🏡 NJ releases list of towns that need affordable housing 🏡 Newark mayor, running for governor, has broad plan to build more 🏡 Critics give his plan some intense feedback The mayor of the largest city in New Jersey has a controversial plan to build affordable housing across the state if he is elected governor. If Newark Mayor Ras Baraka reaches the governor's mansion, he says he would double the rate that New Jersey is building new affordable housing. He threw his hat into the ring for New Jersey's crowded 2025 gubernatorial race in February. It's a dicey proposal as more than a few municipalities aren't happy with affordable housing mandates as they are. Earlier this year, Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill into law to standardize affordable housing obligations for New Jersey municipalities. Baraka said at a conference in June that there are thousands of acres of underutilized land in New Jersey. However, more than a few towns have joined a lawsuit that calls the law overreaching. Attorney Michael Collins said Tuesday that 26 municipalities were plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in Superior Court in Mercer County. Assemblyman Brian Bergen (R-Morrs), the minority whip, had a blunt response . "You are insane," Bergen said. Some on social media supported the idea, while others had choice words for Baraka's proposal: 📲 "Everyone just loves the California-style traffic here now and the massive congestion on every major roadway. Idk who wouldn’t vote to add 2 more hours to their commute." 📲 "Great more ppl in this densely populated state. Thanks?" 📲 "There is literally zero way to do this without cutting regulations so deeply you would put people’s lives in danger. Not to mention the complete devastation of natural resources. This tweet is insane." Abolish home rule in New Jersey? But Baraka didn't stop with affordable housing. Two days later, he said that, as governor, he would take local control away from municipalities. "It’s an open secret: home rule is driving New Jersey’s affordability crisis. Any candidate unwilling to acknowledge this reality is not serious about fixing it. As New Jersey’s next Governor, we will take on home rule because our people can no longer afford inaction," Baraka said. Home rule has been codified in state law for over a century. It gives municipalities local autonomy over things like schools, police and fire departments, and land use and zoning ordinances. State Sen. Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, said home rule allows for a balance of power even if, at times, it increases costs. "It does indeed place hurdles to some cost-saving reforms. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that home rule also is responsible for the unique character of each of our municipalities. It also keeps control of some aspects of government close to the people... right where it belongs," O'Scanlon said. RELATED: NJ towns that need to build the most affordable housing These 33 municipalities have the greatest number of affordable housing units that should be built, according to calculations by the Department of Community Affairs. The "present need" refers to existing but deficient housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households. "Prospective need" refers to the housing that would have to be built in the next 10 years to accommodate the estimated growth of low- and moderate-income households. The state used a formula that considers a municipality's income and land capacity. The current housing and population counts are from the 2020 Census. Gallery Credit: New Jersey 101.5 Report a correction 👈 | 👉 Contact our newsroom NJ road deaths by county, 2023 According to New Jersey State Police, 574 fatal crashes occurred across the state's 21 counties in 2023. Gallery Credit: Dino Flammia Average property taxes in New Jersey These are the county and municipal average property taxes for 2023. The data comes from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. Gallery Credit: New Jersey 101.5President-elect Donald Trump responded to the news of former President Jimmy Carter 's death Sunday afternoon, saying he faced many "challenges" as president but commended Carter for "doing everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans." In a statement posted on Truth Social, Trump pointed to the "enormous responsibility" it takes to be president, and added that "we all owe him a debt of gratitude" for his service. "I just heard of the news about the passing of President Jimmy Carter. Those of us who have been fortunate to have served as President understand this is a very exclusive club, and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the Greatest Nation in History. The challenges Jimmy faced as President came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude," Trump said. Trump added that he and his wife, Melania, are "thinking warmly of the Carter Family and their loved ones during this difficult time." CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Vice President-elect J.D. Vance reposted Trump's statement on X and said, "Jimmy Carter dedicated his life to serving this country. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his loved ones. May he Rest in Peace." Carter died on Sunday afternoon at 100 years old after entering hospice care in Georgia over a year ago. His death marked the end of the longest life of any former U.S. president.Organizers of the Bank of America Chicago Distance Series Unveil New Event Logos CHICAGO , Dec. 12, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The Bank of America Chicago Marathon will notify runners today of their selection status for the 2025 event. The race, which is the final event in the Bank of America Chicago Distance Series, continues to see unprecedented interest with more than 160,000 individuals applying for a chance to participate. Those who secure an entry into the race will join another record-breaking field with more than 53,000 participants expected to cross the finish line in Grant Park on Sunday, October 12, 2025 . Today's selection shows growing interest and participation in the Shamrock Shuffle 8K Run, Chicago 13.1 and Chicago Marathon, which together form the Bank of America Chicago Distance Series. In 2024, the events welcomed more than 81,000 finishers, with 2,700 completing all three Series events. As enthusiasm in the events builds, event organizers are excited to unveil a new look and feel for the third rendition of the Series. The new logos connect each event and celebrate the unique attributes that the local and global running communities associate with the popular road races. "Today we welcome a new field of participants to the Bank of America Chicago Marathon and launch the next chapter of the Bank of America Chicago Distance Series," said Executive Race Director Carey Pinkowski . "When we started the Series in 2023, our goal was to celebrate the Chicago running community, from individuals discovering the sport for the first time to our longtime participants. We continue to be humbled by the running community's enthusiasm and embrace of the events and we're excited to launch a new look that celebrates Chicago , the spirit of each race and the achievement made possible through the dedication of thousands of runners." Individuals interested in participating in the 2025 Bank of America Chicago Distance Series are encouraged to register early, as all races are expected to sell out in 2025. Continue reading for more information about the events that make up the Chicago Distance