
1851465 items (1851465 unread) in 479 feeds
Before Sunday, the last Eagles quarterback to win an NFL championship game was Norm Van Brocklin. This was in 1960, before the Super Bowl era, and Van Brocklin was capping off his second stint in the league—he had come back to the NFL after working for a pipeline coating company following a short-lived retirement in 1958. Three weeks after winning the championship, Van Brocklin left the Eagles to become the head coach of the Minnesota Vikings. While that specific opportunity won’t be available to Philadelphia’s current world champion quarterback, Nick Foles’ future is still pretty wide open.
The Eagles are blessed with a champagne problem with rarified terroir. Carson Wentz, their starting quarterback, was on track to become the league’s MVP before he hurt his knee in Week 14. Young, talented, and very much the future of the franchise, Wentz should get his job back as soon as he recovers. The league may be in the midst of a quarterback talent drought, but the Eagles are blessed to find themselves with a spare starter who happens to be the Super Bowl MVP. At the risk of provoking any more property damage, I’d say that this fact alone is reason enough for Philadelphia to celebrate.
The Eagles can either keep Nick Foles or trade him, and both options are worth considering.
Carson Wentz isn’t rehabbing from a hangnail; he tore his ACL. The timeline for that recovery process can be murky (just ask Derrick Rose), and you certainly don’t want to rush it (just ask Robert Griffin III). Hypothetically, if Wentz needs a full year to recover, he wouldn’t be ready to take the field until just before next season’s playoffs. But even if he does start under center come Week 1, it’s nice to have an insurance policy who just threw for 373 yards and 3 touchdowns on the biggest possible stage.
Of course, that’s also why they’d be crazy to keep him.
Foles was magnificent in Super Bowl LII. He hurled pinpoint long bombs, converted on high-stakes 4th downs, and even caught a touchdown pass himself for good measure. Simply put, he looked like one of the best quarterbacks on Earth. Foles is under contract with Philadelphia for one more year and, at 29 years old, he is by no means ancient. One hundred million people just watched his evening of very convincing Joe Montana roleplay, and his value will never be higher. Keeping him as a backup would be like using a Stradivarius to swat flies. NFL GMs will offer their first-born sons to the Eagles’ front office for a chance to sign Foles, but Philly shouldn’t even pick up the phone unless those heirs are packaged with first-round draft picks. Foles’ stock has never been higher and doesn’t have much further up to go before he becomes a free agent.
Only fans get the luxury of mixing sentimentality with sports. For everyone else, it’s a business, and the Eagles have no choice but to start thinking about their quarterbacks’ futures. Philadelphia’s laundry was still soggy with champagne on Monday when a reporter brought up the issue with Eagles head coach Doug Pederson. “We’re just going to enjoy this moment,” he said, evading the question of whether Foles will be competing with Wentz for the starting job next season. “I’m happy for Nick. I’m happy for the team. It’s not about one guy. It’s about the team, and like I said we’re going to enjoy these next few days.”
It’s a good but difficult situation to be in, which is why the team should focus on easy decisions now, like choosing a location to build the Nick Foles statue. Who cares if his countenance doesn’t exactly lend itself to classical statuary? After more than a half-century of futility, the Eagles owe it to the man who finally secured a Super Bowl, that most desired and elusive of championships.
After all, the city erected a statue of Rocky Balboa, who, unlike Foles, is not a real person and (again, unlike Foles) lost in the main event. Building a 15-foot-tall marble Foles outside of Lincoln Financial Field is but a small way to say thank you. Get it done, Philly, while he’s still around to pose for the sculptor.
Windows 10 added more user share in January than in any month since mid-2016, according to web analytics vendors Net Applications, the company said last week.
Data published Feb. 1 by the California-based Net Applications showed that Windows 10 had accumulated 1.4 percentage points of user share - the portion of all personal computer owners who ran the operating system - during January, ending the month powering 34.3% of the world's PCs and 39.1% of all those systems running a flavor of Microsoft's OS. (The second number is larger than the first because Windows accounted for 88.8% of all operating systems, not 100%.)
Windows 10's increase was its largest since August 2016, if the November 2017 drop of 2.7 points is ignored. The latter was part of an across-the-board revamp of Net Applications' data, designed to purge the numbers of bogus traffic originating from criminals' "bots," and thus was not proof of a sudden rush to Windows 10.
Good night for some: On Sunday, the Philadelphia Eagles won what Justin Peters proclaims to be the sixth-best Super Bowl ever (and he should know). Tom Brady did a great job, despite losing, Nick Greene observes. (Maybe now he’ll eat a strawberry?) The ads were good. The ads were bad. Justin Peters has highlights. April Glaser listened to the Philadelphia police scanner: People were going off. And Netflix did a probably-very-smart thing with its postgame release of The Cloverfield Paradox, Sam Adams writes—though the movie itself was terrible.
Flotsam and jetsam: Here come the Republican candidates of 2018, talking Trumpishly and polling well. Jamelle Bouie points out that their existence proves Trump wasn’t an anomaly.
Terrified: Why are traders made skittish by news about rising wages? Jordan Weissmann explains.
Forget about it: Sarah Yahm got prescribed “mindfulness” to ease her chronic pain. She found out she wasn’t alone.
For fun: Sweet babies, big headphones.
Those Icelandic cheeks,
Rebecca
On their 10th wedding anniversary in 2012, Josh and Lolly Weed were ready to make a big announcement: Josh was gay, and they had both entered into their marriage knowing it. Devout Mormons, the couple believed the church’s doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that “family is central to the Creator’s plan” for believers. Josh had come out to his parents at age 13, and to his friend Lolly a few years later, but the couple decided to start dating and later to marry, eyes wide open. The post went viral, and the couple appeared on Nightline, talking about their shared faith, their “great” sex life, and their love for their three daughters.
The Weeds recently made another big announcement on their blog: They’re divorcing. In a remarkable 11,000-word post, the couple confessed that the arrangement wasn’t working. “Our marriage was absolutely beautiful,” Josh wrote, “Yet it contained an undercurrent of pain that we were not able to see clearly or acknowledge for many years, which made continuing in it impossible.”
The post is raw and heartbreaking. Josh wrote that he had at times daydreamed about suicide, and that he had seen many LGBTQ friends struggle with the same impulses. He said that although he deeply loved his wife, he had been in denial about his romantic and sexual attraction to her. In her own section of the post, Lolly writes about the ways that the mismatch eroded her self-esteem over the years:
We told ourselves that our love was similar to that of an elderly couple after infatuation and physical attraction had died away and what remained was a tender bond of love. That was the framework we used to understand our relationship. Using that framework, I was willing to sacrifice that sexual component because Josh was worth it to me.
However, as the years went by, and the holes in our souls grew larger and larger, we realized that our relationship was not like an elderly couple because, although the elderly couple’s sexual relationship had dimmed, their romantic adoration for one another did not. … We realized the thing that so many people had tried to tell us: that we didn’t have romantic attachment. That romantic attachment was essential to a functioning marriage. And that it was something that we never had and, hauntingly, that we never would.
Some critics online have reacted to the Weeds’ revelation this week by wondering who could be surprised, in 2018, that a marriage between a gay man and a straight woman would be unsustainable. After all, there are countless closeted men (yes, mostly men) whose lives have ruptured spectacularly because of their failures within such marriages: the megachurch pastor accused of doing meth with a male prostitute; the conversion-therapy promoter caught traveling with a male escort; the senator arrested for lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom.
Then there are the couples more like Josh and Lolly Weed, who were open about at least one partner’s “struggles” with homosexuality, but tried to make their marriages work anyway, out of the belief that it’s what God wanted them to do. Many of them, too, have faltered. “Recovered” gay man John Paulk and his wife, who called herself a former lesbian, appeared on the cover of Newsweek in 1998 under the headline “Gay for Life?” Paulk later served chairman of Exodus International, a group that promoted “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.” But Paulk was spotted in gay bars several times in the ensuing years, and in 2013 he announced they were divorcing.
Decades of such failures are one reason that conversion or “reparative” therapy is at last falling out of favor in mainstream Mormon and Christian communities. The practice has been discredited by major medical organizations, and repudiated by many of its prominent practitioners. (It absolutely still exists, but is increasingly relegated to smaller organizations and lower-profile counselors.) Exodus, the group John Paulk once led, issued an apology and announced it was shutting down after 37 years in 2013; the group’s president acknowledged he still experienced “ongoing same-sex attractions,” though he remains married to a woman. He told a reporter in 2015 that “99.9 percent of people I met through Exodus’ ministries had not experienced a change in orientation.”
Forced to concede that change is exceedingly rare, a new wave of thinkers has offered up a different proposition: That people experiencing “same-sex attraction” (SSA) can either remain celibate and cultivate rich friendships, or they can enter into honest “mixed-orientation” marriages.
The Weeds did everything right according to this strain of thinking. Josh never claimed to be straight. The couple eschewed the idea of “conversion” out of homosexuality. They say there has been no infidelity on either side, and that Josh is not in love with anyone else. They were relentlessly open, honest, and self-interrogating; they were and still are devoted to their family and their shared faith.
And still, it didn’t work. Indeed, a 2015 study of 1,600 LGBTQ Mormons and former Mormons found that marriages between “SSA” men and straight women were two to three times likelier to end in divorce than the typical Mormon marriage. The Weeds’ story should serve as a powerful call to end the practice of encouraging “mixed-orientation” marriages for good.
In its latest Cisco Global Cloud Index (2016-2021), the networking giant predicts that by 2021, 94 percent of all workloads will run in some form of cloud environment and that dedicated servers will be a distinct minority.
That 94 percent covers both public and private cloud scenarios, which means even in an on-premises scenario, almost all workloads are going to be run in a virtualized environment. The days where a server is dedicated to one workload are rapidly drawing to a close.
“We use the definition of one workload or instance with one physical server,” said Thomas Barnett, director, Cisco Service Provider forecast and trends. “In virtual scenarios, we’re seeing one workload with multiple virtual machines and containers. Based on growth in public cloud, we’ve overcome some of the barriers of adoption, such as cost and security and simplicity of deploying of these services.”
Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham have released a declassified version of their letter to Rod Rosenstein requesting a criminal investigation into Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer behind the controversial Trump dossier.
In the letter, released Monday, the two senators accused Steele of receiving information for the dossier from a Clinton ally and misleading the FBI about his contacts with the media. The largely redacted letter alleges Fusion GPS had received a report from the State Department from a “foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with [redacted], a contact of [redacted], a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to [redacted].’ ” They wrote that “[i]t is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility.”
The letter also expressed concerns over Steele’s interactions with reporters. The senators allege that Steele had spoken to journalists for various publications during his investigation and had included “unsolicited—and unverified—allegations” in the dossier as a result. “[W]hen information in those classified documents is evaluated in light of sworn statements by Mr. Steele in British litigation, it appears that either Mr. Steele lied to the FBI or the British court, or that the classified documents reviewed by the Committee contain materially false statements,” the senators wrote.
Grassley and Graham had already publicly recommended that Steele be investigated when in January they sent the letter, publicly announcing that they had found evidence that Steele had lied to the FBI.
The letter is the latest development in the Republican campaign to discredit the Russia investigation. On Friday, a controversial memo written by Rep. Devin Nunes and Republican staffers, who accused the FBI and Justice Department of malfeasance stemming from anti-Trump bias, became public over the objections of the DOJ after Republicans voted using an obscure procedural rule to release it. It wasn’t just Democrats who blasted the move as partisan politics: Former FBI Director James Comey attacked the “dishonest and misleading memo” for “wreck[ing] the House intel committee, destroy[ing] trust with Intelligence Community, damag[ing] relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably expos[ing] classified investigation of an American citizen.” John McCain, too, rebuked his colleagues. “The latest attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests—no party’s, no president’s, only Putin’s,” he said in a statement.
The release of the Nunes memo, a hyped-up moment in the drama over the Russia investigation, billed itself as “damning proof of an orchestrated campaign within the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to smear Donald Trump,” as Jeremy Stahl wrote in Slate.
The memo itself, however, offered very little new information and fell far short of providing evidence of conspiring. The basis of the Republican complaint lies in the assertion that several senior law enforcement officials signed off on FISA warrant applications to surveil former Trump adviser Carter Page based on information provided by the Steele dossier. The problem, they argue, is that these officials did not properly disclose that the dossier was funded in part by the Democratic National Committee. But, as Stahl wrote in Slate, this charge in itself is not damning without knowing if there was other evidence backing the warrant as well, as the firm behind the dossier has testified.
Democrats have responded to the Nunes memo by crafting their own memo in response. Rep. Adam Schiff is expected to call for a vote to release the memo Monday afternoon. On Monday morning, Trump attacked Schiff on Twitter as being “one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper!” and praised Nunes as “a Great American Hero for what he has exposed and what he has had to endure!”
For many of us, keeping up with the Kardashians is like breathing—it’s done intuitively, involuntarily, unintentionally, despite never having watched a single episode of the show. So when 20-year-old Kylie Jenner, daughter of Kris and Caitlyn, model, and makeup mogul, announced the birth of her daughter on Sunday following a “secret” pregnancy that caused her to disappear from the public eye for several months, my reaction—along with that of vast swathes of the internet—was, well, duh.
How, then, to make us care? How to command the attention of the internet, the sole purpose of a Kardashian/Jenner? With a pregnancy video montage, of course, making up for an entire gestation’s worth of social media exposure. (As Jenner wrote on Instagram, her pregnancy was one she “chose not to do in front of the world.” Until now, obviously.) Jenner’s 11-minute “To Our Daughter” video has racked up more than 24 million views—and almost as many Crying Kim gif reactions—in less than 24 hours. There’s a reason Kylie Jenner, at 19, was the youngest person featured on the 2017 Forbes Celebrity 100 list. I am writing this post, and you, reading it, because Kylie Jenner is a genius. Or is she?
In spite of the name, the video “To Our Daughter” is not really for their daughter—it’s for us, us and our inexplicable but insatiable hunger for this highly uninteresting family. Interspersed with interviews, “candid” home videos, doctors’ visits, photoshoots, selfies, and delivery room moments, the viral video tracks the story of the social media star’s impressively private turned exceedingly public pregnancy.
Though only 19 when she fell pregnant, Jenner is not your average reality TV teen mom. The socialite makes pregnancy look unrealistically easy: It’s all about showing off sonograms, eating fast food, and throwing extravagant baby showers. The Jenner baby already has a fully-stocked, Kardashian-Jenner-level wardrobe (probably worth many times yours), placing the pregnancy video far beyond the reality of most new mothers, yet alone teen ones (of which the U.S. boasts the highest rate in the Western industrialized world). Her friends and family repeatedly tell the viewer—her unborn child, but really, us—what a good mom Kylie is going to make, and how badly the young woman, who has wanted for nothing, wanted this. They make it sound as if Kylie, a woman not yet old enough to drink, has spent years trying to fall pregnant.
“Obviously, I started crying,” says one of her 20-something-year-old friends, dressed in the official silk pajamas of Jenner’s lavish baby shower. “I was proud of her. I knew this was what she wanted ever since she turned 15.”
Most of the Kardashian clan make an appearance in the video, though first-time grandparent Caitlyn Jenner is conspicuously absent, sparking rumors of a feud. We lowly plebs got our first glimpse of Chicago West, the illogically named third child of Kim and Kanye, born only four weeks ago, and a warning to the uninitiated. “I need to school you on what your vagina’s about to feel like,” says Kim. “Like, for real.” (Chicago was born by surrogate, after doctors warned Kim against getting pregnant again). The video also shows off Jenner’s relationship with the baby’s 25-year-old father, rapper Travis Scott, with multiple shots of the young couple kissing in clubs and acting like teenagers—something Kylie was for much of the footage. “Come on,” a security guard says exasperatedly as they play wrestle up some stairs.
In this rosy look at a pregnancy of privilege, there’s only one thing to worry about, a concern voiced by one of Jenner’s pajama-clad baby shower attendees:
“What if she’s, like, anti-makeup?”
What if, indeed.
Here’s our recap of what happened in online marketing today, as reported on Marketing Land and other places across the web.
From Marketing Land:Last year AdWords Express launched goals to help your ads drive better results, like more in-store visits or calls. If you choose calls as your goal, we want to make sure you get the most out of every call.
Today we’re introducing call notifications, an easy way to give feedback on the calls you get through AdWords Express and to track any missed calls.
If you don’t have the AdWords Express mobile app, you can get it on Android or iOS.
In the documentary King of Kong, competitive video gamer Billy Mitchell makes a bold pronouncement. “When you want your name written into history,” he tells the camera, “you have to pay the price.”
In the moment, Mitchell meant that it takes effort to be the best, that racking up world records demands countless hours of practice and frustration. This week, however, he’s paying a very different sort of price, as evidence mounts that he may have fudged the rules along the way to achieving some of his best known scores.
The recent controversy began with a lengthy post on the Donkey Kong Forum from Jeremy Young, known on the site as Xelnia. Over the course of almost 2,000 words—complemented by multiple animated gifs—Young makes the case that Mitchell achieved three of his Donkey Kong high scores in emulated versions of the game rather than on original arcade cabinets. The evidence mostly comes down to subtle variations in the way that older emulators—like those that Mitchell would have used—render the environment on-screen. As Ars Technica explains, “While a real Donkey Kong cabinet generates and displays game scenes in a ‘sliding door’ effect, sliding from one side to the other, old versions of the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator (MAME) instead build entire chunks of a level at once and then display them as a complete screen buffer.” That matters in part because it can change the way the game is played, while also making it easier to falsify the record.
In his post, Young stops short of suggesting that Mitchell actively cheated along the way to earning his high scores in the game, but with an emulator he easily could have. Young notes that using the emulator’s recording feature, Mitchell could have played in a stop-and-start style, allowing him to patch together a more ideal run. Further, there are no witnesses to the three scores in question (Mitchell submitted evidence by video tape), and he probably didn’t have the skills to create a recording from the hardware itself, which increases the likelihood that he used an emulator.
Together, these and other factors led Young to announce that he would be removing Mitchell’s questionable performances from the Donkey Kong Forum’s high score list. Mitchell has not, however, been fully barred from the rankings, merely demoted: Where his previously recognized high score of 1.062 million placed him at No. 20 on the chart, he now lands at No. 47 with a score of 933,000, since he earned that one in front of a live audience in 2004.
Meanwhile, the video gaming records organization Twin Galaxies still recognizes Mitchell’s 1.062 million record, though there too his accomplishments are currently subject to adjudication.
In the wake of Young’s announcement, others have made additional accusations against Mitchell. As Ars Technica reports in an update to its original post, “Former Donkey Kong world record holder Wes Copeland has presented new statistical evidence that he says suggests Mitchell’s 1.05 million point game was patched together from multiple emulated plays.” Meanwhile, the site adds, another competitor managed to best his own previous No. 1 score in Donkey Kong, livestreaming a game in which he accumulated almost 200,000 more points than Mitchell had in the most impressive of his (allegedly fraudulent) runs.
Ultimately, Mitchell’s true gift to the competitive arcade community may have been the ease with which he filled the role of antagonist. In the years since King of Kong’s 2007 release, many other players have surpassed the accomplishments of Steve Wiebe, Mitchell’s good guy foil. While they may have paid prices of their own for their triumphs, it seems as if they’ve done so in a very different spirit, one that emphasizes mutual support as much as it does individual skill. From the outside, it’s hard to avoid the impression that they’ve come together in a spirit wholly contrary to the one Mitchell espouses in the film. Or, as Young puts it in the conclusion to his original post, theirs is a community “built on the idea of friendship through competition, camaraderie through our shared pains in pushing ourselves, our friends, and these games to their limits.”
Apple's Health Records feature in the upcoming iOS 11.3 rollout may be the most high-profile attempt at sharing healthcare data between caregiver and patient, but it won't succeed without industry's cooperation.
