President Joe Biden on Thursday expanded restrictions on American investments in certain Chinese companies with alleged ties to the country’s military and surveillance efforts, adding more firms to a growing blacklist.
In an executive order, Biden barred U.S. investors from financial interests in 59 Chinese companies over fears of their links to the Chinese government’s geopolitical ambitions, continuing some portions of the tough tact former President Donald Trump took in discussions with Beijing.
“This E.O. allows the United States to prohibit – in a targeted and scoped manner – U.S. investments in Chinese companies that undermine the security or democratic values of the United States and our allies,” the White House said in a press release.
The measure bars U.S. dollars from supporting the “Chinese defense sector, while also expanding the U.S. Government’s ability to address the threat of Chinese surveillance technology firms that contribute — both inside and outside China — to the surveillance of religious or ethnic minorities or otherwise facilitate repression and serious human rights abuses,” the administration added.
Among the 59 companies barred are Aero Engine Corp. of China, Aerosun Corp., Fujian Torch Electron Technology and Huawei Technologies.
The prohibitions take effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on Aug. 2.
The move is one of the most forceful to date against the top U.S. rival and another sign that the Biden administration may adopt or advance many of the tactics used by the Trump administration in its own effort to stay competitive with China.
Biden and his economic advisors must also determine what to do with a raft of tariffs, as well as whether to increase sanctions against Chinese officials involved in the mass detention of mainly Muslim ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region.
A representative for the Chinese Foreign Ministry challenged the move by the Biden administration, telling members of the press that the Trump administration’s original order was executed with “total disregard of facts.”
“The U.S. should respect the rule of law and the market, correct its mistakes, and stop actions that undermine the global financial market order and investors’ lawful rights and interests,” spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters in Beijing.
The Trump administration’s previous order created a list of 48 firms.
Nativos indígenas de Brasil tienen rastros de ADN de Oceanía, algo que genera nuevas preguntas sobre cómo y cuándo llegaron los primeros pobladores a América.
Dos estudios genéticos separados hallaron evidencias de un sorprendente vínculo genético entre las poblaciones nativas de las Américas y Oceanía.
El ADN de algunos nativos amazónicos muestra una semejanza significativa con los habitantes indígenas de Australia y Melanesia, el cinturón de islas que van desde el Pacífico occidental hasta Fiji.
Los dos grupos de investigación, sin embargo, hacen distintas interpretaciones de cómo fue poblada América.
Los estudios fueron publicados en las revistas Science y Nature.
Hay un consenso en que los primeros pobladores de las Américas llegaron a través de Siberia, por un puente de tierra que conectaba con Europa y Asia.
Pero no hay acuerdo sobre la procedencia de estos pobladores y en qué momento llegaron.
¿Pudo ser esta la ruta de los primeros americanos?
Al analizar el ADN de los nativos americanos modernos y de antiguos restos humanos, el grupo que escribe para Science concluye que todos los nativos americanos de la actualidad proceden de una migración única no más temprana a hace más de 23.000 años.
Entonces, alegan, hace unos 13.000 años los nativos americanos se dividieron en dos ramas: una que ahora está dispersa por América del Norte y del Sur, mientras que la otra se limita a América del Norte.
“Nuestro estudio muestra que el modelo más simple posible parece ser verdadero, con una sola y notoria excepción”, le dijo a la BBC el profesor Rasmus Nielsen de la Universidad de California, Berkley.
No hay acuerdo sobre la procedencia de los pobladores de América y en qué momento llegaron.
“Así que las ideas fantasiosas de que de alguna manera América fue poblada por personas procedentes de Europa y todo tipo de lugares son erróneas”.
El análisis también descarta la teoría, defendida por algunos, de una migración escalonada desde Siberia: la primera de hace más de 30.000 años que fue detenida durante 15.000 años por el hielo que bloqueaba la ruta y una segunda oleada una vez que el camino se despejó.
Pero, al igual que en el estudio de la revisa Nature, el equipo de Nielsen registró rastros de ancestros “australo-melanesios” en algunas poblaciones, incluidas aquellas de las islas Aleutianas (frente a Alaska) y la comunidad surui del Amazonas brasileño.
El profesor David Reich de la Escuela Médica de Harvard lideró el estudio de Nature.
Reich le explicó a la BBC que “ambos estudios muestran que ha habido múltiples flujos de migración hacia las Américas”.
Según Reich, el descubrimiento del linaje oceánicos entre algunos grupos nativos Americanos indica que América fue poblada por una serie de grupos más diversos de lo que anteriormente se creía.
El mapa del artículo de Nature resalta la similitud entre los indígenas amazónicos y los australasianos.
“El modelo más simple posible nunca predijo una afinidad entre los amazónicos y los australasianos”, señaló.
