Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/287850078?client_source=feed&format=rss
groundhog day Ed Koch Groundhog Day 2013 What Time Is The Superbowl Caleb Moore House of Cards Warm Bodies
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Diverse Destinations For A Tiger Safari
One of the most enduringly popular animals to feature on wildlife watching holidays, the Tiger is a strikingly beautiful creature that can be sighted in a wide range of locations. With the adaptability that has allowed them to thrive in a number of different habitats, they have spread out over the Asian continent during the course of their evolution. Today, they can be found in 13 of the worlds countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Russia, Thailand and Vietnam. The most famous of these, and the one with the most options when it comes to choosing a Tiger safari, is India, but there are several other destinations that are equally awe-inspiring and intriguing in their own right, both in terms of environment and culture.
India
As a country which has the Tiger for its national animal, and which has in many ways been a leading light in conservation campaigns, India needs little introduction as a destination for those who wish to observe these majestic creatures in the wild. The countrys national parks are generally considered to be the best places in the world to watch them in their natural habitat and there are plenty of these parks to choose from. One of the most popular is Bandhavgarh National Park, thanks to its large Tiger population, while Kanha National Park is also a good place for sightings, and has a diverse range of other wildlife, which never fails to impress visitors. The forests of India are teeming with life, from big cats to brilliant birds, making any Tiger safari a true treat for wildlife lovers.
Nepal
Although sightings are not as common in Nepal as they are in India, the countrys wild population is on the rise thanks to sustained conservation efforts, and it is possible to see them while exploring the forests of national parks such as Chitwan and Bardia. These parks have high biodiversity and support a number of other impressive animals as well, including the Indian Rhino, Sambar and Sloth Bear. With a somewhat different range of wildlife than that found in Indias Tiger safari destinations, Nepal is well worth exploring.
Bhutan
A jewel of a Himalayan kingdom is to be found in Bhutan. The animals in Bhutan are adapted for high altitudes and mountain climates, with individuals having been seen at up to 4,000 metres above sea level; indeed, Bhutans most famous mountain monastery is popularly known as the Tigers Nest after an ancient legend tells of the animals dwelling in a cave there although the big cats are not to be found in that particular area today. A very different country to most places where Tigers live, Bhutan is known for its unique and independent culture, as well as for its spectacular unspoilt wilderness. While sightings are less frequent here than elsewhere in the region, a visit to Bhutans forests can be a wonderful next stop after a Tiger safari in India, offering a chance to see different side of Asia, not to mention a stunning range of endemic flora and colourful fauna.
Marissa Ellis-Snow is a freelance nature writer. If youre looking for a Tiger safari, Naturetrek specialises in expert-led natural history and wildlife tours worldwide. Naturetrek brings over 25 years of experience to to wildlife tours to some of the most spectacular regions on Earth.
Source: http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/-Diverse-Destinations-For-A-Tiger-Safari/4459276
fast times at ridgemont high soylent green phil davis george st pierre aldon smith friday night lights nick santino
Fermi's motion produces a study in spirograph
Feb. 27, 2013 ? NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope orbits our planet every 95 minutes, building up increasingly deeper views of the universe with every circuit. Its wide-eyed Large Area Telescope (LAT) sweeps across the entire sky every three hours, capturing the highest-energy form of light -- gamma rays -- from sources across the universe. These range from supermassive black holes billions of light-years away to intriguing objects in our own galaxy, such as X-ray binaries, supernova remnants and pulsars.
Now a Fermi scientist has transformed LAT data of a famous pulsar into a mesmerizing movie that visually encapsulates the spacecraft's complex motion.
Pulsars are neutron stars, the crushed cores of massive suns that destroyed themselves when they ran out of fuel, collapsed and exploded. The blast simultaneously shattered the star and compressed its core into a body as small as a city yet more massive than the sun. The result is an object of incredible density, where a spoonful of matter weighs as much as a mountain on Earth. Equally incredible is a pulsar's rapid spin, with typical rotation periods ranging from once every few seconds up to hundreds of times a second. Fermi sees gamma rays from more than a hundred pulsars scattered across the sky.
One pulsar shines especially bright for Fermi. Called Vela, it spins 11 times a second and is the brightest persistent source of gamma rays the LAT sees. Although gamma-ray bursts and flares from distant black holes occasionally outshine the pulsar, they don't have Vela's staying power. Because pulsars emit beams of energy, scientists often compare them to lighthouses, a connection that in a broader sense works especially well for Vela, which is both a brilliant beacon and a familiar landmark in the gamma-ray sky.
Most telescopes focus on a very small region of the sky, but the LAT is a wide-field instrument that can detect gamma rays across a large portion of the sky at once. The LAT is, however, much more sensitive to gamma rays near the center of its field of view than at the edges. Scientists can use observations of a bright source like Vela to track how this sensitivity varies across the instrument's field of view.
With this in mind, LAT team member Eric Charles, a physicist at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University in California, used the famous pulsar to produce a novel movie. He tracked both Vela's position relative to the center of the LAT's field of view and the instrument's exposure of the pulsar during the first 51 months of Fermi's mission, from Aug. 4, 2008, to Nov. 15, 2012.
The movie renders Vela's position in a fisheye perspective, where the middle of the pattern corresponds to the central and most sensitive portion of the LAT's field of view. The edge of the pattern is 90 degrees away from the center and well beyond what scientists regard as the effective limit of the LAT's vision.
The pulsar traces out a loopy, hypnotic pattern reminiscent of art produced by the colored pens and spinning gears of a Spirograph, a children's toy that produces geometric patterns.
The pattern created in the Vela movie reflects numerous motions of the spacecraft. The first is Fermi's 95-minute orbit around Earth, but there's another, subtler motion related to it. The orbit itself also rotates, a phenomenon called precession. Similar to the wobble of an unsteady top, Fermi's orbital plane makes a slow circuit around Earth every 54 days.
In order to capture the entire sky every two orbits, scientists deliberately nod the LAT in a repeating pattern from one orbit to the next. It first looks north on one orbit, south on the next, and then north again. Every few weeks, the LAT deviates from this pattern to concentrate on particularly interesting targets, such as eruptions on the sun, brief but brilliant gamma-ray bursts associated with the birth of stellar-mass black holes, and outbursts from supermassive black holes in distant galaxies.
The Vela movie captures one other Fermi motion. The spacecraft rolls to keep the sun from shining on and warming up the LAT's radiators, which regulate its temperature by bleeding excess heat into space.
The braided loops and convoluted curves drawn by Vela hint at the complexity of removing these effects from the torrent of data Fermi returns, but that's a challenge LAT scientists long ago proved they could meet. Still going strong after more than four years on the job, Fermi continues its mission to map the high-energy sky, which is now something everyone can envision as a celestial Spriograph traced by a pulsar pen.
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/most_popular/~3/Kd6-_fYbEqw/130227183532.htm
michael buble michael buble Jenni Rivera Alive Facebook Down bo jackson bo jackson hanukkah
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Video: Target's Q4 Earnings Beats Top & Bottom Line
Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.
