The home is complete with a dinosaur herd in front.
The city has now filed a complaint saying no permits were filed to make modifications to the home, like landscaping and a “yabba dabba do” sign.
The city is now demanding everything be taken down, calling it an eyesore.
Source Article from https://abc13.com/community-events/homeowner-forced-to-take-down-flintstones-decor/5199166/
Parece que la idea de estrellar un módulo científico sobre la superficie de Marte no ha ido tan bien como esperaban en la Agencia Espacial Europea. El módulo Schiaparelli dejó de transmitir segundos antes de tocar la superficie de Marte y todavía no han logrado recuperar la señal.
En la rueda de prensa que la ESA acaba de ofrecer, sus científicos reconocen que no tienen ni idea de lo que le ha ocurrido al pequeño módulo que formaba parte de la misión ExoMars. La sonda Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO), que era el otro 50% de la misión, sí que ha logrado acoplarse con éxito a la órbita de Marte y comenzó a transmitir con normalidad a las 20:30 horas del día 19.
Con Schiaparelli no ha habido tanta suerte. Algo ha fallado en los últimos segundos del aterrizaje. La ESA aún está estudiando los datos de telemetría enviados antes de perder el contacto. Un análisis preliminar de esos datos y de las observaciones realizadas mediante el telescopio GMRT de la India revelan que el escudo térmico funcionó bien y que el paracaídas también se desplegó como estaba previsto.
Los datos se pierden poco después de desprenderse del escudo térmico. El problema podría estar en los impulsores que debían frenar el descenso. Al parecer, no se mantuvieron encendidos el tiempo suficiente. Otra versión apunta a que quizá lo hicieron a demasiada altura. Hasta que no lleguen a la Tierra el resto de datos (y con suerte alguna foto tomada por el módulo) no sabremos más.
Pese al fracaso de esa parte de la misión, la ESA ha recalcado que el aterrizaje era solo una parte relativamente pequeña de ExoMars y que este tipo de pruebas se realizan precisamente para pulir los sistemas de cara a misiones futuras. [vía ESA]
Source Article from http://es.gizmodo.com/sin-noticias-de-schiaparelli-el-modulo-de-la-esa-podri-1788012157
Rep. Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez, who has been critical of retributive justice used by the prison system, tweeted that “Manafort should be released, along with all people being held in solitary.” | Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday took up an unlikely cause — the plight of convicted fraudster Paul Manafort.
The progressive lawmaker expressed alarm at reports that President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman would likely be held in isolation after his expected transfer to Rikers Island — the New York City jail complex is in her congressional district — to face additional state fraud charges.
Story Continued Below
“A prison sentence is not a license for gov torture and human rights violations. That’s what solitary confinement is,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “Manafort should be released, along with all people being held in solitary.”
The freshman lawmaker doubled down on her comments when told that Manafort may technically be placed in protective custody. She tweeted that protective custody is a separate method, but “does not necessarily exclude solitary. If he is in fact not being held in solitary, great. Release everyone else from it, too.”
Oscasio-Cortez has been critical of retributive justice used by the prison system. When news broke that Chelsea Manning was being held in solitary confinement for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury, Oscasio-Cortez tweeted that the United States should “ban extended solitary confinement” and that the practice is a form of torture.
However, Manafort’s possible isolation at Rikers may be partly because of his and his lawyers’ concerns about his safety.
Manafort’s lawyers complained about his confinement from the start after a federal judge ordered him to jail in June 2018 over allegations that he was trying to tamper with the testimony of two potential witnesses in the federal case against him brought by then-special counsel Robert Mueller, and Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani later lamented that the longtime GOP operative was being nearly “tortured” in his conditions.
But legal experts say that Manafort got special arrangements away from the general prison population because of his high-profile status. At his first jail in Warsaw, Va., Manafort told friends he was being treated like a “VIP” and federal prosecutors explained in court briefs that the GOP operative had a private cell with a bathroom and shower, a personal telephone and access to work space to meet with his lawyers. Manafort’s situation changed in July 2018 when he was moved to Alexandria, Va., in a transfer that his own attorneys had requested to help them be closer to their client as they prepared for his first trial.
Manafort was relocated in April to a minimum-security prison in Waymart, Pa., where he’s serving a 7 ½-year sentence for a series of lobbying, money laundering, financial fraud and witness tampering crimes.
Manafort was also indicted this past March by the Manhattan district attorney as part of an effort to make sure the former Trump ally would still face prison time even if the president pardoned him. The DA wrote in a report following the indictment that Manafort was arrested for a “yearlong residential mortgage fraud scheme” through which Manafort and others “illegally obtained millions of dollars.” His final list of indictments included 16 counts of fraud and one of conspiracy.
Todd Blanche, Manafort’s New York-based lawyer handling the state case, said in an interview he’d make a request to the state judge presiding over the new charges to have his client returned to the Pennsylvania federal facility after his arraignment, rather than have Manafort kept at a city jail.
Blanche said he did not know when that arraignment would take place — he expected about 24-hours notice. He also said he remained in the dark as to whether Manafort would even be brought to Rikers but said he expected state jail supervisors would need to take into account Manafort’s high-profile status when considering whether to put him in a protected area or added to the general population.
“Safety is a big concern,” he told POLITICO.
Manafort’s defense attorneys who worked on his federal case did not respond to a request for comment.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on Tuesday said at a news conference that Manafort will not be given special treatment at Rikers beyond measures needed for security.
Source Article from https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/ocasio-cortez-solitary-confinement-paul-manafort-1353641
President Trump sent his first tweet a little more than half an hour into the Democratic presidential primary debate on Wednesday, and made clear what he thought of the proceeding.
“BORING!” Trump tweeted at 9:35 p.m. as Democratic hopefuls — including Mayor Bill de Blasio, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke — debated immigration, wealth inequality and other topics in Miami.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Trump was contemplating live tweeting the debate tonight and the follow-up tomorrow, which will feature front-runner Joe Biden.
