Monthly Archives: February 2022

POP stars continuously shock and impress crowds at the Super Bowl Halftime Show each year.

From wardrobe malfunctions to controversial dance moves and surprise special guests, the Super Bowl Halftime Show is an American tradition that gives its 110million television viewers entertainment to talk about.

7

7

7

Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Mary J Blige, and Kendrick Lamar are set to headline the flashy gig this year and carry on the legacy of the showstopping, career-defining performances from prior years.

Before Katy Perry's 2015 halftime show at the University of Phoenix Stadium, no one could have guessed that a dancing shark could have stolen the show from the international pop star.

The iconic singer started the show with a jaw-dropping entrance on a 20-foot-tall robotic lion, followed by dance numbers and outfit changes before the show-stopping sharks appeared in a beach-themed number.

One of Perry's backup dancers dressed as a shark, deemed "left shark" by fans, became an internet sensation for dancing in a seemingly clueless manner with different dance moves than the rest of the crew.

Fireworks came during the finale as Perry was lifted at least 50 feet into the air while singing her hit song Firework.

Janet Jackson became exposed to the world in an embarrassing "wardrobe malfunction" while performing in the 2004 Super Bowl's halftime show.

Read our Super Bowl LVI blog for the latest updates

The infamous nip slip came in the middle of Jackson's performance with Justin Timberlake.

Many viewers wondered if it was a publicity stunt due to the lyrics Timberlake was singing at the time of the mishap: Gonna have you naked by the end of this song."

The Federal Communications Commission received 200,000 complaints. Broadcasters CBS attempted to cut away from the incident but were still fined $550,000.

Singer M.I.A.outraged viewers when she flashed her middle finger and mouthed an expletive during Madonna's 2012 halftime show as a guest performer.

Over 200 complaints flooded into the Federal Communications Commission, and the NFL and NBC made a public apology for the slip-up.

The singer initially called the politically incorrect gesture a "display of female empowerment through being punk rock" before claiming that it was a religious symbol after facing legal action from the NFL.

The League sought over $16million in damages from the Sri Lankan performer, but they ultimately reached a confidential settlement.

In 1989, the NFL decided on a 1950s themed halftime show for the 23rd Super Bowl.

The League hired an Elvis Presley impersonator and magician named Elvis Presto.

The man attempted to do the "world's largest card trick" while performing a song-and-dance routine while also trying to include audience participation.

The extravaganza also fell short due to technical difficulties -- millions of 3D glasses were distributed to the audience at the big game, but the glasses ended up not working.

Legendary pop star Michael Jackson opened his 1993 halftime performance at the Rose Bowl by landing on top of the stage's huge TV monitor and striking a couple of his classic dance moves before being somehow ejected onto the center of the field.

As fans were blown away and hundreds ran to greet him, the King of Pop simply stood there stoically and silently.

Jackson stood still for almost two minutes, despite only having 12 minutes to perform.

Some have called this freeze a "power move" showing off Jackson's eccentricity and his hold over people.

Jackson's performance changed the course of the halftime show by proving that a show with star power can broaden the Super Bowel's audience by attracting new viewers who wouldn't normally watch football.

In a show produced by Disney, an Indiana Jones homage took the stage for the 1995 halftime show.

A Harrison Ford impersonator and an army of male dancers wearing grass skirts danced and honored the game's trophy.

Patti LaBelle and Tony Bennett also made special guest appearances in the cringe-worthy spectacle that featured a theme park voiceover and a crowd singalong.

The promotional performance came right before the grand opening of Disney's Indiana Jones theme park ride.

Singer Diana Ross made quite an exit from the Sun Devil Stadium in 1996 while singing I Will Survive and Take Me Higher.

The 12-minute performance included four outfit changes and songs from Ross's solo career as well as from The Supremes.

Ross looked up to the sky at the end of her performance and said, "Oh my -- here comes my ride!" as the helicopter flew into the stadium.

In recent years, The Weeknd has credited the soul diva's stylish performance as his favorite halftime show.

Triple-threat Lady Gaga started her mesmerizing performance at the 2017 Super Bowl by seemingly singing on the roof of the Houston stadium with hundreds of drones forming an American flag behind her.

Gaga then jumps awkwardly from the star-spangled backdrop with her arms and legs outstretched to land in a fly system on the stage.

It was later revealed that the jump was prerecorded, but that didn't stop the hilarious moment from going viral as Gaga strikes a funny pose before jumping.

After dancing all over the stage throughout the show, Gaga ended her performance by catching a football and jumping off the stage.

7

7

7

7

We pay for your stories!

Do you have a story for The US Sun team?

Read the rest here:
Inside the most SHOCKING Super Bowl Halftime Show moments ever from Janet Jackson to Lady Gagas drop-in... - The US Sun

MONROVIA The standard bearer of the opposition Alternative National Congress, Alexander Cummings, has said the fundamental principle of law of Liberia is being misapplied after Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie last week upheld the ruling of the Magistrate of the Monrovia City Court.

