Daily Archives: July 25, 2017

Demonstrators outside Istanbuls courthouse, where 17 journalists are on trial. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals. Photograph: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images

Putting journalists on trial for doing their job, for informing the public or conveying opinion, is never acceptable. Like the canary in the mine, journalists can serve as an early alert to the erosion of the rights of every citizen. Where media freedom is curtailed other freedoms invariably follow. This may be stating the obvious, especially to those of us who enjoy the liberty and protection of democracy. But it is not an uncontested truth.

Freedom of the press is restricted wherever governments claim its exercise might run counter to political imperatives or what they define as national security. Itis a freedom enshrined in UN texts, but it is far from universally recognised as a basic right. It might be tolerated, but only within boundaries subject to whim, in jeopardy whenever those in power feel their interests might be threatened.

Totalitarian regimes (think North Korea) make no claim to upholding media freedom they dont even bother. But semi-dictatorships do pay lip service, at least formally. Regimes that claim to be democracies, and hold elections, often also work methodically to undermine the fundamental tenets of government by the people and for the people; essential pillars, like freedom of information, are gradually dismantled. Turkey today provides a strong example of just this pattern of behaviour.

On Monday, 17 journalists and executives of the independent newspaper Cumhuriyet were put on trial in Istanbul for no other reason than having done their jobs: for writing articles, publishing pictures, using social media, or even just making phone calls. Cumhuriyet is a flagship media organisation, Turkeys oldest daily, founded in 1924 shortly after Ataturk took power. It is the same age as the Republic and it is deeply committed to its founding promise of pluralism, minority rights, peace with the Kurds and investigating corruption; and it has been a harsh critic of Turkeys slide to autocracy in recent years.

It includes some of the best known and respected names in Turkish media, such as the columnist Kadri Gursel, the editor-in-chief Murat Sabuncu, the cartoonist Musa Kart and the investigative reporter Ahmet Sik. On Monday they were all in court, charged with having links to various terrorist groups. They face prison sentences of up to 43 years. Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, wants to crush this newspaper, just as he is ruthlessly stamping out dissent everywhere that he suspects it exists. Since last years failed coup attempt, 160 journalists have been detained across Turkey, and more than 150 media outlets shut down. At the Hamburg G20 earlier this month, Mr Erdoan warned that journalists also committed crimes and needed to be punished. No evidence has been produced against these journalists to suggest terrorist connections. Cumhuriyet is a symbol of fearless journalism and its staff should be honoured, not treated as criminals.

Mr Erdoan may seem impervious to external pressure, but Europe could shout louder. As one of the defendants, Kadri Gursel, told the court on Monday: I am not here because I knowingly and willingly helped a terrorist organisation, but because Iam an independent, questioning and critical journalist. Its not too late for retreat, even as the country lurches ever more towards dictatorship: the journalists must be set free. The Guardian stands in solidarity withCumhuriyet.

See the original post:

The Guardian view on Turkish press freedom: standing up for democracy - The Guardian

Conservative hard-liners in the House are hoping to gut the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper whose analysis has recently bedeviled Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, by amending a massive spending bill set to be debated later this week.

An amendment filed Monday by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) would eliminate the agencys Budget Analysis Division, cutting 89 jobs and $15 million of the CBOs proposed $48.5 million budget. A separate amendment filed by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) would also eliminate the same division and specify that the CBO instead evaluate legislation by facilitating and assimilating scoring data compiled by four private think tanks the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Urban Institute.

Both Griffith and Meadows are members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, but complaints about the CBO have been widespread among Republicans in recent months after the agency found that various iterations of the partys health-care legislation would result in an increase of more than 20 million uninsured Americans over the coming decade. Critics have attacked the CBOs analysis and pointed to its projections on the Affordable Care Act as evidence that the office, now led by a Republican-selected director, cannot be trusted to accurately analyze complex legislation.

The criticism compelled the eight former directors of the CBO, which was created in 1974, to sign a letter Friday objecting to recent attacks on the integrity and professionalism of the agency and on the agencys role in the legislative process.

But conservatives say the CBOs scorekeeping function is best left to other outlets.

Theyre the one group that makes a weathermans 10-day forecast look accurate, said Meadows, the Freedom Caucus chairman, during a Monday appearance at the National Press Club. Theres plenty of think tanks that are out there. And so we ought to take a score from Heritage, from AEI, from Brookings, from the Urban Institute and bring them together for a composite score that would represent a very wide swath of think tanks and their abilities. We think thats a pragmatic way to use the private sector and yet let Congress depend on a score that is accurate.

