The House Has Proposed An Excellent Broadband Bill. Telecom Lobbyists Will Make Sure It Never Passes.

Broadband

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

Mon, Mar 15th 2021 5:30am — Karl Bode

Last week the House unveiled (a previous version of this story incorrectly stated the bill had been passed) the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act. The bill, which died last year after Mitch McConnell's Senate refused to hold a vote on it, includes a lot of great things, including spending $94 billion on expanding broadband into underserved areas. There's a ton of other helpful things in the proposal, like boosting the definition of broadband to 100 Mbps down (and upstream), requiring "dig once" policies that deploy fiber conduit alongside any new highway bills, and even a provision requiring the FCC to create rules forcing ISPs be transparent about how much they actually charge for monthly service.

A summary (pdf) of the bill offers some additional detail, such as the fact the bill includes a mandate that the government (specifically the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth within the NTIA) more fully study the impact of affordability on broadband access. In the wake of allegations that the FCC's subsidy auction process is a corrupted and exploited mess, the law also lays down a lot of groundwork to make the subsidization of broadband access more transparent, equitable, and accountable to genuine oversight with an eye on affordability (instead of exclusively focusing on access, which is the DC norm):

"The section also establishes certain requirements for projects funded under the program, including offering broadband service that provides at least 100/100Mbps with sufficiently low latency, offering broadband service at prices that are comparable to, or lower than, the prices charged for comparable service, and offering an affordable service plan. All bidders must meet objective, transparent criteria upfront that demonstrates technical and operational capacity to implement winning projects."

There's several other common sense proposals in the bill, like giving schools and libraries more leeway to use E-Rate funding to help shore up broadband access during the pandemic. I remain nervous about throwing billions in additional subsidies at the industry when the government still can't accurately map where broadband is or isn't available. Many of the same folks who view subsidization as a silver bullet (Democrat and Republican alike) still can't even acknowledge that the two major contributors to US broadband sucking is monopolization, and state and federal corruption. Problems we seem intent on barely acknowledging, much less addressing.

Still, this is a genuinely good bill that includes a lot of common sense solutions for a problem that has taken on greater urgency during a public health crisis. Much like the last time the bill is likely to pass the House, then get blocked in the Senate. It seems unlikely this would win a straight 60 vote majority without demolishing the filibuster or burying it in some broader, much larger infrastructure bill, which seems increasingly possible.

For one thing, broadband monopolies will fight tooth and nail against any effort to increase the standard definition of broadband, just like the last few times the FCC has considered it. Sharing more data on pricing, and boosting the definition of broadband to symmetrical 100 Mbps will only highlight how feckless regulators and monopolization have muted competition, resulting in spotty coverage, high prices, and slow speeds. Make that data far more transparent and accessible, and somebody might just get the kooky idea to genuinely do something about it, and we can't have that.

There's several other things included in the bill that the telecom lobby will simply never allow, like a more competitive and transparent grant and subsidy process, which might (gasp) result in more federal funding going to smaller competitors. There's also some language that requires paying a competitive rate and not scuttling unionization efforts the industry (and its congressional BFFs) will never tolerate. I guess the Democrats assume that because Covid is adding historic pressure on lawmakers to do more about broadband, they can somehow get the GOP (and centrist Democrat) votes needed to push this across the finish line.

But that seems to ignore forty years of history showing that the GOP --and more than a few Democrats-- are opposed to absolutely anything that genuinely holds trusted intelligence partners like AT&T accountable, anything that brings transparency to advertising or pricing, anything that genuinely protects consumers from monopoly harms (be it privacy violations or net neutrality), or anything that even remotely risks hurting incumbent revenues and regional dominance by driving more competition to market. I don't see that suddenly changing here, though I'd love to be surprised.

NFT — Everything you need to know about non-fungible tokens
 By Malcolm Owen | Mar 14, 2021

The $69.3 million sale of digital artwork using non-fungible tokens — or NFT — has generated interest in the relatively new technology. Here's what you need to know about what the tokens are, and how they are being used to bring digital art sale dollars in line with paintings and sculptures.

On March 11, auction house Christie's sold a lot from artist Mike Winkelmann, known as "Beeple," for $69.3 million. As Christie's is a major auctioneer that deals with highly valuable art, this isn't out of the ordinary until you realize that the sale wasn't for a traditional artwork.

The sale of "Everydays - The First 5,000 Days" is claimed to be the first for a purely digital work of art via a major auction house. A collage of Beeple's daily digital art production, the work shows the artist's progression over multiple years, including changes in technique and style.

The auction winner was identified as "Metakovan," the anonymous chief financier of the NFT-centric fund Metapurse. For their $69 million, the winning bidder acquired the non-fungible token (NFT) linked to the artwork.

Beeple's art also earned the distinction of being the most expensive NFT ever sold, as well as the third-most-expensive artwork sold at auction by a living artist.

A portion of onlookers may be asking themselves what happened, and more importantly, what an NFT is in the first place.

What are non-fungible tokens

The work "token" in the phrase refers to a digital token, a cryptographic certificate for an object or item. Owning that token can infer ownership of something, be it one unit of a bitcoin or some other currency.


