jilimacao legit
Unconvincing Canada tops Germany 3-0 at world juniors OTTAWA — Canada got back in the win column at the world junior hockey championship. It wasn't pretty. Joshua Clipperton, The Canadian Press Dec 29, 2024 7:19 PM Dec 29, 2024 7:35 PM Share by Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Print Share via Text Message OTTAWA — Canada got back in the win column at the world junior hockey championship. It wasn't pretty. Oliver Bonk, Caden Price and Mathieu Cataford, into the empty net, scored as the wobbly host country picked up an unconvincing 3-0 victory over Germany on Sunday. Carter George made 25 saves to register the goaltender's second straight shutout for the Canadians, who were coming off Friday's stunning 3-2 upset loss to Latvia in a shootout. Nico Pertuch stopped 33 shots for Germany, which dropped its Group A opener at the men's under-20 tournament to the United States 10-4 before falling 3-1 to Finland. Canada entered with a 17-0 record all-time and a combined 107-26 score against Germany at the world juniors, including last year's 6-3 victory in Gothenburg, Sweden, and an 11-2 drubbing at the 2023 event in Halifax. Despite another sub-par performance, the victory sets up a New Year's Eve matchup against the U.S. for first place in the pool after the Americans fell 4-3 to the Finns in overtime earlier Sunday. Canada suffered one of the powerhouse nation's worst defeats in tournament history Friday when Latvia — outscored 41-4 in four previous meetings at the event — shocked the hockey world. And while the plucky Latvians were full marks for their victory, the Canadians were largely disjointed and surrendered the middle of the ice for long stretches despite firing 57 shots on goal. There was more of the same Sunday. Head coach Dave Cameron made a couple of changes to Canada's lineup — one out of necessity and another for tactical reasons. With star defenceman Matthew Schaefer, who could go No. 1 at the 2025 NHL draft, out of the world juniors after suffering an upper-body injury against Latvia, Vancouver Canucks prospect Sawyer Mynio drew in. Cameron also sat forward Porter Martone in favour of Carson Rehkopf. Canada opened the scoring on the power play, which also had a new look after going 1-for-7 through the first two games, when Bonk scored from his normal bumper position in the slot off an Easton Cowan feed at 9:40 of the first period. Sam Dickinson then chimed a one-timer off the post on another man advantage before George, who was in goal for Canada's 4-0 opener against the Finns, made a couple of stops on the penalty kill inside a red-clad Canadian Tire Centre. Petruch made a big stop off Tanner Howe in the second before also denying Calum Ritchie from the slot on a power play, but the Canadians again looked completely out of sorts against what was a decidedly inferior opponent on paper. Berkly Catton hit another post for Canada early in the third. Tanner Molendyk also found iron. Unable to register a 5-on-5 goal against either Latvia or Germany through more than 120 minutes of action, Price scored on a shot that caromed off the end boards and went in off Pertuch with 4:58 left in regulation to make it 2-0 before Cataford iced it into the empty net on another nervy night for the 20-time gold medallists. LATVIAN REACTION The U.S. beat Latvia 5-1 on Saturday, less than 24 hours after the Europeans' upset of Canada. American captain Ryan Leonard said the Latvians were impressive — even on short rest. "That team's no joke," said the Washington Capitals prospect. "You can't really treat anyone different, especially in this short of a tournament." UP NEXT Germany will meet Latvia on Monday in a crucial game at the bottom of the Group A standings. Canada now turns its attention to Tuesday's clash against the U.S. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 29, 2024. Joshua Clipperton, The Canadian Press See a typo/mistake? Have a story/tip? This has been shared 0 times 0 Shares Share by Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Print Share via Text Message Get your daily Victoria news briefing Email Sign Up More Junior Hockey Finland beats US 4-3 in OT in world junior hockey; Canada rebounds from loss to top Germany 3-0 Dec 29, 2024 7:21 PM Dalyn Wakely scores pair to lead Colts to 3-1 victory over Battalion Dec 29, 2024 6:19 PM Lounsbury and Mercier score two goals apiece as Wildcats defeat Islanders Dec 29, 2024 5:25 PM
De La Rosa scores 27 points as Columbia tops Fairfield 85-72Unlike in 2020, the loser of the presidential election in 2024 has conceded the race and made no claims of voter fraud. Kamala Harris acknowledged Donald Trump’s victory the day after Election Day. But some supporters of both Harris and Trump have still made claims about election fraud. Specifically, there have been several posts claiming the vote totals are suspicious. They say that in 2020 Joe Biden got more than 80 million votes, but in 2024 Harris somehow only received around 65 million. Some of these posts suggest these figures show that Republicans rigged the 2024 election, while others suggest they show Democrats rigged the 2020 election. THE QUESTION Did Kamala Harris receive 15 million fewer votes in 2024 than Joe Biden did in 2020? THE SOURCES Associated