|
|
It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
|
|
Video of Arnold Schwarzenegger Comparing Capitol Mob to Nazis Viewed Over 24 Million Times
FOXBOROUGH, MA — New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick said Monday he will not accept the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Donald Trump, calling the offer flattering but citing American values and last week's U.S. Capitol siege in turning the president down.
"Recently, I was offered to the opportunity to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which I was flattered by out of respect for what the honor represents and admiration for prior recipients," Belichick said in a statement Monday night. "Subsequently, the tragic events of last week occurred and the decision has been made not to move forward with the award. Above all, I am an American citizen with great reverence for our nation's values, freedom and democracy."
Belichick said talking about social justice with members of the Patriots contributed to his decision.
"I know I also represent my family and the New England Patriots team," he continued. "One of the most rewarding things in my professional career took place in 2020 when, through the great leadership within our team, conversations about social justice, equality and human rights moved to the forefront and became actions. Continuing those efforts while remaining true to the people, team and country I love outweigh the benefits of any individual award."
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the country's highest civilian honor. Belichick was scheduled to receive the award Thursday, even though House Democrats made it clear Trump could be impeached for a second time by then
Belichick, who has shared a long friendship with Trump, was pressured to decline the offer in the aftermath of the deadly riots at the U.S. Capitol last week.
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) was among those who said Belichick should turn Trump down.
"I would refuse it if I were Bill Belichick," McGovern told CNN Monday. "This president has made a mockery of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Look at who he is giving it to in the last weeks, people like Devin Nunez and Jim Jordan ... Bill Belichick should do the right thing and say, 'No thanks.'"
McGovern, who represents much of central Massachusetts in the state's 2nd Congressional District, said he would be disappointed if Belichick accepted the award.
"This president is not fit to be in office," he said. "Anything he would bestow on anybody is meaningless and to accept it is disgraceful."
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey agreed.
"At a time when so many athletes and coaches are standing up for what's right, I hope Bill Belichick will reject this award," she tweeted.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) also said Belichick should reject the offer, pointing out on Boston Public Radio that Trump could be impeached Thursday.
Belichick hasn't publicly commented on his friendship with Trump in recent years, but he did write a flattering letter to the then-candidate that Trump read at a Manchester, New Hampshire, rally the night before the 2016 presidential election.
Belichick and some players met Trump at the White House after the team beat the Atlanta Falcons in the Super Bowl in 2017. The team didn't travel to the White House after beating the Los Angeles Rams in the Super Bowl in 201
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Mindfulness courses can reduce anxiety, depression and stress and increase mental wellbeing within most but not all non-clinical settings, say a team of researchers at the University of Cambridge. They also found that mindfulness may be no better than other practices aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing.
Mindfulness is typically defined as 'the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment'. It has become increasingly popular in recent years as a way of increasing wellbeing and reducing stress levels.
In the UK, the National Health Service offers therapies based on mindfulness to help treat mental health issues such as depression and suicidal thoughts. However, the majority of people who practice mindfulness learn their skills in community settings such as universities, workplaces, or private courses. Mindfulness-based programmes are frequently promoted as the go-to universal tool to reduce stress and increase wellbeing, accessible to anyone, anywhere.
Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted around the world to assess whether in-person mindfulness training can improve mental health and wellbeing, but the results are often varied. In a report published today in PLOS Medicine, a team of researchers from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge led a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the published data from the RCTs. This approach allows them to bring together existing - and often contradictory or under-powered - studies to provide more robust conclusions.
The team identified 136 RCTs on mindfulness training for mental health promotion in community settings. These trials included 11,605 participants aged 18 to 73 years from 29 countries, more than three-quarters (77%) of whom were women.
The researchers found that in most community settings, compared with doing nothing, mindfulness reduces anxiety, depression and stress, and increases wellbeing. However, the data suggested that in more than one in 20 trials settings, mindfulness-based programmes may not improve anxiety and depression.
Dr Julieta Galante from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge, the report's first author, said: "For the average person and setting, practising mindfulness appears to be better than doing nothing for improving our mental health, particularly when it comes to depression, anxiety and psychological distress - but we shouldn't assume that it works for everyone, everywhere.
"Mindfulness training in the community needs to be implemented with care. Community mindfulness courses should be just one option among others, and the range of effects should be researched as courses are implemented in new settings. The courses that work best may be those aimed at people who are most stressed or in stressful situations, for example health workers, as they appear to see the biggest benefit."
The researchers caution that RCTs in this field tended to be of poor quality, so the combined results may not represent the true effects. For example, many participants stopped attending mindfulness courses and were not asked why, so they are not represented in the results. When the researchers repeated the analyses including only the higher quality studies, mindfulness only showed effects on stress, not on wellbeing, depression or anxiety.
