Ever wonder “How to get my book reviewed”?

Books
Books/Image Source: Vbctulsa

So you’ve published your book. Its been edited and published, and now you’re trying to figure out how to get to your potential readers. While starting your marketing campaign usually happens well before your book is completed, getting your first reviews can’t begin until your book is done or in a final draft status.

Many stores won’t carry a small press or self-published book that doesn’t have reviews from a recognizable publishing. So how do you get someone to pay attention to your book among all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions they see every month?

City Book Review, publishers of the San Francisco Book Review, Manhattan Book Review and Kids’ BookBuzz all have programs to help you. Kids BookBuzz is only for kids, tweens and young adult books, but the other two will take almost any book you have (including children’s stories).

So how do you get your book reviewed by the San Francisco Book Review?

If your book is within 90 days of the publications date, you can submit it for general review (at no cost). The closer you are to the 90 days, the less of a chance it will have to be reviewed, but you can still start there. The SFBR gets more than 1000 submissions a month, and only reviews 300 or less, so your opportunities of getting your book reviewed in this way is less than 33%. But you can give it a try and see if it gets reviewed.

General Submission Guidelineshttp://www.sanfranciscobookreview.com/submission-guidelines/general-submission/

If your book is more than 90 days past its publication date, or you really want to have it reviewed and don’t want to just hope it’ll get picked up through the general review, you can go through the Sponsored Review program. While there is some controversy about paying for a review, SFBR is a respected publication like Kirkus or Foreward Reviews and doesn’t offer vanity reviews for payment. You can expect the same level of professionalism from their standard reviews. And they don’t mark sponsored reviews any different than the other reviews.

Get My Book Reviewed from the San Francisco Book Reviewhttp://sanfranciscobookreview.com/submission-guidelines/sponsored-review/

Get My Book Reviewed from the San Francisco Book Review

There are a lot of different options for getting your book reviewed, mostly around how long it takes to get your review back, and if you want more than one or an interview as well.

  • Standard Reviews Take 8-10 weeks for turnaround from the time they receive your book Start at
  • Expedited Reviews Take 3-5 weeks for turnaround from the time they receive your book Start at
  • Get more than one review for the same book you’ll get a discount on the normal cost of 2 or 3 reviews. Reviews range in price from $150 to $299.
  • Getting a podcast interview for Audible Authors to promote yourself and your book, and you can add an interview to a review package at a discount.

And if you really like your review, you can have it posted on the other publication’s website for $99, or get a new review from a different reviewer. Both can help with your marketing and search engine optimization.

So how do you get your book reviewed by the Manhattan Book Review?

The Manhattan Book Review uses the same format for the San Francisco Book Review. Different audience, so if you’re an East Coast writer, you might be more interested in having the credit from MBR over SFBR. Personal taste is the only difference between the two for reviews. If you are a local SF or Manhattan writer, they will also flag that in your review.

General Review Submission Guidelines for the Manhattan Book Reviewhttp://manhattanbookreview.com/get-my-book-reviewed/general-submission/

Sponsored Review Submission Guidelines for the Manhattan Book Reviewhttp://manhattanbookreview.com/get-my-book-reviewed/sponsored-reviews/

So how do you get your book reviewed by Kids’ BookBuzz?

First thing, all of the reviews for Kids’ BookBuzz are done by kids. They are assigned age appropriate books, but the kids read them and write the reviews themselves. The younger kids have some help from their parents, but the words are all theirs. Don’t expect any easy reviews either. These kids see a lot of stories, so they know good books when they read them.

General Submission Guidelines for Kids’ BookBuzzhttp://kidsbookbuzz.com/get-my-book-reviewed-by-a-kid/general-submission/

Sponsored Review Submission Guidelines for Kids’ BookBuzz http://kidsbookbuzz.com/get-my-book-reviewed-by-a-kid/sponsored-reviews/

Jane Austen teen author before her time

Far from being the epitome of genteel propriety, her earliest fiction reveals an anarchic spirit with a disdain for authority to match any modern adolescent

Teenagers had not yet been invented in the late 1780s, when the young Jane Austen began her authorial career. But the people she chose to write about in her earliest known fiction display all the classic traits of modern adolescents on the loose: showing off, binge drinking, stealing, violence, hysteria. There are intense friendships, wild love affairs and, not infrequently, utter contempt for the older generation.

Austens Victorian biographers preferred to date her career from the appearance of her first novel, Sense and Sensibility, when she was 35. They shaped the image of her as a cheerful, if pious and solitary, writer who penned her works quietly and covertly at home under the pseudonym A Lady.

But such an image is startlingly at odds with the riotous crime scene that is Austens teenage writing, produced to be enjoyed and performed by close family and friends. The early works remain to this day somewhat under the radar even of her biggest fans, partly because the first substantial collection did not appear in print until 1922, more than a century after her death.

You can see why they might have been an embarrassment to Austens family; at first glance, these tales have little in common with her elegant later fiction. One heroine, Anna Parker, coolly announces in a letter to her friend that, having murdered her father and mother: I am now going to murder my Sister. All the characters are essentially motiveless: they feast, kill, insult and charge across estates and countryside with seeming impunity, armed with a stock of blithe compliments and self-regard (which is, often, enough to get away with anything).

The young Jane did not entrust her secret crushes or private longings to a diary (as far as we know). Rather, her supremely confident early writings are directed outwards, narrating either an excess of action or the complete absence of it. We are told of the alcoholic hero of Jack and Alice, who doesnt appear in the story, that he never did anything worth mentioning. Another story announces, in passing, that tragedy is not worth reading. Theyre cartoonish and full of in-jokes; written by an author already anticipating the enjoyment of her friends and family.

There are many references to the pulp fiction that was then devoured by the whole Austen clan and most likely by the male teenage boarders living with them, pupils of the cash-strapped Reverend George Austen. The young Jane joyously adopted its extravagances, cliches and improbabilities, using names like Laurina, Polydore and Jezalinda (her adult fiction restricts itself to solidly English names like George, Emma and Anne). There are bold sentiments, such as: It is my greatest boast that I have incurred the Displeasure of my Father! There are lurching coincidences of plot: Oh Heavens, (exclaimed I) is it possible that I should so unexpectedly be surrounded by my nearest Relations and Connections? These frantic mini-novels reveal how Austen used the genre fiction of her day to train herself in the parts and rules of novel writing: do characters need to be believable? Do their actions need motives? How unhinged and random can action be and still make sense?

Schoolroom textbooks, another target, are dissected to expose the woeful limitations of education for girls at the time: a little geography, history and advice on household management. The spoof History of England, By a partial, prejudiced, & ignorant Historian is remarkable for its understanding of the notion that all history is interpreted, and written from bias of some kind. Austen was just 15 when she wrote the stories, following geographically ignorant characters on crazy journeys from Bedfordshire to Middlesex via south Wales. With their narcissistic disregard for moral codes, her characters reject the manuals of instruction that were the staple of girls education at the time. The young Jane was leading a battalion of unruly teenage girls in open contention with the models of the Georgian classroom.