What is new is the mass market Apple commands with its iPhone and iPad and the company's efforts to take advantage of new industry standards and collaborative alliances for aggregating and sharing patient data from disparate healthcare systems.
Even with all the electrification of healthcare data and advances in networks for sharing that data, however, one industry stalwart is unlikely to be replaced: the fax.
Taking Leave is a Better Life Lab series marking the 25th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
When I was expecting my first child in 1977, there was no federal law to protect workers who were pregnant. Just having a baby bump could be cause for firing. The following year, after a more than decade-long fight, activists won the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law says employers can’t refuse to hire you and can’t fire you for being pregnant—but it has no requirement that the company hold your job open while you’re out giving birth. Many new mothers still lost their jobs. Others, like me, went back to work too soon to prevent that or to keep a paycheck, at a cost to body and psyche.
Then in 1993—25 years ago—advocates passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, with bipartisan support. That law was a big step forward. It acknowledged that having a child or a dad with cancer shouldn’t cost you your job or your health insurance. It recognized that men also have new children and that even those who aren’t parents have parents or partners or their own health that from time to time needs care. The FMLA guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for care of a new baby, a seriously ill child, spouse or parent, or a personal illness. Since its passage, Americans have used that leave more than 200 million times.
The richest country in the world stands alongside only Papua New Guinea in having zero weeks of paid leave.
But two-fifths of the workforce isn’t covered by the FMLA, because they work for a company with fewer than 50 employees or don’t work enough hours on one job or haven’t been there a full year when the need arises. The law’s definition of family doesn’t resemble real families—the FMLA doesn’t kick in for unmarried partners or siblings or grandparents or other loved ones in our lives. And perhaps the biggest kicker? The leave you can take under the FMLA is unpaid. This means that millions who are eligible for it each year skip treatment or go back to work before they, or a loved one, are ready because they simply can’t afford not to.
As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the FMLA this week, there’s reason to be hopeful. Americans overwhelmingly agree that we shouldn’t be kept from caring for a new baby or punished for helping a parent get through chemo or recover from a stroke. And as stories about the desperation of those without access to paid leave rise to the surface, momentum around the structures it would take to change this is gaining traction.
Lauren Agoratus first needed family leave in 1992 when she gave birth to her daughter, Stephanie. Lauren had six weeks of disability leave and expected to go right back to work, but the baby was born with a serious kidney problem that required longer hospitalization and care. “You go to all the Lamaze classes and La Leche League, and no one ever says something could go wrong,” Lauren said.
She worried about keeping her job as a bilingual service rep, but she was fortunate to have a boss who let her take the time she needed. To pay the bills, Lauren used up every day of vacation and sick time she’d been accruing over the years. The doctor finally said Stephanie could be in an in-home child care setting with a minimum number of other kids, so Lauren could go back to work.
Still, Stephanie kept getting sick. The doctor decided she needed more time at home and away from day care to build up her immune system. So, in 1993, Lauren took leave again. By now, the Family and Medical Leave Act had passed and she didn’t have to worry about her job. But the time was unpaid.
“We cut back on everything,” Lauren said, “and we weren’t extravagant to begin with. We discontinued any subscriptions. We volunteered in the Share program to get a couple bags of groceries. At one point I sold my high school ring. For the first time, we got credit cards, alternating between two. We wound up with $20,000 in debt, which was a lot back then. I was afraid we’d lose our home.”
As she became an advocate for her child, Lauren met other families of children with special needs and became the New Jersey Coordinator of Family Voices. She also got involved in the fight for statewide paid family leave. “I knew what families go through,” she said. “The FMLA gives job security, but people, especially those with medical bills, need income coming in.”
Lauren worked with Time to Care NJ, a coalition made up of labor and business owners, health care professionals, and groups that focused on ending poverty and inequities, that advocates for kids and for seniors. In 2008 New Jersey became the second state to pass a family leave insurance program, following California, which pioneered a program six years earlier.
For Lauren, this policy would pay off more personally than she could have imagined. In 2011, Stephanie, then age 19, needed a kidney transplant. “At first I thought, ‘Here we go again,’” Lauren said. “But it was totally different this time. It was such a relief, knowing it wouldn’t be just drain, drain, drain. We didn’t have years of getting out of debt. I didn’t worry about our home.”
Thanks to paid leave, Stephanie’s mother and father were able to be with her as she celebrated her prom and graduation from the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and then on the weekly three-hour trips for follow-up appointments. The time also allowed them training in the care they would need to provide back at home, including giving vitals and handling a two-page list of medications. Stephanie is now attending Mercer County Community College with the help of a nurse.
For too many people in the U.S. today, no paid leave means putting off or never getting time like this when family needs it or suffering a financial crisis. A growing number of employers, most recently Lyft, Walmart, and Starbucks, have figured out that updating their paid family leave policies is the smart as well as the right thing to do. Corporate lobbyists point to these changes to argue that decisions about paid leave are best left to individual employers. But if we left social progress solely to corporations, we likely still would have child labor and no minimum wage. Notably, Lyft and Walmart’s new policies leave out many of their own workforce.
Each new state paid leave win has brought improvements to the model. Rhode Island added job protection for all leave-takers. New York expanded the number of weeks available for bonding with a new child or caring for an ill family member to 12 weeks. The District of Columbia is making leave affordable by raising the percentage of wages workers will receive while on leave and making it a progressive rate to better serve low-income workers. Washington state ensured their law is portable between jobs and covers every single worker, including those in the public sector. More wins are on the horizon.
This movement is paving the way for a federal law that will pick up where FMLA left off 25 years ago. “Everyone wants to be there for family,” Lauren Agoratus said. “Paid leave makes that possible.”
Kort efter det att påven uttalat sig inför journalister har nu Vatikanens mångårige FN-observatör, ärkebiskop Silvano Tomasi skärpt tonen och sagt att mänskligheten riskerar ett ”självmord”. Tomasi arbetar nu för Vatikanens nya dikasterium för hållbar mänsklig utveckling. I en intervju med Vatican News under måndagen riktar han särskilt in sig på Trump-adminstrationens planer på att tillverka nya kärnvapen med begränsad sprängkraft.
”Det tycks mig som vi har tagit ett steg tillbaka i historien. Vi är tillbaka där vi befann oss under kalla kriget – i kapprustningen – där den som har de kraftfullaste vapnen också får störst inflytande på den internationella nivån. Kapprustningen börjar om från början, menar den tidigare ”FN-biskopen”. Det innebär att ”enorma penningsummor läggs på vapen i stället för på det sociala området”, och dessutom skapas nya spänningar mellan kärnvapenmakterna.
Den nuvarnade situationen bådar ”inte gott”, enligt ärkebiskopen. ”Detta nya framhållande av den egna makten spår på kapprustningen och ökar risken för att kärnvapen, på grund av antingen misstag eller medvetet, ännu en gång kommer att sättas in.” Ingen kan veta hur han ska kunna hantera situationen, ”om det uppstår en räcka av reaktioner och motreaktioner”.
Enligt Pentagon däremot är den nya kärnvapendoktrinen ett svar på en förändrad värld, som man en gång för alla måste förhålla sig till. Försvarsminister James Mattis pekade i januari vid presentationen av USA:s första nationella försvarsstrategi på tio år ut nya motståndare och nämnde Ryssland och Kina.
Tomasi menar dessutom att ”hotet” uppstår genom kapprustningen: ”Om en skaffar sig nya angreppsvapen, som är mer tekniskt avancerade, då måste och vill de andra skaffa sig samma möjligheter, och ännu större. Detta sätt att tänka blir en ond cirkel.”
Kathpress 2018-02-05
Uma Thurman has posted footage on Instagram of the car crash that took place during the filming of Kill Bill, an incident she recently recounted to Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. In the piece, the actress described several disturbing encounters with Harvey Weinstein, including one in which she says he pushed her and tried to expose himself to her. (Weinstein’s team has characterized the incident as Weinstein making an “awkward pass” at Thurman and claims there was no physical contact.) But Thurman also shared a startling story that wasn’t directly about Weinstein, at least on the surface, describing a car crash that occurred while she was filming Kill Bill.
Thurman told Dowd that four days before the end of Kill Bill’s nine-month shoot in Mexico, director Quentin Tarantino insisted that she drive a reconfigured Volkswagen Karmann Ghia down a road at 40 mph, even though Thurman had reason to believe the car was unsafe and asked for a stunt double. The Times ran footage from the resulting crash in the online version of their piece, which shows Thurman lose control of the vehicle and strike a tree, resulting in a concussion and neck and knee injuries.
“The steering wheel was at my belly and my legs were jammed under me,” she says. “I felt this searing pain and thought, ‘Oh my God, I’m never going to walk again,’” she says. “When I came back from the hospital in a neck brace with my knees damaged and a large massive egg on my head and a concussion, I wanted to see the car and I was very upset. Quentin and I had an enormous fight, and I accused him of trying to kill me. And he was very angry at that, I guess understandably, because he didn’t feel he had tried to kill me.”
On Monday, Thurman posted the footage to her own Instagram account, but this time, she directed the blame away from Tarantino:
Thurman told the Times that the crash, and Tarantino’s refusal to let her see the footage of it afterward, led to a rift between them that ended their professional relationship. But in her Instagram post, Thurman praised Tarantino for finally giving her the tape 15 years later, writing that he “was deeply regretful and remains remorseful about this sorry event, and gave me the footage years later so [I] could expose it and let it see the light of day, regardless of it most likely being an event for which justice will never be possible.”
She added that Tarantino “also did so with full knowledge it could cause him personal harm, and [I] am proud of him for doing the right thing and for his courage.” Instead, she blamed three other individuals for allegedly covering up the incident: producers Lawrence Bender, E. Bennett Walsh, and Weinstein, who she says “lied, destroyed evidence, and continue to lie about the permanent harm they caused and then chose to suppress.”
None of those men has publicly responded to Thurman’s accusations at this time.
NORA. Nora BK har gjort klart med ytterligare en stortalang. Idag handlar det om mittfältaren Mikael Loön, som kommer från ÖSK och Kumlas division 2-lag förra säsongen.
