OCTOBER 1 AND 2, 2018

NEWS AND VIEWS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-players-malcolm-jenkins-chris-long-tackling-social-injustice-off-the-field/
CBS NEWS September 29, 2018, 10:25 AM
How NFL players are tackling social injustice off the field

THREE VIDEOS – A NEWS REPORT AND TWO INTERVIEWS

Two years ago, Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem to spotlight social injustice and as the silent protest spread, so did an uproar. But one group of NFL players has been quietly working to enact change off the field.

"CBS This Morning: Saturday" co-host Dana Jacobson sat down with Super Bowl champions Chris Long and Malcolm Jenkins, who believe the controversy has drowned out some of the real work that is being done.

"What Colin did was find out a way to bring up the conversation and force a conversation… It's up to us to stay focused…to make sure that the issues and topics stay at the forefront…that is what this all started from and that's what we'll continue to fight about," Jenkins said.

On the first Sunday of the NFL season, Jenkins called a "listen and learn" session in Philadelphia, a meeting with business, community, and government leaders to discuss bail reform and jobs. He asked everyone at the table for help.

"We're learning the ins and outs of our justice system…and changing minds as we go," Jenkins said. "It's really not that tough of a change. When you look at politics, it really comes down to priority. And we've talked to lawmakers all over the place that would agree that a lot of these reforms need to change, would agree that things are unfair, are a little unjust. But if voters aren't clamoring about it, then it's not high enough on the priority to change things."

Two years ago NFL players formed an alliance to take the sideline protests to state capitals across the country. This past off-season, the group, now officially known as the Players Coalition, successfully lobbied for criminal justice reform bills in three states.

In April, Massachusetts raised the juvenile detention age from seven to 12. In May, the Louisiana state senate passed a law restoring voting rights to people convicted of a felony who've been on probation or parole for five years. In June, players successfully lobbied Pennsylvania lawmakers in Harrisburg to pass the Clean Slate Act, which seals the records of people with misdemeanors after 10 years, along with those arrested but not convicted of a crime.

Chris Long is one of Jenkins' teammates working alongside him for change, including donating the salary from his final 10 games last season to charity.

"The three pieces of legislation…this is real substantive stuff in three different markets all around the U.S.," Long said.

"Once we were able to lend our platform, our voices and be able to sit down with legislators, it made a big difference. And so that's why we laugh when people say, 'stick to the sports,' because we see firsthand how much impact we can have," Jenkins said.

But not everyone has been listening. Jenkins was compelled to hold posters in front of his locker this summer, highlighting issues like the disproportionate number of African Americans shot by police, or the half million people in jail because they can't afford to make bail.

"It just sends the message that we have to stay on topic because we're purposely choosing to overlook what it is that players have been even fighting for. Because we've been very articulate and very patient and consistent with police brutality, systemic racism, education, housing. And yet, we'll continuously hear this dialogue 'players don't know what they're doing' or 'they're not organized,' or, 'they're anti-military,'" Jenkins said.

"And those statistics and those things that are on those poster cards…people don't want to hear about it. That literally left people no choice but to air that," Long said.

The NFL is lending its backing to the Players Coalition with a social justice partnership. Earlier this month Commissioner Roger Goodell attended a listen and learn session in New Orleans and the league has pledged $89 million in support.

"We also want their platform and we want their voice. And the same way that they highlight issues like breast cancer for an entire month or 'Salute to Service' or all of these other initiatives that we've seen them promote and put their weight behind," Jenkins said of the NFL.

Asked if what he's doing is good for the game of football, Jenkins replied, "Not my concern."

"I mean, we talk we talk about it…Football provides a livelihood for not only us but the other 2,000 players that are in the league and those to come and those who came before us. So we never want to do anything that's going to damage the game…but at the end of the day lives of everyday Americans are more important than my ability to make a living," Jenkins said.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45711410
How commonly do drinkers suffer blackouts?
1 October 2018

PHOTOGRAPH – A FULL GLASS OF BEER GETTY
CAPTION -- It's something many people have experienced at least once in their lives - a night of heavy drinking followed by a day of missing memories. A blackout.

The amnesia caused by excessive alcohol consumption has become a topic of discussion in the wake of sexual assault allegations against US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

One of the accusers says Judge Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her at a party when he was drunk, 36 years ago. A second woman says he exposed himself to her during a college drinking game.

Mr Kavanaugh strongly denies the accusations, and some have suggested that he could have suffered a blackout from alcohol, which he also rejects.

So what's an alcohol-induced blackout?

It's when our brain fails to record memories of events that take place while we're drinking.

That happens because circuits in the brain area that plays a key role in consolidating memories of our day-to-day lives, the hippocampus, are shut down by alcohol, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) in the US.

This results in gaps in the record-keeping system.

There are two types of blackouts:

The most common, called fragmentary blackout, is when an individual has pieces of memories separated by missing details. So you may remember having a few drinks, for example, but not how or who paid for them. Experts say that focusing on the memories often helps people recall some of the missing parts

A complete blackout, or "en bloc", is a severe amnesia for several hours. Usually there is no way to remember events because the information was never stored in the brain

How common is it?

Fragmentary blackouts are very common, studies say, especially among young drinkers.

"Anywhere from 30% to 50% of young adults who drink do report some experience with an alcohol-related blackout," says Dr Kate Carey, professor of behavioural and social sciences at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

They're triggered when an individual's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) rises quickly and reaches a high level. This can happen as a result of consuming large amounts of alcohol in a short time, doing shots or drinking on an empty stomach.

A blackout starts when a person's BAC is around 0.2, experts say. For comparison, in the US, it's illegal to drive with a BAC of 0.08. (Limits are different in the UK.)

Are there people who are more vulnerable?

Studies suggest that blackouts are more common in individuals with lower body weight and in women. That's because women's blood alcohol level rises faster after each drink as a result of having less water in the body.

A genetic component could also explain why some people seem to be more susceptible to blackouts than others.

Some experts also say people who smoke or use other recreational drugs while drinking are more likely to blackout from alcohol.

RELATED -- No alcohol 'safe to drink'
RELATED -- Regular excess drinking 'can take years off your life'

Are there any visible signs?

Not necessarily, says Dr Carey.

As the short-term functions are quite robust against the impact of alcohol intoxication, someone may be awake and functional, even citing things that have taken place before the blackout, she adds. But they just won't remember it.

Some people, however, may show some signs including distraction or the inability to continue a conversation, for example.

What are the consequences?

According to the American Addiction Centers, individuals can choose to participate in risky behaviours that they may not perform when sober, due to impaired decision-making.

That could be driving a car, getting into a fight or committing - or being the victim of - a sexual assault or other crime, says the NIAA.

Apart from memory loss, constant blackouts may suggest a drinking disorder, which can lead to long-term health issues such as liver problems.

Is it the same as passing out?

No. Passing out is when someone is asleep or unconscious from excessive drinking.

RELATED -- Why do only some people get blackout drunk?


SO WHY IS OUR REPUBLICAN PARTY PURSUING A GOAL OF INSTALLING THE NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SO FIERCELY? SOME RECENT SOURCES SAY IT IS BECAUSE THEY FEAR THAT AN IMBALANCE IN NUMBERS OF THE CONGRESS WILL OCCUR IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR, MOVING THE DOMINANCE TO THE DEMOCRATS, AND IF THE SUPREME COURT ALSO MOVES TO THE LEFT, THEY WILL NOT BE UNABLE TO CONTROL THE US GOVERNMENT. THEY WILL HAVE TO SHARE AND PLAY FAIR. SEVERAL ARTICLES HAVE MENTIONED VOICES ON THEIR SIDE WHICH ARE CLAMORING FOR A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, BY WHICH THEY CAN CHANGE BASIC PARTS OF THAT DOCUMENT TO FAVOR THEIR POINTS OF VIEW IN THE LAW.

IS OUR SUPREME COURT ALREADY TOO POLITICAL NOW? HOW COULD WE MAKE IT LESS POLITICAL? TAKE NOTE OF THE METHOD OF CHOOSING SUPREME COURT OF THE UK, SINCE IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A BETTER METHOD THAN WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THE TWO PARAGRAPHS UNDER THE HEADING “UK: AWAY FROM POLITICS.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45632035
Why US top court is so much more political than UK's
28 September 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Protesters gather outside the US Supreme Court following an immigration ruling in June

The composition of the US Supreme Court is about to change and the nomination of its potential new member, by some accounts unlike any other, has revived discussions about how political the selection is.

The debate is unlike any the UK has when justices at the Supreme Court are replaced, as a different appointment system means their political views are rarely publicly known and, according to experts, do not have any influence in the process.

US: A president's choice

In the US, the nine-member Supreme Court is the third branch of the federal government and its decisions have a profound impact on American society. It is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between state and federal governments, and final appeals to stay executions.

Under Article 2 of the constitution, the president has the power to make a nomination. "There's no clear view as to why the president was granted this power," said Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Prof of Law at Yale University.

The Senate has the task to approve a candidate, in usually tense hearings, a method that enforces the concept of checks and balances between the powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Candidates do not have to meet any qualifications and serve lifetime terms - a contentious topic for many. That is why replacing a justice is one of the most consequential decisions of a president.

So, unsurprisingly, every nomination is a highly politicised affair.

Why is the US top court so important?

PHOTOGRAPH -- Observers say the recent nominees have been more ideological than in the past GETTY IMAGES

Divisions at the top court are not new, as presidents tend to nominate people with same ideological positions, but scholars say there was little evidence of partisan division until recently.

Dissent in the past was infrequent and, when it happened, did not tend to break along party lines, Prof Neal Devins and Prof Lawrence Baum wrote in How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court into a Partisan Court.

Take the Dred Scott v Sandford case, in which the court declared in 1857 that slaves were not US citizens and could not sue in federal courts. The two diverging votes in one of the most important decisions of that time came from judges who had been appointed by both the Whig and Democratic parties.

The lack of partisan divide remained over the following decades but signs of divisions started to emerge. Byron White was the last conservative-leaning nomination by a Democrat - President John F Kennedy in 1962 - while David Souter was the last liberal-leaning justice appointed by a Republican president - George H W Bush in 1990.

RELATED -- Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's choice for Supreme Court
RELATED -- US Supreme Court: Who are the justices?

Things changed in 2010, with the retirement of John Paul Stevens, a liberal justice appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford in 1975.

Since then, all of the nominations by Democrats have been liberal while all those appointed by Republicans are conservative, the first time in the court's history that ideological positions coincide with party lines, Prof Devins and Prof Baum wrote.

"Today's partisan split, while unprecedented, is likely enduring."

The partial exception, they said, was Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee who sided with liberal justices on key issues like abortion, death penalty and gay rights, and has now retired.

If Brett Kavanaugh, who by all accounts is a reliable conservative, is confirmed as Mr Kennedy's replacement, he is expected to push the court to the right, restoring a conservative majority of 5-4. And being relatively young, 53 years old, he is likely to be there for many years.

That is one of the reasons why his nomination has an even bigger significance.

Image copyright REUTERS
Image caption -- The confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees are usually tense and closely followed

Analysts say Mr Kavanaugh's hearings, which included a row over documents related to his years in the George W Bush administration that were shielded from Senate Democrats and the public as well as allegations of sexual misconduct that he denied, has been the most contentious in recent history, and highlighted how partisan divisions can dominate the process.

Writing in the Stanford Law Review Online in 2012, Eric Hamilton said: "Politicisation of the Supreme Court causes the American public to lose faith in the Court".

UK: Away from politics

In the UK, the 12-member Supreme Court was created in 2009, replacing the Law Lords in Parliament, bringing the UK into line with many comparable modern states. It acts as a final court of appeal in cases of major public importance.

