Dramático Escape: Soldado Nor-Coreano deserta hacia Corea del Sur y sobrevive

Este es uno de los lugares mas fuertemente resguardados en el mundo, y en el vehículo se encuentra un soldado Nor-Coreano a punto de realizar la mas atrevida y peligrosa decisión de su vida: Desertar al Sur.

En las imágenes, el soldado continua su rumbo y pasa de largo el ultimo puesto de vigilancia Nor-Coreano, y sigue manejando. Sin vuelta atrás, el soldado esta a muy poca distancia de la libertad.

Los soldados del régimen Nor-Coreano toman una ultima decisión para atraparlo, y a solo unos metros de la linea demarcatoria sucede el desastre cuando el desertor choca su Jeep.

El soldado tiene que cruzar a pie con sus perseguidores disparando 40 balas a sus espaldas. Un soldado Nor-Coreano inclusive cruzó la frontera antes de que todos sus compañeros retrocedan, una clara violación al acuerdo de armisticio.

Media hora después, el soldado malherido es captado por las cámaras sobre una capa de hojas. Las imágenes de la cámara infrarroja muestran como los soldados Sur-Coreanos gatean para rescatarlo. Los doctores señalaron que el soldado se encuentra en recuperación.

Traducción al español: arturodiazf

Fuente: DW

Estos son los nuevos ministros de PPK, luego de la cuestión de confianza denegada a Zavala por parte del Congreso Fujimorista

  • Mercedes Aráoz es la Jefa del Consejo de Ministros.
  • José Manuel Hernández es ratificado como ministro de Agricultura.
  • Fernando D’Alessio, juramenta como nuevo ministro de Salud. 
  • Idel Vexler, Nuevo ministro de Educación. (posibles modificaciones en la Nueva Ley Universitaria, vinculo con la USMP, y erradicación del enfoque de genero en la educación escolar peruana)
  • Enrique Mendoza, juramenta como nuevo ministro de Justicia. (posibilidad de indulto a Alberto Fujimori)
  • Carlos Basombrío juramenta y se mantiene en la cartera del Ministerio del Interior.
  • Claudia Cooper, nueva ministra de Economía y Finanzas reemplaza a Fernando Zavala.
  • Jorge Nieto Montesinos es ratificado en el Ministerio de Defensa.
  • Ricardo Luna juramenta y se mantiene como ministro de Relaciones Exteriores.
  • Alfonso Grados se mantiene en la cartera del Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo.
  • Pedro Olaechea, congresista de Peruanos por el Kambio, es ratificado en el Ministerio de la Producción.
  • Eduardo Ferreyros se mantiene como ministro de Comercio Exterior y Turismo.
  • Cayetana Aljovin se mantiene en el Ministerio de Energía y Minas.
  • Carlos Bruce Montes de Oca, nuevo Ministro de Vivienda Construcción y Saneamiento.
  • Bruno Giuffra, se mantiene a la cabeza del Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones.
  • Ana María Choquehuanca se mantiene como ministra de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables.
  • Elsa Galarza juramenta como ministra de Ambiente.
  • Salvador del Solar se mantiene en el Ministerio de Cultura.

Leer: ¿Por qué causa polémica Idel Vexler en el ministerio de Educación?

Chicago to sue Trump administration over sanctuary city funding threat

Image: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/RTX2U9ZJ-1024×730.jpg

CHICAGO/NEW YORK (Reuters) – Chicago will sue the Trump administration on Monday over threats to withhold public safety grant money from so-called sanctuary cities, escalating a pushback against a federal immigration crackdown, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced on Sunday.

The federal lawsuit comes less than two weeks after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the U.S. Justice Department would bar cities from a certain grant program unless they allow immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provide 48 hours’ notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

“Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate,” Emanuel, a Democrat, said at a news conference. “Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.”

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants provide money to hundreds of cities, and the Trump administration has requested $380 million in funding next year. Chicago, a regular target of Republican President Donald Trump because of its murder rate, expected to receive $3.2 million this year for purchasing equipment.

Emanuel said the lawsuit would prevent the Trump administration from setting a precedent that could be used to target other funding.

Under Trump and Sessions, the federal government has sought to crack down on sanctuary cities, which generally offer illegal immigrants safe harbor by declining to use municipal resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing sanctuary movement.

