July 25, 2018.
Imran Khan: The World Cup-winning cricket captain hoping to become Pakistan's new prime minister
Legendary sportsman and philanthropist seeking to lead PTI to victory at the polls has attracted criticism over right-wing views
Joe Sommerlad
Imran Khan, Pakistan’s legendary World Cup-winning cricket captain, is vying to become the country’s new prime minister as voters go to the polls on Wednesday.
Leader of the centre-right Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Mr Khan, 65, is running on an anti-corruption platform against the conservative Pakistan Muslim League (PML).
His opposition is the party of ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, jailed over a scandal relating to the undisclosed channelling of funds through offshore companies to bankroll the acquisition of luxury flats in London, which was exposed by the Panama Papers leak in 2015.
An interim government under PML’s current president Shehbaz Sharif, younger brother of the disgraced PM, has run the country since his incarceration.
Mr Khan founded PTI in 1996 and has served as a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan since 2013, proving himself an outspoken figure on many divisive social issues.
Critics of his candidacy suggest he has received excessive support as the preferred candidate of the country's powerful military. He has also faced criticism for courting a group of independent political veterans known as "electables" who will offer their allegiance to the party of the highest bidder, rather than backing candidates best equipped to serve the public.
Born in Lahore on 5 October 1952, the only son of affluent civil engineer Ikramullah Khan Niazi and his wife Shaukat Khanum, Imran Khan was sent to England as a boy and educated at Aitchison College in Worcester before attending Keble College, Oxford.
Isis claims huge suicide bomb attack during Pakistan election
He made his cricketing debut for Pakistan aged 18 in 1971. An extremely gifted all-rounder, Mr Khan captained the national side between 1982 and 1992, leading them to glory at the 1992 World Cup at the tail end of an illustrious career that saw him make 3,807 runs and take 362 wickets.
He played for Worcestershire in English county cricket and was inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame in 2010, the same year a big screen biopic, Kaptaan: The Making of a Legend, hit cinemas.
After retiring from the sport Mr Khan turned his hand to philanthropy, working to promote immunisation programmes in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Thailand and founding the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust in honour of his mother.
The trust opened Pakistan’s first dedicated cancer hospital in 1991.
Like Liberian footballer George Weah and Senegalese musician Baaba Maal, Mr Khan subsequently decided to put his national fame to political use, founding PTI and making headlines through his persistent criticism of General Pervez Musharraf during the period of military rule between 1999 and 2008.
More controversially, he has been critical of progressive feminist causes, advocated embracing radical religious groups (including some linked to the Taliban, earning him the nickname “Taliban Khan”) and pledged to uphold the country’s strict blasphemy laws, which can leave critics of Islam facing the death penalty.
In 2013, he led PTI protests against alleged vote rigging in that year’s general election after his party received just 19 per cent of the vote and played an integral role in calling for the criminal investigation into the business affairs of Nawaz Sharif over the Panama Papers affair.
Pakistan general election: vote turns violent after suicide bombing
21
show all
Mr Khan has also been a vocal opponent of American military intervention in Afghanistan and the use of drone strikes, saying US president Donald Trump “neither understands the history of Pakistan nor the character of the Afghan people”.
In his personal life, Imran Khan has enjoyed a reputation as something of a playboy, known for his friendship with Mick Jagger and marriage to journalist Jemima Goldsmith in 1995.
She converted to Islam and the couple had two children together before divorcing in 2004, after which she became a subject of British tabloid fascination over her relationships with actor Hugh Grant and comedian Russell Brand.
He has been married twice since: to Rehman Khan – another journalist, who has written an as-yet-unpublished and potentially explosive memoir about their 10 months together – and to spiritual adviser and mother of five Bushra Manika since February of this year.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Death Valley Burns at a High of 127 Degrees as Heat Radiates Across U.S. Southwest - TIME
Death Valley Burns at a High of 127 Degrees as Heat Radiates Across U.S. Southwest
Humberto Berlanga, center, wipes sweat from his face while waiting in the heat in line at the Gold & Silver Pawn shop, July 24, 2018, in Las Vegas.
By ANITA SNOW / AP 10:37 PM EDT
(PHOENIX) — Scorching heat radiated across the U.S. Southwest on Tuesday, setting record highs in California’s Death Valley, Thermal and Palm Springs in a week that forecasters say could prove to be the region’s hottest this year.
The National Weather Service said a new high of 127 degrees (52.7 Celsius) was set at California’s Death Valley. Weather service forecaster Chris Outler in Las Vegas said the record broke the previous one of 126 (52 Celsius) registered for the day in 1916.
He said Las Vegas reached a high of 112 (44 Celsius) on Tuesday, but that wasn’t a record for the day.
The weather service said other record highs set Tuesday included 122 (50 Celsius) in Thermal, in California’s Coachella Valley, and 121 (49.4 Celsius) in Palm Springs.
Forecaster Andrew Deemer said the Phoenix high of 116 (46 Celsius) on Tuesday was tied with the previous record set in 2014.
A high of 124 degrees (51 Celsius) was forecast in Death Valley and was expected to nudge up a few more degrees on Thursday as Arizona and parts of California, Utah and Nevada remained under an excessive heat warning. Highs up to 111 were expected Tuesday in Las Vegas.
Phoenix was also forecast to be among the hottest urban areas in the Southwest, with highs passing 100 (38 Celsius) by midmorning and hitting 113 (46 degrees) by early afternoon.
“The hottest weather of the year will persist the next several days with near record highs for many locations,” the National Weather Service in Phoenix said. “After this period of hot and dry weather for the majority of the area, better moisture will arrive back into the region late in the week.”
Forecasters extended the excessive heat warning for Arizona’s Grand Canyon through Thursday, with highs in the South Rim area expected in the low 90s.
The weather agency uses a complicated formula that varies from region to region to declare an excessive heat warning, including close to record or record-breaking temperatures.
In California, power grid operators called for cutbacks in electricity usage as parts of the U.S. Southwest dealt with another day of scorching heat.
With triple-digit temperatures forecast across the region, the California Independent System Operator Corp. urged people to ease off blasting air conditioners or using washing machines or other appliances during the peak power usage times of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health also urged people to stay out of the sun.
“When temperatures are high, even a few hours of exertion may cause severe dehydration, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke,” said Dr. Jeffrey Gunzenhauser, the county’s interim health officer.
Children, the elderly and pets shouldn’t be left in homes without air conditioning or in cars even with open windows because temperatures can quickly soar to life-threatening levels, he said.
Phoenix on Monday recorded a sweltering 115 degrees (46 Celsius), breaking the previous record for the day, according to the weather service office.
With some of the highest Southwest temperatures over the next few days expected in Phoenix, officials cautioned people to stay hydrated and take advantage of cooler indoor buildings.
“Nationwide, heat is the #1 heat-related killer,” the weather service in Phoenix said on its website.
Humberto Berlanga, center, wipes sweat from his face while waiting in the heat in line at the Gold & Silver Pawn shop, July 24, 2018, in Las Vegas.
By ANITA SNOW / AP 10:37 PM EDT
(PHOENIX) — Scorching heat radiated across the U.S. Southwest on Tuesday, setting record highs in California’s Death Valley, Thermal and Palm Springs in a week that forecasters say could prove to be the region’s hottest this year.
The National Weather Service said a new high of 127 degrees (52.7 Celsius) was set at California’s Death Valley. Weather service forecaster Chris Outler in Las Vegas said the record broke the previous one of 126 (52 Celsius) registered for the day in 1916.
He said Las Vegas reached a high of 112 (44 Celsius) on Tuesday, but that wasn’t a record for the day.
The weather service said other record highs set Tuesday included 122 (50 Celsius) in Thermal, in California’s Coachella Valley, and 121 (49.4 Celsius) in Palm Springs.
Forecaster Andrew Deemer said the Phoenix high of 116 (46 Celsius) on Tuesday was tied with the previous record set in 2014.
A high of 124 degrees (51 Celsius) was forecast in Death Valley and was expected to nudge up a few more degrees on Thursday as Arizona and parts of California, Utah and Nevada remained under an excessive heat warning. Highs up to 111 were expected Tuesday in Las Vegas.
Phoenix was also forecast to be among the hottest urban areas in the Southwest, with highs passing 100 (38 Celsius) by midmorning and hitting 113 (46 degrees) by early afternoon.
“The hottest weather of the year will persist the next several days with near record highs for many locations,” the National Weather Service in Phoenix said. “After this period of hot and dry weather for the majority of the area, better moisture will arrive back into the region late in the week.”
Forecasters extended the excessive heat warning for Arizona’s Grand Canyon through Thursday, with highs in the South Rim area expected in the low 90s.
The weather agency uses a complicated formula that varies from region to region to declare an excessive heat warning, including close to record or record-breaking temperatures.
In California, power grid operators called for cutbacks in electricity usage as parts of the U.S. Southwest dealt with another day of scorching heat.
With triple-digit temperatures forecast across the region, the California Independent System Operator Corp. urged people to ease off blasting air conditioners or using washing machines or other appliances during the peak power usage times of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health also urged people to stay out of the sun.
“When temperatures are high, even a few hours of exertion may cause severe dehydration, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke,” said Dr. Jeffrey Gunzenhauser, the county’s interim health officer.
Children, the elderly and pets shouldn’t be left in homes without air conditioning or in cars even with open windows because temperatures can quickly soar to life-threatening levels, he said.
Phoenix on Monday recorded a sweltering 115 degrees (46 Celsius), breaking the previous record for the day, according to the weather service office.
With some of the highest Southwest temperatures over the next few days expected in Phoenix, officials cautioned people to stay hydrated and take advantage of cooler indoor buildings.
“Nationwide, heat is the #1 heat-related killer,” the weather service in Phoenix said on its website.
The Queen has a secret speech if World War 3 breaks out. This is what it says - Independent
The Queen has a secret speech if World War 3 breaks out. This is what it says
Posted March 24, 2018 by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
The Queen has many planned speeches, including one that the Queen will read to the citizens of Britain in the event of nuclear war, a prospect that was made more real through the actions of Russia in the last few months.
In September 2017, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenkow warned that Russia was preparing its forces for war in Eastern Europe.
In an address to Ukrainian parliament he said:
There are no signs at the moment that Moscow would be ready to pull back from Donbass or leave Crimea.
In fact, there is more and more evidence for its preparations for an offensive war of continental proportions.
And of course, there's the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, which was led to Prime Minister Theresa May giving 23 diplomats identified as "undeclared intelligence officers" just one week to leave the UK.
In reference to the UK's response to the poisoning of Skripal, Russian ambassador to the UK Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko has said the government's response has been "absolutely unacceptable" and is being considered a "provocation".
And that's all before we even consider North Korea, the Trump administration and the ongoing fight against ISIS.
With that in mind, lin 2017 the BBC reported the Queen already has a speech written in the eventuality of World War 3. This is what it says.
The Queen's Speech.
The speech was originally written in 1983, during the height of the Cold War, and was made public in 2013 under the 30-year rule by the National Archives.
Certain aspects of the speech are now outdated, such as Prince Andrew being in action for the Royal Navy, but it remains a prescient and sobering text.
Written as if The Queen was broadcasting the message at midday on Friday 4 March 1983, she starts by reflecting on the recent joys of Christmas before personally sharing the sadness she felt when World War II was announced.
The BBC quote the speech as saying:
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's [George VI's] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 [at the start of the World War II].
Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.
She adds that the terror now comes from technology rather than soldiers or airmen.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history.
The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
Her Royal Highness goes on to emphasise the importance of family in such troubling times before concluding:
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil, let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God Bless you all.
The speech was devised as part of the war gaming exercise which envisioned how the UK would respond to a potential nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.
We certainly hope that we never have to hear a version of this speech, but if you want to read it you can find it below:
When I spoke to you less than three months ago we were all enjoying the warmth and fellowship of a family Christmas. Our thoughts were concentrated on the strong links that bind each generation to the ones that came before and those that will follow. The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth.
Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history. The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength. My husband and I share with families up and down the land the fear we feel for sons and daughters, husbands and brothers who have left our side to serve their country. My beloved son Andrew is at this moment in action with his unit and we pray continually for his safety and for the safety of all servicemen and women at home and overseas.
It is this close bond of family life that must be our greatest defence against the unknown. If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country's will to survive cannot be broken.
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God bless you all.
Posted March 24, 2018 by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
The Queen has many planned speeches, including one that the Queen will read to the citizens of Britain in the event of nuclear war, a prospect that was made more real through the actions of Russia in the last few months.
In September 2017, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenkow warned that Russia was preparing its forces for war in Eastern Europe.
In an address to Ukrainian parliament he said:
There are no signs at the moment that Moscow would be ready to pull back from Donbass or leave Crimea.
In fact, there is more and more evidence for its preparations for an offensive war of continental proportions.
And of course, there's the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil, which was led to Prime Minister Theresa May giving 23 diplomats identified as "undeclared intelligence officers" just one week to leave the UK.
In reference to the UK's response to the poisoning of Skripal, Russian ambassador to the UK Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko has said the government's response has been "absolutely unacceptable" and is being considered a "provocation".
And that's all before we even consider North Korea, the Trump administration and the ongoing fight against ISIS.
With that in mind, lin 2017 the BBC reported the Queen already has a speech written in the eventuality of World War 3. This is what it says.
The Queen's Speech.
The speech was originally written in 1983, during the height of the Cold War, and was made public in 2013 under the 30-year rule by the National Archives.
Certain aspects of the speech are now outdated, such as Prince Andrew being in action for the Royal Navy, but it remains a prescient and sobering text.
Written as if The Queen was broadcasting the message at midday on Friday 4 March 1983, she starts by reflecting on the recent joys of Christmas before personally sharing the sadness she felt when World War II was announced.
The BBC quote the speech as saying:
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's [George VI's] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 [at the start of the World War II].
Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.
She adds that the terror now comes from technology rather than soldiers or airmen.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history.
The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
Her Royal Highness goes on to emphasise the importance of family in such troubling times before concluding:
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil, let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God Bless you all.
The speech was devised as part of the war gaming exercise which envisioned how the UK would respond to a potential nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.
We certainly hope that we never have to hear a version of this speech, but if you want to read it you can find it below:
When I spoke to you less than three months ago we were all enjoying the warmth and fellowship of a family Christmas. Our thoughts were concentrated on the strong links that bind each generation to the ones that came before and those that will follow. The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth.
Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.
I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history. The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.
But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength. My husband and I share with families up and down the land the fear we feel for sons and daughters, husbands and brothers who have left our side to serve their country. My beloved son Andrew is at this moment in action with his unit and we pray continually for his safety and for the safety of all servicemen and women at home and overseas.
It is this close bond of family life that must be our greatest defence against the unknown. If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country's will to survive cannot be broken.
My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.
As we strive together to fight off the new evil let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.
God bless you all.
EU prepares retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion of U.S. goods - Reuters
JULY 25, 2018
EU prepares retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion of U.S. goods
Johan Ahlander, Paul Carrel
STOCKHOLM/BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Commission is drawing up a list of $20 billion of U.S. goods to hit with duties if Washington imposes tariffs on imported cars, European Union trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said on the eve of her boss’s meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump.
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom attends an interview with Reuters in Geneva, Switzerland June 4, 2018. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse - RC1E163C7000
Malmstrom is in Washington for talks on trade, with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker due on Wednesday to meet Trump in a bid to stop the United States from extending its import tariffs on EU steel and aluminum to cars and car parts.
“We hope that it doesn’t come to that and that we can find a solution. If not, the EU Commission is preparing a rather long list of many American goods. It would be around $20 billion,” Malmstrom told Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on Wednesday.
In response to the U.S. metals tariffs, the EU has already imposed its own import duties on 2.8 billion euros ($3.3 billion) worth of U.S. goods, including products like bourbon and motorcycles that are made in some of the electoral districts that supported Trump.
Malmstrom said the next potential round of EU tariffs would not target specific U.S. states.
“No, now it’s more general goods such as agricultural products, machinery, high-tech products and other things,” she said.
The Commission briefed EU countries last week on the bloc’s possible response, saying in theory it could hit 9 billion euros of U.S. goods, according to EU sources.
Metal coils are seen at ArcelorMittal steel plant in Ghent, Belgium, May 22, 2018. REUTERS/Yves Herman
However, some EU diplomats said the Commission was also looking at going for double that amount - to the level Malmstrom is suggesting - at half the duty rate.
A formal proposal would only come after the U.S. Commerce Department completed its investigation into whether car imports threaten national security. The report’s deadline is February 2019, but it is now expected by late August/early September.
MODERATED OPTIMISM
The European Commission, which handles trade policy on behalf of the EU’s 28 members, has insisted that Juncker is seeking to open a dialogue with Trump, rather than to negotiate.
