Monthly Archives: December 2023

Beulah, North Dakota In an unusual turn of events, coal miners at the Freedom Mine near Beulah, North Dakota stumbled upon a rare and well-preserved mammoth specimen, including a seven-foot-long tusk, during the early hours of Memorial Day weekend last May.

The discovery was promptly recognized for its significance, leading to the sites immediate closure until experts from the North Dakota Geological Survey, the State Historical Society of North Dakota, and the Bureau of Land Management could assess and document the find.

Coal miners working diligently at the Freedom Mine made the extraordinary discovery, which captured the attention of the scientific community. The site was secured to ensure its preservation while experts prepared to investigate further.

A dedicated team of paleontologists from the North Dakota Geological Survey embarked on a twelve-day excavation adventure. Their mission was to uncover the ancient streambed where these invaluable fossils were interred thousands of years ago. During the excavation, they successfully retrieved over twenty bones from the mammoths skeleton, including ribs, a shoulder blade, a tooth, and parts of the hips.

According to Clint Boyd, Senior Paleontologist for the North Dakota Geological Survey, Most mammoth fossils found in North Dakota consist of isolated bones and teeth. This specimen, as one of the most complete mammoth skeletons discovered in North Dakota, is both thrilling and scientifically significant. Its worth noting that the mining activities in the region played a crucial role in uncovering this remarkable find.

To ensure the mammoths delicate remains remain intact, the bones were encased in protective plaster jackets and transported to the Paleontology Lab at the North Dakota Heritage Center & State Museum in Bismarck. Here, a meticulous process to cleanse the fossils of sediment and stabilize them has commenced.

Educational Outreach and Public Display Plans

Collaborative efforts between the North Dakota Geological Survey and the Freedom Mine are underway to formulate an educational outreach program. Discussions include potential locations for the public display of these fossils, with the primary aim of sharing this remarkable specimen with as many people as possible. The discovery offers a unique opportunity to learn about North Dakotas prehistoric past during the Ice Age.

During the Pleistocene Epoch, commonly referred to as the Ice Age, mammoths roamed North Dakota, eventually becoming extinct in the area around 10,000 years ago. Various species of mammoths, including the Woolly Mammoth and the Columbian Mammoth, coexisted with other iconic creatures such as saber-toothed tigers and giant sloths. Once the bones are meticulously cleaned, experts will identify the specific mammoth species from the mine, shedding light on North Dakotas fascinating history during this bygone era.

As research and preservation efforts continue, the discovery promises to provide invaluable insights into the ancient past of North Dakota, enriching our understanding of the regions natural history.

Read this article:

Rare Mammoth Specimen Unearthed at Freedom Mine near Beulah, North Dakota - Net Newsledger

The recent testimony of the presidents of MIT, Harvard and Penn before a congressional hearing on antisemitism laid bare the profound challenges faced by academic leaders attempting the difficult task of managing intellectual inquiry on campus, which means balancing often contradictory goals: protecting long cherished academic freedom and First Amendment rights, while also ensuring a safe learning environment that protects students from harm, which might require repressing dangerous speech. The presidents were put on the spot before the nation and confronted with a demand to define the limits of free expression on a college campus.

The presidents were questioned by Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who began by asking Penns then-President Liz Magill, Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penns rules or code of conduct, yes or no?

One-by-one, the presidents tried to answer on behalf of their campuses. None would explicitly answer the question without qualifying their responses. The presidents, who had already condemned antisemitism, were trying to balance the denunciation of bigoted, inflammatory statements with the universitys commitment to free speech.

Calls for genocide provide a revealing test case for campus free speech, and a bevy of critics seems to think the presidents failed the test with responses like, It is context dependent. The meaning of any speech is, of course, context dependent, but pointing that out was clearly not ideal in that particular context.

The rich irony of the viral exchange at the congressional hearing is that conservative culture warriors, who are now calling for limitations on speech to protect particular communities of students, have for decades decried campus speech codes that they say enforce a campus-wide left-wing or antiracist dogma intended to change American society.

Although the greatest threat to free speech in education comes, I believe, from the right (think: Florida and Texas), and the sweeping conservative critique isnt entirely accurate, theres some truth to the accusation that censorship is also coming from the left.

We saw it earlier this year at Hamline University, where Im a professor of religion. An adjunct art history instructor was labeled Islamophobic by the chief diversity officer and had a course taken away from her because she showed a work of 14th century Persian Islamic art that represented the Prophet Muhammad.

Indeed, threats to the freedom of speech in educational settings ranging from kindergartens to universities have come from both the right and the left, and from places as varied as the government, university administrations, school boards and groups of students.

In the face of this emerging threat, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression vigorously defends the freedom of speech and expression, and academic freedom on college campuses, in a principled, nonpartisan way. They have a legal defense fund, as well as a research wing that tracks and analyzes censorship, speech codes, student and faculty attitudes toward free speech and its limits, and various forms of silencing, pressure and coercion that serve to stifle speech.

During a weekend in October, I attended FIREs annual faculty conference, which gave me some useful lenses through which to understand the recent uproar regarding the congressional testimony of the three presidents.

The FIRE conference brought people together around a shared set of principles, values and commitments that transcend disciplinary lines. At the conference, we heard from sociologists, philosophers, mathematicians, legal scholars, political scientists and biologists, among others. Virtually everyone at the conference felt that these principles are increasingly under threat from across the political spectrum.

All of the attendees displayed a deep commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom, and had gathered to learn, strategize and inspire. And almost all had a story involving themselves or colleagues who were silenced or who spoke and paid a price.

There were many important takeaways from the conference, but here are four:

While presenters discussed the threat posed by state censorship and university speech codes, some argued that the most damaging form of repression is self-censorship. That was the argument of Harry Blain from California State University Sacramento, who called student self-censorship the most pervasive and intractable problem. The silencing effect of fear on classroom conversations is a significant problem, both because students are not exposed to challenging views, and also because they are not learning how to disagree with and debate others with different perspectives.

Self-censorship among faculty is also a problem that diminishes the classroom experience for students.

Unlike the latest noisy campus free speech controversy, self-censorship is by definition silent, even though the detrimental effect on students is more consequential. If professors are afraid of being reported, with possible consequences such as the loss of future teaching opportunities (especially for non-tenured faculty), and if they are declining to teach certain perspectives, their students are being deprived of a crucial element of their education. And students who censor themselves deprive the class community of an opportunity to engage with their ideas. They also deprive themselves of the opportunity to learn through attempts at articulating their thoughts on controversial matters and engaging with those who respond.

Self-censorship takes a toll on faculty. I met a professor in the social sciences at a highly respected institution who told me that they are continuously stifling themselves, and they feel they are living a lie by presenting without counterargument the officially approved view on gender and sexuality (the one accepted by most administrators, faculty and students at the institution). When I asked them why not just give some examples of alternative perspectives alongside the approved view, they said that even presenting texts supporting the alternative perspective would almost certainly land them in trouble.

The principle of defending unpopular or controversial views was a central theme of the conference, and the actual expression of such views some of which I myself found disturbing and occasionally even offensive occurred numerous times throughout the conference, both from the podium and around the tables. And this is precisely one of the reasons that the conference experience was so powerful.