The Criminal Court A Judge compelled Cummings and co-defendants to produce a subpoenaed document listed by the prosecution as the primary evidence they intend to use in proving their charges against us.

Cummings said it sounds strange after the Judge asked he and his co-defendants to strangely and forcibly produce evidence against themselves, particularly in a trial of this nature.

He said despite the preponderance of legal citations, precedents and authorities provided to substantiate this right, including the clear and straightforward language of the 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, he and his co-defendants were surprised and disappointed by the incorrect and prejudicial ruling of the judge.

We are aware of our rights to seek a review of the ruling, including for the benefit of posterity. However, we are also mindful of the nature of our judicial system, and especially the ploy of the prosecution to seek refuge in procedural and other delays so as to conceal their obvious inability to prove the crime politically charged against us, he said.

Given all of the considerations, Cummings said, they are reviewing all of the options, promising to make a decision shortly on the way forward.

As always, we will continue to be transparent and provide the truth in this matter based on the facts, he added.

We are undeterred and remain determined to change the system and bring real change to our country for the benefit of all Liberians.

Yesterday, His Honor Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie upheld the ruling of the Magistrate of the Monrovia City Court compelling me, and my other falsely accused co-defendants, to produce a subpoenaed document listed by the prosecution as the primary evidence they intend to use in proving their charges against us. The Judge appeared to rely on the unverified and unsubstantiated claim of the prosecution that the subpoenaed document exists, and somehow came into my possession. The Judge claimed incorrectly that the existence of the subpoenaed document has not been contested.

Our appeal, which is public record, was not only based on the legal right of all defendants at trial not to be compelled to furnish evidence against themselves, but also stated repeatedly, truthfully and consistently that the subpoenaed document does not exist, and has never ever existed. As such, what never existed cannot ever come into our possession.

The rest is here:
Liberia: ANC Appalled by Judge Willie's Ruling Compelling Its Political Leader to Produce Document Listed by His Prosecutor as Main Evidence - Front...

The times have definitely changed.

I remember during the first few months of this coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic the Department of the Interior and Local Government would not allow husband and wife to ride a motorcycle together.

It was only after a public outcry that the agency had a change of heart and said couples riding in tandem were okay as long as there was a barrier between them.

Bohol Gov. Arthur Yap, with his degree in economics from the Ateneo de Manila University, even came up with a prototype for the shield.

Probably not wanting to appear politically incorrect, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority also lifted the ban against live-in partners provided that the passenger could show proof that he or she lived in the same house as the driver.

Ah, those were the days when common sense reigned supreme. Which brings me to the point of this column.

Tomorrow is Valentines Day.

You know, when many couples, married or otherwise, would go on a date at restaurants or cinemas or at the Plaza Independencia, depending on their social status, and then head on to hotels, motels or lodging houses, depending on how much money they had left, to consummate their love.

However, since we are still living amid the pandemic, theyll have to exercise extra precautions. And Im not just talking about a Durex Close Fit to avoid any unwanted, ah, accidents. They will also have to wear a face mask at all times while in public because the practice has obviously proven to be effective in keeping Covid-19 at bay.

But once in the privacy of hotels, motels or lodging houses, they can surrender to their passion with reckless abandon and give thanks to Saint Valentine for his martyrdom for allowing them a moment of amorous congress.

Theyll just have to watch out for police personnel who will be monitoring their comings and goings at these establishments.

Apparently, our men and women in blue will be on the lookout for underage girls and not male minors because its okay for the latter to have carnal knowledge, while it is strictly a no-no for the former.

Of course.

By the way, did you know that Valits okay to call him that, right?also happens to be the patron saint of epilepsy and beekeepers?

Go figure.

See the article here:
Briones: Love is in the air| SUNSTAR - SunStar Philippines

Brian Anderson: Welcome back to the 10 Blocks podcast. This is Brian Anderson, the editor of City Journal. Joining me on today's show is Eric Kaufmann. He's an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a professor politics at Birkbeck College, University of London and the author of several books. He's been on the podcast before. His work focuses on demography, religious and national identity and cultural politics.

In a recent report for the Manhattan Institute, "The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary America" he quantifies the nature and extent of the political divides over free speech, cancel culture and race essentialism in the US. It's a massive document with a ton of original research and analysis in it. And we're very glad to run a synopsis of its basic argument in City Journal and to have Eric on the podcast again, so Eric, thanks very much for joining us.

Eric Kaufmann: It's great to be back, Brian.

Brian Anderson: Your report contains some very striking findings. For instance, when they're asked what they consider the most important problem facing the United States, 10% of the survey respondents chose cultural war, cultural war issues. So political correctness, cancel culture as we've come to call it, wokeness, people falsely accused of racism and sexism. They ranked culture wars third just below COVID-19 and the economy and healthcare and ahead of other issues like immigration and the environment. So could you talk about some of the most significant top line results of your research?

