question
stringlengths 11
149
| article
stringlengths 529
63.5k
| summary
stringlengths 4
444
| model source
stringclasses 3
values | length bucket
int8 0
2
| url
stringlengths 35
310
| qa classifier score
float32 0.1
0.85
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Is There Any Benefit Of "Natural Immunity" When It Comes To Infections Like Measles? | We are in the throes of yet another widespread measles epidemic, this one worse than the 2015 outbreak at Disneyland. This one has spread to pockets in several states, including Washington, Oregon, and New York, as well as to several countries in Europe. Despite measles being a vaccine-preventable illness, with the vaccine carrying close to 99% efficacy (meaning that the vaccine prevents the illness in just about everybody who gets it), there remains a sizable portion of the parent community who oppose vaccinating their children. Thanks to efforts of vaccine scientists and public health professionals, measles was nearly eradicated in the 1990's. But following the popularization of Andrew Wakefield's 1998 fraudulent study, linking the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine to autism in children, followed by celebrity endorsement of vaccines linked to autism, vaccination rates declined over the past decade, leading to larger and larger outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, many of which carry life-threatening and/or organ-threatening complications. This past week, the wife of top Trump official Bill Shine went on a Twitter rant claiming that the recent outbreaks of measles throughout the country are overblown, "fake," and "hysteria." One of her more questionable (and concerning) quotes was "Bring back childhood diseases--they keep you healthy and fight cancer." Wait. It's one thing to question the safety of vaccines, even though the safety and efficacy of vaccination, on both a personal and public health level, have been repeatedly demonstrated in countless studies. But linking childhood illnesses such as measles, chicken pox, and mumps to cancer prevention has some history, albeit sketchy. In the 1890's, New York surgeon William Coley noted that cancer patients who developed infections after surgery fared better than those who didn't. He felt that the infection stimulated the patient's immune system to fight the cancer. He later created a concoction of bacterial toxins, known as Coley's toxins, to inject into cancer patients, which, in turn, would cause high fevers. His therapy, which was used periodically until the 1950's, sometimes helped with cancer patients, and sometimes it did not. Sometimes it would cause complications; sometimes it didn't. There is no date on his findings, nor is there any record of what his toxin actually was. While the current advent of immunotherapy to treat cancer patients will potentially improve and better tailor the treatment guidelines for many cancers, Coley's toxins did not act in such a manner. The idea that natural immunity, in other words, developing a particular illness such as chicken pox or measles, is somehow better and more protective than receiving an immunization, especially in preventing cancer, is unfounded. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a perfect example of the inaccuracy of this notion. This virus now known to be the cause of many cancers, including cervical cancer, throat cancers, and sinus cancers. Having the illness (and HPV infection) will predispose you to have one of these cancers. Receiving the HPV vaccine will help prevent these cancers from forming. This week's anti-vaccine rant is yet another example of non-medical voices using their public platforms to politicize and popularize medical fallacy. The reality is that children are sustaining significant morbidity (and mortality) from previously (and currently) preventable illnesses. And while not all vaccines are 100% protective (this year's flu vaccine is about 50% protective, representing a pretty typical year as far as flu vaccines go), the measles vaccine is one of the most fully protective of all, conferring close to 99% immunity to the illness after the second MMR vaccine. Measles is also one of the most highly contagious vaccine-preventable illnesses, which is why we are seeing such large outbreaks in multiple pockets across the globe. | Ruben Navarrette: Measles outbreak is overblown, "fake," and "hysteria" He says the idea that natural immunity is somehow better and more protective than receiving an immunization is unfounded. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2019/02/14/is-there-any-benefit-of-natural-immunity-when-it-comes-to-infections-like-measles/ | 0.159828 |
Is There Any Benefit Of "Natural Immunity" When It Comes To Infections Like Measles? | We are in the throes of yet another widespread measles epidemic, this one worse than the 2015 outbreak at Disneyland. This one has spread to pockets in several states, including Washington, Oregon, and New York, as well as to several countries in Europe. Despite measles being a vaccine-preventable illness, with the vaccine carrying close to 99% efficacy (meaning that the vaccine prevents the illness in just about everybody who gets it), there remains a sizable portion of the parent community who oppose vaccinating their children. Thanks to efforts of vaccine scientists and public health professionals, measles was nearly eradicated in the 1990's. But following the popularization of Andrew Wakefield's 1998 fraudulent study, linking the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine to autism in children, followed by celebrity endorsement of vaccines linked to autism, vaccination rates declined over the past decade, leading to larger and larger outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, many of which carry life-threatening and/or organ-threatening complications. This past week, the wife of top Trump official Bill Shine went on a Twitter rant claiming that the recent outbreaks of measles throughout the country are overblown, "fake," and "hysteria." One of her more questionable (and concerning) quotes was "Bring back childhood diseases--they keep you healthy and fight cancer." Wait. It's one thing to question the safety of vaccines, even though the safety and efficacy of vaccination, on both a personal and public health level, have been repeatedly demonstrated in countless studies. But linking childhood illnesses such as measles, chicken pox, and mumps to cancer prevention has some history, albeit sketchy. In the 1890's, New York surgeon William Coley noted that cancer patients who developed infections after surgery fared better than those who didn't. He felt that the infection stimulated the patient's immune system to fight the cancer. He later created a concoction of bacterial toxins, known as Coley's toxins, to inject into cancer patients, which, in turn, would cause high fevers. His therapy, which was used periodically until the 1950's, sometimes helped with cancer patients, and sometimes it did not. Sometimes it would cause complications; sometimes it didn't. There is no date on his findings, nor is there any record of what his toxin actually was. While the current advent of immunotherapy to treat cancer patients will potentially improve and better tailor the treatment guidelines for many cancers, Coley's toxins did not act in such a manner. The idea that natural immunity, in other words, developing a particular illness such as chicken pox or measles, is somehow better and more protective than receiving an immunization, especially in preventing cancer, is unfounded. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a perfect example of the inaccuracy of this notion. This virus now known to be the cause of many cancers, including cervical cancer, throat cancers, and sinus cancers. Having the illness (and HPV infection) will predispose you to have one of these cancers. Receiving the HPV vaccine will help prevent these cancers from forming. This week's anti-vaccine rant is yet another example of non-medical voices using their public platforms to politicize and popularize medical fallacy. The reality is that children are sustaining significant morbidity (and mortality) from previously (and currently) preventable illnesses. And while not all vaccines are 100% protective (this year's flu vaccine is about 50% protective, representing a pretty typical year as far as flu vaccines go), the measles vaccine is one of the most fully protective of all, conferring close to 99% immunity to the illness after the second MMR vaccine. Measles is also one of the most highly contagious vaccine-preventable illnesses, which is why we are seeing such large outbreaks in multiple pockets across the globe. | Ruben Navarrette: Measles outbreak is overblown, "fake," and "hysteria" He says the idea that natural immunity is somehow better and more protective than receiving an immunization, especially in preventing cancer, is unfounded. He says there is no evidence that vaccines prevent cancer. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2019/02/14/is-there-any-benefit-of-natural-immunity-when-it-comes-to-infections-like-measles/ | 0.180176 |
Can Gavin Newsom deliver all those big ideas? | Sacramento is getting a look at what San Francisco has long known. Gavin Newsom is a geyser of ideas, a walking TED Talk podcast who can dazzle and provoke. But hell need to deliver, something he had trouble doing as a two-term mayor. The new governor rolled out his thoughts, small and large, in this weeks State of the State address. It took just an hour, barely a deep breath for a famously wordy politico, but it took his listeners on a speed-dating tour of his thinking. Hes not afraid of big stuff such as halting bullet train construction and trimming plans for a twin-tunnel delta water plan. Those decisions, now teed up for serious debate, are vintage Newsom, springing from the same mind who went with same-sex marriage before anyone else and who drew howls for ending cash welfare payments to the homeless in San Francisco. Hes not afraid to make a call and take the heat. The rest of the speech didnt collect as much notice, though it must have struck a chord for veteran Newsom watchers. He let loose with a string of thoughts and future plans to be given the commission-and-report treatment. On this list are an aging population, changes in the workforce, Alzheimers care, consumer dividends for allowing personal data use, and cuts to drug prices. He promised more on other long-standing topics, such as updating the tax code, reshaping criminal justice and instituting universal preschool. With a grin, he teased about reimagining the DMV, a joke aimed at an easy target and his own overblown vocabulary. If it sounds like too much, you dont know Newsom. There arent enough hours in the day for his imagination and energy in thinking about government. Hes intelligent, well-read and restless and it shows, leading him once to deliver a YouTube city address that ran 7 hours. Imagine being stuck with him on a long car ride on Interstate 5. Heres where it gets interesting. He comes with the kindergarten label of someone who doesnt play well with others. He can be aloof, uninterested, a loner. His thoughtfulness can enrapture a wide-screen audience but not always a brass-tacks negotiating circle. As mayor, he racked up a reputation for not caring about details and skating on to the next big idea. The Team of Rivals concept worked for Abe Lincoln, who could charm and wheedle his way toward agreement. But maybe that formula wont do it for Newsom. In his San Francisco days, he drew foes needlessly by ignoring them. There are signs hes changing. Hes expanding the governors office and including experienced Sacramento hands who wont sit at the feet of the master. In his address this week debuting his grab bag of ideas, he invited legislators to send him bills, something Gov. Jerry Brown never did, to conserve his power and dominance. And Newsom did it all in just 60 minutes. The new governor may be showing a new side. Marshall Kilduff is a Chronicle editorial writer. Email: mkilduff@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@MarshallKilduff This commentary is from The Chronicles editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters. | Gavin Newsom is a geyser of ideas who can dazzle and provoke. | pegasus | 0 | https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Can-Gavin-Newsom-deliver-all-those-big-ideas-13618187.php | 0.186187 |
Can Gavin Newsom deliver all those big ideas? | Sacramento is getting a look at what San Francisco has long known. Gavin Newsom is a geyser of ideas, a walking TED Talk podcast who can dazzle and provoke. But hell need to deliver, something he had trouble doing as a two-term mayor. The new governor rolled out his thoughts, small and large, in this weeks State of the State address. It took just an hour, barely a deep breath for a famously wordy politico, but it took his listeners on a speed-dating tour of his thinking. Hes not afraid of big stuff such as halting bullet train construction and trimming plans for a twin-tunnel delta water plan. Those decisions, now teed up for serious debate, are vintage Newsom, springing from the same mind who went with same-sex marriage before anyone else and who drew howls for ending cash welfare payments to the homeless in San Francisco. Hes not afraid to make a call and take the heat. The rest of the speech didnt collect as much notice, though it must have struck a chord for veteran Newsom watchers. He let loose with a string of thoughts and future plans to be given the commission-and-report treatment. On this list are an aging population, changes in the workforce, Alzheimers care, consumer dividends for allowing personal data use, and cuts to drug prices. He promised more on other long-standing topics, such as updating the tax code, reshaping criminal justice and instituting universal preschool. With a grin, he teased about reimagining the DMV, a joke aimed at an easy target and his own overblown vocabulary. If it sounds like too much, you dont know Newsom. There arent enough hours in the day for his imagination and energy in thinking about government. Hes intelligent, well-read and restless and it shows, leading him once to deliver a YouTube city address that ran 7 hours. Imagine being stuck with him on a long car ride on Interstate 5. Heres where it gets interesting. He comes with the kindergarten label of someone who doesnt play well with others. He can be aloof, uninterested, a loner. His thoughtfulness can enrapture a wide-screen audience but not always a brass-tacks negotiating circle. As mayor, he racked up a reputation for not caring about details and skating on to the next big idea. The Team of Rivals concept worked for Abe Lincoln, who could charm and wheedle his way toward agreement. But maybe that formula wont do it for Newsom. In his San Francisco days, he drew foes needlessly by ignoring them. There are signs hes changing. Hes expanding the governors office and including experienced Sacramento hands who wont sit at the feet of the master. In his address this week debuting his grab bag of ideas, he invited legislators to send him bills, something Gov. Jerry Brown never did, to conserve his power and dominance. And Newsom did it all in just 60 minutes. The new governor may be showing a new side. Marshall Kilduff is a Chronicle editorial writer. Email: mkilduff@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@MarshallKilduff This commentary is from The Chronicles editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters. | Gavin Newsom is a geyser of ideas, a walking TED Talk podcast who can dazzle and provoke. But he'll need to deliver, something he had trouble doing as a two-term mayor. | pegasus | 1 | https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Can-Gavin-Newsom-deliver-all-those-big-ideas-13618187.php | 0.226206 |
Can Gavin Newsom deliver all those big ideas? | Sacramento is getting a look at what San Francisco has long known. Gavin Newsom is a geyser of ideas, a walking TED Talk podcast who can dazzle and provoke. But hell need to deliver, something he had trouble doing as a two-term mayor. The new governor rolled out his thoughts, small and large, in this weeks State of the State address. It took just an hour, barely a deep breath for a famously wordy politico, but it took his listeners on a speed-dating tour of his thinking. Hes not afraid of big stuff such as halting bullet train construction and trimming plans for a twin-tunnel delta water plan. Those decisions, now teed up for serious debate, are vintage Newsom, springing from the same mind who went with same-sex marriage before anyone else and who drew howls for ending cash welfare payments to the homeless in San Francisco. Hes not afraid to make a call and take the heat. The rest of the speech didnt collect as much notice, though it must have struck a chord for veteran Newsom watchers. He let loose with a string of thoughts and future plans to be given the commission-and-report treatment. On this list are an aging population, changes in the workforce, Alzheimers care, consumer dividends for allowing personal data use, and cuts to drug prices. He promised more on other long-standing topics, such as updating the tax code, reshaping criminal justice and instituting universal preschool. With a grin, he teased about reimagining the DMV, a joke aimed at an easy target and his own overblown vocabulary. If it sounds like too much, you dont know Newsom. There arent enough hours in the day for his imagination and energy in thinking about government. Hes intelligent, well-read and restless and it shows, leading him once to deliver a YouTube city address that ran 7 hours. Imagine being stuck with him on a long car ride on Interstate 5. Heres where it gets interesting. He comes with the kindergarten label of someone who doesnt play well with others. He can be aloof, uninterested, a loner. His thoughtfulness can enrapture a wide-screen audience but not always a brass-tacks negotiating circle. As mayor, he racked up a reputation for not caring about details and skating on to the next big idea. The Team of Rivals concept worked for Abe Lincoln, who could charm and wheedle his way toward agreement. But maybe that formula wont do it for Newsom. In his San Francisco days, he drew foes needlessly by ignoring them. There are signs hes changing. Hes expanding the governors office and including experienced Sacramento hands who wont sit at the feet of the master. In his address this week debuting his grab bag of ideas, he invited legislators to send him bills, something Gov. Jerry Brown never did, to conserve his power and dominance. And Newsom did it all in just 60 minutes. The new governor may be showing a new side. Marshall Kilduff is a Chronicle editorial writer. Email: mkilduff@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@MarshallKilduff This commentary is from The Chronicles editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters. | Marshall Kilduff: Gavin Newsom is a geyser of ideas, a walking TED Talk podcast. But hell need to deliver, something he had trouble doing as a two-term mayor, he says. Newsom rolled out his thoughts, small and large, in this weeks State of the State address. | bart | 2 | https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Can-Gavin-Newsom-deliver-all-those-big-ideas-13618187.php | 0.228313 |
Did London air pollution kill nine-year-old Ella? | This Friday marks six years since Ella Kissi-Debrahs death, which her mother believes was partly caused by air pollution. Plus: 15-year-old George Bond explains why he is going on todays school climate strike Ella Kissi-Debrah lived 25 metres (82ft) from the heavily polluted South Circular Road in Lewisham, London. She died in February 2013 at the age of nine after three years of seizures and 27 visits to hospital for asthma attacks. Until the end of 2010, Ella had been in good health. An expert last year linked her death to the dangerously high levels of pollution from diesel traffic that breached legal limits. Anushka Asthana talks to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, Ellas mother, about her fight to reopen the inquest so that air pollution can be recognised as a contributing factor to her death. Asthana also talks to Jocelyn Cockburn, the lawyer who represents Kissi-Debrah. Cockburn hopes an inquest will provide a better understanding of whether Ellas death was avoidable and force the government and other bodies to account for their inaction over air pollution. Plus: teenager George Bond explains why he wont be going to school today and is instead joining others across the country in a nationwide school climate strike. | Ella Kissi-Debrah died in February 2013 at the age of nine. An expert last year linked her death to pollution from diesel traffic. | pegasus | 0 | https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/feb/15/london-air-pollution-death-ella-kissi-debrah-podcast | 0.202915 |
Did London air pollution kill nine-year-old Ella? | This Friday marks six years since Ella Kissi-Debrahs death, which her mother believes was partly caused by air pollution. Plus: 15-year-old George Bond explains why he is going on todays school climate strike Ella Kissi-Debrah lived 25 metres (82ft) from the heavily polluted South Circular Road in Lewisham, London. She died in February 2013 at the age of nine after three years of seizures and 27 visits to hospital for asthma attacks. Until the end of 2010, Ella had been in good health. An expert last year linked her death to the dangerously high levels of pollution from diesel traffic that breached legal limits. Anushka Asthana talks to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, Ellas mother, about her fight to reopen the inquest so that air pollution can be recognised as a contributing factor to her death. Asthana also talks to Jocelyn Cockburn, the lawyer who represents Kissi-Debrah. Cockburn hopes an inquest will provide a better understanding of whether Ellas death was avoidable and force the government and other bodies to account for their inaction over air pollution. Plus: teenager George Bond explains why he wont be going to school today and is instead joining others across the country in a nationwide school climate strike. | Ella Kissi-Debrah lived 25 metres from a polluted road in Lewisham, London. She died in February 2013 after three years of seizures and 27 hospital visits. | pegasus | 1 | https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/feb/15/london-air-pollution-death-ella-kissi-debrah-podcast | 0.235777 |
Did London air pollution kill nine-year-old Ella? | This Friday marks six years since Ella Kissi-Debrahs death, which her mother believes was partly caused by air pollution. Plus: 15-year-old George Bond explains why he is going on todays school climate strike Ella Kissi-Debrah lived 25 metres (82ft) from the heavily polluted South Circular Road in Lewisham, London. She died in February 2013 at the age of nine after three years of seizures and 27 visits to hospital for asthma attacks. Until the end of 2010, Ella had been in good health. An expert last year linked her death to the dangerously high levels of pollution from diesel traffic that breached legal limits. Anushka Asthana talks to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, Ellas mother, about her fight to reopen the inquest so that air pollution can be recognised as a contributing factor to her death. Asthana also talks to Jocelyn Cockburn, the lawyer who represents Kissi-Debrah. Cockburn hopes an inquest will provide a better understanding of whether Ellas death was avoidable and force the government and other bodies to account for their inaction over air pollution. Plus: teenager George Bond explains why he wont be going to school today and is instead joining others across the country in a nationwide school climate strike. | Ella Kissi-Debrah died in February 2013 at the age of nine. An expert last year linked her death to dangerously high levels of pollution from diesel traffic that breached legal limits. Her mother Rosamund is fighting to reopen the inquest so that air pollution can be recognised as a contributing factor to her death. | pegasus | 2 | https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/feb/15/london-air-pollution-death-ella-kissi-debrah-podcast | 0.228719 |
Why did gay Muslim comics disappear from Instagram? | Image copyright Twitter/Instagram Earlier this week, an Instagram account which posted comic strips depicting the struggles of gay Muslims in Indonesia vanished from the social media site. Indonesia's communications ministry was quick to claim credit, saying it had asked Instagram to take the account down because it contained "pornographic content". Instagram later denied this claim, saying it had not removed the account. The Instagram account - under the username @Alpantuni - featured comic strips that showed the abuse and discrimination faced by a gay Muslim character. It had almost 6,000 followers. One comic showed the character being told to "burn in hell" and having faeces thrown at him. Local media outlets say the communications ministry had threatened to block Instagram if @Alpantuni's account was not removed. According to BBC Indonesia, the ministry also said the public had "participated in reporting the account... to speed up the takedown process". But Instagram told the BBC the ministry's version of events is wrong. In a statement, the social network said it "did not remove this account", adding that there are "a number of other reasons why an account may no longer be accessible, including, for example, if the account holder deleted the account, deactivated the account, or changed the account username." It also added that it had "reviewed the account against our community guidelines and found that it does not violate our policies." The account has divided people in Indonesia. Some expressed anger over its content. One Instagram user had asked others to report it, saying its depiction of gay Muslims was not "feasible". But others defended the account, saying it was just depicting life for gay Muslims in Indonesia. Image copyright Twitter/fedrianrp One lecturer at the Fahmina Institute of Islamic Studies said he objected to the comics. "There is a problem. [Even when the] heterosexuals show sexual relations, it is still considered taboo in Indonesia. For some people, this [comics] can be considered [to be] disrespecting Islam," Abdul Muiz Ghazali told BBC Indonesia. Another sociology professor expressed similar opinions. Neng Dara Affifah told BBC Indonesia that though there was no element of pornography in the comics, some of the the contents were "counterproductive". It's not clear at this stage. In screenshots of his comics on Instagram, @Alpantuni had added logos from Facebook and Twitter - showing that he previously had accounts there too. He has now vanished from all three platforms. Instagram remains the only one the government has spoken out about. "By falsely boasting of Instagram's removal of a harmless account at their demand, the government has misled the public to sow fear among LGBTI people," said Amnesty International's Indonesia Executive Director Usman Hamid in a statement. "At a time when LGBTI people in the country face routine repression... it's vital that social media remain a safe space for anyone to peacefully express themselves." In recent years Indonesia has shown increasing hostility towards its LGBT community. Homosexuality is not illegal, however, except in the conservative province of Aceh - the only one that implements strict Islamic law. Last year, Blued - one of the world's largest gay dating apps - was pulled from Indonesia's Google store in response to government demands. Two gay men were also publicly caned - receiving 85 lashes each - in Aceh last year. The pair, aged 20 and 23, had been found in bed together. | Instagram account posted comic strips depicting struggles of gay Muslims in Indonesia. Ministry claimed it had asked Instagram to take the account down because it contained "pornographic content" Instagram later denied this claim, saying it had not removed the account. | bart | 1 | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47248933 | 0.409368 |
Why did gay Muslim comics disappear from Instagram? | Image copyright Twitter/Instagram Earlier this week, an Instagram account which posted comic strips depicting the struggles of gay Muslims in Indonesia vanished from the social media site. Indonesia's communications ministry was quick to claim credit, saying it had asked Instagram to take the account down because it contained "pornographic content". Instagram later denied this claim, saying it had not removed the account. The Instagram account - under the username @Alpantuni - featured comic strips that showed the abuse and discrimination faced by a gay Muslim character. It had almost 6,000 followers. One comic showed the character being told to "burn in hell" and having faeces thrown at him. Local media outlets say the communications ministry had threatened to block Instagram if @Alpantuni's account was not removed. According to BBC Indonesia, the ministry also said the public had "participated in reporting the account... to speed up the takedown process". But Instagram told the BBC the ministry's version of events is wrong. In a statement, the social network said it "did not remove this account", adding that there are "a number of other reasons why an account may no longer be accessible, including, for example, if the account holder deleted the account, deactivated the account, or changed the account username." It also added that it had "reviewed the account against our community guidelines and found that it does not violate our policies." The account has divided people in Indonesia. Some expressed anger over its content. One Instagram user had asked others to report it, saying its depiction of gay Muslims was not "feasible". But others defended the account, saying it was just depicting life for gay Muslims in Indonesia. Image copyright Twitter/fedrianrp One lecturer at the Fahmina Institute of Islamic Studies said he objected to the comics. "There is a problem. [Even when the] heterosexuals show sexual relations, it is still considered taboo in Indonesia. For some people, this [comics] can be considered [to be] disrespecting Islam," Abdul Muiz Ghazali told BBC Indonesia. Another sociology professor expressed similar opinions. Neng Dara Affifah told BBC Indonesia that though there was no element of pornography in the comics, some of the the contents were "counterproductive". It's not clear at this stage. In screenshots of his comics on Instagram, @Alpantuni had added logos from Facebook and Twitter - showing that he previously had accounts there too. He has now vanished from all three platforms. Instagram remains the only one the government has spoken out about. "By falsely boasting of Instagram's removal of a harmless account at their demand, the government has misled the public to sow fear among LGBTI people," said Amnesty International's Indonesia Executive Director Usman Hamid in a statement. "At a time when LGBTI people in the country face routine repression... it's vital that social media remain a safe space for anyone to peacefully express themselves." In recent years Indonesia has shown increasing hostility towards its LGBT community. Homosexuality is not illegal, however, except in the conservative province of Aceh - the only one that implements strict Islamic law. Last year, Blued - one of the world's largest gay dating apps - was pulled from Indonesia's Google store in response to government demands. Two gay men were also publicly caned - receiving 85 lashes each - in Aceh last year. The pair, aged 20 and 23, had been found in bed together. | Instagram account posted comic strips depicting struggles of gay Muslims in Indonesia. Ministry claimed it had asked Instagram to take the account down because it contained "pornographic content" Instagram later denied this claim, saying it had not removed the account. The account has divided people in Indonesia, with some expressing anger over its content. | bart | 2 | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47248933 | 0.453633 |
Why are students striking for the climate and will it have an impact? | It may not represent a paradigm shift just yet, but the speed and scale of this young person's movement does make it feel more than a momentary splutter of impotent anger. Ever since the then 15-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg decided to stop going to school on Fridays last year and instead protest outside the Swedish parliament, there has been a rapid expansion in similar activities in many parts of the world, especially in Europe. Tens of thousands of schoolchildren in Belgium, Germany and other locations have cut classes and taken to the streets to call on governments to take urgent action on climate change. Now young people in the UK are due to join them, determined to affect change on the issue that they feel is most germane to their future - the impacts of rapidly rising temperatures on an ever more crowded planet. Greta's memorable phrase that we "cannot solve the crisis without treating it as a crisis", reflects the thinking of many, frustrated with the slow pace of progress. That sense of crisis has been affected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the impacts of global temperature reaching 1.5C, released last October. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'I'm standing up for our planet' "We are doing this because we feel that climate action really needs to happen after the IPCC report," said Lottie, 17, who says she will join a school protest in London. Speaking to the BBC, she said: "We've been told we have to take serious action and have just 12 years to cut our carbon emissions in half. As the young people who are going to be most affected by the fact that no-one is taking any action on climate change - this is our entire future. "We can't vote yet and this is one of the most effective ways of making our voices heard." Last year also brought a wide range of impacts including heatwaves and forest fires that scientists say were made worse by climate change. All the while, the emissions that are driving up temperatures continue to go up, not down. In the face of this continuing catalogue, the actions taken by governments seem rather limited, much to the frustration of scientists and campaigners. Students contrast the slow pace of tackling climate change with the fact they have managed to get a movement going to organise a UK-wide strike in only four weeks. According to the UK Student Climate Network, there are four key demands. They want the government "to declare a climate emergency", and inform the public about the seriousness of the situation. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Protests in Belgium have made climate change a key issue for all political parties They also want the national curriculum reformed to include "the ecological crisis as an educational priority". To fully include young people in decision-making, especially about issues related to climate change, they are calling on the government to lower the age of voting to 16. These goals are being supported by a group of around 200 UK academics, who have written to a national newspaper to say they stand in solidarity with the strikers. "With the dilution of citizenship education in recent years, this is an important opportunity for schools, colleges and universities to support active citizenship and political engagement," said Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP who signed the letter, who is also a professor of green economics, at the University of Roehampton. "Far from being disengaged, these strikes demonstrate that many young people do care passionately about our planet and the welfare of our neighbours across the world. Our politicians should pay attention and deliver policies that will safeguard future generations." Young people were far, far more visible at last December's key UN climate meeting in Katowice, Poland. Their energy and demands for speedy action marked a significant change from previous events. Similarly in the US, we are seeing demands from young people for political action on climate change, forcefully represented by Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is the driving force behind the Green New Deal, a radical climate plan that would see the US decarbonise in only 10 years. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Greta Thunberg has taken her climate strike to Davos In Europe the school strikers are also making a powerful impression. "They have put the climate issue on the public agenda," said Conner Rousseau, a spokesperson for the Flemish Socialist party in Belgium. "They've forced all of the Belgian political parties to take a stand on the climate issue. We have elections in May, it will be one of the main themes." Observers believe the same thing can happen in the UK. "If the government is serious about winning over the next generation of voters, then they need to heed their most pressing concerns," said Richard Baker, from Christian Aid. "But more importantly they are sparking a national debate, they are forcing teachers, parents and politicians to re-evaluate the issue of climate breakdown and, what is most important, while lifting our gaze beyond just immediate short-term national concerns." | Students in the UK are due to join a school strike over climate change. They want the government to declare a climate emergency. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47242477 | 0.120674 |
Why are students striking for the climate and will it have an impact? | It may not represent a paradigm shift just yet, but the speed and scale of this young person's movement does make it feel more than a momentary splutter of impotent anger. Ever since the then 15-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg decided to stop going to school on Fridays last year and instead protest outside the Swedish parliament, there has been a rapid expansion in similar activities in many parts of the world, especially in Europe. Tens of thousands of schoolchildren in Belgium, Germany and other locations have cut classes and taken to the streets to call on governments to take urgent action on climate change. Now young people in the UK are due to join them, determined to affect change on the issue that they feel is most germane to their future - the impacts of rapidly rising temperatures on an ever more crowded planet. Greta's memorable phrase that we "cannot solve the crisis without treating it as a crisis", reflects the thinking of many, frustrated with the slow pace of progress. That sense of crisis has been affected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the impacts of global temperature reaching 1.5C, released last October. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'I'm standing up for our planet' "We are doing this because we feel that climate action really needs to happen after the IPCC report," said Lottie, 17, who says she will join a school protest in London. Speaking to the BBC, she said: "We've been told we have to take serious action and have just 12 years to cut our carbon emissions in half. As the young people who are going to be most affected by the fact that no-one is taking any action on climate change - this is our entire future. "We can't vote yet and this is one of the most effective ways of making our voices heard." Last year also brought a wide range of impacts including heatwaves and forest fires that scientists say were made worse by climate change. All the while, the emissions that are driving up temperatures continue to go up, not down. In the face of this continuing catalogue, the actions taken by governments seem rather limited, much to the frustration of scientists and campaigners. Students contrast the slow pace of tackling climate change with the fact they have managed to get a movement going to organise a UK-wide strike in only four weeks. According to the UK Student Climate Network, there are four key demands. They want the government "to declare a climate emergency", and inform the public about the seriousness of the situation. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Protests in Belgium have made climate change a key issue for all political parties They also want the national curriculum reformed to include "the ecological crisis as an educational priority". To fully include young people in decision-making, especially about issues related to climate change, they are calling on the government to lower the age of voting to 16. These goals are being supported by a group of around 200 UK academics, who have written to a national newspaper to say they stand in solidarity with the strikers. "With the dilution of citizenship education in recent years, this is an important opportunity for schools, colleges and universities to support active citizenship and political engagement," said Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP who signed the letter, who is also a professor of green economics, at the University of Roehampton. "Far from being disengaged, these strikes demonstrate that many young people do care passionately about our planet and the welfare of our neighbours across the world. Our politicians should pay attention and deliver policies that will safeguard future generations." Young people were far, far more visible at last December's key UN climate meeting in Katowice, Poland. Their energy and demands for speedy action marked a significant change from previous events. Similarly in the US, we are seeing demands from young people for political action on climate change, forcefully represented by Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is the driving force behind the Green New Deal, a radical climate plan that would see the US decarbonise in only 10 years. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Greta Thunberg has taken her climate strike to Davos In Europe the school strikers are also making a powerful impression. "They have put the climate issue on the public agenda," said Conner Rousseau, a spokesperson for the Flemish Socialist party in Belgium. "They've forced all of the Belgian political parties to take a stand on the climate issue. We have elections in May, it will be one of the main themes." Observers believe the same thing can happen in the UK. "If the government is serious about winning over the next generation of voters, then they need to heed their most pressing concerns," said Richard Baker, from Christian Aid. "But more importantly they are sparking a national debate, they are forcing teachers, parents and politicians to re-evaluate the issue of climate breakdown and, what is most important, while lifting our gaze beyond just immediate short-term national concerns." | Students in the UK are due to strike on Friday to demand action on climate change. They want the government to declare a climate emergency and inform the public about the seriousness of the situation. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47242477 | 0.174633 |
Why are students striking for the climate and will it have an impact? | It may not represent a paradigm shift just yet, but the speed and scale of this young person's movement does make it feel more than a momentary splutter of impotent anger. Ever since the then 15-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg decided to stop going to school on Fridays last year and instead protest outside the Swedish parliament, there has been a rapid expansion in similar activities in many parts of the world, especially in Europe. Tens of thousands of schoolchildren in Belgium, Germany and other locations have cut classes and taken to the streets to call on governments to take urgent action on climate change. Now young people in the UK are due to join them, determined to affect change on the issue that they feel is most germane to their future - the impacts of rapidly rising temperatures on an ever more crowded planet. Greta's memorable phrase that we "cannot solve the crisis without treating it as a crisis", reflects the thinking of many, frustrated with the slow pace of progress. That sense of crisis has been affected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the impacts of global temperature reaching 1.5C, released last October. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption 'I'm standing up for our planet' "We are doing this because we feel that climate action really needs to happen after the IPCC report," said Lottie, 17, who says she will join a school protest in London. Speaking to the BBC, she said: "We've been told we have to take serious action and have just 12 years to cut our carbon emissions in half. As the young people who are going to be most affected by the fact that no-one is taking any action on climate change - this is our entire future. "We can't vote yet and this is one of the most effective ways of making our voices heard." Last year also brought a wide range of impacts including heatwaves and forest fires that scientists say were made worse by climate change. All the while, the emissions that are driving up temperatures continue to go up, not down. In the face of this continuing catalogue, the actions taken by governments seem rather limited, much to the frustration of scientists and campaigners. Students contrast the slow pace of tackling climate change with the fact they have managed to get a movement going to organise a UK-wide strike in only four weeks. According to the UK Student Climate Network, there are four key demands. They want the government "to declare a climate emergency", and inform the public about the seriousness of the situation. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Protests in Belgium have made climate change a key issue for all political parties They also want the national curriculum reformed to include "the ecological crisis as an educational priority". To fully include young people in decision-making, especially about issues related to climate change, they are calling on the government to lower the age of voting to 16. These goals are being supported by a group of around 200 UK academics, who have written to a national newspaper to say they stand in solidarity with the strikers. "With the dilution of citizenship education in recent years, this is an important opportunity for schools, colleges and universities to support active citizenship and political engagement," said Molly Scott Cato, the Green Party MEP who signed the letter, who is also a professor of green economics, at the University of Roehampton. "Far from being disengaged, these strikes demonstrate that many young people do care passionately about our planet and the welfare of our neighbours across the world. Our politicians should pay attention and deliver policies that will safeguard future generations." Young people were far, far more visible at last December's key UN climate meeting in Katowice, Poland. Their energy and demands for speedy action marked a significant change from previous events. Similarly in the US, we are seeing demands from young people for political action on climate change, forcefully represented by Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is the driving force behind the Green New Deal, a radical climate plan that would see the US decarbonise in only 10 years. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Greta Thunberg has taken her climate strike to Davos In Europe the school strikers are also making a powerful impression. "They have put the climate issue on the public agenda," said Conner Rousseau, a spokesperson for the Flemish Socialist party in Belgium. "They've forced all of the Belgian political parties to take a stand on the climate issue. We have elections in May, it will be one of the main themes." Observers believe the same thing can happen in the UK. "If the government is serious about winning over the next generation of voters, then they need to heed their most pressing concerns," said Richard Baker, from Christian Aid. "But more importantly they are sparking a national debate, they are forcing teachers, parents and politicians to re-evaluate the issue of climate breakdown and, what is most important, while lifting our gaze beyond just immediate short-term national concerns." | UK students have organised a UK-wide strike in only four weeks. They want the government to declare a climate emergency. They are calling on the government to lower the age of voting to 16. Around 200 UK academics have written to a national newspaper in support. | pegasus | 2 | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47242477 | 0.131176 |
Is Gavin Newsom Right to Slow Down Californias High-Speed Train? | During his first State of the State address, this week, Gavin Newsom, Californias newly sworn-in governor, covered immigration, energy, and water policy, but the remark that made the headlines was about the ghost of a long-promised train. Lets level about high-speed rail, Newsom said in the middle of his speech, in Sacramento, turning to the subject of a bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. Instead, he proposed focussing on a shorter inland route, between Merced and Bakersfield, two small cities that, its fair to say, most coastal metropolitan Californians happily visit rarely or never. The news was received as a downer on par with the extinction of the space program. This country wont experience modern rail travel for another generationif ever, Fortune lamented on Wednesday, in an otherwise supportive editorial. On Twitter, the governor was compared with the Simpsons character Lyle Lanley, who absconded with the takings from a fraudulent monorail scheme. Finally, on Wednesday night, President Trump tweeted, apparently on behalf of the federal government, that he wanted back the money given for the train, which he referred to as a green disaster. Newsom, a wide-smiling Democrat whose mayorship of San Francisco steered the city toward its current profile, is presumed to have at least one eye on higher office. As it became clear how bracing his announcement had been, his staff, in interviews, walked back the stance. Despite the too much and too long language, a spokesman said, the governor wasnt putting the kibosh on a high-speed train linking Los Angeles and San Franciscohe just wanted to prioritize the shorter line for now. The distinction was semantic: a gubernatorial tenure is eight years, at most, and completing the full line will take longer. But it was also a gratuitous step back, because, as far as the S.F.-to-L.A. route goes, the governor was right. A high-speed train connecting the two cities first appeared as a proposition on the California ballot in 2008, under the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The proposal, which was voted in, planned for a door-handle-shaped route, reaching down the San Francisco Peninsula, to Gilroy; darting inland, toward Merced; following the length of the Central Valley, just past Bakersfield; and then, at Palmdale, moving west again to Burbank, L.A., and Anaheim, along the southern coast. A second phase of the project would add inland legs on either end of the main Central Valley line: up to Sacramento; down through San Bernardino and the North County of San Diego. The system would comprise eight hundred miles in all. Predictably, the project became less ambitious as details of time and money appeared. A report on the rail plan by the Legislative Analysts Office, in 2016, warned that it was still unclear where tens of billions of dollars of required funding was supposed to come from and urged legislators to consider whether a shorter version of the route would be worthwhile if the money couldnt be produced. Another inquiry found that there wasnt nearly enough cash or consideration set aside for the many tunnels, suspensions, and other safety structures required for trains raging at more than a hundred miles per hour through the developed, densely populated regions of the coast. Even so, the project has enjoyed executive support. Schwarzenegger backed the plan, as did his successor, Jerry Brown, who, in 2014, apportioned cap-and-trade funds. The two versions of the Green New Deal that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confusingly unveiled last weekone official, the other turned out separately by her office and more pie-in-the-skyboth endorse high-speed rail as low-emissions transportation. (The unofficial version, now taken down, seemed to suggest that trains would replace airplanes nationwide.) Because the globe is confronting a climate crisis, environmental considerations must take policy precedence, and the agency responsible for Californias high-speed rail has made impressive projections: greenhouse-gas emissions reduced by twelve billion pounds per year, energy efficiency three times that of planes, reduced fossil-fuel dependency. But other analyses note that these gains would be scaled back somewhat by the countervailing disruptions of heavy construction, station traffic, and possible groundwater issuesand that systemic efficiency depends on ridership numbers, which are unknown. There is currently a direct train between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, called the Coast Starlightthe ride takes about twelve hours and costs around a hundred dollars. It is also possible to fly between the two cities, hourly throughout the day; the trip is around fifty minutes in the air, and a ticket can be less than a hundred dollars. In reasonable traffic, a car can expect to make the journey, which is roughly the distance from New York City to Brunswick, Maine, in six hours. There are direct buses, too. An S.F.-to-L.A. trip on the high-speed rail would fit amid these options. It is also supposed to cost around a hundred dollars one way and to take two hours and forty minutes, a comfortable length for people wanting to go from downtown to downtown on a schedule, without detouring through the airportin other words, for business people travelling between the states two growing centers of money and power. The High-Speed Rail Authority has produced varying ridership estimates; the highest, a hundred million a year, matches the usage of the Bay Areas most sprawling regional rail system, BART, which is busy with people making daily metropolitan commutes to work or to school. Its easy to imagine a San Franciscan family of four with two small kids preferring, over other possibilities, a three-hour train ride on Friday to visit Grandma in L.A. (Cost: something like seven hundred bucks round-trip, assuming theres a reduced child fare.) But its hard to imagine middle-class families making a commuter habit of such trips, especially given the not horribly longer journey possible for just the cost of a full gas tank. In practice, the S.F.-to-L.A. route would operate chiefly as a business train, for inter-city meeting-makers, executives bouncing between offices, multiple-home owners, and unmoored media types. (Disclosure: I would personally love this train.) Its an alternative connection for already well-connected people. Smart advocates of the plan, of which there are many, point to the success of high-speed rail elsewhere: in China, in Europe. Its worth noting, however, where such admirable trains actually go: on suburban and exurban routes, mostly, not metropolitan ones, the trains doing what air travel cannot. By trimming the high-speed rail of its upscale ends (for now), Newsom focussed the rail plan on the communities most underserved by current transit infrastructurea narrower-use case, but probably one that is more generous to the inland region. Largely agricultural and truly middle-class, the cities between Merced and Bakersfield make up a part of California that risks losing, rather than gaining, steam, especially as some conditions that support the agricultural economy fall away. A major infrastructure project would bring a fresh wave of middle-class workers to these affordable cities. Being the custodians of the states most advanced transit, too, would keep those cities on the map and weave an often-atomized agricultural community together. In a 2000 survey of the topic, Ted Bradshaw, a now-deceased professor at the University of California, Davis, who studied these inland communities, projected social bifurcation. Underskilled workers fail to find a place in the new economy and are increasingly bypassed, while workers from the high-technology urban centers are encouraged to relocate to the Valley, he wrote. While the potential for development is real and the possible benefits are great, these industries face stiff competition from the coastal regions in California. To the extent that California has challenges around inequality (and it does), they have tended to come from lite workers compounding their advantage, attracting similarly lite labor from elsewhere, and building a local economy that crowds out anyone who is not affluent or who has obstacles to opportunity access. Few people would really want Bakersfield or Fresno to be the new frontiers of cost refugeesmetropolitan workers who cant afford the cities or just want more bang for their buck. Even fewer would want these inland destinations themselves to become a true extension of the coastever more a zone of wealth and the enduring worm-jar competition of an lite class. Purely upscale cities, we are starting to realize, are tedious and sad. A high-speed rail tying the Valley to the coast will create a new channel for these business-class powers, and it wont be cheap. According to an analysis by the World Bank, the per-mile cost of building such a system in California is twice the comparable expense in Europe and three times the cost in China: we are paying top dollar for the privilege of emulation. Neither will it come soon. The rail connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles is expected be finished in 2033. By that point, autonomous vehicles, green in both power source and roadway efficiency, are expected to be in commercial usenot everywhere, one assumes, but almost certainly on the stretch of highway separating the headquarters of Uber, in San Francisco, and Space X, in L.A. Because autonomous cars are more predictable and more controlledin short, more train-likethere will be another costly push to streamline existing roadways to their habits. (They can use narrower lanes, for instance.) They also have the virtue, especially in spread-out California, of carrying passengers door to door. The United States is overdue for high-speed rail: it represents the standard we are trailing. But in zooming toward the future its important to remember whom were taking with us and whom is being left behind. | Gavin Newsom, California's newly sworn-in governor, said high-speed rail would cost too much and take too long. | pegasus | 0 | https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/is-gavin-newsom-right-to-slow-down-californias-high-speed-train | 0.25233 |
