text:
Q: linux command grep -is "abc" filename|wc -l what does the s mean there and also when pipe into wc what is that for? I know it eventually count the number of abc appeared in file filename, but not sure about the option s for and also pipe to wc mean
linux command grep -is "abc" filename|wc -l

output
    47

A: -s means "suppress error messages about unreadable files" and the pipe to wc means "take the output and send it to the wc -l command" which effectively counts the number of lines matched. You can accomplish the same with the -c option to grep: grep -isc "abc" filename

A: Consider,
command_1 | command_2
Role of the pipe is that- it takes output of command written before it (command_1 here) and supplies that output to the command written after it (command_2 here).

A: The man page has everything you would want to know about the options for grep:
   -s, --no-messages
          Suppress  error  messages about nonexistent or unreadable files.
          Portability note: unlike GNU grep, traditional grep did not con-
          form to POSIX.2, because traditional grep lacked a -q option and
          its -s option behaved like GNU grep's -q option.  Shell  scripts
          intended to be portable to traditional grep should avoid both -q
          and -s and should redirect output to /dev/null instead.

The pipe to wc -l is what gives you the count of how many lines the string "abc" appeared on.  It isn't necessarily the number of times the string appeared in the file since one line with multiple occurrences is going to be counted as only 1.

A: grep man page says:
-s, --no-messages         suppress error messages

grep returns the lines that have abc (case insensitive) in them. You pipe them to wc to get a count of the number of lines.

A: From man grep:

   -s, --no-messages
          Suppress  error  messages about nonexistent or unreadable files.

The wc command counts line, words and characters. With -l it returns the number of lines.


text:
Kim Jong Un's transformation into his father is nearly complete
KCNA via Reuters
Like father, like son.
By Johnny Simon
Deputy Photo Editor
March 29, 2017 This article is more than 2 years old.
Kim Jong Un has been touring renovations to the Korean Revolution Museum in Pyongyang, according to an undated image released March 28 by North Korean news agency KCNA. In the photo, the North Korean ruler speaks to his entourage and museum officials. Behind the 33-year-old beams a life-sized model of his deceased father, Kim Jong Il, standing on a sunny patch of grass and looking like a proud father. The resemblance is uncanny.
The Korean Revolution Museum recounts the country's history and the succession of predecessors Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. And as the inexperienced Kim Jong Un increasingly provokes the outside world with long-range missile tests and threatening statements, this photo suggests a symbolic attempt to shore up the country's shaky-looking future with connections to its past.
AP Photo/Peter Arnett
Kim Il Sung, pictured in 1979, in a similarly iconic Mao suit.
Since taking power in 2012, the young Kim has been frequently observed shrouding himself in symbols and icons associated with his father and grandfather. Despite being raised from a young age in Switzerland before returning to North Korea, his dress closely follows the styles of his forebears, including the poofy, swept-back haircut made famous by Kim Jung Il and which is reportedly encouraged among citizens by the government.
Kim Jong Un's reign has been tested by internal and external challenges in the past few months. His missile tests have disturbed and angered China, their most powerful neighbor and biggest trade partner. Recently, there have been reports of growing dissent within the totalitarian state's elite leadership, including defections. The recent headline-grabbing assassination of Kim's half brother Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia has only exacerbated tensions between the two countries, leading to expulsions and cancelled visa agreements.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Attention UK readers, Baked & Delicious magazine is running an Easter bake-off on their Facebook page – The Best of The Bakes competition with wonderful prize: Cupcake Decorating and Chocolate Martinis Masterclass for Two located in London worth £110.
If you live in UK, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia you can also subscribe to Baked & Delicious magazine that each time includes some pretty silicone bakeware.
Pictured Spring issue came with seriously cute moulds that will help turn any dish into Easter one!
26 pages of Easter international classic recipes and tips including Polish Mazurek, Russian Kulich, Greek Easter bread and savoury Italian Torta alla Pasqualina among others.
I will be using the moulds shortly and of course will share the result so stay tuned.
With thanks to Eaglemoss and Julia from Neoco for complementary magazine.
Love the look of the magazine and the silicone moulds are so cute.


Out of all your life's events the most important is your wedding. Whether at church, in its gardens, or even at home, we approach your wedding with the most creative and artistic cooking skills, not only to meet, but to exceed your and your guests expectations.
The ideal partner on such a special day in your life is the one than can make or break your events success.


text:
Gunvor Joins Global Carbon Capture & Storage Institute
Gunvor Group, one of the world's leading physical energy commodities traders, has joined the Global Carbon Capture & Storage (CSS) Institute, an international think tank whose mission is to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture and storage, a vital technology to tackle climate change and deliver climate neutrality. Global CCS Institute's diverse international membership includes governments, global corporations, private companies, research bodies and non-governmental organizations; all of whom are committed to CCS as an integral part of a net-zero emissions future.
"Given that hydrocarbons will remain a part of the global energy mix for the immediate and foreseeable future, carbon capture and storage solutions are required to meet zero-emissions goals, and included in Paris Agreement related scenarios," said Shahb Richyal, Global Head of Portfolio. "Gunvor is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across our businesses and activities, and we see investments in CCS as a key part of this."
As the world's leading CCS think tank, Global CSS Institute is an unparalleled source of research, data and information on all aspects of CCS deployment. It offers expertise and knowledge across every aspect of CCS, providing its Members with accurate, insightful and impactful information and data about CCS, assisting them to build knowledge, connect with the right people and make informed business decisions.
As a physical energy commodities trader, Gunvor's business is inherently capable of being responsive to the changing needs of global energy markets. In recent years, the company's trading has shifted to consist of up to 50% of "transitional commodities," according to EU Taxonomy. Gunvor has a two-part strategy for the Energy Transition, of which CCS will be a part:
Pursuing investment in areas that support a shift in trading that capitalizes on opportunities related to the Energy Transition and reduces Gunvor's emissions footprint
Investing in new areas that create sustainable value in the low-carbon world
The announcement follows the release of Gunvor's commitment to target a 40% reduction in the company's Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025, a part of the company's Sustainability Commitments 2021 document, which outlines how the company is navigating the Energy Transition.
Gunvor Divests Stake in Rotterdam Terminal to GES Under Long-Term Energy Transition Partnership
Dow Partners with Gunvor to Purify Plastic Waste Streams to Scale Circular Plastics Manufacturing
La Planta de Biodiesel de Gunvor en Palos de la Frontera, un Modelo de Economia Circular
Copyright © 2023 NYERA
Nyera is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gunvor Group


