text:
The Political Gabfest's David Plotz on Intimacy, Earbuds, and His Own Personal Beatlemania / Andy Fitch
March 16, 2017 April 7, 2017 Andy Fitch
David Plotz , John Dickerson, and Emily Bazelon / Image ©Slate
This ongoing feature offers expansive interviews with influential figures in emerging fields of artistic and intellectual inquiry. Speak, Speculation takes for granted that an innovative practitioner's most prescient reflections may never find their way into print form without the coaxing of cordial conversation.
—Andy Fitch
In early October I interviewed David Plotz, host of Slate's Political Gabfest podcast, on the poetics of dialogue. Founded in 2005, the Political Gabfest quickly established the parameters for countless discussion-based podcasts to follow, proving influential in its intimate affect (emphasizing informal discussion by a small group of returning journalists), in its deft yet erudite pivots between current political concerns and broader policy/legal/cultural topics, and in its expansion beyond the recording studio to a diverse array of live events. By the close of its first decade, the Political Gabfest, consistently ranked among the most popular podcasts on iTunes, had attracted a weekly audience in the hundreds of thousands, had reshaped conceptions of how a digital audience might most constructively absorb its news, and (as our interview suggests) had reinvigorated the arts of dialogic exchange.
Following Donald Trump's surprising election victory, podcasts in the Political Gabfest vein have received substantial criticism for having cultivated a purportedly breezy, insular, in-group approach to political discourse—a conversational mode unaware of its own limitations, and unable to see beyond its particular demographic clique. In our interview one month prior to that election, however, Plotz had impressed me with his timely critique (both in the negative and the positive sense) of this emergent discourse he had helped to shape.
As we begin to think through responses to the Trump presidency, and the structures of discussion best positioned to inform, engage, galvanize a broader public, Plotz's inventory of podcast media's success and failures at mobilizing an active citizenry provide a lucid perspective from which to start.
Andy Fitch/ I've read several interviews addressing what makes the Political Gabfest successful. I guess it interests me more to discuss what makes the Gabfest good, if that distinction seems reasonable. And "good" here could mean a few different things of course—in relation to intelligence of the conversation, constructive social impact, etcetera. You have at times stressed the importance of something like civic engagement on the podcast. One time you even made your audience sing at a live show, if I remember correctly.
David Plotz/ I'm a huge fan of group singing. As a non-religious person, I consider it a moment of transcendence. I love group singing, so I thought: When else will I have an occasion to have a group that is feeling well-disposed and will listen to me? And so I proposed that we do it. I actually love doing it, and would do it at every show if John Dickerson and Emily Bazelon would let me, but they don't.
AF/ So hopefully it won't sound too corny for us to discuss the overall Gabfest phenomenon as a form of civic engagement. You three come out of journalism backgrounds, but I didn't know if journalists often consider this type of engagement their primary mission, or if that impression just came from movies.
DP/ No, I think that is certainly a big piece of the story of the Gabfest, and of what we're doing. I would be very glad to talk about it.
AF/ Great. I know that you, Emily, and John all have discussed the deep emotional connection (even joy) that your listeners experience in relation to the show, and I would love to trace that overlap of both informing and bringing joy to audiences.
DP/ That all sounds good.
AF/ The Gabfest prioritizes a particular type of conversation and, to begin with, I'll hope you can describe and contextualize that type of conversation. For example, if I had to give my own slightly idiosyncratic continuum for interesting forms of dialogue, on one side I'll love, in an interview (or even a dialogue in theater, film, fiction), when one person mishears the other, or misrepresents the other, and all of these shadow narratives and false narratives start overlapping, and dialogue becomes basically a form of collage or bombardment—with no clear sense of closure coming. But I also appreciate constructive dialogue leading to actual implementation of specific policies, or to unanticipated forms of real-life consensus. So my own personal continuum would run from prurient aesthetic/intellectual voyeuristic pleasure, to participating in some broader public reckoning and collective decision-making. Could you fit the Gabfest onto a continuum like that? Or could you outline your own continuum of different ways in which dialogue can be exciting and/or useful?
DP/ Well, let me take a stab at that answer by describing what I think we think we are doing. The Gabfest began with the premise that most journalistic conversation presented to the public is totally artificial—that the punditocracy, the bloviation that characterizes how journalists talk to each other and to the world, is theatrical, highly ritualized, and full of bullshit. The basic premise of the Gabfest from the beginning was to find people who like to talk to each other, people who may or may not disagree about things, but who basically enjoy each other's company, and then to put them in a situation where the conversation would be as natural as possible (given that it's still going out to an audience). We were helped by this because, for the first several years we did the show, as we were laying down the grooves that would become how the show worked, we didn't really realize we had any audience, and so we felt like we were basically talking to each other. We knew that it was a public presentation, but none of us even listened to podcasts for the first three years of doing the show, and we didn't really know anyone who listened to our show. We had very little feedback, and this allowed us to create a conversation that we felt to be an entirely natural one about issues that we genuinely cared about. Also, because we controlled the show and the playing field, that allowed us to talk about things that we cared about, and so there are all sorts of subjects that the Gabfest doesn't touch. It doesn't touch them not because those subjects aren't important—often they're much more important than the things we're talking about. We don't touch them because the three of us feel that we don't have anything interesting to contribute. For us to talk about Syria, a subject which is, perhaps, the most important subject in the world, would be empty. Certainly it's a subject that affects in a terrible way the lives of millions and millions of people, but we don't talk about it because we know that any conversation that the three of us would have about Syria would be empty of content. It would just be whatever we'd have stolen from the three New York Times articles that we read about it.
So we feel a sense of obligation. We want to be true to ourselves, but we also feel that what we owe the listener is to be honest about what we actually know, care about, and want to discuss and argue about. I'll point to one particular change we made in the show which reflects that. For the first five years we did the Gabfest, John hosted, and Emily and I were the guests. But about five years ago, Emily and I had this realization that we were in this stupid position where John, who's the person who actually has the deepest knowledge about politics, the deepest sense of how the political narrative is shaped, and who cares the most about what is happening, was asking Emily and me questions to which he had a much better answer.
Similarly, we realized that the actual dynamic is that I am more of an ignorant outsider. Emily has expertise on a number of issues around law, and John has that same expertise around politics and, to a lesser extent, policy. I'm best in an interrogative mode, or I'm there to explain, and we realized we could really improve the show and the listener's experience once we recognized that the conversation needed to move from me to them, rather than from John to Emily and me.
AF/ Just as a quick follow-up on the Syria example, do you mean that the three of you truly don't want to discuss it? When you select topics, does providing a distinct Gabfest conversational trajectory seem most important? Do you just decide: Nah, don't want to do that one? Do you think: This conversation should happen, but should happen elsewhere?
DP/ Well, it's obviously a world-historical event of tremendous importance. I think that in this case we are thinking partly of ourselves. None of us likes to talk about issues that we don't know much about. Certainly John and Emily don't like to talk about issues that they don't know a lot about. We all feel unprepared. That's not to say we couldn't prepare—we prepare every week, and we definitely could prepare, but we are unprepared. And, more importantly, we just don't feel that what we would say to our users, our listeners, would justify our taking 15 minutes of their time. They would be better served listening to the many podcasts that do talk about Syria with people who are experts on Syria.
One of the responsibilities of having a large audience that will listen to you is to be frugal with your audience's time, and to only have conversations that you think are going to give them something which is worth the 15 minutes they're going to give. We're hyperconscious of that. If we had the right guest, we might do Syria, but, in a way, that gets to a whole other set of issues. We think the show is good, in part, because users have a trusting relationship with us. The way that people always describe it to us (and I know this from being a listener to other podcasts) is that they're guests at a dinner party where a really interesting conversation is taking place with people who they really like. The podcast is almost a friendship with people they know and like, and so when we inject another voice into it, a voice that is an expert voice, this massively changes the dynamic. Sometimes that's worth it, because it's an important issue and we feel like we have to deal with it and we have the right expert who we know will play into the conversation really well. But most of the time we try not to have guests at all, because of our sense of how people experience the show. They want to be equal. They want to be participants in this intimate dinner with us.
And this is not the question you asked, but it's a point that I want to make. I think the success of the Gabfest and other podcasts similar to us has a huge amount to do with earbuds. That's because listening with earbuds is not an ambient experience. If you're listening to the radio in a car or at home, it's all around you, in some ways, but it's not directly in your ears. When you listen to the Gabfest, in earbuds, it's like we're right there with you, and it's an intensely intimate listening experience. We didn't intend it or set out to do this, but we gradually realized that that's how people listen, so we've adjusted ourselves to it. We try to make the feeling of listening, the feeling of being in a conversation, as intimate as possible for that reason. People are so close to it. And so I don't think that when you talk about…when I hear the world "civic," I tend to think of a large crowd, large audience, which is funny. We don't really aim the show at a large crowd. We aim the show at one person. A single person listening on earbuds is the audience. The engagement we want with her, with that listener, is a really personal, intimate engagement. It's not exhortative. We're not speaking to the crowd. We're speaking to her. I think you really catch the difference between a live show and a show we're doing in a studio because, with a live show, we play to the crowd. It's much more flamboyant, theatrical, and performative. Those are great shows. I love doing them. But it's a totally different experience to listen to a live show than it is to listen to the regular shows.
AF/ No question. I'll want to address everything you brought up there. But first, just to take a step back, to start to bridge maybe the intimate and the civic, I wonder if we could talk a bit more about different ways that a listener might engage and participate in your show. For some examples of what I mean, do you think of the Gabfest as a prelude to a listener reading or learning more about a topic? As a supplement to such reading? As a smart and efficient/sufficient substitute to more in-depth reporting? As a form of sifting through and digesting various perspectives on a topic? As a prompt to a real-life conversation your listener soon might have? As a surrogate for the conversation that people can't, for whatever reason (no time, no interested or appropriate conversation partners), have in their own lives? And what other reasons for listening would you add to that list?
DP/ Those are great. I never stopped to classify. I think all of those are right on. Let me think if there are other ones. Maybe this is encompassed in one of them, but there are times when I feel that the purpose of the conversation is for us to create a safe space for people to have the fight they dare not have, or say the things they dare not say. Particularly with me, and sometimes with Emily, and just for the pure joy of having the fight, I willingly set myself up to be punched down.
AF/ Yeah, you're generous with that.
DP/ It's because I want to allow that conversation to play out, and show why this idea I'm offering, which is intuitively appealing, needs to be crushed. And sometimes I think the idea is a good one, and I just want to hear John and Emily spin it out. So there is a kind of intentional experimentation. I do think listeners appreciate that, and that may fit into a slightly different category.
AF/ And then, to get back to the civic and the intimate, I'll try to give a slightly more detailed sense of how it feels for me to listen to your podcast. I want to see how this fits for you. It has something to do with finding the correct proportions on how to frame a topic. Or maybe I should compare it to mixing a music recording, fiddling with the dials, getting the volumes balanced right, giving the appropriate weight to all the different perspectives and ideas and voices and potentially competing concerns. I'll hear you three address a subject, and I won't want to be totally meek or passive when this present topic arises in my own conversation. And I won't want to be a blow-hard. So I'll search out the right proportions. That's what impresses me most, I guess, when someone gabs well. Anybody could be an impassioned idealist, and rigidly argue his or her point. Anybody can be a pedantic know-it-all. But I consider it much harder to get the balance right between those poles, and add some sort of clarifying traction to a complex conversation. It's especially hard, at certain points of life, to practice that skill, especially, as you said, on a touchy topic. So when you three take on such a topic, I'll sense, most of all, you informing me by example about how to handle this many-headed hydra of a topic, how to handle the many-headed hydra of potential social implications within that conversation. For me, this experience feels both insular (intimate) and public (civic).
DP/ That definitely makes sense as an idea. I'm just trying to think of if, when I listen to other podcasts that are not my own, whether I perform the same action, and I think I do. One of the funny parts is that often things that John says are attributed to me, because we both have male voices. There's a way in which, as people listen, sometimes they're not hearing it as a distinct this position, that position, this position. It all sort of runs together. Obviously Emily is different, because people immediately know it's her. But there's a funny way in which we get the benefit, and sometimes the punishment, of the other's position.
AF/ Yeah, I think of going to art galleries and not bothering to find out which artist made a given piece, but just taking it all in, and having your outing offer an overall impression, rather than these neatly compartmentalized bits of facts and information. And this is what I wanted to get to, in terms of live audiences and their experience of the show. When I try to clarify what I learn from a Gabfest episode, it typically doesn't involve specific facts or a single persuasive argument. It has much more to do with how I ought to listen to a variety of voices on a given topic. For me, that begins to address the internal experience of the podcast— of listening on one's earbuds. When I listen, I internalize all these voices, and I try to arrange them into a meaningful whole. That's where the event of the Gabfest happens for me. So I can understand, for example, why listening seems important in distinction to watching. You've mentioned in the past how live Gabfests can be alienating for people who can't attend, who have to listen at home. But I wonder if live shows can feel alienating even for someone who does attend. You three may seem in some ways much closer than ever to this audience, but all the sudden you three are also beings in the outside world, rather than voices in one's head. The audience might become more aware of just passively sitting there absorbing stuff. Whereas, if I listen from home, it can seem like the four of us take part in a conversation. But it also can seem like I, by myself, am at least doing something, not just kicking back, if that makes sense.
DP/ I think that's exactly what is happening. Those are three distinct states. There's the state of I'm the fourth person in this conversation, and a lot of people describe to us that they're actually talking back at us, that they themselves speak as they're listening to us because they're outraged or agreeing. They express that out loud, knowing, of course, that it's ludicrous and that we don't hear it. But, in fact, part of their experience is the dialogue they have with us. So that's one.
I think the one you described, where it's all internal to yourself, is another one. It's not my own experience of the show, so I don't know exactly how it feels, but I can see that. And yeah, I think the way you describe what happens with the live audience is right on. I think the live experience is fun for people. We are all theatrical and performative, and are willing to pander to that audience. We've actively pandered to the live audience, but it definitely creates a different kind of relationship with the listener and with a watcher than we have when we're just doing it one-on-one. I think that the people who are watching us in a theater don't have that feeling of being the fourth person in the conversation. They feel themselves to be part of a huge audience watching three people on stage.
There was this moment when Stephen Colbert came up and did a little guest spot at one of the live shows. I can't remember if he did it live, or if this is just a conversation that he and I have had several times, where he talked about how he'd always avoided the live shows. But he didn't want to be an audience member. He wanted to be a participant.
AF/ You also mentioned the deliberately casual nature of Gabfest conversations, in contrast to more canned forms of media. So how do people listen differently to the casual? Or what else helps to shape this deep emotional attachment?
DP/ Right. I think you hit on something which is really important: why is there the emotional attachment? One of the reasons we've talked about is the intimacy of the earbuds. But there's also an emotional attachment because John, Emily, and I are so obviously emotionally attached.
AF/ You mean to each other?
DP/ To each other. We so obviously love each other, and so obviously are emotionally cathected with each other, so that you listen and know that you're in a comfortable place of friendship and love. Some people want to join that, and they stick. Presumably there are people who feel like: I don't like any of these people, and the fact that they like each other makes me dislike all of them, and those audiences don't listen, or they listen and they're turned away and don't stick with it. You have to actively choose to listen to podcasts, so people only continue to listen if they feel love. I think other media are different. People continue to consume other media ambiently. With podcasts, you're making a real affirmative choice each time you turn it on, and thus you tend to pick things you feel comfort with.
So I think one reason why they feel comfort and attachment is that we are obviously attached. Another reason is that…what's the word when your beliefs are affirmed?
AF/ "Validation"?
DP/ "Validated," yeah. I don't think we intentionally set out to validate people's core belief-systems (and when I say "people," I think of our audience as largely liberal, educated, urban white people). I don't think we set out to validate that perspective. But one of the things that happens is that we do end up validating it, because there's not that much of a range of opinion among us, particularly with the opinion holders, who are me and Emily. John doesn't really express opinions. But one of the things that happens on the show is that I'll set up some kind of argument which runs counter to whatever the liberal narrative is, and Emily (and sometimes John) will just punch holes in this counterargument and batter it down. So people leave the conversation thinking: Oh good, the opposition to our liberal opinions…
AF/ We triumphed again!
DP/ has been crushed, and I feel better about the world. I honestly think that kind of affirmation is part of what people like in the show. They like the idea that there's a conflict, but we never have Paul Ryan join us. We have me channeling the little bits of Paul Ryan that I like, and then Emily cutting them down. Emily and John make the best cases. Emily makes the best case for the liberal perspective on a lot of issues. We don't make the best case for the conservative perspective, and as a result it's a very inequitable fight, where the liberal perspective generally comes out ahead. Again, this is not planned, but just happens, and thus our audience feels emotionally reassured by it. That's a big piece of it. But, at the same time, they also feel (and this is why the show needs me): Oh, I've heard a bit of a fight. I've had the pleasure of at least entertaining the possibility that the case could be slightly different. Fortunately, we've come back to the correct perspective, but we were intellectually bold there. It's very comforting for people.
