New ‘Finding Dory’ Cast and Characters Announced — WTNH Connecticut News

(ABC News)–“Finding Dory” won’t be just a sequel to “Finding Nemo.” Instead, it will introduce a whole host of new characters to fans. According to Andrew Stanton, the director of the film, “Finding Dory” is meant to be “a whole new chapter.” “We’re introducing new characters—each with his or her own unique voice,” he said…

via New ‘Finding Dory’ Cast and Characters Announced — WTNH Connecticut News

(ABC News)–“Finding Dory” won’t be just a sequel to “Finding Nemo.”

Instead, it will introduce a whole host of new characters to fans.

According to Andrew Stanton, the director of the film, “Finding Dory” is meant to be “a whole new chapter.”

“We’re introducing new characters—each with his or her own unique voice,” he said in a statement. “Everyone has something special to offer, which makes it fun and elevates the whole story. ‘Finding Nemo’ was a great calling card when it came to casting this movie. I don’t take that for granted.”

The upcoming film, which is set to be released on June 17, will follow Dory as she searches for her parents. While in the ocean with her friends Nemo and Marlin, voiced by Hayden Rolence and Albert Brooks, respectively, Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) remembers she has family elsewhere and goes on an adventure to the Marine Life Institute in California to find them.

While on her journey, several new characters will come into play. Here are a few notables:

Hank (Ed O’Neill): A “septopus,” or an octopus with seven tentacles, Hank dreams of moving to a Cleveland facility where he can enjoy “a peaceful life of solitude.”

Destiny (Kaitlin Olson): Destiny, a whale shark, has poor eyesight and a warm personality. She and Dory become friends when they wind up in the same pool.

Bailey (Ty Burrell): “Bailey’s flair for the dramatic never ceases to push his neighbor’s buttons: whale shark Destiny can’t seem to get through to him, no matter how hard she tries,” read a press release about this beluga whale. “Maybe he’ll listen to new friend Dory, who seems to be full of crazy ideas.”

Dory’s parents, Jenny and Charlie Diane Keaton and Eugene Levy): Jenny is happy-go-lucky and Charlie is a jokester too, but both are fiercely devoted to their daughter.

Fluke and Rudder (Idris Elba and Dominic West): These two sea lions much prefer sunbathing over socializing with Dory.

Becky (Torbin Bullock): This loon takes a shine to Marlin, though he remains skeptical.

Fish couple (Bill Hader and Kate McKinnon): They just make a quick cameo!

Agnes Bedard

Leadership Styles – Donald Trump and Jesus — Living as Apprentices

We are suffering through the meanest, angriest, and most profane presidential campaign season in decades – maybe in the history of the United States. As the granddaughter of a state senator who also served as lieutenant governor, I was raised in the insanity of political campaigning. (See my earlier post on The Care and Feeding of […]

via Leadership Styles – Donald Trump and Jesus — Living as Apprentices

We are suffering through the meanest, angriest, and most profane presidential campaign season in decades – maybe in the history of the United States. As the granddaughter of a state senator who also served as lieutenant governor, I was raised in the insanity of political campaigning. (See my earlier post on The Care andFeeding of a Political Junkie.) Watching nominating conventions and keeping up with delegate counts was as exciting to our family as the March Madness of the college basketball tournament is to basketball junkies.

This year Donald Trump has treated us to name calling, women-bashing, racist comments, ugly speech and ugly behavior, and, worst of all, lies and non-answers to questions. And yet a large segment of the American people is gobbling this up as if it were gospel. Trump is defended because he “speaks the truth” and “tells it like it is.” Supposedly American voters wish they could voice their anger like he does. When did we become defenders of the lowest instincts of human nature? When did truth-telling involve avoiding facts and depend on vainglorious statements and evasive, non responsive answers.  Is this what America wants in a president?  Really?

During the recent Holy Week remembrances, I was thinking about the contrast of the leadership style of Jesus and of Donald Trump. Here is how Kayla McClurg recently described Christ’s Palm Sunday “parade.”

“When the grand entrance comes, everyone has a part to play. Humble Jesus, legs dangling, sitting atop a colt—what a sight! Colorful cloaks spread hodgepodge across the road, the peasant version of red carpet splendor. Laughing, crying out, the crowd erupts, their eyes and hearts suddenly opened. “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! (in Season and Scripture: Luke, Palm Sunday C, posted on the Inward Outward website)

Can you imagine how Donald Trump would have handled this occasion and the other events of Holy Week?  Ride an animal in a parade? Allow Judas to betray him?  Stand silent before his accusers? Accept an unfair court decision?  Take part willingly in his own execution?