– Micke väljer att inte följa Kumla ned i trean och vi är förstås mycket glada över beslutet att gå till Nora BK, säger Noras sportchef Peter Palmqvist.
Mikael Loön var en tongivande spelare i Kumla förra säsongen, men måste såklart gå vidare för att utvecklas. Nu blir det Nora BK i tvåan.
Micke är fostrad i ÖSK och hade under 2016 en träningsplats i A-truppen och hade då också en ordinarie plats i U21-laget. Med Kumla, under fjolåret, var Loön en av de tongivande spelarna, men laget klarade inte kontraktet och ett klubbyte är därför naturligt.
Mikael Loön har tränat med Nora BK en tid och blev alltså klar sent under måndagskvällen. Micke spelade för Nora under lördagens träningsmatch mot Karslund och var en av planens bästa spelare.
– Vi har fått ett mycket bra intryck av Micke, både på och vid sidan av planen, och han har redan kommit in i gruppen på ett fint sätt, säger Noras sportchef Peter Palmqvist. Vi vill också tacka IFK Kumla för ett bra samarbete gällande Mikaels övergång.
In the wake of the release of the Nunes memo, it’s worth considering one other key consequence of last week’s partisan classified-information release: We’re now facing a crisis of intelligence. The foundation for sharing intelligence with our partners around the world is being shaken by unusual suspects—some members of Congress charged with intelligence oversight, and the president, whose solemn duty is to put the best interests of all Americans first, including guarding us against threats to our national security.
The Nunes memo has gripped headlines for weeks. It’s been a massively successful PR and distraction campaign. As a country, we’ve spent more time anticipating the memo and then analyzing each line than we have talking about what we’re doing to counter ongoing Russian attacks to our election system. It has sucked up time, resources, and the attention of not just members of Congress but also members of the intelligence community (IC) who have been waiting to see whether a memo, shoddily compiled from some of the most classified intelligence in the country, would see the light of day.
The Nunes memo and its surrounding events are not only a costly distraction. They also exact other long-term consequences. One of them is in the realm of intelligence sharing. It’s important to think about how this episode will be understood by our foreign allies and how they may change their strategic posture toward the United States because of it.
As the IC prepared for the eventuality of the Nunes memo’s release, intelligence professionals were also likely analyzing what impact it would have on our foreign intelligence–sharing relationships. For decades, the IC has developed deep–and incredibly useful–relationships with intelligence services around the world. The “Five Eyes”–the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand–regularly share lifesaving intelligence. Forged out of WWII, the U.S. and U.K. began coordinating closely on Soviet intercepts, and the relationship grew from there. Today, there’s probably not a global threat on which the Five Eyes don’t collaborate, including Russia’s ongoing information warfare campaign and cyberattacks around the world. U.S. intel relationships, simply put, circle the globe. We learned, for example, after President Trump shared sensitive intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office, that the Israelis have been sharing vital intel compiled from highly sensitive operations involving ISIS. And the list of our sources of information extends beyond governments, including foreign nationals whose information can make the margin of difference in a successful U.S. military operation or in convincing U.S. officials to discard a military option by identifying other levers of influence.
Our intel-sharing arrangements help keep the country safe. They provide intelligence from places we can’t or won’t go and are often built on relationships we don’t have. Imagine a world where we didn’t have established partnerships with intelligence services around the world. We would miss critical intelligence, for example, from South Korea and Japan, who may have access to information on North Korea. Or Israel, which has historically had better access to some Arab countries and Russia. (Our intel sharing with Israel really kicked off after Israel obtained a copy of Khrushchev’s speech admitting Stalin’s crimes.) Many of these intel-sharing arrangements also occur in large-scale multinational settings where nations have common threats and common goals. There’s a reason that the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS shares information among its 73 members and why NATO does the same—by sharing intel, we get a more fulsome picture of what’s going on, so we can decide what to do about it.
As a baseline, when the Trump administration came into office, we know that some intelligence agencies reportedly dialed back sharing information with a White House so strangely oriented toward Russia. In the wake of Trump’s sharing Israeli intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Israeli trepidation about sharing intel with the White House undoubtedly increased, with one source, according to a piece in the New York Times, saying, “We have to rethink what to give the Americans. Until we are sure that this channel is as secure as can be, we must not hand over our crown jewels.” Foreign intelligence services are naturally now aware that there’s an ongoing investigation into potential collusion with Russia, which may be affecting the level of intelligence they share about Russia with the United States. It is only logical to assume that foreign intel partners who would already be worried about this White House would be even more likely to hold back until the investigation concludes. This is particularly worrisome as the clock winds down to the 2018 elections.
Liaison relationships with intelligence partners have been built on carefully constructed agreements about what is shared, how, and with whom. At the very least, intelligence partners have known that we have strict processes for classifying and declassifying intelligence, embodied in documents like the Obama-era Executive Order 13526. Those policies clearly state that information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security and if it, among other things, relates to foreign government information, intelligence activities, intelligence sources or methods, or foreign relations of the United States that include confidential sources. Referencing the balance between transparency and national security, Executive Order 13526 says in its preamble that “throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations.” So, before the Nunes memo, foreign intel partners would have been assured that once information was classified, it would go through a rigorous process if and when there was a call for declassification.
The Nunes memo turned this assumption on its head. A member of Congress wrote a document, an obscure rule allowed the House Intelligence Committee majority to move for its declassification, and the president, arguably abrogating his responsibilities to weigh the impact of releasing top-secret information to the public, let the memo go public. Now that a single committee in Congress has cracked the glass on this procedure, and the president has proven his willingness to make major gambles for narrow political self-interest, the entire episode rightfully begs the question: Couldn’t this happen again?
The answer, shockingly, is yes, and the salient point to remember is that this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The world is watching, and if you’re a foreign intelligence service, there’s considerably less and less upside to sharing intelligence with the United States anymore, particularly if it relates to Russia. The truth is, there’s less certainty that sensitive intelligence and the names of specific sources won’t end up on the House Intelligence Committee’s website or all over Twitter. Take the Nunes memo—it specifically references an FBI source, former U.K. intelligence agent Christopher Steele, and notes that he was previously a source for the United States with a history of credible reporting. It also tries to drag his name through the mud. There is talk that to defend against the allegations in the memo, other members of Congress will need to reveal more about the underlying classified information. And due to the step of selective declassification, litigants have already asked a federal court to compel the government to more fully disclose related documents.
If you’re the Israeli Mossad or British MI6, your relationship with peers in the U.S. was bound by a knowledge that rules were in place. There were metrics for multiple layers within the U.S. government to meet before intelligence was declassified or reclassified. Today, that doesn’t hold water anymore, and we’re all a lot less safe because of it.
More from Just Security:
A Q-and-A on the Nunes Memo and Its Implications for the Russia Investigation
Analytiker spår ras i Stockholm när börsen öppnar i morgon.
The iPhone X, Apple’s $1,000 top-of-the-line phone that’s meant to usher in a new decade of trailblazing handheld technology, is reportedly fumbling incoming calls.
Hundreds of iPhone X owners have taken to Apple user forums to complain about the supposed bug, according to the Financial Times. Some disgruntled users claim that, when they get a call, the ringtone plays for 10 seconds before the touchscreen lights up and allows them to press the “Accept” button. Others report that the button isn’t showing up at all.
One post reads, “When a call entered in my phone it start ringing but the display of the phone(switch on) response after 8s -10s later . What can I do now ?”
Another user responded, “Have tried everything including the restore ,reset every possible thing which I could but no use . Can apple guys tell me wat to do and why this is happening in a high end premium handset.”
Apple emailed Slate a statement that read: “We’re looking into these reports.”
The glitch is the latest thorn in Apple’s side, as the company has been struggling with flagging demand for its newest phone. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that production goals for the iPhone X had been slashed in half for the first quarter—from 40 million to 20 million.
Then, during the company’s quarterly earnings call a few days later, it announced that 77.3 million iPhones had been sold overall, a one percent drop compared to the same period last year. The number was sure to disappoint analysts who had been anticipating sales between 80 million and 83 million. Apple doesn’t release sales numbers for each model, so we don’t know how exactly the iPhone X plays into that drop, but it’s still notable that overall purchases were down in the phone’s first quarter on the market.
The iPhone’s revenues were still up 13 percent, likely with the help of the iPhone X’s $1,000 price tag. And the company had a record-breaking quarter, with $88.3 billion in total revenue. Apple CEO Tim Cook further pointed to a 96 percent customer satisfaction rating for all iPhone models based on market research.
The company nonetheless revised its plans for iOS software updates in 2018, according to Axios, in order to focus on improving iPhone responsiveness and reducing the number of customer support issues.
Mallory Ortberg is online weekly to chat live with readers. Here’s an edited transcript of this week’s chat.
To get advice from Prudie:
• send questions for publication to prudence@slate.com.
(Questions may be edited.)
• join the live chat Mondays at noon. Submit your questions and comments here before or during the discussion.
• call the voicemail of the Dear Prudence podcast at 401-371-DEAR (3327) to hear your question answered on a future episode of the show.
Mallory Ortberg: “That’s all well and good for sheep—but what are we to do?” Well, we start with this: We chat.
Q. Second-class grandma: My son, Steven, and daughter-in-law, Julia, are expecting their first child and our first grandchild next month. I had what I thought was a good relationship with Julia, but I find myself devastated. Julia has decided only Steven and her mother will be allowed in the delivery room when she gives birth. I was stunned and hurt by the unfairness of the decision, and tried to plead with her and my son, but Julia says she “wouldn’t feel comfortable” with me there. I reminded her that I was a nurse for 40 years, so there is nothing I haven’t seen. I’ve tried to reason with Steven, but he seems to be afraid of angering Julia, and will not help. I called Julia’s parents, and asked them to please reason with their daughter, but they brusquely and rather rudely got off the phone. I’ve felt nothing but heartache since learning I would be banned from the delivery room. Steven told me I could wait outside and I would be let in after Julia and the baby are cleaned up and “presentable.” Meanwhile, Julia’s mother will be able to witness our grandchild coming into the world. It is so unfair.
