question
stringlengths 11
179
| article
stringlengths 522
97.6k
| url
stringlengths 35
310
|
|---|---|---|
Who is most key ppl in race? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137849/key-ppl-race |
Did a Clinton campaign decision made in May doom down-ballot Democrats? | One of the biggest takeaways from Julys DNC was that Hillary Clinton was actively courting Republicans. The last two days of the convention were all about flag waving and military might: Ronald Reagan would have been proud. Moreover, the DNCs highest profile speakersboth Clintons, Barack Obama, Tim Kaine, Michael Bloombergrelentlessly argued that Trumpism was not Republicanism and that Trump was an aberration, not a representative of the party of Lincoln. This made many Democrats and progressives nervous. The Clinton campaign had decided to woo Republicans, particularly moderate or suburban ones, and they worried that this would hurt down-ballot Democrats and, potentially, hurt Clinton with Bernie Sanders voters. At the time, it seemed like a risky, but worthwhile strategy: Sanders voters seemed to be coming around to Clinton and down-ballot Democrats could tie their opponents to Trumps vile policies and comments. What we didnt know at the time, however, was that the decision to run against Trumpism and not Republicanism was made in May, when the Democratic primary was definitively won, but not yet over. BuzzFeeds Ruby Cramer has a long and sharp article that uses WikiLeaks emails to illuminate the decision to make the campaign about personality, not policy: On the trail, Clinton doesnt engage much in the economic and social debates that typically animate both parties in a presidential election. (In May, on at least two occasions, WikiLeaks emails show, Clintons team asked the DNC to stay out of policy when it came to framing Trump once around his May 12 meeting with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and a second time in relation to infrastructure messaging.) Unfortunately, as Cramer notes, the strategy hasnt worked. With less than 50 days until election day, the race is still close. And down-ballot Democrats in key races are struggling because their Republican challengers have been able to wriggle free of the association with Trump. As Cramer notes, New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte is seen as a different kind of Republican by voters, while Senators Pat Toomey and Richard Burr are currently winning a fifth of Clinton voters. The Clinton campaign has signaled that it is going to change strategies: That it will no longer simply make the case that Trump shouldnt be elected, but that it will make a more forceful case for the differences between the two candidates policies. Theres enough time for this strategy to pay dividends for Clinton, but it may be too late for down-ballot Democrats. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats |
Did Donald Trump lie in his deposition about his immigrants are rapists speech? | On Friday afternoon, BuzzFeed posted a video and a transcript of a deposition that Trump did earlier this year relating to his recently opened hotel in Washington, D.C. The deposition was taken for a lawsuit that Trump is conducting against a restaurateur who backed out of a deal with Trump after his infamous speech about Mexican immigrants, in which he said, When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending their best. Theyre not sending you. Theyre not sending you. Theyre sending people that have lots of problems, and theyre bringing those problems with us. Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bringing crime. Theyre rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. In the deposition, Trump says that he did not consult with anyone about his speech. A: No. A: Yes. Q: Okay. A: No. No I didnt. I didnt at all. But Trumps testimony seems to contradict an account published in this Sundays New York Times Magazine. Heres Robert Draper on that section of the speech: The line struck [radio host Charlie] Sykes as awfully familiar when he heard it. A month before, he had run a segment with Ann Coulter, who had just published her 11th book, an anti-immigration screed titled Adios, America! Sykes was well aware of Coulters views, but he was taken aback when she began a riff on Mexican rapists surging into the United States (a subject that takes up an entire chapter of Adios, America!). I remember looking at my producer and going, Wow, this is rather extraordinary, he told me. When Trump used that line, I instantly recognized it as Ann Coulters. In fact, Corey Lewandowski had reached out to Coulter for advice in the run-up to Trumps announcement speech. The address Trump delivered on June 16 bore no resemblance to his prepared text, which contained a mere two sentences about immigration. Instead, he ad-libbed what Coulter today calls the Mexican rapist speech that won my heart. When Trumps remarks provoked fury, Lewandowski called Coulter for backup. Three days later, she went on HBOs Real Time With Bill Maher and, amid shrieks of laughter from the audience, predicted that Trump was the Republican candidate most likely to win the presidency. Trump may not have talked to Coulter, but at the very least he seems to have consulted with Lewandowski. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137369/donald-trump-lie-deposition-immigrants-rapists-speech |
Where is Ivanka? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137355/ivanka |
Did the vice presidential debate drive a wedge between Donald Trump and Mike Pence? | Pences strategy last night was to try to gaslight viewers. He claimed that Trump had not, in fact, made a host of disqualifying remarks. He said the idea that Trump was a bigot and a boor was an invention of the media and Hillary Clinton. He did not defend Trump so much as he denied what Trump has said and done. (Mitt Romney did something similar in the first debate of 2012 and succeeded in throwing Barack Obama off his game.) Pences refusal to be goaded, moreover, was a course correction from Trumps disastrous first debate performance: He seemed like a steady hand, even if he made few truthful statements during the 90-minute debate. At the same time, Pence distanced himself from many of Trumps most controversial positions, such as the wholesale deportation of undocumented immigrants in the United States. And there are suggestions that Pences performance was not looked on wholly favorably by his boss. While the general consensus is that the debate was something of a drawthat Tim Kaines badgering and Pences lying canceled each other outPence has been widely praised by the right. He was compared favorably to Trump, which will surely needle the insecure megalomaniac. Just as importantly, Trump is someone who privileges loyalty above nearly everything else, and Pences refusal to explicitly defend his comments and positions may not sit well with him. These tweets from John Harwood sure are interesting: Trump adviser on debate after Pence passed up opportunities to defend him: "Pence won overall, but lost with Trump" John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 5, 2016 more from adviser on Trump reaction to strong Pence debate following poor Trump showing last week: "he can't stand to be upstaged" John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 5, 2016 We are currently on Trump meltdown watch. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137485/vice-presidential-debate-drive-wedge-donald-trump-mike-pence |
Will Anyone Stop Rodrigo Duterte? | But unlike Trump, Duterte comes from a regional political dynastyhis father was governor of Davao province, his uncle and cousins were Cebu City mayors, and his daughter is currently mayor of Davao. Furthermore, he has built significant alliances during his long career, including with the national police and left-wing Communist organizations. Most unsettling of all, he is seen as exactly the kind of disruptive leader that the Philippines needs. The Philippines is a country where extrajudicial killings already have a long history, from the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos through recent administrations, notably that of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. But there is something unprecedented about the Duterte-era wave of killings. Previously, the main victims of state-sponsored killings and forced disappearances were activists fighting for land reform, environmental justice, and labor rights, as well as muck-raking journalists and suspected members of armed underground groups. But the current level of open support for extrajudicial street justice by the highest office in the nation is new. Where other presidents have engaged in extrajudicial killing, they havent made it a matter of policy and they havent made it something public, whereas Duterte has done both, said Vicente Rafael, a history professor in the Southeast Asian studies program at University of Washington, who is currently in Manila. Human rights advocates light candles during a vigil for the victims of recent drug-related extrajudicial killings at a church in Manila. Getty/NurPhoto A handful of legislators and civil society organizations have called on the president to put a stop to the killings and restore due process rights to the accused. While the police have stated that some of the vigilante killings are being conducted by rival drug syndicates, many also question whether corrupt police officers and other officials are using the cover of the drug war to silence potential informants. Whether or not this is true, Enriquez, the feminist activist, wondered if the blanket impunity offered to police would transform even virtuous, law-abiding police officers into violent and lawless individuals. She said this threatened to undo the decades of work that her organization and others have done to train security forces on human rights values. In addition to the alarming number of deaths, there is a widespread perception that the harshest punishments have been meted out only to the poor. While Duterte has publicly named and shamed more than a hundred businessmen, judges, and even top police brass in his lists of those allegedly involved in the drug trade, none of these figures have been summarily executed. Some have even been allowed to leave the country. The rich and powerful are given deadlines to negotiate their surrender, noted congressional representative Teddy Baguilat. But for the poor, there are no negotiations, no courtesy calls, no warnings. ... The poor simply get the bullet. The fact that most victims live in the slums also contributes to the disconnect between middle- and upper-class citizens and the actual consequences of Dutertes war. His critics suggest that addressing widespread poverty and underemployment would be more effective in tamping down illegal drug use than his fear-based regime. The most popular drug in the country is shabu, slang for crystal meth, which drug syndicates produce in local labs. In a country with the highest level of income inequality in Asia, where more than a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line and the average annual income hovers around $3,500, the highly addictive drug offers a quick and easy fix, especially for low-wage workers who use it to endure long shifts. These are the people most beaten down, exploited, and neglected by the poverty-inducing system of the country, said Enriquez. Rather than devaluing their lives even further, she said, the government needs to offer substantial programs and services to restore their health and independence. City jails designed to hold 800 inmates are now crowded to five times their capacity with those charged with drug crimes, making a place to sleep, much less privacy, an unthinkable luxury. Private drug treatment remains out of reach for most of the population, while government rehab centers, already scant, are woefully unprepared for the influx in patients. Such conditions are why human rights activists question Dutertes stated intention to reform drug users, instead seeing an attempt to eradicate societys undesired. Human rights spokesperson and former Congressman Walden Bello has called for a massive expansion of the governments rehabilitation programs, and has begun efforts to have drug use classified as a disease rather than a crime. Current lawmakers from his political party, Akbayan Citizens Action Party, are also designing programs based on harm reduction principles. Such demands are complicated by the fact that Duterte suspects that drug addicts cannot be rehabilitated. He has questioned rehabilitations effectiveness time and time again, although he recently ordered that military camps be readied as rehabilitation centers and even asked for Chinas help in funding them. Alleged drug addicts and sellers who have surrendered to the police await processing at a police station in Manila. Getty/Noel Celis Five hours north of Manila, in the balmy city of Baguio, Sergi Musni, a case manager at Serenity in the Steps, a private drug treatment center, has already felt the impact of Dutertes policies. At first, when I heard Duterte wanting to kill all addicts, I was hurt for my fellow addicts, he admitted, as a former addict himself. But he has had no time to dwell on his feelings. Serenity is one of the few centers in the country where those who surrender to the police can access community-based addiction treatment free of charge. With a team of ten to 15 trained addiction specialists, Musni has already offered treatment to 159 of the citys 1000 surrenderees, as he calls them. That number keeps growing. Musni confirmed that most patients were driven to Serenity by the desire not to be killed by police, and that some have used drugs only once or twice. But he sees the services that his center provides as a form of addiction prevention, a long-term measure to provide addicts and would-be addicts with the tools to stay sober. The centers treatment approach has been singled out as a potential model for nation-wide application, and it will meet in September with the national police chief to explore this option. But in the meantime, the center is in dire need of funds and manpower. Serenity has been running its treatment program since July without any public or private funds, while center staff, including Musni, work on a voluntary basis. Normally, the center charges private clients 275,000 Philippine pesos (about $6,000) for a six-month treatment course. But since staff members are busy working with surrenderees, they cant take private clients. We are right now helping the country, and I hope the country sees that eventually, said Musni. Duterte is enjoying a honeymoon period with the public, and it has not been easy to criticize his drug war. Part of the reason is Dutertes own penchant for retaliation. Public figures who have called for investigations into the killings, such as Senator Leila De Lima, have been subject to smear campaigns by Duterte himself, who alleged that De Lima was engaged in an extramarital affair with someone involved in the drug trade. Duterte even suggested, If I were De Lima, ladies and gentlemen, I will hang myself. What he has done to De Lima and how hes trying to make her into an example of what happens if you defy the executive on this particular issue has caused some people to be more careful about the things they say, said Lero of the Center for Popular Empowerment. But those hoping to stop the killings also face roadblocks from those who would presumably be natural allies in the fight against state-sponsored murderthe Communist left who were historically the targets of previous administrations. This is because Duterte is seen as the first state leader to make genuine overtures towards reconciliation and even cooperation with these groups. His past as a nominal student activist and a self-proclaimed socialist, as well as his links to left-wing Communist elements in Mindanao, provide him with a level of clout among the left that few previous presidents have enjoyed. Roland Simbulan, a professor at the University of the Philippines, pointed out that Duterte had so far made the most meaningful efforts to engage the New Peoples Army, the armed wing of the Maoist-leaning National Democratic Front, sending negotiators to Oslo in a multi-stage process to end the longest armed Communist insurgency in the world. Duterte has also won praise for his efforts to broker peace with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a Muslim separatist movement in Mindanao, as well as with various breakaway factions of the movement. His promises to build the nations weak industrial base, invest in infrastructure, and reduce dependence on U.S. and foreign capital are also very popular among the nationalist left and other progressive parties. Simbulan added, He has a very good social reform agenda which actually hes doing on a nationwide scale. These things are being overlooked. As cause for optimism, he pointed to Dutertes appointment of Communist Party members to key cabinet posts, including those known for their anti-mining, labor rights, and land reform stances, all historically unpopular with the Philippine government. Valerie Francisco, an assistant professor at San Francisco State University and a member of U.S.-based groups that work with National Democratic organizations in the Philippines, noted that while no one has condoned the killings, Dutertes other political platforms need to be acknowledged. Organizations like hers, she said, are committed to keep him accountable to the things he has maintained in his campaignto get rid of corruption and to continue towards industrializing the Philippines and weaning it off the economic dependence we have on the U.S. But others dismiss the sincerity of Dutertes social reform gestures. Enriquez noted that while the Communist Party might currently be optimistic about Dutertes commitment to socialist causes, his other appointments show that he is still tied to the status quo in the areas of finance, trade, and corporate-led development. Even some fascist or authoritarian governments have accommodated the left in their regimes, she noted. Its not clear whether he even knows the meaning of socialism, added Walden Bello, the former congressman. How long the [Communist Party] will be able to maintain their opposition to the killings while remaining in the cabinet is anyones guess. These sentiments reflect a deep and long-standing divide in the Philippine left. It is partly why it is hard to imagine a more broad-based effort to hold Duterte accountable emerging in the near future. Rafael of the University of Washington noted that this was what made Duterte such a smart politician: Hes moved to neutralize the left. Hes very much a product of a certain kind of populist moment right now which is sweeping the world. The idea that hes progressive left or authoritarian fascist right misses the whole pointI think he combines different elements and thats part of what makes him so politically savvy. Meanwhile, some worry about the potential for Dutertes war to plunge the Philippines into the same chaos that he has promised to rein in, fostering a lawless realm where rumor is king and vendettas are resolved by shootouts. Is this a move to establish authoritarian rule? This article has been updated. | https://newrepublic.com/article/136484/will-anyone-stop-rodrigo-duterte |
Could Donald Trump take The New York Times to court for publishing his tax returns? | Trump has threatened to sue the Times for publishing three pages from his 1995 tax returns. The Times story quotes one of Trumps lawyers, who argued that publication of the records is illegal without Trumps authorization and promised prompt initiation of appropriate legal action. He was referring to section 7213 of the tax code stating that it is a felony for any person to willfully print or publish tax returns provided in a manner unauthorized, which is punishable by a fine of $5,000, imprisonment for five years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Most legal experts, however, are confident that Trump has no basis for a suit against a media organization like the Times, which is protected under First Amendment privileges specific to journalists. The candidate will not be able to win damages in a suit against the paper because the documents printed are of vital public concerna legal precedent established nearly 50 years ago in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court ruled: The theory of our Constitution is that ... every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern, and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. The Supreme Court further clarified the public concern protection in a 2001 case, Bartnicki v. Hopper, deciding in favor of a radio journalist who aired a phone call that was illegally taped by a third party. The legal precedent is overwhelmingly on the side of the Times, but media skeptics have outlined Trumps potential legal strategy against executive editor Dean Baquet. The Hills media columnist Joe Concha and Law Newzs Robert Barnes, a First Amendment and tax lawyer in California, both argued that Baquet displayed willful intent to break the law when he publicly stated that he would risk jail time to obtain Trumps tax records at a Harvard University forum two weeks ago. Barnes, writing for Fox News, suggested that Trump could bring a criminal willfulness prosecution against the editor, claiming that this is as close as you get to a smoking gun of willful intent to break the law. It wouldnt be the first paper Trump has attempted to sue, but theres one snag: If he files a suit, it would be an admission that the returns are real, which could be even more devastating to his campaign. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137392/donald-trump-take-new-york-times-court-publishing-tax-returns |
Wheres Mike Pence? | Trumps running mate has been quiet since a video of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women dropped on Friday afternoon. On Saturday, he released a statement distancing himself from Trump rather than defending him: As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday, Pence said in a statement. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them. I am grateful that he has expressed remorse and apologized to the American people. We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night. Reports said Pence, a committed evangelical, was apoplectic at the release of the video. Its hard to imagine that Pence thinks that going after Bill Clinton, as Trump has signaled he will do, is a good political strategy. Whatever else you think about Pences Christianity, its also unlikely that he thinks that its the right thing to do. And Pence had signalled that he was already carefully eyeing Trumps performance before Trump held the press conference: Abandoning the ticket is on the table. Usually, sharp strategic shifts like this are all-hands-on-deck affairs. But the press conference Trump held today with Bill Clintons accusers seemed to come as a surprise to his surrogates, who only appeared to receive talking points after the fact. We havent heard anything from Pence since his statement yesterday, and Trump just poured gasoline all over the debate stage while holding a lit match. Whether or not Pence was consulted before Trump hit upon this strategy, he will have a lot of questions to answer about his running matethe fact that many Republicans are calling on him to take over the ticket only makes the need for another statement even more necessary. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137608/wheres-mike-pence |
Which Donald Trump will show up to Monday nights debate? | The first Clinton-Trump debate has been marketed by the networks as a mix between the Super Bowl, the Super Bowl halftime show, and Wrestlemania. They have promised viewers a bare-knuckle brawl, a once-in-a-lifetime showdown between two political heavyweights, who will ... talk at each other for 90 minutes! Its rare that you have candidates who are near perfect contrasts: one establishment, one anti-establishment; one disciplined, one unpredictable; etc., etc. But the first debate is being sold like it belongs on pay-per-view for one reason: No one knows what the hell Donald Trump is going to do. Trump is a chaotic candidate who represents a unique threat to American democracy (partly because he is so chaotic). In the lead-up to the debate, there has been some evidence that Trump would deploy the madman strategy that helped him win the Republican primary. Publicly inviting Gennifer Flowers to the debate (even if it was done insincerely) is in keeping with this strategy. Trump wants Clinton to think that anything is possible on Monday. And it is! Id be surprised if Trump, say, dropped his pants and mooned Lester Holt, but anything short of that is on the table. That said, Trump and his team have sent a lot of signals that he is going to be boring. Hes said he wants to play nice, for instance, and his campaign has been playing the expectations game, telling the media that hes barely prepared. Undecided voters seem to be worried about his temperament, so Trump may try to convince them that hes presidential material by not seeming like the completely unqualified candidate that he is. In this sense, Trump may try to pull a Romney, flummoxing Clinton by pretending to be a completely different candidate. This, I think, is the most likely starting point for Trump. His task is to seem calm and presidential for 90 minutes. But were also talking about Donald Trump, who has shown no discipline for the last fifteen months. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137142/donald-trump-will-show-monday-nights-debate |
Will Bill Clinton Come Out of Hiding After the Election? | For all his oratorical gifts, Bill is far from the best person to speak on Hillarys behalf. He has a habit of waxing nostalgic about his own achievements rather than focusing on the present. He is also prone to gaffes, as when he described Obamacare as the craziest thing in the world, and he has gotten defensive when challenged by Black Lives Matter protesters. He is much less disciplined than the other surrogates, even Joe Biden, and much more likely to make news for all the wrong reasons. Finally, Bill works better as a niche surrogate because his politics are nowhere near as central to the Democratic Party as they were in the 1990s. While Clinton still has decent favorability ratings (49 percent in the most recent Gallup poll, compared to 52 percent for Barack Obama), many of his signature issuesdraconian sentencing laws, free trade agreements, and welfare reformare less popular with the Democratic base than they once were. The big, unsettled question is whether Bill will remain so discreet if his wife wins. After all, his current status as an under-the-radar surrogate is an artifice of electioneering needs. Theres every reason to think that he will not be a normal first spouse, but will play an outsized role in the White House. After all, hes been president before, and knows the ropes. Hell certainly have more experience in the presidency than anyone else who has Hillarys ear. Even post-presidency, hes kept in touch with many world leaders through the Clinton Foundation. And hes certainly not overly modest about his abilities or lacking in ambition. When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, he said that by voting for him, the American people would get two for the price of onemeaning that Hillary would play a substantial policy role in his administration. He tapped her to spearhead his healthcare reform effort. Hillarycare (as Republicans labelled it) failed to get off the ground, and she was less publicly involved in policy for the duration of Bills presidency. But behind the scenes, she remained her husbands most trusted advisor, even helping him weather a sex scandal and impeachment. Two for the price of one is not a slogan that either Clinton likes to use anymore. But its still the case that Bill and Hillary Clinton are each others closest political allies, and she will face the same temptation and risks that he did in 1992. (Then again, enlisting Bill in such crucial situations would invite attacks from the right that shes not fully in charge of her own presidency.) We cant possibly know what Hillary has in store for her husbandif she even knows herself. In a speech in Kentucky in March, she said that Bill would be in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it. After the media (and her critics) ran with the news, her campaign clarified that she was referring specifically to distressed economic areas. The quote was a Kentucky play, as NBC News Mark Murray put it, rather than a declaration about Bills future role. Hillary, perhaps chastened, has offered nary a hint since then. But whatever she decides, this much is clear: Bill Clinton might be traveling in the hinterland right now, but after November 8 hell be closer to the center of power than Barack and Michelle and Joe and Bernie and Elizabeth and you. | https://newrepublic.com/article/138117/will-bill-clinton-come-hiding-election |
When will North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory acknowledge the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137051/will-north-carolina-governor-pat-mccrory-acknowledge-shooting-keith-lamont-scott |
Should Hillary Clinton have gone after the tape more last night? | The tape had dominated the news for 72 hours, but Clinton herself stayed mumher aides told the press that she wanted to save her response for the biggest stage possible. And when Anderson Cooper asked her about it, her response was pitch perfect. What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, she said. I think its clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because weve seen this throughout the campaign. He has also targeted immigrants, African Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities. In other words, she wasnt going to pummel Trump with the tape, but to slot it into an argument that shes been building for months: Donald Trump is a bigot who is unfit for the office. But Trump also raised the stakes by appearing in a press conference before the debate with four women who have accused the Clintons of abetting or committing sexual assault, and inviting them to sit in the front row of the debate itself. Trump was clearly using these women as a human shield, and some wondered if the move got under Clintons skin. Feels like we would have heard more on "the tape" from Clinton tonight under other circumstances. Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) October 10, 2016 Clinton was probably held back by the town-hall formatits hard to really pummel your opponent when youre ostensibly supposed to focus on individual voters. But its a question worth asking, especially given that the horse race punditry has knocked Clinton for not finishing Trump off on Sunday. Clinton may have held back to avoid counterpunches about her husband, but its just as likely that she exercised restraint simply because she doesnt have to be the person to pummel Trump over the tape. The Clinton campaign will spend the next month running ad after ad about it, and her surrogates will go on offense, too, allowing her to take the elevated position she did last night. This is an attack thats still going to be incredibly effective for the next four weeks. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137671/hillary-clinton-gone-the-tape-last-night |
Could the closing of ITT Tech mark the beginning of end of the for-profit college? | ITT Technical Institute announced Tuesday morning it will close all of its campuses, displacing some 40,000 students and eliminating the jobs of most of its 8,000 employees. To many this isnt much of a surprise. Last year the CEO and CFO of the college were charged with fraud. And like many other for-profit colleges, the school earned much of its cash from federal student aid, which just last month had been cut off to new students. The end of ITT Tech and similar for-profit colleges such as Corinthian Colleges, which closed in 2015, and Trump University, which is still at the center of several lawsuits, is long overdue. For-profit colleges have come under fire for their poor performance and willingness to profit off of students, who leave with a worthless degree and massive debt. From The Atlantic: A 2010 report found that only 22 percent of first- and full-time students pursuing bachelors degrees at these institutions in 2008 graduated, compared with 55 percent and 65 percent of students at public and private nonprofit universities, respectively. Meanwhile, nearly three-fourths72 percentof the programs offered at for-profit colleges produce graduates who earn less than high school dropouts. Thats why last year President Barack Obama worked to close loopholes in the 90-10 rule which is meant to bar schools from getting more than 90 percent of their revenue through federal aid, grants and loans. ITT Tech blamed the 90-10 rule for its demise on Tuesday. But if Obama has pushed for-profit colleges to the brink over the last few years, its possible that a rosier future is ahead of those that can survive until 2017. Both presidential candidates have connections to the for-profit college industry: Trump through his eponymous university and Clinton via Laureate International Universities, where Bill Clinton was recently paid nearly $18 million to be an honorary chancellor. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/134563/closing-itt-tech-mark-beginning-end-for-profit-college |
Will Mushy Moderates Cost the Democrats a Senate Majority? | McGinty had little natural constituency, and less experience running for officemuch less winningthan either Fetterman or Sestak. Two years earlier, shed finished a distant fourth in a four-person Democratic primary for governor. She did, however, have qualities Democrats value in their recruits: thoroughly inoffensive centrist politics, fundraising prowess, endorsements from Washington insiders, and a willingness to stick to Democratic talking points. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and EMILYs List wooed her into the race. And when her defeat looked likely, the DSCC officially endorsed her in Marchand then made sure that she won the nomination. In early April, the DSCC began pouring money into McGintys primary, expanding its initial investment well beyond the $1.1 million cash infusion they had originally allocated to shore up her campaign. The whopping $4 million spent by the party, EMILYs List, and labor unions was enough to put McGinty over the top. (A headline in The Hill captured the reaction back home: Pennsylvania Democrats Want to Know: Why McGinty?) Democrats want to keep a homogenized campaign, everybody on the same page, everybody united. The party also recruited Cortez Masto to defend Senate Minority Leader Harry Reids seat in Nevada, and Murphy to challenge Marco Rubio in Florida. The Democrats would have had another flavorless centrist challenging Republican Richard Burr in North Carolina, too, if they hadnt been turned down by a string of them. The DSCC sat down with former Senator Kay Hagan in early 2015, just months after her bitter loss in 2014, to gauge her interest in running again. Only after she and several other establishment options refused did Democrats settle on an unconventional choiceliberal former state ACLU chief named Deborah Ross. Ross was considered a sure loss, but shes running close to Burr with one of the most pleasantly surprising campaigns of the cycleoffering a vision as fresh as the partys chosen candidates are stale. This is typical of the Democratic Party. A sprawling coalition of diverse interest groups, from women in urban centers to Latinos in Colorado and Nevada to African Americans in the South, it tends to put its thumb on the scales in favor of down-ballot candidates who can stick to an unobjectionable, nationalized Democratic message. They want to keep a homogenized campaign, everybody on the same page, everybody united, said G. Terry Madonna, a pollster at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster. In practice, that means the Democrats often nominate candidates who stick religiously to safe, tested talking points. McGinty, for examplethe ninth of ten children in a family from northeast Philadelphiahabitually circles back to her working class roots, invoking a gauzy American Dream that says put in your 40 hours, and you will be able to provide for yourself and your kids. She talks about issues like financial regulation, but only in pre-packaged politispeak. We should not defund the financial watchdog, she said of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in September. We should dethrone Pat Toomey. On stickier liberal issues, McGinty has waffled. When Toomey forced her to take a stance on whether to strip sanctuary cities of millions in federal funding this July, she wrote a letter to Jim Kenney, the mayor of Philadelphia, a sanctuary city, asking him to reconsider the policy. The central distinction McGinty has drawn between herself and her opponent is simple: He belongs to the same party as Donald Trump. Donald Trump and Pat Toomey have plenty in common, the narrator in a recent ad from the McGinty campaign says. Even after Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, Toomey stood by him. Her allies have done the same. The Senate Leadership PAC recently released an ad that begins: TOOMEY & TRUMP. Wrong for the women of Pennsylvania. | https://newrepublic.com/article/138122/will-mushy-moderates-cost-democrats-senate-majority |
How dumb does Donald Trump think we are? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137408/dumb-donald-trump-think-are |
Will smaller profile pictures eliminate racism on Airbnb? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136633/will-smaller-profile-pictures-eliminate-racism-airbnb |
Is Sean Hannity gunning for a position in the Trump White House? | Theres a lot of great gossip in Robert Drapers latest piece for The New York Times magazine about the ongoing Trump-fueled civil war in conservative media. We learn, for instance, that Trump and Ann Coulter are especially close, that she helped him with his Mexican rapist announcement speech, and that Trump has given her jewelry and a free membership to Mar-a-Lago. Trump has made my life better in so many ways, Coulter tells Draper. Draper writes that Trump has implicitly encouraged his supporters to consider themselves part of the campaign team, so it should come as no surprise that these members of the media (Im careful to not say journalists) are acting like campaign staffers. And it should especially come as no surprise that some of them may be eyeing positions in the Trump White House, should he win in November. Similarly, while weve known for a while that Trump gets his talking points from conservative radio, Drapers piece lays out just how intertwined they are. Heres Draper on Hannity, for instance: I asked Hannity if it was true that, as a Trump confidant had told me, he wished to be considered as a potential Trump White House chief of staff. Thats news to me, he insisted, adding a politicians practiced nondenial denial: I have radio and TV contracts that I will honor through December 2020. Nonetheless, Hannitys service to the Trump campaign well exceeds that of ritually bashing Clinton and giving Trump free airtime. He has offered private strategic advice to the campaign. The same Trump confidant told me of at least one instance in which Hannity drafted an unsolicited memo outlining the message Trump should offer after the Orlando nightclub shooting in June. This helps explain why the elusive Trump pivot never happened: Trump may be listening to people like Reince Preibus with one ear, but Hannity and Coulter have the other, and theyre the ones who seem to have control over the puppet strings. This should also disqualify Hannity as a theoretically objective source on Trumps supposed (and fake) opposition to the Iraq War. Even if the chief of staff thing really is just a rumor, the fact that Hannity has taken on the mantle of unofficial aide should disqualify his defense of Trump completely. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137317/sean-hannity-gunning-position-trump-white-house |
Can Hillary avoid the Al Gore trap? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137177/can-hillary-avoid-al-gore-trap |
