Most Viewed Videos

‘);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/4/1b7f’;
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);
}






Hay nuevas noticias en nuestro sitio web




cerrar











Sbado, 27 de Setiembre 2014  |  8:42 am



Créditos: Referencial/RPP

Se conoce que también han sido capturados dos sujetos más que podrían estar implicados en el asesinato al candidato distrital.








La Policía Nacional logró capturar a uno de los presuntos criminales del asesinado candidato del distrito San Martín de Pangoa (región Junín), Lider Villazana Flores.

Se conoce que en la persecución se detuvo a José Alberto Agurto Cotrina, quien trató de confundir a la policía pasándose de una moto lineal a otras dos camionetas rurales, sin embargo fue alcanzado en el sector río Alberto de Satipo.

Según información brindada por el jefe de la División Policial Vraem – Satipo, Roger Arista Cárdenas, habrían otros dos sujetos capturados, pero sus datos se mantienen en reserva mientras continúan las investigaciones.

De otro lado, en el distrito de Pangoa, los seguidores del líder político se movilizan exigiendo la presencia de la fiscal provincial para el traslado del cuerpo de Villazana Flores a la morgue ya que permanece en el hospital distrital.

Lea más noticias de la región Junín








<!–

–>











<!– –>



Avisos
PERRED
Anuncia aqu

<!–%

if (data && data.searchResult && data.searchResult.spaces && data.searchResult.spaces[0] && data.searchResult.spaces[0].ads) {
var ads = data.searchResult.spaces[0].ads;
for (var i = 0; i < ads.length; i++) {
var ad = ads[i];

if (ad.creative && ad.creative.content && ad.creative.content.length && ad.creative.images) {
var titularText = '';
var cuerpoText = '';
var displayUrlText = '';

var content = ad.creative.content;
for (var j = 0; j < content.length; j++) {
var contentItem = content[j];
if (contentItem.key === 'Titulo')
titularText = cX.library.getAllText(contentItem.value);
if (contentItem.key === 'Cuerpo')
cuerpoText = cX.library.getAllText(contentItem.value);
if (contentItem.key === 'DisplayUrl')
displayUrlText = cX.library.getAllText(contentItem.value);
}
var images = ad.creative.images;
var imgSrc = '';
var textWidth = 295;
for (var k = 0; k









{{cuerpoText}}


{{displayUrlText}}










Source Article from http://www.rpp.com.pe/2014-09-27-satipo-capturan-a-presunto-asesino-de-candidato-distrital-de-pangoa-noticia_729074.html

<!– –>


Shares of aircraft-manufacturing company Boeing took a hit early this week, losing $26.6 billion in market value Monday and Tuesday, following a deadly crash of one of its 737 Max 8 airplanes in Ethiopia.

That model has since been grounded by the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as by aviation regulators around the world.

Still, if you invested in Boeing 10 years ago, that decision would have paid off: According to CNBC calculations, a $1,000 investment in 2009 would be worth more than $14,000 as of March 15, 2019, a total return over 1,000 percent. In the same time frame, the S&P 500 was up 270 percent. So, your $1,000 would be worth just over $3,700, by comparison.

Any individual stock can over- or under-perform, however, and past returns do not predict future results. Boeing paused delivery of 737 Max planes after the Ethiopia crash, which came less than five months after another deadly crash in Indonesia involving the same model.

This left several major airlines, including United, American and Southwest scrambling to rebook passengers and reassign planes. Those companies said they would waive ticket-change fees and fare differences for those affected by the FAA’s grounding order.

Flight-booking site Kayak even introduced a new search feature that allows users to exclude specific plane models, according to co-founder and chief executive officer Steve Hafner.

CNBC: Boeing stock as of Mar. 15, 2019

Fortunately for Boeing, while shares plunged more than 10 percent early this week, they ticked back up by as much as 3 percent Friday. And the company announced plans to roll out a software fix in the next few weeks.

Though, Bank of America analyst Ronald Epstein said Thursday that the fix could take a lot longer: “Once Boeing identifies the issue … the most likely scenario is the company will take about 3-6 months to come up with and certify the fix,” he said in a note.

Hafner says he expects the 737 models to be grounded only a few months and that travelers will likely be booking flights on them again soon: “They’re out of service on a temporary basis,” he said on CNBC’s “Squawk Alley.” “In reality, airlines are still planning on flying those planes in the summer. People want security and comfort when they fly.”

In the meantime, Boeing said in a statement it will “continue to build 737 Max airplanes, while assessing how the situation, including potential capacity constraints, will impact our production system.”

If you’re looking to get into investing, expert investors like Warren Buffett and Mark Cuban suggest you start with index funds, which hold every stock in an index, offer low turnover rates, attendant fees and tax bills. They also fluctuate with the market to eliminate the risk of picking individual stocks.

Here’s a snapshot of how the markets look now.

Like this story? Subscribe to CNBC Make It on YouTube!

Don’t miss:

If you invested $1,000 in IBM 10 years ago, here’s how much you’d have now

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/if-you-put-1000-in-boeing-10-years-ago-heres-what-youd-have-now.html

They arrived a day or two after the Easter Sunday bombings and moved into a low-slung house behind a high wall and black metal gate, unloading boxes from a pale gray minivan.

But the neighbors in the seaside town of Sainthamaruthu soon began to suspect that something wasn’t right. Finally, a group of local residents asked the new arrivals — men, women and children — to leave town.

Within hours, the quiet lane was turned into a war zone.

On Friday, at least 15 people, including six children, were killed in bomb blasts and gunfire as Sri Lankan security forces closed in on the house.

Police believe the fiery explosions were triggered deliberately — the final violent acts of a group whose hideout had bombmaking items and black backpacks. Their preparations pointed to just one thing: possible plans for the next steps in a campaign of terror that began April 21 with bombings at churches that claimed more than 250 lives.

The identities of those killed in Sainthamaruthu were not immediately known or released. On Saturday, after the chaos, crime scene personnel in fluorescent vests roamed the area around the home collecting metal pellets, torn pieces of clothing and fragments of flesh.

The confrontation on Sri Lanka’s eastern shore — on the other side of the island from the capital, Colombo — came amid a nationwide security crackdown and searches for suspects across the country. Police have deployed new emergency powers to stop and question individuals and to conduct raids.

But the events that flushed out the suspects in Friday’s raids involved something simpler: neighborhood intuition.

It began when Imam Lateef, 54, the vice-chairman of the nearby Hijra Mosque, received a call from the landlord who had rented the home to the group. The landlord was worried about the people in the house. Their behavior was suspicious, Lateef said, and the landlord wanted them to leave.

Lateef and several other members of the mosque walked over to the house, along a canal crowded with lotus plants.

The man who answered the door said that the family was from Kattankudy, the hometown of Zahran Hashim, the mastermind of the attacks, and the base of National Thowheed Jamaath, the Islamist extremist group Hashim founded. The mosque delegation politely asked them to leave by the following day.

Meanwhile, after Friday prayers, Mohammed Rizwan, a local shopkeeper, was chatting with a group of friends about the new arrivals. They had heard they were from Kattankudy and resolved to check them out.

When Rizwan went by in the early evening Friday, he said that a man at the house told him to get out and pointed a gun at his chest. Rizwan took off running, grabbing the nearest police officer he could find — a local traffic cop.

Minutes later, the first blast shook the house.

A second blast followed. Then a third. But this time, special police units and soldiers were on the scene.

The blasts blew a hole in the roof and wall of the house, sending tiles flying. The security forces exchanged gunfire with a man carrying an AK-47 rifle. He was shot dead.

Amid the confusion, security forces also shot at three people in an auto-rickshaw that failed to heed warnings to stop, injuring two and killing one. It turned out the trio had no connection to the house or the attacks.

Earlier on Friday, police had raided a house about three miles from the rented home. There they found a cache of explosives, police said, plus the clothing and flag used by the Easter Sunday bombers to record a video professing allegiance to the Islamic State.

When the authorities entered the home in Sainthamaruthu at dawn on Saturday, they found the charred bodies of children in a corner of the room. They also discovered two survivors. An injured woman and toddler were taken to the hospital.

The evidence left behind was chilling. The home contained bombmaking equipment, including detonators, wires, plastic tubes for explosives and three identical, brand-new black backpacks.

Outside, the body of the man shot by the security forces — identified only as “Niyaz” by a local police official — still lay face down on the cobbled pavement as flies buzzed around the corpse. Ripped pieces of clothing were scattered on the ground together with bullet casings. Torn sheaves of paper with the hadith — the sayings of the prophet Muhammad — were strewn in two places.

In the still, humid air, crime scene personnel climbed ladders and began to scour the house’s roof for evidence. Meanwhile, police officers took two white plastic sheets and created a makeshift body bag, hoisting a corpse into the back of a navy blue police truck.

Nearby, hundreds of local residents had spent the morning sheltering at a school while they waited to be able to return to their homes. The entire town of Sainthamuruthu was under a curfew, with all roads closed and all shops shuttered.

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena said Friday that strict new measures were being taken to identify and track people, similar to hard-line methods used during the civil war between separatist ethnic Tamils and the government that ended in 2009.

He said that about 70 individuals suspected of ties to the Islamic State had been arrested, and that another 70 suspects were still at large. On Saturday, the National Thowheed Jamaath, the Islamist extremist group linked to the Easter attacks, was banned.

“We had to declare an emergency situation to suppress terrorists and ensure a peaceful environment in the country,” the president said. “Every household in the country will be checked” and lists of all residents made to “ensure that no unknown person can live anywhere.”

Rizwan, the shopkeeper, expressed a sense of pride at his actions a day earlier.

“I feel like I did a brave thing when I went to see what was happening,” he said. Perhaps, he added, this would mark the end of the terror that has stalked Sri Lanka in recent days.

“We hope it’s over,” he said. “But we don’t know.”

Benislos Thushan and Pamela Constable in Colombo contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/sri-lanka-authorities-say-15-die-in-police-raid-at-home-of-suspected-terrorists/2019/04/27/de46eb64-686e-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html

Cuando llegó a Alemania la noticia del grave accidente que sufrió Michael Schumacher mientras esquiaba en la estación francesa de Méribel, el 29 de diciembre pasado, y que hizo temer por su vida, toda la nación se conmovió y el accidente provocó una inédita cobertura mediática que mantuvo en vilo a la población durante semanas. El estado de salud de Schumacher, atrajo incluso la atención de la canciller Angela Merkel, quien dejó saber por intermedio de su portavoz que todo el Gobierno se encontraba “conmovido”. “Esperamos que Michael Schumacher pueda superar las lesiones sufridas”, dijo entonces el portavoz Steffen Seibert al revelar la inquietud que existía en el seno del Ejecutivo germano. “Le deseamos a su esposa, a sus hijos y al resto de su familia fortaleza y apoyo mutuo”, añadió.

La devoción que despertó en Alemania el precario estado de salud de Schumi tiene raíces profundas que se incrustaron en la conciencia colectiva de la nación cuando dos medios alemanes convirtieron al genial piloto de Fórmula 1 en una leyenda en vida. La revista der Spiegel, poco afecta a los halagos, bautizó al excampeón, en el apogeo de su carrera, como un “héroe nacional” mientras que el Bild, famoso por sus titulares agresivos, se inclinó ante el nuevo mesías del deporte germano y le regaló el inédito título de “El alemán perfecto”. Seis meses después del trágico accidente, Alemania sigue conmovida por el estado de salud de Schumacher, pero también todo el país se pregunta con inquietud si el gran campeón podrá algún día llevar una vida normal.

Este aspecto cobró una acuciante actualidad hace dos semanas, cuando Sabine Kehm, la portavoz del excampeón, dio a conocer un comunicado que hizo creer que Schumacher podía estar recuperándose de las graves lesiones. “Michael ha abandonado el hospital de Grenoble para continuar su largo proceso de recuperación. Ya no está en coma”, dijo la portavoz en la nota donde añadía que los Schumacher agradecían al personal del centro hospitalario de Grenoble el trato recibido y las muestras de apoyo recibidas. “Estamos convencidos de que le ha ayudado”, señalaba el comunicado junto con una nueva petición derespeto y privacidad para el piloto y su familia.