In his three years of ministry, Jesus had contact with the highest religious leadershipCross of the Jewish people and the highest representatives of the ruling Roman government.  He was endlessly polite and endlessly honest and endlessly humble. His vision of leadership was the same vision he left for us: the first will be last and the last will be first. A brief comparison of the leadership styles of Jesus and Mr. Trump is instructive, especially for Christians:

  • Jesus brings calm to the chaos; Trump creates (with great delight) the chaos.
  • Jesus is inclusive; he invites everyone into his kingdom.  Trump is exclusive, shutting out any “other” that doesn’t meet his standards.
  • Jesus elevates the status of women.  Trump objectifies women as sexual objects.
  • Jesus is encouraging and speaks words of hope.  Trump is disparaging and speaks the language of insults and denigration.
  • Jesus treats everyone with love and kindness to individuals – even those  who didn’t agree with him.  Trump is mean, insulting, and rude to everyone – and vindictive to those who disagree with him.
  • Jesus speaks about forgiveness and reconciliation.  Trump speaks about revenge, suing when he doesn’t get his way.
  • Jesus is the Truth and speaks the Truth.  Trump keeps the fact-checkers busy 24 hours a day.  He is evasive and inconsistent and his word cannot be trusted.
  • Jesus is authentic; his inner “self” matches his actions and words; Trump is a game player.
  • Jesus came to bring light and hope to his fellow countrymen – and to all mankind. Trump promotes cynicism, dissatisfaction, and despair all under the guise of making America great again.
  • Jesus was generous and eager to share everything he knew and had.  Trump is greedy and always out for his own advantage.

The spiritual tradition I follow taught me that Christians belong in the mix of the world. C.S. Lewis taught me that I live in “enemy-occupied territory” and that it is up to Christians like me to battle the enemy’s influence. Chuck Colson taught me that fame (even gotten illegally) can be turned to glorious work for the kingdom and that cynicism can be transformed to authentic spirituality – even in politics. Dallas Willard taught me that we live in an available and coming kingdom.  You and I are to follow our Master into every arena available in the kingdom on earth – even to into the realm of dirty politics.  We need to oppose the “leadership” of Donald Trump.

____

For more discussion of what Jesus teaches about leadership (as explained by Laurie Beth Jones in Jesus CEO) see the Chewing section in an earlier Going Deeper with Godblog.  (In case the link breaks, here is the address:  www. livingasapprentices.com/2015/05/30/going-deeper-with-god-matthew-4-1-11/

 

Woman found murdered in Secane

A 36-year-old woman was found murdered inside her apartment in her Secane apartment, Upper Darby police announced Wednesday evening. Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said that the woman’s body was discovered inside her apartment in the New Orleans Park apartment complex in the 900 block of South Avenue around 4:45 p.m. after co-workers went to the women’s home when she didn’t call out for work. The victim has not yet been identified. Police say she appeared to have been beaten and strangled. The official cause of death is pending an autopsy.

Chitwood said that the woman was found in the shower with the water still running and that that there was evidence of a struggle inside the apartment. Detectives say they believe the victim knew her attacker. There were no signs of forced entry. Neighbors who live in the apartment complex said that the victim had only lived there for the last few months and that she kept mostly to herself. Chitwood says the family has been notified, but police are withholding the victim’s identification.

No arrests have been made. Police spent hours at the woman’s residence gathering evidence for the prosecution of whoever is responsible for the attack on the victim. This story is ongoing and updates will be available as more information is released. udpd1

Getting banned from Facebook can have unexpected and professionally devastating consequences — Quartz

One morning a few weeks ago, I poured myself a cup of coffee and fired up my laptop. I was stopped in my tracks. Upon logging into Facebook to post articles to two pages that I administer for work, I was greeted with a message that read: “We removed content that you posted.” The offending…

via Getting banned from Facebook can have unexpected and professionally devastating consequences — Quartz

One morning a few weeks ago, I poured myself a cup of coffee and fired up my laptop. I was stopped in my tracks.

Upon logging into Facebook to post articles to two pages that I administer for work, I was greeted with a message that read: “We removed content that you posted.” The offending photo was a clever German breast cancer awareness campaign that involved partial nudity. Facebook informed me that I would be blocked from posting for the next 24 hours. “People who repeatedly post things that aren’t allowed on Facebook may have their accounts permanently disabled,” they warned.

What happened next was very interesting to me. I am a free expression activist—an employee of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based legal and advocacy group that aims to protect people’s rights in the digital realm. Part of my work involves studying social media companies’ terms of service to understand how people are affected by corporate censorship. When I posted the offending content, I knew that I was breaking the rules.