The justices are nominated by an independent commission, chaired by the president of the court, a senior judge from anywhere in the UK to be named by the president and members of the appointment commissions from England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
The UK Supreme Court was created in 2009 (File picture)

A number of senior judges must be consulted by the commission before any decision is taken. Candidates must have been a senior judge for at least two years or a qualified lawyer for at least 15.

When someone is chosen, the name is sent to the justice secretary, who can accept or reject it. If accepted, the nomination is then sent to the prime minister, who recommends it to the Queen, who makes the appointment.

These rules, experts say, mean that political positions of nominees are often unknown or irrelevant in the process.

Q&A: UK Supreme Court
Since the court's creation, three new judges have been appointed.

"It wasn't very controversial at all. There was no discussion of it in the press when the names were announced and when we looked at the people who were there it was all understandable," said Alison Young, Prof of Public Law at the University of Cambridge.

"We have a completely independent process... It's almost seen like an internal promotion system rather than a politicised process," she added, saying that citizens can officially complain over alleged political bias.

Another difference is that the UK has no codified, written constitution, so the court does not have the ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional, unlike in the US, where the court has also been involved in key political decisions.

In 1997, in a case involving then President Bill Clinton, the US Supreme Court ruled that sitting US presidents could be prosecuted.

In 1974, it ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings related to the Watergate scandal.

For life or not for life?
There is no limit to UK justices' terms but they must retire when they are 75 years old. Similar age restrictions are in place in other Western European countries too.

In Germany, for example, the top judges serve 12-year terms with no re-election allowed and must retire at the age of 68. In Switzerland, they serve six-year terms and can be re-elected an unlimited number of times - but they must resign at the age of 68. (Both countries have different selection processes.)

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
The partisan split at the Supreme Court is unprecedented, some experts say
Lifetime appointments in the US were originally designed to isolate them from political pressure. But given the current climate, critics argue that, in fact, the opposite is happening and some have defended the introduction of fixed terms.

"It doesn't make sense at all," said Prof Ackerman, from Yale, about lifetime terms.

And so, members nominated at a relatively young age - Justice Clarence Thomas, another controversial nomination, was 43 when he was appointed in 1991 - can serve for several decades.

Opponents to terms, meanwhile, say they could actually make the politicisation even worse, as presidents would be more inclined to make partisan nominations as justices would have temporary terms.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707720
Trump Supreme Court pick: Why is the US top court so important?
17 September 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- The nine justices before Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement GETTY IMAGES

The US is currently undergoing the process to appoint a replacement to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement earlier this year. So why is this a big deal?

Given the immense impact the US Supreme Court has on US political life, nominees always face tough questions from the Senate during any confirmation hearing.

President Donald Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is no exception.

So how might his pick change the nation's high court?

Who are the current justices? Meet the Supremes
What does the Supreme Court do?
The highest court in the US is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between states and the federal government, and final appeals to stay executions.

It hears fewer than 100 cases a year and the key announcements are made in June. Each of the nine justices serve a lifetime appointment after being nominated by the president and approved by the Senate.

Cases are usually brought to the court after they are appealed from a series of lower courts, although in time-sensitive cases, lawyers can petition for a hearing. The court's opinions can also create precedents, directing other judges to follow their interpretation in similar cases.

In recent years, the court has expanded gay marriage to all 50 states, allowed for President Donald Trump's travel ban to be put in place and delayed a US plan to cut carbon emissions while appeals went forward.

Occasionally, the Supreme Court will revisit an issue in a new case and change their own precedent, a move anti-abortion activists hope will come to pass with a new conservative justice.

What are key issues in front of the court?
The court makes many of its big decisions in June.

This year it ruled on contentious issues such as the Trump travel ban, trade union fees and gerrymandering.

Despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, Justice Kennedy sided with both the conservative and liberal justices on major cases.

He was a moderate on social issues, notably backing gay marriage.

If a more conservative judge replaces him, as is likely, anti-abortion advocates could push to get that issue under consideration by the top US court.

What's the current state of the court?
While a majority of Supreme Court cases do not break on ideological lines, there are conservative and liberal wings.

Key cases have been decided on 5-4 votes.

With Justice Kennedy's departure, the court is arguably divided four-four.

Confirming a conservative justice would ultimately return the court to a narrow conservative majority.

Does the court matter globally?
US research suggests that the influence of the Supreme Court abroad has diminished over the past two decades, as court systems elsewhere in the world develop and US influence in general wanes.

Fewer courts internationally cite US Supreme Court opinions, increasingly citing the European Court of Human Rights and other national supreme courts.

In 2016 a Supreme Court decision on emissions from coal-fired power plants on US soil threatened the Paris Climate Agreement, but enough other countries ratified the treaty for it to come into force.

Donald Trump's controversial travel ban, which affects Middle East countries designated as terror-prone, was cemented this week by the Supreme Court, with the outcome affecting millions internationally.

And back in 2000, the Supreme Court decided the outcome of the presidential election between George W Bush and Al Gore - a decision which more recent history shows still has a significant impact around the world.

The court could in theory be asked to rule on legal challenges to international trade agreements, such as the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, although TPP was revoked by Mr Trump using an executive order.


WELL, HUMANITY HAS TRIUMPHED AND CRASS GREED HAS HAD TO TAKE A BACK SEAT AND WAIT – FOR ONE WEEK OR SO. STILL, IT’S A MIRACLE, IN MY VIEW. THESE VIDEOS ARE FROM THE RACHEL MADDOW BLOG, MY FAVORITE SOURCE FOR IN DEPTH NEWS.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/kavanaugh-rant-raises-questions-about-his-political-impartiality-1332534851612?v=raila&
Kavanaugh rant raises questions about his political impartiality
09/28/18 09:52PM
Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, talks with Joy Reid about the history of impeachment efforts against Supreme Court justices accused of being [sic] impartial, and why questions may arise about Kavanaugh's political impartiality as well as his indebtedness to Donald Trump.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/kavanaugh-s-partisan-rage-at-hearing-calls-fitness-into-question-1332540995673?v=raila&
Kavanaugh's partisan rage at hearing calls fitness into question
09/28/18 09:45PM
Joy Reid highlights Brett Kavanaugh's emphasis on his partisan alignment and political allegiance and wonders whether his impartiality is too compromised for him to serve as a judge.


https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/meacham-this-week-was-a-stress-test-for-the-american-order-1332566595897?v=raila&
Meacham: This week was a stress test for the American order
The nation is still reeling after a fraught week that culminated in the dramatic testimony from Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. Jon Meacham joins to discuss.
Sep.29.2018


https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/jeff-flake-shakes-up-kavanaugh-nomination-with-bipartisan-stand-1332321347557
Jeff Flake shakes up Kavanaugh nomination with bipartisan stand
NBC’s Kasie Hunt, Fmr. DOJ Spokesman Matthew Miller, AP’s Jonathan Lemire, Axios’ Jonathan Swan, and MoveOn’s Karine Jean-Pierre on Jeff Flake’s last minute deal with democrats to delay a vote on Trump’s supreme court nominee and push for an FBI to conduct an additional background check
Sep.28.2018

VIDEO
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/truth-will-eventually-come-out-on-kavanaugh-senator-1331810371796
Truth will eventually come out on Kavanaugh: senator
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, of the SJC joins Morning Joe to discuss Thursday's hearings, why he believes the nomination will move out of committee, his call for an FBI investigation and why he says the truth on Kavanaugh will eventually come out.
Sep.28.2018


UPDATE ON CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA / FACEBOOK

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aleksandr-kogan-the-link-between-cambridge-analytica-and-facebook-60-minutes/
Aleksandr Kogan: The link between Cambridge Analytica and Facebook
The app developer at the heart of the Facebook privacy scandal says the social media giant didn't enforce its own rules
CORRESPONDENT
Lesley Stahl
Sep 02, 2018

VIDEO INTERVIEW – STAHL AND KOGAN

Later this week, Facebook, Twitter, and Google are due to testify again on Capitol Hill on the subject of foreign countries using their platforms to interfere with U.S. elections. It's been a tough few months for Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In July, the company's valuation dropped $124 billion - the largest single-day plunge in U.S. history. This, in the wake of a cascade of disturbing revelations.

As we first reported in April, we now know that during years of essentially policing itself, Facebook allowed Russian trolls to buy U.S. election ads, advertisers to discriminate by race, hate groups to spread fake news and, because Facebook shirked privacy concerns, a company called Cambridge Analytica was able to surreptitiously gain access to personal data mined from as many as 87 million Facebook users.

"If I had any inkling that what we were going to do was going to destroy my relationship with Facebook, I would've never done it."
The man who mined that data for Cambridge Analytica is a scientist named Aleksandr Kogan. He's at the center of the Facebook controversy because he developed an app that harvested data from tens of millions of unwitting Facebook users.

koganwalking.jpg
Aleksandr Kogan, the man who mined data from Facebook for Cambridge Analytica CBS NEWS
Lesley Stahl: The main infraction, the main charge is that you sold the data.

Aleksandr Kogan: So I mean, at the time I thought we were doing everything that was correct. You know, I was kinda acting, honestly, quite naively. I thought we were doing everything okay.

Lesley Stahl: Facebook says that you lied to them.

Aleksandr Kogan: That's frustrating to hear, to be honest. If I had any inkling that what we were going to do was going to destroy my relationship with Facebook, I would've never done it. If I had any inkling that I was going to cause people to be upset, I would've never done it. This was the blindness we had back then.

For someone implicated in the biggest privacy scandal on Earth, Kogan seems incongruously guileless.

Lesley Stahl: Before all this happened, what was your job? And what was your field of study?

Aleksandr Kogan: So I was a social psychologist. I was working as a university lecturer at the University of Cambridge—

Lesley Stahl: In England?

Aleksandr Kogan: In England. And I ran this lab that studied happiness and kindness.

Lesley Stahl: Happiness and kindness (laugh)

Aleksandr Kogan: Yup.

That's a far cry from the adjectives lobbed at him now: sinister and unethical.

Here's what he did: he asked Facebook users to take a survey he designed from which he built psychological profiles meant to predict their behavior.

He failed to disclose that what he was really after was access to their friends, tens of millions of people he could not otherwise reach easily. And that he was doing the survey for Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, that used the material to influence people on how to vote.

The company's then-CEO bragged about their prediction models on stage.

Alexander Nix: By having hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans undertake this survey we were able to form a model to predict the personality of every single adult in the United States of America.

Lesley Stahl: Did you get to the point where you were predicting personalities?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yup

Lesley Stahl: And you gave that to Cambridge Analytica?

Aleksandr Kogan: Correct.

Lesley Stahl: What did you think they were going to use it for?

Aleksandr Kogan: I knew it was going to be for elections… And I had an understanding or a feeling that it was going to be for the Republican side.

As political consultants, Cambridge Analytica was hired by campaigns to analyze voters and target them with ads.

In the 2016 presidential election, Cambridge Analytica worked first for the Ted Cruz campaign, then later for Donald Trump, though his campaign says they didn't use the Kogan data.

The Republican benefactors Robert and Rebekah Mercer were Cambridge Analytica's financial backers; Steve Bannon was on the board.

Lesley Stahl: So did you ever meet or hear about Steve Bannon at Cambridge Analytica, the Mercers?

Aleksandr Kogan: Nope.

Lesley Stahl: Jared Kushner? Nothing?

Aleksandr Kogan: And those names would not ever have rung a bell for me, to be honest.

Friend Permissions
Lesley Stahl: Tell us what you did.

Aleksandr Kogan: So I create this app where people sign up to do a study. And when they sign up to do the study, we would give them a survey. And in the survey we would have just this Facebook log-in button. And they would click the button, authorize us. We get their data-

Lesley Stahl: Authorize us to do what?