The "Non-Fungible" element refers to the token being completely unique and having properties that cannot be easily changed for another token that can be similar, but still different.

For example, a bitcoin is a fungible token as a person could sell one and buy another and it retains the same relative value of one bitcoin unit. More simply, if you change a $10 bill at a bank to two $5 bills, you still have $10 dollars on hand.

In the case of NFT, since the token is unique and there's generally only one available, it cannot be switched out with another of a comparable value.

This is the equivalent of having a magazine cover signed by Steve Jobs. Sure, you could trade with someone for another cover for the same magazine, but the one you would receive won't be the same as the one you traded away.

Since it's unique, there is no defined value to the NFT at all. While one bitcoin may be worth one unit of bitcoin or one dollar may always be worth one unit of dollars, the NFT can easily change in value and will always be priced based on other monetary systems, like dollars.

The ultimate value of an NFT can change over time, and in theory, become more valuable.

Blockchain keeps NFT unique and secure

People may be familiar with the term "blockchain," which is effectively a ledger of transactions.

For bitcoin and other digital currencies, the blockchain keeps track of token sales. This helps keep order in the digital currencies, as the log of transactions confirms the number of tokens in use, and potentially provides evidence of ownership to specific owners.

Due to the cryptographic nature of blockchains, any attempts to change one block will be spotted. This ultimately keeps blockchain secure.

In the case of NFT being associated with a blockchain, this can allow for parties to check the validity of the NFT. Typically this is built on top of one of the existing blockchains, such as Etherium.

The idea of an NFT can be applied in many different ways. For example, the sale of a ticket to an event could use an NFT for each ticket, which can help prevent it from being misused by others by keeping logs on the blockchain.

Digital artwork ownership: a problem is NFT trying to solve

While the sale of artwork has been a concept that has been around for centuries, it has pretty much existed only in the physical realm. Unlike a physical artwork sale where the original painting or sculpture can change hands, it is impossible to do the same thing with digital artwork.

Due to its very nature, it is relatively trivial to make an exact copy of digital artwork.

Though you can make prints based on a physical painting, the buyers of those prints know full well they aren't buying the original at all. This cannot be done with digital artwork using the original files, as those same files could easily be duplicated and sold again.

Since major art sales typically involve the original work, the last thing that a buyer wants is for the perceived value of their purchased artwork to be diminished. A second identical artwork lessens the value of the original as it's no longer unique.

NFT tries to work around that by effectively acting as a certificate of ownership for the artwork. While the digital artwork could be copied and distributed widely, there will only be one or a few valid NFTs that apply to the artwork.

Prints of the Mona Lisa may be hung up in frames around the world, but only one entity owns the real thing.

NFT "Ownership"

While the discussion of ownership is fairly straightforward for physical art pieces, the same cannot be said about NFTs. While the NFT infers the holder "owns" the artwork as presented, there's more to it than just that.

For a start, the NFT owner will be granted specific usage rights for the digital file from the artist, defining how it can be presented to the public, if at all. This can include limitations on venues where it can appear, or bans preventing it from being used in certain ways.

Artists may also elect to hold onto the ability to reproduce the artwork themselves despite selling the NFT, and can retain the ultimate copyright of the artwork too. It's even possible for the artist to earn a cut from a resale of an NFT beyond the original sale, depending on how the NFT is set up.

Furthermore, the ownership of an NFT may not necessarily translate to "ownership" of an entire work.

Logan Paul sold NFTs of Pokemon card images that included his face, and video stream highlights.

For example, YouTuber Logan Paul monetized a video stream where he unboxed Pokemon cards. Video clips of highlights were created, along with NFTs for each, and were sold off.

Each NFT would represent effective ownership of a specific video clip, but not the entire stream.

There's also the issue of uniqueness, as the artist doesn't have to create just one NFT. Instead, they could mint multiple unique tokens at the same time, with a limited number in circulation that won't be increased.

Using Logan Paul as an example again, he sold $504,990 in NFTs, which consisted of digital Pokemon cards using his likeness. The collection consisted of 945 "cards" with four levels of rarity.

Ultimately, buyers of NFTs through exchanges like Nifty Gateway or OpenSea receive an NFT they can store in a compatible cryptocurrency wallet, potentially an image or a copy of the digital file, and the knowledge that they "own" a creative asset.

Copyright and trust issues

Since NFTs can be generated based on practically anything digital, and that digital items can be easily copied, there's the potential for abuse. Specifically, there's nothing stopping anyone from creating their own NFT based on digital items generated by other people.

In one example reported by Decrypt on March 13, artist "Weird Undead" has found people stealing digital artworks from their tweets. The images were used to generate NFTs and were sold on an NFT marketplace, sales that the artist has tried to halt.

Weird Undead refers to the practice as "insane and pointless copyright infringement," one which only benefits the marketplaces and the people taking the images, not the artists themselves.

The practice isn't just limited to artworks. There have also been issues with people tokenizing tweets by others as NFTs and selling them. Again, the practice doesn't involve the person who wrote the original tweet, who would ultimately own the copyright for the text.

