martes, 22 de agosto de 2017

China says Indian soldiers started the trouble along Pangong Lake in Ladakh - Defence News India

China says Indian soldiers started the trouble along Pangong Lake in Ladakh - Defence News India



China says Indian soldiers started the trouble along Pangong Lake in Ladakh













China on Monday blamed Indian troops for a scuffle between the two Armies in Ladakh sector and said it had complained to New Delhi.

Beijing said Indian soldiers started the trouble, causing injury to Chinese soldiers near the Pangong Lake.
On August 15, when Indian troops tried to stop the Chinese from entering the Indian side of the boundary, the Chinese started pelting stones, Indian officials said. Indian soldiers then retaliated.
China had a different account of what happened.
“According to our information, on August 15, the Chinese border troops conducted normal patrol on the Chinese side of the LAC (Line of Actual Control) around Pangong area,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said.
“During this process, the Indian side took some violent actions and injured the Chinese border personnel. This has violated the consensus between the Indian and Chinese side in relation to the border issues.” Hua said.
“China has expressed grave dissatisfaction and we have lodged serious concerns to the Indian side” she added.
Hua also said India was told, “to strictly discipline the conduct of the Indian border troops to earnestly uphold the peace and tranquility of the boundary area of the two sides”.

OPEN YOUR MIND, NOW || Americans Want Tax Reform


"Majority in U.S. say taxes are too high and tax code is too complex"

- Ali Meyer in The Washington Free Beacon

A report in The Washington Free Beacon outlines a new poll from the American Action Network that found a “majority of Americans say that taxes are too high and the tax code is too complex,” with 57 percent of respondents saying the tax code needs to be overhauled and 90 percent saying the personal income tax code “is either very or somewhat complex.” One other data point worth noting: a “majority of Democrats, 70 percent, say they want members of Congress to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to get tax reform done.”
Click here to read more.
------------
In trade news, in the Investor’s Business Daily, U.S. Business and Industry Council President Kevin Kearns praises the Trump administration for taking action to protect America’s steel industry from unfair foreign trade practices, saying the President “has taken specific action and indicated that foreign-trade cheating in steel (and also aluminum) will no longer be tolerated.”
------------
And in The Hill, the Coalition for a Prosperous America’s Paola Masman writes that President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer are correct in pushing for a renegotiation of NAFTA, saying the trade deal “has caused significant economic harm to the U.S.”
------------
The New York Times reports how President Trump’s base is holding strong, despite negative news coverage. Supporter Parson Hicks told the paper, the media frenzy in the past week is “about this president and wanting to take him down because you don’t like him.” Gregory Kline, who didn’t even vote for the president, called out the hypocrisy in the media, observing when there is an attack by Muslim terrorists, the media reaches for pundits who say most Muslims are good. However, when it is a white supremacist, “every conservative is lumped in with him,” Kline told the paper.
------------
In positive economic news, The Washington Free Beacon reports that Labor Department data shows “the unemployment rate for young people aged 16 to 24 years old looking for summer work declined to a 17-year low.”

Can Malaysia take the lead?



We need your help! You’ve already been a hugely important part of our Commonwealth campaign calling for the adoption of an anti-slavery agenda. Will you join us in taking the next step?
 
Call on the Malaysian Prime Minister, as the future Chair of the Commonwealth, to support the adoption of an anti-slavery agenda.
 
The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) is happening in April 2018. We’ve been doing all we can to raise the profile of the issue of modern slavery with Commonwealth countries and encourage them to adopt a firm anti-slavery mandate at CHOGM. Already, Malta and the UK, who are the current and upcoming Chair of the Commonwealth, have publicly called for more to be done to address modern slavery. As a future Chair of the Commonwealth, Malaysia is in a crucial position to influence other Commonwealth countries to join this call.
 
The Global Slavery Index reports that there are 128,800 individuals trapped in modern slavery in Malaysia, ranking it at 29 out of 167 countries.[1] This means that Prime Minister Najib Raza should have a keen interest in doing all he can to tackle the problem. However, so far he has remained quiet on the issue.