Aleksandr Kogan: To collect certain data. We would collect things like their location, their gender, their birthday, their page "likes" and similar information for their friends. And all of this-

Lesley Stahl: But you, did you say you collected information on their friends?

Aleksandr Kogan: We did.

Lesley Stahl: But they didn't opt-in.

Aleksandr Kogan: So they didn't opt-in explicitly.

Lesley Stahl: No, no, no. They didn't opt-in period. The friends did not opt-in.

Aleksandr Kogan: And it seems crazy now. But this was a core feature of the Facebook platform for years. This was not a special permission you had to get. This was just something that was available to anybody who wanted it who was a developer.

Lesley Stahl: How many apps do you think there are, how many developers, who did what you did?

Aleksandr Kogan: Tens of thousands.

Lesley Stahl: Tens of thousands?

Aleksandr Kogan: Tens of thousands.

Lesley Stahl: And Facebook, obviously, was aware.

Aleksandr Kogan: Of course. It was a feature, not a bug.

The feature was called "friend permissions," which Sandy Parakilas, who used to work at Facebook, explains.

Sandy Parakilas: The way it works is if you're using an app and I'm your friend, the app can say, "Hey, Lesley, we want to get your data for use in this app, and we also want to get your friends' data." If you say, "I will allow that," then the app gets my data, too.

Lesley Stahl: What you're saying is I give permission for the friend? The friend doesn't give permission?

Sandy Parakilas: Right. It doesn't feel right when you say it out loud?

Lesley Stahl: No, it doesn't feel right.

Sandy Parakilas: Right.

What Happened After Data Left Facebook
Facebook should've been aware of how this could be abused because they were repeatedly warned, including by Parakilas, who used to be a manager in charge of protecting data at the company. He says he raised concerns years before Kogan built his app.

Sandy Parakilas: I think they didn't want to know. You know, the impression that I got working there is that—

Lesley Stahl: They didn't want the public to know.

Sandy Parakilas: Well they didn't want to know in the sense that if they didn't know, then they could say they didn't know and they weren't liable, whereas if they knew they would actually have to do something about it. And one of the things that I was concerned about was that applications or developers of applications would receive all of this Facebook data, and that once they received it, there was no insight, Facebook had no control or view over what they were doing with the data.

sandy-parakilas-walk.jpg
Sandy Parakilas, once a manager in charge of protecting data at Facebook, walks with correspondent Lesley Stahl CBS NEWS
Lesley Stahl: Once the data left Facebook, did Facebook have any real way to find out what happened to it?

Sandy Parakilas: No.

Lesley Stahl: Or was it just gone?

Sandy Parakilas: It was gone.

Lesley Stahl: Wow.

Sandy Parakilas: They could put it on a hard drive and they could hide it in a closet.

Lesley Stahl: Would you say then policing this was pretty impossible?

Sandy Parakilas: It was very frustrating.

Lesley Stahl: Did you bring this to the attention of the higher-ups, the executives?

Sandy Parakilas: Yeah, a number of folks, including several executives.

Lesley Stahl: So were the executives' hair on fire? Did they say, "Oh my God, we have to fix this. We have to do something?"

Sandy Parakilas: I didn't really see any traction in terms of making changes to protect people. They didn't prioritize it, I think, is how I would phrase it.

Lesley Stahl: So would you say that they didn't prioritize privacy?

Sandy Parakilas: Yes. I would say that they prioritize the growth of users, the growth of the data they can collect and their ability to monetize that through advertising. That's what they prioritized because those were the metrics and are the metrics that the stock market cares about.

"I think the real problem is that you've got a company that has repeatedly had privacy scandals. It has repeatedly shown that it doesn't prioritize privacy over the years."

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg turned down our request for an interview. Eventually the company did change its policy - so app developers can no longer gather data from users' friends without their consent.

Facebook's years of failing to protect users' privacy by allowing covert harvesting of so much personal data became the center of the congressional hearings this past April. In his defense, CEO Mark Zuckerberg pointed the finger at one particular app developer.

Mark Zuckerberg: If a developer who people gave their information to, in this case, Aleksandr Kogan, then goes and in violation of his agreement with us, sells the data to Cambridge Analytica, that's a big issue. People have a right to be very upset. I am upset that that happened.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Testifies At Joint Senate Commerce/Judiciary Hearing
Facebook co-founder, chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing GETTY IMAGES
Lesley Stahl: You're a villain in many eyes, the guy who stole data from Facebook and then sold it.

Aleksandr Kogan: The idea that we stole the data, I think, is technically incorrect. I mean, they created these great tools for developers to collect the data. And they made it very easy. I mean, this was not a hack. This was, "Here's the door. It's open. We're giving away the groceries. Please collect them."

Lesley Stahl: Your point, though, I think is that they're singling you out.

Aleksandr Kogan: I think there's utility to trying to tell the narrative that this is a special case that I was a rogue app, and this was really unusual. Because if the truth is told, and this is pretty usual and normal, it's a much bigger problem.

And he says he wasn't hiding anything from Facebook. When Aleksandr Kogan built his app, he posted its terms of service – that's what users agree to when they download an app. His terms of service said this: "If you click 'OKAY' you permit [us] to...disseminate... transfer...or...sell...your….data" even though it was in direct conflict with Facebook's developer policy.

Lesley Stahl: It says plainly in the developer policy, clearly, that you are not allowed to transfer or sell data. It says that. Come on. This was as clear as can be.

Aleksandr Kogan: Understand that now.

Lesley Stahl: You didn't understand that then?

Aleksandr Kogan: I'm not even sure if I read the developer policy back then.

He says that nobody read these privacy sign-offs: not him, not the users who signed on, not Facebook.

Aleksandr Kogan: This is the frustrating bit, where Facebook clearly has never cared. I mean, it never enforced this agreement. And they tell you that they can monitor it. And they can audit. And they'll let you know if you do anything wrong. I had a terms of service that was up there for a year and a half that said I could transfer and sell the data. Never heard a word. The belief in Silicon Valley and certainly our belief at that point was that the general public must be aware that their data is being sold and shared and used to advertise to them. And nobody cares.

How Facebook Responded
Facebook did shut down his app but only after it was exposed in the press in 2015. The company didn't start notifying the tens of millions of users whose data had been scraped until years later. And they didn't take any action against this man: Joseph Chancellor, who was Kogan's co-worker.

Lesley Stahl: And where is he today?

Aleksandr Kogan: He works at Facebook.

Lesley Stahl: Wait a minute. Is-- did he have anything to do with the study you did for Cambridge Analytica?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yeah. I mean, we did everything together.

Lesley Stahl: So they've come after you but not someone who did exactly what you did with you.

Aleksandr Kogan: Yes.

Lesley Stahl: And he actually works at Facebook?

Aleksandr Kogan: Correct.

Lesley Stahl: Are you on Facebook?

Aleksandr Kogan: No. They deleted my account.

Lesley Stahl: You can't be on Facebook. You're banned.

Aleksandr Kogan: I'm banned.

Lesley Stahl: And the partner works for them.

Aleksandr Kogan: Correct.

Lesley Stahl: What's wrong with this picture? I'm missing something?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yeah, I mean, this is my frustration with all this, where I had a pretty good relationship with Facebook for years.

Lesley Stahl: Really, so they knew who you were?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yeah. I visited their campus many times. They had hired my students. I even did a consulting project with Facebook in November of 2015. And what I was teaching them was lessons I learned from working with this data set that we had collected for Cambridge Analytica. So I was explaining, like, "Here's kinda what we did. And here's what we learned. And here's how you can apply it internally to help you with surveys and survey predictions and things like that."

kogan-on-laptop.jpg
Facebook confirmed that Kogan had done research and consulting with the company in 2013 and 2015. But in a statement told 60 Minutes: "At no point during these two years was Facebook aware of Kogan's activities with Cambridge Analytica."

Kogan has testified before the U.S. Senate and British Parliament. He says he's financially ruined and discredited. Through his ordeal, he says he's come to see the error in the assumptions made by the tech world about Americans' attitudes toward privacy.

Lesley Stahl: Now we all know what you did. Was it right?

Aleksandr Kogan: Back then we thought it was fine. Right now my opinion has really been changed. And it's been changed in particular because I think that core idea that we had – that everybody knows and nobody cares – was fundamentally flawed. And so if that idea is wrong, then what we did was not right and was not wise. And for that, I'm sincerely sorry.

It turns out Kogan has something in common with Mark Zuckerberg: they're both suddenly contrite.

Mark Zuckerberg at hearing: We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility and that was a big mistake. And it was my mistake and I'm sorry.

Lesley Stahl: Mark Zuckerberg says that he cares about privacy now?

Sandy Parakilas: I think the real problem is-- is not what he feels in his heart. I think the real problem is that you've got a company that has repeatedly had privacy scandals. It has repeatedly shown that it doesn't prioritize privacy over the years. And you know, when you th-- when you think about that, it's like-- you know, put yourself in the position of, you know, if your partner was cheating on you and they cheated on you 15 times and apologized 15 times-- at some point, you have to say, "Enough is enough. Like, we need to make some kind of a change here."

After the initial broadcast of this story, Cambridge Analytica announced it was dissolving as a company. And Facebook no longer employs Joseph Chancellor.

Produced by Shachar Bar-On. Associate producer, Natalie Jimenez Peel.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Lesley Stahl
One of America's most recognized and experienced broadcast journalists, Lesley Stahl has been a 60 Minutes correspondent since 1991.


FOR SOMETHING JOYOUS TO CONTEMPLATE NOW, WATCH THIS NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC UNDERWATER DOCUMENTARY. LIFE IN THE BLACK DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN. IT’S ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL. THIS ILLUSTRATES, I BELIEVE, HOW EVOLUTION WORKS – SO MANY SHAPES AND VARIETIES ARE GENERATED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE BOUND TO SURVIVE, AND IF THEY ARE IN A USEFUL ENVIRONMENT THEY WILL PROLIFERATE EXACTLY AS THEY ARE UNTIL THEY ENCOUNTER A CHALLENGING CHANGE. AT THAT POINT, SOME OTHER CREATURE WILL START TO DOMINATE IF THEY CAN’T ADAPT. SOMETIMES WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT THE ESSENTIAL DEITY IS, I THINK OF “THE LIFE FORCE.” ALONGSIDE THAT I WOULD PUT “LOVE.” THAT WOULD MAKE A GOOD HOLY FAMILY, I THINK.

I WISH I HAD 8 OR 10 MILLION DOLLARS AND 100 MORE YEARS ON EARTH, WHILE STILL IN GOOD HEALTH. I BELIEVE IN WISHING BIG. TWO THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO DO ARE TO GO IN ONE OF THESE SUBMERSIBLES AND GO TORNADO CHASING. DISCOVERING DINOSAUR BONES IN MY BACK YARD WOULD BE GOOD, TOO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OvvpsfU3NQ&feature=share


HERE, KITTY, KITTY, KITTY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAR3erZ3DrA
The Wonderful World of Cats - HD Nature Wildlife Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4k8VFF9QXw
Swimming Lions (Full Documentary, Sky Vision)
SCIENTIFIC STUDY – VERY GOOD VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV2CsJ2KyLo
Lions Documentary-African Lions - Specialized Lions - Special National Geographic


“WHAT COLIN DID WAS FIND OUT A WAY TO BRING UP THE CONVERSATION AND FORCE A CONVERSATION… IT'S UP TO US TO STAY FOCUSED…TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ISSUES AND TOPICS STAY AT THE FOREFRONT....”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-players-malcolm-jenkins-chris-long-tackling-social-injustice-off-the-field/
CBS NEWS September 29, 2018, 10:25 AM
How NFL players are tackling social injustice off the field

THREE VIDEOS – NEWS REPORT AND TWO INTERVIEWS

Two years ago, Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem to spotlight social injustice and as the silent protest spread, so did an uproar. But one group of NFL players has been quietly working to enact change off the field.