EU officials have also downplayed the idea that Juncker is arriving with a novel trade offer.
EU budget commissioner Guenther Oettinger suggested the EU would be ready to discuss mutual tariff cuts provided the Washington lifts punitive metals tariffs first.
He told broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that the two could try to forge a lighter version of the planned U.S.-European trade deal known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP negotiations were stalled after Trump’s 2016 election victory.
Business confidence in Oettinger’s homeland, Germany, the largest EU exporter of cars to the United States, weakened in July, with the threat of a trade war increasing uncertainty.
Trump on Tuesday tweeted that the EU was coming to negotiate a trade deal.
“I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready - but they won’t!” Trump wrote.
Malmstrom indicated she was not expecting a breakthrough.
“Basically, I’m an optimistic person, but heading in to this I’m moderately optimistic. But one must always try,” she told the Swedish newspaper.
She added that she did not think the U.S. proposal to drop tariffs, barriers and subsidies was serious, pointing out that the U.S. has laws, such as the Buy American Act, protecting its industries and agricultural policies supporting its farmers.
“We tried earlier in TTIP negotiations to make the United States loosen those laws,” Malmstrom said. “It was completely impossible. They did not move a millimeter.”
Writing by Philip Blenkinsop, editing by Larry King
EU prepares retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion of U.S. goods
Johan Ahlander, Paul Carrel
STOCKHOLM/BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Commission is drawing up a list of $20 billion of U.S. goods to hit with duties if Washington imposes tariffs on imported cars, European Union trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said on the eve of her boss’s meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump.
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom attends an interview with Reuters in Geneva, Switzerland June 4, 2018. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse - RC1E163C7000
Malmstrom is in Washington for talks on trade, with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker due on Wednesday to meet Trump in a bid to stop the United States from extending its import tariffs on EU steel and aluminum to cars and car parts.
“We hope that it doesn’t come to that and that we can find a solution. If not, the EU Commission is preparing a rather long list of many American goods. It would be around $20 billion,” Malmstrom told Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on Wednesday.
In response to the U.S. metals tariffs, the EU has already imposed its own import duties on 2.8 billion euros ($3.3 billion) worth of U.S. goods, including products like bourbon and motorcycles that are made in some of the electoral districts that supported Trump.
Malmstrom said the next potential round of EU tariffs would not target specific U.S. states.
“No, now it’s more general goods such as agricultural products, machinery, high-tech products and other things,” she said.
The Commission briefed EU countries last week on the bloc’s possible response, saying in theory it could hit 9 billion euros of U.S. goods, according to EU sources.
Metal coils are seen at ArcelorMittal steel plant in Ghent, Belgium, May 22, 2018. REUTERS/Yves Herman
However, some EU diplomats said the Commission was also looking at going for double that amount - to the level Malmstrom is suggesting - at half the duty rate.
A formal proposal would only come after the U.S. Commerce Department completed its investigation into whether car imports threaten national security. The report’s deadline is February 2019, but it is now expected by late August/early September.
MODERATED OPTIMISM
The European Commission, which handles trade policy on behalf of the EU’s 28 members, has insisted that Juncker is seeking to open a dialogue with Trump, rather than to negotiate.
EU officials have also downplayed the idea that Juncker is arriving with a novel trade offer.
EU budget commissioner Guenther Oettinger suggested the EU would be ready to discuss mutual tariff cuts provided the Washington lifts punitive metals tariffs first.
He told broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that the two could try to forge a lighter version of the planned U.S.-European trade deal known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP negotiations were stalled after Trump’s 2016 election victory.
Business confidence in Oettinger’s homeland, Germany, the largest EU exporter of cars to the United States, weakened in July, with the threat of a trade war increasing uncertainty.
Trump on Tuesday tweeted that the EU was coming to negotiate a trade deal.
“I have an idea for them. Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready - but they won’t!” Trump wrote.
Malmstrom indicated she was not expecting a breakthrough.
“Basically, I’m an optimistic person, but heading in to this I’m moderately optimistic. But one must always try,” she told the Swedish newspaper.
She added that she did not think the U.S. proposal to drop tariffs, barriers and subsidies was serious, pointing out that the U.S. has laws, such as the Buy American Act, protecting its industries and agricultural policies supporting its farmers.
“We tried earlier in TTIP negotiations to make the United States loosen those laws,” Malmstrom said. “It was completely impossible. They did not move a millimeter.”
Writing by Philip Blenkinsop, editing by Larry King
A majority thinks Russia has dirt on Trump, a new poll shows - CNBC News
A majority thinks Russia has dirt on Trump, a new poll shows
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
His overall approval rating now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval, according to the poll.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
John W. Schoen | @johnwschoen
Published on July 24, 2018
CNBC.com
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
Grigory Dukor | Reuters
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
It's been a week since President Donald Trump’s widely panned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans believes the Kremlin has compromising information on the American leader.
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
At a press conference in Helsinki on July 16, Trump stunned the world by accepting Putin's denial that Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election, thus contradicting the findings of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
“I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia,” Trump said. He tried to walk it back a day later by saying he had misspoken.
Trump’s performance at the summit, widely criticized on Capitol Hill by both parties, has raised further suspicions that Moscow has collected compromising material on the president as part of a wider campaign to influence the American political system. Allegations of the existence of such material surfaced with the disclosure of a dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer who was paid by Democrats to collect damaging information on Trump during the 2016 campaign.
The new poll also showed a decline in Americans' approval of Trump's overall job performance. His approval now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval. His approval rating fell five points from a June 20 Quinnipiac poll that followed the president’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
Republicans largely stand behind the president when it comes to Russia. Only 18 percent of GOP voters believe that Moscow has such information on Trump; some 70 percent say they don’t think the allegations are true, the latest Quinnipiac poll found.
Another silver lining for the president: Voters overall aren't convinced that Trump himself colluded with Russia to interfere in the election, by a 48-to-39 percent margin. But they’re divided on whether the Trump campaign in general did so; some 46 percent say it did, and 44 percent say it did not.
Overall, voters deemed the Helsinki summit a failure for the U.S., by a 52-to-27 percent margin. Some 73 percent believe the summit was a success for Russia. Trump was not acting in the best interest of the U.S., according to 54 percent of voters surveyed. And 78 percent of voters said Trump should defend all of America's NATO allies.
The Helsinki summit left 68 percent of American voters "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about President Trump's relationship with Russia.
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
His overall approval rating now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval, according to the poll.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
John W. Schoen | @johnwschoen
Published on July 24, 2018
CNBC.com
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
Grigory Dukor | Reuters
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland July 16, 2018.
It's been a week since President Donald Trump’s widely panned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a new poll shows that a majority of Americans believes the Kremlin has compromising information on the American leader.
By a 51-to-35 percent margin, U.S. voters are convinced the Russian government has dirt on Trump, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll.
At a press conference in Helsinki on July 16, Trump stunned the world by accepting Putin's denial that Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election, thus contradicting the findings of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
“I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia,” Trump said. He tried to walk it back a day later by saying he had misspoken.
Trump’s performance at the summit, widely criticized on Capitol Hill by both parties, has raised further suspicions that Moscow has collected compromising material on the president as part of a wider campaign to influence the American political system. Allegations of the existence of such material surfaced with the disclosure of a dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer who was paid by Democrats to collect damaging information on Trump during the 2016 campaign.
The new poll also showed a decline in Americans' approval of Trump's overall job performance. His approval now sits at 38 percent, compared with 58 percent disapproval. His approval rating fell five points from a June 20 Quinnipiac poll that followed the president’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that Trump's rating is underwater by nearly 10 points.
Republicans largely stand behind the president when it comes to Russia. Only 18 percent of GOP voters believe that Moscow has such information on Trump; some 70 percent say they don’t think the allegations are true, the latest Quinnipiac poll found.
Another silver lining for the president: Voters overall aren't convinced that Trump himself colluded with Russia to interfere in the election, by a 48-to-39 percent margin. But they’re divided on whether the Trump campaign in general did so; some 46 percent say it did, and 44 percent say it did not.
Overall, voters deemed the Helsinki summit a failure for the U.S., by a 52-to-27 percent margin. Some 73 percent believe the summit was a success for Russia. Trump was not acting in the best interest of the U.S., according to 54 percent of voters surveyed. And 78 percent of voters said Trump should defend all of America's NATO allies.
The Helsinki summit left 68 percent of American voters "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about President Trump's relationship with Russia.
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific bow to China Taiwan pressure - BBC News
July 25, 2018
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific bow to China Taiwan pressure
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific have become the latest carriers to change how they refer to Taiwan online, bowing to pressure from China.
Beijing set 25 July as a deadline for companies and airlines to remove references to Taiwan as anything but a Chinese territory on their websites.
The US carriers just lists Taipei, but Cathay refers to it as part of China.
Taiwan has been self-ruling since 1949 but China regards it as a breakaway province to be reunited one day.
The move was dismissed by the White House in May as "Orwellian nonsense", but many global carriers including Lufthansa, Air France-KLM and Qantas decided to comply with the demand coming out of one of the world's biggest aviation markets.
A number of US airlines, however, held out and currently United Airlines continues to list the city of Taipei as being in "TW" on their website.
American Airlines spokeswoman Shannon Gilson told the BBC in an email response: "Like other carriers, American is implementing changes to address China's request. Air travel is global business, and we abide by the rules in countries where we operate".
Cathay Pacific told the BBC in a statement the carrier was a registered airline "of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People's Republic of China. HKSAR is also where our operations are based. We must comply with the regulations and requirements of the relevant civil aviation authorities."
The issue has always been highly sensitive for Beijing, but in recent years it has become increasingly active in clamping down on perceived violations of its territorial claims.
Taipei is listed without giving any country name on the American Airlines website
In April, China's Civil Aviation Administration wrote to more than 40 airlines worldwide telling them to abide by its laws and regulations and sovereignty claims, and threatening sanctions should they not fall in line.
Beijing demanded that neither Taiwan and Hong Kong nor Macau should be listed as separate places in for instance drop-down menus of company websites.
China warns Western firms over Taiwan
British Airways, Germany's Lufthansa, Air France and Singapore Airlines all list Taipei as in "Taiwan, China". Australia's Qantas in June also gave in to Chinese demands leading to the government in Canberra criticising Chinese "pressure" over the situation.
"Private companies should be free to conduct their usual business operations free from political pressure of governments," Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said at the time.
Just before the deadline, United lists Taipei as being in 'TW'
China's vociferous defence of its territorial claims is not just directed at the airline industry.
Earlier this year US clothing company GAP apologised for selling T-shirts with a map of China which did not show Taiwan and other disputed territories.
Japanese retail chain Muji recently has been fined in China for listing Taiwan as a country on some of its packaging.
Hotel chain Marriott also briefly had its Chinese website suspended for listing Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as separate countries in a customer questionnaire.
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific bow to China Taiwan pressure
American Airlines, Delta and Cathay Pacific have become the latest carriers to change how they refer to Taiwan online, bowing to pressure from China.
Beijing set 25 July as a deadline for companies and airlines to remove references to Taiwan as anything but a Chinese territory on their websites.
The US carriers just lists Taipei, but Cathay refers to it as part of China.
Taiwan has been self-ruling since 1949 but China regards it as a breakaway province to be reunited one day.
The move was dismissed by the White House in May as "Orwellian nonsense", but many global carriers including Lufthansa, Air France-KLM and Qantas decided to comply with the demand coming out of one of the world's biggest aviation markets.
A number of US airlines, however, held out and currently United Airlines continues to list the city of Taipei as being in "TW" on their website.
American Airlines spokeswoman Shannon Gilson told the BBC in an email response: "Like other carriers, American is implementing changes to address China's request. Air travel is global business, and we abide by the rules in countries where we operate".
Cathay Pacific told the BBC in a statement the carrier was a registered airline "of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People's Republic of China. HKSAR is also where our operations are based. We must comply with the regulations and requirements of the relevant civil aviation authorities."
The issue has always been highly sensitive for Beijing, but in recent years it has become increasingly active in clamping down on perceived violations of its territorial claims.
Taipei is listed without giving any country name on the American Airlines website
In April, China's Civil Aviation Administration wrote to more than 40 airlines worldwide telling them to abide by its laws and regulations and sovereignty claims, and threatening sanctions should they not fall in line.
Beijing demanded that neither Taiwan and Hong Kong nor Macau should be listed as separate places in for instance drop-down menus of company websites.
China warns Western firms over Taiwan
British Airways, Germany's Lufthansa, Air France and Singapore Airlines all list Taipei as in "Taiwan, China". Australia's Qantas in June also gave in to Chinese demands leading to the government in Canberra criticising Chinese "pressure" over the situation.
"Private companies should be free to conduct their usual business operations free from political pressure of governments," Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said at the time.
Just before the deadline, United lists Taipei as being in 'TW'
China's vociferous defence of its territorial claims is not just directed at the airline industry.
Earlier this year US clothing company GAP apologised for selling T-shirts with a map of China which did not show Taiwan and other disputed territories.
Japanese retail chain Muji recently has been fined in China for listing Taiwan as a country on some of its packaging.
Hotel chain Marriott also briefly had its Chinese website suspended for listing Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as separate countries in a customer questionnaire.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Hearing of retired cop who shot moviegoer puts Florida's controversial 'stand your ground' law back in the spotlight - ABC News
Hearing of retired cop who shot moviegoer puts Florida's controversial 'stand your ground' law back in the spotlight
By EMILY SHAPIRO Feb 23, 2017, 5:24 PM ET
Vivian Reeves was emotional as she testified Wednesday before a judge at her husband's hearing in Florida, attesting that her husband, Curtis Reeves, a retired Tampa police captain, had his head in his hands after he shot a fellow moviegoer over a disagreement about a cellphone in January 2014.
Curtis Reeves is accused of fatally shooting Chad Oulson. The shooting allegedly happened after Oulson threw popcorn at the Reeves for being told to put away his cellphone during the movie's previews.
"It happened very quickly, and [Oulson's] whole upper body just came forward, and I thought that he was coming over,” Vivian Reeves testified.
If a Pasco County, Florida, judge determines that Reeves was acting in self-defense and his case meets Florida's "stand your ground" law criteria, he will be immune from criminal prosecution and civil action in connection with the deadly shooting, according to The Associated Press. If not, he will be tried on a second-degree murder charge for the death of Oulson.
Retired police officer Curtis Reeves sits with his defense attorneys during a hearing at the Robert D. Sumner Judicial Center in Dade City, Fla. on Feb. 21, 2017.more +
Florida's "stand your ground" law allows residents to use force, including deadly force, if they "reasonably believe" they are at risk of death or great bodily harm. The law specifies that people have "no duty to retreat" if they feel threatened.
Reeves' lawyer has invoked the "stand your ground" law. He argues video from the movie theater shows that Oulson attacked Reeves first and that Reeves acted in self-defense, the AP said.
Oulson's widow, Nicole, told ABC News in 2014 that her husband was texting the babysitter, who was watching their young daughter.
"It was a couple of words. No threats. No harm. No nothing," she said.
Why Florida's 'stand your ground' law was enacted
On April 26, 2005, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the first "stand your ground" bill into law.
Republican Florida lawmaker Dennis Baxley, who co-authored the bill, which was supported by the NRA, told ABC News this week that the law was inspired in part by an uptick in crime after many hurricanes in the state.
"We had a lot of properties that were open and people living in FEMA trailers," he said.
He remembered one situation in which a man "was in his FEMA trailer with his wife in front of their property, and they had an intruder in the night which he shot and killed."
When "stand your ground" was signed into law, it wasn't controversial, Baxley claimed.
"We had bipartisan support. [It was] unanimous in the Florida senate. Only 20 people in the Florida house opposed [it]," he said.
PHOTO: Rep. Dennis Baxley checks the vote on a bill during session on May 4, 2011 in Tallahassee, Fla.Steve Cannon/AP Photo
Rep. Dennis Baxley checks the vote on a bill during session on May 4, 2011 in Tallahassee, Fla.
The measure passed the Florida Senate 39-0 and the House 94-20. Arthenia Joyner was one of the Democratic lawmakers who opposed "stand your ground." She told ABC News today it was "a big debate back in 2005" and the law still leaves her with the same "fears that I had back in 2005."
"It hurts the chances for minorities to receive justice," she said.
PHOTO: Grace Miranda and other demonstrators gather for a rally in front of Florida Senator Marco Rubios office asking him to retract his support for Floridas Stand Your Ground gun law following the Trayvon Martin killing on April 9, 2012 in Miami.Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Grace Miranda and other demonstrators gather for a rally in front of Florida Senator Marco Rubio's office asking him to retract his support for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" gun law following the Trayvon Martin killing on April 9, 2012 in Miami.more +
Breaking the law down
Traditionally, a defendant who invokes self-defense is required to first retreat and avoid the deadly encounter if possible, Kenneth Nunn, a professor at University of Florida's Levin College of Law, told ABC News. But "stand your ground" modifies that, he said, by telling Floridians they do not have to retreat first and "can use deadly force if it is reasonable."
