The tension is great ahead of this weekend's election, with the election campaign dominated by blockages between the traditional political party blocs – the red-greens (S,MP,V) and the Alliance (M,C,L,KD).
The two blocs are tied in the polls, with neither anywhere near a Riksdag majority. The winning bloc is therefore likely to find it hard to govern without support from the other alliance or the SD. By all indications, the Riksdag election will not result in any clear government alternatives.
After the election the new Riksdag meets for a roll-call on 24 September. During the meeting, the members will elect, or re-elect, a Speaker and three Deputy Speakers for a four-year term. The posts of Deputy Speaker are allocated to the parties in relation to their size in the Riksdag. It may be complicated to appoint a Speaker to the Riksdag after the election. According to current practice, the party that is the largest in the coalition forming the government nominates a Speaker, but the Alliance parties have said they want to nominate a joint candidate no matter how it goes. In the prevailing unclear political situation, the Speaker's role in appointing someone to form a government is an increasingly important issue.
When a new government is to be formed, the Speaker summons the leaders of all parties in the Riksdag and the Deputy Speakers for consultations. The retiring Speaker, Urban Ahlin (S) will prepare for the change of government by starting discussions with the party leaders immediately after the incumbent government has resigned, in order not to lose time. Ahlin will probably explore the possibility of cross-bloc governments. During the consultations, the Speaker usually instructs the party leaders to collectively review the possibilities of forming a government that will have the support of the Riksdag. The number and scope of these discussions can vary depending on how complicated the political situation is. Currently, opinion polls indicate a difficult parliamentary situation where neither bloc will be in majority. This would mean a complex situation for the Speaker, and the more complex the parliamentary situation, the more important the role of the Speaker. Only after the election of the new speaker on September 24 will we see concrete steps towards forming a government. Only the newly elected Speaker can formally propose a new Prime Minister. But finding a Prime Minister with the support of the Riksdag will be an elaborate and complicated process.


Here's a bit of code which allows you to highlight any text within any specified container. I'm not sure of a practical application for this; it's just a bit of fun. If you're thinking that you can highlight search keywords then don't use this! That kind of functionality should really be handled on the server-side.
You can specify the container, the word to be searched for, and the class to be given to the wrapping span (e.g. 'highlight').
Note: Don't set the container as a parent of any SCRIPT tags. So, if your body contains any script tags, don't set the body as the container.
A worthy idea, but there are always edge cases that either don't work, or are a bit finicky with regular expressions. Having recently written a highlighting script, ensured to work across all A-grade browsers (yup, that includes IE6), there is only one perfect way to accomplish this without poking around in the dark for those edge cases.
You'll have to fill in the gaps for some of those external methods and variables (like found and wrap_topic, but a it should not be difficult to do this.
This is how you extract all of the textNodes in a container into a simple array.


text:
Back to All Musicians
Donald Kinsey
Irie Love
Kailua, HI, Estados Unidos
Irie Love was born in a small Hawaiian town called Kailua, where she was encouraged by her mother to sing solos at the family church. She began singing at age thirteen and first gained notice as one of the finalists on the "Brown Bags to Stardom" talent competition in Hawaii, in 1999. Since then she has toured the world with such names as Morgan Heritage, Pink, Chaka Khan, Fiji, J Boog, Katchafire, Tarrus Riley and many more. Her mission as an artist is to "empower, inspire and entertain the world through her love of music."
Follow Irie Love
PFC Videos Featuring Irie Love
Listen to the Music | Songs Around The World Movie
2018: What A Year
(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay | 50th Anniversary | Song Around The World
Natural Mystic/Just a Little Bit | Song Around The World
Discover Musicians
Grandpa Elliott
location_onNew Orleans, LA, United States
Genevieve Chadwick
location_onUlladulla, New South Wales, Australia
location_onDartford, UK
Jah Guide | Live in Australia
Stand By Me | PFC Band live in Brazil
Our Music Students in Ghana Unite to Record an Original Song
In honor of the United Nations' 75th Anniversary and GivingTuesday, Playing For Change and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) are thrilled to announce Peace Through Music: A Global Event for Social Justice, produced by Playing For Change and Blackbird Presents, exclusively on Facebook Live for 48 hours. The event will then be streamed on […]
What are the impacts and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic on people of African descent and their communities? On Thursday 23 July, UNFPA Executive Director Dr. Natalia Kanem was joined by government and civil society leaders and other experts to discuss this question in the latest Nairobi Commitments/ICPD25: What's Next? Global Thought Leadership Conversation. Participants reflected […]
Want to see behind the scenes of PFC?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
2.4 Changing Legal Structure
With the introduction of the Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO) legal structure in 2011 providing a more convenient alternative for establishing an incorporated charity, many existing charities and non-charities have taken the opportunity to 'convert' to this new charitable form. Although particularly beneficial for organisations with unincorporated legal structures such as trusts and unincorporated associations, existing incorporated organisations including Community Interest Companies (CICs) and companies are also applying to change to SCIOs. The table below describes the process involved when changing to a SCIO from each common third sector legal structure.
Unincorporated associations & trusts >SCIO
(steps 3 and 5 do not apply to unincorporated associations and trusts that are not charities)
Apply to OSCR to incorporate a SCIO. The SCIO's name must be different to that of the existing charity as OSCR cannot enter two charities with the same name on the Charity Register. 'SCIO' or '2018' can simply be added to the existing name (which can be reverted back to once the existing charity has been dissolved).
Charitable status awarded. If the SCIO successfully passes the charity test, charitable status will be awarded.
Apply for consent to dissolve the exiting charity. Complete and submit the Application for Consent to Wind-up or Dissolve a Charity to OSCR, giving at least 42 days' notice of the effective date of dissolution (the next AGM or an EGM called for that purpose).
Dissolve the existing charity & transfer its assets. Dissolve the existing charity in accordance with its governing document and transfer the assets and liabilities to the new SCIO. Independent legal advice is advised if contracts are involved.
Notify OSCR that the existing charity has been dissolved. Within three months of the existing charity being dissolved, complete and return to OSCR the declaration sent when permission to dissolve is granted along with any evidence requested (closing bank statements etc.).
Company > SCIO
Pass the necessary resolutions. At a general meeting of the company's members or via a written resolution, the company must pass a resolution that it is to be converted into a SCIO and another adopting the proposed SCIO constitution. OSCR provides template resolutions.
Complete the Conversion into a SCIO application form. The form should be submitted to OSCR along with the proposed SCIO constitution, existing articles of association, trustee declaration forms and copies of both resolutions.
Application approved. If OSCR grants the application it will add a note to the company's listing on the Charity Register and send both of the resolutions to Companies House. Companies House will register the resolutions and cancel the registration of the company. Once this has been completed the company will automatically convert into a SCIO.
CIC > SCIO
Apply to OSCR to incorporate a SCIO. The SCIO's name must be different to that of the CIC as the Registrar's Index of Company Names cannot have two names that are the same or similar. (Once the CIC has been dissolved, the SCIO can apply to change its name accordingly if desired.)
Amend the CIC's articles of association. A special resolution should be passed to amend the CIC's articles of association so that the new SCIO is nominated as the asset locked body that will receive the CIC's assets on dissolution.
Transfer the assets. Once the CIC's resolution and amended articles have been filed at Companies House, the assets can be transferred to the SCIO without the involvement of the CIC Regulator's Office.
Dissolve the CIC. With the SCIO now delivering its services, the CIC can apply for voluntary dissolution by submitting the DS01 form to Companies House along with a cheque for £10.
< 2.3 Voluntary Organisations and Tax
1.0 Getting Started
2.0 Developing and Growing
2.1 Project and Business Planning
2.2 Recruiting Employees
2.3 Voluntary Organisations and Tax
2.4 Changing Legal Structures
3.0 Taking on an Asset
4.0 What is Social Enterprise?
5.0 Volunteering
6.0 Funding
7.0 Dissolving an Organisation