"CBS This Morning: Saturday" co-host Dana Jacobson sat down with Super Bowl champions Chris Long and Malcolm Jenkins, who believe the controversy has drowned out some of the real work that is being done.

"What Colin did was find out a way to bring up the conversation and force a conversation… It's up to us to stay focused…to make sure that the issues and topics stay at the forefront…that is what this all started from and that's what we'll continue to fight about," Jenkins said.

On the first Sunday of the NFL season, Jenkins called a "listen and learn" session in Philadelphia, a meeting with business, community, and government leaders to discuss bail reform and jobs. He asked everyone at the table for help.

"We're learning the ins and outs of our justice system…and changing minds as we go," Jenkins said. "It's really not that tough of a change. When you look at politics, it really comes down to priority. And we've talked to lawmakers all over the place that would agree that a lot of these reforms need to change, would agree that things are unfair, are a little unjust. But if voters aren't clamoring about it, then it's not high enough on the priority to change things."

Two years ago NFL players formed an alliance to take the sideline protests to state capitals across the country. This past off-season, the group, now officially known as the Players Coalition, successfully lobbied for criminal justice reform bills in three states.

In April, Massachusetts raised the juvenile detention age from seven to 12. In May, the Louisiana state senate passed a law restoring voting rights to people convicted of a felony who've been on probation or parole for five years. In June, players successfully lobbied Pennsylvania lawmakers in Harrisburg to pass the Clean Slate Act, which seals the records of people with misdemeanors after 10 years, along with those arrested but not convicted of a crime.

Chris Long is one of Jenkins' teammates working alongside him for change, including donating the salary from his final 10 games last season to charity.

"The three pieces of legislation…this is real substantive stuff in three different markets all around the U.S.," Long said.

"Once we were able to lend our platform, our voices and be able to sit down with legislators, it made a big difference. And so that's why we laugh when people say, 'stick to the sports,' because we see firsthand how much impact we can have," Jenkins said.

But not everyone has been listening. Jenkins was compelled to hold posters in front of his locker this summer, highlighting issues like the disproportionate number of African Americans shot by police, or the half million people in jail because they can't afford to make bail.

"It just sends the message that we have to stay on topic because we're purposely choosing to overlook what it is that players have been even fighting for. Because we've been very articulate and very patient and consistent with police brutality, systemic racism, education, housing. And yet, we'll continuously hear this dialogue 'players don't know what they're doing' or 'they're not organized,' or, 'they're anti-military,'" Jenkins said.

"And those statistics and those things that are on those poster cards…people don't want to hear about it. That literally left people no choice but to air that," Long said.

The NFL is lending its backing to the Players Coalition with a social justice partnership. Earlier this month Commissioner Roger Goodell attended a listen and learn session in New Orleans and the league has pledged $89 million in support.

"We also want their platform and we want their voice. And the same way that they highlight issues like breast cancer for an entire month or 'Salute to Service' or all of these other initiatives that we've seen them promote and put their weight behind," Jenkins said of the NFL.

Asked if what he's doing is good for the game of football, Jenkins replied, "Not my concern."

"I mean, we talk we talk about it…Football provides a livelihood for not only us but the other 2,000 players that are in the league and those to come and those who came before us. So we never want to do anything that's going to damage the game…but at the end of the day lives of everyday Americans are more important than my ability to make a living," Jenkins said.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


SOME OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE HAVE BEEN ON MY MIND SINCE THE REPUBLICANS SIMPLY REFUSED TO ACCEPT FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CANDIDATE FOR CONSIDERATION AT ALL. THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD A BLACK PRESIDENT WAS SO OBVIOUS IN THAT ISSUE AND IN THE RACIST TREATMENT OF HIM AND HIS WIFE ON THE INTERNET. IT WAS OPEN, RAW, CRUDE, CRUEL, AND TOTALLY DISGUSTING.

NOW THEY WANT TO PUSH THROUGH A FAR-RIGHT CANDIDATE WHOSE VIEWS SHOW HIM IN SOME OF HIS DECISIONS TO BE AGAINST WOMEN AND FOR A PRESIDENTIAL ROLE THAT IS TOO AUTHORITARIAN AND EMPOWERED FOR THIS AMERICAN’S PEACE OF MIND; ALSO, FROM WHAT I HAVE NOTICED SINCE THIS BECAME THE TOP STORY IN THE NEWS, IT IS THE DOMINANT VIEW AMONG LIBERALS AND INDEPENDENTS THAT HE IS A POOR CHOICE FOR THAT REASON ASIDE FROM HIS PERSONAL HABITS AND PERSONALITY.

IT’S INTERESTING THAT THE BBC HAS RESPECTFULLY BUT CLEARLY FOCUSED ON WHAT COULD BE DONE TO PREVENT THIS DEGREE OF POLITICAL TRIBALISM, THE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS, PERSONALITY IRREGULARITIES, PAST LIFE ISSUES AND MORE. MENTION IS MADE HERE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE FEW IF ANY SPECIFIC MANDATORY CHARACTERISTICS IN A VIABLE CANDIDATE. WE NEED TO PONDER THIS ARTICLE AS TO ITS’ WELL-INTENDED TRUTH AND WISDOM. THE MORE BBC ARTICLES I SEE, THE MORE I LIKE THAT OUTLET.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45632035
Why US top court is so much more political than UK's
28 September 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Protesters gather outside the US Supreme Court following an immigration ruling in June

The composition of the US Supreme Court is about to change and the nomination of its potential new member, by some accounts unlike any other, has revived discussions about how political the selection is.

The debate is unlike any the UK has when justices at the Supreme Court are replaced, as a different appointment system means their political views are rarely publicly known and, according to experts, do not have any influence in the process.

US: A president's choice

In the US, the nine-member Supreme Court is the third branch of the federal government and its decisions have a profound impact on American society. It is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between state and federal governments, and final appeals to stay executions.

Under Article 2 of the constitution, the president has the power to make a nomination. "There's no clear view as to why the president was granted this power," said Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Prof of Law at Yale University.

The Senate has the task to approve a candidate, in usually tense hearings, a method that enforces the concept of checks and balances between the powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Candidates do not have to meet any qualifications and serve lifetime terms - a contentious topic for many. That is why replacing a justice is one of the most consequential decisions of a president.

So, unsurprisingly, every nomination is a highly politicised affair.

Why is the US top court so important?

PHOTOGRAPH -- Observers say the recent nominees have been more ideological than in the past GETTY IMAGES

Divisions at the top court are not new, as presidents tend to nominate people with same ideological positions, but scholars say there was little evidence of partisan division until recently.

Dissent in the past was infrequent and, when it happened, did not tend to break along party lines, Prof Neal Devins and Prof Lawrence Baum wrote in How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court into a Partisan Court.

Take the Dred Scott v Sandford case*, in which the court declared in 1857 that slaves were not US citizens and could not sue in federal courts. The two diverging votes in one of the most important decisions of that time came from judges who had been appointed by both the Whig and Democratic parties.

The lack of partisan divide remained over the following decades but signs of divisions started to emerge. Byron White was the last conservative-leaning nomination by a Democrat - President John F Kennedy in 1962 - while David Souter was the last liberal-leaning justice appointed by a Republican president - George H W Bush in 1990.

Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's choice for Supreme Court
US Supreme Court: Who are the justices?

Things changed in 2010, with the retirement of John Paul Stevens, a liberal justice appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford in 1975.

Since then, all of the nominations by Democrats have been liberal while all those appointed by Republicans are conservative, the first time in the court's history that ideological positions coincide with party lines, Prof Devins and Prof Baum wrote.

"Today's partisan split, while unprecedented, is likely enduring."

The partial exception, they said, was Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee who sided with liberal justices on key issues like abortion, death penalty and gay rights, and has now retired.

If Brett Kavanaugh, who by all accounts is a reliable conservative, is confirmed as Mr Kennedy's replacement, he is expected to push the court to the right, restoring a conservative majority of 5-4. And being relatively young, 53 years old, he is likely to be there for many years.

That is one of the reasons why his nomination has an even bigger significance.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
The confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees are usually tense and closely followed

Analysts say Mr Kavanaugh's hearings, which included a row over documents related to his years in the George W Bush administration that were shielded from Senate Democrats and the public as well as allegations of sexual misconduct that he denied, has been the most contentious in recent history, and highlighted how partisan divisions can dominate the process.

Writing in the Stanford Law Review Online in 2012, Eric Hamilton said: "Politicisation of the Supreme Court causes the American public to lose faith in the Court".

UK: Away from politics

In the UK, the 12-member Supreme Court was created in 2009, replacing the Law Lords in Parliament, bringing the UK into line with many comparable modern states. It acts as a final court of appeal in cases of major public importance.

The justices are nominated by an independent commission, chaired by the president of the court, a senior judge from anywhere in the UK to be named by the president and members of the appointment commissions from England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
The UK Supreme Court was created in 2009 (File picture)

A number of senior judges must be consulted by the commission before any decision is taken. Candidates must have been a senior judge for at least two years or a qualified lawyer for at least 15.

When someone is chosen, the name is sent to the justice secretary, who can accept or reject it. If accepted, the nomination is then sent to the prime minister, who recommends it to the Queen, who makes the appointment.

These rules, experts say, mean that political positions of nominees are often unknown or irrelevant in the process.

Q&A: UK Supreme Court
Since the court's creation, three new judges have been appointed.

"It wasn't very controversial at all. There was no discussion of it in the press when the names were announced and when we looked at the people who were there it was all understandable," said Alison Young, Prof of Public Law at the University of Cambridge.

"We have a completely independent process... It's almost seen like an internal promotion system rather than a politicised process," she added, saying that citizens can officially complain over alleged political bias.

Another difference is that the UK has no codified, written constitution, so the court does not have the ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional, unlike in the US, where the court has also been involved in key political decisions.

In 1997, in a case involving then President Bill Clinton, the US Supreme Court ruled that sitting US presidents could be prosecuted.

In 1974, it ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings related to the Watergate scandal.

For life or not for life?
There is no limit to UK justices' terms but they must retire when they are 75 years old. Similar age restrictions are in place in other Western European countries too.

In Germany, for example, the top judges serve 12-year terms with no re-election allowed and must retire at the age of 68. In Switzerland, they serve six-year terms and can be re-elected an unlimited number of times - but they must resign at the age of 68. (Both countries have different selection processes.)

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
The partisan split at the Supreme Court is unprecedented, some experts say

Lifetime appointments in the US were originally designed to isolate them from political pressure. But given the current climate, critics argue that, in fact, the opposite is happening and some have defended the introduction of fixed terms.

"It doesn't make sense at all," said Prof Ackerman, from Yale, about lifetime terms.

And so, members nominated at a relatively young age - Justice Clarence Thomas, another controversial nomination, was 43 when he was appointed in 1991 - can serve for several decades.

Opponents to terms, meanwhile, say they could actually make the politicisation even worse, as presidents would be more inclined to make partisan nominations as justices would have temporary terms.


