Latest news with #Falk
The Star
18-07-2025
- Sport
- The Star
Soccer-England, Sweden players proud of penalty shootout performance despite criticism
Soccer Football - UEFA Women's Euro 2025 - Quarter Final - Sweden v England - Stadion Letzigrund, Zurich, Switzerland - July 17, 2025 England's Chloe Kelly, England's Esme Morgan, England's Michelle Agyemang, England's Beth Mead England's Lauren James, England's Niamh Charles, England's Lucy Bronze, England's Alessia Russo and England's Grace Clinton celebrate winning the penalty shootout REUTERS/Matthew Childs/ File Photo ZURICH (Reuters) -Players from England and Sweden heaped praise on each other for their bravery in a penalty shootout at the Women's European Championship on Thursday, despite a record-low conversion rate and criticism from fans. England's 3-2 shootout victory over Sweden, which secured the reigning champions a place in the Euro 2025 semi-finals, featured missed efforts and saves by both goalkeepers. Yet with England missing four and Sweden missing five of their seven efforts, the players drew plenty of online criticism. "For anyone to step up, it takes a lot, so credit to anyone who takes a penalty in those moments," England forward Alessia Russo said. After what was described on the BBC website as the "greatest and worst shootout of all time", Swedendefender Smilla Holmberg received comfort, not criticism, from players on both sides after missing the decisive kick. "(We told her) that she should be proud of herself, that she is brave, that she has played a great championship and that she is awesome," an emotional Sweden keeper Jennifer Falk told reporters. The meagre 36% conversion rate was the worst combined penalty shootout rate in UEFA Women's Euro history, according to ESPN, the only other one under 50% was the 2017 semi-final between Denmark and Austria (43%). However, former Sweden goalkeeper Hedvig Lindahl, who suffered a similar 3-2 shootout defeat in the 2021 Olympic final against Canada, told Reuters on Friday that Falk and England keeper Hannah Hampton deserved praise in the shootout. "We have to give credit to the goalkeepers who really owned that moment last night ... with each save that Falk made, she grew in the eyes of the penalty-takers, and so too did Hampton," she said after Falk made four stops to Hampton's two. "Take Magda Eriksson's penalty - it's not a bad penalty just because she hit the woodwork. That happened because she wanted so much of a margin against Hampton in goal that she aimed to put it closer to the post than she would normally have done. That's good goalkeeping," Lindahl explained. The shootout drew scathing criticism from fans on social media, with many using it as an argument against the women's game. Studies have shown, however, that the conversion rates in penalty shootouts are similar between women and men, with both achieving success rates around 75 to 80%. Lucy Bronze converted her first ever penalty for England -- and her team's decisive shot -- despite being hampered by hamstring tightness, with a rocket that measured 102.51 kph, the third fastest goal of the tournament so far. (Reporting by Philip O'Connor and Lori EwingEditing by Toby Davis)
Straits Times
18-07-2025
- Sport
- Straits Times
England, Sweden players proud of penalty shootout performance despite criticism
ZURICH - Players from England and Sweden heaped praise on each other for their bravery in a penalty shootout at the Women's European Championship on Thursday, despite a record-low conversion rate and criticism from fans. England's 3-2 shootout victory over Sweden, which secured the reigning champions a place in the Euro 2025 semi-finals, featured missed efforts and saves by both goalkeepers. Yet with England missing four and Sweden missing five of their seven efforts, the players drew plenty of online criticism. "For anyone to step up, it takes a lot, so credit to anyone who takes a penalty in those moments," England forward Alessia Russo said. After what was described on the BBC website as the "greatest and worst shootout of all time", Sweden defender Smilla Holmberg received comfort, not criticism, from players on both sides after missing the decisive kick. "(We told her) that she should be proud of herself, that she is brave, that she has played a great championship and that she is awesome," an emotional Sweden keeper Jennifer Falk told reporters. The meagre 36% conversion rate was the worst combined penalty shootout rate in UEFA Women's Euro history, according to ESPN, the only other one under 50% was the 2017 semi-final between Denmark and Austria (43%). However, former Sweden goalkeeper Hedvig Lindahl, who suffered a similar 3-2 shootout defeat in the 2021 Olympic final against Canada, told Reuters on Friday that Falk and England keeper Hannah Hampton deserved praise in the shootout. "We have to give credit to the goalkeepers who really owned that moment last night ... with each save that Falk made, she grew in the eyes of the penalty-takers, and so too did Hampton," she said after Falk made four stops to Hampton's two. "Take Magda Eriksson's penalty - it's not a bad penalty just because she hit the woodwork. That happened because she wanted so much of a margin against Hampton in goal that she aimed to put it closer to the post than she would normally have done. That's good goalkeeping," Lindahl explained. The shootout drew scathing criticism from fans on social media, with many using it as an argument against the women's game. Studies have shown, however, that the conversion rates in penalty shootouts are similar between women and men, with both achieving success rates around 75 to 80%. Lucy Bronze converted her first ever penalty for England -- and her team's decisive shot -- despite being hampered by hamstring tightness, with a rocket that measured 102.51 kph, the third fastest goal of the tournament so far. REUTERS
