casino games no deposit free bonus
Mets urged to sign 2-time All-Star with track record of postseason success | Sporting NewsNEW YORK (AP) — No ex-president had a more prolific and diverse publishing career than Jimmy Carter . His more than two dozen books included nonfiction, poetry, fiction, religious meditations and a children’s story. His memoir “An Hour Before Daylight” was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2002, while his 2006 best-seller “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” stirred a fierce debate by likening Israel’s policies in the West Bank to the brutal South African system of racial segregation. And just before his 100th birthday, the Dayton Literary Peace Prize Foundation honored him with a lifetime achievement award for how he wielded "the power of the written word to foster peace, social justice, and global understanding.” In one recent work, “A Full Life,” Carter observed that he “enjoyed writing” and that his books “provided a much-needed source of income.” But some projects were easier than others. “Everything to Gain,” a 1987 collaboration with his wife, Rosalynn, turned into the “worst threat we ever experienced in our marriage,” an intractable standoff for the facilitator of the Camp David accords and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. According to Carter, Rosalynn was a meticulous author who considered “the resulting sentences as though they have come down from Mount Sinai, carved into stone.” Their memories differed on various events and they fell into “constant arguments.” They were ready to abandon the book and return the advance, until their editor persuaded them to simply divide any disputed passages between them. “In the book, each of these paragraphs is identified by a ‘J’ or an ‘R,’ and our marriage survived,” he wrote. Here is a partial list of books by Carter: “Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President” “The Blood of Abraham: Insights into the Middle East” (With Rosalynn Carter) “Everything to Gain: Making the Most of the Rest of Your Life” “An Outdoor Journal: Adventures and Reflections” “Turning Point: A Candidate, a State, and a Nation Come of Age” “Always a Reckoning, and Other Poems” (With daughter Amy Carter) “The Little Baby Snoogle-Fleejer” “Living Faith” “The Virtues of Aging” “An Hour Before Daylight: Memories of a Rural Boyhood” “Christmas in Plains: Memories” “The Hornet’s Nest: A Novel of the Revolutionary War” “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis” “Faith & Freedom: The Christian Challenge for the World” “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” “A Remarkable Mother” “Beyond the White House” “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work” “White House Diary” “NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter” “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power” “A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety” The Associated Press
US Airlines Set To Fly High In 2025, Analyst Says: 'Perfect Storm Of Tailwinds' Will Propel Industry Gains
Griezmann double makes it nine wins in a row for Atletico after stunning 4-3 victory over Sevilla
Researchers from a local university are conducting a community-led research project to map the drug crisis in Surrey. Michael Ma, PhD and Tara Lyons, PhD from Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) are working with the Surrey Union of Drug Users (SUDU) to highlight "the lack of specific research on Surrey’s toxic drug supply crisis, harm reduction and the regulation of people who use drugs," notes a KPU news release Tuesday (Dec. 10). Surrey had the second-highest number of drug overdose deaths in the province for the first nine months of 2024, according to the . Gina Egilson, a board member at SUDU, said, "Surrey's losing more and more people to toxic drug overdoses, with at least four to five people dying every week." “There's a deep urgency to improve the system through more support and resources in Surrey. This research will be an empowering skill-building opportunity that will help guide SUDU's advocacy." In an , Ma noted that the majority of research on overdoses in B.C. is focused on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, even though most overdoses have occurred in Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria. “For too many years there hasn't been enough focus on the escalating drug crisis in Surrey,” Ma said. “So we want to try to build more capacity and support in Surrey through resources, funding and infrastructure.” The project will draw from people with lived experience of substance use, who will take an "active role as participants and collaborators in the research," notes the KPU release. “This research is just not for pure scholarly academic reasons. It’s a community development project that has a research component. It can be leveraged for social action to generate new social, economic and political policy that could benefit people who are suffering, being misunderstood or being under-researched,” Ma said. Pete Woodrow, a board member at SUDU, said, “I've never seen this kind of collaboration between people of lived experience and established researchers." “It not only creates a bridge of understanding between two groups that would not normally have contact, it also gives us an opportunity to gain a greater handle on where services are most needed. So often the intent of help falls short or misses the mark due to the lack of a proper map of marginalized population.” Lyons added, “We don’t see people as objects of study in the work we're doing. They're experts who are guiding the kind of questions we're going to ask and how we will communicate the information.” A $339,159 grant from the will help fund this project.
