Retired marine was abruptly let go from position informing relevant White House officials about covert operations following clash with NSC official

When the history of Donald Trump’s war with the US intelligence community is written, the name of the conflict’s first casualty is unlikely to be recorded, as the former marine officer is still a serving CIA official.

That marine officer was the CIA’s liaison to the White House, whose duties included bringing relevant White House officials with appropriate security clearance into the loop about covert operations.

British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia Read more

According to current and former White House and intelligence officials, he lost a bureaucratic struggle with his nominal boss, the National Security Council’s controversial intelligence director.

Multiple former colleagues described the former CIA liaison as a consummate professional with no history of infractions. But late one afternoon in mid-March, the retired marine was abruptly informed that his services were no longer needed and he ought not to come to work the next day. Co-workers were shocked at a display that seemed designed to humiliate him.

“It was the most disrespectful thing they could have done,” said a White House official familiar with the incident. “He’s a good man. What happened to him was fucked up.”

Over a month later, the CIA has not sent a replacement liaison to the White House, though there are other agency officials on loan there. The ex-liaison has not been accused of any crime or abuse and has returned to the CIA.

The liaison’s removal, first reported by the Washington Post, followed a clash with Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the 30-year-old intelligence director on the NSC staff, to whom he reported.

Cohen-Watnick was a junior case officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he caught the eye of Michael Flynn, the ex-DIA director and first national security adviser to Trump. When Flynn came to the White House, Cohen-Watnick was among the Flynn deputies whom career national security staff came to view as a clique – derisively known in intelligence circles as the “Flynnstones”. For their part, the so-called Flynnstones viewed the career staff as Obama loyalists, and excluded many of them from national security decision-making.

When Flynn’s downfall came, owing to the way he misled Vice-President Mike Pence over contacts with the Russian ambassador, his ultimate replacement the current national security adviser, HR McMaster, sought to oust Cohen-Watnick. The CIA, which Trump had for months disparaged, distrusted Flynn and was uncomfortable with Cohen-Watnick remaining as an intermediary between Langley and the White House.

But McMaster lost out to Cohen-Watnick, who persuaded strategist Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, to protect him. A Newsweek profile reported that Cohen-Watnick’s parents have ties to Kushner, an added asset for Flynn.

“They hate him. They absolutely despise him,” a former senior intelligence official said of the CIA’s view of Cohen-Watnick.

The CIA declined comment for this story and the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Cohen-Watnick’s moment of prominence came in late March, when he was exposed as a channel for information used by the House intelligence committee chairman, Devin Nunes, another Flynn ally, to distract from an investigation into Russia’s connections with Trump affiliates. A key figure in that investigation is Flynn, who received tens of thousands of dollars for a speech in Moscow from RT, a news channel the CIA considers an adjunct of official Russian propaganda.

Reportedly, Cohen-Watnick provided Nunes with documents purporting to show improper surveillance on Trump’s allies, an allegation Nunes made while obscuring that the narrative, politically convenient for the White House, emerged from the White House itself. Nunes later reluctantly recused himself when the revelation of White House involvement sparked a political outcry. Subsequently, both Democrats and Republicans who viewed the documents considered them anodyne, a far cry from Nunes and Trump’s portrayals.

Some sources considered the removal of the CIA liaison to be an act of retaliation for the attempt to get Cohen-Watnick off the NSC. The episode occurred in mid-March, before Nunes made his allegations.

Other sources pointed to attempts by the former CIA liaison to stop Cohen-Watnick from taking actions which a White House official declined to describe substantively but characterized as appearing to “operationalize” the NSC.

In US national security circles, that term evokes the idea of using the NSC to perform secret or sensitive operations as a backchannel around both Congress, which does not review the NSC, and agencies such as the CIA which would be likely to object. The issue arose during the Iran-contra scandal, when marine lieutenant colonel Oliver North, an NSC official in Ronald Reagan’s White House, sold Iran weapons to fund anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua against Congress’s express orders.

The former senior intelligence official said Cohen-Watnick had committed “serious protocol violations”. Among them were appearing to take responsibilities for certain covert programs away from the CIA and communicating with lower-level intelligence officials outside of established channels that ensure intelligence chiefs and deputies are aware of White House requests and concerns.

Intentionally or not, sources said, Cohen-Watnick created a perception of the White House bypassing intelligence chiefs – right as Trump was tweeting his disapproval of US intelligence, which he considered to be on a politicized witch-hunt to tie him to the Kremlin.

“On a procedural level, it would be odd for a senior director to reach down into the bowels of intelligence agencies. There’s a chain of command to go through,” said a different former senior intelligence official.

Donald Trump travel ban 'simplistic and wrongheaded', says former CIA chief Read more

The removal of the CIA liaison had immediate consequences, sources said. Among the liaison’s tasks were providing visibility for NSC officials into classified programs. That process stalled in the first weeks after the liaison returned to the CIA, but has since been sorted out.

In recent weeks, as McMaster has accrued power at the expense of both the Flynn loyalists supporters and Bannon, the White House war with the intelligence agencies has waned. Last week Mike Pompeo made his first speech as CIA director, and insisted to his Washington thinktank audience that the agency and the president had turned a corner in their relationship.

But it may be an unsteady equilibrium, particularly as the inquiries into Russia progress. Cohen-Watnick remains in his job.

Two weeks after his forced dismissal, several colleagues threw a going-away party for the retired marine officer at the Army-Navy Club on Farragut Square, a few blocks from the White House. At least a dozen NSC staffers attended to fete the now-ex CIA liaison.


Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his two sons, Hassan and Hussain, failed to appear before the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) Lahore office on Friday for a probe meeting pertaining to a Supreme Court-ordered investigation into the Sharif family's business concerns.

Security had been tightened in and around the NAB office, DawnNews reported, with about 200 police personnel deployed in the surrounding area in anticipation of the ousted PM's visit, but Sharif and his sons did not appear today.

Subsequently, the five-member NAB team comprising an additional director, a deputy director, and an assistant director, returned to Rawalpindi.

NAB sources said a decision on whether or not to send another notice to the family would be made after consultation with the NAB chairman. It also remains to be seen whether Sharif and his sons will be summoned to the offices in Lahore or Islamabad.

PML-N insiders earlier told Dawn that Sharif and his sons would ─ after discussion with close aides and their legal team ─ not join the NAB investigation until the apex court decided on his review petition against the July 28 Panamagate verdict which disqualified him from office.

Explore: Sharif, sons to skip NAB probe meeting today

"Mian Nawaz Sharif and his children have decided not to appear before NAB till a verdict on his review petition in the SC is decided. Sharif has sought a stay of the NAB proceedings and till the apex court decides his petition there is no point in his joining the NAB investigation in cases against him," a close aide to Sharif, who is privy to the development, told Dawn on Thursday.

Sharif appealed to the SC to stay further implementation of the Panamagate judgement, which included orders for the opening of references against the family's Al-Azizia Steel Mills and Hill Metal Establishment, and one regarding 16 other companies.

The companies are Flagship Investments, Hartstone Properties, Que Holdings, Quint Eaton Place 2, Quint Saloane, Quaint, Flagship Securities, Quint Gloucester Place, Quint Paddington, Flagship Developments, Alanna Services (BVI), Lankin SA (BVI), Chadron, Ansbacher, Coomber and Capital FZE (Dubai).

Read more: Panamagate: Decision to disqualify me had been taken before the judgement, Nawaz alleges

PML-N's Senator Asif Kirmani, a close aide of the ex-PM, also said neither Sharif nor his sons would appear before NAB in Lahore, and had not received any summons from NAB.

A joint team of NAB officials from Lahore and Rawalpindi have also formulated a questionnaire for the investigation.

According to a copy of the questionnaire acquired by DawnNews, it is expected that Sharif and his sons will be questioned about financial matters pertaining to Al-Azizia Steel Mills and Hill Metal Establishment.

The inquiry may include questions about the purchase of land and machinery for Al-Azizia, and the formation of its internal structure. NAB is also expected to ask for proof of purchase of machinery for the mill from Dubai.

The probe team could possibly ask about where the capital for the creation of Hill Metal came from, who was part of the board of directors, and where the shareholder details of the company are.

Additionally, the three may be quizzed about the nature of monetary gifts made to Nawaz Sharif by his son Hussain Nawaz.

It is possible that Rehman Malik and Shahbaz Sharif may also be summoned by NAB to record their statements.

As Sharif and his sons failed to appear before NAB today, a second summons may be issued within the next week or so. A third summons may also be issued if they do not appear before the NAB after the second notice, Dawn reported, added that following this course of action may be a way for the Sharif family to buy some time if the review petition before the SC is not in their favour.

With additional reporting by Zulqernain Tahir.


Check out this cute school poster from Japan that teaches kids about lesbian, gay, bisexual and asexual people. The "Who Will You Come To Like?" poster is part of a health series of educational materials.

According to ROYGBIV, the two blurbs at the top right say:

When young people reach puberty they often like other people this is called sexual attraction. Depending on who a person likes, this is their sexual orientation. Most are heterosexual, but people who are homosexual and bisexual are not altogether a small group. Sexual orientation is innate and it cannot be changed by intervention, so there is no need to change your preferences.

and

However, adolescence is a time when one generally discovers their sexual orientation. When it comes to understanding one's sexual orientation, one should take as much time as is needed.

This version of the poster was put outside of the nurse's office at Saitama Prefecture's Sayama Keizai School of Economics.


With its costume competitions, treats, and atmosphere of mischief, Halloween is Canada’s dominant masquerade festival—but it’s not our only one. The lesser-known Acadian festival of Mi-Carême looks, at a glance, like a peculiar cousin of Halloween. Participants may choose to decorate their driveways with scarecrow-like figures and hang red lights on their homes to prepare for visits from mi-carêmes—masked wanders who roam the streets at night, knocking on doors and asking to be let inside. There, a guessing game begins—who is this masked stranger, a neighbour, or a family member, or a friend? Once the mi-carêmes’ true identities have been revealed, their hosts treat them to a snack—toffee, fudge, and a bit of booze are traditional—and instruments come out for a musical performance before it’s on to the next house.

