Campaigners have taken part in a vigil outside the

first_imgCampaigners have taken part in a vigil outside the Royal Courts of Justice, as the high court was hearing claims by a disabled woman that new benefit rules are “unfair and discriminatory”.Regulations that came into force in March mean that people who are unable to plan or undertake a journey due to overwhelming psychological distress now receive fewer qualifying points when assessed for personal independence payment (PIP).The new rules mean that many PIP claimants are entitled to a lower level of financial support for their mobility, and in many cases no mobility support at all.The legal challenge against work and pensions secretary David Gauke is being brought by RF, who believes that the changes to PIP will have a “significant negative impact” on her life and on the lives of many others who experience significant mental distress.Both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the mental health charity Mind have submitted written evidence supporting RF’s case.Sara Lomri, RF’s solicitor and deputy legal director of the Public Law Project, said: “[RF] has told me that losing enhanced PIP mobility means she will not be able to get the support she needs to travel.“This will have a huge impact on her ability to participate in society and her independence.”The court’s ruling is expected before Christmas.Among those who took part in a vigil outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the first day of the two-day hearing was Rose*, who said the new regulations could easily affect her level of support.She currently receives the higher rate care component of disability living allowance and the lower rate mobility component, and she said she was “constantly living in dread of being called up for my [PIP] assessment”.She said: “My psychological distress does affect my mobility. I have severe dissociation which causes me to wander around without any knowledge of danger.“I think it’s time for justice for us because we have been discriminated against and there is such a lack of understanding of psychological distress.”She added: “It is criminal the way we are being treated. It is just not right. I had other plans for my life, not to live on benefits, but unfortunately I have to because of my mental health problems.“I am shocked about how we are made to feel bad for being unwell.”Paula Peters (pictured, front), a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, is still waiting to be assessed for PIP, as a long-term claimant of disability living allowance, and currently receives mobility support because of the psychological distress caused by travelling.She said the case was “fundamentally important” to her and the many thousands of others who also need the support to travel.Without that mobility support from DLA, or PIP, she would not have a Freedom Pass, which allows her free travel across the capital, so she can attend GP and hospital appointments, and take part in campaigning.Without the support from PIP, many people with mental distress would be excluded from society and imprisoned at home, she said.Peters said: “We get the mobility component of PIP for deep psychological distress because it is so vital for our mental wellbeing and being able to get to appointments, to interact with friends and family and just take part in everyday life.“That exclusion ramps up anxiety and causes people’s depression to worsen and in my case ramps up my agoraphobia.”Asked how much she trusted DWP on mental health issues, she said: “I don’t. I don’t trust DWP on anything.“They are targeting mental health claimants on PIP, on ESA, on universal credit, on the Work and Health Programme.“They are about ramping up the mental distress and causing a claimant’s mental health to deteriorate to the point where they want to give up and take their own life, and in many cases already have done, and we remember those who are not with us today.“I think DWP are trivialising mental health. What they can’t see, they don’t believe exists.”Denise McKenna (pictured, back right), co-founder of the Mental Health Resistance Network, who also took part in the vigil, said: “For a lot of people with severe mental health problems they cannot travel by public transport, they are having to use taxis for part of their journey, sometimes for all of their journey.