Home Blog Page 71571

Drugi dzień EU LCS w Polsat Sport News: Jak zagrają debiutanci?

0

NewsHubSpotkanie pomiędzy Misfits a GIANTS zapowiada się stosunkowo jednostronnie, a dość zdecydowanym faworytem zdaje się być ten pierwszy zespół. Czy jednak na pewno? Misfits na pewno dysponuje ogromnym potencjałem i silniejszym składem, który po udanych barażach o awans do EU LCS wzmocnił jeszcze koreański dżungler KaKaO. W zespole jest jednak sporo niewiadomych związanych przede wszystkim z postawą debiutantów, a tych w rostrze Misfits nie brakuje. Alphari, Hans sama, IgNar – czy młodzi zawodnicy potwierdzą swoje aspiracje dołączenia do europejskiej czołówki? To będzie dla nich świetne przetarcie, ponieważ na niekorzyść GIANTS działają kłopoty, których formacja doświadczyła podczas okresu przygotowawczego. Dwójka zawodników tej ekipy (Memento, HeaQ) grała bowiem w kwalifikacjach do Challenger Series, co praktycznie wyklucza odpowiednie przygotowanie się do pierwszych tygodni zmagań w EU LCS. Można więc spodziewać się bardzo przeciętnego otwarcia ze strony uczestników letnich play-offów 2016. Ponadto także skład ekipy nie wygląda na zbyt silny. W tej ekipie zobaczymy bowiem najnowsze nabytki EU LCS – HeaQ i Flaxxisha oraz byłego spadkowicza z najwyższej klasy rozgrywkowej – Memento. Warto natomiast obserwować midlanera NighT’a, który ma za sobą bardzo udane lato i jest zdecydowanie najsilniejszym punktem GIANTS.
Misfits vs GIANTS – godz. 17:00
Tymczasem około 20 w narożnikach staną piątki Unicorns of Love i Team Vitality, które zmierzą się w arcyciekawym pojedynku. Obydwa zespoły mają za sobą problemy na ostatniej prostej przygotowań do startu splitu. Unicorns of Love zostało zmuszone do zmiany strzelca, bowiem Veritas wrócił do Korei, a zatrudniony na ostatnią chwilę weteran Samux nie jest graczem, którego spodziewaliśmy się na poziomie EU LCS. Także obsada dżungli może prowadzić do pytań – jak w cyklu odnajdzie się utalentowany młokos Xerxe? W składzie pozostał jednak szkielet złożony z Exileha, Hylissanga i Viziscacsi’ego i UoL przez wielu typowany jest na czarnego konia wiosennego splitu. Czy słusznie? Po drugiej stronie barykady zobaczymy natomiast zespół Team Vitality, który bardzo późno zdecydował się na zatrudnienie dżunglera – a raczej dżunglerów. Pozycja podstawowego leśnika, Djoko, jest bowiem stosunkowo słaba i Francuz cały czas będzie naciskany przez byłego midlanera NRG eSports – GBM-a. Warto zauważyć, że na początku splitu mogą być też odczuwalne problemy komunikacyjne na linii Hachani-reszta zespołu. Nie ulega wątpliwości, że nicki Steelbacka, Hachani’ego, Cabocharda czy w mniejszym stopniu Nukeducka budzą respekt, ale czy gwiazdorski roster spełni pokładane w nim nadzieje?
Unicorns of Love vs Team Vitality – ok. godz. 20:00

Similarity rank: 0.1
Sentiment rank: 0.7

© Source: http://www.polsatsport.pl/wiadomosc/2017-01-20/drugi-dzien-eu-lcs-w-polsat-sport-news-jak-zagraja-debiutanci/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