Once widespread throughout French Canada, there are only four spots in Canada where Mi-Carême is still celebrated today: Chéticamp, Nova Scotia, and in Quebec, Natashquan, Isle-aux-Grues, and Fatima. “Mi-Carême used to be celebrated in most small villages and small towns that had Roman Catholic roots, and it was to break the fasting that the church would ask them to do after Mardi Gras and before Easter, the 40 days of Lent,” explains Monique Aucoin, who has celebrated the festival annually for 68 years and is the president of Chéticamp’s Société Mi-Carême (which indeed translates to “mid-Lent”). Over time, various elements of modernity dulled Mi-Carême’s appeal to all but the most remote Acadian villages, where communities are close-knit and trusting, nobody is too fussy about crowds stomping over their hardwood or carpet, and a giddy, carnivalesque event brightening the wintery gloom is very welcome. “In my first life I was a nurse and I always said the week of Mi-Carême was a great week to work because nobody was sick. It’s like endorphins,” says Aucoin.

Today, the history of Mi-Carême is cherished (though the festival has lost much of its religious association) and the villages that uphold its tradition also work to expand it, through the creation of visitor information centers and the elongation of the festival itself, which can now feature opening and closing galas or community dances. Those who have moved away are known to return for the event, and newcomers are quickly incorporated into the tradition. “I think it’s the best celebration that our culture has,” says Aucoin, “it makes people happy.”

_________

Never miss a story. Sign up for NUVO’s weekly newsletter, here.


Thursday, March 18, 2010 | 12:37 PM

Since we launched Google Buzz for mobile, we've been working on ways to make it quicker and easier to share your thoughts and experiences while you're out and about.

Today, we're excited to release a Google Buzz widget for Android phones that lets you post text and photos with a single tap. Like other mobile access points for Google Buzz, the widget lets you choose to tag your post with the location or place from which it was posted. You can post buzz about a great meal you had and share photos of the new restaurant. To save time, your posts will upload in the background, letting you get back to your scrumptious dessert without a wait.

The widget is initially available in English for Android phones running v1.6 and later. Search for 'Google Buzz' in the Android Market to download it now. Once installed, you can add it to your home screen: tap "Menu" while on the home screen and select "Add > Widgets > Google Buzz".

We plan to add support for other languages soon. Visit our Help Center to learn more, ask questions in our Help Forum, or give us suggestions and vote on other people’s on the Mobile Product Ideas page.

Update

Posted by Zak Cohen, Software Engineer, Google Mobile

on March 22nd @11:10 PM: You can also directly scan the QR code below to install the widget.


Ricegrowers predict dire outcomes if water cuts proceed

Posted

Riverina ricegrowers say propopsed water cuts in the Murrumbidgee system could spell the end of the rice industry as it is known.

Consultants in Griffith are doing research on the socio-economic impact of the Murray Darling Basin Authority guide which recommends cuts of up to 45 per cent in local water availability.

Ricegrowers gave evidence yesterday on what they said will be the dire impact locally should the cuts proceed.

Other industry groups are being consulted this week.

The chairman of the parliamentary inquiry into the Murray Darling Basin Guide said yesterday the Basin Authority has done a poor job selling its draft recommendations.

A public hearing at Murray Bridge in South Australia was the first in a nine day national tour to hear community submissions on the draft plan.

The chairman Tony Windsor said the Authority neglected to explain alternatives to cutting water allocations, causing angst for irrigators in the river system.

"It was sold as cutbacks," said Mr Windsor.

"And that to the communities and to the political process meant decimation of towns, individuals, livelihoods on the back of the worst drought we've had in ten years. So, poorly marketed." he said.

Water economist Mike Young said the Queensland floods show figures given by the Murray Darling Basin Authority in its guide for the Basin's future are inaccurate.

Professor Young also appeared before the parliamentary inquiry.

Professor Young who is the Executive Director of the Environment Institute at Adelaide University and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists said many of the proposed water cuts are based on averages, rather than seasonal variations.

"You can't plan on averages," said Professor Young.

"Everyone can now see that we have droughts and we have flooding rains, and so we need an approach that doesn't just talk about average numbers, but actually talks about what will happen when it's dry."

The Murray Darling Association says State Government powers to restrict water used by irrigators should be over-ruled by the Basin Authority.

The Association's General Secretary - Ray Najar - address the inquiry.

"There shouldn't be any restrictions on water use for food production," he said.

"there's just no, absolutely no need for it, the small amount of water that we require for growers in South Australia to have full allocations, for example, is about two days flow out of the Murray Mouth."

"So it's ridiculous for the government to maintain a policy that was written for drought and use it in a flood situation," said Mr Najar.

Topics: irrigation, regional, rivers, water, water-management, rural, griffith-2680, deniliquin-2710, hay-2711, leeton-2705


A Webster man is in the Harris County Jail, accused of getting a 17-year-old woman drunk and then sexually assaulting her. But what makes this case unique is what finally led to his arrest.

On Thursday, Elric Shawn Millner had his picture taken at the Webster jail when he was arrested. He was smiling. On Friday, he was taken before a judge in probable cause court. The smile was gone.

"We request a $50,000 bond based on the facts of the offense," said a prosecutor in court Friday morning.

Millner is 24 years old. He was 22 when documents allege he sexually assaulted a then-17-year-old woman with whom he was involved.

It allegedly happened at the Clear Lake apartment complex where he lived. The woman stated it happened after he gave her a lot of liquor to drink.

"She drank in excess to the point of passing out and having no memory of that night and showed her multiple videos of the suspect and another individual engaging in sexual intercourse with the complainant," said the prosecutor in court.

It went unreported for two years until the woman started dating a man who had been a Marine MP. Prosecutors say he made it his mission to take the case to police, pretending to befriend Millner and making up a story.

"Talked to the old boyfriend about the complainant, pretending he was upset with her," said prosecutor Adam Muldrow.

"And so the defendent did what at that point?" we asked.

"The defendant confirmed the allegations," said Muldrow.

"And he showed him the video?" we asked.

"Yes," he said.

Two weeks after the woman finally went to police, Millner is now in jail. The video he allegedly kept for two years will be evidence.

Millner, 24, was charged Thursday with sexual assault. Bond has been set at $50,000.


If Planet Nine really exists, astronomers have a pretty decent chance of spotting it.

On Wednesday (Jan. 20), scientists announced that a planet about 10 times more massive than Earth likely lurks in the distant outer solar system, orbiting perhaps 600 times farther from the sun than Earth does on average.

The evidence for the existence of this "Planet Nine" is indirect at the moment; computer models suggest a big, undiscovered world has shaped the strange orbits of multiple objects in the Kuiper Belt, the ring of icy bodies beyond Neptune. But direct evidence could come relatively soon, in the form of a telescope observation, Planet Nine's proposers say. [Evidence Mounts for Existence of 'Planet X' (Video)]

"It's actually not obscenely faint," said Mike Brown of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena. Brown and lead author Konstantin Batygin, also of Caltech, wrote the new paper laying out the evidence for the putative planet's existence.

"In fact, it's bright enough over a lot of its orbit that we should have seen it already, if it's in the closest approaches to the sun," Brown told Space.com. Indeed, at closest approach, "you could almost see it with some backyard telescopes," he added. (Planet Nine's orbit likely brings it as close as 200 to 300 astronomical units, or AU, to the sun, and takes it as far away as 600 to 1,200 AU, Brown said. One AU is the average distance from Earth to the sun—about 93 million miles, or 150 million kilometers.)

Planet Nine is therefore probably not too close to the sun at the moment, said Brown, who has discovered or co-discovered a number of distant solar system objects, including the dwarf planets Eris and Sedna. But powerful ground-based telescopes can probably still detect the object, wherever it may be, he added. [The Case for "Planet Nine" in Pictures]

"Even at its most distant, and at the smallest guesses of how big it is, it's like 24th or 25th magnitude," Brown said, referring to the brightness scale astronomers use, in which higher numbers denote fainter objects. "It's not crazy; this is the kind of stuff people are finding all the time. We just need to go out and cover a good swathe of the sky."

Just how big a swathe? Astronomer Scott Sheppard, of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., has come up with a rough estimate: between 2,000 and 4,000 square degrees. (For perspective, the full moon as seen from Earth covers about 0.5 degrees of sky.)

That corresponds to about 50 nights of observations using a powerful instrument such as the Subaru Telescope in Hawaii, said Sheppard, who has a lot of experience finding far-flung objects in the solar system. For example, in 2014, he and Chadwick Trujillo of the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii discovered an object called 2012 VP113, whose orbital characteristics hint at the presence of a Planet Nine.

The 27-foot-wide (8.2 meters) Subaru Telescope is the go-to observatory for the search, because Planet Nine is predicted to be visible in the Northern Hemisphere sky, both Brown and Sheppard said. (Many other big, powerful scopes are in Chile, south of the equator.) [World's Largest Reflecting Telescopes Explained (Infographic)]

Sheppard stressed that it's tough to know just how detectable Planet Nine would be, considering the uncertainties surrounding the putative world's size, orbit and composition—all characteristics that affect brightness.

But, Sheppard told Space.com, "if it's not on the extreme ends of the orbit or the size, then Subaru should be able to find it."

The hunt is on

Sheppard and his colleagues have already covered some parts of Planet Nine's possible orbit using Subaru, as part of a larger, years-long survey for more objects such as 2012 VP113. (The broader survey also employs a telescope in Chile, which spotted 2012 VP113.)

The researchers will likely use Subaru to narrow in on more promising possible locations, now that Batygin and Brown have given them a better idea of where to look, Sheppard said. But the hunt for smaller bodies such as 2012 VP113 will continue as well.

"We're trying to find many more of these smaller objects, which could lead us to the bigger object," he said.

