Most Viewed Videos

August 28 at 6:17 PM

VIEQUES, Puerto Rico — Hurricane Dorian appeared to spare Puerto Rico on Wednesday, weaving an erratic path that sideswiped the archipelago and pounded the U.S. Virgin Islands with rain, but didn’t ravage the U.S. territories that are still recovering from Hurricane Maria’s destruction from 2017.

The Category 1 storm, which was headed out into the Atlantic Ocean late Wednesday, was on its way to becoming the first major hurricane to threaten the East Coast of the United States this season, with forecasters predicting a direct hit on Florida, perhaps on Labor Day, when the storm is expected to have reached Category 3 status.

Puerto Rico dodged a worst-case-scenario direct hit after growing from a tropical storm earlier in the day, but some residents lost power amid winds that topped 75 mph, and some areas flooded as intense rainfall pelted thousands of homes that still don’t have adequate roofing to keep families and properties dry.

“This is not Maria,” said Gov. Wanda Vázquez Garced at an afternoon news conference in San Juan as she updated residents on the shifting track of a storm that has defied prediction.

The threat of a major storm this week served as a catalyst for a faster, more efficient rollout of emergency preparedness plans and resources by a local government wary of repeating the mistakes of the past — and hoping to win back the public trust lost in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. Hundreds of power utility worker brigades were staged ahead of time in strategic locations. Massive amounts of supplies were stocked and ready. Scores of public schools became shelters full of cots and food.

But vulnerabilities persist in the U.S. territory, where memories of death and destruction remain raw and where promised federal funds aimed at mitigating catastrophe still have not arrived. Local communities have now established their own protocols for protecting themselves — and each other — in the wake of feeling abandoned by Puerto Rico and federal officials during Maria.

When Dorian’s projected path unexpectedly swerved northward late Tuesday, Puerto Rico’s eastern islands of Culebra and Vieques fell squarely in the cone of uncertainty, triggering fears that the struggling communities would once again be cut off from the big island, where resources are concentrated.

Mark Martin Bras, operations captain for the local nonprofit ViequesLove, said community members on the small island just off the big island’s east coast created a communication network using 32 radios to keep everyone informed of storm conditions in real time. With donations and support from nonprofit organizations on the U.S. mainland, they bought the technology and trained volunteers, connecting them to other residents, church leaders, emergency responders and businesses.

As Dorian swirled nearer, volunteers were activated. They learned the local shelter was without a working generator and pulled together resources to bring a new source of power to those who sought refuge.

“These are private citizens working to make sure we feel more protected than we were during Maria,” Martin Bras said. “We dodged a bullet but we are not where we need to be in Vieques. The local state government still hasn’t answered questions about water, power and transportation that are critical to being prepared for the next one.”

Pastor Urayoan Silva of the local Fe Que Transforma congregation has for years been serving the local Vieques community, where the cost of living is higher and maritime transportation to the main island is unreliable. His church established a food bank and supplies clothes to families in the center of the island. But after Hurricanes Maria and Irma, Silva realized the group needed to enhance its operation to help protect people from the next storm.

The church took over an abandoned school and, with help from outside donors and the community, rebuilt it into a recovery center and supply warehouse powered by solar energy. Every barrio now has a leader with a radio to stay connected and access to a water filtration system should the electric system that supplies power to local water pumps fail.

“If a hurricane comes, I have instant access to information to know how my community is doing,” Silva said.

On the main island of Puerto Rico, Dorian turned into a rain event, allowing island officials to breathe a sigh of relief. They told residents they would remain alert, but the power grid appeared to withstand Dorian’s gusts and remained largely operational throughout Wednesday. Officials said that schools and government offices will be open Thursday.

“We have to be cautious and not let our guard down,” said FEMA’s federal coordinating officer, Nick Russo, who monitored the slowing storm through the night amid concerns the hurricane was intensifying as it heads toward Florida. FEMA officials said they are watching and waiting to see if they can start demobilizing in Puerto Rico and shift teams to the Sunshine State.

Before and during the storm’s trek through the Caribbean, President Trump took to Twitter to criticize Puerto Rico as “one of the most corrupt places on earth,” encouraging locals to thank FEMA “unlike last time” and taunting San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz.

“Congress approved Billions of Dollars last time, more than anyplace else has ever gotten …” the president said. “And by the way, I’m the best thing that’s ever happened to Puerto Rico!”

Trump’s comments were met with little attention from the governor’s mansion, where Vázquez Garced has been communicating with administration officials in recent weeks. But Cruz responded by telling CNN that the president has a “vanity complex” and is attempting to distract the public from his administration’s diversion of FEMA funding toward border security.

“This is not about him,” Cruz wrote on Twitter. “This is not about politics. This is about saving lives.”

Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner, Rep. Jenniffer González-Colón, who has a voice but no vote in Congress, responded to the president’s comments, saying hurricanes obviously are not the island’s fault.

“This is a moment for everyone to stand up and help our fellow Americans suffering from a natural disaster,” said González-Colón, who is a Republican and is expected to run for governor of Puerto Rico in 2020 as the candidate for the island’s statehood party. “Thank you for quickly dispatching personnel and declaring a state of emergency in Puerto Rico.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Wednesday declared a state of emergency for more than two dozen counties due to “the threat posed by Hurricane Dorian.” Jared Moskowitz, director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, said in a statement that every resident along the state’s east coast — from Miami to Jacksonville — should be prepared and monitor forecasts because “the track of this storm has been changing and can continue to change rapidly.”