How Could Anyone Think Mail-Order Brides Are Funny? | And while Clarkes experience might make for a compelling story, it is primarily the tale of an abandoned child, centered on her experience. In the This American Life episode, she is unable to offer much sympathy for Pura, and mostly focuses on her disappointment that Pura would never love her as a mother would. This mirrors her fathers attitude, and reinforces the delusional belief that his money could somehow purchase love and affection. Ultimately, in Clarkes eyes, Pura is a symptom of her fathers bad behavior, a bizarre and sad circumstance that complicated Clarkes family dynamic, but not much more than this. While some are happy to claim victory in the shows rapid cancellation, it does not entirely undo the bitter impression left in its wake. Once again, people of color had to jump onto the hamster wheel of pedagogy to educate writers and studio executives. So much ink has been spilled, so many thousands of signatures gathered. Again, we send up a flare into the atmosphere: Dont you have even one Asian friend? Again, we rehash the lack of diversity in writers rooms and network boardrooms. But the issue at hand is not just our exclusion from the room where it happens, but having to live with the perpetual reminder that we are never the audience under consideration. Of course, comedy is not a tender-hearted art form. In the best comedy, taboos are broken and boundaries punctured. When we watch Richard Pryor melt down on stage or Dave Chappelles blind white supremacist routine, we see that comedy is also about fashioning pain into even sharper barbs. But if comedy has a sense of ethics at all, it might be centered on the clich that one should never punch down. Or to put it another way, whats often funniest about difference and identity is not rehashing tired stereotypes, but exploding them. This is one reason why Eddie Murphys homophobic jokes age so badly, or why this years Oscars gag involving Asian-American child actors and child labor flopped. If we are interested in comedic stories of complicated families, there are many acclaimed examples to learn from, in which terrible fathers and awful mothers slide regularly into catastrophe. In shows like Shameless or Arrested Development, the family is mostly a nightmare unit to be endured. There have also been many shows in which domestic workers or nannies are in on the joke, or delivering the bulk of them, like the brash Fran Drescher on The Nanny, or the characters of Lupe on Arrested Development and Rosario on Will & Grace, who often highlight the supreme obliviousness and privilege of their white and wealthy employers. In these shows, moments of delight emerge when Lupe or Rosario outsmart their bosses or highlight their co-dependency. When I lived in the Philippines, it wasnt uncommon to meet people who had spent most of their working years in low-wage jobs abroad, spanning several countries and continents. Women recalled their stints as domestic workers in Hong Kong, Taipei, Dubai, Rome, and Riyadh. Some were only in the Philippines temporarily before leaving for another contract job abroad. Life was, by necessity, transnational; raising children via Skype, making international wire transfers to in-laws, sending gigantic air-mail packages for loved ones back home, all while cleaning the homes and rearing the children of strangers in foreign countries. The Philippines, where the wealthiest families control the majority of the nations GDP and the average monthly income is among the lowest in the world, has yet to become a nation where the majority of women can find decent, paid work. And so they leave, constituting one of the largest outflows of women workers in the world. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137486/anyone-think-mail-order-brides-funny |
Is Donald Trump beta-testing Trump TV? Or is he just out of options? | One of the elections most consistent narratives has been that Donald Trump is only out for himselfthat hes using the national political spotlight to make money and build his brand, which helps explain, for instance, why he frequently turns campaign events into infomercials for his new hotel in Washington, D.C. Trump is reportedly frustrated that he cant monetize his captive audience. Since the summer, rumors have swirled around the idea of a Trump-centered TV network that would compete with Fox News for elderly, far-right eyeballs. Trump TV seems to be more than a glimmer in Trumps eye. Earlier this month, Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner, reportedly met with an investment firm LionTree to discuss a potential network. Before the final debate, the Trump campaign live-streamed what many interpreted as a low-rent test of the concept in the form of a 30-minute show featuring two anchors and General Michael Flynn. And last night, the campaign announced nightly broadcasts at 6:30PM. The first installment of Trump TV was suitably bizarre. The show promised that it would feature none of the spin you see on normal news programs, but then campaign manager Kellyanne Conway came on and spun the hell out of the election, telling anchors Boris Epshteyn and Cliff Sims that everything was fine and Trump had a plausible path to victory. (Epshteyn and Sims, who often finish each others sentences, would be an adorable double act if the sentences they were finishing werent so absurd and/or horrific.) And The Blazes Tomi Lahren, the pundit this election deserves, came on to give Trumps supporters a pep talk: If youre looking for someone thats got a love of country as deep as Donald Trumpand Ive seen itthen youre going to have to join the basket, youre going to have to jump out of the basket, and youre going to have to make your voices heard. Its certainly possible that Trump and his allies, particularly Kushner, are using these livestreams as a trial run. But Trump and company may be turning to livestreams simply ecause they have no other options. Even Fox News (aside from Hannity and, to a lesser extent, OReilly) isnt the safe space it was a month or two ago: Like every other network, it is also reporting that Trump is losing. The Facebook broadcasts exist to give Trump the kind of media bubble he cravesand if they lead to something bigger, then so be it. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138125/donald-trump-beta-testing-trump-tv-just-options |
Is Albert Camus Still a Stranger? | This inversion of his sympathies, this upside-down world, would seem to belie the notion that the depiction of the Arabs in The Stranger reveals Camuss true feelings toward Arabsthat they are incidental, less than human. In fact, Kaplan shows that Camuss treatment of the Arabs was very deliberate. In the fall of 1938, he sketched out the story of the Moorish mistress, the first discernible scene from The Stranger to appear in his notebooks. By the spring and summer of 1939, he knew that his main character would kill an Arab. The relationship between Europeans and Arabs is, as Kaplan writes, the backbone of the book, not merely a platform to pontificate about the absurdity of life. Furthermore, she argues, convincingly, that his use of appellations like Arab and Moorish are not evidence of unconscious prejudice. Rather, by reducing a man to his ethnic label, they are meant to convey a wider prejudice prevalent in colonial Algeriaan inability to see the Arabs as people. At one point in The Meursault Investigation, the main character, Harun, describes a scene that is fixed in his mind: the beach ablaze under the merciless Algerian sun, and the ghostly outline of his brother, Musa, prone on the sand. Above him there is a man holding a cigarette or a revolverone of the many instances in which Daoud conflates the character Meursault with Camus, who was often photographed with a smoldering Gauloises between his lips. The scene never changes, Harun says, and I beat against it like a fly against the windowpane. The scene produces in him a welter of feelingscuriosity and excitement, but also anger and sadnessas well as an impossible desire to pass through the screen or follow the white rabbit. THE MEURSAULT INVESTIGATION by Kamel Daoud Other Press, 160 pp., $14.95 This passage is a good representation of Daouds style: densely allusive, rich with simile, emotionally naked. If Camuss prose, influenced by hardboiled American detective novels, is as cool and polished as the barrel of a gun, then Daouds is raw, jagged, confessional. (It is, in fact, an homage to Camuss novel The Fall, adding yet another thread to Daouds dizzying intertextual tapestry.) The passage captures the utter frustration of the Arab reader of The Stranger, the inability to break the scene open and dive into the life of the anonymous Arab who is eternally nothing more than a blank, a void. Daoud voices that frustration, and answers it by coloring in the details of the murdered mans life, and giving him a name, Musa, that sounds a lot like Meursault. By expanding the universe of The Stranger, Daoud gives us not only a necessary Arab perspective on the relationship that so haunted Camus, but a new understanding of what Camus was trying to achieve in that enigmatic scene on the beach. The Meursault Investigation is, without a doubt, a critique of The Stranger, but it is also much more: an interpretation, a sympathetic companion, one pole of a shared world. This mirroring is most obviously evident in Daouds postmodern plot, the centerpiece of which involves Harun shooting a French settlera roumiin revenge for Musas death. This act quickly becomes absurd: Harun is imprisoned by the mujahideen who are in the midst of liberating Algeria, not for killing the roumi per se, but for doing it during a cease-fire. Harun ends up a stranger in his own country, caught between the old order that fractured his family and a new order that has rejected him. If the novel is partly about the legacy of colonial violencehow it traumatizes its victims, and begets more violenceit is also about a painful estrangement from the world that succeeded it. What Camus and Daoud share, then, is a deep ambivalence toward their homeland. While Camus loved Algeria like a family member, his exile forced him to acknowledge that it was not his completely. I am not from here, he wrote in his lonely hotel room in Montmartre, not from anywhere else either. He added, A Stranger, who can know what this word means. Before The Meursault Investigation, Daoud was best known for his polemical columns in Algerias Quotidien dOran, a French-language newspaper, where he launched attacks on Islamism, autocracy, and Arab nationalismin other words, the very forces that took hold of Algeria in the post-colonial era. (He has since become something of an international spokesperson on these issues, extending his polarizing political reputation to Europe and beyond.) Marseille, 2014: Kamel Daouds novel The Meursault Investigation is narrated by the brother of the nameless man killed in Camuss The Stranger. Bertrand Langlois / Getty Images These criticisms are everywhere in The Meursault Investigation, flowing like acid through Daouds embittered mouthpiece, Harun. On institutionalized Islam: As far as Im concerned, religion is public transportation I never use. And wheres this country everybody claims to carry in their hearts, in their vitals, but which doesnt exist anywhere? On the malignant forces unleashed by the revolution, which led to a civil war between Islamists and Algerias ruling elitele pouvoir, the powerin the 1990s: [T]he beast fattened on seven years of war had become voracious and refused to go back underground. And so through various phases of disillusionment, Harun begins to identify with none other than Meursault. The Stranger, he says, is a mirror held up to my soul and to what would become of me in this country, between Allah and ennui. He understands, better than anyone else, how Meursault could commit such a heinous crime: The murder he committed seems like the act of a disappointed lover unable to possess the land he loves. That Daouds novel would end up on the side of the murdering pied noir has rankled some of his countrymen, one of whom characterized Daoud as a self-hating Algerian who writes as if imperialism and capitalism didnt exist and who comforts white readers. This seeming betrayal could be read as Daouds way of playing Camuss rebel, rejecting the community and all its trappings in the name of an uncompromising individual truth. But it is also to convey a broader truth of how we understand ourselvesthrough the other, the stranger, who is also us. Theres a beach in the Algerian port city of Oran known as la plage de ltrangerthe strangers beach. Camuss biographers have identified it as a spot where an altercation took place, between two Arabs and three of Camuss friends, that very well may have been the real-life inspiration for the climactic scene between the Arabs and pieds noirs in The Stranger. The beach was off-limits to Arabs, setting off a scuffle between the two groups. A knife was brandished, resulting in an injury to one of the Europeans. They retreated to dress his wounds, before returning to the beach with a pistol. But in this version, no shot was fired. The knife-wielding Arab was arrested, but Camuss friends didnt pursue charges. In a sense, the mystery of the Arabs identity has been in plain sight for many years. Out of curiosity, and perhaps with an aim to right the scales of literary history, Kaplan decides to research this incident during a visit to Oran, where Camus spent time in his young adulthood before shipping off to France. Lo and behold, she finds the Arab, in a brief story about the seaside confrontation in the Alger-Rpublicain from 1939: a young man named Kaddour Touil. She finds his surviving family, and fills out his story. Like Camus, he was in France during the war, though he ended up returning to Algeria after marrying a Frenchwoman. No one remembers the fight on the beachit is chalked up to boys being boys, two young roosters on the beach. Camus and Daoud both attest that ideologies have their limits, and that life is understood as it is lived. It is a fitting conclusion for a book that tries to square Camuss warring legacies. But any lasting reconciliation has to occur when we actually read and interpret the bookon the very same beach, so to speak, where the Arab was killed. As Harun warns his unidentified interlocutor, Dont do any geographical searching, since [t]his story takes place somewhere in someones head, in mine and in yours and in the heads of people like you. In a sort of beyond. In striking out for the beyond, Daoud manages to meet Camus at the point where he could go no further. In making his post-colonial critique, Daoud also offers its response. Whether others will be as forgiving is another question. As Kaplan notes in her introduction to Algerian Chronicles, a collection of Camuss reportage and essays on Algeria, his reputation has shifted with Algerias politics, particularly in the aftermath of the Islamist insurgency of the 1990s, when secular Algerians began to see something of themselves in the pieds noirs of the 1950s and 60s, who were deemed insufficiently Algerian. What, were supposed to leave Algeria now? one academic asks her. Were as much Algerians as they are! This was Camuss own point about the pieds noirs, particularly the poor ones, like the members of his family, who knew no other home. This was the philosophy behind his most infamous statement about the war for independence: People are now planting bombs in the tramways of Algiers. My mother might be on one of those tramways. If that is justice, then I prefer my mother. It read as solipsism then, but now it points to the primary quality that Camus and Daoud share: an aversion to fundamentalism of any kind. They attest that ideologies and scholarly theories have their limits, and that life is understood as it is lived. As the existentialists might say, there is only the world. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137009/camus-investigation |
Is Chris Wallace too close to Roger Ailes to moderate a presidential debate? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136540/chris-wallace-close-roger-ailes-moderate-presidential-debate |
Does Donald Trump have any path to victory? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138119/donald-trump-path-victory |
Is Hillary Clinton conceding Ohio? | Since John F. Kennedy won the state in 1960, every successful presidential campaign has won Ohio. But the Clinton campaign is sending signals that its abandoning the battleground state. According to a new report from The New York Timess Jonathan Martin, Clinton has at least one foot out the door in the Buckeye State, where Trump has held a small lead for the last several weeks. Hillary Clinton has not been to the state since Labor Day, and her aides said Thursday that she would not be back until next week, after a monthlong absence, effectively acknowledging how difficult they think it will be to defeat Donald J. Trump here, Martin writes. Former Ohio Democratic Party chair James Ruvolo told Martin that the Clinton campaign wont abandon the state entirely, however. Theyll keep putting in money, but I dont think theyre going to put a lot of her time in here. Martin and a number of the people he spoke to note that Ohio is not quite the crucial bellwether state it once was. Clinton has many paths to get to 270 electoral votes and Ohio, which is whiter, older, and less-educated than the nation as a whole, may not be as easy to win as other key states, like North Carolina and, most importantly, Florida. But the Clinton campaigns decision not to fight tooth and nail for Ohio is still notable. It wasnt so long ago that it was eyeing an electoral landslidesix weeks ago they were talking about invading Arizona and Georgia. With less than 40 days until the election, the campaign appears to be shifting to a strategy of putting more resources into fewer states. And for all the demographic challenges Ohio presents, Barack Obama won the state twice, meaning that there is a way for a Democrat to win Ohio if Clinton can convince voters there that Trump is not the populist defender of the working class he pretends to be. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137331/hillary-clinton-conceding-ohio |
Should Hillary Clintons inner circle place high hopes in Paul Ryan if Clinton wins? | The Huffington Posts Jonathan Cohn has a long and very interesting feature about Clintons policy agenda, the state of Democratic politics, and what a Clinton presidency could look like. Theres a lot of interesting stuff in hereincluding the irony of the fact that Clinton has invested heavily in policy during an election that has been all about personalitybut one paragraph in particular stuck out to me: Clintons inner circle is also placing high hopes on the man who could end up becoming her chief antagonist: Paul Ryan. Last year, the Republican House speaker worked with the White House and Democratic leaders to pass an omnibus spending bill that gave both parties something to smile about in the tax policy department. To one Clinton ally, this signaled that Ryan and the Republicans, even in the context of an election campaign, are prepared to do business on not-insignificant matters. This person went on: The optimistic storyline is that its a precursor to future cooperation and, after an election when you have some kind of wind at your back as a new president, itd be very difficult for them not to work with you on some of these kinds of things. Of course, as Cohn notes, Obama also entered the White House in 2008 with the same high hopes, having won an electoral mandate with a post-partisan message. There has been very little cooperation over the last eight years, however, even though Obama won another mandate in 2008. If elected, its highly likely that Republicans will acknowledge that Clinton has a mandate, howeverits likely that theyll cite her (likely) narrow victory or her (lunatic) opponent to delegitimize her. Meanwhile, the biggest threat to Ryans speakership is internal, given that Republicans would probably win more seats in 2018his incentive is to placate his own party and the right and hope for a Republican president in 2020. Certainly not, though its worth pointing out here that, despite the high hopes rhetoric, the bar is very low here: Given the partisan makeup of Congress, Clinton and Ryan would almost certainly have no choice but to work together occasionally. Team Clinton wasnt going to come out and say it was gearing up for four years of trench warfare, even though thats probably whats going to happen. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137030/hillary-clintons-inner-circle-place-high-hopes-paul-ryan-clinton-wins |
Is Nate Parker really trying to be better? | His most recent interviews with Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes and Robin Roberts on Good Morning America make it difficult to believe that the Birth of a Nation star understands the concept. Parker told Cooper that he did not feel guilty about what happened the night he allegedly raped a woman in the 1990s, and that he did not owe anyone an apology. His tone during both appearances differed vastly from his interview with Ebony in August, when he presented himself as a man ready to change. Im a work in progress, he said. Im trying to be better. But with four days until the films wide release, the only thing Parker seems to have changed is his mind. I was falsely accused, Parker told Cooper, beginning to choke on his words. I was falsely accused. I went to court and I sat in trial, I was vindicated, I was proven innocent and I was vindicated and I feel terrible that this woman isnt here and I feel terrible that her family had to deal with that, but as I said an apology isno. This morning, when pressed by Roberts, Parker said, almost annoyed, I was falsely accused, I was proven innocent, and I am not going to apologize. There are many problems with Parkers statements, from his continued focus on his legal innocence (his alleged accomplice was convicted of rape, only to have his conviction overturned), to his apparent lack of introspection about any role that night might have played in the womans suicide in 2012. But whats really striking is the gap between Parkers behavior and his own rhetoric about how his art is motivated by a sense of responsibility. I use my art to really deal with the things that I see everyday with hope that it could create a solution, he told Roberts. As we know that with black men being killed in America, we have become desensitized to the things that are happening. What is our responsibility? Rape culture is a real problem in America. Its the culture of boys will be boys and well, she shouldnt have Its one that teaches women how to avoid rape instead of teaching boys not to rape. Parker speaks passionately about his films importance in forcing viewers to think about their personal responsibility for change, even though he seems so unwilling to do so himself. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137403/nate-parker-really-trying-better |
Can Mike Pence convince women its OK to vote for a misogynist? | In the days before the first presidential debate, the Trump campaign saw a glimmer of hope. For months, the Republican nominee had been lagging in the polls with women, a crucial cohort in national elections. But as Hillary Clinton lost some of her support nationally in early September, her advantage among women all but evaporated. Polls showed that Donald Trump had pulled almost even with the Democratic nominee among women. Days before the debate, he was down just five points. Then, at the debate, Trump rattled off some acerbic comments about Rosie ODonnell and took the bait when Clinton mentioned Alicia Machado, the 1996 Miss Universe whom Trump had called Miss Housekeeping and ridiculed for gaining weight. In three days, Clinton had regained her 20-point lead with women. Trump, it seems, is incapable of restraining himself from insulting and alienating women. Thats why he needs Mike Pence. At Virginias Longwood University tonight, expect the Indiana governor to turn on the charm. If any politician can appeal to Republican women, its Pence. Its not just that he has a wife of over 30 years, a squeaky clean personality, and a photogenic smile. As an evangelical Christian, he also fervently opposes abortion. With Trump avoiding the topic altogether, Republican women may welcome Pences strong views on the subject. If he fails to win Republican women over, Trump could be in real trouble. According to Politico, Trump is losing educated white women to Hillary Clinton by a staggering 30 points, 57 to 27 percent. Four years ago, Romney won the same demographic by 6 points. In order to cobble together a decent showing on November 8, Trump needs at least some of them on his side. And Mike Pence, believe it or not, is pretty much his best shot at winning them over. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137456/can-mike-pence-convince-women-its-ok-vote-misogynist |
Is it Don DeLillos Year to Win the Nobel Prize? | No American has won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 23 years, not since Toni Morrison. And its easy to presume that the game is rigged against the United States: In 2008, Horace Engdahl, then the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, went out of his way to dis American literature as a whole when he shot down rumors that two Americans, Joyce Carol Oates and Philip Roth, were shortlisted for the prize. Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you cant get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world, not the United States, he said. The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They dont translate enough and dont really participate in the big dialogue of literature. That ignorance is restraining. The backlash to Engdahls comments was severe. New Yorker editor David Remnick, for instance, responded by reminding the Academy of all the times it had screwed up: You would think that the permanent secretary of an academy that pretends to wisdom but has historically overlooked Proust, Joyce and Nabokov, to name just a few non-Nobelists, would spare us the categorical lecture. Adam Kirsch accused the academy of prizing anti-Americanism in its laureates. But the criticism changed nothing: Seven Nobel Prizes in Literature have been awarded since then, and none of them went to Americans. Many in the U.S.like The Daily Beasts Malcolm Jones, who on Tuesday wrote a thoughtful version of whats become a seemingly evergreen takethink that the Swedish Academy has blackballed American writers. But a lot has changed since 2008. In the age of Barack Obama, anti-Americanism is less of a cultural force than it used to be, potential president/gilded human outhouse Donald Trump notwithstanding. American literature itself isslowlybecoming more self-critical, more hard-edged, and thus less insular and self-satisfied. Paul Beattys The Sellout, Claudia Rankines Citizen, and Colson Whiteheads The Underground Railroad are all still outliers in Americas mostly white publishing culture, but they also seem like signs of things to come. And the alleged exemplars of American hermeticism are either dead (John Updike), retired (Roth), or have ruined their careers by writing dumb shit on Twitter (Oates). (For that matter, Roth promoted many great Eastern European writers as the editor of the great Writers From the Other Europe series. But Engdahls comments arent interesting because theyre right; theyre interesting because theyre a window into how the Swedish Academy thinks.) Theres a chance that 2016 might be differentthat an American could bring home the Nobel Prize in Literature, a silver lining in what has otherwise been a tire fire of a year. Every October a few writers surge in the betting, and sometimes one of those authors wins. As The Guardian reported on Tuesday, Analysis last week from Ladbrokes has shown that over the last 10 years the favorite when betting was suspended has taken the prize four times, while 91 percent of the time the winner has had odds of 10/1 or less when betting was suspended. Ive written before that Ladbrokes betting should be taken with a grain of salta point that became even clearer when a number of writers I heralded in an often tongue-in-cheek Nobel prediction post skyrocketed in the odds. (Im sorry if you bet on Charles Portis, but he is not going to win. Please dont beat me up.) | https://newrepublic.com/article/137739/don-delillos-year-win-nobel-prize |
Does Donald Trump have pneumonia? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137197/donald-trump-pneumonia |
What if Obama had lied about his opposition to the Iraq war? | NBC News got an earful from critics after Matt Lauer on Wednesday night allowed Donald Trump to lie about opposing the Iraq war. The network got another, smaller earful from critics Thursday, when it posted this tweet. Donald Trump doubles down on disputed Iraq war opposition claim https://t.co/jKJtbSGOiK pic.twitter.com/sSHNuuXpTM NBC News (@NBCNews) September 9, 2016 Of course, theres nothing disputed about it. His claim to have opposed the Iraq war before it began is false. As of Friday morning, the linked article portrayed the situation accurately, which suggests an upside to all of this weeks failures: Trump wont be able to lie so brazenly about this to reporters and moderators in the future. The fact that hes gotten so far in this campaign on the basis of fabricated opposition to the Iraq war is genuinely shocking. It isnt one of his more incidental lies, like that hes a generous altruist or that Trump Tower sells the worlds best taco bowl. It rests at the foundation of the story he tells about his candidacy: that though he lacks governing experience, he has better judgment than both the 16 Republicans he defeated in the primary and trigger happy Hillary Clinton. Along with racism, its one of the big reasons hes the GOP nominee, and its a story he continues to tell to this day about why he deserves to be president. We dont have to go back all that far to remember someone who, despite very little political experience, became president because he opposed the Iraq war when everyone else was falling into line. Now imagine it had been revealed in 2008 that Barack Obamas opposition to the Iraq war was fabricatedthat hed just made it up. It wouldnt have been disputed. He just wouldve lost. In other words, it isnt good enough to simply correct Trump every time he repeats this lie going forward. It should dog him every day from now until the election, even if he stops telling it. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136676/obama-lied-opposition-iraq-war |
What is Donald Trump doing? | Meeting with Mexican president Enrique Pea Nieto on Wednesday afternoon, Trump seemed out of it, like he had just woken up from a diet pill bender and didnt quite know where he was. He seemed a little desperate to not seem too demagogical in front of a foreign leader whose country he has repeatedly insulted throughout this election cycle. He wasnt nice, per se, but diminished: A low-energy Trump. He didnt even demand that Mexico pay for the wall! What many were expecting to be a bare-knuckle brawl ended up looking more like two people cosplaying as world leaders: No one, including Pea Nieto, seemed to really know what the hell they were doing. But on Wednesday evening, the old Trump was back. After promising a softening in his immigration policy for days, Trump stepped up to the stage and did no such thing. Instead, he talked about how all immigrants are bad and dangerous and are probably going to kill you. He said that the U.S. is a bully and, in a wink to his alt right friends, that we need to bring back bullying. And he said that Mexico is going to pay for the wall, something he reiterated Thursday morning on Twitter. Looking for any coherence in the Trump campaign is always a mistake, in large part because the campaign seems to be run as a confederation of loosely affiliated city states rather than something more coherent. (Ivanka and Kellyanne Conway, the Trump bros, and Steve Bannon, at the very least, all seem to have their own fiefdoms.) The Mexico trip seems to have come from Chris Christie and Jared Kushner; the speech last night was pure Bannon. Put together, the two statements dont say much, though I suppose you could make an argument that Trump has adopted a one for them (meaning skeptical voters) and one for us (meaning his own base) approachthat the trip to Mexico was meant to woo over fence-sitters and the speech in Arizona was meant to convince his base that he was the same old guy. Thats a pretty stupid way to run a campaign though, because you always end up where you started fromTrumps very few Latino backers are distancing themselves from Trump after the speech. Instead, two related issues explain Trumps incoherence. The first is, as my colleague Brian Beutler has pointed out, Trump is a bad politician and seems genuinely incapable of sound political judgment, especially if it could cost him the rabid crowds he loves so much. The second is that the Trump campaign knows theyre losing and losing badlyno matter what Drudge shock polls he throws outand need to start throwing shit at the walls to see what sticks. And throw shit at the walls is exactly what they did on Wednesday. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136496/donald-trump-doing |
Who Will Win the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature? | Famous, Famous-ish, and Not-at-All Famous Non-American Writers Who Are Not Going to Win Haruki Murakami (Japanese novelist and jogger; 4/1 odds) John Banville (Irish novelist; 20/1 odds) Milan Kundera (Czech novelist and playwright; 50/1 odds) William Trevor (Irish novelist, short story writer, and playwright; 66/1 odds) Rohinton Mistry (Indo-Canadian novelist and short story writer; 66/1 odds) Margaret Atwood (Canadian novelist, poet, and essayist; 66/1 odds) Paul Muldoon (Irish poet; 66/1 odds) Salman Rushdie (Indo-British novelist, short story writer, and Facebook user; 66/1 odds) Tom Stoppard (English playwright and screenwriter; 66/1 odds) Colm Toibin (Irish novelist, short story writer, and essayist; 66/1 odds) Julian Barnes (English novelist and essayist; 66/1 odds) Don Paterson (Scottish poet; 100/1 odds) A. S. Byatt (English novelist; 100/1 odds) James Kelman (Scottish novelist, short story writer, playwright, and essayist; 100/1 odds) Hilary Mantel (English novelist and short story writer; 100/1 odds) Mostly these are famous writers who people have bet on because theyre famous. Some have strong claims to being Nobel-ish, but theres always a but. Trevor is interesting, but hes too similar to Alice Munro, who won in 2013. Stoppard would be great, but he wrote Shakespeare in Love. Atwood would be cool, but theres Munro again, which means a Canadian isnt going to win for a long, long time. Kundera seems like a Nobel contender in a lot of ways, but he isnt even the best Czech writer of his generation (thatd be Ivan Klima) and he hasnt done good work in a long, long time. Don Paterson clearly bet on himself to win, which is something I would advise marginal English language writers to do. And then theres Murakami, who always leads the betting and has a credible claim to being our Dickensan internationally popular, accessible, and often brilliant writer. But Murakami is not going to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. One other interesting thing to note: Last year, the popular British novelists in contention, aka Chris Hitchenss Former Designated Drivers, were Salman Rushdie and Ian McEwan; this year, Julian Barnes seems to have wrestled the keys away from McEwan, or perhaps McEwans Look Whos Talking novelization was seen as being not Nobel material. Sorry, but These Americans Are Not Going to Win Philip Roth (American novelist; 7/1 odds) Bob Dylan (American songwriter and radio host; 50/1 odds) Richard Ford (American novelist and short story writer; 66/1 odds) Cormac McCathy (American novelist and screenwriter; 66/1 odds) Joan Didion (American novelist and essayist; 66/1 odds) Ursula Le Guin (American novelist and wizard; 66/1 odds) Were due! We really are. An American hasnt won the Nobel since Toni Morrison won in freaking 1993. But 2016 is not Americas year. For one thing, any American who won would probably have to say something about the Age of Trump or whatever in their Nobel lecture. And dont get me wrong: The Nobel Committee would love nothing more than to send a passive-aggressive signal to America by awarding the prize to someone who stands for everything Donald Trump opposes. But none of these elder statesmen and -women really fits that bill. That none of these Americans can really claim the mantle of The One True Great American Novelist makes it even harder. Many of these writers are also interested in navel-gazing Great American Male questions, and the Nobel has moved on since it gave the prize to Hemingway. Roth would be the favorite, but retirement should disqualify him. The lede of this Richard Ford review of Bruce Springsteens memoir disqualifies him, but the Nobel Committee wouldnt give him the prize anyway, for fear of being cussed out. Cormac McCarthy wont win because Darkness implacable would beat down on the man as he spat violently onto the dirt. LeGuin is too popular and too genre, even though that would rule. And a nonfiction writer won last year, making a Didion victory unlikely. Bob Dylan 100 percent is not going to win. Stop saying Bob Dylan should win the Nobel Prize. Were due! Its been 23 years! Give us the prize or well elect Donald Trump! There are a lot of reasons to believe that none of these writers will win. Robinsons writing is too fixated on Grace and the peculiarities of American theologies. Lydia Davis has never written a story longer than two sentences. Don DeLillo may as well be retired. Pynchon is too goofy. (That said, seeing what Pynchon would do with the acceptance speech would be amazing and Pynchon really isnt too goofy and absolutely deserves to win.) Of these writers, only Ashbery can really claim to be the godfather of an entire class of American literature, though something tells me that if the Nobel goes to a poet, it wont be him. I recently told a colleague that I thought Portis should win and they straight up laughed in my face. (Portis is our Mark Twain.) Joyce Carol Oates Joyce Carol Oates (14/1 odds) Im of two minds here. Giving Joyce Carol Oates the Nobel would be amazing. The response to it would be amazing, her tweets about it would be amazing. Literary awards are usually dull and often pointless, but Oates winning would set fire to everything we thought we knew about the Nobel Prize. Yes, we would. But also, giving Joyce Carol Oates the Nobel would be bad, even if they made a dispensation that said, This award does not apply to her tweets, which are bad. In any case, if you are the person who bets on Joyce Carol Oates every year so she is always near the top of the Ladbrokes Nobel Prize list, my email address is [email protected]. Maybe, Just Maybe, This Year... Or Next Year.... Or, More Accurately, in Five Years Ismail Kadare (Albanian novelist and poet; 16/1 odds) Javier Maras (Spanish novelist, short story writer, essayist, and translator; 16/1 odds) Lszl Krasznahorkai (Hungarian novelist and screenwriter; 20/1 odds) Cesar Aira (Argentine novelist, short story writer, and essayist; 20/1 odds) Peter Handke (Austrian novelist and playwright; 25/1 odds) Pter Ndas (Hungarian novelist, playwright, and essayist; 25/1 odds) Amos Oz (Israeli novelist; 25/1 odds) Adam Zagajewski (Polish poet and essayist; 33/1 odds) Enrique Vila-Matas (Spanish novelist; 66/1 odds) A lot of men! Specifically, a lot of very serious men who are widely read by very serious men. I went to a Krasznahorkai reading a few years ago and it was what I imagine attending a Rush concert wouldve been like in 1980upper-middle class single white men between the ages of 18 and 34 as far as the eye could see. These are all deserving candidates, but this is probably not their year, and it may never be. In some cases, its that they are on the young sidemost are in their 60s or early 70s, practically spring chickens as far the Nobel is concerned. Furthermore, theres evidence to suggest that an international reputation (i.e. being popular or popular-ish in America) works against authors vying for the Nobel. Recent history may work against them, tooa European novelist, Patrick Modiano, won in 2014, which is a significant barrier to entry. Albanian novelist and person who maybe deserves the Nobel the most in this group Ismail Kadare faces an additional barrier in that he often writes about the evils of 20th century communism and totalitarianism, a fixation that overlaps significantly with recent winners Alexievich and Modiano and Herta Mueller. But I could see at least two of these writers (my bets: Krasznahorkai and Marias) winning in the next decade. Karl Ove Knausgaard (Norwegian cigarette smoker; 66/1 odds) Pretty annoying! Les Murray (Australian poet and critic; 50/1 odds) Gerald Murnane (Australian novelist; 50/1 odds) David Malouf (Australian novelist; 66/1 odds) Peter Carey (Australian novelist; 66/1 odds) An Australian hasnt won the Nobel Prize since 1973 (Patrick White), so the continent of Australia is overdue. Antnio Lobo Antunes (Portugese novelist; 20/1 odds) Abraham B. Yehoshua (Israeli novelist; 25/1 odds) Doris Kareva (Estonian poet; 33/1 odds) Mircea Cartarescu (Romanian novelist, poet and essayist; 33/1 odds) Juan Mars (Catalan novelist, journalist, and screenwriter; 33/1 odds) Kjell Askildsen (Norwegian short story writer; 33/1 odds) Claudio Magris (Italian novelist and nonfiction writer; 33/1 odds) Nawal El Saadawi (Egyptian novelist and nonfiction writer; 50/1 odds) Cees Nooteboom (Dutch novelist and poet; 50/1 odds) Leonard Nolens (Belgian poet and memoirist; 50/1 odds) Jaan Kaplinski (Estonian poet and philosopher; 50/1 odds) Jussi Adler-Olsen (Danish novelist; 50/1 odds) Olga Tokarczuk (Polish novelist; 50/1 odds) Yevgeniy Yevtushenko (Russian poet; 50/1 odds) Karel Schoeman (South African novelist and translator; 66/1 odds) Yan Lianke (Chinese novelist and short story writer;66/1 odds) Bei Dao (Chinese poet; 66/1 odds) Nuruddin Farah (Somali novelist; 66/1 odds) Dacia Maraini (Italian novelist, playwright, and essayist; 66/1 odds) Juan Goytisolo (Spanish novelist, poet, and essayist; 66/1 odds) Mia Couto (Mozambican novelist and short story writer; 66/1) odds Eduardo Mendoza-Garriga (Spanish novelist; 66/1 odds) F. Sionil Jos (Filipino novelist and short story writer; 100/1 odds) Antonio Muoz Molina (Spanish novelist; no Ladbrokes odds) Mohammed Dowlatabadi (Iranian novelist; no Ladbrokes odds) Sergio Pitol (Mexican novelist, short story writer, and essayist; no Ladbrokes odds) Dubravka Ugresic (Croatian novelist, short story writer, and essayist; no Ladbrokes odds) Dag Solstad (Norwegian novelist, short story writer, and playwright; no Ladbrokes odds) Someone Youve Never Heard of From a Country Youve Never Visited (2/1 Ladbrokes odds) With the last three Nobel Prizes having gone to a Canadian international bestselling author who writes in the coveted people looking at lakes category (Alice Munro), a French guy who writes about remembering stuff that he thought he forgot but actually didnt (Patrick Modiano), and a Belarusian woman who sort of makes stuff up and calls it oral history (Svetlana Alexievich), this years winner is anyones guess. But the underdog always has a distinct advantage. The Nobel Prize often goes to writers who have little or no publishing history in the United States, and that includes a whole heck of a lot of the people included above. And even those who have been published in the U.S. are not widely read. But there are a lot of stellar names in this category. Antunes and Yehoshua are not as widely read in the U.S. as they should be, and both are probably the greatest living writers in their respective countries. Solstad is the Scandanivan most likely to snatch the Nobel from Jon Fosses hands. The Romanian writer Mircea Cartarescu will win the award, but probably not until sometime in the mid-2020s. Still, many of these contenders are too similar to recent winners. If an unknown wins the Nobel, it is more likely than not that they wont come from this list. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137496/will-win-2016-nobel-prize-literature |