The hunt for Planet Nine will also probably send astronomers back to their archives; it's possible that the undiscovered world has already been photographed by powerful telescopes, but researchers didn't spot it, Brown said. (Confirming the planet's existence will require more than one image, because astronomers will need to see the object move to know it's not a background star or other extremely distant object.)

Sheppard said that he had pegged the odds of a big planet lying undiscovered beyond Neptune at 50-50, but the new study by Batygin and Brown boosts his confidence in the existence of Planet Nine to about 75 percent.

Brown seems even more confident.

"I find this really compelling," Brown said. "I think it's there. But, like everybody else, I want to see it."

Copyright 2016 SPACE.com, a Purch company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Workers would win the “right to own” their employers under a Labour government. In a speech to Co-operative UK in Manchester today, John McDonnell promised legislation to give employees first rights on buying out a company that is being dissolved, sold or floated on the stock exchange.

The Shadow Chancellor argued that the Labour Party needs to draw upon its radical, co-operative tradition to find a way out of the current economic crisis. “With consortium co-operatives providing an effective means for new businesses to share and reduce costs, we’d look to support these at a local level, working with local authorities, businesses and trade unions,” he said.

He promised that the Labour Party would consider providing matching government funding for new co-operatives and look into the recommendations in Graeme Nuttall’s report on employee ownership, including creating a statutory right to request employee ownership and have proposals considered by employers.

“We should look to extend this approach, offering employees first rights on buying out a company that is being dissolved, sold, or floated on the stock exchange. The Tories have offered a “Right to Buy.” Labour would seek to better this. We’d be creating a new “Right to Own,” he said.

McDonnell said the Labour Party must not only look for state-led solutions to the current crisis in capitalism, but also look back to its traditions of decentralisation and grassroots co-operation.

“This radical tradition has deep roots in our collective history. From RH Tawney, GDH Cole and the guild socialists, back to the Rochdale Pioneers, the Society of Weavers in Fenwick, Ayrshire, and even further back to the radicals of the English Civil War.”

McDonnell also argued that while technology can be disruptive – deskilling and creating greater inequality – it can also open up new possibilities of new forms of sharing and co-operation.


On Tuesday’s All In, host Chris Hayes and his guests tackled a chilling and politically loaded subject: which beliefs should disqualify someone from holding public office. Among other things, the group decided that global warming “denialism,” opposition to same-sex marriage, and opposition to a “robust” Voting Rights Act should put a politician outside the mainstream and ruin their chances of holding public office.

Hayes seemed excited that politicians might be branded with a figurative scarlet letter for holding beliefs that run counter to his own far-left vision. In fact, he claimed the act of disqualification based on certain beliefs is a “tool of progress,” not something that “constrains consensus.” The host gloated:

It’s a tool of progress when we say that certain things, like opposing marriage equality, are sort of, like, not the kinds of things that mainstream American politicians –

One of Hayes’ guests cut him off, but he didn’t need to finish that sentence. The point is clear – Hayes has stumbled upon a new way to squelch debate in this country and pave the way for liberal domination of American political thought.

The host was particularly gleeful over the growing acceptance of the theory that human beings are driving climate change. After playing clips of Sen. Marco Rubio expressing skepticism of global warming and then trying to clarify when pressed on the issue, Hayes smirked:

[T]he fascinating aspect of this to me is that it looked to me for the first time in a long time that denialism was looking like a thing that was a disqualifier or at least something to be defensive about in a way I haven't seen in a while.

One of Hayes’ guests, former New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, agreed:

And I think nowadays it is. I mean, this is an issue that’s – I mean, we’re all threatened by this. I mean, the planet is in danger. Something needs to be done. And I think if you’re just going to deny that this is even occurring, it means that you’re going to be blocking the policies that we need, and it should be a disqualifier.

Hayes even went so far as to call global warming skeptics "really cuckoo."

Regarding gay marriage, the host was also ready to declare the debate closed. He exulted that he has "never seen an issue go so quickly from a contentious, contested issue that’s at the center of our political debates to one in which opposition to it is quickly becoming taboo.”

But in many parts of the country, gay marriage still is a “contentious, contested issue.” Hayes only wishes it were a settled topic.

By the way, the host placed global warming skepticism and opposition to gay marriage in the same basket as 9/11 Trutherism. During his introduction to this discussion, Hayes mentioned that Van Jones, now a co-host of CNN’s Crossfire, was pressured into resigning from his job in the Obama White House because, among other things, his name appeared on a petition that suggested the George W. Bush administration may have knowingly allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen. The host failed to mention, of course, that MSNBC colleague Toure has a history of Truther-style statements.

That conspiracy theory is well outside of the mainstream, but it was what prompted Hayes to launch his discussion of other, more conservative beliefs that he wishes society would just laugh away.

Below is a transcript of the segment:

CHRIS HAYES: Van Jones says he never actually signed the 9/11 truther petition that prompted that spout of outrage, and he maintained from the start it did not reflect his actual views. But just that tiny little brush with trutherism was enough to get the guy drummed out of the White House. And all this got me thinking about what exactly should constitute a disqualifier when it comes to those who want to hold public office or even work in the government. Joining me now, Bob Herbert, distinguished senior fellow with Demos; Christina Bellantoni, editor-in-chief of Roll Call; and Richard Kim, executive editor of TheNation.com. I am really interested in the boundaries of taboo and consensus and what are the kinds of things that are the kinds of things that politicians can argue about, and the kinds of things that kind of place them off the table. And I thought it was interesting to see the Ernst campaign felt that that claim about WMD was an off-the-table kind of claim they had to then deny, which I found to be progress of a sort. Are there certain things you think, Bob, that should be in the kind of off-the-table category that aren't currently in the off-the-table category?

BOB HERBERT: Sure. I would start with if you don't have support for a robust Voting Rights Act for example. So if you're running for national office and you don't feel that qualified Americans ought to be guaranteed the right to vote, that should disqualify you.

HAYES: Just like Voting Rights Act as a matter of – Voting Rights Act or opposition to Voting Rights Act is off the table. But here’s the thing that's tricky about that, right, is that no one comes out. You're right. That is actually rhetorically where we are in American politics insofar as no one will come out and be like, I don't like the Voting Rights Act, unless, you know, Supreme Court justices. But, right, I think – don't you agree that if someone – no one would actually come out and say that.

[crosstalk]

HERBERT: – should have to come out and say it. I'm saying you need to be forthright in your support of a robust Voting Rights Act because you need to be forthright in your support of Americans' right to vote.

HAYES: And Rand Paul has come pretty close.

RICHARD KIM: With the Civil Rights Act, which is not the Voting Rights Act, but that package of civil rights legislation.

HAYES: And that infamous moment on Rachel’s show with the long, torturous, just train wreck of an interview in which he basically said, I'm not that into the public accommodation part of the Civil Rights Act, that was him flirting with precisely the line of the disqualifying.

***

JONATHAN KARL: Let me get this straight. You do not think that human activity, the production of CO2, has caused warming to our planet?

SEN. MARCO RUBIO: I don't believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.

UNIDENTIFIED: What information, reports, studies or otherwise are you relying on to inform and reach your conclusion that human activity is not to blame for climate change?

RUBIO: Well, again, I mean – headlines notwithstanding, I’ve never disputed that the climate is changing, and I pointed out that climate, to some extent, is always changing. It’s never static.

HAYES: Nice try, Marco Rubio. I’m back with Bob Herbert, Christina Bellantoni, and Richard Kim. And the reason I want to play that, so Rubio – again, he stepped in it on that Jon Karl interview. I think he didn’t think it was going to become a headline. I mean, you can see his passive/aggressive note about headlines notwithstanding. And then today he tried to walk it back in a totally incoherent way. But the fascinating aspect of this to me is that it looked to me for the first time in a long time that denialism was looking like a thing that was a disqualifier or at least something to be defensive about in a way I haven't seen in a while.

HERBERT: And I think nowadays it is. I mean, this is an issue that’s – I mean, we’re all threatened by this. I mean, the planet is in danger. Something needs to be done. And I think if you’re just going to deny that this is even occurring, it means that you’re going to be blocking the policies that we need, and it should be a disqualifier.

HAYES: And the key here to me is, the conspiratorial thinking it requires to think that thousands of scientists across the globe are engaged in this massive hoax, which is basically what James Inhofe, who’s a sitting U.S. senator, believes, right? The conspiratorial thinking that it takes to believe that is really cuckoo. I mean, that is really out there.

KIM: Okay, I can't believe I'm going to take the other side on this. So obviously, I don't believe, you know, these views, and I think they’re sort of lunatic and really dangerous. On the other hand, large percentages of the American population believe that. And don't they have representation in that political process? And I also worry that if you have this circle of disqualified opinions, and you keep growing that circle, what that rewards is an incentive structure that depends on sort of an absolute certainty of emotion. Like a really kind of intense belief. And to keep feeding that, if the facts on the ground don't match, you invent a set of facts. And I think, actually, that is what has happened to the Republican Party. They’ve sort of produced this outrage machine.

HAYES: So you're just saying, like, against litmus tests as a broad –

KIM: I say let the democratic process play out, and people should vote these things down.

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI: On climate, as a specific thing. The candidate that appeals to the business community tends to be the candidate that’ll either win the nomination or win the general election. And so this is an area where you –

HAYES: In the Republican party, in particular.

BELLANTONI: In general, though, you have to be palpable to them to sit in the White House. And so with the business community shifting on this issue or on minimum wage issues or on some other labor issues, that's where you start to see the shifts. That guides the politician.

HAYES: But what you’re identifying, though, is precisely the nefarious ideological undercurrent of discussions about what's disqualifying. Because, I mean, that goes hand-in-glove with what Richard is saying. You’re saying the people that actually draw the lines around what’s disqualifying is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And like, frankly, that’s what’s going to decide if you're, like, a whacko.

