Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Australian Complicity: Nauru And Silencing Journalism – OpEd

0
0

Journalism is getting something of a battering in Australia. At the parliamentary level, laws have passed that would be inimical to any tradition versed in the bill of rights. (Australia, not having such a restraining instrument on political zeal, can only rely on the bumbling wisdom of its representatives.) At the executive level, deals have been brokered between Canberra and various regional states to ensure minimum coverage over the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Secrecy is all fashion.

Adding to this is the triumph of a certain breed of lazy, compliant journalist. The image of the ragtag journo long lost in the speculative tripe of Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop has been replaced by a tedious, technocratic lout who should, time permitting, be put out to a distant pasture. We are now dealing with compromised dispatches, press releases that yoke the reasoning and analysis that would barely pass muster in the lower grades of a half credible primary. The investigative journalist has, for the most part, disappeared, leaving a few brave scribblers to toil in the wilderness.

The corporate angle on this is fairly unremitting: wedged between the Murdoch behemoth (populist, ragged Herald Sun, or the screaming ideological The Australian) and the Fairfax machine (given a progressive tag), the options for the enterprising press writers are narrow. From the perspective of covering the brutal refugee policy Australia insists on pursuing, the Murdoch press tend to earn the medals of the island authorities in Manus and Nauru. Fairfax shuffles along in the background with the occasional note of condemnation.

The restrictions placed on covering the policy of the Australian government, and those paid subsidiaries on Nauru and Manus remain on par with the secrecy protocols of the Cold War. Since its inception, the Australian policy towards boat arrivals ultimately sent to those isolated island reaches has smacked of colonial patronage, with the regulations to boot.

Elevated to the levels of high secrecy under the term Operation Sovereign Borders, “operational details” in dealing with boat arrivals, as they are termed, have been a matter of clandestine value. The degrees of control have also extended to covering camp conditions, a matter policed by such brutish little laws such as the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (Cth). Under that bit of legislative nastiness, those who obtain “protected information” in the course of their employment in the border force apparatus can be punished for two years for disclosing such information except to authorised personnel.

Prior to the passage of the ABFA, the Australian government made it its business to hound a number of Save the Children employees working in the Nauru Regional Processing centre. Their sin had been to disclose information on the lamentable conditions in the centre.

The levels of media management regarding reporting on the conditions in Nauru has been extreme. Amnesty International has called this a veritable “wall of secrecy”, designed to conceal “a system of deliberate abuse”. The Nauru government has periodically limited access by journalists to the island, a process made craftier by the hefty visa application fee. In 2014, the non-refundable fee of $200 jumped to $8000.

Over the last few years, the small island state has insisted on controlling the journalistic pool. A conspicuous target here has been the ABC itself, which was banned from entering the country to cover the Pacific Islands Forum in September. In a government statement posted in July, “It should be noted that no representative from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be granted a visa to enter Nauru under any circumstances.”

This decision had been occasioned by “this organisation’s blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 election, harassment of and lack of respect towards our President in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country.” Other outlets, such as the more palatable A Current Affair, The Australian and Sky News, have received no such accusations.

Sky News journalist Laura Jayes even had the high visa application fee waived by the Nauru government when seeking entry in 2016. She also revealed who the main targets of such a ruinously costly regime were: “Nauru officials would openly admit the fee was to deter the ABC and Guardian.”

The thin-skinned disposition of those authorities was not condemned by the then Turnbull government, a point unsurprising given the close media management being conducted between Australia and Nauru. What has since transpired is that suggestions by officials in Canberra that Australia’s role in the affair is minimal must be taken with a pinch of coarse salt.

A document tendered to federal court as part of a Nauruan medical transfer case is enlightening. “The governments of Australia and Nauru,” it goes, “will agree to media and visitor access policy and conditions of entry, taking into consideration the requirements of section 13 of the Asylum Seekers (Regional Processing Centre) Act 2012.” Those “seeking access to a Centre will be required to obtain permission from the Secretary of Justice and to sign a media access agreement.” Nothing, it seems, must be left to chance in letting Australians know what is taking place in those outposts of torment and misery.


US Unemployment Falls To Lowest Level Since 1969 As Economy Adds 134,000 Jobs – Analysis

0
0

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the unemployment rate fell to 3.7 percent in September, the lowest rate since it hit 3.5 percent in December of 1969. BLS reported some slowing of job growth for the month as the establishment survey showed a gain of 134,000 jobs. This figure may have been somewhat reduced by the hurricane hitting the Carolinas. The job growth numbers for July and August were revised up by 87,000, bringing the three-month average to 190,000.

Among the big gainers in this report were white women (20 years old and older), who had a 0.4 percentage point decline in their unemployment rate to 2.8 percent, the lowest on record. Black teens had a drop of 0.8 percentage points in their unemployment rate to 19.3 percent, also the lowest on record.

By education level, less-educated workers appear to have been the biggest gainers. The unemployment rate for workers with less than a high school degree or just a high school degree fell by 0.2 percentage points, while the unemployment rate for workers with some college fell by 0.3 percentage points. The unemployment rate for college grads fell by just 0.1 percentage points. College grads, unlike those with generally less education, are one of the few groups with an unemployment rate that is higher than its prerecession level.

Not all of the news in the household survey was positive. While the employment rate (EPOP) for prime-age women (ages 25 to 54) edged up slightly to 72.9 percent, tying its recovery high hit in July, the EPOP for prime-age men dropped 0.1 percentage points to 85.9 percent, 0.5 percentage points below the peak reached in February.

There was also a rise in involuntary part-time employment of 263,000, while voluntary part-time fell by 317,000. However, these numbers are erratic and the rise in involuntary part-time may be partly due to the hurricane.

Another disturbing item in the report was a drop of 1.8 percentage points in the share of unemployment due to voluntary job leavers. The 12.2 percent September rate is the lowest since February. The duration measures of unemployment also all showed increases in the month, with average duration increasing by 1.4 weeks to 24.0 weeks, the longest period since March.

On the establishment side, job growth was strong in the goods producing sectors but very weak in the service sector. Construction added 23,000 jobs in September, a bit less than its average of 26,300 over the last year. Manufacturing added 18,000 jobs, while mining and logging added 5,000 jobs. Coal mining, however, lost 300 jobs. Employment in the coal industry is now 200 jobs below its year-ago levels.

While employment growth was strong in these sectors, it was accompanied by a drop in hours. As a result, the index of aggregate hours fell in both construction and manufacturing, as did average weekly pay.

On the service side, retail lost 20,000 jobs in September, while restaurants lost 18,200. Both drops could have been affected by the hurricane, which likely disrupted hiring in these high turnover sectors. Health care added 25,700 jobs for the month, almost exactly in line with its average for the last year. State education added 21,200, an extraordinary gain, since employment had been virtually flat over the prior year, although this may be partly a problem in seasonal adjustment.

The movie industry lost 300 jobs in September. Employment in the sector is 7,900 below its year-ago level and 29,300 below the peak hit in October of 2016.

In spite of the unusually low unemployment rate there is little evidence of wage acceleration. The year-over-year increase in the average hourly wage was 2.8 percent, that is down from 2.9 percent in last month’s data. However, the annualized increase in the average for the last three months (July, August, September) compared with the prior three months (April, May, June) is 3.4 percent.

By industry, the strongest wage growth is in the low-paying restaurant sector, which has seen a 4.3 percent increase in the average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory workers over the last year. While this likely reflects, in part, the tightening of the labor market, it also is partly due to increases in the minimum wage in many states and cities.

On the whole, this is a healthy report with some notable anomalies, like the fall in the percentage of unemployment due to quits and the drop in hours. The lack of acceleration in wage growth suggests that the labor market can continue to tighten further.

Modi-Putin Summit: What’s On Agenda For India-Russia Defense Ties? – Analysis

0
0

The expected meeting has seen a focus on what both sides could agree to on the defense side.

By Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan

On October 5, Russian President Vladimir Putin is to hold the India-Russia annual summit meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi. The last summit meeting took place in St. Petersburg in 2017, and Putin and Modi met last for an informal summit in Sochi in May this year.

The summit process between India and Russia started way back in 2000 and since then, the relationship has been elevated to a “Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.” The India-Russia strategic partnership is important for a number of reasons, but the two countries also face significant challenges. The relationship in the last few years have undergone some big changes, not all of them positive. The key question therefore is to see if the age-old bilateral relationship is sturdy enough to withstand some of the current turbulence.

As Putin arrives in New Delhi, there is both excitement and uneasiness around the visit and what might come of it. There is excitement on both sides about a couple of important defense deals and there are plans to strengthen and streamline civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. But there is also anxiety in New Delhi about the growing Russia-China ties and what that could mean for India.

On the other hand, Moscow remains anxious about India’s changing strategic orientation, particularly its relationship with the United States, and New Delhi’s defense trade diversification policy, among other issues. Russia has failed to appreciate the Indian strategic calculation behind its closer strategic engagement with the United States and other partners such as Japan and Australia.

From India’s perspective, Russia remains an important strategic partner for a number of different reasons. The historical character of the bilateral relationship aside, there are several strategic factors that impinge on the Russia-India dynamic. For one, Russia remains the only partner that is still willing to give India critical technologies, such as a nuclear submarine. Two, the emerging Russia-China strategic relationship has important security consequences for India. Even as India is diversifying its defense trade partners, Russia still dominates the Indian defense inventory to the tune of about 70 per cent. This raises worries in India because of the changing nature of the Russia-China defense relationship.

To take just one example, Russia’s sale of Su-30 and especially the Su-35 fighter puts India’s security at some risk. Russia’s sale of advanced Kilo-class submarines is another instance. These are illustrations of the important changes in the Russia-China security dynamics because Beijing for a long time was not given access to the best and most modern Russian technology and there was no technology transfer. The Russia-China oil and gas deals over the last few years also is a testament to this new closer partnership.

On the other hand, there are positive elements also in India-Russia relationship.  Civil nuclear cooperation and defense and technology collaboration will dominate the Putin-Modi Summit meeting. The two sides are believed to be formalizing an action plan on nuclear cooperation. The two sides are also expected to sign an agreement for the purchase of the advanced S-400 Triumf air defense systems worth more than $5 billion.

This deal has been under threat because of the US’ CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) legislation, which seeks to sanction any country that does significant business with Russia in the defense or intelligence domains. Even though U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has sought an exemption for India, and the U.S. Congress has given the U.S. administration the authority to waive CAATSA, it is up to the president to decide on whether such a waiver will be granted.

Irrespective of how the CAATSA sanctions may play out, India appears quite certain that it wants the S-400 because of the technological superiority of the system. India has explored a financial mechanism where India can make the payment in rupees rather than in U.S. dollars. Though the United States has not indicated how it will react to the S-400 deal, Washington has been somewhat understanding because India over the last few years has diversified its defense procurement and reduced its dependency on Russia to some extent, which is one of the conditions for gaining a CAATSA waiver.

