yahoo sports mlb
ABILENE, Texas (AP) — Sam Hicks scored on a 53-yard run in the fourth quarter and finished with 171 yards on the ground to lead Abilene Christian to a 24-0 victory over Northern Arizona on Saturday in the first round of the FCS playoffs. The Wildcats (9-4), ranked No. 15 in the FCS coaches poll and seeded 15th, qualified for the playoffs for the first time and will travel to play No. 2 seed and nine-time champion North Dakota State (10-2) on Saturday at the Fargo Dome. The Bison had a first-round bye. Abilene Christian grabbed a 7-0 lead on its second possession when Carson Haggard connected with Trey Cleveland for a 37-yard touchdown that capped a 10-play 97-yard drive. Northern Arizona (8-5), ranked 17th but unseeded for the playoffs after winning five straight to get in, picked off Haggard on the Wildcats' next two possessions but could not turn them into points. NAU went for it on fourth-and-goal at the 1-yard line with 9:30 left before halftime, but Jordan Mukes tackled Ty Pennington for a 4-yard loss. That led to a 46-yard field goal by Ritse Vaes and a 10-0 lead at halftime. The score remained the same until Hicks' big run with 10:16 left to play. Haggard passed 6 yards to Blayne Taylor for the final score with 2:16 to go. Haggard completed 23 of 29 passes for 244 yards with three interceptions. Abilene Christian's defense allowed at least 20 points in every game during the regular season and yielded at least 30 six times. The Wildcats lost their season opener to FBS member Texas Tech 52-51 in overtime. Abilene Christian's last shutout came in a 56-0 victory over Lamar on Sept. 25, 2021. Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here . AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
WEBER STATE 68, PEPPERDINE 53
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Corey McKeithan scored 28 points as La Salle beat Temple 83-75 on Saturday night. McKeithan shot 10 of 19 from the field, including 3 for 6 from 3-point range, and went 5 for 5 from the line for the Explorers (6-2). Demetrius Lilley added 13 points while shooting 5 for 12, including 2 for 4 from beyond the arc while he also had six rebounds. Jahlil White shot 3 of 13 from the field and 5 of 5 from the free-throw line to finish with 11 points, while adding 12 rebounds. Quante Berry led the Owls (4-3) in scoring, finishing with 18 points, 15 rebounds and two blocks. Temple also got 15 points from Jamal Mashburn Jr.. William Settle had 13 points and seven rebounds. La Salle took the lead with 14:45 to go in the first half and did not relinquish it. The score was 42-33 at halftime, with McKeithan racking up 16 points. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .The confidential briefing note is part of the tranche of documents made public in the annual release of State papers from the Irish National Archives. An Irish Department of Foreign Affairs official focusing on justice and security created the list in October 2002. The document starts by referencing a 1999 interview given by George Mitchell, the chairman of the Good Friday Agreement negotiations, in which he claimed the British and Irish governments, as well as Northern Ireland’s political parties, had leaked information to manipulate public opinion. However, he further accused the NIO of attempting to sabotage the process by leaking information on British Government policy to the media. Mr Mitchell, a former US senator, is said to have expressed alarm and anger over the frequency of leaks from the NIO – saying they were uniquely “designed to undermine the policy of the British Government of which they were a part”. The Irish civil servant notes Mr Mitchell himself was subjected to an attempted “smear” when he first arrived in Northern Ireland, as newspaper articles falsely claimed his chief of staff Martha Pope had had a liaison with Sinn Fein representative Gerry Kelly with ulterior motives. The Irish civil servant goes on to list several “leaks”, starting with the publication of a proposed deal in a newspaper while “intense negotiations” for the Downing Street Declaration were under way. Next, the Department lists two “high-profile and damaging leaks issued from the NIO”. A so-called “gameplan” document was leaked in February 1998, showing papers had been prepared weeks before the Drumcree march on July 6, 1997. In the preceding years, there had been standoffs and clashes as nationalists opposed the procession of an Orange parade down Garvaghy Road in Portadown. The gameplan document showed then secretary of state for Northern Ireland Mo Mowlam, who was publicly expressing a desire for a negotiated solution to the 1997 parade, advocated “finding the lowest common denominator for getting some Orange feet on the Garvaghy Road”. In 1997, a large number of security forces were deployed to the area to allow the march to proceed. The incident sparked heightened tension and a wave of rioting. The document further describes the release of a document submitted by the NIO’s director of communications to the secretary of state as a “second major leak”. It claims a publicity strategy was released to the DUP in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement and showed how the UK Government would support a yes vote in a referendum following any talks agreement. In addition, it is claimed unionists used leaked sections of the Patten report on policing to invalidate its findings ahead of its publication in 1999. The report recommended the replacement of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the changing of symbols, and a 50-50 recruitment policy for Catholics and Protestants. At the time, UUP leader David Trimble said the recommendations would lead to a corruption of policing in Northern Ireland. Chris Patten, chairman of the independent commission on policing, said some of the assertions were a “total fabrication” and designed to “muddy the waters” to create a difficult political atmosphere. Elsewhere, the author notes it was leaked to the media there was serious disagreement between the governments of the UK and Ireland on the composition of that commission – with not a single name submitted by the Irish side being accepted by the other. The author notes this incident, still under the heading “NIO leaks”, was believed by British officials to have emanated from the Irish side. The report turns to leaks of other origin, claiming “disgruntled Special Branch officers in Northern Ireland” were blamed by the British Government for a series of releases about the IRA which were designed to damage Sinn Fein in the 2001 general election in Northern Ireland. One senior Whitehall source was quoted in the Guardian as complaining that Special Branch was “leaking like a sieve” after details of an IRA intelligence database containing the names of leading Tories – described at the time as a “hit list” – was passed to the BBC in April 2002. The briefing note adds: “This was followed days later by a leak to The Sunday Telegraph which alleged that senior IRA commanders bought Russian special forces rifles in Moscow last year. “The newspaper said it was passed details by military intelligence in London.” The briefing note adds that other Special Branch leaks were associated with the Castlereagh break-in. The final incident in the document notes the Police Ombudsman’s Report on the Omagh bombing was also leaked to the press in December 2001. Then Northern Ireland secretary John Reid said at the time: “Leaks are never helpful and usually malicious – I will not be commenting on this report until I have seen the final version.” The reason for creating the list of leaks, which the Irish National Archives holds in a folder alongside briefing notes for ministers ahead of meetings with officials from the UK Government and NIO, is not outlined in the document itself. – This document is based on material in 2024/130/6.
NoneNo. 13 seed Tarleton State wins inaugural FCS playoff game, beats Drake 43-29NAU football drops out of FCS bracket, falling to Abilene Christian in 1st roundNone
Giannis Antetokounmpo returns for Bucks after missing 1 game with knee swellingTrump cabinet picks including Matt Gaetz targeted by bomb threats and swatting
San Domenico played a solid game at both ends of the court during Saturday’s 69-25 victory over American Canyon. The Panthers were strong defensively, holding American Canyon to single-digit scoring in every quarter. San Domenico closed the door on the Wolves with a 30-point lead in the third quarter. Gavin Early led a balanced Panthers attack with 16 points, eight rebounds, six steals and six assists. Chidera Oneukwu finished with 12 points and 10 rebounds, while Omar Willimas, Kris Jakstas and Irakli Jokhadze all chipped in 10 points apiece. • Marin Catholic fell 49-37 to Urban in the Wildcats’ boys basketball season debut on Saturday. Jake Ryan led Marin Catholic with 10 points as the Wildcats (0-1) battled uphill all day. The Wildcats are scheduled to join the Montgomery High tournament field on Thursday. Girls basketball San Domenico faced a big test in Friday’s Pinole Valley Tip-Off Classic during a 76-33 loss to defending NorCal Division I champion Bishop O’Dowd. Tosia Konczak led the Panthers with 13 points and Carly Amborn added 11. Bishop O’Dowd was paced by a 24-point outing from Jayla Stokes, daughter of former 49ers receiver JJ Stokes. San Domenico faced Justin-Siena in Napa on Saturday.By JOSH BOAK WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency. But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy, even if their aftershocks were clear in specific industries. The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. This time, though, his tariff threats might be different . The president-elect is talking about going much bigger — on a potential scale that creates more uncertainty about whether he’ll do what he says and what the consequences could be. “There’s going to be a lot more tariffs, I mean, he’s pretty clear,” said Michael Stumo, the CEO of Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that has supported import taxes to help domestic manufacturing. The president-elect posted on social media Monday that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada until those countries satisfactorily stop illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. Those tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump’s team negotiated during his initial term. Chinese imports would face additional tariffs of 10% until Beijing cracks down on the production of materials used in making fentanyl, Trump posted. Business groups were quick to warn about rapidly escalating inflation , while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would counter the move with tariffs on U.S. products. House Democrats put together legislation to strip a president’s ability to unilaterally apply tariffs this drastic, warning that they would likely lead to higher prices for autos, shoes, housing and groceries. Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.” “The economy department is preparing it,” Sheinbaum said. “If there are tariffs, Mexico would increase tariffs, it is a technical task about what would also benefit Mexico,” she said, suggesting her country would impose targeted import duties on U.S. goods in sensitive areas. Related Articles House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a president to impose tariffs due to claims of a national emergency, a largely symbolic action given Republicans’ coming control of both the House and Senate. “This legislation would enable Congress to limit this sweeping emergency authority and put in place the necessary Congressional oversight before any president – Democrat or Republican – could indiscriminately raise costs on the American people through tariffs,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash. But for Trump, tariffs are now a tested tool that seems less politically controversial even if the mandate he received in November’s election largely involved restraining inflation. The tariffs he imposed on China in his first term were continued by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who even expanded tariffs and restrictions on the world’s second largest economy. Biden administration officials looked at removing Trump’s tariffs in order to bring down inflationary pressures, only to find they were unlikely to help significantly. Tariffs were “so new and unique that it freaked everybody out in 2017,” said Stumo, but they were ultimately somewhat modest. Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines at the start of 2018, moves that might have pushed up prices in those sectors even though they also overlapped with plans to open washing machine plants in Tennessee and South Carolina. His administration also levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against allies. He then increased tariffs on China, leading to a trade conflict and a limited 2020 agreement that failed to produce the promised Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. Still, the dispute changed relations with China as more U.S. companies looked for alternative suppliers in other countries. Economic research also found the United States may have sacrificed some of its “soft power” as the Chinese population began to watch fewer American movies. The Federal Reserve kept inflation roughly on target, but factory construction spending never jumped in a way that suggested a lasting gain in manufacturing jobs. Separate economic research found the tariff war with China did nothing economically for the communities hurt by offshoring, but it did help Trump and Republicans in those communities politically. When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records. While that sum might seem meaningful, it was relatively small compared to the overall economy. America’s gross domestic product is now $29.3 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The total tariffs collected in the United States would equal less than 0.3% of GDP. The new tariffs being floated by Trump now are dramatically larger and there could be far more significant impacts. If Mexico, Canada, and China faced the additional tariffs proposed by Trump on all goods imported to the United States, that could be roughly equal to $266 billion in tax collections, a number that does not assume any disruptions in trade or retaliatory moves by other countries. The cost of those taxes would likely be borne by U.S. families, importers and domestic and foreign companies in the form of higher prices or lower profits. Former Biden administration officials said they worried that companies could piggyback on Trump’s tariffs — if they’re imposed — as a rationale to raise their prices, just as many companies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 boosted food and energy costs and gave several major companies the space to raise prices, according to their own earnings calls with investors. But what Trump didn’t really spell out is what might cause him to back down on tariffs and declare a victory. What he is creating instead with his tariff threats is a sense of uncertainty as companies and countries await the details to figure out what all of this could mean. “We know the key economic policy priorities of the incoming Trump administration, but we don’t know how or when they will be addressed,” said Greg Daco, chief U.S. economist at EY-Parthenon. AP writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this report from Mexico City.
