“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0
Updated 8:55 AM ET, Tue February 5, 2019
Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.
(CNN)When President Donald Trump delivers his second official State of the Union address he’ll be speaking to a very different audience. Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the newly elevated House speaker, will be behind him; a new Democratic majority, the most diverse Congress in history, will be before him.
Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/sotu-photo-comparison-2017-2019/index.html
A police officer in Kansas is in critical condition after being shot multiple times while attempting to provide a welfare check.
The incident occurred at approximately 10:15 p.m. on Saturday night in Wichita, Kansas, when two officers were attempting to do a welfare check on a woman inside a home, according to Wichita Police Captain Wendell Nicholson who gave a brief statement to the press.
“When two Wichita police officers arrived on scene, they began to take fire from a suspect that was inside the residence,” said Nicholson. “One officer was shot multiple times. He’s been taken to an area hospital. He is in critical condition.”
As other officers arrived, they continued to take fire from the suspect inside the home until they were able to neutralize the threat by shooting the suspect, according to Nicholson. No other officers were shot in the incident.
Even though the unidentified suspect was treated for his wounds at the crime scene, he ultimately died from his injuries he suffered in the shootout with police.
Nicholson said there are multiple people who witnessed the incident and they are all being interviewed about what happened.
“The KBI (Kansas Bureau of Investigation) and FBI have been notified so they can assist us in this officer involved shooting,” said Nicholson.
The circumstances around the incident and what led up to it is currently under investigation and anybody with information pertaining to this crime is urged to contact the Wichita Police Department.
Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-critical-condition-shot-multiple-times-conducting-welfare/story?id=78384810
On Friday, Venezuelan forces shot at protesters along Venezuela’s border with Brazil escalating the growing conflict between embattled and illegitimate president Nicholas Maduro and U.S. backed, self-declared interim president Juan Guaido. That violence, which left two dead and at least 14 wounded, signals that there will be no easy resolution to the crisis in Venezuela.
The violence comes ahead of a Saturday deadline, called for by Guaido and supported by the Trump administration, for U.S. aid to enter the country.
With the goal of forcing regime change, the U.S. has sent millions of dollars wroth of food, medicine, and other necessities to the border. By attempting to force aid across the border, the U.S. hopes to destabilize Maduro’s grip on power, undercutting his control of supplies and facing the military to abandon support for his regime.
But if Friday’s violence is any indicator of events to come, the military is more likely to fire on anyone attempting to break through the barricaded border than to turn their weapons on their colleagues and Maduro.
For Venezuela, that means that Saturday’s looming showdown is not likely to trigger a peaceful transition of power or redirect the country away from its current trajectory of precipitous decline.
Instead, forcing a conflict over aid entering the country that is likely to result in more violence will only make it that much more difficult to incentivize the military to switch sides. That makes sense, once you’ve shot at and killed civilians, in addition to blocking food from reaching starving people, they’re far less likely to offer amnesty. That reality combined with Trump’s threat this week that should the military remain loyal to Maduro they’ll “lose everything,” means that the military is likely more entrenched in their support.
For Venezuela, where the key to power lies in securing the backing of the military, that means that the conflict over the country’s future is likely to worsen, potentially setting the stage for a long-term standoff that continues to deprive the country’s already suffering population of desperately needed supplies.
As the U.S. weighs further involvement and the possibility of using Saturday’s likely conflict as an excuse to throw more support behind Guaido, Washington must recognize that the violence already unfolding at the border makes a limited engagement and a quick resolution unlikely if not impossible.
Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/what-fridays-border-violence-means-for-venezuela
Tiene relato. Genera intriga. Exhibe autoridad. Y busca el voto de los pobres.
En NOTICIAS de esta semana:
El peligroso plan de Macri para SER PERÓN
Qué tiene en la cabeza el Presidente. Su estrategia de poder con vistas a octubre y al 2019. Y “el ABC de la maldad”. Su obsesión por subordinar los sindicatos y cooptar una parte del peronismo. El voto pobre, los fantasmas de la economía y el riesgo del exitismo despectivo.
