Politics - SpeechWire Tournament Services - Forensics ...



Artifact 1 25th AmendmentSection 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.ARTIFACT 2Controversial MonumentsLinks: - link to article - and Left on Removal of Confederate StatuesBy ANNA DUBENKOAUG. 18, 2017 The political news cycle is fast, and keeping up can be overwhelming. Trying to find differing perspectives worth your time is even harder. That’s why we have scoured the internet for political writing from the right and left that you might not have seen.Has this series exposed you to new ideas?Tell us how. Email us at ourpicks@.From the RightPhoto A statue honoring Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Va. Credit Matt Eich for The New York Times ? Gracy Olmstead in The Federalist:“We should also consider which parts of our history we are most proud of, and most eager to uphold. Conservatives believe in preserving and carrying on the best of the past — not its worst.”If the events of the past week prove anything to Ms. Olmstead, “it’s that these memorials are splitting us further and further apart.” She urges her readers — even those who do not want to see these statues taken down — to “seek to understand and sympathize” with those who support their removal. At the very least, she writes, “we can mitigate their toxic effect” by adding context or erecting new memorials. Read more ?_____? Ben Shapiro in The Daily Wire:“Everyone is trying to use the issue of Confederate monument removal as a club to wield against political opposition, and as a broadening mechanism for their own movements.”For Mr. Shapiro, the issue at hand has nothing to do with Confederate monuments. The reason we’re really “talking about statues,” he writes, is that they serve as a proxy argument for larger, political fights. The “truth” is that “Confederate statue removal is a local issue, not a national one.” Read more ?? Rod Dreher in The American Conservative:“He fought for the wrong side and deserved to lose. But notice that after he lost, he called on all defeated Southerners to cease hostilities and to commit themselves to the service of the United States. [...] It mattered that he did not urge bitter resistance, but rather nobly counseled patriotism.”After New Orleans decided to take down its statue of Robert E. Lee in May, Mr. Dreher wrote a response to the controversy. He said he is “not losing sleep” over the removal of other Confederate leaders, but he’s troubled by the move to take down a memorial to Lee, a “far more complex man” than many people realize. Read more ?_____? Jonathan S. Tobin in The New York Post:“A generation ago, nobody would have thought Washington or Jefferson controversial. Now it appears that even Mount Rushmore isn’t safe, since among its quartet of greats, only Lincoln might be exempt from the iconoclasts.”Mr. Tobin believes the slippery slope reasoning of the president and others is not merely hypothetical — the logical result of the left’s attempt to take down offensive statues has already been borne out in real life. He cites as his example an attempt to take down a famous statue of Theodore Roosevelt in front of New York’s Natural History Museum. Read more ?_____From the LeftPhoto The empty pedestal of a statue that was pulled down by protesters in Durham, N.C., on Monday. Credit Madeline Gray for The New York Times ? Gersh Kuntzman in The New York Daily News:“Ever wonder why there are no statues of Adolf Hitler in Berlin?”Mr. Kuntzman argues that Americans should treat their Confederate history the same way that Germany treats its Nazi past. He points out that “monuments are never about history itself” but rather about “what the people putting up the monument think about history.” Read more ?_____? Tyler Zimmer in Jacobin:“The Confederate flag lionizes both racists and class traitors — indeed the two are inseparable.”According to Mr. Zimmer, the symbols of the Confederacy are not just about white supremacy, but also, inextricably, about class. Confederate flags and monuments, he writes, signify a “campaign by elites to hoodwink poor whites into throwing their lives away to protect ruling class wealth and privilege.” Read more ?? Adam Serwer in The Atlantic:“To describe this man as an American hero requires ignoring the immense suffering for which he was personally responsible, both on and off the battlefield.”Mr. Serwer takes on the “myth of the kindly General Lee,” arguing that this was a man “whose devotion to white supremacy outshone his loyalty to his country.” There’s no way, he writes, that one can defend Lee in “good conscience” unless one puts “tribe and race over country.” Read more ?_____From the CenterPhoto Workers in Baltimore removed a Confederate statue early on Wednesday. Credit Jerry Jackson/The Baltimore Sun, via Associated Press ? Eric Boehm in Reason:“Baltimore offers a primer on the nonsensical slippery slope argument offered by defenders of the Confederate monuments.”At his news conference, Mr. Trump posed a rhetorical question to the assembled reporters, “Where does it stop?” Mr. Boehm responds by citing the example of the Baltimore City Council, which just this week unanimously passed a resolution to remove the city’s Confederate monuments. Writing in the libertarian publication, Reason, Mr. Boehm puts it simply: “It stops....where it stops.” Read more ?_____? Ilya Somin in The Washington Post:“The vast majority of monuments to Confederate leaders were erected to honor their service to the Confederacy, whose main reason for existing was to protect and extend slavery.”There are historical figures that pose a greater moral dilemma than that of Robert E. Lee, posits Mr. Somin. Woodrow Wilson poses one such example. However, he argues, “giving undeserved honor to the evil is at least as grave an error as denying proper recognition to those who merit it.” Read more ?_____? James M. McPherson in The New York Review of Books:“The theme of liberty, not slavery, as the cause for which the South fought became a mantra in the writings of old Confederates and has been taken up by neo-Confederates in our own time.”In a 2001 article, Mr. McPherson traces the ways in which Confederate history has been rewritten to excise slavery as the animating issue at the heart of the Civil War and replace it with a “Lost Cause” theory of the conflict. The Lost Cause myth posits that “slavery was merely an incident,” and the conflict was in fact all about “a difference of opinion about the Constitution.” Read more ?_____From the Past? Robert E. Lee in 1869 in The Republican Vindicator, via PBS:“I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”How did Lee feel about Confederate statues? Perhaps it’s best to refer to his own writing on the matter. Here, in a letter declining an invitation to attend an event memorializing the battle at Gettysburg, he writes about the importance of moving on. Read more ?