Aunque el traslado de Schumacher, desde el hospital de Grenoble hasta la Clínica Universitaria de Vaud (CHUV) en Lausana, se llevó a cabo en medio de una operación que estuvo rodeada de un estricto secreto, pronto se supo que Schumacher había soportado el recorrido de 200 kilómetros con los ojos abiertos y que se comunicaba con el personal que lo atendía, moviendo la cabeza.

Pero el traslado de Schumacher a Lausana revivió las especulaciones en torno a su estado actual. Erich Riederer, un ilustre neurólogo suizo, sentenció desde la página web del portal de noticias suizo 20 Minutes que el excampeón estará marcado para siempre por las huellas del accidente. “Quedará inválido y siempre necesitará la ayuda de terceros”, dijo.

El neurólogo Gary Harstein, quien viene diciendo desde hace dos meses que ya no habrá buenas noticias sobre el estado de Schumacher, fue más radical y afirmó en su blog que su estado de salud seguía siendo crítico. “Ahora se nos dice, con un enfoque triunfalista, que Michael ya no está en coma. Otra cosa habría sido si se hubiera dicho que se iniciaba una fase de rehabilitación, porque tiene problemas de articulación, o porque debe aprender nuevamente a caminar, a leer, a escribir. ¡No! Se nos ha dicho lo que ya sabíamos. Ya no habrá buenas noticias sobre Schumi”, reiteró el médico.

La incertidumbre que reina sobre el estado de salud de Schumi cobró un giro criminal cuando el Bild reveló que un informe médico del Hospital de Grenoble, que podría ofrecer detalles acerca del estado de salud, había sido robado. Los ladrones ofrecieron el documento, un informe de 11 páginas dirigido a los médicos de la Clínica Universitaria de Lausana, a medios alemanes, ingleses y franceses por 60.000 francos suizos, unos 50.000 euros. El robo está siendo investigado por la fiscalía francesa. “La publicación sería solo periodismo sensacionalista sin sustancia y relevancia y una injerencia inaceptable y muy seria de los derechos de privacidad de Michael Schumacher”, sentenció el presidente de la Asociación de Periodistas en Alemania Michael Konken. Aunque la publicación del documento que contienen un diagnóstico del verdadero estado de salud de Schumacher y sugerencias para su rehabilitación, acabaría con las especulaciones sobre la recuperación del gran campeón.

Source Article from http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/06/27/gente/1403864706_437206.html

São Paulo – Using the creativity of citizens, promoting their integration and circulation are some of the solutions to the problems of large, medium and small cities. In a lecture delivered last Tuesday evening (14th) at the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce in São Paulo, the coordinator of the Cultural Economics course at Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV), Ana Carla Fonseca Reis, outlined the key elements for cities to grow and solve their problems with popular involvement. Approximately 50 people watched the presentation, including the Arab Chamber president Marcelo Sallum and former director Mário Rizkallah.

Some examples of creative cities presented by the public administrator and economist include London, in the United Kingdom, Barcelona, in Spain, and Ankara, in Turkey. In Brazil, she mentioned Paraty, in Rio de Janeiro, and Guaramiranga, in Ceará. “These are cities that have set out to innovate their reality and popular culture from the inside out, i.e. from within the city to other localities,” she said.

Sérgio Tomisaki/Arab Chamber

Reis and Sallum: event showcased the potential cities have

According to Reis, Guaramiranga, in Ceará, is a city that used to live off of coffee farming. As traditional families left the small town and growing competition from state capital Fortaleza as a tour destination, the city became threatened by mounting problems. 

“However, they capitalized on their local culture of Northeastern musical rhythms; they have projects for developing young musicians; they host a jazz festival every year, during Carnival, of all times; and they have watched as their population soared from 5,000 to 15,000. Besides, they work in tandem with other nearby small towns,” she said.

“Cities can be creative regardless of their size, but those that wish to be or are creative often have clear-cut features: they innovate, for instance, by implementing a solid waste reuse system. They also value the connections between people. Whenever the people connect, they exchange ideas and experiences of their emotional ties with their cities or neighbourhoods; thereby, civil society participation increases. The third feature of these cities is that they value local culture and potential,” she asserted.

As case in points, she cited Peru, a country that has gone beyond its well-known tourist destinations such as Machu Picchu to tap into other aspects of its culture, such as cuisine. Ankara, in Turkey, has developed a project for local artisans to sell their items to tourists, and the government takes charge of shipping the product and insuring the purchase. Reis also mentioned object sharing in large cities, such as electric car rental in Lyon and Paris. “The culture of sharing, of having citizens use, but not own objects.”

In Brazil, Reis listed Paraty and Guaramiranga as the best examples of creative cities, but remarked that the concept is still met with challenges in the country. “They [the cities] don’t foster connections between their residents; they are still too divided into ‘ghettos.’ This remains a hurdle,” she claimed.

In terms of Arab cities, Reis cited Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, which has a plan of integrating leisure, culture and work activities by 2030. Abu Dhabi’s population should double by then, and therefore, said Reis, the city is investing in transformation by integrating activities and inhabitants. As an example, she discussed museums designed by award-winning architects that are currently under construction in a designated area within the city.

Reis’ presentation is part of the Arab Chamber Lecture Cycle, held on a regular basis and covering myriad topics. The next guest will be the historian Demétrio Magnoli, who will tackle progress and challenges for Brazil and the Mercosur. The meeting with Magnoli is set to take place on November 18th.

*Translated by Gabriel Pomerancblum

Source Article from http://www2.anba.com.br/noticia/21865535/sustainable-development/creativity-can-help-cities-solve-problems/

Updated 6:06 AM ET, Wed September 8, 2021

(CNN)Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — the only person in California history to win a gubernatorial race in a recall election — is aggressively neutral on the one coming up on September 14.

span {
font-size: 1.5em;
font-weight: bolder;
}
.audio-caption {
margin-top: 16px;
margin-bottom: 16px;
padding: 0;
}
.audio-note {
font-size: .875em;
line-height: 1.1em;
margin: 16px 0 0 0;
padding: 0;
color: #8c8c8c;
}
]]>

Former CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: “It’s very dangerous” for Newsom

span {
font-size: 1.5em;
font-weight: bolder;
}
.audio-caption {
margin-top: 16px;
margin-bottom: 16px;
padding: 0;
}
.audio-note {
font-size: .875em;
line-height: 1.1em;
margin: 16px 0 0 0;
padding: 0;
color: #8c8c8c;
}
]]>

Former Gov. Gray Davis: “No one goes through life without losing an election”

span {
font-size: 1.5em;
font-weight: bolder;
}
.audio-caption {
margin-top: 16px;
margin-bottom: 16px;
padding: 0;
}
.audio-note {
font-size: .875em;
line-height: 1.1em;
margin: 16px 0 0 0;
padding: 0;
color: #8c8c8c;
}
]]>

Bustamante: “I was hoping to be sort of an insurance policy”

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/08/politics/arnold-schwarzenegger-gavin-newsom-california-recall-podcast/index.html



    DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

    This is FRESH AIR. I’m Dave Davies in today for Terry Gross.

    When U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was first elected to Congress, there wasn’t a women’s bathroom near the House floor, and it would be several years before women were allowed to wear pants in the chamber. Things have changed since then. Pelosi has now led the Democratic Party’s House caucus for 18 years, and our guest at Time, national political correspondent Molly Ball, says she’s used her negotiating talents to outmaneuver President Trump repeatedly in policy battles.

    Paul’s new book traces Pelosi’s political skills back to her roots in her father’s Democratic machine in Baltimore. She describes how Pelosi outworked and outthought male rivals to ascend the leadership ladder in Congress, why she became the preferred target of Republicans in congressional elections and, somewhat surprisingly, why she found working with President Obama so difficult. Besides her work at Time, Molly Ball is a political analyst for CNN. Previously, she’s reported for The Atlantic, Politico and other media organizations. Her new book is called “Pelosi.” I spoke with Molly Ball from my home in Philadelphia. She was at her home in Arlington, Va.

    Well, Molly Ball, welcome to FRESH AIR. You’re working at home – right? – like everybody else, with three kids and your husband. And I’m interested in how reporting in Washington has changed with the pandemic. You know, this is a city that’s just full of, you know, tips and rumors and gossip and stories and all kinds of communication. A lot of it’s digital, but now people can’t really get together. How does it feel different?

    MOLLY BALL: Really, I think a lot of what you refer to in Washington occurs when people circulate – right? – when we are around each other, the reporters and our sources and the politicians and so on. And a lot of people find this kind of incestuous, but it is, for better or worse, a big way that that sort of gossip network that you describe is fueled. So that is all a little bit harder, to keep in touch with people and to sort of know what the scuttlebutt is. But also the kind of reporting I do – I’m not mainly a Capitol Hill correspondent. I do a lot of traveling around the country, meeting people, trying to, you know, witness the situation on the ground with my own eyes, and that’s completely stopped.

    DAVIES: So let’s talk about Nancy Pelosi. You know, many people’s image of Nancy Pelosi is that of a wealthy San Francisco liberal, which she is, but her political roots are really very different. Tell us about her background, her family.

    BALL: One of her mentors earlier in her career, Jack Murtha, used to say about her, don’t think she’s from San Francisco. She’s from Baltimore. And that’s both literally true and true in a deeper sense, right? Her father was a congressman from Baltimore and then became the mayor of Baltimore. He came out of the machine politics of Baltimore, a Democratic city. She was born in 1940, when her father was already in Congress. So literally from the day she was born, she was part of this very Catholic, very Democratic, very Italian family that was involved in the political life of the city and the nation.

    And that machine politics, as you know from Philadelphia, was very much about the sort of tribes and factions of the city. The different ethnicities all had their own little neighborhoods, and they all had a sort of boss who could deliver their votes, often in exchange for something. So when you see the kind of deal-maker that Nancy Pelosi is, when you see the kind of negotiating that she does on Capitol Hill, I think a lot of it does trace back to her roots in Baltimore.

    DAVIES: What about Nancy Pelosi’s mother? Tell us about her.

    BALL: Her mother’s very important to her, I think at least as important as her father. And one of the things I tried to do in the book was sort of restore the significance of her mother to her life. You know, I think inevitably because her father was a politician, her mother sort of gets erased from this narrative, but she was very much shaped by her mother. And she talks very frankly, which I think is interesting, about how stifled her mother was. Her mother had a lot of ambitions that she wasn’t able to fulfill simply because she was a woman. She wanted to be an auctioneer. She wanted to go to law school. She wanted to have her own business. And all of those dreams were thwarted because she had to stay home and raise the children and keep the house and because, quite frankly, her husband wouldn’t let her.

    There was a point where she had a business. She’d invented and patented a beauty product, and she wanted to market it nationally. But she needed her husband’s signature in order to do that, and he wouldn’t give it to her. So I think it shaped her that her mother was stifled in that way. But it also shaped her that her mother was a very strong and aggressive woman, a sort of – I don’t want to be stereotypical, but, you know, the sort of fiery Italian American mother who – there are family stories about how she once punched a poll worker in the face. She was known to – she once put LBJ in his place and told off Ronald Reagan. So this was not someone who was afraid to get in people’s faces, and I think that’s certainly a characteristic you also see in her daughter.

    DAVIES: You know, and the kind of urban machine politics that her family was involved in functions – you know, it’s about loyalty and favors, but it’s also just about an awful lot of hard work – street lists and knowing where your votes are and turning them out. And there’s a lot of hard work involved. Nancy Pelosi, then Nancy D’Alesandro, grew up when the machine was quite active. Did she play a role herself?

    BALL: She did. Her mother was responsible for a couple of things in the household as sort of the brains of the political operation. One was the Women’s Democratic Club that operated out of the basement, and they did a lot of that hard work you’re talking about – pounding the pavement, doing the precincts and making sure everything was in the right place. And then also the favor file, which is the other side of what you’re talking about, the sort of constituent services operation, where there was a list that was maintained in the family’s living room of all of the things – all the favors people needed from – whether it was their mayor or their congressman.

    And so from the time she was about 11, Nancy D’Alesandro was in charge of being in that living room and maintaining that favor file, telling people – answering the phone and telling them where they could go if they needed to get into city hospital or needed help getting housing or any of the sort of government services. So she was a very active part of that operation from a pretty early age.