Russia, for its part, appears quite confident that the deal will go through. Igor Korotchenko, head of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade noted that “the U.S. won’t impose sanctions on them because they don’t want the Indians to refuse to purchase American weapons in the future.”

There are reports suggesting that there may be an agreement also for the sale of four frigates to India. Under the deal, two of the advanced Talwar-class frigates will be directly purchased from Russia’s Yantar Shipyard and delivered in two years’ time, while the next two will be built at the Goa Shipyard. Although of an earlier previous generation, the Indian Navy already operates six of the Talwar-class frigates. Defense analysts add that the newer frigates will be equipped with the Brahmos missiles.

There is also the possibility of Russia-India cooperation on Amur-class submarine. Andrei I Baranov, Deputy Director General for Foreign Activities at Rubin Design Bureau which builds these submarines, promised that India will be able to have 80 percent indigenization.  The potential for collaboration to jointly develop Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) is also a possibility.

Such defense deals and nuclear energy cooperation should keep the India-Russia relationship afloat for the time being. But they will not assuage New Delhi’s long terms concerns about the increasingly close Russia-China strategic partnership.

This article originally appeared in The Diplomat.

Our Trust Deficit With Artificial Intelligence Has Only Just Started – Analysis

0
0

By Eleonore Pauwel*

“We suffer from a bad case of trust-deficit disorder,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his recent General Assembly speech. His diagnosis is right, and his focus on new technological developments underscores their crucial role shaping the future global political order. Indeed, artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to deepen the trust-deficit across the world.

The Secretary-General, echoing his recently released Strategy on New Technologies, repeatedly referenced rapidly developing fields of technology in his speech, rightly calling for greater cooperation between countries and among stakeholders, as well as for more diversity in the technology sector. His trust-deficit diagnosis reflects the urgent need to build a new social license and develop incentives to ensure that technological innovation, in particular AI, is deployed safely and aligned with the public interest.

However, AI-driven technologies do not easily fit into today’s models of international cooperation, and will in fact tend to undermine rather than enforce global governance mechanisms. Looking at three trends in AI, the UN faces an enormous set of interrelated challenges.

AI and Reality

First, AI is a potentially dominating technology whose powerful – both positive and negative –implications will be increasingly difficult to isolate and contain. Engineers design learning algorithms with a specific set of predictive and optimizing functions that can be used to both empower or control populations. Without sophisticated fail-safe protocols, the potential for misuse or weaponization of AI is pervasive and can be difficult to anticipate.

Take Deepfake as an example. Sophisticated AI programs can now manipulate sounds, images and videos, creating impersonations that are often impossible to distinguish from the original. Deep-learning algorithms can, with surprising accuracy, read human lips, synthetize speech, and to some extent simulate facial expressions. Once released outside of the lab, such simulations could easily be misused with wide-ranging impacts (indeed, this is already happening at a low level). On the eve of an election, Deepfake videos could falsely portray public officials being involved in money-laundering or human rights abuses; public panic could be sowed by videos warning of non-existent epidemics or cyberattacks; forged incidents could potentially lead to international escalation.

The capacity of a range of actors to influence public opinion with misleading simulations could have powerful long-term implications for the UN’s role in peace and security. By eroding the sense of trust and truth between citizens and the state—and indeed amongst states—truly fake news could be deeply corrosive to our global governance system.

AI Reading Us

Second, AI is already connecting and converging with a range of other technologies—including biotech—with significant implications for global security. AI systems around the world are trained to predict various aspects of our daily lives by making sense of massive data sets, such as cities’ traffic patterns, financial markets, consumer behaviour trend data, health records and even our genomes.

These AI technologies are increasingly able to harness our behavioural and biological data in innovative and often manipulative ways, with implications for all of us. For example, the My Friend Cayla smart doll sends voice and emotion data of the children who play with it to the cloud, which led to a US Federal Trade Commission complaint and its ban in Germany. In the US, emotional analysis is already being used in the courtroom to detect remorse in deposition videos. It could soon be part of job interviews to assess candidates’ responses and their fitness for a job.

The ability of AI to intrude upon—and potentially control—private human behaviour has direct implications for the UN’s human rights agenda. New forms of social and bio-control could in fact require a reimagining of the framework currently in place to monitor and implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and will certainly require the multilateral system to better anticipate and understand this quickly emerging field.

AI as a Conflict Theatre

Finally, the ability of AI-driven technologies to influence large populations is of such immediate and overriding value that it is almost certain to be the theatre for future conflicts. There is a very real prospect of a “cyber race” in which powerful nations and large technology platforms enter into open competition for our collective data as the fuel to generate economic, medical and security supremacy across the globe. Forms of “cyber-colonization” are increasingly likely, as powerful states are able to harness AI and biotech together to understand and potentially control other countries’ populations and ecosystems.

Towards Global Governance of AI

Politically, legally and ethically, our societies are not prepared for the deployment of AI. The UN, established many decades before the emergence of these technologies, is in many ways poorly placed to develop the kind of responsible governance that will channel AI’s potential away from these risks and towards our collective safety and wellbeing. In fact, the resurgence of nationalist agendas across the world may point to a dwindling capacity of the multilateral system to play a meaningful role in the global governance of AI. Major corporations and powerful member states may see little value in bringing multilateral approaches to bear on what they consider lucrative and proprietary technologies.

There are, however, some important ways in which the UN can help build the kind of collaborative, transparent networks that may begin to treat our “trust-deficit disorder.” The Secretary-General’s recently-launched High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, is already working to build a collaborative partnership with the private sector and establish a common approach to new technologies. Such an initiative could eventually find ways to reward cooperation over competition, and to put in place common commitments to using AI-driven technologies for the public good.

Perhaps the most important challenge for the UN in this context is one of relevance, of re-establishing a sense of trust in the multilateral system. But if the above trends tell us anything, it is that AI-driven technologies are an issue for every individual and every state, and that without collective, collaborative forms of governance, there is a real risk that it will be a force that undermines global stability.

About the author:
*Eleonore Pauwels
is the Research Fellow on Emerging Cybertechnologies at the Centre for Policy Research at United Nations University, focusing on Artificial Intelligence.

Source:

This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Film Festival Accused Of Censorship

0
0

By Quintus Colombage

The organizers of a film festival in Sri Lanka have been accused of censorship for pulling from its program a documentary about the island nation’s civil war.

Film director Jude Ratnam said he was told on Oct. 3 by organisers of the Jaffna International Film Festival (JIFF) that his acclaimed documentary Demons in Paradise would not be shown on Oct. 5 as had been scheduled.

Ratnam alleges the organizers decided to remove the film, which covers atrocities committed during the war, because of pressure from a group known only as the “community” in the northern city of Jaffna.

“JIFF organizers said they have been threatened by a group and give different reasons but no proper explanation for the removal of the film,” Ratnam told ucanews.com. “They have cited different reasons to prohibit the film from being screened.”

The documentary, which competed at the Cannes Film Festival in France last year, is a personal telling of the country’s 1983-2009 civil war which claimed some 100,000 lives.

The director said what has occurred is a case of censorship that has impacted on his fundamental rights to freedom of expression.

Anoma Rajakaruna, the festival director of JIFF, issued a statement accusing the director of walking out of a discussion about his film but failed to explain why the film was removed from the program.

Media watchdogs, rights groups and filmmakers are among those who have condemned the decision not to show the film.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) criticized the action.

“IFJ believe that all citizens of Sri Lanka have the constitutional rights of freedom of expression, and the film is an artistic product enjoying the freedom of artistic expression, therefore it should be freely screened regardless of its contents,” said IFJ in a statement on Oct. 5.

In protest, filmmaker Malaka Devapriya removed his film Bahuchithawadiya from the festival and the Free Media Movement also criticised JIFF’s actions.

Watch the trailer for ‘Demons in Paradise’ below.

India Signs $5 Billion Air Defense Deal With Russia

0
0

By Jaishree Balasubramanian

India inked a military deal on Friday worth U.S. $5 billon to buy S-400 missiles from Russia, disregarding American warnings about arms purchases from Moscow.

The missile deal and several other agreements were concluded after wide-ranging talks in New Delhi between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin, officials said. New Delhi underplayed the contract and both leaders did not mention it in their respective press statements.

A joint statement issued at the end of the one-day talks touched briefly on the missile deal, saying “the sides welcomed the conclusion of the contract for the supply of the S-400 Long Range Surface to Air Missile System to India.”

The Indo-Russian deal came a month after U.S. and Indian ministers struck a defense accord in Delhi aimed at fostering deep security and political ties. Washington agreed to give the Indian military encrypted defense technologies.

Friday’s S-400 deal could result in American sanctions on arms purchases from Russia, as framed under the U.S. Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), according to a retired Indian diplomat.

“The U.S. CAATSA legislation has been designed to punish Russia, and not harm countries who are friendly to the U.S. like India,” former Ambassador Anil Wadhwa told BenarNews.

He said India had informed the United States at the highest levels on many occasions that this agreement had already been negotiated before CAATSA came in the scene and “hence India deserves a waiver, which is allowed under U.S. law.”

“The United States must consider the situation which India finds itself in – nuclear-armed and belligerent neighbors on its borders – leaving it no choice but to acquire S 400 to defend itself,” Wadhwa, a senior fellow with the think-tank Vivekananda international Foundation, said.

The U.S. has urged its allies not to trade with Russia’s defense sector, warning that the S-400 missile defense system would be a “focus area” for it to implement punitive sanctions against a nation undertaking “significant” business deals with the Russians.

India is seeking the long-range missile systems to tighten its air defense mechanism. S-400 is known as Russia’s most advanced long-range surface-to-air missile defense system.

China was the first foreign buyer to purchase the Russian missile system, but Washington slapped sanctions on Beijing over the deal, according to news reports.

India – which manufactures very few of its own weapons – is the world’s biggest defense buyer, and Russia supplies most of its military equipment and spare parts, BBC News reported.

Several other agreements signed

Modi and Putin also discussed ways to boost a strategic partnership in key areas, including defense, counter-terrorism, energy and space.

Apart from the defense deal, several other agreements were signed in areas of nuclear energy and railways. One of the agreements related to cooperation on India’s manned space project called Gaganyaan.

“The decisions taken today will further enhance our cooperation and contribute to the restoration of peace and stability in this challenging world,” Modi said at a joint press conference with Putin.

Putin said the two sides had agreed to boost cooperation in combating terrorism and drug trafficking. They also condemned all kinds of state support to terrorists including cross-border terrorism and providing safe havens to terrorists.

India has long accused Pakistan, its neighboring rival, of engaging in cross-border terrorism.

A top Indian government official, who did not want to be named, said the negotiations for the S-400 missiles had preceded U.S. sanctions against Russia by a long time. “It fulfills a certain defense requirement of the country and, therefore, the government has taken the decision, obviously, in the national interest,” the official with the External Affairs Ministry told reporters.