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mamdani's father sits on council of anti-Israel group tied to terror, legitimizes role of suicide bombers
FIRST ON FOX: Mahmood Mamdani, the father of socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, sits on the advisory council of an anti-Israel organization that supports boycotts and sanctions of Israel, routinely accuses the Israeli government of committing "genocide", and has expressed sympathy for suicide bombers. The Gaza Tribunal, founded in London in 2024, says its primary goal is "to awaken civil society to its responsibility and opportunity to stop Israel's genocide in Gaza," according to its website. Also on its website, Mahmood Mamdani is listed as a member of the group's "advisory policy council" and is mentioned as having attended the group's official launch in London last year. Richard Falk, the president of the tribunal, outlined the group's support of BDS in an online post saying, "the aim of the Tribunal is or [sic] legitimize and encourage civil society solidarity initiatives around the world such as BDS." Unearthed Mamdani College Newspaper Writings Promote Anti-israel Boycott, Rail Against 'White Privilege' BDS is described as "an international campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel as the expression of the Jewish people's right to national self-determination by isolating the country economically through consumer boycotts, business and government withdrawal of investment, and legal sanctions," according to Influence Watch. Read On The Fox News App Zohran Mamdani has also promoted BDS as recently as May, when he declined to say whether Israel has a right to exist and said his support of BDS "is consistent with my core of my politics, which is non-violence." Mahmood Mamdani, the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University, has also faced criticism on social media in recent days over a resurfaced book excerpt where he expressed sympathy for the way suicide bombers are viewed. "Suicide bombing needs to be understood as a feature of modern political violence rather than stigmatized as a mark of barbarism," the elder Mamdani wrote in his 2004 book Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. "We need to recognize the suicide bomber, first and foremost, as a category of soldier." The Gaza Tribunal's founder and members have deep ties to anti-Israel movements, with at least one being deported from the United States due to terror ties. Falk has a long history of espousing anti-Israel views and was repeatedly accused of using his "Special Rapporteur" United Nations position to "spread unsubstantiated allegations against Israel," according to Canary Mission, a watchdog organization that works to expose antisemitism. In 2011 and 2014, Falk accused Israel of being a "colonialist" nation and claimed it was pushing "ethnic-cleansing goals." He would go on to echo these views as recently as February of this year during an interview. Falk faced backlash in 2007 for comparing Israel's government to the Nazis by accusing them of ushering in a "Palestinian Holocaust" and rhetorically asking, "Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not." The comparison led to backlash and former Israeli U.N. Ambassador Itzhak Levanon opposing his 2008 UN nomination. Mamdani Lands Endorsement Of A Top Cuomo Backer In Nyc Mayoral Primary The Princeton University professor emeritus also demanded a boycott of corporations in 2012 that do business with Israel, saying they "should be boycotted until they bring their operations into line with international human rights and humanitarian law and standards." However, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) fired back, warning the UN that Falk "has repeatedly abused his position as special rapporteur to unleash unrestrained hatred and disdain for Israel" and that the "United Nations should not be complicit in this wholly unjustified effort to single out Israel." In a statement to Fox News Digital, Falk said that he advocates for "nonviolent solidarity initiatives with the Palestinian struggle for their basic rights, including BDS." "I believe that Israel's occupation policies in Gaza and the West Bank have persecuted Palestinians on their own homeland," Falk added. "Also, I believe that this pattern of displacing the native population is illustrative of settler colonial political projects that depend for their success on an apartheid-like