Source: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/cnbc/50970841/
ufc 143 weigh ins micron ceo glenn miller who do you think you are superpac steve appleton bishop eddie long
Hagel takes helm at Pentagon after bitter fight
FILE - In this Jan. 31, 2013, file photo, Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Hagel is expected to be sworn in as Secretary of Defense Wednesday Feb. 27, 2013 and is likely to address the staff in his first day as defense secretary. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, file)
FILE - In this Jan. 31, 2013, file photo, Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Hagel is expected to be sworn in as Secretary of Defense Wednesday Feb. 27, 2013 and is likely to address the staff in his first day as defense secretary. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, file)
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Chuck Hagel took charge Wednesday of the Defense Department with deep budget cuts looming and Republican opponents still doubtful that he's up to the job.
He took the oath of office as Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon and was expected to address civilian and uniformed employees of the department later Wednesday morning.
The bitter, seven-week fight over his nomination ended Tuesday as a deeply divided Senate voted 58-41 to confirm him. Just four Republicans joined Democrats in backing the former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska and twice-wounded Vietnam combat veteran.
"I am honored that President Obama and the Senate have entrusted me to serve our nation once again," Hagel said in a statement Tuesday. "I can think of no greater privilege than leading the brave, dedicated men and women of the Department of Defense as they perform vital missions around the globe."
Hagel promised to work closely with Congress, but he faces lingering reservations about his ability to handle the responsibilities. Shortly after the vote, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he still has serious questions about Hagel and his qualifications.
"I hope, for the sake of our own national security, he exceeds expectations," said the South Carolina Republican.
The top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, said Hagel's record on Israel, Iran, defense spending and nuclear weapons "demonstrate, in my view, a profound and troubling lack of judgment on many of the critical issues he will now be confronted with as secretary of defense."
But Inhofe promised to work with Hagel to avoid the $46 billion in automatic, across-the-board budget cuts that hit the Pentagon on Friday.
Obama alluded to the need for cooperation in his statement welcoming the vote.
The president said he was grateful to Hagel "for reminding us that when it comes to our national defense, we are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans, and our greatest responsibility is the security of the American people."
Hagel joins Obama's retooled national security team, including Secretary of State John Kerry and CIA Director-designate John Brennan, at a time of uncertainty for a military emerging from two wars and fighting worldwide terrorism with smaller, deficit-driven budgets.
Among his daunting challenges are dealing with the budget cuts and deciding on troop levels in Afghanistan as the United States winds down its combat presence. He also will have to work with lawmakers who spent weeks vilifying him.
Republicans insisted that Hagel was battered and bloodied after their repeated attacks during the protracted political fight.
"He will take office with the weakest support of any defense secretary in modern history, which will make him less effective on his job," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate GOP's No. 2 Republican.
Not so, said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, who pointed out that Hagel now has the title and the fight is history.
"All have to work together for the interest of the country," said Reed, D-R.I.
The vote ended one of the bitterest fights over a Cabinet choice and former senator since 1989, when the Democratic-led Senate defeated newly elected President George H.W. Bush's nomination of Republican John Tower to be defense secretary. This time, Republicans waged an unprecedented filibuster of a president's Pentagon pick and Hagel only secured the job after Republicans dropped their delay.
A 71-27 vote to end the filibuster cleared the way for Hagel's confirmation.
In the course of the rancorous nomination fight, Republicans, led by Inhofe and freshman Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insinuated that Hagel has a cozy relationship with Iran and received payments for speeches from extreme or radical groups. Those comments drew rebukes from Democrats and some Republicans.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed the "unfair innuendoes" against Hagel and called him an "outstanding American patriot" whose background as an enlisted soldier would send a positive message to the nation's servicemen and women.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., questioned how the confirmation process devolved into a character assassination in which Hagel was accused of "having secret ties with our enemies."
"I sincerely hope that the practice of challenging nominations with innuendo and inference, rather than facts and figures, was an aberration and not a roadmap," she said in a statement after the vote.
___
Follow Donna Cassata on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DonnaCassataAP
Associated Pressrob gronkowski Coughing eddie murphy Stephanie Bongiovi stanford football guy fieri Jill Kelley
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Sorry 'Arrested Development' fans, Netflix series is probably a 'One-Off'
NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) - "Arrested Development" fans who want the show to come back for good had better start looking for someone to help them out. Netflix will release the fourth season of the show in May, but CEO Reed Hastings said that's all his company has signed up for.
Speaking at Morgan Stanley's Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco on Monday, Hastings said he didn't anticipate being able to do season five, six or seven - just the forthcoming fourth season.
"It's a fantastic one-off," Hastings said, citing his company's lack of control over the Fox and Imagine-produced show. "Think about it as a non-repeatable amazing."
Despite its passionate audience, the critically beloved comedy was canceled by Fox in 2006 after three seasons due to low ratings. Years later, Netflix stepped in to distribute a new season.
Creator Mitchell Hurwitz said this month at AllThingsD's Dive Into Media conference that Netflix was one of the only places where the show could live. A movie, he said, would be too difficult because time has passed since the show last aired, but releasing the show all at once, as Netflix will do, enabled him to film around his actors' schedules.
Hastings on Monday tried to downplay the importance of original shows to Netflix's bottom line while concurrently recognizing that they were essential to its future. Netflix, which just released the "House of Cards," has several new shows coming this year, including Eli Roth's "Hemlock Grove" and Jenji Kohan's "Orange is the New Black."
"It may be the center of the PR for a while and that's OK, but i don't want you guys to think that suddenly we're the original content company," Hastings said.
Companies like Hulu and Amazon are also investing in original programming, and Hastings compared them all to successful cable channels, such as HBO, Showtime, FX and Starz. Yet only one can be HBO.
"We want to be HBO," Hastings said. "And let others be the smaller ones."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/sorry-arrested-development-fans-netflix-series-probably-one-000557035.html
Microsoft Surface Candy Crowley binders of women Alexis Wright presidential debates Felix Baumgartner Little Nemo
Write Email with a Clear Chronology of Events to Keep It Short and Readable
One reason people might not want to respond (or read) your email is that it's a bunch of unorganized information. The easiest way to make it more readable is to structure it like a simple story:
When a serious dispute arises at a company, the lawyers will typically ask their clients to produce a "chronology of relevant events," detailing the most important incidents leading up to the dispute. This document helps everyone involved think more clearly about how things unfolded. Try taking a similar approach when writing your e-mails. It will help you organize your thoughts into a coherent narrative. A story with a clear beginning, middle, and end will hold your readers' interest more effectively than jumbled facts interspersed with opinions.
It's simple advice, but if you're having a hard time organizing your thoughts in an email it's an approach that cuts out the fluff and gets to the point quickly. Head over to Harvard Business Review for a few more ways to improve your email writing.
Write E-Mails That People Won't Ignore | Harvard Business Review
Photo by sophie & cie.
mashed potatoes Apple Black Friday how to cook a turkey emma stone Frys tryptophan BestBuy.com
Being a Co-signer on a Personal Loan | Successful Financial Strategy
Being a co-signer on a personal loan for a friend or family member is a very generous offer as it will likely mean the difference between them being able to qualify for such a loan and not being eligible. However, the decision of being a co-signer for a personal loan should not be made lighter. It is the responsibility of potential co-signers to educate themselves about how this situation affects them, especially with regard to their responsibility to the loan should the borrower default.
