Ive been watching city councils come and go ever since we became a city in 1991. Typically, when the new council members are sworn in, people say nice things about the outgoing council, whether they mean it or not, and the new council members keep their initiation speeches brief andtypicallyfriendly. After all, why start by making enemies when youre going to want their vote downstream on some issues? The golden rule is it still takes three votes to do anything. But that was the old way and now there seems to be a new way, something weve seen more of in Washington, D.C. and that now has apparently come to the local scene. This new way I can only describe as confrontation politics. Ever since the council election, Bruce Silverstein, the newly elected council member, has been on the attack, posting messages on all the digital outlets, including Nextdoor and Facebook, attacking various peoplethe city attorney, the city manager, the city staff and The Malibu Times, among others. Apparently, there is no such thing as disagreeing with Bruceyoure either with him or youre corrupt. I was curious to see what was going to happen and tuned in to the council meeting to actually watch the proceedings (something I generally avoid). I must admit that Bruce didnt disappoint. After a few minutes of pleasantries, thanking his supporters, he immediately launched into an attack repeating his previous charges and threatening all that he didnt intend to back down and that he found corruption in the house of Malibu (not his exact words but the intent was clear) and he wouldnt rest until this corruption (sounding much like Elmer Gantry talking about sin) was eliminated. The others on the council sat stone faced. The moment of truth came a bit later. There comes a moment when the new council has to elect a mayor pro tem and, in the pastwith one exceptionthe Malibu practice has been to elect the highest vote-getter in the election to be the next mayor pro tem. Bruce Silverstein was the highest vote getter in the election. There is nothing in law that requires this, but its a practice to maintain collegiality that we as a city have followed, but that apparently was the old way. After several interchanges between Mikke Pierson and Bruce Silverstein, the new council majority passed on Silverstein and nominated Steve Uhring to be mayor pro tem and, by a 3 to 2 vote, voted him in, which put Uhring into a bit of a dilemma. First, he had to vote against himself and also he had run with Silverstein, kind of as a slate. He clearly was uncomfortable being thrust into the pro tem position, so he simply declined to take it. He made a last attempt to get the others to go along with Silverstein as the pro tem but they didnt budge. They then nominated and elected Paul Gisanti to be mayor pro tem, again in a 3-2 vote. In the course of all this, a few things became apparent. First, that there is going to be on ongoing battle on this council the likes of which we have never seen before in the almost 30-year history of this city. Its clear the threeMikke Pierson, Karen Farrer and Paul Grisantidont trust Bruce Silverstein, or at least reject his aggressive attack politics. For our part, we will try and be objective but its not easy when youve been attacked and someone is trying to demean you, or I guess Bruce might say, defang me. After the meeting, when our reporter called Bruce Silverstein for an interview, he sent us an email response that said:

As for your request for an interview, my public comments speak for themselves, and I have no further comment at this time.

I also am waiting to see how the Malibu Times goes about reporting on this matter and the other matters respecting the city before I determine whether to provide interviews in the future.

To that comment, I have to add my response. Bruce, you seem to be under the impression that we need your permission or cooperation to cover you. Other council members from time to time have thought the same thing. It doesnt work. Were going to cover the council and you, whether you want it or not. If you dont want to talk to us, then just dont talk to us. One last thing: I just received a copy of the affidavit by Jefferson Wagner that you alluded to as proof of corruption in the Malibu City Council. As I read it, it kind of puts me in mind of the affidavits that Trumps team kept producing to prove election corruption, more anecdotal than evidentiary, but Im willing to listen if you can make the case. Although I doubt that the other members of the city council are going to let you form your own little HUAC committee (House Un-American Activities Committee) to conduct investigations.

Link:

From the Publisher: It's a New Year, and a New Method - Malibu Times

I am doing things a little bit differently this week, as all three of my historic pictures will be part of the story of one of Bandon's oldest businesses, the Capps Motor Co.

The first picture shows Capps Garage before the fire of 1936. It is the building on the east side of Oregon Avenue, which was the main highway into town in those days. Today it leads down the hill past Holy Trinity Catholic Church and joins First Street across from the Port of Bandon's marketplace building. If you look closely you can see the overhang which covered the gasoline tanks in front of the big concrete two-story structure. West of Capps Garage is The Golden Rule, which after the fire relocated on Second Street in the building that is now the Continuum Center.

In an article in Western World, dated Jan. 21, 1937, which would be just a few months after the fire, an article tells how important the Capps Garage was that night.

"On the night of the big fire hundreds of cars drove up to the service station of Mayor Ed Capps to fill up with gas, preparatory to their contemplated flight to safety. All evening long, car after car stopped and without hesitation, the faithful attendants at the station pumped out the gas. The drain on the storage tank was greater than that of the ordinary Saturday night so a call to the Standard Oil Co. plant brought Manager Hal M. Howe with a truckload of gas to replenish the fastly diminishing supply.

"As fast as the gas was being emptied into the storage tank the pumps were drawing it out. And so on into the night. Flames from the raging forest fire drew nearer and nearer, pump attendants worked faster and faster. All the time the tank truck stood by, furnishing the supply that made it possible for many families to flee from the oncoming inferno and thereby probably saving the lives of many who might have been caught in the path of the oncoming tide.

"Finally, when the great tongues of hell were reaching over the hill and dipped into the roof of the Capps building, the heat became so intense that all were forced to abandon their stations.

"The following morning, after the crumbled mass of concrete and iron that had been the Capps Motor Co. plant had cooled off sufficiently to warrant inspection, there was the charred and twisted remains of the Standard Oil tank truck that had so heroically stood by the night before.

Ed Capps, owner of the company, first established the business in Bandon in 1922, and soon after took over the Ford agency.

The large concrete building, which was described in a 1951 article as being located at Bandon Avenue and Wall Street (the street which ran under the hill below the Catholic church but has long since been vacated), was considered a safe haven for cars and household goods by many citizens during the fire, but the intense heat destroyed it, along with most other concrete structures of that time.

Willis Baker, for example, who was in charge of the Oregon State fish hatchery east of town, brought his family possessions to the Capps building; it burned. His home survived.

Immediately after the fire, Capps built the service station and garage (which you see in the second picture) across Second Street from his new building, which had its grand opening in August of 1951. The old service station was torn down in March of 1969.

You have to look a bit to find the Capps Motor Co. building that Capps erected in 1951. This picture was taken in 1959, and you can see Erdman's City Market (Meats and Groceries), Lloyd's Cafe (small space in those days before owners bought the Erdman's building and expanded into the space it occupies today), Pastime Tavern (now Sweets & Treats), Boone's Hardware and the complex, which Merritt J. Senter and other businesses occupied over the years, and is now owned by Lynn Davies and her daughter, Jessica Brink. Across Chicago you can see the large Capps Motor Co. building, which is now owned by Kirk and Elizabeth Day and occupied by Washed Ashore, Broken Anchor and a real estate office. If you look closely, you can see new vehicles in the Capps showroom. Just to the east is the Bandon Theater, which was later torn down.

The article in the Aug. 2, 1951, issue of Western World describes the new Capps building in glowing terms.

"The new building is among the most modern automotive plants in Coos County, including spacious showroom, service department, special body repair and painting rooms, huge parts department, office and new equipment.

"Capps has been one of the leading businessmen of Bandon for nearly 30 years. He was mayor of Bandon at the time of the fire and afterwards, and his large investment in the modern new automotive plant is seen as indicative of his continuing faith in Bandon's future."

The article was written by my grandfather, L. D. Felsheim, who worked closely with Mayor Capps in helping Bandon to rebuild as owner of the Western World.

Talk about frightening. An incident that occurred Saturday on the North Oregon coast near Tillamook could have been a lot worse. A rockslide trapped as many as a dozen people at the Oceanside Tunnel Saturday morning, forcing an emergency plan to rescue them before an incoming tide arrived.

The rockslide occurred at 10:45 a.m. at the south opening, and it was necessary to rescue people trapped on the north side of the tunnel. They were rescued one by one through a three-foot opening at the Oceanside beach. The rescue operation took about 25 minutes, and all were required to wear hard hats as rocks were continuing to fall. A spokesman for the Netarts Fire and Rescue said some people climbed the cliff to get out.

Oregon State Parks closed the tunnel access until further notice.

An article in The Oregonian is extremely disturbing, and shows the extremes to which people are taking their concerns.

"About 50 right-wing protesters converged on the Silverton home of a state workplace safety regulator on Sunday to protest a large fine levied against a Salem gym owner."

The police chief said there were no problems or issues. He said they stayed on the sidewalks and off private property.

I saw a Facebook post this week on the Bandon, Oregon Facebook page urging people to join in a similar protest in front of the home of the OSHA director Michael Wood.

I suggested that there might be other ways to express your concern rather than intimidating a state official, who was carrying out the mandates of Oregon Governor Kate Brown.

I was on a call last week where Wood and other state officials were talking about Covid 19 and the escalating number of cases. I found him to be a caring concerned person, and I can't come to grips with the idea that he, his family and his neighbors need to be subjected to this kind of intimidation.

A group from the other "camp" recently converged on the home of Portland's new city commissioner, broke out a window and set fire to property because he would not vote to further defund the Portland Police Department.

I understand the frustration and desperation of small businesses across the state, who are having a hard time coming to grips with the inconsistencies of the rules that are coming out of the governor's office.

I don't care which side you're on. This kind of tactic is never the answer.

Meanwhile if you want a stark illustration of how the Coronavirus is spiraling out of control in the United States, look at these 2020 monthly case numbers compiled by NBC News:

March, 188,200; April, 883,199; May, 723,166; June, 845,736; July, 1,926,970; August, 1,479,756; September, 1,215,901; October, 1,940,522; and November (as of 9 a.m. Nov. 30), 4,252,822.