In the wake of Friday’s deal, the U.S. embassy in New Delhi said the intent to impose sanctions against Russia was not aimed at harming the military capabilities of American “allies or partners.”

“Waivers of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) section 231 will be considered on a transaction-by-transaction basis. We cannot prejudge any sanctions decisions,” an embassy spokesperson told NDTV.

Ralph Nader: The Root of the Internet’s Disrepute, Online Advertising – OpEd

0
0

In all the mounting media coverage of problems with the Internet, such as invasion of privacy, vulnerability to hacking, political manipulation, and user addiction, there is one constant: online advertising. Online advertising is the lifeblood of Google, Facebook, and many other Internet enterprises that profit by providing personal data to various vendors. Moreover, the move of tens of billions of dollars from conventional print and broadcast media continues, with devastating impacts, especially on print newspapers and magazines.

But does online advertising work for consumers? The Internet was once considered a less commercial medium. But today consumers are inundated with targeted ads, reviews, comments, friends’ reactions, and other digital data.  Unfortunately for advertisers, consumers are not intentionally clicking on online ads in big numbers.

Google’s search ads tackle people when they search for a product or service. A controlled study by eBay research labs in 2014 concluded that Google was greatly exaggerating the effectiveness of such ads—at least those bought by eBay. eBay’s researchers concluded that “More frequent users whose purchasing behavior is not influenced by ads account for most of the advertising expenses, resulting in average returns that are negative.” This is the “I-was-gonna-buy-it-anyway problem,” says an article in the Atlantic.

The Atlantic notes:

Whether all advertising—online and off—is losing its persuasive punch…Think about how much you can learn about products today before seeing an ad. Comments, user reviews, friends’ opinions, price-comparison tools…they’re much more powerful than advertising because we consider them information rather than marketing. The difference is enormous: We seek information, so we’re more likely to trust it; marketing seeks us, so we’re more likely to distrust it.

Some companies like Coca-Cola have cooled on using online advertising. But advertising revenues keep growing for Google, Facebook, and the other giants of the Internet. These companies are racing to innovate, connecting ads to more tailored audiences, which tantalize and keeps hope springing eternal for the advertisers. The Internet ad sellers also provide detailed data to advertise themselves to the advertisers staying one step ahead of growing skepticism. This is especially a problem when there is inadequate government regulation of deceptive advertising. It is the Wild West! Online advertising revenues are the Achilles’ heel of these big Internet companies. Any decline will deflate them immensely; more than public and Congressional criticism of their intrusiveness, their massive allowed fakeries, their broken promises to reform, and their openings to unsavory political and commercial users. If they lose advertising revenue, a major revenue bubble will burst and there goes their business model, along with their funding for ventures from video hosting to global mapping.

After reviewing the many major negatives attributed to the Internet, the New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo writes, “So who is the central villain in this story, the driving force behind much of the chaos and disrepute online?… It’s the advertising business, stupid.” He adds, perhaps optimistically, “If you want to fix much of what ails the internet right now, the ad business would be the perfect perp to handcuff and restrain.”

Randall Rothenberg, who heads a trade association of companies in the digital ad business, urges advertisers “to take civic responsibility for our effect on the world.” Then he shows his frustration by saying that, “Technology has largely been outpacing the ability of individual companies to understand what is actually going on.”  All of this even before artificial intelligence (AI) takes root. Meanwhile, Facebook, Google, and Twitter keep announcing new tools to make their ads “safe and civil” (Facebook), open and protective of privacy. At the same time matters keep getting worse for consumers. The backers and abusers keep getting more skilled too (see Youtube Kids ).

In a recent report titled “Digital Deceit,” authors Dipayan Ghosh and Ben Scott wrote:

The Central problem of disinformation corrupting American political culture is not Russian spies or a particular media platform. The central problem is that the entire industry is built to leverage sophisticated technology to aggregate user attention and sell advertising.

If so, why isn’t more public attention being paid to this root cause? Not by the mass media which is obviously too compromised by the Congress, by academia, or by more of US before “We the People” become the conditioned responders that Ivan Pavlov warned about so many years ago.

A Better Approach To Globalization – Analysis

0
0

Idealism and political realism must reach compromise on globalization, or the world can expect less wealth and more war.

By Koichi Hamada*

Some argue that globalization delivers great benefits to the world, increasing wealth with trade, movement of people and goods, and information sharing. Globalization also contributes to improvement of the welfare of developing nations and brings a diversity of ideas that promote innovation. Along with its economic benefits, globalization improves justice in terms of gender equality and human rights. Globalization indeed works to help keep world peace, and during the post war period, multinational organizations like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization contribute to the trend of international cooperation.

Therefore, those who advocate globalism argue that current problems stem not from globalism but from its critics. In conceiving the world order with open societies, globalism is advocated as an idealistic goal. On the other hand, in the real world, the progress of speedy globalization has created an anti-globalization phobia. Take migration, for example. Migration between the United States and Mexico works towards equalizing wages of workers of identical skills across national borders unless there are some restrictions of movement – one reason that the US government has worked to keep control of the number of migrants across the Mexican border. Under current conditions, wages across the border will not literally equalize. Nevertheless, workers on the US side who enjoy higher wages and a better lifestyle may feel threatened if the barrier to labor movement decreases.

Similarly, trade theory tells us that trade of commodities tends to reduce cross-border wage differences, if not as directly as in the case of labor movement. The equalizing tendency itself, and even the accompanying worry, triggers resistance of workers within a richer country. Imagine those workers who came to the United States centuries ago, struggling to settle and thinking their descendants’ lives were secure, and learning that their livelihood could be threatened by new immigrants and trade. Naturally many would want protection.

This trend is reinforced by the technical progress in the United States where automation and robots not only take the jobs of simple skilled workers – but deliver superior performance. Foreign direct investments alone are the least objectionable form of globalization, probably because domestic competitors are already fairly successful in sectors with technical development and well paid.

While people who work for Wall Street or Silicon Valley have enjoyed a rapid increase in wages and salaries, those who work in the so-called “Rust Belt” have had to endure stagnant wages for many years. As economist Jeff Sachs emphasizes, the relative impoverishment of unskilled workers is a root of deep dissatisfaction.

Incidentally, supporters of Donald Trump and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, while belonging to different social groups and are under contrasting political influences, may be protesting from similar sentiment – a frustration with the status quo in the labor market. Also in many European countries, for example, Austria, Hungary and Poland, the antipathy toward immigrants has generated support for politicians who campaign against globalization and, unfortunately, against democracy as well. Similar political movements were seen in France and Italy, and the Brexit vote demonstrated British dissatisfaction with open migration policies in the European Union.

Here is the dilemma. Globalization is, in the long run, beneficial to the world in terms of economic gain and the pursuit of international public goods like democracy and human rights. However, globalization hurts a substantial part of a participating nation, at least in the short run. The protests from neglected portions of each country are genuine.

Traditional economists once argued that, since globalization benefits the total population, there should be a combination of the free trade policy and the corrective income redistribution that would to a better state for all citizens. This solution is wishful thinking if not hypocritical. In almost any country, such redistribution policies do not take place because of political objections.

The more serious and unfortunate difficulty is that leaders elected by globalization’s discontents are assuming more authoritarian and suppressive attitudes towards democracy and protection of human rights. For example, the Trump administration responds to the needs of those who lose by globalization, including workers in the nation’s Rust Belt where factories closed due to foreign competition, yet on the other hand, neglects the wellbeing and human rights of immigrant children.

Those who criticize the costs of migration and globalization do not properly consider the benefits of globalization in a larger picture. Globalization supported the enhancement of racial equality among American workers. Globalization through the European Economic Community and European Union achieved peace for more than 60 years after World War II. If many countries fall under authoritarian politicians who reject the long-range benefits of globalization for their own political purposes, the world can expect more wars.

To recapitulate the dilemma: If political leaders advance globalization, it may worsen the income-distribution problem that in turn triggers public dissatisfaction. The government may react to the dissatisfaction by restricting trade, not only impairing growth but endangering democracy as a result. On the other hand, political leaders that slow globalization in order to avoid political consequences may sacrifice long-term objectives such as human rights and worldwide liberty.

The political reality is that globalization tends to endanger the people’s support for democratic leaders, and this tendency seems to be hard to rewind. As an economist, I offer these modest considerations:

• Globalization’s challenges stem from the world where inequality is left unaddressed. Thus in developed as well as developing countries, public policy should focus on equality issues. The already proposed Tobin tax on a small portion of Wall Street trade activities would resolve some of the problem. The carbon tax will give firms incentives to clean the environment and may correct the inequality between wealth holders and workers. Thus economists have developed tools to reduce income equality, but the political will is missing.

• Public dissatisfaction varies depending upon the form of globalization, and governments could consider moderating the pace of immigration. In the United States, for example, governments and employers could exercise precise observance of the existing law. Exceptions might include individuals brought to the country while they were children and free from the threat of deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. Protection of human rights should absolutely supersede other objectives of law.

• Likewise, government could moderate globalization of trade while avoiding protectionist tariff policies that could create trade war provoking disastrous retaliation – as happened with the 1930 Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, which exacerbated already high US tariffs. The Trump administration should learn that the current account of trade is determined by the gap between national expenditures and national income and difficult to correct by levying tariffs.

• Public reaction to foreign direct investment is more than positive, and such investment should be encouraged. Incidentally, I have traveled to Nebraska where Japanese investment in trading companies that export farm products was popular and Hungary where Japanese investments in automobiles are highly welcomed. Foreign investments are great ways to expose the world to diversity and innovation.

There is no magic bullet to solve the quandary over globalization. But idealism and political realism must find a way to shake hands with each other, or the world will suffer the consequences of less wealth or even war.

*Koichi Hamada is professor emeritus of economics at Yale University and a special adviser to the prime minister of Japan.


Brazil’s Coming Election: Can The Nation Embrace A Free Economy? – Analysis

0
0

By Antony P. Mueller*

On Sunday, October 7, 2018, Brazil holds its presidential election and will vote for the national deputies, the state governors, and the senators. Brazil has a diverse party system with tens of political parties. When no candidate reaches more than 50 percent in the first run, the two candidates with the highest score will compete against each other in the second vote few weeks later.

Political Polarization

The election of 2018 is not only one of the most critical in Brazil’s recent history, it is also the most polarized. This comes partly from the curiosity that the former president Inácio Lula da Silva takes an active part in the election campaign although he is in jail because of corruption charges. Lula, as he is popularly called, was sentenced to over nine years of prison but continuous to exert a strong influence on his followers and the media. He led the Workers’ Party (PT) to great victories in 2002 and 2006 and during his second term he was the post popular politician in Brazil. Fernando Haddad who is the candidate of the Workers’ Party visits Lula frequently and communicates with him to obtain directions how to lead the election campaign. On the campaign trail, Haddad even tries to imitate the distinct voice and mode of expression of the former president.