So far we have discussed the numerous benefits that ICTs have in developing social capabilities with young students. It has been made clear that for this to occur, it is important the pedagogy used by educators is conducive with an interactional learning environment which encourages meaningful communication and collaboration of learning. The value that ICTs have in promoting skills for the 21st century is undeniable which brings us to today's topic of discussion. Our expert Jean states 'that predictions in the use of technology to communicate is going to increase dramatically i.e people working from home, online shopping, leisure activities such as online gaming and movies, social media and so on'.
Is the focus of education to prepare for this kind of world? More importantly, can educators determine the world of the future by their current practices? Can you make a difference? (Thank you Jean for these thought provoking questions).
So from Shelly's example, we can see that there is a real opportunity for us to teach the curriculum in a way that facilitates a sense of social responsibility and ethics in our students- we know that technology is becoming more and more important in our lives, according to Home Computer Access and Internet Use (2012), In 2010, almost six out of ten children ages three to 17 used the Internet at home (57 percent), nearly three times as many as in 1997 (22 percent). Eighty-five percent had access to a computer at home, up from 15 percent in 1984.
So I believe that yes, as educators we can help to shape the world of the future, as Shelly has stated so eloquently, through our beliefs about ourselves, and our students. How though can we keep this ideal in mind every day, as teaching children to be 'good citizens' as Shelly mentions is not in the curriculum, and as such is not necessarily viewed as important?
In light of our overarching question: 'How are social capabilities influenced by the use of ICTs?' if we know that the use of digital technologies is increasing, yet because it is changing so fast, it is difficult to teach very specific skills. However we do know that being able to relate to others is important in every walk of life, and for almost every task, is it fair to instead focus on general skill development, some of which are related to being able to use new ICTs as they become available as well as general capabilities in other areas?
Wow, thank you Jean for asking these questions which require us to look into our own perspectives of education and evaluate the importance of ICT in learning for the futures of our students. It is no surprise to me that technology is fast evolving and communication between people near and far is becoming more efficient. As it has been mentioned, ICTs are essentially just another tool for use, to be able to participate in a society which relies on quick access to information and ability to share this information with other people. Utilising ICTs provide the means to do this in the most efficient way possible. That said, we understand that using ICTs in the classroom should only be used if it provides an enhanced understanding of new concepts and benefits the holistic nature of student's learning.
Shelly – I just love your analogy of planting seeds as you describe your perspective of education. I certainly agree that the teacher's role is vitally important to ensure that children have the best possible start. Furthermore, teaching young students how to be a good citizen so that they can participate harmoniously with others in modernist society is also important. Both John Dewey and Paulo Friere emphasise the importance of morality in students which is an integral component for growth and social development (Johnson, T & Reed, R.,2008). Along with refining our personal perspectives of education and improving our teaching pedagogies, we must also consider the role of ICTs in our future student's learning thus they can achieve all the educational outcomes required to instil the social, emotional, intellectual and physical needs to become the leaders of tomorrow. I will end on this; in a world which is based on societal processes and community affairs it is critical that we as future educators ensure that the social capabilities of students are developed and when using ICTs, guarantees it has 'real' purpose and ultimately transforms the learning.
Hi Cecilia, when you said "in a world which is based on societal processes and community affairs it is critical that we as future educators ensure that the social capabilities of students are developed and when using ICTs, guarantees it has 'real' purpose and ultimately transforms the learning" it really struck a chord with me; like our experts have said, ICTs are tools to be used-where appropriate to enhance learning in a whole range of areas, and should be carefully selected. The educators must also remember that while using ICTs, they have the opportunity to either increase or decrease students social capabilities, so the way in which they are used is important. I do feel that the effect educators have on students is long lasting, and what we do today does make a difference to the future.
To add to your thoughts, I think that there is powerful potential for students to use ICTs to connect, communication, and collaborate with their peers worldwide. As adults they will need to know how to use ICTs to problem solve either at work or for themselves. Already we notice how when we need to accomplish something and we call we are connected with English speakers from other countries. We have to communicate with them effectively to sometimes pay bills or get help with accounts. Many companies outsource to other countries and most are globalized. Many workers worldwide are part of global teams and they must video conference, attend/conduct webinars, or even create and maintain company profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, Youtube, GooglePlus and Twitter. If our students learn how to use ICTs to problem solve, communicate effectively, and collaborate then they will be better prepared to meet many challenges they will face in their careers and as adults. We are becoming more of a "flat world" and finding that what happens in other countries impacts us. However, many of our students live in a microcosm and they rarely get to learn how to communicate/collaborate/problem with ICTs. They then encounter problems in life because they didn't learn how to do this. Communicating online is very different from communicating face-to-face. Even for this forum, there were netiquette rules posted so we could have a healthy and productive discussion. Without the nonverbal communication which researchers say comprises 65% to 85% of communication, there is a lot of room for misunderstandings. Our students already face these challenges and some misunderstandings, cyberbullying, or sexting has caused some of our students to commit suicide. And many of us also face challenges. Just this week my father's server went down because he clicked on a spam email. How many of us have had identities stolen, malware, caught viruses, lost important information, or encountered other problems because we just didn't know what we were doing with the technology? These problems are due to not ever being taught in schools how to use ICTs and there is an opportunity for us to be there as our students make mistakes online and guide them in the right direction so they can use these tools effectively that are already embedded in our society.
Hi Shelly, I really appreciate your thoughts on teaching students to use ICT to "problem solve, communicate effectively, and collaborate;" this might seem obvious, but one of the things I will take away with me from this learning journey is to use ICT in classrooms when, and only when it is authentic to the learning process, rather than using ICT for ICTs sake.
Like you say, learning to communicate is a vital skill, and we can use the ideas of constructivist theorists such as Bruner, Piaget and Vygotsky to create learning environments with an understanding of the active, social nature of learning, where students interact with others, building understanding together that wouldn't be possible alone (Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996).
I feel the pedagogical approach should be as Anne Knock said on day 2: ICT is a tool which should be used when needed- that we don't keep our own computers for special times, we use them when we know they will be useful. If we keep these ideas in mind, we can create learning environments where the right tools can be used in order to facilitate higher order thinking and the social capabilities necessary to work with, communicate and collaborate with others.
I only just had the time to look over these 2 links provided and I have shared them via Diigo with our EDC3100 group. I think that these two documents support exactly what our lecturer David Jones has been saying all along. The first checklist matches perfectly with what David has told us to consider when planning our curriculum suggestion for this piece of assessment. I actually commented on what I believe he meant earlier on in our blog. This checklist supports my interpretation and therefore will be a very handy tool now and into the future.
The second link I love is about 'Integrating Technology: 8 Key Questions'. This blog made me feel more at ease. As you say you use this document to support current teachers who are undertaking professional development in relation to ICT integration. Student teachers often feel so lost and unsure regarding ICT's and to know some current teachers also feel this way is reassuring, that everything is achievable overtime.
I have revisited the above two links as I believe they are relevant to Jeans question. I do believe that educators who are constantly reflecting, revisiting and evaluating their own practices and beliefs will be the best they can be and therefore influence each and every one of their students in a positive way.
By always having such documents as tools for reflection, educators will be reminded of best practices and hopefully not slip into complacency.
As I read through the discussion today one thought came to me… These kids are growing up with technology, with its integration into life like never before seen. Do they really need much taught in terms of ICT? Of course they need guidance, but the wisdom is that there are a range of soft-sills that actually need to be taught for success in the technology age.
Hi Anne, and thank you for sharing this list with us, it helps to bring together many different threads that we have learnt about over our course of study; I am sure we will all look back and reflect on this list as we embark on our education journey.
I would like to thank you and our panel, Martin Burrett, Jean Dakin, Shelly Sanchez Terrell and Katie Younger whose insights, experience and understanding of both ICT and creating optimal environments for children to learn in has made this event amazing. Thank you.


text:
The hidden hearing aid that is being used by NHS surgeons to give deaf people 24/7 sound
Oct 2017 Daily Mail Australia
Conventional hearing aids work by receiving sound through an external microphone, typically worn behind the ear, which sends signals to an amplifier that sits in the ear canal. Semi-implantable hearing devices include bone-anchored devices that feature a titanium sound processor surgically embedded into the skull. In cochlear implants, an electronic receiver is placed into the inner ear which receives sound signals from an external speech processor.
The Carina, however, is totally implantable and effective for hearing loss caused by problems with the outer and inner ear. Surgeons are restoring deaf patients' hearing with this revolutionary implant without external parts – making it impossible to tell a person has it fitted. The battery-powered microphone, processor and motor is placed beneath the skin and within the skull near the ear in a complex operation. After six to eight weeks it is switched on – and the patient can hear again. Because all components of the new Carina device are fully implanted, patients are able to hear at all times.
Professor Jaydip Ray, ear, nose and throat consultant at Sheffield Teaching Hospital, who has implanted three of the ten devices that have been given to British patients so far, said: 'With this device, people can go swimming or take a shower without having to remove their hearing aid, as they do with conventional devices. The implant provides 24/7 hearing.'
A hand-held remote control enables users to turn the Carina on and off as well as control the volume. The only other piece of external equipment is a small charger which connects wirelessly. The Carina requires just 30 minutes of charging daily. The device is made up of three parts: a microphone that picks up external sound through the skin; a processor which turns the sound into electrical signals; and a motor that converts the electrical signals into mechanical vibrations. These cause tiny bones in the middle ear to vibrate and amplify a sound signal to the inner ear.
Surgery to implant the Carina lasts three to four hours, under general anaesthetic. First an incision is made into the skin directly behind the ear lobe and the microphone – the size of a 20p coin – is inserted between the skin and the bone. The processor, measuring 1½in, nestles within the large bone on the side of the head. Finally, the motor is placed inside a plastic tube and screwed in place, inside the middle ear. Patients are left with a tiny scar and a small bump behind the ear. After six to eight weeks, the hearing aid is switched on using the remote control.
The first Carina implant in 2011 was to a woman who lost her hearing at the age of six, and cost the NHS a total of £30,000. Prof Ray says the entire procedure will soon be available for today's NHS patients for a fraction of the original price – just £12,000.
For Linda Oxley, one of the first in the UK to have the Carina implant, the revolutionary hearing aid has changed her life. 'As soon as the implant was switched on, I could tell the difference. I could hear traffic, could hear people whistling, dogs barking, even hear the owl at night. I can go out and speak to people. I get choked up when I think about it – let's just say cornflakes and crisps are a new experience.' Linda also has to grapple with the less pleasant sounds that life has to offer. She joked: 'I can now hear my husband snoring, so sometimes, I do turn it off in bed!'