“Esto sugiere que hay una población ancestral que cruzó hacia América que es diferente de la población que dio lugar a la gran mayoría de americanos. Y esto es una gran sorpresa”.
Reich cree que la explicación más plausible es que hubo una migración separada desde Australasia (región que comprende Australia, Melanesia y Nueva Zelanda), posiblemente hace unos 15.000 años.
Este grupo, considera, probablemente se dispersó más por América del Norte pero gradualmente fue expulsado por otras comunidades nativas americanas.
Por su parte, Nielsen tiene una interpretación diferente pues opina que los rastros del ADN australasiano se derivan de una migración posterior, hace unos 8.000 años, que avanzó por la costa del Pacífico.
If you cannot view this on your mobile device. Click here.
California Governor Gavin Newsom provides an update on the COVID-19 response on June 30 at noon PT. He will discuss the state’s initiative to secure hotel and motel rooms to protect homeless individuals from COVID-19.
The latest: Kyiv’s residents emerged from bomb shelters Saturday morning after hours of a fierce Russian bombardment that was mirrored in cities across the country. Meanwhile, Western officials say they have intelligence thatRussia may be preparing to use chemical weapons against Ukraine.
Image caption
Ariadna Gutiérrez (izquierda) tuvo que sufrir el bochorno de que Pia Wurtzbach (derecha) le arrebatara la corona.
Lo más común en los concursos de belleza es que las que metan la pata sean las concursantes, no los encargados de anunciar a la ganadora, tal como ocurrió en la última edición de Miss Universo.
El presentador Steve Harvey se equivocó al proclamar a la vencedora y así, en cuestión de minutos, la colombiana Ariadna Gutiérrez recibió la corona, la perdió y tuvo que ver a Miss Filipinas, Pia Wurtzbach, robarle su sueño.
No es frecuente que en los certámenes de belleza se vean escenas así.
Image copyright AP
Image caption
Miss Filipinas se convirtió en la ganadora del certamen internacional.
Pero se podría decir que casi cada concurso de ese tipo deja frases para el recuerdo.
Son las respuestas de concursantes que tuvieron la ocasión de romper con el estereotipo de que las guapas no pueden ser inteligentes, y la desaprovecharon.
BBC Mundo ha recopilado algunas de las más sorprendentes.
Vivir la Segunda Guerra Mundial
Una de las últimas en dar la nota fue Alice Sabatini cuando en septiembre de este año la coronaron Miss Italia.
De hecho, esta licenciada en biotecnología sanitaria y jugadora de baloncesto de la segunda división italiana se volvió el hazmerreír en las redes sociales.
Y la culpa la tuvo una respuesta poco acertada.
“¿Qué época te habría gustado vivir?”, le preguntaron, para poner a prueba su nivel intelectual, cultural y comunicativo.
“Me habría gustado nacer en 1942 para vivir la Segunda Guerra Mundial”, contestó.
Image copyright Getty
Image caption
Alice Sabatini se imaginaba quizá como esta británica de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Inconsciente de la reacción que estaba generando, añadió: “En los libros hay páginas y páginas. Pero yo hubiera querido vivirla de verdad. Al fin y al cabo, soy mujer. No hubiera tenido que hacer el servicio militar”.
Cuestión de gustos
Dos meses antes y al otro lado del Atlántico, Giovana Salazar Quintanilla dejó caer otra perla que saltó a los titulares.
Era Miss La Paz y candidata a Miss Bolivia 2015.
Y la pregunta que le correspondió a fue: “¿Qué le dirías a la gente que critica y que no está de acuerdo con los certámenes de belleza?”.
“Los certámenes de belleza están hechos para personas a las que les gustan los certámenes de belleza. Por ejemplo, a mí me gusta el fútbol y no el básquet”, contestó rápido.
Pero no a todo el mundo le convenció su lógica aplastante.
Y los chistes no se hicieron esperar en las redes sociales.
Image copyright Twitter
Tampoco pudo hacerse con la corona.
“El que inventó la confusión”
Quizá la de Giosue Cozzarelli en el reality panameño Realmente bella tendría que coronar cualquier ranking de respuestas poco acertadas.
Era 2009, y a la oriunda de Chiriquí le tocó explicar el siguiente proverbio del pensador chino Confucio: “Leer sin meditar es una ocupación inútil”.
“Confucio fue uno de los que inventó la confusión”, se le ocurrió decir a la belleza morena.
Image copyright Getty
Image caption
Este hombre quema incienso en el templo de Confucio, un pensador chino del que Giosue Cozzarelli nunca oyó hablar.
“Fue uno de los chinos japoneses que fue de lo más antiguo”, añadió antes de despedirse con una sonrisa y un “gracias”.
Sin corona, pero con premio
Caitlin Upton tenía apenas 18 años cuando en 2007 participó en Miss Teen USA o Miss EE.UU. Adolescente.
