Are you a citizen? Here's what happens if you lie on the census.
It's a federal crime not to answer census questions or to give false information. But here's why you shouldn't worry about being prosecuted.
by Danny Cevallos / Apr.02.2018 / 6:58 PM ET
An American flag billows in the wind as immigrants stand and take the oath of allegiance to the United States during a naturalization ceremony at Liberty State Park, Sept. 15, 2017 in Jersey City, New Jersey.Drew Angerer / Getty Images file
Legal analysis
Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution requires the enumeration of people in the U.S. every 10 years for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives.
The "Census Clause" also requires that representatives be apportioned among the states "according to their respective Numbers." Section 2 of the 14th Amendment further provides that House representatives "shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State." The Census Act of 1790 provides for the enumeration of the "inhabitants of the United States."
Federal law requires that the secretary of commerce take a census of "population" — not citizens — and the same law authorizes the secretary to "obtain such other census information as necessary."
The Constitution says "persons" — not "citizens" or "green card holders." That's why the Trump administration's move to include a citizenship question on the census is meeting such intense opposition; there are concerns that it will deter participation and lead to an inaccurate population count.
Trump exposes census to undercount with citizenship question
Federal law provides that anyone who refuses to answer or willfully neglects to answer any of the questions in connection with any census or survey shall be fined a maximum of $100, or a maximum of $500 if the person gives false information.
In theory, noncitizens should not fear answering census questions. Surveys are mailed to addresses, rather than to specific individuals. Not including individual names on the address label is meant to protect the confidentiality of the participating households.
Additionally, federal law provides immunity for persons who give answers to census questions. Information furnished cannot be "used to the detriment of the persons to whom such information relates." Census reports may not be admitted as evidence or used in any action or proceeding, without consent.
These laws are designed to deter someone from refusing to answer questions on the census claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Practically speaking, though, anyone who is concerned about their legal status may not want to volunteer this to the same federal government that could deport them. It's hardly a sentiment limited only to noncitizens. In past enumerations, some Republican leaders have all but encouraged open defiance of the law.
Then-Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, once advised constituents to fill out "the basic census information" but added that if they felt "their privacy is being invaded by those (additional) questions, they (could) choose not to answer those questions."
And George W. Bush, then a candidate for president, said he "(understood) why people don't want to give over that information to the government."
Prosecutions for failure to participate in the census are rare; most significant court cases dealing with these crimes date back to the 1970s.
The perceived risk of answering remains greater than the virtually nonexistent risk of not answering because the Justice Department is not likely to start prosecuting offenders for refusing to answer.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has indicated that illegal immigration will be a priority for the DOJ under his command, but going after noncitizens who refuse to answer census questions, motivated by fear of being removed from the country, would contradict the overall message the census is trying to send: It is here to count you, not to hurt you. Plus, courts have indicated in the past that purposeful discrimination by census authorities can give rise to a defense of selective prosecution.
Ultimately, the refusal to answer census questions is a federal crime, but not really.
Some categories of federal criminal statutes are heavily enforced. Drug crimes and immigration crimes make up over 50 percent of the federal prosecution caseload.
Then there are those federal crimes that are technically crimes, but not really. For example, it's a federal crime for a peanut dealer to refuse to tell the government how many peanuts he has. It's also a federal crime to mail a package of dead bees without writing "DEAD BEES" on every side of the box, using black letters at least an inch tall.
There are a lot of federal crimes. Not all of them are enforced. Refusing to answer the census or lying on it will likely remain in that second category — a crime, but not really.
Danny Cevallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.
Monday, April 2, 2018
Alibaba is pouring billions into the food delivery business - CNN Tech
Alibaba is pouring billions into the food delivery business
by Sherisse Pham @Sherisse
April 2, 2018: 5:45 AM ET
Alibaba is spending billions of dollars to take control of one of China's biggest online food delivery services.
China's biggest e-commerce company said Monday that it will buy all the outstanding shares it doesn't already hold in Ele.me, a startup whose Chinese name roughly translates to "Hungry?"
Alibaba (BABA) and one of its affiliates already own 43% of Ele.me, according to a company statement. The deal, which values Ele.me at $9.5 billion including debt, enables Alibaba to bring the startup deeper into its huge web of internet businesses that touch many areas of Chinese' consumers' lives.
Tech companies are eager to cash in on China's growing online food delivery market, which is expected to grow 18% to 241 billion yuan ($38 billion) this year, according to research firm iiMedia.
Tencent (TCEHY), China's biggest tech company by market value, has pumped billions of dollars into Meituan-Dianping, another leading delivery startup.
Meituan-Dianping enables users to make lunch reservations, order food and buy movie tickets through a single mobile app. A funding round in October valued it at roughly $30 billion, making it one of the most valuable startups in the world.
China's largest ride-hailing company, Didi Chuxing, is also on the verge of launching food delivery services in China, according to local media reports.
eleme china app
Alibaba is acquiring online food delivery company Ele.me, valuing the startup at $9.5 billion.
A similar trend is playing out in the United States. Amazon (AMZN), the company with which Alibaba is most often compared, teamed up with online food delivery company Olo in September in an effort to expand its Amazon Restaurants service. It's a market where the likes of GrubHub and Uber Eats are already important players.
For Alibaba, buying Ele.me is part of the e-commerce company's efforts to connect smartphone users with real-world services. Alibaba is already mixing online and offline shopping with its brick-and-mortar grocery store chain, Hema.
Alibaba said it will combine Ele.me with its own restaurant review and local services platform Koubei, which means "Word of Mouth."
Ele.me and Koubei have overlapping services. But after the takeover, Ele.me will focus on delivering food to people's homes, while Koubei will focus on getting people to buy goods and services online, and pick them up or consume them at physical stores or restaurants.
CNNMoney (Hong Kong)
First published April 2, 2018: 5:45 AM ET
by Sherisse Pham @Sherisse
April 2, 2018: 5:45 AM ET
Alibaba is spending billions of dollars to take control of one of China's biggest online food delivery services.
China's biggest e-commerce company said Monday that it will buy all the outstanding shares it doesn't already hold in Ele.me, a startup whose Chinese name roughly translates to "Hungry?"
Alibaba (BABA) and one of its affiliates already own 43% of Ele.me, according to a company statement. The deal, which values Ele.me at $9.5 billion including debt, enables Alibaba to bring the startup deeper into its huge web of internet businesses that touch many areas of Chinese' consumers' lives.
Tech companies are eager to cash in on China's growing online food delivery market, which is expected to grow 18% to 241 billion yuan ($38 billion) this year, according to research firm iiMedia.
Tencent (TCEHY), China's biggest tech company by market value, has pumped billions of dollars into Meituan-Dianping, another leading delivery startup.
Meituan-Dianping enables users to make lunch reservations, order food and buy movie tickets through a single mobile app. A funding round in October valued it at roughly $30 billion, making it one of the most valuable startups in the world.
China's largest ride-hailing company, Didi Chuxing, is also on the verge of launching food delivery services in China, according to local media reports.
eleme china app
Alibaba is acquiring online food delivery company Ele.me, valuing the startup at $9.5 billion.
A similar trend is playing out in the United States. Amazon (AMZN), the company with which Alibaba is most often compared, teamed up with online food delivery company Olo in September in an effort to expand its Amazon Restaurants service. It's a market where the likes of GrubHub and Uber Eats are already important players.
For Alibaba, buying Ele.me is part of the e-commerce company's efforts to connect smartphone users with real-world services. Alibaba is already mixing online and offline shopping with its brick-and-mortar grocery store chain, Hema.
Alibaba said it will combine Ele.me with its own restaurant review and local services platform Koubei, which means "Word of Mouth."
Ele.me and Koubei have overlapping services. But after the takeover, Ele.me will focus on delivering food to people's homes, while Koubei will focus on getting people to buy goods and services online, and pick them up or consume them at physical stores or restaurants.
CNNMoney (Hong Kong)
First published April 2, 2018: 5:45 AM ET
The Best Way to Quit Smoking, According to Science - TIME Health
The Best Way to Quit Smoking, According to Science
By MANDY OAKLANDER March 14, 2016
TIME Health
For more, visit TIME Health.
Researchers have long sought for answers on the best way to help people quit smoking. Often, it comes down to two options: quitting cold turkey or gradually tapering a smoking habit. But which one works better?
“A lot of people think that the common sense way to give up smoking is to reduce the amount they smoke before quitting,” says Nicola Lindson-Hawley of the University of Oxford, who led a new study published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
But the results suggested just the opposite: quitting cold turkey is best.
Lindson-Hawley and her colleagues looked at almost 700 people in England who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day but who were planning to quit. They all set a quit date for two weeks. Half of them were randomly assigned to smoke normally until their quit date, then to stop abruptly. The other half gradually reduced their smoking over the two weeks leading up to the appointed day. Both groups had behavioral counseling, nicotine patches and nicotine replacement therapy from products like gum, lozenges and mouth spray.
The way the researchers measured success was by looking at smoking abstinence for four weeks after the quit date, and then six months later.
Those who quit abruptly stuck to it the best—about 25% better than the gradual-cessation group. And 49% of the abrupt group were successful, while 39% of the gradual group were.
At the half-year mark, 22% of the cold-turkey group were still smoke-free, while 15% of the gradual group were.
Interestingly, more people said they preferred to quit gradually rather than abruptly. But a person’s preferences didn’t make much of a difference in their success. “Even if people wanted to quit gradually, they were more likely to quit if they used the abrupt method,” Lindson-Hawley says.
The research didn’t look at other potential forms of smoking cessation, including e-cigarettes, which have yet to be definitively proven as an effective smoking cessation tool. And even though quitting cold was better, Lindson-Hawley says, “the quit rates we found in the gradual group were still quite good.” In future research, she plans to explore the methods of gradual quitting to see if they can be made more effective. “If there are people who really feel they can’t quit abruptly, and they want to quit gradually—otherwise they won’t try to quit at all—we still need to support them to do that.”
By MANDY OAKLANDER March 14, 2016
TIME Health
For more, visit TIME Health.
Researchers have long sought for answers on the best way to help people quit smoking. Often, it comes down to two options: quitting cold turkey or gradually tapering a smoking habit. But which one works better?
“A lot of people think that the common sense way to give up smoking is to reduce the amount they smoke before quitting,” says Nicola Lindson-Hawley of the University of Oxford, who led a new study published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
But the results suggested just the opposite: quitting cold turkey is best.
Lindson-Hawley and her colleagues looked at almost 700 people in England who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day but who were planning to quit. They all set a quit date for two weeks. Half of them were randomly assigned to smoke normally until their quit date, then to stop abruptly. The other half gradually reduced their smoking over the two weeks leading up to the appointed day. Both groups had behavioral counseling, nicotine patches and nicotine replacement therapy from products like gum, lozenges and mouth spray.
The way the researchers measured success was by looking at smoking abstinence for four weeks after the quit date, and then six months later.
Those who quit abruptly stuck to it the best—about 25% better than the gradual-cessation group. And 49% of the abrupt group were successful, while 39% of the gradual group were.
At the half-year mark, 22% of the cold-turkey group were still smoke-free, while 15% of the gradual group were.
Interestingly, more people said they preferred to quit gradually rather than abruptly. But a person’s preferences didn’t make much of a difference in their success. “Even if people wanted to quit gradually, they were more likely to quit if they used the abrupt method,” Lindson-Hawley says.
The research didn’t look at other potential forms of smoking cessation, including e-cigarettes, which have yet to be definitively proven as an effective smoking cessation tool. And even though quitting cold was better, Lindson-Hawley says, “the quit rates we found in the gradual group were still quite good.” In future research, she plans to explore the methods of gradual quitting to see if they can be made more effective. “If there are people who really feel they can’t quit abruptly, and they want to quit gradually—otherwise they won’t try to quit at all—we still need to support them to do that.”
Donald Trump Attacks Amazon’s ‘Post Office Scam’ on Twitter — Again - TIME Business
Donald Trump Attacks Amazon’s ‘Post Office Scam’ on Twitter — Again
Posted: 31 Mar 2018 09:57 AM PDT
President Donald Trump is going after Amazon — again.
Just days after he posted a tweet attacking the retail giant for allegedly “pay[ing] little or no taxes to state and local governments,” Trump doubled down on his argument.
In a tweet posted Saturday, the president said the U.S. Postal Service loses $1.50 for each Amazon package it delivers, a figure that has been backed by some analysts. That amounts to “Billions of Dollars” in losses — a “scam” that could be rectified, Trump writes, if Amazon were to “pay real costs (and taxes) now!”
Amazon does collect taxes on any purchases made in states with sales tax, with the exception of items sold by third-party vendors — a category that makes up a large chunk of the site’s sales.
While we are on the subject, it is reported that the U.S. Post Office will lose $1.50 on average for each package it delivers for Amazon. That amounts to Billions of Dollars. The Failing N.Y. Times reports that “the size of the company’s lobbying staff has ballooned,” and that…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2018
…does not include the Fake Washington Post, which is used as a “lobbyist” and should so REGISTER. If the P.O. “increased its parcel rates, Amazon’s shipping costs would rise by $2.6 Billion.” This Post Office scam must stop. Amazon must pay real costs (and taxes) now!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2018
Trump has a long-standing dislike for Amazon, as demonstrated by years of tweets targeted at the internet retailer. Attacking the Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, is recurring theme in the tweets — and one that was demonstrated again on Saturday.
A New Push Is On for Afghan Schools, but the Numbers Are Grim - New York Times
A New Push Is On for Afghan Schools, but the Numbers Are Grim
By MUJIB MASHAL and NAJIM RAHIM APRIL 1, 2018
Students taking a test in Kunduz Province. Almost half of Afghan schools are still in the open air or borrow space in homes. Credit Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — Before the start of another Afghan school year, about 200 tribal elders in the southeastern district of Laja Mangal gathered in a schoolyard for an important declaration: Any family that did not send its children to school would be fined $70, about half a civil servant’s monthly salary.
The district of about 50,000 people had built seven schools over the past 15 years, yet it had struggled to attract students from the mountainous area where the Taliban also have influence. The elders, feeling old tribal customs were holding back their children, thought the drastic measure was necessary.