NASA Scientists Begin Six-Month Stay On Simulated Mars

0

NewsHubSix NASA-funded scientists are about to begin six months of simulated life on the Red Planet.
They’ll live not on Mars, but in a tiny dome simulator in Hawaii that’s just 36 feet wide and 20 feet tall, designed to closely simulate the Red Planet’s conditions. The mission is partially intended to see if the crew can tolerate one another in a cramped space for such an extended period of time.
“We’re hoping to figure out how best to select individual astronauts, how to compose a crew and how to support that crew on long-duration space missions,” Dr. Kim Binstead, a University of Hawaii science professor and the project’s principle investigator, said in a press statement. “Right now, all of our eggs for life are in one basket. I think it’s a good overall strategy for us as a species to spread out further.”
The scientists will wear devices around their necks to measure their moods and proximity to other team members.
They will also wear space suits whenever they leave the compound to conduct daily tasks including geological and mapping studies, and will otherwise have no physical contact with the outside world. The team will even have an artificial 20-minute delay in communications, the time it would take for an email to reach Earth from Mars.
“I can give you my personal impression which is that a mission to Mars in the close future is realistic. I think the technological and psychological obstacles can be overcome,” Cyprien Verseux, a French astrobiologist who served in a previous Mars dome experiment, told Phys.org.
The Hawaiian Mars simulation is almost unique because of its remote accessibility, Mars-like weather and geography, and proximity to the summit of the world’s largest active volcano.
NASA spent $1.2 million on the previous dome study run through the University of Hawaii. The simulation was the second-longest of its kind next to a mission that lasted 520 days in Russia. NASA plans to conduct three similar experiments in the near future. The space agency estimates that an actually manned Mars mission would take between one and three years to carry out.
NASA currently plans to send real astronauts to Mars in 2030. The total costs of current plans to send Americans to Mars comes out to roughly $35 billion spent by 2025 to arrive in 2030. America is currently better prepared to visit Mars than it was to visit the Moon in the 1960s, according to a study by NASA’s Johnson Space Center. The rocket intended to take American astronauts to Mars in 2030 passed its final full-scale tests in late June.
NASA already has plans to put a large manned space station in orbit above Mars by 2028. The station will remotely operate rovers, analyze samples off dirt and rock and even make short trips to Mars’s two moons.
Follow Andrew on Twitter
Send tips to andrew@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Similarity rank: 3.2
Sentiment rank: 2.4

© Source: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/19/nasa-scientists-begin-six-month-stay-on-simulated-mars/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Hong Kong: Twenty years later