Back in Puerto Rico, municipalities in the southeast and northeast such as Toa Baja, Canóvanas and Naguabo are still susceptible to dangerous flooding from bloated lakes and rivers. Many of those communities were targeted for federally funded resiliency projects to build and reinforce levees and systems that would help mitigate the worst effects of the flooding on roads and neighborhoods, said Deepak Lamba-Nieves, lead researcher with the San Juan-based think tank Center for a New Economy.

Congress imposed new restrictions and requirements on some disaster aid funding earlier this summer after two top-ranking members of the previous Puerto Rican administration were charged in a public corruption investigation involving federal funds. That, coupled with other delays in the disbursement of the bulk of $42 billion in appropriated aid, has stalled Puerto Rico’s reconstruction.

The local government, whose finances are managed by a federally appointed fiscal oversight board, does not have the resources to tackle such projects on its own in many cases, experts say. The oversight board authorized $260 million in aggregate funds from a reserve account for Puerto Rico’s emergency-related expenses late Wednesday.

“These communities are in dire situations, and the government has done little to solve their structural and geographically based problems,” Lamba-Nieves said. “The combination of flood zones and poverty in these places is a recipe for future disaster.”

With more than two months left in the Atlantic hurricane season, Puerto Rico could still face another emergency.

Dorian was a “great dry run,” said longtime Vieques resident and community leader Paul Lutton. “Hopefully we will learn things from it that will make us better prepared for a big one.”

Gordon is a freelance journalist based in Vieques, and Jackson is a freelance journalist based in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Hernández reported from Washington.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/28/near-miss-puerto-rico-dorian-strengthens-into-hurricane/

El coordinador de la misión de observadores de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (Unasur), Alexander Vega, advierte violencia política si los dos candidatos presidenciales finalistas no llaman a su militancia a aceptar los resultados electorales. Lamenta que antes que el diálogo haya escalonado la violencia y ultrajes entre ambos aspirantes a Carondelet.

¿Cuál es su visión sobre el proceso de segunda vuelta?
Desde el punto de vista técnico serán las mismas tecnologías que aplicó el CNE el pasado 19 de febrero; lo preocupante es el tema del diálogo y, sobre todo, el lenguaje que utilizan ambas campañas.

¿Qué le preocupa a Unasur?
El conflicto, lo que pueda llegar a armarse; que la democracia resulte sacrificada y a nivel mundial el Ecuador afecte su imagen.

¿Cuál es el peor escenario?
Primero se espera que ambos candidatos acepten los resultados; si no se acepta quien crearía la inestabilidad podría generar el resquebrajamiento de la democracia y obviamente la violencia política. Por eso, hay que hacer un llamado para que ambos candidatos hablen a sus militantes para que eviten esas confrontaciones y se haga un discurso pacífico.

¿Qué papel ha jugado la autoridad electoral en este caso para evitar esta confrontación?
Cualquier órgano electoral del mundo tiene que ser de árbitro imparcial, en este caso, los que se encargan de ser árbitros en Ecuador deben dar esas garantías para que la gente vote libremente. En ese orden de ideas, lo que estamos viendo es que hay confrontaciones de campaña que están afectando la democracia.

¿Han observado si el CNE ha realizado el suficiente control para evitar el uso de recursos públicos en la campaña electoral?
Nosotros hemos recibido quejas por parte de la oposición de que se han utilizado bienes del Estado a favor de un candidato; y ese actuar lo rechaza no solo la misión de Unasur, sino cualquier sistema democrático. En Ecuador, deben ser los órganos de control como Fiscalía y Contraloría los encargados de vigilar que esos dineros y recursos del Estado no se apliquen en campañas electorales.

El CNE anunció que habrá fiscales de flagrancia para el proceso del domingo.
Creo que no debería haber anuncios, es obligación de la Fiscalía. En el Código Penal hay un capítulo de delitos electorales y debe ser la Fiscalía la que garantice eso, independientemente de que lo haya anunciado el CNE…

Esta activación de los fiscales de flagrancia no ocurrió el 19 de febrero.
Es cierto eso, creo que ahí faltó y debió aplicarse en la primera vuelta; y reitero que eso no es un tema que se tenga que activar, eso debe funcionar constantemente…

La presencia de fiscales debe ser tomada como garantía de que el sistema democrático va a estar salvaguardado; pues a quien va a afectar que un fiscal esté ahí es al que quiera cometer un delito.

¿Ustedes han podido detectar quiénes han promovido esta escalada de violencia y campaña sucia?
Acá no hay que sindicar si es uno u otro, creo que ambas campañas han escalonado el diálogo a un tema de violencia y de ultrajes. Yo creo que si hay un responsable es la falta de manejo y control de las mismas campañas sobre sus militantes. (I)

Source Article from http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2017/04/01/nota/6118439/unasur-teme-que-haya-violencia-politica-tras-conocerse-resultados

A whistleblower who had worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, spending a total of 18 years in the White House, told Congress that the White House had overridden professional concerns about granting 25 different individuals clearances. The immediate response from the Trump White House was “WITCH HUNT.”