“They see those people who go to school and become important people in the government and international organizations, so they have tasted the value of education,” said Khayesta Khan Ahadi, who was the headmaster of the first school built in the district.
Mr. Ahadi said local Taliban, after outreach by the tribal elders, announced their support for the decision from the loudspeakers of local mosques.
The tribal elders’ decision has gained attention across Afghanistan not just because it could help more children get an education, but also because it comes at a time when many remain deprived. Violence and corruption have overshadowed what was once a remarkable success story.
U.S. Braces for Return of Terrorist Safe Havens to Afghanistan MARCH 12, 2018
3.5 million children are unschooled.
That 3.5 million figure is according to Unicef. Seventy-five percent of them are girls.
The reasons vary. Violence remains high and widespread. There are too few female teachers, and many families will only let girls be taught by women. For many, going to school means a walk of many miles each day.
In certain parts of the country enjoying relative peace, however, female enrollment seems higher than that of boys.
In the central Bamian Province, 58 percent of the 162,000 students are female, according to Ayyub Arvin, the provincial director of education.
1,075 schools remain closed.
The country’s Education Ministry says it has 17,500 schools across the country, but 1,075 remained shut last year, largely because of raging violence. The south of the country, where violence has been relentless over the past decade, has been disproportionately affected by the school closures.
Activists say the number of closed schools is even higher. Mattiullah Wesa, who leads the organization the Pen Path, said they have counted 1,600 shuttered schools.
Of Afghanistan’s approximately 400 school districts, there are 48 districts where not a single male student has graduated from high school in the past 17 years, Mr. Wesa said. There are around 130 districts from where not a single girl has graduated from high school in the same period, he added.
Nearly half of schools lack buildings.
A survey of 32 of the country’s 34 provinces by The New York Times shows close to half the schools lack buildings. Provincial officials in these areas reported that more than 7,000 schools either teach in open air or have worked out temporary arrangements for classes in rental homes.
The provinces of Ghor and Herat in the west, Badakhshan in the northeast, and Nangarhar in the east had the highest number of schools without buildings, each with at least 400.
“Even inside the city, and the centers of the districts, we have schools that lack buildings,” said Rohullah Mohaqeq, the provincial director of education in Badakhshan.
Corruption hits every level.
Despite huge donor investment in Afghan education, corruption remains one of the major causes for its abysmal infrastructure.
The country’s education system is marred by corruption — from the smallest procedures of modifying school certificates, to the appointment of teachers and the handling of school construction contracts — a damning report by the country’s independent corruption monitor said last year. People seeking a teaching job could pay as much as a $1,000 in bribes, nearly five months’ salary, to secure a position.
Recently, the government has tried to tackle corruption in the hiring of teachers by introducing a more rigorous process through its civil service commission. The Education Ministry is the country’s largest civil service employer.
Corruption has also been seen as a major reason for discrepancies in enrollment numbers. The country’s previous government had claimed more than 11 million children were in school, with allotted resources often going into the pockets of local and central officials. But the new government has placed that number anywhere between 6.2 million to a little over 9 million.
Pressure on Taliban works, sometimes.
Across the country, as violence has become the daily reality, elders have tried to figure out local arrangements that would reopen schools.
“The good news is that the Taliban now want schools in their area of control because of local pressure,” said Dawood Shah Safari, the head of the education department in Helmand, whereas many as 30 school buildings are used as cover by fighters on both sides. “Villagers keep coming to me with letters of approval from the Taliban, asking us to open schools.”
In northeastern Warduj district, which is largely controlled by the Taliban, officials said 16 schools that had been closed for two years were reopening this spring after talks with the group.
The 13 schools in the Nawa district of Ghazni Province have been closed since 2001, with no child able to attend, according to Mujib-ur-Rahman Ansar, the provincial director of education. But recently, local elders convinced the Taliban to allow the schools to reopen. As many as 25,000 children could attend if the Taliban allow both boys and girls, Mr. Ansar said.
“I must tell you that there isn’t any professional teacher for these students,” Mr. Ansar said. “I will hire one to two teachers, and the guy may only be able to read and write, with a ninth or 10th grade education, not much more.”
Other times, Taliban still threaten.
Last week, as schools prepared to open in the northern province of Kunduz, the official ceremony in the capital city had to be shifted because of Taliban threats.
Only a quarter of Kunduz city’s 130 schools have opened their doors to students. The rest, even those under nominal government control, are waiting for the Taliban to give the green light.
The dispute seems to be over the mechanism of paying the teachers. The Taliban say they are not opposed to education but will keep the schools shut until the government changes the method of paying teachers from bank deposits to cash.
On Saturday, hundreds of teachers marched in Kunduz city, saying they hadn’t been paid for five months.
Mawlawi Bismillah, the Taliban’s head of education for Kunduz, said the group’s position was intended to reduce the headache for teachers, who need to make long trips to the provincial capital to withdraw their money. It’s easier if the money is delivered by middlemen, he said.
Government officials say the Taliban are pushing the change because they want a cut.
“They should come and monitor the payment process,” Mr. Bismillah said. “In our areas of control, we have very active attention and monitoring.”
Fahim Abed, Jawad Sukhanyar and Fatima Faizi contributed reporting from Kabul; Taimoor Shah from Kandahar; and Zabihullah Ghazi from Jalalabad.
By MUJIB MASHAL and NAJIM RAHIM APRIL 1, 2018
Students taking a test in Kunduz Province. Almost half of Afghan schools are still in the open air or borrow space in homes. Credit Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — Before the start of another Afghan school year, about 200 tribal elders in the southeastern district of Laja Mangal gathered in a schoolyard for an important declaration: Any family that did not send its children to school would be fined $70, about half a civil servant’s monthly salary.
The district of about 50,000 people had built seven schools over the past 15 years, yet it had struggled to attract students from the mountainous area where the Taliban also have influence. The elders, feeling old tribal customs were holding back their children, thought the drastic measure was necessary.
“They see those people who go to school and become important people in the government and international organizations, so they have tasted the value of education,” said Khayesta Khan Ahadi, who was the headmaster of the first school built in the district.
Mr. Ahadi said local Taliban, after outreach by the tribal elders, announced their support for the decision from the loudspeakers of local mosques.
The tribal elders’ decision has gained attention across Afghanistan not just because it could help more children get an education, but also because it comes at a time when many remain deprived. Violence and corruption have overshadowed what was once a remarkable success story.
U.S. Braces for Return of Terrorist Safe Havens to Afghanistan MARCH 12, 2018
3.5 million children are unschooled.
That 3.5 million figure is according to Unicef. Seventy-five percent of them are girls.
The reasons vary. Violence remains high and widespread. There are too few female teachers, and many families will only let girls be taught by women. For many, going to school means a walk of many miles each day.
In certain parts of the country enjoying relative peace, however, female enrollment seems higher than that of boys.
In the central Bamian Province, 58 percent of the 162,000 students are female, according to Ayyub Arvin, the provincial director of education.
1,075 schools remain closed.
The country’s Education Ministry says it has 17,500 schools across the country, but 1,075 remained shut last year, largely because of raging violence. The south of the country, where violence has been relentless over the past decade, has been disproportionately affected by the school closures.
Activists say the number of closed schools is even higher. Mattiullah Wesa, who leads the organization the Pen Path, said they have counted 1,600 shuttered schools.
Of Afghanistan’s approximately 400 school districts, there are 48 districts where not a single male student has graduated from high school in the past 17 years, Mr. Wesa said. There are around 130 districts from where not a single girl has graduated from high school in the same period, he added.
Nearly half of schools lack buildings.
A survey of 32 of the country’s 34 provinces by The New York Times shows close to half the schools lack buildings. Provincial officials in these areas reported that more than 7,000 schools either teach in open air or have worked out temporary arrangements for classes in rental homes.
The provinces of Ghor and Herat in the west, Badakhshan in the northeast, and Nangarhar in the east had the highest number of schools without buildings, each with at least 400.
“Even inside the city, and the centers of the districts, we have schools that lack buildings,” said Rohullah Mohaqeq, the provincial director of education in Badakhshan.
Corruption hits every level.
Despite huge donor investment in Afghan education, corruption remains one of the major causes for its abysmal infrastructure.
The country’s education system is marred by corruption — from the smallest procedures of modifying school certificates, to the appointment of teachers and the handling of school construction contracts — a damning report by the country’s independent corruption monitor said last year. People seeking a teaching job could pay as much as a $1,000 in bribes, nearly five months’ salary, to secure a position.
Recently, the government has tried to tackle corruption in the hiring of teachers by introducing a more rigorous process through its civil service commission. The Education Ministry is the country’s largest civil service employer.
Corruption has also been seen as a major reason for discrepancies in enrollment numbers. The country’s previous government had claimed more than 11 million children were in school, with allotted resources often going into the pockets of local and central officials. But the new government has placed that number anywhere between 6.2 million to a little over 9 million.
Pressure on Taliban works, sometimes.
Across the country, as violence has become the daily reality, elders have tried to figure out local arrangements that would reopen schools.
“The good news is that the Taliban now want schools in their area of control because of local pressure,” said Dawood Shah Safari, the head of the education department in Helmand, whereas many as 30 school buildings are used as cover by fighters on both sides. “Villagers keep coming to me with letters of approval from the Taliban, asking us to open schools.”
In northeastern Warduj district, which is largely controlled by the Taliban, officials said 16 schools that had been closed for two years were reopening this spring after talks with the group.
The 13 schools in the Nawa district of Ghazni Province have been closed since 2001, with no child able to attend, according to Mujib-ur-Rahman Ansar, the provincial director of education. But recently, local elders convinced the Taliban to allow the schools to reopen. As many as 25,000 children could attend if the Taliban allow both boys and girls, Mr. Ansar said.
“I must tell you that there isn’t any professional teacher for these students,” Mr. Ansar said. “I will hire one to two teachers, and the guy may only be able to read and write, with a ninth or 10th grade education, not much more.”
Other times, Taliban still threaten.
Last week, as schools prepared to open in the northern province of Kunduz, the official ceremony in the capital city had to be shifted because of Taliban threats.
Only a quarter of Kunduz city’s 130 schools have opened their doors to students. The rest, even those under nominal government control, are waiting for the Taliban to give the green light.
The dispute seems to be over the mechanism of paying the teachers. The Taliban say they are not opposed to education but will keep the schools shut until the government changes the method of paying teachers from bank deposits to cash.
On Saturday, hundreds of teachers marched in Kunduz city, saying they hadn’t been paid for five months.
Mawlawi Bismillah, the Taliban’s head of education for Kunduz, said the group’s position was intended to reduce the headache for teachers, who need to make long trips to the provincial capital to withdraw their money. It’s easier if the money is delivered by middlemen, he said.
Government officials say the Taliban are pushing the change because they want a cut.
“They should come and monitor the payment process,” Mr. Bismillah said. “In our areas of control, we have very active attention and monitoring.”
Fahim Abed, Jawad Sukhanyar and Fatima Faizi contributed reporting from Kabul; Taimoor Shah from Kandahar; and Zabihullah Ghazi from Jalalabad.
Workers Say McDonald’s Isn’t Keeping Up With Rising Local Wages - Bloomberg
Workers Say McDonald’s Isn’t Keeping Up With Rising Local Wages
By
April 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10
Pay stagnates after high-profile 2015 move on starting salary
Company says minimum wage pledge was never an ongoing policy
A McDonald's employee serves a burger and a carton of french fries at one of the company's restaurants. Photographer: Jason Alden/Bloomberg
Three years after McDonald’s Corp. made a splash by saying it would pay all workers at corporate-owned stores in the U.S. at least $1 an hour above the local minimum wage, some workers say the fast-food giant hasn’t kept pace with the times.
In April 2015, amid a tightening labor market and after a string of high-profile labor protests, the burger giant unveiled a new first-of-its-kind wage floor for employees at the roughly 1,500 stores run directly by the corporation.
“A motivated workforce leads to better customer service so we believe this initial step not only benefits our employees, it will improve the McDonald’s restaurant experience,” Chief Executive Officer Steve Easterbrook said then in the statement announcing the move. As of July 1 of that year, all employees at corporate-owned restaurants would be paid at least $1 an hour above the local minimum, the company said.
Fast forward to 2018, and now some of Easterbrook’s employees say McDonald’s has violated the spirit of the announcement -- the buck-above-local-wage floor that McDonald’s today says was a one-time bump in 2015 and not designed to continue in perpetuity.
A series of recent pay stubs for 16 McDonald’s employees in eight cities, shared by the union-backed “Fight For $15” campaign, show workers receiving hourly rates that are substantially less than a dollar above the current local minimum.
Pay Stubs
Chicago employee Kayla Kuper, who’s worked at a corporate-owned store since 2015, said she was hired at $11 an hour, one dollar above the $10 hourly rate that the city began requiring that year under a 2014 ordinance. Since then, Chicago’s minimum wage has advanced to $11 an hour while Kuper’s rate has ticked up only to $11.40.
“The wage increase in 2015 –- to be a $1 above the local minimum wage -– was applicable to the local wages on July 1, 2015, but was not a policy thereafter,” McDonald’s spokeswoman Terri Hickey said in an emailed statement.
The 2015 increase in starting wages was “part of an expanded benefits package that also included paid time off,” Hickey said. Tuition assistance was part of the package as well, and the Oak Brook, Illinois, company last month expanded its tuition assistance for employees, she added.
2015 Announcement
The 2015 McDonald’s statement announcing the news didn’t directly address whether employees’ pay would remain $1 above local requirements as those wage floors continued to rise. It did project that by the end of 2016, the average hourly wage for McDonald’s employees at company-owned restaurants would be above $10.
In Milpitas, California, north of San Jose, where the local minimum wage rose to $12 an hour on Jan. 1, several workers’ February paychecks show they received $12.35 or $12.45. In Los Angeles, where the minimum wage for large employers has been $12 since July, some checks show hourly pay of $12.69 or less.
“They need to give us the dollar that they promised us,” said one of those employees, Fanny Velazquez, who’s worked for the corporation for a decade. “I can’t pay my rent or my bills.”
Union’s Push
The Fight For $15, a 6-year-old effort by the Service Employees International Union to organize fast food workers and secure more stringent wage laws, seized on the paychecks as evidence that the McDonald’s 2015 announcement was a “publicity stunt.”