In this book, Jack Hayford teaches what the Bible says about baptism with the Holy Spirit. Many Christians are unaware that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is available for all believers in Christ. The author explains how the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus Christ into our lives, enabling Christians to grow in their walk as a follower of Jesus. He explains who the Holy Spirit is and what baptism with the Holy Spirit means in a clear and Biblically grounded way. He then leads the reader in a prayer to ask for the baptism in the Holy Spirit and explains how we can help others receive this baptism. Each chapter ends with questions for study so you can fully interact with the teaching, which makes this book an excellent resource for personal or group study.


text:
Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?
According to an article I read recently (I could not find it though), the easiest way to take down a big authority is by cutting the head - meaning the uppermost level of control of that authority - and causing enough chaos to be able to claim that authority yourself.
What if whenever politicians became too shameless in their corruption schemes, someone hired a hitman that eliminates a few important figures, basically sending a message that most of the people are thinking: "We can see what you're doing and we won't just stay and do nothing"? In my very naive opinion, this will send a warning message to any future person occupying that role that they shouldn't fall into corruption schemes or at least not as much. I understand that in today's world the second part - claiming the authority - is complex or impossible, but it's not important. The goal of this is only sending the warning message.
I know that my point of view is very naive, but I'd like to read some ideas about why this won't work.
P.S.: I know this is a global community, so a little background might be helpful - this is coming from someone in Eastern Europe, where life standard is kind of low compared to Western Europe and politicians are more corrupt based on my biased opinion.
corruption civil-war assassinations anarcho-capitalism
agc
Angel VenchevAngel Venchev
I understand that this is an academic question, but could you reword it to make it very clear that you're not in any way suggesting that this is a valid solution or good idea? There are too many people who would like to take out world leaders today, and they don't need encouragement.
Lots of comments deleted. Please don't answer the question in comments. For more information on what comments should and should not be used for, please review the help article about the commenting privilege.
– Philipp ♦
I have heard on multiple occasions about this idea and I think this is on-topic, since it is clearly related to how some perceive politics. Also the most voted answers explain very well why this is a terrible idea and they are useful for future readers (one of the goals of SE network),
– Alexei
Isn't this an ethical question rather than political? Almost any political system will have strong rules against harming the people who write the rules, for obvious reasons, but you seem to be interested in extra-legal solutions.
– Jon of All Trades
Because the corrupt politicians will be the ones hiring hitmen to eliminate their opponents. This has been done, you know, in Nazi Germany and USSR.
– Michael
Basically because your idea (assassination of corrupt politician) undermines rather than reinforces the rule of law. Usually the definition of corruption includes some kind of illegal activity. Otherwise it's just stuff you don't like for personal moral reasons. And if everyone started to use assasination to solve their moral differences... the basis of the (modern) state as the sole authority for violence would cease to exist.
And given that it's apparently a fairly popular idea, in some movies at least, here's some similar commentary on the idea:
The violence could worsen the problem of corruption," says Michael Johnston, a political scientist and professor at Colgate University. "It would legitimate violent action from the persecuted politicians, and encourage a hunt for the suspects. That is what will happen with Rodrigo Duterte's tactics in the Philippines," he explains, referring to the Philippine president who wishes to distribute 42 thousand weapons to ordinary citizens, especially community leaders, so they can go around the country killing people involved with any form of illicit activities, especially drug trafficking.
In such a scenario, a climate similar to that of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union would be implemented: any accusation, no matter how little justified by concrete evidence, would mean a death penalty or exile. And the dead corrupt politicians would quickly be replaced by other ones – as it already happens with members of the organized crime.
And since that part doesn't get developed with any examples there, South Africa is perhaps an example where the whistleblowers are the ones that usually end up assassinated, nowadays.
Political assassinations are rising sharply in South Africa, threatening the stability of hard-hit parts of the country and imperiling Mr. Mandela's dream of a unified, democratic nation.
But unlike much of the political violence that upended the country in the 1990s, the recent killings are not being driven by vicious battles between rival political parties.
Quite the opposite: In most cases, A.N.C. officials are killing one another, hiring professional hit men to eliminate fellow party members in an all-or-nothing fight over money, turf and power, A.N.C. officials say. [...]
The recent assassinations cover a wide range of personal and political feuds. Some victims were A.N.C. officials who became targets after exposing or denouncing corruption within the party. Others fell in internal battles for lucrative posts.
Encouraging assassination as a legitimate political tool can easily lead to that since who has more money to pay hitmen?
And to reinforce this idea, going back to Duterte, here's a quote from him:
Rodrigo Duterte has warned journalists in the Philippines that they are legitimate targets for assassination if they do wrong, in the President-elect's latest controversial comments ahead of being sworn into office later this month.
Duterte was asked during a press conference Tuesday how he would address the country's high murder rate for journalists, reports Agence France-Presse. "Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you're a son of a bitch," he replied.
Interestingly, Duterte was apparently referring to (or perhaps reducing the problem to) the rather complex case of Jun Pala, who apparently himself was linked to a vigilante group that exposed and allegedly assassinated some [corrupt] politicians.
And since this came up several times in the comments, here's a definition(s) primer:
"Corruption" is a term whose meaning shifts with the speaker. It can describe the corruption of the young from watching violence on television or refer to political decisions that provide narrow benefits to one's constituents in the form, say, of a new road through the district. In short, speakers use the term to cover a range of actions that they find undesirable. Because my topic includes both corruption and poor governance, I omit both morally corrupting activities, on the one hand, and run-of-the-mill constituency-based politics, on the other. I use the common definition of corruption as the "misuse of public power for private or political gain," recognizing that "misuse" must be defined in terms of some standard. Many corrupt activities under this definition are illegal in most countries—for example, paying and receiving bribes, fraud, embezzlement, self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and providing a quid pro quo in return for campaign gifts. However, part of the policy debate turns on where to draw the legal line and how to control borderline phenomena, such as conflicts of interest, which many political systems fail to regulate. [...] one of the most important debates turns on the issue of "state capture" or the problem of creating open democratic/market societies in states where a narrow elite has a disproportionate influence on state policy. In those countries outright bribery may be low, but the system is riddled with special interest deals that favor the few over the many.
In some sense, plain-old tyranny (which several comments addressed) is an extreme form of state capture. (When there aren't even pretenses anymore.) State capture is of course somewhat different than "conventional" corruption because there's (usually widespread) institutional and legislative failure. Whether peaceful reform or violent revolution is the appropriate solution for such a state of affairs is a somewhat related but sufficiently different question, so I won't attempt to address that here.
FizzFizz
Apart from the points of the answer, the whole setup of the idea is rather naive. The corrupt politicians stand in power because they have a power base that supports them, even if they are corrupt. The idea that the problems of a country are the fault of a single man is rather tempting as it provides an easy solution, but completely false and it is mostly wishful thinking and scapegoating.
