With yet another win, the LA Rams have totally turned their season around and are 8-6 on the year. Heck, this feels like the same story from the 2023 Rams. Battling back from early-season injuries, the Rams started 1-4 and have since gone 7-2 over their last nine games. Can they closeout the regular season with three more wins? Week 16 @ New York Jets The New York Jets may be a bottom-3 team in football, so this should be no problem for the Los Angeles Rams. Being that the Rams final two games are divisional opponents and are much more important than this one, it may be possible that the Rams aren't as invested into this game as they would be their final two. Nonetheless, LA is better than New York, so the Rams will win this one easily. Prediction: Rams win (9-6) Week 17 vs. Arizona Cardinals The Arizona Cardinals blew out the Los Angeles Rams earlier in the season, but when the two teams meet again in Week 17, it'll be a much different story. The Cardinals were 6-4 at one point and leading the NFC West, but they have since lost three games in a row. LA is healthier and has a Super Bowl-winning duo in Matthew Stafford and Sean McVay. The Rams will have a ton at stake in this one and will get it done. Prediction: Rams win (10-6) Week 18 vs. Seattle Seahawks The Los Angeles Rams did beat the Seattle Seahawks in overtime earlier in the season, and this game could decide the NFC West. The Rams could win-out and win the NFC West, but if they get a bit more help from the Seahawks, they could actually kind of 'tank' in their game against the Jets, hold out some starters, and make a run over the last two weeks. LA is the better team - they have the better head coach, QB, offensive line, and overall team. I understand that people find the Seahawks to be a fun, frisky team at times, but this game is trending to be a Rams win in a day they wrap-up the NFC West division title. Prediction: Rams win (11-6)
From Trump's Win To Debut Of Spot ETFs: These Were The Biggest Bullish Catalysts For Bitcoin In 2024
Transcript: The Inside Story: Elections and Consequences Episode 171 – November 21, 2024 Show Open: This week on The Inside Story... U.S. President-elect Donald Trump begins to announce agency heads for his incoming administration... See what that could mean for the Trump agenda going forward. Now on The Inside Story: Elections and Consequences. The Inside Story: KATHERINE GYPSON , VOA Congressional Correspondent: Hello and welcome to the Inside Story. I’m Katherine Gypson in Washington. The Republican party has won a legislative Trifecta and will control the White House, the House of Representatives and the US Senate come January... And that could help President Trump enact his expansive agenda, but if history is any guide, it’s no guarantee.... KATHERINE GYPSON: The new leader of the incoming Republican-majority U.S. Senate... Senator John Thune, Republican: We have a mandate from the American people, a mandate not only to clean up the mess left by the Biden-Harris-Schumer agenda, but also to deliver on President Trump's priorities. KATHERINE GYPSON: Thune takes the top leadership role in the Senate after Mitch McConnell served in that position for 18 years, and he is already facing his first test. President-elect Donald Trump has proposed bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role of approving Cabinet nominees. Senator John Thune, Republican: The Senate has an advise-and-consent role in the Constitution, so we will do everything we can to process his noms [nominations] quickly and get them installed in their position so they can begin to implement his agenda. KATHERINE GYPSON: Democrats lost their majority and will hold at least 47 seats in the new Senate. Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader: The American people have presented us with a challenge. We must learn from it. KATHERINE GYPSON: Trump had unified control of government during the first two years of his first term. But one analyst says that does not always mean the White House will get what it wants on Capitol Hill. Casey Burgat, George Washington University: Mitch McConnell had said then that he supports the president's agenda, he'll work with them, but then we saw — from nominations to policies — that they will provide no votes if they think the president has gone too far. KATHERINE GYPSON: Republicans also secured a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, earning praise from Trump... KATHERINE GYPSON: The president-elect endorsed Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to lead again. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House: I believe it will be the most consequential Congress in the modern era, most consequential administration of the modern era, because, frankly, we have to fix almost every area of public policy. KATHERINE GYPSON: But Republicans hold a much narrower majority in the House with only a handful more seats than Democrats, who vowed to keep fighting. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat: The Congressional Progressive Caucus will continue to be ferocious defenders of the working class and poor people. KATHERINE GYPSON: President-elect Trump also has the task of naming new directors for the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence who oversees it. He’s turning to an old ally for the CIA and has nominated someone seen as an outsider and possible disrupter to oversee the agency when his second term begins in January. VOA National Security Correspondent Jeff Seldin has this story. JEFF SELDIN, National Security Correspondent: The one-time Democrat became a strong voice for Trump’s campaign, rallying crowds behind his agenda. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump National Intelligence Director Pick: It’s why I’m proud to stand with President Trump and why we the people must vote to send him back to the White House and make America great again. JEFF SELDIN: In announcing Gabbard’s nomination, Trump praised her “fearless spirit,” saying she’ll bring that to the job. She also brings more than 20 years of experience serving with the U.S. Army National Guard. And she brings a degree of controversy irking Republican and Democratic lawmakers with this social media video, in which critics say she mirrored Russian propaganda about U.S.