“If McDonald’s wants to play semantics with its workers and continue to drive a race to the bottom instead of giving us real raises, it is going to continue losing workers to the growing number of employers who are leading the way to a better economy for all,” said Betty Douglas, a McDonald’s worker in St. Louis, in a statement on behalf of the Fight for $15.
Fight For $15 criticized McDonald’s pay announcement from the start, because it didn’t apply to the majority of the chain’s stores, which are owned by franchisees, and didn’t meet the group’s signature demand of $15 hourly pay.
The group plans to launch a hotline Monday that workers can call to report their wages, and will hold rallies in three cities on Tuesday to press its case that workers need a union in order to hold the company accountable.
Compliance Headaches
Business leaders have complained in recent years that the proliferation of local mandates on compensation and benefits has created compliance headaches for companies that operate nationwide.
The local minimum wage laws that union organizers say McDonald’s has failed to keep pace with are partially an outgrowth of pressure from the Fight For $15 and similar groups. That’s helped spur states and cities to push their wage floors far above the federal rate of $7.25 an hour, where it has been since 2009.
Burger chains like McDonald’s are facing record-high turnover as workers depart for better jobs options in a tightening labor market. Last year, McDonald’s lagged behind peers like Wendy’s and Burger King in average drive-through times. Some employees complain that the chain’s “Experience of the Future,” a suite of changes to menus, technology and food delivery, has meant performing more tasks without commensurate staffing expansions or pay increases.
“It’s going to get increasingly challenging to attract the talent you want into your business,” Easterbrook said earlier this year, “and then you’ve got to work really hard through training and development to retain them.”
By
April 2, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10
Pay stagnates after high-profile 2015 move on starting salary
Company says minimum wage pledge was never an ongoing policy
A McDonald's employee serves a burger and a carton of french fries at one of the company's restaurants. Photographer: Jason Alden/Bloomberg
Three years after McDonald’s Corp. made a splash by saying it would pay all workers at corporate-owned stores in the U.S. at least $1 an hour above the local minimum wage, some workers say the fast-food giant hasn’t kept pace with the times.
In April 2015, amid a tightening labor market and after a string of high-profile labor protests, the burger giant unveiled a new first-of-its-kind wage floor for employees at the roughly 1,500 stores run directly by the corporation.
“A motivated workforce leads to better customer service so we believe this initial step not only benefits our employees, it will improve the McDonald’s restaurant experience,” Chief Executive Officer Steve Easterbrook said then in the statement announcing the move. As of July 1 of that year, all employees at corporate-owned restaurants would be paid at least $1 an hour above the local minimum, the company said.
Fast forward to 2018, and now some of Easterbrook’s employees say McDonald’s has violated the spirit of the announcement -- the buck-above-local-wage floor that McDonald’s today says was a one-time bump in 2015 and not designed to continue in perpetuity.
A series of recent pay stubs for 16 McDonald’s employees in eight cities, shared by the union-backed “Fight For $15” campaign, show workers receiving hourly rates that are substantially less than a dollar above the current local minimum.
Pay Stubs
Chicago employee Kayla Kuper, who’s worked at a corporate-owned store since 2015, said she was hired at $11 an hour, one dollar above the $10 hourly rate that the city began requiring that year under a 2014 ordinance. Since then, Chicago’s minimum wage has advanced to $11 an hour while Kuper’s rate has ticked up only to $11.40.
“The wage increase in 2015 –- to be a $1 above the local minimum wage -– was applicable to the local wages on July 1, 2015, but was not a policy thereafter,” McDonald’s spokeswoman Terri Hickey said in an emailed statement.
The 2015 increase in starting wages was “part of an expanded benefits package that also included paid time off,” Hickey said. Tuition assistance was part of the package as well, and the Oak Brook, Illinois, company last month expanded its tuition assistance for employees, she added.
2015 Announcement
The 2015 McDonald’s statement announcing the news didn’t directly address whether employees’ pay would remain $1 above local requirements as those wage floors continued to rise. It did project that by the end of 2016, the average hourly wage for McDonald’s employees at company-owned restaurants would be above $10.
In Milpitas, California, north of San Jose, where the local minimum wage rose to $12 an hour on Jan. 1, several workers’ February paychecks show they received $12.35 or $12.45. In Los Angeles, where the minimum wage for large employers has been $12 since July, some checks show hourly pay of $12.69 or less.
“They need to give us the dollar that they promised us,” said one of those employees, Fanny Velazquez, who’s worked for the corporation for a decade. “I can’t pay my rent or my bills.”
Union’s Push
The Fight For $15, a 6-year-old effort by the Service Employees International Union to organize fast food workers and secure more stringent wage laws, seized on the paychecks as evidence that the McDonald’s 2015 announcement was a “publicity stunt.”
“If McDonald’s wants to play semantics with its workers and continue to drive a race to the bottom instead of giving us real raises, it is going to continue losing workers to the growing number of employers who are leading the way to a better economy for all,” said Betty Douglas, a McDonald’s worker in St. Louis, in a statement on behalf of the Fight for $15.
Fight For $15 criticized McDonald’s pay announcement from the start, because it didn’t apply to the majority of the chain’s stores, which are owned by franchisees, and didn’t meet the group’s signature demand of $15 hourly pay.
The group plans to launch a hotline Monday that workers can call to report their wages, and will hold rallies in three cities on Tuesday to press its case that workers need a union in order to hold the company accountable.
Compliance Headaches
Business leaders have complained in recent years that the proliferation of local mandates on compensation and benefits has created compliance headaches for companies that operate nationwide.
The local minimum wage laws that union organizers say McDonald’s has failed to keep pace with are partially an outgrowth of pressure from the Fight For $15 and similar groups. That’s helped spur states and cities to push their wage floors far above the federal rate of $7.25 an hour, where it has been since 2009.
Burger chains like McDonald’s are facing record-high turnover as workers depart for better jobs options in a tightening labor market. Last year, McDonald’s lagged behind peers like Wendy’s and Burger King in average drive-through times. Some employees complain that the chain’s “Experience of the Future,” a suite of changes to menus, technology and food delivery, has meant performing more tasks without commensurate staffing expansions or pay increases.
“It’s going to get increasingly challenging to attract the talent you want into your business,” Easterbrook said earlier this year, “and then you’ve got to work really hard through training and development to retain them.”
Is Russia arming the Afghan Taliban?- BBC News
Is Russia arming the Afghan Taliban?
By Dawood Azami
BBC World Service
2 April 2018
Gen John Nicholson: "We know that the Russians are involved"
The US accuses Russia of trying to destabilise Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban. Senior US officials have been saying for months that Moscow is even supplying the militants with weapons.
Russia and the Taliban, who are historic foes, deny the charges. They come amid what some observers see as a "new Cold War" - so how much truth is there to the US claims?
What is the US alleging?
In a BBC interview in late March, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan Gen John Nicholson alleged that Russian weapons were being smuggled across the Tajik border to the Taliban.
He accused Russia of exaggerating the number of Islamic State (IS) fighters in Afghanistan "to legitimise the actions of the Taliban and provide some degree of support to the Taliban".
"We've had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by Afghan leaders and [they] said, this was given by the Russians to the Taliban," he said.
Some Afghan police and military officials told the BBC that the Russian military equipment includes night-vision goggles, medium and heavy machine guns, and small arms.
Who agrees?
US officials have accused Moscow of supporting the Taliban for more than a year. In December 2016 Gen Nicholson criticised Russia and Iran for establishing links with the Taliban and "legitimising" the group.
Since then a number of high-ranking US officials, mainly military, have made similar claims, some suggesting Russia is also arming the Taliban.
General John Nicholson has accused Russia and Iran of "legitimising" the Taliban
But a number of US and Nato officials have been more cautious.
Testifying at a Senate hearing in May 2017, US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt-Gen Vincent R Stewart said: "I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being transferred."
Who are the Taliban?
Sacked Tillerson issues Russia warning
Taliban 'threaten 70% of Afghanistan'
US Defense Secretary James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee in October 2017 that he wanted to see more evidence about the level of Russian support for the Taliban, adding that what he had seen "doesn't make sense".
Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is on record saying, in July 2017, "we haven't seen any proofs, any confirmed information about that kind of support".
For its part Tajikistan has denied funnelling Russian weapons to the Taliban, calling Gen Nicholson's claim "groundless".
What's the view of Afghan officials?
The Afghan authorities have also given contradictory statements.
A few provincial officials have been explicit in alleging Moscow's military support for the Taliban. But the spokesman for Afghanistan's chief executive officer (CEO) said in May 2017 that there was no evidence.
Last October President Ashraf Ghani publicly taunted the Taliban for accepting Russian guns.
However, his defence minister said the following month that such reports were just "rumours" and "we don't have evidence".
What do Russia and the Taliban say?
Moscow and the Taliban deny the US claims that they are working together. They separately rejected Gen Nicholson's comments to the BBC, saying he had no evidence.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has claimed that Russia is arming the Taliban
The Russian embassy in Kabul and the foreign ministry in Moscow dismissed such claims as "baseless" and "idle gossip".
A Taliban spokesman said they had not "received military assistance from any country".
Moscow has repeatedly accused the US and Nato of trying to blame Russia for their "failures" and worsening security in Afghanistan.
Russian officials and politicians have even implied that the US and Nato support IS in Afghanistan; a charge the US vehemently denies and most observers find incredible.
Do Russia and the Taliban acknowledge links?
Russia denies materially supporting the insurgents but acknowledges "contacts" with the Taliban.
According to some Taliban sources, a communication channel between Moscow and the Taliban was established almost a decade ago, following the Taliban's removal from power by the US in 2001.
But ties between Moscow and the Taliban have improved significantly over the past three years, especially since the establishment of the so-called "IS Khorasan" group in Afghanistan in January 2015.
Red Army soldiers in February 1989 during the Soviet Army's withdrawal from Aghan War
Taliban sources confirm their representatives have met Russian officials inside Russia and "other" countries several times.
US sends 3,000 more troops to Afghanistan
Can Afghan military turn the tide in Taliban fight?
Tillerson piles pressure on Pakistan
As part of these new "links", some Taliban expected sophisticated weapons from Russia that could dramatically turn the Afghan war in their favour - anti-aircraft guns and missiles that could challenge US air supremacy; similar to the surface-to-air Stinger missile the US provided to the Afghan resistance fighters during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s.
So far this remains wishful thinking on the part of the Taliban mainly for two reasons - such weapons could be easily traced back to the source and US-Russia relations are not that bad to justify such a drastic measure.
What do the Taliban gain from Russia?
For the Taliban, moral and political support by a major regional power is more important than the light weapons they say are widely available in Afghanistan and can be bought on the black market in the wider region.
Taliban diplomatic outreach also extends to building relations with China and Iran.
Suspected Taliban militants held by Afghan security forces in Jalalabad
This is a morale-booster and has strengthened Taliban conviction in the "legitimacy" of their struggle to oust US-led forces from Afghanistan.
The fact that Russia and Iran are accused of supporting the Taliban challenges the narrative that the militants are solely dependent on Pakistan.
From enemies to frenemies?
Softening its approach towards the Afghan Taliban is a dramatic and somehow unexpected shift for Russia.
Almost all founding members of the Taliban movement were part of the mujahideen, which fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. During the factional war that followed the Soviet pullout, Russia provided financial and military support to groups opposed to the Taliban.
But after the US invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks in the US, the Taliban apparently saw an opportunity to work with Russia.
Russia now no longer sees the Taliban as a pressing security threat. Instead, policymakers in Moscow view the group as a reality in Afghanistan which cannot be ignored.
In March 2017, President Putin's special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, even said the Taliban's demand for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan was "justified" and criticised the long-term presence of US and Nato forces in the country.
What does Russia gain?
There are three major reasons for Russia-Taliban links.
Firstly, Russian officials say these contacts are aimed at ensuring the security of Russian citizens and political offices in Afghanistan, especially in areas where the resurgent Taliban have expanded their territorial control in recent years.
At least two Russians were captured by the Afghan Taliban on two separate occasions, in 2013 and 2016, when their helicopters crashed in Taliban-controlled areas. Both were released after lengthy negotiations.
Secondly, the emergence of IS in Afghanistan prompted fears in Moscow that the group may expand into Central Asia and Russia.
The Taliban continues to use suicide bombing attacks including this, targeting global security firm G4S in Kabul
The Afghan Taliban have been fighting against IS in Afghanistan and repeatedly assured neighbouring countries, that unlike IS, their armed struggle is limited to Afghanistan. In December 2015, the Russian president's special representative to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, declared that "the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours" in the fight against IS.
Russia has also suggested the possibility of staging a Syrian-style intervention in Afghanistan if IS gained strength and became a "serious threat" to the stability of Central Asian countries on the pretext of protecting its "backyard".
However, US officials say Moscow uses the IS presence as an excuse to justify its meddling in Afghanistan and to further grow its military influence in Central Asia.
Thirdly, Russian officials insist the Afghan conflict needs a political, not a military, solution. They have grown increasingly frustrated by and suspicious of the US strategy that has not so far stabilised Afghanistan after 16 years of fighting.
Moscow says the contacts are intended to encourage the Taliban to enter peace talks.
What's the effect on the Afghan conflict?
A resurgent Russia under President Putin has been pushing for influence in Afghanistan, in moves seen as part of an effort to ensure a seat for Moscow at the top table in any future arrangement in the country.
This comes at a time when US-Russian relations are at a low point and the geopolitical situation is changing fast.
Moscow's increasingly assertive stance is linked to US-Russian tensions in other parts of the world, especially Ukraine and Syria.
By establishing links with the Taliban, Moscow seems to be aiming to pressurise and even undermine the US and Nato.
Meanwhile, as the rift between Washington and Islamabad grows, Russia and Pakistan are building diplomatic and military relations after decades of hostility.
Moscow's reappearance in Afghan affairs is largely designed to irritate the Americans.
The persistent accusations traded by the former Cold War powers has to be seen in the context of a wider blame game. Their rivalry is complicating the conflict in Afghanistan, where the number of actors is increasing.
This has renewed fears of a "new Great Game", with Afghanistan once more a battlefield for regional and international players. A way out of the decades-long quagmire appears as far off as ever.