_____? The New York Times in 1865:“So long as the South has an admiration for the rebellion, so long will the South be rebel at heart. [...] True patriotic devotion should redeem any portion of the Republic from reproach. It should bury forever every memorial calculated to perpetuate dishonor and disparagement.” On Aug. 16, 1865, 152 years before the most recent debate over memorializing Confederate statues, writers for The Times published this article, advocating the preservation of the “memorials of rebel cruelty.” Read more ?_____Want the Partisan Writing Roundup in your inbox? Sign up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter or the What We’re Reading Newsletter.Have thoughts about this collection? Email feedback to ourpicks@.3rd Article to do with Confederate monuments? Put them in museums as examples of ugly history, not civic pride HYPERLINK "" By Christopher Knight Aug 18, 2017 | 7:55 AM Henry Shrady's Confederate monument to Gen. Robert E. Lee was commissioned in 1917 and installed in 1924. (Steve Helber / Associated Press)Confederate monuments are being taken down across the United States, sometimes with fanfare, sometimes in the dead of night, sometimes with agonizing bloodshed.The argument is over a specific kind of art, and I don’t mean sculpture. The argument is over civic monuments.Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland — in these places the elimination of Confederate monuments cannot happen soon enough. Some claim that removing them erases history. That’s backward. Erecting them does.Some claim that removing [Confederate monuments] erases history. That’s backward. Erecting them does.Take the statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Va. Its planned removal erupted last week into violent, white supremacist domestic terrorism. Henry Shrady, the artist, was a talented but largely self-taught sculptor. (When he died before finishing the statue, Leo Lentelli completed it according to Shrady’s designs.) As a fitting bookend, Shrady also was the sculptor for the colossal statue of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Lee’s nemesis, that stands in front of the U.S. Capitol. Dedicated two weeks after the artist’s death in 1922, the mammoth Washington, D.C., project took 20 years.Both are equestrian statues, the magnificent, muscular horses aggrandizing their riders through the soldiers’ partnership with — and control of — a powerful force of nature. The conventional artistic motif of an equestrian figure goes back at least as far as ancient Greece, and it signifies a man (rarely a woman) whom the society regards as an unalloyed hero.An equestrian statue of Ulysses S. Grant, yes; of Robert E. Lee, no.Grant was a notorious drunk, but he led the Army that preserved the Union in the ghastly Civil War. Lee was a remarkably gifted general, but he was also a traitor. (A bias: My great-grandfather, along with tens of thousands of others, helped foil Lee at Gettysburg in 1863, turning around the war for the Union.) Art aims for truth, while kitsch is the cheery aesthetic embodiment of a lie. The Lee monument is kitsch.I wouldn’t call Shrady’s impressive Grant monument a masterpiece, given its tired stylistic naturalism during the artistically ambitious first decades of the 20th century. But Shrady’s deftly manipulated bronze in Virginia regales us with something sordid. Worse, it demands respect for fallacy.History is complex, but the Lee monument sanitizes the past. Lee saw himself as “Hannibal’s ghost,” in Civil War historian Michael Fellman’s incisive words — as a brilliant tactician ultimately thwarted. The grandiosity of his equestrian monument rings false as a portrait.Indeed, that grandiosity more accurately reflects motives in the era of the commission. Shortly before the Lee monument was contracted, D.W. Griffith’s silent 1915 epic, “The Birth of a Nation,” had marshaled technical innovation to portray the Ku Klux Klan as a heroic force. That was a lie, too; the film was a hit.It is likely, at least in part, that Shrady got the Lee commission in 1917 because he was already 15 years into working on the elaborate Grant monument in Washington. Investment banker and philanthropist Paul Goodloe McIntire, who also endowed the first chair of fine arts at the University of Virginia (the art department there is named for him), paid for it.Like many Confederate monuments, the Charlottesville statue dates to a period after the First World War when racist Jim Crow laws were being amped up in America. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, in a smart, widely praised speech in May explaining why his city removed its major Confederate monuments from their civic pedestals, minced no words: They “were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadow who was still in charge.”It’s statuary as intimidation. Together, Shrady’s Lee monument in Virginia and his Grant monument in Washington create a false equivalence in bronze.A Confederate monument to Gen. Robert E. Lee was taken down in New Orleans in May. (Scott Threlkeld / Associated Press) A Confederate monument to the Gens. Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was taken down in Baltimore this week. (Alec MacGillis / Associated Press) Likewise, that the issue is coming to a head now reflects current social stresses. In the wake of the popular presidency of Barack Obama, the nation’s first African American chief executive, a new president was put in office by a minority of the voting public. President Trump launched his political career by denying the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, mounting a five-year campaign of racist birther-attacks against him.No wonder he wants to keep Confederate monuments intact. But they need to be taken down.Early one morning in 1992, I was suddenly awakened from a jet-lagged sleep in my Art Nouveau extravaganza of a Budapest hotel by an awful, clanging racket. Stumbling to the window, I peered out into the morning light to watch Hungarian workers with jackhammers going at it: A big five-pointed red star, a monument to Communism, was being dismantled from the small square in front of the hotel. It was gone by the end of the day.I later learned that the hotel had recently passed from government to private ownership. In newly post-Communist Hungary, a red-star monument out front was bad for business — or at least bad for appearances.Plans were also underway to move monumental Communist-era sculptures from all over the city to an open-air museum in a park — a museum about dictatorship, as the project architect, ?kos Ele?d, explained, since “only democracy is able to give the opportunity to let us think freely about dictatorship.”Memento Park opened to the public the following year. It’s now a popular tourist attraction of historical gravity and artistic kitsch.In the wake of the controversy over removing American monuments to the Cult of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, Memento Park is not a bad model for us to consider following now — although certainly there are others. The dispute, which exploded into bloodshed, death and grinding national shame in recent days, demands hard