“It is very important that people should not become isolated. Isolation is a key precipitate of suicide and relapse. There could be fatal consequences.”She said people with mental health problems were “being targeted by the government from all directions”, through cuts to out-of-work benefits and PIP, and the withdrawal of mental health services and the focus on employment in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.She said: “People with mental health problems are being targeted to get back into the workplace and [the PIP changes are] an additional barrier to getting to work.“It is part of a huge assault on people with mental health problems. One of the things they are doing is denying the existence of mental distress. They are negating it.”She added: “I wanted to be here today, because having been involved in a judicial review I know what an emotional roller-coaster [it can be].“I think it’s important for people taking the judicial review to know how much it means to other people and to get support from as many people as possible.“We recognise it is in all of our interests.”Claire Glasman (pictured, left), from the campaigning organisation WinVisible – which supports disabled women, including those who are traumatised, such as rape and sexual abuse survivors, and refugee survivors of genocide – said the government was “discriminating against people with mental distress”.She said that disabled women needed PIP mobility support “to be able to get out of the house and to do things in the community, see friends and get involved in groups”.Glasman said: “It just shows they don’t care, they don’t care if people have all the benefits that they need to be able to live our lives and get out of the house.“Theresa May makes all these announcements about mental health being a priority but we know the NHS is being cut, and women’s services are struggling through lack of funding.”Lisa Longstaff, a spokeswoman for Women Against Rape, another campaigner at the vigil, said she was there because so many of the women her organisation worked with – including traumatised women who had been raped – had had their benefits cut unfairly.She said: “I am here because this case is an example of many of the other cuts we have been fighting together.”RF argues that the new PIP regulations violate article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits unjustifiable discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of disability.She argues that people with overwhelming psychological distress are treated less favourably than those with other conditions, when assessed on their need for mobility support.DWP has told RF’s lawyers that the new rules can be justified.RF also argues that DWP should have carried out a consultation on the new regulations before they were introduced, whereas DWP has said that it had always been its intention to exclude psychological distress from certain questions in the PIP eligibility test, and so there was no need to carry out a fresh consultation in 2017.But RF’s lawyers say that if those organisations involved in the original PIP consultation had been told this, they would have challenged it at the time by campaigning and lobbying politicians.A DWP spokeswoman said the department could not comment on an ongoing legal case.But she pointed to a statement made earlier this year by the minister for disabled people, explaining the reasons for the new regulations, and a departmental statement issued on the same day in February.In the statement, DWP said that “people who cannot carry out a journey because of a visual or cognitive impairment are likely to need more support than someone who experiences psychological distress when they undertake a journey, for example as a result of social phobia or anxiety”.The department added: “Recent legal judgments have interpreted the assessment criteria for PIP in ways that are different to what was originally intended.“The government is now making amendments to clarify the criteria, to restore the original aim of the policy and ensure support goes to those most in need.”*Not her real namelast_img read more