0

NewsHubThis year marks the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover from the UK to China. The BBC’s Helier Cheung, who sang in the handover ceremony, shares her personal reflections on the last two decades.
As a child, you don’t always appreciate when you’re witnessing history.
On 1 July 1997, I was part of the choir singing in the handover, in front of China’s leaders and millions of viewers around the world.
It was a historic day. But I was nine at the time, so my most vivid memories were:
All of us in the choir had grown up speaking Cantonese. So singing in Mandarin felt both familiar and unfamiliar – it signified a culture we recognised, but did not grow up with.
There were lots of dancers with pink fans, and I remember China’s then-President Jiang Zemin holding up a piece of calligraphy that read “Hong Kong’s tomorrow will be better”.
But that night, I saw on TV that some had been protesting against the handover. It was one of my first lessons about Hong Kong’s divisions – some were happy to be part of China again, but others were afraid.
I didn’t always follow politics then, but politics still affected me. Some of my friends emigrated ahead of the handover, because their parents weren’t sure about life under China.
And 1997 was also the start of the Asian financial crisis, so I overheard adults talking about stock market crashes, and suicides.
As a child, it was more comforting to be oblivious about the news.
Even as my friends and I went to secondary school, we rarely thought about developments in mainland China – we were teenagers after all.
This all changed in 2003. Hong Kong was hit by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) which travelled over from southern China.
Suddenly whole buildings were being quarantined. School was cancelled – shortly before our exams – as well as our junior high ball.
To some, it almost seemed unfair – the virus had spread here after officials in mainland China covered up the outbreak.
Yet Hong Kong, which handled the outbreak more transparently, was the focus of a lot of international coverage, and was the city with the most deaths – nearly 300.
My friends and I became more pragmatic. We did everything we were told to – wearing face masks, disinfecting our hands and taking our temperatures before school each day.
But we kept meeting up in McDonald’s after class, as we always did. One friend told me: “If you die, you die, there’s nothing you can do. You just need to do the best you can. ”
By summertime, Hong Kong was Sars-free. But another crisis, this time political, was rumbling.
The government wanted to introduce national security legislation, known as Article 23.
It would have outlawed treason, secession and sedition – words I had to look up – and allowed our government to outlaw groups banned in mainland China.
The bill struck a nerve. Although many countries outlaw treason and secession, to many Hong Kongers it reminded them too much of mainland China.
On 1 July 2003, half a million people, including some of my classmates, marched against the bill.
A few days later, the government was forced to shelve Article 23, after one of its political allies, a pro-business party, withdrew its support.
My friends were jubilant, telling me they had “made history”. Many felt that, although there was no democracy, it was possible to vote with their feet.
The Sars outbreak and Article 23 row made local and Chinese politics seem more relevant to our daily lives.
And by the late 2000s, mainland China felt more entwined with Hong Kong than ever.
When I was a child, some of my classmates, somewhat cruelly, mocked “mainlanders” as people who squatted and were poor. But now, more people were learning Mandarin, and Hong Kong’s economic future seemed to depend on China’s.
China loosened travel restrictions, making it easier for mainland tourists to visit Hong Kong.
It gave the economy a much-needed boost, but resentment was also growing.
I was studying abroad by then, but whenever I flew home I would hear people gripe about the sheer number of tourists, and how rude some appeared.
Some tourists bought up huge quantities of baby milk powder, leaving local parents without enough.
I could no longer recognise many of the shopping malls my school friends and I used to frequent. We grew up with cheap jewellery stalls and snack shops – but now shopping centres were dominated by designer brands that wealthy Chinese tourists preferred.
The other big change was in politics. When I was at school, expressing an interest in politics was more likely to get you teased than admired.
But by 2012, students were holding hunger strikes to oppose a government attempt to introduce “patriotic education” classes.
And in 2014, something surprising, almost unthinkable, happened. Tens of thousands of people, led by students, took over the streets, demanding full democracy.
Growing up, it was easy to avoid talking about politics.
But with protesters sleeping in the streets for weeks, the subject was suddenly unavoidable.
Families and friends started arguing – in person and on Facebook – and “unfriending” people they disagreed with.
Supporters felt it was worth sacrificing order and economic growth for true democracy, but critics accused the protesters of “destroying” Hong Kong.
One woman told me her relatives were angry she took part in the protests and now, two years later, they still didn’t want to meet her for dinner. “Hong Kong’s become so split,” she said.
Recently, after years in the UK, I got to return to Hong Kong as a reporter.
A lot feels the same. The territory is still clean, efficient, and obsessed with good food.
But young people seem more pessimistic – with politics and soaring house prices their main bugbears.
Surveys suggest young people are the unhappiest they have been in a decade – and that up to 60% want to leave.
Recently, some have even started to call for independence from China, frustrated with Beijing’s influence and the lack of political reform.
Their resentment stems from Hong Kong’s handover or even the Sino-British negotiations in the 1980s.
“We were never given a choice,” one activist said. “No-one ever asked Hong Kongers what they wanted. ”
Protests have become angrier. Most demonstrations I witnessed growing up were peaceful – even festive.
Now, some rallies are more confrontational and prone to clashes, while the government seems less willing to make concessions.
It’s not surprising that, in an online poll run by a pro-government party, people chose “chaos” as the word to describe Hong Kong’s 2016.
From violent protests , to legislators swearing and scuffling in parliament, politics has definitely been chaotic at times.
But, chaotic or not, what really strikes me about Hong Kong is how alive and adaptable it is.
Whether in business or politics, Hong Kong is full of people fighting to be heard.
Local entrepreneurs are constantly devising controversial or creative ways to make money – such as renting out ” capsule units ” in their homes, or starting a rabbit cafe .
And, even as artists complain of pressure to self-censor, pop music has become more political and fresh news websites and satirical news channels have popped up.
Hong Kong may be a relatively small territory with a population of 7.3 million, but I love the fact it has never lost its ability to surprise me.

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38489435
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Teetotal Trump and the drinking presidents

