question
stringlengths 11
179
| article
stringlengths 522
97.6k
| url
stringlengths 35
310
|
|---|---|---|
How will Modi handle India's economy? | Image copyright Getty Images Narendra Modi has secured a historic second election victory. Indian stocks and the rupee rose to welcome the news: another parliamentary majority for the BJP party could grant Mr Modi the opportunity to make promised reforms a reality. But once the euphoria around his emphatic win at the polls has faded, there will remain some tough economic challenges in his in-tray. The economic record for Mr Modi's first term in office is mixed. He initiated some bold reforms, such as a new bankruptcy law, to help tackle a rise bad debts that was putting pressure on the banking sector. His government reduced red tape, helping move India to 77th in the World Bank's 2019 Doing Business ranking, an improvement from 134th place when he first took office in 2014. India also became the world's fastest growing economy during that first term. Image copyright Getty Images But his biggest gamble, banning more than three quarters of the rupee notes in circulation in order to battle corruption, misfired and delivered a significant blow to economic growth. Without replacement notes ready in time, India's gigantic informal economy was temporarily crippled - leading to job losses. The rollout of a new national sales tax didn't go smoothly either. In the long run the new tax is expected to boost economic growth by streamlining a multitude of complicated taxes into a single tax. But in the short term glitches around its introduction had a severe impact on millions of small and medium-sized businesses. As Mr Modi gets his feet back under the desk for his second term, economists like Surjit Bhalla believe that his increased majority will give Mr Modi more freedom to take tough decisions. "Given the size of the mandate, we can expect bolder reforms during the next five years," says Mr Bhalla, who served on the prime minister's economic advisory council during Mr Modi's first term. But the scale of India's problems matches that mandate. Economic growth slowed to 6.6% in the three months to December 2018, the slowest rate for six quarters. According to a leaked government report, unemployment touched a 45-year high between 2016 and 2017. Experts say that Mr Modi needs to spur flagging private sector investment in order to boost job creation. His flagship Make in India programme, aimed at giving manufacturing a big boost, has yielded mixed results so far. Ajit Ranade, chief economist of Mumbai-based, Aditya Birla Group, believes that focusing on overseas markets is the key to creating more employment opportunities. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Modi has promoted a "Make in India" campaign to bolster manufacturing "Exports and manufacturing are intertwined. Unless exports grow the manufacturing sector won't expand," he says. The new government should focus on labour-intensive sectors like construction, tourism, textiles and agricultural products, he adds. Unlike China, India's economic growth has been driven by domestic consumption over the last fifteen years. But data released over the last few months suggests that consumer spending is slowing. Sales of cars and SUVs have slumped to a seven-year low. Tractor, motorbike and scooter sales are down. Demand for bank credit has sputtered. Hindustan Unilever has reported slower revenue growth in the most recent quarter. All of these are important benchmarks for measuring consumer appetite. Image caption Sales of motorbikes have been falling Mr Modi's party promised in its manifesto that it would cut income tax to ensure more cash and greater purchasing power stayed in the hands of middle-income families. However, given the current state of government finances, that may not be possible immediately. India's 3.4% budget deficit - the gap between government expenditure and revenue - may restrict Mr Modi's options. "The widening fiscal deficit is a slow-acting poison," says Mr Ranade. He believes this will hold back medium and long-term growth. The agrarian crisis was a constant challenge for Mr Modi during his first term. Farmers across the country protested on the streets, demanding higher prices for their crops. Small-scale farmers have been promised more support, but structural changes to the way the market works might be preferable to measures that will put additional pressure on the government's already stretched budget, argues Ila Patnaik, a former economic advisor to the government of India. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption India has seen huge protests by farmers in recent years She would like to see the end of the system whereby farmers are required to sell their products to state-owned agencies at a fixed price. "We need to free up the farmers so that they can sell products to whoever they want. This will also encourage them to move to high value products," she says. One of his headline election pledges was a promise to spend $1.44 trillion to build roads, railways and other infrastructure. But such an eye-watering sum will have to come from somewhere. Many observers expect privatisation to play a key role. Mr Modi made slow progress on his pledges to sell off government enterprises in his first term. The government did initiate the process of selling a majority stake in national carrier Air India, but with a tepid response from investors, the plan failed to take off. Mr Bhalla expects Mr Modi to pursue privatisation more aggressively in his second term. "The next two years is a good time for the government to [speed up] the process of privatisation," he argues. And he believes a willingness to embrace bolder policies could entice more foreign investors to put their money in India. "During his first term, Mr Modi has shown the appetite to take up tough reforms and he will definitely try to take even bigger risks during his second term," he says. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48400272 |
Could Ohio pass an anti-abortion law like Alabama's? | Fresh off Ohio's passage of a heartbeat bill which bans abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, typically around six weeks into pregnancy the president of Ohio Right to Life said the Buckeye State's law is not that much different from Alabama's. Neither measure contains exceptions for rape or incest, for example. And of course, both have been challenged in court. "The only real difference is that the Alabama law makes it a felony ... for ANY abortion," Mike Gonidakis emailed The Dispatch. "In Ohio, we make it a felony (fifth degree) for performing an abortion at the moment of a detectable beating heart. Alabama is just 7 or 8 weeks gestation ahead of Ohio." Ironically, Ohio Right to Life did not support the heartbeat bill until late last year, deeming it too radical for the group's incremental approach one that had enabled it over the previous eight years to obtain enactment of 20-some bills by the legislature and then-Gov. John Kasich that chipped away at abortion rights. Stephanie Ranade Krider, the Ohio group's vice president and executive director, said of the the Ohio-Alabama comparison, "A ban on abortion at conception is the ultimate goal of Ohio Right to Life once Roe (v Wade) is overturned, but if you are talking about the recent ban at conception that they passed, we havent analyzed it thoroughly enough to say that their language is what wed advocate for specifically. "We pursued the heartbeat bill approach with the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is far more likely to take it up versus a ban at conception, and that a heartbeat bill is the more likely vehicle to overturn Roe." Baby bump protesters For a different point of view, a few pregnant women are supposed to be baring their bellies Sunday morning at the Statehouse and painting them with a "pro choice" message. "We have seen many anti-choice activists call anyone pro-choice 'baby killers.' Id like to see them try that with us," said one of the women, Whitney Smith. Even some who accept the label of "pro life" say that Alabama's near-total ban on abortion goes too far. But Cincinnati Right to Life doesn't think it goes far enough because of a mental health exception. The Alabama law allows an abortion (but only by an Alabama doctor) if a physician and then a psychiatrist render a "reasonable medical judgment" that the woman "is suffering from an emotional condition or a mental illness which will cause her to engage in conduct that intends to result in her death or the death of her unborn child." The Cincinnati group said, "This loophole appears on first read to be a very narrow set of circumstances, but it is an exception that can be exploited by the abortion industry." CSI now AOK The Ohio Business Roundtable heaped praise on Lt. Gov. Jon Husted last week for his "wildly successful" push to eliminate the backlog at the Common Sense Initiative he heads. Husted slashed a backlog of proposed rules under study by the agency, which is supposed to reduce state government bureaucracy, from 1,233 to 14. "In doing so, he has restored CSI to its rightful place as a business-friendly agency that reduces red tape, as opposed to exacerbating it," the Roundtable said. Husted took over the agency from his predecessor as lieutenant governor, Mary Taylor, who presided over the growing delays that drew criticism from business groups. You CAN go home again Speaking of Husted, he will return to his hometown Sunday afternoon to deliver the commencement address and present diplomas at Montpelier High School. He was part of the class of '85 at the school in Williams County in Ohio's northwestern corner. [email protected] @darreldrowland | https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190525/could-ohio-pass-anti-abortion-law-like-alabamas |
Will age matter in the 2020 presidential race? | At first glance, Dave Stanlake and Maurice Fields dont seem to have a lot in common. Stanlake, 70, lives in Coon Rapids and is a retired manufacturing materials director. Fields, 21, is from Milwaukee. Hell graduate from St. Pauls Concordia University in December and plans a career as an opera singer. But when it comes to politics, they agree: Some 2020 presidential candidates are too old for the crucial, taxing job. The thing I have trouble with is the fact that as you get older and more stuck in your ways, the less you are likely to actually change and be able to listen to people, Fields said. He wants a president who is really hip to the jive. Stanlake isnt interested in candidates who are pushing 80 and said the next president should be in his or her 50s, 40s or even 30s because they are better equipped physically and emotionally to deal with the hardships of that office. President Donald Trump, who will be 73 next month, is the nations oldest chief executive. Four candidates trying to replace him former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld would inherit the oldest-ever title. Sanders, 77, is the most senior. Four Democrats would be the youngest president in history: South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and U.S. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Seth Moulton and Eric Swalwell. Buttigieg, the youngest, is 37. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted earlier this year found that 37% of registered voters were enthusiastic about or comfortable with a candidate 75 or older; 58% said they felt that way about a candidate younger than 40. Interviews with people at the Coon Rapids Senior Center and with students and recent graduates at Concordia defied stereotypes: Some older people fret about the risks of septuagenarian presidents and some younger people want a mature chief executive. I personally would like a president thats older, said Huldah Philips, 18, whos from Woodbury and entering her junior year studying international business. Employers making a hiring decision wouldnt want a newbie, she said. You would want someone that has experience and is qualified. Mitch Zillman, a 22-year-old from Marshfield, Wis., is headed to law school and considers climate change a top issue. He has more confidence in younger candidates to tackle it: Ive met many older people who dont really feel an obligation to do anything about it. On the other hand, he respects the knowledge that comes with experience and worries that some younger candidates can be very rash and a bit over-passionate. Age isnt a decisive factor for Sophia Spear, 17, a student at Centennial High School in Circle Pines who takes all her classes at Concordia. It would be nice to see some younger people [running]. I think that would motivate youth to get involved in politics, she said. But I understand why a lot of politicians are older. I think experience helps. Anoka resident Kathy Gunerius, 78, has no problem at all with an older candidate if theyre in good health. She also worries a little bit about younger candidates who might lack life experience. Its really important that we have a mixture of ages, she said. Glenda Meixell, 74, won re-election last year to a four-year term as an Anoka County conservation supervisor after concluding that I am feeling good and theres something to be said for 70 is the new 60. She added that shed step down if she became impaired. Coon Rapids stroke survivor Bob Keegan, 74, noted that a serious illness can just come out of nowhere. He doesnt think age should necessarily be a factor in the campaign, but he wants fresh faces and fresh ideas. No candidate should be disqualified on the basis of age, said Mark Fisher, a professor of neurology and political science at the University of California, Irvine. But it can be an issue that would encourage heightened scrutiny of a candidates mental and physical facilities, he said, calling it a legitimate issue and focus. Its likely that Ronald Reagan had symptoms of Alzheimers disease during his final years in office, Fisher said. Neurodegenerative processes like Alzheimers and cerebrovascular diseases that affect cognition should be assessed in older candidates and release of medical records should be required, he said. Trumps reluctance to do so could lead to a boomerang effect, and future candidates will not be able to run without releasing them, said Richard Pacelle, head of the political science department at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He expects strong 2020 turnout by younger voters but warned that group politics and identity politics have as many negatives as positives. The median age of U.S. presidents is about 55, which is about right, said David Woodard, 64, who teaches history and political science at Concordia. Hes rooting for a younger woman to advance. Concordia senior Amy Stone, 28, whos from Plymouth and majors in management leadership, thinks a younger president would work harder to safeguard her retirement funds. Omaha native Tyler Dunn, 22, likes the idea of an older nominee and a younger running mate. He just graduated and wants to work on Washingtons Capitol Hill. Bob Powell of Ramsey, who is 87, also wants an older president. Younger candidates ought to try Congress or something first and work up from there, he said. But the prospect of one of the oldest candidates winning makes Janet Harvey a little nervous. Shes 67 and lives in Coon Rapids. As awful as this sounds, she said, Sanders age bugs me enough so that Im not interested in him at all. Theres a generation gap separating senior Brooke Steigauf, 21, an art education major from St. Paul, and Lori Anderson, 61, of Coon Rapids. Steigaufs ideal president is someone thats older who has the mind-set of a younger person in the sense that theyre able to seek new experiences, new perspectives, she said. Not Anderson. Im tired of being legislated by old white men, she said. I need somebody in the White House who knows what its like to live in the trenches. | http://www.startribune.com/will-age-matter-in-the-2020-presidential-race/510432612/ |
Who is Curvy Wife Guy and does he live in Arizona? | CLOSE Robbie Tripp, known as Curvy Wife Guy, appears to have shot his new music video, "Chubby Sexy", in Phoenix. (Photo: Altavena, Lily) Maybe you were distracted by the lyrics: She got a waist so big, that her belt cant reach. So I call her James and the Giant Peach. "Chubby Sexy," a new music video from Robbie Tripp (known around the internet as Curvy Wife Guy) probably turns heads for lines like "She like a dude thats woke, we like a girl thats weighty" and not the scenery. But look closer. Behind the women in bathing suits dancing next to Tripp is a range of mountains that look unmistakably Arizonan. For more stories that matter, subscribe to azcentral.com. Because they are: Tripp geotagged an Instagram post about the video from South Mountain, Phoenix. Curvy Wife Guy and his wife, Sarah Tripp, moved to metro Phoenix from San Francisco last year, not long after Robbie Tripp rose to internet infamy and gained the nickname "Curvy Wife Guy." Since the move, the couple has been all over the Valley, judging from Instagram: They've tagged posts from Doughbird in Arcadia, the Saguaro Hotel in Scottsdale and Frost Gelato at the Biltmore. Curvy Wife Guy struck a viral nerve in 2017, when he posted a photo of him and Sarah, in a bright one-piece bathing suit in Miami, Florida. The caption, detailing how he was teased as a teenager for liking "curvier" women and how much he loves his wife's body, set off internet controversy. "Her shape and size won't be the one featured on the cover of Cosmopolitan but it's the one featured in my life and in my heart," he wrote in the lengthy caption. While the post caught a lot of positive attention, other corners of social media gave Tripp a hard time. Detractors said the post seemed like Tripp was glorifying an opinion that his wife, not a standard size, is attractive that was not particularly groundbreaking, nor does it deserve to drown in praise. WOULD YOU LOVE YOUR HALF-KOALA WIFE (@elle91) August 4, 2017 The song, "Chubby Sexy," is now the latest chapter in the Curvy Wife Guy saga. It's receiving similar internet criticism and features three women in bathing suits dancing behind Tripp, who at one point raps about inner thighs chafing. The couple moved to the Valley last year from San Francisco. According to a post on Sarah's blog, the two are building a house in Phoenix. Reach the reporter at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter @LilyAlta. Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/05/25/curvy-wife-guy-lives-arizona/1240258001/ | https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/05/25/curvy-wife-guy-lives-arizona/1240258001/ |
Do we need a postnup for wifes business? | My wife and I signed a prenuptial agreement before we got married. At the time, I was working and our plan was for her to stay home with the kids, assuming we had some. Fast-forward six years and we have three kids under 5. My wife started a small company while pregnant with our first child, and it took off. She was making far more than me, so we agreed I would stay home with our kids. My wife travels a lot, so we know I cannot go back to the intense job I had and need to find something more flexible. I am leaning toward getting my teaching license. Because our actual family routine is so different than what we anticipated, my parents say we should modify our prenuptial agreement with a postnuptial agreement. We only did a prenup because of pressure from them. My grandfather established some large trusts and I had a cousin go through a nasty divorce several years ago, which scared my parents. I would really rather just continue enjoying our life, but I want to make sure Im not making a mistake. Without seeing your prenuptial agreement, my assumption is that the clause predicting your wife would stay home with future children dealt with an alimony waiver/calculation provision and not the terms of your grandfathers trust. In most agreements Ive seen or drafted, the provisions that address a parent possibly staying home with children are prepared in a gender neutral fashion so the terms are applicable regardless of who is actually home with children. You should go back and look at your agreement. You might be surprised as to how the provision was drafted even if you contemplated your wife staying home with kids it may be gender neutral and you will not need to change anything. If assets acquired during the marriage are to be considered joint, so too is her business, and again, you would not need to do anything. If a business started by either of you during the marriage would be considered separate, you should now consider discussing a postnuptial agreement to deal with the change in your family dynamic. If you dont and things go bad, she would get her business free and clear and only have to pay you minimal alimony in accordance with a set formula. That is not our standard. | https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/05/26/wendy-20/ |
Could Brooks Koepka or anyone really challenge Jack Nicklaus' record? | Brooks Koepka just turned 29 and already has four major golf championships all of which came in the past two years. Hes the latest hot candidate to challenge Jack Nicklaus career mark of 18 major titles. First take: Michael Rand My first instinct is to quickly answer yes. Leaderboards at majors these days tend to be jam-packed with big names, and even when someone runs away from the pack as Koepka did at the PGA Championship last weekend, it was still a struggle at the end. Nicklaus benefited from fewer top challengers as he climbed the ladder. So, too, did Tiger Woods who was a shoo-in to break the record before injuries and, yes, better competition stalled his progress. Even winning one major a year in this era would be daunting. Koepka would need to do that well into his 40s to catch Nicklaus. Columnist Jim Souhan: Its hard to tell how good a great players competitors were. He seemed to intimidate a lot of good players yet needed extra holes to win majors away from other golfers such as Bob May, Rocco Mediate and Chris DiMarco. I think Koepka will fall short of 18 not because of the quality of the fields but because of the difficulty of the task. Hes already 29, and only four have won more than nine majors. He could win one a year for the next 10 years, become one of the three greatest golfers ever, and fall four short of Jack. Rand: True, even with our tendencies to overextrapolate and let imaginations run wild after a hot streak, Koepka would have to be awfully good to even reach double-digits. Maybe the more interesting case is Woods, who already has banked 15 majors including of course The Masters this year after a decade-plus drought. Tiger showed he can still create some magic, but Id like his chances of doing it four more times a lot more if not for the competition from Koepka, Dustin Johnson and at least a dozen others. Souhan: But only Koepka looks daunting at the moment. Rory hasnt won a major since 2014, Spieth has slumped and Johnson has blown many more majors than hes won. Only Koepka currently seems to have the game and attitude to dominate majors. Dozens of players could win one at any time. I dont think any current players, with the possible exception of Koepka, has even a remote chance to win double digit majors. Rand: Only five majors in history have been won by golfers after they turned 45 and the last to do it was Nicklaus in 1986. Even with better training extending athletes primes in all sports, theres a good chance that if the record is ever going to be broken, its going to be by a golfer we havent even heard of yet or maybe isnt even alive. Final word: Souhan Id take the not-alive-yet field over anyone who has already won a major. More Rand: startribune.com/RandBall More North Score: startribune.com/NorthScore | http://www.startribune.com/could-brooks-koepka-or-anyone-really-challenge-jack-nicklaus-record/510432212/ |
Why the Trump administration secrecy on BWCA mining study? | In due course. Thats the imperious response from the Trump administration when asked again this week when it will release scientific information gathered during an aborted review of copper minings impact on land adjacent to the beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA). A controversial May 15 federal decision to renew two mining leases blocked by former President Barack Obamas administration underscores the troubling questions about transparency raised by Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., other members of Congress, and the Star Tribune Editorial Board. The review was halted 20 months into a 24-month process. The May 15 decision to renew the two mineral leases sought by the Chilean-owned Twin Metals Minnesota sweeps away a significant hurdle the project faced. The proposed mine would not be in the BWCA, but would be in its watershed putting the pristine waters at risk of acid runoff or other pollution. While Twin Metals still must undergo state permitting and likely remains years away from completion, the Trump administrations refusal to release the key data from the review creates doubts about whether politics, rather than science, cleared the path forward. Even high-profile backers of the Twin Metals project, such as Minnesota Republican U.S. Reps. Tom Emmer and Pete Stauber, should recognize how the perception of secrecy jeopardizes public confidence in the entire approval process. Thats not helpful for Twin Metals or other mining projects. The administrations obstinance is even more alarming given McCollums forceful advocacy and the grave concerns voiced in a May 1 letter by U.S. Forest Service retirees about pollution and other risks to the BWCA. McCollum, who represents the states Fourth District, has sent two strongly worded letters to the administration demanding review data. In congressional hearings, shes hammered Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue for breaking his 2017 promise to provide this information. Yet the Trump administration continues to brazenly blow off its congressional-oversight obligations. And as its May 15 lease decision showed, it gave little heed to the remarkable letter signed by about three dozen Forest Service employees, the very people with the expertise to accurately assess minings risks to the BWCA. Clearly, McCollum needs stronger backup from her colleagues, particularly from Minnesotas delegation. It shouldnt have taken an editorial writers inquiry to apparently prompt Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith to send a letter on Thursday calling for the datas release. While the senators previously have weighed on other Twin Metals matters, Minnesotans would be well-served if Klobuchar and Smith became higher-profile advocates for transparency and joined McCollum in other protective efforts. For example, McCollum is pursuing legislative remedies to require completion of the halted study and commission a report from the independent National Academy of Sciences on Twin Metals impact on the BWCA watershed. In a statement provided to an editorial writer this week, Twin Metals said it has not yet submitted an official Mine Plan of Operations for agencies to review. Until then, it said, speculation about the potential impacts to the area is premature and not based in fact or science. Officials with the firm also said they support the right to request the documents but that any production from the agencies must be in compliance with the law. Federal agency officials contacted by an editorial writer have not publicly cited legal barriers to releasing the data requested by McCollum. In 2016, Thomas Tidwell, head of the Forest Service under Obama, warned of copper minings potential to cause serious and irreparable harm to the BWCA. Data from the halted review is needed to answer that vital question. | http://www.startribune.com/why-the-trump-administration-secrecy-on-bwca-mining-study/510405642/ |
Why are so many people dying in US prisons and jails? | On 10 July 2015, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was pulled over in Prairie View, Texas, for what she was told by Texas state trooper Brian Encinia was failing to use her turn signal. Three days after Blands arrest, she was found dead in her jail cell. The death was ruled a suicide but remains shrouded in mystery over how a wrongful arrest stemming from a minor traffic violation resulted in death. Broken promises and lost funding: how Mississippi prison reform failed Read more She was arrested and alleged to have put this officers life and safety in jeopardy. Really what happened is he didnt like that his authority was questioned, attorney Cannon Lambert, who represented Blands family, told the Guardian. For many campaigners Blands death in custody, one of the most famous in recent years, demonstrates the widespread reforms needed in the criminal justice system, including tackling racial profiling by police, ending prohibitive bail sums, remedying the lack of mental healthcare, adequate supervision and resources for prisoners in custody, and the need to reduce mass incarceration. It also highlights the fact that these circumstances have led to an epidemic of deaths in Americas prisons and jails. Surges in the number of Americans dying while incarcerated have occurred against a backdrop of an increase in the US prison population by 500% over the last 40 years. Based on the latest national figures available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4,980 prisoners in US correctional facilities died in 2014, a nearly 3% increase from 2013. In state prisons, the mortality rate was 275 for every 100,000 people, the highest since data collection began in 2001. Since 2014, a Guardian investigation has found several states, including Texas and Florida, with the first and third highest prison populations in the US, respectively, have reported either record mortality rates in prisons or jails or significant surges. Today, 2.3 million people are currently imprisoned, a proportion of the population that substantially outpaces every other nation in the world. Sign up for the US morning briefing While the majority of deaths in prison are due to natural causes from an ageing prison population, there have also been significant rises in mortality rates due to suicides, homicides, accidents, drug and alcohol-related events, and untreated medical issues. In Utah, at least 71 people died in jail over the past five years, with half those deaths a result of suicide and most within a week of an individual entering jail. The states jails have the highest death rate per capita in the US. In August 2018, 16 deaths in Mississippi jails in a single month prompted an FBI investigation. In California, a US supreme court order to reduce the states prison population resulted in prisoners being transferred to county jails. Unequipped to handle the influx, those prisons have experienced spikes in homicides. Prisoners in Michigan are dying at the states highest rate in decades and 2018 saw the most prison fatalities in the state since at least 1994, though prison deaths are not consistently tracked by the state. Texas, with the highest prison population in the US, has seen a 20-year high in prison suicides and 2018 was the states highest number of in custody prison deaths since at least 2005. A record number of prisoners committed suicide in South Carolina in 2018 as homicides within the state prison system are on the rise. Concerns over the surges in prison deaths across the US are part of a nationwide trend. A 2017 report published by the Rand Corporation on identifying the needs to reduce prison mortality rates suggested several high-priority needs to reduce prison mortality rates. A national medical examiner system should be implemented because of the additional rigor these professionals have and more consistency with how they do investigations and classify cause of death, said Joe Russo, the lead author of the report, in an interview. The report noted an underlying issue in addressing prison mortality rates is the insufficient reporting methods used by various jurisdictions throughout the US. For instance, the state of New Jersey has one of the highest mortality rates in their county jails in the US, but exact numbers remain unknown because of unreliable data collection and reporting. Based on available data, county jails in New Jersey saw a 55% increase in prison suicide mortalities between 2012 to 2016. The New Jersey department of corrections announced some changes in December 2018 to address prison suicides, but prison reform advocates are pushing for more reforms. Robust, meaningful oversight and accountability is required at many levels; of medical contractors, of jail policies and practices, of county decision-making and reporting, said Tess Borden, a staff attorney at the ACLU of New Jersey. In many of New Jerseys county jails with the highest suicide rates, a private medical contractor, CFG Health Systems, provides medical services to eight out of 10 of them. Florida has experienced similar issues with privately contracted medical services. The states prison mortality reached a record 428 deaths in 2017 and has risen steadily since 2000. Private medical service providers at Florida prisons have been reported to provide no medical care for some prisoners or treating serious medical conditions with ibuprofen, contributing to these spikes in prison deaths. Other countries have a lot of oversight, the US does not Dr Josiah Rich Other countries have a lot of oversight, the US does not, said Dr Josiah Rich, director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights and professor of medicine and epidemiology at Brown University. During this same period of rising mortality rates in Florida prisons, the state government made drastic cuts in staffing and prison programs. In Alabama, significant budget shortfalls and widespread understaffing in prison and jails throughout the state contributed to surges in prison mortality rates. About 15 suicides have occurred in Alabama prisons since December 2017, and the state prisons have a homicide rate 10 times higher than the national average. There are a lot of people working to try to fix the problems in the Alabama department of corrections, with understaffing being the root of the problem, said Ashley Austin, a law fellow at the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. The Department of Justice noted in April 2019 that Alabamas prison system probably violates the US constitution in its failure to adequately provide safe conditions for prisoners. Only one-third of the states correctional officers are authorized to adequately operate the prisons, while the states prisons are overcrowded by nearly twice their designed capacity. Prisons and jails throughout the US are continuously plagued by surges in mortality rates due to varying degrees of underfunding, understaffing, negligence and a system inadequately in place to address serious mental healthcare and medical issues of individuals who inevitably find themselves caught within the criminal justice system. More than half of state and sentenced jail prisoners meet the criteria for drug dependence and abuse. Around 14.5% of men and over 31% of women in prison suffer from serious mental health illnesses. Once in prison or jail, many of these individuals receive little or no treatment for their illnesses. Janice Dotson Stephens was one of those individuals. The mentally ill 61-year-old died in Bexar county jail, Texas, on 14 December 2018 after spending five months in jail for a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing on a $300 bond. She never saw a courtroom during that time span while waiting for a psychiatric evaluation that was never conducted. We received the medical records two weeks ago. We discovered she lost 136 pounds in 150 days and they knew when she was booked she had hypertension and schizoaffective disorder, it was already in their database, said attorney Leslie Sachanowicz, who is representing the family in a lawsuit against Bexar county, the arresting officer, and the health services provider. He said that her medication history while she was in custody was entirely blank. There was no treatment for Ms Dotson-Stephens, he said. | https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/26/us-prisons-jails-inmate-deaths |
Is BBC news broken? And if so, how do we fix it? | Our national broadcaster has been defeated by Brexit; confounded either by the explosion of a rightwing populist politics it doesnt know how to cover, or by growing millennial intolerance of views they abhor being given a platform, or possibly by both. An explosion of fake news, the BBCs own neurosis about whether its too middle-class for its own good, and the vocal indignation of Labour activists who feel the media is institutionally biased against Jeremy Corbyn have all combined to create a perfectly bewildering storm for a once-loved institution. Or so the theory goes. It is striking that, but for the mention of Channel 4, Adoniss words could easily have been those of an incensed hard Brexiter. There is nothing new about the Beeb coming under fire from all sides. It has arguably had worse, whether locking horns with Norman Tebbit during the Thatcher years or when Alastair Campbell collided head-on with BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan over his claims of sexing up the Iraq war dossier. Even the anguished debate about the usefulness of the traditional balanced package, pitching two representatives from different sides of an argument against each other and letting the viewer decide whos right, which has resurfaced with Brexit, is not new. The newer and more worrying development, however, is that the BBC is increasingly being attacked from the inside, rather than just caught in the wider political crossfire. The former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer recently published a long essay for Prospect magazine criticising his old employers reliance on meaningless Brexit vox pops in northern towns that barely scratch the surface of what real people think, and arguing that its concept of impartiality risks leaving viewers confused about who to believe. Roger Mosey, the former head of BBC Television News, meanwhile, warned in the Sunday Times of a looming crisis as younger viewers begin to question why they should pay the licence fee when theyve mostly decamped to Netflix. Both position themselves as champions of public service broadcasting, criticising only because they care, and some of their public concerns certainly echo private howls of despair from journalists suspicious of the direction in which senior management are taking them. Here, the Observer asks five well-placed commentators whether something really is rotten inside the Beeb and if so, how to put it right again. Gina Miller: Experts are being devalued. Its hampering the debate Investment manager; founder of endthechaos.co.uk It seems to have got much worse since the EU referendum, this idea at the BBC that you have to give equal weight to both sides, even if one side is telling a lie. If you go back to the statements made during the campaign the promise of 350m for the NHS, or the claim that the EU was undemocratic, or that immigration poster it was all taken as read, and then someone on the Remain side had to take the opposing view, as if both claims were of equal weight. It was a very skewed way of reporting and I dont think weve necessarily moved forward from there. The BBC have a responsibility to interrogate lies and half-truths; otherwise the quality of their output becomes less robust. Looking at the BBCs reporting of Nigel Farages speech last month when he talked about putting the fear of god into MPs, it was a former BBC war reporter, Patrick Howse, who said the coverage made him feel ashamed for the corporation [https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/15/brexit-breaking-point-how-one-veteran-believes-bbc-coverage-of-farages-new-party-facilitates-fascism/]. The whole speech was covered, and the bit about putting the fear of god into MPs who didnt comply with your wishes wasnt cut. The BBC has a responsibility to call out things like that, which stir up real abusive behaviour, but they didnt.Brexit is such a complex issue and I think more training for journalists would be useful, so that they can have greater understanding of the facts. At my campaign End the Chaos, we take long reports and condense them down to six or seven pages highlighting the key points. That could help journalists a lot, so that if someone comes on and says something contentious about the WTO (World Trade Organisation) or the Irish border, interviewers would be better equipped to challenge them. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The newsroom in the BBCs Broadcasting House, in London. Photograph: View Pictures/UIG via Getty Images Its also about being more responsible in the way interviews are conducted. I do think its irresponsible for John Humphrys on the Today programme to attack certain people with certain points of view and then let others reel off their speeches uninterrupted, or for the BBC not to come down on Andrew Neil for calling Carole Cadwalladr a mad cat woman. In general, I think people in government and positions of political power get challenged less, while experts are being devalued. Thats really hampering the debate and the quality of whats being produced by the corporation. On a practical note, I wonder how often they get their viewers in and have feedback panels. I often see people on social media saying, Im not watching Newsnight any more because of X, Y or Z, or complaining about the Brexit coverage on BBC news. So feedback panels could be really useful. If youre in step with your consumers, then you tend to produce better output. I do really believe that we need a service like the BBC, especially in the age of social media, when people only go to the news sources that confirm their point of view. Having a service thats properly balanced becomes of heightened importance. What you need to do is reform, refresh and improve: throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never the right solution. Interview by Killian Fox Ayesha Hazarika: Its worldview is quite metropolitan, quite white Comedian, broadcaster and political commentator. Her book Punch and Judy Politics is published by Biteback Im very affectionate about the BBC, and probably a bit misty-eyed at times, but its far from perfect. First of all, though it caters brilliantly for the audiences it currently has, which tend to be white, older and middle-class, I think the BBC must do more to reach out to different communities, and to young people. Theres so much talent out there, so many great writers and creators, and the BBC could do more to reach into different communities and different parts of the country to get those stories. The same goes for the people it employs. The black and brown faces I see when I go into the BBC are mainly the ladies at the reception desk or the security guards, and thats not a good look. From researchers to producers to executives, theres much more to be done to promote real diversity and plurality of thought across the corporation. That bleeds into the bigger question of the day: the BBC is getting a really hard time right now about Brexit and bias. Theyre getting it from all sides youve got Remainers such as Andrew Adonis and arch-Brexiters such as Tim Montgomerie and Nigel Farage saying the BBC should be abolished. In a way, they probably think theyre doing the right thing by getting up everyones noses, but I think one of the reasons the BBC gets itself into difficulties is because its worldview is quite metropolitan, quite white. Its all done unconsciously, but that unconscious bias runs deep. Now that were in the heat of Brexit, all of a sudden they have to do this box-ticking balance, which leads to false equivalence. On their flagship news shows, the debate is sometimes so polarised and dumbed down. Its almost like the BBC has decided to bypass quite a lot of the sensible people in the middle because theyre not exciting enough, and what you get instead is a cartoon punch-up between the most extreme views. I think the BBC has a responsibility, at a time when our politics are really fraught, to promote all sides of the argument, not just the clickbait. It shouldnt only be competing for social media likes, its also there to educate and inform us and thats a big responsibility. The BBC should be a bastion of intelligence, objectivity and truth thats not being cowed by anyone on any side, and they should debate things without fear or favour. I think the BBC has got to stop being so scared of some of its critics. Its got to be braver. KF Facebook Twitter Pinterest Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Ash Sarkar: It needs to recognise that it has been outplayed Senior editor at leftwing website Novara Media Novara Media might have a bit of a reputation as a new media attack dog snarling at establishment outlets, but I swear: everything Im about to say comes from a place of love. The BBC is a bit like parliament. I might find its procedures arcane, its composition unrepresentative, some of its decision-making frankly baffling, but ultimately I want the institution to survive for centuries into the future. That means acknowledging that there are lots of very good reasons why people dont trust the BBC. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A London protest by Brexiters, against delays in leaving the EU. Photograph: Avpics/Alamy If you can still get a cushy job with the same government that your broadcaster has hounded for years, then at best its a failure of your political programming. At worst its evidence that seemingly antagonistic forces, the press and politicians, actually have their overall interests as part of the establishment in alignment. There are rules that apply to people who have served in ministerial roles, limiting what jobs they can take for two years after being in government: the same should be the case for those in a position of seniority in the BBC. Another chronic malady for the BBC is impartiality and platforming. For the most part, the organisation takes a Millwall approach to accusations of bias: Nobody likes us, we dont care. The reasoning here is that if both the left and the right, or Leavers and Remainers, are equally angry then thats proof of a balanced approach. But the BBC does have its biases. It had the most pro-war agenda out of all the British broadcasters during the invasion of Iraq. A study by the Media Reform Coalition has shown a pattern of hostile coverage of Jeremy Corbyn and those who support him. And strangely enough, its not the left who have been best able to capitalise on this breakdown of public trust in the BBC. Its the far right. People say that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and thats why the BBC should allow the far right on its flagship political shows. I dont think that no platform is a moral imperative; I think that its right that even figures I find loathsome receive fair coverage on a state broadcaster. But the BBC needs to recognise that it has been outplayed at the very game it set the rules for. Nigel Farage wasnt interested in winning a head-to-head with Andrew Marr: he used the platform to whip up his base, and delegitimise the BBC itself. Whats more, it looks as if hes succeeding. The BBC has got to recognise, and deal with, the limitations of some of its formats. Short, combative interviews are the bread-and-butter of far-right media. They create fantastic, viral content, and play on social media users frustration with establishment media outlets. If the BBC wants to cover the far right, while preserving its own values and future viability, it needs to make more room for long-form content. Polarisation isnt necessarily a bad thing. There are values-driven conflicts in politics, and what it means to occupy the centre ground changes over time. But thats why its so important to protect institutions that are capable of handling pluralism. There needs to be shared space in public discourse in which we, the people, can see our viewpoints represented, and the rigorous questioning of those who represent us. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images Craig Oliver: The problem is that the BBC seems to have lost its confidence Former editor of BBC News who was David Camerons director of politics and communications As one of our most important institutions the BBC needs protecting. Sadly, too often that protection needs to be from itself. Theres plenty of great journalism, but the corporation has a knack of shooting itself in the foot. Anyone who knows it, as I do, would have instantly understood the late decision not to broadcast an already recorded episode of Have I Got News for You because it featured the Change UK leader was a cock-up, not a conspiracy. The impartiality rules are clear and someone was asleep at the wheel. Unfortunately, that gave politicians and Remainers (angry at coverage of Nigel Farage) a chance to claim that the BBC is involved in a Brexit conspiracy. The problem is that the BBC appears to have lost its confidence, and, as a result, too often substitutes balance for due impartiality. The key word here is due. It means people should get the coverage they deserve. If they are factually wrong or have a wild view that flies in the face of the informed consensus, they need to be ignored or properly contextualised. After too many stumbles, its finally working for climate change, but not elsewhere. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The stakes are high: director general of the BBC, Tony Hall, giving evidence to the digital, culture, media and sport committee on pay at the BBC in January 2018. Photograph: PA The approach was lost almost entirely during the EU referendum, in the perfect symmetry in coverage of Leave and Remain. No matter what, each story was balanced. Examples included backbench MPs asserting that [warnings about the economy] from 90% of economists, including Nobel prize winners, were simply wrong. The nadir was when a government minister went on the The Andrew Marr Show claiming Turkey was joining the EU imminently, millions would head our way and the UK had no veto. All of this was straightforwardly wrong and yet all day the BBC treated the story as if there were a massive debate. I was left wondering what hope audiences had if coverage wasnt based in fact. This split the difference approach is toxic leading to both sides claiming that the BBC is biased. Its helping polarise the argument and is alienating almost everyone. It encourages ever more extreme positioning, and discounts those prepared to be more nuanced. Those in the centre are left confused, alienated and in danger of being disenfranchised. Like it or not, the sheer scale of the BBC gives it a uniquely powerful role. Senior management at the BBC needs to make it explicitly clear to its news editors and reporters that in a world of populism, misrepresentation, ideologues, tribalists and cranks they are expected to fill the giant shoes theyve been given. They must stop splitting the difference and combine intellectual agility with the self-confidence to properly referee our national debate taking their time, being prepared to swim against the tide and make clear when something is just wrong. The stakes are just too high for it not to. Nick Lowles: We have to be critical friends and say there are some things they are doing well, and some they are not Chief executive of anti-racism and anti-extremism movement HOPE not hate The BBC is vitally important, but its being politically attacked and it needs defending. Thats why we have to be critical friends and say that, while there are some things they are doing well, there are some things theyre not doing well. Theres been a concerted effort recently to have alternative views on programmes such as Today or PM, and rightly so, but that requires interviewers to act responsibly, and I dont think they always do. Straight after the Christchurch shootings, there was an interview on Newsnight with the UK leader of the far-right Generation Identity group. Many people felt it was an uncritical interview, especially given that the suspect had drawn inspiration from GIs great replacement narrative and the later revelations that he had donated to the groups Austrian chapter. Also in March, Newsnight ran a piece on Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) where the imagery surrounding the package was a picture of Robinson with tape across his face. This played into his narrative that hes a freedomofspeech warrior. Quite often, the interviewer isnt well equipped to take on these people. Theres a complacency with extremist figures such as Robinson or Anjem Choudary, where its assumed itll be easy to interview them, but these people are political street fighters and often they run rings around the interviewer, simply because they dont conform to the normal ways that politicians act in interviews. They just make things up, deny things. Rather than acting as a platform for these cranks, the BBC should be better equipped to challenge them, and interviewers should be more prepared to say: This is nonsense. | https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/26/bbc-news-brexit-balance-bias |
Should sports do more to help female athletes feel 'more comfortable' having children during career? | England netballer Ama Agbeze wants to have a baby with her husband but has put starting a family on hold for her career You want to reach the top of your sport, but you also want to start a family. It's a conundrum facing many sportswomen. Some British athletes, like Jessica Ennis-Hill and Jo Pavey, have become mothers and then come back to compete at the very top. But for some, it's a seemingly impossible situation. As such, England netball captain Ama Agbeze has called upon sports' governing bodies to introduce specific maternity policies to enable female athletes to feel "more comfortable" having children during their career. Agbeze, 36, wants to start a family with her husband but told BBC Sport taking time out of her career would be a "significant decision". While she said it wasn't "taboo", she added that pregnancy was among "things that just don't get mentioned". "If you're forewarned, you're forearmed," she said. "Hopefully they will start putting procedures and policies in place so that from as soon as you get into a squad, this is what would happen if you got pregnant, this is the support you would get, this is the notice you'd have to give, if you wanted to return you could, you might get a statutory maternity leave. "I do think there is potential for change. There need to be policies in place so it is set in stone what happens in the eventuality that you get pregnant." UK Sport currently provides guidance to governing bodies which encourages them to manage pregnancies on a "case-by-case basis". England Netball is funded by Sport England but told BBC Sport it would "refer" to UK Sport's guidance in the event of an athlete becoming pregnant. If a female athlete becomes pregnant: She can continue to receive World Class Programme funding and support during pregnancy and after childbirth. She and her performance director are expected to agree an appropriate training and competition programme that would map the athlete's return. Three months after childbirth, the sport's performance director is encouraged to undertake a review with the athlete to assess their commitment to the agreed plan. They are not expected to have returned to full competitive level by this point. If, by the three-month review, the athlete has decided they no longer intend to return to the sport, they would be given a notice period, which would be dependent on the length of time they had been on the World Class Programme, before being removed from funding. A UK Sport spokesperson told BBC Sport: "Our Athlete Performance Award framework enables an athlete to continue to receive support throughout their pregnancy and post-birth, and encourages the sport and individual athlete to mutually agree a time frame and training plan for their return. "We have not heard significant concerns from athletes who are part of a UK Sport funded World Class Programme in relation to the support they have received throughout their pregnancy. However, we are currently working on the detail of our Future Strategy, and will continue to ensure we put athletes at the heart of everything we do." 'There's only so much you can do with little funding' Jessica Ennis-Hill won heptathlon World Championship gold the year after welcoming her son In recent years, there have been high-profile examples of athletes returning from pregnancy and childbirth to compete at the top of their sport, including 23-time Grand Slam champion Serena Williams. In terms of British athletes, London 2012 heptathlon Olympic champion Ennis-Hill had her son, Reggie, in 2014, but returned to win World Championship gold the following year before Olympic silver in 2016. Similarly, British long-distance runner Pavey won the European 10,000m title 10 months after the birth of her second child before representing Team GB at her fifth Olympic Games in Rio. However, Agbeze says it is different for athletes in team sports. "They are from individual sports," she said. "They only have to worry about themselves, and it's completely different in a team environment. "They will have had difficulty getting to training and dealing with childcare, but I think being in a team sport is different because you don't set your training according to you." In recent years, netball's governing bodies in Australia and New Zealand have introduced groundbreaking maternity policies, both of which provide "100% income protection" for up to two years. In addition, Australian players are entitled to private health contributions of up to $1, 635 (888) per year, while New Zealand's players receive up to $1,500 (771) per annum. Netball Australia also allows children under 12 months to travel with their mother's team, while they will also pay for a carer to travel too. "As a player, especially having played in Australia and New Zealand and seeing how professional the game is, it's frustrating to come back to England and see we're not quite there yet," Agbeze said. "I know that England Netball are trying to do their best, but there is only so much they can do with little funding." It shouldn't be Former England international Tamsin Greenway gave birth to her daughter in 2013 and returned to international netball afterwards, but retired after the 2015 World Cup. "It was tough," she told BBC Sport. "There was no chance I could carry on." Greenway, 36, agreed that governing bodies should "start looking" at maternity provision, because female sports are "changing". "It should be a career you can come back to," she said. "Lots of athletes have proven that, it doesn't mean game over. "I would like to think, bearing in mind we've got some of the best players in the world playing into their late 30s, surely it makes sense they can have a break to have kids and come back." Agbeze says she "doesn't know" what would happen if she became pregnant during her international career. "I'd be more comfortable knowing I could get support," she said. "I think it would take time for people to understand they can have a child and know they would be supported. It would take time for it to get into people's psyche that it is possible, and I think eventually they would plan to have a child at a certain point if it worked for their career." In a statement, England Netball said: "We are committed to providing a safe and enjoyable environment for all who participate in netball, including those who are pregnant. "Whilst the decision as to whether or not to participate rests solely with the relevant participant, the participant's own health and the health of the unborn child are of paramount importance. "In the event of the pregnancy of an international player, we would give advice and support on an individual athlete basis with guidance on continued exercise and participation in netball team training and match play alongside their antenatal healthcare provider (midwife and/or obstetrician). "We also refer to the UK Sport guidance." Sport England's head of equality and diversity, Cathy Hughes, said: "Women who wish to combine having children with a career should be supported to do so and that is no different for athletes. "We would encourage all national governing bodies to look to UK Sport's guidance and focus on how to support pregnant athletes, for example, working with the athlete to agree an appropriate training plan that works during and after pregnancy." 'Our life is on hold' - exploring other options At 36, Agbeze is aware her biological clock is ticking and she and her husband, Fred, have started looking at other options. She admits there have been times when she has calculated what tournaments and events she would miss if she got pregnant by a specific point, and feels pressure from others. "Lots of people I meet me tell me I'm getting on and that I should probably start thinking of babies now," she said. "Some of my husband's friends have played netball for Australia and New Zealand, and every time he sees them they're like 'you're going to run out of time', so then I become more conscious that I can't have children forever." One of those other options is surrogacy. Agbeze's husband, who lives in New Zealand, "desperately" wants them to start a family and they have explored surrogacy as a possibility. "It's very difficult for him because our life is on hold while I do what I do," she said. "I am really conscious of the fact he has made lots of sacrifices so that I can do what I do. "Surrogacy is definitely a viable option. I like the concept but I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that if I am capable of carrying a child, is it selfish of me to ask someone else to carry a child for me when there are people who can't have children and have to go down that route. "But I want to experience pregnancy, how my body changes and childbirth and see what it's like for myself." BBC Sport has launched #ChangeTheGame this summer to showcase female athletes in a way they never have been before. Through more live women's sport available to watch across the BBC this summer, complemented by our journalism, we are aiming to turn up the volume on women's sport and alter perceptions. Find out more here. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/48336819 |
Why do votes take so long to count in Northern Ireland? | Election counts in Northern Ireland can often seem to drag on forever. Recent local government elections were held on a Thursday, but while all the English results were in by Friday evening, it was almost 23:00 BST on Saturday before things finished up in Northern Ireland. At the last European election in 2014 the count took much longer than expected and the delay was criticised by the Electoral Commission. Part of the reason for this is the voting system used in Northern Ireland - single transferable vote, or STV - and when it comes to European elections another factor is that votes in Northern Ireland are not counted on Sundays. So while the rest of Europe will start counting after the last polls close at 22:00 BST on Sunday, Northern Ireland's count doesn't begin until Monday. One of the main reasons STV was introduced was to ensure a broad range of both unionist and nationalist candidates were elected, according to Dr Christopher Raymond from the school of politics at Queen's University Belfast. "STV is designed to ensure a good chance of representation for both sides of the community divide," he said. "The idea is that a system electing more than one person per constituency increases the chances that unionists are elected and nationalists are elected as well. Image copyright PAcemaker Image caption The count process in 2014 dragged into a second day "STV was meant to ensure you got fair representation of the two main communities, but Alliance and the Greens and so on benefited." STV is designed to make sure each constituency in an election has a group of representatives who reflect the diverse opinions of voters in that area. Each voter is able to vote for every candidate on the ballot paper, putting a number one beside their favourite, a number two beside their second favourite and so on. They can vote for as many or as few candidates as they like. This is where things get a bit complicated. To get elected a candidate needs to meet the quota, which is calculated based on the number of seats up for grabs and the number of total votes cast. Counting starts by adding up all the number one - or first preference - votes. If anyone gets more number ones than the quota then they are elected. If they have more number ones than they need to reach the quota then their extra votes are passed on to each voter's second-favourite candidate. Unless all the seats have been filled by this stage - which is extremely unusual - the candidate with the least number of votes is knocked out. The people who voted for this candidate have their votes moved to their second-favourite candidate. This process continues until all the seats are filled. It is hard to tell, but Northern Ireland's Chief Electoral Officer Virginia McVea is hopeful. "We will be trying our best with double the staff from 2014 to move through that on Monday if it is possible," she told BBC News NI. "It depends on turnout and how the votes are cast, so it could possibly go into Tuesday depending on those factors." Traditionally, votes have not been counted on Sundays because of observance by Northern Ireland's Christian population of keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest. Another factor is that the STV process is long and complicated. It is difficult to run STV counts overnight because staff begin to flag by mid morning and this may mean bringing in new staff or having a break. But Ms McVea said she has asked for the question of whether counting should take place on Sundays in future to be included in the Electoral Commission's post-election survey. It could then be put out for consultation. There are a number of arguments in favour of STV, including that it puts a lot of power in the hands of the voters. In some other proportional voting systems people vote for parties, and the parties then decide which of their candidates fill the seats. This system is used in the rest of the UK for European elections. But STV allows voters to list individual candidates in order of preference. It also allows people to give their first preference vote to a candidate who they suspect will not be elected, safe in the knowledge their second, third or fourth-favourite options will still get their vote once their first-preference candidate is knocked out. If you are scratching your head trying to keep up with the results coming in, rest assured you are not alone. "The most obvious drawback is how confusing it can be for voters who are not all that engaged with everyday politics keeping track of a long list of names," Dr Raymond said. "It is quite information heavy in terms of what it requires of voters. "It is also very complex to tabulate the results. "It is very confusing for voters sitting on the sidelines waiting for results to come in and expecting them to come in at the same speed as a first past the post election." But no matter how laborious some counts can be, take some solace in the fact that they are quicker now than they were in the past. "It used to be in some cases you would get counts that would take weeks to decide," Dr Raymond said. Avoiding that outcome might just be something all politicians can agree on. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-48352171 |
Can Sir Philip Green save his retail empire? | Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Topshop has "lost appeal", say retail analysts High Street retail chain Arcadia claims to be in serious trouble, facing what it calls "significant liquidity issues". The answer, it believes, is a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), a series of proposals to its creditors which is due to be issued on Wednesday. But critics say it raises as many questions as it answers and fails to address key branding and operational problems in the company. Arcadia, owned by Lady Tina Green, the wife of chairman Sir Philip Green, says sales in its stores open more than a year fell 9% in 2018-19. Earnings this year are expected to be 30m, compared with 219m two years ago. Faced with fixed charges of 100m a year, the group says it is struggling to pay its way. A CVA is a renegotiation of terms with a company's creditors as part of an insolvency procedure. Arcadia's CVA is a complicated, many-headed beast. For a start, it is not one, but seven arrangements relating to different parts of the group. In theory, if one CVA fails, only one part of the company would go into liquidation. The rest would carry on trading. In practice, Arcadia says that the companies are so interlinked that the whole group is unlikely to survive without all seven CVAs being approved. The company says it is paying 170m annually in rent. It estimates the leases are "over-rented" by 30% on average across the portfolio. But most analysts believe that bill was coming down anyway. Richard Hyman, an independent retail consultant, says Arcadia has been shrinking for years, closing stores as leases expired, and he said more were expected to close in the next two years for the same reason. The CVA also proposes closing 23 stores, just 4% of Arcadia's portfolio. Mr Hyman said: "I find it hard to get my head round the idea that closing 23 stores in a group the size of Arcadia is going to make the difference between life and death." Ed Cooke, chief executive of retailers' trade association Revo, says it demonstrates the problems are not as severe as Arcadia makes out: "There's no suggestion here that Arcadia is really insolvent." Arcadia at a glance: Owner: Lady Tina Green, wife of Arcadia' chairman, Sir Philip Green (67). Lady Tina Green, wife of Arcadia' chairman, Sir Philip Green (67). No-one disputes the company is in poor shape. It says it has suffered from the malaise affecting the whole High Street - higher business rates, the rising national living wage and the fall in the value of the pound, which has put up the cost of imported goods. But Arcadia has problems of its own making, which a CVA does little to address and are largely to do with underinvestment. Many date the problem to 2005 and the 1.2bn dividend paid out of Arcadia's parent company, Taveta, to the Green family. Chloe Collins, senior retail analyst at GlobalData, says Arcadia's brands are tired and out of date: "Even Topshop, which used to be Arcadia's star player, has lost appeal among fashion shoppers, thanks to tough competition from the likes of Zara, Primark and H&M, as well as online "pure plays" such as ASOS, PrettyLittleThing and boohoo.com." Image copyright Inditex Image caption Tough competition: Zara's Stratford store in London "Any attempt to pay for an increase in store standards would be spread too thinly to make up for years of underinvestment." Mr Cooke believes CVAs generally are being used to manipulate credit arrangements. He said: "The management stays in place. the business stays the same. Not surprising the landlords are turning round and saying, 'Hang on, why do I have to take a hit when this badly managed business is getting a break?'" The CVAs have to be approved by 75% of the creditors. Without that approval, the company goes into liquidation. In most CVAs, the creditors are usually banks or pension funds, so the landlords find themselves outvoted and their rental income cut. In this case, most of the seven CVAs are linked to the properties and the landlords' votes will be the ones that count. The landlords have also managed to persuade Arcadia to increase their potential stake in the company from 10% to 20%. The equity can only be realised if Arcadia is sold. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption High rent business - Miss Selfridge on Oxford Street Clare Kennedy, director at consulting firm AlixPartners (which are not involved in Arcadia's CVA), explained: "The landlord's argument is that they should be compensated because they have been compromised in order to create value in the company proposing the CVA, and therefore they should benefit from any upside." Some of the landlords have been reported as wanting as much as a 40% stake in the company, but in the end, their approval of the CVA depends on how much of a cut they are prepared to take on their rental income. PJT, the investment bank negotiating with Arcadia on behalf of a group of landlords, said in a statement: "There have been substantial improvements made to the CVA... which benefit all landlords, but there are still areas that need further clarity." Creditors for one of the seven CVAs, which the company calls a "critical entity", are not landlords but pension funds. For the purposes of a CVA, the funds are treated as creditors under the control of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). Two years ago, Arcadia agreed to double the pension scheme deficit recovery contributions to 50m a year for 10 years, to repair a 1bn hole in the scheme. Under the CVA, that 50m contribution would be halved. But Lady Green has committed to pay 25m annually into the funds over three years, plus an additional 25m. On Friday, Frank Field MP urged Sir Philip Green to use his own money to support the pension fund. So the CVA in effect cancels the recovery plan and replaces it with a slightly more generous one for three years, after which, according to a company spokesman, contributions are "to be renegotiated". According to John Ralph, an independent pension consultant, there is some relief that pension contributions would be increased, since some analysts had expected a cut. He said: "When we thought that the contributions were going to be cut, we thought that's never going to be allowed. But with the increase in contributions, it stands a good chance of being approved." Mr Ralph is sanguine, adding that by then renegotiation was not unreasonable, since the pensions would have to be re-valued anyway. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48383020 |
Will European election pollsters prove to be right on the night? | We voted on Thursday but must wait until 10pm on Sunday night to find out what happened in the EU elections. Heres a quick guide to who might win or lose. For once, this European election was actually about Europe, so lets start there. The initial focus will be on whether (as expected) Nigel Farages Brexit party will be the overall winner, handing a huge symbolic victory to the Leavers, but to read this election like a second referendum will need a little more work. The straightforward calculation will be to add up both the Leave parties, Brexit and Ukip, and compare that with the overtly Remain parties the Lib Dems, Greens, Change UK, SNP and Plaid Cymru. A further sophistication involves allocating a proportion of the Labour and Tory votes to each side. This is tricky as there is little agreement among pollsters as to what this proportion should be. The Brexit Diaries project of BritainThinks suggests Tory voters on 80% Leave and 20% Remain, and Labour 60-40 in favour of Remain. The top prize for this will almost certainly go to Ukip, winner in 2014 at 27% and now, after the arrival of the Brexit party in April, down to a desultory 2%. Change UK is a contender too. A lacklustre campaign means they will be relieved to have around 5% of the vote. Well be much more interested in the fate of the two main parties who, until recently, had been enjoying dominance of the political landscape not seen for decades, with a combined vote share in 2017 of 80%. Now 84% of voters tell us that they are very unimpressed with both parties on Brexit. The question for the Tories is whether it will be a bad night or a catastrophic one. In 2014 they came third with 24% but are now hovering around the early teens in most polls (although YouGov last Wednesday put the party in fifth with a humiliating 7%). By that reckoning just reaching double figures would be an OK night. Labour were in second place last time with what now looks like a mighty 25%. Our polling at BritainThinks suggests that 70% believe Jeremy Corbyn has been driven by party politics rather than national interest on Brexit. Focus groups echo this disappointment. Anything over 20% which is where most pollsters still place Labour would be a respectable result, especially if Labour can achieve second place, but last Wednesdays YouGov poll also had Labour on a miserable 13%, in third place, 6% behind the Lib Dems, and just 1% ahead of the Greens. The Brexit party has scored more than 30% in nine out of the last 10 published polls, reaching a high of 38% in the most recent Opinium survey. Expectations are now so high that anything less than early 30s and first place will disappoint. They already have Theresa Mays head as a trophy. Second place is the goal now for the Lib Dems, hoping to be rewarded for their forthright Bollocks to Brexit campaign, winning votes from disaffected Labour Remainers. Their ascent from a single-figure vote share in April to the late teens last week will be a triumph if it translates into actual votes. In 2014 they achieved just under 7%, coming fifth behind the Greens on 8%. The Greens ability to exceed that 2014 score looks less certain. In about 20 polls this month only five have them in double figures; still, they hope they can gain from the greater focus on climate change in recent weeks. The polls have told us a mixed story, with the Labour vote-share proving most variable, ranging from mid-20s to early teens in the last few days, reflecting the challenge of making predictions against such a febrile and changeable backdrop. Turnout will also be interesting. Usually in the mid-30s for European elections in 2014 it was 34.2% our Brexit Diaries work suggests a higher than usual turnout, given that almost two-thirds of voters are very motivated by Brexit around half by leaving and half by remaining. Well know on Sunday night which pollsters can claim to be the winners. Whatever the result, it seems likely that the biggest losers will be the voters. There will be little respite for the 83% of us who are fed up with seeing Brexit on our TVs every night or for the 64% who fear Brexit is damaging their mental health. Deborah Mattinson is founder of the research and strategy consultancy, BritainThinks | https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/26/european-elections-will-pollsters-be-proved-right-winners-losers |
Has the Rose theatre missed its cue to survive in these tough times? | Sir Peter Hall must be turning in his grave at news that the Rose theatre in Kingston, Surrey is threatened with closure - a decade after opening. It had long been his wish for an auditorium, whose shape was based on the Rose theatre in Elizabethan London, and Hall even put his own money into the 11m project. But now Kingston council is winding down its funding for the theatre over the next three years and will not commit to any more cash beyond that. Part of the Roses problem is its never received a penny from the Arts Council, though it does get some funding from the local university. I have some sympathy for the Rose, but it should be more resourceful if it is to survive the councils cut. Look across London to the Park theatre in Finsbury Park. Opened in 2013 with two small stages, it too has had no Arts Council funding, and only the very occasional one-off grant from Islington council. So it raises at least 250,000 a year via trusts, individual donations (Sir Ian McKellen has been generous) and fund-raisers like this Julys Whodunnit performances where the sale of tickets - admittedly rather higher than usual - will help fill its coffers. Guest actors as the inspector will include Gillian Anderson, who spent her youth in nearby Crouch End, and Damian Lewis, who lives locally. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A ceramic toilet made from cow manure is one of the exhibits at the V&As Food: Bigger than the Plate exhibition. Photograph: Henrik Blomqvist Food might seem an unlikely subject for an exhibition. But the V&As recently opened Food: Bigger Than the Plate is timely in exploring how innovative individuals, communities and organisations are radically reinventing how we grow, distribute and experience food. A must for foodies, but with wider appeal too. Well, the museum was built in the mid-19th century, on the site of the old Brompton Park nursery. In its early years, it even housed a food gallery, while the museum was also the first in the world to have refreshment rooms. In the late 1980s the V&A actually ran an advertising campaign of an ace caff with quite a nice museum attached except that its restaurant fare was then not great and the museum a mess. Today, both are a delight. As it happens, this new exhibitions sponsor is the hospitality company, BaxterStorey, which I discover also owns Benugo, the museums caterer. BaxterStorey assures me it had no say over the exhibitions contents. They include some unusual items, such as terracotta pots formed from home composting, edible water capsules made from algae, a toilet made from surplus cow manure, and cultured cheese taken from human bacteria, including from the groin of Heston Blumenthal for comt. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Radio 4: So much better in the days of Fi Glover. Photograph: BBC The new controller of Radio 4 will be announced in the next week or so following the retirement of Gwyneth Williams after nine years. What a great job, and yet what a responsibility as every listener feels they own the network. Rather than listen to siren voices for more shows aimed at young people, the next incumbent should cull some of the dated so-called comedy half-hours, and seriously question the future of the smug News Quiz, Now Show, and The Unbelievable Truth. Saturday Live should also be chopped. So much better in the days of Fi Glover . | https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/26/richard-brooks-behind-the-scenes |
Are Barcelona heading for summer of upheaval after cup disappointments? | Lionel Messi (left) finished as winner of the European Golden Shoe but suffered defeats in two major cup competitions Barcelona concluded the season by suffering a second humbling defeat in the space of a couple of weeks, following up their Champions League capitulation at Liverpool by losing the Copa del Rey final 2-1 against Valencia on Saturday night. Even though they were comfortable winners of La Liga, finishing 11 points clear of second-placed Atletico Madrid and a record 19 points in front of arch-rivals Real Madrid, the two cup losses have hit hard and left manager Ernesto Valverde fighting to save his job. Valverde has never been popular among the more idealist factions of Barca supporters, who believe he is too conservative and cautious to live up to the club's high-minded expectations of flowing attacking play. And he did himself no favours with his team selection on Saturday, reacting to the absence of injured forwards Luis Suarez and Ousmane Dembele by selecting Sergi Roberto - usually a full-back - on the right-hand side of attack. Barca's lack of attacking punch and slow midfield allowed Valencia to pick them off at will on the counter-attack, and the half-time changes made by Valverde, introducing Malcom on the wing and Arturo Vidal as an attacking midfielder, were a case of too little, too late. The team's problems are by no means limited to the identity of the coach, with many members of an ageing starting XI looking past their best, and the ponderous performances against Liverpool and Valencia bore the look of a team in need of a serious shake-up from top to bottom. Before Saturday's cup final defeat, the club had been making strenuous efforts to display a show of unity, to the extent of media-shy skipper Lionel Messi granting his first press conference in more than four years to express his solidarity with Valverde. But those rather forced attempts to portray a happy camp were smashed to pieces by the loss to Valencia, and a summer of upheaval could lie around the corner - even if Valverde avoids the axe. Reshaping the forward line Antoine Griezmann scored 15 league goals for second-placed Atletico Madrid this season One high-profile arrival is expected to be confirmed soon in the form of French World Cup-winner Antoine Griezmann, who has already announced his decision to leave Atletico Madrid and is poised to join Barca despite rejecting them 12 months ago. Over his five seasons with Atletico, Griezmann has occupied every forward position in both a 4-4-2 and 4-3-3, and his flexibility is one of the main reasons the Camp Nou club are prepared to meet the 28 year-old's 120m euro buy-out clause. The big question is whether Griezmann is intended to partner Messi and Luis Suarez in attack or replace the latter, and in all probability it will be a bit of both. Suarez enjoyed a decent enough season, scoring 25 goals in all competitions despite playing for lengthy spells with a knee injury which forced him to undergo surgery after the Anfield tie, sidelining him for Saturday's cup final and jeopardising his place in Uruguay's squad for the upcoming Copa America. Not least due to his telepathic understanding and close friendship with Messi, Suarez remains an integral part of Barca's attack. But he will turn 33 in January and the physical limitations which hampered him this season will surely only become more pronounced, so it's unrealistic to expect Suarez to be more than an occasional starter and high-class impact sub. Even if Griezmann signs, therefore, Barca will still seek to sign another centre-forward in the more physical mould of Suarez - somebody capable of unsettling opposition defenders and creating space for Messi. Two more Uruguayans have been linked: Maxi Gomez from Celta Vigo and Cristhian Stuani of freshly-relegated Girona, along with Spanish international Rodrigo from Saturday's cup winners Valencia. All these moves will require financing, and it is therefore hard to envisage Brazilian misfit Philippe Coutinho staying at the club. The former Liverpool man has rarely looked value for the 105m Barca paid for his services in January 2018, and sporting director Eric Abidal will spend much of the coming weeks attempting to recoup as much of that colossal fee as possible. De Jong leading midfield (r)evolution Frenkie de Jong led Ajax to the league and cup double in the Netherlands and also guided the club to the Champions League semi-finals The changes in midfield could be even more dramatic than the forward line, and it's by no means unreasonable to suggest that none of the starters from the Anfield disintegration will continue to be first-choice selections next season. Sergio Busquets, Ivan Rakitic and Vidal are all in their thirties, and like Suarez they could be eased into supplementary roles next season. Rakitic might not even be there at all, with repeated rumours linking the Croatia international with a summer departure to Paris St-Germain, Manchester United or Inter Milan. Well, much excitement has already been generated by the capture of Ajax starlet Frenkie de Jong, a sensation during the Dutch team's march to the Champions League semi-final. De Jong has already agreed to a 75m euro move to the Nou Camp, and Barca are confident the 21-year-old will be the team's midfield motor for years to come. The club also boasts a trio of young players who look more than capable of stepping up into enhanced roles. That starts with 22-year-old Brazilian Arthur Melo, who excelled during some stages of this season before fading towards the end of the campaign and being left on the bench for both meetings with Liverpool. Carles Alena is a home-grown product who took to the senior stage with impressive maturity and versatility during his 27 appearances this season. Most of those, though, were brief outings from the bench and he will have to maintain his progress to become a regular starter. For many, the most exciting prospect of all is 19-year-old Riqui Puig, who has been burdened with the 'new Xavi' label ever since making his first team debut during last summer's pre-season campaign. From his low centre of gravity and short stature to his unflustered passing ability and his hometown of Matadepera in the foothills behind Barcelona, there are indeed many similarities between Puig and former skipper Xavi, and the teenager looks ready to break into the big time before too long. Ultimately, though, it all comes back to Valverde - or whoever replaces him. Keeping faith with proven performers like Busquets and Rakitic would be the easy and obvious path to follow, whereas placing more responsibility at the feet of an unproven group of youngsters would be far riskier. In the wake of the Anfield shambles and the cup final loss to Valencia, though, such a bold move is exactly what many fans and media are calling for. Barcelona paid Lyon 21m for Samuel Umtiti in 2016 Completing the summer of change is Barca's back four, which could soon feature another hot prospect from Amsterdam as the club continue their pursuit of precocious teen Matthijs de Ligt, another star of Ajax's marvellous campaign. If De Ligt's services are secured, the door could be shown to Samuel Umtiti. The Frenchman lost his starter status after missing much of the season through injury, and he struggled to find form after regaining fitness. Umtiti remains an outstanding player, but his high salary could tempt Barca to part ways if a good offer is received. Although he generally had a very good season, the long-serving Gerard Pique is also facing question marks as he approaches his 32nd birthday. The pursuit of De Ligt is part of the club's 'succession planning' as Pique enters the final straight of his playing career, and another decision for next season's manager, whoever he might be, is which two central defenders will be his first-choice pairing. Elsewhere in defence, a new left-back is required to cover for and compete with 30-year-old Jordi Alba, with youth team product Marc Cucurella (loaned to Eibar for the past 12 months) among the options. And if all that isn't enough, Barca are also in the market for a back-up goalkeeper behind undoubted starter Marc Andre ter Stegen. Jasper Cillessen made almost certainly his last appearance for the club in Saturday's cup final, with the Dutch international resolved to seek more regular first team football at pastures new. All told, the only sure-fire certainties within Barca's team for next season are at both ends of the pitch, with Ter Stegen and Messi assured of their places. Elsewhere, though, everything is up for grabs. This summer and the start of next season could prove to be the most turbulent period in the club's recent history with rising young stars and new imports such as Griezmann, De Jong, Alenya, Arthur and De Ligt coming to the fore as the club seeks to banish the nightmare of Anfield without sacrificing domestic dominance. Or it could prove to be more of the same if old hands Suarez, Rakitic, Busquets and Pique are given the chance to redeem themselves. First of all, though, club president Josep Maria Bartomeu has to decide whether Valverde should be allowed to lead the process of rejuvenating the team. In the immediate aftermath of Saturday's loss he again insisted that Valverde's position is safe, but his private thoughts may well be very different indeed and the next few days will be anything but a quiet entrance into the post-season for Barcelona. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48409630 |
How did Strauss' abuse go unchecked for 20 years at Ohio State? | It was just a few days into 1996 when an Ohio State University student entered the Mens Clinic to be evaluated for a potential urinary tract infection. Moments into the appointment, Dr. Richard Strauss began using crude, inappropriate sexual language pertaining to the students condition and commented on the students fit body. Then Strauss told the student to remove his pants and proceeded to fondle the students genitals. As the exam concluded, the student grew increasingly upset. The student demanded that the receptionist give him his medical file and erase his records from the computer. He bellowed to students in the waiting room to get out of there right away. When the student encountered Strauss in the hallway, he grabbed his medical chart from the doctor, knocked his culture specimen out of Strauss hands and tore up the chart. This was the beginning of the end of a 20-year reign of abuse by Strauss. >> Complete coverage: Ohio State investigation into reports of sexual abuse by Dr. Richard Strauss Two weeks later, Strauss was placed on administrative leave. According to an investigative report released May 17, the doctor had sexually abused at least 177 students, and university employees knew about his misconduct but repeatedly failed to stop it. Later in 1996, administrators told Strauss that the athletics department would not be needing his services and his appointment with Student Health Services would not be renewed. The report, paid for by the university, was developed by Perkins Coie, a law firm based in Seattle, which began its independent investigation of the allegations in spring of 2018. But the 20 years it took to get to the release of the report has been a source of frustration for the victims and regret and apologies from current university officials. Steve Snyder-Hill, who said he was abused by Strauss in the mid-1990s, might never have encountered the doctor at the student health clinic had someone at the university acted sooner. The problem with what happened is that people enabled and emboldened his behavior over 20 years, Snyder-Hill said. 'Accountable to no one' In September 1982, Dr. David Henderson, the primary physician in the Ohio State student health centers Sports Medicine Clinic, wrote a report detailing his concerns about the quality of medical care provided to student-athletes. Hendersons original draft included broad criticism of Strauss. Dr. Richard Strauss has no formal agreement with the athletic department nor the university health service, Hendersons draft report stated. He works for no one, answers to no one and is accountable to no one. Dr. Doris Charles, director of university health services, essentially removed Henderson's criticisms of the program from the report. An upset Henderson sent his original report to Ohio State President Edward Jennings. When contacted by Perkins Coie investigators, Henderson said his criticisms of Strauss were not related to the allegations of sexual abuse. Rather, he recalled that he had not received an adequate explanation regarding Strauss role in the sports medicine clinic. Charles, now in her 90s, was also interviewed by investigators and said she couldnt remember any details of the correspondence she had with Henderson. But she did tell investigators she was never made aware of any complaints regarding sexual misconduct by Strauss during her time at Ohio State. Early warnings Ohio State employees had knowledge of Strauss sexual abuse as early as 1979, just months after he arrived at the university as an assistant professor, the Perkins Coie investigators found. Investigators wrote that personnel in Ohio States sports medicine program and athletics department were aware of Strauss prolonged genital examinations on male athletes, and that Strauss refused to allow athletic training staff to be present during them. It was also broadly known within the athletics department that Strauss showered alongside male students at the Larkins Hall recreation facility, where various athletic teams practiced. One unnamed athletic trainer told investigators that it was understood within the athletics department that Strauss was the only team physician who conducted the physicals in a one-on-one, closed-door setting. One student reported that he told an Ohio State athletic trainer about an incident he had with Strauss while working as a student trainer in the mid-1980s. The student lost consciousness after Strauss gave him an injection before stitching the students head wound. When he woke up, his pants were unbuttoned and Strauss was rubbing his thigh. Thats just the way Dr. Strauss is. Investigators documented five times that Dr. Bob Murphy was told of Strauss unusual conduct, perhaps as early as the early 1980s, but it appears that Murphy did little to address the complaints. In August 1981, Murphy requested that then-Athletic Director Hugh Hindman formally appoint Strauss as a team physician, noting that Strauss' duties were to include attendance at the Sports Medicine Clinic at Student Health twice a week. In one case, a student sought out another doctor for a hamstring injury because Strauss had inappropriately touched him in a previous exam. The second doctor heard his complaint and returned with Murphy, who heard the student's concerns, according to records provided by Ohio State. The student "expected that action would be taken against Strauss, given the apparent concern he perceived from physicians, investigators wrote. Instead, Strauss called the student later that night and asked about the hamstring injury. Neither Murphy nor the examining physician ever followed up with him. Murphy, who was known within the university as Dr. Bob, was the head football team physician for 41 years. He died in 2003. Perkins Coie found documentation that Bill Davis, who joined Ohio State as a trainer in 1984 before ultimately becoming director of athletic training, thought Strauss misconduct was a powder keg waiting. But Davis told investigators he did not recall making the remark. Investigators heard from three individuals who indicated that they or others reported specific concerns about Strauss directly to Davis beginning around 1988. One assistant coach said Davis even helped ensure that student trainers would be present during Strauss' exams involving one unnamed sports team after one student on the team reported misconduct. Davis told investigators he didn't recall students telling him about their experiences with Strauss or implementing a chaperone system. He said he may have heard secondhand comments about "odd things" happening during Strauss' exams but never heard specific reports of unnecessary genital exams. Davis, now director of sports medicine at OhioHealth, could not be reached to comment. In 1994, Dr. John Lombardo, former director of the Ohio State Sports and Medicine Program, completed what he described as an investigation into complaints about Strauss from male student-athletes on the fencing team. Responding to the complaints, Lombardo referred to a decade of rumors about Strauss and concluded that the rumors were unfounded. Lombardo, who currently serves as the independent administrator of the NFL Policy on Performance-Enhancing Substances, would not participate in the Perkins Coie investigation and has not returned messages from The Dispatch. One assistant trainer interacted with Strauss as a student athletic trainer in 1988 and again after graduating and returning to work at the university in 1993. He told investigators he never saw Strauss conduct unnecessary hernia or genital exams, but he heard rumors, and he knew Strauss showered with athletes. The assistant trainer told investigators that, in retrospect, he thought Strauss behavior was tolerated in the athletics department because Strauss was willing to cover events and other tasks that other physicians might not be available or willing to do. Honored to the end Ted Grace, then-director of University Health Services, knew of two fondling complaints against Strauss in January 1995, and he required that a chaperone accompany Strauss during exams. Grace did not elevate the complaints beyond Student Health. Strauss was given nothing less than excellent or exceptional ratings on his 1995 evaluation. Grace placed Strauss on administrative leave after the January 1996 incident and scheduled hearings to determine whether Strauss should be fired. Even as administrators stripped Strauss of his role of seeing patients, he maintained his faculty appointment within the School of Public Health until he left the university. After a failed fight for his reinstatement within Student Health and athletics, Strauss voluntarily retired in spring 1998. At least two of the faculty members in the School of Public Health who recommended that Strauss receive an emeritus appointment upon his 1998 retirement said they were aware of student complaints about Strauss. An emeritus designation typically includes benefits such as use of university recreational facilities, athletics tickets and even use of departmental facilities, though investigators never found evidence that Strauss returned to Ohio State after his retirement. When investigators asked former Ohio State administrator Ronald L. St. Pierre whether the disciplinary action against Strauss was considered when recommending Strauss for the emeritus designation, he said they were looking at Strauss research, teaching and administrative contributions. He said an emeritus appointment was perfunctory. When Strauss died by suicide, an obituary appeared in The Physician and Sportsmedicine, a journal Strauss edited for nearly 13 years. Lombardo praised Strauss as a leader in his field and an integral part of Ohio State. His care and concern for athletes was only surpassed by his willingness and enthusiasm for educating athletic trainers and young physicians in sports medicine," Lombardo said in the obituary. Ohio State has apologized to those who endured Strauss abuse. President Michael V. Drake described the lack of action back then as fundamental failure. Multiple people over multiple years failed to meet their minimum responsibility, Drake told reporters May 17. ... Multiple people over multiple times had a chance to do more. [email protected] @jennsmola [email protected] @MikeWagner48 [email protected] @DispatchSully | https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190526/how-did-strauss-abuse-go-unchecked-for-20-years-at-ohio-state |