BELLANTONI: And just watch with immigration reform. I mean, the conversation has completely changed since 2005-2006 when George Bush, people were angry at him in a certain segment of the population because he supported immigration reform. And now it is sort of a moderate Republican view.

HAYES: Or on marriage equality. I mean, that is a place where you really do see – I have never seen an issue go so quickly from a contentious, contested issue that’s at the center of our political debates to one in which opposition to it is quickly becoming taboo.

HERBERT: Well, the truth is that you can only do this as a hypothetical exercise, and that’s a good example of why. I mean, there was a time when no one could get elected if they were in favor of gay marriage. Now in many elections it’s a disqualifier if you’re opposed to gay marriage.

HAYES: But that makes me hopeful about the power of this kind of – the force of this, as opposed to this being something that constrains consensus, it actually is this tool, right? It’s a tool of progress when we say that certain things, like opposing marriage equality, are sort of, like, not the kinds of things that mainstream American politicians –

KIM: But it's also a double-edged sword. So things like supporting a 90 percent tax rate, which was once policy in the United States –

HAYES: Right, that's a very good point.

KIM: – would be a completely disqualifying characteristic for many, many people in this country.

HAYES: If you came forward and said I am for a 90 percent top marginal tax rate, which of course was what it was after World War II and the Eisenhower administration before the first round of tax cuts, you would be – that would be the equivalent.

KIM: Exactly.


German company Speedlink releases their OMNIVI Core. Sporting an ergonomic, polarizing design, this right-handed gaming mouse is equipped with 10 programmable buttons, an ultra-precise 12000dpi optical sensor, an adjustable USB polling rate up to 1000Hz and a USB connector (w/ 1.8m flexible USB charging cable with hard-wearing sheath).

Not to mention, the OMNIVI Core also comes with adjustable LED lighting that glows in any one of 7 atmospheric colors, an on-board memory for storing DPI settings and lighting settings, and an aluminum base plate. The Speedlink OMNIVI Core will retail for $70 in the US.

Professional gaming mouse

Ultra-precise 12,000dpi optical sensor

10 freely configurable buttons

Adjustable LED lighting glows in any one of 7 atmospheric colours

Solid finger rest and aluminium base plate

Profile management with any number of game profiles

Powerful Macro Editor

DPI switch for rapid toggling between resolutions

6 sensor precision levels from 800 to 12,000dpi

Illuminated 2D scroll wheel indicated current dpi level

Illuminated 2D scroll wheel indicated current dpi level

Adjustable USB polling rate up to 1,000Hz

Incredible ergonomic comfort with grippy scroll wheel and finger rest

Rubberised finish

Maximum acceleration: 50g

Maximum tracking speed: 250ips

Sensor frame rate: 12,000fps

Flexible USB cable with hard-wearing sheath (1.8m)

Dimensions: 87 × 131 × 52mm (W × D × H)

Weight: 145g

The OMNIVI Gaming Mouse combines feature-packed functionality, ease of use and incredible precision in one perfect package. It is setting new standards in the gaming scene with its exhaustive feature set, including colourful glow, solid aluminium base plate, four thumb buttons and the ultra-precise, optical 12,000dpi sensor. Use the ten programmable buttons to keep your opponents at bay by utilising the extensive programming function to customise the mouse so your personal gaming style matches the game. And witness how your macros are unleashed at the press of a single button to perform close-combat or distance attacks, switch weapons or cast spells.


Chinese Ships Retrieve Beacon in MH370 Search 2014-04-02 06:06:35 Xinhua Web Editor: Luo Dan Related: Chinese Escort Fleet Reaches Target Area Two Chinese ships in search of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean retrieved a beacon late Tuesday, said an embedded Xinhua reporter.

The crews aboard Jinggangshan and Donghaijiu 101 told Xinhua that the beacon might be cast by aircraft involved in the hunt for the ill-fated Boeing 777 jetliner but confirmation was needed.

The two ships are among the seven Chinese vessels currently scouring waters some 2,000 kilometers west of the western Australian port city of Perth. Two Chinese IL-76 planes are also assisting the undertaking.

Meanwhile, a three-ship Chinese naval flotilla previously deployed in the Gulf of Aden for escort missions teamed up with Chinese patrol vessel Haixun 31 on Tuesday to search for the missing plane south of Australia's Christmas Island.

Despite massive multinational efforts, no hard evidence has so far been acquired about the whereabouts of MH370, which disappeared early March 8 while carrying 239 people -- including 154 Chinese passengers -- from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

Share

CRIENGLISH.com claims the copyright of all material and information produced originally by our staff. No person, organization and/or company shall reproduce, disseminate or broadcast the content in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of CRIENGLISH.com.

CRIENGLISH.com holds neither liability nor responsibility for materials attributed to any other source. Such information is provided as reportage and dissemination of information but does not necessarily reflect the opinion of or endorsement by CRI.


Batman writer Scott Snyder has wrapped up his "Night of the Owls" arc, and as soon as he's done with bringing back The Joker this Fall, he now looks set to reintroduce The Riddler to the DC Universe in "The New 52" continuity.

I will use Riddler in 2013 RT @ AlabamaMike2814 : @ Ssnyder1835 are you agreeing Riddler is awesome or that you're writing a Riddler story?

Yes. RT @ BradWiegele : @ Ssnyder1835 Will you please give us a badass Riddler story? He's so cool in Arkham city but nowhere in the DCU.

: ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions. This post was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our Code of Conduct . CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. Learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE


Internet users have called for a boycott of web hosting giant Go Daddy over its public support of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the US.

While the company has publicly supported SOPA and similarly controversial proposed legislation for months, its position went largely unnoticed until a thread on Reddit gained legs yesterday.

User "selfprodigy" said he planned to move 51 domain names he has registered with Go Daddy to another registrar, adding: "I'm suggesting Dec 29th as move your domain away from GoDaddy day because of their support of SOPA. Who's with me?"

The posting attracted almost 4,000 comments, largely supportive of the boycott.

Ben Huh, CEO of the Cheezburger Network - the owner of sites such as FailBlog - said in a tweet that he would move his 1,000 domains away from Go Daddy unless it dropped its support for SOPA.

The campaign now also has a website at GoDaddyBoycott.org (registered via Canadian registrar Tucows using a privacy service to protect the owner's identity).

Go Daddy's position, however, has been firm. Not only has it supported SOPA from the outset, but it has also dismissed criticisms of the bill, which many say amounts to censorship.

"The notion that the solutions that have been put forth will break the internet, or that certain legal businesses will go off-line because of new mandates, is utterly unconvincing," Go Daddy general counsel Christine Jones wrote in November. "SOPA goes a long way toward fixing the existing problems."

A month later, responding to similar criticisms on her personal blog, Jones wrote: "Most of what we are seeing is either 1) rhetoric, 2) regurgitated lobbying spin, 3) criticism of language we have already fixed, or 4) retweets by people who like to steal music and buy fake, but cheap, goods."

However, most companies in the domain name industry that have expressed an opinion oppose SOPA, saying it will break end-to-end authentication using DNSSEC, the emerging domain security protocol. They also say that by forcing American ISPs to block piracy sites at the domain level, SOPA will compel American internet users to use workaround DNS services operated by criminals overseas, increasing the likelihood of phishing and fraud.

Go Daddy's Jones has refuted this, writing last month: "It’s hard to imagine that the limited times per year that the Attorney General seeks this remedy for a site dedicated to infringement will result in a mass exodus away from DNS as we know it. I have to believe that the average person doesn’t want to commit a crime."

Go Daddy has faced calls the boycotts before, notably this March when then-CEO came under fire for posting a video online showing him shooting an elephant while on vacation in Zimbabwe. In that case, the calls for a boycott resulted in thousands of domain names being transferred to rival registrars, but the net effect of the publicity was positive for Go Daddy's sales.

Nevertheless, opportunistic competitors quickly seized upon the latest scandal yesterday, taking to Twitter to promote special discounts for consumers wishing to transfer their domains away.

Today, a Go Daddy spokesperson said in a statement: "Go Daddy has received some emails that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA regulations."

Go Daddy says it registers, renews or transfers a domain name every second. It is responsible for well over a third of all .com domains registered today, not including its resellers' sales. ®


General arrangement of MWT apparatus

Magnetic water treatment (also known as anti-scale magnetic treatment or AMT) is a method of supposedly reducing the effects of hard water by passing it through a magnetic field as a non-chemical alternative to water softening. Magnetic water treatment is regarded as unproven and unscientific.

There is a lack of peer-reviewed laboratory data, mechanistic explanations, and documented field studies to support its effectiveness. Erroneous conclusions about their efficacy are based on applications with uncontrolled variables. There are, however, some studies which have claimed significant effects and proposed possible mechanisms for the observed decrease in water scale.[1]

Effectiveness [ edit ]

Vendors of magnetic water treatment devices frequently use pictures and testimonials to support their claims, but omit quantitative detail and well-controlled studies.[2] Advertisements and promotions generally omit system variables, such as corrosion or system mass balance analyticals, as well as measurements of post-treatment water such as concentration of hardness ions or the distribution, structure, and morphology of suspended particles.[2][3][4][5][6]

Hypothesized mechanisms [ edit ]

Duration of exposure and field strength, gradient, rate of change, and orientation along or perpendicular to flow are variously cited as important to the results.[7] Magnetic water treatment proponent Klaus Kronenberg proposed that the shapes of solute lime molecules are modified by strong magnetic fields, leading them to precipitate as spherical or round crystals rather than deposit as sheets or platelets of hard crystals.[8] Simon Parsons of the School of Water Sciences at Cranfield University proposed that the magnetic field reduces the surface charge on small particles, increasing the tendency to coagulate as large particles that stay with the flow rather than depositing as scale. However, an internal study in 1996 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found no difference in preferred crystal structure of scale deposited in magnetic water treatment systems.[9]

Liu et al.[10] and Coey and Cass published research in 2010 and 2000 reporting that magnetic treatment causes water containing minerals to favor formation of a more soluble form of calcium carbonate (aragonite rather than calcite).[11]

Pipe material [ edit ]

The effect of magnetic treatment depends on properties of the pipe. The magnititude of the effect depends on pipe conductivity and surface roughness.[12]

Related devices [ edit ]

There are related non-chemical devices based on a variety of physical phenomena which have been marketed for over 50 years with similar claims of scale inhibition.[13] Whilst some are effective, such as electrolytic devices,[14][15][16][17] most do not work.[2]

Electrolysis: Electrolytic scale inhibitors - two metals such as copper and zinc are used [18]

- two metals such as copper and zinc are used Electrostatic: [2] Electronic water conditioners

Electromagnetic: [2] fluctuating electromagnetic fields are created

fluctuating electromagnetic fields are created Catalytic [2]

Mechanical [2]

Other devices combine these different methods

Other uses of magnetic devices:

See also [ edit ]


The Gang of Six isn’t satisfied by screwing over Social Security and Medicare, and imposing sneaky tax hikes on workers with the Chained CPI. They want to give billions of dollars in tax savings to the richest corporations in the US, and encourage them to move jobs overseas. That is the logical result of changing to a system of taxing income only if it is “earned” in the US. This is called a “territorial taxation” system. Currently we have a hybrid system. We tax income from whatever source, but we give a credit for foreign taxes on the income, and we don’t tax any of the money until it is repatriated.