Is Gavin Newsom Right to Slow Down Californias High-Speed Train? | During his first State of the State address, this week, Gavin Newsom, Californias newly sworn-in governor, covered immigration, energy, and water policy, but the remark that made the headlines was about the ghost of a long-promised train. Lets level about high-speed rail, Newsom said in the middle of his speech, in Sacramento, turning to the subject of a bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. Instead, he proposed focussing on a shorter inland route, between Merced and Bakersfield, two small cities that, its fair to say, most coastal metropolitan Californians happily visit rarely or never. The news was received as a downer on par with the extinction of the space program. This country wont experience modern rail travel for another generationif ever, Fortune lamented on Wednesday, in an otherwise supportive editorial. On Twitter, the governor was compared with the Simpsons character Lyle Lanley, who absconded with the takings from a fraudulent monorail scheme. Finally, on Wednesday night, President Trump tweeted, apparently on behalf of the federal government, that he wanted back the money given for the train, which he referred to as a green disaster. Newsom, a wide-smiling Democrat whose mayorship of San Francisco steered the city toward its current profile, is presumed to have at least one eye on higher office. As it became clear how bracing his announcement had been, his staff, in interviews, walked back the stance. Despite the too much and too long language, a spokesman said, the governor wasnt putting the kibosh on a high-speed train linking Los Angeles and San Franciscohe just wanted to prioritize the shorter line for now. The distinction was semantic: a gubernatorial tenure is eight years, at most, and completing the full line will take longer. But it was also a gratuitous step back, because, as far as the S.F.-to-L.A. route goes, the governor was right. A high-speed train connecting the two cities first appeared as a proposition on the California ballot in 2008, under the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The proposal, which was voted in, planned for a door-handle-shaped route, reaching down the San Francisco Peninsula, to Gilroy; darting inland, toward Merced; following the length of the Central Valley, just past Bakersfield; and then, at Palmdale, moving west again to Burbank, L.A., and Anaheim, along the southern coast. A second phase of the project would add inland legs on either end of the main Central Valley line: up to Sacramento; down through San Bernardino and the North County of San Diego. The system would comprise eight hundred miles in all. Predictably, the project became less ambitious as details of time and money appeared. A report on the rail plan by the Legislative Analysts Office, in 2016, warned that it was still unclear where tens of billions of dollars of required funding was supposed to come from and urged legislators to consider whether a shorter version of the route would be worthwhile if the money couldnt be produced. Another inquiry found that there wasnt nearly enough cash or consideration set aside for the many tunnels, suspensions, and other safety structures required for trains raging at more than a hundred miles per hour through the developed, densely populated regions of the coast. Even so, the project has enjoyed executive support. Schwarzenegger backed the plan, as did his successor, Jerry Brown, who, in 2014, apportioned cap-and-trade funds. The two versions of the Green New Deal that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confusingly unveiled last weekone official, the other turned out separately by her office and more pie-in-the-skyboth endorse high-speed rail as low-emissions transportation. (The unofficial version, now taken down, seemed to suggest that trains would replace airplanes nationwide.) Because the globe is confronting a climate crisis, environmental considerations must take policy precedence, and the agency responsible for Californias high-speed rail has made impressive projections: greenhouse-gas emissions reduced by twelve billion pounds per year, energy efficiency three times that of planes, reduced fossil-fuel dependency. But other analyses note that these gains would be scaled back somewhat by the countervailing disruptions of heavy construction, station traffic, and possible groundwater issuesand that systemic efficiency depends on ridership numbers, which are unknown. There is currently a direct train between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, called the Coast Starlightthe ride takes about twelve hours and costs around a hundred dollars. It is also possible to fly between the two cities, hourly throughout the day; the trip is around fifty minutes in the air, and a ticket can be less than a hundred dollars. In reasonable traffic, a car can expect to make the journey, which is roughly the distance from New York City to Brunswick, Maine, in six hours. There are direct buses, too. An S.F.-to-L.A. trip on the high-speed rail would fit amid these options. It is also supposed to cost around a hundred dollars one way and to take two hours and forty minutes, a comfortable length for people wanting to go from downtown to downtown on a schedule, without detouring through the airportin other words, for business people travelling between the states two growing centers of money and power. The High-Speed Rail Authority has produced varying ridership estimates; the highest, a hundred million a year, matches the usage of the Bay Areas most sprawling regional rail system, BART, which is busy with people making daily metropolitan commutes to work or to school. Its easy to imagine a San Franciscan family of four with two small kids preferring, over other possibilities, a three-hour train ride on Friday to visit Grandma in L.A. (Cost: something like seven hundred bucks round-trip, assuming theres a reduced child fare.) But its hard to imagine middle-class families making a commuter habit of such trips, especially given the not horribly longer journey possible for just the cost of a full gas tank. In practice, the S.F.-to-L.A. route would operate chiefly as a business train, for inter-city meeting-makers, executives bouncing between offices, multiple-home owners, and unmoored media types. (Disclosure: I would personally love this train.) Its an alternative connection for already well-connected people. Smart advocates of the plan, of which there are many, point to the success of high-speed rail elsewhere: in China, in Europe. Its worth noting, however, where such admirable trains actually go: on suburban and exurban routes, mostly, not metropolitan ones, the trains doing what air travel cannot. By trimming the high-speed rail of its upscale ends (for now), Newsom focussed the rail plan on the communities most underserved by current transit infrastructurea narrower-use case, but probably one that is more generous to the inland region. Largely agricultural and truly middle-class, the cities between Merced and Bakersfield make up a part of California that risks losing, rather than gaining, steam, especially as some conditions that support the agricultural economy fall away. A major infrastructure project would bring a fresh wave of middle-class workers to these affordable cities. Being the custodians of the states most advanced transit, too, would keep those cities on the map and weave an often-atomized agricultural community together. In a 2000 survey of the topic, Ted Bradshaw, a now-deceased professor at the University of California, Davis, who studied these inland communities, projected social bifurcation. Underskilled workers fail to find a place in the new economy and are increasingly bypassed, while workers from the high-technology urban centers are encouraged to relocate to the Valley, he wrote. While the potential for development is real and the possible benefits are great, these industries face stiff competition from the coastal regions in California. To the extent that California has challenges around inequality (and it does), they have tended to come from lite workers compounding their advantage, attracting similarly lite labor from elsewhere, and building a local economy that crowds out anyone who is not affluent or who has obstacles to opportunity access. Few people would really want Bakersfield or Fresno to be the new frontiers of cost refugeesmetropolitan workers who cant afford the cities or just want more bang for their buck. Even fewer would want these inland destinations themselves to become a true extension of the coastever more a zone of wealth and the enduring worm-jar competition of an lite class. Purely upscale cities, we are starting to realize, are tedious and sad. A high-speed rail tying the Valley to the coast will create a new channel for these business-class powers, and it wont be cheap. According to an analysis by the World Bank, the per-mile cost of building such a system in California is twice the comparable expense in Europe and three times the cost in China: we are paying top dollar for the privilege of emulation. Neither will it come soon. The rail connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles is expected be finished in 2033. By that point, autonomous vehicles, green in both power source and roadway efficiency, are expected to be in commercial usenot everywhere, one assumes, but almost certainly on the stretch of highway separating the headquarters of Uber, in San Francisco, and Space X, in L.A. Because autonomous cars are more predictable and more controlledin short, more train-likethere will be another costly push to streamline existing roadways to their habits. (They can use narrower lanes, for instance.) They also have the virtue, especially in spread-out California, of carrying passengers door to door. The United States is overdue for high-speed rail: it represents the standard we are trailing. But in zooming toward the future its important to remember whom were taking with us and whom is being left behind. | Gavin Newsom, California's newly sworn-in governor, said high-speed rail would cost too much and take too long. The news was received as a downer on par with the extinction of the space program. | pegasus | 1 | https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/is-gavin-newsom-right-to-slow-down-californias-high-speed-train | 0.28798 |
Is Gavin Newsom Right to Slow Down Californias High-Speed Train? | During his first State of the State address, this week, Gavin Newsom, Californias newly sworn-in governor, covered immigration, energy, and water policy, but the remark that made the headlines was about the ghost of a long-promised train. Lets level about high-speed rail, Newsom said in the middle of his speech, in Sacramento, turning to the subject of a bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. Instead, he proposed focussing on a shorter inland route, between Merced and Bakersfield, two small cities that, its fair to say, most coastal metropolitan Californians happily visit rarely or never. The news was received as a downer on par with the extinction of the space program. This country wont experience modern rail travel for another generationif ever, Fortune lamented on Wednesday, in an otherwise supportive editorial. On Twitter, the governor was compared with the Simpsons character Lyle Lanley, who absconded with the takings from a fraudulent monorail scheme. Finally, on Wednesday night, President Trump tweeted, apparently on behalf of the federal government, that he wanted back the money given for the train, which he referred to as a green disaster. Newsom, a wide-smiling Democrat whose mayorship of San Francisco steered the city toward its current profile, is presumed to have at least one eye on higher office. As it became clear how bracing his announcement had been, his staff, in interviews, walked back the stance. Despite the too much and too long language, a spokesman said, the governor wasnt putting the kibosh on a high-speed train linking Los Angeles and San Franciscohe just wanted to prioritize the shorter line for now. The distinction was semantic: a gubernatorial tenure is eight years, at most, and completing the full line will take longer. But it was also a gratuitous step back, because, as far as the S.F.-to-L.A. route goes, the governor was right. A high-speed train connecting the two cities first appeared as a proposition on the California ballot in 2008, under the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The proposal, which was voted in, planned for a door-handle-shaped route, reaching down the San Francisco Peninsula, to Gilroy; darting inland, toward Merced; following the length of the Central Valley, just past Bakersfield; and then, at Palmdale, moving west again to Burbank, L.A., and Anaheim, along the southern coast. A second phase of the project would add inland legs on either end of the main Central Valley line: up to Sacramento; down through San Bernardino and the North County of San Diego. The system would comprise eight hundred miles in all. Predictably, the project became less ambitious as details of time and money appeared. A report on the rail plan by the Legislative Analysts Office, in 2016, warned that it was still unclear where tens of billions of dollars of required funding was supposed to come from and urged legislators to consider whether a shorter version of the route would be worthwhile if the money couldnt be produced. Another inquiry found that there wasnt nearly enough cash or consideration set aside for the many tunnels, suspensions, and other safety structures required for trains raging at more than a hundred miles per hour through the developed, densely populated regions of the coast. Even so, the project has enjoyed executive support. Schwarzenegger backed the plan, as did his successor, Jerry Brown, who, in 2014, apportioned cap-and-trade funds. The two versions of the Green New Deal that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confusingly unveiled last weekone official, the other turned out separately by her office and more pie-in-the-skyboth endorse high-speed rail as low-emissions transportation. (The unofficial version, now taken down, seemed to suggest that trains would replace airplanes nationwide.) Because the globe is confronting a climate crisis, environmental considerations must take policy precedence, and the agency responsible for Californias high-speed rail has made impressive projections: greenhouse-gas emissions reduced by twelve billion pounds per year, energy efficiency three times that of planes, reduced fossil-fuel dependency. But other analyses note that these gains would be scaled back somewhat by the countervailing disruptions of heavy construction, station traffic, and possible groundwater issuesand that systemic efficiency depends on ridership numbers, which are unknown. There is currently a direct train between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, called the Coast Starlightthe ride takes about twelve hours and costs around a hundred dollars. It is also possible to fly between the two cities, hourly throughout the day; the trip is around fifty minutes in the air, and a ticket can be less than a hundred dollars. In reasonable traffic, a car can expect to make the journey, which is roughly the distance from New York City to Brunswick, Maine, in six hours. There are direct buses, too. An S.F.-to-L.A. trip on the high-speed rail would fit amid these options. It is also supposed to cost around a hundred dollars one way and to take two hours and forty minutes, a comfortable length for people wanting to go from downtown to downtown on a schedule, without detouring through the airportin other words, for business people travelling between the states two growing centers of money and power. The High-Speed Rail Authority has produced varying ridership estimates; the highest, a hundred million a year, matches the usage of the Bay Areas most sprawling regional rail system, BART, which is busy with people making daily metropolitan commutes to work or to school. Its easy to imagine a San Franciscan family of four with two small kids preferring, over other possibilities, a three-hour train ride on Friday to visit Grandma in L.A. (Cost: something like seven hundred bucks round-trip, assuming theres a reduced child fare.) But its hard to imagine middle-class families making a commuter habit of such trips, especially given the not horribly longer journey possible for just the cost of a full gas tank. In practice, the S.F.-to-L.A. route would operate chiefly as a business train, for inter-city meeting-makers, executives bouncing between offices, multiple-home owners, and unmoored media types. (Disclosure: I would personally love this train.) Its an alternative connection for already well-connected people. Smart advocates of the plan, of which there are many, point to the success of high-speed rail elsewhere: in China, in Europe. Its worth noting, however, where such admirable trains actually go: on suburban and exurban routes, mostly, not metropolitan ones, the trains doing what air travel cannot. By trimming the high-speed rail of its upscale ends (for now), Newsom focussed the rail plan on the communities most underserved by current transit infrastructurea narrower-use case, but probably one that is more generous to the inland region. Largely agricultural and truly middle-class, the cities between Merced and Bakersfield make up a part of California that risks losing, rather than gaining, steam, especially as some conditions that support the agricultural economy fall away. A major infrastructure project would bring a fresh wave of middle-class workers to these affordable cities. Being the custodians of the states most advanced transit, too, would keep those cities on the map and weave an often-atomized agricultural community together. In a 2000 survey of the topic, Ted Bradshaw, a now-deceased professor at the University of California, Davis, who studied these inland communities, projected social bifurcation. Underskilled workers fail to find a place in the new economy and are increasingly bypassed, while workers from the high-technology urban centers are encouraged to relocate to the Valley, he wrote. While the potential for development is real and the possible benefits are great, these industries face stiff competition from the coastal regions in California. To the extent that California has challenges around inequality (and it does), they have tended to come from lite workers compounding their advantage, attracting similarly lite labor from elsewhere, and building a local economy that crowds out anyone who is not affluent or who has obstacles to opportunity access. Few people would really want Bakersfield or Fresno to be the new frontiers of cost refugeesmetropolitan workers who cant afford the cities or just want more bang for their buck. Even fewer would want these inland destinations themselves to become a true extension of the coastever more a zone of wealth and the enduring worm-jar competition of an lite class. Purely upscale cities, we are starting to realize, are tedious and sad. A high-speed rail tying the Valley to the coast will create a new channel for these business-class powers, and it wont be cheap. According to an analysis by the World Bank, the per-mile cost of building such a system in California is twice the comparable expense in Europe and three times the cost in China: we are paying top dollar for the privilege of emulation. Neither will it come soon. The rail connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles is expected be finished in 2033. By that point, autonomous vehicles, green in both power source and roadway efficiency, are expected to be in commercial usenot everywhere, one assumes, but almost certainly on the stretch of highway separating the headquarters of Uber, in San Francisco, and Space X, in L.A. Because autonomous cars are more predictable and more controlledin short, more train-likethere will be another costly push to streamline existing roadways to their habits. (They can use narrower lanes, for instance.) They also have the virtue, especially in spread-out California, of carrying passengers door to door. The United States is overdue for high-speed rail: it represents the standard we are trailing. But in zooming toward the future its important to remember whom were taking with us and whom is being left behind. | Gavin Newsom, California's newly sworn-in governor, said high-speed rail would cost too much and take too long. The news was received as a downer on par with the extinction of the space program. President Trump tweeted, apparently on behalf of the federal government, that he wanted back the money given for the train. | pegasus | 2 | https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/is-gavin-newsom-right-to-slow-down-californias-high-speed-train | 0.398596 |
Which injured players could return soon for beat-up Arizona Coyotes? | Its been more than week since the Coyotes skated together as a group, and the team looked a bit different during Thursdays practice at the Ice Den Scottsdale. Other than Conor Garland showing up with a significant haircut and the newly clean-shaven Alex Galchenyuk, the biggest visible change was the presence of center Christian Dvorak, who has been sidelined since preseason and has been rehabbing a torn pectoral. Granted, Dvorak was skating with a yellow, non-contact sweater, but it was still the first time Dvorak has skated in an organized practice with his peers since the injury. Arizona Coyotes' Christian Dvorak (18) takes a pass in front of Carolina Hurricanes goalie Cam Ward (30) during the first period of an NHL hockey game in Raleigh, N.C., Thursday, March 22, 2018. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome) (Photo: Gerry Broome, AP) Hes going to be practicing full-time soon with us, Coyotes head coach Rick Tocchet said of Dvorak. I dont know the time frame but obviously hes non-contact now but eventually itll be (contact) drills. Dvorak, 22, was signed to a six-year contract extension in preseason after tallying 37 points (15 goals, 22 assists) as the teams primary third-line center last season. The Coyotes are struggling at the center position right now. They are without Nick Schmaltz (knee; out for season), Brad Richardson (hand; week-to-week) and Dvorak. But it appears reinforcements could be on the way. It should be noted that Dvorak likely will need significant practice time to get into game shape. As a player with only two seasons of NHL experience under his belt, coupled with the fact that he did not receive a full training camp and has missed the first four months of the season, it wont be an easy task for Dvorak to get ready. Still, its a good sign for the Coyotes to see that process starting. Its tough with no training camp and him being out this long, Tocchet said. But Dvo (Dvorak) is the type of guy that is a two-way guy and plays a 200-foot game. Especially when you come back in that situation, the pace is going to be fast. We all see it where you have to play a simple game out there. Whether or not we get him a game down in Tucson, we havent decided that yet. Coyotes captain Oliver Ekman-Larsson was a full participant at Thursdays practice and will travel with the team for their game against the San Jose Sharks on Saturday. Ekman-Larsson suffered a lower-body injury on Jan. 22 in Toronto. Coyotes' Oliver Ekman-Larsson (23) comes off the ice after an injury against the Rangers during the first period at Gila River Arena in Glendale, Ariz. on January 6, 2019. (Photo: Patrick Breen/The Republic) Ekman-Larsson, who is second on the team with 26 points, was skating on his usual defense pair with Niklas Hjalmarsson and seemed to be getting along fine. The Coyotes will evaluate him before their flight on Friday before deciding his status for Saturday. Hes still sore but he went through a 50-minute practice and I thought he skated well, Tocchet said of Ekman-Larsson. We were a little nervous, obviously, last week but weve been getting good news. Whether he plays, Im not quite sure yet. Here are some other updates from Tocchet on injured Coyotes players, all of whom have been skating on their own as they rehab their respective injuries: Jason Demers: "I hate to say ahead of schedule, but Demers is doing a really nice job on his rehab (from knee surgery) and is skating really well out there." Brad Richardson: "'Richie' has been skating really hard. I think he's getting his hand X-rayed or scanned to see where that's at." Michael Grabner: "We've eventually got to get him into some practices. He needs people in front of his eyes, but he's in great shape. That's the one thing with 'Grabs' is he's in great shape. Vision is another thing ... and that's going to be the test for him." Coyotes open up for 'Yotes Talk' The Coyotes announced Thursday that they will hold "Yotes Talk" night on Feb. 7 as part of an NHL initiative to encourage conversation about mental health. The event is part of the "Hockey Talks" initiative backed by the NHL and several of its member organizations. It will take place during the Coyotes' game against the Columbus Blue Jackets on Feb. 7 at Gila River Arena. The Coyotes are encouraging fans to join the conversation by using the hashtag "#YotesTalk" as the Coyotes try to raise money for mental health initiatives. Coyotes defenseman Jakob Chychrun, who is involved with The New Foundation in Scottsdale, has also pledged to donate six cents to the foundation for each retweet of his personal mental health video on Twitter. Fans can learn more below. READ MORE: No matter what you are going through, we want you to know that you are never alone. For every retweet of this video message @j_chychrun7 will donate 6 cents to The New Foundation (@TNFAZ) to help Arizona youth who are struggling with mental health issues. #YotesTalk#DIFDpic.twitter.com/0Eujj7eyz9 Arizona Coyotes (@ArizonaCoyotes) January 31, 2019 Richard Morin covers the Coyotes and Diamondbacks for azcentral sports. He can be reached at richard.morin@arizonarepublic.com and by phone at 480-316-2493. Follow him on Twitter @ramorin_azc. | Christian Dvorak has been sidelined since preseason with a torn pectoral. The Coyotes are struggling at the center position right now. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2019/01/31/arizona-coyotes-injured-players-could-return-soon/2738401002/ | 0.11338 |
Which injured players could return soon for beat-up Arizona Coyotes? | Its been more than week since the Coyotes skated together as a group, and the team looked a bit different during Thursdays practice at the Ice Den Scottsdale. Other than Conor Garland showing up with a significant haircut and the newly clean-shaven Alex Galchenyuk, the biggest visible change was the presence of center Christian Dvorak, who has been sidelined since preseason and has been rehabbing a torn pectoral. Granted, Dvorak was skating with a yellow, non-contact sweater, but it was still the first time Dvorak has skated in an organized practice with his peers since the injury. Arizona Coyotes' Christian Dvorak (18) takes a pass in front of Carolina Hurricanes goalie Cam Ward (30) during the first period of an NHL hockey game in Raleigh, N.C., Thursday, March 22, 2018. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome) (Photo: Gerry Broome, AP) Hes going to be practicing full-time soon with us, Coyotes head coach Rick Tocchet said of Dvorak. I dont know the time frame but obviously hes non-contact now but eventually itll be (contact) drills. Dvorak, 22, was signed to a six-year contract extension in preseason after tallying 37 points (15 goals, 22 assists) as the teams primary third-line center last season. The Coyotes are struggling at the center position right now. They are without Nick Schmaltz (knee; out for season), Brad Richardson (hand; week-to-week) and Dvorak. But it appears reinforcements could be on the way. It should be noted that Dvorak likely will need significant practice time to get into game shape. As a player with only two seasons of NHL experience under his belt, coupled with the fact that he did not receive a full training camp and has missed the first four months of the season, it wont be an easy task for Dvorak to get ready. Still, its a good sign for the Coyotes to see that process starting. Its tough with no training camp and him being out this long, Tocchet said. But Dvo (Dvorak) is the type of guy that is a two-way guy and plays a 200-foot game. Especially when you come back in that situation, the pace is going to be fast. We all see it where you have to play a simple game out there. Whether or not we get him a game down in Tucson, we havent decided that yet. Coyotes captain Oliver Ekman-Larsson was a full participant at Thursdays practice and will travel with the team for their game against the San Jose Sharks on Saturday. Ekman-Larsson suffered a lower-body injury on Jan. 22 in Toronto. Coyotes' Oliver Ekman-Larsson (23) comes off the ice after an injury against the Rangers during the first period at Gila River Arena in Glendale, Ariz. on January 6, 2019. (Photo: Patrick Breen/The Republic) Ekman-Larsson, who is second on the team with 26 points, was skating on his usual defense pair with Niklas Hjalmarsson and seemed to be getting along fine. The Coyotes will evaluate him before their flight on Friday before deciding his status for Saturday. Hes still sore but he went through a 50-minute practice and I thought he skated well, Tocchet said of Ekman-Larsson. We were a little nervous, obviously, last week but weve been getting good news. Whether he plays, Im not quite sure yet. Here are some other updates from Tocchet on injured Coyotes players, all of whom have been skating on their own as they rehab their respective injuries: Jason Demers: "I hate to say ahead of schedule, but Demers is doing a really nice job on his rehab (from knee surgery) and is skating really well out there." Brad Richardson: "'Richie' has been skating really hard. I think he's getting his hand X-rayed or scanned to see where that's at." Michael Grabner: "We've eventually got to get him into some practices. He needs people in front of his eyes, but he's in great shape. That's the one thing with 'Grabs' is he's in great shape. Vision is another thing ... and that's going to be the test for him." Coyotes open up for 'Yotes Talk' The Coyotes announced Thursday that they will hold "Yotes Talk" night on Feb. 7 as part of an NHL initiative to encourage conversation about mental health. The event is part of the "Hockey Talks" initiative backed by the NHL and several of its member organizations. It will take place during the Coyotes' game against the Columbus Blue Jackets on Feb. 7 at Gila River Arena. The Coyotes are encouraging fans to join the conversation by using the hashtag "#YotesTalk" as the Coyotes try to raise money for mental health initiatives. Coyotes defenseman Jakob Chychrun, who is involved with The New Foundation in Scottsdale, has also pledged to donate six cents to the foundation for each retweet of his personal mental health video on Twitter. Fans can learn more below. READ MORE: No matter what you are going through, we want you to know that you are never alone. For every retweet of this video message @j_chychrun7 will donate 6 cents to The New Foundation (@TNFAZ) to help Arizona youth who are struggling with mental health issues. #YotesTalk#DIFDpic.twitter.com/0Eujj7eyz9 Arizona Coyotes (@ArizonaCoyotes) January 31, 2019 Richard Morin covers the Coyotes and Diamondbacks for azcentral sports. He can be reached at richard.morin@arizonarepublic.com and by phone at 480-316-2493. Follow him on Twitter @ramorin_azc. | Christian Dvorak has been sidelined since preseason with a torn pectoral. It was the first time he has skated in an organized practice with his peers since the injury. Hes going to be practicing full-time soon with us, Coyotes head coach Rick Tocchet said. | bart | 2 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2019/01/31/arizona-coyotes-injured-players-could-return-soon/2738401002/ | 0.214611 |
Could Chinese Telecom Giant Huawei Put U.S. Cyber-Security At Risk? | TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. There's good news about the future of the Internet. A new 5G network is being created now, which will not only offer faster downloading on cell phones. It will provide the kind of connectivity we need in the era of the Internet of Things - driverless cars, Internet-connected medical devices, smart TVs and virtual assistants. But there are dangers that could be lurking in the equipment needed to build the new network. The Chinese telecommunications equipment giant Huawei is dominating the creation of 5G networks around the world. For years, classified intelligence reports from the U.S. have warned that China would one day use Huawei to penetrate American networks for cyber-espionage or cyberattacks. In the U.S., the National Security Agency has banned AT&T and Verizon from using Huawei products in America's 5G network. And last month, the U.S. had a top executive from Huawei arrested in Canada so she could be extradited to the U.S. The growing cyberthreat posed by China was stressed in the Worldwide Threat Assessment - a report from the U.S. intelligence community - that was released this week. And all this is part of the backdrop for this week's trade negotiations between the U.S. and China. My guest David Sanger is the author of a book about cyberwar and cyber-sabotage called "The Perfect Weapon." He's a national security correspondent for The New York Times. David Sanger, welcome back to FRESH AIR. Let's start with the 5G network. DAVID SANGER: Well, at its simplest, the 5G network is an increase in speed and range for what you see on your cell phone. So 5G means just fifth generation. But it's actually much more than that. The hope is that when you're using your phone or some other device over Wi-Fi, you'll get no lag time and that you'll get near instantaneous download of data, webpages and so forth. But as 5G was being rolled out, there was a recognition that the Internet had fundamentally changed, that this was a moment to roll out something that could accommodate a world in which the Internet of Things was connecting up to all of these other wireless devices. And so that's autonomous cars, which, of course, need to constantly get data back and forth from the cloud, constant connectivity so that they know where they are in addition to their sensors helping you drive. It's for every other Internet-connected device that you have. And, you know, when you think about it, Terry, it was just about 10 years ago that in your own house, you probably only had one or two Internet-connected devices - a laptop computer and a desktop computer, maybe. But today you walk into your house and, you know, you've got your Fitbit. And you're waking up Alexa and getting it to play you music. And you've got a smart TV. And you probably have an Internet-connected car parked outside. Even if it isn't a fancy car, most basic cars have some Internet connectivity to them. You might have an Internet-connected refrigerator. You have all of these different devices. And right now worldwide - at the end of last year, we think that there were about 14 billion Internet of Things devices around the world. And by the end of next year, 2020, the estimate is there will be 20 billion. So that gives you a sense of how rapidly we're changing the environment. And the next network has to be able to handle all of that and, of course, handle the GPS needs for navigation, handle greater government and military needs. So this next 5G network is more than just something that'll make your phone faster. It's actually going to be the central nervous system, the backbone of the next generation of the Internet. GROSS: And that's exactly the concern about the Chinese telecom giant Huawei because they're building some of these 5G networks around the world. SANGER: Well, the first thing about Huawei is that while most Americans haven't come in direct contact with it because Huawei phones are not sold that widely in the United States, they are sold nearly universally when you're in Asia and very widely in Europe, in Africa, in Latin America. In fact, at the end of last year, Huawei actually just edged out Apple as the second-largest provider of cell phones in the world. The only one ahead of it is Samsung. But the other part of their business and the part that we really worry about the most is the construction of the giant switches that make up these 5G networks. Now, in the old days of switching, you would think of switches as big, physical devices. What's happened and what is particularly notable about 5G is that the network itself, while it has some hardware to it and, obviously, there are cell phone towers and sort of a radio part of it, the switches are almost entirely software. And they constantly reconfigure themselves. And they are enormously complex. So the old days of doing what the defense department and the National Security Agency and others used to do - which is take a piece of foreign equipment, put it in a laboratory, poke around it, try to figure out if there are flaws or back doors or something that could help an adversary - that's virtually impossible to do when the product is an ever-evolving piece of software. It gets updated as often as your iPhone gets updated when you have it sitting on your bedside table and Apple sends a new, updated operating system to it overnight. So that's what will happen with this 5G network. The concern is that for the first time in our history, we would be reliant on a foreign manufacturer - in this case, a foreign manufacturer of a potential adversary that's also the world's second largest economy - building the highway, backbone, central nervous system of a system that we rely on for everything from our financial transactions to our - many of our military operations to, of course, our communications. GROSS: So describe some more of the kind of trouble that China could create with Huawei building 5G networks in countries around the world where China is becoming increasingly powerful. SANGER: If China is in command of the network itself and has sort of end end control from phones for which it makes its own chips to the software on the switch to all of the other tentacles of the central nervous system, that it, basically, can do whatever it wants. And the chances that you would see it are relatively diminished. Big network operators like AT&T and Verizon, if they bought Huawei equipment - and it's pretty clear the government is not going to allow them to do that - would have some visibility into the system. But it's also possible that Huawei might be able to reach back from China directly into the equipment and software it's put in to go manipulate data. Well, in the Worldwide Threat Assessment that came out earlier this week, the nation's intelligence chiefs mentioned, in particular, that China already has the capability to shut down, at least briefly, the natural gas network. They also said the Russians could do the same briefly with the electric grid. If you had a country that was in full control of your networks, they could shut it down. They could siphon the traffic off to a place you didn't want it to go. They could siphon it back to China. And they would probably have a easier time intercepting it. Now, of course, a lot of that traffic is going to run encrypted. It's not as if the Chinese would be able to look at everything or would want to. But the more network equipment they put in, the more control they would have. And, of course, the Chinese government reserves the right to tell them what to go do with it. SANGER: Not anything notable in the United States now - there were a number of classified meetings that took place between the intelligence agencies, the executives of the big telecom firms - AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, so forth. And there was a lot of discussion about letting - whether or not to let Huawei bid on the construction of some parts of this 5G network as they are doing around the world. And, in fact, some of the telecom companies argued to Congress and to the intelligence agencies that it would make sense to let Huawei bid. And the reason is that if they wanted to bid, they would have to provide their software, their equipment to a test facility in the United States. And the National Security Agency, which is the nation's largest electronic spy agency, and the telecom providers would all be able to crawl around in that software and see if there were any backdoors, see how it was designed. But in the end, the intelligence community didn't even want to take that risk. GROSS: The founder of Huawei is a former engineer with the People's Liberation Army in China, and some people think he's still connected to the People's Liberation Army. And some people also argue that private companies like Huawei are still under the control of Chinese - of China's authoritarian government. SANGER: Well, the founder who you're describing, Ren Zhengfei, is, as you said, a former PLA officer. He then, when he left the PLA, built Huawei initially in the - wiring up the rural parts of China. And he's become obviously one of the most powerful businessmen in China. He's a member of the Communist Party. He's enormously influential there. He has insisted that the Chinese military, the PLA, which has done much of the hacking against the United States, has no role in his company and no continuing control. I've never found any evidence that the United States could prove that the PLA has operative control over Huawei. And of course, Mr. Zheng (ph) has denied it. Now, that issue consumed the U.S. government for years and years until about two years ago when the Chinese government issued a new set of laws under President Xi, Xi Jinping, that basically said any Chinese company - but particularly the telecom companies - would have to participate in Chinese intelligence operations if they are so instructed, that they would have to turn over data that they had. It's not clear, of course, in China what the legal process would be. And so now people say to me, you know, it doesn't make any difference, David, whether or not the PLA has control over Huawei because the law means that the Chinese government has turned the company into its agent. GROSS: Well, let's take a short break here, and then we'll talk some more. If you're just joining us, my guest is David Sanger. He's a national security correspondent for The New York Times, and his latest book is called "The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, And Fear In The Cyber Age." We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR. (SOUNDBITE OF ALEXANDRE DESPLAT'S "SPY MEETING") GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to my interview with David Sanger, a national security correspondent for The New York Times. We're talking about the 5G network that is being created now and will soon become the central nervous system of the Internet. The Chinese telecom equipment giant Huawei is dominating the creation of 5G networks around the world. For years, classified U.S. intelligence reports have warned that China would one day use Huawei to penetrate American networks for cyber espionage or cyberattacks. So we were talking about the founder of Huawei and his connections to the Chinese military and Huawei's connections to the Chinese government. The founder of Huawei - his daughter was arrested in Canada at the request of the U.S. and indicted last week. SANGER: Well, the first thing we know about the daughter is, in her own right, she's a very powerful figure within Huawei. She's the chief financial officer. But she's also been the architect of a lot of Huawei's spread around the world. When she was arrested in Canada in December at the request of the United States, it was not for any charges that Huawei had participated in espionage against the U.S. It was not for - on any charges that it had participated in cyberattacks on the United States. Instead, it was based on a charge that she had been behind a giant fraud in which Huawei used a cut-out company to violate the sanctions that the United States had against Iran and that this company was in fact a Huawei - secretly a Huawei subsidiary and was doing business with Iran in violation of those sanctions. So the U.S. is using the Iran sanctions violation to go after the company. Now, the other interesting part about this is that President Trump at one point in December after she was arrested but before she was indicted publicly mused about the fact that he might trade her away in the course of the trade negotiations. Thus the president was politicizing what until then had been a legal action going through normal legal channels. And one of the interesting questions is whether the Canadians are going to extradite her because there have been several Canadians now arrested in China so that they have counter-hostages. And it's possible that the Canadians may determine that this case is more political than criminal. GROSS: President Trump has said that he knows more about technology than anyone. SANGER: Well, I have a couple of concerns. The first is the president's mind turns, as he has said himself many times, to things you can build. And so issues around software networks and so forth just don't come naturally to him. He hasn't shown much of an inclination to learn about it during the time he's president according to people who used to be in the administration, including in the national security field. The president has a somewhat hazy understanding about the risks of cyber-escalation. So when you think about our cyber-risk, one concern is one we've discussed already today, which is surveillance. Basically, you can use these networks to steal data. That's the problem of deep fakes. Something that would look like a politician was speaking, but it wasn't really the words coming out of his mouth. It's been faked. It could be substituting numbers and financial transactions. It could be substituting the targeting information in nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. It could be changing the blood types of every soldier and sailor in the United States if you got into the databases of the military. So there's data manipulation that's a concern. And if any country that had access to the networks, you would worry about that. And then the third is cyberattack, and that is that if we went to war or were conducting covert operations, every country in the world now has cyber in its battle plans, and usually in the first 24 hours of its battle plans. In "The Perfect Weapon," I describe a plan the United States had if we went to war with Iran, called Nitro Zeus, to basically unplug Iran's communications and electricity grids. Well, imagine that that's in the Chinese plans for the United States. If they're in control of the communications grid of the U.S. or its allies, you can imagine how much easier that is to do. Now, there is a concern here that we could get into a world of Red Scare, and the president himself might be fueling that some. And I have concerns that we're blaming too much on the Chinese. But the fact of the matter is, these are all major, complex vulnerabilities that, as Henry Kissinger said to me as I was working on the book, are so much more complex than the issues that came up with China in the Cold War. GROSS: And you're concerned that our president doesn't really comprehend those issues and therefore can't adequately address them. SANGER: That's right. And, you know, there are escalation issues here, as well. I mean, there's still a big debate in the United States government about how you respond to a cyberattack. When the Chinese got into Google and other companies in 2009, there were Google engineers who wanted to retaliate directly against the servers where the attack was coming from. Fortunately, they were stopped. And then they would escalate. So you get all the same kind of escalation issues that we worried about in the nuclear age, but you get them in this technology world in which shutting down or diverting data becomes your new weapon. And we don't really understand that escalatory response. Now, the president, in August of last year, issued a new classified order to the National Security Agency that basically gave the director of the National Security Agency more leeway to go respond to offensive cyberactions and to initiate some without presidential approval. But still we don't understand who's in control of the escalation. GROSS: My guest is David Sanger, a national security correspondent for The New York Times who is also the author of the book, "The Perfect Weapon," about cyberwar and cyber-espionage. We'll talk more after we take a short break. And our jazz critic Kevin Whitehead will review a reissue featuring pianist Oscar Peterson and a studio orchestra playing 1960s pop covers. This is FRESH AIR. (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Let's get back to my interview with David Sanger, a national security correspondent for The New York Times and author of "The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, And Fear In The Cyber Age." We're talking about the new 5G network that will soon become the central nervous system of the Internet, providing faster speeds and greater interconnectivity for the era we're entering where nearly everything, from cars to medical devices, connects to the Internet. The Chinese telecom equipment giant Huawei is dominating the creation of 5G networks around the world. For years, classified U.S. intelligence reports have warned that China would one day use Huawei to penetrate American networks for cyber-espionage or cyberattacks. The Worldwide Threat Assessment that was released by intelligence agencies this week said that there's a growing cyberthreat from Russia and China, and that Russia and China are now more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s. SANGER: Well, it was a fascinating assertion that they made, And I think it was accurate. We have not seen Russia and China cooperate this way since the mid-'50s. And, of course, China only came into being as the People's Republic in 1949. So it was very early in its history, and it was an extremely poor country. It's worth remembering today that Russia and China have very different objectives. Russia's main objective is one of disruption. It does not have much economic power. Its economy is basically the size of Italy's. It does not have the ability to go build these networks. It does not have much economic power. Its economy is basically the size of Italy's. It does not have the ability to go build these networks around the world the way China is doing. It does not have the technology to do it, but it can be a huge disruptor. And of course, we saw them act to disrupt networks and voting systems in Ukraine. We saw their interference in the 2016 election here in the United States, and we've seen them take cyber action elsewhere in the world. We've seen their submarines go out and track where the fiber optic cables are laid around the world. They're only, you know, less than 200 major fiber optic undersea cables. And the Russians have the ability to cut those cables deep undersea. That would be a huge disruption. That could black out communications in the United States. So that's the Russian side. The Chinese have a much different set of objectives. If the world gets disrupted, no one's going to suffer more than they will because their economy is so interdependent with ours and with other major economies around the world. So they're less likely to disrupt, but they're much more likely to want control and subtle ability to divert traffic in those networks. And that's the concern about Huawei. SANGER: Well, the new formula is a diminished role for the United States. That's part of the concern about the degree to which we have alienated our allies. And this issue about Huawei intersects with the alienation of the allies very closely because what's going on now is the United States is going around the world to allies and say, hey, we're living in a new world. The Russians and the Chinese are cooperating more than we've ever seen. We're trying to keep everybody from spinning into a new form of a cold war - Cold War 2.0. And while the Russians and the Chinese have very different strategic objectives, there may be moments - there will be moments when they will have a common objective in diminishing the power of the United States. That's the one area where they both have great common interests. And so it's important that the United States be able to go work with its allies to figure out how you both contain this threat and respond to it, but also how you retain control of your own networks. So what the U.S. is doing right now is it's going around to its allies, particularly the NATO allies, and saying, don't build Huawei into your systems. And there's some urgency to this because the big decisions about contracts to build the 5G networks will be made in the next six months or so. The U.S. has been in Poland, where they have rather unsubtly suggested that if the Poles really want a new, small military - American military base in Poland - it's been referred to sort of informally as Fort Trump by the Polish leadership - they better build a network that does not use Huawei. There's been pressure on the Canadians, the British. And of course, in Latin America and in Africa, the Chinese have been mounting their own counteroffensive where they're coming in offering very low-cost building of the networks, frequently with Chinese government loans to go do it. It's a lot like what the United States did in the 1950s and '60s when we tried to use our foreign aid to go build up close allies by building up their technology and their industry. But now the Chinese are doing it, and they're doing it with the networking technology. GROSS: So our unilateral approach to world affairs, our alienation of our allies is really working against us when it comes to this new technological era of the 5G network. SANGER: You know, Terry, the most interesting observation in that worldwide threat assessment was the assertion that the unilateralism of the United States - they didn't use the phrase America first, but they could've - has made American allies and partners - meaning people who were not necessarily full allies - reassess their relationship with the U.S. and look for power relationships and protection elsewhere. And of course, that means they're looking mostly to the Chinese because they're the only other ones who have a market big enough and have an economy big enough to actually be of significant help to them. You've seen this happen in the Philippines - a country that used to be, at one point, an American colony - where the leadership of the Philippines, a great American ally, is getting closer and closer to the Chinese leadership. You're seeing it happen to some degree in South Korea where - by the way, in Seoul, Huawei was a big player in the competition to rebuild the cell network for Seoul, which is used by American forces who are based around Seoul. You're seeing this happen throughout Africa, where the United States has put a whole lot less money into rebuilding infrastructure, helping countries along than the Chinese have. GROSS: Some of the things you've described about China's capabilities of spying on us and hacking data and interfering with cyberwar, even - I mean, that's - it's some pretty terrifying stuff. At the same time, the U.S. has done similar things to China and other countries. SANGER: Terry, Shotgiant was a National Security Agency operation that happened around 2010. We know about it because some of the details were leaked out in the Snowden documents. It was an effort by the NSA to do to Huawei exactly what we have accused Huawei of doing to us, which is breaking into networks, figuring out how they operate and setting ourselves up to either steal information from those networks or cripple them in the future. It got into Huawei's corporate systems in Shenzhen, the Chinese industrial city. It looked for any evidence that the Chinese PLA was actually secretly controlling the company - doesn't appear they found any. It looked to understand how Huawei's equipment operated, how the software worked so that if Huawei sold a network switching system to an American adversary - say, Venezuela or Cuba or someplace that clearly wouldn't buy American equipment - then the NSA would have an easier time breaking into that equipment. The - this is not unusual. This is what the United States government created the NSA to go do. This is the kind of offensive cyber activity that the NSA conducts not only against China but against Russia, Iran, North Korea and so forth. But what it gets at - and the Chinese use it for these purposes - is that the United States is not above any of these kind of network manipulation issues that we've been worrying about in regard to Huawei. We do it ourselves. - because they make the argument that the NSA is going to get into an American-built network or a network in Europe. And, certainly, the Snowden docs are full of examples of cases where we have done that. SANGER: Well, let's take a short break here. And then we'll talk some more. If you're just joining us, my guest is David Sanger. He's a national security correspondent for The New York Times. And his latest book is called "The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage And Fear In The Cyber Age." We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR. (SOUNDBITE OF AMANDA GARDIER'S "FJORD") GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to my interview with David Sanger, a national security correspondent for The New York Times. We've been talking about how the deep involvement of the Chinese telecom equipment giant Huawei in the development of the new 5G network in many countries could threaten our cybersecurity. If you're negotiating an arms control deal, there are ways that you can verify or come close to verifying whether a nuclear program is continuing, how many weapons the country has, where they're being stored. You can have inspectors go to observe facilities that you know exist. When it comes to, like, cyber issues, it's so much harder to verify what's going on. SANGER: Terry, you've raised the fundamental question that has been haunting us in the cyber age. And it's one of the reasons I went to write "The Perfect Weapon" because this is so much more of a vexing problem than we had in the days of the 1950s, when we had nuclear weapons, the Russians did and the Chinese were about to. They first got theirs in the 1960s. You could do treaties in the nuclear age because there was a very limited number of players. First, it was just us and the Soviets, then the Chinese, of course, some other NATO players, later on, Israel, India, Pakistan. And you can count the weapons. And more importantly, you can count missiles. You can send inspectors just as you described. None of this is true in the cyber age. In the cyber age, the aggressor could be a state - might be Russia or China or Iran or North Korea. But it could be a criminal group. It could be a terrorist group. It could be teenagers. So the first problem is there's just too many players. The second is the technology is so inexpensive. This is what makes it the perfect weapon because it's so cheap that you don't need to be a China or a Russia to play in the cyber arena. By my count, there are probably around 35 countries today that have sophisticated cybercapability and could mount a sophisticated cyberattack, not just a denial of service attack that turned out the lights but something more sophisticated. So treaties will not work here. Well, there are a lot of other ideas. But most of them circulate around codes of conduct - a sort of digital Geneva Convention. And it's an interesting concept because the real Geneva Conventions were not created by governments. The Geneva Convention meetings were organized by the Red Cross. And the idea was to protect civilians. So if you and I, Terry, were trying to come up with a list of things to protect, I think we'd probably sit down and say, OK. Electric grid should be off-limits because if you turn those off, you hurt the most vulnerable people. Communication systems and especially emergency communications - and that's where Huawei intersects with this. You'd want those to be off-limits from cyberattack. You'd probably want election systems to be off-limits. So I could imagine a digital Geneva Convention in which you gathered countries together and they agree to this. And it's not enforceable or inspectable, but you're beginning to set some global standards. One of the difficulties with this idea - even though I think it's sort of the best of the bad ideas that are out there - is that I'm not sure the United States would sign on to that. After all, we had a plan - Nitro Zeus - to turn off all the power in Iran if we got into a conflict with them. So I don't even think the U.S. would sign on to this. GROSS: You know, the power equation, when it comes to cyber, has really changed because there was a period when the U.S. was the kind of ruler of cyberweapons and cyber potential. And that's just, like, no longer true. So if we do anything like that, there will be a cyber-counterattack and vice versa. So the stakes are really higher than they've ever been, I think. SANGER: And our control of the technology, as you point out, is less than it's ever been. Look. The Internet was first invented in the United States - you know, the ARPANET - what became the Internet later on - only 35 years ago. And then, of course, it's Silicon Valley companies that have dominated the technology that's come out of that. That era is ending, just as the era in which Britain and Portugal and a few other major naval powers could rule the world because they had the best. That era is ending, just as the era in which Britain and Portugal and a few other major naval powers could rule the world because they had the best ships. And we're not going to get this back. It's not as if we're going to go back to an era when we were the ones who dominated all of this technology. And now, for the first time in our modern history, we are facing a peer adversary in China that has an economy that will sooner or later overtake the United States in size and that is investing heavily in the major technologies on which 5G will allow big progress - artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, quantum computing. And, you know, you go into that worldwide threat assessment, I thought one of the most interesting points on it was that our absence of big strategy in many of these technologies is allowing adversaries to close the gap very quickly. Now, if you wanted to declare a national emergency about something, that threat assessment would suggest that's the issue on which the president might want to go declare a national emergency and come up with a strategy, rather than just focusing on the wall. SANGER: You know, there were, Terry. I thought that the president got off to a pretty good start on this. He hired a homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, who had had some fairly good experience in cyber issues in the Bush administration and had spent time on it when he was out of office. There was also a White House coordinator for cyber issues, a man named Rob Joyce, who had spent his entire career at the National Security Agency. And he ran something called the Tailored Access Operations unit. That's sort of the special forces of the NSA that breaks into foreign computing systems. And the job of the White House cybersecurity coordinator was to try to bring together all of these complex defensive and offensive issues and the policy issues together. They were focused on it. John Bolton came in in the spring as the new national security adviser after the firing of H.R. McMaster. Mr. Bolton, in his first week, got rid of the homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, and replaced him with a Coast Guard admiral who is, by his own admission, not very familiar with cyber issues. Then Mr. Bolton eliminated the position of cybersecurity coordinator. I guess he must have concluded we were over-coordinated in this government, I suspect because he didn't like the fact that the cybersecurity coordinator had a sort of direct line to the president. In eliminating the position, he has downgraded the number of people within the White House who deal with this. And it doesn't seem to me that the policy is being debated at the level at which it needs to be or coordinated between the Pentagon, the NSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Commerce Department and so many others who need to work on this. They have gotten policies out on Huawei. They may get this executive order out. But I'm afraid there's no big strategic thinking going on at the White House level. GROSS: Well, David Sanger, thank you so much for talking with us. SANGER: Great to be with you again. GROSS: David Sanger is a national security correspondent for The New York Times and author of "The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, And Fear In The Cyber Age." After we take a short break, our jazz critic, Kevin Whitehead, will review a reissue featuring pianist Oscar Peterson and a studio orchestra playing 1960s pop covers. This is FRESH AIR. (SOUNDBITE OF AARON PARKS' "SMALL PLANET") Copyright 2019 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 NPRs programming is the audio record. | David Sanger: Could Chinese Telecom Giant Huawei Put U.S. Cyber-Security At Risk? He says the company is dominating the creation of 5G networks around the world. Sanger says there are dangers that could be lurking in the equipment needed to build the new network. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690291785/could-chinese-telecom-giant-huawei-put-u-s-cyber-security-at-risk?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=technology | 0.217465 |
Are Sexy Super Bowl Ads A Thing of the Past? | Working with Sascha Raithel of the Freie University of Berlin, I have been doing research on factors related to Super Bowl advertising effectiveness. As part of this effort, we content analyzed Super Bowl ads from recent years. We found very little change in the usage of common executional techniques such as celebrity endorsements, humor, emotional appeals and the inclusion of animals in the ad. There was one notable exception, however, in that over the last several years, the use of sexual appeals has declined and in the last few years, almost disappeared. While the decline in sexy Super Bowl ads is arguably not too surprising, since its inception, the Super Bowl had seen a significant number of sexy ads, including some that were much talked about. Pepsi's 1992 spot featuring two young boys being stunned while watching supermodel Cindy Crawford buy a can of the soda from a vending machine and then drinking it makes many lists of the best Super Bowl ads of all time. Diet Coke's 1998 "Break" ad depicted a number of women admiring "hunky" shirtless man delivering Diet Coke was well received. And Ali Landry's 1999 ad introducing Dorito's 3-D snacks is another that was largely praised in its time and regarded as being effective for the brand. Several other ads using sexual appeals have been much talked about, including Miller Light's "Catfight" from 2003, Meghan Fox for Motorola in 2012, David Beckham in his underwear for H&M in 2012 and Kate Upton's ad for Mercedes Benz in 2013. Clearly, the last few years have seen a decline in the use of sexual appeals, so what happened. The decline is likely for 3 primary reasons: 1) Super Bowl advertisers are being sensitive to societal concerns about the objectification of women Some more recent Super Bowl ads using sexual appeals have criticized for objectifying women. GoDaddy's use of overt sexual appeals received increasing criticism over the year its original Super Bowl campaign ran, culminating in considerable criticism of its 2013 "Wardrobe Malfunction" commercial. Carl's Jr.'s 2015 "All Natural" ad featuring model Charlotte McKinney was controversial and labeled as sexist by some writers and commentators. Watching these ads today, they seem over the top and would certainly invite considerable criticism of the advertisers. 2) Sexual appeals have questionable effectiveness The effectiveness of sexual appeals has been studied in the academic community for a long time. Consistent with prior findings a recent meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Advertising by John Wirtz of the University of Illinois, the use of sexual appeals tends to have a positive effect on recall of an ad, but a slightly negative average effect. Wirtz also observed that men like ads with sexual appeals more than women, but that this did not translate into higher purchase intent for me. Hence, on average, sexual appeals tend to raise awareness, but it is not typically a good formula for boosting attitude toward the brand of purchase intention. GoDaddy effectively used sexual appeal when its goal was raising awareness of the brand as a domain name provider, but once public awareness was high. Kim Kardashian's more image-oriented 2011 Skechers ad, while sexy, scored low across all consumer groups. 3) In light of societal polarization and #MeToo, most advertisers are wisely hesitant to alienate consumers The last few years have seen a high level of political polarization and considerable discord. In this environment, advertisers need to be careful to not offend consumers, as people view ads through the lens of their own upbringing and experience. While this trend likely started before #MeToo, this movement has actually further heightened societal sensitivities. It seems unlikely, for example, that the Teleflora "Faith" ad from 2011 (see below) would be a wise idea today. It is also notable that CBS is not allowing the use of the word "Foodporn" in a commercial from KraftHeinz's Devour frozen foods and is insisting that a sanitized version of a 60-second online ad the brand had developed be used. In this environment, advertisers with mass target audiences are wise to play it safe, at least to some degree. While it would not be a total shock if an advertiser developed a sexy ad in an effort to cut through the clutter and get noticed even in this year's Super Bowl, blatant sexual appeals are likely a thing of the past. Females comprise about 49% of the Super Bowl audience today, making advertisers even more sensitive to portrayals of women. In the face of sexual appeals being of questionable effectiveness, it seems unlikely that we will see a return to the "old days" in this regard. That said, there may well be a place for ads with sexual innuendo or humor that appeal to both genders, as well as somewhat toned down (i.e., less blatant) depictions of an attractive male or female model. So to answer the question, it's probably blatant sexual appeals that have passed away. | Since its inception, the Super Bowl had seen a significant number of sexy ads, including some that were much talked about. | bart | 0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/02/01/are-sexy-super-bowl-ads-a-thing-of-the-past/ | 0.195429 |