"What could've happened in [Reeves'] case is Reeves could have turned around and walked away. Without 'stand your ground,' we would say the person has to retreat ... but the law says he doesn't have to do that," Nunn explained.
Additionally, "stand your ground" gives the defendant a chance to claim immunity from prosecution.
"If you can claim 'stand your ground,' you can't be prosecuted at all," Nunn said. "The way we determine whether you can claim 'stand your ground' is through a pretrial hearing. At the pretrial hearing the defendant has to show ... they're entitled to the 'stand your ground' rule. [Defendants must show] they believe that they were under a threat of deadly force ... and it was reasonable [for them to use deadly force]."
If they can prove they acted in self-defense, then no charges can be brought, Nunn said.
Former National Rifle Association President Marion Hammer, who said she worked with sponsors to "perfect the law," told ABC News that "the very idea that when you're under attack that you should have to turn your back on an attacker and run away before defending yourself flies in the face of justice and the Constitution."
She continued, "'Stand your ground' law is about protecting innocent people from overzealous prosecutors and courts that have become more interested in convictions than justice."
PHOTO: Marion Hammer, representing the National Rifle Association, speaks in favor of a gun bill during a meeting of the House environment and natural resources council, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, in Tallahassee, Fla.Phil Coale/AP Photo
Marion Hammer, representing the National Rifle Association, speaks in favor of a gun bill during a meeting of the House environment and natural resources council, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, in Tallahassee, Fla.more +
Nunn pointed out that state lawmakers are trying to amend the controversial law.
"There's a statute that has been introduced into the state legislature shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution ... If this law passes, the burden will shift to the prosecution" to prove that the defendant cannot claim "stand your ground" and away from the defendant, he said.
Trayvon Martin's parents on becoming activists, a role they never expected to have before son was killed
Wife of Florida man accused in theater shooting over victim's texting testifies in court
Florida homicide rate increased after passage of 'stand your ground' law, study finds
How Florida's 'stand your ground' law 'spread like wildfires'
Since Florida enacted "stand your ground" in 2005, more than 22 states have adopted similar laws.
Roy Bedard, a use-of-force and defensive-tactics expert, explained why other states followed Florida's lead.
"It wasn't just Florida having these [crime] problems ... It seemed to be sensible to these other states," he said.
He added, "Other states wanted to see how it worked out in Florida, [and] it spread like wildfires across the U.S."
Everytown for Gun Safety, an independent organization working to reduce gun violence in the U.S., calls "stand your ground" laws "a threat to public safety."
"These laws encourage armed vigilantism by allowing a person to kill another person even when they can clearly and safely walk away from the danger and even in public areas," Everytown says on its website.
Ashley Cech, right, whose mother survived the Sandy Hook shootings, comforts Diane Sellgren, whose daughter committed suicide with a gun during a gun legislation rally outside the Capitol organized by Everytown for Gun Safety, Sept. 10, 2015.more +
The rate of homicides, especially homicides by firearms, sharply increased in Florida after "stand your ground" was passed, according to a study published in November 2016 by The Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine. The study's authors, however, acknowledged that multiple factors may have led to an increase in the Florida homicide rate.
"Circumstances unique to Florida may have contributed to our findings, including those that we could not identify," they wrote.
Baxley disputed the findings and argued that Americans should not be "panicking over" law-abiding citizens.
"They are not a threat to anybody and the firearm is not dangerous in the hands of that person," he said. "No one should be beaten, raped or murdered, robbed and feel like they couldn’t defend themselves or they might be in trouble."
'Stand your ground' in the spotlight
Before Reeves' hearing this week, there were two cases in particular that propelled Florida's self-defense laws onto the national stage: George Zimmerman, who was accused of fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and Michael Dunn, who was accused of fatally shooting 17-year-old Jordan Davis at a Florida gas station in 2012.
Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn invoked the state's "stand your ground" law because "in both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they reasonably believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That is, at its core, no different from the law in almost every other state," according to Dan Abrams, ABC News' legal analyst.
Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder. Dunn was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
After the Zimmerman acquittal, then-Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP's annual convention, saying, "It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the 'if' is important — no safe retreat is available."
The NRA responded with its own statement, vowing to "work to protect self-defense laws currently on the books and advocate for their passage in those states that do not fully respect this fundamental right."
George Zimmerman waits for his defense counsel to arrive in Seminole circuit court, on the 11th day of his murder trial in the 2012 death of Trayvon Martin, June 24, 2013 in Sanford, Fla.more +
One mother's path to advocacy
After Davis' death, his mother, Lucy McBath, felt compelled to learn more about Florida's "stand your ground" law.
Jordan Davis is seen in this undated handout photo.
"I can't just turn a blind eye because I received justice," she told ABC News.
Lucy McBath, mother of Jordan Davis, who was killed by a man who claimed self-defense but was later found guilty of murder, speaks at the Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Sumter, S.C., Feb. 22, 2016 more +
McBath now serves as a spokesperson for Everytown for Gun Safety. She said she wants to stand up for "all the people across the country who do not have a voice, for people who are dying senselessly."
"'Stand your ground' laws give untrained citizens more leeway than the U.S. military gives our soldiers in war zones. There's something critically wrong with that," she said.
She added, "We have a responsibility, our legislatures have a responsibility ... to challenge these very laws that impinge on a person's civil, moral and ethical human right to live without the fear of being gunned down."
ABC News' Morgan Korn, Jeff Costello, Lindsey Jacobson, Julia Jacobo and Gillian Mohney contributed to this report.
By EMILY SHAPIRO Feb 23, 2017, 5:24 PM ET
Vivian Reeves was emotional as she testified Wednesday before a judge at her husband's hearing in Florida, attesting that her husband, Curtis Reeves, a retired Tampa police captain, had his head in his hands after he shot a fellow moviegoer over a disagreement about a cellphone in January 2014.
Curtis Reeves is accused of fatally shooting Chad Oulson. The shooting allegedly happened after Oulson threw popcorn at the Reeves for being told to put away his cellphone during the movie's previews.
"It happened very quickly, and [Oulson's] whole upper body just came forward, and I thought that he was coming over,” Vivian Reeves testified.
If a Pasco County, Florida, judge determines that Reeves was acting in self-defense and his case meets Florida's "stand your ground" law criteria, he will be immune from criminal prosecution and civil action in connection with the deadly shooting, according to The Associated Press. If not, he will be tried on a second-degree murder charge for the death of Oulson.
Retired police officer Curtis Reeves sits with his defense attorneys during a hearing at the Robert D. Sumner Judicial Center in Dade City, Fla. on Feb. 21, 2017.more +
Florida's "stand your ground" law allows residents to use force, including deadly force, if they "reasonably believe" they are at risk of death or great bodily harm. The law specifies that people have "no duty to retreat" if they feel threatened.
Reeves' lawyer has invoked the "stand your ground" law. He argues video from the movie theater shows that Oulson attacked Reeves first and that Reeves acted in self-defense, the AP said.
Oulson's widow, Nicole, told ABC News in 2014 that her husband was texting the babysitter, who was watching their young daughter.
"It was a couple of words. No threats. No harm. No nothing," she said.
Why Florida's 'stand your ground' law was enacted
On April 26, 2005, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the first "stand your ground" bill into law.
Republican Florida lawmaker Dennis Baxley, who co-authored the bill, which was supported by the NRA, told ABC News this week that the law was inspired in part by an uptick in crime after many hurricanes in the state.
"We had a lot of properties that were open and people living in FEMA trailers," he said.
He remembered one situation in which a man "was in his FEMA trailer with his wife in front of their property, and they had an intruder in the night which he shot and killed."
When "stand your ground" was signed into law, it wasn't controversial, Baxley claimed.
"We had bipartisan support. [It was] unanimous in the Florida senate. Only 20 people in the Florida house opposed [it]," he said.
PHOTO: Rep. Dennis Baxley checks the vote on a bill during session on May 4, 2011 in Tallahassee, Fla.Steve Cannon/AP Photo
Rep. Dennis Baxley checks the vote on a bill during session on May 4, 2011 in Tallahassee, Fla.
The measure passed the Florida Senate 39-0 and the House 94-20. Arthenia Joyner was one of the Democratic lawmakers who opposed "stand your ground." She told ABC News today it was "a big debate back in 2005" and the law still leaves her with the same "fears that I had back in 2005."
"It hurts the chances for minorities to receive justice," she said.
PHOTO: Grace Miranda and other demonstrators gather for a rally in front of Florida Senator Marco Rubios office asking him to retract his support for Floridas Stand Your Ground gun law following the Trayvon Martin killing on April 9, 2012 in Miami.Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Grace Miranda and other demonstrators gather for a rally in front of Florida Senator Marco Rubio's office asking him to retract his support for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" gun law following the Trayvon Martin killing on April 9, 2012 in Miami.more +
Breaking the law down
Traditionally, a defendant who invokes self-defense is required to first retreat and avoid the deadly encounter if possible, Kenneth Nunn, a professor at University of Florida's Levin College of Law, told ABC News. But "stand your ground" modifies that, he said, by telling Floridians they do not have to retreat first and "can use deadly force if it is reasonable."
"What could've happened in [Reeves'] case is Reeves could have turned around and walked away. Without 'stand your ground,' we would say the person has to retreat ... but the law says he doesn't have to do that," Nunn explained.
Additionally, "stand your ground" gives the defendant a chance to claim immunity from prosecution.
"If you can claim 'stand your ground,' you can't be prosecuted at all," Nunn said. "The way we determine whether you can claim 'stand your ground' is through a pretrial hearing. At the pretrial hearing the defendant has to show ... they're entitled to the 'stand your ground' rule. [Defendants must show] they believe that they were under a threat of deadly force ... and it was reasonable [for them to use deadly force]."
If they can prove they acted in self-defense, then no charges can be brought, Nunn said.
Former National Rifle Association President Marion Hammer, who said she worked with sponsors to "perfect the law," told ABC News that "the very idea that when you're under attack that you should have to turn your back on an attacker and run away before defending yourself flies in the face of justice and the Constitution."
She continued, "'Stand your ground' law is about protecting innocent people from overzealous prosecutors and courts that have become more interested in convictions than justice."
PHOTO: Marion Hammer, representing the National Rifle Association, speaks in favor of a gun bill during a meeting of the House environment and natural resources council, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, in Tallahassee, Fla.Phil Coale/AP Photo
Marion Hammer, representing the National Rifle Association, speaks in favor of a gun bill during a meeting of the House environment and natural resources council, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, in Tallahassee, Fla.more +
Nunn pointed out that state lawmakers are trying to amend the controversial law.
"There's a statute that has been introduced into the state legislature shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution ... If this law passes, the burden will shift to the prosecution" to prove that the defendant cannot claim "stand your ground" and away from the defendant, he said.
Trayvon Martin's parents on becoming activists, a role they never expected to have before son was killed
Wife of Florida man accused in theater shooting over victim's texting testifies in court
Florida homicide rate increased after passage of 'stand your ground' law, study finds
How Florida's 'stand your ground' law 'spread like wildfires'
Since Florida enacted "stand your ground" in 2005, more than 22 states have adopted similar laws.
Roy Bedard, a use-of-force and defensive-tactics expert, explained why other states followed Florida's lead.
"It wasn't just Florida having these [crime] problems ... It seemed to be sensible to these other states," he said.
He added, "Other states wanted to see how it worked out in Florida, [and] it spread like wildfires across the U.S."
Everytown for Gun Safety, an independent organization working to reduce gun violence in the U.S., calls "stand your ground" laws "a threat to public safety."
"These laws encourage armed vigilantism by allowing a person to kill another person even when they can clearly and safely walk away from the danger and even in public areas," Everytown says on its website.
Ashley Cech, right, whose mother survived the Sandy Hook shootings, comforts Diane Sellgren, whose daughter committed suicide with a gun during a gun legislation rally outside the Capitol organized by Everytown for Gun Safety, Sept. 10, 2015.more +
The rate of homicides, especially homicides by firearms, sharply increased in Florida after "stand your ground" was passed, according to a study published in November 2016 by The Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine. The study's authors, however, acknowledged that multiple factors may have led to an increase in the Florida homicide rate.
"Circumstances unique to Florida may have contributed to our findings, including those that we could not identify," they wrote.
Baxley disputed the findings and argued that Americans should not be "panicking over" law-abiding citizens.
"They are not a threat to anybody and the firearm is not dangerous in the hands of that person," he said. "No one should be beaten, raped or murdered, robbed and feel like they couldn’t defend themselves or they might be in trouble."
'Stand your ground' in the spotlight
Before Reeves' hearing this week, there were two cases in particular that propelled Florida's self-defense laws onto the national stage: George Zimmerman, who was accused of fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and Michael Dunn, who was accused of fatally shooting 17-year-old Jordan Davis at a Florida gas station in 2012.
Neither Zimmerman nor Dunn invoked the state's "stand your ground" law because "in both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they reasonably believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That is, at its core, no different from the law in almost every other state," according to Dan Abrams, ABC News' legal analyst.
Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder. Dunn was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
After the Zimmerman acquittal, then-Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP's annual convention, saying, "It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the 'if' is important — no safe retreat is available."
The NRA responded with its own statement, vowing to "work to protect self-defense laws currently on the books and advocate for their passage in those states that do not fully respect this fundamental right."
George Zimmerman waits for his defense counsel to arrive in Seminole circuit court, on the 11th day of his murder trial in the 2012 death of Trayvon Martin, June 24, 2013 in Sanford, Fla.more +
One mother's path to advocacy
After Davis' death, his mother, Lucy McBath, felt compelled to learn more about Florida's "stand your ground" law.
Jordan Davis is seen in this undated handout photo.
"I can't just turn a blind eye because I received justice," she told ABC News.
Lucy McBath, mother of Jordan Davis, who was killed by a man who claimed self-defense but was later found guilty of murder, speaks at the Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Sumter, S.C., Feb. 22, 2016 more +
McBath now serves as a spokesperson for Everytown for Gun Safety. She said she wants to stand up for "all the people across the country who do not have a voice, for people who are dying senselessly."
"'Stand your ground' laws give untrained citizens more leeway than the U.S. military gives our soldiers in war zones. There's something critically wrong with that," she said.
She added, "We have a responsibility, our legislatures have a responsibility ... to challenge these very laws that impinge on a person's civil, moral and ethical human right to live without the fear of being gunned down."
ABC News' Morgan Korn, Jeff Costello, Lindsey Jacobson, Julia Jacobo and Gillian Mohney contributed to this report.
'Stand Your Ground' laws under scrutiny again after man gunned down in parking lot - ABC News
'Stand Your Ground' laws under scrutiny again after man gunned down in parking lot
By BILL HUTCHINSON Jul 23, 2018, 7:44 PM ET
WATCH'Stand your ground' laws: The basics
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is coming under intense scrutiny again after a sheriff declined to file charges in the shooting death of an unarmed man who was apparently trying to protect his girlfriend from being hassled over a handicapped parking space by a gun-toting gadfly.
The death of Markeis McGlockton, 28, who was gunned down outside a Clearwater, Florida, convenience store on Thursday has jump-started the debate about the self-defense law that went into effect in October 2005 as an effort to deter crime.
A man who was captured on surveillance video fatally shooting another man in Clearwater, Fla., during a parking-spot spat will not be arrested or charged by police, according to Pinellas County sheriff.more +
But critics have argued that the law has had little effect on reducing crime, while giving gun-owners the license to shoot first and invoke the Stand Your Ground defense later.
Florida state Rep. Sean Shaw, D-Tampa, a candidate for state Attorney General, said he'd like to see the law repealed.
"This was an unnecessary and avoidable death," Shaw said in a statement on the shooting of McGlockton. "The 'Stand Your Ground' law is making our streets more dangerous and making it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs."
(MORE: Victim's girlfriend says Florida gunman provoked fatal 'stand your ground' shooting)
One of Shaw's Republican opponents, Ashley Moody, a former judge and prosecutor, told the Tampa Bay Times that while she sympathizes with McGlockton's loved one, she believes the law should remain in place.
"A person has the right to protect oneself if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm," Moody told the newspaper.
Britany Jacobs, the girlfriend of Markeis McGlockton, wants justice for the shooting of her boyfriend.ABC News
Britany Jacobs, the girlfriend of Markeis McGlockton, wants "justice" for the shooting of her boyfriend.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to file charges against Michael Drejka, 47, who fatally shot McGlockton after being pushed to the ground.