-funded bioweapons labs in Ukraine — something U.S. intelligence officials say is not true. Gabbard has also been criticized for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – accused of war crimes. But she defended the trip by saying you can’t be serious about peace unless you are willing to talk to your adversaries. Trump’s choice of John Ratcliffe to lead the CIA is more conventional – Ratcliffe having served as Trump’s director of national intelligence at the end of Trump’s first term. At times, Ratcliffe clashed with lawmakers over moves to declassify intelligence about alleged Russian election interference. He also pushed back against meddling by Iran, Russia and China. John Ratcliffe, Trump Pick to Lead CIA: There is nothing more sacred in our republic than the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote. JEFF SELDIN: Trump entrusting a familiar face... And a rising star... to lead U.S. intelligence efforts for the next four years. KATHERINE GYPSON: For more on this story, I'm joined now by VOA NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT Jeff Selden, Jeff, what insights can you share about the future of the CIA under this new administration? Well, JEFF SELDIN: Donald Trump, as President Elect and as his previous president, has put a lot of emphasis on his global outlook, but he's also gone with unconventional choices at times for the intelligence agencies, especially this time around with the CIA, he's chosen John Ratcliffe, who served him, but in his previous administration as the Director of National Intelligence, the choice that is causing more controversy and more discussion and his choice is his choice for the Director of National Intelligence, the person who oversees 17 other of the US intelligence agencies, by choosing Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic Congresswoman who has experience as a National Guardsman serving overseas, but to the minds of many critics, does not have intelligence experience, right? KATHERINE GYPSON: So what exactly does the legislation creating that position say? JEFF SELDIN: What that position needs the legislation that created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which was put into place after the 911 terror attacks in 2001 to make sure that the US intelligence agencies were all working on the same page and that information wasn't falling through the cracks that would allow a massive attack like the US saw 911 to occur. And it says that the Director of National Intelligence is somebody who needs to be very experienced. The legislation calls for extensive intelligence experience, not just in terms of understanding intelligence and practicing intelligence, but also in terms of managing intelligence agencies. Right? KATHERINE GYPSON: So how has that been interpreted in the past? Has that ever been a problem in the confirmation process? JEFF SELDIN: Well, in the past, many of the directors of National Intelligence have been old veterans of the US intelligence community, serving in intelligence agencies like the NSA, the National Security Agency, the CIA, the nation's premier intelligence spy agency. But at times, though, the definition of what extensive means has been pushed specifically in his last administration, President Trump nominated John Radcliffe, now nominated to head the CIA to be the Director of National Intelligence. When he first nominated him, there was controversy. He had some experience as a prosecutor working on terrorism related cases. Some lawmakers thought that that experience was overstated, and he also served on the House Intelligence Committee. But it wasn't enough. The first time he was nominated, he had to withdraw. He was nominated again later in the administration, and he survived confirmation by a narrow party line vote. But that establishes a precedent. KATHERINE GYPSON: The question now is, how will lawmakers who have to receive these confirmation hearings and who have an interest in seeing a strong US intelligence community. How are they going to look at Tulsi Gabbard nomination? How are they going to look at her experience and her views on various issues? Right? I remember she had a trip to Syria back when she was a member of Congress that was very, very controversial. Among other things she said about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, floated some conspiracy theories that the invasion was justified because of Bio Labs. Can you. Hack some of that for us and how that might get her into trouble now, right? JEFF SELDIN: Tulsi Gabbard has not been somebody who's been eyed favorably by people within the national security community. Traditionally, they look at her trip to Syria and her meeting with the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, and that is something that they think was a mistake and upset them. They look at this take that she had on some of the fighting between Russia and Ukraine, and the statement that you alluded to, and it was mentioned in the piece about how she, according to many, mirrored Russian propaganda about US involvement in bio weapons labs, to the point where a Republican senator, Mitt Romney essentially accused her of being a puppet for the Russian regime, and she said that, and she's also upset people in the intelligence community, because years ago, she co sponsored legislation that would have issued that called for a pardon to Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who leaked hundreds of 1000s of documents, which, according to intelligence officials in the US, put lives at risk, risk, the lives of assets, put other programs at risk, and then took refuge in Russia. So that's going to cause some consternation. But for the Trump team, in the people in Trump's camp, they see or as somebody who's a disrupter, somebody who's willing to tell truth to power and shake up what they see as an intelligence infrastructure that really needs some change, KATHERINE GYPSON: Right. So, you've talked about the way Gabbard is perceived by the incoming Trump administration. How is she going to be perceived worldwide? What are our allies going to think about someone who's facing these accusations? JEFF SELDIN: it's a good question. Look, there some allies will be concerned, because they know they look at the track record that Trump had from his first term in office, and some of the information that some allies felt that he leaked out, or the way he handled intelligence, which, again, from a traditional intelligence point of view, some former officials thought it was it was careless at times, or he played fast and loose with how intelligence was used. So they may not be very favorable in terms of looking at what's going to happen this time around, right? But they can look at his nomination for CIA Director John Ratcliffe. They have experience dealing with him from what his time at as Director of National Intelligence at the end of Trump's first term that may give them some comfort. Look. It's also important to remember that a lot of the interaction, the cooperation between the US and its allies when it comes to intelligence is not at the top most level. It's at levels lower down, where people have been working on these programs, working on getting intelligence, gathering information, where they work together. Some of it, at this point, is even automated. KATHERINE GYPSON: So how are those relationships going to be changing under a Trump term this time around? JEFF SELDIN: That remains to be seen. But some of this stuff, some of this cooperation, is not going to be able to be walked back, right? KATHERINE GYPSON: So that said, you did talk about the lower level cooperation, if she does go through, or if she does continue with this nomination, it could be a little bit dicey to get that through the US Senate. I know that from covering some of the more domestic nominees, what exactly, how could that shake out? What answers will she have to, you know, Faith give the US Congress when she's confirmed? JEFF SELDIN: Well, if she faces a confirmation hearing, there's a good chance at least Democratic lawmakers, and there's a good chance to lawmakers will question her on some of the stances that she's taking, some of her actions, about Bashar Al Assad, her trip to Syria, her stance on Edward Snowden and his leak of information, and why should she feels he should be