Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
“Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, was an Israeli-born Romanian academic in the Engineering Science & Mechanics Department. He was also a Holocaust survivor and moved to Virginia in 1985.”
max | 17.04.07 – 10:33 pm
What a bunch of clueless morons!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564075.stm
Someone reads B-BBC or they did some fact checking. It now reads thus:
Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, was an Romanian-born Israeli academic in the Engineering Science & Mechanics Department. He was also a Holocaust survivor and moved to Virginia in 1985.
Internationally renowned for his research work, he has been hailed a hero for blocking a doorway to protect his students.
His son Joe said he had received e-mails from several students who said he had saved their lives.
I’d like to point this out on the other thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/485157968195159822/#337998
More on the NUJ boycott of Israel at Harry’s Place.
Anything on the racist sexual islamophobic stoning attack by racist scottish whites on that poor Algerian failed asylum seeker in Glasgow which was a lead item on Radio 4 last week? It’s gone very quiet for an incident which normally attracts the leftist gadflies.
Pounce reported this Al-BBC story higher up the thread but I think it bears a wider examination because it is a classic example of Al-BBC’s pro-islamist bias…
“Egypt anchorwomen battle for hijab
By Ranyah Sabry
BBC News, Cairo
The last four years in the lives of TV presenters Hala El Malki and Ghada El Tawil have been a continuous struggle brought about by their employers’ refusal to implement two court verdicts.
It all started in 2002 when the two presenters decided to wear the hijab head covering worn by many Muslim women.
But their employers objected and they were excluded from appearing on the state-run TV station where they work.
Believing that they had a right to appear on the screen the TV anchors took their case to the civil court. The court ruled in their favour and ordered they be returned to the screen in 2003.
When the state TV station refused to comply with the ruling, the two presenters went to the state court which also ruled in their favour in 2005. But again the station did not comply.
But last month, when they tried to force the station to abide by the earlier rulings, they were rebuffed, with the court saying it had already dealt with the case.
The two anchorwomen now want to make their case an international affair, and are seeking out other jurisdictions through which they can fight for their rights.
“We will go as far as we have to, it is our right to wear the veil,” Ghada El Tawil told the BBC.
She says some 75% of Muslim women in Egypt wear the hijab and so the presenters are not trying to do anything out of the ordinary and there is certainly no political agenda.
“If I was a doctor or a university professor there would be no problem about me wearing a hijab on television, so why can’t I do it reading the news,” she said.
Human rights organisations say the presenters have a right to wear the veil in exercise of their personal freedom.
But there is some opposition on the streets of Cairo about whether veiled anchorwomen would be a good thing on Egyptian TV.
“I don’t like to see a presenter with a veil. Actually I hate to see my society going this direction. It is not Egypt, it is not my country, it is not my Egypt,” said one Cairo resident.
“This is a dress code they should stick to. If these anchors insist on the veil then she has to choose another job. Taking it to the international court will not solve anything,” said another.
During the past four years more than 30 female anchors working in state TV are thought to have chosen the veil at the expense of their jobs.
But if these two pioneers, Ms Malki and Ms Tawil, eventually return to the screen with their hijabs, the state broadcaster could find many others wanting to follow their example.”
Let’s take the first paragraph by Ranyah Sabry …she says that the two anchorwomen’s
“struggle” was bought about by the state TV’s refusal to abide by court rulings…WRONG..their struggle was bought about by them deciding to start wearing the veil (out of thin blue air according to the Al-BBC hack who doesn’t bother asking them why they suddenly decided to hide their faces) .
Sabry then speculates that “many muslim women wear the veil” without telling us what percentage that is and without mentioning that many women are forced to wear the veil at threat of violence and death in some cases.
