game logo
CrowdStrike Gets High Marks For Handling Crisis — But Issues Still LingerNikki Haley doesn’t support some of Trump’s Cabinet picks. Which is she against?
The AP Top 25 men’s college basketball poll is back every week throughout the season! Get the poll delivered straight to your inbox with AP Top 25 Poll Alerts. Sign up here . TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Brandon Stroud led South Florida past Webber International on Saturday with 16 points off of the bench in a 106-49 victory. Stroud shot 6 of 7 from the field and 4 for 4 from the line for the Bulls (7-6). Kobe Knox scored 15 points, going 5 of 8 (3 for 6 from 3-point range). Quincy Adekokoya went 5 of 11 from the field (3 for 6 from 3-point range) to finish with 14 points, while adding seven rebounds. Gabriel Sorensen finished with 14 points for the Warriors and Khalyl Simmons added 12 points. South Florida took the lead with 12:25 remaining in the first half and did not relinquish it. The score was 54-26 at halftime, with Stroud racking up 12 points. South Florida extended its lead to 98-43 during the second half, fueled by a 16-2 scoring run. Knox scored a team-high 10 points in the second half as their team closed out the win. ___ The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .Analysis: Barkley is NFL's version of OhtaniHow lifting weights three times a week could help reduce your biological age by eight years
TAMPA, Fla. , Nov. 26, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Partsol is proud to announce a significant agreement with the United States Army for a technology-enabled service subscription powered by our proprietary Cognitive AI and Absolute Truth algorithms. This partnership represents a pivotal step in advancing precision, efficiency, and actionable insights for mission-critical operations. "Our Cognitive AI and Absolute Truth algorithms are designed to deliver unparalleled precision and confidence in decision-making," said Dr. Darryl Williams , CEO of Partsol. "This collaboration underscores our commitment to supporting national security with innovative, reliable technology." Partsol's technology-enabled service subscription leverages cutting-edge Cognitive AI to analyze complex datasets, provide actionable insights in real time, and enhance operational readiness. "This agreement highlights the transformative power of Partsol's solutions to address the most complex challenges with clarity and precision," said John Callahan , President of Partsol. "We are honored to support the U.S. Army in achieving its mission-critical objectives." About Partsol Partsol, a Partnership Solutions International company, is dedicated to advancing Cognitive AI. Leveraging its proprietary Absolute Truth algorithms, Partsol equips organizations with precise, predictive insights that empower confident, data-informed decisions. To learn more, visit Partsol.com or connect with Partsol on LinkedIn. Contact Teresa Salinas Marketing Director teresa.salinas@partsol.com 400 N. Ashley Drive, Ste. 300, Tampa, FL View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/partsol-secures-technology-enabled-service-subscription-with-the-us-army-302316978.html SOURCE PartsolSugary sodas may be the worst when it comes to raising the risk of heart disease, study says Swedish scientists said liquid sugars make you feel less full so you probably drink them to excess, and while other treats may be enjoyed only in social settings or special occasions, sweetened beverages may be consumed on a more regular basis throughout the day.Bondi nomination receives high praise from GOP senators
Kapit looks back at happenings throughout ‘Year of Wood Dragon’President-elect Donald Trump proved he’s still a master troll this week with a talking about a US desire to seize the Panama Canal and Greenland and turn Canada into the 51st state. Panama apparently didn’t get the ‘joke’, with President Jose Raul Mulino taking to social media to emphasize that “every square meter” of the canal “belongs to Panama and will continue to belong to Panama.” “We’ll see about that!” Trump retorted. What’s the Canal’s Importance? Accounting for about of all global maritime trade, and (as much as 22 days) off trips between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the Panama Canal has served as a key economic and strategic chokepoint for more than a century, spending most of that time under US control. Crossable by ship in just 8-10 hours, the 81.5 km long, 33-150 m wide mega canal earns Panama about $3.5 billion in transit fees. The canal was opened in 1914 after a decade of US-led, supervised and financed construction - costing the equivalent of over $15 bln in today’s money. The US gained control of the Panama Canal Zone as a concession in 1903 after recognizing Panama’s independence from Colombia, and jealously guarded it until 1999 – when it was transferred back to Panama in accordance with the terms of a 1979 treaty, reached partly thanks US fears of growing Soviet influence in Latin America. The US maintained the right to guard the canal in perpetuity. The canal has proven on global shipping that it led to the creation of its own class of massive bulk carriers – known as the Panamax – featuring a deadweight capacity of 60,000-80,000 tons. Whether he's joking or not, Trump isn’t the first Republican to criticize the 1979 treaty, with doing so on the campaign trail in 1976 and 1980, but dropping the idea soon after actually entering office. 