Should San Francisco ban right turns on red lights to protect pedestrians? | A driver turns right onto Market Street from northbound Sixth Street despite "no right turn" signs posted at the intersection in San Francisco, Calif. on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015. A driver turns right onto Market Street from northbound Sixth Street despite "no right turn" signs posted at the intersection in San Francisco, Calif. on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015. 1 / 35 Back to Gallery New York City has banned it and so has Washington, D.C. Making a right turn against a red light is illegal at all traffic lights in Manhattan and at 101 lights across the country's capital. Now, a movement is bubbling up in San Francisco to introduce a similar law with the aim of reducing pedestrian fatalities. Fourteen people have died on San Francisco streets this year and "more than the lion's share were pedestrian deaths," said Amanda Eaken, a San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency board member. At a meeting of the SFMTA Board this week, Eaken asked the board to think about whether it's safe to allow drivers in the city to make right turns against red lights. She brought up the issue in light of the city's Vision Zero goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities by 2024. "I was thinking about this idea that you're waiting to cross the street and then you get the little walk man and he says go. And there's this signal I believe that sent, that it's safe to be here at this time and in this place, but it's truly not always safe to a pedestrian in that place when you have right turning cars and left turning cars moving across that space." Ed Reiskin, San Francisco's director of transportation, agreed the issue should be explored. Right turns on red are already prohibited at some San Francisco intersections and clearly marked with signage. For decades, in many states it was illegal, but in the 1970s, some states and municipalities changed their laws to save fuel by decreasing the time cars idle at an intersection in response to the 1973 gas crisis, according the the U.S. Department of Energy. A turn on red became even more widely legal across the country in 1975 when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act required states to adopt the law to receive federal assistance in developing mandated conservation programs. But, according to USA Streets blog, studies show making right turns on red lights "increases pedestrian crashes by 60 percent and bike crashes by 100 percent, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found in the 1980s." "The biggest thing I think about is my 11- and 12-year old daughters walking home from school and crossing Divisadero," Eaken told SFGATE. "I try to teach them to cross the street safely but if cars are allowed to run out into the street at a time when we say it's safe, but fundamentally it's not safe, that's not safe." | https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/ban-right-turn-red-lights-San-Francisco-13894062.php |
Why do we allow politicians to lie to us? | To many in politics, political lies fall into the same category as the white lies one tells a partner or friend to avoid giving offence. In essence, part of life. Similarly, false promises in campaigning are seen as essential to compete against the other guys equally improbable pledges. The new Ukrainian president at his inauguration repeated his only campaign commitment, I promise I wont mess up As campaign pledges go, it was as vague and yet sweeping as any. By contrast, Emmanuel Macron promised to transform France. Macrons transformation to date has been six months of massive protests and street riots. Commitments to magically raise the price of oil, or to transform a nation in one term are equally fantasies. Volodymyr Zelenskys pledge at least has the merit of a promise of performance, to which he cannot avoid being held accountable. Since the resurgence of right-wing populism and Donald Trump, phoney promises and blatant lying have become more common and more damaging. The lies attack any credibility that politics and politicians can still claim. They drive a downward spiral of disillusionment and anger among many voters deceived by them. Or, as he covers up his ongoing obstruction of justice, he declares his is the most transparent presidency ever In the steady rain of books, speeches and conferences on the impending death of democracy, two threads get repeated over and over to explain the continuing appeal of right-wing populism: traditional politicians serve only rich and powerful elites. And many, among the left behind voters, feel consistently lied to in promises to improve their lives. Obviously, bald-faced lies and phoney promises are direct contributors to this disillusionment. No one likes to be humiliated by lies. This is not a left/right issue. Low integrity in campaign pledges is a problem on all sides. Promising a fossil fuel-free Canada in just a few years time is no less poisonous to faith in democracy than denying the devastation of a crash-out Brexit by populist U.K. Conservatives. Each is a lie. In Canada, we have a sophisticated and savvy group of voters under 35, good at sniffing bunk. Baloney like, Pricing carbon is a tax grab fraud, we will beat climate change without hurting working families. Are these voters not more likely to endorse this pledge: You have been lied to, for too long about too many issues. Especially about the climate crisis. Im not going to make phoney promises, Im sick of the lying too. We can turn the tide on the climate crisis, but it will take many years, and there will be setbacks and mistakes along the way. It will cost a lot to save the climate. And, yes, we will all have to pay our share in that battle. In all our private lives we expect friends and families to try to tell the truth, to declare what they are sure of and to admit when they arent. Most of us have a threshold of tolerance for the consistently deceitful. We want to invest our trust in those around us. We do not permit our trust to be repeatedly and wilfully broken. If we really want to turn around the deepening trust deficit about our democracy, isnt it time to demand more truth. We have a federal election campaign coming in a few weeks. Lets use it to call B.S. when we see it. Robin V. Sears is a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group and was an NDP strategist for 20 years. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @robinvsears Read more about: | https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/05/26/why-do-we-allow-politicians-to-lie-to-us.html |
How should I respond to people who pity me for not having kids? | Dear Carolyn Hi Carolyn: I was making small talk at a work function when a woman asked if I had children. I said no. She expressed pity that I hadnt experienced lifes greatest joy and said she couldnt understand why women these days prioritize careers over family. She added that parenthood is a prerequisite for being a good manager since women without children lack the maturity necessary to lead teams. Carolyn, it wasnt my choice not to have kids, and this is a painful subject for me. In my 20s, I would have brushed this off and changed the subject, but now I am in my 40s struggling to save for retirement on a salary that falls far below that of my married-with-children peers in the same profession. I have been passed over even though I have always had outstanding performance evaluations. I am always expected to work overtime and take a hit for the team because I dont have kids, yet I am also resented and belittled for it. There are a lot of reasons people dont have kids, and a lot of paths to maturity. That did not go over well. Now my presence clears the room. Childless in the Workplace Dear Childless in the Workplace: You told her what she deserved to hear in response to her cruel, grossly unfounded prejudice. Im glad you said what you did. That is easy for me to say, yes, as someone who does not have to live with the consequences every day at work on top of the emotional consequences of your familys genetic makeup, which sound so painful, Im sorry. It bears saying anyway, though: You said what you deemed appropriate at the time, in response to an attack on your core values and competence. Shes fortunate to have left this encounter not wearing your drink. (Not that I condone that, of course.) So while its normal to replay and second-guess what you said, especially given the reception youre getting at work, I hope youll embrace your answer as an act of self-care. What I recommend now is to add one or two more self-care efforts to this one. First is the easier of the two: a charm offensive. Of sorts. Choose the two or three colleagues you get along with best, and put in a little extra effort. Your colleagues, it seems, were stunned by your family tragedy into forgetting how to talk to you; so, gently and professionally remind them how to do it. Second, much tougher but with a higher potential payoff: Use this as a wake-up to a workplace that isnt working for you. Sometimes it takes a bad experience to motivate change for the good. Hi, Carolyn: Im a 39-year-old woman, married to my husband for 14 years. My mother-in-law constantly calls me to tell me to send cards (thank you notes, condolences, donations) to my husbands family members. In most cases Ive already done this, as my parents raised me with great manners. I would really like her to stop, as this action makes me feel that she doesnt see me as an adult, but a child. I asked my husband to talk with her, but his family doesnt do conflict of any kind. Im happy to talk with her about it, but Im not sure how to do so respectfully. Longer-than-usual sigh. Whenever youre upset that someone is judging you as X, but you havent heard I think youre X from the persons mouth, there remains the possibility that youre upset over something that hasnt actually happened. Youre also concerned about being respectful, and I dont think its respectful to be upset at people for things they possibly havent done. So I suggest you get at both problems by asking your mother-in-law what she means by her queries: You always remind me may I ask why? You can also choose not to ask, and instead ascribe a motive to her that you wouldnt find upsetting. For example, that she loves and respects you and employs these excuses to call you. That its not personal and she feels its her job to mother-hen all women younger than she. That she has un- or under-treated anxiety and this is one way it manifests. Since you dont actually know what she thinks, any of these more palatable versions can be as true as you want it to be. | https://www.seattletimes.com/life/how-should-i-respond-to-people-who-pity-me-for-not-having-kids/?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=Referral&utm_campaign=RSS_all |
Where do the Tory leadership candidates stand on Brexit? | The positions of the eight names in the frame so far on the biggest issue of the day Eight Conservative MPs have so far said they will stand in the race to replace Theresa May as prime minister. This is where they stand on Brexit. Boris Johnson Photograph: Reuters Johnson has clearly set out his view that the UK must leave the EU by the end of October, effectively challenging other pro-Brexit candidates to make the same promise. He would have another go at renegotiating the Northern Ireland backstop to stop it being indefinite but proceed with a no-deal policy if that were not possible. Michael Gove Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock Gove has said the next leader must not only believe in Brexit but have the wherewithal to deliver it, in an apparent swipe at Johnsons organisational skills. The former Vote Leave campaigner is a true Brexiter but has not tied his hands by promising to get the UK out of the EU by October. Instead, he has said he would run as a unity candidate, suggesting he would push first and foremost for a deal. Jeremy Hunt Photograph: Getty Images The foreign secretary, dubbed a born-again Brexiter by colleagues, has pitched himself as the candidate with the business skills to carry out a better negotiation than Theresa May. He would keep leaving without a withdrawal agreement on the table as an option, but claims to be the one with the experience to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of no deal or no Brexit. Dominic Raab Photograph: EPA Raab, like Johnson, has promised to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October regardless. He has even hinted he could override the will of MPs to carry out Brexit without a deal, saying it would be difficult for parliament to legislate against it. He also stressed that he was a lawyer and a details guy, which appeared to be an attempt to contrast his own credentials with those of Johnson. Matt Hancock Photograph: Reuters Hancock is determined to do a compromise Brexit deal and would not pursue a no-deal policy. THe said a new prime minister would have to be clear about the trade-offs between sovereignty and market access to get a deal through this parliament. His big pitch to MPs is that he would avoid the need for a general election until Brexit had been delivered. Rory Stewart Illustration: Guardian Design Stewart is the softest Brexiter running. He says he wants to leave the EU with a deal and then move on to tackle pressing domestic policies. He stresses the importance of the union and would appoint a new secretary of state to defend it, so is not a fan of a second referendum. Stewart has also caused trouble for Johnson by suggesting that the former London mayor is privately not keen on a no-deal Brexit. Andrea Leadsom Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock The former leader of the Commons, whose resignation helped to hasten Mays departure from No 10, is another Brexit pragmatist, preferring a deal but prepared to go for no deal at the end of October, like both Johnson and Raab. I think any policy needs to be that is the date of our departure, she said. Esther McVey Illustration: Guardian Design McVey has the hardest Brexit position of the lot, after holding out against Theresa Mays deal throughout the various votes. She would take the UK out of the EU without a deal regardless. The withdrawal agreement ship has sailed and needs to be put out of its misery, she said. Yet to declare Sajid Javid, Steve Baker, James Cleverly, Graham Brady, Priti Patel and Penny Mordaunt. | https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/26/where-the-tory-leadership-candidates-stand-on-brexit |
What If Rockstar Just Made A $60 GTA 5 And Red Dead Redemption 2 Story DLC Combo? | GTA 5/Red Dead Redemption 2 Rockstar I have written more articles than I can count about how puzzling it is that Rockstar has refused to make story DLC for Grand Theft Auto 5, arguably the best-selling game in history, and more recently, Red Dead Redemption 2, another critical and sales smash hit. The rationale at this point is obvious, that Rockstar would much rather focus on building out GTA Online and RDR Online than investing in pricier single player, story DLC content. Though while that may have made some amount of sense for the ultra-popular GTA Online, Red Dead Online has hardly caught fire in the same way. And regardless, when a game sells 100 million copies maybe yeah, you should consider making some true DLC for it. I have kind of a wild idea as to how Rockstar could kill two birds with one stone. I dont know what huge game theyre coming out with next in a few years, but until that happens, I think they could do something entirely unusual and create a standalone story DLC combo back that fulfils the request for both games to have DLC at the same time. GTA 5 Rockstar Its something they could sell for $60, like they would a traditional release, even if the total content inside wasnt as much as either game had originally. No one really ever expects say, $20 DLC to be as much content as a third of the base game anyway, unless were talking about CD Projekt Red. But this would allow Rockstar to use its existing games and engines to build new story content for both GTA 5 and Red Dead Redemption 2, and selling it as one bundle would be enough to probably outsell many actual games in a given year. GTA 5 may be a distant memory for some now, but more people have played it than practically any other individual game on earth short of Minecraft and Tetris. And millions of those people would return to the world for story DLC based on the events of the original game. The same is true for Red Dead 2, which is much more fresh in peoples minds, and there are plenty of options for story DLC there, whether that be another Undead Nightmare type outing, some side adventure with a character like Sadie, or going even further back in time to the antics of young Hosea, Dutch and Arthur. Red Dead Redemption 2 Rockstar To me, this would theoretically solve a lot of problems. Fans would get the story DLC theyve been asking for, Rockstar would get a decently major $60 release in stores without having to make a fully new game. There are teams still working on both GTA and Red Dead content, and I think it would be prudent to bolster them to make something like this, even if were just talking about DLC on the level of Ballad of Gay Tony or the original Undead Nightmare. Big projects, sure, but not insurmountable. And the Online stuff can continue to be released alongside it. This may sound like a pretty out-there idea, but at this point Im running out of ways to try and convince Rockstar to further flesh out these games, as it seems like a win-win for everyone involved. And every time I see new GTA Online/RDR Online update, I get mad about this all over again. I just dont get it, and never have. Follow me on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Read my new sci-fi thriller novel Herokiller, available now in print and online. I also wrote The Earthborn Trilogy. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2019/05/26/what-if-rockstar-just-made-a-60-gta-5-and-red-dead-redemption-2-story-dlc-combo/ |
Would overturning abortion rights turn back clock to 1973? | Although far from a certainty, even with increased conservative clout on the Supreme Court, a reversal of Roe would mean abortion policy would revert to the states, and many would be eager to impose bans. What would not happen is a full-fledged turning back of the clock to 1973. Women now have far more methods to avoid unwanted pregnancies, as well as safer, easier options for abortion. Many abortions are induced at home with a two-drug combination, and advocacy groups are spreading the word about home abortions using one of the drugs that can be done without a medical professional's involvement. "I don't think you can put all those different genies back in the bottle," said medical historian Andrea Tone at McGill University in Montreal. "Women are in charge of their procreative destiny. I don't think women will put up with the absence of privacy and discretion that birth control and abortion provide." Here's a look at some of the abortion-related changes that have unfolded since 1973: __ At the time of Roe, abortion was broadly legal in four states, allowed under limited circumstances in 16 others, and outlawed under nearly all circumstances in the rest. A reversal of Roe would produce a patchwork map where perhaps 15 or so states would continue to make abortion easily accessible, a dozen or more would ban virtually all abortions unless the mother's life is at stake, and the rest would thrash out their response in the public arena and the legislatures. In 1974, a year after Roe, there were about 899,000 abortions in the U.S., according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. The number of abortions rose steadily, peaking at 1.61 million in 1990, before starting a steady decline falling to 926,200 in Guttmacher's latest national survey, covering 2014. Close to 90 percent of the abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The decline is attributed to increased availability of effective contraception and a sharp decrease in unintended pregnancies, notably among teens. In 1974, teens accounted for 32.5% of abortions in the U.S.; in 2014 that dropped to 12%. ___ Technology and science have given women unprecedented options and control over fertility since 1973. Back then, single women had only recently gained nationwide access to birth control, thanks to a 1972 Supreme Court ruling, said Dr. Sarah Prager, who directs the University of Washington School of Medicine's family planning fellowship. "This is recent history," Prager said. "Now we have these incredibly effective contraceptive methods available." A woman can get the morning-after pill without a prescription and keep some in her medicine cabinet for emergencies. Her smartphone sends birth control reminders. Or, if she prefers, a matchstick-size implant gives her no-hassle contraception for years at a time. Surgical abortion has become safer, employing tools that use vacuum pressure rather than scraping. There's increasing use of the medication alternative: Ending a pregnancy with mifepristone and misoprostol now accounts for about 30% of U.S. abortions. "It's safe and comfortable," said Missouri resident Lexi Moore, 30, who ended a pregnancy in September with a prescription from Planned Parenthood. "You get to sit in the comfort of your home instead of doing it in a clinic or in a back alley. ... You will have cramps, like a heavy period. But it's worth it in the end, and you have control over that." Moore had to drive 70 miles to pick up her prescription and, lacking insurance, paid $800 out of pocket. But she welcomed the outcome, and wrote thank-you cards to the clinic. Her experience contrasts with that of Vikki Wachtel, who as an 18-year-old attending school in Connecticut had an abortion in New York City's Bellevue Hospital in October 1970. That was just a few months after New York became a pioneer in broadly legalizing abortion. "The staff made us feel like we were about to commit a crime," Wachtel said, recalling how she and other young women were treated callously. That ordeal was followed by post-abortion complications, yet Wachtel has steadfastly supported abortion rights. "It was MY CHOICE to not have a child in 1970 and it must remain a woman's choice to do so on a national level," she said in an email. "These overreaching and restrictive laws will only make abortions more dangerous, not eliminate them." ___ For women today, there's even abortion by mail. It's still under study, but early results show women can manage their medical abortions safely at home. A doctor first confirms the woman's pregnancy is less than 10 weeks, then mails the pills. About 300 U.S. women have ended pregnancies in the TelAbortion study . "Women are really grateful not to have to travel three or four hours to a clinic," said researcher Dr. Beverly Winikoff of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "But there are also people within walking distance from a clinic who prefer to do it this way because it's more private." Abortion-rights activists, at rallies supporting Roe v. Wade, often display images of coat hangers that were sometimes used in illegal abortions many decades ago. However, warnings that large numbers of women would die from unsafe abortions if Roe were overturned don't reflect the fact that abortion-related deaths which numbered as high as 2,700 in 1930 fell to under 200 a year by the mid-1960s thanks to the development of antibiotics and other medical advances. To the extent that women can get and use misoprostol to end pregnancies at home, women even in states with bans would have a relatively safe option. It's available only by prescription in the U.S. but is available online from some countries where it is sold over the counter. Among the leading advocates of this do-it-yourself option is attorney Jill E. Adams, executive director of If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice. Amid the wave of abortion bans, she said her group's hotline has received a surge of calls from worried women. "If the recent events have shown us anything, it's that self-managed abortion is vital to current and future reproductive rights in the United States," Adams said. ___ One crucial change since 1973 is the development of ultrasound technology. For many Americans, the first image they now see of a son, daughter or grandchild is often a sound wave scan of the fetus. The images change minds about abortion, said Dr. Donna Harrison, executive director of the American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "Ultrasound opens the window on the womb," Harrison said. "That has changed since 1973. We couldn't see who was in there. Now we can." But seeing an ultrasound image doesn't change the biology of fetal development, said Dr. Anne Davis, consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health. She disputed the idea that the threshold of viability for a fetus, a concept important in Roe v. Wade, is pushing ever closer to the moment of conception. "If someone is six weeks pregnant, that's not a viable pregnancy," Davis said. "And some fetuses will never be viable because they have a lethal abnormality and will die after birth." ___ In the aftermath of Roe, it took years for supporters and opponents of abortion rights to entrench themselves in the polarized camps of today. Anti-abortion violence didn't erupt immediately after the decision, but it has been a constant since the 1990s, when three abortion providers and three clinic employees were killed in attacks. More recently, Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Wichita, Kansas, was shot to death by an anti-abortion activist in 2009, and a gunman killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado in 2015. There have been major shifts in anti-abortion tactics. Compared with the 1990s, there are fewer mass demonstrations and clinic blockades, and there is far more success passing anti-abortion laws in Republican-controlled state legislatures. In the five years preceding this year's sweeping bans, scores of other laws have been passed to restrict abortion access. Julie Burkhart, a former colleague of Tiller's who now runs an abortion clinic in Wichita, said Kansas like many GOP-controlled states now has an array of restrictions that make obtaining abortions more expensive, time-consuming and stressful. The anti-abortion movement's clout in many state legislatures has now been amplified by Donald Trump's election as president after he promised to support the movement's key goals. "They don't need to go to the streets anymore, because they really do have a lot of power," Burkhart said. Professor Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at Catholic University of America, said the debate is far more polarized now than in 1973, with fewer Republicans favoring abortion rights and fewer Democrats opposing them. "Pro-lifers are having an easier time enacting pro-life laws in conservative parts of the country, but for the first time in a long time they have to play defense in blue states," said New, citing bills passed in New York and Vermont this year expanding access to abortion. | https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Would-overturning-abortion-rights-turn-back-clock-13897679.php |
Do Democrats have a problem accepting election outcomes? | This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." For more than two long years. The institutional left told us they knew exactly what the Mueller report would say. They said it would end the Trump presidency and save this nation. Congressman Adam Schiff, who sits on the Intel Committee and would know gave us a preview. Schiff said that he had seen with his own eyes, proof that the President of the United States colluded criminally with the government of Russia. BuzzFeed, a noted cat blog, said it had conclusive evidence that Trump obstructed justice. ABC News momentarily tanked stock prices when it reported that Trump had ordered his National Security adviser to talk to the Russians, and so on. The Mueller report is going to prove all of these stories true. And then the report came out, and it turns out that none of it was true. It was all a lie. Well, they could have done what decent people do. They could have resigned their jobs, tearfully apologize for misleading our country and then move to Paraguay in shame. They could have done that, but they didn't. Instead, they did what they always do. They became more aggressive. They decided that actually the Mueller report vindicated everything they've been saying since 2016. It's all there. It's just being hidden by that dastardly Attorney General Robert Barr -- William Barr -- whatever. Barr - - suddenly Barr was right up there with Putin and George Papadopoulos as an enemy of the people. REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): You have to have him sit for hearing and I think you have to have him locked up unless he agrees to participate and come to the hearing. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The House and the Senate, each chamber has an inherent power to compel a witness to testify if that witness just refuses, and that includes arrest and it even includes jail. The House is powerless unless the House take some action. REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): We have what's called inherent contempt proceedings, which means we send to the sergeant of arms out to handcuff the individual who is declining to testify. CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Okay, who are going to handcuff. SPEIER: Well, I'm going to start with Mr. Barr. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: These people are fascists. "Cuff him, lock him up, send him to jail." The man who has been Attorney General for less than three months must be in prison for his crimes -- whatever those crimes are -- and the President must go on trial, too. Now, you might think that being cleared of collusion by the Mueller report would be good news for Trump. But no, it's just means he must be impeached. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BETO O'ROURKE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: To invite a foreign power participate in our elections, to obstruct justice and cover up during the investigation, there must be consequences. There must be accountability. We must get behind the House of Representatives that they pursue impeachment for this President. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: He almost wishes campaign wasn't over, that it would go on forever. So every night we get new clips of the hat and the bouncing and the hand gestures. It's so great. He said impeached no matter what the cost. Impeachment is a theological imperative. Watch. REP. AL GREEN (D, TX): I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this President, he will get reelected. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Impeach him before the people choose him as their President again. That's how democracy works. Now watching all of this, you might assume that the left has lost control of itself and you would be half right. The Democratic base has been emotionally incontinent for quite some time. They're getting worse, not better. And you can thank the internet for that. But the people who run the party are not crazy. They are coolly rational, they always have been. They want power. That's all they want. Whatever it takes. These people don't throw fits unless it's serve some higher political purpose. And this fit does serve a higher purpose. They're trying to divert attention from a much bigger story. Remember, when Trump said the Obama administration had been spying on his campaign, the Democratic Party's boot lickers went absolutely crazy the second he said it. They rushed to the nearest television studio to mock the very idea. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: President Trump has a new favorite word and every time he uses it, he is lying. And that is the word "spy." DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: His baseless claims of spies. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This so-called spy issue -- first of all, there is absolutely no evidence there was a spy. So it's really a fake issue. CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: He wants you to believe that his campaign was spied on and it's one of the worst things that we've ever seen from government. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: I think looking back, the VCR, one of the great inventions in human history, maybe fire, the wheel, the VCR because it allows us to preserve people's claims on tape, and then play them back. The group you just saw were hysterical at the idea that Trump might believe there was spying on his campaign. They were hysterical because they suspected it might actually be true. And now we know that it was. In fact, according to recent testimony from a high ranking FBI official, the spying turned out to be far more extensive than Trump suspected, even James Clapper had to concede that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Using undercover agents is a standard and legitimate technique that is widely used in investigations. That technique has been used to thwart a lot of counterterrorism plots in this country. So I'm sure -- I mean, there are protocols and standards for using an agent and I'm sure that's the case here. CLAPPER: Well, yes, I guess it meets the different -- the dictionary definition of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Yes, the guy who ran the spy agency doesn't like the word "spying." Eric Felten broke the story that there may have been more than one government informant embedded in Trump's campaign. He wrote it for "National Review" online and he joins us on the set tonight. Eric, thanks a lot for coming on. CARLSON: I'm -- well, I'm I feel like most people who thought maybe Trump was onto something kind of vindicated tonight. But even those of us who thought there might have been spying I think are not prepared to learn what you've reported, which is -- was real spying. FELTEN: Well, what's interesting about it is you had Jonathan Moffa, who is Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, sort of head of intelligence analysis, and he was put together with Pete Strzok -- you remember Peter Strzok. CARLSON: Very well. FELTEN: As the core two people putting together the Trump investigation, the Trump-Russia investigation at the beginning of August 2016. And they Pete Strzok sent a text message -- always the text messages from Pete Strzok -- in which he wanted to organize what they were going to talk about at their sort of first organizational meeting. And at their first organizational meeting, they talked about CHSs, Confidential Human Sources, and liaison which is an FBI term for working with spy agencies, whether it's the CIA, or foreign agencies. So from the get-go, right from the beginning of the investigation, using spies was on the table as one of the things that the team was going to use. CARLSON: So now, there's evidence that there was more than one. FELTEN: Right. We know that the Christopher Steele was a confidential human source. CARLSON: Right. FELTEN: And we know that Stefan Halper was a confidential human source. This is the Cambridge professor. FELTEN: Oh, yes. No, Stefan Halper, has over the years gotten paid lots and lots of money. He does analysis papers for the Defense Security Agency writing position papers that he gets paid $300,000.00 for and it ends up being a way in which the money for Stefan Halper is paid out of the sort of black bag. But what's interesting is Jonathan Moffa in closed-door testimony back in August on Capitol Hill, was asked just how many confidential human sources there were in the investigation, and he couldn't answer the question. If it had just been one or two or three, that would have been easy. Instead, he had to say, well, there were confidential human sources. I just don't know how many there were. CARLSON: Shocking. And shocking. Hopefully, we will know. Thank you for that reporting, Eric Felten. Great to see you. FELTEN: Good to see Tucker. CARLSON: Mollie Hemingway is covering the story and has been for "The Federalist" and she joins us tonight. Mollie, so why haven't we heard Stefan Halper long-standing government source and as Eric Felten just said, a long-standing recipient of U.S. tax dollars. I believe he is still in London tonight. Why is he not testifying before a congressional committee and answering basic questions about this. MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: We have this amazing situation going on where we had the Russia hoax -- this allegation that the Donald Trump campaign, treasonously colluded with Russia -- to steal the 2016 election that ended with a fizzle. Robert Mueller decline to indict a single American for that. At the same time, we start learning these other things, such as what Eric Felten has just reported on about a wide-ranging campaign against the Trump campaign that used human informants, National Security letters, wiretaps, the Azra Turk character, and I don't think that's her real name is an actual government official, I believe, who was sent to London to oversee the operation. We know that there were probably four people who were surveilled, at least. We don't know so much about this and the media show a shocking lack of curiosity. "The New York Times" actually broke this story about Azra Turk, but then they kind of downplayed it and acted like, "But don't worry, this doesn't actually support. We're going to tell you all about this spy." But that doesn't support Donald Trump's contention that he was spied on. In fact, it completely supports the contention that the campaign was spied on, and they need to cover it with the same rigor that they devoted to the crazy conspiracy theory that they fell for, for multiple years. CARLSON: Donald Trump now "controls," I guess, air quotes, or he doesn't actually control much of his own government, as we've seen, but at least, ostensibly controls the FBI and CIA right now and could dispatch them on phony pretext as Obama did to him, sic them on the presidential campaigns of his opponents. HEMINGWAY: There is an actual issue going back many decades of a complex within the government that is not very politically accountable, but for the first time in two years, we actually have a department -- CARLSON: But wait a minute, can you just pause with it. HEMINGWAY: It is a huge threat that was warned about from every President from Eisenhower on or that people have been concerned about since Eisenhower on, but there is now finally political accountability at the Department of Justice. And that's why you see so many people upset that we now have an Attorney General who has expressed merely an interest into looking into this. He hasn't said that he's going to go after Donald Trump's enemies or anything like that. He just says, "I'd like to know more about how this began. I'd like to know more about what protocols were followed." And the media and various people who are in the agencies at the time are just absolutely freaking out. HEMINGWAY: Right. HEMINGWAY: Well, it was a great plan to spend all these years on this conspiracy theory to delegitimize Donald Trump's election. And if it instead turns out to be sort of a boon for him, that that all the things he said about it were true and that nobody was indicted for treasonous collusion with Russia, it is something I don't think they are psychologically prepared to accept at this point. And that's why you're seeing so many people react so strongly. Remember, it was just a year ago that we were told that any critique on Robert Mueller was an attack on the Republic, it was a threat to rule of law. We couldn't have administration of justice if we attacked -- if we even criticized in any way Robert Mueller. CARLSON: And a sitting Member of Congress says he should be in handcuffs for that. It tells you a lot about it. I hope they never get power. I mean that. Mollie, thank you. Great to see you. HEMINGWAY: Thank you. CARLSON: Hillary Clinton says the 2016 election was stolen from her. She is not the only Democrat who has decided you never need to concede an election. That's for losers. The great Mark Steyn responds after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Hillary Clinton continues her grievance tour around the United States. It could be coming to a town near you soon. Tickets at this point are heavily discounted, they are probably paying people to go by the very end. It's never quite clear who Hillary will blame for her election loss. But we do know she never blames herself or her failure to campaign in key states like Wisconsin, by the way, we don't think the tour is going to Appleton anytime soon. She didn't make it to LA though the other day where she implied that the 2016 election was quote, "stolen" from her. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's also critical to understand that, as I've been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee and you can have the elections stolen from you. (Cheering and Applause) (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Yes, they stole it. They stole it. Sad. And she's not the only Democrat disputing election outcomes. Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams says that she won her election. At a fundraiser in Houston over the weekend, Abrams told her audience quote, "I'm here to tell you a secret that makes Breitbart and Tucker Carlson go crazy. We won." She said, "I am not delusional." That's reassuring. "I know I am not the governor of Georgia -- possibly yet." Although, whenever they tell you, "I am not delusional," which is always at the guy next to you and the bus tries to assure you. It makes you wonder. In reality, Abrams did lose that race by more than 50,000 votes. It's not a close margin. The great irony in all of this is the Democrats say that Trump can't accept election outcomes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just told "The New York Times" she worries about whether the President will accept the 2020 results if Democrats win by a narrow margin. She felt the same way about the midterms. You should recall that before last November, she believed that quote, "If we win by four seats by a thousand votes each. He is not going to respect the election." Because everything is projection. Sigmund Freud called it. Mark Steyn is a bestselling author, and really the best guest on TV and joins us tonight. So here is yet another example, Mark, of them accusing you of what they're doing. MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Yes. I think Hillary Clinton is totally unaware when she says that, you know, you run the best campaign and all the rest of it -- she is actually clutching at straws as to why the inevitable candidate did not win. But this is really the flip side of what you were talking about with Mollie just now because these two stories run in parallel. The Democrats essentially provide political cover for all these FBI types, monkeying around wiretapping and surveilling the opposition, because if the Democrats didn't lend it political cover, we would all see it for what it is -- the deep state gone rogue. At the same time, the deep state's investigation of George Papadopoulos and co, provides cover for the Democrats as to why Trump's victories -- Republican victories -- are never legitimate. So in a sense, these two things operate on twin tracks and support each other. But when you have someone like Stacey Abrams actually saying, "We don't need to concede anymore, because this entire system is oppressive and out to get us." The Democrats are coming close actually, to making politics entirely impossible. And when you do that, it doesn't actually leave much else except Civil War. So by delegitimizing this process, they are actually playing with matches. CARLSON: When you say that the election is illegitimate, because the system is illegitimate because the founding documents are illegitimate, because the people who wrote them were racist. And at a certain point, aren't you really saying like, "I don't need to play by your rules. I'm just going to seize power when I can." STEYN: Well, Stacey Abrams argument is, "Unless I win, the election was rigged," and Hillary Clinton, who is a far more senior figure than Stacey Abrams, actually came close to saying that on stage in Los Angeles, "Because I didn't win, the system must be rigged." And actually, when we read that Nancy Pelosi thing, I don't think Trump is like that at all. I think if Trump were to lose narrowly, he'd sound off on Twitter. He'd say the presidency is for losers. Living in the White House was so degrading after you've lived in Trump Tower. I'm going to build a fabulous new Trump Resort in Kazakhstan, screw you all. He'd have a ball with -- if he lost, he'd have a ball and he'd be gone. But what the Democrats have done for the last two years, in particular, Hillary Clinton. It's Hillary Clinton's refusal to lose tied to what we've been talking about with all these deep state guys going rogue, in alliance with foreign Intelligence agencies, eavesdropping, monitoring, trying to entrap American citizens, these two crimes are actually the same crime and one half supports the other half. CARLSON: Very smart. As always, Mark Steyn, thank you. STEYN: Thanks, Tucker. Great being with you. CARLSON: Silicon Valley is dramatically stepping up its efforts to silence viewpoints it disagrees with, anything right of center. It's not your imagination. It's happening right now before the 2020 election for the purpose of influencing that election. Facebook just banned a number of prominent conservatives earlier this week, essentially wiping them off the internet. The rest of us are supposed to think that's okay. The latest victim is the conservative Claremont Institute, which wanted to buy Google ads, in order to promote a gala -- an anniversary gala. Google declined to sell those ads to Claremont because Claremont had published an essay that violated Google's race and ethnicity policy. Read the essay for yourself. Nothing racist about it, actually, not even close. Google now says that decision was a mistake and it will allow Claremont to purchase ads now that Claremont complained and has gone public, including on this show. It's interesting though, how those mistakes always go in exactly the same direction. Harmeet Dhillon knows a lot about this. She is one of the most famous attorneys in America on the question of big tech and its threat to our liberties and she joins us tonight. Harmeet, thanks a lot for coming on. HARMEET DHILLON, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Thanks, Tucker. CARLSON: So it was a mistake. DHILLON: Well, we hear it every other day and Tucker, I am not delusional, and people are actually discriminating against conservatives every day this way and they're gas lighting us by saying, "Oh, it was just a mistake." I mean, the chilling effect that occurs every time this happens publicly is that it keeps normal conservatives far from the boundaries. It keeps them from saying anything that they think might be controversial and because these rules that they have are unwritten and constantly evolving and being made up all the time, they make a mockery of the concept of contract between consenting adults, and they simply -- people don't know where they stand. It's really an Orwellian type of a situation. CARLSON: So, but think of the practical consequences. So newspapers are all but dead. Radio is in decline in general. Cable news speaks with one voice, with the exception of just a very few shows, this among them. So really, social media, that's the entire political conversation. DHILLON: You will, and Republicans are ignoring this at their peril. And I keep saying this, I feel like you know, Cassandra, I keep saying this, we are going to lose every single election going forward if we don't put a stop to this bias. Now, you know, some either conservatives who are being paid off by big tech, or simply ill-informed say, "Oh, well, this is just, this is just competition. This is just the market. If you don't like Twitter, you don't like Facebook, go make your own." I mean, these are all statements made by people who've never started their own companies and were paid by think tanks. They don't know what it means to start a business. And so that's ludicrous. And now these companies have all built themselves up to the point of monopoly power on the back of protectionist government regulation, Communications Decency Act Section 230 and others. Now that they've gotten there and they've crowded out everybody else, they are now changing the rules on us. So from last year, Facebook advertising that it was going to allow controversial pages on the right and on the left up so that there could be a dialogue; today, they're simply snuffing out people completely. Now, they're snuffing out people who probably you or I don't necessarily hang out with, listen to or follow like, that's not the point and that's how they're doing it. They're testing the waters so nobody protested when it was Alex Jones. Now they're not protesting with a few more and pretty soon, it's going to be people closer to you or me or even one of us are silenced or be silenced. CARLSON: Well, it will be us, and when Republicans lose every election that matters in the next cycle and they wonder why. "I wonder why our message didn't get through." Okay. DHILLON: Exactly. Exactly. And it may be too late. CARLSON: Harmeet. It is great to see you. DHILLON: Thank you. CARLSON: Please continue sounding that alarm. DHILLON: Thanks, Tucker. CARLSON: Well, here's a kind of amazing fact that should be on the front page of every paper, a secret Department of Defense program paid for researchers to run psychological evaluations on people who said they've encountered UFOs. Apparently, warehouses were rented, it sounds kooky, but this is actually being reported by "The New York Times," where metal from downed UFO could be stored what. We will tell you what we know after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Well, a lot of people believe that there might be life on other planets. Apparently, a lot of people who do work in the U.S. government which secretly over the years, we now learned has spent millions on a program that investigated UFO reports. We asked Fox News Headlines, Brett Larson to explore that question for us. He joins us tonight with the outcome. Hey, Brett. BRETT LARSON, FOX NEWS HEADLINES 24/7 ANCHOR: Hey, Tucker. Yes, we have fearlessly reported on previous reports of UFO sightings or what the military sometimes calls Unexplained Aerial Phenomena, detailed by Navy pilots and other members of the military. Now it's a situation that the Pentagon piqued the world's interest in, when they release some declassified documents that made it clear the government is keeping an eye on the skies, and potential UFOs a bit closer than anyone would have expected. Now that release included the now infamous video from 2017 of what is clearly some kind of flying object that honestly does not match any of the physics I remember learning about or any aircraft design any of us have ever seen outside of science fiction. But the story actually got a little more interesting. It turns out, former U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada put together a multimillion dollar investigation into the Pentagon's UFO files, and it included a real life Fox Mulder tasked with cataloging, not just those documents related to UFO reports, but also to collect actual debris. In fact, a company was hired to modify buildings in Las Vegas to store metal alloys and other materials that were reportedly from sites where these unexplained events happened. Now, people who have had encounters have been tested for any physical changes. Military personnel were interviewed about what they saw. Now we know what some of them saw from the 2017 video captured over the Pacific when multiple military officers confirmed this mysterious sighting including pilots and radar technicians. The program to catalog then revealed to the public what was found has been canceled. Tracking UFO by the military isn't stopping. In fact, they're going to keep it for a simple reason. The military needs to know who is doing this and what their intent is. Now unfortunately, this means we may not get to see those detailed reports, those mind blowing videos or as one of the pilot said of something seen out his window truly radical technology. All of the data they collect may simply end up in a chart that shows an uptick in sightings in their locations as we all collectively wait for those documents to be declassified. I want to know where it's coming from and I want a tour of this warehouse to see these metal alloys. This is kind of amazing. CARLSON: Well, since they say they have multiple sightings per month -- LARSON: Yes, this isn't like a once a year or maybe -- we can't excuse it as a falling star. This is happening a lot. CARLSON: No. It's not a drunk guy in a field in New Hampshire. No, no. LARSON: No, these are very well trained pilots and military personnel. CARLSON: Yes, guys with nuclear payloads who are quite sober. LARSON: Yes, you know, you're hoping they know what they're looking at and I want to know what they're seeing. CARLSON: I do, too. Brett Larson, thank you very much for that. LARSON: Thanks, Tucker. CARLSON: Well, one of the things you most frequently heard then candidate Trump say was that China was ripping us off. Yet more than two years into his presidency, the trade deficit with China has actually grown quite a bit dramatically, really. Last year, the United States ran a $419 billion trade deficit with China. For perspective, that's enough money to pay off our country's entire revolving credit card debt. Instead, that all goes to the fascist government of China. Now, the President says in response to these plans to increase tariffs on some Chinese products to 25 percent. He announced that last night. For perspective on what this means we go, as we often do to Michael Pillsbury, the author of the book, "The Hundred Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower." Dr. Pillsbury joins us now. Thanks very much for coming on. MICHAEL PILLSBURY, AUTHOR: Yes, it is. The President obviously got upset if that's the right word. CARLSON: Yes. PILLSBURY: Perhaps infuriated by the Chinese reneging on what they had promised in writing over the last few months. And I think he probably saw this as a test of strength by his friend, Xi Jinping. The reaction, therefore, was very swift. The tweet came not too long after the President learned of China taking back concessions that had made in writing. Actually, I knew about some of the details of the agreement. I was quite impressed. I praised the President directly that you've done more than any previous President to get this far. But I had a faint feeling, Tucker that the Chinese leadership had not really blessed this agreement. And that apparently, is what happened. Liu He, the chief negotiator has the rank of Vice Premier. He's a well- known economist and reformer in China. He signed a number of studies 10 or 15 years ago, one is called China 2030, trying to reduce the amount of state control to open up China's markets, not steal intellectual property, so to make him the chief negotiator was a test of him and perhaps he went too far. And then with -- the book I wrote is about the hawks in China, the nationalistic, I like Steve Bannon, let's just call him the Steve Bannon of China. He got hold of these concessions and this text, which we keep secret, we don't quite know who in China can look at it. It's about 150 pages long. And apparently there was a reaction in China that we're not going to accept this, take it back. But when President Trump heard about it, he has immediately responded with these harsh punitive tariffs been increased on Friday. So now we're in a whole new chapter, as you say. CARLSON: It's amazing. Very quickly, if this happens, we assess at 25 percent tariff levy on some Chinese imports into this country. PILLSBURY: Yes, it hurts them. We don't know exactly how much it hurts them. But the first round of tariffs brought them to the table quite quickly. So there's reason to believe it's still possible to get a deal. But the first step the Chinese have to take and it might happen as early as this week, is to undo the reneging. The next step will be to close the deal on the enforcement mechanisms. I think the reason China is doing this is this fight between the hawks and doves or the hawks and the reformers is not over yet in China. When a side losers over there, they don't just go home and mope. They get put in jail. CARLSON: Yes, right. Thank you very much for that. PILLSBURY: Thank you. CARLSON: China's communist government has a long history of putting people in jail. Right now, they're rounding up millions of ethnic minorities, mostly Muslims and sending them to reeducation camps in their vast remote desert. The victims are mostly Uyghurs, that's an ethnic group that lives in northwestern part of the country. Those who avoid the camps live in a horrifying surveillance state with travel restrictions, ethnic profiling, vehicle checkpoints, et cetera. Uyghur officials are not allowed to practice their religion, attend mosque or fast during Ramadan. The goal is to destroy all traces of Uyghur identity. It is textbook ethnic cleansing. Here's the weird thing. The international left doesn't really seem to care. Millions of Muslims rounded up and put in camps barely a mention from liberals. Because it's happening in China and not Kentucky. Therefore, it's okay. Joe Biden clearly paid attention to high school history class. First, he said, Republicans want to put African-Americans back in chains, now he says they want to bring back Jim Crow. The remarkable developments, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Well, Democrats running for the nomination this year are obviously in an arms race who is to see who can make the most flamboyant statements and push the most aggressive racial incitement. Joe Biden is the presumptive front runner. Here's part of what he said to predominantly African-American audience in South Carolina over the weekend. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Last year, 24 states introduced to enact at least 70 bills to curtail the right to vote. Mostly directed at quote "people of color." You see it. We've got Jim Crow sneaking back in. No, I mean it. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: The guy is an idiot. It's a real question here, because you're going to hear more of it. Max Burns is a Democratic strategy. He joins us tonight. Republicans say we need them because they, obviously are a hedge against voter fraud, and Democrats say they're racist. So here's the study found, we find that strict voter ID laws have no significant effect on registration or turnout. They do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. And it goes on like that, but it's conclusive. MAX BURNS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, and as you say, one study, and Joe Biden is only wrong in the sense that thinking that Jim Crow has ever actually gone away. I mean, African-American voters, Latino voters have experienced having their votes invalidated for decades. I mean, look at North Carolina, where they just throw their votes directly in the trash. There's nothing more suppressive than that. CARLSON: Wait, okay, there's no -- okay, first of all, there's no one -- anyone's votes were thrown away in this generation in North Carolina and in the specific case you're talking about on the basis of race, that's a lie as you know. Second, you blew right -- hold on, you blew right past the fact. BURNS: So corrupt they had to redo the entire election, Tucker. CARLSON: But there is no evidence just to restate as someone who is familiar with exactly what you're talking about, that anyone's votes were discarded because of the color of their skin. That's just not true. And to say otherwise to suggest that you don't know what you're talking about, or you're misleading our audience. I just wanted you to respond to the study that I cited, which is not written by right-wingers, that voter ID laws have no effect on voter turnout. They're not just inherently discriminatory. BURNS: Here's the problem, and I'm glad you mentioned the turnout question, because here's the problem with that turnout point in the study is that the turnout doesn't show you how hard people had to fight to get there. If a black voter has to work twice as hard to get to a polling place to register to vote at all, that is not an equitable similarity to a white person vote. CARLSON: No, no, but voter ID laws are separate and distinct from the question for polling places, or I think I'm too literal for this moment because nobody tells the truth, but everyone just lies for political effect. And here I am, like, arguing a point of fact, I guess, maybe I should give up and just become a demagogue like everyone else. I'm talking about voter ID voter law. Voter ID laws do not according to this study, the definitive study on it, don't suppress African-American voting turn out, they don't make it harder. I mean, I don't know what you're talking about. BURNS: Correct. And the fact that African-Americans are turning out in those numbers, even with the hurdles they have to face, the difficulty in getting a license, the difficulty and even finding a polling place that hasn't been shut down. BURNS: Are you are -- there are only 11 states in the country that require you to have a license to vote, and oddly enough, those states that are largely affecting Democratic-leaning voters, African-American voters, well, why make it expensive to get a license, expensive to get copies of your own documentation. CARLSON: What about -- hold on -- let me just, I'm sorry, obviously you don't care about whether what you say is true or not. But let me just ask you two quick questions. BURNS: None of which are your fundamental constitutional right to vote. You can't have a job without a government ID. CARLSON: We have a fundamental constitutional right to a lot of things, to own a gun, okay, and to vote, to have a job -- and all of these things require an ID, but none of that is racist. BURNS: And in fact, Tucker, you know, buying a gun doesn't require an ID, first off, and let's point out fact that after African-American voters -- CARLSON: Son, I doubt you've bought many guns. I have. Yes it does. I just bought one. I can't deal with this. Max, thank you. BURNS: Tucker, I come from Virginia. I bought a gun without a driver's license in cash at a gun show. CARLSON: Not at a gun show you didn't. No, maybe from a buddy but not in a gun show or a gun store. Sorry, I know a lot about this stuff. BURNS: At the largest gun show in Virginia. So yes, you do not need a license to exercise your rights. CARLSON: Not anymore. Unfortunately, I was there two weeks ago. You need an ID. All right, Max, this is -- I appreciate it. Thank you so much. BURNS: Thank you. CARLSON: New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is running for President. There's no one in New York who thinks de Blasio is impressive. We will speak to the world's expert on Bill de Blasio's un-impressiveness after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is universally regarded as a clown. He takes a nap at City Hall, uses police helicopters to avoid traffic, shows up late to everything, marijuana smokes wafts out of Gracie Mansion. Despite all of this, he is planning a presidential run. Seth Barron covers him for the "City Journal" and joins us tonight. SETH BARRON, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, CITY JOURNAL: Well, he's got us all on tenterhooks here if he's going to run or not. He says this is the -- it is believed that this is the week he's going to announce. Bill de Blasio is a mayor who has won consistently on very low turnout, driven mostly by the public sector unions and the professional nonprofit class mostly funded by the city. He has expanded spending in the city by $20 billion per year from $72 billion to $92 billion this year, largely funded by the stock market and Wall Street which he detests. Bill de Blasio's new saying, his motto is, "There's plenty of money in this country, it's just in the wrong hands." But I think we know whose hands it belongs to. CARLSON: But Bill de Blasio is the driving force behind decriminalizing public urination in New York City. BARRON: That's right. Yes. Decriminalizing public urination, decriminalizing fare beating, decriminalizing marijuana smoking, all of which have contributed to a decline in you know, public order, I think you would say. We're not quite at the level of San Francisco yet with feces littering every sidewalk. We might be getting there soon and the subways are a real mess. One thing you neglected to point out is that de Blasio takes an armed convoy to the gym every morning. He drives 11 miles back there and back at about 10:00 a.m. Most New Yorkers are hard at work at their desks at that hour. De Blasio likes to go to the gym and then get a croissant at his favorite cafe. And let me add, he says that he does this so he can stay out of the political bubble. This is what he does to be with the common people. This is his common touch. CARLSON: If Bill de Blasio runs for President, obviously, we're rooting for him here. I hope you'll be able our de Blasio correspondent. Seth Barron. BARRON: Oh, I hope so. CARLSON: I hope you will. Thank you. Good to see you. It's an issue that we've addressed quite a bit on this show. Someone who has thought deeply about it is Johnny Burtka, he is Executive Director of the American Conservative, fantastic site, and he joins us today. So Johnny, very simple question for you. JOHNNY BURTKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE: Thank you so much for having me, Tucker. There are two fallacies about the economy that elites believe here in Washington, DC. The first is that bigger is always better. They love monopolies in this city. Second, is that free trade is always beneficial. Now in the case of corporate monopolies, this was something that Thomas Jefferson was so concerned about, he actually urged that James Madison include it in the Bill of Rights. It's the multinational corporation with no allegiance to America, to our system of government, or to the values that conservatives hold dear. CARLSON: Yes. BURTKA: In fact, if multinational corporations had their way, they would do away with everything that conservatives value -- the nation state, borders, family, the church and even the concept of citizenship itself. Anything that gets in the way of the individual and the market, they want it gone. They want complete control. CARLSON: Why -- every word you said is true. Given and obvious once you think about it. BURTKA: I don't know, Tucker. But the good news is that there is a long Republican tradition and American tradition going all the way back to the American founding of standing up against concentrated corporate power, because it poses an existential threat to our political, cultural and economic well-being. And it's time that conservatives and Republicans and President Trump take the moral high ground back from the left and make this an issue front and center in the 2020 election. CARLSON: The left all of this -- again, I couldn't agree with you more. The left all of a sudden, though, is the group defending the economic status quo and defending Jeff Bezos and the Google creeps and Travis from Uber. I mean, those are all liberals. BURTKA: That's right. Well, they've made an alliance on their social issues, and they're willing to sacrifice their belief in equality and a society that works for everyone. And so now it's the perfect opportunity for conservatives to take this issue back to fight for an economy that puts American citizens first, American families first, and American workers first and if Republicans can do that, they can build a majority that will last for generations, Tucker. BURTKA: We can do whatever we want, Tucker. CARLSON: Johnny Burtka. I think -- I wish we had 30 minutes because that was such an amazing summation with the crispest, cleanest description I've heard in such a short period of time. Thank you very much for that. BURTKA: Thank you, Tucker. CARLSON: That's something to think about. I wish we had more time to talk about it because it really matters, unlike most things, but we'll be back tomorrow night 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn and absolutely sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. I am being encouraged to encourage you to figure out how to use the DVR attached to your television if you can, something I've never mastered, but good luck to you, those with engineering degrees. Good night from Washington. Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/do-democrats-have-a-problem-accepting-election-outcomes |
Should Robert Mueller testify in front of Congress? | This is a rush transcript from "The Story," May 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Good evening, everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum and this is "The Story" tonight. The president says the Russia story is over. Time to move on. No need for Robert Mueller to testify. Trey Gowdy and Ken Starr on that in just a moment. But, first tonight, Hillary Clinton says this time around, Democrats should ignore the economy stupid because there are bigger concerns. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY: It is the economy, it's always the economy. But that's not the only reason that would we should elect a president or in this case, retire one. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: All right. So, as you remember, she was not able to capitalize on the Obama economy to win the election. But now, the next round of Democrats who want to be president are hoping that American voters will be convinced of this argument. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What we are looking at is a 10-year rebound from The Wall Street crash of 2008. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHA, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have had policies in place starting with President Obama that have aided that recovery. SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I love that Trump is taking credit for a recovery that started under Obama. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: So, the recovery clearly began under President Obama. That is true. After the financial rout in 2008. It is now though an unusually long expansion and it has some gasoline poured on it in the past 2-1/2 years. That is really unmistakable when you look at the data. Those are just the numbers. 5.4 million jobs added, 3.6 unemployment rate, that's the lowest rate in 50 years. Plus you've got rising wages at this point. It's a good combination. Almost like a Goldilocks economy as we once heard way back when. So, it's hard to see a continuum when the policies under each of these two presidents: President Obama and President Trump, are just so very different in terms of their approach. President Obama at that time, crisis moment, to be sure, poured a lot of money into the system in a time of crisis. Rested extensive oversight over the financial industries, over Wall Street, of the banks, over the auto industry, put them really under very strong government oversight. President Trump has taken the absolute opposite tack, deregulating industry backing out of industry across the country. Lowering their taxes. 100 percent depreciation on equipment. Essentially, getting government out of the way. Here now, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the council of economic advisers under President Obama. Always good to have you with us, Austan. Thank you very much for being here tonight. AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER ECONOMIC ADVISER TO BARACK OBAMA: Yes, thanks for having me back, Martha. GOOLSBEE: I don't -- I don't agree with that. Even though as the Democrats saying it, when I was in the White House, I used to say 90 percent of what happens in the economy has nothing to do with Washington. It's not designed by the White House, it's not from policy, and so, because I said that when I was there, I will continue to say that after. But I think, we got the longest job expansion in American recorded economic history. MACCALLUM: Yes. GOOLSBEE: And a large part of that was under Obama. And now, a nice chunk of that is under President Trump. And so, in my view, it's hats off to both of them. We got to have -- we have a good economy going, and let's not start a trade war, let's not do something to blow that up. MACCALLUM: All right. So, but the idea that -- but, you know, what you're saying is not what the candidates are saying, and probably, because you're not running for president, so it makes it easier for you to -- you know, speak honestly, and based on your -- on your background. But Larry Summers who was another economist under President Obama said that the new normal of growth was going to be about two percent. You know, they said basically, the post-war expansion had kind of tapped out that there was a new level of growth that it was in the two percent range. But that's not what we're seeing anymore, Austan. We're seeing 3.2 percent growth. What I hear when I talk to companies around the country is that they love this depreciation, they can buy new equipment, they can expand their plants, they can -- you know, hire more people, all because of these new policies. GOOLSBEE: Yes, I will be a little careful. I don't know, I will be a little careful with that, Martha. I'm friendly with Larry Summers, and I - - and I know very well the argument that he made. His argument was about two percent to 2-1/2 percent long-term. And he used that to argue for we ought to have more stimulus. And Donald Trump passed a $2 trillion unpaid-for tax cut, which will provide temporary stimulus of exactly the form that Larry Summer's predicted. (CROSSTALK) MACCALLUM: But that's a totally different kind of stimulus than putting money into the market -- you know, into the federal side of the market. GOOLSBEE: I -- they are different. The only thing I would caution you is before you attribute that 3.2 percent, which we got for this last quarter, is the new permanent growth rate. MACCALLUM: Right. GOOLSBEE: Just look at the last quarter is the new permanent growth rate, just look at the last quarter. (CROSSTALK) MACCALLUM: No, I didn't say was a new permanent growth rate. GOOLSBEE: the previous quarter to that was in the low twos. MACCALLUM: Yes, I didn't say it was a new permanent growth rate. But it's one we haven't seen in a very long time. What -- it wasn't about the short-run, it was about the long run. (CROSSTALK) MACCALLUM: Well, you know, yes, I'm just saying -- OK, understood. Because it was saying, look, this is not two percent is -- (CROSSTALK) GOOLSBEE: He is, but argument was about the long-run, your 3.2 percent is not the long run. MACCALLUM: So, you're saying it's an anomaly. GOOLSBEE: It's the very short run that it's -- I'm not arguing that it's fully a sugar high coming from the tax cut, but there is some component which is a short-run blip that is coming from a temporary tax cut. MACCALLUM: You know, just bottom line, do you think that the policies that President Trump put in place are helping us get to this new level of these numbers in unemployment, in wage growth, and also in GDP growth. And if so, what credit for -- you know, what was -- (CROSSTALK) GOOLSBEE: I give him some. And as I said, we've had I think 122 months of job creation, and something like 95 of those months were under President Obama, and 27 of those months are under Donald Trump. So, I'm going to give him 2,720 seconds of credit. (CROSSTALK) GOOLSBEE: (INAUDIBLE) for that percentage. MACCALLUM: I mean, the conventional wisdom was that it was going to spin out -- you know, after seven years or so, it would probably spinout. (CROSSTALK) GOOLSBEE: Yes, it's great. It's great. MACCALLUM: But we haven't -- we haven't seen that we've seen wages going up as well. You know, I mean, what would you tell -- if you were advising one of these candidates, and they said, look, we've got a really good economy going on here. GOOLSBEE: Well, what I would tell them to say is not, hey, the economy is not doing well because I think the economy is doing well. Things like do you think it was worthwhile to run the deficit up to a trillion dollars a year to give tax cuts to high-income people and big corporations. Those are issues which separate from how the overall unemployment rate is doing, which is doing well. Those are still going to be concerns of the -- . (CROSSTALK) MACCALLUM: Right. But you know, some of those are pretty tough arguments because that blue-collar wage is going up higher than their -- than their supervisors. So, you know, that --that's a little bit of a tough argument, but that's what -- that's what they're going to have in each other kind of craft. That would be my question. GOOLSBEE: Yes, in 2018, the economy was going well and that Republican suffered a terrible loss. MACCALLUM: No, I think that's -- yes. I know, and that's going to be we'll see. We'll see what voters decide -- you know, this time around. GOOLSBEE: Indeed. MACCALLUM: And we've seen some acceleration, and you know, I don't know. I don't know. Well, we'll see what happens. Thank you very much. Good to see you tonight, Austan. GOOLSBEE: It's always fun, Martha. Thanks for that. MACCALLUM: Always good to talk to you. You, too. Thank you very much. So, also tonight, the House Judiciary Committee is hoping to hear from special counsel Robert Mueller, a week from this Wednesday. The president tweeting that this is just a political move, he says by Democrats. Are they looking for a redo because they hated seeing the strong no collusion conclusion," he writes. "There was no crime except on the other side, incredibly not covered in the report." We know that there are investigations into that -- that's a separate aside. "And no obstruction", he wrote. "Bob Mueller should not testify. No redos for the Dems." Here now, Trey Gowdy, former House Oversight Committee chairman. And Ken Starr, former independent counsel and author of Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation. Both are Fox News contributors. Gentleman, great to have both of you here tonight. Thank you very much for being here. TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, ma'am. KEN STARR, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you. MACCALLUM: So, just on that question, first, I guess, let me go to you first Trey Gowdy. GOWDY: Well, it's going to be hard, because he's not going to have a lot to say because DOJ policy does not allow him to discuss derogatory information against an uncharged person. So, what the Democrats want is for him to painstakingly go through all of the information he had that led to obstruction, or that they think leads to obstruction, and the conclusion is he didn't indict him. So, DOJ policy doesn't allow that conversation. I'm not sure what else he can talk about. MACCALLUM: So, you're saying the unredacted information would be the one thing that they don't already have. So, there's not much he could add to that. GOWDY: Well, even -- well, even the unredacted information, I mean someone of it by law he cannot discuss. MACCALLUM: Right. GOWDY: Lots of it by law he cannot discuss. But even what is -- it is unredacted, the Department of Justice policy is you cannot discuss derogatory information against someone you did not indict. The department doesn't speak in press conferences and reports, they use indictment. So, either indict or shut up. And he didn't indict. MACCALLUM: You know, I think, the one of the main -- one of the things that they would probably love to ask Robert Mueller, Ken Starr, is you know about his decision not to indict and whether or not it was completely separate from the issue of whether or not you can indict a sitting president. And this to me is where -- because we heard from the Attorney General Bill Barr, and he said there were several instances where several people were in the room, and Robert Mueller, said clearly, according to Bill Barr's testimony. "I'm not worried about the OLC decision, the Office of Legal Counsel decision. I put that aside and I decided whether or not we could indict, and decide not to indict. STARR: Right. MACCALLUM: If he has a different story than that and for -- in this testimony, that will be news. STARR: Oh, yes. In fact, I think he will not say that because he had his opportunity that very elaborate report, 446 pages. So, he's got to stick with the report. He can't have a latter-day inspiration. And so, in terms of the president, the president has the authority to direct Robert Mueller through Bill Barr not to testify. But I doubt that that's going to happen. I don't think that the president is going to cross his own attorney general who I think has been doing a great job under this unremitting criticism. But in terms of Bob Mueller, he's got to stay with what he has written. Those 446 pages, the redactions -- I've been through these -- not the redactions, but I've seen whether redactions are. MACCALLUM: Yes. STARR: 10 percent of book one, which is the real book, that's on Russian collusion. There was no collusion. There were contacts, not collusion. But, let's face it. This is what the House of Representatives all about, and that has to be book two. MACCALLUM: Let's put up a quote from Washington Post piece on what Nancy Pelosi told Democrats on that behind closed doors. She said, "Trump had engaged in a type of behavior that prompted the move to impeach Nixon in 1974. This person has not only ignored subpoenas, he has said that he's not going to honor our subpoenas. What more do we want?" She has sounded at times like she's against impeachment at times like she thinks that there's no choice, Trey Gowdy, but clearly this is the political decision that they're trying to wrap their arms around. GOWDY: Yes, the reason I'm smiling, Martha, the Democrats in the D.C. media never met a subpoena for the first six years I was in Congress that they can embrace. The Obama administration routinely ignored requests for information. So, God knows that can't be an impeachable offense. I didn't think Rod Rosenstein should be impeached, I didn't think John Koskinen should have been impeached, it is the political death penalty. So, you need to be very careful when you use or how you authorize the use of what is tantamount to the political death penalty. They're not going to succeed, the jury is not going to go along. It's just about fundraising and placating your base. MACCALLUM: You know, in terms of what you said earlier, Ken Starr, I want to ask you about, you said that Bob Mueller deserves the sharpest criticism for sandbagging Bill Barr. STARR: Terrible, well, his letter that was then leaked on the very eve of Bill Barr's testimony was essentially I believe an unfair whiny complaint when he wasn't saying that the letter, the March 24th letter from Bill Barr that summarized the conclusions which he was obliged to do. That wasn't just a discretionary call, Bill Barr was obliged under regulation to do exactly what it did. Then, here comes Bob Mueller with this letter, which is then leaked. That is to me the unforgivable sin. He, Bob Mueller, badly injured this attorney general. And the attorney general didn't deserve that, but of course, that created its own huge firestorm including suggestions that the -- that the attorney general is totally mischaracterizing the report and so forth. When you look at that March 24 letter, I think Bill Barr was honestly trying to do the right thing and to do it in the right way. MACCALLUM: Ken Starr and Trey Gowdy, thank you, gentlemen. Great to see you tonight. Thank you so much for being here. GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. STARR: Thank you. MACCALLUM: Still ahead on "The Story" tonight, the controversy heard round the world as Kentucky Derby winner Maximum Security gets disqualified moments after crossing the finish line. The horse's owner says his victory was stolen. He joins us exclusively tonight on "The Story" with what he plans to do now. And President Trump's latest foreign policy moves under fire from none other than Susan Rice. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MACCALLUM: -- from non-other than Susan Rice. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MACCALLUM: Former President Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice slamming President Trump's foreign policy. In an editorial, she writes, "Plenty of presidents before Mr. Trump have made serious sometimes catastrophic foreign policy mistakes, but few if any decided almost every aspect of foreign policy on the basis of what would help him get reelected," she wrote. Rice's criticism comes as the President gets support from a very unlikely source. They usually go at it, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said this about the President's stance on trade with China tweeting, "Hang tough on China President Trump. Don't back down. Strength is the only way to win with China." Here now to respond Republican Congressman Michael Waltz of Florida and David Tafuri former Obama State Department official. David, let me start with you. DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, let me just say Susan Rice, her criticisms have some merit regardless of whether you support President Trump or you're against President Trump. His foreign policy hasn't been consistent. There's no consistent ideology or approach. So take Venezuela for instance -- MACCALLUM: I know, but you know what, I want to take -- address the Schumer-China thing first, and then I promise you we're going to go back -- TAFURI: OK, great. MACCALLUM: -- and get the bigger picture with Susan Rice. TAFURI: Well, President Trump's trade policy I think is consistent. He does have a consistent ideology there and Schumer is basically saying he supports President Trump in taking a stronger approach to China, that China is cheating on -- in trade rules, that trade China steals our intellectual property and that's hurting American businesses and hurting the American economy. So Democrats and Republicans are united in that sense in the broad approach to toughening up the trade policies with respect to China. MACCALLUM: Yes, Michael, let me get your thought on China and Schumer because I have to believe that when President Xi looks at that, and his advisors look at that, you know they're trying to decide if they're going to send that full delegation over to wrestle over China in the coming days and they see a united front from the United States Congress. I think that might be a powerful message. REP. MICHAEL WALTZ, R-FLA.: Well, you know, that was refreshing coming from the Senator that we do have to be United. China has absolutely stolen our technological edge, outright theft. We're seeing everything from hypersonic missiles, to stealth fighters, to them challenging us in space, again, because of China's theft. And the president has to stay strong. I think that's what President Xi understands. And it's good and nice for a change to see Congress having his back, that politics stops at the water's edge. But it is especially rich, Martha, coming from Susan Rice who did nothing on China, nothing on North Korea, allowed Russia to invade Crimea and Ukraine, allowed Syria to devolve into chaos, and let's not forget my not good friend Bowe Bergdahl that she declared a hero on the Sunday talk shows after he would -- you know, and then watch him get convicted as a traitor that got people killed. MACCALLUM: She said he had served with honor and distinction. WALTZ: So I just can't believe it coming from her. MACCALLUM: All right, so David, let me give you the opportunity to talk about Susan Rice in reaction to what Michael Waltz just said. TAFURI: Well, in contrast to Trump's trade policy which I do think is consistent from country to country, his foreign policy has not been consistent. So take Venezuela, President Trump says he doesn't want to be the policeman of the world but his administration is now talking about intervention in Venezuela. Take for instance Iran where he's taken a forceful strong approach toward Iran but he says he sees eye-to-eye with Putin and Russia, but Russia is Iran's biggest backer. Take Cuba where we don't have a threat currently from Cuba but he's ratcheting up sanctions against Cuba, but he wants to pull back our support and our troops from countries where there is a threat like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. This is confusing for anyone who's looking at foreign policy and studying our foreign policy and it's confusing for our allies. WALTZ: I don't know, Martha. I think he has been clear. He's been clear and looking at American interests. And in this case, in the case of Venezuela and Cuba, it's reasserting the Monroe doctrine and that you know, the United States seems to lead in the northern hemisphere. It's also -- he's also clear that he's not looking to put thousands of boots on the ground in Venezuela, that we would lead through a coalition and he's been clear that that you know, in terms of burden-sharing, whether it's NATO, whether it's the Europeans, or whether it's others around the world that these other wealthier countries need to step up and need to -- and need to pay their fair share alongside the United States that's been carrying that burden for many years, So the United States has to lead, absolutely, but others that can need to share that burden. I wrote speech after speech for previous defense secretaries asking our NATO allies to live up there their two percent commitment and they blew us off frankly, and they're not anymore. I think the President is been loud and clear in a number of regards. MACCALLUM: 20 seconds, David, for a closing thought. TAFURI: Well, Congressman Waltz is smart. He talked about the Monroe Doctrine. Trump may be applying it in Venezuela, but he's not applying it in other places in the western hemisphere. He wants to cut off aid and support to Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. That's the type of support that the Monroe Doctrine calls for leadership in Central America. He's not providing that in other places. MACCALLUM: All right, gentlemen, thank you very much. Good that both of you here tonight, Michael Waltz and David Tafuri. TAFURI: Thank you, Martha. MACCALLUM: All right, coming up next, news of yet another investigation into this concern that was raised by Attorney General Bill Barr. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think there's -- a spying did occur. BARR: I don't -- well, I guess, you could -- I think there was -- a spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: That set off a firestorm. And tonight, two high-ranking Republicans are calling for yet another investigation now in two other intel agencies besides the FBI which we've talked about for a long time, because they think that will help to get at the origins and THE STORY in the beginning of the Russia probe. Pointing to messages from former FBI employee Peter Strzok, Senate Chairman Ron Johnson, and Chuck Grassley writing, quote, "These texts and e-mails demonstrate the need to investigate leaks from agencies or entities other than the FBI." Here now Senate Homeland Committee Chairman Ron Johnson. Chairman, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you very much for being here. So, we know that Michael Horowitz is investigating the Department of Justice which is the overseeing body of the FBI. SEN. RON JOHNSON, R-WIS.: Hello, Martha. Well, the texts that we revealed and the e-mails that we revealed in our letter to the intelligence community Inspector General Atkinson. First of all, one was released back in September but largely overlooked. And to quote it, the text from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page "I think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they are kicking in to overdrive." I mean, that's pretty puzzling right there. I mean, oftentimes you refer to sister agencies. And then later on, by the way, this is in December of 2016 in the transition. And then in April 2017, an e-mail that Peter Strzok sent to his colleagues talked about "I'm beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought, hasn't shared it completely with us. Might explain all these weird seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have, would also highlight agency as a source of some of the leaks." So, it's really puzzling. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. And it's also pretty puzzling when you start talking about agencies, other agencies other than the FBI leaking information that produced weird seemingly incorrect stories in the news media. So, this raises all kinds of questions, all kinds of concerns. And we're just writing the inspector general of the intelligence community to see if like Michael Horowitz, the inspector general the Department of Justice has he undertaken or initiated an investigation into leaks from those agencies. MACCALLUM: All right. So, you know, in terms of where this might lead. JOHNSON: Well, in early December, if you take a look at the news stories, that's really the first news story talking about Russian, potential working with the Trump campaign or involvement with the Trump Organization. Later on, in terms of the April e-mail, about the other agency, the weird seemingly incorrect stories, you are talking about for the first time it's being revealed that British intelligence might have been the first ones to tip off FBI agents in terms of possible Trump campaign working with the Russians. Now, again, now that we know that there was no substance at all to those stories, but you have agencies potentially the United States government leaking stories that would fully indicate that might be the case and really creating incredible narrative that has really taken about 18 months to get to the bottom of the fact that there was no story there. There was no collusion. And yet, agencies of the federal government were leaking stories and creating this huge story. MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, and it also raises intrigue questions about, you know, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and you know, we remember them talking about the insurance policy and they were so concerned that you know, the president might be -- that Donald Trump might be elected president. They were concerned about what they could smell at Walmart. They could smell the Trump support at Walmart. Then you have got the other side of the equation where you have, you know, Stefan Halper and people who had relationships, intelligence relationships with America -- other American intelligence arms. And it goes back to this question of who started this whole ball rolling and who may have been planted by some of these agencies. JOHNSON: Well, there are going to be so many people looking into these things now. We have inspector generals. We have Attorney General Barr. We have, you know, at least two Senate committees that are going to be looking at this. MACCALLUM: Yes. JOHNSON: But the public has a right to know. People do need to realize its congressional investigations; their whole purpose is to make this information public. And I'm always concerned if it's another criminal investigation, if no crimes are revealed. We may never hear about it. But this is just potentially wrongdoing on the parts of these agencies that the public has to know about and that's really what the congressional investigations are all about and that's what I'm going to be tenacious about uncovering. MACCALLUM: Yes. And those stories that leaked definitely bogged down the early period of the Trump presidency and no doubt led to a lot of frustration which, you know, according to the Mueller report ultimately led to no finding of any criminal wrongdoing. Senator Ron Johnson, always good to see you, sir. Chairman, thank you. JOHNSON: Have a good night. MACCALLUM: You bet. You too. So, we have heard a lot about voter suppression from losing candidates like Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams. But new data seems to suggest what actually happened may have been the opposite. Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams debate. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: I think it's also critical to understand that as I have been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign. You can even become the nominee and you can have the election stolen from you. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: That was a big applause line in California on Saturday from Hillary Clinton who also suggested earlier this year that minority might have been suppressed in places around the country and that that is what cost her the presidency. Then you've got Stacey Abrams who lost the race for governorship in Georgia. She's also said this similar line of thinking in terms of her loss and still contends that if it weren't for voter suppression she would have won. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STACEY ABRAMS, FORMER GEORGIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: We have been raised to believe that it is invalid, in fact, uncouth to call into question that if you want to run for office again you got to concede the election so that everyone knows you are a good sport. I'm not. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: So, you know, is there truth to this when you look at the numbers in these votes. The Wall Street Journal wrote a very interesting piece today on voter suppression. And they say that it is a myth. The editorial board wrote this. If Republicans were trying to stop minorities from voting, their schemes were inept." Joining me now Geraldo Rivera, Fox News correspondent at large, and Juan Williams, Fox News analyst and co-host of The Five. Gentlemen, great to have both of you with us today. GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: Hi, Martha. MACCALLUM: You know -- hi, there. You know, this is a very interesting story in the Wall Street Journal. It says that about 1.4 million voters were removed from the rolls in Georgia. They were, you know, they claim that they were cleaning up the rolls. They want to make sure that everybody who was on there was really living in Georgia and all that kind of stuff, removed 1.4 million voters after 2012. Yet, black voter registration increased to 68.4 percent from 62 percent in 2014. And pruning the rolls they say did not reduce black turnout nearly 60 percent of black voters came out last fall up from 43 percent in 2014. JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS CO-HOST & POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's, you know, I would go with the facts. I haven't reviewed them. But I mean, it seems to me to be sort of disingenuous, Martha, because had you Stacey Abrams running. She was like a black female who was very dynamic, charismatic character running. So, you are going to drive up black voter turnout. The question is how much you drive it up. So, you have Brian Kemp, her opponent who was the secretary of state in charge of all the voter operations. I believe it's like 53,000 people were pushed off the voter registration rolls by Kemp. So, you can understand why she would make this case now, the Wall Street Journal rightly says hey, look, there was a jump in terms of absolute turnout by minorities in the State of Georgia. MACCALLUM: Yes. WILLIAMS: But again, I think that there, from the Abrams perspective, there was a ceiling put in place by steps taken by the Republican opponent. MACCALLUM: Well, that, I mean that may be. But Geraldo, you know, you have to look at the numbers. Because, you know, these are very dangerous accusations to make. RIVERA: Yes. MACCALLUM: So, you better be right, you better have your numbers right. RIVERA: I don't like the accusations when they come from Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams or Donald Trump. I think they undermine confidence in our election system and unless you have proof, Stacey Abrams has admitted that she has no proof. And, Juan, it wasn't like you had, you know a slight uptick in turnout. In the 2014 election, in Georgia, there was 1.1 million Democrats. In the 2018, it was up to 1.9 million. It was at 800,000 vote jumps. It was an enormous jump. Now, unlike Georgia in North Carolina there was real proof that the Republican candidate Harris, rather McCready was -- no, Harris was the Republican, that he was screwing around, that somebody working for him was harvesting -- MACCALLUM: Yes. RIVERA: -- absentee ballots and they disallowed him from being seated in the United States Congress as a result. They have a special election that happens next week in North Carolina. So, I think that you have to really measure these allegations, Stacey Abrams is on the cusp of turning into someone who is going to be every time you see her, no, we are going to hear this complaint without proof again -- MACCALLUM: Yes. She -- (CROSSTALK) RIVERA: -- rather than anything about substance about her running. MACCALLUM: -- lost in Georgia by tens of thousands of votes. The other thing is interesting, Juan, as I was listening to Deroy Murdock this morning talking about Florida Andrew Gillum against Ron DeSantis, also a very tight race. But the analysis of the exit polls there and the voting or whatever polling they did afterwards showed that a lot of African-American women in Florida voted for Ron DeSantis because he was running on a platform of school choice and they wanted that for their kids. So, you know, this suggestion that people are voting, you know, based on color and not on policy is also, I think, a disservice to any American. WILLIAMS: I don't know that we can make that assumption. But I think you are right. I think there were voters in fact, who did not vote for Gillum who did vote for the Democrat who was running for Senate. So, you can see that there was a difference and it's not all along racial lines. Again, what we come back to is the idea that the Republican Party is a party that basically is shrinking, and then Democrats, especially among younger voters and minority voters is the party that's growing. And I think that's why the Republicans have an incentive in terms of the gerrymandering that we see in the courts go after in Ohio and Michigan in terms of closing polling places, limiting voting times, time for voting, early voting. So many of these strategies, especially after the Supreme Court's decision of 2013 that undid the Voting Rights Act opened the door to these steps by a party that says we don't -- (CROSSTALK) MACCALLUM: Yes, but you have to be -- OK. WILIAMS: -- want, that we want to limit voters. MACCALLUM: I got to go. But just one last point from this Wall Street Journal piece. It says that Hispanics and whites were more likely to cast early ballots. Blacks were most likely to vote on election day. So it wasn't that they got shut out from early voting. It was and according to this that they chose to, you know, that they didn't choose to take advantage of it, you know, I think it's fascinating and I'm not sure, you know, if minorities are not migrating to Republicans. We saw a bit of that for sure in the presidential election and we will see how it shakes up the next time around in 2020. Thank you, gentlemen, I've got to go. Geraldo, very much. Good to see you. RIVERA: You too. MACCALLUM: And Juan Williams as well. Thanks, guys. Coming up next, what quickly became one of the biggest controversies certainly this weekend and definitely in horse racing history. The winner of this weekend's Kentucky Derby disqualified moments after crossing the finish line, the owner of Maximum Security now fighting back here on "The Story" right after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is Country House on the outside. Maximum Security. He keeps battling on. Maximum Security, Country House one, two down to the line. Maximum Security win the Kentucky Derby. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: Kentucky Derby known as the most exciting two minutes in sports. Watching the spotlight there making history this year for all the wrong reasons. The winning horse Maximum Security disqualified moments after crossing the finish line for allegedly interfering with other horses around the final turn. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, for the first time in the history of the Kentucky Derby the horse that crossed the line first has been disqualified. After the objection Country House wins the Kentucky Derby, one of the longest shots in history to win the derby. After one of the longest waits ever after the derby. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: Nothing like this has ever happened before in the Kentucky Derby. Joining me now exclusively the owner of Maximum Security, Gary West. Gary, good to see you tonight. I would imagine that it's been kind of a tough 24 hours for you. GARY WEST, OWNER, MAXIMUM SECURITY: Well, if they're -- Martha, if they are talking about the one horse, the one horse didn't even claim an objection. The one horse was totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because they did not claim an objection. If the horse doesn't claim an objection, they don't have any standing in the race. And I think when it's all said and done and all the evidence is put on display frame by frame in slow motion, you will find that the one horse actually caused the infraction not our horse. And if the one horse, I believe, it will eventually show that if the one horse would have finished ahead of our horse, we would have had every right in the world to claim an objection against the one horse. MACCALLUM: So, you have you made an appeal which was shot down earlier today. WEST: I expected that. WEST: Yes. WEST: We are going -- we are going to file a lawsuit in the appropriate jurisdiction. MACCALLUM: So when you look at, you know, what's been happening in racing lately and you look at some of the accidents that have happened and I know that you complained about the fact that there are 20 horses on this track and not the typical 14, you know, but everybody sort of signs on to this race the way it is, but it could -- it could be extremely dangerous for these horses if that kind of maneuver and I know you say it didn't happen. It wasn't your jockey's fault. WEST: It's an incredibly dangerous environment. Churchill Downs, the reason that they have 20 horses instead of 14 like they do in every other major race in America including the Kentucky Oaks and of the Breeders Cup races which are kind of the gold standard races in America is because they get the Churchill Downs makes more money on the races by having 20 horses in the race than by having 14 horses in the race. And what I think they are doing and what they have done is they are putting profits ahead of the lives of both horses and people. And I don't think that's right. MACCALLUM: So, in terms of I want to put up what the president said, he was definitely on your side. He said, "The Kentucky Derby decision was not a good one. It was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually a beautiful thing to watch. Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did not win. The Kentucky Derby not even close." WEST: I don't know what he -- I'm not inside the president's head. But -- MACCALLUM: You are not alone. WEST: But I think he was -- I think his analysis is 100 percent correct. WEST: That's a consideration. I'll take that under -- I'll take that under advisement. MACCALLUM: All right. Well, it's a fascinating story and we all hope this, you know, we want to protect these animals. They are so beautiful and it is a beautiful sport. Gary West, thank you. Very good to see you tonight, sir. Thank you. WEST: Thank you, Martha. Have a nice evening. MACCALLUM: You bet. So big news everybody, the royal baby made its debut and you will hear from a very proud Prince Harry next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: As every father and parent would ever say, you know, your baby is absolutely amazing. But this little thing is absolutely to die for. I'm just over the moon. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle welcomed a baby boy this morning and here is the beaming papa. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRINCE HARRY: It was amazing. Absolutely incredible. And as I said, I'm so incredibly proud of my wife. And as every father and parent, would ever say, you know, your baby is absolutely amazing but this little thing is absolutely to die for. I'm just over the moon. (END VIDEO CLIP) MACCALLUM: To die for. Just over the moon. The baby's name will come in two days as its tradition. I'm going to go with Philip, I'm not sure why. You know, obviously the grandfather. But the new royal is number seven in line for the British throne. And that is "The Story" on this Monday night. Thanks for being here. Congressman Dan Crenshaw is on my Untold Story podcast right now. Free to subscribe and listen and get them all as they come out. His is excellent. I learned a lot about him that I never knew before. Rising star in his party to be sure. We will see you back here tomorrow night at 7:00. Tucker Carlson is coming up next. Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/should-robert-mueller-testify-in-front-of-congress |
