Woohs Wuh Lax Pages

World s first self powered Q Beta Prototype with silicon crystal graphite…

2019-04-01T20:22:00.001-04:00

World s first self powered Q Beta Prototype with silicon crystal graphite ...how to build crystal power

https://www.bing.com/search?q=World+s+first+self+powered+Q+Beta+Prototype+with+silicon+crystal+graphite+...how+to+build+crystal+power&form=APIPA1&PC=APPD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30h6hrxACdA&feature=share

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzq_qWIhamQ

Hi - I'm reading "The Hidden History of the Human Race: The Condensed Edition of Forbidden Archeology" by Michael A. Cremo, Richard L. Thompson and wanted to share this quote with you.

"This pattern of data suppression has been going on for a long time. In 1880, J. D. Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. The implements, including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, in formations ranging from 9 million to over 55 million years old. W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal critics of the California finds, wrote: "Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated [that humans existed in very ancient times in North America], notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted." In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded."

Start reading it for free: http://amzn.eu/1EpjdYy

--------

Download Kindle for Android, iOS, PC, Mac and more

http://amzn.to/1WLoAkB

Quote from Eduard Punset:

"There is a tension between what is good for someone and what they want to do. This is because people, especially older people, like to do things as they've always done them. The problem is that when the brain develops ingrained habits, it doesn't need to think anymore. Things get done quickly and efficiently on automatic pilot, often in a very advantageous way. This creates a tendency to stick to routines, and the only way of breaking these is to confront the brain with new information. "

AW Lake / Wuh Lax : Will Ye No Come Back Again - Books as Old Friends

2019-03-30T12:04:00.001-04:00

http://woohs.blogspot.com/2008/03/will-ye-no-come-back-again-books-as-old.html

JAPANESE PROVERB

Only staying active will make you want to live a hundred years.

———————————

IKIGAI

Why do some people know what they want and have a passion for life, while others languish in confusion?

"At some point in our conversation, the mysterious word ikigai came up. This Japanese concept, which translates roughly as "the happiness of always being busy," is like logotherapy, but it goes a step beyond. It also seems to be one way of explaining the extraordinary longevity of the Japanese, especially on the island of Okinawa, where there are 24.55 people over the age of 100 for every 100,000 inhabitants—far more than the global average."

———————————
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Héctor García is a citizen of Japan, where he has lived for over a decade, and of Spain, where he was born. He is the author of several books about Japanese culture, including two worldwide bestsellers, A Geek in Japan and Ikigai. A former software engineer, he worked at CERN in Switzerland before moving to Japan.

Francesc Miralles is an award-winning and internationally bestselling author of books about how to live well, together with the novels Love in Small Letters and Wabi-Sabi. Alongside Héctor García, he was welcomed to Okinawa in Japan, where the inhabitants live for longer than in any other place in the world. There they had the chance to interview more than a hundred villagers about their philosophy for a long and happy life.

Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

2018-11-02T09:58:00.001-04:00

Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

"the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects (and) …are insufficient to protect public health"….

"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on
general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."

https://www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/

The EMF Call

Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)

ICNIRP's opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health

Download The EMF Call as pdf EN | FR | DE | ES | IT | RU | FI | SL | GR

In order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization and all governments not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines. They are not protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific pretext that they are "protective".

Background

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11^th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).¹These guidelines are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP guidelines.² The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment.

ICNIRP guidelines only protect against acute thermal effects from very short and intense exposure. The guidelines do not protect against harmful effects from low-intensity and long-term exposure, such as cancer, reproductive harm, or effects on the nervous system, although these effects are convincingly shown to appear from chronic exposure at intensities below ICNIRP limits.^2,3

In May, 2011, the World HealthOrganization's cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) concluded that radiofrequency radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz–300 GHz is a "possible" human carcinogen (Group 2B).⁴ ICNIRP ignores this importantconclusion. On the contrary, in the past seven years, the evidence base forcarcinogenicity has increased substantially.^2,3,5-10

244 scientists state that ICNIRP guidelines are not protective

The ICNIRPopinion is not in line with that of the scientific community that has published peer-reviewed research on EMF biologic or health effects. Since 2015, 244 scientists have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal¹¹ and are of the opinion that more protective EMF guidelines than ICNIRP's arenecessary to protect public health:

"the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects (and) …are insufficient to protect public health"….

ICNIRP's mandate needs to be questioned

ICNIRP's mandate to issue exposure guidelines needs to be seriously questioned. ICNIRP is not independent of industry ties as it claims.^12,13Its opinions are not objective, not representative of the body of scientific evidence, but are biased in favor of industry. It is obvious from their reluctance to consider scientific findings of harm that ICNIRP protects industry, not the public health, nor the environment.

ICNIRP's first chairman and other experts have or have had financial ties to the telecom, military and/or power industry.^12-15Their first chairman managed to head the WHO EMF project using WHO as an umbrella to promote ICNIRP guidelines as the world standard. That person was also responsible for channeling funding from the telecom industry to the WHO EMF project for several years.^13,14

New truly protective guidelines are needed

Weask the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and all governments to support the development and consideration of medical guidelines¹⁶,that are independent of conflict of interests in terms of direct or indirectties to industry, that represent the state of medical science, and that aretruly protective.

Date: October 30, 2018

Note: The signatories to this call have signed as individuals, but that does
not necessarily mean that this represents the views of their employers or the
professional organizations they are affiliated with.

Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D, Department ofOncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden (retired), The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro, Sweden

Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria

¹ https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/public-consultation/consultation-1.html

² https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118310157

³ www.bioinitiative.org

⁴ https://monographs.iarc.fr/iarc-monographs-on-the-evaluation-of-carcinogenic-risks-to-humans-14/

⁵ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2017/9218486/

⁶ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557

⁷ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf

⁸ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr596peerdraft.pdf

⁹ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118304973

¹⁰ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367

¹¹ https://emfscientist.org/

¹² https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.pdf

¹³ https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2017.4046

¹⁴https://microwavenews.com/CT.html

¹⁵ https://microwavenews.com/news-center/iarc-drops-anders-ahlbom-rf%E2%80%93cancer-panel

¹⁶ https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-3/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.pdf

Kwekwecnewtxw: Protect the Inlet – Four Sentenced to Jail and Taken Into Custody Today For Trans Mountain Pipeline Opposition

2018-10-31T00:58:00.001-04:00

Kwekwecnewtxw: Protect the Inlet – Four Sentenced to Jail and Taken Into Custody Today For Trans Mountain Pipeline Opposition

https://protecttheinlet.ca/october_30_four_women_jailed/?fbclid=IwAR1s-Y_lGAwFYI8TLWbz7jnL8I7Y4g25AIEAPSZS9SF0xuA2jt8AI7jP_ss

Four Sentenced to Jail and Taken Into Custody Today For Trans Mountain Pipeline Opposition

14-Day Jail Sentence begins today for women, while defense lawyer seeks bail

30 October 2018, Unceded Coast Salish Territories (Vancouver, BC): Four women were just sentenced to 14 days in jail and taken away by bailiffs after blocking construction at a Trans Mountain pipeline Burnaby construction site in August.

Kathryn Cass (66), Deb Wood (64), Kira McLean (24), and Brenda Morrice (57), pled guilty to criminal contempt on October 19th after being charged with violating a court-ordered injunction meant to protect construction on the pipeline and tanker project.

Defence lawyer Donna Turko is appealing all four sentences and will be working to have Protectors released on bail pending appeal. She is anticipating a possible bail hearing with the BC Court of Appeal as early as tomorrow morning.

On October 19th, the judge reserved sentencing until October 30th after a request from defense counsel for a written ruling in order to appeal any custodial sentence.

Despite the August 30th Federal Court of Appeal ruling that quashed the approval of and stopped construction on the federal pipeline project, Protectors who blocked Trans Mountain construction sites in late August are still subject to the Crown Prosecution Services recommendation of up to 28 days in jail to prevent more protest.

There are now 20 Protectors who have already served, or are serving, jail time for their opposition to the pipeline, including Order of Canada recipient and Vancouver councillor Jean Swanson. Since March, over 240 people have been arrested while blocking construction on the Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker project.

"On August 24th, I defied an injunction granted by the Canadian court while I was on unceded land belonging to Coast Salish Nations," said Kathryn Cass outside the BC Supreme Court on October 19th. "In my heart, I was following laws that have been in place long before my European ancestors occupied this land. It is my understanding that those laws include taking care of the health of our land and water."

From April until June, penalties for blockading Kinder Morgan's gates consisted of increasing fines and community service, until the Crown Prosecution Service petitioned the court for sentences of jail time to deter Protectors from taking action. The Crown Prosecutor Monte Rattan argued in June that senior citizens willing to be arrested for civil disobedience constituted a "sinister challenge to the authority of the court."

After the Federal Court of Appeal ruling on August 30th that quashed construction on the pipeline and tanker project, Protectors argued in court that the Crown's jail deterrent should no longer stand, as there is no longer any basis to re-offend. The court has rejected that argument, and continues to send Protectors to jail.

Apple iPad Pro Announcement 2018 Liveblog | WIRED

2018-10-30T09:52:00.001-04:00

Apple iPad Pro Announcement 2018 Liveblog | WIRED

https://www.wired.com/2018/10/liveblog-apple-october-event/?intcid=inline_amp

Apple Liveblog: Get Live Updates on New iPads and MacBooks

On Tuesday, October 30, Apple is expected to debut some new hardware. At the top of the list of anticipated announcements is a refresh of the iPad Pro. The powerful tablet, which comes in two sizes and is optimized for creative professionals, is likely to get an update that shrinks the bezels, adds USB-C charging, and introduces a new size Pro with an 11-inch display.

Also expected: a new ultraportable MacBook to take the place of the aging MacBook Air. Yeah, we've been saying that for a while, but recent reports are making it seem like this Goldilocks PC might be dropping this week.

Apple's live event starts at 10 am EDT. That's 7 am Pacific, which is blisteringly early for a big news event. But we have delicious coffee, so we'll be liveblogging all the action, posting live updates as the New York City event unfolds. Come back right here to this post to read our liveblog starting at 9:30 am EDT / 6:30 am PDT. We'll discuss the latest news leading up to the main event, so join us to get an early start. This page will switch to our liveblog once we begin.

You can watch live video of Apple's big show on the internet. Why do we publish a liveblog even though you can watch a video stream? Because we love liveblogs, that's why. You probably love liveblogs too. So join us here starting at (yawn) 6:30 am PDT, 9:30 am EDT. Apple's presentation then begins at 7 am PDT, 10 am EDT.

Apple Store Down Ahead of Today's Event in New York City - Mac Rumors

2018-10-30T09:47:00.001-04:00

Apple Store Down Ahead of Today's Event in New York City - Mac Rumors

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/30/apple-store-down-ahead-of-todays-ny-event/amp/

Apple Store Down Ahead of Today's Event in New York City

Tim Hardwick

Apple has taken down its online store ahead of today's event in New York, scheduled to begin 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, Howard Gilman Opera House.

Apple's October event will focus on products not introduced at the iPhone-centric event in September. On that occasion, Apple failed to take down its sitemap XML leading up to the event, resulting in a raft of major leaks ahead of the keynote. That's not the case this time around.

We're still awaiting multiple product refreshes before the end of 2018, including updates to several Mac models and the iPad Pro, which are likely to see a debut at the event.

2018 iPad Pro models are expected to adopt an iPhone X-style design with no Home button, slimmer bezels, and a TrueDepth camera system that will enable Face ID for biometric authentication. We could also see a redesigned Apple Pencil with new gesture and swipe features.

Along with new iPad Pro models, we're also expecting refreshes to the MacBook line. Refreshed 12-inch MacBooks are said to be in the works, and according to rumors, Apple has developed a low-cost notebook with a Retina display that could be positioned as an updated MacBook Air.

The Mac mini, which has not been updated for 1,475 days, is expected to be refreshed for the first time since 2014. We don't know a lot about what to expect for the Mac mini update, but upgraded internals and faster processors are certain.

Apple typically streams the event live on its website and on Apple TV, but for those who are unable to watch, MacRumors will be providing full event coverage both on MacRumors.com and through our MacRumorsLive Twitter account.

Readers who can't follow the event live and are interested in avoiding all of the announcements until Apple's posts the full video online can bookmark this page, where we'll post a spoiler-free link once it's up.

Venice under five feet of water as the city suffers its worst floods in 10 years - ITV News

2018-10-30T09:45:00.001-04:00

Venice under five feet of water as the city suffers its worst floods in 10 years - ITV News

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-10-30/venice-under-five-feet-of-water-as-the-city-suffers-its-worst-floods-in-10-years/

Venice under five feet of water as the city suffers its worst floods in 10 years

30 October 2018 at 9:30am

The Italian city of Venice was engulfed with water after high tides and strong winds caused the most severe flooding for a decade.

Tourists and residents donned high boots to navigate the streets of the lagoon city after water levels rose more than five feet.

The water exceeded the raised walkways normally put out in flooded areas of Venice.

https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/1676713/article_update_img.jpg

Tourists and residents donned high boots to navigate the streets. Credit: AP

The flooding prompted transport officials to close the city's water bus system, except to outlying islands.

The city, famous for its canals, gondolas and beautiful churches, is frequently overwhelmed by water in the period from October to December, but the recent flooding was particularly heavy.

The peak water level was the highest it has reached in the city since December 2008, officials said.

https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/1676699/article_update_img.jpg

People walk in a flooded St. Mark's Square in Venice, Italy. Credit: AP

The vast expanse of St Mark's Square was transformed into a lake, and raised walkways were laid out in front of the Doge's Palace and in other parts of the city.

Runners in Sunday's Venice Marathon also had to battle the flooding, but were undeterred as they splashed their way through ankle-deep water.

Conditions today in Venice Marathon pic.twitter.com/ut0cqViSdB
— Cuan Walker (@runwithcuan) October 28, 2018

Much of Italy is under alert for flooding from heavy rains, a problem exacerbated by a lack of maintenance of the country's many river beds.

High winds toppled trees and killed passers-by in four incidents in Naples, Lazio and Liguria.

https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/1676710/article_update_img.jpg

A woman attempts to remove water from her shop in the flooded streets of Venice. Credit: AP

Officials closed major tourist attractions early in Rome, including the Colosseum and Roman Forum, because of heavy rains.

The Interior Ministry urged officials in storm-struck regions, about half of the country, to consider closing schools and offices for a second day on Tuesday.

Last updated Tue 30 Oct 2018

IBM to buy Red Hat for $34B in cash and debt, taking a bigger leap into hybrid cloud | TechCrunch

2018-10-29T16:54:00.001-04:00

IBM to buy Red Hat for $34B in cash and debt, taking a bigger leap into hybrid cloud | TechCrunch

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/28/ibm-to-buy-red-hat-for-34b-in-cash-and-debt-taking-a-bigger-leap-into-hybrid-cloud/?utm_medium=TCnewsletter

IBM to buy Red Hat for $34B in cash and debt, taking a bigger leap into hybrid cloud

Oct 28 3:15p

After rumors flew around this weekend, IBM today confirmed that it would acquire open source, cloud software business Red Hat for $190 per share in cash, working out to a total value of $34 billion. IBM said the deal has already been approved by the boards of directors of both IBM and Red Hat but is still subject to Red Hat shareholder and regulatory approvals. If all goes as planned, the acquisition is expected to close in the latter half of 2019.

The deal is all about IBM, which has long continued to rely on its legacy server business, taking a bigger bet on the cloud, and very specifically cloud services that blend on-premises and cloud-based architectures — something that the two companies have already been working on together since May of this year (which now might be looked at as a test drive). Red Hat will be a distinct unit within IBM's Hybrid Cloud team — which is already a $19 billion business for IBM, the company said — and it will continue to focus on open-source software.

"The acquisition of Red Hat is a game-changer. It changes everything about the cloud market," said Ginni Rometty, IBM Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, in a statement. "IBM will become the world's number-one hybrid cloud provider, offering companies the only open cloud solution that will unlock the full value of the cloud for their businesses."

The combined businesses will be able to offer software in services spanning Linux, containers, Kubernetes, multi-cloud management, and cloud management and automation, IBM said. IBM also added that together the companies will continue to build partnerships with multiple cloud providers, including AWS, Microsoft's Azure, Google Cloud, Alibaba and others, alongside the IBM Cloud.

As Josh Constine notes here, it's one of the biggest-ever tech acquisitions, and arguably the biggest that is dedicated primarily to software. (Dell acquired EMC for $67 billion, to pick up software but also a substantial hardware and storage business.)

While companies like Amazon have gone all-in on cloud, in many cases, a lot of enterprises are making the move gradually — IBM cites stats that estimate that some 80 percent of business workloads "have yet to move to the cloud, held back by the proprietary nature of today's cloud market." Buying Red Hat will help IBM better tap into an opportunity to address that.

"Most companies today are only 20 percent along their cloud journey, renting compute power to cut costs," she continued. "The next 80 percent is about unlocking real business value and driving growth. This is the next chapter of the cloud. It requires shifting business applications to hybrid cloud, extracting more data and optimizing every part of the business, from supply chains to sales."

On top of that, it will give IBM a much stronger footing in open source software, the core of what Red Hat builds and deploys today.

"Open source is the default choice for modern IT solutions, and I'm incredibly proud of the role Red Hat has played in making that a reality in the enterprise," said Jim Whitehurst, President and CEO, Red Hat, in a statement. "Joining forces with IBM will provide us with a greater level of scale, resources and capabilities to accelerate the impact of open source as the basis for digital transformation and bring Red Hat to an even wider audience – all while preserving our unique culture and unwavering commitment to open source innovation."

While IBM competes against the likes of Amazon, the companies will see to remain partners with them with this acquisition. "IBM is committed to being an authentic multi-cloud provider, and we will prioritize the use of Red Hat technology across multiple clouds" said Arvind Krishna, Senior Vice President, IBM Hybrid Cloud, in a statement. "In doing so, IBM will support open source technology wherever it runs, allowing it to scale significantly within commercial settings around the world."

IBM said that Red Hat will add to its revenue growth, gross margin and free cash flow within 12 months of closing.

New Harvard theory: Aliens have star-powered spaceships | From the Grapevine

2018-05-03T12:01:00.001-04:00

New Harvard theory: Aliens have star-powered spaceships | From the Grapevine

https://www.fromthegrapevine.com/travel/harvard-university-theory-aliens-have-star-powered-spaceships

New Harvard theory: Aliens have star-powered spaceships

Scientists discovered a massive radio wave, and they can't find a good explanation for it. Unless ...

A couple of scientists from the well-respected Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics recently wrote an astrophysics paper that is so awesome, it will make you want to read an astrophysics paper. The scientists have been puzzling over some weirdly strong radio wave bursts in space, and they've come up with an explanation: aliens.

"An artificial origin is worth contemplating and checking," said Avi Loeb, an Israeli-American professor who worked on the study.

It all started when an astrophysicist was combing through the archives in Australia's Parkes Observatory, and he noticed a mysterious spurt of radio activity. It was short but intense. Really intense. Like, 500 million times the power of the sun intense.

Space is full of weird light, so that's no big deal, right? Wrong, apparently. Scientists have been trying to figure out what the burst could be for 10 years, and they still don't know. Some think it's a massive, particularly weird star that collapsed into its core. Or maybe it's a solar flare that somehow managed to travel across the known universe. Or ...

