WHAT’S HOT NOW

LIVE LIVE - The Car Festival Of Lord Jagannath | Rath Yatra | Puri, Odisha

LIVE - The Car Festival Of Lord Jagannath | Rath Yatra | Puri, Odisha)

The Roundup Top Ten for March 10, 2023

At its 150th Anniversary, the Comstock Law is Relevant Again

by Jonathan Friedman and Amy Werbel

Anthony Comstock drew on elite connections to give himself near unilateral power to confiscate "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, or immoral" materials —terms he was free to define on his own—and prosecute people for possessing them. Right-wing politicians seem to be inspired by the example. 

 

Fox's Handling of the "Big Lie" was Cowardly, but Not Unusual

by Kathryn J. McGarr

News organizations' standards of objectivity have long allowed public figures and politicians to proclaim lies without pushback, leaving the public to be arbiters of truth and falsity. 

 

 

The Left Should Reject an Alliance with the Far Right Against Ukraine

by Michael Kazin

The American left has always approached foreign policy with reluctance to impose America's will on the world. But that doesn't mean they should allow Russia to have its way in Ukraine. 

 

 

Why Are Dems Surprised at Eric Adams's Rant Against Church-State Separation?

by Jacques Berlinerblau

Democrats and secularists shocked by the New York mayor's declaration of religion as the heart of society need to confront facts: the church-state separation they revere has been all but entirely demolished. Secularists must now demand equal footing for their lack of belief.

 

 

How Superman Became a Christ-Figure

by Roy Schwartz

How did the comic book creation of two American Jews, whose origin story incorporates Moses, come to be understood as a stand-in for Jesus? Mostly through the movies. 

 

 

Cracking Stasi Puzzles is Key to Some Germans Finding the Truth

by Katja Hoyer

With an informant for every 90 citizens, the East German secret police left behind 16,000 sacks of shredded documents. Can information technology help reconstruct a record of what happens when a government commits to spying on its own citizens? 

 

 

Fear and Loathing in Florida

by Samuel Hoadley-Brill

"Much like 'voter fraud,' the term 'critical race theory' can mean whatever DeSantis needs it to mean to justify his anti-democratic agenda."

 

 

Ignoring International Relations Scholars is Leading the US to Mistakes on Ukraine

by Max Abrahms

Punditry on the Ukraine-Russia war ignores a host of scholarship on international relations that suggests Russian apprehension about NATO is a legitimate influence on Putin's actions, and not just an excuse for aggression. 

 

 

Why is the Right Obsessed with Gramsci?

by Alberto Toscano

A lack of familiarity with the actual writings of the Italian Marxist hasn't stopped the right, including Christopher Rufo and Nate Hochmann, from placing Antonio Gramsci at the center of a conspiracy theory about leftists seeking to conquer social institutions to undermine American society. 

 

 

Jimmy Carter Made Me a Better American; Did He Help Make America Worse?

by Jennifer Finney Boylan

Carter's call for a "moral revival" aimed at replacing materialism with collective purpose. His successors easily twisted that to make materialism into a collective purpose. 

 



* This article was originally published here

ಬ್ರಿಟನ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಹುಲ್ ಗಾಂಧಿ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆ ಹೂಡುವುದಾಗಿ ಲಲಿತ್ ಮೋದಿ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ

ನವದೆಹಲಿ, ಮಾರ್ಚ್. 30: ಇಂಡಿಯನ್ ಪ್ರೀಮಿಯರ್ ಲೀಗ್ (ಐಪಿಎಲ್) ಮಾಜಿ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥ ಲಲಿತ್ ಮೋದಿ ಅವರು ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ಪಕ್ಷದ ಮಾಜಿ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥ ರಾಹುಲ್ ಗಾಂಧಿ ಅವರನ್ನು ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅಕ್ರಮ ಹಣ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಬ್ರಿಟನ್‌ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆ ಹೂಡುವುದಾಗಿ ಘೋಷಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಐಪಿಎಲ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ಅವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ಆರೋಪಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ 2010 ರಿಂದ

18 ಶಾಸಕರ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದಾಗ ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿಗಳ ನೈತಿಕತೆ ಎಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿತ್ತು? ಏನಾಗಿತ್ತು?: ಡಿ.ಕೆ.ಶಿವಕುಮಾರ್‌ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 30:‌ ಕಳೆದ ಚುನಾವಣೆ ನಂತರ ಬಿಜೆಪಿಯವರು ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ಪಕ್ಷದ 13 ಶಾಸಕರು ಜೆಡಿಎಸ್ ನ 5 ಶಾಸಕರು ಹಾಗೂ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಪಕ್ಷೇತರರು ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ 18 ಶಾಸಕರ ಮನೆ ಬಾಗಿಲು ತಟ್ಟಿ ಅವರನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದರಲ್ಲಾ ಆಗ ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿಗಳ ನೈತಿಕತೆ ಎಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿತ್ತು? ಏನಾಗಿತ್ತು? ಎಂದು ಕೆಪಿಸಿಸಿ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷ ಡಿ.ಕೆ.ಶಿವಕುಮಾರ್‌ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈ ಕುರಿತು ಕೆಪಿಸಿಸಿ

Justin Verlander



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/sWEyBhC
via IFTTT

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/2ZrUPce
via IFTTT

Cincinnati Reds



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/zpFDwj6
via IFTTT

Krishnarajanagara Elections: ಕೃಷ್ಣರಾಜನಗರದ ವಿಜಯ ಮಾಲೆ ಯಾರ ಕೊರಳಿಗೆ?

ಮೈಸೂರು, ಮಾರ್ಚ್‌ 27: 'ಭತ್ತದ ಕಣಜ' ಎಂದೇ ಖ್ಯಾತಿ ಪಡೆದಿರುವ ಕೃಷ್ಣರಾಜನಗರ ವಿಧಾನಸಭೆ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಕಾವು ಜೋರಾಗಿಯೇ ಇದೆ. ಈ ಬಾರಿ ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಜೆಡಿಎಸ್‌ಗೆ ಠಕ್ಕರ್ ಕೊಡಲು ಬಿಜೆಪಿ ಕೂಡ ಟೊಂಕ ಕಟ್ಟಿ ನಿಂತಿದೆ. ಆಕಾಂಕ್ಷಿಗಳು, ಮತದಾರರ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಗೆಲ್ಲುವುದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಾನಾ ತಂತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಮೈಸೂರು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ, ಮಂಡ್ಯ ಲೋಕಸಭಾ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ ಬರುವ

What Makes a Rebel Into a Hero?

"Queen Zenobia's Last Look Upon Palmyra," Herbert Gustave Schmalz, 1888

 

 

 

In his 1992 book, It Doesn’t Take A Hero, America’s General Norman Schwarzkopf tells of “The Battered Helmet,” a paper he wrote while attending a course at Fort Benning, Georgia, some years before he became famous as commander of Coalition forces in the First Gulf War.

In his paper, Schwarzkopf described a general trudging to his tent following a great military victory and wearily tossing his battered helmet in the corner. Schwarzkopf then reveals that the general is Julius Caesar, and the time is immediately after the Battle of Pharsalus in Greece, in which Caesar’s army defeated the forces led by the “rebel” Pompey the Great.

Schwarzkopf’s paper, which won him a prize, went on to say that nothing has changed in thousands of years as far as battles are concerned – despite advances in technology since Caesar’s time it is the human elements of morale, preparation and audacity that still win battles. This was a valid point, but Schwarzkopf’s description of Pompey as a “rebel” was way off the mark.

It was Caesar who was officially declared a rebel and enemy of the state by the Senate when he crossed the Rubicon River with his troops to invade Italy and go to war with his own country. To defeat Caesar the rebel, the Senate conferred command of all forces of the Roman Republic on Pompey, who had once been Caesar’s son-in-law and close ally, and who had gained his title Pompey the Great at the age of just twenty-three after spectacular military successes.  

Once Caesar had defeated all senatorial forces – it took him four years – then had himself declared Dictator for life and dismantled the Republic, he only enjoyed five months of undisputed rule before his assassination, beneath a statue of Pompey, in a theater built by Pompey.