THIS IS SEVERAL EXCERPTS FROM THE SHOCKINGLY BLATANT RACIST AND WHITE SUPREMACIST DRED SCOTT DECISION. I’VE ALWAYS HEARD OF IT, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I’VE READ ANY OF IT. SEE IF YOU, AS A MODERN AMERICAN CITIZEN, CAN ESPOUSE THESE VIEWS AND UPHOLD THEM AS THE LAW. I HAVE ONLY INCLUDED THE MEATIEST PARTS BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS FOUR PAGES LONG. BECAUSE IT IS NOT TAKEN FROM A WORD DOCUMENT, THE LINES ARE SKEWED, BUT THE MEANING IS CLEAR. THE WHOLE SOUTHERN VIEW OF BLACK PEOPLE AS “PROPERTY” AND, IT IMPLIES IN ONE PLACE THAT THEY ARE NOT EVEN “PEOPLE.” “... INFERIOR CLASS OF BEINGS ....” WELL, THAT IS A CLEAR ENOUGH DISPLAY OF THE JUSTICE’S PERSONAL ATTITUDE TO HUMAN RIGHTS. BLACK PEOPLE WERE EVEN LESS VALUED AS LIFE FORMS, AS THEY, ALONG WITH THEIR WHOLE GROUP OF “INFERIOR BEINGS” HAD NO GUARANTEED RIGHTS.

THAT WAS 1857, AND THIS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, FIRST CLEARLY PLACES THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OWNERS OVER THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF SLAVES. THAT PLACE, WE SHOULD REMEMBER, IS WHERE WE COME FROM TODAY; AND THAT MANY OF THOSE ATTITUDES ARE BEING VOICED BY THE DISCONTENTED IN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTS OF THE POPULATION, WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH. THINGS ARE MUCH BETTER NOW, BUT STILL SO IMPERFECT THAT I AM HAPPY TO SEE BLACK LIVES MATTER MEMBERS WALKING INTO THE STREETS AND STOPPING TRAFFIC. IT IS AS VALID A CAUSE AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW OF THE 1960S WAS FOR MARTIN LUTHER KING.

IF YOU ARE INTERNALLY GROWLING AT THAT STATEMENT, JUST ASK YOURSELF, “WWJD”? IF WE’RE A CHRISTIAN NATION, THEN WE NEED TO THINK AND ACT LIKE IT. AND ABOVE ALL, I DON’T WANT TO SEE “ULTRACONSERVATIVE” PEOPLE APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT SO THAT THEY CAN APPROVE LAWS THAT USE SNEAKY TRICKS TO DEPRIVE BROWN, BLACK AND FEMALE PEOPLE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE, OWN PROPERTY, SUE FOR JUSTICE IN A COURT OF LAW, DEFEND THEMSELVES OR IN ANY OTHER WAY FIND THEMSELVES UNFAIRLY RESTRAINED. AGREE? OF COURSE, YOU DO!

https://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/dredscott_v_sandford.pdf

“Dred Scott v. Sandford
Supreme Court of the United States, 1857
19 Howard 393, 15 L.Ed. 691

In 1834, Dred Scott, a Negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army, was taken by
his master to Illinois, where slavery was forbidden. Later on, Scott was taken to Fort Snelling, in the territory of
Louisiana, north of 36o
30', an area in which slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. Having been
taken back to Missouri, the Negro brought suit in United States Circuit Court in Missouri to recover his freedom,
basing his action on the claim that residence in a free territory conferred freedom. On a writ of error, from an
adverse judgment, Dred Scott appealed to the Supreme Court.

The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose
ancestors were imported into this country, and sold
as slaves, become a member of the political
community formed and brought into existence by the
Constitution of the United States, and as such
become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and
immunities, guarantied(sic) by that instrument to the
citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing
in a court of the United States in the cases specified
in the Constitution.

We think . . . [the people of the Negro race] . . . are
not included, and were not intended to be included,
under the words “citizens” in the Constitution, and
can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges
which that instrument provides for and secures to
citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they
were at that time considered as a subordinate and
inferior class of beings, who has been subjugated by
the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not*,
yet remained subject to their authority, and had no
rights or privileges but such as those who held the
power and the Government might choose to grant
them.
It is not the province of the court to decide upon the
justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these
laws. The decision of that question belonged to the
political or law-making power; to those who formed
the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The
duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they
have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on
the subject, and to administer it as we find it,
according to its true intent and meaning when it was
adopted.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of
the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and
privileges to which the citizen of a State should be
entitled, embraced the Negro African race, at that time
in this country, or who might afterwards be imported,
who had then or should afterwards be made free in
any State and to put it in the power of a single State
to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue
him with the full rights of citizenship in every other
State without their consent? . . . .

The court thinks the affirmative of these propositions
cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff
in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri,
within the meaning of the Constitution of the United
States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in
its courts.

* * *

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and
histories of the times, and the language used in the
Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the
class of persons who had been imported as slaves,
nor their descendants, whether they had become free
or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the
people, nor intended to be included in the general
words used in that memorable instrument.
.
* * *

They had for more than a century before been
regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether
unfit to associate with the white race, either in social
or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had
no rights which the white man was bound to respect;
and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be
reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought
and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of
mechandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be
made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and
universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It
was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in
politics, which no one thought of disputing, or
supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every
grade and position in society daily and habitually
acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in
matters of public concern, without doubting for a
moment the correctness of this opinion.

* * *
The only two provisions [of the Constitution] which
point to them and include them [Art I, Sec 9, and Art
IV, Sec 2], treat them as property, and make it the
duty of the Government to protect it; no other power,
in relation to this race, is to be found in the
Constitution; and as it is a Government of special,
delegated, powers, no authority beyond these two
provisions can be constitutionally exercised. The
Government of the United States had no right to
interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting
the rights of the owner, leaving it altogether with the
several States to deal with this race, whether
emancipated or not, as each State may think justice,
humanity, and the interests and safety of society,
require. The States evidently intended to reserve this
power exclusively to themselves. . . . . and as long as it
continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not
only in the same words, but with the same meaning
and intent with which it spoke when it came from the
hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted
by the people of the United States. Any other rule of
construction would abrogate the judicial character of
this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular
opinion of the day.

* * *
What the construction was at that time, we think can
hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the
Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of
Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the
Constitution itself; we have the legislation of the
different States, before, about the time, and since, the
Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of
Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent
period; and we have the constant and uniform action
of the Executive Department, all concurring together,
and leading to the same result. And if anything in
relation to the construction of the Constitution can
be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to
the word “citizen” and the word “people.”

* * *

It has been said, that as this court has decided
against the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on the
plea in abatement, it has no right to examine any
question presented by the exception; and that
anything it may say upon that part of the case will be
extra-judicial, and mere obiter dicta. . . . In a writ of
error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the whole
record is before this court for examination and
decision; and if the sum in controversy is large
enough to give jurisdiction, it is not only the right,
but it is the judicial duty of the court, to examine the
whole case as presented by the record; and if it
appears upon its face that any material error or errors
have been committed by the court below, it is the
duty of this court to reverse the judgment, and
remand the case. And certainly an error in passing a
judgment, upon the merits in favor of either party, in a
case which it was not authorized to try, and over
which it had no jurisdiction, is as grave an error as a
court can commit.

The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies,
declares that slavery and involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever
prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by
France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north
of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and
not included within the limits of Missouri. And the . .
. inquiry is whether Congress was authorized to pass
this law under any of the powers granted to it by the
Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that
instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it
void and inoperative, and incapable of conferring
freedom upon any one who is held as a slave under
the laws of any one of the States.

The counsel for the plaintiff has laid much stress
upon that article in the Constitution which confers on
Congress the power “to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory
or other property belonging to the United States,”
but, in the judgment of the court, that provision has
no bearing on the present controversy, and the
power there given, whatever it may be, is confined,
and was intended to be confined, to the territory
which at that time belonged to, or was claimed by the
United States, and was within their boundaries as
settled by the treaty with Great Britain, and can have
no influence upon a territory afterwards acquired
from a foreign Government. It was a special provision
for a known and particular territory, and to meet a
present emergency, and nothing more.

* * *
.... The Territory
being a part of the United States, the Government and
the citizen both enter it under the authority of the
Constitution, with their respective rights defined and
marked out; and the Federal Government can exercise
no power over his person or property, beyond what
that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right
which it has reserved.

* * *
And if the Constitution recognizes the right of
property of the master in a slave, and makes no
distinction between that description of property and
other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting
under the authority of the United States, whether it
be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to
draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of
the provisions and guarantees which have been
provided for the protection of private property
against the encroachments of the Government.

* * *


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707720
Trump Supreme Court pick: Why is the US top court so important?
17 September 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- The nine justices before Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement GETTY IMAGES

The US is currently undergoing the process to appoint a replacement to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement earlier this year. So why is this a big deal?

Given the immense impact the US Supreme Court has on US political life, nominees always face tough questions from the Senate during any confirmation hearing.

President Donald Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is no exception.

So how might his pick change the nation's high court?

Who are the current justices? Meet the Supremes
What does the Supreme Court do?
The highest court in the US is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between states and the federal government, and final appeals to stay executions.

It hears fewer than 100 cases a year and the key announcements are made in June. Each of the nine justices serve a lifetime appointment after being nominated by the president and approved by the Senate.

Cases are usually brought to the court after they are appealed from a series of lower courts, although in time-sensitive cases, lawyers can petition for a hearing. The court's opinions can also create precedents, directing other judges to follow their interpretation in similar cases.

In recent years, the court has expanded gay marriage to all 50 states, allowed for President Donald Trump's travel ban to be put in place and delayed a US plan to cut carbon emissions while appeals went forward.

Occasionally, the Supreme Court will revisit an issue in a new case and change their own precedent, a move anti-abortion activists hope will come to pass with a new conservative justice.

What are key issues in front of the court?
The court makes many of its big decisions in June.

This year it ruled on contentious issues such as the Trump travel ban, trade union fees and gerrymandering.

Despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, Justice Kennedy sided with both the conservative and liberal justices on major cases.

He was a moderate on social issues, notably backing gay marriage.

If a more conservative judge replaces him, as is likely, anti-abortion advocates could push to get that issue under consideration by the top US court.

What's the current state of the court?
While a majority of Supreme Court cases do not break on ideological lines, there are conservative and liberal wings.

Key cases have been decided on 5-4 votes.

With Justice Kennedy's departure, the court is arguably divided four-four.

Confirming a conservative justice would ultimately return the court to a narrow conservative majority.

Does the court matter globally?
US research suggests that the influence of the Supreme Court abroad has diminished over the past two decades, as court systems elsewhere in the world develop and US influence in general wanes.

Fewer courts internationally cite US Supreme Court opinions, increasingly citing the European Court of Human Rights and other national supreme courts.

In 2016 a Supreme Court decision on emissions from coal-fired power plants on US soil threatened the Paris Climate Agreement, but enough other countries ratified the treaty for it to come into force.

Donald Trump's controversial travel ban, which affects Middle East countries designated as terror-prone, was cemented this week by the Supreme Court, with the outcome affecting millions internationally.

And back in 2000, the Supreme Court decided the outcome of the presidential election between George W Bush and Al Gore - a decision which more recent history shows still has a significant impact around the world.

The court could in theory be asked to rule on legal challenges to international trade agreements, such as the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, although TPP was revoked by Mr Trump using an executive order.