Yep. Aliens. At least, that's what the Harvard-Smithsonian scientists are proposing. You can start freaking out now.

Here's the theory: There's a faraway alien civilization that uses artificial beams to power spaceships with light sails. They harness energy from a star and cool their beam machine with planet-sized buckets of water.

Cool, right? We're not talking about boring, single-celled aliens here. We're talking about an advanced civilization, way more advanced than, you know, us. Our sail-related ships are limited to the kind that stay in water.

"Deciding what's likely ahead of time limits the possibilities," said Loeb, an alumnus of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "It's worth putting ideas out there and letting the data be the judge."

It's still a theory, but we at From the Grapevine are definitely rooting for it. Discovering alien life would mean a total change in how we view reality. Plus, we could do so much cool stuff with aliens. Like discover new things about the universe and have alien romances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmiZb3ndMCk

Korea.net : The official website of the Republic of Korea

2018-05-02T00:44:00.001-04:00

Korea.net : The official website of the Republic of Korea

http://www.korea.net/Government/Constitution-and-Government/Constitution

Featured Topics

The countryâ€™s Constitution was promulgated on July 17, 1948 after a month and half of work for its enactment. The government observes it as a national holiday. The first amendment to the Constitution was made in July 1952, while the 9th and last amendment was passed by referendum on October 27, 1987.

The countryâ€™s Constitution adopts liberal democracy as the basic principle of governance. The Constitution guarantees the peopleâ€™s freedom and rights under various laws. It also guarantees equal opportunities in all sectors, including politics, economy, society and culture, and recognizes the necessity of establishing a welfare state. The Constitution also stipulates that all people have the obligation to pay taxes, engage in national defense, educate their children, and work.

The Constitution states that the country should endeavor to maintain international peace. It stipulates that international treaties signed by the country and generally accepted international laws have the same effects as domestic laws. Under the Constitution, the status of aliens is guaranteed in accordance with international laws and treaties.

http://www.korea.net/Government/Constitution-and-Government/Constitution

URL Copy

Department Global Communication and Contents Division, Contact Us

Human Bone Reveals How Much Radiation Hiroshima Bomb Released — And It's Staggering

2018-05-01T22:52:00.001-04:00

Human Bone Reveals How Much Radiation Hiroshima Bomb Released — And It's Staggering

https://www.livescience.com/62445-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-radiation.html

Human Bone Reveals How Much Radiation Hiroshima Bomb Released — And It's Staggering

By Laura Geggel, Senior Writer | May 1, 2018 06:52am ET

This story was updated May 1 at 10:48 a.m. EDT.

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan, leading to a nuclear blast that instantly claimed about 45,000 lives. Now, the jawbone of one of those casualties — belonging to a person who was less than a mile from the bomb's hypocenter — is helping researchers determine how much radiation was absorbed by the bones of the victims, a new study finds.

The amount is staggering: Analyses show that the jawbone's radiation dose was about 9.46 grays (Gy). A Gy is the absorption of one joule of radiation energy per kilogram of matter, which in this case is bone. [5 Everyday Things That Are Radioactive]

"About half that dose, or 5 Gy, is fatal if the entire body is exposed to it," study co-researcher Oswaldo Baffa, a professor at the University of São Paulo's Ribeirão Preto School of Philosophy, Science & Letters, said in a statement.

Previous studies have measured other aspects of the bomb's catastrophic effects, including the radiation dose victims were exposed to from nuclear fallout (which is radioactive dust) and how the fallout affected human DNA and health, the researchers said.

However, this is the first study to use a victim's bone as a dosimeter — a tool that allows scientists to measure an absorbed dose of ionizing radiation, the researchers said. Moreover, the technique the scientists used — known as electron spin resonance (ESR) — is a precise method that can measure radiation dose in future nuclear events, the researchers said.

The victim's jaw was found about a mile (1.5 kilometers) from the atomic bomb hypocenter in Hiroshima, Japan.

Credit: Kinoshita et al./PLoS ONE/CC by 4.0

"Currently, there's renewed interest in this kind of methodology due to the risk of terrorist attacks in countries like the United States," Baffa said. Techniques such as this one "can help identify who has been exposed to radioactive fallout and needs treatment" in the event of a nuclear attack, he added.

Decades-long research

The new finding is decades in the making. In the 1970s, study senior researcher Sérgio Mascarenhas, who was then a physicist at the University of São Paulo's São Carlos Physics Institute, discovered that X-ray and gamma-ray irradiation made human bones slightly magnetic, according to the statement.

This phenomenon — called paramagnetism — happens because the bone contains a mineral called hydroxyapatite. When bone is irradiated, it produces CO2- that shows up in the hydroxyapatite. The resulting free radicals can then be used as a marker for radiation dose in bone.

At first, Mascarenhas thought he would use this technique to date ancient bones for archaeologists. His research was so widely lauded that Harvard University invited him to teach. On one trip from Brazil in 1972, Mascarenhas stopped in Japan so he could test the method on the remains of people from the Hiroshima blast.

"They gave me a jawbone, and I decided to measure the radiation right there, at Hiroshima University," Mascarenhas said in the statement. "I needed to prove experimentally that my discovery was genuine."

His analysis was rudimentary; the lack of advanced computers meant that the estimate couldn't separate the atomic-bomb-induced signal from the background signal. Even so,he presented the results at the American Physical Society's annual March Meeting in Washington, D.C., in 1973.

Mascarenhas was allowed to keep the jawbone and brought it back with him to Brazil.

New analysis

Thanks to new advances in technology, researchers are now able to separate the background signal from the radiation dose from the nuclear attack. [Doomsday: 9 Real Ways Earth Could End]

"The background signal is a broad line that may be produced by various different things and lacks a specific signature," Baffa said. "The dosimetric signal is spectral. Each free radical resonates at a certain point on the spectrum when exposed to a magnetic field."

When the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb, the weapon exploded about 1,900 feet (580 meters) above Hiroshima, Live Science previously reported. The person whose jaw the researchers examined was about 0.9 miles (1.5 kilometers) from the bomb's hypocenter, or the spot below the bomb's blast.

To study the bone, the researchers removed a small piece that was used in the previous study and then irradiated that piece in the lab, a process known as the additive dose method.

"We added radiation to the material and measured the rise in the dosimetric signal," Baffa said. By extrapolating from this signal, the researchers were able measure other samples, including different parts of the jawbone.

This technique allowed them to determine the radiation dose the bone received, which was similar to the dose distribution found in different materials around Hiroshima, including wall bricks and roof tiles, the researchers said.

"The measurement we obtained in this latest study is more reliable and up to date than the preliminary finding, but I'm currently evaluating a methodology that's about a thousand times more sensitive than" ESR, Mascarenhas said. "We'll have news in a few months."

The study was published online Feb. 6 in the journal PLOS ONE.

Editor's Note: This story was updated to correct the process that produces CO2- in irradiated bone. CO2- is not produced when CO2 loses electrons.

Original article on Live Science.

Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction - The New York Times

2018-05-01T09:09:00.001-04:00

Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/robert-mueller-questions-trump.html

Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction

April 30, 2018

Robert S. Mueller III is said to be trying to determine whether the president had criminal intent when he fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director.J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia's election interference, has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects he wants to ask President Trump to learn more about his ties to Russia and determine whether he obstructed the inquiry itself, according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times.

[Read the questions here.]

The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president's thinking, to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative Twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers. They deal chiefly with the president's high-profile firings of the F.B.I. director and his first national security adviser, his treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But they also touch on the president's businesses; any discussions with his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, about a Moscow real estate deal; whether the president knew of any attempt by Mr. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel to Russia during the transition; any contacts he had with Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser who claimed to have inside information about Democratic email hackings; and what happened during Mr. Trump's 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.

President Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday that it was "disgraceful" that questions the special counsel would like to ask him were publicly disclosed, and he incorrectly noted that there were no questions about collusion. The president also said collusion was a "phony" crime.

The questions provide the most detailed look yet inside Mr. Mueller's investigation, which has been shrouded in secrecy since he was appointed nearly a year ago. The majority relate to possible obstruction of justice, demonstrating how an investigation into Russia's election meddling grew to include an examination of the president's conduct in office. Among them are queries on any discussions Mr. Trump had about his attempts to fire Mr. Mueller himself and what the president knew about possible pardon offers to Mr. Flynn.

"What efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?" Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president's lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump's legal team.

A few questions reveal that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. In one of the more tantalizing inquiries, Mr. Mueller asks what Mr. Trump knew about campaign aides, including the former chairman Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from Moscow: "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" No such outreach has been revealed publicly.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel's office did not respond to a request for comment.

The questions serve as a reminder of the chaotic first 15 months of the Trump presidency and the transition and campaign before that. Mr. Mueller wanted to inquire about public threats the president made, conflicting statements from Mr. Trump and White House aides, the president's private admissions to Russian officials, a secret meeting at an island resort, WikiLeaks, salacious accusations and dramatic congressional testimony.

The special counsel also sought information from the president about his relationship with Russia. Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump whether he had any discussions during the campaign about any meetings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and whether he spoke to others about either American sanctions against Russia or meeting with Mr. Putin.

Through his questions, Mr. Mueller also tries to tease out Mr. Trump's views on law enforcement officials and whether he sees them as independent investigators or people who should loyally protect him.

For example, when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was fired, the White House said he broke with Justice Department policy and spoke publicly about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's email server. Mr. Mueller's questions put that statement to the test. He wants to ask why, time and again, Mr. Trump expressed no concerns with whether Mr. Comey had abided by policy. Rather, in statements in private and on national television, Mr. Trump suggested that Mr. Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation.

Many of the questions surround Mr. Trump's relationship with Mr. Sessions, including the attorney general's decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and whether Mr. Trump told Mr. Sessions he needed him in place for protection.

Mr. Mueller appears to be investigating how Mr. Trump took steps last year to fire Mr. Mueller himself. The president relented after the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, threatened to resign, an episode that the special counsel wants to ask about.

"What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel in June of 2017?" Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to the list of questions. "What did you think and do in reaction to Jan. 25, 2018, story about the termination of the special counsel and Don McGahn backing you off the termination?" he planned to ask, referring to the Times article that broke the news of the confrontation.

Mr. Mueller has sought for months to question the president, who has in turn expressed a desire, at times, to be interviewed, viewing it as an avenue to end the inquiry more quickly. His lawyers have been negotiating terms of an interview out of concern that their client — whose exaggerations, half-truths and outright falsehoods are well documented — could provide false statements or easily become distracted. Four people, including Mr. Flynn, have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry.

The list of questions grew out of those negotiations. In January, Mr. Trump's lawyers gave Mr. Mueller several pages of written explanations about the president's role in the matters the special counsel is investigating. Concerned about putting the president in legal jeopardy, his lead lawyer, John Dowd, was trying to convince Mr. Mueller he did not need to interview Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Mueller was apparently unsatisfied. He told Mr. Dowd in early March that he needed to question the president directly to determine whether he had criminal intent when he fired Mr. Comey, the people said.

But Mr. Dowd held firm, and investigators for Mr. Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr. Dowd the questions they wanted to ask Mr. Trump.

When Mr. Mueller's team relayed the questions, their tone and detailed nature cemented Mr. Dowd's view that the president should not sit for an interview. Despite Mr. Dowd's misgivings, Mr. Trump remained firm in his insistence that he meet with Mr. Mueller. About a week and a half after receiving the questions, Mr. Dowd resigned, concluding that his client was ignoring his advice.

Mr. Trump's new lawyer in the investigation and his longtime confidant, Rudolph W. Giuliani, met with Mr. Mueller last week and said he was trying to determine whether the special counsel and his staff were going to be "truly objective."

Mr. Mueller's endgame remains a mystery, even if he determines the president broke the law. A longstanding Justice Department legal finding says presidents cannot be charged with a crime while they are in office. The special counsel told Mr. Dowd in March that though the president's conduct is under scrutiny, he is not a target of the investigation, meaning Mr. Mueller does not expect to charge him.

The prospect of pardons is also among Mr. Mueller's inquiries, and whether Mr. Trump offered them to a pair of former top aides to influence their decisions about whether to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.

Mr. Dowd broached the idea with lawyers for both of the advisers, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Manafort has pleaded not guilty on charges of money laundering and other financial crimes related to his work for the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.

Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who was ousted from the White House in February 2017 amid revelations about contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States, ultimately pleaded guilty last December to lying to federal authorities and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel.

"After General Flynn resigned, what calls or efforts were made by people associated with you to reach out to General Flynn or to discuss Flynn seeking immunity or possible pardon?" Mr. Mueller planned to ask.

A version of this article appears in print on May 1, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Questions for President Show Depth of Inquiry Into Russian Meddling. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

What Mueller Wants to Ask Trump About Obstruction, and What It Means - The New York Times

2018-05-01T09:05:00.001-04:00

What Mueller Wants to Ask Trump About Obstruction, and What It Means - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/questions-mueller-wants-to-ask-trump-russia.html

What Mueller Wants to Ask Trump About Obstruction, and What It Means

The questions show the special counsel's focus on obstruction of justice and touch on some surprising other areas.

April 30, 2018

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel.Doug Mills/The New York Times

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, recently provided President Trump's lawyers a list of questions he wants answered in an interview. The New York Times obtained the list; here are the questions, along with the context and significance of each. The questions fall into categories based on four broad subjects. They are not quoted verbatim, and some were condensed.

[Read our main story on the questions for Mr. Trump here.]

Questions related to Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser

Michael T. Flynn in December 2017.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America

• What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?

These questions revolve around whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct justice to protect Mr. Flynn from prosecution. His phone calls with Mr. Kislyak are at the heart of that inquiry.

During the calls, Mr. Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to sanctions just announced by the Obama administration. But Mr. Trump's aides publicly denied that sanctions were discussed and, when questioned by the F.B.I., Mr. Flynn denied it, as well. Mr. Mueller wants to know whether Mr. Flynn was operating on Mr. Trump's behalf. Prosecutors may already know the answer: Mr. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying and is cooperating with investigators.

• What was your reaction to news reports on Jan. 12, 2017, and Feb. 8-9, 2017?

In January, the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius revealed Mr. Flynn's phone calls with Mr. Kislyak. Mr. Ignatius questioned whether those conversations had violated a law prohibiting private citizens from attempting to undermine American policies. In February, The Washington Post revealed the true nature of Mr. Flynn's conversations with Mr. Kislyak.

Mr. Mueller wants to know, among other things, whether Mr. Trump feared that his national security adviser had broken the law and then tried to shield him from consequences.

• What did you know about Sally Yates's meetings about Mr. Flynn?

Ms. Yates, the acting attorney general for the first weeks of the Trump administration, twice warned the White House that Mr. Flynn was lying, and those lies made him vulnerable to Russian blackmail. No one from the White House has ever said how much Mr. Trump knew about those warnings.

• How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?

Eighteen days after Ms. Yates's warning, Mr. Flynn was asked to resign. The White House said that Mr. Trump lost confidence in Mr. Flynn because he had lied. But the White House has never fully explained why, after learning about the lie, officials waited so long to act.

• After the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?

The Times recently revealed that, when Mr. Flynn began considering cooperating with the F.B.I., Mr. Trump's lawyers floated the idea of a pardon. Mr. Mueller wants to know why.

Questions related to James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director

Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

• What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?

The questions about Mr. Comey relate to whether Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last year to shield Mr. Flynn, or anyone else, from prosecution. Mr. Trump has denied that, saying he fired Mr. Comey because of his mishandling of the F.B.I.'s investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

This question is important because, if Mr. Trump truly was upset about the Clinton investigation, he would have shown an early distaste for Mr. Comey.

• What did you think about Mr. Comey's intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?

The briefing revealed that American intelligence agencies had concluded that Russian operatives meddled in the election to hurt Mrs. Clinton and to boost Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on these conclusions and said he believes the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, who denies any interference.

• What was your reaction to Mr. Comey's briefing that day about other intelligence matters?

This question addresses documents written by a retired British spy, Christopher Steele, who said that Russia had gathered compromising information on Mr. Trump. The documents, which became known as the Steele Dossier, also claim that the Trump campaign had ties to the Russian government. Mr. Comey privately briefed Mr. Trump about these documents.

• What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

A few weeks after his briefing, Mr. Comey was called to the White House for a private dinner. Mr. Comey's notes say that Mr. Trump raised concerns about the Steele Dossier and said he needed loyalty from his F.B.I. director. This question touches on Mr. Trump's true motivation for firing Mr. Comey: Was he dismissed because he was not loyal and would not shut down an F.B.I. investigation?

• What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

That was a key moment. Mr. Comey testified that the president told him, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go." Mr. Trump has denied this.

• What did you know about the F.B.I.'s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey's testimony on March 20, 2017?

Mr. Comey's testimony publicly confirmed that the F.B.I. was investigating members of the Trump campaign for possible coordination with Russia. Mr. Mueller wants to know what role that revelation played in Mr. Comey's firing.

• What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony? Describe your contacts with intelligence officials.

In the aftermath, The Post reported, Mr. Trump asked the United States' top intelligence official, Daniel Coats, to pressure Mr. Comey to back off his investigation. Mr. Mueller wants to ask Mr. Trump about his contacts with Mr. Coats as well as the C.I.A.'s director at the time, Mike Pompeo, and the National Security Agency's director, Michael S. Rogers. The conversations could reflect Mr. Trump's growing frustration with Mr. Comey — not about the Clinton case, but about his refusal to shut down the Russia inquiry.

• What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?

It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something specific about Mr. Trump's reaction to these interviews, but the question shows that Mr. Mueller is keenly interested in how Mr. Trump responded to each step of his investigation.

• What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?

Mr. Comey said that Mr. Trump called twice to ask him to say publicly that he was not under F.B.I. investigation. In the second call, Mr. Comey said, the president added: "I have been very loyal to you, very loyal. We had that thing, you know."

• What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo?

While the White House ultimately said Mr. Comey was fired for breaking with Justice Department policy and discussing the Clinton investigation, Mr. Trump expressed no such qualms in an interview with Ms. Bartiromo of Fox Business Network. "Director Comey was very, very good to Hillary Clinton, that I can tell you," he said. "If he weren't, she would be, right now, going to trial."

• What did you think and do about Mr. Comey's May 3, 2017, testimony?

In this Senate appearance, Mr. Comey described his handling of the Clinton investigation in detail. Mr. Comey was fired soon after. Mr. Mueller's question suggests he wants to know why Mr. Trump soured.

• Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role?

Over the past several months, Mr. Mueller has asked White House officials for the back story, and whether the public justification was accurate. He will be able to compare Mr. Trump's answers to what he has learned elsewhere.

• What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?

The day after Mr. Comey's firing, Mr. Trump met with Russian officials in the Oval Office. There, The Times revealed, Mr. Trump suggested he had fired Mr. Comey because of the pressure from the Russia investigation.

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Mr. Trump said. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

• What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?

Shortly after firing Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump undercut his own argument when he told NBC News that he had been thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Mr. Comey.

"I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."

• What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet?

After The Times revealed the president's private dinner with Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter.

Mr. Comey appeared unworried. "Lordy, I hope there are tapes," Mr. Comey said. The White House ultimately said that, no, there were no tapes.

• What did you think about Mr. Comey's June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?

After he was fired, Mr. Comey testified about his conversations with Mr. Trump and described him as preoccupied with the F.B.I.'s investigation into Russia. After the testimony, Mr. Trump called him a liar.