The attendees were the most ideologically diverse group of people I have been around in an academic conference setting, and this means that along with the kindred spirits I encountered there, there were people who held views that I strongly reject. The percentage of attendees who hold what most would consider conservative views was far higher at the FIRE conference than in most university settings I have been in (most attendees would certainly consider me to be one of the liberals), and I benefited from the conversations. It was refreshing and instructive to interact with people who were practicing what they preached having spirited discussions about highly controversial issues without anyone claiming to be harmed, trying to silence or shout down another, or throwing pejorative labels at others because of their viewpoints.

There was a willingness, often an eagerness, to talk about highly controversial subjects. Within 20 minutes of first meeting people, I would find myself in a conversation about race, gender, sex, political conflicts, etc. how we address them in the classroom, and what views are increasingly excluded from the academy, often due to self-censorship.

In many conversations people said something like, I wouldnt normally say this in front of people, but I can say it at this conference. This does not mean that they felt comfortable saying something because they anticipated agreement from others, but rather because they knew that anyone who disagreed with the argument would address it with respectful argumentation and debate. The lively conversations among attendees showed that disagreements about sensitive, controversial topics can be carried out with civility, humor and good will.

Arguments can annoy, offend and disturb. But I dont believe that an argument can by itself do harm. We should welcome arguments with which we strongly disagree, as they give us the opportunity to articulate precisely why they are wrong.

Cass Sever from Mount Holyoke College explored the notion of psychic harm, which she described as invisible, unfalsifiable damage to the psyche that occurs in moments of interaction. The problem with an unfalsifiable statement one which cannot be refuted since there are no criteria for evaluating it other than the persons subjective feeling is that there is no way to challenge the claim of harm. In other words, if I believe myself to be harmed, then I was harmed. The claim, therefore, shuts down the conversation.

Imagine a student or professor who wants to criticize the actions of the Israeli government (or Hamas), and their reasoned argument is met with accusations of antisemitism (or Islamophobia) that is labeled harmful. There is no way for the speaker to explain why their statement of criticism is not antisemitic (or Islamophobic), because there are no criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of the label other than the feelings of the complaining person. This approach will result in silencing the speaker unless they want to risk significant consequences for inflicting harm.

Sever argued that there has been a shift in criteria for evaluating harm from objective (harm that can be demonstrated empirically, such as a lost job or a physical injury) to purely individual subjectivity. This has created a problem for universities. Universities are committed to preventing harm to their students and ensuring them a safe environment in which to learn. Many students say that preventing harm is equally or more important than defending free speech rights, so a claim of harm can shut down a conversation or make a particular subject unteachable.

In the case of Hamline University, some Muslim students claimed that showing a painting by a Muslim artist to honor the Prophet Muhammad was harmful even if Muslim students did not have to look at it, which would make the teaching of that painting in any classroom prohibited. (Note: I said some Muslim students, not all. Tellingly, some Muslim students who disagreed with the complaining students remained silent rather than risk disapproval by their peers and accusations of disloyalty.)

A student can make the perfectly reasonable (and wholly subjective) claim that they are upset, offended or angry. It is entirely different to claim harm. A skill that we can impart to students is the ability to respond effectively to an argument that offends them and to learn to be upset without considering themselves to have suffered harm.

Especially given the nations polarized politics and increasing threat of political violence, students must learn how to engage in difficult conversations over controversial issues with civility and sophistication, and the classroom is the ideal setting for this work. While we often focus on speaking and argumentation skills, we should also teach skills in listening to others and managing emotions. Listening to someone argue for a position that you passionately disagree with is an exercise in observing and controlling the powerful, negative emotions that can arise, so that we can listen with as much interpretive charity as possible and respond as skillfully as possible (or, if someone is unbearable, walk away). Censoring disturbing or offensive speech robs us of the opportunity to cultivate these skills and hone our responses. FIREs Nico Perrino puts it well: When you censor people, you dont change their minds you just dont know what they actually believe.

My greatest test in emotion management at the FIRE conference occurred during the lecture by Amy Wax, a tenured law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who was accused by her dean of holding a pseudo-scientific vision of white superiority and introducing her ideas in a classroom setting. The university administration is trying to fire her; Wax is fighting back.

I strongly disagree with many of her views, which can alternate between the absurd and the offensive. I would normally not attend an Amy Wax lecture. In fact, this was not supposed to be a lecture, but a debate between Wax and her colleague Jonathan Zimmerman (I would have loved to see that). Unfortunately, Zimmerman was sick and could not attend. So, Wax gave a talk and answered questions.

As I sat there and listened, I could feel my blood pressure rise, and I found myself involuntarily shaking my head, rolling my eyes, and looking in disbelief at my colleague. Wax does not do herself any favors with her strident, combative oratory, and she often phrases things in the most provocative way possible. (For instance: Thats lefty propaganda!).

Yet, throughout the speech, because of the influence that the FIRE community has had on me, I tried to discern, through the loud voices fashioning the sharpest possible responses to Wax, the voice that says, Thank you. Her speech was an opportunity to both manage the emotions that arose as I listened, and also to articulate precisely why she an experienced and knowledgeable professor of law is so wrong. Every such encounter is an opportunity to develop and hone our thoughts.

Having taught religion for over 25 years, I am confident that students can handle being challenged, provoked and disturbed. In addition to the valuable experience of being exposed to viewpoints that call their fundamental beliefs into question, students learn the value of resilience. They do not need to be protected from unsettling or offensive views, and the attempt to do so denies them a crucial skill they will need to thrive in a diverse and often divided nation.

A university is one of the few places that create spaces for conversations on important, contentious issues (almost all of which require or at least benefit from the knowledge and expertise that students are acquiring in the classroom.) Because the university is the site of these conversations and debates, some speakers argued that the institution must not itself be a participant in the debate. Institutional neutrality means, then, that a university should not make statements on the issues of the day.

The theme of institutional neutrality was prominent throughout the conference, including in Steven Pinkers keynote address. Like others who spoke at the conference, the Harvard psychology professor advocated for adopting the principles of the University of Chicagos 1967 Kalven Report, which states that The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.

As Pinker put it, universities should be forums for debate, not participants in debate; referees not players.

The Kalven Report recognizes an important exception, which Pinker acknowledged: From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.

Once we grant this, the exceptions to institutional neutrality might begin to grow. What if proposed legislation constitutes a threat to the health of the university community? How can a campus be truly open to vigorous conversation from a wide range of viewpoints if members of that community are threatened or targeted? Can a university take a public position on homophobic legislation that would impact members of the campus community to the extent that some feel they need to leave the state? What about legislation that would negatively impact valued members of the university community who are immigrants or students protected by the DREAM Act?

Proponents of institutional neutrality sound an important cautionary note regarding statements by university administrations, but since universities are value-laden institutions (the commitment to free speech and academic freedom are themselves values that need protecting, as the Kalven Report acknowledges), and their flourishing presupposes a vibrant community where members do not feel under threat, then decisions about public pronouncements on behalf of the university will always involve judgment calls.

The issue at hand involves unpopular or controversial points of view, particular arguments for positions that others might find disturbing or offensive. This is not about any speech that the law would prohibit, like the proverbial fire in a crowded theater.

