Category Archives: Anatomy

Anatomy of a difficult marriage – The New Indian Express

Historical lovers, courtesy researchers and biographers, cant act coy in death. Claretta: Mussolinis Last Lover by RJB Bosworth details the grand passion between Italys prime minister Benito Mussolini and Claretta Petacci, all the way down to that unforgettable portrait of their butchered bodies hung upside down in Piazzale Loreto. Sheela Reddys Mr and Mrs Jinnah: The Marriage That Shook India chronicles a liaison closer home, but no less doomed.

If Mussolini was 49 to Clarettas 20, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was 40 to Ruttie Petits 16. Ruttie, a social butterfly in her gauze saris and backless blouses, romances a reticent and charismatic politician whom no one, not even her, called by his first name. He was her J.

Despite their elopement and Muslim-Parsi tag, the Jinnahs too had to contend with domestic ennui. The man from Karachi and the girl from Bombay fall for each other in haste but they repent in exquisite leisure.

While Motilal Nehru escapes having a son-in-law from another caste, Sir Dinshaw Petit was tricked into revealing his doublespeak when Jinnah asked him his opinion on inter-caste marriage and, after ascertaining his support for it, requested his daughters hand and the father refused.

It was Ruttie who chased after Jinnah and nothing stopped them from being one of the historys tempestuous couples. Prominent figures are part-narrators, like Sarojini Naidu, whose letters, maternal advice and perceptive insight into the matrimonial disaster between two such dissimilar people via letters to daughters Padmaja and Leilamani are a testimony to the timeline.

Ruttie sashays off the pages with great panache. Jinnah hardly blinked when his first wife, Emi Bai, died but Rutties death changes the tone of his silence. He had shaved off his moustache to marry hera precondition she laid downand been a most indulgent husband, letting her shop infinitely, getting out of his car to buy her roadside chaat, handing only child over to nannies so Ruttie could gallivant around. But couldnt give her what she wanted most, his time.

He was grooming himself for destiny, she was dressing up for him. It was her sparkling mischief against his staidness, her pout against his stiff upper lip. Naturally, they suffered. The same woman who told the court: Mr Jinnah has not abducted me... I abducted him, when her father sued him for kidnap, much later, when not a star was left in her eyes, told Sarojini he could never satisfy her mind and soul.

Sarojini documented Rutties changing persona in a letter to her daughter: There is something hard and cold about it all paint, powder, bare back...

Bedridden with discontent, Rutties body seemed unable to rise to the ordeal of breaking free even after she mentally fled the marriage. She kept her only daughter nameless through sheer lack of interest.

Since the book bats for Ruttieit is all about her desire, her disappointments and her deaththe reader awaits a husbandly version. One cant help wonder what Jinnahs matrimonial take might have been. It is not the first time a childish, high-strung flibbertigibbet wife drove mad a man inherently disinterested in coochie-coo.

Read this article:
Anatomy of a difficult marriage - The New Indian Express

Style anatomy: Haiya Bokhari – The Express Tribune

The renowned fashion and lifestyle journalist, and quirky stylist, takes us through her style evolution

The renowned fashion and lifestyle journalist, and quirky stylist, takes us through her style evolution. Find out the challenges she faces in dressing herself and why she thinks its okay to ignore rules sometimes!

Understanding your body is the key to looking good and a trait found amongst all impeccably dressed fashionistas. While people shy away from talking about their bodies, these brave souls explain how they work their anatomies to their advantage.

How would you describe your body type?

Im petite. Ive always been naturally skinny so no complaints really.

Has your body type changed over the last five years?

It hasnt changed much actually. I think maybe just a couple of pounds of weight fluctuation every now and then, but nothing major.

How has your style changed over the years?

Id like to think its improved and evolved for the better. I used be very feminine and kind of boring in my style choices previously, but as of late my style has developed to match my personality.

In your opinion what is your most troublesome area?

I lack seven extra inches of leg.

How do you dress your body according to your body type?

I am short, so I try avoiding silhouettes that crop me or draw attention to my height. Cropped pants, culottes or anything that ends above my ankles is generally avoided, while high waisted pants and obi belts are my friends.

In your opinion what is the biggest mistake a person can make while dressing here?

Honestly, it depends on the version of the silhouette and how you style it. I feel sometimes you just need to ignore rules and wear what you want.

Which silhouettes suit your body the most?

Anything that elongates me,so high-waisted, boot-cut or flare pants.

What is the one piece of clothing that you shy away from wearing and why?