• What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Comey had testified falsely to Congress and suggested that the Justice Department might investigate. Mr. Trump followed up with tweets suggesting that he should be investigated for rigging an inquiry into Mrs. Clinton. Such comments reinforced criticism that Mr. Trump views the Justice Department as a sword to use against his political rivals.

• What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?

Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe are among Mr. Trump's favorite targets. Mr. McCabe is a lifelong Republican, but Mr. Trump has criticized him as a Clinton loyalist because Mr. McCabe's wife, a Democrat, ran unsuccessfully for office in Virginia and received donations from a Clinton ally. This question suggests that Mr. Mueller wants to know whether Mr. Trump's criticism is an effort to damage the F.B.I. while it investigates the president's associates.

Questions related to Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April in Washington.Lawrence Jackson for The New York Times

• What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?

Mr. Trump has criticized Mr. Sessions's recusal from the Russia investigation. The Times reported that Mr. Trump humiliated him in an Oval Office meeting and accused him of being disloyal. Mr. Sessions ultimately submitted his resignation, though Mr. Trump did not accept it. Along with the next two questions, this inquiry looks at whether Mr. Trump views law enforcement officials as protectors.

• What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?

The Times has reported that Mr. Trump told his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, to stop Mr. Sessions from recusing himself. Mr. McGahn was unsuccessful, and Mr. Trump erupted, saying he needed an attorney general who would protect him.

• Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?

Mr. Trump has spoken affectionately about past attorneys general who he said were loyal to their presidents. He cited Robert F. Kennedy and Eric H. Holder Jr. as examples. "Holder protected the president," he said in a Times interview in December. "And I have great respect for that."

• What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?

In a twist, Mr. Mueller's very appointment has become part of his investigation. Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced the inquiry as a "witch hunt." Mr. Trump blames the appointment on Mr. Sessions's recusal.

• Why did you hold Mr. Sessions's resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?

Mr. Trump rejected Mr. Sessions's resignation after aides argued that it would only create more problems. The details of those discussions remain unclear, but Mr. Trump's advisers have already given Mr. Mueller their accounts of the conversations.

• What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation? With whom did you discuss it?

Mr. Priebus, who was Mr. Trump's chief of staff, has said he raced out of the White House after Mr. Sessions and implored him not to resign. Mr. Mueller has interviewed Mr. Priebus and would be able to compare his answers with those of Mr. Trump.

• What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?

Again, Mr. Mueller's investigation intersects with its own existence. The Times reported that, in June 2017, Mr. Trump ordered Mr. McGahn to fire Mr. Mueller. Mr. McGahn refused. Though Mr. Trump's own advisers informed Mr. Mueller about that effort, Mr. Trump denied it: "Fake news," he said. "A typical New York Times fake story."

• What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?

Mr. Trump unleashed a series of attacks on Mr. Sessions in July.

Campaign Coordination With Russia

Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016.Leah Millis/Reuters

• When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?

This and other questions relate to a June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who offered political dirt about Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., arranged the meeting. He said he did not tell his father about it when it happened.

• What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.'s emails?

When The Times found out about the meeting, Mr. Trump helped draft a misleading statement in his son's name, omitting the true purpose of the meeting. After The Times obtained the younger Mr. Trump's emails, he published them on Twitter.

• During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?

The Trump Tower meeting was arranged through the Russian singer Emin Agalarov, his billionaire father, Aras Agalarov, and a music promoter. Mr. Mueller is scrutinizing the nature of connections between the Agalarovs, Mr. Trump and Russian officials.

• What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?

Mr. Mueller is referring to a failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Mr. Sater, a business associate, proposed the idea to Mr. Cohen, the longtime personal lawyer to Mr. Trump. Emails show that Mr. Sater believed that the project would showcase Mr. Trump's deal-making acumen and propel him into the presidency.

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?

Journalists and lawmakers have uncovered several examples of Russian officials trying, through intermediaries, to arrange a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin. Senior campaign officials rejected some overtures, but Mr. Trump's involvement has been a mystery.

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?

Even as the Obama administration stepped up sanctions on Russia, Mr. Trump struck a laudatory tone toward Mr. Putin.

• What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?

A portion of the Republican platform was changed in a way more favorable to Russia.

• During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?

This is a key question. Mr. Trump praised the release of hacked Democratic emails and called on Russia to find others. Mr. Mueller's investigation has unearthed evidence that at least one member of Mr. Trump's campaign — George Papadopoulos — was told that Russia had obtained compromising emails about Mrs. Clinton. But Mr. Trump has repeatedly said there was "no collusion" with the Russian government.

• What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

This is one of the most intriguing questions on the list. It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something new, but there is no publicly available information linking Mr. Manafort, the former campaign chairman, to such outreach. So his inclusion here is significant. Mr. Manafort's longtime colleague, Rick Gates, is cooperating with Mr. Mueller.

• What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?

Mr. Stone, a longtime adviser, claimed to have inside information from WikiLeaks, which published hacked Democratic emails. He appeared to predict future releases, and was in touch with a Twitter account used by Russian intelligence. This question, along with the next two, show that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible campaign cooperation with Russia.

• What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner's efforts?

Mr. Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law, has testified that the Russian ambassador proposed getting Mr. Flynn in contact with Russian officials to discuss Syria. In response, Mr. Kushner said, he proposed using secure phones inside the Russian Embassy — a highly unusual suggestion that was not accepted.

• What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?

The meeting was convened by Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates. It brought Mr. Prince, an informal adviser to Mr. Trump's team, together with a Russian investor close to Mr. Putin.

• What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

Mr. Cohen, the lawyer, hand-delivered to the White House a peace proposal for Ukraine and Russia. This unusual bit of backdoor diplomacy is of interest because it involved a Ukrainian lawmaker who said he was being encouraged by Mr. Putin's aides. Mr. Cohen has said he did not discuss the proposal with Mr. Trump.

Matt Apuzzo is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter based in Washington. He has covered law enforcement and security matters for more than a decade and is the co-author of the book "Enemies Within."

@mattapuzzo

Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent for The Times who covers national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues and the other for coverage of President Donald Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia.@NYTMike

Pakistani origin Sajid Javid appointed UK's first Muslim Home Secretary | World | thenews.com.pk |

2018-04-30T17:01:00.001-04:00

Pakistani origin Sajid Javid appointed UK's first Muslim Home Secretary | World | thenews.com.pk |

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/311023-pakistani-origin-sajid-javid-appointed-uks-first-muslim-home-secretary

Pakistani origin Sajid Javid appointed UK's first Muslim Home Secretary

British Pakistan politician Sajid Javid has been appointed Home Secretary of the United Kingdom hours after Amber Rudd resigned amid countrywide outrage over the Windrush scandal.

Born in 1969, Sajid Javid is a British Conservative Party politician and former managing director at Deutsche Bank.

He was born in Rochdale, Lancashire, one of five sons of parents of Pakistani descent.

His father was a bus driver.

Amber Rudd was under growing pressure after a challenge to her testimony on the deportation of immigrants prompted fresh calls for her resignation.

She has faced criticism over the existence of Home Office removals targets and her knowledge of them. The pressure on Rudd to stand down increased after she said the government didn't have targets for deporting people — only for a memo to emerge mentioning specific targets for enforced removals.

The resignation came hours after Rudd said she would stay in her job to ensure Britain's immigration policy is "humane." But opposition politicians had demanded that she should resign over the Windrush scandal.

The Guardian newspaper reported a letter from Rudd to Prime Minister Theresa May last year in which she stated an "ambitious but deliverable" aim for an increase in the enforced deportation of immigrants.

AFP/WEB Desk

Pope Benedict XVI’s Theology of Beauty and the New Evangelization - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

2018-04-30T16:36:00.001-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI's Theology of Beauty and the New Evangelization - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

https://www.hprweb.com/2015/01/pope-benedict-xvis-theology-of-beauty-and-the-new-evangelization/

Pope Benedict XVI's Theology of Beauty and the New Evangelization

Dr. Matthew J. Ramage, PhD

Pope Benedict XVI's allegory on faith and the search for truth, using the image of cathedral windows.

"I have often affirmed my conviction that the true apology of Christian faith, the most convincing demonstration of its truth…are the saints and the beauty that the faith has generated."¹ Throughout his career, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has, time and again, emphasized that the via pulchritudinis, the way of beauty, constitutes a privileged path by which to advance the New Evangelization. In a de-Christianized society that is often hostile to the Church's truth claims and moral norms, Benedict believes that recourse to the universal language of beauty is indispensable if today's evangelist is to compellingly present the Gospel to would-be believers. In this brief reflection, we will explore the concept of beauty in Benedict's theology and suggest areas in which it might be fruitfully applied by the Church today in her ministry of evangelization.

The nature of beauty and its power to convert

It is commonly said that "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder." There is certainly some truth to this saying. When it comes to some matters (say, whether you like a particular song or movie), there is considerable room for debate among people of good will as to whether a given work of art should be called "beautiful." Yet, to relegate beauty solely to the realm of the subjective gives rise to grave problems when pushed to its logical conclusion. This can be seen by the fact that there exist certain realities that any sane person would recognize as not beautiful. For an extremely obvious example, take the carnage of Auschwitz—not the acts of heroism by those imprisoned, but the brutal acts of aggression perpetrated upon them. If one is to call that beautiful, then one has clearly emptied the word "beauty" of all meaning.

So what is beauty? As we will discover below, Pope Benedict provides us with something different from a textbook definition of beauty. But for now, a good starting point is St. Thomas Aquinas whose thought mirrors a large part of the reflection on the subject. Within this tradition, beauty is described as having three hallmarks: integrity, proportion, and clarity, or luminosity. A piece of art possesses integrity when it is whole (a painting is not ripped in half); proportion occurs when a thing's various parts are all in proper relation with one another (the painting has not been drawn with twig-like limbs); clarity is that "shine" that allows for the self-revelation of the beautiful (a painting could possess integrity and proportion but lack adequate light).

For his part, Benedict draws on Plato to give us more of a phenomenological account describing the experience of beauty, rather than seeking to define its precise nature. He teaches us that the dominant effect of beauty is to give us a healthy "shock" that draws us out of ourselves, and the rut in which we sometimes find ourselves entrenched throughout our daily routine. Beauty gives us wings, lifting us up so that we may soar to the transcendent and rise to greatness. It "disturbs" us and even causes us suffering.² Writing in a similar vein, Fr. Jacques Philippe reminds us that the Greek patristic tradition connected the beautiful, kalos, with the verb kalein, which means to call or summon. For Church Fathers like Dionysius the Areopagite, beauty thus beckons us to truth, to goodness, and to unity.³ C.S. Lewis, to whom Pope Benedict himself refers in this connection, gets to the heart of the matter when he says that created beauty provokes in us a longing to be united with, to receive into ourselves, and to enter into that infinite Beauty of which all created beauty is but a reflection.⁴ One of Benedict's favorite illustrations of this point can be seen in the medieval cathedral and its power to draw one toward the infinite. Upon crossing the threshold of God's house, one enters a space and time set apart from ordinary life. The upward thrust of the Gothic cathedral's walls is an invitation to prayer, intended to express in its architectural lines the soul's longing for God, while its stained-glass windows flood the building with the light of God.⁵

The universal language of beauty

In his lifelong process of meditating on beauty, Benedict has repeatedly touched on the various arts of painting, iconography, architecture, sculpture, music, film, and literature as vehicles for communicating the message of the Gospel. He tells us that these artistic forms speak a universal language, a language of parables. This is a language uniquely capable of speaking to those who seek God but who initially may not be open to hearing the Gospel message more directly. This is by no means to say that dogma is irrelevant. It simply means that for some people the path leading to the fullness of truth might first be entered through the door of an experience of beauty.⁶

Why this is the case can be readily understood upon a moment's reflection. How many times in our lives have we found our attempts to engage people on a moral or dogmatic issue stymied before the discussion even got off the ground? For many of us, this has also been our experience when attempting a dialogue with fellow Catholics on such issues. If it is a matter of politics, morals, or religion, we are told we should not impose our views on other people.

With this situation in mind, now consider a different scenario. Over the years, how many amicable conversations have you had with people about movies? When it comes to my experience in classroom teaching and parish evangelization, people who would otherwise be reluctant to discuss a moral issue with me are much more open to doing so when it emerges from a discussion of a film that broached the topic. Most recently, I have been showing people The Livesof Others," a German film that marvelously illustrates the power of beauty to convert souls. A benefit of the work is that it is not even implicitly Christian. The important line at a key point in the movie comes when one of its grieving characters plays a sonata and then asks: "Can anyone who has heard this music, I mean truly heard it, really be a bad person?" In the following scenes, the audience watches as the effects of this music are played out in the life of the film's protagonist. I use this scene as a way to raise the question of whether there is such a thing as objectively good or bad music—and, more importantly, whether one can say there are objectively good and bad things. One of my main goals in doing this is to challenge the widespread assumption that certain things "may not be good for me, but I can't say they are bad for someone else."

While my above comments focused on film, Benedict XVI also spends considerable time reflecting on images as outstanding means for communicating the Gospel. His comments introducing the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church are especially illuminating. The section of the work dedicated to artistic images is dear to Benedict because he sees in great art an antidote to what he calls today's "culture of images." Especially for young people who become estranged from the faith, Benedict tells us that "a sacred image can express much more than what can be said in words, and be an extremely effective and dynamic way of communicating the Gospel message."⁷ When teaching morality, I myself make abundant use of images like Caravaggio's "Calling of St. Matthew" to reflect upon our vocation to holiness, and how Christ wishes to "re-create" us through the gift of his grace. I also catechize my students through outstanding frescos by Raphael, medieval stained-glass windows, and renaissance sculpture. People today relate well to images, and it is relatively easy to comb the tradition and find compelling art to meet them where they are, and balance their daily aesthetic experience with a sacred, or at least wholesome, perspective. To paraphrase the great author, Flannery O'Connor, this art does not even have to be Christian, but it does have to be good art. Mediocre Christian art is not what Benedict has in mind in claiming that beauty has the power to convert souls.

The same principles apply to music. I often have my students listen to two different pieces, one after another, for example ACDC's "Highway to Hell" followed by the theme to the film, "Jurassic Park." Again, neither of these is even Christian, but the key is that a reaction is elicited in everyone who hears these two very different pieces. It is fascinating to ask people what happens in their souls when hearing each of them. The majestic orchestral piece by John Williams draws us out of ourselves, giving us a sense of awe, reverence, even nostalgia. It puts us in touch with our humanity, and makes us ponder higher things. Heavy metal music, on the other hand, hardly inspires an impulse for contemplation or charity. In Benedict's own words, rock music "is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship."⁸ While Benedict's analysis may not cause us to give up all our rock music, it does provide us important food for thought, helping us to reflect upon why we listen to our music, and what we can do to better immerse ourselves in an aesthetic environment that will lift us up, rather than imprison us in a perpetual cycle of self-gratification.

In a couple of places, Benedict gives us an autobiographical glimpse into how the beauty of music bolsters his faith. One time after attending a Bach concert with a Lutheran bishop, the two spontaneously looked at each other and said, "Anyone who has heard this, knows that the faith is true." Benedict later reflected on the experience, saying: "The music had such an extraordinary force of reality that we realized, no longer by deduction, but by the impact on our hearts, that it could not have originated from nothingness, but could only have come to be through the power of the Truth that became real in the composer's inspiration."⁹

Benedict's account raises an important pastoral question that we need to ask ourselves: what are we doing concretely in our own parishes, schools, and dioceses to provide the faithful with opportunities to encounter the beautiful? How often do Catholics come out of Mass remarking how their experience put them in touch with the transcendent? For how many Catholics is their liturgical experience more moving than that of watching a movie or hearing secular music? When we think about this, it is no wonder why so many people find the Church unattractive. This is not to say that the Mass should be all about entertaining people, but let's face it: solemnity matters, and our experiences matter. The Church was once the greatest patron of the arts, and people flocked to her great cathedrals, not only to meet God, but also to be moved and inspired by man's artistic genius put at the service of God. Within our present culture, film has been termed the "new cathedral of the masses." So we must ask ourselves what we are doing in the Church to attract people in the absence of the cultural forces that once caused people to enter her sacred doors.

For its part, the Pontifical Council for Culture recommends that we consider three areas in which to promote beauty. First of all, it discusses beauty in creation. Think of John Paul II leading his students on outdoor hikes, catechizing them, celebrating Mass, and simply getting to know them as people. The council also discusses beauty in the arts. As I've been discussing, this involves such things as offering beautiful liturgies, and forming the faithful to appreciate great art. Finally, there is the beauty that comes through an encounter with Christ himself. We meet Christ especially in his word, in the liturgy, and in the saints. These are merely a few indications of areas in which to foster encounters with the beautiful in our Church today. Ultimately, each pastor and evangelist must prayerfully consider these principles in light of his community's concrete circumstances.¹⁰

Spiritual beauty

Pope Benedict's theology of beauty concerns not merely the arts, but even more importantly such matters as the liturgy, and our friendship with Christ, and the lives of the saints. Indeed, after praising the evangelizing role of beauty in the arts, the emeritus pontiff adds:

Yet, the beauty of Christian life is even more effective than art and imagery in the communication of the Gospel message. In the end, love alone is worthy of faith, and proves credible. The lives of the saints and martyrs demonstrate a singular beauty which fascinates and attracts, because a Christian life lived in fullness speaks without words. We need men and women whose lives are eloquent, and who know how to proclaim the Gospel with clarity and courage, with transparency of action, and with the joyful passion of charity.¹¹

In connecting the lives of the saints with beauty as the primary apologia for the Christian faith, Benedict echoes the understanding of beauty that we find in St. Thomas Aquinas. The Angelic Doctor applies the three properties of beauty—integrity, proportion, and clarity—to the spiritual realm: "Spiritual beauty consists in a man's conduct or actions being well proportioned in respect of the spiritual clarity of reason."¹² For St. Thomas, this all-important beauty lies precisely in the life of virtue. To live virtuously is to live a life of balance, to live in the clarity of right reason integrated into all our actions. To use Benedict's phrasing, these character traits form the "mosaic of holiness" by which the Christian disciple shines the light of Christ upon the world around him.

If we are striving to live the Gospel generously, the above qualities will shine through without a contrived effort on our part to put on a show and "attract" others by our Christian joy. That said, beginning in his very first papal homily, Pope Benedict emphasized the need for consciously making the effort to speak to others of our friendship with Jesus, a task he described in terms of beauty: "There is nothing more beautiful than to know him, and to speak to others of our friendship with him."¹³ At the conclusion of this same text, Benedict advanced a point which reflects a recurring theme in his thought: we evangelists need to share with people the good news that our friendship with Jesus does not hold us back from fulfilling our deepest desires. On the contrary, believe it or not, living a life in conformity with the demands of the Gospel actually makes us happy! As Benedict puts it, it is only in this friendship that we experience beauty and liberation.