I was recently asked if I am a free speech absolutist. The short answer is no. It is unlikely that anyone at the FIRE conference would be a thoroughgoing absolutist, because all of us recognize that there are constitutional limitations on free speech, including incitement to violence, harassment, defamation, etc.

Catherine Harnois from Wake Forest University showed that a framework that is legal in orientation if its legally protected speech, then it should be protected speech on campus can present a compelling alternative to limiting speech based on what upsets or offends (an approach that makes it a matter of us against the purveyors of hate). Harnois argues that campus speech codes that limit speech and expression beyond what the Constitution allows are typically written in ways that are very vague, which leads to uncertainty about the boundaries of acceptability and inconsistent enforcement by administrators.

There are also limitations on speech that are appropriate to a particular institutional context, such as confidentiality requirements or professional standards. The statement on academic freedom issued by the American Association of University Professors already recognizes this by requiring that faculty abide by criteria involving relevance (e.g., a biology professor cannot spend the entire class ranting about a hated politician) and the fair treatment of students. Obviously, a professor cannot verbally abuse a student with epithets in a classroom.

The question of free speech on campus and its limits has rarely been more urgent or polarizing, as weve seen in recent weeks.

As the opening remarks from the congressional committees chair, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., demonstrated (What is it about the way that you hire faculty and approve curriculum thats allowing your campuses to be infected by this intellectual and moral rot?), the purpose of the congressional antisemitism hearing was not to thoughtfully discuss the challenging issues surrounding antisemitism and free speech. Rafael Walker, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, points out, it became clear that Republicans intended to use the dire issue of antisemitism on college campuses as a Trojan horse for the larger attack on higher ed that they have been perpetrating for decades now.

One reason that the presidents of Penn, MIT and Harvard faced criticism for refusing to give a straightforward answer on whether or not calling for the genocide of Jews should be protected speech is because their institutions have been willing to punish members of their communities who direct statements seen as bigoted at other groups of people. For example, as Bari Weiss points out, Harvard students were told in a mandatory Title IX training that addressed such attitudes as racism and sexism, that any words used to lower a persons self-worth are verbal abuse.

As James Kirchick, a senior fellow at FIRE, wrote in a New York Times essay, Critics are correct to note the hypocrisy of university leaders who have belatedly come to embrace a version of free speech absolutism that tolerates calls for Jewish genocide after years of punishing far less objectionable speech deemed offensive to other minority groups.

There were other reasons why the presidents got themselves into so much trouble (the president of Penn has already resigned). To some degree, they were led into a trap by Stefanik, who had a political agenda. The infamous video clips from the hearing that have been seen by millions focused only on the question about genocide, which, to my knowledge, has not been advocated by any student organizations. Prior to that, the questions were about statements that have actually been made by student organizations supporting the intifada revolution and proclaiming, From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

Neither of these statements explicitly calls for the genocide of the Jewish people. While some student groups have expressed opposition to Zionism and do not believe that Israel has a right to exist, neither of these statements necessarily means that the students support the elimination of the Jewish people. One problem here is that genocide has a range of definitions. As Eugene Volokh and Will Creeley pointed out in the Los Angeles Times recently, students must be able to advocate for actions during wartime that would result in the mass slaughter of civilians (otherwise, we would not be able to have a classroom conversation about whether dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities was justified or ethical, as the authors point out.)

It is essential not to conflate the criticism of the government of Israel, or even anti-Zionism more widely, with antisemitism. While the two often overlap (many, but certainly not all, anti-Zionists are also antisemites), they must not be equated. Conflating the two inevitably leads to the suppression of speech by preventing the criticism of the Israeli government (just as conflating the criticism of Hamas with Islamophobia would silence protected speech). One notable example of this conflation can be found in the U.S. Houses recent resolution condemning antisemitism, which wrongly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

Despite my strong commitment to free speech, which has been reinforced by my work with FIRE, I believe that explicit calls for genocide understood as involving the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such, in accordance with the definition in the UN Convention on Genocide are violations of a sound campus free speech policy, and such views should not be acceptable on college campuses and should be prohibited. In this regard, I disagree with FIREs official stance, released after the three presidents testimony, which is that administrators should eliminate these (speech) codes and defend free speech in all cases.

The only way that a university campus can function as a venue for vigorous debate about controversial and important topics is if everyone in the community is allowed to participate without fear. If segments of the population are excluded from the conversation by threats or coercion, if they are intimidated into silence, then the protections of free speech are meaningless. So, there must be certain principles or ground rules that everyone accepts as a condition of the kinds of conversations that the protections of free speech make possible.

My speech is not protected if it is used to silence, exclude, threaten, or intimidate you.

The Kalven Report, which I believe largely reflects FIREs perspective, itself recognized that the university as an institution must oppose threats to the free inquiry that is at the heart of the universitys mission. The university has an obligation to defend its interests and its values.

Surely, one of the interests of the university is creating a community in which free inquiry is possible. FIRE recognizes that some speech, such as threats or harassment, can be constitutionally prohibited, and the university can certainly ban illegal speech.

One of the key factors in determining whether speech crosses a line is whether or not it is directed at an individual or simply the expression of a view to a general audience. The kind of speech that can intimidate or harass someone into silence is normally considered, to use First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokhs terms, one-to-one as opposed to one-to-many.

In this framework, you can ban someone from harassing another individual, but you cant ban someone from harassing a group of people like a racial or religious group, because strictly speaking youre not engaged in harassment when its a group of people. To put it another way: You cant threaten to kill a person, but you can say a group of people should be killed.

I would argue that speech does not have to be directed at a particular individual to function in these intimidating and harassing ways. Some instances of one-to-many speech can certainly be threatening to students, as when one group of students advocates for the killing of another group. An open conversation cannot occur when some participants have proclaimed their desire to see others annihilated. It is hard to feel included in a conversation when other participants call for your death.

MITs Code of Conduct defines prohibited harassment as unwelcome conduct of a verbal, nonverbal or physical nature that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a work or academic environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive and that adversely affects an individuals educational, work, or living environment. I would argue that a campus in which some students know that others are calling for their death would certainly be an example of sufficiently severe, intimidating and hostile speech that adversely affects their educational environment whether that speech is personally targeted at them or not.

If college campuses can demand that students respect the right of other students to speak, then they can demand that they recognize their right to live. Explicit calls for genocide cross the line, and universities can reasonably prohibit them.

This does not imply that universities should prohibit the advocacy of intifada or the chanting of From the river to the sea, as these do not in themselves constitute calls for genocide.

A student should be able to argue that any nation-state is illegitimate (including the United States, when seen through the perspective of the lands Indigenous people, for instance). A student should be able to condemn the Israeli government for its actions without being labeled antisemitic, just as a student should be able to condemn Hamas or Iran without being labeled Islamophobic. We must give the widest possible latitude for all views and teach students that they must learn to manage the intense emotional responses they might feel when confronted with such arguments and how to respond most effectively.

If the three presidents were to give the answer that almost everyone was waiting for Yes, calling for the genocide of Jews is as violation of campus policy they would have to ensure that only the actual advocacy of the elimination of the Jewish people (or any group of people) would be considered a violation. Calls for a greater Palestine implying the elimination of Israel (or a greater Israel, calling for the elimination of Palestine), must be protected speech on a college campus, regardless of how disturbing the speech might be to some communities.

