live sports tv
Northwestern women blank Saint Joseph's 5-0 to win second national championship in field hockeyDe'Von Achane's best plays from his 2-TD game vs. Patriots Week 12StockNews.com upgraded shares of Allot Communications ( NASDAQ:ALLT – Free Report ) from a hold rating to a buy rating in a research report released on Wednesday. Several other research analysts have also commented on ALLT. Northland Capmk raised Allot Communications from a “hold” rating to a “strong-buy” rating in a report on Monday, August 5th. Northland Securities raised shares of Allot Communications from a “market perform” rating to an “outperform” rating and boosted their price target for the stock from $2.25 to $13.00 in a research note on Monday, August 5th. View Our Latest Stock Analysis on Allot Communications Allot Communications Stock Performance Allot Communications ( NASDAQ:ALLT – Get Free Report ) last issued its quarterly earnings data on Tuesday, August 27th. The communications equipment provider reported ($0.08) earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, topping analysts’ consensus estimates of ($0.09) by $0.01. Allot Communications had a negative return on equity of 48.04% and a negative net margin of 26.69%. The company had revenue of $22.16 million for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $22.30 million. Analysts predict that Allot Communications will post -0.24 earnings per share for the current fiscal year. Allot Communications Company Profile ( Get Free Report ) Allot Communications Ltd. is a provider of leading innovative network intelligence and security solutions for service providers worldwide, enhancing value to their customers. Their solutions are deployed globally for network and application analytics, traffic control and shaping, network-based security services, and more. Featured Stories Receive News & Ratings for Allot Communications Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Allot Communications and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
HOUSTON -- A federal judge in Texas rejected the auction sale of Alex Jones' Infowars to The Onion satirical news outlet, criticizing the bidding for the conspiracy theory platform as flawed as well as how much money families of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting stood to receive. The decision late Tuesday night is a victory for Jones, whose Infowars site was put up for sale as part of his bankruptcy case in the wake of the nearly $1.5 billion that courts have ordered him to pay over falsely calling one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history a hoax. Families of the Sandy Hook victims had backed The Onion's bid. Following a two-day hearing in Houston, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez said he would not approve the sale, while citing concerns about transparency in the auction. That clears the way for Jones to keep - at least for now - Infowars, which is headquartered in Austin, Texas. The Onion had planned to kick Jones out and relaunch Infowars in January as a parody. "We are deeply disappointed in today's decision, but The Onion will continue to seek a resolution that helps the Sandy Hook families receive a positive outcome for the horror they endured," Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion's parent company, Global Tetrahedron, posted on social media late Tuesday. Lopez cited problems - but no wrongdoing - with the auction process. He said he said he did not think that those involved in the auction acted in bad faith and that everyone "put their best foot forward and tried to play within the rules." Still, Lopez said he said he did not want another auction and left it up to the trustee who oversaw the auction to determine the next steps. The Onion offered $1.75 million in cash and other incentives for Infowars' assets in the auction. First United American Companies, which runs a website in Jones' name that sells nutritional supplements, bid $3.5 million. The bids were a fraction of the money that Jones has been ordered to pay in defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Lopez said the auction outcome "left a lot of money on the table" for families. "You got to scratch and claw and get everything you can for them," Lopez said. Christopher Mattei, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families who sued Jones in Connecticut, said they were disappointed in the judge's ruling. "These families, who have already persevered through countless delays and roadblocks, remain resilient and determined as ever to hold Alex Jones and his corrupt businesses accountable for the harm he has caused," Mattei said in a statement. "This decision doesn't change the fact that, soon, Alex Jones will begin to pay his debt to these families and he will continue doing so for as long as it takes." Jones, who did not attend the proceedings, went back on his program late Tuesday to celebrate the judge's ruling, calling the auction "ridiculous" and "fraudulent." Although The Onion's cash offer was lower than that of First United American, it also included a pledge by many of the Sandy Hook families to forgo $750,000 of the auction proceeds due to them and give it to other creditors, providing the other creditors more money than they would receive under First United American's bid. The sale of Infowars is part of Jones' personal bankruptcy case, which he filed in late 2022 after he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Jones repeatedly called the shooting that killed 20 children and six educators a hoax staged by actors and aimed at increasing gun control. Parents and children of many of the victims testified in court that they were traumatized by Jones' conspiracies and threats from his followers. Jones has since acknowledged that the Connecticut school shooting happened. Most of the proceeds from the sale of Infowars, as well as many of Jones' personal assets, will go to the Sandy Hook families. Some proceeds will go to Jones' other creditors. Trustee Christopher Murray had defended The Onion's bid in court this week, testifying that he did not favor either bidder over the other and was not biased. He also revealed that First United American submitted a revised bid in recent days, but he said he could not accept it because the Sandy Hook families in the Connecticut lawsuit objected. The Onion valued its bid, with the Sandy Hook families' offer, at $7 million because that amount was equal to a purchase price that would provide the same amount of money to the other creditors. In a court filing last month, Murray's lawyers called First