Wednesday, 2 August 2017

10 truly unique animals you won’t believe actually exist

Nature is truly full of surprises. Just when you think you’ve seen it all, some new, bizarre creature makes an appearance, instantly restoring your faith in the impossible. Bright Side has prepared a selection of really weird animals that you’ve probably never heard of, let alone ever met.

10. Mangalitsa Pig, a.k.a. ’a pig in sheep’s clothing’



This wooly pig was discovered in the mid-19th century. Such a shame that it didn’t become a common pet like dogs or cats.

9. Rhinopithecus, or golden snub-nosed monkey



Such a cutie!


8. Emperor tamarin

Check out the fabulous moustache on this one. Looks a bit like an actual emperor or an old, wise man, huh?

7. Patagonian Mara

A cross between a kangaroo and a hare?

6. Fluffy cow

They look like giant plushie toys!


5. Markhor Goat

It’s like he’s trying to catch an alien radio signal from space.


4. Raccoon dog

Can’t decide whether you want to get a dog or a raccoon? We have just the thing for you!


3. Blue Footed Booby


Their turquois legs never fail to catch attention. By the way, these birds have very amusing mating rituals.


2. Malayan Colugo

These eyes probably see a lot, and they definitely find everything surprising.


1. Venezuelan Poodle Moth

It was only discovered in 2009, and it really does look like a furry poodle!


Bonus: Cloud Antelope

Can you believe this gorgeous animal actually exists? Neither did we. :) It’s a wonderful toy made by Cmwyvern — but can we just dream about it being an actual living creature for a little bit?

Diana tapes reveal Queen’s reply to sobbing plea over loveless marriage

Twenty years after her death, princess will be heard on television describing life with Charles and her mystery romance

Intimate revelations – direct from the mouth of Diana, Princess of Wales –about her courtship and married life to Prince Charles are to be aired on British television next month after years of dispute about the recordings. Speaking to a video camera four years before her death, Diana will tell of Charles’s early unexpected attempts to woo her as a teenager and of the sorrow that enveloped her soon after her wedding day in July 1981.

In the documentary Diana: In Her Own Words, to be shown on Channel 4 in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of her death in a car crash on 31 August, the princess reveals that five years into her marriage she went “sobbing” to the Queen once she believed she had “confirmation” that her marriage was loveless. “So I went to the top lady and said: ‘I don’t know what I should do’. She said: ‘I don’t know what you should do.’ And that was it. That was ‘help’.”

Charles and Diana at Balmoral before their honeymoon in May 1981. Photograph: Bryn Colton/Rex/Shutterstock

Diana also tells of the impact of an illicit romance with a mystery man. The unconsummated affair dominated her thoughts for a while, she says, until it was suspected by the royal household.

“At 24, I fell deeply in love with someone who was part of all this and that was all found out and he was chucked out and then he was killed. And that was the deepest blow in my life I must say,” she says. Diana is widely thought to have been speaking of her feelings for Barry Mannakee, an officer in the royal protection squad who later died in a motorcycle accident.

In the video tapes, recorded at Kensington Palace in 1993 by her public speaking coach, Peter Settelen, Diana claims that the man would “mentally kick me out and make me go to my engagements because I used to sort of scream in his room”.

She tells Settelen that the royal family knew about her infatuation. “But there was never any proof,” she adds. “I should never have played with fire, but I did and I got very burnt. Three weeks after he left, he was killed in a motorbike accident. And he was the greatest fun I have ever had.”

Ralph Lee, the commissioning editor of factual at Channel 4, said: “This film gives Diana a voice and places it front and centre at a time when the nation will be reflecting on her life and death. It is her account of events both private and public and is an important contribution to the historical record.”

