Blood flow restriction work makes you stronger than heavy training alone and is easy to recover from. Read up on the science of BFR and how to implement it.

What you’re getting yourself into

3,900 words, 13-26 minute read time

Key Points

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training involves cutting off venous blood flow out of a limb, but still allowing arterial blood flow into a limb, resulting in the best pump of your life. Because of the massive pump you get from BFR training, people assume it’s the bee’s knees for hypertrophy. However, thus far, it doesn’t seem to cause any more growth than conventional, heavy training. The biggest benefit of BFR training actually seems to be notable increases in strength when it’s added to heavy training. It causes a high degree of muscle activation (rivaling heavy lifting) and causes virtually no muscle damage, making it essentially “free” volume to help you get stronger without compromising recovery. There are a few more cool benefits, including enhancing recovery from training, and reducing atrophy when you’re injured.

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training, or occlusion training, is something that’s met with mixed reactions. Some people are fully aboard the BFR bandwagon, and others think it’s just a gimmick.

To this point, the available evidence suggests that BFR training is quite effective as an adjuvant to conventional, heavy training … just not for the reasons most people think.

So first off, what is BFR training?

Essentially, you use a knee wrap or an elastic band to cut off venous blood flow in your arms or legs. The blood pressure in your veins (which remove blood from the limb) is substantially lower than the blood pressure in your arteries (which bring blood to the limb), so you apply the wrap tight enough to keep blood from leaving the limb, while still allowing blood to enter the limb.

Most of the original studies used a special cuff to occlude venous blood flow, but using knee wraps or an elastic band works just as well. From a scale of 0 (meaning no pressure at all) to 10 (meaning the pressure you’d expect form a tourniquet before getting a limb amputated), the pressure on your arms should feel like a 7, and the pressure on your legs should feel like an 8 or 9. Apply the wrap or band as close to the top of the limb as possible – very close to the groin if occluding venous blood flow from the legs, and very close to the arm pit if occluding venous blood flow from the arms.

Use a light load. It should be a weight you can get for 30-40 reps when you’re fresh (~20-30% of your 1rm is what’s used most often in the research). Pump out as many reps as you can, rest for about 30 seconds, and pump out some more reps. 3-4 sets with short rest, totaling 60-100 reps is what’s done most often in the literature. In some of the studies, the wraps are removed between sets, and in some, they’re left on between sets (bro-tip: it’s much more convenient to just leave them on between sets and admire all of your bulging blood vessels).

While you’re pumping out all of these reps, a ton of blood is driven into the limb, and very little of it can leave. The result: the best pump you’ve ever experienced.

When people try it for the first time, they assume that it must be god’s gift to hypertrophy training. That’s what most people use it for – to get jacked. However, it has other uses that go far beyond hypertrophy and, arguably, hypertrophy isn’t even the biggest benefit you can get from BFR.

But, before we get into the effects of BFR training, let’s backtrack a bit, and take a look at why and how it works.

The Mechanisms of BFR Training

There are six major mechanistic reasons why BFR training works for building muscle and strength.

Metabolic Stress. Identified as one of the three primary mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy (along with muscular tension and muscle damage), metabolic stress signals muscles to grow. Constant BFR (leaving the wraps on between sets) works better that intermittent BFR (taking the wraps off between sets) for this purpose. Intermittent BFR leads to greater metabolic stress than regular low-load training, and constant BFR leads to similar levels of metabolic stress as training at 65% of your 1rm without BFR – equal metabolic stress with much lower loads. Motor Unit Recruitment (one, two, three). Regular low-load training potentially doesn’t recruit as many motor units as heavier training, even when training to failure. I say “potentially” because you assess motor unit recruitment via EMG, and it’s very possible that as the first motor units recruited start to fatigue, they “drop out,” so that the EMG readings at failure would be lower than they would have been when training with heavier loads (which wouldn’t give motor units enough time to fatigue and “drop out”), even if motor unit recruitment throughout the entirety of the set was identical (more on that here). Regardless, research shows that motor unit recruitment is substantially higher with low-load BFR training (specifically constant BFR) than with low-load training without BFR, and that motor unit recruitment is similar for low-load BFR training and heavier, conventional training without BFR. This, as we’ll see later, is probably the biggest benefit of BFR training. Cellular Swelling. Similar to metabolic stress, cell swelling has been identified as a mechanism that can cause hypertrophy. Muscle thickness increases roughly 11.5-12% directly after a BFR workout, due to the increased fluid in the muscle, indicating (to use a scientific term) a buttload of cellular swelling. Modulating Hypertrophy Signalling Pathways and Gene Expression (one, two, three). Key signaling pathways (like the mTOR pathway) and genes (like the myostatin gene) are affected to a greater degree by low-load BFR training than low-load training without BFR. BFR training and heavier, conventional training affect them similarly, increasing protein synthesis and decreasing myostatin to similar degrees. There’s also some data suggesting BFR increases the activity of heat shock proteins which may decrease catabolic signaling, but as far as I know, that’s only been observed in one rodent study thus far. Satellite cell proliferation and myonuclear addition. If you remember from a previous article (I’m overhauling this one in the future because there are some things about it I’m not too pleased with as-is, but the mechanistic stuff about satellite cells and myonuclei is solid), addition of new myonuclei is an absolutely essential factor for long-term hypertrophy. Muscles can grow until the muscle fibers hit their myonuclear domain limit without adding more myonuclei, but to continue growing, the addition of new myonuclei from satellite cells is crucial. Low-load BFR training increases the satellite cell pool and causes myonuclear addition much more effectively than low-load training without BFR, and to a similar degree as heavier, conventional training. Growth Hormone Release. It’s not clear whether acute elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones affect muscle growth in any meaningful way, but the results of this study were eye-catching enough to at least give it a mention. Low-load BFR training to failure caused an increase in growth hormone 290x higher than resting levels, and approximately 4x higher than low-load training to failure without BFR.

Mechanisms are cool and all, but what are the effects on strength and hypertrophy?

For starters, overall, low-intensity BFR training seems to be about as good for hypertrophy and strength as heavier conventional training. Kreiger found an effect size of .35 for hypertrophy and an effect size of 0.8 for strength from multi-set conventional resistance training in his meta-analysis, and Loenneke found an effect size of .39 for hypertrophy and an effect size of .58 for strength from low-intensity BFR training in his. However, it’s worth pointing out that the overall effect sizes for both hypertrophy and strength are depressed quite a bit in the low-intensity BFR training meta-analysis, since it included studies where the mode of exercise was incline treadmill walking with BFR. When only looking at resistance training studies, the effect size was 1.08 for both strength and hypertrophy (though, obviously, with a smaller sample size).

When taking an aerial view, BFR training and conventional training have pretty similar effects. The fact that you get similar hypertrophy from low-load BFR training isn’t overly surprising, in light of the fact that number of hard sets is the main determinant of hypertrophy, but the fact that the strength effects are similar is surprising, since generally training intensity (the percentage of your 1rm you’re training with) is an important determinant of strength gains. More on that a bit later.

It’s also worth pointing out that the BFR meta-analysis was just looking at studies that solely utilized BFR training, not BFR in addition to heavier, conventional training. I’m going to assume that most people reading this article are also lifting heavy stuff, and aren’t planning to use low-load BFR training for the entirety of their training plan, with perhaps the exception of when you’re rehabbing an injury. More on that later as well.

There are five studies worth digging into that had well-trained subjects and combined BFR training with heavy resistance training.

The first is a glorious study, because the muscle being trained was the biceps. That also makes it the least relevant for people primarily concerned with getting strong, but I’m sure that if you look deep down into your soul, you’ll be able to admit to yourself that getting jacked arms is a worthy training goal, and that they are a great compliment to a huge squat or deadlift.