Help us call on Malaysia to be an active advocate against modern slavery in the Commonwealth by sending an email to the Prime Minister.
 
Together, we can make modern slavery a priority issue in the Commonwealth.
 
In solidarity,
 
Zoe, Joanna, Miriam and the Freedom United Team

What happened when we introduced 4-year-olds to an old people’s home |August 22, 2017| MercatorNet |

What happened when we introduced 4-year-olds to an old people’s home

|August 22, 2017MercatorNet |







What happened when we introduced 4-year-olds to an old people’s home

It does wonders for the health and mood of the elderly
Malcolm Johnson and Melrose Stewart | Aug 22 2017 | comment 



Lying on the floor pretending to roar like a lion can do wonders for an elderly man’s well-being. That’s not a scientific fact, but it was one of the surprising and memorable moments we observed while making a television program which introduced a group of very young people with residents of a retirement village.
The two episodes of Old People’s Home for 4 Year Olds set out to explore the increasing isolation of older people within our communities.
The impact of young children and older people sharing daytime care facilities has already been shown to be generally positive. But this was the first time an experiment was undertaken within the UK to measure the impact of inter-generational interaction on the health and happiness of the older group.
Ten four-year-old children and 11 people in their late 80s were brought together for six weeks in a new nursery set within a retirement community in the city of Bristol. Before we started, the elderly participants were measured on their cognition, mood and depression, as well as physical abilities including balance and the ability to get up and walk (“Timed Up and Go”). These measurements were taken again at three weeks and once more at the end of the six-week programme.
The programme consisted of a timetable of activities in which the two generations were given time and space to engage physically and socially. It included games, occasionally requiring individuals to get down on and off the floor, walking outdoors, picnicking and participating in indoor activities using a variety of craft and art work. The final week also included an inter-generational sports day and a short theatrical production.
After three weeks, the halfway point, there were noticeable improvements in the residents’ measurement scores. Final measurements revealed significant improvements in the majority of metrics, with 80% percent of residents showed improvement in the “Timed Up and Go”. Grip strengths were up generally and activity tracker scores showed that the residents had become increasingly active over a 24-hour period. On sports day, one woman who could not recall the last time she ran, was seen sprinting off with her companion four-year-old in order to beat the competition.
At the start of the experiment, nearly all of the residents were identified as depressed, two of them severely. After six weeks, none of them was registered as depressed. They had completely changed their outlook on life and in their hope for the future. Even the most sceptical person within the group, who had been heard to say “I can’t really see it making any great difference to us”, admitted that the children had brought “great joy”.
Lifting spirits
This was not a scientific trial or a traditional academic research project. It was a social experiment involving a very small group of people. But the results showed marked changes in the residents’ physical ability and mood.
When you get very old you become less mobile, friends die, and you can’t get out to meet people. If you live in a care home, the only younger people you see every day are staff. That’s why depression is the epidemic of old age – and it’s important for us to present opportunities for them to meet young people.
Children are open minded. They love attention and take an interest in adults. At the same time, children learn quite mature skills from adults, so this inter-generational engagement is reciprocal.
You can’t cure arthritis completely, but you can increase confidence and, with the help and encouragement of the children, we saw our older folks doing things they never imagined they’d do again – jumping, dancing and rolling around on the floor.
As a consequence of our television experiment, significant developments are underway within the trust which took part in the program. Contact with the children and their families has been encouraged and continued. They are investigating additional ways to increase socialisation of the residents with surrounding communities. And plans are even in place to build a permanent nursery in one of the trust’s homes.
The ConversationMany older adults live depressed lives in isolation with sadness, hopelessness, and negative feelings toward the self. This experiment has shown that, within a short timeframe – and where people share a similar vision of intergenerational mixing – it is possible to bring about significant enhancement in the well-being of older people.
Melrose Stewart, Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of Birmingham and Malcolm Johnson, Professor in Gerontology and End of Life Care, University of Bath. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
MercatorNet