    And I think the point you make about how hard that work is is important because it’s also very individual, right? This is politics at a very individual level where you know every single voter, and you know what they care about, and you know where they live, and you’re turning them out precinct by precinct, block by block. So I think that that’s really important to her sense of politics as well.

    DAVIES: So Nancy grows up, goes to Catholic school, goes to college and actually, after college, gets a job in a senator’s office, where, ironically, Steny Hoyer, who would later be her No. 2 in Congress for so many years, was also employed. This was sort of the dawn of the feminist wave of the ’60s. Did Nancy see her – Nancy D’Alesandro see herself as a career woman?

    BALL: I think she did. She, like her mother, wanted to go to law school and never ended up doing so. And she did take this job in the senator’s office. But she also met the man who would become her husband while they were both in college. And so she ended up, kind of like her mother, giving up all of those dreams in order to become a housewife.

    Now, she never stopped doing her political activities, being active in the Democratic Party, being a volunteer and pushing the stroller while distributing leaflets, but she didn’t immediately have a career – in fact, didn’t have a career until many, many years later, and it’s a sort of interesting irony of her life that even though she saw the sort of trap that her mother had fallen into, she ended up doing almost the same thing after she graduated from college.

    DAVIES: So she raised five children but stayed active in the party, held fundraisers at her house. How did she get into formal politics, into the Democratic Party in California?

    BALL: Well, her first ever real office – office with some sort of power, with some sort of vote – was the San Francisco Library Board in 1975. And I tell this story in the book of how the mayor at the time, Joe Alioto, called her up and asked her to take this spot on the San Francisco Library Commission. And she turned him down. She said, well, you know, I’m perfectly happy being a volunteer. I’m happy to help. I don’t need that kind of official position. And even though she considered him something of a chauvinist, a sort of old-fashioned man, he reprimanded her.

    He said, no. You’re doing the work. You should have something to show for it. You should have the power that comes with it. You should be able to make decisions. And this was really a revelation for her. And when she and I talked about it, she described it as a sort of feminist moment where she realized that, yes, she should be able to have that kind of power if she was going to be doing all the work. And everything sort of changed for her once she had that official position. She realized that, particularly as a woman, if you were just sort of talking, no one might listen to you. But if you had a vote, they had to respect you. They had to listen to your voice.

    DAVIES: She gets into Congress in 1987. And not many politicians make their first run at elected office for Congress and win. She, in a way, was kind of in the right place at the right time. A congressman died. His wife took the seat. She got colon cancer and said that Nancy should run for the seat. But she still had to win it. It was a field of 14 people, including one that was quite formidable. How’d she pull it off?

    BALL: Well, I think there are actually quite a few people in the Congress today who that’s their first office. But that’s sort of (laughter) another discussion. But yeah, she did have to fight for it despite having the deathbed endorsement of her friend, Sala Burton, who’d held the seat before her untimely death of colon cancer. And she really did model her operation on the politics that she learned in Baltimore, on counting every vote, on knowing the neighborhoods block by block and precinct by precinct.

    She knew the value of showing up. She was a tireless campaigner. She’d be up at 5 in the morning waving signs for the commuters. And she’d be out late at night, you know, speaking at a bingo parlor or a lady’s bridge club. And so her principal opponent was a man named Harry Britt, who was sort of the successor of the famous Harvey Milk, the tragically assassinated member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. And this was at a time when the AIDS crisis was really coming on the national radar.

    And if elected, Harry Britt, her opponent, would have been the first openly gay man elected to Congress. So a lot of the campaign was about who could better represent the gay community. And Nancy Pelosi talked about all the connections she had, her ability to be effective in Washington. But her principal opponent’s argument was, we need to be represented by one of our own in Congress. And she won pretty narrowly. She won – there was – it was sort of two rounds of voting. And she won that first round by just a few thousand votes.

    DAVIES: The other big part of it was money, right? She raised a lot of money. And she, at this point, had family wealth to contribute, too.

    BALL: That’s right. Her husband was a banker and financier. They lived in New York for a few years before moving to his hometown in San Francisco. And he became quite successful. So even at that time in 1987, they were quite well-off. And yes, she put quite a lot of her own money into the race in addition to being able to raise funds. Because she had this background as a fundraiser, because she’d spent so much time raising money for other politicians, she was then able to call in a lot of those favors. And she outspent the entire rest of the field combined to win that race.

    DAVIES: You write that when she got to Congress, she already knew 200 representatives and senators personally and that many owed her a favor. That’s pretty remarkable for a freshman. Why was that?

    BALL: It’s very unusual for a freshman member of Congress. But she had helped so many people get to Congress. She had held all of these fundraisers in her home. Her house in San Francisco had become a sort of well-known stop on the fundraising circuit. So not just San Francisco politicians, but politicians from all over the country who were coming through California to raise money would stop at their home.

    She also spent a term as the finance chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, basically raising money for all of the Senate candidates in tough races in 1986. So that meant that she got to know a lot of senators and helped a lot of them. And a lot of them grew to respect her through that and also, perhaps, owed her a favor. So – and this was exactly what she ran on.

    Her slogan when she ran for office that first time was, a voice that will be heard. And it was all about her connections and her ability to be effective in Washington, which, if you think about it, is pretty odd for someone who’s never actually been in office before. In fact, one of her campaign consultants looked at this proposed slogan and said, wait a minute. We’re going to run a first-time candidate on this idea that they’re effective and accomplished? And the answer was, yes. That’s what we’re going to do. And it ended up working.

    DAVIES: Molly Ball is the national political correspondent for Time. Her new book is “Pelosi.” We’ll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

    (SOUNDBITE OF SLOWBERN’S “WHEN WAR WAS KING”)

    DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. And we’re speaking with Molly Ball. She is the national political correspondent for Time and a political analyst on CNN. Her new book is called “Pelosi.”

    You know, a lot of people serve in Congress for decades but never become leaders. They are active on their committees. Nancy Pelosi decided, first, in 1988, she would run for one of these leadership posts, a whip. She stayed at it, eventually was elected the whip. She became the leader of the caucus in 2002. They were in the minority. So she told the post of minority leader and then eventually became speaker in 2007 after the Democrats won the majority in Congress in 2006. But running for these leadership posts is a little different from just serving in Congress. Tell us how you do it. How did she manage to win these internal battles for leadership?

    BALL: It requires building a lot of support among your colleagues. So that means raising money for your colleagues, campaigning for your colleagues, helping them get elected and stay elected. It means proving that you have the sort of chops to do the job, proving that you know the ins and outs of the policy, you know the way the House works and functions. But it’s a lot of just building those relationships.

    And interestingly, although she came from the liberal wing of the caucus, from a pretty early point in her career, she was building relationships with the more moderate and conservative Democrats in the House. And she became friends with a sort of crusty, old chauvinist from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha, who was known for his work on defense spending. And because he saw something in her that made him take her seriously, he became a sort of crucial validator for her.

    You have to remember, when she got to the House in 1987, out of 435 members of the House, there were only 23 women. So she wasn’t really going to get anywhere by getting all the women in the House to vote for her. There just weren’t that many. She needed to get all the men to take her seriously. She needed to get them to see her as someone who could do this job and wasn’t just a sort of dilettante, as she was often caricatured. So getting those older and more conservative and male members to take her seriously and to see her as a force to be reckoned with was really crucial to her being able to win that position.

    DAVIES: Right. And, you know, you mentioned that in the 2000 congressional election cycle, she donated 3.9 million to other Democratic candidates. That’s certainly a way to win a lot of friends. The other thing was just the sheer level of work and the stamina she showed. What were her days like?

    BALL: She has always had a really remarkable amount of energy. She doesn’t need a lot of sleep. I’ve never seen her eat an entire meal (laughter). She seems to – she doesn’t drink coffee. She doesn’t drink alcohol. She seems to live mostly on dark chocolate and chocolate ice cream, which she eats every day. But she has this incredible level of energy. And she traces a lot of it to being a mother. And as a mother myself, I identify with this a little bit. I think you find, when you become a mother for the first time – much less when you have five children – that the amount of capacity that you thought you had just increases exponentially when you – just because it’s so much work to take care of small children.

    And so a lot of her energy derived from having been – having had five children in the space of six years, and having to raise this large family. That sort of makes you the leader of a caucus, in a way. And I think some of it is just natural. I think some of it has just got to be the way that she is naturally. I’ve actually asked her this question. I’m certainly not the first to ask, well, where do you get all this energy? How do you do it? And she’ll just give you this sort of blank look and say, well, I’m Italian. We have great stamina. And I think she really believes that she’s just genetically superior for being Italian.

    DAVIES: You know, the other interesting thing is about having – raising a large family and, like, being a leader in a congressional caucus is, you know, you end up having to be very, very efficient with your time and get things done and yet have enormous patience to deal with people who think they’re important and can throw tantrums and need to be taken care of.

    BALL: That’s right. When you think about it, politicians and toddlers have a lot in common, right?

    DAVIES: (Laughter).

    BALL: They’re egomaniacs. They’re self-centered. They’re unreasonable. They want everything and they want it now. And they’re not really interested in hearing why you need to get – you need them to do something else. So I do think that managing a caucus is a lot like managing a large family. And I think she did learn a lot from that. And, you know, a friend of Nancy Pelosi’s, when she was still a youngish mother, said she knew she was destined for success in politics when she saw all five children folding their own laundry.

    And the way she ran the house was disciplined. It was efficient. It was, you know, her – she hardly ever – I have a hard time believing this. But her children say she hardly ever had to scold them because she would just give them that cold glare of disappointment. And the shame that they would feel for disappointing her was enough to make them behave. And so I think you see that in the way she manages the House Democratic Caucus as well, that she doesn’t often have to bring the hammer down and really punish people because they’re just so afraid of disappointing her.

    DAVIES: Molly Ball is political correspondent for Time and an analyst for CNN. Her new book is “Pelosi.” She’ll be back to talk more about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s career after a break. And Kevin Whitehead reviews a new album by saxophonist Dayna Stephens’ trio. I’m Dave Davies, and this is FRESH AIR.

    (SOUNDBITE OF CARLA BLEY’S “BASEBALL”)

    DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Dave Davies in for Terry Gross. We’re speaking with Time national political correspondent Molly Ball, who’s written a book about U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Ball says Pelosi has used her political skill and negotiating talents to outmaneuver President Trump in several policy battles. Ball’s book is called “Pelosi.”

    You know, for the first several years that Nancy Pelosi was the leader of the Democratic caucus, she was there when the Democrats were in a minority, and so it was a matter of getting the most she could with Republicans who were in charge. And you tell a number of stories. One that comes to mind is when Tom DeLay, the congressman from Texas, called her to say that they had to reduce the number of Democrats on one of the committees after this had all been agreed to. And she really showed some spine. How did she respond to him?

    BALL: I love this answer. I love what she said to him when he told her that he was going to go back on this agreement she’d made with the Republican speaker at the time. She said, life on this planet as you know it will not be the same if you persist in this notion. So she was very much laying down a marker that said – and they tried to argue with her. They said, oh, we’ll go out and badmouth you in the media if you do this. She said, I don’t care. They said, well, actually, no, this is better for you. You get a larger percentage of the seats if the committee is smaller. She said, I don’t care. We had an agreement. We’re sticking to the agreement. And life as you know it will not be the same if you persist in this notion.

    So from the very beginning, she was a very tough leader. She was a very strong leader. I think she viewed the leaders who’d come before her as being a little bit weak-willed and letting people get away with too much. And so at various points as minority leader before becoming speaker, a lot of what she was doing was trying to instill a sense of party discipline and wake up the Democratic caucus to the idea that they needed to work as a unit if they were going to have any kind of leverage in negotiations with the majority. And it is still, I think, the No. 1 thing that she says to and about her caucus today. She says, our diversity is our strength. Our unity is our power.

    DAVIES: And we got to work as a team. It really is interesting because when you’re in the minority, you have to know how far you can push, right? I mean, and part of that involves knowing the circumstances in which the Republican leaders will need some Democratic votes because their own caucus was restive and some of them wouldn’t go along with leadership. And so it’s one thing to be tough and show steel, but to do it well, you really have to have done the homework and know exactly where you stand, where the votes are, right?