Sharon Ward Moy just posted on Facebook that Geraldine Cox (now Gerrie Fuller), a member of the class of 1964, is hospitalized in Kentucky with Covid. She reports that is it terrible and that she is struggling to breathe.

We certainly wish her a full recovery.

See the rest here:

As I See It: The Capps Motor Co. - Coos Bay World

I met Santa Claus on Saturday. Not the Santas helper who sits in some stores, posing for pictures at a safe distance, but the real one.

My wife and I, with our two grandchildren, were Christmas shopping in a local store. During a couple of trips up and down the aisles, Id noticed a gentleman wearing a red shirt, red suspenders and the familiar Santa Claus-style head covering. He was wearing a mask.

We were in the checkout line when I heard him asking the kids if theyd each like a candy cane. Using a handkerchief to hold the two pieces of candy, both wrapped in cellophane, he offered them to the youngsters.

He had taken precautions against spreading germs, so we told the kids they could accept the candy.

Then I looked closer. He had long white hair. Behind his mask was a white beard. His eyes really did twinkle. Santa Claus had just given them candy canes, I told the kids.

I asked if I could get a picture of them with him. He took off the mask for a few seconds as I snapped away with my cellphone.

After thanking him, we checked out, as did Mr. and Mrs. Claus.

Were all busy, more so than normal during the holiday season. COVID-19 has made life even more hectic.

Heres the thing: Im certain Santa Claus is as busy as the rest of us. Probably, in view of his age, hes leery of contact with other people. Yet he goes out of his way to make children happy.

It may be that hes offering a role model for the rest of us.

This will be a very different Christmas and not just in the ways that may come to mind at first. Were all busy. Were all more tense than normal. Many of us are watching our nickels and dimes more closely than usual.

All of that may lead to forgetfulness about something my new friend Santa Claus has made a priority: making children happy.

Thousands of little boys and girls in our area may get little or nothing under the Christmas tree this year. Their moms and dads simply cant afford to play Santa Claus as well as theyd like.

Dozens of organizations are trying to ensure every child in the area has a merry Christmas. Normally, Id have no doubt that residents of our area would come through for them. You always have.

But this year? Im worried, frankly. Will charity begins at home rule the season?

Dont let it. Please, make a contribution now to help the kids. Dont hesitate and perhaps forget. Do it now.

You dont have to be a church elder to live by the Golden Rule. And you dont have to be dressed in red and sporting a long white beard to be Santa Claus.

Im certain my new friend would agree, and he knows because he is Santa Claus.

Myer can be reached at: mmyer@theintelligencer.net.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the rest here:

Will charities suffer this year? | News, Sports, Jobs - The Inter-Mountain

Kazakhstans Independence Day, celebrated on December 16 to commemorate the fulfillment of the Kazakh peoples long-cherished dream of having an independent state, which happened on December 16, 1991, fills every heart in Kazakhstan with pride and joy now.

Kazakhstan is the most economically successful country in Central Asia on the right track towards becoming one of the worlds 30 most developed countries by the year 2050. Kazakhstan is a democratic republic, with a developed multi-party system (the parliamentary campaign has just started with at least three parties having a strong chance to get into the parliament). Kazakhstan is one of the few countries of the former Soviet Union where the passage of power to the new president in 2019 took place peacefully and legally, as a result of a competitive election. A number of international leaders and organizations acknowledged the huge positive role which the First President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, played in achieving this result by announcing his voluntary resignation on March 19, 2019.

Was this result written in a stone, could anyone foresee it in 1991? Any objective historian or just a person who remembers that time and realities can answer that the positive outcome was by no means certain. Kazakhstan left the Soviet Union in a dignified and noble manner, when the Soviet Union was dying in deep crisis, leaving Kazakhstan with a number of economic, social and ecological problems. Pessimists predicted an explosion in Central Asia, doubting that regions ability to sustain itself economically and to preserve the statehoods of its young independent republics (particularly Tajikistan, which was plunging into a civil war, that ended only many months after the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991; Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan also faced increasing poverty and dangerous internal conflicts).

But Nazarbayev, the President of the newly established Republic of Kazakhstan, fearlessly faced the challenges. Kazakhstan preserved the industry created during the Soviet years and slowly, but steadily put it on the market track, adding a number of new, twenty first century elements. After several years of a slowdown, Kazakhstans metallurgical plants, its oil and gas industry and, last but not least, agriculture picked up speed. Now all of these sectors of the countrys economy by far exceed the pre-1991 levels of production. It is enough to say that the products of Kazakhstans highly competitive metallurgical industry are now exported to the EU, while Kazakhstans neighbors in Central Asia are buying its agricultural products. Diversification of industries, foreign investment sources and multivector diplomacy of Kazakhstan have also made a huge step forward. The EU (not China or Russia) is now the biggest foreign investor in Kazakhstan, and the countrys diplomats manage to maintain excellent relations with both Russia and Western countries.

In an article published in the Astana Times not long before Kazakhstans Independence Day one year ago, Kazakh Foreign Minister Mukhtar Tileuberdi revealed some of the secrets, which allowed Kazakhstan to achieve such inimitable results:

Our country pursues a peaceful and friendly foreign policy towards all states with which it has established diplomatic relations. There are no substantive contradictions in the area of political cooperation with any of them. Moreover, we have the same or similar views on most issues of bilateral interaction and international agenda, Tileuberdi wrote.

And one can only add here that this course was first charted by Nazarbayev, who was rightly praised by both the President of Russia Vladimir Putin (Nursultan Nazarbayev is the father of Eurasian integration project on the territory of the former Soviet Union) and the President of the United States Donald Trump (Kazakhstan is doing very well. Theyve really turned things around, they have a lot of advantages over some nations and their President is highly respected and has done a great, great job.)

And again Kazakhstans solution was not confrontation, but cooperation and search for solutions. Kazakhstan hosted the now famous negotiations on ending the Syrian conflict, which went down in history as the Astana process. These negotiations helped to stop the bloodshed in Syria, but they also reduced the conflict potential between Russia and the West, which was unanimously critical of Russian involvement in Syria. Kazakhstan, without pressuring anyone or getting involved in the fighting, showed the way forward in cooperation and dialogue. Kazakhstan showed an equally responsible approach in improving the security and ecological situation on our planet, coming out with the initiative of destruction of nuclear weapons and a number of ecological initiatives.

Now Kazakhstan is leading the way again in advocating a joint response of the international community to the threat of coronavirus.

Now the question is: would Kazakhstan be able to do all of this without being an independent, totally sovereign state? The answer is no. In fact, Kazakhstans sovereignty became a blessing for everyone: in the first place, for the former states of the Soviet Union and for the fraternal Central Asian republics in particular because of Kazakhstans economic success and role in Eurasian integration; but it was a blessing for the world, too, because lots of countries have got a responsible and reliable partner.

Kazakhstans positive work in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization made it a friend of China; Kazakhstans active participation in the Islamic Cooperation Organization got it connected to 56 fraternal Muslim states. And the Eurasian Economic Union is becoming a vehicle of development in the triangle uniting China, Kazakhstan and the former republics of the Soviet Union. The golden rule here is just one: Kazakhstan is valuable when it is sovereign and when it is free to suggest its own solutions. They are always peaceful.

The author is Dmitry Babich, a Moscow-based journalist with 30 years of experience of covering global politics, a frequent guest on BBC, Al Jazeera and RT.

Read more:

Kazakhstan's Independence Day: 29 Years Ago the World's Countries Have Got a New Big Friend - Astana Times

Running a business is definitely fun. While hard, you get the chance to build your dream life. But being an entrepreneur comes with a pretty huge responsibility as well you have to make sure youre planning for everything, even for the things you have never anticipated.

From making sure that you are in the safe if someone gets injured in the premises of your business, to working really hard so when hard times come your business survives there are a lot of things that business owners have to think about, that isnt necessary stuff that comes to mind when you first start.

Because there are so many things that you will have to take in consideration, we sat down and started looking for the things that should be on the top of your list when you have just started your first venture. So, without wasting any more time, lets get down to business.

Just search up Personal injury attorney Palm Beach, and youll see so many different offers. Its like the list is endless and if you get in such a situation yourself, you wont be able to choose one. And thats not only for Palm Beach as well, but it also goes for anywhere in the world.

Thats why when you start your first business, you have to think about providing a safe and secure environment. For your employees, for your customers and for yourself. This is one of the most important things that you have to do.

As long as you follow all regulations for your workplace, and you keep everything in check, theres very little to worry about. But if you know theres something thats not done up to standard, and its best to get this thing fixed up right now.

Small businesses often dont do the math right, and that gets them in less than desirable situations. First-time entrepreneurs will get themselves into a lot of debt, most of the times that really dont require you taking a loan, and this will haunt them and their business for years to come.

Thats why its so important to follow one golden rule. Always make sure you have at least sixty to seventy percent of the amount of money you are going to take out as a loan. This is something that savvy business people will always do when they are in need of cash.

And if you dont have the money, you have to evaluate. Is the money that vital at the moment? Can you get that money from other places (like investors or friends)? Can you do about eighty percent of the thing that you want to use the money for with a smaller amount of money?

Answer all these questions and make the decision for yourself. Getting the money from friends, or by selling something that isnt vital to you and your business will allow you to achieve your goal without having to return the money with a huge interest.

For people who have been even in leading positions in other peoples companies, they know that networking is one of the most important things that you can do to grow your business. Mainly because you never know what will happen in the future, how you can leverage the people you know and how you can grow together as a business.