Eric Kaufmann: Yeah, I mean, this is, I think quite important because there is a debate over how important the culture wars are to the average person, to the average voter. And often it's suggested that this is just something that pointy-headed academics and journalists think about or think tank people think about. And actually what this sort of analysis, which is pretty standard in political science shows is that actually these issues are now actually have quite a bit of cut through for the average voter.

If I ask sort of people, their talk issue from a list of nine baskets, one of which was about culture wars issues to do with political correctness, cancel culture, wokeness and so on. And I think you need to have as many words in there as possible to sort of trigger that association for people. And what you see is essentially for Republican voters, 50% of them ranked it as a top three issue.

And that's just below, I mean, it's somewhat below immigration, but it's above religion and moral values. It's above things like foreign policy and so on. It's quite high ranking and even for Independents about a third of them put it in their top three and for Democrats about 15%.

So this issue is now above the midpoint and it is for Republicans a leading issue. And I think that starts to mean that it's going to swing elect, it's going to start swinging elections. This is not just an intellectual consideration. So I think that was the first thing that I was really trying to establish is to use this standard, most important issue question and try and put the culture war issues, which are very rarely included. Now they have been included on the Harvard Harris poll, which I cited, which shows a pretty similar result from a longer list of 24 issues. Political correctness, cancel culture was right in the middle. So this is actually quite an important issue now for US politics.

Brian Anderson: Very interesting. In your study, you identify cultural socialism and cultural liberalism as the rival forces in our current Western cultural conflicts. So how do you define these concepts? Because they're, especially when one talks about cultural liberalism in an American context, you're using that in a slightly different way or a very different way. And what does the survey tell us about these two categories you identify?

Eric Kaufmann: Yeah, I think this is just a way of kind of making sense of all the results and putting them into a sort of larger frame. And I think what this is suggesting is that this newer, a newer culture war division is opening up that is somewhat of a shifting of the political access in American politics. And what this means is that you have on the one side, what I would call cultural liberals and liberalism used more in the sense of classical liberalism.

And this means support for due process for free speech, for equal treatment under the law, for scientific reason, scientific method, et cetera. And things which at one time might have been more associated with the left or with what Americans would think of as the term liberal, which reflects that idea of being politically on the left.

If we go back to the 1950s and 60s, for example, some of those issues are now kind of more associated with the right, something like free speech, equal treatment under the law, science and so on. So what we have is on the one side, people who are supporting free speech positions and sort of more scientifically rational positions.

And on the other side, we have what I'm calling cultural socialism, which is instead of equal treatment equality of outcome between identity groups. Instead of due process a presumption of guilt against members of an oppressor group, and also not necessarily support for the scientific method, so perhaps standpoint epistemology or feelings or other forms of knowing elevated above evidence and analytic logic.

So what we have is that juxtaposition, which I think is becoming increasingly central, and I think we'll define actually the politics of the US and other Western countries going forward.

And so instead of thinking about the Cold War, which was really a struggle between economic socialism or communism on the one hand and economic liberalism, the idea of a free market on the other, what we have is a cultural version of this Cold War, which is emerging. On the one hand, cultural freedom, on the other hand, cultural equality of outcome and protecting subaltern minorities from harm is juxtaposed against free speech and other kinds of freedoms.

So yeah, I think that's sort of how I make sense of a lot of the results is. And I think that this is going to be an emerging issue in particular because of the views of those under 30, which incline slightly more, I would argue in favor of cultural socialism than in favor of cultural liberalism.

Brian Anderson: About a quarter of Americans have had direct exposure to what we could call critical social justice ideology at work. Younger employees are most likely to have gone through various training programs in this area and support as you just suggested, what I would call illiberalism, progressive illiberalism and what you're calling cultural socialism.

Your data show that diversity training is linked both to being in favor of cancel culture and also having a greater fear of being subjected to cancel culture. So what explains that particular tension and what does this kind of youthful endorsement of what we're calling cancel culture these days mean for the future of free speech in America?

Eric Kaufmann: I think it's a very negative finding in a way for the future of free speech. It suggests there is a sort of package of beliefs, which fit under the label cultural socialism, which a large number of millennials have bought in into millennials and Gen Z. And that sort of deal if you like, that social contract is one that says, I am scared of being canceled, so I'm fearful of losing my job or reputation for something I've said online.

This is one of the questions that I put in this, and this question has been asked, a different version of it has been asked by the Cato Institute and similar kinds of findings, levels have been reported. Roughly 35, 36% of Americans are afraid of losing their job or reputation for things they've said or posted online in the past or in the present. It goes up to close to 50% amongst those under age 40, so it's higher.

But what's interesting is those younger people are much more likely to say, "Well," in fact, a majority of those under age 25 would say, "Well, this is an acceptable price. My fear of being canceled is more or less an acceptable price to pay to protect minority groups." So they're buying into an ideology, which is a pretty sort of, it's a pretty tough ideology that they're willing to accept the risk of being canceled in order to uphold what they see as social justice.