Ya había pasado por un proceso similar antes, cuando fue coronada Miss Carolina del Sur, su estado natal.
Pero en el certamen nacional no le fue tan bien, a pesar de que se convertiría en la concursante más famosa.
Image copyright Getty
Image caption
A pesar de no ganar el concurso, Caitlin Upton logró cierta fama.
Todo se debió a la respuesta que le dio a la presentadora Aimee Teegarden cuando ésta le preguntó: “Según una encuesta reciente, una quinta parte de los estadounidenses no pueden ubicar a Estados Unidos en un mapa del mundo. ¿A qué crees que se debe?”.
“Personalmente creo que los estadounidenses no son capaces de hacerlo porque… la gente de nuestro país no tiene mapas”, comenzó.
“Creo que nuestra educación, como la de Sudáfrica y el Irak (sic) y otros lugares así…”, siguió divagando.
“Creo que (…) deberían ayudar a Sudáfrica y deberían ayudar a Irak y a los países asiáticos. Así seríamos capaces de construir nuestro futuro”, dijo, zanjando así el asunto.
De acuerdo a Youtube, los videos que recogen este momento se han visto más de 78 millones de veces.
Además, no faltaron las parodias.
El Libro de Citas de Yale de 2007 incluyó la frase de la joven entre sus páginas.
Upton no pudo coronarse como Miss Teen USA, pero sí ganó el Premio Internacional a la Estupidez, un concurso fundado en 2003 por el cineasta estadounidense Albert Nerenberg.
El Papa, para preservar la especie
Carolina Zúñiga, una periodista y modelo, competía en 2001 por la corona de Miss Chile.
Tras desfilar con trajes varios, una de las presentadoras del concurso le planteó la siguiente situación: “Anuncian la destrucción del mundo y tú debes escoger un hombre y una mujer para preservar la especie”.
“¿A quién elegirías?”, le preguntó después.
Zúñiga se decantó por uno de los personajes más mencionados en este tipo de concursos, junto a la madre Teresa de Calcula: el papa Juan Pablo II.
Image copyright AFP
Image caption
Juan Pablo II y la madre Teresa de Calcuta son quizá los personajes más mencionados en los concursos de belleza.
Y lo eligióporque era “un ser magnífico”, explicó.
También fue un hombre que en su día hizo el voto de castidad.
Sinceridad e ingenio
Sin embargo, también hubo misses que salieron del paso con respuestas cuanto menos ingeniosas.
Es el caso de Valeria Sierra, una reina de la belleza colombiana que se presentó al certámen Señorita Atlántico 2008.
Cuando le preguntaron qué suponía para ella ser elegida la más bella de su país, respondió con una sinceridad desarmante.
Image copyright Getty
Image caption
Hay candidatas que supieron salir más airosas.
“Esta oportunidad nos adelanta cinco años. No tengo que terminar la carrera para encontrar trabajo”.
Una candidata a Miss Honduras 2009 tampoco se complicó mucho cuando los jueces quisieron saber con qué personaje de la historia de su país se identificaba.
“Muy buenas noches. Mi nombre es Tatiana Mejía y represento a Tegucigalpa muy orgullosamente”, se presentó primero.
“Me identifico con mi madre porque ella tiene carácter y sabe actuar cuando hay problemas”.
Esa sería quizá la respuesta que daría su madre en una situación así, al oler el peligro de convertirse en el hazmerreír del país.
Amazon is turning part of its Seattle headquarters into a public cooling center as the Pacific Northwest grapples with a record-breaking heat wave.
The air-conditioned cooling center is set up at the Amazon Meeting Center, which is part of the company’s South Lake Union campus in downtown Seattle. The site has room for up to 1,000 individuals, according to the city of Seattle’s website. Many homes in the area lack air conditioning, as Seattle’s climate is usually temperate.
The meeting center is a stone’s throw from the Amazon Spheres, or the glass orbs that anchor its downtown Seattle campus. Amazon previously converted the meeting center into a pop-up clinic to administer Covid-19 vaccines earlier this year.
Unprecedented heat waves are sweeping the Pacific Northwest, pushing daytime temperatures into the triple digits and causing power outages in some parts of the region. Temperatures in Seattle ticked above 100 degrees on Monday, marking the first time on record the city has had three consecutive triple-digit days, according to the National Weather Service.
Prior to this week, the city only had three days in the last 126 years where the temperature hit 100, according to an National Weather Service spokesperson quoted by Scientific American. Scientists say that climate change is making such extreme high temperatures more common.
Even with the intense heat, Amazon warehouses in Kent, Washington, remained open, The Seattle Times reported on Sunday. One facility in the Kent warehouse complex ran “power hours” in some departments, where workers were asked to move as quickly as possible for an hour, in order to juice productivity, the Times reported, citing workers at the facility. Amazon spokesperson Maria Boschetti denied that the company ran power hours at that facility.