None
(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister) In June 1975, the Prime Minister was honoured by the international community with two important assgnments. The first was by the International Labour Organization (ILO), where she was invited to make the keynote address to the new ILO sessions opening in Geneva. The second was by the United Nations where she was invited to make the keynote address at the First UN International Conference on Women to be held in Mexico City, Mexico. She was also due to address The Group of 77 in Geneva. Manel Abeysekera of the Foreign Ministry and I, accompanied the Prime Minister. We had three major speeches to work on. We already had drafts ready, which were the result of much work and many refinements. But we had decided to finalize them in Geneva after two of our ablest diplomats, Susantha de Alwis and Karen Breckenridge perused them. Gamani Corea was to go through the Group of 77 speech in particular. Geneva We left for Geneva on June 8, 1975 by Swissair. En route we landed at Karachi at 1 a.m. and were met at the airport by the Minister of Education and Planning of the Province of Sindh and Mr. Aga Shahi, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, who had been specially dispatched from Islamabad for the occasion. After an interesting conversation, we re-boarded and took-off. I worked through the Prime Minister’s Group of 77 speech on the plane. We couldn’t land in Geneva due to fog and were diverted to Zurich. That didn’t work either. Zurich was also fog bound. Finally, we landed at Basle. This of course meant hassle and delay. For me, this was a worry because we didn’t have much time to finalize the speeches. Susantha and his charming wife, Achala, put us all up in their official residence. Thanks to them, we were relaxed and comfortable. Breckenridge joined us later to work on the speeches. With so many important speeches, coming up so rapidly, work was hectic. Finally, by the time we finished working on the Group of 77 speech, It was 2.15 in the morning. On June10, at 10 a.m. the Prime Minister addressed the ILO and that afternoon at 3.45 p.m. the Group of 77. To our relief and satisfaction, both addresses were well received. There were several other appointments over the next couple of days, including meetings with the Director General of ILO and senior officials, as well as with various persons knowledgeable on issues of development. We had also to put the finishing touches on the Prime Minister’s address to the conference on Women. Manel and I worked on that. Mexico City We next left for Mexico. The journey took us through Houston where there was a refueling stop. Shirley Amerasinghe, our Permanent Representative at the UN was at the airport when we landed. I took the opportunity to show him the speech and inquired whether he had any views. Shirley thought the speech “excellent.” We were pleased that an experienced internationalist like Shirley had this opinion. At the airport at Mexico City, the Prime Minister and party were met by the Foreign Minister; Minister of the Interior; and the Minister for the Presidency and their wives. We were lodged at the Hotel Camino Real, which was both spacious and comfortable. On June 18 at 10.30 a.m. the Prime Minister called on President Ecchevaria. Talks between the two sides went on till I p.m. and encompassed both bilateral affairs and trade, as well as international affairs. The discussions were friendly and open. There was some delay due to translations. At 1.30 p.m. the President hosted the Prime Minister and delegation to lunch. The Mexican Cabinet; the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court; other local dignitaries and the diplomatic corps were present. After coming back to the hotel I telephoned Jayantha Dhanapala of the Foreign Service, at our Embassy in Washington and read out the text of a long statement, which I had drafted for the Sri Lanka newspapers. Since we didn’t have an embassy in Mexico, communications were a problem. The Prime Minister’s address itself to the conference went off very well and we believe that she received somewhat more than the customary compliments paid to speakers on such occasions. Our stay in Mexico, though brief was a crowded one with lunches, cultural shows and some sightseeing thrown in which included a visit to the excellent national museum. At one of these lunches hosted by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the Shah of Iran, and which included Ms. Imelda Marcos, I was one of the very few males present. The conversation was wide ranging and interesting with an emphasis on art, culture and social issues. Just before we left for home, Mr. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden called on the Prime Minister in her hotel. The youthful looking Mr. Palme had a reputation for being a radical. He had participated in marches and demonstrations in Sweden against the American intervention in the Vietnam War. At the discussions, he displayed a quiet, soft-spoken style. The Mexican Minister of Trade called on the Prime Minister before her departure. At this discussion Mexico agreed to issue licenses for a larger quantity of Sri Lankan cinnamon. At the airport, Valentina Teresckova, the Soviet woman cosmonaut came to meet the Prime Minister. It was a meeting between the first woman in space and the first woman Prime Minister. Katchativu and the settlement of issues with India From, about 1973, the Prime Minister was turning her attention to solving the only two outstanding issues with India, that of the ownership of the Island of Katchativu off the Northern coast of Sri Lanka; and that of the remaining 150,000 settlers of Indian origin in the country, which had not been covered by the Sirima-Shastri Pact. Katchativu was a tiny barren island in a part of the sea between Sri Lanka and India where fishermen of both countries engaged in fishing. At certain times of the year, Indian fishermen used to dry their nets on this rocky island. There was also a Catholic festival held there annually by the Sri Lanka Church, attended mostly by fishermen and their families. Katchativu was therefore being used for different purposes by the fishermen of both countries. Traditionally, however, Sri Lanka always considered the tiny island hers. The difference of views with India lay in the fact that there was no legal resolution of ownership. The issue was most important to a small country like Sri Lanka. India was one of the largest countries in the World. To Sri Lanka, it was considered vital to demarcate her maritime boundary in the North, and for this too the status of Katchativu was important. This was furthermore an area, which due to fishing by people of both countries, it was very necessary to properly demarcate the maritime boundary in order to minimize disputes. The law of the Sea Conference and the proposed 200 mile limit of sea which was to come within the sovereignty of countries was a factor which added to the importance of the resolution of this issue. Official contacts were therefore made with India, and a process of discussions begun. To complicate matters for us, it was discovered that some vitally important papers on the subject were missing from the Foreign Ministry files. One would not however like to speculate on a matter such as this. However, papers available in the National Archives helped. The Prime Minister in her meetings and contacts with Mrs. Gandhi had broached the necessity of resolving the outstanding issues with India. The two Prime Ministers got on well together and had established considerable rapport, a relationship going back the good relations between the Bandaranaike and Nehru families. Mrs. Bandaranaike was therefore keen that the existing favourable political configuration in the two countries should be used without delay to resolve our common problems. The Indian Prime Minister agreed. She had enormous problems on her hands including political turmoil, separatist tendencies and guerilla action in several parts of the country. The problems with Sri Lanka were not intractable ones, and she herself obviously thought that the time had come to get them out of the way and have some degree of stability and peace on her Southern border. A friendly Sri Lanka was in India’s interest. The virulent anti-Indian rhetoric by the JVP during 1969-71 which included the holding of clandestine classes for its cadres where an important lesson was on “Indian domination”, was a recent demonstration of the potential to inspire fear and hatred. This was another factor taken into account by Mrs. Bandaranaike in developing a policy on the quick resolution of problems with India. The two sides therefore, engaged in a process of discussions. These discussions were ongoing in a quiet manner when in mid-1974 India exploded a nuclear device in the Rajasthan desert. A cacophony of condemnation arose all over the world. The shrill condemnation that followed could not be dignified with the word “chorus.” India was depicted in the world’s press, and particularly in the Western press as some kind of sanctimonious humbug which preached non-violence, Ahimsa and arms control on the one hand, but practiced something else on the other. It was at the height of this situation that one day I dropped in at Temple Trees in the morning to get some urgent letters signed by the Prime Minister. When I reached there, I found the Prime Minister seated at the large dining table attending to work with W T Jayasinghe. I was about to take a seat in the verandah, when she saw me and invited me in. I found that WT was also finishing his work. He asked me whether I could give him a lift back to the Ministry, since he had sent his car somewhere else. I said that it wouldn’t be a problem. Both of us finished soon thereafter and WT loaded a large number of files into my car. We set off soon thereafter for the five-minute run to Republic Square. During the trip, WT told me that the Prime minister was sending a tiff note about the testing of the nuclear device and that she had signed the letter. I was quite appalled. I told WT, that I did not know the content and tone of the letter, since I had not seen it, but that I hoped that the close relationship between the two Prime Ministers and the on-going discussions on Katchativu and other matters had been taken into account in drafting the letter. I ended by saying that I hoped that our overall national interest had been properly assessed in sending this communication at this time. W