Press Election Lab , University of Florida Cook Political Report American Presidency Project , UC Santa Barbara THE ANSWER No, Harris did not get 15 million fewer votes than Biden. WHAT WE FOUND The posts claiming vote totals show election irregularities or fraud are based on old data that does not reflect the actual current vote totals. These posts were largely made and circulated in the immediate aftermath of the election, when Trump had just been declared the winner but tens of millions of ballots were still left to count. The latest vote tally as of Nov. 25 has Harris with 74,341,049 votes and Donald Trump with 76,842,134 votes. Trump currently is carrying roughly 50 percent of the popular vote to Harris’s 48 percent. The final vote count in 2020 was 81,268,773 for Biden and 74,216,728 for Trump. That means Harris received roughly seven million fewer votes than Biden won in 2020. So what accounts for the difference? For one, data so far suggests turnout rate is down slightly. According to the University of Florida Election Lab, 66.38 percent of eligible voters submitted a ballot in 2020 while preliminary data estimates 63.68 percent have this year. That’s still the second-highest turnout rate for a presidential election this century , but 2020 was higher in part because of the widespread use of mail-in voting during the pandemic. Secondly, Harris is simply less popular in 2024 than Biden was in 2020. Many people who voted for Biden in 2020 may have voted for Trump in 2024 or not voted for president at all. And third, there are still votes left to count. States have until Dec. 11 to finalize and certify their results.
Brazos Home Care Receives the Reader's Choice Award for Excellence in Home Care for Veterans in Bryan, TX
Nasdaq Announces Mid-Month Open Short Interest Positions in Nasdaq Stocks as of Settlement Date December 13, 2024
This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone. The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds. Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.” Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history. More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction. Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment. Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978. HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress. Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks. But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century. Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums. Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.” Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof. Warren Leffler/Library of Congress The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost. In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas. Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry. Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia. David Goldman/AP If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith...In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.” Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.
About N3.87 trillion has been allocated for recurrent expenditure across 13 Nigerian states in their proposed budgets for the 2025 fiscal year. The governors of these states have presented budgets that prioritise administrative costs, including salaries and overheads, while also allocating significant funds for capital projects aimed at boosting infrastructure development. The total proposed budget across the 13 states for 2025 stands at N9.07tn. Of this total budget, N3.87tn is allocated for recurrent expenditure, which covers the ongoing costs of running the government and providing essential services. The remaining N5.845tn is directed towards capital expenditure, reflecting the states’ focus on long-term projects. The figures provided in this report were derived from details of the budget submitted by the state governors to their respective State Houses of Assembly. The reports were posted on each state’s official website. Recurrent expenditure refers to the regular and ongoing costs that a government or organisation incurs in the day-to-day running of its activities. Capital expenditure, on the other hand, refers to the funds used by the government or an organisation for the acquisition or construction of long-term assets that will contribute to future growth and development. In Lagos State, Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu proposed a budget of N3.005tn, with N1.24tn allocated for recurrent expenditure, representing a portion of the total budget. The state also earmarked N1.76tn for capital expenditure, highlighting its focus on infrastructural development. Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed, presented a N465.09bn budget, with N182.74bn allocated for recurrent expenditure, which makes up 39.3 per cent of the total budget. The remaining N282.34bn is set aside for capital expenditure, underscoring the state’s commitment to development. In Bayelsa State, Governor Douye Diri proposed a N689.4bn budget with N263.38bn earmarked for recurrent expenditure, accounting for 38.2 per cent of the total budget. A larger portion, N404.76bn, was allocated for capital expenditure. Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, presented a N390.03bn budget, allocating N245.8bn (62.9 per cent) for recurrent expenditure, with N144.23bn dedicated to capital expenditure. Oyo State’s budget, presented by Governor Seyi Makinde, is N678.09bn, with N325.57bn allocated for recurrent expenditure. This represents 49.41 per cent of the total budget. The state has also proposed N349.29bn for capital expenditure. Anambra State Governor, Charles Soludo, presented a N606.9bn budget with N139.5bn allocated for recurrent expenditure, representing 23 per cent of the total. A larger share of N467.5bn is dedicated to capital expenditure, though the state faces a projected deficit of N148.3bn. Related News Mufwang presents Plateau's N471bn budget to Assembly Tinubu may present 2025 budget this week – Senate 2025 budget will underperform, stakeholders caution In Gombe State, Governor Muhammadu Yahaya proposed a N320.11bn budget, allocating N111.09bn for recurrent expenditure and N209.02bn for capital expenditure. Ekiti State Governor, Biodun Oyebanji, presented a N375.7bn budget, with N192.3bn (51 per cent) allocated for recurrent expenditure and N183.4bn (49 per cent) for capital expenditure. Additionally, Cross River State Governor, Bassey Otu, presented a N498bn budget, with N170bn allocated for recurrent expenditure, representing 34 per cent of the total. The bulk of the budget, N328bn, is focused on capital expenditure, aimed at supporting infrastructure growth. In Akwa Ibom, the state’s executive council approved a N955bn budget, with N300bn set aside for recurrent expenditure and N655bn for capital projects. This was disclosed in a statement issued by the state Commissioner of Information, Ini Ememobong after the council’s meeting presided over by Governor Umo Eno, on Wednesday. Delta State Governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, presented a N936bn budget, allocating N348bn for recurrent expenditure and N587bn for capital expenditure. Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State presented a budget estimate of about N471.1bn to the State House of Assembly for the 2025 fiscal year on Monday. In Plateau State, Governor Mutfwang proposed a N471.1bn budget, with N201.5bn allocated for recurrent expenditure, representing 43.46 per cent of the total budget. The capital budget estimate is N258.8bn, representing 56.54 per cent of the total budget. Governor Dikko Radda of Katsina State on Monday presented the State’s 2025 Budget Proposal to the state House of Assembly. Katsina’s recurrent expenditure stands at N157.97bn, representing 23.15 per cent of the total budget, while capital expenditure is N524.27bn, representing 76.85 per cent of the budget. Commenting, the Chief Executive Officer of Cowry Treasurers Limited, Charles Sanni, shared his insights, “The huge budgeted recurrent expenditures speak to the fact that little is available for capital projects. This will lead to capital investment rationing. A low capital expenditure budget simply tells us that not much growth and contribution to GDP will be expected because only significant capital budgets will promote economic, human, and social investments.” He further suggested two primary options for improving the financial health of the states: “Cost optimisation—stop leakages, adopt strict budget control measures, and cut down on the size or cost of personnel, particularly political aides—and increasing internally generated revenue through more public-private partnership deals, multilateral organizations’ direct budget financing support, and diaspora engagement for special projects funding.” An economist and investment specialist, Vincent Nwani, also weighed in, by stating that “the budget is small; some Nigerian universities’ annual budgets are even larger. It is too small for any significant development, and for infrastructure, it is still a small amount. “What’s worse is that a large portion of the capital is being used for non-productive purposes, such as buying cars, instead of funding long-term projects that can drive economic growth. There are issues of corruption and a lack of transparency that need to be addressed. The states need to start generating more income to meet their obligations, as they have borrowed before and need to repay.” The PUNCH reports that economic stakeholders have projected that the 2025 proposed budget of N47.9tn may underperform due to its bullish assumptions.Extensive confidential documents in the lead-up to the collapse of Northern Ireland’s institutions in 2002 have been made available to the public as part of annual releases from the Irish National Archives. They reveal that the Irish Government wanted to appeal to the UK side against “manipulating” every scenario for favourable election results in Northern Ireland, in an effort to protect the peace process. In the years after the landmark 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a number of outstanding issues left the political environment fraught with tension and disagreement. Mr Trimble, who won a Nobel Peace Prize with SDLP leader John Hume for their work on the Agreement, was keen to gain wins for the UUP on policing, ceasefire audits and paramilitary disarmament – but also to present his party as firmer on these matters amid swipes from