I havent found anything that Ive hated that badly yet!

Go here to see the original:
Style anatomy: Haiya Bokhari - The Express Tribune

‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Season 13 Sneak Peek: Jackson Threatens His Mother – Wetpaint

Credit: Richard Cartwright/ABC 2016 Disney | ABC Television Group. All rights reserved.

Greys Anatomy Season 13s next new episode, airing Thursday, March 9, is Civil War an apt title, considering how harshly divided Eliza Minnick has made the hospital staff.

As you might imagine, however, no one is being civil not even family members, as youll see in a new sneak peek featuring Jackson Avery and mom Catherine.

To whet your appetite for the episode, heres ABCs synopsis:

Richard, Jackson, April and Catherine tackle a grueling trauma case intensified by hospital politics. Amelia finally faces her feelings about Owen, and Meredith gets caught between Nathan and Alex over a patient.

As the sneak peek starts, Jackson finds his mother as she heads to the pit, perhaps en route to that trauma case.

I need to talk to you about this Minnick situation, he tells his mom.

What situation? Catherine says. Shes doing great.

(Shes playing coy, clearly!)

Dont pretend you dont know what you did, Mom, Jackson says. People have been fighting this since the minute you brought her here.

Bailey brought her here, Catherine contends.

Shes certainly not saying shes the one who inspired the hire, but Jackson cuts through her B.S.

At your urging, he says, correcting her.

The Jesse Williams character then contends hes the voice of the Avery Foundation at the hospital, an assertion that apparently comes at a surprise to his mother.

Wait, Im sorry, youre the what? she says.

Im the Foundations representative on the board, right? Jackson argues. So I am the Avery of this hospital. The Foundation speaks through me.

The Foundation oversees. We guide, the Debbie Allen character tells him. We do not interfere in hospital policy.

How can you say that to me? Jackson scoffs.

You started this by effectively ousting Richard Webber which, by the way, our rank and file finds completely unacceptable.

Im gonna be making the decisions from now on. Im going to go to the governing board. Im gonna get Webber back in and Minnick out. Im going over your head.

And with that mic-drop moment, he leaves her looking positively aghast at his insubordination.

Bet she regrets making him the voice of the Avery Foundation board now!

Greys Anatomy Season 13, Episode 15 Civil War airs Thursday, March 9 at 8 p.m. ET on ABC.

Excerpt from:
'Grey's Anatomy' Season 13 Sneak Peek: Jackson Threatens His Mother - Wetpaint

Scott Foley Has Been Hiding on ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ For Five Years Now – Wetpaint