The university presidents were right that when evaluating speech, context matters, and we must reflect on whether or not the speech is targeted, whether or not it constitutes harassment or threat, and how it is related to conduct. But private universities can also articulate a set of commitments and values that enable the kind of inquiry and conversation that are foundational to its mission.

In regard to free speech, I think that FIRE is right that we should be cautious in going beyond the law and constitutional limits. But I believe that the call for the murder of members of the community and only when it is explicitly made, not implied by someones political views is incompatible with the universitys values and mission.

FIRE conference attendees could look across the table and, in the midst of our debates, be mutually grateful for the principles that enable us to talk about issues like this without fear of being silenced or accused of causing harm. Everyone involved was keenly aware that creating the spaces to talk through these issues is vital to the health of democracy, and everyone was committed to defending the right of their debate adversaries to speak freely.

For me, that includes the Amy Waxes of the world. No matter how wrong they are.

If a safe space means not a place where you are protected from challenges to your beliefs, but rather a place that is safe to explore challenging, controversial views, then the FIRE conference, a place for defenders of ideas that some would consider dangerous, was the safest space of all.

Editors note: The author was given the Berkson Courageous Colleague Award at FIREs faculty conference for his support of Erika Lpez Prater, the Hamline University art professor who lost her position after showing images of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class.

Excerpt from:

We need more freedom of speech on campus, but that can't include advocating for genocide - Minnesota Reformer

Posted on December 25, 2023 by Larry Barnett

At the subatomic, quantum level upon which all physical matter appears to be built is freedom, probabilistic indeterminacy that manifests to us as choice or even purposefulness. Although ultimately subject to the physical laws of the universe, only a fraction of which we fully understand, as far as physical science can determine, this is freedom at its tiniest and most elemental.

Electrons, for example, spin around atomic nuclei in a cloud of varied trajectories, navigating and changing their distance from the nuclei seemingly at will. Such freedom of choice at the micro, subatomic level remains operative and observable at the scaled-up macro-level; when driving to the supermarket, for example, we freely make navigational choices all the time.

From a cellular standpoint, freedom of choice can be easily observed in plants. The apical meristem is the location in living plants where active growth takes place, at the tips of roots and shoots most prominently. It is here where the appearance of freedom of choice can be seen in the formation of white spots on otherwise green surfaces, for example. As plant cells divide in the apical meristem, the fate of becoming green or white is not entirely predetermined. While a generalized pattern of spots is genetically indicated, it is not absolute. For this reason the precise location of white spots varies from leaf to leaf on an individual plant. Turning white or green, it appears, is a matter of choice or resonance at the subatomic level. Shakespeare nailed it. To spot or not to spot? That is the question.

DNA is less of a rigid plan than a set of options; what science previously designated junk genes turns out to be a huge library of evolutionary options from which to choose. Its lifes conditions that prompt such freedom of choice, what science now calls epigenetics. While the universe of genetic options the library so to speak may be limited, experiences, events, conditions, and reactions are virtually infinite; such are the epigenetic factors that act upon gene expression. In this way, the indeterminate nature of becoming embraces freedom.

Indeterminacy is not limited to the living; even inanimate matter is subject to variance at the subatomic, quantum level. Crystals, for example, display a process of orderly self-organization thats almost life-like, a process that requires some sort of subatomic feedback mechanism or resonance that insures or varies the integrity of crystal formation, not altogether unlike what happens in a plants apical meristem.

The existence of such underlying feedback mechanisms in both living and non-living matter and its worth noting here that living things are entirely comprised of non-living matter points to a universe that is itself fundamentally free. In this sense, the universe is always monitoring itself and exercising its freedom. The self-organizing, free evolution of the cosmos has engendered our own and that of all animal life.

Classifying animals as wild is somewhat of a misnomer; non-domesticated animals are not wild, they are free, and while all living things are slaves to nature, unlike other animals, people struggle with freedom freedom from others, freedom from the constraints of human systems, and even freedom from our own imagination and feelings.

Although having dispensed with fixed time and space, Einstein refused to accept the indeterminate freedom of quantum mechanics. God, he surmised, does not play dice with the universe. Yet, into this inconceivably vast, freely evolving universe you were born. Now imagine the probabilities of that!

Excerpt from:

Freedom, first and last Sonoma Sun | Sonoma, CA - Sonoma Valley Sun

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

For the first time in nearly two decades, I get to spend the holidays with my family. What a stark difference from where I was just a few weeks ago, still sitting in prison for a crime I did not commit.

The simple pleasures sharing a meal with my family, hearing the laughter of my loved ones gathered for the holidays are moments that once seemed lost to me forever. This year, I am not just celebrating the holiday season; I am celebrating my newfound freedom and the chance to rebuild the life that was taken from me.

On Dec. 11, I walked out of prison a free man. Following an agreement between the Hennepin County Attorney's Office and my legal team from the Great North Innocence Project (GNIP), a judge ruled that the eyewitness evidence used to convict me was unreliable and never should have been introduced at my trial; and that, without that unconstitutional eyewitness evidence, there never would have been enough evidence to convict me. There was no physical evidence tying me to the crime, and I didn't match the description provided by the main eyewitness.

Two weeks ago, for the first time since I was 16, I felt the crisp air of freedom on my face. As I embark on my new chapter, I want to be an advocate for those whose stories go untold and for change.

Sadly, my story of injustice is not unique. Countless others continue to suffer the consequences of a flawed justice system. Minnesota makes it incredibly difficult for individuals to bring postconviction claims when their case is more than two years old. What this means is that there are wrongfully convicted individuals sitting in Minnesota prisons with new evidence of their innocence, but they aren't granted their day in court because of the strict statute of limitations. This was the exact situation I was in, too.

Ironically, despite all the injustices in my case, I am one of the "lucky" ones. I was convicted in 2005 the statute of limitations ran out for me many years ago. But the Hennepin County Attorney's Office agreed it would be unfair to keep me out of court on a technicality. It agreed to waive the two-year statute of limitations, allowing GNIP to present evidence that led to my exoneration. Had it not been for that waiver, I'd still be sitting behind bars.

People in my situation shouldn't have to depend on prosecutors doing the right thing just to get their day in court. We should want to make sure that, if we are keeping people locked up in prison, it's because they are actually guilty. If there is new evidence calling that guilt into question, let that evidence see the light of day, even if it happens to come to light more than two years later.

As things stand, it is just much too hard to bring these claims in Minnesota after two years. Despite our progressive reputation, Minnesota makes it harder than any other Midwest state to bring such claims. That's why I am working with my lawyers at GNIP to fight for legislation that would amend Minnesota's postconviction statute and provide a lifeline for innocent people still sitting in prison.

The proposal would create a more reasonable and just standard for claims based on newly discovered evidence. It would bring Minnesota law into the mainstream, making sure people with real claims can get their day in court and have a chance at proving their claims and regaining their freedom.