So as you can tell, I don't want to give ourselves too much credit, because I think that the result is often confirming what listeners already believe. To me, the best shows are the ones where we pick a subject (which isn't political necessarily, or at least doesn't have the natural political valences) and end up having a conversation where even we don't know where it's going. We have no idea what we think about it, and end up totally confounded or not in agreement. You can't do that too much, either, because there aren't that many issues on which we are all confused. But those ones I like, because there's much more uncertainty. The thing that disappoints me about the show, sometimes, is that there's more certainty about what the outcome is going to be than I would like, especially when you're dealing with the shit-nightmare which is the current election.
AF/ Well, just in terms of your point right now, I'd say that maybe a liberal argument doesn't always get so clearly validated, but that liberal rules concerning how a conversation ought to proceed do get validated. You, David, may offer an articulate conservative point of view, but you don't just say, "Hillary Clinton's a coward and that's why the Middle East fell apart." You'll give a coherent, logically transparent rationale. In a world in which rational arguments get presented in this fashion, maybe liberals can feel confident in their position, but many contemporary conversations don't proceed that way. So, likewise, most of your guests, regardless of the particular opinions they offer, do seem center-left, technocratic, argument-driven. Would it cause too much friction and dissolve listener trust to bring in guests who make their case in a different way?
DP/ We have an internal disagreement about that. John is extremely adamant that the show works best when it's the three of us. Part of this is that John actually hosts a show filled with guests all the time, and doesn't have the same need for guests that we might. I think he's got a real point, though. I think it is obvious and evident from our experience that the overall thing that keeps people listening to us, as opposed to listening to all the other things they could listen to, or watching all the other things they could watch, is the relationship among the three of us. He's absolutely right about that. My own view though is that we benefit from outside voices. I personally like it when the outside voices are a little bit off, when we have people who don't play by the same rules and don't play the same game that we're used to. But we don't do it very often, because John doesn't like it. He's right that listeners don't want that week after week.
AF/ Or they can go elsewhere for that type of confrontational, liberal-versus-conservative discussion.
DP/ Yeah, and not even necessarily liberal-versus-conservative. There are people who are liberals who play in a totally different playground than we do.
AF/ Sure, and still just on this subject of your three voices: I don't know if this comes across clearly when you tape the show, but I wonder if you can speak about your actual three voices. I mean their tonality. Emily's voice is higher, and she's often questioning and adopting a legalistic framework as her means of engagement. John's voice is kind of in the middle, and he stays in the political middle on the show and performs the role of explaining rather than taking a side. I feel that you oscillate between a low contextualizing voice, opening up a conversation, and then a higher, more jocular, affectionately teasing voice, stirring up that conversation. Overall, I'd say that you're framing, hosting, introducing, inviting. You're pulling it all together. Do you think that the actual soundscape of the timbre of these three voices matters much? I'll note a disruption in that perfect sonic blend when the Gabfest has a guest.
DP/ I totally agree. This is the portion of the interview which will sound even more egomaniacal than the rest of it. I absolutely think that's the case. I think we each have a really good audio voice. Emily has a beautiful voice to listen to.
AF/ Agreed.
DP/ I love listening to her. She's also such a clear thinker and speaker. John is similar. And I have a really deep, resonant voice, especially when I'm doing the lower and slower parts. People really like it. It's got an ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) quality for a lot of people. I absolutely think those are critical tools. There are a lot of shows I give up on because I don't like listening to them, to the sound of someone's voice. That's just luck in our cases.
AF/ Yeah, and high-pitched intro questions can sound desperate over time, so it helps that you ask the most intro questions. And then, to return to some interesting topics you raised earlier, here again with live events in mind, and how at first you three didn't think of the Gabfest as performing for an audience: what untapped potential for the show became immediately apparent when you went live the first time? What unanticipated capacities did you immediately have to acquire for that live performance to work, and which of those did you then decide to bring back to the studio? Did the live performances make you more performative in the studio as well?
DP/ Yeah, that's definitely the case. And again, this is going to make me sound like an egomaniac. I don't mind sounding like an egomaniac! It reflects my actual personality. But there was something that clicked in all of us when we realized that actual human beings listened to the show. And it was not that they just listened to the show, but they were willing to stand outside in the cold by the hundreds, just for the chance to come watch us tape a podcast. It was a form of ego gratification, the likes of which I have never felt in any other thing I've done. Nothing else that I have done comes close to the sense of ego gratification I feel when I show up at a venue. Usually it's not even when we go on stage. It's when we show up at the venue, and you see there's a line of hundreds of people waiting outside to come see us.
AF/ Like Beatlemania or something?
DP/ Exactly. It's Beatlemania. So first of all, that made us aware. We felt a sense of civic responsibility to our listeners that we hadn't felt before we started doing live shows. When we realized there were actual people listening who were giving us an hour of their time every week, I felt like: Shit, I owe these people something. Better not half-ass it. I better think of something that's worthy for them. It serves as a reminder to not phone it in. It's the most incredible part about this show.
We've been doing the show, basically weekly, for 11 years. That's an incredibly long time for anyone to do anything with that consistency. And we would never have stuck with it if we didn't have that direct connection with the audience that we get from doing the live shows, and then the feedback we get from that. It keeps our morale up. In terms of those performances influencing us in the studio, we probably do more light stuff or funny stuff than we would have without any live audiences. We definitely do it at the live show.
AF/ Pandas come up more.
DP/ Yeah, pandas come up. We try to have cocktail chatter that we know is going to make for a great live show, because we know it'll be funny. And I think that's also made the studio show a little bit funnier (we all like to joke around, so that probably would have come out anyway, since when you do something long enough, you can't really hide your own self). And I can't tell if we fell into the roles we've fallen into just because they are our actual selves, or because we see them work with the audience. I think we do it because we see that they work with the audience. So if you go back to the beginning of the show (and this is most true of me), I'm much less of an instigator and a jerk—that kind of provocateur. But also part of it is that I have a low threshold of boredom, and I need to keep myself entertained. One way I do that is by saying things that don't make any sense, or just playing out crazy arguments in my head just to see what will happen. But part of it also is just that we've got the audience, and they want that. We could see this when we did the lives shows. We realized: Oh, these moments of Plotz's combat with Bazelon, or John's mockery of Plotz, work really well, so let's try to find a way to institutionalize that. And again, we never had a strategy meeting, but…
AF/ It just happened?
DP/ It happens.
AF/ Well I find it admirable that you haven't fallen into self-parody either, which, in terms of phoning it in, easily could happen. You also mentioned a couple times some questions of efficacy and efficiency with the show, like wanting to condense as much as you can into these 15-minute segments. And emotional attachments have come up several times. So, going back to the standard idea of wanting to be the guest at the dinner party, of wanting to be part of the conversation, should we address the fact that, in empirical terms, audience members don't in fact participate? Or when you describe trying to pack a lot into this particular timeframe, I wonder about my own timeline as a listener and reader of news media. I spend about an hour of my day, every day, absorbing news. And often I'll wonder: Why do I do this? If this activity was supposed to have some desired impact on me, why hasn't that happened by now? Haven't I already read enough and listened enough for one lifetime? So for a concrete question here, does the Gabfest ever feel like not the ideal form of political conversation or news show? Or when does listening to a podcast not seem like the right form of civic engagement? It's definitely somewhat vague and unfair for me to ask this, so you don't have to answer, but when do people listen for what you might consider the wrong reasons, especially in relation to emotional attachments?
DP/ I don't think that's the wrong reason at all. When you laid out the various ways people listen to the show, their modes of receiving it, the most tenuous is: I use this as a primary or secondary information source to understand the issues of the day. I'm not saying that you won't get something out of the show that way, because you certainly will. But it's a bank-shot effect, because you would get a lot more out of reading the New York Times for an hour, or listening to more intentionally dense podcasts or radio shows like All Things Considered. You would get a more substantive and thorough understanding of the news and even of the issues that we're talking about.
So I don't think our purpose is efficiency in the sense that we have to pack as much information into a show as possible. When I talk about efficiency and not wanting to waste the audience's time, it's that we have to give them the best use of their time—the thing that we do best. It's much more about entertaining people. Hopefully, from that entertainment, we are giving them ways to think about issues, to argue about issues, and we are perhaps reassuring them that the world is comprehensible and that there's a community of like-minded people around the world for them. It's rarely about: We are using this to educate our listeners so they then can carry out action in the world around a particular issue. That's not to say that this never happens, but insofar as listeners are explicitly educated by us, it is generally not intentional that we're doing that.
AF/ Yeah, that makes sense, and that's what I meant to say—that you want to distill the distinctive Gabfest experience into this compact span of time. And this distillation has much to do, as suggested earlier, with the particular friendship you three have, and with your sharing of that friendship with the audience (whatever "sharing" might mean here). We already have touched on this, but it works really well when you three disagree and get persuaded by each other. I would assume your audience totally projects itself into that, and your audience will say "David's mean to Emily" and things like that. But we do sense a family-like form of trust in which this type of teasing becomes tolerable. And particularly with that sense of trust in mind, I admire your ability to broach difficult subjects together. A conversation about extremist religious violence came up recently, for example, in which you, David, made the point that, in most contemporary circumstances, such violence emerges in relation to Islam. You admitted that this was an awkward topic to address, and then everyone continued in that vein, acknowledging the awkwardness, but a non-polarizing conversation took place. Maybe, to some listeners (and given, say, anti-Muslim terrorist plots that subsequently have been uncovered), it would seem stereotypical and oppressive from the start to associate Islam and violence, especially since you could be misidentified as endorsing much more drastic and dangerous associations of a type we've heard far too often lately. But, to me, your collective approach seemed a reasonable one, in which you all relied on giving each other credit and the benefit of the doubt for what each other had to say. Any one of you could have decided to demonstrate moral superiority on the topic, and to distance him/herself from this association. Or you all could have pointed to an endless but overlooked history of violent Christian extremism, and proved your progressive bona fides and cut it there. But if you had done something like that, this would have showed, it seems to me, a lack of confidence in your own abilities to push beyond safe stances. This may have, from an audience member's perspective, betrayed the friendship that you three possess and profess. So in what ways does your relationship with Emily and John push you to take concrete risks on the show? Would you three feel you had disappointed yourself and/or us if you didn't try for something difficult and then work it out together?
DP/ Yeah, I think we would. We absolutely all feel that way, and I think it's most true for me and Emily. One thing that's happened is that, as John has become so much more expert about politics (he's so far ahead of Emily and me on a lot of politics, especially in this election season), there's a lot more explanation coming from him, so the risks that are put on him are less. There's less occasion for him to have things that he needs to take risks around. But it is totally the case that we each look for ways to have those conversations, to press each other, and to get each other to say the awkward sentence or say the sentence that we're afraid to say. We do it because if Emily says some crazy shit, she knows I'm going to make fun of her about it, and she knows that we're then going to talk about it and maybe have a fight about it, but that it's always in the context of a totally loving relationship, and that even if we finish by disagreeing, we disagree with a huge amount of clear respect and admiration for each other's view, and an attempt to understand why the other holds that view. It's never: you're crazy, you're wrong, or you're morally incomplete. That allows us room to provoke without feeling like we're being total jerks or ignoramuses about it.
For all of us, the intellectual purpose of the show is to play around with ideas that we otherwise don't get to play around with. I have not even the slightest bit of interest in doing a show where I comment on the issues of the day. What has interest for me is to have some place where I can intellectually play around and experiment with people who I enjoy being with. That's why we do the show. All of the other reasons for all of us are secondary. It's an intellectual gym where we get to work each other out. That is what turns us all on.
AF/ So we ended up getting pretty Platonic after all. But in terms of more contemporary media, do you consider it more than coincidence that this show has become so popular during an age of social-media trolling and shaming? It seems like the Gabfest often presents the opposite phenomenon. On your show, a statement never gets taken without any context, with no embodied connection to the speaker, who then might get judged rashly. Or I'd assume the show's listeners include many 30-ish/40-ish, semi-settled-down people. Do younger audiences, raised amid different forms of media, different types of conversations, have the same enthusiastic response?
DP/ I don't know. I doubt it. The audience is definitely us. It's people from 35 to 55. Not exclusively, but that's definitely the sweet spot. I don't really know about social media. All of podcasting is born in an age of social media. When this show started, in fact for its first four or five years, social media were not much part of our world.
AF/ Good point. But your performance of non-combative conversation really stands out right now. I've watched one YouTube video recording of a studio episode, and found it especially revealing to see how you'll communicate with each other nonverbally—whether John will look at you or not when you ask him a question up close. Or I loved to see how, when you read a commercial, John and Emily are totally ready to take off a sweater, massage their eyelids, stretch their shoulder blades, check text messages. To close, and since you brought up gyms, could you talk about the muscle memory of the show? I don't mean just in terms of strain or skills drilled in, but in terms of bodily ease, familiarity, comfortability, mutual receptivity, mammalian sociality. I wonder how much the three of you feeling relaxed, sitting around almost goofing off together (especially in relation to other professional roles you play) comes across, and contributes to your audience's experience.
DP/ I think you're being generous there.
AF/ In what regard?
DP/ A lot of the time when someone is sitting back in the studio, they're just not paying attention to what…
AF/ That's part of what I meant! The studio scene actually comes across as weird and dramatic when you watch it on video, because it will look like a body-machine has just been turned off. If you start talking over John, he might just slump, rest. So I'm saying that there's this other sense of time that I only recognized when I saw you three in motion. I liked getting to watch once, and knowing I normally wouldn't have to, and that normally you three wouldn't have to be seen. But go ahead with what you were saying.
DP/ It is certainly the case that we like sitting in a room together, and being relaxed in the room together. We are uninhibited together and, because we've been doing this for so long, we know each other's manners and patterns, and can help each other out. You can actually see that when we have a guest. The show stiffens sometimes because there's another person literally in the room, in our space. It's funny: I was at the Slate D.C. office the other day, working in the hallway right outside the studio. Inside the studio Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias and Sarah Kliff were taping one of their podcasts. Those three have been doing that show for maybe a year, and it was exactly the same kind of body language. Ezra was on his phone while Matt was saying something. It was clear someone was talking and the other two weren't paying close attention. I thought: Oh, everyone just has the same habits on taping a podcast. They all do this. I'm not sure that we look any different than a lot of podcasts look.
David Plotz is the CEO of Atlas Obscura, a digital-media company devoted to celebrating and sharing the world's most remarkable places. He is also host of the popular Slate Political Gabfest podcast. Before joining Atlas Obscura in 2014, Plotz was Editor in Chief of Slate for six years. Earlier in his career, Plotz was also Deputy Editor, Washington Editor, and Staff Writer for Slate. He also worked as a senior editor and staff writer for the Washington City Paper. He is the author of The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank and Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible. He lives in Washington, DC, with his wife, the journalist Hanna Rosin, and their three children.
Andy Fitch's most recent books are Sixty Morning Talks, Sixty Morning Walks, Sixty Morning Wlaks and (with Amaranth Borsuk) As We Know. With Cristiana Baik, he recently assembled the Letter Machine Book of Interviews. He has dialogic books forthcoming from 1913 Press and Nightboat Books. He edits Essay Press, teaches in the University of Wyoming's MFA program, and directs the MA program in literature.
Andy Fitch ASAP/J David Plotz Emily Bazelon John Dickerson Political Gabfest
Angela Carter and Surrealism by Anna Watz / Caleb Sivyer
Poetry from a Year of Precarity / Michael Dowdy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Hostage taking
Until the United States of America's military invasion and occupation of Al Jumhuriyah al Iraqiyah (Iraq), US policy officially held that hostage taking was among the forbidden military tactics identified as terrorism. While US policy continues to define terrorism as violence committed without the approval of a lawmaking body with the intent of influencing a lawmaking body, recent military tactics employed by US soldiers in Iraqiyah appear to be simple terrorist hostage taking, under a more widely recognized definition of terrorism as being violence against civilians. [1]
The motivation for US troops to forcibly detain thousands of Iraqiyah citizens has never been told to a court of law, but military leaders claim most are "suspects" in either ongoing resistance to the occupation, were former leaders of a government the United States once supported, or were suspected of acts that would have been crimes before the United States destroyed Iraqiyah's system of law. But the recent kidnapping of women and other uninvolved family members by US troops in an effort to flush out wanted family members, establishes hostage taking as a legitimate military tactic under US military policy.
In a Jan. 2 news account, Associated Press reporter Michelle Faul wrote: "Soldiers in Samarra also blew up the house of Talab Saleh, who is accused of orchestrating attacks against U.S. troops, witnesses said. They said the troops arrested Saleh's wife and brother and said they would not be released until Saleh surrenders. The military had no immediate comment."
The disclosure calls attention to troubling precedents in government attacks against unarmed citizens. The accidental bombing of a single English community during nighttime German raids against English industrial targets led to the escalation of a fiery bloodbath by all parties in World War II, who then proceeded to indiscriminately attack each other's civilians in massive campaigns of aerial bombardment. The escalation culminated in two nuclear attacks against civilian targets and set the stage for the Cold War, dominated by the doctrine of mutual assured destruction that held two generations of children hostage in a game of political brinkmanship.
War Crimes Against the Civilians of Iraq
War Crimes Against the Civilians of Iraq/External Links
↑ Iraq, NationMaster, accessed November 2007.
Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hostage_taking&oldid=273011"


