AN NHS radiographer who illegally accessed the personal records of more than 200 female patients before pestering them for dates has denied his crimes were sexually motivated.

Andrew Stewart, 32, worked at hospitals in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire where he dealt with hundreds of patients.

He used his position to look up files of women he had been treating before hounding them with a string of messages on Facebook and WhatsApp in a desperate bid to get into relationships with them.

He provided fake names including Andy Smith and Jamie Scott to protect his identity and called various women 'hot', 'gorgeous' and even complimented one on her 'nice boobs'.

He also sent photos of himself and in one message told a woman he was mature 'when it comes to pleasing women in bed.'

Stewart, of Fenwick, Ayrshire, had earlier appeared at Hamilton Sheriff Court and admitted two charges of obtaining personal data of 32 named women and others without a clinical or medical reason to do so.

He also pled guilty to a further 16 charges of acting in a threatening and abusive manner to women he had contacted between March 2013 and August 2018.

However when he returned to court for sentencing, his solicitor Philip Cohen told Sheriff Thomas Millar that Stewart denied getting any sexual gratification from contacting the women.

Mr Cohen added that Stewart felt 'lonely' and had been drinking when he messaged the unsuspecting women.

A further hearing will now take place where the sheriff will rule if there was any 'significant sexual element' to Stewart's behaviour.

If it is found that there was, Stewart faces being put on the sex offenders' register.

Mr Cohen said: "It is my client's position that this offence was not committed to achieve any kind of sexual gratification at all.

"There was very little in the conversations that could be described as sexual or significantly sexual.

"It is his position that he embarked on these conversations as a result of feeling loneliness and feeling alone.

"In terms of him actually intending to have proper relationships with these women it is his position that that would not happen and did not happen.

"The motivation here was not sexual.

"He has though accepted what he has done is criminal and will be punished for that. He has lost his job and there is no chance of him being allowed to continue and his career is over."

Deferring sentence further, Sheriff Millar told Stewart's lawyer: "He has deliberately targeted these women of a certain age and made these comments to them.

"There is a potential for notification requirements in this case.

"He was commenting about women having nice boobs, being hot and being gorgeous. How can that not be sexual in nature?

"We will need to have an evidential hearing about this if that is being denied by your client."

The court had previously heard how his crimes were uncovered when a woman he had been messaging recognised him at Crosshouse Hospital in Kilmarnock and reported it.

A massive probe was launched within the NHS leading to hundreds of patients receiving letters saying that their data had been breached.

It was discovered that Stewart, who also worked at Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride, had even offered to tell one female patient the results of her MRI scan before she had spoken to her consultant.

In total he had accessed around 220 patient files illegally.

When arrested by police over the matter, Stewart told officers: "I wasn't trying to achieve anything, I had no motive. This is just, I don't know how to describe this, it's loneliness if you must know, loneliness."

He will return to court in March and his bail was continued.

More here:
Radiographer who accessed 200 female patient records denies crimes were sexually motivated - Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald

The Bears now have the dubious honor of motivating 49ers' RB Raheem Mostert's 4-TD day

Raheem Mostert's been cut by six different teams since 2015, so a chip on the shoulder isn't exactly surprising.

After his 220-yard, four touchdown performance in the NFC Championship, the 27-year old explained what still gets him motivated before every game:

And who was the last team to cut Mostert before he signed with the 49ers? The Bears of course! In2016, Mostert was signed to the theirpractice squad, and he ended up appearing in two games before getting cut in October. He made another brief appearance on the team's practice squad later in the year, but was off the roster for good by Thanksgiving.

It's not some huge indictment of the team, but since the 2020 playoffs are apparently solely focused on hurting Bears' fans without even involving the Bears, this feels about right.

It's early (extremely early) in the 2020 NFL Draft process, and the Bears' team needs between now and when their first pick (No. 43 overall) is on the clock are certain to change. The general consensus right now is that offensive line, tight end and quarterback will be early draft targets, but edge rusher can't be overlooked.

Leonard Floyd's failure to emerge as the pass rusher the Bears need to complement Khalil Mack is a bigger problem than GM Ryan Pace or coach Matt Nagy want to admit. In fact, Floyd's ineffective style of play could cost Chicago a chance at becoming a truly elite defense and potentially limit the astronomical upside Mack has as a generational talent.

If the Bears decide to pull the fifth-year option from Floyd, they'll have no choice but to attack the position early in the 2020 draft. It appears like they're doing their homework for that scenario, too.

Bears scouts met with Tulsa edge rusher Trevis Gipson at length following Wednesday's Senior Bowl practice, an indication that the position is at least high enough on their wish list that extensive homework on pass rushers is being done.

Gipson helped his draft stock at the Senior Bowl and was an early winner among edge rushers at the game. His practice reps confirmed his tape; the dude knows how to get to the quarterback. He had eightsacks in 2019 and plays with a high-energy style that's certain to entice Chicago's coaching staff. He isn't an elite athlete, but he has an appealing frame (34-inch arms) and powerful hands.

Gipson began the week as a late-Day-3 prospect. He helped his stock and may have jumped a round or two along the way.

The Bears didn't have much of a rookie class in 2019. Last April's draft produced just five picks, two of which didn't appear in a regular-season game for the Bears.

But the production of running back David Montgomery was enough to carry the rookie class to a top-10 ranking, according to Pro Football Focus.

The Bears checked-in at eighth.