Is winning Texas a realistic goal for Democrats in 2020? | This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 7, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right. We will. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is The Ingraham Angle from Houston tonight, and right off the top, this is a Fox News Alert. As the immigration crisis gets even more dire by the minute, there is good news and that's a rarity out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California. They have just ruled in the last about hour and a half that the Trump Administration's policy, sending asylum seekers back to Mexico waiting out their time period before their immigration hearing can actually stay in effect. In other words, that policy can continue. Now, this is a temporary release from the District Court restriction but that's definitely a good sign for securing the border and everything that we need. And now, on to the border of insanity, that is the focus of tonight's Angle. The reaction to last night's show from Del Rio border sector was so overwhelming, we just couldn't let it go. Now, we brought you video you had not seen before, along the Rio Grande River, the natural barrier between Mexico and the United States in this part of Texas. Well, we saw immigrants - illegal immigrants jumping into the river from the Mexico side with full knowledge that nearby Border Patrol would jump in and rescue them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're getting ready to cross. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a father a child. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. I'll get over here. This is terrifying. I mean if a man separated, now you have a man separated from his baby here. The baby is crying on the other boat and Border Patrol is left to have to fish him out of the river. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want to become a ferry service. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know that it's a daily struggle that these guys have but, you can't leave an infant in the water struggling. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't leave small children leaving in the water. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: It was terrifying but a ferry service is exactly what the Border Patrol has become. Now, the illegals may be indigent and they only come with what they can fit in a little grocery bag but they're extremely well informed of our loopholes and our absurd enforcement restrictions. And now, they're taking advantage of all of those loopholes with the help of the cartels who get this, are paid handsomely by the illegals to help transport them across Mexico and right into the hands of our Border Patrol. Now, here you see people cheering on the shoreline after this man is pulled onto the boat. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guinness. (ph) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guinness. I'm amigos. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your friend. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's amigos. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, amigos. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Now, I spoke with some of these migrants and they come as I said with little to nothing and along with their children who are innocent pawns in all of this, and the sadness and the fear in their eyes, I will not forget. But, everyone I spoke to - everyone, already has a place in the United States to go. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'd assume that amigo. (CROSSTALK) (FOREIGN LANGUAGE) (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: But, not just to Maryland. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Miami. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: I told that particular migrant that I was from - we had a little moment of levity. But, politicians have been downplaying this for political reasons. We all know that. They're lying to you. This is a national problem. It's not just a border state problem. One of the more illuminating moments from yesterday was in the Border Patrol Processing Center. Now, they didn't let us bring cameras into the area where they're actually processing the illegal immigrants for privacy and other concerns, but they're taken to this processing center after they're picked up in the Rio Grande. Now, inside they're separated into categories, family units, single adult males, and unaccompanied minors. Now, the families that I spoke with told me that they had paid the cartels up to $12,000 for passage. But guess what, the money in most cases came from relatives or friends already in the U.S. and it gets better, most of them are illegals too. You heard that right. Our system is so screwed up that it permits illegals living here now to finance the trips of other illegals who want to come join them. Oh, and it gets worse. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have folks who will come in and literally, within 45 minutes, they're in a delivery room and that was just a week ago. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're delivering children. We will apprehend them. They'll be eight-and-a-half, nine months pregnant, and they'll be in labor when we make that arrest. By the time we get to the emergency room, they're delivering within 30 to 45 minutes. Well, we all do. Taxpayers here in the United States are subsidizing the enormous cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants, their children and their births once here. Now, I found out today that in 2018 alone, Memorial Hermann Health System here in Texas, the largest healthcare provider in the Lone Star state reported almost $0.5 billion in losses due to unpaid medical bills. They basically had to write it all off. Well, of course, since they don't get paid and they're not authorized by the way to ask patients about their immigration status, ultimately the cost is eventually passed on to, well, you guessed it, Americans. We have U.S. vets who still can't get the timely treatment they need, yet illegal immigrants are allowed to use emergency rooms as their primary care centers, free of charge. It's obscene and it's unfair. Well, tonight, we learn from our sources in the Rio Grande Valley sector that they are being completely overrun by unprecedented numbers of illegal aliens and asylum seekers. Over the past week, and this stunned me, 10,000 illegal aliens were apprehended by Border Patrol. Those are just the ones apprehended, and that made it one of the highest weekly totals ever seen in the history of this sector. New numbers for the month of April are coming out tomorrow and sources are telling us that they could be the highest on record. My friends, this is a complete and total travesty. We spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defending other people's borders, and we've allowed our own orders to just become meaningless. Any politician who says this isn't a crisis or refuses to be part of a real solution, should retire or be retired, and that's The Angle. All right, joining us now in McAllen, Texas, a reporter who filmed this dramatic video of 200 illegals apprehended in one mass group last night. This happened in nearby Sullivan City, overwhelming Border Patrol officials there. KGBT reporter Sydney Hernandez is with me now. Sydney, tell me about this group of illegal immigrants that you saw last night. SYDNEY HERNANDEZ, NEWS REPORTER, KGBT: Well, Laura, thank you for having me on. It was definitely a mix. There were a lot of family units with very small children. In fact, one immigrant was even breastfeeding her toddler there, an infant really, and there was a lot of men with children and then you have single adults, men and women, and you even had an elderly woman. The Border Patrol agents had to separate her and have her sit down on an ice chest because that's really all there was. She was very, very weak, very dehydrated. It is extremely hot here in the Rio Grande Valley and the agents are providing these undocumented immigrants with water, but sometimes they have been traveling for days on end and they can suffer from dehydration definitely. INGRAHAM: Well, Sydney, I was shocked when I was in the processing center in the Del Rio in Eagle Pass sector. These Border Patrol agents who are trained at enforcement and in processing, but not in these numbers. They have - they are donating their own baby clothes. When their kids grow out of their clothes, Border Patrol agents are actually bringing in clothes for these indigent illegal immigrants who have made it across the border and that in and of itself is running contrary to all of the negative depictions that we see in some outlets of the Border Patrol agents. And I know you've seen what I saw, which is an enormous amount of compassion under very difficult circumstances. HERNANDEZ: Well, here in the Rio Grande Valley, this sector is the busiest sector for illegal smuggling, for narcotics, right here, so the agents are very well trained in this area to be able to pick up on that. But, the issue that they're seeing and we're seeing firsthand is that when they are being bringing in groups hundreds and hundreds - you saw in that video there was 200. Earlier that day, we had a group of 400 in the same area. Whenever they're attending to these large family units, that is exactly when they see the drugs coming in or those runners, those people who don't want to be caught. INGRAHAM: It is all planned. HERNANDEZ: Of course. INGRAHAM: Sydney, it's all - yes, it's all planned and you see the spotters on the hillsides down in the Eagle Pass. You see the spotters and they're giving like the thumbs up and they're signaling to each other. We heard the whole thing. It's all done, planned out, coordinated as a diversion by the cartel. Sydney, the video you shot was absolutely shocking in itself and I really appreciate your joining us here in such a remote pit (ph) place, that you had to be on Skype. But it was just fine. So, thank you so much for joining us. And when you look by the way, along the video that we just showed you and the additional arrests that were made this weekend, it's shocking that still we have politicians, mostly Democrats, who insist that there's no border crisis or that it's Donald Trump just choreographed the whole thing. In just three days, Border Patrol arrested a man wanted for murder and two sexual predators. Joining me now, Brandon Judd, President of the National Border Patrol Council and Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute. Brandon, there were reports tonight of new ICE regulations that would permit local law enforcement to make ICE arrests in sanctuary cities. Another piece of good news along with that Ninth Circuit ruling. BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: This is a game- changer. What we're seeing right now is you're seeing the Trump Administration saying if Congress is not going to step up to the plate and if they're not going to help, I'm going to put you behind me and I'm going to do what I need to do within the authorities that I have. The micro protection program allowing us to have these migrants go back to Mexico to wait for their asylum hearings, to allow local officials to do the job that's necessary in these sanctuary cities, this is game-change and this is going to allow us to secure the border. This is going to be that one thing that is going to send the message across the world that if you cross the borders illegally, we are going to take action and that's what's going to drive the numbers down. INGRAHAM: Well, you saw the video. And Victor, I just popped up on the screen. You might not have seen it where you are, but I was interviewing one of the crossers, the border crossers, and she had - there it is - she had a piece of cardboard that they took out of a black plastic bag and it was an address in Maryland. And they - so they come there, they're ready to go. They know that they're going to be released within 48 hours, almost all of them are, and they go right to a common area where they're taken and bust, and then they have MoneyGrams, wiring money from the sponsors or illegal immigrants already in the United States or citizens or residents, and they MoneyGram them the money and then they take the bus and they're good to go. And then they're here. That's how it's working. VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, MARTIN AND ILLIE ANDERSON SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: You're describing the life that I'm living in rural Fresno County. That's what it is on my avenue. People are here illegally. We have all sorts of the problems you're discussing. I think what's - it's not going to change, Laura, until we change the moral calculus and we just say, you can call us protectionists or xenophobes or racists, but the fact of the matter is it's not a moral thing to come into another country illegally. It's not a moral thing to reside in another country illegally. It's not a moral thing to be exempt from the law in 500 sanctuary cities. For employers, it's not moral to hire somebody that you know is here illegally to drive down wages. And for the Mexican and Central American governments that gets $60 billion in remittances, that's an immoral act you're doing by exporting you in (ph) capital as if they're hell lots to be exploited and then send you back their profits. It's not moral for ethnic tribune - tribunes to say, you know what, I want as many honest assimilated constituents as I can to enhance my political resonance or the Democratic progressive movement, who's basically saying I can't win on the issues and I want to alter the demography of the united States and flip states. INGRAHAM: Well, that's happening. HANSON: Those aren't moral. It is not moral. INGRAHAM: So, you laid out the moral calculus, Brandon, have to translate going into policy. Victor is right, none of this is moral when we have as many problems still in the United States that we have to deal with, just with our own people, education, health care, veterans needs and so forth. But the policies have to change. Jared Kushner met with Senate leaders today on Capitol Hill. They're going to push for increasing legal merit- based immigration, but adjust downward on the chain migration, I believe, so the number of legal immigrants will be the same. And that's all nice for the business sector. JUDD: Well, you're looking at people like Stephen Miller in the White House that are coming up with these policies like the MPP, like potentially giving border patrol agents the ability to do credible fear interviews, right, when people cross the border illegally. These are the things, these are the policy issues that again the President is saying, I'm going to use the authority that I have to do what I need to do to secure the border. When you saw all of these things that you witnessed firsthand in Del Rio, I'd voluntarily deploy to RGV right now. I've been in the processing center for the last couple days. JUDD: --to get where they're going, and we're just going to walk them right out the door. And they know this, which is that magnet that is bringing them here. INGRAHAM: Well, it's all - Brandon and Victor, this is a perverse sick situation. There's nothing sicker than the U.S. actually enriching the cartels. Victor, that's how crazy it is. Our policies are making the cartels more lethal and richer every single day by this circle of, we'll catch you we'll rescue you because that's what we do, then we bring you here, we release you and then years later maybe we try to find you and deport you out of the country. Meanwhile, the cartels keep getting richer and richer. It's a sick scenario. Victor, last word. HANSON: And that's why you're angry, because you know that what you just said gets you a charge that you're anti humanitarian or something. You know that, if you come in the country without a passport, you're detained. You know that if you use a fake name, it's a felony. You know if you went in the beach stewardship (ph) on a Mexican beach, you would be in jail. So, it's the asymmetry that gets citizens really angry because it destroys the whole notion of citizenship. There's no citizenship if this happens. You are just a resident as equal to a citizen and it destroys the whole western idea of rights and responsibility. INGRAHAM: Yes, well and it all become sickeningly routine. But the numbers that will come out tomorrow are going to shock the conscience, I promise you that. Panel, thank you so much. And coming up, the President's taxes, well they leaked out, a little part of it. FBI caught in a spy lie. Congressman Devin Nunes, Sol Wisenberg, up next. Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) INGRAHAM: The New York Times is hyping, oh what a shock, a big story tonight. They found "printouts" from Mr. Trump's IRS tax transcripts from 1985, I graduated from college then, and 1994, all the way to 1994, showing large losses for various interests. Joining me now Congressman Devin Nunes, Ranking Member of the House Intel Committee; Sol Wisenberg, former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel. So, does any of this matter, I mean it's a big shock that The New York Times is desperate to bring up 30 year old the losses in Atlantic City, I guess. SOL WISENBERG, FORMER WHITEWATER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, two different questions. I suppose it matters to some people, is anybody surprised now that Donald Trump lost a lot of money during the 80s and 90s and that sometimes his actual records may not be congruent with what he said he made or lost. No, I don't think so. But I do think you put your finger on what may be the real news here is, once again something was leaked that shouldn't have been leaked. According to that story, The Times said they got the tax documents from somebody who had legal access to them. That doesn't tell us whether or not somebody from the government illegally leaked them or somebody who worked for Mr. Trump violated a professional confidential relationship. But either way, it's unfortunate. INGRAHAM: Congressman Nunes, I have to get to another point. We had a big piece today and a big push by some in Congress to hold Bill Barr in contempt, and this was for his refusal to appear in a Senate committee. And Washington Post writes a piece, the Trump administration is in contempt of Congress. Previous administrations have sought to accommodate Congressional overseers, but Mr. Trump's just say no approach may mean that effective oversight may not come for years down the road, pointing to that, and Steve Mnuchin not wanting to testify I guess additionally on tax matters and so forth. REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Well, I've got news for them about this, I checked, okay. I don't think that they wanted Barr to testify. They did not want him to show up. That's why they did what they did. They knew if they made the requirement so ridiculous, we're not going to have the Attorney General of the United States come to Congress and be questioned by staff. It's ridiculous. The members of Congress can do it themselves or Barr's not going to come. So I think this was all designed just so that they could eat Kentucky Fried Chicken in the dais when in fact Attorney General Barr didn't show up. INGRAHAM: So, they are obsessed with Bill Barr. Now, they're obsessed and I think I have a couple of theories, I think it's really hard when someone like Barr or you - I'd say if you were testifying at all, I'd be really nervous and afraid. But if you're up against Bill Barr and you're trying to make Barr out to look like this nefarious terrible person, he's just a lot smarter than a lot of these people. I know it sounds pejorative, but he's just a lot smarter than a lot of these folks. I think they were mad that Mueller didn't deliver and now they're mad that I think Barr in most cases got the better of them. But they're kind of stuck here on this Bill Barr hill and they can't seem to jump off of it or get off of it. WISENBERG: Well, it's more than that. They're stuck on that hill because he is legitimate, he is effective, he has a tremendous amount of gravitas, and he is a member of President Trump's cabinet. So they must destroy him. He's effective, he's a man of the law, he's trying to restore integrity to the DOJ and be a proper and effective and loyal Attorney General, and they can't have that. He must be destroyed. Anyone who is not completely on their team must be destroyed. I said this the other night about Rod Rosenstein. When thought Rod Rosenstein was protecting Mueller, he was their golden boy. Now that they see he's just really an honest arbiter or trying to be and they see him as aligned with Barr, now he must be destroyed too. And so they leak an article about him saying I can land the plane. That's what it's all about, destroying anyone who is not with them. INGRAHAM: All right. And just when you thought guys that the FBI might have turned a corner, it wouldn't be playing politics anymore, especially after how they treated the Trump campaign in 2016, this happens. CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: Well that's not the term I would use. There are lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Congressman Nunes, the Deep State was exposed in 2016. We're going to learn a lot more. NUNES: Yes, spying occurred, plain and simple to any normal American out there. I believe what the FBI Director is trying to do is - his position really needs to be nonpartisan. He's there for ten years. He's got eight years left. So I think what he's trying to do is trying not to get in the headlines, and shame on those Senators for trying to put the FBI Director in the middle of this. I mean look I wish he would just call spying for what it is, spying. But look, the real facts have to come out in this case, and what we're trying to continue to get to the bottom of is how many spies were involved spying on the Trump campaign, and that's what we continue to try to get answers to in Congress. And every day that goes by, I think we get - the answer becomes more and more people were doing spying. And what the Director is trying to say is, is he's trying to say, was it legal or illegal spying. INGRAHAM: Yes. I have a feeling they'd be calling it spying, Sol. WISENBERG: Laura, I don't think they would have much trouble calling it spying. But keep in mind what the Attorney General Barr said. He said, look this is a definitional thing. I'm not saying it's wrong, if it was properly predicated, it might be perfectly legitimate spying. But let's call it what it is. When you send somebody in undercover or under false pretenses to the Presidential campaign of the opposing party, you're spying on them, pure and simple, that's all it is. INGRAHAM: I know, this is just - this is ridiculous, this entire conversation. Great conversation, you guys, so thanks so much. And coming up, there are signs that Texas could turn Democratic in 2020 depriving Trump of his re-election. Up next, we're going to tell you why Democrats could actually be the ones in for a rude awakening. Raymond Arroyo here in Texas and he has all the details. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) INGRAHAM: Trump trounced Hillary Clinton in 2016 right here in Texas. And it has been a solidly red state, no doubt about it. But there are signs in recent years that counties are turning more blue. Democrats now believe Texas is within reach, that they can deprive Trump of a victory in 2020. Joining me now with some answers -- I love how you just appeared out of there. INGRAHAM: It's Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo, who has been on the ground with me in Texas. Great reporting, by the way, from the border, Raymond. ARROYO: Thank you. ARROYO: Laura, look, since we've been here, we've seen a great deal, that this state is no doubt changing. The biggest population centers are the cities. As a snapshot of what is happening here, in Denton County, which is north of Dallas, Ted Cruz won by 32 points in 2012. In 2016, Trump won there by 20 points. But in 2018, Cruz won reelection by only seven points. The political landscape here is clearly shifting. For more insight I spoke with Texas voters, and Mark Jones, he's a political science professor at Rice University's Baker Institute. I asked Jones why Democrats believe they can flip Texas for the first time since the 1970s. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK JONES, FELLOW IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, RICE UNIVERSITY: Demographics are changing, and Texas is becoming bluer with less Anglo and more northern population. And also Donald Trump, who is a real liability for Texas Republicans. It's becoming more Latino and more Asian-Americans, and we're seeing more people move from the north here. And that is having a transformation on Texas politics, causing them to vote a little more Democratic. JONES: I don't think Texas will go blue in 2020 unless perhaps Joe Biden is the candidate. It is going to be a pivotal election here in Texas in 2020 not just for our Texans but for the entire nation. ARROYO: It looks like the demographics of the suburbs around places are changing. And some are saying Texas could flip blue as a result. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Donald Trump will definitely still win. I think there's definitely a lot of people that are coming from other parts of the country that are definitely changing our demographics in the greater Houston area and Texas in general. But I feel like there's too much success from Donald Trump. You can't argue with success. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm going to vote for Biden. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because I think Trump is crazy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't care. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm from Kansas City. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think the demographics have changed that much since the last election. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because Texas will always be Republican. (END VIDEO CLIP) ARROYO: Laura, as you heard from the lady Kansas City, the state is changing demographically. One of every 10 Texas residents did not live here in 2012. And this state has six of the 10 fastest growing counties in the country. For the GOP to hold this state, they are going to have to pound the outer suburbs in these big urban areas, 38 electoral votes hang in the balance, Laura. When Beto came along and he lost by only two or three points, they thought this is our opportunity. We'll see if that bears out. INGRAHAM: You have enormous population growth. All the bleed California is having, they're all coming into Texas. So they are coming into this great economy in Texas and they want to wreck it. Keep the economy going. That's cuckoo. You don't want to do that. ARROYO: You change management, you get the fallout. INGRAHAM: Let's get off -- let's see if the camera push. There we go. Now push. ARROYO: I'll see you later. INGRAHAM: Bye. We'll talk to you later. Texas State Senator Pete Flores may have an idea. He was a Republican underdog who flipped the largest legislative district in Texas from blue to red, surfing over the blue wave that was supposedly swamping the state. This is the night he won his election. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the first time in history we have a Hispanic Republican senator. I have a message for the Democrats that Pete Flores and his hard work delivered here. All this talk about a blue wave, well, the tide is out. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Senator Flores joins me now. Senator, I can't believe you're not in studio. It is really cozy in here. I wish you were here. And how did talk radio help, Fox News ad buys, I was reading about that today. PETE FLORES, R-TEXAS STATE SENATOR: First, it was by the grace of God and then hard work. That is how we did it. Very simple, very straightforward, very American, very Texan. And in a succinct way, that is basically how we did it. INGRAHAM: You also had someone who you try to defeat in 2016, and I think you lost by 14 or so points. FLORES: Like 33 points. INGRAHAM: It was 30 points. Oh, God I'm giving you more credit than you deserve. But he ends up getting indicted, right, and he's out of the picture. FLORES: Yes. INGRAHAM: So you run, you defeat everybody, and it was a shock. Friends of yours today described you as kind of, he's so nice. He's just beloved, he's so mild mannered. Then you have Trumpian coming into Texas, and he's like, a bull in a china shop, some people say, but he's a different type of candidate. But you both have a similar outlook on these financial issues, fiscal issues, and of course on the need to enforce our southern border. FLORES: Absolutely. What we did is we had a strong grassroots organization. We never stopped working. We never took people for granted. We never met a stranger. And our values are the same as most people in Texas, but especially in southwest Texas that I represent. God, family, and country is important to us. Whether you call yourself a Democrat or Republican, ultimately, we Texans and southwest Texans hold those values dear. And we dealt with the pillars of the issues, that is public safety, education, property taxes, health and human services. Those are the things we dealt with primarily as we went through our 17 counties and visited with folks from all spectrums from the big cities to the smallest towns out in the west on the border town. Those are the issues that got us the biggest win. INGRAHAM: So Senator, the Democrats think they're going flip this state. FLORES: No, ma'am, I don't think so. What you are hearing mostly is from a very vocal group, but a silent majority spoke in my race, and they are going to speak again in 2020. And this state is no longer going to be a straight ticket voting state. It's a check the box in 2020. INGRAHAM: Thank God. FLORES: So no one can -- for them to predict they're going to take it, it is not, no one can say. But what I can say is we're going to work hard. We're going to continue to represent their constituents. And that is how we're going to win. INGRAHAM: All right, Senator. And Senator Flores' also district spans 400 miles of the border. So he's doing with all those issues. Senator, we're going to check back with you on all that you are confronting there as well with your constituents. It is a fascinating story, and I hope the Trump campaign is watching this one. Coming up, a man threatens and harasses pro-life teen girls on camera. And oh, he's a Pennsylvania state rep. The disturbing video, a can't-miss debate, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we have got here is a bunch of protesters, a bunch of pseudo-Christian protesters who have been out here shaming young girls for being here. Here is the deal, I have $100 for anybody who will identify any of these three I'm going to donate to Planned Parenthood. Today's protester, she is an old white lady who is going to try to avoid showing you her face. Shame on you. What you are doing here is disgusting. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Yes, those were teenage girls and an elderly woman you saw getting harassed for protesting peacefully and prayerfully outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia. And the imbecile that you see trying to intimidate them, that is a Democratic State Rep, Brian Sims. Today Sims gave a half-hearted apology, non-apology, two wrongs don't make a right. Joining me now Rachel Campos-Duffy, Fox News contributor, Sarah Riggs Amico, a Democratic who ran for Georgia's Lieutenant Governor against Stacey Abrams. RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Of course. This is the double standard we all see. And by the way, that elderly woman that he called an old, white lady was exercising her right to pray and to peacefully protest, which is a cherished tradition in the country. What I saw when I saw the video, Laura, quite honestly was not just that he looked pathetic but he looked desperate. And I think that is actually a reflection of the entire pro-choice movement which has suffered huge and serious blows to their whole movement this whole year, both in Georgia with heartbeat bill, but also we've had other legislators, other politicians accidently telling the truth about abortion. And of course, what is really killing, no pun intended, the abortion for- profit industry is technology. It's not just moms who are seeing 4D ultrasounds, there are millions of young kids who have seen their little brother or their little sister on 4D ultrasound. They believe tech. They don't believe the euphemisms and the lies of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. The guy seems incredibly angry. He seems like a very angry person. They always say conservatives are angry. Most conservatives I know are really happy. Things are going pretty well. The border is a mess, but things are going pretty well in the country, more money in their pocket. But, man, he's angry. This poor, old lady and these young girls. SARAH RIGGS AMICO, D-FORMER CANDIDATE, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA: I also watched Representative Sims statement today on his Twitter feed, and I was really struck by the fact that he mentioned the past seven years, he's been a volunteer escorting women into this particular claimant. He lives in the neighborhood. He has regularly witnessed those patients. And we don't know what those patients are going into the clinic for, by the way, being harassed by the people on the street. Whoa, whoa, Sarah, Sarah, where those particular people -- I don't know what the state rep does or escorts women in to get abortions, three cheers for him. AMICO: Or to get birth control. INGRAHAM: I don't know if that's what his -- I am sure that's may be part it, but where they make their bread and butter is aborting children. That's where they make their money. Everybody knows that you know. Let's not pretend otherwise. But if the shoe were on the other foot and this was a white male conservative berating teenage girls who are part of a woman's march or something, or just standing there with a sign, you would hear this wall to wall on MSNBC tonight. This would be wall to wall. And yet feminists who are all for women being diverse and having different points of view, it's crickets, you don't hear anything form the feminists. Rachel and I are used to this because we get slammed all the time and no one ever comes to our defense. We are not waiting for them because we can take care of ourselves. But the double standard here of a white male harassing teenage girls and an elderly woman is stark. AMICO: You said he was angry, but I think what I really heard when I watched video was a lot of frustration. I think there are a lot of women across the country who are all frustrated that the government needs to be in their -- INGRAHAM: He wanted to dox these girls. Whoa, whoa, whoa, Sarah, he was looking, and Rachel chime in, he wanted to dox these girls. He wanted to find out personal information about them and put it on the Internet. Then Lord knows what might have happened to these young women and the elderly woman, who knows what would have happened. I'm pretty sure that's all illegal. AMICO: I'm obviously not condoning that. But I do think he has a right to be frustrated. INGRAHAM: I know you're not, Sarah, I'm not saying you are. But that's what he did. AMICO: And these women could pray in a variety of venues. It didn't have to be -- INGRAHAM: It's a public place. The Supreme Court has actually protected their right to be there, thank you very much. AMICO: When I pray, I chose to pray in different settings, not at a health care -- INGRAHAM: Good for you. They pray on the sidewalk. Good for them. CAMPOS-DUFFY: There is nothing illegal or wrong with praying in public in front of an abortion clinic, or with peacefully protesting, which all of them were. If you watch the video, that is what you would see. What you see, you are right, is a frustration, but it is a frustration of abortion movement and an abortion ideologue who is frustrated by the fact that technology is moving in another direction and that the moral conscience of America has shifted. And that is why you are seeing a heartbeat bill in six states. That is why you are seeing the whole argument for abortion changing because technology is proving the humanity of a fetus. INGRAHAM: All right, guys, we got to go. We're going to roll to black here. Guys, thank you so much. Sarah we'll have your back. Rachel, always great to see you. Coming up, new details about the scripts, yes, scripts, illegal immigrants are using to get across our border. We saw some of them. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) INGRAHAM: Back with me now is Raymond Arroyo. I love this two-shot. I don't know why I think this is fun. Raymond, we have been down here investigating for a few days. And we found out about actual scripts that illegals are using to claim what is called credible fear and pass that initial screening. ARROYO: Laura, one of the things we discovered while on the Rio Grande is that these migrants are learning how to navigate the U.S. border via the Internet. Our producer Kristin (ph) spoke to this man moments after he was fished out of the river. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I see the video right there, because these guys, I see the video how you do it, to cross. If you do you can see on YouTube. (END VIDEO CLIP) ARROYO: Laura, there is mundanity to all of this. It is so choreographed, his routine, you see it play out over and over. And the agents told us that. But they are receiving, and the chief there in the Del Rio sector shared with us this text, watch this. This is the type of text these migrants are receiving. It says yes, it's difficult. You should see the amount of Hondurans that are traveling with a child. And they pay less to the smugglers in order to be delivered to Border Patrol. INGRAHAM: It's a direct trip, it's a direct trip nonstop. ARROYO: Fast pass. INGRAHAM: They have a few days with Border Patrol, afterwards they are released. There are a lot of people with that law. That is the easiest way right now. Entire families are coming. Raymond, we talked to entire families have either already come to the United States or are sending back the money to bring a few others in who have not yet made that journey. We are, I will say it again, enriching the cartels. You said it yesterday, and it struck us both. There is a routine nature to all of this, which is very disturbing. Great reporting. ARROYO: It is disturbing. INGRAHAM: And by the way, our entire team here in Texas did an unbelievable job thanks to the Border Patrol. Everybody along the way, both on the Rio Grande, in the air with the Marine air support. It was unbelievable. We have breaking news, though, big, when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) INGRAHAM: Just moments ago the Justice Department sending a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler saying that if he tries to hold A.G. Barr in contempt, quote, "The Attorney General will be compelled to request that the president invoke executive privilege with respect to the material subject to the subpoena." We were waiting for that. Should have maybe invoked that a long time ago. That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "FOX NEWS @ NIGHT" team have all the latest and they take it all from here. Shannon, I'll see you in D.C. tomorrow night. I need to come home. Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/is-winning-texas-a-realistic-goal-for-democrats-in-2020 |
How Should We Feel About Theresa May? | On Friday, Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she will be resigning in two weeks. It came as little surprise. After nearly three years in office, the Brexit Prime Minister failed to deliver Brexit and now leaves her country with more division and less direction than when she started. History may not be kind, but hopefully it will be nuanced. While her errors were hers alone, her failures were not. In truth, the prime minister was put in an impossible position which neither she nor, likely, her successor could ever escape. Its not hard to come up with examples of where May went wrong. Upon becoming prime minister in 2016, she framed the Brexit debate in a way that ultimately spelled her ruin. No deal is better than a bad deal, May often said, threatening to pull the U.K. out of the EU with no trade framework if favorable concessions were not made. It was a bluff which the EU called by refusing to give her the terms her party would have recognized as a good deal. But at the same time, it was a bluff which her party bizarrely believed. Ignoring the evidence that it would force the U.K. to face a food shortage, a financial crisis, and violence at the Irish border, her party became hell-bent on a hard Brexit, hoping to leave the EU without membership in the single market, without membership in the customs union, or even without a deal. Ultimately, each of Mays three Brexit deals would be shot down by her own MPseach because they were not hard enough. May also decided to freeze out her opposition. Brexit, she determined, would become an in-house project for the Conservatives who enjoyed a majority in Parliament. Three long years later, however, the Conservatives were too fractured to function and May had to commit herself to a cross-party compromise. But it was too little, too late. Even last week, when she capitulated on everything the Conservatives cared aboutconceding not only that the U.K. would remain in a customs arrangement with the EU, but also that parliament could vote to hold a second referendumthe ill will she had created with Labour could not be forgiven. That fourth Brexit bill was quietly pulled from the floor last week before she faced a final rejection, but not before the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke out against it and her one last time. In the 2017 snap election, May bet the house and lost, squandering her partys majority and binding her party to an extreme right wing. Above all, there was the blunder of the 2017 snap election. Shortly after taking office, May decided to call for a general election that could build up an even greater majority for the Conservatives in the House of Commons, who already held a 98-seat advantage over Labour. It backfired. The Conservatives went on to lose thirteen seats as Labour won thirty. May lost her parliamentary majority and was forced to enter into a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party, a tiny Northern Irish group with extreme far right positions. Worse still, by bringing the DUP into a governing coalition, May brought out Brexits most intractable problem: the Irish border crisis. In the 2017 snap election, May bet the house and lost, squandering her partys majority and binding her party to an extreme right wing. Nearly ever difficulty since then has been a product of that decision, a decision she made alone. | https://newrepublic.com/article/154005/feel-theresa-may |
How could the US-China trade war impact consumers? | This is a rush transcript from "Your World," May 10, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Well, they're on a jet plane now. Don't know when they will be back again anytime soon now. The Chinese delegation is headed home, folks. No deal yet, but President Trump says the talks will continue. Now, his treasury secretary just said kind of the opposite, that nothing is planned right now. Nevertheless, stocks were trimming earlier gains, but they came back from huge, huge losses. Also today, we were focusing on Uber shares, a big debut in the market today, a bit of a dud when it came to its opening day performance, down about 8 percent. Those were the crosscurrents today. What a day. Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And Fox on top of trade tensions that are still over the top. We have got John Roberts at the White House on where those talks are standing now, Jacqui Heinrich on in Bayonne, New Jersey on the impact to our economy right now, and Robert Gray out in Los Angeles, where consumers are bracing for an inevitable hit right now. We begin with John Roberts. Hey, John. JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Neil, good afternoon to you. First of all, officials tell Fox News that there are currently no more trade talks with China scheduled. It's not to say that there won't be any more trade talks, but there is nothing on the books right now. And in the last few minutes, President Trump weighing in on today's talks with the vice premier of China, Liu He, the president tweeting -- quote -- "Over the course of the past two days, the United States and China have held candid and constructive conversations on the status of the trade relationship between both countries. The relationship between President Xi and myself remains a very strong one, and conversations into the future will continue. In the meantime, the United States has imposed tariffs on China, which may or may not be removed, depending on what happens with respect to future negotiations." Late last week, China reversed itself on some core issues that it had already agreed to, and then started to play the delay game on another round of talks. So, the president lit a fire under them with the imposition of new tariffs, which had been postponed. That increases tariffs from 10 to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. President Trump also turning up the heat, threatening more tariffs, tweeting this morning that the process has begun to place additional tariffs at 25 percent on the remaining $325 billion. That would be the biggest round of tariffs yet. After last night's brief talks and dinner, the Chinese delegation saying they would prefer a different route of negotiations than the imposition of tariffs. Here's Liu He. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LIU HE, CHINESE VICE PREMIER (through translator): Of course, China believes raising tariffs in the current situation is not a solution to the problem, but harmful to China, to the United States and to the whole world. So, our way out should be to solve the practical problem in a better and principled manner, so that we can finally come to the only result of cooperation. (END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: Now, Liu He did say that the talks went -- quote -- "fairly well," and confirmed that there will be more talks in the future. Curious, though, Neil. Last night, according to sources, he told Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, and the U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, that there was nothing more that he, Liu He, could do, that it had to come down to President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping getting together to try to pull this wagon of a trade deal across the finish line. We haven't heard anything more about that, at least from the U.S. side, but we may hear more from President Trump, who's got an event in the East Room coming up here in the next few minutes -- Neil. CAVUTO: All right, John, thank you very, very much. Now to Jacqui Heinrich in Bayonne, New Jersey, with the impact all of this could have been our economy -- Jacqui. JACQUI HEINRICH, CORRESPONDENT: Well, Neil, the effects of these new tariffs aren't being felt quite yet. The cargo ships coming in today and for the next three to four weeks were already in transit by the time those new tariffs took effect, so those ones will be taxed at the 10 percent rate, the old rate. Anything, though, that leaves China, left China after midnight last night will be subject to that 25 percent new tariff rate. That is a huge price difference, and it's causing a big conundrum for business owners and retailers. Part of the question is whether the retailers and suppliers will absorb some or all of the costs increase, hoping to keep consumers shopping, or if they will reprice their items to reflect those tariffs and risk losing some business. Some big retailers made bulk orders, anticipating the tariffs, and may be able to fend off price hikes until that inventory is gone. But smaller shops may pass off that extra cost to consumers faster -- $200 billion dollars worth of goods are impacted, nearly 6,000 products, including things that American shoppers purchase regularly, like furniture, clothes, food and electronics. Some industries are being hit harder than others. The Consumer Technology Association said: "The tariffs already in place have cost the American technology sector about $1 billion more a month since October. That can be life or death for small businesses and startups that can't absorb the added costs." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ANN MCLANE KUSTER, D-N.H.: I'm worried about it. I'm worried about what the impact is going to be on our farmers. And I'm definitely worried about what's going to happen, automobiles, anything with aluminum or steel. So I think we got to wait and see. (END VIDEO CLIP) HEINRICH: As John Roberts mentioned, the president has one big card left to play. Earlier this week, he threatened a 25 percent tariff on goods that are already impacted by those tariffs. That's about $325 billion worth of Chinese exports, just about every Chinese export left. He didn't pull the trigger on that. And retailers are hoping that he doesn't have to, and this negotiation reaches a conclusion -- Neil. CAVUTO: All right, Jacqui, thank you very, very much. I do want you to peek at a chart of the Dow today. It was -- it was crazy, folks. I mean, talk about a roller-coaster ride. We were heading south, and quickly, down about 358 points at one point, finished up about 114 points. Everything was going tick for tick on where this particular trade negotiation was going. Now, the silver lining here is that the $200 billion worth of additional Chinese goods the president has targeted with these 25 percent tariffs, they will not affect goods that are already in transit here or right here, only new goods. So there's about a couple of weeks, maybe three weeks of wiggle room, presumably, the markets like to think, to avoid them ever being implemented on a formal basis, let alone the threat of adding another $325 billion to that. But the fact that matter is that talks would continue. And the president was optimistic that they would, even though you got a slightly mix vibe out of the treasury secretary. Didn't seem to matter. By day's end, we avoided having the worst week of the year. The Dow came back, but the major averages did have a rough time this week. Let's get the read from market watchers Frances Newton Stacy, Ted Oakley, and Scott Shellady. Scott, to you. Could have been a lot worse. (LAUGHTER) SCOTT SHELLADY, TJM INVESTMENTS: Right. It could have been. It would have been a lot easier to be sitting here when it was down 350. You could just blame it all on the Chinese talks. CAVUTO: Absolutely. SHELLADY: But you can't do that now. What I think really happened was -- is what we saw on our desk. The selling really happened in the first four or five days -- four days this week, and then started to slowly but surely dry up, looking at the Uber offering that we saw today, and that we just didn't have those people come in and continue to keep -- keep pressing that market. And then that's when the buyers could start to take over. And they did and they brought it up higher on the day. But I will tell you this. We see a lot of these desks. We see equities. We see fixed income and we see commodities. The commodities across the board pretty much are telling us this is going to be longer and more protracted than we think. So that's giving me a yellow danger signal. Everything great, it's hunky-dory. And every now and again, we do trade on China. But we're still up there like we did today. And then, lastly, I go to the fixed income or interest rate market. Interest rates are telling me also, flashing yellow, 2.45 percent, things that might not be that good going forward. So we're thinking that we have got more of a danger ahead of us than we do happiness. CAVUTO: All right, you were referring to 2.45 percent, the yield on a 10- year note... SHELLADY: Yes. CAVUTO: ... a popular way to sort of gauge interest rates, a flight to quality. People were running to that. They interpreted perhaps that a trade war, whatever you want to call it, even an impasse, is going to slow things down. Has yet to happen. But I guess that is the worry. Frances, we're also worried or some people were about how China responds. They threatened their own retaliatory measures to counter what the president did with these higher tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods. FRANCES NEWTON STACY, OPTIMAL CAPITAL: Well, I think that there's actually a psychological component that might be being missed. And certainly I have read "The Art of the Deal." And I really understand President Trump trying to increase his leverage point. And we -- certainly when it comes to trade, we have a lot more leverage. However, the Chinese are all about saving face. They do not have the same political goals that we do. They do not have the same definition of transparency that we do. And I just have to think, if Trump can go in and make Xi look good, rather than trading these punches, then maybe we can get a little bit closer psychologically, so that we can start kind of building the trust back, because China does have options in making us feel pain. Maybe it's not on the trade front, but maybe they can put pressure on the U.S. multinationals, which puts pressure on our stock market and our stock prices, which, of course, Trump likes. And also -- hopefully not -- but they have -- they could make things with North Korea a little bit difficult. So... CAVUTO: No, no, you're right. They have a number of options. Ted, one of the things that's remarkable about China is, we have a -- they have a surplus with us, a half-a-trillion dollars, whatever it is. They import a little over $100 billion worth of U.S. goods. So you talk about impact. Obviously, they're on the tougher end of that particular stick. They could devalue their currency, cheapen it to the point that's a global impact right there. Or they could just say, you know what, all those treasuries we own, we just stop buying them. In fact, we might just start selling them. TED OAKLEY, FOUNDER, OXBOW ADVISORS: Well, you could see that, Neil. NEWTON STACY: Oh, yes. CAVUTO: Go ahead, Ted. I'm sorry. OAKLEY: Yes, you could see that, Neil, for sure. And I think you saw a little of that today, when they came in and supported their own market, which made the market, their market, move up another 3 percent or so. But, in general, I think they would wait on the treasury side, I mean, from we're on a rate situation. But they have those two options. I think they would do the yuan first, though. CAVUTO: All right, you're talking about their currency, the yuan. Scott, obviously, that's an extreme scenario. They didn't do anything today thus far. Maybe they're trying to see if they can patch things up. Obviously, you have got the delegation going back. They're going to get their marching orders from Xi Jinping. SHELLADY: I think that they're pretty -- well, I think they're closer than they have been. And I think things ultimately will get done. I mean, look, I have got a farm. We have got a family farm. I hear a lot from the soybean farmers out there. It's not good either. But I think that we have still got some political goodwill capital that we're going to be able to spend here. It's not going to happen overnight. Like, everybody who is waiting for some sort of May 10 epiphany, that's not happening. But I need to remind everybody also, the U.S. economy is so big, so big and so good that, with a 3.2 percent GDP growth in the first quarter, you take into consideration these new tariffs, that's probably going to shave 0.3 -- three-tenths or maybe at the most four-tenths off of our growth. So it's not disastrous, and we're still very, very healthy. CAVUTO: You can all see it also in the global markets. They kind of shrug of their shoulders today. I'm not saying that from our levels last week at this time, you lost about $1.8 trillion in wealth. But if you think of that, Frances, it seems like the world is collectively saying or finger-crossing cooler heads prevail. NEWTON STACY: absolutely. Nobody likes chaos, I mean, just looking over what's going on with Brexit. But we do become a bit numb to it. I think the -- I think if Trump could call Xi before we get into this let's punch each other, let's punch each other, let's punch each other, and let him save a little bit of face. I think he sent Liu He over today because he knew that nothing was going to happen today. And he doesn't want that failure on him. And the Chinese are about saving face. And I know Trump is a tough talker. But I think, if he allows them to do that, it'll go through smoother and faster. I still think it's going to take a couple of months. I think we're going to get a deal. And I think the equities were trying to readjust to the possibility of no deal and then readjusted to yes, a deal is coming. OAKLEY: Well, you would have to tell the average investor, hey, if you're worried about it, you need to carry some liquidity. And if you look at those top 10 down markets really the last two weeks, they may tell you a little bit more about what's going on worldwide than just the U.S. market. CAVUTO: All right, guys, I want to thank you all. Have a safe and pleasant, well, I would call it, like, promising financial weekend. We will see. (LAUGHTER) CAVUTO: In the meantime, the U.S. is calling these trade talks with China constructive. China says they went fairly well. So, the interpretations are different, but this much is irrefutable. We were down a lot today, and we came back a lot today -- after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: All right, I want to take you to the White House, the East Room. The president is set to speak to military moms there in honor of Mother's Day. We're going to be monitoring that, because he might have something to say about what's been going on in these China trade talks and the rest. Ahead of that, we have got Edward Lawrence at the White House with the very, very latest. Hey, Edward. EDWARD LAWRENCE, BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil. Yes, it would seem that this deal between the U.S. and China would come down to a phone call between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping of China. China's top negotiator, Liu He, told the U.S. delegation yesterday at dinner that he has nothing left that he could do and it would come down to that phone call. Right now, I can tell you the top negotiator also told us today the talks went fairly well today. In addition, he says that more talks could happen in the future. He said the talks will continue. However, though, the White House confirming that there's no schedule for those talks going forward at this point. Now, President Donald Trump says that he doesn't mind collecting all those tariffs, the administration remaining positive, Vice President Mike Pence today saying that a deal is possible with the Chinese still. Now, it means that if you buy something of the one of 6,000 items that went up to 25 percent tariff -- that's $200 billion worth of imports -- it could cost you more. We're talking about airplane rubber, plywood, also inflatable rafts. Now, moving forward, there is no schedule, as I say, of right now as to what happens next. The Chinese have left the United States now. They're on a flight on their way back to China. The administration also started the paperwork to put everything else that China imports into the United States under a 25 percent tariff there. The Chinese seem to be on the clock now, the president following through with his -- with his threats to add these tariffs. And the ball seems to be in the Chinese court -- back to you, Neil. CAVUTO: All right, Ed, thank you. Great reporting today, my friend. Let's go to Andy Puzder, the former CKE Restaurant CEO. Remember, the president had briefly considered him to be a labor secretary. But, Andy, what's interesting here is, we do have some wiggle room before the implementation of these 25 percent tariffs, but -- because it's -- if they already have goods in transit, they're not affected. It's the new -- the new stuff that will be. But, having said that, if they were to go into effect, absorbing a 10 percent hit is one thing. Businesses will try to swallow and not pass it along to their consumers; 25 percent, it would be another matter. ANDREW PUZDER, FORMER PRESIDENT & CEO, CKE RESTAURANTS: Well, I think it's a lot -- it's going to be a lot tougher on the Chinese than it's going to be on the Americans. I think this -- there is -- a deal needs to be done here. It needs to be done. The Chinese need it done. We need it done here in the United States to get things back on track as far as our trade relationship with China. Maybe they eat -- to your former strength, they go out less, they eat out less. PUZDER: Well, you would have some -- you would have different problems in different sectors. For example, the prior guest mentioned inflatable rafts. I don't think we're going to get hurt much if inflatable rafts go up in price. (LAUGHTER) PUZDER: The other -- the other -- if you look at the restaurant industry, the restaurant industry actually likes it when foreign countries stop buying our produce. Now, farmers don't like it. CAVUTO: Right. PUZDER: But restaurants like it because the price of those commodities go down. Therefore, you can -- you can pass price benefits on to consumers at the restaurant level. You have also got people -- look, you have got more people working than have ever worked, wages going up to 3 percent a month year over year for nine straight months. And you have got people taking home more of what they earn because of the tax cuts. So, we can absorb some of this. CAVUTO: No, no, you're right. You're right on that. We're in the position of strength here. That's undeniable. PUZDER: Yes. CAVUTO: And there's more on the line for the Chinese, that they're the ones with the 500-plus-billion-dollar surplus. They have $100 billion worth of import from us they could play with, but the threats aren't exactly equal. PUZDER: I think he would -- I think he will go as far as he needs to go to get a deal done. I think that the Chinese need to understand that not only are we in a better negotiating position, but for the first time since the Reagan administration, we have a president who's willing to use that power to negotiate a better deal and someone who's very experienced in negotiating. So if they think they're going to push us around, they think they're going to play the politics, this president is not someone who's going to succumb to any of that. CAVUTO: All right, I always like to help out viewers, the pro side, the worry side. Part of the worry side is something like this, Andy, that things get out of control, that, all of a sudden, this gets tougher, cooler heads do not prevail. Even there, I could see half-glass full. Whatever impact would be on the trade front is dwarfed by just the underlying strong economy, and because this, in the scheme of things, is a small percentage of that. PUZDER: No, I think you're absolutely right. Look, I think that the fact that this could get out of control is more of a threat to the Chinese than it is to us. Our economy, as you said, is growing. Theirs is showing signs of pulling back. And you have to remember that the Chinese people know they're not living like Americans live. Our GDP per capita is about $68,000. In China, it's about $10,000. So they're -- we live much better than they live. CAVUTO: Got it. PUZDER: They need our business. They need our trade. They need to keep growing, if the people that are in power are going to remain in power. CAVUTO: All right. PUZDER: So this is important to them. CAVUTO: All right, and we need your perspective. And we just got it. Andy Puzder, thank you very much, my friend. (LAUGHTER) PUZDER: Thanks, Neil. CAVUTO: Have a great weekend. You know, it wasn't great for Uber today, I got to tell you, its debut a little bumpy, actually a lot bumpy. It doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world for Uber, but let's say a rough start. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: All right, there was another big theme in the market today. I didn't want to forget about it. Uber, the ride-sharing service, had a big debut today. It was a rocky debut, came in priced at 45 bucks, and then it was moving south, and fast, in a volatile market. I'm not kidding. I think he's about the smartest read of the markets and certainly the most accurate one that I know. But, then again, I have a small pool of a pair or two. (LAUGHTER) CAVUTO: Good to see you, buddy. CHARLES PAYNE, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks a lot. CAVUTO: Let's talk about Uber. I thought they were very conservative, tame in their forecasts. They didn't overhype. PAYNE: You're right. And a couple of weeks ago, there was thought, hey, this is going to be $150 billion dollar IPO. And, of course, it didn't help that Lyft went public. CAVUTO: Right. PAYNE: And Lyft actually did what everyone thought. It opened high, significantly higher, and then proceeded to freefall. And it's been freefalling, and it's been freefalling. CAVUTO: Yes, fell more today. PAYNE: They came out with their earnings, and it kept going down. None of that actually helped Uber. But I think the problem with all these companies -- and it's so ironic, because you get Wall Street and its reputation for being greedy. No one is greedier than Silicon Valley and the venture capitalists out there, no one out there. They have had 24 rounds of fund-raising over the years. What that means is that, years ago, certain people got a bite at the apple at a $500 million valuation, then $1 billion valuation, and it goes up and goes up. And for a long time, they were able to go public, these companies, and knowing that the public, particularly the users -- I mean, think of this. Tens of millions of users around the world would automatically want to own the stock. And that's kind of backfiring right now. People are getting a little hip to this. CAVUTO: But they even said stuff like, we're not going to make money, we might never make money. (LAUGHTER) CAVUTO: And I'm thinking, well, that's a problem. So, I know the comparison was always made to Amazon. PAYNE: Right. CAVUTO: They were going to build up their infrastructure and all of that. But it's not Amazon. PAYNE: It's not Amazon. CAVUTO: Amazon was like a rocket pouring all of this fast-moving revenue back into the operations. CAVUTO: Yes. PAYNE: We saw the physical build-out that Amazon was doing. And any time -- and we always knew Amazon could be public. The greatest thing Jeff Bezos did was, he didn't care what Wall Street cared about. CAVUTO: Yes. PAYNE: He said, I'm going to build something here that's going to be very hard, if not impossible, to duplicate. CAVUTO: But this technology, or whatever you want to call it, it... PAYNE: It's an app. CAVUTO: I get it, but it's still a very promising -- it's changed the whole taxi, ride-sharing business. PAYNE: It has. And they got Uber Eats, Uber Transports, and a whole lot of other things, but they're operating at massive losses. I don't think any company has ever gone public losing this much money in the history of the markets either. PAYNE: I think it's going to -- I think the interesting part of this industry comes with auto -- when they start getting these robot cars. CAVUTO: Got it. PAYNE: I think that -- I think as long as they're paying people -- And, by the way, they're paying them less and less, hence those protests. It's going to be tough. It's going to be really, really difficult. And the barrier to entry is not that difficult, really, to be a competitor to these guys. They have got -- and they're trying to figure out unique ways to make money on the data and stuff like that. CAVUTO: Leverage what they can. PAYNE: But it's going to be tough, yes. PAYNE: I thought it was absolutely remarkable. I think couple things here. I mean, that held us hostage this week, for good reason. CAVUTO: Right. PAYNE: A week ago, we assumed it was done. We were talking about last Friday, I would have been, Neil, done deal, Rose Garden celebration. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: But I will say this. You weren't worried about it. It wasn't dominating your theme on whether you liked or disliked the market. PAYNE: No, it wasn't, because I always get back to the fundamentals. CAVUTO: Right. PAYNE: Particularly in America, the backdrop of our economic -- our economy right now, Neil, wages are soaring, blue-collar worker wages are soaring. CAVUTO: Right. PAYNE: The 3.2 percent GDP growth. I think we're an economic juggernaut right now that continues to get better and better and better. Trade is a small portion of what we do, and this is a fight, I think a time that's come. And it goes beyond trade, let's face it. CAVUTO: Yes. PAYNE: There are implications, military implications, the ability to be the world's reserve currency. There are whole lot of implications. CAVUTO: There's a lot on the line. PAYNE: Yes, a lot on the line. CAVUTO: That's why I don't understand your support for Bernie Sanders. (LAUGHTER) CAVUTO: Kidding. Kidding. I don't know. All right. PAYNE: Bernie's got some unique ideas. CAVUTO: Yes, he does. Yes, he does. PAYNE: Yes. CAVUTO: Yes, he does, as do you, my friend, Charles Payne, right on the money all the time. PAYNE: Thanks. CAVUTO: In the meantime, shoppers are getting ready to pay more at stores, as China gets ready for its move. After this. I don't know, but I can guarantee you this. It'll be a heck of a lot more than you give dad for Father's Day. Gen Hexed is here to say why they're -- they hate their fathers -- after this. (LAUGHTER) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: All right, bracing ourselves for those 25 percent tariffs. Remember, governments don't pay them. You do. Now, a lot of businesses will try not to pass it all along to you, but it will affect you. Robert Gray, if it comes to pass, at a Best Buy in Los Angeles. Hey, Robert. ROBERT GRAY, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil. That's right. Now, this could be ground zero for a lot of those tariffs. We will hit that in a second. I mean, keep in mind, electronics, bicycles, toys, furniture, you name it, made in China being slapped with fresh tariffs up to 25 percent or something elevated up to 25 percent. It's going to affect $40 billion in consumer goods. And if this is passed along to consumer, well, and one economist saying it's going to be about 500 bucks per household per year just off the tariffs alone in added cost as they get passed along. And we're not just talking made in China, but things made with parts in China could also be slapped with this. You will be looking for the goods that were shipped before midnight last night, because that's when it went into effect. Unclear if all products will be hit, though. Analysts are saying Apple may be spared. So if you're looking for a new iPhone, it may help you. Gene Munster, a widely followed analyst at Loup Ventures, saying that Apple is seen by the president as a sign of U.S. strength in business, and they also have a good working relationship. And keep in mind Apple was spared from tariffs last fall. So, we will see how this falls out as a case-by-case basis. If hit, though, Munster is saying Apple would eat those costs initially. Many small businesses won't have that luxury, though, as they're having to pay more for goods. They will have to pass it along to folks. And some folks like farmers say they're getting hit coming and going, Neil. They're paying higher prices for steel products -- think of tractors -- and then of course, ag prices falling, as they're being hit with tariffs on some of the agricultural products in China. So, it will be interesting to see how this shakes out. And think about stores like Best Buy. Lastly, Neil, they have razor-thin margins, about 5 percent. And almost all the goods that they're selling are made in China. So you will be paying more, no doubt, at the till pretty soon if you're buying stuff from Best Buy and other retailers -- back to you. CAVUTO: All right, thank you, Robert Gray. Let's go to Jerry Storch, a former Toys 'R' Us CEO, of Storch Advisors now. It's interesting. I have always found toys to be a unique product, because parents won't nickel-and-dime when it comes to their kids, we're told, at least. And I understand that. GERALD STORCH, FORMER CEO, TOYS 'R' US: Well, toys are one category that is heavily concentrated on Chinese production. CAVUTO: Right. STORCH: It's probably one of the highest I can think of. So prices for toys will definitely go up if that next round of tariffs goes into effect. So I think we have to keep track of what's happened yet and what hasn't happened yet. So, that's not now. What's happened so far is an increase on tariffs on the goods that were already tariffed. And really that was a blip on the radar effect. CAVUTO: You're right. STORCH: It didn't affect very much, if we're straight about it. Sure, there were individual companies affected by it, but not much, and not much on the consumer. The next round, if it's put into place, would have more of effect. But companies will work hard to shift that production. And for most categories, a lot of that has already occurred, as China is no longer the low-cost producer it once was. For toys, for bicycles, it still made in China for quite some time to come. CAVUTO: You know, I think I was seeing an ad by one retailer in the newspaper saying, buy now before you will have to pay more. Now, I don't know how many do that on a widespread basis, because I think it loses its impact when people get into these gobbledygook arguments. Because a lot of retailers were preparing for this by building up their inventories, putting more on their shelves, just in case. A lot of people said that's why the first-quarter GDP was as strong as it was. STORCH: Well, I certainly think that it would be retail malpractice not to have tried to bring goods and inventory and build up what you had when you knew the tariffs were coming. You didn't just wake up this morning and go, oh, there might tariffs. I mean, this has been talked about for a very long time. CAVUTO: Yes. STORCH: And so many companies certainly have been working on this. Meanwhile, again, I want to reinforce that many companies have been moving production outside of China for years, both because it's no longer as cheap as it once was to make product there, but also to diversify their sources of production. So it's only certain categories that are so heavily affected. And I am always amazed at the flexibility and responsiveness of capitalism. CAVUTO: Yes, you're right. STORCH: So, if there is a short-term blip in certain categories, it'll move fast. CAVUTO: OK. STORCH: And, in that regard, the president might get -- he might get exactly what he wants, which is the production will shift out of China to other countries. CAVUTO: All right, Jerry, thank you very much. To Jerry's point, we should tell you that a number of people have been doing that. GoPro, for example, moved some of its Asian operations to Guadalajara, Mexico. We have also seen Steve Madden shoes moving from Cambodia to other parts in the Southeast Asia as well, or to Cambodia. This is a trend that we're seeing pick up steam, including Foxconn that might start making Apple phones in India. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY: Two years of exhaustive investigation, and nothing to establish the fanciful conspiracy theory that Democratic politicians and TV talking heads had treated like a foregone conclusion. They told everyone there had been a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Yet, on this central question, the special counsel's funding is clear: Case closed. Case closed. (END VIDEO CLIP) CAVUTO: Well, apparently, Senate Intelligence Chairman Republican Richard Burr didn't get that memo, because now he is among those coming under fire by Republicans to try and subpoena Donald Trump Jr. Let's go to former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, also at Fox News contributor, more important to us. TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: Two things. Number one, the fact that Richard Burr is issuing a subpoena means the attempts to negotiate a voluntary appearance failed. I know Richard Burr pretty well. He's not an ambitious person. He's not running for reelection. He's one of the few senators not running for president either now or in the future. So if he's sending a subpoena, that tells me that private negotiations for a voluntary appearance failed. The Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence of criminal collusion a long time ago. You ought to be forgiven for maybe not remembering that, because it didn't get a lot of play in the D.C. media, but the Senate Intelligence Committee long ago said no criminal collusion. Richard Burr is not investigating obstruction of justice, because he's not a prosecutor. That leaves two things, election security and the report that he has yet to publish. And my suspicion is, there is testimonial discrepancy between witnesses. And chairman Burr is wanting to give one of those witnesses an opportunity to clarify, amplify, otherwise correct a discrepancy. He did it with Jared Kushner. CAVUTO: Right. GOWDY: Remember, Kushner came back a second time. I think that's what Richard Burr is trying to do. CAVUTO: Well, where in confused, he obviously had to know the Republican wrath he would face for doing so, or recommending that he do so. And I'm wondering if the report itself, the Mueller report, has anything to do with it, and anything attributed to Donald Trump Jr. that doesn't jibe with his closed-door meeting with the same committee. GOWDY: Well, I think, if Senator Burr were here, he would say he has great respect for the executive branch and their ability to conduct investigations, but he's a member of a co-equal branch that also has a responsibility. CAVUTO: Yes. GOWDY: And I do understand that a lot of our focus has been on that alleged collusion angle, but it has never been the focus of a conversation I had with Senator Burr. He has always been much more interested in the counterintelligence and the election security component. Remember, the Senate Intelligence Committee said no collusion before Mueller did. I mean, this is old news to them. So I appreciate what Majority Leader McConnell said about case closed. It's been closed on collusion for Richard Burr for months. That's where I'm a little confused. GOWDY: Witness discrepancies. I would be willing to bet that one witness said the light was red, another witness said the light was green. He's about to publish a report that is going to be consumed by everyone, and he wants the report to be fulsome. So if you have witness discrepancy, the fair thing to do is to give those witnesses a chance to say, I had inaccurate recollection or misrecollection, my recollection has been refreshed. The only way to do that is to invite the witness to come back in voluntarily. Apparently, that did not work. Your next option, which I think Burr was pretty reluctant to use, is a subpoena. When this final story is written, Neil, I think you will find that he offered a voluntary, it didn't work out, and this has nothing to do with collusion or obstruction. CAVUTO: Right. GOWDY: It is about writing a report that you can have confidence in. GOWDY: Well, I -- Donald Trump Jr. appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and acquitted himself extremely well. He's appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee. I would -- I think the president's correct to not allow witnesses to go in front of Nadler and Schiff and people who wanted to impeach him. GOWDY: I think if there is a factual discrepancy that he has the ability to clear up, keeping in mind he has no criminal exposure. Richard Burr can't prosecute him for anything, no criminal exposure, no collusion. That leaves election security and writing a report. CAVUTO: Trey Gowdy, thank you very much. Have a good weekend. GOWDY: Yes, sir. You too. Thank you. CAVUTO: All right, in the meantime, our Gen Hexed is really hexed today, especially over what to get mom for Sunday. We got attorney Natalie Elisha Gold here, "Blood in the Streets" author Dion Baia, my own sound wingman as well, and The Washington Examiner's Tiana. TIANA LOWE, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: It depends on what the competitors are, and the issue being that, whenever we're talking about these imports, especially from Chinese production, it means that all the competitors become more expensive. And that's where I think the buck stops here. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: Assuming they all come from China. LOWE: Yes, exactly. We are addicted to the almighty iPhone. Because Sprint will just tell me it's $4 more a month to lease the phone. Am I going to stop using the iPhone, which by the way, Steve Jobs made a statement to -- come on. CAVUTO: There is that. DION BAIA, CORRESPONDENT: I don't -- I don't feel like people will make the correlation, especially young people, that it is related to China. At the end of the day, people will pay more for anything. Every year, it seems like prices are going up on the inflation with everything. I think they probably expect that it won't. (CROSSTALK) ELISHA GOLD: Yes. Look, people think that this is not really going to make a big change in their life, but here's the deal. Good luck. ELISHA GOLD: Of course. CAVUTO: Because you're a lawyer. Your probably... ELISHA GOLD: Of course. And I'm a wealth preservation expert. So, I'm always looking at the prices. But if -- an iPhone, we can do work from it. We can build our office from this device. BAIA: I think we're addicted to this technology, if we like it or not. ELISHA GOLD: Yes. BAIA: And no matter what... (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: But it's beyond technology. This is 1,000 different products. (CROSSTALK) BAIA: And I think, well, yes, it goes to that too. But I think, if we want it, we're going to pay for it no matter what. LOWE: Just as we have transitioned away from having home lines, I know people who do not have cell phone numbers. All they use is iMessage through their e-mails, through their computers. BAIA: Wow. CAVUTO: Wow. ELISHA GOLD: Wow. I guess not. (LAUGHTER) CAVUTO: There's another story that kind of interested me, guys. Microsoft is apparently testing a new version of Word. It uses artificial intelligence to check if you're not only grammatically correct, but politically correct. ELISHA GOLD: This is so plain vanilla. Dion, you and I are both authors. Unbelievable. What I'm going to be writing is now going to be streamlined every time. Talk -- sometimes, you need a four-letter expletive. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: I have read his book. And that would be a problem. (LAUGHTER) BAIA: And I also think that's the other -- the other big thing is I think that we're going to find out later on that they will be cataloging everything, like, you find out with Facebook, when you like something or whichever -- me and you were talking. Our private messages, it's all being catalogued and remembered. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: We don't privately message. Don't act like we're buds. BAIA: I know. I know. That's a lie. I'm saying, how the heck can they judge what is... BAIA: Well, it's an algorithm. (CROSSTALK) LOWE: What they want to do is they want to de-gender society, which I don't really care about from a political perspective, except for the fact that it becomes extremely rhetorically clunky. If you have ever tried to write about two groups of people, an actor and an actress, and you don't want to say their name every single time, having a gender difference is helpful. Oh, wait, that's actually happening already. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: We were thinking of this. Just call a congressman a congressperson, unspoken agreement a gentleman's agreement. Get rid of that. That's sexist. BAIA: It seems like it's another hurdle you're going to have to go through where someone's going to be tapping you on the back, saying, this is wrong. You're doing that wrong. (CROSSTALK) ELISHA GOLD: And here's the thing. As a woman who's empowered, I want to be known as an empowered woman. I want to be out there, not just be a gender-neutral thing. See, that will come up in the Word. ELISHA GOLD: Of course not. Of course not. BAIA: I am empowered. ELISHA GOLD: Of course not. We have to empower all of us together. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: Now we're empowered to talk about Mother's Day this weekend. The one thing that shocks me is that we spend a lot more on mom than we do dad. BAIA: No, I think that's a really good thing. I think we need love in this world. And I think it's nice. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: I know, but there's a lot less love for dad. LOWE: Women are inherently materialist. It's just a thing about us. ELISHA GOLD: Well, I also think, as a mom -- I have a nine-month-old. And believe you, my husband will be the first person to tell you, Natalie does 90 percent of the work. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: I don't care if you're doing 90 percent of the work. I want the... (LAUGHTER) BAIA: I think it's also -- it's just -- it's another way of expressing thank you. And men sometimes just suck it up and do it. I think it's a little... (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: You have issues. You have issues. BAIA: Well, it's the silent job. Apparently, we're spending record amounts this year on mom. ELISHA GOLD: Here's what I would tell people. Just skip the flowers CAVUTO: OK. ELISHA GOLD: And buy instead a wealth asset, so, a beautiful bag. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: Or maybe the new Microsoft Word. BAIA: That's politically correct now. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: You can't say... (CROSSTALK) BAIA: I know. CAVUTO: All right, guys, I want to thank you all. I'm sorry we truncated this, with all the breaking news. But we are getting some more news now on this trade war that has yet actually to be waged. But there are some interesting behind-the-scenes developments. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: Everyone is waiting for the next products that are going to get hit. And Jeff Flock knows it, reporting from Illinois right now. Hey, Jeff. JEFF FLOCK, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK CORRESPONDENT: Retaliatory tariffs, Neil, by China on U.S. imports, and hog farmers hit hardest by them. And the president tweeted today -- and I will read it for you -- "Tariffs will actually make our country much stronger, not weaker. Just sit back and watch." I just want to give one farmer one opportunity to respond. We have been watching for a year-and-a-half. I would say farmers are out of patience, both economically and emotionally. And this week certainly did not end up as we had hoped. FLOCK: Brian Duncan. I'm going to leave it right there. We're almost out of time on the broadcast, but important to hear the farmer's tale on this, Neil. They have not had an easy time. A tough one -- Neil. CAVUTO: And your reporting today has been outstanding on this, because people forget there's a group that has been feeling the impact of this for a long, long time. They don't have to wait for something. It's been very real, very palpable, and very painful. Thank you very, very much, Jeff Flock. We are all over the trade impact of this, because, for now, it might be limited to agricultural items feeling the pinch, and the U.S. is trying to help them out any way it can. Ten a.m. Eastern time tomorrow, we're all over it, the impact on you, your money and the next time you go shopping. Here's "The Five." Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/how-could-the-us-china-trade-war-impact-consumers |