text:
Transforming Health Systems: Learnings from Four Country Case Studies
Veronica Olazabal — Senior Adviser & Director, Measurement, Evaluation & Organizational Performance, Organizational Performance, The Rockefeller Foundation
Nikita Japra — Former Program Associate
©Last Mile Health/Rachel Larson
Just shy of a decade ago, The Rockefeller Foundation broke from a long tradition of focusing its health-related work on disease-specific interventions. Instead, it began to explore the question of how a health system can transform to ensure that all people can enjoy the right to health.
At the time, the Foundation's new emphasis on the systems that promote, maintain, and restore health drove a deeper questioning of the roles that stewardship, financing, human resources, information systems, and management could play in whether the populations who need health care most can access it when they need it most. Arguably, these roles had been understudied by the time much of the global health community first faced the challenge of globalization alongside ongoing epidemiologic and demographic transitions.
With the understanding that health systems can vary significantly across cultural and geopolitical contexts, the Foundation invested in country-level work in Bangladesh, Ghana, Rwanda, and Vietnam. The Foundation chose to support projects within these countries to glean learnings that could ground the four strategies underlying its Transforming Health Systems (THS) initiative:
Promoting Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Policy and Advocacy
Defining health systems stewardship and management
Supporting the design and implementation of eHealth systems
Developing health financing strategies
Through these investments, the Foundation supported its grantees and partners in achieving a range of outcomes (documented in these four country case studies), including increased awareness of and commitment to UHC, improved and standardized training at medical education institutions, integrated health information systems, increased UHC policy dialogue, improved capacity to implement sustainable eHealth solutions, and strengthened government capacity in health systems management and planning.
Country-level progress on advancing UHC would require a consistent, targeted, unified vision that included partners across government as well as the private sector.
These achievements notwithstanding, the country-level work revealed areas in which the THS strategy could use some refinement in order to achieve greater impact at scale. Key revelations suggested that country-level progress on advancing UHC would require a consistent, targeted, unified vision that included partners across government as well as the private sector. We increasingly saw the value of connecting international technical experts with local research organizations to ensure context-specific capacity building. Additionally, given the time bound nature of the initiative, it became clear that the way we connected the Foundation's grantees would become a key determinant of whether we could leverage these initial in-country investments to drive a larger global movement for UHC. This called for close transition planning that could lay the groundwork for future impacts on health system reforms even beyond the lifespan of the THS initiative.
These valuable learnings proved critical in refining the course of the THS initiative, which ultimately landed on two priority workstreams: the UHC Movement and the Joint Learning Network (JLN). Now, the Foundation is taking stock of its THS portfolio and will make the results of this work available over the course of the next few months. For more information on THS, please contact THSTeam@rockfound.org.