So they're buying the loss of freedom. They're willing to sacrifice their own freedom to uphold their vision of cultural socialism. And that's quite interesting to me, it kind of shows. Because a lot of the questions in the past have simply shown that yeah, people are scared of being canceled and yes, that they support free speech and they're against hate speech, but none of these questions really force people to choose and make trade offs between these values. And when you do that, what you really see is that the older generations tend to prioritize free speech over cultural socialism. The younger generations, if anything, put cultural socialism slightly above free speech.

So I think as that generation enters organizations, they enter that become the median voter. They're going to change the culture of organizations and probably even law to make it essentially to restrict free speech in the name of social justice.

Brian Anderson: And where are, I guess they're absorbing these values from their education from growing up with like-minded friends? Where is this stuff coming from?

Eric Kaufmann: Well, it's interesting. I mean, you can see the use of a lot of these critical social justice terms begins in the academy. And I've seen other data, which is not in this report, which shows that as early as the 1980s, we start to see an uptick and rise, steady rise in the use of these terms in academia.

And then sort of starting in around 2010 to 2015, you start to see what's called the great awokening, a big spike in the use of these terms in the media. And I think it's really the media, social media influencers. That's really where this influence is coming from for younger people. It's also true. They're getting it to some degree in school and they're getting it at university, but a lot of the research does sort of suggest that people's views aren't shaped that much by schooling and university.

So it's heavily through peers, which is in turn heavily influenced by social media and pop celebrity culture and so on. So I think that's, it's really that sort of elite pop culture that's kind of shaping the information environment that's giving rise to these beliefs. And of course, if you look at the views of American students as outlined in other surveys by FIRE, for example, I mean, something on the order of 70% of students think that if a professor says something that offends them people should report, the students should report the professor to the authorities.

You've got something like between 70 and 85% of students say that students who say that Black lives matter is a hate group. I think it's like 85% say that such a person shouldn't be allowed on campus to speak. You can very, very, on some questions, almost overwhelming support for the cultural socialist position. And so yeah, I think really the free speech culture as Greg Lukianoff would say is very much on the back foot amongst this generation.

Brian Anderson: Now people tend to choose where to live and work in a way that results in a significant political segregation, what you term the big sort. So according to your survey data, more than 50%, 56% of Trump and Biden voters are employed in workplaces that are dominated by people who generally share their own political views, their political tribe. And this may account for the fact that Trump voters worry about being politically discriminated against at the rate of 27%, which isn't as high as you might think it.

As those in ideologically homogeneous areas and workplaces, they're not as worried about being canceled because they're surrounded by their friends. So does this herald a future in which the only way to really obtain the freedom of speech is to surround yourself with the like-minded people? What might this imply for the nation's civic and social health?

Eric Kaufmann: Well, I think you're right that to some degree, and particularly for Republicans and Trump voters being in a milieu where I say a workplace which is majority Republican, is going to increase your freedom substantially maybe by up to 20 points. And when I say freedom, your freedom to, for example, express your political views to a colleague. That is, it's under 30% in a left leaning or yeah, left of center leaning workplaces, a Trump voter fewer than 30% would express their political views, whereas in a Republican majority workplace, 75%.

So that's a 45 point gap. If we take Biden voters in Republican leaning institutions and Biden voters in Democrat leading institutions, that gap goes from 45 points to something like 20 something point. In other words, they feel a lot less constrained. They are still somewhat constrained, but they're less constrained.

And yeah, I think the pattern of, it's like the geographic sorting, what Bishop and Cushing called the big sort where central cities and urban areas are increasingly Democrat and exurban and rural areas, increasingly Republican and congressional districts the same. That pattern we also see with workplaces so there are most Republicans are working in Republican workplaces to the extent as well, that people are older are working in smaller firms are more rural. All of those things correspond to a more Republican workplace.

And because Republicans tend to fit those categories, older, more rural, smaller size of organization, more Republican organization, they tend to be insulated to some degree from the speech restrictions and chilling effects that exist in the larger, more Democrat leaning organizations. Now, what that means, one of the things that that means is that this is actually, we saw that statistic about 36% of both Biden and Trump voters saying they're worried about being fired or having their reputation lost due to things they posted.

It's not a difference between the two sets of voters. And I think one of the reasons for that is because Republicans are somewhat insulated in workplace that very only about a quarter of them work in Democrat majority workplaces. And so for that reason, I think, there's a big debate over how, again, how important is cancel culture and the culture war?

I think it's less important than some think, particularly those of us who work in heavily left-leaning sectors such as academia or media. We think that everybody feels what we feel and I don't think that's actually correct. I think to some degree, the skeptics are right, that a lot of Republicans are insulated from cancel culture to some degree, but on the other hand, 36% of people worrying about their jobs is also quite a significant number, and just for reference in certain sectors. So for example, amongst Trump academics fewer than one in 10 would actually reveal their political views to a colleague. So in some sectors, there is a very high degree of self censorship, but in general, more Republicans are, because they're working in Republican workplaces they're not as chilled. They're expression is not as restricted as it might otherwise be and that might be one of the reasons why personal experience of being canceled is not really a very good predictor of the vote in this sample.