The Justice Department said more Chicagoans were murdered last year than residents of Los Angeles and New York combined, and cited comments by Sessions last week saying sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a Sunday statement: “It’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk.”

Police and city officials in sanctuary cities have said deporting illegal immigrants who are not accused of serious crimes harms public safety by discouraging immigrants from coming forward to report crimes.

Chicago’s lawsuit is the first to challenge the department over the Byrne program, though city officials said they are in contact with other cities. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is also considering a similar lawsuit, the Sacramento Bee has reported.

The Trump administration has already faced legal battles over its sanctuary city policies. Last month, a U.S. judge refused to revisit a court order that blocked Trump’s January executive order denying broader federal funds to such jurisdictions, in a case filed by San Francisco and the California county of Santa Clara.

In: reuters

Contra el ecumenismo del odio

El Vaticano critica a los fundamentalistas xenófobos e islamófobos en un artículo de la revista de los jesuitas visado por el propio Papa y por el secretario de Estado

El papa Francisco, entre Ivanka (izquierda) y Melania Trump (derecha), en una audiencia en el Vaticano el 24 de mayo pasado. ALESSANDRA TARANTINO (REUTERS)

¿Quién se acuerda de Charles Maurras? Murió hace más de 60 años mientras cumplía cadena perpetua por complicidad con el enemigo alemán durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Fue extraordinaria su influencia intelectual sobre las derechas más extremas europeas, incluidas las españolas, a través de su partido antisemita, ultra y monárquico, Action Française, sobre todo entre las dos guerras mundiales. Igual de extraordinaria fue su tormentosa relación con la Santa Sede, que terminó con su excomunión y las de su seguidores y con la inclusión de un puñado de sus escritos y de la propia revista que dirigía en el Índice de Libros Prohibidos.

El tiempo de las excomuniones y del Índice de los Libros Prohibidos queda lejos, olvidado ya. Roma ya no hace cosas así, al menos desde el Concilio Vaticano II. Pero si las hiciera, no hay duda de que ahora tendríamos algo parecido a un caso Maurras a propósito de las turbulentas ideas y propuestas políticas del presidente Trump y más concretamente de su consejero estratégico Steve Bannon,un príncipe de las tinieblas que inspira las políticas más extremistas de la actual Casa Blanca, como el muro con México y el muslim ban o prohibición de entrada en EE UU a ciudadanos de seis países musulmanes.

Steve Bannon es católico, mientras que Donald Trump nació en una familia presbiteriana. La religiosidad personal de ambos es más que dudosa, como le sucedía a Maurras, hasta el punto de que fue el agnosticismo del escritor francés el que le condujo a la condena eclesial. Bannon se ha divorciado dos veces a pesar de la indisolubilidad del matrimonio católico, y de Trump se desconoce si practica o si tiene siquiera alguna idea religiosa. Pero en ambos cuenta la religión como visión política del mundo, y ahí es donde el Vaticano tiene algo que decir y lo ha dicho, uniendo además en una misma crítica al catolicismo integrista y al fundamentalismo evangelista que tan buen servicio les ha rendido al Partido Republicano para ganar en las elecciones presidenciales.

Aunque el mensaje es bien claro, en cuanto a quien lo emite y a lo que dice, la vía escogida por el Vaticano es sutil e indirecta. Ha sido la revista de los jesuitas Civiltà Cattolica la que lo ha transmitido, a través de un artículo, titulado ‘Fundamentalismo evangélico e integrismo católico en Estados Unidos, un ecumenismo sorprendente’, firmado por su director, el italiano Antonio Spadaro, y por el protestante argentino Marcelo Figueroa. Un católico y un protestante denuncian precisamente la colusión de católicos y protestantes extremistas estadounidenses en un mismo pensamiento al que califican de “ecumenismo del odio”. Según el diario italiano La Repubblica, el papa Francisco en persona, el secretario de Estado Pietro Parolin y el secretario para las Relaciones con Estados Unidos, Paul Richard Gallagher, han corregido y visado el artículo.