text:
5G iPhones, Including Sub-6GHz and mmWave Models, on Track for 2020: Kuo
by Steve Vegvari – Mon, January 13, 2020
According to the respected Apple analysist, Ming-Chi Kuo, four 5G iPhones are expected to be announced and launch late this year. Kuo claims this includes the sub-6GHz and mmWave models as well, in certain regions of the world.
Last month, the word was spread around that Apple was developing four new iPhones for its 2020 release. Kuo, who works with TF International Securities, has been known to be fairly spot on with his analysis in the past is now confident that the four iPhone releasing this year will indeed feature sub-6GHz and mmWave frequencies.
As reported by MacRumors, Kuo said that the mmWave models will be released in five regions around the world including the U.S., Canada, the U.K, Japan, and China. Kuo also noted that Apple may disable the 5G feature in countries that are not able to support a 5G connection, or in regions where 5G penetration rates are lower as to cut down on production costs.
The real kicker in Kuo's latest research notes is his claim that Apple is still on track to release both sub-6GHz and sub-6GHz-plus-mmWave iPhones simultaneously at some point in the second half of 2020, shipping in either the third or fourth quarter of the year.
Although, as MacRumors has pointed out, other analysts have been disputed the timeline, claiming an early 2021 launch was more realistic, Kuo believes that both sub-6GHz and mmWave models are on track. The 2020 lineup of iPhone will likely be revealed during Apple's keynote in September
Bell Price Increase: $65/10GB Plan and Internet Jumping Up $5 in March [u]
Gary Ng