Most co-signers don?t realize that this loan is going to show up on their credit report. Keep in mind that this might affect your ability to get your own loan down the road as the personal loan you co-signed on with by used to calculate your debt to income ratio. It can also affect the interest rate you get your own loans at. If you feel it is a good idea to co-sign a personal loan for a friend or family member, do so with the understanding that after a set amount of making on time payments the borrower will attempt to redo the loan under their own name only. The more money you co-sign for, the longer you can expect to be a part of that loan.
Since the loan can both positively and negatively impact the credit rating of the co-signer it is important to set the loan up so that they co-signer can access the account information. This will allow you to find out what has been paid on the loan and what is still owed. Make sure the lender will inform you of any late payments or non-payment issues with the borrower as soon as they happen. Too often co-signers aren?t aware there was an issue with the loan until it has already impacted their credit.
While co-signing a loan for a friend or family member can help them, be aware of how it will affect not only your credit but your relationship as well. Nothing can sour relationships faster than money issues. It is important for a co-signer to look at the circumstances that lead to the individual needing one in the first place. If it comes down to simple money mismanagement, then you aren?t doing them or yourself any favors. However, it is the result of circumstances they had no control over you may want to consider it.
To minimize your risk as a co-signer, don?t make it habit of offering to do so for friends and family. The word will spread like wildfire with more requests heading your direction. If you don?t feel your own credit and finances can?t hold up if the borrower doesn?t repay the loan, then do not co-sign for a personal loan. It can be difficult to say no, but it is important you are able to.
You might consider having the borrower provide your with verification that payments are being made including regular statements or cancelled checks. To further reduce your risk as a co-signer insist the borrower purchases personal loan insurance that can cover loan payments for a particular amount of time due to unemployment, illness, or death.
Co-signing a personal loan for someone is more than giving your signature. You are putting your financial history and worthiness on the line for that person. It is important that you carefully review the borrowers need for the money as well as their spending patterns. If they owe other people money or continually live beyond their means, walk away with a clear conscious. There are times that being a co-signer on a personal loan is the right thing to do. Only you can make that decision. If you decide to go forward with it make sure you can afford the cost of any missed payments and that the lender is going to keep you informed on the payment status on the personal loan.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed?and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Source: http://successfulfinancialstrategy.blogcashbiz.com/119/being-a-co-signer-on-a-personal-loan/
obama sings al green heidi klum and seal ohare airport etta james songs east west shrine game underworld awakening haywire
High-stakes trial begins over 2010 Gulf oil spill
Protestors from the National Audubon Institute, the Gulf Restoration Network and other organizations stand outside Federal Court on the first day of the Gulf oil spill settlement trial in New Orleans, Monday, Feb. 25, 2013. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is scheduled to hear several hours of opening statements Monday by lawyers for the companies, federal and state governments and others who sued over the disaster. Barbier is hearing the case without a jury. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Protestors from the National Audubon Institute, the Gulf Restoration Network and other organizations stand outside Federal Court on the first day of the Gulf oil spill settlement trial in New Orleans, Monday, Feb. 25, 2013. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is scheduled to hear several hours of opening statements Monday by lawyers for the companies, federal and state governments and others who sued over the disaster. Barbier is hearing the case without a jury. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
FILE - In this aerial file photo madeWednesday, April 21, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, more than 50 miles southeast of Venice on Louisiana's tip, an oil slick is seen as the Deepwater Horizon oil rig burns. Nearly three years after the deadly rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico triggered the nation's worst offshore oil spill, a federal judge in New Orleans is set to preside over a high-stakes trial for the raft of litigation spawned by the disaster on Monday Feb. 25, 2013. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, file)
Protestors from the National Audubon Institute, the Gulf Restoration Network and other organizations stand outside Federal Court on the first day of the Gulf oil spill settlement trial in New Orleans, Monday, Feb. 25, 2013. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is scheduled to hear several hours of opening statements Monday by lawyers for the companies, federal and state governments and others who sued over the disaster. Barbier is hearing the case without a jury. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Protestors from the National Audubon Institute, the Gulf Restoration Network and other organizations stand outside Federal court on the first day of the Gulf oil spill settlement trial in New Orleans, Monday, Feb. 25, 2013. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is scheduled to hear several hours of opening statements Monday by lawyers for the companies, federal and state governments and others who sued over the disaster. Barbier is hearing the case without a jury. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
NEW ORLEANS (AP) ? A BP lawyer says other companies that worked on the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon drilling project made crucial mistakes that led to the deaths of 11 workers and the massive 2010 Gulf oil spill.
BP attorney Mike Brock acknowledged during his opening statements Monday for a high-stakes trial that the London-based company also made mistakes and "errors in judgment" before its Macondo well blew out.
But Brock accused Deepwater Horizon owner Transocean Ltd. of failing to properly maintain the rig's blowout preventer and claimed cement contractor Halliburton used a "bad slurry" that caused the well to flow before the blowout.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier is hearing the case without a jury. Barring a settlement, he will decide months from now how much more money the companies must pay.
Associated Pressthursday night football japan earthquake Star Trek Into Darkness Heisman watch John McAfee Jenny Rivera Pacquiao vs Marquez 4
Monday, February 25, 2013
New Geothermal Data System Could Open Up Clean-Energy Reserves
Forgotten and filed away decades ago, millions of documents on geothermal research are now helping scientists to make harvesting the Earth?s energy affordable
Geologic data does not come cheap, especially when you are using it to build a multimillion-dollar geothermal power plant. Just ask Susan Petty, president and chief technology officer at AltaRock Energy. Her company is part of a $43.8-million pilot project to tap thermal energy from Oregon's Newberry Volcano. Engineers are injecting water deep underground to fracture superheated rocks and create a geothermal reservoir. Their eventual goal is to recirculate pressurized steam back to the surface to test a new kind of technology called an enhanced geothermal system (EGS). Unlike conventional power plants that rely on near-surface hydrothermal systems like springs and geysers, EGS can draw energy up to depths of three to five kilometers. Over the next 50 years, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, EGS power plants could produce 100 gigawatts of economically viable geothermal energy, an amount equivalent to about 10 percent of the country's current electrical capacity.
Yet geothermal wells need to be drilled in the right place. Without data on the distribution and quantity of geothermal energy in the upper part of the earth's crust or a volcano as a reference point, wells may not produce much energy at all. To date, two to five out of every 10 geothermal wells prospected end up dry. Petty says that, in terms of the available exploration data, the geothermal industry is in the same place oil and gas companies were during the early 1900s. Wells cost between $2 million and $5 million, meaning geothermal investors risk losing millions on poor odds, Petty says. ?The risk involved in geothermal prospecting sets the industry apart from other renewables.?
The risky nature of the business could soon change, however.
A wealth of geologic data from all 50 states and the Gulf of Mexico has been sitting unused in state and federal filing cabinets for decades. The Arizona Geological Survey is leading a coalition of universities and federal agencies on a nationwide treasure hunt to find and digitize these legacy data in a National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) to eliminate some of the financial risk companies like AltaRock face while prospecting for geothermal resources. Since the project's inception in 2008 under $35-million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office, collaborators have digitized information from over 1.25 million oil and gas, water, and geothermal wells and expect to have as many as three million wells in the system by the end of the year.