The Bears have a strange class. They had only five picks, none before Round 3, with three of those five selections coming after Round 6. As a result, their expected return was low. Running backDavid Montgomerywas really the only Bears' rookie to play significant snaps, and he managed to provide enough return from his third-round selection to land them at No. 8.

It's pretty remarkable that Chicago's 2019 rookie class essentially, Montgomery garnered this much respect from PFF. Wide receiver Riley Ridley showed signs of life late in the season and cornerback Duke Shelley will be given an opportunity to carve out a role on defense next season, but with running back Kerrith Whyte, Jr. and cornerback Stephen Denmark making no impact whatsoever (Whyte is no longer with the team), the 2019 class won't be remembered as one that laid a championship foundation in Chicago.

Sure, Montgomery has a chance to become one of the NFL's more talented starting running backs (he ended his rookie season with 889 yards and six touchdowns), but if Ridley and Shelley don't turn into legitimate contributors in 2020 or 2021, the class will go down as an epic failure for GM Ryan Pace.

Remember: The Bears didn't have a first-round pick because of the trade for outside linebacker Khalil Mack. That's a win for Pace, but it doesn't change the fact that he had five selections at his disposal and ended up with what appears to be just one impact player after their rookie seasons.

The rest is here:
Bears among group of teams that motivated Raheem Mostert's big game - NBCSports.com

Getty Images https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/omnisport/56/c/mcgregor-cropped_58b63ofgk7b61a72zmkqku4tr.jpg?t=-1078053201&w=500&quality=80

Conor McGregor revealed he lost his motivation for UFC after achieving a rapid rise to prominence in mixed martial arts, but he says he has now rediscovered his love for the octagon.

McGregor returned after a 15-month absence on Saturday, claiming a rapid first-round victory over Donald 'Cowboy' Cerrone in Las Vegas, which took just 40 seconds.

The 31-year-old had not fought since losing to Khabib Nurmagomedov in 2018, while the Irishman had also ventured into boxing when he faced Floyd Mayweather Jr in 2017.

His time away frommixed martial arts started with a six-month ban imposed after a post-fight brawl outside the cage following his showdown with Khabib.

MORE: McGregor says Mayweather rematch 'will happen', also wants Russian 'Rocky movie' fight

McGregor was then arrestedand charged with strong-armed robbery and criminal mischief in March 2019 after it was alleged he took a man's phone and smashed it on the ground in Miami the charges were later dropped. In November last year, he was finedafter pleading guilty to an assault of a man at a pub in Dublin.

However, McGregor insists he is now fully focused on his mixed martial arts career, after acknowledging that he let the people who supported him down.

"I achieved it all. I broke the game before I was 30 years of age, simple as," McGregor told a news conference. "One belt became not enough.

"My coach says its the worst nightmare for a coach if his student achieves it all the money, the fame, the belts, all of this. What then to motivate me?

"I probably had to go through that and then come back to it for the love of it, which is why I got into it in the first place. Everything's a learning curve, you learn what'sright and wrong.

"I wasn't committed and it was a disrespect of the people that believed in me. People were taking the time away from their families to come and help me and I wasn'tcommitted with it. I would train and then I'dgo missing for three days and then I'd come back and it was sporadic and on my call."

McGregor is adamant the only trick to success is hard work and discipline.

"It's all about commitment and then just do what you need to do. All I did was put in the work," he added.

"We know what the work is we need to do but sometimes you just don't do it. It's like little defeats and then those add up and your interest wanes, then you can get injured and all those things.

"It's about commitment, that's it. You put in the work and you reap the rewards, there's no secret sauce to this. Recognise what you need to do, f****** do it, and you will succeed."

Read the original:
UFC 246: Conor McGregor admits he lost motivation after early success - Sporting News AU

LOUISVILLE, Ky., Jan. 25, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Jurisdictional Bishop Verdell Jones, Sr.'s book When You Feel Like Giving Up Don't!!! $11.49, paperback, 9781626976627; $5.99, e-book, 9781626976634) is available for purchase.

In his book When You Feel Like Giving Up Don't!!!, author Jurisdictional Bishop Verdell Jones, Sr. uses biblical examples of hardship to encourage readers to persevere. This text is perfect for readers who have experienced any challenges and the author uses strongly related scriptures to connect with readers.

The author pulls from his personal testimonial to connect with the readers. His story of his triumph and success creates a strong example of how maintaining faith in one's self and faith in God produces success and blessings. Such messages are timeless and will uplift any reader to follow suit. These biblical accounts and the author's personal testimonial are designed to allow each reader to find his/her ordeal in one of them.

The introduction is personalized and effectively informs readers of the author's intent with the book. Lists in the reading contain transitions, allowing readers to anticipate breakdowns of scriptural material.

"Remember," said Jurisdictional Bishop Verdell Jones, Sr., "God's Solution Has An Appointment With Your Problem."

Xulon Press, a division of Salem Media Group, is the world's largest Christian self-publisher, with more than 12,000 titles published to date. When You Feel Like Giving Up Don't!!! is available online through xulonpress.com/bookstore, amazon.com, and barnesandnoble.com.

SOURCE Xulon

Continued here:
Motivational Guide and Devotional Encourages Readers to Never Give Up - Benzinga

Rio Hope-Gund, Agnes Gund and Catherine Gund on the set of Aggie. Courtesy of Aubin Pictures

Agnes Gund, now 81, has given more than 1,000 works of art to the Museum of Modern Art, but shes best known for selling one painting, Roy Lichtensteins Masterpiece, 1962, to the hedge funder Steven A. Cohen for $165 million in 2017.She took the money and devoted $100 million to found the Art for Justice Fund to address mass incarceration in the United States.