}rHo)te O]I,uP[4IHC=3con>svrn`}Y;;` p^au?~RakNQn?EQv&aO|c/ik4l]mMUR;kCnhhKEOEsp[mt J#N;6q,C98Gd;jN@"T0t5T;GQmtf^}*d=zlE0Hj? & }k}(j(xJhQ"x1crzA$ ~1$FUbbQ67-@17u@]sc2QCca^ R! zAKA`k20>{X1 g8+dTf[z!17@"AO(SkF)^IJU<|nKC70mU}Px|1|vIz;ZmD6ixaq UFPDI )'fa%(c3XBUQjL8JB3%sP$gO#sl#ba^<{Aae'c:sA~}+V3Qz>#MM2aEqoz;gg~mU]'6Ssgt;>Ibfz&RH5Q!{J]_w3p=6q^v0Q.se"ump]5{|jV9T:6k5d`Yg&PF`iD)BNsty&x=;^7^$bqZ/}=>^g;ll9OV>^Pg%hvxg6o3g'/m@;c0-Xg|/8l1Q j,,$*1`}Q/{NPa6P/+07uzS4P`I)_+&^HIv<kr/+^HU&>o8_a&@8 /GXd@F9}dFhhPSw#zp#Ok'N6PkDg gF5`&-+L27;{CFsNJ 2$Id>!r*d&1#v D=b5'3l$|UUDUslxY>YxA}I<Fgy s130U(-eg#zr[(uf,.n5i2 'xUU|bZ+@I G@X1LY9-$D}XFEO^/0k@R,b]b@7HJ*ZM0T~uDE(?A;VSa<(daKiyf'7vpg0QAN0 ar!cXonhZ+U-[(M{fp'mcpA7cF6]$?f""1CcSN)=ApSw V+A_8/&D{=u+"!r%a+0tn|E4&g.3PN(LUST(0H@{ S6[>(>a1kE4R{@5MBm9qw=ZCxf3ZJ1:1Us*p#dj&UMY?M@H'& 9?ILLESU5uKNZ]PVhq;`=xZ*Imh?B>Su[/ e-y/Pv`34?^vIeH?+Hq`Kld>|fV&fMGcOomM< F-Z-Nj`x 0YV@VzdVb^7 jw'qEAhVQK^6ZC-1:`g ,eAQ[2kZh8jNhXU}z s K=R/a[BRkqlHf4Z izMNFr HN n*jy$RIHID(Hb4 gG'~fl"583_&BIR#PW3lyd(Vh(T<0~Y*T yJ(@+#3lbK@jf ?Ic p*VTZN^iASC?nqq]n7VUum7>y}K*3b/k:rF^T72%uX*v"aXGUYg#Xt:VX*,>Y7O%UfH,oi K+u{*~1%IlDLNZqpaHU0^,f.#`!Tr$uxzb>nZ;UE((1~c[lldRRbM @3Ic%!fL$[c%a>PJxfS&{+iRur*:+w(r|c5v2#H8OJ'FQEF%W${<=(-+Rg.ADZ K;cx7F/ LyEv3]qZKXn_4eKhHxm~ux3;rXi w*ylA_eoB2`%Vd92 @$={Dp@)`sppNcU+b7/&Hu K2:?J6O^nH]pMe @5, ](3)zfm{/3-KYaY/D8n$vv06Vms% .{ WtSt0@hm Um}($yz1%,fCc/mttpKe.)wi2S?("Poi&*oPkfF`xie1S]Te<*DN^yJ_QNy'Kx}z3/~f&^9s+Q3r:(c/~G A{2Xx2(J~g|L#7`7,AhL<% pJ _f[zc9}{V*MKUTAh!_Lj (VkB]iZJ% >)MHlC1gx#{5oFqP-RUlbcyU M6DX~_"f RNW^_3mDsA?GQC]93@ sI8?P%ONy1.@-`X {F>6Z7u?ZY?;{[8mw[,+,%/C6j *GT`6U|I`$fB hD!>N>umjbSH;J'nPq h%MTh(GP YFdjLPOE p*MKAQ B6$/kCS"}?TN!rmAq;11 6_)oO?m&Ma!k5R5g],6k9!ph6t%T=NOHNQ^d.@G@SUnBU'cK$/RU _w,CTN!kC#$Rk@q!j@7AM(b/CFVGY1iR./)$[_XOq:2HC-{|Ve!BPtyI(a@DK07wOs='SY ~h:0)w>SS)hFR!HdUjC.r_u:7'ChK(}8zi,PQ[z0ZXDV(J:# _P1]h*PHcI?sK U&e=fnO93a$o4Ner?Q' QfD z+BQb8RpgBNLDRl %g-&M5DbmAQe8-g>SSknTEXFob&Yl5;6jQ(ZPd LzlWmUv]_eA6nK5F[+Q@xG9.i>g8r"u=[=3F~jg`/?_+{Wz}CkLx{/}Y{]s7?w5z=J_>//A<8;9nMg(y~218FWCq|{x7Rz=?TN.?|8|wy<>w!I?to|1l;B9w/qWuvxI"=tf"O_.^l.^N>NWGu{p? /GC,;8:6{@&)"&VP1aAtSku,{a,^n8m| 3e 6.U2=((K&~]oXpk*BAnl+5,K8Kf{DK}#kmhthLQ-H=C_84wptO4EUi_1bt7P.z=MLy7M`Q+@"G^t#S5D)NWDJ:C,!g$XU3#z<2tx?[}6T ]s2=p8acLdf c0(8nxc!A:?WD3^Ws:#Em5ZVktr[axAuNUzSm5UUq=N&pEB4Jf'ny>Nv=rIc7@~<~NrwKfYU_jeI")54Dg- vDV/S[Q0Tn~sWn(f]>KJ~Y4c~J1wol<:?em)j%#o"]3GbSz J@0vmZ,>W#UfcKasnVviLhW|T8'cA4m*;]XZ?[%zJtX)tW{6_Sp' 1h0+`$k?X?v_?P!InC a3A`fWEN{Mz}A!Y$9;rM; !&-kw"3JKv,x'gMU9. !/-ry!sC9ZSp]Lrf$* bQq^~ooNdx6EVy7QDhMX )9urB[?~J+$gA0N2O"cBp5~Fm^-KJ#s]f7r_M/_nI&[14mstXX9f?WK4kyC:, b k{ ; dSh7-I 1'j ;pRo0:zM;;?diDX/Pi(!iF;Cu iY.%TV0haC .ZC ,F(R~ ]z+"qC{1eWFS!RZe^kG_TH$c>M3-&'mUv3;*.]2eB0|FA2F"+!'9{UW'jH0]FW#=Y~d;?KPN&gL.I@/wU<^~(sg(#Y/gLJ!r_(ps1{V~^#}pWM=vGCIMWmvt#],mXWK2m9a@"ead&gm !KlFls }f_8_Fgb4mg73l+' tN7FDo/p}`h``|DIEscwPBc 1E^):HtP~!| X~$ j$6$No$2Cm%T_"9F,-_L(k9 P>@s$pY9LmRMH;414Zu;D/E*V8<9h5!A;ado+R37<,sdvrBuMm4;yCSVRM`,e{}UfdwWThmn+E BT+sdvB8T!7AAiw?(-8f j$N`9[hdcrfuFNJx%cl8.S6kya:lCCOqn!L]&95u$b8_g(>EMQJ,HhrG!3>DcJQPv*6Xbg$}uQnIDz)g&<;(`crH[0a(rR4XL:EL0(JbLJ0zRjITJcP@Tlg6}h6BNn@e9j iOr$l+8Q@NL@]w%5WXSvc=@kt Nc>BO~q`_)rkA(A_I_r2X#c^ 0]G'mS%/`?2^;naUJF }=|](dG5B?ea4>{L,1z