This is wildly inappropriate. When Republicans controlled the House, both Reps. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in their role as chairmen of the House Oversight Committee, initiated investigations into security clearances. And President Trump’s former hand-picked chief of staff, John Kelly, and White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, found the process of granting clearances so disturbing that they both made a point of documenting their objections.

Never mind that some of Trump’s associates have been indicted for shady and illegal dealings with foreign governments and that this topic should be especially sensitive.

In spite of those concerns, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wasted no time lashing out at the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and his decision to start the process of issuing subpoenas. Notably, his criticism framed the request for documents as an “excuse to go fishing through the personal files of dedicated public servants.”

In light of seemingly meritorious concerns about national security and the refusal of the White House to cooperate, such accusations would bar any scrutiny whatsoever for national security’s sake. Although this might yield satisfying results in the short term — goading a self-righteous opponent almost always does — there could be real consequences. We elected lawmakers of both parties on the expectation that they would show genuine concern for and provide us with a basic level of national security. To make this into a partisan issue is to make the country less safe.

National security and the security clearances that enable civil servants to do their work must be a bipartisan concern, even if that means pushing back against the clearances obtained by the beloved daughter of the president, her husband, and other officials.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/security-clearances-should-not-be-a-partisan-issue

France is reacting with anger after being left out of an agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia to give Australia nuclear-powered submarines. 

In a statement issued by French Minister Of Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-yves Le Drian and Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly, the country said the decision announced on Wednesday “is contrary to the letter and spirit of the cooperation that prevailed between France and Australia, based on a relationship of political trust as well as on the development of a very high-level defence industrial and technological base in Australia.”

BIDEN CALLS NEWSOM’S VICTORY A ‘WIN’ FOR ‘STRONG VACCINE REQUIREMENTS’

“The American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in terms of our values or in terms of respect for multilateralism based on the rule of law, shows a lack of coherence that France can only note and regret,” the statement continued. 

The statement went on to call the announcement “regrettable.”

“The regrettable decision that has just been announced regarding the FSP program only reinforces the need to make the issue of European strategic autonomy loud and clear,” the joint statement said. “There is no other credible way to defend our interests and our values in the world, including in the Indo-Pacific.”

France added that it is the “only European nation present in the Indo-Pacific with nearly two million citizens and more than 7,000 military personnel.”

Earlier in the day, U.S. President Biden joined British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in announcing the creation of  an enhanced trilateral security partnership, called “AUKUS”, which involves sharing highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology with Australia.

“As the first initiative under AUKUS, recognizing our common tradition as maritime democracies, we commit to a shared ambition to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy,” the White House said. “Today, we embark on a trilateral effort of 18 months to seek an optimal pathway to deliver this capability. We will leverage expertise from the United States and the United Kingdom, building on the two countries’ submarine programs to bring an Australian capability into service at the earliest achievable date.”

JUDGE PIRRO BLASTS MILLEY AFTER REPORT ON HIS CALLS TO CHINA: ‘GET HIM THE HELL OUT OF THE PENTAGON’

During the announcement, Biden referred to France as having a “substantial Indo-Pacific presence” and a “key partner and ally in strengthening the security and prosperity of the region.”

 “The United States looks forward to working closely with France and other key countries as we go forward,” Biden said. 

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The announcement of the partnership is widely perceived as a challenge to China’s authority in the region and the Chinese embassy quickly responded to the news.

“Exchanges and cooperation between countries should help expand mutual understanding and trust,” the Chinese Embassy in the U.S. said in a statement. “Countries should do more things that are conducive to solidarity and cooperation among countries and regional peace and stability. Meanwhile they should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties. In particular, they should shake off their Cold-War mentality and ideological prejudice.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/france-issues-angry-response-to-nuclear-submarine-deal-between-u-s-france-and-australia

Noticias Telemundo’s “Inmigración, Trump y los Hispanos” (Immigration, Trump and the Hispanic Community) Town Hall broadcast on Sunday, February 12 at 7PM/6 C, ranked # 1 in Spanish-language TV in primetime across all key demographics, averaging 1.57 million total viewers, 708,000 adults 18 to 49 and 325,000 adults 18 to 34, according to Nielsen. The news special moderated by Noticias Telemundo News Anchor José Díaz-Balart also positioned Telemundo as the #1 Spanish-language network during the entire primetime on Sunday, across all key demos.

“Noticias Telemundo is empowering millions of Latinos with reliable and TRANSPARENT information at a time of change,” said José Díaz-Balart. “Viewers trust us because they know our only commitment is to present the facts the way they are, with professionalism and a total commitment to our community.”

“Immigration, Trump and the Hispanic Community” also reached 1.6 million viewers on Facebook, generating 23,000 global actions on the social network.

The Town Hall answered viewers’ questions about the impact of President Trump’s immigration policy on the Hispanic community. The news special featured a panel of experts, including immigration lawyer and Telemundo contributor Alma Rosa Nieto; Telemundo conservative political analyst Ana Navarro; the Deputy Vice President of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), Clarissa Martínez, and CHIRLA’s Executive Director, Angélica Salas. In addition, “El Poder en Ti”, Telemundo’s robust community initiative, launched an Internet site for Hispanics looking for information, tools and resources on immigration in parallel to the Town Hall.