Elsewhere, Portland on Sunday saw temperatures reach a record high of 112 degrees, just one day after hitting a high temperature of 108 degrees. The National Weather Service expects that temperatures in Portland could climb as high as 114 degrees on Monday, breaking the heat record for the third consecutive day.
While special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report about his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election stops short of accusing President Donald Trump of crimes, the president is obviously not happy with the picture it paints of him as someone who repeatedly tried to obstruct an investigation of his campaign, only to be thwarted by his own aides refusing to carry out legally dubious orders.
So on Thursday morning, Trump tried to refute on Twitter one of the report’s most damaging revelations — that he tried to get then-White House counsel Don McGahn to order Mueller’s firing via Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein just a month after Mueller was appointed. (McGahn refused.) But in the process, Trump gave House Democrats yet another reason to bring McGahn in for a congressional hearing.
Over the course of two tweets, Trump pushed back on McGahn’s testimony to Mueller that Trump asked him to get the Department of Justice to fire Mueller, and worked in a gratuitous shot at the media in the process.
“As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so,” Trump wrote. “If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself. Nevertheless, […] Mueller was NOT fired and was respectfully allowed to finish his work on what I, and many others, say was an illegal investigation (there was no crime), headed by a Trump hater who was highly conflicted, and a group of 18 VERY ANGRY Democrats. DRAIN THE SWAMP!”
As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself. Nevertheless,….
….Mueller was NOT fired and was respectfully allowed to finish his work on what I, and many others, say was an illegal investigation (there was no crime), headed by a Trump hater who was highly conflicted, and a group of 18 VERY ANGRY Democrats. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Trump’s claim that “the Fake News Media” has “incorrectly reported” what the Mueller report says about his dealings with McGahn is false — Mueller’s report actually confirms a report from the New York Times about this. Trump is in fact disputing the conclusions of a government document based on an interview with a lawyer who worked for him.
McGahn told Mueller that in June 2017 — one month after Mueller’s appointment — the president reacted to reports that Mueller was investigating him for obstruction of justice by calling him at home and “direct[ing] him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflict of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.”
In January 2018, the New York Times reported that Trump ordered McGahn to have the Justice Department fire Mueller the previous June. According to what McGahn told Mueller, Trump reacted to the report by asking McGahn to fabricate evidence that could be used to refute it.
“The President then directed [then-White House official Rob] Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel,” the report says. “McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true.”
During a subsequent White House meeting with McGahn, Trump disputed the Times’ reporting on semantic grounds. From the Mueller report:
The President asked McGahn, “Did I say the word ‘fire’?” McGahn responded, “What you said is, ‘Call Rod [Rosenstein], tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can’t be the Special Counsel.’ The President responded, “I never said that.” The President said he merely wanted to McGahn to raise the conflicts issue with Rosenstein and leave it to him to decide what to do. McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard, “Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go.” The President asked McGahn whether he would “do a correction,” and McGahn said no. McGahn thought the President was testing his mettle to see how committed McGahn was to what happened. [Then-White House chief of staff John] Kelly described the meeting as “a little tense.”
So it’s basically Trump’s word versus McGahn’s. But another part of McGahn’s testimony about his meeting with Trump speaks to why McGahn has more credibility, Trump’s propensity for lying aside:
The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel’s Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege. The President then asked, “What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.” McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a “real lawyer” and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. The President said, “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.”
Much as he did during his January 2018 meeting with McGahn, Trump could defend the tweets he posted on Thursday on semantic grounds. After all, McGahn testified that Trump asked him to order the Justice Department to fire Mueller, not that Trump asked him directly “to fire Robert Mueller,” as Trump wrote. In short, read carefully, Trump’s tweets aren’t necessarily inconsistent with the Mueller report, even if the impression they create is at odds with what McGahn told Mueller.
Democrats are trying to get to the bottom of it. The White House is trying to prevent them from doing so.
Trump’s tweets about McGahn give House Democrats yet another reason to bring the former White House counsel in for a hearing in hopes of getting to the bottom of the president’s attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. The House Judiciary Committee has already subpoenaed McGahn to testify next month and turn over documents.
There’s just one problem — as my colleague Dylan Scott detailed on Wednesday, the White House has signaled it will fight subpoenas issued by House Democrats that try to compel former aides like McGahn to testify. Trump himself told reporters on Thursday that “we’re fighting all the subpoenas.”
The extent of the Trump administration’s uncooperativeness with subpoenas is unprecedented, and it’s unclear how the battle will play out in court. But what is clear is that Trump is concerned with how McGahn portrayed him, and is trying to push back.
