LONDON (AP) — When voters around the globe had their say in 2024, their message was often: “You’re fired.” Some 70 countries that are home to half the world’s population held elections this year, and in many incumbents were punished . From India and the United States to Japan , France and Britain , voters tired of economic disruption and global instability rejected sitting governments — and sometimes turned to disruptive outsiders. The rocky democratic landscape just seemed to get bumpier as a dramatic year careened toward its end, with mass protests in Mozambique and Georgia , an election annulled in Romania and an attempt to impose martial law in South Korea. Cas Mudde, a professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia who studies extremism and democracy, summed up 2024 in Prospect magazine as “a great year for the far right, a terrible year for incumbents and a troublesome year for democracy around the world.” One message sent by voters in 2024: They’re fed up. University of Manchester political scientist Rob Ford has attributed the anti-incumbent mood to “electoral long COVID” -– lingering pandemic-related health, education, social and economic disruptions that have made millions of people unhappier and worse off. High inflation, fueled by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and mass displacement from that war and conflicts in the Middle East and Africa have added to the global unease. In South Africa, high unemployment and inequality helped drive a dramatic loss of support for the African National Congress, which had governed for three decades since the end of the apartheid system of white minority rule . The party once led by Nelson Mandela lost its political dominance in May’s election and was forced to go into coalition with opposition parties. Incumbents also were defeated in Senegal, Ghana and Botswana , where voters ousted the party that had been in power for 58 years since independence from Britain. Namibia’s ruling SWAPO party extended its 34 years in power in December -– but only by a whisker. Uruguay’s leftist opposition candidate, Yamandú Orsi , became the country’s new president in a November runoff that delivered another rebuke to incumbents. In India, the world’s largest democracy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party lost its parliamentary majority in a shock election result in June after a decade of dominance. It was forced to govern in coalition as the opposition doubled its strength in Parliament. Japanese politics entered a new era of uncertainty after Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s governing Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled almost without interruption since 1955, suffered a major loss in October amid voter anger at party financial scandals. It now leads a minority government. The U.K.’s July election saw the right-of-center Conservatives ousted after 14 years in office as the center-left Labour Party swept to power in a landslide. But the results also revealed growing fragmentation: Support for the two big parties that have dominated British politics for a century shrank as voters turned to smaller parties, including the hard-right party Reform U.K. led by Nigel Farage. Britain is not alone in seeing a rise for the right. Elections in June for the parliament of the 27-nation European Union saw conservative populists and the far right rock ruling parties in France and Germany, the EU’s biggest and most powerful members. The anti-immigration National Rally party won the first round of France’s parliamentary election in June, but alliances and tactical voting by the center and left knocked it down to third place in the second round, producing a divided legislature and a fragile government that collapsed in a Dec. 4 no-confidence vote. In Austria, the conservative governing People’s Party was beaten by the far-right, pro-Russia Freedom Party in September, though other parties allied to keep it out of a coalition government. Nepotism and political dynasties continued to exert influence -– and to be challenged. After messy elections in February, Pakistan elected Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, younger brother of three-time leader Nawaz Sharif. Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest democracy, elected President Prabowo Subianto , son-in-law of the late dictator Suharto . Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the world’s longest-serving female leader, won a fourth successive term in a January election that opposition parties boycotted . Months later, her 15-year rule came to a tumultuous end: After mass student-led protests in which hundreds were killed, Hasina was ousted in August and fled to India. In Sri Lanka, voters also rejected a discredited old guard. Voters elected the Marxist Anura Kumara Dissanayake as president in September, two years after an island-wide public movement by an engaged middle class removed the long-ruling Rajapaksa clan. Covert meddling and online disinformation were growing concerns in 2024. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, said that this year it took down 20 election-related “covert influence operations around the world, including in the Middle East, Asia, Europe and the U.S.” It said Russia was the top source of such meddling, followed by Iran and China. In Romania, far-right candidate Călin Georgescu came from nowhere to win the first round of the presidential election in November, aided in part by a flood of TikTok videos promoting his campaign. Amid allegations of Russian meddling, Romania’s Constitutional Court canceled the presidential election runoff two days before it was due to take place after a trove of declassified intelligence alleged Russia organized a sprawling campaign across social media to promote Georgescu. No date has yet been set for a rerun. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu won a November runoff against her Moscow-friendly rival in an election seen as pivotal to the future of one of Europe’s poorest nations. Georgia has seen huge protests since an election in October was won by the pro-Moscow Georgian Dream party, which suspended negotiations on joining the European Union. The opposition and the pro-Western president, Salome Zourabichvili, have accused the governing party of rigging the vote with Russia’s help. Possibly the year’s most seismic result, Donald Trump’s victory in November’s U.S. presidential election, has America’s allies and opponents bracing for what the unpredictable “America-first” leader will do with his second term. And instability already reigns on several continents as the year ends. Venezuela has been in political crisis since a July election marred by serious fraud allegations which both President Nicolás Maduro and the opposition claim to have won. Amid opposition protests and a harsh crackdown, opposition candidate Edmundo González went into exile in Spain. In Mozambique, the Frelimo party that has ruled for half a century was declared the winner of an October election that the opposition called rigged. Weeks of ongoing street protests across the country have left more than 100 dead. South Korea’s conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol — weakened after the liberal opposition retained control in an April election -– astonished the country by declaring martial law in a late-night announcement on Dec. 3. Parliament voted to overturn the decision six hours later, and within days voted to impeach Yoon. The crisis in the deeply divided country is far from over. Democracy’s bumpy ride looks likely to continue in 2025, with embattled incumbents facing challenge in countries including Germany, where Chancellor Olaf Scholz lost a confidence vote on Dec. 16, triggering an early election likely in February. Canada will also vote in 2025, with the governing Liberals widely unpopular and increasingly divided after almost a decade in power. Seema Shah, head of democracy assessment at the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, said global surveys suggest support for the concept of democracy remains strong, but the numbers plummet “when you ask people how satisfied they are with their own democracy.” “People want democracy. They like the theory of it," she said. “But when they see it actually play out, it’s not living up to their expectations.” Sheikh Saaliq in New Delhi, Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo and Gerald Imray in Cape Town, South Africa, contributed to this story.
Shytoshi Kusama Says 'Time To Stop Being Shy' As SHIB Lead Developer Plans 44-Part Podcast To Discuss Tech And TREATFormer Inmate Says Diddy Has ‘Groupies’ in Jail Who Get ‘Jealous’ of Each OtherObituary: Thomas Martin Clancy
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Google, already facing a possible breakup of the company over its ubiquitous search engine , is fighting to beat back another attack by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging monopolistic conduct, this time over technology that puts online advertising in front of consumers. The Justice Department and Google made closing arguments Monday in a trial alleging Google's advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, will decide the case and is expected to issue a written ruling by the end of the year. If Brinkema finds Google has engaged in illegal, monopolistic conduct, she will then hold further hearings to explore what remedies should be imposed. The Justice Department, along with a coalition of states, has already said it believes Google should be forced to sell off parts of its ad tech business, which generates tens of billions of dollars annually for the Mountain View, California-based company. After roughly a month of trial testimony earlier this year, the arguments in the case remain the same. During three hours of arguments Monday, Brinkema, who sometimes tips her hand during legal arguments, did little to indicate how she might rule. She did, though, question the applicability of a key antitrust case Google cites in its defense. The Justice Department contends Google built and maintained a monopoly in “open-web display advertising,” essentially the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of the page when one browses websites. Google dominates all facets of the market. A technology called DoubleClick is used pervasively by news sites and other online publishers, while Google Ads maintains a cache of advertisers large and small looking to place their ads on the right webpage in front of the right consumer. In between is another Google product, AdExchange, that conducts nearly instantaneous auctions matching advertisers to publishers. In court papers, Justice Department lawyers say Google “is more concerned with acquiring and preserving its trifecta of monopolies than serving its own publisher and advertiser customers or winning on the merits.” As a result, content providers and news organizations have never been able to generate the online revenue they should due to Google’s excessive fees for brokering