Jeffrey David Sachs is an American economist and public policy analyst who is a professor at Columbia University, where he was formerly director of The Earth Institute. He worked on sustainable development and economic development...Sachs is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the MDGs. In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, whose stated aim is to boost the importance of broadband internet in international policy.[12] Sachs has written several books and received several awards. His views on economics, on the origin of COVID-19, and on the Russian invasion of Ukraine have garnered attention and criticism.
In a lifetime studying the behavior of chimpanzees, Jane Goodall became something of an authority on the aggressiveness of alpha male adults. Now, in an interview released just days after her death, the famed primatologist reveals what she would do with Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other human beings she saw as showing similar traits: launch them on a one-way trip into space...“There are people I don’t like, and I would like to put them on one of Musk’s spaceships and send them all off to the planet he’s sure he’s going to discover,” Goodall tells interviewer Brad Falchuk during the revelatory 55-minute special discussing her life, work and legacy...[Musk would] be the host. You can imagine who I’d put on that spaceship. Along with Musk would be Trump and some of Trump’s real supporters,” she said. “And then I would put [Russian president Vladimir] Putin in there, and I would put [China’s] President Xi. I’d certainly put [Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu in there and his far-right government. Put them all on that spaceship and send them off.”...In a 2022 interview with MSNBC she said [Trump] exhibited “the same sort of behavior as a male chimpanzee will show when he’s competing for dominance with another. They’re upright, they swagger, they project themselves as really more large and aggressive than they may actually be in order to intimidate their rivals.”...“We get, interestingly, two types of alpha. One does it all by aggression, and because they’re strong and they fight, they don’t last very long. Others do it by using their brains, like a young male will only challenge a higher-ranking one if his friend, often his brother, is with him. And you know, they last much, much longer,” she said.She also examined the “politicization” of behavior, and what her studies had taught her about aggressive behaviors shown by groups of humans and chimpanzees when confronted with something they perceived as hostile, even if no threat existed.“Chimps see a stranger from a neighboring community, and they get all excited, and the hair stands out, and they reach out and touch another, and they’ve got these faces of anger and fear, and it catches, and the others catch that feeling that this one male has had, and they all become aggressive,” she said.“It’s contagious,” she added. “Some of these demonstrations that turn aggressive, it sweeps through them. They all want to become and join in and become aggressive. They’re protecting their territory or fighting for dominance.”Falchuk asked if she believed it was the same for humans. “Probably, sometimes yes. But I truly believe that most people are decent,” she said.
Mad Hatter Day is 10/6. The date was chosen from the illustrations by John Tenniel in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, wherein the Mad Hatter is always seen wearing a hat bearing a slip of paper with the notation "In this style 10/6". We take this as inspiration to behave in the style of the Mad Hatter on 10/6 (which is October 6 here, although in Britain Mad Hatter Day occurs on June 10...but I digress...)As I searched this topic on the 'net today, it was interesting to see how many observers misinterpret the 10/6 on his hat as being either a style number ("The Mad Hatter’s top hat, according to Lewis Carroll, was of the 10/6 style") or worse ("my birthdate (10/6) is on his hat although I think that is his hat size!"). The correct interpretation, of course, is that "the paper in the Mad Hatter's Hat was really an order to make a hat in the style shown, to cost ten shillings sixpence."
Mad Hatter Day began in Boulder, CO, in 1986, among some computer folk who had nothing better to do. It was immediately recognized as valuable because they caused less damage than if they'd been doing their jobs.
Claire McCardell hated being uncomfortable. This was true long before she became one of America’s most famous fashion designers in the 1950s, her influence felt in every woman’s wardrobe, her face on the cover of Time magazine.As a young girl growing up in Maryland, she hated wearing a dress when climbing trees, and didn’t understand why she couldn’t wear pants with pockets like her brothers—she had nowhere to put the apples she picked. At summer camp, she loathed swimming in the cumbersome full-length stockings women were expected to wear, so she ditched hers and went bare-legged in the lake, even though she knew she’d get in trouble. When she was just starting out as a fashion designer, in the 1930s, she went on a ski trip to New Hampshire and one evening saw a woman shivering in a thin satin dress. Why, McCardell wondered, couldn’t an evening gown be made out of something warmer, so a woman could actually enjoy herself?McCardell made a career out of asking such questions, and helped transform American fashion in the process, as Elizabeth Evitts Dickinson details in her lively and psychologically astute biography, Claire McCardell: The Designer Who Set Women Free. The young designer who came home from New Hampshire and devised a blue wool evening dress was often dismissed by her bosses for her “crazy” ideas—wool was for coats, not parties! She was told to keep copying the latest looks from Paris, as was customary in the American garment trade at the time. In those early years, McCardell didn’t have the clout to design apparel her way. But she had a core conviction, and she never abandoned it: Women deserve to be comfortable—in their clothes, and in the world...McCardell insisted on putting pockets in women’s clothing; previously, pockets were reserved almost exclusively for men... She put fasteners on the side of her clothes rather than the back, so women could get dressed without a husband or a maid. She partnered with Capezio to popularize the ballet flat—and the idea that women didn’t always have to wear heels. When air travel became possible, and steamer trunks were replaced with slim suitcases, McCardell developed separates: tops and bottoms you could mix and match so that you didn’t have to bring a bulky parade of dresses for every occasion. She patented the wrap dress, mainstreamed the leotard, stripped linings out of swimsuits so that women didn’t have to sit sodden and cold on the beach. Ever worn denim? McCardell is the one who ignored its provenance as a humble workingman’s textile and brought it to women’s wear.