Austen was a teenager in the same years that Mary Wollstonecraft was linking female education to the pressing need for political reform. In her 1792 story Kitty, or the Bower, the 16-year-old Jane wrote about social and sexual politics with a candour she would never again match. Kitty Peterson, her young heroine, could easily be mistaken for Wollstonecraft herself in full flow: But do you call it lucky, for a Girl of Genius & Feeling to be sent in quest of a Husband to Bengal, to be married there to a Man of whose Disposition she has no opportunity of judging till her Judgement is of no use to her, who may be a Tyrant, or a Fool or both for what she knows to the Contrary. Do you call that fortunate?

The clever, funny stories that make up the teenage writings are a dramatic counter to the disciplined, psychological realism that Austen developed in her adult fiction. But traces of their freakishness and wit survive: in Sense and Sensibility, when Elinor Dashwood requests a stiff drink in the face of her sister Mariannes hysterics (If you will give me leave, I will drink the wine myself); or in Elizabeth Bennets unladylike energy in Pride and Prejudice, crossing field after field at a quick pace, jumping over stiles and springing over puddles on her way to Netherfield Park. It is at such moments that the voice of a young troublemaker returns to make herself heard.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/18/jane-austen-teen-author-before-her-time

How economics became a religion | John Rapley

The long read: Its moral code promises salvation, its high priests uphold their orthodoxy. But perhaps too many of its doctrines are taken on faith

Although Britain has an established church, few of us today pay it much mind. We follow an even more powerful religion, around which we have oriented our lives: economics. Think about it. Economics offers a comprehensive doctrine with a moral code promising adherents salvation in this world; an ideology so compelling that the faithful remake whole societies to conform to its demands. It has its gnostics, mystics and magicians who conjure money out of thin air, using spells such as derivative or structured investment vehicle. And, like the old religions it has displaced, it has its prophets, reformists, moralists and above all, its high priests who uphold orthodoxy in the face of heresy.

Over time, successive economists slid into the role we had removed from the churchmen: giving us guidance on how to reach a promised land of material abundance and endless contentment. For a long time, they seemed to deliver on that promise, succeeding in a way few other religions had ever done, our incomes rising thousands of times over and delivering a cornucopia bursting with new inventions, cures and delights.

This was our heaven, and richly did we reward the economic priesthood, with status, wealth and power to shape our societies according to their vision. At the end of the 20th century, amid an economic boom that saw the western economies become richer than humanity had ever known, economics seemed to have conquered the globe. With nearly every country on the planet adhering to the same free-market playbook, and with university students flocking to do degrees in the subject, economics seemed to be attaining the goal that had eluded every other religious doctrine in history: converting the entire planet to its creed.

Yet if history teaches anything, its that whenever economists feel certain that they have found the holy grail of endless peace and prosperity, the end of the present regime is nigh. On the eve of the 1929 Wall Street crash, the American economist Irving Fisher advised people to go out and buy shares; in the 1960s, Keynesian economists said there would never be another recession because they had perfected the tools of demand management.

The 2008 crash was no different. Five years earlier, on 4 January 2003, the Nobel laureate Robert Lucas had delivered a triumphal presidential address to the American Economics Association. Reminding his colleagues that macroeconomics had been born in the depression precisely to try to prevent another such disaster ever recurring, he declared that he and his colleagues had reached their own end of history: Macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded, he instructed the conclave. Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved.

No sooner do we persuade ourselves that the economic priesthood has finally broken the old curse than it comes back to haunt us all: pride always goes before a fall. Since the crash of 2008, most of us have watched our living standards decline. Meanwhile, the priesthood seemed to withdraw to the cloisters, bickering over who got it wrong. Not surprisingly, our faith in the experts has dissipated.

Hubris, never a particularly good thing, can be especially dangerous in economics, because its scholars dont just observe the laws of nature; they help make them. If the government, guided by its priesthood, changes the incentive-structure of society to align with the assumption that people behave selfishly, for instance, then lo and behold, people will start to do just that. They are rewarded for doing so and penalised for doing otherwise. If you are educated to believe greed is good, then you will be more likely to live accordingly.

The hubris in economics came not from a moral failing among economists, but from a false conviction: the belief that theirs was a science. It neither is nor can be one, and has always operated more like a church. You just have to look at its history to realise that.


The American Economic Association,to which Robert Lucas gave his address, was created in 1885, just when economics was starting to define itself as a distinct discipline. At its first meeting, the associations founders proposed a platform that declared: The conflict of labour and capital has brought to the front a vast number of social problems whose solution is impossible without the united efforts of church, state and science. It would be a long path from that beginning to the market evangelism of recent decades.

Yet even at that time, such social activism provoked controversy. One of the AEAs founders, Henry Carter Adams, subsequently delivered an address at Cornell University in which he defended free speech for radicals and accused industrialists of stoking xenophobia to distract workers from their mistreatment. Unknown to him, the New York lumber king and Cornell benefactor Henry Sage was in the audience. As soon as the lecture was done, Sage stormed into the university presidents office and insisted: This man must go; he is sapping the foundations of our society. When Adamss tenure was subsequently blocked, he agreed to moderate his views. Accordingly, the final draft of the AEA platform expunged the reference to laissez-faire economics as being unsafe in politics and unsound in morals.

Trinity
Economics has always operated more like a church Trinity Church seen from Wall Street. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

So was set a pattern that has persisted to this day. Powerful political interests which historically have included not only rich industrialists, but electorates as well helped to shape the canon of economics, which was then enforced by its scholarly community.

Once a principle is established as orthodox, its observance is enforced in much the same way that a religious doctrine maintains its integrity: by repressing or simply eschewing heresies. In Purity and Danger, the anthropologist Mary Douglas observed the way taboos functioned to help humans impose order on a seemingly disordered, chaotic world. The premises of conventional economics havent functioned all that differently. Robert Lucas once noted approvingly that by the late 20th century, economics had so effectively purged itself of Keynesianism that the audience start(ed) to whisper and giggle to one another when anyone expressed a Keynesian idea at a seminar. Such responses served to remind practitioners of the taboos of economics: a gentle nudge to a young academic that such shibboleths might not sound so good before a tenure committee. This preoccupation with order and coherence may be less a function of the method than of its practitioners. Studies of personality traits common to various disciplines have discovered that economics, like engineering, tends to attract people with an unusually strong preference for order, and a distaste for ambiguity.

The irony is that, in its determination to make itself a science that can reach hard and fast conclusions, economics has had to dispense with scientific method at times. For starters, it rests on a set of premises about the world not as it is, but as economists would like it to be. Just as any religious service includes a profession of faith, membership in the priesthood of economics entails certain core convictions about human nature. Among other things, most economists believe that we humans are self-interested, rational, essentially individualistic, and prefer more money to less. These articles of faith are taken as self-evident. Back in the 1930s, the great economist Lionel Robbins described his profession in a way that has stood ever since as a cardinal rule for millions of economists. The fields basic premises came from deduction from simple assumptions reflecting very elementary facts of general experience and as such were as universal as the laws of mathematics or mechanics, and as little capable of suspension.