Are Sexy Super Bowl Ads A Thing of the Past? | Working with Sascha Raithel of the Freie University of Berlin, I have been doing research on factors related to Super Bowl advertising effectiveness. As part of this effort, we content analyzed Super Bowl ads from recent years. We found very little change in the usage of common executional techniques such as celebrity endorsements, humor, emotional appeals and the inclusion of animals in the ad. There was one notable exception, however, in that over the last several years, the use of sexual appeals has declined and in the last few years, almost disappeared. While the decline in sexy Super Bowl ads is arguably not too surprising, since its inception, the Super Bowl had seen a significant number of sexy ads, including some that were much talked about. Pepsi's 1992 spot featuring two young boys being stunned while watching supermodel Cindy Crawford buy a can of the soda from a vending machine and then drinking it makes many lists of the best Super Bowl ads of all time. Diet Coke's 1998 "Break" ad depicted a number of women admiring "hunky" shirtless man delivering Diet Coke was well received. And Ali Landry's 1999 ad introducing Dorito's 3-D snacks is another that was largely praised in its time and regarded as being effective for the brand. Several other ads using sexual appeals have been much talked about, including Miller Light's "Catfight" from 2003, Meghan Fox for Motorola in 2012, David Beckham in his underwear for H&M in 2012 and Kate Upton's ad for Mercedes Benz in 2013. Clearly, the last few years have seen a decline in the use of sexual appeals, so what happened. The decline is likely for 3 primary reasons: 1) Super Bowl advertisers are being sensitive to societal concerns about the objectification of women Some more recent Super Bowl ads using sexual appeals have criticized for objectifying women. GoDaddy's use of overt sexual appeals received increasing criticism over the year its original Super Bowl campaign ran, culminating in considerable criticism of its 2013 "Wardrobe Malfunction" commercial. Carl's Jr.'s 2015 "All Natural" ad featuring model Charlotte McKinney was controversial and labeled as sexist by some writers and commentators. Watching these ads today, they seem over the top and would certainly invite considerable criticism of the advertisers. 2) Sexual appeals have questionable effectiveness The effectiveness of sexual appeals has been studied in the academic community for a long time. Consistent with prior findings a recent meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Advertising by John Wirtz of the University of Illinois, the use of sexual appeals tends to have a positive effect on recall of an ad, but a slightly negative average effect. Wirtz also observed that men like ads with sexual appeals more than women, but that this did not translate into higher purchase intent for me. Hence, on average, sexual appeals tend to raise awareness, but it is not typically a good formula for boosting attitude toward the brand of purchase intention. GoDaddy effectively used sexual appeal when its goal was raising awareness of the brand as a domain name provider, but once public awareness was high. Kim Kardashian's more image-oriented 2011 Skechers ad, while sexy, scored low across all consumer groups. 3) In light of societal polarization and #MeToo, most advertisers are wisely hesitant to alienate consumers The last few years have seen a high level of political polarization and considerable discord. In this environment, advertisers need to be careful to not offend consumers, as people view ads through the lens of their own upbringing and experience. While this trend likely started before #MeToo, this movement has actually further heightened societal sensitivities. It seems unlikely, for example, that the Teleflora "Faith" ad from 2011 (see below) would be a wise idea today. It is also notable that CBS is not allowing the use of the word "Foodporn" in a commercial from KraftHeinz's Devour frozen foods and is insisting that a sanitized version of a 60-second online ad the brand had developed be used. In this environment, advertisers with mass target audiences are wise to play it safe, at least to some degree. While it would not be a total shock if an advertiser developed a sexy ad in an effort to cut through the clutter and get noticed even in this year's Super Bowl, blatant sexual appeals are likely a thing of the past. Females comprise about 49% of the Super Bowl audience today, making advertisers even more sensitive to portrayals of women. In the face of sexual appeals being of questionable effectiveness, it seems unlikely that we will see a return to the "old days" in this regard. That said, there may well be a place for ads with sexual innuendo or humor that appeal to both genders, as well as somewhat toned down (i.e., less blatant) depictions of an attractive male or female model. So to answer the question, it's probably blatant sexual appeals that have passed away. | Since its inception, Super Bowl had seen a significant number of sexy ads. Super Bowl advertisers are being sensitive to societal concerns about the objectification of women. The effectiveness of sexual appeals has been studied in the academic community. | pegasus | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/02/01/are-sexy-super-bowl-ads-a-thing-of-the-past/ | 0.227985 |
Are Sexy Super Bowl Ads A Thing of the Past? | Working with Sascha Raithel of the Freie University of Berlin, I have been doing research on factors related to Super Bowl advertising effectiveness. As part of this effort, we content analyzed Super Bowl ads from recent years. We found very little change in the usage of common executional techniques such as celebrity endorsements, humor, emotional appeals and the inclusion of animals in the ad. There was one notable exception, however, in that over the last several years, the use of sexual appeals has declined and in the last few years, almost disappeared. While the decline in sexy Super Bowl ads is arguably not too surprising, since its inception, the Super Bowl had seen a significant number of sexy ads, including some that were much talked about. Pepsi's 1992 spot featuring two young boys being stunned while watching supermodel Cindy Crawford buy a can of the soda from a vending machine and then drinking it makes many lists of the best Super Bowl ads of all time. Diet Coke's 1998 "Break" ad depicted a number of women admiring "hunky" shirtless man delivering Diet Coke was well received. And Ali Landry's 1999 ad introducing Dorito's 3-D snacks is another that was largely praised in its time and regarded as being effective for the brand. Several other ads using sexual appeals have been much talked about, including Miller Light's "Catfight" from 2003, Meghan Fox for Motorola in 2012, David Beckham in his underwear for H&M in 2012 and Kate Upton's ad for Mercedes Benz in 2013. Clearly, the last few years have seen a decline in the use of sexual appeals, so what happened. The decline is likely for 3 primary reasons: 1) Super Bowl advertisers are being sensitive to societal concerns about the objectification of women Some more recent Super Bowl ads using sexual appeals have criticized for objectifying women. GoDaddy's use of overt sexual appeals received increasing criticism over the year its original Super Bowl campaign ran, culminating in considerable criticism of its 2013 "Wardrobe Malfunction" commercial. Carl's Jr.'s 2015 "All Natural" ad featuring model Charlotte McKinney was controversial and labeled as sexist by some writers and commentators. Watching these ads today, they seem over the top and would certainly invite considerable criticism of the advertisers. 2) Sexual appeals have questionable effectiveness The effectiveness of sexual appeals has been studied in the academic community for a long time. Consistent with prior findings a recent meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Advertising by John Wirtz of the University of Illinois, the use of sexual appeals tends to have a positive effect on recall of an ad, but a slightly negative average effect. Wirtz also observed that men like ads with sexual appeals more than women, but that this did not translate into higher purchase intent for me. Hence, on average, sexual appeals tend to raise awareness, but it is not typically a good formula for boosting attitude toward the brand of purchase intention. GoDaddy effectively used sexual appeal when its goal was raising awareness of the brand as a domain name provider, but once public awareness was high. Kim Kardashian's more image-oriented 2011 Skechers ad, while sexy, scored low across all consumer groups. 3) In light of societal polarization and #MeToo, most advertisers are wisely hesitant to alienate consumers The last few years have seen a high level of political polarization and considerable discord. In this environment, advertisers need to be careful to not offend consumers, as people view ads through the lens of their own upbringing and experience. While this trend likely started before #MeToo, this movement has actually further heightened societal sensitivities. It seems unlikely, for example, that the Teleflora "Faith" ad from 2011 (see below) would be a wise idea today. It is also notable that CBS is not allowing the use of the word "Foodporn" in a commercial from KraftHeinz's Devour frozen foods and is insisting that a sanitized version of a 60-second online ad the brand had developed be used. In this environment, advertisers with mass target audiences are wise to play it safe, at least to some degree. While it would not be a total shock if an advertiser developed a sexy ad in an effort to cut through the clutter and get noticed even in this year's Super Bowl, blatant sexual appeals are likely a thing of the past. Females comprise about 49% of the Super Bowl audience today, making advertisers even more sensitive to portrayals of women. In the face of sexual appeals being of questionable effectiveness, it seems unlikely that we will see a return to the "old days" in this regard. That said, there may well be a place for ads with sexual innuendo or humor that appeal to both genders, as well as somewhat toned down (i.e., less blatant) depictions of an attractive male or female model. So to answer the question, it's probably blatant sexual appeals that have passed away. | Since its inception, Super Bowl had seen a significant number of sexy ads. Super Bowl advertisers are being sensitive to societal concerns about the objectification of women. The effectiveness of sexual appeals tends to have a positive effect on recall of an ad, but a slightly negative average effect. | pegasus | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/02/01/are-sexy-super-bowl-ads-a-thing-of-the-past/ | 0.216332 |
Will James Gunn Give Us The 'Suicide Squad' We Wanted? | Last year, critically acclaimed director James Gunn was ousted from his role directing the third entry in the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. The shocking move from Disney was triggered when a series of controversial tweets authored by Gunn resurfaced online. The move from Disney has since been debated by fans and critics alike. But now, James Gunn is getting back to work. Last October, Warner Brothers announced that Gunn would hop from the Marvel Cinematic Universe over to the DC Extended Universe by writing the sequel to 2016s Suicide Squad. Now, according to The Hollywood Reporter, Gunn is in talks to take over the directors seat as well. The journey of the original Suicide Squad was a rocky one to say the least. Despite an all star cast including Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, and Will Smith, the film failed to impress, earning an average of 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. This loss was especially devastating as, coming so soon after the divisive Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the film was meant to get the DC Extended Universe back on track. But hiring Gunn to direct the sequel may just be the perfect move. Suicide Squads marketing campaign emphasized a goofy and comedic tone featuring a band of misfits trying to do good. Essentially, Suicide Squads marketing positioned itself as DCs Guardians of the Galaxy. The problem was that the original cut of the film, as evidenced by the first trailer, wasnt really all that funny. This prompted the studio to hire the trailer company to re-edit the entire film in order to insert more levity. As can likely be predicted, this resulted in a tonal and narrative mess of a final product. Again, people wanted a Guardians of the Galaxy-like adventure in this new series and didnt get it. But now, by hiring James Gunn, the studio finally has the opportunity to give audiences exactly that. Of course the hope wouldnt be that Gunn would create a copy of his other hit franchise. Instead, Gunns overall style would translate well enough to bring over fans of one franchise to another. Interestingly, the new film is not being called a direct sequel, but rather a relaunch, and its unclear what this means. Surely an entire reboot so soon after the first film would not be received well. And as we know Margot Robbies Harley Quinn is continuing on in the series, we know that this continuity isnt being scrapped. So likely what is meant by relaunch is a soft reboot, something that would allow for a complete new direction without destroying already established continuity. This would allow the DC Universe to stay intact while also giving Gunn the freedom he needs to steer the ship aright. A recent example of a soft-reboot move like this, oddly enough, can be found over at Marvel. While the previous two Thor films were by no means flops, they werent ever audience favorites. That all changed when Marvel Studios brought on Taika Waititi to direct the series third film. Without much warning, Taika took the story in a completely new direction, altering Thors personality from a brooding Shakespearean trope to an adorable dumb jock. Waititi accordingly revamped the entirety of Thors world to match his witty and colorful sensibilities. All this was a massive risk for Marvel, but it was a huge hit with audiences. And because a soft-reboot in this way still maintained the already established continuity, the drastic shift in tone didnt do much to alienate. So perhaps James Gunn can do for DC what Taika Waititi did for Marvel. Warner Brothers and DC are increasingly taking bold new directions with their universe, and so far its looking good. James Gunns hiring is a huge win for Warner Brothers, and fans should be very excited to see what becomes of Suicide Squad. It may be too early to say, but perhaps Marvel Studios should keep an eye on their back. The sequel to Suicide Squad is currently set for release on August 6, 2021. For more thoughts on superheroes and the entertainment industry, see the rest of my articles, follow me on Twitter, and subscribe on YouTube. | James Gunn is in talks to direct the sequel to 2016s Suicide Squad. | bart | 0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/anharkarim/2019/01/31/will-james-gunn-give-us-the-suicide-squad-we-wanted/ | 0.126305 |
Will James Gunn Give Us The 'Suicide Squad' We Wanted? | Last year, critically acclaimed director James Gunn was ousted from his role directing the third entry in the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. The shocking move from Disney was triggered when a series of controversial tweets authored by Gunn resurfaced online. The move from Disney has since been debated by fans and critics alike. But now, James Gunn is getting back to work. Last October, Warner Brothers announced that Gunn would hop from the Marvel Cinematic Universe over to the DC Extended Universe by writing the sequel to 2016s Suicide Squad. Now, according to The Hollywood Reporter, Gunn is in talks to take over the directors seat as well. The journey of the original Suicide Squad was a rocky one to say the least. Despite an all star cast including Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, and Will Smith, the film failed to impress, earning an average of 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. This loss was especially devastating as, coming so soon after the divisive Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the film was meant to get the DC Extended Universe back on track. But hiring Gunn to direct the sequel may just be the perfect move. Suicide Squads marketing campaign emphasized a goofy and comedic tone featuring a band of misfits trying to do good. Essentially, Suicide Squads marketing positioned itself as DCs Guardians of the Galaxy. The problem was that the original cut of the film, as evidenced by the first trailer, wasnt really all that funny. This prompted the studio to hire the trailer company to re-edit the entire film in order to insert more levity. As can likely be predicted, this resulted in a tonal and narrative mess of a final product. Again, people wanted a Guardians of the Galaxy-like adventure in this new series and didnt get it. But now, by hiring James Gunn, the studio finally has the opportunity to give audiences exactly that. Of course the hope wouldnt be that Gunn would create a copy of his other hit franchise. Instead, Gunns overall style would translate well enough to bring over fans of one franchise to another. Interestingly, the new film is not being called a direct sequel, but rather a relaunch, and its unclear what this means. Surely an entire reboot so soon after the first film would not be received well. And as we know Margot Robbies Harley Quinn is continuing on in the series, we know that this continuity isnt being scrapped. So likely what is meant by relaunch is a soft reboot, something that would allow for a complete new direction without destroying already established continuity. This would allow the DC Universe to stay intact while also giving Gunn the freedom he needs to steer the ship aright. A recent example of a soft-reboot move like this, oddly enough, can be found over at Marvel. While the previous two Thor films were by no means flops, they werent ever audience favorites. That all changed when Marvel Studios brought on Taika Waititi to direct the series third film. Without much warning, Taika took the story in a completely new direction, altering Thors personality from a brooding Shakespearean trope to an adorable dumb jock. Waititi accordingly revamped the entirety of Thors world to match his witty and colorful sensibilities. All this was a massive risk for Marvel, but it was a huge hit with audiences. And because a soft-reboot in this way still maintained the already established continuity, the drastic shift in tone didnt do much to alienate. So perhaps James Gunn can do for DC what Taika Waititi did for Marvel. Warner Brothers and DC are increasingly taking bold new directions with their universe, and so far its looking good. James Gunns hiring is a huge win for Warner Brothers, and fans should be very excited to see what becomes of Suicide Squad. It may be too early to say, but perhaps Marvel Studios should keep an eye on their back. The sequel to Suicide Squad is currently set for release on August 6, 2021. For more thoughts on superheroes and the entertainment industry, see the rest of my articles, follow me on Twitter, and subscribe on YouTube. | James Gunn is in talks to direct the sequel to 2016s Suicide Squad. The new film is not being called a direct sequel, but rather a relaunch, and it's unclear what this means. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/anharkarim/2019/01/31/will-james-gunn-give-us-the-suicide-squad-we-wanted/ | 0.144532 |
Will James Gunn Give Us The 'Suicide Squad' We Wanted? | Last year, critically acclaimed director James Gunn was ousted from his role directing the third entry in the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. The shocking move from Disney was triggered when a series of controversial tweets authored by Gunn resurfaced online. The move from Disney has since been debated by fans and critics alike. But now, James Gunn is getting back to work. Last October, Warner Brothers announced that Gunn would hop from the Marvel Cinematic Universe over to the DC Extended Universe by writing the sequel to 2016s Suicide Squad. Now, according to The Hollywood Reporter, Gunn is in talks to take over the directors seat as well. The journey of the original Suicide Squad was a rocky one to say the least. Despite an all star cast including Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, and Will Smith, the film failed to impress, earning an average of 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. This loss was especially devastating as, coming so soon after the divisive Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the film was meant to get the DC Extended Universe back on track. But hiring Gunn to direct the sequel may just be the perfect move. Suicide Squads marketing campaign emphasized a goofy and comedic tone featuring a band of misfits trying to do good. Essentially, Suicide Squads marketing positioned itself as DCs Guardians of the Galaxy. The problem was that the original cut of the film, as evidenced by the first trailer, wasnt really all that funny. This prompted the studio to hire the trailer company to re-edit the entire film in order to insert more levity. As can likely be predicted, this resulted in a tonal and narrative mess of a final product. Again, people wanted a Guardians of the Galaxy-like adventure in this new series and didnt get it. But now, by hiring James Gunn, the studio finally has the opportunity to give audiences exactly that. Of course the hope wouldnt be that Gunn would create a copy of his other hit franchise. Instead, Gunns overall style would translate well enough to bring over fans of one franchise to another. Interestingly, the new film is not being called a direct sequel, but rather a relaunch, and its unclear what this means. Surely an entire reboot so soon after the first film would not be received well. And as we know Margot Robbies Harley Quinn is continuing on in the series, we know that this continuity isnt being scrapped. So likely what is meant by relaunch is a soft reboot, something that would allow for a complete new direction without destroying already established continuity. This would allow the DC Universe to stay intact while also giving Gunn the freedom he needs to steer the ship aright. A recent example of a soft-reboot move like this, oddly enough, can be found over at Marvel. While the previous two Thor films were by no means flops, they werent ever audience favorites. That all changed when Marvel Studios brought on Taika Waititi to direct the series third film. Without much warning, Taika took the story in a completely new direction, altering Thors personality from a brooding Shakespearean trope to an adorable dumb jock. Waititi accordingly revamped the entirety of Thors world to match his witty and colorful sensibilities. All this was a massive risk for Marvel, but it was a huge hit with audiences. And because a soft-reboot in this way still maintained the already established continuity, the drastic shift in tone didnt do much to alienate. So perhaps James Gunn can do for DC what Taika Waititi did for Marvel. Warner Brothers and DC are increasingly taking bold new directions with their universe, and so far its looking good. James Gunns hiring is a huge win for Warner Brothers, and fans should be very excited to see what becomes of Suicide Squad. It may be too early to say, but perhaps Marvel Studios should keep an eye on their back. The sequel to Suicide Squad is currently set for release on August 6, 2021. For more thoughts on superheroes and the entertainment industry, see the rest of my articles, follow me on Twitter, and subscribe on YouTube. | James Gunn is in talks to direct the sequel to 2016s Suicide Squad. The new film is not being called a direct sequel, but rather a relaunch, and it's unclear what this means. Gunn's overall style would translate well enough to bring over fans of one franchise to another. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/anharkarim/2019/01/31/will-james-gunn-give-us-the-suicide-squad-we-wanted/ | 0.165998 |
Why do Jon Rahm, Jimmy Walker and others have stand bags at the Waste Management Phoenix Open? | Rickie Fowler is a trend setter, but Fowlers use of a Puma stand bag to house his clubs last week at the Farmers Insurance Open isnt the reason Jon Rahm, Jimmy Walker and other TaylorMade and Titleist players are allowing their caddies to lighten the load at this weeks Waste Management Phoenix Open. Farmers Insurance Open - Round Two Stan Badz Rahm and Walker will be using stand bags from their respective companies as part of a product launch for the bags. Titleist is introducing its Players 4 Plus bag and as part of its introduction made bags for each player, putting their names and sponsors logos on the carry bags and allowing players the option to use them. Similarly, TaylorMade rolled out its FlexTech and FlexTech Lifestyle stand bags with Rahm, Beau Hossler and Chez Reavie expected to lighten their caddies load by employing the bag in Scottsdale. The FlexTech and FlexTech Lifestyle bags utilize a design where each main side pocket is built into the center of the bag to create a single piece construction that allows for more storage without adding weight. Scroll to continue with content Ad As for why the Waste Management Phoenix Open, its likely not a coincidence. The event has a decidedly relaxed vibe, making it easier to get players to agree to do something outside the norm. Additionally, the heavier staff bags that tour caddies routinely lug often are stocked with plenty of rain gear. Scottsdale is perhaps the most likely tour venue on the schedule to avoid wet weather, making the use of the smaller bags more viable as the likelihood of inclement weather is minimal. Regardless, the caddies who get to carry the lighter bags will rejoice, but dont expect the bags to stay in play for longer than this week. Sponsors like to see their logos on televisionand they like to see them in big, bold letters. | Stan Badz Rahm and Jimmy Walker will be using stand bags from their respective companies as part of a product launch for the bags. | pegasus | 0 | https://sports.yahoo.com/why-jon-rahm-jimmy-walker-151834461.html?src=rss | 0.383193 |
Why do Jon Rahm, Jimmy Walker and others have stand bags at the Waste Management Phoenix Open? | Rickie Fowler is a trend setter, but Fowlers use of a Puma stand bag to house his clubs last week at the Farmers Insurance Open isnt the reason Jon Rahm, Jimmy Walker and other TaylorMade and Titleist players are allowing their caddies to lighten the load at this weeks Waste Management Phoenix Open. Farmers Insurance Open - Round Two Stan Badz Rahm and Walker will be using stand bags from their respective companies as part of a product launch for the bags. Titleist is introducing its Players 4 Plus bag and as part of its introduction made bags for each player, putting their names and sponsors logos on the carry bags and allowing players the option to use them. Similarly, TaylorMade rolled out its FlexTech and FlexTech Lifestyle stand bags with Rahm, Beau Hossler and Chez Reavie expected to lighten their caddies load by employing the bag in Scottsdale. The FlexTech and FlexTech Lifestyle bags utilize a design where each main side pocket is built into the center of the bag to create a single piece construction that allows for more storage without adding weight. Scroll to continue with content Ad As for why the Waste Management Phoenix Open, its likely not a coincidence. The event has a decidedly relaxed vibe, making it easier to get players to agree to do something outside the norm. Additionally, the heavier staff bags that tour caddies routinely lug often are stocked with plenty of rain gear. Scottsdale is perhaps the most likely tour venue on the schedule to avoid wet weather, making the use of the smaller bags more viable as the likelihood of inclement weather is minimal. Regardless, the caddies who get to carry the lighter bags will rejoice, but dont expect the bags to stay in play for longer than this week. Sponsors like to see their logos on televisionand they like to see them in big, bold letters. | Stan Badz Rahm and Jimmy Walker will be using stand bags from their respective companies as part of a product launch for the bags. Titleist is introducing its Players 4 Plus bag and as part of its introduction made bags for each player. | pegasus | 1 | https://sports.yahoo.com/why-jon-rahm-jimmy-walker-151834461.html?src=rss | 0.445501 |
Why do Jon Rahm, Jimmy Walker and others have stand bags at the Waste Management Phoenix Open? | Rickie Fowler is a trend setter, but Fowlers use of a Puma stand bag to house his clubs last week at the Farmers Insurance Open isnt the reason Jon Rahm, Jimmy Walker and other TaylorMade and Titleist players are allowing their caddies to lighten the load at this weeks Waste Management Phoenix Open. Farmers Insurance Open - Round Two Stan Badz Rahm and Walker will be using stand bags from their respective companies as part of a product launch for the bags. Titleist is introducing its Players 4 Plus bag and as part of its introduction made bags for each player, putting their names and sponsors logos on the carry bags and allowing players the option to use them. Similarly, TaylorMade rolled out its FlexTech and FlexTech Lifestyle stand bags with Rahm, Beau Hossler and Chez Reavie expected to lighten their caddies load by employing the bag in Scottsdale. The FlexTech and FlexTech Lifestyle bags utilize a design where each main side pocket is built into the center of the bag to create a single piece construction that allows for more storage without adding weight. Scroll to continue with content Ad As for why the Waste Management Phoenix Open, its likely not a coincidence. The event has a decidedly relaxed vibe, making it easier to get players to agree to do something outside the norm. Additionally, the heavier staff bags that tour caddies routinely lug often are stocked with plenty of rain gear. Scottsdale is perhaps the most likely tour venue on the schedule to avoid wet weather, making the use of the smaller bags more viable as the likelihood of inclement weather is minimal. Regardless, the caddies who get to carry the lighter bags will rejoice, but dont expect the bags to stay in play for longer than this week. Sponsors like to see their logos on televisionand they like to see them in big, bold letters. | Jon Rahm, Jimmy Walker and other TaylorMade and Titleist players are allowing their caddies to lighten the load at this weeks Waste Management Phoenix Open. Rahm and Walker will be using stand bags from their respective companies as part of a product launch for the bags. Titleist is introducing its Players 4 Plus bag. | bart | 2 | https://sports.yahoo.com/why-jon-rahm-jimmy-walker-151834461.html?src=rss | 0.711964 |
Did someone kill or poach a California wolf pack? | Nearly four years ago in the forests of Californias rugged northeast corner, two black and brown wolves had a litter of five pups in the shadow of Mount Shasta. They became known as the Shasta Pack the first known gray wolves to have offspring on California soil in nearly a century. The pups, shown frolicking in camera footage released by state wildlife officials, became a statewide sensation, even as local ranchers bristled at the new threat to their cattle. Three and a half years later, the Shasta Pack has vanished from Siskiyou County. All but one of the wolves disappeared within a few weeks of a standoff between ranchers and the pack and after the wolves were spotted feeding on a calf carcass. Just one pup is known to have survived; biologists say DNA tests show it left the state. State wildlife officials were never able to place a tracking collar on a member of the pack before they vanished. No corpses were found. Digital Access for only $0.99 For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today. Thats left a trail of questions. And wolf advocates say they are especially troubled by one of those questions in light of recent wolf news. Last month, state wildlife officers quietly opened a wolf poaching investigation following the death of an animal in neighboring Modoc County. If confirmed, it would be the first time someone killed a wolf in California since they were eradicated early last century. All those are possibilities, said Capt. Patrick Foy of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. However, Carter Niemeyer, a biologist who spent a decade as a wolf management specialist for the federal government, is skeptical the wolves dispersed so suddenly without some form of trauma first occurring to the pack. He said its rare for an established family of wolves to vanish from their territory. When it does happen, its usually because one or both of the adults suddenly died. When a pack just totally vaporizes, I would be suspect, he said. Something happened. The ongoing poaching case in Modoc County raises the specter that that something could have been nefarious. Radio silence On Dec. 2, Oregon wildlife biologists notified California officials that a yearling male, labeled OR-59 and wearing a GPS collar, had traveled from a pack in northeast Oregon and crossed the state line into Modoc County. Three days later, the wolf was spotted by a rancher feeding on a calf carcass, which investigators later determined may have died from pneumonia. On Dec. 9, Oregon biologists got a mortality signal from its collar indicating the wolf had died, according to a report on the California wildlife agencys website. Investigators have revealed little about the case. They havent said where OR-59s body was found, how the wolf died or why they find its death suspicious. Local ranchers said theyre not hearing much on their end either. Its been absolutely radio silence on anything wolves since it was found in early December, said Ned Coe, a Modoc County supervisor and cattle rancher who works as a field representative for the state Farm Bureau. Coe and other ranchers in Californias sparsely populated northeast corner have been living an uneasy coexistence with wolves since the animals returned to the state in 2011. In December of that year, OR-7, a 2-year-old gray male, left Oregons Imnaha Pack and traveled hundreds of miles to Californias northern border. He spent months wandering the state before returning to Oregon, finding a mate and starting his own pack. OR-7s appearance prompted the California Fish and Game Commission to grant gray wolves endangered species protections. While cheered by environmentalists, the decision was opposed by ranchers and big-game hunters who fear wolves will attack livestock and deplete deer and elk herds. Earlier this week, environmental groups were victorious when a San Diego Superior Court judge tossed a case filed by California farming and ranching associations that challenged the commissions listing, which prohibits killing a wolf under any circumstance. A convicted wolf killer in California could face years in prison. Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity said keeping the endangered species protection intact is critical. When the government strips the protections, it gives a signal to the public that wolves are not valuable they dont need to be protected so you can start killing them, she said. In Oregon alone, wildlife officials say 15 wolves have been killed illegally in recent years; only two people have been prosecuted for the crimes. Weiss estimates around two dozen wolves have been illegally killed in Washington since 2008. | The Shasta Pack vanished from Siskiyou County, California, three and a half years ago. Last month, a wolf was found dead in Modoc County. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article225258150.html | 0.127093 |
Did someone kill or poach a California wolf pack? | Nearly four years ago in the forests of Californias rugged northeast corner, two black and brown wolves had a litter of five pups in the shadow of Mount Shasta. They became known as the Shasta Pack the first known gray wolves to have offspring on California soil in nearly a century. The pups, shown frolicking in camera footage released by state wildlife officials, became a statewide sensation, even as local ranchers bristled at the new threat to their cattle. Three and a half years later, the Shasta Pack has vanished from Siskiyou County. All but one of the wolves disappeared within a few weeks of a standoff between ranchers and the pack and after the wolves were spotted feeding on a calf carcass. Just one pup is known to have survived; biologists say DNA tests show it left the state. State wildlife officials were never able to place a tracking collar on a member of the pack before they vanished. No corpses were found. Digital Access for only $0.99 For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today. Thats left a trail of questions. And wolf advocates say they are especially troubled by one of those questions in light of recent wolf news. Last month, state wildlife officers quietly opened a wolf poaching investigation following the death of an animal in neighboring Modoc County. If confirmed, it would be the first time someone killed a wolf in California since they were eradicated early last century. All those are possibilities, said Capt. Patrick Foy of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. However, Carter Niemeyer, a biologist who spent a decade as a wolf management specialist for the federal government, is skeptical the wolves dispersed so suddenly without some form of trauma first occurring to the pack. He said its rare for an established family of wolves to vanish from their territory. When it does happen, its usually because one or both of the adults suddenly died. When a pack just totally vaporizes, I would be suspect, he said. Something happened. The ongoing poaching case in Modoc County raises the specter that that something could have been nefarious. Radio silence On Dec. 2, Oregon wildlife biologists notified California officials that a yearling male, labeled OR-59 and wearing a GPS collar, had traveled from a pack in northeast Oregon and crossed the state line into Modoc County. Three days later, the wolf was spotted by a rancher feeding on a calf carcass, which investigators later determined may have died from pneumonia. On Dec. 9, Oregon biologists got a mortality signal from its collar indicating the wolf had died, according to a report on the California wildlife agencys website. Investigators have revealed little about the case. They havent said where OR-59s body was found, how the wolf died or why they find its death suspicious. Local ranchers said theyre not hearing much on their end either. Its been absolutely radio silence on anything wolves since it was found in early December, said Ned Coe, a Modoc County supervisor and cattle rancher who works as a field representative for the state Farm Bureau. Coe and other ranchers in Californias sparsely populated northeast corner have been living an uneasy coexistence with wolves since the animals returned to the state in 2011. In December of that year, OR-7, a 2-year-old gray male, left Oregons Imnaha Pack and traveled hundreds of miles to Californias northern border. He spent months wandering the state before returning to Oregon, finding a mate and starting his own pack. OR-7s appearance prompted the California Fish and Game Commission to grant gray wolves endangered species protections. While cheered by environmentalists, the decision was opposed by ranchers and big-game hunters who fear wolves will attack livestock and deplete deer and elk herds. Earlier this week, environmental groups were victorious when a San Diego Superior Court judge tossed a case filed by California farming and ranching associations that challenged the commissions listing, which prohibits killing a wolf under any circumstance. A convicted wolf killer in California could face years in prison. Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity said keeping the endangered species protection intact is critical. When the government strips the protections, it gives a signal to the public that wolves are not valuable they dont need to be protected so you can start killing them, she said. In Oregon alone, wildlife officials say 15 wolves have been killed illegally in recent years; only two people have been prosecuted for the crimes. Weiss estimates around two dozen wolves have been illegally killed in Washington since 2008. | Three and a half years ago, the Shasta Pack has vanished from Siskiyou County. Last month, state wildlife officers quietly opened a wolf poaching investigation following the death of an animal in neighboring Modoc County. If confirmed, it would be the first time someone killed a wolf in California since they were eradicated early last century. | pegasus | 2 | https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article225258150.html | 0.275707 |
Whats on TV immediately after the Super Bowl? | CLEVELAND, Ohio -- James Cordens new CBS talent search series The Worlds Best gets the coveted time slot after Super Bowl LIII on Sunday. In previous years, networks have used the showcase to give an existing show a boost (i.e. This Is Us in 2018) or to launch a brand new series they think will be big hit. Sometimes it works (The Wonder Years in 1988). Sometimes it doesnt ("Grand Slam in 1990). With The Worlds Best, created by reality show king Mark Burnett, CBS not only hopes to make a big splash on a big stage, but also attempt to dethrone NBCs ratings juggernaut Americas Got Talent. As its title suggest, the series features contestants from all over the world. The acts will be judged by a celebrity panel of Drew Barrymore, RuPaul and Faith Hill. What sets the show apart is the ominous Wall of the World, a jury made up of 50 experts from every field of the entertainment industry from across the globe that will decide contestants' fates. At the end of the 10-episode run, a winner will be crowned and go home with a grand prize of $1 million. Look for the post-Super Bowl episode sometime after 10 p.m. After that, The Worlds Best settles into its regular night and time on Wednesdays at 8 p.m. (Feb. 6 and 13) before moving to 9 p.m. starting Feb. 20. The show airs locally on WOIO Channel 19. | James Corden's new CBS talent search series "The World's Best" debuts after Super Bowl LIII. | bart | 0 | https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2019/02/whats-on-tv-after-the-super-bowl.html | 0.218862 |
Whats on TV immediately after the Super Bowl? | CLEVELAND, Ohio -- James Cordens new CBS talent search series The Worlds Best gets the coveted time slot after Super Bowl LIII on Sunday. In previous years, networks have used the showcase to give an existing show a boost (i.e. This Is Us in 2018) or to launch a brand new series they think will be big hit. Sometimes it works (The Wonder Years in 1988). Sometimes it doesnt ("Grand Slam in 1990). With The Worlds Best, created by reality show king Mark Burnett, CBS not only hopes to make a big splash on a big stage, but also attempt to dethrone NBCs ratings juggernaut Americas Got Talent. As its title suggest, the series features contestants from all over the world. The acts will be judged by a celebrity panel of Drew Barrymore, RuPaul and Faith Hill. What sets the show apart is the ominous Wall of the World, a jury made up of 50 experts from every field of the entertainment industry from across the globe that will decide contestants' fates. At the end of the 10-episode run, a winner will be crowned and go home with a grand prize of $1 million. Look for the post-Super Bowl episode sometime after 10 p.m. After that, The Worlds Best settles into its regular night and time on Wednesdays at 8 p.m. (Feb. 6 and 13) before moving to 9 p.m. starting Feb. 20. The show airs locally on WOIO Channel 19. | James Corden's "The World's Best" debuts after the Super Bowl. The 10-episode series features contestants from all over the world. The show airs on CBS. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2019/02/whats-on-tv-after-the-super-bowl.html | 0.39751 |
Whats on TV immediately after the Super Bowl? | CLEVELAND, Ohio -- James Cordens new CBS talent search series The Worlds Best gets the coveted time slot after Super Bowl LIII on Sunday. In previous years, networks have used the showcase to give an existing show a boost (i.e. This Is Us in 2018) or to launch a brand new series they think will be big hit. Sometimes it works (The Wonder Years in 1988). Sometimes it doesnt ("Grand Slam in 1990). With The Worlds Best, created by reality show king Mark Burnett, CBS not only hopes to make a big splash on a big stage, but also attempt to dethrone NBCs ratings juggernaut Americas Got Talent. As its title suggest, the series features contestants from all over the world. The acts will be judged by a celebrity panel of Drew Barrymore, RuPaul and Faith Hill. What sets the show apart is the ominous Wall of the World, a jury made up of 50 experts from every field of the entertainment industry from across the globe that will decide contestants' fates. At the end of the 10-episode run, a winner will be crowned and go home with a grand prize of $1 million. Look for the post-Super Bowl episode sometime after 10 p.m. After that, The Worlds Best settles into its regular night and time on Wednesdays at 8 p.m. (Feb. 6 and 13) before moving to 9 p.m. starting Feb. 20. The show airs locally on WOIO Channel 19. | James Corden's new CBS talent search series "The World's Best" debuts after Super Bowl. The series features contestants from all over the world. Drew Barrymore, RuPaul and Faith Hill will judge the acts. At the end of the 10-episode run, a winner will be crowned. | bart | 2 | https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2019/02/whats-on-tv-after-the-super-bowl.html | 0.337088 |
Who is Cory Booker? | New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker became the latest senator to throw his hat into the 2020 ring Friday morning, when he announced his presidential campaign with a video posted to Twitter. Booker attained national fame as the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, for seven years. As a senator, he has been a vocal member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biography Booker, who was raised in the affluent suburbs of northern New Jersey, has often cited his parents, Cary and Carolyn, as his inspiration. They were among the first black executives at IBM and desegregated their mostly white neighborhood. Booker received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford University, where he also played as a tight end for the football team. After graduation, he was awarded the prestigious Rhodes scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, before returning to the U.S. to get his law degree at Yale Law School. After working as a public-interest attorney and housing advocate in Newark, Booker decided to run for the city's municipal council in 1998. He managed to topple a long-time incumbent and, at age 29, become the youngest-ever member of the council, where he gained notoriety for fasting outside a housing project to denounce the intensifying crime and drug use in some of Newark's neighborhoods. After launching an unsuccessful bid in 2002 against incumbent mayor Sharpe James, Booker ran again in 2006 and defeated deputy mayor Ronald Rice. During his tenure as mayor, Booker was praised for attracting large companies to Newark and revamping the city's downtown. However, he was also criticized by local residents and officials for appearing out-of-touch and focusing on his national image. After longtime New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg died in the summer 2013, Booker ran to fill his seat and defeated a little-known Republican mayor in a special election. In 2014, he won reelection to serve a full term in the Senate. Booker is notably the only vegan in the Senate. Key Issues and views Booker has made criminal justice reform and the decriminalization of marijuana integral issues of his agenda in the Senate. Pointing to the disproportionate incarceration of minorities for marijuana-related offenses, he crafted the Marijuana Justice Act in the summer of 2017. Booker is one of the chief architects of the First Step Act, a landmark bill that President Trump signed into law in December after rare overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation increases investment in programs to curb recidivism among federal prisoners and modifies several sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Although he hopes to tout it as a signature achievement of his career in Congress, Booker acknowledged that the bill is just one stepping stone to overhaul the criminal justice system. Controversy Although he has a liberal voting record in the Senate and has been a staunch critic of the Trump administration, Booker has faced criticism by some progressives for receiving large donations from pharmaceutical corporations and banks. His 2020 campaign will not accept donations from corporate PACs or lobbyists. In what he touted as his "Spartacus" moment, Booker claimed to have released confidential committee documents during the contentious confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. His Republican colleagues accused him of grandstanding and said the documents had already been cleared. Criticism from Trump In a November interview with the New York Post, the president said Booker "ran Newark into the ground" and falsely accused him of not living in the city when he was mayor. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump claimed to know more about Booker than the New Jersey senator knew about himself. "If Cory Booker is the future of the Democratic Party, they have no future! I know more about Cory than he knows about himself," Mr. Trump tweeted in July of that year. Grace Segers contributed to this report | Cory Booker was the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, for seven years. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-cory-booker-2020-candidate-for-president-democratic-party-views-stance-issues-biography/ | 0.30082 |
Who is Cory Booker? | New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker became the latest senator to throw his hat into the 2020 ring Friday morning, when he announced his presidential campaign with a video posted to Twitter. Booker attained national fame as the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, for seven years. As a senator, he has been a vocal member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biography Booker, who was raised in the affluent suburbs of northern New Jersey, has often cited his parents, Cary and Carolyn, as his inspiration. They were among the first black executives at IBM and desegregated their mostly white neighborhood. Booker received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford University, where he also played as a tight end for the football team. After graduation, he was awarded the prestigious Rhodes scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, before returning to the U.S. to get his law degree at Yale Law School. After working as a public-interest attorney and housing advocate in Newark, Booker decided to run for the city's municipal council in 1998. He managed to topple a long-time incumbent and, at age 29, become the youngest-ever member of the council, where he gained notoriety for fasting outside a housing project to denounce the intensifying crime and drug use in some of Newark's neighborhoods. After launching an unsuccessful bid in 2002 against incumbent mayor Sharpe James, Booker ran again in 2006 and defeated deputy mayor Ronald Rice. During his tenure as mayor, Booker was praised for attracting large companies to Newark and revamping the city's downtown. However, he was also criticized by local residents and officials for appearing out-of-touch and focusing on his national image. After longtime New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg died in the summer 2013, Booker ran to fill his seat and defeated a little-known Republican mayor in a special election. In 2014, he won reelection to serve a full term in the Senate. Booker is notably the only vegan in the Senate. Key Issues and views Booker has made criminal justice reform and the decriminalization of marijuana integral issues of his agenda in the Senate. Pointing to the disproportionate incarceration of minorities for marijuana-related offenses, he crafted the Marijuana Justice Act in the summer of 2017. Booker is one of the chief architects of the First Step Act, a landmark bill that President Trump signed into law in December after rare overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation increases investment in programs to curb recidivism among federal prisoners and modifies several sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Although he hopes to tout it as a signature achievement of his career in Congress, Booker acknowledged that the bill is just one stepping stone to overhaul the criminal justice system. Controversy Although he has a liberal voting record in the Senate and has been a staunch critic of the Trump administration, Booker has faced criticism by some progressives for receiving large donations from pharmaceutical corporations and banks. His 2020 campaign will not accept donations from corporate PACs or lobbyists. In what he touted as his "Spartacus" moment, Booker claimed to have released confidential committee documents during the contentious confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. His Republican colleagues accused him of grandstanding and said the documents had already been cleared. Criticism from Trump In a November interview with the New York Post, the president said Booker "ran Newark into the ground" and falsely accused him of not living in the city when he was mayor. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump claimed to know more about Booker than the New Jersey senator knew about himself. "If Cory Booker is the future of the Democratic Party, they have no future! I know more about Cory than he knows about himself," Mr. Trump tweeted in July of that year. Grace Segers contributed to this report | Cory Booker was the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, for seven years. He is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Booker is the only vegan in the Senate. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-cory-booker-2020-candidate-for-president-democratic-party-views-stance-issues-biography/ | 0.337723 |
Who is Cory Booker? | New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker became the latest senator to throw his hat into the 2020 ring Friday morning, when he announced his presidential campaign with a video posted to Twitter. Booker attained national fame as the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, for seven years. As a senator, he has been a vocal member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biography Booker, who was raised in the affluent suburbs of northern New Jersey, has often cited his parents, Cary and Carolyn, as his inspiration. They were among the first black executives at IBM and desegregated their mostly white neighborhood. Booker received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford University, where he also played as a tight end for the football team. After graduation, he was awarded the prestigious Rhodes scholarship to study at the University of Oxford, before returning to the U.S. to get his law degree at Yale Law School. After working as a public-interest attorney and housing advocate in Newark, Booker decided to run for the city's municipal council in 1998. He managed to topple a long-time incumbent and, at age 29, become the youngest-ever member of the council, where he gained notoriety for fasting outside a housing project to denounce the intensifying crime and drug use in some of Newark's neighborhoods. After launching an unsuccessful bid in 2002 against incumbent mayor Sharpe James, Booker ran again in 2006 and defeated deputy mayor Ronald Rice. During his tenure as mayor, Booker was praised for attracting large companies to Newark and revamping the city's downtown. However, he was also criticized by local residents and officials for appearing out-of-touch and focusing on his national image. After longtime New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg died in the summer 2013, Booker ran to fill his seat and defeated a little-known Republican mayor in a special election. In 2014, he won reelection to serve a full term in the Senate. Booker is notably the only vegan in the Senate. Key Issues and views Booker has made criminal justice reform and the decriminalization of marijuana integral issues of his agenda in the Senate. Pointing to the disproportionate incarceration of minorities for marijuana-related offenses, he crafted the Marijuana Justice Act in the summer of 2017. Booker is one of the chief architects of the First Step Act, a landmark bill that President Trump signed into law in December after rare overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation increases investment in programs to curb recidivism among federal prisoners and modifies several sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Although he hopes to tout it as a signature achievement of his career in Congress, Booker acknowledged that the bill is just one stepping stone to overhaul the criminal justice system. Controversy Although he has a liberal voting record in the Senate and has been a staunch critic of the Trump administration, Booker has faced criticism by some progressives for receiving large donations from pharmaceutical corporations and banks. His 2020 campaign will not accept donations from corporate PACs or lobbyists. In what he touted as his "Spartacus" moment, Booker claimed to have released confidential committee documents during the contentious confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. His Republican colleagues accused him of grandstanding and said the documents had already been cleared. Criticism from Trump In a November interview with the New York Post, the president said Booker "ran Newark into the ground" and falsely accused him of not living in the city when he was mayor. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump claimed to know more about Booker than the New Jersey senator knew about himself. "If Cory Booker is the future of the Democratic Party, they have no future! I know more about Cory than he knows about himself," Mr. Trump tweeted in July of that year. Grace Segers contributed to this report | Cory Booker was the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, for seven years. He is the only vegan in the U.S. Senate. Booker has been criticized for receiving large donations from pharmaceutical corporations and banks. He has made criminal justice reform and the decriminalization of marijuana integral issues of his agenda. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-cory-booker-2020-candidate-for-president-democratic-party-views-stance-issues-biography/ | 0.317316 |
