Ricks 4-8 0-0 9, Hutchins-Everett 1-4 3-3 5, Brown 4-12 3-3 13, Freeman 3-9 0-0 7, Smith 2-6 2-2 6, Lindsay 6-11 0-0 17, Anderson 3-4 0-0 7, Williams 1-2 0-0 3, Taylor 0-0 0-0 0. Totals 24-56 8-8 67. Kapic 5-8 1-1 12, Gray 6-9 1-3 16, Howell 4-7 2-2 11, McGhie 4-12 0-0 9, Tait-Jones 4-10 13-18 21, Rochelin 0-1 1-2 1, Burke 1-1 0-0 3, Milovich 0-0 0-0 0. Totals 24-48 18-26 73. Halftime_UC San Diego 34-28. 3-Point Goals_James Madison 11-27 (Lindsay 5-8, Brown 2-6, Williams 1-1, Anderson 1-2, Ricks 1-4, Freeman 1-5, Hutchins-Everett 0-1), UC San Diego 7-18 (Gray 3-3, Burke 1-1, Howell 1-3, Kapic 1-4, McGhie 1-6, Tait-Jones 0-1). Rebounds_James Madison 25 (Smith 9), UC San Diego 24 (Tait-Jones 6). Assists_James Madison 10 (Brown 4), UC San Diego 10 (Tait-Jones 4). Total Fouls_James Madison 22, UC San Diego 15.UC San Diego 73, James Madison 67
US lawmakers concluded a two-year investigation Monday into the Covid-19 outbreak that killed 1.1 million Americans -- backing the theory that the virus likely leaked from a Chinese laboratory. A 520-page report from the Republican-controlled House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic looked at the federal and state-level response, as well as the pandemic's origins and vaccination efforts. "This work will help the United States, and the world, predict the next pandemic, prepare for the next pandemic, protect ourselves from the next pandemic, and hopefully prevent the next pandemic," panel chairman Brad Wenstrup said in a letter to Congress. US federal agencies, the World Health Organization and scientists across the planet have arrived at different conclusions about the most likely origin of Covid-19, and no consensus has emerged. Most believe it to have spread from animals in China, but a US intelligence analysis said last year that the virus may have been genetically engineered and escaped from a virology lab in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where human cases first emerged. The congressional panel was persuaded by the lab leak theory after meeting 25 times, conducting more than 30 transcribed interviews and reviewing more than one million pages of documents. The investigation included two days of interviews behind closed doors with Anthony Fauci, the government scientist who became the nation's most trusted expert in the chaotic early days of the 2020 outbreak. Fauci's clashes with former and incoming president Donald Trump over the response sparked fury on the right, and he now lives with security protection following death threats against his family. Republicans accuse the 83-year-old immunologist of helping to set off the worst pandemic in a century by approving funding passed on to Chinese scientists they accuse of manufacturing the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes Covid-19. Among its headline conclusions, the report said the National Institutes of Health had indeed funded contentious "gain-of-function" research -- which seeks to enhance viruses as a way of finding ways to combat them -- at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci angrily denied covering up the origins of Covid-19 before the panel in June, arguing that it would be "molecularly impossible" for the bat viruses studied at the lab to be turned into the virus that caused the pandemic. But the panel's report said SARS-CoV-2 "likely emerged because of a laboratory or research related accident." The probe found that lockdowns "did more harm than good" and that mask mandates were "ineffective at controlling the spread of Covid-19," contradicting other research showing that masking in public does reduce transmission rates. Social distancing guidelines also came under criticism, although travel restrictions were deemed to have saved lives. Investigators found that Trump's Operation Warp Speed -- the publicly-funded project to develop Covid vaccines -- was a "tremendous success" but that school closures would have an "enduring impact" on US children. ft/jgcGerman politicians decry Elon Musk’s AfD support as ‘intrusive’ election influence
Trimble and Mallon sanctioned DUP ministers over rotation planWASHINGTON (AP) — A machinists strike. Another safety problem involving its troubled top-selling airliner. A plunging stock price. 2024 was already a dispiriting year for Boeing, the American aviation giant. But when one of the company's jets crash-landed in South Korea on Sunday, killing all but two of the 181 people on board, it brought to a close an especially unfortunate year for Boeing. The cause of the crash remains under investigation, and aviation experts were quick to distinguish Sunday's incident from the company’s earlier safety problems. Alan Price, a former chief pilot at Delta Air Lines who is now a consultant, said it would be inappropriate to link the incident Sunday to two fatal crashes involving Boeing’s troubled 737 Max jetliner in 2018 and 2019. In January this year, a door plug blew off a 737 Max while it was in flight, raising more questions about the plane. The Boeing 737-800 that crash-landed in Korea, Price noted, is “a very proven airplane. "It’s different from the Max ...It’s a very safe airplane.’’ For decades, Boeing has maintained a role as one of the giants of American manufacturing. But the the past year's repeated troubles have been damaging. The company's stock price is down more than 30% in 2024. The company's reputation for safety was especially tarnished by the 737 Max crashes, which occurred off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019 and left a combined 346 people dead. In the five years since then, Boeing has lost more than $23 billion. And it has fallen behind its European rival, Airbus, in selling and delivering new planes. Last fall, 33,000 Boeing machinists went on strike, crippling the production of the 737 Max, the company's bestseller, the 777 airliner and 767 cargo plane. The walkout lasted seven weeks, until members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers agreed to an offer that included 38% pay raises over four years. In January, a door plug blew off a 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight. Federal regulators responded by imposing limits on Boeing aircraft production that they said would remain in place until they felt confident about manufacturing safety at the company. In July, Boeing agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud for deceiving the Federal Aviation Administration regulators who approved the 737 Max. Acting on Boeing’s incomplete disclosures, the FAA approved minimal, computer-based training instead of more intensive training in flight simulators. Simulator training would have increased the cost for airlines to operate the Max and might have pushed some to buy planes from Airbus instead. (Prosecutors said they lacked evidence to argue that Boeing’s deception had played a role in the crashes.) But the plea deal was rejected this month by a federal judge in Texas, Reed O’Connor , who decided that diversity, inclusion and equity or DEI policies in the government and at Boeing could result in race being a factor in choosing an official to oversee Boeing’s compliance with the agreement. Boeing has sought to change its culture. Under intense pressure over safety issues, David Calhoun departed as CEO in August. Since January, 70,000 Boeing employees have participated in meetings to discuss ways to improve safety.
Sports on TV for Sunday, Dec. 29
Sterling rises versus euro towards its 2-1/2-year highNEW YORK (AP) — Technology stocks pulled Wall Street to another record amid a mixed Monday of trading. The S&P 500 rose 0.2% from its all-time high set on Friday to post a record for the 54th time this year. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 128 points, or 0.3%, while the Nasdaq composite gained 1%. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.won’t be taking over from Cathie Wood at ARK Invest – you heard it here first. But there are some other things that are unlikely in 2025 that investors should pay attention to. While risk is inevitable, working out how to minimise it is key. And that involves working out where it would take something big for things to go wrong. “Diageo cuts dividend” ( ) is facing a dual threat of US tariffs and anti-obesity drugs. But I don’t see either of these causing the business to lower its dividend in 2025. With the tariff issue, I think it’s worth noting that a decent part of the company’s portfolio – including , , and is produced in the US. These would be unaffected by taxes on imports. On the subject of anti-obesity drugs, the majority of users are people who already tend to consume less alcohol anyway. So I’m sceptical of the idea that this is likely to have a significant impact on demand. The risks can’t be ignored entirely, but the discounted share price means I’m looking to buy the stock in 2025. And I think the chances of the dividend doing any thing but go up in 2025 are extremely remote. “Rightmove accepts takeover bid” Earlier this year, REA group made a bid to acquire ( ). The offer was rejected and I don’t think anyone is going to succeed with a similar proposal in 2025. There are two reasons for this. The first is the company is doing well by itself – it’s growing strongly and it has a strong balance sheet, meaning there’s nearly no pressure to sell. The second is the stock isn’t exactly cheap, at a of 27. I’m not buying it at today’s levels and I can’t see anyone paying significantly over this to acquire the firm outright. The next year will be an interesting one for Rightmove, with the possibility of increased competition from OnTheMarket a potential threat. But as far as the chance of a takeover goes, I don’t think so. “Interest rates return to Covid-19 levels” Interest rates going back to 0.1% would almost certainly cause a huge rally in stock prices. But unless there’s another emergency on the scale of the Covid-19 pandemic, I just don’t see it. Even in that situation, I think the Bank of England might be more cautious than it was last time. The resulting is proving resilient and the last measurement of 2024 revealed CPI rising to 2.6%. Rising costs are unwelcome, but higher interest rates might be no bad thing for investors. These should weigh on share prices, creating opportunities to earn higher returns over the long term. Of course, that depends on which stocks investors choose to buy. But companies that can pass on higher costs to customers could make for very attractive investments. I could be wrong... With investing, uncertainty is inevitable. Dividends are never guaranteed, strange takeovers happen, and exogenous shocks can cause all kinds of macroeconomic instability. I could be wrong, but I don’t see Diageo cutting its dividend, Rightmove being acquired, or interest rates going to zero. I think this is about as likely as Warren Buffett taking over a disruptive innovation fund.