Hasta La Gadget!

In early March, Fox News Channel almost made “primary debate history,” according to an article in The New York Times.

The conservative cable network now appears poised to do in May what it was unable to do two months ago.

The idea back in March was to conduct a televised Trump-Sanders debate — the first ever debate between two presidential candidates prior to both of them having received their respective parties’ nominations. As reported by the New York Times, there was no impediment to the debate (for instance, pressure to squelch the idea by the Democratic or Republican parties) other than Mr. Trump’s inability to participate due to a scheduling conflict. Senator Sanders accepted the invitation by the Fox News Channel and was set to debate Mr. Trump until the latter cancelled his appearance.

Now events have conspired to make possible in May what nearly happened in March.

With whispers of a Trump-Sanders debate growing on the internet, some are saying it could be the Debate of the Century — a brief taste of the only alternative left to a dreary, historically nasty general election between two widely disliked politicians. But would the two candidates now being contemplated for a primetime debate accept, given that one has secured his party’s nomination and the other is still in second place in his? Would their respective parties kick up dust over the possibility of a Trump-Sanders debate in a way they did not two months ago?

Even the mere possibility of a Trump-Sanders debate has electrified the internet.

Over the last 24 hours, Twitter’s polling application managed a poll that returned the following results: in response to the query, “Should @FoxNews air a primetime debate between @BernieSanders and @realDonaldTrump, now that Hillary won’t go?”, 87 percent of respondents answered “yes,” and 13 percent answered “no.”

Well over 17,000 discrete Twitter users participated in the survey, which was open from approximately 10:30 PM ET on May 23rd to 10:30 PM ET on May 24th.

Meanwhile, a Change.org petition requesting that Fox News host a Trump-Sanders debate recently received more than 3,500 signatures in about 72 hours.

No one doubts a Trump-Sanders debate would make its prospective cable host as much or more money than any debate this election cycle, perhaps any political debate in American history. But how did we come to a place where thousands online are seriously discussing a debate between the Republican front-runner and the current second-place candidate on the Democratic side?

The answer that question is sure to delight Trump supporters and leave a lingering bad taste in the mouths of those in the Sanders camp.

After agreeing to debate Bernie Sanders in California prior to the June 7th Democratic primary there, Hillary Clinton has now reneged on her promise and refuses to debate her primary opponent at any time, in any place, or under any format.

Sanders had already accepted his invitation to the agreed-upon May debate in California, which would have aired on Fox News had Clinton agreed to it.

While buzz immediately spread on social media that Fox News might consider replacing Secretary Clinton with Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, many assumed that individual party rules would forbid the match-up. The March reporting by The New York Times suggests otherwise. Moreover, even the worst-case scenario for Senator Sanders — a declaration from the Democratic National Committee that his participation in any non-DNC-sponsored debates would preclude him from further debates with Clinton — would have no real effect, now that Clinton has taken any future debates off the table. Moreover, Clinton’s violation of the two Democratic candidates’ previous agreement regarding debates arguably gives Sanders much more leeway than he had in March to seek satisfaction from outside the Party. If the DNC has no plans to enforce the previous Clinton-Sanders detente — and it appears it does not — it would have little standing to bar Mr. Sanders from seeking satisfaction through other channels.

The benefit to Trump of showing up Clinton by debating her rival instead of her, and the benefit to Sanders of appearing presidential by debating the Republicans’ presumptive nominee, are both self-evident; indeed, even should Trump and Sanders merely force their respective parties to weigh in on the idea with a definitive “no,” arguably it would benefit Trump by emphasizing his anti-establishment bent and Sanders by confirming his narrative regarding DNC interference with the Democratic primary — as the DNC would surely struggle to explain why it plays no role in enforcing agreements between its own candidates, but might have a role in precluding Sanders from debating an out-of-party politician of his choice.

That a single Trump-Sanders debate would be both unprecedented and historic is beyond question, as is the fact that this would be among the most-watched debates in American political history — the opportunity to let Americans see Trump and Sanders tilt at a time when Sanders is still alive for the Democratic nomination, and leads Trump by double-digits nationally and by mid-single digits in almost every battleground-state poll, would seem too good to pass up for both Fox News and for the two candidates themselves. The only question is, will Fox News again extend this invitation to the two candidates, if only to see how they respond and what ripples it sends through the political blogopshere?

The benefits of such a debate for Mr. Trump include:

• Free air-time before possibly the largest debate audience ever;
• a chance to get back in the news after securing the GOP nomination;
• an opportunity to woo Sanders supporters;
• an opportunity to embarrass Clinton by debating her opponent;
• an opportunity to attack Clinton without her being able to respond; and
• legitimizing Sanders at a time he could beat Clinton in California.

The benefits to Senator Sanders are likewise obvious:

• The largest television audience he has ever had;
• free advertising prior to the critical primaries and caucuses on June 7th;
• an opportunity to hammer Trump live on behalf of the Democratic Party;
• a chance to appear presidential by debating the GOP nominee;
• a chance to give past and future voters an alternative to Trump-Clinton; and
• a chance to prove to Democratic super-delegates that he can withstand Trump’s attacks.

