NSW revises travel advice as new SA coronavirus hotspot locations revealed; Morrison signs defence agreement in Japan; 19th consecutive day of zero COVID-19 cases, no deaths in VIC; Trump orders Pentagon to drop troop levels to 2500 in Iraq and Afghanistan

Australia’s peak medical group is calling on the Federal Government to abandon the final step of its reopening framework in light of South Australia’s fresh coronavirus outbreak.

It comes as contact tracers are under enormous pressure to contain the growing cluster before it spirals out of control.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) wants the government to halt its plan, which would allow large gatherings and a mass return to workplaces.

National president, Perth surgeon Omar Khorshid, wants moderate restrictions to remain in place permanently until a vaccine is delivered, under a ‘COVID Cautious’ plan instead of ‘COVID Normal’.

That includes within states with little to no community transmission.

Vice-President of the AMA Dr Chris Moy told Today the lifting of all restrictions could lead to complacency.

“What we’ve found in South Australia already is that this thing is so infectious that if we only rely on testing and contact tracing then we don’t have the safety net or hand brake of reduced movement throughout the community,” Dr Moy told Today.

Source link

Giro d’Italia 19th stage shortened due to rain: Italian broadcaster Rai

FILE PHOTO: Cycling – Giro d’Italia – Stage 11 – Porto Sant’Elpidio to Rimini, Italy – October 14, 2020 General view of the action as spectators wearing protective face masks cheer REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

October 23, 2020

(Reuters) – The Giro d’Italia’s 19th stage from Morbegno to Asti has been shortened due to bad weather in the northern part of Italy, Italian broadcaster Rai reported on Friday.

Rai said that riders would start the stage amid rain and cold weather before getting on their team buses to travel south for around 100-110km. They will then complete the final 150km of the stage as scheduled on their bikes.

Dutchman Wilco Kelderman took over as leader of the Giro d’Italia as the fearsome Stelvio climb blew the race apart during a brutal and mesmerizing stage 18 battle on Thursday.

(Reporting by Shrivathsa Sridhar in Bengaluru; Editing by Toby Davis)

Source link

This Is What 19th c. Russian Families Were Like Before the Devastation of Communism

The Nobility. Duty and Honor

As soon as he was born, the Russian nobleman already had a purpose and destiny. He was destined for service, specifically for government service. Moreover, this child had a particular lineage, and from the moment of his birth, he was embedded in a genealogical chain, making him not simply a private individual, but a continuation of his family. He had ancestors, whom he doubtlessly knew and honored, and his behavior had to maintain a standard that would not possibly stain the family’s honor, but instead would increase it as much as possible.

Peter the Great reinforced the obligation of a nobleman to serve his monarch, while also essentially making the noble ranks accessible to non-nobles (through education or service). For the Russian nobleman—who was most often not very well-off—the very idea of nobility was tied to education, upbringing, and duty. “He who receives much may be asked of much”—such was the unwritten credo of the nobility.

An uneducated nobleman was a barbarian. One who rudely broke the code of conduct could lose note only the respect of those around him, but his very status as a nobleman.

Patriarchal noble families did not dispose one to sensitivity and tenderness. The father was considered a demigod and absolute ideal; he controlled everything in the house. Noble families generally did not spoil their children or bend to their wishes. Much the opposite: children were harshly disciplined. Parents took care of their education and upbringing, but they regarded them as little grown-ups, without making allowances. Emotions weren’t regarded as a good reason for choosing a model of behavior—if anything they were seen as the opposite. The primary traits to be instilled were bravery, perseverance, having a place in the hierarchy, and the ability to control oneself with dignity in any situation.

From a very young age, noble children were obliged to learn how to control their impulses, bad moods, fears, and desires. They were expected to unwaveringly fulfill their duties. Thanks to their physical exertion—walks in all kinds of weather, exercise, and a Spartan way of life—a young nobleman developed not only bodily (which was necessary for military service), but also spiritually.

Hired specialists, who were usually foreigners, were in charge of their early home education. They taught languages, etiquette, and good manners. Music and dance were required subjects. Balls weren’t simply evenings of dancing but one of the ways in which noble society was organized. For this reason, balls were considered to be less a form of entertainment than an obligation, and the nobility were taught to fulfill their obligations faithfully. Parents primarily played the role of moral examples for their children, and their authority was usually very great.

A nobleman’s whole life was permeated by a network of written and (mostly) unwritten rules, which bore a high cost if broken. Children could internalize these rules by watching their elders; they would consciously or unconsciously adopt their manner of conduct—and with it, their worldview.