Deducing laws from premises deemed eternal and beyond question is a time-honoured method. For thousands of years, monks in medieval monasteries built a vast corpus of scholarship doing just that, using a method perfected by Thomas Aquinas known as scholasticism. However, this is not the method used by scientists, who tend to require assumptions to be tested empirically before a theory can be built out of them.

But, economists will maintain, this is precisely what they themselves do what sets them apart from the monks is that they must still test their hypotheses against the evidence. Well, yes, but this statement is actually more problematic than many mainstream economists may realise. Physicists resolve their debates by looking at the data, upon which they by and large agree. The data used by economists, however, is much more disputed. When, for example, Robert Lucas insisted that Eugene Famas efficient-markets hypothesis which maintains that since a free market collates all available information to traders, the prices it yields can never be wrong held true despite a flood of criticism, he did so with as much conviction and supporting evidence as his fellow economist Robert Shiller had mustered in rejecting the hypothesis. When the Swedish central bank had to decide who would win the 2013 Nobel prize in economics, it was torn between Shillers claim that markets frequently got the price wrong and Famas insistence that markets always got the price right. Thus it opted to split the difference and gave both men the medal a bit of Solomonic wisdom that would have elicited howls of laughter had it been a science prize. In economic theory, very often, you believe what you want to believe and as with any act of faith, your choice of heads or tails will as likely reflect sentimental predisposition as scientific assessment.

Its no mystery why the data used by economists and other social scientists so rarely throws up incontestable answers: it is human data. Unlike people, subatomic particles dont lie on opinion surveys or change their minds about things. Mindful of that difference, at his own presidential address to the American Economic Association nearly a half-century ago, another Nobel laureate, Wassily Leontief, struck a modest tone. He reminded his audience that the data used by economists differed greatly from that used by physicists or biologists. For the latter, he cautioned, the magnitude of most parameters is practically constant, whereas the observations in economics were constantly changing. Data sets had to be regularly updated to remain useful. Some data was just simply bad. Collecting and analysing the data requires civil servants with a high degree of skill and a good deal of time, which less economically developed countries may not have in abundance. So, for example, in 2010 alone, Ghanas government which probably has one of the better data-gathering capacities in Africa recalculated its economic output by 60%. Testing your hypothesis before and after that kind of revision would lead to entirely different results.

New
The data used by economists rarely throws up incontestable answers traders at the New York Stock Exchange in October 2008. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Leontief wanted economists to spend more time getting to know their data, and less time in mathematical modelling. However, as he ruefully admitted, the trend was already going in the opposite direction. Today, the economist who wanders into a village to get a deeper sense of what the data reveals is a rare creature. Once an economic model is ready to be tested, number-crunching ends up being done largely at computers plugged into large databases. Its not a method that fully satisfies a sceptic. For, just as you can find a quotation in the Bible that will justify almost any behaviour, you can find human data to support almost any statement you want to make about the way the world works.

Thats why ideas in economics can go in and out of fashion. The progress of science is generally linear. As new research confirms or replaces existing theories, one generation builds upon the next. Economics, however, moves in cycles. A given doctrine can rise, fall and then later rise again. Thats because economists dont confirm their theories in quite the same way physicists do, by just looking at the evidence. Instead, much as happens with preachers who gather a congregation, a school rises by building a following among both politicians and the wider public.

For example, Milton Friedman was one of the most influential economists of the late 20th century. But he had been around for decades before he got much of a hearing. He might well have remained a marginal figure had it not been that politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were sold on his belief in the virtue of a free market. They sold that idea to the public, got elected, then remade society according to those designs. An economist who gets a following gets a pulpit. Although scientists, in contrast, might appeal to public opinion to boost their careers or attract research funds, outside of pseudo-sciences, they dont win support for their theories in this way.

However, if you think describing economics as a religion debunks it, youre wrong. We need economics. It can be it has been a force for tremendous good. But only if we keep its purpose in mind, and always remember what it can and cant do.


The Irish have been known to describetheir notionally Catholic land as one where a thin Christian veneer was painted over an ancient paganism. The same might be said of our own adherence to todays neoliberal orthodoxy, which stresses individual liberty, limited government and the free market. Despite outward observance of a well-entrenched doctrine, we havent fully transformed into the economic animals we are meant to be. Like the Christian who attends church but doesnt always keep the commandments, we behave as economic theory predicts only when it suits us. Contrary to the tenets of orthodox economists, contemporary research suggests that, rather than seeking always to maximise our personal gain, humans still remain reasonably altruistic and selfless. Nor is it clear that the endless accumulation of wealth always makes us happier. And when we do make decisions, especially those to do with matters of principle, we seem not to engage in the sort of rational utility-maximizing calculus that orthodox economic models take as a given. The truth is, in much of our daily life we dont fit the model all that well.

For decades, neoliberal evangelists replied to such objections by saying it was incumbent on us all to adapt to the model, which was held to be immutable one recalls Bill Clintons depiction of neoliberal globalisation, for instance, as a force of nature. And yet, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the consequent recession, there has been a turn against globalisation across much of the west. More broadly, there has been a wide repudiation of the experts, most notably in the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum.

It would be tempting for anyone who belongs to the expert class, and to the priesthood of economics, to dismiss such behaviour as a clash between faith and facts, in which the facts are bound to win in the end. In truth, the clash was between two rival faiths in effect, two distinct moral tales. So enamoured had the so-called experts become with their scientific authority that they blinded themselves to the fact that their own narrative of scientific progress was embedded in a moral tale. It happened to be a narrative that had a happy ending for those who told it, for it perpetuated the story of their own relatively comfortable position as the reward of life in a meritocratic society that blessed people for their skills and flexibility. That narrative made no room for the losers of this order, whose resentments were derided as being a reflection of their boorish and retrograde character which is to say, their fundamental vice. The best this moral tale could offer everyone else was incremental adaptation to an order whose caste system had become calcified. For an audience yearning for a happy ending, this was bound to be a tale of woe.

The failure of this grand narrative is not, however, a reason for students of economics to dispense with narratives altogether. Narratives will remain an inescapable part of the human sciences for the simple reason that they are inescapable for humans. Its funny that so few economists get this, because businesses do. As the Nobel laureates George Akerlof and Robert Shiller write in their recent book, Phishing for Phools, marketers use them all the time, weaving stories in the hopes that we will place ourselves in them and be persuaded to buy what they are selling. Akerlof and Shiller contend that the idea that free markets work perfectly, and the idea that big government is the cause of so many of our problems, are part of a story that is actually misleading people into adjusting their behaviour in order to fit the plot. They thus believe storytelling is a new variable for economics, since the mental frames that underlie peoples decisions are shaped by the stories they tell themselves.

Economists arguably do their best work when they take the stories we have given them, and advise us on how we can help them to come true. Such agnosticism demands a humility that was lacking in economic orthodoxy in recent years. Nevertheless, economists dont have to abandon their traditions if they are to overcome the failings of a narrative that has been rejected. Rather they can look within their own history to find a method that avoids the evangelical certainty of orthodoxy.