United American's request to disqualify The Onion's bid a "disappointed bidder's improper attempt to influence an otherwise fair and open election process." Jones' attorney, Ben Broocks, noted that the Sandy Hook lawsuit judgments could be overturned in pending appeals and got Murray to acknowledge that the Sandy Hook families' offer in The Onion bid could fall apart if that happens. That's because the percentage of the auction proceeds they would be entitled to could drop sharply and they wouldn't get the $750,000 from the sale to give to other creditors. Up for sale were all the equipment and other assets in the Infowars studio in Austin, as well as the rights to its social media accounts, websites, video archive and product trademarks. Jones uses the studio to broadcast his far-right, conspiracy theory-filled shows on the Infowars website, his account on the social platform X and radio stations. Many of Jones' personal assets also are being sold. Jones has set up another studio, websites and social media accounts in case The Onion wins approval to buy Infowars and kicks him out. Jones has said he could continue using the Infowars platforms if the auction winner is friendly to him. Jones is appealing the money has been ordered to pay in judgments citing free speech rights.Decálogo de gratitudCINCINNATI (AP) — The Cincinnati Bengals finally managed to win a close game. Seven of Cincinnati's eight losses this season have been by one score. The frustration of not being able to close out these games had started to fester among the confounded Bengals. That's why Monday night's 27-20 win over the Dallas Cowboys was so satisfying. Joe Burrow threw a tiebreaking 40-yard touchdown pass to Ja'Marr Chase with 1:01 left. That was set up by a botched punt block that put the ball back in Cincinnati's hands with less than two minutes remaining. “I guess I could say luck went our way on this one,” Bengals coach Zac Taylor said. Most every other good thing that happened for Cincinnati (5-8) in snapping a three-game skid was earned. Burrow finished 33 for 44 for 369 yards with three touchdowns and an interception. Chase caught 14 passes for 177 yards and two touchdowns. “We needed this feeling because those last three locker rooms haven’t been like this,” Taylor said. “So just to feel that joy and the week’s worth of work has paid off for you, and then you turn the page and move on to the next one. But it helps you during the week just to have this confidence. We got one, and now we’ve got to go do it again.” The Bengals outgained the Cowboys 433-322. “It’s an opportunity for the world to see and we’re going to keep fighting,” Taylor said of getting the win on Monday Night Football. “So when the Bengals walk on the field, you’re going to get our best shot.” What's working The Burrow-to-Chase connection is as robust as ever. “Coming into this game, I was going to feed Ja’Marr,” Burrow said. “I felt he had some opportunities last week (in the 44-38 loss to the Steelers) that we didn’t quite take advantage of. So, I was just going to make sure if I got an opportunity with him, I was going to give it to him.” Both are enjoying prolific seasons. Burrow leads the league in passing yards (3,706) and touchdowns (33). Chase, who is expecting a contract extension that will make him one of the league's highest-paid receivers, leads the NFL in receptions (93), receiving yards (1,319) and touchdowns (15). “We feed off each other,” Burrow said. “We make each other better. We are both really smart players.” Trey Hendrickson’s key sack of Cooper Rush late in the game increased his NFL-leading total to 12 1/2. What needs help The secondary is still inconsistent. The protection provided to Burrow by a reshuffled offensive line was subpar. Granted, he often moves around outside the pocket to try to make something happen, but the franchise quarterback is hit too hard too often. Stock up Chase Brown is growing more every week in his role as the team's No. 1 running back after the season-ending injury to Zack Moss. Brown carried 14 times for 58 yards and caught six passes for 65 yards and a touchdown. ... Cade York, stepping in for the injured Evan McPherson, was 2 for 2 on field goals and made all three of his extra points. Stock down A spongy defense allowed Cowboys RB Rico Dowdle to rush for 131 yards at 7.3 yards per carry. WR CeeDee Lamb beat Bengals cornerback Mike Hilton badly on the Cowboys' first touchdown. Lamb had six catches for 93 yards. Injuries Burrow limped off the field after he was dragged down by his facemask by the Cowboys' Marist Liufau in the fourth quarter. He was seen putting a compression sleeve on left knee before returning for the next Bengals possession. Afterward, he said he was fine. “It’s nothing crazy,” he said. “I just landed on it a couple of times. We’ll see. It’ll be sore for a while, but I’ll be all right.” Key number 4 — Games in a row in which Burrow passed for at least 300 yards and three touchdowns. Monday night's win was the first win in that stretch. Next steps The Bengals have a short week to prepare for the Tennessee Titans (3-10) on Sunday. ___ AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFL Mitch Stacy, The Associated Press
The company made the Best Places to Work in IT list for the third consecutive year and is ranked #2 in the Small Companies category. BALA CYNWYD, Pa. , Dec. 10, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Tokio Marine North America Services (TMNAS) is one of the 2025 Best Places to Work in IT according to Foundry's Computerworld . TMNAS achieved the #2 ranking in the Small Companies category, its highest ranking to date and third straight year making the list. Beyond the #2 overall ranking, TMNAS was ranked #1 for Career Development and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This award recognizes the top organizations that challenge their IT staff while providing great benefits and compensation. "We are extremely honored to have been recognized by Computerworld for the third year in a row," shared Bob Pick , Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer at TMNAS. "Our IT team plays a crucial role in driving success for Tokio Marine and we strive to ensure our employees feel supported and valued as well. We want them to learn and grow with us as technology capabilities and digital demand evolve." TMNAS provides professional services across the U.S. and Mexico to several of the North American businesses of the Tokio Marine Group . The company's IT department develops, maintains, and innovates digital technology solutions to deliver market-leading