Además:
Melisa Engstfeld: la última cita a solas del fiscal Nisman.
Supertech Argentinas, un negocio de 14 mil millones de dólares.
EXCLUSIVO
Con esta edición, el N° 1 de la colección CLÁSICOS PARA PENSAR.
“El príncipe”, de Maquiavelo.
(Compra opcional en Capital y GBA)
Revista NOTICIAS
Entender cambia la vida
Source Article from http://noticias.perfil.com/2017/08/25/el-peligroso-plan-de-macri-para-ser-peron/
As evidence that Mr. Biden’s vision of more government support for working-class Americans was misguided, Mr. Scott cited his own remarkable story — how he was “disillusioned and angry” and nearly failed out of school after his parents divorced and his single mother toiled to support him and his brother.
“The beauty of the American dream is that families get to define it for themselves,” Mr. Scott said. “We should be expanding opportunities and options for all families, not throwing money at certain issues because Democrats think they know best.”
As he concluded his address, Mr. Scott, who is deeply religious, drew on themes of redemption and grace.
“Our best future will not come from Washington schemes or socialist dreams; it will come from the American people — Black, Hispanic, white, Asian, Republicans and Democrats,” he said. “Brave police officers and Black neighborhoods. We are not adversaries. We are all in this together.”
But much of his speech focused on accusing Mr. Biden and congressional Democrats of “pulling us further and further apart,” and centered on a theme that Republicans believe will help them reclaim majorities in the House and Senate in 2022: portraying Mr. Biden as beholden to his party’s left flank.
While last week Republicans introduced their own, drastically slimmed down answer to Mr. Biden’s sprawling physical infrastructure package — offering a $568 billion counterproposal that Democrats dismissed as inadequate — they have not offered an education and child care bill, and are not expected to offer a comprehensive alternative to the president’s latest proposals.
Instead, as they awaited his speech on Wednesday afternoon, some Republicans took to the Senate floor to preemptively denounce Mr. Biden’s approach. They painted the president’s two-pronged infrastructure plan — one to bolster the nation’s roads and bridges and another to expand access to education and child care, carrying a total price of just over $4 trillion — as unnecessary, expensive and intrusive government overreach.
Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/tim-scott-biden.html
A man whose mother was a 9/11 victim ripped Rep. Ilhan Omar for describing the terror attacks as “some people did something” during the annual anniversary ceremony at Ground Zero on Wednesday.
Nicholas Haros Jr., wearing a black T-shirt with the words “Some people did something?,” singled out the congresswoman and the other members of “the Squad” after reading the names of the dead, including that of his mother, Frances Haros, at the ceremony.
“’Some people did something,’ said a freshman congresswoman from Minnesota,” said Haros in reference to Omar.
Amid some applause, Haros continued, “Today I am here to respond to you exactly who did what to whom.”
“Madam, objectively speaking, we know who and what was done. There is no uncertainty about that. Why your confusion?” Haros asked. “On that day, 19 Islamic terrorist members of al Qaeda killed over 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars of economic damage. Is that clear?”
“But as to whom,” Haros continued, “I was attacked, your relatives and friends were attacked, our constitutional freedoms were attacked and our nation’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked.”
“That’s what some people did,” Haros railed. “Got that now?”
He went on: “We are here today, Congresswoman, to tell you and the Squad just who did what to whom. Show respect in honoring them, please. American patriotism and your position demand it.”
Haros’ mother died in the 9/11 terror attacks at the age of 76.
“Mom, we always miss you and love you very much,” he said, before slamming Omar.
Last year, during the 9/11 ceremony, Haros also targeted politicians, pleading that the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks stop being used “as props.”