In his first encyclical, co-authored with Benedict, the current Roman pontiff has emphasized this point, writing that "the light of faith is linked to concrete life-stories."¹⁴ An implication of this is that Christian disciples ought to cultivate a biblical memory of God's saving deeds in our own lives, letting this serve as a topic in our fraternal dialogue with those whom we wish to evangelize. In his critically important apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis has offered a brief roadmap of how to do this within an evangelizing conversation. We ought first and foremost to listen to those whom we wish to evangelize, and then share a story, a biblical text, or some other insight when we discern it to be appropriate. But for Francis, the emphasis must always remain upon what is essential and most beautiful by "always keeping in mind the fundamental message: the personal love of God who became man, who gave himself up for us, who is living, and who offers us his salvation and his friendship."¹⁵

Beauty and the liturgy

Benedict's theology of beauty has great ramifications for liturgy in the Church today. For example, we need to ask ourselves: do our sacred buildings and sacred art lift our spirits out of the ordinary and toward God, or do they let us remain in the comfort of the secular world around us? Note that this is not to say we need to replace all our churches with Gothic structures, and replace all contemporary music with Gregorian chant. We can only work with what God gives us, and we must always take care to properly catechize the faithful when making liturgical changes in the parish. That said, certainly all of our communities could stand to reflect more deeply on what we are doing to make the liturgy, and our faith life, something that draws us out of ourselves into an encounter with the transcendent.

In his writings on the liturgy and iconography, one can see that Pope Benedict's theology of beauty is hardly one of an aestheticism concerned with the technical perfection of art to the neglect of charity. In our desire to beautify our churches, we must not forget the need to meet the ordinary believer where he is. Though no one is a greater lover of liturgy, Benedict reminds us that it is easy to get caught up in an "elitist ghetto," neglecting the pedagogical art by which we must gradually introduce ordinary believers to the great riches of the Church's liturgical and artistic patrimony.¹⁶ The practical import of this point is critical for those of us who love beautiful liturgy, and traditional liturgy in particular. Liturgical solemnity attracts and delights us, but how easy it is to become so engrossed in achieving technical perfection that we forget how to relate to people, and sometimes even lose our original love that was the driving force for that very perfection!¹⁷

At the same time, it is worth mentioning an opposing temptation Catholic leaders often face: the temptation to write off the importance of making our liturgies beautiful since, after all, the sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato regardless of how well our choir sings, or the Church is decorated. Yet, to this excuse, Benedict replies that beauty in the liturgy "is not mere decoration, but rather an essential element of the liturgical action, since it is an attribute of God himself."¹⁸ Accordingly, our love for the liturgy, and its profound connection with beauty "should make us attentive to every work of art placed at the service of the celebration."¹⁹ While it is true that God's power is made perfect in weakness, and that we are all pressed for time these days, this is no excuse for lack of care and preparation for our liturgies. It is important to remember that most practicing Catholics encounter the Church only for that one hour a week precisely in the liturgy. This is one reason why both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have placed so much emphasis upon a beautifying the liturgy, and the homily especially.²⁰ It is not incredibly difficult to beautify the liturgy, and draw people out of themselves. Benedict has gone so far as to say that "{t}he primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is the proper celebration of the rite itself. The ars celebrandi is the best way to ensure their actuosa participatio."²¹ Sometimes, it is the mere reverence of a priest, and the palpable piety with which he celebrates the Eucharist, that moves the faithful to greater participation in the sacred mysteries.

True versus false beauty and our response to it

As Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov, "The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man." The beauty we seek to place at the service of the liturgy presumably contains nothing that Christians would consider unethical or merely self-gratifying. Greater difficulties arise, however, when it comes to the broader pastoral problem of how to help Christians embrace beauty within the world. This, too, is a tremendously important issue, for evangelization not only needs to proclaim the beauty of Christ and get people to Church, but moreover, it needs to educate people in how to experience beauty in the first place. What are we to say of things which would appear beautiful and, yet, which fail to elicit a beautiful response on the part of the one experiencing them? In other words, what about much of the beauty we find displayed in television, pop culture, and advertising?

It is precisely in connection with this question that Benedict sharply distinguishes true from false beauty: "Too often … the beauty that is thrust upon us is illusory and deceitful, superficial and blinding, leaving the onlooker dazed; instead of bringing him out of himself, and opening him up to horizons of true freedom as it draws him aloft, it imprisons him within himself, and further enslaves him, depriving him of hope and joy."²² If the hallmark of true beauty is that it gives us a "shock" that draws us out of ourselves, and fosters our vocation of love, then the prime characteristic of deceitful beauty is that it locks us within our own ego. In another work, Pope Benedict puts it this way:

Falsehood, however, has another strategem. A beauty that is deceptive and false, a dazzling beauty that does not bring human beings out of themselves to open them to the ecstasy of rising to the heights, but indeed locks them entirely into themselves. Such beauty does not reawaken a longing for the Ineffable, readiness for sacrifice, the abandonment of self, but instead stirs up the desire, the will for power, possession and pleasure.²³

Benedict connects this experience of delusory beauty with the fall of man in Genesis 3. Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was "beautiful" (kalon) to eat. The beautiful aroused in Adam and Eve a desire for possession, making them turn in upon themselves in the quest for an autonomy that would make them their own gods. Applying the story to our culture today, the pontiff asks, "Who would not recognize, for example, in advertising, the images made with supreme skill that are created to tempt the human being irresistibly, to make him want to grab everything, and seek the passing satisfaction, rather than be open to others?"²⁴ He sounds a similar note on the subject of popular music which at times "attempts to swallow up the spirit in the senses as a means of release" and thus can become a "seduction," "drug," and "anesthetic."²⁵

That beauty can seduce and imprison us within our own ego should make it clear that the experience of beauty by itself does not necessarily make a person good. Moreover, many great artists and appreciators of beauty throughout history have not been good, virtuous people. For example, it is well known that many Nazi SS leaders were accomplished musicians, and that Hitler himself had a passionate obsession with the fine arts. This brings us to the heart of the matter: it is not enough to be confronted with true beauty: we must also offer a "true" or proper response to this beauty. Such a response requires reverence for the art in question, and openness to living out the message it wishes to convey—in short, to letting it "shock" us into a life of virtue and, ultimately, that charity which is a sharing in Christ's own sacrificial love for us. This leads to the final and critical point in our reflection upon beauty.

The fullness of beauty: the beauty of Christ and our sharing in his Cross

Pope Benedict tells us that the epitome of beauty is God's love.²⁶ Christ's total gift of self on the Cross is the most beautiful of human actions ever to have been performed, and it challenges the superficial notion of beauty dominant in our culture today. The beauty of our crucified Lord is not simply a harmony of proportion and form. While Christ is surely "the fairest of the sons of men" (Ps 45:2), he is also the one "who had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" (Isa 53:2). From the suffering Christ, we learn one of life's most important lessons: that true beauty also embraces the ugliness of pain, and even the dark mystery of death. Jesus on the cross reminds us that true beauty, true freedom and, ultimately, true happiness are only found when we accept suffering as part of God's plan for our sanctification.²⁷ In short, the crucible of suffering of Christ on the Cross draws us away from the transitory, detaching us from what is opposed to God. Dostoyevsky famously remarked that beauty will save the world, and this is certainly a thought we ought to be considering as Christian evangelists. But here Benedict reminds us of something people usually forget: salvific beauty is not any beauty whatsoever, but specifically the redeeming beauty of Christ crucified who invites us to share in his cross.

Conclusion

Reading the lesser known writings of Pope Benedict XVI, one frequently discovers unexpectedly delightful gems, and it is with one of these that I would like to draw these reflections to a close. When he celebrated Mass in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York in 2008, Benedict gave a fascinating homily in which he reflected upon the great building as an allegory of faith, and the search for truth. Like any Gothic cathedral, from the outside its windows appear dark and heavy, even dreary. But once one enters the Church, these same windows suddenly come alive with resplendent light passing through their stained glass. The allegory is clear: "It is only from the inside, from the experience of faith and ecclesial life, that we see the Church as she truly is: flooded with grace, resplendent in beauty, adorned by the manifold gifts of the Spirit."²⁸ Here, Benedict teaches in poetic fashion a truth he has reiterated in many different places and ways throughout his life. The truth of the Catholic Church ultimately can be seen only from the inside when we fast from our own preconceptions and desires with a willingness to embark upon "the experiment of faith."²⁹

To be sure, none of what has been said above changes the fact that we can, and must always, be prepared with reasonable arguments to defend the truths of the Catholic faith in the world. Yet, Benedict wishes to remind us that we are rarely, if ever, going to argue someone into believing. One thing we can certainly do every day—even on those days when the subject of faith never comes up explicitly in our conversations—is to live beautifully the life of grace within the Church. Our life, lived in the quest for Christian holiness, has great power to draw our fellow man into the Church. This Christian witness epitomizes what Pope Benedict XVI has in mind in calling the Church's saints, and her beauty, the greatest apology of Christian faith.

Joseph Ratzinger, "The Feeling of Things, the Contemplation of Beauty" (August 24, 2002). Other formulations of Ratzinger's leading apologetics principle are found in Feast of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 124; The Ratzinger Report (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), 129-30; Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 373; Truth and Tolerance (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 226; Meeting with the clergy of the Diocese of Bolzano-Bressanone (August 6, 2008).
Ratzinger, "The Feeling of Things, the Contemplation of Beauty" (August 24, 2002); Benedict XVI, Meeting with Artists (November 21, 2009).
Jacques Philippe, Called to Life (New York: Scepter Publishers, 2008), 102.
C.S. Lewis, Weight of Glory (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2001), 42.
Benedict XVI, "The Cathedral from the Romanesque to the Gothic Architecture: The Theological Background" (November 18, 2009).
Benedict XVI, Address to Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture, (November 13, 2010).
Joseph Ratzinger, Moto Proprio for the Approval and Publication of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 5.
Joseph Ratzinger, Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 147-48.
Joseph Ratzinger, "The Feeling of Things, the Contemplation of Beauty" (August 24, 2002). See also his account of this experience in his catechesis "Art and Prayer" (August 31, 2011).
For more suggestions and an excellent overview of beauty in relation to belief, see the Pontifical Council for Culture, The Via Pulchritudinis, Privileged Pathway for Evangelization and Dialogue (2006).
Benedict XVI, Address after screening the film "Art and Faith –Via Pulchritudinis" (October 25, 2012).
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 145, a. 2.
Benedict XVI, Homily at the Mass for the Inauguration of his Pontificate (April 24, 2005).
Pope Francis, Lumen Fidei, 12.
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 127-29.
Joseph Ratzinger, Spirit of the Liturgy, 147.
For a powerful literary illustration of how this can happen in a soul, read Chapter 9 of C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.
Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 35.
Ibid., 41.
On the pivotal importance of having a well-prepared homily, see Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 46, and Verbum Domini, 59, and especially Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 135-59.
Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 38.
Benedict XVI, Meeting with Artists (November 21, 2009).
Joseph Ratzinger, "The Feeling of Things, the Contemplation of Beauty" (August 24, 2002).
Ibid.
Benedict XVI, Feast of Faith, 119.
Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, 35.
Joseph Ratzinger, "The Feeling of Things, the Contemplation of Beauty" (August 24, 2002).
Benedict XVI, Homily for Votive Mass for the Universal Church (April 19, 2008).
Joseph Ratzinger, "Why I Am Still in the Church" in Fundamental Speeches from Five Decades (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 132-53.

Why the League of Nations Failed

2018-04-30T16:30:00.001-04:00

Why the League of Nations Failed

http://bahaiteachings.org/abdul-baha-league-nations-failed?mc_cid=21dceebff0&mc_eid=059dba5c51

Why the League of Nations Failed

Apr 29, 2018

If the world's leaders wrote to you and asked you to recommend a plan for a lasting global peace, what would you tell them?

Asked exactly that by the Central Organisation for a Durable Peace—to recommend a course of action for nations to avoid war—Abdu'l-Baha elucidated his father Baha'u'llah's teachings on peace, which Baha'is believe will lead to a world free from national conflicts and world wars.

But surprisingly, Abdu'l-Baha didn't just focus on the Baha'i principles of peace in his message to the Hague. Instead, he went on to cover the wide spectrum of peace-producing Baha'i social and spiritual teachings:

Among these teachings was the independent investigation of reality so that the world of humanity may be saved from the darkness of imitation and attain to the truth; may tear off and cast away this ragged and outgrown garment of 1,000 years ago and may put on the robe woven in the utmost purity and holiness in the loom of reality. As reality is one and cannot admit of multiplicity, therefore different opinions must ultimately become fused into one.
And among the teachings of His Holiness Baha'u'llah is the oneness of the world of humanity; that all human beings are the sheep of God and He is the kind Shepherd. This Shepherd is kind to all the sheep, because He created them all, trained them, provided for them and protected them. There is no doubt that the Shepherd is kind to all the sheep and should there be among these sheep ignorant ones, they must be educated; if there be children, they must be trained until they reach maturity; if there be sick ones, they must be cured. There must be no hatred and enmity, for as by a kind physician these ignorant, sick ones should be treated.
And among the teachings of His Holiness Baha'u'llah is, that religion must be the cause of fellowship and love. If it becomes the cause of estrangement then it is not needed, for religion is like a remedy; if it aggravates the disease then it become unnecessary.
And among the teachings of Baha'u'llah is, that religion must be in conformity with science and reason, so that it may influence the hearts of men. The foundation must be solid and must not consist of imitations.
And among the teachings of Baha'u'llah is, that religious, racial, political, economic and patriotic prejudices destroy the edifice of humanity. As long as these prejudices prevail, the world of humanity will not have rest. For a period of 6,000 years history informs us about the world of humanity. During these 6,000 years the world of humanity has not been free from, war, strife, murder and bloodthirstiness. In every period war has been waged in one country or another and that war was due to either religious prejudice, racial prejudice, political prejudice or patriotic prejudice. It has therefore been ascertained and proved that all prejudices are destructive of the human edifice. As long as these prejudices persist, the struggle for existence must remain dominant, and bloodthirstiness and rapacity continue. Therefore, even as was the case in the past, the world of humanity cannot be saved from the darkness of nature and cannot attain illumination except through the abandonment of prejudices and the acquisition of the morals of the Kingdom.
If this prejudice and enmity are on account of religion (consider that) religion should be the cause of fellowship, otherwise it is fruitless. And if this prejudice be the prejudice of nationality (consider that) all mankind are of one nation; all have sprung from the tree of Adam, and Adam is the root of the tree. That tree is one and all these nations are like branches, while the individuals of humanity are like leaves, blossoms and fruits thereof. Then the establishment of various nations and the consequent shedding of blood and destruction of the edifice of humanity result from human ignorance and selfish motives.
As to the patriotic prejudice, this is also due to absolute ignorance, for the surface of the earth is one native land. Everyone can live in any spot on the terrestrial globe. Therefore all the world is man's birthplace. These boundaries and outlets have been devised by man. In the creation, such boundaries and outlets were not assigned. Europe is one continent, Asia is one continent, Africa is one continent, Australia is one continent, but some of the souls, from personal motives and selfish interests, have divided each one of these continents and considered a certain part as their own country. God has set up no frontier between France and Germany; they are continuous. Yea, in the first centuries, selfish souls, for the promotion of their own interests, have assigned boundaries and outlets and have, day by day, attached more importance to these, until this led to intense enmity, bloodshed and rapacity in subsequent centuries. In the same way this will continue indefinitely, and if this conception of patriotism remains limited within a certain circle, it will be the primary cause of the world's destruction. No wise and just person will acknowledge these imaginary distinctions. Every limited area which we call our native country we regard as our mother-land, whereas the terrestrial globe is the mother-land of all, and not any restricted area. In short, for a few days we live on this earth and eventually we are buried in it, it is our eternal tomb. Is it worthwhile that we should engage in bloodshed and tear one another to pieces for this eternal tomb? Nay, far from it, neither is God pleased with such conduct nor would any sane man approve of it. – Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to The Hague, pp. 4-6.

Abdu'l-Baha's wise counsel on establishing peace did make its way into the final recommendations of the Central Organisation for a Durable Peace—and consequently into some of the establishing principles of the League of Nations.

But his prescient prediction that the nascent League of Nations was "incapable of establishing universal peace" came true years later, when the League dissolved following Hitler's aggressive incursions into other European nations' territory on the eve of World War II. Sadly, and tragically, the League did not follow the primary Baha'i principle of a universal democratic body for all countries empowered to stop aggression and war. Instead, it limited membership, decision-making and influence in the League of Nations to those "Great Power" nations that "won" World War I—and that faulty, un-democratic and unrepresentative formation sowed the seeds of its eventual and inevitable dissolution.

Out of that massive conflagration, and after 50 million more deaths, the world once again realized the futility of war—and formed the United Nations.

Jamál … Beauty

2018-04-30T16:23:00.001-04:00

Jamál … Beauty

http://bahai-invitation.com/feast/fm03.html

Jamál … Beauty

Prayers and Meditations, pp. 44-45

XXXIV
Praised be Thou, O Lord my God! I implore Thee by Thine Ancient Beauty and Most Great Name, Whom Thou hast sacrificed that all the dwellers of Thine earth and heaven may be born anew, and Whom Thou hast cast into prison that mankind may, as a token of Thy bounty and of Thy sovereign might, be released from the bondage of evil passions and corrupt desires, to number me with those who have so deeply inhaled the fragrance of Thy mercy, and hastened with such speed unto the living waters of Thy grace, that no dart could hinder them from turning unto Thee, nor any spear from setting their faces towards the orient of Thy Revelation.
We testify, O my Lord, that Thou art God and that there is none other God besides Thee. From everlasting Thou wast enthroned on the inaccessible heights of Thy power, and wilt unto everlasting continue to exercise Thy transcendent and unrestrained dominion. The hosts of the world are powerless to frustrate Thy will, nor can all the dwellers of the earth and all the inmates of heaven annul Thy decree. Thou truly art the Almighty, the Most Exalted, the Most Great.
Bless, O my God, those of the followers of the Bayán as have been numbered with the people of Bahá, who have entered within the Crimson Ark in Thy Name, the Most Exalted, the Most High. Thy might, verily, is equal to all things. -- Bahá'u'lláh

Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha, pp. 1-2

O party of the Covenant! Verily, the Beauty of El-Abha hath promised the most great assistance to the beloved who are firm in the Covenant and to confirm them through the mightiest power. Ye will surely find in your luminous assembly such signs as will shine within hearts and souls. Adhere to the hem of the robe of the Lofty One and do your best to spread the Covenant of God and to kindled with the fire of the love of God, so that your hearts may move with joy through the fragrances of humbleness which are being diffused from the heart of Abdul-Baha. -- `Abdu'l-Bahá

The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Arabic #3

O SON OF MAN!
Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty. -- Bahá'u'lláh

The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Persian #13

O MY CHILDREN!
I fear lest, bereft of the melody of the dove of heaven, ye will sink back to the shades of utter loss, and, never having gazed upon the beauty of the rose, return to water and clay. -- Bahá'u'lláh

The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Persian #14

O FRIENDS!
Abandon not the everlasting beauty for a beauty that must die, and set not your affections on this mortal world of dust. -- Bahá'u'lláh

Tablets of Baha'u'llah, pp. 9-10

Consider those who rejected the Spirit when He came unto them with manifest dominion. How numerous the Pharisees who had secluded themselves in synagogues in His name, lamenting over their separation from Him, and yet when the portals of reunion were flung open and the divine Luminary shone resplendent from the Dayspring of Beauty, they disbelieved in God, the Exalted, the Mighty. They failed to attain His presence, notwithstanding that His advent had been promised them in the Book of Isaiah as well as in the Books of the Prophets and the Messengers.... -- Bahá'u'lláh

The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Persian # 31

O SON OF EARTH!
Wouldst thou have Me, seek none other than Me; and wouldst thou gaze upon My beauty, close thine eyes to the world and all that is therein; for My will and the will of another than Me, even as fire and water, cannot dwell together in one heart. -- Bahá'u'lláh

Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 101

Praise be unto God, incomparable in majesty, power and beauty, peerless in glory, might and grandeur; too high is He for human imaginations to comprehend Him or for any peer or equal to be ascribed unto Him. He hath clearly set forth His straight Path in words and utterances of highest eloquence. Verily He is the All-Possessing, the Most Exalted. -- Bahá'u'lláh

Prayers and Meditations, p. 76

LIII I know not, O my God, what the Fire is which Thou didst kindle in Thy land. Earth can never cloud its splendor, nor water quench its flame. All the peoples of the world are powerless to resist its force. Great is the blessedness of him that hath drawn nigh unto it, and heard its roaring.
Some, O my God, Thou didst, through Thy strengthening grace, enable to approach it, while others Thou didst keep back by reason of what their hands have wrought in Thy days. Whoso hath hasted towards it and attained unto it hath, in his eagerness to gaze on Thy beauty, yielded his life in Thy path, and ascended unto Thee, wholly detached from aught else except Thyself.
I beseech Thee, O my Lord, by this Fire which blazeth and rageth in the world of creation, to rend asunder the veils that have hindered me from appearing before the throne of Thy majesty, and from standing at the door of Thy gate. Do Thou ordain for me, O my Lord, every good thing Thou didst send down in Thy Book, and suffer me not to be far removed from the shelter of Thy mercy.
Powerful art Thou to do what pleaseth Thee. Thou art, verily, the All-Powerful, the Most Generous. -- Bahá'u'lláh

Feast Home | Invitation Home

Beauty - Wikipedia

2018-04-30T16:15:00.001-04:00

Beauty - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

Baha'i Feast of Beauty

Beauty is a characteristic of an animal, idea, object, person or place that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction. Beauty is studied as part of aesthetics, culture, social psychology, philosophy and sociology. An "ideal beauty" is an entity which is admired, or possesses features widely attributed to beauty in a particular culture, for perfection.