At a certain age, young men were sent to study in the institutions of higher education, and then they would enter into state service (which could be civil or military). After the “Decree of Noble Liberty” was enacted, noblemen had the right to refuse state service and tend to their estates—a task that also required extraordinary effort and substantial knowledge.

A young noblewoman was expected to marry; otherwise, she would be in the sad position of an old maid. It happened occasionally that one sister would remain unmarried in order to live with her aging parents and ease their old age. If a young woman had the honor to be a lady-in-waiting in the imperial court, she would fulfill these obligations until she was married, and then, as a rule, she would be let go.

Young women had no freedom before marriage. Their reputation and honor were vigilantly preserved. A young woman who cast doubt on her own reputation would bring shame not only upon herself, but also upon her family—and she wouldn’t be the only one to lose a chance at family life, as her sisters would also fall under suspicion. After marriage, her status would change: she would be considered a grown woman and gain much greater freedom—although her husband would have no less authority over her than her father had before.

In contrast, the subjugation of sons to their fathers didn’t end with marriage or the birth of children. The reason for this was simple: the noblewoman’s sphere of service was the family, while the nobleman mainly served society. Incidentally, marriages (or at least, first marriages) were primarily arranged by the older generation. Widow and widowers were allowed to follow their hearts, but parents chose brides for their sons’ first marriages, even if they were relatively mature.

In Russia, women enjoyed a certain amount of economic freedom in comparison with Europe. Thus, a bride maintained a right to her dowry without exception. If her husband was a spendthrift and conducted his affairs unreasonably, his wife could file a complaint against him to preserve her own and her children’s interests. Divorce was very complicated: a marriage could be annulled under certain conditions, but the party judged to be guilty would lose the ability to marry again. The only exception was if one of the parties (in a childless marriage, or if the children had grown up) expressed the intention of entering a monastery. It was more common for couples to separate while formally remaining married. In this case, the husband was obligated to maintain his wife and pay alimony, assuming, of course, that the separation wasn’t caused by inappropriate conduct on her part.

Naturally, it’s not possible to idealize this whole social stratum—and there’s no need to do so, since the Russian nobility, with its poetics of duty, service, and honor, has remained a unique phenomenon by Russian and global standards. Sadly, it can never be reinstated insofar as it’s impossible to recreate the environment that nourished it. We only have memoirs and Russia’s great literary tradition (which was for a long time written exclusively by nobility) to preserve for us the spirit of the Russian nobility.

The Merchant Class. Archaism and Pragmatism

Popular consciousness in Russia associates merchant families with the values recorded in the Domostroy and the plays of Alexander Ostrovsky. As a result, the lives of merchants are often thought to be behind the times and overly calculated. There is certainly some truth to this: However much the merchant class contributed to the development of Russian society, it always preferred stability and respectability as the guiding principle for its own affairs.

The lifestyles and habits of the nobles and intelligentsia changed with the times and fashions, but merchant families were able to maintain the order instituted by their ancestors—and they didn’t tire of it.

Merchant wives and daughters were eager to keep up with fashions, especially since they had the money for it. Fancy dresses made from brilliant, finely knitted fabrics; expensive shawls (which would be valued by noblewomen about twenty years later), massive jewels—all of this was intended to show that the family’s business was doing very well (making it a more or less necessary expense).

The merchants’ way of life was guided by society, and their conduct needed to be approved by respected people—either representatives of the government or elite merchants. They needed to walk a fine line between chic and showing off (the latter being strictly looked down upon)—and only then they could count on having a certain amount of respect and honor within their class.

Merchants preferred to live in an insulated environment: the vast majority of merchants’ wives were also the daughters of merchants, who had grown used to calculations and imbibed the spirit of commerce since a young age. They were able to stand in for their husbands if he needed to leave on business. A merchant’s widow would have been entirely capable of conducting business on her own until her children were old enough to take over. Merchants had sons in order to continue the family business—and they didn’t ask for the child’s opinion in the matter.

As a rule, they taught their children management and bookkeeping right in the shop beginning at school age. Boys were then sent to a technical school, but merchants were reluctant to send their kids to preparatory schools for fear that they would be tempted to ditch the family business. Incidentally, the merchant class gradually accepted the idea that higher education was a virtue rather than a temptation: in the beginning of the 19th century the Moscow Commercial School and Moscow Commercial Academy both opened. A girl’s education wasn’t limited to sewing, weaving, worship, and keeping after the house. No one would be surprised to see a literate daughter keeping the books for her father. But of course, women in merchant families were also obligated to please their masters by keeping up the house in such a way that it would impress others.