"He had to shoot to defend himself," Gualtieri, speaking at a press conference Friday, said of Drejka, a legal concealed weapons permit holder. "Those are the facts and that is the law. No matter how you slice it or dice it, that was a violent push to the ground."
Bernie McCabe, the State Attorney for Pinellas County, is investigating the case to determine if any charges against Drejka are warranted, his office told ABC News.
McGlockton's girlfriend, Britney Jacobs, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that she was sitting in her car waiting for McGlockton to come out of the convenience store when Drejka came up and began "harassing” her about being parked in a handicap space.
"If he [Drejka] had a problem with where Mr. McGlockton parked and he thought it was illegal, he should have called the police. He cannot take the law into his own hands. That is simply unacceptable," Jacobs' attorney Benjamin Crump told ABC News. "Had he simply called the police, this whole tragic incident would have been avoided. But he, for whatever reason, took the law into his own hands and we as a society have to send a clear message that this is not acceptable."
(MORE: Hearing of retired cop who shot moviegoer puts Florida's controversial 'stand your ground' law back in the spotlight)
Surveillance video showed McGlockton exiting the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Drejka then drew a handgun and shot and killed McGlockton, who appeared to be retreating.
"It [the Stand Your Ground law] allows a person to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that they are in danger of any harm or death," said ABC News senior legal correspondent Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor. "It also sort of eliminates this duty to retreat. It used to be when you were in public you had to flee, you had to retreat from a situation. Now even if the alleged attacker is retreating you can still use deadly force against that person."
Florida is among the 27 states in the nation that have the Stand Your Ground law.
"I just think that this is a law that gives people a license to kill black and people of color with no consequences despite having no objective fear or no justification," Crump stated. "Everybody who looks at this video knows clearly the reason why this murderer isn't in jail is because of race."
During an interview on "Good Morning America," Hostin was asked why McGlockton couldn't invoke the law since he was apparently rushing to the defense of his girlfriend.
"That's the tricky thing about 'Stand Your Ground.' Perhaps he was feeling threatened, perhaps he was feeling the need to defend himself and to defend his [girlfriend], to defend his child, but then it shifts when he pushes the other person," Hostin said. "Now that person can stand their ground. It's sort of just the wild, wild West."
But those who claim self-defense under Stand Your Ground don't always escape prosecution.
A Pasco County sheriff's deputy and a security guard block the driveway to the Cobb theater, Jan. 14, 2014 in Wesley Chapel, Fla.
The most famous Stand Your Ground case is that of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer, who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Stanford, Florida, in 2012.
Zimmerman spotted Martin walking in his neighborhood and reported him to the police as suspicious. But before officers got to the scene, a scuffle occurred and Martin got on top of Zimmerman on the ground, prompting Zimmerman to pull his concealed weapon and shoot the teenager dead.
Zimmerman initially cited a Stand Your Ground self-defense and was not arrested, sparking national protests. A special prosecutor was appointed by the governor to investigate and ended up charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
During his trial, Zimmerman did not use the Stand Your Ground law as a defense. His attorneys, instead, argued basic self-defense and a jury acquitted him.
In another Florida case, Curtis Reeves, a retired Tampa police captain, invoked the Stand Your Ground law after he allegedly shot a fellow moviegoer, Chad Oulson, to death in January 2014 when Oulson threw popcorn on him after Reeves chided him for texting on his cell phone during the movie previews. Reeves, 75, was charged with second-degree murder and an appeals court upheld a decision in May to deny Reeves immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law.
Curtis Reeves looks into the gallery, Feb. 5, 2014, during a court bond hearing in Dade City, Fla.
Reeves is scheduled to go to trial in February 2019.
"What could've happened in [Reeves'] case is Reeves could have turned around and walked away. Without 'Stand Your Ground,' we would say the person has to retreat ... but the law says he doesn't have to do that," Kenneth Nunn, a professor at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law, told ABC News in February.
Additionally, Stand Your Ground gives the defendant a chance to claim immunity from prosecution.
"If you can claim 'Stand Your Ground,' you can't be prosecuted at all," Nunn said. "The way we determine whether you can claim 'Stand Your Ground' is through a pretrial hearing. At the pretrial hearing the defendant has to show ... they're entitled to the 'Stand Your Ground' rule. [Defendants must show] they believe that they were under a threat of deadly force ... and it was reasonable [for them to use deadly force]."
By BILL HUTCHINSON Jul 23, 2018, 7:44 PM ET
WATCH'Stand your ground' laws: The basics
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is coming under intense scrutiny again after a sheriff declined to file charges in the shooting death of an unarmed man who was apparently trying to protect his girlfriend from being hassled over a handicapped parking space by a gun-toting gadfly.
The death of Markeis McGlockton, 28, who was gunned down outside a Clearwater, Florida, convenience store on Thursday has jump-started the debate about the self-defense law that went into effect in October 2005 as an effort to deter crime.
A man who was captured on surveillance video fatally shooting another man in Clearwater, Fla., during a parking-spot spat will not be arrested or charged by police, according to Pinellas County sheriff.more +
But critics have argued that the law has had little effect on reducing crime, while giving gun-owners the license to shoot first and invoke the Stand Your Ground defense later.
Florida state Rep. Sean Shaw, D-Tampa, a candidate for state Attorney General, said he'd like to see the law repealed.
"This was an unnecessary and avoidable death," Shaw said in a statement on the shooting of McGlockton. "The 'Stand Your Ground' law is making our streets more dangerous and making it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs."
(MORE: Victim's girlfriend says Florida gunman provoked fatal 'stand your ground' shooting)
One of Shaw's Republican opponents, Ashley Moody, a former judge and prosecutor, told the Tampa Bay Times that while she sympathizes with McGlockton's loved one, she believes the law should remain in place.
"A person has the right to protect oneself if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm," Moody told the newspaper.
Britany Jacobs, the girlfriend of Markeis McGlockton, wants justice for the shooting of her boyfriend.ABC News
Britany Jacobs, the girlfriend of Markeis McGlockton, wants "justice" for the shooting of her boyfriend.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to file charges against Michael Drejka, 47, who fatally shot McGlockton after being pushed to the ground.
"He had to shoot to defend himself," Gualtieri, speaking at a press conference Friday, said of Drejka, a legal concealed weapons permit holder. "Those are the facts and that is the law. No matter how you slice it or dice it, that was a violent push to the ground."
Bernie McCabe, the State Attorney for Pinellas County, is investigating the case to determine if any charges against Drejka are warranted, his office told ABC News.
McGlockton's girlfriend, Britney Jacobs, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that she was sitting in her car waiting for McGlockton to come out of the convenience store when Drejka came up and began "harassing” her about being parked in a handicap space.
"If he [Drejka] had a problem with where Mr. McGlockton parked and he thought it was illegal, he should have called the police. He cannot take the law into his own hands. That is simply unacceptable," Jacobs' attorney Benjamin Crump told ABC News. "Had he simply called the police, this whole tragic incident would have been avoided. But he, for whatever reason, took the law into his own hands and we as a society have to send a clear message that this is not acceptable."
(MORE: Hearing of retired cop who shot moviegoer puts Florida's controversial 'stand your ground' law back in the spotlight)
Surveillance video showed McGlockton exiting the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Drejka then drew a handgun and shot and killed McGlockton, who appeared to be retreating.
"It [the Stand Your Ground law] allows a person to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that they are in danger of any harm or death," said ABC News senior legal correspondent Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor. "It also sort of eliminates this duty to retreat. It used to be when you were in public you had to flee, you had to retreat from a situation. Now even if the alleged attacker is retreating you can still use deadly force against that person."
Florida is among the 27 states in the nation that have the Stand Your Ground law.
"I just think that this is a law that gives people a license to kill black and people of color with no consequences despite having no objective fear or no justification," Crump stated. "Everybody who looks at this video knows clearly the reason why this murderer isn't in jail is because of race."
During an interview on "Good Morning America," Hostin was asked why McGlockton couldn't invoke the law since he was apparently rushing to the defense of his girlfriend.
"That's the tricky thing about 'Stand Your Ground.' Perhaps he was feeling threatened, perhaps he was feeling the need to defend himself and to defend his [girlfriend], to defend his child, but then it shifts when he pushes the other person," Hostin said. "Now that person can stand their ground. It's sort of just the wild, wild West."
But those who claim self-defense under Stand Your Ground don't always escape prosecution.
A Pasco County sheriff's deputy and a security guard block the driveway to the Cobb theater, Jan. 14, 2014 in Wesley Chapel, Fla.
The most famous Stand Your Ground case is that of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer, who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Stanford, Florida, in 2012.
Zimmerman spotted Martin walking in his neighborhood and reported him to the police as suspicious. But before officers got to the scene, a scuffle occurred and Martin got on top of Zimmerman on the ground, prompting Zimmerman to pull his concealed weapon and shoot the teenager dead.
Zimmerman initially cited a Stand Your Ground self-defense and was not arrested, sparking national protests. A special prosecutor was appointed by the governor to investigate and ended up charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
During his trial, Zimmerman did not use the Stand Your Ground law as a defense. His attorneys, instead, argued basic self-defense and a jury acquitted him.
In another Florida case, Curtis Reeves, a retired Tampa police captain, invoked the Stand Your Ground law after he allegedly shot a fellow moviegoer, Chad Oulson, to death in January 2014 when Oulson threw popcorn on him after Reeves chided him for texting on his cell phone during the movie previews. Reeves, 75, was charged with second-degree murder and an appeals court upheld a decision in May to deny Reeves immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law.
Curtis Reeves looks into the gallery, Feb. 5, 2014, during a court bond hearing in Dade City, Fla.
Reeves is scheduled to go to trial in February 2019.
"What could've happened in [Reeves'] case is Reeves could have turned around and walked away. Without 'Stand Your Ground,' we would say the person has to retreat ... but the law says he doesn't have to do that," Kenneth Nunn, a professor at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law, told ABC News in February.
Additionally, Stand Your Ground gives the defendant a chance to claim immunity from prosecution.
"If you can claim 'Stand Your Ground,' you can't be prosecuted at all," Nunn said. "The way we determine whether you can claim 'Stand Your Ground' is through a pretrial hearing. At the pretrial hearing the defendant has to show ... they're entitled to the 'Stand Your Ground' rule. [Defendants must show] they believe that they were under a threat of deadly force ... and it was reasonable [for them to use deadly force]."
Breakingviews - China’s fiscal nudge betrays growth jitters - Reuters
JULY 24, 2018 / 2:36 PM /
Breakingviews - China’s fiscal nudge betrays growth jitters
Christopher Beddor
HONG KONG (Reuters Breakingviews) - A fiscal nudge in China betrays some underlying growth jitters. The government is adding corporate tax cuts and other steps to support an economy that seems to be humming along. Bureaucratic tussles that preceded the policy changes suggest speed is as much a priority as rebalancing growth.
The State Council said on Monday that the government would extend a tax programme originally designed for small tech firms to all companies, creating some 65 billion yuan ($9.6 billion) of savings on top of 1.1 trillion yuan of reductions in levies and fees already planned for this year. Beijing also intends to accelerate issuance of 1.35 trillion yuan of special local bonds and a fund for lending to small companies.
A surprisingly bitter, and public, fight informed the decision. One official from the People’s Bank of China on July 13 accused the Ministry of Finance of not doing enough to help the economy, pointing to a shrinking national deficit. A pseudonymous official responded by defending the agency’s policy and blasting the central bank’s lack of progress on issues such as currency reforms. Each also accused the other of trying to shift responsibility for the country’s debt problem.
The outcome indicates that the central bank’s case prevailed. In reality, though, both institutions are rapidly moving toward a pro-growth stance. Guo Shuqing, the top banking regulator and party secretary at the PBOC, last week called for more credit to be made available for small enterprises, while officials injected eyebrow-raising sums into the financial system this week.
Despite recent pledges to the contrary, growth targets are also clearly on the agenda. President Xi Jinping said last year that officials are prioritising “quality” economic expansion. That implied a slowdown would be tolerated to slash debt and undertake reforms.
China’s GDP increased by 6.7 percent in the second quarter, down a tick from earlier in the year but above the official aim of “around” 6.5 percent. Yet officials already seem to be worried. And with trade tensions on the rise, it’s easy enough to expect more easing efforts. The only lingering question is whether it will amount to a “fine-tuning” or outright stimulus.
Breakingviews - China’s fiscal nudge betrays growth jitters
Christopher Beddor
HONG KONG (Reuters Breakingviews) - A fiscal nudge in China betrays some underlying growth jitters. The government is adding corporate tax cuts and other steps to support an economy that seems to be humming along. Bureaucratic tussles that preceded the policy changes suggest speed is as much a priority as rebalancing growth.
The State Council said on Monday that the government would extend a tax programme originally designed for small tech firms to all companies, creating some 65 billion yuan ($9.6 billion) of savings on top of 1.1 trillion yuan of reductions in levies and fees already planned for this year. Beijing also intends to accelerate issuance of 1.35 trillion yuan of special local bonds and a fund for lending to small companies.
A surprisingly bitter, and public, fight informed the decision. One official from the People’s Bank of China on July 13 accused the Ministry of Finance of not doing enough to help the economy, pointing to a shrinking national deficit. A pseudonymous official responded by defending the agency’s policy and blasting the central bank’s lack of progress on issues such as currency reforms. Each also accused the other of trying to shift responsibility for the country’s debt problem.
The outcome indicates that the central bank’s case prevailed. In reality, though, both institutions are rapidly moving toward a pro-growth stance. Guo Shuqing, the top banking regulator and party secretary at the PBOC, last week called for more credit to be made available for small enterprises, while officials injected eyebrow-raising sums into the financial system this week.
Despite recent pledges to the contrary, growth targets are also clearly on the agenda. President Xi Jinping said last year that officials are prioritising “quality” economic expansion. That implied a slowdown would be tolerated to slash debt and undertake reforms.
China’s GDP increased by 6.7 percent in the second quarter, down a tick from earlier in the year but above the official aim of “around” 6.5 percent. Yet officials already seem to be worried. And with trade tensions on the rise, it’s easy enough to expect more easing efforts. The only lingering question is whether it will amount to a “fine-tuning” or outright stimulus.
Majority of Republicans Back Roe v. Wade, Poll Finds - Fortune
July 24, 2018
Majority of Republicans Back Roe v. Wade, Poll Finds
Hillary Clinton Calls Out Donald Trump's ‘Scare Rhetoric’ on Abortion
But Hillary thinks he’s using “scare rhetoric”
By GLENN FLEISHMAN 10:50 PM EDT
The 1973 Supreme Court decision that provided a legal right to abortions in the U.S. has never had a higher level of support, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found. Among American voters, 71% expressed support while only 23% thought the decision should be reversed.
More surprising, however, is that 52% of Republican voters polled expressed support for Roe v. Wade, a result at odds with policies put into place by GOP officials. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans polled opposed the landmark legal decision.
Even as many U.S. states have imposed or attempted to impose severe restrictions on obtaining abortions—a recent trend that occurs in the shadow of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court—voters increasingly say they want the Roe decision to stand. In 1989, 58% of Americans polled supported it and 31% opposed. Support has, on average, increased as time has passed.
The poll also asked respondents about how they favored candidates who supported or opposed abortion rights. That split was far more partisan than overall support for Roe. Forty-six percent of Republicans said they preferred a candidate with a “right to life” stance; 24% of independents and 9% of Democrats said the same. Meanwhile 68% of Democrats preferred a “pro-choice” candidate; 49% of independents and 15% of Republicans agreed.
Overall, 44% of respondents said they were more likely to support an abortion-rights candidate; 26% said they were more likely to support the opposite. Twenty-nine percent said it made no difference.
The news outlets paired these questions with others about the Supreme Court. Their findings: 32% of voters back the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the nation’s highest court; 26% oppose it. The Supreme Court gets overall kudos, however, with 50% of voters polled expressing a positive view of the branch of government. (Seventeen percent were negative.) That’s a big change from July 2015, when 39% gave SCOTUS a thumbs up and 32% gave it a thumbs down.
Majority of Republicans Back Roe v. Wade, Poll Finds
Hillary Clinton Calls Out Donald Trump's ‘Scare Rhetoric’ on Abortion
But Hillary thinks he’s using “scare rhetoric”
By GLENN FLEISHMAN 10:50 PM EDT
The 1973 Supreme Court decision that provided a legal right to abortions in the U.S. has never had a higher level of support, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found. Among American voters, 71% expressed support while only 23% thought the decision should be reversed.
More surprising, however, is that 52% of Republican voters polled expressed support for Roe v. Wade, a result at odds with policies put into place by GOP officials. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans polled opposed the landmark legal decision.
Even as many U.S. states have imposed or attempted to impose severe restrictions on obtaining abortions—a recent trend that occurs in the shadow of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court—voters increasingly say they want the Roe decision to stand. In 1989, 58% of Americans polled supported it and 31% opposed. Support has, on average, increased as time has passed.