Read this article:
Scott Foley Has Been Hiding on 'Grey's Anatomy' For Five Years Now - Wetpaint

The Anatomy of Black Money – The Indian Express

Written by Pulin B Nayak | Published:March 4, 2017 1:00 am A protest against black money at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi in December last year Prem Nath Pandey

Following Prime Minister Narendra Modis demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes on November 8 last year, there has been a heightened interest in the phenomenon of black money, an issue with which we in India seem to be obsessively concerned. Modis key objective was to rid the country of kala dhan in the hands of the rich and the powerful. There were other associated objectives like eliminating counterfeit currency to fund illegal activity and terrorism. It is widely believed that in terms of political posturing, this was a masterstroke. Modi was able to sell the idea that this move would principally hit the rich, and even though common folks endured great hardship and queued for long hours to withdraw their own money from ATMs, they all seemed to be largely supportive of Modis bold step.

But what we need to ask is this: is good politics good economics? By a wide margin, the answer would seem to be in the negative. Taking advantage of the topicality of this issue, Arun Kumar, recently retired from JNU, has come out with a slim volume to address the phenomenon of black economy and black money, and there is even a discussion of Modis demonetisation.

Kumar has been interested in the issue of the black economy for a long time. He was a member of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) study on the black economy. This study, published in 1985, was led by Shankar Acharya, later chief economic advisor to the government of India. It contained an estimation made of the black economy by AVL Narayana and Raja Chelliah, founder of NIPFP and doyen of Indian public finance.

The NIPFP study is possibly the most comprehensive and authentic treatment of the subject to date. Kumar seems to have had some strong disagreements with the analysis that was carried out in this work, and he later came out with his book, The Black Economy in India (1999). The work under review seems to bear a strong stamp of his previous work. Among other notable studies in the area are the Wanchoo Committee Report of 1971 and the 1992 book, Black Income in India, by the late Suraj Bhan Gupta of the Delhi School of Economics.

It is crucial to make a clear distinction between black income, a flow concept, and black wealth, which may be held in the form of currency, a stock concept. The terms black money or kala dhan are often confusingly used to refer to both black income and black wealth. One may define black income as that income (i) which is illegal, (ii) which evades tax, or (iii) that which escapes inclusion in national income estimates.

Kumar defines black incomes to be factor incomes and property incomes that are not reported to the direct tax authorities. Depending on the definition used, one would obtain alternative estimates of the extent of the black economy. Without going into the details, here it may be mentioned that there are four major ways the survey method, the input-output method, the monetarist approach and the fiscal approach by which black income may be computed. These are usefully detailed in the appendix. While the method most widely used globally is the monetarist approach, the one most commonly used in the Indian context is the fiscal approach, which was initiated in the 1950s by the Cambridge economist, Nicholas Kaldor.