Read More »

Ridge on Sunday John McDonnell Shadow Chancellor

first_imgRidge on SundayJohn McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor, talked about Labour’s Brexit policy and antisemitism in the party.Brexit…On Labour backing another EU referendum: “We saw only two weeks ago the EU representatives were keen to negotiate with us… therefore we’ll still be pushing for [Labour’s deal] but we respect the view that if we can’t get that, we will have to break the log jam by going back to the people. It’s not what we want but it’s what we’ve been forced into.”On whether the move will harm Labour electorally: “I think electoral calculation goes out the window now, we’ve got to look for the long-term interests of our country and our people.”On whipping MPs for another referendum: “I’m sure I think on this we would see a whip but also you have got to respect people’s views and their constituency interest as well.”On frontbench support: “… you’d expect the frontbench to support it but as I say, you know, we’ve got to respect people’s views on this.”On attending the next People’s Vote march: “Well I’ll think about it, certainly!  I’m not one to miss a good march but I also have to say as well that I don’t want to do anything or say anything that disrespects the people who strongly, in my own constituency and elsewhere, supported Leave.”Antisemitism…Does the Labour Party have a problem with antisemitism? “Well we clearly do, yes, we clearly do. Look, these allegations that the Labour Party is institutionally antisemitic I reject completely but clearly we do… It’s 0.1% of our membership seem to have been involved in some form of antisemitism. It’s a tiny number but it’s still a problem.”Does Jeremy Corbyn need to do more? “We’re all doing a lot more.”On Momentum’s latest video on antisemitism on the left: “I was attacked for retweeting that video but actually I think it was spot on.”Labour splits…On whether Tom Watson’s policy group for social democratic MPs is a ‘party within a party’: “No, no. We have different groups within the Labour Party, we have the Socialist Campaign, which I used to chair, we have the Tribune Group, Progress and so Tom is bringing other people together.  He has a perfect right to do that.”“I welcome what Tom is doing, I welcome the discussions that are taking place across all those different groups.” ‘You’ve got to respect people’s views on this, they’ve got to listen to their own constituents’ – shadow chancellor John McDonnell doesn’t confirm Labour’s front bench will be whipped into backing a second referendum.For more Sunday politics: https://t.co/XxaMhMIGg7 pic.twitter.com/e6bcvyGeXn— Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 3, 2019Caroline Flint, MP for Don Valley, who would consider voting for Theresa May’s deal:Called for a “free vote on an improved deal so those MPs who want a second referendum can vote for that but those of us who want to keep our promises to our electorate can also keep faith with those people”.On another EU public vote:  “I think there are something like 60 or 70 Labour MPs who feel as strongly as I do against the second referendum”.On how many Labour MPs could vote for a deal: “I think if there was a free vote, a number, 10s, 20s, 30s, would vote for an improved offer”.On MPs quitting the party: “No, I won’t be tempted to do the same but let me say this, when people like Luciana Berger, Joan Ryan – a friend of mine and still a friend of mine, when Ian Austin left the Labour Party and actually Mike Gapes as well who I have known for many, many, many years – that was a week of sorrow”. ‘I urge my Labour colleagues to consider voting for an improved Brexit deal from Theresa May’ says Caroline Flint. #RidgeFollow Sunday politics live: https://t.co/XxaMhMIGg7 pic.twitter.com/frXHPrT7v6— Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 3, 2019The Andrew Marr ShowFormer Prime Minister Tony Blair:He didn’t know about The Independent Group members leaving before they quit, but: “I’m in touch with them… I’ve got a great deal of sympathy with what they’re doing and what they’re saying.”On whether he ‘backs’ the move: “I’m staying in the Labour Party… But do I sympathise with what they’ve done? Yes, I do. I think they’re courageous in having done it.”On why he’s staying: “In the end it’s a question of, is it possible to bring the Labour Party back? And I think… I hope it is. I’m not sure it is.” Rebecca Long-Bailey: “We’re not looking to overturn the result of the referendum” #Marr talks to Labour’s Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey about the party’s position on #Brexit https://t.co/JSTLNoP1Am pic.twitter.com/XbmyP65xIY— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 3, 2019Pienaar’s PoliticsLord Charlie Falconer, who has been appointed by Labour to conduct a review into how antisemitism cases are handled:On taking up the new role: “If [Chris Williamson] hadn’t been suspended, I think it would have been impossible, so probably I wouldn’t, but he was suspended and that was a signal.”On Labour resignations: “There’s a lot of anxiety in the Lords over the leadership of the Labour Party, and there’s a lot of people, I expect, toying with whether they’re staying or not.”center_img Does the country want another referendum? #Marr talks to the former Labour prime minister Tony Blair about another #Brexit referendum https://t.co/kakizrGsLS pic.twitter.com/BykDY21qx0— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 3, 2019Labour frontbencher Rebecca Long-Bailey, who emphasised both continuing to push for Labour’s Brexit plan and a general election:On Brexit: “We’re consistently trying to push Labour’s deal… and we won’t stop doing that… We have to look at options such as putting her deal and a number of other options to the people.”On whether Labour respects the 2016 result: “We’re not looking to overturn the result of the referendum. Let’s be clear: what we’ve said is that to avoid a damaging or a no deal Brexit, we think that there should be an option on the table to put a deal and a number of other options to the people.”Asked whether ‘Remain’ would be on the ballot paper: “That may well be one of the options.” Tags:Tony Blair /Caroline Flint /Labour /John McDonnell /Rebecca Long-Bailey /Sunday shows /Lord Charlie Falconer /last_img read more

Read More »