transactions between advertisers and publishers, the government says. Google argues the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow niche of online advertising. If one looks more broadly at online advertising to include social media, streaming TV services, and app-based advertising, Google says it controls as little as 10% of the market, a share that is dwindling as it faces increased and evolving competition. Google alleges in court papers that the government’s lawsuit “boil(s) down to the persistent complaints of a handful of Google’s rivals and several mammoth publishers.” Google also says it has invested billions in technology that facilitates the efficient match of advertisers to interested consumers and it should not be forced to share its technology and success with competitors. “Requiring a company to do further engineering work to make its technology and customers accessible by all of its competitors on their preferred terms has never been compelled by U.S. antitrust law,” the company wrote. Brinkema, during Monday's arguments, also sought clarity on Google’s market share, a number the two sides dispute, depending on how broadly the market is defined. Historically, courts have been unwilling to declare an illegal monopoly in markets in which a company holds less than a 70% market share. Google says that when online display advertising is viewed as a whole, it holds only a 10% market share, and dwindling. The Justice Department contends, though, that when focusing on open-web display advertising, Google controls 91% of the market for publisher ad servers and 87% of the market for advertiser ad networks. Google says that the “open web display advertising” market is gerrymandered by the Justice Department to make Google look bad, and that nobody in the industry looks at that category of ads without considering the ability of advertisers to switch to other forms of advertising, like in mobile apps. The Justice Department also contends that the public is harmed by the excessive rates Google charges to facilitate ad purchases, saying the company takes 36 cents on the dollar when it facilitates the transaction end to end. Google says its “take rate” has dropped to 31% and continues to decrease, and it says that rate is lower than that of its competitors. “When you have an integrated system, one of the benefits is lower prices," Google lawyer Karen Dunn said Monday. The Virginia case is separate from an ongoing lawsuit brought against Google in the District of Columbia over its namesake search engine. In that case, the judge determined it constitutes an illegal monopoly but has not decided what remedy to impose. The Justice Department said last week it will seek to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser , among a host of other penalties. Google has said the department's request is overkill and unhinged from legitimate regulation. In Monday's arguments, Justice Department lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum cited the search engine case when he highlighted an email from a Google executive, David Rosenblatt, who said in a 2009 email that Google’s goal was to “do to display what Google did to search," which Teitelbaum said showed the company's intent to achieve market dominance. “Google did not achieve its trifecta of monopolies by accident,” Teitelbaum said.Cyber Monday shoppers expected to set a record on biggest day for online shopping
Adventure Tourism Thrives in the Post-COVID Era, Redefining Global Travel TrendsJudge hears closing arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
It’s one thing for a president to pardon his son. It’s another to do it like this. President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son , Hunter Biden, on Monday (AEDT) is exceptional not just because of the pardon’s recipient – the closest family member to receive a pardon in history – but also for its sheer breadth, according to experts on presidential pardons. President Joe Biden accompanied by his son Hunter Biden in Nantucket over the Thanksgiving holiday. Credit: AP Biden didn’t just pardon his son for his convictions on tax and gun charges , but for any “offences against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024”. That’s a nearly 11-year period during which any federal crime Hunter Biden might have committed – and there are none we are aware of beyond what has already been adjudicated – can’t be prosecuted. It notably covers when he was appointed to the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014 all the way through to Sunday, well after the crimes for which he was prosecuted. Hunter Biden hasn’t been charged for his activities regarding Burisma or anything beyond his convictions, and nothing in the public record suggests criminal charges could be around the bend. Congressional Republicans have probed the Burisma matter and Hunter Biden extensively and could seemingly have uncovered chargeable crimes if they existed, but haven’t done so. Hunter Biden after pleading guilty to federal tax charges in September. Credit: AP Even still, the scope of the pardon is remarkable. Experts say there is little to no precedent for a pardon covering such a wide range of activity over such a long period, with the closest being Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned post-Watergate. Hunter Biden’s pardon “isn’t tied to any special counsel investigation or charging document,” Sam Morison, who spent 13 years working for the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, said via