To those who supported me through my journey to exoneration especially my family thank you. Your belief in my innocence fueled my fight. And I am so grateful to my legal team from GNIP for its tireless effort, leading to my freedom. But my heart aches for those still waiting for their day in court. Every missed holiday time that should be spent with loved ones underscores the urgency for change.

I write this as a free man, home with my family for the holidays, but urging the Minnesota Legislature to pass this crucial legislation next session to help innocent people in our state.

Marvin Haynes lives in New Brighton.

View original post here:

Home for the holidays, from wrongful imprisonment - Star Tribune

They may seem unrelated, but conversations about trans rights and personal style are inherently connected.

As the phrase personal style implies, our sartorial choices reflect who we are. This is an incredibly empowering sentiment for the nations 1.6 million trans and/or nonbinary people, many of whom alter how they dress to more accurately represent their gender identity. Across the board, todays top tastemakers know to play around with garments regardless of how theyre labeled or divided and Gen Z, Americas queerest cohort, is leading the charge.

The fashion industry at large has noticed. In the last few years, weve seen an emphasis on clothing lines and styled clothing that eschew traditional gender norms. Openly trans models like Hunter Schafer, Hari Nef, and Aaron Rose Philip are posing for esteemed fashion houses. Alex Consani was a major face at NYFW. Representation spans the entertainment industry, too: In the past year alone, musicians Sam Smith and Kim Petras shattered a lavender ceiling with their historic Grammy win, and celebrities like Janelle Mone and Alex Newell stunned on the Met Gala red carpet (the latter, for the first time). And these are just trans and/or nonbinary celebrities who are out publicly in all likelihood, even more members of this community are making strides in their own respective safe spaces or are yet to come out.

Crucially, increased visibility for trans people doesnt guarantee safety under the law. Only 23 states and Washington, DC, have codified explicit nondiscrimination protections on the basis of gender identity. But fair and accurate representation can counteract the transphobic lies and dehumanization pushed by anti-LGBTQ+ politicians, says Alex Schmider, the director of transgender representation at GLAAD, the nations leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group. In the current political climate, these counter-narratives are more vital than ever.

This year saw a staggering surge in anti-trans legislation nationwide the worst in recent history, says Andrew A. Ortiz, staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center (TLC), Americas largest trans-led organization. Binaries have grown more rigid in other areas, too. At most fashion weeks, menswear and womenswear categories still dominate. And even when big-name fashion brands tap trans models for their runway shows, they arent necessarily taking steps behind the scenes to empower trans people. To this day, the most powerful creative directors in the fashion world are almost all white, cisgender, and/or male. Its also a poignant reflection of what's happening politically: As transgender Americans achieve greater visibility and social acceptance in some spheres, a reactionary anti-trans constituent is doubling down on their efforts to exclude them from public life.

At the time of this writing, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is tracking over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in the 2023 legislative session, up from 278 in 2022. More than 400 of these bills target trans people, as per the Equality Federation; many specifically take aim at the nations 300,000 trans youth. In some states, hostile laws have jeopardized their access to gender-affirming healthcare services deemed safe and medically necessary by virtually every major medical association in the US. Other attacks target trans peoples ability to access gender-affirming healthcare in prison, obtain accurate identification documents, or play on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

Its no coincidence that were seeing simultaneous attacks on other marginalized groups. The politicians targeting trans people are typically the same forces who seek to ban books about race and restrict access to reproductive healthcare. These fights are inextricably linked, adds Ortiz, and theyre tied together in a right-wing agenda to control people. The impact of this on young people cannot be overstated. These policies and anti-trans attitudes are not only incredibly hurtful but strip an individual's freedom to safely self-express.

Zooming in on the fashion industry alone, there is plenty to be hopeful about. Especially given that some of the industrys most buzz-worthy innovators are trans and/or nonbinary from Gogo Graham to Pierre Davis of No Sesso or vocal advocates and allies like Becca McCharen-Tran of Chromat, LaQuan Smith, Haoran Li of Private Policy, and Aaron Potts.

Ahead of what will likely be another pivotal year in fashion, lets review some stats from 2023 both specific to the style sphere and beyond.

A note on vocabulary: In this piece, were using the terms trans and nonbinary. In accordance with current usage and trusted sources (with particular thanks to the Human Rights Campaign), heres what we mean:

Transgender, or trans, is a term used by people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them at birth.

Nonbinary is used by those who view their gender identity as more than male or female; the term acknowledges gender as a true spectrum, not one of only two male/female binaries. Nonbinary can also cover identities such as agender, bigender, genderqueer, gender fluid and more.

A nonbinary individual may identify as trans, but not necessarily.

Gender identity refers to ones innermost concept of self how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. Ones gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.

Gender expression refers to the external appearance of ones gender identity, usually expressed through behavior, clothing, body characteristics or voice, and which may or may not conform to socially defined behaviors and characteristics typically associated with being masculine or feminine.

A persons gender identity and expression are not the same as their sexuality.

Throughout, the data we cite the data available will reference publicly out trans and/or nonbinary individuals, and very often include the greater LGBTQ+-identifying community. We acknowledge that there are many other identities and labels used by people in the transgender and/or nonbinary community to describe the personal experience of gender. This research is not meant to be conclusive and any tallies of trans representation are likely non-exhaustive.

Fashion industry September issues with trans celebrities on the cover: 1

In 2023, barely any mainstream fashion magazines in the US featured trans people on their September issue covers. Dylan Mulvaney did cover The Cut, profiled by Brock Colyar. Harris Reed, a queer designer whose demi-couture creations celebrate gender fluidity, did get a nod in Marie Claires 2023 Fashion Changemakers, its September cover story. And though its not mainstream, per se, one of Highsnobietys three September issue cover stars was nonbinary supermodel Grace Valentine who spoke openly about the power of clothing to affirm ones identity. In their words: With fashion, there are so many opportunities for expression and exploration that act as gateways for others to follow suit.

Trans and/or nonbinary celebrities who walked the Met Gala red carpet: 4

The Metropolitan Museum of Arts annual gala is one of the biggest nights in fashion. Of the dozens of A-listers who walked the red carpet this year, only a handful are openly trans and/or nonbinary. We counted at least four: Janelle Mone, Bella Ramsey, Kim Petras, and Alex Newell.

Trans models who donned Victorias Secret angel wings: 4

Victorias Secrets fraught legacy of exclusion is well known. In recent years, however, the lingerie stalwart has taken steps to rectify this. In 2023, at least four openly trans models sported the brands iconic angel wings, including Alex Consani, Valentina Sampaio, Emira DSpain, and up-and-comer Colin Jones.

Unisex/nonbinary fashion shows on the official NYFW schedule: 20

The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), the group that organizes New York Fashion Week, debuted its gender-inclusive unisex/nonbinary event category back in 2018. In September 2023, at least 20 CFDA-sanctioned NYFW showcases received this designation.

Trans and/or nonbinary models who walked in NYFW: 14

At least 14 trans and/or nonbinary models walked the runways at official NYFW events in September. The Blonds Spring/Summer 2024 showcase was a standout moment for trans representation, with queer design duo David Blond and Phillipe Blond tapping Dylan Mulvaney, Dominique Jackson, and Gigi Gorgeous to model their sequined wares.