Merchant dynasties brought many benefits to Russia. It was precisely the wealthy, God-fearing, and knowledgeable merchants who sponsored the construction of hospitals, conservatories, schools, and museums. They generously gave money for a variety of projects that didn’t benefit them directly but were essential to society as a whole.

The Clergy. “Church-Tower Nobles”

The clergy has long been a respected part of Russian society. Family life and family ties were especially important in the lives of the clergy. (Naturally, we are talking about the married clergy; the monastic clergy isolated themselves from the world and could not have attachments such as familiar ties.) For the parish priest, the family was one of the most important parts of his life.

Just as the priest was supposed to be a moral compass for his parishioners, his wife was supposed to provide a model for women. Mistakes, bad habits, and personal failings transformed the priest’s family into a shameful parable. Every aspect of the lives of a priest’s family was attentively and scrupulously analyzed—in the country this was accompanied by envy (since the priests were generally better off and had more authority than the typical peasant), and in the cities it was accompanied by derision.

The family life of priests was strictly regulated by canonical rules. Divorce and remarriage were allowed to the layperson (although not without difficulties), but it was unthinkable for a priest. What’s more, a second marriage was impossible, since a priest was considered a widower for his whole life. A priest could not marry outside his religion, just as his children could only unite themselves with other Orthodox Christians. The priest’s house was to be a hearth for Orthodox culture. A priest could not marry a widow or an actress. If a priest’s wife conducted herself in an inappropriate way, he was expected to leave her or become a monk.

Since the clergy were encouraged to have children, a priest’s family, as a rule, would have several of them—and each would have to be educated, raised, and prepared for future service. It was entirely natural for a priest’s son to proceed to a seminary and then to become a priest, while a daughter would eventually marry another priest. As a rule, a son would inherit his father’s parish: when he had finished his education and was ordained, he would return home with a young wife and continue services in his home town.

Another way of acquiring a parish was to marry a priest’s daughter. A priest-to-be only had the short period of time before taking vows to get married—and since these young men spent ten years in seminary, the search for a future companion was a serious problem. After all, they had to find not just wives, but companions, who thought the same way and could be trusted with their futures and those of their children—someone who would help build a “domestic church.”

If the representatives of other social groups had plenty of time and opportunity to find and get to know a bride, the clergy were deprived of this possibility. Those future priests who couldn’t bring themselves to take monastic vows, but also couldn’t find a wife, could put off their consecration, though not for long. Meanwhile, they were helped out by special diocesan schools for priest’s daughters, where young women not only received a general education, but also learned Old Church Slavonic, singing, and the rules and history of the Church. Most often, the priest’s wife organized the parish’s charitable efforts. Women came to her for advice and compassion. At the same time, she was obligated to run the household irreproachably in order to free her husband from all concerns and allow him to fully devote himself to his profession.

In general, there were fewer parishes than potential priests. Also, not all children of the clergy wanted to have the same fate as their fathers. Those who didn’t go to seminary, or were expelled from there, were excluded from the clergy. So were those who stayed with their father until the age of 15 without receiving the required education. They could then enter the petit bourgeoisie, peasantry, or merchant class. If a priest’s son didn’t have any other prospects, he was sent into the army.

Upon joining the civil service, children of priests had the same rights as nobles. The children of clergy made up a large portion of the so-called raznochintsy, a social group that had a great influence on Russian history and culture, which was made up of educated individuals who lacked either nobility or sufficient material means from their families. They could depend only upon their hands and head.

The Peasantry. An Ancient World in a New Time

Among the peasantry, the concept of “family” extended beyond a married couple and their children. As a rule, their families were very large, with several generations living in a single hut: the elderly parents, their sons (both single and married), the sons’ families, and any unmarried daughters. This meant that, discounting young children, there might be 12 to 20 people in a hut. This family was built on the principle of strict hierarchy and patriarchy. The domestic work in the house was directed by the “mistress”—usually the mother-in-law, who ordered about the women in the house, especially any young and inexperienced daughters-in-law. After the mother-in-law’s death, her title and responsibilities would pass on to the wife of the eldest son.

This set-up led to a whole range of family conflicts, but it was very often impossible to leave and live on one’s own for economic and administrative reasons. (Sometimes a landowner would directly forbid such moves. This made it easier to conduct a census and gather drafted soldiers, while also avoiding the need to divide the livestock.) No one gave a thought about the psychological problems that could result from this overcrowding, and peasants virtually spent their whole lives being watched by other people, including children. This meant that the adults’ sexual lives, their arguments, and difficult moments were not hidden from the children.

A peasant’s life depended on the yearly cycle of farm labor. Every family member, including the youngest, had household obligations, which they needed to perform to their fullest abilities. During harvest times, during times of sowing or reaping, only very young children or enfeebled old folks stayed home, even on the hottest days.