I’ve always been close to my son, but I no longer feel valued. I cannot bring myself to speak to Julia. I’m being treated like a second-class grandmother even though I’ve never been anything but supportive and helpful. How can I get them to see how unfair and cruel their decision is?
A: You can’t! You shouldn’t! You are entirely in the wrong! I say this in the hopes that, after the initial flush of indignation fades, you will be braced and supported by the realization that you have been acting badly, and that you need to change. It’s difficult to admit when one’s been wrong, but there’s nothing quite so clarifying as figuring out how to do better.
Your daughter-in-law is giving birth, which is a pretty difficult, painful, and intimate process. She has every right to plan ahead for just how many people she wants to be in the room for that. This is not about you. You are going to get to see your grandchild the day they are born. You will get to be in your grandchild’s life for as long as you live. Nothing is being taken from you. You are not being snubbed. Your daughter-in-law and your son are drawing a totally appropriate boundary, and you need to stop trying to argue with them about it. Frankly, I can see why they don’t want you in the room, if But I was a nurse! and I’m a second-class grandmother is your response to Please hang out and read a book in the hallway while Julia is crowning.
Let this go. Do not rob this moment of its joy by keeping score and demanding more.
Q. Truth: I found out my husband had a months-long affair with an old neighbor. He ended it after we moved away. She emailed, wanting him to come back to visit her, and included naked pictures of herself. I found it after using my husband’s laptop to do our taxes. I was enraged. I confronted my husband, and we are now in counseling.
But I can’t get the other woman out of my head. She is a teacher at a Christian academy and a high-standing member of our old church. I personally gave her a key to our old house for emergencies. I hate her, and I hate the fact she gets to go along with her perfect fake life after ruining mine.
I have copies of her emails and pics. I want to send them to our pastor and her principal. Someone like her should not be teaching children and her husband deserves to know the truth. I haven’t spoken about this to our counselor or my husband. I think they will want to protect her. I am so angry I can’t see straight. I don’t know what I should do. Help.
A: Your anger makes a lot of sense to me! It also shouldn’t be what’s primarily driving your actions. Take a look at what you said about how you feel: “enraged,” “hate,” “so angry I can’t see straight.” You can’t stop thinking about the details of the affair, and you feel like your life has been ruined. The person most directly responsible for this is your husband, but all you say about him is that the two of you are in counseling right now. Your husband is the one who betrayed your marriage vows. He’s the one who cheated on you. What she did was not kind, was not honest, and was not the act of a friend—let’s not get confused about that. You’re angry with her, and rightly so. But hurting a friend and cheating on her spouse does not disqualify one from teaching children. One has nothing to do with the other. I’m afraid you might feel like your job is to forgive and eventually forget what your husband did, and that therefore the only safe outlet for your pain and anger is this former friend. That would be a mistake, I think.
Tell your counselor about your anger. Tell your husband. Be honest about it. Don’t try to downplay or soften it. Don’t rush to forgive your husband just because you live with him. It’s difficult to allow yourself to be angry with the people you love most. I do not think it will be ultimately satisfying if you try to displace the anger that should rightly fall on your husband entirely on her. I do not think it will address the root cause, and I think you deserve the chance to be honest about your feelings without trying to protect your husband from the consequences of his actions.
Q. Re: Truth: Being the other woman in your husband’s affair has nothing to do with how well she does her job. Just know if you do send those nudes to anyone you’re going to get sued under a revenge porn ruling.
A: Oh, thank you so much for bringing that up, that’s probably the most important point in the letter and I failed to address it—do not send this woman’s nudes to anyone else in order to humiliate and hurt her. Do not do it! It is likely illegal and it’s wrong. Find other ways to deal with your anger than “using someone’s nude pictures against them.”
Q. Bad sex: I let a friend set me up with her cousin. He was fun, mildly attractive, and we went on a few dates, but he was horrible in bed. Very bad. Think a 15-year-old fumbling with his first bra strap bad. I didn’t want to pursue the relationship any further and tried to let him down gently. Now my friend is bugging me for an explanation, and “I don’t want to” doesn’t seem to hold water with her. Apparently her cousin was very upset after I broke things off and keeps asking her, “Why?”
We are all in our late- or mid-20s, and this feels very high school to me. It is annoying. I don’t want to hurt this guy, but I don’t see how it will help anything to say “you suck at sex and I don’t want to waste time being your teacher.” I don’t want to lose my friend either. How do I get them to back off the subject without hurting anyone?
A: “I don’t want to” is the best reason in the world not to go on another date. If your friend refuses to let it hold water with her, then she needs to be brought up sharply. “I’ve told you before, I’m not interested in seeing your cousin again. I’m not sure why you want him to go out with someone who doesn’t really want to be with him, but it’s rude and dismissive of my feelings. It makes me feel like I can’t talk freely with you because you keep pressuring me about this, and I’m not interested in sharing personal details about my dates with your cousin with you. You need to stop bringing this up, because I’m not going to discuss him with you again.” That may sound harsh, but I promise you, it’s better than continuing to put up with her badgering until you finally explode and say something that would embarrass both of you.
I’m sure her cousin was upset; no one likes being rejected. But not getting a fourth date is totally common, and it doesn’t require an after-the-fact interview where the formerly-involved parties provide one another with a list of things to work on.
Q. Re: Second-class grandma: I only wanted my mom in the delivery room with my first one, too. It wasn’t because I didn’t love my mother-in-law, but because it was easier on me. I only had to worry about two extra people being there. I also wasn’t comfortable with my mother-in-law being right there while I was naked and pushing someone out of my body. Now, with the second and third ones, I totally would have invited whomever wanted to be in the room. It’s not personal. She still wants you there that day, at the hospital. She just may not be comfortable giving birth with a large audience like she’s 18th-century French nobility.
A: Yes! “This isn’t Versailles, and this isn’t about me” should be your mantra going forward, letter writer. Remember that your daughter-in-law is about to go through something incredibly painful, uncomfortable, and vulnerable, and that you—presumably—want her to feel as comfortable and non-overwhelmed as possible.
Q. “But you’re so pretty”: My daughter recently turned 13 and went straight through the ugly duckling phase into the swan. She also hates it. She is getting a lot of attention, especially from older men. She is very quiet and shy. It has gotten to the point that she doesn’t want to go out unless it is with her father, her older brother, and me. There was an incident where some neighborhood boys started catcalling her and following her while she was walking home from a friend’s. She got so terrified she ran into a neighbor’s backyard and beat on the window for help. Her brother then found the boys and ended up getting in a fight with them. The police got involved, but ultimately no charges were filed on anyone.
My extended family does not understand this despite knowing about the incident. My parents would not stop telling my daughter how pretty she was, and my brother made the tone-deaf comment that she “must be beating the boys off with a stick.” It upset my daughter so much that she pretended to be sick for the last three days of our trip, and I let her. We did have plans to come back over spring break but I am not doing it if it means hurting my daughter more. She is talking to her school counselor and we have enrolled her in a lot of girl-only activities, but I am at a loss on how to deal with my clueless family. I never had to deal with this myself as a girl, and my son is large and muscular like his father. I would take on the whole world for my daughter, but I can’t realistically. How, at least, do I make her family safe for her?
A: Telling a 13-year-old girl who was chased by a group of leering boys and had to hide inside of a neighbor’s house that she must have to “beat the boys off with a stick” isn’t just tone-deaf—it’s cruel, it’s dismissive, and it’s an attempt to normalize misogyny to a child. I’m so glad you’re in her corner. She needs all the help you can give her.
Talk to your parents and your brother. Tell them that they need to lay off the comments about her appearance. If their response is, “But she’s so pretty! And it’s a compliment!” then you say, “It’s not a compliment. You know that this is a source of anxiety for her, and you’ve been asked to stop; it’s not a compliment if you know it to be unwelcome.” If they can’t do that, then don’t visit. This is an opportunity to show your daughter that someone is looking out for her, that not everyone is looking to erode her boundaries and harass her, that you’re willing to stick up for her, and you won’t force her to be around family members who scrutinize her appearance and dismiss her feelings.
Q. Am I really crazy?: I moved in with my fiancé about a month ago and all was well at first—kinda. Small things that always annoyed me suddenly seem huge, and I’m afraid that I’ve lost my mind. I normally think of myself as rational, but lately I get upset when I feel like he is trying to control small aspects of my life (e.g., at dusk yesterday I had the light on, and he said that I should turn it off as soon as he walked in because it wasn’t dark enough. I got annoyed because I felt that the light wasn’t bright enough and exclaimed, “Damnit! Are you happy now?” as I turned it off. A shouting match erupted.) He claims that I have nothing to get angry about, especially since he does so much to support me. However, I don’t think that feeling like he is disrespecting my capacity as a sentient human being is irrational at all. Do you think that I’m making too much of small things?
A: I can’t figure out whether you or your fiancé are the primary source of contention here, but this sounds awful for both of you. If you two are screaming at each other within a month of moving in together, over whether the light should be on, then I don’t think that you’re talking about “small things” at all. I think living together is clearly not working, and you two should go to counseling to figure out what you expect from each other as roommates, and how you communicate when you fight. In the meantime, if possible, give yourself at least a few nights a week to sleep apart. I don’t know what the underlying tensions might be, but if you feel like you’re being disrespected as a “sentient human being,” and he thinks you have nothing to be angry about, then I think the tensions are serious, significant, and need addressing right now—before you get married.
Q. “But you’re so pretty”: The letter writer with the pretty daughter needs to get her in counseling and also find out whether she’s been sexually abused. Harassment is intimidating, but running to a neighbor’s house and banging on the window is an extreme reaction, as is not wanting to be called “pretty” and not wanting to leave the house without a guardian. Something else is going on here, and she needs help coping.
A: Being followed by a group of boys who won’t stop catcalling you is an extreme experience. If a pack of boys are dogging your steps home, they’re making it clear that they’re not interested in listening to your No, and that they’re willing to escalate their aggressive behavior—that’s legitimately frightening. Trying to find safety in that moment, and wanting to feel protected afterwards, is not an extreme response. The “something else” that’s going on here is a culture that sexualizes 13-year-old girls, and then dismisses their resulting fear, confusion, pain and bewilderment.