El papa Francisco rechaza la narrativa del miedo y de la inseguridad, sobre la que Trump y su derecha alternativa construyen muros ideológicos

La primera característica de esta desviación teológica es el maniqueísmo, un “lenguaje que divide la realidad entre el Bien absoluto y el Mal absoluto”, cuestión en la que los autores citan al propio presidente Trump y que sitúa a los inmigrantes y a los musulmanes entre las amenazas al sistema de vida de Estados Unidos.Una segunda característica que denuncian Spadaro y Figueroa es el carácter de Teología de la Prosperidad que comparten los dos extremismos católico y evangelista. Su evangelio para ricos, difundido por organizaciones y pastores multimillonarios, predica una idea autojustificativa de que “Dios desea que sus seguidores tengan salud física, sean prósperos y personalmente felices”. La tercera característica es una defensa muy peculiar de la libertad religiosa, en la que extremistas católicos y protestantes se unen en cuestiones como la oposición al aborto y al matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo o la educación religiosa en la escuela, y propugnan un sometimiento de las instituciones del Estado a las ideas religiosas e incluso a la Biblia muy similar al que inspira al fundamentalismo islámico.

Esta visión del mundo proporciona una justificación teológica a la guerra y alienta la esperanza religiosa con la expectativa de un enfrentamiento apocalíptico y definitivo entre el Bien y el Mal. Las afinidades con la idea islamista radical de la yihad son bien claras. El artículo denuncia la web de extrema derecha Church Militant, que atribuye la victoria de Trump a las oraciones de los estadounidenses, propugna la guerra de religiones y profesa el llamado dominionismo, que es una lectura literalista del Genésis en la que el hombre es el centro de un universo a su entero servicio. Los dominionistas consideran anticristianos a los ecologistas y observan los desastres naturales y el cambio climático como irremediables signos escatológicos de un final de los tiempos apocalíptico, que no hay que obstaculizar, sino todo lo contrario.

No es posible comprender esta fuerte arremetida del Vaticano contra la extrema derecha estadounidense sin recordar la intervención de Steve Bannon en una conferencia celebrada en el Vaticano en 2014, en la que denunció la secularización excesiva de Occidente y anunció “la proximidad de un conflicto brutal y sangriento, (…) una guerra global contra el fascismo islámico”, en la que “esta nueva barbarie que ahora empieza erradicará todo lo que nos ha sido legado en los últimos dos mil o dos mil quinientos años”. También hay que situarlo en el marco de tensiones entre la Casa Blanca y el Vaticano a propósito de Oriente Próximo, especialmente tras el primer viaje de Trump en el que pretendió conectar con las tres religiones, islam, judaísmo y catolicismo, pero terminó convirtiéndose en un reforzamiento de la alianza con Arabia Saudí y un estímulo al enfrentamiento con Teherán, con consecuencias inmediatas en el bloqueo a Qatar.

El pontífice no solo discrepa de sus propuestas sobre ecología, inmigración o impuestos, sino que rechaza su estrategia en favor de Riad

Curiosamente, Spadaro y Figueroa defienden las raíces cristianas de Europa, pero con una argumentación inversa a la que se escuchaba en tiempos de Ratzinger, de la que ha desaparecido el supremacismo cristiano y blanco. “El triunfalismo, la arrogancia y el etnicismo vengativo son exactamente lo contrario del cristianismo”, aseguran. El artículo termina recordando que el papa Francisco combate la narrativa del miedo y la manipulación de la inseguridad y de la ansiedad de la gente, evita la reducción del Islam al terrorismo islamista y rechaza la idea de una guerra santa contra el islam o la construcción de muros físicos e ideológicos. Con la denuncia del ecumenismo del odio, el Vaticano sitúa a Steve Bannon y Donald Trump en un infierno ideológico análogo al que abrió las puertas a Maurras en 1927, ahora hace justo 90 años, en el que se encuentran condenados los políticos que utilizan la religión para dividir en vez de unir a los seres humanos.

En: elpais

 

Odebrecht detalha propina para alto comando do poder no Peru

Ex-presidente Toledo negociou pagamento em reunião no Rio de Janeiro, dizem delatores

Keiko Fujimori, PPK, Mercedes Arroz y Alejandro Toledo

Se a política peruana fosse um jogo de boliche, a delação de executivos da Odebrecht poderia, sem exageros, ser comparada a um strike. A imagem resume bem o efeito do que ocorreu no país vizinho desde dezembro de 2016, quando a gigantesca colaboração foi assinada. Foram, em maior ou menor grau, envolvidos na Lava-Jato o atual presidente, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, o PPK, sua vice, Mercedes Arioza, os ex-presidentes Ollanta Humala e Alejandro Toledo, e a candidata a presidente derrotada Keiko Fujimori.