When compared against other 'feel good' practices such as exercise, mindfulness fared neither better nor worse. Professor Peter Jones, also from Cambridge's Department of Psychiatry, and senior author, said: "While mindfulness is often better than taking no action, we found that there may be other effective ways of improving our mental health and wellbeing, such as exercise. In many cases, these may prove to be more suitable alternatives if they are more effective, culturally more acceptable or are more feasible or cost effective to implement. The good news is that there are now more options."
The researchers say that the variability in the success of different mindfulness-based programmes identified among the RCTs may be down to a number of reasons, including how, where and by whom they are implemented as well as at whom they are targeted. The techniques and frameworks taught in mindfulness have rich and diverse backgrounds, from early Buddhist psychology and meditation through to cognitive neuroscience and participatory medicine - the interplay between all of these different factors can be expected to influence how effective a programme is.
The number of online mindfulness courses has increased rapidly, accelerated further by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this review has not looked at online courses, studies suggest that these may be as effective as their offline counterparts, despite most lacking interactions with teacher and peers.
Dr Galante added: "If the effects of online mindfulness courses vary as widely according to the setting as their offline counterparts, then the lack of human support they offer could cause potential problems. We need more research before we can be confident about their effectiveness and safety."
###
The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, with additional support from the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Medical Research Council, Wellcome and the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport.
Reference
Galante, J et al. Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in non-clinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLOS Medicine; 11 Jan 2021; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003481
More management measures lead to healthier fish populations
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Fish populations tend to do better in places where rigorous fisheries management practices are used, and the more measures employed, the better for fish populations and food production, according to a new paper published Jan. 11 in Nature Sustainability.
The study, led by Michael Melnychuk of the University of Washington's School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, draws upon the expertise of more than two dozen researchers from 17 regions around the world. The research team analyzed the management practices of nearly 300 fish populations to tease out patterns that lead to healthier fisheries across different locations. Their findings confirmed, through extensive data analysis, what many researchers have argued for several years.
"In general, we found that more management attention devoted to fisheries is leading to better outcomes for fish and shellfish populations," Melnychuk said. "While this won't be surprising to some, the novelty of this work was in assembling the data required and then using statistical tools to reveal this pattern across hundreds of marine populations."
The research team used an international database that is the go-to scientific resource on the status of more than 600 individual fish populations They chose to analyze 288 populations that generally are of value economically and represent a diversity of species and regions. They then looked over time at each fish population's management practices and were able to draw these conclusions:
A selection of herring from a recent fishing trip.
The study builds on previous work that found, by using the same database, that nearly half of the fish caught worldwide are from populations that are scientifically monitored and, on average, are increasing in abundance. The new paper takes a closer look at specific management actions and how they have impacted fishing pressure and the abundance of each population examined, Melnychuk explained.
"All fish populations have their own unique contexts that might dictate what management tools would be most helpful and promising to use," he said. "Despite the great diversity in their management objectives and various strategies to meet those, we focused on key management tools in common to many fisheries around the world."
The international research team chose to look at a spectrum of fish populations, such as hakes in South Africa and Europe, orange roughy in New Zealand, tuna species on the high seas, anchovies in South America and scallops off the Atlantic coast of North America. Most of the populations they examined had a history of being depleted at some point, usually due to historical overfishing.
For example, with U.S. mid-Atlantic population of black sea bass, a rebuilding plan instituted in 1996 brought fishing rates down from three times the sustainable level to below this mark, which led to a steady rebuilding of the fishery and full recovery by 2009.
"Fishers targeting black sea bass in the northeastern U.S. are finally reaping the rewards of harvest caps that allowed the population to rebuild," said co-author Olaf Jensen of the University of Wisconsin--Madison. "The 2020 catch limit of more than 6,000 tons is the highest since catch limits were first imposed more than 20 years ago."
This analysis omits fisheries that lack scientific estimates of population status, even though these account for a large amount of the world's catch. These include most of the fish populations in South Asia and Southeast Asia -- fisheries in India, Indonesia and China alone represent 30% to 40% of the world's catch, most of which is essentially unassessed. Although fisheries in these regions could not be included in the analyses, the paper's authors conclude that lessons learned can equally apply to data-limited fisheries: Greater investment in fisheries management systems is expected to lead to better outcomes for the fish populations upon which our fisheries are based.
###
A full list of paper co-authors is available in the paper. This research was funded by The Nature Conservancy, The Wildlife Conservation Society, the Walton Family Foundation and a consortium of Seattle fishing companies.
