David Mackalister Silva, capitán de Millonarios, destacó el buen presente del equipo azul tanto en la Liga como en la Copa Sudamericana, compartiendo el liderato en ambos torneos. El volante bogotano se refirió a Medellín y Peñarol, próximos rivales en cada certamen, y habló de las particulares celebracines del equipo.

Álvaro Montero, portero de Millonarios, habló de su actualidad en el cuadro bogotano, luego de haber sido la figura del equipo en la victoria 1-0 sobre el Boyacá Chicó. El guardameta guajiro aprovechó los micrófonos de El Alargue de Caracol Radio para expresar su satisfacción y deseo de poder continuar en el club por más años.

Diego Herazo, delantero colombiano que debutó con San Lorenzo de Argentina este martes, habló con El Alargue de Caracol Radio sobre lo que fue su estreno con el equipo de Almagro. Herazo se refirió, entre otras cosas, al apodo que ha recibido de parte de la prensa de ese país, quien lo ha bautizado como el ‘Lukaku colombiano’.

En mayo de 2024, el recaudo tributario bruto de la Dian fue de $30.26 billones de pesos, un aumento nominal de 17,8% y real de 11% frente a mayo de 2023.

Juan Diego Soler, doctor de astrofísica y astronomía, explicó en 6AM la importancia del reciente lanzamiento de Boeing de su primera nave tripulada y qué tan cerca está la humanidad poder disfrutar de viajes al espacio

¿Por qué fue es tan importante el legado que deja Urrutia para la economía colombiana?

As a little girl, Jennifer Fotheringham was shushed for asking about cancer. As a grown woman, she was dismissed for asking about a mammogram. Now as a cancer survivor, she knows not to be silenced.

A Mississippi State Trooper dished out some punishment Saturday as he escorted Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin off the field.

The post WATCH: Mississippi State Trooper Brutally Punches Fan Who Got Too Close to Lane Kiffin appeared first on Breitbart.

Pot brings lots of tax money into states like Illinois, but its societal impact continues to be examined at the state and federal levels.

It's gonna be mosh central.

She stars alongside Eddie Murphy in "A Thousand Words."

Clifford Owensby told Dayton Police he’s paraplegic.

Justin makes a decision about his future with Mary Jane.

BUEI Silver Screens will present ‘Maximum Truth’ starring Dylan O’Brien and Ike Barinholtz, a mockumentary comedy about political grifter Rick Klingman’s quest for truth in Congress. A spokesperson said, “‘BUEI Silver Screens’ continues at the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute [BUEI] with the screening of ‘Maximum Truth’ on Tuesday, April 16th at 2 pm in our […]

Everyone's talking about 2012 these days. But what is it really all about?

It's about a lot of things, all coming together. It's about the state of the world, and where it's going.

It's all about life, the future, and humanity's destiny.

Want to know what will happen in 2012? Want to know how to survive these tumultuous times?

The articles in this section will tell you what you need to know about the Transition coming up, including how you can both keep yourself safe and contribute to the well-being of the Earth at the same time.

NOTE: Until this section is finished, not all the links will be working. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it does take time to put it all together.

At this point, only 1 article is still awaiting completion! -- Heal the World: What You Can Do.

See the menu at the bottom of the page by clicking on the pentacle bar below, to find all the articles in this section.

So many websites are just repeating each other, even the stuff that's wrong!

What is real, about 2012? What is just confusion? What is illusion?

Find out what I've discovered in my research.

Indian, Mayan, Hopi, and other ancient sages left us calendars that seem to end on Dec 21, 2012. This date is called The Shift of Ages, The End of Time, etc.

Does this mean it's the end of the world?

Well, yes and no.

It's not doomsday, any more than the end of our yearly calendar on December 31st means the end of life.

But it IS the end of the world as we've known it.

Do you need to panic? No... read this article to find out why.

Astrology is the holographic image of life on Earth, projected onto the galactic screen. (Or vice versa.)