Whats Love Got To Do With It? | Marriage, plotwise, is usually the end of the story: happily ever after, roll credits. This began to seem absurd to me after I got married and realized that, lifewise, its just the beginning. Marriage, as it turns out, isnt just a single decision, after which life unspools in a set course, but rather a series of constant negotiations, logistical rejiggerings, and identity crises. Its easy to understand why these messy realities have, until recently, been hard to portray on television; the strictures of the 23-episode series, aired once a week for 30 minutes, used to require much simpler narrative structures. The couple was either at the center of a comedic universe, where story lines spun out from friends, work, and family, or they were the antagonists of a dramatic plot, tracing a path toward their permanent dissolution. Lately, though, a spate of new shows has blended both humor and pathos, telling at last a more complex story about contemporary marriage. My partner and I are currently watching the most television weve ever watched togetherwere in the first year of our marriage, and of our sons life. Weve been drawn to these new shows because theyre awkward, flawed, and often sort of hard to watch, but in spite of or because of those factors, theyre just what weve needed. We flew through Togetherness, HBOs recently canceled two-season comedy about an unhappy couple whose love competes with their ego-driven immaturity; binged on Catastrophe, the Amazon series in which a transatlantic fling results in a pregnancy and an impulse marriage; and devoured Divorce, Sarah Jessica Parkers new HBO series that spins out one marriages murky ending. This trifecta of shows, when you say their titles in that ordertogetherness, catastrophe, divorceappears to tell a common story about what can happen to love when its domesticated. While the protagonists are still white, heterosexual, and upwardly mobile, there is something that feels modern about the way their relationships come together and fall aparthappy moments are shot through with a sad glance, arguments are never really resolved, and sex is for whenever you can get it. Its hard to consider any of these shows outright comedies: Though some moments in each are out-loud funny, the stakes of what the failure of their relationships would mean to the characters are made clear in a way that keeps things remarkably tense and often incredibly sad. The 1950s were a golden age for television, when American mythmaking about marriage was at its zenith. Though the traditional family of the time may never have really existedsocial historian Stephanie Coontz calls the nuclear, middle-class, breadwinner-father-who-knows-best model an ahistorical amalgam of structures, values, and behaviors that never coexisted in the same time and placeit has continued to hold considerable sway in the world of scripted television. For more than 50 years, you were either in or you were out: A marriage was good and you preserved it, or it was bad and you dealt with it. But for the most part, the problems in sitcom marriages boiled down to a perpetual conflict caused by one character flaw per person, which was always resolved via indomitable, if improbable, sexual attractionone never seen, but always present. Sex is more explicit on these new shows, as is its use as a bargaining chip, communication medium, and weapon. Though the central couples on Togetherness, Catastrophe, and Divorce all live in different places and are at slightly different ages and life stagesLos Angeles, London, suburban New York; thirties, forties, fiftiestheir relationships are all tested by the same factors. All deal with the fallout from having childrenhow the personal and professional sacrifices of parenthood have deformed their identities, and how hard the struggle can be to get those identities back. Instead of asking whether a couple should stay together, these shows examine whether the shortcut of infidelity or the sloggier path of professional reinvention is a better way to reclaim a selfhood. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137054/whats-love-got-it |
Why has Donald Trump drawn out the birther question for weeks? | Birtherism is the foundation of Trumps political career. By asking repeated racist and delegitimizing questions about President Barack Obamas birthplace, Trump built the movement that would propel him to the Republican nomination in 2016. But for the past few weeks, Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, and Kellyanne Conway, among others, have insisted that Trump is a birther no more. And over the same period of time, Trump himself was silent on the issue, claiming instead that he doesnt talk about that anymore. The first question is more straightforward. Trumps position as the leader of the birther movement is an election issue, and its one that reporters have repeatedly asked about over the past 15 months. Its possible that the news conference Trump is holding on Friday morning is meant to make the issue go away. But its more likely that theres a bit of strategy involved. Trumps outreach to African Americans is not really about winning the black votethats not going to happen. Instead, its been about trying to give so-called moderate or suburban Republicans an excuse to vote for himrenouncing birtherism, in this light, is an attempt to take away an excuse for these voters not to vote for him. The race is tightening and the Trump campaign doesnt want what they think of as distractions from Trumps larger message. Similarly, Trump and his team may simply be working to take a card out of Clintons deck ahead of the debates. If Clinton tries to attack him for being a birther he can claim to have buried the issue and try to move on. Finally, though less likely, its also possible that the Trump campaign has begun to see Obamas rising popularity as a liability. The question of why Trump has taken months to personally address his birther pastand drawn out that address for weeksis harder to answer, however. Its possible that this is a last resort, an acknowledgment that the issue cant be handled by surrogates alone. So you watch. The Trump campaign has been committed to political theater above all else, and Trumps supposed renunciation of birtherism looks like its just that. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136872/donald-trump-drawn-birther-question-weeks |
Is the press objectively pro-Trump or just objectively pro-media? | New York Times columnist Paul Krugman contends my theorythat the medias trade-like mentality explains a great deal of what troubles liberals about this seasons election coveragedoesnt do enough work. It doesnt explain why the Clinton emails were a never-ending story but the disappearance of millions of George W. Bush emails wasnt, or for that matter Jeb Bushs deletion of records; the revelation that Colin Powell did, indeed, offer HRC advice on how to have private email the way he did hasnt even been reported by some major news organizations. Obviously the shortcomings of any large enterprise are multivariate. It would be reductive to claim that media self-interest, or any other single incentive, explains anything as vast and diffuse as political media by itself, and I noted as much in the article. But I think Krugmans examples actually support my argument more than they undermine it. The Clinton email saga is the product of a perfect synergy between typical conservative scandal-mongering and the medias indignation that information they were entitled to, if otherwise uninterested in, had been concealed. The lost Bush administration emails were a pretty big story at the time (slightly lost perhaps in myriad other scandals and a big election), and would have been a huge story had Bush not been a failed second-term president who was on his way out of office. Similarly, Colin Powell never ran for the presidency, so there was less attendant media interest in seeing his records. The fact that he circumvented public systems is, in my view, important context for evaluating Clintons tenure as a cabinet secretary, but the fact that the media is less interested in her relative performance in office than in the availability of her records is 100 percent consistent with my analysis. I also think Trumps tax returns are at least on a par, public interest-wise, with Clintons emailsand sure enough, the political media hounds the Trump campaign about his failure to disclose these records much more than they do about his historically poor grasp of federal policy or his authoritarianism or even his racism, which is generally treated as something he can pivot from, rather than a disqualifying character indictment. My point isnt that if the media took a broader view of democratic accountability, its coverage of the election would be flawless or unobjectionable to liberals. But I do believe its the single best way to explain the mutual incomprehension between liberals, who worry that Trump poses a threat to U.S. democracy in very broad ways, and news outlets, which see themselves first and foremost as defenders of one particular pillar of liberal society. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136760/press-objectively-pro-trump-just-objectively-pro-media |
How long will Harvard hold out against its striking dining hall workers? | Seven hundred and fifty workers at one of the nations most elite universities have been on strike for higher wages and a revision to their health care plans since October 5. It is the first strike at the school in 33 years. But three weeks in, Harvards administration shows no signs of budging. Today, one of the striking workers, Rosa Ines Rivera, penned an op-ed for The New York Times in which she wrote, While Ive earned no college credits here, Ive had a lesson in hypocrisy. As a worker in the public health school dining hall, Rivera noted the gap between the schools purported mission to make health care a fundamental right for all and its proposal that its lowest paid workers take on a larger share of their health insurance costs. That proposal would take nearly 10 percent of the workers annual incomes, according to an analysis by Harvard medical students, and isnt affordable for most of the workers based on state guidelines. Ironically, Harvard faculty protested similar changes in health insurance premiums last year, when their deductible was raised from $0 to $250 a person. The school ultimately conceded to the faculty in that fight, offering them plans without any deductibles or coinsurance costs. The dining hall workers are also demanding a raise, to $35,000 a year. Currently, according to Rivera, the average salary for a Harvard dining hall worker is $31,193 a year. This wasnt enough to keep her and her two children in their own apartment in the Boston area. Harvard has countered that this salary is higher than the minimum wage and higher than what other cafeteria workers make in Boston. Yet the sticking point for many is that Harvard is the wealthiest school in the nation, with its $35 billion endowment, far above the next schools by $10 billion. As faculty, students, local politicians, and even celebrities join the picketers, it is clear that momentum is building to push the administration to re-negotiate with the striking workers and finalize a contract. But there has been no sign from the administration that any progress has been made. Instead, the school has hired temporary workers and offered boxed lunches, a solution that has resulted in students finding meat in bread pudding, uncooked chicken, and bugs in their food. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138092/long-will-harvard-hold-striking-dining-hall-workers |
Will Democrats Nuke the Filibuster? | Merkley has been arguing for rules changes in the Senate since he arrived there from Oregon in 2009. As the new sessions began in 2011 and 2013, Merkley and Tom Udall of New Mexico gathered support for limitations on the filibuster, only to be turned away due both times due to gentlemens agreements between Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that were supposed to ease legislative gridlock. Reid clung to this effort even after apologizing to Merkley and Udall in a floor speech for the failure of the strategy, before finally pushing the nuclear button in late 2013. First, Merkley has ideas for other reformssuch as a talking filibuster requiring senators preventing a vote to actually stay on the floor arguing against it (as opposed to todays virtual filibuster, which allows senators to oppose legislation in absentia). Hed like to consider the changes at the outset of a Democratic-controlled Senate session, but pointed out, There is no first-day legislative rule. You can bring up rules changes at any time. He said that in Senate conversations, a number of Republicans were very interested, then they reported that Mitch McConnell had told them to stop talking about rules changes. After the treatment of Garland, I think that many of my Republican colleagues are deeply embarrassed by being strong-armed into ignoring their responsibilities. Yet Senate Republicans had blocked Obama appointments to three vacancies on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often called the second-highest court, for more than a year, arguing it would be better to reduce the size of the court. They may feel pressures besides embarrassment; as Ian Millhiser has noted in ThinkProgress, one reason Indiana Senator Dick Lugar was bounced in a Republican primary in 2012, after six terms, was his support of Obamas first two Supreme Court appointments, justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The experience of the last five years caused Reid, who is retiring at the end of the year, to tell Talking Points Memo in August, I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, were going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, its clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, Ive told em how and Ive done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. Itll have to be done again. They mess with the Supreme Court, itll be changed just like that in my opinion. The expected incoming Democratic leader of the Senate, Charles Schumer of New York, has carefully said nothing about further changes. But he said in September, A progressive majority on the Supreme Court is an imperative, and if I become majority leader, I will make it happen. I will make it happen. As Donald Trumps prospects have dwindled, arguments for a hardline GOP court blockade have become louder. Writing in National Review, Minnesota law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen urged that the Supreme Court be reduced to six justices, explaining, A smaller court means diminished judicial activism, and Ilya Shapiro, of the Cato Institute, argued at The Federalist, As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally. Merkley says he hopes changing the rules of Supreme Court nominations isnt necessary. But To refuse to debate someone at all, and just say a position should be left open, that is a constitutional crisis It would be absolute warfare if their real object is to bring the court to eight or seven people. It would be very bad news for our constitutional republic. Oliver Wendell Holmes said of the Supreme Court, We are very quiet there, but it is the quiet of a storm center. Todays stormclouds might give way to a mushroom cloud tomorrow. | https://newrepublic.com/article/138245/will-democrats-nuke-filibuster |
Is Donald Trump actually getting more disciplined, or is it Wednesday? | Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton stumbled at a 9/11 memorial service, forcing her team to disclose that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia. In response, Trump limited himself to insinuating that Clinton was suffering from a more serious and mysterious ailment on CNN, instead of, I dont know, calling for her to be permanently quarantined on Alcatraz. So of course the response from a chunk of the media has been to praise Trump for his newfound restraint: This, at last, is the Trump we have been waiting for! A presidential candidate who doesnt immediately race into crazy town at the first chance, but instead jogs there at a brisk pace. The most convincing version of the theory that Trump is getting more disciplined and better organized comes from Monica Langley at The Wall Street Journal, who argues that Trumps team, led by Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon, is working to shift Trump away from televised rallies and toward more caring and presidential events. Under this strategy, Trump should emphasize things like a trip to a Detroit inner-city church, the meeting with Mexicos president, and a planned visit Wednesday to Flint, Mich., to speak with families hurt by tainted drinking water. And Trump has, with a couple of exceptions, largely been chained to his teleprompter for the past month. There is some evidence that this strategy is working. From a polling perspective, the race has tightened over the last three weeks. But correlation is not necessarily causation. Clintons campaign has stumbled over that same period and her post-convention polling bounce finally crumbled, which is what post-convention polling bounces do. And in fundamental ways, the Trump campaign has not changed: Just this week he referred to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas and claimed that Janet Yellen is keeping interest rates low to screw him over should he become president. Meanwhile, multiple people were assaulted at a North Carolina rally, and Corey Lewandowski is still pulling strings behind the scenes. But the Trump Narrative demands that a kindler, gentler Trump emerge at some point, so here we are, even if Trump is no kinder or gentler or different in any meaningful way than he was a month ago. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136787/donald-trump-actually-getting-disciplined-wednesday |
Which Hillary Clinton flak workshopped that cringe-worthy Trumped-up trickle down line? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137190/hillary-clinton-flak-workshopped-cringe-worthy-trumped-up-trickle-down-line |
Can Donald Trump finally convince the religious right that he cares about abortion, even though he doesnt? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136880/can-donald-trump-finally-convince-religious-right-cares-abortion-even-though-doesnt |
What Are White Writers For? | Shriver seems to believe that white writersand white people generallyare entitled to a kind of public dreamtime, in which nothing they imagine or fantasize should be challenged. It would be lovely to think that fiction works this wayan unedited unconscious stream, produced in a trance, that somehow materializes in print on bookstore shelves with a bar code and price and blurbs attachedbut it doesnt. The novel, as Mikhail Bakhtin once wrote, is an art form that has the maximum zone of contact with the present. Even the most private and eccentric novelistsThomas Bernhard, Samuel Beckett, or Theresa Hak-kyung Cha, to name a fewhave always written work that bears down mercilessly on the present. Shriver and Franzen, in contrast, have always been relentless, ambitious public chroniclers and satirists of what Trollope called the way we live now; the way we live now includes regular live filming of police murders of black men, plus a presidential candidate who is an unrepentant and explicit white supremacist. Race is big now, Franzen says, somewhat ruefully, in the same interview. And because race is indeed big, many of the most visible new books, the books everyone is Supposed to Read, are saturated with the complex politics of our momentClaudia Rankines Citizen, Colson Whiteheads The Underground Railroad, or Paul Beattys The Selloutwhile major new novels by DeLillo and Franzen get respectful attention, but dont exactly seem to ignite the zeitgeist the way they once did. As Kaitlyn Greenidge put it succinctly in her New York Times response to Shriver: It must feel like a reversal of fate to those who have not been paying attention. But the trouble here is not just that white writers, like other white artists, have never been taught, or asked, to think about their work in racial terms. The default position in the Anglo-American literary world for more than a century has been that fictioneven if it chronicles the present in minute detailis apolitical. The spirit of good fiction, Shriver says, is one of exploration, generosity, curiosity, audacity, and compassionbut not argument, and not critique. Political fiction, according to this standard, is inherently compromised, a form of special pleading. This standard, however, has always been selectively applied. I saw this vividly in 2007 when I appeared on a panel in New York with a group of writers, all roughly the same age, who had been named Best Young American Novelists by Granta. Those of us who were white, native-born Americans were asked anodyne questions about our artistic process and where our ideas came from. It was around this time that I first realized something nonwhite writers learn almost by default: for a fiction writer to deny that fiction is in some way politicalin the sense of existing in an inherently politicized worldis not only an act of bad faith but a kind of artistic failure. My instincts tell me that Shriverlike many other writersdoesnt want to take this leap because conversations demand a certain level of accountability. To juxtapose The Corrections, say, with Angela Flournoys The Turner Houseextended Midwestern families struggling over houses in decline, secrets passed through generations, old infirm men haunted by past failuresis to say that The Corrections is, and always has been, about the decline of the postwar white middle class just as The Turner House is, as every critic has already said, about the collapse of the Detroits black middle class in the decades after the Great Migration. In a speech he gave in 1987 upon winning the Jerusalem Prize, J.M. Were not having that conversation now. Were talking about what Greenidge calls paranoia about nonexistent censorship. White peoplewriters, critics, editors, teachersstill have the vast majority of the jobs, the column inches, the review coverage, the selective power, and, of course, the money. Shrivers crisis, in any demonstrable, concrete sense, is a fantasya powerful, successful artists bad dream, in which some faceless censor, or critic, or angry brown-skinned person, is going to come and take everything she has away. That by itself would be an excellent subject for a novel! But only if the novel makes clear that at some point the artist wakes up, looks around her, and realizes that nothingexcept maybe her perspectivehas changed. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137338/white-writers-for |
Is Donald Trump the fabled Snake? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138103/donald-trump-fabled-snake |
Will Religious Feelings Sway the Election? | Here is what I found My results show a preference among whites for their own racial group over these minority groups. What is noteworthy is that the preference was significantly higher when Muslims were the comparison group. One reason for this could be attributed to the survey being administered six weeks after the San Bernardino terrorist attack in which 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured. However, that might not offer a full explanationnegative attitudes toward Muslims have been fairly consistent throughout this election. These preferences were even more stark when I compared partisans: Republicans expressed the strongest preference for whites over Muslims, blacks and Hispanics, compared to independents and Democrats. These relationships held even when accounting for demographics, such as age, sex, education and income. 2016 ANES Pilot In a match-up between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, a strong preference for whites over Muslims was the most important relationship. This preference for whites over Muslims benefited Trump and hurt Clinton. Clinton had a 47.7 percent chance of being chosen by whites indifferent to Muslims, Trump had only a 29.9 percent chance of being the choice. This reversed when it came to whites with a strong preference: Trumps chances doubled, whereas Clintons chances dropped by half. Democrats, with a strong preference for whites over Muslims, are less likely to choose Clinton as their presidential vote choice. These voters do not move to Donald Trump; rather, they chose a third-party candidate or abstention. Republicans, with a strong preference for whites over Muslims, have an 84.4 percent chance of choosing Trump. Further, they have virtually no chance of abstaining. These results reveal that a strong preference for whites over Muslims energized Republicans, but deflated Democrats. Presidential vote choice. 2016 ANES Pilot. Given the association between attitudes toward Muslims and support for Donald Trump in this election, one could ask whether this is a story about religion or race. What is important to note is while the importance of religion has decreased in other Western industrialized nations, the decline has been much slower in America. Religion remains a critical part of understanding American identity. It is, in fact, possible that exposure to terrorist attacks and international conflicts might have increased importance of religion in America. In 1996, 50.9 percent of white Americans endorsed the idea that it was important for one to be a Christian in order to be an American. But, in 2004, 64.4 percent of Americans endorsed that criterion. Religion is also tightly intertwined with race in America. Many of the shameful periods of American history, such as slavery and Jim Crow, were justified in religious terms. Finally, data from the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES) pilot demonstrate that whites who believe they are being discriminated against are also likely to believe American Christians are being discriminated against. These results hold even when examining whites who do not identify as Christian. All of these issues make it difficult to disentangle racial and religious attitudes. Overt racial hostility is no longer acceptable; however, certain forms of religious hostility may be. For example, critics of President Obama have shied away from using his race, but a significant portion of the electorate has used his religion. The 2016 ANES Pilot found that 37.8 percent of whites believed President Obama to be a Muslim. Of those who held this belief, 71.8 percent chose Trump over Clinton. Scholars have paid close attention to the role of racial hostility in elections. However, this election has demonstrated a need to pay closer attention to the role of religious hostility as well as how the experience influences the political and social engagement of religious minoritiesirrespective of the election results. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137993/will-religious-feelings-sway-election |
Is Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio going to go down with Trump? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137723/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-going-go-trump |
What the heck, Jonah? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137928/heck-jonah |
Should 25-Year-Olds Be Tried as Juveniles? | Experts used to believe that adult onset criminals, or those who get in trouble for the first time in their twenties or older, were more likely than juvenile offenders to come from affluent backgrounds, and to have higher intelligence. New research questions those assumptions. For several decades, Moffitt has been studying a cohort of nearly 1,000 people born in New Zealand in 1972. In a paper published in March, she and a group of coauthors observed that the research subjects who were convicted of a crime for the first time as legal adultsat age 20 or over in New Zealandhad a lot in common with those convicted for the first time as legal juveniles. Both groups were likely to have had challenges such as low-income parents, behavioral problems dating back to childhood, and below-average IQs. Many of the common crimes committed by people in their twenties, such as driving under the influence, seemed related to impulse control problems typically associated with teenagers. Many advocates who work directly with this population say no. For many years, the idea of how to achieve public safety with this group was you want to lock them up, protect the community by not having them around, said Yotam Zeira, director of external affairs for Roca, a Massachusetts organization that provides counseling, education, and job training to 17- to 24-year-old male offenders. The sad reality is that after you lock them up, nothing gets better. Public safety is not really improved. Zeira, the coauthor of a report on justice alternatives for this age group, sees three possible reforms: reclassifying young adults in their early twenties as juveniles, as is the case in Germany and the Netherlands; providing judges, attorneys, and probation programs more tools within the adult system to treat younger defendants with leniency and rehabilitation; or creating an entirely new young adult justice system in between the family and criminal court, with specially trained prosecutors and judges and less of a mandate to incarcerate. Some progress has already been made. Nationwide, the incarceration rate of 18- to 24-year olds dropped by 28 percent between 2001 and 2013, according to a data analysis from the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Some states want to push even further. In June, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a law that will allow some offenders up to the age of 22 to be referred to family court, where the focus is on rehabilitation, instead of criminal court, where the focus is on punishment. In other states, the politics have proven more difficult. In February, Illinois State Representative Laura Fine, a Democrat, introduced two bills that would raise the age of adult criminal responsibility to 21, one just for misdemeanors, and one for both misdemeanors and felonies. According to Fine, prosecutors from the Cook County States Attorneys office opposed even the misdemeanor-only plan, and she could not garner significant Republican support. We werent optimistic it was going to go anywhere, Fine said. Its going to be a matter of time and people getting used to the idea and learning more. The Cook County States Attorneys office did not respond to requests for comment. In 2007, Connecticut raised the age of adult criminal responsibility to 18, and Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, has proposed raising it again, to 21, for all but the most violent felonies. That legislation has not moved forward, but the state is planning a new, separate prison to house 18- to 25-year-olds, in order to keep them segregated from supposedly more hardened, career criminals. A similar compromise took place in New York. Last year, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo supported legislation that would have raised the age of adult criminal responsibility from 16 to 18 for most crimes. It also would have established specialized courts for young adult defendants and allowed some prisoners as old as 23 to remain in juvenile facilities. Republican legislators, prosecutors, and even some associations of defense attorneys opposed the plan, and it died. Governor Cuomo later issued an executive order establishing segregated prisons for teenagers convicted as adults. While politically palatable, young adult prisons may not be all that successful in decreasing reoffending. Research shows that even detention in a juvenile facility is criminogenic, meaning it makes it more likely that a person will reoffend, compared to a juvenile who committed a similar crime, but was not incarcerated. Beyond politics, one of the challenges of asserting that 18- to 25-year-olds are not full adults is that science shows some people in this age group are much more mature than others, with more static brains. You cant look at a brain scan from someone you dont know and say that person is 18, said Lebel, the brain researcher. You can pick out any age, whether its five or 30, and you see people are distributed over a wide range. Moffitt, the psychologist, agrees that the policy implications of the new research are far from clear. In our justice system, it has to be the same rule for everyone for it to be just and fair, she said. There will always be the sort of very serious, early onset kind of offenders that ... will have a crime career as a lifestyle. There is also a larger group of young people who are milling around, being young, getting in trouble, annoying everyone. But young people have always done that. You dont want them to get a criminal record that prevents them from getting a job. The problem, Moffitt added, is that as long as you make a cut point based on age, you are treating both groups the same. | https://newrepublic.com/article/138133/25-year-olds-tried-juveniles |
Will Mike Pence break with Donald Trump over his tax returns? | Pences job is straightforward, even if it isnt always very easy: He has to sell Trump to wary Republicans by making him seem reasonable and to convince voters that he will be a steady hand in crisis. Over the last two months, Pence has often seemed like a cleanup crew: a guy who can look in the eye of any interviewer, smile, and say, Well, that was just Donald being Donald. Just two weeks after the Democratic convention, Pence was already being labeled Trumps apologist-in-chief. But Pence has also occasionally broken with Trump. Often, hes cleared a path for Trump to follow him: He endorsed Paul Ryan days before Trump did and said that Barack Obama was born in the United States days before Trump (sort of) did. He also released a statement calling Captain Humayun Khan a hero while his running-mate was viciously attacking his father, Khizr Khan, who spoke at the DNC with his wife. Pence is going to get asked about Trumps refusal to release his tax returns and the three pages of his 1995 returns that The New York Times published on Sunday, which showed a $916 million loss. When asked on Good Morning America about the fact that Trump seemed to admit to not paying income tax in the first presidential debate, Pence quickly came to the rescue with some Midwestern charm: Oh no, gosh, no, Pence said. He said afterward that hes paid federal taxes. .... I think hes joked in the past about ... like any good businessman, he works to pay as little taxes as he can. But that answer will be harder to deliver on Tuesday, given what we know now. A break from Trump seems unlikely, since he has strongly signaled that he has no plan to release his returns and has defiantly suggested that paying no income tax makes him smart. Still, Pences answer to the question will be illuminating: It could show the distance between the two candidates or it could show how the Trump-Pence campaign is planning to respond to the rash of attacks that they are surely expecting over the campaigns final month. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137412/will-mike-pence-break-donald-trump-tax-returns |
Is JPMorgan Chases New Cryptocurrency a Threat to Ripple, Other Crypto Assets? | Mega-bank JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) recently announced that it will launch its own cryptocurrency, becoming the first U.S. bank to do so. At first, this might sound like an odd move. After all, JPMorgan Chase's CEO Jamie Dimon has been very outspoken against leading cryptocurrency bitcoin, going so far as to call it a "fraud." However, there are some big differences between bitcoin, the more than 2,000 other existing cryptocurrencies (that's not a typo), and the new cryptocurrency JPMorgan Chase is planning to create. Design of hexagons with block chain prominently featured in the center. More Image source: Getty Images. The new cryptocurrency will be called JPM Coin, and the purpose will be to speed up transaction settlement times. This could be specifically useful for international transactions, cutting settlement times from hours, or even days to settlements that occur in real time. Initially, JPM Coin will be used in just a small portion of the company's business, but could become more widely used within the company if its usage appears to be worthwhile. Also, JPM Coin will be a so-called "stable coin," with its value pegged to the U.S. dollar. This is similar to some existing cryptocurrencies, such as Tether. In other words, you won't see massive price fluctuations like you have with bitcoin, Ethereum, and others a JPM Coin will be worth one dollar. When I read the news that JPMorgan Chase was creating its own cryptocurrency, I asked, "why don't they simply use an existing cryptocurrency that is designed to do the same thing?" Ripple in particular would make a lot of sense. After all, Ripple is specifically designed to facilitate near-instantaneous cross-border transactions, and has partnerships with several major financial institutions. There are a few possible explanations why JPMorgan chose to carve its own path. For one thing, if the bank controls the entire supply of its cryptocurrency, it could make regulatory compliance issues far easier than they otherwise would be. Also, JPMorgan moves more than $6 trillion in payments per day, so maybe it felt like creating its own cryptocurrency was warranted simply by its sheer size. Finally, while Ripple is designed for the exact purpose that JPMorgan is creating JPM Coin for, its value isn't pegged to the U.S. dollar and can fluctuate dramatically over time, and JPMorgan Chase may not have wanted to deal with this uncertainty. For context, Ripple trades for about $0.30, but traded for more than 10 times that amount just over a year ago. In 2017 alone, Ripple's price rose by a staggering 36,600%. Banks like JPMorgan Chase may simply not want to deal with this kind of volatility. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse tweeted shortly after the news that JPM Coin "misses the point" of cryptocurrencies, while some analysts have called JPMorgan's effort a major threat to Ripple's very existence. If JPMorgan Chase's cryptocurrency is indeed successful, and the bank experiences significant efficiency and other operational advantages by using it, I'd be surprised if other banks didn't do something similar by creating their own proprietary, dollar-denominated cryptocurrencies as well. While there are many factors that determine cryptocurrency prices, it's fair to say that just like stocks, at least some of their price is based on investors' perceptions of their future potential. In other words, bitcoin's price isn't just based on how many people are using the cryptocurrency as a form of payment today. | https://news.yahoo.com/jpmorgan-chase-cryptocurrency-threat-ripple-145930908.html |