    BALL: That’s right. And I think the other sort of favorite word in Nancy Pelosi’s vocabulary is leverage. She always knows where those pressure points are, knows exactly what her leverage is. Sometimes it’s that, as you say, the opposition is divided, and that means that if the Democrats are unified, they have a lot of leverage because the majority needs their votes. Another thing is just knowing what the priorities are. So in many of the negotiations with the Republican majority in the last few years, she knew that they wanted to increase military spending. So in order to get that, she was going to require them to increase some domestic spending or to protect some domestic spending that the Democrats cared about. So knowing those pressure points, knowing what it is your opponent values in the negotiation, enables her to to maximize that leverage.

    And then just the fact that she is so effective – it becomes a sort of virtuous cycle, I guess you would say, that because she’s so successful at keeping the Democratic caucus united, it gives her a lot of credibility in that negotiation to say, I can bring along all of my votes. Can you do that? Because I haven’t seen you do that, but you’ve seen me do that a lot.

    DAVIES: In 2006, the Democrats get the majority in Congress. She then becomes speaker the following January. And then in 2008, Barack Obama wins the White House. And Pelosi is speaker at a time when the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress. And you have a president with an ambitious policy agenda. And there were things they took on like the Affordable Care Act. But it’s interesting that you write that one of the toughest things for her was dealing with President Obama. What was hard about that?

    BALL: I don’t think she would say that he was hard to deal with. I think she – they – the two of them became very close. And she cherished that relationship very much. And I think he came to respect her as well. But this was a common refrain during the Obama administration from Democrats in the House and Senate. They just never felt that Obama was fully engaged with the Congress and knew his way around the Congress. Having only been a senator for a few years, never having been in the House and, you know, not being the sort of schmoozer who is always having people over to the White House and wining and dining representatives and so on, many of the House Democrats were often frustrated with President Obama’s negotiating abilities, felt that he was giving away too much on the front end and wasn’t maximizing leverage. So if you can imagine, if you’re someone like Nancy Pelosi who values leverage, that’s going to be extremely frustrating.

    DAVIES: Right. Well, and she was frustrated, as many in Congress were, that the Obama administration would want Congress to actually draft some of these really critical pieces of legislation, almost as if – I think you write – the Democrats in Congress felt that the Obama team wanted to get credit for these policy initiatives but not get their hands dirty in actually doing the work of making things happen. And then I guess the other thing was that Obama tended to think he was going to get Republican support. And she would tell him, no, they will string you along and then vote against you and then blame Democrats for everything that goes wrong.

    BALL: That’s right. She had had a lot of experience watching how the Republicans did business and had become, I think, pretty appropriately cynical about their willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion. So pretty much from the beginning, you know, you mentioned that Obama came in with this ambitious policy agenda. He also, of course, came in with a crashing economy. And so the first order of business was to try to do something about that. And Obama really did think that because the situation was so dire and because he had run on this message of sort of uniting the country and because he came in with this very strong popularity, he thought that he could get some Republican support.

    But the Republicans pretty much decided at the outset that that was something they were not going to do. And Nancy Pelosi became a useful foil for them, in part because Obama was so popular, right? And they could always say, well, you know, we like Obama fine, but Nancy Pelosi and the Washington Democrats, they are the problem here. They’re the ones getting in the way. They’re the ones who won’t work with us. And it wasn’t true. She would’ve been willing to work across the aisle if she believed that they were really going to deal with her. But she also wasn’t naive enough to think that they were totally sincere in all of their protestations.

    DAVIES: What was Nancy Pelosi’s role in getting the Affordable Care Act passed?

    BALL: She was really instrumental to its passage, and I don’t think that her role has been fully appreciated. A lot of the histories of the Affordable Care Act have centered on President Obama or have centered on the challenge of getting it through the Senate. But she was key to getting it through the House. And not only that – when the Democrats lost their 60-vote majority in the Senate and had to essentially start from scratch, there were a lot of people in the White House in the Obama administration who wanted to give up, who thought that this just wasn’t going to be possible. It was too large a hill to climb, and it was looking politically toxic as well, and maybe they should toggle back their ambitions and try for something a little bit smaller, something that wouldn’t be truly universal but would maybe just increase the number of children with health insurance. And Nancy Pelosi was the one who in that meeting turned to President Obama and said, Mr. President, I know there are people urging you to take what she called the namby-pamby approach, and she was the one who stiffened his spine. Now, the president and his people will tell you that he never went wobbly, although there’s some evidence that perhaps he did, but she was the one who said, I will help you make this happen. Let’s not back down. We’ve come too far. Trying to get some form of universal access to health care was something that the Democrats had been trying to do for the better part of a century, and they were so close, and she was not going to let him give up at that moment.

    DAVIES: Molly Ball is national political correspondent for Time. Her new book is called “Pelosi.” We’ll continue our conversation after this short break. This is FRESH AIR.

    (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

    DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. We’re speaking with Molly Ball. She’s national political correspondent for Time and a political analyst for CNN. Her new biography of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is called “Pelosi.”

    So the Democrats lost control of Congress in 2010. That made Nancy Pelosi now minority leader. And then in 2016, Donald Trump surprises everyone by winning the presidential election. She’s got a new president she’ll have to deal with. So how did she manage dealing with him? What approach did she take?

    BALL: Well, you have to remember that, first of all, nobody, including Donald Trump, expected him to win that election in 2016. So it was quite a jolt to everybody in politics, Nancy Pelosi included. And, also, nobody knew what to expect from him as president because he had said so many conflicting things in order to get elected, had had so many different personas from sort of conservative Republican to liberal New York Democrat. And he’d sold himself simultaneously as this fighter for the right and also as this deal-maker. And, in fact, people – a lot of people who voted for him saw him as more moderate than Hillary Clinton, someone who would be able to work across the aisle.

    So being the results-oriented, operational person that she is, Nancy Pelosi did not spend a lot of time recovering from the shock of Donald Trump’s election. She immediately started to think about, how can I deal with him? And they got on the phone, and he said some very nice things to her. And her very first thought, though, was, I have to protect the Affordable Care Act, because she knew that with Republicans, the only thing that had stopped Republicans from repealing the Affordable Care Act before was that President Obama would’ve vetoed it. But now that they had the majority in both houses of Congress and the presidency, it was a very real possibility. So she immediately kicked into high gear trying to ensure that the Affordable Care Act would not be repealed. And that was her very first priority.

    DAVIES: In 2018, the Democrats retook Congress with a new wave of enthusiasm and a new wave of women running for office and being elected to Congress. This presented a challenge for Nancy Pelosi. I mean, there were a lot of new people in Congress who didn’t know her as well, and she and the other two top leaders in Congress were all in their 70s and there was a rebellion of sorts. What convinced her she should stay on? How did she deal with this?

    BALL: She said after the 2016 election that if Hillary Clinton had won, she might have stepped down, she might have retired because there would be a woman at the table. Being the only woman leader – top leader of either party in Congress or the White House, she has spent most of her career being the only woman at the table when the president meets with the top leaders of Congress, and she believes that that’s really important. So some people don’t believe she actually would’ve stepped down. She certainly has a long record of refusing to step down, even after a loss. But she did say that she would’ve considered that and that she stayed in large part because she believed there needed to be a woman at that negotiating table.

    And then also, just her capabilities as a negotiator, seeing what the Democrats were going to be up against with the Republicans in power in both houses of Congress and the White House, believing that they needed the most capable person in those negotiations and believing that that was her.

    DAVIES: After the Democrats took control of the House in 2018 and then Pelosi would soon be speaker again, she had real leverage in dealing with Donald Trump, which didn’t happen in the first two years of his term. How did things change? There was an early meeting at which she made quite a statement.

    BALL: That’s right. Shortly after that 2018 election, you remember there was this high-stakes budget negotiation going on between the two parties that ended in a government shutdown. And before that, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer went to the White House to meet with the president. And Trump, as he’s done in a few of these settings, decided to invite the press to stay and film this negotiation that they thought was going to be private. And at one point, they’re going back and forth about things like the border wall and whether the government’s going to shut down.

    And Trump, sort of almost as an aside, says, well, you know, Nancy’s got a hard time right now because she doesn’t have a lot of support in her own party. He’s referring to the leadership battle that she was in to regain the speakership. And she immediately cuts him off, doesn’t let him finish and says, Mr. President, please don’t characterize the strength that I bring to this meeting as the leader of the House Democrats.

    So she was interrupting him. She was putting him in his place. She was refusing to be sort of insulted in that way. And I think that made a big impression. But what made an even bigger impression was when she and Senator Schumer walked out of that meeting, walked out the doors of the White House. And she put on that reddish-orange coat and those round tortoiseshell sunglasses and just grinned a big grin.

    And there’s an – that image of that moment sort of instantly became iconic as the epitome of the woman who could put Trump in his place. And because there was this wave of women’s political activism that started with Trump’s election and has continued ever since, because there’s so much anger on the left toward Trump and the Trump administration, I think that image immediately caught fire as sort of the fighter that Democrats needed, the figure who they felt could finally really stand up for them and stand up to Trump. And that’s been her position ever since.

    DAVIES: You know, it’s interesting. You make the point a lot in the book of how results-oriented she is, you know? It isn’t – doesn’t matter whether you don’t like me or whether you make fun of me in public if we get important things done for the American people – and just tries not to get involved in all the emotional stuff that can get in the way. That said, did you ever see her lose her temper?

    BALL: There’s a little-known incident that’s a perfect illustration of this from 2014. So she’s minority leader at this time. The Republicans are in control of the House. And there’s some speeches going on, as they often are, on the floor of the House. And a Republican member of Congress, Tom Marino, starts sort of taunting her. He’s saying, you know, you could’ve fixed immigration when you were in control, Madam Speaker. But you didn’t do it. And he’s insulting her intelligence. He’s insulting her capacity.

    So he gets done speaking. And you can actually see, in a partial way, on, like, the C-SPAN recording of this, you can see her marching across the floor, chasing him down and wagging her finger at him. And what she’s saying is, you are an insignificant person. You’re an insignificant person. And he recounted this later sort of shocked that she – and her colleagues almost had to pull her away from him because she was so incensed by what he’d accused her of.

    DAVIES: I’m wondering if you can tell us a bit about how she’s going to deal with the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic. I mean, there are practical challenges. How does the House function? How can you exercise oversight over the executive branch without public hearings and staff being on sight? How do you vote? What do you see?

    BALL: Yeah. Obviously, it’s a massive public policy challenge. And it’s also a massive logistical challenge. And I don’t think the Congress has figured out either part of that yet. She’s been involved in the negotiations toward these four massive bills that have already been passed, spending nearly $3 trillion to try to keep, you know, workers and businesses and the health care system afloat. And the work there is not finished. I think she regards that as a partial success. She still thinks that more needs to be done.

    And in terms of the logistics, you know, the House is a very old-fashioned place. And there were some efforts to try to figure out a way for them to meet remotely or do something else. And that kind of got poleaxed bipartisanship, you could say, where the Republicans wouldn’t agree to it. And it’s become this whole highly charged political battle, as absolutely everything is these days.

    So we’ll see. We have, you know, the Senate coming back this week. The House is supposed to come back in some fashion next week. And it will be a real challenge to see whether they can manage these two simultaneous problems, both the policy problem – this is a Congress that wasn’t functioning particularly well before they had to stay home and wear masks – and also the unique logistical problems of the virus.

    DAVIES: Molly Ball, thank you so much for spending some time with us.

    BALL: Thank you so much for having me.

    DAVIES: Molly Ball is national political correspondent for Time and an analyst for CNN. Her new book is “Pelosi.” Coming up, Kevin Whitehead reviews a new album by saxophonist Dayna Stephens’ trio. He says their improvised grace seems oddly relevant now. This is FRESH AIR.

    (ROBBEN FORD AND BILL EVANS’ “PIXIES”)

    Copyright © 2020 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

    NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

    Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2020/05/06/851343192/understanding-nancy-pelosi-she-knows-exactly-what-her-leverage-is

    8:27 p.m. PDT August 20, 2021

    Caldor Fire map. The red dots represent heat detected by an aircraft at 2:48 p.m. PDT August 20, 2021. The fire perimeter was mapped earlier.

    With strong winds in the forecast for Saturday officials have closed a portion of Highway 50 near the Caldor Fire which has burned over 75,000 acres 18 miles southwest of Lake Tahoe in California.

