Latest news with #Hancock
The Herald
3 days ago
- General
- The Herald
Addo Elephant National Park meeting jumbo accommodation challenge
Since the establishment of Addo Elephant National Park in 1931 for the protection of the remaining 11 elephants in the area, the population has done extremely well. So much so that it led to a steady enlargement of what is known as the Addo main camp section from 1955 to 2015 to ensure other biological components are not affected by the elephants. The park is now home to more than 800 elephants in various sections and biomes. The largest single expansion included the addition of the Colchester section towards the south of the park in 2010, with the dropping of fences between the sections. The combined main camp/Colchester section is now about 268km² in size (Lombard et al. 2001) and contains several boreholes and earthen dams due to the lack of natural rivers in this section of the park. Addo expanded substantially over time and by 2022 it had seven areas separated by fences, interspersed with private land in some cases. This provided opportunities for elephant range expansion, with the main camp serving as the source for other sections of Addo and externally. For instance, authorities translocated four juveniles from Addo to the Pilanesberg National Park in 1979 (Hancock, 1984) and a further 11 bulls to various private game reserves across SA in 2005. In 2003, 61 elephants were moved from the main camp to the Nyathi section, while four bulls were introduced from Kruger National Park. The Darlington section received 28 elephants from the main camp/Colchester section in 2018. Fencing of the park in 1954 confined the elephants to an area which led to most of the main camp being used by elephants and subsequently resulted in impacts on vegetation structure and sensitive species (Lombard et al. 2001; Kerley & Landman, 2006). To alleviate these impacts, the main camp was expanded into the Colchester section where water provision was limited. However, the main camp/Colchester section was not big enough to significantly change elephant space use and therefore other management interventions to limit population growth, such as elephant contraception and water availability gradient, had to be implemented. Recent studies have shown that historical management approaches have generally not been able to impose spatial and temporal limitations on elephant space use in the main camp/Colchester section (Guldemond et al. 2022). This in turn could lead to impacts on other biodiversity components if management interventions are not continued and by expanding land availability through the consolidation of current sections and the addition of new land to Addo. It is for this reason that the relocation of 42 elephants from the main camp to the Kabouga section (towards the north of Addo), last month was undertaken. From observations of the various family groups since through nine tracking collars, it appears they are exploring and settling well into their new home. As recently as June 3, Addo Elephant National Park biotechnician Joshua Roberts was in the area servicing cameras when he came across the youngest of the lot, aptly named Kabouga, and his herd — all looking healthy and happy. The consolidation of the neighbouring Kabouga and Darlington sections is planned, which will provide the two populations with an even greater area to roam. Charlene Bisset — SANParks regional ecologist The Herald
Associated Press
5 days ago
- Sport
- Associated Press
Crawford hits a grand slam, Hancock tosses 7 scoreless and the Mariners beat the Guardians 6-0
SEATTLE (AP) — J.P. Crawford hit a grand slam, Emerson Hancock tossed seven scoreless innings and the Seattle Mariners beat the Cleveland Guardians 6-0 on Sunday to complete a sweep. After an RBI single by Miles Mastrobuoni with one out in the second inning gave the Mariners an early advantage, Crawford opened up the floodgates while the bases were still loaded. He turned on a hanging slider from Luis Ortiz (3-8) and cranked a home run to right field for the fourth grand slam of his major league career. Mastrobuoni's RBI single alone would have been sufficient, though, for Hancock (3-2). The young right-hander turned in easily the best start of his major league career, yielding only two hits — both of them singles — while walking one batter and striking out four. Hancock was extremely efficient, needing only 85 pitches to make it through seven innings. Relievers Casey Legumina and Eduard Bazardo then followed Hancock to complete the combined shutout, which was just the Mariners' second of the season. They also blanked the Miami Marlins on April 26. Key moment Things went south for Ortiz after he issued a leadoff walk to Randy Arozarena in the second inning. He also walked outfielder Dominic Canzone before Crawford's grand slam gave the Mariners a lead they would not look back from. Key stat Since 2023, Crawford is hitting .593 with 42 RBIs when the bases are loaded. He is a career .400 hitter in such situations. Up next Seattle right-hander Logan Gilbert (1-1, 2.37) will return from the injured list and start for the Mariners on Monday against the Red Sox, who will send out right-hander Lucas Giolito (2-1, 5.45). The Guardians travel to San Francisco for a series-opener on Tuesday. ___ AP MLB:
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Un-American Parade
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. To discern the values of a nation and its leaders, watch their parades. Tomorrow, on the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, President Donald Trump plans not only to display the country's military might but also to present himself as its supreme leader. Some 6,600 soldiers and 200 tanks, warplanes, helicopters, and the like are expected to descend on Washington, D.C., to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. According to reports, parachuters will land on the Ellipse, where Trump instructed rioters on January 6 to 'fight like hell,' and submit to him a folded American flag. All of this will occur on the president's birthday, which spurs the question of whether we're celebrating the country or the man who seeks to dominate it. President George Washington offered a very different model of an American parade—one better suited for a moment that tested the nation's founding principles. In October 1789, Washington was scheduled to visit Boston, which had planned a celebration in his honor. Unlike Trump, Washington resisted attempts to turn the event into a military display. The very notion of a ceremony organized around him made the first president uneasy. As Washington explained to John Hancock, the governor of Massachusetts, 'I am highly sensible of the honor intended me. But could my wish prevail, I should desire to visit your metropolis without any parade, or extraordinary ceremony.' Various newspapers echoed his concern. The Herald of Freedom reminded readers that Washington was traveling to Boston 'not for the purposes of empty parade, or to acquire the applause of gaping multitudes.' He needed no 'splendid mercenary guard.' [Eliot A. Cohen: A parade of ignorance] Hancock failed to get the message. He insisted that the president deserved a grand military spectacle. Without consulting Washington, he put forward his own plan. As Hancock explained, 'a military parade has been determined, & a body of about 800 men, will be under arms at Cambridge on the day of your entering Boston.' To the governor's shock, Washington objected. After some delicate negotiations, Hancock eventually accepted a much smaller number of soldiers. Other elected officials in Boston apparently understood America's ideals more clearly than Hancock did. They organized a parade that honored not just Washington and the military but also the city's artisans and tradespeople. Workers marched past the president in alphabetical order: First came the bakers and blacksmiths; much later, the wharfingers and wheelwrights. They carried banners expressing pride in their various crafts and in the values that united the nascent republic. The carvers displayed their belief that the Arts flourish under Liberty. The coppersmiths extolled Union. The lemon dealers proclaimed Success through Trade. Although the day was very cold and the parade lasted many hours, the event pleased Washington because it represented what was, for him, the most important achievement of the American Revolution. That achievement wasn't military in nature but political: a constitutional republic based on the will of the people, dedicated to advancing prosperity and protecting liberty. In Boston, he witnessed newly empowered citizens giving voice to an egalitarian order. 'Your love of liberty—your respect for the laws—your habits of industry, and your practice of the moral and religious obligations,' he observed, 'are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.' Washington served in the Continental Army, so he understood the sacrifices that soldiers make for their country, and the public reverence those sacrifices are due. But he also knew the dangers of using the military for personal purposes. He saw clearly the need for the citizens of a republic to stand vigilant against the pretensions of a leader who would use the Army to flex his own might. He had no wish to become America's elected monarch. The current president may eagerly anticipate the sound of marching troops, warplanes, and tanks, a display to rival those of Vladimir Putin in Moscow. But for the many Americans now anxious about their basic rights, these spectacles ought to be a warning. As The Massachusetts Magazine explained in 1789, the freer 'the constitution of any country, the less we see of pageant, titles, and ceremonies.' What looks like an excess of strength may really be a deficit of liberty. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
7 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Trump's Un-American Parade