The brief was to build a premium and contemporary flagship retail space. Design objectives were to attract more walk-ins, provide an engaging experience, communicate better brand perception and achieve better sale conversions.
© 2017 Xlucid design studio. All Rights Reserved.


text:
International Australia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Bulgaria Canada Croatia
Czech Republic Estonia France Germany Hungary Iran Italy Jordan
Latvia Lithuania Moldova Netherlands Poland Romania Russia Serbia
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom
News | FAQ | Site Map |
sales@bioptron.com
What it Treats
BIOPTRON Light Therapy
BIOPTRON MedAll
BIOPTRON Pro 1
BIOPTRON 2
Color Light Therapy
Oxy Sterile Spray
BIOPTRON AG
Home / Professionals > Doctor's Corner > Inflammatory Diseases
Inflammatory Diseases
By Anatoliy L. KOSAKOVSKYI, Md, PhD, DSc, Prof
Head of the Department and Vice-Rector Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of Ukraine
TREATING INFLAMATORY DISEASES OF THE EAR, NOSE, EYES AND MUCOUS
MEMBRANES OF THE MOUTH
Professor Kosakovskyi, a leading authority on light therapy
THE inflammatory response is observed in many diseases. This response to tissue injury is a complex of vascular-tissue changes whose function is to limit the damage area and remove (or prevent the spread of) a pathogenic agent. The anti-inflammatory action of polychromatic and monochromatic polarized BIOPTRON-light has two phases. In the first (promoting inflammation) phase, the process of formation of reactive oxygen species on the cell membranes is stimulated, the release of cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α), which promote inflammation, is observed and peroxidation is enhanced. The vessel wall is damaged, platelet aggregation is inhibited, and the parietal assembly of cell elements occurs. However, the antioxidant protection is also activated at the same time, which to some extent suppresses the damage processes.
Local vasodilation takes place and arterial hyperaemia is stimulated under the influence of the subsequent sessions using BIOPTRON-light. The content of angiogenesis (vascular endothelial) growth factor (VEGF) is increased, and the migration of endothelial and stem cells is stimulated. The growth of micro-vessels and increased microcirculation lead to improved oxygenation of stagnant areas in the focus of inflammation and to the elimination of breakdown products. After this the polarised light stimulates the final phase of inflammation, proliferation (reparative regeneration) and self-limitation of the process. This increases the production of anti-inflammatory hormones, anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, which transforms the TGF-β growth factor. The chaperon (HSP-70 proteins) content, the "repair" proteins that restore the spatial structure of a protein molecule, is increased in the wound. This stimulates the division of many cell types (fibroblasts, monocytes, lymphocytes, endothelial and stem cells, thymocytes, myocytes, chondrocytes, keratinocytes, osteoblasts, and others.). The components of the respiratory chain (cytochrome-c-oxidase, flavoproteins, and adenine nucleotides) are activated; the content of adenosine triphosphaten mitochondria is increased. The regeneration of peripheral nerves, receptors and synapses is stimulated which prevents the development of neurogenic dystrophy. The volume of the focus of inflammation decreases gradually from the periphery to the centre, destroyed tissue is replaced by newly formed analogues or scar tissue.
Thus polarized light stimulates the triggering mechanisms of the inflammatory response and restricts it in later phases when restoring the structure and function of the damaged tissue by optimising the inflammatory response. In some cases, BIOPTRON-light, which causes significant recovery processes including for wound injuries, can be considered as a means of monotherapy.
Clinical observations conducted by the National Kyiv and Kharkiv Medical Academies of Postgraduate Education of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, by Kiev and Odessa State Medical Universities of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and by the leading medical institutions of Ukraine, have revealed the effectiveness of BIOPTRON-light for the treatment of diseases with associated inflammation, pain, immunodeficiency, spastic, swelling, neurotic, poly-traumatic and wound syndromes.
Among the large array of publications on the BIOPTRON-light therapy, research dissertations are considered to carry the most weight. An author has to perform the research in accordance with the prescribed rules of procedure, to publish the results in top-rated journals, to pass through the sieve of multi-stage review and to publicly defend the fundamental provisions. The topics of research dissertations containing sections on BIOPTRON-light therapy are given below:
Chronic inflammation of supramaxillary cavities due to the effects of radiation exposure;
Immune status in bronchial asthma combined with chronic fatigue syndrome;
Respiratory disorders in children with the consequences of radiation exposure;
Adaptive disorders in children (including acute respiratory viral diseases);
Prevention and treatment of wound infections in obstetrics;
Surgical purulent-septic complications in drug abuse and AIDS cases;
Chronic posttraumatic osteomyelitis of the long bones of the limbs;
Experimental graduated burn injury and monotherapy with BIOPTRON-light;
Bronchial asthma and expired breath condensate indicators in background immunotherapy;
Bronchial asthma and complications in the upper airways in background immunotherapy;
Generalised periodontitis with cryodestruction;
Zona serpiginosa (herpes zoster);
Reproductive function in patients with endometriosis genitalis;
Discirculatory encephalopathy and haemostasis markers;
Neuro-humoral mechanisms of the systemic effects of physical factors of electromagnetic origin (including prostate diseases);
Vegetative-vascular and neurotic disorders in transport drivers;
Hypogalactia in women with anaemia of pregnancy;
Ectopia of uterine cervix in nulliparous women;
Vasoregulatory, haemodynamic, and immune disorders in cases of chronic glomerulonephritis.
The wide range of proven features of the BIOPTRON-light therapy suggests its significant clinical perspective.
Frédéric Rivoalan
Sergiy A. GULYAR
Christian Deperdu
Suzanna Miniconi Orban
Ulcer Healing
Michael T. McNamara
Pain, Set & Match
Anatoliy L. KOSAKOVSKYI
Pain Management: BIOPTRON, In-depth Study
By Dr. Urszula Hura
Natalia A. Zhevago
Kira A. Samoilova
Systemic Effects Of Bioptron Light Therapy
Bogdan Dimitrie Niculae
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy |
BIOPTRON AG, Sihleggstrasse 23, 8832 Wollerau, Switzerland
support@bioptron.com


Smart foam delivers feedback to physio students.
New algorithm makes offline disease ID possible.
Uses analytics to hear what customers are really asking.
To address 'complex' systems environment.
As part of $3bn goal to reach global top 50 unis.
Costs rise 17 percent above contingency.
Training AI to drive on Qld's rural roads.