Will the press try to manufacture a horse race out of a blowout? | Just as nature abhors a vacuum, the press corps is said to abhor a boring campaign. It is thus widely assumed in elite political circles that at some point in the coming four weeks Donald Trump will benefit from a comeback narrative, in which reporters and pundits will cite narrowing polls or less erratic behavior to suggest we have a real race on our hands. This goes a long way toward explaining why after the second presidential debate Sunday night, cable news talking heads concluded that Trump had stopped the bleeding or won on points, when most regular viewers saw no such thing. But it is worth noting there has not been a single true presidential election blowout in the modern media age. Barack Obama defeated John McCain by just over seven points in 2008, a blowout by modern standards, but a close enough race that McCain took a lead in the polls after the Republican National Convention. Liberals, traumatized by eight years of the Bush presidency, were nervous about the outcome until the very end. With the bottom falling out of Trumps campaign, it is feasible to imagine a true blowout on November 8. And if polls suggest thats where were headed, it isnt clear to me that the press wont find that a novel, juicy, dramatic story in its own right. <sports metaphor>Consider: Most baseball fans will agree that the best games to watch are pitchers duels (or other closely contested games) and huge blowouts. In-between they can be a bit of a slog. The 2012 election was that kind of game; President Obama led Mitt Romney by a modest but steady margin basically the whole time, and won by a modest but healthy margin on Election Day. The impulse to manufacture a horse race out of contest like that was very hard for reporters to overcome. Most didnt even try. But if Clinton appears poised to win the popular vote by 10, 11, 12 points, not only would contriving a horse race narrative seem ridiculous, it wouldnt make the race more interesting in any meaningful way. Like a baseball blowout, simply watching a contestant get pummeled can be pretty interesting.</sports metaphor> Especially because a true blowout would be historic in modern timesand even more especially because it would come at the expense of the most loathsome political figures in modern American history. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137686/will-press-try-manufacture-horse-race-blowout |
Is Donald Trump a Fascist? | One of the hallmarks of fascism is its opportunism, the willingness of fascist leaders to shift depending upon the needs of the moment. As the social theorist Franz Neumann noted in his 1944 book Behemoth, National Socialisms ideology is constantly shifting. It has certain magical beliefsleadership adoration, supremacy of the master racebut [it] is not laid down in a series of categorical and dogmatic pronouncements. Building on this insight, historian Robert Paxton argued in his 2004 book Anatomy of Fascism that fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior people. Because fascism is so fluid, its possible to be fascistic without being a full-blown fascist. Trumps fascistic tendencies are clear: Hes leading a racist mass movement based on palingenetic ultranationalism (in other words, the desire to restore a lost greatness) that is filled with contempt for liberal democratic norms. On the other hand, Trumps differences with traditional fascism are also clear: He has no Trump Shirts beating up political enemies and he has so far refrained from calling for an overthrow of liberal democracy (however corrupt and rigged he might find it to be). Theres also a demographic difference between Trump and traditional fascism. Nazism was a youth movement, dominated by an age cohort that shared the common experiences of the First World War and the economic crisis of the 1920s and 1930s. Average age of members tended to hover between the high twenties and the early thirties. As historian Herbert Ziegler argued in his 1989 book Nazi Germans New Aristocracy, the Nazi party was much younger than one would expect considering the age distribution then prevalent in the population of the Reich. Trump voters, by contrast, tend to skew old. According to a Pew survey in July, the only age cohort where Trump led Clinton was 65+. Conversely, with those age 18-29, Clinton led by a two to one margin (60 percent to 30 percent). As they collect their pension checks and hone their retirement hobbies, Trumpkins lack the revolutionary lan of the goons who brought Mussolini and Hitler to power. Trump is an avatar of their anger and resentment but his movement lacks the shock troops necessary to truly roil (and possibly overthrow) society. But even if Trump is only fascistic rather than a fascist, thats more than scary enough. America has no precedent for how to defuse a fascistic movement. Even if Trump loses the election, the problem of what to do with his movement will remain. Hillary Clinton, if she wins, will have to figure out how to lower the temperature that Trump has raised, and how to reintegrate a fascistic mass movement into normal politics. And if she loses, well get a definitive answer to the question everyones asking. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137339/donald-trump-fascist |
Whats Driving Corporate Activism? | Not surprisingly, given Wal-Marts status in the state and the corporate backlash that accompanied a similar law in Indiana, the governor obliged and eventually signed a modified bill. That dint sit well with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, however, who argued in The New York Times that companies in those states were joining left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. He warned companies against bullying Louisiana. Changing environment In my view, there are two broad changes responsible for this increased corporate social activism. First, social media and the web have changed the environment for business by making it cheaper and easier for activists to join together to voice their opinions and by making corporate activities more transparent. The rapid spread of the Occupy movement in the fall of 2011, from Zuccotti Park in New York to encampments across the country, illustrates how social media can enable groups with a compelling message to scale up quickly. Sometimes even online-only movements can be highly effective. When the Susan G. Komen Foundation cut off funds to Planned Parenthood that were aimed at supporting breast cancer screenings for low-income women, a pop-up social movement arose: Facebook and Twitter exploded with millions of posts and tweets voicing opposition. Within days the policy was walked back. Mozillas appointment of a new CEO who had supported a California ballot proposal banning same-sex marriage also generated outrage online, both inside and outside the organization. He was gone within two weeks. More recently, Mylans exorbitant price hikes on its EpiPen took place over several years, but an online petition fueled by social media this summer turned it into a scandal and a talking point for presidential candidates. In each case, social media allowed like-minded clicktivists to draw attention to an issue and demonstrate their support for change, quickly and at very little cost. Its never been cheaper to assemble a virtual protest group, and sometimes (as in the Arab Spring) online tools enable real-world protest. As such, activism is likely to be a constant for corporations in the future. Millennials dont like puffery Second, as consumers and workers, millennials are highly attuned to a companys social value proposition. Companies targeting the sensibilities of the young often tout their social missions. Toms Shoes and Warby Parker both have buy a pair, give a pair programs. Chipotle highlights its sustainability efforts. And Starbucks has promoted fair trade coffee, marriage equality and racial justice more or less successfully. In each case, transparency about corporate practices serves as a check on puffery. Social mission is even more important when it comes to recruiting. At business school recruiting events, it is almost obligatory that companies describe their LEED-certified workplaces, LGBT-friendly human resource practices and community outreach efforts. Moreover, our employer signals something about our identity. Value alignment is part of why people stay at their job, and among many millennials, socially progressive valuesparticularly around LGBT issuesare almost a given. In this situation, corporate activism may be the sensible course of action, at least when it comes to LGBT issues. According to the Pew Research Center, for example, support for same-sex marriage has increased from 31 percent in 2004 to 55 percent today, and there is little reason to expect a reversal. Risks remain Even as trends lead to more corporate activism, the reaction hasnt always been as the businesses expected. Businesses on the vanguard of social issues themselves can become targets if and when they slip up. When Starbucks attempted to promote a dialogue about race after the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner by police in 2014, its methodasking baristas to write race together on cups to encourage conversationswas widely ridiculed. Some even regarded the effort as a misguided marketing ploy rather than a sincere effort to promote understanding. In 1998, William Clay Ford Jr. became chairman of Ford Motor and aimed to turn the company green by improving fuel economy and greening its production processes. The company even put an energy-efficient living roof on a truck assembly plant. Its continued reliance on its profitable line of gas-guzzling SUVs, however, prompted some to accuse Ford of hypocrisy. While prominent companies like Starbucks and Target have taken stances associated with liberal causes, some businesses have gone the other direction. Chick-fil-A aimed to implement biblical values and supported anti-gay groups in the 2000s. Those groups returned the favor by encouraging like-minded people to dine there on Chick-fil-A appreciation day. Hobby Lobby famously sought to abstain from providing funding for birth control for employees on religious grounds. Koch Industries, overseen by the famous Koch Brothers, has long been a lightning rod for boycotts due to the right-wing proclivities of its dominant owners. And small businesses across the country are not always shy in advertising their conservative political orientations. It is already easy to look up political contributions by companies and their employees. For example, Bloomberg, Alphabet and the Pritzker Group lean Democratic; Oracle, Chevron and AT&T tend Republican. In the current electoral climate, it is not hard to imagine this continuing. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. | https://newrepublic.com/article/137252/whats-driving-corporate-activism |
What's in Store for Consolidated Edison (ED) Q4 Earnings? | Consolidated Edison Inc ED is set to report fourth-quarter and full-year 2018 results on Feb 21, before market opens. In the last reported quarter, the company witnessed a positive earnings surprise of 5.41%. The bottom line outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate in all the trailing four quarters, the average beat being 4.50%. Lets see how things are shaping up prior to this announcement. Why a Likely Positive Earnings Surprise Our proven model shows a likely earnings beat for Consolidated Edison this quarter. That is because a stock needs to have both a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) for this to happen. This is the case here as you will see below. Earnings ESP: Consolidated Edison has an Earnings ESP of +0.44%. You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before theyre reported with our Earnings ESP Filter. Zacks Rank: Consolidated Edison currently carries a Zacks Rank #2, which when combined with a positive ESP makes us confident of probable earnings beat. You can see the complete list of todays Zacks #1 Rank stocks here. Note that we caution against stocks with a Zacks Rank #4 or 5 (Sell-rated) going into the earnings announcement, especially when the company is seeing negative estimate revisions. Consolidated Edison Inc Price and EPS Surprise Consolidated Edison Inc Price and EPS Surprise | Consolidated Edison Inc Quote Factors Under Consideration In the middle of the fourth quarter, the companys service territories witnessed storms and heavy rain that led to flooding. This most probably have caused a few outages, leading to disruption in smooth power supply across the companys service territories. Therefore, temperature is likely to hurt Consolidated Edison's revenues in the to-be-reported quarter. In line with this, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for Consolidated Edison's fourth-quarter sales pegged at $2.80 billion reflects a year-over-year decline of 5.4%. During the quarter, Consolidated Edison's subsidiary completed its previously announced acquisition of Sempra Energys SRE subsidiary for $1.6 billion, which owns 980 megawatts (MW) AC of operating renewable electric production projects. Such heavy investments, although are earnings accretive over the long run, tend to push up the acquirers expenses. Moreover, construction expenditures incurred by the company for its Utilities have also been on the rise, lately. Together, these factors might weigh on the companys bottom-line results in the to-be-reported quarter. In line with this, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for Consolidated Edison's fourth-quarter earnings pegged at 76 cents reflects an annual decline of 5%. Utility Stocks With Favorable Combination The Southern Company SO is expected to release fourth-quarter results on Feb 20. It has an Earnings ESP of +22.29% and a Zacks Rank #2. Pinnacle West Capital Corporation PNW is expected to release fourth-quarter results on Feb 22. It has an Earnings ESP of +4.17% and a Zacks Rank #2. From more than 4,000 companies covered by the Zacks Rank, these 10 were picked by a process that consistently beats the market. Even during 2018 while the market dropped -5.2%, our Top 10s were up well into double-digits. And during bullish 2012 2017, they soared far above the market's +126.3%, reaching +181.9%. This year, the portfolio features a player that thrives on volatility, an AI comer, and a dynamic tech company that helps doctors deliver better patient outcomes at lower costs. Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PNW) : Free Stock Analysis Report Southern Company (The) (SO) : Free Stock Analysis Report Consolidated Edison Inc (ED) : Free Stock Analysis Report Sempra Energy (SRE) : Free Stock Analysis Report To read this article on Zacks.com click here. | https://news.yahoo.com/whats-store-consolidated-edison-ed-143802608.html |
Was Trumps sexism all an act? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137520/trumps-sexism-act |
Does Donald Trump think being low energy makes him look presidential? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137923/donald-trump-think-low-energy-makes-look-presidential |
Is Lawrence Lessig trolling Neera Tanden and John Podesta? | Lessig, the Harvard professor and former single-issue presidential candidate, was in Iceland when the news broke of his guest appearance in the hacked emails of Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clintons campaign. Presumably, Lessig does not have an international data plan, for when he landed at JFK his inbox was flooded with questions about this exchange between Podesta and Tanden, the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress: WikiLeaks This is rude and petty and rather extreme, given the subject, but weve all emailed or Gchatted similarly rude and petty and rather extreme words about someone not quite deserving of such bile. That said, if it were proven publicly that someone had written this about me, I would respond in kindperhaps kick the shit out of him on Twitteror at least demand an apology. I am human. Not Larry Lessig. On his blog Tuesday, he wrote: We all deserve privacy. The burdens of public service are insane enough without the perpetual threat that every thought shared with a friend becomes Twitter fodder. Neera has only ever served in the public (and public interest) sector. Her work has always and only been devoted to advancing her vision of the public good. It is not right that she should bear the burden of this sort of breach. The Twitterati rejoiced over this rare display of internet civility. In which @lessig shows how to be the bigger person https://t.co/EpujDqriY1 Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) October 18, 2016 Holy effing goodness, something classy happened on the internet in 2016: https://t.co/U2HwD82Mt4 Annie Lowrey (@AnnieLowrey) October 18, 2016 Perhaps Lessig really is this magnanimous, in which case hes ostentatiously soto the point that Im tempted to agree with Tanden. But I believe hes twisting the knife. Consider how Lessig is characterized earlier in the email exchange, and then re-read his blog post. Thats precisely the response youd expect from a smug, pompous law professoran impression so spot on, in fact, as to seem quite deliberate. The Harvard man is no dummy. I think he knows exactly what hes doing. UPDATE: Tanden wrote in an email to The New Republic, While I do not authenticate any other emails that were stolen, I personally and profusely apologized to Professor Lessig as soon as this email surfaced and I deeply appreciate his incredibly gracious response. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137899/lawrence-lessig-trolling-neera-tanden-john-podesta |
Is JT Leroys Fiction Any Good? | At a recent screening of his film Author: The JT Leroy Story, director Jeff Feuerzeig bristled when an audience member suggested that the novels by the transgender, HIV-positive, ex-truck-stop-prostitute Jeremiah Terminator LeRoythe literary persona created by author Laura Albertwouldnt have been such a big hit had the backstory not been so salacious. I mean, I liked them, replied Feuerzeig, who hadnt read any of Leroys three novels before the author was outed as Albert in 2005. They were bestsellers, he added, as proof of their merit. For the first time in over a decade, the artistic validity of Leroyand Albertswork is poised to eclipse the incredible backstory of what many outlets called the biggest literary hoax of our time. There are myriad synopses available online, but if you want a full recap of the scandal, you can do no better than watching Feuerzeigs film, which is almost entirely narrated by Albert. Two of the books Albert wrote as Leroythe novel Sarah (1999) and the short story collection The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things (2001)were recently re-released by HarperCollins. (The former will include a new foreword by Feuerzeig as well as two previously unpublished stories.) Now, after the dust of has settled, or perhaps just lost the luster of novelty, the books can be examined in a new, sober light. I have always been interested in what occurs when a reader approaches a falsified memoir, or a novel written under shaky pretenses. Or perhaps they see the book more as a cultural artifactto read it is to engage with a period in literary history, and to grapple with the meaty questions of authorial obligation. THE HEART IS DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS, by JT Leroy Harper Perennial, 288 pp, $14.99 Lets get the bad news out of the way first: The Heart is Deceitful Above All ThingsLeroys second book, a collection of short storiesis virtually unreadable. A series of vignettes ostensibly covering the beginning of LeRoys life, mostly through the lens of his relationship with his mother Sarah, the stories serve up every possible Southern gothic clich in existence, both historical and contemporary: A Bible-thumping, whip-happy grandfather, a rotating door of handsy stepfathers, a combustible meth lab, a boundary-less relationship between mother and son reminiscent of Capotes childhood. The abuses are so frequent and so uniformly macabre that the narrative becomes paradoxically dull rather than provocative. There are endless throbbing, seeping wounds, many of them perpetrated by Sarah, who is supposed to come off as magnetic despite her instability, but actually presents as a bundle of disparate pathologies and sadistic impulses. She is about as fully formed and comprehensible as a nightmare. | https://newrepublic.com/article/136715/jt-leroys-fiction-good |
What happened to Roger Ailes, Trumps debate whisperer? | Ailess involvement in Trumps campaign was a story even before Ailes was fired from Fox News for decades of alleged sexual harassment. It was yet another disqualifying attribute of Trumps campaignanother example of Trumps deep-seated misogynybut it was also widely treated as Trumps ace in the hole. Ailes scripted Nixons New Nixon strategy in 1968 and saved Reagan in 1984, feeding him the famous line, I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience. Ailes was reportedly advising Trump specifically on his debate performance and if anyone could make Trump disciplined, it would be Ailes. As CNN reported earlier this month, Ailes was playing Henry Higgins to Trumps Eliza Doolittle: Ailess main objective is to sharpen Trumps message. He is trying to help the candidate get his message out in a smart, cogent way while also maintaining his air of authenticity, one source familiar with the conversations said. He is also trying to help Trump come up with memorable one-liners that will stay in voters minds, drive headlines, and perhaps even turn the tide in Trumps favor. Lets take these point by point. Trumps message, whatever you may think of it, is mostly pretty sharp: He uses border security as a catch-all to explain crime, terrorism, and the economy. Last night, Trump started sort of sharpall the mentions of China and Mexico in the first ten minutesbut then completely fell apart. He had no message. Well, the more or less non-stop ranting was neither. Trump had one good linehis comment about Clinton having had 30 years to figure out the countrys problemsbut mostly he returned again and again to the same tactic: interrupting Clinton with the word wrong. One of Clintons most salient messages was that Trump was a sexist bully whose temperament made him unfit for the office and he proved it for her over and over. As for the headlines, well, theyre mostly about how Trump got trounced. In 2016, Roger Ailes has been exposed over and over again as a lying, sexist fraud. The first debate was icing on the cake. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137244/happened-roger-ailes-trumps-debate-whisperer |
Is left-wing orthodoxy responsible for the rise of Donald Trump? | Ross Douthat today has a sweeping, provocative column connecting the seeming ubiquity of social-liberal activism in American culturein late-night talk shows, the football field, awards ceremonieswith both Hillary Clintons struggles to consolidate the support of liberals and Trumps enduring popularity. Clinton, Douthat writes, has been hobbled by the lefts race-gender-sexual identity agenda, which has demanded ideological concessions from Clinton that she is unable to give. Meanwhile, Trump has enjoyed the fruit of the backlash to the lefts cultural dominance, which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at every level of the countrys government. He concludes that it remains an advantage for the GOP, and a liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent. There is a lot to unpack hereand to rebut. Lets start with the notion that Clintons problems stem from her inadequate social liberalism. In fact, it was the other candidate in the Democratic primary who had problems on this front and was seen as being insufficiently vocal in his demands for equality for minorities and women. Yes, young black voters have questioned Clintons credibility on issues like criminal justice, but the lefts main beefs with Clinton revolve around economic and foreign policy questions. These are not issues, as far as Im aware, that were addressed at the Emmys. Then theres the idea that the backlash to President Barack Obama was a product of the lefts monopoly on the culture. The revanchist wave that began in 2010 surely had many causes, but at least two aspects of the culture wargay marriage and equal treatment of womenare not high on the list. In fact, Donald Trump, the supposed culmination of this backlash, resents accusations that he disrespects women and clearly does not care if people of the same sex are allowed to marry. The one aspect of this movement that Trump does opposeone that was reflected in the office of the presidency, not on The Daily Showis the growing clout of minorities in American life, both in politics and culture. Douthat, of course, is aware of the role race has played in Trumps rise and has examined this subject in other columns. But he does have a habit of disproportionately attributing Trumps popularity to a social-liberalism that appears to be personally suffocating to him. In this column, Trump is the backlash to left-wing illiberalism. In another column, hes the Hugh Hefner-ian outgrowth of a 60s-era liberal masculinity that eclipsed traditional Christian values of monogamy and sexual restraint. These two arguments both have elements of truth, but neither really even comes close to the real problem. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136981/left-wing-orthodoxy-responsible-rise-donald-trump |
Are Americas Christian soldiers getting soft? | The Associated Press is reporting that President Donald Trumps decision to withdraw troops from Syria crystallized during a December 14 phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to the news agency, the decision was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials. One of the surprising details of the report is that Erdogan himself was taken aback at how successful he was in convincing Trump on the Syrian matter. Before the phone call, the consensus position that the Trump administration had reached, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, was that Trump would tell Erdogan to back off from his threats to attack Kurdish forces in Syria. But during the phone conversation, Trump threw away the script and agreed with his Turkish counterpart. As AP relates, Trump started by reiterating the message of backing off. But then a change occurred: Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. Why are you still there? the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants. Trump then posed Erdogans question to his National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was participating in the phone call. Bolton admitted that the Islamic State had indeed lost 99 per cent of its territory but said that it was in Americas interest to make sure the group did not enjoy a resurgence. Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan. Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal, according to one official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said. From this reporting, it seems likely that it was never Erdogans intention to get the United States to withdraw. Rather he made the demand as a bargaining move, to get other, lesser goals. Trump, displaying his mastery of the art of the deal, gave in to Erdogans maximum position. The White House denies the accuracy of APs account. | https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137912/americas-christian-soldiers-getting-soft |
When will local schools play in the Ohio high school hockey state tournament? | The puck drops for the Ohio High School Athletic Association state tournament on Friday, Feb. 15. Here is a look at the Greater Cincinnati area teams that will be competing. Moeller: The Crusaders enter the Columbus District Hockey Tournament with the highest seed of all Greater Cincinnati teams at No. 6, earning them a first-round bye. Moeller plays in the Capital Hockey Conference based out of Columbus, where they finished sixth in the Red Division with a 14-12-1 record. Senior Jordan Walter closed out the regular season tied for second in the division with 14 goals. Junior goalie Ryan Morton Strauss registered an 86.9 save percentage, good for 10th in the Red Division. Moeller will take on the winner of Alter versus Gahanna at 5:15 p.m., Sunday, Feb. 17, at the OhioHealth Ice Haus in Columbus. St. Xavier: St. X registered an undefeated 2018-19 Southwest Ohio High School Hockey League campaign, going 13-0 and 16-8-1 overall to garner the No. 8 seed in the tournament. The Bombers are set to take on Mason at 6 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 16, at the OhioHealth Chiller North in Columbus. St. Xavier beat the Comets 11-0 earlier in the season. Talawanda: The Braves finished second to St. X in the SWOHSHL Red Division with a 10-3 record and 21-9 record overall, earning them the No. 11 seed. Talawanda is led by forward Josh Shrader, who is sixth in the conference in goals (7), ninth in assists (6) and eighth in total points (14). The Braves will face Thomas Worthington in the opening round of the tournament at 6:45 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 15, at the OhioHealth Chiller North in Columbus. Buy Photo Moeller's Jarrod Gorczynski (17) arrests control of the puck from St. Xavier's Nick DeCarlo at US Bank Arena, December 7, 2018. (Photo11: Geoff Blankenship for the Enquirer) Sycamore: With a 4-8-1 conference record and 5-10-1 record overall, Sycamore comes into the tournament as the 24th seed. Aviators forward Johnny Ciotola ranks third in goals (11) and tied for fourth in totals points (15) in the SWOHSHL this season. Sycamore is set to face No. 17 seed Bishop Watterson in the opening round at 4 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 16, at the OhioHealth Ice Haus in Columbus. Elder: The Panthers enter the tournament as the 25th seed, registering a 1-12 SWOHSHL record and 3-19 overall record on the season. Elder will face Dublin Scioto in the opening round on 6:45 p.m., Friday, Feb. 15, at the OhioHealth Ice Haus in Columbus. The winner will move on to face top-seeded Dublin Jerome. Mason: The Comets come in at the final spot of the tournament, seed No. 26. Mason was winless in 13 SWOHSHL matches and finished 2-18 overall on the season. They will play St. Xavier in the opening round, who they played Feb. 1 and fell 11-0. The match is set for 6 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 16, at the OhioHealth Chiller North in Columbus and the winner will take on the winner of Olentangy and Orange Feb. 17. | https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/high-school/high-school-sports/2019/02/15/ohio-high-school-hockeys-state-tournament-greater-cincinnati-teams/2872530002/ |
Does Anthony Joshua Have International Superstar Potential Like LeBron James And Cristiano Ronaldo? | The term international superstar isn't something to be thrown around lightly. Especially when discussing where one athlete currently ranks or has the potential to rank amongst other elite athletes that dominate their respective sports. Being an international superstar isn't purely determined by the performance of an athlete, but better yet, if that athlete has the qualities and that "it factor" that allows them to transcend their sport. Many athletes win championships and go on to have Hall of Fame careers, but very few are considered international superstars. Obviously, the big news this week in the heavyweight division was the announcement that Anthony Joshua was going to make his USA debut on June 1 at Madison Square Garden when he defends 75 percent of the undisputed heavyweight titles against Brooklyn, New York native, undefeated Jarrell Miller. To many people, well, at least DAZN Network Executive Chairman John Skipper, Joshua has the potential to be an international superstar similar to LeBron James and Cristiano Ronaldo. . @anthonyfjoshua has the potential to be an international superstar at the level of LeBron or Ronaldo. AJs U.S. debut on June 1 @TheGarden is his next step to global awareness. Keep in mind, there was a time when the heavyweight champion was the most famous man in the world. John Skipper (@JohnSkipper) February 13, 2019 POTENTIAL Reminding people that there was a time when the heavyweight champion was the most famous man in the world isn't exactly the most compelling argument these days when making a case for Joshua and the term international superstar being used in the same sentence. Back then, for the United States at least, baseball, horse racing and boxing were the top three sports, while soccer dominated Europe and Latin America. Now, of course, Skipper and all of Joshua's fans will argue that Skipper used the word potential. Sure, there's no doubt that Joshua has the potential, but it might be out of his control. You see, Joshua and his promoter Eddie Hearn can do everything right, which in large part, they have done already, but it still doesn't guarantee Joshua international superstar status. In addition, with the amount of money DAZN has invested in Joshua, you better believe Skipper needs Joshua to become an international superstar, and quick. Especially with DAZN having reportedly invested $100 million into Joshua over the course of their deal. FINANCIAL COMPARISON Before we get into whether or not Joshua has that potential, let's first take a look at where he ranks among his peers across all sports in the earnings department. According to Forbes, in 2018, Joshua earned $38 million placing him at number 25 on the world's highest-paid athletes list. Not too shabby. The Joseph Parker fight almost a year ago generated nearly 1.5 million pay-per-view buys and a live gate of 78,000 at Principality Stadium in Cardiff, Wales. Joshua is a sponsorship phenom with more than a dozen sponsors that include Under Armour, Jaguar, Beats, StubHub, Hugo Boss, Lucozade Sport and Audemars Piguet. All of this bodes well for Joshua's aspirations of being an international star, simply because of the fact that these partnerships further increase his profile. Let's not also forget, like Ronaldo, Joshua's not hard on the eyes (no offense LeBron). At 29 years old, Joshua is in his physical prime and has the looks to go with his Adonis-like physique. For comparison, Joshua isn't even the highest paid boxer on the list. Canelo Alvarez came in at number 15 having earned $44.5 million. We'll get to the other boxer in a moment. Ronaldo brought in an impressive $108 million ranking at number three in 2018 with Lebron trailing at number six bringing in $85.5 million. For comparison, both Ronaldo and LeBron both earned more in sponsorships than Joshua earned in total. Oh, and just for perspective, the highest paid athlete in 2018 weighs almost hundreds pounds less than Joshua and competes in the same sport. That's right, Floyd Mayweather earned a staggering $285 million, placing him number one on the 2018 list. That's more than Ronaldo, LeBron and Joshua put together. Talk about international star power. Someone had to be watching Mayweather vs. McGregor. RECIPE FOR STARDOM The truth of the matter is that becoming an international superstar isn't something that Joshua or DAZN can make happen. There's no magic formula or step by step plan to follow. It just happens. It's a combination of so many variables that are out of anyone's control mixed with timing, that even the best marketers and strategists can't "will it" into existence. Absolutely. That remains to be seen, but he's moving in the right direction by taking his talents to New York City and June 1 is his first step in global domination. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterkahn/2019/02/15/does-anthony-joshua-have-international-superstar-potential-like-lebron-james-and-cristiano-ronaldo/ |
Does Donald Trump's waistline back up claims he's the healthiest president ever? | The latest White House medical reveals that the presidents BMI has tipped into the obese category. Well, he does like to act from his gut Name: Donald Trumps waistline. Age: 72. Appearance: Significant. No, significant because its enormous. Trump, it has just been announced, is obese. He is. The results of his physical were quietly released on Thursday, and it has revealed that he weighs 243lb. I dont know what that means. It means he weighs 110kg. It means he weighs more than 17 stone. Just about. Trump claims to be 6ft 3in tall, and if thats the case, it means he has a BMI of 30.4. Officially, anything over 30 qualifies as obese. Of course it is. Its a crude calculation of weight divided by height squared, but it doesnt take into consideration what that weight consists of. For example, Daniel Craigs BMI technically makes him overweight, even though he is essentially just a very muscular clothes hanger. He might. OK, fine, yes, Ive seen the golfing photos, too. Trump does often look like a sentient wad of cholesterol come to life to wreak havoc on the world. He is probably just really fat. Not even close. Grover Cleveland had a BMI of 34.6, and William Tafts BMI was 42.3. Taft was rumoured to have got stuck in the presidential bathtub. Wow. But, hey, its still early days. And dont forget that he is still going to be president for the next two years. He can catch up. Oh God, dont say that. Fine then. The next six years. Nevertheless, its a shocking decline. Ah yes, that was Harold Bornstein, who later claimed that Trump dictated those words to him. Im uncomfortable about the tone of this article. Yes. Well, it is. But then again Trump called Alicia Machado, the winner of the 1996 Miss Universe pageant, Miss Piggy because she had gained weight, and you could fit about six of her into his frame. Do say: Donald Trump has a weight problem. Dont say: Make America fit into its trousers again. | https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2019/feb/15/does-donald-trump-waistline-back-up-claims-hes-the-healthiest-president-ever |