Is it time for Trump to declassify materials on campaign spying? | This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 14, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: A loving human being -- Tim Conway was 85 years old. TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. Beto O'Rourke, we are set to tell you has changed. He is not the boyish carefree road tripper with the Primo weed hookup you might remember from just a few months ago, that Beto is gone maybe forever. The new Beto is far more serious, even angry. Well climate change obviously, and border walls and bigotry and uptight old people who don't understand that skateboarding is not a crime. Also that buzz kill Pete Buttigieg or whatever his name who snuck up and stole his spot in the presidential rankings. That was annoying as hell. But mostly what Beto is mad at is Beto. Beto has had some free time recently being unemployed. So he looked inside and came to the conclusion that actually, he's a pretty mediocre person, not a good guy at all, pretty much an awful human being. Most people would keep that knowledge to themselves, not Beto. He went on "The View" today to tell everyone. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MEGHAN MCCAIN, COHOST, THE VIEW: You did a "Vanity Fair" cover to announce your campaign and you said you were, quote, "Born to be in it." You went across the country alone on a road trip after you lost your election and you said you quote, "Sometimes help raise your kids." These are things in my mind that a female candidate wouldn't be able to get away with. Do you think you can get away with more because you're a man and do you have any regrets about launching on the cover of "Vanity Fair?" BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You're right. There are things that I have been privileged to do in my life that others cannot. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: You're right said Beto, male privilege is real. I should know all those cool fun things I've done in my life, I only did them because I'm a man. And I feel bad about that. So bad that I've had a committee of diversity consultants drafting awkwardly written statement of moral culpability, which I will now read to you with feigned sincerity in the hope that it's sufficient atonement for my sense, here we go. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O'ROURKE: This systematic foundational discrimination that we have in this country in every aspect of life is something that I have not experienced in my lifetime. And I've had advantages that others could not enjoy. Now you know the truth. He is not. And he is deeply ashamed of that, because it's morally superior to be discriminated against as the rich and pampered ladies of "The View," who are also somehow victims can and will tell you. But whatever, Beto can't help it if people don't hate him for who he is, that's the downside of privilege, people like you too much. All Beto can do is try harder to be despised as much as he despises himself, which he has pledged to do. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O'ROURKE: I have my work cut out for me to be a better person and ensure that I'm more mindful to the experiences that others have had different than experiences that I've had. JOY BEHAR, COHOST, THE VIEW: So what those things -- MCCAIN: We were at the "Vanity Fair" cover. Would you say those are mistakes being on the cover of "Vanity Fair?" What's the -- O'ROURKE: Yes, yes, I think it reinforces that perception of privilege and that headline that said, I was born to be in this and the article is attempting to say that that I felt that my calling was in public service. No one is born to be President of the United States of America. Least of all me. O'ROURKE: Yes, so listen. BEHAR: That's a flack of that one. O'ROURKE: Absolutely, and I deserved it. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: I deserved it. Just so we're clear on this, the lady who makes millions talking about herself on a TV show every day disapproves of Beto appearing on a magazine cover, because it's quote, "elitist," and Beto fervently agrees with her. Of course he does. There is no criticism of Beto that Beto does not agree with. Back in March, he apologized profusely for saying that his wife had raised their three kids. Beto does, and he is really, truly, sincerely sorry he said it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O'ROURKE: Not only will I not say that, I can't do it, but I'll be much more thoughtful going forward in the way that I talk about our marriage and also the way in which I acknowledge the truth of the criticism that I have enjoyed white privilege. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: "I have enjoyed white privilege." There you go. He acknowledged it. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke for your candor. We'll get to those details in our next round of questioning. But in the meantime, we don't want to give you the impression that Beto is the only one groveling here, far from it. They all are. For Democrats in 2019, to run is to grovel. Here is Mayor Pete of South Bend, remembering with sadness and horror the one time years ago, when he suggested that all human life had value. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In 2015, you said that all lives mattered when you spoke about two police controversies that were happening in South Bend. PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I did not understand at that time was that that phrase just early into mid especially 2015 was coming to be viewed as a sort of counter slogan to Black Lives Matter. And so this statement that seems very anodyne, and something that kind of nobody could be against actually wound up being used to devalue what the Black Lives Matter movement was telling us. Since learning about how that phrase was being used to push back on that activism, I stopped using that. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Yes, I've stopped. And here's center Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, calling in artillery on her own position, after an NBC researcher discovered that she had once supported national borders, seriously. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: You essentially said that you were embarrassed about your previous position on immigration. Tell me about that. SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I don't think it was driven from my heart. I was callous to the suffering of families who want to be with their loved ones, people who want to be reunited with their families and I recognize as we all do, that immigration and diversity is our strength as a country. I really regretted that I didn't look beyond my district and talk about why this is an important part of the United States' story. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: "I was callous. I was heartless. Don't hate me. I hate myself enough." Well, thank you for sharing, Kirsten. Good luck with your self- esteem issues. Joe Biden is a good quarter century older than Senator Gillibrand who herself is older than a lot of the Democratic candidates. So you'd think Biden would be old enough he would have earned the right not to say he is sorry. But think again. Age is now itself something to apologize for and Biden did. Biden grew up at a time before human warmth was reclassified as a criminal act, and he's very, very sorry for that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Social norms have begun to change, they have shifted and the boundaries of protecting personal space have been resent and I get it. I get it. I hear what they are saying. I will be more mindful and respectful of people's personal space. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: We could go on with the orgy of apology. Kamala Harris apologizing for putting criminals in jail. Bernie Sanders apologizing for how women were treated on his last campaign, even as he denied they were mistreated. Amy Klobuchar apologizing for once wanting pizza in school lunches, et cetera. Tomorrow, all of them will be apologizing for something new. In a world of that forgiveness, this is a cycle that continues forever. No self-abasement is ever enough. The left has become a kind of rolling inquisition with the bottomless appetite for ritual punishment and humiliation. Tell us you've been naughty. This is sick. These people have no dignity. They have no self-respect, there is nothing they won't say, nothing they won't admit to whether it's true or not. They despise themselves. Be careful of people like that. They're likely to feel the same way about you. Tammy Bruce is a radio host and President of the Independent Women's Forum and she joins us tonight for an analysis of what exactly is going on here. TAMMY BRUCE, CONTRIBUTOR: You know, it's fascinating because it's one thing to apologize if you've hurt someone's feelings, but we have now been watching these individuals debase themselves, for being themselves. They're begging for forgiveness for existing and I think that this is a side effect, if you will, of the entire Democratic foundation and policy ideas, which are based in this notion that humanity itself is a problem and you can go back to climate change, that the climate is being destroyed because of our activity and you can you can just look at the nature of the Obama terms of bowing, apologizing for America around the world that we were the source of all the problems, and that we were effectively that the main issue and the main problem. So you've got this history for the last decade or so and we saw hints of it like with political correctness. The inference there is that even what we think, or what we might naturally want to say, is automatically racist, sexist and homophobic. The Cultural Revolution in China, where people experienced that same kind of attack. The nature of having to condemn yourself. I can't wait for the Democratic debates, Tucker, to where maybe they'll all be in stock hates, and then they'll have to be talking with their head in that that clapper thing, I mean, I can't wait. CARLSON: Well, that's it. I mean, it's a kind of weird sadomasochism. BRUCE: It is. CARLSON: I mean, if we're being blunt about it, it is. It's creepy as hell. BRUCE: Yes. BRUCE: That's what I was thinking when I was watching this clip of Mr. O'Rourke on "The View." Leadership takes confidence. We see that in Donald Trump all the time, which is why I think he is so off-putting to so many people. You need confidence. You've got to exude confidence. When world leaders and tyrants see a man who is bowing to them, or a person who arrives saying "Please, mommy don't hurt me," they're going to think they've got the upper hand, and they probably do. And it's certainly is not leadership. And this is why the American people must see this unfolding, because it's not just these individuals, it's what the Democratic Party has delivered and now it's a monster they thought they were just going to give to the people. The monster has arrived home and is unloading on the monster creators at this point. CARLSON: It's totally right. They are all Mike Dukakis now. BRUCE: Yes. CARLSON: Tammy Bruce, great to see you tonight. Thank you. BRUCE: Thank you, sir. Thank you. CARLSON: Well, if you're doing well in the Democratic presidential race, you need to apologize for your privilege. Obviously, if you're doing badly, you still must apologize. But you also make excuses for how you are the victim here. Nobody has played this role more precisely than Senator Kirsten Gillibrand when she launched her campaign. Her victim card was that she was a quote, "young mom." Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GILLIBRAND: I'm going to run for President of the United States because as a young mom, I'm going to fight for other people's kids as hard as I would fight for my own. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Didn't work. Gillibrand is now pulling lower than pretty much anybody running for any office in America. So naturally, she just winds to CNN that voters are bigoted against, quote, "young women." Now not to be mean, but Gillibrand is older than I am. She is 52 years old. Barack Obama was younger than she was the night he beat Mitt Romney, it doesn't matter though. The quest for victimhood trumps everything, including fact. Mollie Hemingway knows that well. She's a senior editor at "The Federalist," and she joins us tonight. Mollie, thanks a lot for coming on. Is there any market on the Democratic side for someone who says no, "I am who I am, and if you don't like it, there's nothing I can do about it," and who just sort of straightforwardly presents a program without whining, without apologizing, without being a victim. MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, CONTRIBUTOR: Can I just first say yes, what you just showed was amazing and I think it shows what the problem is that the media are so much in alliance with the Democratic Party that sometimes people aren't told when they say things that make them seem ridiculous. I think someone needs to sit Gam-Gam down and let her know she lost the 2016 election fair and square to Donald Trump. Someone needs to explain to Stacey Abrams that she is not the Governor of Georgia, and someone needs to explain to Kirsten Gillibrand, there's nothing wrong with being 52 at all. I hope I have a good time when I'm 52. That is not young. It doesn't make you a young mother. And I think someone just needs to say that. CARLSON: Well, I mean as someone who is turning 50 in two days, I can tell you, it's not even middle age. I mean, it's post-middle age, unless you plan to live to 104. HEMINGWAY: There might technological advances that enable people to live longer, but that is just not young. CARLSON: But I mean, you sort of wonder and again, I'm not being mean, I respect to old people. There's nothing -- she doesn't seem old to me. But you wonder, was there a meeting where she said, "Okay, I'm going to go with the young mom thing," and nobody said, "Hi, it doesn't really apply to you, Senator." HEMINGWAY: But I do think it gets to this issue. You're either going to run on identity politics or you're not. And it sounds like Joe Biden is taking that lane that's not based on identity politics, and if you are doing the identity politics lane, she has got a difficult one. She's not the only woman. She's not the only white woman. She's not the youngest person. I mean, Pete Buttigieg is doing much better, 15 years younger than she is. So if you're going to do identity politics, she needs to come up with a better gimmick than being young and a woman. CARLSON: But why would you do -- I mean, identity politics is obviously the first choice for dumb people who don't have anything to sell other than their innate qualities. But it doesn't work that well. HEMINGWAY: I think it actually does work pretty well in the Democratic primary. It's just that when there are so many candidates, it's not sufficient. And so she needs to build a coalition and she needs to not blame other people. The idea that being a woman is a problem in the Democratic Party is unfair to the Democratic Party. They just nominated a woman a few years ago to be President. So it's not like that's a legitimate excuse. And I think maybe people are more upset with her, for instance for how she got Al Franken to leave the Senate or other things that make people feel like she is not a good team player or a Democratic Party member. CARLSON: Well, she's also -- she's like a transparent phony. She is a ridiculous figure. I mean -- HEMINGWAY: She changes her mind a lot. CARLSON: Yes, she does. You'd think -- look, you're not going to be President. But you know, whatever. I'm not her adviser. Mollie, it's great to see you. HEMINGWAY: Great to see you. CARLSON: Thank you. Well, the Attorney General has appointed a prosecutor to investigate how the FBI used Russia to justify spying on a presidential campaign, which they did. Someone who knows him joins us after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Well, for two years the Russia hoax completely dominated Washington. Virtually everything in American politics and American government were subservient to it. Now we may finally find out how that hoax began and how it so easily escalated to spying on the FBI's political enemies. Yesterday, the Attorney General William Barr appointed Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead the investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. Howie Carr is a radio show host. He knows Durham and he joins us tonight for some perspective on him. Howie, thanks a lot for coming on. HOWIE CARR, RADIO SHOW HOST: I talked to some of the people worked with him today and Tucker, everybody is very happy with this assignment. He was brought into Boston about 20 years ago to handle two generations of endemic corruption in the Boston FBI office and there was a particularly terrible case where the FBI in the '60s had framed four guys for a murder they didn't commit. Everybody knew they were innocent. And the two U.S. Attorney's at the time that didn't do anything to get these guys out of prison, even though everyone knew they were not guilty were Robert Mueller and William Weld who is now running for President. You know, he actually sent a letter to the state saying these guys should be kept in prison, even though again, it was well known they were innocent. Well, Durham comes to town and the case starts unraveling and he is the one who after 30-plus years, these guys had -- innocent men had been imprisoned, a couple of them on death row. He is the one who brought it to the judge and set in motion the exoneration of them and it led to a $102 million civil lawsuit victory for them against the Feds. He did a great job and you know -- he understands the corruption in the FBI and he has also -- he's worked for two Democrat Attorneys General on special cases like this and two Republican Attorneys General. And one case was this case in Boston with the FBI corruption and two of the other cases involved the CIA and I think it's pretty clear to most people that this this hoax as you put it had its genesis and the FBI and most likely the CIA. So I think he is a really good guy for the job, but he understands what he's up against. When he came to Boston, he saw how corrupt and sordid the entire situation was. So he moved his entire base of operations to Worcester, you know, 30 to 40 miles away, just to keep a hands off attitude towards the city. He is a very smart guy. CARLSON: So he sounds like the guy -- I mean, if you were a corrupt FBI official, he is the last guy you'd want looking into you it sounds like. CARR: If I were a corrupt FBI or CIA official, I think I might be pricing apartments at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London right about now. CARLSON: Wouldn't that be nice to see. Oh my god. Howie Carr, thank you for that. That's interesting as hell. Thank you. CARR: Thanks, Tucker. CARLSON: Well, we have some exclusive details for you tonight related to the Russia probe. In a letter obtained by this show, an attorney who represents longtime Trump adviser, Roger Stone has asked the White House to declassify any materials that would reveal whether Stone was spied upon by the FBI. There is some evidence that he was and if he indeed was, he would, of course join Carter Page and Paul Manafort as individuals connected to the Trump campaign, who were spied on without their knowledge. So far, the White House has not commented on that letter. Michael Caputo is a former Trump campaign adviser, and he joins us tonight. Michael, thanks a lot for coming on. So this is a pretty straightforward request. It's an interesting request. MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, first, I want to make sure it's understood that I I'm not in contact with Roger Stone. He is best friend, but the court won't allow me to speak to him. I haven't spoken to him or contacted him in any way since the day he was arrested. CARLSON: And then let me just say, since I think we have a First Amendment still in this country, I don't know if ... CAPUTO: We do. CARLSON: ... the judge acknowledge that. CAPUTO: I don't. I don't. CAPUTO: Right, and I know of course, I've never -- they didn't ever send me to the grand jury, the Mueller team. I'm not on any witness list, but for some reason, I think it's in vindictive, we're not allowed to speak to each other. Roger and I have known each other for 30-plus years. Sometimes we talked six or seven times a day. He talked me off the ceiling, I talk to him off the ceiling in stressful times. But I haven't spoken to him since the day that he was arrested. I'm still kind of shocked about that. But I can tell you, I really believe that what the attorney for Roger Stone requested should be granted. In my opinion, it's not just Roger Stone, it is Carter Page whose surveillance documents need to be revealed. I mean, Roger may not -- you know, by the time this investigation of the Department of Justice is over, which is when we might see this material at the earliest, Roger Stone's trial may already be over. In fact, it probably will be. So, you know un-redacting them and releasing them at that point, doesn't help Roger Stone at all, it doesn't reveal all of the chicanery and probably law-breaking that went into surveilling Roger Stone, but it's the same with Carter Page. And by the way, General Flynn in some way, shape, or form as well. There are a lot -- there was a lot of surveillance going on, and we need to know what it is and we need to know now. That's what I don't understand. And General Flynn, you're exactly right. I mean, the Trump campaign was spied upon by the Obama administration. We know this. CAPUTO: Well, a lot of this I don't understand because if you remember about three or four months ago, the President said he was all set to declassify FISA documents and demanded e-mail or text messages between all the different FBI agents who were plotting this whole hoax. And we never saw that stuff. A lot of this stuff, I don't understand, but I'm sure the President has a plan. You know, I've just visited the President in the Oval Office recently, and without -- you know, we didn't talk about Roger Stone. We were both careful not to. The President knows he is my best friend and I know -- I met the President through Roger Stone in 1988. I know he is close with Roger. We were careful not even to mention his name. But I think the President is paying very close attention to this. And the letter from the lawyer, I think he might heat it. I mean -- let me tell you something. He and the First Lady knew chapter and verse of what my family went through, and I know the President is paying attention to far more people than just us. CARLSON: Yes, it would be nice to see some pardons, a pardon of Roger Stone to begin. Michael, great to see you tonight. CAPUTO: I'm real worried about Don, Jr. with this Senate Committee. I really do. CARLSON: I agree. The whole thing is insane. It rolls on. CAPUTO: It is. CARLSON: This is a zombie investigation. Great to see it. Thank you. CAPUTO: Thanks, Tucker. Please, spare us. Details and that. Plus, part two of our "Homeless in America" series. We will explore how the epidemic is devastating one of California's poorest cities after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: Well, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has big plans for himself. He already runs the country's largest city, but he wants more, he wants to be President of the country and to get there he is pushing his own version of the Green New Deal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL DE BLASIO, D-N.Y., MAYOR: The New York City Green New Deal is here to stay. It is bold. It is audacious. It is necessary. And we're making it happen here in the biggest city in the country. CROWD: (Chanting "Our planet, not your profit.") (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: De Blasio cares deeply about the planet and the environment. That's what he says. But the reality if you've been to New York, you know is that his own city is drowning in garbage. It's filthy. It stinks. A new video shows the disgusting state of the city subways, once clean. Mayor de Blasio's enlightened management, this is what they look like. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is how the trains would be looking in the morning. This is how the trains would be looking in the morning, and this is [bleep] crazy. [Bleep] stupid and they want us to pay more money. Look at this. This is crazy. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: It is crazy. De Blasio says he loves the environment, and he really cares; he doesn't. Like everyone in his position, he cares about the environment to the extent it gives him more power when it's about fighting global warming or some other excuse to have more control over your life. But when it comes to keeping parks clean or protecting people from having to live in filth or picking up garbage off the sidewalks, he doesn't care. It doesn't give him power, so he doesn't do it. California has more homeless than any other state, but 130,000 people are homeless every night in California. That's about a quarter of the national total. You'd think the leaders of the state of California would be obsessed with fixing this horrifying problem. But they aren't, they don't seem to care. The state doesn't come close to having enough homeless shelters so more than two thirds of the state's homeless have nowhere to go on a given night. One reason is the state's strict building codes and environmental regulations. They block the construction of new shelters. Without enough shelters, other problems like trash-filled homeless encampments and piles of needles are almost impossible to stop. A recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling blocks cops from prosecuting homeless people unless adequate shelter space is available. So you can see there's a kind of gridlock going on. And it's not just a problem in the City of San Francisco. Most of the states' homeless live outside of San Francisco or LA. In tonight's installment of homeless in America, we take a look at how bad the crisis has become in California's forgotten cities. This neighborhood in East Palo Alto, California is so close to Facebook's global headquarters that Mark Zuckerberg could ride his bike to it. Tech billionaires like Sergey Brin and Tim Cook live within 10 miles. But the people who live on Bay Road in East Palo Alto aren't quite as fortunate as their Silicon Valley neighbors. There's no place in America that better illustrates the massive inequality caused by our booming tech sector. On any given night, more than a hundred thousand people are homeless in the state of California. Nearly eight of ten of them live on the streets. One common explanation for rising homelessness is housing prices. As rents go up, people are forced onto the streets. But there's homelessness in poor areas, too. Consider Stockton, that's a city in California's Central Valley. The housing downturn hit Stockton so hard that the city filed for municipal bankruptcy in 2012. Current rent prices in some neighborhoods are as low as $680.00 a month, and yet our investigation found homeless people all over Stockton under overpasses next to highways along rivers and canals near downtown on the outskirts of town. Fifty miles north in Sacramento, the state capital, things are just as bad, maybe worse. Every public place we visited it in Sacramento had homeless people. A bike path along the American River downtown lined with tents. In one neighborhood just north of the city center, homeless Californians camp out near soup kitchens. Encampments on North Bee Street go on for a mile. What's striking about the homelessness in Sacramento is how prominent it is. It would be impossible to visit the city and not see it. There were people living at the Cesar Chavez Plaza right in the heart of downtown. This photo shows a multi-tent encampment literally at City Hall. The Public Library essentially functions as a day shelter. It's filled with homeless people charging their phones using computers, bathing in the bathroom. People were even living on the grounds of the State Capitol building when we visited. One issue is that the city doesn't have enough shelter space. Local officials are doing a terrible job of finding places to put people. The last city-run homeless shelter in Sacramento closed in April. Now, the shelter is going to be used as a marijuana cultivation and distribution center, of course. California tent cities should humiliate the state leaders. They don't seem humiliated. California Governor Gavin Newsom seems completely uninterested in his states' tent city boom. As his own constituents slept on the grounds of the State Capitol, Newsom went on a three-day fact finding trip. Newsom wanted to figure out what he could do to alleviate poverty in El Salvador. There's something we learned after filming that package. In Sacramento, homeless encampments have gotten so out of hand, they are threatening the structural integrity of the city's anti-flood levees. But America's homeless crisis goes far beyond California, sadly. Tomorrow night, we'll begin exploring the rest of the West Coast as our "Homeless in America" series continues. Well, the polls and all the cool kids on TV say Joe Biden is the Democratic favorite. Don't believe them. He can't win. We will tell you why, after the break. Plus, Washington appears to be gearing up for a war against Iran. We will try to find answers in just a minute. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: If you can remember back to May, four years ago right around this time, pretty much everyone in Washington assumed Jeb Bush was going to be the Republican nominee. He was the most experienced candidate in the race. He was up in the polls, he had the highest name ID, he'd raised the most money, blah, blah, blah. Looking back, it all sounds absurd, but at the time people really believed it. And then one day, the mirage evaporated and it became really obvious, impossible to deny that Jeb was doomed. He was not going to be President. The conventional wisdom turned out to be not simply wrong, but really stupid. Well, something very much like that just happened with Joe Biden. As of today, pretty much everyone paid to prognosticate on television still considers Biden the prohibitive front runner in the race, he checks every box; therefore he must get the nomination. That's how they think because they're dumb. What they're leaving out of the equation is Biden himself. Watch this video and ask yourself if Joe Biden is really going to be the Democratic nominee, much less President of the United States. It was shot yesterday in New Hampshire. Keep in mind, we have not altered it in any way. This is entirely real. Watch. BIDEN: I'll answer this question. The answer is, yes, I do. The President has done nothing but increase the tariffs, the debt and the trade deficit. The way you have to proceed is we have to have our allies with us. It's not just us, we have to keep the rest of the world together. Secondly, we should -- labor should be at the table as well as our allies, because that's the only thing and the fourth thing we should do is be focusing on the things that in fact, I've been talking about for a long time. China's greatest violation is the way in which they steal our intellectual property. We should make it quid pro quo as I've told when I was dealing with Xi Jinping. It should be simple. In America is the same thing. This idea of dealing with all -- the only people who are paying the price are farmers and working people right now. He's going about it all the wrong way. A lot of bravado, no action. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: But wait a second, you're saying to yourself, that didn't make any sense. Not a single phrase in a full minute of talking conveyed an intelligible idea, not one. That wasn't even word salad. It was a verbal Jackson Pollock painting -- nouns verbs, adjectives -- spilled like cans of paint, bleeding into each other in a sticky, postmodern mess. At one point, Biden actually jumped from point to directly to point four. Just to let you know that your old-fashioned linear assumptions about numerical sequencing are no good here, man. That's yesterday's mathematics. It was in a word bizarre, but here's the real headline. Ignore what they are telling you on television. Joe Biden is not going to be president. He probably won't be the Democratic nominee. He is not capable of it. There's no reason to be cruel and get more specific than that. But just watch Biden and ask yourself. Anyone who says that a guy -- that guy -- is going to win a presidential election at the age of nearly 78 is either lying or deluded, sorry. More than anything in the world, National Security adviser, John Bolton would love to have a war with Iran. It would be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, and his birthday wrapped into one. Well, mercifully, John Bolton doesn't command the military. President Trump does. Just last week, Bolton announced a Carrier Strike Force was being sent to the Persian Gulf to check Iran. Now the "New York Times" reports that the President has been presented with a plan to deploy 120,000 American troops to the Middle East. The President says that report is untrue. DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I think it's fake news, okay. Absolutely. But we not planned for that. Hopefully, we're not going to have to plan for that, and if we did that, we would send a hell of a lot more troops than that. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Okay, so obviously, this is fluid, but the larger question remains unanswered. It's time to start asking answering that question. Douglas MacGregor is a retired Army Colonel, author of the tremendous book, "A Margin of Victory," and a frequent guest in the show. He joins us today. Colonel, thanks very much for coming on. COLONEL DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, RET.,U.S. ARMY: Sure. MACGREGOR: Well, Tucker, we've got a manufactured crisis. There's nothing new in this intelligence. We've been operating in this area for several years now, the Iranians and we, we were both interested in destroying the same target, ISIS. CARLSON: Yes. MACGREGOR: And we always knew there was friction and hostility there. We've managed to avoid any problems. The Iranians have avoided any problems. So it's hard to buy the notion that we now have to have a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf, along with hundreds of aircraft flying in from all over the world in order to deter Iran from attacking us. There's no evidence that Iran wants to attack us. Quite the contrary, I think they'd like very much to avoid any conflict with us under any and all circumstances. MACGREGOR: Well, I think the people that were behind this that persuaded the President to take these actions are hoping, frankly, that if you put large numbers of forces from the United States in close proximity to Iran in a small area like the Persian Gulf -- the Gulf is only 220 miles wide -- that something will happen, that something will go wrong. It sort of looks like a Gulf of Tonkin incident with missiles in the making. It's hard to see how. I mean, the first question you should always ask before any action is taken, measure what you might gain by what you might lose. If so, I think that's ludicrous. I don't see any evidence of that happening. On the opposite, I think you're going to forced cohesion on all of the great continental powers against us. They're going to look at any action we might take against Iran as a precursor to future action we may take against them. So I don't see the President gaining from this, but I see that he loses. I don't see how he gets reelected. I don't see how he achieves anything in the Gulf that is positive whatsoever for the United States and the American people. CARLSON: But they are in our foreign policy establishment, it is a fairly large group, relatively speaking, a large group of people who are intent on a war with Iran. MACGREGOR: Yes, well, unfortunately, in the case of General McKenzie, who spoke not long ago in front of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, he described himself as a man with a bias for action. I'd much rather have a four-star with a bias for thinking. And right now, he should be very concerned about the secondary effects of anything we do in the Gulf. The Russians are not idle. They are watching this very carefully. If we take action, and we get into a killing spree with the Iranians, they will come in, and we will find ourselves without a backdoor to get out easily. The Chinese will also ship what they can, and by the way, the Turks who have no love for the Iranians may view this as something positive that they should participate in. This is not a good thing for the United States. CARLSON: And the people agitating for it right now -- MSNBC, CNN, Max Boot, Bill Kristol -- the usual suspects, none of whom have the country's interests at heart, I would argue. I mean, it's chilling. Colonel, thank you very much. MACGREGOR: Thank you. CARLSON: Great to see you. Well, the left used to care about the poor, now thanks to toxic rhetoric on privilege, they only care about the poor if they have the right skin color. Their science to prove that after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: From the first Roosevelt administration during the Depression and for a half a century afterward, Democrats were the party of the poor the working class. Now of course, that's completely changed. Instead of caring about class, the chief concern of the left is skin color. Some colors are good, some are bad, but don't take our word for it. A new study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology finds that after being taught about white privilege, fascinatingly, liberals feel less sympathy for poor white people. Instead, they're more likely to blame the poor for their problems, and view their poverty as a just outcome, probably not an accident. And of course you already know what the result of this kind of thinking has been -- a huge chunk of Middle America dying. J.D. Vance is the author of the bestselling book, "Hillbilly Elegy" and one of the smartest voices in what is becoming a new movement within conservatism. We're always happy to have him here. J.D. Vance, thanks a lot for coming on. J.D. VANCE, AUTHOR: Thank you. VANCE: Yes, that's exactly right. And if you get the study that you just cited, one of the craziest parts about it is that it doesn't -- talking about white privilege doesn't increase sympathy for poor black people. It just decreases sympathy for poor white. CARLSON: I know, exactly. VANCE: It has this incredibly divisive effect on our politics. It frankly destroys some of the solidarity, the national solidarity that you need to actually solve some of these bigger problems and it doesn't even help the people that it purports to help. This rhetoric is like pure division, no solution, and everybody loses. CARLSON: I would argue that not everybody loses. It actually exculpates, it lets off the hook on ruling class. So they've failed a huge chunk of their fellow Americans. They're in charge and the middle class is dying, but they don't have feel guilty about it because the middle class deserves it. VANCE: Yes, yes. So I find it's helpful to actually think about the real problems and who benefits from those problems and who might benefit from a solution. So very real problem in America right now is that if you're a black business owner to focus on problems of black Americans, it's really hard to get access to capital to grow your business. So notice the distraction, this white privilege discourse infects in our politics, it takes the focus away from the people who might actually solve the problem. It puts the focus on people who are also suffering from a very similar problem, and at the end of the day, nobody benefits. You're right, I guess the people who benefit are the people who are at the top of the system, but if you actually want to help the broad middle of the country, you don't talk like that you actually try to solve the problems of everyone. CARLSON: Right. And it also hides all kinds of bad effects that their policies have brought to our middle and working classes. So if you're, you know, a working class black person, immigration doesn't help you in any sense, it helps rich people. But a ruling class makes the conversation about race, so all of a sudden, you feel like you've got to be in favor of this because there's some sort of solidarity, which is false. VANCE: Yes. One of the pretty consistent findings is that the biggest problem with low-wage, low-skilled immigration is that it has a competitive effect for black Americans on the lower end of the income scale. CARLSON: Yes. VANCE: That's the group of people that low-wage and low-skilled immigration is worse for. Again, it's good for people who are employing the low-skilled workers. And so if you again distract from the people who are benefiting from the problem, and you put the onus on a group of people who are also suffering from low-wage, low-skill competition, then you manage to build up the elites. And of course, you don't actually solve any of the real problems. CARLSON: But you insulate the people telling the lies from the blame, which is why they're so wedded to their stupid identity politics because it shields them from any kind of real scrutiny. VANCE: Unfortunately, I don't. I mean, I think that Joe Biden seems to not be preoccupied with identity politics in the way that somebody like Kamala Harris, or you know, Elizabeth Warren might be, so no, unfortunately, I don't. I mean, the person who is probably least interested in identity politics is Biden. Maybe it's Bernie Sanders. But at the end of the day, I think there is this weird way in which the left wing commentary on Twitter that is obsessed with identity politics, has forced the Democratic political elite to divorce itself from who its actual voters are. I mean, if you're a middle class, a black Democrat from Charleston, South Carolina, you simply do not care about shouting white privilege at everybody and the polls consistently show that. Polls consistently show that middle class black voters are less radical on racial issues than the elites of the Democratic Party. CARLSON: They are less radical on every issue. VANCE: On every issue. CARLSON: The most conservative sector in the Democratic coalition is black voters. Period. VANCE: Yes, and the most important sector of the entire Democratic vote, and yet the Democratic elites have allowed themselves to get divorced from that base, in the same way, frankly, that Republican elites have allowed them to get divorced from their own base. And my own view on this is that to make that work, Tucker, you need what I call class traitors. CARLSON: Yes. VANCE: You need some people, either from the Democratic elite or from the Republican elite who say, "Enough of this. We're not going to talk about these issues in the way the elites want us to. We're going to talk about them in the way that the middle of the country actually wants to." CARLSON: Those people who you just described are always welcome on this show. Always. You're first on that list. J.D. Vance, great to see you tonight. VANCE: Thanks, Tucker. CARLSON: We will be back tomorrow. We're out of time, amazingly. But you can count on it, 8:00 p.m. Wednesday night, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. We will be back then. Have a fantastic night. Good night from Washington. Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/is-it-time-for-trump-to-declassify-materials-on-campaign-spying |
Will the US intervene militarily in Venezuela? | This is a rush transcript from "Your World," May 3, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Now, you are probably wondering why we were opening a show showing the launch of Apollo 11 back in 1969. That's when man landed on the moon just a couple of days later. Well, here's why. We now have an unemployment rate that was the same as around 1969, December 1969, some months after we walked on the moon. But that's how far back you would have to go to see an unemployment rate this low and some would argue an economy firing all cylinders, almost like Saturn V cylinders, like this right now. Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And out of this world, an employment report that shocked everybody and seemed to confirm this recovery is not slowing down. It is interstellar. FOX on top of jobs that are way over the top. We have got John Roberts at the White House, where the president is doing a little bit of crowing. We have also got FOX Business Network's Deirdre Bolton on the records these numbers are now breaking. We begin with John. Hey, John. JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil. We all know that you showed the launch of Apollo 11 because you are truly a space junkie. CAVUTO: Accurate, but I think the parallel here is remarkable. ROBERTS: It is. A lot of the Democratic presidential candidates have been saying that the nation is in crisis, or, at the very least, on the verge of a crisis, but the economic numbers that were released today would really seem to contradict that. The labor participation rate did drop just a little bit, but overall, the jobs grew by a tremendous amount. It was expected that we would see job growth of 190,000 jobs in the month of April. Instead, it was 263,000 jobs and unemployment dropped to a rate of 3.6 percent. As you pointed out, Neil, that is the lowest since December of 1969. In the Oval Office today, the president quite happy about it all. Listen here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We have tremendous backing. The companies are doing really well. We have the lowest unemployment rates for different groups of people, whether it's African-American, Asian, Hispanic. Hispanic just set another all-time record for low unemployment. The household income is the highest it's ever been. Our country is doing well. Never probably has done as well as it's doing right now economically. (END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: And, if it continues, it could be a big boon for the president in 2020 for his reelection bid, which is why the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, did her best today to pooh-pooh the numbers, in a statement saying -- quote -- "The April jobs report number show some promising news. Yet these gains hide the true weight of the economic uncertainty felt by millions of hardworking Americans. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that most of the economic gains continue to benefit those already well-off." But hold on, said the president's chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, today. Wages have increased 3.2 percent in the last year, and there have been -- a lot of gains that have been made in terms of reducing income inequality. Listen here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: The strength in job and wages is coming from the middle and below them. It's the blue-collars. It's what I call Main Street. And the increase in wages similarly, not the level, mind you, but the increase, is much faster than white-collars. (END VIDEO CLIP) ROBERTS: Again, the only snag in the numbers, that 0.2 percent, two- tenths-of-a-percentage point drop in the labor participation rate. White House officials believe it's just a random fluctuation, but we will keep watching the numbers, Neil. And we will see if it is, or if it's a trend that could get worse. CAVUTO: All right, thank you, my friend, very much, John Roberts at the White House. Now to FOX Business Network's Deirdre Bolton. She's been looking at these numbers. DEIRDRE BOLTON, FOX BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Neil, tons of strength in numerous areas. We know that markets crossed higher across the board, right, to a second straight week up for the S&P 506, and a sixth straight week, of course, for the Nasdaq, all 11 sectors higher on the S&P 500. If you take a look, unemployment down to 3.6 percent. So, as you were showing, 50-year low. This is a standout number, and the U.S. economy adding more jobs in April, well outpacing, so 263,000 vs. 190,000 expected. Some of the details here that are worth pointing out, the unemployment rate for women fell last month to 3.1 percent. That is the lowest point since 1953. If you look at Latinos, down to 4.2 percent, a record low since 1973. That is when government began tracking the data. For Asians, joblessness has matched a record low of 2.2 percent. And then the unemployment rate for veterans of the Iraq and the Afghan wars dropping to 1.7, also a record low. Now, among the standout sectors, workers in the services sectors, they had the most opportunities, so computer system designers, social workers, health care professionals. They were widely hired. On the other hand, manufacturing did show gains, but I would say a third straight month of lackluster figures. You're looking for losses, so areas where there were negative job adds. Retail and utilities, they saw the fewest in their fields. Average pay, you were just talking about, rising 3.2 percent from 12 months a year earlier, so healthy increase and matching the previous month's data. So today's big-picture jobs data giving investors reason for optimism, especially after this most recent read on U.S. economic growth, 3.2 percent annual rate in January-March period. So that is the strongest pace of economic growth in the first quarter since 2005. And, Neil, as we know, we're more than 75 percent through earnings season for S&P 500 companies, with more than 75 percent of companies exceeding earnings expectations. So a lot of reason for the green on the screens -- Neil. CAVUTO: I like the green on the screen. BOLTON: Yes. CAVUTO: That's better than my moon analogy. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: All right. All right, Deirdre, have a great weekend, Deirdre Bolton. BOLTON: You too. Well, if it is the economy, stupid, it would be stupid to argue otherwise. Market watchers Ann Berry here, Democratic strategist Max Burns as well. We have got Ryan Payne, Payne Capital Management. I'm looking at all different sides of this report, and we could pick it ad nauseum. But it does continue a trend of much-better-than-expected news, the GDP growing at a 3.2 percent clip in the first quarter, strong pending home sales. That's volatile, I grant you. But the factory orders that are going at a 2 percent click people didn't expect, it is completing a picture of very nice growth. ANN BERRY, CORNELL CAPITAL: I think that is exactly right. And I think one of the things that was really interesting about the jobs report today, not only was it very, very strong, but it was the last piece of news for the week that pointed to tremendous outcomes for the markets. The Fed saying that we're going to hold rates steady. So I think it really is sort of point in time we are seeing a confluence of really, really positive news. But there are still pockets that are somewhat vulnerable. Agricultural, farming companies are still hovering around 2009 lows. So it's a great overall macro picture, but there are still pockets of weakness we need to look out for. RYAN PAYNE, PAYNE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Well, he's certainly self-promoting, which I'm shocked about, Neil. That was a bad joke. No, I think the bottom line is, look, I mean, obviously, the president is a little polarizing. So I think he's still going to speak to his base, and I think anyone who is in the middle is happy to have strong growth. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: But what I'm arguing is, it's strong numbers. So something's holding it back. PAYNE: Oh, absolutely. I mean, let's face it. He's probably one of the more controversial presidents we have had in a very long time. And it depends right now, I grant you, Max, on the polls. MAX BURNS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think what's what's interesting, I notice, on the graphic that was up earlier, we had women, Latinos, Asians and veterans. We seem to have left out African-Americans, who don't exist in top-line jobs data world, mainly because they're still suffering. BURNS: They're still suffering a recession-level unemployment rate, 6.7 percent. I mean, if I'm bleeding out, and you give me a Band-Aid, you have helped, I guess, but it's not nearly enough. CAVUTO: But if you have cut that in half, if you cut that rate in half -- and it's a continuation of a trend, by the way, that goes back many years. BURNS: Well, I will say if we don't want to talk about African-Americans, let's include a group that President Trump ostensibly cares about, which is coal miners in West Virginia in the Rust Belt. President Trump pledged to bring coal back in a big way. Those jobs have been down since he started. This report, they're down by thousands again. BURNS: I think, when you look at, like you said, 1968, 1969, on paper, was great for America, quarter of a million jobs in '68, 5 percent growth. It was also a year 125 cities burned in race riots, two major politicians were assassinated. The jobs report doesn't tell us about the health of our democracy. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: But we don't have that. No, no, you're quite right. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: But I don't want to get a feel from just looking at this. A backdrop like this, and is -- is something that most presidents seeking reelection would like. BERRY: Well, I think what the strength of this economic data is doing is forcing the Democrats into a particular kind of box, right, instead of being able to point to economic weakness, having to point it inequality. And when you think about the policy platform that that enables you to stand on, it's very different, right, to respond to one set of data vs. the other. If you're talking about addressing inequality, that's when you're going off to health care. That's when you're talking about education. That's what we're seeing from Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar coming out with very specific policy suggestions. That is totally different. In other words, I mean, the history is such that, obviously, you could pick apart numbers in the fairness of the disparity between the rich and the poor. Donald Trump himself did that when he was running for election. And I generally find it only gets so many votes. BERRY: Yes. PAYNE: Yes, I think it just comes down to the devil you know is better than the devil that you don't know. And if for most Americans the economy is getting better, that probably bodes very well for President Trump, just because no one wants to screw that up, I think, the average American anyway. CAVUTO: All right, but you're arguing that candidates shouldn't turn away from the economy. They should start seeking out those sectors and points that don't reinforce the image that everyone else sees. BURNS: Absolutely. I think Robert Kennedy said in 1968 the GDP measures everything except what makes us proud to be an American. When you have job growth that's up and people in Silicon Valley and the banks that fund them doing well, but it's been five years, and people in Flint, Michigan, still can't drink their water, people in West Virginia are still waiting for their coal jobs to come back, that's two Americas. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: No, I understand what you're saying. But you have got to talk about the general aggregate public and cobble together 270 electoral votes to become president. BURNS: Yes. There's a coalition here. There's women who are still making less than men, young people at 13 percent unemployment. BURNS: Yes. I think if you look at people in Michigan, in Pennsylvania who are working maybe two or three jobs... CAVUTO: All I know, if I -- if you were my campaign adviser, I'm one of these Democrats running, I said, I need something bigger to hang on to. That is not enough for me to clinch it. They're seeing their hours cut. Their prices are going up for things. They're seeing their earning power go down. CAVUTO: Most families aren't in the predicament. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: So that's what I'm saying. (CROSSTALK) BURNS: ... working two jobs is pathetic. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: All right. BURNS: I agree. CAVUTO: All right. BURNS: Yes, I believe it is. BURNS: I think the economic argument, once you peel away the glitz and the spin, there is a really sad and really bifurcated story in this country of people doing great and people suffering. CAVUTO: This is glitz and spin. This is glitz and spin. PAYNE: I personally don't think it's all glitz and spin. Look, to some extent, you're right. Not every American obviously has the same opportunities. I 100 percent agree with that. But I think when you get down to the core numbers, it's like you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. If you look around you, the economy is definitely doing better than it's done in a long time. CAVUTO: Now, I'm not asking you to make political bets here. But if I'm Donald Trump, I'm liking this more than I would like the alternative. BERRY: I think it's going to be a wait-and-see game. PAYNE: Right. BERRY: I think we're still 18 months away. We have got time for this to change. CAVUTO: All right. Indeed, we do. Guys, I want to thank you all very, very much. Again, a report out that confirmed the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign back in 2016. That isn't the shock. The source of it is. Much more after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Today, I was happy to see on the front page of The New York Times for the first time where they were talking about spying. And they were talking about spying on my campaign. That's a big difference between the way they have been covering, but that's a big story. That's a story bigger than Watergate, as far as I'm concerned. (END VIDEO CLIP) CAVUTO: The president raising reporting out of The New York Times that an -- FBI sent an undercover investigator to meet with Trump aide George Papadopoulos during the 2016 campaign. It's raised all sorts of questions as to whether he was cooked from the start. Catherine Herridge with more on that and her own discussion with the president. Hey, Catherine. CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Neil. And good afternoon. Campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI over his Russia contacts, responding to The New York Times' reporting that the FBI sent an investigator to London to target him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE: She was very flirty, and was trying to do two things, one, to extract information about my professional connections in the Middle East, and, two, to see if I had any information that she could potentially extract for me about Trump and Russia, which, of course, is nonsense. (END VIDEO CLIP) HERRIDGE: The other connection to Papadopoulos is this American academic Stefan Halper, an alleged confidential source who worked the Russia FBI counterintelligence case, reaching out to multiple Trump campaign aides. With Attorney General Barr's review, the genesis of the Russia probe is under fresh scrutiny, including a surveillance warrant secured by the FBI for campaign aide Carter Page. Yesterday, the president told Fox all associated records will be declassified. TRUMP: Yes, I'm going to be allowing declassification pretty soon. I didn't want to do it originally because I wanted to wait, because I know what they -- I have seen the way they play. They play very dirty. So I decided to do it. And I'm going to be doing it very soon, far more than you would have even thought. (END VIDEO CLIP) HERRIDGE: Even before Mr. Trump became the Republican nominee, our reporting has shown that this confidential source, Stefan Halper, contacted a Russian academic who was later smeared in the press over an alleged inappropriate contact with the future National Security Adviser Mike Flynn -- Neil. CAVUTO: Catherine, thank you very, very much. HERRIDGE: You're welcome. CAVUTO: All right. Let's go to read on all this former DOJ official Tom Dupree. Tom, a lot of this doesn't even warrant a Fox News Alert, if you think about. It confirmed suspicions, indeed allegations, that have been out for quite some time. But the detail and the degree to which they were snooping around is interesting. TOM DUPREE, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It is, Neil. This is a story that, from my perspective, becomes more and more interesting the more we learn. The fact that the FBI apparently sent an undercover investigator to meet with Papadopoulos abroad to try to elicit some sort of admission that the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia is extraordinary. This is a technique that the FBI typically would use in the case of terrorism investigations, narco-trafficking investigations and the like. For them to use it in the context of investigating a presidential campaign is, I think, unprecedented in American history. CAVUTO: So they would have to get commands from higher up to do so. That's not just something any agent or investigator does on his own. DUPREE: I can't imagine that this is something that would have been approved at a very low level within the bureau. I mean, my goodness, sending someone undercover to try to find out if a presidential campaign is in cahoots with the Russians, I mean, if that's not a situation that doesn't call for running it up the flagpole, I don't know what would. CAVUTO: If the impetus was this dossier, which is a separate issue, it raises questions about its legitimacy from the very start. DUPREE: Yes. Clearly, there were people within the bureau who, for whatever reason, whatever motive, were determined to pierce the inner workings of the Trump campaign. I know you can't tip your hand when you're in the middle of something like that, for fear that all of a sudden they would squelch what is being allegedly charged. DUPREE: Yes, well, it's a fine line, because, on one hand, yes, there would be an obligation, you would think, to notify people in the campaign if there was effectively a Russian mole or a traitor in their midst, to basically say, you don't want to share anything with this person because he's under surveillance and under suspicion. At the same time, you also, legitimately, if you're the FBI, you don't want to jeopardize an ongoing investigation. So I get that piece of it. But I think it's a fine line, and you would have to make individualized determinations about who you might want to notify that something was in the works and people that you're actually surveilling and you obviously don't want to tip off. CAVUTO: All right, Tom, thank you, Tom Dupree on all of this. I wonder if that came up in that phone conversation the president had with Vladimir Putin. It was apparently an hour-long. We do know that Venezuela came up -- after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I had a very good talk with President Putin, probably over an hour. And we talked about many things. Venezuela was one of the topics. And he is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela, other than he'd like to see something positive happen for Venezuela. And I feel the same way. (END VIDEO CLIP) CAVUTO: All right, well, that didn't jibe with comments we got just yesterday out of the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. He speaking live right now, I believe, at the State Department. But he had mentioned that the Russians had involved themselves in stopping the leader from leaving Venezuela in the first place. So Maduro was set to leave, if we're to believe these reports, and the Russians stopped him. So, the president and his secretary of state are on two different pages here. Steve Harrigan in Caracas, Venezuela, with the latest -- Steve. STEVE HARRIGAN, CORRESPONDENT: You're right, Neil, a dramatically different statement from President Trump today, both in tone and content, than what we have heard throughout the week from the secretary of state and from the national security adviser, both of whom have repeatedly blamed Russia for the crisis here. Now the president saying Russia and the U.S. essentially want the same thing in Russia. Now, those officials were at a meeting in the Pentagon this morning to discuss a range of possible military options in Venezuela. The administration has stressed all options still on the table here. And, of course, during the demonstrations this week, two days of heavy skirmishes, more than 200 people have been injured. Here is what a few of them had to say, including a father who lost his son in the protests. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): My son didn't last. It was 10, 15 minutes. After the shot, he was taken to medics, but without vital signs. UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): With all the adrenaline, I went running. I was shot in the arm and back, one in the leg. UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): It was 62 rubber bullets. I lost sensation in my body. The bullets were in my back and arm. I was on the ground. And when I was on the ground, the officers started to shoot. It's not like I was shot from far or that I was running. I was on the floor, and they shot me. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIGAN: These people here really risking their lives, making some real sacrifices, day in and day out to come out on the streets. And the opposition leader, Juan Guaido, who is recognized by the U.S. as interim president of Venezuela, has called for them to come out again tomorrow morning 10:00 a.m. -- Neil. CAVUTO: All right, Steve Harrigan, thank you very, very much. All right, in the meantime, it wasn't just the president and Vladimir Putin talking Venezuela today. Apparently, our top defense military officials were meeting at the Pentagon also the discussing the subject. The acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, for example, saying, as the president said, that all options are on the table with regard to Venezuela. Retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Dakota Wood with us right now. Colonel, thank you for taking the time. When we talk about all options, obviously, the inference there is military as well. But it wouldn't presumably be military alone or U.S. military alone. LT. COL. DAKOTA WOOD, RET., U.S. MARINE CORPS: Right. Yes. I mean, if you're the administration, the U.S., you're going to maintain all options. You don't want to write something off, because whatever opposition you might be trying to account for is going to take advantage of that. So to say that all options are on the table is clearly the right diplomatic move to make. So you would have to define the objectives, rules of engagement, and whether it's wise or not to insert U.S. military forces. Our position would be that it is not wise to do that, but we will have to see what the administration settles on. I mean, if you're Vladimir Putin, you want to keep Maduro in power, because that's somebody you can work with and you kind of mess up the U.S. game plan in our own hemisphere and distract us elsewhere. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: I'm sorry. WOOD: Yes, well, there's a range of U.S. options available to the president, only one of which would be military. You have got economic. You have got sanctions. CAVUTO: Right. WOOD: You have got other moves on other fronts that you could use to send a signal to a Moscow that we don't want you messing in the Western Hemisphere. And, you know, his next crackdown could be much, much worse, especially if he maintains the backing, as he largely has now, of these generals who are not breaking from him. WOOD: Well, I mean, I think that is -- that question needs to be really, really addressed, is that the military has basically taken itself out of the equation. And where Maduro is placing his bets are on these private, almost criminal gangs that he can buy or rent. So when he is looking for somebody to provide him physical security, it's these criminal elements, these militias for hire. It's not the military. So the intel chief has defected to the opposition. The military side is basically staying neutral and see where the dust settles. And so in terms of a military or physical security standpoint, Maduro only has these criminal gang types of elements to rely on. CAVUTO: That sounds like the makings of a civil war. WOOD: It does. And then it goes back to the central question. So the U.S. and 40-some-odd other countries have recognized the legitimacy of Guaido as the interim president. Diplomatically, that's where we're at on this thing. But that's a different type of involvement in the domestic political situation of Venezuela, when Guaido's political party, what he represents, is problematic. We certainly don't like Maduro. But that's a different discussion when you get into direct military intervention. And that's something we need to stay away from for the time being. CAVUTO: Colonel, thank you very, very much. WOOD: My pleasure. CAVUTO: Well, say what you will of this president. I don't think they're snickering now. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: All right, I know the Dow got a lot of attention today, soaring on this better-than-expected jobs report, but just sneaking in by the end of the day was the Nasdaq. It hit a record, the S&P close to one, the Dow a percent or so away from one. More after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: All right, there was a time when Donald Trump first came into office that leaders of other countries were snickering at him, thinking he was some sort of a freak fad, and that he would really not amount to much of anything, that a lot of his policies were extreme and the rest. Well, those same people who laughed as he was speaking are the same ones whose poll numbers are a fraction of what the president of the United States is enjoying, an economy on fire, markets soaring. Now, you can go back and forth on this ad nauseam, whether you want to give Donald Trump all the credit. But, as my next guest will remind you, presidents tend to get a disproportionate amount of blame when things are bad, and maybe too much credit when things are good. They're good right now. To Austan Goolsbee, the former economic adviser for President Obama, on whether that could spell trouble for some of the Democratic candidates vying to replace him. AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: I don't know. The political question is separate from the economy. We got a very nice number today. I think, in a way, it was expected, given that we got a nice growth number for the first quarter. So I don't think it's a surprise that that would translate into good, strong jobs number. The question of, does that then translate into politics, certainly, historically, it did in the it's the economy, stupid, type argument. But, in 2012, we were still kind of crawling out of the rubble of the recession, and Obama won. By 2016, the unemployment rate was way down. We'd had multiple years of very strong job growth, and it didn't seem to help Hillary Clinton that much. So I don't know. The president's approval ratings have been low to moderate, but very stable. He's got a base of support that, whether the economy is doing blockbuster or doing modest, whether there's Mueller report or not Mueller report, all of that stuff, he stays kind of constant. CAVUTO: That base, that's very effective. You're quite right. But I do remember, in 2012, we were certainly doing a lot better than we were doing in 2008. And we weren't hemorrhaging a million jobs a month, as they had been. So there was a decided improvement. I think Americans do respond to improvement and a trend. But I'm wondering now, if you were an economic adviser, let's say, to any one of the candidates running -- for all I know, you might be -- I would certainly pick your brain if I were one of them. But I would be curious how you would frame it. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: I mean, how you would tell them to frame it. We had one Democratic strategist here earlier who said, well, the unevenness of this, the groups left out. And while that might be always a concern -- Republican candidates have done it in good times, challenging Democrats enjoying a good economic run. So have Democrats in the past. We also have an economy that is defying sort of conventional wisdom that it would be by now sputtering out. GOOLSBEE: Yes, look, I think there's -- that's partly true. That goes back to this question, though, that I don't know the answer to, but it doesn't seem like the strong economy had as positive an impact in 2016 as maybe you would have expected. And I just don't know if the economy will be the central issue. It feels like a bunch of these issues about arguments about abuse of power and about checks and balances and things like that, the kinds of things that characterized the midterm election, when the economy was still strong, but Donald Trump's party and the Republican Party had a very tough midterm election. CAVUTO: Well, you're right. GOOLSBEE: Despite the economy. CAVUTO: Well, health care was a big factor there. Yes. No, you're right. Health care ended up being a bigger issue, I think, than Republicans thought. GOOLSBEE: Yes. CAVUTO: Real quickly, Barack Obama has been on the wires the last couple of weeks. He's met with some prominent Democrats, talking about their agendas and their big -- big ideas. And he admired all of them for that, but that you got to find a way to pay for it. He was trying to urge some pragmatism or bring them back. I don't know, to reality or however you want to define it. GOOLSBEE: Maybe. I mean, if -- anybody who is a Democrat should be worried. The president won the last election narrowly, and the economy has continued to get better. So it's probably strengthening his hand. And if you don't agree with the president's policies, you should be a little nervous. I think, among Democrats that I talk to, there's a pretty widespread feeling that they were kind of following the rules of policy in politics, and then Donald Trump's elected, and the very same people who were saying, no, you can't -- everything, but you must pay for everything, then just immediately turned around and said, let's cut taxes by $2 trillion and not pay for it. So I think the openness of the Democrats to hear lectures in fiscal responsibility from Republicans... (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: No, this was from the president. GOOLSBEE: I know. But so I'm saying that argument, I think, will have a -- will be a tougher sell in this environment, given what's happened in the first several years of Trump. CAVUTO: All right, we shall see. Austan, good having you. Have a good weekend. GOOLSBEE: Yes, great to see you again, Neil. Have a good weekend. CAVUTO: All right. They always argue, well, they taste just like the real thing. And I have never bought that. But, apparently, now there's a new wave of them coming out, including those that will be featured at Burger Kings across the country that they say are just that and more. I do not believe it at all, but we will taste, you decide. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: All right, we have long argued that the Mexicans aren't doing enough to help us with this border crisis. Apparently, that is changing. Griff Jenkins in Tapachula, Mexico, with the latest. Hey, Griff. GRIFF JENKINS, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil. We just got brand-new numbers for deportations from Mexico. I will give them to you in just a second, but first an update. I have just spoken with the Border Patrol, that grim reminder of the dangers of the long journey of migrants in these caravans, that 10-month- old child that drowned along the Rio Grande River near Eagle Pass, Texas. The Border Patrol tell me they have been searching all day for the three that were missing, to no luck. I will let you know if I find out anymore. Now back to Mexico. You're looking here at Tapachula at the major government shelter. These are people that were not able to get in because it's overcrowded. Some have family members in there. They want to get their people out. You can see beyond the fence a bus. Now, yesterday, buses left here that were carrying 93 migrants that were flown by plane, a federal police plane, back to Cuba on their way home from Havana, today, more buses. The officials tell me that 77 more were departed. The government here, the migration officials tell me that they have brand-new numbers; 14,970 is the number of migrants they deported to their home countries in the month of April, up more than 20 percent from last month. This as we got an inside look into one of the shelters here with people from all over the world, from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Haiti, Sri Lanka, Angola, Uganda, Cameroon, and the Congo. Neil, the flow continues, even though Mexico is clearly doing its part to try and crack down. CAVUTO: All right, Griff, be safe, Griff Jenkins in the middle of all of that, and fast-changing developments here. We told you about the jobs report has a lot of different demographic groups feeling very, very happy, particularly young people who have now a burgeoning jobs market. After this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: Like I said, we haven't seen this since 1969, but long, long, long, long, long before any of these guests were born. Wages are up, unemployment down, the lowest level since, as I said, 1969. Ruby Media Group's Kris Ruby, Business Insider's Kate Taylor, and my wingman, "Blood in the Streets" author Dion Baia. DION BAIA, CORRESPONDENT: I think it's very good. I mean, it's very positive news for everybody to see this happening, and that we have jobs, and people are working. And I think it's -- it doesn't seem like it's being reported as much as it could be, like that there's there's like an agenda to kind of hide it. CAVUTO: But it's strong. BAIA: Yes. KATE TAYLOR, BUSINESS INSIDER: Yes. (CROSSTALK) BAIA: Yes, I know. TAYLOR: No, but I think that some people, it's still like a mental block where you always expect things to turn around. KRIS RUBY, RUBY MEDIA GROUP: So I mean, I speak to millennials, and what I hear them saying is, they're applying for a lot of things. So, on the one hand, this job report is great. But I always say, as a backup, considering incorporating yourself, so you're not necessarily too dependent on these... CAVUTO: That's interesting. RUBY: Yes. I mean, I'm a big pro of people becoming entrepreneurs. CAVUTO: All right. So young people have a right to feel -- because I think many of you were burned by the meltdown and everything else. You saw what happened to your parents or whatever, or maybe yourselves. You were like 9 at the time. TAYLOR: Yes, I think it's -- again, it's kind of a psychological thing. I remember I was talking to someone a couple years back where they're like, it's almost millennials are -- have a different idea about how they spend money. CAVUTO: Very good point. BAIA: Yes, the traditional way of when I was growing up was like, get a savings account, getting a checking account, and put money and save. And then that doesn't really seem like you're making anything back. CAVUTO: Yes. BAIA: So it's kind of scary to think that, like, you're living paycheck to paycheck. And then, when you try to have that savings account, you're not making anything off of it. CAVUTO: All right. Another big trend -- and maybe this is where we would put your money -- Beyond Meat, it's sort of like an alternative meat, that stock surging 116 percent, the company going public. Now, Burger King is rolling out its own Impossible Whopper nationwide. So this meatless trend is certainly out there. And people are saying it tastes just like the real thing or whatever. RUBY: So this is a great thing. I'm so happy to see this. And... CAVUTO: Well, you're a vegetarian. RUBY: Yes, I am. And I think this is really -- first of all, millennials are trending this way. They want more plant-based dining options. But it's not just millennials. I mean, there's ethical reasons. There are so many different things here. CAVUTO: Yes. CAVUTO: Well, these are all alternatives to meat, to beef. RUBY: Yes. TAYLOR: Well, I'm not a vegetarian. So I can speak as someone who's eating meat more regularly. And I think that they're very, very close. I talked to the CEO of Beyond Meat yesterday. TAYLOR: He, I believe, is a vegetarian, but his kids aren't. CAVUTO: Oh, that's interesting. TAYLOR: So, so he kind of like sees both sides. And he says he's 70 percent they're. Like, he knows that they haven't fully reached it yet. TAYLOR: Yes. CAVUTO: All of this stuff, they just didn't... BAIA: Well, that's the biggest concern is, when you're eating it, it doesn't taste like the real thing. (CROSSTALK) BAIA: And it does -- I mean, the Beyond Meat product is actually so good that it gives -- it simulates grease. It simulates the smell. RUBY: Right. TAYLOR: The most powerful source of methane emissions. (CROSSTALK) BAIA: It's a lot of protein-based stuff. (CROSSTALK) TAYLOR: There's 22 ingredients in the Beyond Burger, 22 ingredients, mostly peas and like a bunch of other things, where they basically figured out what makes meat taste like meat and then went to the base. RUBY: I don't think it's about -- I don't think it's about the taste. I think it's about a larger global trend around actually caring about these animals that have no voice. (CROSSTALK) BAIA: It's hard for people to get -- to wrap their heads around it. I'm trying to go that way as well. And for it to taste... (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: Well, I have been a lifelong vegan myself. BAIA: Well, you have been a vegan your entire life, so you're well into this. CAVUTO: Yes. BAIA: But you see also celebrities doing this. I think Schwarzenegger is doing this. Ernest Borgnine did this. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: So, this could be a good start. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: Burger King is going to feature this, not this particular product, but in all of its restaurants. (CROSSTALK) BAIA: Yes, and overseas in places like England and stuff, they're very ahead of us with this. CAVUTO: All right. RUBY: We can't stay silent. (CROSSTALK) RUBY: But there's natural flavors which could be considered chemicals. TAYLOR: Yes. BAIA: Yes. TAYLOR: But I don't know. CAVUTO: No, because I'm thinking soy and green. (CROSSTALK) CAVUTO: All right. Guys, thank you all very much. Sorry the truncated time here. We have a lot more coming up, including the latest wrinkle on this jobs number -- after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAVUTO: I tasted one of those. It's like chicken. It tastes like... (LAUGHTER) CAVUTO: No, I didn't. I really didn't. But I don't know. I don't know. All right, the good jobs report, nothing that is unnerving anyone about that. Blake Burman at the White House with the latest read, maybe, maybe that it shows a very strong economy. That could lift up interest rates, maybe -- Blake. BLAKE BURMAN, CORRESPONDENT: Well, a really good day for the White House, Neil, on the economic front, because you had this blowout jobs number, a big win for the White House. But they're also using this moment to say, you know what, maybe the interest rates do indeed need to be lowered. And they are pointing to, once again, inflation. The gauge that the Federal Reserve uses to judge inflation puts it at 1.6 percent. In fact, you had the vice president, Mike Pence, today coming out saying he's getting on board considering the possibility of, well, maybe the Fed does indeed need to lower interest rates. In fact, Larry Kudlow, the president's top economic adviser, said at one point today -- quote -- "Our views right now are not that far apart from the Federal Reserve, as best as I can determine." That's interesting, Neil. He was speaking about inflation there. That's interesting, because, as you know, President Trump has been hammering the Fed, been hammering Jay Powell about his -- about their interest rate policies. We might be thinking along the same lines here at this point, as it relates to inflation at least -- Neil. CAVUTO: All right, well, it's a good problem to have for the time being. BURMAN: Yes. CAVUTO: Blake, thank you very much. Have a good weekend. By the way, we will be exploring this and a lot more 10:00 a.m. live tomorrow, "Cavuto Live," a lot of impact on this. See you then. Here's "The Five." Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/will-the-us-intervene-militarily-in-venezuela |
How ready are we if ebola reaches the US? | This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 3, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. As Washington fusses over the Russia hoax for a third year in a row, a lot of other things are happening that don't get the attention they deserve. For example, the big tech companies have launched their fearless attack yet on your right as an American to follow your conscience and to say what you believe. Unlike earlier generations of authoritarians, the tech moguls don't say any of this out loud, they're not honorable enough to state their intentions clearly. Instead, they drape censorship in the soothing banality of HR department cliches. Listen here to Mark Zuckerberg explaining that the death of free speech in America is actually a really positive thing that we all need to get behind. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: We're taking a more proactive role and making sure that all of our partners and developers use our services for good. We're very focused on making sure that our recommendations in discovery surfaces aren't highlighting groups where people are repeatedly sharing misinformation or harmful content and we're working hard to completely remove groups if they exist, primarily to violate our policies or do things that are dangerous. "Groups that do things that are dangerous." Well, yesterday we found out Facebook released its latest enemies list: Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Louis Farrakhan, Laura Loomer -- all of them were designated dangerous individually and banned from Facebook and from its subsidiary, Instagram. Alex Jones's company InfoWars was banned as well and described as a dangerous organization. Didn't explain exactly how. Well, Facebook believes it's so dangerous that you can be banned from using the platform, Facebook, just for sharing its content unless you simultaneously denounce it. Let that penetrate for just one moment. Think about it just for a second. Mark Zuckerberg is not simply censoring opinions. He is prescribing which political opinions you're allowed to have, which conversations all of us in this country can have about America. Keep in mind that nobody voted for Mark Zuckerberg, he is 34 years old. He is completely cut off from reality. He is worth $72 billion. And yet, he can single handedly make our First Amendment irrelevant after 250 years. Here's the most amazing thing of all, our media think that's great. Now journalists are supposed to defend free speech, you would think that was their job since they make a living from it. But when corporate America issues in order, when Mark Zuckerberg says, "Jump," their question is, "How high, Mr. Zuckerberg?" Listen to them celebrate Mark Zuckerberg and sell you out completely. BEN COLLINS, NBC NEWS REPORTER: Well, it's a good question as to why they waited this long, but -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, exactly. COLLINS: I mean, so Alex Jones has been banned from Facebook for a long period of time, but now they banned him, they banned his like little underling, Paul Joseph Watson. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now that they've kicked them off the platform, that's great for now, but it doesn't roll back the clock. JOY BEHAR, ABC HOST: You have also excesses in the First Amendment and the Second Amendment right now. You know, I don't think that the forefathers said, "Well, you can say you know, all sorts of hateful things and spread it around the world literally spread it through the internet." ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I have no issue with it at all. I want them shut down. I want them silenced. I want them muted. I think they are horrible for our society. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: "I want them shut down. I want them silenced. I want them muted." But don't worry. These people aren't terrifying or anything. Don't kid yourself. It's not just Alex Jones they want silenced, muted, shut down. Recently, the Poynter Institute which is a nonprofit that is supposed to support journalism, put out a list of what they called unreliable news outlets. Self-awareness in short supply in the journalism business, but Poynter crafted this list with the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "The Washington Free Beacon," "The Daily Caller," "The Daily Signal, "The Washington Examiner," basically everyone who's not CNN or MSNBC, or precisely aligned with their politics. Poynter called for advertisers to blacklist and therefore bankrupt, these news outlets -- crush them. Their fellow progressives applauded. As far as they're concerned, this is total war. We don't trust Mark Zuckerberg to control what we think. Nowhere. As long as big tech isn't hassling them personally and directly. As long as their accounts remain open, they don't seem to care. They're fools. No, you can. Not a chance. Not right now. Without free speech, there is no democracy. It's time to stop lying about that. Chadwick Moore is a New York based journalist, and he joins us tonight. Chadwick, thanks a lot for coming on. So I don't think anyone is kind of pretending anymore that this is just about Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson or people you've only sort of heard of or Laura Loomer, or whatever. This is about anybody who dissents from the corporate view of what should be talked about, they are crushed. CHADWICK MOORE, CONSERVATIVE JOURNALIST: That's an extremely good question. You know, there actually is one person, one very prominent person out there who is calling for mass civil disobedience, and brace yourself, it's Snoop Dogg. CARLSON: Good. MOORE: Who just ordered all of his followers to start sharing Louis Farrakhan videos and footage on Facebook and Instagram. Good for him. I agree. CARLSON: Good for him. MOORE: Meanwhile, you have a Republican class, you have a sort of fence- sitting, milk toast conservatives who are so terrified of having their own precious accounts taken away that they will not stand up for these people. CARLSON: Exactly. MOORE: They refuse to stand up for these people. They're frightened. And I'm sorry to say that the censors are coming for them next. CARLSON: Exactly. MOORE: It is -- yes, and it is inarguable that especially Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos' Facebook and Instagram accounts were not in violation of any Terms of Service. CARLSON: Of course. MOORE: This - they've been extremely tame on social media, I followed both the accounts. And the designation that Facebook gave them underneath their Community Guidelines as being, quote, "dangerous." That wasn't just an adjective that they pulled out of nowhere. It's actually a designation they give specifically to serial killers, mass murderers, terrorist organizations and human traffickers. Now, Paul Joseph Watson is an interesting situation because he is a British citizen in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom has much stricter libel laws, so he could have a very strong lawsuit against Facebook. In this country, the libel laws are not very strong, namely, because our First Amendment is supposed to be -- well, supposed to be so strong. So you might not have much of a lawsuit front there. But you're right that there's really no one standing up. One of the most interesting things is that Facebook released a press -- sent a press release out before they had even banned these accounts. They set a press release out to journalists, and whoops, realized that the accounts were still active after it sent the press release. CARLSON: Exactly. Or is that they were merely banning people for violations of Terms of Service, they would have just done it and not made it into a production. CARLSON: Exactly. It's terrifying. Chadwick Moore, you are a voice for free speech. Thank you. MOORE: Thank you. CARLSON: Well, last August radio host, Jesse Kelly came on the show and predicted that he eventually would be censored by the tech companies. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: You said, "Look, I don't agree with Alex Jones' views." But that's not the point. JESSE KELLY, HOST, "THE JESSE KELLY SHOW": That's the -- that is the point, Tucker. And they're coming for you and me next. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: And they were, actually. November, Jesse's Twitter account was shut down temporarily until he complained about it. Jesse Kelly joins us tonight. Jesse, thanks very much for coming on. So they are coming. It's not just Alex Jones, let's not lie to ourselves. But I wonder if the Republican office holders who are standing by and allowing this stuff to go completely unchallenged understand that they're not going to get reelected if you don't have freedom of speech in this country. It will be impossible for them to win the next election. KELLY: They don't get that and in fact, they're complicit in it. Their silence makes them complicit in it, Tucker, because the social media companies are banking on weak-spine Republican politicians standing by and doing nothing as they pick up all what they think are the weak members of the herd. And that's all this is. CARLSON: Exactly. KELLY: They're just clipping out the outside members of the herd while they surround it and get ready to eat us all. Seriously. KELLY: It's going to take politicians losing their job. And frankly, it should take media people losing their job. What we need is a media outcry, and as you pointed out at the beginning of the show, they're sitting there clapping like a bunch of seals every time this happens. But conservatives have to wake up and realize you cannot only rely on social media now, they hate you, they want you removed. If you rely only on social media as a conservative for your career, you're going to be wiped out. Soon your career won't be worth as much as the price of a WNBA ticket. CARLSON: It's gotten to the point where I am cheering on Snoop Dogg, whoever that is who is defending Louis Farrakhan, who I have never even considered defending Louis Farrakhan. I'm not defending him now. I'm defending the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. KELLY: I am defending him, Tucker. Yes. Lewis Farrakhan is a worthless scumbag. I'm not denying that. But he is somebody who should be allowed to speak. CARLSON: Of course. KELLY: And we shouldn't be afraid of hearing him speak. He can compare his ideas with my ideas, and let the best man win. And it's not as if he is inciting some massive movement now. He is not politically relevant. Louis Farrakhan's political views are worth as much as his favorite kosher foods cookbook. KELLY: Well, because that's what totalitarians do, Tucker, and let's not act like the left in today's America is Pol Pot or something like that. But the history of the left, the history of every form of the left involves censorship and in America, that means shutting down people so their voices can't be heard. And in the most extreme cases in history, it's means kicking down your door in the middle of the night and hauling you off to a political prison so you can't speak anymore. They need us to not speak. But we don't have a great solution, either. Tucker. The government can step in. You saw Dianne Feinstein a couple of days ago. I'm pretty sure she died three times during that hearing. CARLSON: No. But I would like Facebook to be stripped of the protections that the U.S. Congress granted it -- immunity from lawsuits on the promise that it was a platform not a news organization. Here they are editing content. I don't know why they have that. I don't have that exemption. If I libel you on this show, you can sue me, you can see Fox News. You can't see Facebook, because they have a special exemption. KELLY: They have that because they have a bunch of money to lobby Congress, and you're right that is the one thing -- well, it's the truth. And it's the one thing they absolutely should change. It's what they're scared of. They are publishers. They are not platforms anymore. They're trying to remove voices and calling everybody a Nazi. Well, that shouldn't be allowed and somebody with some guts should step up in Congress. CARLSON: Amen. I hope someone will. Jesse, thank you very much. Good to talk to you tonight. KELLY: Good, brother. CARLSON: Brett Amerige worked at Facebook. He was an engineer there. He left the company in October -- last October -- and he came on this show to explain why. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRIAN AMERIGE, FORMER FACEBOOK ENGINEER: I'm leaving because of this content policy direction, which, you know, trying to draw lines around what is acceptable and what's offensive or too offensive, I think it's dangerous, and it's impractical. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Now, those warnings are coming true. We are grateful to have Brian Amerige back on the show tonight. Brian, thanks a lot for coming on. So you used the word "dangerous" the last time we spoke about Facebook's behavior. Facebook yesterday described the people it was censoring and any of their supporters, it would be censoring as quote, "dangerous." AMERIGE: I mean, I definitely say the out-of-control tech company is more dangerous. I think there's a limit to what you want to do about that and you've got to be really principled about the way you think about reacting to that. CARLSON: Right. AMERIGE: But yes, I think Facebook is a lot more dangerous. CARLSON: So I guess I'm just fascinated by the unwillingness of anyone to say that out loud. I mean, you're one of the relatively few people we've had on the show to explain it as clearly as you do. AMERIGE: I mean, I think part of it is this is just a really complicated situation. And part of what people don't realize is that, you know, this is an unprecedented situation, like people at Facebook, they don't really know what they're doing. Like, no one has ever run a platform that's got two and a half billion people on it. Congress doesn't know how to deal with this. People don't know how to respond to it. Like this is -- it's just completely unprecedented. And so, you know, for me, that's why it gets back to like, we've got to be really principled. What is the role of government in protecting our rights and I think Facebook ought to be doing a lot more to think about what its role is in the distribution and the creation of a market of ideas. And I mean, that's why I resigned, because I think that they're doing a poor job of that, and they're heading absolutely in the wrong direction. CARLSON: They don't seem to perceive threats, like real threats to for like -- for example, they seem to find Alex Jones a greater threat than the fascist government of China. AMERIGE: I mean, I don't think I have any answer -- any answer to that question. You know, I think it on one side, the demographics of the company lend itself to just having an incredibly left-leaning perspective, not because there's some sort of explicit bias, and they're trying for that to be the case. CARLSON: Right. AMERIGE: But just the demographics of the company mean that they don't even have non-left-leaning perspective in the room when they're making these decisions. I mean, I think that was a big part of it, which is why I wrote the note that I did that people who don't share those perspectives need to be encouraged to speak out about them when they disagree with where the company is going. CARLSON: Right. I mean, you wrote a powerful plea for diversity. And we're ignored. Look, add that to the list of deep ironies of 2019. Brian, thank you for coming on. I hope you'll come back. AMERIGE: Absolutely. Thanks for having me, Tucker. CARLSON: Thanks. Well, a lot of things that are obvious are the ones that are denied. In fact, the more vehemently denied they are, the more obvious they tend to be. Add to that list the fact that the Federal government, the Obama administration did in fact spy on Donald Trump's presidential campaign. The truth is coming out in stages, some after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: The word "spying" has been used. He probably was one of the people leading the effort on spying, so -- CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: It's a very serious charge to make. TRUMP: I know, I know. And we'll find out whether or not it was true. And I think it could very well be true. But we're going to find out pretty soon. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: That was the President speaking yesterday with our Catherine Herridge. The President is confident he was spied on during the last election. He thinks the FBI under Jim Comey led the way. He could be right, but we need the DOJ inspector's report to be certain. Catherine Herridge joins us tonight -- Catherine. HERRIDGE: Thank you, Tucker and good evening. Two Republican senators -- Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson -- are investigating these text messages telling the Attorney General they may evidence the FBI used official transition briefings to gather information on the Trump team. Nine days after the 2016 election, FBI lawyer, Lisa Page and FBI agent, Peter Strzok discussed strategy and staffing for an upcoming intelligence briefing for Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Strzok writes, they should use an agent whose specialty is espionage, quote, "He can assess if there are any new questions or different demeanor. If [redacted] husband is there he can see if there are people we can develop for potential relationships." In a statement, the Vice President lashed out at Strzok and Page as disgraced agents who considered infiltrating the Trump transition team and failed. The Attorney General William Barr and Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz are running separate reviews that will decide whether FBI surveillance on a political campaign was justified and based on solid evidence, including a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign aide, Carter Page that was secured by the FBI on October 21st, just two weeks before the 2016 election. Speaking to Fox, the President said, "All associated records will be declassified." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Yes, I'm going to be allowing declassification pretty soon. I didn't want to do it originally because I wanted to wait because I know what they -- you know, I've seen the way they play. They play very dirty. So I decided to do it, and I'm going to be doing it very soon, far more than you would have even thought. (END VIDEO CLIP) HERRIDGE: The Attorney General recently testified that Horowitz and his report is expected this month or next, Tucker. CARLSON: I know you will be on that. HERRIDGE: I sure will. CARLSON: I can't wait. Thank you, Catherine. HERRIDGE: You're welcome. CARLSON: Great to see you. Yet another potential conflict of interest exposed tonight in Kim Foxx's corrupt handling of the Jussie Smollett case. Matt Finn has been on the story from day one from Chicago. He joins us tonight. Hey, Matt. MATT FINN, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, the latest chapter in the Jussie Smollett saga is that one of Chicago's most powerful judges who is deciding whether a special prosecutor should launch a fresh investigation into the Jussie Smollett case and also Kim Foxx's office is now deciding whether he should recuse himself from his own decision because it was revealed his son works for Kim Foxx as an assistant State's Attorney. This all began last month when former Illinois Appellate Justice, Sheila O'Brien submitted a petition requesting a special prosecutor arguing state law requires a special prosecutor should have been assigned when Kim Foxx recused herself from Smollett's case. Well, the Chief Judge of Cook County Criminal Court, LeRoy Martin was set to address that petition in court this week, but in a sudden twist and a feisty exchange, O'Brien argue that Judge LeRoy Martin should take the high road and recuse himself. Judge Martin fired back that his son's job at Foxx's office has never been an issue before, but he agreed to think over his own recusal. O'Brien's petition criticizes Fox for appearing to be less than truthful for having to admit she only colloquially recused herself from Smollett's case. Foxx responded in court documents that there was no conflict of interest and state law only requires a special prosecutor if Foxx was sick, absent or unable to fulfill her duties. O'Brien argues Foxx already admitted she was unable to fulfill her duties for talking to a Smollett family member. O'Brien subpoenaed Foxx to appear in court today, but Foxx objected -- or this week -- Foxx objected and did not appear. This case continues on May 10th -- Tucker. CARLSON: Matt Finn for us in Chicago. Thanks a lot, Matt. Well, it's not really up for debate, California public schools are failing miserably. Disorderly classrooms are one reason why, but instead of making things better, lawmakers want to ban teachers from restoring order -- literally -- it's about to happen in California. We have details after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: In California, state lawmakers may soon legalize anarchy in the public schools, a bill that has already passed the State Senate in California would prohibit schools from suspending students for what they call willful defiance -- that means students behaving in a noisy, hostile threatening or disruptive manner that make learning impossible for everybody else could not be punished. Well, according to supporters, suspending disruptive students is of course, and you could have guessed it, you know, racist. Apparently though, it is not racist to condemn their classmates to failing schools where learning is impossible, which it already is, they'll be made worse by this. Deroy Murdock is a contributing editor to the "National Review" online, and he joins us tonight. Deroy, thanks a lot for coming on. DEROY MURDOCK, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE: Hi, Tucker. CARLSON: I'm great. You like me, you grew up in California. MURDOCK: That's right. CARLSON: Had one of the best public schools in the world. Now, it has some of the worst, reassure me that this is not going to make them even worse than they already are. MURDOCK: I'd like to think that this would be an improvement, I don't think it will. And you're right, this is taking place not in the Jim Crow South 1968. This is California in 2019 and the idea here is that somehow these black students are suffering at the hands of racist teachers and racist principals. Now, if these are principals and teachers in California, they are probably members of the teachers unions and the principals unions, and these I would think would be some of the most liberal, open-minded, tolerant diversity- celebrating people in the world. And yet, we're told that somehow they're racist and bigoted. And so we have to let these undisciplined out of control kids run loose and the black and minority kids are trying to learn and do something with themselves and advance their prospects, they suffer, they're not able to focus, some of them get injured, or worse. And I guess all in the name of social justice, we're going to let total bedlam be the coin of the realm in California schools. CARLSON: It doesn't -- and that is such a great point. You know, "F-you, I'm not going to do ..." you know, and there's nothing that can be done about it. MURDOCK: It doesn't help anybody. It's not good for the teachers. It's not good for the students who are trying to learn. Ultimately, it's not good for the kid who probably needs to be disciplined and told, "No, this is not the way to behave." And sometimes you get through to kids that way, and they realize, "Okay, I better shape myself up." And they do and they go on and have productive, prosperous lives. But if you let them totally run loose, they don't learn that lesson. The other kids don't learn their lessons. And very often, as we've seen in some of these other schools where this undisciplined campaign is taking place, the teachers actually get verbally or physically assaulted. You know, if these lawmakers had to send their kids to government schools, if they all had to live under Obamacare and experience the consequences of these failing policies, they might be on the side that people want to see major reform and privatization, a lot of things that make these upside down disastrous policies actually effective. CARLSON: No, you're a hundred percent right. Deroy Murdock, from "National Review. Great to see you tonight. Thank you. MURDOCK: Great to see you, Tucker. Thank you. CARLSON: Well, it's hard to remember that far back, but the United Nations was created after the Second World War to resolve international disputes. Later, it took on an expanded mission in protecting human rights. Now the UN has degenerated into something a lot like your liberal cousin's Facebook feed. It's constantly pushing woke politics on a confused population. Recently, UN Women -- that's a Twitter handle tweeted this advice, quote, "How to be a champion for gender equality. One, defy stereotypes; two, talk the talk; three, disrupt the culture of toxic masculinity; four, share the care; five, don't stand for intolerance. Morons. But speaking of intolerance, the newest member of the UN Women's Rights Committee, Iran. Martin Daubney is a British journalist. He is running for the E.U. Parliament as a candidate for the Brexit Party. We recently spoke to him about what is happening at the United Nations. Here's what he said. I guess, is the bottom line question. MARTIN DAUBNEY, BRITISH JOURNALIST; Well, it's hard to imagine, isn't it that in 1945, the UN was created to end the scourge of war, to be the post war, moral conscience, to be a shining light of how to lead our lives and fast forward to 2019 and their Twitter feed certainly has been taken over by the woke-experienced kid. It's like, on the one hand, we are taught things like we will talk to Gillette or like these silly brands that dabble with woke politics and always hugely damage their reputation. And in fact, the UN themselves again, massively trolled by people who are sick of this because you're quite right to point out that inequality only seems to exist in the West and America or in the United Kingdom; racism and sexism don't seem to exist anywhere else apart from the west, which of course we know it to be simply untrue. The very fact you mentioned that Iran is on the Women's Committee is pure exemplary information about that. How can we say that a country where women make up 19 percent of the workforce were posting about equality on Facebook can get you arrested where women aren't allowed to watch sport is somehow a shining bastion of equality. Whereas whenever we hear about a special rapporteur, these are the kind of investigating officers that go from the UN abroad, a great expense in elected people, Donald Trump won't allow them into the USA and I think he should stick with that, because we've got two come to the U.K., one in 2014 concluded that the U.K. was the most sexist country in all of the UN, despite the fact that the report's author was from South Africa, which has horrible stats of 40 percent of all women who were likely to be raped and one of the world's most violent crimes episodes. And secondly, we had one last year after Brexit, where the rapporteur concluded that Brexit Britain was much more racist. And as soon as these people leave our shores, they are reviled and leave nothing but disaster in their wake. And frankly, it makes you wonder why we bother with them and why we are paying for them. CARLSON: Well, let me ask a question -- I just want to check your kind of woke quotient here. So if I forced my wife to cover herself with a piece of cloth, because I demand that she remained modest, that's not woke. DAUBNEY: No. CARLSON: But if a foreign country requires its women to do that, is woke - - DAUBNEY: Yes, that's what -- that's kind of observing religious faith. CARLSON: Okay, so a burka can be woke. DAUBNEY: Yes. Precisely. And it's much safer to not have a position on that. I think this is what this is all about. I think the UN is seeking - - it's going through an existential crisis. It can't enforce world peace, because the power of veto is seen that it's toothless in in actual terms of power. And so it seems to have made its new mission to be like a moral arbiter and particularly of the West. There was a guy in one of these rapporteurs on the television tonight in the U.K., from Geneva, Sweden in his bow tie, and he was talking about how the Venezuelan regime that's being overthrown, was being overthrown by right wingers. You know, people are dying of starvation. They're literally eating their pets. They're wiping their behinds on banknotes which are cheaper than toilet roll yet, in the eyes of the rapporteur, it's right wingers, it's fascists who are overthrowing this and by the way, they're always underpinned by Donald Trump. There we have it. Every wrong in the world is perpetrated by the capitalists, by the West and every writer of the world is perpetrated by the rest. CARLSON: Unbelievable. What a perfect description of their worldview. Thank you. Martin, it's great to see you tonight. Thank you for that. DAUBNEY: It's a pleasure. Thank you. (END VIDEOTAPE) CARLSON: Ebola is back -- one of the world's most horrifying diseases, one of the most deadly outbreaks ever. Many experts are concerned. Dr. Marc Siegel is here with an update on that. Also new information about UFOs just declassified. This is the only show that covers it. We're not embarrassed. It's an amazing story. Don't miss it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: I want to bring you a Fox News Alert tonight. This one report just minutes ago on South Korean media, not yet reported in this country. In South Korea, they are reporting that North Korea apparently has fired a short range ballistic missile. Now, if true would be the first time. North Korea has done that in the past year and a half. The launch apparently came from the Hodo Peninsula and the missile moved in the direction of the East Sea. U.S. officials are analyzing details to find out exactly what happened. But it would be a significant setback of course to the administration's diplomatic efforts in the region, which sought to reduce tension between the two countries. We will keep following the story and bringing you more information as it comes in as it always will. In other developing news tonight, there are new fears that Ebola could be heading to this country. One of the worst outbreaks of that horrifying disease in history is underway tonight and spreading fast. A thousand people have already died of Ebola in the Congo. It's one of the deadliest infectious diseases known to man, of course, fewer than one third of the people who display symptoms survive. Just five years ago, there was a major outbreak of Ebola that made it to our country. For those answers, we go to the man, we always go to NYU medical professor, Dr. Marc Siegel joins us tonight. Doctor, thanks very much for coming on. MARC SIEGEL, MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Tucker. CARLSON: So this seems like a development really in in the history of Ebola, a thousand people. SIEGEL: Yes, we should. And I'll tell you why, Tucker, because it's in an area of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where there is not an infrastructure where there is militia swarming around over 119 Ebola clinics -- they have been attacked by militia. So it's a security problem in addition to a health problem. It's also erupting right now. We've had over 100 cases in the past week alone. You said a thousand deaths out of 1,500 cases over the last year. One hundred in the past week alone. The World Health Organization is in the middle of this, but they don't have money. There's not enough vaccines. Here's a good development since 2016. We now have a highly effective vaccine. It's been given to a hundred thousand people that may sound like a lot. It needs to be given to millions. We don't have the vaccines and people are dying without even knowing they have Ebola. Forty percent of the deaths, Ebola is identified after the person dies. It is erupting. It's spreading. It's getting out of control. CARLSON: Interesting. But Ebola, at least, as it has been explained in the Western media, it seems like it would be kind of hard to miss. I mean, you hemorrhage from various orifices. I mean, it's horrible. SIEGEL: They don't know they have it because there's no one around there identifying it. There's no healthcare workers in the region. World Health Organization -- people have been killed. It's not a situation -- granted, someone that knows Infectious Diseases or even medicine is going to be able to identify it. Now again, it's going to spread to neighboring countries, I believe. Here's one positive thing about it. It's very hard to spread. You can only spread it if you come in contact with secretions, with blood. So it's not spread casually. So even if a traveler were to bring it here, which happened in 2014, with Craig Spencer and others, it will only spread if proper precautions are taken. If another case, God forbid shows up in the United States, hopefully they'll isolate that case, it won't spread here. But there, it's an enormous problem. People themselves don't know what it is. They know they have some serious, horrible disease. They don't know it's Ebola. CARLSON: It's unbelievable. Ebola, of course, is far from the only deadly communicable disease floating around the globe. SIEGEL: What we usually do in a case like this is we bring more and more of our workers in rather than blocking travelers. But if it gets to the point where I said a hundred cases in the past week, we were considering that back in 2014, if it gets to the point where we start having thousands and thousands of cases and nothing is being done internally. Now, the Democratic Republic of Congo is trying to help. Their Health Ministry is doing a lot. But again the militias and the security problem there, UN Forces are there, but nothing with what we need. This is becoming not just a health issue, but also an issue of having to bring in armies and a mess -- a total, total mess and it's not diminishing, it's growing and it's going to spread to neighboring countries in Africa. CARLSON: I'm not surprised at all. Doctor, thanks very much for your perspective. Great to see you. SIEGEL: Thank you, Tucker. CARLSON: Well, there's something going on in the skies above us; even the government isn't certain exactly what it is. Recently declassified documents show that U.S. government has for years maintained a program that investigated the health effects of UFO encounters on those who saw them. Meanwhile, in response to the news that is crafting a new UFO reporting system, the Navy -- the U.S. Navy -- has openly admitted to repeated encounters with unusual aerial objects near its bases. Nick Pope investigate UFO sightings with the U.K. Ministry of Defense. He has been dismissed by others as a conspiracy. That's turns out he wasn't. He was totally right and he joins us tonight. We're glad to have him. So Nick, first to the news that the U.S. government has investigated the health effects of contact with UFOs. NICK POPE, FORMER U.K. OFFICIAL: Well, this is a part of the Pentagon's AATIP Program that studied these unexplained phenomena, and it's a part that we haven't heard much about. Everyone has been concentrating on the videos of the Navy jets chasing the UFOs, but if you go back to Harry Reid's letter to the Department of Defense, he describes this in terms of the human interface and human effects aspect of the program. And then recently, more recently, when the DIA wrote to Congress about this, in amongst all the papers on exotic propulsion systems that they produced was a paper entitled, "Field Effects on Biological Tissues." And it seems as if what they were interested in is the effects of all this on the people that witnessed it. And I understand that this involved for example, things like blood samples, DNA tests and other medical tests and procedures. CARLSON: So I mean, what this really tells us is that UFO encounters are so common that they are worried about the health effects of those encounters on Americans. So there's really no question that the U.S. government has known for a long time that something profound is going on, I'm not saying they know what it is. But they've lied about that. It's bewildering. POPE: Well, I think there are very difficult defense and national security issues here and there is also this blurring of the lines. We don't know -- we really don't whether with some of these things, we're talking about Russians, Chinese or something from, shall we say farther field than that. And then so there is embarrassment. The other point is you can't say we've lost control of our own airspace. But I did a cold case review on a case in the U.K. where it turned out some military witnesses were probably exposed to UAP radiation. Now UAP is the British government term for UFO -- Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. And these people are now trying to get medical settlements for health issues that they attribute to these close encounters. CARLSON: It's almost like there's a whole kind of parallel world going on, where these stories are addressed, but the rest of us are not even aware of it and we sort of know that there are these UFO nuts. But it turns out lots of sober, well-educated people have been devoting an awful lot of time to studying this stuff for decades and I'm just amazed that we didn't know. POPE: Well, the Ministry of Defense was studying it. The Department of Defense here and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and of course, as you said, in your introduction, just last week, the Navy have announced a new policy on this to encourage their pilots and their radar operators to come forward and speak out to destigmatize it. I support that. It's unfortunate that we're not going to get apparently the data that's actually produced under this. I hope we can get unclassified summaries. And I certainly hope we can get for example, a copy of the guidance that they say they've just issued on this because that will give us some clues as to what's going on here. I don't think there is. Nick Pope, I know you agree with that. Thank you. POPE: Yes, absolutely I do and look, you know if the Navy want to diffuse all this UFO hysteria, all they have to say is, "Look we're just talking about aircraft and drones," but they don't. CARLSON: Yes, no. They don't. Telling. Nick Pope, great to see you tonight. Thank you. CARLSON: It's Friday. It's time for "Dan Bongino's News Explosion. Our favorite former New York cop joins us in just moments to break down the most explosive stories of the week. Stay tuned. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) CARLSON: It's Friday. We've been waiting for it for seven days. Time for "Dan Bongino's News Explosion," the former Secret Service agent here to break down his top three stories of the week. The great Dan Bongino joins us now. Hey, Dan. DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: Wow, the Great Dan. I like that. I appreciate it, Tucker. All right. Let's get right to it. So story number three of my most interesting stories of the week. Joe Biden lashes off the China threat. He seems to be diminishing the threat from China, I know, a topic sensitive to your heart, Tucker. I mean, this guy was the Vice President. He wasn't like the hall monitor. He was the Vice President. So story number three, very, very upsetting and disturbing. CARLSON: It's unbelievable. Actually, nobody kind of said anything about it, which is the other weird thing. BONGINO: Crazy how that happens. All right, story number two. This one is kind of a twofer here. In New York, the gift that keeps on giving. Listen. I love my home state. I was born there. But we have two politicians from New York making news. Number one, Bill de Blasio. He says he may run for President. Now, it looks like he's going to jump into the race appealing to a constituency of one -- Bill de Blasio. He held that Town Hall up in New Hampshire. It was amazing. A Town Hall 20 people showed up and 14 of them were panelists. True story by the way. I'm not messing with you. CARLSON: Oh, I believe you. BONGINO: Yes, but no one is calling for this presidency at all -- Bill de Blasio. But secondly, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. She released this video about her garden. Now listen, she may be trolling us a little bit, I get it, but it's still worth your time. Check this out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: I was so nervous because I was in New York for two weeks in recess. Oh, my God, look at this. It's like -- look at the collard greens. I am shookt. That comes out of dirt. Like it's magic. (END VIDEO CLIP) BONGINO: Breaking. AOC discovers agriculture. I get it. It's a joke. Listen. You got elected to Congress. Congratulations. But this is a little bizarre, like you just discovered farming methods. "It comes from the dirt." As I said to a friend of mine, wait until she discovers hydroponics. This is going to get really confusing. They could swim the plant. Look at this, they can swim. CARLSON: Next week. The wheel. Fire. BONGINO: The inclined plane. Look -- that's how -- she's probably messing with us. I get it. Listen, AOC, we're just having a little fun at your expense. Nothing personal. Okay, story number one. You know, here's the story here. "New York Times" yesterday breaks finally what you and I and every sane rational person has known forever that spy assets, intelligence assets were employed to surveil the Trump campaign. We get it. Tucker, the news story here. I know we've got to wrap this -- the news story here is the news. The fact that the news took two years to report on this is absolutely gross. Everybody knew this was coming. One more thing on this. They reported that the FBI had to do it because it was frantic around election time. The FBI that is. Listen, Tucker, frantic is not an excuse to throw the Constitution out the window. It's during frantic times that we should be adhering extra to the Constitution. CARLSON: Exactly. BONGINO: This is a horrible story. I can't believe the news missed it. CARLSON: I don't think it was just the FBI. Dan Bongino, it's so great to see you always. Happy weekend. BONGINO: Thanks, buddy. You, too. See you next week. CARLSON: We'll be back Monday, 8:00 p.m. The show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Have the best weekend. Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/how-ready-are-we-if-ebola-reaches-the-us |
Will Meghan Markle, Prince Harry's baby boy be a prince? | Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's firstborn son will not automatically be a prince. The decision of a title is up to the queen to decide, although the new parents may also have a say. A decree issued by King George V in 1917 limits the number of grand royal titles in a way that would make Harry and Meghan's son known as a "Lord" rather than as a prince. He wouldn't become "his royal highness" under the current rules. HERE'S THE LINE OF SUCCESSION TO THE BRITISH THRONE The queen has the authority, however, to intervene as she did when William and his wife Kate started having children. The queen decreed that all of their children would be princes and princesses. She could do the same for Harry and Meghan's offspring, but the queen's feelings on that subject haven't been made public. PRINCE HARRY APPLAUDS MEGHAN MARKLE AFTER BIRTH OF BABY BOY, SAYS HE'S 'OVER THE MOON' It is also possible that Harry and Meghan could decide they don't want the special designation for the baby, in order to give their child a more normal upbringing. The Associated Press contributed to this report. | https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/will-meghan-markle-prince-harrys-baby-boy-be-a-prince |
Have we reached the end in finding new friends? | This is a rush transcript from "The Greg Gutfeld Show," May 18, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're off for the Miss Preakness, Covfefe out for the lead. Congrats Gal goes right wither these two out to the front with Fighting Mad away running in third to the outside. Covfefe has opened up a four, a five length lead, but not for long to run. It doesn't matter how you spell her name. She can run. Covfefe. She won by eight lengths. (END VIDEO CLIP) GREG GUTFELD, HOST: Covfefe. Trump even wins horse races. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: Hard to believe. Sorry. You made it another week. (Laughter) GUTFELD: Yes, she vowed not to have sex for political reasons. And America was like, "Who?" Then after hearing her rant for a while most people realizes her vowing not to have sex might be a good thing. It's like hearing that Maroon 5 is retiring from music. Or that the neighbor who keeps peeing in your yard finally died. Or maybe the public simply has better things to think about. Maybe it's time we return the favor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. You know me as the guy who unclogged your drain after your kid showered in peanut butter. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I replaced your hip so you could dominate your neighbors at pickle ball. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I changed your tires, your oil and fixed your transmission, see your Cardin blow up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're the nobodies of America. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are celebrities. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We aren't famous. KATHERINE TIMPF, CONTRIBUTOR: But we heard so celebrities want a sex strike. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So we're going to have a strike of our own. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Against those self-righteous stars who preach morals. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But are known to wreck four marriages in five years. TIMPF: Against pop stars you post half-naked selfies on Instagram, then demand privacy when they get in trouble doing horse tranquilizers in a club bathroom. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Against people who leave rehab and tell us how to live a healthier life. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: and go on talk shows while still obviously high as frickin' kites. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Against obnoxious, overpaid actors who preach gun control while firing zillions of weapons in every freakin' movie from shotguns to bazookas. TIMPF: Against those who lecture us on the environment, for hopping on a private jet packed with hookers and blow. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That were also flown in with private jets filled with hookers and blow. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So how do we strike UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the next time you're pushing some product. TIMPF: We might just choose something else. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or maybe, just maybe folks. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We won't strike at all. TIMPF: Because we've got a country to run. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe you should remember that and quit being such jackasses. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This message brought to you by the nobodies of America. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: Well, done. All right. We're all nobody here. In other news, oh, yeah, it turns out scientists, reanimated lurch from "The Addams Family" and programmed him to run for President. (Laughter) MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's plenty of money in this world. There's plenty of money in this country. It's just in the wrong hands. (END VIDEO CLIP) GUTFELD: It's too perfect. There's plenty of money in this country. It's just in the wrong hands. It's like they dug up Karl Marx and stretched him on the rack. He is half idiot, half moron and all communist. The Dems are screwed. They need to find their own Trump, not their own marbled slab of termite infested driftwood. I just heard that the worst mayor in the history of New York City and without question the worst mayor in the United States is now running for President. It's just not going to happen. If you like high taxes and if you like crime, you could vote for him, but most people aren't into that. Really, you would be better off if you got back to New York City and did your job for the little time you have left. (END VIDEO CLIP) (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: I don't care what you say. He is America's heckler. (Laughter) GUTFELD: But boy, is de Blasio hated. Everyone despises him. Cabbies, cops, lefties, righties, here's how the average New Yorker greeted him as he announced his run. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CROWD: (Chanting "Worst mayor ever." "Liar, liar." "Can't run the city, can't run the country.") (END VIDEO CLIP) GUTFELD: Oh man, they treated Anthony Wiener better and he is a sex offender. De Blasio's own party hates him. Seventy four percent of Democrats think he shouldn't run. He is less popular than subway vomit. Here's the chart. Yes, by a wide margin, people prefer subway vomit over a President de Blasio. I have a theory. He is high. (Laughter) GUTFELD: The weed is getting way stronger and he hasn't adjusted his intake so now Captain Stoner thinks he can run the country. See, I prefer the good old days you know when you got high and ate uncooked ramen noodles, not run for President. Actually, the only reason this vertical turd is still here, NYC had a great run under Giuliani and Bloomberg. So the city figured, "Hey, why not let an idiot run the place for a while." It's like getting a face tattoo. Things are going great. So let's make my mother cry. America is not like New York, though. Not at all. They like city slickers. But only if they are knocking the hell out of swamp creatures. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: We are knocking the hell out of the swamp creatures as we call them. We're knocking the hell -- they've never had a time like this. They say, "What the hell is going on?" (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I-10 Bridge. CROWD: Yes. TRUMP: Calcasieu. But I like I-10 much better. Okay. You know, you've been saying that word your whole lives. I just heard it about 20 minutes ago. (Laughter) GUTFELD: But I wonder if Bernie is crazy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Bernie is crazy. Bernie is crazy. But Bernie has got a lot more energy than Biden. So you never know. Now, Bernie has got a lot of energy. But its energy to get rid of your jobs. He's got the opposite energy that you produce. Not good energy. You don't like his energy. TRUMP: Pocahontas, I think is probably out. (END VIDEO CLIP) GUTFELD: Thanks to him. Meanwhile, life rolls on and a prediction comes true. Well, it's happening. Are you hearing Iran shout "Death to America?" Nope. Instead you hear the Ayatollah saying, "Hey, whoa. We don't want a war. Where did you get that idea?" That's the reversal. We used to be this guy. (Laughter) GUTFELD: Now, we're this guy. (Laughter) GUTFELD: It ended well for him. It ended well for that gentleman. So we have a President willing to scare the other countries for once. And it's working, which also terrifies the media. By now, they should be used to it. (Cheering and Applause) ANNOUNCER: Period. GUTFELD: Thank you very much. Let's welcome tonight's guests. He is so tough, barbed wire got a tattoo of him in the 90s, retired Green Beret Master Sergeant, Terry Schappert. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: He is so attractive, he makes magnets jealous. His new book is called "Success Factor X," actor, Sean Kanan. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: She is the crass lass who loves small mouth bass, host of the "Tyrus and Timpf Podcast," Kat Timpf. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: He is so tall he's never seen a sunset, former WWE superstar, and my massive sidekick, Tyrus. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: All right, Terry. TERRY SCHAPPERT, RETIRED GREEN BERET MASTER SERGEANT: Fantastic work there. GUTFELD: Oh, thank you. GUTFELD: Yes, Trump writes it for me. SCHAPPERT: He is actually making you lazy. GUTFELD: Yes. SCHAPPERT: Because he's gives it to you on a silver platter and you just present it in a nice way. GUTFELD: I do and let's stop talking about how lazy I am and how much you've aged in the past few years. SCHAPPERT: That hurts. GUTFELD: Let's talk about - you're pretty good with foreign policy. SCHAPPERT: Before we do this, my mom has a picture of me, it's a unicorn from Mom Schappert. And by the way, you can change that picture after the show, but not until. GUTFELD: I have a feeling this will be seeing the inside of an emergency room later. SCHAPPERT: Yes, foreign policy. GUTFELD: Yes. SCHAPPERT: Sorry. GUTFELD: Let's get to the point, you rambling weirdo. SCHAPPERT: Let's get to why we're here. Yes. SCHAPPERT: They're really nice people -- no, this is -- you're right. We started talking about it back there. For once, it's nice to actually stand up to them. There's a lot of people wringing their hands. I was 25 years in, in Special Forces. So I get the potential problem and the life and death. I do get that. But I also know, Obama, kind of to his discredit has set us up a bit here. $1.5 billion, validating them. And the thing is too, it's interesting -- I was thinking about this today coming in, we've normalized things. So we've normalized the idea that Iran can have a nuclear weapon, now it's just like, let's not hurt each other. We've normalized, I get on a plane today from North Carolina. I can't bring a water bottle. I can't do this. I can't do that. I have to pay special extra money for -- GUTFELD: You have to wear pants. SCHAPPERT: I have to wear pants at boots which is wrong. GUTFELD: Yes. SCHAPPERT: Which is wrong. Well, there's a monument down the street here that will tell you why we can't do that. But we just accept it as the new norm. GUTFELD: Right. SCHAPPERT: So the new norm should not be let's just buckle and try to find a way -- no, crush them. At least make them think that they're going to get crushed. And that's worth it. GUTFELD: That's a good point, whatever your name is. SCHAPPERT: Yes, you don't care. (Applause) GUTFELD: I don't know. Sean -- SCHAPPERT: Then you buckle. GUTFELD: Didn't you do -- is it "Full House?" Didn't you do "Full House" with -- SEAN KANAN, AMERICAN ACTOR: I did not do -- GUTFELD: You were with Alyssa Milano briefly. KANAN: It was "Who's the Boss." GUTFELD: "Who's the Boss." KANAN: I can't even remember. It was like 30 years ago. GUTFELD: Yes. Back when you were in your 40s. KANAN: Yes, right. GUTFELD: What are your thoughts on -- let's talk about Trump, I guess, or you could talk about Alyssa if you want. But if those are bad memories -- KANAN: A whiplash right there. GUTFELD: We could talk about Trump and his effect on politics in general. KANAN: Well, this whole thing that you were talking to Terry about Iran. I don't get these guys. I mean, they're the ones that fund terrorism all over the Middle East. They chant "Death to America" and now, suddenly like their nose is out of joint because there's a Carrier Strike Group sent over to check their asses. I mean, it's about time. You know, they're like the little drunk guy after a bar closes, and they start. TIMPF: Greg. KANAN: They start provoking the big guy. GUTFELD: Right, right. KANAN: And then when the big guy starts walking toward him, he's like, "Hold me back. Hold me back." GUTFELD: Yes, yes, yes. That is me. (Laughter) KANAN: You're right. That is you. GUTFELD: That is me. SCHAPPERT: Kat confirmed. GUTFELD: Although, I just do it at home. I don't really go to bars anymore. You know, Kat. I'm all for celebs talking about anything. But now they're just ultra woke. TIMPF: Yes, I am. And especially Alyssa Milano and what she did here because she may think that she's super woke and progressive and feminist. But what she was doing with this is actually one of the most sexist, puritanical things I've ever seen, because what she's doing is perpetuating that antiquated notion that women only have sex as a bargaining chip, or as a gift or a concession to men instead of enjoying sex for its own sake. (Cheering and Applause) TIMPF: And she said that -- GUTFELD: You perverts. TIMPF: And she said that Republicans are the one trying to bring about "The Handmaid's Tale" and she's also says that Republicans are trying to -- I mean, she's all about women wanting to control their own bodies, but she's telling me what to do with mine. Like I don't think so. Hi, dad. TIMPF: Hypothetical. I took a guess. I am just -- I am asking. KANAN: You know what's ironic, her new show is called, "Insatiable." GUTFELD: Yes. SCHAPPERT: All right. GUTFELD: See, that's interesting. I didn't even know she had a show. KANAN: She does. GUTFELD: Wow. Well, good for her. GEORGE "TYRUS" MURDOCH, CONTRIBUTOR: I'm actually a little upset. I had planned a couple of strikes myself in counter of the sex strike. I was going to -- (Laughter) MURDOCH: I was already -- I got at least five or six other dudes that probably want to come on and have that conversation, the strike was going down, yes, a checking in strike was going now. (Laughter) MURDOCH: And listening about your mother was strike was going down. (Cheering and Applause) MURDOCH: So I had a whole -- SCHAPPERT: A whole bunch of them. MURDOCH: Yes. SCHAPPERT: An arsenal. You take that away. We've got nothing to talk about. But it's just a typical thing with celebrities. Sex right strike. Like, Don Lemon will run it anyway, like, five or six people. These are the people like, "Yes, let's do it." Let's be real. You don't have anyone to sex strike with right. So you're already on a sex strike if you want to be polite about it. GUTFELD: Yes, it's like me giving up escargots. MURDOCH: Yes. TIMPF: I just don't understand how she doesn't see the irony of it. The exact same tweet she says bodily autonomy for women, but don't have sex with yours. Come on. It seems like she's no longer the boss. MURDOCH: Oh, my God, Greg. Well, played sir. SCHAPPERT: That's a low hanging fruit. GUTFELD: That was very low hanging fruit. I am very short, so I need the low hanging fruit or I won't eat. That's how I survived in the Serengeti. All right, the teleprompter is dead. So I'm going to say coming up, awesome Beto, gets a haircut. Stay tuned. (Cheering and Applause) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ANNOUNCER: And now The Greg Gutfeld Show presents the 2020 CAN'T-idates. GUTFELD: Nice job, Nora. Twenty three Democrats 23 faces. Only one will take on Donald Trump. He tried to reset his campaign on something called "The View." O'ROURKE: Yes, yes. I think it reinforces that perception of privilege and that headline that said I was born to be in this and the article is attempting to say that I felt that my calling was in public service. No one is born to be President of the United States of America. Least of all me. (END VIDEO CLIP) GUTFELD: God. KANAN: I am going to say something. I have never in my career wanted to do a fight for charity before. And I've got to tell you, if Beto wants to step in the octagon, I'm down because the guy -- you putz. GUTFELD: Sean, I find that interesting, but let me finish this. KANAN: Well, it is your show, Greg. GUTFELD: All right, so this is the new Beto. No more posting his trips to the dentist. That was the old Beto. The new Beto livestream says haircuts. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O'ROURKE: They're down to under two weeks left in school. So they're all excited this morning. We were talking about how many days are left in the school year. We're cutting out some of this ear hair that you get when you get older, it grows out of your ears. And if you don't get it cut, it could be nasty. (END VIDEO CLIP) GUTFELD: He really is the opposite of appealing. (Laughter) GUTFELD: He is going to need a lot of resets. Meantime, Kirsten Gillibrand was asked if she was being underestimated. She said, quote, "I think people are generally biased against women." What a mean thing to say about our own party. That's gender bias. Maybe none of them just asked Mark Cuban. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who do you think on the Democratic side right now has the best chance against President Trump. MARK CUBAN, BILLIONAIRE INVESTOR: Nobody right now. (END VIDEO CLIP) GUTFELD: Kind of makes you wonder. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Three hundred and fifty million people and that's the best we could do. I don't think so. Even as Democrats, I could pick better than that. (END VIDEO CLIP) GUTFELD: This is going to be fun. America's heckler. All right, Kat. TIMPF: Right, exactly. I thought about that, because I don't support her. And yet, I didn't think I was sexist against myself. But I don't think her problem is that she's a woman. I think her problem is that she is so boring that she can't make headlines. And even when she does make headlines, the headlines are about how boring she is. GUTFELD: Yes, that's true. MURDOCH: Kat, say that again. MURDOCH: Say that again. TIMPF: Vote for me, I play beer pong with water. Like vote for me, somebody just pushed past me to get Ranch dressing while I was talking. I am not a political consultant. But I feel like the good rule of thumb is if your candidate is less interesting than a condiment, you probably picked the wrong one. KANAN: Yes, sir. GUTFELD: I believe that you challenged Beto to a fight because you know you could beat him up. KANAN: Well, I don't even care if I could beat him up. I just want to take a shot. You know -- MURDOCH: His finishing move is the apology. I'm sorry. KANAN: Look, they have a saying in Texas, and I know this because I'm from Pennsylvania. (Laughter) KANAN: This guy is all hat and no cattle, so get along, doggy. I just -- I don't get it. GUTFELD: I'm all cattle and no hat, but that's a medical problem. KANAN: I'm all beef, and that's something else. GUTFELD: Yes. Tyrus. I'm tying my shoe right now. GUTFELD: Yes. MURDOCH: You didn't even look down. GUTFELD: I know. MURDOCH: Standing ovation. He did it. (Cheering and Applause) SCHAPPERT: That was good. MURDOCH: Now for your next trip, do this. GUTFELD: Terrible. MURDOCH: He can't put his feet on the ground. GUTFELD: I don't know. Twenty five is 2024, we got this. I think that's where you go. I think that's where you're at because they're in. Wow, they're already on re-relaunches. GUTFELD: Yes, yes, yes. MURDOCH: And I thought -- poor Beto, man. Like he was getting fed lines. You're mad about that, YOU should have been there." Yes, yes, like I can't wait. (Laughter) GUTFELD: Yes. MURDOCH: He would come out of that meeting, "I'd just like to say to the remaining 36 states, we're going to get our stuff together. The rest of you, please pack your bags. You now belong to China. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry." GUTFELD: Terry, I look at Beto, you could tell that he's unhappy about his lot in life, he is a guy who really wanted his own TED Talk. But be up there and wave his arms about anything yet, but he has no substance he wishes he was in Green Day. So he just had to marry a rich woman. SCHAPPERT: That's true. Here's the funny thing about all of them so far that I've seen. There's some of them I don't even know. There's like 25, but the ones that I see a lot they're basically just garden variety left wing socialist, with identified different victim groups and those victim groups change all the time. I think a lot of people -- whatever side you're on, I think that the whole victim thing is getting kind of old. It's getting kind of old. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: We need to get beyond that. All right, I've got to wrap. I personally as a New Yorker would like to apologize to America for exporting de Blasio and Gillibrand. We're probably going to be sending you subway rodents, which would be the size of baby fists or my fists, because these are baby fists. All right, up next, the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show won't be on TV anymore. Too bad. They were always so informative. (Cheering and Applause) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) AISHAH HASNIE, CORRESPONDENT: Live from "America's News Headquarters," I'm Aishah Hasnie. Right now, we want to get to severe weather slamming the central U.S. At least 30 tornadoes have been reported over the past 24 hours. The storm stretching from Texas to Minneapolis left hundreds of thousands without power. Storm chasers captured this tornado touching down in Mineola, Kansas, the twister leaving behind a trail of destruction, destroying several homes and businesses and this possible tornado touching down in beaver Oklahoma. So far no serious injuries have been reported. Well celebrity chef, Jose Andres offering a job to a fired New Hampshire cafeteria worker. Bonnie Kimball was terminated for feeding a student who couldn't pay. She was offered her job back Friday, but doesn't want it. Kimball says the company is worried about negative headlines and response - - no response yet on Andres' offer. I'm Aishah Hasnie, now back to The Greg Gutfeld Show. GUTFELD: The Victoria Secret Fashion Show will no longer be televised. Let me be the first to say nighty night. I hate you. That was great. SCHAPPERT: I thought that was good. GUTFELD: For the first time since 2001. The underwear parade will not be seen on network TV, and a memo to staff. The company CEO said network TV is no longer the right fit, and they will rethink the annual event. The show had been declining in ratings in recent years. Maybe it will be shown on some digital platform. Digital -- there's a joke in there and I'm not going to explain it to you people because you don't deserve it. (Laughter) GUTFELD: Anyway. Meanwhile, I hear they're going to replace it with a remake of CHIPS. KANAN: I think it's a horrible idea. I don't support it. Big fan of Victoria's Secret. I just -- seeing the network executives saying okay, you know we were going to get rid of the Victoria's Secret. We need something. It's progressive. Something edgy, dynamic. Let's go with Season 17 of "NCIS." GUTFELD: Yes, there you go. Yes, there is Season 17, Tyrus, of "NCIS." Though I've never seen a single episode. I'm still waiting for Season 1. Yes, I'm good. SCHAPPERT: Yes. GUTFELD: Yes. MURDOCH: I don't know how to answer that. GUTFELD: Yes, I know. Would I look good in that?" I'm like, "Yes, you look phenomenal in that." A lot of thick girls have wings. (Laughter) SCHAPPERT: Oh no. MURDOCH: That's what I've been saying. KANAN: You are the master. MURDOCH: I'm just saying, like it's just an argument for me. I'm glad it's gone. Because let's be honest, like most women that we're in relationships with, honey, are healthy, and they're not starving models on the runway. So you know, we can get back to what's real. There's nothing wrong with the Target underwear. It's good. It's fine. They're all good. GUTFELD: Any underwear, when you're there and if you get there, then it doesn't really -- it's like hurray. That's great. Terry, you buy a lot from Victoria's Secret. You don't have a girlfriend, which is interesting. SCHAPPERT: All the time. SCHAPPERT: Yes. Good one. Because I've never watched it not because I don't like those girls with wings. But I was just -- it just seems weird. SCHAPPERT: It's weird. Tyrus, look at me eye contact. No laughing. A lot of judgment, Tyrus. SCHAPPERT: It always seems like, dude, thick girls with wings, that's going to stay with me. MURDOCH: It should. SCHAPPERT: You're right. I always felt like if you were watching it the way they had on network television. I feel like I was like reading a "Playboy" in front of my mom. GUTFELD: Right. SCHAPPERT: Except you don't do that. KANAN: You hide it under the bed. GUTFELD: It makes everybody uncomfortable. Also, Kat, it discriminates against the plain. These girls are like -- I will get arrested if I dress like that in a public park. And I know. TIMPF: Yes. MURDOCH: From experience. TIMPF: You know, a lot of my friends who are women enjoyed watching this and I don't get it. I don't know what's fun to sit there and be like, "Oh look, her body is better than mine. I like this." I don't understand at all. But I have been forced to watch it though, Greg with those friends and there's knowing one thing made me feel better. TIMPF: They have fake hair, too. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: I don't know. I don't know. I just said -- you know we're -- part of me is like I'd never watched it anyway. Never. Nada. But like beauty pageants are getting rid of the swimsuit. Bikini baristas are being targeted for unemployment. SCHAPPERT: It's not that they're going away. It's why they're going away. GUTFELD: You can't tell dirty jokes anymore at the hospital. SCHAPPERT: That's why they're going -- (Laughter) GUTFELD: Anyway, I better move on. SCHAPPERT: It's why they're going away that sucks. Not that they're going away. GUTFELD: Terry, we made that point. SCHAPPERT: I'm not done. GUTFELD: No. Up next. We've got a new product idea that will make you the talk of the town. That's next. (Cheering and Applause) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GUTFELD: Have we reached the end in finding new friends. A new study shows the average American hasn't made a new friend in five years. Some reasons include shyness and introversion, commitments to family, lacking hobbies that allow them to meet new people. But thankfully, finding a new buddy just got a whole lot easier. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Making friends is hard. I just moved to the city and I don't really have any hobbies. I just wish there were an easier way to make friends. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well now there is. It's a briefcase full of $400,000.00. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're okay, pal. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sorry, buddy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait, wait. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes. I'll help you all day, dude. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have to tell you about my day. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I've got to go. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm listening. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's the best friend a guy could ever have, a briefcase full of $400,000.00 and it's yours for $400,000.00 plus $400,000.00 shipping and handling. MURDOCH: The word friend is a big term, like I think it depends on who you are, like, made most of my friends when I was younger and I really don't need new ones. So in the places that I go are not really places I want to make friends. When I'm at the gym, on this show. Like there's just things that I don't - - I don't do it. It's like different. Also, I mean, people are on the internet so much. I just -- the world has changed. There's not as much interaction anymore. GUTFELD: I know, it's hard to be friend with you, Tyrus. We can't go to the park and play see-saw. MURDOCH: No. GUTFELD: I'll go flying. If we do -- if we get in the see-saw, I'd go flying into space. MURDOCH: Because that's what you want to do. You want to go to the park and play see-saw. See, I knew this was going to be some weird outlet. No, no, I'm not taking the magic pill with you either for wine. So yes, let it go. GUTFELD: He never gets sleepy. TIMPF: Well, I think it's actually pretty easy to make friends. I make a new friend every like 10 hours. GUTFELD: Yes. TIMPF: It is keeping the friends that is hard. Especially if you're a woman, all you have to do, walk into a bar bathroom and start washing your hands next to someone. Or if that doesn't work, ask her for a tampon, you will have a conversation. You will follow each other on Instagram. And you'll feel bad unfollowing each other. So you'll just keep following each other till you both die. And if that's not friendship, I don't know what is, Greg. (Laughter) SCHAPPERT: I hadn't thought about that at all. MURDOCH: Men don't talk in the bathroom. GUTFELD: I have a theory. Terry. SCHAPPERT: Yes, sir. GUTFELD: Did you know that if you were murdered, then there's a 95 percent chance that you, the victim will know the perpetrator. So it's far safer not to know anyone. So -- SCHAPPERT: It's like if you don't want to get attacked by a shark, don't go in the water. GUTFELD: So if you don't have any friends, you won't get murdered. Instead you die old and alone. SCHAPPERT: Which is a good way to go. GUTFELD: I'm working on it. SCHAPPERT: You and I are going to be that way. GUTFELD: Yes, exactly. SCHAPPERT: You're right a little bit. Yes, I don't know, man. I think Tyrus is right. The society has changed a bit. It depends on what you do. Most people when they get to their careers, they probably stay in that area and don't do that much. Me, as an international man of mystery, I'm meeting people all the time. So I'm meeting all sorts of friends, but -- GUTFELD: There's not much mystery to you. SCHAPPERT: Yes, okay. GUTFELD: We know what you do after the show. SCHAPPERT: Not nice. And I'm not loving the code. But that's okay. We'll get we'll get along as you. This is why we're not together anymore. Because you like to embarrass me in front of people. I think it changes and there is a lot of internet stuff, but it's all yes, man. I make new friends quite a bit. It depends. But I think when you're younger, you really -- it's different. MURDOCH: I'm talking about core friends. That you don't want to speak to you like me and my boys don't talk for like five years and we're fine. SCHAFFERT: Like my Army guys. Like I can talk -- I will talk to those cats forever. But if I get on the phone, we're insulting each other, like we never parted ways. GUTFELD: Kat likes to talk to cats. KANAN: When you're 20, you can be friends with anybody. TIMPF: I talk to my cats. KANAN: It's like an upside down pyramid. You know, as you get older, and you know what you want out of life -- SCHAPPERT: It kind of goes like that. KANAN: Your friend pool gets smaller and smaller. TIMPF: Yes, that's why my friend pool gets smaller and smaller. KANAN: And we start dying. GUTFELD: Yes, that's true. Most of my friends are dead. Usually it's my fault. Yes, I'm a terrible cook. KANAN: You're a terrible cook. GUTFELD: Yes, that's right. Friends, I -- you should look at friends like - as an expertise leech, meaning that you have a satellite of pals. Each one has a unique talent that you can exploit kind of like Super Friends. So you know, it's like, each friend should have something and you should have something, too. I don't. But you know -- MURDOCH: So just use people. GUTFELD: Use people is what I'm getting at. Thank you for saving me on that. All right, up next. Well, if you're watching Seth Meyers, the answer is probably yes. (Cheering and Applause) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GUTFELD: They weren't amused at his joke about booze. A man was allegedly booted off a Southwest Airlines flight for making a joke about vodka. It happened in Sacramento. Take off was delayed a few hours. Passengers say attendants were giving out water and one guy asked if they were handing out vodka because they've been waiting forever. Flight attendant said, yes, it's vodka. The guy took a sip and joked, "Hey, this isn't vodka." She didn't laugh and despite other passengers defending him, the plane returned to the gate and cops asked the man to leave. Southwest to their credit instantly executed him. Not really. They released this statement -- part of a statement. "We regret any less than positive experience a customer has onboard our aircraft." It could have been worse, it could have been this guy. (VIDEO PLAYS) GUTFELD: Child should be arrested. Sean, I maintain that humor is a device that is used to de-escalate situations from violence. We have a generation that doesn't like humor, which means we're going to have more violence. KANAN: I completely agree with that. GUTFELD: Yes. KANAN: You know, the so I read this article and basically, I guess the guy who got kicked off his wife had said to the flight attendant, you know, look, we've all been on this tarmac for a while, deescalate, take it easy. And she said, "Well, I've been on the tarmac too for a while." And I'm like, "You're a flight attendant. It's your job to be wherever the plane is." GUTFELD: That's so true. That is so true. KANAN: Give me vodka. GUTFELD: Terry. GUTFELD: I don't know. This is the part where you respond with a witty or informative answer. SCHAPPERT: I've got nothing. I don't actually drink on planes, man. I always feel crappy when I get to where I'm going. Yes, so that's all I got. SCHAPPERT: I think you're right about humor. KANAN: Hence, the death of humor. GUTFELD: Yes. KANAN: Hence, stick in the mud. SCHAPPERT: You're right about -- I think if you -- just to segue a little bit. One thing you can see how society is or isn't is the state of comedy. Like you even talk to these comedians. They won't go on campuses, because they get -- it's not funny anymore. GUTFELD: But some are actually embracing the humorlessness. SCHAPPERT: That's bad. GUTFELD: Like Seth Meyers, you watch his show and he is now basically a schoolmarm. SCHAPPERT: He is just a scold. Yes, he's a scold. GUTFELD: Yes, yes. It's like -- people used to be shocking, Kat. SCHAPPERT: The minute -- sorry. GUTFELD: Sorry. No, go ahead. SCHAPPERT: No, I was going to say, the minute the shocking stuff and the ability to say these kind of things which Kat is a big proponent of, the ability to have that -- to have that taken away from you, you're done. Society is like -- you're getting crushed. It's a good thermometer -- barometer. GUTFELD: Barometer - thermometer, rectal, wherever. MURDOCH: There we go. I knew that was coming. (Laughter) GUTFELD: It's a bigger problem than the Southwest story, which we're just using basically as a trampoline to the bigger issue. SCHAPPERT: Exactly. TIMPF: Right. I am a libertarian. GUTFELD: Oh, good for you. TIMPF: So I feel like most things should be legal. This should not be because if you can't make a joke about a liquid that comes from a root vegetable, you are not living in a free country. GUTFELD: That is true. TIMPF: I just wish I could have been there at the gate when they had to turn around. "Ma'am, why did you turn this plane around?" "Well, because a guy made a joke about a vegetable product." It's like people -- you can't have that kind of power if you're that kind of stupid. I really, really don't think you should. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: Maybe, Tyrus this could be a story that had another part, too that we don't know. MURDOCH: Oh, it has a big part to it. I can't believe no one is letting this go. GUTFELD: Yes. (Laughter) MURDOCH: He got kicked off the plane and his wife said, "Well, I mean, I told you not to give me." Timing is everything. A bad joke is a bad joke. He got kicked off by himself. GUTFELD: Yes. KANAN: I'll take your -- MURDOCH: And the wife went. GUTFELD: It means, she set him up. Maybe she set him up. MURDOCH: If it would have been the other way around. If Oh, Margaret, we will call her Margaret. I like that. If Margaret cracked the vodka joke and they kicked her off. MURDOCH: Let's go. And then the husband would have been like, "Oh, well, dear, they technically said, I'm going." And then he went out to leave. GUTFELD: You know, I do think that this is ... MURDOCH: It is sexist, man. GUTFELD: I think this is the product of safe spaces. I'm probably 87 percent wrong on this that maybe the flight attendant is younger. SCHAPPERT: Right, we don't know. GUTFELD: And we've been telling -- MURDOCH: Or really old. GUTFELD: Old flight attendants are hilarious. They are so much fun. MURDOCH: Yes, they are. GUTFELD: They always give me booze. Always. TIMPF: It wasn't even really -- GUTFELD: And they watch Fox. TIMPF: It wasn't even a joke. He just said this is not vodka. That was true. He was just stating the fact. SCHAPERT: Yes, it was ridiculous. GUTFELD: But the thing is if you're telling kids that a joke is like a projectile, like a physical projectile, so when somebody says something they go [gibberish]. That's my impression of getting hit in the face with a projectile. MURDOCH: Not bad. I give it a six. GUTFELD: You give it a six. MURDOCH: Six and a half. SCHAPPERT: If you tighten up a little bit, you're good. GUTFELD: Yes, yes. You're not my method actor. SCHAPPERT: Yes. GUTFELD: Or am I a methadone actor. Anyway. That was good. "Final Thoughts" next. (Cheering and Applause) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ANNOUNCER: "Final Thoughts." It's the last thought that's why it's called the "Final Thoughts." Okay. GUTFELD: All right. "Final Thoughts" Terry. Sounds kind of depressing. SCHAPPERT: Hey if you're bored, I've got a pretty funny show on Amazon and Netflix. First two seasons to run. It's called "Hollywood Weapons." Big fun. Explosions. Guns. Check it out. (Cheering and Applause) GUTFELD: Great. Sean. KANAN: I do. I have a new book out. It's called, "Success Factor X," with my partner, Jill Liberman. We went to 50 of America's best and asked them for their advice on success. And one of those 50 is Master Sergeant Terry Schappert. (Cheering and Applause) SCHAPPERT: They were going to ask Greg, but they just figured out he is really not that successful. GUTFELD: You're fired. SCHAPPERT: I'm gone. GUTFELD: Kat. TIMPF: I don't know. I just seriously ate too much cabbage before the show and I just want to go home. So if we can just move it along. TIMPF: I feel like I'm going to throw up. TIMPF: Yes. TIMPF: It was stuffed cabbage. There was pork involved as well. That could be great TV. GUTFELD: Yes. TIMPF: All right. I'll work on it. GUTFELD: Okay. Tyrus, you get the "Final Thoughts." GUTFELD: Yes. MURDOCH: If you get a chance, check out "Tyrus and Timpf" podcast. Throwing up cabbage -- SCHAPPERT: Or the vomit. MURDOCH: Or the podcast. Maybe I can get her to throw up on there next week. So check it out. GUTFELD: Awesome. Well, I think we threw up a good show. Thanks to Terry Schappert, Sean Kanan, Kat Timpf, Tyrus. Our studio audience. I'm Greg Gutfeld, I love you, America. (Cheering and Applause) Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. | https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/have-we-reached-the-end-in-finding-new-friends |
Did The Internet Kill The 'Romance' Of Travel? | Getty The Internet transformed almost all aspects of our lives. Millions of users can not imagine their lives without it and also millions were born with it and don't even know how it was before the internet era. One of the things that is completely transformed is the way we travel--from scratch and from "start to finish". My parents used to travel during that era when it took 20 hours and 3 flights to get to a city that is a 2h direct flight today. When plane transport was not as nearly affordable as nowadays and airline tickets were complicated paper documents issued by a travel agency. I was a little kid during this "pre-internet era" so during our Sunday lunch I "traveled" my mom back in time and had her tell me how it used to be... They would pack the car and depart on their holiday adventure without knowing the final destination or which countries they would end up visiting--which from nowadays point of view looks sounds kind of romantic. "We would head to Germany, for instance, and we would make stops on the way visiting different cities. We had a map and if we got lost we would ask people to guide us. When we decided to spend the night in a city we liked we would stop at a hotel we would see on our way and directly book a room at the reception." Though when they knew where they would like to go (and they would get the idea either from a catalog from a travel agency or hotel they picked up from somewhere or a recommendation from a friend) they had to visit the travel agencies to book the flight and hotel. "We had to call, visit the travel agencies, we picked up catalogs and took them home... then we would go back again to ask if something was not clear. To compare prices we had to visit more agencies and decide on the best offer. For flights, we had as well to go to an agency and we were dependent on the skills of the agency worker to find us the best option that again we couldn't compare. Payments had to be done at the travel agency so usually, this was our third or even fourth visit at the agency we chose for our travel. We would find out about the weather conditions from the captain in the plane. We would visit the info desk to get directions on how to get to the hotel. We would rely on the receptionist's recommendations on what to do or visit in the city. When we would come home we would be inviting our friends over dinner or drinks to share the experience. However, before having them, I would have the photos printed and sorted into a photo album. We also had one of those big cameras that I would take with me everywhere to make video recordings. I was well-organized organized, once we got back I would make a VHS titled with the place and the date." I can't imagine that this was a reality only 15 years ago. Today for all of these things all we need is internet access and smart device. Choosing a place to visit --Google, ads, Facebook, email marketing and other apps booming us with "information on the next place we should visit" instead of catalogs from agencies and hotels. --Google, ads, Facebook, email marketing and other apps booming us with "information on the next place we should visit" instead of catalogs from agencies and hotels. Booking flight and hotel- -Travel apps instead of travel agents. If before the internet travel booking and reservations were only possible by visiting travel agencies or ordering by phone now we can book our travel at any time, from any location while saving money and time. The disintermediation brought by the internet cut the travel agents and the reintermediation introduced the new form of intermediaries--algorithms replaced the travel agents who can do their job better and at unprecedented speed. We are our own travel agents today. We can get the best possible deals and be able to make well-informed decisions. We can check the credibility of airlines and hotels by reading reviews from others who have been there, done that. We are able to plan every single detail of our holiday beforehand and know exactly how every single coin will be spent on the trip. And it is super-easy, no need to be an expert to make online bookings. Booking accommodation or flight has become an almost automated series of actions: go online, compare prices, choose, read some reviews. Fill in the form. Choose a seat or room. Pay. Add it to your smartphone. -Travel apps instead of travel agents. If before the internet travel booking and reservations were only possible by visiting travel agencies or ordering by phone now we can book our travel at any time, from any location while saving money and time. The disintermediation brought by the internet cut the travel agents and the reintermediation introduced the new form of intermediaries--algorithms replaced the travel agents who can do their job better and at unprecedented speed. We are our own travel agents today. We can get the best possible deals and be able to make well-informed decisions. We can check the credibility of airlines and hotels by reading reviews from others who have been there, done that. We are able to plan every single detail of our holiday beforehand and know exactly how every single coin will be spent on the trip. And it is super-easy, no need to be an expert to make online bookings. Booking accommodation or flight has become an almost automated series of actions: go online, compare prices, choose, read some reviews. Fill in the form. Choose a seat or room. Pay. Add it to your smartphone. Navigating during traveling-- Google Maps instead of traditional maps. "Directions" instead of "Excuse me, Sir, How can I get to ....?". Google knows better than a local. I once asked a local to reconfirm the bus number that Google gave me. He told me that I can also use number 3 instead of 3G, I decided to take the advice from the local and that ending up being a mistake as I had to walk for 15 min with my suitcase instead of waiting for 5 more minutes for the 3G route. However, the consequence is that millennials don't have any sense of orientation if our phone runs out of battery we are lost not knowing where east and west is. Google Maps instead of traditional maps. "Directions" instead of "Excuse me, Sir, How can I get to ....?". Google knows better than a local. I once asked a local to reconfirm the bus number that Google gave me. He told me that I can also use number 3 instead of 3G, I decided to take the advice from the local and that ending up being a mistake as I had to walk for 15 min with my suitcase instead of waiting for 5 more minutes for the 3G route. However, the consequence is that millennials don't have any sense of orientation if our phone runs out of battery we are lost not knowing where east and west is. Collecting memories and sharing with friends--Dozens of Facebook and Instagram posts shared with thousands of people who don't care shared in real-time VS one printed photo album shared with close friends and family after the trip. We are now coming back from a two-day trip with more photos than our parents did during their 2-years of travels. And if we don't post any of those on social media chances are they won't even be seen in the next few years until they are "lost somewhere in the cloud". A friend of mine jokes "We have to lure friends with dinner and drinks so that we can play the slideshow of 500 photos from our exotic travels. Otherwise, no one except our parents would look at all those photos." The is no doubt that all these new technologies enable us to do all the things faster, quicker, easier with more convenience... And yet I wonder how come that it seems like we have less and less free time. It feels like we are in a constant hurry. --Browsing and looking at 20 hotels, VS trusting a travel agent with the only one he has or recommends. --Browsing and looking at 20 hotels, VS trusting a travel agent with the only one he has or recommends. --Taking 30 photos from the same spot and deciding which one is the best to share VS taking a photo you'll get to see once you come back and there is no decision left for you to make except if you will put it in the photo album or you will tear it on pieces. --Taking 30 photos from the same spot and deciding which one is the best to share VS taking a photo you'll get to see once you come back and there is no decision left for you to make except if you will put it in the photo album or you will tear it on pieces. Where should we eat?--Googling, searching through apps like Trip Advisor, Foursquare, Yelp, filtering by distance, by rating and finally choosing one (for which we will later say "Should have gone to that other one we were looking") VS enjoying the city and choosing the one on the way that looks good. Apps have replaced the people standing in front of the restaurants inviting us to choose theirs. Instead of asking the waiter for a recommendation or "what's the best" we turn to our apps to see what others said and make the decision based on the collective taste and experience (And why wouldn't one when given the opportunity?) We became less social in the social media world. All those available options we have nowadays made us pickier. The "Choice Economy" we live in today made us less decisive. All that waiting for "a person paid to do find us the best or the only available option" used to make people more patient--nowadays we get irritated if it takes more than a few seconds for Kiwi's algorithms to find us the best possible flight connection using that an army of travel agents can't. We devote precious time and energy to make the best, informed decisions, and still, we end up being "less happy travelers" than the "old-school travelers" were. And it is because of expectations. We have seen the room that we will stay in, we know the view of the room, we know exactly how many minutes we need to get to the city center, we know the meal we will have in the plane, we made plans for every single day of the trip, we booked a cruise on the river, we know how the breakfast will look like (we have seen all the photos there were to be seen--from the hotel, form other travelers from all different angles), we know that the hotel has a welcome gift for us and we know that it is a bottle of wine (we have seen it all!). There is nothing unexpected except the unpleasant "surprises"-- there was no welcome gift as the maid forgot to put it, the weather forecast was not accurate and it's cloudy instead of sunny, the boat you booked for your cruise is late while the other arrived on time, the restaurant we chose with 8.9 rating did not meet our high expectations and we end up with "Should have picked the other restaurant. Should have booked the other hotel. Should have posted the other photo..." And what we really should do is regret less and ENJOY more! | https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninaangelovska/2019/05/26/did-the-internet-kill-the-romance-of-travel/ |
Does Greed Drive Deutsche Bank And Other Banks Not To File Suspicious Activity Reports? | Getty The more information comes out in dribs and drabs about and from Deutsche Bank, I remain convinced that something is truly rotten there. David Enrich of the New York Times, wrote recently that reportedly, five current and former Deutsche Bank, anti-money-laundering professionals found in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity. These alerts reportedly led compliance staff members to review the transactions and to report suspicious activity reports (SARs) to senior managers that they believed should be sent to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a US Treasury Department that polices financial crimes. A good outcome has been that Enrichs article led Senators Sherrod Brown and Chris Van Hollen to write Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing with a number of important questions about Deutsche Banks SARs processes. With any luck, Herr Sewing will respond by the requested date of May 30. Other bank executives would benefit by taking a good luck at Brown's and Van Hollen's letter. Heres How Banks Apply the Smell Test, the compliance officers did what they are supposed to do. According to Ross Delston, a lawyer and international anti-money laundering expert, alerts that arise at any financial institution (FI) must be followed up by the FI. Further, after an alert is investigated and the FI verifies that suspicious activities are confirmed, a SAR must be filed. The failure to do either or both can have serious consequences. The European Central Bank, German regulator BaFin, and the German central bank, Deutsche Bundesbank, are responsible for the consolidated supervision of Deutsche Bank. In February of this year, BaFin ordered Deutsche Bank to review its risk management processes in correspondent banking in order to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. BaFin has expanded the mandate of a special monitoring representative it had appointed on September 2018. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the New York Department of Financial Services are responsible for supervising and examining Deutsche Banks activities in the U.S. The Federal Financial Examination Institutions Councils, Suspicious Activity Overview of the Bank Secrecy Act Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual states that FinCEN and the federal banking agencies recognize that, as a practical matter, it is not possible for a bank to detect and report all potentially illicit transactions that flow through the bank. Yet the online manual clearly states that Examiners should focus on evaluating a banks policies, procedures, and processes to identify, evaluate, and report suspicious activity. However, as part of the examination process, examiners should review individual SAR filing decisions to determine the effectiveness of the banks suspicious activity identification, evaluation, and reporting process. In other words, the Federal Reserve Banks examiners can ask for all the documentation with the SAR filing decisions taken in respect to Trump and Kushner and analyze whether all processes and procedures were followed correctly. Remember, Fed examiners are not investigators. That is the job of FinCEN. Yet examiners, can make sure that rules and guidelines around anti-money laundering and SARs filings are being followed. When I spoke to Delston, he explained that investigation of alerts resulting in a decision to file a SAR should lead to a series of actions by the bank, including Conducting Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) on the customer; Comparing expected transactions to actual transactions to see if there are anomalies between what was disclosed by the customer at the onboarding with the customers usage of the account; Raising the customers risk rating, which would cause more frequent Customer due Diligence (CDD)/Know Your Customer (KYC) refresh, typically annually for the highest risk category; Heightened monitoring; and Depending on all of the above, could ultimately lead to a decision by the bank as to whether they should keep the customer. Due to the amount of personnel, time, and costs involved to follow the steps outlined by Delston, I cannot help but wonder whether the desire to save on compliance costs and the obsession not to lose potentially profitable clients, convinces senior management and executives not to do the right thing, not only at Deutsche Bank, but possibly at other financial institutions. It is critical that bank and financial regulators, as well as legislators, research and investigate these media reports seriously. In addition to outstanding questions about money laundering, there is still the unanswered question of whether Trump committed bank fraud when he requested multiple loans from Deutsche Bank. In a piece I wrote in April this year, I included the questions that bank supervisors and bank examiners typically should ask when trying to determine if an individual committed bank fraud. If Trump inflated his net worth, then the banks and federal authorities should be looking into this with serious urgency. Until Deutsche Bank can accurately answer questions about its anti-money laundering and fraud detection processes and procedures, as I wrote in April, Deutsche Bank needs to increase its capital for operational risk to sustain unexpected losses due to breaches in the day-to-day running of a firm due to people, processes, systems, and pay higher fines in order to stop its money laundering and fraud recidivism. Taxpayers should not bear losses that could end up happening due to Deutsche Banks weak operational risk. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrarodriguezvalladares/2019/05/26/does-greed-drive-deutsche-bank-and-other-banks-not-to-file-suspicious-activity-reports/ |
Can Israel Become A Nation Of Startup Marathoners? | Getty Having returned a week ago from Israel, I remain impressed by its strengths as a place to start companies. Yet Israel strikes me as somewhere in middle of s transformation -- from a nation that starts and sells companies to the likes of Google and Intel to one that hosts its own publicly-traded world-transforming industry leaders -- on the order of Facebook and Google. My visit to Israel was part of a Babson College Israel Startup Strategy Elective Abroad -- for 22 undergraduates. (based on my 12th book, Hungry Start-up Strategy). The second part of the course -- which wrapped up May 19 -- was a visit to Israeli startups, investors, accelerators, and government officials -- along with cultural activities. In the third part of the course, student teams conduct six week consulting projects with startups in a startup incubator called 8200 Impact who are seeking help with their growth strategies. How Israel Changed Its Narrative Israel's Startup Nation narrative has been well-established in many minds -- due in part to the success of the 2009 eponymous book. To counter the image of the country as a source of endless conflict, many now see Israel as an extraordinary entrepreneurial success story, Mike Bargman, CEO of Headline Media, a Tel Aviv-based PR firm said during our May 15 meeting. The 71 year old nation of nine million people has in the space of a few decades turned itself into a country with more IPOs per capita than any other. Since most everyone enters the military before starting university, Israel trains people to lead others and -- for the elite who are selected for its 8200 and 8100 units (analogous to our NSA) -- gives them deep knowledge of technologies that can form the basis of new companies. Israel's leading universities and research institutes -- such as the Technion, the Weizmann Institute, Hebrew University, and Tel Aviv University -- also supply intellectual property that finds its way into startups. Israel has overcome many handicaps -- it has a small local market, it's surrounded by hostile countries, it lacks natural resources, and it has limited venture capital -- particularly to fund the growth needed to go public. Israel has overcome many of these challenges. By developing technology in Israel and bringing on talented country managers, its companies have been able to gain share in huge markets for cybersecurity. On May 16, Andy David of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that 20% of the world's 2,200 cybersecurity companies are in Israel. The Israeli government continues to fund research partnerships with countries around the world to bring more corporate and venture capital into Israel. The Israel Innovation Authority spends $500 million a year to fund innovation, Les Abelson told us on May 16. That money -- which is matched by partners in other countries -- is paid out in $400,000 grants to startups -- in industries including cybersecurity, life sciences, and nanotechnology. For every $1 invested, Abelson believes that the Israeli economy gets back $5 to $10. As he said, "We lose 70% of the money we give out -- which creates valuable learning -- but 30% we get back in royalties." I have been following one of Israel's early public technology companies, cybersecurity technology provider Check Point Software, for nearly two decades. As I wrote in April 2018, Check Point CEO, Gil Shwed told me that he wants the company to grow faster than its 7% five year average. But over a year later there is more work to be done. In the latest quarter, Check Point reported 4% revenue growth -- though Shwed seemed happy that its "subscriptions including advanced solutions for Cloud and Mobile as well as SandBlast Zero day threat prevention" were up 13%. We also visited with website development service, Wix, which grew at an impressive 27% rate in the latest quarter. On May 20 I wrote about why its organization and management processes bode well for its future. People we met were proud to discuss the sale of Israeli companies to U.S. giants. Examples include Google's 2013 acquisition of mapping service Waze for an estimated $1.3 billion and Intel's $15.3 billion takeover of autonomous vehicle control technology supplier Mobileye. This brings me to what I believe is the most significant transformation that Israel must undertake -- from a creator of business leaders whom I call sprinters -- who can turn an idea into a company that gets acquired -- to a nation of marathoners -- who take such companies public, generate revenues in the billions of dollars, and keep growing at 20% or more. (I spelled out the differences between such leaders in my new book, Scaling Your Startup). This matters because if Israel can produce more marathoners, it can host more pillar companies -- locally-headquartered, public companies that invest in local startups -- to create more local jobs and provide tax revenue to help fund the build-out of infrastructure needed to reduce the traffic and housing crunch that accompanies Israel's current economic success. This is hard to do -- and at the moment there seems to be a lull in new Israeli marathoners. As Bloomberg reported, the number of recent Israeli IPOs has tailed off. After 17 in 2014, there were only six in 2016 and eight in 2018. As of March 2019, there were seven -- in payments, cybersecurity, ride sharing, and other fields -- that Bloomberg considered to be in the IPO pipeline. Indeed, since then one of the companies -- cybersecurity supplier Tufin Software -- has gone public. On April 12, Tufin sold shares on NASDAQ at $21 -- about where its stock sits now -- yielding a $698 million market capitalization on 2018 sales of $85 million up 30% from the year before and a $4.3 million loss, according to YahooFinance. Another IPO aspirant, Gett Taxi, a ride-hailing service -- recently raised $200 million at a $1.5 billion valuation, according to TechCrunch, and expects to go public in 2020. It would probably be better for Gett if by then shares of Uber and Lyft have risen from their current dismal levels. In March 2018 I met with Shlomo Kramer, who helped found many Israeli companies that went public including Check Point, Imperva, and Palo Alto Networks. Kramer -- co-founder and CEO of a new startup, Cato Networks-- told me that Israel is trying to build companies to last -- and to that end he is mentoring first-time Israeli entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, Israeli startups are germinating in fields such as "transportation, foodtech, femtech [technology for women's health and other needs], and canatech [cannabis-related startups]," said Bargman. While there do not seem to be any Israeli companies in the making with the potential to scale like Amazon, Facebook or Google, $900 million venture capital firm, Vertex Ventures, has funded some other big winners with a more narrow focus. For example, as Emanuel Timor, General Partner, pointed out in a May 15 interview, Vertex has backed publicly-traded solar energy electronics supplier, SolarEdge -- which sports a $2.6 billion market capitalization on sales of $937 million, up 54% in the last year, and a 14% net profit margin. And Vertex backed anti-vehicle hacking supplier, Argus Cyber Security, was acquired in 2017 for $400 million by German automobile industry supplier, Continental. Timor sees opportunity in many areas. As he said, "We are investing in cloud platforms, security, big data, digital transformation, automotive, fintech, digital health, and AI." Attacking Global Markets Through Critical Infrastructure Control Of all the companies we met, it strikes me that mPrest, a maker of complex control systems used in an array of industries, could become a large company that leads the world. As a private company, I don't know its revenues or growth rate. But since it has raised $30 million in rounds led by GE Capital and New Zealand energy utility, Vector, according to CrunchBase, rather than venture capital firms, I am guessing that the company does not want to cede control to investors. As I wrote last July, mPrest is best-known for providing key technology for Israel's so-called Iron Dome -- a system intended to keep missiles headed to Israel from harming people or property. I am impressed that mPrest has been able to extend its expertise in such control systems to other industries. As CEO Natan Barak said on May 15, mPrest's technology is used in "border control, critical facilities, water, smart agriculture, connected cars, smart cities, power, and oil and gas." Barak's mantra is "flexibility is the name of the game." While mPrest has competitors, it often wins against them. As Barak said. "We beat Raytheon and Lockheed Martin for a contract award in the UK. That's because the commercial world is looking for a cloud-based application. Our competitors require customers to take out the old and install the new. Our solution [is better and more cost-effective] because it works on top of what they have already." mPrest has technological expertise that's useful to many industries around the world. Yet its investors are not venture capital firms -- who typically seek rapid growth followed by a quick exit. And Barak was not clear about the company's exit strategy. If more Israeli startup marathoners such as Shwed emerge, I will be excited to talk with them. In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether the CEOs leading Israel's 2019 crop of IPO candidates will be among them. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/05/26/can-israel-become-a-nation-of-startup-marathoners/ |
What The Heck Is NASCAR's Dale Earnhardt Jr. Doing At The Indy 500? | Getty NBC will telecast the Indianapolis 500 for the first time Sunday, and, just to hammer home the point that NBC is taking this a lot more seriously than ABC did or Fox is with its tired NASCAR coverage, the broadcast team will include two extremely high-profile former NASCAR drivers: Danica Patrick and Dale Earnhardt Jr. Before she jumped from Indy cars to NASCAR in 2010, Patrick became famous for becoming the first woman to lead the Indy 500 and wrapped up her career (she says) by driving in the Indy 500 last year for the eighth time. So she is a known open-wheel commodity at the Brickyard. He drove 17 times in the Brickyard 400, NASCAR's slowpoke answer to the Indy 500, but the Indianapolis 500 is a completely different event. It is the world's biggest auto race, contested for the 103d time Sunday. For nearly two decades, the Indy 500 took a back seat to the Coca-Cola 600, the NASCAR race held later the day before Memorial Day, but the Indy 500 is bigger again, with a terrific buzz. Between 2006 and 2014, the NASCAR race in Charlotte had better TV ratings than the Indy 500 except for one year. A year ago, the last Indy 500 to be televised by ABC out-drew the Coke 600, 4.91 million viewers to 4.09 million viewers. Now NBC is pushing its first telecast of the Indy 500 hard, cross-promoting the race with other shows on the network and adding Earnhardt and Patrick as analysts. It will be difficult to recapture all the viewers who walked away, but NBC has injected some excitement into the biggest day for auto racing in America, and the Indy 500 will be worth at least a peek. Earnhardt will serve again as the analyst for NBC's NASCAR telecasts over the second half of the season, but NBC has been shrewdly using him to promote all of its sports telecasts, like the Super Bowl, Kentucky Derby and the Stanley Cup playoffs. Fox still has the Coke 600, one of NASCAR's biggest races. But NBC has one of NASCAR's biggest names, and he will be 585 miles from the Charlotte Motor Speedway. "Its going to be a lot of emotion, a lot of energy," Earnhardt said Thursday on a conference call with reporters. "Its going to be something like Ive never witnessed before, and I cant wait to have fun on Sunday during the show. "Pre-race is going to be a lot of fun, at least for us as we move around, and Im going to be able to see this race for the first time from such an incredible perspective as part of this broadcast team. Just coming out here I would be here anyway whether NBC sent me or not. But this will be from a perspective like no other." Earnhardt will drive the pace car for the race, and he will be roaming the Indianapolis Motor Speedway with Rutledge Wood, the NBC reporter who covers offbeat angles of NASCAR, filing reports on quirky stuff, like maybe the "Snake Pit," the speedway's sometimes unruly mosh pit. ABC did a little of that, but NBC will be leaning on Earnhardt. He really does sound enthusiastic about this assignment. "NBC has been sending me all over the place for the last several months to experience a lot of new things, and this is another amazing trip, and I cant wait to get to work with my buddy Rutledge and see what the Indianapolis 500 is all about," Earnhardt said. "Its going to be a lot of emotion, a lot of energy. Its going to be something like Ive never witnessed before, and I cant wait to have fun on Sunday during the show. "Pre-race is going to be a lot of fun, at least for us as we move around, and Im going to be able to see this race for the first time from such an incredible perspective as part of this broadcast team. Just coming out here I would be here anyway whether NBC sent me or not, but this will be from a perspective like no other." Pay attention. Earnhardt will be helping to provide a taste of how NBC will carry auto racing in the future, relying heavily on personalities to bridge the gaps when the cars seem to be just going around in circles. NBC covered new ground with a documentary earlier this month on Mario Andretti, the immigrant from Italy who won the 1969 Indy 500. "I dont think everyone had a full understanding of where he came from and what he was able to accomplish from these very humble roots," Sam Flood, the executive director of NBC Sports, said in the conference call. "And that story is symbolic of what we try and do at NBC, make you care about people, take you inside a story at a different level, and thats the training we have here for years, and were hoping we can tell those same kind of stories on Sunday and get more people to come back beyond the 500. "We hope if the fans can fall in love with some of these drivers in this sport and this event that theyll join us the following weekend in Detroit for the double-header there. And thats part of the job is welcoming the entire sports fan world to this and not just the race-car fan." | https://www.forbes.com/sites/davecaldwell/2019/05/26/what-the-heck-is-nascars-dale-earnhardt-jr-doing-at-the-indy-500/ |
Is Amari Cooper waiting for Julio Jones to do a deal? | The Cowboys want to sign receiver Amari Cooper to a long-term deal, but the negotiations apparently are going nowhere. Thats possibly because Cooper is curious about where another receivers effort to get a long-term deal ends up. Clarence Hill of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram contends that the Cowboys believe Cooper is waiting to see what Julio Jones gets from the Falcons before finalizing a deal in Dallas. And that makes plenty of sense. Scroll to continue with content Ad Jones could become the highest-paid receiver in the league, and that would definitely impact the Cooper negotiations. Indeed, the Cowboys may be trying to base Coopers deal on the $13.924 million that hes due to make this year and the franchise tag (at least $17 million) in 2020, which works out to $31 million or so over the all-important first two years, an average of $15.5 million annually. If Jones gets more than $18 million per year in new money on his extension in Atlanta, Cooper may aim higher than the formula generated by his first-round option year and the franchise tag. Cooper also has other leverage when it comes to maximizing his compensation. The Cowboys traded a first-round pick to get him, and they publicly (and repeatedly) have declared that hes their 2019 first-round pick. Even if those comments came with tongue partially planted in cheek, the Cowboys surely didnt surrender a first-round selection for roughly 1.5 seasons with Cooper. Then theres the fact that Cooper performed very well during his time with the Cowboys, energizing the passing game and actually making the first-round pick they gave up to get him seem to be too light. He has a fully-guaranteed salary of $13.924 million in 2019, and at a minimum hell either become a free agent or receive the franchise tag in 2020. As long as hes willing to carry the risk of injury and/or ineffectiveness for one more season, Cooper holds most of the cards. | https://sports.yahoo.com/amari-cooper-waiting-julio-jones-154030964.html?src=rss |