In his 1971 presidential address to the American Economic Association, Wassily Leontief counselled against the dangers of self-satisfaction. He noted that although economics was starting to ride the crest of intellectual respectability an uneasy feeling about the present state of our discipline has been growing in some of us who have watched its unprecedented development over the last three decades.

Noting that pure theory was making economics more remote from day-to-day reality, he said the problem lay in the palpable inadequacy of the scientific means of using mathematical approaches to address mundane concerns. So much time went into model-construction that the assumptions on which the models were based became an afterthought. But, he warned a warning that the sub-prime booms fascination with mathematical models, and the busts subsequent revelation of their flaws, now reveals to have been prophetic it is precisely the empirical validity of these assumptions on which the usefulness of the entire exercise depends.

Leontief thought that economics departments were increasingly hiring and promoting young economists who wanted to build pure models with little empirical relevance. Even when they did empirical analysis, Leontief said economists seldom took any interest in the meaning or value of their data. He thus called for economists to explore their assumptions and data by conducting social, demographic and anthropological work, and said economics needed to work more closely with other disciplines.

Leontiefs call for humility some 40 years ago stands as a reminder that the same religions that can speak up for human freedom and dignity when in opposition, can become obsessed with their rightness and the need to purge others of their wickedness once they attain power. When the church retains its distance from power, and a modest expectation about what it can achieve, it can stir our minds to envision new possibilities and even new worlds. Once economists apply this kind of sceptical scientific method to a human realm in which ultimate reality may never be fully discernible, they will probably find themselves retreating from dogmatism in their claims.

Paradoxically, therefore, as economics becomes more truly scientific, it will become less of a science. Acknowledging these limitations will free it to serve us once more.

Main image: Maxian/Getty/iStockphoto/Guardian Design

This is an edited extract from Twilight of the Money Gods: Economics as a Religion and How it all Went Wrong by John Rapley, published by Simon & Schuster on 13 July at 20. To order a copy for 17, go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over 10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of 1.99.

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion

Museum risks wrath of Inuit with display from tragic Arctic voyage

Exhibition may solve riddle of Franklins lost expedition

After 165 years under icy seas, the lost secrets of Sir John Franklins doomed British Arctic expedition in search of the North-West Passage are to form the centrepiece of a major London exhibition, Death in the Ice. But who really owns these salvaged artefacts?

This weekend it has emerged that the historic items painstakingly retrieved from the wreck of HMS Erebus, one of Franklins two lost expeditionary vessels, were taken without permission from waters now owned by the Inuit people in Canada.

In 2014 the sunken wreck of the Erebus was found lying in a part of the Arctic Ocean that belongs to Canadas vast northernmost territory, Nunavut. A document made public in Canada in the past fortnight reveals that the premier of Nunavut has since protested directly to Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, about the actions of scientists working with the curators of the exhibition, which opens at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, south London, on 14 July.

In his formal letter of complaint, released at the request of a Canadian journalist, the premier, Peter Taptuna, argues that the contents of the Erebus are rightfully owned by his region and by the Inuit Heritage Trust. The letter alleges that Parks Canada, a government agency, ignored the fact the ship was submerged in Nunavuts internal waters when it removed the artefacts. This was unfortunate and inconsistent with past practice, it adds.

A spokeswoman for the National Maritime Museum said the new show would give visitors a clear sense of the role played by the Inuit in the original search for Franklin. It features Inuit oral histories relating to European exploration of the North-West Passage and many Inuit artefacts, including objects made using materials specifically from the Franklin expedition and other European sources. The stories of these items provide clues to the fate of Franklins men.

A
A diver surveys items from the Erebus. Photograph: Thierry Boyer/Parcs Canada

The London museums senior exhibitions curator, Claire Warrior, has also told the Canadian press that the role of Inuit will be highlighted. The enduring links between Britain and Nunavut will lie at its heart, she said, adding that her museum has no long-term claims on any of the artefacts.

Taptunas letter was sent last autumn, a few weeks after the sensational discovery of Franklins second ship, HMS Terror, in waters nearby. Since 2002, according to Taptuna, Canada has followed Nunavut regulations when searching for the lost ships and has not claimed title in specimens until the discovery of HMS Erebus in 2014. The premier also said his government now expected Canadian officials to consult and elaborate with our officials regarding the enforcement measures that will be employed at HMS Terror site.

For its part, Parks Canada maintains that both wrecks and their contents are still British property. The agency also cites a 1997 international memorandum of understanding between Canada and Britain that specifies that upon discovery the United Kingdom will transfer ownership of recovered artefacts to Canada, with the exception of gold items.

Among the well-preserved and often poignant items recovered from the Erebus are the ships bell, part of its wheel, several belaying pins, china plates, a cannon and a ceramic pot labelled anchovy paste.

The Greenwich show, which is jointly curated with the Canadian Museum of History, is set to solve many of the mysteries surrounding the 1845 expedition, which ended in tragedy and, most sensationally, in suspected cannibalism. A 59-year-old veteran of the seas, Franklin had sailed into the Arctic with 128 men on two Royal Navy ships in an attempt to find the North-West Passage the elusive trade route from Europe to Asia. Yet in 1848 both crews were forced to abandon ship to try to walk to safety when ice blocked their route. No survivors made it home.

Disputed Inuit claims that the desperate British survivors of the ships finally resorted to cannibalism will be examined in one section of the exhibition. A sign will warn visitors who wish to avoid these displays. The report, brought back to Britain in 1854, was controversial at the time, with Charles Dickens leaping to the defence of the explorers, but analysis of bones found on the surrounding terrain has suggested cannibalism is a real possibility.

Map of Franklin’s exhibition

It is handled with sensitivity and respect for the members of the expedition and their descendants, said a spokeswoman for the Greenwich museum. There are also reproductions of bones in the exhibition which show the difference between animal bite marks and evidence of cannibalism. We do also say in the exhibition labels that forensic evidence corroborates the Inuit testimonies of cannibalism.

The director of the Canadian Museum of History has given fresh weight to the Inuit contribution, recently announcing that the government of Nunavut and the Inuit Heritage Trust are collaborating with curators. It was Inuit knowledge that first revealed to European searchers where the expedition had become trapped and where its officers and men had struggled and failed to survive.

Inuit knowledge was to come to the fore again 150 years later when it helped direct modern marine archaeologists to the area around King William Island, close to the wrecks locations.

The exhibition will go to a Canadian museum in Ottawa in March next year. Discussions about building a visitor and research centre in Nunavut are also going ahead.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/01/franklin-arctic-voyage-tragic-inuit-wrath-museum

McConnell’s test: Can he do more than obstruct?

(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing a major test this week. Since revealing the details of the Republican health care plan, McConnell has watched as a number of important senators in his own party announced their concerns or opposition. Some, such as Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, have urged him to postpone the vote based on the assumption that, at this moment, it would not pass the upper chamber where the majority only has a slim 52 seats.