There is a widespread misconception that the phenomenon of black income is unique to the Indian setting and that the rest of the world, particularly the advanced capitalist countries of Europe and North America, are free of it. The large body of work of scholars like Friedrich Schneider, who has looked at global data, may provide some comfort to Indian readers by noting that the phenomenon is by no means absent in those regions, with the extent of the shadow economy as a percentage of GDP for the following selected countries being: Belgium 21.3, Finland 17, Greece 26.5, Italy 26.8,

Norway 18, Portugal 23, Spain 22.2, Sweden 17.9, UK 8.4 and USA 16.1. The figures pertain to the year 2007 and for the same year, the figure for India is 20.7, Pakistan 33.6 and China 11.9. India is by no means an outlier.

The NIPFP computation had put the extent of the black economy in India at 18 to 21 per cent of GDP, computed with 1983-84 data. It is entirely possible that the extent of the black economy may well have increased significantly over the past three decades, largely owing to the growth of the services sector and the phenomenon of over and under-invoicing in foreign trade. Kumar goes on to assert, without showing the computations, that at present the black economy is estimated to be 62 per cent of GDP. He then goes on to draw the somewhat startling conclusion that if the black economy were to be dismantled and turned into a part of the white economy, the countrys growth rate would be 12 per cent. It is not clear how he arrives at this result.

The book is a racy read and anyone interested in the innards of the underground economy should have a look at it.

Originally posted here:
The Anatomy of Black Money - The Indian Express

Why Isn’t Grey’s Anatomy on Tonight? – Heavy.com

Tonight, ABC will be airing a special, When We Rise, in place of Greys Anatomy. But dont worry, our favorite doctors will be back next week at their usual time for an all-new episode.

Next weeks episode is titled Civil War, and the synopsis reads: A grueling trauma case is complicated by hospital politics. Meanwhile, Amelia confronts her feelings regarding Owen; and Meredith finds herself stuck in the middle as Nathan and Alex butt heads over a patient.

So where did Greys leave off? Last week, Alex finally came back to Grey Sloan Memorial for work, and Meredith agreed to return to the hospital, too. Alexs first day back was, well, heavy. He was assigned to a mother-to-son kidney transplant, but things quickly turned dramatic when the boys father showed up to the hospital uninvited.

We learned that Cynthia (the mom) was a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her husband, and after hearingthis, Jo toldOwen to ask the man to leave. But after that it all got worse. Cynthias second kidney failed and the doctors still needed to give her sona kidney to live. As it turns out, the husband never actually left the hospital, and he overheard the doctors conversation. He said he wanted to give up his kidney to save his son, putting the doctors in a moral dilemma. Should they save Chris with a kidney from his father, who abused his mother? Ultimately, they diduse the fathers kidney, but Jo secretly snuck into the OR to convince him to donate it anonymously and never admit to his wife or son that it was his kidney.

Another (maybe not-so-secret) secret that was revealed? Arizona and Eliza Minnick are togetherish. Theyve been meeting in the parking lot, hiding theirsteamy romance. Oh, and everyone seems to love to vocalize their disdain for Minnick in front of Arizona, which makes for an interesting juxtaposition.

Dont miss a new episode of Greys Anatomy, which will return to ABC on March 9 at 8 p.m. ET.

Why isn't How to Get Away with Murder on TV Tonight? When will HTGAWM be back for next season? Get the details here.

See the original post:
Why Isn't Grey's Anatomy on Tonight? - Heavy.com

Anatomy of fear – Inquirer.net

Much has been said and written about the moral aspects of the proposed revival of the death penalty (or lack thereof).

These moral dimensions are important, and need to be discussed even more now that a death penalty bill has been approved on second reading in the House of Representatives. The indecent haste will continue until it is rammed into law, and this could happen very soon.

What I want to tackle is the deterrence argument being used to support capital punishment. Put simply, the argument is that once you execute people for the heinous crimes that are named in the bill, you will strike fear in the hearts of the criminals and would-be criminals, and they will think twice, thrice, many times, before breaking the law. Crime rates would then drop.

But this argument is based on a lack of understanding of what is involved with fear and deterrence, which have been the subject of research by social scientists, natural scientists, and even medical professionals for decades now, and which has been used to back the abolition of the death penalty in many countries. (In the Philippines, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo abolished the death penalty based more on her personal religious views.)

Powerful but fleeting

Fear is powerful indeed, a very primitive emotion found throughout the animal kingdom, and that includes humans. Fear evolved early in animals as an instinctive protective mechanism, pushing animals to avoid danger and minimize risks.