thought. Decisions need to be made.Unlike sculpture, civic monuments are less the product of an individual artist than they are collaborations of entire societies. Civic monuments solicit a collective moral response. They invite an audience to affirm and applaud what it sees.Confederate monuments, like their Communist bronze and granite comrades in Budapest, are kitsch. Naturalistic skill in modeling, casting and carving are only the most rudimentary signs of artistic merit.At least 700 have been identified across the country. What to do with them when they’re removed?Confederate cemeteries are one answer. Decorating the graves of fallen soldiers on both sides of the Civil War evolved into Memorial Day, a federal holiday. The indecent monuments deserve a decent burial.History museums, whether in the style of Budapest’s Memento Park or another format, are another solution. The monuments demand explanation.History museums can provide not just the truthful context of the Civil War, but of the self-satisfied civic eruption of Confederate monuments after Plessy vs. Ferguson, the disastrous 1896 Supreme Court ruling that upheld “separate but equal” racial segregation. The ruling’s collapse in 1954’s Brown vs. Board of Education decision saw a second, this time bitter burst of Confederate monument building.And, yes, many should just be bulldozed or melted down. They are history’s rubble.Given events in Charlottesville, perhaps that statue of Lee deserves special handling. Make it a turning point in a story of bullying inequality that has gone on far too long. Truck Shrady’s statue 70 miles down the road to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, where the bronze equestrian figure could be taken off its granite pedestal and displayed beside it, dethroned and defanged.It’s sad that the site of the general’s surrender to Grant, meant to mark the end of the Civil War, needs to be called into service again. But it would be a proper resting place for the ugly history of America’s Confederate monuments.On Friday, May 19, 2017, Mayor Mitch Landrieu delivered an address about New Orleans’ efforts to remove monuments that celebrate the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy" christopher.knight@Twitter: @KnightLATContact Christopher Knight is art critic for the Los Angeles Times. He is a three-time finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism (1991, 2001 and 2007). Knight received the 1997 Frank Jewett Mather Award for distinction in art criticism from the College Art Assn., becoming the first journalist to win the award in more than 25 years. He has appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” PBS’ “NewsHour,” NPR's “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” and CNN and was featured in the 2009 documentary movie about the controversial relocation of the Barnes Foundation’s art collection, “The Art of the Steal.”Copyright ? 2018, Los Angeles Times SPECIAL OFFER ARTIFACT 3 Shopping MallsArticle - Best Products to Sell Onlineby Gwen Higgins; Updated September 26, 2017As a small business owner, you may want to start selling products online. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, e-commerce sales in 2012 were 5.2 percent of all retail trade. Of that, 4.4 percent was from non-store retailers. You probably don’t have endless cash or a logistics department to compete with major retailers. With all the choices, which products are best for your small business to sell online? Researchers have studied online selling, and the Census Bureau collects retail sales data -- findings which can help guide your choices.Products Selling Well OnlineFashion, collectibles and electronics do particularly well in online sales. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 the five top-selling categories of products from electronic shopping and mail-order houses were clothing and accessories, other merchandise (collectibles, souvenirs, auto parts, and jewelry), electronics and appliances, and furniture and home furnishings. These categories are fairly broad - but when we take a closer look, products sold online have common characteristics.Characteristics of Products Successfully Sold OnlineProducts marketed successfully online have some similarities, according to a study published in the journal Decision Support Systems. Tangible products that can be accurately described with a written description and photographs are good choices. This makes it simple for potential customers to see what they are buying without having to touch it, try it on or test drive it. For example, clothing stores provide a standard sizing chart for each brand of clothing they sell. This makes it easier to decide if an item will fit properly. These products don’t require a lot of effort to purchase. For example, a shopper might purchase an off-the-rack shirt online, but will visit his tailor in person to be fitted for a custom-tailored suit.Price matters. The item shouldn’t be too expensive or too cheap: Online retail site Shopify suggests an optimum price range of around $75 to $150. Consumers tend to want to examine more expensive products in person.Finally, competition is intense in the online shopping world. A good product is one that is unique and stands out from its competitors, and that can’t be easily bought in local stores. Shopify gives the examples of luxury toothpicks and high-end playing cards. Hand-crafted items can be sold online either from your personal website or an online storefront on sites like Etsy, eBay and Yahoo.Digital ProductsDigital products include photos, electronic books, digital artwork and software programs. The U.S. Small Business Administration calls these items "soft goods." Other soft goods are training products like videos and recorded lectures. Many entrepreneurs make a living selling their artwork or books online. These can also be the easiest products to handle online because they require no physical storage and no shipping costs. Your production costs will be for the time it takes to develop each product and for the website itself.Easily Shipped ProductsIf you sell physical items that must be shipped to your customers, choose ones that are easy to package and transport. Small, lightweight and durable items such as jewelry or folded clothing can be boxed up securely and shipped at low cost with little risk of damage.Many consumers expect free shipping because it is offered by large online retailers. The U.S. Postal Service and other courier services offer small-business rates, including returns. Determine what your products would cost to ship, and mark up the sales price enough to cover those costs.Other ConsiderationsProducts alone will not sell themselves: presentation, customer service and marketing are important. Keep your business plan and market niche in mind when choosing products for your store. Any products should fit in with your brand image and take advantage of market trends.Items that don’t sell well online, especially to first-time buyers, are generally those that need to