And of course there are still other advantages to the two men besides these dozen.

An alternative suggestion also gaining traction on social media is for the two politicians to hold, if not a debate, at least a joint town hall on Fox News — with each answering the same questions — in the event Republican and/or Democratic Party guidelines are somehow marshaled as an excuse not to hold a formal debate.

Of course, neither party, nor any of its candidates — apparently, Clinton excepted — would want to be seen publicly ducking a debate with their political opponents.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

Also on HuffPost:

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The Golden State Warriors’ Draymond Green is known to be both versatile and volatile — but over the past few Western Conference Finals games, it’s been his roving right leg that’s earned all the headlines.

Green drew heavy criticism for his antics in the second quarter of Game 3 — when he flailed his leg up, up and away, hitting the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Steven Adams square in the midsection. Many in and around the league believed he’d be suspended for what looked like an intentional low blow, especially considering that he also had hit the New Zealander in the same spot in similar fashion in only the previous game.

But Golden State got lucky, and the league let the kick go with merely a stern word, a fine and a flagrant foul whistle.

So it made sense that when Game 4 tipped off on Tuesday night, no one thought Green would dare try anything that could even potentially resemble an intentional, insidious or otherwise inappropriate foul. But lo and behold, smack in the middle of the second quarter, we saw this:

That’s Green doing a little squeeze with his legs, thereby bringing down Oklahoma City’s Enes Kanter and leading TNT analyst Mark Jackson to claim that this trip looked even more intentional than his Game 3 kick. 

Green surely didn’t mean to hurt Kanter — and the Thunder big man seemed pretty unfazed by the play, whether it was intentional or not — but with Golden State sluggish and struggling, the incredibly valuable Green can’t afford to get caught up in the crosshairs of poor discretion.

By halftime, Oklahoma City had cruised to a 72-53 lead. The Thunder already lead the series, 2-1.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Heather Lind and Geneva Carr in Incognito.
Photo: Joan Marcus
Admirers of Nick Payne’s Constellations, which Manhattan Theatre Club produced last year at the Friedman, will likely be thrilled by Payne’s Incognito. MTC stalwart Doug Hughes puts an adept four-person cast through this convoluted-by-design brain-teaser–or let’s make that a no-brain teaser–which is likely to send you out of the theatre working out the puzzle. And keep you thinking for days after.

Incognito is brainy, all right; the event which sets off the action is the autopsy of Alfred Einstein in 1955, when pathologist Thomas Harvey saw fit to more or less steal the great man’s brain for future research. And yes, this is factual. Payne slices the story–like a tissue specimen?–and intertwines it with two thematically similar but different plots (which turn out, if you pay attention, to intersect). And lest you ponder that this sounds like something Tom Stoppard or Michael Frayn might have dazzled us with, you are right. The good news of the day is that Payne pulls it off.

Payne’s second plot tells of Henry Maison, an Englishman whose amnesia–brought on by seizures–makes him a prized research subject. The third plot, which begins forty years after the first two, deals with Marsha, a clinical neurologist dealing with similar and related issues.

(Henry is a fictionalized version if Henry Molaison, a Connecticut man whose severe epilepsy was cured by a lobotomy in 1953. This left him with no short-term memory while not affecting his long-term memory. His case, referred to in medical journals by the initials “H.M.”, helped establish modern scientific knowledge of the brain and memory. He remained a clinical subject until his death in 2008, and his brain–like Einstein’s–was preserved for study.)

Charlie Cox, Morgan Spector,
Geneva Carr and Heather Lind in Incognito.
Photo: Joan Marcus
We do not get to see Einstein, save for a section of his hippocampus. We do meet his son and his (illegitimate) daughter, though. All told, Payne’s ninety-minute play is sectioned in three parts and 31 scenes, devised to be played by a cast of four playing twenty characters. This keeps the actors and director Hughes mighty busy; the scenes overlap–sometimes mid-sentence–and are played without set or costume changes.

The most familiar player is Geneva Carr, who made an arresting Broadway debut last year as Jason’s (and Tyrone’s) mother in Hand to God. She is equally strong here, as Marsha (and others). The most interesting performance comes from Heather Lind, as Patricia (Marsha’s girlfriend) and the waitress Lisa-Scott (who befriends the wandering Dr. Harvey). Lind is striking; she lights up the stage in the same manner as the young Joanna Gleason, if you know what I mean. (Her program bio tells us that we’ve seen her before, as Shylock’s daughter Jessica in the Al Pacino Merchant of Venice. While I don’t recall the performer, I remember that it was quite a nice performance.) Her skill is demonstrated by a monologue consisting of thirteen mid-West diner side dishes–from coleslaw to onion rings–which Lind turns into something deliciously funny. Charlie Cox, a British actor best known for the Netflix series “Daredevil,” gives a gentle performance as Henry. Morgan Spector plays the fourth hand, and is prominent as the pathologist Harvey.