The footage at the core of the new documentary has been contentious since 2001, when the tapes were unearthed in a police raid on the home of Paul Burrell, the former royal butler. The Spencer family made a legal claim on the tapes but they were returned to Settelen in 2004. Already shown in part on the American television network NBC, the tapes were then to have been part of a BBC documentary marking the 10th anniversary of the princess’s death. Sir Teddy Taylor, the Tory MP for Rochford and Southend East at the time, called for a ban on broadcasting the tapes in any form while the couple’s sons, Princes William and Harry, were alive. No ban was imposed, but the programme was still pulled from the schedule despite having cost more than £100,000 to make.

The new Channel 4 documentary gives fresh insights from Diana’s private secretary, Patrick Jephson, and from her close friend, Dr James Colthurst. It also contains the first public comments from Anne Allan, the dance teacher who instructed the princess in private. Allan speaks of Diana’s “huge shyness” and of her decision to ask Camilla Parker Bowles to leave her husband alone.



Diana candidly confirms she had met Charles just 13 times before they married and she describes her early ambitions in life. “I wasn’t academically interested at all,” she says. “I just wanted to be with people and have fun and look after people,” she says, rolling her eyes in self-parody. “But the rebel thing was always there. It was underlying. It didn’t come out. Or they didn’t see it.”

The princess describes being “unimpressed” with Charles in her youth, yet after the killing of Lord Mountbatten in 1979 she thought it would be nice to meet him again. “He chatted me up. He was all over me like a bad rash. Later at a barbecue we were sitting on this bale of hay together and we were chatting about his girlfriend and Mountbatten and I said: ‘You must be so lonely.’”

Expressing sympathy for the solitary figure Charles cut as he followed Mountbatten’s coffin, Diana says she suggested he needed someone “beside” him: “Whereupon he leapt upon me! He was all over me for the rest of the evening. He followed me like a puppy.”

At 19, Diana admits the attentions of such a prominent older man were flattering. She was “seriously” wooed, she tells Settelen, and sensed Charles was intrigued when she stood up to him. Invited to come to Buckingham Palace to visit while he worked, she remembers thinking: “Well, bugger it, I do mind sitting there while you do your work. I said that, and that sort of lit up something in him. I was quite a challenge.”

The infamous engagement interview on television in early 1981, in which Charles questioned the meaning of the phrase “in love”, threw her “completely”, she confesses. She had answered that, yes, she was in love “like the fat Sloane Ranger that I was” and was then “absolutely traumatised” by his response.

(Source: The Guardian)

Nehru, mom loved each other, did not have time for physical affair: Edwina Mountbatten's daughter

In a book recently published in India, Pamela Hicks nee Mountbatten says that her mother Edwina and Jawaharlal Nehru deeply loved each other but did not have the time or the space for a physical relationship.

India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the country's last vicereine Edwina Mountbatten deeply loved and respected each other but they did not a physical relationship, Edwina's daughter Pamela Hicks nee Mountbatten has written in a book recently published in India.

The book, "Daughter of Empire: Life as a Mountbatten", was first published in 2012 in the United Kingdom and was recently brought to India as a paperback.

According to a PTI report on the book, Pamela writes that her mother and Nehru shared a "profound relationship" that bloomed after Edwina arrived in India along with her husband and India's last viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten in 1947.

Pamela was 17-years-old then and says that she saw the first stages of what would go on to become a relationship based on "equality of spirit and intellect". "She found in Panditji the companionship and equality of spirit and intellect that she craved," Pamela is quoted as saying by PTI.

Reading Nehru's inner thoughts and feelings for her mother in his letters made Pamela "realise how deeply he and my mother loved and respected each other".

Pamela says that she was intensely curious to know more about the extent of the relationship between Nehru and Edwina. She wanted to find out whether or not their affair had been sexual in nature" but after having read the letters, she was utterly convinced it hadn't been.

They neither had the time, nor the space to wallow in a physical relationship. "Quite apart from the fact that neither my mother nor Panditji had time to indulge in a physical affair, they were rarely alone. They were always surrounded by staff, police and other people," Pamela writes.