"It has been a rescue mission," says Roland Horne, director of Stanford University?s geothermal program. Project collaborators have found a wellspring of geothermal exploratory data in basements and old file cabinets. The legacy data come from extensive surveys of geothermal resources that were funded by the states and federal government in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. A prime example is a 1975-to-1992 DOE survey of geopressured resources in the Gulf of Mexico. The survey documents data from 16 wells off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas that show geopressured and geothermal energy reserves in the Gulf exceed the energy contained in all the conventional natural gas reserves of the continental U.S. At the time, the geothermal energy could not be profitably commercialized, so the data were filed away and forgotten.
Previously, getting ahold of geothermal exploration data depended on whom you knew, says Lee Allison, director of the Arizona State Geological Survey. "A lot of this stuff was only available if you knew the people and could say, 'Hey, let me have access to your data,'" Allison says. One of the largest sets of geophysical data in the NGDS was collected and digitized by Southern Methodist University geophysicist David Blackwell and a team of researchers in 2011. They worked under a grant from Google.org to digitize data from 35,000 different locations. Their work shows that geothermal energy can generate three million megawatts of renewable electricity?approximately 10 times the capacity of U.S. coal power plants.
Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=1e710fca06a47acd62a7da5752d0798f
news 12 world series giants Natina Reed Sandy Hurricane flight tracker Marina Krim
Kotaku's Sensationalist Exploitation of the Sexism in Gaming Debate ...
You might have heard about or even read an article recently posted on Kotaku, written by Patricia Hernandez, entitled Why Were There No Women Present At The Playstation 4 Event? Conveniently, its title essentially surmises its content and purpose. I?d encourage you to read it, if only for context, even though doing so will provide the pageviews which I think they were so plainly seeking to court in response to its sensationalism. If you would rather not add to their ostensibly ill-gotten gains, don?t worry because I mean to address what is said and shown in the article a little further down the page.
To give some backstory: when I originally came across this article whilst browsing Kotaku, I reluctantly, and very wearily, clicked it. I am not familiar with Patricia?s writings, but I?ve heard her name mentioned in conjunction with a growing trend of games writers who supposedly lace every other article with their own decidedly feminist views; whether this is the case or not, and in my ignorance I dared not even give any credence to that suspicion, it was the only information I had encountered concerning her, and it was the only context which could spring to mind when I saw her authorship credited. Furthermore, in point of fact, I had already heard some (unassociated) grumbling and grousing from a few people regarding there being no female presenters at Sony?s Playstation 4 reveal event and, considering this complaint a baseless one, I had spared it no more thought. So, when I saw this article title, I had hoped against hope that this would be an article either parodying the complaint in order to point out how silly it is or perhaps even some objective reporting which merely meant to convey that this is something which was taking place.
I was momentarily disappointed, but certainly not surprised, when I was greeted with neither.
So, let me describe what did greet me. Patricia begins by pointing out that there were no female presenters at the Playstation 4 event, and that some people are not happy about it. An objective statement of fact. So far, so good. However, she then goes on to illustrate this point by posting a tweet, by somebody else, which says ?No women in Sony?s #ps4 presser yet, because this is what Sony thinks they?re good for.? accompanied by an image apparently from a PS Vita advertising campaign, in which a corseted female?s upper body is shown with a pair of breasts on either sides of it coupled with the caption ?TOUCH BOTH SIDES FOR ADDED ENJOYMENT?. This advertisement is undoubtedly not okay: it is a pretty inexcusable faux pas by Sony considering how easily it might reasonably be interpreted as objectifying women, portraying them as solely sexual objects. Sony has a long history of its advertising campaigns (which run the gamut of stupidity from implicit racism to animal cruelty to imagery suggestive of gamers being Nazi sympathizers) becoming embroiled in massive controversy, and I think its pretty indubitable that they intentionally utilize utter insensitivity and controversy baiting in order to gain attention ? a tactic whose short-term gain of achieving a fraction more mind share is clearly enormously outweighed by the way it will negatively color public perception of the video-game industry. Basically, if an argument was presented that this image is sexist, I?d certainly cede that it has considerable basis and merit, but is such an argument even particularly relevant to the PS4 event? No. Is this tweet attempting to argue from one thing to another? Yes. Is choosing and highlighting this tweet?s image an appropriately unbias way to set the tone for the yet to come fair and balanced reporting on the facts of the matter? No.
Moving on.
Patricia goes on to post nine further tweets decrying Sony?s all-male composition of presenters and thus its apparent sexism. Nine tweets all confirming that this was, in fact, a choice informed or motivated by sexism. Nine of them. Nine. Were these corroborators perhaps notable figures in the gaming industry to keep things relevant? No. Some of them appear to be involved in the game industry, whereas others just seem to be unrelated opinionated twitter users. Something tells me that these tweets were sourced from the writer?s own twitter feed, which, it should go without saying, is where all good journalists go fishing for leads or corroboration.
So now that we?ve seen that a few Twitter users agree with the idea that the absence of women at Sony?s PS4 event constitutes blatant sexism, we can comfortably assume that it is the case right? Well, no. Not at all. Well, can we at least extrapolate from this sample that there was essentially universal agreement on the point? Nope, that?s not even nearly the case. No, the writer has merely cherry-picked tweets that outrightly concur with the notion that Sony?s women-less presenter line-up is inarguably the result of overt sexism. ?This biased, one-sided reporting, in which only the proponents of one side of the argument are even shown to exist, is purposefully composed as to convey to the reader that there is universal consensus concerning Sony?s supposed sexism, which there, of course, was not ? not even remotely so. This is conscious and unashamed deception on the writer?s part.
The decidedly one-sided article (or, if you will, the glorified slide show of unanimous tweets) is finished by saying that ?People will notice if, like [at the PS4 event], there are no women presenters at your event. The question is whether or not that will change. I admittedly didn?t even notice there weren?t women presenters until someone else mentioned it, which probably says something about how used to situations like this we all are. Some won?t even bat an eyelash.? [The emphasis is mine.] The implication that some people ?won?t even bat an eyelash? suggests that something bad is going on, but people have become so complacent to it being so that they cease to even notice it.
So that?s the first article. It bears the pretense of a news story rather than an opinion piece, but goes about reporting on the situation by solely showing one side of the public reaction, and then letting you know that if you don?t concur, you?re part of the problem, part of the complacent masses who have turned a blind eye to this troubling issue. A Pulitzer prize winning instance of journalism it is not; but that may be fine, assuming that Patricia Hernandez doesn?t ? and she shouldn?t ? consider herself a journalist. I think it is undoubtedly bias and very misleading. Whether that bothers you as much as me will greatly depend on what standard you seek to hold games reporting to.
In response to the allegations of sexism that this article implicitly posits and endorses, there was a veritable eruption of vehement arguing back and forth in its comment section. A controversy, and resultant massive influx of pageviews, which Patricia was no doubt happily anticipating. Along with the expected trolling and ad hominem attacks, I couldn?t help but notice that, scanning them over, it seems that a lot of comments were written by people who had legitimately took issue with the implicit accusation and with Patricia?s apparently habitually unbalanced focus on issues of sexism in gaming.