solutions, insights, and customer service 24/7. Their work helps support over 3,200 people, contributing to the generation of innovative solutions and leading to $5.5 billion in annual premium revenue. In addition to making the Best Places to Work in IT list, TMNAS has received several other top workplace honors. These include being named one of the Best and Brightest Companies to Work for In the Nation, Best Places to Work in Insurance, and Best Places to Work in PA. To learn more, visit TMNAS.com . About Tokio Marine North America Services Tokio Marine North America Services (TMNAS) was established in 2012 as the shared services company for Tokio Marine North America, Inc. (TMNA), the U.S. holding company for the Japan -based Tokio Marine Group. With headquarters located in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania , TMNAS provides value-added services to Tokio Marine Group companies including Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY), First Insurance Company of Hawaii (FICOH), and Tokio Marine America (TMA) and its insurance companies. TMNAS' range of services includes Actuarial, Corporate Communications, Facilities, Finance & Accounting, Information Technology, Internal Audit, Human Resources, and Legal. These services deliver efficiency and innovation through the streamlining of processes, while building synergies across business units. For more information, please visit www.TMNAS.com . About the Best Places to Work in IT The Best Places to Work in IT list is an annual ranking of the top work environments for technology professionals by Foundry's Computerworld. The list is compiled based on a comprehensive questionnaire regarding company offerings in categories such as benefits, career development, DEI, future of work, training and retention. In addition, the rankings are reviewed and vetted by a panel of industry experts. About Computerworld Computerworld is the leading technology media brand empowering enterprise users and their managers, helping them create business advantage by skillfully exploiting today's abundantly powerful web, mobile, and desktop applications. Computerworld also offers guidance to IT managers tasked with optimizing client systems—and helps businesses revolutionize the customer and employee experience with new collaboration platforms. Computerworld's award-winning website ( www.computerworld.com ), strategic marketing solutions and research forms the hub of the world's largest global IT media network and provides opportunities for IT vendors to engage this audience. Computerworld is published by IDG. Communications, Inc. Company information is available at www.idg.com . Follow Computerworld on X: @Computerworld #BestPlacesIT Follow Computerworld on LinkedIn View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tokio-marine-north-america-services-named-one-of-computerworlds-2025-best-places-to-work-in-it-302328235.html SOURCE Tokio Marine North America Services © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
I knew my daughter could hear: not just because she loved music, but because she had perfect rhythm. She punched her fists in the air like a human metronome, and brought a doughy heel to the ground precisely on each downbeat. I had thrown off the yoke of milestone-tracking months earlier, having become fixated on her inability to roll during the precise developmental week for rolling. So when she didn’t form consonants at the prescribed time, I made a deliberate choice to ignore it. It didn’t occur to me that deafness might not be a binary, and that certain vibrations and pitches – the downbeat of a song by toddler-music group the Wiggles, say – could be apprehended, while other subtle speech sounds might be snatched out of a sentence. So it was a couple of months after her first birthday when we discovered that our Botticellian baby had mild hearing loss, and two years after that when she lost almost all of her remaining hearing entirely. Like most hearing parents of deaf children, my first close relationship with a deaf person was with my child. Despite a relatively broad cultural education, I knew next to nothing about hearing loss or deaf culture. What little I had absorbed was an incomplete and almost entirely inaccurate patchwork of pop culture snippets – the mother’s horror when her baby doesn’t react to the fire engine’s siren in the film Mr Holland’s Opus (1995); Beethoven’s struggle to hear the first performance of his Ninth Symphony; the lift scene in Jerry Maguire (1996) where the loving boyfriend signs “you complete me” to his partner; Quasimodo’s apparent industrial deafness from the bells of Notre-Dame; and, worst of all, the appalling memory of my university housemate imitating a deaf accent for laughs. This bleak landscape of ignorance and misinformation is often the lookout from which parents begin making decisions, as deaf critics have rightly pointed out. But although I began educating myself belatedly, it didn’t take long for the calcified layers of assumptions and approximations to disintegrate. Chief among them was the unquestioned belief that hearing loss, for an early deafened person, is even a loss at all. In a recent interview with the news site Truthout , the deaf philosopher Teresa Blankmeyer Burke argues that the language of tragic loss seems particularly ill-fitting for a deaf child: “Some of us do not share this experience [of loss] at all, but only know what it is to be in our bodies as they have always existed.” News headlines about childhood deafness and hearing technology often slip into the “from deaf tragedy to hearing miracle” narrative, missing this crucial point about self-concept entirely. For many parents, this has intuitive clarity too. Absolutely smitten with my baby’s many tiny perfections, I had a stubborn sense that her deafness was not a pit she had fallen into, but just one of many extraordinary discoveries about her that I was making every day. It was a comforting certainty to cling to in the wee hours, when I was beset by a looping reel of terrors about the shadowy obstacles she would undeservedly face, and that I would be impotent to protect her from. Even accepting the reality of life’s vicissitudes, most of us hope for a relatively smooth course for our children. Unfettered sensorial access to the world being at the bottom of a hierarchy of wishes, and fundamental to the rest. The idea that so much was arbitrarily denied a baby so new to the world was, at times, almost impossible to withstand. F rom the moment of discovery of their child’s hearing loss, a parent finds themselves not only unmoored