Norman Schwarzkopf’s error is just one example of how the world has remembered Caesar the rebel kindly, and made him the hero. This is because Caesar won, and his autocratic successors rewrote history to make him the hero, even naming a month of the year after him and banning public references to Pompey, defeated champion of the destroyed Republic.

Over the next four hundred years after Caesar there were plenty of examples of rebels against Rome who have been painted as heroes for their exploits. For example, British war queen Boudicca, called Boadicea by the Romans, who led the British uprising of AD 60-61. She has been immortalized by British writers, artists and sculptors since the eighteenth century as a heroic British freedom fighter who defied the invading Romans as she valiantly fought for the rights of Britons. The truth is a little different.

Go to the Embankment in London, and just across from Big Ben you will see the 1902 statue of Boudicca and her daughters. There is a lot wrong with that statue. Boudicca is given her Roman name, not her Celtic name. The chariot is Roman, whereas Boudicca used a very different-looking British chariot. It has scythes on its wheels, which neither British nor Roman chariots possessed. The horses have no reins, and the steeds depicted are 19th century cavalry mounts, not the nimble chariot ponies of the 1st century Celts.

The largest error is that the statue is in London at all. Far from liberating London, Boudicca destroyed the city, burning it to the ground. And she and her rebel horde took the thousands of Celtic Britons living in the city, tortured them, impaled then on stakes, and burned them to death – both men and women. The only crime of Boudicca’s fellow Britons was that they lived in a Roman city.

Her rebel army was defeated by a much smaller Roman force, and Boudicca took her own life. But before that, Boudicca dealt out the same cruel punishment to British residents of Colchester, and Verulamium near modern St Albans. Such a rebel leader operating today would be labeled a terrorist, with her tactics likened to that of ISIS.

Hollywood turned another rebel against Rome into a romantic hero. Spartacus was his name. A former Thracian auxiliary in the Roman army, probably an officer commanding Thracian cavalry, he ended up committing a crime and was consigned to slavery. Sold to a gladiatorial school in Capua, south of Rome, he trained as a gladiator. Breaking out with some seventy fellow gladiators, Spartacus began a rampage throughout central and southern Italy, killing Romans, looting and pillaging, and freeing and arming slaves – tens of thousands of them.

Over many months Spartacus’s army of slaves humbled one Roman army after another, until they became divided among themselves and Roman general Marcus Crassus dealt them a crushing defeat. Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus’s men beside the road from Capua to Rome, and Pompey the Great, returning from defeating Sertorius, the rebel Roman governor of Spain, defeated the remaining 5,000 in the field.

In reality Spartacus wasn’t such a heroic character. He killed unarmed civilians and military prisoners, and for the entertainment of his men forced captured Roman legionaries to fight each other to the death. And, of course, like all the dozens of rebels against Rome over the centuries, he eventually lost.

At least the later British rebel Ventidius outwitted and outran the Romans for forty years, apparently dying of natural causes, a free man. Similarly, Zenobia, the rebel queen of Palmyra, had a peaceful end, dying in her own bed married to a Roman senator after her earlier defeat and capture.

Arminius, known as Hermann in his native Germany, is another example of the rebel/hero dichotomy. He was a prefect in the Roman army who betrayed his superior, the governor of Roman Germany, in a rebellion that began with the massacre of three legions in an ambush in the Teutoburg Forest east of the Rhine. Since the 19th century, Hermann has been considered a national hero in Germany. A massive statue of him, eighty-one feet tall, stands on temple-like base on a hilltop southwest of Detmold in the German district of Lippe.  And yet Hermann the rebel, like Caesar, was assassinated by his own people, who had tired of him. He was no hero to them.

So, the question of whether a rebel is a hero has a lot to do with how successful they are, who is judging them, and the times in which they are judged. Take the previously mentioned Fort Benning in Georgia. On the opening of this US Army base in 1918 it was named after Henry Benning. A Georgia native, Benning served as a brigadier general in the Confederate Army, fighting against the Union Army in numerous battles of the US Civil War – or the War of the Rebellion as it was called by northerners, who referred to Confederates as “Johnny Rebs.”

Benning the rebel was an avid secessionist and slavery advocate who fought bitterly against the Union. In the eyes of northerners, he was a traitor. Yet in the South he was revered, and his name was given by the US Government to this new US Army establishment to assuage southern sensibilities at a time when the South’s men were being drafted into the US Army to fight the first world war.

Times have changed, however. It was recently announced by the US government that, as of January 2024, Fort Benning will be renamed Fort Moore, after a Vietnam-era US Army general, author of the book We Were Soldiers Once… And Young, which became a Hollywood movie, and his wife, who are both buried at the fort. Some would say removing the name of Benning the rebel is long overdue.

In the end, it seems, politics of the day are the final determinant when judging the difference between a rebel and a hero.



* This article was originally published here

Calais Campbell



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/lBYcSOM
via IFTTT

Tyler, the Creator



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/UtXvFVh
via IFTTT

'ನಾವು ಚೀನಾ ಸೋಲಿಸಿ ವಿಶ್ವದಲ್ಲೇ ಮೊದಲ ಸ್ಥಾನ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು' ಯೋಗಿ ಆದಿತ್ಯನಾಥ್

ಲಕ್ನೋ ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 29: ದೇಶದ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬ ಪ್ರಜೆಯೂ ತಮ್ಮ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯವನ್ನು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿದರೆ ನಾವು ಚೀನಾವನ್ನು ಸೋಲಿಸಿ ವಿಶ್ವದಲ್ಲೇ ಮೊದಲ ಸ್ಥಾನವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿ ಯೋಗಿ ಆದಿತ್ಯನಾಥ್ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಮುಂದಿನ ವರ್ಷ ನಡೆಯಲಿರುವ ಸಂಸತ್ ಚುನಾವಣೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಉತ್ತರ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ರಾಜ್ಯವನ್ನು ತನ್ನ ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಬಿಜೆಪಿ ಯೋಜಿಸುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಯೋಗಿ ಆದಿತ್ಯನಾಥ್ ವಿವಿಧ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ

Data Analyst | Manpower Middle East

The Role Description In a digital age where the nearly infinite and extravagant availability of data presents unlimited opportunities, our client is a key enabler in leveraging this resource, as it is among the first Saudi companies dedicated to offering market-leading Data Science and AI products and solutions. Our ...

source http://www.gulftalent.com/saudi-arabia/jobs/data-analyst-368107?utm_source=feed_subscriber&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss_feed

Argentina vs Curacao



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/ul9c5OA
via IFTTT

H.W. Brands on Ben Barnes's "Revelation" about the Iran Hostage Crisis

Ben Barnes (l) and John Connally (c) meet with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, 1980. Barnes has recently repeated claims previously made to historian H.W. Brands (and published in Brands's biography of Ronald Reagan) that this meeting was part of Connally's effort to delay the release of American hostages held by Iran to secure Reagan's election. 

 

 

Peter Baker recently reported in the New York Times that Ben Barnes, a Texas politician and protegé of the former Texas governor John Connally, has chosen to speak out about a mission to the Middle East he and Connally took in 1980. According to Barnes, the purpose of meetings with a number of Middle East leaders was to encourage those leaders to convey to the Iranian government that it would be in their interest to delay the release of American hostages, a move damaging to the reelection effort of Jimmy Carter, and negotiate the release of the hostages with Ronald Reagan, whom Connally supported. Congressional investigations of the hostage crisis did not address Connally's trip. 

Baker also reported that Barnes's claims were mentioned in H.W. Brands's biography of Ronald Reagan, and that Brands was one of four individuals Barnes identified as having previously heard the story. 

Professor Brands agreed to answer some questions from HNN about Barnes's claims by email today, and how this "revelation" has been hiding in plain sight. 

 

HNN: How did you come to speak with Barnes about Governor Connally’s trip to the Middle East? 

While researching my book about Reagan, I asked Ben Barnes, whom I had known, if he had had any dealings with Reagan. In the conversation he mentioned his trip with John Connally to the Middle East in the summer of 1980. He told me that his trip with his old friend and mentor turned out to have a purpose beyond making Connally look like secretary of state material. Connally conveyed to governments and influential people in the Middle East that it would "not be helpful" - Barnes's characterization - to the Reagan campaign if the hostages were released before the election. I asked Barnes if that message came to Connally from William Casey, Reagan's campaign manager at that time; Barnes said he didn't know and didn't ask.