So far, two prime candidates for the presidency have emerged: Fernando Haddad of the Workers’ Party (PT) and Jair Bolsonaro of the Social Liberal Party (PSL). Beyond their fierce clash in promoting extremist right- and left-wing political positions, the two candidates have an ardent populism in common. As current polls indicate, the voter must (Brazil has compulsory voting) make a decision between the populist right (Bolsonaro) and the populist left (Haddad) in the final vote that is scheduled for October 28.

After he suffered a knife attack in early September and had to spend weeks in the hospital, Bolsonaro’s star rose. At the same time, Haddad also moved ahead, leaving the rest of the field of the candidates behind him. Hostility is rising, and the confrontations have become more aggressive. Whoever wins the presidency will face tough opposition, not only in the Congress and the Senate but also from large parts of the population. The mutual rejection in the population of each candidate are consistently higher than their acceptance. Aversion and hatred have become stronger feelings among the voters than sympathy and support.

Missed Opportunities

Brazil is in need of urgent reforms which have been neglected since the Labor Party took power under the leadership of Inácio Lula da Silva in 2003. Lula was reelected in 2006 and then launched Dilma Rousseff as his successor in 2010 and 2014. Dilma Rousseff, however, never gained the same degree of popular support that Lula had enjoyed. She was forced out of office in 2016 after an impeachment against her.

Under the presidencies of the Workers’ Party, the government turned populist state capitalism into the leading economic model. The beginning of the thirteen years of the rule of Workers’ Party coincided with a commodity boom and a deepening economic symbiosis with China. Brazil’s exports boomed. At home, President Lula pursued an economic policy that fostered mass consumption and public spending. Under his rule, the government launched a far-reaching program of redistribution that provided public money to millions of families. This policy of almsgiving found praised by many, including foreign observers and international institutions . At the height of the populist wave towards the end of his second term in 2010, Lula da Silva was able to boast of high growth rates, full employment, and moderate inflation.

Yet during the phase of good economic performance, the government did very little to promote the productive capacity of the country. The planned infrastructure projects ran aground or fell victim to corruption. The Brazilian boom was based on the export of commodities and on domestic consumption. As demand from abroad declined, the government sought to stimulate domestic demand through credit expansion. Although this policy secured the election for the Workers’ Party and Rousseff’s presidency, this policy prepared the current slump.

Since 2011, the economy has been sinking. Instead of catching up to the advanced economies, Brazil is falling back again. The mean economic growth rate of the past five years is negative (Figure 1) and the unemployment rate has reached more than 12 percent since 2017. In terms of economic freedom of the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, Brazil stands at number 153 between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.

Brazil. Gross domestic product. Annual rates of growth, 2013-2018  Source: IBGE. tradingeconomics.com
Brazil. Gross domestic product. Annual rates of growth, 2013-2018
Source: IBGE. tradingeconomics.com

The Workers Party precluded sustained economic progress by prioritizing redistributive policies. This project had to fail because it plundered the middle class, which is still weak and relatively small in Brazil. Instead of fostering new enterprise and liberating the entrepreneurial spirit, a stifling bureaucracy and high taxes have hampered economic development.

Paying the Price for Failed Policies

In the 20th century, Brazil was the country of Latin America that made the most progress in industrialization. The economy benefited from the immense wealth of raw materials and agricultural resources and the way seemed open to catch-up to the rich countries. Yet after the great advancements of industrialization from the 1940s to the 1960s, the country fell into the trap of foreign loans in the 1970s and became a victim to the international debt crisis in the 1980s.

In response to the military rule that dominated the country from 1964 to 1985, the democratic forces created a Constitution that is packed with social utopia. The resulting political system is a hodgepodge of welfarism, presidentialism, and democratism. The Constitution of 1988 created a new privileged class in the form of the judiciary which enjoys privileges beyond belief and gives provincial judges almost unlimited authority to make decisions that concern the whole country.

After the ‘lost decade’ of the 1980s, the country slowly regained new ground and in the second half of the 1990s with an effective currency reform, privatizations, and expenditure control the economy begin to grow again.

That was the time when Brazil should have said goodbye to its interventionist economic model. Yet instead, the government put the country on the path to its current misery through Keynesian development policy. Expansionary fiscal and monetary policies have not brought relief but exacerbated the problems. Excessive public spending and monetary expansion have led to imbalances between production and demand. Without enough technological progress to offset the lack of savings, the economy lacks vitality and has remained stuck in stagnation.

The Workers’ Party did not accomplish any of the overdue reforms. When the crisis hit, the traditional weaknesses of the Brazilian economy reappeared in full force. The list of miseries ranges from the education system to pensions, from bureaucracy to labor legislation, from extreme economic and social inequality to the immense privileges of the civil service, and especially the privileges enjoyed by the judiciary in Brazil. Numerous unnecessary regulations burden the economy. Unclear and contradictory laws provoke incalculable bureaucratic and fiscal encroachments of the authorities on business. The labor market is extremely rigid. Workers are hard to dismiss. Public servants enjoy exorbitant salaries and generous benefits.

The high tax burden weights heavily on companies, consumers, and the working population. The public service is expensive and inefficient. The retirement regulations for civil servants are paradisiacal. The strong influence of the state on the economy and the numerous state and semi-state enterprises has opened the door to exorbitant levels of corruption.

The fact that Brazil has survived these burdens and still maintains a relatively good standard of living is due to its immense wealth of natural and agricultural resources. Yet this abundance is a blessing and a curse at the same time. The easy exploitation of the natural resources entices the country’s elite to pay little attention to productivity, efficiency, and thriftiness. The capital formation in Brazil is weak, savings are low, and the rate of innovation is poor. Without fundamental reforms towards a market economy, the future looks bleak.

Outlook

A few years ago, at the height of the impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff, it seemed for a while that the old ideology of state interventionism had abated, and that free market philosophy was on the rise. The country was hungry for new ideas. The representatives of the established elite had lost their legitimacy. The investigations that brought an immense corruption scandal to light had aroused the will of the population to establish a clean democracy. Yet the closer the next election came, the more the old forces regained strength up to the point that now Lula can direct an election campaign from jail.

The chances of a reversal after the election are small. Poor economic policies tend to produce even worse economic policies, and false ideology provokes more false ideas. Brazil is stuck in the swamp of interventionism which is typical of the populist state capitalism. At universities and schools, socialist and communist ideas dominate. Brazil needs a profound change in its economic structure, replacing its state capitalism of a top-down development strategy with a model of an entrepreneurial economy. The strange thing about Brazil is that with some persistence most of the country’s ailments are to cure but that hardly anyone in the political arena has the will to begin with the treatment and is determined enough to carry it out.

About the author:
*Antony P. Mueller
is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. See his website www.capitalstudies.org or send e-mail to: antonymueller@gmx.com.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Spooky, Scary, Saintly? How Catholics Can See Halloween At Its Best

0
0

Whether you dress up as a ghoul, a hero, or a saint, Halloween has a Christian origin that should inspire us to remember our mortality and our redemption in Christ, Bishop David Konderla of Tulsa has said.

“In contrast to popular culture’s observance of Halloween, even the customary appeal to the ‘frightful’ has a devotional meaning in the Catholic tradition. Props such as skulls and scythes have historically recalled our mortality, reminding us to be holy because we are destined for judgment,” the bishop said, citing Hebrews 9:27 and Revelation 14:15. “Visible symbols of death thus represent a reminder of the last things – death, judgment, Heaven, and hell.”

Bishop Konderla discussed the upcoming holiday, which falls before the Nov. 1 feast of All Saints, in a Sept. 28 memorandum on the celebration of Halloween in the Diocese of Tulsa.

Halloween has origins in the Catholic liturgical calendar, he said, but the customs surrounding it have “drifted from the feast’s intended meaning and purpose.” The name itself derives from the archaic English phrase “All Hallows’ Evening,” referring to the Eve of All Saints. Since All Saints can begin with evening prayer the night before, Halloween is the feast’s “earliest possible celebration.”

“While the ‘Gothic’ aspect of Halloween reminds us of Christian teaching about the resurrection of the dead, our culture often represents this in a distorted manner, for when the dead are raised they will in truth be ‘clothed with incorruptibility’,” said Bishop Konderla.

When separated from Catholic teaching, the holiday’s grim, ghoulish, or “Gothic” costumes can be mistaken as “celebration or veneration of evil or of death itself, contradicting the full and authentic meaning of Halloween.”

“For the Christian, Christ has conquered death, as has been prophesied and fulfilled,” he said. “Christ has conquered death by his Passion, Death, and Resurrection, the Paschal Mystery whose graces are evident in the glory of all saints.”

The bishop also discussed the custom of dressing up as Christian saints.

“The custom of dressing up for Halloween is devotional in spirit,” he said. “By dressing up as the saints whom we most admire, we imagine ourselves following their example of Christian discipleship. This practice allows the lay faithful in festive celebration to become ‘living icons’ of the saints, who are themselves ‘icons’ or ‘windows’ offering real-life examples of the imitation of Christ.”

“In dressing up as saints we make Christian discipleship our own in a special way, following the exhortation of St. Paul: ‘Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ’,” he said, citing Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.

Bishop Konderla invoked the imagery of the saints used in the Book of Revelation.

“Proper veneration of the saints naturally leads to adoration of the Lamb who was slain, whom the saints adore and follow wherever he goes,” he said. “True devotion to the saints, through our prayers and imitation of their witness, leads us sinners back to Christ.”

The bishop also voiced a few warnings. He said it is important to avoid Halloween popularizations of things that are contrary to the Catholic faith. These include the glamorization or celebration of “anything involving superstition, witches, witchcraft, sorcery, divinations, magic, and the occult.”

“We want to be good models of Christian virtue for those we serve and make clear distinctions between that which is good and that which is evil,” he added.

“Let us urge one another this Halloween to express in every detail of our observance the beauty and depth of the Feast of All Saints,” Bishop Konderla concluded.

“Let us make this year’s celebration an act of true devotion to God, whose saints give us hope that we too may one day enter into the Kingdom prepared for God’s holy ones from the beginning of time.”

Lunar Craters Named In Honor Of Apollo 8

0
0

The newly named craters are visible in the foreground of the iconic Earthrise colour photograph taken by astronaut William Anders. It depicts the moment that our shiny blue Earth came back into view as the spacecraft emerged out of the dark from behind the grey and barren Moon. This is arguably the most famous picture taken by Apollo 8. It became iconic and has been credited with starting the environmental movement.

Since the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth — it always has the same side facing the Earth — the Earth will never appear to rise above the surface to someone standing on the lunar farside. Orbiting around the Moon, however, gave the Apollo 8 astronauts, Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders this stunning view, before they safely returned home to Earth.