domination and exploitation of the native population. If such a regime encounters prolonged resistance it almost inevitably relies on genocidal tactics to subdue the civilian population, either by marginalization, ethnic cleansing, or massive killing, all of which have been occurring in Gaza during the 20 months since October 7." Falk added that Jewish voters in New York City "should not worry" about Mamood Mamdani's ties to the tribunal or about Zohran Mamdani's candidacy for mayor. "Both father and son are respectful of international law, the UN, human rights of all peoples, and the pacific settlement of political disputes," Falk said. Falk is not the only member of the tribunal with anti-Israel ties. A press release of the group's launch mentioned that Dr. Hatem Bazian, the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine and the co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine, was also present at the launch. Bazian has been a controversial anti-Israel figure for decades due to his inflammatory rhetoric about Israel and Jews, including during a 2014 convention speech, where he called on attendees to "get to work" on calling for BDS on college campuses and doing sit-ins in Congressional offices. In 2015, Bazian raised alarm bells when he called for an "intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here," which is widely interpreted as calling for violence against Jews. He would go on to say, "They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical – well, you haven't seen radicalism yet." He has also faced backlash for antisemitic posts on social media, which drew backlash from several student groups, including one that mocked Hassidic Jews, with one saying "Mom, look! I is chosen! I can now kill, rape, smuggle organs and steal the land of Palestinians 'Yay' #Ashke-Nazi." Another social media post insinuated Jews control UC Berkeley, which is a classic antisemitic trope about their "power." Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor who admitted to conspiring to aid the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group in 2006, was also present at the Gaza Tribunal launch meeting. He recently posted on X that he was "very honored and proud" to have contributed to the Gaza Tribunal's "The Sarajevo Declaration," which accuses Israel of "genocide, and its decades-long policies and practices of settler colonialism, ethno-supremacism, apartheid, racial segregation, persecution, unlawful settlements, the denial of the right to return, collective punishment, mass detention, torture and cruel and inhuman treatment." The declaration went on to "call for an end of the smearing of UNRWA and other humanitarian workers, for the free and unhindered access of UNRWA," a group that has been slammed for alleged ties to terrorism, including allegedly working with Hamas. Al-Arian, whom a federal judge once called a "master manipulator" and leader in the terror group, spent 30 years in the U.S. before being arrested in 2003, according to the Justice Department. After a 57-month prison sentence, he agreed to be deported to Turkey as part of his plea deal for a single charge on what had begun as a 17-count federal indictment. Then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in 2006 that the disgraced professor had denied involvement with the terror group for a decade before prosecutors had enough evidence to bring charges. "In his guilty plea, Al-Arian admitted that, during the period of the late 1980s and early to mid-1990s, he and several of his co-conspirators were associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," the DOJ said in a statement after his sentencing. "He further admitted that he performed various services for the PIJ in 1995 and thereafter, knowing that the PIJ had been designated as a Specially Designated Terrorist and that the PIJ engaged in horrific and deadly acts of violence." Socialist former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has long been labeled as antisemitic due to various anti-Israel statements, is also a member of the Gaza Tribunal Advisory Council. In 2020, an investigation into antisemitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found Corbyn's Labour Party had broken the law in the way it handled complaints of antisemitism when Corbyn was in charge. Corbyn was eventually suspended from the Labour Party over charges of antisemitism. He also once referred to "friends" from Hamas coming to address Parliament. A 2019 poll showed that a whopping 87 percent of Jewish people in Great Britain believed Corbyn was antisemitic, pointing to many incidents and remarks, many of them involving his staunch support for Palestinians and perceived hostility toward Israel. Zohran Mamdani's stance on Israel has been a widely discussed topic so far during the mayoral campaign, and he sparked controversy by refusing to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada," which has become a rallying cry for anti-Israel protesters in the United States ever since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023 massacre in Israel. Mamdani, who was the co-founder of Bowdoin College's Students for Justice in Palestine chapter during his four years, expressed support for an academic boycott of Israel in the school's paper. Mamdani has been widely criticized by Jewish groups in New York City over his past positions and comments as he tries to position himself to win the general election in November against current Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who are both running as independents. Fox News Digital's Michael Ruiz, Alec Schemmel and Jeffrey Clark contributed to this reportOriginal article source: Mamdani's father sits on council of anti-Israel group tied to terror, legitimizes role of suicide bombers