“Stop. Stop. Please stop using the bones and ashes of our loved ones as props for your political theater,” Haros said at the time. “Their lives, sacrifices and death are worth so much more. Let’s not trivialize them or us. It hurts.”
“This year, a representative of the House referred to our loss as just another incident,” Haros said. “This year, a network commentator said the president’s performance in Helsinki was a traitorous act as was 9/11 … And last week, a senator attacked a Supreme Court nominee and called him a racist for alleged comments after 9/11.”
Source Article from https://nypost.com/2019/09/11/9-11-victims-son-blasts-omar-at-ground-zero-memorial-service/
In a sign of a potentially widening, interparty schism, top lawmakers in the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Tuesday said they remain steadfastly committed to the priorities they outlined in April to tackle issues including paid leave, climate change, housing, health care reform and immigration. The leader of the bloc, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), said they would rather authorize those programs for fewer years rather than remove some fully from the final bill to save money.
Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/12/pelosi-biden-democrats-spending/
Anton Troianovski contributed reporting.
The Daily is made by Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillemette, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Kaitlin Roberts, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Anita Badejo, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Chelsea Daniel, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens and Rowan Niemisto.
Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Cliff Levy, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Sofia Milan, Desiree Ibekwe, Erica Futterman, Wendy Dorr, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli and Maddy Masiello.
Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/podcasts/the-daily/putin-speech-ukraine-invasion.html
Biarritz, France — Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made a surprise visit to the city hosting the Group of Seven summit Sunday, a move that caught President Trump off-guard and added another element of tension to the meeting of world economic leaders.
Zarif’s arrival in Biarritz appeared to be a covert initiative by French President Emmanuel Macron, a senior European official said, and other leaders were not informed ahead of time. There was no immediate plan for the Iranian foreign minister to meet anyone other than French officials, officials said.
President Trump, whose antics have often left other world leaders searching for words, had little to say when asked about the unexpected guest.
“No comment,” Trump told reporters.
Zarif came to Biarritz on the invitation of his French counterpart, Jean-Yves Le Drian, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi wrote on Twitter. The aim of the visit was to “continue discussions about recent initiatives between the presidents of Iran and France,” Mousavi said. He said there would be no meetings or negotiations with the U.S. delegation during the trip.
Zarif’s only confirmed meeting in Biarritz was with Le Drian, a French diplomat said, speaking under ground rules of anonymity.
White House officials have complained for weeks that Macron was trying to forcefully broker talks between the Trump administration and Iran, which the U.S. president has branded a “number one terrorist nation.”
Trump pulled the United States from a landmark nuclear deal between Iran and world powers in May 2018. The deal, negotiated by the Obama administration, restricted Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for the easing of sanctions.
French officials have said Trump’s “maximum pressure” approach against Iran is doomed to fail. They have sought to persuade the White House to change course and accept a new deal with the Iranians.
Trump’s pressure campaign has involved a mix of sanctions and public threats aimed at crippling Iran’s economy — and, recently, new sanctions and travel restrictions on Zarif.
[Iran announces it will stop complying with parts of landmark nuclear deal]
The foreign minister’s presence in Biarritz — at the invitation of the French president during a summit of world leaders who know Zarif well — was a reminder of how isolated the Trump administration has become in its approach to Iran.
Even as Iranian forces have stepped up their aggression by seizing several tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, European leaders have sought to maintain the 2015 nuclear deal without the United States. Zarif’s visit to the G-7 site appeared to be an unconventional gambit aimed at breaking the logjam.
Previous discussions on Iran during the summit have shown little progress, as leaders could not agree publicly about even the terms of their talks.
Trump claimed Sunday to have not discussed a joint approach to Iran. French officials insisted an agreement had been reached among leaders Saturday night.
“I haven’t discussed that,” Trump said. “We will do our own outreach, but I can’t stop people from talking. If they want to talk, they can talk.”
Administration officials have criticized the French for talking to Iran.