Everything in the universe is a 3-dimensional living hologram of the whole universe. That's what it means when poets speak of seeing the world in a grain of sand, and saints speak of knowing that one thing by which all things may be known (the self, that is).

So astrology resonates with what we experience on Earth.

In astrological terms, 2012 signals the Shift of Ages. We leave the age of Pisces the fish (also known as the Christian age) and enter the age of Aquarius the water bearer.

What does the Age of Aquarius herald? Find out more about the Age of Aquarius here.

The year 2012 is not a date picked at random. It's a very precise astronomical moment. It represents the turning of both the Great Year and the Galactic Year, as well as the Seasonal Year.

There's a lot of confusion about these cycles. I've seen websites saying the Galactic Year is 26,000 years long. They're confusing two great cycles.

Find out more about this Galactic Alignment.

The Indian texts and Greek/Roman mythology, we are currently living in the Iron Age, the Age of Kali (Kali Yuga). This is a time of metaphorical darkness, a dearth of spirituality and the dominance of ego/intellect over soul/heart.

The turning of the astronomical Year, just as in the Earth's seasonal year, represents a turning from the darkness and entering into Light.

The fact that two momentous and one smaller but potent cycles are simultaneously turning toward the Light is particularly significant. The power behind this transformation is immense!

Like seasons, fading from winter to spring, December 21 2012 is the official first day of Galactic -- and spiritual -- Spring.

But just like the Earth's seasons, it doesn't change like a door opening and closing. It's a process, a gradual shift from the season of darkness to the season of light.

And we are well into the 2012 Transition!

25 years before the year2012, an exceptional alignment of eight planets, including the Sun and Moon, were aligned in an unusual configuration called a Grand Trine.

At this time, there was tremendous energy to shift the planet from an energy of conflict and violence to an energy of cooperation and peace.

This is considered by many to be the clearest starting point for the 2012 Transition.

This was a pivotal year. On the Mayan Calendar, it signaled the shift into Galactic Consciousness.

You may have noticed that consciousness did shift dramatically and suddenly that year.

For example, in early 1999, Climate Change was still a fringe concept, actively being discredited by the government. By late 1999, an amazing shift had taken place: Climate Change was suddenly accepted as a reality by everyone. It was no longer seriously disputed except by the most gullible or sceptical.

There was no definitive reason for this shift in the Climate Change debates. Suddenly, without reason, it was just accepted by the global consciousness.

This is just one example of a world-wide transition.

2010 was another pivotal year, though in a different way. There was a strong energy dynamic that could have led to extreme violence and another world war. But that deadly potential was defused, and 2010 passed calmly.

What didn't get noticed, therefore, was the fact that by 2010, humanity had already made the shift toward peace consciousness.

You may not have noticed this if you were paying attention to all the stupid wars still going on, but against the possibility of world-wide nuclear war, we did pretty well.

And it's only going to get better!

To find out more about the significant dates in this Shift of Ages, see this article.

Let me state it plainly, in case you have any lingering doubts:

December 21, 2012 is not the apocalypse, doomsday, destruction of the Earth, end of all life, or even the end of civilisation as we know it (more or less).

The year 2012 is a point of transition, when we've irrevocably crossed a boundary into a new way of being, a new paradigm.

The question remains: what will be the new paradigm?

It can signal the end of a lo-o-o-o-o-o-ong era of darkness and a rebirth into Lightness of being. Or, potentially, it could be the release of humans from physical form on the Earth.

The really neat thing is we get to decide which!

What do we do about this change? How do we survive 2012?

That's what the Hopi Prophecy is about. It describes the two options we have, and how we get to choose.

One is very unpleasant. But one is very lovely.

Which would you prefer?

Either way, you have the power to make it happen!

The Mayan Calendar also gives us clues about Surviving the 2012 Transition.

No matter what's going to happen, this is undoubtedly a time of cataclysmic change. It's challenging for all of us.