@owjburnham: overthrow doesn't necessarily mean killing.
– Fizz
@AngelVenchev But who decides what's a "very extreme situation"? There are many political assassinations where the assassin had a motive most people would consider a very minor issue or even no issue at all. But the assassin obviously considered those reasons "extreme" enough to commit a murder they will very likely get caught for. There are a lot of political extremists who do not realize they are extremists.
@FrankCedeno: If we're talking revolutions here, we're probably in a different ball game. As I understood this question it's about mundane corruption. You're welcome to add another answer. Ferdinand was probably not corrupt according to the laws of his time...
@TKK When was this demonstrated?
– DonFusili
Interestingly, avoiding this is one of the reasons that the United States Constitution provides means for legal impeachment of the president.
Dr. Franklin was for retaining the clause [on impeachment], as favorable to the executive. History furnishes one example only of a first magistrate being formally brought to public justice. Every body cried out against this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this, in cases where the chief magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse was had to assassination, in which he was not only deprived of his life, but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way, therefore, to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the executive, where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal, where he should be unjustly accused
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, debates in the Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 20, 1787.—James Madison, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot, vol. 5, pp. 340–41 (1845).
In addition to the practical and moral reasons which have been raised by other answers, assassination deprives the targeted politician of the chance to clear their name and it deprives the public of the chance to learn, in a fair and just manner, if the charges were justified or not.
divibisandivibisan
The question is whether the politician is corrupt or the whole society is corrupt. Often most corrupt politicians belong to corrupt societies. Therefore, if you kill a corrupt politician, another one will take their place.
The same thing happens with drug traffickers: whenever a cartel falls, another one takes control of the vacuum left behind because the demand of drugs does not fall just because a cartel in power is gone.
Further, if people accept the death of corrupt politicians, it may discourage people from being politicians, but the ones who take that path would be more corrupt than ever, because they must accept the risk of being a politician. Hence, they need to profit faster to make the risk worthwhile.
What would happen with your hitman? If society accept that death, then your hitman would be hired to kill other people, because death by assassination would be nice for many.
divibisan
SantiagoSantiago
This seems like a Perfect Solution Fallacy. It's certainly true that assassinating a single bad actor, whether a politician or a mafia boss, won't solve everything. However, it's also true that adding a significant risk of death makes corruption less appealing, and should discourage abuse to some extent. It's not obvious that such a situation would encourage more corruption, because raking in dirty cash quickly will generally be more obvious - and more likely to attract acute lead poisoning.
@JonofAllTrades I think corruption would be in the same ballpark as other crimes in that it is not the severity of punishment that deters, but rather unavoidability. Note that as soon as you start assassination game, it won't matter of you are corrupt, just if your hitman is faster than the one who expects to be paid for you.
– Gnudiff
Suppose, as per the premise of the question, that the public is fond of sponsoring assassinations. A clever corrupt politician could use that to his own advantage, and the nation's detriment:
A politician could weaponize the state's propaganda system to mold public resentment toward prominent reformers, so that the gullible public could be wrongly persuaded to fund assassins to murder the reformers themselves.
Organized assassination markets would justify using emergency powers to create a temporary, or even permanent, police state, which could be used to crush such markets, and oppress and murder reformers.
Since it's an assassination market system, it would favor buyers with more money. So a wealthy criminal would have money to spend, whereas the honest poor would not. Therefore such a market would tend to best reward assassins employed by the ruthlessly wealthy to murder reformers.
Curiously it's also a common and perhaps characteristic superstition of large empires that the clearly unsustainable domestic policies above somehow become scalable and prudent if celebrated in entertainment, adapted to foreign policy, and formally denied.
agcagc
+1. Your first bullet-point, as I'm sure you know, is not even all that theoretical; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under_Xi_Jinping#Critical_analysis for (what many have argued to be) a similar case in the real world.
– ruakh
Your first bullet point: Or create public resentment towards a minority, or the press, or other side of the political spectrum. And then the gullible become assassins.
– mahboudz
Apart from whether your approach would be conducive to justice or a better political system or even just any improvement whatsoever — it will not work.
Do you think you are the first one who has the idea to kill the president or other politicians? They are quite well protected, and after the first few incidents the protection will be watertight.
But the most important obstacle to your strategy is that a change in leadership in a democracy does not have a great impact.1 In fact, this is a simple and effective litmus test for a true democracy: Does a change in leadership trigger a systemic crisis? We don't know what will happen in North Korea when Kim-Jong un dies in office(s). By contrast we know quite exactly what will happen in the U.S. when Trump dies in office: The vice president will become president.2 Nothing much will happen, and certainly no systemic crisis.
A system with properly working political institutions and true elections will simply replace the leader according to the lawful rules and procedures, and go on with business.
If you want a quip: In a democracy, functions are filled with people. In a dictatorship, people are filled with functions.
The politicians have been voted into office by free elections; they are in office because many people wanted them to be. What makes you think the next election will suddenly result in a fundamentally different leadership? To change the general make-up of the political class, you must change the outcomes of elections; to do that, you need to change public opinion.
1 Whether through violence or election. The latter has been a sometimes painful experience for members of either big political camp after their respective candidate had become president. A president is less important than some people, including the presidents themselves sometimes, tend to think. Cynics say that's because the real power lies elsewhere anyway; I'd argue that the balance of power and the legal framework limits what can be done by an activist president; and when one steps back one sees that the positions are not very extreme to begin with. That's not too surprising given that a large part of the population voted for them.
2 Thanks to nasch for the correction.
Peter - Reinstate MonicaPeter - Reinstate Monica
The 25th amendment states "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." So the VP becomes not acting president, but president. And I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "a new president will be elected" but there is no special election held after the President's death. The next scheduled election happens as normal, and this could result in the re-election of the person who assumed the presidency.
– nasch
@nasch i.e. things proceed basically how they would have with the predecessor
– Caleth
Maybe, maybe not, it's entirely up to the new president.
"they are in office because many people wanted them to be" No, because there are often only 2 choices both I would never vote for, but a decision has to be made. The people want an honest person, but are only give 2 choices neither of which has to be good, honest, or etc. Anyone else who runs doesn't stand a chance because they don't have the financial backing to get noticed so people vote for them.
– cybernard
I'm surprised that none of these answers have mentioned martyrdom. But it is likely, if a leading politician was assassinated, that it would strengthen support for his cause and for his allies, bringing out more voters who might otherwise stay home. As such, it might fail to clean out the corrupt politicians, as the assassin had hoped it would.
– joeytwiddle
Letting aside the ethics, who gets to decide who is corrupt?