We also hear about “human rights organisations” that support the women’s “rights” to wear the veil as a means of expressing their personnal freedom”. Leaving aside the oxymoron that hiding one’s face is about “personnal freedom” rather than male oppression of women, why doesn’t Sabry bother telling us exactly which “human rights organistations” are being quoted? Al-BBC love name-checking leftist “human rights” groups so why so vague on which ones ? They couldn’t be Islamic Human Rights groups could they ?
And also look at the very lax use of numbers here…do 75% of Egyptian women really wear the veil ? Have 30 women newscasters really lost their jobs on state TV and if so what evidence does Al-BBC have other than propaganda from these obviously pro-islamist women.
Does Sabry speak to the state TV for their side of the story ? No, of course not.
Does Sabry bother to check whether these women knew that the station had a no veils policy before they decided (for no stated reason )
to hide their faces ? No, because that might show the women to be nothing other than islamist provocateurs.
And the biggest puzzle is why Sabry doesn’t ask they women directly why they suddenly wanted to cover their faces on television. No attempt made either to talk about the dehuamising effect
veils have or the struugle against them by muslim women in countries like Saudi, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
All-in-all a pathetic whitewash by Al-BBC of a publicity stunt that has Muslim Brotherhood written all over it. How bizarre that the oh-so-liberal Korporation should run this islamist puff piece that obviouly relishes the idea of women in the 21st Century dressing as though it was the 7th Century.
Risking being a frightful bore, I insist that the scandal of the BBC behaviour re Alan Johnston’s fate is even greater than previously thought. Please see my comment on ‘The Kidnapped BBC Reporter’ thread, at 18.04.07 – 6:22 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap//virginia_tech_holocaust_survivor;_ylt=Au4yEeRYBqFU1_jpQ3zeqgJH2ocA
===
Joe Librescu told CNN that one of the e-mails was from the last student left in the room. The student said he looked back and saw his teacher struggling to hold the door, and “he was torn between jumping out the window and coming and helping my dad.”
“He chose, and possibly made the right decision, to jump out the window,” the son said.
=====
On so many level’s only a holocaust survivor/decendants can be so magnanimous
Allan
I was wondering about that too.
Here are a couple of links to the status of the story. No arrests, but the Moslem community in Glasgow has offered £10,000 reward.
http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow.cfm?id=577642007
Here is a great (as in hysterical) story from the Sunday Herald; worth reading just for the sheer muddle-headed thinking of the journalist and those interviewed. The whiff of politically correctness hangs over the piece, like an unflushed toilet.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1329713.0.community_united_in_revulsion_over_racist_sex_assault.php
It’s all Mrs Thatcher’s fault… apparently.
Well, her and Gladstone.
‘Another woman from Africa said: “The British government colonised our countries and things don’t appear to have changed in 100 years with their attitudes. It’s no surprise people are abusive to us here.”
Re; Radio 4 comedy, I suppose I am the only one old enough to remember “Son of Cliché” from the mid `80s. They had – The adventures of Captain Invisible and the See-Through kid . Absolutely inspired radio.
BTW I did think that Bulls**t Detective on BBC3 last night was worth 50p of this years license fee.(Now if they can just warrant the other £130 odd).
Check out EU Referendum. They are building the case that the Lynx helicopter which should have been covering the ‘inclusive’ boarding party in the Iran fiasco had to turn back in order to drop off the BBC camera crew on board and then get its weaponry loaded. The heli-crew assumed that the boarding party would remain on the ship being searched and would use it as a redoubt: however, LS Turney was in the party, and she doesn’t look like she could board her bed.
The whole mess is a result of a BBC PR crew.
The DHYS on the Virginia Tech shootings shows up why we call it by its true name, ‘DONT have your say’:
Total comments:7934
Published comments:1311
Rejected comments:144
Moderation queue:6479
1. Algeria was never in the British Empire
2. If its so bad for Africans from ex British empire countries here why would they not be seeking asylum in any country other than Britain.
With insufficient spectrum available on Freeview for HD broadcasting & the BBC unable to live with the restricted increases in the licence fee – shouldn’t someone consider reducing BBC channels from 7 to ?