August 22, 2017

You may have noticed more and more news about same-sex marriage in MercatorNet. Yes, there are more important issues than the upcoming plebiscite in Australia. But that’s where the editor lives and he cares about the future of marriage. So please pardon another brief message.
A loyal subscriber recently wrote to us and posed a very sensible question:  
I notice that you are using the expression “legalisation of same-sex marriage”. This, along with “allowing same-sex marriage” seems to me to be a mistake. There is nothing illegal about same-sex marriage. People are allowed to marry others of the same sex, to have wedding ceremonies, and live together legally as married couples. It’s just that the state does not call such relationships marriage.
If the question in the plebiscite is “Should same-sex marriage be legalised?” or “Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?” it will probably be approved overwhelmingly, because voters will be led to feel that something is currently unfairly prohibited and in fact it is not.
As far as I have seen, no one has suggested a wording for the question, yet I believe it is crucial to the outcome. Maybe you could ask your readers to suggest their ideas for the wording for the question that is most likely to elicit the true feelings of the voters?
Any ideas? 



Michael Cook
Editor
MERCATORNET














About that poster
By Michael Cook
A poster in Melbourne against same-sex marriage may be offensive and provocative, but its statistics are correct
Read the full article
 
Gardasil: Fast-Tracked and Flawed
By Carolyn Moynihan
A decade since the launch of the vaccine a book questions the claim it prevents cancer.
Read the full article
 
My lunch with a Nazi
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
They still exist. And some of them are cultured and rich.
Read the full article
 
News flash! New sin discovered!
By James Schall SJ
The sins of our time are sins against God the Creator
Read the full article
 
What happened when we introduced 4-year-olds to an old people’s home
By Melrose Stewartand Malcolm Johnson
It does wonders for the health and mood of the elderly
Read the full article
 
The ethical spin on spinners
By Karl D. Stephan
Yet another example of the power of marketing to get people to buy something they never knew they wanted
Read the full article
 
If you don’t like plural marriage, don’t get plural married
By Michael Cook
Will LGBT bigotry be the biggest obstacle to legalising polygamy?
Read the full article
 
The sweatshirt that lasts 30 years
By Shannon Roberts
Choosing quality over quantity.
Read the full article


MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AU | +61 2 8005 8605

News flash! New sin discovered! |August 22, 2017| MercatorNet |

News flash! New sin discovered!

|August 22, 2017MercatorNet |







News flash! New sin discovered!

The sins of our time are sins against God the Creator
James Schall SJ | Aug 22 2017 | comment 