What's gone wrong with Brazil's economy? | Image copyright AFP Image caption Jair Bolsonaro boasted during the election that he did not understand anything about economics On 1 January, when Brazil's far-right president Jair Bolsonaro took office, many in the country were concerned that the divisive politician would not be able to bring the country together. But one sector was almost unanimous in praising Mr Bolsonaro's rise to power: business people. Brazil's president boasted during the election that he did not understand anything about economics. Once in power, he delegated all decisions on the subject to businessman Paulo Guedes, who became a "super-minister" of the economy. The task of rescuing Brazil's economy from the brink of yet another recession was urgent. The economy is still at the same level it was back in 2014. Markets were excited at the prospects of liberal reforms to come. But expectations soon started to fall apart. A series of government blunders - political infighting inside the administration, a clumsy attempt at state intervention in Brazil's fuel policy and the lack of leadership in Congress - hampered growth expectations. Most analysts have halved their growth expectations for Brazil and now believe significant growth will not start until 2020. Here is a look at some of the key figures that suggest Brazil's economy is not moving forward. 1. There's no economic recovery in sight In the previous decade, Brazil was lauded (along with Russia, India, China and South Africa) as one of the Brics powers - emerging economies with superfast rates of economic growth that would surpass developed economies by 2050. The economic performance of this decade, however, suggests Brazil does not belong in that league. A crippling two-year recession in 2015 and 2016 saw the country's economy contract by almost 7%. Economic recovery has been sluggish. In 2017 and 2018, the economy grew at a meagre pace of 1.1% a year. And there is still more bad news: since the beginning of the year, economists have more than halved their expectations of economic growth for 2019 to a rate not very different from that seen in the past two years. 2. The unemployment problem isn't being solved Brazilian workers are the ones paying the price. The number of unemployed people has increased from 7.6 million in 2012 to 13.4 million this year. Mr Bolsonaro thinks these numbers actually underestimate the real picture. He believes the situation is worse. The official unemployment survey shows that 28.3 million people are under-utilised - which means they are either not working or working less than they could. There are fewer people with formal jobs, while wages are barely keeping up with inflation - which has been brutal. Since the beginning of Brazil's recession four years ago, prices have gone up by 25%. 3. The currency and stock market have dashed post-election hopes During much of the election, the Brazil's currency - the real - rallied strongly as it became clear that Mr Bolsonaro would win the election. It was a clear sign of confidence from investors abroad. A poll by Bloomberg late last year among chief international strategists saw Brazil top the list of best bets in three categories: foreign exchange, bonds and stocks. After almost five months, prospects are now bleak. Both the stock exchange and the currency - which usually anticipate the pace in the real economy - are close to the same level they were at the beginning of this year. Brazil's stock exchange hit an all-time high in March this year, but has returned most of its gains following disappointing corporate results. 4. The main consensus among market analysts - and also people in Mr Bolsonaro's government - is that the country started spending too much money around 2013, during the leftist government of Dilma Rousseff. Since then, one of the main thermometers of Brazil's economy has been the fiscal deficit - the amount of money spent beyond the country's revenues. Ms Rousseff was impeached amid allegations that she masked Brazil's fiscal deficit to hide how much her government was overspending. Since her downfall, all efforts from the government have gone into lowering this fiscal deficit. Some economists say the main culprit is the pension system, with Brazilians retiring too early (some in their early 50s) and with too many benefits (especially amongst civil servants). Mr Bolsonaro is proposing pension cuts and a minimal retirement age of 65 for men and 62 for women. During the boom years, Brazil had a debt which was 51% the size of its economy. The growing fiscal deficit raised the debt level to 77.1%. The government says that if nothing is done, the country's debt will be the size of its entire economy by 2023. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48386415 |
Why were five U.S. soldiers killed by an American bomber in Afghanistan? | Tonight, on this Memorial Day weekend, we recall stories of soldiers "under fire." We begin with a cautionary tale we first reported nearly two years ago: how five U.S. soldiers, including two Green Berets, died in Afghanistan on the night of June 9th, 2014. The Pentagon concluded the deaths were an "avoidable" accident, known by the contradictory phrase "friendly fire." It was the deadliest such incident involving U.S. fatalities in 18 long years of ongoing war in Afghanistan. It wasn't gunfire that killed the U.S. soldiers. It was a pair of 500-pound bombs dropped right on top of them by a U.S. warplane. You're about to hear what happened that day from three of the soldiers who were there-including the Green Beret commander. They dispute the official version of events and warn it's going to happen again. It started just after sundown on a sweltering night with a fierce fire-fight. Brandon Branch: Bullets whizzing by, kickin up all around you. Henry "Hank" Montalbano: At certain points it would die down, but it was unrelenting at other points. Derrick Anderson: It looked almost like a fireworks show where they are shooting down on our positions. Brandon Branch: Absolutely. I think you would have to be borderline insane to not have some kinda fear. All you can do at that point is return fire and hope the next one you know doesn't get you. Hank Montalbano and Brandon Branch Brandon Branch was a skilled army combat paramedic -- attached to the Green Berets -- who had dreamed since childhood of being a soldier. Communications Sergeant Henry "Hank" Montalbano joined the Green Berets after graduating from Williams College. Derrick Anderson And Captain Derrick Anderson -- the Green Beret team commander -- could be a poster boy for the Army. Fluent in Arabic, at 29 he was a Bronze Star recipient in Iraq and had led more than 80 combat patrols in Afghanistan. This was supposed to be the team's final mission after a six-month deployment that started in January of 2014. Henry "Hank" Montalbano: Yes. It would be pretty typical during the course of an operation to take fire. Derrick Anderson: We had had a long deployment. It was fairly kinetic. Bill Whitaker: A lot of action. Derrick Anderson: Yeah. Everyone was coming home safe. We had a few guys from our sister team that had gotten shot on a previous mission The 10-man "A" team, was part of the 5th Special Forces Group from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The group's commander called them the most "disciplined, well-trained and effective" unit in Afghanistan. The Green Berets struck out from forward operating base "Apache", a dusty outpost in restive Zabul Province -- an area dotted with beehives of Taliban fighters hidden in plain sight among the locals. Derrick Anderson: We knew this area contained Taliban and bad guys. So we understood there was a clear possibility that we would be getting shot at at some point. Captain Anderson says the Taliban stepped up its attacks when the U.S. announced most of its troops would leave after the Afghan elections in June. Derrick Anderson: I think the Taliban was trying to make a statement before we left. Derrick Anderson: So our job, in conjunction with our Afghan partners, were to help the Afghans in going clearing the Gaza Valley from any Taliban that may be hiding and waiting for the elections to come forth and attack the polling sites. To help understand what happened that night almost five years ago, using satellite photographs of Afghanistan's Gaza Valley, 60 Minutes commissioned a scale-model of the exact location where the friendly fire took place -- and brought these three soldiers who fought there -- to see it. Correspondent Bill Whitaker, Anderson, Branch and Montalbano with 60 Minutes' model of the Gaza Valley CBS News Derrick Anderson: It's just -- it's surreal to see the whole landscape again, and -- I mean, it definitely brings up memories of that day. Brandon Branch: It's steep and slippery. Hours before dawn, on June 9, 2014, giant Chinook helicopters dropped Captain Anderson and his 95-man task force of U.S. and Afghan soldiers into the Gaza Valley to chase away the Taliban fighters. Temperatures soared over 100 degrees as the U.S. troops shadowed their Afghan Allies from rocky ridges. At the same time, radio intercepts showed the Taliban were also shadowing them. At dusk, the soldiers climbed down to take up positions near three helicopter landing zones. Derrick Anderson: So that represents where we ended up at the end of the day. Getting ready for pick-up from the helicopters. Attached to Anderson's Green Beret team was an Air Force controller -- whose identity is classified. He was assigned to the mission just 72 hours earlier. And his job was critical -- to guide Air Force planes on bombing or strafing runs against enemy positions -- it's a battlefield tactic called "close-air support." What the Green Berets didn't know, was that their new air controller had been demoted and kicked out of an Air Force special operations unit for poor performance. Derrick Anderson: At the time we didn't know anything. He showed up a couple days before the mission, so he was getting caught up on the what everything our previous air controller planned out. Half a mile away from Anderson's group was Army Medic Brandon Branch and two Green Beret weapons sergeants -- Jason McDonald, at 28 a veteran army ranger, and 24-year old Scott Studenmund, the grandson of a U.S. Senator who continued a family tradition of service by becoming a Green Beret. Brandon Branch CBS News Brandon Branch: Once we got down in this area, there was like, a small ditch that actually kind of ran down through here. Just before 8 p.m. suddenly, Taliban fighters began shooting down into the ditch where Branch was with Sergeants Studenmund and McDonald. Brandon Branch: It broke loose at that point. Captain Anderson watched as the firefight erupted a half mile away. "Honestly, what's going through my head is that we're gonna die." Derrick Anderson: From our location here, we could see the fire coming right onto them. They were just in such a vulnerable location down there. Being on low ground, in a ditch. The advantage was from the Taliban. Henry "Hank" Montalbano: You could see the tracer fire. Brandon Branch: At first, just somewhere in this general direction, in that vicinity. Brandon Branch: We couldn't see anybody at the time. It was just somebody shooting. Bill Whitaker: The bullets are hittin' all around you. Brandon Branch: Right. Yes sir. Brandon Branch: Absolutely. Absolutely. Under heavy fire, Green Beret Scott Studenmund scaled the hill with three other U.S. soldiers and an Afghan sergeant to take up a more defendable position. They carried a machine gun, a grenade launcher and rifles to fight off the Taliban. Before scrambling up the hill to join the other soldiers, Sergeant Jason McDonald sounded an urgent alarm over the radio -- "troops in contact." Derrick Anderson: He started asking for immediate support from aircraft. Bill Whitaker: It got that bad that quickly. Derrick Anderson: Absolutely sir. Jason got on the radio and said, "Get me the aircraft now." Derrick Anderson: No, at no point during the deployment had we ever really heard anyone with the urgency in their voice and or necessity. Brandon Branch: Honestly, what's going through my head is that we're gonna die. The plane sent to the aid of the special forces that night was a "B-1" -- a high-flying strategic bomber -- not the type of aircraft typically used for close air support missions in Afghanistan. That night, the B-1 had a belly-full of bombs and a cylindrical tube called a "sniper-pod" slung beneath its' fuselage. A Sniper Pod is a precision targeting system bristling with cameras and sensors that streams images like these to the bomber's four-man crew. As darkness fell on the moonlit valley, the Green Berets switched on infrared strobes attached to their helmets and pulled night vision devices over their eyes which allow U.S. soldiers and aircrews to identify friend from foe in the chaos of the battlefield. Derrick Anderson: Yeah. Brandon Branch: Right. Derrick Anderson: Correct. Derrick Anderson: Yeah, I mean I have pilot buddies and I have friends that have said it can often times look like -- like a Christmas tree in the valley. Derrick Anderson: It cannot. Derrick Anderson: We thought it could The classified official investigation obtained by 60 Minutes, later concluded that everyone -- the soldiers -- the bomber crew -- the Air Force controller -- all thought the B-1 targeting system was capable of detecting infrared strobes. They were all wrong. Derrick Anderson: Correct. Yes -- and, you know, throughout any operation we've always -- had the general assumption that these aircraft can. The B-1 targeting system could see gunfire coming from Sergeants McDonald and Studenmund who were shooting at the Taliban from the hillside above Medic Brandon Branch. But because the plane's crew couldn't see the Green Berets' strobes, they mistook their muzzle flashes for the Taliban. "My gut dropped. I just felt something sink to the bottom of my stomach, and I was like, 'No, this -- no. This isn't happening.'" And that was just one of a cascade of critical errors according to the investigation of the incident. The report charges that in the heat of battle Captain Anderson lost track of the soldiers who had climbed the hill to fight the Taliban. The Air Force controller with Anderson -- whose job it was to pinpoint enemy targets -- admitted he made a mistake and sent conflicting positions for U.S. and enemy fighters to the bomber. The B-1 aborted its bomb run on three passes as technical glitches and the mountainous terrain garbled radio transmission. Derrick Anderson: It ended up taking a total of 21 minutes. Brandon Branch: Right. The report also revealed that as the bomber circled 12,000 feet above them, instead of targeting the Taliban, the Air Force controller made a fatal mistake -- he gave the B-1 crew the location of the U.S. soldiers as the target -- and: "improperly directed the aircraft over a friendly position." No one in the bomber challenged the air controller's conflicting positions for U.S. and enemy fighters -- that should have been a red flag. The Air Force controller with the Green Berets radioed the bomber: "Be advised, friendlies are the only ones marked by [infrared] strobes So anybody else is enemy target." Six minutes later he asked: "Any [infrared] strobes in your sensor at this time?" The bomber crew responded: "Negative [infrared] strobes." The B-1 crew did have hand-held night vision goggles -- but, they were out of range of the strobes. Finally, the B-1 released two 500-pound bombs -- directly on the six soldiers at the top of the hill. Brandon Branch: And as soon as it happened, it was all of a sudden this shocked moment of "oh my god - they just hit our hill." Derrick Anderson: And -- my gut dropped. I just felt something sink to the bottom of my stomach, and I was like, "No, this -- no. This isn't happening." Brandon Branch: I grabbed my aid bag and I took off up the hill to try to go see if anybody had survived it, and if, you know if there was anybody that needed help. And I heard, "You gotta get over here." I found Scott. Brandon Branch: He was in -- in bad shape. He was talkin' to us at first -- askin' what just happened. And while we began workin' on him, we just told him, "I don't -- I don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. But somethin' messed up." I was applyin' tourniquets and trying to stop what was happening-- Tryin' to stop the bleeding. There was really nothin' else that-- that I could do. Brandon Branch: I just asked that God be with him and with his family. Scott Studenmund CBS News Staff Sergeant Scott Studenmund died on that hilltop. Also killed -- Staff Sergeant Jason McDonald, the father of two girls. 19-year-old Private First Class Aaron Toppen, Specialist Justin Helton, 25, Corporal Justin Clouse, 22 and 31-year-old Afghan Sergeant Gulbuddin Sakhi. Over the next days -- memorial services were held for the fallen soldiers at Forward Operating Base Apache and at an airfield in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Later, Scott Studenmund and Jason McDonald were laid to rest with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. The Pentagon appointed then-Air Force Major General Jeffrey Harrigian to investigate the friendly fire accident. After an eight-week probe, the general issued a report that concluded the "incident was avoidable" and he spread the blame around -- to the Air Force controller, to the bomber crew, and to the Army Green Berets. Bill Whitaker: Let me go over some of the findings. It says, "Though this was a challenging set of circumstances, had the team executed standard tactics, techniques and procedures, and communicated effectively, this incident was avoidable." Derrick Anderson: I disagree with that statement. But the investigation singled out Captain Anderson -- who had led his team on more than 80 combat missions in Afghanistan -- for especially tough criticism. It charged that he lost track of his men and that his failures, "Caused him to misidentify friendly forces as enemy." Bill Whitaker: They said you didn't know that five of the members had moved up the hillside. And that you should have. That's sort of a major point for them in the investigation. Derrick Anderson: I think that's an untrue statement. Anderson told us the soldiers on the hill were within what he thought was their standard security perimeter. Bill Whitaker: Do you bear any responsibility for what happened. Derrick Anderson: I'm the commander of this team. This is my team. I miss my guys tremendously. But at the end of the day there's nothing that myself or my Team Sergeant did that day or failed to do that day that caused that incident to happen. There's a thousand different things that can happen during firefight missions. We made the decisions that we thought were best at the time on the ground for the guys that were getting shot at. Derrick Anderson CBS News Bill Whitaker: The report goes on to say that from you, there was -- a sense of urgency to drop the bombs that was perhaps unnecessary. So in other words, you were making this seem like it was a bigger deal than it actually was. Brandon Branch: I was there. It was a big deal. Bill Whitaker: They called it a false sense of urgency. Brandon Branch: They can call it that, but they weren't there. Twenty-one minutes is an eternity when you're bein' shot at. Henry "Hank" Montalbano: It's ignoring some of the fundamental reasons why this occurred. Brandon Branch: Right. Henry "Hank" Montalbano: Yes. The root cause of the friendly fire incident hasn't been adequately addressed yet. There's an aircraft carrying out close air support missions that can't detect the common marking mechanism at night-time. It's dangerous to use an aircraft that's incapable of picking up infrared strobes. The families of the fallen soldiers were briefed by a team of five officers led by General Harrigian. One of those gold-star parents was Woody Studenmund -- an economics' professor at California's Occidental College -- and the father of Green Beret Staff Sergeant Scott Studenmund. Studenmund interviewed all but two of his son's teammates and has methodically and repeatedly reviewed every line of the declassified investigative report in a personal quest to understand how and why his son died. and that is that the B-1 bomber Sniper Pod was not capable of seeing the strobes that the Green Berets were wearing. So they dropped the bombs. General Harrigian speaks with correspondent Bill Whitaker CBS News In a Skype interview in 2017 from his headquarters in Qatar, we asked General Harrigian -- who led the investigation -- why the bomber crew didn't know their targeting system could not see infrared strobes on the soldiers' helmets. General Jeffrey Harrigian: They should have known quite frankly. That's part of the academics that are given to them. So it was there, but the crew didn't remember that. The ground crew should have known just as well that their [infrared] strobe could not be seen by the Sniper Pod. Yet the general's own report says, "These capabilities were not specifically covered in Sniper Academics." In other words, Air Force bomber crews were not taught that their targeting system can't detect infrared strobes. General Harrigian -- who was promoted and is now in charge of all Air Force operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria -- says the command sent an urgent bulletin to all its aircrews eleven days after the incident, "to ensure they understand the capability and limitations of their aircraft's sensors to detect" strobes. Still, the Air Force general insists the B-1 is not to blame. He faults the people on the ground -- the Air Force controller and the Green Berets -- for failing to keep track of each other and accurately communicate their positions to the bomber. General Jeffrey Harrigian: The individuals on the ground have a responsibility, have a duty to know where their teammates are. And they're the ones that are communicating that information to the aircrew. General Jeffrey Harrigian: Without a doubt. Bill Whitaker: People will say that this incident proves that the B-1 is not suited for that kind of close air support. General Jeffrey Harrigian: This incident had nothing to do with the platform. This incident had everything to do with the humans involved with what happened here. Woody Studenmund: I think that when humans are under fire, in fear for their lives, and they make mistakes, that's different from a government not understanding the capabilities of the weapon systems that it sends out to help our troops. Studenmund is convinced the B-1 targeting system is responsible for his son's death. Woody Studenmund: None of the other mistakes mattered -- none of them mattered. When we send our soldiers into battle, it's wrong to have them using a weapon system which isn't capable of doing what it's supposed to be doing. It's not murder, but it's close. Woody Studenmund CBS News Studenmund wanted to speak to us on camera because he fears a similar mistake will happen again. His dead son's comrades agree and told us the report's criticism of Captain Anderson was unjust. Brandon Branch: if I got a phone call today that said, 'You have got to go back to Afghanistan.' These were the guys that I would want to be back with." If they had messed up to the level that that report says that they messed up, I would not want to do that. Captain Anderson's role in the accident effectively ended his Green Beret career, even though his commanding general concluded he did not deserve to be punished. He left the special forces and last week earned a law degree from Georgetown University. Anderson still serves in the Army National Guard. Anderson receives his law degree Georgetown University Hank Montalbano who was held blameless by the investigation, also left the Green Berets and earned an MBA degree at the University of Washington. Brandon Branch who was also not faulted in the report, was medically retired due to injuries he sustained in Afghanistan. He lives in Texas. The air controller who gave the bomber the wrong target coordinates was stripped of his combat qualifications. He transferred to the Air National Guard and helped manage rescue helicopters after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. "That's what scares me. That's what I'm mad about. That we haven't fixed a problem that could potentially kill more of our service members." The B-1 aircrew, after re-training, was cleared to fly again. As for the bomber's targeting system -- it still cannot detect infrared strobes. Bill Whitaker: It's been three years. Brandon Branch: There was a time frame after that day that it literally almost destroyed me. And that, for a long time it-- it ate at me. And while I still think about that every day, while I still see that every day, I think it would do them injustice for me to live my life in that moment every day. Derrick Anderson: Yes. Henry "Hank" Montalbano: Absolutely. Brandon Branch: Absolutely. Derrick Anderson: We still have U.S. service members throughout the world in harm's way that are going to rely on this aircraft again. And that's what disheartens me. That's what scares me. That's what I'm mad about. That we haven't fixed a problem that could potentially kill more of our service members. Last month, Jeffrey Harrigian, the officer who led the friendly fire investigation, was promoted again. Now he is a four-star general. Commanding all U.S. air forces in Europe, Africa and NATO. This report originally aired November 12, 2017. It was produced by Howard L. Rosenberg and Julie Holstein. | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-why-were-five-u-s-soldiers-killed-by-an-american-bomber-in-afghanistan-2019-05-26/ |
What is sepsis? What are the signs? | ANSWER: Sepsis is a serious complication of an infection. It often triggers various symptoms, including high fever, elevated heart rate and fast breathing. If sepsis goes unchecked, it can progress to septic shock -- a severe condition that occurs when the bodys blood pressure falls and organs shut down. Sepsis most often affects the elderly, infants and people with weak immune systems, as well as those who require medical devices. When you get an infection, your body releases chemicals into your bloodstream to fight off the infection. In some cases, those chemicals can trigger inflammation throughout the body. That inflammatory response is sepsis. If its not treated promptly, sepsis can progress, lowering blood pressure and making it hard for blood to reach vital organs. As a result, the heart, lungs, brain and kidneys all can be damaged. If it continues, sepsis can develop into septic shock, a life-threatening situation in which organs begin to fail and blood pressure drops even more dramatically. Any kind of infection can trigger sepsis. But certain infections, such as pneumonia, abdominal or kidney infection, and infections that affect the blood, are more likely to cause sepsis. Age is a significant risk factor for sepsis. The elderly and the very young are at higher risk because the immune system tends to be weaker in elderly adults, and its not fully developed in infants. Other people with weak immune systems are more vulnerable to sepsis, too. Many people have weakened immune systems due to medical conditions, such as diabetes or HIV/AIDS. Some medical treatments, including medications taken after an organ transplant and after certain cancer treatments, can weaken the immune system. A severe illness that requires hospitalization also can lead to problems with a persons immune system, raising the sepsis risk. Individuals who need a medical device, such as a pacemaker, prosthetic joint, IV catheter or a breathing tube, are at higher risk of developing sepsis, as are those whove had previous wounds or burns. Signs of sepsis Sepsis develops quickly, and it can be difficult to identify in its early stages. Symptoms include high fever, fast heart rate and rapid breathing. As sepsis worsens, it can trigger an abrupt change in mental status, such as disorientation or confusion. A significant decrease in urine production usually is a sign that sepsis is affecting the kidneys and other vital organs. If someone who has an infection begins to experience sepsis symptoms, it is critical that he or she gets medical care right away. Hospital staff members watch patients closely for sepsis, particularly those in the emergency department and in ICUs. Patients diagnosed with sepsis receive plenty of IV fluids and are immediately given antibiotics. People who have sepsis may require hospitalization. In addition to antibiotics, other medications may be used to treat symptoms such as low blood pressure. People whose conditions progress to septic shock often require care in an ICU, where they receive oxygen and IV fluids. They also may need a machine to help them breathe. The longer sepsis is allowed to progress, the higher the chances it will become life-threatening. Research has shown, however, that if treatment is started within the first few hours from the time sepsis begins, the mortality rate from sepsis falls significantly. That makes early, aggressive treatment of sepsis crucial. If it is caught quickly, sepsis often can be managed effectively. -- Alice Gallo De Moraes, M.D., Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. (Mayo Clinic Q & A is an educational resource and doesnt replace regular medical care. E-mail a question to MayoClinicQ&[email protected]. For more information, visit www.mayoclinic.org.) (c) 2019 MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC. | https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2019/05/what-is-sepsis-what-are-the-signs.html |
Did a spectator's ringing cellphone hurt Paul Broadhurst's chances of repeating? | CLOSE Historic Oak Hill Country Club received a ringing endorsement from players during the 80th Senior PGA Championship. Broadhurst, who at one point went 40 holes without a bogey on a course where only three players would finish under par, was clinging to a one-shot lead over Ken Tanigawa with four holes to play. At the par-4, 439-yard 16th hole, Broadhurst found the right rough with his tee shot and as he set up for his second shot, music began playing from a spectators cellphone right at the ropes, forcing him to step away. It took a bit of time for the spectator to get his phone to shut off and at one point, a PGA official asked Broadhurst if he wanted security called. That wasnt necessary and Broadhurst eventually hit his second shot far left into even thicker grass near a set of bunkers. With the ball buried, his third shot hopped the green. He chipped to 4 feet, but two putted for his first and only double-bogey of the tournament. Tanigawa, playing a group ahead, had birdied 16. Just like that, Broadhurst's one-shot lead had become a two-shot deficit. Tanigawa, 51, last years Champions Tour rookie of the year, went on to shoot even-par 70 for a one-shot win over Scott McCarron (70) and two shots over Broadhurst, who needed to sink a long miracle birdie putt at 18 to force a playoff, but wound up with a bogey for a final-round 75. Hats off to Ken, thats a really good score in these conditions, said Broadhurst referring to swirling winds. A phone went off, music was playing, but it wasnt like I was over the ball ready to hit, Broadhurst said. I wont use that as an excuse. The ball came out left, buried, and I hopped it over the green (on his third shot). It was a valiant title defense by Broadhurst, 53, who began the day at 6-under. While his double-bogey at 16 was critical, he mostly lamented a series of missed birdie putts on the front side when he couldve taken a more solid command of things. I knew itd be a tough day, its a tough course to lead on, he said. I feel I gave it away early. Five, 7, 8, 9I had good opportunities for birdies and didnt make one. | https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2019/05/26/paul-broadhurst-cellphone-incident-senior-pga-championship/1248432001/ |
Has Narendra Modi ended dynastic politics in India? | Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Narendra Modi is seen by his supporters as one of their own Narendra Modi's landslide win proves that his story of a humble tea-seller who rose through the ranks of his party to become India's prime minister continues to resonate with people. People love stories - even more so when it's a David and Goliath kind of story. And that's what Mr Modi represents. In his own words, he struggled to make ends meet, sold tea to make a living and lived in poverty while growing up. His story is similar to that of millions of Indians who fight every day to make a living, and are often marginalised by the elite. People saw him as one of their own, as somebody who would fight for them and speak for them. Mr Modi says he fought against all odds - big politicians, rich people and, above all, dynastic politics - to get the country's top political job. During the campaign for his first term in 2014, he would often call Congress party president Rahul Gandhi a "shehzada" (prince). It was a reference to the Nehru-Gandhi family that ruled India for much of its history since independence in 1947. Now the tables have turned. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Modi has a huge fan base across the country The "prince" is now looking at an uncertain future after his party received another humiliating drubbing in the elections. To make matters worse, Mr Gandhi lost his family stronghold, Amethi, to Smriti Irani of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But he is not the only dynast to be booted out. Several dynasts and their parties have been defeated at the hands Mr Modi's BJP. Akhilesh Yadav, the former chief minister of India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh, once told me that he would have to look for another job if his Samajwadi Party (SP) lost the 2019 general elections. He did everything to win it. He formed an alliance with his party's bitter rival, Mayawati, chief of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Akhilesh Yadav (L) and his wife, Dimple Yadav, campaigned hard - but their party failed to defeat the BJP He won his seat, but the coalition failed to stop the Modi juggernaut as the BJP won 62 of the state's 80 seats. This is his second major defeat. He also lost the state assembly elections in 2017 against the BJP. His wife Dimple Yadav lost in Kannauj. He is the son of political strongman Mulayam Singh Yadav, who served as India's defence minister and is also a three-term chief minister of UP. The senior Yadav's legacy now hangs in the balance. Akhilesh Yadav wrestled control of the party from his father in a public family drama two years ago - father and son became estranged. But Mulayam Singh came to his son's defence just before the 2019 elections and held rallies for him. That proved counterproductive because the BJP attacked the Yadav family precisely on this point. It told people not to trust a party that only promotes people from a single family and referred to the Yadavs as the Gandhis of UP. And the electorate appears to have received the message. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Rahul Gandhi said he respected the electorate message But dynastic politics is not limited to India. It has been a longstanding feature in other south Asian countries including Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. And in the west, both George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr served as US presidents. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, also served as the country's PM. But Mr Modi is a master of controlling narratives - and that became a differentiating factor. Pratyush Rao, associate director for South Asia at Control Risks consultancy, says the right kind of messaging is very important in politics. "Modi has upended the political order by cleverly tapping into his humble beginnings to craft a compelling tale of an outsider taking on the political establishment made up of elites," he says. Mr Rao adds that "family names went a long way in the first few decades of India's independence". "The relationship between political leaders and the electorate was still very much akin to that between a monarch and his or her subjects. This often translated to a certain deification of the ruling class. The ground has fundamentally shifted in today's India, where an aspirational electorate maintains a more transactional relationship with political leaders. If Mr Gandhi's defeat in his family borough of Amethi tells us anything, it is that leaders can no longer treat their constituencies like feudal pockets," he adds. The neighbouring state of Bihar also saw its local dynastic family been handed a humiliating defeat. Tejashvi Yadav, the son of former federal minister Laloo Prasad Yadav, took control of his Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party when his father was jailed in a corruption case. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption PM Modi thanked India for a second term But politics wasn't his first choice. Tejashwi Yadav first tried his hand at professional cricket. He played a few games as a middle-order batsman for his state team, and was also included in the Delhi Daredevils squad of the Indian Premiere League tournament. Many at the time said he was selected because of his political legacy and not for his talent. Though his cricket career ended without much glory, Tejashwi later became restless and eager to follow in the footsteps of his father. The irony here is that Laloo Yadav's story is similar to that of Mr Modi's. He also rose from humble beginnings and was known for his rustic and grounded lifestyle. Bihar's electorate connected with him because he came across as one of their own. But Tejashwi's political career is a work in progress, especially after his RJD party failed to win a single one of Bihar's 40 seats. The once formidable RJD now has to revive itself to stand up against a resurgent BJP and its regional partner, the Janata Dal-United. The story is not very different in other states. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Tejashwi Yadav's party failed to win a single seat in Bihar Jyotiraditya Scindia, who comes from the erstwhile royal family of Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh state, also lost his seat. His father was one of the top leaders of the Congress party, and the family considered Guna constituency its political fortress. It was the same story for the Gehlot family in In Rajasthan state, and the Deora family in Mumbai city. In southern India, Nikhil Kumaraswamy, the son of Karnataka state chief minister H D Kumaraswamy, lost. In Indian politics, it's not often that the sons of current and former ministers lose an election. These defeats reinforce the fact that Mr Modi's brand of politics - personality-driven, vocal and nationalistic - is here to stay. But the BJP also has its own dynasts - and they fared slightly better. Anurag Thakur, the son of former Himachal Pradesh chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal, has won his Hamirpur seat. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Jyotiraditya Scindia lost in Guna Elsewhere, YS Jaganmohan Reddy's YSR Congress party swept both the assembly and parliamentary elections in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. He is the son of former chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, who died in a helicopter crash in 2009. Jagan Mohan Reddy inherited his father's legacy but quit the Congress party when they didn't accept his bid to take over his father's role. Instead he formed his own party and a decade later, he is on course to become chief minister like his father. MK Stalin, the son of Tamil Nadu's former chief minister M Karunanidhi, also led his party to a resounding victory. But Mr Reddy and MK Stalin are exceptions in this election. A majority of the dynasts have lost. Pratyush Rao says yes, "but only for a while". "It's premature to announce the end of political dynasties in India. Even now, political parties across the spectrum, including the BJP have such figures. But what these results do indicate is that leaders can no longer rely solely on the brand appeal of their family names to get past the finish line. "It can still be a potent tool to attract voters if it is accompanied by a coherent narrative and actual delivery," he adds. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-48385611 |
What's open, closed on Memorial Day? | Whats open and closed on Memorial Day Post offices: Closed. No regular mail service. Banks: All Bremer Bank branches will be closed. TCF traditional branches and in-store branches (Cub) will be closed. Wells Fargo in-store and traditional branches will be closed. U.S. Bank traditional branches will be closed and branches in Byerlys stores will be open. Call for hours. Groceries: Many major stores will be open. Call for hours. Malls: Many stores will be open. Call for hours. Parking meters: Will not be enforced in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The University of Minnesota will not enforce meters unless noted on the meter. Minneapolis parks will enforce meters unless noted on the meter. Mass transit: Metro Transit buses and the Metro Blue & Green lines will follow Sunday/holiday schedules. The Metro Red Line will follow weekend/holiday schedules. For route information, call 612-373-3333 or go to metrotransit.org. The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority will have limited service. Maple Grove Transit, Plymouth Metrolink and SouthWest Transit will not have service. Call Metro Mobility for service. Northstar will have special service on Memorial Day for the Minnesota Twins game at Target Field that begins at 6:10 p.m. Libraries: Libraries will be closed. Schools: Public schools and the University of Minnesota will be closed. Public agencies: Local, state and federal offices will be closed. | http://www.startribune.com/what-s-open-closed-on-memorial-day/510454942/ |
Who is behind the unfinished Prince mural near Grand Avenue? | The memory of Prince, the revolutionary figure in R&B and pop music who died in 2016 at age 57, is alive and well in Phoenix. That's easy to see when passing by the Rodriguez Boxing Gym at Grand Avenue and Roosevelt Street and it's all thanks to local artist Maggie Keane, who, according to a GoFundMe page is "a huge PRINCE fan." Keane posted a photo of the near-finished installment on Facebook Friday. The GoFundMe page, created by Konstadinos "Cocoe" Tsimahidis of Grand Avenue Records, had raised nearly $800 by Sunday afternoon with a $5,000 goal. The campaign aims to fund supplies for Keane, who is working on the mural "completely on her own with no sponsorship or funding," according to the page. For more stories that matter, subscribe to azcentral.com. GoFundMe page for Prince mural (Photo: GoFundMe) Keane's name may be somewhat familiar to Phoenix residents she is the artist behind the line of David Bowie artwork along Seventh Street near McDowell Road. Keane and Tsimahindis did not immediately respond to The Republic's requests for comment. Reach reporter Angel Mendoza at [email protected] or on Twitter @angelmendozaAZC. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/05/26/phoenix-artist-maggie-keane-paints-prince-mural-rodriguez-boxing-club/1247032001/ | https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/05/26/phoenix-artist-maggie-keane-paints-prince-mural-rodriguez-boxing-club/1247032001/ |
Has legal cannabis killed the bong? | Under cannabis prohibition, nothing signified ones love of the plant more than bongs but health-conscious users who prefer to vape dont have much use for them In the stoner culture that flourished under cannabis prohibition, nothing signified ones love of the plant more clearly than the water pipes known as bongs. This was for practical as well as symbolic reasons. Bongs offer more smoke and a smoother hit than pipes or joints. Whether in use or not, they convey a clear message: marijuana is smoked here. Read more They have been used to smoke cannabis since antiquity. When someone is sucking on a bong, mouth agape inside a glass tube, its a pose of the purest hunger, like a baby goat sucking on an udder. Users often named their bongs. To the fraternity of underground cannabis users, they were akin to sacred totems. But with legalization under way, bongs have an image problem. The wellness-obsessed cannabis industry doesnt have much use for them. Health-conscious users prefer to vape or eat cannabis than combust it. The bong as centerpiece of a room also isnt a good fit for the industrys new ethos, echoed in the slogan of the magazine Gossamer: For people who also smoke weed. Simultaneously, the heaviest cannabis users have gravitated away from flower to stronger THC concentrates that they consume with dab rigs, contraptions that can look like bongs but are used to vaporize the drug with the help of a blow torch. Popular new products such as the PuffCo Peak and Vapexhale look like bongs and can be called bongs, but they are vaporizers, not pipes. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Illustration: George Wylesol Even so, smoking accessories remain a sizable industry. In 2013, US head shops generated $10bn in revenue, about the same size as the 2018 legal US cannabis market. Harrison Baum, CEO of Daily High Club, an online head shop that sends a monthly box of smoking accessories to subscribers, said today bongs were a niche, but a very big niche, popular with younger people and nostalgists in their 50s and 60s reliving their college days. In four years, Baum said, the company had sold more than 300,000 bongs. Popular models include the southern dabber, which features a dab rigs smaller chamber inside a bong chamber, and the road rasta. In the early days of the green rush, Jane West, an event planner and mom in suburban Denver, made a name for herself throwing upscale pot parties, at least one of which featured a working bong ice sculpture. Today she has released a line of smoking accessories, including a glass bong called a beaker that would look at home on a tastefully appointed shelf next to a wine decanter. Its chamber is meant to approximate a persons lung capacity. Meanwhile, upscale head shops have popped up in places like the Los Angeles branch of the swank department store Barneys. Theres a parallel with sex toys. Once hidden behind counters, they now boast serious design credentials and can be bought in attractive shops, with chipper attendants happy to educate consumers about their various properties. And a community of glass workers has elevated elaborate bongs into a form of folk art, with pieces by well-known artists selling for more than $10,000. So, yes, the bong is gentrifying. And it may always have its fans as West says: Theres nothing that compares. | https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/27/legal-cannabis-bong-use-stoner-culture |
Are We Retreating From Algorithms Or Recreating Community? | Getty Much has been made about Facebooks recent embrace of Groups and the broader balkanization of our global echo chambers into smaller and more tightly knit communities. Many have argued this shift, to the degree it is genuine, represents a radical redefinition of the online space and what it means to interact with others in the digital sphere. Perhaps a retreat from the algorithmic manipulation and gamification of the informational fire hoses that define general purpose shared spaces. Stepping back, this retreat from the global commons to local community can be seen as a return to the interest-based and geographically-defined community roots upon which societies rested prior to social medias attempts to rip individuals from their community context and redefine them merely as faceless members of a global whole. Social medias early days were defined by a desire to globalize society. It was believed that by forcibly ripping people out of the comfort of their local communities with strong ties, geographic proximity and shared interests and dropping them into a raging global fire hose of conversation and discourse, society would instantly come together in shared harmony. Cultural differences, beliefs, narratives and lived experiences would no longer play any role in a world in which everyone was placed into the same virtual room to mingle about and meet others. Unsurprisingly, this utopian vision collided existentially with the reality that across the world we are not all alike. Most importantly, those differences that define our cultures and lived experiences are not problems to be overcome but rather the societal fabric that defines who we are. Not everyone around the world wishes to dress, act, speak and believe as those in Silicon Valley. Our cultures and beliefs are sacred and defining aspects of who we are. In place of the globalizing effect of social media, we are seeing a retrenchment back to the community structures that preceded social media. Rather than scream through a megaphone to the planet, we are increasingly turning to platforms that enable us to engage in thoughtful dialog with our friends, neighbors and peers. Smaller like-minded communities are proliferating even as the shared broadcast spaces that once defined social media are fading. Many emerging platforms focus specifically on the concept of restoring geographic and professional community, linking neighbors and work colleagues together. Neighborhood communities, which have long bonded us together, have enjoyed a virtual renaissance as a new generation of norms and even entire platforms have arisen to connect local communities. This migration towards the reestablishment of community reflects the physical worlds dominant influence over the virtual. Much as physical governments have reestablished their control over the virtual world that was supposed to transcend them, so too is the rise of digital community reminding us that society shapes technology even as it is being shaped by it. We often speak of social media platforms as all-powerful entities capable of redefining the very fabric of human behavior, turning us all into helpless puppets dancing along to the code of Silicon Valley. The reality is that technology, like any tool, evolves in a complex interrelationship with the society that uses it, repurposed and co-opted into new behaviors its designers never anticipated. While social media platforms may encourage certain behaviors, in the end society will harness them to novel ends. In the context of community, it is not social media platforms nudging us towards community. It is those platforms embracing a trend that has already been underway. In the physical era we moved geographically to locate ourselves in communities we were comfortable in. In the digital era, the shift towards community is restoring the geographic self-identification that has long mediated group construction. It matters because of its impact on trust and the flow of digital falsehoods. Trust, in short supply in todays Web, flows from community. We trust our friends, neighbors and work colleagues because we know them, we interact with them and we share ties that raise the cost for them to knowingly share false information with us. In contrast, the anonymity of the open Webs anarchy means we see only unknown usernames at a distance, lacking any semblance of context, motivations or familiarity through which to evaluate the veracity of the information we receive. The shift towards community will help restore this inherent trust, providing us context to our information channels and recreating the traditional incentives and disincentives that have historically governed how we filter and verify the veracity of the information before us. Community acts as a form of collective gatekeeper that may help restore the crowd-sourced verification that once acted as a bulwark against the spread of consequential falsehoods. Of course, community can also enhance the spread of false information, creating insular groups that lack the external knowledge, experience or incredulousness to question the barrage of falsehoods arriving at its borders. Perhaps the answer then is local community enriched by global informational access. Much as the friendly reference librarian at the public library once served as a gateway to the world of knowledge beyond the local community, so too can technology help contextualize communities in the digital age. Rather than use technology to forcibly depreciate the role of community, the future of social media might lie in local communities that are supported by algorithms and tools that can help them better understand the context of new information arriving at their doorstep, from its provenance and the motivations of its author to a summary of global perspectives and interpretations of it. In this way, local community is preserved, while globalization comes in the form of expanded opportunities for voluntary rather than forced connection. Putting this all together, social media began as a great push to globalize the world but as it has matured over the past decade and a half it is returning to the local community structure that preceded it. Once again, we see that for every technological advance seeking to forcibly remake the world in its image, it is technology that is reshaped to societys needs. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/26/are-we-retreating-from-algorithms-or-recreating-community/ |
Who is 'cliff wife'? What is a 'wife guy'? Why is it a meme? | A video of a woman falling down a steep hill went viral, and Twitter found a new man to mock. Everybody is tweeting about cliff wife. The story of cliff wife is simple, and a perfect illustration of how jokes evolve on Twitter and how YouTuber culture is slowly rotting our brains. A man was walking with his wife, when she fell down a small hill; it was quite a tumble and she was shocked, but pretty much uninjured. The man YouTuber Shaun McBride decided to film the whole thing, before uploading it as some kind of inspirational brush-with-death morality tale. I watched my wife fall off a cliff ... youre [sic] whole world can change in a matter of seconds, he wrote. For many, it is breathtakingly funny: from the unnecessary drama, to the truly small cliff, to the terrible editing, which clearly reveals how much of his own wifes words McBride cut out. Stories like Cliff Wife are so common they have spawned their own online taxonomy: that of the Wife Guy. For the Outline, Tom Whyman explains: A Wife Guy is defined by the fact that they have done something which involves a wife, whether their own or someone elses call this a Wife Event. A Wife Event can take many forms, but it necessarily involves the internet in some way (a long-distance online relationship; a fake social media account; a prominent Instagram presence) and, when discovered, will be widely discussed online. The tone of this discussion will typically be mocking. rob delaney (@robdelaney) Staring - GLARING - at a picture of a cliff. Ive never been angrier. Whyman posits that the ridiculousness of a wife guy comes down to a particular juxtaposition of the domestic with online. And when you look closely at wife guys over time, his theory holds water. The most prominent example has to be Curvy Wife Guy: an aspiring blogger who wrote an extremely cringey Instagram post about loving his curvy (ie perfectly normal) wife, despite being often teased as a teenager for liking girls on the thicker side. As Intelligencers Madison Malone Kircher wrote, this was a man who wanted praise for finding his own wife attractive. Julia Pugachevsky (@jaypugz) strong contender for least fave type of male feminist is "man who thinks liking a curvy woman is revolutionary" pic.twitter.com/BzDhhiSHNA There is also Elf Wife Guy, a now-disgraced pro-gamer who cheated on and blocked his wife, a professional elf cosplayer; and Fake Wife Guy, aka Twitter user @ElleOhHell, who posed online as a female comedian for years but eventually admitted he was a man using photos of his own wife, who was divorcing him. Elle Oh Hell (@ElleOhHell) I Am My Own Cliff, And I'm Falling Off Me Then of course theres the ur-Wife Guy: the Dont Email My Wife guy, who was so incensed by an undisclosed online Wife Event that he spray-painted a message on another persons house. Good Willsmith (@GoodWillsmith) its something unpredictable but in the end its right dont email my wife pic.twitter.com/2VzZKg30nh The proliferation of wife guys meant that by the time Cliff Wife hit, there was a rich canon to draw from and merge with other memes. Many of the resulting tweets are accessible only to the subsect of people who are up-to-date on the latest viral news and/or care about the strange vernacular that proliferates on the subculture that is weird Twitter. (In fact one of weird Twitters heroes, @Dril, has a section in his 2018 book of Tweets that is titled simply wife.) Brooks Otterlake (@i_zzzzzz) The best days on the internet are the ones where you can refer to "the wife guy" and everyone knows who you're talking about pixelatedboat aka mr tweets (@pixelatedboat) Moby (watching some other guys wife fall down a cliff): oh no, my wife! wint (@dril) I do oft in times flush my waste as soon as possible. I have no desire to look at it. I would rather be reading expensive novels to my wife. Patricia Lockwood has written an extremely meta essay about what it feels like to be wrapped up in this strange world; a world of ephemeral jokes, images and notions that only seem to work online. A set-up like it me. The phrase a spicy meat-a-ball. The inherently hilarious concept of Matt McGorry. She describes these as jokes that only half a per cent of people on earth would understand, and that no one would be able to decipher in ten years time. Wife guy feels a lot like that. Simply having a wife is not enough to become a wife guy. In fact some wife guys dont even have wives; they merely covet them. The wife guy must share his tale, preferably on the internet. He must think it somehow reflects well on him, when actually it doesnt. The wife guy must distill his own partner down to some bizarre, frequently stupid or reductive attribute (ie: cliff fall) in a way that says more about him, his own vanity or insecurity, than anything else. In any wife guy story, it is somehow the guy who becomes the real focus, not his wife. That self-importance makes him fair game for satire. He thinks he is a hero, but something truly unpleasant shines through. That is when the mockery flows. In seeking to define her, the wife guy defines himself. jonny sun (@jonnysun) please. my wife. she fell off a cliff. pic.twitter.com/bAhfIG7q1d Theres something so buffoonish and hapless about wife guy. He reminds me of the last time I got swept up in a new online archetype: that of the Large Adult Son. Youre not the first person to make that connection. Twitter user @SpindlyPete has put together a wonderful thread taking this whole thing much too seriously, but in a good way. In it, she posits that Wife Guy and Large Adult Son are in fact one and the same, with the wives merely blank slates onto which their husbands weirdness is projected. elizabeth (@spindlypete) does this have to do with modern man existing in a state of perpetual childhood, living in a world of marvel movies and video games and toys. Yes. As Twitter user @3liza points out, the comic archetypes of the wife and wife guy are eternal, and always orbit each other, from the Commedia dellarte to Married with Children. The league of modern wife guys are merely the latest gloss on the same joke, with more layers of irony. And the ceaseless ability of men to be publicly ridiculous ensures its not going anywhere soon. jomny fiveaces (@3liza) Wife is now a character in the internet commedia dellarte, like Columbine Naaman Zhou answered Steph Harmons questions | https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/may/27/cliff-wife-meme-explain-quickly |
Is Sig Sauer's P320 the Ultimate Gun (As in Better than Glock)? | Gun News Daily Security, Americas The results are in. One of the most common questions we get asked here at GND is whether you should buy a Glock 19 or a Sig P320. Both are great guns, of course, as proven by their loyal followings, but there seems to be no real consensus on which is the best. In some ways, the story of the Sig P320 is a strange one. When it was released, nobody really paid it any attention. It was just another 9mm handgun, much like the dozens of similar pistols that are released each year. However, then the US Army decided to buy a load of these weapons for use by troops. This was a good question, not least because the Glock 19 had ruled the roost for many years. The Austrian legend had built up an enviable reputation as a do-everything gun, small enough to conceal and yet large, powerful and accurate enough to see action as a full-sized service weapon. Right. But the truth is that both of these weapons are actually pretty similar. The Sig P320 is also just about concealable, and also large and accurate enough to be a do everything pistol. Well, I suppose it depends what you are after. No review like this can ever recommend a pistol for everyone, because shooting is all about the feel of a gun in your hand, and not the boring old specifications of your weapon. Still, Ill have shot at drawing out the differences between these two weapons. Read full article | https://news.yahoo.com/sig-sauers-p320-ultimate-gun-180000293.html |
Does Booksmart spell the end of high school stereotypes? | Teen movies love to classify people into cliques and categories but Olivia Wildes new comedy Booksmart blows that all apart. It is a teen movie for the ages, mixing elements of Superbad, Dazed and Confused, perhaps a touch of Lady Bird, but, in its own unpretentious way, Booksmart is also a tale about the dangers of labelling people in the first place. It makes the teen movies of yesteryear look old-fashioned, because they are. The films heroes, Molly and Amy (played by Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever), are the dorky, studious types, who forsook partying for the library all through high school and earned Ivy League college places as a result. But their world falls apart when they discover that everyone else is going to good colleges, too. All the people they defined themselves against the skater dudes, the mean girls, the rich kids, the drama gays, the girl with a reputation for giving out handjobs they all studied and partied. Molly and Amy could be considered the classic geek girls. Critic Emily Yoshida puts them in what she sees as a new archetype of late-2010s teendom: the socially conscious busybody, in the tradition of Reese Witherspoon in Election, Saoirse Ronans Lady Bird and Sabrina the Teenage Witch. But maybe todays fluid teens arent so easy to pin down. It is a far cry from The Breakfast Club, which gave us the full periodic table of archetypes: rebel, jock, square, prom queen, misfit. Or Heathers, with its, er, Heathers. Or Mean Girls classification system, as laid out in the cafeteria map Lindsay Lohan is handed, which included such categories as varsity jocks, cheerleaders, unfriendly black hotties, cool Asians, Asian nerds, asexual band geeks, sexually active band geeks, and, of course, Plastics. As Olivia Wilde put it, talking about Booksmart: The younger generation are operating in such a different way they are demanding to be set free from a binary way of thinking in terms of sexuality, gender and politics. The same could be true of their social groupings. Molly and Amy come to realise theyve been labelling their peers because they imagine everybodys labelling them. Hailee Steinfeld had a similar revelation in The Edge of Seventeen (prompted by her outsider best friend hooking up with her cool brother). Emma Stones Easy A had a similar message about how easy it is to acquire a label, and how hard it is to get rid of. What is so lovable about Booksmart is how we come to see its array of characters as people rather than types. It celebrates that glorious moment when you get to the end of school and realise that the people you always thought of as dicks, jocks, geeks, or whatever, are actually all right. And that maybe you were a bit of a dick yourself. Booksmart is out in cinemas on Monday 27 May | https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/27/you-cant-sit-with-us-does-booksmart-spell-the-end-of-high-school-stereotypes |
What chance does Newport have of coming back from Wembley defeat? | Newport captain Mark O'Brien was sent off on a disappointing day for Newport at Wembley It is something no team wants to go through, the agony of losing a play-off final at Wembley. After 46 league fixtures and a total of 62 games this season, Newport County will play in League Two again next season after losing to Tranmere Rovers. Michael Flynn's side have to pick themselves up and do it all again after a heart-breaking defeat in extra-time. Twenty-three other teams in the division will all have the same idea. But the odds of Newport bouncing back are better than you might think, if the last 10 years are anything to go by. A decade of comebacks Since the 2008-09 season, 30 sides from the Championship, League One and League Two have lost play-off finals. Of those teams, eight of them managed to gain promotion the following season, five of them automatically. Teams promoted automatically the season after losing at Wembley: Reading in 2012 (Championship) Middlesbrough in 2016 (Championship) Brentford in 2014 (League One) Burton Albion in 2015 (League Two) Plymouth Argyle in 2017 (League Two) Teams who won the play-off final at Wembley the season after they lost it: Millwall 2010 (1-0 v Swindon) Huddersfield 2012 (8-7 on penalties v Sheffield United) Millwall 2017 Bradford (1-0 v Bradford) Ten of the 30 teams qualified for the play-offs, with five of those making it through to consecutive play-off finals. Exeter City lost back-to-back League Two play-off finals in 2017 and 2018. If Aston Villa lose to Derby they will join the Grecians as having lost consecutive play-off finals. If they win they become the ninth team to gain promotion the season after Wembley defeat. Exeter failed at Wembley in successive years However, the fallout can be severe for a club, with two teams being relegated the following season - both in League One. Swindon Town were relegated in 2011, finishing bottom of the table just 12 months after losing 1-0 to Millwall for a place in the Championship. Similarly, Leyton Orient lost on penalties to Rotherham in the League One play-off final in 2014, yet 12 months later found themselves relegated to League Two. Thirteen teams were not relegated, did not get promoted, or make the play-offs. That is 15 teams either gaining automatic promotion or at least making the play-offs and 15 who did not. So the fixture list for next season might not read 'League One' but there is hope for the Exiles that it will in August 2020. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48404451 |
Would Arsenal fans accept Spurs glory in Madrid for definite delight in Baku? | Before the all-English European finals, we put a question to four Gooners: the Guardian guarantees Arsenal beat Chelsea on the basis Tottenham also beat Liverpool. Deal Chas Newkey-Burden, football writer Over the last three mortifying years, Spurs have swapped places with us in Europe. Theyve basked in the prestige of the Champions League while weve been consigned to the naughty-seat Thursdays we once mocked them for. As if this wasnt hellish enough, theyve only gone and reached the Champions League final. But it would be a final indignity if Arsenal supporters developed the same obsessive inferiority complex that Spurs fans had when we ruled the roost. Back in those glory days, they basked in our defeats more than they celebrated their victories. They fixated on our fortunes like envious, Lilywhite-clad bunny boilers. As Arsenal fans we should be bigger than that. I dont want us to obsess over Spurs how they once obsessed over us. We should focus on whats good for us. Winning our first European trophy since 1994 and returning to the Champions League would be very, very good for us. Beating Chelsea and laughing at Liverpool are always good fun. As for the pain of Spurs winning the big one - well, youd be surprised by the power of denial once you put your heart into it. The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email. No deal Tim Stillman, Arsenal blogger I love my team dearly. I am one of the few flying to Baku for the Europa League Final. But, honestly, if you told me now that an Arsenal defeat would guarantee a Spurs defeat in Madrid, I would sign on the dotted line without a moments thought. I dont like that I feel that way, that I am allowing dislike to colour my choices to this extent. I think football and football fans are taking themselves far too seriously nowadays. I dislike VAR because I think it exposes a sickness at the heart of the game, that football is just too serious now to accept mistakes. But give me a Liverpool win on 1 June. Please. If this was the Premier League I would give Spurs a pass and enjoy Arsenal winning the Europa League. I have witnessed Arsenal winning the league at White Hart Lane. I could cope. But not the Champions League, they cant do it before us. No way. This is the worst-case scenario. I know how I feel is wrong, irrational, illogical and a concession to negativity. But I cant fight it. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Arsenal supporters find their voice during their teams 1-1 draw with Tottenham at Wembley on 2 March. Photograph: David Price/Arsenal FC via Getty Images Deal Clive Palmer, contributor to the Arsenal Vision podcast I want Arsenal to win in Baku even if that means the unthinkable Spurs winning the Champions League and forever having unwritten permission to place a star over that chicken. All I care about is Arsenal getting back into the Champions League and returning to the top table of the game. If he fails, I fear the recent years of division - Arsne knows best and Arsne Out - will reappear in the click of a tweet, which is not the best way to turn a page in Arsenals history, which absolutely must happen following an era of a generational manager epitomising a time when one man alone could run the club. A Spurs win in Madrid would hurt but the perception of continued drift at Arsenal would hurt more. No doubt it is time for us to make a small but important mark in Europe. No deal Paul Chronnell, Guardian Sport journalist The curious thing is that most Arsenal fans seem to like Mauricio Pochettino. I havent liked a Spurs manager so much since they had George Graham. You cant logically deny what he has achieved, so he probably does deserve a trophy. But not this one. Please God, not this one. When Pochettino disparaged the domestic cups earlier this season he sounded like Arsne Wenger about 10 years ago. Back then Spurs were not in the same conversation; it was always about trying to beat Arsenal and hoping we didnt win too much. How it must have felt for them for all those years. How it feels for us now. Arsenal fans are in a new reality - a third successive finish outside the top four, shunted aside by Spurs and Liverpool. The one saving grace has been that neither of them have actually won anything. On 1 June that must change. The Europa League has been fun and winning it would be nice. A European trophy; its been a while. And we get to play in the Champions League again. Seriously Liverpool and Chelsea, its all yours. | https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/27/would-arsenal-fans-accept-spurs-glory-in-madrid-for-definite-delight-in-baku |
Will PSA Group Accept Defeat And Leave FCA To Merge With Renault? | 2019 Bloomberg Finance LP Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) share price zoomed ahead more than 12% to 12.90 euros after news it proposes a merger with Renault of France, and possibly as investors anticipated a tastier proposal from PSA Group. After FCA CEO Mike Manley said earlier this year that the company would be open to deals which enhanced its prospects, investors had been expecting merger or takeover action. The favorite candidate had been PSA Group, also from France, which successfully bought General Motors' chronic loss making European subsidiaries Opel and Vauxhall and pointed them on the road to profitability. FCA proposed a merger with Renault Monday which would be 50% owned by FCA and 50% Renault. Renault said it would consider the proposal at a board meeting today. The French state owns about 15% of Renault. Combining Renault and FCA would produce a company with annual output of about 9 million vehicles, and rank third behind Volkswagen and Toyota. Including Renault alliance partners Nissan and Mitsubishi the combined output would reach close to 15 million and into number one spot. The Renault alliance with Nissan is potential complicating factor because it has been under pressure recently, not least because Japanese authorities arrested former CEO Carlos Ghosn on corruption charges, which he denies. The alliance was already creaking because the Japanese felt they had less influence than their contribution demanded. Nissan was close to bankruptcy when Renault stepped in to save it, but has since become much more profitable than the French company. Investment bank Nord-LB of Hanover, Germany had expected any deal involving FCA to involve PSA, and wondered if the alliance with Nissan might be a complication too far. The merger proposal from FCA already sounds very concrete, and it is hardly conceivable that the management of Renault was not involved in advance. However, Renault currently has its hands full with its alliance partner Nissan, and it is unthinkable that this partnership would be abandoned, Nord-LB analyst Frank Schwope said. Citi Research analyst Raghav Gupta-Chaudhary reckoned the FCA Renault deal would work and didnt see any complicating factors from the Nissan alliance. Adding FCA to the global Alliance - Renault + Nissan + Mitsubishi - would add considerable scale, and if it can be achieved without complicated cross shareholding stakes, a point of frustration for both Renault and Nissan shareholders, we'd expect this to be earnings accretive, Gupta-Chaudhary said. Investment researcher Jefferies liked the look of the deal too, and wondered if PSA might step in. FCA fits as well with Renault as it does with PSA; governance control, management structure are key considerations, Jefferies analyst Philippe Houchois said. Houchois said if Nissan and Renault fail to agree agreeable terms and the alliance fails, FCA would be an effective substitute. Nord-LBs Schwope said not only did the merger make very good sense, the reaction from investors meant that it was a good time to cash in Renault shares. In view of the high investment costs for future technologies such as autonomous driving and electromobility, a merger or close cooperation between FCA and Renault makes perfect sense. As a result of the merger euphoria, Renault shares rose by around 13% to 56.63 euros this morning. We recommend that you use this price increase to exit the Renault share and sell it, Schwope said. If PSA fails to acquire FCA, it might well turn to buying ailing British-based and Tata Motors of India owned-Jaguar Land Rover. There had been rumors that a Chinese automaker might be interested in FCA. Some analysts wondered why Renault would want to merge with FCA because it was losing money in Europe currently, U.S. margins are falling, and huge investments are required to meet tough environmental regulations in Europe. Last month FCA said it will pay Tesla close to 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion) for credits to help it make its E.U. emissions targets in 2020. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2019/05/27/will-psa-group-accept-defeat-and-leave-fca-to-merge-with-renault/ |
Can Cricket World Cup Hosts England Handle The Favoritism Tag And Break Their Hoodoo? | Getty Jubilant Bangladeshi players were sprawled on the pristine Adelaide Oval turf. Players piled on top of each other. The picturesque ground rated the prettiest in Australia had become an echo chamber of hollering from the team celebrating a famous World Cup victory. Heads bowed, staring blankly, Englands humiliated players looked on as if they had collectively seen a ghost. Their 2015 World Cup campaign had ended at the Group Stage in familiar embarrassment. Their enthusiastic supporters including a dedicated group called The Barmy Army couldnt quite believe they had traveled so far only to endure this pitiful ending. England had once again suffered on crickets biggest stage. But this bitter defeat proved a defining moment for Englands One-Day International (ODI) team. Heads soon rolled. Trevor Bayliss, a straight-shooting Australian, was then hired as coach with a key objective to lift Englands dire ODI record. Getty England cricket chiefs were determined for the team to be a genuine contender by the next World Cup on home soil. For the first time, there was far greater urgency over their ODI fortunes and it even appeared that the format had priority over the sanctity of Test cricket so treasured in the U.K. It was time for England to be taken seriously in 50-over cricket. The powerbrokers had tired of them being brandied as a World Cup loser and a never ending punch line. They were sick of Englands lethargy in ODIs when they played as if stuck in a bygone era. They always seemed a decade behind the trends. The team was flat and uninspiring. Or simply just plain boring. Things can change in four years. Ahead of the World Cup starting on May 30, world No.1 England are the hot favorites. No one could have envisioned this four years ago after that debacle in Adelaide. Through Bayliss aggressive blueprint, England have developed a nastier version of Australias high-octane batting order that propelled them to the 2015 World Cup title. England have become trendsetters through a deep reservoir of firepower which essentially does not waver throughout an entirety of an innings. Its like they have cracked a cheat code in a video game, toying with their rudderless opponents at will. They have a slew of players who can turn a match in minutes. Odds are at least one of them will. In Jos Buttler, England have the most audacious batsman in the world who plays trick shots with ridiculous ease. Such his ability to smash an endless array of boundaries that seemingly defy physics, he has unnerved bowlers who feel absolutely clueless where to bowl. Its a bit like Stephen Curry hypnotizing defenders due to his unparalleled shooting range. Getty England, however, are far from being a one-man batting machine. Rounding out their riches, Jonny Bairstow, Jason Roy and Ben Stokes can almost match Buttlers power while Joe Root and captain Eoin Morgan provide composure but are no slouches either. There has never been such a mind-bending batting lineup like this. No score and chase - seems beyond them. They make grounds seem minuscule such the regularity of balls being smashed into the terraces. Much of their success is based on this unparalleled hitting, but England have enough quality bowlers to ensure opponents are kept on a tight enough leash. And the confidence instilled from the batsmen allows bowlers particularly leg-spinner Adil Rashid with more leeway to be adventurous. Still, its hard to forget the ghosts of the past when you knew an England meltdown was coming. Englands lack of success in sports has been well mocked over the years. But its in crickets biggest tournament where they have truly underachieved ironically since cricket is considered the quintessential British sport. Unlike in the soccer and rugby union counterparts, England have never won the World Cup (although they have won crickets T20 World Cup). It is a wretched history. Three runners-up finishes is honorable, but the last was in 1992. Since then, England have not made it to the semi-finals and embarrassingly exited at the group stage three times with the nadir being in 2015 with a dull team that was on life support from the get go. This is new terrain. Anything other than victory would feel like a disappointment. The pressure on them to finally break their hoodoo will be suffocating. The normally gloomy and pessimistic England fans genuinely believe something special is ahead. And with good reason. Getty This is supposed to be crickets summer in the UK. Cricket, unlike in Australia, does not own the British sports summer. Every couple of years a major soccer tournament hogs the attention. Wimbledon, of course, dominates in late June-July and there is always something else going on. If England win the World Cup and double up in the subsequent Ashes series then cricket will almost certainly have truly captured the publics imagination for the first time since 2005 when England broke their Ashes drought in a series for the ages. If Morgan holds the trophy aloft on July 14, a success-starved nation will celebrate. Englands players will be national heroes and feted forever. It will also double as a timely distraction from the seemingly never ending political turmoil engulfing the U.K. An entire country can almost taste the euphoria. Almost. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlavalette/2019/05/27/can-cricket-world-cup-hosts-england-handle-the-favoritism-tag-and-break-their-hoodoo/ |
Who made Rob Maclean's team of the season? | The Scottish domestic season is finally at an end and BBC commentator Rob Maclean picks the 11 players who have most impressed him this term, 4-2-4: A McGregor; Tavernier, Halkett, McKenna, Taylor; Turnbull, C McGregor; Forrest, Morelos, Edouard, Kent. Goalkeeper - Allan McGregor The Rangers goalkeeper ended the season with a suspension but for me he was the best between the sticks in Scotland over the whole season. Joe Lewis and Daniel Bachmann more than merit a mention but McGregor has been better than ever at the age of 37, still pulling off game-changing saves. Defence - James Tavernier, Craig Halkett, Scott McKenna, Greg Taylor Famous last words but I don't think there can be too much disagreement about who fills the right-back position. It's not just that Rangers captain James Tavernier has scored 17 times. He's also a prolific creator of goals and a natural leader. Tavernier has kept his cool even when others around him have been losing theirs. When picking my first centre-back I have to reflect on how many times I've picked Livingston skipper Craig Halkett in my team of the week. Livi's loss next season is Hearts' gain. Halkett's still young, about to turn 24, and will continue to develop. A Scotland call-up is not beyond him. Media playback is not supported on this device Watch: Some of the best of this season's Scottish Premiership goals Connor Goldson, Kristoffer Ajer and Stuart Findlay were in my thoughts but I'm going for Scott McKenna, who surely won't be an Aberdeen player for much longer. The powerful 22-year-old will be very much in Steve Clarke's thoughts as the new Scotland head coach builds a team he thinks can qualify for Euro 2020. If Kieran Tierney had played more he would clearly have been a strong contender for left-back. That means Kilmarnock's Greg Taylor is my selection. The Scotland Under-21 international has been a model of consistency down the left side, both in defence and attack for record-breaking Killie. Midfield - David Turnbull, Callum McGregor Only diehard Motherwell fans would have known anything about David Turnbull at the start of the season. What an incredible impact the 19-year-old midfielder has made since breaking through into the first team. He scored 15 goals, played with remarkable maturity and, even under contract, will be much sought after in the summer. I've picked Callum McGregor so many times this season that it was sometimes difficult to find a new way of describing his amazing contribution. The Celtic playmaker is a class act and has played a massive part in the winning of the treble treble. Media playback is not supported on this device Watch: Celtic's Tierney & McGregor interview each other Attack - James Forrest, Alfredo Morelos, Odsonne Edouard, Ryan Kent I'm going for it with a front four and the first name in attack is player of the season James Forrest. He's taken his game to a whole new level with Celtic and Scotland. Forrest scored five times in four days for the national team in November and notched up an impressive total of 22 for club and country. Odsonne Edouard looked offended when asked if he was nervous taking a penalty on the way to Celtic's Scottish Cup win on Saturday. The 21-year-old Frenchman doesn't do nerves. He just scores goals. The double at Hampden took his total for the season to 23. Media playback is not supported on this device Odsonne Edouard equalised from the spot against Hearts and then added a second goal eight minutes from time Alfredo Morelos has a ridiculous strike rate when you think about how many games he's missed through suspension. The Rangers fans have mixed feelings about their top goalscorer but the 22-year-old Colombian's end of campaign tally of 30 goals speaks for itself. On the left side of my attack is livewire Rangers winger Ryan Kent. Plenty Premiership defenders will tell you he was unstoppable at times. Steven Gerrard would love to extend 22-year-old's loan from Liverpool but his spell in the Scottish shop window will have alerted bigger spenders to the prospect of doing a permanent deal. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48422338 |
Where Are All the Black Children in Picture Books About the Outdoors? | Sure, black kids in picture books sometimes explore urban landscapes, encounter animals, garden, farm, or travel to new environments in their imagination, Martin found. Sometimes they learn to navigate the untamed outdoors as they escape from slavery. But by and large, according to childrens literature, black children dont hike or camp or bird-watch for fun. In her research in the years since receiving her graduate degree, Martin has managed to locate only a handful of picture books in which they do partake in those kinds of activities. She counts The Snowy Day, the Ezra Jack Keats classic from 1962, among that group, as well as Wheres Rodney?, published in 2017, and Hiking Day and We Are Brothers, both published in 2018. And thats ... pretty much it, Martin says. She recently presented her findings on the topic at the University of British Columbia. Read: Reading racism in Dr. Seuss Martin, a native of South Carolina and a self-described lifetime Girl Scout, grew up relishing the time she spent outdoors. She participated in summer wilderness-survival programs as a teenager and spent some years working as an outdoor educator in California. Today she worries that the lack of childrens books about African American kids enjoying nature could send the message to young black readers with an interest in the outdoors, like she herself once was, that black kids and black families dont belong outdoorson the Appalachian Trail, or hiking up in the Cascades, wherever, she told me. That thats not something that black and brown people do, or that maybe the woods still aren't a safe placethat you dont belong there. Martin hopes that drawing attention to this particular vacuum within childrens literature will help encourage authors and illustrators to fill it. But taking note of that particular gap in childrens literature, and its potentially detrimental side effects, is the easy part. Understanding why the gap exists is a much more complicated pursuit. Theres a multitude of intertwining reasons why books about black children loving the outdoors are a rarityand black kids dont love the outdoors isnt one of them, as Carolyn Finney, the author of Black Faces, White Spaces: Reimagining the Relationship of African Americans to the Great Outdoors, put it. For starters, as both she and Martin pointed out, childrens literature is overwhelmingly written by white authors. The publishing industry, too, is mainly a white industry; in 2015, a survey of more than 40 publishers and review journals found that almost four out of every five staffers identified as white. Increases in the number of childrens books about kids of color in the past few years have brought the rate of childrens books with an African American character from 6 percent in 2008 to 11 percent in 2019, but even so, thats still a pretty slim proportion. Writers often follow the common advice to write what they know, and gatekeepers tend to greenlight projects that tell stories about people like themselvesso to Finney, that black children are underrepresented in this particular subgenre of kids literature is not surprising, because black children have historically been underrepresented in kids literature, period. | https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/05/the-lack-of-diversity-in-childrens-books-about-nature/590152/?utm_source=feed |
Why dont all cars fill up on the same side? | Open this photo in gallery A woman fills up her with gas in Toronto, on April 1, 2019. My husbands SUV doesnt have that arrow next to the fuel gauge, so I never remember which side it fills up on. At gas stations, cars drive every which way often in the wrong direction so they can line up their gas caps to the pumps. The regulations wont help auto makers are allowed to put the gas cap on either side. The location of the fuel filler door on either side of the car is a vehicle design choice as there is no evidence indicating that one side has a safety advantage over the other, said Annie Joannette, Transport Canada spokeswoman, in an e-mail. There are crash testing requirements in place that have a significant influence on the location of the fuel filler. Story continues below advertisement Basically, after cars go through front-, rear- and side-impact crash tests, the amount of fuel that leaks out gets measured, and only a small amount is allowed, Joannette said. The tests started in the seventies and the regulations became increasingly tough. Up until the early nineties, some North American cars hid the gas cap under the rear licence plate (some earlier cars, like the 1955 Chevy Bel Air, hid it under the drivers side taillight). Most cars now have arrows telling you which side to fill up on. That arrow is usually in, or next to, the gas gauge, but not always. For instance, on the previous-generation BMW X3, it was next to the display that shows the number of kilometres to empty. It depends on the auto maker. On German cars, including Volkswagens and BMWs, the gas cap is usually on the right side thats the passenger side in North America and most of Europe, where people drive on the right. That is the side that faces the curb so that if you ever run out of fuel and need to add some from a gas canister, you will not be standing in traffic, said Thomas Tetzlaff, Volkswagen Canada spokesman. But some Japanese brands, like Toyota and Honda, generally put the gas cap on the left side. Toyota said only two of its cars the Subaru-made Toyota 86 and the Magna Steyr-made Toyota Supra have gas caps on the right. Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement Nissan said it aims to keep gas caps on the drivers side but that can depend on the main markets the car is intended for. For North American-made cars, the gas caps are usually on the left. But for the Nissan Rogue, which is built all over the place and sold worldwide, the gas cap is on the right. Ford, Fiat-Chrysler and General Motors say the gas cap location varies on their models, but theyre aiming to put more of them on the drivers side (the left). We checked with police from a few forces across Canada they said they were not aware of any specific laws governing which side you stick to at the pumps. Its not something that police could or should enforce, said Capt. Paul Leduc, Sret du Qubec spokesman. Its on private property. However, there is a law in Quebec against driving through a gas station to avoid a red light. In all the provinces except Ontario, provincial traffic laws apply on private property (although, in Quebec some do and others dont) but police say charges are unlikely unless theres a crash or an egregious incident. Story continues below advertisement Remember CCTV is installed at every gas station and actions are captured for easy review by police if needed, said Sgt. Brett Moore, with Toronto Police traffic services, in an e-mail. People should always take it easy and make their intentions known when operating their vehicle. Stopping in the same direction as the other cars stopped at a row of pumps might help limit confusion. So will using turn signals. Send it to [email protected]. Canadas a big place, so let us know where you are so we can find the answer for your city and province. Stay on top of all our Drive stories. We have a Drive newsletter covering car reviews, innovative new cars and the ups and downs of everyday driving. Sign up for the weekly Drive newsletter, delivered to your inbox for free. Follow us on Instagram, @globedrive. | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-why-dont-all-cars-fill-up-on-the-same-side/ |
What Causes a Migraine? | If you suffer from migraine headaches, or know anyone who does, youre well aware that theyre not just headaches. Your typical headache wouldnt be considered a disease, but migraine is a neurological disorder, Matthew Robbins, MD, a neurologist at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, tells InStyle. And a painful one. For a long time, the medical community was stumped, especially because migraines have many, many triggers that are personal to everyone from changes in the weather, to certain foods for example. Triggers may seem like they cause your migraines, but theres something else at the root, Dr. Robbins says. Theres only one reason scientists have determined, for sure, that people get migraine headaches: genetics. A complicated series of genes makes you susceptible to migraine, Dr. Robbins says. If one or both of your parents get migraines, theres a 50 to 75 percent chance that you will, too, according to the American Migraine Foundation (AMF). But you wont always. Migraine is a complex genetic disorder, meaning that many different genes have to come together to make you predisposed. And even then, youre just predisposed youre not guaranteed to get migraines. Its possible that your mom has migraine, but you never get it, Dr. Robbins says. The reverse is also true: You could suffer from migraines even though neither of your parents ever has. This lack of clarity is probably what brought you to this very article: Why. Do. I. Get. Migraines. UGH. That brings us back to those triggers. While we might want to call triggers the cause of migraines, theyre really just the thing that sets your brain off. The brains of people who have migraine are hypersensitive to certain stimuli, Dr. Robbins says. Think of it as if your brain gets really excited when it comes across one of your triggers. Except, in this case, excited is a bad thing because it causes throbbing pain in your head and, for some people, other symptoms like nausea, sensitivity to light, and blurry vision. In fact, there are many different types of migraine, depending on the associated symptoms, according to the International Headache Societys classification. Unfortunately, one of the most common triggers is one you cant do much to control. Dr. Robbins sees many patients who are triggered by their menstrual cycle, or more accurately, the hormone fluctuations menstrual cycles cause. The menstrual migraine window starts two days before your period and continues for the first three days of your flow, according to the American Migraine Foundation. Menstrual migraine is one of the most difficult types to treat, the AMF says. While people can try to avoid most other triggers, its pretty difficult to avoid your period. Sometimes, continuous birth control can help, Dr. Robbins says. And doctors will also try using preventative medications either targeted to the menstrual window or throughout the month. RELATED: I Tried Everything to Cure My Migraines Here's What Worked Other common triggers include: stress, changes in sleep (both not sleeping enough and sleeping too much), caffeine or alcohol, changes in the weather (some people are sensitive to barometric pressure), and dehydration, Dr. Robbins says. Some people also report food triggers, but those are more difficult to verify, he says. In general, its a good strategy to track your triggers and attempt to avoid them. If you notice a migraine hit each time youve had a messed up sleep schedule, try to prioritize getting consistent shuteye to prevent another attack. Someone whos triggered by dehydration, for example, should make sure theyre drinking enough water. Of course, most people with migraine dont have just one trigger. And its not always possible to control them, especially triggers like stress and changes in the weather. Just like the causes of migraine, theres no one-size-fits-all treatment to the disorder. If you have migraine, your best option is to meet with a neurologist and develop a personalized treatment plan based on your triggers and the frequency of your attacks. Anyone who has headaches severe enough to wonder whether or not they should see their doctor should see their doctor, Dr. Robbins says. If headaches are seriously messing with your life frequently making you miss work or cancel plans with friends its worth making an appointment. Your primary care physician may refer you to a neurologist for an official diagnosis. Even if you dont have migraine, recurring headaches could be caused by another neurological disorder or could be the symptom of something else. So its always best to get checked out. | https://news.yahoo.com/causes-migraine-110000442.html |
Is tossing the bouquet outdated? | by Jessie Blaeser There is no better way to make all single wedding guests immediately uncomfortable than by forcing the bouquet and garter toss. Both traditions further gender stereotypes, and the bouquet toss in particular implies that success can only be found through marriage. Some say its time to ditch the toss for these reasons and more. But, there will always be those who prefer to stick with tradition, and this camp believes tossing the bouquet is all in good fun. According to Twinbrook Floral Design, the bouquet toss began as a transaction of good fortune: The tradition of tossing the bouquet originated in England as a way for the bride to pass along her good fortune to others. Readers Digest adds more context to the story: Hundreds of years ago, it was thought to be very good luck to touch the bride. This often caused discomfort and invasion of privacy to the bride, since guests would typically stand around her in an attempt to rip the gown off! (Uh, no thanks!) In order to deter guests, the bride began tossing their bouquets into the crowds to distract people.... Today, brides toss their bouquets into a crowd of single women, and whoever catches the bouquet is said to be next in line for a happy marriage. The tradition is innocent and something brides and guests can look forward to together. the bouquet toss is not a joke to us pic.twitter.com/EAknj0nQKP abs (@abbyniehaus7) March 9, 2019 Theres nothing more demeaning than standing in a group of women you dont know, drawn together only by your singleness. To fight for a way out of that singlenesswhether you actually want it or notin the form of reaching for a handful of flowers is the icing on the wedding cake. Being called out for being singleespecially at the romantic celebration of two professed soul mates. The bouquet toss, although harmless in its intent, shines a spotlight on anyone who isnt married and promotes the assumption that marriage is what everyone should strive toward. Not everyone strives for marriage, and the bouquet toss directly implies that everything women should want in life is to be happily married. Its past time to do away with this tradition. There are few things I hate more than being a single lady during the bouquet toss. Janie Richardson (@janerichy) August 7, 2014 But the bouquet toss is all in good fun. According to The Washington Posts Lisa Bonos, the bouquet toss is among the least offensive of all wedding traditions: Even though the bouquet toss is a not-so-subtle endorsement of married life, to me it also underscores how random love is. You have to be at the right place, at the right time for both of you, for a committed relationship to work out...If a happy newlywed wants to throw some luck my way, however random and meaningless, Ill take it. No one is making you participate if youd rather sit the flower-grab out. Still, the tradition should remain for those who do enjoy iteven when it doesnt go according to plan. I've filmed many weddings....best bouquet toss ever! pic.twitter.com/1AyROwVu6X Seref Sezgin (@SEREF737) May 8, 2019 Ethical argument aside, the bouquet toss can be flat out dangerous. Brides itself warns: Since the bouquet toss usually happens toward the end of the night, it can get rowdy, competitive and even bloody if someone reaches too high and elbows someone else along the way or steps on their feet accidentally while running forward toward the bouquet of peonies. No one wants to be stabbed and scratched by thorns and stems at the end of a wedding. Keep your guests safe and forgo this outdated tradition. 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, wed love to hear what you have to say. | https://www.cleveland.com/tylt/2019/05/is-tossing-the-bouquet-outdated.html |
