m.30jili.ph
Hegseth meets with moderate Sen. Collins as he lobbies for key votes in the Senate
Stock market today: Wall Street inches higher to set more records
Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling, claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. Read this article for free: Already have an account? To continue reading, please subscribe: * Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling, claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. Read unlimited articles for free today: Already have an account? Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling, claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont’s high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents’ wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella’s suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella’s son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school’s assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act, enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct” that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn’t say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. Winnipeg Jets Game Days On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court’s mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.” John Klar, who also represents the Politellas, went a step further, telling the AP that the Vermont Supreme Court ruling means that “as a matter of law” schools can get away with vaccinating students without parental consent and that parents can only sue on the federal level if death or serious bodily injury results. — Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck. Advertisement Advertisement
CHATHAM, N.J. (AP) — That buzzing coming out of New Jersey? It's unclear if it's drones or something else, but for sure the nighttime sightings are producing tons of talk, a raft of conspiracy theories and craned necks looking skyward. Cropping up on local news and social media sites around Thanksgiving, the saga of the drones reported over New Jersey has reached incredible heights. This week seems to have begun a new, higher-profile chapter: Lawmakers are demanding (but so far not getting) explanations from federal and state authorities about what's behind them. Gov. Phil Murphy wrote to President Joe Biden asking for answers. New Jersey's new senator, Andy Kim, spent Thursday night on a drone hunt in rural northern New Jersey, and posted about it on X. But perhaps the most fantastic development is the dizzying proliferation of conspiracies — none of which has been confirmed or suggested by federal and state officials who say they're looking into what's happening. It has become shorthand to refer to the flying machines as drones, but there are questions about whether what people are seeing are unmanned aircraft or something else. Some theorize the drones came from an Iranian mothership. Others think they are the Secret Service making sure President-elect Donald Trump’s Bedminster property is secure. Others worry about China. The deep state. And on. In the face of uncertainty, people have done what they do in 2024: Create a social media group. The Facebook page, New Jersey Mystery Drones — let’s solve it , has nearly 44,000 members, up from 39,000 late Thursday. People are posting their photo and video sightings, and the online commenters take it from there. One video shows a whitish light flying in a darkened sky, and one commenter concludes it’s otherworldly. “Straight up orbs,” the person says. Others weigh in to say it’s a plane or maybe a satellite. Another group called for hunting the drones literally, shooting them down like turkeys. (Do not shoot at anything in the sky, experts warn.) Trisha Bushey, 48, of Lebanon Township, New Jersey, lives near Round Valley Reservoir where there have been numerous sightings. She said she first posted photos online last month wondering what the objects were and became convinced they were drones when she saw how they moved and when her son showed her on a flight tracking site that no planes were around. Now she's glued to the Mystery Drones page, she said. “I find myself — instead of Christmas shopping or cleaning my house — checking it,” she said. She doesn't buy what the governor said, that the drones aren't a risk to public safety. Murphy told Biden on Friday that residents need answers. The federal Homeland Security Department and FBI also said in a joint statement they have no evidence that the sightings pose “a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.” “How can you say it’s not posing a threat if you don’t know what it is?” she said. “I think that’s why so many people are uneasy.” Then there's the notion that people could misunderstand what they're seeing. William Austin is the president of Warren County Community College, which has a drone technology degree program, and is coincidentally located in one of the sighting hotspots. Austin says he has looked at videos of purported drones and that airplanes are being misidentified as drones. He cited an optical effect called parallax, which is the apparent shift of an object when viewed from different perspectives. Austin encouraged people to download flight and drone tracker apps so they can better understand what they're