On Monday, the New York Times’s Michael Schmidt reported that Trump believes his political future actually depends on discrediting the account of his conduct McGahn gave to Mueller.
“Trump has privately complained about the accounts, particularly the ones given by Mr. McGahn, and has said the only way to protect himself from impeachment is to attack Mr. Mueller and Mr. McGahn,” according to the Times.
Había llegado serena y de buen humor, la candidata a diputada Elisa “Lilita” Carrió al estudio de Los Leuco en TN, el martes a la noche. Propensa a que le pregunten de todo sobre el caso de la desaparición de Santiago Maldonado y lo que, hasta ahí sin confirmación, podía ser la aparición del cuerpo del joven artesano desaparecido. Incluso en el aire se mostró muy interesada en las explicaciones del periodista especialista en criminología, Ignacio González Prieto. Se convirtió en su entrevistadora por largos minutos.
Su participación contrastaba con la mesura de Horacio Rodríguez Larreta. Una “Lilita” auténtica que, fiel a su estilo, consiguió hacer varios picos por encima de los seis puntos, superando desde el canal de cable a muchas de las señales de aire.
Pero no todo iba a ser armonía: una vez terminada la entrevista, Carrió y los suyos salieron al pasillo de TN y, cuando esperaban el ascensor, “Lilita” enfureció.
Uno de sus colaboradores le dijo que en la red social Twitter, mucha gente estaba hablando de su furcio, cuando Diego Leuco explicaba que la baja temperatura del agua del Río Chubut, favorecía la conservación del cuerpo. Y la candidata acotaba: “Como Walt Disney”.
En el pasillo de TN, Carrió empezó a tomar temperatura. “Yo no le hablo a los periodistas que escriben por Twitter. Le hablo a la gente”, le levantó la voz. Y el volumen fue en aumento: “Vos no me vas a decir lo que yo tengo o no tengo que decir. Hay un pibe muerto. Y yo hablo con el corazón”, argumentaba.
Sus colaboradores intentaban que se serenara, le palmeaban la espalda y le pedían calma. No los escuchaba: “Mirá si no voy a decir nada. A mi me dijeron de todo: me dijeron loca, inútil. Hasta me dijeron puta”, gritaba, incontenible, Carrió.
La furia de “Lilita” tuvo un puñado de espectadores de lujo, a los que ella nunca llegó a divisar. A pocos metros había algunos asesores de campaña de Sergio Massa, que la candidata de Cambiemos no conoce. Pero más cerca aún, detrás del ascensor que Carrió esperaba, como testigo involuntario, estaba el mismísimo candidato del Frente Renovador.
Desde la oscuridad de un pasillo y sin que Carrió pudiese verlo, Massa escuchó entretenido los tres minutos de ira de Carrió. Sólo cuando “Lilita” tomó el ascensor, salió de su lugar. “¿Qué le pasa?”, le preguntó sorprendido a los suyos mientras ingresaba al estudio de Los Leuco.
“Fue sólo una discusión doméstica”, explicaron desde su entorno. Una forma de descargar tensión luego de más de una hora de aire hablando de uno de los temas más sensibles para el Gobierno al que, en honor a la verdad, Carrió fue una de las pocas que le puso el pecho de arranque, mientras la mayoría hacía silencio.
The State Department said on Sunday it does not have the “reliable means” to confirm a claim made earlier by a Republican lawmaker that flights out of Afghanistan carrying some U.S. citizens were being prevented from taking off by the Taliban because it has no information on the ground about charter flights following the U.S. military withdrawal from the country.
McCaul said the Taliban is “holding them hostage for demands right now” without going into detail about what the Taliban was seeking. The Texas Republican said the flights had been cleared by the State Department.
When reached for comment and any other information on McCaul’s claims, a State Department spokesperson told The Hill that because it does not have personnel on the ground, air assets in the country or have any control of the airspace over Afghanistan or elsewhere in the region, they do not have “reliable means” to confirm details of any charter flights.
“Given these constraints, we also do not have a reliable means to confirm the basic details of charter flights, including who may be organizing them, the number of U.S. citizens and other priority groups on-board, the accuracy of the rest of the manifest, and where they plan to land, among many other issues,” the spokesperson told The Hill.
“We understand the concern that many people are feeling as they try to facilitate further charter and other passage out of Afghanistan,” the spokesperson added.
The spokesperson said the department would still “hold the Taliban to its pledge to let people freely depart Afghanistan.”
“As with all Taliban commitments, we are focused on deeds not words, but we remind the Taliban that the entire international community is focused on whether they live up to their commitments,” the spokesperson added.
The U.S. completed its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan on Tuesday, ending America’s longest war after 20 years of military involvement.
A number of U.S. citizens, however, still remain in the country.