Was Apollo 11 a Beginning or an End

first_img You’ve read your last free article Last Name Hope you enjoyed your free ride. To get back in the saddle, subscribe! Sign UpI agree to the terms and conditions. The plan seemed preposterous. John F. Kennedy was just 43 years old, and he’d been president of the United States for just four months—a rough four months. So far, his attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro had ended in quick and utter disaster at the Bay of Pigs, and the Soviet Union had beaten the U.S. to outer space, launching cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin into orbit and bringing him home onto the Russian steppe. Now here was Kennedy, on the afternoon of May 25, 1961, in front of a joint session of Congress, offering up what his national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy, had referred to as a “grandstand play.”“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth,” Kennedy said.Congress greeted Kennedy’s cri de coeur with a smattering of applause. The president’s longtime speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, thought Kennedy sensed that “the audience was skeptical if not hostile.” A Gallup poll taken a week before the speech found that only 33 percent of Americans thought the nation should spend an estimated $40 billion to land a man on the moon. (The final bill ended up being $25 billion allocated over the course of a decade, about $180 billion in today’s dollars.)Fiscal conservatives fumed. “We’re going to go broke with this nonsense!” remarked the president’s own father, former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Joseph Kennedy. Scientists thought Kennedy’s proposed time span was fanciful. The Austrian theoretical physicist Hans Thirring told U.S. News and World Report, “I am quite sure it will not be done within the next 10 years, and I think it very likely not to happen within the next 30 years or 40 years.” And social reformers would come to see the Apollo program as a drain on needed resources. Whitney Young, president of the National Urban League, noted that America could “lift every poor person in the country above the official poverty standard” for a fraction of the cost of putting two men on the moon.   But on July 16, 1969, five and a half months before the end of the decade, a million people packed the beaches and highways of the Atlantic coast of Central Florida to watch the launch of Apollo 11. That morning, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins had woken up long before dawn and eaten the traditional NASA pre-mission breakfast of steak and eggs. As 9:32 a.m. approached, the three astronauts were sitting in their cramped command module atop a 363-foot, three-stage Saturn V rocket, going through their final preparations before countdown. Television viewers in 33 different countries watched as the Saturn V’s five engines reached their maximum thrust of 7.6 million pounds, lurching the spaceship into the air. For the next four days, the world kept following the mission’s progress as the crew flew 230,000 miles, entered the moon’s orbit, and finally touched down on the dusty lunar surface. “Houston, Tranquility Base here,” Armstrong reported back to Earth. “The Eagle has landed.” Subscribe now, or to get 10 days of free access, sign up with your email. Cancel anytime. The State of Texas(Daily)A daily digest of Texas news, plus the latest from Texas Monthly Brinkley argues that Kennedy’s death ensured that the moon shot would have enough funding to meet its before-the-decade-is-out deadline. Delaying or canceling the program became politically untenable. “From 1964 to 1969,” Brinkley writes, “whenever Congress considered gutting the Apollo programs, [President] Johnson evoked the martyred JFK with don’t-you-dare political mastery.”Hundreds of spectators—many of whom had camped out the night before—wait for the launch of Apollo 11 at Kennedy Space Center on July 16, 1969.NASAWhen the Apollo 11 crew landed safely back on Earth, the idea that the mission was only the start of the Space Age was widely held. In just over a decade, NASA had built three different generations of spaceships, blasted humans into orbit, sent astronauts outside their vehicles to “walk” in the void of space, and finally orchestrated the dizzying spectacle of the moon landing. The Wright brothers’ flight at Kitty Hawk had spurred decades of innovations that had forever changed the nature of war, travel, and trade on planet Earth. The space program seemed to offer the possibility of similarly radical results. “I thought at the time it was the beginning of something,” says the former Mission Control technician Poppy Northcutt during the close of Chasing the Moon, director Robert Stone’s gorgeous, often bittersweet documentary on the space race, which premieres on PBS’s American Experience in early July. “I thought it was the beginning of moving out to other planets.” Instead, in January 1970, NASA announced it would be shrinking its workforce by 50,000 over the next eighteen months. The agency’s budget, which reached a high of 4.4 percent of federal spending in 1966, dipped under 1 percent by 1975 and is now half a percent of the total. Over the past three decades, presidents George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all announced bold goals for human space exploration, with planned return trips to the moon, landings on asteroids, and voyages to Mars. None of these ambitions have come anywhere close to being realized. This past March, Vice President Mike Pence declared that NASA would send astronauts