Ugliness is considered to be the opposite of beauty.

The experience of "beauty" often involves an interpretation of some entity as being in balance and harmony with nature, which may lead to feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. Because this can be a subjective experience, it is often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."^[1]

There is evidence that perceptions of beauty are evolutionary determined, that things, aspects of people and landscapes considered beautiful are typically found in situations likely to give enhanced survival of the perceiving human's genes.^[2]^[3]

Ancient Greek

The classical Greek noun that best translates to the English-language words "beauty" or "beautiful" was κάλλος, kallos, and the adjective was καλός, kalos. However, kalos may and is also translated as ″good″ or ″of fine quality″ and thus has a broader meaning than mere physical or material beauty. Similarly, kallos was used differently from the English word beauty in that it first and foremost applied to humans and bears an erotic connotation.^[4]

The Koine Greek word for beautiful was ὡραῖος, hōraios,^[5] an adjective etymologically coming from the word ὥρα, hōra, meaning "hour". In Koine Greek, beauty was thus associated with "being of one's hour".^[6] Thus, a ripe fruit (of its time) was considered beautiful, whereas a young woman trying to appear older or an older woman trying to appear younger would not be considered beautiful. In Attic Greek, hōraios had many meanings, including "youthful" and "ripe old age".^[6]

The earliest Western theory of beauty can be found in the works of early Greek philosophers from the pre-Socratic period, such as Pythagoras. The Pythagorean school saw a strong connection between mathematics and beauty. In particular, they noted that objects proportioned according to the golden ratio seemed more attractive.^[7] Ancient Greek architecture is based on this view of symmetry and proportion.

Plato considered beauty to be the Idea (Form) above all other Ideas.^[8] Aristotle saw a relationship between the beautiful (to kalon) and virtue, arguing that "Virtue aims at the beautiful."^[9]

Classical philosophy and sculptures of men and women produced according to the Greek philosophers' tenets of ideal human beauty were rediscovered in Renaissance Europe, leading to a re-adoption of what became known as a "classical ideal". In terms of female human beauty, a woman whose appearance conforms to these tenets is still called a "classical beauty" or said to possess a "classical beauty", whilst the foundations laid by Greek and Roman artists have also supplied the standard for male beauty in western civilization.^{[citation needed]} During the Gothic era, the classical aesthetical canon of beauty was rejected as sinful. Later, Renaissance and Humanist thinkers rejected this view, and considered beauty to be the product of rational order and harmonious proportions. Renaissance artists and architects (such as Giorgio Vasari in his "Lives of Artists") criticised the Gothic period as irrational and barbarian. This point of view of Gothic art lasted until Romanticism, in the 19th century.

The Age of Reason

The Age of Reason saw a rise in an interest in beauty as a philosophical subject. For example, Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson argued that beauty is "unity in variety and variety in unity".^[10] The Romantic poets, too, became highly concerned with the nature of beauty, with John Keats arguing in "Ode on a Grecian Urn" that

Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all.

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

The Romantic period

In the Romantic period, Edmund Burke postulated a difference between beauty in its classical meaning and the sublime. The concept of the sublime, as explicated by Burke and Kant, suggested viewing Gothic art and architecture, though not in accordance with the classical standard of beauty, as sublime.^{[citation needed]}

The 20th century and after

The 20th century saw an increasing rejection of beauty by artists and philosophers alike, culminating in postmodernism's anti-aesthetics.^[11] This is despite beauty being a central concern of one of postmodernism's main influences, Friedrich Nietzsche, who argued that the Will to Power was the Will to Beauty.^[12]

In the aftermath of postmodernism's rejection of beauty, thinkers have returned to beauty as an important value. American analytic philosopher Guy Sircello proposed his New Theory of Beauty as an effort to reaffirm the status of beauty as an important philosophical concept.^[13]^[14] Elaine Scarry also argues that beauty is related to justice.^[15]

Beauty is also studied by psychologists and neuroscientists in the field of experimental aesthetics and neuroesthetics respectively. Psychological theories see beauty as a form of pleasure.^[16]^[17] Correlational findings support the view that more beautiful objects are also more pleasing.^[18]^[19]^[20] Some studies suggest that higher experienced beauty is associated with activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex.^[21]^[22] This approach of localizing the processing of beauty in one brain region has received criticism within the field.^[23]

Human beauty

Main article: Physical attractiveness

The characterization of a person as "beautiful", whether on an individual basis or by community consensus, is often based on some combination of inner beauty, which includes psychological factors such as personality, intelligence, grace, politeness, charisma, integrity, congruence and elegance, and outer beauty (i.e. physical attractiveness) which includes physical attributes which are valued on an aesthetic basis.

Standards of beauty have changed over time, based on changing cultural values. Historically, paintings show a wide range of different standards for beauty. However, humans who are relatively young, with smooth skin, well-proportioned bodies, and regular features, have traditionally been considered the most beautiful throughout history.

A strong indicator of physical beauty is "averageness".^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28] When images of human faces are averaged together to form a composite image, they become progressively closer to the "ideal" image and are perceived as more attractive. This was first noticed in 1883, when Francis Galton overlaid photographic composite images of the faces of vegetarians and criminals to see if there was a typical facial appearance for each. When doing this, he noticed that the composite images were more attractive compared to any of the individual images.^[29] Researchers have replicated the result under more controlled conditions and found that the computer generated, mathematical average of a series of faces is rated more favorably than individual faces.^[30] It is argued that it is evolutionarily advantageous that sexual creatures are attracted to mates who possess predominantly common or average features, because it suggests the absence of genetic or acquired defects.^[24]^[31]^[32]^[33] There is also evidence that a preference for beautiful faces emerges early in infancy, and is probably innate,^[34]^[35]^[25]^[36]^[37] and that the rules by which attractiveness is established are similar across different genders and cultures.^[38]^[39]^[39]

A feature of beautiful women that has been explored by researchers is a waist–hip ratio of approximately 0.70. Physiologists have shown that women with hourglass figures are more fertile than other women due to higher levels of certain female hormones, a fact that may subconsciously condition males choosing mates.^{[citation needed]}

People are influenced by the images they see in the media to determine what is or is not beautiful. Some feminists and doctors^[vague] have suggested that the very thin models featured in magazines promote eating disorders,^[40] and others have argued that the predominance of white women featured in movies and advertising leads to a Eurocentric concept of beauty, feelings of inferiority in women of color,^[41] and internalized racism.^[42]

The black is beautiful cultural movement sought to dispel this notion.^[43]

Fatima Lodhi, a young diversity and anti-colorism advocate from Pakistan, claims that "Beauty comes in all shapes, shades and sizes".^[44]

The concept of beauty in men is known as 'bishōnen' in Japan. Bishōnen refers to males with distinctly feminine features, physical characteristics establishing the standard of beauty in Japan and typically exhibited in their pop culture idols. A multibillion-dollar industry of Japanese Aesthetic Salons exists for this reason.

Effects on society

Beauty presents a standard of comparison, and it can cause resentment and dissatisfaction when not achieved. People who do not fit the "beauty ideal" may be ostracized within their communities. The television sitcom Ugly Betty portrays the life of a girl faced with hardships due to society's unwelcoming attitudes toward those they deem unattractive. However, a person may also be targeted for harassment because of their beauty. In Malèna, a strikingly beautiful Italian woman is forced into poverty by the women of the community who refuse to give her work for fear that she may "woo" their husbands. The documentary Beauty in the Eyes of the Beheld explores both the societal blessings and curses of female beauty through interviews of women considered beautiful.

Researchers have found that good looking students get higher grades from their teachers than students with an ordinary appearance.^[46] Some studies using mock criminal trials have shown that physically attractive "defendants" are less likely to be convicted—and if convicted are likely to receive lighter sentences—than less attractive ones (although the opposite effect was observed when the alleged crime was swindling, perhaps because jurors perceived the defendant's attractiveness as facilitating the crime).^[47] Studies among teens and young adults, such as those of psychiatrist and self-help author, Eva Ritvo, show that skin conditions have a profound effect on social behavior and opportunity.^[48]

How much money a person earns may also be influenced by physical beauty. One study found that people low in physical attractiveness earn 5 to 10 percent less than ordinary looking people, who in turn earn 3 to 8 percent less than those who are considered good looking.^[49] In the market for loans, the least attractive people are less likely to get approvals, although they are less likely to default. In the marriage market, women's looks are at a premium, but men's looks do not matter much.^[50]

Conversely, being very unattractive increases the individual's propensity for criminal activity for a number of crimes ranging from burglary to theft to selling illicit drugs.^[51]

Discrimination against others based on their appearance is known as lookism.^[52]

Writers' definitions

St. Augustine said of beauty "Beauty is indeed a good gift of God; but that the good may not think it a great good, God dispenses it even to the wicked."^[53]

Philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco wrote On Beauty: A history of a Western idea (2004)^[54] and On Ugliness (2007).^[55] A character in his novel The Name of the Rose declares: "three things concur in creating beauty: first of all integrity or perfection, and for this reason we consider ugly all incomplete things; then proper proportion or consonance; and finally clarity and light", before going on to say "the sight of the beautiful implies peace".^[56]

References

Gary Martin (2007). "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The Phrase Finder. Archived from the original on November 30, 2007. Retrieved December 4, 2007.
The Oxford Handbook for Aesthetics
Denis Dutton: A Darwinian theory of beauty | Video on TED.com
Konstan, David (2014). Beauty - The Fortunes of an Ancient Greek Idea. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 30–35. ISBN 978-0-19-992726-5.
Matthew 23:27, Acts 3:10, Flavius Josephus, 12.65
^ ^a ^b Euripides, Alcestis 515.
Seife, Charles (2000). Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-029647-6. p. 32
Phaedrus
Nicomachean Ethics
An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue; In Two Treatises
The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture by Hal Foster
The Will to Power
A New Theory of Beauty. Princeton Essays on the Arts, 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.
Love and Beauty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.
On Beauty and Being Just
Reber, Rolf; Schwarz, Norbert; Winkielman, Piotr (2004). "Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 8 (4): 364–382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3. hdl:1956/594. ISSN 1088-8683. PMID 15582859.
Armstrong, Thomas; Detweiler-Bedell, Brian (December 2008). "Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging world". Review of General Psychology. 12 (4): 305–329. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.406.1825  . doi:10.1037/a0012558. ISSN 1939-1552.
Vartanian, Oshin; Navarrete, Gorka; Chatterjee, Anjan; Fich, Lars Brorson; Leder, Helmut; Modroño, Cristián; Nadal, Marcos; Rostrup, Nicolai; Skov, Martin (2013-06-18). "Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (Supplement 2): 10446–10453. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301227110. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3690611  . PMID 23754408.
Marin, Manuela M.; Lampatz, Allegra; Wandl, Michaela; Leder, Helmut (2016-11-04). "Berlyne Revisited: Evidence for the Multifaceted Nature of Hedonic Tone in the Appreciation of Paintings and Music". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00536. ISSN 1662-5161. PMC 5095118  . PMID 27867350.
Brielmann, Aenne A.; Pelli, Denis G. (2017-05-22). "Beauty Requires Thought". Current Biology. 27 (10): 1506–1513.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.018. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 28502660.
Kawabata, Hideaki; Zeki, Semir (April 2004). "Neural correlates of beauty". Journal of Neurophysiology. 91 (4): 1699–1705. doi:10.1152/jn.00696.2003. ISSN 0022-3077. PMID 15010496.
Ishizu, Tomohiro; Zeki, Semir (2011-07-06). "Toward A Brain-Based Theory of Beauty". PLOS ONE. 6 (7): e21852. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021852. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3130765  . PMID 21755004.
Conway, Bevil R.; Rehding, Alexander (2013-03-19). "Neuroaesthetics and the Trouble with Beauty". PLOS Biology. 11 (3): e1001504. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001504. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 3601993  . PMID 23526878.
^ ^a ^b Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L. (1990). "Attractive faces are only average." Psychol. Sci. 1, 115–121
^ ^a ^b Strauss, M.S. (1979). "Abstraction of prototypical information by adults and 10-month-old infants." J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Learn. Mem. 5, 618–632.
Rhodes, G., Tremewan, T. (1997) Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychol. Sci. 7, 105–110.
Valentine, T., Darling, S., Donnelly, M. (2004). Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of the attractiveness of female faces. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11, 482–487
average faces are consistently more attractive than the faces used to generate them
Galton, F. (1878). Composite portraits, made by combining those of many different persons in a single resultant figure. J. Anthropol. Inst. 8, 132–144.
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Musselman, L. (1994). "What is average and what is not average about attractive faces?". Psychological Science. 5: 214–220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00503.x.
Koeslag, J.H. (1990). "Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis, and stabilizes social behaviour." J. theor. Biol. 144, 15–35
Symons, D. (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Highfield, Roger. "Why beauty is an advert for good genes". The Telegraph. Retrieved February 13, 2012
Slater, A.M., Von Der Schulenburg, C., Brown, E., et al. (1998). "Newborn infants prefer attractive faces." Infant Behav. Dev. 21, 345–354.
Kramer, S., Zebrowitz, L.A., San Giovanni, J.P., Sherak, B. (1995). "Infants' preferences for attractiveness and babyfaceness." In Bardy, B.G., Bootsma, R.J., Guiard, Y. (Eds.) Studies in perception and action III. pp. 389–392. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
Rubenstein, A.J, Kalakanis, L., Langlois, J.H. (1999). Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation. Dev. Psychol. 35, 848–855.
Langlois, J.H., Ritter, J.M., Roggman, L.A., Vaughn, L.S. (1991). "Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces." Dev. Psychol. 27, 79–84.
Apicella, C.L., Little, A.C., Marlowe, F.W. (2007). "Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers." Perception 36, 1813–1820.
^ ^a ^b Rhodes, G. (2006). "The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty". Annual Review of Psychology. 57: 199–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208. PMID 16318594.
"Models link to teenage anorexia". BBC News. May 30, 2000. Retrieved April 26, 2010.
White Skin as a Measure of Beauty: The Impact of the Eurocentric Beauty Standard on Indian Women. [1]
Chris Weedon. "Key Issues in Postcolonial Feminism: A Western Perspective". Gender Forum Electronic Journal. Archived from the original on December 6, 2007. Retrieved December 4, 2007.
DoCarmo (2007). "Dr. DoCarmo's Notes on the Black Cultural Movement". Bucks County Community College. Archived from the original on December 20, 2007. Retrieved December 4, 2007.
http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/forget-fair-and-lovely-dark-is-divine-pakistan-s-first/article_8d1f87ae-1f5d-11e5-8684-0bfe7ff82da8.html
Kelly, William E.; Daughtry, Don. "Academic Orientation, Academic Achievement, and Noctcaelador: Does Interest in Night-Sky Watching Correlate with Students' Approach to the Academic Environment?". Questia. Retrieved 10 August 2014.
Sharon Begley (14 July 2009). "The Link Between Beauty and Grades". Newsweek. Archived from the original on April 20, 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-31.
Amina A Memon, Aldert Vrij, Ray Bull (2003). Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 46–47. ISBN 047086835X
"Image survey reveals "perception is reality" when it comes to teenagers". multivu.prnewswire.com.
Lorenz, K. (2005). "Do pretty people earn more?" CNN News, Time Warner.
Daniel Hamermesh; Stephen J. Dubner (30 January 2014). "Reasons to not be ugly: full transcript". Freakonomics. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
Erdal Tekin; Stephen J. Dubner (30 January 2014). "Reasons to not be ugly: full transcript". Freakonomics. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
Gough, L. (2011). C. Northcote Parkinson's Parkinson's law. Oxford, U.K: Infinite Ideas Ltd. p. 36. ISBN 1283147378
City of God Book 15 Chapter 22
Eco, Umberto (2004). On Beauty: A historyof a western idea. London: Secker & Warburg. ISBN 0436205173.
Eco, Umberto (2007). On Ugliness. London: Harvill Secker. ISBN 9781846551222.
Eco, Umberto (1980). The Name of the Rose. London: Vintage. p. 65. ISBN 9780099466031.

External links

Sartwell, Crispin. "Beauty". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Beauty at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
BBC Radio 4's In Our Time programme on Beauty (requires RealAudio)
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Theories of Beauty to the Mid-Nineteenth Century
beautycheck.de/english Regensburg University – Characteristics of beautiful faces
Eli Siegel's "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?"
Art and love in Renaissance Italy , Issued in connection with an exhibition held Nov. 11, 2008-Feb. 16, 2009, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (see Belle: Picturing Beautiful Women; pages 246-254).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1&amp;mobile=1

Government is Good - Taxes are Good

2018-04-30T15:47:00.001-04:00

Government is Good - Taxes are Good

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17

Taxes are Good

Most conservative criticisms about the ill-effects of taxes are exaggerated or untrue. Taxes are in fact good -- they are dues we pay to enjoy the numerous vital benefits that government provides for our society.

Are taxes bad? If you've been listening to conservatives for the last several decades, you would certainly think so. Virtually every Republican candidate for office in recent memory has run on an anti-tax platform – arguing that Americans are overtaxed, that taxes hurt economic growth, etc. And it is this hatred of taxes that helped propel the passage of hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts during the administration of George W. Bush.

This anti-tax campaign strikes a real emotional chord in some Americans and it has been one of the most effective rallying cries of anti-government conservatives. It taps into a taxophobia that is deeply ingrained in American political culture and that manifests itself in the activities of over 800 local and state anti-tax groups. These tax-haters have also been playing a large part in organizing the grassroots Tea Party movement.