Gunds decades of collecting and philanthropy are the through-lines of the documentary Aggie, made by another Gund, her daughter Catherine, 54. The film premieres at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, on Friday.

SEE ALSO: Dive Into Kubricks Mind in an Exhibition About the Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey

On camera, Gund seems reserved, except when around artists or her family. She also announces from the back seat of a car crossing Manhattan that I hope that the film will not be seen by too many people.

She was notoriously camera shy, a reluctant subject, said Catherine, who brought in a string of interlocutorsfamily, artists and colleaguesand the story emerges, one encounter at a time, often in front of a huge Jasper Johns painting, Map, 1963. So do the causes that her mother has supportedarts education in public schools, AIDS advocacy, the Museum of Modern Art, prison reform.

We learn about her father, a Cleveland banker. She talks of having four children in her first marriage, and then divorcing in search of a new life. That took her to the Fogg at Harvard for a Masters Degree, then to New York, where she joined a MoMAs Painting and Sculpture Committee in 1968 and became the museums president in 1990.

Agnes Gund and artist Xaviera Simmons in Simmons studio, as seen in Aggie. Courtesy of Aubin Pictures

Agnes Gund confesses that shes felt guilty for the privilege that she was born into, which has meant that shes given away much of the art that shes bought. Guiltthats why so many of my things have gone to museums, she says on camera. Guilt is something I have not been able to get over.

She directed some of that sentiment toward MoMA on becoming its president. We had one black curator. It finally dawned on people that we had to do something about it, she said.

Collecting art by women, she said, was another challenge. Look at the Faith Ringgold problem, she says in the film, referring to American People Series #20: Die.,the large, 1967 painting of a street shoot-out by an African American woman that now hangs alongside Les Demoiselles dAvignon by Pablo Picasso. MoMA could have acquired that work long before it did, she noted, as was the case with works by other women artists that the museum now owns.

Gund also tells Thelma Golden of the Studio Museum in Harlem that shed like to curate an exhibition of womens large monumental artworks. There are so many women who are capable of doing those. I think that would be a real eye-opener.

Given Gunds generosity, theres plenty of praise in Aggie, from Darren Walker of the Ford Foundation and Michael Bloomberg to the artists Catherine Opie and Xaviera Simmons. Conspicuous in his near-absence from this serial screen hug is MoMAs director, Glenn Lowry.

The filmmaker John Waters sits down with her. Who knew that Gund helped MoMA acquire Waters 1972 bad-taste masterpiece Pink Flamingos? Gund is a good sport with Waters, another collector, when he asks if she frequented the Mudd Club or the Mineshaft. When she admits that she never took LSD, Waters says your vision did not need altering.

Agnes Gund featured in June 14, 2017 news story alongside image of Roy Lichtensteins Masterpiece, as seen in Aggie. Courtesy of Aubin Pictures

In the film, and in Gunds philanthropy, thoughts in the doc return to the sale of Lichtensteins Masterpiece. Generous, it was also a gesture, Gund said, in the hope of getting her benefactor peers to follow suit. When I did sell the painting, somebody who was quite close to me said, what the heck did you do that for? It seemed such an unusual thing, and people were not all that positive about giving that money to prisoners.

Yet donations from the sale of art did come in, to Gunds foundation and to other projects. It was always part of the planplease join me, sell artworks, said Catherine Gund.

It really does create money where there isnt money, she explained.

There are collectors who give lots of money to different issues, but there hadnt been someone before who said, Heres $100 million that didnt exist for criminal justice reform yesterday. The painting still exists in the world.

And that approach hasnt happened too soon for Agnes Gund, who now wants to raise funds to bring attention to climate change, a cause that she admits shes been late in supporting.

Would she next sell the Jasper Johns in her living room that frames many of the conversations in Aggie?

Not that picture, per se, but certainly were looking at things, but at a lesser price, she told Observer.

Aggie, still seeking a distributor,makes its New York premiere at MoMA next month, and opens at Film Forum later this year.

See original here:
Why Agnes Gund Is Encouraging Other Collectors to Sell or Donate Their Art - Observer

New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees has a big decision ahead of him: whether its time to bow out, and retire from the NFL on his own terms. His contract expires in March, and hell have the option to re-sign with New Orleans, consider new offers, or simply enter retirement.

Brees, 41, leaving the game wouldnt really be a huge shock hes played professionally for 19 seasons, having devoted his life to football. Hes got a wife and four children who would love to spend more time with him. And he wont be lacking for new career paths once hes thrown his last pass. Hes recently managed his contract with the Saints on a year-to-year basis, taking time to decompress and deliberate after each season.

But Saints general manager Mickey Loomis wants it known that he and his team will welcome Brees back as long as he wants to play in New Orleans.

Yeah, Loomis replied when asked if the Saints wanted another year with the Hall of Fame-bound quarterback. I dont think its any different than its been for the last few years. I dont view it any different than I did a year ago or the year before that or the year before that, regardless of whether he has a contract or not. Hes a good player. Hes been a good player. He continues to be a good player.

Still, Loomis acknowledged that the Saints must consider more factors than Brees personal success and the records hes broken. He also pointed out that its important not to get bogged down in a string of recent, disappointing playoffs exits: I think that any team who makes the playoffs is a success. Thats a successful season. Yet, we all have goals and aspirations more than just making the playoffs. And you really do if youve made the playoffs a number of years.