be touched, smelled, tasted, tried or test-driven. Consider your target market as well. If your typical customers are senior citizens who don’t tend to shop online, they likely won’t buy your product online.ReferencesU.S. Census Bureau: Monthly and Annual Retail Trade, Latest Annual Trade ReportShopify E-commerce Marketing Blog: How to Find the Perfect Product to Sell, by Mark HayesU.S. Census Bureau: E - Stats - Measuring the Electronic EconomyDecision Support Systems: Marketing on the Internet - Who Can Benefit from an Online Marketing Approach?ResourcesU.S. Small Business Administration: How Do I Start Selling Online?The US Postal Service: No Business Too SmallAbout the AuthorGwen Higgins is a writer and entrepreneur with more than 10 years of industry experience. Her credentials include a professional engineer designation, an Associate of Science, a Bachelor of Applied Science in chemical engineering and commerce. She also holds the Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) and Certified Management Accountant (CMA) designations in BC, Canada.About Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Policy AdChoices Copyright ? 2018 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, all rights reserved. Article – & FinanceJan 4, 2015 @ 10:22 AM 42,2372 Free Issues of ForbesThe Shopping Malls Really Are Being Killed By Online ShoppingTim Worstall , ContributorOpinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.As industries change, as technologies change so that industries have to, there's often an awful lot of whistling in the wind among those who don't want to have to admit that the world is changing against their interests. And so it is among people talking about shopping malls in the US. I've seen very much the same thing in my native Britain when people start to talk about the death of the "High Street" (what might be called "downtown" in an American shopping sense). When I point out that 12% or so of the stores on said High Street are vacant, 12 % or so of retail spending is nnow online, there's always a desire to explain that it's just not that simple, that something else is going on.No, very little else is going on. More retail spending is moving online thus we need and desire (or, more importantly, we can support) less bricks and mortar retail space. And I'd argue that very much the same thing is happening in the US now with malls. My insistence being despite the insistence of those involved in the industry that that's not it at all: One factor many shoppers blame for the decline of malls — online shopping — is having only a small effect, experts say. Less than 10 percent of retail sales take place online, and those sales tend to hit big-box stores harder, rather than the fashion chains and other specialty retailers in enclosed malls.Well, OK, so 10% or so of sales are online now. About 80 percent of the country’s 1,200 malls are considered healthy, reporting vacancy rates of 10 percent or less. But that compares with 94 percent in 2006, according to CoStar Group , a leading provider of data for the real estate industry. Nearly 15 percent are 10 to 40 percent vacant, up from 5 percent in 2006. And 3.4 percent — representing more than 30 million square feet — are more than 40 percent empty, a threshold that signals the beginning of what Mr. Busch of Green Street calls “the death spiral.”Right, there's 1,200 malls in the country, of those perhaps 15% are 30-50% vacant and: Since 2010, more than two dozen enclosed shopping malls have been closed, and an additional 60 are on the brink, according to Green Street Advisors, which tracks the mall industry.And 2% have gone bust and another 4 % or so are gravely indanger of doing so. Now I know my math here is pretty rough but that is around and about 10% of retail space in malls nationwide either empty or closed while online retail is 10% or so of all retail sales. I'd say that the connection between the two is pretty firm myself, just as it is in the UK.However, there's one more part to this story that I think is interesting: Well aware of the cultural dimensions, as well as the economic stakes, the industry is trying to turn around public perception of these monuments to America’s favorite pastime: shopping.The malls that are doing well tend to be destinations. Those that aren't tend to be places where people just go shopping.Of course, we've all made jokes for decades about "retail therapy" and how people go off shopping as something to actually do rather than a task that has to be achieved so that food can be eaten, clothes can be worn. And that is what seems to be becoming ever more apparent. Those places that are places that people go to in order to "shop the mall" are performing a form of entertainment duty. And those are the places that are staying vibrant, for it's the experience that is being looked for (and I will resolutely retrain myself from making the usual jokes about male and female sterotypical shopping jokes). Those places that were places where people simply went to the store in order to purchase something are the places feeling the real brunt of that online competition.Another way to put this, and the piece makes the point that it is "high end" malls that are doing well, the middle market that is failing, is that high end shopping is still that experience desirable in and of itself while middle ranking shopping is, well, it's just shopping, that thing that is so much easier to do online. And however convenient, cheap or simple Amazon or other online stores are, "experience" is not really the description we would apply to the use of them. shopping centres are changing to fight online?shopping September 3, 2017 11.18pm EDT Shopping centre and retailers need to give shoppers a reason to go to physical stores. Shutterstock Even before the arrival of Amazon, online shopping is devastating Australian retail. In the past year, sales in physical stores grew only 3% while online shopping grew almost 10%. Foot traffic in physical stores has fallen by almost 5% this year alone.Both retailers and shopping centre operators have to work together to create compelling reasons for customers to leave their homes and go shopping in physical stores. This has already resulted in a lot of experimentation, from VIP shopping nights to pop-up stores and events. As the likes of Amazon enter Australia, shopping centres and retailers are going to need to be extra creative.The decline in foot traffic is reflected in the retail industry’s profit margins, which have consistently declined since 2008-09. Physical stores have seen their profit margins hover around 5% since 2008-09, while online retailers’ have grown. Profit margins for online retailers are now roughly double that of bricks-and-mortar stores.All of this is causing tensions between retailers and shopping centres as customers increasingly shop online.Read more: Amazon poses a double threat to Australian retailers This year alone, major retailers like Payless Shoes, Topshop, David Lawrence and Rhodes & Beckett have