The Ofcom boss, answering a question at a joint Select Committee hearing, said that it would be a “soft option” to put guaranteed television spectrum “on the table”. The BBC, ITV and Channel 4 believe that it is necessary to ensure that free-to-air high definition channels are available.
At issue is Ofcom’s decision to reserve no additional spectrum for television once the analogue signal is turned off between 2008 and 2012.
Ofcom wants to sell off the surplus spectrum to the highest bidder, but free-to-air broadcasters fear that they will be outbid by larger telecoms companies.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1668539.ece
Allan@Aberdeen,
I wouldn’t be surprised if a Mossad agent, disguised as BBC crew, forced the helicopter back. after all, who has to gain from this ordeal?
Israel! trying to cover up for AJ’s kidnapping, of course.
This is from Fox News:
He apparently had scrawled the words “ISMAIL AX” on the inside of one arm, according to the Chicago Tribune, which may be a reference to the Islamic account of the Biblical sacrifice of Abraham.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266523,00.html
I doubt it is on BBC!
Once upon a time we had Just A Minute, I’m Sorry I Havent A Clue, Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, Radio Active, even Week Ending – quality BBC radio comedy.
Nowadays the IBC broadcasts Jeremy Hardly talented or funny, Mark waste of space Steele, Sandi bs Toksvig, et al.
Bye bye BBC radio ‘comedy’, your demise has been noted with sadness 🙁
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2007/04/pro-islam-bias-of-bbc.html
Cranmer has some interesting observations on the latest effusions from the BBC on the religion of peace.
Over at Alan Hart (ex ITN and BBC journalist) we learn that it was maybe the Jews who killed Alan Johnson
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1176152819433&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When asked about the NUJ boycott
The BBC’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Simon Wilson, said Johnston’s situation was far more important and pressing than the boycott call. “I have a missing journalist in Gaza,” he said. “I have no time for anything else. Besides, [the boycott] is not something we would comment on.”
Classy.
The whole mess is a result of a BBC PR crew.
Allan@Aberdeen
Quite believable. I remember seeing some background footage from Kuwait in March 2003 with c4’s Alex Thomson having a foul mouth rant to some young 2nd lieutenant because he was’t being given access all areas, pronto.
Senior officers think it necessary to grant media access, the lower ranks are then given the run around.
& does anyone get any thanks?
Will –
The media always want it both ways – I saw the coverage of Alex Thomson being characteristically arrogant in 2003 as well. They complain that they are righteous seekers after the truth being denied by ‘senior officers’ who are trying to hide something, but can’t stop crying foul when something nasty happens as it did to Terry Lloyd. Its a tragedy for Terry Lloyd and his family but what do you expect when you are driving around in between two opposing armies?
Wherever a journalist is, especially a BBC one, is the moral high ground
Please Read BBC journo blog and comment I think it is so bad to such a point I need’nt comment further.
Title
If Alan Johnston is dead, who, really, was responsible?
On Count One, Alan was not only the BBC’s man, he was the only permanent foreign correspondent in Gaza. He was, in short, the best and most informed provider of news about the Palestinian side of the story; a story which, in many of its details, is an embarrassment to Israel and those governments, most notably the Bush and Blair regimes, which support Israel’s efforts to break the will of the Palestinians to continue their struggle for an acceptable minimum of justice.
On Count Two, and if he has been murdered, Alan’s death, if it could be blamed on a Palestinian or a pro-Palestinian Arab and/or other Islamist group, would be a huge political setback for the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle and the present leadership of it. (The Al Qaeda franchise would not give a damn about harming the Palestinian cause).
There is a case for saying (repeat a case) that the party with most to gain from Alan Johnston’s permanent disappearance was Israel. It would not be the first time that Israeli agents had dressed as Arabs to make a hit.