Humala, atualmente no presídio Barbadillo, em Lima, pode não ser o único a ser preso. Os delatores entregam detalhes de um enredo de pagamentos de caixa dois feitos pelo Setor de Operações Estruturadas semelhante ao de seus adversários políticos, hoje também sob investigação. O caso com mais detalhes, entretanto, envolve bem mais do que caixa dois.

O ex-presidente Alejandro Toledo, hoje foragido nos Estados Unidos, já tem uma ordem de prisão expedida em decorrência da Lava-Jato, sob a acusação de ter negociado propina numa reunião no Rio de Janeiro. Os delatores afirmam que, em contrapartida por criar condições que permitissem a empresa ganhar a licitação da rodovia Interoceânica, que ligaria o Brasil ao Oceano Pacífico, Toledo recebeu de suborno US$ 20 milhões entre 2006 e 2008.

A propina teria sido depositada em contas de empresas do grupo empresarial Josef Maiman, um dos principais financiadores da campanha de Toledo.

Na delação, há ainda relatos de pagamentos de propina para que a Odebrecht conquistasse, além de dois trechos da Interoceânica, a linha um do metrô de Lima, o trecho no estado Callao da estrada Vía Costa Verde, uma estrada em Cusco, na região dos Andes, e outra no estrado Carhuaz.

DEPOIMENTO DE MARCELO ODEBRECHT

Contra Keiko Fujimori, a primogênita do ex-presidente e ditador Alberto Fujimori, o mais robusto dentre os documentos a que o GLOBO teve acesso é o depoimento de Marcelo Odebrecht de maio passado. Ele fala explicitamente que doou em caixa dois para Keiko, que encarna o discurso de defesa da ética na política. Pelo Twitter, ela negou a acusação: “Eu não conheço o senhor Marcelo Odebrecht”.

Em depoimento, Odebrecht ainda revelou que o ex-ministro da Fazenda Antonio Palocci, preso pela Lava-Jato e negociando um acordo de delação, teria tido papel decisivo em pagamentos ilícitos ao ex-presidente Ollanta Humala.

“Todos grandes candidatos esperavam de certa maneira que nós doássemos. A atuação do Antonio Palocci foi decisiva para doarmos para o Ollanta Humala, mas todos esperavam”, afirmou Marcelo Odebrecht em seu depoimento de maio.

Se a versão peruana da Lava-Jato avançar, o atual presidente, PPK, e sua vice, Mercedes Arraoz, também podem ter problemas. Contra ela, paira a acusação de ter recebido caixa dois na campanha presidencial de 2011 — o que ela nega.

Já PPK vive em meio ao fantasma da Interoceânica, a mesma que pode levar Toledo à cadeia. O atual presidente era ministro da Economia no governo Toledo, que tinha na rodovia uma de suas maiores peças de propaganda. Embora a quebra do sigilo bancário de PPK não tenha apontado nenhum recurso vindo das construtoras brasileiras, uma investigação da Justiça peruana ainda apura se PPK beneficiou a Odebrecht. O presidente nega as acusações.

En: O Globo

Pentagon spends 10 times more on erectile disfunction meds than transgender services

The Pentagon spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications in 2014, 10 times the estimated annual medical costs for transgender services.

Military Times reported in 2015 that the military spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications such as Viagra and Cialis the year before. Meanwhile, a 2016 Rand Corporation study estimated that the maximum annual medical costs for transgender military members would be around $8.4 million, Business Insider reports.

“You’re talking about .000001% of the military budget,” being spent on transgender services, Navy SEAL veteran Kristin Beck, who is transgender, told Business Insider.

President Trump announced Wednesday on Twitter his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military “in any capacity.” He cited the “tremendous” costs for providing medical services for transgender troops.

“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you,” Trump tweeted.

His announcement sparked widespread condemnation from members of both parties, including Republicans who broke with the president to speak out against the ban.