WELL, HUMANITY HAS TRIUMPHED TEMPORARILY AND CRASS GREED HAS HAD TO TAKE A BACK SEAT AND WAIT – FOR ONE WEEK OR SO. STILL, IT’S A MIRACLE, IN MY VIEW. THESE VIDEOS ARE FROM THE RACHEL MADDOW BLOG, MY FAVORITE SOURCE FOR IN DEPTH NEWS. THE NEWEST ARE ON TOP OF THE GROUP.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/kavanaugh-rant-raises-questions-about-his-political-impartiality-1332534851612?v=raila&
Kavanaugh rant raises questions about his political impartiality
09/28/18 09:52PM
Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, talks with Joy Reid about the history of impeachment efforts against Supreme Court justices accused of being [sic] impartial, and why questions may arise about Kavanaugh's political impartiality as well as his indebtedness to Donald Trump.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/kavanaugh-s-partisan-rage-at-hearing-calls-fitness-into-question-1332540995673?v=raila&
Kavanaugh's partisan rage at hearing calls fitness into question
09/28/18 09:45PM
Joy Reid highlights Brett Kavanaugh's emphasis on his partisan alignment and political allegiance and wonders whether his impartiality is too compromised for him to serve as a judge.


https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/meacham-this-week-was-a-stress-test-for-the-american-order-1332566595897?v=raila&
Meacham: This week was a stress test for the American order
The nation is still reeling after a fraught week that culminated in the dramatic testimony from Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. Jon Meacham joins to discuss.
Sep.29.2018


https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/jeff-flake-shakes-up-kavanaugh-nomination-with-bipartisan-stand-1332321347557
Jeff Flake shakes up Kavanaugh nomination with bipartisan stand
NBC’s Kasie Hunt, Fmr. DOJ Spokesman Matthew Miller, AP’s Jonathan Lemire, Axios’ Jonathan Swan, and MoveOn’s Karine Jean-Pierre on Jeff Flake’s last minute deal with democrats to delay a vote on Trump’s supreme court nominee and push for an FBI to conduct an additional background check
Sep.28.2018


https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/truth-will-eventually-come-out-on-kavanaugh-senator-1331810371796
Truth will eventually come out on Kavanaugh: senator
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, of the SJC joins Morning Joe to discuss Thursday's hearings, why he believes the nomination will move out of committee, his call for an FBI investigation and why he says the truth on Kavanaugh will eventually come out.
Sep.28.2018


IN THE MISTS OF TIME IN INDIA – TWO ARTICLES

https://www.bbc.com/marathi/india-45557644
Some 10,000 years ago, who conceived some mysterious figure in Konkan?
Mayuresh Kanwarur
BBC Marathi
September 19, 2018

Look at the video: 'What was going on ten thousand years ago in Konkan?'

Konkan is now a subject of archaeological importance. Konkan will help them to light up on many new aspects of the era of the era, along with the answers to many old questions. These are the reasons, 'Kathal Shilpaam'. The skulls discovered in coastal past few years will bring a new dimension to the journey of human culture.

In these Ratnagiri-Rajapur belt of Konkan, these sculptures have come up in the past few years as they come up out of the ground suddenly. Earlier, it is a code that no archaeologist has ever noticed. But some of the local deities were suppressed, and most of them were buried under the soil. Nobody was sure how many of them were. But in the last four to five years, the search was done in Hazara's house and the eye of the archaeologists has been heightened.

This Vulture in Kokanada means 'Wiki Donor' in Haryana
The monuments of the mysterious civilizations of thousands of years ago found in Sindhudurg

The 'Avagan' is offering Navjyoti to Konkan

But basically what are these skulls? There are pictures carved on the corners of the Konkan, on the rocky terrain. They are of many types. There are animals, birds, human figures, geometrical structures, there are only shapes. Immediately understand from these pictures that the unreleased humans have these pictures carved in the primary stage. This type of carved pictures are found in many regions of the world in the journey of human culture. Some scholars call them 'Khodshirpam', but they are called 'Petroglyphs' in English.

There are different types of skin sculptures found in the world. There are only Ashmagulya, when there was only a rocky weapon with a man. Painting was also at the primary stage. People did not even know the words of words and when the language of the pictures began to be ready. And after that, in many stages, it has become increasingly profitable, using natural colors, in the language of pictures, telling the story of that time. While looking at the pictures found in Ratnagiri, I understand that the person living in here recently had to figure out the nature of his future. His inspiration was to write down what he was looking for. But the first question is, what is the period of time, how many thousands of years ago have these pictures? In which era are they included?

Image copyright SHARAD BADHE / BBC
Image caption
kotalashimpan of Konkan

However, the archaeologists still do not have the exact answer, yet the archaeologists still do not have the exact answer. Because for those stones, these pictures will be found, they will be found and then carbon dating can understand their exact age. In some places these weapons have started to be found, but their advanced study has just started. But on the basis of the study of these sculptures, and on the basis of studies conducted on this day in the world, it is possible to think of the Konkan period.

"This is a pre-historic event," said Tejas Garage, director of Maharashtra's Archaeological department. "In Konkan we see the known history of the total human habitation, it is going on from Satavahana period, that is the third century before this and before that there was not enough evidence of the existence of human beings, they were only Stone Age or Ashmaygul, Ashim Yuga, usually in Maharashtra, 45 to 40 thousand Years ago. That is why this is a valley, which you can see in dark history What is the exact time of the 40 thousand years before the beginning of the year? There are some proofs of stone tools that say that even in the Upper Palaeolithic Period (North Purusham), human habitation was in Konkan, which means that even if you take the time forward What was happening in Konkan during 10 thousand years BC to 3000 BC,

Image copyright SHARAD BADHE / BBC
Image caption
Thousands of years ago, these skulls are still in good shape.

"If you compare these sculptures internationally, such types of art has been found in North America, South America, Australia and Europe, and in the language of archaeological languages, this type of writing is usually drawn from North Purashmayug to mid-age. If you think that such type of sketch Ratnag is Ratanag You know from Goa, and on a large scale in the hills on the border of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, and these predictions, which you consider to be the last part of North Puravyayuga, can be cast in such period, and in this time period, 25,000 years before the preceding year it is usually 3 thousand years It can be time-consuming, but if you study the situation in Konkan, then all Adharanata: This is a primary estimated that 10 thousand years ago to be. If at least it is possible to say 700 years old, that is, it is possible to go back 300 to 100 years ago, 10,000, at least 700 years, and in some places 40 thousand years. That is, it depends on how much evidence we get from each site, "the gangs say.

Image copyright SHARAD BADHE / BBC
Then the important question is that if the pictures of 'Dark Age' in Konkan are mentioned by archaeologists, then if the pictures were painted, then what was happening in Konkan?

Was this man living by the people? Was he living only by hunting? In the matter of religion, language and culture, where was this man's life reached? "This guy was living with certain gangs, it was not related to farming," says Garges. "Because you do not see any aspect of farming in the entire picture." Although the evidence of the predator does not appear in the pictures, the animated illustration of the hunting animals or all these animals is done in the proper manner, whereas the animals had definite relation with them, and also with the water harvesters, this means that the primary purpose of running livelihood Should be dependent on hunter, "he adds.

Image copyright SHARAD BADHE / BBC
In these skulls of Konkan, animals can be seen with many impersonal shapes or geometric designs. The size of some of these pictures is also huge. Some pictures are even more than 50 feet in length, and some are used to put fingers in their mouth in the geometric form. So, should this person be aware of geometry?

Some pictures seem to be a little too basic, though some are nice to be drawn by an artist. Some designs are complicated. Then, the art of cutting-edge art could have been developed in many generations of hundreds of years. What do you think of the style of these pictures?

Dr. Shrikant Pradhan conducts research in Pune's Deccan College and Indian painting is part of his studies. He has also studied these sculptures. They see the changing styles in these pictures. "This man is looking around, we have no idea that we are still not aware of an elephant, but he has not drawn an elephant, so that he has tried to remove it as well. , That is, those lines are just some of them Have called for the five figures in some places. They even have the simple lines and shapes. Him that he is aware of the form and how they try to copy elsewhere. And this guy feel good to look in his successful "

Surprisingly, some animals, such as the rhinoceros and hippo that appear in these skulls, are not found in the Konkan. Then where did this man see? Was it immigrating that during that time this creature was in Kokanabha? Many such questions will be left after the study.

This important era of the history of the world began in India
Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi: Father of India's scientist history
History will be rewritten to sing the sweetness of Nizam!

"These sculptures include primarily that of our animals, which we see around, birds and some fish in the water, including sharks and devasas, and there is also a rabbit amphibious, but it is difficult to determine precisely what its purpose is, even though it is difficult to understand the art of painting or excavation in Maharashtra. This sculpture as a prototype for the primary stage of the sculpted sculpture Nkade we will see, "says Tejas Garage.

His archaeological study has begun after the Government of Maharashtra's Archaeological Department has now turned his attention to these sculptures. In the current budget, the State Government has made a provision of 24 crores for the study and preservation of 400 cuttings. Efforts have been made to develop these spaces in the scenario of tourism.

But these artisans have to give credit to the local researchers to capture the world's attention. Sudhir Rishabud, Manoj Marathe and his colleagues chanted this Sunday from Konkan in the Konkan region. They did not even think that the work started by the curious would become so big. Some small skulls had become a part of the temple by becoming a legend and the rest were covered under red soil. Rahabud and Marathe kept working for the past five years by searching for them, recording them, protecting them and pursuing them through the Government. They are working with archaeological researchers.

"In the beginning, we were walking around for two and a half years, when we started traveling in one direction, then there was something like 'Somaiya', 'Something', we want to find out. '' There are hundreds of kilometers of curves, while finding this. Gradually, when we got the villages, got photographs of them, then through those photographs we started reaching the people. After that, we started to do programs in schools, we have some such structures, we started interacting with the children of the school, the teachers of the school tried to reach the people through the medium of their children, who tried to reach their lives through their memories, as a whole. The journey was going on , Or in Ratnagiri As was the subject began to reach out to people in Konkan.

So far, if you look at the journey of these pictures, the pictures have been found in 52 villages and 5 or 6 of the 52 villages see this legend. This means that in one way or another, the people in many villages did not know it, "said Sudhir Risbud.

Image copyright SHARAD BADHE / BBC
Trying to unify the meaning of the
image caption
sketch.

The rich coastal region of Konkan has always had something to enrich. From coconut and mangrove gardens to literary texts that enrich Marathi literature. Now these art forms will enrich the study of human culture so far.

"From the postmortem to a passive civilian life, we will see the phase of people who created the key stage, the people who created the image, and in the future, the history of Maharashtra will be written in Konkan and alternatively, there will definitely be an important place for the Skullsilves," says Garga.

"If you know once this film is in a single era, then I think that these pictures will be seen in Maharashtra for the first time that it will be a great honor of Maharashtra and it is likely that it may be old in the case so far," said Dr. Shrikant Pradhan.

Do you read this?
Mansa Musa! Meet the richest person in history
Sadashiva Bhau was alive after Panipat war?
The story of the Mughal queen, who was impressed by medieval India
Skip Youtube post by BBC News

Warning: Third party content may contain adverts
End of Youtube post by BBC News
( You can follow us on Facebook , Instagram , YouTube , and Twitter to get all the updates of BBC Marathi .)


THIS ARTICLE HAS A PHOTO WITH IT OF A ROCK CARVING, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WOULD IN THE RANGE OF INCHES. THE AERIAL PICTURE SHOWS THAT THEY, OR THAT THIS ONE EXAMPLE AT ANY RATE, ARE VERY LARGE INSTEAD. THAT SORT OF THING IS FOUND IN SOUTH AMERICA AT ONE LOCATION AT LEAST; THAT WAS CHILE I BELIEVE, AND THE CARVINGS ARE ON A FLAT PLAIN ON A LARGE HILL, A TYPE OF PLATEAU. THERE ARE TOO MANY SPOOKY STORIES OF SPACE ALIENS CONNECTED TO THAT SITE, BUT THE IMAGES ARE IMPRESSIVE.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45559300
Prehistoric art hints at lost Indian civilisation
1 October 2018

The discovery of rock carvings believed to be tens of thousands of years old in India's western state of Maharashtra has greatly excited archaeologists who believe they hold clues to a previously unknown civilisation, BBC Marathi's Mayuresh Konnur reports.

