These Four Black Women Inventors Reimagined the Technology of the Home – Smithsonian

As 19th century urban living became more cramped, some women began to reinvent the domestic sphere with technology.

In 1888, a woman named Sarah Goode applied for and was granted a patent in Chicago, Illinois. Goode had just conceptualized what she called the "cabinet-bed,"a bed designed to fold out into a writing desk. Meeting the increasing demands of urban living in small spaces, Goode invented the cabinet-bed so as to occupy less space, and made generally to resemble some article of furniture when so folded.

Goode was a 19thcentury inventor who reimagined the domestic space to make city living more efficient. Yet unless youre a very specific kind of historian, youve probably never heard of her name. She doesnt appear in history books, and what she did remains largely unknown. The same goes for Mariam E. Benjamin, Sarah Boone and Ellen Elginall 19thcentury African-American women who successfully gained patents in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

In a post-Civil War America, job opportunities and social mobility for African-American citizens were highly restricted. The obstacles for African-American women were even stronger. Universities seldom accepted womenlet alone women of colorinto their programs. And most careers in science and engineering, paid or unpaid, remained closed off to them for decades to come.

Women faced similar discrimination in the patent office, as law professor Deborah Merritt notes in her article Hypatia in the Patent Office, published in The American Journal of Legal History. Restrictive state laws, poor educational systems, condescending cultural attitudes, and limited business opportunities combined to hamper the work of female inventors, Merritt writes. And in the era of Reconstruction, [r]acism and a strictly segregated society further encumbered female inventors of color.

As a result, historians can identify only four African-American women who were granted patents for their inventions between 1865, the end of the Civil War, and the turn of the 19th century. Of these, Goode was the first.

The second was schoolteacher named Mariam E. Benjamin. Benjamin was granted her patent by the District of Columbia in 1888 for something called the gong and signal chair. Benjamins chair allowed for its occupant to signal when service was needed through a crank that would simultaneously sound a gong and display a red signal (think of it as the precursor to the call button on your airplane seat, which signals for a flight attendant to assist you).

Benjamin had grand plans for her design, which she laid out in her patent paperwork. She wanted her chair to be used indining-rooms, in hotels, restaurants, steamboats, railroad-trains, theaters, the hall of the Congress of the United States, the halls of the legislatures of the various States, for the use of all deliberative bodies, and for the use of invalids in hospitals. Intending to see her invention realized,Benjamin lobbiedto have her chair adopted for use in the House of Representatives. Though a candidate, the House opted for another means to summon messengers to the floor.

Next was Sarah Boone, who received a U.S. government patent from the state of Connecticut for animprovement on the ironing board in 1892. Before her improvement, ironing boards were assembled by placing a board between two supports. Boones design, which consisted of hinged and curved ends, made it possible to iron the inside and outside seam of slim sleeves and the curved waist of womens dresses.

In her patent paperwork, Boone writes: My invention relates to an improvement in ironing-boards, the object being to produce a cheap, simple, convenient, and highly effective device, particularly adapted to be used in ironing the sleeves and bodies of ladies garments.

Ellen Elgin might be completely unknown as an inventor if not for her testimony in an 1890 Washington, D.C. periodicalThe Woman Inventor, the first publication of its kind devoted entirely to women inventors. Elgin invented a clothes wringer in 1888, which had great financial success according to the writer. But Elgin did not personally reap the profits, because she sold the rights to an agent for $18.

When asked why, Elgin replied: You know, I am black, and if it was known that a negro woman patented the invention, white ladies would not buy the wringer; I was afraid to be known because of my color in having it introduced to the market, that is the only reason.

Disenfranchised groups often participated in science and technology outside of institutions. For women, that place was the home. Yet although we utilize its many tools and amenities to make our lives easier and more comfortable, the home is not typically regarded as a hotbed of technological advancement. It lies outside our current understanding of technological changeand so, in turn, do women, like Goode, Benjamin, Boone, and Elgin, who sparked that change.

When I asked historian of technology Ruth Schwartz Cowan why domestic technology is not typically recognized as technology proper, she gave two main reasons. First, [t]he definition of what technology is has shrunk so much in the last 20 years, she says. Many of us conceptualize technology through a modernand limitedframework of automation, computerization, and digitization. So when we look to the past, we highlight the inventions that appear to have led to where we are todaywhich forces us to overlook much of the domestic technology that has made our everyday living more efficient.

The second reason, Cowan says, is that we usually associate technology with males, which is just false. For over a century, the domestic sphere has been coded as female, the domain of women, while science, engineering, and the workplace at large has been seen as the realm of men. These associations persist even today, undermining the inventive work that women have done in the domestic sphere. Goode, Benjamin, Boone and Elgin were not associated with any university or institution. Yet they invented new technology based on what they knew through their lived experiences, making domestic labor easier and more efficient.

One can only guess how many other African American women inventors are lost to history because of restricted education possibilities and multiple forms of discrimination, we may never know who they are. This does not mean, however, that women of color were not therelearning, inventing, shaping the places in which we have lived. Discrimination kept the world from recognizing them during their lifetimes, and the narrow framework by which we define technology keeps them hidden from us now.

Original post:

These Four Black Women Inventors Reimagined the Technology of the Home - Smithsonian

Broadcaster dangles new technology for Winter Olympics – Reuters

By Ossian Shine | St Moritz, Switzerland

St Moritz, Switzerland With the Winter Olympics just a year away, Europe's broadcast rights holder is dangling a host of technological breakthroughs - from "ghost skiers" to performance patches - which it says will enhance the drama of the Pyeongchang Games.

Feb. 9 marks the one year countdown to the South Korean Games, and Eurosport CEO Peter Hutton says the sports broadcaster will spend that year continuing to test new technology as it looks to revolutionize coverage.

"Subject to all the approvals from federations and the International Olympic Committee, I'm hopeful we will be able to use some very cool technology to bring more data to the sports than ever before," Hutton told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Skiing Championships. "We've seen tests of patches which show not only heart rate and positioning of athletes, but can also show how tired an athlete is, or how much power they are using.

"These patches feed data direct to viewers, or to commentators which can make sport more understandable... more dramatic."

Hutton said he was confident the technology would mark a big leap forward for sports viewers and that he had held talks with sports federations eager to harness the data for themselves.

"Some of this data is really revolutionary, the challenge now is knowing what to do with it, how to use it to tell stories."

One of the most compelling technologies being tested is the use of "ghost skier" graphics depicting the last run, or quickest run so far, to compare with the skier on the course.

"It is not as easy as you might think... everything happens so quickly," production head Arnand Simon told Reuters.

"With the human eye it is very, very difficult to be able to tell who is doing better or who is leading. But with technology we can show many aspects from a skiers speed to their acceleration."

Hutton says the "ghost skier" could transform the viewing experience in a way similar to the world record line being beamed onto swimming races.

"It instantly puts the performance in context," he said.

Initially, the technology would have to be voluntary, Hutton said, but the Paris-based Englishman does not see that as a barrier. "We have seen cyclists asking for technology to be put on their bikes, he laughed. "Because it puts them centre stage in the story... and typically athletes like to be centre stage."

Eurosport, through parent company Discovery Communications, bought the exclusive multimedia rights to broadcasting the Olympics in some 50 countries and territories in Europe in a 1.3 billion Euros ($1.37 billion) deal which began on Jan. 1 and takes them through to the 2024 Olympic Games.

(Editing by Richard Lough)

Sacramento Kings power forward DeMarcus Cousins is facing a suspension after receiving his 16th technical foul of the season on Monday against the Chicago Bulls.

ST MORITZ, Switzerland Lindsey Vonn's first run at the World Championships lasted just a few seconds on Tuesday when the American slid out of the Super-G in St Moritz.

NEW YORK Heavyweight boxing champion Deontay Wilder and Russian boxer Alexander Povetkin battled in court on Tuesday, at a trial over a title bout that was called off after the Russian tested positive for a banned substance.

