This term begun perhaps two years ago following the Brexit.
Here is what I’m thinking: if France is out then the EU is practically over for Germany.
Has Germany over extended themselves? Being a big brother needs a lot of dough and cloud.
This term begun perhaps two years ago following the Brexit.
Here is what I’m thinking: if France is out then the EU is practically over for Germany.
Has Germany over extended themselves? Being a big brother needs a lot of dough and cloud.
2019.5.10 WSJ: How a Chinese Scientist Broke the Rules to Create the First Gene-Edited Babies on Dr. He Jiankui 贺建奎 (1984). The view is pretty balanced. It even questioned if Dr. He has legal assistance, and ends with “The narrative of a rogue scientist excuses the rest of science from having played a role. That’s just not true,”.
When the news first broke out last year, I thought of 1997 American science fiction film Gattaca, with Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, etc.
The WSJ article mentioned Xi stressed 鹤的哥们儿习大大说过 innovate, innovate, innovate! 创新, 创新, 再创新! Did this influenced Dr. He in anyway?
贺建奎生了第一个基因编辑婴儿. 结果世界沸腾了. 其实如果世界舆论没有哗然, 国内很多机构/人物都会和贺一起分享硕果滴. 就像这篇文章所说 “一个流氓科学家借助其他科学成就了一个事. 那是不可能的.“
怎么看鹤副总 怎么觉得他像刘少奇？尤其是红鼻头 看他的履历 Seton Hall 和 Harvard 但是他发言总是聪明地用中文
另外老生常谈 lost in translation – 这篇有关中国的文章 署名 不是中国名字 合作者是中国名 – byline 为什么不用一个中国人?
How a Chinese Scientist Broke the Rules to Create the First Gene-Edited Babies
Dr. He Jiankui, seeking glory for his nation and justice for HIV-positive parents, kept his experiment secret, ignored peers’ warnings and faked a test
Two sisters entered the world prematurely one October night last year by emergency caesarean section. Staff at the Chinese hospital swaddled them in white, laying them in incubators.
The twins had a secret almost no one at the hospital knew. One man who did know was there, waiting—a U.S.-educated researcher, Dr. He Jiankui, who had flown into town to see them.
The twins were his creations, the world’s first known gene-edited human babies. He had worked toward this for two years, altering their genes as embryos to try making them resistant to their father’s HIV infection. Dr. He (pronounced “huh”) gave them pseudonyms, Lulu and Nana.
“I’m 70% happy and 30% uncertainty,” he said in an English voice message to a colleague that night.
His unease proved prescient. When the news broke, peers in China and abroad condemned him for manipulating life’s building blocks using a relatively untested gene-editing tool.
MORE FROM WSJ
The NFL Draft’s Most Frugal Player
First Class vs. Coach: A Game of Square Inches
How Schwab Ate Wall Street
Netflix Fights to Keep Its Most Watched Shows: ‘Friends’ and ‘The Office’
China Exploits Fleet of U.S. Satellites to Strengthen Police and Military Power
Gene-editing trials involving terminally-ill adult humans are ongoing. But tinkering with embryos is more controversial because changes in them will pass to future generations, meaning a tiny blip could have far-reaching consequences.
At a Nov. 28 Hong Kong summit of leading geneticists, participants bombarded Dr. He with questions about his methods and ethics.
A day later, Chinese officials declared his experiment illegal. Authorities in January detained him after an initial probe alleged he forged an approval document and acted in “pursuit of personal fame.”
What’s News is a digest of the day’s most important business and markets news to watch, delivered to your inbox.
He hasn’t been publicly heard from since November. Attempts to reach Dr. He, who appears to remain in custody, weren’t successful. His wife declined to comment through a person close to him. It isn’t clear if Dr. He has legal representation.
Dr. He, now 35, left behind the mystery of what motivated him to defy his field’s widely held ethical principles, how he carried out his trial in stealth, why nobody stopped him—and why he was so stunned by the backlash.
A picture of just how far the scientist went to fulfill his dream emerges from a Wall Street Journal examination of his notes, emails, voice memos, clinical-trial documents and from interviews with people who knew him, some of whom were familiar with his trial, and the birth of the babies.
His drive and interests were hardly secret: A small group of highly regarded Western peers watched from the sidelines, offering advice and urging caution. Dr. He held the scientist’s ambition to make history, people who know him said. He also wanted to address what he saw as an injustice in China against families with HIV-positive parents, who are barred from fertility treatments.