The Apollo 8 mission took place from 21 to 27 December 1968. After completing 10 orbits around the Moon on Christmas Eve, broadcasting images back to Earth and giving live television transmissions, the crew returned to Earth and landed in the Pacific Ocean.

The Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN) of the International Astronomical Union, who named the craters, is the authority responsible for the naming of planetary features in our Solar System. The two named craters were previously designated by letters.

Consumers Willing To Pay More For Sustainably Brewed Beer

0
0

More and more breweries are investing in practices to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases. Will it pay off? A study by Indiana University researchers suggests it may.

Drawing on survey research, they find that a majority of U.S. beer drinkers would be willing to pay more for beer produced with sustainable practices. On average, they would pay about $1.30 more per six-pack.

“The takeaway for the brewing industry is that it is financially feasible to introduce energy-saving practices into the brewing process,” said Sanya Carley, associate professor in the IU Bloomington School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the first author of the paper. “Even if it ends up adding costs, more than half of all beer consumers are willing to absorb those extra costs.”

The study, “Willingness-to-pay for Sustainable Beer,” was published by the journal PLOS ONE. Lilian Yahng, director of research and development for IU’s Center for Survey Research, is a co-author.

The research highlights potential for energy savings and sustainability in an energy-intensive industry that is growing rapidly, especially in the craft-beer segment. The number of craft breweries grew by over 200 percent between 2005 and 2015, and their production increased by over 12 percent each year.

The industry has considerable potential for reducing energy use and mitigating its impact on climate change. Some breweries have already added solar panels, installed onsite wastewater treatment plants, insulated brewing vessels and recaptured steam from the brewing process.

But those kinds of measures require upfront investments that are likely to increase prices. To determine whether consumers would be willing to pay more for sustainably brewed beer, the researchers drew on a survey of over 1,000 self-reported beer drinkers, all over age 21. They found that 59 percent said they would pay more.

Consumers who already pay more for their beer were most likely to be willing to pay a premium for sustainability. Also, those who said they would pay more for sustainable beer were likely to report lifestyle activities associated with the common good. For example, they spent time in volunteer work or engaged in recycling, composting, and buying locally produced food and products.

Surprisingly, however, there was no significant correlation between the type of beer that consumers preferred and their willingness to pay more for sustainability, after controlling for differences in price. Consumers of traditional American lagers — think Budweiser and Coors — were as likely to be willing to pay more as those who prefer craft beers, a category that includes such exotic brews as avocado honey ale and a wild ale brewed with yeast cultured from the brewmaster’s beard hairs.

That said, the proliferation of beer varieties suggests that brewers will have to find new ways to distinguish themselves in an increasingly crowded market. Carley said the research suggests that going green could be a way for beer companies to do just that.

Standard Treatment For Common STD Doesn’t Eliminate Parasite In Some Women

0
0

A new study led by an infectious disease epidemiologist at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine could change the way doctors treat a common sexually transmitted disease.

Professor Patricia Kissinger and a team of researchers found the recommended single dose of medication isn’t enough to eliminate trichomoniasis, the most common curable STD, which can cause serious birth complications and make people more susceptible to HIV. Results of the research are published in Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Globally, an estimated 143 million new cases of trichomoniasis among women occur each year and most do not have symptoms, yet the infection is causing unseen problems. The recommended treatment for more than three decades has been a single dose of the antibiotics metronidazole or tinidazole.

The researchers recruited more than 600 women for the randomized trial in New Orleans; Jackson, Mississippi; and Birmingham, Alabama. Half the women took a single dose of metronidazole and the other half received treatment over seven days.

Kissinger and her team found the women who received multiple doses of the treatment were half as likely to still have the infection after taking all the medication compared to women who only took a single dose.

“There about 3.7 million new cases of trichomoniasis each year in the United States,” Kissinger said. “That means a lot of women have not been getting inadequate treatment for many decades.”

Trichomoniasis can cause preterm delivery in pregnant women and babies born to infected mothers are more likely to have low birth weight. The parasite can also increase the risk of getting or spreading HIV.

Kissinger believes the CDC will change its treatment recommendations because of the results of this study.

“We need evidence-based interventions to improve health,” Kissinger says. “We can no longer do something because it’s what we’ve always done. I hope that this study will help to change the recommendations so that women can get the proper treatment for this common curable STD.”

Paris: Dire Situation For Migrant Adolescents Arriving Alone, Says HRW

0
0

Paris child protection authorities employ inadequate procedures that arbitrarily deny formal recognition as a child to unaccompanied migrant children, denying many the services they desperately need.

Human Rights Watch found, similar to the situation it reported in July 2018, that authorities are using summary age assessments to determine eligibility for services, in violation of international standards and French regulations. As a result, children are deprived of access to essential services they are entitled to, including housing, education, and health services. In the meantime, many must sleep on the streets.

“Migrant children who arrive in Paris alone are living in the streets because of unfair procedures,” said Bénédicte Jeannerod, France Director of Human Rights Watch. “Child welfare authorities in Paris should make sure that no child faces danger because of slipshod and arbitrary assessments of their age and their needs.”

Paris officials said that they already had taken steps to address the problems even as Human Rights Watch issued its report in July outlining the concerns. But interviews with children who sought recognition of their status in August and September and a review of documents indicate that little had changed.

French regulations require authorities to follow comprehensive, multidisciplinary age assessment procedures, ordinarily meaning interviews of several hours in duration.

In a typical case, a 16-year-old Afghan boy told Human Rights Watch that authorities concluded he was not a child after speaking with him for 30 minutes the day he arrived in Paris. Similarly, a humanitarian group tracked the cases of about 100 youths who sought formal recognition as children in August and September and found that 60 percent had interviews of only about 20 minutes.

Unaccompanied migrant children in France are entitled under French law to housing, education, and other services. However, authorities must formally recognize them as children for them to gain access. There are ssignificant differences in material benefits and legal status available to child migrants under the Family and Social Action Code (Code de l’action sociale et des familles) and the immigration law as compared with adult migrants, creating incentives for young adults to misrepresent their age. If authorities have serious doubts about an individual’s claim to be under 18, they can take appropriate steps to determine age, provided that they do so in line with appropriate standards that ensure respect for their rights and dignity.

The regulations also allow unaccompanied children to receive emergency shelter for five days, and in some cases more, before their interview. Aid workers stressed the importance of allowing unaccompanied children some time to recover from their journeys before undergoing age assessment interviews. Sophie Laurant, coordinator of Médecins du Monde’s Programme for Unaccompanied Minors, told Human Rights Watch that a period of recuperation after the child arrives in the city is imperative for a proper assessment.

But in many cases, authorities interview unaccompanied children immediately after they go to the the Paris evaluation facility (Dispositif d’evaluation des mineurs isolés étrangers, DEMIE), meaning that children must answer detailed questions without understanding the purpose of the interview. Some children told Human Rights Watch they had just arrived in Paris and had not slept, showered, or changed clothes before their interview. “I was really tired. I don’t even remember what they asked me and what I told them,” the 16-year-old said of his interview, which took place in mid-September.

Authorities rely on invalid grounds for concluding that a person is an adult. Youths are often denied recognition as children if they lack identity documents. Work in the home country or on the journey to Europe is also regularly cited as a basis for negative decisions, though many children around the world work. And child protection authorities frequently relied on subjective factors such as “bearing” or comportment.

Human Rights Watch found that Paris child welfare authorities have made some slight improvements in their procedures over the past three months. Just one of the children Human Rights Watch interviewed in August and September was turned away at the door, a frequent practice earlier in the year. Even so, humanitarian groups saw other cases of children rejected in that way at the beginning of September.

In another improvement over past practice, all but one of the children interviewed received a letter from the Directorate of Social Action, Children, and Health (Direction de l’action sociale, de l’enfance et de la santé, DASES) indicating the reasons for the refusal to formally recognize them as children. A written notification allows young migrants to appeal the decision before the juvenile judge.

Appeals take several months or longer, during which time young migrants cannot get child protection services or emergency accommodation for adult migrants. Some receive help from aid groups and networks of volunteers. But many live on the streets, where they are exposed to many risks, including exploitation and illegal or other hazardous work. “On the street, you see some kids who sell hashish, other drugs – they have nothing to eat,” said a 15-year-old boy from Guinea. “You’re forced to take risks.”

While they are appealing negative age assessments, unaccompanied children also have no access to school or apprenticeships, which they would otherwise receive.

Paris child protection authorities should ensure that all unaccompanied migrant children receive the comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation to which they are entitled under French regulations, Human Rights Watch said. Child protection authorities should also ensure that unaccompanied children receive emergency shelter and adequate information about the purpose of the evaluation beforehand, to allow them to recuperate from their journeys and prepare and effectively take part in the evaluation. Children should be provided with shelter while their cases are under appeal.

“Child protection authorities in Paris have begun the process to meet their obligations under French and international standards,” Jeannerod said. “They should urgently see through further reforms to ensure that age assessment procedures fulfil the purpose of French regulations and international standards.”

In a report published in July based on research conducted between February and June 2018, Human Rights Watch documented the arbitrary and flawed nature of age assessment procedures for unaccompanied migrant children seeking recognition of their status as children from child welfare services in Paris. Human Rights Watch undertook additional research in August and September to investigate authorities’ claims that they had addressed the serious shortcomings identified in the July report.

Human Rights Watch interviewed 19 migrant adolescents in Paris who identified themselves as children under age 18. The total included those who presented themselves between July 4 and September 20 at the Paris evaluation facility to have their age assessed. Human Rights Watch also interviewed humanitarian workers and lawyers working with young migrants and reviewed 21 denial letters issued by the Directorate of Social Action, Children, and Health (Direction de l’action sociale, de l’enfance et de la santé, DASES).

The World Disorder – OpEd

0
0

The preamble of the United Nations states:

“WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

  • to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
  • to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
  • to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
  • to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.”

During the 73rd UN General Assembly meeting the world community heard loud and clear from the world leaders and dignitaries that the UN has failed to live up to the lofty goals for which it was created after the World War II. As a matter of fact, human race is in a dire state today than ever before in the last 70 years.

Millions of people have been rendered homeless as a result of war, political unrest and economic insecurity that have become the new norms these days. Some four million Syrians have fled their homes to escape murderous assaults from its own government – the criminal Assad regime. They have found refuge in neighboring Turkey, which continues to spend billions of dollars to look after them.

Almost a million Rohingya Muslims and Hindus have been forced out of the Rakhine (formerly Arakan) state of Buddhist Myanmar who have now settled inside Bangladesh since September 2017 to escape government-orchestrated genocide there. Tens of thousands of Rohingyas have also been killed and gang raped by Suu Kyi’s government forces and Buddhist fascists that want to make Myanmar religiously free of non-Buddhists. The Myanmar government forces are also at war with separatists in various Christian-majority states.