When leaders discussed Iran over dinner on Saturday, they agreed broadly that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that they should work to de-escalate the ongoing crisis, according to officials who were briefed on the closed-door talks.
Macron pushed Trump to allow Iran to export a limited amount of oil — a nonstarter with the White House.
Zarif’s sudden arrival in Biarritz took at least some of the other delegations by surprise, even those aligned with France in its commitment to preserve the nuclear deal, according to a senior European official.
The official said it was not immediately clear why Zarif had been invited. The official called it “a flashy move.”
Because the Iranian diplomat was parachuting into an already packed weekend, it was unclear what his presence would accomplish, unless it was a French effort to jump-start U.S.-Iran talks by putting Trump and Zarif in the same small city.
But even if a meeting with Trump were to take place, the official was skeptical that anything would come of it. Trump would need to offer some carrots to encourage Iran to come back into compliance with the deal. He has shown little inclination to do so, the official said.
Also, since Europe’s strength on the Iran deal has been its unity, the official said, the unilateral move to call in Zarif may prove counterproductive.
Zarif was in Paris on Friday for discussions with Macron and other French officials. He had been scheduled to travel in Asia this weekend, according to his Twitter account. It was unclear how long he planned to stay in the French resort town.
His arrival in Biarritz appeared to take the State Department by surprise, as well. A spokeswoman, noting the agency’s absence from the summit, referred questions to the White House.
Trump is traveling in Biarritz with national security adviser John Bolton, one of the administration’s fiercest critics of Iran.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has complained that Zarif has used media appearances to spread Iranian “propaganda” against the United States.
Zarif criticized the Trump administration after it pulled out of the nuclear deal, and again after the administration announced sanctions against him last month.
“The US’ reason for designating me is that I am Iran’s ‘primary spokesperson around the world’,” he tweeted. “Is the truth really that painful? It has no effect on me or my family, as I have no property or interests outside of Iran. Thank you for considering me such a huge threat to your agenda.”
Zarif has been meeting with other world leaders, including Macron, about the nuclear issue. He has tweeted pictures of himself shaking hands with top officials and sought to contrast his embrace of diplomacy with the Trump administration’s unilateral pressure campaign.
“Despite US efforts to destroy diplomacy, met with French President @EmmanuelMacron and @JY_LeDriane in Paris today,” the Iranian foreign minister tweeted Friday. “Interviewed with Euronews, AFP, & France24. Multilateralism must be preserved. Next stops Beijing, Tokyo & KL after a day in Tehran.”
He did not mention that he would be stopping in Biarritz.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated that Trump might be willing to meet with Zarif.
“The president has said before that to the extent that Iran wants to sit down and negotiate we would not set preconditions to those negotiations,” he told reporters in France on Sunday.
He declined to comment further.
Josh Dawsey and Damian Paletta in Biarritz and Carol Morello in Washington contributed to this report.
Read more:
Allies in the Persian Gulf pushed the U.S. to confront Iran. Now they’re not sure what they want.
Iran is seeking to extend its religious sway in Iraq as it competes with the U.S. for clout
Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irans-javad-zarif-makes-surprise-trip-to-g-7-catching-trump-off-guard/2019/08/25/e339df7c-c742-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html
Robert Mueller testifies before Congress in 2013. A redacted version of Mueller’s report as special counsel was released on Thursday.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Robert Mueller testifies before Congress in 2013. A redacted version of Mueller’s report as special counsel was released on Thursday.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
The latest book-length tell-all on life inside President Trump’s White House has appeared, and it’s just as unsparing about dysfunction and deception as all those earlier versions by journalists, gossip mavens and former staffers. Maybe more so.
The difference is that the president likes this one.
Or at least he says he likes it. And it’s probably not because of the catchy title (Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election), or any previous works by the author, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
More likely it’s the ending of the story that the president likes, or what he takes to be the ending.
“GAME OVER,” declared the president’s review on Twitter. Now that would be a catchy title — for the movie the president might like to make.