The scientist, who hadn’t run a human trial before, didn’t tell the doctor who implanted the twins’ mother that their genes were edited, and he kept the nature of his experiment secret from the hospital where it took place, said people familiar with the details of the trial. He faked the father’s blood test to avoid detection of his HIV, according to these people. He succumbed to the hopes of his patients, against his own medical judgement, and impregnated women eager to conceive.
A deeply patriotic man, Dr. He had expected plaudits from Beijing for helping in its goal of making China a force in genetic science, people who know him said. “He always spoke in a way as though he wanted to do good for the sake of his nation,” said Stanford University physician and neurobiologist William Hurlbut, who knows Dr. He but says the researcher didn’t tell him of implanting edited genes. “What’s so ironic is that he will be punished badly.”
Dr. He ignored Western scientists’ warnings that implanting edited embryos risked flouting his field’s ethical norms. None appear to have gone beyond giving warnings.
Rice University biochemical and genetic-engineering professor Michael Deem appears in a video of a meeting with parents who volunteered for the trial, in videos the Journal viewed. Dr. Deem, the Chinese scientist’s former doctoral adviser at Rice, was listed as a co-author of a research paper on the twins’ birth.
A lawyer for Dr. Deem said his client commented on Dr. He’s research but didn’t conduct it and that Dr. Deem had asked that his name be retracted from the paper.
Rice is investigating Dr. Deem’s role and declined to comment. Stanford, where Dr. He also studied, said it concluded its professors weren’t involved in his research.
“Everybody who knew anything should quit pointing fingers and come forward and say what are we going to do now—why we felt there was good and bad in this and how no one seemed to know how to proceed,” said Dr. Hurlbut, who said he began suspecting the Chinese researcher was planning such an experiment as their conversations deepened over many months.
Authorities have kept the location of Dr. He’s experiment secret. China’s Ministry of Science and Technology and a local agency investigating Dr. He didn’t respond to requests for comment.
It is illegal to implant a genetically-modified human embryo in much of the Western world. The U.S. forbids the Food and Drug Administration, whose sign-off is needed for such an experiment, from considering it. China doesn’t have a law, but a 2003 guideline says “genetic manipulation of human gametes, zygotes and embryos for reproductive purposes is prohibited,” without outlining penalties.
A new gene-editing tool named Crispr-Cas9, which holds the promise of new disease treatments, has made ethics questions more urgent. The tool acts like molecular scissors that can target specific genes, cutting and splicing them to prevent or cure diseases.
One broadly held view is that it is too early to use Crispr on the human “germ line”—genes of sperm, eggs and embryos—because changes will pass on for generations and present the specter of unintended consequences to the human race. Lab research has shown Crispr-Cas9 can edit genes other than the ones intended. This means it could disrupt other genes, impairing functions or predisposing people to infections.
The latest international guideline came in a 2017 report from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and stood at odds with existing legislation in the West. It didn’t call for a ban on implanting edited embryos, saying it should be done “only for compelling medical reasons in the absence of reasonable alternatives, and with maximum transparency and strict oversight.”
Some scientists objected to Dr. He’s trial saying HIV protection wasn’t an unmet need—a fertility treatment can wash the virus off sperm to reduce transmission risk. Dr. He held that it was an unmet need among China’s HIV-positive parents who, banned from fertility clinics, didn’t have that option. He also held that gene editing could make offspring resistant for life to HIV, not just a parent’s infection.
“You could see that people in the West were totally outraged because you never need that here,” said Stanford biophysicist Stephen Quake, in whose lab Dr. He once worked. “But I can see why there may be a different view in China of what he did and a justification for it.”
The son of rice farmers, Dr. He graduated with a physics undergraduate degree in China and a Ph.D. from Rice, then switched to biology. He forged ties with Dr. Deem, a physicist who moved into biochemical engineering, and they published papers together. In 2010, he took a postdoctoral position in Dr. Quake’s Stanford lab.
He returned to China as a biology professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology. In 2012, he founded a gene-sequencing company, Direct Genomics, enlisting to its advisory board influential scientists including University of Massachusetts molecular biologist Craig Mello, a 2006 Nobel laureate.
Dr. He turned his attention to Crispr-Cas9, invented in 2012. In 2015, a group of Chinese researchers provoked a firestorm after using it to edit “nonviable” human embryos that can’t result in pregnancies. American scientists called it irresponsible to use the still-unproven tool on human embryos.
But it was a heady time for scientists in China, with President Xi Jinping urging them to “innovate, innovate, innovate!” and the Communist Party laying out goals to be a technological world player.