back to the moon by the end of 2024 “by any means necessary.” Don’t bet on it. Since the retirement of the space shuttle, in 2011, the United States hasn’t even had the capacity to launch humans into orbit, much less embark on a far more difficult and costly moon mission. The pronouncements of private space moguls have been no more reliable. SpaceX founder Elon Musk said in 2017 that he would land humans on Mars and lay the foundation for a colony there in 2024, but the spaceship that would actually take those first settlers there is still a far-off concept. SpaceX was slated to begin ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station in 2015 as part of a NASA contract. It has yet to launch its first manned mission. Virgin Galactic, founded by the British billionaire Richard Branson, began selling $200,000 tickets to space in 2004. In the fifteen years since, the company has flown a grand total of zero customers, and four people have died during testing. In the epilogue of Shoot for the Moon, Donovan asserts, “A new spirit of space exploration is in the air,” but if there is a new spirit, it’s mostly wishful thinking. The astrophysicist and television host Neil deGrasse Tyson offers a more believable assessment of the state of manned space exploration in his 2012 book Space Chronicles. “Unless we have a reprise of the geopolitical circumstances that dislodged $200 billion for space travel from taxpayers’ wallets in the 1960s,” Tyson writes, “I will remain unconvinced that we will ever send Homo sapiens anywhere beyond low Earth orbit.” So was Eisenhower right? Was Apollo a stunt? Did all those billions give us the world’s greatest photo op—Neil, Buzz, and an American flag on the surface of the moon—a propaganda victory over the Russians, and nothing else? As a kickoff to a new Age of Exploration, Apollo was certainly a dud. No human being has left low Earth orbit since 1972, much less set foot on another celestial body.Apollo defenders point to scientific and technological discoveries to justify the program. As Brinkley writes in American Moonshot, Apollo “teed up the technology-based economy the United States enjoys today,” leading to innovations in everything from computing to lightweight materials and meteorological forecasting. But these were all spin-off technologies that could have been developed for far less than $180 billion. The key engineering feats that powered the moon mission, the Saturn V rocket, in particular, did not spur the creation of bigger and better successors. In Space Chronicles, Tyson notes that “unlike . . . the first airplane or the first desktop computer—artifacts that make us all chuckle when we see them today—the first rocket to the Moon, the Saturn V, elicits awe, even reverence.” The last of those rockets, lying inert at a few museums, including Houston’s Johnson Space Center, stand like Gothic cathedrals. We stare and wonder how a culture ever marshaled the time, resources, and expertise to create something so intricate and grand.Still, Apollo has had psychic benefits that are hard to quantify. It is now our most potent national myth. The word “moon shot” has come to signify a go-for-broke effort to do the impossible. The phrase “If we can put a man on the moon, then—” starts many sentences asserting that seemingly intractable problems may not, in fact, be so intractable. And, unlike the Manhattan Project, a grand American project that resulted in the prospect of nuclear annihilation, Apollo 11 was the realization of an ancient and benign dream.After returning from space, a number of astronauts have talked about how the experience shifted their perspective on Earth, a phenomenon called the overview effect. Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell famously said, “You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it.” Editor’s Desk(Monthly)A message from the editors at Texas Monthly First Name Sign up for free accesscenter_img NASA, too, has developed something of a global consciousness. The agency may be best known today for its unmanned exploration of the solar system and the Hubble Space Telescope’s photographs of distant galaxies and black holes, but NASA also closely monitors the earth. It was a NASA scientist, James Hansen, who spurred global awareness of climate change with his dramatic 1988 testimony to Congress, and the agency’s Earth Science division has used a global network of satellites to track our planet’s changing atmospheric conditions. Even now, under the direct control of a White House that has sought to undermine climate science, the agency remains clear-eyed. NASA’s website documents the warming of Earth’s oceans, the shrinking of our ice sheets, and the growing prevalence of extreme weather events. The agency has no doubt about the cause: “most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century.”If the Apollo program’s great achievement was to demonstrate that with enough money, courage, and scientific know-how we can do what seems impossible, then perhaps its example can help us tackle the great challenge that NASA sees bearing down on our planet right now. This would, in fact, be in keeping with Apollo’s history.Toward the end of Chasing the Moon, Stone shows archival footage of the Apollo 11 crew’s worldwide goodwill tour. The astronauts have suddenly become international heroes, and everywhere they go, adoring throngs greet them. At press conferences, reporters ask Armstrong and Aldrin how it felt to be there. They often struggle with the answer, but in Stone’s film, we watch the habitually taciturn Armstrong respond to one such question with poetry.