If Alan Johnston is dead, it’s my hope that the BBC at executive management level will rise above its fear of offending Zionism too much and allow its reporters (Frank Gardner and Jeremy Bowen are second to none) to make a full, thorough and honest investigation.
http://alanhartdiary.blogspot.com/
Were the BBC to broadcast comedy programmes which actually make people laugh then they’d jeopardise the CD sales of real comedies from “Beyond Our Ken”, “ISIRTA”, even the Navy Lark for Heaven’s sake.
That’s why ho-hopers like Hardy, Steel and Brigstocke get on so often. The agitprop rubbish is just a bonus.
Ken Dodd used to have a brilliant series on the Northern Light Programme on Sunday afternoons. Bet they’ve wiped it.
rh – I wrote this on the specific thread but I think its worth repeating
Al anhart is so despicable he makes even the run of the mill IBC reporting look like thorough and honest reporters on Israel and the Middle East.
The fact he singles out farouk gardner and abu bowen for particular praise says it all.
I have a suggestion for Al anhart.
I propose that he, farouk gardner and abu bowen all go and stay in the Gaza strip for a while, without armed guard or Israeli protection.
Then they can test the veracity of his absurd claims with the inevitable kidnap that will follow and see who really is to blame for the kidnapping of Johnston.
Even fatah and hamas were and are not suggesting that the Israelis have taken Johnston (they have made such suggestions in the past about other events but even they know how ludicrous this suggestion is).
We should have offered bowen, gardner and hart to Iran, we’ve definitely missed a trick.
Just how weak the case is being pushed against labour over the cash for honours affair is evidenced by this.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2059921,00.html
And no George your woeful denial has not convinced me.
The same peer mentioned with others here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/03/ntory203.xml
Call Me Dave and Gormless George have their hands tied.
Apart from maybe a couple of scapegoats don’t expect the IBC to get anywhere with this even though they have pushed and pushed it for what seems to be an eternity.
IBC can’t even get its pro islamic agenda stories right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6565145.stm
The hijab covers the hair but not the face, surely the definition of a veil.
Look at the picture accompanying the comment about a veil.
Its not the first time the IBC has made this mistake, in fact it seems to be a deliberate policy.
I have seen through their veil!
David Cameron backing a Lefty?, after the Red Ken experience the Tories should have promised to scrap the London Mayor if they regain power:
“Greg Dyke in bid to be London mayor”
Former BBC chief Greg Dyke is set to stand against Ken Livingstone in an extraordinary deal between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Dyke may call himself an independent candidate — but he has the backing of David Cameron, who believes he is the big gun that the Tories have desperately been hoping to find.
More
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449339&in_page_id=1770
Supporting Greg Dyke for mayor of London!
Cameron has ‘left’ Britain…
Further to comments on another thread about the Today programme’s portrayal of the Wolfowitz “scandal”. Christopher Hitchens takes a different angle, and offers some interesting background about Wolfowitz’s partner which Today’s many reports didn’t include:
Anyone in Washington who cares about democracy in the Muslim world is familiar with her work, at various institutions, in supporting civil-society activists in the Palestinian territories, in Iran, in the Gulf, and elsewhere. The relationship between the two of them is none of my damn business (or yours), but it has always been very discreet, even at times when Wolfowitz, regularly caricatured as a slave of the Israeli lobby, might perhaps have benefited from a strategic leak about his Arab and Muslim companion.
http://www.slate.com/id/2164368/
Religion of peace at it again…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6568911.stm
I assume the last two sentences are the IBC’s attempt to justify the vile crime, as though by being in a small minority they have no right to exist at all.
After all the IBC do not quote these type of figures at the end of articles when the percentages were different in other countries.
A Warning to Americans about the BBC.
Don’t know if anyone else has seen this, and I haven’t seen it posted here yet, so:
We have been warned.