To continue the backstory, I read this article and realized all of the above things. I was mildly incensed by its misleading aspect and the flimsy argument itself, and, in all honesty, briefly thought about writing a response to it. Of course, Patricia doesn?t say a whole lot about her stance on the issue, so I figured that, even though there?s a fair bit I could say about the allegation of sexism itself, there just wasn?t enough material from her to go on.
As I closed that article, with a bad taste in my mouth I might add, I somehow knew that there would soon be a follow-up article which would provide me with the lengthy opining I needed to source a rebuttal.
I was not, as it turns out, going to be disappointed.
The second article came two days later, penned by Patricia Hernandez again, and was entitled The Lack Of Women Presenters At The PS4 Event Is Bigger Than Sony. Once again, I?d encourage you to give it a read through, even though I?d prefer to deprive them of the clickthrough, but I will be describing it in great detail if you?d understandably rather not.
Patricia begins this second article by addressing the many unhappy ? perhaps because she had so grossly misrepresented them with her one-sided account of the reaction to Sony?s ?sexism? ? ?commentators on the previous article by mischaracterizing their argument ?The consensus on Wednesday?s post about the lack of women presenters at Sony?s PS4 event was rather uniform: there were no women at the PlayStation 4 reveal, because obviously there aren?t women in high positions and the project leads just happen to be male.? [The emphasis is mine, to show the mischaracterization? seeing as most of the arguments she's referring to actually posited that there weren't many women in such high positions.] She then quotes a comment from the previous article.
She goes on to state ?To add to that, a common perception seems to be that there aren?t women in high positions like the project leads that were featured, so that?s why it happened. That?s just the reality, some people said, while ignoring why things like that happen in the first place and what it has to do with gender.? [The emphasis is once again mine, and simply used to denote which words she used to link to a blog post criticizing an EA employee's comments about women in the games industry.] ?Ignoring how she ?subtly? describes the argument in question as if a misinterpretation of the situation?s reality (both because it is ?a common perception? and because it ?[ignores] why things like that happen??) and how her summary of it greatly oversimplifies the argument?s reasoning, Patricia, in linking to that blog post, begins the continuation of her first article?s attempt (via carefully chosen tweets) to portray an opinion as fact by referencing other concurring opinions in order to reinforce it and make it seem as though there is consensus on the issue.
Patricia subsequently post several tweets of game developer Kellee Santiago (of PSN game Journey fame). The first of these tweets surmises this new entrant?s argument well: ?There are women in high positions at Sony who were qualified to speak yesterday at or around the press conf. Sony chose not to show them.? Patricia, having shown that someone outside of the Sony executive structure presumes to know what those same people consider (as it is entirely their prerogative) to make someone ?qualified? to be a presenter at one of their events, then smugly writes ?Hmm, that doesn?t quite gel with the common perception, does it?? Gee, you?re right, that speculation certainly doesn?t ?gel? with the opposing speculation, you really might be on to something here.
Patricia, having reached out to Kellee for further comment, quotes her as having said: ?The truth is, some percentage of the people that tuned in yesterday to get excited about the new console were women. And yet again, we were told ?Not by you, not for you.? It feels like the industry should be past this by now, no?? Ignoring the fact that Kellee commits a common fallacy in ridiculously presuming to be able to speak for ALL of the women watching this event (?we were told?), the idea that seeing a product presented by male members of the company which creates it could suggest to a female viewer that such a product was made solely by men and furthermore that it is not meant to be used by women is a bewilderingly absurd proposition. In fact, doesn?t such a proposition inherently insult the women watching the event? Doesn?t it presuppose that some women are so simple minded as to assume that such a small and unrepresentative sample of employees from a company can adequately, and precisely, represent the entire pool of employees? Is Kellee Santiago using hyperbole to distort the facts of the matter? To all three questions, an affirmative answer appears to be warranted.
The whole following section of the article is so especially confusing that I had to have a crack team of English Language PhDs spend an intensively focused fortnight in a top secret base just to decode its meaning: ?[T]he conversation?for me at least?isn?t so much to say Sony or PS4 developers are sexist.? This about-face comment is so mystifyingly contradictory to everything Patricia has presented so far that it simply beggars belief. She then goes on to say ?That?s an easily derailed conversation that will revolve around disputing what type of companies these are.? No, that?s an easily ?derailed? (or rather, refuted) ?conversation? (or rather, assertion) because there is absolutely no evidence that the event?s all-male presenter composition was the result of sexist ideology or decision making on the part of Sony. That there were no women is not in itself, no matter how much disparity is present in how disproportionately it reflects the larger ratio of male to female employees or gamers, proof that such an absence was motivated by sexism. Nor, for that matter, would the entire body of employees which Sony maintains being male represent, in itself, direct evidence of sexism. These things could simply be (admittedly unlikely) coincidences. You could argue that although the event?s absence of women doesn?t definitively represent proof of Sony?s sexism, it still, most likely, signifies it, but this would also be an entirely baseless claim based on a veritable matchstick foundation of assumptions, and the circumstantial evidence it posits to have derived its conclusion of probability from is of very questionable significance and validity at best. Unless you can prove that a man was chosen over a women to present at that event, that they both possessed all of the requisite credentials to do so and that the decision was definitely motivated by sexism, there is absolutely no proof to substantiate this proposition. So, well done. Well done for attempting to distance yourself from the failing argument you are clearly proposing, that is clearly the exact focus of this controversy, in light of the likely quite troubling fact that it is both unsupported by any direct evidence and that it is an unfounded allegation potentially bordering on libel.
Next Patricia reiterates the fact that ?[t]here were no women presenters? the reality remains the same: there were no women presenters and it wasn?t for a lack of having women executives.? [Her emphasis] It?s hard to respond to this because no actual points are made. Despite apparently not arguing that Sony are sexist, she wants to make it abundantly clear that they chose (for some unknown reason) not to feature their female executives as presenters. Yes there were no female presenters, and yes there were some female executives who might have been appropriate choices to act as presenters, but there is still no actual evidence that these women were not chosen simply because of their gender. The circumstantial evidence can certainly lead some foolish people to believe so, but it signifies very little, and proves absolutely nothing concrete.
Then comes this additional pearl of completely baffling backpedaling: ?Noticing this fact isn?t a call for affirmative action, and it?s not about getting enraged about sexism.? Really? Because it seems, objectively, as though that is clearly the case. It is a call for affirmative action because despite there being no evidence to suggest that Sony neglected to feature female execs because of their gender, you, and your fellow proponents, seem to think that they still ought to have featured them, for some reason. Perhaps because it would be more representative of the composition of the company, or of the gaming public? If that?s the case then you?re essentially arguing that Sony ought to have opted for token female presenters, simply because they are female, in order to appease some people?s misguided advocacy for gender representativeness. Also, it?s not about ?getting enraged about sexism?? I think that this part bespeaks an insultingly low approximation of the reader?s intelligence. You didn?t post these articles anticipating and hoping that they would cause controversy and net a massive influx of readers, comments and pageviews? Please. I think otherwise. And I doubt that anyone else will be fooled. I don?t think you are a guileless champion of gender rights, rallying against sexism. I think that you are a writer for a popular website who appears to be sensationally espousing uninformed opinions, conveying them as though factual, and hoping to bag as many pageviews and as much exposure as possible. Don?t insult the reader?s intelligence by thinking you could somehow deceive them into thinking otherwise ? how dare you.