Pamela goes on to say that she spoke to Freddie Burnaby Atkins, Lord Mountbatten's aide-de-camp, who told her that Nehru and Edwina would have found it impossible to carry on a physical affair due to the very public lives they led.


GOODBYE
As the Mountbattens prepared to leave India, Edwina wanted to gift Nehru an emerald ring, her daughters writes in the book. However, Edwina knew that Nehru would not accept is and so instead she handed the jewel over to Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter, telling her to pawn it off in case of financial difficulties.

Instead, she handed it to his daughter, Indira, telling her that if he were ever to find himself in financial difficulties he was well known for giving away all his money she should sell it for him," Pamela writes.

And, during the farewell party organised for the Mountbattens, Nehru addressed Edwina directly.
"Wherever you have gone, you have brought solace, you have brought hope and encouragement," Pamela quotes Nehru as saying. "Is it surprising, therefore, that the people of India should love you and look up to you as one of themselves and should grieve that you are going?"

(Source: India Today)

How polluted is your drinking water?

More than 4 million Americans live in places where contaminants in drinking water exceed a legal limit—and poor, rural areas are often more affected than wealthy, urban and suburban ones. Those are some of the key takeaways from a new database that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released this week.

The database pulls about 30 million records from 2010 to 2015, mostly from state agencies. With the handy tool, you can enter your ZIP code and get a report on the contaminants that flow from your tap.

Although EWG has not yet analyzed all the data it collected according to demographics, it did find some preliminary patterns. “We’re seeing a lot of problems in places that are more rural and lower income,” said Bill Walker, vice president and managing editor of EWG. Walker emphasized that agriculture is one of the biggest pollutants of drinking water in the country and that, while pesticides and fertilizers are used in many places, toxic runoff from these pollutants are found at higher readings in rural communities.

Incidents of farm pollution in drinking water, according to news reports, across the United States. (Environmental Working Group)
Poor areas also seem to be more likely to have dirty water. EWG found that the East Los Angeles Water District, which serves about 115,000 people, had some of the most polluted water, with 14 contaminants above EWG’s guideline levels in 2015. In 2010, the median household income in this district was more than 20 percent below the national average.

By comparison, researchers pointed out that the water system in Merrick, New York, is one of the cleanest in the country. It serves about 117,000 people and the group found only one contaminant above health guidelines in 2015. In 2010, the median income in Merrick was more than 2.5 times the national average.

The database also provides updated information on specific contaminants like Chromium-6, the chemical made famous by the movie Erin Brockovich. Walker explained that, when EWG used the EPA database to research Chromium-6 contamination one year ago, it found that 218 million Americans’ water supplies were contaminated. But by using state records through the new database, EWG found that in fact 250 million Americans receive Chromium-6-contaminated water—a difference of 32 million people.

The database also tracks lead—the contaminant at the center of Flint, Michigan’s water crisis—for which there is no safe level of exposure. Nearly 19,000 public water systems had at least one finding of lead above a threshold that could cause elevated lead levels in babies’ blood.

The contaminant limits that the researchers used for the database were determined by scientists and researchers. These guidelines differ from the EPA’s legal limits for what’s considered safe, which EWG says are often based on outdated studies. According to EWG, the EPA has not added a new contaminant to the list of regulated contaminants at the federal level in more than 20 years.

Walker hopes the new database will shed light on areas where polluted water typically doesn’t get much attention. While urban water systems have their own challenges, smaller, rural systems often get overlooked, he said. “We think Americans have an absolute right to know what’s in their drinking water.”

(Source: City Lab)

Why the myth of meritocracy hurts kids of color

A new study finds that believing society is fair can lead disadvantaged adolescents to act out and engage in risky behavior.

Brighton Park is a predominantly Latino community on the southwest side of Chicago. It’s a neighborhood threatened by poverty, gang violence, ICE raids, and isolation—in a city where income, race, and zip code can determine access to jobs, schools, healthy food, and essential services. It is against this backdrop that the Chicago teacher Xian Franzinger Barrett arrived at the neighborhood’s elementary school in 2014.