Now, for the first time, I found myself banned from the site. What I learned made me realize the unexpected—and potentially devastating—consequences of being cut off from the world’s largest social media site.

Inconsistent and outdated standards

Facebook’s “Community Standards” ban most types of nudity, under the grounds that some users “may be sensitive to this type of content—particularly because of their cultural background or age.” Like many others, I have been vocally opposed to this policy for some time. I believe that it’s paternalistic, sexist, and stems from Facebook treating nudity as inherently sexual. Indeed, try reporting a photo right now, and you’ll see that nudity and pornography are lumped together, as if they are one and the same.

 Facebook’s policies reflect those of traditional American media. But Facebook’s user base is global.  Since moving to Germany, I’ve come to realize how strange the US taboo on nudity must seem to outsiders. The US restricts films that contain nudity and sex, but allow graphic, often-gendered violence on prime-time television.

Facebook’s policies reflect those of traditional American media. But Facebook’s user base is global. Americans and Canadians make up only 17% of the platform’s users. Business owners in France and the United States, an Aboriginal writer inAustralia, and a breast cancer patient in Wales have all spoken out against Facebook’s nudity policies.

I regularly post test different images to see how consistent Facebook’s moderators are. (The answer: they’re not.) A few months ago I posted a painting of a nude Bea Arthur and encouraged my friends to report it, to see what would happen. Sure enough, the photo was taken down. I was able to successfully appeal that through a feature Facebook offers. That may be because the company makes an exception for paintings and sculptures, although I’ve heard anecdotes of vacation photos containing Michelangelo’s David being removed. But with the German breast cancer ad, I crossed a threshold.

An outsized impact

My project Onlinecensorship.org solicits reports from users who have been banned, had their accounts removed, or had content taken down across six different platforms. One of the questions that we ask in our survey is “How has this impacted your life?”

In the past few months, we’ve received a wide array of responses from Facebook users, ranging from mere annoyance to much bigger problems. Some users reported being cut off from business customers and associates. Others have reported feeling isolated from friends and family. Bans can last up to 30 days for repeat offenses. In our post-email world, Facebook is the great connector—the only means that some people have of remaining in touch with distant kin. Being banned from contact from them for 30 days could, for some, be deeply painful.

For me, being cut off temporarily was merely an inconvenience. During the 24 hours of my ban, I was unable to post comments on news sites like the Huffington Post (which solely uses Facebook’s commenting feature) and unable to log in to third-party services, like Tinder and Spotify.

 In our post-email world, Facebook is the great connector—the only means that some people have of remaining in touch with distant kin. Most troublingly, I was prevented from administering my Facebook pages. In order to do my work that day, I had to contact colleagues and ask them to post articles for me. The members of my team were understanding. But I can imagine a scenario in which a person, temporarily banned from Facebook, loses their job for being unable to perform their duties. The dangers also extend to small businesses, many of which rely on social media to promote themselves and communicate with customers. I’ve seen cases where marijuana dispensaries based in states where pot is legal are cut off from Facebook entirely.

My ban was temporary, and I was somewhat aware of the consequences of posting an exposed breast. But users who violate other rules—such as the requirement that they use their real names—may not understand their error or how to appeal it. If the name on their Facebook identification doesn’t match the name they use in real life, they may not be able to maintain their chosen identity on the site. Unsurprisingly, the LGBTQ community and victims of abuse seem to be disproportionately affected by this policy.

I believe that this problem stems from a lack of diversity at Facebook. Seventy-three percent of Facebook’s US leadership is white. Globally, 77% of the company’s leadership are men. Women make up just 32% of the company’s global staff, and only 2% of the US staff is black, a number far disproportionate to the actual black American population. The company doesn’t publish salary data, but crowd-driven sites like Glassdoor and Payscale suggest that even at the lower end of the scale, Facebook employees make considerably more than the average American.

Given those statistics, it’s no wonder Facebook isn’t in touch with its most vulnerable users. Facebook’s employees live in or near cities and work on campuses that have been described as “glamorous.” They’re privileged and connected. How can they understand the effect that being banned can have on these users?

The next generation

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg predicts that the company will have five billion users by 2030. “We want to finish connecting everyone,” he said in February. “We’re going to do it in partnership with governments and different companies all over the world.”