I watch BBC America, but pretty much only for sitcoms or the odd interesting drama. “Dr. Who” is shown on the Sci-Fi channel, and and “Prime Minister’s Questions” is shown on C-SPAN, so they don’t even carry the two main reasons I would even tune in.
The BBC World News is tolerable most of the time, and since it’s a short news broadcast we are spared some of the ugliness from correspondents that the rest of you have to put up with. “Life On Mars” was the last drama I could stomach. I accepted all the PC drivel because some it did reflect a bit of positive cultural change over time. However, we are now being show the recent “Robin Hood”, and it is just ghastly. I fully expect an episode about foiling the Sherriff of Nottingham’s attempts to stop a local gay wedding, and one of Robin’s band of Merry Scruffy Adolescents (hardly men, are they, save for Little John?) to convert to Islam as it is the only religion that truly understands charity.
here’s a story from Turkey that I’m pretty sure won’t get the same treatment on the BBC 10 o’clock news tonight than if 3 publishers of the Koran had been murdered somewhere in the world.
here’s a story from Turkey that I’m pretty sure won’t get the same treatment on the BBC 10 o’clock news tonight than if 3 publishers of the Koran had been murdered somewhere in the world.
(and here’s the link)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6568911.stm
Re the BBC’s ongoing non-coverage of the ongoing pensions robbery. First of all, I am sure you have all noticed how alarmingly pro-Gordon the BBC website is, but it really came into its own yesterday with the no confidence vote – while every other media outlet was reporting an “attack” on Brown the BBC managed to spin it positively with the headline “Brown comes out fighting” – this is before the vote i might add.
Also, comments on the 97 budget by that economic genius, Evan Davis, can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/budget97/analysis/evan2.shtml
I would read the article but I have an economics exam tomorrow and I don’t want to expose myself to anything that might derail my studying.
AL Beeb’s reporting on Turkey is not to be trusted.
Three Christians have been brutally murdered today in Turkey, and the Al Beeb reporter, Sarah Rainsford refuses to name names.
She does speculate in vague (EU approved) terms. She talks about the ‘extreme religious undertone’ possible behind the motives of the murderers; but nowhere is the phrase ISLAMIC JIHADISTS mentioned, although the term ‘Christian’ was used freely.
Nowhere, in the Al Beeb Radio 4 news bulletin(6pm), was there any speculation that these murders could set back Turkey’s application to join the EU, which is supported, come what may, by Labour government here, and stealthily by Al Beeb.
Incidentally, also in that
Al Beeb radio bulletin, a reporter appeared to empathise with the story of one of the defendents of the 21 July 2005 London bombing trial; the reporter spoke in a reverential tone about how the defendent was in tears on learning of his fate.
From today’s Times:
Michael Goves leaves the NUJ
This boycott is not of a repressive state that outlaws free expression (of which, sadly, there are still too many) but of one of the few states in the Middle East with a proper free press: Israel.
The NUJ exists to defend, among other virtues, freedom of speech. That virtue is better defended in Israel than in any other nation of the Middle East and it comes under assault daily from forces driven by fanaticism.
Now is a time, for all sorts of reasons, for showing solidarity with those defending democracy in that region, not for passing on the other side of the road. So, with no little sadness, I feel that I have to leave.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article1666526.ece
Heard on the BBC today …”32 Americans killed in Virginia, well, it’s a start.”
Not true of course, but only because they are biting their tongues.
I can’t participate in this because I live “outwith” the UK. Others here should be interested:
BBC to open up archive for trial
Sign up here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/
“BBC to open up archive for trial”
I thought for one brief, shining moment it was going to be about the Balen Report…
“Cameron has ‘left’ Britain…” No he has not, he has left the planet. He is the sadest excuse for a Conservative Leader ever. He is more socialist than Frank Field. An opotunist who has no principles, just the smell of power. How could anyone trust this man? Another few months and he’ll have the backing of the BBC.
Jon said:
“Cameron has ‘left’ Britain…” No he has not, he has left the planet. He is the saddest excuse for a Conservative Leader ever.