This image gallery named as Magnificent Teak Wood Patio Amazing Patio Cushions Of Wood might be ideal solution for your decoration. As the author has insert this image into Pottery Barn Customer Service Phone Number post section, would ease you to find the perfect match of you decor desire.
White magnificent teak wood patio amazing patio cushions of wood cabinets can be put in almost any kinds of pottery barn, including conventional, modern, timeless, etc..
At a barn you can find other tools and appliances and pieces of furniture to complete it. Those things normally have various materials. What are materials that are ideal to mix with white barn cabinets?
Examples of ideal companions for white barn cabinets: Woods. It can be wood flooring, a timber island, a wood countertops, etc.. Stainless steel. A stainless stove hood along with a stainless steel rack go well with barn cabinets. Glass is always good to unite white barn cabinets. Even the doors of cupboards and entrance upper components of cabinets are often from glass.
Upper cabinets. Make sure you have the top supports for upper cabinets otherwise they'll fall down and make damages to people and appliances. Repair Kit. Make sure you buy or ask about the repair kit if there's a small damage including alternatives for damage colour. Be sure that the size of the cabinets matches the magnificent teak wood patio amazing patio cushions of wood it's also recommended that you navigate around local furniture shops or hire a professional carpenter to get the very best pottery barn cabinets that fit you and your lifestyle. For sure these barn cabinets ideas pictures are all beneficial.
Make sure to only put something that comes out looking great. It is possible to store larger cooking utensils at the lower cabinets instead. Too much stuff on the shelves also can be dangerous when you need to choose something from it. Last but important thing is to keep it clean. Open shelves are most likely to collect dust. Therefore, you need to wash it frequently even daily to maintain them look good anytime.
From the magnificent teak wood patio amazing patio cushions of wood atmosphere, generally the lights have been hanging over the island and undermount lighting of wall cabinets. These lights will help you create the cupboards as focal points, particularly when painted in darker colors. Or if you decide to paint it with white or other bright colors, it will help to reflect the lighting. You need to be aware that some materials especially woods such as oak, cherry or hickory will alter paint or stain colours that applied onto them as time goes on. That's why those sorts of woods usually keep on its natural state.
Nonetheless, you ought to cautious when use black magnificent teak wood patio amazing patio cushions of wood cabinets in little pottery barn spaces. Dark barn cabinets already take almost half colors part, so you need to balance it with mild colours especially white. Too much black will make your small barn seems darker, stained, and cramped. Additionally, it is important to focus on enabling more natural lighting in to produce a fresh spin.


A 40-year-old man has been taken to hospital following an assault outside Derby's Intu centre.
Derbyshire police were called to Traffic Street shortly before 9pm after a man was found injured in the street.
A police cordon has been set up on a stretch of pavement near an entrance for delivery trucks, close to SportsDirect, and blood was visible across the pavement.
The man was taken to hospital by East Midlands Ambulance Service. The extent of his injures or how he sustained them are not yet known.
A spokesman for Derbyshire police said: "We were called to Traffic Street by the ambulance service at 8.50pm to respond to an assault involving an injured man.
"A 40-year-old man has been taken to hospital following the incident. We do not know the extent of his injuries yet.
"We are appealing for witnesses, however, to get in touch by calling us on 101."


We hold Fundamentals in Critical Care Support Courses four times a year. The course and dates are posted on the CHSLI Intranet site and on the Society for Critical Care Medicine's website.
The CME Department at St. Francis also coordinates major conferences for the Hospital and its Cardiac Research Department, which often attract international attendees. We are also working on a Pain Management Symposium scheduled for September and a weekend conference with the Hispanic Medical and Dental Society in October.
For more information on upcoming programs, courses and conferences, contact Karen Rosen, Medical Education Coordinator at (516) 562-6728 or Karen.Rosen@chsli.org.
Watch a short video covering last year's CME focused on Intravascular Imaging, sponsored by St. Francis Hospital.


Selected faculties: biology, chemistry, economics, finance and banking, physics, information technology, information technology and econometrics, mathematics, law, psychology, sociology, business and marketing.
Selected faculties: architecture and urban planning, automatics and robotics, biotechnology, chemistry, electrical engineering, electronics and telecommunication, technical physics, mathematics, information technology, chemistry and process engineering, paper and printing technology, chemical technology, textile industry.
Selected faculties: Directing, cinematography, acting, film production.


Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) will be the venue for India-Australia semi-final in ICC World Cup 2015. And the hosts hold clear advantage over MS Dhoni's men going by the past records at the venue.
In 35 years, India have beaten Australia only once at this ground. This statistic might clearly install the hosts as favourites for Thursday's (March 26) last-four clash but on current form, India are capable of rewriting history.
India and Australia first met at SCG on 18 December 1980. In that game, Australia won by 9 wickets. Since then, for 28 years they dominated their opponents in 11 games.
India won by 6 wickets and went on to clinch the trophy, their first in Australia, after beating the hosts in Brisbane in the second final.
Overall, India have played 17 times at SCG, winning 4 and one was a no result – against Australia. The other three victories came against England, New Zealand and Pakistan, the last one in the 1992 World Cup.
Now for Thursday's encounter, India will be keen to tame their rivals and make a second successive World Cup final. A tough task but not an impossible one, given the way they have strung together 7 wins in a row in the tournament.
Martin Guptill of New Zealand made a double century in the fourth quarter finals against West Indies in Wellington to take 2nd place in the leading run-scorers of 2015 Cricket World Cup. Kumar Sangakkara became the first batsman to cross 500 run-mark in 2015 Cricket World Cup but his quarter-final innings 45 off 96 deliveries is anything that did justice to his aggressive, in-form batsman personality. He is the leading run-scorer of this edition but the humbling performance by Sri Lankan side in the quarter-final against South Africa could well be their final match of ICC Cricket World Cup 2015.
His knock of 138 off 110 deliveries takes him to second place of leading run-scorers of 2015 Cricket World Cup, only behind Kumar Sangakkara of Sri Lanka (496 runs). Taylor has made 433 runs in ICC Cricket World Cup 2015, including second century of the tournament. Zimbabwean Sean Williams also made another half-century to climb up to sixth place in top-10 list of batsmen of ICC World Cup 2015.
Mahhmudullah of Bangladesh riding on his great form hit second hundred of 2015 Cricket World Cup against New Zealand at the Seddon Park in Hamilton. After becoming the first Bangladeshi batsman to hit century in World Cups, Mahmudullah scored a well-made 124* against the Kiwis. With this hundred he moves to fifth place of leading run-scorers of ICC Cricket World 2015 with a total of 344 runs. The race to become the leading run-scorers of 2015 Cricket World Cup is heating up between two players – South African skipper AB de Villiers challenging Sri Lanka's batting supremo Kumar Sangakkara. Both the players have consistently being among the runs.
There have been a total of one double century and 33 centuries hit in the World Cup 2015 so far. Sri Lanka's Kumar Sangakkara (4), Tillakrathne Dilshan (2), Mahmudullah (2), Brendan Taylor (2) and Shikhar Dhawan (2) are the only payers to hit more than one century in Cricket World Cup 2015 so far.
Leading run-scorers table updated till Match 44 of ICC Cricket World Cup 2015, India vs Bangladesh* on March 19, 2015.
The 27 centurions, starting with the top scorer are– Chris Gayle (215), David Warner (178), AB De Villiers (162*) Tillakaratne Dilshan (161*), Hashim Amla (159), Kyle Coetzer (156), Lahiru Thirimanne (139*), David Miller (138*), Brendan Taylor (138), Shikhar Dhawan (137), Marlon Samuels (133*) Aaron Finch (135), Moeen Ali (128), Mahmudullah (124*), Kumar Sangakkara (124), Brendan Taylor (121), Joe Root (121), Kumar Sangakkara (117*) JP Duminy (115*), Ed Joyce (112) Faf du Plesseis (109) Virat Kohli (107), William Porterfield (107), Shaiman Anwar (106), Kumar Sangakkara (105*), Martin Guptill (105), Suresh Raina (104), Kumar Sangakkara (104) Tillakrathne Dilshan (104), Mahmudullah (103), Glenn Maxwell (102), Lendl Simmons (102) Shikhar Dhawan (100) and Mahela Jayawardene (100).
Among the other notable players were India's flamboyant batting star Virat Kohli's 107 against arch-rivals Pakistan, Sri Lankan veteran Mahela Jayawardene who scored a magnificent century to save his side from going down against Afghanistan. Paul Stirling of Ireland's winning knock of 92 against West Indies is another memorable innings of the 2015 Cricket World Cup.
Suresh Raina has said India need to continue the good work in the next "three crucial games" to win the ICC World Cup 2015.
Left-handed Raina, who hit a century against Zimababwe last week to take India to sixth victory in a row in the group stage, is eyeing to carry the same form in the quarter-final against Bangladesh on March 19 at Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG).
India, the defending champions, are three games away from winning a second World Cup title in a row, which has never happened in their history.
"We are all looking forward to it (quarter-final) and we believe we have a good all-round side. Everything is working well for us and if it works well for another two weeks then it would be great," Raina told BCCI's official website.
"Now it is all about those three crucial games – the quarters, semis and the final. We need to continue what we have been doing over the past one month and work on our strengths. We need to get our focus on the rest of the three games.
"As of now we need to go and play really well against Bangladesh. They have reached this stage playing some good cricket. I hope we do well and we believe we will," he added.
India and New Zealand are the only unbeaten sides so far in the tournament. The quarter-finals begin tomorrow with South Africa meeting Sri Lanka in Sydney.
Spin great Muttiah Muralitharan told Sri Lanka to bat first against South Africa and not obsess over the destructive batting power of AB de Villiers in Wednesday's World Cup quarter-final.
Muralitharan, a veteran of Sri Lanka's defeated sides in the 2007 and 2011 finals, believes all the pressure will be on the team batting second at the Sydney Cricket Ground and that Angelo Mathews's men can capitalise on South Africa's poor record when chasing.
"I have two messages, win the toss and do not get too hung up thinking about AB de Villiers," the off-spin great wrote in latest ICC column.
South Africa's four group game victories all came batting first, piling up 411 against Ireland, 408 facing the West Indies, 341 to beat the UAE and 339 in the win against Zimbabwe.
But batting second, de Villiers's team made just 177 chasing India's 307 and a disappointing 202 in pursuit of Pakistan's modest 222.
"A total in excess of 300 batting first means the side needing to get those runs has to go at a run a ball from the outset and, if wickets go down and the run-rate increases, and in the knowledge of it being a win or bust encounter, batsmen's brains can get scrambled very easily," added Muralitharan.
Muralitharan advised Sri Lanka not to get distracted by de Villiers who has made 417 runs at the tournament with his best score a blistering 162 not out against the West Indies at the same SCG where Wednesday's quarter-final will take place.
"Sri Lanka need to focus on getting de Villiers in as quickly as possible. If he comes in with a platform laid, wickets in hand and the field spread then that is a licence for mayhem, especially against a Sri Lanka attack that has struggled to contain opponents throughout this World Cup.
All eyes will be on Kumar Sangakkara when Sri Lanka face South Africa in the quarter-finals of ICC World Cup 2015 here at Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) tomorrow (March 18, Wednesday).
Now, the 37-year-old will be hoping to go further and make it five in five in his final World Cup. If he does that, he will match batting legend Sachin Tendulkar's World Cup record of most number of hundreds – 6. So far, Sangakkara has 5 World Cup tons, joint second with Australia's Ricky Ponting. Sangakkara has achieved this in 4 World Cups. Tendulkar played in a joint record of 6 World Cups from 1992 to 2011. South Africa captain AB de Villiers and his men will be working out plans to stop Sangakkara tomorrow. If he stays true to his form, the Proteas' record of not winning a knockout game in World Cup ever will remain. When this World Cup started, many thought no batsman could come closer to Tendulkar's mark of 6 hundreds. However, Sangakkara has proved it wrong. The wicketkeeper-batsman is also the first batsman in World Cup history to register 4 three-figure marks in a single tournament. Can he emulate Tendulkar on Wednesday?


