New York (CNN)Hundreds of pages of court documents unsealed Friday in New York federal court allege new details of sexual abuse claims against multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein and several associates.
New York (CNN)Hundreds of pages of court documents unsealed Friday in New York federal court allege new details of sexual abuse claims against multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein and several associates.
A cat that gained 5,000 Facebook followers after making a supermarket his second home has been “signing” copies of a book about his adventures.
Ginger tom Garfield took a liking to Sainsbury’s in Ely, Cambridgeshire, after the store was built on his old stomping ground.
The co-author Cate Caruth said copies of the book – What’s THAT doing There? – sold out in half an hour.
Garfield “signed” his book in Ely Library with a paw-print stamp.
It was modelled on his real paw.
Garfield, now 12, first started visiting the store after it was built in 2012 on a meadow opposite the flat where he lives with owner David Willers.
His favourite spot was a sofa in the Virgin travel shop in Sainsbury’s lobby, and he often tries to get into people’s cars outside the store.
Fans of the cat posted photos of him at the supermarket and at one point his owner had to ask people to stop feeding him as he was becoming fat.
A Facebook page set up with photos of the cat in the supermarket has a following of more than 5,500 fans from places as far away as the United States, Canada, Australia and Russia.
A book of his adventures and misadventures has now been written by Mr Willers with Suffolk author Cate Caruth.
The title – What’s THAT Doing There – refers to Garfield’s reaction when a fence was erected across his favourite meadow ahead of the supermarket being built.
The book tells how Garfield was once banned from the store for scratching a customer who became a little too familiar – and many of his other adventures.
In the book he is called Garfield Abercrombie Reginald Fergusson, but as that was “far too much like hard work… everyone just called him Garfy”.
“It is a little familiar of people,” Garfy would always think, “but I suppose I can live with it,” he says in the first chapter.
Speaking after the book signing on Saturday, author Ms Caruth said it was a “big hit.”
“Garfield took it all in his stride, posing for photos with his fans and inspecting the library services with great care.
“It was non-stop for two hours and we sold out of books in half an hour” she said.
Read more: https://imgur.com/gallery/EPfQkNb
A couple of years ago, we shared a publication with you about a talented Chinese artist Tango Gao (also known as Shanghai Tango) who creates thought-provoking yet still light and fun illustrations without using words.
If you fancy visual and intellectual humor, you don’t need to look anywhere further because you are up for a treat! Tango, whose real name is Gao Youjun, did not stop creating witty illustrations since the last time we wrote about them here on Bored Panda. No, Tango is back with a sequel to his art which is both simple and minimalistic, yet profound in the message it sends.
Tango began creating these illustrations back in 2010 when prompted by a friend, he decided to develop a habit of drawing daily (that’s an excellent habit to pick up). Now, he delights his 108,000 followers on Instagram with light-hearted and sometimes challenging illustrations on daily basis.
Scroll down the page and see for yourself!
Pets are always there for us, especially when it comes to putting smiles on our faces.
You can become whatever you want in life.
“Excuse me, may I see your baby?”
New Year’s resolution for 2019: let’s ditch the bra.
Possibly, a new idea for a SnapChat filter?
Up Next: The Secret Life Of Toiletries – Behind The Scenes.
A love letter written in hundreds of heartbeats.
Mood rings are so last year. Meet mood mustache. Perfectly edible as well.
That moment when someones tries to insult you, but you have achieved an excellent ability to deflect all things negative.
Despite the friendly smile that this polar bear wears, we would say the illustration definitely falls outside of the light-heartedness spectrum. Time’s ticking, what are your thoughts?
New Year’s resolution #584.
Who knew that music played by accordion could be so tear-jerking?
All that matters is perspective!
No one wants to be the third wheel. Certainly not on Valentine’s day…
This leaf will definitely go places.
“Get a tattoo that means something to you” doesn’t quite have the same ring here…
One cigarette a day keeps the doctor away. Or how does that saying go?
“In the beginning, God created the sky and the land.”
Pareidolia: seeing faces in unusual places.
Socialism is having a big moment in America. After a surge in popularity during the financial crisis of 2008, the long-verboten political label at last lost its toxicity after Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run and the election of democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in 2018. Among self-identified Democrats, socialism is now more popular than capitalism, reflecting a trend that has been evident among young voters for years.