With the right approach and tools, though, we can make the transition smoother for ourselves, and more beneficial to the Earth.

Find out the secrets to surviving the Shift of the Ages .

(All the articles in this section after this page, will continue the theme of surviving the Shift of Ages.)

You may be asking yourself why evil and darkness seem so much more pervasive, so much more powerful than ever, if we really are transitioning to a brighter future.

It's simple.

It's the last, desperate scream of a dying dinosaur.

The resistance to the Shift seems bigger than it is because it's so loud, but it's loud out of fear and pain and defiance of its own transformation. The ego-world is dying, and doesn't trust that it will evolve into something beautiful.

After the dinosaurs, came the birds.

But the dinosaurs would avoid that if they could.

Luckily for the world, they can't!

With Bright Blessings,

This illustrator, John Holcroft, is genius! check out his website for more.

By Brian VanHooker Published: November 11th, 2024

Embed from Getty Images It has been declared, rather dramatically, that this is a post-truth era. In making a case for this, people point to Trump lifting himself into the presidency on an unrelenting spew of untruths as well as …Read more »

Big Pharma has been deceived and has been deceiving others since its inception.  So, it’s no wonder that when they make claims about their “vaccines”, one should not trust a word they say or print.  This is true with the COVID shots, as well as their claims about COVID and long COVID. Investigative journalist Jonathan …

Experts can’t agree how exactly they affect us and it’s not clear that science will give us an answer.

Meta Platforms is rolling out enhanced privacy and parental controls for Instagram accounts of users under 18 in a significant overhaul aimed at addressing growing concerns around the negative effects of social media.

Video: Merlin Mann - "Time & Attention Talk (improvised)"

Audio (mp3): "Merlin Mann - 'Rutgers Time & Attention Talk'"

This is a talk I did at Rutgers earlier this month. I kinda like it, but for a weird reason. Something something, perfect storm of technology Ragnarok, and yadda yadda, I had to start the talk 20 minutes late with no slides. Nothing.

So, I riffed.

And, I ended up talking about a lot of the new stuff you can expect to see in the Inbox Zero book—work culture, managing expectations, the 3 deadly qualities of email, and one surprising reason email's not as much fun as Project Runway.

Some people liked it. I think. I liked it. I hope you do, too.

Here's the slides I would have shown. ;-)

Many thanks, again, to my great pal, Dr. Donald Schaffner, for bringing me in for this visit. I had a great time and met some fantastic, passionate people. Much appreciated.

update 2010-04-27_13-50-00

Apologies—my friends at Rutgers (inexplicably) have placed this video under lock and key. Fortunately, I have a lock-picker called Firefox. Samizdat video available soon...

update 2010-04-27_14-42-24

Yay, fixed! Many thanks to my hero, Jesse Schibilia.

Shamelessly, Big Media doesn't even try to hide their Democrat preferences anymore. They are happy to lie. But even the lies they tell can point indirectly to the truth.

The post EPIC: When AI Swaps ‘Democracy’ For THIS Word, Journos Start Telling The Truth appeared first on Clash Daily.

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen the next director of the CIA. Trump tapped former Texas congressman and director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe for the job. According to a statement […]

The post 'Warrior for Truth': Trump Has Chosen His Next CIA Director, Crediting Pick for 'Exposing Russian Collusion' Hoax appeared first on The Western Journal.

Deplatforming Trump puts big tech under fresh scrutiny Expert comment NCapeling 22 January 2021

The response of digital platforms to the US Capitol riots raises questions about online content governance. The EU and UK are starting to come up with answers.

The ‘deplatforming’ of Donald Trump – including Twitter’s announcement that it has permanently banned him due to ‘the risk of further incitement of violence’ after the riots in the US – shows once more not only the sheer power of online platforms but also the lack of a coherent and consistent framework for online content governance.