"The $2.50 check is real. You could put this letter aside, cassh the check, and forget all about our important laboratory research and national cancer education programs. But what I really hope you will do is return the $2.50 check along with your own gift of $10.00 or more to help in our fight against cancer."My wife immediately logged on to access the Charity Navigator website (I would encourage everyone to bookmark this worthwhile site for future reference). The "National Cancer Research Institute" is, as indicated on their checks, a project of the Walker Cancer Research Institute, which is rated by Charity Navigator with one star (out of a possible four) for accountability and transparency, and 2/4 for finances. They note that over 50% of the funds raised are used for additional fundraising. So if you send them $10, about $5 of that will be used to send mailings to more people.
The public education portion of the solicitation consists of an approximately 1/8 page list of "risk factors for breast cancer" on the back side of the solicitation. Overall, 52.11% + 43.14% (95.25%) of all donations go to either direct or indirect fundraising costs. The card states that 3.81% of funds go directly to research program services (38 cents out of a $10.00 donation). Thus, of the $12,568,927 raised by WCRI, $478,876.11 went directly to research. As a comparison, an NIH grant awarded to a single Investigator for a specific research study typically ranges from $25,000 to $250,000.If you read the comments at Charity Navigator, you will see that some people say they cash the check and donate the money to "real" charities. Or you can keep the money. But note this - your name and address are on the check (with a scannable barcode), and...
Numerous complaints have been made by individuals who are receiving dozens of letters soliciting funds and are unable to persuade the charity to remove their names from the mailing list. The Center then sells those names to other charities, and people throughout the country have complained of being inundated by requests for money that they can not stop.The choice is yours. My check went into the shredder.
"Participant Andreas Pelowski from Germany poses during the European Beard Championship in Leogang, Austria, on September 20, 2025" Credit Johann Groder / APA / EXPA / AFP / Getty.
Jonathan Haslam, a historian of Soviet foreign policy and the author of the new book Hubris: The American Origins of Russia’s War Against Ukraine, has a rather different analysis. He starts his story a quarter century earlier, in 1989—two years before Ukraine achieved independence. As for who started it: as the title of the book suggests, Ukraine has less of a role to play in his account than the United States does.Some tens of thousands of Ukrainians have perished over the past three years, including more than ten thousand civilians; their country lies in ruins. At least one hundred thousand Russian soldiers have died, too. Yet an honest reckoning with the root causes of this death and destruction has largely eluded political leaders, who have instead been guided by demands for moral clarity—the expectation that they oppose the illegal act of invading another country without either U.N. authority or any credible argument for self-defense. In this sense, Putin’s invasion has been treated in much the way many liberals have treated Trump’s rise—as an unprovoked aberration, an alien force from nowhere.A lone gunman theory has its comforts: if Putin is just an evil man, nothing needs to change except opposing his crimes and follies. If the truth is even a little more complex, however—and Hubris proves that it is complex indeed—focusing blame on Putin alone launders the complicity of a far wider range of participants, and of the long-term policy they helped make. At stake is not only the path to peace in Eastern Europe but the future and purpose of American power in the world...Like his fellow realist John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, Haslam identifies NATO’s expansion eastward as a wound to Russia’s pride. This isn’t to say that he accepts Russia’s nonsensical rationale for the invasion as “self-defense.” But, as he argues, Russia’s leaders and population had been humiliated, and the country found itself increasingly isolated—things American politicians did nothing to counteract and occasionally celebrated. This didn’t guarantee, let alone justify, a war. But it did set up the conditions for one...Bush continued NATO’s expansion, pushing the alliance into seven new nations, including the Baltic countries sharing a border with Russia, thus raising Russian hackles further. After all, the arrival of NATO in places that had been part of the Soviet Union itself was far less a response to Russian military threats than it was a ratification and recognition of the West’s superior economic and political power. But America’s support for the “color revolutions” in Georgia in 2003–04 as well as Ukraine in 2004–05—coinciding with Bush’s Iraq War—pushed things too far. “The United States,” Haslam explains, “had become accustomed to looking down on Russia as a defeated power of little or no account,” asserting the power to occupy other countries while highlighting the diminution of Russian power. The double standard was glaring, even as the consequence of the Bush years was to normalize illegal invasions—and to destabilize the Middle East, awakening Putin’s interest in the great game of European imperial designs there.
It's certainly a representation of a skull. For what purpose? A functional item, or an objet d'art? If it's art, of what era/style? Jewelry - from when? Toy/game - which one? European, American, Asian, Incan? Your grade will be based 1/3 on era (century), 1/3 on geography (continent) and 1/3 on use/purpose.But it turned out to be too easy. Ponder the photo for a moment to see what you would have guessed, then look beneath the fold for the answer...
Answer tomorrow, with source credits.