Series. Bank of America Chicago Marathon The Bank of America Chicago Marathon will take place on Sunday, October 12, 2025 . Runners who receive an entry through today's drawing will join those who guaranteed their entry into the race during the four-week application window. Guaranteed entries include Bank of America Chicago Marathon legacy finishers, time qualifiers, international tour group participants, charity runners, 2024 Bank of America Chicago Distance Series finishers and those who cancelled their 2024 race entries. Runners who did not receive an entry through the drawing can still sign up through the Bank of America Chicago Marathon Charity Program. Since 2002, the Charity Program has generated more than $322 million for local, national and global causes. The 2025 Charity Program includes 217 nonprofit organizations raising funds related to 10 cause categories: Advocacy, Animal Rights and Welfare, Education, Environment, First Responder and Military, Healthcare, Research, Social Service, Sports and Youth Development. Individuals who register to run with an official charity at this time are required to raise a minimum of $2,100 . For a list of official charities and information on how to register by joining a charity team, go to chicagomarathon.com/charity . For the latest event updates, registered participants and community members are encouraged to visit the Event FAQ which is available at chicagomarathon.com . Bank of America Chicago 13.1 The Bank of America Chicago 13.1 will take place on Sunday, June 1, 2025 . The fourth annual half marathon is set to welcome more than 9,000 finishers on a course that weaves through the historic parks and boulevards of the West Side, starting and finishing in Garfield Park. Following the race, participants and community members are encouraged to celebrate at the Race Day Festival, featuring a mix of entertainment, health and wellness activities and community activations including the West Wellness Walk, a 1.31-mile walk on Saturday, May 31 . Additional details about the 2025 event and registration information are available at chicago13point1.com . Bank of America Shamrock Shuffle The Bank of America Shamrock Shuffle will take place on Sunday, March 23, 2025 . This beloved Chicago tradition in its 44 th year is regarded as the official kickoff to the running season and a continuation of the city's St. Patrick's Day celebrations. The race is set to welcome more than 24,000 participants to a one-of-a-kind 8K Run (4.97 miles) through Chicago's Loop. Fitness enthusiasts looking for shorter distance events are encouraged to join The Mile event on Saturday, March 22 , or the 2-Mile Walk on Sunday. All three events will start and finish in Chicago's Grant Park . Additional details about the 2025 event and registration information are available at shamrockshuffle.com . For more Bank of America news, including dividend announcements and other important information, visit the Bank of America newsroom and register for news email alerts . Reporters May Contact: Alex Sawyer , Bank of America Chicago Marathon Phone: 1.312.992.6618 alex.sawyer@cemevent.com Diane Wagner , Bank of America, Phone: 1.312.992.2370 diane.wagner@bofa.com View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/event-record-160-000-people-apply-for-the-2025-bank-of-america-chicago-marathon-302330706.html SOURCE Bank of America Corporation
Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’Vikings waive former starting cornerback Akayleb Evans in another blow to 2022 draft class
Supporters of suspected CEO killer Luigi Mangione establish defense fundFormer Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz revealed Friday some of the reasoning behind his decision to withdraw from the attorney general nomination process, saying some senators “had an ax to grind” against him. President-elect Donald Trump Thursday in a post on Truth Social, “I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General. He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect.” Gaetz began earlier in the week meeting with senators whose approval he would need in order to be confirmed as AG. “I enjoyed the time on the Hill, frankly, talking with senators, and we had great momentum,” he told Real America’s Voice host on Friday. “While our discussions were going well, I found myself having to do two jobs at one time,” he added. “I had a full-time job explaining to senators that maybe a tweet I sent about them was rash and not reflective of how I would serve as attorney general. “And at the same time, I was having to build out the Department of Justice with the right human talent, [and] the right policy infrastructure.” Gaetz recounted that Trump’s new pick to head the DOJ, former Florida Attorney General , will not have the same distractions. “It won’t take the same long process” to get her confirmed, the former congressman argued. Matt Gaetz is currently at Mar-a-Lago, helping build an “America First Army” to take over the DOJ. “You and I have been very involved at Mar-a-Lago at finding patriotic Americans who want to do incredible service, not for themselves, for the country, and putting them in a... — George (@BehizyTweets) Gaetz who led the effort to have former House Speaker removed in 2023 had created animosity on Capitol Hill toward himself. “I was dealing with a politically motivated body. They didn’t like me because of what I did to Kevin McCarthy,” Gaetz said, according to . “And they had an ax to grind. So that was going to serve as at least enough of a basis to delay my confirmation as attorney general.” The America First firebrand also revealed to Kirk that he will not be seeking to return to the House to serve in the next Congress in January. When Gaetz resigned his seat, it was from the current 118th Congress. “I’m still going to be in the fight, but it’s going to be from a new perch. I do not intend to join the 119th Congress,” he said. “There are a number of fantastic Floridians who stepped up to run for my seat, people who have inspired with their heroism, with their public service. And I’m actually excited to see Northwest Florida go to new heights and have great representation,” Gaetz added. JUST IN: Matt Gaetz tells Charlie Kirk that he does *not* intend on joining the 119th Congress, hints he has other plans “from a new perch.” The statement comes after Gaetz withdrew his name from the AG nomination. “I’m still going to be in the fight, but it’s going to be from... — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) “I’m 42 now, and I’ve got other goals in life that I’m eager to pursue — my wife and my family — and so I’m going to be fighting for President Trump,” he said. “I’m going to be doing whatever he asks of me, as I always have. But I think that eight years is probably enough time in the United States Congress.” Prior to his decision to resign, Gaetz had faced the prospect of having a report released. The panel had been investigating allegations that he paid a 17-year-old girl to have sex with him at a party in 2017. The DOJ had also investigated Gaetz for alleged sex trafficking allegations but in 2023 bringing no charges. He told Kirk the allegations were false and an attempt to smear him, reported. “[I]f the things that the House Ethics report [said] were true, I would be under indictment and probably in a prison cell,” Gaetz said. “But of course, they’re false, because when you test them against other records, when you test them against other testimony, it all falls apart very quickly.” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. .