By Dawood Azami
BBC World Service
2 April 2018
Gen John Nicholson: "We know that the Russians are involved"
The US accuses Russia of trying to destabilise Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban. Senior US officials have been saying for months that Moscow is even supplying the militants with weapons.
Russia and the Taliban, who are historic foes, deny the charges. They come amid what some observers see as a "new Cold War" - so how much truth is there to the US claims?
What is the US alleging?
In a BBC interview in late March, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan Gen John Nicholson alleged that Russian weapons were being smuggled across the Tajik border to the Taliban.
He accused Russia of exaggerating the number of Islamic State (IS) fighters in Afghanistan "to legitimise the actions of the Taliban and provide some degree of support to the Taliban".
"We've had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by Afghan leaders and [they] said, this was given by the Russians to the Taliban," he said.
Some Afghan police and military officials told the BBC that the Russian military equipment includes night-vision goggles, medium and heavy machine guns, and small arms.
Who agrees?
US officials have accused Moscow of supporting the Taliban for more than a year. In December 2016 Gen Nicholson criticised Russia and Iran for establishing links with the Taliban and "legitimising" the group.
Since then a number of high-ranking US officials, mainly military, have made similar claims, some suggesting Russia is also arming the Taliban.
General John Nicholson has accused Russia and Iran of "legitimising" the Taliban
But a number of US and Nato officials have been more cautious.
Testifying at a Senate hearing in May 2017, US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt-Gen Vincent R Stewart said: "I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being transferred."
Who are the Taliban?
Sacked Tillerson issues Russia warning
Taliban 'threaten 70% of Afghanistan'
US Defense Secretary James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee in October 2017 that he wanted to see more evidence about the level of Russian support for the Taliban, adding that what he had seen "doesn't make sense".
Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is on record saying, in July 2017, "we haven't seen any proofs, any confirmed information about that kind of support".
For its part Tajikistan has denied funnelling Russian weapons to the Taliban, calling Gen Nicholson's claim "groundless".
What's the view of Afghan officials?
The Afghan authorities have also given contradictory statements.
A few provincial officials have been explicit in alleging Moscow's military support for the Taliban. But the spokesman for Afghanistan's chief executive officer (CEO) said in May 2017 that there was no evidence.
Last October President Ashraf Ghani publicly taunted the Taliban for accepting Russian guns.
However, his defence minister said the following month that such reports were just "rumours" and "we don't have evidence".
What do Russia and the Taliban say?
Moscow and the Taliban deny the US claims that they are working together. They separately rejected Gen Nicholson's comments to the BBC, saying he had no evidence.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has claimed that Russia is arming the Taliban
The Russian embassy in Kabul and the foreign ministry in Moscow dismissed such claims as "baseless" and "idle gossip".
A Taliban spokesman said they had not "received military assistance from any country".
Moscow has repeatedly accused the US and Nato of trying to blame Russia for their "failures" and worsening security in Afghanistan.
Russian officials and politicians have even implied that the US and Nato support IS in Afghanistan; a charge the US vehemently denies and most observers find incredible.
Do Russia and the Taliban acknowledge links?
Russia denies materially supporting the insurgents but acknowledges "contacts" with the Taliban.
According to some Taliban sources, a communication channel between Moscow and the Taliban was established almost a decade ago, following the Taliban's removal from power by the US in 2001.
But ties between Moscow and the Taliban have improved significantly over the past three years, especially since the establishment of the so-called "IS Khorasan" group in Afghanistan in January 2015.
Red Army soldiers in February 1989 during the Soviet Army's withdrawal from Aghan War
Taliban sources confirm their representatives have met Russian officials inside Russia and "other" countries several times.
US sends 3,000 more troops to Afghanistan
Can Afghan military turn the tide in Taliban fight?
Tillerson piles pressure on Pakistan
As part of these new "links", some Taliban expected sophisticated weapons from Russia that could dramatically turn the Afghan war in their favour - anti-aircraft guns and missiles that could challenge US air supremacy; similar to the surface-to-air Stinger missile the US provided to the Afghan resistance fighters during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s.
So far this remains wishful thinking on the part of the Taliban mainly for two reasons - such weapons could be easily traced back to the source and US-Russia relations are not that bad to justify such a drastic measure.
What do the Taliban gain from Russia?
For the Taliban, moral and political support by a major regional power is more important than the light weapons they say are widely available in Afghanistan and can be bought on the black market in the wider region.
Taliban diplomatic outreach also extends to building relations with China and Iran.
Suspected Taliban militants held by Afghan security forces in Jalalabad
This is a morale-booster and has strengthened Taliban conviction in the "legitimacy" of their struggle to oust US-led forces from Afghanistan.
The fact that Russia and Iran are accused of supporting the Taliban challenges the narrative that the militants are solely dependent on Pakistan.
From enemies to frenemies?
Softening its approach towards the Afghan Taliban is a dramatic and somehow unexpected shift for Russia.
Almost all founding members of the Taliban movement were part of the mujahideen, which fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. During the factional war that followed the Soviet pullout, Russia provided financial and military support to groups opposed to the Taliban.
But after the US invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks in the US, the Taliban apparently saw an opportunity to work with Russia.
Russia now no longer sees the Taliban as a pressing security threat. Instead, policymakers in Moscow view the group as a reality in Afghanistan which cannot be ignored.
In March 2017, President Putin's special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, even said the Taliban's demand for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan was "justified" and criticised the long-term presence of US and Nato forces in the country.
What does Russia gain?
There are three major reasons for Russia-Taliban links.
Firstly, Russian officials say these contacts are aimed at ensuring the security of Russian citizens and political offices in Afghanistan, especially in areas where the resurgent Taliban have expanded their territorial control in recent years.
At least two Russians were captured by the Afghan Taliban on two separate occasions, in 2013 and 2016, when their helicopters crashed in Taliban-controlled areas. Both were released after lengthy negotiations.
Secondly, the emergence of IS in Afghanistan prompted fears in Moscow that the group may expand into Central Asia and Russia.
The Taliban continues to use suicide bombing attacks including this, targeting global security firm G4S in Kabul
The Afghan Taliban have been fighting against IS in Afghanistan and repeatedly assured neighbouring countries, that unlike IS, their armed struggle is limited to Afghanistan. In December 2015, the Russian president's special representative to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, declared that "the Taliban interest objectively coincides with ours" in the fight against IS.
Russia has also suggested the possibility of staging a Syrian-style intervention in Afghanistan if IS gained strength and became a "serious threat" to the stability of Central Asian countries on the pretext of protecting its "backyard".
However, US officials say Moscow uses the IS presence as an excuse to justify its meddling in Afghanistan and to further grow its military influence in Central Asia.
Thirdly, Russian officials insist the Afghan conflict needs a political, not a military, solution. They have grown increasingly frustrated by and suspicious of the US strategy that has not so far stabilised Afghanistan after 16 years of fighting.
Moscow says the contacts are intended to encourage the Taliban to enter peace talks.
What's the effect on the Afghan conflict?
A resurgent Russia under President Putin has been pushing for influence in Afghanistan, in moves seen as part of an effort to ensure a seat for Moscow at the top table in any future arrangement in the country.
This comes at a time when US-Russian relations are at a low point and the geopolitical situation is changing fast.
Moscow's increasingly assertive stance is linked to US-Russian tensions in other parts of the world, especially Ukraine and Syria.
By establishing links with the Taliban, Moscow seems to be aiming to pressurise and even undermine the US and Nato.
Meanwhile, as the rift between Washington and Islamabad grows, Russia and Pakistan are building diplomatic and military relations after decades of hostility.
Moscow's reappearance in Afghan affairs is largely designed to irritate the Americans.
The persistent accusations traded by the former Cold War powers has to be seen in the context of a wider blame game. Their rivalry is complicating the conflict in Afghanistan, where the number of actors is increasing.
This has renewed fears of a "new Great Game", with Afghanistan once more a battlefield for regional and international players. A way out of the decades-long quagmire appears as far off as ever.
Kim Jong-un 'moved' by K-pop peace concert in Pyongyang - BBC News
2/4/2018
Kim Jong-un 'moved' by K-pop peace concert in Pyongyang
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un clapped along, like many others at the concert
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was deeply moved by a concert in Pyongyang featuring South Korea artists, the North's state news agency KCNA reports.
It said the leader's heart had swelled when he saw the North Korean audience respond enthusiastically to the performances of famous K-pop groups.
He said the musical exchange was a significant occasion giving the appearance of a united country.
The concert came amid improving relations between the Koreas.
The North sent performers to the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics in South Korea earlier this year, and the leaders of the two countries are due to hold a summit on the border later this month.
Are North and South Korea friends again?
The performers are in Pyongyang for two shows, the first South Korean musical delegation to visit in more than a decade.
The first concert, titled Spring is Coming, took place on Sunday evening local time at the 1,500-seat East Pyongyang Grand Theatre.
The delegation, which combines K-pop, rock and other genres, is set to perform again on Tuesday.
Mr Kim and his wife, Ri Sol-ju, posed for photos with some of the musicians after the event
Mr Kim is the first North Korean leader to attend a performance by an artistic group from the South, said South Korea's official news agency, Yonhap.
His sister Kim Yo-jong and the country's nominal head of state Kim Yong-nam are also said to have attended.
Kim Jong-un "showed much interest during the show and asked questions about the songs and lyrics", the South's Culture Minister Do Jong-hwan told journalists.
Rare apology
Meanwhile, one of North Korea's top officials, Kim Yong-chol, has apologised to South Korean reporters who had hoped to cover the performance after all but one were barred from entering the Grand Theatre, South Korean Yonhap news agency reports.
Mr Kim, who is in charge of affairs with South Korea and head of the North's national intelligence organisation, said that he thought that "there might have not been sufficient co-operation between the chairman's security guards and concert organisers" at the event.
"It was wrong to hinder the free media coverage and filming," he said, in what Yonhap reported as "a rare apology".
Mr Kim offered an apology on behalf of North Korean authorities, saying that the restriction was "not intentional", Yonhap reported.
Military exercise
Mr Kim has agreed to hold summits with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and US President Donald Trump.
He met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing last week during his first foreign trip as leader.
The third inter-Korean summit - there were also meetings in 2000 and 2007 - is due to be held on 27 April. No date has been set for the US-North Korean summit.
Meanwhile, the US and South Korea have begun their annual military drills, which have been scaled down compared with previous years as both countries prepare for talks with North Korea.
Although nearly 300,000 South Korean troops and 24,000 American troops will take part, the drill will be a month shorter than usual and will not involve nuclear submarines.
In the past, the drills have infuriated North Korea but correspondents say that this time Pyongyang is keeping relatively quiet. Mr Kim reportedly told visiting South Korean officials that he understood that the exercises had to go ahead.
Kim Jong-un 'moved' by K-pop peace concert in Pyongyang
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un clapped along, like many others at the concert
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was deeply moved by a concert in Pyongyang featuring South Korea artists, the North's state news agency KCNA reports.
It said the leader's heart had swelled when he saw the North Korean audience respond enthusiastically to the performances of famous K-pop groups.
He said the musical exchange was a significant occasion giving the appearance of a united country.
The concert came amid improving relations between the Koreas.
The North sent performers to the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics in South Korea earlier this year, and the leaders of the two countries are due to hold a summit on the border later this month.
Are North and South Korea friends again?
The performers are in Pyongyang for two shows, the first South Korean musical delegation to visit in more than a decade.
The first concert, titled Spring is Coming, took place on Sunday evening local time at the 1,500-seat East Pyongyang Grand Theatre.
The delegation, which combines K-pop, rock and other genres, is set to perform again on Tuesday.
Mr Kim and his wife, Ri Sol-ju, posed for photos with some of the musicians after the event
Mr Kim is the first North Korean leader to attend a performance by an artistic group from the South, said South Korea's official news agency, Yonhap.
His sister Kim Yo-jong and the country's nominal head of state Kim Yong-nam are also said to have attended.
Kim Jong-un "showed much interest during the show and asked questions about the songs and lyrics", the South's Culture Minister Do Jong-hwan told journalists.
Rare apology
Meanwhile, one of North Korea's top officials, Kim Yong-chol, has apologised to South Korean reporters who had hoped to cover the performance after all but one were barred from entering the Grand Theatre, South Korean Yonhap news agency reports.
Mr Kim, who is in charge of affairs with South Korea and head of the North's national intelligence organisation, said that he thought that "there might have not been sufficient co-operation between the chairman's security guards and concert organisers" at the event.
"It was wrong to hinder the free media coverage and filming," he said, in what Yonhap reported as "a rare apology".
Mr Kim offered an apology on behalf of North Korean authorities, saying that the restriction was "not intentional", Yonhap reported.
Military exercise
Mr Kim has agreed to hold summits with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and US President Donald Trump.
He met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing last week during his first foreign trip as leader.
The third inter-Korean summit - there were also meetings in 2000 and 2007 - is due to be held on 27 April. No date has been set for the US-North Korean summit.
Meanwhile, the US and South Korea have begun their annual military drills, which have been scaled down compared with previous years as both countries prepare for talks with North Korea.
Although nearly 300,000 South Korean troops and 24,000 American troops will take part, the drill will be a month shorter than usual and will not involve nuclear submarines.
In the past, the drills have infuriated North Korea but correspondents say that this time Pyongyang is keeping relatively quiet. Mr Kim reportedly told visiting South Korean officials that he understood that the exercises had to go ahead.
China raises tariffs on U.S. pork, fruit in response to duties on steel, aluminum - NBC News ( source : Associated Press )
China raises tariffs on U.S. pork, fruit in response to duties on steel, aluminum
The U.S. should know "China would never submit if the U.S. launched a trade war," a newspaper published by the ruling Communist Party said.
Apr.02.2018 / 1:17 PM ET / Updated 3:49 PM ET / Source: Associated Press
In this March 26, 2018 photo, pigs belonging to Jeff Rehder stand in their shed, in Hawarden, Iowa. China responded to Trump's announced plans to impose tariffs on products with a threat to tag U.S. products, including pork.Nati Harnik / AP
BEIJING — China raised import duties on a $3 billion list of U.S. pork, fruit and other products Monday in an escalating tariff dispute with President Donald Trump that companies worry might depress global commerce.