Meanwhile, on Monday, the Congressional Budget Office announced that under the Senate bill there would be 22 million more uninsured Americans by 2026, making McConnell’s efforts to pass the bill that much more difficult.
But McConnell’s supporters believe he can make this happen. They see McConnell as a modern-day Lyndon Johnson, who has served as both Senate minority and majority leader, an old-school legislator who can twist arms and cut deals to bring his party together. They are confident that despite all the potential problems with this bill, McConnell must have enough tricks up his sleeve to defy conventional wisdom.
    But the truth is it’s nearly impossible to predict if McConnell will succeed. To many, he has defined his career as an obstructionist rather than as someone who creates new policies. The challenge he faces this week is fundamentally different than much of what he has confronted in his time as a party leader.
    Most of McConnell’s skills have come as a member of the congressional minority or as a majority leader facing a president from the other party. Under those conditions, McConnell could be brilliant and devastating. Shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, Utah Republican Bob Bennett recalled McConnell telling a retreat of Republicans: “We have a new president with an approval rating in the 70% area. We do not take him on frontally. We find issues where we can win, and we begin to take him down, one issue at a time.”
    His track record as an agent of obstruction is legendary. Throughout the Obama presidency, McConnell proved to be extremely effective at blocking many key legislative initiatives, from immigration reform to climate change regulations to criminal justice reform, that sometimes even commanded bipartisan support. The senator proved he knew how to whip up a no vote and to stand firm against intense political pressure to act.
    He demonstrated the same savvy with judicial and executive branch appointments. McConnell was more than willing to let seats remain empty. Never was his ability to hold the party together as clear as when Justice Antonin Scalia died during President Obama’s term. The Senate majority leader refused to even hold hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland, based on the spurious argument that the next president should have the right to decide on the appointment. The seat remained vacant until a Republican controlled the White House.
    As an obstructionist, McConnell demonstrated he was able to ignore the scrutiny of the media no matter how hot it became. When pundits and policymakers took to the airwaves to lambast the Republicans for failing to govern or for creating a constitutional crisis, McConnell didn’t flinch. The breaking news cycle didn’t faze him. He plays, as he titled his memoir, the “Long Game” with an eye on the needs of his party. Between 2009 and 2017, he kept up the pressure on his colleagues in the Senate to stick to their guns, and it worked.
    Now the situation is different. For the first time in his career as a party leader (other than the brief moment he was selected as Senate majority leader in 2006), the public will see just how well he can perform in making things happen rather than blocking progress.
    But the skills are different on the other side of the line of scrimmage.
    Part of the job of the majority leader in times of united government is to bring disparate parts of the party together around proposals to change the status quo. “Trumpcare” would do just that. This is legislation that will strip away the health care benefits for millions of Americans and create a period of great uncertainty for health care markets.
    Some conservatives want Congress to do much more in dismantling government. To them, the government would still be spending too much money subsidizing markets and leaving too many regulations in place. Others in the GOP are not willing to make such grandiose changes, realizing the effects it will have on their electorate. In particular, they fear the effects of the rollback of Medicaid on their populations as well as the higher deductibles that people with more illnesses will face.
    Can McConnell bring these sides together, and work with the intransigent Freedom Caucus in the House, around legislation that will change the status quo and where Republicans will likely be blamed for any negative outcome?
    In the modern era, part of the job of the majority leader has also been to sell ideas to the public. This is where the job of the obstructionist is very different than the job of the policy creator. Unlike some recent Senate majority leaders, McConnell doesn’t really like to be on television and he tends to avoid reporters whenever possible. In this case, that comes at a cost since the natural face of the party is not out there convincing Americans why this is a good idea. That task is left to others, and right now his fellow salesmen, as reflected in public opinion polls about the health care bills, are doing a poor job.
    Until now, President Trump has not tested McConnell, since he has focused almost exclusively on executive actions and avoided the legislative front on large-scale issues.
    It is worth noting that McConnell does not really have many legislative issues that he is known for, other than his fierce opposition in the 1990s to campaign finance reform. This week he is dealing with a major issue that would have his signature in the history books.

    Join us on Twitter and Facebook

    Can McConnell deliver on this controversial legislation? Can he play the part of leaders like Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who delivered when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress in the mid-1960s? Or, is this problematic bill something that is just too hot for this legislative leader to deliver?
    This is a question that will be answered as the week unfolds.

    Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/opinions/mcconnell-health-care-opinion-zelizer/index.html

    The Salad Oil King–by author M.G. Crisci (10th book)

    Story Summary:

    THE SALAD OIL KING¬† is a uniquely American tale of Greed-Gone-Mad. Inspired by real events that took place in the 1940-60’s. An unpretentious, diminutive Manhattan-born high school drop-out named Alfonso Gravenese morphs into one of the great scam artists in American financial history.

    Watch “Fonso” graduate from a modest childhood scam into an executive who initially steals hundreds of millions of dollars from Federal domestic and international aid programs. And ultimately becomes a cunning entrepreneur who creates a $14 billion Wall Street scam that halts NYSE trading and destroys two venerable brokerage firms.

    Along the way, you meet an unforgettable collection of friends, enemies and accomplices. Notably benevolent Mobsters, a jealous and compliant wife, a vicious yet oddly romantic right-hand man, and a collection of opportunistic Government and Church officials.

    And a surprising ending that will leave you wondering.

    Reviewer called it “A Classic American Crime Story by a Master Story Teller.”¬† The author says it’s based on real events and the research and interviews took him about 5 years to complete.

    Amazon Link

    http://amzn.to/2oPX6Sb

    5 Stars San Francisco Book Review

    http://sanfranciscobookreview.com/product/salad-oil-king/

    12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congregation

    (CNN)Savannah, 12, made a decision this January; she was going to come out as lesbian at her Mormon Church. Nothing was going to stop her.