The White House has also attacked the CBOs credibility as the health-care repeal effort has languished. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) at times has criticized the agencys health-care estimates, but he also defended it from attacks last month, telling reporters that its important that we have a referee.

It is important that we have a scorekeeper, he said. We can always complain about the nature of the score.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, slammed theamendments Monday. The CBO is a long-respected institution whose rigorous analysis and reports are critical resources for Congress as we consider legislation that affects the lives of the American people, he said. These attacks should be beneath Congress. They need to stop.

The amendments are being offered to a $790 billion spending bill that combines appropriations for the military, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy and for Congress itself that is scheduled to come to the House floor for debate on Wednesday. The bill was largely written by Republicans and is not expected to garner support from Democrats, meaning that even if it passes the House, it is unlikely to emerge from the Senate intact. But the CBO provision could become subject to negotiations if it is adopted in the House.

Both amendments take advantage of a recent change to House rules pushed by Griffith that allows any member to target discrete programs or even individual employees for reduction or elimination. The provision, known as the Holman rule, was in effect from 1876 until 1983.

When someone gives you bad advice again and again, why would you trust them to help you make big decisions? Griffith said in a statement explaining his amendment. I believe Congress would be better served if CBO becomes an aggregator of predictions made by third-party public policy groups across the political spectrum, from left to center to right.

See the original post here:

Congressional Budget Office is Freedom Caucus's target in spending bill - Washington Post

Its probably safe to say that philosophy is to psychology as the body of a beer is to its head. That being true, then we live in an age in which its fashionable to swim in the foam bubbles of psychology. And thats true because people are fascinated with the subconscious, which has the unpredictability and energy of an untied balloon: In the context of the daily routine of modern life the subconscious adds excitement.

For example, the subconscious is unpredictable and energetic when it answers Socrates very conscious observation that to know the good is to do the good with now wait just one minute ... not always.

But psychology doesnt answer the larger questions of philosophy. For Americans, a large philosophical question is the scope of freedom; Americans love freedom.

Freedom in America has been defined as the freedom to conform to ones religion, freedom from discrimination, freedom of expression, freedom from colonialism, freedom of choice.

Today, the reigning definition of freedom in America is found in economics: the freedom of choice in the marketplace, the freedom to choose among a variety of products. Other concepts of freedom are not as discussed because over the last 17 years theres been a psychological tension between freedom and security: greater freedom, less security; greater security, less freedom.

This tension is not new in America the 1950s Red Scare, McCarthy hearings and Cold War represented a time when Americans reduced the scope of their freedoms to consumerism. Americans in the 1950s referred to each other as hollow man and hollow woman of the consumerist age; Richard Nixon was the hollow man of the 1960 presidential election.

But the 1950s narrow conception of freedom gave way to the larger one of the 1960s, reconstituting the psychology of freedom in the American.

Original post:

Americans' conception of freedom changes - LancasterOnline

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Opinion contributor Published 2:58 p.m. ET July 24, 2017 | Updated 7:26 a.m. ET July 25, 2017

Protest in Chicago in June 2017.(Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images)

What is the health care debate all about? Freedom. Specifically two different conceptions of freedom.

One is freedom to buy what you want. In this view, the country is a collection of 325 million individuals, and freedom is everyone pursuing their lives without interference. The other is freedom from worry. It views America as a community, and freedom is knowing you can get help when you are sick and in need.

The difference is illustrated by one of my late patients, DotAhern, whohad chronic myelogenous leukemia. She was kept alive and continued to actively work as a substitute teacher in the public schools ofWorcester, Mass., by a medicine that cost tens of thousands of dollars every year. While comfortably middle class with a suburban house, she could not afford to pay for that medication out of her own salary.

Fortunately, her insurance paid. And her insurance premium was affordable. Why? Because other people were also buying health insurance, but they did not need tens of thousands of dollars in drugs or medical services.

Obamacare repeal fever: Obvious fixes, or a disastrous mess? Mastio & Lawrence

There is no way of sugarcoating it: The other people buying insurance were subsidizing Ms. Aherns care. Eventually, when they had an illness or accident requiring expensive medical care, thatin turn would be subsidized by still others. Ms. Aherns freedom to have health insurance at an affordable premium required other people to buy health insurance.

That is how all insurance works. Lots of people buy car, homeownersor flood insurance paying premiums but only a few people use the insurance in any given year. Those who dont file claims are subsidizing those who do.

But what if these other people said they wanted the freedom to buy health insurance that covered fewer services, and therefore had a lower premium?

House SpeakerPaul Ryan says the Republican approach is better forthese people: Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need. Or as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthyput it: Were taking steps toward a free and open marketplace where families can buy health insurance that works for them.