pardoned, when within the intelligence community he's viewed as A traitor. They're going to ask her about why she's been willing to go public and echo sentiments expressed by Russia against against Ukraine and US involvement that lends to conspiracy theories. And she'll have to provide some answers. The thing that it's hard to say is, how will the law make How will she provide those answers? What exactly will she say? And then how will lawmakers react? Remember, part of the confirmation process is there is some deference to the president elect or the president by the time these hearings happen, as to who the President wants in office, who he feels he needs in his ear to give him the best advice and the best information. How are lawmakers going to parse this out? And that remains to be seen. KATHERINE GYPSON: We'll see how much the US Congress pushes back on all of that. It is a separate branch of the US government. View is NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT Jeff Selden, thank you so much for joining us today. JEFF SELDIN: My pleasure. KATHERINE GYPSON: As the Biden administration enters its final two months, President Biden is far from winding down. His administration has recently authorized Ukraine to utilize long-range weapons, allowing them to strike deeper into Russia, targeting the Kremlin's military infrastructure. This decision follows Russia's largest aerial assault on Ukraine in recent months. VOA's Arash Arabasadi reports on the developing situation. ARASH ARABASADI , VOA Correspondent: Missiles fly overhead as Russia launches its largest air assault against Ukraine in months. Ukraine’s air defenses intercepted some incoming fire over capital city Kyiv as air raid sirens bellowed below. And people huddled for safety in underground metro stations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russia launched 120 missiles and 90 drones, including Iranian-made Shaheds. Kyiv’s air force says the military destroyed 104 missiles and 42 of the drones. Russia says it was targeting energy facilities that power Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to bring a speedy end to the conflict between the two nations. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin and reiterated Europe’s support for Ukraine no matter what happens in Washington. Olaf Scholz, German Chancellor: Russia and the Russian president started this war and are prepared to risk a great deal of material and, above all, their own lives for the plan to conquer and deny Ukraine its sovereignty and democracy... It would be an illusion on Russia’s part to believe that Ukraine cannot continue to count on our firm support in the future. ARASH ARABASADI: Zelenskyy, however, said he welcomes the prospect of this war coming to an end. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President: I don’t think Putin wants peace at all. But that does not mean he doesn’t want to sit down with world leaders. ... I think the war will end, and not in the abstract. There is no exact date, but with the policy of the incoming White House, the war will end faster. This is their promise to their country. And for them, it is also very important. ARASH ARABASADI: But for now, Ukrainian first responders have their hands full removing missile debris from blown out buildings. Ukrainian officials say at least seven people died in the attacks, which they say caused “severe damage” to the power system. The strikes prompted emergency power cuts through several regions with area residents waiting in line at water supply stations and so-called “invincibility points.” Marina Martynenko, Odesa Region State Emergency Service: We opened 45 invincibility points at fire stations in the Odesa region. People can charge electronic devices, drink hot tea, and receive basic food. There are also kids’ corners where children can draw and read. ARASH ARABASADI: Russia’s war on Ukraine will reach the one-thousand day mark this week. Arash Arabasadi, VOA News. KATHERINE GYPSON: The incoming Trump administration also appears to be taking a different approach to Israel and the Palestinians living in the West Bank. Trump named former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. And as VOA’s Linda Gradstein reports from the West Bank, that could mark a major shift in U.S. policy for the region. LINDA GRADSTEIN , VOA Correspondent: Kedumim is a comfortable bedroom community in the northern West Bank built in the mid-1970s. Daniella Weiss, a fiery settler leader, and her children were one of the first Jewish families to settle here, living in tents with no running water. Today, she hopes President-elect Donald Trump will accept total sovereignty and annexation of the West Bank settlements, without provisions for a Palestinian state. Daniella Weiss, Jewish Settler Leader: The president of the United States who says ‘I’m going to give you a present. I will give you sovereignty, but you’ll have to leave something aside.’ No, it’s all ours. The ability to say it is all ours, why? Because it is the promise of God to Abraham. LINDA GRADSTEIN: Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also lives here. He predicted that in 2025, Israel will annex what’s known as Area C, the 60 percent of the West Bank that contains the Jewish settlements and is home to more than 500,000 settlers. The 2.5 million Palestinians live mostly in what’s designated Areas A and B of the West Bank that are under the partial or full control of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli annexation of disputed territory was a feature of the first Trump administration's Middle East policy, which recognized Israeli control over the Golan Heights. Trump-appointed Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has long been a staunch proponent of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Like the Israeli settlers, he refers to the territories by their Biblical name Judea and Samaria. Mike Huckabee, US Ambassador to Israel Nominee: I recognize Judea and Samaria as part of Israel. And I believe that it’s most important that we realize that there are more Jews living in Judea and Samaria than most people ever realize, and that those numbers are significant. It’s an important part of the security of Israel. LINDA GRADSTEIN: Some analysts, including those who live in the West Bank, say that Israel should be careful about annexing the lands unilaterally. Hodaya Karish-Hazony, Makor Rishon: If you really think that, and I think that, sovereignty is one of the things that can make Israel really safe and ensure her future, you have to do it wisely and you have to do it hand-in-hand with the American administration. LINDA GRADSTEIN: Other settlers worry that a decision to annex part of the West Bank could cause further unrest. Hanan Moses, Herzog College : I personally support annexation, but I just don’t want it to tear the society apart again. There already is a strong settlement movement here. But the left is against it. The division among us weakens us. LINDA GRADSTEIN: Some settler leaders, including Daniella Weiss, want to go even further than annexing the West Bank. They say they are already preparing to re-build Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip which were evacuated in 2005. Linda Gradstein, VOA News, Kedumim in the West Bank. KATHERINE GYPSON: President