Now for something other than the United States: Germany's centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU) are choosing their new leader next week. The winner has a very good chance of succeeding Angela Merkel as Chancellor of Germany. Here's what you need to know:
More from World
🧵 ⚡️ #Navalny, in handcuffs, expects his second verdict in one day NOW, about to be ready any minute now. He’s joking about cucumbers he pickles in his cell. I will translate his SECOND last address in one day but here is the previous trial coverage
Extracts from #Navalny last address #2 today: “Putin’s party is akin a swine devouring oil and gas dollars from a trough, & when poked & reminded that $ are for everyone, growls, “What about the WWII? What about veterans?!” The verdict is due any minute now. #FreeNavalny 👇🏼☝🏼
The judge is back and reads the verdict now.
“The politician criticized the participants in the [RT] video in support of the amendments to the Constitution, calling the presenters "corrupt lackeys", "traitors" and "people without conscience."
The judge says Navalny pleaded not guilty and called the persecution politicized.
#Navalny is facing TWO court hearings today; one is happening now. I'm listening to his speech. He's trying to explain: he was not hiding from the court; he was in a coma. The whole thing is so absurd that it is impossible to comment. In a nutshell: they just want him locked up. pic.twitter.com/LXEdJX7rIm
— Zarina Zabrisky (@ZarinaZabrisky) February 20, 2021
Extracts from #Navalny last address #2 today: “Putin’s party is akin a swine devouring oil and gas dollars from a trough, & when poked & reminded that $ are for everyone, growls, “What about the WWII? What about veterans?!” The verdict is due any minute now. #FreeNavalny 👇🏼☝🏼
The judge is back and reads the verdict now.
“The politician criticized the participants in the [RT] video in support of the amendments to the Constitution, calling the presenters "corrupt lackeys", "traitors" and "people without conscience."
The judge says Navalny pleaded not guilty and called the persecution politicized.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?