The poll also asked respondents about how they favored candidates who supported or opposed abortion rights. That split was far more partisan than overall support for Roe. Forty-six percent of Republicans said they preferred a candidate with a “right to life” stance; 24% of independents and 9% of Democrats said the same. Meanwhile 68% of Democrats preferred a “pro-choice” candidate; 49% of independents and 15% of Republicans agreed.
Overall, 44% of respondents said they were more likely to support an abortion-rights candidate; 26% said they were more likely to support the opposite. Twenty-nine percent said it made no difference.
The news outlets paired these questions with others about the Supreme Court. Their findings: 32% of voters back the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the nation’s highest court; 26% oppose it. The Supreme Court gets overall kudos, however, with 50% of voters polled expressing a positive view of the branch of government. (Seventeen percent were negative.) That’s a big change from July 2015, when 39% gave SCOTUS a thumbs up and 32% gave it a thumbs down.
Laos dam collapse: 'Hundreds missing' after flash floods hit villages - BBC News
July 24, 2018
Laos dam collapse: 'Hundreds missing' after flash floods hit villages
23 minutes ago
Hundreds of people are missing and an unknown number dead after a dam collapsed in south-east Laos, state media reported.
The collapse at the hydroelectric dam in Attapeu province late on Monday sent flash floods through six villages, Lao News Agency said.
"The disaster has claimed several human lives [and] left hundreds of people missing," the agency reported.
More than 6,600 people have been made homeless, it added.
The reason for the collapse of the Xepian-Xe Nam Noy dam is not clear. Its construction began in 2013 and it was due to begin generating power this year.
Laos country profile
The incident follows heavy rain and flooding across southern Laos.
Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith has postponed government meetings and gone to the affected area in Sanamxay district with senior officials to monitor relief efforts, state media said.
Local authorities have appealed to government bodies and other communities to help provide emergency aid for the victims such as clothing, food, drinking water and medicine.
Laos has built several dams in recent years and plans to build more, taking advantage of its high annual rainfall and hilly terrain. It exports most of its hydroelectric power to neighbouring countries such as Thailand.
Laos dam collapse: 'Hundreds missing' after flash floods hit villages
23 minutes ago
Hundreds of people are missing and an unknown number dead after a dam collapsed in south-east Laos, state media reported.
The collapse at the hydroelectric dam in Attapeu province late on Monday sent flash floods through six villages, Lao News Agency said.
"The disaster has claimed several human lives [and] left hundreds of people missing," the agency reported.
More than 6,600 people have been made homeless, it added.
The reason for the collapse of the Xepian-Xe Nam Noy dam is not clear. Its construction began in 2013 and it was due to begin generating power this year.
Laos country profile
The incident follows heavy rain and flooding across southern Laos.
Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith has postponed government meetings and gone to the affected area in Sanamxay district with senior officials to monitor relief efforts, state media said.
Local authorities have appealed to government bodies and other communities to help provide emergency aid for the victims such as clothing, food, drinking water and medicine.
Laos has built several dams in recent years and plans to build more, taking advantage of its high annual rainfall and hilly terrain. It exports most of its hydroelectric power to neighbouring countries such as Thailand.
North Korea 'begins dismantling' rocket launch site - BBC News
July 24, 2018
North Korea 'begins dismantling' rocket launch site
North Korea has used the Sohae station to launch rockets
North Korea appears to have begun dismantling part of a key rocket launch site in the country's north-west.
Satellite images of the Sohae station seen by US-based monitoring group 38 North suggest Pyongyang is complying with a promise made to the US in June.
US President Donald Trump said North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un had vowed to destroy an engine test site, but did not specify which one.
Pyongyang has maintained that Sohae is a satellite launch site.
But US officials suspect that it has been used to test ballistic missiles.
The satellite imagery appears to show the dismantling of facilities at North Korea's Sohae site
During a landmark meeting between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in Singapore last month, the two leaders signed a deal to work towards the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula".
But the deal was criticised for a lack of details on when or how Pyongyang would renounce its nuclear weapons.
N Korea propaganda changes its tune
The apparent dismantling of the Sohae test site comes amid rising questions over North Korea's willingness to stick to the pledges made at the 12 June summit.
Earlier on Monday, President Trump said that he was "very happy" with the progress in relations with North Korea, saying that Pyongyang had not launched any missiles or carried out any nuclear tests during the last nine months.
It follows comments from the US president last week that there was "no time limit" for North Korea to denuclearise and no need to rush the process.
Enrichment reports
But according to recent reports based on US intelligence leaks, North Korea might secretly still be continuing its weapons programme.
Those reports indicate that North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded, and that the country was stepping up enrichment at other secret sites.
The reports cannot be independently verified, but have been deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
North Korea has carried out a total of six nuclear tests, the most recent of which took place in September last year.
The North has in the past two years quickly advanced its nuclear programme, and claims that it has developed an intercontinental ballistic missile that is able to reach as far as the continental US.
North Korea 'begins dismantling' rocket launch site
North Korea has used the Sohae station to launch rockets
North Korea appears to have begun dismantling part of a key rocket launch site in the country's north-west.
Satellite images of the Sohae station seen by US-based monitoring group 38 North suggest Pyongyang is complying with a promise made to the US in June.
US President Donald Trump said North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un had vowed to destroy an engine test site, but did not specify which one.
Pyongyang has maintained that Sohae is a satellite launch site.
But US officials suspect that it has been used to test ballistic missiles.
The satellite imagery appears to show the dismantling of facilities at North Korea's Sohae site
During a landmark meeting between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in Singapore last month, the two leaders signed a deal to work towards the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula".
But the deal was criticised for a lack of details on when or how Pyongyang would renounce its nuclear weapons.
N Korea propaganda changes its tune
The apparent dismantling of the Sohae test site comes amid rising questions over North Korea's willingness to stick to the pledges made at the 12 June summit.
Earlier on Monday, President Trump said that he was "very happy" with the progress in relations with North Korea, saying that Pyongyang had not launched any missiles or carried out any nuclear tests during the last nine months.
It follows comments from the US president last week that there was "no time limit" for North Korea to denuclearise and no need to rush the process.
Enrichment reports
But according to recent reports based on US intelligence leaks, North Korea might secretly still be continuing its weapons programme.
Those reports indicate that North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded, and that the country was stepping up enrichment at other secret sites.
The reports cannot be independently verified, but have been deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
North Korea has carried out a total of six nuclear tests, the most recent of which took place in September last year.
The North has in the past two years quickly advanced its nuclear programme, and claims that it has developed an intercontinental ballistic missile that is able to reach as far as the continental US.
Monday, July 23, 2018
We need to talk about TED - Guardian
We need to talk about TED
Benjamin Bratton
Science, philosophy and technology run on the model of American Idol – as embodied by TED talks – is a recipe for civilisational disaster
Mon 30 Dec 2013 20.30 AEDT First published on Mon 30 Dec 2013
TED talks in Edinburgh : Alain de Botton
Alain de Botton speaks during during TEDGlobal 2011, in Edinburgh. Photograph: James Duncan Davidson/TED
In our culture, talking about the future is sometimes a polite way of saying things about the present that would otherwise be rude or risky.
But have you ever wondered why so little of the future promised in TED talks actually happens? So much potential and enthusiasm, and so little actual change. Are the ideas wrong? Or is the idea about what ideas can do all by themselves wrong?
I write about entanglements of technology and culture, how technologies enable the making of certain worlds, and at the same time how culture structures how those technologies will evolve, this way or that. It's where philosophy and design intersect.
So the conceptualization of possibilities is something that I take very seriously. That's why I, and many people, think it's way past time to take a step back and ask some serious questions about the intellectual viability of things like TED.
So my TED talk is not about my work or my new book – the usual spiel – but about TED itself, what it is and why it doesn't work.
The first reason is over-simplification.
To be clear, I think that having smart people who do very smart things explain what they doing in a way that everyone can understand is a good thing. But TED goes way beyond that.
Let me tell you a story. I was at a presentation that a friend, an astrophysicist, gave to a potential donor. I thought the presentation was lucid and compelling (and I'm a professor of visual arts here at UC San Diego so at the end of the day, I know really nothing about astrophysics). After the talk the sponsor said to him, "you know what, I'm gonna pass because I just don't feel inspired ...you should be more like Malcolm Gladwell."
At this point I kind of lost it. Can you imagine?
Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights! This is beyond popularisation. This is taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not the solution to our most frightening problems – rather this is one of our most frightening problems.
So I ask the question: does TED epitomize a situation where if a scientist's work (or an artist's or philosopher's or activist's or whoever) is told that their work is not worthy of support, because the public doesn't feel good listening to them?
I submit that astrophysics run on the model of American Idol is a recipe for civilizational disaster.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
What is TED?
Advertisement
So what is TED exactly?
Perhaps it's the proposition that if we talk about world-changing ideas enough, then the world will change. But this is not true, and that's the second problem.
TED of course stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and I'll talk a bit about all three. I Think TED actually stands for: middlebrow megachurch infotainment.
The key rhetorical device for TED talks is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony (an "epiphimony" if you like ) through which the speaker shares a personal journey of insight and realisation, its triumphs and tribulations.
What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it's all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?
I'm sorry but this fails to meet the challenges that we are supposedly here to confront. These are complicated and difficult and are not given to tidy just-so solutions. They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism. Given the stakes, making our best and brightest waste their time – and the audience's time – dancing like infomercial hosts is too high a price. It is cynical.
Also, it just doesn't work.
Recently there was a bit of a dust up when TEDGlobal sent out a note to TEDx organisers asking them not to not book speakers whose work spans the paranormal, the conspiratorial, new age "quantum neuroenergy", etc: what is called woo. Instead of these placebos, TEDx should instead curate talks that are imaginative but grounded in reality. In fairness, they took some heat, so their gesture should be acknowledged. A lot of people take TED very seriously, and might lend credence to specious ideas if stamped with TED credentials. "No" to placebo science and medicine.
But ... the corollaries of placebo science and placebo medicine are placebo politics and placebo innovation. On this point, TED has a long way to go.
Perhaps the pinnacle of placebo politics and innovation was featured at TEDx San Diego in 2011. You're familiar I assume with Kony2012, the social media campaign to stop war crimes in central Africa? So what happened here? Evangelical surfer bro goes to help kids in Africa. He makes a campy video explaining genocide to the cast of Glee. The world finds his public epiphany to be shallow to the point of self-delusion. The complex geopolitics of central Africa are left undisturbed. Kony's still there. The end.
You see, when inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation. If you are not cynical you should be sceptical. You should be as sceptical of placebo politics as you are placebo medicine.
T and Technology
T – E – D. I'll go through them each quickly.
So first technology ...
We hear that not only is change accelerating but that the pace of change is accelerating as well. While this is true of computational carrying-capacity at a planetary level, at the same time – and in fact the two are connected – we are also in a moment of cultural de-acceleration.
We invest our energy in futuristic information technologies, including our cars, but drive them home to kitsch architecture copied from the 18th century. The future on offer is one in which everything changes, so long as everything stays the same. We'll have Google Glass, but still also business casual.
This timidity is our path to the future? No, this is incredibly conservative, and there is no reason to think that more gigaflops will inoculate us.
Because, if a problem is in fact endemic to a system, then the exponential effects of Moore's law also serve to amplify what's broken. It is more computation along the wrong curve, and I doubt this is necessarily a triumph of reason.
Part of my work explores deep technocultural shifts, from post-humanism to the post-anthropocene, but TED's version has too much faith in technology, and not nearly enough commitment to technology. It is placebo technoradicalism, toying with risk so as to reaffirm the comfortable.
So our machines get smarter and we get stupider. But it doesn't have to be like that. Both can be much more intelligent. Another futurism is possible.
E and economics
A better 'E' in TED would stand for economics, and the need for, yes imagining and designing, different systems of valuation, exchange, accounting of transaction externalities, financing of coordinated planning, etc. Because states plus markets, states versus markets, these are insufficient models, and our conversation is stuck in Cold War gear.
Worse is when economics is debated like metaphysics, as if the reality of a system is merely a bad example of the ideal.
Communism in theory is an egalitarian utopia.
Actually existing communism meant ecological devastation, government spying, crappy cars and gulags.
Capitalism in theory is rocket ships, nanomedicine, and Bono saving Africa.
Actually existing capitalism means Walmart jobs, McMansions, people living in the sewers under Las Vegas, Ryan Seacrest … plus – ecological devastation, government spying, crappy public transportation and for-profit prisons.
Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek, to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why?
The most recent centuries have seen extraordinary accomplishments in improving quality of life. The paradox is that the system we have now –whatever you want to call it – is in the short term what makes the amazing new technologies possible, but in the long run it is also what suppresses their full flowering. Another economic architecture is prerequisite.
D and design
Instead of our designers prototyping the same "change agent for good" projects over and over again, and then wondering why they don't get implemented at scale, perhaps we should resolve that design is not some magic answer. Design matters a lot, but for very different reasons. It's easy to get enthusiastic about design because, like talking about the future, it is more polite than referring to white elephants in the room.
Such as…
Phones, drones and genomes, that's what we do here in San Diego and La Jolla. In addition to the other insanely great things these technologies do, they are the basis of NSA spying, flying robots killing people, and the wholesale privatisation of biological life itself. That's also what we do.
The potential for these technologies are both wonderful and horrifying at the same time, and to make them serve good futures, design as "innovation" just isn't a strong enough idea by itself. We need to talk more about design as "immunisation," actively preventing certain potential "innovations" that we do not want from happening.
And so…
As for one simple take away ... I don't have one simple take away, one magic idea. That's kind of the point. I will say that if and when the key problems facing our species were to be solved, then perhaps many of us in this room would be out of work (and perhaps in jail).
But it's not as though there is a shortage of topics for serious discussion. We need a deeper conversation about the difference between digital cosmopolitanism and cloud feudalism (and toward that, a queer history of computer science and Alan Turing's birthday as holiday!)
I would like new maps of the world, ones not based on settler colonialism, legacy genomes and bronze age myths, but instead on something more … scalable.
TED today is not that.
Problems are not "puzzles" to be solved. That metaphor assumes that all the necessary pieces are already on the table, they just need to be rearranged and reprogrammed. It's not true.
"Innovation" defined as moving the pieces around and adding more processing power is not some Big Idea that will disrupt a broken status quo: that precisely is the broken status quo.
One TED speaker said recently, "If you remove this boundary ... the only boundary left is our imagination". Wrong.
If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff (history, economics, philosophy, art, ambiguities, contradictions). Bracketing it off to the side to focus just on technology, or just on innovation, actually prevents transformation.
Instead of dumbing-down the future, we need to raise the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. This is not about "personal stories of inspiration", it's about the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconceptualisation: the hard stuff that really changes how we think. More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins.
At a societal level, the bottom line is if we invest in things that make us feel good but which don't work, and don't invest in things that don't make us feel good but which may solve problems, then our fate is that it will just get harder to feel good about not solving problems.
In this case the placebo is worse than ineffective, it's harmful. It's diverts your interest, enthusiasm and outrage until it's absorbed into this black hole of affectation.
Keep calm and carry on "innovating" ... is that the real message of TED? To me that's not inspirational, it's cynical.
In the US the rightwing has certain media channels that allow it to bracket reality ... other constituencies have TED.
• This article first appeared on Benjamin Bratton's website and is republished with permission. It is the text of a talk given at TEDx San Diego
Benjamin Bratton
Science, philosophy and technology run on the model of American Idol – as embodied by TED talks – is a recipe for civilisational disaster
Mon 30 Dec 2013 20.30 AEDT First published on Mon 30 Dec 2013
TED talks in Edinburgh : Alain de Botton
Alain de Botton speaks during during TEDGlobal 2011, in Edinburgh. Photograph: James Duncan Davidson/TED
In our culture, talking about the future is sometimes a polite way of saying things about the present that would otherwise be rude or risky.
But have you ever wondered why so little of the future promised in TED talks actually happens? So much potential and enthusiasm, and so little actual change. Are the ideas wrong? Or is the idea about what ideas can do all by themselves wrong?
I write about entanglements of technology and culture, how technologies enable the making of certain worlds, and at the same time how culture structures how those technologies will evolve, this way or that. It's where philosophy and design intersect.
So the conceptualization of possibilities is something that I take very seriously. That's why I, and many people, think it's way past time to take a step back and ask some serious questions about the intellectual viability of things like TED.
So my TED talk is not about my work or my new book – the usual spiel – but about TED itself, what it is and why it doesn't work.
The first reason is over-simplification.
To be clear, I think that having smart people who do very smart things explain what they doing in a way that everyone can understand is a good thing. But TED goes way beyond that.