The Saints have won 26 of their last 32 regular season games, posting back-to-back 13-win seasons for the first time in franchise history. And theyve largely done that with Brees commanding the offense. Unless Brees decides to retire this offseason or seriously regresses next year, its tough to imagine anyone else starting at quarterback in the foreseeable future.

Go here to read the rest:
Saints GM Mickey Loomis shares his view on Drew Brees' future with the team - Saints Wire

For most people, the story of the Macintosh begins with the famousSuper Bowl ad directed by Ridley Scott. In reality, the story started long before that (5 years before, to be exact), but it wasn't until a few dayslater that the world would meet the first mass-market truly 'personal' computer. The Macintosh included a graphical user interface (GUI), a mouse for navigation, and a built-in display, all of which were revolutionary at the time.

Today marks 36 years from the day the original Mac was introduced by Steve Jobs. In the first of what would become Job's signature product launch keynotes, Apple showed off its new computer. Oh, and Jobs wore a bow-tie while pulling off a canvas bagto reveal the first Macintosh.

ThatMac featured an 8MHz Motorola 68000 processor, a 3.5-inch floppy disk drive, a 9-inch black and white display, and 128K of RAM. It also carried a price tag of $2,495, which is roughly $6,000 in today's dollars. It kind of makes the newest Mac Pro seem affordable in comparison.

It's hard to imagine today how monumental the Macintosh was at the time, but in addition to the computer itself, Apple's launch was something completely new. The company turned the tech product launch into a media event, borrowinga page from its CEO at the time, John Sculley's, former company, Pepsi.

It worked. The Mac was the most popular personal computer in its first year, outselling Apple's own Lisa, as well as the IBM PCjr. It sold almost 250,000 units that first year, but its long term success was hampered by the lack of applications that took advantage of its GUI. In fact, despite promising more than 70 software titles, there were generally fewer than a dozen widely-available applications.

The Mac has come a long way since 1984, and has taken ona variety of shapes and forms. From the original Macintosh 128K, to the iMac, to the PowerBook and MacBook Pro, Apple has consistentlyset the direction for the industry and every other manufacturer.

While Apple's most recent financial success is largely attributed to the iPhone, it's worth remembering that the introduction of the Mac was the moment that Apple first broke into the mind of the public. It generated a loyal fanbase that has grown over the last 36 years, reaching cult-like status in many ways.

And today, it remains asymbol of the ethos and design innovation that has become Apple's signature.

That seems like a pretty big success after all.

Published on: Jan 24, 2020

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

See original here:
Today the Mac Turns 36 Years Old. Here's Why It Still Matters Today - Inc.

Close

Kansas' David McCormack (33) is held back by teammate Isaiah Moss during a brawl following a game against rival Kansas State at Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, Kansas, on Tuesday. Kansas won, 81-60.

Jamie Squire, Getty Images | TNS

Kansas' David McCormack (33) is held back by teammate Isaiah Moss during a brawl following a game against rival Kansas State at Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, Kansas, on Tuesday. Kansas won, 81-60.

Jamie Squire, Getty Images | TNS

Jamie Squire, Getty Images | TNS

Kansas' David McCormack (33) is held back by teammate Isaiah Moss during a brawl following a game against rival Kansas State at Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, Kansas, on Tuesday. Kansas won, 81-60.

By TPN Staff January 24, 2020

Share on Facebook

Share via Email

Print

Whos to blame for the brawl in Kansas? Why are both Super Bowl participants cursed? And just how many Celtics should make the NBA All-Star game? The Pitt News sports staff tackles these topics and more in this weeks Take 5.

Catastrophe in Kansas

The brawl that happened during Tuesdays game between Kansas and Kansas State was truly disgusting but it didnt have to be. While the actions of everyone involved were despicable, most of the blame falls on the shoulders of first-year Kansas State guard DaJuan Gordon and the rest of the Wildcats.

You dont steal the ball down 21 with less than 10 seconds left on the clock. Just ask Monmouth Universitys George Papas.

Some have called the move gritty or tried to argue that Gordon was trying to light a fire under his team for the next game, but the move can only be described as bush league. The Wildcats got whooped, and if they wanted to take that anger out in some fashion, they should have looked inward. The team shot less than 40% and decided that trying to show up the No. 3 team in the nation was the proper outlet for that frustration.

This brawl was completely preventable Kansas State had a poor performance and should have handled it by going to its locker room and figuring out how to improve on an otherwise forgettable night.

It should be noted that the worst part of the night was the actions of Kansas junior Silvio De Sousa, who picked up a chair and attempted to use it as a weapon. He has since been rightfully suspended indefinitely by both Bill Self and the Big 12 Conference. Im not condoning the violence that occurred after Gordons steal, which was inexcusable.

But instead of performing an action that everyone knows is offensive and will surely incite a reaction, just steal the ball when it matters next time.

Joe Melillo, For The Pitt News

Dont snub the Celtics

The Boston Celtics are the only team in the NBA with three players averaging 20 or more points, and all three of those players deserve a spot in the All-Star game. Kemba Walker earned a starting spot Thursday night, while Jayson Tatum is positioned comfortably for a reserve spot and Jaylen Brown is unfortunately staring down the barrel of the snub gun.