The researchers split the subjects – college-aged men, with at least one year of lifting experience – into two groups. One group did curls with BFR for 4 weeks (3 sets of 30 reps with 30% of their 1rm), followed by heavier curls for 4 weeks (3 sets of 15 with 60% of their 1rm). The other group did heavier curls for 4 weeks, followed by curls with BFR for 4 weeks.

Both groups gained the same amount of muscle over the 8 weeks of the study. They also gained the same amount of muscle during their BFR phase as their heavier training counterparts did; during the first four weeks, the people doing BFR curls gained as much muscle as the people doing conventional curls, and during the last 4 weeks when they changed training protocols, the people doing BFR curls (who did heavier curls for the first 4 weeks), again, gained the same amount of muscle as the people who did heavier curls (the people who did BFR curls for the first 4 weeks).

The next study is from Leubbers (2014).

Over the course of 7 weeks of offseason training for Division IAA football, he split the players into four groups:

One group just followed the standard high-intensity off-season training program for football.

One group did the same high-intensity training program, with additional sets of squat and bench with 20% of their 1rm (1 set of 30 and 2 sets of 20) without BFR.

One group did the same high-intensity training program, with additional sets of squat and bench with 20% of their 1rm utilizing BFR.

One group basically just did accessory work, along with the light squats and benches with BFR.

Over the course of the study, the athletes’ arms and legs got bigger, and their chests didn’t, but there were no significant differences in hypertrophy between the training protocols.

When looking at strength, however, the group doing high-intensity training combined with low-intensity BFR had the largest increases in the squat. Their squats increased ~25kg over 7 weeks, vs. ~14kg for the group only doing high intensity training, and the group doing high intensity training plus low-load training without BFR. The group doing high-intensity training combined with low-intensity BFR also had the largest increases on bench, but the difference wasn’t significant (~8.5kg vs. ~7kg for the other two groups doing high intensity training).

Also note that these were pretty strong dudes to begin with. The average squat at the start of the study was around 200kg.

It’s also interesting to note that it seems like the stimulus from the BFR training is what drove the larger strength increase. My knee-jerk reaction was that the additional training volume was what made the difference, but the group doing the light squats without BFR, in spite of also having significantly higher training volume than the group only doing high-intensity training, gained the same amount of strength over the course of the study.

The next study by Yamanaka (2012) is very similar.

The researchers split the subjects (Division 1 football players) into two groups. Both groups continued their normal off-season strength training program. In addition to their normal high-intensity training, one group did one set of 30 reps, and 3 sets of 20 reps with 20% of their 1rm squat and bench with BFR, and the other group did the same sets and reps without BFR.

The group using BFR gained more strength in the squat and bench press than the group doing the same sets and reps with the same relative load without BFR. In addition, the BFR group’s chest circumferences increased more (~3.1 cm vs. 1.5cm).

The next study is by Cook (2013).

This study was performed on semi-pro rugby players.

They were split into two groups. The first group trained for 3 weeks without BFR, then for 3 weeks with BFR, and the second group followed the opposite pattern.

They trained three times per week, doing 5 sets of 5 with 70% of their 1rm for squat, bench press, and pull-ups each day. The cuffs to restrict blood flow were only applied to the legs (even for pull-ups and bench press) and were removed between sets.

During their time doing BFR training, the athletes added an average of 5.4kg to their bench, and 7.8kg to their squat. During their time without BFR, the athletes added an average of 3.3kg to their bench, and 4.3kg to their squat.

This study was interesting for a couple reasons. For starters, even though the cuffs were only applied to the legs, even during upper body exercises, the BFR group still had a larger increase in bench strength, suggesting that BFR may have systemic effects in addition to the local effects in the muscles with restricted blood flow. Additionally, they were using relatively high loads (70% of their max) – not the low loads typically used in BFR studies.

Last but not least, we have one more study to look at. It’s a Masters Thesis by O’halloran (2014).

His study also combined high intensity training and low-load BFR training.

One group trained exclusively with loads in excess of 70% of their 1rm and no BFR.

The other group did 38% of their training with loads in excess of 70% of their 1rm with no BFR, and 62% of their training with 30% of their 1rm and BFR, for one set of 30, and three sets of 15.

Training volume (total weight lifted) was roughly equated.

Over the course of the study, both groups’ bench press, leg press, biceps cross sectional area, and thigh circumferences increased, with no significant differences between groups. These were already relatively strong guys on the outset as well – they were benching around 220-245lbs, and leg pressing around 800lbs.

So, on the whole, we can take a few things away from these five studies that combined conventional high-intensity training and low-load BFR training and pretty well-trained athletes.

Low-load BFR training works about as well as heavier training for building muscle (Lowery’s study), though the effects of combining the two may not be additive for hypertrophy. Leubbers’ study showed that adding BFR training to high-intensity training didn’t increase hypertrophy, but Yamanaka’s did. It appears that BFR training doesn’t just affect the muscles with venous blood flow occluded. Both Yamanaka’s study (increased chest growth when the cuffs were applied to the arms) and Cook’s study (larger increases in bench press, even though only leg blood flow was restricted) demonstrated increases in either strength or hypertrophy in muscles other than those below where the cuffs were applied. The most notable effect seems to be an increase in strength. Leubbers’ study showed a larger increase in the squat, Yamanaka’s study showed a larger increase in both squat and bench press, Cook’s study showed a larger increase in both squat and bench press, and O’halloran’s Thesis showed that substituting a sizable chunk of high-intensity training for low-load BFR led to the same increases in strength.

The effects on strength are the most surprising. You’d expect (or at least, I’d expect) there to be a bigger difference in hypertrophy, but apparently the mega-pump lies to you.

When you think through it, though, it makes sense. Plenty of things make muscle grow; tension, volume, metabolite accumulation, muscle damage, etc. With low-load BFR, tension is lower, metabolite accumulation is high, but not any higher than conventional training for 10+ reps, and there’s very, very little muscle damage that takes place. It gives you a solid growth stimulus, but nothing that you can’t also get from just picking up heavy stuff, and when you add it to a program that revolves around picking up heavy stuff, it doesn’t seem to offer any additional hypertrophy benefits.

However, strength is another beast entirely. Strength is partially dependent on structural factors (how much muscle you have), and partially dependent on neural factors (how well you can activate those muscles). Remember, low-load BFR causes roughly the same amount of muscle activation as much heavier, conventional training.

BFR training has proven to be pretty disappointing for people with the sole goal of building muscle, since notable increases in muscle growth on top of heavier training haven’t really manifested themselves (with the exception of additional chest growth in Yamanaka’s study).

However, low-load BFR training is basically the holy grail for strength athletes, at least as far as accessory work goes.

When you add it to heavy training, it makes you stronger than heavy training alone. It’s not just a matter of getting stronger from adding extra training volume because it beats out low-load training without BFR. It’s incredibly easy to recover from since it causes essentially no muscle damage. (note: you may very well get sore the first couple of times you do it, simply due to novelty; this should go away pretty quickly, though) Because it also causes high muscle activation, it also aids in the neural side of strength development. Its effects are very similar to heavy training, and O’halloran even showed that you can replace a hefty amount of heavy training with low-load BFRs and get the same increases in strength.

You can almost think of it as “free” volume. You get all the upside of lifting heavy, but it’s way easier to recover from. You can add low-load BFR to your current training program to get stronger, faster without compromising recovery. Or, if you’re having issues with recovery, you can sub out some (not all) of your heavy training for low-load BFR and get the same strength increases without taxing your ability to recover to nearly the same degree.

Other Stuff Worth Noting

BFR without strength training speeds up recovery from training. One study showed that 2 sets of 3 minutes of BFR for the legs immediately after a training session significantly sped up recovery and enhanced subsequent performance for power-related tests.