0

NewsHubAs Donald Trump becomes US president on Friday many will reach for a drink. Washington DC will be whirl of parties, galas and balls.
The celebrities may be skipping it this year but the US capital will still swing to the sound of clinking glasses and popping corks. Across the country, celebrating Trump supporters will toast his swearing-in with a drink while others will numb their nerves with booze.
Around the world, alcohol will help with this historic transition. In north London, for instance, the Old Queens Head pub is throwing an Armageddon-themed party to mark the start of Donald Trump’s presidency.
But the man himself will not be boozing through his first hours as the most powerful politician in the world. In fact, he won’t touch a drop of alcohol on Friday night or on any day of his presidency.
“I’ve never had a drink,” Donald Trump told Fox News after his election last November. Unlike George W Bush, who was teetotal in office after giving up booze on his 40th birthday, Mr Trump has eschewed alcohol his whole life, making him a first among modern US presidents.
The reason for Mr Trump’s sobriety is because his adored older brother Freddie died of illness stemming from alcoholism at the age of 42. “It was a very tough period of time,” he said, that convinced him never to drink.
“If you don’t start you’re never going have a problem. If you do start you might have a problem. And it’s a tough problem to stop,” Mr Trump told Fox.
What is fascinating is his view that one drink could spiral into addiction. He discussed his fear that he might have a gene that would make moderate drinking impossible.
His approach to alcohol is also a window into a personality that appears to crave control over others. Mr Trump ordered his children to follow his example. Every day he would drum the message into them: No drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes. “I’ve been very tough on my children with respect to drink,” he said.
So how do the teetotal presidents compare with those who enjoyed the pleasures of a drink? George W Bush went dry after years of heavy boozing and swapped a compulsion for drink for an obsession with fitness.
Remembered largely for the invasion of Iraq, George W’s foreign policy record might not be seen as the best advertisement for a teetotal presidency.
Nor might the idealistic but muddled foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, another teetotal president. Life in the Carter White House was drearily dry and a chore for its more sociable visitors.
Senator Ted Kennedy remembered arid evenings of earnest discussion. “You’d arrive about 6.00 or 6.30pm, and the first thing you would be reminded of, in case you needed reminding, was that he and Rosalynn had removed all the liquor in the White House. No liquor was ever served during Jimmy Carter’s term. He wanted no luxuries nor any sign of worldly living,” Kennedy wrote.
The moderate drinkers fare better. Franklin D Roosevelt frequently tops the list of America’s greatest presidents, the commander-in-chief who defeated the Great Depression and led the US through World War Two.
Throughout these turbulent years, FDR kept a martini close at hand and prized the rituals of cocktail hour, when he mixed stiff drinks for friends on his White House study desk. The conviviality of cocktail hour undoubtedly helped FDR unwind and briefly relieved the immense pressure he was under.
John F Kennedy would occasionally sip a daiquiri but preferred women to wine and kept a clear head through the brinkmanship of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But other presidents were more reckless with their drinking.
Lyndon Johnson was well known in Washington for his capacity to guzzle Cutty Sark whisky and soda when he was Democratic majority leader in the Senate, a habit he took to the White House. Johnson, who told his doctor after a heart attack that the only things he enjoyed in life were “whisky, sunshine and sex”, enjoyed entertaining at his Texas ranch where the booze flowed.
LBJ’s special assistant for domestic affairs, Joseph A Califano, remembered a ride around the ranch with the president: “As we drove around we were followed by a car and a station wagon with Secret Service agents. The president drank Cutty Sark scotch and soda out of a large, white, plastic foam cup.
“Periodically, Johnson would slow down and hold his left arm outside the car, shaking the cup and ice. A Secret Service agent would run up to the car, take the cup and go back to the station wagon. There another agent would refill it with ice, scotch and soda as the first agent trotted behind the wagon. ”
But the most disturbing picture of presidential drinking is provided by Richard Nixon, a man prone to morose self-pity who medicated his moods with booze.
According to his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s trouble was that a small amount of drink would set him off and late-night threats of military action were made when the president was the worse for wear.
When North Korea shot down a US spy plane in April 1969, an enraged Nixon allegedly ordered a tactical nuclear strike and told the joint chiefs to recommend targets. According to the historian Anthony Summers, citing the CIA’s top Vietnam specialist at the time, George Carver, Henry Kissinger spoke to military commanders on the phone and agreed not to do anything until Nixon sobered up in the morning.
By the early 1970s, Watergate was beginning to choke Nixon’s presidency and the president was relying more on drink and sleeping pills to cope with the pressure. On the evening of 11 October 1973, he was incapable of speaking to the British Prime Minister Edward Heath on the phone.
Heath was keen to discuss the latest developments of the Arab-Israeli War but a transcript of the conversation between Henry Kissinger and his assistant Brent Scowcroft revealed the president was too drunk to talk to the prime minister.
Richard Nixon was a warning to future presidents on the danger of mixing hubris with drink. He is a reminder too of the awesome executive power a US president has when it comes to conducting foreign affairs.
With no previous political or military experience, Donald Trump is unlike any incoming president. His hubris is clear to all and his (sober) stream of excitable tweets prove an impetuous temperament.
Nixon’s example might make us grateful booze is not in the mix too. But some of the most successful presidents found valuable perspective and balance at the bottom of a glass.
Ben Wright is the author of Order Order! The Rise and Fall of Political Drinking.