“Inmigración, Trump y los Hispanos” is part of a series of Noticias Telemundo specials, including “Trump en la Casa Blanca,” produced the day after the elections, and “Trump y los Latinos,” which aired on Inauguration Day. All of these programs share an emphasis on allowing audiences to express their views and empower them by giving them access to trustworthy, rigorous and relevant information presented under Noticias Telemundo’s banner “Telling It Like It Is” (“Las Cosas Como Son” in Spanish).

Noticias Telemundo is the information unit of Telemundo Network and a leader provider in news serving the US Hispanics across all broadcast and digital platforms. Its award-winning television news broadcasts include the daily newscast “Noticias Telemundo,” the Sunday current affairs show “Enfoque con José Díaz-Balart” and the daily news and entertainment magazine “Al Rojo Vivo con María Celeste.” The rapidly-growing “Noticias Telemundo Digital Team” provides continuous content to US Hispanics wherever they are, whenever they want it. Noticias Telemundo also produces award winning news specials, documentaries and news event such as political debates, forums and town halls.

Source: Nielsen L+SD IMP, 2/12/17. TEL #1 SLTV (vs UNI, UMA, AZA, ETV). Shareablee, 2/6/17-2/12/17.

Image courtesy of Telemundo.

Source Article from http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Noticias-Telemundos-IMMIGRATION-TRUMP-AND-THE-HISPANIC-COMMUNITY-Ranks-1-IN-Spanish-Language-TV-Sunday-212-20170214

SANGIN, Afghanistan—Eighteen years after his bakery was destroyed in an American airstrike, 76-year-old Mohammad Nabi, assisted by six younger men, wrestled a brand-new clay oven off the back of a pickup truck. They placed it gingerly on the ground, amid the ruins of his old shop.

The houses in the bazaar around him were either bombed to piles of bricks and gravel, or disfigured by bullet holes. But Mr. Nabi was ready to start rebuilding his bakery now that he had finally returned home.

Source Article from https://www.wsj.com/articles/taliban-afghanistan-us-withdraw-coalition-war-afghan-airstrikes-11633964606

“);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

(CNN)President Donald Trump spent the weekend venting venom at a bewildering list of targets — even as much of the rest of the world was still trying to come to terms with a true outrage — the carnage wrought against Muslims in New Zealand.

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/donald-trump-new-zealand-white-supremacy/index.html

    Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersButtigieg says Iowa ‘shocked the nation’ in caucus night speech Campaigns fume about being left in the dark after Iowa results delayed Sanders predicts he’ll do ‘very, very well’ as Iowa continues to wait for results MORE (I-Vt.) and former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenCampaigns fume about being left in the dark after Iowa results delayed Sanders predicts he’ll do ‘very, very well’ as Iowa continues to wait for results Iowa caucus results not expected until morning MORE are neck and neck in New Hampshire ahead of the state’s primary next week, according to a new University of Massachusetts Lowell poll.

    Twenty-three percent of likely Democratic New Hampshire primary voters said they supported Sanders, while 22 percent said they were behind Biden. The two are within the survey’s margin of error.

    Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenButtigieg says Iowa ‘shocked the nation’ in caucus night speech Campaigns fume about being left in the dark after Iowa results delayed Sanders predicts he’ll do ‘very, very well’ as Iowa continues to wait for results MORE (D-Mass.), meanwhile, trailed by only 4 points, coming in at 19 percent support.

    Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul ButtigiegButtigieg says Iowa ‘shocked the nation’ in caucus night speech Entrance polls: Iowa caucusgoers prioritize electability, health care Trump wins Iowa GOP caucuses MORE and Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharSanders predicts he’ll do ‘very, very well’ as Iowa continues to wait for results Klobuchar amid delay in Iowa results: ‘We are punching above our weight’ Frustration, questions as delays hamper Iowa caucuses MORE (D-Minn.) rounded out the top five contenders at 12 and 6 percent support, respectively.

    New Hampshire, whose primary is not fully closed, can be difficult to poll because of the uncertainty about how many undeclared voters will turn out for the Democratic primary.

    The state has 413,000 undeclared voters, 288,000 registered Republicans and 275,000 registered Democrats.

    The survey comes eight days ahead of the nation’s first Democratic primary in New Hampshire and hours before the Iowa caucuses on Monday.

    A number of recent national polls show Biden and Sanders emerging as Democratic primary voters’ top picks.

    An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released Friday showed Sanders at 27 percent support nationally, while Biden was close behind at 26 percent support.

    The University of Massachusetts Lowell survey was conducted from Jan. 28 to Jan. 31 among 400 likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 6.4 percentage points.

    Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481254-biden-sanders-neck-and-neck-in-new-hampshire-poll

    On Thursday, Boeing for the first time officially took responsibility for the two crashes of 737 Max jets that got the planes grounded by regulators.

    Claiming responsibility was part of an attempt to get the planes approved to fly again. Boeing was trying to say that it now understands why the planes crashes — flawed software — and has a plan in place to replace it with new software that will eliminate the problem and persuade regulators to get the planes off the ground. But then Friday morning, the company announced that it had found a second, unrelated software flaw that it also needs to fix and will somewhat delay the process of getting the planes cleared to fly again.

    All of which, of course, raises the question of why such flawed systems were allowed to fly in the first place.

    And that story begins nine years ago when Boeing was faced with a major threat to its bottom line, spurring the airline to rush a series of kludges through the certification process — with an underresourced Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seemingly all too eager to help an American company threatened by a foreign competitor, rather than to ask tough questions about the project.