The territorial tax will delight these monster corporations that have accumulated billions of untaxed profits overseas. They can invest the money off shore to create any new business they might want to enter, in any country they might like, and with little effort completely avoid US taxation. This removes any reason for any corporation to manufacture in the US for export. As soon as possible, the company simply moves production off shore, and uses tricks to make the profits in some low tax country. Jobs leave, exports drop, and so do tax revenues.

The rich benefit from higher stock prices as the profits of their pet corporations rise,. When they sell off the stock, they only pay at the low capital gains tax rates.

The US Chamber of Commerce and many of the anti-American corporations it represents are begging congress to enact a one-time repatriation with at 5% tax rate. Their web site is the patriotic WinAmerica, with a lovely picture of working Americans, you know, the people expected to make shared sacrifices. That is a tough sell in light of the howling about the debt ceiling. Even our corrupt elected representatives are having trouble saying that this is a jobs measure, when we know from recent experience that it is just a devious way to give more money to the rich, and increase their leverage over US workers at the same time.

The best part is that in the uproar of trying to increase taxes on workers and screwing Social Security recipients, this little provision won’t attract any attention. The New York Times and the Washington Post don’t mention it in today’s stories. Of course, the business press spotted it immediately. Here’s Bloomberg:

The proposal also calls for the Finance Committee to switch to a territorial tax system, under which U.S. multinational companies wouldn’t face taxes on income they earn outside the country. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have been urging Congress to make such a change. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who has proposed his own bipartisan tax-code overhaul, said yesterday that driving rates down that far would require making big changes to breaks that many taxpayers enjoy. Those include the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions. “You would have to cut back very dramatically on some of the middle-class tax incentives,” he said.

And, of course, Wyden is right. The bandits in the Gang of Six include this instruction to the Senate Finance Committee: “Reform, not eliminate, tax expenditures for health, charitable giving, homeownership, and retirement….”

Reuters has a good summary of liberal dismay over this provision. The Hill notes The Business Roundtable’s enthusiastic support, and quotes Rich Trumpka of the AFL-CIO making the point that this system encourages export of jobs, not goods and services.

“We need to keep asking our leaders: ‘Who got us into this mess?’ It wasn’t working people. The people who got us into this mess are getting off scot-free, and this Gang of Six proposal shows they have accomplices in both parties.”

The Pretend Democrats couldn’t care less who caused this mess. Working people have to pay, in higher taxes and fewer and worse jobs. Better they should suffer and die than that Dick Durbin should have to tax his precious contributors.


Other than your protagonist, your antagonist is going to be the most important active force in your story.

by K.M. Weiland

The antagonist doesn’t have to be a person. It could be weather, circumstances, or the protagonist’s inner self. But, more often than not, the antagonist takes the form of a person. And crafting that person into a memorable and compelling character in his own right is vital to the success of your story.

Your antagonist needs to summon up reader emotions that are just as strong as those felt for the protagonist. Hateable bad guys will deepen reader sympathy for your protagonist. But, beyond even that, bad guys with whom the reader can identify to at least some degree are bad guys who will make him squirm even more.

Let’s a take a look at several categories into which your antagonist may fall, so you can choose the best one for your story.

Your antagonist needs to summon up reader emotions.

The Immoral Antagonist

This is easily the most popular form of antagonist. The bad guy is one readers will have no trouble hating. He is usually set in clear contrast against the good-guy hero. The lines are drawn in varying shades of black and white, and readers have no problem choosing whom to root for.

Hypocrite:

The hypocrite is an antagonist who feigns goodness. He may be guilty of all sorts of treachery and evil, but on the surface he’s all honey and sunshine.

He puts a righteous face on his misdeeds (perhaps even accusing the protagonist of hypocrisy to disguise his own), but the reader knows the truth: this guy is not just bad, he’s a fake. And we hate him all the more for it.

A mainstay of horror stories, this guy is just evil all the way through. He has no excuses, no thread ofgoodness leading him back to redemption. He’s just bad. And crazy on top of it.

Serial killers, genocidal world leaders, and sadists fit the bill to a T. Not only do readers hate psycho bad guys—they’re scared to death of them.

Regular Person Forced to Do Bad Things for an Illegitimate Reason:

Most antagonists—in life as well as fiction—aren’t mustache-twirling, maniacally laughing whackos.

Most of them are just regular Joes who have let their weaknesses get the better of them. Lust, greed, and hatred can drive even ordinary people to do extraordinary evil.

The bad guy is one readers will have no trouble hating.

The Moral Antagonist

In the moral antagonist we find a more complicated—and often more compelling—character, since he presents more parallels than contrasts with the protagonist.

This is a person who is doing the right thing—as he sees it—and usually for the right reasons, but who has nonetheless been forced to do battle with your hero, thanks to the requirements of your story’s overall conflict.

Good Guy on the Opposing Side:

Not all stories are going to offer an epic battle between good and evil. Sometimes the conflict will allow good people with opposing views to appear on both sides of the battle lines.

Lawyers fighting each other for causes in which they each believe passionately, football teams competing for a championship, two love interests trying to win the same girl—none of them have to be inherently bad. Stories of this nature can provide all kinds of interesting possibilities for exploring the gray areas of life, relationships, and morality.

The crusader can be an insanely scary bad guy in his own right. This is someone who fiercely believes he is doing the right thing, and indeed he may well be fighting for a good cause.

He may be someone who believes he has to choose between the lesser of two evils in his decisions. Or he may be someone driven to fanaticism—and thus dangerous decisions—by his passion for his cause. In fact, he may be just plain out right, while the protagonist is the one who’s wrong.

Regular Person Forced to Do Bad Things for a Legitimate Reason:

Sometimes even essentially good people end up doing bad things because they feel they have no choice.

A character who robs a bank to pay for his wife’s operation or to save himself from the Mafia’s threats may be a hero in his own right—or he may be a compelling and relatable antagonist to the detective protagonist who has to go after him.

The possibilities for your antagonist are every bit as vast as they are for your protagonist. The more time you spend creating a character who can properly oppose your hero, the stronger and more compelling your story will be.

Antagonists should be just as well-rounded and believable as your heroes. Don’t settle for anything less than brilliant!

He may be just plain out right, while the protagonist is the one who’s wrong.

-K.M. Weiland

[box] K.M. Weiland is the author of the historical western A Man Called Outlaw and the medieval epic Behold the Dawn.

She enjoys mentoring other authors through her writing tips, her book Outlining Your Novel: Map Your Way to Success, and her instructional CD Conquering Writer’s Block and Summoning Inspiration.[/box]

Photo Credits: Stock XChng, K.M. weiland


Italian side Napoli have confirmed their interest in signing Gonzalo Higuain from Real Madrid.

Arsenal have been linked with the Argentine striker for most of the summer, with reports last week, now obviously premature, that a deal was imminent.

However, with the Gunners sights now apparently trained on Liverpool’s bitey racist, Luis Suarez, the Serie A outfit are looking to spend some of the near €70m they received from PSG for star striker Edinson Cavani.

In a Twitter Q&A, Napoli’s President, Aurelio De Laurentiis, was asked if it were true that there were talks regarding Higuain. His reply, “It’s true.”

Quite where this leaves Arsenal pursuit of the player remains to be seen. There’s something of a tradition of Argentine strikers in Naples, and from looking the most likely of summer signings, Arsene Wenger could miss out on a player still favoured by many fans.

The only signing of the summer thus far has been Yaya Sanogo on a free from Auxerre, so hopefully Napoli’s interest will force our hand a bit and we can get this deal done.


Plus: The greatest director of his generation on who he considers his one true peer, which Oscar he thinks should be named after him—and whether he really will quit after his tenth movie

Quentin Tarantino lives up in the Hollywood Hills, in the same house he’s had since 1996, with a movie theater built into one wing of the house and a terrace with a swimming pool and an orange tree and a Planet of the Apes statue out back. That’s where he’s sitting one night in October, glass of red wine in hand, watching the sun go down. He’s still got to ﬁnish the sound mix and work on the colors, but his newest ﬁlm, The Hateful Eight, is otherwise pretty much done. He shot it on 65-millimeter ﬁlm, like Paul Thomas Anderson did with The Master, and then he had his studio buy up pretty much every existing 70-millimeter projector in the country so he could personally equip 100 theaters with them and show the movie the way he thinks it should be shown.