I followed up in some Connally papers at the LBJ Library to corroborate the journey. It checked out. There I also discovered a memo of a phone call from Nancy Reagan at the Reagan ranch to Connally on the trip. So Reagan was aware of the trip.

HNN: Did it make any waves when you wrote about Barnes’s account in your biography of Reagan? 

Very little. I was surprised.

HNN: The idea that the release of the hostages was manipulated to harm Carter’s reelection bid is part of the lore surrounding the 1980 election, so it seems odd that a revelation like this would pass by unremarked. Is this a case of people’s responses being governed by their preexisting assumptions, or is it a case where the implications about American power and political tricks are too disturbing to discuss? Why is there a collective shrug, aside from the passage of 43 years? 

The principals categorically denied any such thing. Watergate elevated the standard of evidence in such case to the "smoking gun." At the time there was no smoking gun. 

HNN: Some critics, notably the media scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan, have questioned the veracity of Barnes’s account and the chain of events – specifically stating that Carter ultimately negotiated the release of the hostages, which was completed moments after Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, and that Connally’s lack of experience made him unlikely to be successful in such secret dealing. Do you think Barnes is credible about Connally’s intentions, and if so, should we think of Connally as an opportunist or a well-connected operator? 

I find it very difficult to believe that Connally was free-lancing. William Casey was too canny to allow that. Furthermore, Casey seems to have had a second-track of backdoor communications with Iran, including a September meeting in Madrid with people who presented themselves as go-betweens. In 1980 this seemed outlandish. But after the Iran-contra scandal broke, it seemed entirely plausible. By then Casey was dead, and he had covered his tracks well.

I have known Ben Barnes for thirty years. And I find it very difficult to believe he was making this up. 

HNN: Finally, how much should this cause us to rethink the 1980 election? Could this trip have changed the course of American history?

No, and here's why. By the summer of 1980, the hostages had lost their value to their captors. They were looking for a way to release them. But the last thing they wanted to do was help Carter get reelected. Carter was the reason the hostages were seized; the kidnappers thought Carter was planning to reinstall the shah (as Eisenhower had done in 1953). In effect, Connally and Casey were telling the Iranians not to do something the Iranians had no intention of doing. And far from the hostage release reflecting the Iranians' fear of Reagan, as the Reagan side spun things, the timing reflected their hatred for Carter and their preference for Reagan. 



* This article was originally published here

Tyler, The Creator



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/GdcLHEN
via IFTTT

ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ; ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಆಯೋಗಕ್ಕೆ ಪತ್ರ

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 28; ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಚುನಾವಣೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ ಘೋಷಣೆಗೆ ದಿನಗಣನೆ ಆರಂಭವಾಗಿದೆ. ಚುನಾವಣಾ ವೇಳಾಪಟ್ಟಿ ಘೋಷಣೆಗೆ ಕೆಲವೇ ದಿನಗಳು ಬಾಕಿ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಆಯೋಗದ ಅನುಮತಿ ಪಡೆದು ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯನ್ನು ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳುವುದಾಗಿ ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿ ಬಸವರಾಜ ಬೊಮ್ಮಾಯಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ನೌಕರರ ಸಂಘಕ್ಕೆ ಭರವಸೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದರು. ಈ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯನ್ನು ಆರಂಭಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ರಿತೇಶ್ ಕುಮಾರ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ

ನರೇಗಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಎತ್ತಿನಹೊಳೆ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ: ಶಾಸಕ ಶಿವಲಿಂಗೇಗೌಡ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು

ಹಾಸನ ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 28: ಚುನಾವಣೆ ಹತ್ತಿರವಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರದ ಆರೋಪಗಳೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿ ಕೇಳಿ ಬರುತ್ತಿವೆ. ಜನನಾಯಕರು ದಾಖಲೆ ಸಮೇತ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ಬಯಲಿಗೆ ಎಳೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇಂತಹದ್ದೇ ಆರೋಪಕ್ಕೆ ಸದ್ಯ ಅರಸೀಕೆರೆ ಜೆಡಿಎಸ್ ಶಾಸಕ ಕೆ.ಎಂ ಶಿವಲಿಂಗೇಗೌಡ ಗುರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಬಿಜೆಪಿ ಮುಖಂಡ ಎನ್‌. ಆರ್ ರಮೇಶ್ ಶಾಸಕ ಶಿವಲಿಂಗೇಗೌಡ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರದ ಆರೋಪ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಕೋಟಿ ಕೋಟಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಶಾಸಕ ಲಪಟಾಯಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು

Dick Van Dyke



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/bkvSdEP
via IFTTT

Tyler, The Creator



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/GdcLHEN
via IFTTT

Digital Marketing Manager - Tech Co. | Right Calibre Executive Search

The Role We are looking for a data-driven growth marketer to help our client establish, run and optimize their organisation's growth engine. You'll work closely with the founders & CMO to establish growth strategies to support revenue goals and take a hands-on and data-driven approach to plan, launch, track and analy...

Tears of the Kingdom



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/VkEJelC
via IFTTT

The History of State Interposition Shows Federalism is a Deliberative Process, not a Set of Rules

John C. Calhoun misconstrued James Madison's original thinking about federalism to declare a right of state nullification of federal law, Christian Fritz contends.

 

 

Every day, we see that our democracy is buffeted by forces that threaten its very existence. Thus, it is timely to ask what elements of our representative democracy can help us maintain an even keel with regard to the distribution and exercise of constitutional powers. Is the Supreme Court the best guardian of our liberties by its monitoring of federalism? Is Congress reflective of the people’s will? Are the states and their legislatures more attuned than Washington to the needs of the people they represent? Or is some combination of voices the more desirable outcome to preserve the people’s will?

The Constitution created what James Madison called a “compound republic”—neither a wholly national government nor one in which states retained their entire sovereignty. This shared sovereignty inevitably tested the balance of powers between nation and states. Moreover, the absence of clear delineation between the two levels of government meant that a static equilibrium of powers would never be a fact and would always be a source of ongoing political debate and conflict.

Since 1776, Americans have resisted and at times rebelled against perceived tyrannies of government. In Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance, I focus on the untold story of how Americans have monitored our federal system through their state legislatures by using the tool of interposition to express opposition to government overreach. Properly understood at the time, interposition was not a claim that state sovereignty could or should displace national authority, but a claim that American federalism needed to preserve some balance between state and national authority. Interposition’s justification surfaced in the Federalist essays of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and helped states oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. States sounded the alarm by passing legislative resolutions and communicated with other states to overturn these laws.

The Constitution’s shared sovereignty between nation and states created a dynamic federalism that stimulated continuous debates over the balance of power, including debates over slavery and taxation. Thus, state interposition shaped the American political conversation about our constitutional rights and illustrated a strength, and not a weakness, of the framers’ constitutional design, inviting each generation to consider what the appropriate constitutional balance should be. 

The new Constitution had existed for a short time before Madison and others became concerned about constitutional interpretations that expanded national power. This early dialogue about federalism centered on what each side viewed as undesirable: either changes that would weaken the authority of states or that would diminish national authority. The debate over federalism reflected fundamentally different constitutional views. For John Marshall and others, the Constitution had been established as the act of one national people, forming a national government with considerable powers. For states’ rights advocates, the Constitution was a compact of sovereign states, leaving state sovereignty largely intact, except for limited and express grants of powers to the national government. Those competing views shaped how each side regarded the role and authority of the Supreme Court. Rhetoric became more extreme as nationalists feared disunion and states’ rights advocates feared the disintegration of state authority, including over slavery.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 that Madison and Thomas Jefferson authored as a repudiation of the Alien and Sedition Acts are incorrectly viewed as originating the idea that John C. Calhoun would develop into his theory of nullification—the right of an individual state to veto federal law. The interstate circulation of the resolutions helped elect Jefferson as President in 1800.