How many national emergencies have been called by presidents? | President Trump declared a national emergency to free up funds to build a wall without congressional approval on Friday, adding that other presidents have called national emergencies on other topics "many times before." The National Emergencies Act of 1975 allows the president to declare a national emergency, but he must outline the specific emergency powers he is using under existing statutes. According to the Brennan Center, there have been 58 national emergencies called by presidents since 1979. Thirty-one of those national emergencies are still in effect. Here is a list of when national emergencies have been used, and what their purpose was: President Jimmy Carter Nov. 14, 1979 (still in effect): A national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which froze Iran's assets in the United States. President Ronald Reagan April 17, 1980: Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued; Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued; Oct. 14, 1983: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1983; Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1983; March 30, 1984: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1985; Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1985; May 1, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua, revoked in 1990; Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua, revoked in 1990; Sept. 9, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (in response to apartheid), revoked 1991; Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (in response to apartheid), revoked 1991; Jan. 17, 1986: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya, revoked 2004; Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya, revoked 2004; April 8, 1988: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama, revoked 1990. President George H.W. Bush August 2, 1990: Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq, revoked 2004; Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq, revoked 2004; Sept. 30, 1990: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1993; Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1993; Nov. 16, 1990: Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation, revoked 1994; Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation, revoked 1994; Oct. 4, 1991: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Haiti, revoked 1994; Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Haiti, revoked 1994; May 30, 1992: Blocking "Yugoslav Government" Property and Property of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro, revoked 2003. President Bill Clinton Sept. 26, 1993: Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving UNITA (a political party in Angola), revoked 2003; Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving UNITA (a political party in Angola), revoked 2003; Sept. 30, 1993: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994; Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994; June 30, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1994; Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1994; Aug. 19, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 2001; Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 2001; Sept. 29, 1994: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994; Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994; Oct. 25, 1994: Blocking Property and Additional Measures With Respect to the Bosnian Serb- Controlled Areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, revoked 2003; Blocking Property and Additional Measures With Respect to the Bosnian Serb- Controlled Areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, revoked 2003; Nov. 14, 1994 (still in effect): Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, continued in November 2018; Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, continued in November 2018; Jan. 23, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, continued in January 2018; Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, continued in January 2018; March 15, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources, continued in March 2018 and expanded in August 2018; Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources, continued in March 2018 and expanded in August 2018; Oct. 21, 1995 (still in effect): Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers, continued in October 2018; Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers, continued in October 2018; March 1, 1996 (still in effect): Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba, modified by President Obama in 2016 and again by President Trump in February 2018; Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba, modified by President Obama in 2016 and again by President Trump in February 2018; May 22, 1997: Prohibiting New Investment in Burma, terminated in October 2016; Prohibiting New Investment in Burma, terminated in October 2016; Nov. 3, 1997 (still in effect): Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan, continued in October 2018; Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan, continued in October 2018; June 9, 1998: Blocking Property of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and the Republic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic of Serbia in Response to the Situation in Kosovo, revoked in 2003; Blocking Property of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and the Republic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic of Serbia in Response to the Situation in Kosovo, revoked in 2003; July 4, 1999: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with the Taliban, revoked in 2002; Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with the Taliban, revoked in 2002; June 21, 2000: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, expired 2012; Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, expired 2012; Jan. 18, 2001: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2004. President George W. Bush June 26, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans, continued in June 2018; Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans, continued in June 2018; Aug. 17, 2001 (still in effect): Continuation of Export Control Regulations, continued August 2018; Continuation of Export Control Regulations, continued August 2018; Sept. 14, 2001 (still in effect): Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, continued in September 2018; Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, continued in September 2018; Sept. 23, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism, continued in September 2017; Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism, continued in September 2017; March 6, 2003 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe, continued in March 2018; Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe, continued in March 2018; May 22, 2003 (still in effect): Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest, continued in May 2018; Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest, continued in May 2018; May 11, 2004 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria, continued in May 2018; Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria, continued in May 2018; July 22, 2004: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia, revoked in November 2015; Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia, revoked in November 2015; Feb. 7, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Cte d'Ivoire, terminated in September 2016; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Cte d'Ivoire, terminated in September 2016; June 16, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus, continued in June 2018; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus, continued in June 2018; Oct. 27, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, continued in October 2018; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, continued in October 2018; Aug. 1, 2007 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions, continued in July 2018; Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions, continued in July 2018; June 26, 2008 (still in effect): Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals, continued in October 2018. President Barack Obama Oct. 23, 2009: Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, was never terminated or continued; Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, was never terminated or continued; April 12, 2010 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia, continued in 2018; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia, continued in 2018; Feb. 25, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, continued in February 2018; Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, continued in February 2018; July 24, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations, continued in July 2018; Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations, continued in July 2018; May 16, 2012 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen, continued in May 2012; Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen, continued in May 2012; June 25, 2012: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2015; Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2015; March 6, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, continued in March 2018; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, continued in March 2018; April 3, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan, continued in March 2018; Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan, continued in March 2018; May 12, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic, continued in May 2018; Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic, continued in May 2018; March 8, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela, continued in March 2018; Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela, continued in March 2018; April 1, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, continued in March 2018; Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, continued in March 2018; Nov. 22, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi, continued in November 2018. President Donald Trump | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/ |
Will Rioja Wine Increase Its Market Share? | The Rioja wine region of northeast Spain unveiled its new geographic indications and buzzy new marketing campaign in New York this week. It was the last stop of a multi-national tour that included China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Canada and Germany, which are among Riojas largest export markets. Rioja was the first wine region in Spain to receive a DOC designation, in 1925, and in 1991 it was the first to receive the higher designation of Denominacin de Origen Calificada, for producing Spains finest wine. The new campaign and geographic indications were unveiled at a press conference helmed by Ricardo Aguiriano, the outgoing marketing director of the Consejo Regulador (Regulatory Wine Council) of DOCa Rioja and Ana Fabiano, the trade director and North American brand ambassador for the region. An interactive tasting of wines from DOCa Rioja for press and trade was held immediately following the event. The consejos new Global Marketing Director, Iigo Tapiador, was also in attendance.Introducing the main speakers, Beth Cotenoff, senior vice president at RWest, the public relations agency of record for DOCa Rioja in the USA, underscored the importance of the new regulations, stating, Change in an old-world wine region does not happen frequently. Besides a geographic designation, wines from Rioja also utilize terminology that signifies how long they have been aged. Minor changes were made to the regulations for Crianza, Reserva, and Gran Reserva, which are aged for two years, three years, and five years, respectively, prior to release, with specifications regarding time in oak casks. The most notable change to aging requirements is that young wines, previously called cosecha, or harvest, will now be referred to as gnerico. One of the touted benefits for consumers when buying wine from Rioja is that it has been properly aged for optimal drinking pleasure prior to release and sale. The new Rioja geographic indications are Vino de Zona, Vino de Municipio, and Viedos Singulares. Previously, all wines from the region that met qualifications were simply labeled DOCa Rioja with an indication of age. Two hundred and ten square miles in size, with over 150,000 acres of vineyards, Rioja will now allow bottles to be labeled from its three subzones. These wines will be known as Vino de Zona. The zones are Rioja Oriental (formerly called Rioja Baja), Rioja Alavesa, and Rioja Alta. The name of the zone can appear on the label below the word Rioja in the same type size. Vino de Municipio refers to wines from a specific municipality or village. There are 144 municipios authorized in the DOCa. Eighty five percent of the grapes must come from the named municipio, with the remainder coming from a neighboring municipio. To date, 49 wineries and 20 municipios have requested the labeling designation. Viedos Singulares refers to grapes grown and wine made from within a specific vineyard. The vineyard must be at least 35 years old, and it must have 10 years of the same uninterrupted ownership. There are also specifications for yields per hectare, and the grapes must be harvested by hand. Wines will have to receive certification of excellence by a regional tasting committee before release. To date, there are 76 applications for Viedos Singulares from 44 wineries and grape growers, representing 346 acres. In addition, for the first time, a sparkling wine designation has been added, called Espumosos de Rioja. They may be white or ros wines made from any of the native grapes of Rioja, including Viura, Tempranillo Blanco, Garnacha Blanco, Malvasia, Tempranillo, Graciano, Mazuelo, and Garnacha. Espumosos de Rioja must be made by the traditional method and must age for at least 15 months. The first of these will come to market by the end of this year. There are additional aging categories for Reserva and Gran Aada sparkling wines. While wines from DOCa Rioja currently have the lions share of the Spanish wine market in the USA, it remains to be seen if the new regulations will stimulate growth in the category or will confuse consumers who are familiar with Rioja but not its new designations. In addition, Espumosos de Rioja may be confused with the existing Spanish sparkling category, Cava. Due to aging requirements, it will take several years before many of the wines bearing new designations come to market. According to Ana Fabiano, Rioja wines account for 31 percent of the Spanish wine sold in the USA by volume and 41 percent by value. When asked about sales of Rioja wine in the US in 2018 and projected targets for future increases, she stated, More than 1.1 million cases (13,200,000 bottles) of Rioja wine were sold in the US in 2018. Ms. Fabiano then highlighted the importance of growth in reserva wines, adding, The reserva category accounts for 35 percent of our exports to the United States. It is her hope and that of members of the consejo that the upcoming digital and media campaign will lead to around 2 million cases of Rioja sold in the US annually within the next several years. DOCa Riojas new global campaign is titled Saber Quien Eres, or Know Who You Are. This catchphrase is presented in Spanish, making a connection to the claim that the oldest written evidence of the Spanish language was found in an abbey in Rioja. As sales attest, Rioja has the highest name recognition of any Spanish wine region among consumers, and the DOCa and its American public relations team at RWest are leveraging that recognition, emphasizing the tradition, diversity, and origin of Rioja. The new campaign will feature ongoing press and trade outreach, consumer events such as tastings and dinners, and radio, print and online advertising. As Ana Fabiano summed it up, Rioja is looking to the future, but is standing in the history of her soil. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/theworldwineguys/2019/02/15/will-riojas-new-marketing-campaign-and-geographic-indications-increase-market-share/ |
Do Democrats Want to Roll Back Consumer-Friendly Health Options? | If they said it once, they said it 200 at times. At a hearing on the Wednesday before the House Energy and Commerce Health subcommittee (live-streamed here), the majority members repeatedly called the new Short Term Limited Duration plan option Junk Plans. In my testimony, I talked about the benefits these plans offer to people who are between jobs, young people in the gig economy, early retirees who dont yet qualify for Medicare, entrepreneurs starting new businesses, and others who need bridge coverage. But in question after question, Democrats berated the plans because they dont provide the expensive comprehensive benefits that ACA-compliant plans must include. One of the reasons that at least three million people have dropped out of the individual health insurance market is because they cannot afford these plans and are relieved to have other options. I told the committee about Virginia State Sen. Bryce Reeves who reported that he received a message from a constituent in Fredericksburg who had just received the quote for a family health insurance policy: $4,000 a month! Thats more than my mortgage. What am I supposed to do? he asked. The Trump administration has been working hard to provide people like Sen. Reeves constituent with other options, including the bridge plans the committee wants to again limit to only three monthsas the Obama administration did in 20016. The Trump administration last year finalized a rule to expand access to short-term, limited-duration (STLD) plans to give Americans access to health insurance coverage that better fits their needs. Under the new rule, these plans can be offered for up to 364 days and renewed for up to 36 months, subject to state regulation. Premiums typically are less than half those of ACA plans. The Pennsylvania commissioner of insurance, Jessica Altman, recounted in her testimony, a woman who fell and hit her head at work. She had a bridge plan, but the plan covered only $1,300 of the workers $16,000 bill. There are bad actors in any industry, and consumers need to be informed about what a plan actually covers. But it is the responsibility of state insurance departments to oversee insurance companies selling policies to their residents to enforce consumer protections, which she said she is doing. (But one wonders why this workplace injury wasnt covered by Workers Compensation) In contrast, there are also examples of people who have been helped by these plans. I received a note Thursday from a broker with a company that sells the plans and had watched the webcast of the hearing: As an example of a claims paid, we recently had a man in Texassingle dad, two teenage sons. His income had gone up, and he was no longer subsidy eligible. He bought a plan from us in August. He didnt want his kids to be uninsured. The oldest son was diagnosed with Leukemia in September. We paid $170,000 in claims. It is not junk insurance; it is niche insurance. I explained in my testimony that the Trump administrations short-term limited duration policy rule extendsconsumer protections. Under the Obama administrations previous 2016 rule, people could lose their coverage after three months if they acquired a medical condition during the three-month period. By extending the contract period, people can be protected from a period of uninsurance until the next ACA open enrollment period. An estimated 1.7 million people who would otherwise be uninsured are expected to enroll in STLD plans. Several states limit their residents access to STLD plans, but in so doing, they deny them what may be their only realistic option for coverage. The plans are not required to cover the comprehensive list of benefits required by the ACA, and consumers education is important in understanding how they differ from ACA-compliant plans. Bit that is a job for states, not the federal government. Council of Economic Advisers: A new White House report on Deregulating Health Insurance Markets: Value to Market Participants provides important data showing the positive impact of this consumer-friendly health policy change. The report estimates that STLDs would produce a marginal social benefit of $80 billion over ten years, even taking into account concerns that they might raise premiums for some people with ACA-compliant coverage. While Democrats repeatedly called STLD plans junk insurance that sabotages the ACA, there is solid evidence that consumers will benefit, both in expanded coverage and lower costs. The Trump administration believes this policy option, together with other health reforms (association health plans and the repeal of the individual mandate penalty tax), will generate benefits to Americans worth an estimated $450 billion over the next 10 years. The Energy and Commerce hearing considered several other pieces of legislation Democrats plan to bring to the House floor for a vote this session. The Committee also wants to rescind the Trump administrations revised guidance giving states more options in allocating some ACA funds. What I find most troubling about todays hearing is that our Democratic colleagues are questioning the flexibility that they put in their own law. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act provided states with the opportunity to apply for State Innovation Waivers. These waivers allow states to come up with inventive ways to insure their populations while safeguarding their access to quality insurance, Ranking Republican Michael Burgess told the subcommittee in his opening statement. Doug Badger and Ed Haislmaier have written about the positive impact for consumers of giving states flexibility through Section 1332 waivers. And Democrats also want to spend $100 million a year to boost enrollment in ACA plans, including generously funding Navigators. Yet an analysis by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showed the high cost of the Navigator program relative to signups. I reported on the CMS report that showed during the 2016 open enrollment period, Navigators received more than $62 million in federal grants while enrolling 81,426 individualsor fewer than one percent of all enrollees. Seventeen of these Navigators enrolled fewer than 100 people each at an average cost of $5,000 per each enrolleejust to get them enrolled. The top 10 most-costly Navigators spent a total of $2.77 million to enroll just 314 people. One grantee received $200,000 and enrolled ONE person, enough to have covered more than 30 people for the whole year. Seventy-eight percent of Navigators failed to achieve their enrollment goals. Since then, CMS set up a system in which Navigator grantees receive funding based on their ability to meet their enrollment goals during the previous year. Enrollment began to decline before any changes in Navigator grants by the Trump administration. The subsidized and unsubsidized enrollment report shows enrollment began to decline in some states between 2015 and 2016, and in particular among the unsubsidized portion of the market. Over that period, 23 states experienced a decline in unsubsidized enrollment, with 10 states experiencing double-digit declines, according to a CMS study. CMS believes that independent agents and brokers can be more cost-efficient in assisting people in obtaining exchange coverage. CMS increased efforts to leverage the capabilities of the private sector by expanding the role of health insurance agents and brokers who supported 3,660,668 health plan enrollments, 42 percent of plan-year 2018 open enrollments on Federal platform Exchanges. In contrast, Navigators enrolled less than 1 percent of total enrollees, the report found. Because many people on the exchanges are automatically reenrolled, there is less need for assistance than when the program was new. The effectuated enrollment report shows that enrollment through the Exchanges remained steady for subsidized people who were automatically re-enrolled in plan-year 2018 and paid their first months premium. In February 2018, 10.6 million individuals had effectuated their coverage through the Exchanges. California spent heavily on marketing to increase enrollment in its state-based exchange last fall, yet it experienced a 23.8% drop in new enrollees over 2018. Covered California is encouraging the state to establish its own individual mandate. But it is hard to boost enrollment through added spending on marketing or using the mandate club when the main reason people are not signing up is the high cost of premiums and sky-high deductibles. Enrollment in the individual health insurance markets is falling. A net of three million people dropped coverage in the individual health insurance market between 2015 and 2018. According to a study published by the Kaiser Family on Changes in Enrollment in the Individual Health Insurance Market, there were 17.4 million policyholders in the individual market in 2015, dropping to 14.4 million by the first quarter of 2018. The committees effort to undo the work that the Trump administration is doing to give people more choices of more affordable health coverage will be harmful, not helpful, to consumers. Unsustainably high premiums and issues related to silver loading are increasingly becoming the reality for folks that rely upon individual market insurance, yet the bills before us today will not make a marked increase in the availability of reasonably priced plans, Dr. Burgess said. Agreed. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2019/02/15/do-democrats-want-to-roll-back-consumer-friendly-health-options/ |
Will Arizona lawmakers act to save abused women? | Opinion: It's a law to take away weapons from abusers. It has passed in more than half the states. There's an opportunity to keep weapons away from domestic abusers. (Photo11: Rex_Wholster, Getty Images/iStockphoto) Time is running out. Arizona lawmakers have one week to do what they can to save the lives of potential domestic abuse victims. Or, more precisely, one week to begin the process to save the lives of domestic abuse victims. Feb. 22 is the crossover deadline for introduced bills to make the jump from one chamber to the next. Filling loopholes in the law In order for that to happen, of course, bills must be voted on and approved. That process cant begin if a bill doesnt even get a committee hearing. A bipartisan bill to make it illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or a crime against children from having a firearm hasnt gotten a hearing. SB 1219 fills loopholes in federal law and Arizona law. Federal law says those convicted of domestic abuse of a spouse cant own a gun, but it doesnt include dating partners, even though that is where a high percentage of abuse takes place. Over half the states have such laws And Arizona law keeps convicted individuals from possessing a weapon only during probation. SB1219 expands that indefinitely and requires offenders to turn in all guns they own. Bills similar to this have passed in more than half the states and, unlike so much at the State Capitol, this bill has support from Democrats and Republicans. One of the sponsors, Republican State Sen. Heather Carter, a sponsor of SB 1219, said of the bill, The gaps in both state and federal law as it stands make it too easy for domestic abusers to get their hands on a gun. Between 2012 and 2016, the rate of intimate partner gun homicide in Arizona was 66 percent higher than the national average. That is unacceptable. There is bipartisan support "Across the country, Republican and Democratic lawmakers have worked across the aisle to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, and its time we did the same. Im proud to introduce legislation that protects victims of domestic violence in our state. NEWSLETTERS Get the Opinions Newsletter newsletter delivered to your inbox We're sorry, but something went wrong Our best and latest in commentary in daily digest form. Please try again soon, or contact Customer Service at 1-800-332-6733. Delivery: Mon-Fri Invalid email address Thank you! You're almost signed up for Opinions Newsletter Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration. More newsletters Organizations like the Arizona chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and others have been working hard to get such a law on the books. Its stuck for now in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Eddie Farnsworth (602-926-5735 or [email protected]) has yet to give it a hearing. That means no Arizona lawmakers have had to vote on the matter. To take a stand. MORE BY MONTINI: Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/02/15/domestic-violence-arizona-legislature-gun-politics/2880798002/ | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/02/15/domestic-violence-arizona-legislature-gun-politics/2880798002/ |
Should a sitting president hold campaign rallies after the election? | By Cait Bladt President Donald Trump's rallies have become a major part of his presidency. While all presidents hold rallies from time to time -- typically in support of a piece of legislation -- Trump has held far more than the norm. Many people have criticized the president for having no agenda for the rallies other than to support his own ego. Not just that, many cities are stuck with huge security bills from Trump's rallies. The president claims they are an important way to reach the people. PERSPECTIVES Trump has touted the rallies as an indicator of the strength of the social movement he's leading. The crowds at my Rallies are far bigger than they have ever been before, including the 2016 election. Never an empty seat in these large venues, many thousands of people watching screens outside. Enthusiasm & Spirit is through the roof. SOMETHING BIG IS HAPPENING - WATCH! -- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2018 Many of the rallies were ostensibly campaign stops for local politicians. After the midterms, Trump credited himself and his rallies with GOP victories. All I hear is that the Open Border Dems won the House. Senate alone approves judges & others. Big Republican Win! -- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 7, 2018 Trump even has a tab on his website dedicated to rallies. Many people believe the rallies are much less for the general public and are far more about stoking the president's delicate ego. Jack Moore at GQ posited the president is simply addicted to rallies: He's doing a terrible job running the country. His approval ratings can charitably be described as the numerical equivalent of Rodney Dangerfield pulling at his collar. He loves cable news, and every non-Fox channel he turns to is focused on the investigation into his campaign's potential collusion with Russia and his attempt to obstruct justice. He's well on his way to walking around the White House in the middle of the night screaming at the people in the paintings. He holds campaign rallies despite the fact that there's nothing to run for right now. He just wants to get in front of a crowd of people who still like him. This is post-murder, pre-Vegas OJ Simpson partying in seedy parts of Miami. It's sad. Moore isn't the only person who believes Trump's rallies are much more self-serving than he acts. Jeremy C. Young at the Washington Post writes: His emotional campaigning serves solely as a tool for self-aggrandizement, rather than fulfilling its historic function of channeling voter enthusiasm toward a particular legislative program. His rallies, which are notably about him and not about policies, raise deep concerns about a president who uses emotional politics to build a cult of personality rather than to pass laws. Not only are the rallies shallow affairs, they end up costing local governments tens of thousands of dollars. According to Pacific Standard, Trump's camp frequently claims they will reimburse cities without ever following through. Tucson, Arizona, racked up over $80,000 (double what the Sanders rally had cost the previous day); Spokane, Washington: around $65,000; and Eau Claire, Wisconsin: $47,000. And these are just some of the cities that have complained about being left with the bill for a Trump rally. It's not always clear who foots the bill when presidents or presidential hopefuls come to town, but in the case of Tucson, the Trump campaign manager had signed a prior agreement to cover the costs of security. Still, no dice. "You are responsible for these payments," Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin wrote to the Trump campaign in a letter obtained by the Center for Public Integrity. The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Local Media, LLC property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt, on Instagram @TheTylt or on Facebook, we'd love to hear what you have to say. | https://www.nola.com/interact/2019/02/should_a_sitting_president_hol_1.html |
What are people saying about Trump's national emergency? | Image copyright Getty Images Image caption US immigration agents parked on the US side of the southern border President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency on the US southern border, claiming that he needs special powers to build a wall to halt all illegal migration. His decision comes as he signs a bipartisan budget deal to avoid a government shutdown. But the deal does not provide funding for the wall, his signature campaign pledge that he repeatedly claimed Mexico would pay for. Some Republicans oppose the move, saying it creates a precedent for other presidents to bypass Congress if they do not fund his the administration's priorities. Democrats are uniformly opposed while legal experts are uncertain about the constitutionality of the executive action. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who often supports the president, said: "I think this is a political fight worth having." North Carolina Congressman Mark Meadows, who helped pressure Mr Trump to withhold his signature from a spending bill, triggering a 35-day government shutdown, said he supports the decision. Mr Meadows told Fox News that the declaration is necessary "because Congress has failed this president and the American people". Skip Twitter post by @RepMarkMeadows Democrats refusal to negotiate has rendered Congress inept at doing its job to protect Americans. At this point POTUS is absolutely right to use constitutional executive action authority to build the wall and secure our border. This is a national emergency. I fully support him. Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) February 14, 2019 Report Alabama Senator Richard Shelby said that legally, Mr Trump is "probably on pretty solid ground". "If I were the president, I'm not, I would do what I thought was best regardless of what - as long as I had the legal authority," he said, adding that he does not think Mr Trump is circumventing Congress' appropriation role. Conservative radio host Steve Deace said that Mr Trump should either declare a national emergency or back the spending bill, but not both. Mr Trump, he said, is "caving" and effectively saying it's not really an emergency by putting his signature to the budget deal. Skip Twitter post by @SteveDeaceShow I was in favor of national emergency when Trump said it was one. But if he signs omnibus Im opposed. Horrible precedent to set that every time a president doesnt get appropriations they want they can declare this. By caving on this, hes saying its not an emergency. Maine Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican, called it "a mistake," adding that it is of "dubious constitutionality" and "undermines the role of Congress". Conservative author Ann Coulter, who supports efforts to build the wall, lashed out at the president on Twitter saying, "No court will allow a president to claim it's an 'emergency' to violate a law he just signed" - referring to the bipartisan budget deal. "The goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base," until the 2020 election, she wrote. "I think she's fine, I think she's great. I just don't speak to her," Mr Trump said in the White House Rose Garden in response to her criticism as he prepared to sign the order. Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey told reporters: "I never thought that was a good idea. I still don't." He called for the matter to be "resolved through the legislative process". Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who is the highest ranking female in Republican leadership, said it "sets a very dangerous precedent". She warned that progressive senators Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders might use this precedent "to force the Green New Deal on the American people". Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers Utah Senator Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, said he would "reserve judgment" on the executive action "until I'm able to fully evaluate it". But he said he disagreed with a national emergency, and called on the president to "stay within statutory and constitutional limits". Must be very, very careful here." Puerto Rico Republican Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon said in a letter to the president that she is concerned that he will divert hurricane recovery funds from the island - and other states and territories recovering from natural disasters - in order to build a border wall. Democrats are unified in their opposition to Mr Trump's decision, and the attorney general of New York has already threatened to sue over the "abuse of power" which "could create a constitutional crisis". "Climate change is a national emergency. The absence of a wall is not," tweeted Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana and a 2020 presidential hopeful. California Senator Kamala Harris said Mr Trump's "vanity project is ridiculous". Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris is among those opposed "We don't need a wall. Instead, we should address the actual emergencies facing our country - everything from gun violence to the opioid crisis," she wrote. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Republicans "should have some dismay to the door that they are opening, the threshold they are crossing". "The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans and of course we will respond accordingly," Mrs Pelosi said, calling it an effort to make "an end run around Congress". Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz joked about Mr Trump's plan to go to Florida for the weekend after signing the order. "Apparently this thing is such an emergency that it will immediately be followed by golf," he tweeted. Skip Twitter post by @brianschatz Apparently this thing is such an emergency that it will immediately be followed by golf. Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) February 15, 2019 Report Legal and political experts Lawfare blog writes that for 39 years, the US has been under a state of emergency for various reasons, and notes that a 1979 order that is still in effect today was first signed by President Jimmy Carter 10 days into the Iran hostage crisis. The ACLU called the decision a "clear abuse of presidential power", and warned Republicans: "The chickens will come to roost when the next president uses these powers to call a national emergency on gun control or climate change." According to a CBS News poll, two-thirds of Americans said this month that they oppose declaring a national emergency to build the wall. But a majority of Republicans - 73% - back the plan. Pollster Nate Silver cautioned that it could harm Mr Trump's re-election prospects, tweeting "it's unclear whether it would fade into the background as it got tied up in the courts, or would remain a salient issue for some time". Brianne Gorod of the liberal-leaning think tank the Constitutional Accountability Center told the Associated Press that a national emergency is not "a blank cheque to invoke 'emergency' powers simply because he couldn't get what he wanted through the normal political process". | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47247042 |
Are Democrats bent on self-destruction? | After reading an especially radical platform agreed upon by the British Labor Party, one Tory wag described it as "the longest suicide note in history." The phrase comes to mind on reading of the resolution calling for a Green New Deal, advanced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and endorsed by at least five of the major Democratic candidates for president. The Green New Deal is designed to recall the halcyon days of the 1930s, when, so the story goes, FDR came to Washington to enact the historic reforms that rescued America from the Great Depression. Only that story is more than a small myth. The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25 percent. It never fell below 14 percent through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19 percent. World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us "full employment." And the wars end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead. Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious. To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet "100 percent of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources." This appears to require a phase-out by 2030 of all carbon-emitting power plants fueled by coal and oil and their replacement by power plants fueled by wind and solar. There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 states. Air travel consumes huge quantities of carbon-producing jet fuel. Perhaps progressive Democratic candidates will set an example by not flying, and then by voting to end production of private aircraft and to ground all corporate jets. Let the elites sail to Davos. The GND calls for an overhaul of the "transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector through clean, affordable and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail." Gas-powered cars are out. "By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried," tweeted the Wall Street Journals Kimberley Strassel: "If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful." The Green New Deal, say its authors, has as a goal "stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, peoples with disabilities, and youth." Fifty years after the Great Society, apparently half the country consists of victims of oppression. Guess. Among the endorsers of this Green New Deal is Sen. Cory Booker, who compares the battle to stop climate change to fighting the Nazis in World War II. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed it. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls climate change "an existential threat," was an original co-sponsor. Nancy Pelosi has more sense. Interviewed last week, the speaker batted the Green New Deal aside: "It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but theyre for it, right?" With her own agenda and priorities, Pelosi does not want to be dragged into having to defend a document that reads like it was written by the college socialists club. The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme. In a presidential election, the "out" party candidate usually has an advantage. No record to defend. He or she can choose the terrain on which to attack the incumbent, who has a four-year record. Rarely does an out party present a fixed and stationary target as exposed as this, as out-of the-mainstream as this, as vulnerable as this. The only explanation for the endorsement of the Green New Deal by candidates with a prospect of winning the Democratic nomination is that they are so fearful of Ocasio-Cortez and the left for whom she speaks that they must endorse her plan. That British Tory got it right. This thing reads like a Democratic Party suicide pact. | https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20190215/are-democrats-bent-on-self-destruction |