Brian Anderson: Your report is based on original data from a large scale survey. It provides a kind of grounding for some of the more philosophical discussions about the culture wars, which have really, of course been going on for decades now. What in your view should lawmakers and politicians take away from this research and more specifically, what kind of recommendations that the policy or political level do the results you've uncovered council?

Eric Kaufmann: Yeah, I mean, I asked quite a number. I polled quite a number of policy questions as well. And what you really see is more people support restrictions on, for example, university's ability to fire professors for politically incorrect speech, or even the ability of tech firms to sort of ban people for legal speech. I mean, those sorts of things if you look at the data, more people would support government regulations preventing that kind of behavior by these organizations that are either public or monopoly.

So that's one public policy takeaway. I mean, here in Britain, we have the Academic Freedom Bill, which again, would very strongly regulate university's ability to engage in those actions. So that seems to have support. The other thing in terms of political diversity, I asked about academia and media, which have both gone from a ratio of about one and a half left to one right in the mid sixties to about between four and six to one left to right today.

And what you saw was kind of bipartisan consensus that actually in favor of as much, if you like emphasis on political diversity as on racial and gender diversity. So as, or more emphasis should be placed on political, getting more political diversity as is placed currently on gender and racial diversity in academia and the media, so that got bipartisan support.

And again, so there's some indication in both the regulation of organization's ability to cancel and also support for political diversity alongside, that you should be emphasizing political diversity as much or more than race and gender diversity in these organizations. I mean, that was getting much more support than the other. And I think that's kind of telling because these are both directions that I think in my view anyway, I think that governments need to be moving in because I guess I'm less of the view that the marketplace is going to sort of drive out the universities that are canceling people and support the universities that back free speech.

I'm more skeptical that that process can happen in a lot of spheres in society. I'm sort of more of the view that governments need to take an active role in regulating what certainly public institutions are allowed to terms of canceling and disciplining people for speech or some of the equity and diversity policies, which pay absolutely no attention to viewpoint diversity allow for political discrimination and only focus on race and gender. So I think those takeaways, I think, are important for policymakers.

Brian Anderson: Yes, I remember we discussed some of these issues the, the last time you were on 10 Blocks. A final question. The report's been out for a little bit now. I'm wondering what kind of feedback you're getting, what kind of reaction it has provoked? What has the social media response been like?

Eric Kaufmann: Yeah, I mean, I think that the City Journal piece certainly got picked up very widely and commented upon. And I think that was sort of the, that piece, which was really talking about the idea that cancel culture is not going away. That actually we're just at the beginning because the younger generation is really significantly more supportive of cultural socialism and less supportive of cultural liberalism that we need to be prepared for a future in which there is much more of a battle over the entire liberal system which underpins the law, that that is actually something that we're going to have to fight for.

And I think that is sort of something that got picked up the most and people commented on the most. I didn't get a whole lot of pushback. I mean, there is always the game of trying to interpret the meaning of words like free speech that people who are kind of more of the cultural socialist bent will try and interpret liberalism as meaning smuggle in a lot of egalitarianism.

In other words, well, if people don't feel safe, then they don't feel free, therefore we have to prioritize safety of minorities over the freedom of majority. I mean, that kind of logic, which I think is actually a distortion of the meaning of the terms liberalism and so on.

So I think actually that is the only push back I had but I wouldn't say that there's been a ton of pushback and also likewise, the findings that, and which we didn't go into as much, that these issues split left wing or Democrat voters and unite Republican voters, meaning that this is a very good wedge issue for the Republicans and a very dangerous issue for the Democrats. I think that also has not received a great deal of pushback. So I guess broadly I'm encouraged by that. I haven't heard a whole lot of arguments trashing it, so I guess that's a good thing.

Brian Anderson: Okay. Well, that's good to know and it's really a terrific piece of work, Eric. It's called, the report is called "The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary America." Very interesting discussion today. Don't forget to check out Eric Kaufmanns's work on the City Journal website, http://www.city-journal.org. Will link to his author page in the description, and you can find all sorts of fascinating material there.

You can also find City Journal on Twitter @cityjournal and on Instagram @cityjournal_MI. And as always, if you like what you've heard on today's podcast, please give us a nice ratings on iTunes. So Eric, great to have you on again, and thank you very much for your time today.

Eric Kaufmann: Thanks very much, Brian.

Read this article:
The Future of the Culture War - City Journal

This includes 95 common food ingredients with their liquid ratios and cooking times. There's info for pasta and grains, seafood and fish, pork, beans and legumes, vegetables, chicken, beef, and other meats.