Q. Does not having a job make me a leech?: I am a 20-year-old college student who lives at home with my mom. I’m unemployed but have applied for jobs before and was turned down. My mom said I should put off finding a job until we get a reliable mode of transportation or move. The only income I have now is my financial aid. It all goes to rent, food, and bills. However, everyone tells me I need to find a job and stop relying on my mom. This includes my sister, who keeps changing jobs herself, and a brother, who lived with our mom until his mid-20s. I usually ignore them, but now it’s really starting to get on my nerves. It seems like my sister alludes to me being a leech in every conversation. I’ve told her I’m not a leech since I’m contributing to the household and doing something with my life. But she doesn’t think college counts for anything. I’m just sick of her and everyone else thinking that in order to be a productive citizen you must have a job.
A: You have a job; you’re a full-time student. If your financial aid contributes to rent, food, and bills, then you are contributing to the household in a real, significant way. If your sister doesn’t think going to college and contributing to household expense counts for anything, that sounds like her problem, not yours. Don’t waste time trying to convince her of how much work you’re doing or how much you contribute around the house. If she won’t let up, end the conversation; you don’t have to listen to her call you a leech whenever she wants.
Discuss this column with Dear Prudence on her Facebook page!
Tre generationer samlade på ett och samma fotografi. Som vi har väntat på denna historiska bild!
Den 10 december 2017, samma dag som Nobelmiddagen ägde rum, kunde Svensk Damtidning som enda tidning berätta att kungen, kronprinsessan Victoria och prinsessan Estelle poserade på en bild tillsammans.
Läs mer: Därför missar Silvia barnbarnens födelsedagarOch nu har hovet äntligen lagt ut två bilder på kungligheterna! Bilderna publicerades idag i samband med Bernadotte-ättens 200-årsjubileum. Kronprinsessan strålar i Sibyllas akvamarindiadem och matchande klänning från Jennifer Blom.
Hovet publicerade dessutom en bild på bara kungen och vår framtida drottning Victoria.
Läs mer: Videoklipp! Så har du aldrig sett kronprinsessan förut
Foto: Thron Ullberg/Kungahuset
Nytt knep avslöjat.
When it comes to Valentine’s Day, you typically think of giving flowers, chocolate, or maybe lingerie to your significant other. If your partner is a gamer, those traditional gifts may not suffice. Thankfully, […]
The post SCUF’s Valentine’s Day Controllers Are Perfect for That Special Gamer in Your Life appeared first on Geek.com.
Anställda ska informeras i morgon.
WordPress 4.9.3 is now available.
This maintenance release fixes 34 bugs in 4.9, including fixes for Customizer changesets, widgets, visual editor, and PHP 7.2 compatibility. For a full list of changes, consult the list of tickets and the changelog.
Download WordPress 4.9.3 or visit Dashboard → Updates and click “Update Now.” Sites that support automatic background updates are already beginning to update automatically.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to WordPress 4.9.3:
Aaron Jorbin, abdullahramzan, Adam Silverstein, Andrea Fercia, andreiglingeanu, Andrew Ozz, Brandon Payton, Chetan Prajapati, coleh, Darko A7, David Cramer, David Herrera, Dion Hulse, Felix Arntz, Frank Klein, Gary Pendergast, Jb Audras, Jeffrey Paul, lizkarkoski, Marius L. J., mattyrob, Monika Rao, munyagu, ndavison, Nick Momrik, Peter Wilson, Rachel Baker, rishishah, Ryan Paul, Sami Ahmed Siddiqui, Sayed Taqui, Sean Hayes, Sergey Biryukov, Shawn Hooper, Stephen Edgar, Sultan Nasir Uddin, tigertech, and Weston Ruter.
You’d think that American college students would be banging down the doors to major in software engineering, data science, or information technology.
They aren’t, relatively speaking.
To those of us in the technology field, the statistics should be stunning, and not in a good way: computer science majors, engineering majors, and biology majors COMBINED don’t come close to the number of humanities majors who graduate every year. Let’s face it, fellow techies: ours isn’t a popular field, especially in light of the lure of high compensation, low stress, and great work-life balance. In this golden age of technology, where the “T” in STEM careers should be the hottest letter of the quartet, computer science is the 16th most popular college major, and Information Technology is number 21.
On Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor released a strong jobs report showing wages rising at their fastest rate since the Great Recession. Then, the stock market promptly began to plummet. The Dow Jones fell an amusingly on-the-nose 666 points—its worst day since the U.K.’s Brexit surprise. Global markets subsequently took a beating, and U.S. equities are still sliding as I write this today.
Why is good news for workers turning into bad news for shareholders? The answer is a useful illustration of why the stock market is often a poor guide to the overall health of the economy.
Right now, traders seem to be worried that if wages rise too fast, it will cause the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates in order to head off inflation down the road. When, earlier this year, the central bank suggested that it would raise rates, much of the market was skeptical, in part because inflation has been so subdued for so long. But faster pay gains for workers make it more likely the Fed will follow through, both because rising wages are a sign that the whole economy is heating up and because employers will eventually have to raise prices to keep up with the cost of labor.
If the Fed does hike quickly, it will slow down the pace of growth a bit and could put a damper on corporate profits. But that’s probably not the main reason Wall Streeters are in a tizzy. The thing you have to keep in mind is that stock prices have been propped up for years now by low interest rates around the world. Investors haven’t been able to make much money on safe assets like American and European government bonds. So instead, they’ve piled money into riskier bets like sovereign debt from developing nations and stocks.
As interest rates go up, and money managers can suddenly make a better return on vanilla investments like treasuries, we should expect stocks to deflate a bit. That prospect seems to be driving the past couple days of trading—not investor disdain for the working class.
This is all a reminder that Donald Trump’s incessant bragging about the bull market has been absurd from the start. The Dow Jones and S&P 500 are not barometers for the well-being of the whole economy. (Heck, the Dow isn’t even a good barometer of the stock market.) Sometimes prices go up because the economy is doing well. Sometimes they go down because of it. And as of this month, the economy seems just a bit too strong for shareholders’ tastes.
If you’re shopping around for productivity suites, the list of candidates may seem a little... short. It’s going to be Microsoft Office or Google G Suite, right? Well, not so fast. You do have choices — and they won’t break the bank.
(Insider Story)
KAMPSPORT. Det är svettigt, högintensivt och utmanande.
– Men framför allt roligt och socialt, fyller instruktören Hanna Sundberg i.
Nu sparkar Nordic Budo & Sports Academy igång årets grundkurs i kickboxning.
2012 startade Nordic Budo & Sports Academy, som då gick under namnet Mariehamns taekwondoklubb, sin kickboxning-sektion. En som gick den allra första grundkursen var Hanna Sundberg.
I dag är hon en av tre instruktörer i föreningen, tillsammans med Jenny Hjulfors och Kim Gylling.
– Tjusningen med kickboxning är att man aldrig blir fullärd. Det finns alltid nya saker att lära sig och nya influenser att ta del av, säger Sundberg.
En gång i året drar Nordic Budo & Sports Academy igång en ny grundkurs i kickboxning. Årets upplaga hade startskott i kväll och sammanlagt fanns 19 deltagare på plats i kampsportföreningens lokaler i Kalmsta, Jomala.
Grundkursen fortsätter en gång i veckan, varje måndag, i ungefär tre månader. De två första tillfällena är gratis, så kallade prova på-pass.
En som fanns på plats under måndagens prova på-tillfälle var Rebecca Jansson, 17 år.
– För några år sedan gick jag på boxercise men sen rann det liksom ut i sanden, säger Jansson och fortsätter:
– Men så läste jag om den här grundkursen i kickboxning. Och det lät ju jätteroligt.
Läs mera om detta i tisdagens Nya Åland. Victor Sundqvist victor.sundqvist@nyan.ax Tillbaka till startsidan Tipsa Nyan
A few years ago, after a series of cascading injuries and illnesses that rendered me unable to type, drive, or sleep, I briefly became a professional patient. Like all of my professions, I took it seriously. I went to appointments armed with lists of well-researched questions written down neatly on my yellow legal pad, brought in the occasional medical journal article, and compiled detailed descriptions of my array of increasingly bizarre symptoms. My goal was to get my doctors to take me seriously so they would dive into the complexities of my case. I wanted to walk out of every appointment one step closer to determining the underlying cause of my mysterious condition and with concrete strategies to ameliorate my suffering so I could work, sleep, and live my life again. Inevitably, though, I instead was handed the same thing over and over—a prescription for mindfulness.
My primary care physician told me to download guided meditation MP3s from the clunky hospital website; my therapist insisted that I do deep breathing exercises even though they triggered my mysterious abdominal spasms; and the pain clinic declined to do “any interventions” at all, instead vaguely suggesting mindfulness. The pain clinic’s message was clear—after two appointments and a clean MRI, I was being dismissed. From now on, managing my pain was my responsibility, not theirs.
Before these medical problems, I’d had only benign feelings toward meditation. My parents, products of the 1960s, were always dashing off to the Omega Institute and Kripalu when I was a kid, and I meditated briefly in college to impress a boy who’d just returned from a gap year in India. I’d mostly thought of mindfulness as promising evidence that mainstream medicine was becoming more progressive, more open to alternative, adjunctive treatments, and more interested in the patient experience.
The reality, I now know thanks to years of being denied medical care and instead being prescribed mindfulness as self-management, is quite different. For me, the current obsession with mindfulness has become synonymous with my overall feelings of disempowerment within the medical system. In my experience, in clinical settings, mindfulness is frequently disempowerment framed as empowerment, a way of placing responsibility for suffering squarely on the patient herself and a way for doctors to wash their hands of problem patients.
And I say herself deliberately, because data indicates both that women underreport pain and that their pain is taken less seriously when they do report it. As I was researching this article, I posted on a popular freelancing forum for women, trying to see if this topic resonated with other people. Within a few hours there were more than 100 comments from members, many sharing personal stories about doctors pushing mindfulness in lieu of treatment or diagnosis, and with others defending the practice.