    The specifics of what happened in the regulatory system are still emerging (and despite executives’ assurances, we don’t even really know what happened on the flights yet). But the big picture is coming into view: A major employer faced a major financial threat, and short-term politics and greed won out over the integrity of the regulatory system. It’s a scandal.

    The 737 versus 320 rivalry, explained

    There are lots of different passenger airplanes on the market, but just two very similar narrow-body planes dominate domestic (or intra-European) travel. One is the European company Airbus’s 320 family, with models called A318, A319, A320, or A321 depending on how long the plane is. These four variants, by design, have identical flight decks, so pilots can be trained to fly them interchangeably.

    The 320 family competes with a group of planes that Boeing calls the 737 — there’s a 737-600, a 737-700, a 737-800, and a 737-900 — with higher numbers indicating larger planes. Some of them are also extended-range models that have an ER appended to the name, and, as you would probably guess, they have longer ranges.

    Importantly, even though there are many different flavors of 737, they are all in some sense the same plane, just as all the 320 family planes are the same plane. Southwest Airlines, for example, simplifies its overall operations by exclusively flying different 737 variants.

    Both the 737 and the 320 come in lots of different flavors, so airlines have plenty of options in terms of what kind of aircraft should fly exactly which route. But because there are only two players in this market, and because their offerings are so fundamentally similar, the competition for this slice of the plane market is both intense and weirdly limited. If one company were to gain a clear technical advantage over the other, it would be a minor catastrophe for the losing company.

    And that’s what Boeing thought it was facing.

    The A320neo was trouble for Boeing

    Jet fuel is a major cost for airlines. With labor costs largely driven by collective bargaining agreements and regulations that require minimum ratios of flight attendants per passenger, fuel is the cost center airlines have the most capacity to do something about. Consequently, improving fuel efficiency has emerged as one of the major bases of competition between airline manufacturers.

    If you roll back to 2010, it began to look like Boeing had a real problem in this regard.

    Airbus was coming out with an updated version of the A320 family that it called the A320neo, with “neo” meaning “new engine option.” The new engines were going to be more fuel-efficient, with a larger diameter than previous A320 engines, that could nonetheless be mounted on what was basically the same airframe. This was a nontrivial engineering undertaking both in designing the new engines and in figuring out how to make them work with the old airframe, but even though it cost a bunch of money, it basically worked. And it raised the question of whether Boeing would respond.

    Initial word was that it wouldn’t. As CBS Moneywatch’s Brett Snyder wrote in December 2010, the basic problem was that you couldn’t slap the new generation of more efficient, larger-diameter engines onto the 737:

    One of the issues for Boeing is that it takes more work to put new engines on the 737 than on the A320. The 737 is lower to the ground than the A320, and the new engines have a larger diameter. So while both manufacturers would have to do work, the Boeing guys would have more work to do to jack the airplane up. That will cost more while reducing commonality with the current fleet. As we know from last week, reduced commonality means higher costs for the airlines as well.

    Under the circumstances, Boeing’s best option was to just take the hit for a few years and accept that it was going to have to start selling 737s at a discount price while it designed a whole new airplane. That would, of course, be time-consuming and expensive, and during the interim, it would probably lose a bunch of narrow-body sales to Airbus.

    The original version of the 737 first flew in 1967, and a decades-old decision about how much height to leave between the wing and the runway left them boxed out of 21st-century engine technology — and there was simply nothing to be done about it.

    Unless there was.

    Boeing decided to put on the too-big engines anyway

    As late as February 2011, Boeing chair and CEO James McNerney was sticking to the plan to design a totally new aircraft.

    “We’re not done evaluating this whole situation yet,” he said on an analyst call, “but our current bias is to move to a newer airplane, an all-new airplane, at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade. It’s our judgment that our customers will wait for us.”

    But in August 2011, Boeing announced that it had lined up orders for 496 re-engined Boeing 737 aircraft from five airlines.

    It’s not entirely clear what happened, but, reading between the lines, it seems that in talking to its customers Boeing reached the conclusion that airlines would not wait for them. Some critical mass of carriers (American Airlines seems to have been particularly influential) was credible enough in its threat to switch to Airbus equipment that Boeing decided it needed to offer 737 buyers a Boeing solution sooner rather than later.

    Committing to putting a new engine that didn’t fit on the plane was the corporate version of the Fyre Festival’s “let’s just do it and be legends, man” moment, and it unsurprisingly wound up leading to a slew of engineering and regulatory problems.

    New engines on an old plane

    As the industry trade publication Leeham News and Analysis explained earlier in March, Boeing engineers had been working on the concept that became the 737 Max even back when the company’s plan was still not to build it.

    In a March 2011 interview with Aircraft Technology, Mike Bair, then the head of 737 product development, said that reengineering was possible.

    “There’s been fairly extensive engineering work on it,” he said. “We figured out a way to get a big enough engine under the wing.”

    The problem is that an airplane is a big, complicated network of interconnected parts. To get the engine under the 737 wing, engineers had to mount the engine nacelle higher and more forward on the plane. But moving the engine nacelle (and a related change to the nose of the plane) changed the aerodynamics of the plane, such that the plane did not handle properly at a high angle of attack. That, in turn, led to the creation of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). It fixed the angle-of-attack problem in most situations, but it created new problems in other situations when it made it difficult for pilots to directly control the plane without being overridden by the MCAS.