He describes The Hateful Eight as “a claustrophobic snow Western”—a chamber piece, like Reservoir Dogs or The Iceman Cometh, but set in the wintry post–Civil War 1800s. It’s about a bounty hunter (Kurt Russell) escorting a prisoner (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to justice, only to be diverted into Tarantino-land—a.k.a. a tavern of sorts called Minnie’s Haberdashery, which doesn’t sell hats—where six other men are waiting out a snowstorm, and nobody’s who they say they are. It also stars Sam Jackson and Michael Madsen and Bruce Dern; everyone wears giant furs. “I think it could be my best movie,” Tarantino says. “If not, at least in my top four.” Which is a hilarious qualiﬁer, since he’s only made eight. People count Tarantino movies because he’s maintained for a while now that he’s only making ten. Maybe not even ten. “If ﬁlm projection goes the way of the dodo bird, well, then, maybe I might not even get to ten,” he says.

He sounds weirdly at peace saying that—anticipating the end of the work he’s given his life to. He seems, frankly, weirdly at peace in general, holed up with his costume-designer girlfriend, every memorabilia-crammed room here like some exhibit in a future Tarantino museum, with a Charro! poster on the bathroom wall and a couple of muscle cars out front and a glittery view of the Valley’s fading light. He’s still the antic, emphatic, maniacally gesticulating guy of ’90s popular imagination, but he also turned 52 recently. “I tend to always think of myself as perpetually 35 or so,” Tarantino says. “So, you know, it’s a bit of a drag, in certain regards. And in other regards, I’ve really enjoyed it. I mean…a lot of shit that used to really be on my mind is kind of gone now.”

He sits up in his chair, tries to explain. “I’m over a whole lot of stuff,” he says. He places his ﬁnger at the precise center of the table we’re sitting at. “If the universe was this table, I’m right here where I wanted to be at this point in time, at this point in my life, at this point in my ﬁlmography. I’m right where I wanted to be.”

How did you spend your time off between Django and The Hateful Eight?

Quentin Tarantino: Usually, when I’m done, I want to spend two months on my couch. I want to just pretty much nail the door shut, fuck the phone, and just go to sleep whenever. I have a completely erratic sleeping schedule. I fall asleep whenever I want. I get up whenever I want. Just two months of just watching movies and doing cinema writing and just vegging out that way. And I start emerging and just start, you know, getting back into the swing of things of life.

The people in your life must want to murder you during that sleep-whenever-you-want phase.

One of the privileges you have of living the life of an artist and creating your own world and everything is the fact that, in-between times, you can kind of spend them however you want. Because, you know, once you open up your candy store again, you’re open for business. And you have to be responsible. You have to be available. But, you know, that in-between time, I get to really live the fun life of a graduate student.

The legend is that you wrote Pulp Fiction in Amsterdam with no phone. Are those the conditions you need to write?

No, I don’t need to go anywhere to write. It can be fun. I have a cell phone, and the only person who has the number is my girlfriend. Because I don’t need anyone to call me as I’m walking down the street or driving from hill to dale. You know, my landline is my phone. And so I unplug it, or I don’t listen to it for a while. I’m good. I’ll play some of the messages. I’ll hear them when they come in. Okay, ﬁne.

And that doesn’t cause you anxiety?

No, no. My problem is the opposite. It causes me no anxiety whatsoever. A lot of people ﬁgure that’s my problem: I have no anxiety about shutting the world out at all.

How does something like The Hateful Eight emerge from that process?

I liked the idea of creating a new pop-culture, folkloric hero character that I created with Django, that I think’s gonna last for a long time. And I think as the generations go on and everything, you know, my hope is it can be a rite of passage for black fathers and their sons. Like, when are they old enough to watch Django Unchained? And when they get old enough—14 or 15 or something like that—then maybe it’s something that they do with their fathers, and it’s a cool thing. And then Django becomes their cowboy hero. And so I like the idea of maybe like a series of paperbacks coming out, Further Adventures of Django, and so I was really kind of into that idea. And then I started writing it as a book, as prose. And that’s what ended up turning into The Hateful Eight. The number one thing I had to do was get rid of Django. [laughs]

Django felt like a political turn for you.

You know, it was very political, as opposed to, say, Inglourious Basterds, which was not necessarily political. It’s a little bit more wish fulﬁllment. All right? Django is still a bit of wish fulﬁllment, but I was trying to show America itself, you know? Django was deﬁnitely the beginning of my political side, and I think Hateful Eight is the…logical extension and conclusion of that. I mean, when I say conclusion, I’m not saying I’ll never be political again, but, I mean, I think it’s like, in a weird way, Django was the question and Hateful Eight is the answer.

What do you mean by that?

Well, I mean, in the way of, like, talking about America’s culpability in their past is what _Django’_s about. The white supremacy that has existed since and that is rearing its ugly head again, to such a degree that it’s being dealt with by the Black Lives Matter movement and all that stuff, is where we are now. And that’s what The Hateful Eight deals with. The thing that was really wild is, I wasn’t trying to bend over backwards in any way, shape, or form to make it socially relevant. But once I ﬁnished the script, that’s when all the social relevancy started.

You’re referencing the fact that Hateful Eight is in part about the tension between Sam Jackson’s post–Civil War bounty hunter and the various Confederates and Confederate sons he faces off against in Minnie’s Haberdashery. Do you think you’re just reading patterns subconsciously, or is it a coincidence?

No, I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I think I was tapped into the Zeitgeist. That is the issue I was dealing with. All right? And now all of a sudden, it’s such a real issue that it’s now not under the surface anymore in American life, and people are having to deal with it.

Django came out at an interesting moment, when you also had Spielberg’s Lincoln, and then, a year later, Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave, in theaters, dealing with the same material.

There literally was a moment where Lincoln was playing in one theater in the multiplex and Django was playing in another one. Which was actually kind of fucking groovy.

I interviewed McQueen around the time his movie came out and asked him about Django, and he said, “I’m just happy to see black actors on-screen who actually get work.” That sounded like a shot to me.

Yeah, I’m sure it was.

What did you think of his movie?

I never saw it.

Is that because it was too close to what you were working on?

No, I just spent a year and a half in the antebellum South. The last thing in the world I wanted to do was go back. I was so not the audience for that movie, after I literally created the worst possible decade of the last 200 years and lived in it every single solitary day. The last thing in the world I wanted to do was visit it in any way, shape, or form. There’s no shade going toward his movie when it comes to that. I just didn’t want to subject myself. I was in a depression a bit. Even though it was my biggest success, I was in a depression for about nine months after the ﬁlm came out, because I couldn’t really allow the pain and the misery that I was orchestrating to get into my inner fibers and those little pockets of your lungs, and it all got there when it was done.

Django made $425 million—what do you chalk that success up to?

People liked the movie. I mean, [laughs] I take a little bit of pride about the fact that Westerns aren’t supposed to work, black-lead movies aren’t supposed to work, and if they’re not supposed to work, slavery movies are really, really, really not supposed to work, and I made almost a half a billion dollars around the world and was actually even more of a success and greeted with more open arms in other countries. But ultimately, I think it was the movie. People just responded to the movie.

Do you have high expectations for the new one?

No. If anything, I have the opposite. It’s like, I’m hoping that my movie will do well, but it’s not the third in line to Inglourious Basterds and Django. It’s a different beast. And I love the fact that, like, people are so excited about it and they’re talking about it and everything at the end of the year, and it seems a little crazy that, like, my movie Hateful Eight, this claustrophobic snow Western, all right, that owes more to Iceman Cometh than anything else, you know, is being talked about at the end of the year in the same sentences as Star Wars. [laughs]

And presumably the Oscar conversation.

Well, that is understandable. I think we are a contender. We’ll see. But it is one of those weird things. Wow—have I gotten so popular that I can do weird-ass shit like this, and it actually is a commercial entity? Well, that remains to be seen. But if that’s the case, that would be fucking awesome.

How do you feel about going out and campaigning for Oscars?

Well, you know, it depends on what you call campaigning. Sitting down with every chucklehead that has a podcast, because, well, why not? Can’t hurt! No, I’m not going to do that. You know, but I’ll go to an event. I’ll go to a party. I’ll go to this screening. I’m happy to do that.

The real turnoff for lots of people is when their film doesn’t win.

I’ve felt that way a little bit on Inglourious Basterds. You know, it was like…I didn’t shamelessly promote Inglourious Basterds in any way, shape, or form. But I did what was asked of me. I did a genuine campaign, all right? And maybe I did a little too much. And yeah, we won Supporting Actor, but I was a little pissed off by the results. And I probably won’t ever do that much again.

Are you competitive as a director?

I’m not competitive as a director. But the thing about it is, if I win a third screenwriting Oscar, I will tie with Woody [Allen]. I can’t beat Woody until I tie with him.

But you want to beat him?

I want to have more original-screenplay Oscars than anybody who’s ever lived! So much, I want to have so many that—four is enough. And do it within ten ﬁlms, all right, so that when I die, they rename the original-screenplay Oscar “the Quentin.” And everybody’s down with that.

Tarantino’s girlfriend emerges from the house: “You are insane. I just heard that. That’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever said.”

I just find it hard to believe that you’re down to see other people go up there and get Best Director.

I’m just telling you what I want. I want that third one. I want to tie Woody. All right? Look: When it’s your time, it’s your time. And actually, you can barely do anything to stop it from being your time. There’s almost nothing Danny Boyle could have done to stop the success of Slumdog Millionaire. There’s almost nothing that the Coen brothers could have done to stop the success of their Sherman’s March through Hollywood for No Country for Old Men. So if I end up getting lucky and having one of those ones, then all things will be taken care of.

You’re such a scholar of the medium. You know the history. No offense to Danny Boyle, but aren’t you like, “How the fuck is Danny Boyle winning Oscars when I’ve directed eight films?”