But conservatives are dead wrong about taxes. Taxes are not bad.

Taxes are good.

The argument for taxes is a very straightforward one: if government is on balance a very positive force in society, then taxes are good. If what we have seen in other articles on this website is true – that government programs help us all in myriad ways every day, that most government programs are working effectively to solve our social problems, and that government is the only way to promote important values like justice and economic security – then the taxes needed to support these government activities should be seen as a positive good. To put it another way, you can't support the things the government does – like caring for the elderly, establishing justice, providing public education, fighting terrorism, and protecting the environment – and still maintain that the taxes that support those things are bad. Taxes are the lifeblood of government and so if government is basically good, then so are taxes.

So instead of seeing paying taxes as analogous to being mugged by the government, we ought to think of these payments more like the tithing that many people do in their churches and synagogues. Most people see these regular donations as a charitable contribution to the good works being done by these religious organizations – and they certainly don't resent these contributions. But if the government is also an institution dedicated in large part to doing good works – to promoting the public interest – then we should not resent our taxes contributing to those governmental activities. In fact, we should feel good about all the good our tax dollars are doing – just as we feel good about all the good our religious donations do. Of course it could be argued that there is a big difference here – that giving money to churches is voluntary and we are required to pay taxes. But in practice, many religious organizations require members who can afford it to contribute regularly – payments that are really more like mandatory dues than purely voluntary donations. In any case, the point is that contributing toward an organization that is promoting the public good should not be seen as a bad thing.

But of course anti-government conservatives have been very successful at "framing" taxes in a negative way. As linguist George Lakoff has explained, part of their strategy has involved a careful choice of the words they use to talk about taxes.

Conservatives have worked for decades to establish the metaphors of taxation as a burden, an affliction, and an unfair punishment – all of which require "relief." … And on the day that George W. Bush took office, the words tax relief started appearing in White House communiqués to the press and in official speeches and reports by conservatives. …The word relief evokes a frame in which there is a blameless Afflicted Person who we identify with and who has some Affliction, some pain or harm that is imposed by some external Cause-of-pain. Relief is the taking away of the pain or harm, and it is brought about by some Reliever-of-pain. … The term tax relief evokes all of this and more. Taxes, in this phrase, are the Affliction (the Crime), proponents of taxes are the Causes-of Affliction (the Villains), the taxpayer is the Afflicted Victim, and the proponents of "tax relief" are the Heroes who deserve the taxpayers' gratitude. Every time the phrase tax relief is used and heard or read by millions of people, the more this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced.¹

As Lakoff explains, the Democrats have inadvertently played into this process of demonizing taxes whenever they supported tax cuts and used the term "tax relief." In 2004, for example, in John Kerry's campaign for president, he talked often about enacting tax relief for the middle class, instead of for the rich. In his 2008 campaign, Barak Obama also thought it was necessary to offer tax cuts to the lower and middle classes, and he then went on to include billions of dollars of this kind of "tax relief" in his first budget. And while Kerry and Obama probably thought their proposals were progressive, they ended up reinforcing a very regressive conservative message that taxes are an unfair burden on most Americans.

Lakoff argues that we need to promote a very different view of taxes—one that uses a very different kind of metaphor. The metaphor he suggests is that of taxes as "dues".

Taxes are our dues — we pay our dues to be Americans and enjoy the benefits of American society. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society that is democratic, offers opportunity, and has a huge infrastructure available to all citizens. This incredible infrastructure has been paid for by previous taxpayers. Roads and highways, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid — every day we all use this vast infrastructure. Our dues maintain it.²

It is about being a member, a part of the community. People pay a membership fee to join a gym, the local YMCA, or a club for which they get to use the basketball courts, the swimming pool, and the golf course. They did not pay for these facilities with their own memberships. They were built and paid for by other members, and all the current members maintain them with their dues. It is the same thing with our country — being a member in good standing of a remarkable nation. Americans pay their dues.

This idea of taxes as dues is not original to Lakoff. It is an idea that has often been expressed, but has not been promoted with the same ferocity or persistence of the taxes-as-affliction metaphor. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once remarked that "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." And Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. expressed a similar sentiment when he said that "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."

page: 2 of 5

The Disconnect Between Taxes and Programs

One of the reasons that some Americans do not have this more positive view of taxes is that they seem to ignore the basic connection between taxes and the beneficial programs they fund. What else could explain the fact that polls repeatedly reveal that many people support tax cuts while at the same time they support increasing government spending in many areas? Naturally, anti-government and anti-tax advocates like to encourage this sense of disconnection between taxes and programs. That is why, for example, when conservatives talk about tax cuts, they rarely talk about the programs cuts that must necessarily follow. They focus on how money will be returned to tax payers, not how money will be taken away from needed government programs. To listen to them, tax cuts are all gains and no pain.

This sense of disconnection is also helped along greatly by the political illusion that was discussed in the article "A Day in Your Life:" that the benefits of many government programs are elusive and are often easy to ignore or take for granted. Unlike marketplace transactions, where what we get for our money is immediate and tangible – what we get for our taxes is often delayed and less tangible. When we draw clean water from our taps, we rarely stop to make the connection between this and the taxes we pay to ensure the purity of this vital resource. Also, many of the benefits that come to us from our taxes take the form of things that do not happen to us – like not getting mugged or not breathing dirty air – and these we hardly notice at all.

Anti-government conservatives and libertarians are very good at taking advantage of the fact that while what government does for us often seems elusive, the taxes we pay to government are all too real to most people. Consider, for example, the strategy employed by Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was running for governor of California. In his campaign, he complained loudly about how overtaxed Californians were: "From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet, they are taxed. When they go get a coffee, they are taxed. When they get in their car, they are taxed. When they go to the gas station they are taxed. When they go to lunch, they are taxed. This goes on all day long. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax."³ This is true – and it helped Schwarzenegger get elected – but it is a misleading half-truth. He leaves out the rest of the story: that we are also constantly benefiting from government programs throughout our day. He deliberately ignores the connection between taxes and the programs they fund. We may be taxed when we flush the toilet, but what we get is the efficient and easy way to dispose of our waste in a manner that does not poison our water or spread disease. We may be taxed when we buy a cup of coffee, but our taxes help pay for inspections of coffee houses and restaurants that ensure that their food and drinks are fit for human consumption. We may be taxed when we pay for gas, but what we get is the interstate highway system that many of us so frequently use. So the reality is really this: Tax. Benefit. Tax. Benefit. Tax. Benefit. Tax. Benefit. While government may be constantly taking from us in the form of taxes, it is also constantly giving back to us in the form of the various programs that improve our daily lives.

Government bashers like Schwarzenegger can only succeed in making taxes seem onerous and unfair by completely ignoring what we get in return. This tactic may be bogus, but it has been a raging success. Conservatives have been winning this ideological fight in the United States in part because they have convinced most Americans to see themselves primarily as "taxpayers" not "beneficiaries." In their rhetoric, they make sure to constantly refer to people as "taxpayers." This is another attempt to frame the issue in a way that encourages us to think of government as bad – as a burden on us. "Taxpayers" is not a neutral term at all, but one loaded with powerful political meaning. It unconsciously reinforces a view of citizen/government relations being one-way – from our wallets to its coffers. A recent poll revealed that 28% of Americans agreed with the statement: "I don't like paying taxes because the government doesn't do anything for people like me."⁴ And as long as people continue to see themselves only as taxpayers and not beneficiaries, as long as they ignore the connection between our taxes and what they get back from government, they will be ripe for the picking by those who want to weaken government.

page: 3 of 5

Why Highly Taxed Europeans are Not in Revolt

Here's a questions that has vexed conservatives for decades: Why isn't there a huge tax revolt in Europe? Citizens in most European countries pay much higher taxes than we do in the United States, but virtually no substantial tax revolt movements exist in these countries. They should be marching in the streets by the millions demanding large tax cuts – but they aren't. Why is that the case? The answer probably has much to do with the fact that people in Europe can recognize more easily the inherent connection between the taxes they pay and the benefits they receive. The benefits of government programs in these countries are much more obvious than they are in the United States – and so the taxes that pay for them are not resented as much. The European social welfare state is so much more extensive than what we have in the U.S. that it is impossible for citizens to not notice all the valuable things they are getting for their taxes.

T.R. Reid, in his book The United States of Europe, tells a story which illustrates this point very well. He lived in Great Britain for years, and at first he was stunned by the 17.5% tax that was added to virtually every purchase he made. "I kept wondering: Why do the Brits put up with a tax that high?" He came to understand the answer to this question when his youngest daughter had to go to the emergency room with a severely infected ear. After a wait of fifteen minutes, his daughter was seen and given effective treatment. Grateful, he went to pay the bill only to have the nurse proudly announce to him that "There won't be a bill to pay. We do it a bit differently here. In the National Health Service, we don't charge for medical treatment." And suddenly he "got it" about the taxes:

Had the same minor medical crisis occurred in American, we would surely have received the same level of professional treatment. But we would have received something else along with it: a wad of bills. Having had a similar experience in emergency wards in the United States, I would expect that treatment like we got at St. Mary's in London would have brought bills of about $200 from the hospital, another $150 or so from the doctor, and another $100 from some lab technician. And I would likely have faced a three-month battle with an insurance company trying to get the bills paid. In Britain, there was no need to argue with the insurance company over the bill, because there was no bill (and consequently, no insurance company). As we left the hospital, my wife said quietly, "Now I see why we pay that 17.5 percent."⁵

And beside universal health care, the typical European also gets a lot more for their taxes – including a free university education, paid maternity and paternity leaves for everyone, clean and efficient public transportation, retirement security for all, and so on. So ironically, the reason many people in the U.S. hate taxes more than Europeans may be because we pay so little in them and get comparatively so little for them in return. If we paid more taxes like the Europeans do, and then got many more important and obvious social and economic benefits, we would probably see the connections between taxes and government benefits more clearly – and so resent our taxes less. Strange but true.

Addressing Criticisms of Taxes

In the battle over Americans' hearts and minds concerning taxes, only one side is really fighting. Virtually no one is promoting the more positive and constructive view of taxes. Many Democratic politicians wouldn't be caught dead advocating tax increases. So the political effort is all on the other side, with a continual and vociferous conservative assault on taxes – one that typically goes unanswered. But we need to take a more careful look at how this assault is mounted. We need to look more critically at the main reasons the anti-government forces offer for why taxes are bad and tax cuts are good.

In a nutshell, these are the main conservative complaints:

Americans are greatly overtaxed and their tax burden is continually rising.
Most of our taxes don't go to programs that help average Americans, but to foreign aid and welfare.
Taxes are bad for the economy because they hinder productivity and economic growth.
We would all be better off if we could keep more of the money we now pay in taxes.

There is nothing surprising here. In fact, these points are repeated so often by tax critics that most of us are very familiar with them and we often readily accept them as fact. And if they did happen to be true, they would be a pretty damning indictment of taxes and a powerful rationale for cutting them. But in reality these typically conservative criticisms about taxes are at best confused and misleading, and in most cases simply not true at all.

page: 4 of 5

American's Are Not Overtaxed

Saying that taxes are good does not necessarily mean that all levels of taxation are good. Taxes could certainly be too high and prove to be too much of a burden on taxpayers. And this is exactly what anti-government crusaders like to argue. They maintain that Americans are horribly overtaxed and it is getting worse all the time. For example, when the Republicans took over Congress in the 1990s, David Keating of the National Taxpayers Union described our taxes problems this way: "If we don't seize on this revolutionary moment to rein in taxes and rein in entitlements, we could be looking at a government headed for financial oblivion…and a populace that is so over-taxed and so desperate that we could be talking about real revolutions."⁶ This kind of anti-tax rhetoric is used to fan the fires of resentment against government – particularly the federal government and its income tax. And there is resentment aplenty, with many Americans feeling fed up with being "sucked dry" by the government tax collectors.

But many people greatly exaggerate the tax burden in this country. Here is a quick quiz: Guess what percentage of Americans pay over 20% of their household income in federal income taxes? Polls show that most Americans put that figure at 38%. But the real figure is shockingly lower: less than 1%. According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, over 85% of us pay less than 10% of our income in federal income taxes. The average middle-class family now pays less than 5% of their income in federal income taxes – a historical low. How is this possible? Because many people are too poor to pay income tax, and many of the rest of us have deductions and credits that reduce our effective tax rate to much less than the official tax rate for our income group. In any case, the point is most of us tend to wildly overestimate how much everyone is paying in taxes.

Also, even a cursory examination of the facts shows that Americans are taxed relatively lightly compared to most other Western countries, and that our tax burden has not been skyrocketing at all. Table 1 makes it clear that Americans carry much less of a tax burden than the citizens in virtually every comparable Western European country. We pay the lowest taxes as a portion of Gross Domestic Product than any of these nations – usually by a very large amount. For example, we would have to increase tax revenues by almost 60 percent to match those of France, and by 40 percent to catch up with the Dutch. So it makes little sense to maintain that we are overtaxed in this country.

Table 1: Total Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP: 2009

Country	Taxes as % of GDP
Denmark	48.2
Sweden	46.4
Italy	43.5
Belgium	43.2
Austria	42.8
France	41.9
Iceland	41.4
Netherlands	39.1
Germany	37.0
United Kingdom	34.3
Canada	31.1
Spain	30.7
Switzerland	30.3
United States	24.0

Source: Revenue Statistics 1965-2009, OECD 2010.

Nor is it true that our taxes have been increasing at a precipitous rate. To see this we merely need to consider how tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have changed over the last several decades. This is a good measure because it takes into account economic growth and inflation, and so it gives us a much broader and more accurate picture of how much government is receiving in taxes. These figures, as shown in Table 2, indicate that the government take has changed relatively little in the last 40 years – either on the federal or the state and local level. In fact, we've had a remarkably stable rate of taxation. In 1970, total government receipts were 28.3% of the GDP while in 2007 they still only amount to 29.2%. In contrast, many other Western nations had substantial increases in their taxes during this same period. Between 1975 and 2003, Austria went from 37.4% to 43% and Italy from 26.1% to 43.4%, for instance.⁷ In any case, the figures for the U.S. show that conservative claims of an increasingly greedy government taking more and more money out of our pockets in taxes are simply false. Given these facts – that we are not overtaxed and our taxes are not mushrooming – the so-called "Tax Revolt" movement begins to make less and less sense

Table 2: Government Receipts as a Percentage of GDP: 1970-2007

	1970	1980	1990	2007
State & Local Govt. Receipts	9.3	8.8	9.7	10.4
Federal Government Receipts	19.0	19.0	18.0	18.8
Total Government Receipts	28.3	27.8	27.7	29.2

Source: U.S. Government, Budget for the Fiscal Year 2009, Historical Tables, 2008.

Most of Your Tax Money Doesn't Go to Others

Anti-government conservatives build up a lot of public resentment about taxes by suggesting that most of our tax money goes to help people other than ourselves – that it is redistributed to programs like welfare and food stamps that primarily help the poor and minorities. According to them, the government takes your money and then spends it on other people while you are left to struggle to make ends meet, pay your medical bills, send your kids to college, and so on. This argument is sometimes a thinly veiled attempt to mobilize opposition to government by fanning people's racial and class resentments. But more importantly, it is simply not true. Most people have wildly exaggerated ideas about how much of their tax money is going to "others" in the form of welfare or foreign aid. When the public was asked to name the two largest parts of the federal budget, the leading responses were foreign aid (41%) and welfare (40%) – ahead of other choices like Social Security, defense, and health.⁸ This is highly delusional. Spending on foreign aid and welfare actually amounts to less than 3% of the federal budget.

What we have here, then, is another common negative stereotype about government perpetuated by the right. The idea that the government spends most of our tax dollars on "them" rather than on "us" is simply not rooted in reality. Studies have also shown that the vast majority of government dollars, which come from taxes on the middle and upper classes, are spent on benefits for the middle and upper classes, not the poor. Consider, for example, the federal money handed out in social welfare spending. In a typical year, the government spends over three times the amount of money for programs that everybody benefits from – like Social Security and Medicare – than it spends for programs aimed at the poor, such as Medicaid, welfare, and food stamps.⁹

Here is another quick quiz: What is the dollar value of the benefits from federal programs that the average middle-class wage earner receives? $1,000? $5,000? A 2007 study by the Tax Foundation found that it was over $10,000.¹⁰And that figure does not include any benefits from such so-called "public goods" programs as environmental protection and public-health efforts. Include those and the value of federal programs rises to over $16,000 a year. And if we add in the benefits from state and local programs, the total amounts to over $27,000. So there is no question that we are all getting back a great deal in government benefits for the taxes we pay.

Taxes Are Not Hurting the Economy

Another very common criticism of taxes by conservatives is that taxes hurt the economy and that cutting them will increase economic growth. This was the argument used repeatedly by Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration as they passed a number of massive tax cuts. Conservatives are certainly correct that in principle taxation could be so high – say a 75% income tax on everyone – that it would stifle economic growth and any incentive that people have to work harder. But our current taxes are nowhere near this extreme, so the question is not whether taxes could hurt the economy, but whether our current taxes are hurting the economy.

The conservative case for our taxes hurting the economy is very straightforward. The argument is that taxes on various forms of income are a drag on worker productivity and consumer savings, and thus ultimately on economic growth. So the higher these taxes are, the more it slows the economy down. Conversely, if we cut these taxes, then people would have more incentive to work hard and save, and this would give a long term boost to the economy. Sounds logical enough. But it is wrong. There is little evidence to support this contention and plenty that contradicts it. Consider for example, the effect of tax changes on worker productivity. From 1950 to 1963, when the top individual income tax rate averaged 91.1%, productivity growth was 3.5%. From 1964 to 1980, when taxes were cut and the top income rate fell to 71.2 %, productivity did not go up as conservatives predicted, but actually went down a bit to 2.2%. And in fact, as shown in Table 3, the long-term statistics concerning tax rates and productivity show that as tax rates have fallen from the 1950s to the early 1990s, productivity fell as well. And when the tax rate went up in the later 1990s, productivity actually rose. This does not mean, of course, that tax cuts discourage worker productivity or that tax rises encourage it; but only that productivity depends on a large number of factors besides taxes. As we have seen in recent years, for example, technological changes like increases in computer use have a much more significant impact on productivity than tax rates do. But in any case, the point is that the tax-bashers are simply wrong about how tax cuts will boost worker productivity. Strike one for their side.

Table 3: Top Income Tax Rate and Productivity Growth in the United States 1950-2002.

	Top Average Income Tax Rate	Average Annual Productivity Growth Rate
1950-1963	91.1%	3.5%
1964-1980	71.2%	2.2%
1981-1986	53.2%	2.1%
1987-1992	30.8%	1.7%
1993-2002	39.5%	2.1%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003).

Conservatives are also wrong about the effects of tax cuts on investment and savings. The boost to investment predicted by conservatives after the tax cuts during the Reagan administration never took place. Between 1979 and 1989, the average rate of investment was 2.5%. From 1989 to 2000, it rose significantly to an average of 5.9%. But this was after George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both raised federal taxes. There is also little evidence that the Reagan tax cuts boosted savings either. Savings rates fell from 8.8% of personal disposable income in 1981 to 6.0 percent in 1986.¹¹ Moreover, two economists who did a comprehensive survey in 1996 of the economic literature on the effects of tax cuts on savings concluded: "Virtually no empirical study suggests a large saving response by households to changes in after-tax return."¹² Strike two for tax cutters.