Despite their political success, what Jefferson and Madison meant by the language they used in the resolutions burdened future efforts of states seeking to monitor the governmental balance of powers and resulted in a deeply troubling political legacy. In the resolutions, Madison failed to explain what he meant by the theoretical right of the sovereign people to interpose in the last resort and Jefferson’s statements that unconstitutional laws were null and void seemingly foreshadowed Calhoun’s remedy of nullification.

Ironically, Presidents Jefferson and Madison faced state legislative interposition resolutions that protested Jefferson’s Embargo Acts, the Supreme Court’s finality over constitutional issues, the re-charter of the Bank of the United States, and Madison’s efforts to mobilize state militias before the War of 1812. Americans debated whether sounding the alarm resolutions and state legislative interposition were legitimate state actions—and some Americans asked if and when they would be justified in more forcefully resisting federal law, notably during the Hartford Convention of 1814 that called for constitutional amendments to reduce the power of Southern states by repealing the Three-Fifths Clause.

The dispute over the Tariff of 1828 marked a turning point for interposition. State legislatures passed resolutions declaring protective tariffs unconstitutional, using more threatening language that echoed the doctrine of nullification. Calhoun’s arguments distorted Madison’s views and transformed traditional “sounding the alarm” interposition into an option for each state to nullify acts of the national government that it considered unconstitutional. In the 1830 Webster-Hayne debate in the United States Senate, nullifiers quoted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and Madison’s Report of 1800 to justify their constitutional theory.  Madison steadfastly rejected both nullification and secession and attempted to explain what he meant by a complex federalism based on divided sovereignty, though he ultimately failed to correct those misconceptions.

Increasingly, Americans failed to find common ground in their understanding of the Constitution. As Southern states sought to enforce the Constitution’s Fugitive Slave Clause through federal legislation, such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Northern states responded by passing personal liberty laws to resist enforcement of federal laws that would extend the authority of enslavers beyond the South. Southern states considered these personal liberty laws a nullification of federal law that ultimately were intended to eradicate slavery.

The Civil War marked the high point of state interposition resistance. “Sounding the alarm” interposition occurred whenever states believed their national government—Union or Confederate—had exceeded its powers, particularly with the use of martial law, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and mandatory wartime conscription.

After the Civil War, Northern and Southern state legislatures opposed Reconstruction laws and policies, racial equality, and enhanced national power. Those who denied the outcome of the Civil War and who were advocates of white supremacy adopted the slogan of states’ rights and not interposition. Thus, use of interposition essentially died out, tainted with the Civil War and the discredited notions of nullification and secession, and lay dormant before its reemergence in the twentieth century.

The explicit invocation of the term “interposition” resurfaced in the 1950s, once again by those who sought a constitutional basis for white supremacy and racial inequality, especially in opposition to school integration. After the Supreme Court repudiated nullification in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), a version of interposition termed “Judicial Federalism” emerged as a constraint on federal legislative power in Printz v. United States (1997) and use of interposition, “uncooperative federalism,” and nullification-like efforts resurfaced in resistance to federal laws and policies including the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Affordable Care Act of 2010. As originally conceived, interposition rested on the idea that state legislatures were essential monitors of the equilibrium of federalism—and a state legislature’s declaration that acts of the federal government were misguided and even unconstitutional was a legitimate form of political resistance.

While state legislative interposition, at various times in our history, has been misused and mangled into an unconstitutional doctrine of nullification, nonetheless, it has functioned as a powerful tool to express popular discontent and to help us reframe and affirm our democratic values. Interposition’s use by states offers the important insight that the national government cannot do whatever it wants and ride roughshod over the states. And, at the same time, interposition reinforces the obligation that states and elected officials owe to the Constitution—and that states lack any legitimate power to nullify national laws with which they disagree. 

The question is whether state legislative interposition still has a purpose in keeping American federalism in balance, as one critical expression of the people’s involvement in their constitutional democracy. I believe that the nation’s history and practice of interposition illuminates how many constitutional settlements were achieved not by a Supreme Court decision, but by a broader discussion among non-judicial participants.



* This article was originally published here

Gwyneth Paltrow ski crash trial: Accuser heard 'blood-curdling scream'

A man suing Gwyneth Paltrow over a ski crash says it sounded "like someone was out of control".

from BBC News - Entertainment & Arts https://ift.tt/DdhZuEl

Ireland vs France



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/7AO2oxj
via IFTTT

Keanu Reeves John Wick: Chapter 4



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/xRZsfSU
via IFTTT

ಯಡಿಯೂರಪ್ಪ ಅವರ ಮನೆ ಮೇಲೆ ಕಲ್ಲೆಸೆತ ದುಷ್ಕೃತ್ಯ ಖಂಡನೀಯ: ನಳಿನ್‍ಕುಮಾರ್ ಕಟೀಲ್

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಮಾರ್ಚ್27:‌ ಶಿಕಾರಿಪುರದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಜೆಪಿ ಹಿರಿಯ ಮುಖಂಡ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಜಿ ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿ ಬಿ.ಎಸ್.ಯಡಿಯೂರಪ್ಪ ಅವರ ಮನೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಕಲ್ಲೆಸೆತದ ದುಷ್ಕೃತ್ಯ ಖಂಡನೀಯ ಎಂದು ಬಿಜೆಪಿ ರಾಜ್ಯಾಧ್ಯಕ್ಷ ನಳಿನ್‍ಕುಮಾರ್ ಕಟೀಲ್ ಅವರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈ ಕುರಿತು ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ಅವರು, ಇಂಥ ದುಷ್ಕೃತ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾರೂ ಬೆಂಬಲ ಕೊಡಬಾರದು. ಪ್ರಜಾಪ್ರಭುತ್ವವನ್ನು ಎತ್ತಿ ಹಿಡಿಯವ ಕೆಲಸದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗಿಯಾಗಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಅವರು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇದು

Kim Mulkey



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/NTJVHpy
via IFTTT

An American Witness to the European Movement Against the Iraq Invasion

An effigy protests Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's support for the invasion of Iraq, Rome, February 15, 2003

 

 

March 19 marked the 20th anniversary of the United States and Coalition Forces’ Invasion of Iraq in 2003. The George W. Bush administration’s preparations for war against Iraq had drawn widespread international criticism and triggered an international anti-war movement. The outbreak of the Iraq War disrupted the global political system and severely strained Transatlantic relationships between the United States and its allies and partners in the European Union.

 

As the Bush administration conducted an international diplomatic campaign to prepare for war against Saddam Hussein, Europeans questioned the need for war. I was conducting research in Florence, Italy, during the run-up to the outbreak of war and was deeply troubled by the Bush administration’s bellicose policies and its unrelenting drive for war. As a historian of violence based in Florence, I was able to observe the organization of a significant European anti-war movement.

 

The first European Social Forum, a European convention of social and activist organizations, was held in Florence in November 2002. I attended the convention and observed many of the sessions that discussed international politics and criticized the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Other panels promoted pacifism and explored techniques of anti-war activism. At the end of the European Social Forum, the member groups organized the first pan-European anti-war march. I participated along with an estimated 450,000 activists in a massive anti-war march through the streets of Florence opposing the Iraq War. Groups carried rainbow-colored pace (peace) flags and banners with anti-war slogans such as “Non Alla Guerra - No War” and “Not in My Name.”

 

The organizers of the anti-war march at the European Social Forum in Florence prepared an even larger international day of protest against the impending war in February 2003.

 

As these protests were being organized, European opposition to the planned war solidified. French and German diplomats openly opposed the planned war in Iraq. European media increasingly questioned the United States’ pursuit of war against Saddam Hussein.

 

Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to present the case that Iraq possessed (or had the means to manufacture) chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and had ties to Al Qaeda. Powell’s presentation utterly failed to convince the United Nations diplomats or the world’s journalists of the existence of WMD in Iraq or of the necessity for a military campaign to “liberate” the Iraqi people.

 

Julian Borger argued that “Colin Powell will be most remembered for the act he most regretted, his 2003 presentation to the UN security council laying out US evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist.”

 

Sharp contrasts appeared between the U.S. news media’s jingoistic coverage of Powell’s presentation—it completely justified war—and the European and world news media’s criticisms of Powell—he was utterly unconvincing.