Trump stayed mostly quiet on Twitter during the first hour of the debate Wednesday, sending only the one-word message.
Source Article from https://nypost.com/2019/06/26/trump-blasts-democratic-debate-in-one-word-tweet-boring/
Joseph Maguire, acting director of national intelligence, spent more than three hours Thursday morning before the House Intelligence Committee, where lawmakers questioned him about the complaint, which revealed that Trump had pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son. A redacted version of the complaint was made public Thursday morning.
● Whistleblower claimed Trump abused his office and that White House officials tried to cover it up
● Intelligence chief Maguire testifies before Congress about whistleblower complaint
● Biden says the rough transcript suggests that Trump most likely committed “an impeachable offense”
Official readout: Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky | The whistleblower report |Opening statement by Maguire
5:50 p.m.: Schiff says he’s ‘deeply concerned’ about whistleblower’s safety
Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-ukraine-impeachment/2019/09/26/a68c32f8-dfef-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
Read the full transcript of President Joe Biden’s exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thank you for doing this.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Thank you for doin’ it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s get right to it. Back in July, you said a Taliban takeover was highly unlikely. Was the intelligence wrong, or did you downplay it?
BIDEN: I think — there was no consensus. If you go back and look at the intelligence reports, they said that it’s more likely to be sometime by the end of the year. The idea that the tal — and then it goes further on, even as late as August. I think you’re gonna see — the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others speaking about this later today.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you didn’t put a timeline on it when you said it was highly unlikely. You just said flat out, “It’s highly unlikely the Taliban would take over.”
BIDEN: Yeah. Well, the question was whether or not it w– the idea that the Taliban would take over was premised on the notion that the — that somehow, the 300,000 troops we had trained and equipped was gonna just collapse, they were gonna give up. I don’t think anybody anticipated that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you know that Senator McConnell, others say this was not only predictable, it was predicted, including by him, based on intelligence briefings he was getting.
BIDEN: What — what did he say was predicted?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator McConnell said it was predictable that the Taliban was gonna take over.
BIDEN: Well, by the end of the year, I said that’s that was — that was a real possibility. But no one said it was gonna take over then when it was bein’ asked.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So when you look at what’s happened over the last week, was it a failure of intelligence, planning, execution or judgment?
BIDEN: Look, I don’t think it was a fa– look, it was a simple choice, George. When the– when the Taliban — let me back — put it another way. When you had the government of Afghanistan, the leader of that government get in a plane and taking off and going to another country, when you saw the significant collapse of the ta– of the– Afghan troops we had trained — up to 300,000 of them just leaving their equipment and taking off, that was — you know, I’m not– this — that — that’s what happened.
That’s simply what happened. So the question was in the beginning the– the threshold question was, do we commit to leave within the timeframe we’ve set? We extended it to September 1st. Or do we put significantly more troops in? I hear people say, “Well, you had 2,500 folks in there and nothin’ was happening. You know, there wasn’t any war.”
But guess what? The fact was that the reason it wasn’t happening is the last president negotiated a year earlier that he’d be out by May 1st and that– in return, there’d be no attack on American forces. That’s what was done. That’s why nothing was happening. But the idea if I had said — I had a simple choice. If I had said, “We’re gonna stay,” then we’d better prepare to put a whole hell of a lot more troops in —
STEPHANOPOULOS: But your top military advisors warned against withdrawing on this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops.
BIDEN: No, they didn’t. It was split. Tha– that wasn’t true. That wasn’t true.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They didn’t tell you that they wanted troops to stay?
BIDEN: No. Not at — not in terms of whether we were going to get out in a timeframe all troops. They didn’t argue against that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no one told — your military advisors did not tell you, “No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It’s been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that”?
BIDEN: No. No one said that to me that I can recall. Look, George, the reason why it’s been stable for a year is because the last president said, “We’re leaving. And here’s the deal I wanna make with you, Taliban. We’re agreeing to leave if you agree not to attack us between now and the time we leave on May the 1st.”
I got into office, George. Less than two months after I elected to office, I was sworn in, all of a sudden, I have a May 1 deadline. I have a May 1 deadline. I got one of two choices. Do I say we’re staying? And do you think we would not have to put a hell of a lot more troops? B– you know, we had hundreds– we had tens of thousands of troops there before. Tens of thousands.
Do you think we woulda — that we would’ve just said, “No problem. Don’t worry about it, we’re not gonna attack anybody. We’re okay”? In the meantime, the Taliban was takin’ territory all throughout the country in the north and down in the south, in the Pasthtun area.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So would you have withdrawn troops like this even if President Trump had not made that deal with the Taliban?
BIDEN: I would’ve tried to figure out how to withdraw those troops, yes, because look, George. There is no good time to leave Afghanistan. Fifteen years ago would’ve been a problem, 15 years from now. The basic choice is am I gonna send your sons and your daughters to war in Afghanistan in perpetuity?
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s–
BIDEN: No one can name for me a time when this would end. And what– wha– wha– what– what constitutes defeat of the Taliban? What constitutes defeat? Would we have left then? Let’s say they surrender like before. OK. Do we leave then? Do you think anybody– the same people who think we should stay would’ve said, “No, good time to go”? We spent over $1 trillion, George, 20 years. There was no good time to leave.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if there’s no good time, if you know you’re gonna have to leave eventually, why not have th– everything in place to make sure Americans could get out, to make sure our Afghan allies get out, so we don’t have these chaotic scenes in Kabul?
BIDEN: Number one, as you know, the intelligence community did not say back in June or July that, in fact, this was gonna collapse like it did. Number one.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They thought the Taliban would take over, but not this quickly?