Similarity rank: 8
Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38651623
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Donald Trump presidency: How the world has already changed

0

NewsHubShortly after Donald Trump’s shock win in the US election, the BBC considered the ways the world could change.
Long-standing US domestic and foreign policies, such as a commitment to free trade and membership of Nato, all face an overhaul.
But events have moved fast. Here’s how Mr Trump’s incoming presidency has already changed the world.
The final days of the Obama administration might have been very different, with the outgoing president handing over safe in the knowledge that his signature policies will be protected by another Democrat.
Instead, his administration has gone on the defensive, scrambling to protect his legacy, laying down what Mr Trump has called “roadblocks”.
There have been sanctions against Russians, a ban on offshore energy drilling, a refusal to veto a UN call to end Israeli settlements and a last-minute rush of deals with Cuba.
All of these conflict with pronouncements made by Mr Trump, and could at the very least make life more difficult for the president-elect.
What marks does Obama’s presidency deserve?
The campaign was dogged by baseless stories shared on social media, from a claim that actor Denzel Washington had endorsed Mr Trump (he didn’t) to the notorious “pizzagate” conspiracy .
After criticism from users, arguably the key gatekeeper, Facebook, announced measures to tackle the problem of fake news.
The higher-than-high stakes election did more than anything to highlight the problem, and America was not the only country affected. In Italy, for instance, there were concerns fake news had influenced last month’s constitutional referendum.
Social media giants face a tricky 2017, trying to balance the freedom enjoyed by their users with a new, unfamiliar role as arbiter-in-chief, perhaps assuming an even bigger role in our lives.
World stock markets have enjoyed a strong run since Mr Trump’s election, thanks, analysts say, to investors’ belief he will boost infrastructure and cut taxes when in office.
Mr Trump promised to be the “greatest jobs president that God ever created” and has taken credit for a slew of company announcements.
But while the Donald may giveth, the Donald can also taketh away.
Companies, whole sectors even, have seen share prices rattled by Mr Trump, with some traders reportedly adapting their algorithms to respond instantly to his tweets.
Pharmaceutical firms, for instance, were hit during a press conference when Mr Trump said they were “getting away with murder”.
Trump on Twitter: A history of the man and his medium
Some of Mr Trump’s angriest rhetoric has been directed at China. Beijing was infuriated by a phone call he took from Taiwan’s leader, in defiance of the “One China” policy.
But while Mr Trump seems to be squaring up to China, could China see a Trump presidency as an opportunity?
Xi Jinping became the first Chinese president to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he defended globalisation, a pointed rebuke to Mr Trump’s attacks on free trade.
China has been stepping up its economic leadership, pushing an expanded free trade area in the Asia-Pacific region.
And it could position itself as a leader on climate change, too, with the country’s Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin saying it was no Chinese hoax, and that a change in US policy would not affect Beijing’s commitment to the issue.
Hillary Clinton may have missed her chance to become the first female US president, but could a Trump presidency spur other women to shatter that ultimate glass ceiling?
Several groups dedicated to getting more women into politics have seen a surge in new members and donations.
The election was “the kick in the pants that I needed”, as one woman now hoping to run for office put it.
And while the US has a disproportionately low number of women in politics, this already seems to be changing with the largest number yet elected to Congress in 2017.
Mr Trump had no shortage of detractors during the election, be they foreign powers, business leaders or members of his own party.
But it didn’t take long for them to come around. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, who all but disowned Mr Trump in the campaign, pledged on election night to work “hand-in-hand” with the next US leader.
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson once declared Donald Trump “unfit” to hold the presidency, before calling for an end to the “whinge-o-rama” over his win.
Tech leaders, many of whom had railed against Mr Trump, ended up meeting him at Trump Tower.
Perhaps refusing to work with the new president simply is not an option.
But are his new fans meeting him on common ground, or has Mr Trump dragged the US – and the rest of the world – to uncharted territory?

Similarity rank: 9
Sentiment rank: 4

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38645897
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Windsor Castle undergoes two-week 'high clean'

0

NewsHubWindsor Castle is undergoing a two week spring clean before it is re-opened to the public over the weekend.
Experts ensure the castle’s State Apartments are cleaned from floor to ceiling during what the Royal Trust calls the annual “high clean”.
Chandeliers dating from 1862 and commissioned by Queen Victoria are dusted, along with suits of armour on the Grand Staircase.
The castle will open its doors again to the public on Saturday.