While it is entirely plausible for an artist or the creator of media to sue under existing trademark and copyright laws, the nature of how blockchain operates can make it difficult to find out who originally infringed to create the NFT.

There's also the problem of which marketplace to trust in the first place.

Multiple blockchain services could each claim they have records that a specific NFT is unique, and that they are the authority for the work. This is the equivalent of two auction houses claiming they are the venue of sale for a unique piece of art.

At this time, it seems that there is some cooperation between major marketplaces on the subject, though there is no guarantee things will stay that way in the future.

Add in that it is possible for people to set up their own marketplaces on blockchains, and it becomes harder to police the NFTs being put up for sale.

These are problems that will have to be addressed at some point, both to protect the livelihood of artists and to keep the sales of NFTs legal. For the moment, these problems haven't blunted the appetite for well-heeled buyers.

Why are NFTs popular?

The high-concept for using NFT is to provide a way for digital items to become sellable with ownership comparable to physical item sales. It accomplishes this by introducing a form of scarcity of ownership.

Just as there's only one original Mona Lisa that you can feasibly acquire, there are only one or a few NFTs for a digital artwork available to purchase.


As with ther areas where there's only so much of a resource available, people potentially see value in an item and may acquire it.

Beanie Babies were extremely sought after at one point.

This concept has surfaced countless times, with the rarity of items increasing their value over time, especially in areas where there are many things that could be collected. Examples include Beanie Babies, comic books, playing cards, and more famously, sneakers.

Naturally, this behavior can lead to enterprising individuals acquiring a commodity for future sale down the line. Much like art can be acquired as an investment, so can NFTs.

The difference here is that it effectively allows some ownership of a token connected to a work of digital art, an item that doesn't offer any guarantee of scarcity. This ownership, an effective certificate of ownership of digital art, is seemingly worth paying for by some people.

The value of an artwork is in the eye of the beholder, or realistically the eye of the market at large. If there is a perceived value, then that can translate into a transaction that gives the art actual value.

So far, it seems that NFT may be viable as an item for trade and retrade, and for profit, much like existing art.

An earlier NFT sale by Beeple for the artwork "Crossroad" fetched $66,666 originally. However, collector Pablo Rodriguez-Fraile sold it a few months later for $6.6 million.

Elsewhere, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey auctioned off his first tweet for $2.5 million. Companies are also capitalizing on the trend, with Taco Bell offering 25 NFT tokens, benefiting the Live Mas Scholarship.

Evidently, there is some value seen in NFT.

Given its flexibility and potential use on many different types of digital artworks and other content, it may be one that will stick around for quite some time. Its relative newness also makes it prime to grow, but only if its patrons continue to see future value in it.


NFT — Everything you need to know about non-fungible tokens | AppleInsider

ABBOTT DOES RON JOHNSON ONE BETTER

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott claims election reform bill passed by House could result in Democrats 'using cocaine to buy votes' through ballot harvesting

Abbott claimed Barack Obama knew of ballot harvesting during his presidency

Abbott's comments come in response to H.R.1 passing through the House

The bill, which would overhaul voting, has not been introduced in the Senate

The Texas governor also criticized border policies of the Biden administration

By HOLDEN WALTER-WARNER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 14 March 2021 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott fears Democrats could use 'cocaine to buy votes' if an election overhaul bill passed along party lines in the U.S. House were to become law.

While appearing on Fox News, Abbott said the bill would 'institutionalize voter fraud in the United States of America.'

Abbott was responding to the passage of H.R.1, which made it through the House of Representatives with only Democratic support on March 3.

The bill has not been introduced in the Senate yet, which is split evenly along Republicans and caucusing Democrats, with Vice President Kamala Harris holding a tiebreaking vote.

Abbott relayed a story from his time as attorney general of Texas that involved what he said was the buying of votes.



Texas Gov. Greg Abbott appeared on Fox News on Sunday morning, where he claimed an election reform bill would allow the use of 'cocaine to buy votes'

'It was Barack Obama himself who knew about the dangers of ballot harvesting in the state of Texas,' Abbott said.

'Because under his administration, he sent his U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas as well as the FBI to south Texas to arrest and to prosecute people who were involved in ballot harvesting that were using cocaine to buy votes through the ballot harvesting process in the state of Texas.

Ballot harvesting is when a third-party is allowed to drop off a mail-in ballot on behalf of another individual.

Abbott didn't relay any additional details of the alleged harvesting.

'It is a way to commit voter fraud and it cannot be allowed,' he said

Maria Bartiromo, who was interviewing Abbott, called the story 'absolutely extraordinary.'

Abbott said H.R.1 would 'institutionalize voter fraud in the United States of America'

H.R.1 includes several voting rights efforts that have largely been rejected by Republican politicians, including the expansion of mail-in balloting.

It would also make Election Day a federal holiday across the United States.

Mail-in voting was a central target of Donald Trump's accusations of voting fraud during the 2020 presidential election, despite a lack of evidence tying fraud to mail-in voting, which was expanded due to the coronavirus pandemic.


Abbott claimed Barack Obama was aware of ballot harvesting in Texas during his presidency

A poll by Data For Progress shows that 67 percent of Americans are in favor of passing H.R.1.