But it actually isn’t the way the Mueller report ends.
It’s not even the way it ends in the very first review anyone wrote of this 448-page publication. That was, of course, the four-page review penned in March by Attorney General William Barr. That review did say the book ended with the president not being indicted. But we’d already had a spoiler alert on that because it’s the viewpoint of the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Not much of a surprise there.
As for charges of obstruction of justice, well, we got the word on that one early too. Because Barr had already authored a 19-page explanation for why a president could not be charged with obstruction of justice – suggesting pointedly that Mueller should not even be thinking about it.
That was way back in 2018, when Barr was a private citizen but felt free, as a former attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, to share his strong views with the current management at Justice.
Few authors get to pick who will provide the exclusive first review of their work, and Mueller didn’t either. That choice was made by the principal character in the story, the president himself.
Trump got to choose who would get the first crack at interpreting this soon-to-be-best-seller when he chose William Barr to be his new attorney general.
That choice might have been made soon after Trump fired his first attorney general, former senator Jeff Sessions. It might have been made even sooner, possibly after hearing about Barr’s 19-page memo. Suffice it to say there have been few cabinet-level appointments in this administration that worked out better for the president.
Of course, many others are reading Mueller’s work, and their reviews have taken a less legalistic look than Barr did. They tend to dwell on such events as the president telling the White House counsel to have Mueller fired in June 2017, shortly after Mueller began compiling his epic. Or the president telling that counsel to deny the order was ever given. Or the president telling an aide to tell Sessions to get rid of Mueller.
None of these orders was carried out, as Mueller observes, and that disobedience may now constitute Trump’s best defense against a charge of obstructing justice. That, and the Justice Department view that a sitting president cannot be so charged in the first place.
Interest in the report, and especially in portions redacted by Barr and underlying documents and other evidence not yet seen, has not decreased – despite the president’s attempts to give away the ending.
Among those clamoring for a chance to review it are several relevant committees from Congress. The House Judiciary Committee is bound to get special attention, as that is where hearings would be held on a resolution of impeachment.
The I-word has been in the air on Capitol Hill since the Mueller probe began, largely because obstruction of justice was a crucial part of the charges the last two times Congress got serious about taking down a president.
The most recent one of these involved President Bill Clinton’s 1998 grand jury testimony about his affair with a White House intern. Before that, it was President Richard Nixon’s efforts to cover up White House involvement in a burglary at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee.
The latter case stretched over 1972-1974, and the man who was White House counsel at the critical time was one John Dean. Still alive and on CNN Thursday, Dean said “the endeavor of obstruction” could be a crime even if the obstructive orders to subordinates were disobeyed. That is a theory of the case other reviewers may pursue.
An irony in all of this is that the president himself has been so astringent in commenting on earlier books about his White House. These have included Bob Woodward’s best-selling Fear, peek-a-boo looks inside by Cliff Sims (Team of Vipers), Omarosa Manigault (Unhinged) and Michael Wolff (Fire and Fury) — as well as sober memoirs by former FBI heads James Comey and Andrew McCabe.
The chaotic atmosphere described in all these books was based on eyewitness accounts, but Trump denounced them all as “fiction.” Now we see much the same depiction in Mueller’s pages and hear much less objection. In fact, it’s amazing how many journalistic stories derided as “fake news” over the past few years now re-appear in Mueller’s recounting — only this time as documented evidence.
That is the difference it makes when an author can supplement his research with subpoena power, warrants and the threat of perjury prosecution.
It may not make the end product an ideal movie script, or a page-turner in the aisles at your bookstore. But Mueller’s contribution to the literature of this period in history will have an expanding readership in the immediate future as well.
Stay tuned for the sequel.
Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/04/20/715258810/the-tell-all-book-that-could-trump-them-all-the-mueller-report
Cruz Blanca, la EPS a la que estaba afiliado el pequeño de 9 años, indaga lo que pasó en la Clínica Policarpa.