In next-door India, some 100,000 Kashmiri civilians have been killed by government security forces since 1989 to ensure that the Muslim residents of the restive territory are denied their overdue rights to a long-promised plebiscite to determine whether they want to secede or remain part of the so-called ‘democratic’ India.

Under Narendra Modi’s rule, Hindutvadi fascists are rejuvenated and are making a mockery of country’s secular constitution and thousand-year old history of religious co-existence by lynching minority Muslims daily under the pretext of saving ‘sacred’ cows. In the BJP-run state of Assam some 4 million Indians have been rendered stateless a la Myanmar-style. Because of their non-Assamese heritage, they are falsely accused, much like in Myanmar, to be infiltrators from Bangladesh. Deleted from the NRC (National Registration Card) list are 3.8 million Bengali-speaking Indians of which 2.5 million are Hindus, the rest 1.3 million are Bengali-speaking Muslims. Names of some people who appeared on voters’ list way back in 1965 and 1966 were deliberately left out this time. Even family members of a freedom fighter have been excluded. Some 1,200 people, including children, have also been kept in detention camps because they protested.

India has also threatened to expel nearly 40,000 Rohingya migrants it says have illegally settled in the country, including 15,000 registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), provoking sharp criticism from the UN.

While their troops may be involved in periodic stand-offs on the disputed Himalayan border and they may be competing for influence in Myanmar both India and China are on the same page regarding the Rohingya crisis. Within the UN, they have tried to protect Suu Kyi’s government that has been committing war crimes against the Rohingya. These two governments have huge infrastructure projects in the Rakhine state, the ancestral home of the Rohingya.

The India-funded Kaladan multi-modal project is designed to provide a sea-river-land link to its remote northeast through Sittwe (formerly Akyab) port. The China-funded Kyauk Phyu port is to be the starting point of an oil-gas pipeline and railroad link to Yunnan state in China. The wider efforts to take Myanmar oil and gas from the Shwe gas field to Guangzhou, China, are well documented.

The broad and sustained offensive on human rights that started after President Xi Jinping took power some six years ago shows no sign of abating. The death of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo in a hospital under heavy guard last year highlighted the Chinese government’s deepening contempt for human rights. The near future for human rights appears grim, especially as Xi is expected to remain in power at least until 2022.

In Xinjiang, a nominally autonomous region with 11 million Turkic Muslim Uyghurs, authorities stepped up mass surveillance and the security presence despite the lack of evidence demonstrating an organized threat. They also adopted new policies denying Uyghurs cultural and religious rights. The authorities have long persecuted them, collectivizing them, bulldozing their residences, requiring them to submit to invasive DNA and biometric tests.

The Chinese government has long conflated peaceful activism with violence in Xinjiang, and has treated many expressions of Uyghur identity, including language and religion, as threatening. Since October of 2016, authorities have arbitrarily recalled passports from residents of Xinjiang. Since about April of 2017 authorities have arbitrarily detained thousands of Uyghurs and other Muslims in centers where they were forced to undergo “patriotic education.” Authorities also ordered Uyghur students studying abroad, including in Egypt, to return to Xinjiang; and in July, Egyptian authorities rounded up those who had failed to return, possibly at China’s behest. By September 2017, about 20 Uyghurs were forcibly repatriated to Xinjiang while 12 were released. Some of those who returned were detained; a Xinjiang court sentenced Islamic scholar Hebibulla Tohti to 10 years in prison after he returned with a doctorate degree from Egypt’s Al-Azhar University. In April 2017, the Xinjiang Counter-Extremism Regulations, which prohibit the wearing of “abnormal” beards or veils in public places, became effective. Also, in April, Xinjiang authorities issued a new rule banning parents from naming children with dozens of names with religious connotations on the basis that they could “exaggerate religious fervor.”

Chinese officials, since early 2018, have imposed regular “homestay programs” on families in Xinjiang. These visits are part of the government’s increasingly invasive “Strike Hard” campaign in the region. During these visits, families are required to provide officials with information about their lives and political views, and are subjected to political indoctrination. Since 2014, Xinjiang authorities have sent 200,000 cadres from government agencies, state-owned enterprises, and public institutions to regularly visit and surveil the Uyghur people. Cadres also carry out political indoctrination, including promoting “Xi Jinping Thought” and explaining the Chinese Communist Party’s “care” and “selflessness” in its policies toward Xinjiang. They also warn people against the dangers of “pan-Islamism,” “pan-Turkism,” and “pan-Kazakhism” – ideologies or identities that the government finds threatening. The authorities expect all of these to be done through “heart-to-heart” talks about everyday life.

It is believed that as many as 1 million Uyghurs are confined to re-education camps. There they are detained arbitrarily by Chinese authorities and subjected to forcible re-education that includes declaring Muslim worship sinful, until the government decides to release them. The camps are described as an organized form of “disappearances.” News reports indicate that the children of Uyghur parents sent to these re-education camps are put in orphanages, where, as one orphanage worker described it, the children are “locked up like animals in a shed.”

As of September 2017, more than 90,000 police and security officials were posted in the province. Reports indicate that Uyghurs experience increased beatings, arrests, interrogations, wait times at checkpoints, and forced assimilation. A Freedom House report on the state of religious freedom in China suggests that Uyghur Muslims are among the most highly persecuted religious groups in China.

It goes without saying that China’s deeply invasive forced assimilation practices of Hanification against Muslims not only violate basic rights but are also likely to foster and deepen resentment in the region.

—=—

At least 200 Palestinians have been killed since the Gaza protests began on March 30 of this year to demand the right of return to lands that Palestinian families fled or were driven from on Israel’s founding in 1948. The Zionist leaders have mastered the art of lying and deception. As they expand their illegitimacy over the Occupied Palestine and kill the native Palestinians mercilessly, they are mindful that their evil ploys to make the Holy Land ready for the emergence of ad-Dajjal still face uphill battles. After all, Iran and Turkey remain as the last vestiges of resistance against the powerful apartheid state of Israel. So, the conspiracy goes on to destroy these two countries by hook or crook.

It was no accident that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on September 27, 2018 brought his dog-and-pony show once again to the United Nations General Assembly and advised the world that he knew of a secret site of Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons facility. He urged the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to immediately rush to that site, discover the horrible weapons, and thus condemn Iran. Have not we seen enough of such charades from the arrogant leaders of the state of Israel that never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the last few decades?

We live at a time when the grip of demonic forces – thanks to the war criminals like Netanyahu and Trump – seems ever strong. With their deep connection with the military industrial complex, they want to bring about war through chaos, deception and lies while maintaining their python-like hold on the WMDs. Perhaps the IAEA should inspect Israel’s nuclear facilities. Would the rogue, apartheid state allow such inspection of their own sites?

Thanks to the currency manipulators and Trump’s threats, the Turkish Lira dropped by 40 percent since the beginning of the year. It did not matter that the Turkish government has only 28.5% debt as percentage of the GDP (compared to 236.4% for Japan and 82.3% for the USA, according to 2017 year-end Bloomberg report), and that the economy has been bullish for many years in a row with all the positive economic measures.

It is sad to see these days the obscene powers of the rich and powerful countries that could break the economy of any country by design despite all the fundamentals being at the right place. Any consumable product could be falsely declared as unhealthy to bring a country’s economy to its knees. Consider, e.g., the case of Malaysian palm oil, which is labelled as dangerous to health. Under the pretext of saving the habitat of animals, i.e., the jungles, even palm diesel is condemned. Forgotten there are the facts that 60% of Malaysian landscape is forest (compared to 30% forest coverage in the world) and that such boycott is depriving hundreds of thousands of people from jobs and a decent life. Malaysia has been practicing sustainable forestry management for more than a century, long before it became fashionable.

It goes without saying that the world is in a state of turmoil – economically, socially and politically. The trade war between the USA and China, the two most powerful economies, is wreaking havoc and the rest of the world is feeling the pain.

Socially, new values challenging the concept of marriage and family, of moral codes, of respect, etc., are undermining the age-old family and moral values. Gender-based violence is at a new high making the lives of many difficult, let alone threatened.

Frustrated and marginalized, nihilism has become the new elixir for some confused young men and women. These neo-Kharijites are tying bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in crowded places to cause maximum casualty. Billions of dollars are spent every year to ensure security of the travelers, but terrorism has not abated an iota. Unless the root causes of terrorism are found and weeded out, and hearts and minds are won, we will only be wasting our time and money.

Consider in this case the Palestinian problem. In 1948, Palestinian land was seized to form the state of Israel. The Palestinians were massacred and forced to leave their ancestral land. They tried to fight a conventional war with help from sympathetic neighbors. The powerful friends of Israel ensured the failure of this attempt. More Palestinian land was seized in the 1967 war. And Israeli settlements continue to be built on more and more confiscated Palestinian land and the Palestinians are denied access to these settlements built on their land. The apartheid walls built around the illegal settlements have created new Bantustans for the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories. Blocked on all sides, even access to the Mediterranean Sea, Gaza has been turned into the largest concentration camp in our time. Food and medicine carrying aid ships to the stranded Palestinians in Gaza were not only stopped from reaching the Gaza coast, these were also attacked in international waters by the Israelis killing aid workers.

The fight for justice has turned into an imbalanced war of the Palestinian David trying to fight the blood-thirsty Israeli Goliath with kites, catapults and stones. While their ineffective weapons don’t kill any Israeli, they continue to be shot with live bullets and arrested. Massive retaliations continue to be mounted by Israel, rocketing and bombing hospitals, schools and other buildings, killing innocent civilians including school children and hospital patients. Thousands are incarcerated. International laws are broken with full disregard to human lives and properties.

Despite all such criminal activities the powerful countries around the globe from the USA to India continue to reward the apartheid state of Israel. Ignoring the advice of many experts, the U.S. President Trump has even recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In his speech on November 1974 at the UNGA, the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) leader Yasser Arafat said, “I came here Mr. President holding the gun of a revolutionary in one hand, and an olive branch in the other. Do not topple the olive branch from my hand, don’t make the olive branch fall from my hand.”

Forty-four years have passed since that memorable day in the UN, and still the Palestinians are without a state. They are denied the right to self-determination. They are waiting for the world, esp. the UNSC, to intervene on their behalf. Will they ever see justice?

In his speech at the UNGA, President Erdogan of Turkey warned: “The efforts of those, who do not raise their voices against the oppression of the Palestinians, to reduce the assistance for them, are only increasing the courage of the oppressors. Even if the whole world turns its back, we, as Turkey, will continue to be on the side of the oppressed Palestinians and to protect the historical and legal status of our first kiblah, Al-Quds.” He urged the international community to protect the legal and historical status of Jerusalem.

The idea of peace without justice is an illusion and is morally repugnant. Unless the Palestinians can return to reclaim their land and live as equal citizens warring against them will neither stop their legitimate aspirations nor stop terrorism. And as we have seen in recent decades, others (non-Palestinians and non-Arabs) are willing to become the Palestinian Spartacus who don’t mind dying for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

In this age of internet connectivity, truly, local problems no longer remain local. They draw supporters, even from faraway places, from concerned global citizens for a legitimate and yet neglected grievance. While such facts should deter any oppressor or usurper from committing its crime, the sad fact is that arrogance of power often blinds it from seeing what is so obvious!