Es habitual que en el caso especialmente de los equipos grandes se hable por defecto más de su capacidad de creación y realización que de su habilidad para conservar impoluta su propia portería. El caso del FC Barcelona no es una excepción. Las asistencias de Messi, los goles de Neymar, la aportación ofensiva de Rakitic, el descaro de Sandro y Munir… son elementos que suelen acaparar los comentarios, pero no tienen menos importancia en el resultado final que la solidez defensiva de un conjunto que suma ya cinco partidos oficiales consecutivos (todos los que se han jugado) sin encajar un solo gol.
Con 12 goles a favor y ninguno en contra en cuatro partidos de Liga y uno de Champions, el FC Barcelona consigue de momento tranquilizar a un entorno muy preocupado en los últimos tiempos tanto por la falta de centrales como por la marcha de Víctor Valdés, quien dejó un listón altísimo en la meta azulgrana. Era la gran asignatura que debían aprobar los encargados de diseñar el nuevo Barça y por ahora lo han logrado con nota.
Lo noticia atrás está precisamente en que no hay noticias de momento respecto a Claudio Bravo. Desde aquella desafortunada jugada con la que se presentó en Nápoles como azulgrana en encuentro amistoso, el meta chileno apenas ha tenido que intervenir en acción alguna. Ante el Levante, la más peligrosa de los valencianos fue solventada por Rakitic.
Bravo suma ya cuatro encuentros ligueros (360 minutos) sin recoger la pelota de dentro de su propia portería. Elche, Villarreal, Athletic y Levante han sido incapaces de marcarle un tanto. El secreto no está solo en el portero, sino en un trabajo defensivo general que impide que el rival cree ocasiones.
A los números de Bravo hay que sumar los de Ter Stegen, quien tampoco recibió ‘diana’ alguna en el único encuentro de que ha disputado, el de Champions ante el APOEL. Es más, el alemán incluso se lució con una parada final en el los últimos instantes que evitó el empate. La imbatibilidad es siempre símbolo de trabajo bien hecho.
“We expect that classrooms, and sometimes schools, will be transitioned to remote learning, as we identify and manage the positive cases among staff and students. But we are confident that we can manage those decisions in an agile and responsive way,” CPS said in its statement.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Cheered on by President Joe Biden, House Democrats hustled Wednesday to pass the most ambitious effort in decades to overhaul policing nationwide, able to avoid clashing with moderates in their own party who are wary of reigniting a debate they say hurt them during last fall’s election.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act was approved 220-212 late Wednesday.
The sweeping legislation, which was first approved last summer but stalled in the Senate, was named in honor of Floyd, whose killing by police in Minnesota last Memorial Day sparked protests nationwide. The bill would ban chokeholds and “qualified immunity” for law enforcement and create national standards for policing in a bid to bolster accountability.
“My city is not an outlier, but rather an example of the inequalities our country has struggled with for centuries,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who represents the Minneapolis area near where Floyd died. She asked her colleagues if they would “have the moral courage to pursue justice and secure meaningful change?”
Democrats say they were determined to pass the bill a second time, to combat police brutality and institutional racism after the deaths of Floyd, Breonna Taylor and other Black Americans following interactions with law enforcement — images of which were sometimes jarringly captured on video. Those killings drew a national and international outcry.
Floyd’s family watched the emotional debate from a nearby House office building.
But the debate over legislation has turned into a political liability for Democrats as Republicans seized on calls by some activists and progressives to “defund the police” to argue that Democrats were intent on slashing police force budgets. This bill doesn’t do that.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said it was a reason the party, after talking confidently of growing its majority in November, instead saw it shrink to just 10 seats, 221-211.
“We played too much defense on ‘defund the police,’” Perez said.
Moderate Democrats said the charge helped drive Democratic defeats in swing districts around the country.
“No one ran on ‘defund the police,’ but all you have to do is make that a political weapon,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, a moderate Texas Democrat who has pushed for more police funding in places like his city of Laredo, where the law enforcement presence is especially concentrated given the close proximity to the Mexican border.
While Democrats used their then-larger majority to pass the police reform measure in the House last summer, it stalled in the then-Republican-controlled Senate, where GOP senators pushed an alternate plan that Democrats blocked from consideration, calling it inadequate. Democrats now control both chambers of Congress, but it seems unlikely the bill could pass the Senate without substantial changes to win GOP support.
The bill had been set for a vote Thursday, but House leaders abruptly changed the schedule to wrap up their week’s work after U.S. Capitol Police warned of threats of violence at the Capitol two months after the Jan. 6 siege.
Senior Democratic congressional aides said Wednesday they were eager to get the bill to the Senate, where negotiations will take longer.
Republicans quickly revived the “defund the police” criticisms. “Our law enforcement officers need more funding not less,” Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., said during Wednesday’s debate.