by circumstance, but adrift in a tempestuous cultural debate. While not exactly a global topic of dinner-table conversation, the battle for the identities and futures of deaf children is fiercely fought. Arguments drift down from academic journals to social media, where many new parents are washed ashore in the absence of a definitive source of information about their child’s future. Trying to reconcile the contradictory advice given by a new cast of characters – GPs, paediatricians, ear, nose and throat specialists, audiologists, speech therapists, disability insurance advisers, interested observers – I looked at Instagram to find some clarity in authentic, lived experience. Starting with a few anodyne hashtags, I initially found a bunch of mothers (differing in every respect, but always, always mothers) sharing inspiring stories about the lives of their deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Unlike the normative “blend-in-or-else” diktats of my 1980s childhood, this new world was a sea of diversity – confident smiles, “ Deaf Gain ” wallpapers, kids signing in slang, and proudly visible, brightly coloured hearing technology. I was buoyed up by this extraordinary community, and lifted yet again when my daughter’s metallic pink hearing aids arrived. She no longer had to jam her Wiggles keyboard to her ear to hear the music, and all of my hesitations and ambivalences were converted into happy certainties. But the tone of my feed shifted quite quickly. Gone were the mothers meticulously crafting Spider-Man hearing aid covers and Peppa Pig cochlear implant cases, and in their place were reels and posts that had a more political flavour. We had begun working with a speech-therapist using the LSL (listening and spoken language) or AVT (auditory-verbal therapy) approach, which aims to ensure children don’t miss the verbal data bombardment they need in early childhood to develop spoken language. This is essentially about optimising hearing technology – hearing aids or cochlear implants (CI) – so that a deaf or hard-of-hearing child can access the full range of speech sounds, and then using play-based games and activities that focus on listening and speaking (very similarly to traditional speech therapy for hearing children with speech delay). Historically, some exponents of this approach discouraged the use of sign, but not these days and certainly not in my experience. However, they do prioritise spoken language in the early years, recognising that sign languages can be tricky for hearing adults to attain with the necessary proficiency and syntactic complexity in the time a child needs them to. But what I had experienced as a genuinely caring, evidence-based and pragmatic attempt to empower deaf children and give them the widest set of options had been singled out as an example of “ audism ” by influential deaf and deaf-adjacent critics – a sinister assimilationist model with paternalistic colonial overtones and a complicated history. Critics argued that Alexander Graham Bell – the founding father of what is still one of the major LSL programmes in the US – was not so much a benevolent supporter of deaf children, but a eugenicist and “oralist” with grotesque views about deafness on a self-appointed mission to eradicate sign languages. There were traumatised adults distancing themselves from their parents entirely for forcing them, despite great difficulty, to listen, speak and lip-read. The teary-eyed social media phenomenon of babies with hearing aids and CIs being filmed hearing sound for the first time was disparagingly called “ inspiration porn ” or “switch-on porn” – the vulgar showboating of an arrogant hearing class determined to convert their perfectly deaf children into imperfectly hearing ones. Not only was it inaccurate (no hearing technology makes hearing easy or natural for deaf people), but it spoke of, at best, a normative desire to correct or fix something that was not in their view broken – only different. There were videos about so-called “ language deprivation ” – when a child is in effect linguistically starved because parents and providers incorrectly assume their aids or implants give them sufficient access to the subtle speech sounds around them. Through this lens, the speech therapy games we parents were playing weren’t cute or supportive – they were the pastel-coloured attempts of a hegemonic hearing overclass to turn their happy deaf children into unhappy hearing ones. On one level, I was very moved by these arguments, and it seemed fair to lend more weight to the opinions of those with lived experience of deafness than to those without. I began to wonder if I was compelling my non-consenting deaf daughter to “pass” imperfectly and at great personal cost in a hearing world, rather than empowering her to flourish easily by her own lights in the deaf one. While my husband was able to contextualise the deaf culture proponents as a small but noisy minority, I became ever more anxious and fixated on their arguments. And when my daughter progressively lost what remained of her hearing and cochlear implants were proposed, my wheels began to spin in the ethical mud. C ontrary to what many imagine, cochlear implants are not just fancy hearing aids. A hearing aid amplifies sound using the existing mechanisms and pathways of the ear, but the clarity of speech can tail off once hearing loss is in the severe to profound ranges, with things sounding a lot louder, but not necessarily clearer. A cochlear implant, by contrast, is an electronic device that creates the sensation of sound by bypassing the inner ear entirely and stimulating the auditory nerve with a set of electrodes. There is an internal component, with a magnet, a receiver and an electrode array that spirals around the cochlear (a biomimetic design inspired by a strand of grass curling around a shell’s spiral), and an external component with a microphone to pick up sound, with a processor to encode it. While hearing aids are relatively uncontroversial, the internal portion of a cochlear implant requires surgery, which entails risk. There is a significant period of rehabilitation as the brain learns to make sense of a totally new type of electronic input, and the external processor itself is slightly larger and more visible on the head. Deaf adults can of course make this decision for themselves, but increasingly the recommendations are for parents to implant their children in infancy as this generally produces the best outcomes. Even in the past few years, the age of recommended implantation for severely to profoundly deaf babies has