Charlie Cox and Heather Lind in Incognito.
Photo: Joan Marcus
It should be stated that folk in search of light entertainment might do well to go elsewhere; Incognito could overwhelm people who aren’t looking for an evening of intellectual stimulation. But then, the same could be said for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead or Travesties. Director Hughes and MTC concurrently have The Father (starring Frank Langella) on the boards; which is to say, they are offering two highly-recommended, thought-provoking, impressive and entertaining new plays.
.
The Manhattan Theatre Club production of Nick Payne’s Incognito opened May 24, 2016 and continues through June 26 at City Center Stage 1

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Advocates of a contentious national monument designation for Utah’s Bears Ears area are concerned that local residents will be misled about the designation dispute after forged federal documents and deceptive flyers addressing it were distributed in public spaces nearby.

Cynthia Wilson, community outreach coordinator for Native American pro-monument group Utah Diné Bikéyah, found the misleading documents at a U.S. post office in Bluff and multiple gas stations in San Juan County in the past week. They include a falsified letter purporting to be from Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell that claims President Barack Obama is preparing to reduce the Navajo Nation by 4.15 million acres. The letter claims the Navajo no longer need their land in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, and thus it will be opened up for grazing and commercial purposes.

“This was not sent out from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs or from the U.S. Department of Interior,” a Department of Interior spokesperson said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “President Obama has no intentions of reducing the size of the Navajo Reservation.”

A coalition of five Native American tribes supported by two dozen others is behind the Bears Ears proposal, pushing for a 1.9-million-acre swath of land in southeast Utah to be designated a national monument under the 1906 Antiquities Act. The group says the area should be preserved because of its wealth of archaeological sites, as well as its cultural, spiritual and medicinal significance to many Native tribes.

The proposal has drawn fierce opposition from the state’s Republican-dominated legislature, Gov. Gary Herbert (R), local lawmakers and some Native Americans who believe they will lose access to the land for cultural and spiritual purposes. Last week, the governor signed a resolution from the legislature formally opposing the designation.

The Obama administration, which has extended federal protection to more land than any previous administration, has not confirmed it will do so for Bears Ears. But Jewell plans to visit Utah this summer, which has increased speculation that Obama plans to designate Bears Ears a monument.

Wilson also found a flyer purporting to be from Utah Diné Bikéyah and announcing a party to celebrate the creation of the Bears Ears monument. But the flyer warned some Native Americans to stay away: “Everyone is invited except Utah Navajos,” it read.

In an email to HuffPost, Utah Diné Bikéyah characterized the document as racist, and executive director Gavin Noyes said he didn’t know why it was written.

“Our opponents have been spreading the lie that ‘Tribes are puppets’ of outside interest groups (which of course they are not) and are being paid to take these positions (also false),” Noyes said. But since most Utah Navajos support the monument, he said, he suspected it was intended to make them feel like Utah Diné Bikéyah had used them to create a national monument.

A forged letter that purported to be from Albert Holiday, vice president of the Navajo Nation’s Oljato Chapter and a supporter of a monument, claimed that the Bears Ears proposal would bar Native Americans from using the land for cultural and sacred activities. In fact, the plan would actually allow for such uses.

“I couldn’t believe it,” Holiday told HuffPost. “My people are all for the monument.”

The letter was deeply upsetting for Holiday. “I couldn’t eat, I couldn’t sleep,” he said.

“This is a clear attempt to turn people against a Bears Ears National Monument by spreading lies, inciting racism, and impersonating federal officials,” Wilson said in a statement. “These tactics are despicable and likely criminal.”

An employee at the gas station where Wilson found some of the documents told HuffPost she had seen them there as well. A Bluff post office representative said he was unable to comment about the documents.

The dispute over Bears Ears has grown increasingly charged as summer nears. State lawmakers are uneasy over what they see as federal overreach similar to Bill Clinton’s use of the Antiquities Act in 1996 to create Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Utah State Rep. Mike Noel (R) and other lawmakers called on the state’s attorney general to “ferret out” environmental groups he believes have funded and co-opted the tribal coalition so the land can be designated without the say of state local leaders.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Integral Memory is pleased to release their new 256GB microSDHC/XC card. Corresponding to UHS-I and SD Speed Class 10, this ultra-high capacity microSDHC/XC card can accommodate 31 hours of Full HD video footage or an equivalent 43,288 photographs, allowing consumers to worry less about running out of memory and to enjoy their devices more.

Ideal for use in compatible Android and Windows smartphones, and tablet PCs, digital cameras, drones and camcorders, this tiny card promises to deliver transfer speed of up to 90MB/s.

Backed by a 5-year warranty, the Integral Memory 256GB microSDHC/XC card is available now for a retail price of 149.99 GBP (about $217) and comes with a free protective case. [Product Page]

The post Integral Memory Outs 256GB microSDHC/XC Card appeared first on TechFresh, Consumer Electronics Guide.