Donald Trump carries with him the dubious distinction of being the only convicted felon ever to assume the Presidency. In fact, Trump has spent a good deal of time in courtrooms in the four years since his previous term. VOA’s Tina Trinh examines how the status of those cases changed now that he’s president elect. TINA TRINH , VOA Correspondent: Will President-elect Donald Trump be sentenced for his crimes? It’s a question that remains to be answered, as New York state judge Juan Merchan considers the extraordinary circumstances of a former U.S. president and convicted felon who also happens to be the incoming president. In May, Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels to suppress a sex scandal ahead of his 2016 election. Trump’s sentencing in the so-called “hush money” case has been delayed multiple times, and his election victory earlier this month casts further doubt on legal proceedings. Anna Cominsky, New York Law School: Really, the core of this is to find out whether or not Trump's sentencing is going to move forward at all. And that includes whether it will happen before he takes office, whether it will happen after he takes office, or whether his case will just be dismissed. TINA TRINH: Trump’s defense team is arguing that a landmark Supreme Court ruling in July grants him presidential immunity and that the case should be dismissed entirely. But Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is arguing that the jury arrived at a guilty verdict prior to the Supreme Court ruling, and that Trump was not president at the time. In a letter to the judge, he indicated that prosecutors would oppose attempts to dismiss the case but were open to delaying sentencing until after Trump’s term in office. Claire Finkelstein, University of Pennsylvania: If Juan Marshan decides that he agrees with the prosecutors’ suggestion as a possibility, then he would engage in what might be termed an equitable stay of proceedings in light of the extraordinary circumstances of the defendant becoming president of the United States, and he would effectively stay the case until 2029, after Donald Trump steps down from the presidency. TINA TRINH: The hush money case isn’t the only one the president-elect must contend with. Two federal cases brought forth by special counsel Jack Smith, one alleging mishandling of classified documents and another election interference, are reportedly being brought to a close , as a long-standing Department of Justice policy cites that sitting presidents cannot be charged with a crime. However, an election interference case in Georgia does not fall under federal jurisdiction . Claire Finkelstein, University of Pennsylvania: Technically, the state of Georgia is free to proceed unencumbered by the DOJ policy. But can they? Is there, is it even possible to expect that they would be able to proceed and expect the cooperation of Donald Trump, which would really require the cooperation of the White House to proceed with a trial while the defendant is serving as president of the United States? TINA TRINH: Unprecedented circumstances have made for uncharted legal territory. Tina Trinh, VOA News, New York. KATHERINE GYPSON: Some State governors in the U.S. are already preparing for potential Trump administration policies that they anticipate may conflict with their state laws. Democratic governors, in particular, assert their readiness to defend their states' progressive policies. Matt Dibble reports from California, where the governor has called an emergency session of the state assembly. MATT DIBBLE, VOA Correspondent: As President-Elect Donald Trump prepares to take power with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, some Democratic governors want to limit his impact on their states. Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York: If you try to harm New Yorkers, or roll back their rights, I will fight you every step of the way. MATT DIBBLE: New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, were quick to react. JB Pritzker, Governor of Illinois: You come for my people, you come through me. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California: We are calling, and have called, for an emergency special session of our state legislature firmly focused on the values we hold dear that I think are universal values, that are American values. MATT DIBBLE: That’s California Governor Gavin Newsom calling a special session of the state assembly to prepare for what his office says is, quote, “an incoming federal administration that has threatened the state on multiple fronts.” Following his win, Trump posted on his Truth Social that Newsom is, quote, "trying to KILL our Nation's beautiful California. Donald Trump, President-Elect: The state of California is a mess. MATT DIBBLE: Trump frequently says the state's progressive policies contribute to crime, homelessness and unauthorized immigration. Unidentified: The great state of California will be filing a lawsuit... MATT DIBBLE: During the first Trump presidency, California sued the administration over 100 times, successfully defending state immigration policies, vehicle emission standards, and access to health care. Speaking last week near San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his team plans to begin filing litigation as soon as Trump takes office. Rob Bonta, California Attorney General: Mr. Trump repeatedly overstepped his authority between 2016 and 2020. There's no reason to think he won't do it again. We checked him, and we stopped him, and we pushed him back into his box when he tried to step out of it. MATT DIBBLE: On a Los Angeles campaign stop in September, Trump bashed California's leaders and their management of state resources. Donald Trump, President-Elect: I'm going to give you safety. I'm going to give you a great border, and I'm going to give you more water than almost anybody has. MATT DIBBLE: California spent over $41 million defending laws and policies during the first Trump presidency, according to the nonprofit CalMatters. When state legislators convene in December, Democratic leaders say they will be voting on emergency funding to block the incoming Trump administration from deporting immigrants, limiting reproductive and civil rights, and rolling back environmental regulations in America’s most-populous state. Matt Dibble, VOA News, Oakland, California KATHERINE GYPSON: I’m Katherine Gypson. We will see you next week, for The Inside Story. ###As the patrol cars hurtled towards the hospital, the officers maintained their focus and determination, navigating the streets with precision and unwavering resolve. Their commitment to the safety and well-being of the pregnant woman and her unborn child was unwavering, driving them to push the limits of their own abilities in service of a life-saving mission.AMMAN, Jordan — President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced Israel and Lebanon have reached a ceasefire agreement meant to pause fighting between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah. The 14-month conflict has left more than 3,000 people dead. “Effective 4 a.m. tomorrow local time the fighting across the Lebanese-Israeli border will end. Will end,” Biden said from the White House. “This is designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities. I applaud the courageous leaders of Lebanon and Israel end the violence.