“As we looked up from the surface of the moon  we could see above us the planet Earth, and it was very small, but it was very beautiful,” Armstrong says to the crowd of foreign reporters. “And it looked like an oasis in the heavens. And we thought it was very important, at that point, for us and men everywhere to save that planet, as a beautiful oasis that we together can enjoy, for all the future.”  Enter your email address Never Miss a StorySign up for Texas Monthly’s State of Texas newsletter to get stories like this delivered to your inbox daily. Apollo 11 was immediately celebrated as a signal human achievement. Greeting Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins after they returned to Earth, President Richard Nixon said, “This is the greatest week in the history of the world since the Creation!” And in the decades since, the moon landing has only grown in reputation. NASA has called it humanity’s “single greatest technological achievement of all time,” and polling has shown a steady increase in the public’s belief that the space program was worth its high cost. Pop culture touchstones like The Right Stuff and Apollo 13 have celebrated the courage and resourcefulness of the original astronauts and the genius of the engineers and scientists who powered them into the heavens. Watch oversaturated 1960s footage of one of those mighty Saturn V rockets erupting off the ground and try not to swoon.   But as the moon landing’s fiftieth anniversary nears, new books and documentaries have arrived to remind us that our great American space epic was not, in fact, a frictionless succession of missions accomplished and ticker-tape parades. Even the most hagiographic offerings have moments that serve as correctives to our rose-tinted public memory. Shoot for the Moon: The Space Race and the Extraordinary Voyage of Apollo 11, by the Dallas writer James Donovan, is a largely familiar tale, a greatest-hits retelling of the Space Age from Sputnik to the moon landing. Donovan thrills at the celebrity of the Mercury Seven; mourns the deaths of Apollo 1 crew Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee; and, in the book’s best section, delivers a bravura ticktock of Apollo 11, with the Mission Control pencil pushers watching anxiously through thick clouds of cigarette smoke as Armstrong, a flyboy with the composure of a Zen monk, improvises a landing on the lunar surface before offering the world his inscrutable “One small step for man” koan.But Shoot for the Moon isn’t all hero worship. Throughout the book, Donovan sprinkles in reminders that the public’s ambivalence about the quest to put astronauts on the moon continued long after Kennedy’s speech to Congress. Four years later, in 1965, Gallup found that only 39 percent of Americans thought the U.S. should do everything possible to beat the Soviet Union to the moon. Dwight Eisenhower had dismissed the need for a robust manned spaceflight program in the fifties, and he spent his post-presidency grumbling about the Apollo program, calling it “a mad effort to win a stunt race.” As Douglas Brinkley’s new history, American Moonshot: John F. Kennedy and the Great Space Race, makes clear, Eisenhower was far from alone.Brinkley, a Rice University professor, focuses on the birth of the moon shot, taking us back a century earlier to show its roots in fantasy. French novelist Jules Verne imagined, in 1865, that the first lunar mission would involve three American astronauts launched from Florida, and American rocket innovator Robert Goddard announced, in 1920, that he had received applications from nine men who wanted to ride one of his ships to the moon. But Brinkley also notes that making a serious attempt to reach the moon was far from inevitable.During the presidential campaign, Kennedy had hammered the Eisenhower administration for falling behind the Soviet Union in the space race, but in his early months in office, “Kennedy had adopted much the same cautious position toward space as his predecessor,” Brinkley writes. “Rather than focusing on headline-grabbing space launches, Kennedy was looking elsewhere for measurable accomplishment.”Even after issuing his moon shot challenge, the young president expressed doubts and offered inconsistent rationales for why it was worth it. In his famous 1962 speech at Rice University, Kennedy rallied a crowd of 40,000 by promising that “new hopes for knowledge and peace” would come from exploring the moon and beyond. Two months later, in a private conversation with NASA administrator James Webb, the president declared himself “not that interested in space” and said that “the only justification” for the Apollo program’s lavish expenditures was “to beat [the Soviets].” Then Kennedy seemed to waffle on the idea that the moon shot was a geopolitical competition. In September 1963 he proposed in a speech to the UN General Assembly that the U.S. and Soviet Union join together for a binational moon mission. When that proposal led nowhere, the president once more adopted a hawkish pose. On the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was scheduled to discuss the Apollo program with the Dallas Citizens Council and tell them that “the United States of America has no intent of finishing second in space.” This Week in Texas(Weekly)The best stories from Texas Monthly Already a subscriber? Login or link your subscription. Subscribe Why am I seeing this? If you fill out the first name, last name, or agree to terms fields, you will NOT be added to the newsletter list. Leave them blank to get signed up.last_img read more