What would a Brexit Party Brexit look like? | Image copyright Getty Images The Brexit Party has won the largest share of the vote and the most seats in the UK's European elections. Many of its policies are unknown, it produced no manifesto, and it has avoided answering detailed questions on immigration or economic policy. One thing we do know very clearly is that it wants to leave the European Union as soon as possible. 'Clean break' The Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage says he wants a "clean-break" Brexit, abandoning the withdrawal agreement that Theresa May's government negotiated with the EU. It is notable that Mr Farage tended to avoid the term "no-deal" Brexit during the election campaign. A party spokesman argued that it is a misleading term that gives a false impression. Without a withdrawal agreement, though, most of the vast network of rules and regulations that have governed the UK's relationship with the rest of Europe for more than 40 years, whether in trade or security or other issues, would disappear overnight. That's what a clean break would mean. While arguing for a swift exit, the Brexit Party has also called for its newly elected MEPs to play a "major role" in the Brexit negotiations. But as the Brexit Party is not in government and has no MPs in the House of Commons that is highly unlikely. The only direct role Brexit Party MEPs might have is if the withdrawal agreement was ever to pass in the House of Commons - there would then be a vote in the European Parliament to ratify it. A clean break also means - and this was a promise that appeared on a pledge card the Brexit Party produced during the campaign - that it would refuse to pay the 39bn financial settlement, or "divorce bill", that the government has agreed in order to settle past debts and future obligations to the EU. WTO terms And it means the party wants to leave the EU on - as it puts it - World Trade Organization (WTO) terms. It sounds very simple, and it is a phrase that is also used by several contenders for the Conservative Party leadership. Not a lot. The basic rules of the WTO are really just the baseline of international trade, which don't offer more than the most rudimentary of benefits. A lot of Brexit supporters - including the Brexit Party - argue that the UK can use something called Article 24 (of GATT - the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) to ensure that the UK can still enjoy free or frictionless trade with the EU. It would mean no tariffs or taxes would be imposed on goods crossing borders between the UK and its largest trading partner, the European Union. The trouble with that argument is that you can only use Article 24 if two parties are willing to make an agreement - in this case, the UK and the EU. Neither can impose it on the other. In other words, you have to agree a deal first and the Brexit Party, along with several would-be Conservative leaders, are prepared to leave without a deal. EU negotiations Mr Farage argues that there will in fact be a deal of some kind because the EU needs one. He has been fond of saying that when push comes to shove the EU would "come running" to do a quick trade deal with the UK. That's quite a gamble. It is certainly true that any significant disruption to trade would hurt both sides, but the EU has said consistently that it values the integrity of its single market more than free trade with the UK, and that that will be its priority. Of course no deal or a "clean break" is not an end in itself. Eventually - and sooner rather than later - the two sides would have to start talking again about a future agreement. The 27 other EU countries have already agreed that if there is no deal then the first thing they would want to talk to the UK about after Brexit would not be a trade deal. It would be the financial settlement, citizens' rights and the Irish border - exactly those issues that are dealt with in detail in the withdrawal agreement that has been rejected three times in the House of Commons. The Brexit Party is offering simple solutions. But the Brexit process is full of complex problems. Read more from Reality Check Send us your questions Follow us on Twitter | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48422801 |
Is bar culture changing in the Bay Area? | Bar Shiru, a hi-fi vinyl listening bar, opened in Uptown Oakland earlier this year. The bar is one of a few new establishments that have popped up in Oakland recently to prioritize acoustics and the listening experience. less Bar Shiru, a hi-fi vinyl listening bar, opened in Uptown Oakland earlier this year. 1 / 19 Back to Gallery It's a tale as old as 2019. On a Friday night, your friends invite you to the trendy new bar in your neighborhood. It has high, exposed ceilings, mid-century modern furniture, potted snake plants, and minimalist wooden surfaces. Oh, and cocktails are $15. You were looking forward to a night of catching up with your pals, but you can't hear a single word they say in the packed bar. You shout over the cacophony until a throbbing ache emerges in the space between your ears, then order too many craft cocktails to dull the pain. "The growing trend in bars and restaurants just being really loud is something a lot of people can relate to," said Daniel Gahr. Gahr and Shirin Raza, who are married, own Bar Shiru, a hi-fi vinyl listening bar in Uptown Oakland. "If you look at the aesthetics of where we are currently in architecture and interior design, it's a lot of hard surfaces, glass and materials that don't necessarily make for the best acoustic environments," Gahr continued. The couple opened Bar Shiru in February this year as an antidote to the bad acoustics in restaurants that are rampant in coastal cities nowadays. On a trip to Tokyo in 2015, they were enthralled by the city's popular jazz listening bars. Gahr and Raza were inspired to bring the concept back home but as more of a loose interpretation, rather than a faithful recreation. "We didn't want to bring that exact thing here because the U.S. audience and American bar culture is quite different from what it is in Japan," explained Gahr. "We were really intent on building something that was to our vision and for the Oakland community." In Tokyo, hi-fi vinyl bar owners are known to be strict at times, even shushing customers for chatting. Bar Shiru, conversely, encourages a social atmosphere while still offering a fully analog, high-quality sound system. It even still looks like your quintessential trendy bar of the moment: high ceilings, concrete, Eames-style chairs, wooden tables, and a lot more square footage than you would typically find in a Japanese listening bar. To keep it from getting too loud, Gahr and Raza discourage large groups and maintain a strict capacity. When I stopped by on a busy Friday night, walk-ins were designated to an open seating area at the front of the bar, while those with reservations were seated at small wooden tables in front of a floor-to-ceiling collection of vinyl and huge speakers. "We wanted this to be a place that balances intentional listening and the ability to hear the music really well, but also at a volume that allows for conversation as opposed to yelling," said Gahr. In the clamor of a busy weekend evening, some of the bar's music focus was lost. As one might expect, people get chatty and loud when packed together in a bar setting, no matter the original intent of the space. The volume never got overpowering, though it was just a little hard to make out what record was playing over the hubbub. However, on a second visit on a quiet Sunday evening, the Bar Shiru the owners had envisioned came into clearer view. Old friends caught up over beers, occasionally bobbing their heads to the Pat Martino record playing. When the bartender changed records, everyone had to sit with the staticky silence for a moment a refreshing moment of mindfulness in the often overstimulating bar environment. Bar Shiru isn't the only bar in the Bay Area to start paying more attention to its acoustics. North Light, a cafe, bar, bookstore, and record shop all in one, opened in Oakland's Temescal district earlier this year. "If we're on a commute or at home, we really care about what we're hearing," said Dan Stone, who co-owns the North Oakland spot with concert promoter Lee Smith. "We care about it then, so why wouldn't we want that with the places we patronize and spend our time?" North Light plays tunes via turntable, paying careful attention to which records are being played at which times of day. "We play music without English language lyrics during the day, such as mariachi, flamenco, and jazz. "Then it converts to a bar vibe around 5," explained Stone. This allows artists, writers, and musicians to use the cafe as a peaceful home office during the day before the energy picks up at night no headphones to drown out distracting top 40 radio required. Copper Spoon, another North Oakland bar and restaurant, also brings a few music-oriented touches to its space. For example, each booth has its very own switch to control the volume of the speaker above it. "We got the idea from old diners, which would have a jukebox in each booth," said Vita Simone, Copper Spoon co-owner. "It's definitely a nice feature. You get the older people turning it down and younger people turning it up." The trendy design of mid-century modern restaurants that causes awful acoustics doesn't seem to be dying off anytime soon in a recent review of Verjus, a new San Francisco wine bar, San Francisco Chronicle food writer Soleil Ho laments having to shout to be heard over other customers as "the red lacquered ceiling, while beautiful and shiny, seemed to amplify the reverb of the crowd's voices." It's a difficult trend to quash, as louder restaurants are more profitable noise encourages increased alcohol consumption and produces faster diner turnover. But it comes at a cost: sustained loudness, especially for a restaurant's employees working for hours at a time, are linked to health problems including heart disease and high blood pressure. However, the direction these listening-experience-forward bars in Oakland are taking offers a glimmer of hope that things are starting to change. "Just like fresh-squeezed juice for cocktails, this is another sign that people are taking more care in the full experience of what it is to go to a bar," said Stone. | https://www.sfgate.com/restaurants/diningout/article/bar-culture-changing-Bay-Area-Bar-Shiru-loud-noise-13867379.php |
Do we have to tell our family that were getting fertility treatments? | Dear Carolyn Adapted from a recent online discussion. My husband and I have been trying for a baby for a year and are now starting fertility treatments. I feel strongly that I want to keep this as private as possible between us, a therapist, and one or two close friends. My husband wants to share with his parents and siblings and thinks that I should also share with my family. I understand his need for support, but I think we would be better off getting it from a professional versus my in-laws, who will likely give us a bunch of platitudes and push fertility myths, and then somehow end up telling the rest of the extended family. If Im being honest, Im also embarrassed and feel broken because the issue is on my end, and dont need everyone knowing that. Dont Need Everyone Knowing Dear Dont Need Everyone Knowing: I am so sorry you have to go through this. I dont even know you and I know no way. Youd be encouraging her, urging her to trust that you wont judge her or annoy her with advice and myths. So please be as kind to yourself as youd be to your friend. As for reconciling your preference for privacy with your husbands impulse to share, its important to get into the specifics. He wants broad community support and you want narrow, professional support. Thats the general picture. The specific one for you is that you dont want your in-laws pushing myths or sharing your news widely. Thats fair. The specific picture for your husband, Im guessing, is that he doesnt want the added weight of keeping a secret. Thats fair, too, since both of you would have to choose your words carefully whenever youre around people. These do seem mutually exclusive, so itll be tough, but theyre also the same thing: You both want to feel comfortable around other people as you go through this difficult process. Discretion isnt a totally lost art, I hope. If you just cant find a level of disclosure you both can accept, then, given that your body is the one getting treated and stuck and hormone-jacked, you have the veto power here. (Again after a good-faith effort to find a compromise.) His thinking you should share with your family is suspect if were going to play the should game, then he should support your right to decide how best to manage your relationship with your own family but I hope he will freely honor your claim to the last word. | https://www.seattletimes.com/life/do-we-have-to-tell-our-family-that-were-getting-fertility-treatments/ |
Will Bermuda Be The New Hamptons This Summer? | Hamilton Princess & Beach Club Memorial Day Weekend is here, and so is the start of summer vacation. For New Yorkers, that means heading out East on the weekends to soak up as much beach time and sunshine as possible. The only problem is, it can be a schlep to get there. But, one foreign luxury hotel is proposing a rather unique solution for the first time this year: book a summer share in Bermuda. For the first time, Bermudas Hamilton Princess & Beach Club is launching a home sharing program this summer, a concept thats very similar to what New Yorkers would do with the Hamptons. But, instead of dealing with agonizing Hamptons traffic and overcrowded share houses, youll jet out of New York City by 10 am, take a 90-minute flight, and can be on the beach by noon. Hamilton Princess & Beach Club Yes, the Shades of Pink Suites, program allows couples to book suites as their summer home for up to nine weekends of the season at a rate not offered ever before starting at $939 for a weekend. Also included in the one-of-a-kind share package is car service for arrival and departures, sunscreen and champagne upon arrival, reserved chairs at the pool and beach, and Exhale Spa barre classes. Plus, so you dont have to worry about lugging all of your beach gear each time you visit, the hotel offers luggage storage and full laundry services to leave behind what you dont want to take home. And, no matter what room category you decide (the Gold Suite is the most expensive at $1,449 a weekend), you get lounge access where complimentary breakfast, coffee, and dessert. Hamilton Princess & Beach Club And the hotel is a prime spot for FOMO-inducing social media pictures. Coined the Pink Palace, the Hamilton Princess has an iconic pink exterior, stunning views of the harbor (up to 60 yachts at a time dock there), and a world-class contemporary art collection featuring artists like Andy Warhol and Banksy. Nearby at the Beach Club, you can lounge on a sandy beach that will put any Hamptons beach to shame considering its located in a private cove with calm, crystal blue waters. There are even over-water hammocks that are perfect for an Instagram pic. The hotel is so confident they created something special, they coined the hashtag #HamiltonIsTheNewHamptons. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordilippemcgraw/2019/05/27/will-bermuda-be-the-new-hamptons-this-summer/ |
Have $10,000 Per Night To Spend On A Cruise Ship? | The truth is, you can easily spend that much when you sail on the Regent Seven Seas Explorer, widely acknowledged as the most luxurious cruise ship in the world. If you have deep pockets, your money would be well-spent on booking the unique Regent Suite which costs $10,000 per night. The indescribably beautiful suite comes with a bevy of beautiful extras, making it one of the worlds most superb accommodations at sea. Its the crown jewel of the cruise line. Located on the highest deck, you will enjoy immaculate views of the horizon, whether youre standing in your private garden or just relaxing on your hand-crafted Savoir bed. They were first created for the Savoy Hotel in 1905, where for more than 100 years luminaries as diverse as Sir Winston Churchill, Giacomo Puccini and Marilyn Monroe experienced their cloud-like comfort. They are handmade in the UK, of the finest natural materials and skilled craftsmanship to create the ultimate sleeping system. You heard that right. Its a sleeping system. Each bed requires more than 120 hours of work. The mattress is filled with extra deep-pocket springs, masses of loose, curled horse-tail hair, and double layers of lambs wool. Along with the bed, your Regent Suite features a heavenly 100% down duvet crafted with eiderdown from Iceland. Then comes a set of Double Touch of Down bed pillows with small whole feathers on the inside for a comfortable touch. The feathers are what is known as Hyperclean Down, meaning that they are free of dust, dirt and allergies. But it doesnt stop there. Just to make sure that you are cradled in cocoon-like comfort, each Regent Suite guest can choose their favorite bed linens. These include a bamboo collection made with organic cotton; exceptionally soft bedding made from cotton and tencel; 100% linen crafted in Portugal; plus a collection crafted in Italy of Egyptian cotton sateen. (Just writing this Im snoozing already.) Then come the comfort pillows. These include styles made with gel; water; memory foam; buckwheat hulls; and a tri-sided anatomic pillow to reduce snoring, insomnia and lumbar pain. Inside the suite, you can also take advantage of FREE, UNLIMITED spa services from the Canyon Ranch SpaClub on board. (In fact, one Regent Suite couple once brought their own massage bed.) Your 4,443-sq.ft. home-away-from-home also includes walls of windows, a grand piano, and your choice of aromatics to perfume the air inside with your selected scent. These are crafted by Antica Officina del Farmacista, and inspired by the fragrances of Florence and Tuscany. There are three to choose. Acqua contains notes of basil leaves and white musk. Aria consists of lemon and orange flowers. West contains green-tea essence. Your choice comes with an elegant reed diffuser to scent your surroundings. Just tell your butler he also comes with the territory, and has been schooled by the Guild of Professional Butlers in London. He comes in very handy when you have dinner in your private restaurant on board. Its called The Library, which can seat you and about eight more of your new-found friends on board. Now that's a party! And lets not forget the full-sized bath amenities, from your choice of Guerlain, LOccitane, and Bottega Veneta. In the bathroom these is also a cream-of-the-cop Dyson hairdryer, so that hair styling is turbocharged and as easy as one-two-three. And when its time to leave your suite to take in the local sights a personal car and a guide await you in port. But trust me, with a suite such as this, the ultra-luxurious ship itself becomes the final destination. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/debbikickham/2019/05/27/have-10000-per-night-to-spend-on-a-cruise-ship/ |
Why does Raptors fan Drake have Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant tattoos? | originally appeared on nbcsportsbayarea.com Well, this is awkward Drake must be ecstatic that his Toronto Raptors finally are in the NBA Finals, but he'll also be repping the opponents when Game 1 is played Thursday night at Scotiabank Arena. That's because the rapper apparently has tattoos honoring Warriors stars Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant on his left arm. Scroll to continue with content Ad San Jose Mercury News columnist Dieter Kurtenbach reminded everyone of Drake's Steph and KD ink right after the Raptors clinched their Finals berth Saturday night in Toronto. A reminder that Drake has Curry and Durant tattoos pic.twitter.com/rFCuRdUz1b Dieter Kurtenbach (@dkurtenbach) May 26, 2019 Drake has a long history with the Warriors. He has attended games at Oracle Arena and jawed with/befriended many of the players, including Curry, Durant and Draymond Green. He's a huge basketball fan who seemingly attends college and pro games whenever and wherever he can, and his habit of wearing different teams' gear and posing for pictures with athletes has led to the infamous "Drake curse." Story continues That curse wasn't in effect during Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals -- Drake sat in the front row as the Raptors beat the Milwaukee Bucks for the right to meet the Warriors in The Finals. Perhaps the tattoos, which The Heavy points out Drake seemingly has never confirmed, are a long play, cursing the Warriors' biggest stars so his Raptors finally can win the NBA championship. Perhaps they're just the latest additions to Drake's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover-esque collection of tattoos that include tributes to Sade, Rihanna, Aaliyah and various family members and friends. [RELATED:McCaw celebrates third Finals, but Dubs fans not having it] Whatever the reason, Drake has the tattoos. Whether they're a curse or an honor remains to be seen, but you can bet he'll cover them up during The Finals. | https://sports.yahoo.com/why-does-raptors-fan-drake-071452329.html?src=rss |
Is Quentin Tarantino a problem? | Quentin Tarantino has been the buzz of social media, and it goes beyond his upcoming film "Once Upon a Time In Hollywood." The director is catching flack for the way he addressed a female reporter at a press conference. The director is no stranger to controversy, especially when it comes to his behavior toward women. And while many credit him as being talented, others feel the way he treats women is inappropriate and disrespectful. Tarantino has a long history of being disrespectful to women. And critics are concerned with how he treats them, both in real life and how he portrays them on-screen. According to Indiewire: Both Robbies limited dialogue and Tarantinos blunt response to Nayeri resulted in accusations of misogyny against Tarantino. The director is no stranger to these claims. Tarantinos last film, The Hateful Eight, came under fire for its depiction of Jennifer Jason Leighs character Daisy Domergue. Daisy is continuously beaten by male characters throughout the movie. Kerry Washingtons character in Django Unchained was similarly assaulted on screen. As film journalist Alyssa Klein wrote on Twitter, Hi men, please never talk to me the way Quentin Tarantino responded to this very legitimate question from a journalist. Celebrity entitlement, because we all want to work, is still part of the problem when they inconsistently choose to work w abusive, sexist Tarantino, which contradicts #MeToo. @MargotRobbie https://t.co/XT77vm7aiu#OnceUponATimeInHollywood #TheSociopathicBusinessModel #racism KillingMyCareer (@MelaynaLokosky) May 22, 2019 They have also noticed his obsession with using the N-word in his films. Im not finna defend Quentin Tarantino bc honestly, the man is not perfect. I personally will always have a problem with how nonchalant he said the n word in Pulp Fiction. Lord Of The Game (@TomieCacique) May 23, 2019 But fans of the director argue that Tarantino is a genius and the women in his films are multifaceted: Many critics were quick to point out that Tarantinos films are overflowing with dynamic female characters, from The Bride in Kill Bill to the eponymous protagonist in Jackie Brown, but others pointed out theres a difference between writing great female characters and treating women in the real world with respect. Quentin Tarantino is a mid-level Observer-Sensor on the empathy scale. I don't really have a problem with the man, I love his films. He acts in accordance with empathy level, his awareness and his life experiences. pic.twitter.com/s6Tzw51qt6 Unfiltered Mind (@unfilteredmindk) May 22, 2019 When you have a director being courted by studios like he was after, even after the fallout of the Weinstein situation, you know this is someone really important to everybody. Quentin Tarantino is my hero. I think it's time we acknowledge his genius completely. Henry James Abrams (@Seven16) May 21, 2019 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, wed love to hear what you have to say. | https://www.cleveland.com/tylt/2019/05/is-quentin-tarantino-a-problem.html |
Is Barcelona's Lionel Messi Worth $84m per year? | ASSOCIATED PRESS Unless youve been stuck under a rock for the last 14 years, the chances are you will have heard of Lionel Messi, even if your interest in soccer is fleeting. The Argentinian has defied the boundaries of what is possible on a football pitch and at 31 years of age is, evidently, still getting better. When the Catalans won the 2018/19 La Liga title, it meant that Messi extended his record of being the most decorated player in Barcelonas history. His two goals against Liverpool in the first leg of the Champions League semi-final gave him 600 club goals, 14 years to the day since he scored his first. When you consider that second on the all-time list, Cesar Rodriguez, a monster of a soccer player for the Blaugranes in the 1940s and 50s, is way back on 232, it puts the Argentinians goalscoring achievements into perspective. For that kind of talent, its obvious that big bucks will change hands. Forbes 2018 ranking of the worlds highest paid athletes had Messi in second place behind Floyd Mayweather, with a salary of $84m per season. Add in endorsements of $27m and the No.10 banked a cool $111m in the period. Well, straight off the bat we must consider Messis standing in the game, both currently and historically. Although Juventus Cristiano Ronaldo can lay claim to sit at the same table, Messi is generally recognised as the best footballer around because he is, more often than not, the best dribbler, the best passer, the top scorer etc. etc. These are all definable metrics which act as tools to measure his status as the worlds best. Once such a level has been attained, that invariably costs money. Ronaldo certainly enters the conversation in terms of who can be considered top dog, but hes largely considered to be an incredibly talented, voracious and incessant goal scorer as opposed to an all-rounder. Indeed, many ex-professionals have no issue in anointing the Barca player in that particular argument, whilst tipping a hat in Ronaldos direction. To that end, supporters want to attend the Camp Nou to see Messi, and sponsors want to have their brands associated with him. Its no coincidence then to see that the Deloitte Football Money League 2019 has Barca second (only to Real Madrid) in terms of revenue; $690.4m. The Blaugranes have leapfrogged Manchester United into that second spot, and one can be fairly confident that if Messi continues to perform at his present exceptionally high level, income from various sources will only increase. His importance to his club side too is unquestionable. Messidependence has become a watchword in Spain, denoting how different Barcelona are when they play with their talisman and without him. Whilst it cant be said that they are two Jekyll and Hyde teams, there can be a noticeable difference on occasion. With him in the XI, Barca are often an attacking force par excellence, and without him they can look like any other team. The winning of trophies is therefore more likely with him in situ, and with prize money for so doing at record levels (last seasons Champions League winners pocketed $101.2m in prize money), the value that Messi can bring is obvious. Add in that his shirt is the most sold in club shops (and the most sold worldwide in 2015), and social media interaction and engagement goes off the scale whenever Barca tweet/Insta or Facebook about Messi, and the $80m doesnt seem so vulgar after all. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonpettigrove/2019/05/27/is-barcelonas-lionel-messi-worth-84m-per-year/ |
How Should the Raptors Try to Defend the Warriors? | As they proved in their series against the Bucks, the Raptors are a nimble defensive team. Toronto threw Kawhi Leonard on Giannis Antetokounmpo and packed the paint against Milwaukee, slowing down one of the regular seasons best offenses en route to a 42 series victory in the East Finals. The Warriors, obviously, will present a whole new set of challenges for Nick Nurse and the Raptors. While Kevin Durants early absence from the series means Golden State will likely play more non-shooters than normal, the mere presence of Stephen Curry (and Klay Thompson) will stretch out Torontos defense in a way the Bucks could not. And thats why the Raptors should consider starting Serge Ibaka in Game 1 of the Finals. The beauty of Torontos roster all season long has been its flexibility. Even after the loss of OG Anunoby (he would be incredibly useful in these Finals), the Raptors are able to fashion a bunch of different styles of play if necessary. Toronto played at a snails pace against the Bucksand it probably wont want to run much against Golden State as well, if only to preserve the legs of those playing heavy minutes. But the Raptors should be prepared to play smaller against the Warriors, because the Dubs offense will command a lot more defensive movement than Milwaukees. Playing Ibaka at center is the simplest counter Nurse can make to begin the series. Kevon Looney will not be getting many opportunities in the post, and Ibakas athleticism will be useful in switches off the ball, and also whenever Curry decides to run a pick-and-roll. Portlands bigs were repeatedly targeted by Curry in the West Finals, and no one was really up to the task of slowing down Steph. Ibaka isnt a magical elixir, but he can more credibly switch onto Curry late in the shot clock, and his athletic ability will help in scramble situations as well. Marc Gasol played well against Milwaukee, but unless DeMarcus Cousins starts in Game 1 (and even then Ibaka may be more useful), his big frame could become a bit of a liability against the Warriors. Ezra Shaw/Getty Images Ibaka has played well with the starters, albeit in a limited sample size in the playoffs. The Kyle Lowry, Kawhi, Danny Green, Pascal Siakam, and Ibaka group has a 36.1 net rating in 36 minutes in the postseason. In the regular season, that fivesome was Torontos most-used lineup, and it sported a more-than-respectable 8.3 net rating. When Golden State closes with some version of a death lineupassuming Andre Iguodala is healthyI think the Raptors should consider going even smaller. In the fourth quarter, Torontos main focus will be trying to slow down the Steph-Draymond Green pick and roll. The Blazers and Rockets both most often trapped Curry, and he made them pay by dumping the ball to Green and letting him play four-on-three. When the Cavs beat the non-Durant Warriors in 2016, they had their most success switching onto Curry, and the Raptors may be best served following that plan. I really wonder if well see a Lowry, Leonard, Green, Siakam and Fred VanVleet lineup in this series. Its not a unit Toronto really used in the regular season, but it makes some level of sense. Siakam can guard Draymond, while Kawhi or Danny Green can take Steph, and then the Steph-Dray action becomes switchable. Kawhi can also check Dray and Green can take Curry if Toronto is committed to switching, which would also allow Leonard to roam a little bit off ball. Danny Green or Lowry can chase around Klay. VanVleet can get away with hiding on Iguodala if Iggy is parked in the corner. Those are just a few early thoughts on how the Raptors can start to counter the Warriors. Nick Nurse has undoubtedly weighed every option. And all of this is subject to change depending on Golden States health. If Boogie starts, that may require some more bulk. If Iguodala is out, the Raptors probably wont need to go very small. When (if?) Durant returns, Toronto is in a bad spot no matter what. Whats for certain is that even though the Raptors have been a great defensive team all year longand just put the clamps on an MVP finalistthey will need a whole new gameplan to slow down the Warriors. No team has had a great answer for Golden State over the last five years, but Toronto could have the flexibility to make things interesting. | https://www.si.com/nba/2019/05/27/nba-finals-warriors-raptors-stephen-curry-klay-thompson-kawhi-leonard-serge-ibaka |
Could 'Government By Code' Eliminate Special Interests And Restore Democracy? | Getty GDPR reminds us that the best privacy laws were written before the social media era. Today there are simply too many powerful corporations seeking to exploit our personal data for there to be any hope of legislation that would actually enhance, rather than strip away, our privacy. Vested interests and their armies of lobbyists wield unimaginable power over modern society, from controlling legislation to ensuring lax enforcement of unprofitable laws. The impact of special interests on the legal systems of democracies cannot be understated. From sweetheart financial deals to legislation favoring business over citizenry to selective enforcement of the law, it is money, power and personal friendships that win the day, rather than the popular will. Enforcement of laws already on the books is an area particularly ripe for the influence of power. Every day city governments around the nation issue waivers exempting businesses from laws or decline to prosecute violations. Listening to a business the other day tout how the close personal friendships of its managers with city leaders made it immune to health ordnance enforcement and thus dramatically reduced its cost of operations compared with its competitors because it no longer had to invest in health safety compliance, reinforced just how powerful and dangerous these connections can be, especially at the municipal level. Similarly, it is remarkable how often variances to municipal laws across the country are approved shortly after the requesting party makes a major campaign contribution. While politicians are quick to dismiss any connection between campaign funding and official action, such coincidences have been the subject of many a lawsuit. As former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves is fond of quipping, one of the myriad benefits of digital government is that you cant bribe a computer. Friendships, family ties, lavish gifts and personal favors are of little use when laws are enforced by algorithms carrying them out to the letter. In a world of algorithmic government, it no longer matters if a local business CEO is an old childhood friend of the mayor, only what the explicit letter of the law states. Each exception to the law would have to be explicitly codified with the full range of eligibility criteria. A law against unlicensed food vendors would therefore no longer fall to local law enforcement to decline to prosecute a 10-year-old child running a sidewalk lemonade stand in their front yard, while enforcing penalties against an older child engaged in identical activity in a different part of town. The precise codification of exemptions would make laws more brittle and in need of more frequent revision but would ensure the public understands and agrees with each individual exception. Instead of a police officer or district attorney being required to decide at what age a child running a lemonade stand graduates from harmless fun to criminal fine, society itself would be forced to grapple with these issues and precisely define what it believes is the best approach to each problem. Despite its small size, Estonia has been a global leader in electronic voting, allowing its citizens to securely vote from their home computers and even verify their submitted votes using their smartphones. Imagine if each town and city in America put every new policy up to a popular vote, allowing the public at large to vote on the issues that most directly affect them. Of course, as Facebooks transition from democracy to dictatorship reminds us, even when we have the rights of democracy and the opportunity to vote on the issues that affect us, it can be difficult to get the public to exercise those rights. Rolling out such a revolutionary model at the municipal level, where there are often strong ties between the business community and civic leaders, would offer a powerful counterbalance to todays special interest dominance. In the end, rather than fear the machines taking over, perhaps we should embrace them, seeing their algorithmic purity as a path towards transparent and faithful governance that could finally restore faith in democracy. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/27/could-government-by-code-eliminate-special-interests-as-restore-democracy/ |
Will The Ghost Of Daimler Haunt Fiat Chrysler's Merger Ambitions? | That should be the question following Monday's proposed merger between Italian-U.S. carmaker Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and France's auto manufacturer Renault, best known for its eponymous brand of vehicles. The deal would create a mega-manufacturer of light vehicles with annual sales of almost $200 billion. Apparently, the idea is that the two companies join forces to tackle the massive changes in the car business including the trend away from gasoline engines and towards battery-powered electric vehicles, an area being pushed by U.S. rival Tesla. Bad history The merger idea might sound great, but only if you choose to forget the ill-fated merger of German carmaker Daimler Benz with America's Chrysler. DaimlerChrysler was formed from a so-called "merger of equals" in 1998, but it was a marriage that didn't last even a decade. The deal broke down in 2007. I followed this closely as for part of that period I worked in the auto business for GM, which was just down the road from Chrysler in Michigan. The problem was that the two companies were incompatible. On the one hand, you had the engineering-focused Germans from Daimler known for reliable cars such as Mercedes Benz. And on the other, there were the design-led folks from Chrysler who birthed a series of love-em-or-hate-em models such as the Prowler (a two-seater sports car with an exposed axle) and the retro-looking PT Cruiser. The merger also had to contend with national differences between southeast, Michigan (where Chrysler is based) and Stuggart Germany (where Daimler is headquartered.) The way people from different countries work can make a huge difference in whether any merger can work as anticipated. A column in the Harvard Business Review from around the time of the merger failed in 2007 sums it up: That Daimler can sell Chrysler as a more-or-less intact unit to a private equity firm tells you all you need to know about why the combination failed. The two organizations never were integrated into anything that approached a cohesive whole. The potential synergies that were used to justify the deal went unrealized. Possibly so. The proposed combination of Fiat Chrysler with Renault has already been dubbed "a finely balanced merger of equals." That alone should worry investors. Again we have vastly different companies. Fiat, like the Chrysler that it purchased, is like many Italian brands focused on design. And it does that well. Renault's brands are certainly more stylish than some others, but there would seem to be a mismatch with Fiat's edge in this area. The Fiat 500, for instance, is a stunning small car. Then, just like with the Daimler situation, the two companies are from vastly different cultures. Fiat is Italian, while Renault is French. Yes, they are both European, but that doesn't make them the same. As mentioned before, differences in culture matter in a merger. The overarching problem is that mergers are always fraught with problems, takeovers less so. If Fiat were to purchase Renault, then the outlook might be better, but only if the latter could afford such a play. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2019/05/27/will-the-ghost-of-daimler-haunt-fiat-chryslers-merger-ambitions/ |
Should fur be banned? | by Keydra Manns First Burberry, now Prada has announced they are a fur-free brand. The company says its decision is in reaction to consumers changing their attitude toward fur. Other designers have also decided to go fur-free, but for some, the decision isnt unanimous. Many luxury designers feel fur is a lucrative industry that employs a lot of people, and a ban on fur could impact their livelihoods. The companys no-fur policy will go into effect in 2020. According to BBC, Prada released this statement about its decision to ban fur and their justification is more layered than you think: "Focusing on innovative materials will allow the company to explore new boundaries of creative design while meeting the demand for ethical products," said the head of the fashion chain, Miuccia Prada. Animal rights activists can now sigh with relief. Zessoo, a plant-based fashion company, is excited to learn their protests werent in vain. The company rallied together for years at Burberrys fashion shows in London to protest their use of fur. Today @burberry announced that they are finally ditching fur. Huge news and will come as a moment of elation and achievement to every individual activist who stood up against the use of fur by Burberry during our London Fashion Week anti-fur campaign throughout the past two years pic.twitter.com/9eziGO2e4u Zessoo (@zessoo) September 6, 2018 But according to Womens Wear Daily, designer Karl Lagerfeld says the fur industry is valuable. Lagerfeld believes the industry employs a lot of people and faux fur actually pollutes the environment. Fake fur pollutes the world more than anything else. Fur is an industry. Its legal. The idea that people dont like it I understand. But as long as they use leather and eat meat, I dont see that its a problem." Its more and more difficult to make fur collections. You can hardly find expensive furs. You have to do shearlings and shaved mink and things like this because its impossible to find sable, its very, very difficult. Because, you know, sable and ermine you cannot farm. People who want to suppress the fur industry if they have enough money to make an income for all the people who work in that industry, OK. I see it going nowhere. Rapper Safaree Samuels ran into a mob of anti-fur protesters and defended his love for fur. The rapper says protesters should focus less on animal rights and more on the rights of human beings. Take a look at the video below. 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, wed love to hear what you have to say. | https://www.oregonlive.com/tylt/2019/05/should-fur-be-banned.html |
Who are the Muslim community patrols protecting US mosques? | Days after the deadly attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, a private patrol service was launched in New York to protect Muslim places of worship there. The additional security has proved controversial. On a Friday afternoon, minutes before the Muezzins at Brooklyn mosques give the call to prayer, a group of young Muslims is headed to nearby mosques in what look like New York Police Department (NYPD) squad cars. The cars, with their red and white emergency lights on, will be parked right outside the mosques and stay put while worshippers go in and offer prayers. The cars and volunteers represent the Muslim Community Patrol, a self-funded group, launched to provide additional security to neighbourhood mosques and Islamic schools in the area at times when they are most crowded. Noor Rabah, a volunteer and co-founder of the group, calls it "security on steroids". By keeping the emergency lights on and making the siren go on when there's any trouble, they hope the vehicle can act as a deterrent. "We are not the muscle of NYPD. We are the eyes and ears to report to the proper authorities," says Mr Rabah, who formally launched the patrol service after 51 people were killed in the attack on two mosques in New Zealand in March. Image caption Noor Rabah with patrol volunteers Security has long been a concern for worshippers - but since the Christchurch attack it's become a priority. During this month-long Ramadan, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Muslim advocacy group, has urged the Muslim communities to stay vigilant and step up security. Many mosques in the country have conducted security drills including active-shooter training. The Muslim Community Patrol, too, has beefed up its presence in and around Brooklyn mosques - but ever since the idea of such a patrol was floated, they have also faced backlash, particularly on social media. Image caption An official New York police car seen outside a mosque A few far-right commentators have accused them of being enforcers of Sharia law. "It's the fear of the unknown," responds Mr Rabah. "Allow our actions to show you what our way of life teaches," he says. More stories about Muslim-Americans But the patrols are not the police, they are unarmed and don't carry any legal authority. While many in the community have welcomed their presence in the neighbourhood, there are others who question the need for this patrol and the motives of the group behind it. Image caption Some members of the local New York Muslim community have questions about the new group Somia Elrowmeim, who works for the Arab American Association of New York, says there are lots of questions about the group and who they are. "We want them to stay out of the community. Any small problem that they cause would reflect really badly on us," says Ms Elrowmeim. She says the Muslim community pays its taxes like any other community and it's the NYPD's job to provide security. Most prominent mosques now have a heavy police presence - and in New York senior officers have made a point of reaching out. Image caption Somia Elrowmeim believes security should be handled by the police The city's police department even has a Muslim Officers' Association - which gives the force a direct link to the community (the association has chosen not to comment on the patrols). New York police, and other law enforcement agencies, have had a troubled history with the Muslim community post- 9/11, and there's still a deeply ingrained fear and suspicion within the community. Many are wary of a continued police presence at their places of worship. A Michigan-based lawyer and community activist, Namira Islam, urges the community to explore other options for security instead of relying on police and federal agencies. "I do not feel safer seeing armed police in front of mosque doors. I do not feel safer with federal agents attending my events," says Ms Islam. She says there's a history of implicit bias within the law enforcement against the Muslim community in general and at times the law also requires them to act on issues like immigration enforcement. "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's just," she says, citing the example of undocumented worshippers being turned over to federal agencies by the local police guarding the mosques. There's also a concern that increased police presence will keep many worshippers, who are suspicious of law enforcement, out of the mosques. It's too early to say whether communities will embrace the Muslim Patrol as the other option, but for now the group is busy signing-up and training new volunteers with plans to expand nationwide by next year. | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48374911 |
What if users paid for Facebook? | Facebook investor on unfriending Zuckerberg, May 27 The purpose of Facebook as I see it is to allow people to keep in touch and share their important moments. To the owners of Facebook, it is to make money. The source of this money is advertising. If Facebook was paid for by its users instead, Facebook could revert to its proper mandate. With such a large base, the cost would be very small; a lot less than Netflix. I dont know how legislation could be passed to ban Facebook advertising, but it is clear that something must be done. Harry Coupland, Toronto | https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2019/05/27/what-if-users-paid-for-facebook.html |
Is Speaker Dennis Bonnen's bipartisan session enough for GOP to hold a majority in the Texas House? | For the first time ever, the taxpayers of Texas will be shown with great clarity what locally elected entity is making the decision to ask for more money from them in their property taxes, he said. More importantly than that they will be told when and where they can go and have a discussion with that local group of electeds about whether they think they should get more revenue or not. By focusing on those two issues, Bonnen said, the House was able to stay concentrated even when they debated controversial issues, like abortion, local control and a religious liberty bill that opponents decried as anti-LGBT. He pushed back against a characterization that the House avoided heated debate on divisive topics. We showed great respect but we definitely got into the issues, he said. Showing each other that we know how to defend our positions, explain our positions, have the voices of our constituents heard and do it without destroying relationships and without destroying the body is what we proved this session and Im really proud. That mutually respectful tone, Bonnen said, allowed the House to tackle other bread-and-butter issues like shoring up the retired teachers pension fund, reimbursing local communities for damage from Hurricane Harvey and creating risk management plans for future natural disasters, putting $200 million in additional funding to increase staffing at the states beleaguered drivers license offices, and increasing protections at schools against potential shootings. He also highlighted the chambers work on sexual assault, pointing to a bill by Dallas Democrat Victoria Neave to clear the states rape kit backlog over the next two years. The bill would also impose a 90-day deadline for new rape kits to be tested to prevent future backlogs from developing. Its unacceptable and embarrassing that thered be a two-year backlog on testing rape kits in this state. Im incredibly proud that the state Legislature stepped up this session with House Bill 8 and is going to eliminate that backlog, he said. I think even more profoundly than eliminating the backlog -- correcting a wrong is one thing, ensuring you never have that wrong happen again is more significant. He also highlighted other legislation by North Texas lawmakers that he said would help victims of sexual assault: Fort Worth Republican Craig Goldmans bill to double the statute of limitation for the victims of child sex abuse and Dallas Republican Morgan Meyers bill to make the electronic sending of lewd images a Class C misdemeanor. Asked if a bipartisan approach and sticking to core issues would be enough to keep Republicans in charge of the Texas House after a Democratic surge in the last election, Bonnen responded: I hope so but that wasnt why we did what we did. We did what we did because people send us here every two years to do a job and our job is to solve the biggest issues facing Texans. Bonnen said he wanted to remain speaker, but did not know if he would be re-elected, though he admitted a Republican majority would make that prospect easier. He said he left his first session in charge with no regrets, though he knew there would be more work to do in two years on their big legislative successes of this session. He had already warned Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, who authored the school finance bill that he should be prepared to continue work on the issue next session, especially on identifying the needed revenue to continue providing the share of state funds the Legislature has proposed this session. Ive told him, you need to be back here next session prepared for the fact that were going to have to make tweaks, were going to have to fix things that we didnt intend, Bonnen said. All of us are going to have to work on making sure that we have the revenue to continue to fund what weve accomplished. Addressing speculation that Huberty may not return next session, Bonnen said: Ive told chairman Huberty that it doesnt matter whether hes coming back or not. I will file for him and I will run his campaign. Bonnen also had to deal with criticism from the right wing of his party, who said under his leadership the House had not done enough to advance pro-gun and anti-abortion legislation. One group in particular, Empower Texans, which has run primary candidates against many Republican legislators who they deem not conservative enough was highly critical, with their president calling this an: Amazing LOSER #Txlege session. They speak only for themselves, Bonnen said. They arent worth responding to. The reality of it is, if we passed every pro-life bill filed in the history of the state they would say we have not done enough. You will never please or appease those folks and Im sure as hell not going to waste my time trying. Bonnen said he was incredibly comfortable with his conservative record and had passed legislation supported by the National Rifle Association and anti-abortion groups like Texas Alliance for Life. Bonnen also praised his working relationship with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Gov. Greg Abbott, saying their unity despite disagreements helped them present a strong front on the sessions major issues. He declined to discuss those disagreements, though the two chambers had plenty on the priority school finance bill - including a plan pushed by Patrick for across-the-board pay raises of $5,000 for teachers that many in the House objected to because it took away money for other education reforms. Were not discussing what we disagreed on, he said. Thats why were in such a strong position. He brushed off suggestions about pursuing other political offices, saying he want[ed] to continue to be a member of the House and speaker if his colleagues re-elected him. He closed by saying he would not campaign against sitting members of the House and warned others to follow his lead. If you campaign against another one of your colleagues two things will happen to you, he said. Move cautiously, he said. | https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2019/05/27/speaker-dennis-bonnens-bipartisan-session-enough-gop-hold-majority-texas-house |
Why is the Minister of Defence MIA on Kandahar cenotaph debacle? | Open this photo in gallery In mid-2011, then-chief of the defence staff General Walt Natynczyk established Operation Keepsake. The initiative included repatriating the Kandahar cenotaph in 2011 pictured at the Kandahar Airfield and displaying the memorial plaques at provincial legislatures, Parliament and the Canadian embassy in Washington. Colin Perkel/The Canadian Press Brett Boudreau is a retired colonel, a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and a member of the U.K. Guild of Public Affairs Practitioners Just when the Department of National Defence needed it least, the Kandahar cenotaph ceremony debacle snatched decisive defeat from the jaws of a potential reconnecting with Canadians victory. The decision to hold a low-key military-only ceremony, excluding families of fallen soldiers, and only telling the public days after the fact, was met with public, veteran and media outrage. The reaction clearly shows the Afghanistan mission still resonates widely. Story continues below advertisement When respected military voices such as Generals Rick Hillier, Lewis MacKenzie and David Fraser are all loudly calling Defence to account, you know its not a pretty scene. Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance notably alone, again is left to publicly accept full responsibility for broader institutional and government failures. In a statement released last Friday, Gen. Vance said he was "truly sorry for our insensitivity and the pain, anger and frustration that this decision caused I accept full responsibility for it all. A highly decorated combat veteran who has completed two tours in Afghanistan, Gen. Vance is no stranger to ramp ceremonies, or comforting family members and wounded veterans. As the top military officer, he has championed more robust personnel support units to help those injured from service, and established stronger relations with Veterans Affairs. The I own this approach is an admirable leadership quality and refreshing example without equal today, though must be growing tiresome as a defensive strategy. Inexplicably, the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, has not spoken up about the debacle. In mid-2011, then-chief of the defence staff General Walt Natynczyk established Operation Keepsake, an initiative to thank Canadians for their support; recognize vets, the fallen, the injured and their families; acknowledge the important contribution of partner departments and agencies such as Foreign Affairs, Canadian International Development Agency and Correctional Services; and to thank the U.S. for its tremendous support at the height of fighting in south Afghanistan, where 40 U.S. soldiers died under Canadian command. Operation Keepsake included repatriating the Kandahar cenotaph in 2011 so heavy that only the worlds largest military aircraft could fly it from where stood at the Kandahar Airfield and displaying the memorial plaques at provincial legislatures, Parliament and the Canadian embassy in Washington. Hundreds of battlefield artifacts were recovered from Kandahar including several war-art-painted helicopter doors, to bolster holdings at various museums across the country. Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement A major effort was working with stakeholders and the National Capital Commission to develop a proposal for a national memorial to Canadian service in Afghanistan. The key feature was to acknowledge Canadian service. Over a 12-year mission, hundreds of civilian officials volunteered to serve in the midst of a contested counterinsurgency. Hundreds of media embedded (or not) with the troops and covered the mission, sharing danger and deprivation, as did aid workers and contractors. Several died and many were injured. In May, 2014, the Conservatives announced plans for a national memorial, and except in 2016 to say that plan was still under consideration, there has been radio silence from the Liberals. Last Friday, Gen. Vance apologized, and announced DNDs intent to keep the Kandahar cenotaph at its current location in a secure building in the new National Defence headquarters in Ottawa. The monument will now be more accessible to the public. While commendable, whether supporting an extensive visitors program at Defence headquarters is feasible in the long-term remains to be seen. The Canadian War Museum would seem to be an alternative site for the cenotaph well worth exploring: vastly better public access, a huge boost to visitor numbers and a ready-made education program to inform the public about Afghanistan, and conflict more broadly. As Gen. Vance wrote, the cenotaph communications effort utterly failed. Ironically, the 2008 Manley panels report on Afghanistan harshly criticized the governments communication effort about the mission and led former prime minister Stephen Harper to direct dramatic enhancements. This included active support of media interviews and tabling in Parliament quarterly reports that set out frank accounts of the security situation and challenges of operationalizing a whole-of-government approach. That stands in stark contrast to what we know about the current Canadian military, security, diplomatic and development efforts in the Middle East. One hopes that, like the Manley panel conclusions, the cenotaph ceremony fallout will be a catalyst for defence and government to more pro-actively communicate substantive issues of public policy. Perhaps Gen. Vance could also count on some more battle buddies bravely sticking their heads up above the parapet from time to time. | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-is-the-minister-of-defence-mia-on-kandahar-cenotaph-debacle/ |
Will there be justice for Cindy Gladue? | Jean Teillet is an Indigenous rights lawyer and the great grand niece of Louis Riel. This is the fundamental issue in the Supreme Court of Canadas recent reasons for ordering a new trial in R. v. Barton. The case is about Cindy Gladue, a victim of sexual violence who bled to death in a hotel bathtub. In its decision, the court found that Bradley Barton, the accused, had lied, destroyed evidence and admitted that he caused Ms. Gladues death. He was acquitted at trial. The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and ordered a new trial for murder and manslaughter. The SCC also ordered a new trial, but only for manslaughter. Ms. Gladue was an Indigenous woman and a sex worker. She paid for both of these facts with her privacy, her dignity and her life. The case is known by her name, as if she was the one on trial. And naming is important. It reveals how we understand what we are viewing. In this case, the naming is, sadly, accurate. It was Ms. Gladues life and body that were on trial. Story continues below advertisement Ms. Gladues case is not an isolated incident. The numbers are damning: According to Statistics Canada, 600,000 sexual assaults against women occurred in just one year in Canada. Indigenous women are, according to data from 2014, nearly six times more likely to be murdered than non-Indigenous women. They are three times more likely to be the victims of violence. These numbers are not going down. The answer is quite simple. Our society permits women to be sexually assaulted and women fear our criminal-justice system. They fear they will be revictimized, discredited and humiliated by the trial. This is not paranoia. These are facts. Women pay a steep price if they seek justice for the sexual violence they encounter. Women pay for justice with their credibility. A recently released video of an RCMP officer questioning an Indigenous woman, who was reporting sexual violence, should underscore this: He asks if she was at all turned on even a little bit, during the abuse she is reporting. This reinforces the current attitudes among women that going to the police is useless. They also pay for justice with their liberty. Another recent case in which a victim of a sexual assault in Alberta was handcuffed and detained in the same jail as her attacker reinforced the costs to women who report sexual assaults. Yet, our justice system claims that the golden rule of the presumption of innocence cannot be relaxed. That rule rests firmly on the potential for the accused to lose his liberty. They arent. There is simply no safety for women in Canada if they cannot go to the police and they cannot go to the courts. Ms. Gladue paid another new and shocking price in this trial: The Crown brought part of her preserved pelvic tissue into the courtroom, as evidence of the wound she suffered. She was literally made an object, called a specimen and tissue. Further, there were more than 50 references to her in the trial as native and prostitute. She was robbed of her humanity. Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement The Supreme Court of Canadas deafening silence on this issue of her dismemberment for evidence sends a terrible message to the women of this country. The courts silence will be taken as a green light. Crown counsel could now freely indulge this barbaric practice. Ms. Gladues case has been sent back for trial. The majority of the judges said the prejudices and errors so infected the trial that it must be redone. But curiously, the infection did not contaminate the murder charge. Put together with other recent cases, the message to Indigenous people is this: No white man in Canada will be found guilty of murdering an Indigenous person. The federal government needs to step up and do more than timorous tinkering with the Criminal Code. We have recognized inherent injustice for women: In family law, we created specific laws and systems that recognized the uneven playing field women faced. A similar institutional response is needed with respect to sexual assault. No matter what imperfect system is established, we could hardly do worse than we are doing now. | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-will-there-be-justice-for-cindy-gladue/ |
Are Social Media Platforms Engaging In Legal Cyberwarfare? | From tracking dissidents physical and virtual movements in real-time to building rich interest and behavioral profiles to nudge nonconforming users towards desired behaviors to removing speech they disagree with, social media companies are increasingly associated with the outcomes once reserved for government cyber attacks. Facebook made headlines earlier this year for its mass physical surveillance program whereby it repurposes the cell phones of selected users into real-time location tracking beacons, allowing Facebook to see their geographic location and alerting the company if they approach a Facebook facility. The company states it uses the technology only to track those users it deems a threat but notably stopped short of denying having used the technology to track journalists who have written negative stories about it and lawmakers contemplating regulation that might impact its profits. In this regard Facebook is in good company, with many repressive regimes around the world turning to cellular providers and app makers to provide them with real-time location tracking of those they deem to be threats to the state, such as promoting democratic ideals. In many cases countries leverage cyber action to compromise users devices or the networks they connect to in order to load spyware onto their devices or harvest location streams from their telecommunications providers. In Facebooks case, it merely repurposed its existing app that users have voluntarily loaded onto their phones, turning their own device into a tracking beacon without their knowledge or permission. Countries frequently engage in cyber activities to gather intelligence on adversaries and friends alike, compiling rich detailed profiles of their interests and behaviors in order to nudge them towards specific behaviors or actions. In many cases these compromises seek to harvest data from those individuals social media accounts in an acknowledgement of just how much information we share online. Facebook, of course, has no need to engage in cyber activity to track us. We voluntarily conduct our communications activities within its walled garden and when we venture outside to the open Web, an ever-growing fraction of the sites we visit voluntarily allow Facebook or its partners to install tracking software on their sites that allows the company to continue surveilling us from afar. The use of DDOS attacks to silence dissenting voices has long been a critical tool in the repressive nation state playbook. Facebook engages in identical behavior, deleting posts and deactivating entire accounts with the flip of a digital switch, silencing every voice that falls afoul of its ever-changing rules of acceptable speech. Even a US Senators call for increased regulation of Facebook was not immune to being silenced due to Facebook disagreeing with how it referenced its logo. When we think of cyber attribution and response, we typically think of companies as victims and states or criminal organizations as the perpetrators. Instead, social media companies are engaging in the very same activities, but lawfully, using their own platforms to conduct the same actions of surveillance, tracking, profiling and silencing. When a nation state hacks into a foreign cellular company to plant a tracking bug to monitor the real-time location of a high value target, the attribution process and range of potential responses are understood within the existing context of law enforcement, covert action and diplomacy. When Facebook secretly transforms its mobile app into a real-time tracking beacon running directly on a users device and that user had voluntarily installed the app and legally agreed to allow Facebook to do anything it wanted to their phone, the attribution is clear, but the response is far less understood. Under the laws of most countries, Facebooks actions are not only not considered criminal actions but are in fact actively protected by the law. If Facebook were to track the real-time location of all US lawmakers through their phones and the phones of their aides, their actions would be entirely legal under US law, yet the end result is no different than if an adversarial state had done so. In fact, nations like China and Russia could simply embed personnel within Facebook to leverage this data to state effect. More troubling is that companies themselves are now setting policy for their own needs. Facebook does not track, profile and censor users based on the daily whims of the US Government. It does so based on its own economic needs, meaning a handful of private citizens are setting policy and directing actions that, if conducted by a nation state, would be considered cyber warfare potentially warranting a military response. Worse, Facebook's needs may place it in direct conflict with the needs and interests of the United States, making it effectively an adversary. Putting this all together, as social media platforms increasingly take on the roles of governments, the activities they engage in, from surveillance to profiling to silencing debate, are those traditionally enforced by governments through cyber action. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/27/are-social-media-platforms-engaging-in-legal-cyberwarfare/ |
Is home bias in Canadian portfolios really mitigated by stocks with U.S. revenues? | A common problem we see in Canadian portfolios is a large bias toward Canadian domiciled and traded stocks known as home bias. Often times a portfolio can be weighted in excess of 60 per cent to Canada when it makes up less than 5 per cent of the world economy. Many investors might not even realize this could be a problem for a portfolio but the risks here are easy to highlight at a high level: The S&P/TSX has underperformed the S&P 500 over one-, two-, five- and 10-year periods; The TSX is largely a bet on the financials and energy sectors. What we typically hear as to why an investor might think this home bias is justified goes along the lines of: I own Canadian companies that generate a large amount of revenues from the United States., therefore my U.S. exposure is actually higher than it appears." If we are considering the portfolio at the company level and are more focused on long-term fundamentals, it is easy to see that more exposure to U.S. revenues is a good thing for a Canadian company in terms of the company itself being diversified geographically as well as having access to a much larger market. On this side of things, the argument checks out. However, no matter how many stocks you hold or how diversified the fundamentals of the underlying stocks are, an investor will continue to have exposure to the risks of that market. We typically express this risk in a stock as beta, which essentially measures the degree a stock moves relative to the market. If a stock has a beta of two and the TSX jumps 10 per cent, the stock would jump 20 per cent. Similarly, if the same stock had a beta of 0.5 and the TSX jumped 10 per cent, the stock would only move up 5 per cent. No matter the underlying holdings, a company traded in Canada will have some degree of beta exposure to the market. In other words, even if a Canadian stock has U.S. revenues, it very often will still move in relation to the day-to-day movements of the TSX. Certainly, if the company is a good operator and growing fast in the United States, it should do just fine over time but this relates to a multitude of company-specific factors and is less related to the ebb and flow of the broader market. This is the nuance that gets missed when an investor views U.S.-dollar revenue within a Canadian company as a solution or excuse for home bias. Country risks that are far more difficult to diversify away by simply holding more stocks in the same geography. If a recession occurs in Canada but not the United States, all stocks (on average) are more likely to feel the pain in Canada. Finally, given the limited number of Canadian companies with high U.S. exposure, one is now relying not just on picking the right stock, but picking the right stock out of a smaller subset of companies with U.S. revenue exposure, so your universe is smaller. Lets look at some numbers here to see whether we can paint the picture better. We wanted to look at whether Canadian stocks with a high U.S.-based revenue exposure actually move more in line with the TSX or the S&P 500. If we have a high degree of U.S. revenues, we might expect a Canadian company to have a beta of around one relative to the S&P 500 or at least a beta that is higher than that of the beta relative to the TSX. This would tell us that the movements of the stock are more levered to the S&P 500 compared with the TSX. The goal of having these stocks in a portfolio would be that they reduce the volatility that comes with having a majority of assets in a single geography. We compiled a list of 20 securities that have U.S.-revenue exposure of at least 30 per cent. The average proportion of U.S. revenue is 55 per cent in this list with the low of 32 per cent and high of 85 per cent. (Note that the simple average U.S.-dollar exposure of companies on the S&P/TSX 60 is roughly 27 per cent.) We then looked at the beta of each stock relative to the S&P/TSX Composite and relative to the S&P 500 over a two- and five-year period. The accompanying table shows the summary results for the basket of stocks and their betas relative to both the TSX and the S&P 500. The basket of stocks and their beta summary 5 Year Beta Summary TSX S&P 500 High 1.82 1.9 Low 0.44 0.41 Average 0.82 0.79 Median 0.76 0.75 2 Year Beta Summary TSX S&P 500 High 2.64 2.41 Low 0.51 0.39 Average 1.05 0.85 Median 0.96 0.74 Source: 5i Research and Refinitiv On average, the stocks with U.S. revenues still move closer to the beat of the TSX than they do to that of the S&P 500. Interestingly, in the shorter term, this impact is even more pronounced. This means that those U.S. revenues a Canadian investor expects to reduce volatility or improve diversification at a geographic level are not actually achieving this at all, as these stocks still trade more in line with the TSX than they do with the S&P 500. As measured through beta, Canadian companies with U.S. revenues still trade more in-line with the TSX than the S&P 500; Canadian companies with U.S. revenues do not provide the geographic diversification benefits one might think. There are reasons that can justify some level of home bias and we hope to examine these items in an upcoming article. Readers can view more data on Canadian companies with U.S. revenues through a free trial to 5i Research here. 5i Research provides content under an agreement with The Globe and Mail, which receives royalty compensation. | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/investment-ideas/article-is-home-bias-in-canadian-portfolios-really-mitigated-by-stocks-with-u/ |
Which Cannes films will factor into the Oscar race? | Though most Oscar contenders don't debut until the later this year, last year's Cannes Film Festival launched several films that became awards-season players, including Spike Lee's BlacKkKlansman and Pawel Pawlikowski's Cold War. The biggest contender from the festival has got to be Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt as faded showbiz figures navigating 1960s Hollywood. For its spot-on re-creation of that era, Oscar nominations in production and costume design are almost assured, and the film has a good shot in cinematography as well. The biggest question is how Sony will handle DiCaprio and Pitt, who are two of the biggest stars in the industry and just about evenly split in terms of screen time. Studios rarely run two lead performances in the same category, so Sony may try to classify Pitt as supporting. DiCaprio's washed-up actor has the biggest emotional arc, and Pitt's stuntman character is in his employ and thus technically subordinate to him. It would be bunk, but after Mahershala Ali won a supporting-actor trophy just months ago for what was essentially a co-lead performance, the gambit would at least give Pitt a strong shot at his first acting trophy. In the supporting-actress category, Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate has an affecting second-act scene in which she sneaks into a theatre to watch herself on the big screen. But the character is more of a symbolic presence than a really fleshed-out role and Robbie doesn't speak her first line until at least an hour into the movie. She'll need to hope that Oscar voters respond so strongly to Tarantino's film that it cracks the picture, director and screenplay categories, a show of force that would help sweep her in. Advertisement Actors from other Cannes films with a shot at being nominated include Willem Dafoe, who chews scenery with aplomb as an old-timey seaman in The Lighthouse, and Taron Egerton, who delivers a spirited turn as Elton John in Rocketman but may be hamstrung by Rami Malek's recent, too-similar Oscar win for playing Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody. Also keep an eye on Antonio Banderas, who is subtle and moving in Pedro Almodvar's Pain and Glory, in which he plays a thinly veiled stand-in for his director. Banderas has never been nominated for an Oscar, but he charmed the Cannes press with funny and emotional stories about his long career, and if the 58-year-old actor hits the awards circuit with that same gusto, he'll be irresistible. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Official Trailer. /Sony Pictures Entertainment Pain and Glory ought to be a strong contender for the international-film category (previously known as best foreign language film), too, if Spain submits it. The same goes for the Senegalese drama Atlantics, which Netflix acquired. Its director, Mati Diop, was the first black female director in Cannes competition and she took the festival's second-place prize. Other laurelled films like Brazil's Bacurau and France's lesbian love story Portrait of a Lady on Fire deserve consideration, too. Malick hasn't made a significant dent in Oscar season since his 2011 film, The Tree of Life, and reactions to his latest were somewhat split: Some pundits thought it was a whole lot of metaphysical woo-woo, while others found Malick to be back on track with the story of an Austrian farmer who refuses to fight for the Nazis. And then there's the winner of the Palme d'Or, Bong Joon-ho's Parasite. No Korean film has been nominated for the international Oscar before, but Parasite is so strong it could even blow past that category to factor into directing and screenplay races, if upstart distributor Neon plays its cards right. An urgent story of class struggle told in the most sensationally entertaining way, Parasite is Bong at his best, and the academy must take note. Written by: Kyle Buchanan 2019 THE NEW YORK TIMES | https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12235098 |
Which came first for the Twins, the fun or the winning? Does it matter? | Martin Perez had decided to sign with the Twins as a free agent when he had a conversation with General Manager Thad Levine. The two knew each other from their time together with the Texas Rangers. The answer surprised him. I want you to be comfortable, Levine said. Fair to say that condition comfortable best describes the vibe inside the Twins clubhouse these days. Winning makes everyone happy and owning the best record in Major League Baseball creates a fun work environment. Behind the scenes, the Twins are a loose, confident group with a chemistry that reflects their on-field success. The clubhouse is a stress-free zone. The more relaxed you are in theory, the more comfortable you play, manager Rocco Baldelli said. You dont have to be worried about making mistakes. You dont have to worry about anything. The less thats on their minds, the better it is well play. Quantifying clubhouse dynamics is a tricky discussion. Its impossible to know for sure, but the Twins certainly seem to have the right mix of personalities and leadership fueling their remarkable start. Weve added some veteran presence, but weve also added personalities that mesh well, starter Kyle Gibson said. Derek Falvey and Levine did a better job this offseason of identifying veteran free agents who are positive influences on the field and in the clubhouse after a failed experiment last season. Nelson Cruz, Jonathan Schoop, Marwin Gonzalez, C.J. Cron and Perez have galvanized the clubhouse with leadership that is beneficial for young players. Baldellis managerial style is the antithesis of rigid. He doesnt stand at the clubhouse door looking at his watch to see when players arrive every day. Im not sure he even cares what time players get to the stadium, as long as they are focused and prepared at first pitch. Baldelli is not big on rules. He only asks that players compete hard, respect each other and be accountable. Were letting a bunch of adults be themselves, bench coach Derek Shelton said. When you get that, you get a good culture. Knowing his team has a large group of Latin American players, Baldelli asked the teams translator Elvis Martinez to sit in the dugout to make sure his Spanish-speaking players understand instructions completely from the coaching staff. Every decision, Baldelli said, is intended to make players comfortable. Thats why were winning and why we have a good team we dont have any pressure, Perez said. We are a family and if you feel like you want to do something [in the clubhouse], do it. If you want to sleep in front of everybody, sleep. Who cares? The relievers have a daily contest tied to the teams home run derby. Relievers predict when a Twins hitter will smash a home run by throwing their hat on the ground. If the hitter comes through, the reliever gets the pot. [Entry fee is $100 per reliever]. It keeps us involved in the game whenever we are sitting out there for nine innings with nothing to do, closer Blake Parker said. It keeps our head in the game and its fun, too, to keep a tally and see who is doing the best. Relievers get one hat toss per game. Witnesses are required. Relievers sitting in the bullpen win tiebreaker over guys watching from the clubhouse if they pick the same player in the same at-bat. Parker said reliever Mike Morin has won four times, mostly by picking Cron. Crons been lighting it up for him, Parker said. Baldelli said hes trying to create the lowest stress environment possible. This is Gibsons seventh season with the organization at the major-league level and he believes the clubhouse chemistry is probably about as good as Ive seen it. Winning seems to solve everything, he said. | http://www.startribune.com/which-came-first-for-the-twins-the-fun-or-the-winning-does-it-matter/510496312/ |
Why is A Thousand Miles the most referenced song in cinema? | It is the tinkling piano riff that gets you. Vanessa Carlton, the Pennsylvania-born daughter of a pilot and a piano teacher was 17-going-on-18 when she wrote the opening bars that would become A Thousand Miles, the 2002 global smash hit, perennial film-soundtrack favourite and unrivalled anthem of basic bitches everywhere. Carlton now lives in Nashville with her family, where she continues to make music her latest album has shades of Jenny Lewis but she never again troubled the pop charts. Meanwhile, her most famous song is out in the world living its best life. And shes cool with that: I love the expression one hit wonder, Carlton told Elle magazine in 2017. Because I still wonder how I ever had a hit. I wonder it all the time. From the off, the romcom affiliation was obvious, hence the songs inclusion, pre-release, on the soundtrack to Reese Witherspoons perfectly pink 2001 film Legally Blonde. After officially coming out as Carltons debut single the following year, A Thousand Miles went platinum in the UK, earned a permanent place on MOR radio playlists worldwide and continued to feature on soundtracks for romcoms and teen television. So when, around 2014, the concept of the basic bitch emerged via a viral CollegeHumor video, A Thousand Miles was a staple signifier. It seemed exactly the sort of tune that Basic B (a woman of unoriginal cultural interests) would hum while sipping on a Starbucks pumpkin spice latte and making brunch plans. It took prime position on every basics yoga playlist (see also: Natasha Bedingfields Unwritten, Donna Lewiss I Love You Always Forever and Sixpence None the Richers Kiss Me). Partly it is to do with 2002s special place in the history of female-skewed culture. In cinema, we were going through a mini romcom golden age, with Never Been Kissed, The Wedding Singer, 10 Things I Hate About You and Love Actually all coming out within five years of each other. But Carlton also came along just in time to ride the backlash against pop princesses Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, by sounding more like the sweet little sister of Alanis Morissette, Tori Amos and Fiona Apple. Compared to these feminist post-grunge acts, Carlton was reassuringly melodic; anguished, but accessibly so. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, by April 2003 and the beginning of the Iraq war, A Thousand Miles had become the most requested song on British Forces Broadcasting Service radio in the Middle East. Back in the US, Fabolous and Ja Rule were both rumoured to be fans, while Camron sampled the song on 10,000 Miles in 2017. The parodying goes right back to the 2004 film White Chicks, in which two black FBI agents (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) pose as Paris Hilton-esque white women in order to crack a case. Its not the dodgy whiteface makeup that threatens to blow their cover, however. That happens when A Thousand Miles comes on the radio and they are unable to sing along to all the words. Later in the film, Terry Crews plays a tough, pro-basketball player, who surprises everyone with his perfect rendition (How did you know?! I love this song!). The song provided a similar punchline this year for Simon Amstells feature Benjamin, when the title character betrays his own basicness by requesting his French musician lover play Vanessa Carlton at the piano. Most significant, though, is the role that the song plays in Isnt It Romantic. Rebel Wilson stars as Natalie, a cynical architect who hits her head and wakes up in an alternative romcom-based universe, and while the song pops up early on to signal Natalies shift to rosy, romantic NYC, it also recurs at the films climax. Natalie realises she needs to open her heart and in come those tell-tale piano tinkles. It seems that, like Natalie, more and more proud basics are realising that liking what you like is nothing to be ashamed of, and A Thousand Miles works as a perky soundtrack for that revelation, too. Altogether now: Making my way downtown / Walking fast / Faces pass / And Im home bound | https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/may/28/why-is-vanessa-carlton-a-thousand-miles-the-most-referenced-song-in-cinema |
Could securing a mortgage get easier? | Experts believe it is unlikely the Reserve Bank will ease back on mortgage lending restrictions this week but could look to make changes later this year. The central bank will release its latest financial stability data on Wednesday - typically the point at which it gives an update on its loan to value ratio restrictions. The bank lending restrictions were introduced in October 2013 but have been slowly eased back in recent years, with the latest tweak made in January after being announced last November. BNZ economist Tony Alexander believes there is a 50-50 chance the Reserve Bank will ease its mortgage ending restrictions again this week. Advertisement But if he had to put money on it Alexander says the bar would move slightly towards no change. "There is a chance. But the last two times they have waited until the November report." Here's what you need to know: from how much you need to save to working out your buying strategy. Last November the loan to value ratios were eased, meaning from January banks have been able to lend up to 20 per cent of their new lending to owner-occupiers with a deposit of under 20 per cent - that was up from 15 per cent of new lending. Weighing in favour of easing the restrictions is a falling to flat housing market in Auckland and signs that growth in the rest of the country's property market may also be slowing. Even though the lending cap has been set at 20 per cent, banks are not lending up to it. Alexander said the latest April data showed banks were still a way off the cap. Figures from the Reserve Bank show just 12.6 per cent of new money was lent to those with a deposit of less than 20 per cent. Even including the exemptions on lending for loans such as new builds it was 16.4 per cent. Alexander said the restrictions were not keeping first-home buyers out of the market and two thirds of those with a low deposit were first-home buyers. He said the big slowdown was in investor lending. "If they were really serious they would ease up on investors because that is where the slow-down has been most." But it is also where the Reserve Bank sees the biggest risks. Reserve Bank of NZ Governor Adrian Orr. In January the restrictions on investors were eased slightly. Up to 5 per cent of new mortgage loans to property investors is now allowed to those who have deposits of less than 30 per cent - from 35 per cent. Kelvin Davidson, senior property economist at CoreLogic, said he believed any changes to the loan to value ratios were unlikely to happen this week. "I'd say 99 per cent no, they won't change the LVRs this time." "And I think that's the right thing to do give the latest change (January 1) time to work its way through also with 'rate wars', they probably don't want to add any more stimulus to the market anyway." Banks have been competing to offer record low mortgage rates in recent months and there are no signs that rates are headed up any time soon. Davidson said he expected a change in November to be much more likely. That could involve a drop in the deposit level from 20 per cent to 15 per cent across the board. Tauranga suburb of Welcome Bay. Davidson said the fact that banks were not getting close to the 20 per cent speed limit could be down to banks being cautious or it could be there were not enough people able to scrap together the 20 per cent deposit. "They can service the mortgage but can't get the deposit together. It suggests the deposit is the hard part." Dropping it from 20 to 15 per cent could make a big difference to how much home buyers had to save. "It might be two to three years of saving." But he said policy-makers would want to be careful not to re-stoke the property market. Davidson said there could also be some easing for investors as the 5 per cent allowance was very small and could be a margin of error for some banks. "I think there could be some scope there." He said it could increase to a 10 per cent allowance for investors who have a deposit of less than 30 per cent. "Investors are not completely out of the market. While lower than it was compared to 2017 they still make up a quarter of the market." That was down from around 30 per cent in 2015 or 2016. He said investors were being faced with a lack of alternatives with the term deposit rates being so low. OneRoof editor Owen Vaughan said any reduction to the LVR restrictions would be welcomed by first-home buyers. "First-home buyers have been able to claim a bigger share of the market over the 12 months due to a retreat by other market participants, particularly investors. "While the slowdown in Auckland has made it easier for some buyers - there's less pressure to buy than at the height of the market - the biggest hurdle to getting into a home remains the LVR requirements. Saving that 20 per cent deposit in Auckland can be challenge." James Wilson, director of valuation and innovation for Valocity, said it was reassuring that the RBNZ was continuing the dialogue around the current level of LVR restrictions given the housing market is now experiencing softer market conditions in some of NZ's main urban centres. "While the current share of mortgage registrations to first-home buyers still represents the largest share in most of NZ's main housing markets, there are still first-home buyers who are restricted from entering the market due to deposit thresholds. "Those who were restricted from entering the market due to not having the minimum deposit amount have missed out on significant equity growth since their introduction." Mark Collins, chief executive of Mike Pero Mortgages, said he doubted there would be any change on Wednesday. "I think with the recent drop in the official cash rate there is a lot of stimulus in the market already." The canning of the capital gains tax was also expected to buoy the market. Collins said he expected the Reserve Bank's proposed capital increases to be finalised before any changes to the loan to value ratios. Those proposals are due to be finalised by the end of November, around the same time as the next financial stability report. Collins said the capital increases may mean loan to value restrictions were not needed. He said LVRs were introduced in 2013 to curb bank lending because the banks were not doing it themselves. But the world had changed a lot since then and banks had tightened their credit criteria. Removing or lifting the LVRs would give banks the ability to lend more but the proposed capital increases would also make it more costly, Collins said. | https://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=12234602 |
Is Corporate Social Responsibility Enough? | As humans, were living through troubled times. Increasingly turbulent weather patterns, rapid growth in species extinction and hundreds upon thousands of peopleincluding childrenraising their voices in panic at the lack of action were collectively taking against climate change as a planet. Ever widening rifts between the rich and poor. Poverty is now endemic, most visibly seen in the rough sleepers making homes of our citys doorways. Increasing dissatisfaction with discrimination has seen identity politics is at its most vocal in decades. #metoo, #blacklivesmatter and the fight for trans rights now challenge inequality across every section of society. The changing societal status quo and breakneck pace at which were globalising thanks to technology have created fear, and massive backlash against issues like immigration, marriage equality and abortion rights. Political divisions are deeply embedded, and the rifts in societydemarked by privilege and powerseem like theyll never end. People are already mobilising. Aided by social media, the organising potential and platforms provided to otherwise unheard voices can quickly gain traction. Greta Thunburgs school strike started with a solo sit out yet sparked a global movement which helped influence the U.K. to declare a climate emergency, with Ireland most recently following suit. Governments, ideally. Though as made evident by the backtracking (yes, you Donald Trump) on environmental action, the political party game-playing (hello BREXIT) were all mired in and painstakingly slow response to the wild west that is the tech industry, there are few too little green shoots on which to place our hope as yet. Which bring us to business. Or, businesses. Those organisations in the economic driving seat. Influencers of culture and behaviour through their products and marketing. Employers of the masses. Honestly, it's limited, though we are seeing some action. While purpose marketing might take flack for its seemingly opportunistic use of younger generations conscientiousness to sell products, Greggs managed to generate more positive PR for veganism than a whole decade of grassroots campaigning, all through a vegan sausage roll. Diversity and inclusion too elicit eye-rolls. Seen as the latest righteous trend in business practice, Yet, the stats dont lie. For those businesses which push to ensure equal representation of women at leadership level, they find themselves outperforming the norm in profitability and innovation. Just look at Whitney Wolfe Herd and Bumbles female-led business model laying waste to the dating market. Business models are going through a shakeup too. Businesses like Innocent and Green and Blacks, where social and environmental concerns were central to their ethos, have long since been snapped up by major corporates, such is their consumer appeal. Now Lush, Giff Gaff and Ugly Drinks are embedding activism, collective action and inherent action into their brands, and to great effect all around. In light the win-win potential of taking a stance, addressing inequality internally and enabling people to do the good thingsocially and environmentally speakingbusinesses are still reluctant at best (and loathe at its worst) to progress. In the face of the increasingly global concerns and the loud demand from consumers and employees for businesses to do better, our current practises deserve scrutiny. Plenty, as those organisations like Nike, Gillette and Dove are trying (and sometimes failing) have demonstrated. Nikes stand for gender equality may have soured in light of their maternity discrimination revelations, but brands like Nationwide are doing the graft internally, and including working mothers in their quest to create a fairer workplace those usually cast aside. After the initial response around Gillettes efforts to address toxic masculinity, its recent trans positive ad is helping both the brand and the issue make strides. This in addition to the $1 million fund they have set up, to be distributed over the next three years to organisations helping men be the best they can be, enabling those already working at the coal face make a significant impact. Leveraging skills is another way to add value. Recognising housing and poor living conditions play a major part in the rise in homelessness, British Gas have funded Shelter advisors and awarded grants to the charitys clients struggling to pay their bills. That, and campaigned to make carbon monoxide alarms mandatory in rented homes and lobbied the government to address retaliatory evictions. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurencoulman/2019/05/28/is-corporate-social-responsibility-enough/ |
Why Are We Still Arguing About Open-Plan Offices? | Getty The arguments for and against open-plan offices continue, with no clear winner emerging. Some people find it impossible to concentrate in them, complaining of lack of privacy and distractions that lead them to make mistakes, while proponents say they bring the workforce together and improve communication, encourage exercise and relieve the stress often associated with sitting in an individual office, and of course, are less costly. Many years of debate among fervent supporters from both sides, and still no clear answer. Simple: because to make open-plan offices a success, we need to change how we work, but this clashes with all kinds of outdated cultural barriers and practices, such as expecting people to sign in and out of work. The nature of work has evolved enormously since the industrial revolution and it is increasingly necessary to take this evolution into account to avoid falling into ridiculous and unsustainable extremes. The idea of work as a place we attend to carry out a series of tasks is anachronistic. In short, the office of the future is no office at all: technology gives us greater independence, while science shows that working from home or wherever is not only positive, but also eliminates or redefines meaningless and often counterproductive workplace politics. Teams should work remotely, an approach that offers many advantages in terms of improved productivity, less frustration and reduced pressure on the environment and health. Creating an open-plan office has nothing to do with moving furniture around, removing walls and putting people to work in a panopticon, and companies that limit themselves to this will fail. An open-plan office should provide comfortable work areas for those who want to use them on a regular basis, but with no assigned desks and backed up by infrastructure for those tasks that it makes sense to carry out in the office: some meetings, events, production tasks that need specific equipment, etc. Obviously, because there are tasks that require greater levels of concentration; in which case, think about working from home, a workspace, a pavement caf, or wherever you want. Find a place where you like to work, where you can focus and use it whenever you want to concentrate. Only go to the office when you really need to see somebody or to talk in person or when you need certain facilities or equipment. Do not go to the office to be seen to be working or to be the first in and the last out, which are sad vestiges of last centurys post-industrial economy. In the current technological context, thats all a waste of time. If you think your workforce needs to be kept under surveillance, then think about hiring people you can trust, change your management methods, or better still, try another line of work. Open-plan offices make sense when companies rationalize their working methods and have set out to optimize them to meet the current technological context. If youre not going to do that, then forget about an open-plan office, because youll generate more problems than solutions. If you are not willing to change your working methods, to rethink the needs of each post and to trust your workers, an open office is a waste of time. If you want an open-plan office to make sense, start thinking about what work means in the current technological context. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2019/05/28/why-are-we-still-arguing-about-open-plan-offices/ |