 

Many European citizens mobilized in opposition to the United States’ Iraq War. Phyllis Bennis recently observed that “Twenty years ago — on February 15, 2003 — the world said no to war. People rose up in almost 800 cities around the world in an unprecedented movement for peace.”

 

The anti-war protests on February 15 achieved a massive coordinated mobilization of citizens worldwide. “There were 600 marches in 54 countries: 250 alone in Canada and the United States, 105 in Europe, 37 in the Middle East and Asia, 16 in Latin America, 8 in Africa, 34 in Oceania, and 1 in Antarctica.” Millions of citizens marched against war in Rome, London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, Stockholm, and other European cities, often evoking the initiative of the European Social Forum in Florence. Additional protests were held in New York, Beirut, Melbourne, Tokyo, and smaller cities around the world.

 

The United States’ military invasion of Iraq unleashed decades of destruction and suffering for the Iraqi people and destabilized the entire Middle East. The invasion also weakened the United States’ relations with its European allies and undermined European citizens’ confidence in the international policies of the United States and its leadership of the NATO Transatlantic alliance.

 

The anti-war movement that started with the European Social Forum in Florence failed to prevent the Iraq War, but it did launch broader pan-European forms of civic participation and anti-war activism that have continued to shape European societies.

 



* This article was originally published here

Eurovision 2023: Mae Muller and other hopefuls get pre-parties started across Europe

Participants of the song contest begin the build-up to Liverpool by performing for fans across Europe.

from BBC News - Entertainment & Arts https://ift.tt/6VbHFPQ

LeBron James



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/3DCPTJL
via IFTTT

Circuit of the Americas



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/8j2A6qt
via IFTTT

Luxembourg vs Portugal



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/lzxYq5h
via IFTTT

Lady Gaga Harley Quinn



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/ZKBF23h
via IFTTT

Belarus



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/Ra82uCx
via IFTTT

Why We Don't Remember Edith Galt Wilson as the "First Woman President"

In the first posed photograph of Woodrow Wilson after his stroke, First Lady Edith Galt Wilson holds the paper he is portrayed as signing, concealing the paralysis of his left side. 

Library of Congress, June 1920

 

 

It was a grueling period for both President Woodrow Wilson and his wife Edith. First, they convened with the world’s diplomats in Paris, then returned to the United States to launch a cross country trip of 8-10,000 miles to seek support for the League of Nations.  They passed through scorching temperatures in the West, without any air conditioning.  He complained of splitting headaches, at one stop experiencing blurred vision.  She called for his doctor, and said that her husband’s face was twitching and he was gasping for breath, similar to an asthma attack. Cary T. Grayson, his doctor, drew up a series of mandates: “Complete rest, total isolation from his job, and no one should interfere with his health.” The Wilsons returned home.

On October 2, 1919, Edith Wilson went to check to see how her husband was doing. He said to her, “I have no feeling in my hand,” motioning to his left hand. Minutes later, after calling his doctor from downstairs, she heard a thump like a body falling from his bed.  Running back upstairs, she found her husband unconscious and bleeding on the bathroom floor, having suffered a stroke.

How bad, in fact, was the President’s condition? In Woodrow Wilson: A Medical and Psychological Biography, Edith Weinstein writes

The symptoms indicate that Wilson suffered from an occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery, which resulted in a complete paralysis of the left side of the body, a loss of vision in the left half vision of both eyes, weakness of the muscles of the left side of his face, tongue and jaw and pharynx accounted for his inability to speak. 

In layman’s terms, all additional physicians that were allowed to see him remarked, “He looked as if he was dead.”

Edith Galt Wilson had to make a series of quick decisions about what the world, let alone Woodrow’s administration and members of Congress, would learn of his health crisis. Her decision was very simple: nothing was to be said about the nature or severity of his condition. The cover up had begun, and would continue for nearly two years until the end of his administration. During this time, Edith Wilson could be said to have acted as the first woman President of the United States, albeit in a secretive arrangement that revealed the limits of the Constitution’s original treatment of presidential incapacity and still today shows the importance of public knowledge about presidential health.

Having advised Edith Wilson that the president himself should be kept unaware of the severity of his condition, Dr. Grayson was willing to conceal facts that might have led to Wilson’s replacement in office. He refused to sign a finding of disability, downplayed the severity of the stroke to the cabinet, and recommended against fully informing the public.

He also provided diagnoses that excused Wilson’s absence from the public without suggesting permanent disability. On October 3rd, the day after his collapse at home, Dr. Grayson issued a bulletin: “The President is a very sick man. Diagnosis is a nervous exhaustion.” In the remaining days and weeks, additional bulletins would provide reassurances that the president was recovering nicely.

If this lack of transparency about presidential health is shocking from our present perspective, we would also consider Wilson’s health history alarming for a prospective president. Historian Edwin A. Weinstein notes that Wilson had a history of cerebrovascular disorders dating back to 1896, sixteen years before he was elected president. Wilson was serving as an instructor at Princeton in 1896 when he suffered his first stroke. In 1913, Wilson suffered another stroke, only this time, it was his left arm that was affected. Weinstein writes:

The episode which affected Wilson’s left arm was particularly ominous from a clinical standpoint…. [It] not only increased the risk of future strokes, but also created the possibility that enduring changes of behavior, based on insufficient blood supply and impaired oxygenation of the brain, might eventually occur.

What few people also knew was that the President had kept his wife in the loop about all matters of state, including her sitting in on the League of Nations meetings. How, though, was she to govern? In her memoirs she states very clearly, “The only decision that was mine was what was important and what was not, and the very important decision of when to present matters to the President.” 

In the mornings, Edith Wilson would get up and begin her “stewardship,” the word she used to refer to her relative takeover of the West Wing. She would attend meetings in place of her husband, and when information needed to be passed to him, she would insist that she be the one to do it. In the evenings, she would take all necessary paperwork back to the residence, where Woodrow was presumably waiting, and inform him of what he needed to know. The next morning, she would return the paperwork to its original owner, complete with new notes and suggestions. She would also vet the carefully crafted medical bulletins that were publicly released.  Continually, she would say that the President needed bed rest and would be working from his bedroom suite.

If it seemed like an odd arrangement, the people closest to the matter didn’t comment on it. They lined up at Edith’s door day in and day out, waiting for the notes that she passed back and forth between them and their leader. They went no further than the first lady; if they had policy papers or pending decisions for him to review, edit or approve, she would first look over the material herself. If she deemed the matter pressing enough, she took the paperwork into her husband’s room where she would read all the necessary documents to him.

Perhaps the improbability of the arrangement, combined with the personal political interests of those involved, allowed the coverup to endure as a mutually self-serving fiction, despite growing doubts. While Edith maintained that she was simply a vessel for information and that all notes passed back to presidential staff were Woodrow Wilson’s own words, White House officials soon began to doubt the authenticity of the notes. For one, they had never seen the president himself write the words, and for another, they didn’t entirely trust the First Lady. William Hazelgrove, in his book Madam President: The Secret Presidency of Edith Wilson, goes further:

The issue of a presidential signature is a vexing one. Presidents must sign many documents and the operation of government can be held up for want of signature. But here was a man paralyzed on his left side going in and out of consciousness. Edith “helped” the president by “steadying his right hand in guiding his pen.” 

The essence of Mrs. Wilson's usurpation lay, therefore, in minimizing actual decision-making. She permitted only a handful of officials to see the president, and that only in the latter phase of his illness; and these audiences were often weirdly stage-managed in his darkened White House bedroom, usually in her inhibiting presence and that of Admiral Grayson. Many issues (e.g., the infamous "Red scare" raids of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were not brought to the president's attention, and it is uncertain whether he had the capacity to act even if he could have focused on them. When it became absolutely necessary to indicate what Wilson thought about a pending question, Mrs. Wilson would occasionally issue in her own handwriting a kind of bulletin from the sickroom reading "the president says" thus and so -- an unacceptable, yet accepted, substitute for real decision memoranda.

It was a bewildering way to run a government, but the officials waited in the West Sitting Room hallway.  When she came back to them after conferring with the President, Mrs. Wilson turned over their paperwork, now riddled with indecipherable margin notes that she said were the president’s transcribed verbatim responses. To some the shaky handwriting looked less like that written by an invalid and more like that of his nervous caretaker.