See original here:

Broadcaster dangles new technology for Winter Olympics - Reuters

A flare for self-destruction: How technology is the means, not the cause, of our demise – National Post

A flare for self-destruction: How technology is the means, not the cause, of our demise
National Post
Catastrophic, because of our now far more interconnected technology, according to the opening section of The Dark Side of Technology by Peter Townsend, a professor of experimental physics in engineering. Despite an uneven style and an unwarranted ...

and more »

Read the original post:

A flare for self-destruction: How technology is the means, not the cause, of our demise - National Post

Ossia hires new CEO to help commercialize its wireless charging technology – GeekWire

Ossia CEO Mario Obeidat. Photo via Ossia.

Ossia has hired a new leader as the Bellevue, Wash.-based company prepares to commercialize its wireless charging technology.

Long-time tech executive Mario Obeidat is Ossias new CEO. He takes over forDidier Le Lannic, who joined the company this past March but isstepping down to explore other opportunities closer to his home and family in San Francisco.

Obeidat was previously vice presidentof licensing at Pendrell Corporation and head of telecommunications licensing at Intellectual Ventures. Hes also served as an advisor to Ossia for the past six years and is now leading the company at a critical time.

Founded in 2008, Ossia has spent nearly a decade developing its Cota technology that can charge electronic devices wirelesslywithout wires or pads. The 40-person company has raised $50 million from investors like Intel Capital, KDDI, Molex, and others.

For me, leading Ossia is a natural extension of things Ive done over the past 20 years: Lead technology organizations on a commercialization path, Obeidat told GeekWire.

Obeidat said Ossia is ready to go to market. The company recently released a reference design kit for Cota, allowing other companies to build the wireless technology into their own products. It is also working withother household-name consumer electronic makers, as Obeidat noted, to license Cota into products like smartphones, IoT devices, wearables, and more.

Were talking about a year or so until you see devices that will have Cota technology in them, Obeidat said.

Ossia has appeared at events like the Consumer Electronics Show it was named a Best of Innovation Awards Honoree at CES last month to show how Cota can charge devices wirelessly up to 20 feet away, through walls and around objects. It does thisby sending out a low-power signal from a base transmitterto Cota-equipped devices.

Ossia is fundamentally transforming the way consumers will use power, Obeidat said. Consumers will no longer have to be stuck next to electrical outlets to power devices. Its a huge transformation.

Its been quite the journey for Ossia and its founder, Hatem Zeine, who started the company in 2008 and shifted from a CEO position to CTO last year. Zeine first showed GeekWire some of Ossias early prototypes in 2014.

I want my 3-year-old to grow up and neverknow about charging devices, Zeine said at the time.

Ossia is still going through the regulatory process to get its technology approved.

Cota is inherently a very safe technology, Obeidat said. Were confident well be able to pass all the regulatory requirements.

There are plenty of other companies like uBeamand Energous, for example also developing their own wireless charging technology. But competitors havent shown off their products like Ossia, Obeidat said.

No other company has done a public demo to show that they can power a device from 20 feet away, he noted.

See the original post:

Ossia hires new CEO to help commercialize its wireless charging technology - GeekWire

Microsoft’s AI group debuts customizable speech-to-text technology, rapidly expanding ‘cognitive services’ for … – GeekWire

Microsofts Artificial Intelligence and Research Group, a major new engineering and research division formed last year inside the Redmond company, is debutinganew technology that lets developers customizeMicrosofts speech-to-text engine for use in their own apps and online services.

Thenew Custom Speech Service is set for releasetoday asa public preview. Microsoft says itletsdevelopers upload a unique vocabulary such as alien names in Human Interacts VR game Starship Commander to produce a sophisticated language model for recognizing voice commands and other speech from users.

Its the latest in a series of cognitive services from Microsofts Artificial Intelligence and Research Group, a 5,000-person division led by Microsoft Research chief Harry Shum. The company says it has expandedfrom four to 25 cognitive services in the last two years, including 19 in preview and six that are generally available.

The company says it will bring two more cognitive services,Content ModeratorandBing Speech API, out of preview and make them generally available next month. Content Moderator analyze images and videowith technology including optical-character and objectrecognition, helping companiesfilter out unwanted content. The Bing Speech API converts audio into text, interprets the intent of the language and converts text back to speech.

Microsoft formed the group to accelerate its artificial intelligenceadvances, aiming get more of its technologies out of the labs and into itsown products as well as its services for third partydevelopers. TheAI and Research Groupalso includes MicrosoftsCortana voice-based assistant and Bing search engine.

The company is competing against rivals including Amazon, Google and others in the booming field of artificial intelligence. AI and machine learningare increasingly becoming integralparts of their cloud platforms, as well.

Microsoftsnew Custom Speech Servicealso includesan acoustic model that cancels out background noise to improvespeech recognition. Microsoft citedthe example of using Custom Speech Service at anairport kiosk where the environmental noise would otherwise make speech recognitionvery difficult.

The combination of a language model and this acoustic model in a single API that is customizable for your vocabulary is truly unique in the market, said Irving Kwong, group program manager, in an interview. In going from a private preview to a public preview, the servicewill be able to take on tens of thousands of new customers.

See the original post:

Microsoft's AI group debuts customizable speech-to-text technology, rapidly expanding 'cognitive services' for ... - GeekWire

The Cost of Progress – Slate Magazine

President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a BET event on the South Lawn of the White House on Oct. 21 in Washington.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The era of Barack Obama is over. Eight years of liberal governance yielding a surprisingly comprehensive list of achievements. A stimulus program that stanched the bleeding of the Great Recession and set the stage for an extended period of job growth and rapid innovation in key sectors of the economy. A bailout of the automotive industry that rescued millions of jobs and saved an entire region from economic ruin. A health reform law that, despite its flaws and problems, patched critical gaps in the U.S. health care system and extended coverage to millions of Americans. A financial reform law that established strict new requirements for banks and made consumer financial protection a key priority of the federal government. And an ambitious plan to reduce carbon emissions and spare the world from the worst consequences of global climate change. Within each of these, you could find smaller programs that brought outsize impact, seemingly modest initiatives that, if they happened under any other Democratic president, would be praised as major achievements.

Jamelle Bouie isSlates chief political correspondent.

Or at least, thats the argument New York magazines Jonathan Chait makes in his early retrospective on the Obama presidency, Audacity: How Barack Obama Defied His Critics and Created a Legacy That Will Prevail. And in the wake of recent eventsthe election of Donald Trump, his inauguration, and his rapid move to implement an ethno-nationalist, plutocratic agendaits almost a comforting argument. As Chait writes, Barack Obamas presidency represented one of those great bursts. It was a vision and incarnation of an American future. His enemies rage against and long to restore a past of rigid social hierarchy or a threadbare state that yields to the economically powerful. But he, not they, represents the values of the youngest Americans and the world they will one day inhabit.

There is no doubt that some portion of Obamas presidency will endure. Republicans are just now, for example, beginning to see the massive political challenge involved in repealing the Affordable Care Act and upending the health care system as it presently exists. But Chait, in his optimism, understates the force of backlash, of the fierce reaction that always meets progress and often overtakes it, both as it exists and as it can exist. And his confidence that Obamas legacy will survive gives short shrift to how backlash isnt just a bump on the road to a better future. It is a lived experience, one that can consume entire liveswhole generationsbefore the arc of the universe begins to move back toward progress.

Whats missing from Chaits analysis, put simply, is a sense of tragedy. In that hes not too different from Obama himself, whose soaring invocations of a more perfect union often understated the costs of backlash, even as he acknowledged the possibility. Given his place in the landscape of political journalism, however, its no surprise Chait makes the same omission. Writing from first the New Republic and later New York magazine, Chait has long been a strong defender of the Obama administration and Obama-style liberalism, not just from the right, but from the left as well. Wary of the dogmatism (and increasingly illiberalism) that now defines movement conservatism, Chait also critiques what he sees as the same when it emerges on the left (or more precisely, to his left).