BFR can also decrease muscle atrophy when you’re injured, and speed up the recovery of strength when you can get back to training. In one study, BFR (multiple sets of 5 minutes of occlusion, without exercise) significantly decreased muscle atrophy of the quads and hamstrings during the post-operative period following ACL reconstruction. In another, low-load BFR training helped people get muscle and strength back faster than training without BFR during the reconditioning phase following ACL reconstruction. Low-load BFR training can be a godsend to people dealing with or recovering from injuries. BFR without training can keep you from losing as much muscle if you’re so jacked up you can’t do anything (of course, consult with a physical therapist first), and low-load BFR training can help you maintain muscle and strength if you have aches and pains you need to train around. If you want to read more about how to progress from totally-jacked-up to picking-up-heavy-stuff-again, I’d strongly recommend this review.

Keep in mind, I’m not recommending low-load BFR as the sole focus of your training plan. You should still be picking up heavy stuff (of course, since you’re reading Strengtheory, I doubt I have to tell you that). One study showed that low-load BFR doesn’t affect tendons to the same degree heavy training does.

Interestingly, it seems that the additive increase in strength only applies to well-trained athletes. One study on untrained folks found that adding low-intensity BFR training to heavier training didn’t increase strength gains. It could be that untrained people are already getting all the strength benefits they could possibly get just from picking up heavy stuff, but that more well-trained people have that capacity for greater increases in strength that don’t manifest themselves because further increases in heavy training would compromise their ability to recover (since their training is already inherently more stressful). That seems plausible enough to me.

People get leery of BFR because cutting off blood flow just seems like it would be dangerous. However, rates of adverse effects are exceptionally low, even in diseased and at-risk populations. You can completely cut off blood flow to a limb for over an hour without any long-term risks, and with BFR training, you’re still allowing arterial blood flow, so you could likely occlude venous blood flow for even longer (though I wouldn’t recommend it).

The thinner the device for cutting off venous blood flow, the better off you are. With thicker wraps, you run a greater risk of cutting off arterial blood flow. I generally use the resistance bands you can find in most gyms that some middle-aged women use for biceps curls. I get weird looks when I raid the BodyPump room in the middle of a class, but #yolo. Knee wraps can do the job as well, but bands are a better option if they’re available to you.

Bro-tip: BFR work seems to work best, in my experience, when added in for a 4-8 week block, then replaced with more conventional accessory work for the next 4-8 week block.

Implementation

Pick up heavy stuff as you generally would. You don’t need to really change your program to add low-load BFR since it’s exceptionally easy to recover from. After your heavy sets, do 3-4 sets of 15-40 reps with 20-30% of your max with BFR, resting about 30 seconds between sets. Whether you leave the wraps on between sets or take them off is up to you, but leaving them on seems to be better for muscle activation, and they’re annoying to take off and put back on between sets anyways. This works really well for squat and bench (or you could do leg press and DB press after your squat and bench work, if you prefer). Whether it helps the deadlift or not hasn’t been examined in the literature, and anecdotally, it doesn’t seem to help out your hammies as much as your quads. Though not required, I’d strongly recommend you also bust out a sweet superset or five for your arms. Who cares if science says it won’t make your arms grow any faster than regular curls and triceps extensions? You get the same hypertrophy effect, but you get it by way of stupidly awesome pumps, which is a benefit in and of itself.

Alternately, if you’re having issues recovering from your training, you can sub out one or two heavy sets for 2-3 sets of low-load BFR. This is particularly useful for short stints when you know beforehand that recovery will be compromised (if you know you have a deadline coming up that’ll stress you out and decrease how much you can sleep, or something of that sort).

If this is a subject that interests you, I’d strongly recommend you check out these three reviews as well (one, two, three).

This was a snippet from the Second Edition of the Art and Science of Lifting that I’m working along on right now. If you already have the First Edition, the Second Edition will be free for you when it comes out!

• • •

Next: The Complete Strength Training Guide →

The New Approach to Training Volume →

Spread the love Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

Reddit

Tumblr

Email

Pocket

More

Print

Pinterest


Touka Kirishima and the Rotting Womb

The two biggest pieces of evidence for what is next about to happen to Touka lies in the colored cover art for this chapter of Tokyo Ghoul, and a poem translated by michi here [x] attached to the Yomo, Touka and Ayato birthday art.

Starting with the art, the most immediate eye catching area is Touka’s bloodied stomach.

Starting with the art, the most immediate eye catching area is Touka’s bloodied stomach.

Blood on the stomach is typically a feminine symbol, it does not have to necessarily mean being stabbed through the stomach. It could also mean menustruation and miscarriage, however, what comes to mind with deliberately invoking a symbol of miscarriage on Touka is what miscarriage means in a literal sense “A new life being cut short.”

Returning to the top of the image, those are white sakura blossoms with the phrase “Bloom for me, a flower of my own.”

Cherry or Sakura blossoms in japanese culture have a lot of meanings, but the most relevant to the situation is this one:

Cherry blossoms are a symbolic flower of the spring, a time of renewal, and the fleeting nature of life. Their life is very short. After their beauty peaks around two weeks, the blossoms start to fall. [x]

This meaning of a “beautiful life cut short” could possibly apply to Touka if there were upcoming danger to her, or even to her and Kaneki’s relationship if their sudden chance at growth was taken away by Mutsuki’s interference. For example in the film 5 cm per second, cherry blossoms were used to symbolize a promising new relationship cut short.

Touka’s even referred to within this same chapter as beautiful, once again.

One thing I will note though is that the words:

“Bloom for me, a flower of my own”

Become foreboding if you realize that flowers in Tokyo Ghoul, and especially flowers blooming have always been a shorthand symbol for blood splatter and tragedy.

They were used here:

and here:

finally here:

Finally though, to the poem. The birthday poem written by Ishida is entitled:

“ Her womb smelled like it was burnt.”

Which goes along nicely with the miscarriage and feminine symbolism already being associated with Touka in this image. A lot of the allusions described in this poem also correspond to events that have been happening recently in canon.

To the point where I am now convinced that the narrator of the poem rather than Kaneki, is Touka herself.

The children who were meant to be born, died. The vision of the future convulses.

Someone declared that they’ll crush only half of the broad bean.

The gene is in a severe bipolar state.

The nucleic acid sequence having no recollection of its own actions.

The children who were meant to be born could be referring to the ghouls from Aogiri. Touka herself is witness not only to ghouls and children being born into this world dying early, even herself being subjected to violence early as a child as CCG officers tried to kill her.

Someone declared they will only crush half the broad bean is Kaneki. It’s two of his most famous lines combined together “I’ll only half kill you” and “I’ll pluck the rotted beans.”

The gene is in a severe bipolar state is also Kaneki, somebody who switches haphazardly between his ghoul and human sides even though he claims to be a person who can see both humans and ghouls. Bipolar is usually associated is Bipolar Manic Depression the mental illness, but the root of the word means “Two poles” or two opposite ends.

The nucleic acid sequence having no recollection of its own actions, that’s Haise. He had the same body as Kaneki, and the same mismatch of DNA, however he could not remember what it was he had done and Touka had to witness him in his memoryless state.

All of the fingers that were supposed to be connected from start to end, are scattered around; it’s annoying. If you look closely at the knot, you can see that it can be surprisingly easy to untie.

This is referring to Touka’s family itself, even the threadbare remaints of it, Yomo, Ayato and herself she has a difficult time trying to keep them all together. All Touka wants is for the people to love to stay around and love her in return, and she feels also that her family should have stuck around, it should have been simple but actually the ties of family aren’t so binding and they easily unwind, both Ayato and Yomo left her at different points.

I was always asked to keep the switch.

Go forward.

Go back.

Stop. I can hear my voice from the mouth.

That voice gave me a feeling of discomfort and it had become extremely disgusting but, no one noticed that and everyone was under the impression that it was indeed, my voice.