    On June 22, 2016, one day after her birthday, Savannah came out to her parents as lesbian.
    Mom had suspicions and knew that day might come.
    “I looked at her and said, ‘OK, I love you. And I’ll support you no matter what you do,'” said Heather, her mother.
    The family felt strongly that they didn’t have the right to prevent Savannah from telling her story publicly, including sharing it with CNN, but asked that their hometown and last names be withheld to give them a measure of privacy.
    After coming out to her parents, Savannah began the process of coming out to her friends and extended family.
      Six months later, she felt a calling.
      “I had a feeling like I should come out to the church,” Savannah said shyly. “I came out to all of my family and I just wanted to do something more.”
      Both her parents were taken aback by their daughter’s desire to come out in front of her church.
      “I was mostly nervous for her and where this would take her as a 12-year-old girl,” said Josh, her father. Josh and Savannah are still members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name of the church.
      Heather left the church a year and a half ago after official church policy documents were leaked online in 2015.
      Those documents, confirmed by the church to CNN to be authentic, apostatize same-sex couples who marry and bar any of their children from blessings or baptism until they themselves reach legal age. They remain church policy.
        Official church policy welcomes members of the Mormon faith that have same-sex attractions. They say it’s possible to be “Mormon and gay.
        Church teaching, however, mandates that members with same-sex attractions cannot act on those feelings. They must remain celibate and they cannot get married to members of the same sex.
        “It resonated in my heart that it felt wrong,” said Heather, speaking about those policies. Her “inklings” about Savannah’s sexuality kept running through her mind.
        The family gathered, walking Savannah through the good and the bad that could come from her speech. They walked through what the Mormon Church teaches about same-sex attraction.
        “We let her make that decision, not us,” Josh said pointedly. “I had nothing to do with … coercing her or anything.”
        Heather remembers Savannah’s rationale. “I want to be a voice for those that might be positive,” she recalls Savannah saying. “I want them to know that I’m an ally. That they’re safe with me. I want them to know that it’s OK to be Mormon and be gay.”
          She also wanted to garner more respect for gays in her church, something she feels is lacking.
          “We came to the conclusion it wasn’t our place; we couldn’t silence her,” said Heather. “It would be giving her a bigger message that she wasn’t allowed to speak or there was something wrong with her.”
          So, Savannah went to work writing. Draft after draft, she began crafting her message.
          She decided on giving testimony on Fast Sunday, which is traditionally when Mormons hold testimony meetings.
          “It’s sort of what you believe in,” Savannah says of testimony. “It’s your spiritual talk.”
          An emailed statement to CNN from the local bishop, Judd Law, said, “It is common for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to stand before a congregation of families and share feelings and beliefs — a testimony — during a worship service.”
          The day had arrived. Savannah put on a tie and battled her anxiety, making her way to the rostrum.
            Friends of her’s began quietly recording videos as a “keepsake,” which they later gave to the family. The family then provided that unedited, raw video to CNN.
            Edited versions of the video have since been published on social media; Savannah first told her story on an LGBT Mormon podcast, “I Like to Look for Rainbows.
            She began speaking. “Hi, my name is Savannah and I want to share my testimony with you.”
            Her voice didn’t betray her nerves. Savannah read slowly, focused on getting her testimony out. She was scared to see people’s faces and their reaction to her testimony so she did not look up once to see their reactions.
            Then Savannah said it; she came out as gay in front of her congregation.
            “God loves me just this way, because he loves all his creations,” she said in the speech. “I do believe he made me this way on purpose.”
            She didn’t stop with theology. Savannah wanted her congregation to know about her hopes and dreams, too.
            For Savannah, even at 12, it’s simple. She wants to love herself and not feel shame for being who she is.
            “I hope to find a partner and have a great job. I hope to get married and have a family,” she said. “I know these dreams and wishes are good and right. I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy.”
            Shortly after that, the mic suddenly cut out. It’s unclear what exactly happened, but one of the church leaders leaned over and began speaking to Savannah.
            “I thought it was broken at first. So, I turned around to talk to him,” she said. “And then he told me to sit down.”
            Despite repeated requests to church headquarters and Law, the bishop, they did not explain why Savannah’s mic ceased to work.
            On a Mormon Church website titled “Mormon and Gay,” it offers the following advice on Mormons who want to come out: “If you decide to share your experiences of feeling same-sex attraction or to openly identify as gay, you should be supported and treated with kindness and respect, both at home and in church.”
            In the video, Savannah returns to her seat as murmured chatter continues around her.
            “I was telling her that she was perfect and beautiful,” says Heather.
            A church leader stood up and made a small speech as Savannah was sitting down, in part saying, “I also want to recognize that we are all children of God. And that we are loved by our heavenly Father. And I have no doubt that heavenly Father has made us all unique in different ways. For that, I am grateful.”
            In the emailed statement to CNN, Law took issue with the recorded video, saying it was unauthorized.
            Additionally, he said that a “group of visitors jubilantly left the service. … Everyone is welcome and understands the standards of decorum and behavior if they decide to participate. It is unfortunate that this group of adults chose to violate them.”
            Law said the video was being exploited for “political purposes.”
            But Savannah’s parents don’t see it that way. They say they didn’t witness anyone being disruptive. They also say there was no “group” present.
            “Savannah invited a few close friends as allies,” Heather tells CNN, responding to the statement from the local bishop. “There was no group.”
            The family did leave shortly after. Heather says Savannah was distraught and crying.
            Savannah says she was feeling a mixture of emotions. She was confused because she didn’t know what was going on, she was happy because she finally came out at church and “felt accepted.”
            But she was sad because she couldn’t finish her speech.
            Her parents, though, are proud. Josh responds, “absolutely,” when asked.
            “She has more courage than I’ve ever seen in anybody,” Heather says. “To be able to share something so personal with everybody. That made my heart soar as a parent.”
            “This incident has created some tender emotions, first and foremost for a brave young girl,” said Law in his emailed statement to CNN. “As a congregation, we continue to reach out, and do all that we can to make sure she knows that we love her and her family.”

            Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd/index.html

            Amazon Books’ new IRL stores misses everything that makes a bookstore special

            People enter the newly opened Amazon Books on May 25, 2017 in New York City.
            Image: Getty Images

            There is an open secret in the book world: Booksellers give the best book recommendations.

            I can trace my favorite New York City bookstores by the book recommendations I’ve been given at various bookstoresDelicate Edible Birds by Lauren Groff (one of my favorites that I read in 2016), recommended at Three Lives and Company; Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit, recommended at Community Bookstore in Brooklyn;rediscovering Harry Potter and The Lord of The Rings at Books of Wonder.

            A good bookstore isn’t just a retail outlet it’s a community space designed to celebrate literature.

            “[Bookstores] provide a sense of community for those who love reading, discussing, and sharing thoughts, experiences, and ideas both their own and those theyve read about,” says Peter Glassman, owner of Books of Wonder, an independent bookstore in New York City (that also served as the inspiration for You’ve Got Mail). “They provide a refuge a place to escape from the unrelenting pace of the world around us and allows a person to pause, reflect, examine, and even just read.”

            In other words, a good bookstore isn’t just a retail outletit’s a community space designed to celebrate literature.

            Amazon seemed to missed the memo.

            At the end of May, the online retailer opened its first brick-and-mortar bookstore in New York City, the seventh of many such stores the online retailer plans to open throughout the country.

            Heralded for years as the mighty destroyer of bookstores, Amazon’s efforts to double down on physical books was inevitable when viewed in the context of recent consumer reading habits. The rise of the ebook was impressiveTime reported in 2010 that ebook sales rose 1,274 percent between 2008 and 2010but has just about stalled more recently. Print book sales grew 3.3 percent in 2016, a third-straight year for print growth, according to Publisher’s Weekly, while ebook sales have seen some declines.

            The ebook ethos, however, still remains. As a physical extension of Amazon.com, Amazon Books IRL promises to be “a store without walls there are thousands of books available in store and millions more available at Amazon.com.”

            Inside Amazon’s New York City bookstore.