Walker is averaging 22.1 points, five assists and four rebounds. In addition to statistical success, he serves as the leader on a talented Celtics team, managing to balance personal success with team success something that former Celtic Kyrie Irving struggled with.

Tatum is averaging 21.5 points, 6.9 rebounds and 1.4 steals. Offensively, he has taken the leap from prospect to star. He has also been more than effective on defense, as evidenced by his real plus-minus of 4.82 fifth-best in the NBA.

Brown averages 20 points and 6.8 rebounds, but most impressive is his efficiency he shoots 49.1% from the field and 39.1% from 3-point range. The only player in the East averaging more than 20 points with a higher field-goal percentage is reigning MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo, and no player in the East has a higher 3-point percentage while averaging 20 points.

Despite proving he is an All-Star-caliber player, Brown is in danger of getting robbed simply because people will refuse to put three Celtics players in the game. This outcome would be incredibly disrespectful to Browns talent. Just because his team is ripe with talent does not mean he should be robbed of All-Star honors, especially given the lack of depth at the shooting guard position in the Eastern Conference.

Sean Tierney, Staff Writer

Nakken is right where she belongs

The San Francisco Giants made history last Thursday by announcing the hire of Alyssa Nakken as an assistant manager. In doing so, they made Nakken the first full-time female coach in Major League Baseballs 117-year history. Let that sink in.

Former Giants player Aubrey Huff was quick to criticize the hiring, pointing out that Nakken never played in the MLB. He tweeted that the move has #metoo written all over it and he couldnt imagine taking baseball instruction from a female coach.

Nakken didnt play in the MLB but neither did Buck Showalter, who managed the Yankees, Diamondbacks, Rangers and Orioles for 20 years and won the Manager of the Year award three times.

What if we looked at this the other way around? This is where a double standard becomes clear. As it happens, only 40.8% of womens collegiate sports teams are led by female coaches. Additionally, more than half of the head coaches in National Pro Fastpitch, the worlds most prominent professional softball league, are men. That doesnt even account for assistants. No one seems to have an issue with men coaching women so why is there a problem when theres a woman coaching men?

As a player at Sacramento State, Nakken earned All-Conference honors three times, playing to the tune of a career .304 batting average and .992 fielding percentage. The bottom line is that Nakken reached the top of her field as a softball player, making her as credible as any other coach.

Marshall Worth, For The Pitt News

Battle of the curses

For the first time ever, this years Super Bowl may prove to be an unwinnable game for both teams, thanks to supernatural powers working behind the scenes. The matchup will see the Kansas City Chiefs, dogged by the infamous Madden Curse, facing the equally doomed San Francisco 49ers, who will be haunted by the horrifying Drake Curse.

The Madden Curse has been a fixture in the NFL since 1998, when San Francisco 49ers running back Garrison Hearst broke his ankle shortly after appearing on the cover of Madden NFL 99. Those featured on Maddens cover have been cursed ever since.

This years game, Madden 20, saw Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes featured on its cover, and the consequences will undoubtedly be severe for his team. Since the Chiefs rely so heavily on Mahomes to run the offense, the team cannot afford to have a cursed performance from their quarterback, and the very existence of the Chiefs logo on the cover of the game cannot possibly bode well for their upcoming matchup.

But the 49ers face a situation that became dire when old photos surfaced of Canadian rapper Drake sporting a 49ers windbreaker. The Drake curse holds that any time the rapper is seen wearing a teams apparel, that team will lose its next game. It prevented Alabama from winning the 2019 College Football Title, cost Conor McGregor a UFC fight and, in an interesting case last year, delivered the 76ers a loss when Drake supported the team in order to secure a win for his Toronto Raptors.

Though no major experts have weighed in on the issue yet, the dueling curses are certain to make Super Bowl LIV strange. It will be interesting to see how the Chiefs offense operates without Mahomes, and as for the 49ers knock on wood.

Henry Jackson, Staff Writer

Gritty needs to punch more children (kidding, of course)

Beloved Philadelphia icon and Flyers mascot Gritty came under fire this week for allegedly punching a 13-year-old fan in the back during a meet and greet. The mascot is accused of smacking the boy in the back, causing bruising and mild pain, after the boy patted the mascot on the head, according to a chiropractor who treated the fan.

After an email from the boys father, which originally only complained about the poor quality of the photo taken at the meet and greet, Philadelphia police are investigating the incident. There is no video of the punch and no eyewitnesses recall watching Gritty hit the boy.

What I want to know is where does PC culture end? Gritty should be permitted, and encouraged, to punch more children. No one wants to be condescendingly patted on the head, least of all a beloved mascot-turned-nightmare. Gritty ought to be allowed to punch as many children as he deems is acceptable. Children are frequently terrible, and why should we allow them to continue their reign of terror? Because theyre young and short? A poor excuse for bad behavior.

Delilah Bourque, Contributing Editor

Here is the original post:
Take 5: Super Bowl, Boston, Brawling - University of Pittsburgh The Pitt News

Illustration by Eric Chow.

Whoever is happy will make others happy too... How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl

There is a wind of change in our society. People are talking about feelings. Even men are doing it. Relatively recently Prince William and Prince Harry talked for the first time about their mothers death and how it affected their own mental health. All around there is a new undercurrent a greater concern with our own inner life and with how other people feel. A new, gentler culture is emerging.