This is the three years of waiting Touka did. ‘Asked to keep the switch’ could refer to Touka having to host Re: and sit back and wait as the rendezvous point for both Ayato and Kaneki to eventually return to while they were allowed to move brashly ahead on their own. Even after they return though, Touka is still asked to hang back and monitor communications rather than allowing her to fight in the field.

The result is a Touka who acts much differently from the Touka we know today, and Kaneki even comments as such. The person who could act decisively and boldly for herself, the one who was always moving ahead of him scared him. It sounds a bit different to the Touka we know now in :Re who is acting as an advice dispenser and a passive source of guidance, standing in the place of Yoshimura.

The Touka that years of loneliness and abandonment has been conditioned into this current state.

Everybody accepts this change in Touka, but does Touka herself accept it? She’s at least still disatisfied with having to hang back, telling both Ayato and Kaneki when they tried to leave her out of critical moments to protect her that they didn’t need to.

Sin is irresponsible. I’m getting tired of being forgiven.

My shoulders have even forgotten about my legs. I open the door with the side of my arm. The path that I should’ve advanced in is gone and darkness pulled onto the horizon that lay right beneath it.

This is another direct reference, when Touka was in the doorway with Yomo, Yomo explained to her that Koma and Irimi needed to die because their sins were unforgivable, but at the same time she countered why were her sins forgiven then?

“Come on, come on! Come on, come on!” Go forward.

Go back.

Stop. I can hear my voice from the bones. “Did you know that our voice is the mixed voices from dad and mom? No wonder it’s so disgusting.”

The last part is Touka in reference to her father. Touka’s always had complex feelings about Arata, but lately she has been turning away from him entirely because she sees his decisions as what led to her abandonment.

Touka does not want to acknowledge the actions of a man who fought for a mother she barely remembers, a mother who died because of murders she did a long time ago. Despite not choosing to be, she was born a ghoul who carries the sins of those two previous ghouls as well. Touka’s always dealt with self disgust for being born a ghoul, and also her own actions.

I pinched my nose and jumped down without a pause. Just like how a child would when jumping into a pool. Even the never-stopping rain,

even the never-breaking night,

even the never-ending agony. It’s surely there, it’s just that it wasn’t there until now. Falling down, falling down.

It’s as if right has become left. And on the brink of collision, I recall Björk’s song,

I think this is where we are at at the poem, Touka has dived in by basically lying it all bare in front of Kaneki. Approaching the point of collision could be Mutsuki, a final collision between those two plot lines.

As for a Bjork song, most assume that song is Hyperballad, the song played during the New Year’s livestream. The lyrics are a bit abstract, but basically it is about a girl throwing away things off a mountain, pieces of herself so she can be happy with someone else. At some point in the song she also considers throwing herself off of the mountain too.

I follow with my eyes ‘til they crash

Imagine what my body would sound like

Slamming against those rocks

When it lands

Will my eyes

Be closed or open?

I go through all this

Before you wake up

So I can feel happier

To be safe up here with you [x]

I would say all of this foreshadowing at least points to Touka’s dissatisfaction and possibly the confrontation causing her to lose consciousness. She might even throw herself in front of Kaneki to protect him, since the person in the poem and the song both willingly throw themselves.

In conclusion though, what does a rotting womb mean in association with Touka? It means that new life that could be born from her, has suddenly hit a stopping point and that stagnation is causing her to rot. What that could mean in literal terms though, we’ll have to see as the events unfold.


The only reason I am still here, quite frankly, is all of you. I made this blog right as I began to get so much sicker, and was completely alone. The support I received through all of you gave me the courage to seek out further treatment that undoubtedly prolonged my life. Prior to this, nobody listened to me. Nobody heard me when I was sick, nobody believed that what I said was happening actually was. I had nearly given up on myself, since all of my doctors and families tried to convince me that I was lying about my failing health.

It was the absolute life changing experience of having an audience that gave me the strength to keep fighting. I actively thought about my followers, many of them by name, as I went to doctor after doctor and treatment after treatment. This is no exaggeration. My followers were the only people who wanted to be in my life and wanted to listen to what I had to say. That was everything to me.

A lot of my early followers have become lifelong friends. I am sitting next to one of them right now, and have seen countless others these past few years, and anticipate meeting many more. Because of everyone, these have probably been the happiest years of my life.

If not for all of you, I would probably be dead already, no joke. My body was completely shutting down, and it took a lot more strength than I could ever have alone to pursue extremely painful and effective treatments. Even though there still is no cure, and my life will likely end sooner than the time since this blog began, it has been made so much longer and so much better because of all of you.

Even if whoever is reading this is a new follower, even if you are an old one, if you ever doubt yourself, remember that your mere presence can be life changing to someone else. I still have a lot more fighting to do, but I never would have made it this far in the first place alone.

This birthday is because of all of you.

Thank you.


Prominent Toronto defence lawyer Randall Barrs has recovered after being shot Sep. 20 outside his law office, but he is critical of Halton police for allowing the shooting to happen and Toronto police for not determining why he was a target.

Barrs spoke exclusively to CBC Toronto Tuesday. It was the first time in the more than two months since a gunman opened fire that he has spoken on camera.

On the sunny Tuesday afternoon when Barrs was shot in the driveway of his law office at 23 Bedford Rd. in the Annex, there were babies in strollers at a parkette just across the street.

Barrs remembers them, but said he didn't see the man who is now accused of shooting him from behind until after he'd been shot twice in the left leg and had fallen to the ground.

"I heard the noises, the popping sound and the next thing I knew I realized I was on the ground and with the amount of blood I saw on my leg and on my shoe and on the driveway, when I looked back over my shoulder, I put together I'd been shot," Barrs said recalling the ordeal.

"I lost a lot of blood when I was hit, I was shot from behind by this coward."

Barrs first started to hop on his injured leg down the driveway towards the assailant, but then fear set in.

"Then I realized after two or three hops that he has a gun and I don't have one, so I just did a U-turn and hopped towards my office and lay on the door there and that's when the mystery begins," Barrs said.

J. Randall Barrs gives his first television interview since he was shot outside his law office in September. (Martin Trainor/CBC)

Within seconds a group of undercover officers from Halton Police had surrounded the gunman and were helping Barrs secure his belt around his leg to slow the bleeding.

Sources tell CBC Toronto the team had the alleged gunman under surveillance, but Halton police have never confirmed why.

Barrs wants to know why police didn't step in earlier if they were hiding in the bushes.

"They were all wearing vests, they were protected — very dangerous situation. There were people all over the place," he said. "It's just a miracle that no one else was hit beside me."

One of the officers shot the alleged gunman in the neck. The man survived, and the incident is being investigated by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), the province's civilian police watchdog. The SIU steps in when police are involved in a confrontation that results in the injury of a civilian.

J. Randall Barrs is photographed outside his law office on Tues., Nov. 22, 2016. (Martin Trainor/CBC)

Halton police told CBC Toronto Tuesday they can't comment because their investigation is ongoing.

The SIU said its investigation is continuing and it could not provide an update.

Barrs is perplexed the SIU investigation isn't finished because he said he was told the officer who pulled the trigger, along with the officers who witnessed it, were all interviewed within a week of the shooting.

Grayson Delong, 51, is charged with 15 offences, including attempted murder. No longer wearing a gray neck-brace, on Nov. 21 Delong appeared in court, wearing an orange jumpsuit. Some pre-trial arrangements were made and he will appear next in court Dec. 5.

At the time of the shooting, Delong was out on bail after a series of break-and-enters in Halton region, and was under a weapons prohibition.

"He was out on bail for a bunch of [break and enters] in Peel but this doesn't look like [break and enter] surveillance. It doesn't make any sense," said Barrs.

Barrs maintains Delong was not a past or present client of his, and the men did not know each other.

Toronto Police have downloaded video that allegedly captures the shooting from one of Barrs's associates and apprehended Delong's cellphone, according to Barrs.