That includes 77 percent Democratic support and 56 percent Republican support.

Biden has already signed an executive order to expand access to voter registration, improve ballot tracking for those overseas, and make certain provisions for jailed voters and citizens with disabilities.

According to Fox News, Biden said he will sign H.R.1 if it makes it past the Senate.

Abbott's reference to cocaine related to his argument against 'open border policies' supported by President Joe Biden.

H.R.1, which has passed the House of Representatives but hasn't been introduced in the Senate, would reform voting laws in the US, including the expansion of mail-in balloting

'The Border Patrol officers told me that the Biden administration and policies, they are enriching, they are empowering the drug cartels in Mexico who make money off of the people that they assist in smuggling into the state of Texas,' Abbott said during the interview.

Abbott has launched Operation Lone Star, which puts National Guard troops and Texas Department of Public Safety officers on the border to prevent further migrant smuggling.

Abbott also accused the Biden administration of failing to disclose the number of migrants at the border who have tested positive for COVID-19.

'We expect that data and we expect the Biden administration to step up and assist the state of Texas in being able to respond to that imported challenge, imported only because of the change in policies by the Biden administration,' Abbott stated

Fortescue sees green revolution, pushes for net zero emissions by 2030

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Australia’s Fortescue Metals Group, the world’s fourth-largest iron ore miner, has set an ambitious plan to become carbon neutral by 2030, bringing forward the target by 10 years as it aims to start producing green hydrogen as soon as 2023.


FILE PHOTO: The logo of Australia's Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) can be seen on a bulk carrier as it is loaded with iron ore at the coastal town of Port Hedland in Western Australia, November 29, 2018. Picture taken November 29, 2018. REUTERS/Melanie Burton/File Photo

Fortescue Chairman Andrew Forrest predicted the world’s conversion to green energy and green products would occur “almost violently” compared to most forecasts, which assumed hydrogen produced from renewable energy would only become commercially viable in the 2030s.

“As of today’s announcement, all those calculations will have to change,” Forrest told reporters in a media call on Monday.

Fortescue gave no cost estimate for achieving its goal and said it was still working to calculate how much hydrogen it would need to meet the carbon neutral target. Forrest said the company would only use carbon offsets as a last resort to help meet the goal.

“Fortescue is now firmly leading corporate Australia with this commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2030, without reliance on offsets,” the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility said in a statement.

“However, the commitment has not set a target for the Scope 3 emissions from steel production, which is easily the largest part of its carbon footprint.”

Unlike its peers, Fortescue does not disclose estimates of customer emissions, so-called scope 3, arguing that would be double counting under the United Nations framework, which mandates nations take responsibility for emissions within their borders.

Fortescue Future Industries aims to produce green hydrogen and green ammonia which would help it replace 1 billion litres a year of diesel at the miner’s own operations while also creating clean fuel alternatives for others, including steel makers who use metallurgical coal.

“I don’t think there’ll be a coal-fired blast furnace in operation by 2050, period,” Forrest told reporters.


Green hydrogen is a zero-carbon fuel made by using renewable power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. It is increasingly promoted as a way to decarbonise emissions-intensive heavy industry and long haul transport.

The announcement comes as peers Rio Tinto and BHP Group step up their drive towards renewable energy, and investors increasingly press firms to disclose, track and meet emissions targets.

Fortescue said it would incorporate carbon emission targets into its short- and long-term pay incentives across the company.


Reporting by Shashwat Awasthi in Bengaluru; Additional reporting by Sonali Paul and Melanie Burton in Melbourne; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and Jacqueline Wong

PERMANENT ARM$ ECONOMY

SIPRI: Saudi Arabia largest importer of arms, US biggest exporter

Over a third of the global weapons sold worldwide during the past five years came from the United States. About half of US arms transfers went to the Middle East



About 50% of weapons sold by the US went to the Middle East


The US accounted for 37% of global arms sales during the 2016-2020 period and sold arms to 96 countries. Almost half of its sales went to the Middle East, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said in a report on Monday. US exports increased 15% compared to the 2011-2015 period.

International deliveries of arms were flat in the period 2016-2020, ending more than a decade of increases, SIPRI said. It was the first time since 2001–2005 that the volume of deliveries of major arms between countries — an indicator of demand — did not increase from the previous five-year period.

The United States, France and Germany — three of the world's biggest exporters — increased deliveries but falls in exports from Russian and China offset the rise, SIPRI said.

Russia is the world's second-largest arms exporter, while France stood third, according to the report. Russia's sales were dented by a drop in imports from India.

Saudi Arabia tops as largest importer

Middle Eastern countries accounted for the biggest increase in arms imports, up 25% in 2016–20 from 2011–15.

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest arms importer, increased its arms imports by 61% and Qatar by 361%.

The United Arab Emirates recently signed an agreement with the United States to purchase 50 F-35 jets and up to 18 armed drones as part of a $23 billion package.

Asia and Oceania were the largest importing regions for major arms, receiving 42% of global arms transfers in 2016–20. India, Australia, China, South Korea and Pakistan were the biggest importers in the region.

"For many states in Asia and Oceania, a growing perception of China as a threat is the main driver for arms imports," said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher at SIPRI.