BIDEN: But not this quickly. Not even close. We had already issued several thousand passports to the– the SIVs, the people– the– the– the translators when I came into office before we had negotiated getting out at the end of s– August.
Secondly, we’re in a position where what we did was took precautions. That’s why I authorized that there be 6,000 American troops to flow in to accommodate this exit, number one. And number two, provided all that aircraft in the Gulf to get people out. We pre-positioned all that, anticipated that. Now, granted, it took two days to take control of the airport. We have control of the airport now.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Still a lotta pandemonium outside the airport.
BIDEN: Oh, there is. But, look, b– but no one’s being killed right now, God forgive me if I’m wrong about that, but no one’s being killed right now. People are– we got 1,000-somewhat, 1,200 out, yesterday, a couple thousand today. And it’s increasing. We’re gonna get those people out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But we’ve all seen the pictures. We’ve seen those hundreds of people packed into a C-17. You’ve seen Afghans falling–
BIDEN: That was four days ago, five days ago.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What did you think when you first saw those pictures?
BIDEN: What I thought was we ha– we have to gain control of this. We have to move this more quickly. We have to move in a way in which we can take control of that airport. And we did.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I– I think a lot of– a lot of Americans, and a l– even a lot of veterans who served in Afghanistan agree with you on the big, strategic picture. They believe we had to get out. But I wonder how you respond to an Army Special Forces officer, Javier McKay (PH). He did seven tours. He was shot twice. He agrees with you. He says, “We have to cut our losses in Afghanistan.” But he adds, “I just wish we could’ve left with honor.”
BIDEN: Look, that’s like askin’ my deceased son Beau, who spent six months in Kosovo and a year in Iraq as a Navy captain and then major– I mean, as an Army major. And, you know, I’m sure h– he had regrets comin’ out of Afganista– I mean, out of Iraq.
He had regrets to what’s– how– how it’s going. But the idea– what’s the alternative? The alternative is why are we staying in Afghanistan? Why are we there? Don’t you think that the one– you know who’s most disappointed in us getting out? Russia and China. They’d love us to continue to have to–
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don’t think this could’ve been handled, this exit could’ve been handled better in any way? No mistakes?
BIDEN: No. I– I don’t think it could’ve been handled in a way that there– we– we’re gonna go back in hindsight and look, but the idea that somehow there’s a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, I don’t know how that happens. I don’t know how that happened.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So for you, that was always priced into the decision?
BIDEN: Yes. Now, exactly what happened– is not priced in. But I knew that they’re gonna have an enormous, enorm– look, one of the things we didn’t know is what the Taliban would do in terms of trying to keep people from getting out, what they would do.What are they doing now? They’re cooperating, letting American citizens get out, American personnel get out, embassies get out, et cetera. But they’re having– we’re having some more difficulty in having those who helped us when we were in there–
STEPHANOPOULOS: And we don’t really know what’s happening outside of Kabul.
BIDEN: Pardon me?
STEPHANOPOULOS: We don’t really know what’s happening outside of Kabul.
BIDEN: Well– we do know generically and in some specificity what’s happening outside of Kabul. We don’t know it in great detail. But we do know. And guess what? The Taliban knows if they take on American citizens or American military, we will strike them back like hell won’t have it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: All troops are supposed to be out by August 31st. Even if Americans and our Afghan allies are still trying to get out, they’re gonna leave?
BIDEN: We’re gonna do everything in our power to get all Americans out and our allies out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean troops will stay beyond August 31st if necessary?
BIDEN: It depends on where we are and whether we can get– ramp these numbers up to 5,000 to 7,000 a day coming out. If that’s the case, we’ll be– they’ll all be out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ‘Cause we’ve got, like, 10,000 to 15,000 Americans in the country right now, right? And are you committed to making sure that the troops stay until every American who wants to be out–
BIDEN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: — is out?
BIDEN: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about our Afghan allies? We have about 80,000 people–
BIDEN: Well, that’s not the s–
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that too high?
BIDEN: That’s too high.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How many–
BIDEN: The estimate we’re giving is somewhere between 50,000 and 65,000 folks total, counting their families.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the commitment hold for them as well?
BIDEN: The commitment holds to get everyone out that, in fact, we can get out and everyone that should come out. And that’s the objective. That’s what we’re doing now, that’s the path we’re on. And I think we’ll get there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So Americans should understand that troops might have to be there beyond August 31st?
BIDEN: No. Americans should understand that we’re gonna try to get it done before August 31st.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if we don’t, the troops will stay–
BIDEN: If — if we don’t, we’ll determine at the time who’s left.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And?
BIDEN: And if you’re American force — if there’s American citizens left, we’re gonna stay to get them all out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You talked about our adversaries, China and Russia. You already see China telling Taiwan, “See? You can’t count on the Americans.” (LAUGH)
BIDEN: Sh– why wouldn’t China say that? Look, George, the idea that w– there’s a fundamental difference between– between Taiwan, South Korea, NATO. We are in a situation where they are in– entities we’ve made agreements with based on not a civil war they’re having on that island or in South Korea, but on an agreement where they have a unity government that, in fact, is trying to keep bad guys from doin’ bad things to them.
We have made– kept every commitment. We made a sacred commitment to Article Five that if in fact anyone were to invade or take action against our NATO allies, we would respond. Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with– Taiwan. It’s not even comparable to talk about that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, but those–
BIDEN: It’s not comparable to t–
STEPHANOPOULOS: –who say, “Look, America cannot be trusted now, America does not keep its promises–“
BIDEN: Who– who’s gonna say that? Look, before I made this decision, I met with all our allies, our NATO allies in Europe. They agreed. We should be getting out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Did they have a choice?