You could see all of thishis affinity for Obama and support of mainstream liberalism, his optimistic view of the present course of American life, and his wariness toward left-wing critiquesin his 2014 exchange with the Atlantic magazines Ta-Nehisi Coates that ranged over topics including welfare reform, the New Republics racial history, the notion of a culture of poverty, and the question of racial optimism. In that debate, which he recapitulates in somewhat veiled form at the beginning of Audacity, he endorses Obamas view of racial progress against Coates more skeptical and circumspect position. It is one thing to notice the persistence of racism, quite another to interpret the history of black America as mainly one of continuity rather than mainly one ofprogress, wrote Chait, a line echoed in the book, as he contends that Obama made substantive progress on advancing racial equality. The growing awareness of racism among liberals during his presidency gave new force and prestige to a belief that racism was endemic not only to [Americas] history but its very character, he observes. When liberals bring up the history of American race relations, they usually emphasize how little has changed, rather than how much.

Audacity is a work of triumphalism, hardly diminished by the outcome of the election.

Chaits self-positioning in the ecosystem of American politics isnt mindless contrarianism. It comes from a sincere belief that liberals (and the left more broadly) are too stubbornly fatalistic to see that Democratic presidents, and Obama in particular, make real headway on their goals and priorities, despite inevitable obstacles, setbacks, and failures. The American state of the present day has a dramatically more progressive cast than it did a half century ago, and it had a more progressive cast a half century ago than it did fifty years before, and on and on. Yet the progressives who produced these victories have lived them as deflating failures. They have made the same errors of perception again and again, writes Chait.

Audacity is his attempt to correct this error. To show progressives that their pessimism and fatalism is unfounded, and to show thatpace their view of the presentObama was a success. A huge one. Obama presented a new vision of America, to the world and to itself. And he had, to a degree hardly anybody recognized at the time, made his vision of a new America real, writes Chait. But heres where the problems begin. Its not that Chait doesnt have a pointalthough, this point may have been stronger had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the presidential contestbut that he overcorrects, understating the real political and policy failures that marked Obamas tenure. He fails to tackle the more sophisticated critiques of the administration, from both the left and the right, typically aiming his counterarguments at Obamas weakest critics instead.

And so, on the recession and housing crash, Chait spends his time dueling with tendentious and partisan opponents like Amity Shlaes and Charles Krauthammerwho slammed any stimulus as unnecessary and harmfulrather than critics like journalist David Dayen, who argues that the administration dropped the ball on housing relief in a way that prolonged economic pain, undermined the recovery, and contributed to the discontent that nearly derailed Obamas presidency at several points, and may yet derail his legacy.

You could lodge a similar complaint about Chaits own treatment of heath care reform in this book. For as much as the Affordable Care Act has been a successand Chait details all the ways that is truehe gives short shift to glaring problems like inadequate subsidies (premiums and deductibles are still too high for many millions of Americans) and the absence of actual universal coverage. Chait is correct to argue that all major social programs are inadequate at the start (Social Security was threadbare and designed to appease Southern segregationists in the Roosevelt coalition), but that doesnt erase the impact of what that means in the moment for actual people.

This gets to the general problem with triumphalist narratives, and Chaits brand of triumphalism in particular. A teleological framing of history tends to discount what it actually means to live through and experience setbacks. The eight-year administration of Ulysses S. Grant saw genuine progress for black Americans. They secured voting rights and won federal protection from racist vigilantes; they elected leaders to the House and Senate, and built thriving communities for themselves. This was dismantled in fairly swift fashion by a backlash of conservative politics and while vigilantism. One way to look at this is to say that, in the long run, Grants legacyand that of those black Americanssurvived. The story since that period has been one of slow progress built on those gains and experiences. But the other way to describe it is as a long twilight, where black Americans struggled under the weight of oppression until circumstances and events allowed them to recover and reassert earlier gains. Yes, there was progress, but at the cost of generations of pain and suffering.

Chaits triumphalism, his teleological view of American history, discounts what it means to experience that twilight. Put in more concrete terms, the fact that Obamas accomplishments will likely endurethe fact that Donald Trump cannot blot them from the recordwill not console the Americans who see family deported, who see children killed by unaccountable police officers, who see the richest Americans siphoning the nations wealth for themselves. Even if we recover from the policies of the Trump administrationeven if a new liberal era emerges in responseit wont change what ordinary people suffered through; it wont restore the loss.

Audacity is a work of triumphalism, hardly diminished by the outcome of the presidential election. And in its confident defense of the mainstream liberal consensus, it fits comfortably into Chaits oeuvre as a writer and a thinker. Which is to say it suffers from the same overconfidence that led those same liberalsObama includedto discount the threat of Donald Trump. Committed to a teleology of progress, albeit open to the reality of historical irony, this liberalism lacks a visceral sense of the tragic. That sense of tragedythat sense that those inevitable reversals engender real pain for real peopleis vital. It puts confidence in its proper context, revealing thateven if we are right about the direction of the worldwe cannot forget the suffering that comes in those zigs and zags of history. Perhaps, if liberals like Chaitor even myselfwere more attuned to that possibility of profound loss, then maybe we would have better anticipated the present moment and all the pain it promises.

Rediscover the joys and surprises of great literature! Spend 2016 reading and discussing six great novels alongside Slate's books and culture columnist Laura Miller and her fellow Slatesters. Join us today.

Read the rest of the pieces in the Slate Book Review.

See more here:

The Cost of Progress - Slate Magazine

IMF: Greece’s Debts are Still Unsustainable, Despite Progress – Voice of America

WASHINGTON

Greece, which has been struggling for years with high debts and painful rates of unemployment, is making progress toward reducing its massive budget problems and restoring economic growth, the International Monetary Fund said Monday.

But the IMF said the country's debts remain unsustainable over the long term.

The IMF predicts Greece's economy will reach long-run growth of just under 1 percent a year, unimpressive but an improvement on years when the economy was shrinking. And Greece will meet the IMF's target by reporting primary annual budget surpluses - which do not include interest payments - equal to 1.5 percent of economic output.

Since the financial crisis left it buried in debt and unable to issue bonds in financial markets, Greece has relied on international bailouts. Its eurozone creditors have forced it to make painful budget cuts that caused a deep recession. Unemployment is 23 percent. Most IMF directors said Greece doesn't need any more austerity. But they said the country should reduce pension payments and make more people pay taxes to raise money to help the poor and cut overall tax rates.

The country's debt is unsustainable at around 180 percent of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic output, the IMF said. Most IMF directors say the country will probably need debt relief to pay its bills over the long term.

Greece is under pressure to conclude its latest bailout negotiations in time for a scheduled Feb. 20 meeting of eurozone finance ministers. That would allow the country to join the European Central Bank's bond-buying program, which would boost market confidence and make it easier for Greece to return to the bond market later this year.

Read more:

IMF: Greece's Debts are Still Unsustainable, Despite Progress - Voice of America

Can US disrupter-in-chief trigger some progress? – Jerusalem Post Israel News

US PRESIDENT Donald Trump salutes as he arrives at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, on Monday. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus first summit with US President Donald Trump probably wont revolutionize the Middle East. But with America reeling from its disruptive new leader, and Israel recovering from the nightmare of extremists clashing with police officers at Amona, there may be an opportunity for a reset.

After eleven years as prime minister, Netanyahu should start taking some risks, to push Israelis and Palestinians beyond the status quo. The despicable violence at Amona demonstrates the dangers of kowtowing to a shrill, aggressive minority. There is no excuse for attacking Israeli security officers these hoodlums should be punished severely. Netanyahu should reduce the absurd million- shekel-per-family bribe he paid Amonas residents to leave, which didnt even buy him peace. Some of these funds should be redirected to compensate every security officer who participated in the eviction doubling the share for the 46 wounded officers. Every Knesset member who respects democracy should endorse a law demanding such adjustments; the settler movement must learn that their violent extremists hurt their cause.

By (finally) confronting the fanatic settlers, Netanyahu could strengthen his credibility for a second step: reviving the two-state solution by reimagining it. He should help Israelis accept four realities. First, right-wing Israelis must realize that the Palestinians exist; their national aspirations must be met somehow. Second, a Palestinian state already exists in many ways the Palestinian Authority controls territories which even the most ideological settlers never enter because Israeli law prevents them.