Cardinal Ouellet: Vigano In ‘Open And Scandalous Rebellion’ Against Pope Francis

0
0

The Vatican’s prefect for the Congregation for Bishops released a letter Sunday morning refuting charges Pope Francis lifted sanctions against former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, and saying that charges made by a former Vatican ambassador are an “unjustified attack” on the pope “cannot come from the Spirit of God.”

“Your current position seems to me incomprehensible and extremely reprehensible, not only because of the confusion that sows in the people of God, but because your public accusations seriously damage the reputation of the Successors of the Apostles,” wrote Cardinal Marc Ouellett, in an Oct. 7 letter addressed to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.

“I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered with full knowledge of the facts this alleged sexual predator and therefore of being an accomplice of the corruption that is spreading in the Church, to the point of considering him unworthy of continuing his reform as the first pastor of the Church, is incredible and unlikely from all points of view,” Ouellett added.

The letter, released by the Vatican press office, was written in response to two letters from Vigano, the former Vatican ambassador to the U.S., which charged that the Vatican had ignored reports from him and others about sexual immorality on the part of McCarrick for several years, until Pope Benedict XVI imposed “sanctions” on McCarrick’s ministry in 2009 or 2010.

Vigano alleged that Pope Francis lifted the restrictions on McCarrick’s ministry after his election to the papacy, and that McCarrick became an adviser to the pope. He then called for the pope to resign.

He also suggested that Ouellet had direct knowledge of the history of allegations and responses in McCarrick’s case, and urged him to “bear witness to the truth.”

Vigano claims that Ouellet told him in 2011 about sanctions imposed on McCarrick, but added that the cardinal’s “work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual ‘friends’ of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender [to Pope Francis].”

The cardinal refuted those claims.

“The written instructions prepared for you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your service in 2011 did not say anything about McCarrick, except what I told you about his situation as an Emeritus Bishop who had to obey certain conditions and restrictions because of rumors about his behavior in the past.”

“The former cardinal, who retired in May 2006, was strongly urged not to travel and not to appear in public, in order not to provoke further rumours about him. It is false to present the measures taken against him as ‘sanctions’ decreed by Pope Benedict XVI and annulled by Pope Francis,” the letter added.

“After reviewing the archives, I note that there are no documents in this regard signed by either Pope, nor a note of audience from my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, which gave mandate to the Archbishop Emeritus McCarrick to silence and private life, with the rigor of canonical penalties. The reason for this is that, unlike today, there was not enough evidence of his alleged guilt at the time. Hence the position of the Congregation inspired by prudence and the letters of my predecessor and mine that reiterated, through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then also through you, the exhortation to a discreet lifestyle of prayer and penance for his own good and that of the Church. His case would have been the subject of new disciplinary measures if the Nunciature in Washington, or any other source, had provided us with recent and decisive information on his behavior.”

Ouellet acknowledged that he was “very surprised” that a man of McCarrick’s apparent character had been promoted through the Church, to the point of becoming the Archbishop of Washington in 2000. He said that he could “recognize the shortcomings in the selection process that has been carried out in his case.”

He added that the popes who had promoted McCarrick had done so with the best information that was available to them, and that their judgment on episcopal appointments is “not infallible.”

“It seems unfair to me to conclude that the persons in charge of prior discernment are corrupt even though, in the concrete case, some clues provided by the testimonies should have been further examined. The prelate in question was able to defend himself with great skill from the doubts raised in his regard.”

Regarding charges that a homosexual network of clerics has exercised undue influence on the appointment of bishops, Ouellet wrote that “the fact that there may be people in the Vatican who practise and support behaviour contrary to the values of the Gospel in matters of sexuality does not authorize us to generalize and to declare this or that and even the Holy Father himself unworthy and complicit. Should the ministers of truth not, first of all, guard themselves against slander and defamation?” he added.

McCarrick has been accused in recent months of serially sexually abusing two teenage boys, and of sexually coercing and assaulting priests and seminarians during decades of ministry as a bishop. In June, the Archdiocese of New York announced that it had completed the first stage of a canonical process investigating one of those charges, and had found one allegation that he sexually abused a teenage boy to be “credible and substantiated.” McCarrick was subsequently ordered to withdraw from active ministry, and his resignation from the College of Cardinals was accepted.

On. Oct 6, the Vatican announced it would conduct a review of its files pertaining to the McCarrick case.

Ouellet’s letter expressed his hope that “the investigation under way in the United States and the Roman Curia will finally give us a critical overall view of the procedures and circumstances of this painful case, so that such events do not recur in the future.”

The cardinal’s letter including some strong charges against Vigano’s letter. He wrote that Vigano’s accusation regarding Pope Francis is “a political set-up without a real foundation that can incriminate the Pope, and I reiterate that it deeply hurts the communion of the Church.”

The cardinal added that because of his own experience with the pope, he “can not question his personal integrity, his consecration to the mission and especially the charism and peace that inhabit him by the grace of God and the power of the Risen One.”

He added that Francis “treats people and problems with much charity, mercy, attention and seriousness, as you yourself have experienced.”

Because of this, Ouellet wrote, Vigano’s charges against the pope’s character “seemed to me really too sarcastic, even blasphemous!”

He urged Vigano to “repent of your revolt and return to better feelings towards the Holy Father, instead of exacerbating hostility against him. How can you celebrate the Holy Eucharist and pronounce its name in the canon of Mass? How can you pray the holy Rosary, Saint Michael the Archangel and the Mother of God, condemning the one she protects and accompanies every day in her heavy and courageous ministry?”

“I understand how bitterness and disappointment have marked your path in service to the Holy See, but you cannot end your priestly life in this way, in an open and scandalous rebellion, which inflicts a very painful wound on the Bride of Christ, whom you claim to serve better, worsening the division and bewilderment in the people of God!”

Rancor Flares Over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Confirmation

0
0

By Ken Bredemeier

The rancor over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court justice roiled Washington again Sunday, hours after he was sworn in to fill the vacancy on the country’s highest court.

Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican whose support for Kavanaugh was key to him winning Senate approval by a 50-48 count, told CNN she concluded that Kavanaugh did not sexually assault a teenage girl more than three decades ago, an explosive allegation by university professor Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh that threw his nomination into turmoil in the last three weeks.

“I do not believe Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant,” Collins said.

“I’m not saying she was not assaulted,” the lawmaker said. “I believe she was assaulted by someone.”

But Collins contended there “was no corroborating evidence” that it was Kavanaugh, a claim that drew a sharp rebuke from Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, a Democratic opponent of Kavanaugh, who called Collins’s conclusion about lack of corroborating evidence “insulting” to Ford.

Contemporaries of Ford and Kavanaugh whom Ford alleged were at the 1982 suburban Washington house party where she says the attack occurred said they had no recollection of the incident. But Hirono said that Ford, years before President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, had told her husband and a therapist about the attack and passed a lie detector test about the incident.

Ford told lawmakers two weeks ago she was “100 percent” certain it was Kavanaugh who had attacked her, while Kavanaugh said he was equally certain he had never attacked Ford or any other woman.

One of Kavanaugh’s most vocal supporters, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, told Fox News, “I’m happy because the effort to railroad and humiliate this man failed…Those who tried to destroy his life fell short…I had never been more pissed [angry] in my life.”

Kavanaugh could give conservatives a solid 5-4 ideological edge on the country’s top court and shape rulings for decades.

Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to the 53-year-old Kavanaugh in a private ceremony just hours after the Senate voted in favor of his life-time appointment to the nine-member court.

Kavanaugh’s nomination, one of the most contentious in U.S. history, had captured the U.S. political scene for weeks. He appeared headed to certain confirmation until Ford made her allegations against him in a Washington Post story in mid-September. But in the end her accusations did not derail the appointment of the appellate court judge one level up to the high court.

The narrow Republican majority in the Senate nearly unanimously supported his appointment to become the country’s 114th Supreme Court justice while all but one Democratic lawmaker opposed his nomination.

President Donald Trump, who now has won Senate approval for two appointments to the court, said on Twitter, “I applaud and congratulate the U.S. Senate for confirming our GREAT NOMINEE, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the United States Supreme Court…. Very exciting!”

On Saturday night, Trump portrayed his successful confirmation vote on Kavanaugh as a reason voters should elect Republicans in next month’s nationwide congressional elections, when the political control of Congress is at stake.

“You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob,” he said. “Democrats have become too EXTREME and TOO DANGEROUS to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law – not the rule of the mob. VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Kavanaugh replaces retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative jurist who often cast the deciding swing vote on ideologically divisive issues, upholding abortion and gay rights and the use of affirmative action aiding racial minorities in college admissions. But independent court analysts say Kavanaugh is likely to lean toward more conservative rulings, giving the court’s four-member conservative bloc a 5-4 edge over the court’s four liberals.

As the senators voted, protesters in the Senate gallery screamed, “I do not consent,” and, “shame,” forcing Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the chamber, to repeatedly call for order.

The Senate narrowly voted Friday to limit debate on Kavanaugh’s nomination, advancing it to Saturday’s final confirmation vote. Senators have been confronted by protesters who oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and police at the U.S. Capitol have arrested hundreds of demonstrators.

Another woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during his time at Yale, Deborah Ramirez, said in a statement Saturday that the senators discussing the impending vote brought her back to the moment of the alleged misconduct.

“As I watch many of the Senators speak and vote on the floor of the Senate I feel like I’m right back at Yale where half the room is laughing and looking the other way. Only this time, instead of drunk college kids, it is U.S. Senators who are deliberately ignoring his behavior,” Ramirez said. “This is how victims are isolated and silenced.”

Shortly before the vote, Trump said Kavanaugh “will be a great justice of the Supreme Court.”

“He’s just an extraordinary person… and I think he’s going to make us all very proud,” Trump added.

Iran: Record Haul Of Heroin Seized

0
0

Iran’s Intelligence Ministry announced on Sunday that its forces in the northwestern province of West Azerbaijan have seized one of the biggest hauls of heroin confiscated in recent years.

In a statement, the Intelligence Ministry said the drug shipment weighs 1,075 kilograms and is estimated to cost around 4,000 billion rials.

The shipment was detected at Bazargan border region in northwest Iran before an international drug ring could smuggle it into Europe, it added.

The smugglers had adroitly hidden the illicit drugs inside export commodities, the statement said, adding that it was one of the largest hauls seized in recent years.

Iran, which has a 900-kilometer common border with Afghanistan, has been used as the main conduit for smuggling Afghan drugs to narcotics kingpins in Europe.

Despite high economic and human costs, the Islamic Republic has been actively fighting drug-trafficking over the past three decades.