Brands led by trans and/or nonbinary designers on the official NYFW schedule: 1

From Michael Kors to Luar Raul Lopez and Gypsy Sports Rio Uribe, queer designers were well represented in the CFDAs official NYFW calendar for September. However, openly trans and/or nonbinary designers were few and far between. It was only in 2019 that NYFW featured its first show by an openly trans designer, No Sessos Davis.

Anti-trans bills in the US: 500+ bills introduced in 49 states

These laws might be theoretical and abstract for some folks, but this is real life for many, many people, says Ortiz, staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center (TLC). We cant let that be forgotten in these discussions. Its important to remember that these laws actively impact young people who are just trying to express who they are.

Anti-LGBTQ+ laws passed: 84

Of the 501 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in 2023, 84 have become law so far. These include 34 attacks on inclusive education and access to school sports for trans youth, 26 on gender-affirming healthcare, and four on accurate IDs. Conservative lawmakers in Tennessee and North Dakota have passed the highest number of hateful laws this year (10 each).

Anti-LGBTQ+ laws from 2023 being challenged by the ACLU in court: 14

At the time of writing, ACLU attorneys are challenging 14 anti-LGBTQ+ laws that were passed in 2023, the bulk of which are explicitly anti-trans. Some efforts have already seen wins: In the case of K.C. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, a federal judge agreed to block officials from enforcing Indianas newly minted ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors.

Anti-drag bills introduced: 32

Across the country, states from Arizona to Tennessee have introduced bills to prohibit adult cabaret performances that might be in range of children. Behind the bills is discomfort to do with a perceived challenge to traditional gender expression that drag shows purportedly pose.

Anti-LGBTQ+ bills defeated: 216

Although conservative lawmakers introduced transphobic bills in record numbers, nearly half of this legislation (about 44 percent) was shut down before it could become law.

Percentage of out LGBTQ+ elected officials who are trans and/or nonbinary: 8 percent

Between June 2022 and May 2023, a significant number of trans and/or nonbinary politicians won their bids for state and local offices. According to the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, they now account for 8.1 percent of the nations 1,185 LGBTQ+ elected officials, an increase of 24 percent from 20212022.

Trans-inclusive films nominated at the Academy Awards: 2

At this years Oscars, two films that featured trans characters scored noms in major categories: Night Ride, a Norwegian short about a woman who steals a tram, and Women Talking, a feminist drama based on Miriam Toews novel of the same name. The latter took home the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Trans and/or nonbinary artists nominated at the Grammy Awards: 5

2024s crop of Grammy nominees, announced in November, include nonbinary artists Justin Tranter, Janelle Mone, and J. Harrison Ghee. And at the 2023 awards, Unholy singers Sam Smith and Kim Petras werent just nominated for a Grammy. The pair scored Best Pop Duo / Group Performance, making them the first openly nonbinary and/or trans artists, respectively, to win in their category.

Trans and/or nonbinary characters featured on primetime television: 32

According to GLAADs research, the 20222023 television season featured just 32 transgender characters across all platforms. They account for fewer than 6 percent of the 596 total LGBTQ+ characters on TV a slim proportion, and a year-over-over decrease of nearly 25 percent. GLAAD has yet to release its findings about the 20232024 season.

Trans and/or nonbinary actors who withdrew from Emmys consideration: 1

Yellowjackets breakout star Liv Hewson routinely steals scenes in Showtimes critically acclaimed drama. But despite being eligible for this years Primetime Emmy Awards, the nonbinary actor publicly withdrew themself from consideration because the Television Academy only has gendered acting categories. I cant submit myself for this because theres no space for me, they told Variety of the statement-making move, which they hope gets Hollywood execs talking.

View post:

The Freedom to Dress Cannot Be Overstated - Highsnobiety

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See more here:

Freedom Town Column: Selectmen's meetings have resumed at the town office - Conway Daily Sun

Was Sound of Freedom owned by Disney, and was the movie shelved by the studio? Heres what you should know.

Sound of Freedom is a new thriller movie telling the true story of Tim Ballard (Jim Caviezel), a federal agent who launched Operation Underground Railroad (OUR), a nonprofit organization focused on rescuing children from sex trafficking rings.

The film has been the talk of the town due to the controversy surrounding it and its unprecedented box office performance, earning third spot in the domestic charts just behind Indiana Jones 5 and Barbie.

Article continues after ad

Since dropping on July 4, a debate has emerged on social media in relation to Sound of Freedoms distribution and its association with Disney so, heres what you need to know.

Article continues after ad

Yes, Disney was the previous owner of the rights to Sound of Freedom after it completed its acquisition of 21st Century Fox in 2019.

Even though the film only just hit cinemas last week, development on the script started all the way back in 2015. It was shot three years later, during which time a distribution deal was made with the 20th Century Fox movie studio.

Article continues after ad

But when the Disney-Fox merger went ahead and the House of Mouse took over the rights, the media giant shelved the project. What ensued was an alleged battle for the filmmakers to set Sound of Freedom, well, free.

Article continues after ad

The movies producer, Eduardo Verastegui, spoke about the passionate drive to get Tim Ballards story out there, telling the Washington Examiner that despite the film being finished in 2018, no one wanted to distribute it for years.

Article continues after ad

The outlet stated that Netflix and Amazon passed, adding: Every studio was worried about losing money.

But this all changed in fall 2022, when Verastegui met with the CEO of Angel Studios, Neal Harmon, who co-founded the company alongside his brothers Jeffrey and Jordan.

Although the Harmons are reported to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) and the studio is behind The Chosen, a TV series about the life of Jesus, the company isnt formally associated with any specific religion.

Article continues after ad

Article continues after ad

Angle Studios, which runs its own streaming service of the same name, uses equity crowdfunding to finance its projects, allowing investors the chance to buy shares in the firm and its productions.

And when the company showed Sound of Freedom to its investors, they were excited about the project in March this year, Angel Studios agreed to distribute the film.

Jordan Harmon told the outlet that in the space of less than 10 days, approximately 7,200 people invested $5 million to ensure the film went out into the world.

Article continues after ad

So far, it appears theyre set to make a return on their investment, with Sound of Freedom surpassing expectations at the box office.

Fewer Ads|Dark Mode|Deals in Gaming, TV and Movies, and Tech

Article continues after ad

Unfortunately, Disney hasnt released an official statement explaining why it shelved Sound of Freedom, but theres plenty of speculation about the situation online, with some suggesting it could be related to the controversy surrounding the film.

As we explained in our article on the subject, there have been doubts about the legitimacy of OURs rescue missions, with a 2020 investigation led by Vice World News indicating a divide between the groups actual practices and some of its claimed successes.

Article continues after ad

At the time, the Attorneys Office of Davis County, Utah, stated that OUR and Tim Ballard were under criminal investigation in relation to complaints that the organization had carried out illegal fundraising activities, although the investigation was dropped this year.

Article continues after ad

But most alarming for many has been Sound of Freedoms association with QAnon. Both Ballard and the actor who plays him, Jim Caviezel, previously shared their support for conspiracy theories born from the movement, which believes that Satanic elitists are operating a child sex trafficking ring and conspired against Donald Trump during his presidency.