Time to Honour Mahatma Gandhi at the Parliament Square in London?
Gandhi meets Churchill in the 21st Century? It could happen if the campaigners are able to raise the funds to have Mahatma Gandhi's statue erected at the iconic Parliament Square in London. Also on the show, we meet fans of legendary cricketer Sachin Tendulkar in UK as they make a bee line for his autobiography, some even bunking work to meet the master blaster.


Joe's newest Solo CD - Poets, Philosophers, Workers, & Wanderers - was released May 1st, 2017 - to critical acclaim. The CD has spent several weeks at #1 on Sirius XM's Americana Chart, and was also the #1 CD on the Folk DJ Chart for May, 2017 - with 4 songs in the top 10.
Joe has also appeared on numerous CD Compilations including National Public Radio's "Car Talk: Born Not To Run."
"Listen to Joe! A clear tenor voice; a heart that's in the right place, close to the skin; a sense of justice tempered by a sense of humor; and a CD that captures it all in rich tasty arrangements. How can you go wrong?"


text:
Washington voters reject carbon fees for second time
Despite a bruising loss, supporters of I-1631 vow continued fight against climate change.
Photos by
Lavina Earl, 14, left, Malia Leon, 13, second from left, Lokelani Villegas, 14, and Marilyn McCloud, 14, right, watch as results come in during the Washington N8tive Vote watch party for "yes" on I-1631 carbon fee and Yes on I-940 watch party on Nov. 6, 2018 at the Emerald Queen Casino in Tacoma, Wash. (Photos by Sarah Hoffman/Crosscut)
For the second time in two years, Washington voters are rejecting an initiative to put a price on carbon emissions.
In Tuesday night's final statewide count, some 56 percent of Washington voters were saying no to Initiative 1631, which would have imposed a fee on carbon emissions to control climate change.
Dana Bieber with the No on 1631 campaign called the results a "clear victory for Washington families and small businesses … as well as a victory for the environment."
The rejection followed a big money opposition campaign that portrayed the initiative as too expensive for consumers and small businesses, unfair and unlikely to produce significant results.
An early October Crosscut/Elway poll offered carbon-fee supporters a ray of hope, showing 50 percent of voters in favor of the initiative and 14 percent undecided. In the final month of the campaign, the opposition ramped up its ad campaign and spending by millions of dollars.
The Yes on 1631 campaign raised an impressive amount of funding — about $15 million— largely from individual donations. But the opposing campaign raised more than twice as much. Funded in large part by the Western States Petroleum Association and other oil industry organizations, No on 1631 accrued more than $31 million, making history as the highest-spending campaign in opposition to an initiative the state has ever seen.
Initiative supporters said the huge spending had an influence on the results. "It's not hard to buy some confusion with $31 million," said KC Golden, the chair of environmental organization 350.org. With many voters who were undecided, he said, the ads created uncertainty to "make people back away."
At the gathering of initiative supporters, early King County returns, showing 57 percent of voters in favor of the initiative, brought cheers. But enthusiasm in the room dwindled as vote counts came in from other counties. Only San Juan and Jefferson counties joined King County in support.
Nick Abraham, communications liaison for Yes on 1631, said many groups supporting the initiative came in expecting not to be fully sure of the results on the first night. He said the coalition of groups that penned the carbon-fee initiative, known as the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, will continue their work against global warming.
"This problem is not going away regardless of whether we come out on top or not," Abraham says. "It was clear from the beginning that this coalition is not going away either."
This sentiment was echoed by leaders of organizations like Got Green and the First American Project.
"We'll be back," said Quinault President Fawn Sharp, who attended an event held by the Puyallup Tribe at Emerald Queen Casino in support of Initiatives 1631 and 940. "There has to be an outcome where we're able to restore our natural world and environment, and until we get to that place, we're going to fight."
Golden said that this year's failure will pave the way for a "united political constituency" behind future carbon-cutting legislation, and he expressed hope that future attempts will find a way to succeed despite heavy opposition funding.
Representatives speak during the Washington N8tive Vote watch party for "yes" on I-1631 carbon fee and Yes on I-940 watch party on Nov. 6, 2018 at the Emerald Queen Casino in Tacoma, Wash. (Photos by Sarah Hoffman/Crosscut)
Initiative 1631 aimed to be the first measure enacted in the United States to put a cost on carbon emissions by charging emitters. Globally, large countries like Mexico, China and Canada have either introduced carbon-cutting initiatives or made plans to do so.
The initiative promised to do two things: slash carbon emissions by imposing fees on large, corporate carbon emitters and use those funds to promote a greener future. The fee itself would charge $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning in 2020 with a $2 increase each year afterward — or until the state meets its 2035 greenhouse gas reduction goal. The hope is that carbon emissions here could be cut to 36 percent below 2005 levels by reinvesting 70 percent of the fee's revenue into clean energy. The rest would go to the protection of natural resources and communities impacted by carbon pollution (such as Washington state tribes, who played a large part in the fee's consultation process).
Although similar proposals like the revenue-neutral 2016 carbon tax have been advanced in Washington previously, the fee's creation departs from the tradition of its predecessors in a big way. Kickstarted by the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, it roped in diverse communities early on in its writing. This decision has led some groups that have been skeptical of past carbon-cutting attempts to endorse the initiative.
Yoram Bauman, an author of the Washington carbon tax initiative that failed to pass in 2016, said he expects Washington to continue its pursuit of a carbon-cutting initiative. When his carbon tax flopped two years ago, he was told that the state wouldn't have another chance at a similar initiative for another decade. Initiative 1631 is proof to the contrary.
"We took our swing at the ball and didn't make it … but somebody else will take that place," he said.
And because he expects Washingtonians will continue to try to pass carbon-cutting initiatives, Bauman says he has personally advised businesses like the Western States Petroleum Association (who were major funders of the No on 1631 campaign) to create a policy themselves.
"I think there's a case to be made for the business community in general and the petroleum industry to push for a good policy that they support rather than running the risk of a bad policy that they're not going to like," Bauman said. While he doesn't know of any hard plans on the part of business leaders to work on a carbon-control policy, he said he's seen interest. After all, he said, even oft-vilified oil giants "live on this planet, too."
Opposition spokesman Bieber said of the coalition behind No on 1631, "Now that we've rejected the measure, we look forward to addressing carbon policy in a meaningful way."
Election 2018,
Manola Secaira is a reporter at Crosscut focused on environmental justice issues.
Sarah Hoffman is a video producer at Crosscut and KCTS 9, focusing on science and the environment.
A local writer reflects on fear, family and fatigue as the Trump administration prepares to mount deportation raids in cities across the country.
WA's top lawyer took a rare step to affirm tribal sovereignty — here's why that's a big deal
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson's new policy of getting written consent from tribes before taking actions that affect them is not one most places have embraced, experts say.