But among humans, the processing of fear involves other brain functions. Instinctive responses remain, as when we jump when we see a snake, or when we avoid walking through a dark alley. Note that even at this primitive level, there will be variations among individuals. As parents know all too well, we see differences even among our children. Walang takotno fearwe sigh about a particular child, sometimes said with anxiety because we worry about the kind of extreme risks the child may take, but sometimes also said with pride because we see this fearlessness as an asset.

We know, too, that fear is taught. Overprotective parents can end up raising children who become too fearful of the world because they are taught that it is fraught with danger. A healthier approach is to teach children to take calculated risks, to temper but not suppress their fears.

Finally, fear is learned. We are conditioned into avoiding certain situations, places, creatures like snakes and spiders and cockroaches and people, because of unpleasant experiences. Think of the people we avoid because we have been emotionally battered by them.

The anatomy of fear is complicated in humans because we are rational beings, and I use the term here in a more general way to mean that we reason, sometimes excessively. We respond to our fears no longer based on instinct alone but also with this reasoning, as we argue with each other, and with ourselves, about risks and dangers.

Were usually able to do this well, but sometimes the fears become excessive, creating chronic anxiety and preventing us from functioning well. Psychologists and psychiatrists then come into the picture, helping to process what are now called anxiety disorders and phobias.

But generally, fear runs through our lives as quick, fleeting reactions, which is why the idea of controlling crime by instilling fear just doesnt work. Fear tactics can work only in the short term.

Lets be specific and look now at the death penalty, fear and deterrence.

War on drugs

The restoration of the death penalty is part of the ongoing war on drugs (note how plunder, originally in the list of capital crimes, was removed). But the complicated anatomy of fear becomes even more convoluted when it comes to the use of drugs.

Fear is not processed as fear alone. People think of costs and benefits. Will I be caught, and if I am caught, what will I lose? On the other hand, drugs offer pleasure in many forms, from escaping problems to euphoria.

For the death penalty to work, people have to see evidence that crime does not pay, and this comes about in terms of seeing criminals being apprehended, brought to court, convicted, and the punishment being meted out. We know all too well that at each stage in this continuum, we run into problems: not enough law enforcers, corruption among so-called enforcers, and the courts.

Besides this, the evidence from other countries is that people will avoid crimes if they see justice meted out, and this justice does not have to be the death penalty.

There is also the issue of a fear threshold: What does it take to instill fear? In the Philippines, it takes a lot because our culture is largely fear-based. We are a hala and lagot society, threatening our children constantly with punishment, invoking Tatay, the police, or God (even, lately, President Duterte) as potential punishers. Yet Filipinos learn early enough, even as children, that you can get away with crimeparents drive through traffic lights when there are no traffic enforcers, or even when there are traffic enforcers, because they carry the calling cards of generals and governors.

People know of the many arrests going on, but note that it is mainly the poor being apprehended. There are occasional reports of the high and mighty getting arrested, and their disappearance from the news is interpreted by people as their getting off the hook. Ive seen even the poor carrying a sense of impunity because they know someone who knows someone powerful.

If theres anything that shows why the fear of the death penalty will not work in the war on drugs, its, well, the war on drugs itself. More than 7,000 alleged drug pushers and users have been killed so far, mostly extrajudicially, brutally, in their homes, in front of family and friends. Yet we continue to see people using and selling drugs. Ive lost track, too, of the news reports of relatives, usually wives or mothers of drug dependents, trying to smuggle drugs into prisons to their loved ones.

The extrajudicial killings are far more gruesome than capital punishment, and take place every day. They cast fear, no doubt, with so many correlated stimulithe dark night, the knocking (more often banging) on the doors, but all these do not deter drug-related crimes. Part of conditioning theory is that when you keep trying to reinforce a certain stimuluspositive or negativeyou reach the point of extinction. It no longer works. That is happening today, especially in our poor communities where people have been so brutalized for so long, way before the war on drugs.

Fear is pervasive, but it has not and will not deter crime.

Capital punishment will only provide a new public spectacle, one that might even be, horror of horrors, entertaining.

mtan@inquirer.com.ph

See more here:
Anatomy of fear - Inquirer.net

Anatomy of a fake news story – Bangor Daily News

Most people missed it a couple weeks ago, but I didnt.

BREAKING: Trump administration considers mobilizing as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, read the near breathless tweet from the Associated Press.

Quickly following the tweet was a full AP story, which stated in no uncertain terms, The Trump administration considered a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants.