Which of these 5 Flyers could be dealt before the NHL trade deadline? | originally appeared on nbcsportsphiladelphia.com The trade dominoes are starting to topple around the NHL and the Flyers are expected to be in on the action as well. "I could see us buying and selling, I guess to use those terms," Chuck Fletcher said. "But the bigger focus is, we'd like to get some pieces in here that will be a part of this for a few years." Scroll to continue with content Ad Here are the five likely candidates Fletcher could move in order to get that accomplished. Simmonds is arguably one of the most highly-coveted players on the trade market. Cup contending teams would love to add a 25-goal scorer who works the trenches while providing a net-front presence on the power play. Fletcher mentioned that Simmonds isn't the only priority moving forward with several key RFAs that all need new contracts. "We have lots of holes and a certain amount of money in which to do it with the salary cap," Fletcher said Monday. "We're just trying to balance everything and make the right decision, but certainly in a few weeks I think it will be resolved one way or the other." He'll be signed to an extension. However, I just don't see a scenario where Simmonds is unsigned or not dealt prior to the deadline, and I fully expect the latter to happen. His value will never be higher than what it is between now and Feb. 25. Story continues Weise reported to the Phantoms this week, where he will be buried until further notice. It's an unfortunate situation for both sides, but a mistake that was made the moment the ink was dried on a four-year contract. Weise never brought that energy and physicality the Flyers were hoping for. "Dale's not going to be a part of this going forward, so we'll try to find him another team to go to," Fletcher said. "He's obviously hungry to get playing, and to find a situation that's better for himself." He'll be leveraged as part of an offseason trade. If that doesn't pan out, then Fletcher will buy out the remaining year on his contract with a reasonable cap hit spread out over two years ($1.18 million in 2019-2020 and just $583,000 in 2020-21). Raffl's in the final year of his contract that pays him $2.35 million. Now relegated to the fourth line, he has become expendable. Trading Raffl would also open up a roster spot for someone like Nicolas Aube-Kubel, who was called up in November. If Fletcher was able to squeeze a sixth-round pick from Arizona for Jordan Weal, then certainly Raffl can command a mid-round pick. Possible Teams: San Jose, Vegas, Colorado The Sharks have an extra fifth-rounder in 2020 and Vegas has three fifth-round picks in 2019 at its disposal. To get out of the Western Conference can be punishing and Raffl's size and strength may be an asset worth taking a chance on. He'll simply become a free agent on July 1. The Flyers are staring at a logjam on the blue line next season with Sam Morin and Phil Myers also NHL ready. I believe the organization values Gudas and the toughness he brings having tailored his game to the style of play we see now in the league. His contract is manageable at $3.35 million through next season. I expect Fletcher to hold onto Gudas as the Flyers make a push into February. If they can't close the gap, then Gudas could be on the move. "We'll have to see what our health is," Fletcher said. "I don't anticipate moving players out just to play young players." Possible Teams: Montreal, Minnesota The Canadiens and Wild are two teams that could benefit from Gudas' rugged style of play and could use one more right-handed shot on their respective blue lines. Could still be packaged in a deal over the summer or sticks around for one more season. However, Fletcher is also looking to add a top-four defenseman over the summer and Gudas doesn't seem to fit that mold. Personally, I don't see Ghost going anywhere before Feb. 25, but there have been quite a few rumblings in regards to the Flyers' 25-year-old defenseman. Hockey analyst Bob McKenzie mentioned Gostisbehere on TSN radio in Montreal: "Gostisbehere is a name that's been out there, but I don't know that it's at the top of the list of things that Chuck Fletcher wants to move out of town. That's not to say that he wouldn't for the right price." Possible Teams: Anaheim, Vancouver The Ducks and Canucks are two teams that could use Ghost's big shot on a sluggish power play. Anaheim would love to add a veteran defenseman as they recently acquired Michael Del Zotto through a trade with the Canucks for Luke Schenn. If he's not a part of the Flyers' top power-play unit moving forward, it will be interesting to see how and where Gostisbehere fits into Fletcher's plans after this season. Click here to download the MyTeams App by NBC Sports! Receive comprehensive coverage of your teams and stream the Flyers, Sixers and Phillies games easily on your device. More on the Flyers | The Philadelphia Flyers are expected to make some moves before the NHL trade deadline on February 25. Here are the five likely candidates Fletcher could move in order to get that accomplished. The Flyers are also expected to move Dale Weise, Radko Gudas and Jordan Weal. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://sports.yahoo.com/5-flyers-could-dealt-nhl-193536004.html?src=rss | 0.176831 |
Should The Kristaps Porzingis Trade Worry The Golden State Warriors? | The NBA was rocked yesterday by the New York Knicks trading Kristaps Porzingis to the Dallas Mavericks for a package including Dennis Smith Jr, two first round picks, and the expiring contracts of Wes Matthews and DeAndre Jordan. The Knicks have essentially traded away the best young talent theyve had since Patrick Ewing to open up as much as $76m of salary cap space this summer. Its a huge gamble, but the buzz around the league is that theyll target the Golden State Warriors Kevin Durant and the Boston Celtics Kyrie Irving. Warriors fans may well be nervous. Previously the Knicks had only enough cap space for one free agent, and beyond Porzingis didnt have much to excite potential additions. The opportunity to sell Durant on the Big Apple along with Irving is undoubtedly a better pitch than a roster that currently sits dead last in the NBA with just 10 wins all season. For once the Knicks do have their own draft pick and will be praying that the ping pong balls fall the right way and theyre able to draft Dukes Zion Williamson. But that last placed record no longer guarantees the best chance to pick first, after changes to the lottery odds which are coming in for the first time this year. Ironically it may be the one year the Knicks finally tank right, and then dont receive the traditional prize. History as a judge But one cursive glance at the Knicks free agency history suggests a different outcome. The Knicks have long attempted to fast-track the rebuilding process, repeatedly trading young talent and picks to open up cap space to chase the best players in the league. And the Knicks have always, without fail, struck out. Its the precise opposite of how the Warriors built their dynasty. In 2010, having carved out enough space to sign two of the monster free agency class headlined by Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh, the Knicks ended up with Amare Stoudemire and Raymond Felton. Stoudemire was a legitimate star, but his knees gave out quickly and his contract became an albatross. Meanwhile the rest of the teams young assets and picks were sacrificed on the altar of Carmelo Anthony. They never recovered and were capped out without draft picks and young talent for years. The next time the Knicks had significant cap space was 2015. Again they struck out and ended up with Robin Lopez as their big addition. Lopez is a solid big man, but hardly the savior Knicks fans wanted. Then in 2016 came arguably one of the most disastrous summers since 2005, where their infamous former General Manager Isiah Thomas blew the entire taxpayer mid-level exception on middling big man Jerome James, and then turned around and traded two unprotected first round picks for center Eddy Curry just a few months later. Together the James and Curry contracts (remember thats not Lebron and Steph) hamstrung the Knicks for years, and the two picks became LaMarcus Aldridge and Joakim Noah. The very same Joakim Noah for four years, $72m. But Noah was a shell of the brilliant player he had become in the intervening years. He played just 46 games for the Knicks in the 2016/17 season, and only seven more the following year before the Knicks had to buy him out and stretch the remainder of his contract, which is still clogging up their cap. Most recently, in 2017, the Knicks used their cap space to reacquire Tim Hardaway Jr on a $71m, four-year contract, just two years after theyd dumped him on Atlanta. Yes, thats the same Tim Hardaway Jr contract that in order to get off the Knicks just had to attach their prime asset Kristaps Porzingis to. Lets face it, the Knicks record with their cap space is horrendous. Its a whos who of bloated contracts for second-tier players, or stars with a concerning injury history that then pan out exactly as everyone expected. Thats why so many Knicks fans were excited to building around a young talent in Porzingis, and potentially a high draft pick this year, coupled with maybe a long shot at Durant or another top tier free agent. Giving all that up is a very high risk, unlikely reward strategy that is all too familiar to those who know the Knicks all too well. Theres still the risk for the Warriors that the Knicks buck the trend and do manage to tempt Durant to New York. But for now, theres another, more immediate impact for Golden State. Both Matthews and Jordan may well become prime targets on the buyout market. Yep, the Golden State Warriors. Matthews, a career 38% shooter from beyond the arc, would provide some defense and shooting on the wing, filling potentially their biggest need. If they go big, Jordan could back up Cousins nicely as long as the Collective Bargaining Agreement doesnt specify a maximum total of Olympians on team rosters. Then theres the long run impact of Porzingis future. Hes a restricted free agent this summer and reportedly was considering signing his one-year qualifying offer to become an unrestricted free agent in 2020. If Porzingis did become a free agent in 2020, and Durant had bolted to the Knicks, the Warriors could be sitting there armed with enough cap space to make a compelling offer to the young big man. Its extremely unlikely though that a player of Porzingis talent coming off an ACL injury would actually follow through with such a threat. Whats more, the Mavericks will be able to sell him on a future with rookie sensation Luka Doncic in a much more stable environment than Porzingis has experienced in his NBA career to date. Let's not forget that Dirk Nowitzki, the greatest European NBA player ever, is there to mentor them both and smooth their path to NBA stardom. In fact, the biggest threat to the Warriors may well be if Porzingis gets healthy and recovers his former strength. A tandem with Luka Doncic quite simply threatens to be the greatest European duo to ever grace the NBA. What's more, the Mavericks could carve out plenty of cap space themselves in either the summer of 2020 or 2021 to surround these two young stars with right at the moment that age would start catching up with the Warriors if they are able to keep their core together. All this drama came amid the biggest story of the approaching trade deadline, Anthony Davis' desire to leave New Orleans. The Knicks were among the teams rumored, but without Porzingis it's hard to see what their package is, even if they do win the draft lottery. What's more the Pelicans have every incentive to wait it out until the summer and trade Davis to Boston for their package of picks and young talent, meaning that Irving would almost certainly remain with the Celtics. If the Pelicans bite instead on the Lakers package of young players before the deadline, there's a considerable chance Irving could sign with Los Angeles to team up with Lebron James and Davis in a trio that definitely would threaten the Warriors. In the end, this move probably does slightly raise the chances of Durant moving to New York, given the bucketload of cap space the Knicks are now sitting on. But if the Knicks don't win the draft lottery, something completely out of their control, the remaining roster doesn't make for a very attractive pitch, even in the unlikely event Irving was to consider leaving Boston. In truth the old rules still apply. If anyone should be scared by the New York Knicks having cap space, its probably Knicks fans rather than the Warriors. | The New York Knicks traded Kristaps Porzingis to the Dallas Mavericks for a package including Dennis Smith Jr, two first round picks, and the expiring contracts of Wes Matthews and DeAndre Jordan. Warriors fans may well be nervous about the potential impact of this move. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmurray/2019/02/01/should-the-kristaps-porzingis-trade-worry-the-golden-state-warriors/ | 0.144582 |
What Exactly Is The Employee Experience? | It's starting to happen. I hear it. I see it. Finally. It's not perfect, but we're making progress, and progress is better than nothing. The employee experience. It's finally getting the airtime it deserves. Yes, some of that airtime is in the form of more consultants talking and writing about it, but when they're doing that, they're spreading the word and pointing companies in the right direction. I've been talking about the employee experience for what seems like forever. For 25 years, I've been telling clients they need to listen to employees, understand the experience and do something about it. In the early years, they'd say, "We'll focus on the employees later." But in the last year or two, it feels like there's a greater understanding of the implications of waiting until later. (It's not perfect, though. I still hear clients say: "Oh, I never thought about that. You're right. It makes sense that the employee experience drives the customer experience.") It's not just about the impact on the customer experience; it's also about the impact on employees themselves. It's about treating them like humans, not like cogs in the wheels of corporate success. It's ultimately about caring about people like people do. It's the sum of all interactions that an employee has with her employer during the duration of her employment relationship. It includes any way the employee "touches" or interacts with the company and vice versa in the course of doing her job. And, importantly, it includes her feelings, emotions and perceptions of those interactions. In Jeffrey Pfeffer's book, Dying for a Paycheck, he cites the following: "In one survey, 61 percent of employees said that workplace stress had made them sick and 7 percent said they had actually been hospitalized. Job stress costs U.S. employers more than $300 billion annually and may cause 120,000 excess deaths each year. In China, 1 million people a year may be dying from overwork. People are literally dying for a paycheck. And it needs to stop." The employee experience needs to be at the top of the priority list. It's not at all about benefits and perks. A lot of companies mistakenly think that because they offer free massages and beer on Fridays that they've checked off the employee experience box. And it's not about culture either, although culture certainly plays into or affects the employee experience. Culture is the result of values plus behavior. It's what employees do when no one is looking. It's like the energy or the vibe of the place. Great cultures make for a great experience, while toxic cultures drain and demoralize. The following are some factors that, when a part of an employee's daily interactions with their employer, contribute to a great experience. Growth and development: Work together on setting career goals, developing a career plan and working toward it. Feedback and coaching: Provide constructive feedback about performance and help them maintain or improve their performance. Recognition and appreciation: Take time to recognize employees for the work they do, share their contributions and impact with the rest of the organization, and say "thank you" or show gratitude on a regular basis. Leadership: A lot of things fall under this one, but I'm talking about servant leadership (serving your employees and putting their needs before your own) and truly human leadership (providing a caring environment where everybody matters). Communication: It must be open, honest, candid, transparent and ongoing. This includes sharing information about the company (e.g., sales, revenue, personnel, challenges, etc.) Camaraderie and collaboration: Work together, play together; take real and sincere interest in your staff or your co-workers. Contributions: Let employees know the impact they are making on their customers and on the business. Ensure they understand the company's "why" and how they contribute. Trust and respect: Create an environment where employees are both trusted and respected. Empowerment: Give employees the freedom to do their jobs, enable them to take the right actions, and give them the authority to make decisions in their day-to-day roles that simplify their work and make things more efficient for themselves and their customers. Success: Help employees be successful by first defining what that means for each individual, then working together to ensure that happens. These are all essential factors in the employee experience. And yet, the employee experience isn't just about these things. Yes, employees want to be wrapped up in one nice big care package of employer love. But they have jobs to do. On top of being cared for, they need to be able to do great work. In a nutshell, the rest is about tools, processes and resources. Tools: This seems like a no-brainer, but employees need a desk, a computer, a workspace, tools, software, etc. Keep in mind, however, not every employee needs the same tools or the same types of tools. Processes: When there are no processes in place, employees make up things as they go. When there are broken processes, steps get missed, and things are done incorrectly. When there are old and inefficient processes, it's a waste of time. Resources: Ensure that employees have the training, education, books, documentation, etc. that they need to do their jobs well. At the onset of a client engagement, I interview executives, employees and customers to get an assessment of the current situation. When I talk to my clients' employees, yes, I hear about all of the "care package" items. But some of the biggest pain points of their experiences are typically about their inability to do a good job. At the heart of it all, employees want to do their job and do it well. Unfortunately, they can't if they aren't provided with the tools, processes and resources needed to do that. If you're not yet focusing on employees and their experience, it's time. Employees must come first. Don't delay! | The employee experience is the sum of all interactions that an employee has with her employer. It's not at all about benefits and perks. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/02/01/what-exactly-is-the-employee-experience/ | 0.600034 |
What Exactly Is The Employee Experience? | It's starting to happen. I hear it. I see it. Finally. It's not perfect, but we're making progress, and progress is better than nothing. The employee experience. It's finally getting the airtime it deserves. Yes, some of that airtime is in the form of more consultants talking and writing about it, but when they're doing that, they're spreading the word and pointing companies in the right direction. I've been talking about the employee experience for what seems like forever. For 25 years, I've been telling clients they need to listen to employees, understand the experience and do something about it. In the early years, they'd say, "We'll focus on the employees later." But in the last year or two, it feels like there's a greater understanding of the implications of waiting until later. (It's not perfect, though. I still hear clients say: "Oh, I never thought about that. You're right. It makes sense that the employee experience drives the customer experience.") It's not just about the impact on the customer experience; it's also about the impact on employees themselves. It's about treating them like humans, not like cogs in the wheels of corporate success. It's ultimately about caring about people like people do. It's the sum of all interactions that an employee has with her employer during the duration of her employment relationship. It includes any way the employee "touches" or interacts with the company and vice versa in the course of doing her job. And, importantly, it includes her feelings, emotions and perceptions of those interactions. In Jeffrey Pfeffer's book, Dying for a Paycheck, he cites the following: "In one survey, 61 percent of employees said that workplace stress had made them sick and 7 percent said they had actually been hospitalized. Job stress costs U.S. employers more than $300 billion annually and may cause 120,000 excess deaths each year. In China, 1 million people a year may be dying from overwork. People are literally dying for a paycheck. And it needs to stop." The employee experience needs to be at the top of the priority list. It's not at all about benefits and perks. A lot of companies mistakenly think that because they offer free massages and beer on Fridays that they've checked off the employee experience box. And it's not about culture either, although culture certainly plays into or affects the employee experience. Culture is the result of values plus behavior. It's what employees do when no one is looking. It's like the energy or the vibe of the place. Great cultures make for a great experience, while toxic cultures drain and demoralize. The following are some factors that, when a part of an employee's daily interactions with their employer, contribute to a great experience. Growth and development: Work together on setting career goals, developing a career plan and working toward it. Feedback and coaching: Provide constructive feedback about performance and help them maintain or improve their performance. Recognition and appreciation: Take time to recognize employees for the work they do, share their contributions and impact with the rest of the organization, and say "thank you" or show gratitude on a regular basis. Leadership: A lot of things fall under this one, but I'm talking about servant leadership (serving your employees and putting their needs before your own) and truly human leadership (providing a caring environment where everybody matters). Communication: It must be open, honest, candid, transparent and ongoing. This includes sharing information about the company (e.g., sales, revenue, personnel, challenges, etc.) Camaraderie and collaboration: Work together, play together; take real and sincere interest in your staff or your co-workers. Contributions: Let employees know the impact they are making on their customers and on the business. Ensure they understand the company's "why" and how they contribute. Trust and respect: Create an environment where employees are both trusted and respected. Empowerment: Give employees the freedom to do their jobs, enable them to take the right actions, and give them the authority to make decisions in their day-to-day roles that simplify their work and make things more efficient for themselves and their customers. Success: Help employees be successful by first defining what that means for each individual, then working together to ensure that happens. These are all essential factors in the employee experience. And yet, the employee experience isn't just about these things. Yes, employees want to be wrapped up in one nice big care package of employer love. But they have jobs to do. On top of being cared for, they need to be able to do great work. In a nutshell, the rest is about tools, processes and resources. Tools: This seems like a no-brainer, but employees need a desk, a computer, a workspace, tools, software, etc. Keep in mind, however, not every employee needs the same tools or the same types of tools. Processes: When there are no processes in place, employees make up things as they go. When there are broken processes, steps get missed, and things are done incorrectly. When there are old and inefficient processes, it's a waste of time. Resources: Ensure that employees have the training, education, books, documentation, etc. that they need to do their jobs well. At the onset of a client engagement, I interview executives, employees and customers to get an assessment of the current situation. When I talk to my clients' employees, yes, I hear about all of the "care package" items. But some of the biggest pain points of their experiences are typically about their inability to do a good job. At the heart of it all, employees want to do their job and do it well. Unfortunately, they can't if they aren't provided with the tools, processes and resources needed to do that. If you're not yet focusing on employees and their experience, it's time. Employees must come first. Don't delay! | The employee experience is the sum of all interactions that an employee has with her employer. It's not at all about benefits and perks. Great cultures make for a great experience; toxic cultures drain and demoralize. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/02/01/what-exactly-is-the-employee-experience/ | 0.637039 |
What Exactly Is The Employee Experience? | It's starting to happen. I hear it. I see it. Finally. It's not perfect, but we're making progress, and progress is better than nothing. The employee experience. It's finally getting the airtime it deserves. Yes, some of that airtime is in the form of more consultants talking and writing about it, but when they're doing that, they're spreading the word and pointing companies in the right direction. I've been talking about the employee experience for what seems like forever. For 25 years, I've been telling clients they need to listen to employees, understand the experience and do something about it. In the early years, they'd say, "We'll focus on the employees later." But in the last year or two, it feels like there's a greater understanding of the implications of waiting until later. (It's not perfect, though. I still hear clients say: "Oh, I never thought about that. You're right. It makes sense that the employee experience drives the customer experience.") It's not just about the impact on the customer experience; it's also about the impact on employees themselves. It's about treating them like humans, not like cogs in the wheels of corporate success. It's ultimately about caring about people like people do. It's the sum of all interactions that an employee has with her employer during the duration of her employment relationship. It includes any way the employee "touches" or interacts with the company and vice versa in the course of doing her job. And, importantly, it includes her feelings, emotions and perceptions of those interactions. In Jeffrey Pfeffer's book, Dying for a Paycheck, he cites the following: "In one survey, 61 percent of employees said that workplace stress had made them sick and 7 percent said they had actually been hospitalized. Job stress costs U.S. employers more than $300 billion annually and may cause 120,000 excess deaths each year. In China, 1 million people a year may be dying from overwork. People are literally dying for a paycheck. And it needs to stop." The employee experience needs to be at the top of the priority list. It's not at all about benefits and perks. A lot of companies mistakenly think that because they offer free massages and beer on Fridays that they've checked off the employee experience box. And it's not about culture either, although culture certainly plays into or affects the employee experience. Culture is the result of values plus behavior. It's what employees do when no one is looking. It's like the energy or the vibe of the place. Great cultures make for a great experience, while toxic cultures drain and demoralize. The following are some factors that, when a part of an employee's daily interactions with their employer, contribute to a great experience. Growth and development: Work together on setting career goals, developing a career plan and working toward it. Feedback and coaching: Provide constructive feedback about performance and help them maintain or improve their performance. Recognition and appreciation: Take time to recognize employees for the work they do, share their contributions and impact with the rest of the organization, and say "thank you" or show gratitude on a regular basis. Leadership: A lot of things fall under this one, but I'm talking about servant leadership (serving your employees and putting their needs before your own) and truly human leadership (providing a caring environment where everybody matters). Communication: It must be open, honest, candid, transparent and ongoing. This includes sharing information about the company (e.g., sales, revenue, personnel, challenges, etc.) Camaraderie and collaboration: Work together, play together; take real and sincere interest in your staff or your co-workers. Contributions: Let employees know the impact they are making on their customers and on the business. Ensure they understand the company's "why" and how they contribute. Trust and respect: Create an environment where employees are both trusted and respected. Empowerment: Give employees the freedom to do their jobs, enable them to take the right actions, and give them the authority to make decisions in their day-to-day roles that simplify their work and make things more efficient for themselves and their customers. Success: Help employees be successful by first defining what that means for each individual, then working together to ensure that happens. These are all essential factors in the employee experience. And yet, the employee experience isn't just about these things. Yes, employees want to be wrapped up in one nice big care package of employer love. But they have jobs to do. On top of being cared for, they need to be able to do great work. In a nutshell, the rest is about tools, processes and resources. Tools: This seems like a no-brainer, but employees need a desk, a computer, a workspace, tools, software, etc. Keep in mind, however, not every employee needs the same tools or the same types of tools. Processes: When there are no processes in place, employees make up things as they go. When there are broken processes, steps get missed, and things are done incorrectly. When there are old and inefficient processes, it's a waste of time. Resources: Ensure that employees have the training, education, books, documentation, etc. that they need to do their jobs well. At the onset of a client engagement, I interview executives, employees and customers to get an assessment of the current situation. When I talk to my clients' employees, yes, I hear about all of the "care package" items. But some of the biggest pain points of their experiences are typically about their inability to do a good job. At the heart of it all, employees want to do their job and do it well. Unfortunately, they can't if they aren't provided with the tools, processes and resources needed to do that. If you're not yet focusing on employees and their experience, it's time. Employees must come first. Don't delay! | The employee experience is the sum of all interactions that an employee has with her employer. It's not just about benefits and perks; it's also about treating employees like humans. Great cultures make for a great experience, while toxic cultures drain and demoralize, she says. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/02/01/what-exactly-is-the-employee-experience/ | 0.694553 |
Can beer help a mom breastfeed? | In Maryland, beer enthusiasts love February. They've even renamed it "FeBREWary" to celebrate the joy of drinking craft beers all month long. Its not intended, of course, for pregnant or nursing mothers. But theres an old bit of folk wisdom that downing a beer, particularly a stout, can help increase milk production. Well, not exactly. In order for a food or drink to help lactation, it has to contain a galactagogue, a chemical that increases milk production. According to a 2017 study in the International Journal of Womens Health, 76 percent of breastfeeding mothers said they were not making enough milk for their children. This same study showed that while one quarter of infants are still breastfed when they turn 1 years old, nearly one-third of mothers stop breastfeeding before then because they believe they cant produce enough milk. Moms are as apt to listen to folk wisdom as anyone else. Kelly Ripa even broached the topic on her show "Live with Kelly and Ryan" on Jan. 28. "Thats the beer," she said. "Thats like a breast milk producer ... no its true! If, like, you have a hard time producing breast milk, the doctor will say drink a stout beer." STOCK PHOTO/Getty Images Unfortunately for FeBREWarians who might be thinking -- this is permission to drink up -- beer is not really a galactagogue. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend drinking alcohol while breastfeeding and alcohol itself does not increase milk production or help moms breastfeed. There is some evidence, however, that the polysaccharide carbohydrates found in beer, such as barley and hops, do increase milk production, but these are also found in non-alcoholic beer. Other plant products like fenugreek, Coleus amboinicus Lour -- known also as Mexican mint -- or palm dates do, in fact, appear to increase milk production, according to one recent medical review. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends breastfeeding mothers avoid alcohol but notes that an occasional or celebratory standard size drink (12 oz. of 5 percent beer) wont be harmful to the baby. Because alcohol does enter breast milk within 30-60 minutes, the CDC recommends waiting a minimum of two hours after drinking before breastfeeding. Alcohol from three drinks will still be detected in breast milk six to eight hours later, and pumping and discarding the milk during that time window (known as pumping and dumping) wont change that. Of course, everyone should drink responsibly, not just breastfeeding moms. And drinking alcohol during pregnancy is something doctors still advise against. Breastfeeding moms may want to pack some healthy snacks to bring to any FeBREWary events to help avoid any temptation. Alexandra H. Antonioli, Ph.D., is completing a combined M.D./Ph.D. training at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. She is currently working with the ABC News Medical Unit. | There's an old bit of folk wisdom that downing a beer, particularly a stout, can help increase milk production. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend drinking alcohol while breastfeeding. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://abcnews.go.com/Health/beer-mom-breastfeed/story?id=60733047 | 0.17028 |
Can beer help a mom breastfeed? | In Maryland, beer enthusiasts love February. They've even renamed it "FeBREWary" to celebrate the joy of drinking craft beers all month long. Its not intended, of course, for pregnant or nursing mothers. But theres an old bit of folk wisdom that downing a beer, particularly a stout, can help increase milk production. Well, not exactly. In order for a food or drink to help lactation, it has to contain a galactagogue, a chemical that increases milk production. According to a 2017 study in the International Journal of Womens Health, 76 percent of breastfeeding mothers said they were not making enough milk for their children. This same study showed that while one quarter of infants are still breastfed when they turn 1 years old, nearly one-third of mothers stop breastfeeding before then because they believe they cant produce enough milk. Moms are as apt to listen to folk wisdom as anyone else. Kelly Ripa even broached the topic on her show "Live with Kelly and Ryan" on Jan. 28. "Thats the beer," she said. "Thats like a breast milk producer ... no its true! If, like, you have a hard time producing breast milk, the doctor will say drink a stout beer." STOCK PHOTO/Getty Images Unfortunately for FeBREWarians who might be thinking -- this is permission to drink up -- beer is not really a galactagogue. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend drinking alcohol while breastfeeding and alcohol itself does not increase milk production or help moms breastfeed. There is some evidence, however, that the polysaccharide carbohydrates found in beer, such as barley and hops, do increase milk production, but these are also found in non-alcoholic beer. Other plant products like fenugreek, Coleus amboinicus Lour -- known also as Mexican mint -- or palm dates do, in fact, appear to increase milk production, according to one recent medical review. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends breastfeeding mothers avoid alcohol but notes that an occasional or celebratory standard size drink (12 oz. of 5 percent beer) wont be harmful to the baby. Because alcohol does enter breast milk within 30-60 minutes, the CDC recommends waiting a minimum of two hours after drinking before breastfeeding. Alcohol from three drinks will still be detected in breast milk six to eight hours later, and pumping and discarding the milk during that time window (known as pumping and dumping) wont change that. Of course, everyone should drink responsibly, not just breastfeeding moms. And drinking alcohol during pregnancy is something doctors still advise against. Breastfeeding moms may want to pack some healthy snacks to bring to any FeBREWary events to help avoid any temptation. Alexandra H. Antonioli, Ph.D., is completing a combined M.D./Ph.D. training at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. She is currently working with the ABC News Medical Unit. | There's an old bit of folk wisdom that downing a beer, particularly a stout, can help increase milk production. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend drinking alcohol while breastfeeding and alcohol itself does not increase milkproduction or help moms breastfeed. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://abcnews.go.com/Health/beer-mom-breastfeed/story?id=60733047 | 0.330494 |
Is the White House Trying to Keep a Congressman Quiet on the Health Care Bill and Taxpayer-Funded Abortion? | This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," December 23, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. Well, our next guest is a congressman and he says the answer is yes. But he's telling the White House to take a hike because he's talking to you right here, right now. Congressman Bart Stupak got the pro-life Stupak amendment into the House health care bill, and that amendment would ban taxpayer money from funding any health insurance plan that covers abortion. The Senate came up with an abortion compromise, but many in the pro-life movement says it does not go far enough. Congressman Stupak says the White House gave him a not so subtle message. Congressman Stupak joins us by phone. Good evening, sir. REP. BART STUPAK, D - MICH. (Via telephone): Well, they asked me not to say anything until they had a chance to walk me through the amendment and wanted -- apparently, they had just reached an agreement. They wanted the vote to go through the other day, so they said, Be just quiet and don't say anything until we get done with this vote and walking you through the amendment. And I gave them a few hours, and I just said, I don't need you to walk me through the amendment. I can read, and this amendment is unacceptable. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And you're talking about the Senator Ben Nelson Senate amendment that is... STUPAK: Correct. It's not -- doesn't go as far as the Stupak amendment does in the House. STUPAK: No, no. The bill's amendment, besides firewall, does a number of things that's a dramatic break from current policy. The Stupak amendment keeps current policy, which says no federal funding for abortion and no federal funding for insurance policies that have abortion as a benefit. What the Nelson language does, besides the firewall, it, number one, recognize abortion as a benefit in the federal -- as a benefit underneath the federal plan. Number two, it says that at least one plan -- could be nine out of ten plans, but at least one plan must have abortion coverage. Number three, ever enrollee in the exchange (INAUDIBLE) OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, they call it -- would have to pay $1 per month for reproductive rights, which would include abortion coverage. So the Nelson amendment deviates many ways from current law and from the Stupak amendment. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, when the two bills come together in conference, because I assume that the bill's going to be -- is passed tomorrow in the United States Senate so that it will go to the -- be reconciled with the House bill -- there seem to be three options. Either the bill that comes out of the reconciliation will be with the Stupak amendment or with the Senator Ben Nelson compromise or some sort of compromise between the two. STUPAK: Sure. I've repeatedly mentioned to the White House and leadership and Senate leadership that twice we have voted on language close to Stupak but not quite Stupak in the children's health initiative program this year, in April of this year, when we voted to expand it to 10 million children under the S-CHIP program. The president signed that into law. That had restrictive language on abortion. And then recently, even after the Stupak amendment, we voted on the labor/HHS appropriations bill, which basically has the Stupak language in it, and again, recently signed by the president. So what I've done in my amendment is (INAUDIBLE) in those two pieces of legislation that all these people who can't vote for the Stupak amendment have voted for and the president has even signed it into law. So there is precedent here. There is legislation we can look at that's already been signed into law. We all voted for it. Let's use that as our reference point and put that in the health care bill. Then we can move off the abortion issue and get the health care issue. VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think that Senator Ben Nelson, who has been pro-life, didn't want -- I mean, I know that he tried to -- he tried to introduce the -- or tried to get the language of the Stupak amendment initially into the Senate bill. But then he agreed... STUPAK: Correct (INAUDIBLE) VAN SUSTEREN: ... to this. STUPAK: Right. I think he felt that he was actually making the language that was in the bill, that was originally in the Reid bill -- he thinks, and in a way, he has, because if a state opts out, then they won't have to have this abortion coverage -- in a way, he made the language better. It's better than what was introduced in the Senate. But it's not as good as the Stupak amendment and it's not reflective of current law. All Stupak amendment (INAUDIBLE) all we're saying is keep the current law. As your last guest, Senator Graham, said, you're expanding the federal role in the health care. He claims 60 percent of them are in a government-sponsored program. He says they'll go to 80. Well, if you're expanding from 60 to 80, why not just keep the current prohibitions in place that have been in place for 33 years, no public funding for abortion, and then let's really argue about health care and have health care pass for the American people. STUPAK: Oh, I think we got a long ways to go. Members I've talked to in the last 48, 72 hours are really concerned about some of the provisions in the Senate bill, especially those (INAUDIBLE) you know, some states got special deals and we feel it's unfair. We're here trying to provide a policy which is a health care policy, not a legislation that who gets the best for their state or who gets the best deal for this insurance company in their state. That's not what health care should be all about. (INAUDIBLE) talking about national health care, we should have all Americans covered and we're all in this together and it should be equitable and fair, no matter where you live. The quality of your health care or how much you pay should not depend on where you live. VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman, thank you, sir. STUPAK: Thank you. Content and Programming Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC, which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation. | Rep. Bart Stupak: White House asked me not to say anything until they had a chance to walk me through the amendment. St upak amendment would ban taxpayer money from funding health insurance plans that cover abortion. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.foxnews.com/story/is-the-white-house-trying-to-keep-a-congressman-quiet-on-the-health-care-bill-and-taxpayer-funded-abortion | 0.221576 |
Is the White House Trying to Keep a Congressman Quiet on the Health Care Bill and Taxpayer-Funded Abortion? | This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," December 23, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. Well, our next guest is a congressman and he says the answer is yes. But he's telling the White House to take a hike because he's talking to you right here, right now. Congressman Bart Stupak got the pro-life Stupak amendment into the House health care bill, and that amendment would ban taxpayer money from funding any health insurance plan that covers abortion. The Senate came up with an abortion compromise, but many in the pro-life movement says it does not go far enough. Congressman Stupak says the White House gave him a not so subtle message. Congressman Stupak joins us by phone. Good evening, sir. REP. BART STUPAK, D - MICH. (Via telephone): Well, they asked me not to say anything until they had a chance to walk me through the amendment and wanted -- apparently, they had just reached an agreement. They wanted the vote to go through the other day, so they said, Be just quiet and don't say anything until we get done with this vote and walking you through the amendment. And I gave them a few hours, and I just said, I don't need you to walk me through the amendment. I can read, and this amendment is unacceptable. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And you're talking about the Senator Ben Nelson Senate amendment that is... STUPAK: Correct. It's not -- doesn't go as far as the Stupak amendment does in the House. STUPAK: No, no. The bill's amendment, besides firewall, does a number of things that's a dramatic break from current policy. The Stupak amendment keeps current policy, which says no federal funding for abortion and no federal funding for insurance policies that have abortion as a benefit. What the Nelson language does, besides the firewall, it, number one, recognize abortion as a benefit in the federal -- as a benefit underneath the federal plan. Number two, it says that at least one plan -- could be nine out of ten plans, but at least one plan must have abortion coverage. Number three, ever enrollee in the exchange (INAUDIBLE) OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, they call it -- would have to pay $1 per month for reproductive rights, which would include abortion coverage. So the Nelson amendment deviates many ways from current law and from the Stupak amendment. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, when the two bills come together in conference, because I assume that the bill's going to be -- is passed tomorrow in the United States Senate so that it will go to the -- be reconciled with the House bill -- there seem to be three options. Either the bill that comes out of the reconciliation will be with the Stupak amendment or with the Senator Ben Nelson compromise or some sort of compromise between the two. STUPAK: Sure. I've repeatedly mentioned to the White House and leadership and Senate leadership that twice we have voted on language close to Stupak but not quite Stupak in the children's health initiative program this year, in April of this year, when we voted to expand it to 10 million children under the S-CHIP program. The president signed that into law. That had restrictive language on abortion. And then recently, even after the Stupak amendment, we voted on the labor/HHS appropriations bill, which basically has the Stupak language in it, and again, recently signed by the president. So what I've done in my amendment is (INAUDIBLE) in those two pieces of legislation that all these people who can't vote for the Stupak amendment have voted for and the president has even signed it into law. So there is precedent here. There is legislation we can look at that's already been signed into law. We all voted for it. Let's use that as our reference point and put that in the health care bill. Then we can move off the abortion issue and get the health care issue. VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think that Senator Ben Nelson, who has been pro-life, didn't want -- I mean, I know that he tried to -- he tried to introduce the -- or tried to get the language of the Stupak amendment initially into the Senate bill. But then he agreed... STUPAK: Correct (INAUDIBLE) VAN SUSTEREN: ... to this. STUPAK: Right. I think he felt that he was actually making the language that was in the bill, that was originally in the Reid bill -- he thinks, and in a way, he has, because if a state opts out, then they won't have to have this abortion coverage -- in a way, he made the language better. It's better than what was introduced in the Senate. But it's not as good as the Stupak amendment and it's not reflective of current law. All Stupak amendment (INAUDIBLE) all we're saying is keep the current law. As your last guest, Senator Graham, said, you're expanding the federal role in the health care. He claims 60 percent of them are in a government-sponsored program. He says they'll go to 80. Well, if you're expanding from 60 to 80, why not just keep the current prohibitions in place that have been in place for 33 years, no public funding for abortion, and then let's really argue about health care and have health care pass for the American people. STUPAK: Oh, I think we got a long ways to go. Members I've talked to in the last 48, 72 hours are really concerned about some of the provisions in the Senate bill, especially those (INAUDIBLE) you know, some states got special deals and we feel it's unfair. We're here trying to provide a policy which is a health care policy, not a legislation that who gets the best for their state or who gets the best deal for this insurance company in their state. That's not what health care should be all about. (INAUDIBLE) talking about national health care, we should have all Americans covered and we're all in this together and it should be equitable and fair, no matter where you live. The quality of your health care or how much you pay should not depend on where you live. VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman, thank you, sir. STUPAK: Thank you. Content and Programming Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC, which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation. | Rep. Bart Stupak: White House asked me not to say anything until they had a chance to walk me through the amendment. St upak amendment would ban taxpayer money from funding any health insurance plan that covers abortion. The Senate came up with an abortion compromise, but many in the pro-life movement says it does not go far enough. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.foxnews.com/story/is-the-white-house-trying-to-keep-a-congressman-quiet-on-the-health-care-bill-and-taxpayer-funded-abortion | 0.327784 |
Is there a Democrat who can go insult-to-insult with Donald Trump in 2020? | CLOSE According to a new poll, President Donald Trump has some challenges to overcome among the voters in 2020, while the race in the Democratic Party appears to be wide open. Veuer's Justin Kircher has the breakdown. Buzz60 Opinion: The president is unlikely to get many GOP challengers, but already the Democratic field is full. Let's run through the list and its prospects. Its official: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is running for the White House. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced her candidacy as well. And, most recently, Sen. Kamala Harris jumped in the race. It might be easier to list those who arent running. Basically, everyone youve ever heard of (and many you havent) think they have a shot in the next presidential election. Theyve assessed our current POTUS and smell blood in the Potomac. Looking at presidential history, Trump should be in a good position to get another four years. The incumbent always has an advantage, especially with a strong economy and troops returning home. But if we learned anything from 2016, the usual is in short supply. Anything can happen and likely will. Few say they'd vote for Trump in 2020 A Washington PostABC News poll recently showed that 56 percent of respondents would "definitely not vote for" Trump, while only 28 percent said they "definitely" would. The majority of Democrats dont have any particular candidate in mind to replace him, rendering their primary wide open. Thats why you see an endless roll call of Democrats flirting with a run. Candidates with high name recognition are septuagenarians Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Younger prospects with a national following include Beto ORourke, Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard. CLOSE Former vice president Joe Biden is expected to soon announce whether he will join the field of Democrats vying to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020. Daniel Sato, The News Journal Thats eight candidates so far, but were just getting started. Obama-era U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and HUD Secretary Julin Castro are making moves for 2020. From the Senate, theres Michael Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar and Jeff Merkley. And we have governors! Steve Bullock (Mont. ), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Jay Inslee (Wash.), and Terry McAuliffe (Va.) might take their executive success to the Beltway. There's no shortage of challengers There are mayors (Pete Buttigieg, Bill DeBlasio, Eric Garcetti) and congressmembers (John Delaney, Joe Kennedy III, Eric Swalwell) and business tycoons (Mike Bloomberg, Andrew Yang). Each of these names has been floated for the highest office with several more behind them. The way the race is shaping up, the Democratic primary debates will need to drop the lecterns and install bleachers instead. Most Republicans arent worried about a President Pete Buttigieg (hes the mayor of South Bend, Ind., by the way), but Donald Trump broke the primary mold. The day he descended the golden escalator to announce his candidacy, no Democrats were worrying about him either. CLOSE Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz spoke with ASU President Michael Crow at a town hall and answered questions about a potential run for president. Thomas Hawthorne, The Republic | azcentral.com As the frontrunners attack each other through the primaries, a seeming also-ran could be the only candidate left standing. Once we get to the general election, we could have two major party candidates that voters arent especially fond of. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is betting on that as he considers launching an independent bid. Democrats are terrified that a centrist Schultz could pull votes away from their nominee. Republicans should worry too, especially as they watch females and suburbanites flee from the president in droves. Even GOP candidates are considering a primary challenge. Former Sen. Jeff Flake has demurred, but Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Ohios John Kasich see an opening. The Washington PostABC News poll showed that a third of Republicans want a different nominee. Predictions are deadly this far out, but no Republican will best Trump outside of a disastrous Mueller outcome or similar scandal. Any House move to impeach him will likely rally his party to his side. As for the Democrats, most voters just want a candidate any candidate who can stand toe-to-toe with Trump on the debate stage. And match him insult-to-insult. Jon Gabriel, a Mesa resident, is editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com and a contributor to The Republic and azcentral.com. Follow him on Twitter at @exjon. Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/02/01/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-match-trump/2733829002/ | The Democratic field for the 2020 presidential race is wide open. Most Democrats don't have any particular candidate in mind. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/02/01/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-match-trump/2733829002/ | 0.103522 |
Is there a Democrat who can go insult-to-insult with Donald Trump in 2020? | CLOSE According to a new poll, President Donald Trump has some challenges to overcome among the voters in 2020, while the race in the Democratic Party appears to be wide open. Veuer's Justin Kircher has the breakdown. Buzz60 Opinion: The president is unlikely to get many GOP challengers, but already the Democratic field is full. Let's run through the list and its prospects. Its official: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is running for the White House. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced her candidacy as well. And, most recently, Sen. Kamala Harris jumped in the race. It might be easier to list those who arent running. Basically, everyone youve ever heard of (and many you havent) think they have a shot in the next presidential election. Theyve assessed our current POTUS and smell blood in the Potomac. Looking at presidential history, Trump should be in a good position to get another four years. The incumbent always has an advantage, especially with a strong economy and troops returning home. But if we learned anything from 2016, the usual is in short supply. Anything can happen and likely will. Few say they'd vote for Trump in 2020 A Washington PostABC News poll recently showed that 56 percent of respondents would "definitely not vote for" Trump, while only 28 percent said they "definitely" would. The majority of Democrats dont have any particular candidate in mind to replace him, rendering their primary wide open. Thats why you see an endless roll call of Democrats flirting with a run. Candidates with high name recognition are septuagenarians Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Younger prospects with a national following include Beto ORourke, Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard. CLOSE Former vice president Joe Biden is expected to soon announce whether he will join the field of Democrats vying to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020. Daniel Sato, The News Journal Thats eight candidates so far, but were just getting started. Obama-era U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and HUD Secretary Julin Castro are making moves for 2020. From the Senate, theres Michael Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar and Jeff Merkley. And we have governors! Steve Bullock (Mont. ), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Jay Inslee (Wash.), and Terry McAuliffe (Va.) might take their executive success to the Beltway. There's no shortage of challengers There are mayors (Pete Buttigieg, Bill DeBlasio, Eric Garcetti) and congressmembers (John Delaney, Joe Kennedy III, Eric Swalwell) and business tycoons (Mike Bloomberg, Andrew Yang). Each of these names has been floated for the highest office with several more behind them. The way the race is shaping up, the Democratic primary debates will need to drop the lecterns and install bleachers instead. Most Republicans arent worried about a President Pete Buttigieg (hes the mayor of South Bend, Ind., by the way), but Donald Trump broke the primary mold. The day he descended the golden escalator to announce his candidacy, no Democrats were worrying about him either. CLOSE Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz spoke with ASU President Michael Crow at a town hall and answered questions about a potential run for president. Thomas Hawthorne, The Republic | azcentral.com As the frontrunners attack each other through the primaries, a seeming also-ran could be the only candidate left standing. Once we get to the general election, we could have two major party candidates that voters arent especially fond of. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is betting on that as he considers launching an independent bid. Democrats are terrified that a centrist Schultz could pull votes away from their nominee. Republicans should worry too, especially as they watch females and suburbanites flee from the president in droves. Even GOP candidates are considering a primary challenge. Former Sen. Jeff Flake has demurred, but Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Ohios John Kasich see an opening. The Washington PostABC News poll showed that a third of Republicans want a different nominee. Predictions are deadly this far out, but no Republican will best Trump outside of a disastrous Mueller outcome or similar scandal. Any House move to impeach him will likely rally his party to his side. As for the Democrats, most voters just want a candidate any candidate who can stand toe-to-toe with Trump on the debate stage. And match him insult-to-insult. Jon Gabriel, a Mesa resident, is editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com and a contributor to The Republic and azcentral.com. Follow him on Twitter at @exjon. Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/02/01/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-match-trump/2733829002/ | The Democratic field for the 2020 presidential race is wide open. Most Democrats don't have any particular candidate in mind to replace Trump. There's no shortage of challengers, including mayors, governors and congressmen. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/02/01/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-match-trump/2733829002/ | 0.215181 |
Is there a Democrat who can go insult-to-insult with Donald Trump in 2020? | CLOSE According to a new poll, President Donald Trump has some challenges to overcome among the voters in 2020, while the race in the Democratic Party appears to be wide open. Veuer's Justin Kircher has the breakdown. Buzz60 Opinion: The president is unlikely to get many GOP challengers, but already the Democratic field is full. Let's run through the list and its prospects. Its official: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is running for the White House. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced her candidacy as well. And, most recently, Sen. Kamala Harris jumped in the race. It might be easier to list those who arent running. Basically, everyone youve ever heard of (and many you havent) think they have a shot in the next presidential election. Theyve assessed our current POTUS and smell blood in the Potomac. Looking at presidential history, Trump should be in a good position to get another four years. The incumbent always has an advantage, especially with a strong economy and troops returning home. But if we learned anything from 2016, the usual is in short supply. Anything can happen and likely will. Few say they'd vote for Trump in 2020 A Washington PostABC News poll recently showed that 56 percent of respondents would "definitely not vote for" Trump, while only 28 percent said they "definitely" would. The majority of Democrats dont have any particular candidate in mind to replace him, rendering their primary wide open. Thats why you see an endless roll call of Democrats flirting with a run. Candidates with high name recognition are septuagenarians Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Younger prospects with a national following include Beto ORourke, Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard. CLOSE Former vice president Joe Biden is expected to soon announce whether he will join the field of Democrats vying to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020. Daniel Sato, The News Journal Thats eight candidates so far, but were just getting started. Obama-era U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and HUD Secretary Julin Castro are making moves for 2020. From the Senate, theres Michael Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar and Jeff Merkley. And we have governors! Steve Bullock (Mont. ), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Jay Inslee (Wash.), and Terry McAuliffe (Va.) might take their executive success to the Beltway. There's no shortage of challengers There are mayors (Pete Buttigieg, Bill DeBlasio, Eric Garcetti) and congressmembers (John Delaney, Joe Kennedy III, Eric Swalwell) and business tycoons (Mike Bloomberg, Andrew Yang). Each of these names has been floated for the highest office with several more behind them. The way the race is shaping up, the Democratic primary debates will need to drop the lecterns and install bleachers instead. Most Republicans arent worried about a President Pete Buttigieg (hes the mayor of South Bend, Ind., by the way), but Donald Trump broke the primary mold. The day he descended the golden escalator to announce his candidacy, no Democrats were worrying about him either. CLOSE Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz spoke with ASU President Michael Crow at a town hall and answered questions about a potential run for president. Thomas Hawthorne, The Republic | azcentral.com As the frontrunners attack each other through the primaries, a seeming also-ran could be the only candidate left standing. Once we get to the general election, we could have two major party candidates that voters arent especially fond of. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is betting on that as he considers launching an independent bid. Democrats are terrified that a centrist Schultz could pull votes away from their nominee. Republicans should worry too, especially as they watch females and suburbanites flee from the president in droves. Even GOP candidates are considering a primary challenge. Former Sen. Jeff Flake has demurred, but Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Ohios John Kasich see an opening. The Washington PostABC News poll showed that a third of Republicans want a different nominee. Predictions are deadly this far out, but no Republican will best Trump outside of a disastrous Mueller outcome or similar scandal. Any House move to impeach him will likely rally his party to his side. As for the Democrats, most voters just want a candidate any candidate who can stand toe-to-toe with Trump on the debate stage. And match him insult-to-insult. Jon Gabriel, a Mesa resident, is editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com and a contributor to The Republic and azcentral.com. Follow him on Twitter at @exjon. Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/02/01/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-match-trump/2733829002/ | The Democratic field for the 2020 presidential race is wide open. Most Democrats don't have any particular candidate in mind to replace Trump. There's no shortage of challengers, including mayors, governors, congressmen and business tycoons. A seeming also-ran could be the only candidate in 2020. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/02/01/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-match-trump/2733829002/ | 0.271209 |