Taking the megaphone away from Trump during the Capitol riots seems sensible, but was it necessary or proportionate to ban him from the platform permanently? Or consistent with the treatment of other ‘strongmen’ world leaders such as Modi, Duterte and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who have overseen nationalistic violence but whose accounts remain intact?

Such complex decisions on online expression should not made unilaterally by powerful and unregulated tech actors, but instead should be subject to democratic oversight and grounded in the obligations of states and responsibilities of companies under international human rights law.

The speed and scale of digital information has left governments across the world struggling with how to tackle online harms such as hate speech, extremist content and disinformation since the emergence of mass social media 15 years ago.

The US’s hallowed approach to the First Amendment, under which speech on public issues – even hate speech – occupies the highest rank and is entitled to special protection, has contributed to a reluctance to regulate Silicon Valley’s digital platforms. But the irony is that by not regulating them, the government harmed freedom of expression by leaving complex speech decisions in the hands of private actors.

Meanwhile at the other extreme is the growing number of illiberal and authoritarian governments using a combination of vague laws, censorship, propaganda, and internet blackouts to severely restrict online freedom of expression, control the narrative and, in some cases, incite atrocities.

Regulation is on the way

The happy medium – flexible online content regulation providing clarity, predictability, transparency, and accountability – has until now been elusive. But even before the deplatforming of Trump, 2021 was set to be the year when this approach finally gained some traction, at least in Europe.

The EU’s recently-published draft Digital Services Act puts obligations on dominant social media platforms to manage ‘systemic risks’, for example through requirements for greater transparency about their content decisions, algorithms used for recommendations, and online advertising systems.

The UK will shortly publish its Online Safety Bill, which will establish a new regulatory framework for tackling online harms, including the imposition of a duty of care and codes of conduct on Big Tech, to be overseen by an independent regulator (Ofcom).

Both proposals are based on a ‘co-regulatory’ model under which the regulator sets out a framework substantiated with rules by the private sector, with the regulator performing a monitoring function to ensure the rules are complied with.

Both also draw on international human rights standards and the work of civil society in applying these standards in relation to the online public square, with the aim of increasing control for users over what they see online, requiring transparency about tech companies’ policies in a number of areas, and strengthening the accountability of platforms when they fall foul of the regulation.

The procedure for both proposals has also been inclusive, involving extensive multi-stakeholder consultations with civil society organizations and Big Tech, and the proposals will be subject to scrutiny in 2021, notably from the EU and UK parliaments.

Both proposals are at an early stage, and it remains to be seen whether they go far enough – or indeed will have a chilling effect on online platforms. But as an attempt to initiate a dialogue on globally coherent principles, they are positive first steps. They also provide food for thought for the new Joe Biden administration in the US as it turns its attention to the regulation of Big Tech.

For some time civil society – most prominently David Kaye, the former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion – have called for content regulation to be informed by universal international human rights law standards.

The EU and UK are peculiarly well-placed to take the lead in this area because European countries have for decades been on the receiving end of judgments from the European Court of Human Rights on the appropriate limits to freedom of expression in cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In deciding these cases, the court has to balance the right to freedom of expression against the restrictions imposed – for example in the context of incitement to violence, political debate, and satire. Deciding where to draw the line on what can and cannot be expressed in a civilised society which prizes freedom of expression is inevitably a difficult exercise.

International human rights law provides a methodology that inquires whether the interference to freedom of expression was prescribed by law and pursues a legitimate aim, and also whether it was necessary in a democratic society to achieve those aims – including whether the interference was necessary and proportionate (as for example in Delfi AS v Estonia, which involved a news portal failing to take down unlawful hate speech).

To be effective, online content regulation has to bite on tech companies, which is a challenge given the internet is global but domestic law normally applies territorially. The EU’s proposals have an extraterritorial element as they apply to any online platforms providing services in the EU regardless of where the platform is headquartered.

Further, both the EU and UK want to give the regulator strong enforcement powers – it is proposed for example that Ofcom will have powers to fine platforms up to ten per cent of their turnover for breaches.