She became the sole contact between the President and the cabinet. In fact, when Senator Albert Fall was sent by the Republicans to investigate the President’s true condition, Edith helped arrange Woodrow in bed so that he appeared presentable and alert. The President passed the test. The New York Times reported, perhaps creating rather than documenting reality, that “the meeting silenced for good the many wild and often unfriendly rumors of the President’s disability.”

Inevitably, the ruse wore thin.  Secretary of State Robert Lansing, a man who was with Wilson in Europe and an important part of the negotiations over the League of Nations, was the first to raise the alarm that the president was in an incapacitated state.  Lansing pressed Dr. Grayson about the reports that the president had fallen ill.  Dr. Grayson lied to Lansing, telling the secretary of state that Wilson was only suffering from “a depleted nervous system” and that the president’s mind was “not only clear but very active.” However, Joseph Tumulty, Wilson’s private secretary and an antagonist of Edith Wilson, was more candid and suggested to Lansing that the president had suffered another stroke.  Lansing immediately declared that Wilson should transfer presidential power to Vice President Thomas R. Marshall.  Loyal to Wilson, both Tumulty and Dr. Grayson objected.

Robert Lansing ultimately called a cabinet meeting on October 6, 1919, something he was not supposed to do without President Wilson’s knowledge.  It was an important meeting because no administration had had to address a situation when a president was alive but incapacitated. Increasingly aware of the dire state of the president’s health, the cabinet became aware of their lack of power to do anything about it.  The United States Constitution’s only words for such a situation before the passage of the 25th Amendment in 1967 are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6.  It states as follows:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Wilson was not dead, had not resigned, and was disputing, at least through a proxy, that he could not discharge the powers of the presidency.  Vice President Marshall did not want to appear too eager to become president, so he declared he would not act unless Congress declared Wilson incapacitated.

The cabinet meeting on October 6th did little—could do little—to define or answer any Constitutional questions.  Nothing was decided except to see how Wilson’s health progressed.  Robert Lansing was compelled to resign the following year on February 20. His offense? He committed an “assumption of presidential authority” by calling the cabinet meeting without Wilson’s approval.

William Hazelgrove writes that

Edith Wilson’s presidency was short–less than two years–but it was groundbreaking. Woodrow Wilson after his stroke could not perform the duties of the presidency and Edith stepped in to fill the role. Edith's guiding mandate as president was to keep her husband alive by taking over his job and restricting access to him. Edith’s presidency fits the constitutional definitions of the duties of president.

Indeed, beginning with the first constitutionally defined role of the president as commander-in-chief of the military, which she exercised by managing negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles and the push for the League of Nations, Edith Wilson could be reasonably said to have exercised 5 of the 6 defined duties of the presidency.

A paper trail of written communication gives us an indication that, by deferring to her cabinet officers, and tackling a handful of high priority issues, Mrs. Wilson managed to keep the ship of state afloat between October 1919 and March 1921. What rendered this possible was the institutional momentum of the executive branch. In the absence of direct guidance from the White House, officials filled the void with their own best judgment, and muddled through.     

A few Republican critics of the president, such as Sen. Albert Fall (R-N.M.), railed against “petticoat government,” suggesting that there was some public familiarity with the idea that Edith Wilson was running the administration, but the President’s Democratic allies largely circled the wagons, ignoring his obvious impairment, while adversaries in his own party, including Vice President Thomas Marshall, remained conspicuously silent. 

Unfortunately, in the absence of authoritative White House leadership, institutional forces could only keep the government machine well-oiled for so long. Eventually, Mrs. Wilson’s method of temporizing and triage proved inadequate. Wilson’s illness exacerbated his more negative qualities of stubbornness and his need to be right.  He absolutely refused to compromise on the Versailles treaty to get it through Congress.  Wilson was so far out of the loop due to his illness that he didn’t comprehend the extent of the opposition in the Senate and that the only way to get the treaty passed was with Henry Cabot Lodge’s reservations.  Edith tried to convince him to change his mind. Because of his unwillingness, the Democrats didn’t have enough votes to ratify the treaty, and the United States ended up not joining the League of Nations. 

Had Wilson resigned at the outset of his illness, and Vice President Marshall succeeded as President, or at least assumed the role until Wilson was better, a compromise might have been reached with Lodge, and the treaty might have passed.  The United States could have joined the League of Nations and played an active role in the international peace organization in the years that, as it happened, ultimately led to World War II.  If Edith had put the nation’s needs ahead of her husband, Wilson’s dream of America playing a significant role on the international stage would have come to fruition.  As it was, his successor Warren Harding took America back to its isolationist stance. 



* This article was originally published here

Tennessee basketball



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/xkIchjP
via IFTTT

Croatia vs Wales



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/9lsSqf6
via IFTTT

Procurement Officer - Information Technolgy | Etimad Holding

The Role • Assist with purchasing IT assets. • Responsible for product support and warranties, leasing, maintenance, and software contracts, as well as hardware purchases, and license information. • Maintain contract data. • Create purchase requisitions. • Maintain appropriate levels of consumables. • Rec...

source http://www.gulftalent.com/uae/jobs/procurement-officer-information-technolgy-367802?utm_source=feed_subscriber&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss_feed

Dark and Darker



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/RtL1TVf
via IFTTT

Brandon Miller



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/edPWk75
via IFTTT

ಐಪಿಎಲ್ 2023: ನೂತನ ಜರ್ಸಿಯನ್ನು ಅನಾವರಣಗೊಳಿಸಿದ ಕೊಲ್ಕತ್ತಾ ನೈಟ್ ರೈಡರ್ಸ್ ತಂಡ

ಇಂಡಿಯನ್ ಪ್ರೀಮಿಯರ್ ಲೀಗ್‌ನ 16ನೇ ಆವೃತ್ತಿಯ ಆರಂಭಕ್ಕೆ ಇನ್ನು ಬೆರಳೆಣಿಕೆಯ ದಿನಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರವೇ ಬಾಕಿಯಿದೆ. ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 31ರಂದು ಆರಂಭವಾಗಲಿರುವ ಈ ಚುಟುಕು ಕ್ರಿಕೆಟ್‌ನ ಮಹಾಸಮರಕ್ಕೆ ತಂಡಗಳು ಅಂತಿಮ ಹಂತದ ಸಿದ್ಧತೆಯನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇನ್ನು ಟೂರ್ನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಣಕ್ಕಿಳಿಯಲು ಫ್ರಾಂಚೈಸಿಗಳು ನೂತನ ಜರ್ಸಿಯನ್ನು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೊಳಿಸುವುದು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ. ಇದೀಗ ಈ ಬಾರಿಯ ಐಪಿಎಲ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ನೂತನ ಜರ್ಸಿಯನ್ನು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೊಳಿಸಿರುವ ತಂಡಗಳ

The "Critical Race Theory" Controversy Continues

Rauw Alejandro



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/EwGpkIs
via IFTTT

Love Is Blind Season 4



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/V6cRaiM
via IFTTT

Drew Timme

UCLA, ucla vs gonzaga

from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/kbXGPRS
via IFTTT

Kelly Ripa and Mark Consuelos



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/O0nptjx
via IFTTT

Syria



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/jezBFrG
via IFTTT

Becky G



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/IPU7X1Q
via IFTTT

Censoring History Education Goes Hand in Hand with Democratic Backsliding

Students in Brasilia take the ENEM, the national high school exam of Brazil. Former President Jair Bolsonaro had attemtped to revise the exam to promote a benign view of the country's periof of military dictatorship. 

 

 

On January 12, 2023, the Department of Education in Florida labeled a draft Advanced Placement course on African American Studies “woke indoctrination” and rejected it for including readings from, among others, historians Robin D.G. Kelly and Nell Irvin Painter. The Department's decision fit within the broader political vision of the governor (and former history teacher) Ron DeSantis, as well as a nation-wide pattern of attempts to restrict the teaching of gender and race in United States history. Florida’s policies were quickly linked to similar ones in backsliding democracies in Europe, such as Hungary, Poland and Turkey. Data from the Network of Concerned Historians for 2020–2023 suggest a correlation between attempts to censor history education and the global backsliding of democracy, with India, Brazil and the Philippines being among the most grave examples.