Article continues after ad

In its review of the film, Rolling Stone wrote: Over and over, the far right turns to these sordid fantasies about godless monsters hurting children. Now, as in the 1980s Satanic panic, they wont even face the fact that most kids who suffer sexual abuse are harmed not by a shadowy cabal of strangers, but at the hands of a family member.

Article continues after ad

To know thousands of adults will absorb Sound of Freedom, this vigilante fever dream, and come away thinking themselves better informed on a hidden civilizational crisis well, its profoundly depressing.

Article continues after ad

On the other side of the fence, those in support of Ballard, OUR, and Sound of Freedom have accused Disney of rejecting the distribution deal and the media of linking it to to prevent the truth from spreading to viewers across America.

Some go as far as to claim the House of Mouse is part of the so-called Satanic Hollywood elite. Taking to Twitter, one wrote: Disney TURNED DOWN Sound of Freedom but made a satanic movie about a teenage girl having a baby with a devil. Why was DISNEY against fighting child trafficking but OK with satanism?!

Article continues after ad

Article continues after ad

Another, who shared an image of Ghislaine Maxwell at Disney, said: Disney owned the rights to the newly released anti-child sex trafficking movie, The Sound of Freedom after it acquired Fox Studios.

However, Disney did not release the movie. But instead decided to fight back and forth with Jos Eduardo Verstegui Crdoba who then obtained the distribution rights to the movie and then took it over to Angel Studios so that the movie could finally be released and we the public would finally have the chance to see the movie after it ate dust for 5 years sitting on a shelf.

Article continues after ad

Article continues after ad

And a third asked: @Disney just wondering if you wanted to make a statement about the claims from the Sound of Freedom, people saying you stonewalled the release of their film. A lot of people would like to know your official position on this matter.

Thats all we know about Disneys former ownership of Sound of Freedom, but well be sure to keep this post updated if the House of Mouse releases a statement on the matter.

Article continues after ad

Sound of Freedom can be streamed on Prime Video, which you can sign up forhere. You can also check out our other coverage below:

Article continues after ad

Please note that if you click on a product link on this page we may earn a small commission.

View post:

Did Disney own the rights to Sound of Freedom? - Dexerto

The holiday season is coming to a close and as the Christmas trees are being packed away until next year, local residents have their sights set on 2024. The new year brings new opportunities, and for some, that means a new focus on health and fitness. Austin Nelson, owner of Freedom Fitness 615 says his team is ready for the challenge.

I got started in the training industry in 2016 after attending college at Tennessee Tech. I first went into private training and then in 2021, I opened Freedom Fitness, said Nelson. We are 100% class based and coach led, so even if youre not paying for private training, you still get elements of personal training. We offer bootcamp classes, strength and conditioning for athletes, and private 1:1 training. Our members get access to the facility, six classes a day with extra youth classes added in.

Nelson and his team of six trainers are ready to take on any New Years Resolutions you have in mind, but the first step is defining your goal. The biggest thing we tell people is we need to have an attainable goal in mind, said Nelson. Researching and understanding where you are, gives you a better idea of where you want to go. Talking with a trainer can help you figure all of that out, something we offer here at Freedom Fitness.

Navigating the health and fitness landscape can be daunting and overwhelming. Nelson and Freedom Fitness understand it can be a lot to take on, so theyre offering a 60-day new year fitness challenge to help Portland residents achieve their personal goals both in the gym and in the kitchen. The new 60-day transformation challenge isnt just how much weight you can lose. Each participants goal is unique to them; therefore, the winner is going to be determined based on their personal achievements, not how they measure up to others, said Nelson.

The Transformation Challenge offered by Freedom Fitness isnt just about lifting heavy weights and cutting calories. We want to promote healthy habits and let people see they can learn exercise and nutrition routines that can translate into their lives outside of the gym, said Nelson. However, we are not just a place to come in and do training. Freedom Fitness 615 offers nutritional counseling and body composition scans to track progress. We teach people they can build muscle and not have to rely on the scale to track progress. Our coaching staff are always available to answer questions and instruct on proper form. We take the guess work out of training and strength.

Nelson offered some advice to those who are wanting to take steps toward a healthier lifestyle, but might not be ready to jump in with both feet. Get active! If you can get out and walk 20-30 minutes a day, thats going to help you increase your endurance and health, said Nelson. There is no crash diet that works in the long term, so we want you to learn how to eat a nutritional balanced diet. Its a longer journey than most people understand, so it takes patience.

All year round we offer two free classes and a free consultation to everyone. Even if youre not ready to join, we want to give back, and so if we can get someone connected to the right information, thats a win. Even if the person doesnt end up joining, we are glad they stopped in, said Nelson. Our social media is a great way to receive free health and fitness content as well, we enjoy sharing information that is valuable to our community.

Be sure to follow Freedom Fitness 615 on Facebook for regular updates on what they have on the calendar, and stop in for a free class to get a head start on your new years resolutions!

Visit link:

Freedom Fitness 615 is ready to take on new year's resolutions - Lebanon Democrat

To mark Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27, North Kesteven District Council is holding an educational art competition for secondary school students, aged 11 to 16, in order that they can express who they are and stand up against hatred.

The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust (HMDT) advocates international acts of remembrance and reflection on that day to the six million Jews murdered during the Holocaust of the Second World War, the millions of people who lost their lives due to the discrimination inflicted upon them by the Nazis and the impacts and ongoing incidence of genocide since.

The theme of 2024s Holocaust Memorial Day is Fragility of freedom, which has a different definition to every individual. In every genocide across the world it is clear that individual freedom is restricted and removed.

The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust encourage individuals to come together to learn more, emphasise more and do more.

In order to provoke a thoughtful response, young people are being encouraged to explore the Fragility of freedom theme by expressing their identities and individual freedoms through a self-portrait, including aspects of their life, interests, emotions, and aspirations.

A curated selection of the submissions will be exhibited at the Hub, Sleaford for a week from Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27 to February 3.

We encourage the self-portrait entries to be as creative and unique as possible and completed in any medium or multi-media, 2D or 3D and submitted in finished format or as a photo, up to A3 in size. Their impact will be assessed by visitors to the display who can nominate their favourites and prizes will be awarded.

You can find out full details of the project, visit our Holocaust Memorial Day 2024 Fragility of Freedom competition webpage.

Council leader Cllr Richard Wright, who will be joined by Sleaford artist Ruth Burrows in making the selection for display, said:

Self-expression is a right as much as a privilege, but with that being eroded, restricted or removed for millions of people even today, that should not be taken for granted.

It can be difficult to make the connection between the Holocaust, historic genocides and the lives and freedoms we experience today, but the link and the legacy are strong and in 2024 it is just as important as ever that we understand and respect that.

This exhibition aims to provide a platform for students to see their work collated and celebrate their freedom to be creative. Hopefully through this programme our young people will reflect on the fragility of freedom and how individual freedom was and is affected by the events of the Holocaust and more recent genocides.

Freedom means different things to different people. It is also fragile. In every genocide that has taken place, those who are targeted for persecution had their freedom restricted and removed through actions that ultimately concluded in their murder.

The Holocaust Memorial Day Trusts great wish is that for HMD 2024 we can all reflect on how freedom is fragile and vulnerable to abuse. As we come together through this initiative, lets pledge not to take our freedoms for granted, and consider what we can do to strengthen freedoms around the world.