But if many people decide to buy insurance that covers less, then Ms. Ahern will have to pay more lots more for her insurance. And if this process continues, her premiums will eventually be unaffordable or, more precisely, there will be no insurance. She alone will be responsible for paying tens of thousands of dollars for the drugs thatkeep her alive and working.

The freedom Ryan and McCarthy laud isthe freedom of individuals to buy only what they want at that very moment, and not have to pay for rehabilitative services or maternity care or mental health care or dental care for children or Ms. Aherns expensive cancer drugs. Itmeans that older individuals and people who have cancer, Parkinsons diseaseor diabetes will be priced out and lose the freedom from fear that accompanies having health insurance.

Senate health bill: Don't throw momma from the Medicaid train

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

The fundamental and inviolate law of health insurance is that the only way to ensure that a person with cancer or an older person who is at high risk of having heart disease or diabetes can have the freedom that comes with affordable health insurance is to require other Americans who are unlikely to use much health care to buy health insurance, too and not just insurance that covers the few services they will use. Freedom not to have health insurance for some necessarily, inescapably means the loss of freedom to have health insurance for others.

This requirement can be accomplished in two ways:We cankeepthe Obamacare approach ofrequiringeveryoneto buy health insurance and subsidizingthose with lower incomes so that they canafford the premiums. Or we can adopt the Medicare approach thegovernment providesall Americans with a minimum health insurance package and they canbuy coverage for additional services,such as drug coverage,at subsidized rates.

There are no other options that really work. Approaches that charge much more a penalty payment to people who dont buy insurance immediately are not sufficiently effective. Besides, paying a penalty for not buying insurance looks a lot like the Obamacare mandate Republicans deride.

The basic choice on health care reform is this: We can givefreedom to young healthy people to buy what they want and deny the Ms. Aherns of this country freedom from worry about whether theycan afford health insurance and get theirlifesaving drugs. Or, we can recognize that at some point in our lives, most of uswill be like Ms. Ahern we will contract an expensive illness and need other people to help us by keeping health insurance affordable.

Unless you are invincible, and will never get sick or in an accident and needa doctor or hospital, you too will need the help of others, and the freedom that comes with knowing you will be able to count on them and get the care you need.

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist, a venture partner at Oak HC/FT and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, advised the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act. His new book, Prescription for the Future: The Twelve Transformational Practices of Highly Effective Medical Organizations, was published last month.

You can read diverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers on theOpinion front page, on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2vTjScj

See the original post:

GOP health bill pits freedom of choice against freedom from fear - USA TODAY

Chloe Frazer in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy Photo: Sony Interactive Entertainment

Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, out August 22, is looking like a promising way to eat up the last bit of summer. Dispensing with series lead Nathan Drake, this expansion to last years stunning Uncharted 4 focuses on fortune hunter Chloe Frazer and mercenary Nadine Ross, two side characters from the series now given center stage. The gameplay is still Uncharted youll scale a lot of cliffs, swing on a lot of ropes, and shoot a lot of generic bad guys but the change in characters creates a new feel to the series. Nadine and Chloe are more wary of each other, but also more droll and biting than earnest bro Nathan Drake ever was.

The section I played is more ambitious than anything in Uncharted 4, taking that games Jeep-driving exploration sequence and wildly expanding it. Youre given a huge open space in western India with three different forts to explore and numerous things to distract you along the way. It feels like a small open-world game you can even climb a tower to get a lay of the land and your main objectives plopped down on a map but done with Naughty Dogs combination of tight gameplay and stunning performances. The amount of meaning the actors and animators are able to get through the subtle shifts in facial expressions continues to impress especially when compared to the still-wooden performances you see in the majority of video games.

After playing through a 30-minute section of the game, I talked with lead designer on Lost Legacy, James Cooper, about Naughty Dogs approach to telling stories.

When you actually sit down to write the story, I imagine you sketch out the broad narrative arc. But when it comes down to specific sections of the game, how do you divide the beats between Heres the story we need to tell and Heres the set piece and the gameplay we need? Its a very collaborative environment. We dont do one thing without the other. One of the unique aspects about the studio that really makes Uncharted work is that we always approach things with the story in mind when were designing the gameplay elements, and were always thinking about the gameplay when were writing the story.

The two go hand in hand throughout. In regard to [the segment you just played] being very explorative and player-driven, thats actually one of the biggest challenges. Were trying to tell a linear story in a nonlinear environment. We had to break down a number of things: How does that work? How do we design around that? How do we build these spaces? There are aspects of the story that will play out linearly irrespective of the choices that the player makes whether they go to fort A, B, or C first. We still try and make that linear narrative work. We still have the arc that you would expect from a story crafted like that.