What does that sound like to you? Trump nationalizing the Guard and sending out roving troops, accosting people and demanding papers? Me too.

Turns out, when you read the actual memo, there was no proposal for Trump to nationalize the Guard, nor turn them into some kind of Soviet-style secret police.

Rather, the memo contained recommendations regarding 287(g) enforcement, which is a long standing policy that permits states to use their National Guard units, in addition to existing authorization for state and local law enforcement, for immigration enforcement actions they are already permitted to engage in.

287(g) enforcement, incidentally, was one of the main features of President Bill Clintons Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Yes, that Bill Clinton.

In short, the memo was weighing how to make it easier for states to utilize that provision of existing immigration law for enforcement.

It was not, as the AP said in its original shoddy report, Trump weighs mobilizing 100,000 National Guard troops to deport 2 million immigrants.

That wasnt the only problem.

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly speaks at the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Mexico City on Feb. 23. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is at his right. Carlos Barria | Reuters

The original story stated unequivocally without verifying it that the memo in question was authored by Homeland Secretary Secretary John Kelly. The AP inferred this because Kellys name was on the memos From line.

That statement, however, was wrong. DHS issued a statement after the story was published stating in no uncertain terms that the memo was not, in fact, from Kelly, but was a very early draft that was not seriously considered and never brought to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for approval.

Given how government departments work, this is almost certainly true.

Not only was the memo apparently not from Kelly, but DHS also said in its statement that the memo was a very early, pre-decisional draft, and was never seriously considered by the Department.

So, lets review.

A rather uncontroversial memo is written by, presumably, a low-level employee. That memo is never seriously considered by DHS, John Kelly, and certainly not by President Trump.

AP then prints that Trump himself is considering the mobilization of 100,000 National Guard troops to rove the countryside, arrest illegal immigrants, and deport them.

The rest is history. The story set off an immediate firestorm of insane reactions, from accusations that the administration was eager to set up concentration camps, to rantings about fascism, to (of course) comparisons with Nazi Germany.

This is the very essence of conservative mistrust of the press, encapsulated in one story. And believe me, there are plenty more.

It is not my contention that all journalists are biased and corrupt. Quite the contrary. But to deny that media bias is real is incredibly naive.

I believe that the media is in denial about this fact because they dont understand how preconceived bias can infect coverage, and warp it unfairly. Bias is far more subtle and insidious than the presidents conceptualization of fake news, and it doesnt have to affect all journalists to be a huge problem.

What do I mean?

Bias can be as simple as blatantly misrepresenting facts, as the AP did. It is twisting reality to fit the preconceived perspective of the writer, even if they themselves dont even realize what theyre doing.

It is encapsulated by an uncomfortable number of reporters with barely concealed, obvious political biases employed to write straight news, who later seamlessly move into the political sector to work for politicians.

It happens in the use of imagery, such as a recent story here in Maine about a conflict of interest created by a Democratic lawmaker, accompanied by an image of Republican leadership.

It is having to sit and watch reporters, including one blatant Maine example, that pretend to be objective while simultaneously subjecting us to what can only be deemed outright political advocacy, time and time and time again.

Those of us on the right have seen this so often, for so many decades, that it has reached a boiling point for us. We are sick of the bias, intentional or unintentional, and sick of the manipulation.

Is it any wonder that only 32 percent of Americans have trust in the media? I dont think it is.

Go here to read the rest:
Anatomy of a fake news story - Bangor Daily News

Anatomy Of A Panicked Reaction: Financial Advisors’ Daily Digest – Seeking Alpha

The longest running disagreement between me and some of the readers in this forum concerns my persistent warnings that investors are prone to sell low in panic and buy high in euphoria, and the ensuing resentful rebuttals I get from an army of disciplined DIYers. That this type of statement elicits indignation merely reinforces my view that there is an underlying emotion animating the response - that is, a deep-seated fear that panic-selling could happen to the one denying it.

(Some of these commenters dress up their rebuttals in the form of how dare you suggest investors need an advisor? but those reading my posts carefully enough understand that I am agnostic about the form of help people get and recognize that some people dont need any.)

It is with this background that I commend to your attention a must-read article by Erik Conley, who relays with uncommon honesty the story of how his panic on March 3, 2009, as the market plumbed new lows (after cascading downward for over a year) prompted him to call his broker to sell everything.