BIDEN: Sure, they had a choice. Look, the one thing I promise you in private, NATO allies are not quiet. You remember from your old days. They’re not gonna be quiet. And so– and by the way, you know, what we’re gonna be doing is we’re gonna be putting together a group of the G-7, the folks that we work with the most– to– I was on the phone with– with Angela Merkel today. I was on the phone with the British prime minister. I’m gonna be talking to Macron in France to make sure we have a coherent view of how we’re gonna deal from this point on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What happens now in Afghanistan? Do you believe the Taliban have changed?
BIDEN: No. I think– let me put it this way. I think they’re going through sort of an existential crisis about do they want to be recognized by the international community as being a legitimate government. I’m not sure they do. But look, they have–
STEPHANOPOULOS: They care about their beliefs more?
BIDEN: Well, they do. But they also care about whether they have food to eat, whether they have an income that they can provide for their f– that they can make any money and run an economy. They care about whether or not they can hold together the society that they in fact say they care so much about.
I’m not counting on any of that. I’m not cou– but that is part of what I think is going on right now in terms of I– I’m not sure I would’ve predicted, George, nor would you or anyone else, that when we decided to leave, that they’d provide safe passage for Americans to get out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Beyond Americans, what do we owe the Afghans who are left behind, particularly Afghan women who are facing the prospect of subjugation again?
BIDEN: As many as we can get out, we should. For example, I had a meeting today for a couple hours in the Situation Room just below here. There are Afghan women outside the gate. I told ’em, “Get ’em on the planes. Get them out. Get them out. Get their families out if you can.”
But here’s the deal, George. The idea that we’re able to deal with the rights of women around the world by military force is not rational. Not rational. Look what’s happened to the Uighurs in western China. Look what’s happening in other parts of the world.
Look what’s happenin’ in, you know, in– in the Congo. I mean, there are a lotta places where women are being subjugated. The way to deal with that is not with a military invasion. The way to deal with that is putting economic, diplomatic, and national pre– international pressure on them to change their behavior.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the threat to the United States? Most intelligence analysis has predicted that Al Qaeda would come back 18 to 24 months after a withdrawal of American troops. Is that analysis now being revised? Could it be sooner?
BIDEN: It could be. But George, look, here’s the deal. Al Qaeda, ISIS, they metastasize. There’s a significantly greater threat to the United States from Syria. There’s a significantly greater threat from East Africa. There’s significant greater threat to other places in the world than it is from the mountains of Afghanistan. And we have maintained the ability to have an over-the-horizon capability to take them out. We’re– we don’t have military in Syria to make sure that we’re gonna be protected–
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’re confident we’re gonna have that in Afghanistan?
BIDEN: Yeah. I’m confident we’re gonna have the overriding capability, yes. Look, George, it’s like asking me, you know, am I confident that people are gonna act even remotely rationally. Here’s the deal. The deal is the threat from Al Qaeda and their associate organizations is greater in other parts of the world to the United States than it is from Afghanistan.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And th– that tells you that you’re– it’s safe to leave?
BIDEN: No. That tells me that– my dad used to have an expression, George. If everything’s equally important to you, nothing’s important to you. We should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest. And the threat– the idea– we can continue to spend $1 trillion and have tens of thousands of American forces in Afghanistan when we have what’s going on around the world, in the Middle East and North Africa and west– I mean, excuse me– yeah, North Africa and Western Africa. The idea we can do that and ignore those– those looming problems, growing problems, is not– not rational.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Final question on this. You know, in a couple weeks, we’re all gonna commemorate the 20th anniversary of 9/11. The Taliban are gonna be ruling Afghanistan, just l– like they were when our country was attacked. How do you explain that to the American people?
BIDEN: Not true. It’s not true. They’re not gonna look just like they were we were attacked. There was a guy named Osama bin Laden that was still alive and well. They were organized in a big way, that they had significant help from arou– from other parts of the world.
We went there for two reasons, George. Two reasons. One, to get Bin Laden, and two, to wipe out as best we could, and we did, the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did it. Then what happened? Began to morph into the notion that, instead of having a counterterrorism capability to have small forces there in– or in the region to be able to take on Al Qaeda if it tried to reconstitute, we decided to engage in nation building. In nation building. That never made any sense to me.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you think we shoulda gotten out a long time ago–
BIDEN: We should’ve.
STEPHANOPOULOS: –and– and accept the idea that it was gonna be messy no matter what.
BIDEN: Well, by the– what would be messy?
STEPHANOPOULOS: The exit–
BIDEN: If we had gotten out a long time ago– getting out would be messy no matter when it occurred. I ask you, you want me to stay, you want us to stay and send your kids back to Afghanistan? How about it? Are you g– if you had a son or daughter, would you send them in Afghanistan now? Or later?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Would be hard, but a lot of families have done it.
BIDEN: They’ve done it because, in fact, there was a circumstance that was different when we started. We were there for two reasons, George. And we accomplished both ten years ago. We got Osama bin Laden. As I said and got criticized for saying at the time, we’re gonna follow him to the gates of hell. Hell, we did–
STEPHANOPOULOS: How will history judge the United States’ experience in Afghanistan?
BIDEN: One that we overextended what we needed to do to deal with our national interest. That’s like my sayin’ they– they’re– they– they b– b– the border of Tajikistan– and– other– what– does it matter? Are we gonna go to war because of what’s goin’ on in Tajikistan? What do you think?
Tell me what– where in that isolated country that has never, never, never in all of history been united, all the way back to Alexander the Great, straight through the British Empire and the Russians, what is the idea? Are we gonna s– continue to lose thousands of Americans to injury and death to try to unite that country? What do you think? I think not.
I think the American people are with me. And when you unite that country, what do you have? They’re surrounded by Russia in the north or the Stans in the north. You have– to the west, they have Iran. To the south, they have Pakistan, who’s supporting them. And to the– and– actually, the east, they have Pakistan and China. Tell me. Tell me. Is that worth our national interest to continue to spend another $1 trillion and lose thousands more American lives? For what?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I know we’re outta time. I have two quick questions on COVID. I know you’re gonna make– be makin’ an announcement on booster shots today. Have you and the first lady gotten your booster shots yet?