text:
André Zoltan (ur. 2 stycznia 1945 w Uccle) – belgijski strzelec, olimpijczyk.

Brał udział w Letnich Igrzyskach Olimpijskich 1972 (Monachium). Startował w jednej konkurencji, w której zajął 52. miejsce.

Wyniki olimpijskie

Przypisy

Bibliografia

Belgijscy strzelcy
Belgijscy olimpijczycy
Urodzeni w 1945
Ludzie urodzeni w Uccle
Uczestnicy Letnich Igrzysk Olimpijskich 1972

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Former police officer pleads guilty to manslaughter charge in death of George Floyd
Thomas Lane accepted a plea deal from the state for the charge of aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.
George Floyd Square in Minneapolis, Minnesota April 21, 2021.
(Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
By Sophie Mann
Former Minneapolis police officer Thomas Lane pleaded guilty Wednesday to a state charge of aiding and abetting the second-degree manslaughter of George Floyd.
Floyd died almost exactly two years ago, when Derek Chauvin, another former Minneapolis police officer, held his knee to his neck for more than nine-minutes, while Floyd, a black male, repeatedly said he could not breathe.
A video recording of the incident sparked a series of protests around the country and the world on the subject of racial justice.
As part of the plea deal, Lane will have one count of aiding and abetting second-degree unintentional murder dismissed.
Lane, as well as former Police Officers J. Alexander Kueng, and Tou Thao have already been convicted on federal counts of willfully violating Floyd's rights during the restraint that ultimately led to his untimely death.
During the incident, Lane and Kueng assisted in the restraint of Floyd, as Thao kept bystanders at a distance.
Attorneys for Lane, and the state have agreed upon a recommended sentence of three years, which is below state sentencing guidelines.
Prosecutors have also agreed to allow Lane to serve his sentence simultaneously with any federal sentence he is given, and in a federal prison. He has not yet received sentencing in the federal case.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said of Lane's guilty plea, "His acknowledgment he did something wrong is an important step toward healing the wounds of the Floyd family, our community, and the nation. While accountability is not justice, this is a significant moment in this case and a necessary resolution on our continued journey to justice."
Lane's scheduled sentencing is September 21.


Most of the attention around automation focuses on how factory robots and self-driving cars may fundamentally change our workforce, potentially eliminating millions of jobs. But AI that can handle knowledge-based, white-collar work are also becoming increasingly competent. One Japanese insurance company, Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance, is reportedly replacing 34 human insurance claim workers with "IBM Watson Explorer," starting by January 2017.
Google won, buying DeepMind for £400m ($660m) in January 2014. But why did it want to own a British artificial-intelligence (AI) company in the first place? Google was already on the cutting edge of machine learning and AI, its newly trendy cousin. What value could DeepMind provide? That question has become a little more pressing.
In a bid to restore some semblance of work-life balance, French companies with more than 50 employees are now required to guarantee workers the "right to disconnect" from technology when they leave the office at night. The law, which took effect Jan. 1 and has unclear enforcement provisions, makes it obligatory for qualifying firms to "start negotiations to define the rights of employees to ignore their smartphones," the AFP writes.
Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens an unconditional monthly sum, in a social experiment that will be watched around the world amid gathering interest in the idea of a universal basic income. Under the two-year, nationwide pilot scheme, which began on 1 January, 2,000 unemployed Finns aged 25 to 58 will receive a guaranteed sum of €560 (£475). The income will replace their existing social benefits and will be paid even if they find work.
THE MOST INFLUENTIAL football coach of the past 30 years hated his legacy. He hated it from the moment he retired at age 57, in January 1989, days after winning his third Super Bowl as head coach of the 49ers. Bill Walsh had felt fried for years, and during that last season he was in "a claustrophobic panic," as a friend later described it. Or "just eking by," as his son Craig recalls.
What did people think about the first iPhone?


Nicolas and Daniel both graduated from Highland Park High School and continued to the University of Miami's School of Communication for higher education. Josh Tallo, though a native of St. Louis Missouri, has spent over a decade in Chicago honing his talents in the filmmaking industry. Nicolas earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Visual Communication (focusing on motion picture/television writing & production), a Bachelor of Science in Cultural and Physical Anthropology, and a minor in Photography. Daniel earned a Bachelor of Communications (focusing on motion picture/television writing & cinematography), a Bachelor of Science in Cultural and Physical Anthropology, and a minor in Art History. Josh attended Columbia College where he studied Cinematography, receiving a Bachelor of Science.
As Creative Director, Nicolas oversees and facilitates a smoothly functioning production team from concept through completion. Nicolas primarily focuses his time and talent on the people in front of the lens. His expertise lies in getting the best out of other people when the lights are on and the cameras are rolling. On set he is the guy conducting the interviews or directing the actors. Nicolas loves being immersed in a production – collaborating with a team of professional, creative, enthusiastic people. Apart from video production, Nic is a writer/director of and a performer in The Comic Thread sketch comedy troupe. Originally formed in 1998 under another name, Nic and The Comic Thread have produced nearly two dozen original productions in Highland Park, at The Second City Chicago, and at the Chicago Sketch Comedy Festival (the largest of its kind in the world). His favorite part is being able to completely immerse himself in the process from start to finish.
As Director of Photography, Daniel works on the technical side of each production. During the beginning stages of a project he works with Nicolas to determine how best to tell that particular story and what tools are needed to make it happen. On set he can be found adjusting the lights, operating a camera, or conferring with the other members of the crew on how to make the project look its absolute best. Daniel loves the process of creating with a team of energetic and like-minded people. Apart from video production, Dan enjoys working on personal photo projects and is currently photographing the food and people surrounding Chicago's Community Sustainable Agriculture, a collective of local farmers who grow organic food. His favorite part is getting to eat tasty pulled pork nachos.
As a cinematographer and camera operator with a handful of short films, documentaries, and extensive on-the-job training, Josh continues to hone his skills in lighting and camera techniques almost daily. Josh has worked in the documentary television arena, working for such clients as TLC, Discovery, Oprah, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, The Travel Channel, The Weather Channel and Nike, to name just a few. He brings a plethora of other skills to the Bitter Jester team, including audio mixing, and editing, working with staying up all night working with clients, and just plain being a nice guy. He has even been known to dabble in the stop motion animation arena, producing work for the Fannie Mae Chocolate company. Josh brings a passion and creative mindset to everything he works on, driving projects well beyond expectation. And while he strives to advance himself in every aspect of production, Josh's ultimate talents are revealed through his cinematography work. His passion for imagery and lighting continues to be the basis for everything he creates.
Also a graduate of Highland Park High School's intensive arts program, Mark is the entire brains and brawn behind the webpages for both Bitter Jester Creative and The Comic Thread sketch comedy troupe. He continued his learning at Carnegie Mellon University, graduating with a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems, followed by a Masters Degree in Information Systems Management. As Site Administrator, Mark is responsible for the upkeep and functionality of the websites and all web/stage-related questions/concerns should be addressed to him.
Dr. Charles J Turck co-founded Bitter Jester with Nicolas DeGrazia when they were but seniors in college. In 2003 he sold his shares to longtime frenemy (and current co-owner) Daniel Kullman. Dr. Turck has been a board member of Bitter Jester since 2006 and is a founding member of and contributor to The Comic Thread sketch comedy troupe.
Charles holds a pharmacy doctorate and is a Board Certified Pharmacotherapy Specialist practicing in one of the ICUs at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, Massachusetts. Past endeavors include acting, directing, editing, and writing for the stage during his ongoing tenure with TCT as well as Oak Lawn, Illinois' very own Christ Medical Center Pharmacy Department Repertory. A freelance medical writer, consultant, and aspiring philanthropist, Dr. Turck hosts the show "FDA Voice" on ReachMD XM 160.