The Finance Ministry said it was responding to a U.S. tariff hike on steel and aluminum that took effect March 23. But a bigger clash looms over Trump's approval of possible higher duties on nearly $50 billion of Chinese goods in a separate argument over technology policy.
The tariff spat is one aspect of wide-ranging tensions between Washington and Beijing over China's multibillion-dollar trade surplus with the United States and its policies on technology, industry development and access to its state-dominated economy.
Forecasters say the immediate impact should be limited, but investors worry the global recovery might be set back if it prompts other governments to raise import barriers. Those fears temporarily depressed financial markets, though stocks have recovered some of their losses.
March 22: Trump seeks new China tariffs as trade war worries mount
On Monday, stock market indexes in Tokyo and Shanghai were up 0.5 percent at midmorning.
Beijing faces complaints by Washington, the European Union and other trading partners that it hampers market access despite its free-trading pledges and is flooding global markets with improperly low-priced steel and aluminum. But the EU, Japan and other governments criticized Trump's unilateral move as disruptive.
The United States buys little Chinese steel and aluminum following earlier tariff hikes to offset what Washington says is improper subsidies. Still, economists expected Beijing to respond to avoid looking weak in a high-profile dispute.
Effective Monday, Beijing raised tariffs on pork, aluminum scrap and some other products by 25 percent, the Finance Ministry said. A 15 percent tariff was imposed on apples, almonds and some other goods.
American farmers in Trump-voting states may get hit hardest by a trade war
The tariff hike has "has seriously damaged our interests," said a Finance Ministry statemen
"Our country advocates and supports the multilateral trading system," said the statement. China's tariff increase "is a proper measure adopted by our country using World Trade Organization rules to protect our interests."
The White House didn't respond to a message from The Associated Press on Sunday seeking comment.
China's government said earlier its imports of those goods last year totaled $3 billion.
The latest Chinese move targets farm areas, many of which voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
U.S. farmers sent nearly $20 billion of goods to China in 2017. The American pork industry sent $1.1 billion in products, making China the No. 3 market for U.S. pork.
"American politicians better realize sooner rather than later that China would never submit if the U.S. launched a trade war," said the Global Times, a newspaper published by the ruling Communist Party.
Washington granted EU, South Korea and some other exporters, but not ally Japan, exemptions to the steel and aluminum tariffs on March 22. European governments had threatened to retaliate by raising duties on American bourbon, peanut butter and other goods.
Beijing has yet to say how it might respond to Trump's March 22 order approving possible tariff hikes in response to complaints China steals or pressures foreign companies to hand over technology.
Trump ordered U.S. trade officials to bring a WTO case challenging Chinese technology licensing. It proposed 25 percent tariffs on Chinese products including aerospace, communications technology and machinery and said Washington will step up restrictions on Chinese investment in key U.S. technology sectors.
Trump administration officials have identified as potential targets 1,300 product lines worth about $48 billion. That list will then be open to a 30-day comment period for businesses.
Beijing reported a trade surplus of $275.8 billion with the United States last year, or two-thirds of its global total. Washington reports diff
The U.S. should know "China would never submit if the U.S. launched a trade war," a newspaper published by the ruling Communist Party said.
Apr.02.2018 / 1:17 PM ET / Updated 3:49 PM ET / Source: Associated Press
In this March 26, 2018 photo, pigs belonging to Jeff Rehder stand in their shed, in Hawarden, Iowa. China responded to Trump's announced plans to impose tariffs on products with a threat to tag U.S. products, including pork.Nati Harnik / AP
BEIJING — China raised import duties on a $3 billion list of U.S. pork, fruit and other products Monday in an escalating tariff dispute with President Donald Trump that companies worry might depress global commerce.
The Finance Ministry said it was responding to a U.S. tariff hike on steel and aluminum that took effect March 23. But a bigger clash looms over Trump's approval of possible higher duties on nearly $50 billion of Chinese goods in a separate argument over technology policy.
The tariff spat is one aspect of wide-ranging tensions between Washington and Beijing over China's multibillion-dollar trade surplus with the United States and its policies on technology, industry development and access to its state-dominated economy.
Forecasters say the immediate impact should be limited, but investors worry the global recovery might be set back if it prompts other governments to raise import barriers. Those fears temporarily depressed financial markets, though stocks have recovered some of their losses.
March 22: Trump seeks new China tariffs as trade war worries mount
On Monday, stock market indexes in Tokyo and Shanghai were up 0.5 percent at midmorning.
Beijing faces complaints by Washington, the European Union and other trading partners that it hampers market access despite its free-trading pledges and is flooding global markets with improperly low-priced steel and aluminum. But the EU, Japan and other governments criticized Trump's unilateral move as disruptive.
The United States buys little Chinese steel and aluminum following earlier tariff hikes to offset what Washington says is improper subsidies. Still, economists expected Beijing to respond to avoid looking weak in a high-profile dispute.
Effective Monday, Beijing raised tariffs on pork, aluminum scrap and some other products by 25 percent, the Finance Ministry said. A 15 percent tariff was imposed on apples, almonds and some other goods.
American farmers in Trump-voting states may get hit hardest by a trade war
The tariff hike has "has seriously damaged our interests," said a Finance Ministry statemen
"Our country advocates and supports the multilateral trading system," said the statement. China's tariff increase "is a proper measure adopted by our country using World Trade Organization rules to protect our interests."
The White House didn't respond to a message from The Associated Press on Sunday seeking comment.
China's government said earlier its imports of those goods last year totaled $3 billion.
The latest Chinese move targets farm areas, many of which voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
U.S. farmers sent nearly $20 billion of goods to China in 2017. The American pork industry sent $1.1 billion in products, making China the No. 3 market for U.S. pork.
"American politicians better realize sooner rather than later that China would never submit if the U.S. launched a trade war," said the Global Times, a newspaper published by the ruling Communist Party.
Washington granted EU, South Korea and some other exporters, but not ally Japan, exemptions to the steel and aluminum tariffs on March 22. European governments had threatened to retaliate by raising duties on American bourbon, peanut butter and other goods.
Beijing has yet to say how it might respond to Trump's March 22 order approving possible tariff hikes in response to complaints China steals or pressures foreign companies to hand over technology.
Trump ordered U.S. trade officials to bring a WTO case challenging Chinese technology licensing. It proposed 25 percent tariffs on Chinese products including aerospace, communications technology and machinery and said Washington will step up restrictions on Chinese investment in key U.S. technology sectors.
Trump administration officials have identified as potential targets 1,300 product lines worth about $48 billion. That list will then be open to a 30-day comment period for businesses.
Beijing reported a trade surplus of $275.8 billion with the United States last year, or two-thirds of its global total. Washington reports diff
Daca Dreamers: Trump vents anger on immigrant programme - BBC News
1/4/2018
Daca Dreamers: Trump vents anger on immigrant programme
'America is the only country I've known'
US President Donald Trump has reasserted his opposition to legalising the status of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.
He declared on Twitter that Republicans should "go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws [on illegal migrants] NOW".
He accused Mexico of doing "very little, if not NOTHING", to stop migrants crossing its northern border.
The top candidates for Mexico's presidency have hit out at Mr Trump.
Mr Trump also threatened to walk away from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mr Trump wanted to scrap the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) programme from March but judges halted the move, saying that the Obama-era scheme providing temporary permits for work and study must remain in place while legal challenges are heard.
The scheme is now closed to new entrants but existing members may renew their benefits while the programme exists.
Mr Trump's tweets referred to "caravans" coming, a possible reference to a caravan of more than 1,000 migrants which had featured earlier on Sunday on Fox & Friends, known to be one of Mr Trump's favourite TV shows.
The mostly Honduran migrants, including whole families, are travelling together through Mexico to try to protect themselves against criminal gangs and harassment. Some say they will claim asylum once they reach the US border.
Supreme Court snubs Trump appeal over immigrants
What is this immigration debate all about?
'They want to take advantage'
The approximately 800,000 people protected under Daca are known as "Dreamers".
Although the Daca programme is no longer accepting new joiners, Mr Trump blamed it for luring illegal migrants into the US as he talked to reporters on Sunday
But on Twitter, Mr Trump said the programme was being misused by a growing number of illegal migrants and accused Mexico of being lax about border security.
He urged Republicans in Congress to pass "tough" new anti-immigration legislation.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!
12:25 AM - Apr 2, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!
11:56 PM - Apr 1, 2018
Mr Trump appeared once again to blame current illegal immigration on the Daca programme as he arrived for an Easter church service near his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
"A lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of Daca and we're going to have to really see," he said. "They had a great chance, the Democrats blew it."
What did the Mexican candidates say?
Mr Trump's tweets come amid tense negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) between his administration and that of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
Mexico goes to the polls on 1 July to elect a new president.
Leftist front-runner Andrés Manuel López Obrador said his country and its people would not be the punch ball (or pinata) of any foreign government.
The conservative candidate, Ricardo Anaya Cortés, challenged Mr Trump to deal with security issues on his own side of the border.
"We understand that the United States government is worried about undocumented migration to the United States but we are also very concerned about the arms trade from the United States to Mexico," he said.
Mr Trump's tweets gained a mixed reception on Twitter - including criticism from his former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Ohio Governor John Kasich.
John Kasich
✔
@JohnKasich
A true leader preserves & offers hope, doesn't take hope from innocent children who call America home. Remember, today is Easter Sunday. #DACA #Hope https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/980443810529533952 …
2:01 AM - Apr 2, 2018
What are the 'caravans'?
In one of his tweets, Mr Trump wrote: "Getting more dangerous. 'Caravans' coming."
The line could be in reference to migrants moving en masse from Mexico's southern border with Guatemala toward the US, organised by volunteers called Pueblos Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders).
The group counted 1,200 people in the caravan when they set off in late March for the month-long trek - which is over 2,000 miles (3,220km).
Around 80% of the migrants are Honduran, fleeing poverty and also unrest in the country after the contentious re-election of President Juan Orlando Hernández last year.
Adolfo Flores
✔
@aflores
Replying to @aflores
This morning the caravan, anticipating a long day walk, got up at 4am to beat the sun.
11:12 PM - Mar 30, 2018
Caravans have walked to the US border before. The organised groups are designed to offer protection to migrants from cartels and authorities who could harm or deport them.
But Pueblas Sin Fronteras were surprised by the turnout for this march. Last year's caravan had only about 450 migrants in it.
Despite the migrants being in the country illegally, Mexican authorities have done nothing to stop them.
Daca Dreamers: Trump vents anger on immigrant programme
'America is the only country I've known'
US President Donald Trump has reasserted his opposition to legalising the status of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.
He declared on Twitter that Republicans should "go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws [on illegal migrants] NOW".
He accused Mexico of doing "very little, if not NOTHING", to stop migrants crossing its northern border.
The top candidates for Mexico's presidency have hit out at Mr Trump.
Mr Trump also threatened to walk away from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mr Trump wanted to scrap the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) programme from March but judges halted the move, saying that the Obama-era scheme providing temporary permits for work and study must remain in place while legal challenges are heard.
The scheme is now closed to new entrants but existing members may renew their benefits while the programme exists.
Mr Trump's tweets referred to "caravans" coming, a possible reference to a caravan of more than 1,000 migrants which had featured earlier on Sunday on Fox & Friends, known to be one of Mr Trump's favourite TV shows.
The mostly Honduran migrants, including whole families, are travelling together through Mexico to try to protect themselves against criminal gangs and harassment. Some say they will claim asylum once they reach the US border.
Supreme Court snubs Trump appeal over immigrants
What is this immigration debate all about?
'They want to take advantage'
The approximately 800,000 people protected under Daca are known as "Dreamers".
Although the Daca programme is no longer accepting new joiners, Mr Trump blamed it for luring illegal migrants into the US as he talked to reporters on Sunday
But on Twitter, Mr Trump said the programme was being misused by a growing number of illegal migrants and accused Mexico of being lax about border security.
He urged Republicans in Congress to pass "tough" new anti-immigration legislation.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!
12:25 AM - Apr 2, 2018
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!
11:56 PM - Apr 1, 2018
Mr Trump appeared once again to blame current illegal immigration on the Daca programme as he arrived for an Easter church service near his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
"A lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of Daca and we're going to have to really see," he said. "They had a great chance, the Democrats blew it."
What did the Mexican candidates say?
Mr Trump's tweets come amid tense negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) between his administration and that of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
Mexico goes to the polls on 1 July to elect a new president.
Leftist front-runner Andrés Manuel López Obrador said his country and its people would not be the punch ball (or pinata) of any foreign government.
The conservative candidate, Ricardo Anaya Cortés, challenged Mr Trump to deal with security issues on his own side of the border.
"We understand that the United States government is worried about undocumented migration to the United States but we are also very concerned about the arms trade from the United States to Mexico," he said.
Mr Trump's tweets gained a mixed reception on Twitter - including criticism from his former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Ohio Governor John Kasich.
John Kasich
✔
@JohnKasich
A true leader preserves & offers hope, doesn't take hope from innocent children who call America home. Remember, today is Easter Sunday. #DACA #Hope https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/980443810529533952 …
2:01 AM - Apr 2, 2018
What are the 'caravans'?
In one of his tweets, Mr Trump wrote: "Getting more dangerous. 'Caravans' coming."
The line could be in reference to migrants moving en masse from Mexico's southern border with Guatemala toward the US, organised by volunteers called Pueblos Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders).
The group counted 1,200 people in the caravan when they set off in late March for the month-long trek - which is over 2,000 miles (3,220km).
Around 80% of the migrants are Honduran, fleeing poverty and also unrest in the country after the contentious re-election of President Juan Orlando Hernández last year.
Adolfo Flores
✔
@aflores
Replying to @aflores
This morning the caravan, anticipating a long day walk, got up at 4am to beat the sun.
11:12 PM - Mar 30, 2018
Caravans have walked to the US border before. The organised groups are designed to offer protection to migrants from cartels and authorities who could harm or deport them.
But Pueblas Sin Fronteras were surprised by the turnout for this march. Last year's caravan had only about 450 migrants in it.