Scientific American
24-06-2025
- Health
- Scientific American
To Make Better Choices, Understand How Your Brain Processes Values
Much has been made of the power of habit. We're encouraged to make healthy choices our default and to understand the way that the brain sets certain tasks, such as our morning commute, on autopilot to improve our efficiency. But what about our more intentional, conscious day-to-day choices? The decisions we ponder—over seconds or lengthy deliberation—rely in part on the value system, which weighs in on the subjective evaluations we make, tipping the scales toward one choice over another. 'When we understand how the value system works, we can recognize many possible paths to our goals,' says Emily Falk, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania and author of What We Value. As the book explores, many people feel frustrated when they find themselves making choices that run counter to their big-picture goals—things like exercising more, visiting older relatives or cutting back screen time. Falk introduces readers to the brain systems that calculate our priorities in the moment and the strategies for weighting those decisions toward what matters most to each person. In the process, she offers a compassionate framework for recognizing how we make choices and why change can be so challenging. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Scientific American spoke with Falk about how the brain sifts through options and how reflecting on our priorities can help align our behaviors with long-term aims. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] So how does the brain assign value? When we're making a decision, the brain first identifies the different things that we might be choosing the brain's valuation system takes input from many other systems, including the ones that help us process emotions, think about ourselves, and help us understand other people's thoughts and feelings. It integrates that information and assigns a subjective value to each option. Then we choose the one that we expect will be most rewarding. Finally, after we make the choice, the brain keeps track of how things went to see whether something we thought would be rewarding was as good as we predicted. Ultimately, that valuation system provides a final common pathway in arriving at our subjective evaluations across very different things—whether relationship partners, food choices or financial decisions. As just one example of factors that influence these value calculations, in January my colleagues and I published findings that showed people are more likely to share news stories with others when they reflect on why that article is relevant to themselves and their social worlds. And we've seen, in this and in past research, how that desire to share news relates to activity in the brain's self-reference and social cognition systems. How might understanding these systems change the way people think about their choices or behavior? We know that one important input for the value system is self-relevance, or how much something feels psychologically meaningful or close to oneself. And we tend to confound self and value. Neuroscientific research shows a deep intertwining of these self and values systems. Sometimes that is good in terms of maintaining a coherent sense of self and a positive sense of self. The problem is that we may hold on to notions of what we did and who we are beyond the point when they are useful. As another example, people prefer rewards that are close in time or instantly gratifying. Understanding how the brain works also highlights how other kinds of psychological [closeness or] distance work in a similar way. Scientists have studied how the medial prefrontal cortex, which is important to both the value and self-relevance systems, handles multiple kinds of psychological distance in a similar way. For instance, people are more motivated to choose something when you expect the rewards will come sooner or involve something geographically close or people who feel socially close. But you can make rewards feel psychologically closer. Scientists have done that by asking people to imagine otherwise distant scenarios in concrete ways. You can vividly imagine how your future self will spend money in retirement as an incentive to save now or envision the transformative consequences for a specific child of donating to UNICEF to increase your giving. In your research, you've looked at another strategy, what psychologists call values affirmation, and found it can