Will The Illinois Supreme Court Free Chicago's Food Trucks? | Last week, Laura Pekarik, owner of the food truck Courageous Cupcakes, watched as her more than six-year legal challenge to Chicagos protectionist mobile vending rules reached the Illinois Supreme Court. Her son, who is younger than the lawsuit, sat next to her quietly listening to the attorneys and justices discuss whether his mothers food truck and others will have a future in the Windy City. Right now, the rules are stacked against Pekarik and other Chicago area food trucks. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a recent analysis of food truck rules in Americas largest cities, concluded that, The experience of operating a food truck in Chicago is perhaps one of the most difficult in the country. The Chicago Tribune reports that only about 65 trucks operate in the city. That is just over half the number that operated in 2012. What makes this especially striking is that most major cities have seen a boom in the number of food trucks on their streets. Portland, Oregon, for example, is one quarter the size of Chicago but has more food trucks. This case presents two major issues to the Illinois Supreme Court: whether the city government may hobble mobile vendors in order to financially benefit brick-and-mortar restaurants and whether it may force food trucks to submit to GPS tracking. Chicago bans food trucks, whether operating on public or private property, from operating within 200 feet of any establishment that serves food. This includes everything from white table cloth restaurants to convenience stores. The map below from an Institute for Justice report shows how Chicagos 200-foot rule makes the city center almost completely inaccessible to trucks. The citys attorney, citing years-old testimony, claimed that Pekarik admitted her truck had no trouble operating in Chicagos Loop. If you watch closely, at the moment this claim is made, Lauras eyes widen. Thats because the reality is that it has been years since she regularly sent her food truck into the city because her operators simply couldnt find legal spaces. The city claims that the proximity ban is an attempt to control sidewalk congestion, yet it could not cite a single study that supports its claims that food truck lines are a threat to public safety. In fact, the citys attorney was reduced to misconstruing an Institute for Justice on sidewalk congestion to try, unsuccessfully, to make her point. This study, in fact, showed that the presence of a food truck had little to no effect on the time it took for a pedestrian to walk a block. Several of the justices showed skepticism about the citys congestion claims. Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier pointed out that there would perhaps be more congestion in front of a crosswalk or theater rather than a restaurant. Justice Anne Burke followed up saying that there are no rules for other businesses that could cause lines, including theaters and retail outlets. Of course, Chicagos 200-foot rule has nothing to do with congestion. City lawmakers made that much clear when they repeatedly stated its purpose is to protect restaurants from competition. Mayor Rahm Emanuels own press release stated that the 2012 ordinance protects traditional restaurants. Illinoiss high court and a number of other state supreme courts have long recognized that such explicitly anti-competitive laws are unconstitutional. On top of the unconstitutional rationale at the heart of the law, Chicago requires food truck owners to submit to an unconstitutional search as a condition of operating. Every truck must have a GPS tracking device installed at the cost of the truck owner. The location data is stored by a private third-party company and both a trucks current location, as well as everywhere its been for at least the past six months, is available to the public upon request. The city knows its on shaky ground with this requirement, especially the public accessibility requirement. Just three weeks before the Supreme Court argument, the city created new regulations stating that the GPS coordinates are not available to the public. They didnt, however, change the law, which still says the exact opposite. The private company that Pekarik contracts with for GPS services indicated that it would abide by the law and provide private individuals with access to Lauras data if requested. In fact, the company indicated that it had already complied with at least one request for GPS data. But that request didnt come from city officials. Even though the city requires GPS tracking to enforce its 200-foot rule, it claimed its food inspectors would also need this data in order to conduct field inspections. But in more than six years, the city has never requested the location of any food truck. Food truck owners then are being forced to submit to an unconstitutional search that is completely unnecessary for any legitimate end. The justices had a number of questions for the city attorney about the GPS requirement, including whether caterers in the city are subject to a similar rule that they keep the city informed about where they operate. Justice Burke also asked the citys attorney to confirm that the food truck owners have to pay for their own monitoring. Whether food trucks will have much of a future in Chicago is now in the hands of the justices. But a ruling for food trucks wouldnt be a ruling against restaurants; if anything, the presence of food trucks has been shown to increase the foot traffic into nearby restaurants. IJ Senior Attorney Robert Frommer noted that Chicago lawmakers claims about the need to protect restaurants is contradicted by the real-world evidence of New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., all of which have both vibrant restaurant and vending industries without any kind of anti-competitive rules like the 200-foot rule. The only thing Chicago is doing for its citizens with its protectionism is limiting their food options and knocking out the first rung of the ladder in the food services industry. If the justices rule for Pekarik and the food trucks, mobile and brick-and-mortar food providers will flourish side-by-side, and Chicagoans will discover new cuisine that could one day become as iconic as the Chicago hot dog or deep dish pizza. | Laura Pekarik, owner of the food truck Courageous Cupcakes, watched as her more than six-year legal challenge to Chicagos mobile vending rules reached the Illinois Supreme Court. | bart | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2019/02/01/will-the-illinois-supreme-court-free-chicagos-food-trucks/ | 0.100686 |
Will The Illinois Supreme Court Free Chicago's Food Trucks? | Last week, Laura Pekarik, owner of the food truck Courageous Cupcakes, watched as her more than six-year legal challenge to Chicagos protectionist mobile vending rules reached the Illinois Supreme Court. Her son, who is younger than the lawsuit, sat next to her quietly listening to the attorneys and justices discuss whether his mothers food truck and others will have a future in the Windy City. Right now, the rules are stacked against Pekarik and other Chicago area food trucks. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a recent analysis of food truck rules in Americas largest cities, concluded that, The experience of operating a food truck in Chicago is perhaps one of the most difficult in the country. The Chicago Tribune reports that only about 65 trucks operate in the city. That is just over half the number that operated in 2012. What makes this especially striking is that most major cities have seen a boom in the number of food trucks on their streets. Portland, Oregon, for example, is one quarter the size of Chicago but has more food trucks. This case presents two major issues to the Illinois Supreme Court: whether the city government may hobble mobile vendors in order to financially benefit brick-and-mortar restaurants and whether it may force food trucks to submit to GPS tracking. Chicago bans food trucks, whether operating on public or private property, from operating within 200 feet of any establishment that serves food. This includes everything from white table cloth restaurants to convenience stores. The map below from an Institute for Justice report shows how Chicagos 200-foot rule makes the city center almost completely inaccessible to trucks. The citys attorney, citing years-old testimony, claimed that Pekarik admitted her truck had no trouble operating in Chicagos Loop. If you watch closely, at the moment this claim is made, Lauras eyes widen. Thats because the reality is that it has been years since she regularly sent her food truck into the city because her operators simply couldnt find legal spaces. The city claims that the proximity ban is an attempt to control sidewalk congestion, yet it could not cite a single study that supports its claims that food truck lines are a threat to public safety. In fact, the citys attorney was reduced to misconstruing an Institute for Justice on sidewalk congestion to try, unsuccessfully, to make her point. This study, in fact, showed that the presence of a food truck had little to no effect on the time it took for a pedestrian to walk a block. Several of the justices showed skepticism about the citys congestion claims. Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier pointed out that there would perhaps be more congestion in front of a crosswalk or theater rather than a restaurant. Justice Anne Burke followed up saying that there are no rules for other businesses that could cause lines, including theaters and retail outlets. Of course, Chicagos 200-foot rule has nothing to do with congestion. City lawmakers made that much clear when they repeatedly stated its purpose is to protect restaurants from competition. Mayor Rahm Emanuels own press release stated that the 2012 ordinance protects traditional restaurants. Illinoiss high court and a number of other state supreme courts have long recognized that such explicitly anti-competitive laws are unconstitutional. On top of the unconstitutional rationale at the heart of the law, Chicago requires food truck owners to submit to an unconstitutional search as a condition of operating. Every truck must have a GPS tracking device installed at the cost of the truck owner. The location data is stored by a private third-party company and both a trucks current location, as well as everywhere its been for at least the past six months, is available to the public upon request. The city knows its on shaky ground with this requirement, especially the public accessibility requirement. Just three weeks before the Supreme Court argument, the city created new regulations stating that the GPS coordinates are not available to the public. They didnt, however, change the law, which still says the exact opposite. The private company that Pekarik contracts with for GPS services indicated that it would abide by the law and provide private individuals with access to Lauras data if requested. In fact, the company indicated that it had already complied with at least one request for GPS data. But that request didnt come from city officials. Even though the city requires GPS tracking to enforce its 200-foot rule, it claimed its food inspectors would also need this data in order to conduct field inspections. But in more than six years, the city has never requested the location of any food truck. Food truck owners then are being forced to submit to an unconstitutional search that is completely unnecessary for any legitimate end. The justices had a number of questions for the city attorney about the GPS requirement, including whether caterers in the city are subject to a similar rule that they keep the city informed about where they operate. Justice Burke also asked the citys attorney to confirm that the food truck owners have to pay for their own monitoring. Whether food trucks will have much of a future in Chicago is now in the hands of the justices. But a ruling for food trucks wouldnt be a ruling against restaurants; if anything, the presence of food trucks has been shown to increase the foot traffic into nearby restaurants. IJ Senior Attorney Robert Frommer noted that Chicago lawmakers claims about the need to protect restaurants is contradicted by the real-world evidence of New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., all of which have both vibrant restaurant and vending industries without any kind of anti-competitive rules like the 200-foot rule. The only thing Chicago is doing for its citizens with its protectionism is limiting their food options and knocking out the first rung of the ladder in the food services industry. If the justices rule for Pekarik and the food trucks, mobile and brick-and-mortar food providers will flourish side-by-side, and Chicagoans will discover new cuisine that could one day become as iconic as the Chicago hot dog or deep dish pizza. | Chicago has one of the toughest food truck laws in the U.S., says Danny Cevallos. He says the city's ban on food trucks is unconstitutional and is hurting traditional restaurants. Cevalls on the Illinois Supreme Court to free Chicago's food trucks. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2019/02/01/will-the-illinois-supreme-court-free-chicagos-food-trucks/ | 0.210639 |
Can A New Service-Based Blockchain Business Model Deliver For Online Gaming? | Doubtlessly, ever since the dawn of the blockchain technology in 2008, industries have been revolutionized by the uncontested decentralization, security and transparency it delivers to traditional systems. The online gaming industry has experienced exponential growth in the past few years. In a span of 9 years from 2009 to 2018, the industry has grown from $20.51 billion to $51.96 billion, stapling it as one of the most lucrative and rapidly-growing industries to date. Studies show that 11% of all internet traffic is from online casino players. In the UK, the industry has increased by 300% since the new legislation in 2014. This spiked the industrys value in the UK to 6.7 billion, and by 2024, global online gambling is expected to rise up to $94.4 billion with a compound annual rate (CAGR) of around 10.9%. The blockchain protocol, alongside its irrefutable cryptographic techniques, has provided solutions to the then-unsolvable problems of centralized systems, specifically with regards to trust and privacy. This is the very reason why the blockchain itself has found its way from the most basic industries such as cryptocurrency, money transfer, and data networks, up to the most complex such as DNA databanks, and AI consciousness clouds. Together with versatility, imagination is the limit of this nascent tech. Blockchain-based technology users know that for every action, theres an equal and opposite transaction. However, they also know that fees are Blockchains Achilles heel, since miners and verifiers require to be rewarded in exchange for their service in keeping the blockchain ledger going. Each block being added to the chain requires a fee. This also applies to usage of other features of the whole ecosystem as well as other factors such as transaction sizes (measured in KB), network congestion and liquidity providers. As a matter of fact, there is a fee for every action on the chain. For the frequent loyal users of blockchain, this means fees on top of extra fees. Albeit lower than those of traditional counterparts, these fees are still an aspect of the blockchain technology that needs improvement. A new blockchain company named Faireum can be seen as The new kid on the block as it presents a new solution to protect users from incurring high extra fees with a service-based business model for the online gambling industry. With the innovations brought by its independent blockchain technology, Faireum aims to revolutionize the way users experience online gambling. Due to online gamings enormous size and overwhelming growth, as well as the common problems it faces, this will serve as a good ground to prove Faireums blockchain-as-a-service business model as the solution also to the pressing problem of high extra fees. As Faireum has its own token, called FAIRC, users are able to convert fiat money and other crypto, and use them for placing stakes on Faireums official gambling platform as well as availing themselves of its blockchain services. With this tokenization, Faireum claims that it will lessen transaction costs and eliminate delayed payouts by abolishing intermediaries by a completely automated and trust-free system. Faireum sees a sustainable business model service in their blockchain and its underlying technology as, instead of charging fee after fee for every transaction, The company will be using a subscription model for their services. This is their solution to maximize each players odds and minimize entry fees while at the same time ensuring a sustainable business for providers. Faireum also intervenes for customers because as customer loyalty and rewards are often overlooked in the existing blockchain business model, users feel unincentivized and unappreciated for their loyalty towards using the technology. With the traditional on-line casinos, players do not receive rewards for their loyalty. In the event that they lose, they do not get any form of compensation. Because of this, many online companies have lost customers. With the adoption of Faireum, online gambling steps are offering returns to players depending on the losses theyve incurred. Some online platforms even propose special bonuses for their players. For instance, some platforms return to customers 10% of all the money theyve lost in a month. These returns are made possible by reduced transaction costs courtesy of blockchain technology. Increased trust and transparency are also of utmost importance. In the past, there have been claims that online casinos are using scams and underhand methods to rob their clients, hence the phrase, the house always wins. Some proven cases of fraud on these online platforms cause many people to stay away from these sites. When a player realizes that the odds are stacked against him because of a lack of transparency, hell inevitably avoid the platform altogether to save himself the loss. Eventually, the casino ends up losing money and not making any at all. The new blockchain technology will help in boosting trust among online casinos and players building confidence in the industry. With smart contracts being used to verify records, data cannot be manipulated, hence an increase in transparency which will make the industry thrive. As the development of their ecosystem continues, Faireum plans to release software development kits (SDKs) for online casino proprietors to be able to adopt Faireums own official blockchain-based games as well as create their own games built on top of Faireums very own independent blockchain, opening to everyone the opportunity of having trustworthy tech and businesses that are sustainable even outside crypto. Introducing Faireums new service-based blockchain business model and its underlying technologies opens more options for users and proprietors alike to choose from, as it takes into consideration the most pressing concerns about their needs and offers appropriate solutions tailored specifically to target them. With these constant developments, the possibilities are endless for the technology and its industry. | Faireum is a new service-based business model for the online gambling industry. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/geraldfenech/2019/02/01/can-a-new-service-based-blockchain-business-model-deliver-for-online-gaming/ | 0.240164 |
Can A New Service-Based Blockchain Business Model Deliver For Online Gaming? | Doubtlessly, ever since the dawn of the blockchain technology in 2008, industries have been revolutionized by the uncontested decentralization, security and transparency it delivers to traditional systems. The online gaming industry has experienced exponential growth in the past few years. In a span of 9 years from 2009 to 2018, the industry has grown from $20.51 billion to $51.96 billion, stapling it as one of the most lucrative and rapidly-growing industries to date. Studies show that 11% of all internet traffic is from online casino players. In the UK, the industry has increased by 300% since the new legislation in 2014. This spiked the industrys value in the UK to 6.7 billion, and by 2024, global online gambling is expected to rise up to $94.4 billion with a compound annual rate (CAGR) of around 10.9%. The blockchain protocol, alongside its irrefutable cryptographic techniques, has provided solutions to the then-unsolvable problems of centralized systems, specifically with regards to trust and privacy. This is the very reason why the blockchain itself has found its way from the most basic industries such as cryptocurrency, money transfer, and data networks, up to the most complex such as DNA databanks, and AI consciousness clouds. Together with versatility, imagination is the limit of this nascent tech. Blockchain-based technology users know that for every action, theres an equal and opposite transaction. However, they also know that fees are Blockchains Achilles heel, since miners and verifiers require to be rewarded in exchange for their service in keeping the blockchain ledger going. Each block being added to the chain requires a fee. This also applies to usage of other features of the whole ecosystem as well as other factors such as transaction sizes (measured in KB), network congestion and liquidity providers. As a matter of fact, there is a fee for every action on the chain. For the frequent loyal users of blockchain, this means fees on top of extra fees. Albeit lower than those of traditional counterparts, these fees are still an aspect of the blockchain technology that needs improvement. A new blockchain company named Faireum can be seen as The new kid on the block as it presents a new solution to protect users from incurring high extra fees with a service-based business model for the online gambling industry. With the innovations brought by its independent blockchain technology, Faireum aims to revolutionize the way users experience online gambling. Due to online gamings enormous size and overwhelming growth, as well as the common problems it faces, this will serve as a good ground to prove Faireums blockchain-as-a-service business model as the solution also to the pressing problem of high extra fees. As Faireum has its own token, called FAIRC, users are able to convert fiat money and other crypto, and use them for placing stakes on Faireums official gambling platform as well as availing themselves of its blockchain services. With this tokenization, Faireum claims that it will lessen transaction costs and eliminate delayed payouts by abolishing intermediaries by a completely automated and trust-free system. Faireum sees a sustainable business model service in their blockchain and its underlying technology as, instead of charging fee after fee for every transaction, The company will be using a subscription model for their services. This is their solution to maximize each players odds and minimize entry fees while at the same time ensuring a sustainable business for providers. Faireum also intervenes for customers because as customer loyalty and rewards are often overlooked in the existing blockchain business model, users feel unincentivized and unappreciated for their loyalty towards using the technology. With the traditional on-line casinos, players do not receive rewards for their loyalty. In the event that they lose, they do not get any form of compensation. Because of this, many online companies have lost customers. With the adoption of Faireum, online gambling steps are offering returns to players depending on the losses theyve incurred. Some online platforms even propose special bonuses for their players. For instance, some platforms return to customers 10% of all the money theyve lost in a month. These returns are made possible by reduced transaction costs courtesy of blockchain technology. Increased trust and transparency are also of utmost importance. In the past, there have been claims that online casinos are using scams and underhand methods to rob their clients, hence the phrase, the house always wins. Some proven cases of fraud on these online platforms cause many people to stay away from these sites. When a player realizes that the odds are stacked against him because of a lack of transparency, hell inevitably avoid the platform altogether to save himself the loss. Eventually, the casino ends up losing money and not making any at all. The new blockchain technology will help in boosting trust among online casinos and players building confidence in the industry. With smart contracts being used to verify records, data cannot be manipulated, hence an increase in transparency which will make the industry thrive. As the development of their ecosystem continues, Faireum plans to release software development kits (SDKs) for online casino proprietors to be able to adopt Faireums own official blockchain-based games as well as create their own games built on top of Faireums very own independent blockchain, opening to everyone the opportunity of having trustworthy tech and businesses that are sustainable even outside crypto. Introducing Faireums new service-based blockchain business model and its underlying technologies opens more options for users and proprietors alike to choose from, as it takes into consideration the most pressing concerns about their needs and offers appropriate solutions tailored specifically to target them. With these constant developments, the possibilities are endless for the technology and its industry. | Faireum is a new service-based business model for the online gambling industry. The company will be using a subscription model for their services to maximize each players odds and minimize entry fees. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/geraldfenech/2019/02/01/can-a-new-service-based-blockchain-business-model-deliver-for-online-gaming/ | 0.22328 |
What Are 5 Proven Ways To Get More College Financial Aid? | I've always loved the idea of doing a ton of homework to reap a healthy college financial aid package. Since I hate the idea of loans, getting grants, scholarships and tuition discounts is the way to go. Few know more about this subject than Mark Kantrowitz, author of How to Appeal for More College Financial Aid. Mark has been on the front lines of this little-known battlefront for years. I'll be honest with you. You will have to plan ahead to get the best package. It's not a matter of calling up a college's financial aid office and berating them into a better deal. The numbers have to make sense to them and you have to document your reasons. Here's what Kantrowitz recommends: -- Get grants, not loans. "If the student has good grades and test scores, look for colleges that offer merit aid. These might not be top-tier institutions, but it is better to graduate with little or no debt than to borrow more than you can afford to repay." -- Note any changes in your family's income. "If your family's ability to pay is affected by special circumstances, such as changes in income in the last two years or something that differentiates you from the typical family, ask the college financial aid administrator for a professional judgment review. Financial aid administrators are more likely to make an adjustment for one-time events that are not reflective of ability to pay during the academic year, as opposed to a regular recurring event. And they are more likely to make an adjustment when the special circumstances are due to factors beyond the family's control, as opposed to lifestyle choices." -- Be careful with your investment decisions. "Reduce income during the base year by avoiding capital gains (or offsetting capital gains with losses), avoiding retirement plan distributions, and shifting bonuses from one year to the next. And don't forget to reduce reportable assets by paying down consumer debt." -- Don't put investments or savings into the student's accounts. "Shift assets from the student's name to the parent's name, such as by moving custodial bank and brokerage accounts into custodial 529 plan accounts." -- Divorces change aid consideration. If the parents are divorced, choose the parent with the lower income (including stepparent income if this parent has remarried) as the `custodial ' parent." -- If you appeal, document your reasons. "The appeals process is driven by independent, third-party documentation of the special circumstances and the financial impact on the family. Do not lie or misrepresent the family's financial circumstances. Financial aid administrators will reject an appeal if they feel the family is trying to game the system. Appeal for more financial aid as soon as you learn about the special circumstances, even if it occurs in the middle of the academic year." | Mark Kantrowitz is author of How to Appeal for More College Financial Aid. He says get grants, not loans, and look for colleges that offer merit aid. Don't put investments or savings into the student's accounts, he says. | bart | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2019/02/01/what-are-5-proven-ways-to-get-more-college-financial-aid/ | 0.167901 |
What Are 5 Proven Ways To Get More College Financial Aid? | I've always loved the idea of doing a ton of homework to reap a healthy college financial aid package. Since I hate the idea of loans, getting grants, scholarships and tuition discounts is the way to go. Few know more about this subject than Mark Kantrowitz, author of How to Appeal for More College Financial Aid. Mark has been on the front lines of this little-known battlefront for years. I'll be honest with you. You will have to plan ahead to get the best package. It's not a matter of calling up a college's financial aid office and berating them into a better deal. The numbers have to make sense to them and you have to document your reasons. Here's what Kantrowitz recommends: -- Get grants, not loans. "If the student has good grades and test scores, look for colleges that offer merit aid. These might not be top-tier institutions, but it is better to graduate with little or no debt than to borrow more than you can afford to repay." -- Note any changes in your family's income. "If your family's ability to pay is affected by special circumstances, such as changes in income in the last two years or something that differentiates you from the typical family, ask the college financial aid administrator for a professional judgment review. Financial aid administrators are more likely to make an adjustment for one-time events that are not reflective of ability to pay during the academic year, as opposed to a regular recurring event. And they are more likely to make an adjustment when the special circumstances are due to factors beyond the family's control, as opposed to lifestyle choices." -- Be careful with your investment decisions. "Reduce income during the base year by avoiding capital gains (or offsetting capital gains with losses), avoiding retirement plan distributions, and shifting bonuses from one year to the next. And don't forget to reduce reportable assets by paying down consumer debt." -- Don't put investments or savings into the student's accounts. "Shift assets from the student's name to the parent's name, such as by moving custodial bank and brokerage accounts into custodial 529 plan accounts." -- Divorces change aid consideration. If the parents are divorced, choose the parent with the lower income (including stepparent income if this parent has remarried) as the `custodial ' parent." -- If you appeal, document your reasons. "The appeals process is driven by independent, third-party documentation of the special circumstances and the financial impact on the family. Do not lie or misrepresent the family's financial circumstances. Financial aid administrators will reject an appeal if they feel the family is trying to game the system. Appeal for more financial aid as soon as you learn about the special circumstances, even if it occurs in the middle of the academic year." | Mark Kantrowitz is the author of "How to Appeal for More College Financial Aid" Get grants, not loans, and look for colleges that offer merit aid. Don't put investments or savings into the student's accounts, he says. If you appeal, document your reasons and don't lie or misrepresent the family's financial circumstances. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2019/02/01/what-are-5-proven-ways-to-get-more-college-financial-aid/ | 0.200627 |
Why Did Sprint Swing To A Net Loss In Q3? | Sprint published its fiscal Q3 (fiscal year ends March 31) results on Thursday, reporting a slightly wider than expected net loss, as it continued to shed postpaid phone subscribers. Below, we provide some of the key takeaways from the companys earnings and take a look at why it swung to a net loss during the quarter. We have created an interactive dashboard that outlines our expectations for Sprint over the year. You can modify the key drivers to arrive at your own revenue and EPS estimates for Sprint. Sprint lost a net of 26k postpaid phone subscribers over the quarter. While this was down from a loss of 34k subscribers in Q2, it compares to a gain of 184k subscribers in the year-ago period. The lackluster performance on the postpaid front is attributable to the companys focus on pulling back on costly promotions to stabilize the business and also due to more intense competition. For instance, rivals Verizon and T-Mobile respectively added 650k and 1 million postpaid phone customers over the holiday quarter. Sprints postpaid phone churn levels have also trended higher to levels of about 1.71% from 1.60% in the year-ago period, driven by this mounting competition. In mid-2018, the company tweaked its unlimited plans to offer more services, albeit at higher prices, to bolster its ARPU. However, this doesnt appear to be having an impact on the companys metrics yet, as postpaid phone ARPU declined to $50 from $51.25 a year ago, although this was partly due to a new revenue reporting standard. Overall, Sprint swung to a net loss on a GAAP basis, after reporting a profit over the previous quarter, as its Services revenues trended lower, while SG&A and interest expenses trended higher. The table below breaks down some of the factors that were responsible for the companys loss over Q3. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | Sprint published its fiscal Q3 (fiscal year ends March 31) results on Thursday. It reported a slightly wider than expected net loss, as it continued to shed postpaid phone subscribers. | pegasus | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/01/why-did-sprint-swing-to-a-net-loss-in-q3/ | 0.325354 |
Why Did Sprint Swing To A Net Loss In Q3? | Sprint published its fiscal Q3 (fiscal year ends March 31) results on Thursday, reporting a slightly wider than expected net loss, as it continued to shed postpaid phone subscribers. Below, we provide some of the key takeaways from the companys earnings and take a look at why it swung to a net loss during the quarter. We have created an interactive dashboard that outlines our expectations for Sprint over the year. You can modify the key drivers to arrive at your own revenue and EPS estimates for Sprint. Sprint lost a net of 26k postpaid phone subscribers over the quarter. While this was down from a loss of 34k subscribers in Q2, it compares to a gain of 184k subscribers in the year-ago period. The lackluster performance on the postpaid front is attributable to the companys focus on pulling back on costly promotions to stabilize the business and also due to more intense competition. For instance, rivals Verizon and T-Mobile respectively added 650k and 1 million postpaid phone customers over the holiday quarter. Sprints postpaid phone churn levels have also trended higher to levels of about 1.71% from 1.60% in the year-ago period, driven by this mounting competition. In mid-2018, the company tweaked its unlimited plans to offer more services, albeit at higher prices, to bolster its ARPU. However, this doesnt appear to be having an impact on the companys metrics yet, as postpaid phone ARPU declined to $50 from $51.25 a year ago, although this was partly due to a new revenue reporting standard. Overall, Sprint swung to a net loss on a GAAP basis, after reporting a profit over the previous quarter, as its Services revenues trended lower, while SG&A and interest expenses trended higher. The table below breaks down some of the factors that were responsible for the companys loss over Q3. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | Sprint published its fiscal Q3 (fiscal year ends March 31) results on Thursday. The company reported a slightly wider than expected net loss, as it continued to shed postpaid phone subscribers. We have created an interactive dashboard that outlines our expectations for Sprint over the year. You can modify the key drivers to arrive at your own revenue and EPS estimates. | bart | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/01/why-did-sprint-swing-to-a-net-loss-in-q3/ | 0.448473 |
What does the U.S.-China trade war mean for the oil and gas industry? | It goes without saying that the American Petroleum Institute (API), the D.C.-based trade association that aims to "influence a strong, viable U.S. oil and gas industry," would weigh in against steel tariffs. U.S. drillers spend over $8 billion a year on hundreds of tons of steel pipes (though only a tiny proportion of steel used by the American oil patch comes from China). What might be more surprising is that the API recently tweeted its opinion that uncertainty whether the trade war will get resolved "is nearly as damaging to trade and the overall economy as the actual tariffs." In fact, the oil industry needs to worry about a deterioration of U.S.-Chinese relations. While tariffs might come and go, there are a larger set of problems for the oil industry, as the U.S. considers its posture towards what prominent conservatives Derek Scissors and Daniel Blumenthal termed an increasingly "dangerous rival." Scissors and Blumenthal, among others, are suggesting the U.S. needs to untie its economy from China's. Their commentary, while considered controversial, resonates with some louder voices inside the Trump administration who argue that the U.S. should shrink dependence on China for U.S. and global supply chains. China is actively expanding its global presence across ports and other kinds of transportation networks. Almost 70 percent of global container traffic flows through Chinese-owned or Chinese-invested ports, according to a survey by the Financial Times, and China's investment in logistics businesses also covers energy infrastructure and pipelines, trucking, railways, airports and shipbuilding. The U.S. has already responded with an infrastructure fund of its own, despite President Trump's previous distaste for foreign aid programs. Reliable international supply chains are important for the U.S. economy, jobs and competitiveness for U.S. companies this became apparent for businesses that relied on components produced in Fukushima, Japan, when the city was hit by a tsunami in 2011. But the U.S. response to the challenges posed by intertwined supply chains needs to be managed carefully. The idea that China is a force needing to be reckoned with is gaining momentum across the political spectrum in Washington. Bruce Jones of Brookings argued in a recent paper that U.S.-China relations have reached the "closing of an era of expanding cooperation." President Xi Jinping's more assertive global strategies, combined with his authoritarian crackdown on domestic dissent and internment of Xiajiang Muslims, is prompting a reevaluation of China, not only by the Trump administration but by a larger cross section of American political leaders, academia and business leaders. The Trump administration has already taken some direct actions to address U.S. national security concerns related to Beijing's willingness to gain sensitive U.S. advanced telecommunications and information technology by a variety of means, including outright intellectual property theft. Last year, the Trump administration blocked Broadcom, the Singapore-based chipmaker, from taking over American firm Qualcomm, citing Broadcom's relationship with foreign entities such as Huawei, China's largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, whose chief financial officer was recently arrested in Canada at the request of the U.S. due to a U.S. investigation for alleged violations of American trade control laws. If the U.S. moves to untether distinct linkages to Chinese supply chains, it is safe to assume that Chinese strategists will want to do the same. That is not just bad news for American technology firms with plants and businesses in China. It could be a problem for U.S. oil and gas firms that were counting on China as a steady customer for rising exports. A temporary hiatus in the trade war might allow for a few U.S. spot sales of oil and gas cargoes in China, but in the context of the wider strategic U.S.-China tensions, lengthier contractual commitments are now going to be a tougher sell. American oil and gas may have to shift to other markets. Already, U.S.-China trade issues are making it harder for American LNG export promoters to push forward credible deals to beat out Qatari and Russian gas sales ahead of looming multiyear contract renewals. China's national oil company CNPC's internal think tank is already suggesting so in its annual report, which concluded that ongoing trade disputes could force China to move away from U.S. LNG to other sources. All China-bound imports of U.S. oil and gas by Chinese entities have been on hold since September 2018. That is a big change from the heady days when U.S. and Canadian energy was viewed by Chinese firms to be as among the most secure and desirable in the world. As the API alluded to, a loss of access to the Chinese market is not the only potentially bad news for U.S. oil and gas. A deepening rift between the U.S. and China could spell difficulty ahead for the global economy. Chinese oil demand, which represents over 12 percent of total world demand, is a linchpin to global oil prices. With these larger geopolitical issues looming, it is unclear whether signs that China's economy will remain resilient. Any faltering in Chinese economic growth will spill over to the rest of Asia and potentially undermine demand for oil more generally. And that would be even worse news for the U.S. oil and gas industry, which has already seen oil prices slip dramatically on the back of a meltdown in Asian financial markets twice in the last two decades. Amy Myers Jaffe (@amyjaffeenergy) is the David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and director of the program on energy security and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations. Email Allyn West. Get the Gray Matters newsletter. It's among the most secure and desirable in the world. | U.S. oil industry needs to worry about a deterioration of U.S.-Chinese relations. The idea that China is a force needing to be reckoned with is gaining momentum in Washington. A temporary hiatus in the trade war might allow for a few U.S. spot sales of oil and gas cargoes in China. | pegasus | 2 | https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/us-china-trade-war-impact-oil-and-gas-industry-13580334.php | 0.28908 |
Is the NFL's Rooney Rule useless? | The Rooney Rule has been under fire lately for the lack of diversity it has generated, despite being designed specifically for that reason. Even with the Rooney Rule in place, there are only three head coaches and one general manager of color in the league. The rule isn't helping the league diversify at all. However, the rule has put many people of color in a position to get jobs, and anything is better than nothing. PERSPECTIVES The Rooney Rule was supposed to result in more people of color in the NFL. All it's done is give lip service to the league's "commitment" to diversity and nothing else. All teams have to do is interview diverse candidates before making an official hire. Giving a deserving candidate a job is not covered at all. So instead of hiring accomplished coaches or coordinators, teams are giving mediocre coaches like Adam Gase and college coaches with a reputation like Kliff Kingsbury head coaching positions. There is definitely a bias there. Throw in the fact that there's only one general manager who is a person of color and you have a rule that has no teeth. The Rooney Rule is terrible and ineffective. This will eventually become a topic, and I know some don't want to talk about it: If Zac Taylor accepts the #Bengals job, that guarantees 7 out of the 8 openings did not go to a minority candidate. Five minority coaches were fired. A big slap in the face to the Rooney Rule. -- NFL Update (@MySportsUpdate) January 11, 2019 There are problems with the Rooney Rule, but to say it doesn't work is going too far. There were no protections in place for people of color to get a legitimate shot at a high-level football job before the Rooney Rule, which resulted in successful coaches like Dennis Green and Tony Dungy getting fired despite a legacy of success. The Rooney Rules needs to improve, but it has been helpful in at least forcing teams to give people of color an opportunity to get jobs they were overlooked for before. It has flaws, but the Rooney Rule is still helpful. That's the main misconception people don't get with Rooney Rule. Literal opportunitues didn't exist before, which helps build opportuities. Many coaching personnel are son/brother/cousin of, which makes sense, you hire who you know and they grow up in the coaching life. -- THE Monday Morning QuarterBLACK (@TheMMQBL) January 11, 2019 The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Local Media, LLC property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt, on Instagram @TheTylt or on Facebook, we'd love to hear what you have to say. | There are only three head coaches and one general manager of color in the NFL. The NFL's Rooney Rule has been criticized for its lack of diversity. The rule has been helpful in at least forcing teams to give people of color an opportunity. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.nola.com/interact/2019/02/is_the_nfls_rooney_rule_useles.html | 0.238009 |
Is the NFL's Rooney Rule useless? | The Rooney Rule has been under fire lately for the lack of diversity it has generated, despite being designed specifically for that reason. Even with the Rooney Rule in place, there are only three head coaches and one general manager of color in the league. The rule isn't helping the league diversify at all. However, the rule has put many people of color in a position to get jobs, and anything is better than nothing. PERSPECTIVES The Rooney Rule was supposed to result in more people of color in the NFL. All it's done is give lip service to the league's "commitment" to diversity and nothing else. All teams have to do is interview diverse candidates before making an official hire. Giving a deserving candidate a job is not covered at all. So instead of hiring accomplished coaches or coordinators, teams are giving mediocre coaches like Adam Gase and college coaches with a reputation like Kliff Kingsbury head coaching positions. There is definitely a bias there. Throw in the fact that there's only one general manager who is a person of color and you have a rule that has no teeth. The Rooney Rule is terrible and ineffective. This will eventually become a topic, and I know some don't want to talk about it: If Zac Taylor accepts the #Bengals job, that guarantees 7 out of the 8 openings did not go to a minority candidate. Five minority coaches were fired. A big slap in the face to the Rooney Rule. -- NFL Update (@MySportsUpdate) January 11, 2019 There are problems with the Rooney Rule, but to say it doesn't work is going too far. There were no protections in place for people of color to get a legitimate shot at a high-level football job before the Rooney Rule, which resulted in successful coaches like Dennis Green and Tony Dungy getting fired despite a legacy of success. The Rooney Rules needs to improve, but it has been helpful in at least forcing teams to give people of color an opportunity to get jobs they were overlooked for before. It has flaws, but the Rooney Rule is still helpful. That's the main misconception people don't get with Rooney Rule. Literal opportunitues didn't exist before, which helps build opportuities. Many coaching personnel are son/brother/cousin of, which makes sense, you hire who you know and they grow up in the coaching life. -- THE Monday Morning QuarterBLACK (@TheMMQBL) January 11, 2019 The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Local Media, LLC property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt, on Instagram @TheTylt or on Facebook, we'd love to hear what you have to say. | There are only three head coaches and one general manager of color in the NFL. The NFL's Rooney Rule has been criticized for its lack of diversity. The rule has been helpful in at least forcing teams to give people of color an opportunity to get jobs they were overlooked for before. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.nola.com/interact/2019/02/is_the_nfls_rooney_rule_useles.html | 0.276987 |
Did Bill Nye just suggest the U.S. will have to annex Canada to grow crops? | Earlier this week, the famed TV scientist Bill Nye went on an MSNBC talk show to discuss the economic cost of climate change and the consequences it could levy on rural America. Nyes chat with Hardball host Chris Matthews took a surprising turn when the Science Guy started advocating for a U.S. incursion, of sorts, into Canada. As global temperatures rise, Nye said, the growing (of crops) in North America is going to have to move north into what would nominally be Canada. We dont have the infrastructure, we dont have the railroads and roads to get food from that area to where we need it around the world. Of course it can be built, Nye added, but the longer we mess around and (dont) address this problem, the more difficult its going to be. It wasnt entirely clear if Nye meant to imply that Canada does not, in fact, have roads to transport crops, or if by using the word nominally he was envisioning an apocalyptic future in which the U.S. flexes its military might and annexes us out of self-interest. (If so, its worth noting that Gwynne Dwyer, a Canadian journalist and historian, warned of a wealth of similar outcomes that could unfold around the world in his 2008 book Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats.) At the least, the MSNBC clip marks the latest chapter in Nyes colourful history of musing about Canada. Last March, the Science Guy appeared on stage with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a science and innovation panel held at the University of Ottawa, an event at which he said Canada wouldnt need to keep emitting fossil fuels if it were to embrace the use of renewable energy sources. Nye pressed Trudeau during the panel discussion to justify his governments decision to approve the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. He initially accepted Trudeaus answer that it will take time for Canadas energy sector to stop relying on oil. Its your country, Canadas going to do what its going to do, he said. But Nye later told reporters off-stage that he still believed pipelines are bad long-term solutions. In that same conversation with the press, Nye said he prefers to refer to the Alberta oilsands as tar, disparaging those bitumen deposits as an inefficient energy source. In October 2015, fewer than two weeks before the federal election in which Trudeaus Liberal Party won a majority mandate, Nye reflected on a recent trip he had taken to the oilsands by describing them as kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. It struck me, as a guy from the U.S., whos visited Canada many times. Ive skied in Canada, Ive hiked in Canada, Ive canoed in Canada, Nye said in an interview with On The Coast, a B.C.-based CBC Radio show. When you go to the tar sands, it does not look like Canada. Back in 2001, Nye struck a lighter tone in an interview with the National Post, assuring the correspondent that he loves Canada. I go skiing at Whistler. If you want to take fun to a whole other level, go to Toronto. Vancouver is a vision its wonderful, Nye said at the time. I buy Shreddies when Im in Canada. You cant get them in the U.S. Even the 2018 panel discussion with Trudeau wasnt all doom and gloom. At one point, Nye opened his wallet to prove to the crowd that he always carries a Canadian five-dollar bill, praising the banknotes depiction of astronaut Chris Hadfield and its celebration of space exploration more generally. I cant accept that, Trudeau joked when Nye revealed the bill. We have an ethics commissioner. Its not available, Nye replied. | Bill Nye said crops will have to move north into what would nominally be Canada. | bart | 0 | https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/did-bill-nye-just-suggest-the-u-s-will-have-to-annex-canada-to-grow-crops | 0.239131 |
Did Bill Nye just suggest the U.S. will have to annex Canada to grow crops? | Earlier this week, the famed TV scientist Bill Nye went on an MSNBC talk show to discuss the economic cost of climate change and the consequences it could levy on rural America. Nyes chat with Hardball host Chris Matthews took a surprising turn when the Science Guy started advocating for a U.S. incursion, of sorts, into Canada. As global temperatures rise, Nye said, the growing (of crops) in North America is going to have to move north into what would nominally be Canada. We dont have the infrastructure, we dont have the railroads and roads to get food from that area to where we need it around the world. Of course it can be built, Nye added, but the longer we mess around and (dont) address this problem, the more difficult its going to be. It wasnt entirely clear if Nye meant to imply that Canada does not, in fact, have roads to transport crops, or if by using the word nominally he was envisioning an apocalyptic future in which the U.S. flexes its military might and annexes us out of self-interest. (If so, its worth noting that Gwynne Dwyer, a Canadian journalist and historian, warned of a wealth of similar outcomes that could unfold around the world in his 2008 book Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats.) At the least, the MSNBC clip marks the latest chapter in Nyes colourful history of musing about Canada. Last March, the Science Guy appeared on stage with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a science and innovation panel held at the University of Ottawa, an event at which he said Canada wouldnt need to keep emitting fossil fuels if it were to embrace the use of renewable energy sources. Nye pressed Trudeau during the panel discussion to justify his governments decision to approve the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. He initially accepted Trudeaus answer that it will take time for Canadas energy sector to stop relying on oil. Its your country, Canadas going to do what its going to do, he said. But Nye later told reporters off-stage that he still believed pipelines are bad long-term solutions. In that same conversation with the press, Nye said he prefers to refer to the Alberta oilsands as tar, disparaging those bitumen deposits as an inefficient energy source. In October 2015, fewer than two weeks before the federal election in which Trudeaus Liberal Party won a majority mandate, Nye reflected on a recent trip he had taken to the oilsands by describing them as kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. It struck me, as a guy from the U.S., whos visited Canada many times. Ive skied in Canada, Ive hiked in Canada, Ive canoed in Canada, Nye said in an interview with On The Coast, a B.C.-based CBC Radio show. When you go to the tar sands, it does not look like Canada. Back in 2001, Nye struck a lighter tone in an interview with the National Post, assuring the correspondent that he loves Canada. I go skiing at Whistler. If you want to take fun to a whole other level, go to Toronto. Vancouver is a vision its wonderful, Nye said at the time. I buy Shreddies when Im in Canada. You cant get them in the U.S. Even the 2018 panel discussion with Trudeau wasnt all doom and gloom. At one point, Nye opened his wallet to prove to the crowd that he always carries a Canadian five-dollar bill, praising the banknotes depiction of astronaut Chris Hadfield and its celebration of space exploration more generally. I cant accept that, Trudeau joked when Nye revealed the bill. We have an ethics commissioner. Its not available, Nye replied. | Bill Nye suggested on MSNBC that the U.S. will have to annex Canada to grow crops. Nye has long been critical of Canada's reliance on fossil fuels. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/did-bill-nye-just-suggest-the-u-s-will-have-to-annex-canada-to-grow-crops | 0.324861 |
Did Bill Nye just suggest the U.S. will have to annex Canada to grow crops? | Earlier this week, the famed TV scientist Bill Nye went on an MSNBC talk show to discuss the economic cost of climate change and the consequences it could levy on rural America. Nyes chat with Hardball host Chris Matthews took a surprising turn when the Science Guy started advocating for a U.S. incursion, of sorts, into Canada. As global temperatures rise, Nye said, the growing (of crops) in North America is going to have to move north into what would nominally be Canada. We dont have the infrastructure, we dont have the railroads and roads to get food from that area to where we need it around the world. Of course it can be built, Nye added, but the longer we mess around and (dont) address this problem, the more difficult its going to be. It wasnt entirely clear if Nye meant to imply that Canada does not, in fact, have roads to transport crops, or if by using the word nominally he was envisioning an apocalyptic future in which the U.S. flexes its military might and annexes us out of self-interest. (If so, its worth noting that Gwynne Dwyer, a Canadian journalist and historian, warned of a wealth of similar outcomes that could unfold around the world in his 2008 book Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats.) At the least, the MSNBC clip marks the latest chapter in Nyes colourful history of musing about Canada. Last March, the Science Guy appeared on stage with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a science and innovation panel held at the University of Ottawa, an event at which he said Canada wouldnt need to keep emitting fossil fuels if it were to embrace the use of renewable energy sources. Nye pressed Trudeau during the panel discussion to justify his governments decision to approve the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. He initially accepted Trudeaus answer that it will take time for Canadas energy sector to stop relying on oil. Its your country, Canadas going to do what its going to do, he said. But Nye later told reporters off-stage that he still believed pipelines are bad long-term solutions. In that same conversation with the press, Nye said he prefers to refer to the Alberta oilsands as tar, disparaging those bitumen deposits as an inefficient energy source. In October 2015, fewer than two weeks before the federal election in which Trudeaus Liberal Party won a majority mandate, Nye reflected on a recent trip he had taken to the oilsands by describing them as kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. It struck me, as a guy from the U.S., whos visited Canada many times. Ive skied in Canada, Ive hiked in Canada, Ive canoed in Canada, Nye said in an interview with On The Coast, a B.C.-based CBC Radio show. When you go to the tar sands, it does not look like Canada. Back in 2001, Nye struck a lighter tone in an interview with the National Post, assuring the correspondent that he loves Canada. I go skiing at Whistler. If you want to take fun to a whole other level, go to Toronto. Vancouver is a vision its wonderful, Nye said at the time. I buy Shreddies when Im in Canada. You cant get them in the U.S. Even the 2018 panel discussion with Trudeau wasnt all doom and gloom. At one point, Nye opened his wallet to prove to the crowd that he always carries a Canadian five-dollar bill, praising the banknotes depiction of astronaut Chris Hadfield and its celebration of space exploration more generally. I cant accept that, Trudeau joked when Nye revealed the bill. We have an ethics commissioner. Its not available, Nye replied. | Bill Nye suggested on MSNBC that the U.S. will have to annex Canada to grow crops. Nye has long been critical of Canada's reliance on fossil fuels and the oilsands. The Science Guy has previously said he loves Canada and has skied in Whistler. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/did-bill-nye-just-suggest-the-u-s-will-have-to-annex-canada-to-grow-crops | 0.360734 |
How Much Are Babysitters Making Around the Country? | Babysitting the kid down the street pays a lot better than working at Walmart or McDonalds. A new study from UrbanSitter finds the national average for an hour of babysitting now stands at $16.75 per hour for one child and $19.26 per hour for two children. To put that in perspective, thats more than twice the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Its also above the $9 per hour average at the retail giant and $8 per hour average for crew members at the fast food leader. (Of course, youll get more hours at either of those jobs.) The study, which gathered data from 28,000 families around the country, found that in San Francisco, with its high cost of living, sitters made the most, averaging $18.75 per hour for one child and $21.30 per hour for two kids. Las Vegas had the least expensive average, $11.63 per hour for one child and $14.71 per hour for two kids. Rates in other cities run a wide gamut: Los Angeles $16.06 (1 child); $18.01 (2 children) New York $17.30 (1 child); $20.85 (2 children) Boston $16.90 (1 child); $18.84 (2 children) Atlanta $13.17 (1 child); $15.75 (2 children) Miami $12.67 (1 child); $16.38 (2 children) Minneapolis $13.94 (1 child); $14.68 (2 children) Babysitting is a growth field, it would seem. While some cities have seen price reductions in the past year, Urbansitter notes that average rates have increased 2% in the past year (last years average was $16.43) and 18% in the last five years. And 18% of parents hire a sitter at least once a month. | The national average for an hour of babysitting now stands at $16.75 per hour. | bart | 0 | http://fortune.com/2019/02/01/babysitter-average-regional-salary-rates/ | 0.314977 |