Image: Facebook

In: thehill

Read also:

Trump to ban transgender people from all military service

Retired transgender Navy SEAL: Tell me to my face I’m not worthy of serving

 

Free Speech Advocate On The State Of College Campuses

Greg Lukianoff. Image: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Greg-Lukianoff-Staff-Photo-2014.jpg

Greg Lukianoff heads the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates free speech. He tells Steve Inskeep that freedom of speech on college campuses has been attacked recently.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

We are in the middle of college graduation season, which is a season of high-profile commencement speeches. In 2017, some of the speeches are about speech, how we debate one another. On Friday, for example, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Wellesley College, her alma mater – the graduates there – that it’s too easy to avoid hearing anyone who disagrees with us.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

HILLARY CLINTON: We can shut out contrary voices, avoid ever questioning our basic assumptions. Extreme views are given powerful microphones. Leaders willing to exploit fear and skepticism have tools at their disposal that were unimaginable when I graduated.

INSKEEP: Some of the shutting out of contrary voices happens on campus. This year, planned speeches have been shut down from Berkeley, Calif., to Vermont. Many of those kept from speaking were politically conservative. But it all bothers a man who identifies as liberal, Greg Lukianoff. He’s a First Amendment lawyer and the head of an organization called Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates for free speech on campus.

How common is it that a speaker who’s controversial or perceived as controversial is thrown off a campus or threatened with being thrown off the campus?

GREG LUKIANOFF: Overall – not that common. But it’s amazing that it happens at all, given that, particularly when it comes to commencement speakers, over the years, universities have become a lot more small-C conservative about who they invite. So they’re already being very careful with who they invite. So the fact that, in 2016, we saw 42 attempts to get speakers disinvited, both commencement and otherwise – we didn’t consider that a good trend. Let’s put it that way.

INSKEEP: How do people go about trying – attempting – to disinvite speakers?

LUKIANOFF: The way we distinguish is if the goal is either to get that speaker off the campus – essentially, that speaker can’t speak here – or to shout them down or, worst of all, of course, to engage in violence to prevent the speech from going on – like happened at Berkeley back in February.

INSKEEP: OK. So 42 times in one year – and there’ll be some more this year as you tally it up.

LUKIANOFF: And that was the worst year we’d seen. We have about 15 years of research on it. And we have – we actually have the largest database on disinvitation attempts because that’s really what we count because that is how we sort of take the temperature for tolerance, for listening to people you disagree with on campus.

INSKEEP: Is this reflecting the education itself – what’s happening in the classrooms?

LUKIANOFF: You know, I’m really wondering about that because, for most of my career – I’ve been working – fighting – for defending academic freedom and free speech on campus since about 2001. And for the overwhelming majority of my career, the single best constituency for free speech on campus were the students themselves. And people are sometimes kind of surprised to hear that.

And I’m like, no, no. Most of what we were fighting were administrators. It’s only around 2014 – 2013 – that we started seeing a lot of push by students for people to be disinvited, for new speech codes and new speech restrictions.

INSKEEP: Why don’t we listen to an example where there was a speaker on campus? And many people on campus disagreed with his point of view. It was the vice president of the United States, Mike Pence. He went to Notre Dame in my home state of Indiana and delivered a graduation speech. Let’s listen to a little bit of that.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: While this institution has maintained an atmosphere of civility and open debate, far too many campuses across America have become characterized by speech codes, safe zones, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness – all of which amounts to nothing less than suppression of the freedom of speech.

(APPLAUSE)

INSKEEP: So Vice President Pence takes this opportunity on a campus to speak up for freedom of speech. As he’s doing it, some – not all – of the graduates are standing up and walking out of the speech. And there was a Notre Dame student who tried to explain to CNN why she thought that was. Her name is Aniela Tyksinski.

(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “CNN NEWSROOM”)

ANIELA TYKSINSKI: The walkout was in response to the fact that members of our own community felt unwelcome, uncomfortable, and even unsafe with the invitation of Mike Pence. And so political discourse should be happening in other contexts at this campus, not at our commencement.

INSKEEP: OK. So let’s just walk through that incident. Mike Pence speaking up for Notre Dame but criticizing campuses in general – the students saying, many of us felt unsafe. What do you make of all that?