To discern the values of a nation and its leaders, watch their parades. Tomorrow, on the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, President Donald Trump plans not only to display the country's military might but also to present himself as its supreme leader. Some 6,600 soldiers and 200 tanks, warplanes, helicopters, and the like are expected to descend on Washington, D.C., to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. According to reports, parachuters will land on the Ellipse, where Trump instructed rioters on January 6 to 'fight like hell,' and submit to him a folded American flag. All of this will occur on the president's birthday, which spurs the question of whether we're celebrating the country or the man who seeks to dominate it. President George Washington offered a very different model of an American parade—one better suited for a moment that tested the nation's founding principles. In October 1789, Washington was scheduled to visit Boston, which had planned a celebration in his honor. Unlike Trump, Washington resisted attempts to turn the event into a military display. The very notion of a ceremony organized around him made the first president uneasy. As Washington explained to John Hancock, the governor of Massachusetts, 'I am highly sensible of the honor intended me. But could my wish prevail, I should desire to visit your metropolis without any parade, or extraordinary ceremony.' Various newspapers echoed his concern. The Herald of Freedom reminded readers that Washington was traveling to Boston 'not for the purposes of empty parade, or to acquire the applause of gaping multitudes.' He needed no 'splendid mercenary guard.' Eliot A. Cohen: A parade of ignorance Hancock failed to get the message. He insisted that the president deserved a grand military spectacle. Without consulting Washington, he put forward his own plan. As Hancock explained, 'a military parade has been determined, & a body of about 800 men, will be under arms at Cambridge on the day of your entering Boston.' To the governor's shock, Washington objected. After some delicate negotiations, Hancock eventually accepted a much smaller number of soldiers. Other elected officials in Boston apparently understood America's ideals more clearly than Hancock did. They organized a parade that honored not just Washington and the military but also the city's artisans and tradespeople. Workers marched past the president in alphabetical order: First came the bakers and blacksmiths; much later, the wharfingers and wheelwrights. They carried banners expressing pride in their various crafts and in the values that united the nascent republic. The carvers displayed their belief that the Arts flourish under Liberty. The coppersmiths extolled Union. The lemon dealers proclaimed Success through Trade. Although the day was very cold and the parade lasted many hours, the event pleased Washington because it represented what was, for him, the most important achievement of the American Revolution. That achievement wasn't military in nature but political: a constitutional republic based on the will of the people, dedicated to advancing prosperity and protecting liberty. In Boston, he witnessed newly empowered citizens giving voice to an egalitarian order. 'Your love of liberty—your respect for the laws—your habits of industry, and your practice of the moral and religious obligations,' he observed, 'are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.' Washington served in the Continental Army, so he understood the sacrifices that soldiers make for their country, and the public reverence those sacrifices are due. But he also knew the dangers of using the military for personal purposes. He saw clearly the need for the citizens of a republic to stand vigilant against the pretensions of a leader who would use the Army to flex his own might. He had no wish to become America's elected monarch. The current president may eagerly anticipate the sound of marching troops, warplanes, and tanks, a display to rival those of Vladimir Putin in Moscow. But for the many Americans now anxious about their basic rights, these spectacles ought to be a warning. As The Massachusetts Magazine explained in 1789, the freer 'the constitution of any country, the less we see of pageant, titles, and ceremonies.' What looks like an excess of strength may really be a deficit of liberty.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
People Are Sharing The Movie Endings That Were So Bad They Ruined An Otherwise Good Film, And I'm Curious To Know If You Agree