    The closure began at 4:30 p.m. Friday. Highway 50 will be closed in both directions from the Sly Park Road exit to Twin Bridges. It will be open between Meyers and Twin Bridges for local residents only who reside between Meyers and Twin Bridges. These residents will be subject to providing identification and proof of residency. No traffic will be allowed west of Twin Bridges. (This information was acquired at 7 p.m. PDT Friday, Aug. 20, 2021, and could change.)

    To see all articles on Wildfire Today about the Caldor Fire, including the most recent, click HERE.

    At 3 p.m. Friday the north edge of the Caldor Fire was about a half mile south of the highway. (See the map above.) A Red Flag Warning will be in effect Saturday from 11 a.m. through 8 p.m. The weather forecast for Saturday at 4,600 feet is for southwest and west-southwest winds beginning at 8 a.m. increasing in strength by 11 a.m. to 16 mph gusting to 25 mph, or 30 mph in some areas. The relative humidity will drop to 25 percent or lower. Skies will be clear with a high of 75 degrees.

    Strong winds with no cloud cover and 25 percent humidity could push the fire to Highway 50 and possibly across the roadway. However a dense smoke layer could reduce solar preheating of the fuels and attenuate the spread somewhat. The Hot-Dry-Windy Index for Saturday predicts the area will be below the 50th percentile, which would not indicate extreme spread of a fire. This weather event will be a good test of the Index.

    Many areas are under evacuation orders. InciWeb has the details.

    On Friday the fire activity increased after noon when the wind began coming out of the south at 6 to 10 mph gusting to 23.

    The fire spread is being driven by a heavy component of dead and down fuels and drought-stressed vegetation. Live fuels are cured to levels normally seen in late September, and the vegetation is extremely receptive to spotting. Fuel moistures are historically low.

    Fire officials have documented the destruction of 118 residences.

    Resources assigned to the fire include 18 crews, 109 fire engines, and 13 helicopters for a total of 1,118 personnel.

    USFS engine crews on the initial attack of the Caldor Fire, August 14, 2021. USFS photo.

    Source Article from https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/08/20/forecast-for-strong-winds-prompts-closure-of-highway-50-near-caldor-fire/

    Press Release

    Employees working at Globoaves plant

     São Paulo – Globoaves, a producer of fertile eggs, one day-old cockerels, and poultry based in the Brazilian state of Paraná, is using this year’s edition of Dubai’s Gulfood fair to meet old customers and seek out new contacts. According to export manager Eduardo Kaefer, going to the fair is a chance to build “closer ties” with customers, go on technical visits, and look for new deals in the Middle East.

    Meat exports account for 45% of the company’s revenues, and out of those, the Middle East accounts for 50%. Even the world economic crisis, which started in 2008 and still plagues wealthy and emerging countries alike, has failed to detract from the company’s relations with clients in the region.

    “There was a slowdown in some countries, for different reasons, and not exclusively due to the international crisis. However, the Arab countries have always remained strong business partners, and our meat sales were not impacted in any significant way,” says Kaefer.

    Since it first started exporting to the Middle East, in 2006, the company has been attending Gulfood. There, says the manager, Globoaves has the opportunity to get close to its clients. “Our goal in 2014, just as in past years, is to meet our clients, most of all so we can improve the services we provide. We are aware of the fact that in our line of business, making deliveries the way customers want us to, and meeting deadlines is as important as product quality. The Middle East is a market where relationship and trust are key in a negotiation,” he says.

    The company, which is a member of the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, always goes to the fair with the Brazilian Poultry Union (Ubabef) and the Brazilian Export and Investment Promotion Agency (Apex-Brasil). The 2014 edition of the Gulfood, due from February 23rd to 27th, will feature 77 companies at the stand organized by the Apex in partnership with the Arab Brazilian Chamber. During the event, technical visits will be paid to supermarkets in Dubai.

    Globoaves was founded in 1976 as an animal food shop in Cascavel, Paraná. The company has since diversified its operations. Currently, it produces fertile eggs, sells one day-old chicks, makes animal food, operates with biotechnology, and slaughters chicken. The company posts annual revenues exceeding R$ 1 billion (US$ 414 million) and owns 90 hatcheries, five cold storage chambers, ten incubators and eight animal feed manufacturing plants.

    *Translated by Gabriel Pomerancblum

    Source Article from http://www2.anba.com.br/noticia/21862906/business-opportunities/globoaves-returns-to-gulfood-to-cement-its-business/

    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/

    WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Thursday he would have no qualms voting for a gay presidential candidate – even though he’s unlikely to support the gay Democrat running to take his job this year, Pete Buttigieg.

    “It doesn’t seem to be hurting Pete Buttigieg,” Trump told Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera during a radio interview in response to a question about whether U.S. voters would support a gay candidate for president.

    “I think there would be some that wouldn’t – and I wouldn’t be among that group to be honest with you,” Trump said. 

    Senate action:Senate poised to pass bill curbing Trump’s war powers with Iran 

    Trump v. Kelly:Ex-Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly defends Alexander Vindman

    Trump touched on a wide range of topics during the roughly 45-minute interview, including the 2020 election. He slammed former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is facing criticism for embracing a “stop-and-frisk” policies that disproportionately affected the city’s black residents.

    Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/13/trump-could-support-gay-president-but-probably-not-buttigieg/4748705002/

    Three suspects have been identified in the case of a slain witness who testified in the murder trial of former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, Dallas police announced Tuesday. One suspect was in custody, and two others are being sought on capital murder charges in the death of Joshua Brown.

    Police said Tuesday that Brown was killed in a drug deal gone bad, and they emphasized his death was not related to his testimony in the Guyger case.

    Brown was a key prosecution witness in the trial of Guyger, who was convicted last week in the killing of her neighbor, Botham Jean. Brown lived across the hall from Jean and testified that he heard two people “meeting by surprise,” followed by two shots, the night Jean died.

    Brown, 28, was shot to death at a separate apartment complex on Friday, just 10 days after taking the stand.

    In this Sept. 24, 2019, photo, Joshua Brown, left, answers questions from Assistant District Attorney LaQuita Long, right, while pointing to a map of the South Side Flats where he lives, while testifying during the murder trial of former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger.

    AP


    Dallas Police Assistant Chief Avery Moore said the three suspects had traveled from Louisiana to buy drugs from Brown, and one of the men shot Brown twice and killed him.

    One of the suspects, 20-year-old Jacquerious Mitchell, was wounded and treated at a hospital. He’s expected to be charged with capital murder. Police are still searching for Thaddeous Charles Green, 22, and Michael Diaz Mitchell, 32, who they believe fled the state.  

    Jacquerious Mitchell told police it was Green who contacted Brown to buy the drugs, according to police. Mitchell said Green and Brown were talking when the conversation escalated into a physical confrontation. During the dispute, Brown shot Jacquerious Mitchell and Green shot Brown, killing him, according to Jacquerious Mitchell’s account. Mitchell said he was driven to a hospital before the other two suspects fled.

    Dallas Police said “numerous tips” led them to search Brown’s apartment, where they confiscated 12 pounds of marijuana, 149 grams of THC cartridges and more than $4,000 in cash.  

    Brown was concerned for his safety and didn’t want to testify in the Guyger trial because he believed he had been targeted in a previous November 2018 shooting, according to his family lawyer, Lee Merritt. The shooting at a Dallas strip club last year left Brown wounded and killed Nicholas Shaquan Diggs, reports CBS Dallas-Fort Worth.

    Brown was also expected to testify in an upcoming trial in Diggs’ death, the station reports.

    Merritt told CBS Dallas-Fort Worth that the day Brown testified, someone posted on one of Brown’s social media accounts, “Now we know where to find you.” The post was later deleted.

    Merritt and others have called for an outside agency to investigate Brown’s death. Dallas Police did not immediately respond to a request for a response from CBS News.

    Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joshua-brown-murder-dallas-police-identify-suspects-in-case-of-slain-amber-guyger-witness-2019-10-08/

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Treinta años después de que su cuarto reactor explotara el 26 de abril de 1986, todavía existe una zona de exclusión alrededor de la planta nuclear de Chernobyl en Ucrania.

    El fotógrafo polaco Jerzy Wierzbicki visitó la zona acompañado de dos guías, exempleados de la planta nuclear.

    Después de que el reactor reventara, un incendio se desató en las instalaciones y duró 10 días. Eso hizo que se diseminara gran cantidad de material radioactivo en las zonas circundantes y en grandes partes de Europa, especialmente en Ucrania, Bielorrusia y Rusia.

    El área cercana a la planta fue evacuada. La zona de exclusión, un radio de 30 kilómetros alrededor de la planta, es monitoreada por policías armados con rifles AK-47.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    En realidad, la zona nunca fue evacuada en su totalidad. Las normas varían de acuerdo con los niveles de radiación.

    Donde está ubicada la planta no hay residentes. A los trabajadores se les permite vivir en la ciudad de Chernobyl, a unos 15 kilómetros de distancia, e incluso así, sólo pueden hacerlo por un número determinado de semanas.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    No muy lejos de la planta, María e Iván Semieniuk cenan en su casa en la localidad de Parishev.

    Cuando ocurrió el accidente, fueron sacados de allí, llevados a 20 kilómetros de Chernobyl. Las autoridades les habían dicho que iban a poder regresar tres días después.

    Como sospechaban que su regreso tomaría mucho más tiempo, metieron algunas de sus posesiones en su automóvil Zaporozhets y condujeron hacia otro pueblo llamado Borodianka.

    Allí, la policía militar los bañó con agua fría y a Iván le dijeron que sería empleado como un trabajador de la construcción.

    Dos años después, se les permitió regresar a Parishev. Han vivido allí desde entonces, pese a estar dentro de la zona de exclusión.

    En el pueblo y en el bosque que lo rodea hay un pequeño grupo de habitantes, pero gran parte del área está vacía.

    Con un dosímetro, los visitantes de la zona de exclusión pueden medir los cambios en la radiación y la exposición a la misma.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    En la casa de Iván y María, 30 años después, la medición es muy baja. De hecho, está por debajo de lo que se considera el límite seguro.

    En promedio, las mediciones en la zona oscilan entre 0,9 microsieverts por hora a una cierta distancia de la planta a 2,5 microsieverts cerca de ella.

    En aquellos lugares donde se registra un nivel alto, unos 214,2 microsieverts por hora, es peligroso quedarse aunque sea por tan sólo pocos minutos.

    El dosímetro registra esa medida cuando se analizan equipos radioactivos usados tras la crisis de 1986 en una área cercana a la ciudad de Pripyat.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Entre los residuos almacenados en una zona ubicada fuera de Pripyat, está la mayor parte de los vehículos y otros equipos pesados que se utilizaron en los días posteriores a la explosión del reactor número cuatro.

    La imagen de arriba muestra el camión soviético Zil, enredado con otra chatarra metálica.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Pripyat es en sí misma una ciudad fantasma.

    Inaugurada en 1970 como un núcleo urbano soviético moderno para los trabajadores de la industria nuclear, se convirtió en el hogar de unas 50.000 personas.

    La piscina Azure quedaba cerca de la escuela primaria número tres.

    Treinta y seis horas después de la catástrofe, los residentes fueron desalojados de la ciudad en una operación de largo alcance.

    El techo del reactor número cuatro de Chernobyl saltó por los aires a la 01:24 el 26 de abril.

    Pripyat está a solo 4 kilómetros de distancia.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Pripyat se mantiene intacta, tal como estaba el 27 de abril de 1986.

    El consultorio del doctor, con los tubos y los frascos de vidrio llenos de vacunas y medicinas, está desierto en el Centro Médico número 26.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    En el jardín de infancia “El pequeño osito” de Pripyat el abandono es evidente: los pupitres y las sillas están amontonados uno encima del otro y los juguetes están llenos de polvo.

    Antes de la apresurada evacuación de la ciudad, a los residentes no se les informó sobre el accidente nuclear que había ocurrido a poca distancia.

    En total, 116.000 personas fueron sacadas del área que se declaró como una zona de exclusión.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Tirada en el piso de un apartamento en Pripyat se ve una pequeña imagen en blanco y negro de Vladimir Lenin.