By JOSH BOAK WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency. But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy, even if their aftershocks were clear in specific industries. The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. This time, though, his tariff threats might be different . The president-elect is talking about going much bigger — on a potential scale that creates more uncertainty about whether he’ll do what he says and what the consequences could be. “There’s going to be a lot more tariffs, I mean, he’s pretty clear,” said Michael Stumo, the CEO of Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that has supported import taxes to help domestic manufacturing. The president-elect posted on social media Monday that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada until those countries satisfactorily stop illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. Those tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump’s team negotiated during his initial term. Chinese imports would face additional tariffs of 10% until Beijing cracks down on the production of materials used in making fentanyl, Trump posted. Democrats and business groups warn of risks from Trump’s tariff threats Business groups were quick to warn about rapidly escalating inflation , while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would counter the move with tariffs on U.S. products. House Democrats put together legislation to strip a president’s ability to unilaterally apply tariffs this drastic, warning that they would likely lead to higher prices for autos, shoes, housing and groceries. Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.” “The economy department is preparing it,” Sheinbaum said. “If there are tariffs, Mexico would increase tariffs, it is a technical task about what would also benefit Mexico,” she said, suggesting her country would impose targeted import duties on U.S. goods in sensitive areas. House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a president to impose tariffs due to claims of a national emergency, a largely symbolic action given Republicans’ coming control of both the House and Senate. “This legislation would enable Congress to limit this sweeping emergency authority and put in place the necessary Congressional oversight before any president – Democrat or Republican – could indiscriminately raise costs on the American people through tariffs,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash. But for Trump, tariffs are now a tested tool that seems less politically controversial even if the mandate he received in November’s election largely involved restraining inflation. The tariffs he imposed on China in his first term were continued by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who even expanded tariffs and restrictions on the world’s second largest economy. Biden administration officials looked at removing Trump’s tariffs in order to bring down inflationary pressures, only to find they were unlikely to help significantly. Tariffs were “so new and unique that it freaked everybody out in 2017,” said Stumo, but they were ultimately somewhat modest. Trump’s first term tariffs had a modest impact on economy Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines at the start of 2018, moves that might have pushed up prices in those sectors even though they also overlapped with plans to open washing machine plants in Tennessee and South Carolina. His administration also levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against allies. He then increased tariffs on China, leading to a trade conflict and a limited 2020 agreement that failed to produce the promised Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. Still, the dispute changed relations with China as more U.S. companies looked for alternative suppliers in other countries. Economic research also found the United States may have sacrificed some of its “soft power” as the Chinese population began to watch fewer American movies. The Federal Reserve kept inflation roughly on target, but factory construction spending never jumped in a way that suggested a lasting gain in manufacturing jobs. Separate economic research found the tariff war with China did nothing economically for the communities hurt by offshoring, but it did help Trump and Republicans in those communities politically. When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records. While that sum might seem meaningful, it was relatively small compared to the overall economy. America’s gross domestic product is now $29.3 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The total tariffs collected in the United States would equal less than 0.3% of GDP. Trump wants much more far-reaching tariffs going forward The new tariffs being floated by Trump now are dramatically larger and there could be far more significant impacts. If Mexico, Canada, and China faced the additional tariffs proposed by Trump on all goods imported to the United States, that could be roughly equal to $266 billion in tax collections, a number that does not assume any disruptions in trade or retaliatory moves by other countries. The cost of those taxes would likely be borne by U.S. families, importers and domestic and foreign companies in the form of higher prices or lower profits. Former Biden administration officials said they worried that companies could piggyback on Trump’s tariffs — if they’re imposed — as a rationale to raise their prices, just as many companies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 boosted food and energy costs and gave several major companies the space to raise prices, according to their own earnings calls with investors. But what Trump didn’t really spell out is what might cause him to back down on tariffs and declare a victory. What he is creating instead with his tariff threats is a sense of uncertainty as companies and countries await the details to figure out what all of this could mean. “We know the key economic policy priorities of the incoming Trump administration, but we don’t know how or when they will be addressed,” said Greg Daco, chief U.S. economist at EY-Parthenon. AP writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this report from Mexico City.
Breaking the cloud backup ‘black box’ with intelligent data mapping and retrieval
Stock market today: S&P 500 eyes fresh record as Wall Street shrugs off Trump's tariff threat