Despite the political attacks by Republicans, even the House’s more centrist lawmakers, some representing more conservative districts, backed the bill.
“Black Americans have endured generations of systemic racism and discrimination for too long, and this has been painfully evident in their treatment by law enforcement,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash, who chairs the moderate New Democrat Coalition.
That endorsement came despite the bill’s prohibitions on so-called qualified immunity, which shields law enforcement from certain lawsuits and is one of the main provisions that will likely need to be negotiated in any compromise with the Senate.
Police unions and other law enforcement groups have argued that, without such legal protections, fear of lawsuits will stop people from becoming police officers — even though the measure permits such suits only against law enforcement agencies, rather than all public employees.
California Rep. Karen Bass, who authored the bill, understands the challenge some House members face in supporting it.
“My colleagues, several of them, I do not make light of the difficulty they had getting reelected because of the lie around defunding the police,” Bass said.
She called provisions limiting qualified immunity and easing standards for prosecution “the only measures that hold police accountable — that will actually decrease the number of times we have to see people killed on videotape.”
Bass said she would not make concessions before the bill cleared the House. Changes would only serve to weaken it while failing to shield Democrats from the false “defund the police” narrative surrounding it, she said.
“Even if they were to vote against the bill, even if they were to have a press conference denouncing the bill, they are still going to be hit with the same lie,” Bass said of Democrats.
She also acknowledged the challenges Democrats faced last November — and may likely see again — when former President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign and other leading Republicans crowded the airwaves with images of cities around the country burning. But Bass said those attacks, like much of the opposition to the bill, are built on racism, promoting fears about how “the scary Black people are going to attack you if you try to rein in the police.”
“That’s as old as apple pie in our history,” she said. “So do you not act because of that?”
Still, she conceded that changes are likely to come if the measure is to win the minimum 60 votes it will need to advance in the Senate, which is now split 50-50. Bass said she’d been in contact with South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the only Black Republican in the chamber, and was confident he would help deliver some GOP support.
Scott said this week that the legislation’s sticking points were qualified immunity and prosecutorial standards and that in both areas, “We have to protect individual officers.”
“That’s a red line for me,” Scott said, adding, “Hopefully we’ll come up with something that actually works.”
That could prove a tall order, despite the White House’s vocal support for police reform. Biden has promised to combat systemic racism and signed executive orders he says will begin doing that, though advocates are expecting the new administration to go further.
Biden has tweeted that he hopes “to be able to sign into law a landmark police reform bill.”
São Paulo – The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released a study this Friday (11th) warning that Arab countries undergoing political transitions and those which have completed said processes are faced with the challenge of balancing their economies over the long haul, so as to meet the demands from their populations which have triggered demonstrations and conflicts. These demands, according to the study “Toward New Horizons Arab Economic Transformation Amid Political Transitions,” include more participation in political decision-making and a business environment conducive to job creation.
The study assess the economic conditions of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen, which had changes in government during the Arab Spring, and Jordan and Morocco, which have “have engaged in transformation under existing regimes.” In all of the countries surveyed, for instance, spending on transfers, wages and subsidies increased during the political transition years, from 2010 to 2013. On the other hand, fiscal balance has deteriorated.
Although the economic scenario of the countries assessed is delicate, the document notes that inflation, barring Yemen and Egypt, is below the average for emerging countries. There is room for raising the tax burden on natural persons, which is lower than in developing countries, except in Morocco.
One of the main short-term economic solutions set forth by the Fund is the adoption of measures that enable jobs to be created. “Experience from other countries suggests that well-designed infrastructure projects can create jobs and lay a better foundation private sector activity,” according to the study.
In the medium term, the countries at hand need to manage their fiscal deficits and increases in spending to prevent their debts from becoming unsustainable. The main recommendation t all countries is to gradually transition from government investment to private investment, because private companies, according to the document, are the ones capable of creating jobs and fuelling the economy.
The IMF says the countries in transition are capable of growing and increasing their populations’ access to quality jobs and services. It remarks, however, that several measures are needed, including reducing poverty, reforming the energy sector, adopting communication strategies to publicize the actions taken to the population and the business community, their costs and benefits, increasing spending on social assistance, and separating price and inflation policy from politics.
“Unless strong economic and fi nancial reforms are implemented, a gradual economic
recovery will not be enough to bring a meaningful reduction in the region’s high rates of
unemployment in coming years, particularly among women and youth.” Said the IMF director for the Middle East and North Africa, Masood Ahmed, according to the document.
(CNN Español) – El virtual candidato republicano Donald Trump sigue dando que hablar, mientras la violencia continúa en Siria.