text:
Space: The Next Generation
Is It Legal to Mine Asteroids?
How space law could cause conflicts—or cooperation—on Earth
By Jon Kelvey
Oct 13, 20145:45 PM
Photo illustration by Juliana Jiménez Jaramillo. Photos by Getty Images/NASA/Creative Commons
There's gold in them thar skies, or at least some platinum and a substantial amount of water, according to hopeful space prospectors. Over the past several years, a few companies have announced plans to mine asteroids. If successful, they could reinvigorate earthbound industries with infusions of rare earth minerals. They could also catalyze a new phase of space exploration by creating orbiting caches of material to build spacecraft as well as water, which could fuel them. Even if these efforts fail, they could lead to new technologies and lower the cost of a rocket ride to orbit.
Of course, there are technical challenges. A vast, radiation-filled vacuum separates the space entrepreneurs from the space rocks of their ambitions, and any actual mining is many years away and might fail. But the current crop of space entrepreneurs are far more credible than the cranks of yesteryear, people who might have sold plots of lunar real estate in the days before the Apollo missions. There are tech giants with proven track records, such as X Prize Founder Peter Diamandis, whose Planetary Resources boasts James Cameron as well as Google's Larry Page and Eric Schmidt as investors. There is a real possibility that asteroid mining could become a reality within our lifetimes.
That possibility raises some very interesting questions. First and foremost, it's not entirely clear whether mining and selling asteroid stuff is even legal, which could really hamper the whole enterprise. Space is really big, and doing stuff there is really expensive. Even billionaires need additional investors for that sort of thing, and if you're investing in a platinum mine in the sky, you want to know the miners actually have the rights to that platinum. The nascent asteroid mining industry is pushing the United States to pass legislation clarifying the matter since the United States has obligations to regulate its country's private space activities under international law.
If these mining ventures are successful, the world could see billions of dollars flowing down from space to American companies. Is there a system for dealing with any conflicts that asteroid mining will likely arouse? The historical record certainly suggests the possibility of bitter, even violent disputes.
Just consider the Arctic. Impenetrable ice was once the foil for those who dreamed of a Northwest Passage, but global warming has made the oil- and natural-gas-rich Arctic seabed accessible for the first time, and there has been a rush to lay claims to territory. The United States and Canada have been making careful geological measurements in order to determine territorial boundaries. Russia has pursued a different path: In 2007, the country used a submersible to plant its flag on the seabed at the North Pole. It's an example of how contested things can get even when there is a system of rules in place, according to Joanne Gabrynowicz, a space lawyer and editor emeritus of the Journal of Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law. There is a system of international governance in place for the Arctic, but she says it is being strained by the recent thaw because, "it's so much easier to govern something when you can't get to it."
If emerging space technologies can be thought of as melting Arctic ice, it might be time to start discussing some basic rules before everything thaws.
This is what worries Gabrynowicz. Current efforts to clarify the legal status of asteroid-mined resources, if approached the wrong way, she says, could guarantee Arctic-like international disputes over future space activities. The reverse is also a concern: Disagreements over space could influence disputes on Earth. It might be fun to imagine Battlestar Galactica–type conflicts over resources in space, but why spend millions on space weapons when you can hurt your competitor at home and on the cheap?
The foundational document that governs doing stuff in space is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, on which the United States, Russia, China, and more than 100 other countries are signatories. It reads with an optimism that seems strange today in the era of the mothballed space shuttle. The treaty bans nuclear weapons in space, forbids nations to make claims to celestial real estate, and clearly allows for private space enterprise. According to Gabrynowicz, "Non-state actors … are authorized to be in space, that's what Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty is all about." In fact, it's apparent that the drafters of the treaty expected that resources would be extracted from space at some point, she says, "But we've just never reached agreement on what happens to extracted resources. … So what is happening is you have companies that are chomping at the bit to clarify the rules."
On Sept. 10, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing on the Asteroid Act, a refreshingly short and readable five-page bill that would recognize the ownership by companies of resources they have extracted from asteroids and would also prohibit companies from interfering with the operations of competitors. Planetary Resources sent a letter to the committee in support of the bill.
The Asteroid Act is not the way that Gabrynowicz would go, however, and she said as much at the congressional hearing. (She was the only space lawyer invited to testify among a group of scientists.) In her view, the bill fails to address basic issues, such as who would license and regulate asteroid mining operations, as well as larger issues, such as the legality of mining operations under international law. However Congress might decide to interpret the Outer Space Treaty, she says, failing to make sure other signatory nations are on the same page could lead to geopolitical consequences. If other space-faring nations interpret the Asteroid Act as the United States playing loose with the Outer Space Treaty, they might decide to do so themselves—and in unpredictable ways. China, for instance, has declared its intention to send humans to the moon, and hinted at possible mining operations. If China sees the United States as having already violated the terms of the Outer Space Treaty, what version of the rules will China be playing by in its own operations? "The point here is recognizing that it's not just a matter of law," Gabrynowicz says, "It's a matter of political strategy."
It's not entirely clear whether mining and selling asteroid stuff is even legal. Above, an illustration of a disintegrating asteroid.
Illustration courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech
Instead of giving asteroid mining a unilateral thumbs up at home, Gabrynowicz would begin building a new layer of international agreements, "You start with three to four countries and begin to reach some sort of agreement on what would happen to the extracted resources," Gabrynowicz says. It's a process that might take years, but that's all the more reason to start now, before any real wealth or resources are actually being hauled through space.
Others in the space law community disagree with Gabrynowicz. Brian Weeden is a technical adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a think tank focusing on strategies for peaceful uses of space. He doesn't expect the sort of conflicts we see over resources on Earth to take place over resources in space, partly because there are vastly larger quantities of such valuables in asteroids than have ever been mined from our planet. He also believes that the Outer Space Treaty is already sufficient legal justification for asteroid mining and that waiting for an international consensus could drag on interminably.
"I envision a process where the U.S. puts the regulatory framework in place in stages to match the staged development of the technology," Weeden says. "As it progresses, I think the U.S. should engage in a dialogue with other space actors and the international community … if there's an issue that crops up that highlights a particular shortcoming or hole in the international legal framework, then it should be addressed."
Weeden also points out that there is plenty of work to be done domestically before any actual space mining can occur. The United States has an obligation under international law to regulate the actions of commercial space companies, but no agency currently has that authority. The Federal Aviation Administration issues launch licenses and re-entry licenses, but there is no agency responsible for anything that happens in orbit or beyond.
But both Gabrynowicz and Weeden seem to be thinking of international law in a fashion that is inherently negative, seeing the need for agreement as something necessary only to mitigate problems. Space law could be viewed as a positive. An opportunity, even.
If U.S. policy toward space has the power to affect geopolitics on the ground, why not use that fact to our advantage? If the very discussion of asteroid mining has the power to influence, say, Russia's behavior in the Arctic for the worse, couldn't it also be used as influence for the better? And what about other countries with whom the United States has had communication breakdowns as of late? When a conversation turns dull or repetitious, change the topic to outer space.
Gabrynowicz agreed after I posed the question to her in an email. "I do think there could be opportunities in speaking with other countries about asteroid mining," she wrote. "In fact, since day one, space has always been about foreign policy. [President Kennedy] used Apollo to demonstrate the superiority of U.S. technology and to influence nonaligned nations; the Apollo-Soyuz Project of the '70s was a demonstration of détente."
In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration used the International Space Station to keep the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union from falling into the wrong hands. In the chaos following the collapse of the USSR, the administration brought the Russians into the space station project because, Gabrynowicz said, "The people that were in charge of the nuclear materials and the rocketry were the rocket forces. Those were the same people that would have to make the decision on the space station," and the strategy was to open a bona fide line of communication with the people in control of the bombs. It was a gamble, and none of the other ISS partners initially wanted the Russians involved, but it worked.
Perhaps similar lines of communication could be opened with states that are nuclear hopefuls. Might a change in topic with Iran provide an opportunity to talk about their nuclear program, or at least give us more insight as to the peaceful or offense plans for their rockets? Or, to take an entirely different tack, maybe we could kick off a new, three-way space race between the United States, China, and Russia, one where we benefit from agreed upon codes of conduct as well as the driving force of competition. We might also direct focus away from the Arctic and the South China Sea and onto those near Earth asteroids.
The political opportunities that could come from discussions with other nations about asteroid mining might be of more immediate value than anything the space entrepreneurs can do. It could be years, decades even before the platinum really starts flowing, if it ever happens. Political alliances forged over a discussion of asteroid mining can yield benefits today—benefits that could well persist even if the dreams of the miners never come to fruition.


text:
Taís Balconi (born April 11, 1991) is a Brazilian rugby sevens player. She was selected as a member of the Brazil women's national rugby sevens team to the 2016 Summer Olympics.

References

External links

1991 births
Living people
Olympic rugby sevens players of Brazil
Brazil international rugby sevens players
Brazilian people of Italian descent
Female rugby sevens players
Rugby sevens players at the 2016 Summer Olympics
Brazilian female rugby union players
Brazil international women's rugby sevens players
Brazilian rugby sevens players
Sportspeople from Florianópolis