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier Tuesday he had recommended that this government approve the agreement. Though the deal does not involve the separate conflict in Gaza Strip, Biden administration officials said they hoped it would lead to an agreement to end fighting there, too. Even as the deal was finalized, Israeli warplanes launched a series of airstrikes across Lebanon, striking areas in the country’s southern and eastern regions, along with the suburbs of the capital — areas where Hezbollah holds sway. Several airstrikes also hit the heart of Beirut, killing at least 10 people, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. In a televised address on Tuesday evening local time, Netanyahu said he would present the outline of the proposal to the government, pushing his ministers to accept the move despite reservations from far-right leaders who are integral members of his coalition. “The length of the ceasefire will depend on what happens in Lebanon,” Netanyahu said. He added that Israel would maintain freedom to act against violations. “If Hezbollah breaks the agreement and seeks to arm itself, we will attack,” he said. The agreement would not immediately affect the fighting in Gaza Strip with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Netanyahu pushed his ministers to accept the agreement, arguing it would allow Israel to focus its attention on the threat from Iran, give Israeli troops an opportunity to replenish their stocks and isolate Hamas. The agreement will initiate a 60-day truce that would see both sides withdraw: Israeli troops out of south Lebanon to Israeli territory, and Hezbollah to areas north of the Litani River, some 18 miles north of the Lebanese-Israeli border. During the truce, a monitoring mechanism would be established that would ensure Hezbollah is not able to reconstitute itself or wage attacks on Israel from southern Lebanon. A U.S.-led committee would oversee implementation of the withdrawal. Lebanese officials say some 5,000 soldiers from Lebanon’s army — which has remained neutral during the conflict — would then enter south Lebanon, along with U.N. peacekeeping forces. Lebanon’s caretaker government is set to meet Wednesday morning to discuss the proposal; it is widely expected to be approved. Despite the optimism, many elements of the ceasefire proposal — which came about after vigorous negotiations brokered by the U.S. and France — remain unclear. One of the larger sticking points is whether Israel would be able to continue striking Hezbollah throughout Lebanon if the group attempts to reestablish a presence south of the Litani River, or if it continues to wage attacks on Israel or smuggle weapons. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz told the U.N.’s Lebanon envoy Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert on Tuesday that Israel would act “forcefully” against any breach of the ceasefire agreement. “If you do not act, we will do it, forcefully,” Katz said in a statement. “Any house rebuilt in south Lebanon and used as a terrorist base will be destroyed, any rearming or terrorist organization will be attacked, any attempt at transferring arms will be foiled, and any threat against our forces or our citizens will be immediately eliminated.” Lebanese leaders have dismissed such an agreement as an unacceptable breach of Lebanon’s sovereignty. The ceasefire would officially be an agreement between Israel and Lebanon. It includes a Lebanese lawmaker who has been negotiating on Hezbollah’s behalf. But Hezbollah, a paramilitary faction and political party which is backed by Iran, is not officially a party to the agreement. Another question is the fate of Hezbollah’s weapons. Before the war, the group was considered one of the world’s premier paramilitary factions, with an arsenal more powerful than that of the Lebanese army. The ceasefire agreement, which is based on a U.N. resolution that established a ceasefire in the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, has provisions that would force the group to surrender its arms. A ceasefire would end a 13-month conflict that began a day after Hamas attacked southern Israel, when Hezbollah initiated a rocket campaign in northern Israel in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. In the months of tit-for-tat strikes that followed, some 60,000 people from northern Israel and approximately 100,000 Lebanese from southern Lebanon were displaced. In September, Israel escalated its attacks, conducting thousands of airstrikes on Hezbollah-dominated parts of the country and starting an invasion that saw Israeli troops enter southern Lebanon for the first time since 2006. It also assassinated Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah . Since Oct. 8, 2023, more than 3,823 people have been killed in Lebanon and 15,859 injured, according to Lebanese government data, the majority of them in the last two months. More than 25% of those killed were women and children, according to the government data, which do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Meanwhile, some 1.2 million people — almost a quarter of Lebanon’s population — have been displaced, with wide swaths of the country destroyed. The Israeli government said on Tuesday that 78 Israelis have been killed in attacks by Hezbollah and its allies, including 47 civilians. Even as senior Israeli ministers were meeting at Israeli military headquarters in Tel Aviv, Israeli warplanes launched some 180 airstrikes across the country, according to a statement from Israel’s military. It issued evacuation warnings for some cities. The military said it was targeting Hezbollah’s infrastructure, including the group’s financial arm. Among the targets were four neighborhoods of central Beirut with which had previously been spared from the fighting. One raid hit Hamra, a popular shopping district in the capital which in recent months has become a sanctuary for hundreds of thousands displaced from the Dahieh, the constellation of suburbs south of Beirut where many of Hezbollah’s offices are headquartered. The Dahieh too was pounded by an intense barrage of more than 20 airstrikes, leaving the area obscured by a curtain of smoke and rocking buildings in adjacent neighborhoods. “The hysterical Israeli aggression this evening on Beirut and various Lebanese regions, which specifically targets civilians, confirms once again that the Israeli enemy does not respect any law or consideration,” said Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati in a statement on Tuesday. He called on the international community “to act quickly to stop this aggression and implement an immediate ceasefire.” Meanwhile, Hezbollah continued its barrage against northern Israel, lobbing dozens of projectiles across the border. ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
The incident has raised questions about the preparedness of airlines to handle medical emergencies mid-flight, as well as the importance of having the necessary equipment and trained personnel on board to respond effectively to such situations. Passengers and aviation experts alike have called for greater transparency and clarity regarding airlines' protocols for dealing with medical emergencies.