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-38674610
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

La Land is a big, bombastic musical – but it's the smaller gestures that make it sing "By now, there was no way back for me": the strange story of Bogdan Stashinsky

0

NewsHub“Is it nostalgic?” asks Mia, the aspiring actor played by Emma Stone in the musical La Land . “Are people gonna like it?” She’s agonising over the play she has written but this is surely the voice of the writer-director Damien Chazelle asking these questions of his movie. To which the answers would be: “Duh!” and “On the whole, yes.”
Nostalgia permeates La Land right from the opening announcement that it has been shot in CinemaScope, the widescreen format that was prevalent in the 1950s. When Mia returns home, strolling past street murals of Chaplin and Monroe, a giant poster of Ingrid Bergman gazes down from her bedroom wall. And when she goes on a date with Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), it is to a picture palace with a light bulb-studded marquee.
Old Hollywood is as glorious and intimidating to these 21st-century lovers as it was in Pennies from Heaven when Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters danced in front of the flickering image of Astaire and Rogers, before entering the cinema screen themselves. Something similar happens in La Land when Mia and Sebastian drive up to the Griffith Observatory after watching Rebel Without a Cause ; it’s as though the movie has spilled over into real life.
Sebastian is Mia’s partner in nostalgia. He’s a pig-headed pianist who rhapsodises about jazz and dreams of owning a club but earns a crust playing easy-listening standards. He and Mia are at the foothills of their ambitions, not always certain whether they should go on climbing or settle for life at a lower altitude. La Land asks the same question as Chazelle’s previous film Whiplash : how do you keep your dreams alive without letting them kill you?
When modern directors tackle the musical genre, there can be an element of hostility present, as though they are slaying a dragon – or, more likely, a sacred cow. La Land is not volatile like Martin Scorsese’s New York, New York or Lars von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark. It’s a middle-of-the-road confection, pretty rather than deep, which never quite makes its own mark. It takes its melancholic mood from Edward Hopper and its eye-popping colours from Jacques Demy’s The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. The most original moments are minor ones: glitter thrown into a hairdryer creates a small silvery blizzard, a handbag matches a row of purple wheelie bins in a back alley.
What’s intriguing is that the film bestows on this stepping stone of a romance the sort of attention traditionally reserved for amour fou. It demonstrates, in a series of casually elegant dance duets beginning with a soft-shoe shuffle on a deserted back road in the Hollywood Hills, how Mia and Sebastian connect in their nostalgic reveries for the briefest of moments. Each time, they are dragged back to the present by the bleeps and blasts of the modern world – a ringtone, a smoke alarm, the chirp of an electronic fob.
The film is at its most convincing in those intimate exchanges between Gosling, with his melted eyes, and Stone, with her anime face. When it reaches for an ambitious, razzle-dazzle effect, such as in the over-complicated dance number in a traffic jam (shades of Fame ) and a poorly directed sequence in which the couple start flying like Goldie Hawn in Everyone Says I Love You , it comes across as merely ersatz. This is not, after all, a film of grand passions.
Nor is Chazelle at his most assured on a large canvas. He is an economical visual storyteller who can nail the small, telling moments. He explains in just two brief shots, for instance, exactly why Sebastian puts his ambitions on the back burner to tour with a band he hates. What Chazelle can’t always do is join up the dots to give the film momentum. After a lively scene introducing Sebastian’s sister (the excellent Rosemarie DeWitt), the picture rashly casts her aside, which is a mistake in such a long and underpopulated movie. It can’t rely, either, on the new compositions to whoosh it along, with the exception of a tentative piano number called “City of Stars”, which is first sung casually by Gosling as he strolls along a pier at night. The rest of the songs aren’t heartfelt so much as Heart FM; Magic rather than magical.
On the morning of 12 August 1961, a few hours before the supreme leader of East Germany, Walter Ulbricht, announced the sealing of the border between East and West Berlin, a funeral took place for a four-month-old boy at the Rohrbeck Evangelical Cemetery in Dallgow. Numerous KGB agents and officers of the East German ministry of security were in attendance, but the boy’s parents were missing. Instead, Bogdan Stashinsky and Inge Pohl were preparing their imminent escape from Soviet-occupied territory and into the West. They had intended to flee the following day, but the funeral provided a moment of opportunity when their surveillance was relaxed. If they wanted to go, they had to go now.