entered administration.Even big retailers aren’t being spared, with Myer reducing its profit forecasts off the back of “continued weakness in retail trading conditions”. The pressure on retailers is flowing through to shopping centre operators. Data show increasing vacancies in retail spaces in major cities across the country, but most notably in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. HYPERLINK "" Shopping centres and retailers need to work togetherSome shopping centre operators are responding by expanding their offerings of food, events and experiences. For example, the redevelopment of the Chadstone shopping centre in Victoria included a new dine-in restaurant precinct, an up-market movie theatre and a Lego Discovery Centre. However, these changes are not always received positively by existing occupants. Food chain SumoSalad has put some stores in voluntary administration over a dispute with Westfield. SumoSalad accused the shopping centre chain of cannibalising its business by allowing competitors to open in newly created food courts. The Franchise Council of Australia has even warned that retailers could move to strip malls if shopping centre operators continue to open new stores and food courts within existing complexes. For the past five years, a team at Monash Business School have surveyed Australian retailers to find their perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the top Australian shopping centre operators. The survey has some good news – shopping centre operators are improving in the eyes of retailers. Despite the challenges of decreased footfall and slowing turnover growth, retailer ratings of the performance of their shopping centre landlords have steadily improved over the past five years. And 2017 was the first year when more retailers rated their landlords positively than negatively. The survey also shows retailers’ expectations are changing. Of course, retailers would like lower rents, but this has become less important over time. Retailers now put more weight on the marketing and other support that landlords can provide to encourage more foot traffic. Retailers want shopping centre operators to create innovative marketing campaigns to encourage consumers to visit their particular centre. For example, one Melbourne shopping centre has started hosting “VIP” nights that include DJs, pop-up bars and even free transport. Pop-up activations and in-centre events can also be used to highlight local or unique brands that can’t be found online, thereby drawing customers back to physical stores. 100 Squared, for example, is a pop-up retail showcase of local designers in major shopping centres across Australia. Retailers also want more information and analysis on foot traffic and marketing effectiveness. This includes data on shopper traffic and demographics, customer segmentation and transactions data. Using this information, retailers can tailor marketing events and activities to the local market. Through a collaborative approach, there is an opportunity for both retailers and landlords to weather the storm. Many centres are now making space available for short-term, flexible leases to encourage emerging brands to showcase their stock through pop-up stores. Others are focused on the local community, providing additional community services to become a new-age form of a town centre. Retailers and shopping centre operators both need this type of collaboration to survive, and even thrive, as online shopping continues to grow. This will not only improve foot traffic and revenues, but also provide consumers with unique and hopefully enjoyable shopping experiences.Artifact 4 – ZoosArticles: power of partnership: could animal rights organisations and zoos/aquariums join forces?13th January 2018 AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to LinkedInShare to PinterestShare to Google+Share to More327In reflecting on 2017’s AZA Annual Conference, what stood out the most to me personally was the reaction from zoo and aquarium community members to keynote speaker Wayne Pacelle, CEO & President of one of the most outspoken anti-zoo and marine park organizations, the Humane Society of the United States. By Stacey LudlumI spoke with several AZA (The Association of Zoos & Aquariums) members who were outraged that the association was extending an olive branch. From what I understand, many members protested by not attending the conference at all. Some even threatened to cancel their AZA membership. This got me to thinking about the potential power of partnerships; of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer.In conversations with zoos and aquariums in recent years, it seems the (excuse me for this) elephant in the room has been the focused, laser-like attention on our community from anti-marine and zoological park activists. We’ve all seen the many articles unfairly finger-wagging, the extremist commentaries and editorials, and the mainstream promotion of proposed, “frankly sophomoric” (to quote a colleague’s description) self-proclaimed “industry-changing” zoo designs. ?To say all of this, as a dedicated zoological designer, is frightening and frustrating, is a bit of an understatement. ?But this post is not about refuting or fighting back.Sea Lion Sound, St. Louis ZooThis post is a plea. ?A treaty. ?An extended hand. ?Let’s start with a recent realization of mine. ?Here’s the background.Many recent studies suggest that the young people of today (ages 18-30) – otherwise known as the Millennials, otherwise known as the tomorrow’s world leaders and decision-makers – are extremely optimistic and driven. ?They believe they can personally make a difference in the world. They value those products and experiences that allow them to make a difference. Or at least, feel as if they are making the, “least bad” decision possible. ?At the same time as these folks were being born, having childhoods, and awkwardly excelling in high school, zoos and aquariums were experiencing a sort of punctuated equilibrium — or sudden evolution — from the modernist age of the mid-20th century to the immersion and story-driven experience of today. ?In fact, the very first “landscape immersion” exhibit opened in 1978 — only two years before the birth of the very first Millennial. Meanwhile, another significant birth was taking place. Formal, mainstream recognition of animal rights in the modern sense began in earnest in the 1970s. Perhaps the most widely recognized and vocal animal rights organization, PETA, was founded in 1980. ?Since then, support of these organizations has risen astronomically.What do all of these have to do with each other?I believe all of these factors, along with advancements in healthcare, digital technology, and generally the world becoming a much smaller place, have influenced society to become more empathetic towards animals. ?But, I also believe the impact of a zoo visit is much greater than we may give credit. ?The development of the immersion exhibit?The story-based, immersion exhibit design trend has