 

Since 2014, when Narendra Modi was elected Prime Minister of India, Hindutva (or radical Hindu nationalism) has again become a cornerstone of internal politics, exemplified through a surge in mob violence, discrimination against non-Hindu people, and a broad set of laws aimed at history education. Most frequently, these laws have targeted history textbooks. In March 2019, it was announced that chapters related to caste conflict would be scrapped from the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) history textbooks for class IX (the first year of high school). In July 2021 more than one hundred historians expressed concern over further changes to the NCERT history textbooks, and a year later acclaimed historian Irfan Habib criticized the textbooks for downscaling Muslim and Mughal history. Also in July 2021, the University Grants Commission released a new undergraduate history curriculum for centrally funded public universities that was widely criticized for its pro-Hindu bias, its downplaying of contributions to Indian history by Muslim and secular politicians, and the overrepresentation of Vedic and Hindu religious literature.

 

In addition to legislation, right-wing Hindutva groups exerted pressure on textbook publishers. In February 2020, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) demanded the immediate withdrawal of a class XI World History textbook in Goa, because it allegedly depicted the 17th century ruler Shivaji I, often depicted as an important proto-nationalist Hindu leader, too critically. The HJS had previously demanded a ban on a book containing alleged derogatory remarks about Hindutva ideologue V.D. Savarkar (1883–1966), and requested action be taken against the book’s author and publisher.

 

Attempts to censor history education in India chiefly concern the inclusion of the contributions of people who do not fit an ethnocentric nationalist narrative of the past that serves as a foundational element of the government’s political ideology. In that sense, these examples mirror most  closely to what is happening in the United States.

 

Similarly, in Brazil former President Jair Bolsonaro repeatedly attacked the way slavery was taught, for example by supporting the far-right thesis that, since Portuguese colonizers barely entered the interior of Africa, Africans themselves should bear the most blame for the enslavement and trading of African people. Additionally, the Escola Sem Partido [loosely, “school without politics”] movement has claimed to protect children against indoctrination in schools while targeting courses on Black history and culture and proposing laws that would, among other things, institute a complaint line for parents who felt that their children were being subjected to “Cultural Marxism,” encourage children to film their teachers, and reduce the time spent on teaching Black and Native Brazilian history and culture.

 

Moreover, in the run-up to the National High School Exam (ENEM) on 21 November 2021, Bolsonaro was criticized for asking Education Minister Milton Ribeiro to change wording to refer to the 1964 military coup as the “Revolution.” The term aligned with the far-right revisionist history of the 1964–1985 military dictatorship. Since 2018, Bolsonaro had repeatedly criticized ENEM, leading to the disappearance of at least one question about the 1964 coup from the 2020 exam. His criticism was part of a pattern of interference and intimidation, which included attempts by the director of the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research, the agency responsible for ENEM, reportedly demanding the exclusion of more than twenty exam questions, many of which dealt with Brazil’s recent history. In November 2021 Bolsonaro stated that ENEM would start “looking more like the government,” and that it would no longer have “absurd questions as in past exams” and would instead “start history from scratch.”

 

In Brazil, censorship practices regarding history education have been concerned with both remote and recent history. The latter has been the focus of attempts to rewrite history in the Philippines, which have focused on the 1965–1986 rule of President Ferdinand Marcos, which was characterized by widespread human rights violations and corruption, especially during the period of martial law (1972–1986). In the lead-up to the May 9, 2022 presidential elections, campaigners for Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. proclaimed that the Marcos administration had brought glory and wealth, and that no human rights violations had taken place under martial law. Already on January 10, he had promised the revision of history textbooks.

 

Upon his election as President, Marcos Jr. appointed Sara Duterte as Minister of Education, increasing concerns that they would lead a campaign to rewrite history textbooks. During his presidency, Sara Duterte’s father Rodrigo Duterte had expressed admiration for the Marcos regime, referring to those years as the “golden age” of Philippine history and calling on the public to “move on” rather than dwelling on the particulars of dictatorial rule. In July 2022, public historian Ambeth Ocampo of the Ateneo de Manila University, who had been a fierce critic of the younger Marcos’s attempts at historical revisionism, was harassed online. A month later, the official Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF; Commission on Filipino Languages) tagged five books critical of the martial law period as “subversive” and their authors as “Communists,” and banned them (though the order was rescinded after a strong pushback by the literary and academic community).

           

In Responsible History, professor emeritus of Human Rights, Ethics and History Antoon De Baets has pointed out the intimate correlation between democracy and the freedom of historical research and teaching. The plausibility of this connection can be most clearly seen in its violations, as the four cases above forcefully demonstrate. More broadly, between 2020 and 2023, censorship of history education took place in at least fourteen countries. Of these, twelve have seen a decline in their democratic status at some point during that period. This is not only the case with the censorship of history education, but also finds its expression, for example, in state-led attempts to censor commemorative practices. The interference of states in research, teaching and commemoration of history is an important warning sign for its pending abuse, and for the erosion of democracy in general.

 

However, and more hopefully, state censorship can be met with resistance. In the United States, PEN America is at the forefront of opposing censorial practices, such as those in Florida. In Brazil, the National Association of Historians (ANPUH) protested repeatedly against Bolsonaro’s attacks. In India, historians like Habib and the Haryana opposition leader Bhupinder Singh Hooda have criticized, in the words of the latter, the “politicization” of education and the “saffronization” of history. And in the Philippines, more than 1700 scholars and educators signed a manifesto calling for the defense of historical truth and academic freedom, pledging to “combat all attempts at historical revisionism,” and vowing to protect historical, educational and cultural institutions and “preserve books, documents, records, artifacts, archives and other source materials pertaining to the martial law period.” Their efforts should motivate us all to continue to step up and protect history from abuse by politicians.



* This article was originally published here

Top Gear filming halted after Freddie Flintoff accident

The BBC said it would be "inappropriate" to resume making the popular TV show's new series for now.

from BBC News - Entertainment & Arts https://ift.tt/82y9cLG

Rhys Hoskins



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/9PDROVX
via IFTTT

Wheel of Fortune' host Pat Sajak



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/4shz9b2
via IFTTT

Italy vs England



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/9dFNYH8
via IFTTT

Shou Chew



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/I2Mh6UO
via IFTTT

Tom Cruise daughter Suri



from Daily Search Trends https://ift.tt/3VS7RIH
via IFTTT

Don't Forget the Private Sorrows of Ukraine

Ukrainian refugees housed in an athletics facilty, Moldova

 

 

 

The best quote I’ve discovered about war is from Ian McEwan’s novel Black Dogs (1993). His main character reacts to World War II in Europe:

 

He was struck by the recently concluded war not as a historical, geopolitical fact but as a multiplicity, a near-infinity of private sorrows, as a boundless grief minutely subdivided without diminishment among individuals who covered the continent like dust. . . . For the first time he sensed the scale of the catastrophe in terms of feeling; all those unique and solitary deaths, all that consequent sorrow, unique and solitary too, which had no place in conferences, headlines, history, and which had quietly retired to houses, kitchens, unshared beds, and anguished memories.

 

With all the media available today we do sometimes become aware of war’s “private sorrows,” but not often enough. When we consider how important our own sorrows (like the death of a loved one) are to each of us, we should pause longer to reflect on all the deaths, maiming, and other tragedies that wars inflict.

 

Like the general public, historians (including myself) often fail in this regard. We are better at providing mind-numbing statistics regarding all the deaths and injured than we are at conveying much feeling for the millions of individual tragedies caused by wars. Sporadically, however, I have tried to correct this defect. On the first page of my book An Age of Progress? Clashing Twentieth-Century Global Forces (2008), I quote McEwan and then add,

 

Some feeling for all these tragedies is also sometimes conveyed by first-hand accounts. A few early ones are provided here, and readers can only attempt to imagine some of the other millions of tragedies which lie behind the gruesome statistics of the remainder of the century.