COVID impact too early to tell

SIPRI said that it was too early to tell whether a recession stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic could slow down arms deliveries.

"The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic could see some countries reassessing their arms imports in the coming years. However, at the same time, even at the height of the pandemic in 2020, several countries signed large contracts for major arms," said Wezeman.

am/sri (dpa, Reuters)

Global Arms Trade Plateauing Amid COVID-19 as Sales Gap Between US, Russia Widens – SIPRI

 

Global Arms Trade Plateauing Amid COVID-19 as Sales Gap Between US, Russia Widens – SIPRI

Lance Cpl. Juanenrique Owings

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE

06:13 GMT 15.03.2021Get short URL

by Igor Kuznetsov

 

Substantial increases in arms sales by three of the top five exporters (the US, France, and Germany) were largely offset by declining Russian and Chinese exports, as the COVID pandemic is yet to take its economic toll on nations and affect their arms procurements.

International trade in major arms has levelled off over the past two five-year periods, with the exception of the Middle East, where there has been a sharp increase, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI has said in a fresh report.

Nevertheless, global arms trade has remained close to the highest level since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Whether there has been a break in trends on the global arms market, SIPRI's researchers are still hesitant to say.

"It is too early to say whether the rapid growth of arms transfers in the last two decades is over, Pieter Wezeman of SIPRI's research programme for weapons and military spending in the city of Solna, told national broadcaster SVT.

SIPRI, however, did not rule out the coronavirus pandemic possibly affecting the statistics for an entire five-year period.

"The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may, for example, cause some countries to re-evaluate their arms imports in the coming years. At the same time, however, several countries have signed major arms contracts in the midst of a burning pandemic", Wezeman said.

With 96 client states, the US remains the world's largest arms exporter, increasing its global share of arms exports from 32 to 37 percent. Almost half (47 percent) of US arms transfers went to the Middle East. Substantial increases in transfers by three of the top five arms exporters (the US, France, and Germany) were largely offset by declining Russian and Chinese arms exports, SIPRI noted.

One major outlier is the Middle East, which clearly went against the trend and greatly increased its arms procurements by 25 percent during the same period. The spike is mostly due to major acquisitions by Saudi Arabia (up by 61 percent), Egypt (up by 136 percent) and Qatar (up by 361 percent).

"Ongoing wars in Yemen and Libya, rivalries between countries in the Gulf region, threats against Iran, and rising tensions over oil and gas reserves in the Mediterranean are important drivers of demand for weapons in the region", Pieter Wezeman commented.

Based in the Swedish capital, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute was founded in 1966 to provide data, analysis, and recommendations for armed conflict, military expenditures, and arms trade as well as disarmament and arms control. Their research is based on open sources and is directed at decisionmakers, researchers, the media, and the public.

To avoid statistical glitches, the researchers compare five-year stretches. This model has been in use since 1981, when the superpowers were locked in the Cold War and armed themselves to unprecedented levels.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Pakistan: Conspiracy theories hamper COVID vaccine drive

Pakistan is aiming to vaccinate 70% of its population by the end of this year, but conspiracy theories, myths and disinformation are impeding the mass inoculation drive.



Experts urge the government to counter misinformation about COVID vaccines

The Pakistani government launched its COVID-19 vaccination drive in February, starting with frontline health workers. After successfully inoculating 37,289 by mid-February, the authorities started registering other civilian groups.

The government hopes the COVID vaccine will be able to contain the spread of the coronavirus, but not everyone is willing to get a shot.

Conspiracy theories related to the vaccine abound in the Muslim-majority country. According to a report published by Gallup Pakistan, 49% of the population is reluctant to get vaccinated even if the vaccine is offered free of cost.

Experts say that misinformation and religious beliefs are responsible for people's mistrust of the vaccine.

Pakistan, a country of 220 million people, has so far recorded over 600,000 coronavirus cases and 13,430 related deaths.

Myths and misinformation

Many people in the country believe the pandemic does not exist. Rumors are also rife that Western countries want to insert a "surveillance microchip" in the human body through vaccine shots.

Watch video 01:33 Coronavirus: Anti-vaxxers pose major public health threat in Pakistan

Salman, who drives a cab in Karachi, told DW he doesn't trust the vaccine. The mass vaccination drive could be an attempt by global powers to spy on the world population, he said. He is also concerned about the vaccine's side-effects.

"Who knows what the vaccine can do to our bodies? It may even alter our DNA," the 30-year-old said of thedebunked claim.

Some Pakistanis say the vaccine is "haram" (forbidden in Islam) due to false claims it contains pig gelatin and human fetus tissues.

The main source of misinformation about COVID vaccines is WhatsApp, which is used by 39% of the country's population. Unsubstantiated claims about vaccines are also circulating on YouTube and Facebook.

Naila Tariq, a professor of pathology at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Hospital in Karachi, says the misinformation on social media poses a challenge to health officials in educating people about the vaccines.

Vaccine politics

Pakistan so far has secured 17 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. The country has also approved China's Sinopharm and Russia's Sputnik V vaccines.