many goals. Primarily, in terms of guest experience, it is in the creation and elevation of empathy for animals. The mantra has been, “to create connections between humans and animals, to touch the heart to teach the mind.” ?And while many Millennials grew up with zoos that may have been slow to adopt these changes, most are likely to have visited at least one zoo that had an immersion exhibit. ?And I surmise, experiencing the power of an immersion exhibit only brings greater focus onto the inadequacies of exhibits that do not feature this style.Andean Bear, Chester ZooWhat’s more, ‘landscape immersion’ specifically (which is to say the ‘re-creation’ of an animal’s natural habitat both in their space and in ours) serves more to impact the perception of ‘health and happiness’ than it does to directly affect an animal’s actual health and happiness. ?In fact, the modernist age of zoos and aquariums did more to increase longevity and decrease mortality. ?In layman’s terms, the exhibit is green and lush because the guest wants it to be green and lush. ?Realistically, the health and welfare of an animal is far more complex than whether or not the exhibit ‘looks pretty and natural.’A deep, spiritual understandingSo if we’re doing a good job creating landscape immersion exhibits, it goes to say we’ve positively affected the perception of the animal’s health and happiness. Therefore, anytime an exhibit does not feature this ‘wild’ look, our perception is that the animal is unhappy.Mississippi River Exhibit, St. Louis Aquarium at Union Station, renderingBeyond the goal of ‘perception building empathy,’ we work hard to create experiences that further connect animals and people by getting people close to the animal, by getting moments of shared quiet, by an animal getting a reaction from a guest (or vice versa), by getting to touch or feel or hear the animal, up-close and personal. ?In these moments, we (and I’m just as guilty), believe we can see into the animal’s soul. ?That we’ve connected on some deep, spiritual level. ?That, “I now understand what this animal desires more than anyone else.” But in reality, we don’t. ?We project our own hopes, dreams, feelings, and comfort onto the animal. And believe the animal is telling us this, as we stare at each other through the glass. ?I believe zoos and aquariums have brought this upon ourselves. ?We’ve done such a good job of creating moments of empathy and connection, that people now have more personal, one-on-one experience with exotic animals than ever before. ?And everyone believes that they know animals more than the next person. ?That they love animals more. ?And isn’t that what this argument is coming down to? ?An inverse game of, “I’m rubber and you’re glue” whereby we’re trying to outdo each other at loving animals? ?Can’t we all just agree that we all love animals? ?Because I know I do. That’s why I design zoos.Siberian Tigers, Buffalo ZooAnimal rights and zoos: in it togetherBut my real wish, my dream, is of, ‘what an amazing world this would be’ if we could all join forces. We could unite over a common cause: working to protect the remaining non-captive animal populations from extinction. ?Let’s join together the very best characteristics from both sides of the aisle. Join the mega audience of zoos and aquariums, (with an attendance greater than all professional sports combined), with the marketing, messaging and PR skills of the animal rights groups, whose ability to incite passionate action is unrivalled. ?Let’s redirect our efforts for productivity, for proactivity, and stop fighting each other. ?We need to listen and learn; critically review our policies and procedures, create new programs, and focus. Let’s save habitats and wildlife. ?Because really, we’re all on this earth together, so why not be all in this together? ?Stacey LudlumStacey Ludlum is Director of Zoo and Aquarium Planning and Design at PGAV Destinations in St. Louis. She enjoys watching visitors fall in love with animals in the places she designed for just that.Article: Should zoos be banned? | Alison Benjamin and Toby Moses | OpinionToby Moses7-8 minutesThe shooting of the captive gorilla in Cincinnati calls into question the benefits and ethics of keeping animals for public display HYPERLINK "about:reader?url=https%3A%2F%2F%2Fcommentisfree%2F2016%2Fjun%2F01%2Fshould-zoos-be-banned-head-to-head" \l "img-1" Harambe, the gorilla at Cincinnati zoo that was shot to protect a three-year-old boy who had entered its enclosure. Photograph: Jeff McCurry/AP Alison Benjamin: Where’s the enjoyment in seeing magnificent creatures behind bars?Whether the parents of the four-year-old or inadequate safety standards were to blame, the real problem is that this gorilla, like all zoo animals, was living in captivity, incarcerated in a small enclosure supposedly for our entertainment and education.I know most children find days out at the zoo an amazing experience, where they can get up close to animals large and small from far-flung places that they may have only seen in picture books or on TV.But they are a relic of the Victorian age, before David Attenborough documentaries and nature programmes such as Springwatch brought animals into our front room in all their glory, in real time and living in the wild. The reality is not always pretty or cute, but these shows are educational – unlike gawking at animals that are often pacing up and down in their cages in boredom or frustration or sitting in a corner, lonely and depressed. I was shocked to learn a few years ago that zoos were prescribing Prozac to some of the animals. Zoos are sad places for animals. As an animal lover, I don’t understand why anyone finds enjoyment in seeing magnificent creatures such as tigers or lions behind bars.Even with those that look as though they might be having fun – the monkeys and penguins – just think how much more exciting it would be to see them swinging in the jungle, rather than in a cage, or hunting on the ice caps instead of being thrown fish at feeding time.And it’s not as if you can touch the animals – that’s deemed too dangerous. You can’t get that close to most of them, not even by squashing your face against the glass of an enclosure, certainly not as close as those television cameras.As for the conservation argument, surely the human race should be working harder to preserve animals’ natural environments rather than shipping them off to zoos to breed (often unsuccessfully) while continuing to destroy their habitat in the name of progress.So if it’s about a fun day out for the kids, where they can learn about animals and eat ice-cream, why not take them to a natural history museum followed by a trip to the movies to see an amazing 3D film about the bugs in the Borneo forest or the underwater world of the Great Barrier Reef?When I was a child, watching animals doing tricks at a circus was acceptable. Now, in response to growing popular concern about the cruelty of using animals in entertainment, many countries ban using animals in circus acts, and