Let me tell you a story. I was at a presentation that a friend, an astrophysicist, gave to a potential donor. I thought the presentation was lucid and compelling (and I'm a professor of visual arts here at UC San Diego so at the end of the day, I know really nothing about astrophysics). After the talk the sponsor said to him, "you know what, I'm gonna pass because I just don't feel inspired ...you should be more like Malcolm Gladwell."
At this point I kind of lost it. Can you imagine?
Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights! This is beyond popularisation. This is taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not the solution to our most frightening problems – rather this is one of our most frightening problems.
So I ask the question: does TED epitomize a situation where if a scientist's work (or an artist's or philosopher's or activist's or whoever) is told that their work is not worthy of support, because the public doesn't feel good listening to them?
I submit that astrophysics run on the model of American Idol is a recipe for civilizational disaster.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
What is TED?
Advertisement
So what is TED exactly?
Perhaps it's the proposition that if we talk about world-changing ideas enough, then the world will change. But this is not true, and that's the second problem.
TED of course stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and I'll talk a bit about all three. I Think TED actually stands for: middlebrow megachurch infotainment.
The key rhetorical device for TED talks is a combination of epiphany and personal testimony (an "epiphimony" if you like ) through which the speaker shares a personal journey of insight and realisation, its triumphs and tribulations.
What is it that the TED audience hopes to get from this? A vicarious insight, a fleeting moment of wonder, an inkling that maybe it's all going to work out after all? A spiritual buzz?
I'm sorry but this fails to meet the challenges that we are supposedly here to confront. These are complicated and difficult and are not given to tidy just-so solutions. They don't care about anyone's experience of optimism. Given the stakes, making our best and brightest waste their time – and the audience's time – dancing like infomercial hosts is too high a price. It is cynical.
Also, it just doesn't work.
Recently there was a bit of a dust up when TEDGlobal sent out a note to TEDx organisers asking them not to not book speakers whose work spans the paranormal, the conspiratorial, new age "quantum neuroenergy", etc: what is called woo. Instead of these placebos, TEDx should instead curate talks that are imaginative but grounded in reality. In fairness, they took some heat, so their gesture should be acknowledged. A lot of people take TED very seriously, and might lend credence to specious ideas if stamped with TED credentials. "No" to placebo science and medicine.
But ... the corollaries of placebo science and placebo medicine are placebo politics and placebo innovation. On this point, TED has a long way to go.
Perhaps the pinnacle of placebo politics and innovation was featured at TEDx San Diego in 2011. You're familiar I assume with Kony2012, the social media campaign to stop war crimes in central Africa? So what happened here? Evangelical surfer bro goes to help kids in Africa. He makes a campy video explaining genocide to the cast of Glee. The world finds his public epiphany to be shallow to the point of self-delusion. The complex geopolitics of central Africa are left undisturbed. Kony's still there. The end.
You see, when inspiration becomes manipulation, inspiration becomes obfuscation. If you are not cynical you should be sceptical. You should be as sceptical of placebo politics as you are placebo medicine.
T and Technology
T – E – D. I'll go through them each quickly.
So first technology ...
We hear that not only is change accelerating but that the pace of change is accelerating as well. While this is true of computational carrying-capacity at a planetary level, at the same time – and in fact the two are connected – we are also in a moment of cultural de-acceleration.
We invest our energy in futuristic information technologies, including our cars, but drive them home to kitsch architecture copied from the 18th century. The future on offer is one in which everything changes, so long as everything stays the same. We'll have Google Glass, but still also business casual.
This timidity is our path to the future? No, this is incredibly conservative, and there is no reason to think that more gigaflops will inoculate us.
Because, if a problem is in fact endemic to a system, then the exponential effects of Moore's law also serve to amplify what's broken. It is more computation along the wrong curve, and I doubt this is necessarily a triumph of reason.
Part of my work explores deep technocultural shifts, from post-humanism to the post-anthropocene, but TED's version has too much faith in technology, and not nearly enough commitment to technology. It is placebo technoradicalism, toying with risk so as to reaffirm the comfortable.
So our machines get smarter and we get stupider. But it doesn't have to be like that. Both can be much more intelligent. Another futurism is possible.
E and economics
A better 'E' in TED would stand for economics, and the need for, yes imagining and designing, different systems of valuation, exchange, accounting of transaction externalities, financing of coordinated planning, etc. Because states plus markets, states versus markets, these are insufficient models, and our conversation is stuck in Cold War gear.
Worse is when economics is debated like metaphysics, as if the reality of a system is merely a bad example of the ideal.
Communism in theory is an egalitarian utopia.
Actually existing communism meant ecological devastation, government spying, crappy cars and gulags.
Capitalism in theory is rocket ships, nanomedicine, and Bono saving Africa.
Actually existing capitalism means Walmart jobs, McMansions, people living in the sewers under Las Vegas, Ryan Seacrest … plus – ecological devastation, government spying, crappy public transportation and for-profit prisons.
Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek, to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why?
The most recent centuries have seen extraordinary accomplishments in improving quality of life. The paradox is that the system we have now –whatever you want to call it – is in the short term what makes the amazing new technologies possible, but in the long run it is also what suppresses their full flowering. Another economic architecture is prerequisite.
D and design
Instead of our designers prototyping the same "change agent for good" projects over and over again, and then wondering why they don't get implemented at scale, perhaps we should resolve that design is not some magic answer. Design matters a lot, but for very different reasons. It's easy to get enthusiastic about design because, like talking about the future, it is more polite than referring to white elephants in the room.
Such as…
Phones, drones and genomes, that's what we do here in San Diego and La Jolla. In addition to the other insanely great things these technologies do, they are the basis of NSA spying, flying robots killing people, and the wholesale privatisation of biological life itself. That's also what we do.
The potential for these technologies are both wonderful and horrifying at the same time, and to make them serve good futures, design as "innovation" just isn't a strong enough idea by itself. We need to talk more about design as "immunisation," actively preventing certain potential "innovations" that we do not want from happening.
And so…
As for one simple take away ... I don't have one simple take away, one magic idea. That's kind of the point. I will say that if and when the key problems facing our species were to be solved, then perhaps many of us in this room would be out of work (and perhaps in jail).
But it's not as though there is a shortage of topics for serious discussion. We need a deeper conversation about the difference between digital cosmopolitanism and cloud feudalism (and toward that, a queer history of computer science and Alan Turing's birthday as holiday!)
I would like new maps of the world, ones not based on settler colonialism, legacy genomes and bronze age myths, but instead on something more … scalable.
TED today is not that.
Problems are not "puzzles" to be solved. That metaphor assumes that all the necessary pieces are already on the table, they just need to be rearranged and reprogrammed. It's not true.
"Innovation" defined as moving the pieces around and adding more processing power is not some Big Idea that will disrupt a broken status quo: that precisely is the broken status quo.
One TED speaker said recently, "If you remove this boundary ... the only boundary left is our imagination". Wrong.
If we really want transformation, we have to slog through the hard stuff (history, economics, philosophy, art, ambiguities, contradictions). Bracketing it off to the side to focus just on technology, or just on innovation, actually prevents transformation.
Instead of dumbing-down the future, we need to raise the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. This is not about "personal stories of inspiration", it's about the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconceptualisation: the hard stuff that really changes how we think. More Copernicus, less Tony Robbins.
At a societal level, the bottom line is if we invest in things that make us feel good but which don't work, and don't invest in things that don't make us feel good but which may solve problems, then our fate is that it will just get harder to feel good about not solving problems.
In this case the placebo is worse than ineffective, it's harmful. It's diverts your interest, enthusiasm and outrage until it's absorbed into this black hole of affectation.
Keep calm and carry on "innovating" ... is that the real message of TED? To me that's not inspirational, it's cynical.
In the US the rightwing has certain media channels that allow it to bracket reality ... other constituencies have TED.
• This article first appeared on Benjamin Bratton's website and is republished with permission. It is the text of a talk given at TEDx San Diego
Why I’d never do a TED talk (and it’s not just because they’re named after a man) Julie Bindel - Guardian
Why I’d never do a TED talk (and it’s not just because they’re named after a man)
Julie Bindel
The rehearsed smugness of the presenters puts me off the content – which is all about making the simple sound profound
@bindelj
Mon 23 Jul 2018 18.59 AEST Last modified on Mon 23 Jul 2018 19.31 AEST
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’ Photograph: PR
Picture this. A darkened auditorium, an attentive, cult-like audience staring ahead expectantly, hardly daring to breathe; a huge screen on which there is an image no one can decipher. And then, the person everyone has been waiting for strides confidently on to the spotlit stage, wearing a headset and carrying a PowerPoint remote, dressed immaculately and sporting a brand-new haircut. You can hear a pin drop as the presenter begins, “You think the world is round, but I am going to tell you to begin to believe it is actually square.”
Predictable, false and embarrassing; how I hate talks. And it’s not even because they’re named after a man. What I can’t abide is the way presenters pace around the stage, I hate the gravity with which they deliver their message, and being patronised by a smug, overconfident “thought leader” is pretty intolerable.
I have friends who have done TED talks, and have respectfully watched their efforts. But one minute in, I start to look away, cringing. Why are they so popular? Why do tickets for spectators sell for thousands of dollars? How come some folk clamber to get on the TED circuit, despite not being paid a penny for the privilege?
TED makes some pretty big claims: according , its aim is to “foster the spread of great ideas, [by providing] a platform for thinkers, visionaries and teachers … Core to this goal is a belief that there is no greater force for changing the world than a powerful idea.” It’s difficult to know how it will change the world when style appears to be given a hundred times more thought than content. I imagine speakers rehearsing before the audition, checking hand gestures in the mirror in front of a bemused cat. Why do they all seem to perform identical gesticulations?
Those invited to be potential TED talkers are required to attend several auditions, and, if they are one of the chosen few, a number of rehearsals before they are deemed ready. I know one speaker who flew from London to New York just to audition to do TED, paying his own flight for the sheer privilege of performing a live advertorial and hopefully flogging a few books. The talks are so rehearsed that even the well-placed pauses and casual hair flicks look hideously false. TED-bots strut around the stage, posing, delivering well-crafted smiles and frowns. It’s like amateur dramatics for would-be intellectuals.
Many of the speakers state the blatantly obvious on a loop, sounding as though they have discovered the theory of relativity all over again. The pretentious gestures, rehearsed pauses and speech traits single them out from other public speakers. They appear to have learned the art of making the simplest ideas appear complex.
Let’s have a look at some of the topics tackled in these talks, only lightly paraphrased by me: “Why charity shops should replace posh designer shops”, “Why go fast when slow is better?” “Embracing openness and being yourself” (10,000 versions), “Schools kill creativity”, “Kids should teach themselves”, “How letting yourself be vulnerable, by someone about as vulnerable as Donald Trump, is the way to go”, “We have been tying our shoes wrong – here’s how to tie them right”, and my all-time favourite, “We are depressed because things are shit, therefore if things weren’t shit we wouldn’t be depressed, or need to take medication”.
I often give talks to both small and large audiences, and always feel nervous beforehand. This used to bother me, after decades of public speaking, but I then realised that being nervous is respectful of those who are there to hear me. Why would anyone wish to listen to some overconfident, over-rehearsed guru? Why would I want to subject them to a performance?
I am sure there are some great ideas to come out of some TED talks, but the style puts me off devouring the content. If you really want to tell millions of people why the chicken crossed the road, is it really that difficult to do it standing still with your hands in your pockets? Try it without the rehearsed wry smile, and the PowerPoint, and foregoing the strategically placed pauses. Maybe I could do a TED talk to show how it would work?
• Julie Bindel is a freelance journalist and political activist, and a founder of Justice for Women
Julie Bindel
The rehearsed smugness of the presenters puts me off the content – which is all about making the simple sound profound
@bindelj
Mon 23 Jul 2018 18.59 AEST Last modified on Mon 23 Jul 2018 19.31 AEST
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’
‘They appear to have learnt the art in making the simplest ideas appear complex.’ Photograph: PR
Picture this. A darkened auditorium, an attentive, cult-like audience staring ahead expectantly, hardly daring to breathe; a huge screen on which there is an image no one can decipher. And then, the person everyone has been waiting for strides confidently on to the spotlit stage, wearing a headset and carrying a PowerPoint remote, dressed immaculately and sporting a brand-new haircut. You can hear a pin drop as the presenter begins, “You think the world is round, but I am going to tell you to begin to believe it is actually square.”
Predictable, false and embarrassing; how I hate talks. And it’s not even because they’re named after a man. What I can’t abide is the way presenters pace around the stage, I hate the gravity with which they deliver their message, and being patronised by a smug, overconfident “thought leader” is pretty intolerable.
I have friends who have done TED talks, and have respectfully watched their efforts. But one minute in, I start to look away, cringing. Why are they so popular? Why do tickets for spectators sell for thousands of dollars? How come some folk clamber to get on the TED circuit, despite not being paid a penny for the privilege?
TED makes some pretty big claims: according , its aim is to “foster the spread of great ideas, [by providing] a platform for thinkers, visionaries and teachers … Core to this goal is a belief that there is no greater force for changing the world than a powerful idea.” It’s difficult to know how it will change the world when style appears to be given a hundred times more thought than content. I imagine speakers rehearsing before the audition, checking hand gestures in the mirror in front of a bemused cat. Why do they all seem to perform identical gesticulations?
Those invited to be potential TED talkers are required to attend several auditions, and, if they are one of the chosen few, a number of rehearsals before they are deemed ready. I know one speaker who flew from London to New York just to audition to do TED, paying his own flight for the sheer privilege of performing a live advertorial and hopefully flogging a few books. The talks are so rehearsed that even the well-placed pauses and casual hair flicks look hideously false. TED-bots strut around the stage, posing, delivering well-crafted smiles and frowns. It’s like amateur dramatics for would-be intellectuals.
Many of the speakers state the blatantly obvious on a loop, sounding as though they have discovered the theory of relativity all over again. The pretentious gestures, rehearsed pauses and speech traits single them out from other public speakers. They appear to have learned the art of making the simplest ideas appear complex.
Let’s have a look at some of the topics tackled in these talks, only lightly paraphrased by me: “Why charity shops should replace posh designer shops”, “Why go fast when slow is better?” “Embracing openness and being yourself” (10,000 versions), “Schools kill creativity”, “Kids should teach themselves”, “How letting yourself be vulnerable, by someone about as vulnerable as Donald Trump, is the way to go”, “We have been tying our shoes wrong – here’s how to tie them right”, and my all-time favourite, “We are depressed because things are shit, therefore if things weren’t shit we wouldn’t be depressed, or need to take medication”.
I often give talks to both small and large audiences, and always feel nervous beforehand. This used to bother me, after decades of public speaking, but I then realised that being nervous is respectful of those who are there to hear me. Why would anyone wish to listen to some overconfident, over-rehearsed guru? Why would I want to subject them to a performance?
I am sure there are some great ideas to come out of some TED talks, but the style puts me off devouring the content. If you really want to tell millions of people why the chicken crossed the road, is it really that difficult to do it standing still with your hands in your pockets? Try it without the rehearsed wry smile, and the PowerPoint, and foregoing the strategically placed pauses. Maybe I could do a TED talk to show how it would work?
• Julie Bindel is a freelance journalist and political activist, and a founder of Justice for Women
Trump warns Iran to 'never, ever threaten' U.S. or suffer consequences - Reuters
JULY 23, 2018
Trump warns Iran to 'never, ever threaten' U.S. or suffer consequences
Brendan O'Brien, Warren Strobel
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump warned Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Sunday not to threaten the United States or face the consequences, hours after Rouhani told Trump that hostile policies toward Tehran could lead to “the mother of all wars.”
In a late night Twitter message directed at Rouhani, Trump wrote: “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
The escalation in rhetoric came as the Trump administration has launched an offensive of speeches and online communications meant to foment unrest and help pressure Iran to end its nuclear program and its support of militant groups, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Iran has faced increased U.S. pressure and looming sanctions following Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from a 2015 international deal over Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has said its nuclear work is just for electricity generation and other peaceful projects.
In a speech late on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced Iran’s leaders as a “mafia” and promised unspecified backing for Iranians unhappy with their government.
Addressing a gathering of Iranian diplomats earlier on Sunday, Rouhani said: “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” according to a report by the state new agency IRNA.
“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” Rouhani said, leaving open the possibility of peace between the two countries, at odds since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Rouhani also scoffed at Trump’s threat to halt Iranian oil exports and said Iran has a dominant position in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping waterway.
Rouhani’s apparent threat earlier this month to disrupt oil shipments from neighboring countries came in reaction to efforts by Washington to force all countries to stop buying Iranian oil.
Washington initially planned to shut Iran out of global oil markets completely after Trump abandoned the deal that limited Iran’s nuclear ambitions, demanding all other countries stop buying Iranian crude by November.