The country has spent more than $700 million on sealing its borders and preventing the transit of narcotics destined for European, Arab and Central Asian countries.

The war on drug trade originating from Afghanistan has claimed the lives of nearly 4,000 Iranian police officers over the past four decades.

Pregnant Women Recognize Baby Expressions Differently Depending On Mental Health History

0
0

A pilot study has found that pregnant women who have suffered from depression or bipolar disorder (i.e. both mania and depression) recognise babies’ faces and how babies laugh or cry, differently to healthy controls. This happens even if they are not currently experiencing depressive or manic symptoms and may represent an early risk-factor for children of these women, although the authors stress that research would be needed to confirm any long-term effects. This work is presented at the ECNP Congress in Barcelona.

Figures show that nearly 8% of Europeans (EU) have suffered from depression in the previous 12 months, with the rate of depression in women (9.7%) being around 50% higher than the rate in men. Around 1% of Europeans have suffered from bipolar disorder in the previous 12 months*. With over 5.1 million births in the EU every year, a significant number of the women who become pregnant will suffer from depression or bipolar disorder.

Researchers compared 22 pregnant women, currently well but with a history of depression, and 7 with bipolar disorder who were also currently well, against 28 healthy pregnant women. They also tested 18 non-pregnant women, as controls.

Between the 27th and 39th weeks of pregnancy, all the women were tested for how they responded to a series of happy or sad faces, and to laughter and crying, of both babies and adults. Specifically, the women were asked to rate how happy or distressed the infants were based on infants’ facial and vocal displays of emotion (including smiles, laughter and cries). They were also asked to identify adult facial expressions of emotion (including happiness, sadness, fear and disgust) across varying intensity levels

According to lead researcher, Dr Anne Bjertrup (Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen), “In this study, we found that pregnant women with depression or bipolar disorder process infants’ facial and vocal signals of emotion differently even when they are not currently experiencing a depressive or manic episode. These differences may impair these women’s ability to recognise, interpret and respond appropriately to their future infants’ emotional signals”.

The researchers found that, compared to healthy pregnant women:

  • Pregnant women with bipolar disorder had difficulty with recognising all facial expressions and showed a “positive face processing bias”, where they showed better recognition of happy adult faces and more positive ratings of happy infant faces.
  • In contrast, pregnant women with previous depression showed a negative bias in the recognition of adult facial expressions and rated infant cries more negatively.

Anne Bjertrup continued: “This is a pilot study, so we need to replicate the findings within a larger sample. We know that depression and bipolar disorder are highly heritable, with up to 60% of children of parents with these affective disorders more likely to develop a mental disorder themselves. Genes play a role, but it is also likely that the quality of the early interaction with the mother is important. The different cognitive response to emotional infant signals in pregnant women with a history of mania and/or depression may make it more difficult for them to relate to their child and could thus confer an early environmental risk for the child.

It’s worth emphasizing that this work does not say that the affected women are “bad mothers”. It simply means that because of their health history, they may experience difficulties interpreting and responding appropriately to their infants’ emotional needs and that we as clinicians need to be more aware of these possible difficulties. These are early days; this is the first research to show this link in both depression and bipolar disorder, so we need further studies to design and test early screening and intervention programs possibly involving ways which will train mothers to interpret the signals from their children better.

But above all, we need evidence of any effect on children; our group have an ongoing study of mothers with affective disorders and their infants, to see if what we have found does indeed make a difference to the mother-infant interaction, which has an impact on the child’s psychological development – this is something the work presented here does not address”.

Commenting, Professor Eduard Vieta (Institute of Neuroscience, University of Barcelona) said: “This study adds to the growing scientific literature showing emotional bias in people with mood disorders, even when they are in remission, and for the first time shows the difficulties mothers have in identifying emotions in their own newborns. The results, however, do not imply at all that women with such conditions would not be able to raise a child properly and it does not prove any risk for their children since longitudinal data are lacking. This work may help us identify targets for pharmacological and psychological treatments, which in turn may help people with depression and bipolar disorder”.

A New Take On 19th-Century Skull Collection Of Samuel Morton

0
0

In the 1830s and 1840s, American craniologist Samuel Morton collected and measured hundreds of human skulls in what he described as an attempt to compare the brain size of five human racial groups. At nearly the same time, across the world, German anatomist Friedrich Tiedemann was conducting similar research.

The scientists produced nearly equivalent results, but what they inferred from those findings differed drastically: Tiedemann used his to fight for equality and the abolition of slavery, and against the idea that different races were created separately. Morton’s research was used to maintain the status quo in the United States, which, at that time, meant racial division, hierarchy, and slavery.

Though the work happened almost 180 years ago, it still elicits debate, particularly over the concept of scientific racism and bias. A paper published in PLOS Biology from University of Pennsylvania doctoral candidate Paul Wolff Mitchell adds to the conversation, through analysis of never-before analyzed, handwritten cranial measurements he unearthed in Morton’s archives.

Mitchell determined that while Morton’s data-collection methods produced accurate numbers and were likely not intentionally biased, the scientist’s conclusions–that Caucasians had the largest skull size and therefore, the highest intelligence and that Africans had the smallest skull size and lowest intelligence–blatantly were. They also point to the importance of scientific interpretation.

“Morton and Tiedemann both thought the bigger and more complex the brain, the more superior the individual or species,” Mitchell says. It was a belief held by many scientists at the time, although one that modern science has disproven. “Beyond that, more than just the data were informing their scientific positions,” he adds. “Political and ethical considerations were, too.”

“It’s a complex story,” Mitchell says, one that requires walking through Morton’s process and what followed to fully grasp its intricacy.

Morton’s scientific path

Morton, a native Philadelphian, physician, and naturalist, recognized as the first physical anthropologist, began collecting human skulls in the early 1800s. Though he didn’t travel much himself, his role as president of the Academy of Natural Sciences afforded him the opportunity to correspond with scientists around the world to secure samples.

He aimed to gather sufficient numbers from each of the five racial groups he recognized: Ethiopian (or African), Native American, Caucasian, Malay, and Mongolian. In total, he amassed around 900 skulls, the largest academic collection at the time, and one that remained so for half a century after his death. Today, the Morton Collection is stored and curated in the Physical Anthropology Section of the Penn Museum.

Initially, Morton measured the size of 256 skulls by pouring white pepper seed into each cavity, then gauging in cubic inches the volume of seed needed to fill a sample. From that work, he published Crania America in 1839, which reported statistics from every Native American skull and averages for the other groups. The next year, he published the first of three skull catalogues, and then a book called Crania Aegpytiaca and the second catalogue came in 1844.

In trying to replicate his seed measurements, Morton had difficulty so he switched to lead shot and went through the measurement process again, now with 672 skulls. “He came to basically the same conclusion as before,” Mitchell explains, “with Caucasians having the biggest brain size and Africans the smallest.” In 1849, Morton published a third and final catalogue with cranial data based on the lead-shot measurements of every individual skull.

He died just two years later, at the time considered a preeminent expert in his field. Until, that is, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species and the United States fought the Civil War.

Seeing something new

For more than a century following those two events, Morton’s science fell into obscurity, his methods modernized and surpassed, his theories debunked. Then in 1978, American scientist Stephen Jay Gould wrote several texts about scientific racism, the idea that scientific findings might justify continued discrimination and intolerance. He used Morton’s skull studies as a prime example.

“Gould notices that the average for the Africans between the seed measurements and shot measurements increases a lot, but the average for the measurements of the Caucasians only increases a little, about the same amount that the measures for the Native Americans do,” Mitchell says. “This leads Gould to conclude that Morton was unconsciously underestimating brain size for the Africans.”

Because of the seeds’ compressible nature, Gould suggested skulls could be inadvertently overstuffed or lightly packed, producing inaccurate numbers. Morton had unconsciously done so, Gould surmised, packing seeds into Caucasian skulls and only lightly filling African skulls, leading to systematic underestimations of African cranial capacity.

Unbeknownst to Gould, however, he didn’t have all the facts, namely the full seed data Morton never published–data that Mitchell rediscovered in the scientist’s archives at the Academy of Natural Sciences.

“I was looking through Morton’s old catalogue of skulls. He had printed three copies throughout his life to advertise to other scientists and collectors what he had in his collection,” says Mitchell. “He also kept personal copies, which he signed and dated. The first copy was from 1840.”

That first edition didn’t include printed brain size like the latter two did, but in Morton’s personal copy, Mitchell noticed handwritten measurements accompanying many entries, some scratched out and rewritten. He also realized that the brain measurements from the 1840 and 1849 catalogues differed, leading him to conclude that those jotted down represented previously unseen seed measurements.

Having worked with the Morton skulls since 2010, under the tutelage of Janet Monge, curator in charge of the Penn Museum’s Physical Anthropology section and a Penn adjunct professor of anthropology, Mitchell had an intimate relationship with the collection. “I know those skulls well,” he says. “When I looked at what Morton had written down, I said, ‘Something’s not right here. That’s not the measurement he gives later.’ It was due to a great deal of familiarity with the skulls that I could see something new in these documents.”

What does it all mean?

For Mitchell, viewing the entries for the original seed measurements rather than the averages for four out of the five of Morton’s racial classifications shifts the conversation about these skulls. Mitchell’s analysis confirmed that Morton’s measurements were accurate; the seed and shot measurement averages differed because of different overall sample sizes.

But, he points out, that finding almost doesn’t matter.

“Just because Morton’s data were not biased doesn’t mean his science wasn’t,” Mitchell says. “He can measure skulls very accurately but also be a biased scientist.” Simply look at Tiedemann, he says. “The German scientist basically does the same thing Morton does but comes to a dramatically different conclusion.”

Through his work, Tiedemann noticed a range of skull sizes among all humans. Morton, on the other hand, focused on brain-size averages of different races. Although Morton’s numbers overlap across races, and although taking the averages of Tiedemann’s data–which he himself never did–reveal an almost perfect match to Morton’s, the interpretive differences of the two scientists supported their divergent conclusions.

With respect to today’s science, the biggest fault in Morton’s research may lie in that he didn’t collect data on body size, Mitchell says. Brain size correlates to body size, and brain and body size are well known adaptions to the climate in which people live. That means from an evolutionary perspective, there’s no reason to suppose a link between cranial size and intelligence.

“If you just collect heads from all over the globe and you don’t take body size into account, there is no meaningful way to compare your data,” Mitchell says. “People with bigger bodies have bigger brains.”

The other issue with Morton’s research, he notes, is that the racial categories he supposes have no biological basis. Which all leads Mitchell to question what, in the end, Morton’s data can really teach.

“When dealing with moral and political questions, interpretation is a key part of how the science gets done,” Mitchell concludes. “That will always have an element of bias. The only way to get around it is to have the open presentation of data, scrutiny of scientific work, and a diverse community of people working on and thinking about these issues.”

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images