The rock carvings - known as petroglyphs - have been discovered in their thousands atop hillocks in the Konkan region of western Maharashtra.

Mostly discovered in the Ratnagiri and Rajapur areas, a majority of the images etched on the rocky, flat hilltops remained unnoticed for thousands of years.

Image copyrightBBC MARATHI
Most of them were hidden beneath layers of soil and mud. But a few were in the open - these were considered holy and worshipped by locals in some areas.

The sheer variety of the rock carvings have stunned experts - animals, birds, human figures and geometrical designs are all depicted.

The way the petroglyphs have been drawn, and their similarity to those found in other parts of the world, have led experts to believe that they were created in prehistoric times and are possibly among the oldest ever discovered.

Image copyrightBBC MARATHI
"Our first deduction from examining these petroglyphs is that they were created around 10,000BC," the director of the Maharashtra state archaeology department, Tejas Garge, told the BBC.

The credit for their discovery goes to a group of explorers led by Sudhir Risbood and Manoj Marathe, who began searching for the images in earnest after observing a few in the area. Many were found in village temples and played a part in local folklore.

"We walked thousands of kilometres. People started sending photographs to us and we even enlisted schools in our efforts to find them. We made students ask their grandparents and other village elders if they knew about any other engravings. This provided us with a lot of valuable information," Mr Risbood told the BBC.

Image copyrightBBC MARATHI

Together they found petroglyphs in and around 52 villages in the area. But only around five villages were aware that the images even existed.

Apart from actively searching for them, Mr Risbood and Mr Marathe have also played an important role in documenting the petroglyphs and lobbying authorities to get involved in studying and preserving them.

Media caption Stunning aerial shots of India's prehistoric art

Mr Garge says the images appear to have been created by a hunter-gatherer community which was not familiar with agriculture.

"We have not found any pictures of farming activities. But the images depict hunted animals and there's detailing of animal forms. So this man knew about animals and sea creatures. That indicates he was dependent on hunting for food."

Dr Shrikant Pradhan, a researcher and art historian at Pune's Deccan College who has studied the petroglyphs closely, said that the art was clearly inspired by things observed by people at the time.

Image copyrightBBC MARATHI
"Most of the petroglyphs show familiar animals. There are images of sharks and whales as well as amphibians like turtles," Mr Garge adds.

But this begs the question of why some of the petroglyphs depict animals like rhinoceroses and hippos which aren't found in India. Did the people who created them migrate to India from Africa? Or were these animals once found in India?

The history of India in one exhibition
Cooking the world's oldest known curry
Early civilisation thrived without river
The state government has set aside a fund of 240 million rupees ($3.2m; £2.5m) to further study 400 of the identified petroglyphs.

It is hoped that some of these questions will eventually be answered.

Image copyrightBBC MARATHI
Read the original report on BBC News Marathi

Related Topics


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45559300
ANALYSIS


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/kavanaugh-fight-shows-us-washington-sick-very-sick-n914931
Analysis: Kavanaugh fight shows Washington is sick. Very sick.
by Jonathan Allen / Sep.29.2018 / 8:10 AM EDT

The collision of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination with the #MeToo movement has paralyzed Washington.J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — The nation's capital is critically ill.

"D.C. is truly disgusting right now on both sides," a top Trump ally told NBC News shortly after Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., announced that he wanted a one-week delay before a final confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh Friday afternoon.

A former Democratic Senate chief of staff who didn't want to be named for fear of retribution used Kavanaugh's words to describe the atmosphere surrounding the nomination: "a national disgrace."

In the past, major events or cultural shifts often have unlocked Washington's frozen institutions — the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 2008 financial crisis and the gay-rights movement among them — and presidential nominations to the high court or Cabinet posts have routinely attracted votes from senators of both parties who believed either in the quality of the candidate or the president's prerogative to make his picks.

Not now.


Meacham: This week was a stress test for the American order
SEP.29.201804:40
The collision of Kavanaugh's nomination with the #MeToo movement — a demand for justice for victims of sexual assault — has paralyzed Washington and turned the once-solemn Supreme Court confirmation process into a theater of human suffering. It is the twisted result, one chief of staff to a Democratic senator said, of the two parties breaking their own system in a tit-for-tat brawl over nominations that led Democrats to end filibusters on lower-court judges and Cabinet nominees and Republicans to respond by doing the same for the high court.

Nightly News Full Broadcast (September 28th)

Yes, 2018 is shaping up to be another change election
"It's like watching a really bad movie where the kids learn all the wrong lessons at the end," the aide said.

The Senate is just one piece of a political system afflicted by petty grievance, political blood thirst and the distrust of a nation. But this week, it was a perfect microcosm.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee transformed into a macabre version of "Judge Judy" — a "he said, she said" spectacle that Sen. Flake presciently said was likely to leave "as much doubt as certainty going out of the room."

Christine Blasey Ford testified that Kavanaugh held her down, covered her mouth and tried to rape her while he and a friend, Mark Judge, laughed. It was gut-wrenching, and she was credible, even according to many Republicans who want to see Kavanaugh confirmed.

Then an outraged and tearful Kavanaugh swore that he'd never sexually assaulted Ford or anyone else and accused Democrats of engaging in a conspiracy to destroy him personally as revenge for past wounds, including the 2016 election, his work on the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment and — unspoken but obvious — Senate Republicans' refusal to even consider confirming President Barack Obama's last Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

By the end, there was nothing left in the room but heartache.

Ford said she was "terrified" to testify, and her graphic description of her attack, an inspired act of bravery to many Americans, was nothing short of horrific.

Kavanaugh said he'd been "through hell and then some."

Only one person, Judge, may know which account was the truth, and he was not invited or compelled to testify.

There was little indication that the exercise, which lacked testimony from the key witness — Judge — changed the minds of anyone who watched it, including the handful of senators who joined Flake's call for an FBI probe.

"I've gotten calls from sensible people on both sides who are immovable on this issue, which is tragic for both [Ford] and the judge and their families," the Trump ally said. "It's sad for our country."

He added that he believes Trump's "momentum for the American people" on issues he campaigned on, including appointing judges, "has caused a deeper divide as the entrenched in the parties need to remain relevant."


Sen. Jeff Flake hopes to have process 'people can be proud of'
SEP.28.201801:30
Senate Republicans are furious at what they see as a campaign to deny Trump and Kavanaugh in order to push the confirmation process past the midterm elections and, if they win the Senate, keep the seat open until the next presidential election.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., became so angry that he lashed out at colleagues and then, in an appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox program Thursday night, he walked away from the GOP's careful effort to avoid taking shots at Ford.

"I am more convinced than ever that he didn’t do it, that he’s the right guy to be on the court, that Ms. Ford has a problem and destroying Judge Kavanaugh’s life won’t fix her problem," Graham said.

Graham, who noted that he'd supported two of Obama's Supreme Court picks before joining fellow Republicans in blocking Garland, used to be one of the last remaining preachers of comity in the Senate.

Senate Democrats, who were taking a chunk out of Kavanaugh and, with Flake's help, winning a reprieve from a final vote, were less fiery on Thursday and Friday. But their constituents remained enflamed over the possible confirmation of Kavanaugh.

On Friday, Trump appeared to take it all in stride, accepting a delay that appeared to be necessary for securing the votes of Flake and Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

"I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file," Trump said Friday afternoon in a tweet. "As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

In a statement released at the same time as Trump's, Kavanaugh was resigned to ongoing participation in a process that turned him and Ford into the tips of poisoned partisan spears.

"I’ve done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate," he said.

Debra Katz, a lawyer for Ford, said her client "welcomes this step in the process, and appreciates the efforts of Senators Flake, Murkowski, Manchin and Collins — and all other senators who have supported an FBI investigation — to ensure it is completed before the Senate votes on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination."

But in contrast to Trump, she said "no artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation."

In the short term, the outcome was a victory of sorts for Democrats, who wanted FBI intervention.

But there are no real winners right now in Washington's broken political system. The dysfunctional diagnosis is clear. The prognosis is cloudier.

"It’s so degraded, the American people have a right to be disgusted by it," the Democratic chief of staff said.


UPDATE ON CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA / FACEBOOK

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aleksandr-kogan-the-link-between-cambridge-analytica-and-facebook-60-minutes/
Aleksandr Kogan: The link between Cambridge Analytica and Facebook
The app developer at the heart of the Facebook privacy scandal says the social media giant didn't enforce its own rules
CORRESPONDENT
Lesley Stahl
Sep 02, 2018

VIDEO INTERVIEW – STAHL AND KOGAN

Later this week, Facebook, Twitter, and Google are due to testify again on Capitol Hill on the subject of foreign countries using their platforms to interfere with U.S. elections. It's been a tough few months for Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In July, the company's valuation dropped $124 billion - the largest single-day plunge in U.S. history. This, in the wake of a cascade of disturbing revelations.

As we first reported in April, we now know that during years of essentially policing itself, Facebook allowed Russian trolls to buy U.S. election ads, advertisers to discriminate by race, hate groups to spread fake news and, because Facebook shirked privacy concerns, a company called Cambridge Analytica was able to surreptitiously gain access to personal data mined from as many as 87 million Facebook users.

"If I had any inkling that what we were going to do was going to destroy my relationship with Facebook, I would've never done it."
The man who mined that data for Cambridge Analytica is a scientist named Aleksandr Kogan. He's at the center of the Facebook controversy because he developed an app that harvested data from tens of millions of unwitting Facebook users.

koganwalking.jpg
Aleksandr Kogan, the man who mined data from Facebook for Cambridge Analytica CBS NEWS

Lesley Stahl: The main infraction, the main charge is that you sold the data.

Aleksandr Kogan: So I mean, at the time I thought we were doing everything that was correct. You know, I was kinda acting, honestly, quite naively. I thought we were doing everything okay.

Lesley Stahl: Facebook says that you lied to them.

Aleksandr Kogan: That's frustrating to hear, to be honest. If I had any inkling that what we were going to do was going to destroy my relationship with Facebook, I would've never done it. If I had any inkling that I was going to cause people to be upset, I would've never done it. This was the blindness we had back then.

For someone implicated in the biggest privacy scandal on Earth, Kogan seems incongruously guileless.

Lesley Stahl: Before all this happened, what was your job? And what was your field of study?

Aleksandr Kogan: So I was a social psychologist. I was working as a university lecturer at the University of Cambridge—

Lesley Stahl: In England?

Aleksandr Kogan: In England. And I ran this lab that studied happiness and kindness.

Lesley Stahl: Happiness and kindness (laugh)

Aleksandr Kogan: Yup.

That's a far cry from the adjectives lobbed at him now: sinister and unethical.

Here's what he did: he asked Facebook users to take a survey he designed from which he built psychological profiles meant to predict their behavior.

He failed to disclose that what he was really after was access to their friends, tens of millions of people he could not otherwise reach easily. And that he was doing the survey for Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, that used the material to influence people on how to vote.

The company's then-CEO bragged about their prediction models on stage.

Alexander Nix: By having hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans undertake this survey we were able to form a model to predict the personality of every single adult in the United States of America.

Lesley Stahl: Did you get to the point where you were predicting personalities?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yup

Lesley Stahl: And you gave that to Cambridge Analytica?

Aleksandr Kogan: Correct.

Lesley Stahl: What did you think they were going to use it for?

Aleksandr Kogan: I knew it was going to be for elections… And I had an understanding or a feeling that it was going to be for the Republican side.

As political consultants, Cambridge Analytica was hired by campaigns to analyze voters and target them with ads.

In the 2016 presidential election, Cambridge Analytica worked first for the Ted Cruz campaign, then later for Donald Trump, though his campaign says they didn't use the Kogan data.