By contrast, the older culture, which still dominates, is altogether harsher. It is more focused on externals. It encourages people to aim above all at personal success: good grades, a good job, a good income and a desirable partner. This culture of striving has brought many blessings, and life today is probably as good as it has ever been in human history. But that culture also involves a lot of stress, and people wonder why if we are now so much richer than previous generations we are not a lot happier.

The answer is surely the ultra-competitive nature of the dominant culture. The objective it offers is success compared with other people. But, if I succeed, someone else has to fail. So we have set ourselves up for a zero-sum game: however hard we all try to succeed, there can be no increase in overall happiness. An alternative, gentler culture offers a different aim, which can lead to a winwin outcome. It says that we should of course take care of ourselves, but we should get as much happiness as possible from contributing to the happiness of others. Competition, it argues, is valuable in the right context and that context is competition between organisations. This has been a major engine of progress. But what we need between individuals is mostly cooperation, not competition. We want people who will act for the greater good at work, at home and in the community. This produces better results for everyone. But above all, it makes life more enjoyable. For people long to relate well to each other as an end in itself and not just as a means to something else.

My main proposal is that we should each of us, in all our choices, follow the Happiness Principle: we should aim to produce the greatest happiness that we can and especially the least misery. This noble vision does not go against basic human nature. For all of us have two inherited traits one selfish and one altruistic. The selfish side believes that I am the centre of the universe and my needs come first. This trait was important for our survival as a race, and we should indeed take good care of ourselves and of our own inner equilibrium. But the altruistic side enables us to feel what others feel and to strive for their good. This is vital for a happy society.

It is a fallacy to think that reputation is a sufficient motivation for good behaviour. We need people with an inner desire to live good lives, even without reward. A happy society requires a lot of altruism, and so it needs a culture which supports our altruistic side. This gentler culture has always been around, in some form or other. It is there in all the great religions. Yet for many people these religions have lost their ability to convince. As religious belief has declined, a void has been created and into that void has rushed egotism, by default. We have told our young people that their chief duty is to themselves to get on. What a terrible responsibility. No wonder that anxiety and depression are rising among the young. Instead, people need to get out of themselves to escape the misery of self-absorption. So there has to be a new, secular ethic, based on human need and not divine command.

This basic secular ethics goes back to the 18th-century Anglo-Scottish enlightenment, which proposed a radically new goal for society. The goal, it said, should be the happiness of the people. That Happiness Principle was, I believe, the most important idea of the modern age, with powerful implications for how we should live and how our policymakers should act on our behalf.

This principle inspired many of the great social reforms of the 19th century, but it was soon challenged by philosophies that glorified struggle. Such dreadful philosophies contributed to two world wars and to the ultra-competitive features of todays dominant culture.

But now the Happiness Principle is making a comeback. There are many reasons for this. One is disillusion with the dominant culture and the stress which people experience at every level of society. But the other reasons are hugely positive. Now, for the first time, we have a science of happiness, which gives us real evidence on how to create a happier society.

At the same time there are new techniques of mind-training that enable each of us to improve our own inner mental state, with evidence-based ways in which all of us can become happier. And more and more people now use ageold eastern meditation to achieve greater contentment and calm of mind.

These techniques offer the prospect of a society where we take care, more than ever, of our own inner contentment and, especially, the happiness of others.

There are two opposing strands in human nature. One stresses the differences between my own needs and wants and those of others. The other stresses the similarities and what we all have in common. The relative strength of these two influences is determined to a large extent by the prevailing culture in which we live.

In modern culture the selfish strand is now legitimised as never before. The chief goal on offer to young people is success relative to others better grades, higher pay, more friends and greater fame. Increasingly, young people compete in every possible avenue of life. These trends in youth culture have been studied intensively by Jean Twenge at San Diego State University. She finds that 31% of high school students expect to be famous one day, and an increasing percentage of college entrants think they are above average. Similar narcissistic tendencies are exemplified in the candidate whom American electors knowingly chose as their president in 2016. As Donald Trump elegantly put it: Show me someone without an ego and Ill show you a loser.

It is easy to see how the Me-First philosophy can take root, unless constantly challenged by a more unselfish view of the purpose of life. After all, we mostly live in large cities in which no one has any automatic position. To do anything worthwhile you have to establish your position, and this requires an element of self-promotion.

In recent years, the rise in competitiveness has been made much worse by the advent of social media, which have encouraged self-advertisement and made more young people feel inadequate, anxious, depressed and left out. In addition it has encouraged populism, which is an increasing challenge to a cohesive and loving society.

None of these trends will be easy to alter. But there are many hopeful trends too, both among citizens and among policymakers. The first is the spectacular fall in crime of all kinds in recent decades in most advanced countries. This new degree of gentleness is one of the least noticed and least well understood changes of our time, but it is deeply significant. My own guess is that it reflects the increased influence of women in our society: women commit fewer crimes than men do, and they tend to avoid men who are criminals. Moreover, most women care more about inner feelings than men do on average, while typically men have been more focused on externals.

This shift of perspective is central to the happiness movement, which is about the overarching importance of our feelings our quality of life as we actually experience it.

A third trend is the growing toleration of diversity. That has already transformed the happiness of minority groups, including people who are LGBT, disabled or (until recently) immigrants.

So the ground is fertile. But are our leaders up for implementing the Happiness Principle?