    Otro signo de un mundo que desapareció hace décadas.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Pripyat era una típica ciudad soviética, llena de bloques de concreto de apartamentos uniformes, con poca vegetación y vías mal construidas y llenas de baches.

    Esta es la vista desde el piso 15 del edificio de apartamentos más alto de la ciudad.

    Sin la presencia de pobladores, el bosque cercano ha invadido las calles y los espacios entre los apartamentos de forma lenta y constante.

    Los únicos residentes ahora son animales salvajes, cuya población ha aumentado vertiginosamente.

    Expertos hablan del retorno de especies que se creían extinguidas de la zona.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    No muy lejos de Chernobyl hay una pequeña ciudad de vacaciones, desierta, con decenas de casas de veraneo.

    Dos personajes icónicos de los dibujos animados para niños de la era soviética Nu Pogodi! todavía están pintados en la pared de madera de una de las viviendas.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Una instalación militar fue construida a varios kilómetros de la planta en gran parte para proteger chernobyl.

    Sobre el campo militar se eleva una antena radar Duga-3.

    Fue apagada tres años después del desastre nuclear.

    Image copyright
    Jerzy Wierzbicki

    Recoger cualquier objeto dejado en la zona de exclusión está estrictamente prohibido, especialmente las máscaras usadas después del desastre por los trabajadores a quienes se les llamó “liquidadores”.

    Se estima que unas 600.000 personas participaron como “liquidadores” para ayudar a apagar el incendio y limpiar el área.

    Un reporte de la Organización Mundial de la Salud de 2005 calculó que 4.000 personas morirían por la exposición a la radiación.

    Los guías en la zona de exclusión prefieren no hablar sobre los efectos en la salud de los locales, pero el gobierno de Ucrania estima que sólo 5% de los “liquidadores” que todavía viven está en buenas condiciones de salud.

    Hoy en día, a los trabajadores de la planta nuclear no se les permite poner nada en el piso.

    Todas las personas son chequeadas regularmente para medir la radiación en estaciones especiales de dosímetros.

    El sarcófago de concreto y acero que todavía está sobre el reactor número cuatro está ahora en un estado precario y un equipo internacional busca reemplazarlo en 2017.

    Una vez el arco gigante de más de US$2.000 millones sea sustraído, empezará el trabajo de desmantelar y eliminar el desperdicio en su interior.

    Todas las imágenes fueron tomadas por Jerzy Wierzbicki.

    Source Article from http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2016/04/160424_chernobyl_30_accidente_nuclear_radiacion_ucrania_desastre_mr

    El Banco de España determina en un informe pericial remitido al juez de la Audiencia Nacional Fernando Andreu que las cuentas anuales que Bankia aprobó en marzo de 2012, bajo la presidencia de Rodrigo Rato, y las que reformuló en mayo de ese año, ya con José Ignacio Goirigolzarri al frente de la entidad, “no expresaban la imagen fiel” del banco.

    El informe, que ha sido entregado por dos peritos del regulador y puesto a disposición de las partes del ‘caso Bankia’, señala que tanto en las cuentas de Rato, que presentaban unos beneficios de 309 millones de euros como en las de Goirigolzarri, que apuntaban a unas pérdidas de 2.979 millones, existían “ajustes de importancia material no contabilizados”.

    En relación con la fusión de las siete entidades que formaron Bankia, los peritos señalan que el Sistema Integran de Protección (SIP) “se transformó en poco tiempo en una fusión de pleno derecho, pero los planes de negocio que justificaban la operación fallaron desde el principio, debido al deterioro del marco económico, los cambios normativos y la debilidad de las entidades integradas”.

    Source Article from http://www.ondacero.es/noticias/banco-espana-dice-que-cuentas-rato-goirigolzarri-reflejaban-realidad-bankia_2014120400154.html

    El que fuera ministro de Economía y Hacienda durante el primer Gobierno de Felipe González, entre 1982 y 1985, ha fallecido este lunes poco después del mediodía en la clínica Ruber Internacional de Madrid tras ser hospitalizado a primera hora de esta mañana en estado crítico como consecuencia de una embolia pulmonar. “D. Miguel Boyer Salvador ha ingresado por urgencias en el día de hoy en estado crítico, causado por un tromboembolismo pulmonar. El fallecimiento se ha producido una hora después de su ingreso”, reza el comunicado realizado por la clínica a petición de la familia.

    El cuerpo del marido de Isabel Preysler será trasladado en las próximas horas al tanatorio de San Isidro de Madrid, donde durante la tarde se acercarán familiares y amigos del matrimonio para despedirse y dar sus condolencias al clan Boyer-Preysler.

    En los últimos tiempos, la salud de Miguel Boyer se convirtió en el eje central de la vida de Isabel Preyler. El 27 febrero de 2012 el exministro fue ingresado durante dos meses en la Ruber de la calle Juan Bravo de Madrid como consecuencia de un derrame cerebral del que se recuperó, sin embargo, las consecuencias de aquel duro golpe le obligaron a apartarse de las responsabilidades que aún mantenía como consejero de Reyal Urbis y de Red Eléctrica de España debido a sus problemas de movilidad y lenguaje.

    Boyer, junto a Iñaki Gabilondo y Eduardo Zaplana al fondo en enero de 2013 (Efe)

    No fue hasta once meses después de sufrir el ictus cuando Miguel Boyer reapareció públicamente. Fue a finales de enero de 2013 en el coloquio “Un balance de 35 años de democracia. ¿Continuidad o Reforma?” que organizó el Club Siglo XXI y que fue presentado por Iñaki Gabilondo. Allí se encontró con varios compañeros socialistas como Carme Chacón y Pepe Blanco, además de con el popular Eduardo Zaplana. En este acto no le acompañó su mujer, lo que demostró que el exministro iba ganando en autonomía después de una lenta recuperación en la que la socialité ha estado a su lado en todo momento. 

    Ana Boyer en los 90 (Gtres)

    Nacido en San Juan de Luz (Francia) en 1939, Miguel Boyer tiene una hija con Isabel Preyler, Ana, que nació sólo tres meses después de casarse por lo civil en los juzgados de la calle Pradillo de Madrid. 

    Además, y fruto de su primer matrimonio con la ginecóloga Elena Arnedo, con quien se casó en 1964 y de quien se divorció en 1985 cuando ya sonaban con fuerza los rumores de una relación afectiva con Preysler, el exministro tiene otros dos hijos, Miguel y Laura.

    Divorciada en dos ocasiones y con dos hijos, Laura Boyer es la primogénita y la más rebelde de la familia, no sólo por las idas y venidas en su estado civil, sino por el contenido de su blog Literatura y Vida, donde habla de sexo, política y fe sin tapujos. La última ocasión en la que se dejó ver fue en febrero de 2012, cuando acudió a la clínica Ruber Internacional de Madrid a visitar a su padre tras el ictus. 

    Source Article from http://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial.com/noticias/2014-09-29/muere-miguel-boyer-exministro-de-economia-y-marido-de-isabel-preysler_218216/

    A grand jury has indicted adult film actor Ron Jeremy on more than 30 counts of sexual assault involving 21 women and girls across more than two decades, authorities said.

    Jeremy, 68, whose legal name is Ronald Jeremy Hyatt, pleaded not guilty in Los Angeles superior court on Wednesday to all of the charges, which include 12 counts of rape.

    The indictment, which was returned 19 August and unsealed Wednesday, covers allegations dating from 1996 to 2019 with victims aged 15 to 51. The counts appear to be identical to charges filed against Jeremy last year, which he also denied.

    In a tactical move also employed in their case against Harvey Weinstein, LA county prosecutors used secret grand jury proceedings to get an indictment that replaces the original charges, allowing them to skip a public preliminary hearing on the evidence and proceed to trial.

    Defense attorney Stuart Goldfarb said in an email that Jeremy’s “position is the same as when the criminal complaint was filed. He is innocent of all the charges.”

    Jeremy has been held in jail on $6.6m bail since his arrest in June 2020.

    The indictment includes allegations that Jeremy raped a 19-year-old woman during a photoshoot in 1996, raped a 26-year-old woman at a nightclub in 2003 and raped a 17-year-old girl at a home in 2008.

    He is also charged with sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl in 2004.

    No trial date has been set. Jeremy was told to return to court in October for a pretrial hearing.

    Jeremy has been among the best-known and most prolific performers in the pornographic industry for decades, appearing in hundreds of films since the 1970s. He has also made regular appearances in mainstream films and on reality TV shows.

    Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to 10 counts of sexual assault and is also awaiting trial. A judge dismissed an 11th count.

    Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 802 9999. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html

    Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/25/ron-jeremy-adult-film-star-indicted-charges

