider why we have allowed ourselves the luxury to develop our Western culture in such a way that the feelings of othersin the case of Hebdo, Muslims, and, despite questionable Prop 8 activities, Mormonsare not as legitimate and can be discarded.

At the time of the Hebdo business, I too was inclined to think Hebdo was merely exercising its Freedom of Expression. I was never bothered by any of their depictions over the years, why should anyone else be? Ive since had reason to regret my own shallow assumptions.

Had I paused to consider Hebdo from a perspective other than my own, I might have realized Hebdo had a responsibility along with their privileges. In exercising their own benefits, did they in fact reinforce Islamophobia? Other writers said as much at the time. Where my ears closed? Or was I ignoring the obvious because I wasnt personally involved in that particular issue?

We obviously have no issues when it comes to protecting some groups from potentially racist-based attacks. Yet others are cannon fodder for our privileges to FOS/FOE. Thats a helluva lot of hypocrisy.

We here in the West have double standards when it comes to FOS/FOEbe they standards of the far right or the far left. The same is true when it comes to immigrants, citizenship and many other interrelated issues.

Until our so-called Western values relating to FOS/FOE become well-balanced between our own privileges and the privileges of others, I personally cannot bang on about mine when it comes to speaking my mind (something I do freely).

Its time to stop the bullshit and open up a sensible dialogue, free from populist beliefs and comfort zones. How can we do that? Here are a few suggestions:

When weve begun to question more about our so-called superior Western values and systems, perhaps the signs carried by the left and the right while marching and demonstrating might have a more constructive and instructive appeal.

Who knows? People might even begin to think twice about their reactive comments onlineeven me.

See the article here:

Freedom of SpeechLet's Stop The BS - Huffington Post

Democrats should honor all types of freedom of speech – Bowling Green Daily News

Last fall, the Democrats were upset that Donald Trump was not going to accept the outcome of the November election.

Guess what? They lost and now they are not accepting the fact that President Trump won. I thought everyone knew that the Electoral College elected the new president!

Many members of the U.S. House of Representatives, (all progressive Democrats) chose not to attend the celebration of the swearing in of our new president. That afternoon, the election of our 45th president was celebrated by a riot in our nations capital, which included the burning of vehicles and destroying public and private property. Many Democrats supported the protesters, saying they were exercising their rights of freedom of speech and assembly. I was not aware that riots, setting fires and destroying private and public property were parts of the First Amendment of the Constitution. I wonder why many of the protesters were wearing masks if they were proud of their behavior?

How about the riot in Oakland, Calif.? The protesters were protesting a conservative speaker appearing on a college campus. It would appear that freedom of speech and assembly only applies if you are a progressive Democrat! Once again, protesters, using their constitutional right of free speech and assembly, wear masks, riot, set fires to and destroy public and private property, all in the name of democracy.

In the elections of 2008 and 2012, I did not vote for Barack Obama, but I accepted him as our president. I vented my peaceful opposition to him by voting in all future elections and supporting those candidates with views and values similar to mine.

Continue reading here:

Democrats should honor all types of freedom of speech - Bowling Green Daily News