BIDEN: We’re gonna get the booster shots. And– it’s somethin’ that I think– you know, because we g– w– we got our shots all the way back in I think December. So it’s– it’s– it’s past time. And so the idea (NOISE) that the recommendation– that’s my wife calling. (LAUGH) No. (LAUGH) But all kiddin’ aside, yes, we will get the booster shots.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And– and finally– are you comfortable with Americans getting a third shot when so many millions around the world haven’t had their first?
BIDEN: Absolutely because we’re providing more to the rest of the world than all the rest of the world combined. We got enough for everybody American, plus before this year is– before we get to the middle of next year, we’re gonna provide a half a billion shots to the rest of the world. We’re keepin’ our part of the bargain. We’re doin’ more than anybody.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thanks for your time.
BIDEN: Thank you.
Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-interview-president/story?id=79535643
However, Sporting are reportedly not interested in any deal including the maverick Italy international.
Mario made 45 appearances for Sporting last season, scoring seven goals and providing 12 assists, and was also part of Fernando Santos’ Euro 2016-winning side.
Source Article from http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/699153/Chelsea-Transfer-News-Gossip-39m-Bid-Joao-Mario-Sporting-Lisbon-Liverpool-Inter-Milan
A federal appeals court decided Tuesday to uphold California’s ban on large-scale ammunition magazines in a ruling that is likely to lead to the court’s approval of the state’s ban on assault weapons.
In an en banc decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that a state law that limits the size of magazines that may be used with firearms does not significantly interfere with the right to self defense. The court noted that there was no evidence that a person has been unable to defend a home because of a lack of large-capacity magazines.
During the past 50 years, the court said, large-capacity magazines have been used in about three-quarters of mass shootings that resulted in 10 or more deaths, and in 100% of massacres with 20 or more deaths.
“The ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supports California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings,” Judge Susan P. Graber, a Clinton appointee, wrote for the court.
The legal fight could continue for months and may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two other gun control cases have been put on hold pending a decision in the magazine case. Tuesday’s decision indicates that California’s ban on assault weapons, which a lower court had struck down, is also likely to be ruled constitutional.
U.S. District Judge Judge Roger T. Benitez overturned both the magazine ban and the bar on assault weapons. In the assault weapons case, Benitez likened an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to a Swiss Army knife and called it “good for both home and battle.”
Benitez, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said the assault weapons ban unconstitutionally infringed on the rights of California gun owners and “has had no effect” on curtailing mass shootings.
California’s ban on large-capacity magazines affects those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-30/9th-circuit-upholds-key-california-gun-control-law
Morris said by spearheading innovative partnerships and leveraging resources from ASU, tribes and community organizations, she hopes that Inno-NATIONS will create a “collision community,” causing a ripple effect of economic change in tribal communities.
The first collision takes place with the inaugural learning lab series, “Beyond Buckskin: Beyond Online” on March 1 followed by “Protection in All Directions: A Fashion & Resistance Awareness Event” on March 4. The latter will include discussions, multi-media discussions and a fashion show highlighting local Native American designers including Jared Yazzie of OxDX.
Both events are free and take place at The Department in downtown Phoenix.
Inno-NATIONS will also launch a three-day pilot cohort with approximately 20 Native American businesses starting in June.
“Beyond Buckskin” features Jessica Metcalfe, a Turtle Mountain Chippewa, Dartmouth graduate and entrepreneur, who grew a small online store into a successful boutique on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
The store promotes and sells Native American-made couture, streetwear, jewelry, and accessories from more than 40 Native American and First Nations artist, employing tribe members from the Turtle Mountain community.
ASU Now spoke to Metcalfe to discuss her work.
Question: We’ve seen Native American fashion emerge and evolve. How did you get into the business?
Answer: I was writing my master’s thesis in 2005 and my advisor at the time had told me about some research she had done, which looked at Native American fashion in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. She had wondered if I was interested in picking up where her research left off. I looked into it and found that there were these breadcrumbs, little bits here in there, that something had been going on in the past 60-70 years, but hadn’t been looked at as a collective movement.
Through my doctoral dissertation, what I discovered was that Native American fashion has gone through waves of acknowledgements by the broader public, but what we’re experiencing now is perhaps the biggest wave yet.
You have designers like Patricia Michaels out at New York’s Style Fashion Week and the Native Fashion Now traveling exhibit touring the country, so there’s really a lot of exciting things happening lately. It’s coming from a collective movement. Designers basically grouping together to share costs but also to put together more events to cause a bigger ruckus.
Q: How did you build your online store into a brick-and-mortar business?
A: I first launched a blog in 2009 as an outlet for my dissertation research, and wanted to share it with more people and to also get more stories and experiences. My readers kept asking where could they see and buy these clothes? At that time, there wasn’t an easy way to access functions like a Native American Pow Wow or market in order to do that.
I had established a rapport with designers through my research and writing. They saw what I was doing through the blog and then a question popped into my head. “How would you feel about creating a business together?” There were 11 initial designers who said they needed the space, and I worked with them to sell their goods online. We just now opened our design lab on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. We are creating a system where we can meet demand and maximize a need in Indian Country.
We employ Native Americans from ages 15 to 22. There aren’t a whole lot of opportunities for people that age on the reservation. They either work at the grocery store or the gas station. One of them is interested in film and photography and so they run our photo shoots. Another person is interested in business entrepreneurship, and they get to see how an idea goes from concept to execution.
Q: The subtext is that this isn’t just about fashion but, history, representation and cultural appropriation?
A: Our clothing is just more than just objects. It’s about how the material was gathered, what the colors represent, what stories are being told and how does that tie into our value system. One of the things I often discuss is the Native American headdress. Our leaders wear them as a symbol of their leadership and the dedication to their communities. These stories are a way to share our culture with non-Natives and protect our legacy for future generations.