looking at. Nonetheless, people continue to come up with their own theories. “It represents the United States of America in 2024,” Austin said. “We’ve lost trust in our institutions, and we need it.” Federal officials echo Austin's view that many of the sightings are piloted aircraft such as planes and helicopters being mistaken for drones, according to lawmakers and Murphy. That's not really convincing for many, though, who are homing in on the sightings beyond just New Jersey and the East Coast, where others have reported seeing the objects. For Seph Divine, 34, another member of the drone hunting group who lives in Eugene, Oregon, it feels as if it’s up to citizen sleuths to solve the mystery. He said he tries to be a voice of reason, encouraging people to fact check their information, while also asking probing questions. “My main goal is I don’t want people to be caught up in the hysteria and I also want people to not just ignore it at the same time,” he said. “Whether or not it’s foreign military or some secret access program or something otherworldly, whatever it is, all I’m saying is it’s alarming that this is happening so suddenly and so consistently for hours at a time,” he added. Associated Press reporter Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed to this report.Of course, with increased spending and investment, comes increases to taxes and I was incredibly disappointed to see the bulk of new taxes being levied from small and medium sized businesses. Winchester has a huge diversity of small and independent businesses. It's one of the city's great strengths and a big draw for visitors from across the whole country and beyond. To better understand the challenges for the High Street, I recently joined with Winchester Business Improvement District director Paul Spencer to visit a range of city centre businesses and learn directly from them how they're going to be affected and what impact the Budget will have on their livelihoods, their staff and their prospects for the future. We also know that this tax rise will affect healthcare providers like GPs, care homes, hospices and social care providers. It seems totally counter-productive to increase health spending with... Danny Chambers MP
Pair of Rays pitchers are drawing trade interestHigh school recruiting isn't the only way to build a winner in the transfer portal era
Oracle Co. ( NYSE:ORCL – Get Free Report )’s stock price traded down 2% during mid-day trading on Friday . The company traded as low as $167.56 and last traded at $168.19. 1,265,660 shares changed hands during trading, a decline of 85% from the average session volume of 8,354,237 shares. The stock had previously closed at $171.68. Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades A number of brokerages recently weighed in on ORCL. Morgan Stanley lifted their price objective on shares of Oracle from $145.00 to $175.00 and gave the company an “equal weight” rating in a report on Tuesday, December 10th. Oppenheimer reaffirmed a “market perform” rating on shares of Oracle in a research report on Tuesday, September 10th. Royal Bank of Canada reissued a “sector perform” rating and set a $165.00 target price on shares of Oracle in a research note on Thursday, December 5th. Evercore ISI increased their price target on Oracle from $190.00 to $200.00 and gave the company an “outperform” rating in a research report on Tuesday, December 10th. Finally, Sanford C. Bernstein upped their target price on shares of Oracle from $201.00 to $202.00 and gave the stock an “outperform” rating in a research note on Monday, September 30th. One research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, eleven have given a hold rating, seventeen have assigned a buy rating and one has given a strong buy rating to the company’s stock. According to data from MarketBeat.com, the stock presently has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus price target of $181.48. Get Our Latest Research Report on Oracle Oracle Price Performance Oracle ( NYSE:ORCL – Get Free Report ) last issued its quarterly earnings results on Monday, December 9th. The enterprise software provider reported $1.47 earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, missing the consensus estimate of $1.48 by ($0.01). Oracle had a net margin of 21.16% and a return on equity of 133.25%. The company had revenue of $14.06 billion during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $14.12 billion. During the same quarter last year, the firm earned $1.34 EPS. The business’s revenue was up 8.6% on a year-over-year basis. As a group, sell-side analysts anticipate that Oracle Co. will post 5.03 earnings per share for the current year. Oracle Announces Dividend The company also recently disclosed a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Thursday, January 23rd. Investors of record on Thursday, January 9th will be given a $0.40 dividend. The ex-dividend date is Thursday, January 9th. This represents a $1.60 dividend on an annualized basis and a yield of 0.95%. Oracle’s dividend payout ratio (DPR) is 39.12%. Institutional Trading of Oracle Several hedge funds have recently made changes to their positions in ORCL. State Street Corp lifted its position in Oracle by 2.7% in the third quarter. State Street Corp