“The KGB operatives present at the child’s funeral were puzzled by the parents’ absence,” a Soviet intelligence officer later wrote. “By the end of the day on 13 August 1961, it was clear that the Stashinskys had gone to the West. Everyone who knew what tasks the agent had carried out in Munich in 1957 and 1959, and what could happen if Stashinsky were to talk, was in shock.”
Those “tasks” were the state-sponsored assassinations of Lev Rebet and Stepan Bandera, two exiled leaders of the Ukrainian anti-communist movement who had been living in Munich. Stashinsky, one of the KGB’s top hitmen, and the focus of Serhii Plokhy’s gripping book, had been given the task of tracking and killing them with a custom-built gun that sprayed a lethal, yet undetectable poison. It was only after Stashinsky’s defection to the Central Intelligence Agency, and then to the West German security services, that the cause of Rebet and Bandera’s deaths was finally known.
For decades, the KGB denied any involvement in the assassinations, and the CIA has never been entirely sure about Stashinsky’s motives. Was he telling the truth when he confessed to being the assassin, or was he, as some still claim, a loyal agent, sent to spread disinformation and protect the true killer? Plokhy has now put to rest the many theories and speculations. With great clarity and compassion, and drawing from a trove of recently declassified files from CIA, KGB and Polish security archives, as well as interviews conducted with former heads of the South African police force, he chronicles one of the most curious espionage stories of the Cold War.
Stashinsky’s tale is worthy of John le Carré or Ian Fleming. Plokhy even reminds us that The Man With the Golden Gun , in which James Bond tries to assassinate his boss with a cyanide pistol after being brainwashed by the Soviets, was inspired by the Stashinsky story. But if spy novels zero in on a secret world – tradecraft, double agents, defections, and the moral fallout that comes from working in the shadows – Plokhy places this tale in the wider context of the Cold War and the relentless ideological battle between East and West.
The story of Stashinsky’s career as a triggerman for the KGB plays out against the backdrop of the fight for Ukrainian independence after the Second World War. He was a member of the underground resistance against the Soviet occupation, but was forced to become an informer for the secret police after his family was threatened. After he betrayed a resistance cell led by Ivan Laba, which had assassinated the communist author Yaroslav Halan, Stashinsky was ostracised by his family and was offered the choice of continuing his higher education, which he could no longer afford, or joining the secret police.
“It was [only] a proposal,” he said later, “but I had no alternative to accepting it and continuing to work for the NKVD. By now, there was no way back for me.” He received advanced training in Kyiv and Moscow for clandestine work in the West and became one of Moscow’s most prized assets. In 1957, after assassinating Rebet, he was awarded the
Order of the Red Banner, one of the oldest military decorations in the Soviet Union.
Plokhy’s book is about more than the dramas of undercover work; it is also an imaginative approach to the history of Cold War international relations. It is above all an affective tale about the relationship between individual autonomy and state power, and the crushing impact the police state had on populations living behind the Iron Curtain. Stashinsky isn’t someone of whom we should necessarily approve: he betrayed his comrades in the Ukrainian resistance, lied to his family about who he was and killed for a living. Yet we sympathise with him the more he, like so many others, turns into a defenceless pawn of the Communist Party high command, especially after he falls in love with his future wife, Inge.
One of the most insightful sections of Plokhy’s book converges on Stashinsky’s trial in West Germany in 1962 over the killings of Rebet and Bandera, and how he was given a reduced sentence because it was deemed that he had been an instrument of the Soviet state. The decision was influenced by German memories of collective brainwashing under the Third Reich. As one of the judges put it: “The accused was at the time in question a poor devil who acted automatically under pressure of commands and was misled and confused ideologically.”
What makes Plokhy’s book so alarmingly resonant today is how Russia still uses extrajudicial murder as a tool of foreign policy. In 2004 Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-Western future president of Ukraine, was poisoned with dioxin; two years later Aleksandr Litvinenko, the Russian secret service defector, unknowingly drank radioactive polonium at a hotel in London. The Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya survived a poisoning in 2004 after drinking tea given to her by an Aeroflot flight attendant (she was murdered two years later). The collapse of the Soviet Union did not bring the end of the Russian threat (Putin, remember, is ex-KGB). As le Carré noted in a speech in the summer of 1990, “The Russian Bear is sick, the Bear is bankrupt, the Bear is frightened of his past, his present and his future. But the Bear is still armed to the teeth and very, very proud.”
The Man with the Poison Gun: a Cold War Spy Story by Serhii Plokhy is published by Oneworld (365pp, £18.99)