Taking the USA's political state since 2015-2016, i.e. the last POTUS election we have:
a large proportion of US voters who believe Hillary Clinton is corrupt.
a large proportion of US voters who believe Donald Trump is corrupt.
It could be that they are both corrupt. Or that neither is corrupt. What would be an objective way to determine who is worthy or not? How would it fit with notions like rule of law or institutions?
What if the hit man's employer are not so much honest citizens as, say gangsters wanting to throttle an excessive anti-corruption drive? What if a prime minister/president, aware of the risks, launches very aggressive police actions, essentially to defend themselves? What if, after a successful assassination of a part-popular, but divisive, politician, his supporters riot?
Unless, of course, this decision is taken at a governmental level in which case democracies have all sorts of way to impeach or indicate a loss of confidence in a government and don't need this suggestion. Which smacks of vigilante justice.
Couple a legislated removal from office with fact-driven adversarial prosecutions of the supposed corruption afterwards and you have most of the advantages of your suggestion, in an entirely legal manner.
Italian Philosophers 4 MonicaItalian Philosophers 4 Monica
I'm not sure how bringing up gangsters is relevant in a discussion on well-intentioned morality or lack thereof of an act; gangsters have people bad for their business removed anyway, for selfish reasons, it's a red herring.
– millimoose
It's not a red herring at all. It's exactly the same violence if I send my boys to rub you out, or I outspend you in court. Men with guns will show up to coerce you either way. Don't like that? Pay some men with guns to defend you. Problem is that during the evaluation process, the area is not really attractive for economic growth. Also, you cannot avoid "gangsters" in this scenario, uncertain times are how 'gangsters' become respected citizens. Al Capone's syphilis might be the difference between him and Joe Kennedy.
– chiggsy
@millimoose How is hitman unrelated to gangster again? Plus, some other posters made the same link to the most natural customers of hitmen are people in the crime scene. There have been a number of cases over time where inconvenient public figures, often journalists, but sometimes politicians, have been rubbed out by the mob, mostly in countries with immature democratic institutions. And, in a context of accepted political assassinations, would mob hits not be less obvious? So, what's your point, exactly?
– Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
The question, as asked, mentions "someone" hiring an assassin, and the assassination is motivated by the politician being corrupt - I interpreted this as the assassination being well-intentioned from some sort of utilitarian perspective in which killing for the greater good is permissible. The mob rubbing out somebody going against their interests - which usually are more corruption, not less, are things you just made up that aren't evident from the question.
From such a consequentialist perspective, a mob hit done with the intent of personal gain is in fact different from a mob hit done with the intent of the politician no longer robbing his constituency. You have not only not considered this intent - which is present in the question as asked - but substituted it with a different motivation altogether. My point is the question is "why is murdering a politician for his corruption bad?", but you're answering the question "why is the mob murdering a politician for their ends bad?"
First of all, what's the problem you're trying to solve?
You want better government?
Then consider that corruption may not be as big a problem as incompetence, ideology or partisanship, in some societies.
So you kill all the corrupt politicians, but leave the incompetent, ideologically-driven, hyper-partisan ones in place. You may not have solved the problem. In fact, you may have made it worse, because politicians are a mixed bag.
A politician may be corrupt and really good at constituent services. A politician may be corrupt and a staunch anti-Communist.
Also, what makes you think that a corrupt politician won't be replaced by another corrupt politician? What's the point in targeting the person if you're not targeting the conditions and incentives that enticed that person to corruption in the first place? Corruption in government is a systemic problem.
Also, what's the definition of corruption? Who sets the definition?
All big questions.
It may be worthwhile to focus on defining the problem before spending too much time on solutions. Read about the XY Problem.
To answer your question directly:
People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (at least in the United States).
What happens when you kill a politician you thought was corrupt, and it turns out he was innocent?
That's why we have a criminal justice system.
And why limit it to corrupt politicians? Why not engage in extrajudicial killings of alleged rapists, kidnappers, pedophiles, adulterers and car thiefs?
Keep in mind that in the United States there are many people on death row who have gone through extensive police investigations and court reviews. Their appeals are exhausted and they are simply awaiting execution. Sometimes, after many years, new evidence surfaces, witnesses recant or something else happens proving innocence. The inmate wins his freedom. Other times its too late.
Imagine what would happen with fewer layers of review, less oversight and faster sentencing.
Michael BenjaminMichael Benjamin
Not only that, but "purging corrupt officials" is often used as an excuse to get rid of political opponents (as in the Philippines).
– 200_success
The question is titled:
Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman [to kill corrupt] politicians?
Well, from a moral standpoint, it's wrong. It depends on your yardstick for corruption, but let's say as you imply it's some run of the mill embezzling/defruading the state.
You've implied a benchmark of:
whenever politicians became too shameless in their corruption schemes,
..implying financial misconduct.
That's an abuse of power and generally considering to be "wrong" (in the ethical sense). However, if we look at this on the basis of first principles: If I steal ten dollars from you, and you then come and kill me (hiring someone is more or the less ethically the same thing), who's committed the greater wrong, me or you?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someonewho argues that stealing money is ethically worse than killing someone - it's disproportionate. The key attribute of retributive jsutice is that it is proportionate. To quote Wikipedia:
Retributive justice is a theory of justice that holds that the best response to a crime is a punishment proportional to the offense, inflicted because the offender deserves the punishment. Prevention of future crimes (deterrence) or rehabilitation of the offender are not considered in determining such punishments. The theory holds that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that he or she suffer in return. Retribution is different from revenge because retributive justice is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal and involves no pleasure at the suffering of others[1] and employs procedural standards.[2][3] Classical texts advocating the retributive view include De Legibus (1st century BC), Kant's Science of Right[4] (1790), and Hegel's Philosophy of Right[5] (1821).
From an ethical standpoint, it seems evident that hiring a hitman to kill a corrupt politician is both unjust and unethical - to a certain degree. There's also an inherent problem with your criterion:
too shameless in their corruption schemes
Your benchmark here is how visible this corruption is, or more precisely, how corrupt the individual is perceived to be. This is problematic. Let's discuss the ethical reasons first, then move on to why pragmatically this is even worse.
So the next question is: How shameless is "too shameless" ? What amount of money or kind of corruption schemes are objectively worth "sending a message over"? If, as I think you will agree, stealing ten dollars from the government not worth hiring a hitman over, what figure is ? Ten thousand dollars, one hundred thousand? What price do you put on a human life? Who gets to deem that the politician is too shameless?
The problem with this unilateral approach is that a lot of people might not agree with your methods, or your reasoning. Look at Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth or Mark David Chapman: Complete nutters the lot of them. How do you verify when you embark on this course of action that you yourself aren't just, yourself, a complete nutter? Unlike a functioning judicial process, there's no due process or checks and balances. Looking at today's political climate, there are probably a lot of people who would feel justified in taking that action into their own hands, even though, their criterion for action might not meet the same standards as yours.
Whilst I am no Trump fan, I certainly don't believe he should be assassinated. There are plenty of people in the U.S who do and I am certainly not comfortable with their ethical standards because if those same principles were applied, they would feel justified in killing a lot of people I would consider innocent, or at least not worthy of summary extrajudicial execution.