But the United States has somewhat eased its stance, saying it may grant sanction waivers to some allies that are particularly reliant on Iranian supplies.
Reporting by Brendan O'Brien and Warren Strobel; Additional reporting by Dubai newsroom; Writing by Daniel Wallis; Editing by Nick Macfie
Trump warns Iran to 'never, ever threaten' U.S. or suffer consequences
Brendan O'Brien, Warren Strobel
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump warned Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Sunday not to threaten the United States or face the consequences, hours after Rouhani told Trump that hostile policies toward Tehran could lead to “the mother of all wars.”
In a late night Twitter message directed at Rouhani, Trump wrote: “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”
The escalation in rhetoric came as the Trump administration has launched an offensive of speeches and online communications meant to foment unrest and help pressure Iran to end its nuclear program and its support of militant groups, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Iran has faced increased U.S. pressure and looming sanctions following Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from a 2015 international deal over Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has said its nuclear work is just for electricity generation and other peaceful projects.
In a speech late on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced Iran’s leaders as a “mafia” and promised unspecified backing for Iranians unhappy with their government.
Addressing a gathering of Iranian diplomats earlier on Sunday, Rouhani said: “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” according to a report by the state new agency IRNA.
“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” Rouhani said, leaving open the possibility of peace between the two countries, at odds since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Rouhani also scoffed at Trump’s threat to halt Iranian oil exports and said Iran has a dominant position in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping waterway.
Rouhani’s apparent threat earlier this month to disrupt oil shipments from neighboring countries came in reaction to efforts by Washington to force all countries to stop buying Iranian oil.
Washington initially planned to shut Iran out of global oil markets completely after Trump abandoned the deal that limited Iran’s nuclear ambitions, demanding all other countries stop buying Iranian crude by November.
But the United States has somewhat eased its stance, saying it may grant sanction waivers to some allies that are particularly reliant on Iranian supplies.
Reporting by Brendan O'Brien and Warren Strobel; Additional reporting by Dubai newsroom; Writing by Daniel Wallis; Editing by Nick Macfie
Where special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation stands right now - ABC News
Where special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation stands right now
By ALLISON PECORIN Jul 23, 2018,
The first trial in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is set to begin this week when former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort heads to court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Although Manafort is the first to face trial, the recent indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers could be a sign that Mueller's investigation is heating up.
More than 30 individuals and/or companies have now been charged in Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. It’s also spurred other investigations, including an ongoing probe by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump continues to call for an end to what he repeatedly refers to as a “witch hunt.”
Here’s a quick look at where things stand.
Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, leaves following his plea hearing at the Prettyman Federal Courthouse Dec. 1, 2017 in Washington.more +
(MORE: Where things stand for some key Trump orbit figures in Mueller's universe)
(MORE: Putin blasts 'forces' in the US that want to 'disavow the results' of Trump meeting)
Indictments of Russian intelligence officers
The 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted July 13 for alleged hacking that led to the leaking of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton and her then-campaign chairman John Podesta.
The indictment targets the Russians for allegedly engaging in a sustained effort to hack networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. All 12 are members of the GRU, Russia's military intelligence service, the indictment alleges.
The indictment aligns with the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion last year that Russian military intelligence officials were partly responsible for the leaks.
Trump sent mixed signals about his stance on Russian meddling during a news conference at last week’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he called Putin's denials of Russian involvement "extremely strong.”
He tried to clarify his comments the next day back in Washington, saying he has "full faith” in and accepts the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community about election meddling.
Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at US District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, D.C.
(MORE: Mueller evidence list focuses on Manafort's lavish lifestyle)
(MORE: Mueller requests immunity for witnesses in Paul Manafort trial)
The 12 Russians indicted aren’t the only ones. Thirteen other Russian nationals have already been indicted for allegedly meddling in the 2016 election by launching mass social media misinformation campaigns.
Those charges allege that the 13 Russians violated criminal laws with the intent of meddling "with U.S. elections and political processes."
That indictment depicts an elaborate scheme in which some of the Russians are accused of coming to the U.S. with the intention of undermining the American political and electoral process, including the 2016 presidential election.
Guilty pleas in the president’s orbit
While the most recent indictments have been against Russians, several Americans have also been charged by the special counsel.
Most have pleaded guilty and in some cases are now cooperating with Mueller.
(MORE: Roger Stone says he’s the US person mentioned in Mueller indictment)
(MORE: Rudy Giuliani touts Russian hacking indictments as 'good news for all Americans')
The president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, served just 24 days before resigning amid controversy over whether he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about communications he had with the Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn was later charged with lying to the FBI about contacts he had with the ambassador in December 2016.
He took a plea deal in December 2017 and has been cooperating with the special counsel ever since, his lawyers said when Flynn appeared in court July 10. He has yet to receive a sentencing date.
Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, however, is set to be sentenced in September for a similar crime.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about communications he had with a foreign professor who allegedly told him Russian officials possessed potentially incriminating Hillary Clinton emails. He has been cooperating with prosecutors for months.
In addition to Flynn and Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates has also pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the FBI and conspiracy against the United States.
Gates has admitted to helping Paul Manafort steer tens of millions of dollars in income overseas and failing to pay U.S. taxes on it. The charges against Gates are unrelated to his work for the Trump campaign. He’s cooperating with the special counsel.
The first trial
While Gates pleaded guilty, his longtime business associate and former Trump campaign manager Manafort did not.
Manafort has maintained he’s innocent of the charges levied against him by Mueller’s team both in Washington, D.C., and in Virginia.
(MORE: 12 Russian intel officers indicted for DNC hacking in Mueller investigation)
(MORE: At FBI agent hearing, top Dem displays 'guilty' posters of Mueller convictions)
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington, Oct. 28, 2013.
He pleaded not guilty to money laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud, conspiracy against the United States, failure to register as a foreign agent and lying to the FBI, among other counts.
Manafort’s Virginia trial is set to begin Wednesday, though his legal team has requested a delay. His Washington, D.C., trial is set to begin in September.
He’s being held in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail while he awaits trial.
By ALLISON PECORIN Jul 23, 2018,
The first trial in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is set to begin this week when former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort heads to court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Although Manafort is the first to face trial, the recent indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers could be a sign that Mueller's investigation is heating up.
More than 30 individuals and/or companies have now been charged in Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. It’s also spurred other investigations, including an ongoing probe by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump continues to call for an end to what he repeatedly refers to as a “witch hunt.”
Here’s a quick look at where things stand.
Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, leaves following his plea hearing at the Prettyman Federal Courthouse Dec. 1, 2017 in Washington.more +
(MORE: Where things stand for some key Trump orbit figures in Mueller's universe)
(MORE: Putin blasts 'forces' in the US that want to 'disavow the results' of Trump meeting)
Indictments of Russian intelligence officers
The 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted July 13 for alleged hacking that led to the leaking of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton and her then-campaign chairman John Podesta.
The indictment targets the Russians for allegedly engaging in a sustained effort to hack networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. All 12 are members of the GRU, Russia's military intelligence service, the indictment alleges.
The indictment aligns with the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion last year that Russian military intelligence officials were partly responsible for the leaks.
Trump sent mixed signals about his stance on Russian meddling during a news conference at last week’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin when he called Putin's denials of Russian involvement "extremely strong.”
He tried to clarify his comments the next day back in Washington, saying he has "full faith” in and accepts the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community about election meddling.
Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at US District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, D.C.
(MORE: Mueller evidence list focuses on Manafort's lavish lifestyle)
(MORE: Mueller requests immunity for witnesses in Paul Manafort trial)
The 12 Russians indicted aren’t the only ones. Thirteen other Russian nationals have already been indicted for allegedly meddling in the 2016 election by launching mass social media misinformation campaigns.
Those charges allege that the 13 Russians violated criminal laws with the intent of meddling "with U.S. elections and political processes."
That indictment depicts an elaborate scheme in which some of the Russians are accused of coming to the U.S. with the intention of undermining the American political and electoral process, including the 2016 presidential election.
Guilty pleas in the president’s orbit
While the most recent indictments have been against Russians, several Americans have also been charged by the special counsel.
Most have pleaded guilty and in some cases are now cooperating with Mueller.
(MORE: Roger Stone says he’s the US person mentioned in Mueller indictment)
(MORE: Rudy Giuliani touts Russian hacking indictments as 'good news for all Americans')
The president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, served just 24 days before resigning amid controversy over whether he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about communications he had with the Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn was later charged with lying to the FBI about contacts he had with the ambassador in December 2016.
He took a plea deal in December 2017 and has been cooperating with the special counsel ever since, his lawyers said when Flynn appeared in court July 10. He has yet to receive a sentencing date.
Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, however, is set to be sentenced in September for a similar crime.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about communications he had with a foreign professor who allegedly told him Russian officials possessed potentially incriminating Hillary Clinton emails. He has been cooperating with prosecutors for months.
In addition to Flynn and Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates has also pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the FBI and conspiracy against the United States.
Gates has admitted to helping Paul Manafort steer tens of millions of dollars in income overseas and failing to pay U.S. taxes on it. The charges against Gates are unrelated to his work for the Trump campaign. He’s cooperating with the special counsel.
The first trial
While Gates pleaded guilty, his longtime business associate and former Trump campaign manager Manafort did not.
Manafort has maintained he’s innocent of the charges levied against him by Mueller’s team both in Washington, D.C., and in Virginia.
(MORE: 12 Russian intel officers indicted for DNC hacking in Mueller investigation)
(MORE: At FBI agent hearing, top Dem displays 'guilty' posters of Mueller convictions)
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington, Oct. 28, 2013.
He pleaded not guilty to money laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud, conspiracy against the United States, failure to register as a foreign agent and lying to the FBI, among other counts.
Manafort’s Virginia trial is set to begin Wednesday, though his legal team has requested a delay. His Washington, D.C., trial is set to begin in September.
He’s being held in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail while he awaits trial.
Inside Trump's isolated days amid Russia fallout - CBS News
July 21, 2018, 2:57 PM
Inside Trump's isolated days amid Russia fallout
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Facing condemnation from allies and foes alike on Capitol Hill, President Donald Trump was outnumbered even in the Oval Office. Top aides gathered to convince the president to issue a rare walk-back of the comments he'd made raising doubts about U.S. intelligence conclusions of Russian election interference as he stood alongside Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and chief of staff John Kelly stood united in the West Wing on Tuesday in their contention that the commander in chief had some cleanup to do. They brought with them words of alarm from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as from a host of congressional leaders and supporters of the president for whom Mr. Trump's public praise of Putin proved to be a bridge too far.
Even for Mr. Trump, a leader who has increasingly come to cast off the constraints and guidance of aides, the him-against-the-world position proved untenable. Mr. Trump may like doing things his way, eschewing advice and precedent like no president before, but he never likes being alone.
Walking off stage with Putin following their joint press conference in Helsinki, Mr. Trump was riding high after his second summit with an adversarial leader in as many months. The highly choreographed affairs had been sought out by the U.S. leader as a way to boost his credibility abroad and his favorability at home, and he believed the latest one had accomplished the task.
But as Air Force One took off into Finland's endless sunlight on Monday night, Mr. Trump's mood darkened.
Poll: Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of Putin summit
Putin declares summit a success
He told confidants in the days that followed that he was pleased with how his summit with Putin went, believing he had taken the measure of the man and opened the door to deals down the road on a number of thorny issues. He even said he thought it had gone well publicly.
But that was not how it was being portrayed back home.
On the long flight back to Washington, the president began dialing around to allies and aides and started to stew about negative media coverage, even from usually friendly Fox News, according to five outside allies and Republicans close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
The reviews he received were muted — Mr. Trump rarely takes kindly to direct confrontation — but it was a taste of what awaited him on his return in Washington, where stalwart allies like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich were speaking out.
By the time he arrived home, the parade of critical statements had become a stampede, leaving Mr. Trump the most isolated he'd been in the White House since last year's controversy over white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville. Some in the president's circle saw parallels in the response to that incident, when the president walked back his August comments critical of "both sides" for protests in the Virginia city, only to later revert to his initial position — that both white supremacists and their detractors shared blame for the violence.
Mr. Trump waited 27 hours, sent five tweets and sat for two television interviews after his initial comments in Helsinki before claiming he'd used a confusing "double negative" and meant "would" instead of "wouldn't" in a key sentence at his press conference about who was responsible for election meddling.
"The sentence should have been: I don't see any reason why I wouldn't -- or why it wouldn't be Russia," the president said Tuesday before a meeting with Republican members of Congress.
The next day brought a fresh challenge. Mr. Trump appeared to answer "no" to a reporter's question asking whether Russia was still targeting the U.S. Hours later, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders emerged to say Trump had merely tried to put a stop to the questioning by saying "no," although he continued discussing Russia after that.
And Sanders created a fresh headache for the administration when she said the White House was still reviewing a proposal from Putin to allow access by Russian law enforcement officials to Americans whom the Kremlin accuses of unspecified crimes in return for U.S. access to interrogations of Russian agents indicted for their alleged roles in interfering in the 2016 election. The State Department, by contrast, rejected the proposal — which Mr. Trump days earlier had called an "incredible offer — as "absurd."
Many in the White House did not immediately see fault in Sanders' comments that the West Wing was merely considering the Kremlin offer, but it provided fresh tinder for the bipartisan firestorm.
As each White House effort to clean up the situation failed to stem the growing bipartisan backlash, Mr. Trump's mood worsened, according to confidants. He groused about his staff for not better managing the fallout. He was angry at the two American reporters, including one from The Associated Press, who asked questions at the Helsinki news conference. And he seethed at the lack of support he believed he received from congressional Republicans.
Also a target of the president's ire was Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who issued a rare statement rebutting the president's Monday comments. But it was Coats' televised interview Thursday at a security conference in Aspen, Colo., that set off the president anew, as the intelligence director questioned the wisdom of the Putin meeting and said he had hoped Mr. Trump wouldn't meet alone with the Russian leader.
It all left White House staffers in a fresh state of resignation about their jobs.
"I saw the screaming headline on cable TV that there is malaise in the West Wing and I look forward to meeting her," quipped presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway. "I don't see that."
___
Lemire reported from New York. Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this report from Washington.
Inside Trump's isolated days amid Russia fallout
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Facing condemnation from allies and foes alike on Capitol Hill, President Donald Trump was outnumbered even in the Oval Office. Top aides gathered to convince the president to issue a rare walk-back of the comments he'd made raising doubts about U.S. intelligence conclusions of Russian election interference as he stood alongside Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and chief of staff John Kelly stood united in the West Wing on Tuesday in their contention that the commander in chief had some cleanup to do. They brought with them words of alarm from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as from a host of congressional leaders and supporters of the president for whom Mr. Trump's public praise of Putin proved to be a bridge too far.
Even for Mr. Trump, a leader who has increasingly come to cast off the constraints and guidance of aides, the him-against-the-world position proved untenable. Mr. Trump may like doing things his way, eschewing advice and precedent like no president before, but he never likes being alone.
Walking off stage with Putin following their joint press conference in Helsinki, Mr. Trump was riding high after his second summit with an adversarial leader in as many months. The highly choreographed affairs had been sought out by the U.S. leader as a way to boost his credibility abroad and his favorability at home, and he believed the latest one had accomplished the task.
But as Air Force One took off into Finland's endless sunlight on Monday night, Mr. Trump's mood darkened.
Poll: Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of Putin summit
Putin declares summit a success
He told confidants in the days that followed that he was pleased with how his summit with Putin went, believing he had taken the measure of the man and opened the door to deals down the road on a number of thorny issues. He even said he thought it had gone well publicly.
But that was not how it was being portrayed back home.
On the long flight back to Washington, the president began dialing around to allies and aides and started to stew about negative media coverage, even from usually friendly Fox News, according to five outside allies and Republicans close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
The reviews he received were muted — Mr. Trump rarely takes kindly to direct confrontation — but it was a taste of what awaited him on his return in Washington, where stalwart allies like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich were speaking out.
By the time he arrived home, the parade of critical statements had become a stampede, leaving Mr. Trump the most isolated he'd been in the White House since last year's controversy over white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville. Some in the president's circle saw parallels in the response to that incident, when the president walked back his August comments critical of "both sides" for protests in the Virginia city, only to later revert to his initial position — that both white supremacists and their detractors shared blame for the violence.
Mr. Trump waited 27 hours, sent five tweets and sat for two television interviews after his initial comments in Helsinki before claiming he'd used a confusing "double negative" and meant "would" instead of "wouldn't" in a key sentence at his press conference about who was responsible for election meddling.
"The sentence should have been: I don't see any reason why I wouldn't -- or why it wouldn't be Russia," the president said Tuesday before a meeting with Republican members of Congress.