05:25 GMT Could Trump Really Be Serious? Trump “was just making a joke” and there is no legal way for US to actually restore its control over the Panama Canal, veteran geopolitical affairs and trade policy expert Thomas Pauken II told Sputnik. Besides highlighting the “overreaction” to his gag by media and senior officials, Trump’s discussion of the canal is really designed to address the reported overcharging of US shippers, with his hardball threats aimed at seeing “those rates go down,” and addressing whether the US’s trade competitors, particularly China, are receiving any preferential treatment, Pauken said. “It's really a simple case of wanting to negotiate lower rates on shipping charges and then making a joke about how America may supposedly try to seize control of the Panama Control Canal and take charge of it. Of course, everybody who has any common sense, including people who are supposedly diplomats, media officials and even law experts, should know that Trump cannot take control of the Panama Canal if Panama refuses to allow that,” the observer stressed. The canal could become a hotspot for confrontation between China and the US, Pauken believes, but only “if Beijing and Washington choose to start and launch and spark trade wars” instead of sitting down and hammering out a “grand bargain” that both sides would find fair – like the Phase One Trade Agreement reached in late 2019. 05:05 GMT
New Jersey Devils Stock Up/Stock Down: Mom’s Trip EditionPartsol Secures Technology-Enabled Service Subscription with the US Army
Magnite Promotes Sean Buckley to President, Revenue and Katie Evans to President, OperationsThe Kremlin fired a new intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine on Thursday in response to Kyiv's use this week of American and British missiles capable of striking deeper into Russia, President Vladimir Putin said. In a televised address to the country, the Russian president warned that U.S. air defense systems would be powerless to stop the new missile, which he said flies at ten times the speed of sound and which he called the Oreshnik — Russian for hazelnut tree. He also said it could be used to attack any Ukrainian ally whose missiles are used to attack Russia. “We believe that we have the right to use our weapons against military facilities of the countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities,” Putin said in his first comments since President Joe Biden gave Ukraine the green light this month to use U.S. ATACMS missiles to strike at limited targets inside Russia. Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh confirmed that Russia’s missile was a new, experimental type of intermediate range missile based on it’s RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile. “This was new type of lethal capability that was deployed on the battlefield, so that was certainly of concern," Singh said, noting that the missile could carry either conventional or nuclear warheads. The U.S. was notified ahead of the launch through nuclear risk reduction channels, she said. The attack on the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro came in response to Kyiv's use of longer-range U.S. and British missiles in strikes Tuesday and Wednesday on southern Russia, Putin said. Those strikes caused a fire at an ammunition depot in Russia's Bryansk region and killed and wounded some security services personnel in the Kursk region, he said. “In the event of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond decisively and in kind,” the Russian president said, adding that Western leaders who are hatching plans to use their forces against Moscow should “seriously think about this.” Putin said the Oreshnik fired Thursday struck a well-known missile factory in Dnipro. He also said Russia would issue advance warnings if it launches more strikes with the Oreshnik against Ukraine to allow civilians to evacuate to safety — something Moscow hasn’t done before previous aerial attacks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov initially said Russia hadn’t warned the U.S. about the coming launch of the new missile, noting that it wasn't obligated to do so. But he later changed tack and said Moscow did issue a warning 30 minutes before the launch. Putin's announcement came hours after Ukraine claimed that Russia had used an intercontinental ballistic missile in the Dnipro attack, which wounded two people and damaged an industrial facility and rehabilitation center for people with disabilities, according to local officials. But American officials said an initial U.S. assessment indicated the strike was carried out with an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a Telegram post that the use of the missile was an "obvious and serious escalation in the scale and brutality of this war, a cynical violation of the UN Charter.” He also said there had been “no strong global reaction” to the use of the missile, which he said could threaten other countries. “Putin is very sensitive to this. He is testing you, dear partners,” Zelenskyy wrote. “If there is no tough response to Russia’s actions, it means they see that such actions are possible.” The attack comes during a week of escalating tensions , as the U.S. eased restrictions on Ukraine's use of American-made longer-range missiles