Upon arrival at Nanjing Lukou International Airport, emergency medical services and airport staff were already on standby to provide further assistance to the affected passenger. The individual was promptly transferred to a nearby hospital for evaluation and treatment. Meanwhile, the rest of the passengers on the flight were disembarked safely, albeit shaken by the harrowing experience.With their combined expertise and unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity, the newsroom is poised to set new standards in reporting and storytelling. As Wilcox's byline graces the front page and Waverly's commentary continues to spark debates, the journalism world can rest assured that the legacy of quality reporting will be upheld and cherished.
Rev Richard Coles has been a much-loved TV personality over the years, and has instantly become a fan favourite after joining the I'm a Celebrity jungle as a latecomer alongside Maura Higgins. However, the star, who previously competed on Strictly Come Dancing, has a very difficult history having lost his partner David, aged 42, back in 2019. Richard was in a relationship with his partner David Oldham, a fellow priest, since 2007, with the pair entering a civil partnership in 2010, where David took Richard's surname. David described himself as a "dilettante potter, designer, gardener & narrow boat enthusiast," and often shared updates on social media on his cooking skills. The pair lived in the village of Finedon. Speaking about their relationship, he said: "I liked football. He liked Ugly Betty. I was allowed Match of the Day but he wanted two Ugly Betties in return. I remember having a terrible row with him once because I wanted Train To Busan, which is a particularly gory South Korean zombie movie, and I had to give him Legally Blonde for the second week in a row in exchange." Speaking about their relationship, Richard said: "From the minute we met – boom! I never for a minute thought – no matter what happened – we would ever part." In 2019, Richard announced the very said news that David had passed away, writing that "he had been ill for a while". However, he later confirmed that David had died as a result of alcoholic liver disease. Speaking to BBC Radio Northampton, he said: "People used to talk about the ‘demon drink’ which sounds like a rather melodramatic way to describe it, but it is like someone is seized by a demon and when David was at his worst he was really difficult and it was very tough." Speaking to Radio Times, he added: "My husband David died of alcoholic liver disease just before Christmas 2019. He was 43, a clergyman, and a former A&E charge nurse. Not an obvious victim, you might think, of alcoholism, but he had been drinking excessively since his teenage years, as a palliative – alcohol is the most readily available anaesthetic in the world – and as a recreation." He added to The Guardian: "The great pathos about David, as an alcoholic, was that he was grimly determined to keep his drinking secret. But drinking is a thing that’s very difficult to keep secret. And he failed, spectacularly." He has written about his experiences in a memoir, The Madness of Grief: A Memoir of Love and Loss. He has spoken very candidly about his grief, telling publication: "After David died, there was a woman at the hospital who had been widowed, too. She said, 'You're going to be mad, for a while. People will never be as nice to you again as they are now, so milk it for all you can.'" "I've had to subtract David from the future and that has taken all the future with it. It’s a bit blank. I think: ‘What the [expletive] am I going to do? Play the accordion and go to bed at ten past six, I guess. Of course, it’s not the end of my life. But it feels like it’s over sometimes. During the very sad time, the Strictly star spoke of further heartbreak after being forced to rehome three of their five pet dachshunds, as he was unable to care for all of them on his own. He said: "They went to good homes, but it was so hard. Seeing them go, with their little dog faces, was just horrible." The aftermath of David's death was also made particularly difficult due to internet trolls, who the Reverend spoke frankly about - and reported to the police. Posting to X at the time, he wrote: "99.99999% loveliness from people and then a small but lively correspondence from Christians who wish me to know that D is in hell and I will follow. "It’s like the Khmer Rouge suddenly popping up in a stream of condolence. A letter, courageously unsigned, begins: 'Dear Mr Coles, I can't begin to tell you how happy I am to hear of the death of your partner.'" In 2023, Richard confirmed that he was in a relationship with War Horse actor Dickie Cant. Chatting on Lorraine, he revealed that they had met on a dating app, saying: "Best invention of civilisation. It was called Elite Singles which was a bit embarrassing because I wasn’t elite... The third person I met is the person I’m with now." He continued: "I thought I was out of the game when David died. It was a bit like a polar bear emerging from hibernation and wanting to eat a seal."
As the winter transfer window approaches, all eyes will be on whether the pharmaceutical factory-owned club can pull off a major coup by securing the services of the Real Madrid prodigy. The outcome of this transfer saga will not only impact the two clubs involved but also serve as a testament to the evolving dynamics of the modern football transfer market. Stay tuned for more updates as the saga unfolds.One of City's main rivals in the title race is Liverpool, who have been in scintillating form throughout the season. Led by their inspirational captain, Jordan Henderson, and with the deadly duo of Mohamed Salah and Sadio Mane leading the attack, Liverpool have been a force to be reckoned with. Simon highlighted Liverpool's defensive solidity and ability to grind out results as key factors in their title challenge.