Third, left-wing Israelis must learn that contiguity is passe. In an age of missiles and instant communication, for a Palestinian people still deeply tribal and even more deeply divided between Hamasistan in Gaza and the PLOs West Bank kleptocracy, it is time to start thinking Hawaii or Singapore. Palestinians can fulfill their national aspirations through an archipelago of non-contiguous territorial centers, building on the Singaporean model of the thriving city-state. And fourth, culture counts; Palestinians must end incitement, delegitimization, terrorism and rule by dictatorship they even torture their own people! while nurturing a democratic culture of mutuality, accountability, non-violence, civil society.

The Israeli Left must first accept the last two propositions.

If extremists with what we could call their faultanalogiphilia, addiction to faulty, inflammatory analogies start yelling Bantustans and rationalizing Palestinian terrorism as justified given the occupation, this challenging plan will die at childbirth. Israelis must reconsider their encrusted positions which sustain an unsustainable status quo. Palapologists (i.e. Palestinian apologists) who claim Israelis would never accept such compromises should remember that the Jews accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, because half a loaf their clich was better than none.

After the Israeli debate, the conversation can go global to the Americans and President Trump; to Israels newly-recruited anti-Iranian allies the Saudis and the Egyptians (thank you Barack Obama); then, finally, to the Palestinians.

Abandoning contiguity will correct two mistakes Israelis and the Oslo peace processors keep making. The dynamics since the 1990s keep undermining moderates and boosting extremists. By disengaging from Gaza unilaterally, Ariel Sharon deprived PA President Mahmoud Abbas of any credibility for being less fanatic than Hamas and received no concessions or any sense of responsibility from the PA. Hamas declared victory, claiming that terrorism pushed out the Zionists. Similarly, Netanyahu should state explicitly: the reduced amount of land Israel is offering, compared to Ehud Baraks and Ehud Olmerts more sweeping proposals, is punishment for Palestinian incitement, terrorism and rejectionism.

Peace will only come when the reasonable Palestinian majority silences the murderous Palestinian extremists who usually dominate. Triggering a Palestinian backlash against the Palestinian fanatics for costing them land might reestablish the proper equation. Palestinians must learn: peaceful, reasonable compromises yield positive results; hateful and vicious attacks, verbal or physical, cost them land.

Beyond this, Israels security needs need addressing. The John Kerry-era conversation about the military presence Israel requires in the Jordan Valley should be revisited.

Beyond that, every passenger on every plane taking off and landing in Israel must be confident that no Palestinian with an RPG is waiting on some withdrawn-from Israeli high point overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport to shoot down the jet. Israel must also guarantee that the Palestinians dont use a renewed peace process and more autonomy to return to the rule-by-gangs that emerged in Yasser Arafats terrorist state. Back then, these criminals terrorized their fellow Palestinians indiscriminately while attacking their Jewish neighbors brazenly. Their crimes spilled over into a wave of car thefts in Jerusalem, Kfar Saba and other towns abutting the open, non-security- barriered borders. Palestinian thieves knew they only needed a few minutes to reach their territory and a virtual free pass.

In short, Israelis and Palestinians must reexamine assumptions, learn some Oslo lessons, and start adjusting to new realities. Trumps unnerving leadership-by-chaos might be useful here. The Palestinians perpetuating their reputation as the worlds brattiest nationalist movement are whining that the Trump people dont even bother to respond to us. Good. Obamas indulgent responsiveness toward them only escalated their demands. Its time to give the Palestinians terrorist dictatorship-in-formation tough love and the Israelis democratic state some love love. The Saudis and Egyptians are also fed up with Palestinian tantrums and want a recalibrated Middle East.

We know in the Middle East how to hunker down in our usual trenches; its time for new leadership, new thinking and new openness, among Israelis and Palestinians, the leaders and the led.

The writer, professor of history at McGill University and a visiting professor at the Ruderman Program at Haifa University, is the author of The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s, published by St. Martins Press. His next book will update Arthur Hertzbergs The Zionist Idea. Follow on Twitter @GilTroy.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

Problematic candidates for Frances presidency

A shameful week in city politics

Next Article

Read the original:

Can US disrupter-in-chief trigger some progress? - Jerusalem Post Israel News

Progress apparent on defense – Pittsburgh Steelers – Steelers.com

Since taking over as coordinator two seasons ago, Keith Butler has had a vision of how he wants the Steelers to play defense.

It was on display in 2016.

On Nov. 20 at Cleveland, the Steelers turned a four-man rush out of their five-defensive backs sub-package into a sack and a forced fumble by linebacker Ryan Shazier that was recovered in the end zone by defensive tackle Javon Hargrave.

On Jan. 22 at New England, another four-man rush out of the nickel resulted in a Hargrave sack of quarterback Tom Brady and a subsequent punt.

There were many such examples throughout the season, particularly during the nine-game winning streak that delivered the Steelers from 4-5 to the AFC Championship Game.

But there werent enough of them against the Patriots.

We werent tight enough in coverage, head coach Mike Tomlin assessed after New Englands 36-17 victory denied the Steelers a berth in Super Bowl LI. We didnt apply enough consistent pressure to the quarterback.

The Steelers had demonstrated the ability to stick with receivers and assault pockets previously.

The next step will be to do so more consistently in 2017.

But the progress made by the defense in 2016 provided a foundation upon which to continue to build.

Early in the season the Steelers struggled with basics such as tackling and being in the right gap, and with mental aspects of the game such as not trying to do too much individually and compromising the scheme.

But improvement was evident in all of those areas as the season progressed despite losing defensive end Cam Heyward for the season in a 35-30 loss to Dallas on Nov. 13.

James Harrison started at right outside linebacker, Sean Davis started at strong safety and outside linebacker Bud Dupree made his 2017 debut the following week in Cleveland.

Soon thereafter, a lineup that had included Artie Burns starting at cornerback since Nov. 6 at Baltimore solidified and the defense sprouted teeth.

The Steelers amassed eight sacks on Nov. 20 in Cleveland. They picked off a pair of passes and came up with a couple of goal-line stands on Nov. 24 at Indianapolis. They held the Bills No. 1 rushing attack to 67 yards on the ground on Dec. 11 at Buffalo.

They were a different defense, reflected by their final regular-season rankings of No. 12 in total defense, No. 13 in rushing defense and No. 16 in passing defense.

The Steelers had been No. 21 in total defense in 2015 and No. 18 in 2014.

Projections for 2017 included Heywards return; Burns, Davis and Hargrave coming back as second-year pros rather than rookie starters; Shazier building upon a season that saw him emerge as the only player in the NFL with at least three sacks (three-and-a-half), three interceptions (three) and three forced fumbles (three); and linebacker Lawrence Timmons potentially playing next season as one of four players in Steelers history with at least 30 career sacks and at least 10 career interceptions (Joey Porter, Greg Lloyd and Mike Merriweather are the others).

Timmons will become an unrestricted free agent on March 9, as will Harrison.

The goal of the defense, no matter the eventual configuration, will be what its been since Butler took over in 2015.

Its always the same formula, Butler said before the Patriots game. We smash the run, try to put them in position to throw the ball and try to put pressure on Brady.

Theyll try to do so more often next season.

Read more from the original source:

Progress apparent on defense - Pittsburgh Steelers - Steelers.com

Rainbow Serpent turns 20: a weekend of boundless hedonism – Mixmag

Driving into Australias Rainbow Serpent festival we get the feeling were entering another world before weve even witnessed any of the boundless hedonism, wild costumes, art and heavy-hitting bass that are about to become our life for the next five days (if youre in it for the long haul, Mixmag did four).

Dust shrouds the car as we cut our way up a rocky dirt track towards the entrance as dry wheat-coloured hills dotted with gum trees and boulders create a stark landscape against the clear blue sky of summer in the Victorian bush. A single love heart dangles across the road shortly after tickets have been checked and wristbands placed marking the shift into the unknown for newcomers and a very special place for thousands who return each year.