T became somewhat agitated by what I said. He had the objectivity to say, “No I don’t think we had thought about matters to that extent.” I shrugged. He then pulled out the file and showed me the letter. I took one look and said that we might as well abandon our on-going discussions with India. The letter was a typical foreign Ministry sectoral, one-dimensional draft, which had only a thought of the issues of non-proliferation and non-alignment. It was clear that no thought had been given to the course of bilateral relations, strategic considerations, or an assessment of Sri Lanka’s overall national interest. WT by now was considerably alarmed. We had now reached the end of our short journey. He said, he wanted to come to my room to discuss matters further. Indeed, by now, he was convinced that the letter was a mistake. He wanted me to do an alternate draft. I said that I would do so only if he would place both drafts before the Prime Minister, not telling her who drafted the alternative, until she had decided which one to send. This was too important a matter for any bias to creep in. I thereupon changed the whole tenor of the letter from one of protestations and criticism to what I thought was a more balanced approach. India was congratulated on her achievements in Science and Technology and our satisfaction at this record mentioned. But the Prime Minister urged caution on going the nuclear route and she said that she was encouraged by the Indian Prime Minister’s statement that India would not develop a nuclear arsenal. (The various reasons why India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons later would be a matter for study, debate and even controversy. But this was 1974, and we had to react at that time.) Suitable reference was also made to the issue of the Non-Aligned stance on nuclear proliferation. The whole tenor or the letter was an expression or admiration and recognition of India’s achievements in science and technology, but at the same time a friendly expression of concern about the prospect of nuclear proliferation. WT’ thought that my draft was much better. I soon forgot about it amidst other work. A few days later WT walked into my room. He had done what I had suggested and the two drafts had been placed before the Prime Minister. She had immediately reacted, and had angrily asked, who had done the first draft. She had stated that the second draft was the one that really reflected her views, and that she was misled into signing the first. It was only at this point that WT had mentioned who the author of the second draft was. This whole episode brings up some interesting points. In the first instance, it was by sheer accident that there was ever a second draft. The earlier letter would have been disastrous. This surmise indeed was subsequently proved by the Indian Prime Minister’s warm and lengthy response to the Prime Minister’s letter. This was a time, when Mrs. Gandhi was having serious internal problems in India too. The reply was an outpouring from the heart of a beleaguered leader to one whom she could trust. Amongst many candid and personal matters contained in the reply, there was gratitude expressed for Mrs. Bandaranaike’s understanding and vision. The relationship could have ended up being quite different.
Bryce Thompson scored 17 points and achieved a milestone as Oklahoma State defeated Miami 80-74 on Friday afternoon in a Charleston Classic consolation game in Charleston, S.C. Thompson made 6-of-14 shots from the floor, surpassing 1,000 points for his career at Oklahoma State (4-1), which also got 15 points from Marchelus Avery. The Cowboys won in large part thanks to their impressive 3-point shooting (10-for-22, 45.5 percent). Oklahoma State backup guard Arturo Dean, a Miami native, posted eight points and one steal. He led the nation in steals last season while playing for Florida International. Miami (3-2) has lost two straight games in Charleston, failing to take a lead at any point. They will play on Sunday against either Nevada or VCU. The Hurricanes on Friday were led by Nijel Pack, who had a game-high 20 points. Brandon Johnson had a double-double for Miami with 12 points and 10 rebounds. Matthew Cleveland scored 11 points and Lynn Kidd and Paul Djobet added 10 points apiece for Miami. Miami, which fell behind 7-0 in Thursday's loss to Drake, got behind 9-0 on Friday as Abou Ousmane scored six of his eight points. Oklahoma State stretched its lead to 18 before settling for a 43-27 advantage at the break. Pack led all first-half scorers with 10 points, but Miami shot just 29.6 percent from the floor, including 3-of-13 on 3-pointers (23.1). Oklahoma State shot 48.4 percent, including 8-for-15 on 3-pointers (53.3 percent) before intermission. The Cowboys also had a 14-8 edge in paint points. In the second half, Miami closed its 20-point deficit to 55-42 with 12:12 left. Miami got a bit closer as two straight short jumpers by Kidd, trimming the deficit to 73-62 with 3:25 to play. The Hurricanes cut it to 77-70 on Pack's 3-pointer with 34 seconds remaining, but the Cowboys hit their free throws to close out the win. --Field Level Media
Exclusive: Speaker Johnson Denies Blocking Rep. Barry Loudermilk Subcommittee's Subpoena of Cassidy Hutchinson