Halton police officers boxed in the alleged gunman, who is inside the silver car in this image, moments after lawyer J. Randall Barrs was shot. (Peter Schilling/Submitted)

Yet nine weeks later there have been no updates from police.

Barrs said whoever orchestrated the shooting hasn't been caught, which means whoever has an axe to grind against him is still out there.

"You would think that would cause [Toronto Police] to speed up their investigation. You would think time would be of the essence but that doesn't seem to be the way things work with the Toronto Police Service," said Barrs.

"I'm not happy, I haven't been on this side of the fence but now I understand why a lot of people who have been have expressed so much unhappiness."

Toronto Police did not respond to CBC Toronto for an update on their investigation.

Despite everything, the veteran defence lawyer said he is not letting the open case stop him.

"I've been doing this for 40 years. I'm not afraid. I'm carrying on with my life," Barrs said.

The bullets went right through his left leg, missing bones and arteries. There is muscle and nerve damage, but he is recovering well, he said.

He says he was home from hospital the day after the shooting, and his first day in court was just over a week later on Sept. 29.

"I was in a lot of pain and discomfort for a long time, but it gradually got better day-by-day," he said.

"I'm doing pretty well. I'd say [I'm] at the 95 per cent level at this point."


Since the release of the Panama Papers, every day has brought on a new development. The sheer scale of the leaks is staggering — nearly 100 times more data than when Wikileaks released nearly 3 million US diplomatic cables.

The papers themselves include millions of leaked documents that reveal just how pervasive tax avoidance is among the world's most powerful and wealthy. They give a world tour of corruption, magnifying tactics used by the rich to keep their financial dealings secret. They have already forced out the prime minister of Iceland and raised uncomfortable questions for the prime minister of the United Kingdom.

But they also raised a lot of questions, from the complex to the simple: Who leaked the documents? How did we get into this situation in the first place? And what the hell is a shell company to begin with? While financial transparency remains a mainstay of many prominent world leaders' political platforms, the Panama Papers proved that international tax structures allow for widespread secrecy. Here's how:

1) What are the Panama Papers?

Let's start at the beginning. In short, the Panama Papers is the biggest leak of confidential data in history.

Specifically, the leak consisted of 11.5 million documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm that specializes in helping people anonymously set up offshore shell companies in nations with lower taxes to protect their financial assets. The papers were initially released to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. The newspaper then partnered with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. For more than a year, 300 journalists reviewed the 2.6 terabytes of data before releasing their findings, now called the Panama Papers.

The documents showed the internal dealings, emails, invoices, and documents shared between the world's elite and the lawyers paid to help them retain their wealth. If we have learned anything from the Panama Papers, it's that the revelations that came out of them are extraordinarily complicated (explained in more detail here), and their impact has depended not just on what the papers themselves showed, but on the political situation surrounding the principal players.

The papers named 140 politicians from more than 50 countries linked to offshore financial dealings in more than 20 tax havens. It named famous athletes and celebrities, friends of world leaders, and wealthy divorcees, ultimately giving insight into how the wealthy are able to keep their money and power without being subject to their own country's laws and tax codes:

Iceland's prime minister resigned after the Panama Papers showed he was personally connected to an offshore company , Wintris, registered in the British Virgin Islands, that stood to benefit from bailout negotiations in which he was involved with big banks, although it's not clear whether he personally benefited financially.

, Wintris, registered in the British Virgin Islands, that stood to benefit from bailout negotiations in which he was involved with big banks, although it's not clear whether he personally benefited financially. UK Prime Minister David Cameron's father owned an offshore holdings company in Panama in which the prime minister also once had shares and sold before becoming prime minister in 2010.

in Panama in which the prime minister also once had shares and sold before becoming prime minister in 2010. There is a multimillion-dollar network of offshore companies surrounding Vladimir Putin and his closest friends that, although not directly linked to Putin by name, connects the Russian president to secret and questionable loans and investments in Russian monopolies.

and his closest friends that, although not directly linked to Putin by name, connects the Russian president to secret and questionable loans and investments in Russian monopolies. Mossack Fonseca was deeply tied to Brazil's current corruption scandal and President Dilma Rousseff's impeachment trial. The Panamanian law firm helped 57 people linked to the Petrobras scandal, a $5.3 billion bribery scheme implicating Brazil's most elite politicians and executives, and set up 107 offshore companies, including one allegedly tied to Eduardo Cunha, the lead opposition politician pushing for the president's impeachment.

2) How do tax havens and shell companies actually work?

Tax havens — countries, states, or territories where taxes are very low or nonexistent — often also have financial regulations that require less transparency in the banking system. Panama, for example, does not have an international transaction income tax or sales tax. The government only requires that offshore companies pay a $300 annual franchise tax.

Places like Panama — or the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, or the British Virgin Islands — are particularly attractive for wealthy individuals because this legal framework makes it easy to hide their financial assets from the tax authorities of the countries in which they actually live and work.

Big multinational companies take advantage of tax havens to minimize their corporate income tax bill by internally shifting profit-making assets to subsidiaries located in low-tax countries. For example, Apple's global sales go through its subsidiary company in Ireland, which has lower corporate income tax.

Individuals can't really do this. Instead, they can go to law firms like Mossack Fonseca to set up inactive companies, called shell companies, the sole purpose of which is to hold financial assets.

Usually the true owners of these companies remain anonymous — on paper, shell companies are often directed by the lawyers who control the company but don't have any real control of the company's activities. These shell companies can hold investments, they can buy houses and multimillion-dollar yachts, and ultimately they allow the real owners to shield assets from scrutiny or taxation.

Setting up a shell company isn't illegal. Paying lower taxes in Panama or other tax havens isn't illegal either. These, like claiming deductions, are tax avoidance practices — legal ways to pay the least amount of taxes possible. But tax evasion — failing to accurately disclose your financial situation — is illegal. The precise line between legal avoidance and illegal evasion can be hard to detect, especially without access to full and complete financial records, so offshore shell companies can help blur the line.

3) Are offshore tax havens bad?

Tax havens let people avoid or evade paying a lot of money to the governments under which they live — which is good for the avoiders, and, again, is not necessarily illegal, but is usually bad for their fellow citizens.

Gabriel Zucman, an economist at the University of California-Berkeley, estimates that nearly $8 trillion — 8 percent of all the financial wealth in the world — is stashed in tax havens, and that illegal tax evasion costs governments around the world $200 billion per year in taxes. The problem is worst in Africa, where 30 percent of assets are in tax havens, and Russia, where the total wealth in tax havens is more than 50 percent.

Legal tax avoidance schemes cost the US a lot of money, too: A recent study from Oxfam found the top 50 corporations in the US had stowed more than a trillion dollars in 1,600-plus offshore subsidiary companies while still receiving trillions in federal funds, whether in the form of a loan or a bailout. Their tax avoidance practices cost the US more than $110 billion every year, according to Oxfam's report.

Organizations like Oxfam say this leads to further inequality, ultimately forcing the government to cut federal programs that are meant to aid lower-income citizens. Outside of the US, this kind of practice can also reduce tax gains in the developing world. Because tax havens are the product of an unorganized international tax system, developing countries are also cut out of about $100 billion of taxes — money that could go toward necessary infrastructure like schools, roads, etc.

Tax havens are also counter to ideals of financial transparency. One chief purpose of shell companies is to maintain the anonymity of the real owner, which has the potential to lead to even shadier things than tax avoidance. Tax havens are often seen as breeding grounds for criminal activity. When countries do not require companies to report financial records, it makes it really easy to mask illegal activities. This is the scene in the movies when the rich guy in a silk robe gets arrested for laundering money through his private Cayman Island resort.

And a lot of these law firms are set up to help people do just that.

Mossack Fonseca, the law firm at the center of the Panama Papers, has been investigated time and time again for aiding in money laundering schemes. In January, Brazilian prosecutors brought charges against their lawyers for hiding documents related to the Petrobras scandal. Before that, an American hedge fund that was invested in Argentina's defaulted debt investigated Mossack Fonseca's Las Vegas subsidiary for hiding records relating to offshore accounts that were stealing from Argentinian government contracts.