Rainbow Serpent, or Rainbow, is the centerpiece of Australias bush doof scene (a term used locally to describe parties that shun the mainstream and happen deep in the natural environment away from capital cities), but the transformative festival has evolved to become much more since its early raving roots in the late 1990s. Theres still plenty of psy-trance, but these days youll find a very healthy dose of techno, progressive, melodic and feel-good house, disco, funk, breaks, minimal and more. All of this alongside traditional Aboriginal ceremonies, panel talks and guest speakers, workshops, performers and endless food stalls.

2017 marked the 20th anniversary of Rainbows first incarnation in a field near the town of Trentham, Victoria, in 1998. Now, more than 15,000 people from all over the world converge on sprawling farmland outside the tiny town of Lexton, about 150 kilometres northwest of Melbourne, at the end of January each year.

Read the original post:

Rainbow Serpent turns 20: a weekend of boundless hedonism - Mixmag

Food by the Book: Philosophy, love, steak – Muskogee Daily Phoenix

Imagine a budding philosophy professor on a tenure track at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell coming across a library built at West Wind, the private estate of American philosopher and Harvard professor William Hocking.

It's a library that had not been touched since Hocking's death in 1966; a library full of first editions of American thinkers such as Thoreau, Emerson, James, Royse, and of the European philosophers Descartes, Hobbes, and Locke; a library of precious books mildewing in the cold New England winters and the heat of summer.

American Philosophy, A Love Story, by John Kaag, (Farrar, 2016), combines Kaag's own modern existential conflict with his discovery of the story of America's brand of philosophy as seen through the writings of its most influential thinkers from 1825 to 1966.

With his marriage breaking up, Kaag's experience cataloging and storing the 10,000 volumes in Hocking's library helped him work through not only his love of philosophy, but the meaning of love itself and the idea of a life well-lived as examined by the world's most notable philosophers.

Kaag's book is as slow going as his work in Hocking's library was. The reader must digest a compendium of American thinking on idealism, naturalism, rationalism and pragmatism that has made us who we are as a nation. But it is worth every minute of discovery in the library of modern American thought.

Out here, we have our own philosophy when it comes to steak. Serve this Valentine's Day menu prepared with love for your Oklahoma philosopher.

Reach Melony Carey at foodbythebook@gmail.com or (918) 683-3694.

MARINADE FOR GRILLED STEAK

2 garlic cloves, finely minced

1/2 teaspoon dried thyme

1/2 teaspoon oregano

1/4 teaspoon cayenne

5 tablespoons soy sauce

4 tablespoons Worcestershire sauce

1/4 cup vegetable oil

1/4 cup red wine

1 teaspoon black pepper

Daddy Hinkle Dry Quick Marinade

Sprinkle steaks with Daddy Hinkle. In a 2-cup measuring cup, place remaining ingredients. Whisk until emulsified. Place steaks in zip-lock bag and pour marinade over. Seal and place in refrigerator for 6 or more hours. Remove steaks, throw marinade away. Grill over medium coals until desired doneness. Adjust quantity for amount of meat.

BROWN BUTTER MASHED POTATOES

Salt

3 1/2 pounds white or all-purpose potatoes, peeled and cut into large chunks

1 stick plus 2 tablespoons unsalted butter

1 cup milk

1/4 cup crme fraiche or sour cream

In a large pot of boiling salted water, cook the potatoes over moderate heat until tender, about 25 minutes. Drain well. Return the potatoes to the pot and cook over high heat for 1 minute to dry them out slightly. Pass the potatoes through a ricer and return them to the pot.

In a small saucepan, cook the butter over moderate heat until the milk solids turn dark golden, about 4 minutes. Add all but 2 tablespoons of the brown butter to the potatoes along with the milk and sour cream and stir well. Season with salt and stir over moderate heat until hot. Drizzle the remaining brown butter over the potatoes and serve.

RUSTIC PEAR AND APPLE GALETTE

1 refrigerated pie crust or home made

Streusel:

2/3 cup chopped walnuts

1/2 cup all-purpose flour

1/2 cup packed light brown sugar

1/2 teaspoonkosher salt

6 tablespoons cold unsalted butter, cubed

Filling:

2 Granny Smith appleshalved, cored and thinly sliced lengthwise

2 firm Bartlett pearshalved, cored and sliced lengthwise 1/4 inch thick

1/4 cup granulated sugar, plus more for sprinkling

1/4 teaspoon kosher salt

2 teaspoons fresh lemon juice

1 large egg beaten with 1 teaspoon water

Confectioners' sugar, for dusting

Preheat the oven to 400. Spread the walnuts in a pie plate and bake for about 4 minutes, until lightly browned. Let cool.

In a medium bowl, whisk the flour with the brown sugar and salt. Add the butter and, using your fingers, pinch it into the dry ingredients until the mixture resembles coarse meal. Add the walnuts and pinch the streusel into clumps. Refrigerate until chilled, about 15 minutes.

Line a rimmed baking sheet with parchment paper. In a large bowl, toss the apples with the pears, 1/4 cup of granulated sugar, the salt and lemon juice. On a lightly floured work surface, roll out the dough to a 19-by-13-inch oval. Ease the dough onto the prepared baking sheet. Mound the filling in the center of the oval, leaving a 2-inch border. Sprinkle the streusel evenly over the fruit and fold the edge of the dough up and over the filling.

Brush the crust with the egg wash and sprinkle evenly with granulated sugar. Bake the galette for 45 to 50 minutes, until the fruit is tender and the streusel and crust are golden brown. Let the galette cool. Dust with confectioner's sugar before serving. Adapted from Food and Wine, November 2015.

More here:

Food by the Book: Philosophy, love, steak - Muskogee Daily Phoenix

James Ibori inspired David Cameron’s comment of Nigeria being ‘fantastically corrupt’ CACOL – Daily Post Nigeria


Daily Post Nigeria
James Ibori inspired David Cameron's comment of Nigeria being 'fantastically corrupt' CACOL
Daily Post Nigeria
A statement signed by its Media Coordinator, Wale Salami and sent to DAILY POST, reads, It is sad and disheartening to see human beings so audaciously being ripped of their humanism; the very basis of their existence, out of the 'inadvertent' need to ...

and more »

Read the original post:

James Ibori inspired David Cameron's comment of Nigeria being 'fantastically corrupt' CACOL - Daily Post Nigeria

Australia’s chief scientist: Trump’s EPA changes akin to Stalin’s censorship of science – TheBlaze.com

Australias top governmentscientist is likeningPresident Donald Trumps changes at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to scientific censorship under Soviet Union dictator Joseph Stalin.

Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, speaking during a roundtable discussion in Australias capital city ofCanberra, said Monday that science is literally under attack in the United States, according to the Guardian:

TheTrump administrationhas mandated that scientific data published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency from last week going forward has to undergo review by political appointees before that data can be published on the EPA website or elsewhere.

It defies logic. It will almost certainly cause long-term harm. Its reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political officers in the old Soviet Union.

Every military commander there had a political officer second-guessing his decisions.

Finkel was referring to a decisionby the Trump administration last month for political appointees toreview all the scientific data foundby scientists at the EPA before it can be cleared for publication.Doug Ericksen, communications director for Trumps EPA transition team, said that the review also applies to information on the agencys website and social media accounts.

And in January, EPA staffers said that the Trump White House ordered the agencyto remove its webpage on climate change a move that ruffled the feathers of many environmentalists.

If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear, one unnamed EPA staffer told Reuters last month, adding that some employees were working to preserve the data stored there.

Were taking a look at everything on a case-by-case basis, including the web page and whether climate stuff will be taken down, Ericksentold the Associated Press. Obviously with a new administration coming in, the transition time, well be taking a look at the web pages and the Facebook pages and everything else involved here at EPA.

Climate Central reported last weekthat the EPA has, in fact, started removing Obama-era information from the government website. Theyre mostly scrubbing it of anything that has a hint of Obama, Gretchen Goldman,research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said.

The administration, however, has downplayed the ordeal. White Housepress secretary Sean Spicer, who first denied Trumpdirectly orderedthe EPAs data scrub, said in January that the communications clampdown on scientific datawas not out of the ordinary, telling reporters, I dont think its any surprise that when theres an administration turnover, that were going to review the policy.