Thats why many entrepreneurs spend a lot of money to grow and build a strong network of people and businesses theyre working with on a regular basis.

And if theres one thing that you have to keep in mind when youre networking with other people is to remember how to bring value to them. How can your know-how be helpful to them? Thats what you have to think about.

Savvy businesspeople know that everything can turn around in a day. Just because things that great now, it doesnt mean that they will be great tomorrow.

Like, we all saw how quickly 2020 took a turn of events. It wasnt something that people planned about, yet with many businesses of all sizes going out of business closing their doors, leaders who were anticipating hard times had build companies that continued to thrive.

So, when youre building your business, even if youre the only one working in the business, you have to think about how you can build a venture that will thrive in uncertain times.

Visit link:

4 Things You Should Plan for as a Business Owner - Blog - The Island Now

The excitement of entering a new millennium certainly wasn't lost on Hollywood. The ever-modest Will Smith rebranded the event in his name with a hip-pop alternative to "Auld Lang Syne." End of Days saw Arnie thwart Satan's plans to usher in the occasion by having his wicked way with Robin Tunney while disguised as an investment banker. And a whole glut of movies attempted to capitalize on the appetite for all things Y2K by simply placing the same four numbers after its title.

Yet while the likes of Fantasia 2000, Pokmon the Movie 2000, and Blues Brothers 2000 (the latter bizarrely released and set in 1998) could ultimately have hit cinemas in any year, Dracula 2000 is, for better or worse, possibly the era's most representative time capsule.

Sure, the threat to plunge the world into chaos might emerge from a source slightly more traditional than the Millennium Bug. There aren't any accidental missile launches or airplanes falling out of the sky as was once predicted. But as suggested by its title which according to uncredited screenwriter Scott Derrickson was enough alone to bring the now-disgraced Harvey Weinstein on board the film plants the good old Count squarely at the turn of the 21st century.

Here, Dracula (Gerard Butler) is unwittingly resurrected by a bunch of bumbling thieves who soon discover the silver coffin they've stolen from an antiques shop's high-tech security vault was sealed for a reason: Owner Abraham Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer) has spent the previous century prolonging his age by injecting himself with the blood of his nemesis' dormant body stored inside. Having been rudely awakened, Dracula decides that revenge is best served by turning Van Helsing's granddaughter Mary (Justine Waddell) into a vampire, too.

Writer/director Patrick Lussier had been heavily inspired by the story of Dracula A.D. 1972, which transported Christopher Lee's titular teeth-sinker from Victorian times to Swinging London. Dracula 2000 undoubtedly shares some DNA with the campy Hammer horror. (We're still not sure how Jonny Lee Miller kept a straight face while delivering the line, "Never f*** with an antiques dealer.") And Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Ann Fitzpatrick (aka bubblegum pop singer Vitamin C), and Jeri Ryan look more like back-ups for the Charlie's Angels reboot than brides of Dracula.

However, Lussier, who'd made his directorial debut earlier that year with the schlocky, straight-to-DVD The Prophecy 3: The Ascent, is much more successful in grounding his parasitical villain in the modern day. And a now-defunct retail giant is strangely integral to this feat.

In fact, cinemagoers may well have believed the deluge of pre-movie commercials hadn't actually finished considering the abundance of product placement for Virgin Megastores. Richard Branson's famous logo appears everywhere you look (in a dumpster, on the side of a van, on the T-shirt its employee Mary sleeps in while being haunted by her grandfather's arch-rival) and several scenes are shot within the brightly-lit alphabetized aisles of its New Orleans branch.

Of course, this was a boom time for the record store, which sold a record-breaking 785 million albums in 2000 a period when Total Request Live favorites such as Backstreet Boys and NSYNC were posting first-week figures higher than most of today's chart-toppers manage in total. Why wouldn't Dracula walk into a Virgin Megastore and be captivated by its mountainous array of $20 compact discs and super-sized screens beaming out a sadomasochistic promo for retro hard rockers Monster Magnet?

Yes, Dracula 2000 also firmly adhered to the golden rule that every nu-horror must be soundtracked by bands you'd expect to find on the upper reaches of the Ozzfest bill. System of a Down, Marilyn Manson, and several groups who blatantly used the metal name generator (Flybanger, Halfcocked, Taproot) all bring the appropriate amount of crunching guitars and scream-sung vocals here, while "One Step Closer" from the year's breakout stars, Linkin Park, serves as a reminder when parachute pants, baseball caps, and frosted highlights were all the rage.

Rooting the film even further in Y2K territory is the array of young actors including Sean Patrick Thomas (Save the Last Dance) and Shane West (A Walk to Remember) who struggled to sustain their early success. And no 2000 action movie would be complete without at least one nod to The Matrix: Not only does the Count silently stalk his prey wearing a black trench coat (always open to display his rock hard abs, obviously), but several fight scenes throw in that well-worn bullet time effect, too.

Of more significance is the audacious last-minute twist that truly makes Dracula 2000 stand apart from the dozens of adaptations that went before. Turns out that the world's most famous bloodsucker is actually Judas Iscariot, the disloyal Apostle who, after failing to kill himself, was cursed by God to live the next two millennia in a vampiric state. It's why Dracula sneers at anything remotely Christian and has an unusual aversion to silver.

"Believe in me for I am the way to eternity," the vampire writes in his native Aramaic tongue on Mary's apartment wall. This attempt to lure the younger Van Helsing over to the dark side suggests Dracula is positioning himself as the Antichrist, tapping into many Christians' fears that Y2K would spark his arrival. In 1999, the Los Angeles Times reported that over 40 million U.S. citizens strongly believed the millennium would herald Christ's second coming. According to literal interpreters of the Bible, however, this could only happen once a false prophet had risen to power.

We never get to see Dracula's endgame, of course. He perishes in the sunlight after a rooftop fight with Mary, which inadvertently recreates his botched suicide attempt 2000 years previously. But for some, the timing of his brief resurrection is no coincidence.

Of course, we should mention that Dracula 2000 isn't a particularly good film. Seemingly designed on an early version of Microsoft Paint, its visual effects are as cheap as its scares. The lifeless script suggests Lussier wasn't paying much attention to the dialog while serving as Wes Craven's regular editor. And entirely absent from the first third and given little to do when he eventually appears Butler's unremarkable Dracula is relegated to supporting player in his own movie. Yet while it hopelessly fails to capture the essence of Bram Stoker's finest, it does capture perhaps better than any other horror of the period the essence of the year 2000.

Read more here:

Dracula 2000 captured the spirit of Y2K better than any other movie - SYFY WIRE

December 16, 2020, a day ago

news heavy metal aftermath

Chicago thrashers Aftermath have released a lyric video for the title track off their most recent album, There Is Something Wrong.

The band states: The use of an animated human throughout the video is a strong symbolic image of what those in power want the new world to look like. No originality, no individuality and no independent thought. They want humanity to disappear and this song and video serve as a wakeup call to all of us."

More from singer Kyriakos 'Charlie' Tsiolis: "I grew up always questioning authority. I never understood what gives them the right to tell me what to do. I follow the 'Golden Rule'. I dont need someone to tell me what is right or wrong. I am not your child. That feeling was there as a kid and continued to grow over the years. I have no idea why or what caused me to see the world like that. I must have been born this way. Back in the early days of the band all my lyrics were somewhat based on this. I just wasnt as aware then as I am now. We wrote a song called 'Chaos' back in 1986. That song was about questioning everything and everyone including your parents. It was about challenging authority and the stories they force fed you. I didnt know why I felt something was wrong in the world, but I KNEW IT WASN'T RIGHT. As I got older and read and researched things I figured it out.

Listening to 'Chaos' all these years later I realized I now had the answers to the questions I had in those lyrics. If you listen to 'Chaos' you will hear part of the lyrics in 'There Is Something Wrong'. Listen to these lyrics and you will hear me answering those lyrics. Wake up world before its too late."

Read more:

AFTERMATH Release There Is Something Wrong Lyric Video - bravewords.com

No matter what you sell, you have a supply chain. Perhaps you are the manufacturer and must get goods to your customers. You might run the transportation company that gets products from one location to the next. Perhaps you are the retailer and rely on a supply chain to keep things moving smoothly.

No matter where you are in the supply chain, you can take some steps to protect your business even during difficult times. The business Invesp reports 79% of companies with well-managed supply chains see greater than average revenue growth. Taking the time to tweak your supply chain is smart.

How do you protect your supply chain business when you arent in control of every facet of the process? You must rely on others, but you can still do several things to avoid disruptions:

Before you encounter a problem, spend time reviewing the supply chain process. In every business, there are weak links. Do a complete audit, involve your employees and figure out what needs to be tweaked.

Look at suppliers who regularly run late. Is there a different option for getting supplies? If not, can you discuss the issues with the other company and figure out a solution? Perhaps you need to adjust your ordering schedule to allow for regular delays.

How does your warehouse function? How fast do products leave once theyre ordered? Can you do anything to speed things up and prevent your customer base from seeking a competitor?

If you own a warehouse, your inventory is likely your biggest asset. You must take steps to protect your goods so you dont lose them to theft, the elements or other disasters. Your loading dock is an essential part of your business and the process of moving things to and from your warehouse. However, it is also a vulnerable point.

Regularly assess truck doors and equipment to make sure everything operates correctly. Weak panels are a prime opportunity for burglars. Locks that dont function correctly present an opportunity for theft.