Luis Miguel Gonzalez Yate ingresó con su padre a urgencias, con un dolor en el pecho. Según el progenitor, su hijo, luego de que le realizaran un procedimiento, escupió sangre.
“Yo les dije: ‘qué pasó con el niño, qué me le están haciendo’ No, es que tocó entubarlo. No me pidieron autorización, no me dijeron vamos a hacerle esto al niño”, sostiene John Fredy González, el papá.
La madre del menor pidió investigar lo sucedido. “Que hagan justicia porque lo que hicieron con mi hijo lo pueden hacer con otros niños”, dice Yina Yate.
Source Article from http://noticias.caracoltv.com/bogota/investigan-muerte-de-nino-tras-cuestionado-procedimiento-medico-en-bogota
Según el Art. 60 de la Ley Orgánica de Comunicación, los contenidos se identifican y clasifican en:
(I), informativos; (O), de opinión; (F), formativos/educativos/culturales; (E), entretenimiento; y (D), deportivos.
Source Article from http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2016/12/13/nota/5952844/asamblea-ecuador-aprueba-feriados-navidad-ano-nuevo
Twenty-one people, including two of China’s top marathon athletes, died after freezing rain and high winds struck a 62-mile mountain race in northwestern China, local officials said on Sunday.
Liang Jing, 31, an ultramarathon champion, and Huang Guanjun, the winner of the men’s marathon for hearing-impaired runners at China’s 2019 National Paralympic Games, were among those found dead, according to state news media.
The deaths prompted outrage in China, with online commentators questioning the preparedness of the local government that organized the race, held at Yellow River Stone Forest Park in Gansu Province.
Hours into the event on Saturday, the weather suddenly deteriorated as the runners were climbing 6,500 feet above sea level to the 12-mile mark, according to Zhang Xuchen, the mayor of the nearby city of Baiyin, who fired the starting pistol. Runners dressed in shorts and T-shirts were suddenly facing freezing conditions, and rain turned to hail. Some passed out from the cold.
Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/23/world/asia/china-ultramarathon-deaths.html
‘);eIFD.close();
var s = eIFD.createElement(‘SCRIPT’); s.src = ‘http://’ + (eS2?eS2:eS1) +’/layers/epl-41.js’;
eIFD.body.appendChild(s);
if (!eS2) {
var ss = eIFD.createElement(‘SCRIPT’);
ss.src = ‘http://ads.us.e-planning.net/egc/4/10043’;
eIFD.body.appendChild(ss);
}
eplLL = true;
return false;
}
}
eplCheckStart();
function eplSetAdM(eID,custF) {
if (eplCheckStart()) {
if (custF) { document.epl.setCustomAdShow(eID,eplArgs.custom[eID]); }
document.epl.showSpace(eID);
} else {
var efu = ‘eplSetAdM(“‘+eID+'”, ‘+ (custF?’true’:’false’) +’);’;
setTimeout(efu, 250);
}
}
function eplAD4M(eID,custF) {
document.write(‘
‘);
if (custF) {
if (!eplArgs.custom) { eplArgs.custom = {}; }
eplArgs.custom[eID] = custF;
}
eplSetAdM(eID, custF?true:false);
}
function eplSetAd(eID) {
if (eplCheckStart()) {
var opts = (eplArgs.sOpts && eplArgs.sOpts[eID]) ? eplArgs.sOpts[eID] : {};
if (opts.custF) { document.epl.setCustomAdShow(eID,opts.custF); }
document.epl.setSpace(eID, opts);
} else {
setTimeout(‘eplSetAd(“‘+eID+'”);’, 250);
}
}
function eplAD4(eID, opts) {
document.write(‘
‘);
if (!opts) opts = {t:1};
if (!eplArgs.sOpts) { eplArgs.sOpts = {}; }
eplArgs.sOpts[eID] = opts;
eplSetAd(eID);
}
//–>
–>
<