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
6 thoughts on "Answering the Many Gods Problem"
clubschadenfreude said:
As I indicated before, most if not all religions make the claim that their religion, and no other, can fulfil these "reasons" "1) It is theoretically rational to believe (ie. There is evidence that the belief is true.); 2) It is pragmatically rational to believe (that is, weighing the consequences of being wrong or right on this issue favors belief); and 3) It is logically consistent to believe"
A burden of proof is exactly the rational way to choose between multiple possibilities, exclusive or not. Which everyone has evidence, then that is the one to accept as true. To claim that this is not the way is being deceitful and an attempt to remove a potent weapon from your opponent. Nothing more. Getting evidence is how we choose the one that is more likely than not true. Claims of "good reasons" and choosing by these supposed self-claimed "good" reasons even if something is more likely not true, rather than evidence show that you know you haven't the evidence to support your claims. Joe, this is probably the most obvious example of a Christian admitting that they would believe, no matter what evidence was presented.
As soon as I see a Christian say "proper reasoning", I know it only means "reasoning that ends up with you agreeing with me". You want to define rational as "anything that agrees with me". It's such an obvious tactic, it's a shame that Christians use it and think that someone will believe them.
So, we start with "theoretical rationality" which seems to be a nonsense phrase invented to try to give your "believe with no evidence" need some scientific sounding rationale. You also try your best to poison the well by accusing atheists of having closed minds if they don't agree with you.
I'm glad you agree that asking for evidence of miracles is a good place to start. I'm also glad you admit that the term "signs" means miracles. I've encountered Christians who claim otherwise in their attempt to claim that Christians aren't promised to be able to do miracles. I've also encountered Christians who claim that there have been *no* miracles for thousands of years.
It's no surprise that you have to try to denigrate any other god than your own with your snide "gods of the internet". Oh well. You ask what sort of evidence to we have of miracles supporting the existence of a god. If personal claims of miracles are evidence of a god, then most if not all religions now have equal evidence to you for their gods, past, present and future.
You run into one major problem, the presupposition that Jesus Christ existed and did miracles. We have stories, aka claims, but no evidence for that. You also bring up that if a lightning strikes a ship at sea and for some weird reason it is considered a miracle, why should we think it proof of Thor? Well, why *shouldn't* we?
We do have some criteria to try to figure out if some claim has occurred. These same things can be used for historical and present claims. 1) Multiple sources 2) Preferably Independent sources 3) Non biased sources 4) Contextual credibility 5) Close in time to the events 6) No contradictions/internally consistent.
There is no eyewitness testimony in the Bible. We have stories, and none of them can be shown to be from eyewitnesses. You don't need to "grant that for argument's sake"; it's a fact. So, we have claims of emperors doing miracles in roughly the same time as the claims about JC. Vespasian did miracles in Serapis' name. So we have a close in time period and it was reported by Tacitus, who also reported about Jesus. Both claims with no evidence. Your claim that "Jesus performed many miracles proving his religion." Is at best baseless and at worst false. We also don't have the common person's claim that "x" did a miracles for me, like we do now, which is likely since that is what humans do now with no evidence. It is not impossible that, if they had the internet, the Romans would be praising Asclepius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius
In that I have rationally compared these gods to your god, Joe, I know that your claims don't stand up to historical criteria. There is no "good" reason to believe in the Christian god or any other god. Now, I suspect you'll just claim, falsely that I did not do this "rationally" which again goes back to you trying to define "rationally" as agreeing with you. You also try the same nonsense with insisting that only those who agree with you are "serious".
Now, let's look at the other historical criteria. #2 is "preferably independent sources". I'm pretty sure that Ehrman says "independent sources", but we'll go with what you have said. We have no independent sources for the claims in the bible. What we do have are historians reporting on what Christians believed. We know that the gospels were not independently written, and there are various theories on how that worked from the posited "Q" document to the hypothesis that the gospel writers got their ideas from Paul's letters. We have no contemporary sources citing miracles, no fishes and bread, no gathering of a legion's worth of men (plus women and children) twice outside of Jerusalem, no dead being raised, no dead walking the streets of Jerusalem, no magical major earthquake and no sky darkening. We also have no evidence of events JC mentions in the bible, like the flood. So, your claims fail that criteria.
Criteria #3 is Non biased sources. Those are a difficulty for many historical events. However, we can compare versions and see what is consistent, from protagonist and antagonist sources. We also have to compare those sources to physical evidence, like any court case. In that we have only reports of what Christians believe, which endangers no one, those sources are pretty neutral but they aren't critical. We also have the bible, and in it the gospels, which contradicts themselves (you can't have both JC saying its okay to touch him and then have him say it's not), so it is not a trustworthy source. We also have that same problem of no physical evidence to compare stories to. So your claims fail this criteria.
The fourth criteria is "contextual credibility". I'm not sure exactly what you might mean by this but I'll take a stab at it. This would be if the claim fits into the historical context that the claim is being made about. Now, we have these events supposedly happening in Roman occupied Palestine about 2000 years ago. So, is a story about a man gathering a legion's worth of men outside of an occupied city twice and not being noticed probable in what we know about Roman occupation? Is the claim of a census that would have uprooted the country with everyone running back to where they were born probable when the Romans never did such a thing nor is there evidence of this? Is no reports of a man who can raise the dead and heal people probable in a society that had a life expectancy of around 40 years thanks to disease and injury? In my experience, Christians try to simultaneous claim that JC was very famous, but then try to claim that he wasn't when it is shown that no one noticed him.
"Close in time to events" has been dealt with so we have #6 left, "no contradictions/internally consistent". This is where your claims fail the worst, Joe. We have the gospels which contradict each other especially in the events around the supposed cruxifiction. We have no moment in gesthemane in John; JC isn't afraid at all. We have various versions of who was first into the tomb, and what they saw, all contradictory. We have the thieves claimed as both mocking JC and another story where one doesn't. We have a claim that the apostles were so afraid that they hid in a locked room, and we have the same apostles at the same time going back to Jerusalem to celebrate in the *temple*, home base for the Jewish leaders.
Now, what I guess you will do is say that the "details" aren't important. Well, Joe, in historical criteria, they are important.
and this "Which everyone has evidence," should be "which ever has evidence…"
A burden of proof is exactly the rational way to choose between multiple possibilities, exclusive or not. Which ever has evidence, then that is the one to accept as true. To claim that this is not the way is being deceitful and an attempt to remove a potent weapon from your opponent. Nothing more. Getting evidence is how we choose the one that is more likely than not true. Claims of "good reasons" and choosing by these supposed self-claimed "good" reasons even if something is more likely not true, rather than evidence show that you know you haven't the evidence to support your claims. Joe, this is probably the most obvious example of a Christian admitting that they would believe, no matter what evidence was presented."
I think a rational person when deciding any volitional act in light of uncertain circumstances/state of affairs must consider the evidence supporting what the state of affairs are as well as the consequences if the state of affairs varies. As much as I would love to disarm all my opponents I do not tell anyone this in order to disarm them. I tell them this because I really think only considering the evidence supporting what the state of affairs is and not the consequences of their volitional act in light of the different possibilities is irrational.
This approach is not really questioned in game theory I am not sure why you think it is so objectionable or is somehow evidence that Christians are cheating.
As far as burden of proof I have some questions what you mean. Please see this blog which sets them out:
https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/01/26/the-burden-of-proof-versus-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-part-22/
CS:
So, we start with "theoretical rationality" which seems to be a nonsense phrase invented to try to give your "believe with no evidence" need some scientific sounding rationale. "
Please stop being so paranoid that I am trying to convert you into an evil Christian like myself. I discussed this difference in this blog:
https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/06/30/practical-versus-theoretical-rationality/
As you can see I picked up the distinction from a Princeton University webpage most likely written by a professor of philosophy there Named Gideon Rosen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Rosen
I am not sure he is the author I am basing it on the grosen in the weblink matching the grosen in his Princeton weblink and that he is a philosophy professor at Princeton. I have no reason to think he is a Christian and I would guess the Princeton philosophy department is not brimming with Christians. But he might be I don't know look for yourself. He didn't seem to hold himself out as one that is for sure.
"You also try your best to poison the well by accusing atheists of having closed minds if they don't agree with you."
Please provide the quote because I don't know what you are talking about. All atheists disagree with me yet I think many and even most are open minded.
It's no surprise that you have to try to denigrate any other god than your own with your snide "gods of the internet"."
Are you outraged on their behalf?
"Oh well. You ask what sort of evidence to we have of miracles supporting the existence of a god. If personal claims of miracles are evidence of a god, then most if not all religions now have equal evidence to you for their gods, past, present and future."
You think all the miracle claims are all weighted exactly equally?
I don't presuppose that Jesus Christ existed and did miracles I look at the historical evidence. I exaplain why lightening striking a ship might not be evidence of Thor. There may be no reason to link it to Thor. Of course if someone said "By the power of Thor I strike this ship with lightening!" And then out the persons bare hand lightening sprung striking the ship that would be evidence I agree. Again I am not necessarily saying it would be convincing evidence but it would be evidence.
There is no eyewitness testimony in the Bible. We have stories, and none of them can be shown to be from eyewitnesses. You don't need to "grant that for argument's sake"; it's a fact. So, we have claims of emperors doing miracles in roughly the same time as the claims about JC. Vespasian did miracles in Serapis' name. So we have a close in time period and it was reported by Tacitus, who also reported about Jesus. Both claims with no evidence. "
I think both claims have "some" evidence. I explain offer the definition of relevant evidence according to federal courts here:
https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/12/23/no-evidence/
But calling Tacitus some evidence I am being generous to say the least. What he wrote is quite amusing but I don't think he meant the reader to take him seriously. Here is what he said:
"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. 'In the one case,' they said, 'the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers.' And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood." (The Histories, 4:81)"
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/alleged-miracles-of-vespasian.html
Was Tacitus there? Nope. Do we know any eyewitnesses by name? Nope. Is it multiply attested? Not that I know of. Were those persons actually present to attest to the facts, the physicians who told him well if it works claim to be from God and if not blame the people – that would make the most sense. (Assuming that really happened which Tacitus clearly does not intend) I mean I don't think emperor would have that sort of conversation in public do you? So how would Tacitus know? And if it was Vespasian's physicians, then of course they would gain by saying it worked! Is Tacitus kidding when he says nothing to be gained by falsely saying it worked? Yes Of course he is kidding! I think Tacitus would laugh at you if you took that seriously. But setting all that aside if it happened this way would we really then think ok clearly Serapis is the God to worship? I mean the whole story is amusing.