Promising reviews: (Instant Pot sheets) "I am so happy that I decided to give this product a try! What an amazing idea. I placed the smaller magnet right on the Instant Pot and use it daily for a quick reference. Instead of searching the cookbook or the internet, I can just glance over and know in an instant how to program my Instant Pot for that particular product." Olesya

(Air Fryer sheets) "I'm so glad that I came across these very handy cheat sheets. I love having this information handy and easy to use. The magnetic sheets are strong and stay in place well, even with the fridge door opening and closing a lot. It's handy having them right in view for quick reference. It helps us to use the air fryer more, as it's easy to glance over and time things correctly. I like that it is a dark color so it doesn't get messy as easily and it has all the things we are most likely to use the air fryer for. The envelope the magnetic sheets come in is cute and would make a nice gift, perhaps in a basket or bag of related items. I'm happy to have these!" Small~Town~Girl

Get the Instant Pot version for $8.99 and the Air Fryer one for $11.45, both from Amazon.

See the original post here:
34 Useful Things Under $30 For Anyone Who Wants To Be 30, Flirty, And Thriving - BuzzFeed

Antarctica has long been a bone of contention, but the real Apocalypse around it will begin in 2048. If not before.

Source: focus.ua

Last June, the Journal of The Royal Society of New Zealand published a paper by scientists from the University of Otago proving that New Zealand's original inhabitants, the Maori, discovered Antarctica at least a thousand years before Europeans arrived there in the early 19th century. For this sensational conclusion, New Zealand researchers have studied Aboriginal oral history, as well as all sorts of documents and reports published by various organizations that do not have common academic or commercial channels. It turns out that the Polynesian leader Hui Te Rangior, together with his team, swam into the waters of the Antarctic back in the 7th century and, perhaps, was the first person to set foot on the White Continent.

The discovery may seem like an ethnographic fun, an additional detail in the museum's exposition. However, it fits better into the well-known formula: History is politics thrown into the past. As the scientists themselves have stated, we are creating a platform on which to have much broader conversations about New Zealand's relationship with Antarctica. Why? Because the battle for Antarctica is something that humanity will have to endure in the not too distant future. And each of several dozen countries must find its own casus belli for this a pretext for war.

The legend of El Dorado around the South Pole has fascinated many Europeans since Sir Francis Drake. On the first day of 1739, the French captain de Lozier looked at the cloudy, foggy and ice-bound coast the one that would later be called Bouvet Island. Then he returned home with a description of majestic icebergs and black-and-white penguins that looked like large ducks, but with fins instead of wings.

Almost three decades later, in August 1769, James Cook on the barge Endeavour left England with a secret order to search for the mysterious Southern Continent and find it before the French navigators. He did not find milk rivers and jelly banks. If the Southern Continent existed, then, as Cook had to state after his round-the-world trip, he lay in harsh regions beyond the 40th parallel. But Cook did not calm down. A little later, he made another expedition. On January 30, 1774, he reached 7110, 300 miles beyond the Antarctic Circle. The ice forced him to turn back.

Antarctica holds more than 80% of the world's fresh water perhaps the most important resource in the era of climate change on Earth, which should be fought for.

The Russians and the British landed in Antarctica with a difference of 3 days. It's not hard to imagine how these differences could be used in future disputes over the rights to Antarctica

Photo: Pexels

The story of the race to the South Pole by Robert Scott and Roald Amundsen has grown into legends so that it almost turned into a legend itself. The Norwegian, having bet on dogs (as on what you can ride and what you can eat), won, having reached his cherished goal on December 14, 1911. The Briton, who decided to go on a pony, lost. Having reached the pole a month later than the rival, he, along with the members of his expedition, died on the way back from hunger, cold and physical exhaustion. In the Norwegian film Amundsen Lord George Curzon at a feast in honor of the outstanding Norwegian polar explorer, which was given at the Royal Geographical Society in London, made a toast to the real heroes of the Amundsen expedition dogs (this is how Amundsen described this episode in his scandalous memoirs & # 171; My life as an explorer & # 187 ;).

This drama is often seen as a mixture of romance and vanity. Although the trigger for it was quite economic reasons. In 1908, Great Britain put forward the first territorial claims, which later, after the death of Scott, were formalized by a corresponding royal decree. The role of the deceased researcher in this was noticeable. It was Scott, shortly before his expedition to the South Pole, who claimed that unheard-of coal reserves are hidden in Antarctica. And he was not wrong.

According to modern estimates, the depths of Antarctica contain 150 billion tons of coal. The US Geological Survey claims that the local oil fields are superior to those stored in pantries Saudi Arabia and reach 7 billion tons. Gas is also more than enough more than 4 trillion cubic meters. Uranium is more than in the Congo. There are deposits of copper ore, nickel, molybdenum, mica, lead, graphite, zinc, diamonds and gold. But perhaps the most important resource in the era of climate change on Earth is fresh water. More than 80% of its global reserves are concentrated here.