Dr. He began using Crispr in 2016 to edit the genes of mice, monkeys and nonviable human embryos. That fall, visiting Dr. Quake, he said: “I want to create the first gene-edited humans,” Dr. Quake recalled.
“You must do it carefully,” Dr. Quake said he warned him. “Otherwise, it will ruin your scientific career.”
In a 2017 meeting with Dr. He, Stanford’s Dr. Hurlbut said, “one of the first things he said to me when he sat down was, ‘The people against embryo research in the U.S., that’s just a fringe, just a fraction, right?’ ”
The American responded: “Not really, JK,” addressing Dr. He by the initials he uses in emails. “America’s pretty evenly divided on that issue.”
The U.S. government is barred from funding work that involves endangering, destroying, or creating embryos for research, Dr. Hurlbut told Dr. He. Such concern about something that hadn’t yet been born was hard to fathom for Dr. He, who has two young daughters.
Dr. Hurlbut said the Chinese scientist expressed incredulity, asking: “You mean something as small as this is as valuable as my 2-year-old daughter?” and pressing his forefinger against his thumb. Dr. Hurlbut responded: “That’s the way your little daughter’s life began.”
Dr. He was investigating editing a gene that can offer protection from familial hypercholesterolemia, a rare cholesterol-related disease that can cause broken bones in children. He changed his mind after visiting a village where he saw HIV-positive families facing discrimination, people close to him say. Children born to infected individuals weren’t able to attend regular schools. He saw a gene-editing trial as a way to use science against that injustice.
His team found 22 couples eager to conceive, some with fertility issues. The men were HIV-positive; the women weren’t. Visiting their homes, Dr. He’s team used PowerPoint slides to show how they would develop the couples’ embryos and edit genes to cause a mutation that research showed made it possible to resist HIV. The embryos would be implanted in the mothers.
Some slides noted potential risks, such as unintended consequences. Others showed a woman saying: “I want a child.”
In the slides’ background was etched the logo of the Southern University of Science and Technology, which later denied knowing about the experiment. The presentation said the project was funded by a grant from the country’s Ministry of Science and Technology, which later denied knowledge of the trial.
Eight selected couples met Dr. He, two at a time, starting in June 2017. A postdoctoral student did most of the talking, videos of the meetings show. Rice’s Dr. Deem is present in one of the videos, a silent observer. Dr. Deem’s lawyer declined to comment on his presence, saying his client didn’t conduct the informed-consent process.
By September 2017, all eight couples had enrolled, and Dr. He felt he had no time to waste, people close to the scientist say. Scientists at Oregon Health & Science University had just announced they used Crispr to correct a heart condition in viable embryos that they then destroyed.
The Americans weren’t condemned as the Chinese researchers were in 2015, Dr. He observed at the time. “If it’s not me,” he later recalled in a promotional video, “it’s someone else.”
Dr. He’s team started implanting embryos in early 2018, according to a person familiar with the trial. He had planned to treat participants at a Shenzhen hospital whose ethics committee he said had approved his trial—the permission he needed under Chinese regulations. The hospital’s parent company later said the approval document was forged.
The couples selected didn’t live there, so Dr. He hired an embryologist at a different hospital to edit their embryos. The embryologist kept the true nature of Dr. He’s trial secret from his own hospital and the fertility doctor who would implant the embryos, according to the person familiar with the trial.
Only one of the embryos that became Lulu and Nana was successfully edited, but the couple wanted both implanted anyway, although they knew one twin probably wouldn’t have HIV resistance. When the hospital needed the father’s blood sample, Dr. He’s team produced an HIV-negative man to give blood, the person familiar with the trial said.
In April 2018, in an email exchange viewed by the Journal, Dr. He wrote Dr. Mello: “Good News! The women is pregnant, the genome editing success!”
Dr. Mello wrote back: “I’m glad for you, but I’d rather not be kept in the loop on this…I just don’t see why you are doing this,” saying he couldn’t understand using Crispr for HIV when existing methods reduced transmission.
Dr. Mello referred inquiries to a UMass spokeswoman, who said that he believed Dr. He in the email was referring to an experiment in China and that Dr. Mello didn’t know Dr. He was doing it himself.
Among other mentors Dr. He consulted was Stanford’s Dr. Quake, who said his former student told him he had the requisite approval from a Chinese hospital’s ethics committee, known in the U.S. as an institutional review board, or IRB. “If someone’s doing IRB-approved research, you’re saying, OK, they’ve looked at it,” Dr. Quake said. “You’re not in a position to judge whether it’s right or wrong…What are you going to do? Who are you going to call up?”