Recognizing the vast economic and racial inequalities his students faced, he chose what some might consider a radical approach for his writing and social-studies classes, weaving in concepts such as racism, classism, oppression, and prejudice. Barrett said it was vital to reject the oft-perpetuated narrative that society is fair and equal to address students’ questions and concerns about their current conditions. And Brighton Elementary’s seventh- and eighth-graders quickly put the lessons to work—confronting the school board over inequitable funding, fighting to install a playground, and creating a classroom library focused on black and Latino authors.

“Students who are told that things are fair implode pretty quickly in middle school as self-doubt hits them,” he said, “and they begin to blame themselves for problems they can’t control.”

Barrett’s personal observation is validated by a newly published study in the peer-reviewed journal Child Development that finds traditionally marginalized youth who grew up believing in the American ideal that hard work and perseverance naturally lead to success show a decline in self-esteem and an increase in risky behaviors during their middle-school years. The research is considered the first evidence linking preteens’ emotional and behavioral outcomes to their belief in meritocracy, the widely held assertion that individual merit is always rewarded.

“If you’re in an advantaged position in society, believing the system is fair and that everyone could just get ahead if they just tried hard enough doesn’t create any conflict for you … [you] can feel good about how [you] made it,” said Erin Godfrey, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of applied psychology at New York University’s Steinhardt School. But for those marginalized by the system—economically, racially, and ethnically—believing the system is fair puts them in conflict with themselves and can have negative consequences.

“If the system is fair, why am I seeing that everybody who has brown skin is in this kind of job? You’re having to think about that … like you’re not as good, or your social group isn’t as good,” Godfrey said. “That’s the piece … that I was trying to really get at [by studying] these kids.”

The findings build upon a body of literature on “system justification”—a social-psychology theory that believes humans tend to defend, bolster, or rationalize the status quo and see overarching social, economic, and political systems as good, fair, and legitimate. System justification is a distinctively American notion, Godfrey said, built on myths used to justify inequities, like “If you just work hard enough you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps … it’s just a matter of motivation and talent and grit.” Yet, as she and her colleagues discovered, these beliefs can be a liability for disadvantaged adolescents once their identity as a member of a marginalized group begins to gel—and once they become keenly aware of how institutional discrimination disadvantages them and their group.

“If you’re [inclined] to believe that ... the system is fair, then you’re maybe going to accept stereotypes about you more easily.”
Researchers measured system-justifying beliefs among 257 students from an urban, public middle school in Arizona. All of the students’ families were identified as low-income, as defined by their eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches. The vast majority of the sample—91 percent—were also students of color: Fifty-five percent Latino, 18 percent black, 11 percent Native American, and 7 percent other nonwhite youth. Additionally, the area, populated by many immigrant families and children, was experiencing social and political unrest due to Senate Bill 1070, a controversial Arizona law that in its original form criminalized undocumented people in the state.

This Chicago campus was shuttered in 2013 as part of a rash of school closures that disproportionately affected poor black and Latino children
Godfrey asked the sixth-graders to rate their endorsement of the “American Dream” and system-justifying ideas—namely, that America is the land of opportunity where everyone who works hard has an equal chance to succeed. Youth were then asked to rate themselves on various qualities, including their self-esteem, risky behaviors (“stayed out all night without your parent’s permission,” “cheated on school tests,” etc.), and perceived discrimination (for example: “How often have others suspected you of doing something wrong because of your ethnicity?” and “How often have the police hassled you because of your ethnicity?”).

At three points over the course of middle school, the youth rated their self-esteem, behavior, and experience with discrimination. The results revealed an alarming trajectory. In sixth grade, among students who believed the system is fair, self-esteem was high and risky behavior was rare; by the end of seventh grade, these same students reported lower self-esteem and more risky behaviors—with no significant differences based on race, ethnicity, gender, or immigration generation (youth from newly arrived immigrant families and native-born counterparts).