LUKIANOFF: Well, I definitely think what the students did was entirely appropriate. I’ve been frustrated and saddened to see, in many cases, students either refused – they tried to shut down events in some cases or shout speakers down – in the case of Charles Murray and some cases – in the case of Ray Kelly at Brown several years back.

I do get a little worried when I hear people talking about using the word unsafe to mean basically uncomfortable. I do think that leads to problems where people sort of conflate opinions with violence. And that’s something that I’ve been increasingly seeing on campus. They don’t make a major distinction between those two things.

INSKEEP: Violence increasingly doesn’t mean setting a fire at Berkeley to stop an event. Violence means saying words that people don’t want to hear.

LUKIANOFF: And that’s a very bad trend. I wrote about – I wrote a short book called “Freedom From Speech” a couple years ago. And I said, if you create a situation in which a professor – when you say you feel unsafe, they assume nine times out of 10 you mean something more like uncomfortable. That’s a very dangerous situation for people who are genuinely unsafe. Certainly, like, when I was in college, if you said you were unsafe, you’d be like, oh, my God, we have to call the police. What do we need to do? Watering down terms that are so central to people’s actual safety is dangerous.

INSKEEP: So you like that the students at Notre Dame…

LUKIANOFF: Yes.

INSKEEP: Those who protested found a way to speak themselves…

LUKIANOFF: Absolutely, yeah.

INSKEEP: …Without actually interrupting Vice President Pence. What did you make of what Vice President Pence had to say?

LUKIANOFF: You know, of course, I’m always happy when people have nice things to say about freedom of speech. I did – we did chuckle a little bit, though, at the idea that Notre Dame is great on free speech. We classify them as a red-light school, which means that they have at least one speech code on campus. Now, Notre Dame doesn’t have to promise freedom of speech because it’s a private school. But they do.

INSKEEP: How common are speech codes, as you just called them?

LUKIANOFF: So when we first started evaluating most major colleges, it was around – 75 percent of universities maintain red-light speech codes. But there have been, like, 60 lawsuits (laughter) against speech codes since 1989. So they’re now down to about 40 percent.

INSKEEP: OK.

LUKIANOFF: We are seeing some actual progress on that.

INSKEEP: They’ve been going down. Would you describe your own politics?

LUKIANOFF: Liberal atheist, as I sometimes get picked on for (laughter).

INSKEEP: OK. So you’re being literal – liberal atheist. As a liberal atheist, do your fellow liberals get a little upset when you criticize people who are criticizing conservatives or trying to stop conservatives from speaking on campus?

LUKIANOFF: It depends on who. You know, like, my oldest friends totally get it. But I will say it can be pretty exhausting to be in the middle of the culture war all the time because it is a situation where nobody assumes good intentions on the other side. They’re totally with you if it’s a speaker they like. But they totally hate you if it’s a speaker they don’t.

INSKEEP: So you’re OK even with Charles Murray, very controversial academic speaking on a campus.

LUKIANOFF: Yeah. I think that we need better practice in how to listen to people – even opinions that we despise.

INSKEEP: Greg Lukianoff, thanks very much.

LUKIANOFF: Thank you.

INSKEEP: He’s head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

In: NPR

Report: GOP operative probing Clinton e-mail took his own life in Minnesota

Peter Smith. Screenshot via Youtube. Image: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/59680f2b552be5a7088b48c0-492/screen%20shot%202017-07-13%20at%2052325%20pm.png

CHICAGO (AP) — A published report says a former private equity adviser and Republican operative who died soon after telling The Wall Street Journal he tried during the 2016 presidential election to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers killed himself.

The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday that according to death records from Olmsted County, Minnesota, 81-year-old Peter W. Smith killed himself in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic on May 14. The newspaper says a note from Smith found by police said he was taking his own life because of bad health and an expiring life insurance policy.

Smith’s death came about 10 days after the Journal said he granted an interview in which he claimed he tried to acquire emails missing from Clinton’s server.

Smith had lived in the Chicago suburb of Lake Forest. A former employee told the Tribune he thought Smith went to the Mayo Clinic for treatment of a heart condition.

In: wthr

Reasd also: businessinsider – Republican donor kills himslef after talking about working with Russian hackers to get Hillary Clinton’s emails

1 2