At times, Dr. He questioned whether he had been too emotional in choosing to target HIV, and should have stuck with familial hypercholesterolemia or picked a different disease, people he consulted say.
Before implanting embryos in more women, Dr. He had wanted to wait for the twins’ birth and data on them. But other participants pressured him to let them conceive. He warned one couple that data from the twins could show editing genes wasn’t as safe as he had hoped and that waiting might shield them and their unborn baby from potential harm. He made them sign a document, reviewed by the Journal, acknowledging his advice. His team implanted the couple, bringing the total to 13 embryos in five women, according to the person familiar with the trial.
One October evening, the twins’ expectant father called a member of Dr. He’s lab to say his wife was going into labor. Dr. He raced to Shenzhen airport, postdoctoral students in tow, and flew north.
A photo taken the next day shows a smiling Dr. He. An umbilical-cord tissue analysis found one twin’s DNA was successfully edited. The other was partially edited, making it unclear it would resist HIV.
The hospital remained unaware the twins were special until after the births, said the person familiar with the trial. Its ethics committee for stem-cell research subsequently issued a document saying it had agreed to participate in the trial, according to a text exchange between Dr. He and the person, who added that another person on the scientist’s team said the hospital backdated its approval to appear as though it had known all along.
In November, Dr. He submitted preliminary data on the twins to the scientific journal Nature, the paper on which Rice’s Dr. Deem was listed as a co-author. Nature declined to publish it after news of the births broke. A Nature spokeswoman said it doesn’t comment on its review process.
After a Direct Genomics board meeting in November, Dr. He approached Dr. Mello, who remained an adviser, according to a voice message the Chinese scientist sent a colleague. Dr. He said Dr. Mello told him that if he could find data showing healthy children born to HIV-infected parents were at great risk of contracting the virus later, it might help scientists embrace the idea of viral resistance, Dr. He noted in his voice note, heard by the Journal, adding that his team “must immediately find those data.”
On Nov. 22, he emailed Dr. Mello thanking him for his advice, saying: “Again, I won’t tell people that you know what is happening here.”
Dr. Mello says the in-person conversation didn’t take place, said the UMass spokeswoman, quoting him as saying: “I cannot explain why he acknowledges me for this” over email.
Dr. He initially planned his announcement for January after the twins were due. The premature births changed that. He was due to speak at the Hong Kong gene-editing conference about nonviable embryos. He decided to announce the births, according to people close to him.
Four days before the conference, he emailed Jennifer Doudna, a University of California, Berkeley, biochemist who co-invented Crispr-Cas9 and was on the organizing committee. “He was hellbent at announcing his work at the conference,” said Dr. Doudna, who said she hadn’t known about his work on human babies and was “very upset.”
He decided against announcing, but, as he headed for the summit, a news report broke about the births. At a dinner that evening, Dr. Doudna said, scientists asked Dr. He: “Do you understand that people are going to be very upset?”
“He seemed surprised,” she said, “to hear that people were concerned.”
In a 20-minute summit presentation, Dr. He detailed his Crispr research. Scientists, bioethicists and regulatory experts demanded: What were his methods? How did he recruit patients? Did he tell them of the risks?
“I don’t know how to answer these questions,” Dr. He said at one point, voice quivering.
Back in Shenzhen, he was on the phone with confidants including Benjamin Hurlbut, an Arizona State University bioethicist and son of Stanford’s Dr. Hurlbut. “He was trying to make sense of what went wrong in what he saw as a virtuous, important contribution to scientific progress,” Dr. Hurlbut said, adding that Dr. He told him: “I could’ve done it better.”
He told Dr. Hurlbut he remained hopeful his nation would stand by him.
In January, Chinese investigators released their initial findings, promising stiff penalties. Dr. He’s university fired him.
In letters addressed to the judiciary and reviewed by the Journal, three of his volunteers said they enrolled aware of the risks. “We wanted to contribute to science and society,” one wrote, “and, at the same time, wanted a healthy baby.”
In March, Chinese officials drafted stricter rules for human-gene editing. The World Health Organization is drafting global guidelines.
“Of course, he made his own choices. But he was a product of his environment,” Arizona University’s Dr. Hurlbut said of Dr. He. “The narrative of a rogue scientist excuses the rest of science from having played a role. That’s just not true,” he added.