What’s more, for youth who perceived more discrimination from an early age, system-justifying beliefs were associated with less-risky behavior in sixth grade, but with a sharp rise in such behaviors by seventh grade. Godfrey attributes this spike to a “perfect storm” in which marginalized young people are experiencing more discrimination; beginning to understand the systemic and institutionalized nature of that discrimination; and starting to strongly identify as a member of a marginalized group, seeing that group as one that’s being discriminated against. As for why this leads to more risky behavior, Godfrey points to research that suggests people who really believe the system is fair internalize stereotypes—believing and acting out false and negative claims about their group—more readily than those who disavow these views.

And while it’s easy to attribute the increase in risky behavior to  developmental changes such as puberty, the fact that the students’ outcomes started high in the sixth grade and then deteriorated suggests that psychosocial phenomena are at play.

“I do think that there’s this element of people think of me this way anyway, so this must be who I am,” Godfrey said, adding that the behaviors—things like stealing and sneaking out—reflect stereotypes perpetuated about youth of color. “If you’re [inclined] to believe that things are the way they should be, and [that] the system is fair, then you’re maybe going to accept stereotypes about you more easily.”

While the sample was relatively small, Godfrey said the findings are informative and mirror prior research. Indeed, previous analyses have found that system-justifying beliefs are associated with lower self-esteem in black adults and lower grade-point averages for Latino college students—though the same beliefs predicted better grades and less distress for “high status” youth.

“I was really interested in trying to think of [early adolescents] as active agents in their world,” Godfrey said, “and as people who can understand and interpret their social world in a way that a lot of research doesn’t recognize.”

“We cannot equivocate when it comes to preparing our children to face injustices.”
David Stovall, professor of educational-policy studies and African American studies at University of Illinois at Chicago, said the paper is a confirmation of decades of analysis on the education of marginalized and isolated youth. It’s a “good preliminary piece” that lays the foundation for more academic study of historically disenfranchised adolescents and their motivations, he said.

“If young folks see themselves being discriminated against, they’ve been told that a system is fair, and they experience things that are unfair, they will begin to reject this particular system and engage in behaviors that will not be to their betterment,” he explained. Stovall said it’s critical to guide young people from “defiant resistance”—defying what they’ve learned to be untrue regarding a just and fair system for all—to “transformative resistance”—developing a critical understanding of the historical context of U.S. society. Educators, he said, play a crucial role in this work.

“We have to ask different questions around school,” he said. “Does [school] contribute further to our [students’] marginalization and oppression? Is it just about order, compliance, and white normative standards that marginalized young folks of color don’t measure up to because the structure never intended for them to measure up?” He also warned educators and youth of color to be prepared for pushback, highlighting the current legal battle over the ethnic-studies ban in Tucson public schools despite its proven academic benefits.

Mildred Boveda, an assistant education professor at Arizona State University, likewise said the findings hold important implications for both teachers and teacher education. “This is of great consequence to … teachers who may think they are protecting children by avoiding conversations about systems of oppressions,” she said, emphasizing that the onus is also on teacher-prep programs to ensure aspiring educators know how to address these controversial topics.

Given her recent experience teaching fifth-graders in Miami-Dade, Florida, Boveda disagrees with the researchers’ notion that sixth-graders lack a full understanding of social hierarchies. Her students on the brink of middle school, she noted, were hyper-aware of social inequalities. Still, she sees valuable insights in the data.

“Unlike the majority of the teaching workforce, I once fit the demographics of the students in this study,” she said, alluding to the fact that more than 80 percent of public-school teachers are white. “I will admit that it sometimes felt risky to tackle these difficult conversations, but this [research] underscores why we cannot equivocate when it comes to preparing our children to face injustices.”

(Source: The Atlantic)