Zuckerberg may have good intentions. But given Facebook’s track record, it’s easy to be pessimistic about government partnerships. The company has restricted content at the behest of countries such as Russia—despite the fact that Russia would appear to have no legal jurisdiction over Facebook, given that the company does not have offices there. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg has been pursuing a relationship with China so intensely that Chinese citizens have mocked him for it. Chinese government censors responded by warning the press to stop spreading “malicious” comments about Zuckerberg’s recent Beijing visit. Clearly, as Quartz itself has warned, “The only way Facebook enters China is as a tool of the government.”

 If Facebook compromises on its professed values of freedom of expression and openness, where does that leave its five billion users? This danger applies to a number of other countries. For example, Facebook has already taken down thousands of posts at the behest of the increasingly authoritarian Erdoğan government in Turkey and the governments in India and Pakistan. It seems quite clear that a number of governments have the company in a chokehold.

If Facebook compromises on its professed values of freedom of expression and openness, where does that leave its five billion users, who may one day find themselves punished by the site for making political statements? As social media platforms come to replicate the “public sphere”—defined by sociologist Jürgen Habermas as “society engaged in critical public debate” that is “coextensive with public authority”—their influence on our lives increases. When they partner with governments, they inch closer to gaining a monopoly on our speech.

A more diverse Facebook

In conducting my research, both official and personal, I’ve had to consider many sides of many arguments. Should social media companies ban hate speech? Nudity? Support for terrorism? Should they allow anonymity? Should they respond to government requests? On some of these questions, I have strong opinions. On others, I can see both sides.

But there is one thing of which I’m certain: Facebook has a diversity problem. By hiring more women and people of color, and bringing in more diverse staff from around the world, the site can gain much-needed perspectives on these vital questions.

It is my hope that when those perspectives are gained, Facebook will reconsider its policies. Given the social media site’s massive influence, I worry that its policies will shape cultural attitudes—much as Hollywood depictions of women, the LGBT community, racial minorities and others have ingrained stereotypes and biases into our collective consciousness.

If Facebook’s banning policies suggest that women’s bodies are shameful and that trans people should not be allowed to change their names, millions of users may adopt these biases into their daily lives. Meanwhile, others will continue to face the prospect of being cut off from their friends, family and potentially their livelihoods—all as punishment for logging in, and daring to show their true selves.

We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Is this the final nail in the coffin for Donald Trump’s presidency bid? — This, Tatt and the Other

Like so many people across the world, I’m apoplectic with rage at Donald Trump’s latest misguided, idiotic, foolhardy and downright stupid comments in his bid to become a presidential candidate. For anyone that might have missed it, Donald Trump believes that abortion should be made illegal, and any women having an abortion should be punished. […]

trump_thumbs_up_low_res
Donald Trump on the campaign trail

For anyone that might have missed it, Donald Trump believes that abortion should be made illegal, and any women having an abortion should be punished.

2016-03-31-12-26-47--1575949556

I feel very strongly about the right to abortion.

If you choose to read on, then please respect that these are my thoughts, my opinions, and this is my blog. I will respect your right to share your own thoughts, but will not tolerate rudeness or personal attack.

I’m very vocal about my beliefs and quite often end up in “discussion” with people on Facebook threads.

I believe that abortion is a woman’s right, for whatever reason she chooses.

I also believe that no man should have a say in that right. If you haven’t got the physical bits to carry a baby and give birth, then butt out.

You might conclude from this that I’ve had an abortion myself. I haven’t. But if I had, I wouldn’t be ashamed. And here’s why.

A woman’s body is not just a vessel for carrying babies. I’ve posted previously about how annoyed I get when people assume women will grow older and procreate. We’re about more than that. And that’s fine.

But, let’s face it, mistakes happen. Contraception doesn’t always work. People get caught up in the heat of the moment and make ill informed decisions. Accidental pregnancies are a real thing.

I believe that a woman has as much right to abort an accidental pregnancy as she does one that isn’t viable for health reasons, or as a result of rape. The reason for aborting the latter two types of pregnancy is completely obvious, and anyone who disagrees with that needs their head looking at. If you think it’s better to progress with a pregnancy created through violence, or one that will result in poor quality of life for the child, then you’re not pro-life. You’re a sadist. Even if your argument is that the birth mother could give the child up for adoption, you’re still not pro-life. Because living in a foster home waiting for new parents, for who knows how long, maybe forever, isn’t living. It’s existing. Being in a children’s home where bullying and abuse is often rife is robbing a child of any life. Putting a child through the pain and suffering of an incurable illness to sooth your own conscience is selfish. Better not to be born at all.