Similarity rank: 0.2
Sentiment rank: 0.5

© Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/01/la-la-land-big-bombastic-musical-its-smaller-gestures-make-it-sing
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Chelsea Manning thanks Obama for prison release

0

NewsHubThe US army private serving a 35-year prison sentence for leaking classified documents has thanked President Barack Obama for shortening her sentence.
Chelsea Manning, whose sentence was commuted by the outgoing president, thanked him “for giving me a chance”.
The 29-year-old transgender soldier, born Bradley Manning, gave embarrassing documents to Wikileaks in 2010.
At President Obama’s final press conference on Wednesday, he declared that “justice has been served”.
She will be freed from the Fort Leavenworth military prison in May – 29 years ahead of her scheduled release in 2045.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange weighed in on Thursday, insisting that he would stand by his offer to be extradited to the US as long as his rights were protected.
Mr Assange, who agreed to be extradited to the US if Mr Obama granted clemency to Manning, has been holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012.
The Australian national sought refuge there to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning in relation to an alleged sex offence.
“I stand by everything I said including the offer to go to the United States if Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted,” he said in a live online audio news conference on Thursday.
“It’s not going to be commuted (until) May. We can have many discussions to that point,” he added.
The White House said Manning’s commutation had not been influenced in any way by Mr Assange’s offer, and the US justice department has not indicted Mr Assange nor publicly sought his extradition.
Obama says justice is served
Viewpoint: Obama got it right
Mr Obama’s last-minute commutation quickly drew criticism from Republican circles.
A spokesman for president-elect Donald Trump said he “is troubled by this action. It’s disappointing and it sends a very troubling message when it comes to the handling of classified information”.
Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called the decision “outrageous”.
“Chelsea Manning’s treachery put American lives at risk and exposed some of our nation’s most sensitive secrets,” Mr Ryan said.
Manning does not have access to the internet, as part of the condition of her imprisonment.
However despite that, she has been tweeting from @xychelsea since April 2015.
In a handwritten letter she released to explain her social media use, she told how she calls a friend on the phone who transcribes what she says “verbatim”.
Her thank you was addressed to @BarackObama, rather than the President’s official @POTUS Twitter account, which Mr Obama will hand over to Mr Trump on Friday when he officially becomes the nation’s 45th president.

Similarity rank: 3.2
Sentiment rank: 1

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38667123
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Trump hints New York Jets owner Woody Johnson will be US envoy to UK

0

NewsHubPresident-elect Donald Trump appears to have picked NFL tycoon Woody Johnson to be US ambassador to the UK.
Mr Trump introduced the New York Jets owner as “the ambassador Woody Johnson, going to Saint James”, during a luncheon in Washington.
The 69-year-old billionaire philanthropist and heir of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant has known Mr Trump for many years.
But he originally backed Trump rival Jeb Bush in the Republican primary.
“Congratulations, Woody,” said Mr Trump in the presidential ballroom of Trump International hotel in Washington DC, on the eve of his swearing in as the 45th US president.
The plum diplomatic appointment – known formally as Ambassador of the United States to the Court of St James – has not yet been formally announced.
Kim Darroch, the UK ambassador to the US, was among the first to tweet his congratulations to Mr Johnson.
“Surely you can replicate the success of @NYJets in London 2015,” Mr Darroch added.
The people around Donald Trump
Although he’s probably best known as the owner of the long-suffering New York Jets American football team, Johnson is quite familiar in conservative circles, having contributed millions of dollars to Republican causes.
Like many big-money donors, Johnson was an early supporter of Governor Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign – and was once cited by Donald Trump as an example of how the former Florida governor was in the thrall of big-money interests. Mr Trump even fired off a tweet mocking the Jets’ lack of postseason success.
The heir to the pharmaceutical and consumer products company Johnson & Johnson threw his support behind Mr Trump when it was clear he would be the party’s nominee, however. He then served as a loyal fundraiser and adviser during the general election campaign.
It looks like that move will pay off with one of the top ambassadorships – a prize that is traditionally given to only the most prolific donors or best-connected political insiders.
With an NFL owner in the Court of St James, can a new team in London be far behind?

Similarity rank: 8.6
Sentiment rank: 3.8

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38685290
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Jennifer Aniston considering a return to TV

0

NewsHubFormer “Friends” star Jennifer Aniston may be back on television screens again soon.
The actress conceded in a recent interview that she has “thought about it a lot” when asked about returning to TV, where she first rose to stardom. While she has made sporadic guest appearances on series like “Cougar Town” and “30 Rock,” Aniston has not had a regular part in a TV series since “Friends” ended in 2004.
But a lot has changed in the media landscape since then, with plenty of prestigious actors heading to the small screen for accolades and meatier roles — a development Aniston has noticed.
“Yes, I would,” she told Variety when asked if she would be open to going back to TV.
“I’ve thought about it a lot. That’s where the work is. That’s where the quality is,” she said. “At this point in my career, I want to be part of wonderful stories, exciting characters and also just having a good time.”
“When you’re in your 20s, going away from home was an adventure — meeting new people, seeing other parts of the country or world was so exciting,” Aniston said. “Now it’s really about wanting to stay closer to home and just enjoying your time. It goes really fast. The experience needs to be a good experience. I have no time for the yelling, angry directors or bad behavior anymore.”

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: 5.9

© Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jennifer-aniston-considering-a-return-to-tv/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Timeline words data