Chinese authorities have given no information about Lulu and Nana. A second couple from Dr. He’s trial is awaiting birth of their gene-edited child—the couple he had warned against implanting.
Yifan Wang contributed to this article.
Write to Preetika Rana at [email protected]
Can we trust what a politician say, or are politicians all liars?
Dr. Henry Kissinger is world renowned American politician or top diplomat. In one of his memoirs (he wrote many!), he wrote that departing from a monochrome drabness, the stifling conformity Communist country (with the exception of China) always gave him an overwhelming sense of relief. The communist country in this paragraph referred to Hanoi.
I have never visited Hanoi but learned from books that she was founded in the year 1010; conquered by the French in 1873, and was the center for French Indochina from 1883 to 1945 and capital of Vietnam after 1946. Think of east meets the west, Hanoi is indeed colorful and diverse. Monochrome drabness and stifling conformity were definitely not the words to describe a city with over millennium of history and under the ruling of the French.
Kissinger’s (1923 G) China/Beijing (the book was published in 1982), in fact, was monochrome drabness, the stifling conformity. I clearly remembered Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) said of China, … unpleasant place governed by rather unpleasant people.
How was telling the truth? Sure different people have different opinions. But Kissinger’s portrait of China was a surprise to me, too good to be true.
1982. ‘单色的单调,令人窒息的一致性’ 这是描写一个亚洲共产国家
基老在开玩笑吗？河内可是过千年的都市. 而且被法国人占据过. 您觉得没骨气贱法会没有光绪会建造,会用色彩？
记得英国铁娘子撒切尔觉得中国是个 unpleasant place governed by rather unpleasant people 谷歌翻译: 不愉快的地方由相当不愉快的人管理.
当然他们虽然是同代欧洲人. 但是基爷是咱们的老朋友. 没看到现在都颤颤巍巍的,但是一声吆喝,还不是屁颠屁颠去北京上朝? 铁娘在北京的机遇就非常不幸.她去北京准备和一个弱者谈判. 结果咱们小老鹰的邓爷, 吊着二郎腿, 吐着青烟 “谈判？我是叫你来还我香港的.”
目测: 基爷就是一个大忽悠, 至少在这点上. 整个马屁精 … 意见观点还值得考虑吗?
Lin Biao callimrpahied this Long Live Chairman Mao as a gift to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, according to Chinese posters – all posters in this post are from this site too.
The following four images, obviously were from different time: before Lin’s sudden death and after.
Still, there isn’t an official account as what and why Lin was fleeing China in 1971.
One of his famous quotes during the Cultural Revolution was, “理解的要执行, 不理解的也要执行” (execute it regardless you understand it or not) I thought about this when I read a Wall Streeter said about his success is, “… because my agenda takes a back seat more times than not to the master plan whether I understand that or not.”
They sounded the same but one came from a Chinese revolutionary and one from a capitalist, two generations apart (one was born in 1907 and one in or about 1962). Who’s copying whom, or it’s a universal wisdom?
Being a good soldier is important. But to what degree? If the underline is following his or her boss or organization’s directive, how inventions/improvements/new ideas are born and implemented?
一个华尔街的 lifer (从一而终的人 … 好女不2嫁) 归功他的成功 “… my plan takes a back seat than the master plan whether I understand that or not.” = 明不明白都听从党的指挥 (希望没有翻译错)
这令到我想起林副主席文革时说 “… 理解的要执行, 不理解的也要执行…” (希望没有理解错)
虽然是出自2代人的口, 但是普世价值没有变. 也许做个好卒的基本需要东西方的标准都是一样的. 但是另外想想, 如果都跟足照章办事的话, 我们还会有 谷歌 苹果 亚马逊？
戏想 还好, 毛主席没有太高瞻远瞩 向华尔街多看二眼. 不然 林副主席的罪状又多一条 = 我上学时又得多背一个词. 鼠目寸光, 对于一个小学生来说还是挺好的.
For a few decade, the lard were our cooking oil for dishes and butter for bread and rice.
Today, during a discussion of food in a wechat group, a friend wrote: 我还记得猪油拌饭，浇点酱油，如果能加一个荷包蛋，上天堂也！
I still remember mixing lard with rice (like the bibimbap), and add a little soy sauce. A poached egg would send me to heaven.
He was from Shanghai. I was in Beijing and the lard was mostly over my mantou – the steamed bun, like the butter over the bread. I too, added soy sauce too – usually before the lard.
Not many people use lard nowadays. But it’s really a tasty ingredient and so big part of our life.