            Image: HALEY HAMBLIN/MASHABLE

            To do this, Amazon Books comes equipped with a few modern touches that tend to enhance the overall experience. First, shoppers can learn more about each book in the store by scanning books or barcodes with the Amazon app’s camera function. The second feature is the ability to pay for your books with your Amazon account, either through your phone (if you’ve already scanned a book) or the card associated with your Amazon account. And if you’re an Amazon Prime member, you can get Prime discounts on titles.

            But the lastand most distinguishingfeature is Amazon Books’ showcase design. Rather than stocking its shelves like typical bookstores, stuffed with books to browse, Amazon features a showcase layout. Every book in the store faces outward, displaying its cover.

            Don’t be fooled. With its new brick and mortar bookstores, Amazon puts Amazon first.

            These features are designed to give Amazon customers the most convenient shopping experience possible.

            “Amazon puts customers first,” I overheard one bookseller tell two shoppers. But don’t be fooled. With its new brick and mortar bookstores, Amazon puts Amazon first. If you’re a reader, you’re probably going to hate Amazon’s new bookstore.

            First, the obvious: by featuring a showcase layout, Amazon Books carries fewer titles than a typical bookstore would, which, like:

            Where the books at, Amazon??

            Amazon anticipated this problem. To make up for its lack of shelf space, Amazon Books plans to rotate out its book selection every week.

            This is a great idea in theoryswapping books in and out means you keep the selection in your store diverse and fresh… except Amazon Books is curating books based on Amazon data and ratings. “Most have been rated 4 stars or above and many are award winners,” writes Amazon.

            What that means in reality is that, in addition to the typical shelves like “New Hardcover Fiction,” Amazon Books is filled with shelves like “Hot On Amazon Books” (cool) and “Books with More Than 10,000 Reviews on Amazon.com” (why is this a useful metric?) that leave you thinking, “Okay, we get it, you’re Amazon.com.”

            When you compare Amazon’s efforts to even a large chain bookstore like Barnes and Noble, which has curated book tables like “Curious, Odd, Cool” to gamified book tables like “blind date with a book,” Amazon Books’ data-based recommendations feels sterile. After all, a good bookstore isn’t just a place to run in and pick up a bookit’s a place to discover something new.

            “You cant help but wonder [in a bookstore], ‘What am I going to find this time that I never expected to find?'” explains Glassman. “[Bookstores] provide a safe space where ideas and differing opinions are welcome and frequently embraced.”

            That’s not to say that using data to curate books is a bad idea. One of the most interesting and engaging parts of Amazon Books is the, “If you like, you’ll love” shelf.

            Image: MJ Franklin/ Mashable

            This shelf is Amazon Books at its best, and honestly, the most exciting part of about the idea of Amazon launching an IRL space. The best book recommendations are contextual and with this shelf, Amazon compiles some of the most popular books on Amazon, and uses them as a launching point for recommendations for books you may not have heard of.

            Buuuttt… at the end of the day, it’s one shelf out of a whole store. And one shelf does not an innovative bookstore experience make.

            Amazon’s choice to use the showcase style of presentation for its books is the most superficial and obvious departure from a traditional bookstore, but also belies perhaps the biggest flaw of my experience in the store.

            In an effort to spotlight Amazon’s online features, Amazon has crafted a brick and mortar store that seemingly erases booksellers, who are the beating heart of bookstores.

            One of the best parts of Amazon Books is that every single book in the store comes with a plaque that has a brief description or recommendation of the book. But seemingly all of those come from an Amazon.com user or sometimes simply the amorphous “Amazon Books.” If a bookseller does add a recommendation, its an impersonal “Staff Favorite: [blank] loves this book,” card tacked onto one of the plaques.

            The question that I have is: why would I ever trust “Amazon17” over one of the staff at a bookstore? What I would much rather learn, and what is a much better recommendation, is what about this book struck Alisha so much that she has pulled it out of the hundreds or thousands of books she works with as staff at a bookstore.

            This ethosAmazon.com recommendations firstisn’t just in the plaques dotting the entire store.

            Inspired by the great book recommendations that I’ve gotten from various bookstores, I asked one of the staff at Amazon Books for a recommendation, noting that I especially love short stories … and she referred me to Amazon.com, saying she didn’t want to give me a bad recommendation.

            I eventually went to another member of Amazon Books’ staff and asked for another recommendation, this time noting that I had just finished a YA novel The Hate U Give. After thinking about it, she walked me to the YA section and picked up Jandy Nelson’s I’ll Give You The Sun. She told me that she liked the book because of the sibling dynamic in the book and then we talked about our own siblings.

            It was a small, brief exchange but the first time that Amazon Books stopped feeling like a showroom for Amazon, and felt more like a bookstore.

            At the end of the day, Amazon Books tries to toe a tricky line: being a traditional bookstore for readers while also being an IRL convenience-oriented online shopping experience. But sadly for readers, while trying to juggle these competing demands, Amazon fails at both.

            Read more: http://mashable.com/2017/06/12/amazon-books-irl-ugh/

            World’s most prolific Star Wars collector appeals to fans after ‘devastating’ theft

            Steve Sansweet, owner of Rancho Obi-Wan in California, asks collectors and fans to help recover items allegedly stolen by his friend of 20 years

            The owner of the worlds largest Star Wars memorabilia collection has learned a hard lesson about trust. On Monday, he told his own saga in which $200,000 in collectibles were allegedly stolen from his California museum by a man he once considered a friend and asked fellow movie fans for help in recovering them.

            Steve Sansweet, the owner of Rancho Obi-Wan in Petaluma, California, said in a release to Star Wars fans and collectors that 100 items, which he referred to as vintage US and foreign carded action figures, many of them rare and important pieces, were pilfered from his collection between late 2015 through 2016, many of them resold.

            He posted details of the crime on his website and asked fellow collectors and fans to email tips@ranchoobiwan.org with information.

            The alleged culprit: Carl Edward Cunningham, 45 of Marietta, Georgia, a fellow Star Wars collector whom Sansweet has known for 20 years. Cunningham was arrested in March in Sonoma County, California, and charged with felony grand theft. He is free on $25,000 bail and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for 27 June.

            Its devastating, Sansweet told the Guardian on Monday about when he learned a friend was charged with the thefts. Its a feeling of utter betrayal that someone could stoop to this level, an alleged friend and confidant, someone I had invited to my house and shared meals with.

            Sansweet said he met Cunningham in 1996, while the museum proprietor was head of fan relations at Lucasfilm.

            Since 1977, Sansweet has accumulated at least 350,000 franchise artifacts, stored inside a 9,000-sq-ft warehouse he calls Rancho Obi-Wan, located on a idyllic country lane an hour north of San Francisco. He has also written 18 Star Wars books and is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as owning the worlds largest collection of Star Wars paraphernalia.

            The theft came to light in February when Philip Wise, a major Star Wars collector, posted news of the theft of a rare action figure from his Texas warehouse. Another dealer from southern California informed Wise that he had purchased the figure from Cunningham, a Georgia collector, Sansweet wrote in his release to movie fans Monday.