You can also add dock leveler seals, which protect against people and the elements. Other options include lock-landing gear. Create routines, such as closing doors when theyre not in use and performing end-of-shift checks for locking doors. Adding cameras can also deter employee theft.

Big retailers, such as Amazon and Walmart, have set a standard of two-day delivery. Unfortunately, this isnt always possible for smaller suppliers. A golden rule in business is to under promise and overdeliver.

When estimating delivery, set a date a little beyond what you know you can achieve. When the customer receives their order early, theyll be thrilled. Youll also allow some flex room in case of a disruption beyond your control.

If youre like most modern businesses, at least part of your system involves databases and cloud storage. The last thing you need is for hackers to access your customers information, which could also open your big data up to conniving competitors.

According to Google's Transparency Report, phishing scams increased 130% or more in the last few years.

Your best line of defense is in training your employees to watch out for phishing tactics. Conduct regular training sessions. You should also install firewalls and virus protection. If you use a third-party provider, youll gain the benefit of their more advanced security systems.

Keep an eye on your costs. If you dont track your profit levels regularly, its easy to experience rising costs on your end and end up not passing them on to your clients. Over time, youll make far less than you should or even operate at a loss.

Your expenses involve employee salaries, transportation costs, supplier product price increases and even unfixed costs such as heating and cooling your building. Ideally, you should review your costs and fees every six months.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a good example of why you should always have options for where you get your own supplies. Complete government shutdowns in some countries delayed the launch of vehicles and smartphones for various companies. However, brands with suppliers in another country continued business as usual.

If you currently have Chinese suppliers, look for a backup vendor in a second country. Ideally, the two suppliers should be in very different parts of the world. While we are unlikely to have another global pandemic of the same proportions, its smart to prepare as if there might be.

While your biggest threat might be internal, you cant underestimate the importance of external breaches. What if someone could just walk into your building, jump on an unguarded computer and access all your files? What if a robber overpowers a single security guard?

Look for ways to improve the physical security in your complex. Options might include adding a tall fence and guard dogs, using a guard house access point or installing high-tech entry points that can be recoded in minutes when a disgruntled employee leaves.

Conduct regular audits of every system. Hire a professional who can attempt to hack into your system and identify weaknesses. Enlist an outside party to try to gain access to your building. Look for areas of the supply chain where you might be taken advantage of and rework contracts with those vendors.

With a little attention to detail and awareness of threats before they happen, youll have a more secure and successful supply chain business.

Read this article:

The Most Effective Ways to Protect Your Supply Chain Business - socPub

The very first principle of the moral life is that we are to do good and avoid evil. Saintly minds have argued over the centuries that so long as a person understands the meaning of this statement, it is a self-evident truth with which no reasonable person can disagree. Of course, the challenge is, what is good and what is evil? This is a question that is increasingly difficult to answer today.

Jesus explains that the very first principle by which we begin to grasp the difference between good and evil is what we have conventionally come to know as the golden rule. We know this commandment in two forms: You shall love your neighbor as yourself or whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them (Mt 22:39; Mt 7:12). In either case the proper love of self is the foundation for knowing how to treat others.

The difficulty with the golden rule, however, is that if we do not have a proper sense of self-love, our determination of how we ought to treat others will be skewed. In other words, if self-love is self-seeking, our conscience will lead us to false judgments regarding love of neighbor. Thus, the more self-referential one becomes, the less able one can truly love their neighbor.

For this reason, the proper love of self depends upon the love of God and our obedience to his commandments. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment (Mt 22:37-38). The implication is that by loving God above all, a person will perceive how best to love their neighbor since self-love will be rooted in the love of God.

Because of the importance of the Golden Rule to moral integrity, Jesus clarifies its meaning in his Last Supper discourse: A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another (Jn 13:34). What Jesus models throughout his life is a form of self-love whereby he offers himself as a gift and sacrifice to humanityto all of uson behalf of his love for his Father. In other words, the best way to love self is to offer oneself in service to neighbor, as illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

This is what Christians mean by charity, or in Greek, Agape. Jesus tells us that true love is not so much about what we desire or find attractive, but rather about offering our self to others in affirmation of human dignity.

Today, we often hear people speak about unconditional love. This is how Jesus teaching is interpreted. The argument basically states that God loves us unconditionally, no matter what. The implication here is that Jesuss love is entirely inclusive of everyone. After, all, Jesus associated with and called the social outcasts and marginalized to be his disciples. This is true and no one can dispute this. Divine love does not discriminate on the level of human dignity.

However, this does not mean that Jesus accepted every form of behavior or every human intention. While Jesus indeed loves every personhe died for allto remain in his love, He commands us to follow the narrow way, which he explains in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7). In other words, God does not withhold his love from anyone. However, He also does not reconcile himself with sin. He commands us to be perfect as His heavenly Father is perfect (Mt 5:48).

The greatest illustration of the point is the story of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8:1-11). Jesus did not condemn her, but he also commanded her to sin no more. Jesus called the woman into covenant fellowship with him, but at the same time, called her to leave behind her sinful ways. Jesuss love was not legalistic or punitive, but neither was it an accommodation to sin. His love is best understood as a transformative call to conversion.

One of the biggest challenges to the Christian notion of love today is the idea that we are not to judge. Jesus clearly teaches us not to judge others, lest we ourselves be judged (Mt 7:1-3). We are also to forgive others that wrong us and be merciful (Mt 6:14-15; Lk 6:36). Somehow not judging others has come to mean that we are not allowed to make moral judgments, especially when it comes to human sexuality. It ought to be obvious, however, that we cannot forgive an offense or show mercy toward anothers faults if we are not allowed to make any moral judgments. How would we know to forgive if we do not know we have been wronged?

The proper way to understand Jesus teaching here is to distinguish between making a judgment about the moral character of an action and condemning others in our hearts because of their sin. Christian love must always affirm the dignity of a person, and so embrace him or herto love our enemies for examplebut Christian charity can never embrace sinful behavior as acceptable to God. It is simply false to suggest that if I make a moral judgment, I am therefore not loving the other person whose actions are morally wrong.

Today we can observe many efforts to pressure us to not merely tolerate but to accept behavior and lifestyles incompatible with Jesus teaching in the name of inclusivityeven among Christians who clearly relativize Jesus teaching, as though Christians need to get with the times. For example, the slogan love is love and the demand for non-discriminatory laws more inclusive of various expressions of sexuality are often defended by an appeal to inclusivity and unconditional love.

The problem is that this argument fails to distinguish between the person, whom we are commanded to love, and a set of behaviors that we cannot accept because they are incompatible with Jesus teaching about the dignity of the human person.

The love of neighbor is Gods command to affirm the dignity of others through a gift of self. Jesus offers himself to us from the cross, not to gloss over sin, but to call the sinner to repentance. The command to love is not a license to disregard the moral law on account of the dignity of the sinner. To the contrary, according to Jesus example, the love of neighbor demands that, for the sake of human dignity, we call others to conversion and help others live according to their true dignity.

Visit link:

What the Golden Rule can teach us about rightly-ordered love - denvercatholic.org

When we were kids, one universal maxim was hammered into our minds: the Golden Rule. Treat others how you would want to be treated.

In the simple world of playgrounds and snacktime, it was an effective starter pack for being a good person. Or, at the very least, it gave kids a reason to rethink their career as a bully.

The Golden Rule is often linked to empathy, but in a much more complicated, grown-up world, our reliance on empathy and the Golden Rule is limiting.

To begin, what exactly is empathy? Empathy is defined as being able to feel what another person feels and step into their shoes.

Essentially, its a mirror for emotions. However, having empathy doesnt necessarily mean youre good, kind or moral. You can care about people without empathy. You can love people without empathy. You can act without empathy.

For one, you dont have to feel the same emotions to logically understand what someone is going through.

People who have low empathy are still capable of sympathy rather than feeling how someone feels, they can see it and think it. We all have the intellectual capacity to make connections between our own experiences and others emotions. We all have the capacity to know when someone is upset and attempt to understand why.

Sometimes, sympathy is better than empathy. It would be presumptuous to say you can actually empathize with anyone who has been through a traumatic experience that you have not gone through. Plus, the way we process our emotions is very personal empathy only deals with reflecting perceived pain, and our perceptions are often not reality.

Sympathy is also more of an active response than empathy. Sympathy means seeking to understand how the other person is feeling. Empathy is automatic and passive, and its based on how your brain is wired rather than how you interact with others.

A misconception of empathy is that it automatically makes you a good person who does good deeds. Though the Golden Rule is conflated with empathy, empathy doesnt actually include any action or treatment of others. Compassion does.

Empathy means suffering with the affected the equivalent of seeing someone drowning and jumping into the ocean with them. Compassion, on the other hand, means taking a less immersive route and, more importantly, taking action. It means throwing the drowning person a lifesaver and pulling them up.

Like sympathy, compassion is active. It is a choice. Sympathy and compassion can exist without empathy. You choose the way you respond to a situation. For example, you can feel empathy and still be a jerk, or you can not feel it and still be compassionate and considerate.

So, now that weve established how you can care and act without empathy, lets discuss how emotional empathy can be limiting.

Our society tends to focus on the idea that the way we treat others is reliant on how we feel and are affected by it. Its an individualistic take.

You should care about other people simply because its right and it creates a healthy community. The basis of how you treat others should not be on your own feelings. In fact, focusing on yourself and empathizing with those close to you at an extreme can enable the dehumanization of and aggression toward outsiders.

Additionally, while empathy can be a motivator for helping friends and family, it doesnt work as well on a larger scale. Psychologist Paul Bloom argues in his book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion that empathy is too individual-centric to the victim and not the empathizer.