It’s whatever. You know, I don’t make Oscar kind of movies. So the fact that I’m invited to the party when I don’t—and I’m not saying he’s pandering, I mean, it was hardly pandering doing Slumdog Millionaire—but, you know, there’s no pandering to mine. I mean, actually, the idea of winning three screenplay Oscars, maybe four, all right, with only ten films, and never doing it for that purpose, only following my own muse—that’s about as great a testament to an artistic career as I can imagine. But I’m also keeping it in perspective, because I actually think, you know, Preston Sturges is maybe a better writer than all the guys who have ever won before, and he didn’t win shit. [Sturges did win once, for 1940’s The Great McGinty*—make of this slip what you will]*

EDITOR’S PICK

It surprised me that you reacted so angrily to the leak of the Hateful Eight script—you know you’re a good writer. So why sue Gawker over posting a link to it?

Well, it was a mistake to sue Gawker, and the mistake was—I was just pissed off at the time, and, like, “They can’t do that! Okay, let me sue them!” And it got kind of exciting for a second, because it looked like, you know, even though there was no precedent for it, it looked like it might be one of those things that could create a precedent. And that became very exciting. Well, it didn’t happen. So I dropped it. But I regret it now, because it actually took the spotlight off where I thought it deserved to be, which was on Hollywood practices of passing out stuff by artists’ representatives.

Did you sue Gawker before or after they posted about the girl who went on a date with you?

No, that [post] was before. I had no idea. If Gawker was involved—I don’t think Gawker was involved with that. I think they hired her after the fact. So I don’t think they were involved with her. But if they were, I wouldn’t even have known about it.

So it wasn’t about—

No, no. They’re putting my fucking script—there’s a copyright issue going on here, you know, and if the judge had saw it our way, maybe things would be different now. But they didn’t.

Ennio Morricone did the sound track for The Hateful Eight, but he also was in the news in 2013 for saying that you place music in your films “without coherence.”

I think he was talking to a class, and he was just saying that he didn’t care for my all-over-the-map approach in the case of Django and some of the other things that I’ve done and whatever. But it wasn’t necessarily a criticism of me, per se. It’s just not his cup of tea. I think it’s kind of a generational thing, and that I completely understand. He apologized. And he said nothing he needed to apologize about. He later clarified it, because it was blown out of proportion. Some asshole nimrod who wants some sort of power thing leaked it to whatever thingy so he can just have the fun of watching it in three hundred outlets. I felt [Morricone] was betrayed by that person. I knew that was where he was coming from! I knew that’s how he felt about my shit! It was nothing new to me. And almost in a generational way, he was left out to dry. He is such a great artist, he can say any fucking thing he wants.

Twenty years ago, would you have worked with that guy after he said something like that in public?

Well, people made a bigger deal out of it than what, you know…you know, there used to be a time where I could go to Austin and have my QT fest and sit there in front of the audience, in either a question-and-answer session about my own shit, or introducing some movie that I’m a big fan of that I’m talking about, and I could be honest and off the cuff and funny and profound and whatever, and complicated, and it was fine, because it was just for the people in that room. That world doesn’t really exist anymore, and that’s not Ennio’s fault.

Do you mourn that?

I mourn it terribly. Yeah. But where I’m coming from is they don’t deserve it. If the only way they can experience it is by filming it so they can put it online, then they don’t deserve my candor. They don’t deserve a special moment that we might be having amongst us. They don’t deserve it. And if that’s what they ultimately want, well, then, okay. I’ll clean up my act. [laughs]

You’re on film number eight. How could you plan to make only two more after this?

Hopefully it’s like I’m getting down to the tip of the arrowhead. I’m getting better and better. And that means I still have two more to go. All right? And two more to go is gonna be six years, at least. But we’ll see what happens. And, you know, if that tenth ﬁlm is a stinker, well, maybe the plan goes into the house fan. You know, in shreds. But so far so good. And I love the idea of taking my vitality to its furthest point, and then stopping, leaving you wanting a little bit more. Not staying too long at the party. Not working with dulled senses. Not working with dulled intentions. Not working with compromised intentions—i.e., age, vitality, wealth, wife, kids, you know, all those kind of things that get in the way.

That seems like a bleak thing to say, that last part.

My ﬁlmography comes ﬁrst. My artistic journey comes ﬁrst. I’m not saying I can’t have kids. But the last two movies, can’t have kids, can’t have a wife, you know. That’s the deal. Now, now it’s not so scary. You know, conceivably, I could have a kid tomorrow, and by the time I’m done with a career, they’re six. And I have the whole rest of their life to dedicate myself one hundred and twenty percent. Well, not the rest of their life. The rest of my life. And if I have a kid two years from now or three years from now, then they’re age three or age four. Now I’m, boom, that guy. And that’s okay. But there is an excitement when you’re hanging on the next ﬁlm of a director as they’re doing their climb to immortality. I felt that way about De Palma in the ’70s and the ’80s. I felt that way about Scorsese in the ’70s and the ’80s, and I felt that way about Spielberg in the ’70s and ’80s.

Who do you think is currently working at your level?

I think my real ﬁlmmaking peer is probably David O. Russell right now—i.e., his ability to write, the movies he does, and his relationship that he has with the actors that he likes to work with. And I think along with myself, I think he is the best actor’s director out there. And I feel he’s pushing it. I actually think, as terrific as Robert De Niro was in Silver Linings Playbook, I think his cameo in American Hustle is maybe the best work he’s done in the last seven years. It’s a small little thing, and he was a diamond bullet in it! He was perfect. And you would think, Oh, you never need to see De Niro ever play a mob guy again, but you never saw that guy. And that was a fucking cameo! But no one treated it like a cameo. And the fact that, like, they have that trust and that relationship is just such a lovely thing. I think [Russell] and Jennifer Lawrence are the closest thing we have to Bette Davis and William Wyler. I mean, it’s fucking exciting.

Can you still access the person that you were at the beginning of your career—the guy who went to jail for parking tickets and who’d never left Los Angeles?

Oh, very much so. I mean… [pause] I still touch base with that person all the time, and I still have their thoughts. I still have their perspectives. I mean, you know, the way the police are killing black males out there, unarmed black males, shooting them down, um…you know, it’s a different story for me now. All right? The police protect this house. And I need them to do that. And I want them to do that. If I have a problem here, if I think somebody jumped my fence and is fucking around on my property, I’m gonna call the cops. But I’m rich now. I’m rich and white now. All right? When I was in my twenties, I wasn’t rich. They looked at me, and they saw a criminal. They saw a scumbag. They saw someone to be fucked with. I went through a county-jail system four different times. I saw how the county sheriffs talk to you when you’re down there. I saw what it’s like when you have absolutely no power and you’re on the wrong side of the social strata, and what they think of you, and the judgments they make of you. I see that, and I see that now. So when I watch this stuff, I say, “God, shit, that, you know, that could have been me in 1984. That could have been me in 1986.” Now, I have white skin and they have black skin, and that’s a huge difference.

Back in the ’90s, you used to approach the press cycle like an actor would, and you became famous in your own right. Did you later regret that decision?

I joke I’m not really that famous, I’m just that recognizable. If you know what I look like, you’re gonna know me when you see me. But no—I wanted me to be enough when I’m making a movie. I didn’t want to have to go and get a star who respected my movies. I wanted to be enough to get it made, and if I get a star, well, that’s all great. Okay, now we’re talking Hitchcock and Cary Grant. Awesome! All right? But, you know, Hitchcock and Farley Granger is okay, too.

So many people in your industry have early success and then burn out. How did that not happen to you?

I worked too long to be here. I mean, I had such incredible good luck and fortune to make Pulp Fiction and just, in this weird pocket of time, that it could be appreciated for what it was. If I’m gonna fuck that up, I don’t really deserve to have any of this. But I was never afraid of the burnout scenario that you described. I was more afraid of like—I didn’t want to open up a shingle and a shop and now I’m a factory. You know, I do my movie that I do every two or three years, but then I produce a bunch of stuff, and my name’s always out there, Quentin Tarantino Presents this movie, that movie, and I’m rewriting this, because they’re paying me a lot of money, I do a two-week dialogue polish on Transformers 3, this and that and the other, and I keep making money and money and money, and I’m, like, you know, giving my special magic well water away to these people—and now all of a sudden my name doesn’t mean jack fucking shit.

Have you seen The Wolfpack, the documentary about the kids who love and reenact your films?

Yes, I have. Those kids are fucking awesome, man. I think they’re fantastic. And, like, you know, and literally, watching acting out the scenes, that was so entertaining and lovely and glorious. But watching them writing the script, i.e. just jotting it down, but the way they talk about it, it’s as if they wrote it. “I’m working on the script. I’m writing the script.” And I know exactly what they mean! I got it. Watching the kid writing the dialogue down word for word on a yellow legal pad was fucking fantastic.

There’s still a lot of random Tarantino floating around in the culture in 2015—whether it be in film dialogue or nonlinear storytelling or the basic eternal persistence of the Reservoir Dogs suits. Where do you most encounter your work or your influence in the wild?

In the ’90s, from like ’97 through ’99 or 2000 or something like that, it would be going in young people’s apartments and seeing the Pulp Fiction poster up, or seeing the head shot from Pulp Fiction, which is Jules and Vincent pointing their guns. Or seeing their cinder-block used-video library—you know, that they bought for $9.99 from the local video store—and they have Godfather 1, they have Godfather 2, they have Scarface. And then they have Reservoir Dogs and they have Pulp Fiction.


A DIALOGUE WITH SARAH, AGED 3: IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN THAT IF YOUR DAD IS A CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR, ASKING “WHY” CAN BE DANGEROUS

SARAH: Daddy, were you in the shower?

DAD: Yes, I was in the shower.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: I was dirty. The shower gets me clean.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why does the shower get me clean?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: Because the water washes the dirt away when I use soap.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why do I use soap?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: Because the soap grabs the dirt and lets the water wash it off.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why does the soap grab the dirt?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: Because soap is a surfactant.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why is soap a surfactant?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: That is an EXCELLENT question. Soap is a surfactant because it forms water-soluble micelles that trap the otherwise insoluble dirt and oil particles.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why does soap form micelles?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: Soap molecules are long chains with a polar, hydrophilic head and a non-polar, hydrophobic tail. Can you say ‘hydrophilic’?