So, now we know what this is not about, what is this all about? Well ?It?s about opening up a conversation as to why this happens at events like the PS4 unveil?perhaps, to talk about women in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math) and the issues they face.? Well, of course it is. Why not. It?s certainly not about relevance, about fully explaining or evidencing your argument about one thing before leapfrogging to a different one anyway. But please ignore my interruptions concerning silly requirements of a logical structure to your argument, pray continue: ?Because whether or not there are some women working in these fields, there still aren?t enough, and it?s an issue.? There still ?aren?t enough women? in STEM fields? Is there a fixed number of such women that there ought to be? Perhaps a proportion slavishly and arbitrarily dictated by consideration of the ratio of women to men in society at large? This is not about affirmative action you say? I see? Are you even going to provide any evidence to show that there ?aren?t enough? (whatever that ambiguous appraisal means) women in STEM fields? Evidence that shows that women qualified in STEM fields are refused positions they are perfectly qualified for solely because of their gender? No. I thought not. A trend is emerging: you don?t like to back up your assertions with evidence or facts do you?
?There are entire programs created by educational institutions and the government to get more women in these fields-because yes, it?s a problem.? That sure does prove that it is a ?problem?. When someone purports to fix a ?problem? it must certainly be existent, right? ?EDIT: including programs made by Sony itself, yes.? Thanks for deigning to point out that little fact after a commentator pointed out that ?Sony has had a successful scholarship program, since 2008, that rewards $10,000 and an internship to women interested in the video gaming industry [called the] Sony G.I.R.L. (Gamers In Real Life) scholarship program?. Thanks for doing the requisite research Patricia. Whilst this doesn?t, in any way, prove that Sony isn?t sexist, it signifies it in the same way that the PS4 event being female-less proves that they are. No, better to omit that little incongruent fact, and post, what?, 9 tweets unanimously confirming the theorizing on their sexist tendencies.
Get ready for some paltry pretenses of evidencing. ?There are fewer women in these field than men, and they earn less, to boot. Recent years have seen a decline in female representation, according to a survey Harvey Nash.? [The emphasis is mine, and used to denote links] The first link is a U.S. Department of Commerce document describing the ?Gender Gap? in STEM fields; of course, nowhere does it show or that this is caused (solely or otherwise) by sexist discrimination. The second is a Forbes article commenting on a survey (READ: anecdotal evidence) apparently concerning the underrepresentation of females in CIO (Chief Information Officer) positions. Neither proves that the underrepresentation of women in the fields their examination pertains to is due, even in part, to sexism, just that the underrepresentation exists. Also, neither is particularly relevant. So congrats Patricia, you?ve managed to link to certain examples of evidence which suggest that by certain understandings of the term ?underrepresentation?, some fields are ?underrepresented? by women.
We reach the end of the article now, where Patricia quotes the aforementioned Department of Commerce document and its hypothesis about the factors that might influence the ?underrepresentation? of women in STEM fields, all of which are supremely devalued by the telling flight-by-night disclaimer ?[T]his report does not and cannot explain why gender differences in STEM exist?. She cherry-picks the ?crucial? factor of ?a lack of role-models? and then, inexplicably, tries to shoehorn in a lazy conclusion where she ties this all back to Sony, uh, somehow: ?And as the PS4 event shows us, the role models that do exist? They?re less visible thanks both to smaller numbers, and in some ways, outright erasure. Because what else would you call wrongly saying there are no women in high positions in game development except erasure?? Four things jump out at me here and I must humbly ask you to bear with me as I go about elucidating them all. Firstly, of course someone would be wrong when you thoroughly and intentionally mischaracterize their argument as the assertion that there are NO women in such high positions. Secondly, I thought this was bigger than Sony, so why must the macrocosmic importance of gender disparity in STEM fields be tied back to their supposed sexism? Thirdly, Patricia, are you proposing that Sony ought to have featured some female presenters due to a roundabout obligation they might have to exhibit female role models in order to inspire female STEM majors and thus somehow rectify the apparent ?underrepresentation? of women in that field? Even though your reasoning and wording leads me to this conclusion, it?s so indefensibly, absurdly ridiculous that I?m actually inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this is not the case. Lastly, and crucially, ?you say that Sony?s female ?role models? (e.g. female execs that might have been presenters, for those of you understandably lost in Patricia?s unwieldy chain of logic) are ?less visible? (e.g. kept behind the scenes) because of ?in some ways, outright erasure?; if these women, as you continually posit in varying levels of explicitness, have suffered ?erasure?, have intentionally been prevented from acting as presenters, solely because of their gender, it would constitute an instance of sexism by Sony, and yet you said earlier that this conversation, for you, wasn?t about accusing Sony of sexism.
Following this second article, another eruption of comment infighting occurred and it once again became overwhelmed with over-emotional verbal sparring between resolutely opinionated proponents and detractors of Patricia?s argument. Despite Patricia?s transparent and clumsy attempt to distance her failing argument away from the issue of Sony?s possible sexism, the commentators were not dissuaded from discussing it, as it is clearly the actual point in contention.
I noted a problem with these comments that was also present in the first article?s even greater mass of comments. This problem revolves around the fact that there were equally fallacious and facetious generalizations made on both sides of the argument as to what kind of person essentially comprised their opposition. The group of people who agreed with Patricia?s sentiments about Sony?s apparent systematic sexist tendencies were often characterized as being so-called ?white knights?: a term coined to describe men who defend women embroiled in some sort of controversy either in hopes of courting their gratitude and/or affection in response or merely to impress upon other women their apparent chivalry. Their remainder who couldn?t fit this description (because, presumably, they were female) were frequently characterized as irrational, angry feminists whose blind hatred for men meant they weren?t to be taken seriously. Whereas, the people who disagreed with her were characterized as being maladjusted, socially-inept angry young men with an irrationally inexorable hatred for women probably sourced out of their still intact virginity.
So, yes, there was petty mudslinging all around in the form of these laughable mischaracterizations ? or rather appeals to ridicule meant to discredit the opposition ? which represent the sort of immature foolishness which certainly has no place in this argument.
However, something else caught my eye in the comments. Stephen Totilo, Editor-In-Chief of Kotaku, decided to throw in his weighty two cents on the issue. You see, a lot of the commentators angrily reviling Patricia?s articles also stated that they were so outrightly detestable that they had persuaded them to cease browsing Kotaku permanently. This wasn?t one or two disgruntled and melodramatic commentators either, this was a considerable number of them. This is also a sentiment which I have seen echoed in commentary on this story from users of other sites. Totilo, however, does not look kindly on this potential exodus of a sizable portion of his site?s readership, not kindly at all: ?Go ahead and call me a white knight, but those of you who enjoy attacking Patricia?who can?t be bothered to read her articles or tolerate her opinion or respond to what she writes about in a civil, intelligent manner?are not part of any community I want on this site. To those wishing she would leave, she?s not leaving. But I hope you leave. I won?t miss you.? So, ol? Totilo is glad to see these readers go. He hopes they leave actually. Still, he can?t help but mischaractectize their argument whilst doing so. Most of the comments I saw where people were complaining about this article and claiming that their days of reading Kotaku were over actually stated they took issue with its seemingly sensationalist, ?click-baiting? nature more than anything ? being unwilling to ?tolerate her opinion? had nothing do with it. These rational objections to the actual nature of the article?s purpose were ? this is the internet of course ? juxtaposed with a handful of trolls and idiots spouting the expected misogynist rhetoric, which is, needless to say, completely separate and completely unacceptable.