Can you imagine what it would be like if every SJW, right wing blogger and Youtube commenter felt they were justified in taking the lives of people who had transgressed their imaginary rulebook?
We need to also ask whilst on the topic of personal culpability, what is a politician? At the most abstract, I submit it's somebody who influences or attempts to influence the body politic. So by killing someone you perceive to be corrupt, or a lizard person, or whatever, you are in fact attempting to influence the political process. So if you hire a hitman to kill whoever, isn't somebody else justified in viewing you as corrupt and hiring a hitman to take you out?
These are just some quick moral arguments against it off the top off my head. There's a far greater problem with this notion. It doesn't really work.
First of all, let's examine your proposition:
someone hired a hitman that eliminates a few important figures, basically sending a message that most of the people are thinking: "We can see what you're doing and we won't just stay and do nothing"? In my very naive opinion, this will send a warning message to any future person occupying that role that they shouldn't fall into corruption schemes or at least not as much.
Well, for starters, I don't think the politician in question will be falling into any corruption schemes anymore, assuming that the hitman is successful. So what message are you really sending? And to whom? The guy's dead.
So how are you getting your message across? No doubt if the politician is visibly corrupt enough, people might suspect it had something to do with it but there's no clear cut guarantee. Declaring some manifesto alongside it only increases your risk of getting caught.
Aside from your hitman probably having something to say about that; what guarantee do you have that either this corrupt cabal or the general populace is going to take you seriously? It's a nice daydream, but I don't think it really works out that way in practice.
There's another fatal flaw with your plan: Darwinism.
You see, by your stated criterion, you're only targeting the most visibly corrupt politicians. Let's assume you have a lot of money and a really good hitman. What happens in the long run? You don't kill all the corrupt politicians, you just kill the visible, and, by extension, the inept ones. That just ends up leaving the ones who excel at being corrupt. This leaves you worse off than where you started. This happens a lot in nature.
For example, we've possessed the genetic weaponry necessary to wipe out the malarial mosquito for sometime. The reason why we haven't done it, is that even though malaria kills a lot of people is that we don't know exactly what else it kills and what effects might result.
We might inadvertantly lift the lid on another disease that's even worse. One of these politicians might be corrupt but be keeping someone even worse from rising up the food-chain.
You see, for politicians to become so shameless unaccountable to their electorate, it doesn't just imply that they themselves have taken advantage of the government. What it usually means is that the institutions of government - the complex systems and ecosystems of government and governance have themselves broken down. It's quite easy for people to point to a divisive figure like say, Donald Trump, and say "It's all his fault" but the reality is that these people are the symptoms of the problem, not the cause.
The United States has had real trouble just functioning for a long time, and its democratic institutions are in many ways fundamentally broken. The causes of this are legion, but can basically be summed up with their culture and history has directly determined the outcome they have right now. Likewise, the failure of institutions and democracy in Hungary or Poland or Bulgaria (or wherever you are) aren't the result of just one person but a systemic failure. You can't cure this with a bullet - people have tried.
This leads to my last point: Unintended consequences.
We don't know what forces might be unleashed by a single assassination. Look at Archduke Ferdinand. He was killed because he was a symbol of the Austro-Hungarian domination of the Balkans. Princip believed that by assassinating him he was furthering the course of Serbian freedom. Ironically Ferdinand was a reformer, and they had a better chance under Ferdinand.
What happened instead is that the vast machinery of Europe, having almost stepped back from the brink of war, was thrown into four years of wanton and unnecessary bloodshed. The Serbian state was nearly utterly destroyed. It set the preconditions of the Second World War which was the most destructive war in history. The consequences of that single action set of a chain of events that led to the deaths of up to 100 million people.
Now maybe assassinating Viktor Orban or Justin Trudeau or whoever wouldn't set off such a conflagration, but here's the thing: you just don't know. If you paid someone to pull the trigger, all that blood is essentially on your hands.
I could go on to list all the times this hasn't worked or how internal power struggles in crumbling democracies often fail to deliver an improvement in living conditions and civil rights for the people.
The Arab Spring is a rather depressing reminder of how even well intentioned grassroots attempts at overthrowing tyranny can lead to both its entrenchment and expansion - look at Eygypt, Syria and Libya.
I think you'll also find that decapitating the leadership might effectively, most systems are somewhat resilient to it. We can look the Taliban, Al-Qaeda for examples on how despite numerous attacks/assassinations of leaders, they remain just as capable of carrying on fighting as long as their support networks are in place.
So going back to incentives. I mentioned before that in the event you described wasn't worth killing someone over. So when is it?
Let's consider briefly the Trolley Dilemma.
You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option?
Another commenter brought up the example of how members of the German military tried to assassinate Hitler (I believe they tried a couple of times) and instigate a coup.
Intriguingly, someone else brought up Duterte.
There's only an ethical and pragmatic case to kill a politician where there is a clear threat to the lives of people under the rule of that person - where you can make a clear case that intervening would stop this person killing or enacting policies that would directly and explicitly result in killing innocent people. Killing Hitler might have shortened the Second World War and prevented part of the Holocaust.
In the case of Duterte, who has openly advocated and directly enabled the extrajudicial killings of tens of thousands of people, there is in fact an ethical, and perhaps, pragmatic case to intervene. This is clear and distinct from policies by national leaders who have decided to go to war in what they perceive to be the national interest, such as Russia or the United States.
These aren't ideal either, but quite distinct from using murder as an instrument of social policy. I submit that hiring a hitman to kill a single person differs only in magnitude to these crimes however, not only is it inethical in the scenario you are talking about, but from a practical standpoint, it's likely to be ineffective - and therefore even more unforgivable.
The best way to fight corruption is to build strong and empower strong democratic institutions with respect for the rule of law. This is probably cold comfort to someone living in Eastern Europe where corruption and illiberalism has been the norm for a very long time.
N.B. Please forgive what is a rather rough draft as I am procrastinating from programming at 4am. That said, probably a bad idea to kill politicians.
AnarylAnaryl
This is a thoughtful answer, but it seems to needlessly assume that a hypothetically corrupt politician's crimes would fall short of murder; to the contrary, corrupt politicians can also be murderers and employ assassins as well.
– agc
I'd came here and immediately searched for "Hitler", because obviously someone had to point to that example. Godwin's law had to strike… Anyway, BTW, it's not sure whether killing Hitler would have helped. Maybe someone else would just have followed into his position or so…
– rugk
This would only work if you had some sort of infallible, morally pure, by everyone's standards (the disqualifying factor, right there), arbiter of right or wrong, that everyone else would defer to regarding who lives and who dies.
Otherwise, each and every political viewpoint would have their own image of who is good and who is evil, and motivated individuals would take it upon themselves to act. Conservative? Hillary deserves to die for the child sex ring in the basement of a pizzeria.... that was in a building that didn't have a basement.
Wikipedia: Pizzagate conspiracy theory
Complete conspiracy nut? Bush and Cheney must die for their 9/11 hoax where they used chemtrails and nano-bots to blow up the World Trade Centers.