"Some people are skeptical of the Sinopharm vaccine because it is made in China. Some don't want the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, as it is being manufactured in India," Tariq told DW.

Zoraiz Raiz, the founder of Corona Recovered Warriors, a group that coordinates plasma donations for COVID-19, said Pakistan's geopolitical relations also play an important role in the people's perception of the vaccines.

Watch video12:06 COVID-19 Special: Spreading conspiracy theories

"Pakistan doesn't have good relations with most of its neighbors, especially India, whereas cultural differences with China play a role in disinformation campaigns," he told DW.

Noor Baig, who works at the Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi, says that even educated people in the country believe in vaccine myths. "Everyone is exposed to media. When educated people search for information about COVID vaccines on the internet, they come across false studies and become misguided," he told DW.

The medical expert believes it is the responsibility of politicians and religious leaders to dispel myths about COVID vaccines and educate people about its safety and efficacy.

"If politicians and religious leaders spread misinformation about the vaccine on media and say it is a plot against humanity, people will hesitate to get vaccinated," Baig asserted.

Dr. Tariq urges the government to take steps to counter misinformation about COVID vaccines. Health experts also say that authorities should coordinate their awareness-raising efforts with the international community and the World Health Organization.

The story behind Albert Einstein's most iconic photo

It’s been 70 years since the genius physicist stuck out his tongue at pesky reporters. The photo turned him into an icon. But what's the story behind it?
The photo of Einstein sticking out his tongue is world-famous

It was March 14, 1951, the day Albert Einstein turned 72. The famous physicist, who was born in Ulm, Germany, had already been living in the United States for many years. At the time, he was working at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. A birthday celebration was held in his honor at the research center.

The paparazzi were lurking outside the venue when he left, hoping to hear one of the world-famous professor's witty quips about the global political situation — and to take the perfect birthday photo.

Not a fan of media hype, and growing weary of being a spokesperson, Einsteinwas annoyed by their presence. Yet there he was, stuck in the back seat of a limousine, sandwiched between the institute's former director, Frank Aydelotte, and his wife, Marie, unable to escape the flashing bulbs. "Enough is enough..." he is said to have repeatedly shouted at the pushy reporters. "Hey, Professor, smile for a birthday photo, please," one shouts.

In a gesture of annoyance, the unconventional free spirit stuck his tongue out at his pursuers — a moment that was captured by photographer Arthur Sasse. The picture quickly circulated around the world, becoming an iconic image.

The image elevated Einstein to pop icon status

A famous snapshot

The absent-minded professor with disheveled hair, who often forgot to put on socks, yet whose theory of relativity is still understood by only the world's most brilliant minds, was elevated to a mythical figure during the course of his own life. The cheeky snapshot also earned him pop icon status.

The iconic photo has been reproduced frequently, as shown here on an Easter egg

However, it was not the photographer who helped the photo achieve worldwide fame, but Einstein himself. He ordered numerous prints and cropped it so the Aydelotte couple could no longer be seen. He sent dozens of the photos to colleagues, friends and acquaintances. "The outstretched tongue reflects my political views," he wrote to his friend Johanna Fantova. In 2009, an original signed copy was sold for $74,324 (€62,677) at auction, making it the most expensive photo of the genius ever.
Einstein on human stupidity

Einstein, who was Jewish, had fled Nazi Germany and knew what it felt like to be the subject of a government-led witch hunt. Thus, he did not condone the Cold War and the search for alleged communists instigated by Senator Joseph McCarthy, in which many politicians, intellectuals and artists were accused of being "un-American." 

The photo was even reproduced in a corn field in Germany, as seen here

Einstein had a lot to say about such human stupidity: "The ruling of the dumb people can't be overcome because there are so many of them, and their voice counts as much as ours" reads an Einstein quote translated from German. "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. But I'm not quite sure about the universe yet," goes another of the professor's quips.

Einstein met this stupidity with genius — and a dash of humor.

Since it was taken on Einstein's birthday in 1951, the photo of him sticking out his tongue has been reproduced millions of times: on posters and t-shirts, greeting cards, mugs and murals. And even today, decades after his death, the revolutionary thinker and genius professor still has numerous fans, from young to old.

This article was translated from German by Sarah Hucal.

Monthly Review | Why Socialism? BY ALBERT EINSTEIN

Million-tree mission hopes to fix reforestation flaws

Mika Vanhanen has overseen the planting of 30 million trees across the globe via a network of 10,000 schools he recruited over two decades

 Alessandro RAMPAZZO AFP/File
Issued on: 15/03/2021 - 
Joensuu (Finland) (AFP)

It's an environmental policy embraced by heads of state, multinational businesses and even leading climate sceptic Donald Trump: plant more trees to help the planet and slow global warming.

But experts claim some recent mass tree-planting schemes have failed to reduce greenhouse gases when not done properly, and even harmed the environment.

Now a pair of Finnish environmentalists believe they have created a reforestation initiative that will avoid these problems and allow for millions of new trees every year, tracked by a smartphone app.



Former schoolteacher Mika Vanhanen has overseen the planting of 30 million trees across the globe via a network of 10,000 schools, the result of two decades work.