These riches are so overwhelming to the imagination that patterns of all sorts of myths are woven around them. Perhaps the most famous, passing through the department of conspiracy theory, is about & # 171; Schwabenland & # 187;, & # 171; the promised land & # 187;, created on the White Continent by order and for the needs of Adolf Hitler. In January 1939, the Fuhrer sent an expedition to Antarctica, which began research in the area of Queen Maud Land. But this modest scientific contribution, conspiracy theorists believe, is not the end of the matter. The Nazis, they believe, equipped a network of under-ice bunkers here and even conducted experiments on the production of aircraft. One of the apocrypha testifies that in October 1944, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy of the Third Reich, Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz, speaking to the cadets of the naval school in Labe, said: & # 171; The German submarine fleet is proud that far, on the edge of the earth, it built for the Fuhrer and the Fatherland a real earthly paradise, an impregnable fortress. Mysterious Schwabenland within the framework of this theory, reeking of the myth of Valhalla allegedly became a refuge for the Fuhrer. He did not shoot himself, but died safely there in 1971 (according to another version, Hitler cruised between Antarctica, Colombia and Argentina). And yes, of course, the secret services of the two superpowers, the USSR and the USA, knew about it.

Polar Silk Road. Chinese workers drain meltwater as part of the opening of the Comandante Ferraz station in Antarctica

They started talking about such a parallel world after the 1946 American Highjump expedition (High jump) led by Admiral Richard Byrd, which included 13 warships and more than 4 thousand people, of which only a few dozen really were scientists, ended without much triumph. Its purpose was to teach military personnel and test materials for a possible war in Antarctica in extreme cold conditions. It took eight months, but it ended almost twice as fast and with the loss of three people. And when Byrd returned home, word spread that Americans were attacked by some unknown aircraft like flying saucers. They had to retreat, although the moment to make Antarctica theirs was, as they say, right for this.

Important

The Empire of Water: How River Control Gives China Unlimited Power

There were also statements that the USSR prevented the success of the case. The corresponding statement was made by George Kennan, whom the Los Angeles Times later called the architect of the Cold War. Kennan called for the speedy organization of a rebuff to the exorbitantly growing ambitions of the Soviets, who, after the successful end of the war with Germany and Japan, are in a hurry to use their military and political victories to plant the harmful ideas of communism not only in Eastern Europe and China!.

The curtain of secrecy over Operation High Jump still exists. But the basis of all conflicts around the White Continent is still not high-tech surviving Nazis, and his wealth.

One had to go through several clashes in these harsh places (for example, the Argentines with the British in 1952, after which lawsuits began) to understand that a legal settlement here is an urgent need. In December 1959, the Antarctic Treaty was concluded in Washington, which entered into force in 1961 after it was signed by 12 states; during the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 1957-1958, the following countries operated in Antarctica: France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Soviet Union, UK and USA. These countries have established 55 Antarctic stations.

According to the latest data, 54 states have acceded to the treaty. 29 of them, including all original signatories, have the right to vote. Ukraine, which has the station Akademik Vernadsky in Antarctica, is one of them.

The Argentines have come up with a recipe for how to prove their right to Antarctica. At the end of 1977, they brought a pregnant woman there, who gave birth to a baby there the first on the continent.

The treaty itself did not deny or support national claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica, but it did prohibit all parties from establishing military bases, conducting military maneuvers, testing any weapon (including nuclear), or disposing of radioactive waste in the area. He encouraged freedom of scientific research and the exchange of scientific information and personnel in Antarctica. In 1991, in addition to the treaty, the Madrid Protocol was signed, which entered into force in 1998. The agreement, providing comprehensive protection for the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, banned mineral and oil exploration for 50 years and included rules for protecting the Antarctic environment.

The main Achilles' heel of the protocol is the period after which everything in Antarctica can change. That time will come in 2048. All participating countries are preparing for it and it is unlikely that it will do without a fight. At least diplomatically. Methods in order to claim their rights to some of the Antarctic delicacies after the specified period are chosen differently.

Tourist liner in Antarctica

Photo: Pexels

Belay Lounge not everyone's history is as long as that of the New Zealand Maori. Or at least like Russia and Great Britain. Therefore, sometimes you have to turn on other mechanisms to prove birthright. Perhaps the best recipe was invented in Argentina, precisely when, after the death of Juan Peron, a military dictatorship ruled the country.

At the end of 1977, a citizen of this country, who was seven months pregnant, was taken by plane to the Esperanza Antarctic base, where on January 7 of the following year a baby named Emilio Marcos Palma was born, who immediately became a hero in his homeland. Of course, he was immediately granted Argentine citizenship, and he himself was entered into the Guinness Book of Records as the first person in history born on the continent of Antarctica (although there was already a Norwegian Solveig Jacobsen before him, she was born in 1913 on the island of South Georgia, however this area, which contains the ashes of the polar explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton, is not always included in the Antarctic).

Important

For the first time in 20 years: Ukrainian icebreaker went on a scientific expedition to explore Antarctica (video)

Emilio has become a trump card for future negotiations on the ownership of that sector of the White Continent, which Buenos Aires continues to claim.