dropped to nine months. Their astonishing success rate in aiding the understanding of speech has meant a new generation of deaf adults are emerging who do not use sign language in the way they would have done only a few decades earlier. While for some this is one of the great advances of modern medicine, for others it is a deeply worrying evolution. The new technological possibilities and their swift adoption have understandably caused widespread consternation in deaf communities globally. The future of their complex and rich visual languages is endangered by the developments, as well as the communities and ways of life that stem from them. These are genuine and valid concerns, and ones that are rarely addressed in moderate, bipartisan terms. There are also broader ethical concerns raised by surgical intervention of this kind on children whose lives are not threatened, and who are not in a position to request or consent. Why is the case of cochlear implantation so different from other parallel medical situations that a parent has to navigate? Why is it controversial in the way that an artificial limb or cornea transplant is not? Unlike the parent of a child with vision loss who pursues laser surgery in an uncomplicated way, the parent of a deaf child is implicated in a much larger politico-cultural struggle. To my outsider’s eyes, a lot of this was not the tangled snarl of identity politics, but seemed largely to stem from a fundamental disagreement over the metaphysics of deafness. Whereas the hearing world, hand in hand with the medical one, has conceptualised deafness as a sensory deficit that can be “restored” – albeit partially, temporarily and imperfectly – parts of the deaf world argue that this approach demonstrates an outdated pathologisation of difference. Happily, we live in an era where neuro- and other divergences are no longer seen as aberrations, but rather as part of a welcome heterogeneity of biology and perspective. Deaf critics and disability theorists thus pose the question: why does society want to frame deafness as a medical abnormality rather than a sensory difference? In their view, the medical model is the outward face of a punishing normative tyranny. Any deviations from the standard hearing model are ushered – either gently and kindly or violently and oppressively – back to the midline. Like the twisted “benevolent” logic of gay conversion therapies, even the so-called good intentions of parents and bystanders (as anti-racist campaigners have long argued) could perpetuate discrimination just as easily as the malign ones. The psychologist Harlan Lane went even further, arguing that deafness is actually more akin to an ethnicity than to a disability. If the same rights and protections apply here as to other cultural, religious and racial minorities, then the entire therapeutic landscape looks incredibly sinister. At its mildest, the mainstream model of improving a deaf child’s hearing becomes the enforced alteration of a member of a cultural and linguistic minority. And at worst, as with the cochlear implant, it is not only an invasive surgery that endangers and irrevocably changes a child, but also threatens the extinction of an imperilled language and the erasure of a cultural group. Lane likens the hearing parents of a deaf child to parents who adopt a child from a different racial background, arguing they have a similar responsibility to uphold the cultural mores and traditions of their child’s ethnic group. Tom Humphries, the deaf culturalist who coined the term “audism”, has a deeply cynical view of hearing parents, positioning them simply as legal “owners” of their deaf children, many of whom eventually “migrate” back to what he strongly implies is their true cultural home. He explicitly likens this pattern of ownership and return to that of African American enslaved people or Latin American populations under colonial rule. As a parent, this line of argumentation is jarring, to say the least. While it lies at the extreme end of the debate, many deaf critics have joined Humphries in arguing vociferously that hearing parents cannot be trusted to give informed consent on behalf of their child – surgical or otherwise. W ith these sorts of arguments informing a good deal of the public discourse around deafness, what is the hearing parent of a deaf child to think? And more importantly, how are they to act? The underlying assumption of CI critics seems to be that the neutral stance is to do nothing, and that any intervention at all requires moral licence. But doing nothing isn’t always neutral – most obviously in medical scenarios – and can be a malign act of withholding. There is a genuine moral dilemma here, because a parent must give informed consent one way or the other. Not acting while the child is young is potentially equally culpable. If the anti-CI arguments are not convincing, then it’s possible that their proponents have indirectly harmed the potential development of some children and their ability to flourish in the widest set of circumstances. Alongside the passionate critiques of Lane, Humphries and others, there is also considerable weight lent to the academics arguing quite the opposite – that denying a deaf child a cochlear implant is neglect. In the western world, where early paediatric implantation in severely to profoundly deaf children is considered to be the “ standard of care ”, making the choice not to implant could be seen as a radical decision to withhold a mainstream technology that most of a deaf child’s peers will be using. And what are the ethics of withholding when that technology has safety implications, and could enable the deaf child-then-adult to apprehend dangers to themselves or others? Footsteps in the dark, a window breaking, a car approaching on a quiet street, a fire alarm, a scream in the shopping centre, a baby crying in the next room – none would be audible to my daughter without an implant. And from a feminist perspective, she may need, as women always have done, a loud voice to shout, or to argue with her healthcare providers, or to advocate for herself in an emergency. The implant would provide her with a clearer pathway to power and impact in the world, and to positions of influence where she would be underrepresented both as a woman and as a deaf person. To refuse her a CI based on the arguments of Lane et al would be to use the future of an individual as a blunt weapon to achieve benefit for the broader deaf community. Now, this could open me up to the charge that it would be individualistic and anti-solidaristic to prioritise my daughter’s