Bankers and billionaires are, of course, desperate to reverse this political tide. Eyeing the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, the CEO of one giant bank recently told Politico that the party’s nominee “can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders.” To plutocrat Michael Bloomberg, Sanders is a “demagogue” preaching “unreason,” while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will transform the United States into a “non-capitalistic” system where “people are starving to death,” like “Venezuela.”
The rhetoric from the 0.01 percent is more than a little overheated. But for most people, Warren and Sanders hail from the same left flank of the Democratic Party ― both are supporters of enacting Medicare for all, breaking up the banks and dramatically increasing taxes on the very wealthy.
And yet in liberal and left-wing political discourse, the idea that Sanders and Warren are philosophical companions has become unfashionable. Jacobin, The New Republic, Splinter, BuzzFeed, The Week and The Guardian have all emphasized the supposedly critical ideological distinction between the two candidates: Sanders is an avowed socialist, while Warren wants to reform capitalism.
“As soon as the next president takes office, they will likely face intense pressure from powerful interests, especially big business,” writes Zaid Jilani. “The choice between Warren and Sanders may very well determine if that president confronts those interests with careful reasoning and principled advocacy or the force of a mass movement.”
“The two senators disagree over the best method to give the working classes a leg up,” according to David Dayen. “You can restructure markets so everyone benefits, or you can break down the market system, either eliminating the profit motive or giving everybody a public option.” For Jacobin founder Bhaskar Sunkara, Warren aims at “seeking to construct better policy but not an alternative politics,” rejecting “the class-struggle, worker-centric approach of Sanders.”
For once, the big-brain intellectuals have it wrong, and the delusional, selfish plutocrats are right. Whatever Warren and Sanders say to establish their political brands, the two senators do in fact represent a very similar way of thinking about politics. That’s why billionaires hate them both.
It’s true: You won’t find any videos of Warren singing “This Land Is Your Land” with a bunch of shirtless Soviets in the 1980s. And Sanders never slogged through troves of household bankruptcy data looking for the most common sources of middle-class financial strain. There are real differences between the two candidates (technically Bernie hasn’t announced yet). But these are differences of temperament, style and strategy. Sanders and Warren, in fact, see the world in very similar ways.
The trouble for leftish intellectuals is a confusion over the terms “socialism” and “capitalism.” Both words are extremely flexible, and their meanings shift with political currents. In an American context, it has never been easy to distinguish between socialism and reformed capitalism ― and committed capitalists have denounced both with vigor. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was condemned as a socialist by congressional Republicans. In the 1940s, American conservatives viewed the social safety net in Britain and the Stalinist Soviet Union with almost equal alarm. By the 1950s, Herbert Hoover had concluded that the words “liberalism” and “socialism” really just meant the same thing.
So, yes, Bernie Sanders has long been a champion of labor movements, protest marches and democratic socialism, while Elizabeth Warren is an academic wonk who talks about restoring competition to markets and making capitalism more accountable. But when it comes to their most detailed policies to date, both support an array of trust-busting, tougher regulation, wealth redistribution, public options and, where appropriate, nationalization.
It depends on the problem they’re trying to solve. In practice, they end up supporting an awful lot of the same solutions. In addition to Medicare for all, breaking up the banks and taxing the rich, both Warren and Sanders are advocates of a federal job guarantee, postal banking and a bill making it easier for workers to unionize.
All of these proposals transfer money and power from the super-rich to the not-rich. Take postal banking. About 32.6 million households rely on a check-cashing service, payday lender or other expensive, small-dollar financial bottom-feeder at least once a year, according to the FDIC. On average, these households earn about $25,500 a year and spend nearly 10 percent of their income ― $2,412 ― on these sketchy financial products. That’s over $82 billion going from hard-up homes to predators every year. You can deal with payday lenders a lot of different ways: ban them, regulate them or, the preferred tack of Warren and Sanders, have the government make them obsolete. If every household can get a low-fee bank account with the Post Office, they won’t have to turn to legalized loan sharking to get by. That’s bad news for payday loan executives, like ACE Cash Express CEO Jay Shipowitz, who made almost $4.5 million in 2004 alone. Is postal banking socialism or reformed capitalism? Yes.