Screaming liberal? Trump must die for ordering Russians to throw the election to him.
All of the above scenarios are either out and out nonsense, or probably do not have the level of "Dr Evil" scheming or control as many claim.
Basically, you'd have a free for all of executions by anyone and everyone thinking they are morally upright and those that disagree with them are not. In the United States, with our insanely tribal and polarized atmosphere and a heavily armed populace, you're talking drug-cartel level violence as public policy.
This entire premise would only work if there was a way to administer the lethal justice in a fair and impartial manner, and if there was a way to administer justice like that, then those means would exist for non-lethal sanctions, as well, making the lethal answer unnecessary. It relies on an impossible or unrealistic set of conditions in order to be administered in any kind of workable manner.
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
Was about to add an answer of my own but instead upvoted this one which pretty much covers it. The only thing I would add is that, leaving aside ethics/morals, the flaw in OP's logic comes in the statement that assassination is 'basically sending a message that most of the people are thinking: "We can see what you're doing and we won't just stay and do nothing"'—whereas in reality all it does is send the message that at least one person (with the means to hire an assassin) thinks that.
– jez
"infallible, morally pure, by everyone's standards (the disqualifying factor, right there), arbiter of right or wrong..." and this is why superhero movies are so popular these days. Many people would love to have Batman take care of those no-good so-and-sos - and in the movies they never go after the wrong guy.
@JonofAllTrades and in the movies everyone knows they go after the right guy. In reality, even if you go after the right, i.e. criminal, guy, there will be some people who like him and will hardly be convinced that you went for the right guy - it's hard enough when you have public investigations and court cases and he doesn't have to die, even more so when some shadowy person decides it and just gets rid of them.
– Frank Hopkins
@JonofAllTrades which btw. would have made a really great topic for Batman vs. Superman to explore... but nooo it was more important to show nice fight scenes and make everything visually dark and broody.
There are two obvious problems beyond the ethical ones.
1) The practical problem of cost. Nobody has enough money to get them all, even if there were enough competent hit-persons to do the job.
2) Are "corrupt" politicians really the problem, or is it the honest but incompetent and/or driven by ideology ones? After all, the corrupt politician wants to do a good enough job so that s/he can stay in office and keep on collecting money.
jamesqfjamesqf
Just to add to the discussion, killing a corrupt leader is a bad idea from the stand point of stable and sustainable governments to follow. Not only assassination, which is in my opinion a plan with a consensus of limited number of people & ideology and power comes from consensus of large number of people, but also killing the leader in general is a bad idea as it creates a political vacuum which needs to be filled by a legitimate claim, generally missing after assassinations and killings. We have seen a few examples of this in history.
The French revolution comes to mind first. Robespierre's head cutting spree ended with his head on the guillotine and a very bad constitution. Gadaffi's killing also threw Libya in a state of anarchy, even though in both cases there was a general consensus that leaders were corrupt and needed replacement.
When killing a leader is accepted in a society, there is no room for rule of law and society would fragment. Assassinations would lead to disagreements being settled by violence and no leader to be chosen as disagreements will always remain, society would be headless, and anarchy would prevail.
Aditya SinghAditya Singh
This answer generalizes too selectively, but fails to consider societies that aren't ruined after killing a leader.
@agc As far as I know when RSI was felled by partisans they had the support of the Allies, giving them legitmacy and this becomes an exceptional case where externalities(war) stabilized a volatile situation. Basically Italy declared it's surrender by removing Mussolini and stability was the result- the terms implicitly dictated by the winner. In short the political vacuum which causes instability was filled by a legitimate power much bigger than the nation itself- winner of war
– Aditya Singh
The entire idea behind presidential impeachment is to reduce the likelihood of assassination. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was intended to ensure that the government would fear the people, and not the people fear the government.
As revolutionaries, the people behind the American and French wars for independence actually did consider that assassination was a logical form of resistance.
dotancohendotancohen
French war for independence? Louis XVI's France was independent. Do you mean the Revolutionary Wars?
– Peter Mortensen
Surprised I don't see this point made clear anywhere yet:
In the United States (a simple example, but many others have similar divides), a sizable portion of the population thinks that most democrats are corrupt and a sizable portion of the population thinks that most republicans are corrupt.
Let's say your proposal becomes reality: everyone kills everyone else, and practically no politicians remain.
You are left without a functioning state government, not with a state government devoid of corrupt politicians, and you have anarchy - which some people (not myself) would embrace.
Instead of assassinating the corrupt politician(s), why not simply punish them as any other criminal? Such as with jail time.
Your answer might be that:
He will just pay off the jailers or police or any other person in the process.
But this answer then means that this politician is not the only corrupt person - it implies that all of society is corrupt or at least that people with some responsibility and power are corrupt.
If this is the case, then alternative punishments like jail time will do nothing. Also, assassinating the politician will do nothing, because the next to take over will also be corrupt.
So, in essence, assassination will work no better than any other type of punishment. If the system / society as a whole is corrupt, then it will help nothing to assassinate just one of many corrupt politicians. And if the society is fine, then more humane and normal punishments will do just fine.
Assassinations is not an accepted punishment anywhere I know of, and so it will never be a method to use. Either use the proper punishment, or forget about punishment methods entirely (and instead work in the culture from within).
The argument that one assassination will scare off other politicians from continuing to be corrupt might only risk on a more brutal government as has been seen with tyrannical government throughout history that had to keep their people in place.
SteevenSteeven
Re "scare off other...": this Q. neglects to address the fact that using assassinations as a kind of scarecrow is exactly the policy of many a repressive regime or cabal use to prevent reforms. Surely the JFK, MLK, & RFK, assassinations had a chilling effect.
I believe as an outsider to power, one is not qualified to make such a decision to change the balance of power. You are not privy to secret information, or classified information. e.g. The bomb attempt on Hitler was carried out by those within a close circle of power.
Extrajudicial killings may need to be made with information that only a small group of those in power know as well as understand.
Certainly, those at the top of a hierarchy may decide that a certain member needs to be removed, but why choose such a method, when courts, shame, and infamy are just as effective. Why get one's hands bloody?
pauljpaulj
I'd argue that courts, shame, and infamy are rather ineffective tools against corrupt politicians.
– Nuclear Hoagie
@NuclearWang Only if they have a broad power base. i.e. Many other corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and such ilk.
– paulj
Re "not qualified": to the contrary, sometimes power itself can blind an elite an otherwise obvious national danger. *"...just as those who draw landscapes place themselves below in the plain to contemplate the nature of the mountains and of lofty places, and in order to contemplate the plains place themselves high upon the mountains, even so to understand the nature of the people it needs to be a prince, and to understand that of princes it needs to be of the people."
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged corruption civil-war assassinations anarcho-capitalism .
Would shorter election cycles bring cleaner and better politics?
Why don't politicians decide to pass laws that make themselves really rich?
Why do politicians make so much money?
Why don't Western powers support Bashar al-Assad since it now became clear most of the opposition is not in support of democratic government?
Why were most of the Arab spring revolutions followed by civil wars?