Studies have shown there is an emotional plateau when it comes to empathizing. Hearing an individuals heart-wrenching story might compel you to act on your empathy, but we often dont have the capacity to fully process large-scale tragedies and abstract death tolls.

This leads to the prioritization of individuals you are familiar with over large groups of people you dont know or who are outside of your social bubble. Blow up the proportions, and youre left with an unfair distribution of resources and awareness.

Bloom also points out how empathy can amplify the effects of implicit bias. You can feel empathy in different ways about different people. There can thus be, say, a racial bias in how you empathize with and perceive someone elses pain.

Notably, in the medical field, doctors have long been documented for undertreating pain in patients of color and exhibiting more empathy for white patients.

Empathy can backfire in many situations because your immediate emotional response is not always correct or just. More often than not, it is informed by your experiences, opinions and prejudices. Reliance on empathy then translates into a flawed treatment of others. Not exactly the Golden Rule we expected, right?

We cannot and should not allow empathy to be key in our decision making. We cant let it dictate how we treat others. As we tackle larger social and human rights issues, its especially important to instead practice compassion, self-awareness and moral responsibility.

Original post:

Mind your business: Empathy is an unreliable tool for combatting larger social issues - Daily Free Press

It strikes me that many, perhaps most, of those today who were born to the Greatest Generation of Americans during the aftermath of World War II have a difficult time grasping the widespread apathy, disrespect and selfishness they're witnessing across the nation.

The differences between the perspectives of many youthful citizens and our aging generation seem obvious. I feel the disconnect can be explained in part by the markedly different ways in which we were raised.

During the late 1940s into the '60s, a nuclear family that provided a home for children was considered the norm. Homes were headed by a father and mother who instilled respect and manners as essential and expected traits in their offspring. Many of us baby boomers worked for weekly allowances (learning the value of money).

We ate dinners at a table together, often offering a blessing beforehand. Many were taught the importance of character, honesty and integrity. We recited the pledge in classrooms, sometimes even supplemented by a prayer. We were taught the role of government in our lives while also taking shop or home economics classes to learn how to cope as individually responsible adults.

So when we witness the widespread disrespect, self-absorption, irresponsible and often violent behaviors arising largely from thousands born into more recent generations, it's difficult for many folks raised in those decades past to understand why.

Look, while I'm a far cry from being a psychologist and trying to paint with too wide a brush, I can't help but believe the behavioral changes we witness today lie largely in expectations borne of our experiences placed on a nation of divided families resulting in stressed-out single parents, as well as dramatic changes in the role and focus of our schools and their curriculums.

The expanded drug culture also undoubtedly has taken its toll, along with violent video games and Hollywood films that devalue compassion and faith and try to desensitize reverence for a creator with needless "GDs" and the "f-word" littering their scripts.

By comparison, back in the day, I'd never think to talk back to Mom or Dad. That was a sure-fire way to feel the sting of a leather belt applied squarely to my exposed rump. Using curse words and those blaspheming God resulted in bar soap applied to the mouth or revisiting that belt.

I was expected to regularly perform chores around the house that ranged from taking out the trash to gathering laundry from the hamper. A love of freedom and country were regularly preached. It's clear today that my parents were doing their best to instill a sense of responsibility and commitment.

They always expected to see and sign my report cards. Both cared enough to attended parent/teacher conferences where a bad conduct report from the teachers meant yet another session with the belt back home. In those days, I was expected to be fully accountable for my actions, rather than trying to fault someone else. As with parents, most administrators sided with teachers.

While some among us boomers were spoiled in youth, as a whole we never expected to be coddled or given everything we asked for, which meant we carried a realistic view of existence into adulthood. To a large degree, the teachings of weekly church we attended with parents and Sunday School beforehand played a role in how we learned to treat each other. You know, that Golden Rule thing. I had friends in high school who carried rifles in the rear windows of their pickups. School shootings were unthinkable, as were rashes of mass murders.

In the 1950s and '60s we also found ways to occupy our time in off hours among friends, usually outdoors. As youths we occupied ourselves with diversions such as bowling, rink skating and Saturday matinees with cartoons and serial adventures at the Triple R ranch or with the Long Ranger at the local theater.

That lifestyle only benefited our socialization skills as we grew into adulthood rather than watching wall-sized TVs streaming 24/7 programming, cell phones, laptops or iPads to nullify human interaction and preoccupy our waking moments.

I certainly didn't set out to pick on any particular group today. We humans are complex animals, and so many from yesteryear have their decent and not-so-decent citizens. Yet I can' t help but notice the obvious differences between the early years for us boomers compared with what we are observing today. The differences have become too numerous to catalog here.

The columnist Walter E. Williams, who died this week expressed it well in what may be his final column about the abysmal failures of the Baltimore school system: "Years ago much of the behavior of young people that we see today would have never been tolerated." Couldn't agree more, Walter. Rest in peace.

License free-for-all

A U.S. district judge in California has determined residents there have a constitutional right to put pretty much whatever message they choose on vanity license tags, as long as it isn't obscene or profane or incite violence or hate.

Yep, the state's DMV bureaucrats' previous censorship of what citizens can say on their tags has been a federal violation of freedom of speech and expression.

The judge cited a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case involving a band called The Slants, which said that freedom of speech cannot be barred because it might offend some people. The grossly overreactive catering to someone's distress over words that might create discomfort is ludicrous. Life where I'm from means dressing daily in your big-boy or big-girl pants.

I, for one, also was pleasantly surprised to see the judge in that governmentally restricted state stand up for constitutional liberties. Wonder if "Setmefree" or "Abandnshp" are taken?

Highway double-takes

We could soon be glancing over the crowded interstate lane beside us at an enormous big rig buffeting past with no driver behind the wheel, especially in Texas and across the Southwest.

It's coming, valued readers. And won't such high-speed automation generate a warm sense of highway safety?

A news account the other day said the Texas company TuSimple already is using some self-driving trucks to make long-haul deliveries. And the trend is likely to grow rapidly.

Driverless cars were made legal on Texas roads in 2017. The law allows automated motor vehicles to use Texas highway as long as they are insured and equipped with video recording equipment.

TuSimple is running automated trucks from Arizona to west Texas. A new Fort Worth hub will help the company extend its network to Austin, San Antonio and Houston. The company says it plans to have its nationwide network in place by 2023.

Now go out into the world and treat everyone you meet exactly like you want them to treat you.

Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist, was editor of three Arkansas dailies and headed the master's journalism program at Ohio State University. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.

See the rest here:

OPINION | MASTERSON ONLINE: Yesteryear versus today - Arkansas Online

Shutterstock

The High Court

Integrity continues to underpin relations between junior and senior lawyers if it relates back to conduct rules, argues Graham Reid

Tribunal dubs top UK lawyer's sexual misconduct as spontaneous lack of judgement was The Global Legal Posts headline back in February.

Ryan Beckwiths case before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) attracted considerable attention at the time, sparking debate over the appropriateness of his actions during a drunken sexual encounter with a junior colleague.

Ten months later, the success of Beckwiths appeal to the Divisional Court has led to a ruling that will affect the approach of the SDT and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to similar allegations in the future.

One message that emerges clearly from the judgment is that allegations of acting without integrity and harming the reputation of the solicitors profession must now be tightly connected to the SRAs rules. The SDT does not have carte blanche to decide what integrity means. Its meaning must be drawn from the rules themselves. This reflects the fact that the obligation to act with integrity is a sort of meta-rule. Its the rule that says one must obey all the other rules.

In real terms, this means a solicitor accused of acting without integrity can expect to see such an allegation particularised in terms of some other rule in the SRA Handbook or, now, the SRA Standards and Regulations. That is why Beckwith succeeded on appeal the tribunal had found that he did not abuse his position of power and authority in relation to his colleague, Person A, and without such an abuse it could not be said that he took unfair advantage of her by reason of his professional status.

The Divisional Court adopted a similar approach to the alleged breach of Principle 6 (behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services), noting that this principle is apt to become unruly unless it is closely informed by a careful and realistic consideration of the [SRAs rules].

The final argument raised by Beckwith failed. It concerned his Article 8 ECHR rights. He said that the conduct complained of took place in his private life and the SRAs rules were too broadly drafted for him to have the necessary degree of certainty whether or not they applied in a given situation (and therefore those rules infringed his Article 8 rights). The Divisional Court disagreed, concluding that the requisite certainty could be found as long as these somewhat fuzzily defined principles were informed as to content by the remainder of the rules.

The decision can therefore be seen as limiting the freedom of movement of the SRA and SDT when it comes to allegations of integrity and harm to the professions reputation. Indeed, there are some passages that even read as admonishment of the regulator and tribunal. For example, the judgment said: Regulators will do well to recognise that it is all too easy to be dogmatic without knowing it; popular outcry is not proof that a particular set of events gives rise to any matter falling within a regulator's remit.

But this would overlook the most important parts of the decision. In a legal context, it is not Beckwiths success that matters, or indeed the events that night in July 2016, but rather the courts comments concerning the kinds of behaviour that can amount to professional misconduct.

The court confirmed that the rules can be directed to a solicitors private life, but only when the conduct realistically touches on her practise of the profession. It added that the public had a legitimate expectation that junior members of the professional would be treated with respect by other members and that a failure to do so could harm the reputation of the profession, and it said that an abuse of a position of authority or power can amount to a breach of the duty of fair treatment. This is currently formulated as: You do not abuse your position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others.

The clearest message from Beckwiths case therefore is that the high ethical standards of the solicitors' profession remain intact. The golden rule still applies: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Integrity must underpin relations between junior and senior staff, it applies across hierarchies of power and authority and can even extend into a solicitors private life, provided the behaviour relevantly engages one of the other standards of behaviour necessarily implicit in the SRAs rules.