SARAH: Aidrofawwic

DAD: And can you say ‘hydrophobic’?

SARAH: Aidrofawwic

DAD: Excellent! The word ‘hydrophobic’ means that it avoids water.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why does it mean that?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: It’s Greek! ‘Hydro’ means water and ‘phobic’ means ‘fear of’. ‘Phobos’ is fear. So ‘hydrophobic’ means ‘afraid of water’.

SARAH: Like a monster?

DAD: You mean, like being afraid of a monster?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: A scary monster, sure. If you were afraid of a monster, a Greek person would say you were gorgophobic.

(pause)

SARAH: (rolls her eyes) I thought we were talking about soap.

DAD: We are talking about soap.

(longish pause)

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why do the molecules have a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: Because the C-O bonds in the head are highly polar, and the C-H bonds in the tail are effectively non-polar.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Because while carbon and hydrogen have almost the same electronegativity, oxygen is far more electronegative, thereby polarizing the C-O bonds.

SARAH: Why?

DAD: Why is oxygen more electronegative than carbon and hydrogen?

SARAH: Yes.

DAD: That’s complicated. There are different answers to that question, depending on whether you’re talking about the Pauling or Mulliken electronegativity scales. The Pauling scale is based on homo- versus heteronuclear bond strength differences, while the Mulliken scale is based on the atomic properties of electron affinity and ionization energy. But it really all comes down to effective nuclear charge. The valence electrons in an oxygen atom have a lower energy than those of a carbon atom, and electrons shared between them are held more tightly to the oxygen, because electrons in an oxygen atom experience a greater nuclear charge and therefore a stronger attraction to the atomic nucleus! Cool, huh?

(pause)

SARAH: I don’t get it.

DAD: That’s OK. Neither do most of my students.

* * *

(REPRINTED FROM ISSUE ONE, APRIL 11th, 2005)


Beginning May 14, fuel outlets in eight states will be shut every Sunday following Prime Minister Modi's call to conserve oil, a fuel pump owners' body said in Chennai on Tuesday.

"We had planned to shut our outlets on Sundays a few years back. But marketing companies (OMCs) had then requested us to reconsider our decision. Now we have decided to shut the outlets on Sundays," said Suresh Kumar, an executive committee member of the consortium of Indian

He said the association's decision was made in view of the Prime Minister's call during his recent 'Mann ki baat' programme to to save the environment.

Kumar, also the vice-president of Association, said nearly 20,000 outlets in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and would be shut for 24 hours on Sundays, starting May 14.

"In Tamil Nadu, we expect a business loss of Rs 150 crore if we do not operate on a Sunday. But we have been seeing a decline in sales on Sundays by upto 40 per cent," he said.

Asked if the association's decision was supported by the OMCs, he said, "We will communicate our decision to them shortly."

Kumar said the fuel outlets which normally have about 15 staff each would have one staff member on the holidays to provide fuel if there was an emergency situation.

On the issue of hiking the margins to petroleum outlets, he said the association was discussing it and would soon make an announcement in this regard.

"That struggle is going on. We are meeting our association members shortly. We will announce our decision soon," he said.


Nintendo Switch Surprise Australian Launch Line-Up – 9 Unannounced Games

The Nintendo Switch launch games in Australia aren’t what the locals expected.

The Nintendo Switch launched at midnight in Australia, with lucky fans already well and truly deep into games like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. It is the big system seller of the launch window, and what we’ve played thus far has been truly incredible - a fantastic gaming experience and a must-own. You can read more about it in the Nintendo Switch Magazine. It is not alone at launch, of course. In all 12 games were set to launch alongside the Switch, the lowest in 21 years. However, when Australians opened up the eShop for the first time, they weren’t greeted with the list of titles they expected.

The announced launch-line-up was:

1. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

2. Super Bomberman R

3. 1-2 Switch

4. Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment/Treasure Trove

5. Just Dance 2017

6. FAST RMX

7. Snipperclips – Cut It Out Together

8. I am Setsuna

9. World of Goo

10. Little Inferno

11. Human Resources Machine

12. Skylanders: Imaginators

The actual line-up is:

1. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

2. Super Bomberman R

3. 1-2 Switch

4. The King of Fighters ’89

5. Waku Waku 7

6. Shock Troopers

7. World Heroes Perfect

8. Metal Slug 3

9. Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment/Treasure Trove

10. New Frontier Days: Founding Pioneers

11. Othello

12. Voez

13. Vroom in the Night Sky

14. Just Dance 2017

15. FAST RMX

16. Snipperclips – Cut It Out Together

17. I am Setsuna

So we have an additional nine games we didn’t know where coming to Australia, and four games that are missing. It’s typical of the confusion surrounding the launch of this system, but more games is hardly a deal breaker. Especially given the big guns are still there.

What is the Nintendo Switch magazine?

If you want to learn more about the launch of the Switch, with exclusive reviews of the console, accessories, online service and 24 games, get the Nintendo Switch Magazine. Go direct to Amazon or iTunes if you prefer.

New comment

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus


If you were just a casual observer of security theater you may think that TSA’s adoption of technology — especially to expedite passenger movement through the airports — is a great thing, a step in the right direction after a decade-plus of building up a wall around Fortress America.

But if you go beyond the surface, a different picture emerges: that the TSA is creating a higher Berlin Wall just to help jump over the wall it previously built, instead of trying to whittle the original one down to a more manageable level.

Instead of working on making simple things better — such as clear and readable signage, understandable and obvious lanes, better load balancing at multiple checkpoints — what travelers have to deal with are steps upon steps added to climb over the previous set of inefficiencies.

At all stages in its lifecycle, the TSA has chosen not to de-escalate or tear down any of the original web of procedures, but instead added additional layer of new procedures to help create side doors to the system, in effect building a parallel machinery.

Why does the TSA need to roll out a whole new parallel screening system with PreCheck and the qualification hoops passengers have to jump through to be part of it, when it could just as well lower the screening requirements built into the original system in the first place?

Imagine the costs involved in first coming up with PreCheck and then building, administering, marketing and maintaining it, when it could save a lot more by a rational de-escalation of the security requirement post 9-11 decade? And on top of that, PreCheck does not guarantee expedited screening, as its own rules say! The knots TSA has tied itself up in.

Why does the TSA need to order $6.8 million worth of liquid scanners for airports, when even the former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley says all that’s needed on liquids is updating software on current baggage scanners?

Why spend $900 million and 2,800 workers on a big behavior detection program when it was objectively shown that it was being misused? And don’t make matters worse by spending even more money to hire a consultant to try and find the system’s faults.

Instead of bringing in more tech to scan passports for some passengers — and spend millions to get these machines — why not ease up the questioning and requirements of entry into the country and speed up immigration lines and reduce hours and hours spent in lines at airports like JFK?

Beyond the knee jerk reactions like Republican lawmakers talking about abolition of TSA altogether, few grasp the nuances of the maze that has been built by TSA as both a solution to its political challenges and a justification for its own existence. There is no end solution, just more means created to foster other means.

So even if saner minds would suggest a paring down of TSA’s activities and streamlining, that would likely involve hiring another expensive consulting firm, and it will create additional systems to “simplify” the already existing systems.

Even when TSA tries to bring down some of the original restrictions like allowing small knives, the non-sensical public brouhaha that follows doesn’t give TSA any incentive to actually do anything smart about the bloat. It just becomes easier for it to build new moats around it, it seems.

Maybe defunding isn’t such a bad idea after all…


Video caption London Zoo 'devastated' by aardvark fire death

Staff have been injured and an aardvark and possibly four meerkats killed in a fire at London Zoo.

About 70 firefighters tackled the blaze at its height in the Animal Adventure section that spread to a shop.

One person was taken to hospital and eight were treated at the scene.

The zoo said an aardvark called Misha died in the fire and four meerkats were still unaccounted for, presumed dead. The zoo was shut on Saturday but said it would reopen on Sunday.

The cause of the fire is not yet known.

Image copyright Brendan Cooney/Reuters Image caption Photographs posted on social media showed orange flames rising from the building

Ten fire engines went to the zoo, which sits in the capital's Regent's Park, shortly after 06:00 GMT and the fire was brought under control about three hours later.

Six people were given help at the scene for the effects of smoke inhalation and two for minor injuries, London Ambulance Service said.

One person was taken to a north-west London hospital, the service said.

Image copyright London Fire Brigade

Image copyright Charlie Bard

Duty staff who live on site were on the scene "immediately" and started moving animals to safety, the zoo said.

In a statement the zoo said it was "devastated" about what had happened.

It said: "Sadly our vets have confirmed the death of our nine-year-old aardvark, Misha. There are also four meerkats still unaccounted for, but we are now presuming these have also died.

"All other animals in the vicinity are being monitored closely by our vets, but early signs suggest they have not been affected. We will continue to monitor them over the coming days.

"We are all naturally devastated by this, but are immensely grateful to the fire brigade, who reacted quickly to the situation to bring the fire under control. "

You might also be interested in:

Adnan Abdul Husein said he saw the blaze from a nearby park when he was out walking his dog, and alerted zoo security.

"It didn't look like smoke just coming out of a chimney - it was quite heavy", he said.

"As I got closer to the zoo I could see that it was actually inside the zoo so I went over to the security and told them, 'there's flames or there's smoke coming from inside there, do you know anything about it?'. And they obviously didn't have a clue."

Image copyright Getty Images

London Fire Brigade (LFB) station manager Clive Robinson, who was at the scene, said three-quarters of the cafe and shop had been affected by the fire and half of the roof.

He said: "Firefighters worked hard to bring the fire under control as quickly as possible and to stop it from spreading to neighbouring animal enclosures."

Image copyright @PaulWood1961

Image copyright London Fire Brigade Image caption The cause of the fire is not yet known, London Fire Brigade said