"When it comes to money laundering, we offer full service: rinse, wash, and dry," said Miguel Antonio Bernal, a Panamanian lawyer and political analyst told Vice. "You can go to any law firm in the city, from the smallest to the biggest, and open up a shell company with no questions asked."

In the end, tax havens make inequality worse, Zucman told Vox's Libby Nelson: They make it easier for the rich to get richer by avoiding taxes. They make it harder to redistribute their wealth. And people who aren't sheltering their assets end up paying more in taxes to make up for the untaxed money that's being held offshore.

4) If so many people think tax havens are bad, why are they still around? Isn't someone trying to do something about this?

The simplest way to approach this is that tax havens benefit the very wealthy and the very wealthy have a lot of political clout. Elites have largely allowed tax havens to exist because elites themselves benefit from their existence.

This doesn't mean fixes haven't been in the works. In both 2008 and 2014, the Senate investigated tax-evasion practices surrounding Switzerland's largest banks. During the second investigation, Credit Suisse agreed to a $196 million settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for illegal banking.

In 2015, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. The bill, supported by many tax-justice oriented organizations, would tighten reporting requirements on offshore companies and treat certain offshore companies owned by Americans as taxable domestic corporations. It was referred to House committees the day it was introduced and has not moved since.

There are multiple reasons for this.

First, tax havens' major beneficiaries are multinational corporations that have powerful lobbyists. According to the Oxfam study, a corporation is run by a "multibillion dollar army of lobbyists to influence federal policy," which not only guarantees them millions in loans, loan guarantees, and bailouts, but also finds ways to eventually bring the money they have stored offshore back into the country without exorbitant taxes.

But also there are some persistent counterarguments to putting an end to tax havens. One, paying higher taxes prevents them from investing in resources that could ultimately benefit people. And second, there is the notion of double-taxing, which is the idea that without tax havens people could be taxed on the same income, assets, or financial transactions in two different jurisdictions.

In the current international tax structure, double taxing is prevented with tax deals between countries. For example, under President Barack Obama's administration the United States passed a deal with Panama that eliminated tariffs on trade and gave Panama access to US businesses and financial services.

5) How did we get into this situation in the first place? Is a trade deal with Panama to blame?

Many congressional critics of the free trade agreement between the US and Panama, which passed in 2012, warned the deal would worsen Panama's status as a tax haven. One of those critics, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, used the Panama Papers to vindicate his stance against the Panama free trade deal.

"The Panama Free Trade Agreement put a stamp of approval on Panama, a world leader when it comes to allowing the wealthy and the powerful to avoid taxes," Sanders said in a statement following the release of the Panama Papers.

"I predicted that the passage of this disastrous trade deal would make it easier, not harder, for the wealthy and large corporations to evade taxes by sheltering billions of dollars offshore. I wish I had been proven wrong about this, but it has now come to light that the extent of Panama’s tax avoidance scams is even worse than I had feared."

But this isn't necessarily the case. In fact, countries can use trade deals to put checks on tax havens. The papers themselves indicate that the agreement made it slightly harder for Americans to use Panama specifically as a venue, as the Washington Post's editorial board argues:

Data culled from the documents by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and presented in several charts on the group’s website, show that the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, which specialized in setting up offshore accounts and shell companies for wealthy people, has been steadily reducing its activity in Panama for about a decade. As it happens, the decline began about the time the Bush administration and Panama began discussing a free-trade pact — and accelerated after the deal took effect during Mr. Obama’s first term. [...] The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the "bearer shares" loophole. Panama agreed and changed its laws accordingly — before the free-trade agreement reached the Senate and Mr. Sanders nevertheless voted "no," claiming, wrongly, that it would make the tax haven "worse."

6) Taxes are kind of confusing. Can we just watch cartoons instead?

Yes. But only if it's a fun educational cartoon about shell companies and tax havens. Here are the Panama Papers explained in an adorable comic about piggy banks:

7) Hold up. Back to the Panama Papers. Who actually leaked these documents?

We don't actually know.

In an interview with Wired, Bastian Obermayer, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reporter who first interacted with the anonymous whistleblower, said the German paper had months of encrypted conversations with the source, who over a few months continuously fed the reporters troves of confidential documents, emails, and invoices.

Obermayer said the source said his or her "life is in danger." They never met in person and only communicated in encrypted messages. In the months that followed, Süddeutsche Zeitung partnered with journalists around the world and created an encrypted database to work through the leaked documents. The paper has not released the raw data and has said it will not do so, in order to protect the source.

"You don't harm the privacy of people, who are not in the public eye. Blacking out private data is a task, that would require a lifetime of work — we have eleven million documents," the reporters wrote in a Reddit AMA.

The law firm in question, Mossack Fonseca, maintains that the leak did not come from one of its employees.

So, the source is still anonymous, but there are a lot of theories about who leaked the documents. It's fun to speculate, but the conspiracy theories also illustrate how different parts of the world are reacting to the leak:

Putin's theory is that the US leaked the documents as part of a larger scheme to "destabilize" Russia, adding that the entire motive behind leaking the documents was to smear him as president.

"They are trying to destabilize us from within in order to make us more compliant," Putin said in response to the information revealed in the documents.

The Brookings Institute's Clifford G. Gaddy theory is that Russia leaked the documents, which turns Putin's theory on its head, claiming that this was some long-reaching Russian ploy to blackmail the US. How? Because while the Panama Papers mired Russian elites in headlines, they said little that was unknown. Rather, Gaddy says the papers are more interesting in what they don't reveal: the offshore habits of American elites. That information, he says, the Russians are keeping as blackmail:

Any actual reputational damage to Putin or Russia caused by the Panama Papers is in fact pretty trivial. For that cheap price, the Russians would have 1) exposed corrupt politicians everywhere, including in "model" Western democracies, and 2) fomented genuine destabilization in some Western countries. What I wonder, then: Is it a set-up? The Russians threw out the bait, and the United States gobbled it down. The Panama Paper stories run off Putin like water off a duck’s back. But they have a negative impact on Western stability. [...] Therefore, I suggest that the purpose of the Panama Papers operation may be this: It is a message directed at the Americans and other Western political leaders who could be mentioned but are not. The message is: "We have information on your financial misdeeds, too. You know we do. We can keep them secret if you work with us." In other words, the individuals mentioned in the documents are not the targets. The ones who are not mentioned are the targets.

These two conspiracy theories have one thing in common: They suggest that the revelations in the Panama Papers were very important to Russia and Putin in particular. Even if neither is true — yes, Gaddy's theory is somewhat outlandish, but he's also one of the most prominent experts on Russia's economy — that's an important point of context to understand why they've made news.

8) Why didn't Americans make the Panama Paper headlines?

We have three options here: One, we can go with Gaddy's theory that they actually did make an appearance in the papers and we just don't know about it yet; two, that Americans have used other tax-avoidance schemes; or three, that Americans are in the clear and don't use tax-avoidance schemes. The third is not the correct answer.

As the Oxfam study said, especially in corporate America, the use of tax havens is pervasive. Americans are not exceptional in this regard.

And there are plenty of very wealthy Americans who are surely implementing tax-avoidance schemes. Mossack Fonseca is one law firm – and one that as a policy "prefer(s) not to have American clients," founder Roman Fonseca recently told the Associated Press.

"My partner is German, and I lived in Europe, and our focus has always been the European and Latin American market," Fonseca told the AP.

But there is an additional point to be made here. The term "offshore tax haven" or offshore company, uses "offshore" very loosely. America has its own tax havens — a lot of them.