Can I keep the in-laws? | When Nicki Rodriguez spent Christmas with her ex-husband and his parents last year, she admits some people found it strange. Just because a romantic relationship didnt work out, doesnt mean that you cant stay friends, she explains. I am on great terms with my ex and his parents. They live with him and I often go around and see them when he is away. Prospective partners, in particular, struggle to understand. The men I meet just cant seem to accept it, she says. They would prefer it if we hated each other. But life is too short for bitterness and jealousy. We have a son together and I have a daughter from my previous marriage. When we first split up, things were a bit awkward, but for the sake of the children we both knew we had to get over it and make it work. Nicki became close to her in-laws six years ago, when her son was diagnosed with autism. We were worried and they helped us through. Since the couple ended their 10-year relationship in 2016 her ex-mother-in-law has become even more important to her. Its like having two mums, she says. My mother-in-law is very blunt and direct, like me, which is why I think we get on so well. Shes always there if I need her and when Im sick she calls me up to check Im OK. She has supported Nickis career and helps out with childminding. Because of my sons autism, he couldnt go to nursery or a childminder. My exs mum made a huge effort to read books and articles on how to manage his behaviour and communicate with him to make him feel comfortable. She has also maintained her relationship with Nickis daughter from a previous marriage, who she sees as family. We still get cards with daughter-in-law and granddaughter on them for special occasions. But not everyone is as lucky as Nicki after a breakup, and even the strongest relationships with in-laws can become complicated. James was devastated when he discovered his partner Amy (not their real names) had been cheating on him last year and not just because he ended up losing her and having to share residence of their young son Before the affair, the couple had lived in Amys home town for most of their seven-year-relationship. In that time, James grew extremely close to her parents and grandparents. They were all very easy-going, with a great sense of humour, he says. They accepted me and made me feel like I was part of the family. The couple werent married, but Amys parents referred to him as their son-in-law. On one occasion, we all went on holiday together, which was brilliant. I think I enjoyed spending time with them even more than she did. How we live together: the son- and mother-in-law Read more When the couple split up, Amys grandparents took his side and distanced themselves from their granddaughter. They were really angry with her. They told me I was their adopted grandson and they really didnt want to lose me. James says he enjoys seeing them every week, but admits it comes with challenges. It has made things a bit awkward. Amys not very happy that were still in contact all the time, and it has impacted their relationship. Although he has considered taking a step back to let the family build bridges, he doesnt want his son to miss out. Her grandmother is very unwell at the moment, and I think its important that he spends as much quality time with him as possible. When James discovered Amys affair, her mother was the first person he confided in. I didnt know where else to turn. I never had the sort of mum who fixes things, and my dads great, but hes not very emotional. I felt like Amys mum was my mum. Amys parents were supportive afterwards without taking sides but they and James have since drifted apart. He says the loss hit him hard. Her mum and dad moved abroad recently and were not really in touch. Splitting up is always difficult, but losing my in-laws has been like losing my own parents. Its something that Lynnette Hecker can sympathise with, after separating from her ex-husband, Nick, in 2012. I had a wonderful relationship with his family when we were together. Theyre the loveliest, kindest people and I absolutely adore them. During the couples six-year relationship, she developed a close bond with Nicks mother. We had loads in common. Shes confident, like me, and loves travel, culture and fashion. When we got married she helped me with every aspect of the wedding planning. My ex used to cycle down to my mums house and theyd go out and walk the dogs together People like to pitch women against women, she says, and theres a stereotype of us not getting on well with our mother-in-laws, but I adored mine. Lynnette went on to develop equally strong relationships with four of Nicks half-sisters. When we got married they all had young children, so his nieces were bridesmaids at our wedding and his nephew was the pageboy. They felt like my own family. Nicks mother and sisters were supportive during and after the breakup. However, she admits, being around them was painful. Every time I saw them, it would remind me of the fact I was no longer truly part of their family. About 12 months after the split, she had accepted that the marriage was over, but still missed being a member of his family. It was a real, serious loss, like grieving. Id had other long-term partners before and got on with their families, but this was different there was such a strong bond. We just clicked. When we form bonds with a family, even if its not our own, those can be hard to break. Emma (not her real name) says she was heartbroken when her boyfriend of five years decided to move abroad for a while. By the time he returned home, she had moved on, but he stayed in regular contact with her family. He used to cycle down to my mums house and theyd go out and walk the dogs together. Although Emma didnt mind them meeting up, when her sisters and brother-in-law saw him without letting her know, it made her feel uncomfortable. I dont think they were deliberately trying to be secretive but thats how it felt. The secret to coping when you dislike a parent-in-law Read more While she thinks her family should have been more open, she understands why they wanted to stay in touch. My mum always had a soft spot for him and she was really upset when we split up. My previous boyfriends hadnt treated me that well, and he was the first good egg. He was very charming and I think she saw him as the ideal son-in-law. Though Emma and her ex would meet up occasionally after the split, they eventually lost contact completely a few years ago. I think his relationships with my family have fizzled out now, though theyre still friends on social media. It would be weird if they were still very close now, when we dont speak. As for Lynnette Hecker, who shared so much of her life with her former in-laws, she has seen what normally happens after up a breakup. Her ex-husband Nick had become close to her father after losing his own dad at a young age. My father is quite old-fashioned and didnt feel the need to stay in touch with Nick after we split, Lynette says. I think Nick was a bit sad that Id managed to stay on such good terms with his family, when hed lost his relationship with my father. | https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/28/can-i-keep-the-in-laws |
Should plant-based foods use the word meat? | Increasingly popular veggie burgers have been called planted-based meat. Animal advocate Jessica Scott-Reid writes this description is acceptable, while Chris White of the Canadian Meat Council argues against the phrasing. The Quebec Cattle Producers Federation, backed by The Canadian Cattlemens Association, seem to think Canadian consumers cant figure out that the famous vegan Beyond Meat burger, marketed as plant-based meat, is made from plants, and has lodged a complaint to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Its a new chapter in the rhetorical battle over plant-based food labels, a battle that stems not from genuine concern for consumer confusion, but rather fear and desperation in the face of a booming eco-friendly and ethically sound plant-based proteins market. Dubbed by some as the meat-muzzle, several U.S. states have already enacted different forms of censorship on plant-based food and drink marketing. And if some EU lawmakers get their way, plant-based burgers in Europe may soon be marketed as veggie discs, (as if burger is a shape exclusive to animal parts). Meanwhile in Canada, after a Vancouver vegan cheese shop was notified by the CFIA earlier this year of a complaint regarding its use of the word cheese to market its nut-based products, the complaint was quickly dismissed. The CFIA stated after reviewing marketing materials, they had no objection to 100% dairy-free plant-based cheese. And thus, cooler Canadian heads prevail. Because, of course, most of us can read: labels, ingredients, nutrition information. And, most of us can comprehend the meaning of plant-based when used as a grammatical modifier before other food words. A survey done by the International Food Information Council regarding non-dairy milks, found that the vast majority of Americans absolutely understood that milks labelled plant based did not contain dairy. Duh. Its about the big bucks. Exclusively. The California based Beyond Meat company went public earlier this month. The stock immediately exploded and the company is currently worth nearly $5 billion US. Its one major success within a market of many other plant-based successes, predicted to be worth over $40 billion in the next decade. Even meat producers know a good idea when they see it, with Tyson Foods one of the biggest in the world announcing it will be selling plant-based protein products come summertime. Canadas own Maple Leaf Foods announced last month it is opening a plant-based protein facility in the U.S. It acquired plant-based LiteLife Foods in January. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW As consumers grow more and more aware of the detrimental environmental effects of meat and dairy production, the inherent cruelties abundant on industrialized animal farms, and the health concerns associated with consuming animal proteins, our desire for plant-based alternatives also grows. And the cowboys know it. You attack and censor your competitor, under the guise of consumer interest. The Canadian Cattlemens Association claim its concern is with keeping nomenclature clear and accurate. But just as meat evolved from the Germanic mete, meaning food of any kind, so too can the modern use of meat, as well as burger, sausage, nugget, etc., evolve to include plant-based proteins. Meat can mean derived from animal (or, actually, also from the inside of fruits or nuts, like coconut), and plant-based meat can mean derived from plants. Consumers understand. No one is confused. Well, except perhaps animal farmers, about how to effectively protect their sinking ship. Jessica Scott-Reid is a Canadian writer, animal advocate and plant-based food expert. | https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/thebigdebate/2019/05/28/should-plant-based-foods-use-the-word-meat.html |
What are the best Chinese food restaurants in Sacramento? | See what makes this honey walnut prawns dish special Chef Quentin Truong prepares honey walnut prawns at Frank Fat's Chinese restaurant, Tuesday, May 21, 2019, in downtown Sacramento. Up Next SHARE COPY LINK Chef Quentin Truong prepares honey walnut prawns at Frank Fat's Chinese restaurant, Tuesday, May 21, 2019, in downtown Sacramento. Lets start with a history lesson, Frank Fats start in particular. Before founding his namesake Chinese restaurant in 1939, he managed Hong King Lum at 3rd and I streets, a restaurant that opened at the turn of the 20th century in the middle of Sacramentos bustling Chinatown. Flash forward to today and Chinese restaurants are generously distributed across Sacramentos metropolitan landscape. Takeout is popular, but why not dine in at one of these veritable way stations, culturally somewhere between China and The City of Trees. What follows are 10 delicious excuses to visit 10 different Chinese restaurants in the Sacramento area. Frank Fats Unlimited Digital Access: Only $0.99 For Your First Month Get full access to The Sacramento Bee content across all your devices. SAVE NOW 1. Honey Walnut Prawns. $19.95. Frank Fats. 806 L Street Sacramento Theres something exciting about Frank Fats. Its lack of windows, its blue neon lighting, and the black-and-gold motif otherwise make it feel like a cool casino club, minus the cigarette smoke. The sign out front indicates that the honey walnut prawns are An all-time Sacramento favorite. The dish could indeed be the best-known Chinese fare in the city: about 10 crunchy-sweet walnut halves plus 30 lightly-fried, honey sauce-glazed prawns. The prawns have a moist pop to them, and they get a dusting of sesame seeds overtop. The plates balanced savory sweetness comes without the mayonnaise-heavy sauce typical of some other Chinese spots. The honey walnut prawns are an all-time Sacramento favorite at Frank Fats restaurant, Tuesday, May 21, 2019, in downtown Sacramento. Arden Barnes [email protected] China Palace 2. Chicken Chow Mein with Crispy Noodles. $7.00. China Palace. 5050 Stockton Boulevard Sacramento On the opposite pole decor-wise is China Palace, a Stockton Boulevard establishment with budget pricing that has been in the same spot since 1991. The menu item arrives on two plates next to a metal tea kettle thats as hot as the surface of the sun everywhere but the handle. On one plate, the crispy noodles are like fried wontons, without filling, cut into strips; theyre crispy and robust. The stir-fried veggies in light gravy on the other plate are dominated by bean sprouts, but there are also white onions and cabbage that sit in the ramen broth-like, oil-speckled liquid. Asian Pearl 3. Pan Fried Lotus Root. $9.50. Asian Pearl. Its especially busy on Sundays, with all generations of Chinese families present. Its concert hall-like interior smells like a big Asian supermarket with its intermingling aromas. The pan fried lotus root is displayed on the laminated Lunch local flavor tapas menu; all the appetizers listed are just $9.50 and are only served during lunch. The delicacy arrives dusted with a sauted green and white onions as well as green and red bell peppers; it smells like home fries. The vegetable mix is slippery on the tongue and not very salty, pairing well with the savory, hand-dipped lotus root wedge sandwiches filled with little shrimp. I-Shanghai Delight 4. Steamed Purple Glutinous Rice With Red Bean Paste. $8.95. I-Shanghai Delight. 1115 Front Street Sacramento This underground spot is a recent addition to the Old Sac dining scene. Come down the stairs and youll find two women preparing dumplings behind glass in what looks like a hockey rinks penalty box. The dish is a vegetarian dessert; something fun to order at this dumpling den at the end of a meal. It arrives smelling creamy, like the rice pudding youd get at an Indian restaurant. It would taste similar if it werent for the lump of bean paste in the middle topped with cooked, tangy raisins that almost taste like apricots. The two together taste something like a Fruit Roll-Up. Joy City Restaurant 5. Fish Fillet With Sweet and Sour Sauce. $9.95. Joy City Restaurant. 2745 Elk Grove Boulevard Elk Grove As you enter youll see the specials written in Chinese on a whiteboard to your right on the wall; this indicates that the clientele is largely Chinese-speaking, but youll be fine if English is your language. The dish is by no means the pinnacle of culinary excellence, but its delicious. The hand-floured fish fillets combine an American happy hour-like treat with a sweet-and-sour sauce that has an acidic edge thatll cleanse your palette. The traditional onions, green bell pepper and pineapple bathe in the thick red goo. Wongs Garden 6. Moo-Shu Pork. $8.75. Wongs Garden. 201 Harding Boulevard Roseville Also outside the city is Wongs Garden in Roseville. This spot caters to those who cannot read Chinese characters, as their pint-sized, pizza-parloresque plastic Coca-Cola cups suggest. The moo-shu pork is served with a side of coarse plum sauce, to be used sparingly on hearty, Mexican-style flour tortillas. The juicy mix of cabbage, pork strips, bamboo shoots, egg, and chewy wood ear mushrooms is simultaneously crisp, savory, and bitter; oil is lightly employed, and it is soothing to the stomach. Hong Kong Islander 7. Kung Pao Chicken Lunch. $7.95. Hong Kong Islander. 5675 Freeport Boulevard Sacramento Hong Kong Islander is adjacent to the Sacramento Executive Airport. A small private jet once crashed into a Farrells Ice Cream Parlor across the street back in 1972. The kung pao chicken lunch plate arrives with half of it occupied by chicken and egg fried rice, nothing fancy, but the other side is a heap of celery, ginger, water chestnuts, chili flakes, bell pepper, peanuts, and chicken that complement each other appropriately; the ginger steals the show, balancing the strong flavors. Macau Caf 8. Macau Style Crispy Pig Knuckle. $10.99. Macau Caf. 4406 Del Rio Road Sacramento Outside, a Sacramento Bee news box is positioned next to a red one with 50-cent Chinese newspapers. Inside the restaurant, there is more literature; the menu is 28 pages long with culinary photography that varies in quality. The pig knuckle arrives as a bare Flintstones bone on a plate, with its meat sliced off neatly at its side, looking like a flock of vultures had its way with it. The meat has three layers: the crisp fried skin on the outside tastes like a kettle-cooked potato chip, then theres the generous layer of fat, and then the well-cooked pink pork meat in the middle that tastes something like corned beef. Happy Garden Seafood Restaurant 9. Ginger & Scallion Steam Half-Shell Oysters (6). $13.00. Happy Garden Seafood Restaurant. 5731 Stockton Boulevard Sacramento This spots menu looks like a $30 childrens book from the outside: a glossy orange cover with a golden pagoda and thick, glossy cardstock pages. The place is clearly set up for banquets or wedding receptions: its got a wood dance floor and the interior is a perfect rectangle. The large half-shell oysters are steamed for eight minutes and topped with shredded scallions and ginger. A squeeze from one of the lemon wedges served on the side neutralizes the oil layer. The broth that lingers in the shell after oyster consumption is just a little sweet from the ginger; it would make a transcendental dipping sauce for cold soba noodles. The oysters are tender and fresh with little aftertaste. New China 10. Pepper Salted Chicken. $9.50. New China. 6363 Riverside Blvd Sacramento As you enter you can hear the kitchen hood in back sucking air from above the cook, who is beating his wok like a drum; it leaves the air fresh. Paired with the ocean-blue carpeting and otherwise white dcor above, it feels like youre in a rowboat on the water on a foggy day. The dish consists of deep-fried, boneless breast of chicken chunks. The breading is crispy and robust, and good news for the lean breast. The chunks are dusted with jalapenos, garlic, green onion, and some oil; some of the mix stays put on top of them and the remainder rests on the plate. | https://www.sacbee.com/food-drink/article230224459.html |
Can Joe Biden hold on to his spot as Democratic front-runner? | (CNN) Joe Biden promises in nearly every speech he makes that "no one is going to work harder" to earn votes in the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. So far, though, Biden has been less active than many of his competitors. The former vice president has held 11 public events since launching his campaign on April 25. That's fewer than most other candidates: former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas had held 12 by the end of his second night as a presidential candidate. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts held the same number -- four -- in Iowa on Sunday that Biden has held to date there. And Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont held three in New Hampshire on Monday, matching Biden's total for the entire campaign. And unlike most of his opponents, Biden has usually declined to take questions from his crowds or reporters. In addition to his public events, Biden has held nine fundraisers and a considerable number of private meetings with voters and strategists. The sparse public schedule is likely to continue, with Biden likely to spend much of the next month fundraising and preparing for the first Democratic debate. The campaign's use of his time underscores Biden's decision to run a front-runner's campaign -- limiting his time on the campaign trail while seizing on opportunities to joust with President Donald Trump, but staying far away from the intra-party policy debates that could put him at risk of alienating segments of the Democratic electorate. The Biden campaign, which expected a bump post-announcement, has to "figure out how to maintain momentum," a source close to the campaign said. The campaign's thinking right now is "control the things you can control," the source said, by focusing on its plans while staying nimble. His campaign appears to have chosen a strategy of having voters "see him less and remember him more," said Rebecca Katz, a progressive Democratic strategist who is not affiliated with a 2020 campaign. "And that means remembering him as Barack Obama's vice president and the goodwill that comes from that -- and not necessarily Joe Biden the 2020 candidate, who is not as great a campaigner as some might remember." In a statement, Biden's campaign pointed to the time he spends talking to attendees after his events and interviews with local reporters. It highlighted stops in each of the first four states to vote in the nominating process -- including one public event each in South Carolina and Nevada -- as well as speeches in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. "In the few weeks since announcing, Vice President Biden has stopped in all four early states and twice in Pennsylvania, talked to local media at each stop, done numerous gaggles with national press, and has never missed a conversation with a voter on countless rope lines and at events. Voters will know where Joe Biden stands on the issues, and his schedule will continue to be driven by engaging them in the most effective ways," Biden spokeswoman Remi Yamamoto said. The Democratic race is set to switch into a higher gear, with the first debates now just four weeks away. The schedule of multi-candidate events hosted by state party organizations, unions and other groups is ramping up, too -- and Biden's decision to reject invitations so far could create openings for audiences and the events' often influential organizers to drift to other candidates. His campaign has also been slow to roll out detailed policy proposals. Two weeks ago, Biden told a crowd in New Hampshire that he would deliver "a major speech in detail" on his approach to climate change. With the end of May approaching, no such speech has been scheduled. This week, Biden is poised to make some movement in the policy arena, with an education-focused trip to Texas. On Tuesday, he and his wife, Jill Biden, a community college professor, will appear in Houston at a town hall with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten before a fundraiser there. On Wednesday, Biden will be in Dallas; one source said an education-focused event will be held there, too, in addition to a fundraiser. So far, fundraising has been a major focus of Biden's travels. He has held nine fundraisers to date, with more planned in the coming weeks in Boston, Atlanta and New York. He has also spent time working while off the road. Biden was at his campaign's office in Washington for meetings last week. Another priority in the coming weeks will likely be preparing for the first debate, scheduled for June 26 and 27. Veteran Democratic strategist Anita Dunn is leading Biden's debate prep efforts, with Ron Klain, his former chief of staff, also involved, a source familiar with the process said. As most of his Democratic rivals fanned out across the campaign trail over Memorial Day weekend, Biden did not. His campaign perhaps unwittingly drew attention to that, sending out an advisory saying: "Joe Biden has no public events scheduled." Biden and his wife will participate in Memorial Day events in Wilmington, Delaware, later this week. J.D. Scholten, one of the most sought-after Democratic leaders in Iowa, said he believes the contest is wide open -- for Biden and his rivals -- as Memorial Day ends and the summer stretch of campaigning begins. "He's a front-runner with quotation marks," Scholten said of the former vice president. "He's going to have to earn it." In an interview on Monday, Scholten echoed the sentiment of several Iowa Democrats, who point out that Biden is months behind building an organization for the Iowa caucuses. "His name is a bigger presence than his campaign right now," Scholten said. "They can't just bank off of people knowing him." But for the next month, Biden will spend more time fundraising and preparing for the critical first debate than meeting early-state voters. His aides argue that he doesn't need to introduce himself like other Democratic hopefuls do, but they are mindful of the risks and know that early front-runners are often fleeting. "He's not arrogant about this," a friend of Biden's said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations with the former vice president. "He knows he will have to fight for every vote." Some Democrats said Biden has plenty of time to ramp up his schedule -- in part because as the front-runner, his every move commands attention. "He can really drive the political speed limit and still take up the same room on the highway," said South Carolina Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright. "He doesn't need to run political stop signs or red lights at this point." Seawright pointed to shifts in the dynamics of the Democratic race since Biden's entrance. Candidates who had been rushing to prove their progressive bona fides have since paused, with Biden's more moderate approach proving popular so far. More shifts, Seawright said, could come after the first debate, depending on how it plays out. "The worst thing he could do is respond to his opponents instead of responding to the electorate," Seawright said. The rest of the field of Democratic candidates is watching Biden closely, with most taking a measured approach. While Sanders and Warren have repeatedly pointed out their policy differences with Biden, they have done so gingerly, mindful of Biden's broad popularity and the pitfalls of being seen as going negative. When an Iowa voter asked Sanders last month about differences with Biden, he peppered those distinctions with kindness, repeatedly saying: "I like Joe." "Needless to say, I hope I win. I'm sure Biden hopes that he wins and others hope that they win," Sanders told an audience in Spencer, Iowa. "I think we should all be very clear that we're going to come together to defeat the most dangerous President in the history of this country." Advisers to several other candidates said they had no plans of going after Biden as they might a traditional front-runner. Not only could it backfire on their own candidacies, but it also could be seen as weakening the party's chances of beating Trump. "Biden will have to beat himself," an adviser to a Democratic candidate said. Biden's previous presidential bids, in 1988 and 2008, did not make it beyond the Iowa caucuses. But now, the former vice president is in new terrain: campaigning as a front-runner. | https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/joe-biden-front-runner-plans/index.html |
How risky is Steinbergs controversial Measure U bonding proposal? | Hear Mayor Darrell Steinberg talk about what hell do with the money that comes from Measure U Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg talks to the Bee reporter Theresa Clift about Measure U at an election night party at Urban Roots in Sacramento on Nov. 6, 2018. Up Next SHARE COPY LINK Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg talks to the Bee reporter Theresa Clift about Measure U at an election night party at Urban Roots in Sacramento on Nov. 6, 2018. Mayor Darrell Steinbergs dramatic plan to issue bonds using new Measure U sales tax revenue has raised sharp criticism and questions. Steinberg said he wants to jump-start community investments and that borrowing money through bonds in the way he is suggesting is common for state and local governments. The city has more than enough revenue to make the 30 years of payments on the borrowed money, he said. Two council members have come out strongly against the idea, saying it could bankrupt the city, especially if another recession hits and as city pension costs sharply rise over the next five years. Municipal finance experts told The Bee that the bond plan, though unusual, probably will not bankrupt the city, but it still probably is not the best idea from a financial viewpoint. Unlimited Digital Access: Only $0.99 For Your First Month Get full access to The Sacramento Bee content across all your devices. SAVE NOW Steinbergs proposal consists of issuing new 30-year bonds each year for the next five years. Starting in fiscal year 2020-21, the city would borrow about $88 million upfront, which it would pay off for 30 years, similar to a mortgage, using $5 million in new Measure U money each year. In fiscal year 2021-22, the city would make the second $5 million payment on the first set of bonds and also issue new 30-year bonds, making the first $5 million payment on that set of bonds. That process would continue each year through fiscal year 2024-25, when the city will have received a total of $440 million and is paying $25 million for the next 30 years. After 30 years, city staff estimate the city will have paid $750 million in interest and principal from receiving the $440 million, though that amount could be vastly different by the time the bonds are issued, said Brian Wong, city debt manager. The city would have to put up collateral to issue the bonds city-owned buildings not already being used as collateral for other bonds, Wong said. Some options are fire stations, parks and even the rebuilt Convention Center. Steinberg said Friday that the city could issue new bonds for three years instead of five, meaning the total amount received would be about $264 million rather than $441 million, decreasing interest costs and collateral. Its the second time this month the mayor has toned down his bond proposal. He originally suggested the city receive $441 million right away, in fiscal year 2020-21 upfront, instead of building to that amount in fiscal year 2024-25. The city could spend the upfront capital to invest in catalytic neighborhood projects brick-and-mortar facilities like new business hubs or badly needed affordable housing that will increase the citys tax base, according to a post on Steinbergs blog Thursday. He wants to leave the specifics to committees formed to help decide what to do with Measure U revenue and to the rest of the council. Steinberg said his current plan is not risky because it allows the council to decide each year whether to sell additional bonds. He also said the citys bond ratio is well below what experts say is appropriate. If we dont invest in Sacramento, we wont have the tax base to sustain our public services, Steinberg said in a statement Friday. Its more risky not to have a growth strategy, because without one, we will run out of money. Council members Jeff Harris and Angelique Ashby paint a vastly different picture. This scheme would expose the city to insolvency at the slightest economic downturn, Harris wrote in a column published in Inside Sacramento. Ashbys column in the same publication also called the bonding proposal a scheme that could put city assets at risk and possibly bankrupt Sacramento if the economy stalls. Economist Jeffrey Michael of the University of the Pacific said the mayors bond proposal is unlikely to actually bankrupt the city, but it could cause big fiscal problems down the road. Its a risky plan, no doubt about it, Michael said. It would take another great recession to kick the city in to bankruptcy, so I wouldnt necessarily predict that, but I think theres certainly a pretty strong risk that 10 years from now, future mayors are slashing city services and might be looking back at the decisions being made right now as part of the cause. Michael Coleman, a local government finance expert and adviser to the League of California Cities, said Steinbergs proposal is not necessarily risky, because the mayor does not want to use all of the new Measure U revenue for the bonds. Bond sales make more sense, though, when cities want to build big projects they lack the revenue stream to cover. In Sacramentos case, the city shouldnt bond, in order to avoid the fees and interest, Coleman said. Instead, Coleman suggested the city move some of the new Measure U money each year to its Capital Improvement Program, which pays for the citys new buildings and infrastructure improvements each year, and forecasts for the next five years. Its a much more efficient use of money, Coleman said. Michael agreed a pay as you go plan would be much smarter. Id recommend laying out the agenda you want to do and going in to the annual budget process and fighting for it year by year for those priorities, Michael said. Fighting for it each year is going to get harder, though. In fiscal year 2024-25, the citys pension payments rise to more than triple what they are now. By then, the tax base will be much larger, largely thanks to the projects created with new Measure U revenue, Steinberg says. Michael said thats definitely optimistic talk. Coleman said he could see it working out that way but pointed out a larger tax base often comes with more expenses. He urged the mayor and council to listen to city staff in the coming weeks. This is why we have a good quality city manager like Howard Chan, said Coleman, a former city employee. Hes very knowledgeable, and the important thing is the mayor and council listen to the advice of the expert staff they have. Councilman Steve Hansen said he is preparing an alternative bonding proposal. The City Council will adopt the fiscal year 2019-20 budget by the end of June. | https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article230803269.html |
Is There a Method to Trumps North Korean Madness? | (Bloomberg Opinion) -- U.S. President Donald Trump often sounds more desperate for a deal than North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The latest example came on Monday, when Trump insisted that North Korea had not tested ballistic missiles earlier this month contradicting not only his own national security adviser but also the prime minister of Japan. After some speculation about Kims motivation, Trump doubled down on an earlier tweet. All I know is that there have been no nuclear tests, he said. There have been no ballistic missiles going out, no long-range missiles going out. There are good reasons to worry about this. Its indefensible for Trump to tweet out Kims dim view of former Vice President Joe Bidens intelligence. And it almost goes without saying that Shinzo Abe and John Bolton are in a better position than Trump to assess North Koreas missile tests. That said, one unlikely source says there may be a method to Trumps madness when it comes to Kim. His name is Thae Yong Ho, and he is one of the highest ranking North Korean officials ever to defect to the West. In an interview at the Oslo Freedom Forum, an annual conference for dissidents and human-rights advocates in the Norwegian capital, Thae offered a possible rationale for Trumps approach. Trump still keeps the economic sanctions against Kim, he said. On the other hand, he is flattering him so he does not break out of the negotiations. If North Korea tests nuclear or long-range ballistic missiles, Thae said, Trump would have justification to use force. Kim knows this, and this is why he wont do it. Coming from Thae, its a surprising view. When Thae defected in 2016 with his family, he became a hunted man. The South Korean government provides him with 24-hour protection, even when he travels outside of Seoul. The world has seen what Kim has done to his half-brother, said Thae, who was the second-ranking diplomat at his countrys embassy in London. They can do anything to keep me silent. And while Thae said he understood Trumps approach to managing Kim, he also said Kim has had some success in managing Trump. The terms initially agreed to in 2018 at their first summit in Singapore, he said, were too favorable to North Korea. There is no clear timetable in the Singapore agreement for when the denuclearization would be completed, he said. Thae was also doubtful about one of the pillars of Trumps strategy with Kim: offering North Korea economic prosperity as an incentive to dismantle its nuclear program. The regimes elites know better, he said, but most North Koreans are brainwashed into believing Kim is a god. They will learn the truth if North Korea ever opens itself up to the rest of the world. Kims family has committed so many crimes in its history, for 70 years, for three generations, they have killed so many people, he said. Once justice is brought, there is no way for his family to be pardoned or forgiven by his people. For now, Thae said, a popular democratic revolution is not realistic. It will probably take at least 20 years, he said. Until then, the best strategy is for the free world to help North Koreans learn about the outside world. Initiatives aimed at doing so, such as smuggling into the country portable DVD players pre-programmed with South Korean soap operas, have been quietly gaining steam for years. Its not as immediate and direct as some other options. But its preferable to a bargain with a tyrant known for breaking his word even if Trump is the only one who doesnt acknowledge it. To contact the author of this story: Eli Lake at [email protected] To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at [email protected] This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Eli Lake is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering national security and foreign policy. He was the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast and covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion 2019 Bloomberg L.P. | https://news.yahoo.com/method-trump-north-korean-madness-230013122.html |
Why did KC Water install faulty meters in some homes? | Five things to know about Kansas Citys skyrocketing water and sewer bills Kansas City's water bills have continued to increase at a fast rate, but the City Council hopes it can alleviate the skyrocketing costs. Rain garden photo and water bill data from Kansas City Water Services. Up Next SHARE COPY LINK Kansas City's water bills have continued to increase at a fast rate, but the City Council hopes it can alleviate the skyrocketing costs. Rain garden photo and water bill data from Kansas City Water Services. For years, customers of Kansas Citys Water Services Department have endured rate increases that have strained household budgets, some to the point of breaking. Water and sewer prices have skyrocketed during the past decade. In 2017, service was shut off to almost 19,000 customers. So its disconcerting to learn some customers may have paid for more water than they actually used. That troubling conclusion was contained in an audit released last week at City Hall. The Water Department, it turns out, tested 246 new meters last fiscal year, and 47 of them failed almost 20%. The department installed them anyway. Unlimited Digital Access: Only $0.99 For Your First Month Get full access to The Kansas City Star content across all your devices. Thats a problem. Installing a failed meter can lead to inaccurate registration of water usage, the audit noted. Customers may overpay for water that they did not use. Indeed. Thats why its disturbing that Water Services actually defended the practice. The manufacturer does certify those (meters) to be accurate, said Terry Leeds, director of KC Water. The department said it would replace the faulty meters that have already been installed, which is an obvious first step. But it is resisting a recommendation that new meters be randomly and extensively tested in the future to ensure the devices are working properly. Leeds says hes willing to do some tests, but what we havent agreed with (is) that we would do a statistically accurate number of tests, he told a City Council committee. In some cases, though, the department isnt testing new water meters at all. Last June, Water Services took delivery of 2,000 new meters and didnt test any of them, the audit found. The departments goal shouldnt be protecting the companies that make water meters or reducing the workload for its own employees. Job one should be making sure customers pay for exactly the amount of water they use, and only the water they use. That means random, statistically relevant tests of new meters before theyre installed. If too many fail, the department should send the whole shipment back. Additionally, the department needs to develop a comprehensive strategy to replace aging meters, something it has promised to do. This isnt difficult. There are more than 170,000 water meters in service in Kansas City. The customers who use them must have absolute confidence those meters are accurate. Water rates are high enough without sticking residents with the bill for phantom water measured by a faulty meter. | https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article230798234.html |
Could Derrick Rose Be A Fit For The Detroit Pistons? | ASSOCIATED PRESS For a Detroit Pistons team bereft of talented ball handlers who can create their own offense, there are a handful of potential signings who may catch the interest of the organization this summer once free agency begins. One such potential signing may be former NBA MVP and upcoming Minnesota Timberwolves free agent Derrick Rose. Always a complicated player to discuss and evaluate (even if we set aside his legal problems, which will be a different topic for a different day), Derrick Rose may be in a situation where he is more in the market for another short-term make-good contract than for a longer deal with more guaranteed money, and that's the area of the market where the Pistons will exist this summer. Surprisingly enough, Rose is actually coming off the most efficient scoring season of his career, thanks in large part to his newly-discovered 3-point shooting ability. In his MVP season, he had a true shooting percentage of 55%, but this season he topped that mark with a 55.7% true shooting percentage. Derrick Rose shot a career-best 37% from 3-point range last season and averaged 18 points per game mostly off the bench as he started just 13 of his 51 games. He even had his second-best per-36 minute scoring average at 23.7 points per 36, just slightly behind his MVP season's average of 24.1. Rose was highly efficient in a number of offensive play types last season on fairly decent volume. Per Synergy, he was in the 79th percentile in scoring out of the pick-and-roll as the ball handler, scoring .948 points per possession (PPP). He was in the 89th percentile in isolation, scoring 1.071 PPP, and he was in the 68th percentile in transition, scoring 1.192 PPP. These might appear to be more along the lines of numbers you would see from a player expecting a big pay-day than from one who might be signed for a portion or all of the Detroit Pistons' mid-level exception (MLE), worth up to $9.26 million in the first year and up to $39.8 million over four years, but Derrick Rose has yet to put it together on the floor like he did last year and stay healthy for a full season. He played just 51 games last season, and hasn't played more than 66 games in a season since his MVP year in 2010-11. Rose missed the final 15 games of the regular season following surgery to remove bone chips from his elbow, and while it's possible that he could have returned early if the Timberwolves were in playoff contention, the absence is still a question mark on his resume for future employers. Over the last eight seasons, including one in 2013-14 which he missed the entirety of with a torn ACL, he's averaged 38 games per season. As for his resurgent shooting performance last season, it should also be noted that he only attempted 146 3-pointers, a rate of only 2.9 per game. It's a small sample, and especially for unproven shooters with a track record of middling success at best, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Derrick Rose should fit comfortably into the price range the Detroit Pistons will be working with. He is coming off one of the best offensive seasons in his career. He also fills several needs that they will have to address this season. But on a roster in which a backup point guard can be expected to play heavy minutes and essentially be a 1b point guard alongside starter Reggie Jackson rather than a pure backup, the Detroit Pistons simply cannot take lightly his potential unavailability. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/duncansmith/2019/05/28/could-derrick-rose-be-a-fit-for-the-detroit-pistons/ |
Can Solar Learn From Retail's Supply Chain And Procurement Strategy? | Getty It is well-recognized in the "just in time" world of retail that a highly efficient supply chain and procurement strategy can mean the difference between success or failure -- and it is equally important in the solar sector, too. 7-Eleven is one of most prevalent chains in the convenience retailing industry. It operates more than 58,000 7-Eleven locations worldwide, with each store providing approximately 2,500 different products and services. Very few of them have a back room that could be utilized for inventory stocking needs. Instead, 7-Eleven keeps the shelves stocked by making daily deliveries through a complex, highly effective supply chain. Walmart operates a short supply chain, buying directly from manufacturers where appropriate. The company chooses its suppliers carefully, working with those which can meet its price, quantity and frequency needs. Moreover, they operate as a single supply chain, with a shared communication network, buying at large enough quantities to leverage economies of scale and move items directly from manufacturers to warehouses. This reduction in links creates a lean supply chain that translates to lower end prices. Embracing Complexity These two examples highlight that the modern supply chain, and procurement, is a network of partnerships. The era of a simple supplier-customer relationship has passed. The future is a cooperative network where manufacturers at different levels of the production chain cooperate with their customer for the benefit of the end user. The rewards are significant, for those which can navigate the complexity. According to an Accenture survey, collaboration with suppliers can deliver 50% time savings and 30% cost savings. Developing strategic partnerships with suppliers enables companies to influence their supply chain, to drive innovation and quality. This is a win-win scenario, generating a virtuous circle which allows all players in the value chain to be more efficient, reducing cost and increasing competitiveness in the market. The solar industry is maturing into a highly competitive, global industry, and the concentration in suppliers is providing increasing economies of scale. Market leaders in the panel-manufacturing supply can chain improve their costs (raw materials, manufacturing and logistics), which allows them to offer a more competitive price to their customers. For example, the Silicon Module Super League (SMSL), now a collection of nine companies, is responsible for 50% of the global solar panels shipments by 2018 and are expected to be 60% of the global shipments in 2019. The SMSL is a collection of some of the worlds largest silicon module suppliers in the modern solar PV industry. My company uses panels from some of these suppliers in our solar PV plants. A mutually beneficial partnership is critical for module buyers like EPC or IPP companies. In a market environment where huge stocks are not profitable, and manufacturing is mainly driven on demand, price fluctuations and temporary overdemand may impact very significantly a projects financial viability. When a sales rush happens, having a module supply agreement guarantees module availability with a consistent financial model, preventing unexpected price spikes. Choosing Your Partners Wisely In this environment, chasing a one-time deal in the short term can lead to a lack of availability of the necessary goods (due to a first come, first served model) or paying higher prices in the medium term. An approach of chasing any supplier willing to offer a lower bid is short-term thinking. Solar energy is an extremely competitive market environment. Factors like long-term performance, warranty, a strong investment in research and development and capacity to grow with the market will define if a manufacturer is the correct partner. Though capital expenditure is clearly critical, there are many hidden and soft costs other than price that need to be taken into account when choosing suppliers. For or companies like mine, ESG metrics in particular, transparency in governance and sustainability standards are an important consideration. Solar panels represent approximately 47% of the EPC price of building a solar plant. Approximately 50% of the global solar market is centralized in China, the biggest consumer and installer of photovoltaic energy in the world. As a consequence, the Chinese governments decisions on PV subsidies and tariffs have an impact on the entire PV market, alongside other markets protective measures. Each short-term market change, which is difficult to forecast in the medium or long term, generates price fluctuations and availability constraints. With this in mind, creating a frame agreement can ensure the availability of modules when needed, as well as a reasonable price range, so that both parties are able to forecast price and demand respectively and thereby optimize their financial model with a level of stability. For example, in my company's experience and from our research, direct procurement under a frame agreement can deliver potential savings in the region of 7%, by leveraging volume requirements and medium- and long-term commitment with a limited number of key companies. Timing matters, too; agreeing on a price in advance circumvents the specific market conditions on the date an individual project needs to be signed. Also, the framework approach ensures the availability of the correct product at the correct time and avoids potential costs of missed milestones or even loss of revenue due to the delayed start of production. Another benefit of advance planning here is being able to choose the correct technology. When putting together a frame agreement, the customer selects the brands and components that streamline the subsequent operation phase, rather than leaving the decision to an EPC company or having to accept what is available on the market at that time. Think beyond the immediate scope to identify a win-win partnership mindset where both players benefit. There is a range of simple, yet powerful, methods as starting points: 1. Consider a medium and long-term strategy. 2. Share information and forecasts. 3. Analyze needs and dependencies together. 4. Provide mutual securities. 5. Work together to optimize the entire value chain. It can take time to identify and build the right relationships. Yet it is a worthwhile investment. Seeing the big picture and carefully selecting partners, with shared standards and values with which to frame supply agreements can guarantee a cost-efficient, high-quality operation in a global market. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/05/28/can-solar-learn-from-retails-supply-chain-and-procurement-strategy/ |
Did Mecklenburg commissioners break law with private talks? | Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners Chairman George Dunlap had private conversations with commissioners about the nearly $2 billion proposed budget, according to emails. Observer file photo Mecklenburg County commissioners had email and phone conversations about a proposed tax hike and other budget issues outside public view, raising questions about whether officials violated the state open meetings law, according to emails obtained by the Observer. The emails show that Board Chairman George Dunlap and other commissioners negotiated changes to the countys nearly $2 billion proposed budget during phone calls with each other. Commissioners are supposed to discuss the budget during a public meeting Tuesday. At the annual session, which county officials commonly call the budget straw vote, commissioners usually debate for hours about the countys spending priorities for the upcoming year. Citizens and groups attend to lobby for their pet causes. Unlimited Digital Access: Only $0.99 For Your First Month Get full access to The Charlotte Observer content across all your devices. SAVE NOW But emails suggest officials anticipate little debate. In an email from his personal account, dated May 22, Dunlap told commissioners he had compiled a list of budget amendments commissioners wanted to see. During the straw vote meeting, he wrote, he would call for a vote on the recommended changes. Having listened to each of you, the motion should pass unanimously, Dunlap wrote. When this motion passes, we can adjourn the meeting. The vote is significant at least in part because the proposed budget from County Manager Dena Diorio would raise taxes for most county property owners. Email shows that county commissioners want an additional $1 million for parks operations and $2 million for land acquisition among other amendments. They would put less money toward technology security, the Mecklenburg Health Department, tax collection and some other areas to help make up the difference, the email said. Commissioner Pat Cotham harshly criticized Dunlap for leading the private conversations. In emails to commissioners and others, she said believes the emails and phone calls circumvented North Carolinas open meetings law. Transparency is important from the beginning to the end and I feel transparency at the end of this process has been jeopardized, Cotham wrote in a May 24 email. Not having a lengthy discussion robs the process of transparency. What the law says Under North Carolina law, the board must give public notice of meetings and keep them open with few exceptions, according to the UNC School of Government, which assists local governments. Any gathering where a majority of the board is present either in person or electronically is considered a public meeting, the School of Government says. Phone calls between individual commissioners do not violate the law. The emails do not say whether Dunlap spoke to commissioners individually or in a conference call. A single group email from a commissioner is allowed under the law, according to the School of Government. But a simultaneous electronic exchange of emails analogous to a conversation may constitute a meeting, the School of Government says. A back room deal In a volley of emails to commissioners on May 23 and May 24, Dunlap and Cotham traded barbs. Cotham argued that the board should debate budget disagreements in public. I did not realize how so much agreement was going on behind the scene, Cotham wrote on May 23. Making our case as to why we choose to pay or not pay for things is important.... I think the people deserve better. I worry they will call it a back room deal. The next day, Cotham wrote to Dunlap and commissioners that the process violated state law. Your sending of a group email to the board where you entertained responses also created an unnoticed meeting in violation of the open meetings law. Dunlap defended the boards actions. He wrote that commissioners had discussed its budget priorities earlier this year at a retreat and other meetings, which were public and live streamed on the internet or televised. He also said that commissioners had met with constituents and heard from the public via emails, phone calls and social media. I will challenge your assertion and anyone elses, that there was some back room deals or that this process has not been transparent, Dunlap wrote. | https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article230889904.html |
Why are so many Ligue 1 clubs sacking their managers? | With Dijon having pipped Caen to the relegation play-off spot, the dust has almost but not quite settled on the Ligue 1 season. The football is stopping but the churn of managers will continue. It is no surprise that Fabien Mercadal, who was undermined by a poor transfer market and the arrival of Rolland Courbis, has already left Caen. Nor is there much shock at the departure of Jocelyn Gourvennec from Guingamp; no amount of goodwill could save the club from relegation after a run of poor attacking performances. The relegated clubs will take a dramatic financial hit and will probably have to sell off their best players; Caen have already lost Frdric Guilbert to Aston Villa and various clubs around Europe are interested in signing Marcus Thuram from Guingamp. Bearing this in mind, one can hardly blame these clubs for seeking a fresh approach. But the churn is not only at the bottom. The managers who finished first and second are at least guaranteed their jobs. Thomas Tuchel has been awarded a contract extension at PSG until 2021, which suggests the owners recognise that his shortcomings in Europe are more a product of the clubs ineptitude in the transfer market and intractability in the dressing room rather anything of his own doing. PSG extend Thomas Tuchel's contract as coach for another year Read more Lille boss Christophe Galtier, who was solid if unspectacular at Saint-tienne, has been voted manager of the year for guiding his young side to second place. This was no mean achievement for a manager known for his defensively sound approach with Saint-tienne. Several key players including the superb Nicolas Pp are likely to leave but Galtier is sticking around to lead the club into the Champions League. While the top two are staying put, the next three clubs in the table Lyon, Saint-tienne and Marseille have all parted ways with their managers. Bordeaux (twice), Monaco (twice), Dijon, Nantes, Rennes and Guingamp have also changed managers during the season. Each departure is its own story, but the common thread of ambition runs through this series of changes. Lyon finished third under Bruno Gnsio, but Jean-Michel Aulas has decided against renewing his contract this summer. Gnsio was popular in the dressing room but he had clearly tested the presidents patience for the final time. They went unbeaten in their Champions League group including a famous win over Manchester City at the Etihad but their domestic struggles, particularly in the two cup competitions, had become a matter of frustration. With PSG failing to win the Coupe de France or Coupe de la Ligue, Lyon were handed an ideal opportunity to secure their first trophy since 2012. However, they stumbled badly in both cups, showing an inconsistency that has plagued them in recent years. Aulas has invested considerably and expects more. Lyon are not going to be the powerhouse they were 15 years ago but Gnsios results did not match the presidents ambition. Whether the new Brazilian power axis of manager Sylvinho and sporting director Juninho can achieve this consistency is yet to be seen, but it is clear that Aulas saw Gnsio rather than the frustrating play of Nabil Fkir or Memphis Depay as the culprit. Ambition would appear to be less of a motivating factor in the departure of Jean-Louis Gasset from Saint-tienne, with the veteran manager reportedly retiring at 65. Given the success other older managers have enjoyed in recent times, it is difficult to believe that Gasset, a veteran assistant but someone who has been given precious few opportunities to lead a team, is choosing to retire. Saint tiennes tilt at the top three did fail at the last, but Gasset impressed in terms of his man-management and his ability to bring through young players (defender William Saliba was arguably the leagues best young player not named Mbapp in 2019), to the point that many of the clubs players have said that, if Gasset goes, they will also seek new opportunities. Lyon are taking a big gamble on Juninho and Sylvinho Read more With reports emerging of potential American investment at Saint-tienne, one has to wonder whether Gasset was nudged toward the exit in a way not dissimilar to that of Rudi Garcia. Garcia has had his faults, but his departure from a Marseille project that has shown little appetite for building a cohesive sporting framework is just the latest pratfall for the impatient reign of Frank McCourt. Marseilles season has had its wobbles but they have the makings of a young, intriguing team at the Vlodrome, and that side showed itself in flashes in winning five of six matches in March. A heavy loss in Le Classique followed and the wind seemed to have gone out of the clubs sails but, in Garcias defence, he has done well to bring along the young centre-back pairing of Boubacar Kamara and Duje Caleta-Car, neither of whom seemed up to standard at the start of the season. His departure is unsurprising but it, and the exits of Gnsio and Gasset, look circumspect when compared to the success that other clubs have enjoyed this season by opting for managers who have experience in the division and a healthy approach towards man-management. Galtier is the obvious example here, but Michel Der Zakarian at Montpellier and Thierry Laurey at Strasbourg are two further examples of managers previously known for their defensive style who can keep those basic tenets in place while still offering attractive attacking football. It would be a massive shock were Galtier to be lured away from Lille by Marseille or Saint-tienne, but both clubs could do far worse than looking towards Ligue 1 experience, rather than a quick fix in creating a plan for the future or Andr Villas-Boas. Ligue 1 talking points Caen coach Fabien Mercadal lasted less than 24 hours after his side were relegated from Ligue 1 on Friday night. Mercadal had been suspended in managerial purgatory for some time. A leftfield appointment from Ligue 2 club Paris FC, he never truly imposed his ideas on a weak squad and was made something of a figurehead coach when the experienced Rolland Courbis was inserted as a powerful assistant mid-season. Nevertheless, the uneasy alliance seemed to be coalescing two weeks ago. Four wins in seven league games gave them hopes of survival. They only needed to draw at home to Bordeaux on Friday night to avoid automatic relegation, but a goal from Younousse Sankhar gave Bordeaux a 1-0 win and Dijon beat Toulouse to send the Normandy side down. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Caen did not waste any time before sacking Fabien Mercadal after their relegation. Photograph: Damien Meyer/AFP/Getty Images After finishing 18th in Ligue 1, Dijon now face a two-legged relegation play-off with Lens, winner of Ligue 2s three-team play-off system. Having only secured their spot in the play-offs on the final day a fortnight ago, Lens have since travelled to two sides that finished above them and beaten both. They needed penalties to overcome Paris FC and edged out Troyes with an extra-time winner. They took 7,000 vociferous fans to Paris on Tuesday an away crowd higher than 14 of the 20 clubs in Ligue 2 averaged at home this season. Their own average of 26,400 would have been eighth highest in the top flight. Ligue 1 and Lens need each other. Quick guide Ligue 1 results Show Hide Ligue 1 results Amiens 2-1 Guingamp Angers 1-1 St tienne Caen 0-1 Bordeaux Dijon 2-1 Toulouse Marseille 1-0 Montpellier Nantes 0-1 Strasbourg Nice 2-0 Monaco Nmes 2-3 Lyon Reims 3-1 PSG Rennes 3-1 Lille Ligue 1 table | https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/28/ligue-1-clubs-sacking-managers-lyon-saint-etienne-marseille |
What is period poverty? | Watch the CBSN Originals documentary, "Period. Half the population has one. But no one talks about it," in the video player above. The average woman spends 2,535 days of her life menstruating. She has no choice in the matter it is simply biology. So, regardless of her financial or social situation, she must purchase or otherwise obtain access to enough pads, tampons or menstrual cups to bleed for nearly seven years of her life. For many, periods are simply an inconvenience, perhaps accompanied by a slew of uncomfortable symptoms like PMS, bloating and cramps. But for millions of other girls and women in the United States, however, the situation is much more severe. American women are 38% more likely to live in poverty than men. And if you only have $5 in your pocket when your period arrives, you may have to choose between buying tampons and eating or worse, between buying tampons and feeding your kids. "The average mother will put food on that table for their children with the last five in your pocket and she will find other ways to get the other necessities that she needs," said Nicole Johnson, who went into a New York City shelter with her four children in 2005. "I've seen and I've heard mothers do all types of things going out onto the streets with their babies, in and out of trucks. What's to say your child is gonna come back?" That sort of thing may seem unfathomable to a lot of people selling your body just to be able to afford a tampon. However, if you are homeless and the clothes on your back are the only clothes that you own, bleeding through them is simply not an option. What's more, for many women living in poverty, laundry services are not easy to come by. "Just last week, we had a woman come in, and she was in tears, and she was wrapped in a blanket from the waist down," says Alicia Horton, executive director of Thrive DC. "And I'm sure if she had not been able to come to us, she would have probably had to go to the bathroom and create something to staunch her flow until she could get the supplies she needed." Women cannot use public benefits like food stamps to buy tampons or pads. These essential products are not included in flexible or health spending account allowances. They are not covered by health insurance or Medicaid. And despite being a necessity for half the population, they are not regularly offered for free in public restrooms. "We had a period of time here where the toilet paper kept being stolen," Horton says in the CBSN Originals documentary, "Period." "And generally speaking, it was women who were stealing the toilet paper because they were fashioning what they needed out of that, and they just couldn't pay for it." Period poverty doesn't just affect homeless women, it affects a huge number of American schoolchildren as well. In fact, according to The Always Confidence and Puberty Wave VI Survey (conducted by the company that makes Always feminine hygiene products), nearly one in five American girls have either left school early or missed school entirely because they did not have access to period products. "The fact that there are people who aren't able to afford these products, and as a result, may miss school, may miss work, face certain stigma I think it's a human rights issue that, especially in the United States of America, women should not have to be dealing with," said Congresswoman Grace Meng, D-New York. In March, Meng announced the Menstrual Equity for All Act before Congress, the first comprehensive bill to address the challenges that women and girls face in obtaining feminine hygiene products in America. The bill would make menstrual hygiene products free for women in prison. It would allow states to use federal funds to supply pads to girls in school. And it would require that these products be covered by Medicaid. Activist, former inmate says there's no reliable access to feminine hygiene products in prison "When I first began talking about tampons and tax policy, testifying in front of mostly male colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee," Meng said at the announcement, "There were a lot of people who thought and told me that I shouldn't be talking about these types of things in public. As if because I am a woman, and I talk about menstruation, that I will be seen as someone who is not serious and who focuses on issues that are not important. But we all know here that this is a very serious issue. And it is very important." After all, when you stop and think about it, access to menstrual hygiene products is an essential, albeit often overlooked, component of women's rights. | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-period-poverty/ |
Why does my iPhone screen crack so easily and what should I do now? | CLOSE From his perch at Jet City Device Repair in Chicago, store manager Neal Dexter wants you to know something about broken phones: It's not you. There's a reason so many of us are cracking phone screens seemingly more than ever. They don't make them like they used to. As smartphones got bigger, yet thinner, they've become "super fragile and easy to break," he says. "The new ones are so delicate." For the record, Apple senior vice-president Phil Schiller, in introducing the latest iPhone models, the XS and XS Max in September 2018, said the phones had "the most durable glass ever in a smartphone." Apple declined to comment for this article. Mobile payments: Tap to pay is coming to NYC subways soon What's coming from Apple: Apple to host WWDC developers event with first peek at new iOS on June 3 A cracked iPhone XS Max (Photo: Jefferson Graham) The smartphone industry is grappling with stagnated growth, as consumers began to balk in 2017 and 2018 at the ever-increasing prices of phones, which now start in the $900 to $1,100 range for top of the line Apple and Samsung models. At the same time, Jet City, the uBreakiFix national chain and other stores are seeing a rush of iPhone 7s from customers, a phone that was first released in 2016. "It's super popular right now," for repairs, says Justin Wetherill, the CEO of uBreakiFix, as a phone people like, and are willing to spend $86 to get it fixed (compared to $149 from Apple) and extend its life. The big question for many consumers is where to go to fix their phones, Apple, via its Apple Stores, or local retail repair shops, from the kiosk at a shopping mall to the neighborhood strip mall. Owners of an iPhone XS Max, the latest model, don't have much of a choice. uBreakiFix and most independent stores won't repair it because of the wholesale cost of the glass. Apple charges $329 for repairs on the Max unless you have Apple Care, Apple's warranty program, which costs $200 for a two-year warranty, plus a $29 deductible to get the screen fixed. Shop owners we spoke to like Dexter say that paying insurance is throwing money down the drain. "It's not cost-effective to get Apple Care," says Rob Link, a Virginia-based blogger and former repair pro. "It's always cheaper to get the repair." Consumer Reports, in looking at the issue, was neutral. "if youre a fumblefingers or just prone to bad luck, AppleCare+ coverage is probably a better deal for you than it may be for others." Try some basic math, however. Apple Care for the iPhone 8, a model from 2017, costs $129, and a repair would cost $149 without the insurance or $29 with it, which comes to $178. The uBreakiFix stores charge $86 to repair the iPhone 8. Bigger, newer models are a different story. Apple charges $329 for the Max, $279 for the XS and X, and $199 for the XR. Consumers also can't just drop in to the store, leave their phones and come back when they're ready. They need to make an appointment in the Apple app and hope they're free when the "Genius" can see them. "I've cracked so many screens," says Chris MacAskill, who runs the Cake online forum in Mountain View, California. "If you're active, it's so easy to do. I just can't bring myself to make an appointment at the Apple store, fight the crowds, and have them tell me why my repair isn't covered under AppleCare and it will cost a fortune. Twice bitten..." What is not up for debate is that if people take a little more precaution, their phones will last longer and perhaps not crack as easily. "I tell every person before they walk out of here to get some form of screen protection," says Brian Caponi, who runs the CPR (Cell Phone Repair) shop in Highland Park, Illinois. "And a good, really strong case, not something flimsy with cute colors, but something that actually protects the phone." He likes the $50 tempered glass protector by ZAGG and cases by Otterbox or Speck. "You're spending $1,000 on these things," he says. "It pays to be careful." This much is a give: Manufacturers like Apple and Samsung will continue to beef up their phones with new features, but the one consumers care most about an indestructible screen isn't likely to be a reality. "They don't want to make that kind of phone," says Dexter. "Then people would stop upgrading. The more phones break, the more opportunities they have to sell new phones." That's a popular sentiment, but on an earnings call with investors in January, Apple CEO Tim Cook denied that Apple made phones that weren't built to last. "We do design our products to last as long as possible," he said. "Some people hold on to those for the life of the product, and some people trade them in, and then that phone is then redistributed to someone else. I'm convinced that making a great product that is high quality is the best thing for the customer and we work for the user, and so that's the way that we look at it." Follow USA TODAY's Jefferson Graham (@jeffersongraham) on Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2019/05/28/why-iphone-galaxy-smartphone-screens-break-so-easily/1227024001/ | https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2019/05/28/why-iphone-galaxy-smartphone-screens-break-so-easily/1227024001/ |
What Is Modern Monetary Theory? | Getty Policy and business circles these days buzz about something called modern monetary theory (MMT). Many claim it explains why budget deficits do not matter and why monetary ease, printing money, can cover the difference between spending and taxes and never produce inflation. It has allowed Bernie Sanders and other politicians on the progressive left to dismiss establishment concerns about Medicare for all or the Green New Deal or other proposals that would involve vast expansions of federal spending. Whatever politicians and some in the media claim for this theory, it does have rigorous foundations. These, as described by MMTs leading proponent, Prof. Stephanie Kelton, economic advisor to Bernie Sanders in his 2016 campaign and presently the focus of much media attention, show a more nuanced and less radical picture than many claim. Neither are the tenets of MMT new. On the contrary, Prof. Keltons work draws heavily on the theory carefully expounded over 90 years ago by the great economist John Maynard Keynes. Nor is MMT as left leaning, as some seem to think , though Prof. Kelton clearly has a political if not economic bias in favor of progressive causes. On the question of budget deficits, Prof. Kelton, like Keynes, most emphatically contends that they do matter. Debt, in and of itself, can do considerable harm. But also like Keynes, her MMT theory adds an important nuance. Not all deficits, she points out, are alike. If the deficit results from spending on things like infrastructure or education or, perhaps, research and development (R&D), it can foster an acceleration in economic growth that pays an ample return on the outlays and the debt incurred to finance these policies, enough return to ease the burden of debt. The deficits and debt will, however, cause harm if they result from unproductive spending. Because of this well-grounded and important distinction, Kelton has argued that the Congressional Budget Office would do more good if it focused less on accounting and more on weighing the economic benefits of policies. In this regard, she and MMT seem to support the very Republican push for what Washington refers to as dynamic accounting, an accounting of ultimate budget effects after assessing the economic response to policy. More generally, MMT also bears a strong similarity to Ronald Reagans supply-side economies. Reagan, of course, stressed tax cuts and tax reform, but as with MMT, his claim was that these policies would foster economic growth that would pay handsome returns on the debt incurred to finance the tax polices. Though these arguments fit well with much earlier thinking, they do stand in sharp contrast to the economic model commonly applied in Washington today and championed by Paul Krugman. He argues that federal budget deficits always cause harm. They increase the demand for borrowing and so cause interest rates to rise, crowding out private investment in the economy and so slowing growth regardless of the sorts of policies that caused them. In contrast, MMT argues, and Keynes would have argued, that such interest rate affects are weak tea, in Keltons, not Keynes words. More important are levels of optimism and pessimism. When business people are optimistic about the future, when their animal spirits, to use Keynes words, are high, they will borrow and expand regardless of higher rates. If, however, those spirits are low, it hardly matters how low interest rates fall. People will not invest. Kelton quotes Keynes on the matter. On monetary policy, Keltons MMT does claim that sometimes increasing the flow of money can support deficits without harm. But the theoretical position includes two provisos: first the deficits must support productive fiscal policy (spending in Keltons world but also perhaps tax relief) and second the economy must have the capacity to grow in response to the added demand created by the increased money flows. In this respect, MMT is not dissimilar to the old monetarist attitude propounded by Milton Friedman, which held that money growth creates inflation only when it outpaces the economys capacity for real growth. Up to this point, MMT grounds itself on much solid thinking about economics, stands on the shoulders of giants, to quote Isaac Newton on his discoveries in physics. But MMT becomes less substantial when Kelton, speaking for it, draws spurious distinctions between what economists call cost push and demand pull inflation. In this always dubious approach to the subject, the former sort of inflation occurs when costs rise and the latter sort occurs when demand outstrips the economys ability to produce. But the distinction dissipates once it become clear that without the demand, no one could push through a general rise in costs. Take her example of the great inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s. She says it was due to a rise in oil prices engineered by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This particular set of price increases only became generalized because the Federal Reserve (Fed), in an effort to blunt the real economic pain of a rise in fuel costs, increased money flows more rapidly than the economys ability to increase production. Perhaps the Fed had no choice. Had it held the line on money growth, the rising relative price of fuel would have slowed real growth by drawing more of what people had in spending power and sending it to OPEC. Whatever outcome was preferable, it was the general rise in demand that caused the inflation. All this theory, interesting as it is and useful to analysts and policy makers, matters little to politicians. They, as they always have, will use what elements of this or any other economic thinking support their agenda. They never feel a need for coherence or further justification. Kelton, who politically must have considerable sympathy with Bernie Sanders, all but admitted this in a recent interview. When asked how much she influenced him when she advised his 2016 campaign, she said that he pretty much had his agenda set before she joined. She just helped as she could. This story should warn that when politicians and their allies in the media refer to MMT or any economic view, they do little to offer a comprehensive understanding of its implications, and care even less about such things. | https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/05/28/what-is-modern-monetary-theory/ |
How Did Radiation Affect the 'Liquidators' of the Chernobyl Nuclear Meltdown? | The 1986 nuclear power plant explosion in Chernobyl hurled huge amounts of radioactive material into the air. In the minutes to years that followed, around 530,000 recovery operation workers, such as firefighters, called "liquidators," went in to put out the fires and clean up the toxic mess.These liquidators, who worked between 1987 and 1990, were exposed to high levels of radiation, on average around 120 millisievert (mSv), according to the World Health Organization. That's over a thousand times more powerful than a typical chest X-ray, which delivers 0.1 mSv of radiation. [5 Weird Things You Didn't Know About Chernobyl]It's like walking into a giant, powerful X-ray machine shooting radiation everywhere, said Dr. Lewis Nelson, chairman of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. Except, in this case, most of the radiation consisted of an even more damaging type of radiation than X-rays, called gamma-rays. This radiation, as it passes through the body, is ionizing.This means that it removes electrons from atoms in the body's molecules, breaking chemical bonds and damaging tissues. Very high levels of ionizing radiation cause "radiation sickness. "At Chernobyl, 134 liquidators quickly developed radiation sickness, and 28 of them died from it. These people were exposed to radiation levels as high as 8,000 to 16,000 mSv, or the equivalent of 80,000 to 160,000 chest X-rays, according to the World Health Organization.Radiation sickness mostly manifests in the gastrointestinal tract and the bone marrow, Nelson said. Those areas have rapidly dividing cells, which means that instead of being tightly coiled and a little more protected, the DNA is unraveled so that it can be copied. That makes it more susceptible to the radiation (this is also why radiation therapy works to target cancer cells, which also rapidly divide).Within a couple of hours of the exposure, people with radiation sickness develop symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting, Nelson said. When cells cannot properly divide, the mucosa or tissue lining of the GI tract also break downs, releasing cells and the bacteria that live in the gut (including in the stool) into the bloodstream.This would make even a healthy person sick, Nelson said. But because the radiation is also stopping the bone marrow from producing infection-fighting white blood cells, the body can't fight those infections. People who have radiation sickness therefore have a weakened immune system and frequently die of blood poisoning, or sepsis, within a couple of days, he said.High levels of radiation can also cause burns and blisters on the skin, which show up minutes to a few hours after the exposure and look just like a sunburn, Nelson said.While the GI-tract symptoms and burns happen almost immediately to a couple of hours after exposure to the radiation, the bone marrow survives for a couple of days. This means there is a latency period, when the person might even seem to improve, before showing symptoms of sepsis.The people who survived radiation sickness from Chernobyl took years to recover, and many of them developed cataracts because the radiation damaged the eye lenses, according to the World Health Organization. Lower exposuresBut much of the health focus around Chernobyl survivors has focused on the long-term consequences of the radiation exposure in these areas. The main consequence, for them, is an elevated risk of cancer. "But remember, the cancer risk is something you see 10 years down the road, so you have to live for 10 more years in order to see [that]," Nelson said. So the cancer risk is generally more of a concern for those who survived Chernobyl but were exposed to lower levels of radiation.The data on this risk is murky, with very approximate numbers, but it is estimated that 270,000 people in the Ukraine, Russia and Belarus who wouldn't have otherwise developed cancers did develop these illnesses. This mainly manifested as thyroid cancer, directly caused by radioactive particles of iodine-131 released by the explosion.The thyroid needs iodine in order to produce hormones that regulate our metabolism. But if it doesn't have enough of the healthy, nonradioactive iodine found in many foods, it absorbs the radioactive iodine, and this can eventually lead to thyroid cancer.This is why in the HBO series "Chernobyl," people take iodine pills; filling those stores of iodine in the thyroid prevents it from absorbing the radioactive iodine. These radioactive particles, which also include others such as cesium-137 enter the body through contact with the skin or through the mouth and nose. In Chernobyl, these particles were thrown into the air, carried by winds and later fell back down in surrounding areas, contaminated crops and water, and the people who ate them. * Images: Chernobyl, Frozen in Time * Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster 25 Years Later (Infographic) * 5 Everyday Things That Are RadioactiveOriginally published on Live Science. The 1986 nuclear power plant explosion in Chernobyl hurled huge amounts of radioactive material into the air. In the minutes to years that followed, around 530,000 recovery operation workers, such as firefighters, called "liquidators," went in to put out the fires and clean up the toxic mess. These liquidators, who worked between 1987 and 1990, were exposed to high levels of radiation, on average around 120 millisievert (mSv), according to the World Health Organization. That's over a thousand times more powerful than a typical chest X-ray, which delivers 0.1 mSv of radiation. And some of the very first responders were exposed to levels astronomically higher than that. [5 Weird Things You Didn't Know About Chernobyl] It's like walking into a giant, powerful X-ray machine shooting radiation everywhere, said Dr. Lewis Nelson, chairman of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. Except, in this case, most of the radiation consisted of an even more damaging type of radiation than X-rays, called gamma-rays. This radiation, as it passes through the body, is ionizing. This means that it removes electrons from atoms in the body's molecules, breaking chemical bonds and damaging tissues. Very high levels of ionizing radiation cause "radiation sickness." At Chernobyl, 134 liquidators quickly developed radiation sickness, and 28 of them died from it. These people were exposed to radiation levels as high as 8,000 to 16,000 mSv, or the equivalent of 80,000 to 160,000 chest X-rays, according to the World Health Organization. Radiation sickness mostly manifests in the gastrointestinal tract and the bone marrow, Nelson said. Those areas have rapidly dividing cells, which means that instead of being tightly coiled and a little more protected, the DNA is unraveled so that it can be copied. That makes it more susceptible to the radiation (this is also why radiation therapy works to target cancer cells, which also rapidly divide). Within a couple of hours of the exposure, people with radiation sickness develop symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting, Nelson said. When cells cannot properly divide, the mucosa or tissue lining of the GI tract also break downs, releasing cells and the bacteria that live in the gut (including in the stool) into the bloodstream. This would make even a healthy person sick, Nelson said. But because the radiation is also stopping the bone marrow from producing infection-fighting white blood cells, the body can't fight those infections. People who have radiation sickness therefore have a weakened immune system and frequently die of blood poisoning, or sepsis, within a couple of days, he said. High levels of radiation can also cause burns and blisters on the skin, which show up minutes to a few hours after the exposure and look just like a sunburn, Nelson said. While the GI-tract symptoms and burns happen almost immediately to a couple of hours after exposure to the radiation, the bone marrow survives for a couple of days. This means there is a latency period, when the person might even seem to improve, before showing symptoms of sepsis. The people who survived radiation sickness from Chernobyl took years to recover, and many of them developed cataracts because the radiation damaged the eye lenses, according to the World Health Organization. Lower exposures But much of the health focus around Chernobyl survivors has focused on the long-term consequences of the radiation exposure in these areas. The main consequence, for them, is an elevated risk of cancer. "But remember, the cancer risk is something you see 10 years down the road, so you have to live for 10 more years in order to see [that]," Nelson said. So the cancer risk is generally more of a concern for those who survived Chernobyl but were exposed to lower levels of radiation. The data on this risk is murky, with very approximate numbers, but it is estimated that 270,000 people in the Ukraine, Russia and Belarus who wouldn't have otherwise developed cancers did develop these illnesses. This mainly manifested as thyroid cancer, directly caused by radioactive particles of iodine-131 released by the explosion. The thyroid needs iodine in order to produce hormones that regulate our metabolism. But if it doesn't have enough of the healthy, nonradioactive iodine found in many foods, it absorbs the radioactive iodine, and this can eventually lead to thyroid cancer. | https://news.yahoo.com/did-radiation-affect-liquidators-chernobyl-132400578.html |
Is Stalin Making a Comeback in Russia? | The unveiling of the bust this month in Novosibirsk, which served as a transit point for millions of people sent to gulags or forcibly deported in the Stalin era, has broader echoes across Russia, where supposed grassroots movements to glorify Stalin almost always have the support of authorities. It is part of an effort by the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin to justify his own authoritarian ruling style, says Alexander Rudnitsky, the head of the local branch of Memorial, a human-rights organization. The tactic seems to be working: The statues unveiling came not long after a survey by the Levada Center, a reputable polling organization, reported that 70 percent of Russians had a positive appraisal of Stalins role in history. But if Novosibirsks example is any guide, Stalins political resurrection is more ambiguous than it is made out to be. Alexei Denisyuk, who lobbied for the statue of the Soviet dictator for more than a decade, was quick to claim a political victory. Dear comrades, the long battle to restore the good name of our leader has finally been successful, he told the small gathering at the unveiling. It took Denisyuk, the leader of a fringe group of radical communists called the All-Union Communist Party (not to be confused with the Communist Party), years of political maneuvering to get the Stalin bust on its six-and-a-half-foot pedestal. He first pitched the idea to city hall in 2008, but was turned down. Then, in 2014, Novosibirsks incumbent mayor lost to the Communist Partys Anatoly Lokot. Sensing his chance, Denisyuk resubmitted his proposal. Lokot, the new mayor, took up the role of arbiter, commissioning two polls: The first, in 2017, concluded that 60 percent of respondents said they didnt want or care about the statue; the second, last year, asked residents to write to city hall with their preference for where to place it. It was at this point that Andrei Pozdnyakov, whose great-grandfather was sent to a labor camp, took action. In a self-described act of desperation, he launched an online petition against the bust. I couldnt believe they were debating where to put Stalin, he told me. As thousands signed his protest petition, city hall made public its own findings. A cultural venue connected to the military was the most popular proposed site, it said, while hinting that the poll might have been rigged. Then, late last year, the Defense Ministry took the location out of the running, citing renovation plans and Stalins controversial role in history. A second proposed venue also pulled out. Read: Understanding Stalin Just as the plan for Stalins bust was about to end in failure, Lokot came up with a proposal: The Stalinists could have their statue, but it would stand on private property, in the courtyard of his partys headquarters, away from the bustling center. | https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/05/russia-stalin-statue/590140/?utm_source=feed |
Can Zion Williamson turn NFL-loving New Orleans into a basketball town? | NEW ORLEANS On May 14, the small night staff of WDSU, the NBC affiliate here, gathered around a TV to watch the NBA draft lottery. The Pelicans, coming off a tumultuous 33-49 season, were tied with two other franchises for the seventh-best odds of landing the No. 1 pick, just 6%. I said I would watch the lottery and go home, and well talk about pick No. 7 or No. 8 the next day, said Fletcher Mackel, WDSUs longtime Pelicans reporter, who had arrived at the office after another assignment. The Pelicans, of course, landed the first pick and the right to select Zion Williamson, the Duke superstar whose ability has led to comparisons to LeBron James. It was pandemonium in the newsroom, Mackel said. It was the most pleasantly surprising moment in franchise history. And it came at the perfect time. The Pelicans endured a year torpedoed by a trade request from superstar centerpiece Anthony Davis, front-office unsteadiness and rumors of a possible franchise relocation, with some suggesting that a city such as Seattle might be more deserving of an NBA team than small-market New Orleans. Then came the aftermath of lottery luck. The draft wont take place until June 20, but shortly after the Pelicans won the pick, media speculated whether Williamson might try to avoid playing for New Orleans by staying another year at Duke. Williamsons stepfather shot down the rumor, telling a Louisiana radio show that Williamson was excited to play in New Orleans and that a return to Duke is nothing that we have even considered. But the rumors very existence felt like confirmation of the Pelicans reputation a professional basketball franchise receiving minor league treatment in a city preoccupied with its NFL team, the Saints. Basketball has always been on the back burner here compared to football, Mackel said, pointing out that Saints fandom in New Orleans is multigenerational, while NBA basketball, which returned to the city in 2002 after the Jazz moved to Salt Lake City in 1979, is newer. For evidence of the power of Saints fandom, look no further than the citywide disgust with the infamous no-call late in the NFC championship game this year. Super Bowl viewership in the market dropped by more than 50%, giving New Orleans the lowest viewership of any U.S. market. The Pelicans, though, need people to care. The team ranked 25th in attendance of the 30 NBA teams this season, according to ESPN. Relocation rumors are always nearby, and the teams valuation ($1.2 billion, according to Forbes) could tempt owner Gayle Benson to sell her husband, Tom Benson, purchased the team in 2012 for just $338 million, and control was passed to her when he died in 2018. And theres the little-brother relationship with the Saints: In regard to Davis demand, native New Orleanian Mackel said that if it had been a Saints player who requested a trade, He wouldnt able to buy a beer in any bar around here it would be an unforgivable sin. With Davis, its the opposite: Some fans have grown ambivalent as to whether he stays to join forces with Williamson or leaves. Honestly at this point, I could take or leave AD, said Matt Hendrickson, a longtime Pelicans supporter. Mackel believes a Davis trade is inevitable. I would love to imagine a world where AD and Zion exist together, but I think AD and his camp have already decided, he said. Some have high hopes. Its fun to pay money to go watch a team win and believe they have a chance, said Win Butler, the lead singer of indie rock band Arcade Fire who is a Pelicans fan. And with Zion his ceiling is as high as it gets. And if he embraces the city, it could be big. Erion Williams, a native New Orleanian and the lead singer of brass band The Soul Rebels, said Williamsons arrival is going to be similar to when Anthony Davis arrived in town. The buzz will be there, and everybody will be hype to see the new version of the team. But there will be concerns. New Orleans couldnt build a championship team around Davis, another hypertalented athlete the team drafted No. 1, in 2012. Benson is trying. She recently hired David Griffin, the general manager of the title-winning 2016 Cleveland Cavaliers, to be vice president of basketball operations, with former player and Brooklyn Nets assistant GM Trajan Langdon as the new general manager. Related Articles Cavs owner Dan Gilbert suffers stroke, remains in hospital Finals-bound Raptors channel Kawhi Leonards focus as Warriors await Nuggets rookie Michael Porter Jr.s health, and what to expect when he makes his Summer League debut Kawhi Leonard scores 27, Raptors advance to first NBA Finals Kickin It with Kiz: How Nikola Jokic can surpass Alex English and Dan Issel as the greatest player in Nuggets history There are signs that Gayle is taking the Pelicans seriously and hiring good people, Butler said, recommending that ownership also find new ways to draw in fans, including bringing in brass bands such as The Soul Rebels and playing more authentic New Orleans music during games. Bring the actual swag of the city into the arena, he added. The Zion effect alone is powerful. Davis is a two-way force, but casual fans are enthralled by Williamsons electric dunks. His social media following reflects that excitement: While not a perfect metric, Williamson has about as many Instagram followers before playing a professional game as Davis has rounded up in seven years in the NBA. A stronger indicator of excitement for the Williamson era is that, after the lottery, the Pelicans said they sold 3,000 season tickets, double the amount sold just after the lottery in 2012. Mackel is starting to see the change. During a regular speaking engagement at a mens club this month, he was shocked that no one had a Saints question. The entire hour, he said, was Zion. | https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/28/zion-williamson-new-orleans-analysis/ |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.