Emilio Marcos was not the last Argentine born in Esperanza, as the very program launched by the then government went beyond this isolated case. During the reign of the junta, a dozen families were brought to the base with the same biblical goal: Be fruitful and multiply. And they didn't disappoint either. Moreover, the experience of Argentina prompted Santiago, an obvious competitor of Buenos Aires in this segment of Antarctica, to take similar actions.

The Chileans organized in 1984, the birth of Juan Pablo Camocho at his Frei Montalva base in the South Shetland Islands of Antarctica. The civilian settlement was later named Villa las Estrellas. Simon Romero, a New York Times reporter who has been there, described in January 2016 such sights as a school, sports facilities, and a cemetery. He noted: Fewer than 200 people live in this outpost, founded in 1984 during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, when Chile sought to support its territorial claims in Antarctica. Since then, this tiny village has been at the center of one of Antarctica's most remarkable experiments: subjecting entire families to isolation and extreme conditions in an attempt to achieve a semblance of normal life at the bottom of the planet.

Whether the experiment succeeded or not, the context makes us think more about its legal aspects.

Today, states that want to bite off as much of the delicious snow cake as possible, like sprinters, are frozen at a low start. No one perceives 2048 as something infinitely far away. On the contrary, everyone reasonably believes that the battle has already begun. And the winner is the one who will not lag behind the requirements of the times.

In August 2011, the Lowy Institute of International Policy of Australia published a paper entitled Antarctica: Assessing and Protecting Australia's National Interest, urging Canberra to start preparing for the 2048 conversation. After all, Australia is the player with the largest share in Antarctica, claiming 42% of the continent. Its claim to the continental shelf in Antarctica is equal to the size of the entire Arctic Ocean.

It seems inevitable that the issue of mineral resources will be raised again in 2048, the document says. This will likely lead to a resurgence of previous arguments from India and Malaysia that Antarctica should be preserved as the common heritage of mankind and its resources should be shared fairly. It would therefore be prudent for Australia to initiate diplomatic consultations with other claimant states in order to develop a common position in response to expected future pressure to withdraw.

Doaa Abdel-Motaal, an environmental expert, says human migration to Antarctica is something to seriously consider

Such views are not exceptional. Everyone understands that the Antarctic Treaty is nothing more than suspension. He, as BBC journalist Matthew Teller, who visited the White Continent, wrote, has no teeth. Faced with increasing competition for surplus natural resources, and unpredictable intelligence gathering opportunities, all he can do like my penguin is scream and slap his feet in the snow.

The main question is not whether the invasion of Antarctica will occur in 2048, but whether it is possible to find an algorithm that would direct it to a civilized channel. Doaa Abdel-Motaal, an environmental expert who traveled to the Arctic and Antarctic, in her book Battle for the Seventh Continent (2016) argues that factors such as global armament, the rise in climate refugees that the world is about to witness, and an increasingly critical search for energy resources will make Antarctica and Antarctica in general a highly sought-after target. The harsh climate will soon cease to be a safety certificate for this region (it was he, and not the Treaty, she believes, that protected the White Continent from a massive invasion).

Is there any good news? There is. Its name is Svalbard. It is the model that guides the Norwegian Arctic outpost, Abdel-Motaal believes, should be taken as the basis for a legal settlement.

By establishing sovereignty without exclusive ownership of economic resources, this model has created a new approach to territorial governance, she writes. It could solve many of Antarctica's problems, allowing territorial claimants to realize their claims while allowing the rest of the international community to share in the benefits of wealth.

Important

India and Pakistan, all against all: why it is important to be upstream in the 21st century

Abdel-Motaal's formula that politicians need to start actively including Antarctica in the climate refugee equation is a little scary. Especially when you remember that some Norwegian politicians have already tried to start a conversation about housing for refugees in Svalbard, albeit without success. However, Abdel-Motaal believes that migration to Antarctica is something that should be considered in all seriousness.

While this idea may seem inhumane, perhaps even politically incorrect due to unfavorable conditions on the continent, this will change, she writes. The harshness of the Antarctic climate can be overcome in the same way as in Greenland, and even this harshness may not seem so bad compared to the alternatives that refugees have.

Such perspectives give off surrealism. 2048 year. There is no war. There are two streams going towards each other. To Antarctica ships with refugees. From there ships towing icebergs to dry shores.

The idea of such transportation was first discussed about two hundred years ago. But in 1970-1980, two French scientists Paul-Emile Victor and Georges Mougin took it seriously with the approval and support of Saudi Arabia. In 2009 they resumed their work using computer simulations. According to their calculations, an iceberg weighing 7 million tons can be delivered from the shores of Newfoundland to the Canary Islands in 141 days, and it will be able to drink 35 thousand people with healing moisture all year round. It is not clear why no one in Hollywood has yet made a new dystopia with thriller elements on this topic. He could finally become a prophet.

Excerpt from:
Battle for Antarctica. Why scientists believe that the Apocalypse may break out on the white continent - The Times Hub