I ate too muchy 吃饱了撑的
btw, 那个不确定奶茶妹是否漂亮的人 有没有抄习之嫌 [Shocked]
What happened to Jim Clark’s WebMD since 1995?! With or without Mr. Clark, the medical industry is evolving, duh
I just went to take my annual exam of mammogram. The visible improvement came last year when my OBGY sent my prescription directly (I hope it’s electronic) to the radiology. In the past, IF I forgot to bring my referral/prescription, the radiology would make me wait while getting it from my OBGY – even I’ve been with this radiology for more than two decades.
Six days later, I got an email, saying I’ve message … you’ve got mail – a movie made in 1998. To get the message, I need to log into their website. And the long journey I have to take to get my report in PDF format:
This opera is born out of tragic death of Private Danny Chen 陈宇晖 in 2011. It was composed Huang Ruo, libretto by playwright David Henry Hwang, premiered in 2018.
It’s a good program, in that both Huangs (David uses a different spelling) are candid and give us an insight and background to their artistic work. Ruo said that he gave a voice or addressed the Sergeant’s concern or intend, was to make Chen stronger (a weak soldier is a liability to the unit).
The tenor (singer) Andrew Stenson who plays Chen was born in S Korea and adopted by American parents. As he grew up, he encountered many similar situations that Chen or many Asian Americans have been experiencing (like, “…really, where where are you from?” Or “emmm… your English is really good.”).
I thought of A Few Good Men (1992).
新鲜出炉不久的歌剧 ‘美国大兵’ 是根据纽约唐人街长大的陈宇晖参军 因为忍受不了上司的折磨 自杀于阿富汗. 种族(歧视) 和现实 (上司说他不过硬 战场上同伙受累) …
联想到最近斯里兰卡的袭击 … 希望那个北欧丹麦的爸爸, 可以化悲痛为动力, 一举铲除害那群人虫!
A look at some of China’s wealthy elite, who are obsessed with all things British and have the money to pay for them. From Savile Row suits to high-society debutante balls and million-pound racehorses.
There is this girl, Wendy, the daughter of a rich dad who made his fortune from doors (?) in China. She’s likable but wants to impress her dad; she attended a one-week course to learn manners, in the hope to participate in some kind of debutante ball. I’m wondering if the real debutante ball would take girls from such circumstances.
Sean (?) who wants to capitalize his connection with the super rich Chinese to start his concierge online business. He books a hotel room that cost £32,000 a night because the faucet is 24k gold;
Anthony, the business of Henry Poole on Savile Row (still 100% British owned), got himself a WeChat account and wants to attract Chinese customers;
A church – Selby Abbey – 200 miles south of London that is capitalizing on 周杰伦 Jay Chou who had his wedding there, even either him or his wife has anything to do with the church or religion. Never mind that I don’t know who he is but he has many fans. A couple who had married six months earlier went there to ‘get married’ again. Even ask to walk down the aisle again. The priest gladly said ‘sure’ … because all they care is …
… bring more money to our own coffers.
I feel hurt. Are two opium wars had taken the spine out of us?
What’s more? There is this Chinese business organization that dishes out dubious awards every years. New York has the same and I declined. Basically it’s a pay-to-play thing.
Just happened, I wandered into TR’s birth place this afternoon, which made a sharp contrast.
Manner is instilled, not learned in a week or two.
胡思乱想, 漫无目的, 是很重要的. 今天走进老罗斯福的出生地, 感触良多. 不幸的是我小气, 不肯花时间去漫游… 所以井底之蛙一个.
今天有个朋友贴了2016 英国拍的 亿万富翁移民，看看中国的一些富有的精英，他们痴迷于英国 并且有钱为他们的执迷不悟付钱。 从萨维尔街（Savile Row）套装到上流社会的首次亮相球和百万磅赛马。
娘娘哥 因为认识富有的同乡 所以想开展高端大气的保姆中间人的生意。 第一个客户住£32,000一夜的酒店 – 24金的。 记得带🕶️
周杰伦 （是谁？）结婚的教堂 – 虽然他和老婆和那个教堂没有毛关系 也不信那个教 – 但是周先生有很多粉丝 他们也去那里结婚 – 虽然已经结婚好久了 。。。然后还问 “我们可不可以再走一次。。。？ 教父说 ‘当然可以’。。。只要付钱
湾迪没有选上去元媛舞會。 她得了个中国人办的什么奖 – 纽约也有这种骗人的奖。 还不如自己直接去买个奖杯
The plastic doll – 范塑料. She didn’t make the cover of the Vanity Fair but the writeup on her is length. It starts with her taxation problem from 2018. It also dispels her ‘son’ is, in fact her brother, 19 years younger.