You can discover more information on the 2024 HMD theme and explorations on the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust website.

Thanks to Sleaford artist Ruth Burrows and the Hub, Sleaford for their support and participation.

For further details see the Councils, the Hubs and Ruth Burrows social media @northkestevendc,@hubsleafordand@rbartshopstudioand visit our Holocaust Memorial Day 2024 Fragility of Freedom competition webpage.

Here is the original post:

Expressing the freedom of self-expression for Holocaust Memorial Day - North Kesteven District Council

To say that Sinead OConnor never quite regained the musical heights of her 1987 debut album, The Lion and the Cobra, is not to slight the rest of her output, which contained jewels. There is no getting back to a record like that first one. It was in some sense literally scary: The label had to change the original cover art, which showed a bald OConnor hissing like a banshee cat, for the American release. In the version we saw, she looks down, arms crossed, mouth closed, vulnerable. The music had both sides of her in it.

A fuzziness has tended to hang over the question of who produced The Lion and the Cobra. The process involved some drama. OConnor clashed with the label and dropped her first producer, Mick Glossop, highly respected and the person the label wanted. In the end, she produced the album largely by herself. But not entirely. There was a co-producer, an Irish engineer named Kevin Moloney, who worked on the first five U2 albums and Kate Bushs Hounds of Love. He and OConnor went to school at the same time in the Glenageary neighborhood of Dublin, where he attended an all-boys Catholic academy next to her all-girls Catholic school. But Moloney didnt know OConnor then, though they took the same bus.

In Asheville, N.C., this fall, Moloney sat in the control room of Citizen Studios, where he is the house producer, and hit play on The Lion and the Cobra. The first song is a ghost story called Jackie. A woman sings of her lover, who has failed to return from a fishing expedition. Youre on deep Irish literary sod, the western coast and the islands. Its the lament of Maurya in J.M. Synges play Riders to the Sea, grieving for all the men the ocean has taken from her, except that the creature singing through OConnor will not accept death. Hell be back sometime, she assures the men who deliver the news, laughing at you. At the end, her falsetto howls above the feedback. She starts the song as a plaintive young widow and ends it as a demon. Gets the old hairs going up, Moloney said.

Where did she get that? I asked. Those different registers?

It was all in her head, he said. She had these personas.

And the words? Were they from an obscure Irish shanty she found in an old newspaper? Oh, no, she wrote it herself, Moloney said. Her lyrics were older than she was.

Moloneys connection with OConnor came through U2s guitarist, the Edge (David Evans). In late 1985, the band was between albums, so Evans did a solo project, scoring a film. He recruited OConnor who had just been signed to the English label Ensign Records to sing on one tune, and Moloney engineered the session. OConnor was 18, with short dark hair.

Ensign put her together with Glossop, who had just co-produced the Waterboys classic album This Is the Sea. But she spurned the results: Too pretty. Glossop remembered OConnor as reluctant to speak her mind in the studio, leading to a situation where small differences of opinion werent being addressed, leaving her alienated from the material. With characteristic careerist diplomacy, she called Glossop a [expletive] ol hippie (and derided U2, who possessed some claim to having discovered her, as fake rebels making bombastic music). Glossop recalled that when he ran into her at a club a couple of years later, she hugged him and apologized which was a nice gesture, he told me.

Nobody has ever heard those first, abandoned tracks from The Lion and the Cobra. They put a big sound, a band sound around her, Moloney said, and she was disappearing in it. Glossop remembered it slightly differently. She had a rapport with her band, he said, and I recorded them as a band. But she was turning into a solo artist.

She was also pregnant, unbeknownst to Glossop (It would have been nice to know, he said). The father was the drummer in the band, John Reynolds, whom she had known for a month when they conceived. According to OConnors autobiography, Rememberings, the label pressured her to have an abortion, sending her to a doctor who lectured her on how much money the company had invested in her.

OConnor not only insisted on keeping the baby; she also told the label that if it forced her to put out its version of the record, she would walk. They eventually caved, Moloney said. They told her, Make it your way. But with a limited budget.

Thats when she reached out to Moloney, in the spring of 1986, saying she needed someone she trusted. He started taking day trips to Oxford, where she was holed up in a rental house. We were in the living room, Moloney said. A bunch of couches and a bunch of underpaid, underloved musicians who were struggling big time.

There was a bit of a little communal hub, he said, always a few joints going around the room. Sinead loved her ganja. A lot of talking, and then somebody would start to play, and people would pick up instruments. And Sinead was, like, captain of the ship.

When they got into the studio in London, Moloney turned the earlier, band-focused approach inside out like a sock. OConnors voice was allowed to dictate. The musicians worked around it.

For the song Jackie, he said, Sinead wanted to do all of those guitar parts herself. And she wanted to do it really late at night, when everybody else was gone home. She didnt feel good about her guitar playing. I got her to do this really distorted big sound, and then we layered it and layered it. It became this sort of seething. She was like, Look at me Im Jimi Hendrix.

The most difficult challenge in recording OConnor, he said, was finding a microphone that could handle her dynamic range, with those whisper-to-scream effects she was famous for. Once we figured out the right way of capturing her vocals an AKG C12 vintage tube mic she did it really fast.

I must have looked amazed the vocals are so theatrical and swooping, OConnors pitch so precise, that I had envisioned endless takes because Moloney said, as if to settle doubts, Within a couple of takes, it was done.

The jangly guitar opening of the third track, Jerusalem, played. I remember hearing her play this for the first time, Moloney said. I got it, knowing her background. OConnor was abused psychologically, physically, sexually by her mother, who died in a car accident, and by the Catholic Church. All the systems had failed her, Moloney said, that were supposed to protect her.

If he was right that he heard trauma in Jerusalem, the song lyrics also drip with erotic angst (I hope you do/what you said/when you swore). It introduces the records main preoccupation: love and sex as they intersect with power and pain.

The streams cross with greatest emotional force in the song Troy, one of the most beautiful and ambitious pieces of mid-1980s popular music. The track sticks out production-wise, with a powerful, surging orchestral arrangement (the product of OConnors collaboration with the musician Michael Clowes, who also played keyboards on the album).

Theres a moment in the song when OConnor repeats the line, You shouldve left the light on. I had never given undue thought to what it meant. Something about tortured desire: If you had left the light on, I wouldnt have kissed you. But Moloney said it had a double meaning. When OConnor was punished as a child and made to sleep outside in the garden shed, her mother would turn off all of the lights in the house. There wouldnt be a light on for her, Moloney said.

OConnor gave birth to her son, Jake, just weeks after Moloney finished the mixes. She told Glasgows Daily Record that although the baby had kicked when she sang in the studio, he slept now when the record came on. She was so happy, Moloney said with tears in his eyes. She said: Oh, my God, I cant believe I went through all of that and Ive arrived here with a record I love. Also, heres my baby! She had two babies in one year.

John Jeremiah Sullivan is a contributing writer for the magazine who lives in North Carolina, where he co-founded the nonprofit research collective Third Person Project.

Go here to see the original:

Harry Belafonte Used Fame to Fight for Freedom - The New York Times