Despite the migrants being in the country illegally, Mexican authorities have done nothing to stop them.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
How Bad Leadership Makes Consensus Happen Anyway - Forbes
JUL 18, 2017 @ 09:30 AM 4,451 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
How Bad Leadership Makes Consensus Happen Anyway
Meghan M. Biro , CONTRIBUTOR
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Shutterstock
One of the key traits we associate with effective leadership is the ability to build consensus — convince the team to come to an agreement for the good of the whole. It’s not the only way to lead and there are plenty of theories that debunk it. But we still tend to associate it with success. I’ve got a colleague embroiled in a disagreement with a team these days, wishing a leader would come and rescue them by insisting they forge an agreement for the greater good, ego struggles aside.
There’s nobility in consensus, a powerful example these days is the Supreme Court. Partisanship aside, this year, the Supremes — in a sense, a moral and legal Board of Directors for the United States — set a record for coming to the most agreements in the last 70 years. They achieved consensus by carefully balancing their arguments and narrowing the focus of their decisions. They didn’t shoot the moon and set their egos and personal beliefs aside. That they were one member short meant if discussion derailed, it could mire them in a dysfunctional stalemate. So they agreed to work to agree, a classic example of consensus-building.
Meanwhile, we’re seeing far more examples of leaders whose effect on consensus is entirely different, and the stakes could not be higher. When faced with onerous global challenges, we want someone to set a course to safety we can all agree on. It’s just like being on a ship in a storm. But what happens when the designated captain doesn’t measure up?
Leader As Liability. Some have argued that Uber’s CEO was kept on top by an unwritten consensus that winning was more important than work culture. His own management style had little to do with consensus building. But that same unwritten agreement to allow Kalanick to be Kalanick — which is troubling in retrospect — ultimately turned on him. As revelations of harassment and sexism tarnished Uber’s shine, investors naturally got jumpy.
The result was indeed consensus around the fact that Kalanick was a liability that risked a successful IPO. The board weighed its priorities and found that their investment’s safety was far more important, and turned on him. Consensus reached, they acted in a stunning letter that showed a board flexing its legitimate muscle. Exit Kalanick.
Leader As Impediment. Set partisanship aside on this one and just focus on it as a study in the unintended consequences of intractable positions. Among the startling images that emerged from the G20 summit in Hamburg — a meeting dedicated to building consensus among world leaders — are those of the former leader of the free world. POTUS 45 sits by himself, clearly out of sync, a long figure surrounded by leaders networking and discussing — quite possibly, how they’re going to do about his refusal to buy into the global mission.
Seeing is believing: as one commentator noted, the G20 in effect turned into the G19, as leaders reached the consensus that they will work around him — because the global risk is too great to let him stand in the way.
Granted, Trump’s model of leadership is anything but leading teams to balanced agreement. It’s more the atomize, fractionalize, and authorize variety. But we are at a tipping point in terms of a number of things: the climate is changing, forcing us to live and work differently. And we are integrating robots, automation and artificial intelligence into more and more processes. One interesting byproduct of AI is that is does not lie. It does not allow for evasion, story changing, non-participation, or claiming that real is fake – which may soon mean that this kind of leader is rendered even more obsolete. And we don’t need to reach consensus on that.
How Bad Leadership Makes Consensus Happen Anyway
Meghan M. Biro , CONTRIBUTOR
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Shutterstock
One of the key traits we associate with effective leadership is the ability to build consensus — convince the team to come to an agreement for the good of the whole. It’s not the only way to lead and there are plenty of theories that debunk it. But we still tend to associate it with success. I’ve got a colleague embroiled in a disagreement with a team these days, wishing a leader would come and rescue them by insisting they forge an agreement for the greater good, ego struggles aside.
There’s nobility in consensus, a powerful example these days is the Supreme Court. Partisanship aside, this year, the Supremes — in a sense, a moral and legal Board of Directors for the United States — set a record for coming to the most agreements in the last 70 years. They achieved consensus by carefully balancing their arguments and narrowing the focus of their decisions. They didn’t shoot the moon and set their egos and personal beliefs aside. That they were one member short meant if discussion derailed, it could mire them in a dysfunctional stalemate. So they agreed to work to agree, a classic example of consensus-building.
Meanwhile, we’re seeing far more examples of leaders whose effect on consensus is entirely different, and the stakes could not be higher. When faced with onerous global challenges, we want someone to set a course to safety we can all agree on. It’s just like being on a ship in a storm. But what happens when the designated captain doesn’t measure up?
Leader As Liability. Some have argued that Uber’s CEO was kept on top by an unwritten consensus that winning was more important than work culture. His own management style had little to do with consensus building. But that same unwritten agreement to allow Kalanick to be Kalanick — which is troubling in retrospect — ultimately turned on him. As revelations of harassment and sexism tarnished Uber’s shine, investors naturally got jumpy.
The result was indeed consensus around the fact that Kalanick was a liability that risked a successful IPO. The board weighed its priorities and found that their investment’s safety was far more important, and turned on him. Consensus reached, they acted in a stunning letter that showed a board flexing its legitimate muscle. Exit Kalanick.
Leader As Impediment. Set partisanship aside on this one and just focus on it as a study in the unintended consequences of intractable positions. Among the startling images that emerged from the G20 summit in Hamburg — a meeting dedicated to building consensus among world leaders — are those of the former leader of the free world. POTUS 45 sits by himself, clearly out of sync, a long figure surrounded by leaders networking and discussing — quite possibly, how they’re going to do about his refusal to buy into the global mission.
Seeing is believing: as one commentator noted, the G20 in effect turned into the G19, as leaders reached the consensus that they will work around him — because the global risk is too great to let him stand in the way.
Granted, Trump’s model of leadership is anything but leading teams to balanced agreement. It’s more the atomize, fractionalize, and authorize variety. But we are at a tipping point in terms of a number of things: the climate is changing, forcing us to live and work differently. And we are integrating robots, automation and artificial intelligence into more and more processes. One interesting byproduct of AI is that is does not lie. It does not allow for evasion, story changing, non-participation, or claiming that real is fake – which may soon mean that this kind of leader is rendered even more obsolete. And we don’t need to reach consensus on that.
Mark Zuckerberg Defends Facebook After a Controversial Memo Called for Growth At All Costs - TIME
Mark Zuckerberg Defends Facebook After a Controversial Memo Called for Growth At All Costs
Posted: 30 Mar 2018 07:58 AM PDT
A controversial memo written by a top Facebook insider is causing a ruckus inside and outside the company as it continues to deal with the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal and its handling of users’ personal information more broadly.
The memo, written by Facebook Vice President Andrew “Boz” Bosworth in 2016 and titled “The Ugly,” argues that Facebook’s goal should be connecting people even if it “costs a life by exposing someone to bullies” or “someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.” The memo, originally viewable only to Facebook employees, was obtained by BuzzFeed News.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg quickly responded to the memo’s publication, arguing its contents do not reflect the company’s true ethos.
“We’ve never believed the ends justify the means,” Zuckerberg said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “We recognize that connecting people isn’t enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together. We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year.”
Zuckerberg also said the Bosworth is “a talented leader who says many provocative things,” and that the memo is something “that most people at Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly.”
Bosworth himself walked back the memo, saying in a tweet that “I don’t agree with the post today and I didn’t agree with it even when I wrote it.” Instead, he characterized the note as an effort to surface “hard topics” for internal discussion among Facebook employees.
My statement on the recent Buzzfeed story containing a post I wrote in 2016 pic.twitter.com/lmzDMcrjv5
— Boz (@boztank) March 29, 2018
Bosworth’s memo was first published one day after a Chicago man was shot and killed in an incident streamed on Facebook Live, the company’s livestreaming platform.
Trump declares April National Sexual Assault Awareness Month - CNN Politics
Trump declares April National Sexual Assault Awareness Month
Sophie Tatum
By Sophie Tatum
Updated 2346 GMT (0746 HKT) March 30, 2018
#MeToo movement drives women into politics
#MeToo movement drives women into politics 03:53
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Friday designating April as National Sexual Assault Awareness month.
According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, April has been Sexual Assault Awareness Month since 2001 in the United States. The move to issue a proclamation observing the month was first started by President Barack Obama in 2010, and the tradition has carried over into the Trump administration.
"Sexual assault crimes remain tragically common in our society, and offenders too often evade accountability. These heinous crimes are committed indiscriminately: in intimate relationships, in public spaces, and in the workplace," the presidential proclamation from the White House states.
Over the past year, there has been a reckoning in the United States over sexual assault and harassment, particularly in the workplace, known as the #MeToo movement.
Revelations surrounding various industry leaders accused of sexual assault and harassment in recent months also come as Trump himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women.
In December of last year, a group of women held a press conference to share their personal stories involving Trump.
At least 15 women have come forward with a wide range of accusations against Trump, ranging from sexual harassment and sexual assault to lewd behavior around women. Of the women, 13 say Trump attacked them directly and two others say they witnessed behavior that made them uncomfortable. All the alleged incidents took place prior to his assuming the presidency.
The White House and Trump have responded to the allegations, denying all of them.
CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.
Sophie Tatum
By Sophie Tatum
Updated 2346 GMT (0746 HKT) March 30, 2018
#MeToo movement drives women into politics
#MeToo movement drives women into politics 03:53
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Friday designating April as National Sexual Assault Awareness month.
According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, April has been Sexual Assault Awareness Month since 2001 in the United States. The move to issue a proclamation observing the month was first started by President Barack Obama in 2010, and the tradition has carried over into the Trump administration.
"Sexual assault crimes remain tragically common in our society, and offenders too often evade accountability. These heinous crimes are committed indiscriminately: in intimate relationships, in public spaces, and in the workplace," the presidential proclamation from the White House states.
Over the past year, there has been a reckoning in the United States over sexual assault and harassment, particularly in the workplace, known as the #MeToo movement.
Revelations surrounding various industry leaders accused of sexual assault and harassment in recent months also come as Trump himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women.
In December of last year, a group of women held a press conference to share their personal stories involving Trump.
At least 15 women have come forward with a wide range of accusations against Trump, ranging from sexual harassment and sexual assault to lewd behavior around women. Of the women, 13 say Trump attacked them directly and two others say they witnessed behavior that made them uncomfortable. All the alleged incidents took place prior to his assuming the presidency.
The White House and Trump have responded to the allegations, denying all of them.
CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.
Texas woman jailed for five years for voting while on probation - Guardian
Texas woman jailed for five years for voting while on probation
Crystal Mason, 43, cast ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton
Texas Republican leaders search for rare convictions
Jamiles Lartey and agencies
@JamilesLartey
Sun 1 Apr 2018 21.16 AEST
A Texas woman has been sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to vote in the 2016 presidential election when she was ineligible because she was on probation.
Texas woman fights harsh voter fraud sentence: 'I just wanted them to hear my voice'
Read more
Crystal Mason, 43, will appeal the punishment handed down this week in Fort Worth, according to her attorney. The sentence was handed down despite the fact that Mason’s provisional ballot was not ultimately counted.
At the time of the 2016 election Mason was on probation, having served nearly three years of a five-year sentence for defrauding the federal government. A former tax preparer, in 2011 she was accused of illegally inflating refunds for clients. She was convicted the following year.
Mason was put on a three-year term of supervised release and had to pay $4.2m in restitution, according to court documents.
She testified that she did not know people convicted of felonies could not vote until they had completed their sentences, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. She had gone to vote at her mother’s encouragement, she told the paper, and was not told when released from federal prison that she could not do so.
Mason testified that when she voted in November 2016, she signed a provisional ballot affidavit stating that she had not been convicted of a felony. Prosecutors said she signed the form with the intent to vote illegally. Mason’s attorney called it a mistake, made as she was guided by an election worker.
The case is reminiscent of that of another Texas woman, Rosa Ortega, who was sentenced to eight years for illegally voting in several elections because, according to her, she believed her permanent residency card made her a US citizen.
According to the Washington Post, of 38 Texas prosecutions for illegal voting between 2005 and 2017, only one resulted in a sentence of more than three years. It involved a public official knowingly registering several non-citizens to vote.
But in 2015 the state elected attorney general Ken Paxton in part on a platform of rooting out voter fraud. He decided to make an example of Ortega. Announcing Ortega’s indictment, Paxton said election integrity was “essential to our democracy and a top priority of my administration”.
Ortega was a Republican and a supporter of Paxton.Mason believes she was targeted because she voted for the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, over the Republican, Donald Trump. Tarrant County, where both women were prosecuted, leans Republican.
Mason’s attorney, J Warren St John, did not immediately comment.
Trump, who lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3m ballots but took the presidency in the electoral college, has alleged widespread voter fraud but produced no evidence. A widely criticised White House commission on “election integrity”, led by Vice-President Mike Pence, was scrapped.
Crystal Mason, 43, cast ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton
Texas Republican leaders search for rare convictions
Jamiles Lartey and agencies
@JamilesLartey
Sun 1 Apr 2018 21.16 AEST
A Texas woman has been sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to vote in the 2016 presidential election when she was ineligible because she was on probation.
Texas woman fights harsh voter fraud sentence: 'I just wanted them to hear my voice'
Read more
Crystal Mason, 43, will appeal the punishment handed down this week in Fort Worth, according to her attorney. The sentence was handed down despite the fact that Mason’s provisional ballot was not ultimately counted.
At the time of the 2016 election Mason was on probation, having served nearly three years of a five-year sentence for defrauding the federal government. A former tax preparer, in 2011 she was accused of illegally inflating refunds for clients. She was convicted the following year.
Mason was put on a three-year term of supervised release and had to pay $4.2m in restitution, according to court documents.
She testified that she did not know people convicted of felonies could not vote until they had completed their sentences, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. She had gone to vote at her mother’s encouragement, she told the paper, and was not told when released from federal prison that she could not do so.
Mason testified that when she voted in November 2016, she signed a provisional ballot affidavit stating that she had not been convicted of a felony. Prosecutors said she signed the form with the intent to vote illegally. Mason’s attorney called it a mistake, made as she was guided by an election worker.
The case is reminiscent of that of another Texas woman, Rosa Ortega, who was sentenced to eight years for illegally voting in several elections because, according to her, she believed her permanent residency card made her a US citizen.
According to the Washington Post, of 38 Texas prosecutions for illegal voting between 2005 and 2017, only one resulted in a sentence of more than three years. It involved a public official knowingly registering several non-citizens to vote.