From revisiting the political scandal that sparked a cultural reckoning in Canberra to a rich-lister’s unravelling, there were no shortage of court battles being waged — or defended — by the top end of town in 2024. We revisit some of the cases that dominated headlines and left us shocked, perplexed, and — at times — even entertained. Brittany Higgins defended a defamation action launched by Senator Linda Reynolds. Credit: Composite image/Holly Thompson Villain or victim? Reynolds v Higgins It was a story of an alleged rape in the halls of Parliament House and a covert political cover-up, and like all “fairytales”, it needed a villain. That was how WA Senator Linda Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett began the five-week-long trial in her defamation suit against former staffer Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz, the most high-profile case to go before WA’s civil courts in 2024. The former defence minister sued Higgins over social media posts accusing her of mishandling the former staffer’s alleged rape by Bruce Lehrmann in March 2019 — a claim that was later aired by the media and created a storm that led to Reynolds’ political demise. Loading Higgins fiercely defended the action on the basis her posts were true, but opted against taking the stand at the eleventh hour amid concerns for her health. The trial, which the pair mortgaged and sold their homes to pursue, pored over the events of 2019 in excruciating detail, dragged in high-profile figures — from former prime minister Scott Morrison to broadcaster Peta Credlin — and threw private texts into the public arena we imagine the parties would have preferred to remain private.
Every single person in his platoon knew someone who was killed. Yuval Green, 26, knew at least three. He was a reservist, a medic in the paratroops of the Israel Defence Forces, when he heard the first news of the 7 October Hamas attack. “Israel is a small country. Everyone knows each other,” he says. In several days of violence,1,200 people were killed, and 251 more abducted into Gaza. Ninety-seven hostages remain in Gaza, and around half of them are believed to be alive. Yuval immediately answered his country’s call to arms. It was a mission to defend Israelis. He recalls the horror of entering devastated Jewish communities near the Gaza border. “You're seeing... dead bodies on the streets, seeing cars punctured by bullets.” Back then, there was no doubt about reporting for duty. The country was under attack. The hostages had to be brought home. Then came the Things seen that could not be unseen. Like the night he saw cats eating human remains in the roadway. “Start to imagine, like an apocalypse. You look to your right, you look to your left, all you see is destroyed buildings, buildings that are damaged by fire, by missiles, everything. That's Gaza right now.” One year on, the young man who reported for duty on 7 October is refusing to fight. Yuval is the co-organiser of a public letter signed by more than 165 - at the latest count - Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) reservists, and a smaller number of permanent soldiers, refusing to serve, or threatening to refuse, unless the hostages are returned - something that would require a ceasefire deal with Hamas. In a country still traumatised by the worst violence in its history, those refusing for reasons of conscience are a minority in a military that includes around 465,000 reservists. There is another factor in play for some other IDF reservists: exhaustion. According to Israeli media reports, a growing number are failing to report for duty. The Times of Israel newspaper and several other outlets quoted military sources as saying that there was a drop of between 15% to 25% of troops showing up, mainly due to burnout with the long periods of service required of them. Even if there is not widespread public support for those refusing to serve because of reasons of conscience, there is evidence that some of the key demands of those who signed the refusal letter are shared by a growing number of Israelis. A recent opinion poll by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) indicated that among Jewish Israelis 45% wanted the war to end - with a ceasefire to bring the hostages home - against 43% who wanted the IDF to fight on to destroy Hamas. Significantly, the IDI poll also suggests that which marked the opening days of the war as the country reeled from the trauma of 7 October has been overtaken by the revival of political divisions: only 26% of Israelis believe there is now a sense of togetherness, while 44% say there is not. At least part of this has to do with a feeling often expressed, especially among those on the left of the political divide, that the war is being prolonged at the behest of far-right parties whose support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to remain in power. Even the former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, a member of Netanhayu’s Likud Party, dismissed by the prime minister last month, cited the failure to return the hostages as one of the key disagreements with his boss. “There is and will not be any atonement for abandoning the captives,” he said. “It will be a mark of Cain on the forehead of Israeli society and those leading this mistaken path.” Netanyahu, who along with Gallant is facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, has repeatedly denied this and stressed his commitment to freeing the hostages. The seeds of Yuval’s refusal lie back in the days soon after the war began. Then the deputy speaker of the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), Nissim Vaturi, called for the Gaza Strip to be “erased from the face of the Earth”. Prominent rabbi Eliyahu Mali, referring generally to Palestinians in Gaza, said: “If you don’t kill them, they’ll kill you.” The rabbi stressed soldiers should only do what the army orders, and that the state law did not allow for the killing of the civilian population. But the language - by no means restricted to the two examples above - worried Yuval. “People were speaking about killing the entire population of Gaza, as if it was some type of an academic idea that makes sense... And with this atmosphere, soldiers are entering Gaza just a month after their friends were butchered, hearing about soldiers dying every day. And soldiers do a lot of things.” There have been social media posts from soldiers in Gaza abusing prisoners, destroying property, and mocking Palestinians, including numerous examples of soldiers posing with people’s possessions - including womens’ dresses and underwear. “I was trying to fight that at the time as much as I could,” says Yuval. “There was a lot of dehumanising, a vengeful atmosphere.” His personal turning point came with an order he could not obey. “They told us to burn down a house, and I went to my commander and asked him: ‘Why are we doing that?’ And the answers he gave me were just not good enough. I wasn't willing to burn down a house without reasons that make sense, without knowing that this serves a certain military purpose, or any type of purpose. So I said no and left.” That was his last day in Gaza. In response, the IDF told me that its actions were “based on military necessity, and with accordance to international law” and said Hamas “unlawfully embed their military assets in civilian areas”. Three of the refusers have spoken to the BBC. Two agreed to give their names, while a third requested anonymity because he feared repercussions. All stress that they love their country, but the experience of the war, the failure to reach a hostage deal led to a defining moral choice. One soldier, who asked to remain anonymous, was at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport when news started coming in about He recalls feeling shock at first. Then a ringing sensation in his ears. “I remember the drive home... The radio’s on and people [are] calling in, saying: ‘My dad was just kidnapped, help me. No-one's helping me.’ It was truly a living nightmare.” This was the moment the IDF was made for, he felt. It wasn’t like making house raids in the occupied West Bank or chasing stone-throwing youths. “Probably for the first time I felt like I enlisted in true self-defence.” But his view transformed as the war progressed. “I guess I no longer felt I could honestly say that this campaign was centered around securing the lives of Israelis.” He says this was based on what he saw and heard among comrades. “I try to have empathy and say, ‘This is what happens to people who are torn apart by war...’ but it was hard to overlook how wide this discourse was.” He recalls comrades boasting, even to their commanders, about beating “helpless Palestinians”. And he heard more chilling conversations. “People would pretty calmly talk about cases of abuse or even murder, as if it was a technicality, or with real serenity. That obviously shocked me.” The soldier also says he witnessed prisoners being blindfolded and not allowed to move “for basically their entire stay... and given amounts of food that were shocking”. When his first tour of duty ended he vowed not to return. The IDF referred me to a statement from last May which said any abuse of detainees was strictly prohibited. It also said three meals a day were provided, “of quantity and variety approved by a qualified nutritionist”. It said handcuffing of detainees was only carried out “where the security risk requires it” and “every day an examination is carried out... to make sure that the handcuffs are not too tight”. The UN has said reports of alleged torture and sexual violence by Israeli guards were “grossly illegal and revolting” and enabled by “absolute impunity”. Michael Ofer-Ziv, 29, knew two people from his village who were killed on 7 October, whose body was paraded through Gaza on the back of a pickup truck in what became one of the most widely shared images of the war. “That was hell,” he says. Michael was already a committed left-winger who advocated political not military solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, like his comrades, he felt reporting for reserve duty was correct. “I knew that the military action was inevitable... and was justified in a way, but I was very worried about the shape it might take.” His job was to work as an operations officer in a brigade war room, watching and directing action relayed back from drone cameras in Gaza. At times the physical reality of the war hit home. “We went to get some paper from somewhere in the main command of the Gaza area,” he remembers. “And at some point we opened the window... and the stench was like a butchery... Like in the market, where it's not very clean.” Again it was a remark heard during a discussion among comrades that helped push him towards action. “I think the most horrible sentence that I heard was someone who said to me that the kids that we spared in the last war in Gaza [2014] became the terrorists of October 7, which I bet is true for some cases... but definitely not all of them.” Such extreme views existed among a minority of soldiers, he says, but the majority were “just indifferent towards the price... what's called ‘collateral damage’, or Palestinian lives”. He’s also dismayed by statements that Jewish settlements should be built in Gaza after the war - a stated aim of far-right government ministers, and even some members of Netanyahu’s Likud party. Figures suggest there is a growing body of officers and troops within the IDF who come from what is called a ‘National Religious’ background: these are supporters of far-right Jewish nationalist parties who advocate settlement and annexation of Palestinian lands, and are firmly opposed to Palestinian statehood. According to research from the Israeli Centre for Public Affairs, a non-governmental think tank, the number of such officers graduating from the military academy rose from 2.5% in 1990 to 40% in 2014. Ten years ago, one of Israel’s leading authorities on the issue, Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, warned about what he called the ‘religification’ of the army. “Within this context, messages about Jewish superiority and demonisation of the enemy are fertile ground for fostering brutality and releasing soldiers from moral constraints.” The decisive moment for Michael Ofer-Ziv came when the IDF shot three Israeli hostages in Gaza in December 2023. The three men approached the army stripped to the waist, and one held a stick with a white cloth. The IDF said a soldier had felt threatened and opened fire, killing two hostages. A third was wounded but then shot again and killed, when a soldier ignored his commander’s ceasefire order. “I remember thinking to what level of moral corruption have we got... that this can happen. And I also remember thinking, there is just no way this is the first time [innocent people were shot]... It's just the first time that we are hearing about it, because they are hostages. If the victims were Palestinians, we just would never hear about it.” The IDF has said that refusal to serve by reservists is dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and Prime Minister Netanyahu insists it is “the most moral army in the world”. For most Israelis, the IDF is the guarantor of their security; it helped found Israel in 1948 and is an expression of the nation - every Israeli citizen over 18 who is Jewish (and also Druze and Circassian minorities) must serve. The refusers have attracted some hostility. Some prominent politicians, like Miri Regev, a cabinet member and former IDF spokeswoman, have called for action. “Refusers should be arrested and prosecuted," she has said. But the government has so far avoided tough action because, according to Yuval Green, “the military realised that it only draws attention to our actions, so they try to let us go quietly.” For those starting their national service and who refuse, sanctions are tougher. Eight conscientious objectors - not part of the reservists group - due to begin their military service at 18 years old have served time in military prison. The soldiers I spoke with described a mix of anger, disappointment, pain or ‘radio silence’ from their former comrades. “I strongly oppose them [the refusers],” says Major Sam Lipsky, 31, a reservist who fought in Gaza during the current war but is now based outside the Strip. He accuses the refusers group of being “highly political” and focused on opposing the current government. “I don't have to be a Netanyahu fan in order to not appreciate people using the military, an institution we're all meant to rally behind, as political leverage.” Maj Lipsky is a supporter of what he views as Israel’s mainstream right - not the far right represented by government figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister who has been convicted of inciting racism and supporting terrorism, and finance minister, Belazel Smotrich, who recently called for the population of Gaza to be halved by encouraging “voluntary migration”. Maj Lipsky acknowledges the civilian suffering in Gaza and does not deny the imagery of dead and maimed women and children. As we speak at his home in southern Israel, his two young children are sleeping in the next room. “There's no way to fight the war and to prosecute a military campaign without these images happening,” he says. He then uses an expression heard in the past from Israeli leaders: “You can't mow the lawn without grass flying up. It is not possible.” He says the blame belongs to Hamas who went to “randomly slaughter as many Jews as possible, women, children, soldiers”. The imperative of fighting the war has postponed a deepening struggle over the future character of the Jewish state. It is, in large part, a conflict between the secularist ideals held by people like Michael Ofer-Zif and Yuval Green, and the increasingly powerful religious right represented by the settlements movement, and their champions in Netanyahu’s cabinet, including figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Add to that the lingering, widespread anger over the government’s attempts to dilute the power of the country’s judiciary in 2023 - it led to mass demonstrations in the months before October 7 - and the stage is set for a turbulent politics long after the war ends. On both sides it is not unusual to hear people talk of a struggle for the soul of Israel. Maj Lipsky was packing to return to military duty on the evening I met him, sure of his duty and responsibility. No peace until Hamas was defeated. Among the refusers I spoke with, there was a determination to stand by their principles. Michael Ofer-Ziv may leave Israel, unsure whether he can be happy in the country. “It just looks less and less likely that I will be able to hold the values that I hold, wanting the future that I want for my kids to live here, and that is very scary,” he says. Yuval Green is training to become a doctor, and hopes that a settlement can be reached between peacemakers among the Israeli and Palestinian people. “I think in this conflict, there are only two sides, not the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. There is the side that supports violence and the side that supports, you know, finding better solutions.” There are many Israelis who would disagree with that analysis, but it won’t stop his mission.