Yes, exactly. Basically, the Tories killed all chances of winning the next election the moment they made him leader. Sadly, it was all about finding a young candidate who could (in their minds) get away with pandering to the Lefties on the easy issues, like “Going Green” or Education. They know that the great brainwashed masses wouldn’t buy it from somebody with gray hair and pinstripes, and they assumed that the masses had indeed been irredeemabley brainwashed so couldn’t be sold on proper Conservative policies. Even the better minds of The Spectator have drunk the Cameron Kool-Aid. What a pity. Bring back Hague, I say. Or let David Davis have his chance.
“Dyke rules out London mayor bid ”
“Ex-BBC director general Greg Dyke has said he considered running for London mayor but has decided against it.
He revealed he had been approached by the Conservatives but would only consider standing as an independent with Lib Dem and Tory backing.
Mr Dyke said he liked “throwing ideas around” and that he wanted to “break the mould” in next year’s election.
The Lib Dems say they turned down a Tory approach to field him as a joint candidate. The Tories confirmed this.
Mr Dyke said he thought he would lose to current mayor Ken Livingstone, who had done “not that bad a job“.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6569109.stm
I absolutley detest this kind of opotunist politics. How could the Conservatives think that Greg Dyke would implement Conservative policies – or is it the case that there is not a rizla between NuLabour and the Green Tories?
Livingstone hasn’t done that bad a job. Lived in London recently? Experienced the transport improvements? Experienced the cultural developments? Cameron may be a twat who is unduly pursuing thoroughly stupid as well as unconservative trains of thought but acknowledging genuine successes even when they contradict conservative ideological process is one of his more grown up ideas.
Robbiekeane – no I don’t live in London and if you are happy that Chevezes friend is the Mayor then good luck on you.
But don’t forget that when your mayor starts interfering in my way of life then I should have a chance to vote for the Mayor of London.
“Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, is on a mission to tackle climate change – and that includes challenging the aviation industry head on, he tells John Vidal”
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1935871,00.html
I don’t really care who is Mayor of London as long as they keep themseleves within their boundaries.
Robbiekeane writes:
“Livingstone hasn’t done that bad a job. Lived in London recently?”
In order (and as a grown-up who has to pay Council Tax): Rubbish and Yes.
To keep on topic, one of the countless arrows justifiably pointed at the BBC is because of the easy ride it has given this tinpot, spendthrift, pro-Islamofascist megalomaniac.
Definitely off topic.
Is there anything sadder than a ‘Conservative’ Leader inviting Greg ‘hideously white’ Dyke to stand as ‘Conservative’ mayoral candidate?
–
Said leader having said invitation shoved ‘where the sun don’t shine’ by his erstwhile prospective candidate.
I think I may smile.
Briefly.
At least he made the “trains run on time” Where have I heard that before?
Never mind the trains, the road transport has not improved one jot – Livingstone’s just raked in tons of cash, which is then used for adolescent publicity stunts such as the Chavez deal – to say nothing of the rabid muslim fascists invited in…
Mrs Beckett said an unstable climate could lead to increased world conflict.
The debate was initiated by the UK, which holds the presidency of the Security Council this month.
No resolution or statement arose from the discussion, in which 55 member states spoke.
The British mission to the UN circulated a paper explaining why it feels a discussion is needed.
It warns of “major changes to the world’s physical landmass during this century”, which will cause border and maritime disputes.
Some 200m people could be displaced by the middle of the century and “substantial parts of the world risk being left uninhabitable by rising sea levels”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6562251.stm
Wingham et al. report that “overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1.” To calculate the ice sheet’s change in mass, however, “requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred,” and when the researchers’ best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm year” This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because “mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/SLRLandUse.html
The UK holds the presidency for a month and this is the claptrap that they want to debate. Taking their scaremongering to yet another plain. After all there is not much happening in the world today.