One hero in the political sphere is Enrico Giovannini, an enterprising Italian who was once the chief statistician of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD is the club of rich nations, and it started the standard measurement of GDP in the 1950s. In 2004, Giovannini persuaded the OECD to open a public debate on the nature of progress the issue often referred to as Beyond GDP. Since then the OECD has held another five major conferences to push forward the boundaries of wellbeing measurement and policy. In 2012, it recommended that its member countries should measure the subjective wellbeing of their adult population each year, and all of them now do so.

The UN too has been active. In 2012 it established an annual International Day of Happiness (20 March), and the UN general assembly called upon its members to give more attention to the happiness of their people. At the same time a leading development economist, Jeffrey Sachs, who was an adviser to the UN secretary general, proposed the idea of an annual World Happiness report. This is now presented each year at the UN.

But what are individual governments doing? In January 2019, Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, was addressing world leaders at Davos. She announced that her government had adopted wellbeing as its goal and would use it as the basis of her budget for wellbeing the following May.

Many other countries, local governments and cities have been taking steps in the same direction, including the governments of France and Britain. In 2008, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, set up a distinguished commission to report on the measurement of progress, and following on from that, French law, like that of Sweden, now requires that all major policy changes must be analysed for their impact on (among other things) wellbeing.

Britain has in many ways gone further than this. It was the first country to measure national subjective wellbeing as an official statistic, and its top civil servant for many years, Gus ODonnell, pushed for subjective wellbeing as a goal of government policy. After leaving government he chaired a committee that produced the best available account of how that might be done.

The movement for change is strong. Governments make the decisions, responding to a growing alteration in the public mood. But can each one of us become more effective as creators of happiness, both as citizens and within our own occupations? Who can do what? Here are a few examples, all of them based on the new science of happiness.

In 2015, the Dalai Lama was in London launching a new course, Exploring What Matters. At one point a woman came on to the stage. She was in pain and on crutches. For years she had been mostly bedridden and often depressed. But then she enrolled on the course. It changed her life. She realised that, by helping others like herself, she could give meaning to her life. The Dalai Lama embraced her. Later on, he was asked: What is the most important thing for a happy life? Without hesitation, he replied: Warm heart.

In the end it is each of us as individuals who will determine the levels of happiness in our society by everything we do. It is not easy to live well, but it is very much easier if you are in regular contact with people who are trying to do the same. In the west this used to happen when people went to church. They were reminded that there was something bigger than them. And they were inspired, uplifted and comforted. But today people are much less likely to define ethical behaviour as conforming to the will of God.

That is one of the reasons why, in 2011, we founded Action for Happiness, a secular movement for a happier society. The patron is the Dalai Lama, and members make the following pledge: I will try to create more happiness and less unhappiness in the world around me. So far, more than 150,000 people from 175 countries have made that pledge promising to live according to our ethical principle.

Action for Happiness offers them 10 Keys to Happier Living, and it is forming thousands of groups worldwide who meet regularly to inspire each other, using standard materials which the movement provides. The 10 Keys are presented as an acronym (Great Dream) and divided into five day-to-day actions and five habits of mind. The daily habits are Giving (doing things for others); Relating (connecting with people); Exercising; Awareness (living mindfully); and Trying Out (learning new things). The philosophical habits are: Direction (having goals to look forward to); Resilience (finding ways to bounce back); Emotions (looking for whats good); Acceptance (being comfortable with who you are); and Meaning (being part of something bigger).

A new culture has to be based on individuals what we each value and how we behave. We need to address the moral vacuum which has been left by the retreat of religion. Where egotism has replaced it, we need instead the generous philosophy embodied in the Happiness Principle. And to live well, we need to cultivate the positive side of our nature which can nourish us and help us reach out to others. For many people it will help to belong to a community of people who share our outlook. Together we can build a happier society and each of us will contribute in our own unique way.

Sceptics question whether teachers can make children happy. But the evidence shows that they can. Since 1991, children born in Bristol have been followed up each year to see how they are faring. For example, the researchers measured their happiness at age 16 and, to explain it, they collected information about the childrens parents, as well as about the primary and secondary schools they attended.

What they discovered was remarkable. How happy children are at 16 depends as much on which secondary school they are at as on everything we know about their parents. It is also profoundly affected by which primary school they attended, all those years earlier.

So schools make a huge difference to childrens happiness at 16. They also have a significant impact on their behaviour. In fact they make about as much difference to their happiness and their behaviour as to their academic performance. And so do individual teachers. In primary schools children are mainly taught by one teacher over the whole school year, so that in the Bristol survey we can trace how each teacher affected the happiness of the children in their care over the year. We found that the teacher made a greater difference to the childrens happiness than to their performance in maths.

Remarkably, we can also see the long-lasting effect of individual primary school teachers on the children they taught right up to the age of 20. But how well, one might ask, does a childs happiness predict her subsequent happiness as an adult? Or shouldnt schools concentrate mainly on what they do best academic learning? The answer is a clear no. For the best predictor of a happy adult life is a happy childhood. Evidence also shows that happier people learn better. And they contribute more to the happiness of the world.

Schools and universities can become societys secret weapon for improving our culture. For the best outcomes, five things are needed:

Teachers can do a lot. But when their students eventually go out to work, will their managers offer them an environment which fulfils or disheartens them?

The Nobel prize laureate Daniel Kahneman has pioneered the study of time-use to find out which times of day are happiest for people, and the answer is quite shocking. The worst time of day is when you are with your boss. The person who should be inspiring you and appreciating your work makes you feel lousy. There must be something deeply wrong with our philosophy of management. Another depressing finding is that most people dont much like their work compared to almost anything else they might be doing. This is not of course true for everybody. But for the average American citizen it is just that, and the same has been found in Britain.