Compare this one miracle story to the many miracle stories of Jesus that are multiply attested and clearly from the context meant to be taken seriously. And yes unlike saying the king is divine they actually had much to lose by saying he was sent from God. He was literally killed and the apostles risked their life.
You keep saying historical accounts are just claims but historians consider what is said as evidence not just claims. And we do the same thing when people tell us something.
"Your claim that "Jesus performed many miracles proving his religion." Is at best baseless and at worst false."
I agree at worst it is false. But it is based on the records.
"We also don't have the common person's claim that "x" did a miracles for me, like we do now, which is likely since that is what humans do now with no evidence. It is not impossible that, if they had the internet, the Romans would be praising Asclepius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius
In that I have rationally compared these gods to your god, Joe, I know that your claims don't stand up to historical criteria."
Based on what Tacitus's amusing account of Vespasian?
That said I do think there are some claims of miracles or supernatural that are at least possible. It is true that whenever I hear of a supernatural account that does not fit my worldview I am perhaps more skeptical but I am not completely closed off to the idea that it is possible that a supernatural event could happen. Whether that would have an effect on my life is a different story.
Is it possible someone saw a ghost? Well it doesn't really fit with my worldview but that does not mean I am going to say I am absolutely certain it never happened. Why don't I investigate this more? Well what is the point. Lets say I spend my life investigating and at the end of the day I decide that yes there are 3 cases where I think more likely than no this person saw a ghost. I mean it doesn't really fit the Christian view but it is not entirely inconsistent. I mean if a group of people all just said they saw a ghost it wouldn't lead me to say aha I now must stop being Christian and be a Buddist or an atheist.
As for claimed Christian miracles I am somewhat complacent because although I tend to doubt any given miracle story I tend to think some are true. But its not a big deal that a boy claims to go to heaven because yes I believe in heaven so I am not surprised.
"There is no "good" reason to believe in the Christian god …"
Unless you think theoretically rational reasons, practically rational reasons, and logical consistency are good reasons.
"….or any other god. Now, I suspect you'll just claim, falsely that I did not do this "rationally" which again goes back to you trying to define "rationally" as agreeing with you. You also try the same nonsense with insisting that only those who agree with you are "serious"."
Of course I think my own view is the most rational. And I expect atheists think theirs is. But I don't think on the whole atheists are less rational than theists.
Ehrman mentions preferably independent because multiple sources not only indicates multiply attesting from different people but having multiple source documents helps determine that the story didn't change.
It seems pretty clear that the 4 authors of the gospels were different people and not Paul who is another source. It is true that many scholars believe Mathew and Luke had access to Mark. And it may also be the case that they had access to another source Q. But Q and Mark John and Paul are all certainly independent. And Mathew and Luke seem to draw on some of their own sources as well. In other words we have lots of sources for the miracles of Jesus.
Now what you are saying you want non-christian reports of his miracles right? Well think about that. If you saw Jesus die and rise from the dead like he said he would would you be a non-Christian?
Moreover my grandfather was born in Ireland about 1904 or 1905 and he lived there until he was in his early 20s and I can't find a single record naming him by name anywhere in Ireland! Now you want to ask for records of something that happened 2000 years ago about a person born the son of a Carpenter! We have an amazing amount of records of Jesus. And yes we do have some historical records outside of the bible.
Physical evidence is rarely available to prove very much in history. I would say precious little history is proven by physical evidence as opposed to written accounts. Prehistory is usually defined as that time before written records were kept. That should tell you how important written accounts are to history.
Are Do you think the emperors physicians or subjects would not be biased to portray him as glorious?
Bias can be looked at a few ways. People professing to Jesus's resurrection had no good incentive to say make that claim. In fact it could and did get many killed. No one wants to die for a lie.
Contextual credibility would be triggered if we found an account that said said Jesus stopped to get gas in Galilee. We know there were no cars at the time. But it might also mean some of the things you are talking about as well, but I don't think you are making a very good case. Again we have very little in terms of records from the time. And it sounds like most of your claims of contextual issues assume we have plenty that document everything that happened from census's to every movement of troops.
I do think there are some inconsistencies. But I think this helps demonstrate that there were multiple sources and that the writers were not working together. The minor inconsistencies as to the time and place etc are not a big concern to me. As a lawyer I certainly see similar types of inconsistencies in witness statements that were clearly even eyewitnesses. For people who want to argue that everything in scripture must be inerrant in the extreme well that is something they can argue about. I think some inconsistencies are reconciled but I also tend to suspect some of the accounts got a thing or 2 just wrong. Its not like I can say oh this or that is clearly wrong. Just like I know I probably believe somethings that are false even though I can't identify them. I'm sure you think you know what they are. 😊
No. That's not right. It is not like historians will typically throw out a whole account just because a few details are wrong. That is not how it works. If you have a historian telling you different let me know. I can certainly tell you a judge or jury will not throw out a witnesses entire testimony just because a few details are off.
Have you ever given a report of an event and then looked at it a year or more later? If you did then you would know that although people get minor details mixed up all the time that does not mean the overall account is wrong.
Joe, all you are claiming is Pascal's Wager when you say "I think a rational person when deciding any volitional act in light of uncertain circumstances/state of affairs must consider the evidence supporting what the state of affairs are as well as the consequences if the state of affairs varies."
You also are back to trying to claim that rational people agree with you, when that an unsupported opinion trying to validate your beliefs. You may "really think" this but it has nothing to support it. You have no evidence that your god exists or that you have the right version of it. And trying to sound impressive by citing game theory doesn't work with me.
When I say burden of proof, it is when a positive claim is made and it is up to the claimant to support their claim. Nothing more, nothing less. It's no surprise that you try to claim that there is no such thing, since, again, you have no evidence to support your claims that your god exists and you have the right version of it. You can refuse to support your claims and refuse the burden and pretend that the burden doesn't exist, but that only shows that you have nothing but baseless nonsense. It's also pretty typical that you would try very hard to change the definition of a logical fallacy to suit yourself. Your tactics would be laughed out of a court of law, no matter how good a layer you may be otherwise.
It's also curious to see that you are okay with your baseless claims but aren't okay with others because "it sounds made up". That's what your claims sounds like, Joe. You really believe it, but again it sounds made up, just like any other religious myth. And yes, whomever claimed that purple and yellow spotted platypuses would have the burden of proof to show that they existed if they made the claim that they existed. What a poor attempt to try to excuse yourself from presenting evidence for your claims. You should read Carl Sagan's essay on the dragon in his garage: http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm I also find it pretty amusing that you seem to think some people actually believe in the FSM. If you claim a god exists, then it is not a "philosophical burden of proof" it is just a burden of proof. There are no differences between them. You've again made something up to excuse your failure. You also again falsely try to claim that anyone who disagrees with you are "stubborn" and "irrational", such failed attempts at poisoning the well.
I believe you are missing a link. We have you making another false claim that you aren't trying to convert people. You are, with your false claims that one must be irrational and stubborn to not accept your opinions. I currently am chatting with a Muslim who made the same claims as you, that a "proper education" will end up with everyone agreeing with *him*. You also try an appeal to authority with your claims of professors from Princeton and somehow his opinion is to be taken as some truth. And nice try, but I never said anything about an "evil Christian". Please don't try to lie about what I've said. You also try to claim that Rosen might not be a Christian, no evidence, and that philosophers aren't usually Christian, another baseless claim. With that name, he could be of Jewish decent and a practicing Jew of some sect for all I know. The link on the wiki page about him goes to a good video interview with him on the NYT site: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/an-interview-with-gideon-rosen/ I have a subscription, and I can loan you my log in if you can't see it and want to.
Here's the quote you asked for "Well lots of things could be evidence for God for different people. If the atheist refuses to believe anything could be evidence for God then ok you are probably dealing with a mind so closed no amount of rational discussion will help." And I know, we'll end up playing the game that Christians often like, "I didn't say it exactly so you're wrong." Oh well.
Nope, not outraged on anyone's behalf. Just pointing out that you are a snide twit when it comes to the gods of other religions, when you have no evidence for yours, just like them. Hypocrisy is what I expect from most Christians. And yes, I do think that all miracle claims have the same weight: baseless claims that have no evidence to support them. If you have evidence that the other religions don't, please present it.
Joe, there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed or did miracles; so you do presuppose (to require as an antecedent in logic or fact) this character's existence. We have claims he did and reports that this is what Christians believed, nothing more. We have no contemporary reports of Jesus Christ son of god or of miracles. These supposed miracles would have had physical results and again, there are none. What you claim as "historical evidence" is no more than what we have for other religions, religions that you claim are not true. We have reports of what believers in Isis, Zeus, etc believed in. We have reports of miracles by these gods as I presented. We have temples and texts about the worship of these gods. You have nothing different. If you claim those things as evidence, then Zeus, Isis, etc are to be considered as real as your god and as true as your religion. You want your religion to be considered different and there is no reason why it should be.
We have Christians make claims that their prayer caused a miracle. They cannot show any causation, they look at a correlation and presuppose their action had a certain result. That is the same as the posited Thor worshipper. A correlation is not evidence.
What you claim evidence is again only a claim. You need evidence to support a claim and a claim can't be its own evidence. It's like saying "the qu'ran said this so it has to be true because the qu'ran said this". You wouldn't take that as evidence and neither would I.
If you are a trial lawyer, you must have quite an ability to compartmentalize things. You claim this as a definition of relevant evidence "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." In that we have no evidence at all for magic, there is an extremely low probability that magic exists. Humans have been making claims about it and trying to show evidence for thousands of years. They've failed.
Now, in a court of law, we start with claims, as I'm sure you are aware of. The prosecution has a claim that the accused did something and how it was done. The defense has a claim that the accused did not and why not. Their statements would not be taken as evidence. They would be required to present evidence to support those claims. In your analogy on your link, the stories in the new testament are claims that Jesus did this and such. They are not evidence. A claim doesn't make it more likely that the claim happened. I could claim that there are fairies, which doesn't support that fairies exist. What you would expect of me is evidence to support that claim. A claim of a miracle isn't evidence that another miracle happened; there is no evidence of either.