Although the proposals would not apply directly to the deplatforming of Trump which occurred in the US, the philosophy behind the EU and UK approach is likely to have an impact beyond European shores in promoting a co-regulatory model that some of the bigger tech companies have been inviting for some time, reluctant as they are to ‘play God’ on content moderation decisions without reference to any regulatory framework.

In the absence of regulation, the standards of tech platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have already evolved over time in response to pressure from civil rights groups, users, and advertisers, including updated policies on protecting civic conversation and hate speech.

Facebook has also set up an independent Oversight Board, whose members include leading human rights lawyers, to review decisions on content including – at its own request – the decision to indefinitely suspend Trump from Facebook and Instagram. Decisions on the Board’s first tranche of cases are expected imminently.

Gatekeeper status is key

Online content regulation also needs to address the role of Big Tech as the ‘digital gatekeepers’, because their monopoly power extends not just to editorial control of the news and information we consume, but also to market access.

The decision of Apple, Google, and Amazon to stop hosting right-wing social network Parler after it refused to combat calls for violence during the US Capitol riots was understandable in the circumstances, but also underlined the unilateral ability of Big Tech to decide the rules of the market.

Again, it is Europe where efforts are underway to tackle this issue: the EU’s draft Digital Market Act imposes obligations on online gatekeepers to avoid certain unfair practices, and the UK’s new Digital Markets Unit will have powers to write and enforce a new code of practice on those technology companies with ‘substantial and enduring’ market power.

In the US, Biden’s team will be following these developments with interest, given the growing bipartisan support for strengthening US antitrust rules and reviving antitrust enforcement. The EU’s recently published proposals for an EU-US tech agenda include a transatlantic dialogue on the responsibility of tech platforms and strengthened cooperation between antitrust authorities on digital markets.

Ultimately a consistent – and global – approach to online content is needed instead of fragmented approaches by different companies and governments. It is also important the framework is flexible so that it is capable of applying not only to major democracies but also to countries where too often sweeping state regulation has been used as a pretext to curtail online expression online.

The pursuit of a pluralistic framework tailored to different political and cultural contexts is challenging, and international human rights law cannot provide all the answers but, as a universal framework, it is a good place to start. The raft of regulatory measures from the EU and UK means that, regardless of whether Trump regains his online megaphone, 2021 is set to be a year of reckoning for Big Tech.

Facebook's power under scrutiny as Trump ban upheld Expert comment NCapeling 6 May 2021

Keeping Donald Trump’s Facebook ban in place shows the vast power social media platforms hold, raising questions of whether that power is appropriately used.

Kate Jones

From a human rights perspective, the Oversight Board’s decision is a strong one, and not at all surprising. The board decided Facebook was right to suspend the former president’s access to post content on Facebook and Instagram, but not indefinitely.

It found Donald Trump’s posts violated Facebook’s community standards because they amounted to praise or support of people engaged in violence and that, applying a human rights assessment, Facebook’s suspension of Trump was a necessary and proportionate restriction of his right to freedom of expression.

However the board also found Trump’s indefinite suspension was neither in conformity with a clear Facebook procedure nor consistent with its commitment to respect human rights. Its decision requires Facebook to make a new decision on the future of Donald Trump’s account, grounded in its rules.

While opinions on this result will differ, the increased call for clear and accessible rules and respect for human rights in their implementation that the Oversight Board brings to Facebook’s operations is welcome.

But the Oversight Board’s powers are limited to content moderation – Facebook declined to answer the board’s questions about amplification of Trump’s posts through the platform’s design decisions and algorithms. This limitation on the board’s role should be lifted. It is in content amplification, not just content moderation, that Facebook should face scrutiny and accountability for the sake of the human rights of its users.

Fundamentally, human rights is not a veneer which can mask or legitimize underlying power dynamics or public policy – those still fall to be assessed for themselves.