text:
Oides decempunctata es una especie de insecto coleóptero de la familia Chrysomelidae.

Fue descrita científicamente en 1808 por Billberg.

Referencias

Oides

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


DOES COFFEE = PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE?
Search the National Library of Medicine's database, PubMed, and you will find hundreds of studies that have examined coffee's impact on health. Not only does this research overwhelmingly suggest that moderate coffee consumption doesn't cause harm, it appears that drinking coffee may even offer some health benefits. Moderate coffee consumption, defined as three or four cups a day, provides around 300 to 500 milligrams of caffeine.
Moderate caffeine consumption appears to offer a protective effect against the development of Parkinson's disease.
Drinking at least 2 cups of coffee a day appears to reduce the risk of developing colon cancer by up to 25%.
The risk for type 2 diabetes is significantly lower among regular coffee drinkers than among those who don't drink it.
Regular coffee drinkers are less likely to develop symptomatic gallstones. Additionally, there is some evidence that coffee may benefit asthma, improve memory, decrease fatigue, improve mental functioning, and stop a headache, as well as improve endurance performance in long-duration physical activities.
Now for the bad news...for some, drinking coffee can cause a number of untoward effects. Caffeine, coffee's active ingredient, is a mildly addictive stimulant which can make a person jittery and uncomfortable. Certain heart conditions are affected by caffeine, causing rapid or irregular heart rhythms. Coffee drinking is associated with small increases in blood pressure, and, in some people, may play a role in the development of hypertension.
Pregnant women are advised to limit coffee consumption because of the potential for spontaneous abortion or impaired fetal growth. Furthermore, caffeine abuse, particularly in association with the so-called "energy drinks," commonly seen at the neighborhood convenience store, is becoming an emerging problem. While a cup of regular coffee contains approximately 100 mg of caffeine, a 16 ounce can of Original Rockstar contains 160 milligrams and Rockstar Punched energy drink contains 360 mg of caffeine per 24 ounce can. Also one needs to consider the "hidden" calories that can be found in some coffee drinks. A cup of black coffee contains only around 2 calories, but a small McDonald's Chocolate Chip Frappe is reported to contain a whopping 500 calories!
Perhaps the inscription "Nothing in Excess" at the Oracle's temple at Delphi was referring to coffee consumption. Maintaining a moderate level of coffee consumption of 3 to 4 cups per day, however, appears to be safe for most and may even provide some health benefits.


Description For many candidates, using sources and understanding interpretations of the past remain stumbling blocks to their success in history GCSE examinations. Teachers often feel the competing pressures of delivering content while teaching the skills necessary for exams. This course takes a fresh look at evidence and interpretation skills in the context of subject content.


text:
<?php

namespace Ekyna\Bundle\CmsBundle\Editor\Plugin\Block;

use Ekyna\Bundle\CmsBundle\Editor\Adapter\AdapterInterface;
use Ekyna\Bundle\CmsBundle\Editor\Plugin\AbstractPlugin as BasePlugin;
use Ekyna\Bundle\CmsBundle\Editor\View\BlockView;
use Ekyna\Bundle\CmsBundle\Editor\View\WidgetView;
use Ekyna\Bundle\CmsBundle\Editor\Model\BlockInterface;
use Ekyna\Component\Resource\Locale\LocaleProviderInterface;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Context\ExecutionContextInterface;

/**
 * Class AbstractPlugin
 * @package Ekyna\Bundle\CmsBundle\Editor\Plugin\Block
 * @author  Etienne Dauvergne <contact@ekyna.com>
 */
abstract class AbstractPlugin extends BasePlugin implements PluginInterface
{
    const INVALID_DATA = 'ekyna_cms.block.invalid_data';

    /**
     * @var LocaleProviderInterface
     */
    protected $localeProvider;

    /**
     * Sets the locale provider.
     *
     * @param LocaleProviderInterface $localeProvider
     */
    public function setLocaleProvider(LocaleProviderInterface $localeProvider)
    {
        $this->localeProvider = $localeProvider;
    }

    /**
     * Returns the plugin config.
     *
     * @return array
     */
    public function getConfig()
    {
        return $this->config;
    }

    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function create(BlockInterface $block, array $data = [])
    {
        $block->setCurrentLocale($this->localeProvider->getCurrentLocale());
        $block->setFallbackLocale($this->localeProvider->getFallbackLocale());
    }

    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function remove(BlockInterface $block)
    {
        $block->unsetData();
        foreach ($block->getTranslations() as $blockTranslation) {
            $blockTranslation->unsetData();
        }
    }

    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function validate(BlockInterface $block, ExecutionContextInterface $context)
    {

    }

    /**
     * @inheritDoc
     */
    public function render(BlockInterface $block, BlockView $view, AdapterInterface $adapter, array $options)
    {
        $view->widgets[] = $this->createWidget($block, $adapter, $options);
    }

    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function createWidget(BlockInterface $block, AdapterInterface $adapter, array $options, $position = 0)
    {
        $options = array_replace([
            'editable' => false,
        ], $options);

        $view = new WidgetView();
        $attributes = $view->getAttributes()->addClass('cms-widget');

        if ($options['editable']) {
            $attributes
                ->setId('cms-widget-' . $block->getId())
                ->setData([
                    'id'       => $block->getId(),
                    'type'     => $this->getName(),
                    'position' => $position,
                    'actions'  => [
                        'edit' => true,
                    ],
                ]);
        }

        return $view;
    }

    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function supports(BlockInterface $block)
    {
        return $block->getType() === $this->getName();
    }

    /**
     * @inheritDoc
     */
    public function getJavascriptFilePath()
    {
        return 'ekyna-cms/editor/plugin/block/default';
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Технотајз је српски графички роман. Креирали су га Алекса Гајић (илустрација) и Дарко Гркинић (сценарио). То је био дипломски рад Алексе Гајића на Факултету примењених уметности у Београду, 1998.