ButGeorge Gray, who was theassistant administrator for the EPAs Office of Research and Development under former PresidentGeorge W. Bush, told the Guardian that scientific studies are typically reviewed at lower levelsand rarely by political appointees.

Scientific studies would be reviewed at the level of a branch or a division or laboratory, he said. Occasionally, things that were known to be controversial would come up to me as assistant administrator and I was a political appointee. Nothing in my experience would go further than that.

Finkel, for his part, sees the White Houses decision as akin to Stalins efforts to censor science.

Soviet agricultural science was held back for decades because of the ideology of Trofim Lysenko, who was a proponent of Lamarckism, he said. Stalin loved Lysenkos conflation of science and Soviet philosophy and used his limitless power to ensure that Lysenkos unscientific ideas prevailed.

As the Smithsonian Magazine outlined, Lysenko was Stalins director of biology and he led a group of animal and plant breeders who rejected the science of genetics. He worked to discredit the genetic discoveries of Gregor Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan, attacking them for being foreigners with idealistic ideas that were the product of bourgeois capitalism.

Lysenko argued that he could quickly force plants and animals and even the Soviet people into forms that could meet practical needs and that those characteristic changes could be passed on to their offspring a debunked theory known as Lamarckism.

One of Lysenkosmost infamous claims was that he changed a species of spring wheat into winter wheat after just a few years. That was, of course, impossible, but it fed into Stalins mantra that the Soviet government could create the perfect utopia.

So while Western scientists embraced evolution and genetics, Russian scientists who thought the same were sent to the gulag. Western crops flourished. Russian crops failed, Finkel said. Today, the catch-cry of scientists must be frank and fearless advice, no matter the opinion of political commissars stationed at the U.S. EPA.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works suspended rules to approve Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA without any Democrats present. The Democrats boycotted Pruitts hearing last Wednesday, citing concerns over his rejection of climate change science.

A date for the Trump appointees full Senate vote has not yet been set, but given Republicans lead the Senate, his nominationis expected to be approved.

Visit link:

Australia's chief scientist: Trump's EPA changes akin to Stalin's censorship of science - TheBlaze.com

Beware of Self-Censorship – New Republic

This condition of generalized fear may even be inspired by some act of ancient violence, passed on through underground lore to contemporary consciousness. In the western part of El Salvador, peasants remembered, long after the fact, the armys 1931 massacre of their families, which took over ten thousand lives. So powerful was that memory fifty years later that when the rest of the country rose up against the military, scarcely anyone in the region took up arms.

Such ripple effects, even if unintended, are especially potent when their target belongs to an already vulnerable group. After 9/11, for example, journalists and activists reported extensive fear throughout Arab and Muslim communities in the United States, inspired by the detention of 1,200 to 5,000 Muslim and Arab men. This was a fear not just of detention, deportation, or vigilante violence, but of speaking out on politically controversial issues of American foreign policy, which mightand often doesattract scrutiny, surveillance, or harassment from the federal government and police. Theres fear in the Arab community, reported Mino Akhtar. What I hear Arabs and Muslims saying is, Lets keep a low profile. Dont step out there. We need to stay quiet and let this blow over, a claim confirmed by numerous press reports.

Against such a backdrop of fear, even the most innocuous actions can generate additional fear, with equally repressive results. In December 2001, for example, Mohadar Mohamed Abdoulah, a Yemeni immigrant living in San Diego, was granted $500,000 bail after being detained for two months as a 9/11 material witness and for having lied on his asylum application. Initially, the local Muslim community rallied to Abdoulahs cause, pledging $400,000 for his bail fund with promises to raise more. But once it was announced that each contributor would have to provide his or her name to the government and perhaps appear before the judge, many in the community balked. When people were told theyd have to go to court and answer questions from the judge, said Abdoulahs lawyer, they chilled out. One day, added the lawyer, its all about the solidarity and standing tall. Then they run. This community isnt split. This is about abject fear. Because of the states detentions and deportations, and because of vigilante attacks, this simple request to identify themselves to the court was enough to arouse fear throughout the Muslim community in San Diego.

Generating fear across time and space in this way requires the involvement, even cooperation, of the entire society: elites and collaborators, bystanders and victims. To command more than a small, immediate audience, political fear must mobilize generals and foot soldiers, and a supporting army of secretaries, cooks, and maids to tend to them. Political fear also relies upon bystanders, whose passivity paves a path for elites and their collaborators, and the targeted community of victims, who transmit didactic tales of fear among themselves, thereby increasing its reverberating effects. Inspired by the victims desire to shield themselves from sanctions, these small acts of education among the victims are central to the economy of fear. They minimize the amount of actual coercion perpetrators must apply, and they maximize the effect. One black North Carolina woman recounts that under Jim Crow her parents and grandparents warned her, at an early age, that if she disobeyed the rules of segregation, she would get arrested. So, she concluded, any time you saw white and colored, unless you wanted to be arrested and be in jail, you didnt dare.

This is the second in a series of five posts this week on fear in the age of Trump, drawn from Fear: The History of a Political Idea.

Link:

Beware of Self-Censorship - New Republic

Uzbekistan: Emboldened Media Shedding Self-Censorship – EurasiaNet

A stack of Uzbek newspapers. Censorship is in theory proscribed by law in Uzbekistan. In reality, those few reporters that have been foolhardy enough to flout the rule on self-censorship have been subjected to intimidation and harassment. However, some news outlets in this Central Asian state have recently started dabbling with easing their policy of self-censorship on sensitive topics. (Photo: EurasiaNet)

As headlines go, this one might not look especially exciting; What Can We Expect from the Liberalization of the Foreign Currency Market? But the article, by respected economist Yuliy Yusupov, became an instant sensation when it was published January 17 by the Uzbekistan-focused online business news outlet Kommersant.uz. Tight official controls over currency and trade and the flourishing of a black economy in both these areas had made the subject off-limits for any local media in the days of the late President Islam Karimov. Thus, it is no surprise that the January 17 article touched off a flurry of social media chatter among Uzbek news consumers. The appearance of the piece offers evidence that, slowly and tentatively, some news outlets in Uzbekistan are dabbling with easing their policy of self-censorship on sensitive topics. Yusupov said he was initially approached by Kommersant.uz to write the article, but that they were surprised by the boldness of what they got back. They wavered over [the article] for a long time. Nobody has yet written such a candid piece in the press. Especially since they have experience of senior comrades telling them what they could and could not write, Yusupov told EurasiaNet.org. Eventually, the website relented and even published two more similar articles by Yusupov. Kommersant overcame the self-censorship, good for them. We will definitely continue, this is just the beginning, Yusupov said. So far, the higher-ups are quiet. Lets hope for the best. Yusupovs most recent article, published on February 6, is titled; About the Danger of Protectionism. The piece is, in effect, a frontal assault on a policy long favored by Karimov. Such articles would struggle to stand out in a Western business publication, but critical analyses of economic policies in particular, discussion of how badly the government has handled the economy have long been a no-go area for reporters in Uzbekistan. Censorship is in theory proscribed by law in Uzbekistan. On paper, existing legislation provides for expansive editorial freedoms. One passage in the law regulating media activity states that nobody has the right to demand prior approval for published material, or to demand changes to a text, or its removal from circulation. In reality, those few reporters that have been foolhardy enough to flout the rule on self-censorship have invariably been summoned to prosecutors offices, where they have been subjected to intimidation and harassment. Controls tend to be even stronger on reporters in the regions, and will likely remain so for some time. In the city of Samarkand, reporter Toshpulat Rakhmatullayev recently wrote a piece on news website Nuz.uz titled; Who Will Free Samarkand of the Powers of Darkness? The article examines the spate of power shortages that has been afflicting his region of late, and, on the face of, is quite standard, if heavily opinionated. In addition to describing the routine blackouts occurring in Samarkand carefully tabulating how many times the power went out Rakhmatullayev also recounts his exchanges with government officials. It is not difficult to note that between the power going out and going back on again, there would be intervals of one to three minutes. You can imagine how this grates the nerves. My friend, who has a generator at home, says that as soon as he gets to his device, they turn the light back on, Rakhmatullayev wrote. The report duly earned Rakhmatullayev a summons to the prosecutors office. But, undeterred, the journalist penned another piece on February 1 headlined; Why Should Journalists Suffer for Telling the Truth? I had to tell this person from the prosecutors office that it is necessary to distinguish between complaining and journalism. I did not complain, but I just raised the problem of electricity supply to Samarkand, which is a problem that is of concern to thousands of people, Rakhmatullayev wrote. Letters from Samarkand residents to the presidential website, which recently introduced a function allowing citizens to write in directly with complaints, have proven of little use in alleviating the problem, Rakhmatullayev noted. He added that when he complained to local officials, they did nothing but try to gather incriminating information about him. Since President Shavkat Mirziyoyevs ascendancy to power, articles have appeared in the Uzbek press detailing the everyday problems affecting citizens. These concern primarily shortages of electricity, gas, water and employment. It is Mirziyoyev himself who has encouraged this sudden surge of emboldened criticism by publicly urging officials to pay more heed to the pleas of ordinary citizens, and to discuss them in newspapers and Internet publications. You too should act from below and demand solutions to your problems, the president told an audience during a meeting with members of the public in January in the semiautonomous republic of Karakalpakstan. Mirziyoyev has also been effecting some changes at the top. On February 3, he appointed a new head of the national television and radio broadcaster a former minister for information technology and communication development, Hurshid Mirzahidov. The outgoing head of the broadcaster, Alisher Hadjaev, who had filled the position since December 2005, was a high-ranking officer in the National Security Service, or SNB. The SNB has in the decades since independence amassed a vast army of operatives and extended its influence into all areas of life with a view to consolidating the authority of the ruling elite. Under Hadjaev, state television was used as a platform for the propagation of the late President Karimovs political programs and ideology. Even mild criticism of any aspects of government policy disappeared from the airwaves, and progressive-minded journalists were dismissed. Despite being one of the largest broadcasters in the region, Uzbekistans national state television and radio company has no correspondents anywhere across the former Soviet Union and focuses entirely on domestic developments. In addition to hammering home state ideology, the government-run broadcaster was also used to target perceived opponents of the authorities, or the country itself. For example, in 2012, at the height of a smear campaign targeting Turkish businesses in Uzbekistan, the state broadcaster pulled the plug on popular Turkish TV shows, substituting them with South Korean soap operas instead. And it was during the Hadjaev era that the TV evening bulletin earned the mocking unofficial nickname of News from Heaven.