And certain things will happen depending on the player choices they make. Some aspects of the story, you may or may not experience. We talked a little bit about the side quests, so to speak, in this space as well, and players may never see anything of that unless they go looking for it.

What did you learn about telling stories in Uncharted 4that you brought to this game? We have an expression that we use in the studio, Keeping it on the stick. Which is a high-level goal that we have: trying to keep as much of the story in gameplay as we can. We were doing more of that in The Last of Us, and in Uncharted 4 particularly, with things like optional conversations, where the player can learn more about the world or engage more with certain characters. Like, do we need to tell a particular moment as a cinematic, or can we keep that in gameplay? Whenever were in set pieces, were trying to keep the gameplay as much under the player control as we can, so that you can really feel like youre playing this experience.

Whats the decision process like when you choose to go to a cut scene over staying in the game? It tends to be for when we need the more subtle emotional cues, when we really want to frame certain shots and tell certain poignant stories. One thing that we also find works really well is using cinematics as a pacing tool. We have a lot of players who will play through and want to experience as much of the story as they can, and a lot of players just want to play purely for the story like they dont care about the gameplay. We use cinematics to layer in whats happening with the characters. What are they feeling right now? What are their goals? What are their motivations? How do we keep the story moving along? What are the revelations were trying to get at in this beat?

Again, that was something thats been a huge challenge in this section because its so player- directed. Because were really handing the reins over to the player a lot more. How do we still retain what players expect from an Uncharted game in terms of pacing while enabling a certain level of player agency?

The dialogue still has that sharpness of Uncharted 4. Do you have a writer that specializes in those back-and-forth moments? And what is that writing process like? So, Shaun Escayg and Josh [Scherr] are the two writers Shaun is the creative director as well. Those two guys have worked very closely together in terms of setting out the high-level arcs for these characters and the story, and then really building in the minute-to-minute dialogue through the game. So everything is informed by those high-level goals. And we take that into where we have gameplay spaces to make that work.

So its like, Okay, the player is going to be driving for a moment here. So this is a chance for them to talk a little bit. Yeah, and typically particularly during the gameplay parts, because the player might be driving for 5 minutes; they might be driving for 15 minutes; we really dont know theres a lot of dialogue that we have written that some players are just never going to hear. This is like, the sixth interview weve done today and Im still hearing things in this that Ive never heard before. Thats why Ill be laughing at the same time youll be laughing, because I hadnt heard that little bit of rapport between the two characters its great.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

A good spot by The Daily Show.

The outmoded application still has millions of fans.

So many drunk tacos. So little time.

Talking with Naughty Dog about creating a great story and a great game at the same time.

Now theres a tweet.

The passenger said when he got into the car there was an intoxicated woman in the passenger seat who performed oral sex on the driver.

A very weird Twitter drama between the TSA and United Airlines.

The latest food trend involves spearing your burger on your soda.

His now-deleted content includes several tweets praising Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

In a world where a company notorious for hoarding cash spends a ton on an ad.

Pauls neighbors in Los Angeles are considering filing a lawsuit against the young star for stunts like lighting a giant fire in his swimming pool.

Everybody is making the same dumb joke about Trumps new communications director.

Anthony Scaramucci doesnt seem concerned about all his old tweets.

Musk is a good executive. But hes a world-class carnival barker.

Sean Spicer, the most meme-able White House employee besides the president, departs.

But it still doesnt know who Fancy Bear is.

While Uber tries to go it alone, Lyft continues to try to partner up.

In recent weeks, numerous women have come forward with accusations of gross sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the industry.

View post:

Balancing Freedom and Storytelling in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy - New York Magazine

Great public interest would trump his freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a right that can be limited said Phephelaphi Dube director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights.

Overwhelming public interest overshadows his freedom of expression she said.

According to the Freedom of Expression Institute the question on whether or not doctor-patient confidentiality trumps freedom of expression is one that speaks to ethics.

In this case SAMA has indicated that patient information is confidential even after the patient has passed on. From that perspective we would argue that the doctor is bound by his profession not to disclose sensitive patient details said FXIs spokesperson Tusi Fokane.

According to the Health Professions' Council of SA a doctor can circumvent his oath to respect doctor-patient confidentiality in respect of a deceased patient only if he has the written consent of the next-of-kin or of the executor of the deceased's estate

- TimesLIVE

READ MORE:

View post:

Mandela book author's freedom of expression rights may be trumped by 'overwhelming' public interest say experts - Times LIVE