The Trump/Facebook saga does highlight the vast power Facebook and other major social media platforms have over political discussion and persuasion. Through granting or denying, or through amplifying or quietening the voices of political figures, Facebook has the power to shape politics, electorates, and democratic processes. Improving content moderation through the Oversight Board, although important, does little to constrain that power.

Facebook itself, unlike a government, has no accountability to the general public, and the Oversight Board must not distract us from the need for a full conversation about the extent to which Facebook’s power is appropriately held and properly wielded.

Emily Taylor

This decision marks a coming of age for Facebook’s content moderation process. For years, decisions to take down content or ban users have been opaque, conducted by a human workforce that Facebook and other platforms have been hesitant to acknowledge. The platforms have also been worried that being seen to exercise an editorial function might put at risk the legal protections which prevent the platforms being held responsible for user-generated content.

When the Oversight Board was first posited, observers questioned whether a body funded by Facebook could properly exercise a legitimate appeals function. Now there is a reasoned decision which partly supports the decision to de-platform a serving president, but also takes issue with the indefinite nature of the ban.

Facebook specifically asked the Oversight Board to consider specific challenges involved when the person involved is a political leader. The board concluded that Trump’s ‘status as head of state with a high position of trust not only imbued his words with greater force and credibility but also created risks that his followers would understand they could act with impunity’. The storming of the US Capitol and role President Trump played in stirring up the violence underlined that political leaders’ words can motivate others to take harmful actions.

Just as the events of January 6 remain shocking, it remains shocking that private platforms have exercised the power to curb the speech of a US president. It also remains shocking that the platforms sat back and took no action over the previous four years, but waited until the final days of the transition.

The board’s decision is an evolution in private-sector content moderation, with a diverse board giving a reasoned opinion on a Facebook decision. But to fully comply with the principles of open justice, board decisions should include more detail on the individuals who have made the decision – at present, it appears all members of the board review the decision but it is not clear which individuals were involved in its drafting, or that they were clear from conflicts. If the process is to gain respect as a truly independent oversight on the platform’s decisions, greater transparency over the identity of decision-makers will be needed.

Mark Zuckerberg expressed concern about Facebook becoming an arbiter of truth or free speech and, overall, the difficulty of having private companies managing the application of fundamental rights on their platforms has not been solved. Just because companies have the financial resources to do it, does not mean they necessarily should.

Yet no other international governance or arbitration system has emerged to handle the complexities of platform power over speech. In the context of that vacuum, the Oversight Board’s decision is a welcome step.

Expert

The Hard Truth Is Rohingya Refugees Are Not Going Home Expert comment sysadmin 6 October 2017

The only likely outcome of the crisis is the near-permanent presence of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya along the Bangladesh border.

The harrowing scenes of human suffering on the Myanmar–Bangladesh border have provoked outpourings of sympathy and some firm statements by international politicians. At least half a million people have been brutally expelled from their homes and are now living in miserable conditions in muddy refugee camps and storm-drenched shanty towns. As the international community debates how to respond, it needs to take a clear-eyed view of the situation and recognise a brutal truth: the refugees are almost certainly not going home.

Consequently, policymakers must not hide behind the fiction that Bangladesh is only temporarily hosting the refugees in preparation for their rapid return home. Over-optimistic assumptions now will lead to worse misery in the long term. Instead, the world needs to plan on the basis that Bangladesh will be hosting a very large and permanent refugee population.

The expulsion of the Rohingya Muslims from Rakhine State in northwestern Myanmar is the culmination of decades of discriminatory policies enacted by the country’s military rulers since 1962. In 1978, the Burmese military’s ‘Operation Dragon King’ pushed 200,000 Muslims into Bangladesh. International pressure forced the military to allow most of them to return. Then, in 1991–92, the military again expelled a quarter of a million people. Bangladesh forced some of them back over the border and eventually the military agreed to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to manage the repatriation of most of the remainder.