The Republican benefactors Robert and Rebekah Mercer were Cambridge Analytica's financial backers; Steve Bannon was on the board.

Lesley Stahl: So did you ever meet or hear about Steve Bannon at Cambridge Analytica, the Mercers?

Aleksandr Kogan: Nope.

Lesley Stahl: Jared Kushner? Nothing?

Aleksandr Kogan: And those names would not ever have rung a bell for me, to be honest.

Friend Permissions
Lesley Stahl: Tell us what you did.

Aleksandr Kogan: So I create this app where people sign up to do a study. And when they sign up to do the study, we would give them a survey. And in the survey we would have just this Facebook log-in button. And they would click the button, authorize us. We get their data-

Lesley Stahl: Authorize us to do what?

Aleksandr Kogan: To collect certain data. We would collect things like their location, their gender, their birthday, their page "likes" and similar information for their friends. And all of this-

Lesley Stahl: But you, did you say you collected information on their friends?

Aleksandr Kogan: We did.

Lesley Stahl: But they didn't opt-in.

Aleksandr Kogan: So they didn't opt-in explicitly.

Lesley Stahl: No, no, no. They didn't opt-in period. The friends did not opt-in.

Aleksandr Kogan: And it seems crazy now. But this was a core feature of the Facebook platform for years. This was not a special permission you had to get. This was just something that was available to anybody who wanted it who was a developer.

Lesley Stahl: How many apps do you think there are, how many developers, who did what you did?

Aleksandr Kogan: Tens of thousands.

Lesley Stahl: Tens of thousands?

Aleksandr Kogan: Tens of thousands.

Lesley Stahl: And Facebook, obviously, was aware.

Aleksandr Kogan: Of course. It was a feature, not a bug.

The feature was called "friend permissions," which Sandy Parakilas, who used to work at Facebook, explains.

Sandy Parakilas: The way it works is if you're using an app and I'm your friend, the app can say, "Hey, Lesley, we want to get your data for use in this app, and we also want to get your friends' data." If you say, "I will allow that," then the app gets my data, too.

Lesley Stahl: What you're saying is I give permission for the friend? The friend doesn't give permission?

Sandy Parakilas: Right. It doesn't feel right when you say it out loud?

Lesley Stahl: No, it doesn't feel right.

Sandy Parakilas: Right.

What Happened After Data Left Facebook

Facebook should've been aware of how this could be abused because they were repeatedly warned, including by Parakilas, who used to be a manager in charge of protecting data at the company. He says he raised concerns years before Kogan built his app.

Sandy Parakilas: I think they didn't want to know. You know, the impression that I got working there is that—

Lesley Stahl: They didn't want the public to know.

Sandy Parakilas: Well they didn't want to know in the sense that if they didn't know, then they could say they didn't know and they weren't liable, whereas if they knew they would actually have to do something about it. And one of the things that I was concerned about was that applications or developers of applications would receive all of this Facebook data, and that once they received it, there was no insight, Facebook had no control or view over what they were doing with the data.

sandy-parakilas-walk.jpg
Sandy Parakilas, once a manager in charge of protecting data at Facebook, walks with correspondent Lesley Stahl CBS NEWS
Lesley Stahl: Once the data left Facebook, did Facebook have any real way to find out what happened to it?

Sandy Parakilas: No.

Lesley Stahl: Or was it just gone?

Sandy Parakilas: It was gone.

Lesley Stahl: Wow.

Sandy Parakilas: They could put it on a hard drive and they could hide it in a closet.

Lesley Stahl: Would you say then policing this was pretty impossible?

Sandy Parakilas: It was very frustrating.

Lesley Stahl: Did you bring this to the attention of the higher-ups, the executives?

Sandy Parakilas: Yeah, a number of folks, including several executives.

Lesley Stahl: So were the executives' hair on fire? Did they say, "Oh my God, we have to fix this. We have to do something?"

Sandy Parakilas: I didn't really see any traction in terms of making changes to protect people. They didn't prioritize it, I think, is how I would phrase it.

Lesley Stahl: So would you say that they didn't prioritize privacy?

Sandy Parakilas: Yes. I would say that they prioritize the growth of users, the growth of the data they can collect and their ability to monetize that through advertising. That's what they prioritized because those were the metrics and are the metrics that the stock market cares about.

"I think the real problem is that you've got a company that has repeatedly had privacy scandals. It has repeatedly shown that it doesn't prioritize privacy over the years."

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg turned down our request for an interview. Eventually the company did change its policy - so app developers can no longer gather data from users' friends without their consent.

Facebook's years of failing to protect users' privacy by allowing covert harvesting of so much personal data became the center of the congressional hearings this past April. In his defense, CEO Mark Zuckerberg pointed the finger at one particular app developer.

Mark Zuckerberg: If a developer who people gave their information to, in this case, Aleksandr Kogan, then goes and in violation of his agreement with us, sells the data to Cambridge Analytica, that's a big issue. People have a right to be very upset. I am upset that that happened.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Testifies At Joint Senate Commerce/Judiciary Hearing

Facebook co-founder, chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing GETTY IMAGES

Lesley Stahl: You're a villain in many eyes, the guy who stole data from Facebook and then sold it.

Aleksandr Kogan: The idea that we stole the data, I think, is technically incorrect. I mean, they created these great tools for developers to collect the data. And they made it very easy. I mean, this was not a hack. This was, "Here's the door. It's open. We're giving away the groceries. Please collect them."

Lesley Stahl: Your point, though, I think is that they're singling you out.

Aleksandr Kogan: I think there's utility to trying to tell the narrative that this is a special case that I was a rogue app, and this was really unusual. Because if the truth is told, and this is pretty usual and normal, it's a much bigger problem.

And he says he wasn't hiding anything from Facebook. When Aleksandr Kogan built his app, he posted its terms of service – that's what users agree to when they download an app. His terms of service said this: "If you click 'OKAY' you permit [us] to...disseminate... transfer...or...sell...your….data" even though it was in direct conflict with Facebook's developer policy.

Lesley Stahl: It says plainly in the developer policy, clearly, that you are not allowed to transfer or sell data. It says that. Come on. This was as clear as can be.

Aleksandr Kogan: Understand that now.

Lesley Stahl: You didn't understand that then?

Aleksandr Kogan: I'm not even sure if I read the developer policy back then.

He says that nobody read these privacy sign-offs: not him, not the users who signed on, not Facebook.

Aleksandr Kogan: This is the frustrating bit, where Facebook clearly has never cared. I mean, it never enforced this agreement. And they tell you that they can monitor it. And they can audit. And they'll let you know if you do anything wrong. I had a terms of service that was up there for a year and a half that said I could transfer and sell the data. Never heard a word. The belief in Silicon Valley and certainly our belief at that point was that the general public must be aware that their data is being sold and shared and used to advertise to them. And nobody cares.

How Facebook Responded

Facebook did shut down his app but only after it was exposed in the press in 2015. The company didn't start notifying the tens of millions of users whose data had been scraped until years later. And they didn't take any action against this man: Joseph Chancellor, who was Kogan's co-worker.

Lesley Stahl: And where is he today?

Aleksandr Kogan: He works at Facebook.

Lesley Stahl: Wait a minute. Is-- did he have anything to do with the study you did for Cambridge Analytica?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yeah. I mean, we did everything together.

Lesley Stahl: So they've come after you but not someone who did exactly what you did with you.

Aleksandr Kogan: Yes.

Lesley Stahl: And he actually works at Facebook?

Aleksandr Kogan: Correct.

Lesley Stahl: Are you on Facebook?

Aleksandr Kogan: No. They deleted my account.

Lesley Stahl: You can't be on Facebook. You're banned.

Aleksandr Kogan: I'm banned.

Lesley Stahl: And the partner works for them.

Aleksandr Kogan: Correct.

Lesley Stahl: What's wrong with this picture? I'm missing something?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yeah, I mean, this is my frustration with all this, where I had a pretty good relationship with Facebook for years.

Lesley Stahl: Really, so they knew who you were?

Aleksandr Kogan: Yeah. I visited their campus many times. They had hired my students. I even did a consulting project with Facebook in November of 2015. And what I was teaching them was lessons I learned from working with this data set that we had collected for Cambridge Analytica. So I was explaining, like, "Here's kinda what we did. And here's what we learned. And here's how you can apply it internally to help you with surveys and survey predictions and things like that."

kogan-on-laptop.jpg
Facebook confirmed that Kogan had done research and consulting with the company in 2013 and 2015. But in a statement told 60 Minutes: "At no point during these two years was Facebook aware of Kogan's activities with Cambridge Analytica."

Kogan has testified before the U.S. Senate and British Parliament. He says he's financially ruined and discredited. Through his ordeal, he says he's come to see the error in the assumptions made by the tech world about Americans' attitudes toward privacy.

Lesley Stahl: Now we all know what you did. Was it right?

Aleksandr Kogan: Back then we thought it was fine. Right now my opinion has really been changed. And it's been changed in particular because I think that core idea that we had – that everybody knows and nobody cares – was fundamentally flawed. And so if that idea is wrong, then what we did was not right and was not wise. And for that, I'm sincerely sorry.

It turns out Kogan has something in common with Mark Zuckerberg: they're both suddenly contrite.

Mark Zuckerberg at hearing: We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility and that was a big mistake. And it was my mistake and I'm sorry.

Lesley Stahl: Mark Zuckerberg says that he cares about privacy now?

Sandy Parakilas: I think the real problem is-- is not what he feels in his heart. I think the real problem is that you've got a company that has repeatedly had privacy scandals. It has repeatedly shown that it doesn't prioritize privacy over the years. And you know, when you th-- when you think about that, it's like-- you know, put yourself in the position of, you know, if your partner was cheating on you and they cheated on you 15 times and apologized 15 times-- at some point, you have to say, "Enough is enough. Like, we need to make some kind of a change here."

After the initial broadcast of this story, Cambridge Analytica announced it was dissolving as a company. And Facebook no longer employs Joseph Chancellor.

Produced by Shachar Bar-On. Associate producer, Natalie Jimenez Peel.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Lesley Stahl
One of America's most recognized and experienced broadcast journalists, Lesley Stahl has been a 60 Minutes correspondent since 1991.


FOR SOMETHING JOYOUS TO CONTEMPLATE NOW, WATCH THIS NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC UNDERWATER DOCUMENTARY. LIFE IN THE BLACK DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN. IT’S ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL. THIS ILLUSTRATES, I BELIEVE, HOW EVOLUTION WORKS – SO MANY SHAPES AND VARIETIES ARE GENERATED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE BOUND TO SURVIVE, AND IF THEY ARE IN A USEFUL ENVIRONMENT THEY WILL PROLIFERATE EXACTLY AS THEY ARE UNTIL THEY ENCOUNTER A CHALLENGING CHANGE, AT WHICH POINT SOME OTHER INDIVIDUALS WILL DOMINATE, IF THEY CAN’T ADAPT.

SOMETIMES WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT THE ESSENTIAL DEITY IS, I THINK OF “THE LIFE FORCE.” ALONGSIDE THAT I WOULD PUT “LOVE.” THAT WOULD MAKE A GOOD COMBINATION OF FORCES, I THINK.

I WISH I HAD 8 OR 10 MILLION DOLLARS AND 100 MORE YEARS ON EARTH, WHILE STILL IN GOOD HEALTH. I BELIEVE IN WISHING BIG. TWO THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO DO ARE TO GO IN ONE OF THESE SUBMERSIBLES AND GO TORNADO CHASING. DISCOVERING DINOSAUR BONES IN MY BACK YARD WOULD BE GOOD, TOO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OvvpsfU3NQ&feature=share