How can we produce better ways of working? In a capitalist society, most businesses make a big positive difference. And some things are improving. Customer care is hugely better than it was 30 years ago. There is growing concern with worker morale and mental health, and many new consultancies form each week to offer advice on this. Google, for example, offers meditation to all of its workers and prides itself on its happiness Googlegeist [the companys wide-ranging annual employee opinion survey].

On the other hand, the old macho culture is still strong setting worker against worker. The former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, practised rank and yank find out who the worst 10% are each year and sack them. This may be less orthodox today, but it is still common. It will require a new generation of managers, believers in the Happiness Principle, to bring a quite different philosophy to the workplace.

There are clear, evidence-based methods that improve happiness among employees. These include giving workers more influence over how their work is organised, paying team workers on the basis of team, not individual, performance, measuring worker wellbeing, appointing managers who can inspire and lead, running courses on wellbeing at work for all workers and taking mental illness seriously, with managers who can spot it and get the necessary help. Firms that do these things will gain both higher productivity and greater profits. And they will make the world happier.

There is currently massive discontent with the worlds elite, and with the atomistic neoliberalism that it often espouses. According to that philosophy, all will go well if individuals are free to negotiate their own way through life; selfishness is not a problem provided people can choose their own friends and trading partners. But this ignores one key fact that we would all be better off if the pool of possible friends and traders were nicer and more honest. The attitude of other people is crucial.

For this reason, there is now a strong push back against extreme liberalism. People are calling for a society based on reciprocal obligation. In this view, we do not enter this world as independent, fully fledged adults, but as people highly dependent on support from our family, our government and the whole of our society. In return for this, we should ourselves feel bound to help others when we can. We want a free society, but one where people feel a duty to help.

It is the vision of society that politicians should champion, and it is the principle that should guide their priorities in government. It is also the principle that will get them re-elected. So the aim of politicians, as of private individuals, should be to create as much happiness in the world as possible and as little misery.

The quality of the government has a huge impact on the happiness of the nation. Ministers should plan long-term, use evidence from past experience, avoid unnecessary reorganisations, and resist witch-hunts. Power easily corrupts, so we are right to scrutinise our politicians. But this scrutiny, like everything in life, should be sensible. If honest mistakes are allowed to wreck careers, we shall not get good people to go into politics. Politicians should be judged more by the amount of good they do, than by the number of mistakes.

As we become richer, the size of government is bound to grow. This applies to the traditional roles of the state, such as education and physical health care. But it is also because the public now demand help with mental health, addiction, domestic violence, child abuse and loneliness not as a nanny state but as a state that helps people to help themselves. Finally, the big threat for the future is populism and the politics of division. So we have to regulate social media, limit the power of private money in politics and expand state funding of parties.

Will the happiness revolution succeed? I believe it will. There is no reason why, in less than 40 years from now, the culture of gentleness could not displace the dominant culture of excessive individualism. The world happiness movement can indeed bring in a better, gentler culture and do it fast. But what happens will ultimately depend on each one of us. We can all be heroes in the happiness revolution.

This is an edited extract from Can We Be Happier? Evidence and Ethics by Richard Layard with George Ward (Pelican, 22). To order a copy go to guardianbookshop.com. Free UK p&p over 15

Read this article:
How to make the world happier and why it should be our first priority - The Guardian

Former Toys R Us CEO and Storch Advisors CEO Gerald Storch joins FOX Business to discuss the big brands we lost in the past decade and what went wrong.

Despite reports of the death of the mall, some shopping centers are doing much better than others.

Earlier this month, the New York Times published a report on the success of Aventura Mall in Florida -- owned by Turnberry Associates and Simon Property Group.

Some of the amenities featured at Aventura include a nine-story slide, sculptures throughout the shopping center and carnival-style games, according to the Times.

But Aventura isnt the only successful shopping center in the U.S. -- nor is the industry dying out, one organization told FOX Business.

TARGET, OTHER RETAILERS TO BENEFIT FROM PIER 1 CLOSURES: REPORT

According to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the number of malls in the U.S. has continued to increase every year since 1970. In 2019, there were 1,170.

ICSC spokesperson Stephanie Cegielski told FOX Business that occupancy rates across the country are at 92 percent,which indicates the health of the industry.

The mall landscape may look different 10 years ago -- but thats a good thing, Cegielski said. Successful malls constantly adapt to changes in consumer preference and demand.

Those changes are particularly obvious in the types of tenants malls are housing,which are now more geared towardentertainment, fitness, personal services and food and beverage, rather than traditional retail, according to ICSC.

EXPRESS TO CLOSE 100 STORES

Aside from adapting to changes, malls tend to be successful when theyre located in dense, high-quality areas. So, developers are investing in mixed-use properties around malls in order to drive up foot traffic to their shopping centers, according to commercial property company CoStar Group.

Another sign of success among malls is the vacancy rate, CoStar consultant Kevin Cody told the Times. The newspaper reported that nationally, the vacancy rate for malls is 4.7 percent.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Meanwhile, Aventuras vacancy rate is 3.6 percent, according to the Times.

The newspaper then reported four other malls that have maintained a vacancy rate of less than 3 percent, citing a senior consultant at CoStar.

To see which malls those are -- as well as Aventura -- here are five successful malls in the U.S., according to the Times.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Read the original post:
5 of the most successful US malls - Fox Business