State-sponsored abuses of the Rohingya and ethnic violence perpetrated against them by chauvinists among the ethnic Rakhine population have continued. The abuse became dramatically worse in 2012 when tens of thousands of Rohingya were forced to flee their homes, although most remained inside the country. This year, armed attacks by self-proclaimed defenders of the Rohingya, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, gave the military an excuse to mount what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called ‘a textbook example of ethnic cleansing’.

It is tempting to believe that, as before, the Myanmar government will allow the expelled Rohingya to return after international pressure. However, recent geopolitical developments in southeast Asia and the election of a democratic government in Myanmar in 2015 make this much less likely.

Southeast Asia is now an arena of geopolitical competition between China and its rivals: mainly the United States, India and Japan. All are battling for influence. Both China and India have made public statements of support for Myanmar’s government in the current crisis. In that context, diplomatic pressure or economic sanctions imposed by Europe or the United States will only have one effect – to push Myanmar towards China.

Moreover, those in the EU and US who want to see democracy survive in Myanmar will be unwilling to push the elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi too far. There is an extraordinary degree of hostility towards the Rohingya among the majority Bamar population. This has broken out into street violence on occasions but even where the situation is calm, anti-Muslim prejudice is easily awoken. The current government is very unlikely to challenge such sentiments at a time when it is trying to preserve its position against the military’s continuing domination of political and economic life.

Myanmar is one of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations but ASEAN is unlikely to impose any meaningful pressure. Only Malaysia has been publicly critical of Myanmar’s government. Indonesia has attempted to mediate – its foreign minister Retno Marsudi has held face-to-face meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi – but without apparent effect. Both countries have sent aid and volunteers to the Rohingya refugee camps but there is absolutely no talk of sanctions or other overt pressure.

The question then is: what will happen to the refugees? One option could be resettlement, but neither Bangladesh nor any of the other states in the region are willing to take them in. Malaysia already hosts 60,000 registered Rohingya refugees and probably another 150,000 unregistered ones. Unknown thousands of Rohingya have fled to Thailand and Indonesia by boat but have often fallen victim to unscrupulous human traffickers in cahoots with local officials. Thailand has already said it will refuse to allow new ‘boat people’ to land.

The only likely outcome therefore is the near-permanent presence of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya along the Bangladesh border. Delaying preparations for a permanent refugee population in the hope that they will be allowed to re-cross the border back into Myanmar will only make the situation worse. Seventy years ago, another ‘temporary’ movement of people into refugee camps created decades of instability around the Middle East. The world must remember the Palestinians as it plans for the future of the Rohingya.

The battle for truth: The BBC's role at 100 22 November 2022 — 6:30PM TO 7:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 13 October 2022 Chatham House and Online

Tim Davie, director general of the BBC, and others discuss how the BBC shapes, and is shaped by, the world today.

This year, the BBC turns 100 and the World Service 90 in a world facing crises of increasing scale and frequency and in an age of disinformation, democratic disruption and a growing assault on truth and free reporting worldwide. What does this mean for Britain’s foremost news provider at home and across the globe?

This conversation considers:

• How does the BBC navigate a drastically changing media landscape?

• What does the BBC represent in the UK and to the world?

• What ‘soft power’ does the BBC have and how does it use it best?

As with all members events, questions from the audience drive the conversation.

Read the transcript. 

From meditation to smiling, researchers take a second look at studies claiming to reveal what makes us happy

“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light, with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.” ― Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden is renowned for its striking architecture and impressive collection of contemporary art. Whether you're an art enthusiast, a history buff, or simply curious about that concrete donut on the National Mall, learn more about its Brutalist background in this new episode of National Treasure. --------- To find out more about the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, read below: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/hirshhorn-museum-building-went-from-iconoclast-icon-180984914/ Digital Editorial Director: Brian Wolly Director of Programming: Nicki Marko Supervising Producer & Scriptwriter: Michelle Mehrtens Producer & Editor: Sierra Theobald Motion Designer: Ricardo Jaimes