But "some of the trees died because we didn't have the resources to care for them", Vanhanen, founder of tree-planting charity ENO, told AFP in his hometown of Joensuu, eastern Finland.

Last year Turkey's forestry trade union said almost all of the 11 million trees planted during the country's National Forestation Day in 2019 had died after just a few months.

And in Chile, a study found landowners were taking advantage of financial tree-planting incentives by cutting down established, carbon-absorbing forests and replacing them with new ones.

- 25-year tree care -

So last year Vanhanen teamed up with "environmental technology" expert Pekka Harju-Autti to launch an innovative model for large-scale tree-planting with the emphasis on sustainability.

Their "TreeBuddy" scheme invites businesses and individuals to "buy" one or more trees, for instance as a gift to customers, employees or friends.

But unlike other initiatives, the consumer also pays for the upkeep of the tree for up to 25 years.

"When they plant a tree, locals take a photo which is geo-positioned and get one euro for the community. After one year ... they make a status update of the tree with another photo and they get again one euro, the same after five years and 10 years and so on," Harju-Autti told AFP.

The euro covers upkeep during the year, with care ranging from watering to, in Tibet for example, protecting the trees from yaks and wild horses.

A smartphone app enables users to keep track of their own "virtual forest", but most importantly the maintenance payments incentivise communities to keep their forests alive, Harju-Autti said.

CLICK ON TO ENLARGE

This map shows the total land available that can support trees across the globe (total of current forested areas and forest cover potential available for restoration). Credit: ETH Zurich/Crowther Lab

- Millions a year -

With each community seeing 7,000 to 10,000 trees planted, the sums add up over time.

"One reason the Amazon is burning is that locals do not always feel they get economic benefits from their forests, so some not-so-wise decisions are made."

So far TreeBuddy has seen 30,000 trees planted in the Philippines, Tibet and India, and has secured investment to scale up to "millions a year" in the near future, across Asia, Africa and the Americas.

Vanhanen and Harju-Autti say that because they already have a relationship with their 10,000 tree-planting communities around the globe, the scheme should also avoid problems such as introducing non-native species or damage to the existing ecosystem.

In January, a British study set out 10 'golden rules' of tree-planting to avoid the failures of some large-scale schemes, including for local people to be at the heart of projects and for the natural regrowth of forest to be prioritised wherever possible.

"We are getting questions from tree-planting organisations all over the world that would like to adopt the TreeBuddy model," Harju-Autti said, adding that he expects the focus to move away from planting towards "giving locals their fair share for efforts to preserve their trees".

This map shows the land available for forest restoration (excluding deserts, agricultural and urban areas; current forestland not shown). Credit: ETH Zurich/Crowther Lab

VIDEO AND MAPS FROM:

The Weather Network - Planting billions of trees could help save the climate, study finds

FILM

Wolfgang Petersen, director of 'The NeverEnding Story' and 'Das Boot,' at 80

He's one of the most successful German filmmakers in Hollywood. Wolfgang Petersen's "Outbreak" also gained renewed popularity during the pandemic.

11 FILMS BY GERMAN DIRECTOR WOLFGANG PETERSEN

Overwhelming success: 'Das Boot'

Wolfgang Petersen's war epic "Das Boot" was a spectacular movie success in the 1980s — first in Germany, and then in the US. Moviegoers got a strong adrenaline rush through this claustrophobic German submarine mission set in 1941 in the Atlantic Ocean. The film was nominated for six Oscars.

1234567891011

When the COVID-10 pandemic broke out a year ago, many people turned to movies depicting the outbreak of a mysterious, deadly illness.

Wolfgang Petersen's Outbreak from 1995 was one of those titles that suddenly reappeared on the list of most-watched movies, ranking for instance as the fourth most popular film on Netflix in the US on March 13, 2020. Featuring an all-star cast, including Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman and Donald Sutherland, the medical disaster film was packed with action, helicopter chases and explosions.

But things turned out to be comparatively quiet in real life; the film director who was born on March 14, 1941 in the seaport city of Emdem, in north-western Germany, spent the past year mostly isolated in his Los Angeles home.

Vaccinated against COVID-19 shortly before his 80th birthday, he now feels "really free," he told German press agency dpa, describing the experience of getting the shots as an "amazing" one. He was among the people vaccinated at the Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, a vaccine super site, with 12,000 cars driving through every day and passengers getting vaccinated without even leaving their vehicle.

 

An unknown deadly illness hits the fictional small town of Cedar Creek in California: Here, Rene Russo in 'Outbreak'

The director of cult films 'Das Boot' and 'The NeverEnding Story'

Wolfgang Petersen's films combine solid skills with art — at least often enough to secure the northern German filmmaker a place of honor among Hollywood's foreign directors.

No other German director, apart from Roland Emmerich, has worked so successfully in the US since the end of World War II.

It all began with television, where Petersen learned the trade. At some point producers realized that the friendly young director held more promise than simply creating solid TV fare — and asked whether Petersen might be interested in filming the lengthy war novel Das Boot by Lothar-Günther Buchheim. He said yes, and the rest is history: Das Boot was a huge success at home and abroad when it was released in 1981. The German film was even nominated for six Oscars.