But in 2015 the state elected attorney general Ken Paxton in part on a platform of rooting out voter fraud. He decided to make an example of Ortega. Announcing Ortega’s indictment, Paxton said election integrity was “essential to our democracy and a top priority of my administration”.
Ortega was a Republican and a supporter of Paxton.Mason believes she was targeted because she voted for the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, over the Republican, Donald Trump. Tarrant County, where both women were prosecuted, leans Republican.
Mason’s attorney, J Warren St John, did not immediately comment.
Trump, who lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3m ballots but took the presidency in the electoral college, has alleged widespread voter fraud but produced no evidence. A widely criticised White House commission on “election integrity”, led by Vice-President Mike Pence, was scrapped.
Vermont Legislature Passes Sweeping Gun Restrictions - New York Times
Vermont Legislature Passes Sweeping Gun Restrictions
By JESS BIDGOODMARCH 30, 2018
The waiting area before the Sportsmen’s Legislative Mixer on March 13 in Montpelier, Vt. State lawmakers, in the face of opposition from sportsman groups, approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions on Friday. Credit Christinne Muschi/Reuters
Lawmakers in Vermont, a place long steeped in hunting culture, on Friday approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions, making the state all but certain to join Florida in passing a raft of new gun control measures after a teenage gunman killed 17 people last month at a high school in Parkland, Fla.
Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, has vowed to sign the measure. It represents a remarkable departure from the state’s existing gun laws, which are some of the weakest in the country — and an about-face for Mr. Scott, who decided to consider new gun control measures only after a teenager was accused of plotting a school shooting in Vermont in the days after the violence in Parkland.
“No state is immune to the risk of extreme violence,” Mr. Scott said in a statement on Friday, adding, “If we are at a point when our kids are afraid to go to school and parents are afraid to put their kids on a bus, who are we?”
The bill, which passed the Senate, 17 to 13, on Friday after clearing the House earlier in the week, would raise the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21 and ban bump stocks, which are devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more rapidly. It also contains restrictions that go beyond those in the measure signed in Florida, like an expansion of background checks and a limit on the capacity of magazines that can be sold or possessed in the state.
The passage of the bill is likely to be hailed as a victory by activists pushing for tighter gun laws around the nation after the Parkland shootings. It comes less than a week after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in protest of mass shootings and gun violence — including 2,500 who squeezed onto the steps of the Capitol in Montpelier.
“I think the message that most members of the Legislature — not all — took is that public opinion is changing in Vermont,” said Eric Davis, an emeritus professor of political science at Middlebury College.
Madison Knoop, a college freshman who organized last weekend’s march in Montpelier, called the bill’s advancement “such a good first start.”
The day after the Parkland shooting, Mr. Scott, a moderate Republican who has kept his distance from President Trump, said he saw no need for new gun laws — a position in line with years of precedent in Vermont, a rural state with a committed population of hunters.
Mr. Scott shifted his stance a day later, after a teenager was arrested and accused of planning a school shooting in Fair Haven, Vt. “Everything should be on the table at this point,” Mr. Scott said.
Lawmakers are expected to approve two more gun control measures next week. One would allow law enforcement officers to remove guns from people considered at risk of harming themselves or others, and the other would allow firearms to be taken from people arrested or cited for domestic assault.
Some Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measures that advanced on Friday. State Senator Dick Sears Jr., a Democrat, expressed deep unease with the ban on high-capacity magazines, which had been included in the House bill.
And State Senator John Rodgers, a Democrat representing a rural stretch of northern Vermont, mourned a change in the state’s culture before he voted against the bill.
“I think maybe if we pass this bill, maybe it is over, maybe the Vermont I grew up with is over, and it’s changed,” Mr. Rodgers said, according to Vermont Public Radio.
On Saturday afternoon, Recoil magazine and Magpul Industries, which makes firearms accessories, were planning to distribute free 30-round magazines at the State House to show their disdain for the expected law. Magazines of that size that are in residents’ possession before the ban goes into effect would not be subject to the law.
Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, which was opposed to the legislation, said he would be among the crowd on Saturday.
“Our legislators,” he said, “have drastically underestimated the response from the gun-owning community.”
By JESS BIDGOODMARCH 30, 2018
The waiting area before the Sportsmen’s Legislative Mixer on March 13 in Montpelier, Vt. State lawmakers, in the face of opposition from sportsman groups, approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions on Friday. Credit Christinne Muschi/Reuters
Lawmakers in Vermont, a place long steeped in hunting culture, on Friday approved a sweeping package of new gun restrictions, making the state all but certain to join Florida in passing a raft of new gun control measures after a teenage gunman killed 17 people last month at a high school in Parkland, Fla.
Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, has vowed to sign the measure. It represents a remarkable departure from the state’s existing gun laws, which are some of the weakest in the country — and an about-face for Mr. Scott, who decided to consider new gun control measures only after a teenager was accused of plotting a school shooting in Vermont in the days after the violence in Parkland.
“No state is immune to the risk of extreme violence,” Mr. Scott said in a statement on Friday, adding, “If we are at a point when our kids are afraid to go to school and parents are afraid to put their kids on a bus, who are we?”
The bill, which passed the Senate, 17 to 13, on Friday after clearing the House earlier in the week, would raise the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21 and ban bump stocks, which are devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more rapidly. It also contains restrictions that go beyond those in the measure signed in Florida, like an expansion of background checks and a limit on the capacity of magazines that can be sold or possessed in the state.
The passage of the bill is likely to be hailed as a victory by activists pushing for tighter gun laws around the nation after the Parkland shootings. It comes less than a week after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in protest of mass shootings and gun violence — including 2,500 who squeezed onto the steps of the Capitol in Montpelier.
“I think the message that most members of the Legislature — not all — took is that public opinion is changing in Vermont,” said Eric Davis, an emeritus professor of political science at Middlebury College.
Madison Knoop, a college freshman who organized last weekend’s march in Montpelier, called the bill’s advancement “such a good first start.”
The day after the Parkland shooting, Mr. Scott, a moderate Republican who has kept his distance from President Trump, said he saw no need for new gun laws — a position in line with years of precedent in Vermont, a rural state with a committed population of hunters.
Mr. Scott shifted his stance a day later, after a teenager was arrested and accused of planning a school shooting in Fair Haven, Vt. “Everything should be on the table at this point,” Mr. Scott said.
Lawmakers are expected to approve two more gun control measures next week. One would allow law enforcement officers to remove guns from people considered at risk of harming themselves or others, and the other would allow firearms to be taken from people arrested or cited for domestic assault.
Some Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measures that advanced on Friday. State Senator Dick Sears Jr., a Democrat, expressed deep unease with the ban on high-capacity magazines, which had been included in the House bill.
And State Senator John Rodgers, a Democrat representing a rural stretch of northern Vermont, mourned a change in the state’s culture before he voted against the bill.
“I think maybe if we pass this bill, maybe it is over, maybe the Vermont I grew up with is over, and it’s changed,” Mr. Rodgers said, according to Vermont Public Radio.
On Saturday afternoon, Recoil magazine and Magpul Industries, which makes firearms accessories, were planning to distribute free 30-round magazines at the State House to show their disdain for the expected law. Magazines of that size that are in residents’ possession before the ban goes into effect would not be subject to the law.
Evan Hughes, vice president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, which was opposed to the legislation, said he would be among the crowd on Saturday.
“Our legislators,” he said, “have drastically underestimated the response from the gun-owning community.”
Facebook has lost $80 billion in market value since its data scandal - CNN Money
Facebook has lost $80 billion in market value since its data scandal
by Paul R. La Monica @lamonicabuzz
March 27, 2018: 4:41 PM ET
Facebook shares fell 5% Tuesday on reports that CEO Mark Zuckerberg agreed to testify in front of Congress about the company's data scandal.
The crisis began on March 16 after Facebook (FB) said it was suspending data analysis company Cambridge Analytica for allegedly harvesting data from more than 50 million Facebook users. Cambridge Analytica worked on Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Since then, Facebook's stock has plunged 18%, wiping out nearly $80 billion from the social networking giant's market value in the process. Zuckerberg's net worth has fallen by about $14 billion. (He is still worth $61 billion, though).
Tech stocks in general have taken a hit since the Facebook allegations first came to light. The Nasdaq is down 6%.
And other social media companies, most notably YouTube owner Google and Twitter, have both nosedived as well. Shares of Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL) fell 7% since March 16 while Twitter has plunged 20%. Twitter (TWTR) was down 12% alone on Tuesday after noted short seller Citron Research has changed its tune on the company's stock.
Citron short $TWTR. Near-Term target $25 Of all social media, they are most vulnerable to privacy regulation Wait until Senate finds out what Citron has published. http://citronresearch.com/wait-til-the-senate-hears-twitters-hidden-secret/ …
12:44 AM - Mar 28, 2018
Investors worry that Facebook, Google and Twitter could all face tougher regulations in the United States and around the world because of the Cambridge Analytica controversy.
If that happens, it could stymie growth for all three companies -- but Facebook in particular. Investors also worry that users may flee these companies because of privacy concerns. And if users flee, advertisers may eventually jump ship too.
That's why several Wall Street analysts have lowered their price targets and earnings estimates for Facebook during the past week and a half. But others have boosted their forecasts, arguing that the worst will soon pass and that investors are overreacting.
It's impossible to know if it's the Facebook bulls or bears who will ultimately be proven correct. But it's clear that confidence in Facebook and other once-hot tech companies has been shaken.
"While the scandal is likely to blow over, investors should be aware that a continued sell-off in this sector would not be surprising, and if another scandal were to hit, it just might break the tech sector's back," said Craig Birk, executive vice president of portfolio management at investing firm Personal Capital in a note Tuesday.
CNNMoney (New York)
First published March 27, 2018: 4:27 PM ET
by Paul R. La Monica @lamonicabuzz
March 27, 2018: 4:41 PM ET
Facebook shares fell 5% Tuesday on reports that CEO Mark Zuckerberg agreed to testify in front of Congress about the company's data scandal.
The crisis began on March 16 after Facebook (FB) said it was suspending data analysis company Cambridge Analytica for allegedly harvesting data from more than 50 million Facebook users. Cambridge Analytica worked on Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Since then, Facebook's stock has plunged 18%, wiping out nearly $80 billion from the social networking giant's market value in the process. Zuckerberg's net worth has fallen by about $14 billion. (He is still worth $61 billion, though).
Tech stocks in general have taken a hit since the Facebook allegations first came to light. The Nasdaq is down 6%.
And other social media companies, most notably YouTube owner Google and Twitter, have both nosedived as well. Shares of Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL) fell 7% since March 16 while Twitter has plunged 20%. Twitter (TWTR) was down 12% alone on Tuesday after noted short seller Citron Research has changed its tune on the company's stock.
Citron short $TWTR. Near-Term target $25 Of all social media, they are most vulnerable to privacy regulation Wait until Senate finds out what Citron has published. http://citronresearch.com/wait-til-the-senate-hears-twitters-hidden-secret/ …
12:44 AM - Mar 28, 2018
Investors worry that Facebook, Google and Twitter could all face tougher regulations in the United States and around the world because of the Cambridge Analytica controversy.
If that happens, it could stymie growth for all three companies -- but Facebook in particular. Investors also worry that users may flee these companies because of privacy concerns. And if users flee, advertisers may eventually jump ship too.
That's why several Wall Street analysts have lowered their price targets and earnings estimates for Facebook during the past week and a half. But others have boosted their forecasts, arguing that the worst will soon pass and that investors are overreacting.
It's impossible to know if it's the Facebook bulls or bears who will ultimately be proven correct. But it's clear that confidence in Facebook and other once-hot tech companies has been shaken.
"While the scandal is likely to blow over, investors should be aware that a continued sell-off in this sector would not be surprising, and if another scandal were to hit, it just might break the tech sector's back," said Craig Birk, executive vice president of portfolio management at investing firm Personal Capital in a note Tuesday.
CNNMoney (New York)
First published March 27, 2018: 4:27 PM ET
Nothing You Say Online Is Private - Bloomberg
Nothing You Say Online Is Private
By
March 28, 2018, 5:03 PM GMT+11
As Facebook’s latest privacy missteps unfolded via the Cambridge Analytica imbroglio, the skeptical side of me couldn’t help but wonder how anyone would be surprised that what they post on the internet could be co-opted for marketing — or more nefarious purposes.
People in China, for one, seem to know better. Internet users here are all too aware that what’s posted online can and will be used against them.
Which is why it was so ironic when the operator of the country’s single most dominant social media platform — WeChat — declared at an earnings briefing last week that its one billion-plus users can trust their data would never "leak" like Facebook did. When the obvious follow-up question came about the Chinese government’s access to said data, Tencent President Martin Lau backpedaled and said cooperating with law enforcement was a different story.
Most Chinese internet users have the built-in assumption that pretty much everything is monitored. Some don’t seem to care. But many more are just much savvier about what personal information, photos and content they post online. Or how they post it: web users employ a constantly evolving palette of code-words to evade the all-seeing eye whenever they simply must speak up (say, “river crab” as a proxy for the Communist Party).
When I asked a friend living in China recently whether she took more precautions on social media than she did in the U.S., she instinctively replied “let’s talk about this offline, not on Wechat.” It’s pretty common for people to mandate face-to-face meetings in fear of online communication.
Another friend spoke of turning off location services, avoiding keywords that could alert government or company censors, and staying off rival firms’ products to prevent corporate spying. Others mentioned never posting on WeChat Moments, akin to Facebook’s newsfeed, or deleting Moments posts after a day or even an hour so friends can see your photos but not indefinitely. (This often happens with news articles and blog posts, too).
But even private or small group chats can only be trusted as much as the person on the other side of the conversation. A string of recent scandals in China that originated from screenshots taken of private chats have put some users on notice.
As guides on how to better safeguard your data or #deleteFacebook spread across the internet, the bigger question is whether it’s time to abandon the idea that any company, government or other entity is going to protect our privacy for us — especially those whose business models depend on monetizing user data.