As James Henry, a senior adviser to the Tax Justice Network, wrote in a 2012 report, first reported by the Washington Post, offshore can also mean right at home for Americans looking to protect their assets:

"The term offshore refers not so much to the actual physical location of private assets or liabilities, but to nominal, hyper-portable, multi-jurisdictional, often quite temporary locations of networks of legal and quasi-legal entities and arrangements that manage and control private wealth," Henry wrote.

Namely, Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and New York are all tax-friendly for keeping financial assets, even when compared to the more iconically known tax havens like the Bahamas or Panama.

9) Okay, so a lot of data was just released and important people were named. Is anything actually going to change now that we know this?

It's true this sort of tax-avoidance scheming has been going on forever; it has long been documented that people try to find every possible way to pay fewer taxes.

But as the stories continue to unfold some things have started to change. There were the immediate reactions: Iceland's prime minister resigned out of embarrassment, British Prime Minister David Cameron, who released his personal financial assets in an attempt at transparency — a promise he had made earlier on as prime minister and is now under enormous pressure to uphold — will also host an anti-corruption summit in the coming month, which will surely discuss the Panama Papers' findings.

The European Union's Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Pierre Moscovici also threatened sanctions against Panama and other tax havens if they do not close their tax loopholes, according to the Associated Press.

Panama, which has not cooperated with international tax issues in the past, has responded to the strong international outrage, forming an international committee of experts to recommend best transparency practices for Panama's offshore financial industry.

"The Panamanian government, via our foreign ministry, will create an independent commission of domestic and international experts ... to evaluate our current practices and propose the adoption of measures that we will share with other countries of the world to strengthen the transparency of the financial and legal systems," President Juan Carlos Varela said in a televised address after the papers were released.

There have been a lot of calls for action. Now it is a waiting game to see if changes will be implemented.


Hours before the rock band Coheed and Cambria was scheduled to perform at the Comcast Center in Mansfield yesterday, police arrested bass player Michael Todd and charged him with robbing a nearby pharmacy of painkillers.

The Attleboro Police Department said in a prepared statement that officers responded to a Walgreens Pharmacy about 1 p.m. Sunday after Todd, 30, of Anaheim, Calif., allegedly demanded Oxycontin and threatened pharmacists with a fake bomb.

He absconded with six bottles of pain pills, police said.

“The male suspect fled behind the building,’’ the statement said.

“He was seen by a passerby getting into a taxi cab.’’

Police said they contacted a local cab company, which reported picking up a fare near the Walgreens minutes after the robbery.

The cab service told police the taxi was headed to the Comcast Center, where Coheed and Cambria were slated to open for the 1990s rock band Soundgarden last evening.

Attleborough police said they noticed the Mansfield Police Department, which sent officers to intercept the cab.

Todd was arrested at the concert hall and he will face charges of armed robbery and possession of a controlled substance, the statement said.

Todd was jailed in Attleboro on $10,000 cash bail while his bandmates performed without him.

New York-based Coheed and Cambria said in a statement on its website that it will not cancel any shows and plans to continue a tour of the Northeast and Canada with another bass player.

“Todd was arrested today on what we consider very serious charges and therefore he will not be finishing up the current tour,’’ the band wrote on its site.

“We are surprised, to say the least, and will address the situation with Michael after the tour.’’

Alexander C. Kaufman can be reached at akaufman@globe.com.

© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.


MEMBERS of the clergy would face jail for failing to report knowledge of sexual abuse gained during confession, with pressure growing to lift the confidentiality laws that protect them.

Exemptions exist for members of the clergy, medical workers and social workers among a small number of professions in NSW if they conceal knowledge of a crime from authorities if it was gained in their professional duties.

Yesterday Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott added their voices to calls that Catholic priests not be exempt from having to report child abuse to police if they hear it in the confessional.

MPs said the forthcoming royal commission on sexual abuse should recommend that state criminal codes be harmonised to mandate priests to go to the police in child sexual abuse matters.


[Editor's note: Ohio State has asked us to remove the video of OSU's QBs at the scrimmage from publication. Our apologies.]

How did Ohio State's top-three quarterbacks -- J.T. Barrett, Joe Burrow and Dwayne Haskins -- look during Saturday's student appreciation day scrimmage?

In a word, they were sharp. Not perfect by any means or even close, but it was an encouraging day for the Buckeye QBs.

Burrow is the clear backup to Barrett, but Haskins is also looking good. Barrett, Burrow and Haskins were all wearing black no-contact jerseys, while Tate Martell was live.

For much more on how the QBs performed during the scrimmage between the offense and defense, which ended in a 16-16 tie, check out our practice thread that was posted earlier on Saturday.

What's next for the Buckeyes? Make sure you're in the loop -- take five seconds to sign up for our FREE Buckeyes newsletter now!

Want the latest scoops and news on the Buckeyes? Try our 7-DAY FREE TRIAL AND BECOME A BUCKNUTS SUBSCRIBER!


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Shimon Peres on Saturday evening and officially asked him for an extension in order to form the new government. Peres granted the request.

In a short press conference held in the President's Residence following the meeting, Netanyahu criticized what he called the "boycott" imposed by certain parties on others.

Related stories:

"The main reason I have not been able to finish forming the coalition until now is – and I'll say this as plainly as possible – the fact that certain parties are boycotting others.

"There's a boycott against a sector in Israel and this goes against my views," he said, in thinly veiled criticism of the political pact between Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi, which states that they will not join a coalition that includes the haredi parties.

Netanyahu and Peres (Photo: GPO)

"I am doing everything within my power to unite the people. I think that we, as Jews who have suffered from bans, we cry out in protest when Israel is shunned in international forums – as we should. We protest when settlers in Judea and Samaria have to deal with product boycotts – as we should. So the people who have to be the most sensitive to this issue are the settlers.

"Our history," he continued, "Is riddled with tragedies caused by unfounded hatred and internal fighting. Today, when we look around and see the myriad of challenges around us – security challenges, the challenges posed by the need to hold a responsible peace process – I believe these challenges require that we stand united, not divided."

'Democracy takes effort'

"After seeking legal advice and hearing how the negotiations are going and what you have done so far, I believe you are the man who should form the government," Peres told Netanyahu in the press conference.

"I was glad to learn that you believe that you have a good chance of forming a coalition within the next two weeks. I have no doubt that Israel needs a stable government that would be able to deal with the social and security challenges ahead.

"We are a democracy and democracy takes effort. I hereby grant you a two-week extension to form the coalition and bid you good luck," the president concluded.

The customary 28-day timeframe afforded to the prime minister after the Likud's election win, elapsed over the weekend.

Israel's Election Act, as well as Basic Law: The Government, state that the winning candidate is allowed to petition the president for an additional 14 days to complete the task, should the initial timeframe prove insufficient.

According to the law, should Netanyahu fail to form a government at the end of his 14-day extension, Peres could task another candidate with the responsibility.

In the event that the president does ask another candidate to form the government and he or she fails as well, a new general elections would be called.

Naftali Bennett was quick response to Netanyahu's criticism, via his Facebook page, saying it was the Likud-Beiteinu's negotiation team that is responsible for the disconnect.

"We expected to be the first, and most natural, partner to enter Netanyahu's government. We recommended that he be tasked with forming the government sans any preconditions. The Likud, however, sent us a clear message – 'there is no way the religious-Zionism party will be part of the government.'"

Despite the mutual gabbing, Netanyahu and Bennett have agreed to meet on Sunday in another attempt to resolve the stalemate plaguing the coalition negotiations.

Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter


Graeme Watt enlightens us on the appeal of the trainer festival as Laces Out heads back to Camp & Furnace.

This Saturday sees Laces Out return to Camp and Furnace for its Biannual trainer festival, and having spent the best part of 3 years at the venue, they seem to have gotten the whole thing down to a fine art.

Now trainer festivals probably seem a little far fetched to most, they have been going on up and down the country for the past 8 years or so with Crepe City dominating the footwear scene down south and Laces Out up north.