Lori DeBoer, a freelance writer and editor living in Boulder, Colorado, went to her primary care physician with two compressed discs verified by an X-ray, elevated autoimmune markers, and increasing joint pain. But instead of getting the prescription for an MRI, her doctor spent the brief appointment showing her yoga videos online and suggesting that she try meditation. She left the appointment feeling hopeless.
“I felt bad after my appointment like I’m being difficult because I want to be tested, to be diagnosed, to find out what’s going on with me,” she said. “I felt like I was somehow a bad person for not already doing meditation and yoga, like what’s wrong with me?”
DeBoer acknowledges that stress is a component in her physical condition, but those stressors are structural and external: “All my health-related problems started when my rent went through the roof and I had to work the equivalent of two jobs.”
No amount of meditation will fix the increased financial stresses created by gentrification in Boulder. But a prescription for meditation essentially asks DeBoer to internalize a social problem and solve it with mindfulness.
Like Lori DeBoer, Grace Alexander also had an objectively verified medical condition—spinal disc degeneration and cauda equina syndrome, nerve compression in the lumbosacral spine. She was bedridden with her left leg half-paralyzed, partially incontinent, “and in so much pain I couldn’t breathe. The solution was … be positive / meditate,” wrote Alexander. She does use mindfulness breathing techniques to help manage her pain, but those tools weren’t going to reverse her partial paralysis or her incontinence. She needed more aggressive interventions like surgery, medications, and injections to gain back her mobility. The mindfulness rhetoric felt familiar to Alexander, though, who grew up in an evangelical sect and as a child with intense migraines was taught that if she prayed hard enough and had enough faith her pain would go away, “and if you’re not better it’s your fault for not having enough faith.”
This circular logic permeates the way mindfulness is currently being prescribed in medical settings: If it doesn’t work for you, it’s because you’re too anxious and too invested in your pain, which is in fact more evidence that you need to practice mindfulness. And we’re back to the trope of the hysterical female pain patient.
How did this all get started? Mindfulness was the brainchild of Jon Kabat-Zinn, a molecular biologist and meditator, who in 1979 decided to combine his two passions. He approached the University of Massachusetts Medical Center with what he called a mindfulness-based stress reduction program for chronic pain patients. Much to his surprise and delight, instead of being dismissed outright as a crazy hippie, the doctors at the medical center embraced him, thrilled to offload their trickiest patients onto him. Zinn’s program—a rigorous 10-week, supervised, daily meditation and yoga practice—was for patients who had failed all previous treatment, with the goal of helping to reduce the stress and suffering created by living with chronic conditions. Since that initial trial, mindfulness has become the darling of pain clinics and primary care doctors across the country. But most mindfulness interventions in medical settings bear very little resemblance to Kabat-Zinn’s expensive, supervised program, which doesn’t seem to ever be covered by insurance and is only rarely reimbursed. Today, mindfulness has become a container for a series of radically disparate practices, which makes the data about it relatively meaningless. It’s also grown, by some estimates, into a $4 billion industry and has moved from medical settings into the corporate world, the military, professional sports, and education.
Although I was informed by my pain clinic that there’s a lot of new evidence “behind these self-management strategies for chronic pain,” the scientific data is actually quite preliminary. In 2017, an international consortium of prominent neuroscientists and mindfulness researchers co-authored an article called “Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation,” arguing that scientists need to do more rigorous research before applying mindfulness and meditation in clinical settings. First, they write that the terms need to be more clearly defined—mindfulness, as we’ve seen, can range from downloading MP3s to Kabat-Zinn’s supervised gold standard. Meditation has also been known to generate intense negative psychological states, even occasionally leading to temporary psychosis and hallucinations, and is therefore specifically not recommended for certain mental health disorders. Because this consortium of researchers does believe in the power of meditation and mindfulness to alter the brain, they believe it needs to be applied carefully, systematically, and responsibly. They also remind us that scientific research is not conducted in a vacuum, and researchers and clinicians are not immune to the positive hype surrounding mindfulness at the moment, which might lead to confirmation bias within research studies and premature clinical applications. They fear that those premature clinical applications could alienate people from an otherwise potentially helpful practice and also prevent patients from receiving other more effective, first-line treatments for their particular conditions. In my experience, and that of the women I interviewed, this is already happening.
Another aspect of this situation worth unpacking is the fact that doctors are not known for their early, open-minded adoption of alternative medical practices. So why have they been so quick to embrace mindfulness? I have a few theories. The first ones are the most obvious—some people really like meditation and find it useful, insurance companies don’t need to approve it, it’s cheap, and it has few obvious downsides. But I don’t think these are the main reasons mindfulness has become so prevalent in pain clinics around the country. Instead, I think the real cause has to do with the fact that for decades, narcotics were the mainstay of chronic pain treatment. But today, amid a roiling opioid crisis, doctors are understandably increasingly reluctant to prescribe opiates to their patients (even at their patients’ own expense). And there are few other mainstream solutions, so mindfulness provides physicians with an easy out, a way for doctors to feel like they are providing their patients with some form of treatment without contributing to the addiction crisis.
But I think it goes even deeper than this very practical and perhaps even somewhat understandable reason. Mindfulness also happens to fit into a rhetoric of personal responsibility that has long infused American health care. Although ostensibly mindfulness originates in Eastern practices, Kabat-Zinn successfully reframed an Eastern practice in Western terms when he transformed meditation to mindfulness. Mindfulness fits in quite successfully with bootstrapping American values—through self-management, self-control, the right attitude, and daily practice, you can take control of your own life and illness. Of course the flip side of that logic is that if your pain is still debilitating, it’s your fault for failing to follow the protocol correctly.
I do think that mindfulness and meditation can and should be part of a doctor’s bag of tricks. But there are as many different forms of meditation as there are types of pain. Some patients might respond well to chanting or walking meditation, others might like breathing exercises, and some might prefer sitting. And some might not respond well to mindfulness at all and would do better with acupuncture, massage, or other alternative treatments. Mindfulness itself isn’t the problem—it’s just the newest fad in a health care system that minimizes patient experiences and uses a one-size-fits-all model to treat the endless variations within bodies.
At the beginning of January the news about the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities first broke, and by the end of the month 139 samples had been found, according to AV-TEST. The antivirus testing firm shared this information with SecurityWeek, with those samples coming from sources including researchers, testers, and antivirus companies.
While the appearance of these samples is worrying, there is perhaps still some time to prepare as these appeared to be in a research phase. Most of them looked to be recompiled or extended versions of the proof-of-concept code released as part of the research papers identifying them, so they have not become malicious yet. This means you will want to make sure you are installing updates to your software, microcode, and possibly taking other measures to protect yourself. These other measures include turning off your computer when it is not needed for long periods of time and closing your web browser when you do not need it. Some of the proof-of-concept attacks use JavaScript code that can attack IE, Chrome, or Firefox.
On the bright side, along with the many software updates being rolled out by various companies, both Intel and AMD announced in their Q4 2017 earnings calls they have hardware-level fixes developed for future CPU releases. Intel stated the fixed chips are coming this year and AMD said the Zen 2 architecture will be the first with the fix. Zen 2 is scheduled to launch in 2019.
Source: SecurityWeek
Super Bowl LII was a corker. It began with a great storyline—a team that had never won a Super Bowl versus a team that seems to win every other year—and more than lived up to that promise. Tom Brady played the best game of his career and Nick Foles caught a touchdown pass. There were some big hits, some close calls, some flamboyant coaching decisions, some lead changes, and a bunch of missed kicks just to keep things interesting. The game was mostly free from turnovers and penalties. The outcome wasn’t certain until the final play. No doubt about it: Sunday night’s Super Bowl was a very, very good football game.
But how good was it in the context of every other Super Bowl that has ever been played? Reader, I am the man to answer that very valid question. Two years ago, in a ludicrous and unhealthy experiment leading up to Super Bowl 50, I watched and ranked every Super Bowl that had theretofore been played. I found that most Super Bowls are actually pretty bad football games, and that dramatic Super Bowls are historically few and far between. According to my comprehensive and scientific numerical ranking of every Super Bowl ever, Super Bowl XXII—in which Washington quarterback Doug Williams led the most impressive comeback in Super Bowl history—was the best Super Bowl ever. (Three Super Bowls later, that continues to be the case.) Super Bowl XII—in which the Broncos’ Craig Morton threw four first-half interceptions—was the worst.* (Also still true.) Where does Super Bowl LII fit into the all-time rankings?
Easy. Super Bowl LII was the sixth-best Super Bowl ever. It wasn’t quite as good as the fifth-best game, Super Bowl XXIII (49ers 20, Bengals 16), which featured an iconic late-game touchdown drive from the 49ers and Joe Montana. It was, however, a little bit better than the seventh-best game, Super Bowl XLIV (Saints 31, Colts 17), which also featured some great quarterback play and some stunning coaching calls. Sunday night’s game was a great game, but it wasn’t the best game. No. It was the sixth-best game.
You know what was a better Super Bowl than Sunday night’s Super Bowl? Super Bowl LI (Patriots 34, Falcons 28), from 2017, which I’ve currently got ranked as the third-best Super Bowl of all time. Super Bowl LI featured the first overtime period in Super Bowl history and the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history. It was the biggest comeback, mind you, not the most impressive; I still say Doug Williams outplaying John Elway was a more extraordinary performance, which is why that Super Bowl maintains the top spot. Last year’s Super Bowl was a truly great game with a truly depressing outcome, which is the reason why it’s not ranked second-best either. Super Bowl XXXIV (Rams 23, Titans 16) was way more satisfying for way more people.
I will say that I’m ready to name Tom Brady the best Super Bowl quarterback of all time, given that he has started in six of the 15 best Super Bowls ever—Super Bowls XXXVI, XXXVIII, XLII, XLIX, LI, and LII.
Finally, as long as we’re ranking recent Super Bowls, Super Bowl 50 (Broncos 24, Panthers 10) was a very boring game, not memorable in the slightest. I have it ranked as the 42nd-best (or if you prefer, the 11th-worst) Super Bowl ever.* Jeers to Super Bowl 50, and cheers to Super Bowls LI and LII: two all-time classics and a truly extraordinary run of big games. If Super Bowl LIII next year meets those games’ high standards, I’ll be able to definitively say that we’re living in the Golden Age of Super Bowl Football.