The best way for individuals to safeguard their information is to limit what they share in the first place. But I’m also reminded of a friend’s recent admonition on not just resigning yourself to an internet without data protection, and why you can’t just give up on holding companies and governments accountable: “If you don’t fight for your privacy, it’s all that much easier for it to be taken away.”
And here’s what you need to know in global technology news
Facebook's tanking. Its shares are headed toward its worst month since May 2013, after an analyst warned of a temporary pullback in advertising and the FTC confirmed it’s investigating the social network’s privacy practices.
More on the Uber crash. It's said to have disabled standard collision-avoidance technology in the Volvo that struck and killed a woman in Arizona. The state's governor has ordered its cars off the road indefinitely.
Why Uber lost Southeast Asia. While it looked to conquer ride-sharing around the world, Grab was focused on serving the 620 million people that share its home in Southeast Asia.
Tightening the screws on China. Huawei and ZTE could face higher barriers to the U.S. market under a proposal advanced by federal regulators.
By
March 28, 2018, 5:03 PM GMT+11
As Facebook’s latest privacy missteps unfolded via the Cambridge Analytica imbroglio, the skeptical side of me couldn’t help but wonder how anyone would be surprised that what they post on the internet could be co-opted for marketing — or more nefarious purposes.
People in China, for one, seem to know better. Internet users here are all too aware that what’s posted online can and will be used against them.
Which is why it was so ironic when the operator of the country’s single most dominant social media platform — WeChat — declared at an earnings briefing last week that its one billion-plus users can trust their data would never "leak" like Facebook did. When the obvious follow-up question came about the Chinese government’s access to said data, Tencent President Martin Lau backpedaled and said cooperating with law enforcement was a different story.
Most Chinese internet users have the built-in assumption that pretty much everything is monitored. Some don’t seem to care. But many more are just much savvier about what personal information, photos and content they post online. Or how they post it: web users employ a constantly evolving palette of code-words to evade the all-seeing eye whenever they simply must speak up (say, “river crab” as a proxy for the Communist Party).
When I asked a friend living in China recently whether she took more precautions on social media than she did in the U.S., she instinctively replied “let’s talk about this offline, not on Wechat.” It’s pretty common for people to mandate face-to-face meetings in fear of online communication.
Another friend spoke of turning off location services, avoiding keywords that could alert government or company censors, and staying off rival firms’ products to prevent corporate spying. Others mentioned never posting on WeChat Moments, akin to Facebook’s newsfeed, or deleting Moments posts after a day or even an hour so friends can see your photos but not indefinitely. (This often happens with news articles and blog posts, too).
But even private or small group chats can only be trusted as much as the person on the other side of the conversation. A string of recent scandals in China that originated from screenshots taken of private chats have put some users on notice.
As guides on how to better safeguard your data or #deleteFacebook spread across the internet, the bigger question is whether it’s time to abandon the idea that any company, government or other entity is going to protect our privacy for us — especially those whose business models depend on monetizing user data.
The best way for individuals to safeguard their information is to limit what they share in the first place. But I’m also reminded of a friend’s recent admonition on not just resigning yourself to an internet without data protection, and why you can’t just give up on holding companies and governments accountable: “If you don’t fight for your privacy, it’s all that much easier for it to be taken away.”
And here’s what you need to know in global technology news
Facebook's tanking. Its shares are headed toward its worst month since May 2013, after an analyst warned of a temporary pullback in advertising and the FTC confirmed it’s investigating the social network’s privacy practices.
More on the Uber crash. It's said to have disabled standard collision-avoidance technology in the Volvo that struck and killed a woman in Arizona. The state's governor has ordered its cars off the road indefinitely.
Why Uber lost Southeast Asia. While it looked to conquer ride-sharing around the world, Grab was focused on serving the 620 million people that share its home in Southeast Asia.
Tightening the screws on China. Huawei and ZTE could face higher barriers to the U.S. market under a proposal advanced by federal regulators.
Tesla in fatal California crash was on Autopilot - BBC News
Tesla in fatal California crash was on Autopilot
31 March 2018
The driver of the Tesla Model X died shortly after the crash
Electric carmaker Tesla says a vehicle involved in a fatal crash in California was in Autopilot mode, raising further questions about the safety of self-driving technology.
One of the company's Model X cars crashed into a roadside barrier and caught fire on 23 March.
Tesla says Autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident involving the driver, 38, who died soon afterwards.
But they did not say whether the system had detected the concrete barrier.
Will we be able to trust self-driving cars?
Tesla Autopilot update seeks better safety
Uber barred from self-drive trial
"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive," a statement on the company's website said.
"The driver's hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."
"The driver had about five seconds and 150m (490ft) of unobstructed view of the concrete divider... but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," the statement added.
Tesla's Autopilot system does some of the things a fully autonomous machine can do. It can brake, accelerate and steer by itself under certain conditions, but it is classified as a driver assistance system, is not intended to operate independently and as such the driver is meant to have their hands on the wheel at all times.
In 2016, a Tesla driver was killed in Florida when his car failed to spot a lorry crossing its path.
It led the company to introduce new safety measures, including turning off Autopilot and bringing the car to a halt if the driver lets go of the wheel for too long.
Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.
Uber dashcam footage shows moment before fatal impact
The accident in California comes at a difficult time for self-driving technology.
Earlier this month, Uber was forbidden from resuming self-driving tests in the US state of Arizona.
It followed a fatal crash in the state in which an autonomous vehicle hit a woman who was walking her bike across the road.
It was thought to be the first time an autonomous car had been involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian.
The company suspended all self-driving tests in North America after the accident.
31 March 2018
The driver of the Tesla Model X died shortly after the crash
Electric carmaker Tesla says a vehicle involved in a fatal crash in California was in Autopilot mode, raising further questions about the safety of self-driving technology.
One of the company's Model X cars crashed into a roadside barrier and caught fire on 23 March.
Tesla says Autopilot was engaged at the time of the accident involving the driver, 38, who died soon afterwards.
But they did not say whether the system had detected the concrete barrier.
Will we be able to trust self-driving cars?
Tesla Autopilot update seeks better safety
Uber barred from self-drive trial
"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive," a statement on the company's website said.
"The driver's hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."
"The driver had about five seconds and 150m (490ft) of unobstructed view of the concrete divider... but the vehicle logs show that no action was taken," the statement added.
Tesla's Autopilot system does some of the things a fully autonomous machine can do. It can brake, accelerate and steer by itself under certain conditions, but it is classified as a driver assistance system, is not intended to operate independently and as such the driver is meant to have their hands on the wheel at all times.
In 2016, a Tesla driver was killed in Florida when his car failed to spot a lorry crossing its path.
It led the company to introduce new safety measures, including turning off Autopilot and bringing the car to a halt if the driver lets go of the wheel for too long.
Federal investigators said last year that Tesla "lacked understanding" of the semi-autonomous Autopilot's limitations.
Uber dashcam footage shows moment before fatal impact
The accident in California comes at a difficult time for self-driving technology.
Earlier this month, Uber was forbidden from resuming self-driving tests in the US state of Arizona.
It followed a fatal crash in the state in which an autonomous vehicle hit a woman who was walking her bike across the road.
It was thought to be the first time an autonomous car had been involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian.
The company suspended all self-driving tests in North America after the accident.
Moscow official says West is trying to deny Russia World Cup - BBC News
1/4/2018
Moscow official says West is trying to deny Russia World Cup
Rostov-on-Don is one of the Russian cities hosting the Cup
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused the UK and US of seeking to stop her country hosting this summer's World Cup.
Speaking in a lengthy interview with a Russian TV channel, she said their "main aim" was to "take the World Cup out of Russia".
The UK has been seeking to punish Russia after accusing it of mounting a nerve agent attack in Britain.
The Royal Family will shun the World Cup as part of the British response.
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has likened Russia's World Cup to Nazi Germany's Olympic Games in 1936. and one British Opposition MP has called for the Cup to be postponed or moved.
However, there is currently no suggestion the England team will boycott the prestigious championship, which opens in June.
Russian diplomats leave Washington
Scores of diplomats have been expelled on both sides in the dispute over the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury on 4 March.
In the latest move, about 170 Russian diplomats and their family members left Washington on Friday evening.
At the same time, the US flag at the American consulate in St Petersburg was taken down following the Russian government's instruction to close it down.
Aeroflot plane in deepening Russia-UK row
Russia v the West: Is this a new Cold War?
What did Zakharova say?
Speaking to Russia's Channel 5 TV, Ms Zakharova said: "It's my impression that all they care about is taking the World Cup out of Russia.
"They will use any means. Their minds are only on that football and God forbid it should touch a Russian football field."
Russia denies any involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals.
Mr Skripal remains critically ill but stable, while his daughter is now said to be conscious and talking.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said it will consider a request for Russian consular access to Yulia, a Russian citizen.
What is the background to the dispute?
The poisoning row has rumbled on for nearly a month.
The UK is adamant Russia is behind the poisoning of the Skripals.
UN secretary general Antonio Guterres on Thursday issued a warning over "a situation that is similar, to a large extent, to what we lived during the Cold War".
Russia says it is seeking a meeting with leaders of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to "establish the truth" about the poisoning.
Moscow official says West is trying to deny Russia World Cup
Rostov-on-Don is one of the Russian cities hosting the Cup
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused the UK and US of seeking to stop her country hosting this summer's World Cup.
Speaking in a lengthy interview with a Russian TV channel, she said their "main aim" was to "take the World Cup out of Russia".
The UK has been seeking to punish Russia after accusing it of mounting a nerve agent attack in Britain.
The Royal Family will shun the World Cup as part of the British response.
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has likened Russia's World Cup to Nazi Germany's Olympic Games in 1936. and one British Opposition MP has called for the Cup to be postponed or moved.
However, there is currently no suggestion the England team will boycott the prestigious championship, which opens in June.
Russian diplomats leave Washington
Scores of diplomats have been expelled on both sides in the dispute over the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury on 4 March.
In the latest move, about 170 Russian diplomats and their family members left Washington on Friday evening.
At the same time, the US flag at the American consulate in St Petersburg was taken down following the Russian government's instruction to close it down.
Aeroflot plane in deepening Russia-UK row
Russia v the West: Is this a new Cold War?
What did Zakharova say?
Speaking to Russia's Channel 5 TV, Ms Zakharova said: "It's my impression that all they care about is taking the World Cup out of Russia.
"They will use any means. Their minds are only on that football and God forbid it should touch a Russian football field."
Russia denies any involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals.
Mr Skripal remains critically ill but stable, while his daughter is now said to be conscious and talking.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said it will consider a request for Russian consular access to Yulia, a Russian citizen.
What is the background to the dispute?
The poisoning row has rumbled on for nearly a month.
The UK is adamant Russia is behind the poisoning of the Skripals.
UN secretary general Antonio Guterres on Thursday issued a warning over "a situation that is similar, to a large extent, to what we lived during the Cold War".
Russia says it is seeking a meeting with leaders of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to "establish the truth" about the poisoning.
Donald Trump steps up attacks on Amazon - BBC News
Donald Trump steps up attacks on Amazon
31 March 2018
President Trump (right) accuses Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, of not paying enough for deliveries
President Donald Trump has stepped up his attacks on Amazon, suggesting the online retail giant is ripping off the US Postal Service.
The US Post Office would lose $1.50 (£1.07) "on average for each package it delivers for Amazon", he tweeted, but supporters of Amazon dispute this.
Mr Trump also said the Washington Post newspaper was a "lobbyist" for Amazon.
Amazon owner Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which publishes stories unpalatable to the president.
Like most mainstream media, the Post has reported on stories including Special Counsel Robert Mueller's continuing investigation into links between the Trump election campaign and Russia, as well has his alleged relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels.
Saturday's edition details how three different legal teams are scrutinising the Trump Organization's accounts.
Mr Trump's attacks on Amazon have seen its share price fall in recent days, amid concern that he might push for its power to be curbed by anti-trust laws.
The president tweeted that the US Post Office was losing "billions of dollars" in its contract with Amazon.
"If the P.O. 'increased its parcel rates, Amazon's shipping costs would rise by $2.6 Billion.' This Post Office scam must stop. Amazon must pay real costs (and taxes) now!" he continued, quoting the New York Times.
Amazon has not commented.
But supporters of Amazon point out that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which oversees the industry, has found that the US Postal Service makes a profit from its contract with the company.
This in turn helps subsidise the costs of letter delivery, which avoids the need for price rises.
It is unprecedented for a sitting president to single out one company for such vicious attacks, says the BBC's Business Correspondent, Joe Lynam.
Friends of Mr Trump in the commercial property sector have also been urging him to protect them from digital retail giants as they see shopping malls closing and rents falling, our correspondent adds.
31 March 2018
President Trump (right) accuses Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, of not paying enough for deliveries
President Donald Trump has stepped up his attacks on Amazon, suggesting the online retail giant is ripping off the US Postal Service.
The US Post Office would lose $1.50 (£1.07) "on average for each package it delivers for Amazon", he tweeted, but supporters of Amazon dispute this.
Mr Trump also said the Washington Post newspaper was a "lobbyist" for Amazon.
Amazon owner Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which publishes stories unpalatable to the president.
Like most mainstream media, the Post has reported on stories including Special Counsel Robert Mueller's continuing investigation into links between the Trump election campaign and Russia, as well has his alleged relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels.
Saturday's edition details how three different legal teams are scrutinising the Trump Organization's accounts.
Mr Trump's attacks on Amazon have seen its share price fall in recent days, amid concern that he might push for its power to be curbed by anti-trust laws.
The president tweeted that the US Post Office was losing "billions of dollars" in its contract with Amazon.
"If the P.O. 'increased its parcel rates, Amazon's shipping costs would rise by $2.6 Billion.' This Post Office scam must stop. Amazon must pay real costs (and taxes) now!" he continued, quoting the New York Times.
Amazon has not commented.
But supporters of Amazon point out that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which oversees the industry, has found that the US Postal Service makes a profit from its contract with the company.
This in turn helps subsidise the costs of letter delivery, which avoids the need for price rises.
It is unprecedented for a sitting president to single out one company for such vicious attacks, says the BBC's Business Correspondent, Joe Lynam.
Friends of Mr Trump in the commercial property sector have also been urging him to protect them from digital retail giants as they see shopping malls closing and rents falling, our correspondent adds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