One of the figures the articles provides is the movie screens in the US and China: 2,500 v 20,000.
As to the cover, Beto O’Rourke did. I’m wondering if we are we going to have 100 Democrats presidential candidates by 2020? Imagine, Trump on one end – if he wins the nomination – and the other end has 100 eager challengers? The Donald certainly opens the door for the dreamers of any shape and shade who’s willing to dream bold and dream big.
I woke up to an 5:29 email saying that I have a check to review from Fraud Protection group at Chase. I called them right away. I didn’t log in is because log in is such a big production that I’ve given up. After verifying everything, my local branch said, “but the check has already been paid.”
So why was I getting the first email? Then half a day later, at 3:08pm I got the second email. To say time is running out at 4pm, pls verify the check. I called their 800 line, the operator and her supervisor are pretty rude and unhelpful. Seriously, IF I could give your the check # and the exact amount, do you still need to verify my ten other credentials?
The Economist: Young children should be taught in their mother tongue instead
From the print edition | Feb 21, 2019
WHEN WINSTON CHURCHILL was at Harrow School, he was in the lowest stream. This did not, he wrote in “My Early Life”, blight his academic career, for “I gained an immense advantage over the cleverer boys. They all went on to learn Latin and Greek and splendid things like that…We were considered such dunces that we could learn only English…Thus I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence—which is a noble thing.”
Partly thanks to Churchill and the post-war Anglo-American ascendancy, English is these days prized, not despised. Over a billion people speak it as either their first or second language; more still as a third or fourth language.
English perfectly exemplifies the “network effects” of a global tongue: the more people use it, the more useful it is. English is the language of international business, law, science, medicine, entertainment and—since the second world war, to the fury of the French—diplomacy. Anybody who wants to make their way in the world must speak it. All of which has, of course, been of great benefit to this newspaper, which has floated on a rising linguistic tide.
It is not surprising that there is a surge in “English-medium” education all over the world. In some regions—such as East Asia and Latin America—the growth is principally among the rich. In others—Africa and South Asia, where former colonies never quite escaped the language’s grip—it is happening at all income levels. Parents’ desire for their children to master English is spurring the growth of private schooling; parents in the slums of Delhi and Lagos buy English-medium education in the hope that their children will gain a university degree, obtain good jobs and even join a glittering world of global professionals.
Where the private sector leads, governments are following. Some countries have long chosen to teach in English as a political expedient, because a local language would prove contentious. But even where public schools teach children in their mother tongue, or a local language, education authorities are switching to English medium, in part to stem the outflow of children into the private sector. That has happened in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan; many Indian states have started large or small English-medium experiments. In Africa most children are supposed to be taught in a local language in the first few years, but often, through parental pressure or a lack of textbooks, it does not happen.
Teaching children in English is fine if that is what they speak at home and their parents are fluent in it. But that is not the case in most public and low-cost private schools. Children are taught in a language they don’t understand by teachers whose English is poor. The children learn neither English nor anything else.
Research demonstrates that children learn more when they are taught in their mother tongue than they do when they are taught in any other language (see article). In a study of children in the first three years in 12 schools in Cameroon, those taught in Kom did better than those taught in English in all subjects. Parents might say that the point is to prepare children for the workplace, and that a grasp of English is more use than sums or history. Yet by year five the children taught in Kom outperformed English-medium children even in English. Perhaps this is because they gain a better grasp of the mechanics of reading and writing when they are learning the skills in a language they understand.
English should be an important subject at school, but not necessarily the language of instruction. Unless they are confident of the standard of English on offer, parents should choose mother-tongue education. Rather than switching to English-medium teaching, governments fearful of losing custom to the private sector should look at the many possible ways of improving public schools—limiting the power of obstructive teachers’ unions, say, or handing them over to private-sector managers and developing good curriculums and so on.
Pakistani Punjab has decided to end the English experiment; Uganda has introduced mother-tongue instruction in 12 different languages in the first four years of schooling. More should follow. After all, it was a good education in his mother tongue, rather than in the classics then favoured by the British aristocracy, that won Churchill the Nobel prize for literature.
Devotion is a horror game designed by Taiwan-based Red Candle studio. Many players agreed that it’s pretty good but, hmmmm somewhere gone wrong, bec of similarity to someone important and sensitive …
Oh well…. oh boy ….