Read More »

ANDY Reid has already been in store to collect his

first_imgANDY Reid has already been in store to collect his very special ABF Charity Shirts – one for him and one for his DadAhead of this Friday’s match against Hull KR, when the Saints will don the kit, he was welcomed by Merchandise Manager Steve Law.The match will be a special day for Andy who lost both his legs and right arm in an IED attack in Afghanistan.He will lead the teams out and the game is in honour of a charity he holds closely to his heart – the Soldiers Charity.Tickets for the match are on sale now and you can buy by logging on to the Saints Superstore, calling in the Ticket Office at Langtree Park or by calling 01744 455 052.Sales of the stunning charity shirt are going well and details of how to order are here.last_img

Read More »

A YOUTHFUL Saints slipped to their fourth defeat i

first_imgA YOUTHFUL Saints slipped to their fourth defeat in a row as they lost 21-14 to London Broncos at the Twickenham Stoop.Missing ten first team players and losing Adam Swift in the first half they fought back from an eight point deficit to almost pull it off at the death.They led 10-6 at half time as Anthony Laffranchi and Adam Swift broke the tough Broncos defence.‘Boof’ took a short pass to put them ahead before Swift got his eighth in the Red V following great work from Nathan Ashe and Alex Walmsley.London got back in it with a great Chris Bailey score before a disjointed Saints galvanised and held out until half time.In the second half, Broncos hit Saints twice in 10 minutes only for Paul Wellens to round off a fine length of the field move involving Josh Jones and Mark Percival.But the boot of Michael Witt proved the difference as he added a penalty and drop goal late on to seal the win.Saints handed a debut to Luke Thompson on his 18th birthday and brought in Nathan Ashe to partner Lance Hohaia in the halves.Anthony Laffranchi was named in the second row with Sia Soliola.But they were still missing Francis Meli, Jon Wilkin and Ade Gardner through suspension, whilst James Roby, Jonny Lomax, Josh Perry, Willie Manu, Mark Flanagan, Anthony Walker and Gary Wheeler were unavailable through injury.Both sides started with strong sets until a knock on gave London good attacking position.The ball went to ground though and moments later both sides exchanged knock ons.The Broncos were laying the foundations and when Will Lovell made a great run, Tommy Lee and Craig Gower almost unlocked the defence.Tommy Makinson took a high ball and then a bullocking run from Tony Puletua had Nathan Ashe on his shoulder.On 17 minutes, Anthony Laffranchi plunged over, goaled by Mark Percival.And three minutes later Ashe broke through, Alex Walmsley took it up and fired a great ball out for Josh Jones to feed Adam Swift for his third of the season.Unfortunately, he was taken off on a stretcher as James Mendeika went in late and was placed on report.Chris Bailey replied to get London back into it before Saints’ Stuart Howarth went close.And the home side did well to dislodge the ball from Soliola as he came steaming in for a try late on.In the second half, Michael Robertson took advantage of poor discipline to forge ahead before Saints just about quelled a kick to the corner.Tommy Lee then took full advantage when Sarginson intercepted Lance Hohaia’s pass.Saints kept knocking at the door and got back into it when Josh Jones linked with Mark Percival to go the full length of the field and put Paul Wellens in.The visitors then had chances to make the comeback complete but lacked the final pass.And Witt duly hit a penalty and a drop goal to kill off their hopes.Match Summary:Broncos:Tries: Bailey, Robertson, LeeGoals: Witt (4 from 4)Drop: WittSaints:Tries: Laffranchi, Swift, WellensGoals: Percival (1 from 2), Makinson (0 from 1)Penalties:Broncos: 7Saints: 4HT: 10-6FT: 14-21REF: Tim RobyATT: Teams:Broncos:5. Michael Robertson; 3. Jamie O’Callaghan, 29. James Mendeika, 19. Dan Sarginson, 21. Kieran Dixon; 6. Michael Witt, 7. Craig Gower; 8. Antonio Kaufusi, 23. Tommy Lee, 18. Olsi Krasniqi, 22. Will Lovell, 12. Chris Bailey, 20. Matt Cook.Subs: 1. Luke Dorn, 10. Mark Bryant, 26. Ben Fisher, 27. Erjon Dollapi.Saints:21. Tom Makinson; 26. Adam Swift, 3. Jordan Turner, 19. Josh Jones, 30. Mark Percival; 23. Nathan Ashe, 6. Lance Hohaia; 11. Tony Puletua, 36. Stuart Howarth, 10. Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook, 4. Sia Soliola, 14. Anthony Laffranchi, 1. Paul Wellens.Subs: 16. Paul Clough, 25. Alex Walmsley, 33. Luke Thompson, 35. Lewis Charnock.last_img read more

Read More »

KYLE Amor and Travis Burns have both been banned f

first_imgKYLE Amor and Travis Burns have both been banned following incidents in the 21-14 win over Castleford on Friday.Travis was banned for one match as a result of a careless tackle on Justin Carney in the 23rd minute.Amor received a two-match ban for a ‘Grade C’ dangerous contact to the head, neck or spinal column of Jordan Tansey in the 60th minute.last_img

Read More »