Things may have slowed down with level of top quality releases in the shoe world, but that doesn’t seem to stop the punters heading to Laces Out, as other than Carlos store out in South America, you’ll be hard pressed to find unworn vintage Adidas anywhere but the Scouse trainer festival which seems to make it a favourite for those travelling.

For those oblivious to trainer culture, you can expect to find a wide variation of footwear, streetwear, local traders and exclusive previews from the likes of Adidas. Previous events have included sneak peeks of the Adidas Spezial range, early screenings of brand new sneaker channels before hitting social platforms, live music throughout the day with some guest appearances from guests such as Bobbito Garcia, Kish Kash, Neal Heard and Lecky Legs.

This weekends event also boasts an exclusive preview of Neal Heard’s The Art of the Football Shirt exhibition showcasing classic football shirts from over the years.

Boasting a wide selection of entertainment including No Fakin’ DJ’s, DJ Pooky and SUEDEBROWN along side stalls packed with footwear, Laces Out is pretty much the ideal place to spend your Football free Saturday with family & friends.


Occupy New Hampshire takes over White Park

By MATTHEW SPOLAR

Monitor staff

Last modified: 10/10/2011 12:00:00 AM

White Park became ground zero of the Occupy New Hampshire movement yesterday, as residents from across the state descended on Concord to decide how to make their voices heard in a fashion similar to the ongoing Wall Street protests.

Using a consensus-building direct democracy format, about 100 people decided to begin an occupation of Veterans Park in Manchester at noon Saturday. The protesters, who intend to meet for a daily general assembly and occupy the park in shifts, will join a growing movement concerned about the influence of money and big business on government.

"I've been to protests before, but this is the most exciting movement I've seen so far," said Matthew Richards, a 20-year-old student at the University of New Hampshire in Manchester.

One of the most vocal organizers yesterday was Brett Chamberlin, a Durham native who is a junior at New York University. Chamberlin has been attending the Wall Street occupation since it began Sept. 17. With Chamberlin's direction, the group was organized into committees that will meet at the park to discuss topics like education, labor, art and religion.

"So far, the consensus at Occupy Wall Street has been that we're hesitating to make official demands because a movement doesn't have demands necessarily. We want it to be seen more as a movement," as opposed to a protest, he said. Occupy events have now sprung up in cities across the country.

Also, making demands at this point might turn people off from joining, he said.

"I think we're there more to respond to the problems and recognize that things are messed up before we necessarily try to channel that into demands," he said. "It's complicated."

Ken Roos, first vice president of the State Employees' Association, was active in the discussion about how to go about the occupation. He said corporate profits go into off-shore tax shelters and private jets for CEOs instead of hiring more employees or improving employee benefits.

"The 1 percent controls everything that's going on in the country, and has had a negative impact not just on the 99 percent but the entire country," he said. "As much as the government tries to follow the rules that the corporations are saying - as far as, 'provide us with tax breaks and things like that and we'll create jobs' - they're not creating them. At least not in the United States."

Leah Wolczko, an unemployed teacher in Manchester, first became politically involved through the anti-tax Tea Party movement. Present yesterday were hardcore communists and hardcore anarchists, she said, and "even those divergent positions can come to an agreement on what needs to change immediately."

Wolczko said the Tea Party movement, now associated with Republican politicians, and the Occupy movement, thought to be sparked by a more left-leaning sentiment, are "the same thing to me."

"The Tea Party at its heart was against unfair advantage and big government that gives it and creates the inequalities," she said. "This is a very diverse group politically, and not everybody agrees on how the inequality has come about. But we all agree that it's here."

Ed Cunningham, the 62-year-old chairman of the Kensington Democrats, said the people in both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement have similar concerns, but go about it in different ways.

"I think (the Tea Party was) co-opted by the Republican Party to win an election," he said. "I don't think you can push these people anywhere they don't want to go."

Cunningham, toting a towering American flag, said the meeting reminded him of a "constitutional congress."

"This is amazing," he said. "This is what it was."

Sherry Gould, a 57-year-old social worker from Warner, said she loved watching people "in live-free-or-die (New Hampshire), one of the most politicalized states in the world, rise to the challenge and be able to put their partisan differences aside, find common ground."

Gould said she came out because of "my children and my grandchildren and this crappy, crappy world that we're handing them."

"It breaks my heart to see the lack of opportunity for young people," she said. "All these people using their skills to build this movement are building a resume. Even if they can't get a job."

Leah Woods, a 39-year old Portsmouth resident who teaches woodworking, said she is worried that in politics, "increasingly allegiances seem to be more towards corporations and more towards organizations that have a lot of money." Figuring out where the problem starts is a difficult issue the Occupy movement can begin to address, she said.

"It's a really big, abstract issue that cannot be pinpointed to any one particular company or person," she said. "I think there's so many factors that contribute to this place that the country is going, where people who have are on a path to have more and people who don't have are on a path to have less."

Matt Lawrence, an unemployed 27-year-old from Manchester, said he is hoping the Occupy movement can make "our elected officials actually represent us again," in Washington.

"The time and the place for calling your local politician seems to have come and gone, and it seems like it doesn't really do anything," he said.

Curtis Russell, a 30-year-old Manchester resident who described himself as an individualist-anarchist, wasn't pleased with the hours spent yesterday trying to structure Occupy New Hampshire. Mimicking the Wall Street protests, where megaphones have been banned, the meeting used an active listening format where speakers paused every couple words as the crowd repeated what they said to make sure all had heard.

"It's a meeting to establish bureaucracy and I'm more interested in destroying bureaucracy," he said. "I think it's a waste of time in that respect . . . these people are still hacking at the limbs of a tree and they're ignoring the roots."

The Occupy movement is too focused on reforming government without trying to get rid of it, he said.

"Arguably, global corporations are a huge detriment to mankind but they are unable to exist without their partner, the state," he said.

Andrew Boyd, 42, of Concord said he came out to see what was going on, but wasn't ready to associate himself with the group.

"I'm not sure about who they are yet," he said.

However, Boyd said it's always good for people to gather publicly, at any time.

"That's important - our right to gather is in need of exercise," he said.

(Matthew Spolar can be reached at 369-3309 or mspolar@cmonitor.com.)


Abortion may be a key issue for evangelical Christian voters, but Samantha Bee says that wasn't always the case.

On Monday night, the "Full Frontal" host went back in time to the late 1970s to explain how the issue was manufactured by power-hungry leaders of the religious right and then legitimized by the Republican Party.

"Last week, we took a look at the religious right, those coveted evangelical voters that conservatives spent decades pandering to only to be dumped just before November prom for a heretical billionaire bully who only says the word 'God' when he is ejaculating on a pile of money," said Bee.

"Many people think the new religious right arose as a response to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision," she added. "But that's not true."

Bee played a clip showing Dartmouth religion professor Randall Balmer revealing how leaders of the religious right held a conference call in 1979 to discuss which issues they should politicize. One member suggested abortion.

"Wait, were they founding a movement or deciding what toppings to get on their pizza?" asked Bee. "Now they just needed to tell the rest of us that abortion was bad."

Bee then spoke to filmmaker Frank Schaeffer, the son of prominent Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer, who produced propaganda videos (such as the one below) to promote the pro-life movement.

It was to become "the single greatest regret of my life," Schaeffer said.

"Most evangelical leaders didn't want anything to do with [the issue of abortion]. They wanted to just preach Jesus," said Schaeffer. "They thought politics was dirty. They didn't want anything to do with it. We had to talk them into it."

Schaeffer said the religious right's anti-abortion agenda was legitimized with the help of Jack Kemp, who went onto become President George H. W. Bush’s housing secretary.

"(Kemp) brought in 50 senators and congressmen including Henry Hyde and Bob Dole and a bunch of other people and gave it respectability," Schaeffer said. And the rest, as they say, is history.