Q: Why is it important for Native American businesses to branch out into other cultures?
A: Native American people desperately need to diversify their economic opportunities on and off the reservations. Up until recently, people haven’t thought of fashion or art as a viable career path.
A recent study conducted by First Peoples Fund that found a third of all Native American people are practicing or are potential artists. That is a huge resource we already have in Indian Country and we need to tap it and develop it, and push for Natives in various fields to look at themselves as entrepreneurs and launching businesses.
Now, Native American people have an opportunity to make a positive impact in their local communities by reaching people through their art and sharing our culture with the rest of the world.
Source Article from https://asunow.asu.edu/20170228-univision-arizona-asu-cronkite-school-partner-air-cronkite-noticias
Estados Unidos incluyó un nueva nueva casilla en su planilla de solicitud de visas en la que solicita detalles sobre los perfiles en redes sociales durante los últimos cinco años, así como información biográfica de los 15 años anteriores a la petición, confirmó una vocera del Departamento de Estado a Univision Noticias.
La Oficina de Administración y Presupuestos ya había aprobado la medida el pasado 23 de mayo y el Departamento de Estado comenzó a implementarla dos días después.
La medida es parte de un “exhaustivo” control de seguridad al que podría ser sometido cualquiera en cualquier parte del mundo, sin excepciones, explicó Lydia Barraza, vocera del Departamento de Estado. Y además de las redes sociales, si los funcionarios consulares lo consideran, se pedirán los números de pasaportes anteriores del solicitante y sus familiares, información sobre viajes y empleos previos, así como personas de contacto.
Quienes hayan estado en zonas bajo control de organizaciones terroristas tendrán que entregar, además, “detalles precisos” de su estancia en esos países, explica Barraza. “Permite evaluar si los solicitantes no reúnen las condiciones para obtener una visa en Estados Unidos”, dice, al precisar que ni la raza ni la religión serán consideradas en esas evaluaciones.
En total, calculan que se verá afectado 1% de los 13 millones de solicitantes de visas en el mundo.
En un
comunicado de prensa del 4 de mayo, el Departamento de Estado había explicado que el no consignar alguno de los datos enumerados anteriormente no resultaría en una negación inmediata de la visa, siempre que el funcionario consular a cargo del caso considere que el solicitante tiene razones de peso para no presentarlos.
Barraza reiteró que no serán exigidas las contraseñas de cuentas de correo electrónico o de redes sociales de los aplicantes.
Los críticos de esta medida, sostienen que las nuevas preguntas podrían aumentar los retrasos en el proceso y desalentarían a estudiantes y científicos extranjeros que planeen visitar Estados Unidos, refiere la agencia Reuters.
El anuncio responde a un memorando del presidente Donald Trump emitido el 6 de marzo, en el que pedía la implementación de nuevos protocolos para evaluar con mayor rigurosidad a quienes parecieran no ser elegibles para una visa estadounidense.
Source Article from http://www.univision.com/noticias/visas/eeuu-ahora-puede-investigar-las-redes-sociales-de-cualquier-solicitante-de-visa
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Palestinians grabbed their children and belongings and fled neighborhoods on the outskirts of Gaza City on Friday as Israel unleashed a heavy barrage of tank fire and airstrikes. Israel said it was clearing a network of militant tunnels.
Separately, in the West Bank, Palestinian health officials said seven Palestinians were killed by Israeli army fire in several locations.
Israel has massed troops along the border and called up 9,000 reservists as fighting intensifies with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Palestinian militants have fired some 1,800 rockets, and the Israeli military has launched more than 600 airstrikes, toppling at least three high-rise apartment buildings, and has shelled some areas with tanks stationed near the frontier.
As Israel and Hamas plunged closer to all-out war despite international efforts at a cease-fire, communal violence in Israel erupted for a fourth night. Jewish and Arab mobs clashed in the flashpoint town of Lod, even after Israel dispatched additional security forces.
The Gaza Health Ministry says the toll from the fighting has risen to 119 killed, including 31 children and 19 women, with 830 wounded. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad militant groups have confirmed 20 deaths in their ranks, though Israel says that number is much higher. Seven people have been killed in Israel, including a 6-year-old boy and a soldier.
Of the seven Palestinians killed in the West Bank, most were killed in stone-throwing clashes in several locations, although one was killed while trying to stab an Israeli soldier, the health officials said. About 100 were injured, most by live fire, they said.
The protests took place in several locations across the West Bank, signaling a new wave of unrest there as part of the escalation of fighting between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers.
Before dawn Friday, Israeli tanks and warplanes carried out an intense barrage on the northern end of the Gaza Strip.
In the darkness, Houda Ouda and her extended family ran frantically inside their home in the town of Beit Hanoun, trying to find shelter as the earth shook for two and half hours, Ouda recalled.
“We even did not dare to look from the window to know what is being hit,” she said. When daylight came, she saw the swath of destruction outside: streets cratered, buildings crushed, their facades torn off, an olive tree burned bare, dust and powered concrete covering everything.
Among the dead was a family of six. Rafat Tanani, his pregnant wife and four children, aged 7 and under, were killed after an Israeli warplane reduced their four-story apartment building to rubble in the neighboring town of Beit Lahia, residents said.
Four strikes hit the building at 11 p.m., just before the family was going to sleep, Rafat’s brother Fadi said. The building’s owner and his wife were also killed.
“It was a massacre,” said Sadallah Tanani, another relative. “My feelings are indescribable.”
Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, an Israeli military spokesman, said the operation involved tank fire and airstrikes, aimed at destroying a network of tunnels beneath Gaza City that the military refers to as “the Metro,” used by militants to evade surveillance and airstrikes.