It's hilarious to see you try to claim that Tacitus wasn't being serious. So, Joe, how do you know what he was thinking when it wrote that and when he wrote "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." All you are doing is the usual Christian tactic of trying to use your magic decoder ring to declare some parts perfectly fine (often to be taken literally) and other parts too ridiculous to accept. Reading both shows no different between the claims and their supposed "seriousness" to Tacitus.
Funny how Tacitus wasn't around for the events that Tacitus reports about Christ, there is no multiple attestation, and there is no eyewitnesses. So, per your own argument, Tacitus should not be believed about Vespasian or Christ. I'm sure other Christians will be thrilled to know that a Christian has disproved one of their favorite claims. And nice to see you again baselessly claim that Tacitus doesn't mean to report that this really happened, just like he reports the story about Nero and followers of Christ. Now, we have you trying to appeal to the fallacy of personal disbelief in your need to disprove Tacitus' claims. Why not have a emperor talk like that? Just because you don't like it? LOL. And you might want to consider how the bible reports on things that no one could possibly know, like JC's chat with Satan, what went on in the garden of Gesthemane, etc when no one else was around. How would the authors of the bible's books know what was said? And funny how any writer who was favorable to someone would say it worked, just like the authors of the bible. Joe, do you even think about what you type? We have a story of a man running up to JC and asking for spit in his eyes too. Funny how that doesn't seem as ridiculous to you. 😊
Again, you try to lie and say that the miracle stories of JC are multiple attested. That is not true, we have repeated claims in the bible, and nothing else except reports that Christians believe in some strange things. There was nothing to lose for believers to be sayin that Christians believed in some things, and nothing for the authors of the bible's books to lose by saying the same things are true. You also try the "but they wouldn't believe if it would get them killed." People believe in many thing that cause them harm. Muslims do, Hindus do, Christians of different sects did when you all were murdering each other over which version of Christianity was right, and people who believe in cults do all of the time, see: People's Temple, Heaven's Gate where humans cut of their own genitalia because they believed in something supernatural. Should we consider Jim Jones a messiah and that there really was a spaceship behind Comet Hale-Bopp?
No, historians don't consider claims as evidence. That is another baseless claim from you. And I certainly don't accept a claim as evidence when people tell me something. If someone tells me that they have a dragon in their garage, that is a claim, not evidence. That is also another false claim from you, made for the expressed purpose to give yourself an excuse. You claim that there are "records" about JC's miracles. That is untrue.
It's great that you keep trying to claim that Tacitus was trying to amuse you with the account of Vespasian. You have no evidence of that, only a need to claim one story is meant to be funny and another is not. A couple of paragraphs after Tacitus' words about what Christians claimed, we have this "At the close of the year people talked much about prodigies, presaging impending evils. Never were lightning flashes more frequent, and a comet too appeared, for which Nero always made propitiation with noble blood. Human and other births with two heads were exposed to public view, or were discovered in those sacrifices in which it is usual to immolate victims in a pregnant condition. And in the district of Placentia, close to the road, a calf was born with its head attached to its leg. Then followed an explanation of the diviners, that another head was preparing for the world, which however would be neither mighty nor hidden, as its growth had been checked in the womb, and it had been born by the wayside." Hmm, Joe, was Tacitus trying to be funny here too? Or here in the same chaper as the claims of Vespasian's miracles "And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood." http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/h04080.htm How "funny" is that, making the same claims as you have?
Joe, I know that you don't believe in miracles from other religions. To try to play coy and say you are "perhaps more skeptical" is ridiculous. You deny it would affect your life, which is pretty silly since you religion claims that miracles are evidence of gods.
Seeing ghosts is entirely outside of what the bible claims, but heck, if you want to claim that it does, oh well. You would simply ignore what you've found out, nothing surprising there. And I know you are quite complacent when assuming the claims of your religion to be true. That's no surprise at all. All theists are. You accept whatever claim is convenient to you and discount the rest because you need to. To claim that "hey a boy goes to heaven, and sure I believe that without question because it agrees with what I want to believe" indicates you have no interest in rational thought at all.
Again, all theists claim that they have "theoretically rational reasons" and they are just like you, Joe, willing to believe anything as long as it fits with what they *want* to believe. Anything that doesn't is ignored. There is no logic to that idea "I will believe because I want to believe no matter what". If your claim is right, then every single theist has the same "good reasons" to believe as you and their religions are true, making the claims of the bible, with its claim of having the only one god, wrong.
You've repeatedly claimed that you know that atheists are less rational than you. Oh well, it's no surprise that you'd claim otherwise, it's embarrassing to admit that you really do think that to be rational one must agree with you.
That a story doesn't change in multiple sources only indicates that people are good copyists. By your claim, the qu'ran must be really believable and true. Same with the claims of scientology. What we do know about the gospels, is that most bible scholars, including Christians, are pretty sure that they all come from one source, so even though the authors might be different, the story they copied was the same. Then the authors altered it for various reasons, adding contradictions since they were working alone, and not in concert. The early Christians were not one monolithic belief system. The gospels are not independent by any means. Then when the bible was being assembled, each faction needed their pet version inserted, which has caused Christians all sorts of problems since, creating a industry of apologetics, which also don't agree. By your own admission "is true that many scholars believe Mathew and Luke had access to Mark. And it may also be the case that they had access to another source Q." the gospels aren't separate sources.
In that there is no evidence that anyone saw JC die and rise from the dead like he said he would, I wouldn't be a Christian. However, if like you I wanted to believe that this is true and didn't care about any evidence to the contrary, I may be a Christian. In fact, I was, wanting to believe such stories. But I, unlike you, decided to follow the evidence, not my desires. We also have the problem that Christians often claim that their god doesn't give direct evidence and wants Christians to just believe on faith. Per their version of Christianity, no one had to believe in Christ's resurrection and some chose not to. Which Christian should I believe, Joe? So, yep, where are the non-christian reports of JC's death and resurrection?
You try with a bad analogy to excuse your savior's non-existence by trying to compare the bible story to a human being's story. We know that humans exist, live in countries and immigrate. We know thousands of common people came into this country, many getting entirely new names thanks to immigration officials having no clue on how to really spell them (my Austrian maiden name got royally screwed up long before Ellis Island). Nothing magical here at all. Now compare this to Jesus Christ, who supposedly caused all of these dramatic events to happen that people should have known about. You, like so many Christians, try to claim how well known JC was when convenient and then try to claim no one knew about him. The trial of this man was supposedly thronged by crowds when Pilate asked who should be freed. We have the legion's worth of men twice outside a roman occupied town. We have no records of JC other than the bible and reports of what Christians believed 60 to a hundred and more years later. You claim that there are historical records about this. Produce them because there is no reason to trust you at all.
Physical evidence often is available to support claims about history. You claim otherwise since you need to since you have no physical evidence. I watched a show on King Arthur's Britain, part of the Secrets of the Dead Series. They compared written claims with reality in archaeology digs, other written sources, and found that the whole Arthur thing was nonsense. We also have physical evidence for Rome having generals and battles in Gaul, etc. Prehistory is usually defined as before written records. 1 century CE is not prehistory. As I've indicated, written records are claims without supporting evidence. So, what you "would say" is simply wrong.
"Do you think the emperors physicians or subjects would not be biased to portray him as glorious?" Hmmm, do you think believers in some god and some messiah would do the same thing? People who made claims about the dead rising had plenty of incentive to make that claim. They wanted to believe it and they wanted others to believe it. Humans love external validation. You repeat yourself in the false claim that the threat death or harm would stop people from spreading a lie; this assumes that they knew it was a lie. People believe in very silly things and they do die for it: see People's Temple, Heaven's Gate, protestants vs catholics.
I don't care if you think I am making a very good case, since you can't show why I'm not. We have plenty of records for the time and there are no records for censuses that make everyone go back to their home towns, but we have census records for Roman censuses that don't do that. An occupied town in a time known for insurrection would have noticed a legion's worth of men twice. You depend on your personal ignorance, Joe. We do have records of troop movements and censuses. What is funniest is that Christians try to claim some of those same records as "evidence" for JC, but now you want to ignore them. I know that you will ignore this information, but here it is anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor#Census https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18136 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_infantry_tactics#References
It doesn't surprise me that you admit that there are inconsistencies, but many Christians insist that there are not. You also have the problem that your bible claims it is inspired/written by god and by having direct contradictions, it shows that humans wrote it all the way. The authors were working from the same sources, and then added their own details which contradict each other. As an example, if you are a trial lawyer, and your client said that they were in a bar drinking on the night of a murder, and someone else said that they were at the murder scene and someone else said that the same person was at the amusement park, you'd note the contradictions. If you had no evidence to support any of the claims, you'd have no reason to think any of them were true. This is where evidence comes in.
I do enjoy when Christians claim that differences in their supposedly god written/inspired book aren't important. The supposed event with the thieves is an important claim when it comes to salvation, but Joe, you just want to ignore the problem because it doesn't fit in with what you want. I know, that in a trial, the differences are quite a lot more important than you try to falsely claim. You want to claim that the parts you like are inerrant and to ignore the parts you don't. And when you claim that that accounts "got a thing or 2 just wrong", then there is no reason to think that they didn't get more wrong. And we *can* say if this or that is clearly wrong. That's what evidence is for, and hopefully, as a trial lawyer, you know that.
What we are talking about isn't just a historical account. It is a claim of magic, and it is a claim that this bible is written/inspired by a perfect powerful entity. If details are wrong, the question is why? Why would your god intentionally allow false information to be spread? Is the bible lying when it makes the claim of its source? Historians will know that an account is not to be trusted if it is wrong and will consider the claims to be false until supported by evidence. A judge and jury will consider a testimony suspect if details are off. You wish to try to minimize how things are, Joe and it doesn't work since I know better. In the case of your claim that a report of an event and then looking at it a year later, humans do indeed get things wrong. The supposed source of your bible isn't a human, Joe. It can't get anything wrong. If it allows wrong information, then it either intends it or it isn't the being you claim. And in the bible, these details aren't minor. What are the religious implications of no weeping in Gesthemane? With JC never saying to the thief, this day you'll be with me in paradise? When JC is so holy no one can touch him or that they can? With the relationship between the apostles and the early Christians and the Jews, was it antagonistic or could the apostles go celebrate their messiah's raising in the temple?
Pingback: Animal Rights Follow Up: Morality Based on Evidence. | True and Reasonable
Child Of God said:
English is my second language and you write very well. If it makes sense to you I just want to say that my belief is based on the Bible and Faith.