No, Totilo wants debate, he wants conversation: ?But to those who want to agree or disagree with her articles in nuanced, smart, clever, funny, interesting way? keep it up. I don?t look for uniformity in the voices of Kotaku?s writers, and I?m pleased to see a diversity of opinion among the readership.? This champion of conversation, this defender of debate, this friend of free speech seeks to encourage openness and diversity, to ? no, wait, this is the same Kotaku head honcho who, when the Lauren Wainwright scandal hit late last year, said that it didn?t warrant discussing, that it was a non-issue, and that he would rather focus on real games industry reporting (for example, a concurrently featured Halo 4 unboxing). In point of fact, he?s not exactly an exemplar of journalistic integrity or open discussion.
Kotaku, you see, has been sustaining an ever-growing number of detractors who decry, what they describe as, its increasingly dumbed down, sensationalistic ?click-baiting? nature. Its an explicitly articulated sentiment which I see all the time whenever Kotaku is mentioned or linked to somewhere where such discussion may take place. In a more general sense, people routinely deride the Gawker network of sites, which Kotaku is part of, for precisely the same reason. In fact, I?m a little surprised that these articles weren?t part of some sort of cross-site participatory collaboration between Kotaku and its cousin, itself an exemplar of the poisonous radicalization of and capitalization on misguided feminism, Jezebel (I debated linking to it, but I couldn?t in good conscience do so, and I would STRONGLY suggest you not support it by giving it the pageviews if you can help it). All in all, I?ve never been party to the unabated hatred for Gawker sites or Kotaku. I actually thoroughly respected and habitually frequented Kotaku back when Brian Crecente and Luke Smith called it home and went about noticeably moving the needle when it comes to video-game coverage. Since their departure, and after a very long stint of mediocrity, I think that it has very slowly, but very distinctly, deteriorated in quality, moving ever closer towards abject and shameless sensationalism. In recent times, I still occasionally visited it, in blind optimism for a return to previous glory, mostly for features, but, with the notable exception of its much lauded, in-depth and insightful piece on Silicon Knight?s downfall, I have only been greeted with the kind of sensationalist article titles and content which even an editor for a low-rate celebrity tabloid would raise an eyebrow at. These articles of Patricia?s are merely the latest in the lengthy saga of Totilo refusing to heed his readership?s response to his site?s apparent sensationalism, which, to keep some perspective, does not exactly represent reaching a new point of unscrupulousness, but it is simply the straw that broke the camel?s back for me and (evidently) many, many others. This exodus of discerning readers probably won?t change anything of course: Totilo will up the ante of his sensationalist agenda and recoup his site?s losses with yet another new influx of incidental readers sourced from the clickthroughs of curiosity at what I consider to be his carefully cultivated brand of melodramatic and hyperbolic article titles.
The reason why I took such great umbrage with these articles in particular (though believe me, it?s not the first time that a Kotaku article?s disgraceful mimicry of games journalism has made me want to write 5000 words in response) is because the site?s normal brand of apparent sensationalism is, whilst definitely unscrupulous, essentially mostly harmless when ignored, but now they, through Patricia Hernandez, mean to up the attention seeking ante by accusing people of being sexist, with only circumstantial evidence to back it up, and a line is clearly being crossed. When you make accusations of that sort ? whether true or not, or even evidenced or not ? you can detrimentally affect somebody?s professional, social and personal life and that?s totally unacceptable, and certainly enough to rile up any conscientious person.
You see, in penning this sort of silly article, Patricia has allowed herself to be counted amongst a new wave of crusaders against sexism, who like to label themselves ?feminists?. This new wave of ?feminists? believe that they are actively making a difference in the global fight against sexism by, say, emphatically retweeting a particularly incensed tweet about some instance of misogyny or liking a friend?s indignant post about the tyranny of societal patriarchy on Facebook. They seize upon every opportunity to be indignantly offended by the supposedly sexist transgressions of men they encounter, like complaining about being ?sexualized? when asked out for coffee in an elevator. Or, for example, they pen two whole articles based on the flimsy assumption that Sony might have exercised sexism in choosing their presenters for a particular event, expending the valuable and potentially productive reach of their site?s popularity in the most trivial way possible. They do this, of course, whilst sex slavery, gender segregation, arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, constraints on female sexuality and reproduction, the stoning of females guilty of ?adultery?, laws forbidding women from being outside without a male guardian or voting or driving or dressing as to expose any part of their body, et cetera continued unabated. It is in this way that they thoroughly degrade the struggle against actual sexism.
I imagine that the instant response will be ?well, no matter big or small, shouldn?t we be fighting sexism in all its forms and in anyway possible, no matter how small the effort required?? Absolutely. Sexism is abhorrent in all its forms, but I think that prioritizing is severely in order here: the most egregious examples of it should undoubtedly be tackled first. So I believe that if you?ve already expended all possible effort to fight the most terrible examples of systematic, dehumanizing sexism (e.g. the many, many actual human rights violations), sure, go ahead, array all the indignant, self-righteous ire you can muster at Sony?s possible sexist tendencies and let loose without hesitation. However, somehow, I don?t think that this is the case.
If you care about the struggle against actual sexism, you should shun the half-hearted, mealymouthed efforts of ?feminists? like Patricia Hernandez because they debase it without remorse. If you care about reading good games writing, you shouldn?t accept the sensationalist tripe that Stephen Totilo and Patricia Hernandez would unashamedly have you swallow in its place. Either way, you deserve better.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the author and are not necessarily the views or opinions of gamersyndrome.com, its sponsors or associates.
Article from Gamersyndrome.com
Related posts:
- Naughty Dog Fights Sexism with Ellie?s Placement on The Last of Us Box Art
- Sony confirm new console!
- Debate It: Downloadable Games, The Future Of Gaming?
- Animal Crossing: New Leaf Downloaded Half a Million Times Thanks to Smartphones
- PS3 Not Quite As Big A Dent On Sony?s Wallet
glee boxing news Coptic Christian saturday night live julio cesar chavez jr Topless Kate university of texas
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Serious MVI closes Trans-Canada between Revelstoke and Golden
DriveBC has announced the Trans-Canada Highway is closed between Revelstoke and Golden following a serious MVI.
They are estimating the highway will reopen between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. They'll update the situation at 4 p.m. today.
Check DriveBC for updates.
' +
google_ads[0].line2 + '
' +
google_ads[0].line3 + '
Source: http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/192758081.html
ferris bueller god bless america earned income credit florida primary 2012 super bowl matthew broderick tax refund calculator
US deploys troops, drones to Niger
?