personal future at any expense. But there’s also a persuasive argument that what benefits the deaf individual is, when multiplied, what raises the collective. It strikes me that the more deaf people can participate actively in positions of power and influence, the better the outcome for deaf people en masse – and, as much as we may wish it wouldn’t, this entails having considerable proficiency in the primary mode of communication. In strictly utilitarian terms, a successful implant hugely expands the number of people a deaf person can communicate with – amplifying their perspective and connecting them in the hearing world, while not precluding their ability to communicate solely using the richness of sign language/s in the deaf one. For me, it is a version of the dilemma that plagues any other movement for systemic social justice. In my experience, this debate often arises in discussions among women too – there is a tension between our responsibility to unpick larger hegemonies and create opportunities for change, and our attempts to personally flourish within the world as it is now, however flawed. But there is a way to have a measure of both. I’ve begun to think of this as a sort of dialectical pragmatism – a way of holding two seemingly contradictory things in mind and moving forward in a way that works. Ultimately, I think it’s possible to want to create the conditions for the best life possible for our daughter, while simultaneously remaining conscious that she is having to bend painfully to fit a system that doesn’t speak for her the way it should. With so many strident either/ors bouncing back and forth, thinking more dialectically can bring clarity in other aspects of the debate too. We can then hold both that her deafness is perfect and does not need to be “fixed”, and that she may benefit from a helpful intervention just as I have from things such as glasses, medications or surgeries – all of which do not ultimately alter my dignity or identity. We can say both that there is justifiable concern from deaf adults who wish to safeguard their communities and languages from the evolution of hearing technology, and that there is a new generation of deaf voices with cochlear implants who haven’t entered the debate and will have their own perspectives. We can maintain a dislike for the tech-utopian view of CIs as a miraculous cure for a tragic affliction, and accept that they have proven to be an extraordinary, life-changing daily support to more than 1 million people worldwide. It’s OK to acknowledge that the hearing perspective is a muddy lens through which we view the world (and which leads us to valorise auditory pleasures in a way deaf people don’t), and also admit that it is fine to want to give your child the qualia of soaring strings and voices in the final movement of Beethoven’s Ninth. But the fork in the road in front of us was not only binary, but time-critical. Forced into a nauseating either/or decision that would torment even the most level-headed parent, my husband and I eventually arrived at a bald piece of logic that wouldn’t burn away with challenge: the idea that there was only one option that contained a kernel of both options within it. Only one that really left her with any kind of agency. If she wishes to, in adulthood our daughter can have her cochlear implant removed and fully immerse herself in what is so clearly the rich, joyous, fulfilling deaf world. We plan to learn Australian Sign Language (Auslan) as a family, so that she will have an easy fluency and cultural connection with a community that will, I’m sure, become hugely important to her. But without full access to spoken English in the critical development window of her early years, she will probably never regain the nuances of spoken communication later on; something that is only a problem in that it will close doors that she may later wish were open, and chiefly – it wouldn’t be her choice to do so. She would be constrained by the boundaries of what she may later choose – and what in any other era or in parts of the world would certainly be her future – but to actively place the constraint on her now feels premature. She is three and three-quarters, and fluently reading early chapter books for pleasure. She knows more about the solar system and the workings of the digestive tract than I do, and her future seems as unbounded as her mind. So we made an excruciating decision that, to us, leaves the fewest limits to the scope of her life as possible, and places the decisions back in her hands, where they should be. Our neighbourhood pear tree is just beginning to rouse itself after winter, and my little girl has been emerging too – into a world of new sounds that were beyond the reach of her hearing aids. Yesterday she heard the tiniest, most pitiful bird chirp, and told me so excitedly, with a strong, clear voice. On a windy day she stopped, wide-eyed and said: “I hear the leaves rustling with my coch-le-ah!” with all the triumph she saves for brandishing treasures found on walks. We hold a both/and view here, too, and also celebrate the magic of her “quiet ears” and the unique perspective they afford her. When she removes her processor before sleep, it’s clear she is relieved to submerge into calm again. But she holds the dialectical promise of silence and sound at once – this time literally, insisting on gripping her processor tightly in her palm while she falls asleep. In this way she stands pragmatically astride both worlds. In silence, but with a hearing key right at hand; ready to unlock the blooming, buzzing cacophony of the world whenever she chooses. This essay first appeared under the title The Cochlear Question on Aeon.co Listen to our podcasts here and sign up to the long read weekly email here .