Graham Reid is a legal director, professional regulation at RPC

Sign up for daily email updates

Email your news and story ideas to:news@globallegalpost.com

Visit link:

The Ryan Beckwith judgment has protected the legal profession's high ethical standards - The Global Legal Post

BRIDGEPORT Joyce H. Cooper, age 86, of Bridgeport, passed away on Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2020 at the United Methodist Village in Lawrenceville.

She was born on Jan. 20, 1934 in Lawrence County, the daughter of Roy Martin and Lorene E. (Russell) Goins.

Joyce worked at the Lawrence County Memorial Hospital, and retired from Lawrenceville Industries. After retirement, she worked part-time for Golden Rule Insurance Company. She attended Bethel and St. James AME Churches. Joyce was a hard-working, pleasant, caring person who enjoyed her family and friends, along with a quiet lifestyle.

Preceding her in death were: her parents; two brothers, Russell Goins and Kenneth Goins; and one sister, Kathleen Edwards.

Survivors include: her three children, Eldon L. (Bonnie) Cooper, Jr. of Robinson; Herman J. Joe (Bobbie) Cooper of Patoka, Indiana; and Marta J. (Larry) Curry of Bridgeport; two sisters, Sallee Walden of Princeton, Indiana; and Marva Green of Lawrenceville; one sister-in-law, Alvyna Goins of Lawrenceville; nine grandchildren, Jesse J. (Emily) Cooper of Terre Haute, Indiana; Whitney L. Curry of Lawrenceville; Shawn J. (Laura) Curry of Olympia, Washington; Stephanie (Craig) Weber of Robinson; Stacy Stevens of Oblong; Aleesha (Brandon) Hardiman of Princeton, Indiana; Joshua (Lindsay) Phelps of Princeton, Indiana; Amanda (Allen) Harris of Marion, Kentucky; and Bradley (Kara) Greenwell of Marion, Kentucky; 14 great-grandchildren; as well as several cousins, nieces and nephews.

Private services for the family will be conducted at the Emmons-Macey and Steffey Funeral Home in Lawrenceville. Everyone is welcome to view the service on Saturday, Dec. 5, 2020 at 11 a.m. with the following link:https://www.facebook.com/Emmons-Macey-Steffey-Funeral-Home-Burial-Cremation-Services-241234759332208/.

A public burial will be conducted following the service at the Portee Cemetery. Extended family and friends are invited to a drive through visitation on Saturday from 10 a.m. until 11 a.m. at the funeral home. Please approach the funeral home from south 12th Street, and you will be directed by staff to pass through under the awning.

Memorial donations may be made to the Bridgeport Senior Citizens or the United Methodist Village-Activity Department.

Please visit http://www.emmonsmaceysteffey.com to view the tribute and to send condolences.

Read more from the original source:

Joyce H. Cooper, 86 - The Daily Record

As with other personnel decisions, there has been a steady stream of reporting about President-elect Joe Bidens search for a new attorney general. Names mentioned include former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, outgoing Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, former Department of Justice official Lisa Monaco, former head of the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Besides traditional considerationssuch as the policy fit with the president, management experience, confirmability and demographicsBiden seems to have another, more singular requirement for his attorney general. The president-elect appears to want an attorney general who will decline to criminally investigate or prosecute Donald Trump and his close associates, and who will be credibly seen as having made that decision on his or her own, without direction from Biden. As the saying goes, personnel is policy.

The Department of Justice is an enormous organization with many and varied responsibilities, and the attorney generals role is correspondingly broad. But Bidens pick will confront one issue of surpassing importance: whether to criminally investigate and possibly charge Trump, members of his family, or close business or political associates. Relatedly, Biden must also decide who will be the ultimate decision-maker on any investigation or prosecution: the president himself or the attorney general.

Biden would be well within his legal rights, and within the norms of apolitical law enforcement, were he to directly instruct the attorney general not to investigate or prosecute Trump or close Trump associates. The Constitution vests the president with the executive power, and directs him or her to faithfully execute the Office of President and take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. According to the Supreme Court, [t]he Constitution requires that a President chosen by the entire nation oversee the execution of the laws. As I have recently written in a co-authored historical study, the faithful execution duties requireamong other thingsthat the president execute the laws diligently, honestly, impartially, and in good faith for the public good, and avoid self-dealing or other purely privately self-interested actions. These duties have from the beginning coexisted with a good measure of prosecutorial discretion in the president and his subordinates. For instance, as Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes describe, both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson directed that federal prosecutions be dropped for public policy reasons.

Starting around the time of Watergate, and in response to the politicization of the Department of Justice, a set of norms crystallized about the proper roles of the president, the White House, the attorney general and other political leaders at the Justice Department, and career prosecutors and investigators. I attempted to summarize some of these norms as follows:

First, the politically-accountable head of the executive branchthe Presidentcan and indeed should set out the broad parameters of legal and enforcement policy for DOJ prosecutors and law enforcement agencies ... because ultimately the President is accountable for the faithful execution of the law. The Attorney Generals job involves such a large element of sensitive policyin areas ranging from civil litigation against the government to federal prison administration to immigration to law enforcement prioritiesthat he or she is properly an at-will employee of the President, and hence responsive to the public will as well....

Partisan political considerations, personal vendettas or favoritism, financial gain, or self-protection or self-dealing should play no role in investigating or prosecuting cases....

Decisions about specific investigatory or prosecutorial steps in particular criminal cases are almost always best left to career officials operating free from political intervention, and supervised by political appointees based only on law and merit rather than improper considerations including White House approval or influence.

Regarding the presidents role, Hennessey and Wittes describe the norm that presidents exercise policy control over the Justice Department, but they generally refrain from getting involved in specific investigative matters, which they leave to the appointees they select. Similarly, Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith describe a post-Watergate norm inhibit[ing] presidential involvement in ... pending investigations.

But sometimes it can be appropriate for presidents to weigh in on specific criminal investigations or prosecutions. For example, President Barack Obama directed that prosecutions of 10 deep-cover Russian sleeper agents be dropped in 2010 and the spies returned to Russia, as a part of a swap for four people detained by Russia whom the president wished to liberate. There the presidents constitutional and statutory prerogatives over national security and foreign affairs justified overriding the general norm against White House involvement in specific party enforcement decisions. Obamas action seems consistent with his faithful execution duties, because reasons of statenot corrupt, self-dealing or other self-interested motiveswere the apparent motivating factors. Hennessey and Wittes generalize this point, writing that occasionally broad issues of presidential or national policy hinge on investigative matters, and that White House involvement with Justice Department prosecution or investigation decisions can be appropriate in those instances.

Although somewhat different legal and prudential considerations are involved, the presidents pardon power also appropriately allows him or her to intervene in specific federal criminal matters to obviate or remit punishment. Perhaps most relevant to the Trump situation, President Gerald Ford issued a blanket pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for Watergate and any other federal crimes that Nixon may have committed. Although some charged then (and now) that Ford may have made a corrupt bargain with NixonNixon would resign and allow Ford, the vice president, to assume the presidency in exchange for a pardonthat does not appear to be true. To justify his actions, Ford cited, in the pardon document and a speech, his desire for national tranquility after the nightmare of Watergate; a wish to avoid prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States; and concerns about whether Nixon could get a speedy and fair trial. In words that could apply to his forthcoming decision about Nixonfamous words that Biden is probably pondering todayFord proclaimed, in his speech upon taking the presidents oath of office:

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. ... As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and more poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process ....

One of Trumps most flagrant and dangerous norm breaches was his repeated, publicly stated desire that the Justice Department prosecute his real and perceived political enemiesHillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and many others. Avoiding any hint of perpetuating this kind of awfulness, so reminiscent of tyrannies and banana republics, is an entirely plausible reason why Biden could want to avert criminal enforcement action against Trump and his circle. In addition to restoring the golden rule of presidents not attempting to jail their political rivals, such a decision by Biden would plausibly serve the public interest by reducing partisan division and hate, and avoiding distraction from his positive agenda on the coronavirus pandemic, the economy and other fronts.

Thus it would be appropriate for President Biden to direct the Justice Department to drop any investigations of Trump or his family and close associates, assuming he were motivated by concerns in the public interest. But Biden has not indicated that he plans to take this path. Instead, insofar as he has announced his thinking on the matter, he seems to want the attorney general to be seen as having made the call to decline criminal enforcementto buttress the frayed norm of Justice Department independence from the White House on specific party matters, and probably to avoid taking political heat from his left.

Biden has not made an explicit statement on the matter, but he may have already publicly signaled his views on both of these issues. During a Democratic primary debate in November 2019, he was asked whether he would order an investigation of Trump, if elected. Biden responded:

Look, I would not direct my Justice Department like this president does. Id let them make their independent judgment. I would not dictate who should be prosecuted or who should be exonerated. Thats not the role of the president of the United States. ...

So I would, whatever was determined by the attorney general I supported that I appointed, let them make an independent judgment. If that was the judgment that he violated the law and he should be, in fact, criminally prosecuted, then so be it. But I would not direct it.

In August 2020, Biden told reporters, I will not interfere with the Justice Departments judgment of whether or not they think they should pursue the prosecution of anyone that they think has violated the law. Prosecuting a former president would be very unusual thing and probably not very ... good for democracy, he said. But if a criminal case arose, he went on, then in fact, that would be up to the attorney general to decide whether he or she wanted to proceed with it. I am not going to make that individual judgment.