Are protesters who perform last rites for farm animals doing more harm than good? | As a vocal vegan, I might be expected to support the abattoir protests by the Save movement. But Im not convinced they benefit the animals Of all the people you would expect to be waiting outside a slaughterhouse, animal lovers might seem the least likely candidates. Yet outside abattoirs around the world, vegan activists from the Save Movement are doing just that. Save is a global network that holds vigils outside abattoirs to show love and compassion to the animals as they arrive for slaughter. The protesters stop the trucks for a few minutes, offer soothing words to the animals and take photos and videos to record their conditions. The movement first hit the headlines in 2015 when an activist in Canada was taken to court for giving water to thirsty pigs in a slaughter truck. She was threatened with 10 years in prison; eventually, a judge dismissed the case. Last week, the group made headlines after its Leicestershire chapter struck a deal with Foyle Food Group to allow them to perform last rites ceremonies. Im a vocal vegan. I write articles that expose the horrors of animal agriculture, and I march and speak at festivals. You might expect me to champion the work done by Save, but Ive often wondered whether they are brave or simply barmy. My main concern is for the animals. Save protesters say the moments they spend with these animals offer the only love the animals will encounter. Some vegans Ive spoken to who have attended Save protests have come away with a nagging sense that they unwittingly made the experience harder for the animals. However, Save protesters have shared shocking footage of animals arriving at abattoirs covered in deep scars, and videos of them trembling, which will have made more people aware of the horrors of the meat industry. The protests have had an impact on both sides. The National Pig Association says its members cannot sleep at night because of Save, while some of the groups activists have said they suffer ongoing trauma because of what they have seen. Despite the movements name, nothing can save the animals in the trucks from the bolt gun and the knife, but perhaps the vigils can help save future animals from the same fate. As the saying goes: if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegan. | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2019/feb/15/vegan-protesters-who-perform-last-rites-for-farm-animals-doing-more-harm-than-good |
When does daylight saving time start in 2019? | Daylight saving time, that weird bi-annual experiment on our sleep patterns that some experts consider deadly, is on its way. Yes, it still feels like deep winter. Yes, they sky is gray pretty much all day every day. But its almost time to spring forward and set our clocks one hour ahead. End daylight saving time now (commentary) Twice a year, for no real reason, we give ourselves what amounts to jet lag. It's time to stop this outrage. Daylight saving time in 2019 in Oregon starts at 2 a.m. on Sunday, March 10. That means on March 10 in the early morning, 2 a.m. becomes 3 a.m. and you have to get up an hour earlier to be to work on time. Happy daylight saving time. If some Oregon lawmakers get their way, it could be one of our last. | https://www.oregonlive.com/living/2019/02/when-does-daylight-saving-time-start-in-2019.html |
Can President Trump Legally Invoke A National Emergency At The Border? | This is NOT an opinion piece about how to best defend our borders, or about how to go about accepting immigrants to our country. Those unable to distinguish between their own politics and a legal analysis are asked to stop reading NOW. This is a legal opinion, about the legality of the President's invokation of an emergency to authorize the building of a permanent barrier over parts of the land border with Mexico. In a nutshell, I think the President does have this power. Legal (not political) analysis follows. First, there are literally dozens of laws that give the president special powers to act in an emergency. Every president in recent memory has declared emergencies. According to one statute, for example, in an emergency, the president is allowed to divert money already authorized by Congress to be spent by the Defense Department on other military items to military construction projects. He might designate the "border wall" as a military construction project. Three issues arise, however. One issue is whether there is a true emergency. Another issue that the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense, would normally control the building of the barrier. Both these issues might be enough for a judge chomping at the bit to stop the president. "I think the president would be wide open to a court challenge saying, 'Where's the emergency?' " Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told ABC News. The president has described the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border as both a humanitarian and national security crisis. "We have criminals coming in," he noted. "We have human traffickers coming in. We have drugs pouring in. We have things happening that you don't want to even know about." That last sentence presumably refers to his claim that terrorists are crossing the border. Whether these claims are exaggerated or not, there is clearly some truth to all of them. I grant Rep. Smith that there are District Court judges ready to substitute their own views here for those of the president. It is true that President Truman tried to nationalize the country's steel industry citing a state of emergency because of the Korean War, but the Supreme Court ruled Truman didn't have the authority. However, the recent statutory authority to declare an emergency largely moots World-War-II-era decisions. My own view of judicial restraint is that the issue of whether there truly is an emergency is a "political question" under our constitutional structure. The judiciary traditionally refrains from deciding political questions. As to the claim that a border wall is not a "military expenditure" because DHS and not DOD would manage it, there too we're to some extent in a boat without a legal paddle. My own view is that the defense of our borders is a core military concern that legitimately concerns the president's duty to protect the nation from invasion. I think that it should not particularly matter which government department manages that concern. However, the president's ability to divert funds might quite plausibly be legislatively confined to intra-department funding. I assume therefore that the President will order the military to have the wall built. The interstate highway system was authorized as a requirement of national defense, after all.... A third issue is whether the declaration of an emergency can authorize a long-term institutional change (as opposed to a short term fix). For example, I don't think a president could invoke a national emergency to establish a "Space Force" as a fifth branch of the military -- that's a permanent policy change that properly belongs to the Congress. A permanent barrier is more of a technological solution to a security problem than the establishment of a new military branch, though. Again, were I a judge, judicial restraint would compel me to accept both the president's proposed emergency and the solution he favors, subject of course to the Congressional check I discuss immediately below. Well, in the post-Viet-Nam era, Congress gave itself the statutory right to restrain the president's emergency powers. The National Emergencies Act (NEA) requires the president to notify Congress every time he or she declares an emergency. The president must list which powers are being invoked and must provide regular updates on the execution of the declared emergency powers. Crucially, NEA allows Congress to terminate an emergency by joint votes of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Whether this veto power over presidential action is valid or is an unconstitutional breach of our separation of powers is not discussed here, since it seems clear to me that such a joint vote will not be forthcoming in this divided Congress. So, in general, I think the president is on solid legal ground here. As to the wisdom of the wall, that's for voters to figure out. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2019/02/15/can-president-trump-legally-invoke-a-national-emergency-at-the-border/ |
What's Keeping Girls From Translating 'Soft Skills' Superiority Into STEM Field Success? | It seems like an obvious example of supply and demand. For years, business leaders have lamented a shortage of workers with abilities that are still beyond the reach of the smartest machine, like improvising solutions to unanticipated problems and boosting teamwork and morale. Women outperform men in many of the underlying skills that lead to job success skills commonly referred to as noncognitive because, like emotional IQ, creativity, and conscientiousness, theyre not clearly predicted by test results. The demand for soft skills, as theyre also known, was borne out in a 2017 Harvard study that found social skill-intensive occupations including teaching and some computer science and health care jobs increased by 12 percent since 1980 and enjoyed higher wage growth. Positions that demanded lots of brain power but little social aptitude declined. The huge rise over the past century in the number and percentage of women who work in the U.S., highlighted by more recent nationwide efforts to steer young females toward traditionally male-dominated STEM careers, would appear to give women at least an equal shot at great jobs. But it hasnt turned out that way at least not yet. The percentage of women who work has dropped three points since 1999 driven largely by increased school enrollment rates and job competition among older teenagers, according to the Department of Labor. Even so, nearly 57 percent of women in America were part of the labor force in 2015, up from 38 percent in 1960. And women continue to increase their share of the total workforce: they are now nearly 47 percent of all workers, up from one-third in 1950. Census and survey data tell two stories: the percentage of female scientists and engineers rose to 28 percent from 23 percent over the past two decades, with substantial increases in life science fields, like biology and medical research, and in social science (psychologists and sociologists). But only 15 percent of engineers are female, and overall gains for women in science and engineering occupations, while considerable, do not come close to reflecting the fact that women are about half of college-educated workers. Disparities are particularly evident across racial and ethnic categories: despite gains, black and Hispanic women make up just 6 percent, respectively, of women who have science and engineering jobs. Advocates and researchers say persistent gender stereotypes keep many women from seriously considering these positions and leave insufficient support for the few who do. Childbearing and motherhood come with opportunity and wage penalties, and may divert women who are in science and engineering careers to lower-paying but more flexible middle-skills health care jobs (like lab technician or pharmacist) a sector that is now 70 percent female. The push for soft skills often fails to take into account these disadvantages, experts warn. The fact that a curriculum may be incorporating soft skills and despite what we hear employers say about soft skills all the time that hasnt moved the needle, said Lois Joy, associate research director at Jobs for the Future, a nationwide workforce organization. She said women typically lack established career pathways, including mentoring and professional networks, that often help men succeed. It doesnt matter how well girls are communicating if theyre not communicating to the right people, she said. She and other workforce specialists point to successful programs vocational schools that support middle school girls along male career pathways and nonprofits that absorb childcare costs for would-be career-switchers getting tech training. But these remain the exception. We still have to marry the relationship between workforce and wages with the socialization process that leads to women choosing the occupations that they do in greater numbers than men, said Nicole Smith, chief economist at Georgetown Universitys Center on Education and the Workforce. Technology has resulted in the influx of women in the labor force. What we havent seen is women moving toward specific occupations that pay better. If you build it, she will come A San Francisco tech worker and social media activist decided to help local women do just that. Michelle Glauser likes to say that when she completed an expensive software engineering program and landed a job at the cloud communications firm Twillio, her income tripled but she also entered a profession with little gender or ethnic diversity and costly barriers to entry for non-stereotypical engineers. She wondered if the problem was getting worse. By driving San Francisco property values sharply upward the median cost of a house rose from $666,000 in 2012 to $1.57 million in 2018 the tech industry displaced the very people, particularly low-income women, who would particularly benefit from the kind of training she had received at Hackbright Academy, which calls itself the leading engineering school for women in the Bay Area. Partnering with local tech companies who were looking to build diversity, in 2016 Glauser launched Techtonica, offering a six-month training program in web development to 10 women of color earning less than $50,000 a year. Along with web development, the initiative sought to build the womens workplace skills, including project management and data analysis. The small initiative offered advantages that most STEM programs cant match. Business partners helped lead and picked up the cost of the training, as well as housing and childcare expenses (and laptops). Partners mentored individual apprentices and the course culminated in job offers for each woman. In effect, the program functioned as a job network the women didnt have. Glauser plans to expand Techtonica beyond the Bay Area. For now, it remains a sought-after boutique offering: the organization received 170 applicants for its second 10-person cohort in 2018. Glauser suggested there would be similar interest elsewhere if local business supported such efforts. Ive done a bunch of research: every single city that has a high number of tech jobs has high income disparities across its population, she said. Persisting stereotypes Females get better grades at every educational level in every subject and have higher college graduation rates: they earn 57 percent of bachelors degrees, including 50 percent in science and engineering subjects, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.. Female labor has provided a huge boost to the nations economy, but a dam-burst of highly qualified women into science and technology has only partly materialized. Experts cite the fact that women remain primary caregivers for children, which impedes their careers in many ways. A mother earns 20 percent less than a father in the years following the birth of their child, according to a 2018 study that found the gender pay gap could be largely explained as a penalty for having children. Time away from work, reduced work hours, and decreased pay all contribute. The economists also found that women move to jobs at family friendly companies offering flexible hours and family leave days after having children. Before the birth of a child, for instance, men and women are equally likely to work in the public sector: 10 years later, women are 10 percentage points more likely to have these jobs. The lead researcher, Henrik Kleven of Princeton, told Vox that some of the effects were subtle, such as a mother not being offered assignments with longer hours or travel because of the perception that they are the primary caregiver to a child. Those cultural cues continue to shape not only whether jobs are seen as innately male or female, but also what men and women value in their jobs: men put a greater premium on higher earnings, while women value stability and flexibility. The socialization process leads women into intellectual and caring professions in greater proportions than men, said Georgetowns Smith. It leads women to believe this is where they belong. They have a longing to care, to give, to nurture that overrides a concern about wages. Even the behavior correlated with professional success differs by gender. A 2006 study found that agreeableness had the greatest influence on gender differences in earnings: men were considerably more antagonistic (non-agreeable) than women, on average, and men alone were rewarded for that trait. Another researcher summarized data last year showing that very agreeable men in the top quintile of agreeableness earned $270,000 less over a lifetime than the average joe. Educators have tried to disrupt these patterns, and strengthen career pipelines, by building work cultures in school that expose students to new possibilities and on-the-job experience. In a 2018 study of children who grow up to file patents, economist Raj Chetty found that STEM programming by itself was not effective: apart from being born into affluent families, he observed, the biggest influence on whether girls became inventors was whether they lived close to women who invent. These findings suggest that there are many lost Einsteins, Chetty said, individuals who would have had highly impactful inventions had they been exposed to innovation in childhood especially among women, minorities, and children from low-income families. They set a model Studies of vocational and STEM-centered programs have been limited and offered little clear evidence of improved achievement for male or female students. One exception: a study of vocational high schools in Massachusetts that found they improved graduation rates, especially among low-income students. One of those schools, Minuteman High School, which serves 10 towns north of Boston, was named a National Blue Ribbon School in 2018. Fifty-one percent of its students have disabilities, and nearly one-quarter are considered economically disadvantaged, but 95 percent of students graduate in four years. Minuteman is recognized by workforce advocates for its success in preparing female students for science and technical careers. The school runs a STEM camp for middle school girls in the summer and a high school camp during February vacation. Every new student goes through what Principal Jack Dillon calls an exploratory process: immersion into each of the schools 18 career majors, from plumbing and heating to robotics. We want to expose the girls to all the types of majors we have that maybe they didnt know about, said Dillon. We want our girls to be in engineering, programming, web, biotechnology. We do a decent job trying to promote those programs. The soft skills of his female students has become both a selling point for middle-school girls and a way to make the sale. We really used to take a higher proportion of males to do our presentations to other schools but we switched that to a higher proportion of female students, because they set a model for the girls in the other schools, he said. Its now about three grls to one boy (doing presentations). Years ago, that was reversed. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/the74/2019/02/15/whats-keeping-girls-from-translating-soft-skills-superiority-into-stem-field-success/ |
What does Dell Demps firing mean for Pelicans coach Alvin Gentry? | Gentry and owner Gayle Benson talk after nearly every home game and he was seen expressing some frustrations to her following Thursday nights 131-122 win over the Oklahoma City Thunder at the Smoothie King Center. ESPN reports ownership and upper management are pleased with the job Gentry and his staff have done, especially considering the circumstances. According to the report, Gentry and his staff are safe, and his fate will be determined by the next general manager. Gentry guided the Pelicans to the playoffs last season after DeMarcus Cousins Achilles injury when many wrote New Orleans off. This year, he has gotten the team to play hard throughout a tumultuous situation with Anthony Davis trade request. Davis requested a trade on Jan. 28, but the Pelicans decided to keep Davis past the Feb. 7 trade deadline. Davis returned to the lineup last week and the Pelicans have gone 2-2 since then. However, Davis left Thursdays game with a shoulder injury and left the arena prior to the game ending to get an MRI done. Following the game, Gentry said he was happy for his players but called the situation as a whole a dumpster fire. | https://www.nola.com/pelicans/2019/02/what-does-dell-demps-firing-mean-for-pelicans-coach-alvin-gentry.html |
Will Trump Live to 500? | Trumps first physical as a candidate was reportedly performed by his former doctor, Harold Bornstein. After a year of journalistic scrutiny and national ire over the odd assessment (in which Trump was declared the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency), Bornstein accused the president last year of dictating the assessmentand of sending associates to raid his office and take possession of his medical records. Earlier, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump underwent a mock evaluation on the Dr. Oz Show in which Oz spent most of the hour letting Trump say that he was doing great. Oz was later appointed by Trump to his Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition despite being called before Congress and castigated for unethical behavior. In 2018, Trumps new physician Ronny Jackson (before being embroiled in scandal) gave an audience-of-one themed press conference laden with the words excellent and incredible and suggested that Trump could live to 200 because he has such excellent genes. (Hands down, theres no question that he is in the excellent range. . . . I put out in the statement that the presidents health is excellent, because his overall health is excellent. . . . Overall, he has very, very good health. Excellent health. ... Incredible cardiac fitness ... He has incredible genes. ... He has incredibly good genes, and its just the way God made him.) Two months later, Jackson was nominated by Trump to lead the VA health-care system, the nations largest, despite no experience in health-care policy or administration. As Ive written with regard to evaluating Trumps mental health, it is historically unprofessional for doctors to speculate from afar. But in the absence of a transparent process, even though its not possible to make a comprehensive assessment, its possible to say more than nothing. What we do know: The president is 72 years old, and he is widely reported to sleep little. He avoids exercise because of his erroneous belief that it depletes energy. He has evidence of coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, according to a coronary arterial calcium score done last year. He takes a cholesterol-lowering medication because of a history of high cholesterol. He is obese and eats a lot of junk (specifically the Filet-O-Fish). He is regularly described in palace-intrigue stories as increasingly isolated, and he is under as much professional stress as its possible for a person to be. There is no suggestion here that hes physically unfit to execute the duties of the office, but its also unclear on what basis any doctor could deem that very good health. As in the past, theres little evidence that this assessment is not primarily about good publicityabout outcome, not process. | https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/trump-presidential-health-assessment/582919/?utm_source=feed |
Could Facebook Track The Locations Of Journalists And Politicians It Deems A 'Threat'? | Yesterday CNBC broke the story that Facebook uses its platform and mobile app to track the location of its users that it deems to be threats to the company. Leveraging the fact that more than 2 billion people around the world have Facebook accounts and allow the company to track their location and even realtime location through their IP addresses and smartphone app, Facebook uses this information to track users it believes pose a threat to the company, creating geofencing alerts when they come near Facebook facilities. This previously unpublicized practice raises serious concerns about the ways in which Facebook may repurpose its users most intimate information for its own business purposes. Most seriously, it raises the question of whether Facebook may use a similar tactic to track the realtime location of journalists, diplomats and politicians around the world that it considers to be threats to the companys business interests. Like many large global companies, Facebook maintains lists of individuals that are banned from its premises. Most companies, however, are limited to matching these lists against visitor requests and alerting their security staff to be on the lookout for particularly high-risk individuals. According to CNBC, Facebook, on the other hand, has leveraged its position as a global surveillance and intelligence database to repurpose its own platform to track problematic users in realtime. Given how many users install the Facebook mobile app on their smartphones, Facebook can use its own app to secretly track those users as they go about their lives. Without any notice or warning to the user, Facebook can simply flip a switch and view where that user is on a map and even create a geofence around its facilities to know when that individual comes near them. On paper, Facebooks location tracking operation exists to protect its facilities and employees from physical threats. In a request for comment, the company stated that it performs location tracking when it believes there is a credible risk of physical violence against one of its employees. However, notably, the companys response specifically avoided stating that this is the only reason it uses location tracking, leaving open the possibility that it may track users for other reasons. Asked about the ethics of using user location data, the company noted that users consent to allow the company to do whatever it wishes with their realtime location information, per its Data Policy: Data from device settings: information you allow us to receive through device settings you turn on, such as access to your GPS location, camera or photos. It is worth noting that that the line above, which Facebook cited in defense of its location tracking program, also permits it to access the users camera and photos stored on their phone. Such access has eerie echoes of the NSA phone hacking activities publicized by Edward Snowden. The company also cited this line in its Data Policy: We use the information we have to verify accounts and activity, combat harmful conduct, detect and prevent spam and other bad experiences, maintain the integrity of our Products, and promote safety and security on and off of Facebook Products. For example, we use data we have to investigate suspicious activity or violations of our terms or policies, or to detect when someone needs help. It also cited a third line in its Data Policy with regards to accessing private user data: When we have a good-faith belief it is necessary to: detect, prevent and address fraud, unauthorized use of the Products, violations of our terms or policies, or other harmful or illegal activity; to protect ourselves (including our rights, property or Products), you or others, including as part of investigations or regulatory inquiries; or to prevent death or imminent bodily harm. For example, if relevant, we provide information to and receive information from third-party partners about the reliability of your account to prevent fraud, abuse and other harmful activity on and off our Products. The fact that Facebook would cite such an extraordinarily broad set of circumstances when asked the reasons it might perform location tracking of a user suggests that the company may not always restrict accesses solely to cases of threats of physical harm. Specifically, those clauses raise the possibility that Facebook might consider it justified to track elected officials that it considers to be threats to its business model due to legislation they have proposed and journalists it considers to be threats to the confidentiality of its business practices for exposing damaging information about the company. For example, the company could use its location tracking to monitor journalists it suspects of meeting with company employees or former employees and monitor to see if their phones appear nearby any of its current or former employees or contractors. It could also monitor policymakers that have proposed legislation that could impact the companys bottom line and track what phones appear near them or their aides on a day-to-day basis to determine who they might be meeting with to get an edge on what legislation proposals might be coming. Asked whether it has ever tracked journalists that have exposed confidential business practices or policymakers that have threatened legislation that would curtail the companys business activities, a spokesperson reiterated that it has very specific policies governing how it decides to use location tracking and that location tracking is permitted for physical threats. However, notably, the company stopped short of explicitly denying that it has ever tracked a journalist or lawmaker for a reason other than a perceived immediate physical threat of violence against the company. Asked to state for the record that Facebook has never tracked the location of a journalist in order to determine their confidential sources or a policymaker to determine who they are meeting with, a company spokesperson responded that the company would not be commenting. For a company that has forcefully pushed back on many claims surrounding its most controversial practices, the companys refusal to state for the record that it has not tracked journalists and policymakers for reasons outside of physical threats is nothing short of extraordinary and suggests there may be far more to this program than the company has acknowledged. In many cases the program resembles Ubers former God mode capability that could track its users in realtime. Facebooks ability to use user location data for its own purposes suggests governments are likely using the same capability to track dissidents and others they dislike. Asked whether Facebook has complied with lawful court orders from the US or foreign governments to track individuals around the world for any purpose, the company noted that it has an obligation to comply with legal requests and did not deny doing so. Facebooks global reach means that countries around the world can in effect outsource their global surveillance operations to the company, using court orders to track anyone anywhere as they move about their daily lives. A dissident fleeing a repressive government can no longer escape surveillance, with their government able to turn to Facebook not only to track them around the world, but observe who they meet with. Even if the dissident does not use Facebook, anyone they meet with who does will be tracked. Asked whether the company would permit third party auditing of its use of location tracking to ensure that it has complied with its own policies and to determine all of the situations under which it has used such tracking, a spokesperson said the company would not be commenting. Once again, we are reminded that for all of Facebooks reassurances and calls to trust us, we have absolutely no independent verification of any of its claims. Putting this all together it is nothing short of extraordinary that Facebook not only is secretly mapping the locations of users it considers threats but that it refuses to deny on the record having used that capability to track journalists and policymakers that pose a threat to its business activities rather than a physical threat. Even if it turns out that the company has not yet exploited its tracking for such purposes, there is absolutely nothing preventing it from doing so. With a flip of a switch, Facebook could create a map that tracks the location of every policymaker and their aides, every journalist and every business leader that has installed the Facebook app, tracking them worldwide in every country and watch them travel around the world, having a global intelligence map rivaling that of the NSA. Even heads of state that use secure phones without Facebook installed are trailed by a phalanx of aides with personal phones who likely do have Facebook installed. In the end, as we condemn repressive regimes around the world for secret surveillance and realtime location tracking of their dissidents, it is becoming increasingly clear that Facebook may be the worst offender of them all. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/02/15/could-facebook-track-the-locations-of-journalists-and-politicians-it-deems-a-threat/ |
What Are Estee Lauder's Key Sources Of Revenue? | Estee Lauder (NYSE: EL) has continued with its growth momentum the past few years, primarily driven by strong performance in its Skin Care and Makeup segments. Its Skin Care and Makeup Divisions account for 80% of the companys revenue. Recently, during the Q2 earnings for FY19, the company reported better-than-expected growth in sales growing by 11% y-o-y. Estee Lauders Skin Care segment, which constitutes over one-third of Estee Lauders sales, posted 16% growth in Q2 sales. The company posted this exceptional performance driven by strong innovations, increasing demand from younger consumers, and gains from its hero products: Este Lauder, La Mer, Origins, and Clinique brands. Driven by continued success of the recent launches Advanced Night Repair Eye Concentrate Matrix the Estee Lauder brand saw strong growth from China and the travel retail segment. La Mer saw growth coming from new products in the Genaissance collection and launch of The Moisturizing Matte Lotion. In addition, Origins generated sales growth from every geographic region, led by Asia. The division is continuing to perform well in e-commerce and is outpacing growth in the mass Skin Care segment. ELs makeup segment continued to see increased sales from the acquisitions of Too Faced and BECCA in the last fiscal year. The 3% increase in this segment was driven by strong growth from its brands viz. Este Lauder and Tom Ford, Too Faced, BECCA, and La Mer. Other sources of revenue for EL is the Hair Care segment, which increased by 5% primarily driven by higher sales of the Aveda brand and continued growth from the Invati Advanced line of products. Driven by this earning performance, which has been fueled by growth in most of their segments and brands, Estee Lauder is projecting growth in its Q3 2019 sales to increase between the band of 8% 9% (Excluding a 5% impact from currency translation and a 2% impact from the adoption of ASC 606), net earnings per share between $1.17 and $1.20. ELs growth drivers and aggressive growth strategies will help it in maintaining its dominance in the beauty market. Also, the company is on track with the implementation of the Leading Beauty Forward initiative, directed toward better-management of costs and operations, which will help it grow stronger in the coming years. We have created an interactive dashboard on Estee Lauders Key Sources of Revenues that shows Estee Lauders key revenue sources and the expected performance in 2019. You can adjust the revenues to see the impact on earnings. In addition, all Trefis Consumer Discretionary Data is here. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/15/what-are-estee-lauders-key-sources-of-revenue/ |
What To Expect From Activision Blizzard In 2019? | Activision Blizzard (NASDAQ:ATVI) recently posted its Q4 results, which were in line with our estimates. The top line grew in mid-teens while its bottom line saw strong double-digit growth, primarily led by a higher contribution from Blizzard. However, the segment saw continued softness in net bookings. In fact, the company has guided for a significant decline in the Blizzard segment in 2019. We forecast a low double-digit decline in the companys top line, and a low thirties percent decline in the adjusted earnings, primarily due to the expected trends in the Blizzard segment, which we discuss below. We have created an interactive dashboard ~ A Quick Snapshot of Activision Blizzards Q4 Performance And Trefis Estimates For The Full Year 2019. You can adjust various drivers to see the impact on the companys earnings, and price estimate. In addition, here is more Information Technology data. Expect Revenues To Decline In Low Single-Digits Activision revenues were up in mid-single-digits in 2018, primarily led by Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, The game has seen strong sales in the recent months. In fact, it was No. 2 in NPDs top 10 grossers list for 2018. The game will likely see continued demand in Q1 as well, and the company plans to release the next line up in the franchise in Q4 2019. However, the companys management in its recent earnings conference call stated that the segment revenues wont see any significant growth (y-o-y) in 2019, given that Destinys publishing rights were sold to Bungie. The Blizzard segment saw high single-digit revenue growth in 2018, led by World of Warcraft: Battle of Azeroth. However, the company saw softness in net bookings (in-game). There is no release planned for World of Warcraft in 2019, and this will have a significant impact on the companys performance. We forecast the decline to be as steep as 50% on the segments revenues. Looking at King Digital, the segment revenue grew 7%, led by its new game ~ Candy Crush Friends. However, its monthly active user base of around 271 million was down in low double-digits (y-o-y). We forecast the segment revenues to grow in low double-digits in 2019, led by an expected pick up in its active user base, with the launches in the Candy Crush franchise, and an uptick in advertising revenues. Overall, we forecast the companys revenues to decline in low double digits to $6.67 billion in 2019, primarily due to the plunge in the Blizzard segment. Note that our forecast is above the companys guidance of $6.30 billion. We expect the earnings to be $1.90 per share for the full year 2019, on an adjusted basis. Our price estimate of $52 for Activision Blizzard is based of a 28x forward price to earnings multiple. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/15/what-to-expect-from-activision-blizzard-in-2019/ |
What's Next For Namaste Technologies After Ousting CEO? | Namaste Technologies stock has tanked of late, after the company announced that CEO Sean Dollinger had been terminated for cause after an internal investigation found evidence of self-dealing and breaches of fiduciary duty. The company also announced that it will be undergoing a review of strategic options, which could potentially include the outright sale of the company. The stock is now trading below $1, down from nearly $3 in late September when a short-seller leveled allegations of fraud that prompted the companys internal investigation. Investors will be eagerly awaiting the results of the review of strategic options, though given the turmoil and depressed valuation, it may not be an opportune time to seek a buyout. Namaste is an emerging company in the cannabis-related market, selling vaporizers and other accessories through its 30 e-commerce websites across 20 countries. While the company focused primarily on the medical side until recently, it has taken steps to capitalize on the growth potential of Canadas recreational cannabis market. Given the turmoil surrounding the company, and its relatively murky outlook, we have cut our price estimate for Namaste Technologies to CAD 2 per share (around $1.50). Our interactive dashboard analysis on Namaste Technologies Valuation outlines our near-term expectations for the company. You can modify any of our key estimates or forecasts to gauge the impact changes have on the companys valuation, and see all Trefis Consumer company data. Namastes board elevated Meni Morim, the companys Chief Product Officer and Director of AI, to the position of CEO. The company sent a letter to shareholders stating that the companys operations will continue uninterrupted during the strategic review, and discussing its ongoing innovation initiatives including Artificial Intelligence capabilities that are being deeply integrated into [the] customer experience. However, at this point it is very possible that the company ultimately pursues a buyout, despite the depressed valuation. Given its potential in the fast-growing market, solid technological capabilities and sales pipeline, there could be a few suitors for its business (such as Canadian cannabis competitors or even a larger tobacco company potentially). With the stock trading well below the levels it saw for much of 2018, a suitor could potentially acquire the company at a relatively attractive price tag. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/15/whats-next-for-namaste-technologies-after-ousting-ceo/ |