Most Seeking Alpha readers will recognize the date as being just days before the all-time market low during the last financial crisis. Whats important also to know is that Conley is not just your average working stiff. Hes a professional investor! And, as is evident from his writing, hes highly intelligent as well. This is no surprise to me, since I have repeatedly warned that the most intelligent people are precisely the most vulnerable because their fertile minds can quickly spin a compelling narrative that makes sense of why things are going down, and must continue to do so. Indeed, Conley alludes to this when he interprets a downward trending stock chart on CNBC as follows (with my emphasis added):

I began to imagine scenes of widespread panic like those old newsreels from the Great Depression of the 1930s. I imagined crowds of people lined up in front of banks desperately trying to get their money out before the bank collapsed. I saw bread lines and soup kitchens. And I saw myself, living in a van, down by the river. At that moment, I was in full panic mode."

Conley was fortunate that when he implored his broker to sell, saying I don't care what the price is, just get me out! his long-time associate tried hard to walk him off the ledge. He couldnt convince him not to sell everything but got Conley to agree to sell only half. When Conley came to his senses, he called back and re-bought everything. The cost of this investment roundtrip was 1.75% of his portfolio - not a bad price for such a valuable lesson. How costly it would have been had he missed out on the ensuing eight years of market price appreciation.

If Conley - a market veteran - can fall into the No. 1 investing trap, certainly anyone can. He chalks it up to the inescapability of being human:

I had acted irrationally, but I just couldn't see it at the time. I'm only human, after all, and humans panic sometimes. But I'm also an experienced, professional investor. I should have known better."

Thats true enough. Im less convinced, though, by another point he makes, suggesting that he got caught off guard while on vacation and away from his normal surroundings, computer and investment plan:

Had I taken the time to consult the part of my written plan that spells out how to deal with big market declines, I would have been more rational, and it's very unlikely that I would have made that panic sale.

The problem with this there is always a time of vulnerability. If it wasnt on March 3, it could have been on March 4. Elazar Advisors, LLC has commented that his trading advice service is premised on the knowledge that someone who is sitting alone making investment decisions is bound to crack up at some point from the psychological pressure that is most acute when by oneself. I think this applies to everyone to a greater or lesser extent - we all are prone to heeding inner messages emerging from the wellsprings of our sometimes irrational fears, hopes or desires.

That inner voice can convince you to shred that investment plan. That could have happened perhaps even more easily had Erik Conley seen the same screen on the same day back at home. Having his broker, partner and friend, on the other line kept the cost of his investment lesson to 1.75% of his portfolio rather than 3.50%. People need people - in all areas of life, not just investments. Whether you employ an advisor, enlist a knowledgeable friend or make sure you and your spouse are mutually committed to that investment plan, youre likely to lose less and gain more with a partner.

Postscript

It is with this perspective in mind that I want to notify readers of a new premium service on Seeking Alphas Marketplace called Wealth Watchers, designed for people who want something in between engaging a financial advisor and doing things completely on their own. The new forum will serve as a mutually supportive peer group with knowledge and perspective on the how-tos of earning, saving and investing with the aim of achieving financial independence.

Please share your thoughts in our comments section. Meanwhile, here are a few advisor-related links for today:

Visit link:
Anatomy Of A Panicked Reaction: Financial Advisors' Daily Digest - Seeking Alpha

June Squibb and Hal Holbrook to Guest Star on ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ (EXCLUSIVE) – Variety

Greys Anatomy has tapped June Squibb and Hal Holbrook as guest stars,Variety has learned exclusively.

The duo will appear in the episode on Mar. 23, playingElsie Clatch and Lewis Clatch, a married couple who visit Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital. No other details on their storyline have been revealed.

Additionally, the Mar. 23 episode will also welcome back guest starLaTanya Richardson Jackson, who will reprise her role as Maggies (Kelly McCreary) mother, Diane Pierce.

Squibb, who was nominated for the Academy Award for Nebraska, recently had an arc on Showtimes Shameless. She will be in the upcoming film Table 19. She is repped byBRS/Gage.

Holbrook, star of his iconic Tony-winning one-man show Mark Twain Tonight, has been keeping busy in recent years. The multiple-time Emmy-winner had a recurring role on Sons of Anarchy and guest starred in an episode of Bones this year. Heisrepped by JR Talent Group.

Greys Anatomy, which was recently renewed for a fourteenth season,airs Thursday nights at 8 p.m. on ABC.

More here:
June Squibb and Hal Holbrook to Guest Star on 'Grey's Anatomy' (EXCLUSIVE) - Variety