How Much Are Babysitters Making Around the Country? | Babysitting the kid down the street pays a lot better than working at Walmart or McDonalds. A new study from UrbanSitter finds the national average for an hour of babysitting now stands at $16.75 per hour for one child and $19.26 per hour for two children. To put that in perspective, thats more than twice the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Its also above the $9 per hour average at the retail giant and $8 per hour average for crew members at the fast food leader. (Of course, youll get more hours at either of those jobs.) The study, which gathered data from 28,000 families around the country, found that in San Francisco, with its high cost of living, sitters made the most, averaging $18.75 per hour for one child and $21.30 per hour for two kids. Las Vegas had the least expensive average, $11.63 per hour for one child and $14.71 per hour for two kids. Rates in other cities run a wide gamut: Los Angeles $16.06 (1 child); $18.01 (2 children) New York $17.30 (1 child); $20.85 (2 children) Boston $16.90 (1 child); $18.84 (2 children) Atlanta $13.17 (1 child); $15.75 (2 children) Miami $12.67 (1 child); $16.38 (2 children) Minneapolis $13.94 (1 child); $14.68 (2 children) Babysitting is a growth field, it would seem. While some cities have seen price reductions in the past year, Urbansitter notes that average rates have increased 2% in the past year (last years average was $16.43) and 18% in the last five years. And 18% of parents hire a sitter at least once a month. | The national average for an hour of babysitting now stands at $16.75 per hour for one child and $19.26 per hour for two children. | pegasus | 1 | http://fortune.com/2019/02/01/babysitter-average-regional-salary-rates/ | 0.364836 |
How Much Are Babysitters Making Around the Country? | Babysitting the kid down the street pays a lot better than working at Walmart or McDonalds. A new study from UrbanSitter finds the national average for an hour of babysitting now stands at $16.75 per hour for one child and $19.26 per hour for two children. To put that in perspective, thats more than twice the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Its also above the $9 per hour average at the retail giant and $8 per hour average for crew members at the fast food leader. (Of course, youll get more hours at either of those jobs.) The study, which gathered data from 28,000 families around the country, found that in San Francisco, with its high cost of living, sitters made the most, averaging $18.75 per hour for one child and $21.30 per hour for two kids. Las Vegas had the least expensive average, $11.63 per hour for one child and $14.71 per hour for two kids. Rates in other cities run a wide gamut: Los Angeles $16.06 (1 child); $18.01 (2 children) New York $17.30 (1 child); $20.85 (2 children) Boston $16.90 (1 child); $18.84 (2 children) Atlanta $13.17 (1 child); $15.75 (2 children) Miami $12.67 (1 child); $16.38 (2 children) Minneapolis $13.94 (1 child); $14.68 (2 children) Babysitting is a growth field, it would seem. While some cities have seen price reductions in the past year, Urbansitter notes that average rates have increased 2% in the past year (last years average was $16.43) and 18% in the last five years. And 18% of parents hire a sitter at least once a month. | The national average for an hour of babysitting now stands at $16.75 per hour for one child and $19.26 per hour for two children. In San Francisco, with its high cost of living, sitters made the most, averaging $18.75 per hour for one child and $21.30 per hour for two kids. | pegasus | 2 | http://fortune.com/2019/02/01/babysitter-average-regional-salary-rates/ | 0.48579 |
Could Bill Belichicks future include a job as a TV analyst? | ATLANTA On Wednesday, Bill Belichick fielded yet another question about his future once he decides to retire as the head coach of the New England Patriots. He usually, as respectfully as Belichick can, declines to answer and says hes focused on the immediate future, which in this case happens to be the big game on Sunday against the Rams. This time the question was about whether hed write a book once he retires. I dont know. Right now Im just trying to get ready for the Rams, Belichic said. Thats a full-time job. Well worry about that other stuff some other time. He paused, with just the right amount of comedic timing that fits his dry sense of humor. Would you buy one? he asked. A book written by Belichick to memorialize his coaching career would be so highly anticipated that it would secure an advance into the seven figures. This book will be demanded by the football gods whether he wants to write it or not, providing insights into his coaching philosophies, his take on Spygate and Deflategate, his reasoning behind trading away Jimmy Garoppolo and more. Thered be golf in Jupiter, Fla. Hed get on his boat in Nantucket and spend plenty of quality time with his grandkids. Its unclear whether Belichick would ever have any interest in this career path, but people I spoke with all seemed to believe he would be great as a talking headafter they stifled their laughter, of course. I have no idea. He would really have to want to do it. And if he put as much effort into a broadcasting career as he did his coaching career, I think he could offer some remarkable insights, Sean McManus, the president of CBS Sports, says. Ive spent time with him away from the cameras and hes a very engaging, articulate and can be an enthusiastic person to talk to about football. I think everyone looks at press conferences and says theres no way that guy can be on television. But if youve spent time with him in a one-on-one, hes an engaging guy. And if he wanted to do it, I think hed be good at it. McManus struck gold when he brought Tony Romo to CBS, and Romo may be the second-biggest storyline this week behind officiating. Ian OConnor, who last year authored a Belichick biography, told me Belichick would be Romo times five. FELDMAN: Inside the Private Meeting That Ultimately Landed Tony Romo a Top Analyst Job at CBS Combine Belichicks extensive knowledge of all three phases of football with his ability to process and analyze information in real-time, and it would seem that his best fit could be as a color analyst like Romo. There are friends and associates that I talked to who are frustrated by the fact that he doesnt show his humanity in the public arena, OConnor says. And I think if he stopped coaching and he went into the booth, he would open up that window to his soul and show a little more humanity than he does now. I think concerns fans around the country, particularly outside of New England, would have about his personality, they would see hes a complete human being and that would come out and make him even better. After spending nine years as the Ravens coach and winning Super Bowl XXXV, Brian Billick has been with FOX, ABC and NFL Network in various roles since 2008, and he does not foresee Belichick going to the booth. He cant imagine Belichick having a millennial producer in his ear telling him to talk more about a screen pass, and he remembers the toll it took on Bill Walsh when he left the 49ers in 1989 and joined NBCs top crew for three years before returning to coaching. It wore Bill Walsh out, and I worked with Bill [Walsh] on a number of different levels, Billick says. And Bill was a natural for it. He was intelligent and articulate. But he said, Brian I cant do it anymore. The lack of football Billick says hes been cautioned before about talking too much football in the booth, that getting too technical will go over peoples heads. But I quickly reminded him that people are loving it with Romo on CBS. Yeah, even though hes right about a third of the time, Billick says. Romo reminds me that middle linebacker who comes up to the line of scrimmage who says, Watch out for the screen! Watch out for the draw! And watch out for the deep pass! Ooook. And Im going to be right about one of them. I love it and its great energy and great fun. If Bill [Belichick] does that, God bless him. ROSENBERG: Ndamukong Suh Remains One of a Kind on the Biggest Stage of His Career Whats far more likely for Belichick post-coaching is an analyst gig that gets the Patriots coach in and out quickly, says Scott Zolak, who has been co-hosting Belichick Breakdowns on Patriots All-Access with The Hoodie for the past seven years. Zolak sees Belichick in a role similar to Tony Dungys film breakdowns with Rodney Harrison on NBCs Football Night in America. You put him in a five-minute segment, I think youre getting everything you can out of him, Zolak says. Its like cooking a steak. You put the butter and onions in and you get your wine reduction. You let that thing reduce down. You want to concentrate it. If you get Belichick concentrated for a three-to-five minute segment, thats money. At 66 years old, theres no telling how much longer Belichick will keep coaching, but sticking with Brady through his age-45 season would put Belichick at 70 years old. And when he finally does hang up the headset, he should have plenty of interested parties on the network side. If he wanted to do TV, I think every single network would be foolish not to audition him and see what it sounds like, CBS play-by-play announcer Jim Nantz says. Email us at talkback@themmqb.com. | New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick says he doesn't know if he'll write a book. Some experts say Belichick would make a great TV analyst. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/02/01/bill-belichick-patriots-post-coaching-career-tv-analyst | 0.286245 |
Could Bill Belichicks future include a job as a TV analyst? | ATLANTA On Wednesday, Bill Belichick fielded yet another question about his future once he decides to retire as the head coach of the New England Patriots. He usually, as respectfully as Belichick can, declines to answer and says hes focused on the immediate future, which in this case happens to be the big game on Sunday against the Rams. This time the question was about whether hed write a book once he retires. I dont know. Right now Im just trying to get ready for the Rams, Belichic said. Thats a full-time job. Well worry about that other stuff some other time. He paused, with just the right amount of comedic timing that fits his dry sense of humor. Would you buy one? he asked. A book written by Belichick to memorialize his coaching career would be so highly anticipated that it would secure an advance into the seven figures. This book will be demanded by the football gods whether he wants to write it or not, providing insights into his coaching philosophies, his take on Spygate and Deflategate, his reasoning behind trading away Jimmy Garoppolo and more. Thered be golf in Jupiter, Fla. Hed get on his boat in Nantucket and spend plenty of quality time with his grandkids. Its unclear whether Belichick would ever have any interest in this career path, but people I spoke with all seemed to believe he would be great as a talking headafter they stifled their laughter, of course. I have no idea. He would really have to want to do it. And if he put as much effort into a broadcasting career as he did his coaching career, I think he could offer some remarkable insights, Sean McManus, the president of CBS Sports, says. Ive spent time with him away from the cameras and hes a very engaging, articulate and can be an enthusiastic person to talk to about football. I think everyone looks at press conferences and says theres no way that guy can be on television. But if youve spent time with him in a one-on-one, hes an engaging guy. And if he wanted to do it, I think hed be good at it. McManus struck gold when he brought Tony Romo to CBS, and Romo may be the second-biggest storyline this week behind officiating. Ian OConnor, who last year authored a Belichick biography, told me Belichick would be Romo times five. FELDMAN: Inside the Private Meeting That Ultimately Landed Tony Romo a Top Analyst Job at CBS Combine Belichicks extensive knowledge of all three phases of football with his ability to process and analyze information in real-time, and it would seem that his best fit could be as a color analyst like Romo. There are friends and associates that I talked to who are frustrated by the fact that he doesnt show his humanity in the public arena, OConnor says. And I think if he stopped coaching and he went into the booth, he would open up that window to his soul and show a little more humanity than he does now. I think concerns fans around the country, particularly outside of New England, would have about his personality, they would see hes a complete human being and that would come out and make him even better. After spending nine years as the Ravens coach and winning Super Bowl XXXV, Brian Billick has been with FOX, ABC and NFL Network in various roles since 2008, and he does not foresee Belichick going to the booth. He cant imagine Belichick having a millennial producer in his ear telling him to talk more about a screen pass, and he remembers the toll it took on Bill Walsh when he left the 49ers in 1989 and joined NBCs top crew for three years before returning to coaching. It wore Bill Walsh out, and I worked with Bill [Walsh] on a number of different levels, Billick says. And Bill was a natural for it. He was intelligent and articulate. But he said, Brian I cant do it anymore. The lack of football Billick says hes been cautioned before about talking too much football in the booth, that getting too technical will go over peoples heads. But I quickly reminded him that people are loving it with Romo on CBS. Yeah, even though hes right about a third of the time, Billick says. Romo reminds me that middle linebacker who comes up to the line of scrimmage who says, Watch out for the screen! Watch out for the draw! And watch out for the deep pass! Ooook. And Im going to be right about one of them. I love it and its great energy and great fun. If Bill [Belichick] does that, God bless him. ROSENBERG: Ndamukong Suh Remains One of a Kind on the Biggest Stage of His Career Whats far more likely for Belichick post-coaching is an analyst gig that gets the Patriots coach in and out quickly, says Scott Zolak, who has been co-hosting Belichick Breakdowns on Patriots All-Access with The Hoodie for the past seven years. Zolak sees Belichick in a role similar to Tony Dungys film breakdowns with Rodney Harrison on NBCs Football Night in America. You put him in a five-minute segment, I think youre getting everything you can out of him, Zolak says. Its like cooking a steak. You put the butter and onions in and you get your wine reduction. You let that thing reduce down. You want to concentrate it. If you get Belichick concentrated for a three-to-five minute segment, thats money. At 66 years old, theres no telling how much longer Belichick will keep coaching, but sticking with Brady through his age-45 season would put Belichick at 70 years old. And when he finally does hang up the headset, he should have plenty of interested parties on the network side. If he wanted to do TV, I think every single network would be foolish not to audition him and see what it sounds like, CBS play-by-play announcer Jim Nantz says. Email us at talkback@themmqb.com. | New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick says he doesn't know if he'll write a book. Some experts say Belichick would be great at being a TV analyst like Tony Romo. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/02/01/bill-belichick-patriots-post-coaching-career-tv-analyst | 0.358438 |
Could Bill Belichicks future include a job as a TV analyst? | ATLANTA On Wednesday, Bill Belichick fielded yet another question about his future once he decides to retire as the head coach of the New England Patriots. He usually, as respectfully as Belichick can, declines to answer and says hes focused on the immediate future, which in this case happens to be the big game on Sunday against the Rams. This time the question was about whether hed write a book once he retires. I dont know. Right now Im just trying to get ready for the Rams, Belichic said. Thats a full-time job. Well worry about that other stuff some other time. He paused, with just the right amount of comedic timing that fits his dry sense of humor. Would you buy one? he asked. A book written by Belichick to memorialize his coaching career would be so highly anticipated that it would secure an advance into the seven figures. This book will be demanded by the football gods whether he wants to write it or not, providing insights into his coaching philosophies, his take on Spygate and Deflategate, his reasoning behind trading away Jimmy Garoppolo and more. Thered be golf in Jupiter, Fla. Hed get on his boat in Nantucket and spend plenty of quality time with his grandkids. Its unclear whether Belichick would ever have any interest in this career path, but people I spoke with all seemed to believe he would be great as a talking headafter they stifled their laughter, of course. I have no idea. He would really have to want to do it. And if he put as much effort into a broadcasting career as he did his coaching career, I think he could offer some remarkable insights, Sean McManus, the president of CBS Sports, says. Ive spent time with him away from the cameras and hes a very engaging, articulate and can be an enthusiastic person to talk to about football. I think everyone looks at press conferences and says theres no way that guy can be on television. But if youve spent time with him in a one-on-one, hes an engaging guy. And if he wanted to do it, I think hed be good at it. McManus struck gold when he brought Tony Romo to CBS, and Romo may be the second-biggest storyline this week behind officiating. Ian OConnor, who last year authored a Belichick biography, told me Belichick would be Romo times five. FELDMAN: Inside the Private Meeting That Ultimately Landed Tony Romo a Top Analyst Job at CBS Combine Belichicks extensive knowledge of all three phases of football with his ability to process and analyze information in real-time, and it would seem that his best fit could be as a color analyst like Romo. There are friends and associates that I talked to who are frustrated by the fact that he doesnt show his humanity in the public arena, OConnor says. And I think if he stopped coaching and he went into the booth, he would open up that window to his soul and show a little more humanity than he does now. I think concerns fans around the country, particularly outside of New England, would have about his personality, they would see hes a complete human being and that would come out and make him even better. After spending nine years as the Ravens coach and winning Super Bowl XXXV, Brian Billick has been with FOX, ABC and NFL Network in various roles since 2008, and he does not foresee Belichick going to the booth. He cant imagine Belichick having a millennial producer in his ear telling him to talk more about a screen pass, and he remembers the toll it took on Bill Walsh when he left the 49ers in 1989 and joined NBCs top crew for three years before returning to coaching. It wore Bill Walsh out, and I worked with Bill [Walsh] on a number of different levels, Billick says. And Bill was a natural for it. He was intelligent and articulate. But he said, Brian I cant do it anymore. The lack of football Billick says hes been cautioned before about talking too much football in the booth, that getting too technical will go over peoples heads. But I quickly reminded him that people are loving it with Romo on CBS. Yeah, even though hes right about a third of the time, Billick says. Romo reminds me that middle linebacker who comes up to the line of scrimmage who says, Watch out for the screen! Watch out for the draw! And watch out for the deep pass! Ooook. And Im going to be right about one of them. I love it and its great energy and great fun. If Bill [Belichick] does that, God bless him. ROSENBERG: Ndamukong Suh Remains One of a Kind on the Biggest Stage of His Career Whats far more likely for Belichick post-coaching is an analyst gig that gets the Patriots coach in and out quickly, says Scott Zolak, who has been co-hosting Belichick Breakdowns on Patriots All-Access with The Hoodie for the past seven years. Zolak sees Belichick in a role similar to Tony Dungys film breakdowns with Rodney Harrison on NBCs Football Night in America. You put him in a five-minute segment, I think youre getting everything you can out of him, Zolak says. Its like cooking a steak. You put the butter and onions in and you get your wine reduction. You let that thing reduce down. You want to concentrate it. If you get Belichick concentrated for a three-to-five minute segment, thats money. At 66 years old, theres no telling how much longer Belichick will keep coaching, but sticking with Brady through his age-45 season would put Belichick at 70 years old. And when he finally does hang up the headset, he should have plenty of interested parties on the network side. If he wanted to do TV, I think every single network would be foolish not to audition him and see what it sounds like, CBS play-by-play announcer Jim Nantz says. Email us at talkback@themmqb.com. | It's unclear whether Belichick would ever have any interest in this career path. A book written by Belichick would be so highly anticipated that it took on Bill Walsh when he left the 49ers in 1989. It would seem that his best fit could be as a color analyst like Tony Romo. | pegasus | 2 | https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/02/01/bill-belichick-patriots-post-coaching-career-tv-analyst | 0.182513 |
Can the Raptors Sell Kawhi Leonard On A Future In Toronto? | Backed by the superstar talents of Kawhi Leonard, the Toronto Raptors have elevated themselves into the elite of the NBA. With Leonard and a good surrounding cast, the Raptors are built to go for it all this year, and there is excitement in this city that is reminiscent of the Vince Carter days almost 20 years ago, even if they don't swing a deal at the trade deadline on Feb. 7. But amid all the hype is the fear that Leonard will opt out of his contract in the summer to become a free agent and possibly play for the Los Angles Lakers or Clippers. Everyone is ready the tea leaves. And speculation took off in late January when it was revealed that Leonard slammed down $13.3 million to buy a mansion in southern California. Of course, this could be just his off-season palace. But this home in Rancho Santa Fe is a homecoming of sorts because Leonard played two seasons of college basketball at San Diego State University before entering the 2011 NBA draft. This news overshadowed the fact that, according to previous reports, Leonard had previously purchased a home in Toronto. The California purchase, of course, added to fears that Leonard will pack up and go once he becomes a free agent at the end of this season. So far, Leonard has been having an outstanding season as one of the league's highest average point producers, even if he is taking a lot of games off. Leonard is currently earning around $23 million on the one-year deal he signed with Toronto, but as a free agent, he could easily earn more, and he could enhance his value by taking Toronto on a deep playoff run. It's believed Toronto could offer Leonard a five-year extension worth as much as $190 million on July 1. Leonard's health issues (he missed all but nine games last season with a quadriceps injury) have been managed smartly by the Raptors, who rest Leonard in the second half of back-to-back games, and sometimes more. The city of Toronto can be a hard sell for basketball players because it's a cold-weather climate and there is no legacy of winning here. But Toronto has significant upside. It is the NBA's fourth largest media market, it has a rabid basketball following across the country, and the city boasts some of the best restaurants and entertainment in the world. What might sell Leonard on staying is that the media-shy Leonard isn't the only show in town. Kyle Lowry, Serge Ibaka and Pascal Siakam are coming up big in big moments and taking the media pressure off Leonard, who rarely gives extensive interviews. Raptors general manager Masai Ujiri has made it clear that he is prepared to do whatever it takes to make Toronto a winner. He fired Dwane Casey, who weeks later was named NBA coach of the year after a 59-win season, and then traded the popular DeMar DeRozan for Leonard and Danny Green. To his credit, the Raptors have been consistent winners since Ujiri took over as head of basketball operations in 2013. Raptors coach Nick Nurse has also been building trust with Leonard. They have a professional relationship. In the end, all the Raptors can do is keep showing that they are committed to winning and putting Leonard in the best position to succeed. It's reasonable to suggest that Lowry, the heart and soul of the team, should be in Leonard's ear and trying to talk him into staying. But if Lowry is still upset at Raptors management for dealing his friend DeRozan, perhaps it's unrealistic for Lowry to recruit Leonard. Meanwhile, when Leonard missed four straight Raptors games in late January, more questions swirled about his "load management," which is the Raptors explanation for allowing him to rest. Yes, it makes sense to have Leonard ready for a long playoff run. But his absence has led to jokes in Toronto that perhaps Leonard should be encased in bubble wrap. If Leonard decides to take his services elsewhere, few in Toronto would be surprised. The Raptors have seen superstar players like Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and Chris Bosh take their talents elsewhere. For the time being, Toronto is just enjoying the moment. The city is warmly embracing this team. At some point, we will know how much the Raptors desire Leonard for the long term. But in this era of free agency, fans realize that good times don't last forever. Change is inevitable. Ujiri has shown a willingness to take huge risks. Going into the trade deadline and down the stretch, it won't be Leonard you want to watch the most. It will be Ujiri. | Kawhi Leonard is a free agent at the end of the season. The Toronto Raptors star has one year left on his contract. It's believed Toronto could offer Leonard a five-year extension worth as much as $190 million. | pegasus | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtisrush/2019/02/01/can-the-raptors-sell-kawhi-leonard-on-a-future-in-toronto/ | 0.155076 |
Can the Raptors Sell Kawhi Leonard On A Future In Toronto? | Backed by the superstar talents of Kawhi Leonard, the Toronto Raptors have elevated themselves into the elite of the NBA. With Leonard and a good surrounding cast, the Raptors are built to go for it all this year, and there is excitement in this city that is reminiscent of the Vince Carter days almost 20 years ago, even if they don't swing a deal at the trade deadline on Feb. 7. But amid all the hype is the fear that Leonard will opt out of his contract in the summer to become a free agent and possibly play for the Los Angles Lakers or Clippers. Everyone is ready the tea leaves. And speculation took off in late January when it was revealed that Leonard slammed down $13.3 million to buy a mansion in southern California. Of course, this could be just his off-season palace. But this home in Rancho Santa Fe is a homecoming of sorts because Leonard played two seasons of college basketball at San Diego State University before entering the 2011 NBA draft. This news overshadowed the fact that, according to previous reports, Leonard had previously purchased a home in Toronto. The California purchase, of course, added to fears that Leonard will pack up and go once he becomes a free agent at the end of this season. So far, Leonard has been having an outstanding season as one of the league's highest average point producers, even if he is taking a lot of games off. Leonard is currently earning around $23 million on the one-year deal he signed with Toronto, but as a free agent, he could easily earn more, and he could enhance his value by taking Toronto on a deep playoff run. It's believed Toronto could offer Leonard a five-year extension worth as much as $190 million on July 1. Leonard's health issues (he missed all but nine games last season with a quadriceps injury) have been managed smartly by the Raptors, who rest Leonard in the second half of back-to-back games, and sometimes more. The city of Toronto can be a hard sell for basketball players because it's a cold-weather climate and there is no legacy of winning here. But Toronto has significant upside. It is the NBA's fourth largest media market, it has a rabid basketball following across the country, and the city boasts some of the best restaurants and entertainment in the world. What might sell Leonard on staying is that the media-shy Leonard isn't the only show in town. Kyle Lowry, Serge Ibaka and Pascal Siakam are coming up big in big moments and taking the media pressure off Leonard, who rarely gives extensive interviews. Raptors general manager Masai Ujiri has made it clear that he is prepared to do whatever it takes to make Toronto a winner. He fired Dwane Casey, who weeks later was named NBA coach of the year after a 59-win season, and then traded the popular DeMar DeRozan for Leonard and Danny Green. To his credit, the Raptors have been consistent winners since Ujiri took over as head of basketball operations in 2013. Raptors coach Nick Nurse has also been building trust with Leonard. They have a professional relationship. In the end, all the Raptors can do is keep showing that they are committed to winning and putting Leonard in the best position to succeed. It's reasonable to suggest that Lowry, the heart and soul of the team, should be in Leonard's ear and trying to talk him into staying. But if Lowry is still upset at Raptors management for dealing his friend DeRozan, perhaps it's unrealistic for Lowry to recruit Leonard. Meanwhile, when Leonard missed four straight Raptors games in late January, more questions swirled about his "load management," which is the Raptors explanation for allowing him to rest. Yes, it makes sense to have Leonard ready for a long playoff run. But his absence has led to jokes in Toronto that perhaps Leonard should be encased in bubble wrap. If Leonard decides to take his services elsewhere, few in Toronto would be surprised. The Raptors have seen superstar players like Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and Chris Bosh take their talents elsewhere. For the time being, Toronto is just enjoying the moment. The city is warmly embracing this team. At some point, we will know how much the Raptors desire Leonard for the long term. But in this era of free agency, fans realize that good times don't last forever. Change is inevitable. Ujiri has shown a willingness to take huge risks. Going into the trade deadline and down the stretch, it won't be Leonard you want to watch the most. It will be Ujiri. | Toronto Raptors star Kawhi Leonard is a free agent at the end of the season. There are fears that Leonard will opt out of his contract and play for the Lakers or Clippers. The city of Toronto has significant upside in selling Leonard on a future in the NBA, including a rabid basketball following across the country. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtisrush/2019/02/01/can-the-raptors-sell-kawhi-leonard-on-a-future-in-toronto/ | 0.358898 |
Can Elizabeth Warren and Adam Smith, Defying Trump, Persuade Americans to Get Serious About Nuclear-Arms Control? | It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first. This is the elegantly simple declamation of a bill, introduced on Wednesday by Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington, the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The proposed legislation would reverse the longstanding American policy of being theoretically prepared to initiate a nuclear conflict without first being subject to a nuclear attack. Deterrence theory, which was adopted during the height of the Cold War, seemed to require that a country threaten its readiness to launch a premptive nuclear onslaught even before an enemy got to zero with its own countdown. Over the years, though, daylight fell between deterrence theory and strategic conduct. No first use became taken for granted as a matter of practice: the United States was not going to start a nuclear war. Barack Obama came close to turning that stance into policy late in his Presidency. Warned off by the national-security lite, including his own Secretaries of Defense, Energy, and State, who did not want to send softening signals to Russia and China, he declined to do so. But the Trump Administrations Nuclear Posture Review, issued a year ago this month, went fully the other way, openly declaring that the United States would launch nuclear strikes in response to non-nuclear strategic attacks, a vaguely characterized category that could be interpreted to include, say, cyber assaults on the American information infrastructure. Now, a readiness to use a nuclear weapon for the first time since the attack on Nagasaki is a central part of national-security doctrine, a perfect match to the Administrations across-the-board bluster. First use is a readymade organizing principle for Donald Trump. Smith and Warren are now openly defying that Trump doctrine. No first use can be understood as a kind of mantra, a symbol of a larger purposeto move away from the decades-old paralysis of nuclear mania. That it could inhibit even a nuclear abolitionist such as Obama shows how multifaceted the problem remains. Smith has introduced such a bill previously, but now he is joined by a colleague who stands at the pinnacle of the nations interest. Warren, who has all but announced a 2020 Presidential bid, embraced no first use in a major foreign-policy address at American University, in November, as one of what she called three core nuclear-security principles. The other two were no new nuclear weapons and more international arms control, not less both of which point away from the road that the Trump Administration has taken. In renouncing the first-use doctrine, Warren joined an eminently practical concernTo reduce the chances of a miscalculation or an accidentto an ethical one. To maintain our moral and diplomatic leadership in the world, we must be clear that deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal, she said. Introducing the No First Use Act marks a major move, for Warren, from the realm of rhetoric to actual lawmaking designed, at the very least, to prompt congressional consideration of a crucial national-security question. The Republican pushback came quickly. Senator Deb Fischer, of Nebraska, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committees subcommittee on strategic forces, said that the proposal betrays a nave and disturbed world view. Such dismissal will no doubt come from many quarters. How the initiative plays out in the push and pull of Presidential politics will say less, perhaps, about campaign competitions and media preoccupations than about the general attitude of the American electorate toward the subject. When it comes to the dangers posed by nuclear arsenals, complacency reigns, even as the Trump Administration goes steadily about the business of opening up a new nuclear age. When Trump launched his fire and fury like the world has never seen tirade against North Korea, in August of 2017, there was a short-lived rush of nuclear anguish, with many people of a certain age recalling incidents of Cold War Armageddon dread. But, with Trumps irrational about-face on North Korea, which seems based on what he has called the love between him and Kim Jong Un, and which his own intelligence chiefs discounted earlier this week, the broad fear of nuclear war resumed its place in the deep recesses of American denial. Warren is not taking her cues on this question from the polls. If she were, she would, like most other politicians, likely leave it alone. For two generations, Americans have not known how to think about the nations nuclear policy, or its arsenal, and so, for the most part, it seems, they havent. The twenty-first centurys stalling of arms reduction, and the withering of the U.S. commitment to the arms-reduction-treaty regime, have ranked low on the scale of the nations problems, as perceived from across the political spectrum. Obamas brief emergence as a globally celebrated nuclear eliminationist, and his inexorable fade from that stance when he was actually in power, says less about a leaders fecklessness than about the deadly lock that nuclear weapons have had on one Congress after another, on the ever-burgeoning defense industry, and on the American mind. There was an exception, which came during the fraught period of the first term of the Reagan Administration, when a burst of nuclear-war anxiety swept across much of the world. In Europe, the deployment of American cruise and Pershing II missiles ignited unprecedented grassroots protests. In this country, that anxiety inspired the Nuclear Freeze Movementwhich called for a freeze on the super-powers nuclear arsenals at their then current levels with municipalities, civic and professional groups, religious institutions, and cohorts of educators, physicians, and scientists all banding together against what felt like an imminent nuclear catastrophe. By March of 1982, the grassroots had sprouted a forest, and the nuclear-freeze resolution, A Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race, inspired a bill in Congress by sponsors that included two Massachusetts Democrats: Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Ed Markey, who is now Warrens colleague in the Senate. (Markey, with Representative Ted Lieu, of California, reintroduced a similar bill of his own this week) Three months later, a million anti-nuke protesters gathered in New York City. A year after that, the nuclear-freeze resolution passed in the House. The idea of the freeze then opened into the larger idea of nuclear reduction, and, over time, to a wide embrace of the goal of nuclear abolition. Members of the Pentagons nuclear priesthood, including General Lee Butler and Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., and civilian architects of the nuclear-security state, such as Paul Nitze and William Perry, began to speak out against nukes. For a time, liberation from the grip of the absolute weapon seemed possible. Even Reagan had been preparing to move past the idea of freezing nuclear-arms levels to reducing them. Then, Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union, a historic shift occurred, and, against all predictions, the Cold War ended, not with conflagration but with negotiation. (On Friday, the Trump Administration suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which came out of those negotiations, in 1987, following a long-running disagreement over Russia's compliance.) No first use is a simple idea, as the freeze was, and that is its strength. It is common-sensical, and harkens back to the informal moral consensus that America is not a nation to start a nuclear war. That consensus should be enshrined in law, but, even if all that comes of the Smith-Warren initiative is a renewed public debate, that will be more than salutary. Consideration of the No First Use Act not only in Congress but on the campaign trail can point forward to a new grappling with the unexamined set of nuclear questions, starting with Warrens other two core principles: of no to new weapons and yes to arms control. More than her proposals for the recovery from income inequality, her effort to unbolt the nuclear lock on the American economy and culture can be historic. | Elizabeth Warren and Adam Smith have introduced a bill to reverse the U.S. policy of not using nuclear weapons first. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-elizabeth-warren-and-adam-smith-defying-trump-persuade-americans-to-get-serious-about-nuclear-arms-control | 0.217626 |
Can Elizabeth Warren and Adam Smith, Defying Trump, Persuade Americans to Get Serious About Nuclear-Arms Control? | It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first. This is the elegantly simple declamation of a bill, introduced on Wednesday by Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington, the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The proposed legislation would reverse the longstanding American policy of being theoretically prepared to initiate a nuclear conflict without first being subject to a nuclear attack. Deterrence theory, which was adopted during the height of the Cold War, seemed to require that a country threaten its readiness to launch a premptive nuclear onslaught even before an enemy got to zero with its own countdown. Over the years, though, daylight fell between deterrence theory and strategic conduct. No first use became taken for granted as a matter of practice: the United States was not going to start a nuclear war. Barack Obama came close to turning that stance into policy late in his Presidency. Warned off by the national-security lite, including his own Secretaries of Defense, Energy, and State, who did not want to send softening signals to Russia and China, he declined to do so. But the Trump Administrations Nuclear Posture Review, issued a year ago this month, went fully the other way, openly declaring that the United States would launch nuclear strikes in response to non-nuclear strategic attacks, a vaguely characterized category that could be interpreted to include, say, cyber assaults on the American information infrastructure. Now, a readiness to use a nuclear weapon for the first time since the attack on Nagasaki is a central part of national-security doctrine, a perfect match to the Administrations across-the-board bluster. First use is a readymade organizing principle for Donald Trump. Smith and Warren are now openly defying that Trump doctrine. No first use can be understood as a kind of mantra, a symbol of a larger purposeto move away from the decades-old paralysis of nuclear mania. That it could inhibit even a nuclear abolitionist such as Obama shows how multifaceted the problem remains. Smith has introduced such a bill previously, but now he is joined by a colleague who stands at the pinnacle of the nations interest. Warren, who has all but announced a 2020 Presidential bid, embraced no first use in a major foreign-policy address at American University, in November, as one of what she called three core nuclear-security principles. The other two were no new nuclear weapons and more international arms control, not less both of which point away from the road that the Trump Administration has taken. In renouncing the first-use doctrine, Warren joined an eminently practical concernTo reduce the chances of a miscalculation or an accidentto an ethical one. To maintain our moral and diplomatic leadership in the world, we must be clear that deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal, she said. Introducing the No First Use Act marks a major move, for Warren, from the realm of rhetoric to actual lawmaking designed, at the very least, to prompt congressional consideration of a crucial national-security question. The Republican pushback came quickly. Senator Deb Fischer, of Nebraska, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committees subcommittee on strategic forces, said that the proposal betrays a nave and disturbed world view. Such dismissal will no doubt come from many quarters. How the initiative plays out in the push and pull of Presidential politics will say less, perhaps, about campaign competitions and media preoccupations than about the general attitude of the American electorate toward the subject. When it comes to the dangers posed by nuclear arsenals, complacency reigns, even as the Trump Administration goes steadily about the business of opening up a new nuclear age. When Trump launched his fire and fury like the world has never seen tirade against North Korea, in August of 2017, there was a short-lived rush of nuclear anguish, with many people of a certain age recalling incidents of Cold War Armageddon dread. But, with Trumps irrational about-face on North Korea, which seems based on what he has called the love between him and Kim Jong Un, and which his own intelligence chiefs discounted earlier this week, the broad fear of nuclear war resumed its place in the deep recesses of American denial. Warren is not taking her cues on this question from the polls. If she were, she would, like most other politicians, likely leave it alone. For two generations, Americans have not known how to think about the nations nuclear policy, or its arsenal, and so, for the most part, it seems, they havent. The twenty-first centurys stalling of arms reduction, and the withering of the U.S. commitment to the arms-reduction-treaty regime, have ranked low on the scale of the nations problems, as perceived from across the political spectrum. Obamas brief emergence as a globally celebrated nuclear eliminationist, and his inexorable fade from that stance when he was actually in power, says less about a leaders fecklessness than about the deadly lock that nuclear weapons have had on one Congress after another, on the ever-burgeoning defense industry, and on the American mind. There was an exception, which came during the fraught period of the first term of the Reagan Administration, when a burst of nuclear-war anxiety swept across much of the world. In Europe, the deployment of American cruise and Pershing II missiles ignited unprecedented grassroots protests. In this country, that anxiety inspired the Nuclear Freeze Movementwhich called for a freeze on the super-powers nuclear arsenals at their then current levels with municipalities, civic and professional groups, religious institutions, and cohorts of educators, physicians, and scientists all banding together against what felt like an imminent nuclear catastrophe. By March of 1982, the grassroots had sprouted a forest, and the nuclear-freeze resolution, A Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race, inspired a bill in Congress by sponsors that included two Massachusetts Democrats: Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Ed Markey, who is now Warrens colleague in the Senate. (Markey, with Representative Ted Lieu, of California, reintroduced a similar bill of his own this week) Three months later, a million anti-nuke protesters gathered in New York City. A year after that, the nuclear-freeze resolution passed in the House. The idea of the freeze then opened into the larger idea of nuclear reduction, and, over time, to a wide embrace of the goal of nuclear abolition. Members of the Pentagons nuclear priesthood, including General Lee Butler and Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., and civilian architects of the nuclear-security state, such as Paul Nitze and William Perry, began to speak out against nukes. For a time, liberation from the grip of the absolute weapon seemed possible. Even Reagan had been preparing to move past the idea of freezing nuclear-arms levels to reducing them. Then, Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union, a historic shift occurred, and, against all predictions, the Cold War ended, not with conflagration but with negotiation. (On Friday, the Trump Administration suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which came out of those negotiations, in 1987, following a long-running disagreement over Russia's compliance.) No first use is a simple idea, as the freeze was, and that is its strength. It is common-sensical, and harkens back to the informal moral consensus that America is not a nation to start a nuclear war. That consensus should be enshrined in law, but, even if all that comes of the Smith-Warren initiative is a renewed public debate, that will be more than salutary. Consideration of the No First Use Act not only in Congress but on the campaign trail can point forward to a new grappling with the unexamined set of nuclear questions, starting with Warrens other two core principles: of no to new weapons and yes to arms control. More than her proposals for the recovery from income inequality, her effort to unbolt the nuclear lock on the American economy and culture can be historic. | Rep. Adam Smith and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have introduced a bill that would reverse the longstanding U.S. policy of not using nuclear weapons first. The move is designed to move away from the decades-old paralysis of nuclear mania. | bart | 1 | https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-elizabeth-warren-and-adam-smith-defying-trump-persuade-americans-to-get-serious-about-nuclear-arms-control | 0.249886 |
Can Elizabeth Warren and Adam Smith, Defying Trump, Persuade Americans to Get Serious About Nuclear-Arms Control? | It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first. This is the elegantly simple declamation of a bill, introduced on Wednesday by Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington, the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The proposed legislation would reverse the longstanding American policy of being theoretically prepared to initiate a nuclear conflict without first being subject to a nuclear attack. Deterrence theory, which was adopted during the height of the Cold War, seemed to require that a country threaten its readiness to launch a premptive nuclear onslaught even before an enemy got to zero with its own countdown. Over the years, though, daylight fell between deterrence theory and strategic conduct. No first use became taken for granted as a matter of practice: the United States was not going to start a nuclear war. Barack Obama came close to turning that stance into policy late in his Presidency. Warned off by the national-security lite, including his own Secretaries of Defense, Energy, and State, who did not want to send softening signals to Russia and China, he declined to do so. But the Trump Administrations Nuclear Posture Review, issued a year ago this month, went fully the other way, openly declaring that the United States would launch nuclear strikes in response to non-nuclear strategic attacks, a vaguely characterized category that could be interpreted to include, say, cyber assaults on the American information infrastructure. Now, a readiness to use a nuclear weapon for the first time since the attack on Nagasaki is a central part of national-security doctrine, a perfect match to the Administrations across-the-board bluster. First use is a readymade organizing principle for Donald Trump. Smith and Warren are now openly defying that Trump doctrine. No first use can be understood as a kind of mantra, a symbol of a larger purposeto move away from the decades-old paralysis of nuclear mania. That it could inhibit even a nuclear abolitionist such as Obama shows how multifaceted the problem remains. Smith has introduced such a bill previously, but now he is joined by a colleague who stands at the pinnacle of the nations interest. Warren, who has all but announced a 2020 Presidential bid, embraced no first use in a major foreign-policy address at American University, in November, as one of what she called three core nuclear-security principles. The other two were no new nuclear weapons and more international arms control, not less both of which point away from the road that the Trump Administration has taken. In renouncing the first-use doctrine, Warren joined an eminently practical concernTo reduce the chances of a miscalculation or an accidentto an ethical one. To maintain our moral and diplomatic leadership in the world, we must be clear that deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal, she said. Introducing the No First Use Act marks a major move, for Warren, from the realm of rhetoric to actual lawmaking designed, at the very least, to prompt congressional consideration of a crucial national-security question. The Republican pushback came quickly. Senator Deb Fischer, of Nebraska, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committees subcommittee on strategic forces, said that the proposal betrays a nave and disturbed world view. Such dismissal will no doubt come from many quarters. How the initiative plays out in the push and pull of Presidential politics will say less, perhaps, about campaign competitions and media preoccupations than about the general attitude of the American electorate toward the subject. When it comes to the dangers posed by nuclear arsenals, complacency reigns, even as the Trump Administration goes steadily about the business of opening up a new nuclear age. When Trump launched his fire and fury like the world has never seen tirade against North Korea, in August of 2017, there was a short-lived rush of nuclear anguish, with many people of a certain age recalling incidents of Cold War Armageddon dread. But, with Trumps irrational about-face on North Korea, which seems based on what he has called the love between him and Kim Jong Un, and which his own intelligence chiefs discounted earlier this week, the broad fear of nuclear war resumed its place in the deep recesses of American denial. Warren is not taking her cues on this question from the polls. If she were, she would, like most other politicians, likely leave it alone. For two generations, Americans have not known how to think about the nations nuclear policy, or its arsenal, and so, for the most part, it seems, they havent. The twenty-first centurys stalling of arms reduction, and the withering of the U.S. commitment to the arms-reduction-treaty regime, have ranked low on the scale of the nations problems, as perceived from across the political spectrum. Obamas brief emergence as a globally celebrated nuclear eliminationist, and his inexorable fade from that stance when he was actually in power, says less about a leaders fecklessness than about the deadly lock that nuclear weapons have had on one Congress after another, on the ever-burgeoning defense industry, and on the American mind. There was an exception, which came during the fraught period of the first term of the Reagan Administration, when a burst of nuclear-war anxiety swept across much of the world. In Europe, the deployment of American cruise and Pershing II missiles ignited unprecedented grassroots protests. In this country, that anxiety inspired the Nuclear Freeze Movementwhich called for a freeze on the super-powers nuclear arsenals at their then current levels with municipalities, civic and professional groups, religious institutions, and cohorts of educators, physicians, and scientists all banding together against what felt like an imminent nuclear catastrophe. By March of 1982, the grassroots had sprouted a forest, and the nuclear-freeze resolution, A Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race, inspired a bill in Congress by sponsors that included two Massachusetts Democrats: Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Ed Markey, who is now Warrens colleague in the Senate. (Markey, with Representative Ted Lieu, of California, reintroduced a similar bill of his own this week) Three months later, a million anti-nuke protesters gathered in New York City. A year after that, the nuclear-freeze resolution passed in the House. The idea of the freeze then opened into the larger idea of nuclear reduction, and, over time, to a wide embrace of the goal of nuclear abolition. Members of the Pentagons nuclear priesthood, including General Lee Butler and Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., and civilian architects of the nuclear-security state, such as Paul Nitze and William Perry, began to speak out against nukes. For a time, liberation from the grip of the absolute weapon seemed possible. Even Reagan had been preparing to move past the idea of freezing nuclear-arms levels to reducing them. Then, Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union, a historic shift occurred, and, against all predictions, the Cold War ended, not with conflagration but with negotiation. (On Friday, the Trump Administration suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which came out of those negotiations, in 1987, following a long-running disagreement over Russia's compliance.) No first use is a simple idea, as the freeze was, and that is its strength. It is common-sensical, and harkens back to the informal moral consensus that America is not a nation to start a nuclear war. That consensus should be enshrined in law, but, even if all that comes of the Smith-Warren initiative is a renewed public debate, that will be more than salutary. Consideration of the No First Use Act not only in Congress but on the campaign trail can point forward to a new grappling with the unexamined set of nuclear questions, starting with Warrens other two core principles: of no to new weapons and yes to arms control. More than her proposals for the recovery from income inequality, her effort to unbolt the nuclear lock on the American economy and culture can be historic. | Rep. Adam Smith and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have introduced a bill that would reverse the longstanding U.S. policy of not using nuclear weapons first. The move is designed to move away from the decades-old paralysis of nuclear mania. First use is a readymade organizing principle for Donald Trump. | bart | 2 | https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-elizabeth-warren-and-adam-smith-defying-trump-persuade-americans-to-get-serious-about-nuclear-arms-control | 0.344145 |
Does Howard Schultz Have a Real Shot at Defeating Trump? | Robert Merry Politics, America American politics is a parade of surprises, including developments that seem inconceivable before they happen but afterward take on a coloration of being commonplace. Thought so. What this tells you is that American politics is a parade of surprises, including developments that seem inconceivable before they happen but afterward take on a coloration of being commonplace. The Trump election is a vivid example. Now we have hints from former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz that he may run for president next year as an independent candidatefunded in large part, presumably, by his own fortune born of his business brilliance. Howls went up immediately that he would be a spoiler in the race, split the anti-Trump vote, and almost single-handedly award Trump with a reelection victory. Besides, it was emphasized, he cant win. Probably he cant. But maybe he can. We just dont know, rather like we couldnt know four years ago that Trump actually could become president. As Schultz makes up his mind on whether to runand whether he can withstand the opprobrium of Democrats who are shrieking like teenagers at a horror movie, as the Wall Street Journal puts itsome observations may be in order. First, if ever there were a time in American politics when there could be a prospect for an independent victory, this may be it. The countrys political situation is intrinsically unstable. Trump has captured the reins of the Republican Party, but many Republicans recoil at the idea of having him as their partys leader. And Trumps public opinion approval numbers since his election, between around 39 percent. If Trump looks like a loser as the campaign year unfolds, then his base support could erode significantly. That could destabilize the countrys political situation further. Then there is the Democratic Party, lurching to the Left at the behest of such figures as senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, not to mention the new crop of outspoken leftists and socialists who emerged in last years congressional elections. They have brought to the fore within the party such policy prescriptions as Medicare for All, a 70 percent top individual tax rate, and a truly confiscatory wealth tax on billionaires. Many Democrats will embrace these ideas, but others wont. And the emergence of a new party establishment of the Left, which seems to be in the works, will leave many Democrats uncomfortable, if not downright angry. That will destabilize the situation even further. Independent presidential candidates gain sway in turbulent campaign years, which 2020 figures to be. Thus, while theres no reason at this point to predict a consequential Schultz surge in the general election, it shouldnt be discounted, either. Voters are going to be angry, frustrated, fearful, and wracked with concerns about the state and direction of their country. Thats a recipe for voters casting a serious look at fresh electoral options. Second, lets explore the idea that Schultz would split the anti-Trump vote and hence deliver a reelection victory to the president. Its possible, but history suggests alternative candidates, if they reach a level of magnitude, often harm the incumbent more than the challenger. Thats because the incumbent (or incumbent party) generally gets the blame for what ails the polity, and alternative candidates serve to emphasize these ills to the electorate. Thus, Theodore Roosevelts 1912 independent bid destroyed the Taft incumbency; George Wallaces 1968 candidacy (which garnered nearly 14 percent of the popular vote) upended the Democrats hold on the White House; John Andersons 1980 insurgency (6.6 percent) helped defeat Jimmy Carter; and Ross Perots 1992 entry (19 percent) contributed to George H. W. Bushs downfall. Its rather pat to suggest definitively that a Schultz candidacy will give Donald Trump his only serious chance to get reelected, as William A. Galston put it in a Wall Street Journal open letter. The campaign year dynamics have yet to play out, and they could prove to be far different from what they appear to be today. | Robert Merry: Howard Schultz hints he may run for president next year as an independent. He says it's possible Schultz would split anti-Trump vote and deliver a reelection victory to the president. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://news.yahoo.com/does-howard-schultz-real-shot-133000942.html | 0.19117 |