Children learned to work from a very early age. The Russian peasant household could not afford to feed someone who didn’t work, so everyone labored. Little girls began to weave and spin at the age of six, and by the age of ten or twelve they were capable workers and began to amass a dowry of linen, towels, shirts, and dresses.

Young boys learned to control an axe, to work the land, and to handle horses. If a village was known for one industry or another, the children learned it from a young age: it never hurt for the household to have an extra kopeck.

Education in peasant families was primarily devoted to professional habits, to religious studies (the most widespread prayers and stories from Scripture), and to the ethical norms of peasant life.

Village life was based upon unwritten laws—a large number of customs and superstitions that were regarded seriously. Old men and women told their children fairy tales, local stories, interesting anecdotes, and various legends; they taught them how to act in the most varied situations. Virtually every event or activity in the lives of villagers was accompanied by a whole range of superstitions, folk sayings, and relevant stories—and in this way, the children took in the organic, half-Christian and half-pagan, worldview that characterized the Russian peasantry for centuries.

When bathing their children, feeding them, massaging their limbs, or rocking them to sleep, mothers, grandmothers, and older sisters always recited poems or sang songs and lullabies, and so they would have to remember and repeat rhymed lines. Literacy was not widespread in the villages, but all necessary information was communicated from generation to generation, so that it would be wrong to call peasant children uneducated.

Unfortunately, childhood mortality was extremely high in peasant families. Overcrowding, the lack of sanitation, the absence of proper medical help, and poor supervision of children—all these things contributed to the fact that on 3 or 4 out of the 8-13 children born to a peasant family would survive to adulthood. Death was not something at all unusual in peasant existence, and they mostly responded to it with total equanimity. Sudden or unnatural deaths frightened them, but they didn’t perceive death from illness or old age as a tragedy.

Village women were married off at a young age—they could be betrothed at the age of 16. Grooms were generally a couple years older than the brides, but they could also be younger if the marriage were in the interest of the household (for instance, if it could make a tie to a rich family).

In comparison to noble daughters, young peasant women enjoyed unlimited freedom. Gatherings with young men, strolls, conversations—even premarital relations were not seen as especially sinful; they were even accepted in some areas on the condition that the traditional wedding “crown covers everything.” But women, and only women, were punished harshly for marital affairs. Fathers and husbands had complete control over their wives and children; their word was law. Nonetheless, societal powers could interfere in family affairs if a man terribly abused his power or neglected his responsibilities as head of the family.

The well-balanced structure of the peasant world was based on deeply archaic principles: it would be very difficult for someone of today to understand how it was possible to live in a19th-century village, just as a peasant who made his way into a major city would have been at a total loss for how to live in this giant anthill. If the nobles and landowners knew the common people and could come to an understanding with them, many intellectuals and populists were completely unfamiliar with the real Russian peasantry.

Everything changed after the October Revolution. But that’s a whole other story.

Source link

Sen. McConnell pushes Senate return to October 19th

The U.S. Capitol is shown in the early morning hours in Washington, Friday, Oct. 2, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 3:00 PM PT – Saturday, October 3, 2020

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has moved to delay the Senate’s return to work amid a new outbreak of COVID-19 in Congress. On Saturday, he said he wants senators to remain out for the next two weeks instead of returning to work on Monday, pushing their return to October 19th.

This came after three GOP senators recently tested positive for coronavirus.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) and Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) announced their positive tests on Friday, while Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) announced his positive test on Saturday. Sen. James Lankford (Okla.) and Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.) confirmed they are also quarantining, though they haven’t tested positive for COVID.

Though McConnell wants to push the Senate’s return to October 19th, he reaffirmed it won’t impact the start of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, which is slated to begin on October 12th.

According to him, the Judiciary Committee has operated flawlessly through a hybrid method, which will allow senators to appear both physically and virtually.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, meets with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, at the Capitol, Tuesday, September 29, 2020 in Washington. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

Both Lee and Tillis are members of the committee and will still likely participate from home. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has also confirmed the hearings won’t be delayed.

McConnell reiterated the Senate will only meet in pro forma sessions for the time being. He added he is open to calling senators back to Washington if votes need to happen in person.

With senators out for two weeks, it’s unlikely any bills will pass in that time, including another stimulus package. However, negotiations are expected to continue between Democrat leaders and the White House through the weekend.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she was optimistic about reaching a deal on Friday. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has alerted Senate Republicans to expect the outline of a deal in the coming days.