By Barry Grey
23 February 2013
President Barack Obama on Friday officially notified the US Congress that he had deployed ?approximately? 100 US troops to the western African nation of Niger.
In a perfunctory, six-sentence letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Senator Patrick Leahy, president pro-tem of the Senate, Obama said the final 40 troops had arrived on Wednesday to ?provide support for intelligence collection? and ?facilitate intelligence sharing with French forces conducting operations in Mali, and with other partners in the region.?
The only other justification for dispatching the military force, beyond the vague talk of intelligence gathering, was ?furtherance of US national security interests.? In the letter, Obama said he was notifying Congress pursuant to his powers as commander in chief and chief executive, and in accordance with the requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a law intended to bar the president from committing military forces without the consent of Congress.
The War Powers Resolution states that the president can send troops into action abroad only with the authorization of Congress or in case of ?a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.? It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces and forbids them from remaining for more than 60 days without congressional sanction.
The reality behind Obama?s cynical and deceitful letter is the initiation of an open-ended and far-reaching US military intervention in northern Africa. The action announced Friday by Obama marks a major escalation of the drive by the United States and the other imperialist powers to recolonize the continent and gain direct control of its rich storehouse of strategic natural resources.
The use of drones underscores the criminal character of the operation in Niger. They will be used to terrorize the African population and summarily murder all those identified by the Pentagon and the CIA as opponents of Washington?s drive to conquer and subjugate the continent.
This predatory drive is concealed behind the all-purpose pretext, as part of the ?war on terror,? of combating Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias operating in Mali and other parts of the Sahara region.
The past two years have already seen the US-led war for regime-change in Libya, the US- and NATO-backed sectarian civil war in Syria, and last month?s US-backed French invasion of Niger?s neighbor to the west, Mali. The establishment of a US military base of operations in Niger now lays bare the real significance of the 2011 war against Libya, carried out under the pretense of protecting civilians and defending human rights, and the calculated decision to murder Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. All of the operations that have followed the Libyan atrocity were already in the works, as are the even more bloody predations to come.
The real aim behind the introduction of US troops into Niger is to assert American domination of northwest Africa, check French imperialist ambitions in the region, and counter the growing influence of China.
Obama?s claim in his letter to Congress that the Niger government had consented to the US deployment means little, since all of the bourgeois regimes in the region function as stooges of US imperialism and the former colonial powers of Europe.
While Obama did not refer to drones in his letter, unnamed Pentagon officials told media outlets on Friday that drone aircraft had already been sent to the impoverished country, with the ?first wave? including two Raptor surveillance drones. They said 250 to 300 military personnel, including remote pilots and security and maintenance crews, would eventually be deployed.
ABC News cited US officials as saying Washington had already begun flying Predator drones over Mali as part of US military support for the French invasion, which also includes airlifting French and allied African troops and refueling French military aircraft that have bombed cities and towns controlled by Islamist insurgents and Tuareg separatists.
In addition, as part of the Mali operation, US Special Forces have been sent to Niger, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Togo and Ghana.
The current deployment in Niger will reportedly be based in Niamey, the capital, but may be moved to the northern town of Agadez.
While Obama sought in his letter to Congress to give the impression that the deployment will be limited in time and scope and will involve only surveillance drones, what has been set in motion is an expanding operation that will inevitably involve the use of armed drones to extend the administration?s assassination program from Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia into northern Africa.
ABC News reported that US Africa Command had ?developed a plan a few weeks ago that proposed setting up a base in Niger to enable long-term surveillance operations in western Africa.? It cited a government official as saying it was ?possible that the new operations could morph into the separate concept proposed by African Command.?
The Washington Post quoted a US defense official, who said, ?I think it?s safe to say the number [of US troops] will probably grow.? It cited other officials who said the administration ?had not ruled out arming the Predators with missiles in the future.?
For weeks, the US press has carried reports of plans by the Obama administration to extend its drone assassination program into northern Africa. At the end of January it was reported that the US had secured an agreement with the government of Niger to establish a US military base in the country. The Guardian reported Friday that there are ?no constraints to military-to-military cooperation? within that agreement.
Earlier in January, following a hostage siege carried out by Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb at a gas facility in Algeria, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta implicitly threatened to use drone strikes against alleged terrorists in northern Africa. ?We have a responsibility to go after Al Qaeda wherever they are,? Panetta stated, adding that the US was ?going after? it in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?all the scenes of continuous drone missile strikes?and would act to deny Al Qaeda a ?a base for operations in North Africa and Mali.?
The Wall Street Journal wrote of an ?open-ended? campaign against militants in north and west Africa, and a US State Department official warned that the offensive in Mali ?could take years? and was only ?the first phase.?
The Journal published a front-page article two weeks ago headlined ?Push to Extend US ?Kill List.?? The article reported discussions within the Obama administration over extending its drone assassination program to Algeria and other countries in the Sahara and northwest Africa.
The US military intervention in Niger contains the seeds of a far wider conflict. The nomadic Tuareg population, which has been waging intermittent struggles against the central government in Mali for decades, exists as well to the east in Niger. The introduction of US troops and drones has the potential of spreading the Tuareg revolt and sparking an ethnic-based transnational civil war.
And as diplomatic cables from US diplomats in Niamey disclosed by WikiLeaks have made clear, China?s economic activities in the region have been a focus of US concern. One such cable warned, ?China is building a major portfolio in Niger?s resource sectors and will probably replace France as Niger?s top foreign investor??
The US move into Niger will further inflame relations between the US and the world?s second largest economic power, already frayed as a result of US provocations carried out as part of Obama?s ?pivot to Asia.?
Source: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/02/23/nige-f23.html
LIPA Cnn Live Garcinia Cambogia Little Things One Direction Bob Ross Hurricane Categories Hurricane Sandy
Get Your Home Clean and Organized This Weekend
Step One: Get Rid of Your Crap
Find Better Ways to Organize Your Stuff
Go through each room and see where the weak points are. Too much clutter spreading itself through your house? Get a landing strip for the front door. Can't find anything in your desk drawers? Organize them by a hierarchy of importance. Fill dresser drawers front to back so you can see everything inside, and find a place for your kitchen stuff that keeps floating around your cupboards (like pot lids).
Remember though, the object isn't to get everything picture-perfect. That's a waste of time. The goal is to get everything just organized enough so that you can find and access everything you need in a timely fashion. Sometimes, that means de-organizing: your silverware or sock drawers don't always need to be separated and organized perfectly, for example. You'll spend more time organizing them than you ever would searching for the right thing when you need it.
Make Sure You Keep It Clean
freddie mac kristin cavallari rough riders joy division norco rand paul detained asexual
Facebook for iOS updated, now offers free calls to US and Canada Facebook has j...
The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.
Go back to the previous page ? Go to the Facebook homepage ? Visit the Help Center| Mobile | Find Friends | Badges | People | Pages | Places | Apps | Games | Music |
| About | Create an Ad | Create a Page | Developers | Careers | Privacy | Cookies | Terms | Help |
Source: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151325807299422&id=189627474421
amber portwood Phyllis Diller Darla Moore newsweek Tony Scott UFC 151 empire state building