View post:

Uzbekistan: Emboldened Media Shedding Self-Censorship - EurasiaNet

Russian Filmmakers Protest Attempts To ‘Censor’ Film About Young Tsar – RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

An independent group of Russian filmmakers is protesting what it says is are efforts by a State Duma deputy from Russia-annexed Crimea to "censor" a controversial film centered on a love affair between the future Tsar Nicholas II and a young ballerina.

Kino Soyuz (Union of Filmmakers) on February 7 published an open letter protesting Duma Deputy Natalya Poklonskaya's calls for investigations of the unreleased film, Matilda, by director Aleksei Uchitel.

The protest letter, signed by more than 40 Russian directors, also charges that nationalists belonging to a group called "Orthodox State -- Holy Russia" have been threatening "arson attacks and violent acts against theaters that would dare to show the film."

Poklonskaya was the Kremlin-appointed prosecutor-general in Crimea from the time Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory in March 2014 until she was elected to Russia's State Duma in September.

She now wants Moscow prosecutors to declare that Uchitel's film violates provisions in Russia's Criminal Code against insulting "the religious feelings of believers."

She says the film portrays Tsar Nicholas II -- a canonized Russian Orthodox saint -- as a sinner.

'Drunkards And Fornicators'

Poklonskaya also charges that Uchitel wrongly portrays Russia as a country full of "drunkards, gallows, and fornicators."

Although Matilda is not scheduled to have its first screening until October 2017, it became mired in controversy after a promotional trailer was released in 2016.

The film tells the story of a three-year affair between Crown Prince Nicholas and a teenage ballet dancer named Matilda Kshesinskaya that ended in 1894. After the affair, Nicholas married the German princess who became Empress Aleksandra.

Tsar Nicholas II with his family in 1914, three years before they fell foul of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Nicholas II was executed together with his entire family after the 1917 Bolshevik coup. They were canonized as Russian Orthodox saints in 2000.

A Russian Orthodox Christian and monarchist organization called Tsar's Cross denounced the film project as pornographic and unpatriotic -- leading Poklonskaya in November to demand a criminal investigation.

But the Prosecutor-General's Office in Moscow announced in January that it was unable to uncover any evidence suggesting the film might offend religious beliefs.

That ruling led more than 20,000 Russian Orthodox activists to petition Russia's Culture Ministry and demand that the film be banned.

Bolstered by that petition, Poklonskaya announced on January 30 that she had officially requested that the investigation be reopened.

'Influential Forces'

The Russian Orthodox Church and Culture Ministry have not taken any public position on the controversy surrounding the film.

On February 7, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said President Vladimir Putin's administration "does not want to take sides" in the dispute.

Peskov said debate about whether the film is offensive should take place after it has been publicly screened.

The protest letter by Kino Soyuz says independent Russian filmmakers "know very well what censorship is" because of "decades" during the Soviet era that "ruined the destinies and fates of artists and impeded the development of the arts."

The letter concludes that Russian culture should "not be pressured by new forms of censorship, no matter what influential forces initiate it."

See original here:

Russian Filmmakers Protest Attempts To 'Censor' Film About Young Tsar - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Free Speech Isn’t Free – The Atlantic

Members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church protest outside a prayer rally in Houston in 2011. (Richard Carson/Reuters)

Millions of Americans support free speech. They firmly believe that we are the only country to have free speech, and that anyone who even questions free speech had damn well better shut the #$%& up.

Case in point: In a recent essay in The Daily Beast, Fordham Law Professor Thane Rosenbaum notes that European countries and Israel outlaw certain kinds of speechNazi symbols, anti-Semitic slurs, and Holocaust denial, and speech that incites hatred on the basis of race, religion, and so forth. The American law of free speech, he argues, assumes that the only function of law is to protect people against physical harm; it tolerates unlimited emotional harm. Rosenbaum cites recent studies (regrettably, without links) that show that "emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic." Thus, the victims of hate speech, he argues, suffer as much as or more than victims of hate crime. "Why should speech be exempt from public welfare concerns when its social costs can be even more injurious [than that of physical injury]?"

I believestronglyin the free-speech system we have. But most of the responses to Rosenbaum leave me uneasy. I think defenders of free speech need to face two facts: First, the American system of free speech is not the only one; most advanced democracies maintain relatively open societies under a different set of rules. Second, our system isn't cost-free. Repressing speech has costs, but so does allowing it. The only mature way to judge the system is to look at both sides of the ledger.

Jonathan Rauch: The Case for Hate Speech

Most journalistic defenses of free speech take the form of "shut up and speak freely." The Beast itself provides Exhibit A: Cultural news editor Michael Moynihan announced that "we're one of the few countries in the Western world that takes freedom of speech seriously," and indignantly defended it against "those who pretend to be worried about trampling innocents in a crowded theater but are more interested in trampling your right to say whatever you damn well please." To Moynihan, Rosenbaum could not possibly be sincere or principled; he is just a would-be tyrant. The arguments about harm were "thin gruel"not even worth answering. Moynihan's response isn't really an argument; it's a defense of privilege, like a Big Tobacco paean to the right to smoke in public.

In contrast to this standard-issue tantrum is a genuinely thoughtful and appropriate response from Jonathan Rauch at The Volokh Conspiracy, now a part of the Washington Post's web empire. Rauch responds that

painful though hate speech may be for individual members of minorities or other targeted groups, its toleration is to their great collective benefit, because in a climate of free intellectual exchange hateful and bigoted ideas are refuted and discredited, not merely suppressed .... That is how we gay folks achieved the stunning gains we've made in America: by arguing toward truth.

I think he's right. But the argument isn't complete without conceding something most speech advocates don't like to admit:

Free speech does do harm.

It does a lot of harm.