Does Howard Schultz Have a Real Shot at Defeating Trump? | Robert Merry Politics, America American politics is a parade of surprises, including developments that seem inconceivable before they happen but afterward take on a coloration of being commonplace. Thought so. What this tells you is that American politics is a parade of surprises, including developments that seem inconceivable before they happen but afterward take on a coloration of being commonplace. The Trump election is a vivid example. Now we have hints from former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz that he may run for president next year as an independent candidatefunded in large part, presumably, by his own fortune born of his business brilliance. Howls went up immediately that he would be a spoiler in the race, split the anti-Trump vote, and almost single-handedly award Trump with a reelection victory. Besides, it was emphasized, he cant win. Probably he cant. But maybe he can. We just dont know, rather like we couldnt know four years ago that Trump actually could become president. As Schultz makes up his mind on whether to runand whether he can withstand the opprobrium of Democrats who are shrieking like teenagers at a horror movie, as the Wall Street Journal puts itsome observations may be in order. First, if ever there were a time in American politics when there could be a prospect for an independent victory, this may be it. The countrys political situation is intrinsically unstable. Trump has captured the reins of the Republican Party, but many Republicans recoil at the idea of having him as their partys leader. And Trumps public opinion approval numbers since his election, between around 39 percent. If Trump looks like a loser as the campaign year unfolds, then his base support could erode significantly. That could destabilize the countrys political situation further. Then there is the Democratic Party, lurching to the Left at the behest of such figures as senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, not to mention the new crop of outspoken leftists and socialists who emerged in last years congressional elections. They have brought to the fore within the party such policy prescriptions as Medicare for All, a 70 percent top individual tax rate, and a truly confiscatory wealth tax on billionaires. Many Democrats will embrace these ideas, but others wont. And the emergence of a new party establishment of the Left, which seems to be in the works, will leave many Democrats uncomfortable, if not downright angry. That will destabilize the situation even further. Independent presidential candidates gain sway in turbulent campaign years, which 2020 figures to be. Thus, while theres no reason at this point to predict a consequential Schultz surge in the general election, it shouldnt be discounted, either. Voters are going to be angry, frustrated, fearful, and wracked with concerns about the state and direction of their country. Thats a recipe for voters casting a serious look at fresh electoral options. Second, lets explore the idea that Schultz would split the anti-Trump vote and hence deliver a reelection victory to the president. Its possible, but history suggests alternative candidates, if they reach a level of magnitude, often harm the incumbent more than the challenger. Thats because the incumbent (or incumbent party) generally gets the blame for what ails the polity, and alternative candidates serve to emphasize these ills to the electorate. Thus, Theodore Roosevelts 1912 independent bid destroyed the Taft incumbency; George Wallaces 1968 candidacy (which garnered nearly 14 percent of the popular vote) upended the Democrats hold on the White House; John Andersons 1980 insurgency (6.6 percent) helped defeat Jimmy Carter; and Ross Perots 1992 entry (19 percent) contributed to George H. W. Bushs downfall. Its rather pat to suggest definitively that a Schultz candidacy will give Donald Trump his only serious chance to get reelected, as William A. Galston put it in a Wall Street Journal open letter. The campaign year dynamics have yet to play out, and they could prove to be far different from what they appear to be today. | Robert Merry: Howard Schultz hints he may run for president next year as an independent. He says it's possible Schultz would split anti-Trump vote and deliver a reelection victory to the president. Merry: If ever there were a time in American politics when there could be a prospect for an independent victory, this may be it. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://news.yahoo.com/does-howard-schultz-real-shot-133000942.html | 0.217307 |
Should the Knicks Try to Trade for Kyrie Irving Now? | As the wave of earth-shaking NBA news rumbles on this weekheres something to chew on until the next bit of news breaks. With the Celtics, Knicks and Pelicans all approaching uncertain junctures and the trade deadline on the horizon, the domino effect of Anthony Daviss trade request on the entire league requires some additional thought. Here, then, is a scenario that could work to satisfy all three parties. First, a quick rundown of an increasingly league-wide epidemic of superstar unhappiness. The Knicks made a clear statement of intent by dealing Kristaps Porzingis on Thursday: New York is placing all their chips on bringing in superstar talent. Most signs point to the Knicks targeting Kevin Durant, who is expected to take meetings and look at his options this summer, and Kyrie Irving, who is expected to opt out of the final year of his deal in Boston. Irvings comments on Fridayintimating he would keep all of his options open in free agencycorroborate recent rumblings around the league that he is far from a lock to remain a member of the Celtics, despite more or less verbally committing to re-signing before the season. Meanwhile, the specter of a Davis tradeand his camps machinations to land him with the Lakerscontinues to hang over the entire league. The primary reason why the Pelicans can afford to wait to make a deal is because the Celtics can come to the table after the season with young talent and multiple first-round picks. The reason why Boston has to wait is because they cant simultaneously roster Davis and Kyrie Irving, because both are signed to designated rookie extensions, of which teams are only allowed to have one on payroll. The prospect of Bostons best offer gives New Orleans immediate leverage over Los Angeles and any other bidder going into Thursdays deadline, no matter how much Davis agent, Rich Paul, attempts to get the point across that they are not interested in signing with the Celtics long-term. There are a number of crucial contingencies with this scenariowhich make it speculative, to be fair, but think about it. Assume that Boston knows it might lose Irving. Assume that the Celtics knew they had enough to acquire Davis from the Pelicans before the deadline if they moved Irving first. We know for a fact the Knicks want star talent, and that the Knicks are now armed with forthcoming cap space and future first-rounders after dealing Kristaps Porzingis. New York could bid on multiple max free agents, but they are also in terrific position to trade for one. With Irvings situation now publicly in flux, the Knicks should at least be calling Boston. Of course, there is the possibility that Irving might sign in New York this summer anyway, which is fair, but there are a number of advantages the Knicks would gain by acquiring him immediately. The primary reason is the value of owning Irvings Bird Rights, which they can only acquire via trade. That would allow New York to go over the salary cap when re-signing him this summer, allows them to offer him the most long-term money, and most importantly, puts their first superstar in play before free agency even begins. There is a legitimate perception that the Knicks cant keep their best players happy; the Porzingis fallout and the history of ownership under James Dolan mostly affirms that. The optics of sitting down with, say, Kevin Durant and already having Irving committed are immensely valuable when it comes to making New York a destination. Going to get Irving demonstrates the Knicks are serious, and inarguably makes for a much more convincing pitch. And the best way to guarantee you have Irving in the fold and keep him off the market is, well, to go get him. As it stands, the Knicks can renounce the cap holds to all their free agents go into the off-season with about $24.4 million in salary on the books, with only Dennis Smith Jr., Frank Ntilikina, Lance Thomas, Kevin Knox, Mitchell Robinson and Damyean Dotson under guaranteed contract. The cap for 2019-20 is expected to be set at around $109 million, and Irvings cap hold would be approximately 150% of his previous salaryso roughly $30.1 millionleaving the Knicks with about $54.6 million in space. Thats enough to sign a max player, use the rest of the space to fill out the supporting cast, and re-sign Irving at the end of operations to go over the cap. If nothing else, its entirely preferable to a scenario where the Knicks enter July with no bird in hand, only the promise of cash and what the team might look like to a prospective signing. If youre New York and you think you can keep Irving, youre calling Boston. NADKARNI: The Porzingis Trade Is All About Kevin Durant for the Knicks The math in a hypothetical Knicks/Celtics deal works something like this: for Irving at his salary number, the Knicks can offer any of their own future first-rounders or the ones they just acquired from Dallas, packaged with one of their three expiring contracts. Scenario A: New York offers DeAndre Jordan or Wesley Matthews plus two future firsts. (Because they were just acquired, Jordan and Matthews cannot be combined with any other players). Scenario B: New York offers Kanter, Kevin Knox and a future first. If New York is serious, thinks they can legitimately land a second star, and wants to operate like a big-market team, they sacrifice the assets to do the deal. Knoxs development timeline doesnt align with the immediacy of a Durant-Irving pairing, the Knicks will still have their own first-rounders, and if the big guns fall into place, fans would get over it. Its scary to think about, but if the Knicks are really all-in on building a contender, they do the deal. And for what its worth, it would almost be foolhardy to think theyd to the Porzingis deal without knowing they had at least one big free agent on the way. Again, from Bostons perspective, you only do this deal operating with the knowledge that New Orleans will send you Davis. If the Celtics want to roll the dice on keeping the transcendent big man long-term, acquiring him nowwith the prospect of having Davis around for not one, but two playoff runsmaximizes Bostons window to sell him on staying. If the Celtics fear Irving will depart for nothing, then flipping whatever assets are necessary for Davis, a player who could flip the Eastern Conference for two years with his presence regardless of whether he wants to be a Laker, might be well worth it. The Celtics would also create some cap space with whichever contract they acquire from the Knicks. SHARP: The Porzingis Trade Was Smart. Everyone Calm Down If Boston can move Irving in the above scenario, then their offer to New Orleans for Davis could include Jaylen Brown (made easier by the hypothetical addition of Knox), Marcus Smart, Marcus Morris, and whatever number of first-rounders it would take to sway the Pelicans. It would more or less be an offer New Orleans couldnt afford to refuse. The Celtics could turn to the buyout market to fill out their playoff rotation, and figure it out going into next season with Davis, Gordon Hayward, Al Horford and Jayson Tatum as their principals, plus the possibility of re-signing Terry Rozier, and whatever Knox becomes. While having Irving in place would obviously help their chances of keeping Davis long-term, Boston has a creative, shrewd front office, would still have more draft picks to dangle to improve the team, and would maintain a legitimate pathway to winning the Eastjust maybe not this year. Still, you can argue that with Irvings situation unstable as it is, Hayward not fully back to being himself, and Bostons bouts of inconsistency, the likelihood of them making the Finals in 2019 remains slim. The long view here might even be more promising. This is all speculationthat probably needs to be spelled out againand its a complex scenario. But, its a hypothetical where all three teams win. The Knicks orient themselves to contend in the Eastern Conference next season and still have a full stash of their own draft picks; the Celtics avert the risk of Irvings departure, inherit the best opportunity to keep Davis around, still have draft assets and get to streamline their roster creatively; the Pelicans avoid handing Davis to Los Angeles and receive the best possible haul of picks to build for the future. Maybe. Maybe more than you think. | The Knicks should try to trade for Kyrie Irving now. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.si.com/nba/2019/02/01/kyrie-irving-trade-rumors-knicks-celtics-2019-nba-free-agency | 0.38331 |
Should the Knicks Try to Trade for Kyrie Irving Now? | As the wave of earth-shaking NBA news rumbles on this weekheres something to chew on until the next bit of news breaks. With the Celtics, Knicks and Pelicans all approaching uncertain junctures and the trade deadline on the horizon, the domino effect of Anthony Daviss trade request on the entire league requires some additional thought. Here, then, is a scenario that could work to satisfy all three parties. First, a quick rundown of an increasingly league-wide epidemic of superstar unhappiness. The Knicks made a clear statement of intent by dealing Kristaps Porzingis on Thursday: New York is placing all their chips on bringing in superstar talent. Most signs point to the Knicks targeting Kevin Durant, who is expected to take meetings and look at his options this summer, and Kyrie Irving, who is expected to opt out of the final year of his deal in Boston. Irvings comments on Fridayintimating he would keep all of his options open in free agencycorroborate recent rumblings around the league that he is far from a lock to remain a member of the Celtics, despite more or less verbally committing to re-signing before the season. Meanwhile, the specter of a Davis tradeand his camps machinations to land him with the Lakerscontinues to hang over the entire league. The primary reason why the Pelicans can afford to wait to make a deal is because the Celtics can come to the table after the season with young talent and multiple first-round picks. The reason why Boston has to wait is because they cant simultaneously roster Davis and Kyrie Irving, because both are signed to designated rookie extensions, of which teams are only allowed to have one on payroll. The prospect of Bostons best offer gives New Orleans immediate leverage over Los Angeles and any other bidder going into Thursdays deadline, no matter how much Davis agent, Rich Paul, attempts to get the point across that they are not interested in signing with the Celtics long-term. There are a number of crucial contingencies with this scenariowhich make it speculative, to be fair, but think about it. Assume that Boston knows it might lose Irving. Assume that the Celtics knew they had enough to acquire Davis from the Pelicans before the deadline if they moved Irving first. We know for a fact the Knicks want star talent, and that the Knicks are now armed with forthcoming cap space and future first-rounders after dealing Kristaps Porzingis. New York could bid on multiple max free agents, but they are also in terrific position to trade for one. With Irvings situation now publicly in flux, the Knicks should at least be calling Boston. Of course, there is the possibility that Irving might sign in New York this summer anyway, which is fair, but there are a number of advantages the Knicks would gain by acquiring him immediately. The primary reason is the value of owning Irvings Bird Rights, which they can only acquire via trade. That would allow New York to go over the salary cap when re-signing him this summer, allows them to offer him the most long-term money, and most importantly, puts their first superstar in play before free agency even begins. There is a legitimate perception that the Knicks cant keep their best players happy; the Porzingis fallout and the history of ownership under James Dolan mostly affirms that. The optics of sitting down with, say, Kevin Durant and already having Irving committed are immensely valuable when it comes to making New York a destination. Going to get Irving demonstrates the Knicks are serious, and inarguably makes for a much more convincing pitch. And the best way to guarantee you have Irving in the fold and keep him off the market is, well, to go get him. As it stands, the Knicks can renounce the cap holds to all their free agents go into the off-season with about $24.4 million in salary on the books, with only Dennis Smith Jr., Frank Ntilikina, Lance Thomas, Kevin Knox, Mitchell Robinson and Damyean Dotson under guaranteed contract. The cap for 2019-20 is expected to be set at around $109 million, and Irvings cap hold would be approximately 150% of his previous salaryso roughly $30.1 millionleaving the Knicks with about $54.6 million in space. Thats enough to sign a max player, use the rest of the space to fill out the supporting cast, and re-sign Irving at the end of operations to go over the cap. If nothing else, its entirely preferable to a scenario where the Knicks enter July with no bird in hand, only the promise of cash and what the team might look like to a prospective signing. If youre New York and you think you can keep Irving, youre calling Boston. NADKARNI: The Porzingis Trade Is All About Kevin Durant for the Knicks The math in a hypothetical Knicks/Celtics deal works something like this: for Irving at his salary number, the Knicks can offer any of their own future first-rounders or the ones they just acquired from Dallas, packaged with one of their three expiring contracts. Scenario A: New York offers DeAndre Jordan or Wesley Matthews plus two future firsts. (Because they were just acquired, Jordan and Matthews cannot be combined with any other players). Scenario B: New York offers Kanter, Kevin Knox and a future first. If New York is serious, thinks they can legitimately land a second star, and wants to operate like a big-market team, they sacrifice the assets to do the deal. Knoxs development timeline doesnt align with the immediacy of a Durant-Irving pairing, the Knicks will still have their own first-rounders, and if the big guns fall into place, fans would get over it. Its scary to think about, but if the Knicks are really all-in on building a contender, they do the deal. And for what its worth, it would almost be foolhardy to think theyd to the Porzingis deal without knowing they had at least one big free agent on the way. Again, from Bostons perspective, you only do this deal operating with the knowledge that New Orleans will send you Davis. If the Celtics want to roll the dice on keeping the transcendent big man long-term, acquiring him nowwith the prospect of having Davis around for not one, but two playoff runsmaximizes Bostons window to sell him on staying. If the Celtics fear Irving will depart for nothing, then flipping whatever assets are necessary for Davis, a player who could flip the Eastern Conference for two years with his presence regardless of whether he wants to be a Laker, might be well worth it. The Celtics would also create some cap space with whichever contract they acquire from the Knicks. SHARP: The Porzingis Trade Was Smart. Everyone Calm Down If Boston can move Irving in the above scenario, then their offer to New Orleans for Davis could include Jaylen Brown (made easier by the hypothetical addition of Knox), Marcus Smart, Marcus Morris, and whatever number of first-rounders it would take to sway the Pelicans. It would more or less be an offer New Orleans couldnt afford to refuse. The Celtics could turn to the buyout market to fill out their playoff rotation, and figure it out going into next season with Davis, Gordon Hayward, Al Horford and Jayson Tatum as their principals, plus the possibility of re-signing Terry Rozier, and whatever Knox becomes. While having Irving in place would obviously help their chances of keeping Davis long-term, Boston has a creative, shrewd front office, would still have more draft picks to dangle to improve the team, and would maintain a legitimate pathway to winning the Eastjust maybe not this year. Still, you can argue that with Irvings situation unstable as it is, Hayward not fully back to being himself, and Bostons bouts of inconsistency, the likelihood of them making the Finals in 2019 remains slim. The long view here might even be more promising. This is all speculationthat probably needs to be spelled out againand its a complex scenario. But, its a hypothetical where all three teams win. The Knicks orient themselves to contend in the Eastern Conference next season and still have a full stash of their own draft picks; the Celtics avert the risk of Irvings departure, inherit the best opportunity to keep Davis around, still have draft assets and get to streamline their roster creatively; the Pelicans avoid handing Davis to Los Angeles and receive the best possible haul of picks to build for the future. Maybe. Maybe more than you think. | The Knicks should try to trade for Kyrie Irving now, rather than wait until the deadline. Irving's comments on Friday indicated he would keep all of his options open in free agency. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.si.com/nba/2019/02/01/kyrie-irving-trade-rumors-knicks-celtics-2019-nba-free-agency | 0.540614 |
Should the Knicks Try to Trade for Kyrie Irving Now? | As the wave of earth-shaking NBA news rumbles on this weekheres something to chew on until the next bit of news breaks. With the Celtics, Knicks and Pelicans all approaching uncertain junctures and the trade deadline on the horizon, the domino effect of Anthony Daviss trade request on the entire league requires some additional thought. Here, then, is a scenario that could work to satisfy all three parties. First, a quick rundown of an increasingly league-wide epidemic of superstar unhappiness. The Knicks made a clear statement of intent by dealing Kristaps Porzingis on Thursday: New York is placing all their chips on bringing in superstar talent. Most signs point to the Knicks targeting Kevin Durant, who is expected to take meetings and look at his options this summer, and Kyrie Irving, who is expected to opt out of the final year of his deal in Boston. Irvings comments on Fridayintimating he would keep all of his options open in free agencycorroborate recent rumblings around the league that he is far from a lock to remain a member of the Celtics, despite more or less verbally committing to re-signing before the season. Meanwhile, the specter of a Davis tradeand his camps machinations to land him with the Lakerscontinues to hang over the entire league. The primary reason why the Pelicans can afford to wait to make a deal is because the Celtics can come to the table after the season with young talent and multiple first-round picks. The reason why Boston has to wait is because they cant simultaneously roster Davis and Kyrie Irving, because both are signed to designated rookie extensions, of which teams are only allowed to have one on payroll. The prospect of Bostons best offer gives New Orleans immediate leverage over Los Angeles and any other bidder going into Thursdays deadline, no matter how much Davis agent, Rich Paul, attempts to get the point across that they are not interested in signing with the Celtics long-term. There are a number of crucial contingencies with this scenariowhich make it speculative, to be fair, but think about it. Assume that Boston knows it might lose Irving. Assume that the Celtics knew they had enough to acquire Davis from the Pelicans before the deadline if they moved Irving first. We know for a fact the Knicks want star talent, and that the Knicks are now armed with forthcoming cap space and future first-rounders after dealing Kristaps Porzingis. New York could bid on multiple max free agents, but they are also in terrific position to trade for one. With Irvings situation now publicly in flux, the Knicks should at least be calling Boston. Of course, there is the possibility that Irving might sign in New York this summer anyway, which is fair, but there are a number of advantages the Knicks would gain by acquiring him immediately. The primary reason is the value of owning Irvings Bird Rights, which they can only acquire via trade. That would allow New York to go over the salary cap when re-signing him this summer, allows them to offer him the most long-term money, and most importantly, puts their first superstar in play before free agency even begins. There is a legitimate perception that the Knicks cant keep their best players happy; the Porzingis fallout and the history of ownership under James Dolan mostly affirms that. The optics of sitting down with, say, Kevin Durant and already having Irving committed are immensely valuable when it comes to making New York a destination. Going to get Irving demonstrates the Knicks are serious, and inarguably makes for a much more convincing pitch. And the best way to guarantee you have Irving in the fold and keep him off the market is, well, to go get him. As it stands, the Knicks can renounce the cap holds to all their free agents go into the off-season with about $24.4 million in salary on the books, with only Dennis Smith Jr., Frank Ntilikina, Lance Thomas, Kevin Knox, Mitchell Robinson and Damyean Dotson under guaranteed contract. The cap for 2019-20 is expected to be set at around $109 million, and Irvings cap hold would be approximately 150% of his previous salaryso roughly $30.1 millionleaving the Knicks with about $54.6 million in space. Thats enough to sign a max player, use the rest of the space to fill out the supporting cast, and re-sign Irving at the end of operations to go over the cap. If nothing else, its entirely preferable to a scenario where the Knicks enter July with no bird in hand, only the promise of cash and what the team might look like to a prospective signing. If youre New York and you think you can keep Irving, youre calling Boston. NADKARNI: The Porzingis Trade Is All About Kevin Durant for the Knicks The math in a hypothetical Knicks/Celtics deal works something like this: for Irving at his salary number, the Knicks can offer any of their own future first-rounders or the ones they just acquired from Dallas, packaged with one of their three expiring contracts. Scenario A: New York offers DeAndre Jordan or Wesley Matthews plus two future firsts. (Because they were just acquired, Jordan and Matthews cannot be combined with any other players). Scenario B: New York offers Kanter, Kevin Knox and a future first. If New York is serious, thinks they can legitimately land a second star, and wants to operate like a big-market team, they sacrifice the assets to do the deal. Knoxs development timeline doesnt align with the immediacy of a Durant-Irving pairing, the Knicks will still have their own first-rounders, and if the big guns fall into place, fans would get over it. Its scary to think about, but if the Knicks are really all-in on building a contender, they do the deal. And for what its worth, it would almost be foolhardy to think theyd to the Porzingis deal without knowing they had at least one big free agent on the way. Again, from Bostons perspective, you only do this deal operating with the knowledge that New Orleans will send you Davis. If the Celtics want to roll the dice on keeping the transcendent big man long-term, acquiring him nowwith the prospect of having Davis around for not one, but two playoff runsmaximizes Bostons window to sell him on staying. If the Celtics fear Irving will depart for nothing, then flipping whatever assets are necessary for Davis, a player who could flip the Eastern Conference for two years with his presence regardless of whether he wants to be a Laker, might be well worth it. The Celtics would also create some cap space with whichever contract they acquire from the Knicks. SHARP: The Porzingis Trade Was Smart. Everyone Calm Down If Boston can move Irving in the above scenario, then their offer to New Orleans for Davis could include Jaylen Brown (made easier by the hypothetical addition of Knox), Marcus Smart, Marcus Morris, and whatever number of first-rounders it would take to sway the Pelicans. It would more or less be an offer New Orleans couldnt afford to refuse. The Celtics could turn to the buyout market to fill out their playoff rotation, and figure it out going into next season with Davis, Gordon Hayward, Al Horford and Jayson Tatum as their principals, plus the possibility of re-signing Terry Rozier, and whatever Knox becomes. While having Irving in place would obviously help their chances of keeping Davis long-term, Boston has a creative, shrewd front office, would still have more draft picks to dangle to improve the team, and would maintain a legitimate pathway to winning the Eastjust maybe not this year. Still, you can argue that with Irvings situation unstable as it is, Hayward not fully back to being himself, and Bostons bouts of inconsistency, the likelihood of them making the Finals in 2019 remains slim. The long view here might even be more promising. This is all speculationthat probably needs to be spelled out againand its a complex scenario. But, its a hypothetical where all three teams win. The Knicks orient themselves to contend in the Eastern Conference next season and still have a full stash of their own draft picks; the Celtics avert the risk of Irvings departure, inherit the best opportunity to keep Davis around, still have draft assets and get to streamline their roster creatively; the Pelicans avoid handing Davis to Los Angeles and receive the best possible haul of picks to build for the future. Maybe. Maybe more than you think. | The Knicks should try to trade for Kyrie Irving now, rather than wait until the deadline. Irving's comments on Friday indicated he would keep all of his options open in free agency. The Knicks would gain a number of advantages by acquiring Irving immediately, including the value of owning his Bird Rights. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.si.com/nba/2019/02/01/kyrie-irving-trade-rumors-knicks-celtics-2019-nba-free-agency | 0.661841 |
Can Kyle Larson be the next NASCAR superstar? | Kyle Larson (Photo: Jared C. Tilton, Getty Images) Charlotte, N.C. NASCARs biggest stars have all moved on. Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. are television analysts while Tony Stewart is racing sprint cars again. Danica Patrick traded her firesuit for athleisure-wear while Carl Edwards just kind of disappeared. Americas top motorsports series is in need of a new face. The rapid wave of retirements brought in a crop of fresh-faced young drivers tasked with carrying NASCAR through a tough transition, but no clear superstar to fill empty seats and shape the next generation of racers. It might be a job best suited for Kyle Larson, considered by many the best hope to bridge the gap between grassroots racing and NASCAR and perhaps attract new fans to motor sports in a time of need. He is young at 26, and like childhood idol Gordon he hails from California and made his name racing sprint cars. Larson has the raw talent to take risks that other drivers avoid, and he has built a reputation as a clean racer who wont wreck a rival to win. His style has appealed to hardcore fans and his promise has piqued the interest of casual observers. He is half-Japanese, the most successful graduate of NASCARs diversity program, and the only Asian-American full-time driver in NASCAR. Larson has all the elements to be the next Gordon or Stewart. Fair or not, he knows there are expectations to bring attention and excitement to NASCAR. More: NASCAR Hall of Fame a great honor for Michigans Jack Roush I think if I just continue doing what I am doing it takes care of itself; I dont look at it like I have to work too hard to save motor sports, Larson said. I think if I just keep racing all the stuff that I do, its good for all of motor sports. The pressure was on Larson before he ever drove a stock car. Gordon, Stewart and Kasey Kahne anointed Larson the real deal after his sprint car career, which exploded one magical night in 2011 at Stewarts Eldora Speedway in Ohio. Larson that evening became only the second driver in history to win in all three kinds of USAC cars in a single night. Kyle Larson has won five NASCAR Cup races, including the August race at Michigan in 2016. (Photo: Sarah Crabill, Getty Images) Chip Ganassi hired him before the 2012 season and put him in a stock car for the first time, even though the young driver had been on a path toward IndyCar. Larson was 19 and on a fast track to a Cup ride just two years later. He has won five races in the five seasons since; his first Cup victory was at Michigan in 2016. But he has probably lost a dozen more because he is still learning to close out a victory. Ganassi has shown patience with Larson. Hes been at the front, he just has to close out some of these things, Ganassi said. I think he treats people with a lot more respect than they treat him with, and thats his attitude, and were OK with that. Hes approached NASCAR with his own pace. I dont want to say he has nothing to learn; we all have things to learn every single day. But Im perfectly happy with his angle of attack. Larsons most recent defeat, his last time behind the wheel, was one of the most difficult to swallow of his career. Christopher Bell, like Larson a budding star with a sprint car following, passed Larson on the final lap of the Chili Bowl last month to deny Larson the one victory he wants most. Bell won the $10,000 prize and the Golden Driller trophy for the third consecutive year, and Larson spent several sleepless nights replaying the final lap in his head. The break between the Chili Bowl and NASCARs opening of Speedweeks next weekend is the longest stretch of idle time Larson has had this offseason. He spent most of December racing in New Zealand and finds the routine of competing every night in sprint cars helpful in bouncing back after defeat. Im just ready for the next race, Larson said. It just makes it a lot easier to move on when you can go racing, get back in your car the next day or a couple of days later. It just is easier to forget about it when you can race again. Larson estimates he will race roughly 75 events this calendar year, only 38 of which are in NASCAR. The Indianapolis 500 remains on the horizon but not a priority. Still, he was intrigued when Fernando Alonso won the Rolex 24 at Daytona and said his next big project is unprecedented in motor sport. The former Formula One champion is likely going to try to race several disciplines in the biggest races in the world, and Larson wouldnt mind a similar plan. Larson was part of Ganassis 2015 Rolex victory. I feel like Im kind of in that same mold a little bit, Larson said. I obviously dont have the opportunity to run an F1 race, but I could do the Indy 500 and Ive won the Rolex and I race in NASCAR and Im still racing midgets and whatever. I feel like I do a little of everything already and probably even more so than he does. Hes so famous and hes probably one of the greatest race car drivers of all time, so it is cool to get a little bit of recognition as someone who can do what hes trying to plan. The NASCAR audience has an appetite for true racers and Larson has done well in earning new supporters. The married father of two is raising his kids at the race track, the way he and his wife grew up, and he is figuring out how far he can go in motor sports. Rival team owner Rick Hendrick sees Larson as todays Stewart, minus the notorious temper. Hes not quite as ornery as Tony and outspoken, but I think hes a great driver, Hendrick said. Thats what the fans like, somebody who just really can drive a car. Hes one of the most aggressive and has the least amount of baggage. He didnt wreck anybody and he runs everybody clean, he doesnt run over people. Hes fast and good, so I think we need him and I think we need him to win. | Kyle Larson is considered by many the best hope to bridge the gap between grassroots racing and NASCAR. Larson has all the elements to be the next Jeff Gordon or Tony Stewart. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/motor/2019/02/01/nascars-biggest-stars-have-all-moved-on-jeff-gordon-and-dale-earnhardt-jr-television-analysts-while/2745714002/ | 0.292359 |
Can Kyle Larson be the next NASCAR superstar? | Kyle Larson (Photo: Jared C. Tilton, Getty Images) Charlotte, N.C. NASCARs biggest stars have all moved on. Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. are television analysts while Tony Stewart is racing sprint cars again. Danica Patrick traded her firesuit for athleisure-wear while Carl Edwards just kind of disappeared. Americas top motorsports series is in need of a new face. The rapid wave of retirements brought in a crop of fresh-faced young drivers tasked with carrying NASCAR through a tough transition, but no clear superstar to fill empty seats and shape the next generation of racers. It might be a job best suited for Kyle Larson, considered by many the best hope to bridge the gap between grassroots racing and NASCAR and perhaps attract new fans to motor sports in a time of need. He is young at 26, and like childhood idol Gordon he hails from California and made his name racing sprint cars. Larson has the raw talent to take risks that other drivers avoid, and he has built a reputation as a clean racer who wont wreck a rival to win. His style has appealed to hardcore fans and his promise has piqued the interest of casual observers. He is half-Japanese, the most successful graduate of NASCARs diversity program, and the only Asian-American full-time driver in NASCAR. Larson has all the elements to be the next Gordon or Stewart. Fair or not, he knows there are expectations to bring attention and excitement to NASCAR. More: NASCAR Hall of Fame a great honor for Michigans Jack Roush I think if I just continue doing what I am doing it takes care of itself; I dont look at it like I have to work too hard to save motor sports, Larson said. I think if I just keep racing all the stuff that I do, its good for all of motor sports. The pressure was on Larson before he ever drove a stock car. Gordon, Stewart and Kasey Kahne anointed Larson the real deal after his sprint car career, which exploded one magical night in 2011 at Stewarts Eldora Speedway in Ohio. Larson that evening became only the second driver in history to win in all three kinds of USAC cars in a single night. Kyle Larson has won five NASCAR Cup races, including the August race at Michigan in 2016. (Photo: Sarah Crabill, Getty Images) Chip Ganassi hired him before the 2012 season and put him in a stock car for the first time, even though the young driver had been on a path toward IndyCar. Larson was 19 and on a fast track to a Cup ride just two years later. He has won five races in the five seasons since; his first Cup victory was at Michigan in 2016. But he has probably lost a dozen more because he is still learning to close out a victory. Ganassi has shown patience with Larson. Hes been at the front, he just has to close out some of these things, Ganassi said. I think he treats people with a lot more respect than they treat him with, and thats his attitude, and were OK with that. Hes approached NASCAR with his own pace. I dont want to say he has nothing to learn; we all have things to learn every single day. But Im perfectly happy with his angle of attack. Larsons most recent defeat, his last time behind the wheel, was one of the most difficult to swallow of his career. Christopher Bell, like Larson a budding star with a sprint car following, passed Larson on the final lap of the Chili Bowl last month to deny Larson the one victory he wants most. Bell won the $10,000 prize and the Golden Driller trophy for the third consecutive year, and Larson spent several sleepless nights replaying the final lap in his head. The break between the Chili Bowl and NASCARs opening of Speedweeks next weekend is the longest stretch of idle time Larson has had this offseason. He spent most of December racing in New Zealand and finds the routine of competing every night in sprint cars helpful in bouncing back after defeat. Im just ready for the next race, Larson said. It just makes it a lot easier to move on when you can go racing, get back in your car the next day or a couple of days later. It just is easier to forget about it when you can race again. Larson estimates he will race roughly 75 events this calendar year, only 38 of which are in NASCAR. The Indianapolis 500 remains on the horizon but not a priority. Still, he was intrigued when Fernando Alonso won the Rolex 24 at Daytona and said his next big project is unprecedented in motor sport. The former Formula One champion is likely going to try to race several disciplines in the biggest races in the world, and Larson wouldnt mind a similar plan. Larson was part of Ganassis 2015 Rolex victory. I feel like Im kind of in that same mold a little bit, Larson said. I obviously dont have the opportunity to run an F1 race, but I could do the Indy 500 and Ive won the Rolex and I race in NASCAR and Im still racing midgets and whatever. I feel like I do a little of everything already and probably even more so than he does. Hes so famous and hes probably one of the greatest race car drivers of all time, so it is cool to get a little bit of recognition as someone who can do what hes trying to plan. The NASCAR audience has an appetite for true racers and Larson has done well in earning new supporters. The married father of two is raising his kids at the race track, the way he and his wife grew up, and he is figuring out how far he can go in motor sports. Rival team owner Rick Hendrick sees Larson as todays Stewart, minus the notorious temper. Hes not quite as ornery as Tony and outspoken, but I think hes a great driver, Hendrick said. Thats what the fans like, somebody who just really can drive a car. Hes one of the most aggressive and has the least amount of baggage. He didnt wreck anybody and he runs everybody clean, he doesnt run over people. Hes fast and good, so I think we need him and I think we need him to win. | Kyle Larson is considered by many the best hope to bridge the gap between grassroots racing and NASCAR. Larson has won five NASCAR Cup races in the five seasons since his first Cup ride. He is half-Japanese, the most successful graduate of NASCARs diversity program. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/motor/2019/02/01/nascars-biggest-stars-have-all-moved-on-jeff-gordon-and-dale-earnhardt-jr-television-analysts-while/2745714002/ | 0.137761 |
What To Take From Harley-Davidson Full Year Results? | Harley-Davidson (NYSE: HOG) released its Q4 and full year results for the Fiscal Year 2019. The company reported $5.72 million in revenue, up by 1.2% year on year. The Net Income reported was $531.5 million, up by 1.9% YOY and EPS was $3.19, up by 5.6% YOY. The CEO during the investor call mentioned that the company has met or exceeded all planned milestones and the execution is on track and the company is energized with new and different people, riders and non-riders. We have a $46 price estimate for the company, which is above the current market price. View our interactive dashboard Our Outlook For Harley-Davidson in FY 2019 and modify the key assumptions to arrive at your own price estimate for the company. Key highlights of Fiscal Year 2018: The CEO during the call said that the company met or exceeded all stated planned milestones. In 2018, the full year e-commerce sales were up by 32%, they opened 23 apparel stores in Asia, 56 International dealers added, on track for 2-6 new models per year. In July, 2018 the company had announced the More Roads to Harley-Davidson plan, the acceleration of their strategy to build the next generation of Harley-Davidson riders, grow motorcycling, and return the business to growth through 2022. The company is on track to launch the new middleweight motorcycles in 2020. The Pan-America Adventure Touring and Streetfighter Motorcycle are being put through the paces on all kinds of terrain and are demonstrating power, strength, and competitiveness. During the year the company sold 228,051 motorcycles overall (down 6.1% YOY), with the US contributing 132,868 (down 10.2% YOY), and the international market contributing 95,183 motorcycles (up 0.4% YOY). Fiscal Year 2019 outlook: The company expects to make motorcycle shipments in the range of 217,000 to 222,000 and expects the gross margin to be down YOY, but with the operating margin expected to be flat. Restructuring expenses will be approximately $40-45 million and capital expenditures are expected to be in the range of $225-245 million. The company acknowledges the market challenges will persist and in the investor call the CEO said we know market challenges will persist and were meeting them head-on with drive, clarity of purpose, and a solid plan. Our More Roads plan leverages our many strengths and it is our call to action as industry leader. In the U.S., the company is expected to increase relevant motorcycling. They will also address the changing global and consumer preferences towards more accessible motorcycles and a growing interest in demand for the electric segment. The company further believes that And More Roads has tremendous international opportunities that can drive international sales to become at least 50% of the annual sales volume in the near term. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | Harley-Davidson released its Q4 and full year results for the Fiscal Year 2019. The company reported $5.72 million in revenue, up by 1.2% year on year. | bart | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/01/what-to-take-from-harley-davidson-full-year-results/ | 0.266085 |
What To Take From Harley-Davidson Full Year Results? | Harley-Davidson (NYSE: HOG) released its Q4 and full year results for the Fiscal Year 2019. The company reported $5.72 million in revenue, up by 1.2% year on year. The Net Income reported was $531.5 million, up by 1.9% YOY and EPS was $3.19, up by 5.6% YOY. The CEO during the investor call mentioned that the company has met or exceeded all planned milestones and the execution is on track and the company is energized with new and different people, riders and non-riders. We have a $46 price estimate for the company, which is above the current market price. View our interactive dashboard Our Outlook For Harley-Davidson in FY 2019 and modify the key assumptions to arrive at your own price estimate for the company. Key highlights of Fiscal Year 2018: The CEO during the call said that the company met or exceeded all stated planned milestones. In 2018, the full year e-commerce sales were up by 32%, they opened 23 apparel stores in Asia, 56 International dealers added, on track for 2-6 new models per year. In July, 2018 the company had announced the More Roads to Harley-Davidson plan, the acceleration of their strategy to build the next generation of Harley-Davidson riders, grow motorcycling, and return the business to growth through 2022. The company is on track to launch the new middleweight motorcycles in 2020. The Pan-America Adventure Touring and Streetfighter Motorcycle are being put through the paces on all kinds of terrain and are demonstrating power, strength, and competitiveness. During the year the company sold 228,051 motorcycles overall (down 6.1% YOY), with the US contributing 132,868 (down 10.2% YOY), and the international market contributing 95,183 motorcycles (up 0.4% YOY). Fiscal Year 2019 outlook: The company expects to make motorcycle shipments in the range of 217,000 to 222,000 and expects the gross margin to be down YOY, but with the operating margin expected to be flat. Restructuring expenses will be approximately $40-45 million and capital expenditures are expected to be in the range of $225-245 million. The company acknowledges the market challenges will persist and in the investor call the CEO said we know market challenges will persist and were meeting them head-on with drive, clarity of purpose, and a solid plan. Our More Roads plan leverages our many strengths and it is our call to action as industry leader. In the U.S., the company is expected to increase relevant motorcycling. They will also address the changing global and consumer preferences towards more accessible motorcycles and a growing interest in demand for the electric segment. The company further believes that And More Roads has tremendous international opportunities that can drive international sales to become at least 50% of the annual sales volume in the near term. Explore example interactive dashboards and create your own. | Harley-Davidson (NYSE: HOG) released its Q4 and full year results for the Fiscal Year 2019. The company reported $5.72 million in revenue, up by 1.2% year on year. We have a $46 price estimate for the company, which is above the current market price. | bart | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/01/what-to-take-from-harley-davidson-full-year-results/ | 0.32545 |
Are the referenda on Suns arena renovation deal DOA? | CLOSE Sports Editor Mark Faller and columnist discuss the Suns arena deal and Devin Booker's recent antics. Oh, and A.J. Pollock's signing with the Dodgers. Diana Payan, The Republic | azcentral.com OPINION: There are certainly those who hope Common Sense Phoenix's referenda make it on the ballot. I'm not one of them. On Thursday, an attorney retained by Phoenix notified the group behind the referenda that the city clerks office will reject and otherwise not process the petitions when they are submitted. That is, even if the opposition turns in petitions with more than 13,700 valid voter signatures within the 30-day limit, the measure wont be put on the ballot. The council actions on the $230 million renovation deal do not constitute legislative acts subject to referendum, according to the attorney, Jean-Jacques Cabou of Perkins Coie. The view that the council actions were not legislative acts but rather administrative actions is not a given. For one thing, administrative actions are often those grounded in established statutes and standards; they are taken to carry out the legislative acts. Here, the city negotiated with the Suns for more than two years and city council members further negotiated terms with the team to their own political liking before they voted for the deal. A court should decide whether the city of Phoenixs argument holds water. The person, or persons, spearheading the referenda is cloaked in anonymity. About the only thing known about the Common Sense Phoenix committee is that its two listed members Natashia Hammer and Nick Vullo are affiliated with Petition Partners, the signature-gathering outfit hired to run the petitions, and that the campaign easily costs six figures. Drew Chavez, who operates Petition Partners, wont disclose who is writing the check. Nor has he responded to requests to comment on the citys letter, although he previously said attorneys that the group consulted conclude theres no way the council votes constitute administrative actions and thus, would be subject to referendum. Why I hope referenda don't make it to ballot There are undoubtedly those who hope Common Sense Phoenix calls the citys bluff and goes to court. Heres why I hope that it doesnt. The Talking Stick Resort Arena in which the Suns play belongs to the city. The team is but a tenant although its major one. If upgrades to the facility arent made to satisfy the obsolescence clause, the Suns were until this deal free to leave in 2022, leaving the city with an aging arena itd need to renovate regardless whether it's a concert and entertainment venue. The Suns drives not an insignificant amount of jobs and revenue you can argue the precision of estimates, sure and the presence of professional sports has an intrinsic and immeasurable value for downtown. The renovation deal assures the team stays an additional 15 years. But my biggest qualm has to do with the referenda themselves. They are meant as straight up-and-down votes on the deal the city council approved and predicated on the belief voters should reject the deal. A thoughtful, constructive approach would have been to run a companion initiative the costs would be about the same that outlines an alternative to keep the Suns downtown but with greater benefits and less investment by the city. Or, better yet, to have been part of the process when the matter was debated, and to make public the intent to take up the issue as a referendum before a council vote was taken. rather than offering a way forward. That it still lurks in the dark should reinforce public skepticism about the real motivations. Reach Kwok at akwok@azcentral.com. Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/02/01/suns-arena-renovation-deal-referendum-public-vote-dead/2746183002/ | The city of Phoenix says referenda on the Suns arena renovation deal are DOA. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/02/01/suns-arena-renovation-deal-referendum-public-vote-dead/2746183002/ | 0.525734 |
Are the referenda on Suns arena renovation deal DOA? | CLOSE Sports Editor Mark Faller and columnist discuss the Suns arena deal and Devin Booker's recent antics. Oh, and A.J. Pollock's signing with the Dodgers. Diana Payan, The Republic | azcentral.com OPINION: There are certainly those who hope Common Sense Phoenix's referenda make it on the ballot. I'm not one of them. On Thursday, an attorney retained by Phoenix notified the group behind the referenda that the city clerks office will reject and otherwise not process the petitions when they are submitted. That is, even if the opposition turns in petitions with more than 13,700 valid voter signatures within the 30-day limit, the measure wont be put on the ballot. The council actions on the $230 million renovation deal do not constitute legislative acts subject to referendum, according to the attorney, Jean-Jacques Cabou of Perkins Coie. The view that the council actions were not legislative acts but rather administrative actions is not a given. For one thing, administrative actions are often those grounded in established statutes and standards; they are taken to carry out the legislative acts. Here, the city negotiated with the Suns for more than two years and city council members further negotiated terms with the team to their own political liking before they voted for the deal. A court should decide whether the city of Phoenixs argument holds water. The person, or persons, spearheading the referenda is cloaked in anonymity. About the only thing known about the Common Sense Phoenix committee is that its two listed members Natashia Hammer and Nick Vullo are affiliated with Petition Partners, the signature-gathering outfit hired to run the petitions, and that the campaign easily costs six figures. Drew Chavez, who operates Petition Partners, wont disclose who is writing the check. Nor has he responded to requests to comment on the citys letter, although he previously said attorneys that the group consulted conclude theres no way the council votes constitute administrative actions and thus, would be subject to referendum. Why I hope referenda don't make it to ballot There are undoubtedly those who hope Common Sense Phoenix calls the citys bluff and goes to court. Heres why I hope that it doesnt. The Talking Stick Resort Arena in which the Suns play belongs to the city. The team is but a tenant although its major one. If upgrades to the facility arent made to satisfy the obsolescence clause, the Suns were until this deal free to leave in 2022, leaving the city with an aging arena itd need to renovate regardless whether it's a concert and entertainment venue. The Suns drives not an insignificant amount of jobs and revenue you can argue the precision of estimates, sure and the presence of professional sports has an intrinsic and immeasurable value for downtown. The renovation deal assures the team stays an additional 15 years. But my biggest qualm has to do with the referenda themselves. They are meant as straight up-and-down votes on the deal the city council approved and predicated on the belief voters should reject the deal. A thoughtful, constructive approach would have been to run a companion initiative the costs would be about the same that outlines an alternative to keep the Suns downtown but with greater benefits and less investment by the city. Or, better yet, to have been part of the process when the matter was debated, and to make public the intent to take up the issue as a referendum before a council vote was taken. rather than offering a way forward. That it still lurks in the dark should reinforce public skepticism about the real motivations. Reach Kwok at akwok@azcentral.com. Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/02/01/suns-arena-renovation-deal-referendum-public-vote-dead/2746183002/ | The city of Phoenix says referenda on the Suns arena renovation deal are DOA. Mark Faller says the referenda are meant as straight up-and-down votes on the deal. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/02/01/suns-arena-renovation-deal-referendum-public-vote-dead/2746183002/ | 0.637591 |
Are the referenda on Suns arena renovation deal DOA? | CLOSE Sports Editor Mark Faller and columnist discuss the Suns arena deal and Devin Booker's recent antics. Oh, and A.J. Pollock's signing with the Dodgers. Diana Payan, The Republic | azcentral.com OPINION: There are certainly those who hope Common Sense Phoenix's referenda make it on the ballot. I'm not one of them. On Thursday, an attorney retained by Phoenix notified the group behind the referenda that the city clerks office will reject and otherwise not process the petitions when they are submitted. That is, even if the opposition turns in petitions with more than 13,700 valid voter signatures within the 30-day limit, the measure wont be put on the ballot. The council actions on the $230 million renovation deal do not constitute legislative acts subject to referendum, according to the attorney, Jean-Jacques Cabou of Perkins Coie. The view that the council actions were not legislative acts but rather administrative actions is not a given. For one thing, administrative actions are often those grounded in established statutes and standards; they are taken to carry out the legislative acts. Here, the city negotiated with the Suns for more than two years and city council members further negotiated terms with the team to their own political liking before they voted for the deal. A court should decide whether the city of Phoenixs argument holds water. The person, or persons, spearheading the referenda is cloaked in anonymity. About the only thing known about the Common Sense Phoenix committee is that its two listed members Natashia Hammer and Nick Vullo are affiliated with Petition Partners, the signature-gathering outfit hired to run the petitions, and that the campaign easily costs six figures. Drew Chavez, who operates Petition Partners, wont disclose who is writing the check. Nor has he responded to requests to comment on the citys letter, although he previously said attorneys that the group consulted conclude theres no way the council votes constitute administrative actions and thus, would be subject to referendum. Why I hope referenda don't make it to ballot There are undoubtedly those who hope Common Sense Phoenix calls the citys bluff and goes to court. Heres why I hope that it doesnt. The Talking Stick Resort Arena in which the Suns play belongs to the city. The team is but a tenant although its major one. If upgrades to the facility arent made to satisfy the obsolescence clause, the Suns were until this deal free to leave in 2022, leaving the city with an aging arena itd need to renovate regardless whether it's a concert and entertainment venue. The Suns drives not an insignificant amount of jobs and revenue you can argue the precision of estimates, sure and the presence of professional sports has an intrinsic and immeasurable value for downtown. The renovation deal assures the team stays an additional 15 years. But my biggest qualm has to do with the referenda themselves. They are meant as straight up-and-down votes on the deal the city council approved and predicated on the belief voters should reject the deal. A thoughtful, constructive approach would have been to run a companion initiative the costs would be about the same that outlines an alternative to keep the Suns downtown but with greater benefits and less investment by the city. Or, better yet, to have been part of the process when the matter was debated, and to make public the intent to take up the issue as a referendum before a council vote was taken. rather than offering a way forward. That it still lurks in the dark should reinforce public skepticism about the real motivations. Reach Kwok at akwok@azcentral.com. Click here to subscribe to azcentral.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/02/01/suns-arena-renovation-deal-referendum-public-vote-dead/2746183002/ | The city of Phoenix says referenda on the Suns arena renovation deal are DOA. Mark Faller says the referenda are meant as straight up-and-down votes on the deal the city council approved. Faller: A court should decide whether the city's argument holds water. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/02/01/suns-arena-renovation-deal-referendum-public-vote-dead/2746183002/ | 0.749646 |
Is It Safe to Get a Flu Shot While Pregnant? | When youre pregnant, its really a whole new world. Gone are the days where youre only thinking of yourself, because now youre constantly thinking of the tiny life growing inside of you, too and how nearly every little thing you do can or might affect it. Like common medications or vaccinations, for instance. Most pregnant women will do anything it takes to maintain a healthy pregnancy, including eating a well-rounded diet, following a pregnancy-safe exercise regimen, and resting as much as possible. When youre sick, its not as easy as it was before to recover, and youll have to carefully research any medications and treatments you might need, too. So suddenly, youre second guessing everything. And now that were in the throes of flu season, nearly everyone is encouraged to get a flu shot. The experts say yes, not only because it is safe for mother and babyits beneficial. Simply put, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that all adults including women who are or will be pregnant during influenza (flu) season receive an annual influence vaccine, says Dr. Jennifer Aquino, obstetrician at NYU Langone Health in New York, NY. Dr. Aquino recommends that pregnant women, or women who are actively trying to become pregnant, should receive a flu vaccine as soon as it becomes available (which depends by region based on production and shipment, usually anywhere from August through November). To understand why the flu vaccine is highly recommended for pregnant mothers, we have to understand the difference between active and passive immunity. Active immunity is when a person becomes immune to a specific disease through either contracting the diseasethink measles or chickenpoxor through a vaccination. Either way, the person has directly come in contract with the disease, and their immune system has produced antibodies to fight off the disease and create immunity from it. Passive immunity is when a person is given someone elses antibodies and disease-fighting white blood cells. When a pregnant mother receives a vaccine and her body creates antibodies to fight the disease, those antibodies are passed down to the baby through the placenta, thus making the baby gain some immunity as well. Its also extra important for the mother to receive the vaccine because, as Dr. Aquino says, [pregnant women] are at risk for more severe complications from the flu than non-pregnant individuals. Thats because when a woman is pregnant, her body has a harder time fighting infections. Among those complications that can arise are severe breathing problems and respiratory distress. Its important to note, however, that if youre pregnant and you get the flu, there is no direct increased risk of miscarriage or birth defects. (MotherToBaby notes that a high fever has been associated with increased risks of miscarriage or birth defects, so they should be treated right away with acetaminophen). If a pregnant woman gets the flu, or is even exposed to someone with the flu, Dr. Aquino says they should be prescribed an antiviral medication, like Tamiflu. Medications should be taken as soon as possible as they stand a better chance of lessening the symptoms if taken early in the course of the illness, according to MotherToBaby. But the best way to treat the flu is to avoid getting it in the first place. Pregnant women should know that just because theyre carrying another life, the flu vaccine is totally safe, recommended, and is indeed beneficial to their little ones health. The real danger comes in not getting vaccinated. See more: How to Handle Wedding Stress When You're Pregnant While numbers for adults are not known, according to the Center for Disease Control, nearly 200 children died from the flu during the 2017-18 flu season, eclipsing the previous high for flu-related pediatric deaths which occurred in 2012-13. Of the fatalities, 80 percent did not receive the flu vaccine that season. As Dr. Aquino says, getting the flu vaccine isnt just a good individual decision for ourselves and our babies. Its a good societal decision, too. She says, We should all play our part and get vaccinated to protect each other from the influenza virus. | The flu vaccine is highly recommended for pregnant women. | pegasus | 0 | https://news.yahoo.com/safe-flu-shot-while-pregnant-210000566.html | 0.310332 |