now owns 70,441,556 shares of the enterprise software provider’s stock valued at $12,003,241,000 after purchasing an additional 1,847,561 shares during the period. Geode Capital Management LLC raised its stake in shares of Oracle by 2.6% during the 3rd quarter. Geode Capital Management LLC now owns 35,194,683 shares of the enterprise software provider’s stock worth $5,977,015,000 after buying an additional 885,041 shares in the last quarter. Franklin Resources Inc. lifted its holdings in shares of Oracle by 11.6% in the 3rd quarter. Franklin Resources Inc. now owns 18,480,384 shares of the enterprise software provider’s stock valued at $3,370,640,000 after buying an additional 1,917,416 shares during the period. Fisher Asset Management LLC boosted its stake in shares of Oracle by 1.8% in the third quarter. Fisher Asset Management LLC now owns 17,898,029 shares of the enterprise software provider’s stock valued at $3,049,824,000 after buying an additional 310,709 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Janus Henderson Group PLC grew its holdings in Oracle by 0.4% during the third quarter. Janus Henderson Group PLC now owns 14,608,951 shares of the enterprise software provider’s stock worth $2,489,345,000 after acquiring an additional 54,868 shares during the period. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 42.44% of the company’s stock. Oracle Company Profile ( Get Free Report ) Oracle Corporation offers products and services that address enterprise information technology environments worldwide. Its Oracle cloud software as a service offering include various cloud software applications, including Oracle Fusion cloud enterprise resource planning (ERP), Oracle Fusion cloud enterprise performance management, Oracle Fusion cloud supply chain and manufacturing management, Oracle Fusion cloud human capital management, Oracle Cerner healthcare, Oracle Advertising, and NetSuite applications suite, as well as Oracle Fusion Sales, Service, and Marketing. Recommended Stories Receive News & Ratings for Oracle Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Oracle and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .A majority of farmers voted for Donald Trump, even though the president-elect’s economic agenda is antithetical to the financial interests of American agriculture. Since the dawn of this century, the world has added 398 million acres of land for the production of food grains, feed grains and oil seeds. Much of that acreage has been in tropical regions. At the same time, population growth in China, a primary buyer of U.S. agricultural goods, has slowed, and its population is aging. Similar trends can be seen in other countries that have been traditional importers of U.S. goods. We also face major geopolitical events, such as the Ukraine-Russia war, and most resolutions of that war would likely adversely affect U.S. farmers. The world has changed. Competition among major producing nations has changed the ability of American agriculture to be a preferred and low-cost provider of grains to other nations. Against this backdrop, one must ponder the question of how an isolationist foreign policy and the use of heavy tariffs could possibly lead to anything other than serious adverse consequences for our U.S. agricultural sector. History teaches us lessons, and sadly we often forget them while drunk on the political cocktail of the moment. During the first Trump presidency, significant tariffs were imposed on China. This led to major negative impacts on U.S. farmers. What did the government do? The Trump administration created an ad hoc disaster relief program that paid billions to U.S. farmers. “Ad hoc” is just a shiny term for an administration not being able to get its act together to have a consistent and logical approach to setting policy. It is akin to government by chaos — going from one fire drill to another. Trump was elected based on many promises, one of which was to “drain the swamp.” There is a lot of chatter about reducing government outlays for all sorts of programs. Trump wants to put America “first.” Setting aside political differences, the reality is that America is not an island. It is an important part of the larger world. Withdrawal from engagement with other nations, whether in the context of trade or overall foreign relations, cannot lead to good consequences for America’s economic security, nor for our nation’s ability to play a strong role in maintaining a stable and peaceful world. My fellow farmers, it is time for a reality check. We face way more than a theoretical risk of losing a large share of the markets for our grains and livestock. Don’t count on that brown envelope from Uncle Sam in your mailbox to bail you out from hardship. From the extensive reading that I have done on the topic of the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs, no credible economist paints any picture other than one of significant detrimental consequences to our agricultural sector. The same is true for many other segments of the economy. America has to maintain a global perspective — rather than one that stops at our shores — to stay competitive and to remain in its role as a world leader. The proposed paths of Trump’s next presidency are antithetical to those roles.