MORE NEWS: Kudlow: U.S. Recovery Unaffected By Stalled Stimulus Talks

Source link

Denmark’s Kragh Andersen wins 19th stage

Denmark’s Soren Kragh Andersen has claimed his second audacious solo stage win of the Tour de France with a perfectly-timed attack late in the 19th stage.

The Sunweb rider, who also won the 14th stage in Lyon with an instinctive move in the finale, jumped away from a group of late breakaway riders on the undulating 166.5-km ride from Bourg en Bresse to Champagnole.

His victory gave his team a third stage win this year after Marc Hirschi’s victory in the 12th stage.

“The victory in Lyon gave me confidence because I had proven myself on the biggest race in the world,” Kragh Andersen told a news conference.

“That’s why I went for it today. I was suffering but I knew that in that case the others were suffering as well.”

Slovenian Luka Mezgec took second place on Friday, and Belgian Jasper Stuyven finished third, both 53 seconds behind, as Primoz Roglic retained the overall leader’s yellow jersey.

Roglic leads second-placed and fellow Slovenian Tadej Pogacar by 57 seconds going into Saturday’s decisive individual time trial, which should see the Jumbo Visma rider secure his maiden Tour title.

Ireland’s Sam Bennett did a good job at keeping triple world champion Peter Sagan at bay, even extending his lead in the points classification to 55 points from 52.

Bennett is hoping to become the first Irishman to win the green jersey since Sean Kelly in 1989 while Slovakian Sagan is looking to claim it for a record-extending eighth time.

France’s Remi Cavagna was the only early breakaway rider and the Deceuninck-Quick Step rider, helped by a strong tailwind, opened a decent gap.

He was however caught by the bunch 50km from the finish and several attacks took place within the group of 12 riders, featuring top sprinters and one-day race specialists, who broke clear with 25km to go.

Kragh Andersen then accelerated away and his move went unanswered. The Dane did not look back and quickly extended his advantage, his rivals then looking to prepare for the sprint for second place.

“At first I didn’t realise I had that much of a gap in the final kilometre but then I thought ‘Wow, I’m winning two stages in the same Tour, some riders will never win one in their career’,” said Kragh Andersen.

“It’s better than anything I ever dreamt of as a child,” added the 2018 Paris-Tours winner.

Source link

President Trump celebrates 100th anniversary of 19th Amendment

President Donald Trump signs a proclamation recognizing the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2020, in the Blue Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:48 AM PT – Tuesday, August 18, 2020

President Trump honored the patriots who secured women’s right to vote. During a ceremony at the White House Tuesday, he signed a proclamation commemorating the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment.

The First Lady as well as members of the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission were in attendance and watched as the president announced a pardon for women’s suffrage champion Susan B. Anthony. Well known for her contribution to the movement, Anthony was arrested and convicted in 1872 for voting illegally.

“As we fight to deliver a better future for all women and for all Americans, we remember the wonderful women one century ago,” said President Trump. “While I am president, American will always honor its heroes and we will always honor the patriots who secured women’s right to vote.”

The Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission was granted a section of the White House fence in June, which is a landmark where suffragists picketed in 1917. It will be displayed in the Turning Point Suffragist Memorial located in Lorton,Virginia later this year.

Actors portray observers during the re-enactment of Tennessee’s historic vote for the 19th Amendment in the House chamber at the State Capitol on the vote’s 100th anniversary Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2020, in Nashville, Tenn. Tennessee was the 36th state to ratify the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, and was the final state needed to achieve a two-thirds majority for passage. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

RELATED: Absentee voting more effective at boosting voting rates than universal mail-in ballots

Source link

Cecil Rhodes: Oxford’s Oriel College votes to remove statue of 19th century imperialist

The governing board of Oxford University’s Oriel College has voted to remove a controversial statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes.

Leaders at the college today announced an Independent Commission Inquiry into the “key issues surrounding” the monument, which has been the subject of recent Black Lives Matter protests.

A statement from the college read: “[The board] also expressed their wish to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes and the King Edward Street plaque.

“This is what the intent to convey to the Independent Commission of Inquiry.”

​“Both of these decisions were reached after a thoughtful period of debate and reflection and with the full awareness of the impact these decisions are likely to have in Britain and around the world.

Carole Souter, the current master of St Cross College and former chief executive of the National Lottery Heritage Fund, will chair an independent commission into the issue.

The college also said: “The commission will deal with the issue issue of the Rhodes legacy and how to improve access and attendance of BAME undergraduate, graduate students and faculty, together with a review of how the college’s 21st Century commitment to diversity can sit more easily with its past.”

“The commission is intending to draw upon the greatest possible breadth and depth of experience, opinion and background,” the statement said.

Source link