NEW YORK (AP) — If anybody knows Deion Sanders' mind, it might be Travis Hunter. And the two-way Colorado star says Coach Prime is indeed staying put with the Buffaloes. “I got a lot of insight. He ain’t going nowhere. He’s going to be right where he's at right now,” Hunter said Friday in Manhattan, where he's a heavy favorite to win the Heisman Trophy on Saturday night. In his second season at the school, Sanders coached No. 20 Colorado to a 9-3 record this year and its first bowl bid since 2020. Hunter, Sanders and the Buffaloes will face No. 17 BYU (10-2) in the Alamo Bowl on Dec. 28. Sanders' success and popularity in Boulder has led to speculation the flashy and outspoken former NFL star might seek or accept a coaching job elsewhere this offseason. Sanders, however, has dismissed such talk himself. Hunter followed Sanders from Jackson State, an HBCU that plays in the lower level FCS, to the Rocky Mountains and has already racked up a staggering string of individual accolades this week, including The Associated Press player of the year. The junior wide receiver and cornerback plans to enter the 2025 NFL draft and is expected to be a top-five pick — perhaps even No. 1 overall. But he backed up assertions from Sanders and his son, star Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders, that both will play in the Alamo Bowl rather than skip the game to prepare for the draft and prevent any possible injury. “It's definitely important because, you know, I started this thing with Coach Prime and Shedeur and most of the coaches on the coaching staff, so I want to finish it off right,” Hunter said. "I didn't give them a full season my first year (because of injury), so I'm going to go ahead and end this thing off right. It's going to be our last game together, so I'm going to go out there and dominate and show the loyalty that I have for him. “Definitely looking forward to it. I'm just excited to go out there and play football one more time before the offseason.” Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here . AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football
HOUSTON -- A federal judge in Texas rejected the auction sale of Alex Jones' Infowars to The Onion satirical news outlet, criticizing the bidding for the conspiracy theory platform as flawed as well as how much money families of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting stood to receive. The decision late Tuesday night is a victory for Jones, whose Infowars site was put up for sale as part of his bankruptcy case in the wake of the nearly $1.5 billion that courts have ordered him to pay over falsely calling one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history a hoax. Families of the Sandy Hook victims had backed The Onion's bid. Following a two-day hearing in Houston, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez said he would not approve the sale, while citing concerns about transparency in the auction. That clears the way for Jones to keep - at least for now - Infowars, which is headquartered in Austin, Texas. The Onion had planned to kick Jones out and relaunch Infowars in January as a parody. "We are deeply disappointed in today's decision, but The Onion will continue to seek a resolution that helps the Sandy Hook families receive a positive outcome for the horror they endured," Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion's parent company, Global Tetrahedron, posted on social media late Tuesday. Lopez cited problems - but no wrongdoing - with the auction process. He said he said he did not think that those involved in the auction acted in bad faith and that everyone "put their best foot forward and tried to play within the rules." Still, Lopez said he said he did not want another auction and left it up to the trustee who oversaw the auction to determine the next steps. The Onion offered $1.75 million in cash and other incentives for Infowars' assets in the auction. First United American Companies, which runs a website in Jones' name that sells nutritional supplements, bid $3.5 million. The bids were a fraction of the money that Jones has been ordered to pay in defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Lopez said the auction outcome "left a lot of money on the table" for families. "You got to scratch and claw and get everything you can for them," Lopez said. Christopher Mattei, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families who sued Jones in Connecticut, said they were disappointed in the judge's ruling. "These families, who have already persevered through countless delays and roadblocks, remain resilient and determined as ever to hold Alex Jones and his corrupt businesses accountable for the harm he has caused," Mattei said in a statement. "This decision doesn't change the fact that, soon, Alex Jones will begin to pay his debt to these families and he will continue doing so for as long as it takes." Jones, who did not attend the proceedings, went back on his program late Tuesday to celebrate the judge's ruling, calling the auction "ridiculous" and "fraudulent." Although The Onion's cash offer was lower than that of First United American, it also included a pledge by many of the Sandy Hook families to forgo $750,000 of the auction proceeds due to them and give it to other creditors, providing the other creditors more money than they would receive under First United American's bid. The sale of Infowars is part of Jones' personal bankruptcy case, which he filed in late 2022 after he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Jones repeatedly called the shooting that killed 20 children and six educators a hoax staged by actors and aimed at increasing gun control. Parents and children of many of the victims testified in court that they were traumatized by Jones' conspiracies and threats from his followers. Jones has since acknowledged that the Connecticut school shooting happened. Most of the proceeds from the sale of Infowars, as well as many of Jones' personal assets, will go to the Sandy Hook families. Some proceeds will go to Jones' other creditors. Trustee Christopher Murray had defended The Onion's bid in court this week, testifying that he did not favor either bidder over the other and was not biased. He also revealed that First United American submitted a revised bid in recent days, but he said he could not accept it because the Sandy Hook families in the Connecticut lawsuit objected. The Onion valued its bid, with the Sandy Hook families' offer, at $7 million because that amount was equal to a purchase price that would provide the same amount of money to the other creditors. In a court filing last month, Murray's lawyers called First United American's request to disqualify The Onion's bid a "disappointed bidder's improper attempt to influence an otherwise fair and open election process." Jones' attorney, Ben Broocks, noted that the Sandy Hook lawsuit judgments could be overturned in pending appeals and got Murray to acknowledge that the Sandy Hook families' offer in The Onion bid could fall apart if that happens. That's because the percentage of the auction proceeds they would be entitled to could drop sharply and they wouldn't get the $750,000 from the sale to give to other creditors. Up for sale were all the equipment and other assets in the Infowars studio in Austin, as well as the rights to its social media accounts, websites, video archive and product trademarks. Jones