NEIL Tucker has very kindly offered to raise funds

first_imgNEIL Tucker has very kindly offered to raise funds for the Steve Prescott Foundation (SPF) and Macmillan Cancer Support at a Coffee morning to be held on September 23 in the Red V Cafe bar from 10am to 1pm.Neil is 37-years-old and five years ago was diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin’s lymphoma.After five lots of treatment he was put in remission.He says: “The thing that kept me going was my odd conversation with Stevie. He always asked how I was and what stage of chemotherapy I was up to. He was the most considerate man I know. Then six months ago my cancer comeback, which thankfully now is in remission.“I’m sure Stevie was looking over me saying ‘Fight it, I did, you can.’ I’ve just done my first brave thing, the shave for MacMillan which involved shaving my hair, eyebrows and my beard clean off which raised £85. Stevie is my idol and will always be “Neil is organising the sale of homemade cakes and biscuits and hot and cold beverages. There will also be a tombola, prize raffles and lucky dips for the young children. The proceeds from the coffee morning will be shared between the two charities.The SPF wants to thank Neil for his kind and generous gesture to raise funds for his chosen charities and wishes Neil good luck with his coffee morning and hope it is a huge success. Please support Neil on September 23.last_img read more

Read More »

NC Chemours strike deal on toxic GenX

first_img The consent order also requires Chemours to give the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) access to confidential business information once the company and the state reach a confidentiality agreement. A lack of transparency and clarity on Chemours part as to what exactly the company is releasing into the Cape Fear has been one of the state’s major issues since the GenX crisis broke in early June.Bladen County Superior Court Judge Douglas Sasser made the decision at about 5:30, more than four hours after Friday’s hearing was set to begin. For much of the afternoon, Chemours and state attorneys remained locked in negotiations behind closed doors. A pair of Bladen County commissioners and county attorney Leslie Johnson sat in the courtroom while the closed door meeting took place.Friday’s hearing topped off a hectic week for Chemours, starting with N.C. Attorney General’s Office notifying the company Tuesday it was seeking an injunction on the behalf of DEQ, alleging Chemours had consistently mischaracterized its discharge.Related Article: Section of NC 210 near Elizabethtown to temporarily closeUnless Chemours stopped discharging the Nafion byproducts and remained committed to preventing GenX’s discharge, letters from the state said, Chemours wastewater discharge permit could be suspended.Read the full story.We have reached out to Chemours for a statement. ELIZABETHTOWN, NC (StarNews) — A Bladen County judge late Friday approved a partial consent order between Chemours and the state of North Carolina governing the release of GenX and other fluoridated compounds from the company’s Fayetteville Works site.The StarNews reports the order requires Chemours to stop any discharges of GenX, the toxic chemical that has been found in several Wilmington-area water systems, into the Cape Fear River — something the company says it has already done. Chemours also is required to halt any release of two compounds, called Nafion byproducts 1 and 2, in its wastewater stream. Scientists from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told state regulators earlier this week that while the amounts of GenX and other “novel” substances in the river have dropped in recent weeks, estimated concentrations of the Nafion byproducts have not. Like GenX, utilities downstream from the Chemours plants are unable to filter out these compounds in their public drinking water supplies.- Advertisement – last_img read more

Read More »

WPD employees honored at pinning ceremony several promoted

first_img Officers from corporal to deputy chief also took part in a pinning ceremony honoring their promotions and growth within WPD.Chief Ralph Evangelous challenged the newly promoted to lead with a strong moral compass.“You must lead by example, let your conduct be an example for all others to follow,” Chief Evangelous. “You are the future of the Wilmington Police Department. Today I ask you to be strong leaders and operate on a strong moral conviction. Do the right thing for the right reason.”Related Article: Man injured in shooting near Greenfield LakeMore than a dozen officers were promoted. Wilmington Police employees were honored during a pinning ceremony on Nov. 15, 2017. (Photo: WWAY) WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Wilmington Police take time to honor one of their own and those who went above and beyond the call of duty.Two dozen employees were honored at Wilmington City Hall Wednesday.- Advertisement – last_img read more

Read More »

WANTED Suspect who set fire to Mallory Creek Clubhouse

first_imgSuspect accused of setting fire to Mallory Creek Clubhouse (Photo: Leland Police Dept.) LELAND, NC (WWAY) – The clubhouse at Mallory Creek Plantation is damaged after someone set fire to it.According to the Leland Police Department, the man in the surveillance photo entered the clubhouse on June 20.- Advertisement – Once he got inside, police believe the man then committed arson.A Mallory Creek resident told WWAY someone placed a roll of paper towels in the oven and then turned it on.Mallory Creek Clubhouse (Photo: WWAY)The Mallory Creek pool was closed until noon today because of the fire and investigation.At this time, the cost of repairs have not been determined.If you know anything, contact Det. Jonathan Berry at (910) 332-5003.last_img

Read More »