The next day brought a fresh challenge. Mr. Trump appeared to answer "no" to a reporter's question asking whether Russia was still targeting the U.S. Hours later, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders emerged to say Trump had merely tried to put a stop to the questioning by saying "no," although he continued discussing Russia after that.
And Sanders created a fresh headache for the administration when she said the White House was still reviewing a proposal from Putin to allow access by Russian law enforcement officials to Americans whom the Kremlin accuses of unspecified crimes in return for U.S. access to interrogations of Russian agents indicted for their alleged roles in interfering in the 2016 election. The State Department, by contrast, rejected the proposal — which Mr. Trump days earlier had called an "incredible offer — as "absurd."
Many in the White House did not immediately see fault in Sanders' comments that the West Wing was merely considering the Kremlin offer, but it provided fresh tinder for the bipartisan firestorm.
As each White House effort to clean up the situation failed to stem the growing bipartisan backlash, Mr. Trump's mood worsened, according to confidants. He groused about his staff for not better managing the fallout. He was angry at the two American reporters, including one from The Associated Press, who asked questions at the Helsinki news conference. And he seethed at the lack of support he believed he received from congressional Republicans.
Also a target of the president's ire was Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who issued a rare statement rebutting the president's Monday comments. But it was Coats' televised interview Thursday at a security conference in Aspen, Colo., that set off the president anew, as the intelligence director questioned the wisdom of the Putin meeting and said he had hoped Mr. Trump wouldn't meet alone with the Russian leader.
It all left White House staffers in a fresh state of resignation about their jobs.
"I saw the screaming headline on cable TV that there is malaise in the West Wing and I look forward to meeting her," quipped presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway. "I don't see that."
___
Lemire reported from New York. Associated Press writer Ken Thomas contributed to this report from Washington.
Trump and Iran's Rouhani trade angry threats - BBC News
July 23, 2018
Trump and Iran's Rouhani trade angry threats
Donald Trump fired off a capitalised tweet warning Iran's President Rouhani to "BE CAUTIOUS!"
US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have traded hostile warnings, amid rising tensions between the two countries.
Mr Trump tweeted Iran would "suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before" if it threatened the US.
Mr Rouhani earlier said that war with Iran would be "the mother of all wars".
In May, the US left a deal which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of international sanctions.
Iran faces up to its options
Who are the winners and losers?
Washington is now re-imposing the sanctions, despite objections from the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany, who all signed the 2015 agreement.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
1:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018
President Rouhani's comments, made to Iranian diplomats, did leave open the possibility of future good relations with the US.
"America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars," he said, according to Iran's state news agency Irna.
Mr Trump's angry rhetoric has echoes of his Twitter barrages against North Korea's Kim Jong-un, whom he branded a "madman" who "will be tested like never before", before engaging in a testy exchange over whose nuclear button was bigger.
Their verbal hostilities nonetheless evolved into ongoing diplomatic talks.
On Monday, a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards suggested the US president's statements were part of a broader strategy.
"The remarks Trump makes against Iran are psychological warfare and he would be mistaken should he seek to take action against Iran," Gholamhossein Gheybparvar said, quoted by the Iranian Students News Agency.
'Resembles the mafia'
On Sunday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he wanted to try to stop countries importing Iranian oil by November as part of continued pressure on Tehran.
Addressing a group of Iranian Americans in California, he said the Iranian regime "resembles the mafia more than a government".
Mr Pompeo called Mr Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who negotiated the nuclear deal, "merely polished front men for the ayatollahs' international con artistry".
Is there a Plan B?
Why Trump ditched the deal
The gathering was the first time a top US official had directly addressed such a large number of Iranian Americans, says BBC state department correspondent Barbara Plett Usher. It is being seen as part of the administration's strategy to increase pressure on Iran's leadership.
What do the US and Iran disagree on?
Mr Trump has consistently opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, which saw the US release billions of dollars of frozen assets in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear programme
The Trump administration regards Iran as a destabilising force in the Middle East, arguing the nuclear deal enabled Iran to pursue a more assertive regional policy. Iran has sent hundreds of troops and thousands of volunteer militiamen to Syria, and has strengthened its military presence there
Gulf states have accused Iran of backing Yemen's Houthi rebels with both money and weapons, though Iran has denied this. Saudi Arabia, a key US ally, is a major adversary of Iran and has repeatedly warned about Iran's intentions
Washington initially attempted to force all of its allies to stop buying Iranian oil, though it has now said it may grant sanction waivers to those especially reliant on Iranian supplies. President Rouhani has allegedly threatened to disrupt oil shipments from neighbouring countries if Iran's sales are stopped
Why did the US withdraw from the deal?
In May, Mr Trump called the nuclear accord - or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it is formally known - a "horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made".
He alleged that the deal did not restrict Iran's "destabilising activities" in the region enough, and could not detect or prevent any breaking of its terms.
Analysts also cited the influence of White House Iran hawks including Mr Pompeo and US National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Mr Trump's tendency to target legacy achievements of his predecessor President Obama.
People in the Iran-aligned suburbs of Beirut give their reaction to US withdrawal from the nuclear deal
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has said Iran is honouring its commitments.
What is the nuclear accord?
Pain for some of Europe's biggest companies
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
The IAEA has said its inspectors were granted access to all locations they needed to visit in 2017, but that they did not seek to enter any military sites, which Iranian officials declared off-limits - a move the US said raised doubts over Tehran's compliance.
What does the US want instead?
In May, Mr Pompeo outlined 12 conditions for any "new deal" between the US and Iran, including the withdrawal of its forces from Syria and an end to its support for rebels in Yemen.
The US Treasury has said there will be wind-down periods of 90 and 180 days before sanctions are implemented.
The first deadline, on 6 August, will affect the purchase of US dollars, trade in gold and certain other metals, as well as aviation and the car industry.
The next, on 4 November, will target Iran's financial and oil institutions.
Iran is one of the world's largest oil producers, with exports worth billions of dollars each year. Nonetheless, it is already feeling economic pressures, and has seen large-scale protests over rising prices and a decline in the value of its currency, the rial.
Trump and Iran's Rouhani trade angry threats
Donald Trump fired off a capitalised tweet warning Iran's President Rouhani to "BE CAUTIOUS!"
US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have traded hostile warnings, amid rising tensions between the two countries.
Mr Trump tweeted Iran would "suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before" if it threatened the US.
Mr Rouhani earlier said that war with Iran would be "the mother of all wars".
In May, the US left a deal which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of international sanctions.
Iran faces up to its options
Who are the winners and losers?
Washington is now re-imposing the sanctions, despite objections from the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany, who all signed the 2015 agreement.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
1:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018
President Rouhani's comments, made to Iranian diplomats, did leave open the possibility of future good relations with the US.
"America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars," he said, according to Iran's state news agency Irna.
Mr Trump's angry rhetoric has echoes of his Twitter barrages against North Korea's Kim Jong-un, whom he branded a "madman" who "will be tested like never before", before engaging in a testy exchange over whose nuclear button was bigger.
Their verbal hostilities nonetheless evolved into ongoing diplomatic talks.
On Monday, a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards suggested the US president's statements were part of a broader strategy.
"The remarks Trump makes against Iran are psychological warfare and he would be mistaken should he seek to take action against Iran," Gholamhossein Gheybparvar said, quoted by the Iranian Students News Agency.
'Resembles the mafia'
On Sunday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he wanted to try to stop countries importing Iranian oil by November as part of continued pressure on Tehran.
Addressing a group of Iranian Americans in California, he said the Iranian regime "resembles the mafia more than a government".
Mr Pompeo called Mr Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who negotiated the nuclear deal, "merely polished front men for the ayatollahs' international con artistry".
Is there a Plan B?
Why Trump ditched the deal
The gathering was the first time a top US official had directly addressed such a large number of Iranian Americans, says BBC state department correspondent Barbara Plett Usher. It is being seen as part of the administration's strategy to increase pressure on Iran's leadership.
What do the US and Iran disagree on?
Mr Trump has consistently opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, which saw the US release billions of dollars of frozen assets in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear programme
The Trump administration regards Iran as a destabilising force in the Middle East, arguing the nuclear deal enabled Iran to pursue a more assertive regional policy. Iran has sent hundreds of troops and thousands of volunteer militiamen to Syria, and has strengthened its military presence there
Gulf states have accused Iran of backing Yemen's Houthi rebels with both money and weapons, though Iran has denied this. Saudi Arabia, a key US ally, is a major adversary of Iran and has repeatedly warned about Iran's intentions
Washington initially attempted to force all of its allies to stop buying Iranian oil, though it has now said it may grant sanction waivers to those especially reliant on Iranian supplies. President Rouhani has allegedly threatened to disrupt oil shipments from neighbouring countries if Iran's sales are stopped
Why did the US withdraw from the deal?
In May, Mr Trump called the nuclear accord - or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it is formally known - a "horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made".
He alleged that the deal did not restrict Iran's "destabilising activities" in the region enough, and could not detect or prevent any breaking of its terms.
Analysts also cited the influence of White House Iran hawks including Mr Pompeo and US National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Mr Trump's tendency to target legacy achievements of his predecessor President Obama.
People in the Iran-aligned suburbs of Beirut give their reaction to US withdrawal from the nuclear deal
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has said Iran is honouring its commitments.
What is the nuclear accord?
Pain for some of Europe's biggest companies
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
The IAEA has said its inspectors were granted access to all locations they needed to visit in 2017, but that they did not seek to enter any military sites, which Iranian officials declared off-limits - a move the US said raised doubts over Tehran's compliance.
What does the US want instead?
In May, Mr Pompeo outlined 12 conditions for any "new deal" between the US and Iran, including the withdrawal of its forces from Syria and an end to its support for rebels in Yemen.
The US Treasury has said there will be wind-down periods of 90 and 180 days before sanctions are implemented.
The first deadline, on 6 August, will affect the purchase of US dollars, trade in gold and certain other metals, as well as aviation and the car industry.
The next, on 4 November, will target Iran's financial and oil institutions.
Iran is one of the world's largest oil producers, with exports worth billions of dollars each year. Nonetheless, it is already feeling economic pressures, and has seen large-scale protests over rising prices and a decline in the value of its currency, the rial.
Bitter pill: China vaccine scandal sparks online fury, roils markets - Reuters
JULY 23, 2018
Bitter pill: China vaccine scandal sparks online fury, roils markets
Adam Jourdan, John Ruwitch
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - A vaccine scandal in China, which has prompted angry reactions from leaders and citizens fed up with safety scares in the country, is sending ripples across the local drug market and threatening Chinese ambitions to play a larger global role.
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang speaks at the China-EU Business Roundtable held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Monday, July 16, 2018. Ng Han Guan/Pool via Reuters
Shares in Chinese vaccine makers and biotech firms fell across the board on Monday after Premier Li Keqiang slammed Changsheng Biotechnology Co for having crossed a moral red line and called for swift action.
Changsheng has been found to have faked production documents related to a rabies vaccine that is given to babies as young as three months, underscoring the difficulties China faces in cleaning up the image of what is the world’s No.2 drug industry as it aims to promote locally made vaccines globally.
While there have been no apparent reports of people being harmed by the vaccine, the regulator ordered Changsheng to halt production and recall the product after the scandal emerged earlier this month.
The case has gone viral in China, where sensitivity over food and drug safety is extremely high after a slew of scandals over the last decade. It was among the most hotly discussed topics on microblogging website Sina Weibo on Monday.
In a statement posted on the government’s website late on Sunday, Premier Li called for an immediate investigation and urged severe punishment for the companies and people implicated. He added the public needed clear information.
“We will resolutely crack down on illegal and criminal acts that endanger the safety of peoples’ lives, resolutely punish lawbreakers according to the law, and resolutely and severely criticize dereliction of duty in supervision,” he said.
The China Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that its investigation had found that Changsheng fabricated production records and product inspection records, and arbitrarily changed process parameters and equipment, in “serious violations” of the law.
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS
Changsheng apologized in a regulatory filing and said the suspension of its vaccine would have a significant impact on its finances. It added some regional disease control agencies had suspended some of its other vaccines.
It also flagged on Monday that the firm may face the risk of having to delist due to an investigation by China’s securities regulator into suspected violations of information disclosure.
This is, however, not Changsheng’s first brush with quality issues. Last year, it sold 252,600 substandard DPT vaccines to inoculate children against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus, a regulator in the northeastern Jilin said on Friday.
China’s pharmaceutical industry has been plagued with such scandals, with another company Wuhan Institute of Biological Products also being implicated in the DPT vaccine issue last year and the police busting a gang for selling around $90 million worth of illegal vaccines on the black market in 2016.
Changsheng shares, which resumed trading on Monday afternoon session after being suspended in the morning, were down 10 percent. They have slumped 47 percent since mid July.
The wider CSI 300 healthcare index was down about 5 percent.
The China Daily warned earlier in an editorial that the latest Changsheng case could become a public health crisis if it is not handled “in a reasonable and transparent manner”.
The government needs to let the public know it “will punish any wrongdoers without mercy”, the official newspaper wrote.
Late on Sunday, state news agency Xinhua ran an editorial calling for strict punishment for any violations, big or small, in the vaccine industry and for regulators to close loopholes and tighten oversight of the industry.
The state-run Global Times also weighed in, saying the case had “sparked nationwide outrage, (and) could pose serious challenges for a domestic industry that has seen rapid growth in recent years but experienced a series of scandals”.
($1 = 6.7659 Chinese yuan)
Reporting by John Ruwitch and Adam Jourdan; Editing by Himani Sarkar
Bitter pill: China vaccine scandal sparks online fury, roils markets
Adam Jourdan, John Ruwitch
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - A vaccine scandal in China, which has prompted angry reactions from leaders and citizens fed up with safety scares in the country, is sending ripples across the local drug market and threatening Chinese ambitions to play a larger global role.
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang speaks at the China-EU Business Roundtable held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Monday, July 16, 2018. Ng Han Guan/Pool via Reuters
Shares in Chinese vaccine makers and biotech firms fell across the board on Monday after Premier Li Keqiang slammed Changsheng Biotechnology Co for having crossed a moral red line and called for swift action.
Changsheng has been found to have faked production documents related to a rabies vaccine that is given to babies as young as three months, underscoring the difficulties China faces in cleaning up the image of what is the world’s No.2 drug industry as it aims to promote locally made vaccines globally.
While there have been no apparent reports of people being harmed by the vaccine, the regulator ordered Changsheng to halt production and recall the product after the scandal emerged earlier this month.
The case has gone viral in China, where sensitivity over food and drug safety is extremely high after a slew of scandals over the last decade. It was among the most hotly discussed topics on microblogging website Sina Weibo on Monday.
In a statement posted on the government’s website late on Sunday, Premier Li called for an immediate investigation and urged severe punishment for the companies and people implicated. He added the public needed clear information.
“We will resolutely crack down on illegal and criminal acts that endanger the safety of peoples’ lives, resolutely punish lawbreakers according to the law, and resolutely and severely criticize dereliction of duty in supervision,” he said.
The China Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that its investigation had found that Changsheng fabricated production records and product inspection records, and arbitrarily changed process parameters and equipment, in “serious violations” of the law.
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS
Changsheng apologized in a regulatory filing and said the suspension of its vaccine would have a significant impact on its finances. It added some regional disease control agencies had suspended some of its other vaccines.
It also flagged on Monday that the firm may face the risk of having to delist due to an investigation by China’s securities regulator into suspected violations of information disclosure.
This is, however, not Changsheng’s first brush with quality issues. Last year, it sold 252,600 substandard DPT vaccines to inoculate children against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus, a regulator in the northeastern Jilin said on Friday.
China’s pharmaceutical industry has been plagued with such scandals, with another company Wuhan Institute of Biological Products also being implicated in the DPT vaccine issue last year and the police busting a gang for selling around $90 million worth of illegal vaccines on the black market in 2016.
Changsheng shares, which resumed trading on Monday afternoon session after being suspended in the morning, were down 10 percent. They have slumped 47 percent since mid July.
The wider CSI 300 healthcare index was down about 5 percent.
The China Daily warned earlier in an editorial that the latest Changsheng case could become a public health crisis if it is not handled “in a reasonable and transparent manner”.
The government needs to let the public know it “will punish any wrongdoers without mercy”, the official newspaper wrote.
Late on Sunday, state news agency Xinhua ran an editorial calling for strict punishment for any violations, big or small, in the vaccine industry and for regulators to close loopholes and tighten oversight of the industry.
The state-run Global Times also weighed in, saying the case had “sparked nationwide outrage, (and) could pose serious challenges for a domestic industry that has seen rapid growth in recent years but experienced a series of scandals”.
($1 = 6.7659 Chinese yuan)
Reporting by John Ruwitch and Adam Jourdan; Editing by Himani Sarkar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