 

I then provided excerpts from the writings of a few U. S. soldiers that killed Filipinos at the very beginning of the twentieth century--in the Philippine-American War (1899-1902) “as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease.”  Here is just one sample:

 

Our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, and children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino was little better than a dog, a noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was the rubbish heap.

 

Almost all wars have produced such “private sorrows.” But I have only occasionally touched upon them--see, for example, “A Memorial Day Lament for Capt. Wilfred Owen, Sgt. Joyce Kilmer, and the Needless Dead of Foolish Wars."

 

Now, however, having just observed the one-year anniversary of the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it seems appropriate to describe just a small percentage of the individual suffering wrought by this tragic war.

One of those tragedies occurred last year on the first day of summer, June 21. It happened in a pine forest near the Ukrainian Donbas city of Sievierodonetsk, and it killed a professional Ukrainian-Jewish couple in their early thirties, Taras and Olha Melster.

They had grown up in Kropyvnytskyi, a central Ukrainian city of 230,000, surrounded by wheat fields and relatively unscathed by the physical damage inflicted on so many other Ukrainian cities. The couple knew each other from age eight on, engaged in environmental protests together, went to college--he studying electrical work, she art--and married when they were 25. Six years later, they were living in a small apartment, owning a big dog, not yet having children, but hoping to soon. He was constructing websites, she had created an online decoration business. Like so many other Ukrainians of various ages and professions they both volunteered for military service, in their case on the very first day of the Russian invasion back in February 2022.  

Even though the couple had little military training and she was the only woman in their unit, they found themselves on the front lines because of her persistence and major losses to more experienced soldiers. Their job? Hold their trench despite heavy Russian shelling and bombing; prevent the Russians from advancing. But after particularly intense Russian bombardment, another soldier discovered the couple’s bodies “next to each other, ripped apart.”

Another Ukrainian tragedy occurred the following month. But since I’ve already described it, I’ll just summarize it here. In July 2022 in the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia, about 160 miles southwest of Kyiv, Iryna Dmytriev, a thirty-four-year-old single mother, is pushing a pink and black stroller. In it is her only child, four-year-old Liza, who is afflicted with Down syndrome and was also born with a defective heart. When she was seven months old she required five-hour heart surgery. 

As Iryna and Liza are walking Iryna suddenly hears a frightening noise above. She looks, sees a “massive” missile, and spontaneously huddles over the carriage trying to protect her daughter. But it did no good. The Russian missile killed Liza and severely injured mother Iryna, who was hospitalized for a month, with her left leg shattered and missile fragments requiring removal from her stomach and left arm. About the killing of her daughter Iryna said, Liza “was my life. . . . What Russia took from me cannot be forgiven. All my plans are destroyed.”

Another example of the “private sorrows” of wars that McEwan wrote about occurred in Dnipro, the Ukraine’s fourth largest city with a population of about one million. It’s on the Dnieper River, about 243 miles southeast of Kyiv. On January 14, 2023 a Russian cruise missile hit the apartment building where Anastasia Shvets, age 24, lived on the sixth floor with her parents and a cat. She was the only survivor in her apartment. According to Ukrainian authorities at least 44 other people in the building were killed and 80 were injured.

Anastasia’s mom had worked in a bank, and her dad had been a mechanic until the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, when he lost his job and later volunteered to build roadblocks to secure the city. Anastasia and her mom also took in stray cats, fed them, and looked for people to adopt them.

On the day the missile struck, the daughter and her parents had just finished lunch, but the latter remained in the kitchen, where they made candles for Ukrainian soldiers hunkered down in trenches. Working a night job at a bakery, Anastasia left the kitchen to sleep for a while. But just minutes later she heard a “massive roar,” and the kitchen and most of the apartment was blown apart. Her parents’ dead bodies were pulled from the rubble the next day.

As with many Ukrainians, this death was not the first to bring her grief. The previous September her boyfriend, Vladyslav, died in battle during a Ukrainian counteroffensive in eastern Ukraine. All this tragedy has left her living with an aunt and grandmother, taking sedatives, being on sick leave, and being frightened of air-raid warnings and loud noises.

 

A final example of the war-inflicted suffering is that of Andrii Mishchenko, his wife Olha Taranova, and their 11-year-old daughter, Sasha. From living together in Kyiv, they parted like many couples early in the one-year-old war. In their case at the Ukrainian-Slovakian border. He eventually ended up on the front lines in eastern Ukraine doing dangerous reconnaissance work. She and Sasha are now in Trossingen, a small town in southwest Germany, which has also welcomed other refugee Ukrainian mothers and children. Fortunately, because she can work remotely, she is able to continue earning income from the IT (Information Technology) job she had in Kyiv.

 

Andrii and Olha communicate mainly by cell phone. Every morning he tries to send her a heart emoji; she responds with an electronic kiss, but also tries to send him videos of her and Sasha. In one exchange he wrote, “Kissing and hugging you tightly”; she replied, “I am yearning for you.” He responded, “Miss me but do not be sad.”

Once he ordered flowers to be sent to her German address. She used the flower box to send him German chocolates, a box he now keeps beside him when he sleeps.

One can only imagine the anxieties of this man and wife, separated by more than a thousand miles and warfare, when they cannot communicate. That was the case for three straight weeks in September during Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

Since they parted in early 2022, the family has only been able to get together twice. The first time was in Kyiv in August, but only for about four hours because Andrii’s unit needed him back quickly for a counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region. The second time, in December in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, they were able to spend five days together. They talked about Olha and Sasha moving back to Kyiv, but because Andrii would worry too much about a Russian missile killing them there, Olha agreed for her and Sasha to return to the safety of Trossingen.  

The four sketches outlined above are just a small sample of the innumerable hardships and tragedies suffered by the Ukrainian people. We can read statistics like 13 million Ukrainians displaced from their homes (8 million of them now refugees in Europe), but they don’t mean much unless we think of millions of individual cases, most of them worse, like those of Olha and Sasha. Ditto for linking the at least 100,000 Ukrainian troops killed or injured with the Kropyvnytskyi couple Taras and Olha Meltser, found dead, “ripped apart,” in a trench together. And ditto for connecting the at least 8,000 Ukrainian non-combatants who have been confiramed killed and nearly 13,300 injured with the four-year-old child Liza (killed in Vinnytsia) ); her mother Iryna (injured); and the parents of 24-year-old Anastasia Shvets (killed), all non-combatant victims of Russian missiles.

 

The four cases mentioned above are just a minuscule sample of what McEwan called “a near-infinity of private sorrows.” And none of the four deal with cities or villages like Mariupol, Kherson, or Bucha where some of the worst atrocities occurred. (See, for example, “Putin’s Mariupol Massacre is one of the 21st century’s worst war crimes,” a late-February 2023 “60 Minutes” treatment of Kherson, and an AP News account of Russian tortures and executions in Bucha.)

 

Nor do any of our four cases mention Russian missile or other attacks (a total of 707) on Ukrainian medical facilities that occurred in 2022. Nor do any of the four deal with the effects of the war on children’s education. (A recent UNICEF report stated, “Recent attacks against electricity and other energy infrastructure have caused widespread blackouts and left almost every child in Ukraine without sustained access to electricity, meaning that even attending virtual classes is an ongoing challenge.”)

 

Nor have our tragic examples mentioned rape, sending some Ukrainian children to Russia, or the imposition of Russian propaganda in Ukrainian areas seized by Russia--all of which have occurred. Nor have I written about all the Russian deaths--reportedly more than Ukrainian ones--nor Putin’s increased domestic curtailments.

 

And for what purpose have all these evils occurred? Primarily because in Vladimir Putin’s head all kinds of evil Ukrainian and Western threats whirl around. Some, like NATO’s expansion, may be genuine dangers; but others like the Western desire to dismember Russia, or Ukraine being dominated by neo-Nazis, are more like paranoid delusions.

The present essay has not addressed the need for a diplomatic solution to end the war. Nor has it minimized the risk of it leading to an escalation and perhaps even a resort to nuclear weapons. Moreover, the sources cited may not all be 100 percent objective. But, as one critic of the escalating level of Western military support for Ukraine has written, “There is no valid excuse for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its horrific ongoing war on that country.”



* This article was originally published here