In 1984, Peterson completed his next film, The NeverEnding Story — the most expensive film in German film history back then — back home in Germany. Just a year later, he was already working for an American studio, albeit in a film studio in Munich, where he shot the sci-fi film Enemy Mine.
Working with the Hollywood greats

Petersen's first real Hollywood movie was Shattered, in 1991. But it was In the Line of Fire two years later, a movie starring Clint Eastwood as a secret service agent, that made a difference.

Top US film stars including Dustin Hoffman, Harrison Ford, Glenn Close, George Clooney, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt followed Petersen's direction over the following years. He had gained the reputation of being a reliable worker and a compassionate colleague.

Petersen never made a secret of his enthusiasm for the US. He explained it probably went back to the post-war era, when Germans were so fed up and demoralized by everything that had happened during WWII. In contrast, "These Americans on their ships, well-fed and laughing, were a salvation," he once said. For him, the Americans were "representatives of a better world, rich, powerful and friendly."

"That was deeply engrained in me," he added — a gratitude still noticeable many decades after the war in his patriotic US film Air Force One.

Petersen's last Hollywood film was the 2016 Poseidon. A decade later, he returned to Germany to direct the crime comedy Vier gegen die Bank (Four Against the Bank), starring four of Germany's most popular actors, Til Schweiger, Matthias Schweighöfer, Michael "Bully" Herbig and Jan Josef Liefers.

Not planning on retiring any time soon, the 80-year-old filmmaker still has projects up his sleeve. He told dpa that the film he is now working on is a love story between a KGB agent and a young East German woman, set shortly before the Berlin Wall was built and based on a true story. While the production was interrupted because of the pandemic, Petersen hopes to get to shoot the film, with scenes set in Germany, Moscow and the Ukraine, during the summer of 2022.

Opinion: After Fukushima, Germany must avoid nuclear energy

Ten years ago, Chancellor Angela Merkel decided unilaterally to dismantle all of the nuclear plants in Germany. Nobody has ever seriously questioned the decision, DW's Jens Thurau writes.



Germany has always had a very active anti-nuclear energy movement

According to the story from Berlin, on March 11, 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel was in her office when alarming news started trickling in from Japan. She saw the devastating images of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster in Fukushimaand did something that she had rarely done in all her years in power.

Jens Thurau

Having built a reputation for always seeking consensus, she decided on her own to put an end to nuclear energy in Germany. Against the wishes of her party, to the horror of the energy sector and her party's liberal coalition party. Just like that.

At the time, there were 17 nuclear power stations in operation in Germany. Today there are six. The plan is for there to be none by the end of 2022.

Nuclear energy in Germany will soon be a thing of the past and it's hard to imagine that this might change in future. Younger generations might find it difficult to appreciate the heated debates there have been over this technical possibility for producing energy.

An infographic shows the status of nuclear plants around the world

Energy transition begins

Just a few months before the Fukushima disaster, Merkel's coalition government had decided to delay a decision to phase out nuclear energy in Germany by extending the lifespan of the country's reactors. So, the chancellor's announcement to put a moratorium on this extension and eventually close down all the reactors in the country marked an abrupt change of direction.

Germany embarked on a major transition toward lower-carbon and more environmentally sound energy. The idea was to develop wind and solar energy and to start phasing out coal as well. Ten years later, the transition is slow, with many feuding stakeholders involved, driven by international promises to be carbon-neutral by 2050.

It is surprising that there has never been a debate to call into question the decision to go ahead with this transition. Other countries reacted very differently to the nuclear disaster in Japan. France, the US and China continue to operate aging nuclear reactors. New reactors are very expensive and hard to impose on populations, at least in democracies.

But Germany has always had a very active anti-nuclear energy movement. For decades, activists campaigned against the building of a repository for nuclear waste in Gorleben in Lower Saxony and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 also shocked Germany. Fukushima was the final straw. Merkel knew this.

The country is now looking for another site to build a nuclear waste facility. Only in the middle of the century will the radioactive waste from nuclear reactors, which is sometimes stored in the plants themselves, disappear into the earth forever. At least, that's what those in charge hope. The former Asse salt mine where low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste has been stored for years is one of the most impressive and expensive sites of its type in the world.


An infographic shows the prognosis for energy costs using various technologies by 2030

A nuclear-free Germany

The few advocates of nuclear energy who remain keep saying that an industrial nation such as Germany will not meet the ambitious international climate goals with wind and solar energy alone. They argue that new nuclear reactors will be necessary. However, there is not much to justify such arguments: Nuclear plants are expensive, they require inordinate amounts of water for cooling, and they are monsters in an energy landscape that is becoming increasingly decentralized, particularly in poorer countries.

Anyone who has visited the site of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and experienced the oppressive silence in the death zone around the damaged reactor and in the nearby city of Pripyat in northern Ukraine, once home to 50,000 people, might draw the conclusion that Merkel's decision 10 years ago was right. The German chancellor was acting on political instinct. She never got involved in the heated ideological debates about nuclear energy but simply stated coolly that the stakes and costs of "carrying on” like before were too high.

Merkel understood that the population did not want the nuclear plants. This remains the case 10 years after Fukushim