help people make better decisions for themselves in the long term. Can you explain more? Lots of research shows that when we are reminded of the things that are most important to us—'capital-V' values such as kindness or friendship and family—we are more open to changing our behaviors. For example, in studies that our team has run, sedentary people are more likely to become physically active after being asked to affirm their values by identifying the most important ones on a list and then envisioning themselves in various scenarios that tap into those values. So if you choose friends and family, we might ask you to imagine a time in the future when you connect with a family member, and they help you with a challenge. When we look at brain activity, we see that when thinking about what matters most, core parts of the value and self-relevance systems become active. We also find people are less defensive and more open to change after reflecting on their most important values. So if we have people do this type of values affirmation before we give them messages intended to coach them toward healthier choices—such as reminders to exercise—we see that the people who affirmed their values show more activity in the value and self-relevance systems in the brain than others who did not do that affirmation. And then when we follow our participants over the next month—sending out more value-reflection prompts and reminders to be active—the ones who showed that greater brain activation were ultimately less sedentary. Why would thinking about family and friends change someone's inclination to exercise? In many value affirmation studies, the value does not have an obvious connection to the behavior. Instead the idea is that thinking about what really matters to you helps you zoom out and consider the big picture. Affirming your values—by writing about what you care about most, choosing values from a list or imagining situations that involve those values—can ground you. In addition, self-transcendent values, which connect you to something outside of yourself, such as friends and family or spirituality, are more effective than purely self-focused values at helping people make changes. People who connect with those self-transcendent values on a regular basis, and people who have a stronger sense of purpose, get health and well-being benefits that don't accrue when we focus on more self-focused values such as personal money, fame and power. All of this suggests that people who keep their big-picture ideas and goals top of mind—for example, through regular reminders of their big-picture values—gain some advantages when it comes to decision-making, right? Yes. Feeling purposeful means having a clear picture of what you're trying to do and why. It can be like a North Star that helps us think about the path from where we are now to where we want to be. But it isn't just that some people are purposeful and others are not. People's sense of purpose fluctuates, on a day-to-day basis, around whatever their baseline is. This is helpful to keep in mind because it highlights that we can do things that might change how purposeful we feel on a given day and what benefits we get as a result. For example, day-to-day choices and physical health relate to purpose. Exercise, sleep, mood, connecting with other people and sense of purpose relate to one another in a web of wellness. When we actively choose to prioritize one of these, we can get benefits in lots of other areas for free.
San Francisco Chronicle
22-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Oakland, a city desperate for improvement, looks to charter reform for help
Steve Falk has been talking to people all over Oakland about his plan to make the city's government work better. Perhaps no one crystallized Oakland's problems to him better than the unidentified City Council member who said: 'In Oakland, the buck stops nowhere.' Falk has lived that dynamic. The UC Berkeley Graduate School of Public Policy lecturer has worked for 39 years as a city manager in six California cities, including two stints each in Richmond and Oakland. 'This city is more dysfunctional than any other city I worked for,' Falk said earlier this year. 'It's because of the charter.' And now he wants to fix it as a leader of the Oakland Charter Reform Project, which sounds like the nerdiest, most boring thing imaginable, but it could be one of the best fixes that new Mayor Barbara Lee and the City Council could adopt. Much of the work being discussed was explored in a 2021 report on Oakland 's government by the policy think tank SPUR. Oakland's government is structured like the federal government's tripartite system of checks and balances, which is OK for a nation of 340 million, but not for a medium-size city of 436,000 that's trying to move quickly to fix potholes and provide public safety. Under the current system, the mayor only appoints the city administrator, holds no veto power and does not supervise, evaluate or set goals for city departments. The city attorney is an elected position, which the SPUR report said blurs who they are supposed to represent. The City Council, meanwhile, doesn't