email. “The only pardon grant that comes close is Ford’s pardon of Nixon for any crimes he may have committed from 1969 to 1974, which on its face would have included crimes (if any) unrelated to Watergate.” Experts pointed to several broad, preemptive and blanket pardons that bear similarities to the one covering Hunter Biden. But they also feature some key differences. The language of the Nixon pardon cited crimes he “has committed or may have committed” between January 20, 1969, and August 9, 1974 – language similar to Hunter Biden’s pardon. Pardoned: Former US president Richard Nixon became infamous for the Watergate scandal. Credit: AP As noted, that is not Watergate-specific, and the dates cover Nixon’s entire presidency. But it’s a period roughly half as long as that covered under Hunter Biden’s pardon. There’s also the fact that some of Nixon’s actions might already have been exempt from prosecution by virtue of his role as president – something Hunter Biden doesn’t benefit from. In 1976 Jimmy Carter pardoned most of those who dodged the Vietnam War draft between August 4, 1964, and March 28, 1973. That covered a large group of people, but the pardon was only for violating the Military Selective Service Act and related regulations. Other presidents have also issued blanket amnesties for large groups of people tied to specific events or specific crimes. Benjamin Harrison did so in 1893 for Mormon polygamists, noting that they had “abstained from such unlawful cohabitation” by 1890. But that was, likewise, for a specific crime. US President Andrew Johnson pardoned 13,000 former Confederate soldiers. Credit: LOC Andrew Johnson issued individual pardons for 13,000 Confederate soldiers after the Civil War, granting them clemency for “all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied” in the rebellion. “These individual pardons were issued by Johnson throughout his term, and particularly during its first two years,” Frank O. Bowman III, a pardon expert at the University of Missouri School of Law, said in an email. “Hence, they reached back some 6–8 years.” George Washington did so in 1794 for participants of the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt in Pennsylvania . The pardoned conduct was broad – the pardon was for those who had “directly or indirectly engaged in the wicked and unhappy tumults and disturbances lately” and encompassed residents of several counties – but it was at least tied to one event. A couple of other more recent examples that involve pardoning figures for crimes committed in high-profile scandals bear some similarities to the Hunter Biden pardon. Michael Flynn was pardoned by Donald Trump at the end of his first presidency. Credit: AP George H.W. Bush in 1992 pardoned six figures in the Iran-contra affair, including former defence secretary Caspar Weinberger, “for all offences charged or prosecuted by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh or other member of his office, or committed by these individuals and within the jurisdiction of that office”. And now-President-elect Donald Trump in 2020 pardoned former national security adviser Michael Flynn for “any and all possible offences” arising from facts or circumstances that were “in any matter related” to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Broad clemency The latter went even further than the former, by pardoning Flynn for conduct even just somehow related to the special counsel’s investigation. At the time, some experts regarded it as the broadest act of clemency since Nixon’s pardon. Loading “Flynn’s pardon was broad, to be sure, but not nearly as broad as Hunter’s,” Morison said. There is some question about whether such a broad pardon for unspecified crimes is constitutional, an issue that arose when reports indicated Trump might preemptively pardon family members at the tail end of his first term. The Nixon pardon was not tested in court. But the Supreme Court said amid Johnson’s post-Civil War pardons that a president’s pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment.” There is some subjectivity in comparing these pardons. Hunter Biden’s known actions come up well shy of the magnitude of participating in a rebellion against the United States or some of the high-profile scandals mentioned above, for example. And it’s worth emphasising how extraordinarily political many of Trump’s pardons were – granting clemency to numerous political allies and several people wrapped up in investigations involving Trump, including Flynn. Trump surely stretched the bounds of presidential pardon power. But there’s no question that Biden’s exercise of his pardon power also stretched those bounds - and on behalf of his son, no less. “The Nixon pardon is the only precedent in modern times for such a broad pardon, which purports to insulate Hunter Biden from prosecution for crimes that have not even been charged,” said Margaret Love, who served as US pardon attorney under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. “Some of the Trump pardons were also disruptive of ongoing prosecutions,” Love said, adding that they were at least “directed to specific charged conduct”. Washington Post Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later. US politics USA Joe Biden Analysis Trump's America US election Most Viewed in World Loading
USPX: A Solid Replacement For S&P 500 Index ETFsRoad to better transport in urban areasGovernor, comptroller, state treasurer hail Connecticut's fiscal health
4 easy, comforting bean dishes for fall