Back to accidental pregnancies though. If a woman falls pregnant unintentionally; through failed contraception, or a bad decision, or even being careless, why should she be consigned to a lifetime of unwanted parenthood? Why should one brief experience define her life forever more, if she doesn’t want it to? Why should she be forced to go through with having a child she may not want, a child she may not love, or may not care for, just because the law says so?

Here’s the crux. I’m probably a prime candidate for a child. I’m happily married, settled, own home, well paid. But I don’t want kids. And do you know what? If I fell pregnant now, accidentally, I would have an abortion. No doubt about it.

And do you know something else? I wouldn’t feel guilty about it. Because it would be the right decision for me, and the right decision for that collection of cells, because I know I couldn’t give a child the very best in life – purely because I don’t want to. I don’t think that’s selfish in the slightest. I think that’s realising that, despite all the great things about having kids, I don’t want the whole package.

I don’t buy the belief that all women feel guilty about terminating a pregnancy, and will think about it forever more. If a woman is making the right decision for herself, based on her own personal circumstances, then why would she feel guilt? Sure, at some point you might think “what if?” But that’s not to say it will be a whistful what if! Personally I would feel relief. Relief that I live in a progressive society where a woman has the right to choose and take control of her body.

Relief that I will not be punished for making a decision that, ultimately, affects me more than anyone.

So, Mr Trump, you have completely isolated all the women out there like me, who believe in “our body, our right” (as if we didn’t already hate your guts for your vile thoughts about Muslims and closing borders).

But that’s ok I guess. Because all the pro-lifers will be on your side and you’ll guarantee their share of the vote, right?

Wrong.

In a statement, Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said Trump’s comments were “completely out of touch with the pro-life movement and even more with women who have chosen such a sad thing as abortion.”

“Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby,” Mancini said. “Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about.”

Ha, have that you orange bigot!

Worse still, upon sensing he’d dropped a massive clanger with his comments, Trump has back peddled and suggested he meant punishment for the doctors carrying out abortions.

Oh, so that’s ok then? No it’s not! A doctor, a medical professional, carrying out a legal operation that a woman has requested? Would you punish plastic surgeons who are going against the natural grain with breast enlargements and nose jobs? Because I don’t think that’s what God had in mind when he created Adam and Eve.

What next? Surely some homophobic slurs and a vow to reverse the decision to legalise gay marriage. Making it legal for police officers to shoot black people on site. Hell, let’s even give the KKK some political power. Sounds far fetched?

Unfortunately, I think anything is possible with this vile excuse for a human being.

And you know what’s worse than him?

The misty eyed dim witted followers that agree with him.

Thanks, as always, for reading! x

Upper Darby police hit drug sale houses selling drugs

In the past two weeks two homes in my immediate neighborhood have been raided for drugs. The homes were at 115 N. Madison Ave, Upper Darby and 112 Westdale Road, were both raided by the Upper Darby Police Department and the Delaware County Drug Task Force in an attempt to take down those who are poisoning our neighborhoods and bringing in new threats of crime with the sales of illegal drugs at these properties. This is not a problem that only affects Upper Darby although, these two homes were within walking distance of two elementary schools.

 

John McGinnis, 51, and Marc Danielson, 43, who lived in the house at 115 N. Madison Street were arrested and were in jail in Delaware County on $75,000 cash bail and $50,000 cash bail, respectively, Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said Monday. The home had been reported by neighbors for its possible drug activity. Chitwood said, “We brought informants in, and we made undercover buys,” Chitwood said. “We were able to get enough probable cause to get a search warrant, and, with the Delaware County Drug Task Force, we hit the house at 6 a.m. Friday.”

 

Chitwood said that “It was a lot of drugs being sold out of this location and destroying the quality of the neighborhood.” So there it is, a lot of drugs, quality of life and homes in our own neighborhood being used to poison and create an addict who will keep coming back for more.  There is the increase risk of thefts, robberies, and assaults when this monster is allowed to grow in our back yards.  How do we stop this misery from taking root in our communities? By doing exactly what these neighbors did and what my neighbors did. See it, report it and keep reporting it. Don’t make the one phone call and figure, well, I did my job. NO, NO, NO, you didn’t. It is up to all of us to create the environment we want in life, in our neighborhoods, and for our children. If you are afraid, fight that fear and make that call, send that email, or talk to other neighbors as to what to do.

 

We are in a fight for our homes, our families and our community. Upper Darby is worth the fight. Highland Park is worth the fight. We are worth the fight. We are lucky that we have a police superintendent like Chitwood, who is willing to get out there to fight these criminals and luckier that our police force is fighting for us. Now let’s give them some back up. Make that call.112 westdale rd