*Correction, Feb. 5, 2018: This post originally misidentified Craig Morton as having played for the Cowboys in Super Bowl XII. He played for the Broncos. It also misidentified the 42nd-best Super Bowl as the 10th worst. It is the 11th worst.
As an IT professional, you were hired for a certain, specialized job. But why can’t you seem to get it done? Maybe you’ve been busy “fighting fires.” For anyone responsible for network infrastructure, that’s a leading culprit. But there are others.
On the theory that to solve a problem first you need to identify it, we’ve listed a number of obstacles that may be keeping you and your team from the mission-critical parts of your jobs. Taking note of these distractions can be a first step toward fashioning solutions that lead to better outcomes for you and your organization.
Infrastructure firefightingWhen things don’t go according to plan and you have to trade your strategic IT roadmap for tactical reactionary decisions - that’s infrastructure firefighting. The network may not be working as intended; capacity planning may be off mark; production issues could be causing outages, requiring in-depth explanation and research to mitigate repeat outages in the future. Outages may require special actions, as we discuss in this article. You may not have signed on to extinguish unwanted fires, but like it or not, that has become part of your job.
Fullmäktiges presidium återvaldes då Kumlinge höll fullmäktige den 31 januari.
Mats Perämaa fortsätter således som ordförande, Mia Hanström (första vice ordförande) och Ingrid Nygård-Sundman (andra vice ordförande).
Kommunstyrelsens ordinarie medlemmar för 2018-2019 är Gun-Mari Lindholm (ordförande), Alexandra Blomqvist (vice ordförande), Alexander Fredriksen, Lenny Karlsson och Satu Numminen. (ab)
Nu söker man en butiksentreprenör till Kökarbutiken. Till sommaren 2018 uppförs en ny butiksfastighet som ägs av Kökarborna själva.
”Vi tillhandahåller med nya fräscha lokaler och låg driftskostnad” skriver man i facebookgruppen Kökarforum och uppmanar driftiga, sociala entreprenörer att ta kontakt med Natalie Björk eller Lotta Eriksson. (ikj)
If you are looking for very, very fast RAM, G.Skill has just announced a new Trident Z RGB kit that should satisfy your needs with its world's fastest 4700 MHz frequency. To achieve this, Samsung DDR4 B-die chips have been carefully screened to find those capable of this speed with timings of CL19-19-19-39 while using 1.45 V. It is only a 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) kit, but often speed comes at the expense of capacity.
Naturally these kits will come with Intel XMP 2.0 profiles for easy overclocking when they are available in the second quarter through authorized distribution partners.
Source: G.Skill
Is Donald Trump the chicken or the egg in the devolution of the Republican Party? Trump isn’t the first Republican to win over GOP voters with shameless bigotry and relentless demagoguery, and his administration is almost typical in its disdain for the commons and its commitment to enriching the rich. At the same time, his success has unleashed something in the GOP, opening the gate to a crop of candidates who have jettisoned respectability to channel the conservative id in all of its anger and resentment.
The latest example of this phenomenon comes from Illinois, where Republican state Rep. Jeanne Ives is challenging incumbent Gov. Bruce Rauner for the gubernatorial nomination. Like Trump against Jeb Bush, Corey Stewart against Ed Gillespie in Virginia, and Roy Moore against Luther Strange in Alabama, Ives hopes to upset a more established Republican by fanning anger and prejudice.
“Thank you for signing legislation that lets me use the girl’s bathroom,” says a deep-voiced male actor wearing a dress, in a new ad released by Ives’ campaign. The ad attacks the incumbent governor for purportedly backing liberal policies and uses a procession of conservative boogeymen to mockingly “thank” Rauner for his aid. A black woman in a Chicago Teachers Union shirt thanks Rauner for a “bailout” of teacher pensions, a white woman in a pink hat thanks him for “making all Illinois families pay for my abortions,” and a man dressed as antifa thanks the governor for making “Illinois a sanctuary state for illegal immigrant criminals.”
State Republican leaders condemned the ad. “There is no place in the Illinois Republican Party for rhetoric that attacks our fellow Illinoisans based on their race, gender or humanity,” said party chairman Tim Schneider in a statement. A Republican candidate for attorney general, Erika Harold, called on Ives to “immediately” take the ad off the air.
But Ives still has considerable conservative support for her message. A member of the Illinois GOP central committee, John McGlasson, called it “a clear, unambiguous message about what Rauner stands for,” and Politico notes that a former Rauner ally, Republican strategist Dan Proft, has jumped ship to Ives’ campaign. It’s unclear how Republican voters will respond to Ives’ message, but the 2016 presidential primary provides clues: 39 percent of Illinois Republicans backed Donald Trump for the nomination, beating out Ted Cruz by 8 percentage points, and swamping both John Kasich and Marco Rubio.
Across the country, Trump-style candidates appear to have the upper hand over establishment favorites. Former sheriff Joe Arpaio shot to the top of the polls in Arizona when he entered the race for a U.S. Senate seat last month, surpassing former state Sen. Kelli Ward and nearly tying Rep. Martha McSally. Arpaio served 24 years as sheriff of Maricopa County, the most populous county in the state, where he built a reputation for cruelty to inmates and a national profile as an aggressive tormentor of undocumented immigrants. Dozens of inmates died in Arpaio’s jails, and the country spent tens of millions of dollars litigating claims against the sheriff. In 2017, he was convicted of criminal contempt of court for ignoring a court order to stop racially profiling Hispanic residents, detaining them simply on suspicion of undocumented status. President Trump later pardoned him, calling Arpaio an “American patriot,” and it’s not at all clear whether the criminal charges for profiling will help or hurt Arpaio in the Republican primary.
In Virginia, Corey Stewart is seeking the Republican nomination for a Senate seat by doubling down on the far-right approach he used to nearly topple Ed Gillespie in last year’s Republican primary for governor. After President Trump’s “shithole” comments, Stewart proposed legislation that would prosecute leaders of “sanctuary cities” for harboring lawbreakers. Among Stewart’s opponents is far-right preacher E.W. Jackson, who ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor in 2013, which could make the campaign a contest to see who will propose even harder-line policies and sell them with the most inflammatory rhetoric.
Elsewhere, mainstream Republican candidates have pitched themselves to voters with Trump-style appeals. Over Super Bowl weekend, gubernatorial candidates in South Carolina and Tennessee aired “stand for the flag” ads, blasting football players who protested police brutality. “It’s too bad that the league doesn’t respect the patriotism of our national anthem,” said Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee in her ad.
If Trump represents anything new in Republican politics, it’s an aversion to the dog whistle and a preference for shouting his prejudice and making it a central part of his politics. While Trump lost some GOP elites with that approach, he captivated the vast majority of rank-and-file Republicans, who endorsed his bigotry with their votes. The candidates he inspired are hoping to replicate that result, betting they can overcome their more traditional opponents with appeals to anger and resentment. Whether they will ultimately succeed is anybody’s guess, but given the Republican unity behind Trump, it’s not a bad bet.
Att vara vänlig mot sina kollegor kan ha oanade effekter.
On Monday, Justice Samuel Alito rejected Pennsylvania Republicans’ last-ditch effort to preserve the partisan gerrymander of their state’s congressional map. The justice’s decision effectively ensures that Pennsylvania’s 2018 congressional elections will be held under a much fairer map, giving Democrats an opportunity to win several more seats in the state. In fact, the dissolution of Pennsylvania’s gerrymander gives Democrats a significantly better shot at winning control of the House of Representatives in November.
SCOTUS intervention in the Pennsylvania redistricting litigation was always unlikely. When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the current map on Jan. 22, it did so exclusively under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot overrule a state supreme court on a question of state law; it may only step in when a state law or court order violates the federal Constitution. Republican legislative leaders had argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision ran afoul of the federal Constitution’s Elections Clause, which allows state legislatures to prescribe “the times, places and manner of holding [congressional] elections.” Legislators asserted that their state Supreme Court had unlawfully stripped them of their constitutional prerogative to draw congressional maps.
But this argument is plainly untenable for two reasons. First, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2015 that the Elections Clause does not grant state legislatures exclusive redistricting power. Indeed, the court found that citizens could prohibit their state legislature from redistricting altogether and direct an independent commission to draw congressional maps instead. If a legislature can be deprived of all redistricting power, surely it can also be compelled to draw districts that comport with the state constitution.
Second, the GOP legislators’ position would bar courts from reviewing the legality of any congressional gerrymander. Under their argument, no court could strike down a gerrymander, partisan or otherwise, or draw remedial maps to remedy constitutional flaws. Courts are not legislatures, after all, so judges would have no authority to intercede in gerrymandering disputes. No justice, not even Clarence Thomas, has ever held that legislative redistricting is insulated from judicial review.
Alito’s dismissal of Pennsylvania Republicans’ appeal, then, was pretty much inevitable—although the justice appears to have given it more consideration than it deserved. (Alito reviews emergency appeals out of Pennsylvania; he dismissed this appeal without referring it to the full court, though he did order a response from voting rights advocates.) Monday’s decision was also excellent news for Democrats, who were hobbled by the GOP-drawn map. Registered Democrats significantly outnumber registered Republicans in Pennsylvania, yet Republicans won 13 out of 18 congressional districts in 2016. The Associated Press found that the gerrymander likely gave Republicans at least three extra House seats.
Monday’s dismissal is especially bad news for one Republican in particular: Pennsylvania Senate President pro tempore Joseph Scarnati. Last Wednesday, Scarnati declared that he would defy a Pennsylvania Supreme Court order requesting data to help it commission a nonpartisan map. The legislator insisted that SCOTUS would soon reverse the state Supreme Court. Now that it has refused to do so, Scarnati is out of options: He must turn over the data or risk being held in contempt of court. Pennsylvania’s midterm elections will be held in much fairer districts, whether Republicans like it or not.