But what about the over-all beneficial effects of tax cuts on economic growth? Again, history is a good guide. From 1981 to 1985, after the tax cuts of the Reagan administration, the economy did grow at a good rate – averaging 2.6% a year. But between 1976 and 1980, when the tax rates were higher, it grew even faster – averaging 3.2%. Similarly, after taxes were raised by Bush and Clinton, economic growth actually picked up and averaged 3.2% between 1989 and 2000.¹³So there is clearly not a strong relationship between tax rates and growth in this country. Strike three – they're out.

Comparing the U.S. to other countries brings little solace to tax cutters either. They like to think that our growing economy outpaces those of other advanced democracies in large part because of our lower tax burden. But the research doesn't bear any of this out. Consider the results of a study that compared tax levels and economic growth rates between 1970 and 2000 for a large number of countries.¹⁴It did find that Denmark and Sweden, which had much higher taxes than the U.S., also did worse in terms of average growth – about 1.6% versus about 2.3% for the U.S. But how do anti-tax advocates explain Finland and Norway, which had taxes almost 50% greater than we did, but actually enjoyed higher rates of growth? In fact, the overall results of the study indicated very little correlation between taxes and economic growth – with the U.S., Italy, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands having relatively similar rates of growth, but widely varying tax levels – from 27% to 42% of GDP. International comparisons, then, contradict rather than support the conservative contentions that we need to cut taxes to ensure economic growth or that high taxes hurt the economy. Clearly a country can have high taxes and strong economic growth as well. Strike four.

One economic analyst, Anna Bernasek of The New York Times, examined a wide variety of academic studies on the relationships between tax rates on productivity, savings, and growth. She concluded that the "notion that taxes are bad for the economy is just that: a notion not backed by strong evidence. And the costs of ignoring experience in favor of hope can be high: mounting deficits, decaying infrastructure, inadequate investment in public education and research. So the next time some proponent of tax reform promises king-size economic benefits, there is reason to be skeptical."¹⁵

page: 5 of 5

Are We Better Off Paying Less Taxes?

There is another common anti-tax argument offered by conservatives. It is a reliable old standby: Tax cuts are good because they put more money in your pocket. It is an appeal based on pure greed and selfishness. This argument is not based on any sense of what is in the public interest, only what is in your own private interest. But it can very seductive to some Americans. And anti-tax advocates do not hesitate to play this selfishness card. Consider, for example, the way Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform explains the benefits of tax cuts: "When the government doesn't take as much of your money next year as it did last year, we have more money. The government has a lower tax rate, and depending on economic growth, may have more or less money, but we, the people, have more money. So it is a good thing for us to have lower taxes."¹⁶

But here is the question: are we really better off as individuals in the long run if we were to pay much lower taxes? Naturally, most people would feel better off with a few more thousand dollars to spend. But what Norquist leaves out, and hopes Americans don't notice either, is the essential connection between tax dollars and government programs. When the government returns tax money to individuals, it must also necessarily begin to curtail important government programs that benefit us all. Tax cuts on the scale envisioned by small government advocates can't help but cut deeply into the dozens of vital government service and benefits detailed in other articles on this website. Loss of these collective benefits means that we would probably not be better off at all. Do you really believe that you would be better off if you had 27 more dollars in your pocket – the amount the average American spends to fund the Environmental Protection Agency – and had to forego all those agency's programs to ensure clean air and clean water and to deal with environmental threats like toxic waste, oil spills, mercury and lead contamination, radioactive waste, pesticide poisoning, ozone depletion, and global warming?

The reality is that in modern societies, we simply face too many serious problems and risks that we cannot deal with effectively as individuals. Having a few more thousand dollars in our pockets will not help us to deal effectively with a deteriorating public school system, police and fire department layoffs, unclean air or polluted water, unsafe food, being laid off from our jobs, threats from terrorist organizations, and so on. These kinds of problems can only be addressed collectively – through collective institutions like government that allow us to pool our resources and efforts to most effectively address these threats to our well-being.

Let's focus for a moment on one particular problem: the economic insecurity felt by a growing number of Americans. We have increasing trouble paying for health care and health insurance. Many of us are unsure whether and how we can pay for our kids to go to college. Being laid off means economic disaster for most families. Personal bankruptcies have been growing dramatically. Many Americans are also very uncertain about whether they will have enough money to live a decent life in retirement, and wonder who will take care of them in their old age. And many of these problems are greatly intensified when we have a severe recession -- like the one that began in 2008. But the point is that even in "good times," life for many Americans is full of persistent and serious economic worries.

Conservatives realize this situation all too well and have been relentless in their efforts to exploit these economic insecurities to support their campaign to reduce taxes and government. Their message is very seductive: Couldn't we all use more money in our paychecks to meet our pressing economic needs? They also like to suggest that high taxes are much of the reason for our economic insecurities. As Rep. Dick Armey has argued, the reason that "education and health care are difficult to afford is because the government itself makes us poorer through high taxes."¹⁷

But here again the government bashers have it exactly wrong. The cause of people's economic insecurities is not government taxes. Virtually all of these insecurities are coming from changes in the economy. Globalization contributes to stagnating wages. Mergers and downsizing threaten many people's job security. Many corporations can no longer afford to provide health care benefits or retirement plans for their employees. And so on. Not only are taxes not causing these insecurities, they can actually be a large part of the solutions to many of these problems. The most viable approach to many of these economic worries is again not to try to go it alone, but to support an expansion of government programs to address them directly. As we've seen, one of the main functions of modern government is to pool collective resources (taxes) to provide social insurance against many of the economic risks we all face – such as losing our job, or retiring, or facing a major illness. The better – and better funded – these programs are, the less economic worries we have.

Again, looking at Europe is instructive here. Europeans are more secure economically because they have more extensive programs to protect them from the many economic risks of modern life. They have universal health care, extensive unemployment insurance programs, generous government pensions, and free or very low-cost higher education. So instead of leaving everyone on their own to face these economic difficulties – they pool their tax resources and solve these problems for all citizens. Certainly this costs more in taxes, but the economic security that is enjoyed by everyone is priceless.

This is another reason why Europeans are not revolting against their high taxes. In Europe, taxes are not seen as a threat to people's economic security – they are seen as providing that security. Europeans do not feel like they cannot afford to pay those high taxes, rather they feel that they cannot afford to not pay them – and thus risk losing the crucial economic safety net that their social programs give them. To over-simplify only a bit: for Europeans, more taxes mean more economic security. It is a very different attitude toward taxes than we have here – but it is one we might learn a great deal from.

Seeing Government as "Them," Not "Us"

The anti-tax arguments of conservatives and libertarians also rely heavily on denying the connection between the people and their government. They do not want us to see public money as "our" money being spent for "our" benefit. Grover Norquist, for instance, rankles when people refer to the government as "we." When the interviewer Terry Gross pointed out to him that "The Bush tax cuts would cost us about $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years, and we're going to be hundreds of billions of dollars in debt." He responded by saying: "Well, there's a very interesting use of the word 'we.' Every time you use the word 'we,' you meant the government, and I tend to use the word 'we' to mean the American people and to speak of the government as the government." ¹⁸

For anti-government advocates this is a crucial distinction. They don't want people seeing government as "we." In terms of taxes, they want people to see the government as "them" taking money from "us." It is this same rhetorical point that President George W. Bush expressed when he was pushing for one of his tax refunds: "It is not the government's money," he said. "It is your money." But isn't the government's money in a very real sense "our" money too? Aren't government programs "our" programs? Al Gore, when he was running for president, certainly thought so. Responding to Bush's tax cut proposals, he argued: "Their theory is that's going to be good for the country, and they say it's your money. Well, it is your money. But it's your Medicare, it's your Social Security, it's your environment, it's your school system, it's your country."¹⁹

In a working democracy, government is supposed to be "us," and its spending policies are supposed to generally reflect "our" collective will. Granted this process works imperfectly and sometimes special interests win out over the public interest in budget battles. But the basic idea underlying democratic government is that it is a reflection and representation of us. This gives us a very different perspective on taxes. As Benjamin Barber has explained:

The money does not belong to the government, it belongs to us. But the government belongs to us too. 'It' does not steal from "us," we pool resources so we can act on behalf of the commonweal – the weal (well-being) common to us. … Taxes are not tithes imposed by tyrants; they are self-imposed duties that permit our government to discharge our common purposes. … To cry "Give Americans back their hard-earned tax dollars!" is a disingenuous way of saying "To hell with establishing justice, promoting welfare and securing liberty!" It is nothing more than a cynical bribe to get people to give up on one another and to go it alone.²⁰

The Real Problems with Taxes

All of this has been a defense of taxation and an argument that taxes play a very positive and beneficial role in our society. But this is not to say that there are no problems with taxes in this country. Of course there are – but they are not the problems that conservatives usually cite, like that we are overtaxed or that taxes are strangling the economy. In fact, if you ask the American people, their main complaint about taxes is something quite different. Pollsters have found that "What most bothers the public about taxes is the feeling that some in America are not paying their fair share. They believe that middle and lower income people pay too much while the wealthy and corporations pay too little."²¹ So some of the real questions surrounding taxes involve how fair they are, and how much of the tax burden should be shouldered by various economic classes. There are other issues as well: Are there better and worse ways to collect taxes? Should we be relying more on regressive taxes like sales taxes and less on more progressive approaches like income taxes? Should we continue the substantial tax breaks given to the middle and upper classes, such as the home mortgage interest deduction? All of these are valid and ongoing controversies about taxes in our society. But the important point here is that while these questions of what makes for a fair and effective tax system are valid issues for debate, the legitimacy of taxes themselves is not.

Reasons for Hope

Americans need to come to their senses about taxes. We need to reject taxophobia and stop falling for conservative arguments about how taxes are bad. We need to recognize that taxes are necessary and beneficial – that they are indeed the dues that we pay to live in a modern, functioning society with all the government benefits to which we have become accustomed. We need to appreciate that there is a very real connection between the taxes we pay and the vital services and programs offered by our state, local, and federal governments – and that cutting taxes the way many conservatives propose will inevitably undermine the viability of these programs and harm the public interest.

Embracing a more realistic view of the value of taxes is especially important if we want to make progress on a number of important fronts. If we want to make health care more accessible, improve education, combat global warming, etc., we need more money to do so – which means tax increases. The trillions of dollars that were spent on the Iraq War and the economic bailout have produced record budget deficits that cannot be sustained. So there is no more free lunch. If citizens want more out of their government, they must be willing to pay for it.

Fortunately, there are reasons to hope that Americans are coming around to a more positive view of taxes. Polls show that the number of Americans who believe that taxes are too high has been dropping over the last several years and is now at its lowest level since the 1960s.²² Much more importantly, they also see taxes as an important part of their contribution to a democratic society. 81% of Americans agree with the statement: "I don't mind paying taxes because my taxes are part of my contribution to society as a citizen of the United States." Another 84% also say "I don't mind paying taxes because my taxes contribute to making sure we have public schools, clean streets, public safety, national defense, and a cleaner environment." And even 74% say that that "I don't mind paying taxes because I want government to play a strong role in helping people when in need."²³We need to actively promote and build on these kinds of pro-tax sentiments. We need to go on the political offensive on the issue of taxes and make it clearer that in many cases paying more taxes makes us better off, not worse off.

Thankfully, a number of Americans have already begun to fight tax cuts and even support tax increases. In my own town, a majority of residents have voted several times in the last decade to raise their own taxes to pay for such things as a new fire station and a badly needed renovation of our high school. Many Americans are also now saying that they are willing to have their taxes increased – if the money goes to important programs like education and environmental protection. It is also encouraging that during the ongoing fiscal crisis in the states, thirty-three state legislatures have made the brave choice to raise taxes to ensure the continuation of vital services. And in a few of these states, even some Republican politicians have acknowledged the necessity of boosting revenues and have gone along with these tax increases – a testimony to the fact that common sense can triumph over blind political ideology. All of these things suggest that while anti-government crusaders may still be able to fool some of the people all of the time with their rhetoric about the evil of taxes, they are not able to fool all of the people all of the time.

*************

For more on what we get for all the taxes we pay, see A Day in Your Life with Government and The Forgotten Achievements of Government.

1. George Lakeoff, "Simple Framing," Rockridge Institute, August 25, 2006, http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/simple_framing

2. George Lakeoff, "Progressive Frame for Taxes," Rockridge Institute, August 25, 2006,

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/taxation

3. Larry Kudrow, "Terminating Any Doubt," National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow082103.asp

4. Meg Bostrum, By, or for, the People: A Meta-Analysis of Public Opinion of Government (New York: Demos, March 1, 2005) p. 27.

5. T. R. Reid, The United States of Europe (New York: Penguin Press, 2004) p. 145.

6. People for the American Way, "National Taxpayers Union, August 25, 2006. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10235

7. Revenue Statistics 1965-2003, OECD 2004, p. 18.

8. Kaiser Family Foundation, "National Survey of Public Knowledge of Welfare Reform and the Federal Budget," http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1001-welftbl.cfm. June 23, 2006

9. Mimi Abramovitz, "Everyone is Still on Welfare: The Role of Redistribution in Social Policy," Social Work, Volume 46, No. 4, p. 299.

10. Andrew Chamberlain and Gerald Prante, "Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991-2004." http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf

11. All of these figures are from John O. Fox, If Americans Really Understood the Income Tax (Boulder Colorado:Westview Press, 2001) p. 170.

12. Fox, p. 169.

13. Fox, p. 166.

14. Joel Slemrod and Jon Bakija, Taxing Ourselves, 3rd Edition: A Citizen's Guide to the Debate over Taxes (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), p. 119.

15. Anna Bernasek, "Do Taxes Thwart Growth? Prove it," The New York Times, April 3, 2005, p.6, Business section.

16. Terry Gross, "Grover Norquist" Fresh Air, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1452983

17. Dick Armey, The Freedom Revolution, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1995, p. 292.

18. Terry Gross, "Grover Norquist" Fresh Air, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1452983

19. NY Times, Aug 31, 2000.

20. Benjamin Barber, "A Civics Lesson," The Nation, November 4, 1996, p. 21.

21. Bostrum, p. 17.

22. "Americans' View on Taxes," National Public Radio, April, 2003. www.npr.org/news/specials/polls/taxes2003/index.html

23. Bostrum, p. 27.

Plastic Bag Bans Actually Work, Study of European Waters Shows

2018-04-30T15:43:00.000-04:00

Plastic Bag Bans Actually Work, Study of European Waters Shows

https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-bag-bans-uk-2556456601.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=1f900bdfd2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-1f900bdfd2-85946369

Plastic Bag Bans Actually Work, Study of European Waters Shows

Plastic bag or jellyfish? Sea turtles looking for food can have trouble telling the difference. Saving The Waves / Instagram

If you ever feel like the world's plastic nightmare might never end, a new study shows proof that plastic pollution legislation actually works.

There are significantly fewer plastic bags on the seafloor ever since a number of European countries introduced fees on the items, according to a 25-year study from the UK government's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).

Researchers found an estimated 30 percent drop in the number of plastic bags in waters around Norway, Germany, northern France and Ireland.

"It is encouraging to see that efforts by all of society, whether the public, industry, NGOs or government to reduce plastic bags are having an effect," Thomas Maes, Marine Litter Scientist at CEFAS, said in a statement.

"We observed sharp declines in the percentage of plastic bags as captured by fishing nets trawling the seafloor around the UK compared to 2010 and this research suggests that by working together we can reduce, reuse and recycle to tackle the marine litter problem."

Ireland and Denmark were the first two countries to introduce levies for single-use plastic bags in 2003. A number of European countries followed. In 2015, England became the last country in the UK to introduce a fee.

The study, published in the journal Science of The Total Environment, was based on 39 independent scientific surveys of the distribution and abundance of marine litter on seabeds of the North Sea, English Channel, Celtic Sea and Irish Sea between 1992 and 2017.

Plastic trash such as bags, bottles and fishing debris were commonly observed over the entire 25-year period, with 63 percent of the 2,461 trawls containing at least one plastic litter item.

In a statement, Richard Harrington from the Marine Conservation Society said the decrease in the number of plastic bags recorded in the surveys is "very encouraging."

"It shows that fiscal measures can work—charging for what was once a free item, often used just once and thrown away, has had a real influence on consumer behavior without genuinely hurting people in the pocket," Harrington said.

However, even though fewer plastic bags were recorded, the researchers found widespread distribution of other plastic items on the seafloor. They also noted a significant upward trend of fishing debris.

This means plastic bag legislation is merely a start in reducing the 8 million tons of plastic waste that gets dumped into our oceans every year.

As WWF UK tweeted, "Great to see less plastic bags in our oceans, but we need the government to put an end to the use of all avoidable single-use plastic by 2025."

In March, the UK government released a startling report warning that plastic pollution in the world's oceans is projected to increase three-fold within seven years unless action is taken.

The Future of the Sea report found that human beings across the globe produce more than 300 million metric tons of plastic per year. Unfortunately, a lot of that material ends up in our waters, with the total amount of plastic debris in the sea predicted to increase from 50 million metric tons in 2015 to 150 million metric tons by 2025.

To solve this plastic epidemic, the authors suggested solutions that range from preventing plastic from entering the sea, introducing new biodegradable plastics, and campaigns that raise public awareness about marine protection.

Humans Eat More Than 100 Plastic Fibers With Each Meal

2018-04-30T15:42:00.001-04:00

Humans Eat More Than 100 Plastic Fibers With Each Meal

https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-consumption-food-dust-2556502607.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=1f900bdfd2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-1f900bdfd2-85946369

Humans Eat More Than 100 Plastic Fibers With Each Meal

Health Apr. 05, 2018 03:22PM EST

The proliferation of microplastics in the ocean has led to concerns that they might work their way up the food chain to us.

But when researchers at Heriot-Watt University set out to investigate that concern, they found that plastics in our own homes pose a much greater threat to humans.

The results of the study, published March 29 in Environmental Pollution, found that humans likely consume about 114 plastic microfibers each meal simply from household dust that settles on their plates.

Researchers gathered mussels from around the coast of Scotland in order to assess how many microplastics humans might ingest by eating the mussels.

As a control, they also set Petri dishes filled with sticky dust traps next to dinner plates at three separate homes.

Fourteen pieces of plastic settled on the dishes after 20 minutes, about the length of a meal. Given the difference in size, scientists calculated 114 such pieces would settle on a plate during the same time.

That adds up to 13,731 to 68,415 pieces per year.

In comparison, researchers calculated that eating mussels would only lead humans to ingest 100 microplastics yearly. Each mussel they studied contained about two plastic particles.

"These results may be surprising to some people who may expect the plastic fibres in seafood to be higher than those in household dust," senior study author Dr. Ted Henry said in a Heriot-Watt University press release.

The study's authors did not think that the plastics came from the home-cooked meals used in the study or the kitchens where they were prepared.

"We do not know where these fibres come from, but it is likely to be inside the home and the wider environment," Henry said in the release.

Friends of the Earth member Julian Kirby provided the university with insight into how plastic particles end up in dust.

"Plastic microfibers found in the dust in our homes and the air we breathe can come from car tyres, carpets and soft furnishings, as well as clothes such as fleece jackets. These are regularly shedding tiny bits of plastic into the environment as they are worn away," he said in the Heriot-Watt release.