            The California dealer, Zach Tann, told Wise that he had bought many other Star Wars collectibles from Cunningham and sent a detailed list. Wise concluded that the quantity and quality of the items suggested they had been taken from Sansweets sprawling Ranch Obi-Wan museum.

            He contacted Sansweet who confirmed that the items were missing, including a rare three-pack of figures and a store display worth $20,000.

            When I saw the items missing, and considering the circumstances of the theft, my stomach physically sank, Sansweet said. I was queasy. I was dumbfounded,

            Sansweet said authorities were trying to retrieve items that had been resold and implored Star Wars fans to report anything they knew about the thefts or sightings of the items. He said two fans have contacted authorities to say they bought some of the items from a legitimate dealer and have offered to return them, even if they do not get their money back.

            Actor Mark Hamill, who played the character Luke Skywalker in the film franchise, tweeted Monday about the theft, saying: Maybe publish a list of stolen items to protect potential victims from purchasing hot merchandise.

            Mark Hamill (@HamillHimself)

            Maybe publish a list of stolen items to protect potential victims from purchasing “hot” merchandise. #TheFraudIsStrongInThisOne #SithHappens https://t.co/coFv1P6HL7

            June 5, 2017

            Sansweet said the thefts ran contrary to the collegial spirit of Star Wars fans.

            Weve had thousands of visitors since we became a nonprofit museum in 2011, he said. And never once to our knowledge have we had a single item stolen.

            Sansweet said the museum had already upgraded security, but he refused to say that his trust in friendship had been ruined.

            The message here is not to start mistrusting your friends, he said. Or youd be the most miserable person in the world.

            Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jun/05/star-wars-biggest-collector-steve-sansweet-theft

            The Pope doesn’t look happy to see Justin Trudeau, either

            Image: FERRARI/EPA/REX/Shutterstock

            Pope Francis is not here for your Instagram likes.

            The Pope was recently photographed with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was just born for the camera. But instead of smiling, the Pope decided he would put on his best “I’d rather be reading encyclicals” face.

            We all thought the Pope was just really sad about meeting President Trump. But not even Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, could win the angsty Pope’s heart.

            It’s not them, it’s him.

            Image: vatican pool/Getty Images

            It’s entirely possible that Francis just doesn’t like to smile for these shots. Or he doesn’t like world leaders. Call him the “INFJ” Pope.

            The internet couldn’t help but notice his reticence.

            Pope Francis is the goth teen inside all of us.

            Read more: http://mashable.com/2017/05/29/pope-trudeau-emo-photo/

            Why Trump Allies Want To Talk Impeachment And Dem Leadership Doesn’t

            WASHINGTON With President Donald Trumps approval rating sinking and congressional Republicans pushing a deeply unpopular agenda, Democrats have a real chance to take back the House. But that opportunity is being complicated by one word that is coming up with increasing regularity on the midterm campaign trail: impeachment.

            Thats the conclusion House Democratic leaders have reached through internal polling, and its one that top Republicans, including allies of the Trump administration, shared in conversations with HuffPost.

            In focus groups in swing districts and in Georgia-06 (where a special election is being held this June) where we do think Trump is underwater people still very much respect the office of the presidency and dont like the idea of Democrats jumping to any conclusions on such a serious thing, said Meredith Kelly, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, even if they dont necessarily like Trump or think he is doing a good job.

            The party in the minority always grapples with just how oppositional it should be in its effort to regain power. Rarely, however, has the concept of impeachment been so openly, and so early, discussed in the course of midterm elections. And thats for a reason: Trump, with a seemingly daily appetite for controversy, has invited the focus. But, secondarily, some Democrats worry that by broaching the possibility, they risk ostracizing the swing voters they need to win seats.

            All this talk of impeachment does is it makes Republicans imagine Nancy Pelosi running the House, said one close Trump ally, who said he and the administration welcomed the impeachment discussion. You couldnt ask for a bigger motivator for our base.

            For vulnerable House Republicans, impeachment chatter is the rare salve in a political season thats devoid of it. Lawmakers say it helps turn the discussion away from their own foibles and allows them to paint Democrats as out of touch.

            It does make them look extreme, swing-district Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) told HuffPost last week. It makes it look like it was all cooked in the books or cooked in the recipe before we even started the meal.

            It certainly doesnt help a person, or a party, or a movement or an organization when they appear to the average person as being extreme, Blum added. Doesnt help their cause, whoever it might be.

            It makes it look like it was all cooked in the books or cooked in the recipe before we even started the meal. Republican Rep. Rod Blum of Iowa

            Privately, Democratic leaders concede these points and have done their best to keep talk of impeaching Trump to the abstract. Minority Leader Pelosi, for one, has tried to slow down the push, saying she hoped some would curb their enthusiasm until Congress has all of the facts. And in recommended talking points to candidates, party leadership has encouraged lawmakers not to jump to conclusions.

            But there also is a growing and sincere argument being made among members that the topic simply cant be ignored amid continued revelations of Trumps apparent attempts to obstruct an investigation into collusion between his campaign and Russia.

            If it were any other time, one Democratic aide told HuffPost, Id say it would be premature to talk about impeachment without clear evidence, but this is all a fucking circus, and stuff breaks every hour. Its probably wise to prepare for anything and everything.

            Democrats such as Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Al Green (D-Texas) are at the vanguard of impeachment talk, but there is a growing appetite among other members particularly inside the Congressional Black Caucus to amplify the calls. In a conversation with HuffPost last week, CBC Chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) stopped just short of calling for impeachment himself, detailing the growing list of questions surrounding the Trump campaigns contacts with Russia and Trumps decision to fire FBI Director James Comey.

            Those are serious questions, Richmond said. The logical conclusion with the wrong answers does lead to impeachment. And I think that for some people to be having that conversation right now is really a conversation whether we think this president is committing high crimes and misdemeanors. And if you honestly and objectively look at the facts, theres reason to be concerned.

            As some Democrats begin to more openly flirt with elevating impeachment as a campaign issue, others are trying to temper expectations about the chances of success. As another senior Democratic aide pointed out, impeachment isnt something Democrats can just jam through Congress even if they retake the House. Its a process that requires them to build a case, one that will persuade enough Republicans in the Senate, where 67 votes are required.

            Its a legal standard, the aide said. Its not an emotion.

            Democrats insist they arent divided on impeachment, arguing instead that some lawmakers have reached conclusions before others are ready. Some people want to just see, get those dots connected, and see where it goes, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said. So I dont see any division in our ranks on the issue.

            But as talk of impeachment does gain steam, there is concern that a forceful push at least before any sustained investigation into Trump is conducted risks jeopardizing the very political and legal processes needed for it to be successful. And there does seem to be a real opportunity for that process to gain momentum. While Republicans say they welcome the impeachment talk as a way of portraying Democrats as a party of the fringe, others have hinted their own discomfort with their president.

            When Mother Jones claimed Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) was the first Republican to suggest Trump may have committed an impeachable offense by firing Comey, for example, the office of Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida contacted the magazine to point out that he one of the most endangered Republicans in Congress had come out earlier.

            Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-allies-impeachment_us_59238160e4b094cdba56db74