For more information, contact Melnychuk at mmel@uw.edu.
Trap gear used during fishing.
Michael Melnychuk/University of Washington
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
In a new study, Stanford researchers report that intensifying precipitation contributed one-third of the financial costs of flooding in the United States over the past three decades, totaling almost $75 billion of the estimated $199 billion in flood damages from 1988 to 2017.
The research, published Jan. 11 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, helps to resolve a long-standing debate about the role of climate change in the rising costs of flooding and provides new insight into the financial costs of global warming overall.
"The fact that extreme precipitation has been increasing and will likely increase in the future is well known, but what effect that has had on financial damages has been uncertain," said lead author Frances Davenport, a PhD student in Earth system science at Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). "Our analysis allows us to isolate how much of those changes in precipitation translate to changes in the cost of flooding, both now and in the future."
The global insurance company Munich Re calls flooding "the number-one natural peril in the U.S." However, although flooding is one of the most common, widespread and costly natural hazards, whether climate change has contributed to the rising financial costs of flooding - and if so, how much - has been a topic of debate, including in the most recent climate change assessments from the U.S. government and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
At the crux of that debate is the question of whether or not the increasing trend in the cost of flooding in the U.S. has been driven primarily by socioeconomic factors like population growth, housing development and increasing property values. Most previous research has focused either on very detailed case studies (for example, of individual disasters or long-term changes in individual states) or on correlations between precipitation and flood damages for the U.S. overall.
In an effort to close this gap, the researchers started with higher resolution climate and socioeconomic data. They then applied advanced methods from economics to quantify the relationship between historical precipitation variations and historical flooding costs, along with methods from statistics and climate science to evaluate the impact of changes in precipitation on total flooding costs. Together, these analyses revealed that climate change has contributed substantially to the growing cost of flooding in the U.S., and that exceeding the levels of global warming agreed upon in the United Nations Paris Agreement is very likely to lead to greater intensification of the kinds of extreme precipitation events that have been most costly and devastating in recent decades.
"Previous studies have analyzed pieces of this puzzle, but this is the first study to combine rigorous economic analysis of the historical relationships between climate and flooding costs with really careful extreme event analyses in both historical observations and global climate models, across the whole United States," said senior author and climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, the Kara J. Foundation Professor at Stanford Earth.
"By bringing all those pieces together, this framework provides a novel quantification not only of how much historical changes in precipitation have contributed to the costs of flooding, but also how greenhouse gases influence the kinds of precipitation events that cause the most damaging flooding events," Diffenbaugh added.
The researchers liken isolating the role of changing precipitation to other questions of cause and effect, such as determining how much an increase in minimum wage will affect local employment, or how many wins an individual player contributes to the overall success of a basketball team. In this case, the research team started by developing an economic model based on observed precipitation and monthly reports of flood damage, controlling for other factors that might affect flooding costs like increases in home values. They then calculated the change in extreme precipitation in each state over the study period. Finally, they used the model to calculate what the economic damages would have been if those changes in extreme precipitation had not occurred.
"This counterfactual analysis is similar to computing how many games the Los Angeles Lakers would have won, with and without the addition of LeBron James, holding all other players constant," said study co-author and economist Marshall Burke, an associate professor of Earth system science.
Applying this framework, the research team found that - when totaled across all the individual states - changes in precipitation accounted for 36 percent of the actual flooding costs that occurred in the U.S. from 1988 to 2017. The effect of changing precipitation was primarily driven by increases in extreme precipitation, which have been responsible for the largest share of flooding costs historically.
"What we find is that, even in states where the long-term mean precipitation hasn't changed, in most cases the wettest events have intensified, increasing the financial damages relative to what would have occurred without the changes in precipitation," said Davenport, who received a Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship in 2020.
The researchers emphasize that, by providing a new quantification of the scale of the financial costs of climate change, their findings have implications beyond flooding in the U.S.
"Accurately and comprehensively tallying the past and future costs of climate change is key to making good policy decisions," said Burke. "This work shows that past climate change has already cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars, just due to flood damages alone."
The authors envision their approach being applied to different natural hazards, to climate impacts in different sectors of the economy and to other regions of the globe to help understand the costs and benefits of climate adaptation and mitigation actions.
"That these results are as robust and definitive as they are really advances our understanding of the role of historical precipitation changes in the financial costs of flooding," Diffenbaugh said. "But, more broadly, the framework that we developed provides an objective basis for estimating what it will cost to adapt to continued climate change and the economic value of avoiding higher levels of global warming in the future."
###
Diffenbaugh is also the Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and an affiliate of the Precourt Institute for Energy. Burke is also deputy director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment and a fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute, the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.