In the weeks since Republicans decisively won the White House as well as both chambers of Congress, Democrats and pundits alike have voiced countless theories for their defeat. However, the even more critical question is, where do Democrats go from here? Do Democrats double down on the “resistance” that has defined the party for the better part of a decade? Or do Democrats try a different approach and return to the center in order to win back millions of voters who have abandoned the party? Ever since 2016, the Democratic Party’s platform can almost entirely be defined by one word: resistance. Whatever President-elect Donald Trump supported, Democrats rejected and organized in resistance to, often at the expense of formulating their own competing policies. Now, with the politics of resistance soundly rejected, if Democrats want to remain politically viable, they need to return to the center and develop policies for actual issues. They need a specific agenda to address inflation, create jobs, and better manage the economy. This should include a strong position on border security with a viable pathway to citizenship for migrants already here, instead of the open border advocacy that the resistance wing, led by the progressive “Squad” loudly called for during Trump’s first term. On the economy, Democrats should reject progressives’ preference for overbearing taxes and an expansive welfare state. Instead, moderate Democrats must work with the GOP to achieve less regulations, agree to job-boosting tax cuts, and cutting inflationary yet wasteful government spending. To be clear, the 2024 election exposed the hollowness of resistance politics. Voters made it clear that they want elected officials who will address the actual issues, not those who are defined solely by what – or who – they oppose. Indeed, rather than articulating an agenda to address voters’ concerns about the economy, cost of living, immigration, or crime, Democrats – and Vice President Kamala Harris in particular – almost entirely campaigned on the need to stop Trump, lest his “fascism” destroy our democracy. Yet as we saw, this was a costly mistake. Trump won because voters felt he had actual solutions to kitchen-table issues, and Democrats’ appeals largely fell flat with moderate and swing voters. Put another way, as Brett Stephens noted in the New York Times, adherence to resistance politics “led Democrats astray...It distracted them from the task of developing superior policy responses to the valid public concerns he was addressing.” Fortunately for Democrats, they should look to the past to develop a roadmap for the party’s future. Four decades ago, also in the wake of a devastating election loss – former Vice President Walter Mondale’s in 1984 – Democrats, led by then-Governor Bill Clinton, created the Democratic Leadership Council to bring the party back to the center and push back against the growing influence of the party’s left-wing. The DLC advocated for policies that many leftwing Democrats today would shudder at – balancing the budget, welfare reform, and a tougher stance on crime – but that was what Democrats needed then, and that is what they need now. In that same vein, what made the DLC effective was its focus on commonsense values that appealed to the majority of Americans – smaller government, fiscal responsibility, safe cities, and border security. Comparatively, the resistance playbook seeks to divide Americans via progressive identity politics, promotion of an unpopular “woke” agenda, and a refusal to compromise on solutions to challenges facing all Americans. The fact that Donald Trump won the popular vote with one of – if not the – most racially diverse coalition assembled by a Republican in decades underscores the ineffectiveness of progressives’ resistance platform, as well as its toxicity to the Democratic Party as a whole. To that end, the dangers to Democrats posed by progressive-led resistance politics are backed by the data. Beginning in 2016, progressives have driven Democrats significantly further to the left than the average American voter, risking the overall party’s viability should they continue diverging. An analysis from the Financial Times shows that in the last eight years, Democrats hard left turn on supporting increased immigration has taken them nearly 60-points to the left of the average voter. Related Articles Opinion Columnists | California’s political clout will fade as long as population growth remains slow Opinion Columnists | Here’s to hoping Trump delivers on some of his Libertarian promises Opinion Columnists | Grand DOGE promises of massive cuts to the federal government are unlikely to materialize Opinion Columnists | Republican populism goes all in for the Nanny State Opinion Columnists | After botched Gaetz nomination, Trump should pivot on Cabinet picks As John Burn-Murdoch wrote, the data “suggests that Trump’s election radicalized the left, not the right.” And while this analysis was done prior to the 2024 election, there is little reason to believe Democrats have made up the lost ground. The first step for Democrats’ new approach should be to move back to where the average voter is. They can start by committing to working with centrist Republicans for commonsense solutions to the problems we face. Doing so is also smart politically. Working with – rather than against – Trump, will benefit Democrats if his second term does in fact produce a strong economy, secure borders, a more stable geopolitical environment, and overall prosperity. Ultimately, where Democrats go from here remains to be seen, but the 2024 election was a stinging rebuke of a party with little to offer aside from stubborn opposition to Donald Trump. If Democrats want to avoid being consigned to minority status for years to come, it is critical that they shun calls to double down on the politics of resistance and begin offering genuine, centrist solutions that address Americans’ concerns. Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.DETROIT (AP) — If Donald Trump makes good on his threat to slap 25% tariffs on everything imported from Mexico and Canada, the price increases that could follow will collide with his campaign promise to give American families a break from inflation. Economists say companies would have little choice but to pass along the added costs, dramatically raising prices for food, clothing, automobiles, booze and other goods. The president-elect floated the tariff idea, including additional 10% taxes on goods from China, as a way to force the countries to halt the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into the U.S. But his posts Monday on Truth Social threatening the tariffs on his first day in office could just be a negotiating ploy to get the countries to change behavior. High food prices were a major issue in voters picking Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris, but tariffs almost certainly would push those costs up even further. For instance, the Produce Distributors Association, a Washington trade group, said Tuesday that tariffs will raise prices for fresh fruit and vegetables and hurt U.S. farmers when other countries retaliate. “Tariffs distort the marketplace and will raise prices along the supply chain, resulting in the consumer paying more at the checkout line,” said Alan Siger, association president. Mexico and Canada are two of the biggest exporters of fresh fruit and vegetables to the U.S. In 2022, Mexico supplied 51% of fresh fruit and 69% of fresh vegetables imported by value into the U.S., while Canada supplied 2% of fresh fruit and 20% of fresh vegetables. Before the election, about 7 in 10 voters said they were very concerned about the cost of food, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 voters. “We’ll get them down,” Trump told shoppers during a September visit to a Pennsylvania grocery store. The U.S. is the largest importer of goods in the world, with Mexico, China and Canada its top three suppliers, according to the most recent U.S. Census data. People looking to buy a new vehicle likely would see big price increases as well, at a time when costs have gone up so much they are out of reach for many. The average price of a new vehicle now runs around $48,000. About 15% of the 15.6 million new vehicles sold in the U.S. last year came from Mexico, while 8% crossed the border from Canada, according to Global Data. Much of the tariffs would get passed along to consumers, unless automakers can somehow quickly find productivity improvements to offset them, said C.J. Finn, U.S. automotive sector leader for PwC. That means even more consumers “would potentially get priced out,” Finn said. Hardest hit would be Volkswagen, Stellantis, General Motors and Ford, Bernstein analyst Daniel Roeska wrote Tuesday in a note to investors. “A 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada would severely cripple the U.S. auto industry,” he said. The tariffs would hurt U.S. industrial production so much that “we expect this is unlikely to happen in practice,” Roeska said. The tariff threat hit auto stocks on Tuesday, particularly shares of GM, which imports about 30% of the vehicles it sells in the U.S. from Canada and Mexico, and Stellantis, which imports about 40% from the two countries. For both, about 55% of their lucrative pickup trucks come from Mexico and Canada. GM stock lost almost 9% of its value, while Stellantis dropped nearly 6%. It's not clear how long the tariffs would last if implemented, but they could force auto executives to move production to the U.S., which could create more jobs in the long run. However, Morningstar analyst David Whiston said automakers probably won't make any immediate moves because they can't quickly change where they build vehicles. Millions of dollars worth of auto parts flow across the borders with Mexico and Canada, and that could raise prices for already costly automobile repairs, Finn said. The Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. said tariffs on tequila or Canadian whisky won’t boost American jobs because they are distinctive products that can only be made in their country of origin. In 2023, the U.S. imported $4.6 billion worth of tequila and $108 million worth of mezcal from Mexico and $537 million worth of spirits from Canada, it said. “Tariffs on spirits products from our neighbors to the north and south are going to hurt U.S. consumers and lead to job losses across the U.S. hospitality industry,” it added. Electronics retailer Best Buy said on its third-quarter earnings conference call that it runs on thin profit margins, so while vendors and the company will shoulder some increases, Best Buy will have to pass tariffs to customers. “These are goods that people need, and higher prices are not helpful,” CEO Corie Barry said. Walmart also warned last week that tariffs could force it to raise prices. Tariffs could trigger supply chain disruptions as people buy goods before they are imposed and companies seek alternate sources of parts, said Rob Handfield, a professor of supply chain management at North Carolina State University. Some businesses might not be able to pass on the costs. “It could actually shut down a lot of industries in the United States. It could actually put a lot of U.S. businesses out of business,” he said. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who talked with Trump after his call for tariffs, said they had a good conversation about working together. "This is a relationship that we know takes a certain amount of working on and that’s what we’ll do,” Trudeau said. Trump's threats come as arrests for illegally crossing the border from Mexico have been falling . But arrests for illegally crossing the border from Canada have been rising over the past two years. Much of America’s fentanyl is smuggled from Mexico, and seizures have increased. Trump has sound legal justification to impose tariffs, even though they conflict with a 2020 trade deal brokered in large part by Trump with Canada and Mexico, said William Reinsch, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Clinton administration trade official. The treaty, known as the USMCA, is up for review in 2026. In China’s case, he could simply declare Beijing hasn't met obligations under an agreement he negotiated in his first term. For Canada and Mexico, he could say the influx of migrants and drugs are a national security threat, and turn to a section of trade law he used in his first term to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum. The law he would most likely use for Canada and Mexico has a legal process that often takes up to nine months, giving Trump time to seek a deal. If talks failed and the duties were imposed, all three countries would likely retaliate with tariffs on U.S. exports, said Reinsch, who believes Trump's tariffs threat is a negotiating ploy. U.S. companies would lobby intensively against tariffs, and would seek to have products exempted. Some of the biggest exporters from Mexico are U.S. firms that make parts there, Reinsch said. Longer term, Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the threat of tariffs could make the U.S. an “unstable partner” in international trade. “It is an incentive to move activity outside the United States to avoid all this uncertainty,” she said. Trump transition team officials did not immediately respond to questions about what he would need to see to prevent the tariffs from being implemented and how they would impact prices in the U.S. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum suggested Tuesday that Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own. Sheinbaum said she was willing to talk about the issues, but said drugs were a U.S. problem. ___ Rugaber reported from Washington. AP reporters Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit, Stan Choe and Anne D'Innocenzio in New York, and Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this report.