According to a study published in Lancet Planetary Health in October, 2017, the proliferation of microplastics in the environment is a concern in part because the impact on human health is still not well-known.

However, even if marine microplastics are not the main source for human consumption, they are still a major problem for marine life. The study also marked the first time microplastics were found in the protected mussel species Modiolus modiolus.

Jerry Brown and Justin Trudeau: Climate Advocates, or Hypocrites?

2018-04-30T15:40:00.001-04:00

Jerry Brown and Justin Trudeau: Climate Advocates, or Hypocrites?

https://www.ecowatch.com/trudeau-brown-climate-change-hypocrites-2559708922.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=1f900bdfd2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-1f900bdfd2-85946369

Jerry Brown and Justin Trudeau: Climate Advocates, or Hypocrites?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Governor Jerry Brown at the United Nations Paris agreement signing ceremony dinner. Mike Bloomberg / Flickr

By Andy Rowell

Two leading political figures from the U.S. and Canada, who have boasted about the need to fight climate change, are now under fire for being climate change hypocrites: saying they care about the climate, but allowing drilling and fossil fuel infrastructure to be built anyway.

On Wednesday, more than 750 public interest groups from California and around the world, including Oil Change International, started a campaign urging the governor of California, Jerry Brown, to stop building fossil fuel infrastructure, including no new exploration permits offshore.

The letter told Brown to "take immediate action to protect those most vulnerable to climate change or lose their support for the global climate action summit that he will host five months from now in San Francisco."

The campaign has sponsored billboards in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento, placed adverts in local newspapers, and launched a thermal airship over San Francisco Bay to challenge Brown for falling short on plans to limit fossil fuels in the state.

The letter urged Brown, who has stated on numerous times that time is running out to solve climate change and who has stated that fighting the issue will be one of his signature acts, to "champion a vision for California that looks beyond the oil and gas industry to a future that is safe and healthy for everyone," the letter says.

It continues by urging Brown to "set a global precedent by becoming the first oil producing state to announce a phase-out of existing production in line with the Paris climate goals, with a just and equitable transition that protects workers, communities, and economies, starting in places that are suffering most from the impacts of fossil fuel extraction."

But Brown is not the only politician who has promoted their green credentials who is now under fire for failing to adequately act on climate.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is due to fly back from an overseas trip over the weekend to convene a meeting concerning the controversial Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that will triple production of dirty tar sands going from Alberta to British Columbia.

The pipeline has been subject to sustained protests and legal action by the local community and BC government, led by John Horgan. Earlier this week, Kinder Morgan announced that it was stopping work until the end of May until political and legal opposition is sorted. Many people now see the pipeline as being on "life support."

Even the Economist argues that the pipeline is now likely to become "another flop," and noted that last week David McKay, head of RBC, Canada's largest bank, was concerned that investment was flowing out of the Canadian energy sector "in real time."

Trudeau continues to support the pipeline. Yesterday he tweeted that "I wouldn't approve major pipeline projects if I wasn't confident they could be done safely. And they can be done safely because we've made a massive investment in protecting our oceans and coastlines—in BC and across the country."

The tweet was accompanied by a glossy video, which was posted on Twitter and Facebook.

The reason for the meeting over the weekend, according to press reports, is that Trudeau wants to strong-arm BC Premier "John Horgan to reverse his stance." Horgan responded that he was going to "represent BC, our coast and economy."

Yesterday, 40 civil society groups sent a letter to Trudeau on behalf of their Quebec members, urging the federal government to "immediately cease supporting Kinder Morgan's pipeline. Do not turn this pipeline into your political legacy."

The letter continues:

"We remind you in particular of your government's commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies. The Trudeau government, in supporting a 20th-century sector of the economy, is failing to live up to its responsibility.

The national interest of Canada does not rest in the construction of The Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, but in the inevitable energy transition that is so urgently needed in order to counter climate change.

The support that you continue to provide to the pipeline project casts a serious cloud on your credibility as a leader in the fight against climate change.

We repeat: Do not turn this pipeline into your political legacy."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Oil Change International.

Popular Beer and Wine Brands Contaminated With Monsanto's Weedkiller, Tests Reveal

2018-04-30T15:33:00.001-04:00

Popular Beer and Wine Brands Contaminated With Monsanto's Weedkiller, Tests Reveal

https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-wine-beer-testing-2553632957.html?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=1f900bdfd2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-1f900bdfd2-85946369

Popular Beer and Wine Brands Contaminated With Monsanto's Weedkiller, Tests Reveal

Health Mar. 27, 2018 10:09AM EST

By Zen Honeycutt

The past few years have revealed some disturbing news for the alcohol industry. In 2015, CBS news broke the announcement of a lawsuit against 31 brands of wines for high levels of inorganic arsenic. In 2016, beer testing in Germany also revealed residues of glyphosate in every single sample tested, even independent beers.

Moms Across America released test results of 12 California wines that were all found to be positive for glyphosate in 2016. We tested further and released new findings last week of glyphosate in all of the most popular brands of wines in the world, the majority of which are from the U.S. and in batch test results in American beer.

What do these events all have in common? Monsanto's Roundup.

French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini released shocking findings in January of 2018 that of all the Roundup products they tested, over a dozen had high levels of arsenic—over five times the allowable limit along with dangerous levels of heavy metals.

Roundup is commonly sprayed in vineyards to keep the rows looking tidy and free of so-called weeds and on grain crops (used in beer) as a drying agent just before harvest. Glyphosate herbicides do not dry, wash or cook off and they have been proven to be neurotoxic, carcinogenic, endocrine disruptors and a cause of liver disease at very low levels.

The wine brands tested included Gallo, Beringer, Mondavi, Barefoot and Sutter Home. Beer brands tested included Budweiser, Busch, Coors, Michelob, Miller Lite, Sam Adams, Samuel Smith, Peak Organic and Sierra Nevada.

Some of the test results were at first confusing. One would expect the organic wines and beers, and the carefully crafted independent beer brands to be free of glyphosate, as the herbicides are not allowed or used in organic farming. Instead, it appears that they are contaminated. Previous testing did show that some organic wines were contaminated, and in this round, one of the organic brands was as low as 0.38 ppb, but conventional wines had glyphosate residues 61 times higher, at 23.30 ppb. Studies have shown only 1 part per trillion to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells, so any amount is concerning.

Regarding beer, further testing would need to be done (we hope by the brands themselves), but it appears that the batch tests (equal amounts of multiple brands tested in one batch) of independent beer brands had higher levels: up to 13.60 ppb more than conventional beers. The organic batch tested at 2.57. Batch tests of large conventional brands such as Budweiser, Coors and Michelob showed 2.11 ppb collectively.

Inquiries into the big beer company manufacturing process revealed a possible explanation. Conventional beer producers tend to use cheaper ingredients which include rice, instead of barley, oats, rye and wheat, which are more expensive and tend to be used by independent and organic beer companies who prefer a richer flavor. Cheaper, hulled white rice is expected to have far lower levels of glyphosate residues than whole barley, oats and malt. If they are not organic, these are crops which are commonly sprayed with glyphosate as a drying agent just before harvest.

But one thing that is clear is that the beer and wine industries must—and in many cases are—moving away from Monsanto's Roundup in order to avoid contamination by this harmful chemical herbicide.

Pam Strayer of Viewpoint-Wines & Vines pointed out that, "In 2016, organic wine grew 11 percent by volume; imported organic wines grew 14 percent, double that of American organic producers at 7 percent."

"I haven't used Roundup since 1977," said Phil Coturri, the Sonoma vineyard manager who was recognized by the Golden Gate Salmon Association earlier this year for his environmentally sound viticulture. "You can't constantly use a product and think that it's not going to have an effect. Glyphosate is something that's made to kill."

More than 1,000 plaintiffs, most of them farmers, have filed lawsuits against Monsanto, a leading manufacturer of glyphosate, for Roundup exposure leading to non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Even big beer brands are seeing the benefit of organic. Anheuser-Busch announced last week that its brand Michelob has launched a new beer made with organic wheat called Ultra Pure Gold.

The Brewers Association, which certifies small independent and craft beers, gave this statement regarding the new MAA glyphosate test results:

"Brewers do not want glyphosate used on barley or any raw brewing material, and the barley grower organizations have also come out strongly against glyphosate. It is clear that the malting and brewing industries are aligned in their opposition to the use of glyphosate on malting barley."

So how does glyphosate contaminate organic wines and beers? Drift, polluted irrigation water, soil and through a new phenomena: pesticide rains. Glyphosate and other toxic chemical particles remain in evaporated water or dust clouds which form into rain and can contaminate vineyards and grain crops thousands of miles away.

In America, one out of two males and one out of three females are expected to get cancer, one out of five have mental illness, many struggle with infertility, sterility and infant death, and our healthcare costs are crippling. Just last week, a new study revealed that maternal exposure to glyphosate showed significantly higher rates of shortened gestation. Prematurely born babies are at significant risk of infant death.

According to a Save the Children 2013 report, the U.S. has 50 percent more infant deaths on day one of life than all other developed countries combined. Could this be due to the widespread use, drift and contamination of pesticides and herbicides like Roundup? These studies may suggest so. If American policymakers want to lower healthcare costs, eliminating the use of glyphosate herbicides could be one reasonable step to take.

Concerned consumers who don't want to drink wine and beer contaminated with harmful chemical pesticides and herbicides such as glyphosate have a chance to be heard. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently accepting comments until April 30, 2018, on the re-registration or denial of the license for glyphosate. Leave a comment, cite a scientific study found in this article, and protect grape growers and grain farmers, too. Then, when glyphosate is no longer used in farming, we can truly collectively say, "Cheers, to good health!"

Full results, brand names, and lab report links can be found here.

Reposted with permission from our media associate AlterNet.

Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity | Quanta Magazine

2018-04-30T15:24:00.001-04:00

Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein's Theory of Gravity | Quanta Magazine

https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/?mc_cid=6fb49d111c&mc_eid=abdd9bde6f

Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein's Theory of Gravity

ByKatia Moskvitch

April 30, 2018

Miguel Zumalacárregui knows what it feels like when theories die. In September 2017, he was at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Saclay, near Paris, to speak at a meeting about dark energy and modified gravity. The official news had not yet broken about an epochal astronomical measurement — the detection, by gravitational wave detectors as well as many other telescopes, of a collision between two neutron stars — but a controversial tweet had lit a firestorm of rumor in the astronomical community, and excited researchers were discussing the discovery in hushed tones.

Zumalacárregui, a theoretical physicist at the Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, had been studying how the discovery of a neutron-star collision would affect so-called "alternative" theories of gravity. These theories attempt to overcome what many researchers consider to be two enormous problems with our understanding of the universe. Observations going back decades have shown that the universe appears to be filled with unseen particles — dark matter — as well as an anti-gravitational force called dark energy. Alternative theories of gravity attempt to eliminate the need for these phantasms by modifying the force of gravity in such a way that it properly describes all known observations — no dark stuff required.

At the meeting, Zumalacárregui joked to his audience about the perils of combining science and Twitter, and then explained what the consequences would be if the rumors were true. Many researchers knew that the merger would be a big deal, but a lot of them simply "hadn't understood their theories were on the brink of demise," he later wrote in an email. In Saclay, he read them the last rites. "That conference was like a funeral where we were breaking the news to some attendees."

The neutron-star collision was just the beginning. New data in the months since that discovery have made life increasingly difficult for the proponents of many of the modified-gravity theories that remain. Astronomers have analyzed extreme astronomical systems that contain spinning neutron stars, or pulsars, to look for discrepancies between their motion and the predictions of general relativity — discrepancies that some theories of alternative gravity anticipate. These pulsar systems let astronomers probe gravity on a new scale and with new precision. And with each new observation, these alternative theories of gravity are having an increasingly hard time solving the problems they were invented for. Researchers "have to sweat some more trying to get new physics," said Anne Archibald, an astrophysicist at the University of Amsterdam.

Searching for Vulcan

Confounding observations have a way of leading astronomers to desperate explanations. On the afternoon of March 26, 1859, Edmond Lescarbault, a young doctor and amateur astronomer in Orgères-en-Beauce, a small village south of Paris, had a break between patients. He rushed to a tiny homemade observatory on the roof of his stone barn. With the help of his telescope, he spotted an unknown round object moving across the face of the sun.

He quickly sent news of this discovery to Urbain Le Verrier, the world's leading astronomer at the time. Le Verrier had been trying to account for an oddity in the movement of the planet Mercury. All other planets orbit the sun in perfect accord with Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, but Mercury appeared to advance a tiny amount with each orbit, a phenomenon known as perihelion precession. Le Verrier was certain that there had to be an invisible "dark" planet tugging on Mercury. Lescarbault's observation of a dark spot transiting the sun appeared to show that the planet, which Le Verrier named Vulcan, was real.

It was not. Lescarbault's sightings were never confirmed, and the perihelion precession of Mercury remained a puzzle for nearly six more decades. Then Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, which straightforwardly predicted that Mercury should behave the way it does.

It’s Political Media vs. Comedians as White House Press Association Disavows Michelle Wolf | Vanity Fair

2018-04-30T15:20:00.001-04:00

It's Political Media vs. Comedians as White House Press Association Disavows Michelle Wolf | Vanity Fair

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/04/michelle-wolf-white-house-correspondents-dinner-sarah-huckabee-sanders-smokey-eye

It's Political Media vs. Comedians as White House Press Association Disavows Michelle Wolf

The White House Correspondents' Association has disavowed Wolf's Correspondents' dinner address, amid a non-controversy that sprang from an innocuous joke about eye makeup.

Laura BradleyApril 30, 2018 9:30 am

By Aaron P. Bernstein/REUTERS.

On Saturday night, Michelle Wolf roasted the current presidential administration and the media at the White House Correspondents' dinner, as per annual tradition. But it appears that the people who hired her for that roast had been hoping she'd do . . . something else.

Following criticism from some of the elite journalists in the room—along with conservative politicians and pundits targeted by Wolf—the White House Correspondents' Association released a statement disavowing Wolf's speech, saying it did not reflect the "spirit" of the night. What, precisely, the organization meant by this is unclear, since Wolf gave a performance that was very much in keeping with the tradition set by comics before her, at least tracing back to Stephen Colbert scorching George W. Bush in 2006. If Wolf's roast—which worked in swipes at just about everyone imaginable, including left- and right-wing media, Democrats and Republicans, Donald Trump, Mike Pence and, yes, Sarah Huckabee Sanders—did not reflect, as the Association put it, the "spirit" of the night, it's worth asking if any true roast could.

The statement, written by Association president Margaret Talev and released late Sunday, noted that some members of the group expressed "dismay with [Wolf's] monologue and concerns about how it reflects on our mission." Talev ultimately agreed with their dismay: "Last night's program was meant to offer a unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honoring civility, great reporting and scholarship winners, not to divide people. Unfortunately the entertainer's monologue was not in the spirit of that mission."

Unsurprisingly, President Trump himself—who, like last year, skipped the dinner in favor of throwing himself a rally on the same night—has also chimed in, tweeting, "The White House Correspondents' Dinner was a failure last year, but this year was an embarrassment to everyone associated with it. The filthy 'comedian' totally bombed (couldn't even deliver her lines-much like the Seth Meyers weak performance). Put Dinner to rest, or start over!" Such ire is to be expected from the president—but several prominent journalists scolded Wolf's address as well, including NBC News's Andrea Mitchell, who said Wolf should apologize. In particular, Wolf's joke, that Sanders "burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smoky eye," stirred backlash. "Maybe she's born with it," Wolf had said Saturday night, referencing the Maybelline slogan. "Maybe it's lies. It's probably lies." Star New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman complimented Sanders for her fortitude: she "sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out," Haberman wrote.

The gist from those who disliked the roast is that Wolf was simply too mean. But plenty of people have come to Wolf's defense as well—including several prominent comedians. Wolf's former Late Night colleague Seth Meyers—who hosted the Correspondents' dinner in 2011—wrote, "Few people go to DC and accomplish what they set out to do while staying true to themselves. @michelleisawolf is one of those people." Kumail Nanjiani was among those who questioned if a joke about Sanders' eye makeup really constituted a knock against her looks. (In Wolf's own opinion, as expressed after the fact, it did not.) And Kathy Griffin—who also faced a firestorm of controversy after making a joke against the Trump administration that some said went too far—offered a thorough defense in a lengthy thread, in which she asked why the offended journalists are holding Wolf, a comedian, to a higher standard of integrity than the president of the United States.

Wolf, Griffin noted, "was hired to do a roast. That was her job. She wasn't hired to offer media analysis or be fair and balanced. She was hired to poke fun at powerful people. Not once did she punch down. She focused on the people/institutions that are powerful beyond measure. . . Comics by their nature are anti-establishment. They are charged with the often unenviable task of going after people in power. It's a lot easier to tell jokes about the difference between LA and NYC or cats and dogs."

Perhaps, then, it wasn't the Sanders line that riled the media, but this one instead: "I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you," Wolf said as she began to wrap up. "He couldn't sell steaks or vodka or water or college or ties or Eric—but he has helped you. He's helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off of him." If the Association wasn't pleased with her performance, perhaps they should take Jimmy Kimmel's advice: "Hire a juggler next year."

Get Vanity Fair's HWD Newsletter

Westworld (Season 2)

HBO is once again hoping you'll ignore the big Game of Thrones-shaped hole in its schedule and turn your attention back to the sci-fi mind game that is Westworld. The Emmy-nominated series, starring Evan Rachel Wood and Thandie Newton, is ready to confound you once again in its second season. Until its spring 2018 premiere, take a trip back in time and revisit nine burning questions we still have about the finale.

Photo: By John P. Johnson/HBO.

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a4470e28ae8fd2b3a999df0/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS01.jpghttps://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/westworld-finale-recap-the-bicameral-mind-is-ford-dead-elsie-stubbs-abernathy-loganhttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a4474fd577ffb294a2534d9/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS02.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA9504KAd3ghttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a4474fef3c68c7e92305270/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS03.jpghttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5734d85e84cb4922586cc78f/master/w_768,c_limit/Russia-Doping-Ring-2014-Sochi-Olympics-01.jpghttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a447500f3c68c7e92305272/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS04.jpghttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a447503f504972c1f3e6a92/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS07.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68ndaZSKa8https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a4475039781ed4490fc3968/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS06.jpghttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a44713f1f2f4325736cd7bc/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS08.jpghttps://youtu.be/QK_iX5cPDhEhttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a4475081f2f4325736cd7c0/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS09.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8shttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a44750977bfbd53e1f5cc4b/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS11.jpghttps://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/roseanne-revival-roseanne-barr-john-goodman-sara-gilberthttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a4475109781ed4490fc396a/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS12.jpghttps://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/oceans-8-trailerhttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a447518f23f9530d4dbb0bc/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS13.jpghttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a44750b1f2f4325736cd7c2/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS14.jpghttps://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/05/master-of-none-season-2-thanksgiving-lena-waithehttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a44750d1f2f4325736cd7c4/master/w_768,c_limit/EOY-Best-TV-Shows-Movies-SS15.jpghttps://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59e636d325ed7b53f5cdef4e/master/w_768,c_limit/Han-Solo-New-Movie.jpghttps://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/lord-and-miller-han-solo-firing-details

Laura Bradley is a Hollywood writer for VanityFair.com.