World reaches $300 bn climate finance deal at COP29Nearly 13 months after his beloved wife Rosalynn died in November 2023, former President Jimmy Carter passed away at the age of 100, the Carter Center confirmed on Sunday. The former president made a rare public appearance at her memorial service. He sat in a wheelchair with a blanket that had a picture of him and Rosalynn together. He would also make a rare public appearance on October 1 as his hometown celebrated his 100th birthday. “Rosalynn was my equal partner in everything I ever accomplished,” President Carter said after his wife passed away. “She gave me wise guidance and encouragement when I needed it. As long as Rosalynn was in the world, I always knew somebody loved and supported me.” The couple was married for 77 years. They met as children, both growing up in Plains, Georgia. Their storied romance started when Jimmy was 17 years old. After their first date, he reportedly told his mom, “She’s the girl I want to marry.” The pair would marry not long after — in 1946. The couple moved to Norfolk, Virginia, where Jimmy was stationed after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy. Like many military families, the Carters moved from city to city. Their three sons were born in three different states: Virginia, Hawaii and Connecticut. Their only daughter was born in their home state of Georgia. Jimmy left the military in 1953 and began a career in politics about 10 years later. RELATED STORY | Former President Jimmy Carter dies at age 100 Rosalynn was reportedly an important member of Jimmy’s campaign team when he ran for governor of Georgia, a race he won in 1970. After serving four years as governor, Jimmy decided to run for president. During the campaign, Rosalynn traveled the country independently, proving to be a strong advocate for her husband’s vision for the country. Jimmy Carter would go on to defeat President Gerald Ford and become the 39th president of the United States. Rosalynn was an active first lady. She attended cabinet meetings and frequently represented her husband at ceremonial events. Rosalynn shared in her husband’s efforts to work to make the U.S. government more “competent and compassionate,” the White House said. After leaving the White House in 1981, the couple returned to Georgia. They would go on to become some of the most notable philanthropists in the world. They founded The Carter Center, which is committed to protecting human rights around the world.The NFL suspended Tennessee Titans safety Julius Wood six games on Tuesday for violating the policy on performing-enhancing substances. There are five games remaining this season for the Titans (3-9), so Wood's suspension will bleed into Week 1 of 2025. Wood, 23, went undrafted this spring and signed with the Dallas Cowboys as a free agent. They waived him in August, and he caught on with the Titans, who claimed him off waivers. Wood appeared in nine games, almost exclusively on special teams, and has recorded two tackles. --Field Level MediaNEW YORK (AP) — No ex-president had a more prolific and diverse publishing career than Jimmy Carter . His more than two dozen books included nonfiction, poetry, fiction, religious meditations and a children’s story. His memoir “An Hour Before Daylight” was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2002, while his 2006 best-seller “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” stirred a fierce debate by likening Israel’s policies in the West Bank to the brutal South African system of racial segregation. And just before his 100th birthday, the Dayton Literary Peace Prize Foundation honored him with a lifetime achievement award for how he wielded "the power of the written word to foster peace, social justice, and global understanding.” In one recent work, “A Full Life,” Carter observed that he “enjoyed writing” and that his books “provided a much-needed source of income.” But some projects were easier than others. “Everything to Gain,” a 1987 collaboration with his wife, Rosalynn, turned into the “worst threat we ever experienced in our marriage,” an intractable standoff for the facilitator of the Camp David accords and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. According to Carter, Rosalynn was a meticulous author who considered “the resulting sentences as though they have come down from Mount Sinai, carved into stone.” Their memories differed on various events and they fell into “constant arguments.” They were ready to abandon the book and return the advance, until their editor persuaded them to simply divide any disputed passages between them. “In the book, each of these paragraphs is identified by a ‘J’ or an ‘R,’ and our marriage survived,” he wrote. Here is a partial list of books by Carter: “Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President” “The Blood of Abraham: Insights into the Middle East” (With Rosalynn Carter) “Everything to Gain: Making the Most of the Rest of Your Life” “An Outdoor Journal: Adventures and Reflections” “Turning Point: A Candidate, a State, and a Nation Come of Age” “Always a Reckoning, and Other Poems” (With daughter Amy Carter) “The Little Baby Snoogle-Fleejer” “Living Faith” “The Virtues of Aging” “An Hour Before Daylight: Memories of a Rural Boyhood” “Christmas in Plains: Memories” “The Hornet’s Nest: A Novel of the Revolutionary War” “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis” “Faith & Freedom: The Christian Challenge for the World” “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” “A Remarkable Mother” “Beyond the White House” “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work” “White House Diary” “NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter” “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power” “A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety”
None
Tax Reform Bill will be passed through normal legislative process- DicksonSome Democrats are frustrated over Joe Biden reversing course and pardoning his son Hunter