Recently Pope Francis tells of talking with his predecessor, Pope Benedict, who remarked that we are living in an “epoch of sins against God the Creator.” What did he mean? Evidently, other epochs had sins but they were not directed against the Creator. The sins we were to repent in the Redemption were not primarily directed against the Creator.
The Decalogue is divided into two parts: duties to God and duties to other human beings. Things like disobedience, murder, adultery, lying, stealing, and coveting constitute sins against others. Or to put it positively, these prohibitions are designed to protect others from the disorders in our own souls.
Most of these sins were recognized by classical philosophers from many different traditions. It really does not take a genius to see the point at issue in each sinful situation. No thief wants his own goods to be stolen. Liars do not enjoy being lied to. Clearly, Benedict had something other in mind than what we might call “ordinary sins”, the everyday kind to which most of us are tempted at one time or another.
A sin against God the Creator implies that we are not dealing with aberrations that arise from freedom in normal intercourse with others. We are dealing with what might be called “structural” sins. Even if God put us together in a certain way, He had it all wrong. Such a strange thing as a “gay marriage” is “structurally” as good as, if not better, than marriage as it has been handed down to us as the locus for preserving the human race.
Creation is a given thing. We do not participate in our own basic creation as a human being. The intricate design that distinguishes us from other finite beings was already there without our help. It is much too complicated for it ever to have just happened. It was meant to be the way it is. That is, its origin lies in an intelligence that is more than human.
We were, to be sure, required to “know ourselves” so that we might become what we ought to be. We had a hand in our own destiny. We were the rational beings who were to become what they ought to be. We had, as it were, a natural law in our very being. We were to live around four score years and ten, male and female we were created. Our future depended on begetting and families. One generation replaced another over the ages.
A sin against the Creator would thus be directed not at stealing or lying, but in denying that these issues had anything to do with what human life was about.
So we are not dealing here with a kind of Machiavellian notion of being able to use good or evil for our own purposes. Rather we are dealing with the rejection of what it is to be a man as originally constituted. The very design is said to be faulty. What was once wrong is in fact right. Our given-ness tells us nothing about what we should be.
It turns out, then, that we are faced not only with moral problems about how we ought to live, as depicted in the Decalogue, but with a metaphysical problem about what we are. We are not only asked to know and follow man’s moral good, but to affirm his existential or structural good as a being. We are asked to understand and know the original “being” as given to us is superior to anything that we might propose as an alternative.
However, the rejection of God as Creator means that we can now, to some considerable extent, reconfigure ourselves. We can propose birth without normal sexual relations in an environment of a family. We can infuse genes not our own into our offspring in order to “improve” their looks or intelligence. Whether we have multiple wives or husbands, whether we have wives or husbands at all, is up to us.
In the beginning Adam and Eve were asked not only to do good and avoid evil, but also to be what they were created to be. The full implications of this latter instruction did not become evident until we understood the very internal structures of our being, all the details of its biological and psychological structures.
Thus when Benedict said that what we are witnessing is something more basic than the issues of moral virtue, when he spoke of “sins against God the Creator”, he was exactly on target. The issue is not now whether we will accept the goodness inherent in our being, but whether we will accept the very order of our being through which we achieve our final goods.
The epoch we live in is the first one in human history that can pose this question. It has the wherewithal to reject actual creation in a way not previously known to our kind. We can go ahead and do these things -- but we must live with the consequences. We should not be surprised if we create monsters in our pursuit of reconstructing what we were created to be. 
Rev. James V. Schall SJ taught political science at Georgetown University for many years. He is the author of numerous books.
MercatorNet

August 22, 2017

You may have noticed more and more news about same-sex marriage in MercatorNet. Yes, there are more important issues than the upcoming plebiscite in Australia. But that’s where the editor lives and he cares about the future of marriage. So please pardon another brief message.
A loyal subscriber recently wrote to us and posed a very sensible question:  
I notice that you are using the expression “legalisation of same-sex marriage”. This, along with “allowing same-sex marriage” seems to me to be a mistake. There is nothing illegal about same-sex marriage. People are allowed to marry others of the same sex, to have wedding ceremonies, and live together legally as married couples. It’s just that the state does not call such relationships marriage.
If the question in the plebiscite is “Should same-sex marriage be legalised?” or “Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?” it will probably be approved overwhelmingly, because voters will be led to feel that something is currently unfairly prohibited and in fact it is not.
As far as I have seen, no one has suggested a wording for the question, yet I believe it is crucial to the outcome. Maybe you could ask your readers to suggest their ideas for the wording for the question that is most likely to elicit the true feelings of the voters?
Any ideas? 



Michael Cook
Editor
MERCATORNET














About that poster
By Michael Cook
A poster in Melbourne against same-sex marriage may be offensive and provocative, but its statistics are correct
Read the full article
 
Gardasil: Fast-Tracked and Flawed
By Carolyn Moynihan
A decade since the launch of the vaccine a book questions the claim it prevents cancer.
Read the full article
 
My lunch with a Nazi
By Jeffrey A. Tucker
They still exist. And some of them are cultured and rich.
Read the full article
 
News flash! New sin discovered!
By James Schall SJ
The sins of our time are sins against God the Creator
Read the full article
 
What happened when we introduced 4-year-olds to an old people’s home
By Melrose Stewartand Malcolm Johnson
It does wonders for the health and mood of the elderly
Read the full article
 
The ethical spin on spinners
By Karl D. Stephan
Yet another example of the power of marketing to get people to buy something they never knew they wanted
Read the full article
 
If you don’t like plural marriage, don’t get plural married
By Michael Cook
Will LGBT bigotry be the biggest obstacle to legalising polygamy?
Read the full article
 
The sweatshirt that lasts 30 years
By Shannon Roberts
Choosing quality over quantity.
Read the full article


MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AU | +61 2 8005 8605