Is It Safe to Get a Flu Shot While Pregnant? | When youre pregnant, its really a whole new world. Gone are the days where youre only thinking of yourself, because now youre constantly thinking of the tiny life growing inside of you, too and how nearly every little thing you do can or might affect it. Like common medications or vaccinations, for instance. Most pregnant women will do anything it takes to maintain a healthy pregnancy, including eating a well-rounded diet, following a pregnancy-safe exercise regimen, and resting as much as possible. When youre sick, its not as easy as it was before to recover, and youll have to carefully research any medications and treatments you might need, too. So suddenly, youre second guessing everything. And now that were in the throes of flu season, nearly everyone is encouraged to get a flu shot. The experts say yes, not only because it is safe for mother and babyits beneficial. Simply put, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that all adults including women who are or will be pregnant during influenza (flu) season receive an annual influence vaccine, says Dr. Jennifer Aquino, obstetrician at NYU Langone Health in New York, NY. Dr. Aquino recommends that pregnant women, or women who are actively trying to become pregnant, should receive a flu vaccine as soon as it becomes available (which depends by region based on production and shipment, usually anywhere from August through November). To understand why the flu vaccine is highly recommended for pregnant mothers, we have to understand the difference between active and passive immunity. Active immunity is when a person becomes immune to a specific disease through either contracting the diseasethink measles or chickenpoxor through a vaccination. Either way, the person has directly come in contract with the disease, and their immune system has produced antibodies to fight off the disease and create immunity from it. Passive immunity is when a person is given someone elses antibodies and disease-fighting white blood cells. When a pregnant mother receives a vaccine and her body creates antibodies to fight the disease, those antibodies are passed down to the baby through the placenta, thus making the baby gain some immunity as well. Its also extra important for the mother to receive the vaccine because, as Dr. Aquino says, [pregnant women] are at risk for more severe complications from the flu than non-pregnant individuals. Thats because when a woman is pregnant, her body has a harder time fighting infections. Among those complications that can arise are severe breathing problems and respiratory distress. Its important to note, however, that if youre pregnant and you get the flu, there is no direct increased risk of miscarriage or birth defects. (MotherToBaby notes that a high fever has been associated with increased risks of miscarriage or birth defects, so they should be treated right away with acetaminophen). If a pregnant woman gets the flu, or is even exposed to someone with the flu, Dr. Aquino says they should be prescribed an antiviral medication, like Tamiflu. Medications should be taken as soon as possible as they stand a better chance of lessening the symptoms if taken early in the course of the illness, according to MotherToBaby. But the best way to treat the flu is to avoid getting it in the first place. Pregnant women should know that just because theyre carrying another life, the flu vaccine is totally safe, recommended, and is indeed beneficial to their little ones health. The real danger comes in not getting vaccinated. See more: How to Handle Wedding Stress When You're Pregnant While numbers for adults are not known, according to the Center for Disease Control, nearly 200 children died from the flu during the 2017-18 flu season, eclipsing the previous high for flu-related pediatric deaths which occurred in 2012-13. Of the fatalities, 80 percent did not receive the flu vaccine that season. As Dr. Aquino says, getting the flu vaccine isnt just a good individual decision for ourselves and our babies. Its a good societal decision, too. She says, We should all play our part and get vaccinated to protect each other from the influenza virus. | The flu vaccine is highly recommended for pregnant women. Pregnant women are at risk for more severe complications from the flu than non-pregnant individuals. | pegasus | 1 | https://news.yahoo.com/safe-flu-shot-while-pregnant-210000566.html | 0.31919 |
Is It Safe to Get a Flu Shot While Pregnant? | When youre pregnant, its really a whole new world. Gone are the days where youre only thinking of yourself, because now youre constantly thinking of the tiny life growing inside of you, too and how nearly every little thing you do can or might affect it. Like common medications or vaccinations, for instance. Most pregnant women will do anything it takes to maintain a healthy pregnancy, including eating a well-rounded diet, following a pregnancy-safe exercise regimen, and resting as much as possible. When youre sick, its not as easy as it was before to recover, and youll have to carefully research any medications and treatments you might need, too. So suddenly, youre second guessing everything. And now that were in the throes of flu season, nearly everyone is encouraged to get a flu shot. The experts say yes, not only because it is safe for mother and babyits beneficial. Simply put, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that all adults including women who are or will be pregnant during influenza (flu) season receive an annual influence vaccine, says Dr. Jennifer Aquino, obstetrician at NYU Langone Health in New York, NY. Dr. Aquino recommends that pregnant women, or women who are actively trying to become pregnant, should receive a flu vaccine as soon as it becomes available (which depends by region based on production and shipment, usually anywhere from August through November). To understand why the flu vaccine is highly recommended for pregnant mothers, we have to understand the difference between active and passive immunity. Active immunity is when a person becomes immune to a specific disease through either contracting the diseasethink measles or chickenpoxor through a vaccination. Either way, the person has directly come in contract with the disease, and their immune system has produced antibodies to fight off the disease and create immunity from it. Passive immunity is when a person is given someone elses antibodies and disease-fighting white blood cells. When a pregnant mother receives a vaccine and her body creates antibodies to fight the disease, those antibodies are passed down to the baby through the placenta, thus making the baby gain some immunity as well. Its also extra important for the mother to receive the vaccine because, as Dr. Aquino says, [pregnant women] are at risk for more severe complications from the flu than non-pregnant individuals. Thats because when a woman is pregnant, her body has a harder time fighting infections. Among those complications that can arise are severe breathing problems and respiratory distress. Its important to note, however, that if youre pregnant and you get the flu, there is no direct increased risk of miscarriage or birth defects. (MotherToBaby notes that a high fever has been associated with increased risks of miscarriage or birth defects, so they should be treated right away with acetaminophen). If a pregnant woman gets the flu, or is even exposed to someone with the flu, Dr. Aquino says they should be prescribed an antiviral medication, like Tamiflu. Medications should be taken as soon as possible as they stand a better chance of lessening the symptoms if taken early in the course of the illness, according to MotherToBaby. But the best way to treat the flu is to avoid getting it in the first place. Pregnant women should know that just because theyre carrying another life, the flu vaccine is totally safe, recommended, and is indeed beneficial to their little ones health. The real danger comes in not getting vaccinated. See more: How to Handle Wedding Stress When You're Pregnant While numbers for adults are not known, according to the Center for Disease Control, nearly 200 children died from the flu during the 2017-18 flu season, eclipsing the previous high for flu-related pediatric deaths which occurred in 2012-13. Of the fatalities, 80 percent did not receive the flu vaccine that season. As Dr. Aquino says, getting the flu vaccine isnt just a good individual decision for ourselves and our babies. Its a good societal decision, too. She says, We should all play our part and get vaccinated to protect each other from the influenza virus. | Yes, not only because it is safe for mother and babyits beneficial. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that all adults including women who are or will be pregnant during influenza (flu) season receive an annual flu vaccine. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://news.yahoo.com/safe-flu-shot-while-pregnant-210000566.html | 0.267645 |
Will the January stock-market surge continue? | So the stock market changed its mind. Probably not. January was a giddy thrill ride for investors worldwide, as the market narrative jumped overnight from doom to boom. In Toronto, the S&P/TSX Composite Index ended an extended plummet the moment the Christmas turkey cooled, and bounced 8.4 per cent higher between New Years Day and month-end. In the United States, the S&P 500 enjoyed its best January since 1987, after enduring its worst December since 1931. Meanwhile, the MSCI World Index reversed course and soared 7.7 per cent as investors around the globe succumbed to sudden-onset bullishness. Its possible. But the next stage will be far more challenging. Among other things, it will hinge on whether a still strong U.S. labour market can continue churning out jobs despite a decelerating global economy. Add in the uncertainties around Brexit and around U.S.-China trade talks and the potential for another market reversal is high. One worrisome sign is that investors are rushing right back into some of the worlds riskier territories. Measured in Canadian-dollar terms, the strongest performers among national stock markets in January were Argentina, Brazil and Turkey not exactly a convention of economic whiz kids. Another reason for concern is the lack of any fundamental improvement to explain why stocks have suddenly recaptured their appeal. Sadly, it is not because of strong global growth. The run of the numbers outside the United States has been downbeat in recent weeks. One widely followed indicator, the J.P. Morgan purchasing managers index for global manufacturing, disappointed yet again on Friday and added to evidence that the world economy is in the midst of a considerable downturn, according to Franziska Palmas at Capital Economics, an economics forecaster in London. Neither are share prices jumping because of any unexpected spurt in corporate earnings. Results unveiled in recent days have been decent but uninspiring. The Citi Global Earnings Revision Index shows that industry analysts are continuing to mark down more profit forecasts than they are raising. The most compelling explanation that remains for the Great January Stock Surge rests on a combination of cheapness and interest rates. By mid-December of last year, share prices in many countries had reached multiyear lows in terms of how they stacked up against their expected earnings per share over the next 12 months. Barring a global recession, they looked like tempting buys. The catalyst to start buying these bargains was probably a rethink of the chances for future hikes in interest rates. Futures markets indicate that investors had a change of heart in mid-December, swinging around to the conviction that the U.S. Federal Reserve would stand pat on rates in 2019. Fed chairman Jay Powell was still talking in late 2018 of more rate increases to come, but the market didnt believe him. Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement The prospect of supportive rates, combined with stocks cheapness, provided ample reason to load up on shares in January. The question now is how much more room the surge has left to run. The cheapness argument for buying stocks has eroded in line with the big gains during January. While many markets looked downright cheap in late December, they now appear only reasonably valued and that is if analysts dont further cut their forecasts for corporate earnings. Meanwhile, the low-rate rationale is looking messier. A red-hot jobs report on Friday added to the evidence that the U.S. economy is more robust than expected. If so, and the Fed believes inflationary pressures are mounting, it will be under pressure to return to hiking interest rates. To be sure, this would give investors a case of whiplash. Mr. Powell has already done one about-face. After indicating in December that future rate increases were likely, he surprised markets this week by sounding a far more accommodating tone and announcing that the case for raising rates and other tightening measures had weakened. Flipping back to his original position and reasserting the need for rate hikes might frustrate Fed watchers, but its hard to ignore the strength of the U.S. jobs market. Given the continued robust nature of hiring, maybe Fed Chair Powell should consider rethinking his rethinking of the economy and rate hikes, Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors said. In fact, if Mr. Powell doesnt change his tune yet again, it could be read as an indication the Fed sees dangers out there that arent being reflected in the jobs market. That would be truly scary. The sanest approach is to face up to the contradictory nature of the data. Both Mr. Powell and the stock market have changed their minds in recent weeks about what lies ahead. More changes are likely. If volatility is to be the theme of 2019, you should make sure your portfolio, and your peace of mind, can withstand the ups and downs. This is not a time to be scurrying for cover, but it is also not a time to be taking on more risk than you can afford. | The January stock-market surge was a giddy thrill ride for investors worldwide. It's possible, but the next stage will be far more challenging. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/inside-the-market/article-will-the-january-surge-continue/ | 0.131564 |
Will the January stock-market surge continue? | So the stock market changed its mind. Probably not. January was a giddy thrill ride for investors worldwide, as the market narrative jumped overnight from doom to boom. In Toronto, the S&P/TSX Composite Index ended an extended plummet the moment the Christmas turkey cooled, and bounced 8.4 per cent higher between New Years Day and month-end. In the United States, the S&P 500 enjoyed its best January since 1987, after enduring its worst December since 1931. Meanwhile, the MSCI World Index reversed course and soared 7.7 per cent as investors around the globe succumbed to sudden-onset bullishness. Its possible. But the next stage will be far more challenging. Among other things, it will hinge on whether a still strong U.S. labour market can continue churning out jobs despite a decelerating global economy. Add in the uncertainties around Brexit and around U.S.-China trade talks and the potential for another market reversal is high. One worrisome sign is that investors are rushing right back into some of the worlds riskier territories. Measured in Canadian-dollar terms, the strongest performers among national stock markets in January were Argentina, Brazil and Turkey not exactly a convention of economic whiz kids. Another reason for concern is the lack of any fundamental improvement to explain why stocks have suddenly recaptured their appeal. Sadly, it is not because of strong global growth. The run of the numbers outside the United States has been downbeat in recent weeks. One widely followed indicator, the J.P. Morgan purchasing managers index for global manufacturing, disappointed yet again on Friday and added to evidence that the world economy is in the midst of a considerable downturn, according to Franziska Palmas at Capital Economics, an economics forecaster in London. Neither are share prices jumping because of any unexpected spurt in corporate earnings. Results unveiled in recent days have been decent but uninspiring. The Citi Global Earnings Revision Index shows that industry analysts are continuing to mark down more profit forecasts than they are raising. The most compelling explanation that remains for the Great January Stock Surge rests on a combination of cheapness and interest rates. By mid-December of last year, share prices in many countries had reached multiyear lows in terms of how they stacked up against their expected earnings per share over the next 12 months. Barring a global recession, they looked like tempting buys. The catalyst to start buying these bargains was probably a rethink of the chances for future hikes in interest rates. Futures markets indicate that investors had a change of heart in mid-December, swinging around to the conviction that the U.S. Federal Reserve would stand pat on rates in 2019. Fed chairman Jay Powell was still talking in late 2018 of more rate increases to come, but the market didnt believe him. Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement The prospect of supportive rates, combined with stocks cheapness, provided ample reason to load up on shares in January. The question now is how much more room the surge has left to run. The cheapness argument for buying stocks has eroded in line with the big gains during January. While many markets looked downright cheap in late December, they now appear only reasonably valued and that is if analysts dont further cut their forecasts for corporate earnings. Meanwhile, the low-rate rationale is looking messier. A red-hot jobs report on Friday added to the evidence that the U.S. economy is more robust than expected. If so, and the Fed believes inflationary pressures are mounting, it will be under pressure to return to hiking interest rates. To be sure, this would give investors a case of whiplash. Mr. Powell has already done one about-face. After indicating in December that future rate increases were likely, he surprised markets this week by sounding a far more accommodating tone and announcing that the case for raising rates and other tightening measures had weakened. Flipping back to his original position and reasserting the need for rate hikes might frustrate Fed watchers, but its hard to ignore the strength of the U.S. jobs market. Given the continued robust nature of hiring, maybe Fed Chair Powell should consider rethinking his rethinking of the economy and rate hikes, Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors said. In fact, if Mr. Powell doesnt change his tune yet again, it could be read as an indication the Fed sees dangers out there that arent being reflected in the jobs market. That would be truly scary. The sanest approach is to face up to the contradictory nature of the data. Both Mr. Powell and the stock market have changed their minds in recent weeks about what lies ahead. More changes are likely. If volatility is to be the theme of 2019, you should make sure your portfolio, and your peace of mind, can withstand the ups and downs. This is not a time to be scurrying for cover, but it is also not a time to be taking on more risk than you can afford. | The January stock-market surge was a giddy thrill ride for investors worldwide. It's possible, but the next stage will be far more challenging. The most compelling explanation that remains for the Great January Stock Surge rests on cheapness and interest rates. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/inside-the-market/article-will-the-january-surge-continue/ | 0.141724 |
Will the January stock-market surge continue? | So the stock market changed its mind. Probably not. January was a giddy thrill ride for investors worldwide, as the market narrative jumped overnight from doom to boom. In Toronto, the S&P/TSX Composite Index ended an extended plummet the moment the Christmas turkey cooled, and bounced 8.4 per cent higher between New Years Day and month-end. In the United States, the S&P 500 enjoyed its best January since 1987, after enduring its worst December since 1931. Meanwhile, the MSCI World Index reversed course and soared 7.7 per cent as investors around the globe succumbed to sudden-onset bullishness. Its possible. But the next stage will be far more challenging. Among other things, it will hinge on whether a still strong U.S. labour market can continue churning out jobs despite a decelerating global economy. Add in the uncertainties around Brexit and around U.S.-China trade talks and the potential for another market reversal is high. One worrisome sign is that investors are rushing right back into some of the worlds riskier territories. Measured in Canadian-dollar terms, the strongest performers among national stock markets in January were Argentina, Brazil and Turkey not exactly a convention of economic whiz kids. Another reason for concern is the lack of any fundamental improvement to explain why stocks have suddenly recaptured their appeal. Sadly, it is not because of strong global growth. The run of the numbers outside the United States has been downbeat in recent weeks. One widely followed indicator, the J.P. Morgan purchasing managers index for global manufacturing, disappointed yet again on Friday and added to evidence that the world economy is in the midst of a considerable downturn, according to Franziska Palmas at Capital Economics, an economics forecaster in London. Neither are share prices jumping because of any unexpected spurt in corporate earnings. Results unveiled in recent days have been decent but uninspiring. The Citi Global Earnings Revision Index shows that industry analysts are continuing to mark down more profit forecasts than they are raising. The most compelling explanation that remains for the Great January Stock Surge rests on a combination of cheapness and interest rates. By mid-December of last year, share prices in many countries had reached multiyear lows in terms of how they stacked up against their expected earnings per share over the next 12 months. Barring a global recession, they looked like tempting buys. The catalyst to start buying these bargains was probably a rethink of the chances for future hikes in interest rates. Futures markets indicate that investors had a change of heart in mid-December, swinging around to the conviction that the U.S. Federal Reserve would stand pat on rates in 2019. Fed chairman Jay Powell was still talking in late 2018 of more rate increases to come, but the market didnt believe him. Story continues below advertisement Story continues below advertisement The prospect of supportive rates, combined with stocks cheapness, provided ample reason to load up on shares in January. The question now is how much more room the surge has left to run. The cheapness argument for buying stocks has eroded in line with the big gains during January. While many markets looked downright cheap in late December, they now appear only reasonably valued and that is if analysts dont further cut their forecasts for corporate earnings. Meanwhile, the low-rate rationale is looking messier. A red-hot jobs report on Friday added to the evidence that the U.S. economy is more robust than expected. If so, and the Fed believes inflationary pressures are mounting, it will be under pressure to return to hiking interest rates. To be sure, this would give investors a case of whiplash. Mr. Powell has already done one about-face. After indicating in December that future rate increases were likely, he surprised markets this week by sounding a far more accommodating tone and announcing that the case for raising rates and other tightening measures had weakened. Flipping back to his original position and reasserting the need for rate hikes might frustrate Fed watchers, but its hard to ignore the strength of the U.S. jobs market. Given the continued robust nature of hiring, maybe Fed Chair Powell should consider rethinking his rethinking of the economy and rate hikes, Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors said. In fact, if Mr. Powell doesnt change his tune yet again, it could be read as an indication the Fed sees dangers out there that arent being reflected in the jobs market. That would be truly scary. The sanest approach is to face up to the contradictory nature of the data. Both Mr. Powell and the stock market have changed their minds in recent weeks about what lies ahead. More changes are likely. If volatility is to be the theme of 2019, you should make sure your portfolio, and your peace of mind, can withstand the ups and downs. This is not a time to be scurrying for cover, but it is also not a time to be taking on more risk than you can afford. | The January stock-market surge was a giddy thrill ride for investors worldwide. It's possible, but the next stage will be far more challenging. The most compelling explanation that remains for the Great January Stock Surge rests on a combination of cheapness and interest rates, says John Defterios. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/inside-the-market/article-will-the-january-surge-continue/ | 0.139801 |
When is the 2019 Puppy Bowl? | The 2019 Puppy Bowl will take place on on Super Bowl Sunday before kickoff of the big game. Tune in on Feb. 3 at 3 p.m. ET for the 15th annual showdown between Team Ruff and Team Fluff as Animal Planet's adoption extravaganza game once again brings in competitors from dog shelter's across the country for Puppy Bowl XV. You can find the starting lineup's here (and the just as adorable backups here) or just watch these adorable videos to meet the pups in play. Talk about Hard Barks! Come inside training camp with Team Fluff before #PuppyBowlXV. pic.twitter.com/tcH1FlnPSC Animal Planet (@AnimalPlanet) January 10, 2019 Every day of @Danschachner's life could feel like the Puppy Bowl, considering he is a proud foster. Hear how our #PuppyBowlXV ref has been inspired to work with animals. pic.twitter.com/GmaLLgMbKQ Animal Planet (@AnimalPlanet) January 15, 2019 The Puppy Bowl will be live on Animal Planet Sunday afternoon before the Super Bowl kicks off in Atlanta at 6:30 p.m. ET. | The 2019 Puppy Bowl will take place on on Super Bowl Sunday. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/02/01/animal-planet-puppy-bowl-2019-watch-date-time-tv-channel | 0.119771 |
When is the 2019 Puppy Bowl? | The 2019 Puppy Bowl will take place on on Super Bowl Sunday before kickoff of the big game. Tune in on Feb. 3 at 3 p.m. ET for the 15th annual showdown between Team Ruff and Team Fluff as Animal Planet's adoption extravaganza game once again brings in competitors from dog shelter's across the country for Puppy Bowl XV. You can find the starting lineup's here (and the just as adorable backups here) or just watch these adorable videos to meet the pups in play. Talk about Hard Barks! Come inside training camp with Team Fluff before #PuppyBowlXV. pic.twitter.com/tcH1FlnPSC Animal Planet (@AnimalPlanet) January 10, 2019 Every day of @Danschachner's life could feel like the Puppy Bowl, considering he is a proud foster. Hear how our #PuppyBowlXV ref has been inspired to work with animals. pic.twitter.com/GmaLLgMbKQ Animal Planet (@AnimalPlanet) January 15, 2019 The Puppy Bowl will be live on Animal Planet Sunday afternoon before the Super Bowl kicks off in Atlanta at 6:30 p.m. ET. | The 2019 Puppy Bowl will take place on on Super Bowl Sunday before kickoff of the big game. Tune in on Feb. 3 at 3 p.m. | bart | 1 | https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/02/01/animal-planet-puppy-bowl-2019-watch-date-time-tv-channel | 0.330166 |
When is the 2019 Puppy Bowl? | The 2019 Puppy Bowl will take place on on Super Bowl Sunday before kickoff of the big game. Tune in on Feb. 3 at 3 p.m. ET for the 15th annual showdown between Team Ruff and Team Fluff as Animal Planet's adoption extravaganza game once again brings in competitors from dog shelter's across the country for Puppy Bowl XV. You can find the starting lineup's here (and the just as adorable backups here) or just watch these adorable videos to meet the pups in play. Talk about Hard Barks! Come inside training camp with Team Fluff before #PuppyBowlXV. pic.twitter.com/tcH1FlnPSC Animal Planet (@AnimalPlanet) January 10, 2019 Every day of @Danschachner's life could feel like the Puppy Bowl, considering he is a proud foster. Hear how our #PuppyBowlXV ref has been inspired to work with animals. pic.twitter.com/GmaLLgMbKQ Animal Planet (@AnimalPlanet) January 15, 2019 The Puppy Bowl will be live on Animal Planet Sunday afternoon before the Super Bowl kicks off in Atlanta at 6:30 p.m. ET. | The 2019 Puppy Bowl will take place on on Super Bowl Sunday before kickoff of the big game. The 15th annual showdown between Team Ruff and Team Fluff will be live on Animal Planet Sunday afternoon before the Super Bowl kicks off in Atlanta at 6:30 p.m. ET. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/02/01/animal-planet-puppy-bowl-2019-watch-date-time-tv-channel | 0.127715 |
Should Every Election Day Be A Federal Holiday? | Move past the theatrics of the government shutdown, impeachment and the threat of investigations ad infinitum and theres the question of Democrat squad goals in a Pelosi-run House of Representatives. One way to judge that: prioritized legislation. HR 1, also known as the For The People Act. The measure contains an election-reform bushelful of liberal chestnuts same-day voter registration, provisional ballots, poll worker recruitment and training. And these two nuggets, stashed inside Section 1903. Election Day Holiday. For purposes of any law relating to Federal employment, the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in 2020 and each even-numbered year thereafter shall be treated in the same manner as a legal public holiday described in section 6103 of title 5, United States Code. And . . . Roughly the same odds as Mitch McConnell doing hot yoga with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Heres what the Senate Majority Leader had to say about the notion earlier this week: Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work for I assume . . . our colleagues on the other side, on their campaigns. Lets assume there wont be an election holiday anytime soon not until Democrats control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. At the heart of the debate is voter turnout give more people the day off, more people will go out of their way to head to the polls. As shown in this Fair Vote chart, turnout ebbs and flows in presidential cycles elections a big falloff from 1992 to 1996 (58.1% vs. 51.7%), then a steady rise through 2008 (61.6%) followed by another drop in 2012 (58.2%) and then a return to 60.1% in 2016. As the chart shows, presidential turnout corresponds with midterm turnout and in 2018, turnout skyrocketed from 36.7% four years previously to 49.6%. The three presidential elections held in the 1960s ranged from a high of 63.8% (JFK) to a low of 62.5% (Nixon). The second Trump vote could reach those levels. If that level of participation gnaws at you, then consider: turnout for UKs Brexit vote was a shade over 77%; while 67.9% of the French electorate turned out for 2017s presidential election. But only 35% bothered to cast un bulletin de vote in the second round of Frances parliamentary election (its what comes from loading the ticket with the likes of retired matadors and mathematical savants). You might be surprised. According to the U.S. Census Bureaus data on nonvoters, registered voters from households making more than $150,000 are most likely to say they dont have time to turn out on Election Day. Try lower-wage earners at restaurants and stores enterprises that would look to cash in if the working class got an extra day off. There is one other option: move elections to Saturdays. But thats not guarantor of a higher turnout. Poland, for example, holds elections on weekends. In its last two presidential elections (2015 and 2010) turnout was 55% 5% less than the 2016 vote in the U.S. Switzerland also votes on weekends. That nations turnout in 2017s national election was only 46% (you want to get the Swiss fired up, put a contentious idea in front of them a vote vote to join the EEA in 1992 brought out 79%; the 2016 vote to deport foreign criminals, 63%). Dont give the nation a day off, but do a better job of giving voters options for getting involved. In California, for example, theres now permanent voting by mail (voters can also go on line, after theyve submitted their ballot, to see if theyve been processed). In the Golden State, a majority of voters make their choices by mail rather than going to polling places on Election Day. This comes with complications that non-blue states might not like like allowing provisional ballots to be counted, a vote-counting that can be painfully slow (it takes California over a month to certify statewide election results). However, it gives voters the choice of not having to detour from their routines on Election Day. And even if elections arent routine in the age of Donald Trump, its a nice option to have. I invite you to follow me on Twitter: @hooverwhalen | New legislation would make Election Day a federal holiday. | ctrlsum | 0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/billwhalen/2019/02/01/should-every-election-day-be-a-holiday/ | 0.11576 |
Should Every Election Day Be A Federal Holiday? | Move past the theatrics of the government shutdown, impeachment and the threat of investigations ad infinitum and theres the question of Democrat squad goals in a Pelosi-run House of Representatives. One way to judge that: prioritized legislation. HR 1, also known as the For The People Act. The measure contains an election-reform bushelful of liberal chestnuts same-day voter registration, provisional ballots, poll worker recruitment and training. And these two nuggets, stashed inside Section 1903. Election Day Holiday. For purposes of any law relating to Federal employment, the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in 2020 and each even-numbered year thereafter shall be treated in the same manner as a legal public holiday described in section 6103 of title 5, United States Code. And . . . Roughly the same odds as Mitch McConnell doing hot yoga with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Heres what the Senate Majority Leader had to say about the notion earlier this week: Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work for I assume . . . our colleagues on the other side, on their campaigns. Lets assume there wont be an election holiday anytime soon not until Democrats control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. At the heart of the debate is voter turnout give more people the day off, more people will go out of their way to head to the polls. As shown in this Fair Vote chart, turnout ebbs and flows in presidential cycles elections a big falloff from 1992 to 1996 (58.1% vs. 51.7%), then a steady rise through 2008 (61.6%) followed by another drop in 2012 (58.2%) and then a return to 60.1% in 2016. As the chart shows, presidential turnout corresponds with midterm turnout and in 2018, turnout skyrocketed from 36.7% four years previously to 49.6%. The three presidential elections held in the 1960s ranged from a high of 63.8% (JFK) to a low of 62.5% (Nixon). The second Trump vote could reach those levels. If that level of participation gnaws at you, then consider: turnout for UKs Brexit vote was a shade over 77%; while 67.9% of the French electorate turned out for 2017s presidential election. But only 35% bothered to cast un bulletin de vote in the second round of Frances parliamentary election (its what comes from loading the ticket with the likes of retired matadors and mathematical savants). You might be surprised. According to the U.S. Census Bureaus data on nonvoters, registered voters from households making more than $150,000 are most likely to say they dont have time to turn out on Election Day. Try lower-wage earners at restaurants and stores enterprises that would look to cash in if the working class got an extra day off. There is one other option: move elections to Saturdays. But thats not guarantor of a higher turnout. Poland, for example, holds elections on weekends. In its last two presidential elections (2015 and 2010) turnout was 55% 5% less than the 2016 vote in the U.S. Switzerland also votes on weekends. That nations turnout in 2017s national election was only 46% (you want to get the Swiss fired up, put a contentious idea in front of them a vote vote to join the EEA in 1992 brought out 79%; the 2016 vote to deport foreign criminals, 63%). Dont give the nation a day off, but do a better job of giving voters options for getting involved. In California, for example, theres now permanent voting by mail (voters can also go on line, after theyve submitted their ballot, to see if theyve been processed). In the Golden State, a majority of voters make their choices by mail rather than going to polling places on Election Day. This comes with complications that non-blue states might not like like allowing provisional ballots to be counted, a vote-counting that can be painfully slow (it takes California over a month to certify statewide election results). However, it gives voters the choice of not having to detour from their routines on Election Day. And even if elections arent routine in the age of Donald Trump, its a nice option to have. I invite you to follow me on Twitter: @hooverwhalen | New legislation would make Election Day a federal holiday in the U.S. The proposal is part of the 'For The People Act' The aim is to increase voter turnout. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/billwhalen/2019/02/01/should-every-election-day-be-a-holiday/ | 0.126578 |
Should Every Election Day Be A Federal Holiday? | Move past the theatrics of the government shutdown, impeachment and the threat of investigations ad infinitum and theres the question of Democrat squad goals in a Pelosi-run House of Representatives. One way to judge that: prioritized legislation. HR 1, also known as the For The People Act. The measure contains an election-reform bushelful of liberal chestnuts same-day voter registration, provisional ballots, poll worker recruitment and training. And these two nuggets, stashed inside Section 1903. Election Day Holiday. For purposes of any law relating to Federal employment, the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in 2020 and each even-numbered year thereafter shall be treated in the same manner as a legal public holiday described in section 6103 of title 5, United States Code. And . . . Roughly the same odds as Mitch McConnell doing hot yoga with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Heres what the Senate Majority Leader had to say about the notion earlier this week: Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work for I assume . . . our colleagues on the other side, on their campaigns. Lets assume there wont be an election holiday anytime soon not until Democrats control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. At the heart of the debate is voter turnout give more people the day off, more people will go out of their way to head to the polls. As shown in this Fair Vote chart, turnout ebbs and flows in presidential cycles elections a big falloff from 1992 to 1996 (58.1% vs. 51.7%), then a steady rise through 2008 (61.6%) followed by another drop in 2012 (58.2%) and then a return to 60.1% in 2016. As the chart shows, presidential turnout corresponds with midterm turnout and in 2018, turnout skyrocketed from 36.7% four years previously to 49.6%. The three presidential elections held in the 1960s ranged from a high of 63.8% (JFK) to a low of 62.5% (Nixon). The second Trump vote could reach those levels. If that level of participation gnaws at you, then consider: turnout for UKs Brexit vote was a shade over 77%; while 67.9% of the French electorate turned out for 2017s presidential election. But only 35% bothered to cast un bulletin de vote in the second round of Frances parliamentary election (its what comes from loading the ticket with the likes of retired matadors and mathematical savants). You might be surprised. According to the U.S. Census Bureaus data on nonvoters, registered voters from households making more than $150,000 are most likely to say they dont have time to turn out on Election Day. Try lower-wage earners at restaurants and stores enterprises that would look to cash in if the working class got an extra day off. There is one other option: move elections to Saturdays. But thats not guarantor of a higher turnout. Poland, for example, holds elections on weekends. In its last two presidential elections (2015 and 2010) turnout was 55% 5% less than the 2016 vote in the U.S. Switzerland also votes on weekends. That nations turnout in 2017s national election was only 46% (you want to get the Swiss fired up, put a contentious idea in front of them a vote vote to join the EEA in 1992 brought out 79%; the 2016 vote to deport foreign criminals, 63%). Dont give the nation a day off, but do a better job of giving voters options for getting involved. In California, for example, theres now permanent voting by mail (voters can also go on line, after theyve submitted their ballot, to see if theyve been processed). In the Golden State, a majority of voters make their choices by mail rather than going to polling places on Election Day. This comes with complications that non-blue states might not like like allowing provisional ballots to be counted, a vote-counting that can be painfully slow (it takes California over a month to certify statewide election results). However, it gives voters the choice of not having to detour from their routines on Election Day. And even if elections arent routine in the age of Donald Trump, its a nice option to have. I invite you to follow me on Twitter: @hooverwhalen | New legislation would make Election Day a federal holiday in the U.S. The proposal is part of the 'For The People Act' The aim is to increase voter turnout, which has ebbed and flowed in recent elections. The bill has the same odds as Mitch McConnell doing hot yoga with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/billwhalen/2019/02/01/should-every-election-day-be-a-holiday/ | 0.149775 |
Should lululemon athletica Worry About Nike's New Yoga Collection? | On the heels of a solid fiscal second-quarter earnings report, Nike (NYSE: NKE) announced it was launching a new yoga collection for men for the first time. This is while the company also sees a big opportunity to expand its apparel category overall. However, Nike's core business is still selling sneakers. That's not going to change, and that's also why lululemon athletica (NASDAQ: LULU) should continue to do fine. Just as Nike has been successful turning a basketball shoe into a fashion statement, Lululemon has accomplished the same in athletic apparel. Both companies are really good at what they do best, and that will protect Lululemon's competitive position from larger rivals. A woman practicing yoga. More IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES. Why Nike wants to enter Lululemon's turf Most of Nike's business is dependent on sales of footwear, which makes up about two-thirds of annual revenue. Nike has been doubling down on its innovation in running and basketball shoes to solidify its lead against a strong push from Adidas. Last quarter, Nike grew total revenue by 14% year over year on a currency-neutral basis. The top line was driven by 15% growth in the footwear category. However, during last quarter's conference call, CEO Mark Parker called apparel "one of Nike's greatest growth opportunities." Nike has experienced double-digit growth in apparel, and so have other retailers. Lululemon is currently ahead of schedule in its plans to reach $1 billion in annual revenue in its men's category. Other retailers, particularly Gap's Athleta brand, have ramped up efforts to target men, as well. The move into men's yoga clothing by the swoosh brand is not so much an attempt to go after Lululemon as it is an opportunity to diversify its revenue more, especially into the broader apparel market that has been growing faster than Nike's core sneaker business. Lululemon looks unstoppable While Nike is gradually investing more in apparel, Lululemon recently raised its outlook for the current quarter (which ends in January) for revenue and earnings based on strong sales through the holiday season. Lululemon now anticipates revenue to be in the range of $1.14 billion to $1.15 billion, an increase from the previous expected range of $1.115 billion to $1.125 billion. These are fantastic results for a brand that is on the high-end range of the price spectrum in the industry. The items in Nike's yoga collection are priced around $50 to $75 for tops and bottoms. This is significantly cheaper than Lululemon, where a T-shirt can cost as much as $88 and a pair of pants can cost as much as $178. Despite the price discrepancy, Lululemon continues to charge forward. Lululemon and Nike have distinct brands Over the last few years, Lululemon made a lot of improvements to the business operationally to drive accelerated growth in revenue through 2018. Ultimately, however, Lululemon's robust 21% growth in revenue in the fiscal third quarter is a result of making products customers want to buy. That might be stating the obvious, but it's important to remember that Lululemon's strong revenue growth over the last year is driven by customers paying premium prices for what they perceive as clothing far superior to your average workout clothing. | Lululemon athletica (NASDAQ: LULU) should continue to do fine. Nike's new yoga collection is an opportunity to diversify its revenue more. | ctrlsum | 1 | https://news.yahoo.com/lululemon-athletica-worry-nike-apos-230000318.html | 0.513777 |
How could Arizona pass the drought contingency plan and still fail? | CLOSE Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signs the Drought Contingency Plan in a ceremony at the Arizona state Capitol on Jan. 31, 2019. Thomas Hawthorne, The Republic | azcentral.com Opinion: We knew there would be details to finalize after Jan. 31. But it's not fair to lump Arizona in the same boat with California. Weve known for quite some time that not every I would be dotted and T would be crossed by the feds Jan. 31 deadline to join the Drought Contingency Plan, which aims to keep Lake Mead from tanking to critical levels. The gamble was that if we passed the plan legislatively by then, the federal Bureau of Reclamation would recognize what a monumental action that was and give us a pass. Yet media reports suggest that Reclamation is lumping Arizona with California, which clearly did not meet the deadline, in its reasoning for taking an action that we had all hoped to avoid. Its easy to feel betrayed by that, to conclude that Arizona was asked to move mountains and then when we did, we were told it still wasnt good enough. Particularly given how cagey Reclamation has been in explaining what it meant by done. Officials have been loath to offer specifics since the deadline was set. Commissioner Brenda Burman told reporters in a conference call Friday that "neither California nor Arizona have completed all of the necessary work," and that "close isn't done." Yet Reclamation praised Arizona for meeting the Jan. 31 deadline in a tweet, noting that "with this huge step forward, we are more optimistic than ever that all seven Basin states will put a plan in place to protect the Basin this year." We applaud the action of #Arizona to pass legislation by the January 31st deadline authorizing completion of the #DCP. With this huge step forward, we are more optimistic than ever that all seven Basin states will put a plan in place to protect the Basin this year. pic.twitter.com/ivjmgySTcH Reclamation (@usbr) February 1, 2019 It remains unclear if the agency is happy with us for getting legislative approval, if its holding our feet to the fire for not having buttoned up an agreement with the other states to let us store more water in Lake Mead, or if it thinks were not done because there are still a slew of agreements to complete the implementation plan which doesnt preclude our joining the three-state deal but rather affects how we dole out its cuts within Arizona. Thats unfortunate. Arizona should be spending this day celebrating one of the most important votes lawmakers have made in years. Instead, were left scratching our heads over what more if anything Reclamation wants from us. The agency issued a notice in the federal register Feb. 1 saying it intends to solicit comments from the seven Colorado River basin states on what kind of actions it should take a nuclear option that no one wants to see. Such comments would likely tear apart working relationships among states, because things would be said that cant be unsaid about who deserves water and who doesnt. Arizona stands to lose the most in that process, partly because it has junior water rights and partly because the perception persists (incorrect as it is) that Arizona remains a holdout on this deal. At least this bought us time The good news is Reclamation isnt planning to collect comments until March 4, and it has said it will cancel things entirely if states button up all the details before then. Id still like to see Reclamation clarify that the pressures largely on California now, considering that several signatories havent given the final authorization our Legislature just did. That doesnt mean Arizona is off the hook to finish the agreements that will make our implementation plan tick. But its not fair that we are once again doing damage control, reminding our basin brethren about just how much work Arizona has done. No other state has agreed to take the level of cuts we have. No other state was required to get legislative approval to join the deal. No other state has done the level of planning we have to implement its cuts. And despite all that, we still weren't the last to sign. Because perception often clouds reality, and it's so hard to kill the idea that Arizona just doesn't want to play ball, I suspect we'll be repeating those words a lot over the next few weeks. Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. MORE FROM ALLHANDS: Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/2019/02/01/drought-contingency-plan-isnt-done-arizona-can-we-define-done/2745877002/ | Arizona passed a drought contingency plan on Jan. 31. But the federal Bureau of Reclamation says "close isn't done" Reclamation is lumping Arizona with California, which clearly did not meet the deadline, in its reasoning for taking an action that we had all hoped to avoid. | ctrlsum | 2 | https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/2019/02/01/drought-contingency-plan-isnt-done-arizona-can-we-define-done/2745877002/ | 0.127104 |
Why has the West pressed the mute button on Africa? | Recent crackdowns in several African countries have been met with a muted response from the international community. Image copyright AFP Image caption Congolese protesters talked about the death of democracy after the election result For even the most mildly superstitious souls it was an unsettling moment: the newly sworn-in president of the Democratic Republic of Congo was delivering his maiden speech when he was unable to go on. "I am not OK," Felix Tshisekedi declared. Aides moved in to help and he was eventually able to resume. An adviser later reported that the new president's flak-jacket was too tight and he had felt faint. President Tshisekedi was standing near his predecessor, Joseph Kabila, whom many fear will continue to exert a powerful control over the government - a suffocating influence some have suggested after allegations, which have been denied, of a secret deal between the two. The world looked at DR Congo, suspected a big electoral fix but decided to look the other way. There was no appetite for confrontation on the part of the African Union (AU), the Southern African Development Community (Sadc), the European Union or the United States. Image copyright AFP Image caption President Tshisekedi (R) has been accused of doing a deal with his predecessor Joseph Kabila (L) The AU hastily convened and just as hastily abandoned a mission to DR Congo's capital, Kinshasa, that had been intended to promote a negotiated solution to the row over electoral fraud. The requests to delay the announcement of official results were ignored. US contradiction The AU was left with nothing to negotiate. For a regional body that promotes "African solutions to African problems" it was a humiliation. The US ambassador to Kinshasa, Mike Hammer, hailed a "first-ever peaceful, democratic transfer of power", in the process managing to look past the State Department's own publicly expressed concerns over the electoral process. There was no easy answer to the dilemma presented by the vote. From early on it was clear that there were not going to be large demonstrations against the government, no great manifestation of public fury to pressure the international community into action. This in part was to do with the fractured nature of the political opposition, fear of the security forces and the decision by the Catholic Church and civil society to refrain for now from large-scale mobilisation. Image copyright AFP Image caption Western powers have opted for promoting stability in the DR Congo Looking at all of this, the regional and international actors opted for what diplomats call "stability". In DR Congo this means a continuation of the existing muddle while hoping that it does not all collapse into disaster. For the millions of Congolese - displaced from their homes by conflict, living with dire poverty and the threat of disease, denied a share in the immense mineral wealth of their nation, bullied and preyed upon by armed groups - do not expect an amelioration of their plight any time soon. In all of this it is also worth considering what I would call the politics of preoccupation. It is not just in relation to DR Congo but also to Zimbabwe with its crackdown on dissent and Sudan in the throes of a popular uprising against the regime of President Omar al-Bashir. The last few weeks have seen deepening repression. Soldiers in Zimbabwe terrorise their fellow citizens and their counterparts in Sudan fire live ammunition into crowds. Yet the international response has been muted, to put it mildly. Image copyright AFP Image caption Young people have been at the forefront of protests in Sudan British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called on Zimbabwe's President Emmerson Mnangagwa not to "turn the clock back". This statement was based on the assumption that the clock had moved forward in Zimbabwe since the ousting of Robert Mugabe at the end of 2017, a doubtful proposition just now. Rather than condemn the brutality in Zimbabwe, the most powerful country in the region, South Africa, called for the lifting of economic sanctions. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has his own preoccupations. There is the fight against corruption and for his political base within the governing African National Congress (ANC) where allies of his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, still lurk. Winning a handsome majority in the coming elections will strengthen Mr Ramaphosa's hand. Do not expect any emphatic foreign policy departures until he feels more secure. You may be interested in: The other major continental power, Nigeria, is facing elections in a fortnight in which President Muhammadu Buhari is running for a second term. Mr Buhari has just caused uproar by firing his chief justice, who could have played a crucial role in a disputed election result. The US, EU and the UK all sounded their displeasure. 'Ethical intervention' In Britain foreign policy is consumed by the Brexit debate. Across the rest of the EU Brexit and a host of domestic crises have led to a turning inwards. African political problems are not a priority. How distant now the days of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's "ethical foreign policy" and the sight of British troops patrolling Sierra Leone. The disastrous aftermath of the Iraq war ended that brief period of ambitious interventionism. The French still maintain strong military and economic links in several African countries. But their limited, and purely rhetorical, response to the DR Congo election outcome indicates the priority of domestic issues like the ongoing "gilets jaunes" protests. In America, the White House and the legislators are kept busy with the Mueller investigation, the continuing border wall saga and the 2020 elections. A month ago US Secretary of State John Bolton outlined an Africa policy aimed at challenging the expansion of Chinese, and to a lesser extent Russian influence. But with the cutbacks at the State Department under the Trump administration it is difficult to see how a more vigorous Africa policy - whatever its ideological or political focus - can be implemented. With Sudan, the Americans have other reasons to go easy on the criticism: the Bashir regime has been helpful in the fight against violent Islamist extremism. The Western powers have expressed "deep concern" while the AU reminded "Sudanese political leaders of their collective responsibility to pursue constructive, peaceful avenues for addressing the country's pressing challenges". The words have been lost in the cries and bullets on the streets. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Victims tell of being beaten and shot by Zimbabwe's security forces But constantly looking to what the rest of the continent or international community does or does not do fails to reflect the deeper dynamics of change on the continent. It cannot be said often enough: Africa is not a single social, political, economic or cultural entity. As the popular phrase goes, Africa is not a country. DR Congo, Sudan and Zimbabwe are each shaped by different histories, albeit with a common legacy of colonial rule. But these days there is another crucial commonality. It is what you might see as the upside of the current period of turmoil. Arc of intolerance In each country a highly organised, youth-driven and tech-savvy civil society has learned that change need not always be sponsored by mainstream politicians or foreign governments. History has taught them that politicians can promise change and deliver only more of the same or worse. The young activists of Bulawayo, Goma and Omdurman do not depend on outsiders. Image copyright AFP Image caption Young activists in Uganda have been instrumental in the rise of musician-turned-MP Bobi Wine The post-colonial era saw too many foreign interventions that were cynical and selfish, or inadequate, fleeting or poorly thought out. Recognition of this has helped create a vigorous spirit of self-determination among today's protesters. These are the people who patiently record the terror inflicted by the Zimbabwean security forces, who are circulating flyers across Khartoum to organise demonstrations, and whose activism forced then-President Kabila to hold an election, however flawed. Nothing has been more important in African politics over the last two decades than the rise of this activist generation. That is why the counsel of despair should be avoided when contemplating the crises that have been playing out in recent weeks. A swathe of the continent is suffering from either regressive authoritarianism, flawed elections, entrenched corruption, or combinations of each. One might call it an arc of intolerance. In Cameroon, the leader of the opposition has been arrested in the wake of a highly compromised election. The authorities in Uganda are accused of persecuting charismatic politician Bobi Wine, while in Tanzania, President John Magufuli is steadily squeezing the life out of democratic opposition. East v West These are just a few examples that have produced a muted response from most of the international community. I say most because the Chinese and the Russians have always stood apart from the language of condemnation. Image copyright AFP Image caption It was all smiles from African leaders at last year's Forum on China-Africa Cooperation summit It is common currency these days to argue that where the West steps back because of its own preoccupations China and Russia will rush in. Both Beijing and Moscow have their own agendas to pursue without even lip service to ideals of human rights and accountable government. The Gulf powers are also jostling for influence. But it risks being patronising to assume that people across the continent cannot recognise, and mobilise to counter, a new kind of exploitation when it appears. The ruling party in Zimbabwe especially needs international economic assistance to counter the catastrophe created by its own incompetence and brutal tactics. That help will not be forthcoming as long as a climate of fear continues. Nor do the Chinese or the Russians have endlessly deep pockets, or the inclination, to bankroll an inherently unstable system. But I am focusing here on a more powerful long-term agent of change. I stress long term. None that I met - from Goma in the east all the way to Kinshasa in the west - believe they will be rescued by foreigners. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The Congolese protester who gave his life for the cause Likewise in Sudan and Zimbabwe there are vibrant debates taking place around the economy, education and women's rights. The activist movements are crucibles of thought as well as street protest. The activism we see is not driven by ideological or sectarian fanaticism. It is characterised above all by reason. That is no small thing in a world where ideologues have wreaked so much misery in recent decades. Yet activism alone cannot solve the legacy of decades of misrule and corruption. But what it has created is a growing sense of democracy as something more expansive and inclusive than a ballot box that can be stuffed with fake votes or stolen by a power elite. DR Congo's pro-democracy activist group, Lucha, which was a target of Mr Kabila's violent crackdown, recently expressed the tireless hope of its activism in a tweet. "In this tumultuous period, our people must redouble their efforts and vigilance. We must be even more demanding to make the policies accountable to us. Regardless of our political affiliation or our ethnic identity, we must put the nation above all." | Recent crackdowns in several African countries have been met with a muted response from the international community. | pegasus | 0 | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47060799 | 0.105581 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.