Reddit user @world_citizen7 recently asked: "What movie had such a bad ending that it ruined an otherwise good movie?" Here are some of the best answers, and FYI, some posts have been edited for clarity! Oh, and you should probably know that there are some spoilers ahead! 1.'Hancock. The first 2/3 was a not bad look at the idea of a being with superpowers who had no interest in being a superhero or villain. Then the movie took a 136 degree turn into some really weird tacked-on plot twists.' — The1Ylrebmik 2.'Signs. I mean, those aliens came billions of miles, conquered the whole planet in a blink of an eye, and didn't realize they couldn't handle water, one of the most common things on the planet? Same with War of the Worlds and a virus, both were nonsensical.' — bevymartbc 3.'I remember at the end of Kingsman: The Secret Service, they make a big deal about this dude fucking a girl in the ass as his reward for saving her. It's so awkward and they put so much focus on it. Totally unnecessary and yet I guess the writers, producers, and director fought for it to be in the final cut for some goddamn reason. Did they have a raunchy joke quota that they needed to fulfill?' — JacobStills 4.'Grease. Why does the car fly?' — DependentSelect6973 5.'Unpopular opinion regarding a classic Hollywood film: My Fair Lady. I absolutely detested Henry Higgins, and when Eliza came back after he admits (only to himself) how important she is to him, he puts on his condescending act and demands she finds his slippers as she smiles at him. Yuck.' — GrouchyBear_99 6.'Now You See Me, it was great fun until the reveal, which makes even less sense the more you think about it.' — shemjaza 7.'As a kid, I loved all the Oz books, where Oz was real. I never forgave the movie The Wizard of Oz for having it all turn out to be a dream. What was the point of it all then?' — Garbage-Bear 8.'X-Men Origins: Wolverine. First two acts were good, the third act and the screwed up version of 'Deadpool' ruined the overall film.' — Bigtony7877 9.'Personally, for me it was Longlegs. I was so looking forward to it, and thought it was really good until the very ending.' — streetxtrash 10.'Glass, dud ending to a decent trilogy. You can defeat Bruce Willis with a… puddle? There's a secret organization that gets rid of people with powers? What?' — GrumpyOldMan59 11.'The Lilo & Stitch remake going against the message of Ohana.' — MattWolf96 12.'Joker: Folie à Deux. I was enjoying it (yes, even the musical parts) and wondering why everyone was hating on it. Then it got to the final act, and I understood.' — Maxhousen 13.'Ocean's 8. All these awesome, capable women, and you get a dude to come in at the end and do the actual stealing? And to top it off, you only get away with it because James Corden decides to look the other way? No thank you.' — dumblesmurf 14.'Yesterday. Not well known because the ending sucked so much it didn't end up being popular, but it was that movie about the guy who wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles. Such a creative premise, and it built a really interesting narrative, that then has the most boring, poorly-written, unsatisfying ending. Ruins the whole thing.' — NoButThanksAnyway 15.'Interstellar totally flummoxed me on the romantic relationship at the end. They hated each other for the whole movie, and now they're together because they are the highest-paid actor and actress on call, and the producers said the flick needs a romance or something?' — PublicCraft3114 16.'Life of Pi. 'Did it actually happen? Idk but it made for a cool story' wtf no, don't make me watch a whole movie then end it as if everything was made up.' — peanut6547 17.'Sinister's ending and final act was so bad that it removed every ounce of rewatchability for me. It took away the unsettling tone of the tapes and it was just cringey seeing the kids in bad makeup dance around the house. Such a shame. It was a really good horror movie up until the reveal.' — Queef-Elizabeth 18.'Source Code. Overturned the whole conceit of the movie for the sake of a happy ending.' — third-time-charmed 19.'Gravity. I was buying the whole movie, all the way, even as she splash landed in the lake. But after all she went through, to just get up and walk away ruined the whole thing. IMO it would have been a better movie if she would have died at the bottom of the lake cuz she couldn't get out of her suit in time. At least that ending I could have respected.' — IndependentFalse4270 20.'I loved Conclave up until the end, it just seemed so unnecessary to add that to the story I guess. Like it served no real purpose to the story or anything. Just came out of nowhere.' — mrlurker666 And finally: 21.'I've never been more pissed off at the ending of a movie than I was when I watched Promising Young Woman. That movie was super interesting and then it decided to end in the shittiest, most anticlimactic way possible, and before the credits even rolled all I could think was: 'Well, this is the worst thing I've seen in years and I'll never watch this shitty ass movie again.' It was and I haven't. Fuck that movie.' — NikonShooter_PJS Do you agree with these choices? Let me know the movies that you think were ruined by their ending in the comments below! More on this From 'Forrest Gump' To 'Pretty Woman,' Here Are 18 Movies That Make People Seriously MadStephanie Soteriou · June 2, 2025 People Are Sharing The Totally Harmless Movies That Disturbed Them So Much They'll Never Watch Them Again, And I'm Curious To Know Your ThoughtsStephanie Soteriou · May 29, 2025 The "Lilo & Stitch" Remake Director Broke His Silence On The Backlash About The Film's EndingLarry Fitzmaurice · June 8, 2025