Para iniciar este viernes bien informado, estas son las noticias más destacadas que tenemos para ti:
1 – Entrevista CNN en Español: Fox vuelve a arremeter contra Trump. En una entrevista con CNN en Español, el expresidente mexicano Vicente Fox volvió a criticar duramente al virtual candidato republicano. “Va a morir políticamente por bocón”, dijo Fox.
2 – Ryan dice que no está listo para apoyar a Trump… y este no tarda en contestar: A Trump tampoco le van muy bien las cosas con miembros de su partido: el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, Paul Ryan, se convirtió en el miembro del Partido Republicano de más alto perfil en rechazar respaldar al magnate (al menos por el momento)… y la respuesta de este tampoco se hizo esperar.
3 – Una historia de solidaridad: La comunidad de refugiados sirios en Calgary, Canadá, se está organizando para ayudar a los residentes de Fort McMurray, en Alberta, que han perdido sus casas debido a un enorme incendio forestal. “La gente canadiense nos han ayudado mucho. Es nuestro turno”, dijeron.
4 – Siria: ataque aéreo sobre un campamento de refugiados. Al menos 28 personas, entre ellas muchas mujeres y niños, murieron en un ataque aéreo sobre un campamento en el norte de Siria.
5 – Crimen de honor: Una adolescente en Pakistán fue quemada viva en un llamado crimen de honor ordenado por un consejo tribal por presuntamente ayudar a una pareja a fugarse.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States and Russia are squaring off at the U.N. Security Council over Ukraine, with Washington calling Moscow’s actions a threat to international peace and security, while a Kremlin envoy ridiculed Monday’s meeting as a “PR stunt.”
Diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Russia have so far failed to ease tensions in the crisis, in which Russia has massed an estimated 100,000 troops near Ukraine’s borders, stoking fears in the West of an invasion.
Russia denies it intends to launch an attack but demanded that NATO promise never to allow Ukraine to join the alliance, halt the deployment of NATO weapons near Russian borders, and roll back its forces from Eastern Europe. NATO and the U.S. call those demands impossible.
U.S. President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a phone call Thursday that there is a “distinct possibility” Russia could begin an incursion in February, but the Ukrainian leader sought to play down the war fears, saying Western alarm over an imminent invasion has prompted many investors in the country’s financial markets to cash out.
Zelenskyy said Friday that “we aren’t seeing any escalation bigger than before,” and charged that the Russian buildup could be an attempt by Moscow to exert “psychological pressure” and sow panic.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will visit Ukraine on Tuesday for talks with Zelenskyy, and will speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin later Monday, to urge him to “step back,” Johnson’s office said. Johnson says he is considering sending hundreds of British troops to NATO countries in the Baltic region as a show of strength.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday that “hysteria promoted by Washington triggers hysteria in Ukraine, where people are almost starting to pack their bags for the front line.”
While Russia could try to block the Security Council meeting if it gets the support of nine of the 15 members, the U.S. was confident it had “more than sufficient support” to hold it, according to a senior official in the Biden administration who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly.
Any formal action by the Security Council is extremely unlikely, given Russia’s veto power and its ties with others on the council, including China.
U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Russia’s actions pose “a clear threat to international peace and security and the U.N. Charter.”
Speaking Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Thomas-Greenfield said: ”We’re going into the room prepared to listen to them, but we’re not going to be distracted by their propaganda.”
She said last week that council members “must squarely examine the facts and consider what is at stake for Ukraine, for Russia, for Europe, and for the core obligations and principles of the international order should Russia further invade Ukraine.”
Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador Dmitry Polyansky tweeted that he hoped other Security Council members “will not support this clear PR stunt.”
Assuming the meeting goes ahead, the council will first hear a briefing by a senior U.N. official followed by statements from its 15 members including Russia, the United States and European members France, Ireland, United Kingdom and Albania. Under council rules, Ukraine will also speak.
China’s U.N. Ambassador Zhang Jun indicated Beijing supports Moscow in opposing a council meeting.
“Both sides have shown willingness to continue their negotiations,” he told several reporters on Friday. “Let them settle the differences through dialogue, through negotiations.”
“Russia has said clearly they have no intention to have a war” and the Security Council should “help to deescalate the situation instead of adding fuel to the fire,” Zhang said.
Geraldine Byrne Nason, the U.N. ambassador to Ireland, which is serving a two-year term on the council, said her country wants to see calm prevail.
“We want to see de-escalation, diplomacy and dialogue,” she added.
On Sunday, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, said that in the event of an attack, lawmakers want Russia to face “the mother of all sanctions.” That includes actions against Russian banks that could severely undermine the Russian economy and increased lethal aid to Ukraine’s military.
The sanctions under consideration would apparently be significantly stronger than those imposed after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Those penalties have been seen as ineffective.
Menendez also raised the prospect of imposing some punishments preemptively, before any invasion.
___
Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow and Jill Lawless in London contributed.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