In America today, the super-rich not only control an outrageous share of the national wealth, they also exercise a degree of political power incompatible with basic democratic principles. The choice for Democrats in 2020 is not really about policy minutia ― it’s about power ― who has it, and who doesn’t. And both Sanders and Warren have proved they are willing to confront the powerful and attack their sources of power. We can call this socialism, New Deal liberalism or Jeffersonian democracy ― whatever the label, it’s a critical ideological test for anyone who wants to be the next president of the United States.
Running for re-election in 1936, FDR noted that the “economic royalists” of “business and financial monopoly, speculation” and “reckless banking” all counted themselves among his political “enemies.”
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today,” Roosevelt said. “They are unanimous in their hate for me ― and I welcome their hatred.”
For today’s Democrats, that’s the ticket.
More than half of England’s universities have fewer than 5% of poor white students on their books, says an analysis of university entry figures.
The report, from the National Education Opportunities Network (Neon), shows white students from deprived areas in low numbers in many top universities.
There are 3% at the University of Oxford, compared with 28% at Teesside.
The study says too few universities have clear targets to recruit white working-class students.
Education Secretary Damian Hinds has previously warned of the risk of communities feeling “left behind”.
The study, from an organisation promoting wider access into higher education, calls for a “national initiative” to tackle the educational underachievement of disadvantaged white youngsters across schools, colleges and universities.
The university figures show the problem in recruiting white students from poorer backgrounds – and how many universities have very low proportions of them.
It warns that fewer than a fifth of universities have targets for admitting more poor white students – and that there are only “variable” efforts to improve participation.
Even if a target of 5% of poor white students were to be set across universities, it would mean another 10,000 students going to university, says the research.
The study looks at white students from so-called “low-participation neighbourhoods” – areas where few people usually go to university.
In total numbers, white students, of all social backgrounds, are the biggest group going to university, show figures from the Ucas admissions service.
But in terms of a proportion of the population, white youngsters are less likely to go to university than Asian or black teenagers.
The latest application figures, for courses in the autumn, show that applications from white students are declining, while they are increasing for Asian and black youngsters.
Cutting across this is a widening gender divide – with women much more likely than men to apply to university.
When these factors combine, it means that white, working-class men become among the most under-represented groups in university.
The study says projects to widen entry into university might need to be “redefined”.
The report shows a starkly divided picture in where poor white students are likely to attend.
They are particularly likely to take higher education courses in local further education colleges.
Among those going to university, 70% go to new universities, with low numbers going to some high-ranking institutions.
Cambridge has 2%, Warwick and Bristol 3%, Durham 4%.
At University of Sunderland, 27% of acceptances are from white students from deprived areas and the figure is 22% in Staffordshire University.
The numbers are particularly low in London universities – many of them 1% or 2%.
But these figures might be affected by the high overall levels of young people in London going to university – much higher than elsewhere in England.
Because of such high entry rates, even from deprived youngsters, there are relatively few “low-participation neighbourhoods” in London, or young people who would fall into this category.
The high cost of living in London could also deter some poorer students from elsewhere from coming to study in the capital.
Graeme Atherton, report co-author and director of Neon, warned of “big variability” in the chances of different groups to get to university.
“We need to know more about why this variability exists and do more to eliminate it,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Universities UK said that universities were “committed to widening access to higher education and ensuring the success of all their students, regardless of their background”.
The spokeswoman for the universities’ organisation said that “18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas in England are more likely to go to university than ever before” – and that this could be further helped if the government restored “maintenance grants for those most in need”.
Mr Hinds has highlighted the importance of supporting education in communities that might feel “left behind”.
In a speech in the autumn, Mr Hinds said: “White British disadvantaged boys are the least likely of any large ethnic group to go to university.
“We need to ask ourselves why that is and challenge government, universities and the wider system to change that.
“It’s vital that we do this to make sure that no part of our country feels as though it has been left behind.”
A book about a young Jewish girl who was sheltered by the author’s grandparents during World War Two has won the Costa Book of the Year award.
Oxford professor Bart van Es picked up the £30,000 prize for The Cut Out Girl.