Article content Quebec’s French language watchdog has reversed course, quietly updating on its website the official list of all the health and social services institutions in the province that have bilingual status. In fact, the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) is publicizing a list that increases the number of bilingual hospitals and other facilities that were founded by the anglophone community, rising from just a dozen to 69. What’s more, the OQLF is publicizing on a separate list of “ethnocultural institutions” the right of patients to be treated in Chinese at Hôpital chinois de Montréal, in Italian at Santa Cabrini Hospital and the CHSLD Dante nursing home, as well as in Polish at the CHSLD Polonais Marie-Curie Sklodowska. “ We are pleased to see some clarification brought to what was a confusing situation in terms of who could access what services in which language within Quebec’s health and social services network,” Sylvia Martin-Laforge, director-general of the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), declared in a statement on Tuesday. “It is unfortunate that it took some significant effort to persuade the government to sort out what was a needlessly confusing and complicated situation. We welcome any measure of greater clarity and simplicity when it comes to the provision of services many people only have need of in stressful situations.” The OQLF made the changes following the Coalition Avenir Québec government’s decision in September to drop a highly controversial requirement of an English eligibility certificate for “historic anglophones” to seek and receive health care in their mother tongue. The Health Ministry, at the request of French Language Minister Jean-François Roberge, had initially included the eligibility certificate in a language directive last July, but ultimately left it out of a revised set of rules in September after an outcry by anglo leaders and a series of reports in The Gazette. In one of those articles, The Gazette reported that the OQLF had not fully disclosed publicly the bilingual status of all of Quebec’s health and social services institutions, and that this lack of disclosure was an apparent violation of the Charter of the French Language. Under Article 29.1 of the charter, the Quebec government granted bilingual status to a number of municipalities, school boards and health and social services institutions. The anglophone community had fought hard for Article 29.1, and for the requirement in the language charter that the OQLF publicize the list of such bilingual institutions. But following a reform of the health-care system in 2015 that created regional authorities, the list of such institutions dropped from 39 to 12. However, the original 39 had never relinquished their bilingual status. In contrast, the updated lists now include 69 health and social services institutions of “expression anglaise,” including Jeffrey Hale-Saint Bridgid’s Hospital in Quebec City, St. Mary’s and Jewish General hospitals in Côte-des-Neiges, the Douglas Mental Health University Institute in Verdun, the McGill University Health Centre in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and the Lakeshore General Hospital in Pointe-Claire. The names of bilingual CLSC clinics and long-term care centres are also listed in Laval, the Eastern Townships, the Laurentians, the Côte Nord, Outaouais and the Montérégie. Montreal lawyer Eric Maldoff , chair of the Coalition for Quality Health and Social Services, gave as his preliminary reaction the following comment: “Oh, good. That is somewhat of an improvement. At least they are mentioning the facilities. The last time around they didn’t mention many.” Previously, the OQLF featured a drop menu on its website for users who could click on three categories: municipalities, school boards and health institutions. That drop menu has since been eliminated, and the OQLF has published the full list of bilingual municipalities, of which there are 91 across the province; and below that list, the names of 10 bilingual school boards. Above those two lists are two hyperlinks that take the user to another web page, Quebec.ca, showing the English and ethnocultural health institutions. Maldoff suggested that the OQLF publish the full list of such institutions on its web page rather than linking to Quebec.ca. Nicolas Trudel, director of communications at the OQLF, confirmed the changes on its website to The Gazette. “As the lists were already available on Quebec.ca, it was decided to redirect them from the OQLF website,” Trudel said in an email. “These lists, updated by the (health ministry), contain not only recognized establishments that are responsible for compliance (such as CISSSs and CIUSSSs administrative authorities), but also entities that benefit from recognition status within other establishments (for example, Barrie Memorial Hospital, within the CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest).” The apparent rapprochement of the OQLF toward the anglophone and allophone communities followed a protest last summer by Italian seniors in front of Santa Cabrini Hospital, just days after a “francization adviser” from the agency inspected the operating rooms to ensure the signage on the medical equipment conformed to Bill 96, the CAQ government’s overhaul of the language charter. aderfel@postmedia.com twitter.com/Aaron_DerfelRuud van Nistelrooy ‘disappointed’ and ‘hurt’ after cutting ties with Man Utd
(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister) In June 1975, the Prime Minister was honoured by the international community with two important assgnments. The first was by the International Labour Organization (ILO), where she was invited to make the keynote address to the new ILO sessions opening in Geneva. The second was by the United Nations where she was invited to make the keynote address at the First UN International Conference on Women to be held in Mexico City, Mexico. She was also due to address The Group of 77 in Geneva. Manel Abeysekera of the Foreign Ministry and I, accompanied the Prime Minister. We had three major speeches to work on. We already had drafts ready, which were the result of much work and many refinements. But we had decided to finalize them in Geneva after two of our ablest diplomats, Susantha de Alwis and Karen Breckenridge perused them. Gamani Corea was to go through the Group of 77 speech in particular. Geneva We left for Geneva on June 8, 1975 by Swissair. En route we landed at Karachi at 1 a.m. and were met at the airport by the Minister of Education and Planning of the Province of Sindh and Mr. Aga Shahi, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, who had been specially dispatched from Islamabad for the occasion. After an interesting conversation, we re-boarded and took-off. I worked through the Prime Minister’s Group of 77 speech on the plane. We couldn’t land in Geneva due to fog and were diverted to Zurich. That didn’t work either. Zurich was also fog bound. Finally, we landed at Basle. This of course meant hassle and delay. For me, this was a worry because we didn’t have much time to finalize the speeches. Susantha and his charming wife, Achala, put us all up in their official residence. Thanks to them, we were relaxed and comfortable. Breckenridge joined us later to work on the speeches. With so many important speeches, coming up so rapidly, work was hectic. Finally, by the time we finished working on the Group of 77 speech, It was 2.15 in the morning. On June10, at 10 a.m. the Prime Minister addressed the ILO and that afternoon at 3.45 p.m. the Group of 77. To our relief and satisfaction, both addresses were well received. There were several other appointments over the next couple of days, including meetings with the Director General of ILO and senior officials, as well as with various persons knowledgeable on issues of development. We had also to put the finishing touches on the Prime Minister’s address to the conference on