animal-free circuses are becoming more common. I hope it’s only a matter of time before, in the same spirit, we reimagine zoos.Toby Moses: For those who can’t afford a safari, a reputable zoo is the best alternativeIt’s important to start by acknowledging that zoos are far from an ideal home for most animals. If it were as simple as a choice between an animal living wild or living in captivity, then the zoo would be as much of an anachronism as lions jumping through flaming hoops in a circus tent. But that is not the choice we face. No reputable zoo would now snatch an animal from the wild to display for public amusement – and certainly no zoo I would wish to defend.The modern zoo should act as a place for the preservation of endangered species, a safe house for rescued animals snatched from their habitat by those with malicious intent, and a breeding ground for those that can safely be kept in captivity to help spread a sense of wonder about the natural world to those who would otherwise not have the chance to see anything more interesting than a local labrador.And this latter point is key. Where else would someone brought up in an inner city get to see a gorilla, a tiger or even a meerkat? While a safari in the plains of the Serengeti may be preferable, the vast majority will never be able to afford such an exotic holiday.Animal experts may bemoan our anthropomorphising the natural world, but it is important to acknowledge the importance of this in helping to protect species that may otherwise be lost to us. One need only look at the relative difficulties of building a campaign to protect the rights of battery hens – still providing most of our eggs – and the polar bear. One is a bloodthirsty killer, the other a harmless hen – yet the public relate far more to the cuddly, white oversized teddy bear. Public opinion matters, and letting children get up close with a real-life Baloo or King Louie will do as much to foster a sense of conservationism as any Rudyard Kipling story.Then there is the part zoos play in preserving endangered species – I for one would rather the northern white rhino lived in a San Diego Zoo than ceased to exist entirely.To ignore the part zoos have to play here would be dishonest, and to pretend that there is any practical source of funds to support this vital work other than paying guests is disingenuous. When government and taxation won’t even pay up to support the poorest in society, it seems unlikely they’ll fork out for the protection of the black-footed ferret. If not you, through your taxes – then the zoo?Article - All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned7-9 minutesThis article originally appeared on VICE UK. Last week, a flood in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi killed 19 people, with six still missing. Rain caused the Vere River to burst its banks, flooding the city and its zoo, killing animals and allowing others to escape. Initially, all of the zoo's seven tigers and eight lions were thought dead, but last Wednesday a man was killed by an escaped tiger, prompting Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili to criticize zoo officials for providing false information. Two of its three jaguars are thought to be dead, as are 12 of its 14 bears. According to theGuardian, police have been accused of unnecessarily shooting many of the animals. They were also seen by zoo staff taking selfies beside lions, tigers, and other large animals they had shot. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing," one worker said. "It was like a trophy for them." Though horrific, a certain element of human tragedy always feels unavoidable in disasters like floods. In densely populated cities, it's almost impossible for people not to get caught up in the wreckage when something goes horribly wrong. However, the presence of wild animals in these disasters feels more avoidable. Leaving aside their deaths and treatment here specifically, that we'd house lions, tigers, and other large animals within roaming distance of a Swatch shop at any time merits questioning, never mind that we do it all over the world, in almost every city, attracting 175 million visitors per year. I'm no big animal-rights crusader, but I do have some basic common sense. And this basic common sense tells me one thing when it comes to the captivity of wild animals: It's probably not something we should be doing. Zoos—or, in their original form, menageries—have been around for a staggeringly long time. The oldest that we know of was uncovered in 2009 during excavations in Egypt, where archeologists found evidence of a menagerie dating back to 3500 BC. Until the early 19th century, however, they were mainly representations of royal power, like Louis XIV's menagerie in Versailles. Not until modern zoos began appearing in London, Dublin, and Paris did they focus on educating and entertaining the public. In line with our improved views on animal rights, zoos have improved in the past 30 years: Cages have mostly been replaced with moats and glass, and the majority now employ full-time vets to administer medication and restrict diets. Positive reinforcement is also the norm, and turning hoses on animals is no longer considered an ethical way to get them to do something. Dart guns, too, are on the wane, after years of causing animals a great deal of stress. When it comes to certain things, however, there are still irreconcilable differences between zoos, parks, and animals' natural habitats. On the issue of space, the average lion or tiger has 18,000 times less in captivity than it does in the wild; polar bears a million times less. To say this adversely affects the animal is an understatement: In 2008, a government-funded study in the UK discovered there was a welfare concern over every elephant in the country; 75 percent of them were overweight, and only 16 percent could walk normally. African elephants also live three times longer in the wild than they do in captivity, and 40 percent of lion cubs die in zoos, compared with 30 percent in the wild. That may sound like a similar figure, but consider that a third of the reasons they die—predators being a big one—in the wild are absent in zoos. Thinking that all zoos have improved, then, would be a mistake. In Britain, there have been numerous incidents of abuse, like at Woburn Safari Park, where, in 2010, lions were discovered being left in cramped, unsuitable enclosures for 18 hours a day, and where staff were found training elephants with 4,500-volt electrical goads. There's also Knowsley Safari Park, where, in 2011, photos showed animals being disposed of in trash dumpsters, having been shot by untrained staff members. And in Ireland, at the crisp-related Tayto theme park, bans were put in place in 2013 and 2014 to stop it from acquiring new animals due to "inappropriate breeding," "inadequate" enclosures," and "high levels of aggression and stress among animals." Worldwide, there have also been dozens of reports of training with goads, inadequate premises, and