He traces the story of the Dutch girl who was taken in at the age of nine by van Es’s grandparents before her own parents were sent to Auschwitz.
That girl was Lien de Jong, who is now in her mid-80s and attended Tuesday’s ceremony in London.
The judges – chaired by BBC News journalist Sophie Raworth – described the book as “sensational and gripping – the hidden gem of the year”.
De Jong told BBC Radio 4’s Front Row she never realised her story could make such an impact.
“I’m very proud of this result and I never thought it could be a book,” she said.
Van Es said: “There are two ways in which it could be a good book to have in the world.
“There’s a scary way in which anti-Semitism and extreme nationalism and conspiracy theories are around in a way they weren’t 10 years ago. But also another way in which it is quite a healing book.”
The Costa Book of the Year was chosen from the winners from five individual categories. The Cut Out Girl won the biography prize, and the other category winners were:
This is the second work of fiction from the 27-year-old Irish author who has taken the literary world by storm.
It follows the on-off relationship between two Irish schoolfriends and won rave reviews when it was published last August. It was named the Waterstone’s book of the year and is now being turned into a BBC drama.
Travel writer Turton’s debut novel is a sci-fi murder mystery that channels Agatha Christie, Groundhog Day and Quantum Leap.
Its main character relives a single day eight times – each time inhabiting a different person’s body as he tries to work out who has committed murder in a country house. The TV rights were sold even before it was published last February.
The Scottish poet’s sixth book was inspired by his father’s work as part of Bomber Command during the Cold War.
It is a single long-form poem told from the perspectives of various characters, including pilots, planes, villagers and even the bombs.
Clarry and Peter Penrose spend idyllic summers in Cornwall with their charismatic cousin Rupert – until he is sent to fight in World War One.
The story follows Clarry from birth to adulthood and centres on the characters’ quests to escape both the shadow of war and the social constraints of the time.
Last year’s overall winner was the late poet Helen Dunmore for her final collection, Inside the Wave.
If you follow a lot of people who watch a lot of Netflix, then you’ve probably spent a lot of 2019 so far watching them argue about books. Specifically, about Tidying Up with Marie Kondo‘s approach to books.
“Keep your tidy, spark-joy hands off my book piles, Marie Kondo,” gasped The Washington Post. “Marie Kondo, back off! Why this book hoarder refuses to tidy up,” declared Cnet. On Twitter, some bibliophiles expressed shock and horror, while others reacted to that shock and horror with snark and bemusement.
Kondo’s method for books is exactly the same as her method for pretty much anything else you might find in a home, like clothing, sporting goods, or kitchen gadgets. Yet it’s only the books that have provoked this level of disgust, and that’s because a lot of people have no chill when it comes to what other people might be doing with their books.
Though this particular Kon-troversy is new, it’s really just the latest in a long series of book-related outrages over the years.
Last year’s was the collective hand-wringing over backwards bookshelves. Before that was the outrage over books getting cut up for crafts. There’s been huffing over shelves curated by color and selfies over piles of open books, and disagreements over whether a large stack of unread books is cause for pride or shame.
What all of these scandalous actions have in common is that they don’t actually affect anyone at all but the person making them. Instagram influencers aren’t sneaking into your home to rearrange your shelves, and Kondo isn’t signing legislation to outlaw large book collections. (She actually encourages you to keep your books if the thought of discarding them makes you mad.)
Why, then, do some bibliophiles get ranty at photos of spine-in books, or see red when a Kondo client throws another novel in his discard pile?
For many, it has to do with what books represent. Books don’t exist solely to spark joy! Books are objects of wonder, and souvenirs of our personal journeys! Our collections reflect our tastes and our personalities, and express them to any curious visitors who might come looking. They’re not mere decorative pieces or functional tools, and only a non-reader would treat them as such.
Books may mean a lot to some readers, but they don’t mean the same thing to all readers.
Or maybe they would.
Books may mean a lot to some readers, but they don’t mean the same thing to all readers. A skimpy shelf could mean someone hates books, or simply that they prefer ebooks and libraries. An overstuffed one might be just as self-consciously curated as a streamlined one. Those spine-in volumes could belong to someone who loves reading and favors a minimalist aesthetic.