S. Korea-based US airman returns Japanese flag taken as war trophy in Battle of Iwo Jima
Senior Master Sgt. Lowell Armstrong returns a World War II-era flag to family members of its original owner during a ceremony in Takasaki, Japan, Thursday, Feb. 14, 2019.
TAKASAKI, Japan — A South Korea-based U.S. airman brought a World War II-era Japanese flag to a small city in Gunma prefecture Thursday to complete a family mission started after his grandfather died nearly two decades before.
Senior Master Sgt. Lowell Armstrong, 44, presented the signature-covered flag to the family of Masashi Ito, who was killed in the bloody Battle of Iwo Jima on March 17, 1945.
Such flags were often signed by servicemembers’ families, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers wishing for good fortune in war. The warriors would then fold the flag and carry it into battle.
Armstrong put on white gloves, unfolded the relic and presented it to Ito’s nephews, Michio Miki, 90, and Hideo Ito, 76, during a formal ceremony attended by local officials at Gunma Gokoku Shrine, which honors war dead.
Ito’s flag is covered with more than 30 signatures and messages wishing him good luck and congratulating him for joining the Japanese Imperial Navy.
article continues below
Two signed Japanese flags belonging to fallen World War II soldier Masamoto Abe have been returned to the his family in Yokohama, Japan.
Hana Kusumoto/Stars and Stripes
Family receives a second Japanese flag taken off soldier’s body during WWII
Ventura resident Tom Hodges contemplates the flag of a World War II Japanese soldier brought home by his father, Roy T. Hodges, as a wartime souvenir. Such flags were signed by family and townsfolk. Hodges is returning the flag to Japan through the nonprofit Obon Society, which tries to find the soldiers’ families.
Gretchen Wenner/The Ventura County Star (TNS)
California man hopes Japanese soldier’s flag from WWII finds its way home
“I’m truly grateful that my grandfather kept this flag in great condition all these years and my family decided to return it to its rightful owners as we know how much it means to your family,” said Armstrong, who works in traffic management at Kunsan Air Base. “My grandfather would be happy that this flag is being returned.”
This signature-covered Japanese flag, taken as a war trophy during the Battle of Iwo Jima, was returned to the family of its former owner in Takasaki, Japan, Thursday, Feb. 14, 2019.
THERON GODBOLD/STARS AND STRIPES
Armstrong’s grandfather, Lowell Armstrong, had not talked about his experience during the war nor about the Japanese flag. After his death in 2002, his son, Steve, took possession of the flag and began researching how to return it. He eventually reached out to the Obon Society for help in 2016.
The Oregon-based group, which assists Americans with returning Japanese flags taken as war trophies, helped identify Ito as the original owner last fall.
“Out of respect to his family, it is only right to return it,” Armstrong told Stars and Stripes days before Thursday’s ceremony. “From my understanding, the Japanese believe the spirit of the soldier lives on in the flag.”
Ito’s nephews said they were shocked to find that their uncle’s flag had survived after more than seven decades.
“It was a great surprise to have it returned like this out of millions of those that died [during the war],” Miki said. “I am thankful for the thoughtfulness of Mr. Armstrong’s grandson to return it like this.”
While such repatriations are common, Tuesday’s ceremony marked the first time an active-duty soldier returned one of the flags, according to Keiko Ziak, co-founder of the Obon Society.
“I am honored to represent my family in this return ceremony,” Armstrong said. “I was named after my grandfather … he was one of the kindest, hardworking men anyone would ever meet. He would do anything for anyone.”
Senior Master Sgt. Lowell Armstrong unfolds a World War II-era Japanese flag during a return ceremony in Takasaki, Japan, Thursday, Feb. 14, 2019.
THERON GODBOLD/STARS AND STRIPES
WaPo | 2019.2.14 | by Fareed Zakaria
In recent weeks, attention has focused on two freshman Democratic members of Congress, Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), both of whom are Muslim and have made critical statements about Israel and its most ardent American supporters. Their tweets and comments have been portrayed by some as not simply criticisms of Israel but rather as evidence of a rising tide of anti-Semitism on the new left.
I don’t know what is in the hearts of the two representatives. But I believe that Muslims should be particularly thoughtful when speaking about these issues because anti-Semitism has spread through the Islamic world like a cancer. (Omar and Tlaib are not responsible for this in any way, of course, but they should be aware of this poisonous climate.)
It should be possible to criticize Israel. Unfortunately, by phrasing the issue as the two new representatives sometimes have, they have squandered an opportunity to further that important debate.