inside Russia and Putin lowered the threshold for launching nuclear weapons. The Ukrainian air force said in a statement that the Dnipro attack was launched from Russia’s Astrakhan region, on the Caspian Sea. “Today, our crazy neighbor once again showed what he really is,” Zelenskyy said hours before Putin's address. “And how afraid he is.” Russia was sending a message by attacking Ukraine with an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of releasing multiple warheads at extremely high speeds, even if they are less accurate than cruise missiles or short-range ballistic missiles, said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. “Why might you use it therefore?” Savill said. "Signaling — signaling to the Ukrainians. We’ve got stuff that outrages you. But really signaling to the West ‘We’re happy to enter into a competition around intermediate range ballistic missiles. P.S.: These could be nuclear tipped. Do you really want to take that risk?’” Military experts say that modern ICBMs and IRBMs are extremely difficult to intercept, although Ukraine has previously claimed to have stopped some other weapons that Russia described as “unstoppable,” including the air-launched Kinzhal hypersonic missile. David Albright, of the Washington-based think tank the Institute for Science and International Security, said he was “skeptical” of Putin’s claim, adding that Russian technology sometimes “falls short.” He suggested Putin was “taunting the West to try to shoot it down ... like a braggart boasting, taunting his enemy.” Earlier this week, the Biden administration authorized Ukraine to use the U.S.-supplied, longer-range missiles to strike deeper inside Russia — a move that drew an angry response from Moscow. Days later, Ukraine fired several of the missiles into Russia, according to the Kremlin. The same day, Putin signed a new doctrine that allows for a potential nuclear response even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power. The doctrine is formulated broadly to avoid a firm commitment to use nuclear weapons. In response, Western countries, including the U.S., said Russia has used irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior throughout the war to intimidate Ukraine and other nations. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday that Russia’s formal lowering of the threshold for nuclear weapons use did not prompt any changes in U.S. doctrine. She pushed back on concerns that the decision to allow Ukraine to use Western missiles to strike deeper inside Russia might escalate the war. ′′They’re the ones who are escalating this,” she said of the Kremlin — in part because of a flood of North Korean troops sent to the region. More than 1,000 days into war , Russia has the upper hand, with its larger army advancing in Donetsk and Ukrainian civilians suffering from relentless drone and missile strikes. Analysts and observers say the loosening of restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western missiles is unlikely to change the the course of the war, but it puts the Russian army in a more vulnerable position and could complicate the logistics that are crucial in warfare. Putin has also warned that the move would mean that Russia and NATO are at war. “It is an important move and it pulls against, undermines the narrative that Putin had been trying to establish that it was fine for Russia to rain down Iranian drones and North Korean missiles on Ukraine but a reckless escalation for Ukraine to use Western-supplied weapons at legitimate targets in Russia,” said Peter Ricketts, a former U.K. national security adviser who now sits in the House of Lords. ___ Associated Press writers Jill Lawless and Emma Burrows in London, and Zeke Miller and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report. ___ Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine Hanna Arhirova, Illia Novikov, Aamer Madhani And Tara Copp, The Associated Press
Last week, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot to death on a New York City sidewalk in what was clearly a thoroughly planned-out attack. Over the next few days, as authorities hunted for the killer, online progressives did not try hard to hide their delight that a millionaire health insurance executive like Thompson was killed. Social media was flooded with posts and videos—with different ranges of subtlety—suggesting that Thompson, at the very least, did not deserve to be mourned because of all the health care his company has denied to poor and working people. Progressives framed the shooting as an act of self-defense on behalf of the working class. Before the alleged killer was caught Monday, they promised not to snitch if they saw the shooter themselves and fantasized about a working-class jury nullifying all charges, leading to other CEOs getting gunned down with impunity if they oversaw price increases. The narrative that these online progressives clearly subscribe to and perpetuate is one where, in the United States, healthcare is a totally unfettered, unregulated industry; where—because of a total lack of government involvement—wealthy CEOs charge whatever prices they want and then refuse to provide customers what they already paid for without facing any bad consequences. The characterization of healthcare and health insurance companies charging absurdly high prices while treating their customers terribly without