And while it may produce social good much of the time, there's no guaranteeno "invisible hand" of the intellectual marketthat ensures that on balance it does more good than harm. As Rauch says, it has produced a good result in the case of the gay-rights movement. But sometimes it doesn't.

Europeans remember a time when free speech didn't produce a happy ending. They don't live in a North Korea-style dystopia. They do "take free speech seriously," and in fact many of them think their system of free speech is freer than ours. Their view of human rights was forged immediately after World War II, and one lesson they took from it was that democratic institutions can be destroyed from within by forces like the Nazis who use mass communication to dehumanize whole races and religions, preparing the population to accept exclusion and even extermination. For that reason, some major human-rights instruments state that "incitement" to racial hatred, and "propaganda for war," not only may but must be forbidden. The same treaties strongly protect freedom of expression and opinion, but they set a boundary at what we call "hate speech."

It's a mistake to think that the U.S. system goes back to the foundation of the republic. At the end of World War II, in fact, our law was about the same as Europe's is today. The Supreme Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) upheld a state "group libel" law that made it a crime to publish anything that "exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy." European countries outlawed fascist and neo-Nazi parties; in the 1951 caseDennis v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that in essence outlawed the Communist Party as a "conspiracy" to advocate overthrowing the U.S. government. Justice Robert H. Jackson, who had been the chief U.S. prosecutor of Nazi war criminals, concurred in Dennis, warning that totalitarianism had produced "the intervention between the state and the citizen of permanently organized, well financed, semi-secret and highly disciplined political organizations." A totalitarian party "denies to its own members at the same time the freedom to dissent, to debate, to deviate from the party line, and enforces its authoritarian rule by crude purges, if nothing more violent." Beauharnais, Dennis, and similar cases were criticized at the time, and today they seem grievously wrong. But many thoughtful people supported those results at the time.

U.S. law only began to protect hateful speech during the 1960s. The reason, in retrospect, is clearrepressive Southern state governments were trying to criminalize the civil-rights movement for its advocacy of change. White Southerners claimed (and many really believed) that the teachings of figures like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were "hate speech" and would produce "race war." By the end of the decade, the Court had held that governments couldn't outlaw speech advocating law violation or even violent revolution. Neither Black Panthers nor the KKK nor Nazi groups could be marked off as beyond the pale purely on the basis of their message.

Those decisions paved the way for triumphs by civil rights, feminist, and gay-rights groups. But let's not pretend that nobody got hurt along the way. The price for our freedoma price in genuine pain and intimidationwas paid by Holocaust survivors in Skokie and by civil-rights and women's-rights advocates subjected to vile abuse in public and private, and by gay men and lesbians who endured decades of deafening homophobic propaganda before the tide of public opinion turned.

Free speech can't be reaffirmed by drowning out its critics. It has to be defended as, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "an experiment, as all life is an experiment."

I admire people on both sides who admit that we can't be sure we've drawn the line properly. In Dennis, the case about Communists, Justice Felix Frankfurter voted to uphold the convictions. That vote is a disgrace; but it is slightly mitigated by this sentence in his concurrence: "Suppressing advocates of overthrow inevitably will also silence critics who do not advocate overthrow but fear that their criticism may be so construed .... It is a sobering fact that, in sustaining the convictions before us, we can hardly escape restriction on the interchange of ideas." When Holmes at last decided that subversive speech should be protected, he did so knowing full well that his rule, if adopted, might begin the death agony of democracy. "If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community," he wrote in his dissent in Gitlow v. New York, "the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way."

The reason that we allow speech cannot be that it is harmless. It must be that we prefer that people harm each other, and society, through speech than through bullets and bombs. American society is huge, brawling, and deeply divided against itself. Social conflict and change are bruising, ugly things, and in democracies they are carried on with words. That doesn't mean there aren't casualties, and it doesn't mean the right side will always win.

For that reason, questions about the current state of the law shouldn't be met with trolling and condescension. If free speech cannot defend itself in free debate, then it isn't really free speech at all; it's just a fancier version of the right to smoke.

Read the original:

Free Speech Isn't Free - The Atlantic

The Death of Free Speech – Observer


Observer
The Death of Free Speech
Observer
The home of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960's just succumbed to the latest campus effort to shut down unpopular views. Last week University officials cancelled a speech by conservative performance artist and Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos ...
Berkeley Riots: How Free Speech Debate Launched Violent Campus ShowdownRollingStone.com
Lawmakers Haven't Protected Free Speech On Campus--Here's How They CanForbes
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn ReynoldsUSA TODAY
The Brown Daily Herald -Tribune-Review -legal Insurrection (blog) -CNN
all 174 news articles »

Excerpt from:

The Death of Free Speech - Observer

Cross returning to veterans memorial park inside ‘free speech zone … – Fox News

A Minnesota city that drew backlash after pulling a cross from a veterans memorial park has agreed to bring it back as early as Tuesday -- inside a section of the park that supporters have called a "free speech zone."

COFFEE COMPANY TAKES ON STARBUCKS' REFUGEE PLAN, PLEDGES TO HIRE 10,000 VETERANS

The Freedom From Religion Foundation demanded the city of Belle Plaineremove the crosslast month, claiming it violated the separation of church and state. After workers took it down, many supporters of vets responded by setting up their own crosses, and theSecond Brigade Motorcycle Club patrolled the park to watch out for vandalism.

Amid the controversy in that city, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit, proposed setting up a"limited public forum" inside the park, where the original cross could stand,Fox 9 reported. The name "free speech zone" has stuck, even though the park is public.

CEMETERY WITH GRAVES OF VETS AND A PRESIDENT'S GRANDFATHER SEES NEW VANDALISM

The city council narrowly approved the proposal, by a vote of 3-2. Under the plan, city leaders would set up a method of considering each proposed display, giving priority to veterans groups,the StarTribune reported.

"It sets it up so we can have something to memorialize our fallen but it also gives others a chance to memorialize theirs as well," Katie Novotny, a supporter of the cross who lived in Belle Plaine, told the news station. "It doesnt matter if youre Jewish, if youre Muslim, were all Americans fighting this war together."

TheFreedom From Religion Foundation called the idea "constitutionally problematic" in a letter before Monday's vote, Fox 9 added. The group reportedly claimed it would submit a proposal for a memorial of its own in the park.

The newly approved plan "ensures that there is no endorsement of religion by the city whatsoever because the memorials that will be put up represent the citizens that put them up," Doug Wardlow, who represented the Alliance Defending Freedom, responded.

The original memorial showed the silhouette of a soldier holding a gun and kneeling in front of a small cross. It could reappear in the park as early as Tuesday evening, according to Fox 9.

Cheers erupted in City Hall after the council gave the OK.

Belle Plaine is a 45-minute drive southwest of Minneapolis.

Click for more from Fox 9.

Read more here:

Cross returning to veterans memorial park inside 'free speech zone ... - Fox News

UN rights expert urges Thailand not to stifle free speech – JURIST

[JURIST] UNl Special Rapporteur David Kaye [official profile] called on [press release] Thai authorities Tuesday to cease using royal defamation laws to counter free speech that is critical of the royal family. This report was released as a law student activist awaits trial in detention for sharing a BBC news article on the new King, Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun, on his private Facebook page. The student has been held in detention since his December 2 arrest. Kaye claims that international human rights laws prohibit not only the current actions of Thailand but also the law: "Les-majest provisions have no place in a democratic country. I urge the authorities of Thailand to take steps to revise the country's Criminal Code and to repeal the law that establishes a justification for criminal prosecution"

Thailand has been criticized in recent months for its human rights policies. The Thailand Parliament unanimously approved [JURIST report] a controversial amendment to its Computer Crime Act of 2007 (CCA) in December, which rights groups fear will give the government unrestricted power to police the web and suppress criticism. In September Amnesty International released a report [JURIST report] detailing the prevalence of torture employed by Thai authorities and claiming the military government has led to a "culture of torture." The same month Thailand's Bangkok South Criminal Court found British labor rights activist Andy Hall guilty [JURIST report] of criminal defamation and violating cyber crime laws.

See the rest here:

UN rights expert urges Thailand not to stifle free speech - JURIST