    On Wednesday, Boeing rolled out a software patch that it says corrects the problem, and it hopes to persuade the FAA to agree.

    But note that the underlying problem isn’t really software; it’s with the effort to use software to get around a whole host of other problems.

    Recall, after all, that the whole point of the 737 Max project was to be able to say that the new plane was the same as the old plane. From an engineering perspective, the preferred solution was to actually build a new plane. But for business reasons, Boeing didn’t want a “new plane” that would require a lengthy certification process and extensive (and expensive) new pilot training for its customers. The demand was for a plane that was simultaneously new and not new.

    But because the new engines wouldn’t fit under the old wings, the new plane wound up having different aerodynamic properties than the old plane. And because the aerodynamics were different, the flight control systems were also different. But treating the whole thing as a fundamentally different plane would have undermined the whole point. So the FAA and Boeing agreed to sort of fudge it.

    The new planes are pretty different

    As far as we can tell, the 737 Max is a perfectly airworthy plane in the sense that error-free piloting allows it to be operated safely.

    But pilots of planes that didn’t crash kept noticing the same basic pattern of behavior that is suspected to have been behind the two crashes, according to a Dallas Morning News review of voluntary aircraft incident reports to a NASA database:

    The disclosures found by the News reference problems with an autopilot system, and they all occurred during the ascent after takeoff. Many mentioned the plane suddenly nosing down. While records show these flights occurred in October and November, the airlines the pilots were flying for is redacted from the database.

    These pilots all safely disabled the MCAS and kept their planes in the air. But one of the pilots reported to the database that it was “unconscionable that a manufacturer, the FAA, and the airlines would have pilots flying an airplane without adequately training, or even providing available resources and sufficient documentation to understand the highly complex systems that differentiate this aircraft from prior models.”

    The training piece is important because a key selling feature of the 737 Max was the idea that since it wasn’t really a new plane, pilots didn’t really need to be retrained for the new equipment. As the New York Times reported, “For many new airplane models, pilots train for hours on giant, multimillion-dollar machines, on-the-ground versions of cockpits that mimic the flying experience and teach them new features” while the experienced 737 Max pilots were allowed light refresher courses that you could do on an iPad.

    That let Boeing get the planes into customers’ hands quickly and cheaply, but evidently at the cost of increasing the possibility of pilots not really knowing how to handle the planes, with dire consequences for everyone involved.

    The FAA put a lot of faith in Boeing

    In a blockbuster March 17 report for the Seattle Times, the newspaper’s aerospace reporter Dominic Gates details the extent to which the FAA delegated crucial evaluations of the 737’s safety to Boeing itself. The delegation, Gates explains, is in part a story of a years-long process during which the FAA, “citing lack of funding and resources, has over the years delegated increasing authority to Boeing to take on more of the work of certifying the safety of its own airplanes.”

    But there are indications of failures that were specific to the 737 Max timeline. In particular, Gates reports that “as certification proceeded, managers prodded them to speed the process” and that “when time was too short for FAA technical staff to complete a review, sometimes managers either signed off on the documents themselves or delegated their review back to Boeing.”

    Most of all, decisions about what could and could not be delegated were being made by managers concerned about the timeline, rather than by the agency’s technical experts.

    It’s not entirely clear at this point why the FAA was so determined to get the 737 cleared quickly (there will be more investigations), but if you recall the political circumstances of this period in Barack Obama’s presidency, you can quickly get a general sense of the issue.

    Boeing is not just a big company with a significant lobbying presence in Washington; it’s a major manufacturing company with a strong global export presence and a source of many good-paying union jobs. In short, it was exactly the kind of company the powers that be were eager to promote — with the Obama White House, for example, proudly going to bat for the Export-Import Bank as a key way to sustain America’s aerospace industry.

    A story about overweening regulators delaying an iconic American company’s product launch and costing good jobs compared to the European competition would have looked very bad. And the fact that the whole purpose of the plane was to be more fuel-efficient only made getting it off the ground a bigger priority. But the incentives really were reasonably aligned, and Boeing has only caused problems for itself by cutting corners.

    Boeing is now in a bad situation

    One emblem of the whole situation is that as the 737 Max engineering team piled kludge on top of kludge, they came up with a cockpit warning light that would alert the pilots if the plane’s two angle-of-attack sensors disagreed.

    But then, as Jon Ostrower reported for the Air Current, Boeing’s team decided to make the warning light an optional add-on, like how car companies will upcharge you for a moon roof.

    The light cost $80,000 extra per plane and neither Lion Air nor Ethiopian chose to buy it, perhaps figuring that Boeing would not sell a plane (nor would the FAA allow it to) that was not basically safe to fly. In the wake of the crashes, Boeing has decided to revisit this decision and make the light standard on all aircraft.

    Now, to be clear, Boeing has lost about $40 billion in stock market valuation since the crash, so it’s not like cheating out on the warning light turned out to have been a brilliant business decision or anything.

    This, fundamentally, is one reason the FAA has become comfortable working so closely with Boeing on safety regulations: The nature of the airline industry is such that there’s no real money to be made selling airplanes that have a poor safety track record. One could even imagine sketching out a utopian libertarian argument to the effect that there’s no real need for a government role in certifying new airplanes at all, precisely because there’s no reason to think it’s profitable to make unsafe ones.