the risk of losing them is spot on. But the idea that what caused this was a lack of government involvement in the healthcare system is completely delusional. And this delusion conveniently removes all the responsibility progressives bear for the nightmare that is the US healthcare system. Today, healthcare is one of the most heavily government-regulated industries in the economy—right up there with the finance and energy sectors. Government agencies are involved in all parts of the process, from the research and production of drugs, the training and licensing of medical professionals, and the building of hospitals to the availability of health insurance, the makeup of insurance plans, and the complicated payment processes. And that is nothing new. The US government has been intervening heavily in the healthcare industry for over a century. And no group has done more to bring this about than the progressives. It really began, after all, during the Progressive Era, when the American Medical Association maneuvered its way into setting the official accreditation standards for the nation’s “unregulated” medical schools. The AMA wrote standards that excluded the medical approaches of their competitors, which forced half of the nation’s medical schools to close. The new shortage of trained doctors drove up the price of medical services—to the delight of the AMA and other government-recognized doctor’s groups—setting the familiar healthcare affordability crisis in motion. Around the same time, progressives successfully pushed for strict restrictions on the production of drugs and, shortly afterward, to grant drug producers monopoly privileges. After WWII, as healthcare grew more expensive, the government used the tax code to warp how Americans paid for healthcare. Under President Truman, the IRS made employer-provided health insurance tax deductible while continuing to tax other means of payment. It didn’t take long for employer plans to become the dominant arrangement and for health insurance to morph away from actual insurance into a general third-party payment system. These government interventions restricting the supply of medical care and privileging insurance over other payment methods created a real affordability problem for many Americans. But the crisis didn’t really start until the 1960s when Congress passed two of the progressive’s favorite government programs—Medicare and Medicaid. Initially, industry groups like the AMA opposed Medicare and Medicaid because they believed the government subsidies would deteriorate the quality of care. They were right about that, but what they clearly didn’t anticipate was how rich the programs would make them. Anyone who’s taken even a single introductory economics class could tell you that prices will rise if supply decreases or demand increases. The government was already keeping the supply of medical services artificially low—leading to artificially high prices. Medicare and Medicaid left those shortages in place and poured a ton of tax dollars into the healthcare sector—significantly increasing demand. The result was an easily predictable explosion in the cost of healthcare. Fewer and fewer people could afford healthcare at these rising prices, meaning more people required government assistance, which meant more demand, causing prices to grow faster and faster. Meanwhile, private health “insurance” providers were also benefiting from the mounting crisis. In a free market, insurance serves as a means to trade risk. Insurance works well for accidents and calamities that are hard to predict individually but relatively easy to predict in bulk, like car accidents, house fires, and unexpected family deaths. Health insurance providers were already being subsidized by all the taxes on competing means of payment, which allowed their plans to grow beyond the typical bounds of insurance and begin to cover easily-predictable occurrences like annual physicals. And, as the price of all of these services continued to shoot up, the costs of these routine procedures were becoming high enough to resemble the costs of emergencies—making consumers even more reliant on insurance. With progressives cheering on, the political class used government intervention to create a healthcare system that behaves as if its sole purpose is to move as much money as possible into the pockets of healthcare providers, drug companies, hospitals, health-related federal agencies, and insurance providers. But the party could not last forever. As the price of healthcare rose, the price of health insurance rose, too. Eventually, when insurance premiums grew too high, fewer employers or individual buyers were willing to buy insurance, and the flow of money into the healthcare system started to falter. The data suggests that that tipping point was reached in the early 2000s. For the first time since the cycle began back in the 1960s, the number of people with health insurance began to fall each year. Healthcare providers—who had seemingly assumed that the flow of money would never stop increasing—began to panic. Then came Barack Obama. Obama’s seminal legislative accomplishment—the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare—can best be understood as a ploy by healthcare providers and the government to keep the party going. Obamacare required all fifty million uninsured Americans to obtain insurance, and it