Стрип је имао два албумска издања за издавача "-{System Comics}-" из Београда (2001. и 2009), а послужио је и као основа за први српски дугометражни цртани филм за одрасле, Технотајз: Едит и ја.

Радња
Стрип говори о тунелу изграђеном током Аустријско-турског рата, који повезује Земун и Калемегдан. Радња се дешава 2074. године и главни лик је Едит, студенткиња уметности.

Види још
 Технотајз: Едит и ја

Српски стрип јунаци
Научнофантастични стрипови
Графички роман
Београд у популарној култури


text: This is a simple demo for CS3240 lab04


Monitoring and managing student behavior is an ongoing struggle for teachers and support staff within schools, especially at the middle school level. Teachers are burdened with the struggle to educate children while at the same time disciplining students for behaviors that lead to referrals, suspensions, and expulsions. There is a significantly larger percentage of African American students and students with special needs who receive referrals, suspensions and expulsions because of their behavior. At a midwest urban school district, the administration and staff developed and implemented a SMART goal to decrease the number of suspensions for African American students, and students with special needs by 5 percent. In three middle schools the schools also implemented PBIS (positive behavioral interventions and supports). This researcher studied if documented suspensions in the three middle schools decreased significantly from the 2011-2012 school year and compared it to the 2014-2015 school year. The researcher hypothesized that there would be a significant difference between the number of suspensions from the 2011-2012 school year to 2014-2015. When the data was analyzed using a single factor ANOVA test it was found that there was a significant difference between the school years studied. The researcher rejected all five null hypotheses that there would be no significant difference for both African Americans and students with special needs in suspension rates during this period and accepted the research hypotheses that a significant decrease in referrals occurred.


Whenever I'm going through something that makes me anxious, like going to the doctor, flying on an airplane or contemplating my next step in life, the ability to mentally and emotionally coach myself through tough situations is critical to coping. One of the most frequent ways I try to get through things is to focus on the timeline. For example, when getting a shot at the doctor's office I focus on 1 minute from now when it will all be over and in the past.
Have you ever read that line penned by Ernest Hemmingway that says "Everything good and bad left an emptiness when it stopped"? I interpret that in relation to dealing with change in life. Sometimes the bad things, like an unhealthy relationship, still leaves you feeling empty when it was gone, even though it's a good thing that relationship is gone.
One of my favorite and most effective way to deal with anxiety is to be in nature. It instantly calms me (there's even science to back this up).
How do you deal with anxiety? Do you have a mantra?


Oregon Labor Candidate School will review completed applications and select finalists to be interviewed by the OLCS selection committee. OLCS participants will be selected following the interview process.
OLCS participants are expected to attend all classes, raise $350 from friends and family for OLCS as part of the fundraising curriculum, and volunteer for a candidate campaign.


Can't upload the new Wordpress theme you just downloaded or purchased? You may be running the wrong type of WordPress. In this post, I'll explain the different ways to run a WordPress blog and then show you exactly how to upload a custom WordPress theme.
Note that neither WordPress.com nor WordPress.com Premium allow users to upload their own themes. If you're in your blog's Dashboard and don't see an upload link under Appearance, then you're probably using WordPress.com's free or Premium hosted option. You're going to need to host the blog yourself if you want to use a custom theme.
Python is a pretty great programming language. It's fast to write, easy to read, and extremely flexible. It's a good language to have in your arsenal for when you quickly need to write a web scraper to quick app prototype (although Go Lang is also quite popular for the latter task as well).
You're going to make mistakes when you first start with Python, and you're going to want to try the latest and greatest tools (like IPython). Unfortunately, this kind of playing/learning can have a negative impact on your computer, so it's important to set up a safe environment in which to play. That's what we're going to be doing today, by setting up secure environments using virtualenv.


text:
GREGG STEWART grew up in the meadowlands of northern New Jersey in a small trailer park nestled among the factories that bring you Chips Ahoy cookies, Yoohoo chocolate beverages and Matchbox cars.
He received his first guitar from a family friend at the age of fourteen, and after spending a humiliating amount of time trying to teach himself, he was lucky enough to meet and be mentored by the most musically talented high school dropouts in the state. Gregg says, "I'd meet them every night after school at the local laundromat to learn new songs. We'd drop a couple quarters in the dryer to keep the place warm, unplug a couple washing machines, plug in our practice amps and start playing. To this day, I can trace the majority of my song sense and playing skills back to these guys, and my time in the laundromat."
At sixteen, Gregg moved to California to complete high school and pursue a career in art, but instead found himself working the factories of Ontario. During his stint as a forklift driver, Gregg began playing in a local punk band made up of fellow factory workers and all aspirations of an art career were soon abandoned.
At age twenty-two he signed his first publishing deal with EMI Blackwood Publishing and spent a year writing songs for them and collaborating in the Los Angeles songwriter scene. While writing for other artists around town, he helped form a female-fronted rock/pop/soul act that soon signed to Elektra Records. Gregg describes his time in a band on a major label as "my college education in the music industry".
After leaving Elektra, Gregg formed his own independent label and released what would become the first Stewboss record, "Wanted A Girl". Recorded in various apartments, Gregg wrote, sang and played guitar on the whole album, while enlisting the help of his favorite musicians in the local Los Angeles music scene. The album received great critical acclaim, with five songs being featured in film and TV such as "Let's Go For A Ride" heard in the Kevin Costner/Kurt Russell cult-classic "3,000 Miles to Graceland". Soon after, the band began receiving airplay on BBC Radio in the UK and a subsequent tour followed.
Between touring and recording, Gregg has composed and created the score for a dozen independent films, documentaries and shorts, including the short?film "Beautiful Dead Things", which recently won awards at the 50th annual Houston WorldFest, Diversity in Cannes, and at the Female Eye film festival in Toronto.
As a songwriter, Gregg recently co-wrote three tracks (including the first single "Boundless Fearless Love") on the upcoming Dead Rock West album, "More Love" (due August 11th), which was produced by John Doe (of X). He has also written and produced songs for a number of artists including Michaela Paige, The Mazarines, Brian Seymour, and Alex Davis. His songs and collaborations have received airplay in the US, UK, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and France. His debut self-titled solo album, released in March 2017, has received airplay on over 100 college radio stations around the US.
Gregg Stewart is set to release a second album this year, "TwentySixteen" (due August 15th); a collection of cover songs inspired by the iconic artists we lost in 2016.
© 2017 Stewsongs Records. All Rights Reserved.