Women. Manel and I worked on that. Mexico City We next left for Mexico. The journey took us through Houston where there was a refueling stop. Shirley Amerasinghe, our Permanent Representative at the UN was at the airport when we landed. I took the opportunity to show him the speech and inquired whether he had any views. Shirley thought the speech “excellent.” We were pleased that an experienced internationalist like Shirley had this opinion. At the airport at Mexico City, the Prime Minister and party were met by the Foreign Minister; Minister of the Interior; and the Minister for the Presidency and their wives. We were lodged at the Hotel Camino Real, which was both spacious and comfortable. On June 18 at 10.30 a.m. the Prime Minister called on President Ecchevaria. Talks between the two sides went on till I p.m. and encompassed both bilateral affairs and trade, as well as international affairs. The discussions were friendly and open. There was some delay due to translations. At 1.30 p.m. the President hosted the Prime Minister and delegation to lunch. The Mexican Cabinet; the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court; other local dignitaries and the diplomatic corps were present. After coming back to the hotel I telephoned Jayantha Dhanapala of the Foreign Service, at our Embassy in Washington and read out the text of a long statement, which I had drafted for the Sri Lanka newspapers. Since we didn’t have an embassy in Mexico, communications were a problem. The Prime Minister’s address itself to the conference went off very well and we believe that she received somewhat more than the customary compliments paid to speakers on such occasions. Our stay in Mexico, though brief was a crowded one with lunches, cultural shows and some sightseeing thrown in which included a visit to the excellent national museum. At one of these lunches hosted by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the Shah of Iran, and which included Ms. Imelda Marcos, I was one of the very few males present. The conversation was wide ranging and interesting with an emphasis on art, culture and social issues. Just before we left for home, Mr. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden called on the Prime Minister in her hotel. The youthful looking Mr. Palme had a reputation for being a radical. He had participated in marches and demonstrations in Sweden against the American intervention in the Vietnam War. At the discussions, he displayed a quiet, soft-spoken style. The Mexican Minister of Trade called on the Prime Minister before her departure. At this discussion Mexico agreed to issue licenses for a larger quantity of Sri Lankan cinnamon. At the airport, Valentina Teresckova, the Soviet woman cosmonaut came to meet the Prime Minister. It was a meeting between the first woman in space and the first woman Prime Minister. Katchativu and the settlement of issues with India From, about 1973, the Prime Minister was turning her attention to solving the only two outstanding issues with India, that of the ownership of the Island of Katchativu off the Northern coast of Sri Lanka; and that of the remaining 150,000 settlers of Indian origin in the country, which had not been covered by the Sirima-Shastri Pact. Katchativu was a tiny barren island in a part of the sea between Sri Lanka and India where fishermen of both countries engaged in fishing. At certain times of the year, Indian fishermen used to dry their nets on this rocky island. There was also a Catholic festival held there annually by the Sri Lanka Church, attended mostly by fishermen and their families. Katchativu was therefore being used for different purposes by the fishermen of both countries. Traditionally, however, Sri Lanka always considered the tiny island hers. The difference of views with India lay in the fact that there was no legal resolution of ownership. The issue was most important to a small country like Sri Lanka. India was one of the largest countries in the World. To Sri Lanka, it was considered vital to demarcate her maritime boundary in the North, and for this too the status of Katchativu was important. This was furthermore an area, which due to fishing by people of both countries, it was very necessary to properly demarcate the maritime boundary in order to minimize disputes. The law of the Sea Conference and the proposed 200 mile limit of sea which was to come within the sovereignty of countries was a factor which added to the importance of the resolution of this issue. Official contacts were therefore made with India, and a process of discussions begun. To complicate matters for us, it was discovered that some vitally important papers on the subject were missing from the Foreign Ministry files. One would not however like to speculate on a matter such as this. However, papers available in the National Archives helped. The Prime Minister in her meetings and contacts with Mrs. Gandhi had broached the necessity of resolving the outstanding issues with India. The two Prime Ministers got on well together and had established considerable rapport, a relationship going back the good relations between the Bandaranaike and Nehru families. Mrs. Bandaranaike was therefore keen that the existing favourable political configuration in the two countries should be used without delay to resolve our common problems. The Indian Prime Minister agreed. She had enormous problems on her hands including political turmoil, separatist tendencies and guerilla action in several parts of the country. The problems with Sri Lanka were not intractable ones, and she herself obviously thought that the time had come to get them out of the way and have some degree of stability and peace on her Southern border. A friendly Sri Lanka was in India’s interest. The virulent anti-Indian rhetoric by the JVP during 1969-71 which included the holding of clandestine classes for its cadres where an important lesson was on “Indian domination”, was a recent demonstration of the potential to inspire fear and hatred. This was another factor taken into account by Mrs. Bandaranaike in developing a policy on the quick resolution of problems with India. The two sides therefore, engaged in a process of discussions. These discussions were ongoing in a quiet manner when in mid-1974 India exploded a nuclear device in the Rajasthan desert. A cacophony of condemnation arose all over the world. The shrill condemnation that followed could not be dignified with the word “chorus.” India was depicted in the world’s press, and particularly in the Western press as some kind of sanctimonious humbug which preached non-violence, Ahimsa and arms control on the one hand, but practiced something else on the other. It was at the height of this situation that one day I dropped in at Temple Trees in the morning to get some urgent letters signed by the Prime Minister. When I reached there, I found the Prime Minister seated at the large dining table attending to work with W T Jayasinghe. I was about to take