text:
package com.nirima.jenkins.plugins.docker;

import com.nirima.jenkins.plugins.docker.utils.Consts;
import hudson.Extension;
import hudson.model.Describable;
import hudson.model.Descriptor;
import hudson.model.Failure;
import hudson.model.Hudson;
import net.sf.json.JSONObject;
import org.kohsuke.stapler.QueryParameter;
import org.kohsuke.stapler.StaplerRequest;
import org.kohsuke.stapler.StaplerResponse;

import javax.servlet.ServletException;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.Date;

/**
 * Created by magnayn on 22/02/2014.
 */
public class DockerManagementServer  implements Describable<DockerManagementServer> {
    final String name;
    final DockerCloud theCloud;

    public Descriptor<DockerManagementServer> getDescriptor() {
        return Hudson.getInstance().getDescriptorByType(DescriptorImpl.class);
    }

    public String getUrl() {
        return DockerManagement.get().getUrlName() + "/server/" + name;
    }

    public DockerManagementServer(String name) {
        this.name = name;
        theCloud = PluginImpl.getInstance().getServer(name);
    }

    public Collection getImages(){
        return theCloud.connect().images()
                .finder()
                .allImages(false)
                .list();
    }

    public Collection getProcesses() {
        return theCloud.connect().containers()
                .finder()
                .allContainers(false)
                .list();
    }

    public String asTime(Long time) {
        if( time == null )
            return "";

        long when = System.currentTimeMillis() - time;

        Date dt = new Date(when);
        return dt.toString();
    }

    public String getJsUrl(String jsName) {
        return Consts.PLUGIN_JS_URL + jsName;
    }

    public void doControlSubmit(@QueryParameter("stopId") String stopId, StaplerRequest req, StaplerResponse rsp) throws ServletException,
            IOException,
            InterruptedException {

        theCloud.connect()
                .container(stopId)
                .stop();

        rsp.sendRedirect(".");
    }

    @Extension
    public static final class DescriptorImpl extends Descriptor<DockerManagementServer> {

        @Override
        public String getDisplayName() {
            return "server ";
        }

    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The absolute success of the joint venture between TIF-Helexpo and the Municipality of Larissa was reflected in the figures of this year's Agrothessaly, which will be organised from 28 February to 3 March in the Indoor Market of Neapolis in Larissa. The 12th 'Agrothessaly' Pan-Hellenic Fair for Agriculture and Livestock surpassed all expectations, attracting 780 (direct and indirect) exhibition participations this year, in contrast to 498 attracted in the 2017 event. The exhibition space covered an area of 25,000 square metres, in comparison to 20,000 square metres covered in the previous fair. International exhibitors (direct and indirect) originate in 38 countries, while international trade visitors with group participations are expected from the Balkans.
Leader companies in agricultural machinery and farming & livestock equipment are expected to present all the latest technological trends at the 12th Agrothessaly, while providing updates on international events in the sector.
In presenting the 12th Agrothessaly the President of TIF-Helexpo, Mr Tasos Tzikas, stressed that it has now taken on the characteristics of a central fair, not a regional fair, and he characterised this year's event as top-notch. He also noted that regional fairs are a strategic part of the national exhibition body's policy.
The Deputy Mayor for Finance and Growth of the Municipality of Larissa Mr Panagiotis Dais spoke of enormous demand at this year's event, noting that Agrothessaly continues to grow and that is why new ways of responding to the increased interest are being explored, while he also announced that the goal for the 13th Agrothessaly is to create new infrastructure. He indicatively mentioned that in 2017 the event attracted 40,000 visitors, in comparison to 5000 visitors in 2015, prior to the joint venture by TIF-Helexpo and the Municipality of Larissa.
Participants in this year's event include: University of Thessaly, SARG-TEI of Thessaly, ELGO-DIMITRA, and the American Farm School.


text:
'WhatsApp Business' to be introduced as standalone app
October 9, 2017 by neha
San Francisco: The much talked-about WhatsApp for business application is being tested by a private group of testers and the company will introduce it as "WhatsApp Business" a standalone app.
Its description available on Play Store read: "As a test partner for 'WhatsApp Business', you have early access to a wide range of new features that we've built with you in mind. As you experiment with what this new app has to offer, please share your experiences with us so that we can improve the product."
Facebook intends to earn some of the money it spent while acquiring WhatsApp and the new standalone app would charge businesses in future, The Wall Street Journal said late on Friday.
"We do intend on charging businesses in the future. We don't have the details of monetisation figured out," WhatsApp's Chief Operating Officer Matt Idema was quoted as saying.
"WhatsApp Business" is different from the regular WhatsApp.
The logo of the app has been changed from the calling symbol to "B" inside the green conversation bubble.
However, after downloading, the app looks the same as WhatsApp, barring the title bar that says "WhatsApp Business".
The app has interesting features such as auto responses, creating a business profile, chat migration and analytics.
According to reports, businesses are widely using WhatsApp to communicate with their customers, particularly in Asia.
Categories News, Technology Tags customers Post navigation
GST, demonetisation, Swachh Bharat having desired impact: Jaitley
Gujarat HC likely to pass Godhra Train burning case verdict today


What is the best way to secure and grow your wealth? Stocks? Gold? Bitcoin? The bank? In this episode, Andy talks to Chris Blasi about the options available to people seeking to maintain and build wealth.
2:05 What Should You Know About The Value Of Your Money?
6:48 What Are The Risks Of Saving Money?
11:16 Are Crypto-currencies A Good Bet?
20:10 What Are The Advantages Of Investing In Gold?
27:38 How Did Silver & Gold Survive The Great Recession?
33:55 What Is A PMC Ounce?


text:
South Africa President Ramaphosa's Resignation Believed Imminent Over 'Farmgate' Scandal
South Africa is facing deep political turmoil and corresponding uncertainty across markets amid growing calls for President Cyril Ramaphosa to step down over an emerging bizarre scandal centered on the alleged theft of $580,000. The over half million in cash was literally found stuffed in a sofa at a farm that Ramaphosa owns. The timing of the crisis couldn't be worse given long-awaited economic reforms had only just begun to take shape and improve the country's outlook.
The mysterious cash payment has sparked outrage particularly among the opponents of the ruling African National Congress, and with his allies holding emergency consultations. On Thursday South African media is reporting President Ramaphosa is to imminently address the nation as prospect for his resignation grows, and as he faces impeachment.
South African president Cyril Ramaphosa, via AP.
Ramaphosa, who has advanced himself as an 'anti-corruption' and reformist president, has vehemently denied wrongdoing in the scandal coming to be known as "Farmgate", centered on a game farm he owns in South Africa's northeast.
According to a summary of the scandal in CNBC:
In what has become known as the "Farmgate" scandal, Ramaphosa is alleged to have covered up a $4 million theft from his Phala Phala farm in the north east of the country in 2020. Some $580,000 of this was found beneath sofa cushions, and allegations also include working with Namibian authorities to apprehend, torture and bribe the suspects.
Ramaphosa staunchly denies the allegations and has not been charged with any crimes. He maintains that the cash was the proceeds from the sale of buffalo. He has confirmed that the robbery took place, but insists that the amount stolen was smaller than alleged and denies participating in a cover-up.
The rand has weakened more than 3% against the dollar as the country is on edge awaiting Ramaphosa's and the ANC's next move. The economic reforms he set in motion are now seen as under threat by the major scandal, also as political succession within the ANC would remain uncertain.
According to more on the jitters unleashed across South African markets on news of Ramaphosa's likely impending resignation, via Bloomberg:
The yield on 10-year local-currency bonds climbs 74 basis points to 11.55%, the most in a day since December 2015
Benchmark dollar bonds lead losses among EM peers; 10-year yield up 48bps to 7.42%
Dollar-rand one-week imlied volatility surges to the highest since May 2022 at 20.4%
5-year CDS +12.5% to 274.62 bps, biggest jump since March 2021
Bad image for South Africa and the ANC around the world. #FarmGate pic.twitter.com/OY3wDehwDA
— Banele (@Gentlements) June 13, 2022