“As always, the aim is to strike military targets and to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties,” he said. “Unlike our very elaborate efforts to clear civilian areas before we strike high-rise or large buildings inside Gaza, that wasn’t feasible this time.”
When the sun rose, residents streamed out of the area in pickup trucks, on donkeys and on foot, taking pillows, blankets, pots and pans and bread. “We were terrified for our children, who were screaming and shaking,” said Hedaia Maarouf, who fled with her extended family of 19 people, including 13 children.
Thousands crowded into 16 U.N.-run schools for shelter, said Adnan Abu Hasna, a spokesman for UNRWA, the U.N. relief agency for Palestinians.
Mohammed Ghabayen, who took shelter in one school with his family, said his children had eaten nothing since the day before, and they had no mattresses to sleep on. “And this is in the shadow of the coronavirus crisis,” he said. “We don’t know whether to take precautions for the coronavirus or the rockets or what to do exactly.
The strikes came after Egyptian mediators rushed to Israel for cease-fire talks that showed no signs of progress. Egypt, Qatar and the United Nations were leading the truce efforts.
An Egyptian intelligence official with knowledge of the talks said Israel rejected an Egyptian proposal for a yearlong truce with Hamas and other Gaza militants, which would have started at midnight Thursday had Israel agreed. He said Hamas had accepted the proposal.
The official said Israel wants to delay a cease-fire to give time to destroy more of Hamas’ and Islamic Jihad’s military capabilities. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press.
The fighting broke out late Monday when Hamas fired a long-range rocket at Jerusalem in support of Palestinian protests there against the policing of a flashpoint holy site and efforts by Jewish settlers to evict dozens of Palestinian families from their homes.
Since then, Israel has attacked hundreds of targets in Gaza, causing earth-shaking explosions in densely populated areas. Of the 1,800 rockets Gaza militants have fired, more than 400 fell short or misfired, and most of the rest have been intercepted by missile defense systems, according to the military.
Still the rockets have brought life in parts of southern Israel to a standstill, and several barrages have targeted the seaside metropolis of Tel Aviv, some 70 kilometers (45 miles) from Gaza.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to continue the operation, saying in a video statement that Israel would “extract a very heavy price from Hamas.”
In Washington, U.S. President Joe Biden said he spoke with Netanyahu about calming the fighting but also backed the Israeli leader by saying “there has not been a significant overreaction.”
He said the goal now is to “get to a point where there is a significant reduction in attacks, particularly rocket attacks.” He called the effort “a work in progress.”
The fighting has, for the moment, disrupted efforts by Netanyahu’s political opponents to form a new government coalition, prolonging his effort to stay in office after inconclusive parliamentary elections. His rivals have three weeks to agree on a coalition but need the support of an Arab party, whose leader has said he cannot negotiate while Israel is fighting in Gaza.
Israel has come under heavy international criticism for civilian casualties during three previous wars in Gaza, which is home to more than 2 million Palestinians. It says Hamas is responsible for endangering civilians by placing military infrastructure in civilian areas and launching rockets from them.
Hamas showed no signs of backing down. It fired its most powerful rocket, the Ayyash, nearly 200 kilometers (120 miles) into southern Israel on Thursday. The rocket landed in the open desert but briefly disrupted flight traffic at the southern Ramon airport. Hamas has also launched two drones that Israel said it quickly shot down.
A spokesman for Hamas’ military wing said the group was not afraid of a ground invasion, which would be a chance “to increase our catch” of Israeli soldiers.
The current eruption of violence began a month ago in Jerusalem. A focal point of clashes was Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, on a hilltop compound revered by Jews and Muslims. Israel regards all of Jerusalem as its capital, while the Palestinians want east Jerusalem, which includes sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims, to be the capital of their future state.
The violent clashes between Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem and other mixed cities across Israel has added a new layer of volatility to the conflict not seen in more than two decades.
The violence continued overnight into Friday. A Jewish man was shot and seriously wounded in Lod, the epicenter of the troubles, and Israeli media said a second Jewish man was shot. In the Tel Aviv neighborhood of Jaffa, an Israeli soldier was attacked by a group of Arabs and hospitalized in serious condition.
Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said some 750 suspects have been arrested since the communal violence began earlier this week.
___
Krauss reported from Jerusalem. Associated Press writer Isabel DeBre in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Samy Magdy in Cairo contributed.
Source Article from https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-conflict-5-14-a76702fdfcad4692922d6a11533e0f08
Iran warned world powers they will not be able to negotiate a better deal than the landmark 2015 nuclear agreement, as the United States vowed the Islamic Republic will never acquire an atomic weapon.
Tehran threatened on Monday to restart deactivated centrifuges and ramp up its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent purity as its next potential big moves away from the agreement that Washington abandoned last year.
The latest war of words came the same day that Iran began enriching uranium to 4.5 percent, breaking the limit set in the 2015 agreement sealed under former president Barack Obama.
#B_Team sold @realDonaldTrump on the folly that killing #JCPOA thru #EconomicTerrorism can get him a better deal.
As it becomes increasingly clear that there won’t be a better deal, they’re bizarrely urging Iran’s full compliance.
There’s a way out, but not with #B_Team in charge
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) July 8, 2019
US Vice President Mike Pence said the international accord simply delayed Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon by “roughly a decade”, and gave away billions in economic relief that Iran could then use to wage “terrorist” attacks.
The US “will never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon”, Pence told a pro-Israel Christian organisation on Monday.
“Iran must choose between caring for its people and continuing to fund its proxies who spread violence and terrorism throughout the region and breathe out murderous hatred against Israel,” he said.
Pence added US sanctions have succeeded in “cutting off” Iran’s ability to support armed groups in the Middle East, but he also alleged the Islamic Republic had increased its “malign activity and violence in the region” over the past several months.
Tensions in the region have risen in recent weeks after oil tankers were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz and Iran downed an unmanned US military surveillance drone.