And after Bidens election victory, NBC News reported, President-elect Joe Biden has privately told advisers that he doesnt want his presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor. According to NBC, Biden has raised concerns that investigations would further divide a country he is trying to unite. He believes investigations would alienate the more than 73 million Americans who voted for Trump. An unnamed Biden adviser also told NBC: He can set a tone about what he thinks should be done [but] hes not going to be a president who directs the Justice Department one way or the other.

One plausible reading of these statements is that Biden does not want a criminal investigation of Trump or people close to him, but that he wants his attorney general to be seen as the one who made this decision. I havent seen this reported in so many wordsbut if my reading of Bidens public statements is right, it is surely also the case that Biden wants a decision on non-prosecution to be as acceptable as possible to the many people, including Democratic Party leaders and members, who believe that Trump and his associates deserve punishment for any crimes they may have committed.

These imperatives may be in some tension with each other. For instance, a more aggressively left-wing attorney general would have more credibility with the left in the event of declining to prosecute but could be more likely to want to prosecute in the first place. Similarly, the better Biden knows his nominee personally, the more confidence he could have that that person would reach the right decisionthat is, the decision that Biden wants. But personal closeness to Biden or his team might undermine the public impression that the attorney general made the decision without White House involvement.

Based on the public record, I dont know enough to speculate usefully about which of the people who have been floated would best fit Bidens needs. It is possible to say, however, that given Bidens laudable goal of reducing the appearance and reality of the politicization of the Justice Departmentone of the goals that surely influenced his announcement that he would delegate to the attorney general on Trump criminal issuespicking current DNC chair Perez does not seem like a good idea. Becerra, Jones and Patrick also have political backgrounds, though not on the level of a national party chair. Another consideration is that Yates, who was fired as acting attorney general by Trump for insubordination regarding the travel ban, might have to recuse herself from decision-making about Trump were she to get the nod from Biden.

Whomever Biden selects as attorney general, he or she will face a politically difficult situation if the time comes to decide how to handle investigations or prosecution of Trump and his circle. Say that the attorney general decides to forego any federal law enforcement action against Trump. He or she would almost certainly be asked by the press whether Biden or people speaking for him directed this decision. Thus Biden would presumably strive to avoid any overt conversations, much less commitments, on the issue when he is vetting nominees for the position. This is a delicate dance. It will be interesting to see who is chosen for attorney general and what that person has to say about this issue during confirmation hearings and press interviews.

Two caveats in closing. First, I may be overreading the tea leaves. It is possible that Biden thinks criminal enforcement against Trump and his circle would be a bad idea, but that he is genuinely open to the attorney general disagreeing with him and pursuing an investigation or prosecution. Second, Trump may use the pardon power in ways that change Bidens or his attorney generals thinking. For example, pardons of Trumps adult children and the key aides who have the most criminal exposure might make it clear that there is no point in pursuing federal criminal investigations, whatever Bidens or the attorney generals personal views might have been otherwise. Alternatively, a Trump self-pardon might increase the chances that Biden or the attorney general considers a criminal prosecution of Trump to be warranted, in order to test and hopefully quash the dangerous and corrupt idea that a president can commit federal crimes in office with impunity.

More here:

Who Will Decide Whether to Investigate Trump? - Lawfare

There ought to be a law banning cancel-culture behavior. Social media has been weaponized to destroy the lives and livelihood of people who do not fit the narrative of the self-righteous people in our society. Left-leaning individuals have proposed establishing a hit list of those who have served in the Trump administration. The total destruction of the lives of these individuals appears to be their ultimate goal.

It is one thing to disagree with the policies embraced by others, but to advocate for the infliction of mental and physical pain on others who embrace a different ideology is offensive and should be outlawed. In a free society, we are entitled to have different ideas and beliefs. As long as we do not intrude on the rights and privileges of others, contrary ideas and actions should be allowed and protected.

It is time to stop being mean and spiteful. Embracing the golden rule of treating others as you would want to be treated would be a good start. Adding the silver rule of not doing harm to others would be ideal.

John Tamashiro

Pearl City

Appreciate those who are different from us

Audacity: a willingness to take bold risks. Hope: a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen. President Barack Obama didnt get done as many of the things he had hoped, in large part due to an uncooperative Congress. He accomplished as much as he was able, often on his own.

Racism has been around for a long time. One well-meaning president cant end it by himself. It requires the cooperation of many. Being a person of color who has been able to advance himself doesnt prevent him from desiring better circumstances for others.

I am white but I too have hope that someday (before too long) more people will learn to live with and appreciate those who are different.

Kathie Young

Hawaii Kai

Incarcerated people should get vaccine

Health-care providers, front-line workers, and high-risk populations should be immunized during the first phase of COVID-19 vaccine distribution. Incarcerated people are high risk and also should be among the first immunized.

The American Medical Association supports incarcerated people being prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations. The AMA also urges the compassionate release of incarcerated people who are older and suffer serious medical problems.

People re-entering the community from incarceration need housing for release, which is currently lacking. Instead of spending millions of dollars on planning, and millions more on new jail/prison construction, our state needs to work on developing housing for formerly incarcerated people. Re-entry support, including housing, helps prevent repeat crime, keeps our community safer and is far less costly than incarceration.

Lorenn Walker

Professor of practice, Public Policy Center, University of Hawaii

Quarantine policies defy common sense

I am planning to travel off-island and so am looking closely at COVID-19 travel restrictions.

To avoid quarantine when I return, I must be tested within 72 hours of arrival with negative results. It takes 48-72 hours to get results, so I need to get tested three days ahead. Then Im free to go anywhere over the next three days before leaving and potentially get infected before I arrive back in Hawaii to proudly display my COVID-free pass and no quarantine.

My sister recently returned from a mainland trip, didnt get the pre-test, has tested negative since arrival but must stay in quarantine. So it seems the current policy leaves a huge gap for the virus to walk through while restricting more sensible actions to keep ourselves and others safe.

Who is making these policies? Does no one proofread them to see if they really accomplish their intended purpose?

Ken Robertson

Kailua

Maybe there is a God with a lesson to share

I am not an atheist. But Im also not a member of any religion.

At 70 years old, I still wonder if there is an unknown entity responsible for life on this Earth. As for the many established religions in the world, why do they hold directly conflicting philosophies and beliefs?

Now with the constant turmoil of the past couple of years, Ive been wondering if this chaos will continue. Shouldnt this madness stop for the good of humanity?

Its as if a decision was made to force a change in leaders of some nations, thereby providing a lesson for humanity to stop the divisiveness, blatant lies and extreme selfishness. So is the current world pandemic, with an unimaginable cost of human lives, a path to that change? Will new leadership result in civil societies?

Rodney Sato

Mililani

Australian state shows how to cut infection rate

Your headline, State on right track with 76 new infections (Star-Advertiser, Nov. 29), should have been accompanied by an article pointing out that the state of Victoria, once Australias center of COVID-19 infections, has now passed 30 days with zero infections because its government was concerned with public health rather than the political advantages to awarding exemptions and waivers in a pandemic.

Rico Leffanta

Kakaako

EXPRESS YOURSELF

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser welcomes all opinions. Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor.

>> Write us: We welcome letters up to 150 words, and guest columns of 500-600 words. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Include your name, address and daytime phone number.

>> Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210 Honolulu, HI 96813

>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), 529-4750 (fax), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter

COMFORT AND JOY

2020 has been a whopper of a year: the COVID-19 pandemic, economic hurt, politics and elections. But surely there is much to appreciate, much that brings joy.

In the spirit of the season, we are now accepting letters (150 words max) and essays (500-600 words) with uplifting messages to share during this holiday season.

Email to letters@staradvertiser.com; or send to 500 Ala Moana Blvd. #7-210, Honolulu 96813, c/o Letters.

Read the rest here:

Letters: Cancel-culture behavior needs to be eliminated; Incarcerated people should get vaccine; Maybe there is a God with a lesson to share -...

Editor,

Two years ago I wrote a letter to the editor titled, Norms, standards and behaviors.

At that time I had watched a C-Span episode that featured James R. Clapper, former director of national security, and Michael V. Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency.

Their main point was that our national institutions had been under tremendous stress when it came to the rule of law, national policy, diplomacy and foreign relations as a result of presidential tweets and actions.

Now we have added stressors that include COVID-19, racial injustice issues, climate change, economic fallout and White House falsehoods, misinformation and incompetence.

If you have decided to vote for Trump, nothing I write will change your mind. If you are weighing the good and bad that have transpired since Trump took office, and are unsure how to cast your presidential ballot, be aware that science, history, tradition and integrity are not welcome in this administration.

We have moved past my belief that men and women of character and professionalism, like Mr. Clapper and Mr. Hayden, would prevail, that they would advise and assist Trumps administration in practicing good governance.

How is it possible that someone with no background in science, health, history, economics or governance could reassure you that he knows best, no matter what the topic?

If my car, and its various parts, stand in for the U.S. government, I want the best mechanic I can get fixing the problems. I want professionals with lots of experience and vetted credentials handling our national affairs. I want accountability, proof and reason as part of the mix, not half-truths, conspiracy tales and made up stuff.

We have moved way past a Ford vs. Chevy, Republican vs. Democrat scenario. We are in the hands of a despot who is a master at put downs, talking over people, and using bluster and pretension to manage our country.

I miss hearing what intelligent Republicans like Jon Huntsman Jr. have to say about our national mess.

I miss public discourse that works to come up with solutions to all of our domestic and foreign policy issues. I miss real Republicans who take a stand based on principles and not party.