Our country is a nation of immigrants and is the best country in the world for that reason. Yet, immigrants convicted of criminal offenses can face draconian consequences, even for offenses that may be considered minor by the general public or even by those in the legal community who do not fully grasp the labyrinthine immigration system. The result is that attorneys who fail to learn of their client's immigration status, or fail to properly fight against a resolution that may result in a severe immigration consequence, may set their immigrant clients up for removal or denial of admissibility if a case is not effectively handled,. For immigrant defendants who are seeking asylum, in the US on a green card or lawful visa, or are undocumented such as the DACA/Dreamers, this may mean exile from the United States to a land where they are far away from their family and support network, they know very little about, and/or their lives may be in danger. However, a recent statute effective in California starting last January 2017 has created a form of relief that may help immigrants convicted of such crimes get a second chance at staying in the US.
Cal. Penal Code § 1373.7(a).
In making the motion to vacate permitted under Penal Code section 1473.7, the moving party is entitled to a hearing as to its merits, with the standard of proof placed on the moving party being a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is entitled to the relief specified in Penal Code section 1473.7(a). Cal. Penal Code § 1373.7(d), (e)(1). The new statute indicates that the magistrate ruling on the motion to vacate must specify its reasons on the record for granting or denying the motion. Cal. Penal Code § 1373.7(e)(2). "If the court grants the motion to vacate a conviction or sentence obtained through a plea of . . . nolo contendere, the court shall allow the moving party to withdraw the plea." Cal. Penal Code § 1373.7(e)(3). The magistrate's ruling on the issue of the motion to withdraw the plea, further, is appealable under Penal Code section 1237(b). Cal. Penal Code §§ 1237(b), 1373.7(f). The Defendant can then seek to have the prosecutor dismiss the case in the interests of justice or negotiate a resolution that does not carry severe immigration consequences.
Cal. Penal Code § 1473.7(b).
If an immigration judge's order of removal is appealed, it is not considered "final", as the regulatory definition of a "final" order provides that, except when certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final "upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is taken whichever occurs first." 8 C.F.R. §1003.39 .
The timeliness provision under Penal Code section 1473.7(b) requires that the defendant be made aware that "the conviction" in the case in which relief is sought is the basis for the removal. Cal. Penal Code § 1473.7(b). Further, it has been determined that the statute under Penal Code section 1473.1(a) is not limited to prospective applications only, and may be applied retroactively, wherein a court "needs to evaluate whether a moving party satisfies the required elements to bring a motion under the statute." People v. Modesto Perez __Cal.App.4th__, slip op'n at 14 (filed January 15, 2018, Fourth District, Division One). This includes a review of the timeliness provisions described by Penal Code section 1473.7(b). Id., slip op. at 14-15; Cal. Penal Code § 1473.7(b).
Relief under Penal Code section 1473.7 usually involves a defendant who was not accurately advised of the negative immigration consequences or did not understand the consequences because their attorney did not effectively seek to prevent the negative immigration impact at the time of plea, or advised going to trial when a resolution that would have avoided the negative consequences was on the table. Language problems in communicating with one's attorney about the case have been common in these situations as well. Furthermore, relief is available if new evidence proving innocence exists and can be demonstrated to the court.
If you believe that you or a loved one is facing negative immigration consequences due to a conviction that involved an inability of the party to "meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences" of the plea, or if you were convicted and there is new evidence proves that the party was actually innocent of the crime, you or your loved one may be eligible for relief and need an experienced attorney on your side to advocate for your rights in this complex area of the law. Contact Honeychurch & Boyd today for a free consultation to determine if your case is eligible for relief and how we may be able to effectively assist you in vacating a wrongful conviction resulting in negative immigration consequences on your behalf.


Christmas flowers from LASTING MEMORIES FLOWERS in Blenheim, ON are the best way to send Christmas cheer! Flowers and poinsettia plants are a great way to spread joy throughout the season, but also make quick and easy party decor. LASTING MEMORIES FLOWERS can help you with any Christmas styles or colors with our Christmas decor accessories. Need a centerpiece or a Christmas wreath for your party? LASTING MEMORIES FLOWERS has it, and more!


For those of you who remember Sybil https://mybloggers.com/sybilmariee/: she passed away yesterday. She hasn't blogged on mybloggers for some time but we were friends on fb.
I guess that I had forgotten here. I am so sorry.
I did not know her, but it is sad to lose a friend. My condolences.


My life at the moment feels like a constant joyous swirl of pumpkin spice, which makes my repeat purchase of Pumpkin Spice Life all that much more fitting. I ate Life from time to time growing up, but it didn't have the big sugary appeal of Reese's Puffs or Cookie Crisp, so I haven't revisited it much as an adult. Last year when this cereal dropped I made my return to the Life brand, and much like the PS Cheerios, when I saw them this season I felt the need to try them again, and gotta bring my thoughts to the skillet.
This cereal isn't nearly as spicy as its direct Cheerios competition, but I'll be damned if it isn't just as tasty. The little criss-crossed squares don't jump with cloves and nutmeg, but they do have a sharp cinnamon presence and wonderful creamy, almost buttery essence that makes them really enjoyable to eat. Dry they have lots of crunch and embrace the brighter, sweeter side of cinnamon, even though a serving only clocks in at 6 grams of sugar. When milk is added the creaminess gets kicked up a notch and the cinnamon flavor doesn't fade – it simply stays a cool, mellow, calming spicy presence that is downright pleasant to eat.
The flavor, while it isn't very intense, reminds me a bit of pie crust that has just a touch of pumpkin pie filling on it. While I haven't had Cinnamon Life in quite awhile, I imagine this is very similar, yet the bowl screams autumn, and I don't recall getting those vibes from the purely cinnamon version. There's an upper register pop to this cereal that's unique, almost like a spicy spark going off on my tongue, and it happens with every bite.
I'll be honest, there isn't a ton of bold pumpkin flavor in Pumpkin Spice Life, but there's a perfect balance of toothy, spicy, earthy, and delicious that makes it incredibly palatable and hard to stop eating. It isn't aggressive but it's refined, and sometimes subtly can be a real treat.


Description ADRBK1 Full-Length MS Protein Standard (NP_001610), Labeled with [U- 13C6, 15N4]-L-Arginine and [U- 13C6, 15N2]-L-Lysine, was produced in human 293 cells (HEK293) with fully chemically defined cell culture medium to obtain incorporation efficiency at Creative-Proteomics. The product of this gene phosphorylates the beta-2-adrenergic receptor and appears to mediate agonist-specific desensitization observed at high agonist concentrations. This protein is an ubiquitous cytosolic enzyme that specifically phosphorylates the activated form of the beta-adrenergic and related G-protein-coupled receptors. Abnormal coupling of beta-adrenergic receptor to G protein is involved in the pathogenesis of the failing heart.


"When the Savior shall appear...that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."
As I further researched this custom, I learned that candles are widely recognized as a symbol of Christ the light. In medieval times, Irish Christians began the custom of placing a lighted candle in the window to show that the stranger was welcome to enter in the name of Christ and share in the Christmas abundance.2 How appropriate to refer to a candle in a window as the Christ-candle. Just as a candle in the window signals welcome, the Savior is always available to those who need him.
2 Elsa Chaney, "The Twelve Days of Christmas," Catholic Culture 2004.