its Unionist rival, the DUP. These issues were at the front of his mind as he tried to steer his party into Assembly elections planned for May 2003 and continue in his role as the Executive’s first minister despite increasing political pressure. The documents reveal the extent to which the British and Irish Governments were trying to delicately resolve the contentious negotiations, conscious that moves seen as concessions to one group could provoke anger on the other side. In June 2002, representatives of the SDLP reported to Irish officials on a recent meeting between Mr Hume’s successor Mark Durkan and Prime Minister Tony Blair on policing and security. Mr Blair is said to have suggested that the SDLP and UUP were among those who both supported and took responsibility for the Good Friday Agreement. The confidential report of the meeting says that Mr Durkan, the deputy First Minister, was not sure that Mr Trimble had been correctly categorised. The Prime Minister asked if the SDLP could work more closely with the UUP ahead of the elections. Mr Durkan argued that Mr Trimble was not only not saleable to nationalists, but also not saleable to half of the UUP – to which Mr Blair and Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid are said to have laughed in agreement. The SDLP leader further warned that pursuing a “save David” campaign would ruin all they had worked for. Damien McAteer, an adviser for the SDLP, was recorded as briefing Irish officials on September 10 that it was his view that Mr Trimble was intent on collapsing the institutions in 2003 over expected fallout for Sinn Fein in the wake of the Colombia Three trial, where men linked to the party were charged with training Farc rebels – but predicted the UUP leader would be “in the toilet” by January, when an Ulster Unionist Council (UUC) meeting was due to take place. A week later in mid September, Mr Trimble assured Irish premier Bertie Ahern that the next UUC meeting to take place in two days’ time would be “okay but not great” and insisted he was not planning to play any “big game”. It was at that meeting that he made the bombshell announcement that the UUP would pull out of the Executive if the IRA had not disbanded by January 18. The move came as a surprise to the Irish officials who, along with their UK counterparts, did not see the deadline as realistic. Sinn Fein described the resolution as a “wreckers’ charter”. Doubts were raised that there would be any progress on substantive issues as parties would not be engaged in “pre-election skirmishing”. As that could lead to a UUP walkout and the resulting suspension of the institutions, the prospect of delaying the elections was raised while bringing forward the vote was ruled out. Therefore, the two Governments stressed the need to cooperate as a stabilising force to protect the Agreement – despite not being sure how that process would survive through the January 18 deadline. The Irish officials became worried that the British side did not share their view that Mr Trimble was not “salvageable” and that the fundamental dynamic in the UUP was now Agreement scepticism, the confidential documents state. In a meeting days after the UUC announcements, Mr Reid is recorded in the documents as saying that as infuriating as it was, Mr Trimble was at that moment the “most enlightened Unionist we have”. The Secretary said he would explore what the UUP leader needed to “survive” the period between January 18 and the election, believing a significant prize could avoid him being “massacred”. Such planning went out the window just weeks later, when hundreds of PSNI officers were involved in raids of several buildings – including Sinn Fein’s offices in Stormont. The resulting “Stormontgate” spy-ring scandal accelerated the collapse of powersharing, with the UUP pulling out of the institutions – and the Secretary of State suspending the Assembly and Executive on October 14. For his part, Irish officials were briefed that Mr Reid was said to be “gung ho” about the prospect of exercising direct rule – reportedly making no mention of the Irish Government in a meeting with Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan on that day. The Northern Ireland Secretary was given a new role and Paul Murphy was appointed as his successor. A note on speaking points for a meeting with Mr Murphy in April showed that the Irish side believed the May elections should go ahead: “At a certain stage the political process has to stand on its own feet. “The Governments cannot be manipulating and finessing every scenario to engineer the right result. “We have to start treating the parties and the people as mature and trusting that they have the discernment to make the right choices.” However, the elections planned for May did not materialise, instead delayed until November. Mr Trimble would go on to lose his Westminster seat – and stewardship of the UUP – in 2005. The November election saw the DUP emerge as the largest parties – but direct rule continued as Ian Paisley’s refused to share power with Sinn Fein, which Martin McGuinness’ colleagues. The parties eventually agreed to work together following further elections in 2007. – This article is based on documents in 2024/130/5, 2024/130/6, 2024/130/15