beatings—but the world's leading zoo association, WAZA (the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums), has yet to expel or condemn any zoo involved. Psychologically, the effects continue: In the UK, 54 percent of elephants experience behavioral problems, and lions spend 48 percent of their time pacing, a sign of behavioral problems, with animals in captivity frequently displaying this "stereotypy," a repetitive or ritualized behavior caused by the boredom of confinement. Other examples include excessive licking, self-mutilation, and trunk-swinging. Depression is also common among animals if they're harassed by visitors, their food variety is lacking or their need to mate is unmet or delayed. READ ON MOTHERBOARD: Why Animals Die Prematurely in Zoos An argument in favor of zoos is their conservation work. A closer look at this, however, reveals what's largely a myth: In reality, fewer than 1 percent of zoo species are part of any serious conservation effort, with many being inbred and having little "genetic integrity" and "no conservation value," according to a 2013 study by Dr. Paul O'Donoghue, a conservation geneticist with the Aspinall Foundation. Far from reentering animals into the wild, they actually take from it, with 70 percent of Europe's elephants being extracted, along with 79 percent of Britain's aquarium population. In fact, it's been shown that captive populations can actually hinder conservation, with one study saying they give "a false impression that a species is safe, so that destruction of habitat and wild populations can proceed." Last year, London Zoo spent ?5.3 million [$8.3 million] on an enclosure for three gorillas. Conversely, only 3p [$0.05] per visitor can be traced to conservation efforts by aquarium giant Sea Life. The discrepancy between money spent on captive animals and those in the wild is huge, despite it being 50 times more expensive to house animals in zoos than it is to protect them in their natural habitats. Giraffes at Copenhagen zoo. Photo by Daderot via Wikimedia. Most ironic, however, in the face of this myth is how many animals zoos kill. Last year, after the giraffe Marius was euthanized at Copenhagen Zoo, it was revealed by EAZA (the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria) that between 3,000 to 5,000 healthy animals are killed across Europe each year. Another argument in favor of zoos is the education they provide. However, with 41 percent of Britain's aquariums lacking even the most basic information on signs, what can a person possibly learn that they can't from documentaries or YouTube? Truthfully, zoos are part of a bigger problem: how we relate to our natural environment. We bring our children there and teach them to resent animals if they're not entertaining enough, then bring them home and feed them fish fingers and chicken nuggets—foods pulverized into indistinguishable mush—before wondering why the planet's in such a shitty state. We're so focused on meeting our basest needs, some ideas we inherited centuries ago, that we can't see the damage we're causing. We need to wake up, finally, and, like Costa Rica has done already, begin the painful process of shutting down zoos. Article - Is it time to close all the zoos?4-5 minutesScience, Tech & EnvironmentThe Takeaway March 10, 2015 · 12:30 PM EDT Listen to the full interview.RTR4O73P.jpgSumatran tiger Melati looks inside a present box put out to celebrate the first birthday of her cub triplets in their enclosure at the London Zoo on February 4, 2015.Credit: Stefan Wermuth/ReutersZoos have a long history. As early as 2500 BC, Egyptian aristocrats created menageries;?in 1520, the Aztec Emperor Montezuma II maintained one of the earliest animal collections in the Western Hemisphere.Today?about 175 million people?visit zoos across the globe?every year. But?despite their history, as well as arguments from conservationists and educators that they're necessary, Outside Magazine contributor?Tim Zimmermann?says it's time that zoos permanently close their gates.“What we definitely know is that many animals suffer in zoos," Zimmermann says. "There are high mortality rates, there are injuries?and there’s depression. The science and research also shows that wide-ranging animals — the animals that are most popular for people to see, like tigers and?bears — are the animals that do worst in the zoos."He argues?there are plenty of other ways to see and learn about animals in the modern age,?everything from visiting your own backyard to watching YouTube videos and televised nature specials.?Zimmermann says it’s also unclear what people actually learn from visiting zoos.“Zoos are intended to educate and promote conservation, but most of the studies done by the zoo industry on this topic really ask people whether they?thought they learned something rather than whether they?actually?learned something,” he says.Zimmermann isn’t launching an all-out attack on zoos; he?concedes many have made an effort to improve the facilities that house animals. But that can't hide the fact that?certain animals simply do not do well in zoos, he says. Many facilities even employ anti-depressants to curb the unhappiness felt by animals.“No matter how natural the tiger enclosure is, for example, it’s still minuscule compared to the range a tiger in the wild would have to roam,” Zimmermann?says. “If you want to teach people about tigers and get children excited about tigers, there may be a better way to do that.”Though many argue that zoos serve a purpose in terms of conservation, Zimmermann’s research has found that’s just not the case.?“Less than 1 percent of the species kept in zoos are actually part of serious conservation [efforts]," he says. "I?think much more could be done by targeting specific species that really do need conservation.”In fact, he argues, zoos can actually?harm more effective measures of conservation in the long run.“There have been studies done on how people think about conservation and the future of species in the wild,” he says. “That sort of research shows that seeing animals in zoos cared for by humans, and hearing about a zoo’s conservation plans, reintroduction plans?and breeding plans sometimes tends to make people think that animals are doing better in the wild [than they really are.]”Zimmermann proposes?a shift from urban zoos to sanctuary-style habitats and parks that provide animals with more room to roam and more authentic lifestyles. Not only might that lead to happier animals, he says, it could also provide?immense value by letting people see?animals live in their?natural habitats.“There’s an idea that somehow it’s a right for everyone to see the animals they want to see, when they want to see them,” he says. “I tend to feel like it’s a privilege to see animals live and it’s a privilege to see them in nature."This story is based on an interview from PRI's The Takeaway, a public radio program that invites you to be part of the American conversation. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download