    The real world, of course, is quite a bit different from that, and different individuals and institutions face particular pressures that can lead them to take actions that don’t collectively make sense. Looking back, Boeing probably wishes it had just stuck with the “build a new plane” plan and toughed out a few years of rough sales, rather than ending up in the current situation. Right now the company is, in effect, trying to patch things up piecemeal — a software update here, a new warning light there, etc. — in hopes of persuading global regulatory agencies to let its planes fly again.

    But even once that’s done, Boeing faces the task of convincing airlines to actually buy its planes. An informative David Ljunggren article for Reuters reminds us that a somewhat comparable situation arose in 1965 when three then-new Boeing 727 jetliners crashed.

    There wasn’t really anything unsound about the 727 planes, but many pilots didn’t fully understand how to operate the new flaps — arguably a parallel to the MCAS situation with the 737 Max — which spurred some additional training and changes to the operation manual. Passengers avoided the planes for months, but eventually came back as there were no more crashes, and the 727 went on to fly safely for decades. Boeing hopes to have a similar happy ending to this saga, but so far it seems to be a long way from that point. And the immediate future likely involves more tough questions.

    A political scandal on slow burn

    The 737 Max was briefly a topic of political controversy in the United States as foreign regulators grounded the planes, but President Donald Trump — after speaking personally to Boeing’s CEO — declined to follow. Many members of Congress (from both parties) called on him to reconsider, which he rather quickly did, pushing the whole topic off Washington’s front burner.

    But Trump is generally friendly to Boeing (he even has a former Boeing executive, Patrick Shanahan, serving as acting defense secretary, despite an ongoing ethics inquiry into charges that Shanahan unfairly favors his former employer), and Republicans are generally averse to harsh regulatory crackdowns. The most important decisions in the mix appear to have been made back during the Obama administration, so it’s also difficult for Democrats to go after this issue. Meanwhile, Washington has been embroiled in wrangling over special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and a new health care battlefield opened up as well.

    That said, on March 27, FAA officials faced the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Aviation and Space at a hearing called by subcommittee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX). Regulators committed at the hearing to revamp the way they certify new planes, in light of the flaws that were revealed in the previous certification process.

    The questions at stake, however, are now much bigger than one subcommittee. Billions of dollars are on the line for Boeing, the airlines that fly 737s, and the workers who build the planes. And since a central element of this story is the credibility of the FAA’s process — in the eyes of the American people and of foreign regulatory agencies — it almost certainly won’t get sorted out without more involvement from the actual decision-makers in the US government.

    Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/4/5/18296646/boeing-737-max-mcas-software-update

    President Joe Biden and the first lady announced on Saturday the passing of the family dog Champ, a 13-year-old German Shepherd who died peacefully at the Biden’s family home in Delaware. Meanwhile, some QAnon supporters appear to have taken the announcement as a secret code.

    Forbes reporter Andrew Solender tweeted the announcement of Champ’s passing, and a cryptic reply caught his attention.

    An account known as EyesOpen tweeted: “Dog comms? Seem a few around at the mo!!!”

    “Comms” are formally known as secret messages that can be decoded by QAnon supporters.

    Writer and popular debunker Mike Rothschild followed up to inform that dog comms have been around for quite some time.

    “When James Comey‘s dog died, QAnon believers claimed the announcement was code that George HW Bush had secretly been executed,” Rothschild tweeted. “Get ready for them to relentlessly bake Champ’s death.”

    QAnon believers think this happens so often they have a name for the tactic: “dog comms.”

    I don’t make this stuff up. Nobody possibly could. pic.twitter.com/ax6HJJW4h9

    — Mike Rothschild (@rothschildmd) June 19, 2021

    James Comey, the former FBI director, lost his rescue dog in 2018 and tweeted at the time: “Because he was a rescue, we didn’t know his age today, except ‘very old.’ He was a friend to an entire big family as only a dog can be. Goodbye old soul.”

    The description of “an entire big family” caught QAnon believers’ attention. In a video posted on BitChute by a channel called “InPursuitofTruth,” the creator said he found the “big family” very cryptic.

    Because of the relation to George H.W. Bush‘s code name, which had been Timberwolf, some QAnoners connected Bush’s death to Comey’s announcement, believing the former FBI director to be aware of Bush’s death before the public and releasing the information secretly.

    Rothschild tweeted: “#QAnon is already claiming that George HW Bush was taken out by the deep state as a distraction. The proof being a tweet about James Comey’s dog.”

    And now, it seems, the death of Champ may be code for something else. Some commenters on messaging platform Telegram had posted the announcement of Champ and wrote, “interdasting,” with a few quizzical emoticons.

    Another commented afterward and said: “State Funeral Coming?”

    Newsweek reached out to Rothschild but has yet to receive a response.

    Other incidents have invoked the idea that government officials are using “comms” to communicate cryptically, as many QAnon believers latched onto an incident that took place last week.

    A cicada landed on Biden’s neck as he prepared for his visit to Cornwall, England, for the G7 summit, and a video was circulated on social media of him swatting the insect away.

    “Watch out for the cicadas,” Biden told reporters shortly afterward. “I just got one. It got me.”

    Newsweek reported earlier that We The Media, a group of QAnon advocates with more than 225,000 subscribers on its Telegram account, believes that Biden swatting at the cicadas is actually “comms.”