There’s a difference between loving reading and fetishizing books. While there’s nothing wrong with the latter, it’s worth acknowledging the difference — if only so we can collectively stop flying into a blind rage whenever some Facebook rando shares a photo of the secret book safe they just DIYed.
There are exceptions and caveats, of course. Books that are rare or very old should probably be saved and preserved. Newer books could probably be donated or recycled, rather than trashed, for the sake of the environment. It also goes without saying that I’m talking here about personal collections; it’s obviously a much bigger problem if the government starts burning books, or a public library reorders them all by color just for the ‘gram.
As a general rule, though? Mind your own books, and let other people mind theirs.
If you can’t wait to KonMari some boring books out of your life, have fun tidying up. If you’d rather die by a billion paper cuts than let go of even one single volume, hold on to them for as long as you’d like. If you’d like to stock up on vintage volumes you won’t read to make yourself look smarter, or if you love judging people by their book collections — honestly, knock yourself out.
Whatever you decide to do, though, remember that it’s not the bound stacks of printed paper that matter. It’s what they do, what’s inside them, and what they mean to you that does. Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to cut everyone else a break for whatever they’re doing with their own piles of paper.
It’s a sad, sad day for fans of the “world’s cutest dog.”
On Friday, the owners of Boo the Pomeranian announced on social media that Boo died in his sleep at the age of 12. The precious and beloved pup has hundreds of thousands of followers on Facebook and Instagram, and several books written about him.
Though Boo’s humans are “heartbroken,” they explained they’re hopeful that Boo will soon be reunited with his best friend Buddy, who died in Sept. 2017.
“I brought Boo home in the spring of 2006 and so started the greatest, most heartwarming friendship of all time. Shortly after Buddy died, Boo showed signs of heart issues. We think his heart literally broke when Buddy left us. He hung on and gave us over a year. But it looks like it was his time, and I’m sure it was a most joyous moment for them when they saw each other in heaven.”
“We find comfort knowing that he is no longer in any pain or discomfort. We know that Buddy was the first to greet him on the other side of that rainbow bridge, and this is likely the most excited either of them have been in a long time,” Boo’s owners explained.
After the news broke, Boo’s many fans mourned his death online and offered love and gratitude to his family for sharing his journey.
“Since starting Boo’s FB page, I’ve received so many notes over the years from people sharing stories of how Boo brightened their days and helped bring a little light to their lives during difficult times. And that was really the purpose of all this,” Boo’s owner went on.
“Boo brought joy to people all over the world. Boo is the happiest dog I’ve ever met. He was so easy going that we never had to bother with training. He made the manliest of men squeal with delight over his cuteness and made everyone laugh with his quirky, tail wagging personality.”
Boo’s humans then proceeded to thank all of the loving fans, doctors, therapists, and animals hospital staff members that both Boo and Buddy encountered over the past 10 years.
Rest in peace, Boo. You will be missed.
Cadillac is filling a big hole in its lineup with its first large crossover SUV.
The XT6 will slot between the XT5 and Escalade when it goes on sale later this year, giving Caddy a direct challenger to vehicles like the Acura MDX, Infiniti Q60, Lincoln Aviator and Audi Q7.
It’s part of the automaker’s shift away from cars towards utilities, and will essentially replace the CT6 and XTS full-size sedans in showrooms.
Related to the Chevrolet Traverse, the three-row XT6 is powered by a 310 hp 3.6-liter V6 engine matched to a 9-speed automatic transmission and either front- or all-wheel-drive. General Motors recently announced plans to put Cadillac on the forefront of its electric vehicle strategy, but the XT6 won’t be the model leading the charge.
The XT6 debuts a new look for Cadillac, with slim horizontal headlights that are reminiscent of the Escala concept of 2016. A long list of standard and optional electronic driver aids that includes an infrared night vision camera, fully-automatic parking and an adaptive cruise control system with stop and go capability.
It also gets the latest version of Cadillac’s CUE infotainment system, which pairs a touchscreen with a knob controller that can be jogged around like a joystick for added functionality. Power folding third-row seating is standard and each row gets two USB ports.
With the XT6 and the recent introduction of the compact XT4, Cadillac is doubling the number of its utility offerings in showrooms.
Pricing will be announced closer to when the order books open this spring, but its competitive starts in the $45,000 to $50,000 range.