    ‘):””},e.getDefinedParams=function(t,e){return e.filter(function(e){return t[e]}).reduce(function(e,n){return i(e,function(t,e,n){return e in t?Object.defineProperty(t,e,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):t[e]=n,t}({},n,t[n]))},{})},e.isValidMediaTypes=function(t){var e=[“banner”,”native”,”video”];return!!Object.keys(t).every(function(t){return X()(e,t)})&&(!t.video||!t.video.context||X()([“instream”,”outstream”,”adpod”],t.video.context))},e.getBidderRequest=function(t,e,n){return Z()(t,function(t){return 0n[t]?-1:0}};var H,K=n(3),$=n(90),Y=n.n($),J=n(10),Z=n.n(J),Q=n(8),X=n.n(Q),tt=n(11),et=n(4),nt=!1,rt=”Array”,it=”String”,ot=”Function”,at=”Number”,st=”Object”,ut=”Boolean”,ct=Object.prototype.toString,ft=Boolean(window.console),dt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.log),lt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.info),pt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.warn),ht=Boolean(ft&&window.console.error),gt={checkCookieSupport:V,createTrackPixelIframeHtml:B,getWindowSelf:p,getWindowTop:l,getAncestorOrigins:d,getTopFrameReferrer:f,getWindowLocation:h,getTopWindowLocation:c,insertUserSyncIframe:R,insertElement:C,isFn:w,triggerPixel:D,logError:y,logWarn:b,logMessage:g,logInfo:v},vt={},bt=function(t,e){return e}.bind(null,1,vt)()===vt?Function.prototype.bind:function(t){var e=this,n=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1);return function(){return e.apply(t,n.concat(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments)))}},yt=(H=0,function(){return++H}),mt=function(){if(Array.prototype.indexOf)return Array.prototype.indexOf}(),_t=function(t,e){return t.hasOwnProperty?t.hasOwnProperty(e):void 0!==t[e]&&t.constructor.prototype[e]!==t[e]},Et=z(“timeToRespond”,function(t,e){return eu;)r(s,n=e[u++])&&(~o(c,n)||c.push(n));return c}},141:function(t,e,n){var r=n(18).document;t.exports=r&&r.documentElement},142:function(t,e,n){var r=n(25),i=n(41),o=n(49)(“IE_PROTO”),a=Object.prototype;t.exports=Object.getPrototypeOf||function(t){return t=i(t),r(t,o)?t[o]:”function”==typeof t.constructor&&t instanceof t.constructor?t.constructor.prototype:t instanceof Object?a:null}},143:function(t,e,n){n(144);for(var r=n(18),i=n(20),o=n(28),a=n(15)(“toStringTag”),s=”CSSRuleList,CSSStyleDeclaration,CSSValueList,ClientRectList,DOMRectList,DOMStringList,DOMTokenList,DataTransferItemList,FileList,HTMLAllCollection,HTMLCollection,HTMLFormElement,HTMLSelectElement,MediaList,MimeTypeArray,NamedNodeMap,NodeList,PaintRequestList,Plugin,PluginArray,SVGLengthList,SVGNumberList,SVGPathSegList,SVGPointList,SVGStringList,SVGTransformList,SourceBufferList,StyleSheetList,TextTrackCueList,TextTrackList,TouchList”.split(“,”),u=0;u=t.length?(this._t=void 0,i(1)):i(0,”keys”==e?n:”values”==e?t[n]:[n,t[n]])},”values”),o.Arguments=o.Array,r(“keys”),r(“values”),r(“entries”)},145:function(t,e,n){“use strict”;var r=n(146),i=n(78);t.exports=n(148)(“Set”,function(t){return function(){return t(this,0=l.syncsPerBidder)return o.logWarn(‘Number of user syncs exceeded for “‘.concat(e,'”‘));if(l.filterSettings){if(function(t,e){var n=l.filterSettings;if(function(t,e){if(t.all&&t[e])return o.logWarn(‘Detected presence of the “filterSettings.all” and “filterSettings.’.concat(e,'” in userSync config. You cannot mix “all” with “iframe/image” configs; they are mutually exclusive.’)),!1;var n=t.all?t.all:t[e],r=t.all?”all”:e;if(!n)return!1;var i=n.filter,a=n.bidders;return i&&”include”!==i&&”exclude”!==i?(o.logWarn(‘UserSync “filterSettings.’.concat(r,”.filter\” setting ‘”).concat(i,”‘ is not a valid option; use either ‘include’ or ‘exclude’.”)),!1):!!(“*”===a||Array.isArray(a)&&0t.getTimeout()+y.config.getConfig(“timeoutBuffer”)&&t.executeCallback(!0)}function s(t,e){var n=t.getBidRequests(),r=S()(n,function(t){return t.bidderCode===e.bidderCode});!function(t,e){var n;if(t.bidderCode&&(0n&&(e=!1)),!e}),e&&t.run(),e}function a(t,e){void 0===t[e]?t[e]=1:t[e]++}var c=this;s=D,i=Date.now();var f=O.makeBidRequests(v,i,w,z,b);I.logInfo(“Bids Requested for Auction with id: “.concat(w),f),f.forEach(function(t){var e;e=t,_=_.concat(e)});var d={};if(f.lengthe.max?t:e},{max:0}),a=s()(e.buckets,function(e){if(t>i.max*n){var o=e.precision;void 0===o&&(o=c),r=(e.max*n).toFixed(o)}else if(t=e.min*n)return e});return a&&(r=function(t,e,n){var r=void 0!==e.precision?e.precision:c,i=e.increment*n,o=e.min*n,a=Math.pow(10,r+2),s=(t*a-o*a)/(i*a),u=Math.floor(s)*i+o;return(u=Number(u.toFixed(10))).toFixed(r)}(t,a,n)),r}function o(t){
    if(u.isEmpty(t)||!t.buckets||!Array.isArray(t.buckets))return!1;var e=!0;return t.buckets.forEach(function(t){void 0!==t.min&&t.max&&t.increment||(e=!1)}),e}n.d(e,”a”,function(){return r}),n.d(e,”b”,function(){return o});var a=n(10),s=n.n(a),u=n(0),c=2,f={buckets:[{min:0,max:5,increment:.5}]},d={buckets:[{min:0,max:20,increment:.1}]},l={buckets:[{min:0,max:20,increment:.01}]},p={buckets:[{min:0,max:3,increment:.01},{min:3,max:8,increment:.05},{min:8,max:20,increment:.5}]},h={buckets:[{min:0,max:5,increment:.05},{min:5,max:10,increment:.1},{min:10,max:20,increment:.5}]}},52:function(t,e){t.exports=function(t){if(“function”!=typeof t)throw TypeError(t+” is not a function!”);return t}},53:function(t,e,n){var r=n(16),i=n(18).document,o=r(i)&&r(i.createElement);t.exports=function(t){return o?i.createElement(t):{}}},54:function(t,e,n){var r=n(31);t.exports=Object(“z”).propertyIsEnumerable(0)?Object:function(t){return”String”==r(t)?t.split(“”):Object(t)}},55:function(t,e,n){var r=n(31);t.exports=Array.isArray||function(t){return”Array”==r(t)}},56:function(t,e,n){var r=n(14),i=n(18),o=”__core-js_shared__”,a=i[o]||(i[o]={});(t.exports=function(t,e){return a[t]||(a[t]=void 0!==e?e:{})})(“versions”,[]).push({version:r.version,mode:n(57)?”pure”:”global”,copyright:”© 2019 Denis Pushkarev (zloirock.ru)”})},57:function(t,e){t.exports=!0},58:function(t,e,n){var r=n(44),i=n(33),o=n(88);t.exports=function(t){return function(e,n,a){var s,u=r(e),c=i(u.length),f=o(a,c);if(t&&n!=n){for(;fe.cpm/e.video.durationBucket?-1:0};var c=n(0),f=n(36),d=n(64),l=n(46),p=n(17),h=n(63),g=n(3),v=n(2),b=n(133),y=n.n(b),m=n(10),_=n.n(m),E=n(156),S=”hb_pb_cat_dur”,w=”hb_cache_id”,T=50,A=5,x=function(){function t(t){e[t]={},e[t].bidStorage=new y.a,e[t].queueDispatcher=function(t){var e,n=1;return function(r,i,o,a){var s=this,u=function(){(function(t,e,n){(function(t){for(var e=0;e”):””;return’\n \n \n prebid.org wrapper\n \n “).concat(n,”\n \n \n \n “)}(t.vastUrl,t.vastImpUrl),ttlseconds:Number(t.ttl)};return”string”==typeof t.customCacheKey&&””!==t.customCacheKey&&(e.key=t.customCacheKey),e}e.b=function(t,e){var n={puts:t.map(r)};Object(i.a)(o.config.getConfig(“cache.url”),function(t){return{success:function(e){var n;try{n=JSON.parse(e).responses}catch(e){return void t(e,[])}n?t(null,n):t(new Error(“The cache server didn’t respond with a responses property.”),[])},error:function(e,n){t(new Error(“Error storing video ad in the cache: “.concat(e,”: “).concat(JSON.stringify(n))),[])}}}(e),JSON.stringify(n),{contentType:”text/plain”,withCredentials:!0})},e.a=function(t){return””.concat(o.config.getConfig(“cache.url”),”?uuid=”).concat(t)};var i=n(5),o=n(3)},64:function(t,e,n){“use strict”;function r(t){return(r=”function”==typeof Symbol&&”symbol”==_typeof(Symbol.iterator)?function(t){return void 0===t?”undefined”:_typeof(t)}:function(t){return t&&”function”==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?”symbol”:void 0===t?”undefined”:_typeof(t)})(t)}function i(){return(i=Object.assign||function(t){for(var e=1;e (eg mediaTypes.banner.sizes).”),t.sizes=n);if(e&&e.video){var i=e.video;if(i.playerSize)if(Array.isArray(i.playerSize)&&1===i.playerSize.length&&i.playerSize.every(function(t){return Object(f.isArrayOfNums)(t,2)}))t.sizes=i.playerSize;else if(Object(f.isArrayOfNums)(i.playerSize,2)){var o=[];o.push(i.playerSize),x.logInfo(“Transforming video.playerSize from [“.concat(i.playerSize,”] to [[“).concat(o,”]] so it’s in the proper format.”)),t.sizes=i.playerSize=o}else x.logError(“Detected incorrect configuration of mediaTypes.video.playerSize. Please specify only one set of dimensions in a format like: [[640, 480]]. Removing invalid mediaTypes.video.playerSize property from request.”),delete t.mediaTypes.video.playerSize}if(e&&e.native){var a=e.native;a.image&&a.image.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.image.sizes)&&(x.logError(“Please use an array of sizes for native.image.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.sizes property from request.”),delete t.mediaTypes.native.image.sizes),a.image&&a.image.aspect_ratios&&!Array.isArray(a.image.aspect_ratios)&&(x.logError(“Please use an array of sizes for native.image.aspect_ratios field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios property from request.”),delete t.mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios),a.icon&&a.icon.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.icon.sizes)&&(x.logError(“Please use an array of sizes for native.icon.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes property from request.”),delete t.mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes)}}),t},”checkAdUnitSetup”);T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr=function(t){if(x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr”,arguments),t){var e=T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode(t);return x.transformAdServerTargetingObj(e)}x.logMessage(“Need to call getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr with adunitCode”)},T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode=function(t){return T.getAdserverTargeting(t)[t]},T.getAdserverTargeting=function(t){return x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargeting”,arguments),v.b.getAllTargeting(t)},T.getNoBids=function(){return x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.getNoBids”,arguments),a(“getNoBids”)},T.getBidResponses=function(){return x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.getBidResponses”,arguments),a(“getBidsReceived”)},T.getBidResponsesForAdUnitCode=function(t){return{bids:g.a.getBidsReceived().filter(function(e){return e.adUnitCode===t}).map(f.removeRequestId)}},T.setTargetingForGPTAsync=function(t,e){if(x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForGPTAsync”,arguments),Object(f.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var n=v.b.getAllTargeting(t);v.b.resetPresetTargeting(t),v.b.setTargetingForGPT(n,e),Object.keys(n).forEach(function(t){Object.keys(n[t]).forEach(function(e){“hb_adid”===e&&g.a.setStatusForBids(n[t][e],A.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET)})}),O.emit(P,n)}else x.logError(“window.googletag is not defined on the page”)},T.setTargetingForAst=function(){x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForAn”,arguments),v.b.isApntagDefined()?(v.b.setTargetingForAst(),O.emit(P,v.b.getAllTargeting())):x.logError(“window.apntag is not defined on the page”)},T.renderAd=function(t,e){if(x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.renderAd”,arguments),x.logMessage(“Calling renderAd with adId :”+e),t&&e)try{var n=g.a.findBidByAdId(e);if(n){n.status=A.BID_STATUS.RENDERED,n.ad=x.replaceAuctionPrice(n.ad,n.cpm),n.adUrl=x.replaceAuctionPrice(n.adUrl,n.cpm),g.a.addWinningBid(n),O.emit(R,n);var r=n.height,i=n.width,a=n.ad,u=n.mediaType,c=n.adUrl,f=n.renderer,d=document.createComment(“Creative “.concat(n.creativeId,” served by “).concat(n.bidder,” Prebid.js Header Bidding”));if(x.insertElement(d,t,”body”),Object(S.c)(f))Object(S.b)(f,n);else if(t===document&&!x.inIframe()||”video”===u){var l=”Error trying to write ad. Ad render call ad id “.concat(e,” was prevented from writing to the main document.”);s(N,l,n)}else if(a)t.open(“text/html”,”replace”),t.write(a),t.close(),o(t,i,r),x.callBurl(n);else if(c){var p=x.createInvisibleIframe();p.height=r,p.width=i,p.style.display=”inline”,p.style.overflow=”hidden”,p.src=c,x.insertElement(p,t,”body”),o(t,i,r),x.callBurl(n)}else{var h=”Error trying to write ad. No ad for bid response id: “.concat(e);s(M,h,n)}}else{var v=”Error trying to write ad. Cannot find ad by given id : “.concat(e);s(q,v)}}catch(t){var b=”Error trying to write ad Id :”.concat(e,” to the page:”).concat(t.message);s(z,b)}else{var y=”Error trying to write ad Id :”.concat(e,” to the page. Missing document or adId”);s(L,y)}},T.removeAdUnit=function(t){x.logInfo(“Invoking pbjs.removeAdUnit”,arguments),t?(x.isArray(t)?t:[t]).forEach(function(t){for(var e=0;eObject(s.timestamp)()},_=function(t){return t&&(t.status&&!h()([v.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET,v.BID_STATUS.RENDERED],t.status)||!t.status)},E=function(t){function e(e){return”string”==typeof e?[e]:g.isArray(e)?e:t.getAdUnitCodes()||[]}function n(){var e=t.getBidsReceived();return u.config.getConfig(“useBidCache”)||(e=e.filter(function(t){return T[t.adUnitCode]===t.auctionId})),a(e=e.filter(function(t){return Object(s.deepAccess)(t,”video.context”)!==l.a}).filter(function(t){return”banner”!==t.mediaType||Object(d.c)([t.width,t.height])}).filter(_).filter(m),s.getOldestHighestCpmBid)}function f(){return t.getStandardBidderAdServerTargeting().map(function(t){return t.key}).concat(y).filter(s.uniques)}function p(t,e,n,r){return Object.keys(e.adserverTargeting).filter(E()).forEach(function(n){t.length&&t.filter(function(t){return function(n){return n.adUnitCode===e.adUnitCode&&n.adserverTargeting[t]}}(n)).forEach(function(t){return function(n){g.isArray(n.adserverTargeting[t])||(n.adserverTargeting[t]=[n.adserverTargeting[t]]),n.adserverTargeting[t]=n.adserverTargeting[t].concat(e.adserverTargeting[t]).filter(s.uniques),delete e.adserverTargeting[t]}}(n))}),t.push(e),t}function E(){var t=f();return function(e){return-1===t.indexOf(e)}}function S(t){return o({},t.adUnitCode,Object.keys(t.adserverTargeting).filter(E()).map(function(e){return o({},e.substring(0,20),[t.adserverTargeting[e]])}))}var w={},T={};return w.setLatestAuctionForAdUnit=function(t,e){T[t]=e},w.resetPresetTargeting=function(n){if(Object(s.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var r=e(n),i=t.getAdUnits().filter(function(t){return h()(r,t.code)});window.googletag.pubads().getSlots().forEach(function(t){b.forEach(function(e){i.forEach(function(n){n.code!==t.getAdUnitPath()&&n.code!==t.getSlotElementId()||t.setTargeting(e,null)})})})}},w.resetPresetTargetingAST=function(t){e(t).forEach(function(t){var e=window.apntag.getTag(t);if(e&&e.keywords){var n=Object.keys(e.keywords),r={};n.forEach(function(t){h()(b,t.toLowerCase())||(r[t]=e.keywords[t])}),window.apntag.modifyTag(t,{keywords:r})}})},w.getAllTargeting=function(t){var d=1=e.length?{value:void 0,done:!0}:(t=r(e,n),this._i+=t.length,{value:t,done:!1})})},68:function(t,e,n){
    var r=n(24),i=n(138),o=n(69),a=n(49)(“IE_PROTO”),s=function(){},u=”prototype”,c=function(){var t,e=n(53)(“iframe”),r=o.length;for(e.style.display=”none”,n(141).appendChild(e),e.src=”javascript:”,(t=e.contentWindow.document).open(),t.write(“