Will Expansion Of Stores Be Key For Dunkin' Brands In 2019? | Dunkin Brands (NASDAQ:DNKN) announced its 4th quarter and full year results recently. For Quarter 4 the company beat consensus estimates for earnings but missed consensus revenue expectations for the quarter by $10.23 million. Overall, for the Fiscal Year 2018 the company posted $1.32 billion in revenue and $239 million as Net Income. The company added a net new 392 stores (278 in US). The comparable sales growth for Dunkin US was 0.6%, Baskin-Robbins US was down by 0.6%, while the International segments for Dunkin and Baskin-Robbins was up by 2.2% and 3.8%, respectively. We have a $76 price estimate for Dunkin Brands. The charts have been made using our new, interactive platform. You can click here for our interactive dashboard Our Outlook for Dunkin Brands in FY 2019 and Estimate Its Fair Price by modifying different drivers, and see their impact on the net income and price estimate for the company. In addition, all Trefis Consumer Discretionary Data is here. Key Factors That May Impact Results Going Forward: Simplified Menu: In the first quarter, DNKN completed the national rollout of its menu simplification, which resulted in a 10% reduction of required menu items. This step is expected to help in the long run by reducing the complexity, which should help deliver a better guest experience, improve order accuracy, drive franchisee profitability, and ultimately, increase restaurant level margins. Expanding Its Footprint: Dunkin Brands is looking to expand the footprint of Dunkin U.S. at a 3% annual rate, adding around 1,000 new restaurants by 2020. The company is also on track to convert its existing restaurants into NextGen stores to offer better customer service. At the end of the fiscal year 2018, 392 net new locations were added in the country, and the company now has 132 new and remodeled NextGen restaurants. The company remains on track to deliver 90% of net restaurant growth outside of its core markets by the end of 2020. New restaurants add to revenue growth, and should positively impact the companys valuation. Branded CPG Products: DNKNs total portfolio of CPG products across both brands in retail sales delivered 5% of retail stores growth for the fiscal year 2018. New and innovative product launches, such as the new ready-to-drink flavor, Cookies & Cream, should help to ensure continued growth from this avenue. Convenience To Customers: Dunkin Brands is looking to increase the conveniences it offers to its guests with several initiatives such as a focus on its loyalty program, testing a digital catering platform, and tying up with third-party delivery options with a goal of creating a strong delivery and catering platform by the end of next year. The company has grown its partnership with DoorDash, who now covers over 70% of Baskin-Robbins stores across the U.S. which is a 40% increase in coverage year on year. The consumer response to this remains positive, with delivery orders on average carrying a ticket that is 50% higher than that of the restaurant. The company is also working on building a dedicated mobile order drive-thru lane to ensure speed of service to its digital customers. Investment Into Dunkin U.S.: Earlier this year, the company announced its intention to invest approximately $100 million into the Dunkin U.S. business, with about 65% of this investment allocated toward equipment that would accelerate its beverage-led strategy. In this regard, the company noted solid growth across its beverage portfolio, led by Espresso, Cold Brew, and Frozen categories. The management also stated that a significant portion of these funds will go toward new espresso equipment and consequently, revitalizing a critical, high-growth category for its business. Launch Of Value Platforms: In April 2018 DNKN launched its national value platform, Go2s, and the company noted that more than 75% of these breakfast sandwich transactions contained a beverage, and the average check size was roughly $8-$9. The company took a break to test different national value iterations, but beginning in January they are back with a similar Go2s platform and an afternoon beverage break offer. In conclusion, Dunkin Brands had a strong 2018 and is on the path to continue the growth momentum in 2019. We believe expanding presence, value platforms, and digitization will lead the way for a strong fiscal year 2019. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/15/will-expansion-of-stores-be-key-for-dunkin-brands-in-2019/ |
Wheres the closest place to find snow near San Francisco? | You could leave right now and in a matter of hours find yourself throwing a snowball, sailing down a ski run, tubing on a hill or cruising on cross-country skis on a route in a national forest. The snow country is this close: Dodge Ridge, 160 miles from the San Francisco Peninsula, is the closest ski area to the Bay Area. On Highway 108, Sonora is the gateway to Stanislaus National Forest, Dodge Ridge Ski Area and destinations for cross country and snow play. In addition, if youre not comfortable driving in snow country or your vehicle is not equipped for it, rides on a ski bus are available for the final 30 miles from Sonora (1,800 feet elevation) to Dodge Ridge (6,600 feet). Tuolumne County Transit is providing the Dodge Ridge Ski Bus, $10 round trip per person, or a $25 family four-pack, on weekends and holidays through March. Dodge Ridge is near Pinecrest in the heart of the central Sierra. The pretty drive up takes you through Manteca and Oakdale in the San Joaquin Valley and then up through the foothills past Sonora to the west flank of the Sierra. You pass little towns like Mi-Wuk Village, Sierra Village and Pinecrest. Heres what youll find: Dodge Ridge Ski Area For many, Dodge Ridge feels just right. Not too big, not too small. Not too crowded, not too expensive. At the lifts, if you need a little extra time to get your seat, the attendant wont use a cattle prod on you to speed it up. Dodge has 12 lifts, 67 trails and 1,600 feet of vertical, and a layout where the beginner runs are well separated from intermediate and advanced runs higher on the hill. Dodge has no snow making, no lake view and no nightlife, so many bypass it. Yet this past week, snowfall hit 300 inches for the season, 130 percent of average. Intermediate skiers should take the Canyon Quad to the top of the ridge at 8,200 feet. Just off to your left, take the Graceland Run, a 2-mile-long intermediate run, great for cruisers. Theres a cafe and a free ski or board check when you take a break at the lodge. Ive been coming here a long time and have never had a bad trip. One year, what looked like a Volkswagen with hair was spotted sliding down one of the ski runs. It was a black bear. If you go: Current base depths 74 to 106 inches. Lift tickets: $78 for full day, discounts for half day, seniors, youth, active military, free for those over 82 or 5 and under, with advance ticket vouchers at Save Mart or Lucky. Rentals: Adult ski or snowboard package $43, Nordic $25, snowshoes $20. Contacts: Dodge Ridge, snow phone, 209-536-5300; guest relations, 209-965-3474; www.DodgeRidge.com. Cross-country ski Getting there GPS location: 1 Dodge Ridge Road, Pinecrest How to get there: From San Francisco, take the Bay Bridge east for 6.4 miles to the split and Highway 580. Bear right on 580 and drive 45 miles to the split (stay left) with Interstate 205. Bear left on on I-205E and drive 14.6 miles to the merge with I-5N. Merge with I-5 (stay in right lane) and go 1 mile to the exit for Highway 120E/Manteca-Sonora. Take that exit onto Highway 120 and drive 6.3 miles to Manteca area and fork with Highway 99/120. Keep left at fork, merge on 120/99 and go 1.7 miles to exit for Highway 120. Take that exit, turn right on 120 and drive 20 miles to Oakdale and continue into town to signed, lighted intersection with Highway 108/120. Turn left on 108 (still in town) and drive 37 miles to Sonora. In Sonora, continue east on 108 and drive 25 miles into Sierra and to Pinecrest and Pinecrest Lake Road. Turn right and drive 0.4 miles to second right to Dodge Ridge Road. Turn right and go 3.5 miles to Dodge Ridge Ski Area. Distances:65 miles from Oakdale, 86 miles from Manteca, 121 miles from Livermore, 144 miles from Concord, 157 miles from San Jose, 160 miles from San Mateo, 163 miles from San Francisco, 173 miles from San Rafael. Dodge Ridge Ski Bus:$10 round trip service, $25 family four-pack, from Sonora to Dodge Ridge. Reserve at (209) 532-0404, www.tuolumnecountytransit.com/skibus Read More Near Highway 108 and Dodge Ridge, Stanislaus National Forest operates two free trailheads, Crabtree and Gooseberry, for access to a network of cross-country ski trails. Its free, yet you are not on your own. At the trailhead, cross-country ski trail maps are available. On weekends and holidays, and on occasional weekdays, members of the Pinecrest Nordic Ski Patrol roam the terrain and have your back. Rentals available at Dodge Ridge. Info: Trail map, www.pinecrestnordic.org. Leland Snow Play Leland Snow Play is the largest stand-alone, developed snow play site in Northern California. This is a 12-acre hill with lift tows and groomed lanes, equipment provided. Older kids can sail down the fast lanes at a higher speed. Small youngsters can can ride double or triple with their parents in the slower lanes. Warming lodge available. It is 7 miles east of Strawberry, elevation 6,300 feet. Rates vary according to size (under/over 40 inches), $22 to $30, all day. Info: Leland Snow Play, 209-965-4719, www.snowplay.com. Highway 108 Sno-Park A Sno-Park is at the winter closure gate on Highway 108, east of Strawberry. Near the gate, visitors have snowball fights, with a small hill nearby for sledding. It is also a launch spot for cross-country skiing and to a lesser extent snowmobiling and dog sledding. Parking is good. Day permits, $5 (buy in advance). Info, link to purchase permits: California State Parks, OHV program, http://ohv.parks.ca.gov click on winter recreation. Cabins at Strawberry To turn the trip into an overnighter, the most popular choice is to book lodging at the Cabins at Strawberry or rent a vacation cabin at Mi-Wuk Village through www.airbnb.com or similar rental services. The rates for vacation cabins at Mi-Wuk are low compared to many other regions, where $75 to $125 per night is common. At the Cabins at Strawberry, rates are higher, an average of $269 per night, but the location and setting are gorgeous. Info: AirBnb at www.airbnb.com; Cabins at Strawberry, info at (209) 965-0885, reservations at 888-965-0885; www.cabinsatstrawberry.com. Tom Stienstra is The San Francisco Chronicles outdoors writer. Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @StienstraTom. Facebook: www.facebook.com/tomstienstraoutdoors. | https://www.sfchronicle.com/outdoors/stienstra/article/Where-s-the-closest-place-to-find-snow-near-San-13619931.php |
Can gambling boost flagging interest in NASCAR? | CLOSE USA TODAY Sports A.J. Perez looks to the Daytona 500 and the five drivers that racing fans should keep their eye on this Sunday. USA TODAY Sports DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. Brendan Gaughan has a unique perspective on sports gambling. He's a part-time driver, and his family has been in the casino business for decades. The more readily available it is the more people will pay attention (to NASCAR), said Gaughan before he qualified for his forth Daytona 500 this week. The more that NASCAR allows (fans) to embrace it and allows TV to embrace it, the more people will pay attention. They'll watch the race longer, which means all value goes up. MORE NASCAR: Dale Earnhardt Jr. on couples therapy, changing diapers and why it's OK to like Troy Aikman NASCAR hasn't exactly embraced legalized sports betting since the the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a decision last May that allows all states to offer legalized sports betting. The racing series has given gambling more of a nod at this point its seeks to reignite interest among casual fans. Las Vegas casinos typically see increased interest in NASCAR leading into the Daytona 500. (Photo11: John Locher, AP) We see a tremendous fan engagement opportunity in the gaming space both for the sanctioning body and the larger NASCAR industry, Brian Herbst, NASCAR vice president of global media strategy and distribution, said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports. Were in the process of refining our gaming strategy and the new props game on NASCAR.com is an example of priming the ecosystem and getting fans accustomed to the idea of in-race betting. NASCAR's website has featured Daytona 500 odds prominently the past several days. While the series fantasy game has been in place for a couple seasons, theres a new wrinkle for 2019: the Props Challenge. Prop bets, typically a wager on an in-game result, have grown in popularity in the U.S., largely thanks to the Super Bowl. But unlike betting on the coin toss at a sportsbook, theres no money changing hands in NASCARs version. Players compete for free with weekly prizes awarded. "Younger betters and younger viewers enjoy these game aspects," said Gaughan, who has made four Cup starts in each of the past two seasons. They have the new Props Challenge. These are all versions of games that are hopefully get people interested." NASCAR has not drawn a lot of action in Nevada casinos, outside of two events: the Daytona 500 and races at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. Seven more states now offer sports betting, including two that host multiple Cup races: Delaware (Dover International Speedway) and Pennsylvania (Pocono Raceway). Nick Bogdanovich, the director of trading at William Hill U.S., told USA TODAY Sports that NASCAR is the equivalent to golf far behind football (NFL and college) , basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer and even tennis. I dont know if thats going to grow, said Bogdanovich, who oversees more than 100 sportsbooks in Nevada, New Jersey and West Virginia. Certainly, theres a segment of fans and those people get in on the action, but Im not sure how much will grow as betting is allowed in more jurisdictions. Another change this season is that NASCAR will allow teams to take sponsorships from sports betting companies. No team as of yet has entered into such a deal. Teams and tracks have been able to partner with brick-and-mortar casinos. There's also a strong possibility that NASCAR could have an official gaming sponsor, like MLB, NBA and NHL with MGM Resorts and the NFL's partnership with Cesars. NASCAR could also potentially license some of its proprietary data, a trove of statistics that track everything from laps led to quality passes (passing a top-15 car under a green flag) to sportsbooks. The NFL advocated sportsbooks use official data from leagues in written testimony to a Congressional hearing in September, a suggestion that was largely dismissed as a money grab. The difference for NASCARs data is that theres no alternative for such statistics elsewhere. In response to this new betting landscape, the series added language to its 2019 rulebook that mandates drivers, crew members, team owners and NASCAR officials "shall not engage, nor attempt to engage, in any legal or illegal gambling" on NASCAR events. The new policy, however, allows for NASCAR-related fantasy sports participation as long as the prize money doesn't exceed $250. The new rules describe "as games of skill rather than gambling activity." "I'll never forget the phone call when they said they wanted to do a fantasy show," said Gaughan, who has hosted NASCAR fantasy show on SiriusXM since 2016. "I said, 'Oh, yeah. That's just another form of gambling.' " Gaughan said theres never been a need to worry about the integrity of NASCAR when it comes to gambling and took the opportunity to again refute a report which was recirculated in a recent Associated Press story this week that he bet on himself to win the 2004 Daytona 500. This new policy I think is kind of useless because NASCAR does not have the same integrity issues that every other sport has where one man can affect other sport and thats an official or referee, Gaughan said. A NASCAR official cant change our race. Everything we have now when it comes to penalty in a live race is done by a computer. There's no integrity issues in NASCAR." | https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2019/02/15/daytona-500-can-gambling-boost-flagging-interest-nascar/2879159002/ |
Whats open, closed on Presidents Day 2019? | CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Presidents Day, celebrated the third Monday of February, falls on Feb. 18 this year. The federal holiday is officially called Washingtons Birthday, though thats not until Feb. 22. Federal, county and state buildings are closed on Presidents Day, but the RTA will run its normal weekday service. The majority of local libraries are open, though Cleveland Public Library is closed. Heres whats open and closed: Banks: Individual banks differ but most are closed. Libraries Cleveland Public Library: Closed Cuyahoga County Public Library: Open Heights Libraries: Open Lakewood Public Library: Open Akron-Summit County Library: Open Federal offices: Closed County offices: Closed State offices: Closed Post offices: Closed RTA: Regular weekday service, office closed Schools: Closed. Some universities, such as Cleveland State, also closed. Trash service and city hall operations: Trash pickup services and city hall services vary between communities. Contact your city hall to see whats happening. | https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/02/whats-open-closed-on-presidents-day-2019.html |
What's in the Cards for Bausch Health (BHC) Q4 Earnings? | Bausch Health Companies Inc. BHC is scheduled to report fourth quarter and full-year 2018 results on Feb 20. In the last reported quarter, the companys earnings beat estimates by 32.2%. Bauschs earnings track record has been pretty decent so far. Over the last four quarters, the company beat earnings expectations thrice, delivering average positive earnings surprise of 83.2%. Bauschs stock has gained 19.5% in the past six months compared to a 22.2% decline for the industry. . Factors Likely to Impact Results Bausch conducts its business in four operating segments the Bausch + Lomb/International segment, the Salix segment, the Ortho Dermatologics segment and the Diversified Products segment. The Bausch + Lomb/International segment primarily comprises products with a focus on the vision care, surgical, consumer and ophthalmology Rx products. The Salix segment consists of sales of gastrointestinal products. The Ortho Dermatologics segment consists of sales of Ortho Dermatologics (dermatological) products in the United States and global sales of Solta medical dermatological devices. The Diversified Products segment comprises sales of pharmaceutical products in the areas of neurology and certain other therapeutic classes in the United States, generic products, and dentistry products. Approximately 75% of the companys total third-quarter revenues was generated by the Bausch + Lomb/International and the Salix segments. Hence, the focus will be on these two segments in the fourth quarter. Revenues in 2018 are expected between $8.15 billion and $8.35 billion. The company expects R&D expenses of $415 million in 2018. The Salix business continues to drive growth and contribute to the top line. In particular, increased sales of Xiaflex and Relistor are boosting the segment. In August, Bausch launched Lucemrya for the mitigation of withdrawal symptoms to facilitate abrupt discontinuation of opioids in adults. The company also entered into an exclusive agreement with Dova Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to co-promote Doptelet in the United States for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in adult patients with chronic liver disease who are scheduled to undergo a procedure. Bausch also launched Plenvu, a one-liter PEG bowel cleansing preparation for colonoscopies, in the United States. Meanwhile, investors are expected to focus on pipeline development, apart from the regular top and bottom-line numbers. Bausch has narrowed its focus on seven recently launched or expected to be launched products pending completion of testing and receipt of FDA approval. The products include Vyzulta, Siliq, Bryhali (psoriasis), Lumify, Duobrii, Relistor and SiHy Daily. Bausch also obtained FDA approval for Vyzulta, a treatment option for glaucoma. The FDA also approved Lumify, the over-the-counter eye drop with low-dose brimonidine for the treatment of eye redness. The approval of new drugs should boost the top line. The company successfully launched Lumify. The FDA also approved Altreno (IDP-121), an acne treatment in lotion form. The company launched Bryhali lotion, a topical treatment for plaque psoriasis, following the receipt of final FDA approval. The FDA accepted the resubmission of the NDA for Duobrii Lotion for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis with a PDUFA action date of Feb 15, 2019. The phase III studies for IDP 120 are expected to begin shortly and the company expects to submit an NDA for IDP 123 in the first half of 2019. | https://news.yahoo.com/whats-cards-bausch-health-bhc-210809975.html |
What does SNC-Lavalins future look like? | Open this photo in gallery SNC-Lavalin stunned the market Jan. 28 with a cocktail of bad news, saying profit for 2018 would come in more than 50 per cent lower than previously expected and that its business prospects in Saudi Arabia have deteriorated, contributing to a $1.24-billion writedown of its oil and gas business. Dario Ayala/The Globe and Mail Barely four months ago, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. revived a team of internal and external advisers to analyze the options for a radical reshaping of the Canadian engineering firm in the face of mounting odds that it would face trial for corruption. Their task: Come up with a Plan B for the multinational in case it has to go to court. Today, the companys problems have deepened and its plight has become highly politicized. The Globe and Mail reported last week that the Prime Ministers Office put pressure on the former justice minister to shelve the criminal prosecution against SNC-Lavalin in favour of a negotiated settlement. Quebec is pressing Ottawa to order such a settlement, called a remediation agreement, but the federal prosecutors office seems intent on pushing forward with a trial. The stock has plunged to lows not seen in a decade. A dramatic move to protect shareholder value looks more urgent than ever. Story continues below advertisement What path SNC-Lavalins board and management will take remains a matter of speculation and disagreement among analysts, money-managers and industry observers alike. From breaking up to negotiating a rescue or simply cutting loose some assets, opinion is divided. The only agreement among the roughly dozen people interviewed for this story is that the companys ambition to become the worlds biggest engineering firm should be shelved. The optimism investors had that the engineering company was on a solid trajectory under chief executive Neil Bruce has been badly rattled. When hope becomes your only investment thesis, it is time to move on, said Charles Marleau of Montreal wealth management firm Palos, which sold off its SNC-Lavalin stock in the wake of the latest developments. I no longer have any confidence in this company." SNC-Lavalin stunned the market Jan. 28 with a cocktail of bad news, saying profit for 2018 would come in more than 50 per cent lower than previously expected and that its business prospects in Saudi Arabia have deteriorated, contributing to a $1.24-billion writedown of its oil and gas business. Perhaps most worryingly, the company disclosed previously unknown trouble with a major mining contract for Chilean copper producer Codelco. Two weeks later and after examining its options on that contract, SNC reduced its profit expectations again and said it was halting all future bidding on mining engineering, procurement and construction projects. The company also said it had negotiated temporary debt covenant relief from lenders, which include pension fund Caisse de dpt et placement du Qubec. It could now pull the plug on a plan to sell a piece of its 16.7-per-cent stake in Torontos Highway 407 toll road. The situation has become even more complicated as the corporation comes under intense national scrutiny. S&P Global ratings this week cut SNC-Lavalins credit rating to the cusp of junk, saying it expects the companys credit metrics to worsen over the next two years. The ratings agency said SNC will face headwinds over the same time that could slow growth and cause earnings and cash flow volatility. Credit firm DBRS Ltd. put the companys issuer and senior debentures ratings under review with negative implications, citing growing concerns regarding risk management and project control issues." Its very surprising how quickly things have deteriorated for the corporation, said Mona Nazir, an analyst at Laurentian Bank Securities. I think that everything right now, behind closed doors, is on the table because the situation has changed so rapidly. Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement Among the companys Plan B options is selling the engineering and construction business in its entirety, according to analyst Benoit Poirier at Desjardins Capital Markets. Such a transaction would likely generate substantial interest from buyers, he said. With SNCs stock price falling and no controlling shareholder, a hostile offer remains possible, although any bidder would have to square off against the Caisse, which has a nearly 20-per-cent stake in SNC and has sent a strong signal that it wants the multinational to remain in Quebec. A Caisse-led buyout is an avenue being touted by some investors. Your Plan B is hope maybe the Caisse will come and rescue you, buy the whole thing, said Norman Levine, managing director of Portfolio Management Corp. in Toronto, an investment firm that owns SNC shares. There is no easy answer here. A Caisse official declined to comment. Another scenario is that SNC-Lavalin pursues a breakup, a nuclear option being advocated by some shareholders in the event the companys legal limbo continues indefinitely. If it goes to trial, I think the best option for the company would be to begin to sell off pieces, said Michael Willemse, analyst at Taylor Asset Management in Toronto, which holds SNC shares. We just dont believe the company would continue to exist in its current form. Yet another possibility is that SNC winds down operations in Canada. The company no longer counts on contracts here for most of its sales, and has reduced its revenue footprint in Canada from as high as 66 per cent of total sales in 2013 to about 30 per cent today. If SNC-Lavalin is banned from the Canadian market which is not a certainty even with a criminal conviction because of potential changes coming to federal procurement rules SNC management has told Desjardins that it would be able to shift its exposure to other regions and away from Canada over three years. SNC first set up the Plan B team in the wake of federal charges in 2015. It resurrected the team last fall after failing to win a remediation deal. The company declined to comment on the current status of the group and would not talk about strategy beyond previous statements by management. What SNC would leave in its wake with such a move is not inconsequential. It would tear a big hole in Quebecs economy, with the loss of a headquarters and 3,400 jobs. It would also mean a loss of expertise. Although it has been argued that other firms would move in to take SNCs business and SNC employees would find work elsewhere, the scope of the companys activities and capabilities will be hard to match in the short term and bidding processes could become much less competitive. Story continues below advertisement Some equity analysts, including Maxim Sytchev at National Bank of Canada, say SNC should pursue targeted asset sales and shrink its business to increase the quality of its contract backlog and lower risk. Mr. Bruce has been improving the predictability of SNCs business over time for example by cutting the number of fixed-price contracts it bids on, which are far riskier. But he could take that even further by stopping the booking of any fixed price contracts at all, at the expense of growth. One hazard of unloading assets in the near term is that SNC comes off as a distressed seller. Mr. Bruce has said the company will not sell any piece of the 407 unless it gets the price it wants. Still, buyers might be even less willing to pay that amount now. The same holds true for its resources businesses. But with the market expecting SNC to sell a portion of its stake in the highly profitable 407, not selling might make things worse. The toll-road stake has always provided a minimum value for SNCs share price. Monetizing some of it would not change that because cash would also provide a floor for the shares, said Colin Stewart, chief executive of JC Clark Ltd., a Toronto-based asset management firm. Regardless of strategy, much of the companys future hinges on the outcomes of its legal battles, which can be almost impossible to predict. SNC has launched a formal challenge to the Public Prosecution Service of Canadas decision not to engage in talks on a remediation agreement. If that fails, the Trudeau government could step in and issue a directive to settle the charges. Police in Quebec are also investigating alleged payments by the company to obtain a 2002 contract for work on Montreals Jacques Cartier bridge, meaning more charges could be coming. In situations like these, valuation doesnt matter, said Bruce Murray, chief executive of investment firm the Murray Wealth Group. I just know theres a mess so stay away, he said. Its called the cockroach theory. The cockroaches keep coming until they dont. | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-what-does-snc-lavalins-future-look-like/ |
Should NBA have moved All-Star Game back to North Carolina? | The NBA landed itself a public-relations slam dunk, especially among social justice supporters, when in 2016 it striped Charlotte of the All-Star Game. Far less certain, and much thornier. On the surface it would seem like another win. The NBA was among many other business including the NCAA to pull trade from North Carolina in the wake of the much-maligned House Bill 2 (HB2) legislation. HB2, implemented in 2016, curtailed the ability of individual cities to enact anti-discrimination policy and controversially barred transgender people from using the bathroom corresponding to their preferred identity. Charlotte prepares for the All-Star Game that was originally scheduled to be played in the city in 2017. (Photo11: Streeter Lecka, Getty Images) The league said it wouldnt return until the law was changed. Under heavy and pressure, HB2 was repealed and replaced. And so, the NBA said it would make good on its promise. But it wasnt that simple. I think it is disappointing that the NBA is returning the All-Star Game to North Carolina, even though the discrimination has been maintained in many respects, Chase Strangio, a staff attorney for the ACLU, told USA TODAY Sports. It was great that they took that stand in 2016 and hopefully they can be more consistent in their opposition to these discriminatory measures moving forward. The position of Strangio is that the replacement bill, HB142, has offered little in the way of a satisfactory solution. While the headline provision regarding bathroom usage has been altered, the new rules have been described as offering inappropriate protection to at-risk groups. It has put the league in a tough spot, as opinions will always differ as to just how far the social responsibility of a sports league should reach, especially in these times when splits in political opinion have rarely been wider. A sampling of fans in Charlotte this week seemed satisfied with the NBA deciding to bring the event back to the city in the wake of the policy shift, with some reservations. Its a tricky game for them because, I mean, this is Michael Jordans hometown, said Kahmakreeah Lofty, a business strategist visiting from Atlanta. So I think they wanted to come back here anyways, so they were just looking for something to come. Id say maybe its enough to come back. I dont know. I think its more of a political thing. Loftys husband Mohamed, a fifth-grade teacher, agreed. I think the NBA does more than most leagues in taking a social stance, Lofty added. I think they did the right thing by moving the game. They shouldnt have punished the city of Charlotte once they corrected themselves. Advertising executive Andrew Freeman, who traveled with family members from Bloomington, Ill., to watch the game, commended the NBA for being on the forefront of major sports organizations in regards to the leagues 2016 action. I applaud their efforts of basically pulling out of Charlotte until they got that resolved. Kendra Johnson, executive director of Equality North Carolina, says she doesnt believe the issue really got fixed at all, but is at ease with the NBA coming back. I dont think the NBA thinks (HB142) was a perfect bill and the LGBTQ community knows it was devastating, Johnson said. The reality for me is I would much rather have allies in the state who are here bringing business and employing LGBTQ people and continuing to fight for equality than to not have those allies in the cities. Certainly the NBA is at pains to avoid its return to North Carolina as being seen as an endorsement of HB142 and has implemented a range of measures. Charlotte Hornets president Fred Whitfield lobbied against HB2 and the Spectrum Center has a policy enforcing freedom of choice for spectators. As part of its schedule of events for the week, the league is staging three separate LGBTQ-equality themed conversations and forums in a bid to raise awareness and to make its position clear. We felt the partial repeal didnt go as far as we would have liked it, NBA president of social responsibility Kathy Behrens said. But we felt it was enough of a change for us to bring it back. This also gives us the chance to demonstrate our values and show how inclusive and diverse an All-Star Game can be. Maybe by being here we can build some bridges. Contributing: Martin Rogers, Trysta Krick and Jeff Zegas in Charlotte | https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/02/15/should-nba-have-moved-all-star-game-back-north-carolina/2884081002/ |
How does the search of Cuyahoga County Executive Armond Budishs office differ from the big raid more than ten years ago? | CLEVELAND, Ohio - Thursdays high-profile search by law enforcement agents of the offices of Cuyahoga County Executive Armond Budish is reminiscent of the dramatic raids more than 10 years ago on the homes and offices of top county officials. In both cases, FBI agents and others arrived with search warrants in hand and, as part of a public corruption investigation, seized documents and computer files. One difference, however, is this: The raids in July 2008 made public for the first time an investigation that had been under way for months, had dozens of targets, and evidence gathered through wiretaps and secretly recorded videos. Thursdays search involves a much narrower investigation that has been known to all for nearly a year, coming after 17 subpoenas publicly served on a county administration that is cooperating with investigators. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who took over the investigation earlier this month from county Prosecutor Michael OMalley, has declined to discuss the search. Budish, meanwhile, told cleveland.com that he believes the search was politically motivated to sully his good name. Yost is a Republican and Budish is a Democrat represented by former U.S. Attorney Steve Dettelbach, who ran against Yost last year. The buildup to the 2008 raid on county offices, officials homes, and private businesses, was far more secretive. The first public inkling that a massive investigation was underway was the raid itself. By that time, the FBI had secretly already collected mounds of evidence against the targets of their probe, including incriminating video from a trip to Las Vegas by then-County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora, county Auditor Frank Russo and others that was financed by cronies looking for favors. By Thursdays search, on the other hand, the public was well aware of the current investigation. The 17 subpoenas show the probe began with concerns about possible contract steering in the IT Department and an improper employee-incentive policy endorsed by county officials. But the probe transitioned over time into an examination of the county jails and whether actions resulting in a nursing shortage inside the jails rose to the level of a crime. The complexion of the corruption investigation has changed in recent weeks, particularly the political optics involved. OMalley turned over supervision of the investigation to Yost, although two of OMalley assistant prosecutors remain involved, because OMalley had a conflict of interest stemming from the charges against Mills. OMalley said he could not defend the county against jail-related civil lawsuits that crossed over into his offices criminal investigation. Complicating matters is the fact that the attorney representing Budish is Dettelbach, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. Dettelbach ran for attorney general last year and lost a contentious campaign to Yost. After Yost took over, investigators took more of an interest in Budish. Last week, the grand jury issued a subpoena seeking the complete email accounts of Budish and several of his top officials. That information was to be turned over on Thursday morning, the day of the raid, but according to Budish, the county had received a one-day extension. The search warrant used to justify Thursdays search focused on Budish and records related to jail operations, including any criminal investigations by the county Sheriff Department into deaths at the jail. Its unclear if the raid is connected to the subpoenaed records, but when nine agents with the FBI and BCI entered Budishs offices on the 8th floor, his computer and personal cell phone were among the items seized. Also taken was the computer of Budishs assistant. Budish has insisted he has done nothing wrong and that he has been cooperating with authorities. He said Thursday that the there was no justification for the raid and that the investigation has become a political circus. The 2008 corruption probe, the largest in the history of the county, resulted in the convictions of Dimora and Russo and dozens of other officials and contractors who participated in pay-to-play schemes. The current investigation has so far resulted in three indictments. Former IT administrator Emily McNeeley, former Corrections Director Ken Mills and current Chief Talent Officer Douglas Dykes have been charged with various felonies and misdemeanors. All three have pleaded not guilty McNeeley and Mills have resigned. Dykes remains on the job and Budish has resisted a call for Dykes to be placed on leave, stating in a letter to a county councilman, There is no allegation or suggestion that Mr. Dykes benefitted personally from his actions but instead was simply implementing an HR decision. | https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/02/how-does-the-search-of-cuyahoga-county-executive-armond-budishs-office-differ-from-the-big-raid-more-than-ten-years-ago.html |
Did Colin Kaepernick bring the NFL to its knees? | Thats at least a strong possibility, since the NFL agreed to settle with Kaepernick and Eric Reid in their collusion lawsuit. A confidentiality agreement is keeping details to a minimum. The NFL probably isnt going to leak any info, and Kaepernick and his camp are notoriously un-leaky. But putting together some of the pieces: If the league thought it could beat the collusion lawsuit, it seems highly unlikely it would have settled. The league would have loved to go to court and win this one, especially in light of recent negative stories, such as running back Kareem Hunt (caught on video kicking a woman in a hotel hallway) signing with the Browns, and beloved broadcaster Bob Costas claiming he was booted off the Super Bowl telecast for being too honest about footballs concussion problem. The NFL has tons of money and truckloads of lawyers. Kaepernick is an unemployed quarterback. This lawsuit was David vs. Goliath. From the outside, it looks like Goliath blinked. Another major incentive for the league to win the suit, rather than settle: A majority of the leagues playersand virtually all of the protestorsare black. The NFL, had it won the suit, could have proved that it did not blackball Kaepernick for the crime of crusading for social and racial justice. Early on in the lawsuit, I was hearing from sources that if the case ever went to trial, there were pieces of evidence that would be very embarrassing to the league. I have no details. The reference could be to something as simple as careless emails exchanged between team owners. Kaepernick is 31, well rested and reportedly still in superb shape. I believe he would absolutely jump at the chance to get back into the league. (I found reports that he demanded $20 million to consider playing in either of the two new pro football start-up leagues hard to believe.) That could be tricky. League commissioner Roger Goodell cant order a team, or all teams, to offer Kaepernick a contract. Its one thing to give Kareem Hunt a second chance. Thats standard procedure in the NFL. But the widespread opposition to Kaepernick and the protest movement he set off is a financial threat to the league and team owners. Left to their own devices, most teams would pass on Kaepernick, either out of distaste (on the part of the owner and/or coach) for his politics, or out of fear of widespread fan anger. Or both. The curtain came down Friday on Act 1 of the drama, but the play isnt over. Scott Ostler is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @scottostler | https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/ostler/article/Did-Colin-Kaepernick-bring-the-NFL-to-its-knees-13620554.php |