uses the studio to broadcast his far-right, conspiracy theory-filled shows on the Infowars website, his account on the social platform X and radio stations. Many of Jones' personal assets also are being sold. Jones has set up another studio, websites and social media accounts in case The Onion wins approval to buy Infowars and kicks him out. Jones has said he could continue using the Infowars platforms if the auction winner is friendly to him. Jones is appealing the money has been ordered to pay in judgments citing free speech rights.Inflation is predicted to average 2.5% this year and 2.6% next year, according to forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility. The British Medical Association said the Government showed a “poor grasp” of unresolved issues from two years of industrial action, and the Royal College of Nursing called the pay recommendation “deeply offensive”. The National Education Union’s chief said teachers were “putting the Government on notice” that the proposed increase “won’t do”. The pay recommendations came after Chancellor Rachel Reeves called for every Government department to cut costs by 5%, as she started work on a sweeping multi-year spending review to be published in 2025. Independent pay review bodies will consider the proposals for pay rises for teachers, NHS workers and senior civil servants. The Department of Health said it viewed 2.8% as a “reasonable amount” to set aside, in its recommendations to the NHS Pay Review Body and the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration Board remit groups. A 2.8% pay rise for teachers in 2025/26 would “maintain the competitiveness of teachers’ pay despite the challenging financial backdrop the Government is facing”, the Department for Education said. The Cabinet Office also suggested pay increases for senior civil servants should be kept to no more than 2.8%. Paul Johnson, director of the influential economics think tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said it was “not a bad ballpark figure” and feels “just about affordable” given the Government’s public spending plans. The downside, he said, is that public sector workers have lost out since 2010 and unions will be upset that this is not making up the gap, he told Sky News’ Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge. “But given the constraints facing the Chancellor I think it’s pretty hard to argue for more for public sector pay when public sector services ... are under real strain,” he said. Unions expressed their disappointment in the recommendations, with some hinting they could be willing to launch industrial action. The Royal College of Nursing general secretary and chief executive called for “open direct talks now” to avoid “further escalation to disputes and ballots”. Professor Nicola Ranger said: “The Government has today told nursing staff they are worth as little as £2 extra a day, less than the price of a coffee. “Nursing is in crisis – there are fewer joining and too many experienced professionals leaving. This is deeply offensive to nursing staff, detrimental to their patients and contradictory to hopes of rebuilding the NHS. “The public understands the value of nursing and they know that meaningful reform of the NHS requires addressing the crisis in nursing. “We pulled out of the Pay Review Body process, alongside other unions, because it is not the route to address the current crisis. “That has been demonstrated today. “Fair pay must be matched by structural reform. Let’s open direct talks now and avoid further escalation to disputes and ballots – I have said that directly to government today.” Professor Philip Banfield, chairman of the British Medical Association’s council, urged the sector’s pay review body to “show it is now truly independent”. “For this Government to give evidence to the doctors’ and dentists’ pay review body (DDRB) believing a 2.8% pay rise is enough, indicates a poor grasp of the unresolved issues from two years of industrial action,” he said. He said the proposal is far below the current rate of inflation and that the Government was “under no illusion” when doctors accepted pay offers in the summer that there was a “very real risk of further industrial action” if “pay erosion” was not addressed in future pay rounds. “This sub-inflationary suggestion from the current Government serves as a test to the DDRB. “The BMA expects it to take this opportunity to show it is now truly independent, to take an objective view of the evidence it receives from all parties, not just the Government, and to make an offer that reflects the value of doctors’ skills and expertise in a global market, and that moves them visibly further along the path to full pay restoration.” The NEU’s general secretary, Daniel Kebede, said teachers’ pay had been cut by more than one-fifth in real terms since 2010. “Along with sky-high workload, the pay cuts have resulted in a devastating recruitment and retention crisis. Teacher shortages across the school system hit pupils and parents too. “A 2.8% increase is likely to be below inflation and behind wage increases in the wider economy. This will only deepen the crisis in education.” In a hint that there could be a return to industrial action he added: “NEU members fought to win the pay increases of 2023 and 2024. “We are putting the Government on notice. Our members care deeply about education and feel the depth of the crisis. This won’t do.” The offer for teachers is the “exact opposite of fixing the foundations” and will result in bigger class sizes and more cuts to the curriculum, Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “The inadequacy of the proposed pay award is compounded by the Government’s intention that schools should foot the bill out of their existing allocations. “Given that per-pupil funding will increase on average by less than 1% next year, and the Government’s proposal is for an unfunded 2.8% pay award, it is obvious that this is in fact an announcement of further school cuts.” Paul Whiteman, general secretary at school leaders’ union NAHT, said: This recommendation falls far short of what is needed to restore the competitiveness of the teaching profession, to enable it to retain experienced professionals and attract new talent. Unison head of health Helga Pile said: “The Government has inherited a financial mess from its predecessors, but this is not what NHS workers wanted to hear. “Staff are crucial in turning around the fortunes of the NHS. Improving performance is a key Government pledge, but the pay rise proposed is barely above the cost of living.”