The drone shootdown nearly led to a US military attack against Iran. It was called off at the last minute by US President Donald Trump.
The US has sent thousands of troops, an aircraft carrier, nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, and advanced fighter jets to the Middle East.
“Let me be clear,” Pence said. “Iran should not confuse American restraint with a lack of American resolve.”
Iran’s threats to restart their nuclear programme – made by Tehran’s nuclear agency spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi – would go far beyond the small steps Iran has taken in the past week to nudge stocks of fissile material just beyond limits in the pact.
That could raise serious questions about whether the nuclear deal, intended to block Iran from making a nuclear weapon, is still viable.
The two threats would reverse major achievements of the agreement, although Iran omitted important details about how far it might go to returning to the status quo before the pact.
Enriching uranium up to 20 percent purity would be a dramatic move, since that was the level Iran achieved before the 2015 deal, although back then it had a far larger stockpile.
It is considered an important intermediate stage on the path to obtaining the 90 percent pure fissile uranium needed for a bomb.
One of the main achievements of the deal was Iran’s agreement to dismantle its advanced IR-2M centrifuges, used to purify uranium. Iran had 1,000 of them installed at its large Natanz enrichment site before the deal. Under the deal, it is allowed to operate only up to two for testing.
Still, the threatened measures also appear intended to be sufficiently ambiguous to hold back from fully repudiating the deal.
Kamalvandi did not specify how much uranium Iran might purify to the higher level, nor how many centrifuges it would consider restarting.
Iran has said all the steps it is contemplating are reversible.
Trump on Monday spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron about Iran’s threat to ramp up enrichment of uranium.
“They discussed ongoing efforts to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and to end Iran’s destabilising behaviour in the Middle East,” a White House spokesman said in a statement.
Macron’s top diplomatic adviser will travel to Iran on Tuesday and Wednesday to try to de-escalate tensions between Tehran and the US, a presidential official said.
The French official said both Iran and the US had an interest in increasing the pressure at this stage, but both sides would want to start talks eventually.
“The important thing in a crisis situation such as this one is to find the middle points that take us from extreme tension to negotiation, that’s what we’re trying to do,” the official said.
Source Article from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/iran-world-powers-won-nuclear-deal-190708205233850.html
President Trump’s executive order issued earlier this month would make it easier for the federal government to fire career civil servants.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Bloomberg via Getty Images
President Trump’s executive order issued earlier this month would make it easier for the federal government to fire career civil servants.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
The Trump administration has issued an executive order that would fundamentally restructure the federal workforce, making it easier for the government to fire thousands of federal workers, while also allowing political and other considerations to affect hiring.
The executive order, issued last week, would affect the professional employees in policymaking positions at the very top of the civil service — people like lawyers and scientists who are are not political appointees and serve from administration to administration regardless of which party controls the White House.
The president’s order changes that, creating a new category for them — “Schedule F” — and taking away their civil service protections. In a statement that accompanied the order, the White House took aim at those protections, saying they make it too difficult for agency heads to remove “poor performers.” Without the protections, the employees can be more easily replaced.
Rachel Greszler, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, which supports the order, says it’s “a common-sense change” to address a lack of accountability in the federal government.
“I’ve talked to managers in the past who say that they want to do the right thing and they want to hold workers accountable,” says Greszler. “They want to get rid of the bad apples who are weighing others down and preventing the agency from carrying out its mission. But ultimately, the managers said, they often gave up because they had to spend so much time and so much effort that … it just wasn’t worth it. They determined it was better to just keep these people on the payrolls and shift their job responsibilities to others. And that’s a big problem.”
But public employee unions say it’s Trump’s order that’s the problem. They’ve said it could have a chilling effect on the more than 2 million people who make up the federal workforce — most of whom are not political appointees.
“It’s a huge attack on the apolitical civil service” says Jacqueline Simon, the policy director at the American Federation of Government Employees union. She says the order could mean these top positions would no longer be filled by people who have been hired through a competitive process.
“If it’s implemented broadly, it could create absolute chaos in the agencies. It could be an absolute fiasco,” says Simon. “Everyone’s seen what happens if this administration tries to politicize scientific work. We’ve seen it in CDC, and we’ve seen it in the weather service. We’ve seen it in EPA, we’ve seen it all across the agencies. Imagine every single agency undermined by political hacks.”
Trump has railed against federal workers since taking office, baselessly claiming there is a deep state within the bureaucracy working to thwart his policies.
Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University, says most recent presidents have tried to reform the federal workforce, but Trump has taken it to a new level.
“We started with a hiring freeze,” he says. “We segued into a shutdown. I think the net effect is really on undermining commitment within the federal workforce and just giving feds a good Halloween scare that is likely to be overturned, but they won’t forget.”
Light says the order could make a career in the federal government less appealing, at a time when many government employees are nearing retirement age.
The executive order has already led to one departure: It prompted the resignation of Ron Sanders, the chairman of the Federal Salary Council.
Sanders, a lifelong Republican, says he believes the U.S. civil service is the best in the world. He warns the order could strip the government of sorely needed expertise.
“It’s absolutely critical because of the complexity of that world — the laws, the rules, the regulations, the scientific theories, all of the things that go into public policy. Somebody has to understand that. You can’t look at the CliffsNotes and get it. You need people with deep technical expertise who are there regardless of party who provide neutral competence to whoever is in power.”
The executive order calls on federal agencies to make a list of positions that would be affected by the new classification by Jan. 19, the day before Inauguration Day.
What happens next depends on who is sworn in on Jan. 20. It’s likely that Democrat Joe Biden would overturn the order if elected. Democrats in Congress say they’ll work to nullify the order, and the National Treasury Employees Union has filed a lawsuit to overturn it in court.
Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2020/10/31/929597578/a-huge-attack-critics-decry-trump-order-that-makes-firing-federal-workers-easier