I am asking my fellow Americans to take a step back from anger, bitterness, rage and vitriol. Deep down, most of us want for our country what we want for our families, friends and communities; we want respect, cordial relations and social discourse that works toward solutions.

Lets vote that way so we can return to the norms, standards and behaviors that we are all familiar with the ones embodied in the Golden Rule.

Mike Diamanti

Coupeville

The rest is here:

Letter: Vote to return to norms, standards we're used to - Whidbey News-Times

life-style, amanda craig, the golden rule, crime thriller, melodrama, canberra times book review

British author Amanda Craig is a freelance journalist, literary critic and novelist. In an opinion piece in The Independent, Craig questioned the current obsession with historical fiction while the contemporary novel seems out of fashion. She says she has, in her novels, "set out to take the DNA of a Victorian novel - it's spirit of realism, its strong plot, it's cast of characters who are not passively shaped by circumstances but who rise to challenge or escape them". For Craig, writing contemporary fiction is "a moral duty". As a result, she has written a cycle of eight interconnected novels dealing with contemporary British society, a multi stranded approach to writing fiction. The Golden Rule is the ninth. Each novel stands alone but they are linked by characters. Craig will take a minor character from one of the previous novels and make him or her the protagonist of the next. Hannah, the main character in The Golden Rule, first appeared as a child in A Private Place, the second in the cycle. Hannah is now 29, living in poverty in London, abandoned by her abusive husband, Jake, cleaning houses to support herself and her six-year-old child, Maisy. Hannah is "exhausted by debt, hopelessness, loneliness, anger and the knowledge that, despite having jumped through all the right hoops, the bigger life on which she had pinned her hopes was not going to happen". Jake has applied for divorce and custody of Maisy. "Fury was what kept her going", and hatred of her husband. Hannah grew up in Cornwall but escaped to university, where she met and married Jake. Now her mother is dying and she travels back to St Piran in Cornwall to be with her. On the train, she meets Jinni, elegant and rich, who invites Hannah to join her in First Class. Jinni too is angry and bitter about her husband and their impending divorce. The two women make a pact to murder each other's husband. Hannah is to kill first, as Jinni's husband Con lives in a decaying stately home near St Piran. However Jinni's husband is far from the tall dark good looking man she describes, rather he is "an enormous creature", drunk, ugly and dishevelled, reeking of "stale sweat and a lot of booze". At this point, The Golden Rule morphs from echoes of Patricia Highsmith's Strangers on a Train to Beauty and the Beast, as the novel becomes a romance with elements of gothic melodrama, interspersed with didactic lectures on contemporary issues: Brexit; sexual harassment in the work place; domestic violence; the widening gap between rich and poor and the plight of generation rent who can't afford inflated house prices. The end result, sadly, is repetitive, predictable and at times plain tedious.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/9gmjQxX8MpSQh6J68NHMnY/341710c9-7893-4cdf-97bd-bbc53d3a1b39.jpg/r0_897_1843_1938_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

REVIEW

September 19 2020 - 12:00AM

British author Amanda Craig is a freelance journalist, literary critic and novelist. In an opinion piece in The Independent, Craig questioned the current obsession with historical fiction while the contemporary novel seems out of fashion. She says she has, in her novels, "set out to take the DNA of a Victorian novel - it's spirit of realism, its strong plot, it's cast of characters who are not passively shaped by circumstances but who rise to challenge or escape them".

For Craig, writing contemporary fiction is "a moral duty". As a result, she has written a cycle of eight interconnected novels dealing with contemporary British society, a multi stranded approach to writing fiction. The Golden Rule is the ninth.

Each novel stands alone but they are linked by characters. Craig will take a minor character from one of the previous novels and make him or her the protagonist of the next. Hannah, the main character in The Golden Rule, first appeared as a child in A Private Place, the second in the cycle. Hannah is now 29, living in poverty in London, abandoned by her abusive husband, Jake, cleaning houses to support herself and her six-year-old child, Maisy.

Hannah is "exhausted by debt, hopelessness, loneliness, anger and the knowledge that, despite having jumped through all the right hoops, the bigger life on which she had pinned her hopes was not going to happen".

Jake has applied for divorce and custody of Maisy. "Fury was what kept her going", and hatred of her husband.

Hannah grew up in Cornwall but escaped to university, where she met and married Jake. Now her mother is dying and she travels back to St Piran in Cornwall to be with her.

On the train, she meets Jinni, elegant and rich, who invites Hannah to join her in First Class. Jinni too is angry and bitter about her husband and their impending divorce. The two women make a pact to murder each other's husband. Hannah is to kill first, as Jinni's husband Con lives in a decaying stately home near St Piran. However Jinni's husband is far from the tall dark good looking man she describes, rather he is "an enormous creature", drunk, ugly and dishevelled, reeking of "stale sweat and a lot of booze".

At this point, The Golden Rule morphs from echoes of Patricia Highsmith's Strangers on a Train to Beauty and the Beast, as the novel becomes a romance with elements of gothic melodrama, interspersed with didactic lectures on contemporary issues: Brexit; sexual harassment in the work place; domestic violence; the widening gap between rich and poor and the plight of generation rent who can't afford inflated house prices. The end result, sadly, is repetitive, predictable and at times plain tedious.

Continue reading here:

Amanda Craig's The Golden Rule is a modern take on Victorian narrative traditions - The Canberra Times

Let's get back to basics everyday ethics.

I began writing this column to take ethics out of the classroom and into the wider world. My model was Socrates, the father of ethics, who went into the city where he lived to engage in dialog with others. It was Socrates who gave us the most lasting definition of ethics how best to live.

Ethics is fundamentally a practical philosophy. It seeks to help individuals make the best decisions they can for themselves, consistent with their beliefs and values.

There are various ethical traditions that offer roadmaps about how best to live.

The early Greek philosopher Aristotle said we should seek to live a life of moderation. He called that the Golden Mean. Think of the extremes of any value, take courage as one. Courage to live is an ethical principle, but the extremes are what cause difficulty being too risky or being too shy.

Aristotle said the best way to live a good life is to practice what you believe. In other words, if you want to be a compassionate person, you need to be kind to yourself and others as often as you can.

Other world ethical systems from the East and West offer guidance on making moral decisions. The most common principle is treating others as you wish to be treated or love your neighbor as yourself. This is called the Golden Rule.

When you have time to consider a pending decision, here are three areas to consider,

First, look at any existing rules or laws. By these standards would your decision be right or wrong? For example, thinking about whether or not to cheat on a test to get a higher grade is obviously a violation of school rules.

Second, look at issues of character. Would your decision fit your values and needs and that of others? Some might consider sacrificing themselves for the good of others, but that would not be good for you.

Third, examine the situation you are in. Sometimes the context in which you make a decision weighs heavily. A friend may ask you to lie to protect himself, and though as a general rule you don't advocate telling lies, in this particular case that rule takes second to a higher one of protecting a friend.

Ethics is about making decisions, sometimes difficult ones. But a fundamental question to ask yourself is this one: Is what I am going to decide something I will regret later? Asking and answering this one, may clear things up.

John C. Morgan is a teacher and writer whose columns appear here weekly.

Read the original here:

John C. Morgan on Everyday Ethics: The most fundamental question to ask yourself - The Mercury

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. The pandemic has made efforts to get out the vote difficult for both parties, but Democrats and Republicans are still hitting the street when they can. And using tech to get people registered and educated.

The standard, golden rule in politics is theres no substitute for door-to-door canvassing, for talking to voters face-to-face, said Gary Stark, chair of the Kent County Democrats, and we always think we can do that. But were all facing the same kinds of constraints.

Both the Democratic party and GOP have their own registration websites. Theyve been around for a while, but their importance is renewed this year with the pandemic hampering efforts to door-to-door canvass.

Were getting out how we can, obviously you have to do it very carefullyyou have to do it with masks and distance and being respectful of people who want to keep their distance, said Joel Freeman, chair of the Kent GOP. So its kind of an all-of-the-above approach this year but yes, certainly going digital and going by mail is a much bigger factor this year.

We have been reluctant to [canvass] because of the governors guidelines and the dangers of that and the uncertainty of how that would be received, said Stark. Many people dont want people strangers knocking on their door.

See original here:

Dems, GOP relying on tech to register voters this fall - Fox17

Cognitive dissonance. What is it?

It is when a person holds two beliefs that contradict one another. Cognitive dissonance causes feelings of unease and tension, and people attempt to relieve this discomfort in different ways. Examples include explaining things away or rejecting new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs.

Newborns are immune. They have no preconceived notions. They are not swayed by propaganda or fables. They enter life with a clean slate.

As people age, they acquire new information that is either factual or false. Unless they analyze the data that comes their way, they may be duped into believing false evidence appearing real. Opinions and outlooks are thus formed.

Strong personalities are often capable of pulling the wool over the eyes of many otherwise well-intentioned people. Folks hear things that strike discordant chords and thereafter abandon the precepts of the Golden Rule in favor of slick hoopla and myth put forth by silver-tongued orators.

Donald Trump did not become president because he offered rational alternatives to complex yet solvable problems in our nation. His approach was and remains aggressive, belligerent and extremely self-aggrandizing. As an example, any criticisms of the president that appear in the media are simply labeled fake news by the Trump entourage. End of discussion.

And here is where cognitive dissonance appears. Many people who voted for him in 2016 try to explain things away or reject new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs. Doing so is easier than coming to grips with the truth: Voting for him in 2016 was a mistake.

Hopefully, in the quietness of their souls, come Election Day, they will choose to remedy that error.

Richard Austin

Mount Vernon

See the original post:

Letter: Voters need to accept the truth | Opinion | goskagit.com - goskagit.com