    “JOE BIDEN BITTEN BY A CICADA – COMMS? Just so happens that Cicada nymphs emerge after a 17-year childhood underground!!!” We The Media wrote.

    The “underground” comment is a reference to the baseless QAnon belief that a network of secret underground tunnels exists and children are being trafficked and abused by satanic pedophiles.

    The Biden dogs Champ (right) and Major are seen on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 31. QAnoners suggested there might be a secret message behind the announcement of Champ’s death on Saturday.
    MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

    Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-believers-suggest-secret-message-behind-announcement-biden-dogs-death-1602280

    En un comunicado de prensa, la familia del exministro de Economía Alejandro Atchugarry señaló que se encuentra “estable” en el Cuidados Intensivos (CTI) de la Asociación Española.

    El ex ministro de Economía durante la crisis del 2002 fue sometido una intervención por una aneurisma la semana pasada.

    A continuación el comunicado integro de la familia Atchugarry

    En primer lugar, queremos agradecer todas las demostraciones de cariño y los buenos deseos que nos han hecho llegar de distintas maneras en estos días tan duros para todos nosotros.

    En segundo lugar, informar que luego de la intervención a la que se sometió a Alejandro para recuperarse de un aneurisma, se encuentra estable en la sala de cuidados intensivos de la Asociación Española.

    En tercer lugar, agradecer la dedicación y el afecto de los médicos y el personal de la Asociación Española y de Médica Uruguaya, quienes nos han ayudado y apoyado en todo momento.

    En cuarto lugar, queremos pedir encarecidamente a todos que se continúe respetando nuestro derecho a la reserva y privacidad en estas horas tan difíciles, así como el de las demás familias que se encuentran junto con nosotros en la misma situación en la sala de cuidados intensivos de la Asociación Española.

    Finalmente queremos compartir con todos ustedes nuestra fe y confianza en la pronta recuperación de Alejandro, quien está enfrentando esta adversidad con la misma fuerza y el mismo coraje con que ha enfrentado siempre todos sus desafíos.

    Les agradece,
    Familia Atchugarry

    Source Article from http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/familia-atchugarry-informo-que-se.html

    via press release:

    NOTICIAS  TELEMUNDO  PRESENTS:

    “MURIENDO POR CRUZAR,” AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE INCREASING NUMBER OF IMMIGRANT DEATHS ALONG THE BORDER, THIS SUNDAY, AUGUST 3 AT 6 P.M./5 C

    Carmen Dominicci and Neida Sandoval present the Telemundo and The Weather Channel co-production

    Miami – July 31, 2014 – Telemundo presents “Muriendo por Cruzar”, a documentary that investigates why increasing numbers of immigrants are dying while trying to cross the US-Mexican border near the city of Falfurrias, Texas, this Sunday, August 3 at 6PM/5 C.  The Telemundo and The Weather Channel co-production, presented by Noticias Telemundo journalists Carmen Dominicci and Neida Sandoval, reveals the obstacles immigrants face once they cross into US territory, including extreme weather conditions, as they try to evade the border patrol.  “Muriendo por Cruzar” is part of Noticias Telemundo’s special coverage of the crisis on the border and immigration reform.

     

    “‘Muriendo por Cruzar’” dares to ask questions that reveal the actual conditions undocumented immigrants face as they try to start a new life in the United States,” said Alina Falcón, Telemundo’s Executive Vice President for News and Alternative Programming.  “Our collaboration with The Weather Channel was very productive. They have a unique expertise in covering the impact of weather on people’s lives, as we do in covering immigration reform and the border crisis. The result is a compelling documentary that exposes a harrowing reality.”

    “Muriendo por Cruzar” is the first co-production by Telemundo and The Weather Channel.  Both networks are part of NBCUniversal.

    Source Article from http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/31/noticias-telemundo-presents-muriendo-por-cruzar-this-sunday-august-3-at-6pm/289119/

    This morning, The Verge published a story about how Citizen — an app that appears to encourage vigilante justice — encouraged its users to hunt down the wrong person and presumably bring them to justice, in the mistaken assumption that person had started the 1,158-acre Palisades wildfire in Los Angeles last week. The company offered a $30,000 bounty.

    Now, we’re learning the same company is apparently planning to offer its own private security forces to users, according to a new report from Motherboard.

    In fact, one Citizen-branded patrol car has already been spotted in the wild:

    Motherboard’s report goes further than that, though, digging through internal documents and speaking to former employees who describe a “privatized secondary emergency response network” that would respond to an app user’s request. So far, Citizen appears to have been contracting that work out, both to well-known private security provider Securitas and — in the picture above — Los Angeles Professional Security.

    Citizen confirmed to Motherboard that it was at least internally testing a “personal rapid response service,” suggesting it might be as simple as an escort service users would summon if they’re afraid to walk home late at night.

    But the app’s history — originally launched as Vigilante in 2016 — not to mention the idea that this company is apparently willing to encourage its users to hunt down suspects for money, suggest that this move could be… a little problematic?

    Social networks and apps like Nextdoor and Amazon’s Ring Neighbors have already been roundly criticized for preying on people’s fears, encouraging them to report on suspicious activity in their neighborhood, normalizing surveillance, and unfairly targeting their neighbors based on their racial biases. Combine that with a company that might encourage users to take justice into their own hands, and that seems not great.

    Source Article from https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447756/citizen-app-private-security-securitas-los-angeles-professional