select, direct, oversee or evaluate the city administrator or any department heads, leaving members and their constituents frustrated when city workers don't carry out their policy directions. Plus, as Falk wrote recently on the Oakland Charter Reform Project's Substack, 'it has resulted in high turnover of the professional city administrator (six in the last five years!), which, in turn, negatively impacts the city's budget, workplace culture, and operations.' Oakland residents aren't happy, either. Last October, 75% said the city was on the 'wrong track,' up 10 points from 2022, according to the annual survey. Council Member Janani Ramachandran told me that when her constituents ask her, 'Why can't you fill my pothole, council member?' she replies, 'Well, I'm prohibited by the charter from directing staff, and I have no authority over city administrator. I don't even have the power to fire him in my role on council.' 'Right now,' Ramachandran said, 'the buck is being passed from one part of the city to another, to another on every other issue.' Ramachadran said the need for charter reform 'speaks to the dysfunction that a lot of Oakland residents are seeing right now, and why they feel like they can't have a voice in the process.' Lee is on board with improving the charter, too, though she wants to hear from the community first. Part of her plan for her first 100 days in office includes appointing 'a task force of League of Women Voters, ethics and good government experts to modernize Oakland's Charter and strengthen government accountability.' Ramachandran told me that in the next week or two, she will introduce a resolution to create that task force, which will spend months gathering community input all over Oakland and creating a reform plan to put on the June 2026 ballot. Lee, Ramachadran, City Council President Kevin Jenkins and Falk's team met last week to discuss changing the charter. Getting voters on board will not be easy, as this can be dense, wonky stuff. City leaders will need to spend a lot of time educating Oaklanders over the next year about how changing the way city government is structured could make it work better. (It helps that this is happening during the Ezra Klein-supercharged 'Abundance' moment of the political zeitgeist, which is challenging Democratic-led cities to show that they can accomplish something beyond virtue signaling.) Ramachadran, who frequently explains legislation on Tiktok and Instagram posts, conceded that charter reform will test the limits of her explanatory abilities. Hell, talking about charter reform might melt TikTok. 'Often the problem with these kinds of citywide initiatives and ballot measures that don't necessarily reflect what the average voter knows or understands is we're not speaking their language,' Ramachandran said. 'Usually, politicians and people that write these ballot measures are talking to people already involved in politics. You know, the people involved in the League of Women Voters and the neighborhood council leadership, not the 21-year-old from down the street or 55-year-old who only votes every four years.' Ramachadran said she is keeping an open mind about what system would be the best for Oakland and will let public input be her guide. She and Falk agree that the answer isn't the current system. Oakland's system is an outlier in California. Falk said 97% of cities have a council-manager form of government. Under this system, the council sets policy and supervises an appointed city manager who oversees daily operations. The mayor is selected from among the council members and serves as its president, leads meetings and holds a vote equal to other members. The city attorney is appointed by the council, not elected, and represents one client: the municipal government. Cities including San Jose, Long Beach and Riverside employ a similar system. Falk proposes tweaking this system slightly. He calls it a 'unitary strong mayor plan' — to give the mayor some form of a veto, which likely would be one of the most contentious provisions debated over the next year. But he believes it would make the mayor and council more responsive to residents and more nimble. 'That new power to vote — if paired with veto power — would make (the mayor's position) the most powerful mayor Oakland has seen in over a century,' Falk and his team wrote on Substack. Empowering a mayor like that comes with a potential downside, Falk acknowledged: 'A mayoral veto centralizes tremendous civic power in one individual. A mayor with a veto could diminish the city council's role in policymaking and, in so doing, generate resentment among council members and community groups who feel their influence is reduced. A veto could also be abused by the mayor to block popular legislation for personal or political reasons.' But mayors in six of California's top 17 cities have veto power. That will get worked out over the next year. What is indisputable is that change is needed. As Ramachandran said, 'There's no one magic (move) here that's going to solve Oakland's dysfunction. But I really believe this is going to be a major piece to starting to break down that dysfunction.'