What Does "National Emergency" Actually Mean? | Listen 9:51 9:51 President Trump wants $8 billion to build a wall on the southern border of the U.S. Congress refused to give it to him. So he declared a national emergency, in the hope that he can use his extraordinary powers to secure funding from other parts of the government. A "national emergency" sounds like an extraordinary thing, but it turns out, it's really not. Liza Goitein is a co-director of the Liberty and National Security program at NYU law school's Brennan Center for Justice. She recently wrote an article for The Atlantic on national emergencies, and pointed out the U.S. was already in 31 formal national emergencies right now. Thirty-one! So we called her up and asked her to help us understand what a national emergency is. Music by Drop Electric. Find us: Twitter/ Facebook. Subscribe to our show on Apple Podcasts, PocketCasts and NPR One. | https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/15/695315105/what-does-national-emergency-actually-mean?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr |
Are Target-Date Funds a Good Investment? | If you find retirement planning daunting, a target-date fund purports to offer relief. They're designed to provide a "set it and forget it" investment solution for individuals with a long-term savings goal, like retirement. While target-date funds have certain benefits, their cookie-cutter approach also has its drawbacks. You may already have a target-date fund in your retirement account, as it's the default fund used by employers who auto-enroll their workers into workplace savings plans. But you can override your employer's deicison, and you should do some research before investing your precious retirement savings in target-date funds. Here's a look at the pros and cons of target-date funds and how to choose one that's right for you. Tabletop calendar More Image source: Getty Images. Offered by retirement accounts providers and brokerages, target-date funds usually have names that include the targeted retirement year. For example, if you plan to retire in 2030, you would choose a 2030 target-date fund within your 401(k) or IRA. Target-date funds are often mutual funds containing a variety of investment products, like stocks and bonds, to keep your money diversified. As you near the fund's target date, its asset allocation automatically shifts to align with your decreasing risk tolerance, so you don't have to worry about reallocating the funds yourself as you near the end of your career. The benefits of target-date funds Target-date funds are popular among hands-off investors for their simplicity. In theory, all you have to do is choose the right fund that corresponds to your planned retirement year and then sit back and wait. The risk is selected for you by the pros: If the planned retirement date is a long way off, the fund will contain a larger percentage of higher-risk investments, like stocks. Then, as your retirement date gets closer, it will automatically adjust the asset allocation to account for your diminishing risk tolerance, moving more of your money into more stable investments that deliver income, like bonds. This way, you don't have to worry about losing a large chunk of your nest egg on the eve of your retirement if the stock market takes a dip. The automated nature of these funds can also help to prevent emotional decision-making. Some investors may be tempted to buy or sell an asset impulsively based on recent performance if they're managing their own investments, which hurts the value of their savings over time. But with target-date funds, you don't have to worry about when to reallocate or what to invest in because these decisions are already made for you. The drawbacks of target-date funds The simplicity that makes target-date funds so appealing can also be their biggest drawback. The cookie-cutter approach cannot account for individual lifestyle changes or changing market conditions. A target-date fund may seem like a good fit for you today, but it may not be in the future. For example, say you planned to retire in 2050, but then something happens and you end up retiring in 2040 instead. While the investments in your 2050 target-date fund may be well-suited to someone who is actually retiring in 2050, they may be too volatile for your new, diminished risk tolerance. All target-date funds are different, even those with the same target year. The mix of investments and when your assets are reallocated varies from one to the next. This can not only impact the performance of the target-date fund, but also its cost. | https://news.yahoo.com/target-date-funds-good-investment-224500873.html |
What's in the Cards for Analog Devices (ADI) in Q1 Earnings? | Analog Devices, Inc. ADI is set to report fiscal first-quarter 2019 results on Feb 20. Notably, the company topped the Zacks Consensus Estimate in the trailing four quarters, recording average positive earnings surprise of 5.67%. In the last reported quarter, Analog Devices earnings of $1.55 per share delivered a positive surprise of 1.97%. The figure increased 1.3% sequentially and 6.9% from the year-ago quarter. Revenues in the fiscal fourth quarter were $1.6 billion which topped the consensus mark of $1.57 billion. Moreover, the figure improved 3.6% year over year and 1.5% sequentially. The top-line growth can be attributed to the companys robust performance in the industrial and communication end-markets. Coming to the price performance, shares of Analog Devices have gained 21.3% over a year, outperforming the industrys rally of 0.4%. For the first quarter, the company expects non-GAAP earnings to be $1.28 (+/- $0.07) per share. Further, revenues are anticipated to be $1.51 billion (+/- $50 million). Lets see how things are shaping up prior to this to-be-reported quarter. Factors to Consider Analog Devices continues to benefit from solid momentum across the industrial, automotive and communications end markets. Moreover, its deepening focus on product innovation and operational efficiency is a major positive. In the industrial end-market, the company is expected to ride on the digital factory envision by Industry 4.0. Further, its capability to cater to the customers required level of precision and robustness will continue to drive performance in this particular market in the to-be-reported quarter. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Industrial revenues is pegged at $730 million. Further, the companys performance in the automotive market should continue to gain from consumer demand for added technology and features in new vehicles. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for automotive revenues is pegged at $243 million. Meanwhile, communications revenues are accelerating on the back of increasing deployment of 5G Massive MIMO. Further, Analog Devices strengthening performance in Chinese communication market is a tailwind. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for communications space revenues is pegged at $353 million in the to-be-reported quarter. However, the companys sluggish performance in the consumer end-market remains a major cause of concern for the to-be-reported quarter results. Declining usage of the companys products in portable consumer applications is a major headwind. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for consumer revenues is pegged at $184 million. Moreover, macroeconomic uncertainty and geopolitical fears are headwinds for the company. Analog Devices, Inc. Price and EPS Surprise Analog Devices, Inc. Price and EPS Surprise | Analog Devices, Inc. Quote What Our Model Says According to the Zacks model, a company with a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) has a good chance of beating estimates if it also has a positive Earnings ESP. Sell-rated stocks (Zacks Rank #4 or 5) are best avoided. You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before theyre reported with our Earnings ESP Filter. Currently, Analog Devices has a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell) and an Earnings ESP of 0.00%, which indicates that the company is unlikely to beat estimates. Stocks that Warrant a Look Here are some stocks you may consider, as our proven model shows that these have the right combination of elements to post an earnings beat this quarter. Warrior Met Coal HCC has an Earnings ESP of +4.97% and a Zacks Rank #1. You can see the complete list of todays Zacks #1 Rank stocks here. GTT Communications GTT has an Earnings ESP of +173.53% and a Zacks Rank #2. Square SQ has an Earnings ESP of +5.95% and a Zacks Rank #2. From more than 4,000 companies covered by the Zacks Rank, these 10 were picked by a process that consistently beats the market. Even during 2018 while the market dropped -5.2%, our Top 10s were up well into double-digits. And during bullish 2012 2017, they soared far above the market's +126.3% reaching +181.9%. This year, the portfolio features a player that thrives on volatility, an AI comer, and a dynamic tech company that helps doctors deliver better patient outcomes at lower costs. Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Square, Inc. (SQ) : Free Stock Analysis Report GTT Communications, Inc. (GTT) : Free Stock Analysis Report Warrior Met Coal Inc. (HCC) : Free Stock Analysis Report Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) : Free Stock Analysis Report To read this article on Zacks.com click here. Zacks Investment Research | https://news.yahoo.com/whats-cards-analog-devices-adi-221810362.html |
Will a big-name Democrat run for John Cornyn's Senate seat? | WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. John Cornyn is preparing for re-election in 2020 as if he were running scared hiring top staff, raising money early and traveling around Texas touting his accomplishments. We are taking due note of what happened in 2018. Im getting ready, said Cornyn, who is seeking a fourth term and has nearly $5.8 million cash on hand according to federal election reports. After fellow Texas Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz received a scare from Democrat Beto ORourke last year, Cornyn isnt taking anything for granted. But, with ORourke eying the presidency, Julin Castro, the former San Antonio mayor and Obama Cabinet official, already in the presidential race, and his brother U.S. Rep. Joaqun Castro, D-San Antonio, serving as his campaign manager, the three Texas Democrats seen as most likely to run a strong statewide campaign seem likely to steer clear of Cornyn. That leaves a bench of potential challengers with little name recognition or losing campaigns to their credit, or both. The message of the 2018 midterm elections was youd better be prepared, Cornyn told reporters this week. Texas is evolving. Its no longer a reliably red state. No Republican has come forward to challenge Cornyn either, but Cornyn headed off his most potentially potent primary rival, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who endorsed Cornyn in December. Democrats who are said to be considering a Senate run: MJ Hegar, an Afghanistan war hero and author who came within 2.9 points of toppling U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Rock, and North Texas farmer Kim Olson, who lost by 4.9 points to Republican Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller. Another potential candidate, according to party activists: former state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who lost a lopsided governors race in 2014. On Valentines Day, Cornyns campaign launched an online fundraising appeal citing Hegar and Davis as possible candidates. But some Texas Democrats see the party's best chances for success in a reprise of O'Rourke's Senate campaign. O'Rourke hasn't publicly mentioned a Senate run as a possibility he told Oprah Winfrey last week that he'll decide whether to run for president by the end of the month but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., met with O'Rourke last week to discuss a possible challenge to Cornyn, according to Politico. Its very significant that Schumer is talking to Texans, said Matt Angle, director of the Lone Star Project, a political action committee, who said the Democratic leader had spoken to other potential candidates. It signifies that Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee think Cornyn is vulnerable and theyre right, said Angle. O'Rourke, who left his congressional seat at the end of the year, has spent some of the past six weeks traveling outside Texas he is speaking in Madison, Wis., Friday and Chicago on Saturday suggesting that he's seeking to build a national profile. This week, O'Rourke garnered attention from the media and President Donald Trump, who singled out O'Rourke for belittlement at a political rally in El Paso. O'Rourke spoke at a counterrally, sharing national television split screens with Trump. From all outward aspects, he seems to be contemplating a run for president and not Congress, said Sherri Greenberg, clinical professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. But the wait is having an impact. Right now, Texas Democrats are in a holding pattern until they know what Beto ORourke is going to do: run for president, run for the Senate, head into the wild in Alaska, or something else, said Mark Jones, political science professor at Rice University. Even a decision by Beto to run for president would not clear the way entirely, since if he ended up dropping out before September or October, he could always throw his hat into the senatorial race, he said. After doing so well in 2018, Jones said Beto has effectively earned the right of first refusal for the Democratic Senate nomination. For his part, Cornyn gave a preview Wednesday of a potential line of attack, telling reporters that the Democratic presidential hopefuls embracing Medicare for all would wipe out private insurance and the new Green deal of environmental programs would require all of us, I assume, to become vegans. | https://www.statesman.com/news/20190215/will-big-name-democrat-run-for-john-cornyns-senate-seat |
What happens to Loogootee water tower when Jack Butcher's wins record falls? | As early as next week, the words on the water tower and signs outside Loogootee will be outdated. A sign on the city limits of the Martin County community of 2,714 people reads: Welcome To Loogootee Home of Jack Butcher Indianas All Time Winningest High School Basketball Coach One side the water town reads the same, in big black letters. It also includes Jack Butchers win-loss record of 806-250. Buy Photo Loogootee honors Jack Butcher on signs as the "Indiana's all-time winningest high school basketball coach." (Photo11: Gregg Doyel/IndyStar) We take high school sports seriously. If you do too, subscribe today. Doyel on Butcher: State's winningest coach had no intentions of leaving home Butcher always knew somebody would reach 807. It was just a matter of when. It appears that day is coming soon, maybe as early as Thursday, when Bloomington South hosts Northview. Bloomington Souths J.R. Holmes goes into the weekend with 804 wins with games at Greencastle on Friday and at home against Jennings County on Saturday. Oh yeah, I coached against him when he was at Mitchell, Butcher said Friday by telephone from his home in Loogootee. But I never followed (the record) that closely. I had been under the impression somebody else was going to break it, which shows you how much I followed it. Butcher, 86, returned home this week from Florida, where he spends time every winter playing cards and catching up with friends. But Butcher and his wife, Rita, still call Loogootee home. He won all 806 of his games at Loogootee, his alma mater, from 1957 to 2002. Loogootee reached the single-class state finals in 1970 and 1975 under Butcher and had just two losing seasons in his 45 years coaching the Lions. Loogootee mayor Noel Harty said the timing is fortunate because we are about due to paint them anyway. We will still recognize coach Butcher, Harty said. Im sure of that. The street that runs in front of Loogootee High School was renamed Jack Butcher Blvd. after his retirement. Harty estimated that the water tower is painted every 15 to 20 years. Its very expensive, he said. Im not going to say it will happen tomorrow or even next year, but it will happen soon. Butcher said he is not sure if he will attend the game when Holmes does break the record. But he has been invited to attend a celebration in Bloomington after the season. Winning 806 games at one school, Harty said. I think that will be a hard record to break. That might be an easy line to add to the water tower. NEWSLETTERS Get the IndyStar Motor Sports newsletter delivered to your inbox We're sorry, but something went wrong The latest news in IndyCar and the world of motor sports. Please try again soon, or contact Customer Service at 1-888-357-7827. Delivery: Sun - Fri Invalid email address Thank you! You're almost signed up for IndyStar Motor Sports Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration. More newsletters Call Star reporter Kyle Neddenriep at (317) 444-6649. For the 1st time in two decades, it's a winning basketball team BEST NIGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS The IndyStar Sports Awards recognizes and honors the top athletic accomplishments in Indiana High School Sports. This event is hosted by the IndyStar and will take place May 5, 2019 at Clowes Memorial Hall of Butler University. The show features various awards, contests and a special appearance from Danica Patrick. Buy tickets here. | https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/high-school/2019/02/15/indiana-high-school-basketball-coaching-wins-record-change-hands-jack-butcher-jr-holmes/2884403002/ |
Whats next for New Orleans Pelicans and Mickey Loomis? | A change in the organizational structure of the New Orleans Pelicans front office is in the works. A statement from Saints-Pelicans owner Gayle Benson on Friday (Feb. 15) indicated that the Pelicans will feature a different internal chain of command going forward. We will immediately begin the process of restructuring our basketball operations department, Benson said in a statement released by the team. This will include a comprehensive, but confidential, search aided by outside consultants to identify a new leader of our basketball operations, directly reporting to me. Since 2012, Mickey Loomis has occupied the top spot in the clubs basketball operations. Loomis continued to serve as the general manager of the Saints, but moved into his role as the executive vice president of basketball operations after Tom Benson bought the New Orleans Hornets in 2012. Loomis assumed the role with the basketball franchise while he was facing an eight-game suspension from his role with the Saints following the BountyGate scandal, but he still works with the Pelicans today. Before he was fired, Dell Demps reported to Loomis in the hierarchy of the Pelicans structure. But just how long Loomis will remain in that role is up in the air. Danny Ferry, who has served as a consultant to Demps for the past three years, will take over as the teams interim general manager, but Benson saying that the new leader of the basketball operations team will report directly to her signifies a shift in the Pelicans structure. The hire for New Orleans could end up being two-fold: first, a president of basketball operations that reports to Benson and second, a general manager that would report to the president of basketball operations. Despite his title, Loomis doesnt spend much of his time with the Pelicans. He said in an interview back in 2017 that his role was overblown. Honestly, I dont have a lot to do with that, Loomis said at the time. "Weve got Dell as the general manager and Alvin (Gentry as coach), and they do a great job. So, I think its probably overblown the amount of actual time and work that I have to do with the Pelicans. Its something Mr. (Tom) Benson has asked me to do, but, again, I think its overblown the amount of actual work that I do (with the Pelicans). If Loomis is moved out of his current position with the Pelicans, he could still serve in an advisory role with the team. | https://www.nola.com/pelicans/2019/02/whats-next-for-new-orleans-pelicans-and-mickey-loomis.html |
Is it Laura Miller's time, again? | Laura Miller is back in a familiar role. In 2002, she rode the shoulders of pro-neighborhood voters to become mayor of Dallas, a stunning feat since much of the city's business elite was against her, as well as minority voters. During her more than five years as mayor, she pushed her basic-services agenda, promised to make Dallas more neighborhood-friendly and stop chasing the big-ticket initiatives that had defined her predecessor, Ron Kirk. Under Miller's leadership, the city implemented a smoking ban and development anti-discrimination laws aimed at helping the city's gay and lesbian residents. The city also developed a $23 million homeless assistance center. Now, 12 years after leaving City Hall, Miller is making a comeback, running for City Council against Jennifer Staubach Gates, a veteran incumbent who decided against a run for mayor. Gates, perhaps more than any other council member, is a darling of the city's business elite, though also popular in her council district. She's the daughter of former Dallas Cowboys quarterback and NFL Hall-of-Famer Roger Staubach. Miller and Gates have clashed over the redevelopment of Preston Center in northwest Dallas. In running against Gates, Miller is returning to her roots as an unabashed champion of neighborhoods, particularly when it means standing up against the city's business establishment. Miller is the most effective retail campaigner in the history of Dallas politics. Her bids for council and then mayor were marvelous displays of a candidate identifying issues that matter to a base of voters that would carry her to victory. Yes, a lot of her popularity came from being the fierce opponent of Kirk, and she was often on the losing side of major votes. The media treated her as the council's opposition leader, and it paid off when Kirk left City Hall for an unsuccessful run for Senate against Republican John Cornyn, and Miller defeated Dallas businessman Tom Dunning in a special election. She would go on to beat former acting mayor Mary Poss in 2002 and was re-elected to a full four-year term in 2003. One of her few campaign blemishes was a failed attempt to lead a 2005 referendum that would have given the office of mayor broader power. Voters in southern Dallas, where Miller was unpopular, overwhelmingly rejected the proposal. During her stint as mayor, the Cowboys flirted with moving the team to Dallas, but ultimately struck a deal with Arlington. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones blamed Miller for failing to negotiate a deal. | https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-city-council/2019/02/15/laura-millers-time-again |
Which laws are being used by Trump for the national emergency? | President Trump declared a national emergency on Friday to obtain sufficient funds to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, in order to stem what he called an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. The National Emergencies Act of 1975 dictates that a president must use existing law to justify the national emergency. The Department of Defense (DOD) released a statement saying that the president invoked sections 12302, 284(b)(7), and 2808 of Title X of the U.S. Code. Section 12302 authorizes "involuntary activation" of reserve troops to perform a "federal mission at the direction of the secretary of defense." Section 284(b)(7) allows the DOD to support counter-drug activities of other federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "with the construction of roads, fences, and lighting" to disrupt drug trafficking. Section 2808 of Title X authorizes the Defense secretary to decide whether barriers are necessary to support the actions of the armed services, and to redirect unobligated military construction funds to construct the border barriers. Mr. Trump is expecting to use $8 billion to build the wall, including the $1.375 billion approved by Congress, with an additional $600 million expected to come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture funds, $2.5 billion coming from the Defense Department's drug interdiction program, and an additional $3.5 billion coming from the Pentagon's military construction budget. However, the national emergency declaration is already facing pushback, especially from Democrats. House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler wrote a letter to Mr. Trump Friday afternoon announcing an investigation into the national emergency declaration. Nadler cited a line from Mr. Trump's press conference Friday morning, where the president said about the national emergency: "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster." "We believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system," the letter said. Democratic attorneys general have also indicated that they are willing to challenge the national emergency in court. Even some Republicans have shown opposition to the declaration, in part out of concern that expanding executive power now could result in Democratic presidents using national emergencies for non-emergencies in the future. | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-laws-are-being-used-by-trump-for-the-national-emergency/ |
What exactly is a national emergency? | A: In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, which permits the president to pronounce a national emergency when he considers it appropriate. The act offers no specific definition of "emergency" and allows a president to declare one entirely at his or her discretion. By declaring a national emergency, the president avails himself of dozens of specialized laws. Some of these powers have funds the president otherwise could not access. Under existing law, emergency powers lapse within a year unless the president renews them. A national emergency can be redeclared indefinitely and, in practice, that is done frequently. There have been 58 pronounced under the National Emergencies Act, of which 31 are still in effect. A: Presidents have declared national emergencies since World War II. President Bill Clinton declared emergencies 17 times, George W. Bush 12 and Barack Obama 13. The vast majority have been economic sanctions against foreign actors whose activities pose a national threat, according to Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. A handful of others have involved noneconomic crises: Clinton declared a national emergency during the 1996 Cuba embargo, preventing U.S. ships or aircraft from entering Cuban territory without authorization. Obama declared a national emergency during the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic in 2009 to activate disaster plans to set up proper patient treatment. Bush declared a national emergency after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; the order is still in effect. A: A president must issue a written and signed declaration that specifies the specific emergency powers he plans to rely on and invoke. "Unlike other executive orders, one that declares a national emergency unlocks the powers contained in more than 100 other laws," Goitein said. A: Even though there aren't many limits on a president's ability to declare an emergency, it does not create carte blanche freedom to act. Anyone directly affected by the order can challenge it in court. Congress can also draft a concurrent resolution to terminate the state of emergency, leading to a somewhat novel act. Ordinarily, congressional resolutions support a president's declaration of a national emergency. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is expected to bring up a "joint resolution of termination" in the House. Doing so would force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to also bring up the resolution in the Senate, putting his members in a difficult position. Washington Post | http://www.startribune.com/what-exactly-is-a-national-emergency/505921032/ |
Is Scotts Miracle-Gro Company a Buy? | Marijuana stocks are popular on Wall Street these days, with even giant international corporations attempting to stake out a claim in the space with big investments. But you don't have to own a stock that sells marijuana or a product that contains it (or its compounds) to get exposure to the massive growth expected in the sector. You could, instead, focus on companies that provide products and services to marijuana growers. One name that has been working hard to grow its presence as such a supplier is The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (NYSE: SMG). Picks and shovels Scotts is probably best known for lawn-care products like Miracle-Gro and Roundup. But those are just two of the company's products that help individual consumers and professionals alike maintain beautifully manicured landscapes. It's the company's core business, accounting for roughly 80% of sales in fiscal 2018. A man with his head on a table and a stock graph heading sharply lower More Image source: Getty Images. The thing about this segment is that it's not exactly a big growth opportunity. In fact, slow growth is likely the best that can be expected. For example, revenue on this side of the business actually fell 2% in fiscal 2018 because of sales weakness at Scotts' four largest retail store customers. Although the company doesn't report the fourth largest retailer to which it sells, the top three are Home Depot, Lowe's, and Wal-Mart, which together account for roughly 60% of sales. It's little wonder that soft sales at just a handful of names was enough take a toll, here. This helps to explain why Scotts has decided that it wants a piece of the marijuana business. A little more diversification would be a good thing. In keeping with its roots, though, it hasn't invested in marijuana directly; it has built a sizable business selling hydroponic equipment. Hydroponics have long been used to grow marijuana, even before it was an increasingly legal thing to do. As the number of people growing pot expands, so too should the need for hydroponic equipment. Very fast growth Year over year, the company's hydroponic sales grew 20% in fiscal 2018. That number was even more incredible in the fiscal first quarter of 2019, when sales growth was a massive 84%. For reference, lawn care saw growth of 9% in the first quarter, a good number, but nothing like what the company's hydroponic division, known as Hawthorne, experienced. The problem is that the Hawthorne number isn't exactly a clean, apples-to-apples comparison, because Scotts has been using acquisitions to build its hydroponic business. That's clearly resulting in swift revenue growth, which should excite investors. But there's a downside to this approach, especially in an industry as hot as marijuana: price. | https://news.yahoo.com/scotts-miracle-gro-company-buy-004800938.html |
Was Jeff Bezos the weak link in cyber-security? | Image copyright AFP Image caption Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos A week ago, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos revealed what he described as an extortion attempt by the National Enquirer. The tabloid appeared to have got hold of some very intimate texts and photos he had sent to his girlfriend Lauren Sanchez. In my report for the BBC World Service programme The World This Week, I consider why humans are often the weakest link in cyber-security. Mr Bezos is the world's richest man, building his fortune via a company that is transforming the way we live with innovative technology. His business, Amazon, has cyber-security at the heart of everything it does. On Twitter, someone called counterchekist had the answer to this, saying that all the world's money and experts could not protect a device against its biggest weakness, "the human using it". In other words, technology can only go so far. Good cyber-security depends on educating people not to be idiotic. The suggestion that the human factor is the weakest link is probably the biggest single cliche in the cyber-security industry. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Bezos sent selfies to TV host Lauren Sanchez Security firms may sell all sorts of expensive tools to protect their customers from attacks, but all too often they are rendered useless when someone in the organisation clicks on a dodgy link or forgets to install a vital software update. Look at any of the major cyber-security incidents of recent years and you are likely to find they begin with a human making a mistake. The fault that took down the O2 mobile phone network in the UK for 24 hours in December 2018 was first thought to have been the result of a hacking attack. It then emerged that someone had failed to renew a software certificate. "One of the most basic systems administration mistakes you can imagine," a waspish comment on the Computing Weekly site said. The attack which saw hackers - presumed to be from North Korea - take over the computer system of Sony Pictures and release all sorts of embarrassing information began with emails designed to trick executives into handing over their Apple ID credentials. Some of those people used the very same passwords for their Sony account. Hey presto, the hackers were in. What is known as social engineering is becoming a key weapon in the hackers' armoury. Rather than mounting some devilishly clever hi-tech attack, they pick out a key individual and work out how to target their weaknesses. Scammed! A while back, I spoke to a cyber-security firm that specialises in countering so-called spear-phishing, where a senior executive is targeted for an attack. They proposed a challenge to me. Some time over the next few days they would prove that they could fool me into clicking on a questionable link in an email. Hah, I thought. Fat chance. I am very cautious about what arrives in my inbox anyway and I will be even more watchful now. A few days later, an email popped up from Jat, the producer of my World Service radio programme Tech Tent. He messages me several times a day. It was about my Twitter account and read: "You really need to take a look at this," pointing to a link. Of course I clicked, and found myself on a web page belonging to the cyber-security company with a message saying: "We got you". Somehow they had spoofed my producer's email address, and so found the gap in my defences. After all, everyone trusts their producer. They might even be cheaper. Of course, the truth is that plugging data leaks is a multi-faceted business. An organisation needs to make sure its employees have secure devices, understand the corporate data protection policies, and have a modicum of common sense. And on that last point, even billionaires can sometimes be found lacking. The World this Week is first broadcast on the World Service at 0900 GMT on Saturday and repeated through the weekend and you can listen to it afterwards on BBC Sounds. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47253869 |
Will parts of Trump's emergency border wall be built in Arizona? | Trump declares national emergency in Rose Garden to fund border wall (Photo11: WHITE HOUSE) TUCSON By declaring a national emergency, President Donald Trump is redirecting funds and making available $8 billion dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, his signature campaign promise. Several expected court challenges could hamper Trump's efforts, but U.S. Customs and Border Protection the agency responsible for securing the nation's borders already has identified which areas of the border are most likely to be designated for the construction of new or replacement physical barriers. The agency declined to comment Friday on how the $8 billion would be spent, but previous comments from CBP officials and government reports show how the agency would prioritize spending. The Rio Grande Valley in south Texas would receive the most immediate investments, and is already scheduled this month to have the first section of new physical barriers built under Trump's presidency. But other areas, such as El Centro, California; Laredo, Texas; and Yuma, Arizona, also could see additional construction in the near future, based on CBP's strategy. 55 new miles in the Rio Grande Valley The $8 billion dollars Trump is championing for a border wall includes $1.375 billion that lawmakers hashed out in a compromise deal to avoid another government shutdown. Trump signed that bill on Friday morning, at the same time that he also signed his emergency declaration. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen immediately issued a statement lauding Trump's emergency declaration and the passage of the spending bill. "I applaud the Presidents decision to declare a national emergency," she said. "This is a crisis pure and simple and we need to respond accordingly. We cannot stand by as our border security is further compromised, and our immigration laws are exploited." Nielsen noted the spending bill "contains no restrictions on total barrier mileage" that can be built using the $1.375 billion. It is estimated to cover the construction of 55 miles of "primary pedestrian fencing, including levee pedestrian fencing" in the Rio Grande Valley. NEWSLETTERS Get the AZ Memo newsletter delivered to your inbox We're sorry, but something went wrong Get the pulse of Arizona -- Local news, in-depth state coverage and what it all means for you Please try again soon, or contact Customer Service at 1-800-332-6733. Delivery: Mon-Fri Invalid email address Thank you! You're almost signed up for AZ Memo Keep an eye out for an email to confirm your newsletter registration. More newsletters READ: Mark Kelly, Arizona Senate candidate, slams Trump's national border emergency declaration As in the previous year, language included in the bill restricts the designs that Customs and Border Protection can deploy, limiting it to existing designs already built on the border. The bulk of the 55 miles is expected to built in Starr County, a sparsely-populated area of the Rio Grande Valley that has no fencing along the Rio Grande. The spending bill instructs the Department of Homeland Security to consult with the elected leaders of five border communities in that county regarding the construction of barriers. Five environmentally sensitive areas of the Rio Grande Valley are spared: the historic La Lomita chapel, the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, the National Butterfly Center, and a wildlife refuge near a planned SpaceX launchpad. The Rio Grande Valley remains the busiest point for illegal entries along the U.S.-Mexico border, although the majority of apprehensions are migrant families and minors seeking asylum in the United States. The area has about 60 miles of fencing, which Homeland Security officials have called inadequate given the large numbers of drugs and migrants. This month, construction crews are slated to begin construction on the first segment of 14 miles of new levee wall fencing in the Rio Grande Valley. Arizona also slated to get new barriers DHS officials say that they planned for a total of 100 miles of new barriers, mostly in one of the "high-priority area" of Rio Grande Valley. (Photo11: Nick Oza/The Republic) With imminent, drawn out legal challenges ahead, Customs and Border Protection may not have access to the remaining $6.6 billion that Trump is redirecting for construction of a border wall. Still, it has drawn out plans to invest the money, should it become available, in new and replacement projects throughout the Southwest U.S. border. Those plans were submitted to Congress, but CBP has not made them public. The agency says the plans are law-enforcement sensitive. READ: Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Martha McSally mum over Trump's border emergency However, an analysis of the strategy by the Government Accountability Office, published in July 2018, disclosed additional details about where physical barriers are likely to be built. The GAO analysis identified that in addition to already-announced or ongoing projects in the Rio Grande Valley and San Diego the other three high priority areas based on Border Patrol's criteria to erect new barriers are in the El Centro, Yuma and Laredo border areas. In a background call with reporters in December to discuss their priorities, CBP officials backed up that assessment. They cited investment in the El Centro and Yuma areas as "critical," and said Laredo would also get "significant" investments. But what's unclear is how many miles would be built in each area. During that call, DHS officials also said that they had planned for a total of 100 miles of new barriers, mostly in the Rio Grande Valley. It's an open question whether the areas spared from construction under the spending bill would get barriers if Trump prevails in the legal challenges against his emergency declaration. Up until this week, Customs and Border Protection had received $1.6 billion in the past two years for the construction of new or replacement barriers. To date, they've announced eight projects along the border. Three of those projects have already been completed: in Calexico, California; Santa Teresa, New Mexico. ; and in El Paso, Texas. Two others, in San Diego and the Rio Grande Valley, are ongoing. Three more are slated to begin in the next few months in Calexico, Yuma, and the Rio Grande Valley. Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/02/15/parts-trumps-emergency-border-wall-built-arizona/2882335002/ | https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/02/15/parts-trumps-emergency-border-wall-built-arizona/2882335002/ |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.