    Source Article from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-supporter-threatening-kill-ilhan-omar-patrick-carlineo.html

    The president made no public appearances Friday, a day after the United States recorded 2,879 Americans deaths caused by COVID-19, 217,664 confirmed cases of the virus and over 100,000 hospitalizations — all records.

    Trump has spent his waning days in office not focused on leading the United States through a historic, deadly crisis but rather fundraising for his future political endeavors and sowing doubt in the country’s democratic foundations.

    Regurgitating debunked conspiracy theories about electoral fraud that courts across the country have rejected, the president and the Republican Party have collected hundreds of millions of dollars as Trump mulls another run for the presidency four years down the line.

    More than 276,000 Americans have been killed so far, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday predicted 53,000 more lives could be lost by Dec. 26. On average, one person died every 30 seconds Thursday.

    “The reality is, December and January and February are going to be rough times,” the CDC’s director, Robert Redfield, said Wednesday. “I actually believe they’re going to be the most difficult time in the public health history of this nation, largely because of the stress that it’s going to put on our health care system.”

    Trump’s Twitter feed, meanwhile, has focused almost entirely on making wild, false accusations of electoral fraud.

    Trump has held few public events since the election ended on Nov. 3, with just one devoted to the virus — a Nov. 13 Rose Garden gathering at which he touted what he characterized as the United States’ unprecedented pace at producing vaccines.

    Asked Thursday what, if anything, the president was doing that day to address the pandemic, the White House did not offer any specifics. Asked about what he was doing Friday related to the pandemic, the White House did not respond.

    As millions of Americans experience economic hardship, Trump on Thursday expressed general support for coronavirus-related relief from Congress. But he has shown little interest in engaging with Capitol Hill during negotiations over what form that support would take.

    In pre-taped, scripted remarks that aired during the National Christmas Tree lighting ceremony Thursday, Trump did briefly mention the “once-in-a-century pandemic,” noting “the goodness of our fellow citizens” and workers producing “life-saving supplies and critical aid.”

    “Brave doctors, nurses and first responders have courageously risked their lives to save others,” he said.

    In recent days, Trump has lamented that President-elect Joe Biden could receive credit for the vaccines. Inoculations may begin as soon as late next week — pending authorization by the Food and Drug Administration — although most doses would be distributed after Biden takes office in January.

    Trump on Wednesday posted a 46-minute diatribe filled with a dizzying array of falsehoods about the election he lost — which he delivered standing at a podium with the presidential seal, in the White House.

    Declaring “this may be the most important speech I’ve ever made,” he only briefly mentioned the coronavirus — blaming Democrats for “using the pandemic as a pretext” to expand access to voting by mail.

    “It is important for Americans to understand,” he said, “that these destructive changes to our election laws were not a necessary response to the pandemic.”

    Trump offered no evidence to back his claim. He also made no reference to the virus’s victims.

    As the president’s words and tweets became further detached from reality over the past month, more Americans died.

    Trump’s former campaign manager, Brad Parsacle, said in an interview this week that he thought Trump’s lack of public empathy tipped the election in Biden’s favor.

    “I think it was the decision on COVID to go for opening the economy vs. public empathy,” Parscale said in an interview with Fox News that aired Tuesday. “And I think a young family with a young child who, one, were scared to take them back to school, wanted to see an empathetic president and an empathetic Republican Party.”

    “I think he could have leaned into it, instead of run away from it,” Parscale added.

    Instead, Trump’s White House has become a poster child for behavior public health experts say will make the situation worse.

    It has begun hosting large, indoor holiday parties — directly contradicting guidance from the CDC — one of which Trump attended on Monday. Few of the attendees wore masks or practiced social distancing.

    Dozens of White House officials, Trump allies, campaign officials and others have tested positive for COVID-19 in a series of outbreaks, including the president, first lady and their 14-year-old son, sometimes after large or indoor events.

    West Wing staffers eschew mask-wearing, and the president has publicly mocked those who follow common-sense precautions.

    The president plans to hold another packed, outdoor campaign rally in Georgia Saturday for two GOP candidates facing Senate runoffs. It appears to be styled after the dozens he held in the final days of his reelection campaign, when thousands of his supporters crammed together and most did not wear masks.

    ABC News’ Anne Flaherty and Josh Margolin contributed reporting.

    Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-fixated-political-fate-virus-kills-record-number/story?id=74536821

    The White House’s counteroffer—to $1.7 trillion from $2.25 trillion—was meant to demonstrate that the administration remains eager to craft a deal with Republicans, even as liberal Democrats press Biden to forge ahead alone out of fear that he may be willing to give up too much during the negotiations.

    “This is the art of seeking common ground,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at Friday’s press briefing. But she made clear the administration was unwilling to back down from its redlines to fund the bill, a point officials reiterated coming out of the meeting.

    Senate Republicans, however, did not leave Friday’s call optimistic about the fate of the bipartisan discussions. A spokesperson for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the lead negotiator, panned the White House’s counteroffer, calling it “well above the range of what can pass Congress with bipartisan support” and noting “vast differences” remain on many issues, including the definition of infrastructure, the price tag and pay-fors.

    “Based on today’s meeting, the groups seem further apart after two meetings with White House staff than they were after one meeting with President Biden,” Capito’s office said.

    The GOP’s problems with the counteroffer were found in its fine print. Instead of just slashing the overall overall cost, Biden proposed “shifting” spending on research and development, small business, supply chains and manufacturing into other proposals, including the Endless Frontier Act and the CHIPS Act. The president’s allies note that Republicans themselves are relying on accounting maneuvers to boost the overall number in their last proposal to far higher than it is in reality, making the large gap even larger.

    The new Biden infrastructure proposal also would cut broadband spending to match the Republicans’ latest offer, and cut investment in “roads, bridges and major projects” to get closer to the Republicans’ bottom line — a point an administration official involved in the talks characterized as ironic given the GOP’s insistence all along that the package focus heavily on improving “core” infrastructure — but a concession nonetheless.

    Administration officials stressed that Biden’s original proposal was justified to meet the country’s growing needs, after years in which prior presidents promised to tackle infrastructure (including President Donald Trump and his infamous infrastructure weeks) only to fail to get bills passed.

    The Biden White House said their adjustments were made in good faith and in the interest in finding common ground. Officials said it was now up to Republicans to come back with proposals of their own to bring the two sides closer.

    The current stalemate is only likely to increase calls from liberal Democrats to ditch Republicans and instead pursue reconciliation, which would allow Senate Democrats to muscle the package through without GOP support. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the Senate’s most conservative Democrat, has been pushing for bipartisan negotiations, but it’s not clear yet if failed talks with Republicans will be enough to convince him to move forward along party lines.

    “I’ve used this phrase before on the infrastructure, on the bipartisan effort: the fish or cut bait moment,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) this week. “I don’t know when that is precisely but I think for us there’s a real danger in pushing off the fish or cut bait date.”

    The White House and Senate Republicans met earlier in the week. But their Tuesday gathering yielded little progress, with the parties still struggling to reach consensus on a definition of infrastructure. Biden had set a target for “progress” on a sweeping infrastructure package by Memorial Day—a date that is rapidly approaching.

    Inside the White House, there’s an appetite to keep pushing on a deal past that date if they still believe that Capito is operating in good faith. But as of now, the two sides remain hundreds of billions of dollars apart and nowhere near agreeing on how to fund the investments. Biden is pushing to raise the corporate tax rate to pay for the package, a non-starter for Senate Republicans, who have instead suggested user fees, which the White House says would violate Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000.

    In a memo outlining their counteroffer, White House officials noted “concern” that the Republican proposal left out investments in areas like environmental remediation, veterans hospitals and construction, and workforce development and training. Psaki said the Republican offer had room for improvement.

    “The counteroffer also reflects our view that the Republican offer excludes entirely some proposals that are key to our competitiveness, key to investments in clean energy and in industries of the future, and rebuilding our workforce, including critical investments in our power sector, building and construction, workforce training, veterans hospital construction and the care economy,” Psaki said.

    The Biden administration’s counteroffer pushed for more funding for so-called “critical transportation” infrastructure like rail, pointing to China’s investment in “such projects.” It also proposed eliminating lead pipes and fund resilience projects in light of threats from climate change. But Psaki and others added that specifics will still be up for negotiation.

    “I’m not a mathematician, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. But obviously we proposed a package that was $500 billion less expensive, so it needs less pay-fors. But what that looks like will have to be a part of the negotiation,” she said.

    Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/21/white-house-cuts-infrastructure-17-trillion-490185

    “NBC Nightly News” appeared to listen Thursday to the intense backlash it received for omitting key details of the events that led to the fatal police-involved shooting of 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant in Columbus, Ohio.

    On Wednesday, Media Research Center news analyst Nicholas Fondacaro called out NBC News for editing out a portion of a frantic 911 call in which a woman is heard saying: “It’s these grown girls over here trying to fight us, trying to stab us.”

    Fondacaro also drew attention to the portion of the police bodycam footage shown by NBC, which he noted did not “show viewers the knife in the attacker’s hand just before the shots.”

    However, during Thursday’s broadcast, the Peacock Network did include both elements, playing a lengthier audio clip of the 911 call that included the “stab” reference and a zoomed-in still image of the knife in Bryant’s hand as she was shot. 

    ‘NBC NIGHTLY NEWS’ UNDER FIRE FOR EDITING OUT KEY PART OF 911 CALL BEFORE MA’KHIA BRYANT SHOOTING

    As Fondacaro noted, NBC News did not acknowledge the omissions in Wednesday’s report that drew fierce criticism. 

    While the Wednesday report was slammed on social media, it did not hide the fact that Bryant had a knife.

    ‘THE VIEW’ PUSHES BACK AGAINST CNN’S DON LEMON OVER MA’KHIA BRYANT SHOOTING: HE’S ‘WRONG ABOUT THIS’

    “A police officer shot and killed a 16-year-old Black girl in Columbus, Ohio saying she was threatening others with a knife,” NBC anchor Lester Holt began. 

    Throughout the report, a graphic at the bottom of the screen read, “POLICE FATALLY SHOOT 16-YEAR-OLD BLACK GIRL HOLDING KNIFE” and a still image from the bodycam footage showed a knife on the ground.

    CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

    However, as Fondacaro pointed out, ABC’s “World News Tonight” and the “CBS Evening News” both aired the portion of the 911 call that included the stabbing reference and both zoomed in on the bodycam footage, showing clearly that Bryant was holding a knife during the altercation. That comparison fueled the viral backlash against NBC.  

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-nightly-news-show-makhia-bryant-knife-stabbing-police-shooting