greatly expanded what these “insurance” companies covered. Demand for healthcare shot back up, and the vicious cycle started back up again—which is why the bill enjoyed so much support from big corporations all across the healthcare industry. Before it was passed, economists were practically screaming that the Affordable Care Act would make care less affordable by raising premiums and healthcare prices while making shortages worse. Progressives dismissed such concerns as Reagan-era “free market fundamentalist” propaganda. But that is exactly what happened . Now, the affordability crisis is worse than ever as prices reach historic levels. And, because Obamacare brought American healthcare much closer to a single-payer system, the demand for healthcare far exceeds the supply of healthcare—leading to deadly shortages. There are literally not enough resources or available medical professionals to treat everyone who can pay for care. Also, the tax code and warped “insurance” market protect these providers from competition—making it almost impossible for people to switch to a different provider after their claims are unfairly denied. If it were simply greed, denying customers who already paid would be a feature in all industries. But it’s not. It requires the kind of policy protections progressives helped implement. And on top of all that, despite paying all this money, Americans are quickly becoming one of the sickest populations on Earth. This is one of the most pressing problems facing the country. A problem that requires immediate, radical change to solve. But it also requires an accurate and precise diagnosis—something that, this week, progressives demonstrated they are incapable of making. Related Articles Commentary | John Stossel: Your tax dollars not at work Commentary | After so many years of failure, time’s up for California Democrats Commentary | Vince Fong: We don’t need Newsom to lecture us. We need him to listen to us. Commentary | Deregulation rather than fossil fuel controls needed to fix California insurance market Commentary | The FBI has been political from the start The American progressive movement is responsible for providing the political class the intellectual cover they needed to break the healthcare market and transform the entire system into a means to transfer wealth to people like Brian Thompson. Now, they want to sit back, pretend like they’ve never gotten their way, that the government has never done anything with the healthcare market, and that these healthcare executives just popped up and started doing this all on their own—all so they can celebrate him being gunned down in the street. It’s disgusting. Brian Thompson acted exactly like every economically literate person over the last fifty years has said health insurance CEOs would act if progressives got their way. If we’re ever going to see the end of this century-long nightmare, we need to start listening to the people who have gotten it right, not those who pretend they are blameless as they fantasize online about others starting a violent revolution. Connor O’Keeffe ( @ConnorMOKeeffe ) produces media and content at the Mises Institute. This commentary is republished with permission from the Mises Institute.NonePresident-elect Donald Trump revealed that he was “open” to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. looking into the link between vaccines and autism. During an interview on NBC News’s Meet the Press with host Kristen Welker, Trump was asked if he wanted “to see childhood vaccines eliminated.” Trump admitted that if the vaccines are “dangerous for the children” he would want to see them eliminated and noted that if you “go back 25 years, autism was almost non-existent.” “Sir, going back 25 years, studies show that there is no link between vaccines and autism, yet it sounds like you are open to the possibility of him looking into getting rid of them?” Welker asked. “I’m open to anything,” Trump said. “I think somebody has to find out. If you go back 25 years ago, you had very little autism.” “Well, they say because they’re better at identifying it,” Welker added. As Breitbart News’s Sean Moran reported , Kennedy, who was nominated by Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, “has been critical of childhood vaccination schedules,” among other things. Kennedy has been critical of childhood vaccination schedules, fluoride in drinking water, and processed vegetable oils in processed foods. He would likely push the federal government to advise local governments to stop including fluoride in water. In an interview with NPR News after the election, Kennedy explained that vaccines would not be taken “away from anybody,” but rather instead the incoming Trump administration was “going to make sure that Americans have good information.” “The science on vaccine safety particularly has huge deficits, and we’re going to make sure those scientific studies are done and that people can make informed choices about their vaccinations and their children’s vaccinations,” Kennedy added. During Trump’s interview with NBC News’s Welker, Trump revealed that he was still planning to end birthright citizenship. As Breitbart News Washington Bureau Chief Matthew Boyle reported , Trump has previously vowed that, if elected, “he would sign an executive order” bringing an end to “birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.”