a seat in the verandah, when she saw me and invited me in. I found that WT was also finishing his work. He asked me whether I could give him a lift back to the Ministry, since he had sent his car somewhere else. I said that it wouldn’t be a problem. Both of us finished soon thereafter and WT loaded a large number of files into my car. We set off soon thereafter for the five-minute run to Republic Square. During the trip, WT told me that the Prime minister was sending a tiff note about the testing of the nuclear device and that she had signed the letter. I was quite appalled. I told WT, that I did not know the content and tone of the letter, since I had not seen it, but that I hoped that the close relationship between the two Prime Ministers and the on-going discussions on Katchativu and other matters had been taken into account in drafting the letter. I ended by saying that I hoped that our overall national interest had been properly assessed in sending this communication at this time. W T became somewhat agitated by what I said. He had the objectivity to say, “No I don’t think we had thought about matters to that extent.” I shrugged. He then pulled out the file and showed me the letter. I took one look and said that we might as well abandon our on-going discussions with India. The letter was a typical foreign Ministry sectoral, one-dimensional draft, which had only a thought of the issues of non-proliferation and non-alignment. It was clear that no thought had been given to the course of bilateral relations, strategic considerations, or an assessment of Sri Lanka’s overall national interest. WT by now was considerably alarmed. We had now reached the end of our short journey. He said, he wanted to come to my room to discuss matters further. Indeed, by now, he was convinced that the letter was a mistake. He wanted me to do an alternate draft. I said that I would do so only if he would place both drafts before the Prime Minister, not telling her who drafted the alternative, until she had decided which one to send. This was too important a matter for any bias to creep in. I thereupon changed the whole tenor of the letter from one of protestations and criticism to what I thought was a more balanced approach. India was congratulated on her achievements in Science and Technology and our satisfaction at this record mentioned. But the Prime Minister urged caution on going the nuclear route and she said that she was encouraged by the Indian Prime Minister’s statement that India would not develop a nuclear arsenal. (The various reasons why India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons later would be a matter for study, debate and even controversy. But this was 1974, and we had to react at that time.) Suitable reference was also made to the issue of the Non-Aligned stance on nuclear proliferation. The whole tenor or the letter was an expression or admiration and recognition of India’s achievements in science and technology, but at the same time a friendly expression of concern about the prospect of nuclear proliferation. WT’ thought that my draft was much better. I soon forgot about it amidst other work. A few days later WT walked into my room. He had done what I had suggested and the two drafts had been placed before the Prime Minister. She had immediately reacted, and had angrily asked, who had done the first draft. She had stated that the second draft was the one that really reflected her views, and that she was misled into signing the first. It was only at this point that WT had mentioned who the author of the second draft was. This whole episode brings up some interesting points. In the first instance, it was by sheer accident that there was ever a second draft. The earlier letter would have been disastrous. This surmise indeed was subsequently proved by the Indian Prime Minister’s warm and lengthy response to the Prime Minister’s letter. This was a time, when Mrs. Gandhi was having serious internal problems in India too. The reply was an outpouring from the heart of a beleaguered leader to one whom she could trust. Amongst many candid and personal matters contained in the reply, there was gratitude expressed for Mrs. Bandaranaike’s understanding and vision. The relationship could have ended up being quite different.The world approved a bitterly negotiated climate deal Sunday committing wealthy historic polluters to $300 billion annually for poor and vulnerable nations that had demanded far more to confront the crisis of global warming. After two exhaustive weeks of chaotic bargaining and sleepless nights, nearly 200 nations banged through the contentious finance pact in the early hours beneath a sports stadium roof in Azerbaijan. Nations had struggled to reconcile long-standing divisions over climate finance. Sleep-deprived diplomats, huddled in anxious groups, were still revising the final phrasing on the plenary floor before the deal passed. At points, the talks appeared on the brink of collapse, with developing nations storming out of meetings and threatening to walk away should rich nations not cough up more cash. In the end -- despite repeating that no deal is better than a bad deal -- they did not stand in the way of an agreement, despite it falling well short of what they want. The final deal commits developed nations to pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developed countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters. That is up from $100 billion now provided by wealthy nations under a commitment set to expire -- and from the $250 billion proposed in a draft Friday. That offer was slammed as offensively low by developing countries, which have demanded at least $500 billion to build resilience against climate change and cut emissions. A number of countries have accused Azerbaijan, an authoritarian oil and gas exporter, of lacking the experience and will to meet the moment, as the planet again sets temperature records and faces rising deadly disasters. Wealthy countries and small island nations have also been concerned by efforts led by Saudi Arabia to water down calls from last year's summit to phase out fossil fuels. The United States and EU have wanted newly wealthy emerging economies like China -- the world's largest emitter -- to chip in. The final draft encouraged developing countries to make contributions on a voluntary basis, reflecting no change for China which already pays climate finance on its own terms. Wealthy nations said it was politically unrealistic to expect more in direct government funding. Donald Trump, a sceptic of both climate change and foreign assistance, returns to the White House in January and a number of other Western countries have seen right-wing backlashes against the green agenda. The deal posits a larger overall target of $1.3 trillion per year to cope with rising temperatures and disasters, but most would come from private sources. bur-np-sct/lth/jj
WNBA Superstar Caitlin Clark in Running for Ownership Stake in Another Sport